BETH-BIREI BETHEL

term, and therefore probably an echo of an ancient tion ( p a not ly)forbids us to see in it the IIapd6e~uos
name.’ T. K. C. of Strabo and’Ptolemy, and equally forbids us to regard
BETH-BIREI, RV B e t h - b i i (W13 n’n), I Ch. 431. it with Wetzstein (Del. 702 ; cp Vg. de dumo
See BETH-LEBAOTH. vulzlptutis) as a poetical name of Damascus. The view,
however, adopted bySchrader ( K A 327)and favoured
BETH-CAR (lz-n’3; Baiexop [BLI! BEAX. [AI, by &iBAQr (see above), that Beth-eden is the Bit-adini
[ M B X P I ]K O P P ~ I W N ,Jos. Ant. vi. 22 ; I+?&‘ [Targ.]), a of the inscriptions (see EDEN), is not less inadmissible,
place, presumably in the district of Mizpah, to which for this is too far to the N. of Damascus, and had,
the Israelites pursued the defeated Philistines ( I S. 7 TI in the time of Amos, long been subject to Assyria (Wi.
[Dt.]). The phrase ‘ under Beth-car ’ is remarkable. AT Unters. 183 ; cp Nold. ZDMG 33326 [‘79]). N o
Does it mean under the gates of Beth-car ’ (so We. doubt there were other.places called E DEN (q.40., ii.).
TBS 68)? or does it mean ’ to the foot of the hill on There is equal uncertainty as to the name Bikath-aven
some part of which Beth-car stood ’ ? No such name (see AVEN,3), which corresponds to Beth-eden in the
as Beth-car is mentioned elsewhere ; hence it is at first parallel line. T. K. C.
sight too bold to identify it (as P E F , not disapproved by
GASm. HG 224) with ‘Ain K5rim, the name of a flourish-
BETH-EKED (72u np, EV ‘shearing house’;
RVmg. ‘ house of gathering ’ ) , lwhere Jehu met Aha-
ing village a good way to the S. of Nebi Samwil, and ziahs brethren, is either a place-name or (more probably)
W. of Jerusalem. The name Beth-car, however, is the designation of an isolated house used on certain
self-evidently corrupt, and if we may emend it into
occasions by the shepherds of the district ( 2 K. 10 12 14 ;
‘ Beth-haccerem ’ the identification with ‘Ain K&im BaleaKae [B]; but in 21. 14 8u ‘ri uK?)urj [EWbrng.],
becomes probable (see BETH-HACCEREM). Only 14m.
to the N. of ‘Ain KHrim is DEr YLsin, not improbably ah [AL] ; Pesh. has ‘ and he was overthrowing the
altars that were on the way ’ [40. 121, and in 40.14 m y n r i ,
to be identified with the Jashan or Jeshanah of 40. 12 (see
cp Cod. Vind. of Vet. Lat. Bedhacur).
S HEN ), which need not be the same as the Jeshanah of
z Ch. 13 19. BETHEL (>&?’n, @ I, IO, always one word [Sa.
The alternative is to read ‘Beth-horon ’ $10.) ; 2 and n wcre,, on Gen. 128 Josh. 72). RV wrongly with a hyphen ;
from phonetic causes easily confounded. Under Beth-horon ‘house of God’--i.e., B a l ~ y A l o ~ - ( c pBAI-
would be a very idtelligible expression: hut Beth-* is Site. T O Y A I ~ , BETHULIA); see IDOLATRY, 2,
certainly too far north. The reading Beth-jashan quoted
from Pesh. e) by G. A. Smith ( H G z24), is no &ding at
all, but a cor uption of the text of I S. ? 11, as We. has pointed
MASSEBA ; BaleHA [BADEL] ; hut Gen. 357, Bee.
[D]; gentilic Bethelite, see HIEL). I. A town
out. T. K. C. on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, W. of
BETH-DAGON (IiIT n’z, 95, Louse of Dagon,’ the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 18 12 ; on 1216, where
BHeharwN [AL]). I. A city of Judah, enumerated @A omits the clause, and &PF has HXa6 for Bethel or
in the third group of ‘lowland‘ towns (Josh. 1541, Makkedah, see TAPPUAH, z),without doubt the present
puaya6i+ [B]). The list is so scattered and irregular Beitin (from Beitil, by the common interchange of I
that nothing can with certainty be inferred from it as to and n), a small village (said to have 400 inhabitants),
the site of Beth-dagon ; but MAKKEDAH ( q . ~ . )which
, with ruins of early Christian and Crusaders’ buildings,
is mentioned in the same verse, must have lain off the about I O m. N. of Jerusalem. It lies on the hack-
mouth of Aijalon (Josh. 10~8). Here we find, 6 m. SE. bone of the central range, a little E. of the watershed,
from Joppa, a Beit-Dejan, and, 14m. farther S . , DLjLjan. and 2890 ft. above the sea. From the village itself
Each of these has been identified with Beth-dagon (see the view is confined to the plateau, which, like most
Rob. RR 3298, Clermont Ganneau, P E F Q , 1874), of the territory of Benjamin, presents a bleak prospect
and one of them (the former, according to Friedr. Del.) of gray rocks and very stony fields, relieved by few
is probably the Bit-daganna mentioned in Sennacherib‘s trees and a struggling cultivation. A few minutes SE.,
prism-inscription (col. 2 Z. 65 ; KB 2 92). It must be however, lies one of the great view-points of Palestine,
remembered, however, that the name occurred in several the Burj-Beitin or Tower of Bethel (probably the .ruin
places through Palestine-Beit Dejan nearly 7 m. E. of of an early Christian monastery), supposed to mark
NibZus (seePEFmap), and, according to Jos. (Ant.xiii. a traditional site of the tent and altar of Abraham
8 I BJi. 2 3), Dagon near Jericho, each on an important ’ to the E. of Bethel’ (Gen. 128), and of Lot’s view
trade route from Philistia to the Jordan Valley. There of the ‘ Circle of Jordan ’ (133-10). Four good springs
may, then; have been more than one Beth-dagon on 2. Traditions. and a great reservoir amply certify the
the borders of Philistia, and it ought not to be over- present village as the site of the city,
looked that neither DLjfin nor Beit Dejan lies in the which ‘ was called Luz at tge first ’ (Gen. 28 19 ; O?K&
ShephElah proper. On the doubtful phrase ‘land of OaoF [ADEL]). The sanctuary, ‘God‘s house,’ the
Dagon’ in Eshmunazar’s inscription, and on the god ‘ place ’ (as it is called in Gen. 28 IT, where it is distinct
Dagon, see D AGON, 8 I. .On DXjEn see especially from the city) which grew famous enough to absorb
C1. Ganneau, Arch. Res. in PuL 1 2 6 8 the city’s name in its own, may have lain either on
z A locality not yet identified (but cp Conder HdJk. to fhe .the site of the ,Burj-Beitin, or on one of the neigh-
.
S i h e 268) on the border of Asher (Josh. 19 27 $L&YFYE~ [B]). bouring slopes, where there is a natural stone circle
3. ‘khe ;emple of Dagon in Ashdod (I Mack 1083, j3908aywv (PEPQ,1881, p. 255); and the curious formation of
[AWa c.bV], j30Saywu [N”]). G. A. S. the rocks in terraces and ramparts has been taken as
BETH-DIBLATHAIM(a:n>p-n*n; cp AS^. duuu, the material suggestion of the ‘flight of steps’ (see
‘ foundation ’ ; but see NAMES, § 107),a town in Moab L ADDER) which Jacob saw in his dream (Gen.
mentioned along with Dibon [ I ] and Neb0 [iii.] (Jer. 2810JT).2 There he raised a pillar, or massebbah,
4822=@ 3 1 2 ~e~n O l K O N AarBhAeaiM [BQI? 8. 0. to YahwB, and afterwards is said (Gen. 351-8) by the
A G B A ~ ~ A I [KA]),
M evidently the same as ALMON-DIB- same narrator, E (it is J who gives the previous story of
LATHAIM, which also occurs in connection with Dibon Abraham’s altar), to have built an altar and called the
(Nu. 3 3 4 6 3 ) . This place (called i n h i m ) , Mehedeba, ‘place’ (not yet ‘city’)‘God of Bethel’ (forwhich6AUEL,
and Ba‘al Me‘on are stated by Mesha on his stele to Pesh., and Vg. read ‘Bethel’). Here Deborah, Rebecca’s
have been fortified by himself (Z. 30). 1’ Cp the Targ. N’ 7 n r p ”’2. ‘place of the gathering
BETH-EDEN, AVmg., EV ‘ house of Eden’ (I793 together of the shepkkrd5. For e@&, however, we should
IT&’; 85 ANAPWN xappa~[BAQr]), an Aramaean perhaps read n8kZdi?tz(D’?$), and omit the next word (in v. 12,
not in U. 14) hd-dzrn (D’plc) as a gloss ; n8kZdim was a less
city or land, with a ruler of its own, but presumably
common word for ‘ shepherds’ than r8‘irn.
allied to Damascus (Am. 15). No satisfactory identifi- 2 Schlatter (ZUY Tojog. 236) infers from Gen. 12 8 Jos. 7 z
cation of this place has been made. The vocalisa- (om. @.A) that the sanctuary lay E. of the town, in Deir Diwin.
551 552
 BETHEL
foster-mother, died. She was buried Mow the town,
beneath an oak called ‘ the oak of weeping ’ (see ALLON-
BACUTH, M ULBERRY ) : trees, it is probable, would not
be found on the stony plateau above. The next notice
of Bethel is in the J E narrative of Joshua’s conquests
(Jos. 7 2 Sgrz [om. BAF ; pqt’au L]), in which Bethel is
not yet the name of a city (so also the Deuteronorhist in
Jos. 1 2 9 [res [A] ; in v. 16 ‘ Bethel’ is with GHAa to be
omitted), but is still distinct from Luz (162 [@A does
not distinguish them, reading houra (B in v. I , A in v. 2)
after part’7hl). The later priestly writer, however,
makes them the same (1813, cp 2 2 [pquava [B], pv0qA
(.4)] ; in Judg. 123 the parenthesis is probably a gloss).‘
In Judg. 45 the prophetess Deborah is said to have sat
under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and
Bethel-a statement which the critics who understand
the song of Deborah to imply that she belonged to the
tribe of Issachar suppose tn have arisen from confusion
with the other Deborah (see DEBORAH). There is no
cogent reason, however, for their inference from the song,
and while a palm is an unusual, it is not an impossible,
tree at the altitude of Bethel : there is one at Jerusalem.
In the story of the crime of the Benjamites the priestly
writing tells of a national gathering before God at Bethel
(Judg. 21 2).
In the records of the period after the Judges the
name Luz does not occur ; we may suppose it by this
3. History. ;me to have been absorbed in that of
\b
ethel, which was still a sanctuary ( I S.
716 103). The divisi n of the kingdoms brought Bethel
a new opportunity : its ancient sanctity was taken ad-
vantage of by Jeroboam for political ends, and he made
it one of the two national shrines which he established
in North Israel in order that his people might not go
over to Jerusalem. In these shrines he set up the golden
calves--‘Thy God, 0 Israel, which brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt’ ( I K. 1229). A priesthood, not
Levitical, was established, and a new altar, pilgrimages,
and feasts were ordained ( I I<. 123of:). In the words
of Amaziah to Amos, Bethel became a royal and national
temple ( ‘ sanctuary of the king,’ ‘ house of the kingdom,’
Am. 7 1.3)~
A later (perhaps post-exilic) narrative records a
prophecy as made by a prophet from Judah, by which
Jeroboam was judged according to the Deuteronomic
standard, and Yahwgs overthrow of Bethel was predicted
( I I<. 13 ; cp z K. 1029). There was no such feeling of
guilt or foreboding of doom, however, among the
prophets of the northern kingdom, for we find a
company of them settled in Bethel, and the place
visited by Elijah and Elisha (zI<. 22f: 23).
For a national sanctuary the position was convenient.
The present village lies about a furlong off the most
*. Important easterly of the three parallel branches
into which the great north road here
position. divides, very near its junction with the
road by Michmash to Jericho, and not many miles from
the heads of those two other roads which come up
from the coast by the Beth-horons, and by Goplina,
respectively, to meet the north road just mentioned.
That is to say, the main lines of traffic N. to S. and
E. to W. crossed at the gates of Bethel. Like other
ancient sanctuaries, it must have had a market ; its mer-
cenariness and wealth are implied by Amos (84, etc.).
Moreover, Bethel lay upon the natural frontier between
the two kingdoms on the plateau ‘between the passes of
Beth-horon and Michmash (on the Chronicler’s story of
its capture by Abijah of Judah, see A BIJ AH, I ). The
prophets Hosea and Amos appear in opposition to
Bethel, not on the ground (taken by the later Deutero-
nomists) that it was the seat of a schism, but because of
1
1 In Judg. 2 I a Bethel ought probably to be read for BOCHIM
(ev.).
2 N?3 3&Q n’ar NlX 7$gd>,!p ’?, AV ‘ for it is the king’s
chapel, and it is the king’s court’; RV ‘for it is the king’s
sanctuary, and it is a royal house.’
553
BETHER
the superstitious and immoral nature of its cult, even
though the object of this was Yahwk himself. They
regard it as apostasy from Yahwk (Am. 44, ‘ Come to
Bethel and revolt ’ ; 5 5 [PaBvX Q*Vid], ‘Seek not
Bethel, seek Yahwk ’), and its crimes culminate (Am. 7 1 3 )
in the silencing of his prophet Amos by its priest Amazixh
[see AMOS, § 20). It shall, therefore, bear the brunt of
the impending doom (Am. 3 14 Hos. 10 15 [OZKOS TOO
~
:upagX BAQ]). In scorn Amos had said ‘ Bethel shall
become AVEN ’--i.e., vanity, falseness, false worship,
idolatry ( 5 5) :-so Hosea calls it Beth-aven (415 58 lo5)
oftener than he calls it Bethel. The nickname was the
readier because of the actual BETH-AVEN (q.v. ), which
once stood, and perhaps in the eighth century still stood,
in the neighbourhood. After the fall of the northern
kingdom the heathen colonists naturally adopted the
cult of the ‘god of the land,’ and Bethel retained its
importance as a religious centre ( z I<. 1728). Isaiah
and Micah do not mention Bethel ; it is very doubtful if
Jeremiah does so (Giesebrecht on Jer. 4813). The frontier
of Judah, however, must have been gradually pushed N.
so as to enclose it, for when Josiah put down the high
places in the cities of Judah’ he destroyed the altar in
Bethel and desecrated the site ( z K . 23415). The city
itself must have been inhabited by Jews, for its families
are reckoned in the great post-exilic list [see E ZRA, ii.
$5 9, 8 6 ; Ezra228 (yadvh [B]) = Neh. 7 3 2 (p&X
[BK*])= I Esd. 521 ( ~ E T O X L W[B], p 7 ~[A])].
. It was the
most northerly site repeopled by Jews (Neh. 11 31 ; PvOqp
*’winf. ; om. BK*A]).l W e hear nothing more of
Bethel till it is described as one of the strong places of
Judah which Bacchides refortified in 161 B. c. ( I Macc.
950 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 13), and then it disappears from OT
history.
In Cg A.D. Vespasian garrisoned Bethel before his advance
on Jerusalem (Jos. Bjiv. 9 9) ; and circa 132 Hadrian placed a
post there to intercept Jewish fugitives (Midrash
6. Post- Ekhak. ii. 3 : Neub. Giog. Tulnz. 115). The Bori
biblical. deaux hlgrim (333) gives it as Betthar 12 R: m.
from Jerusalem. Robinson’s theory (LBR,170),
that Bethel is therefore the Bether of Hadrian’s war, is un-
founded. Euseb. and Jerome call it a village: the latter
adds (under Aggai) that where Jacob dreamed there was
built a church-perha s part of the ruins at Burj-Beitin. The
Crusaders exhibited tEe rock under the Dome of the Rock in
Jerusalem as Jacob‘s Sto?e ;hut the ‘ Cartulary of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre’ gives Bethel as a casale ceded to that
church in 1160, and the site of a tower and chapel built hy
Hugues d’Ibelin (Key, 378). See Cubrin, Judie, chap. 5s ; P E F
Mem. 2 295 f: 3051: ; Stanley, S P z r 7 ; GASm. HG, chap. rii.
and pp. 2 8 9 y . 298.
(2) A place to which David sent part of the spoil of
the Amalekites ( I S. 3027,) : probably the same as
BLTHUL,if we are not with 6” (and Budde) to read
paihup-i.e. BETH-ZUR.
~ G. A. S.
BETH-EMEK (3gu;l ncJ,ij 99, ‘house in the
valley’), a place on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 1927).
Before Beth-emek some words appear to have dropped out :
perhaps the are represented by @‘s Ka; sluehav’usrac [d]
%pia.
(After 6pLa &E continues ua+f)aii3a~Ops, where ua+Bac seems to
he a corruption of yar+tIaiqh [=yac rs+f)aqh],prefixed wrongly
.
to BarOps [ =fa&EpfK]; aua+%a PqOafpfK [A], ua+a P@pCpfK
[L] ; Symm. BLI +u KOrhd8a). The descrlptlon In v. 27f: E not
clear ; there would seem to be two descrlptions of the northern
boundary (if ‘on the left hand,’ v. 28 means ‘northward,’ and
if the equivalent of rai e l u d . : p a ’is to be inserted before
‘ northward ’ in v. 27).
Robinson was struck by the resemblance of the name
to that of ‘Amka, 69 m. NE. of ‘Akka (Acre) ; but, as
he himself points out (BR4 103 IO^), the situation of
‘Amka is too far N. of Jefit (Jiphtah-el?), and, even if
this objection be waived, ‘Amka is at m y rate too far
N. of Kgbiil (which must be the ancient Cabul).
T. K. C.
BETHER (8€8Hp [BLl, Br*18Hp2 [A]). one of the
additional cities of Judah m Josh. 1559 (cp S B O T ) ,
mentioned after Karem (‘Ain KZrim) and Gallim (cp
GIBBAR). No doubt it is the modern Bittir (7 m. SW.
1 On this list see EZRA ii. 55 5 [BI, 15 [I] a.
a Pa~f30qp also occurs ’in ’I Ch. 659 [A], as a substitute for
away IBI-i.e., Juttah.
554
 BETHER
of Jerusalem), which” stands on the slope of a steep
projecting hill between the WZdy Bittir and a smaller
valley. If we ascend higher we shall reach a site
admirably adapted for a fortress, where there are still
some ruins connected by popular legend with the Jews.
On the E. side are chambers in the rock and old cisterns.
Neubauer (Gkog. Tulnz. 103-114,cp 90) and Guerin
( I d . 2387-395) had all but demonstrated that this was
the Bether (in*>)or rather Beth-ter (inn.>), within whose
walls Bar Cochba so obstinately resisted the Romans
under Julius Severus (A.D. 134-5). The proof has now
been completed by the discovery of an inscription stating
which divisions of the Roman army were stationed
there.l It is, therefore, no longer possible to maintain
with Gratz (Hist. 2417) that the Beth-ter of Bar Cochba
was identical with the Bettbar of the itineraries, which
was situated between Antipatris or Diospolis and
Czesarea (see ANTIPATRIS, 2, end). See GIBBAR.
Only two ancient statements respecting the position of Bether
need be here quoted. Eus. (HE 56) describes pfMqpa in
these terms : rrohi)(vq TLP qv b ~ ~ p o ~ T&V
k q , ‘Iaporroh~gwv cG
rr+dSpa rrdppo 6rsu6ma, and the Talm. of Jerus. (Taanifh,
48), ‘If thou thinkest that Beth-ter [spelt with two n almost
always in this section] was near th,e sea, thou art in error:
truly it was 40 m. away from the sea. T. K. C.
BETHER, The mountains of (7@ *yj?l), Cant. 217
EV, following Vg. (Bethm). The word Bether, how-
ever, all recent critics agree, is not a proper name : it
P
qualifies t e preceding words. Putting aside the old,
forced exp anations of the phrase, such as ’ mountains
of ravines’ (@WAC (Ipv Koihopdrov-i.e., n q n 3 * l a ; cp
B ITHRON ), and ‘ mountains of separation’ (between the
lovers), one might conjecture that ‘ Bether ’ was the
Syrian plant malobathron, from which a costly oil was
procured, used in the toilet of banqueters (Hor. Od. ii.
7 7 ) , and also in medicine (Plin. NH xxiii. 448). So
Symm. (Field, Hex. on Cant. 217), RVms ; Wellh.
PYoZ.(~) 399 ; ET 391. Others emend in> into n’nax,
‘spices,’ in conformity with 814 (so Pesh., Theod.,
Meier, Gratz). The best solution, however, has yet to
be mentioned : i n 1 is miswritte; for to-lni$, ‘cypresses’;
cp 117 (Che. ). ‘ Mountains of cypresses ’ is an appro-
priate term for Lebanon ; cp ‘ mountains of panthers ’
(48). SeeJQR10571, and cp CANTICLES, 15 n.
BETHESDA (BHBecha [c~d“’~]-i.e., K2DQ Il’g
--‘houseof mercy’ ; BHezaea [Ti. WH]), the reading
of T R in Jn.52, for which the best authorities have
BETHZATHA or BETHSAIDA. On the topographical
question, see JERUSALEM.
BETHEZEL ($YE;?n’a ; ~ B A OTKOV
Q ;x~6peC~v ab+,
’;.e., d?YN, ‘near her’), an unidentified place in the
ShephElah mentioned by Micah (1I,), who foresees the
captivity of its noble ones (y>ry, emended from in:!p,
6 ’ s reading [dSbvvs], where M T has mmny : so Che.‘,
JQR, JuJy ’98). It is scarcely the same as Azel (cp
AZAL).
BETH-GADER (17; n’2 ; BaleralhwN [Bl,
- r e h a p [AI, BHersAAwp [L]), a town, whose
‘ father ’ Hareph was of Calebite origin ( I Ch. 251f) ;
the genealogy seems to represent post-exilic relations.
On the analogy of the other great divisions Shobal abi
Icirjath-jearim and Salma abi Bethlehem, Beth-gader
was perhaps no unimportant place, and we may possibly
identify it with GEDOR, I . It
~ is noticeable that the further
divisions of Hareph are not enumerated, as they are in
the cases of Shobal and Salma.
BETH-GAMUL ( 5 9 ~ nq,
4 8 place of recompense 0 ?
[ c ~ G a m a l i e L ~ K ~ ~O
PiB
KOI ;N r d r l ~ a A [ B ] , o .rAMwh&
[A], 0.-A [Q], 0.-waB [Kc.a], om. K”). In Moab on
the table-land E. of the Jordan (Jer. 48 zi), identified by
1 CI. Gan. Acad. des imcr Comptes vendus 1894, p. x ? f :
2 The position of GEDER, k t h which it miiht otherwise be
connected, is unknown.
555
BETH-HARAM
some with Kh. /email, which lies to the east of the well-
known DIBON; according to others, it finas its modern
representative in Umm ej-Jemd, about five hours S. of
BoSra.
n’a), Neh. 1 2 2 9 R V ; see
GILGAL, 6 (5).
BETH -HACCEREM, AV Beth-Haccherem (n’a
n.73?,§ 103, ‘vineyard place’), is expressly called, not
a ;own, but a ‘ district ’ (s)@), near Jerusalem, Neh. 3 14
(BHehXAM -8AXXapMA [AI, -8AKAM [VIS -AX-
x a p a [L]).
~ From Jer. 61 it appears to have included
a conspicuous height to the S. of Jerusalem which was
used as a beacon-station (BatBBaXappa [B], BeBB. [K],
BvBa. [QJ B?)ewtap [AI.
Jerome (in his comment on the latter passage) says that it was
one of the villages which he could see every day with his own eyes
from Bethlehem, that it was called Bethacharma, and that it lay
on a mountain. yence, many since Pococke have placed it on
the so-called Fureidis or ‘Frank Mountain’ (2487 ft. above the
sea-level), between Bethlehem and Tekoa, and very near the
latter (so even Giesebrecht). Jerome’s statement we are unable
t o criticise : but there is now no name near the ‘ Frank Mountain’
which confirms this theory, and the special fertility which the
name Beth-haccerem implies to have characterised the district
suggests lookingelsewhere. After all, it was rather hasty t o infer
from Jer. 6 I that Beth-haccerem was bound t o be near Tekoa.
Since we have found reason elsewhere (B ETH-CAR)
to correct ‘ Beth-car’ in 1,s.711 into Beth-haccerem,
and to identify this with the beautiful village of ‘Ain
KHrim, about an hour and a half W. of Jerusalem,
it becomes difficult to resist the conclusion that the hill
referred to by Jeremiah was the 3e6eZ ‘AU,at the foot of
which lies the village in question. The fruitful oliv’e-
groves and vineyards of ‘Ain KHrim are watered from a
superb fountain, and would justify the name Beth-
haccerem. The summit of the Jebel ‘Ali commands a
view of the Mediterranean, the Mount of Olives, and
part of Jerusalem (Baed.(3)112). Conder mentions that
there are still cairns on the ridge above ‘Ain KBrim which
may have served as beacons (PERQ, 1881,p. 271).
One is 40 ft. high and 130 ft. in diameter, with a flat
top measuring 40 ft. across.
Two more references to Beth-haccerem may be indi-
cated. In the Mishna treatise, Middoth 3 4, it is
stated that the stones for the great altar in the second
temple came from the valley of Beth-cerem, which Adler
(IQR 8390) identifies with Beth-haccet;em and ‘Ain
IcZrirn ; and among the eleven towns which GnALhas
(but not MT) in Josh. 1,559 occurs Karem (‘Kapep),
which, from the context, can only be ‘Ain ICHrim. Cp
TAHCHEMONITE. For another (probable) Beth-carem
see BATH-KABBIM. T. K. C.
BETH-HAGGAN (]&i nq. domus h o ~ t i[vg.], EV
‘ the garden- honse’ ; better in d as a proper name,
BaleAN [Bl, BAlATrc*N [APvid.SUP ras], B&leCipwN=
Beth-horon [L]), a place, apparently to the S. ,of Jezreel,
on the road to which Ahaziah fled in his chariot when
he saw Jehoram slain by Jehu ( z K. 927). Jenin, the
first village which one ,travelling southwards would
encounter, may very well be Beth-haggZn ( = Beth-hag-
gannim, place of gardens‘), i.k., EN-GANNIM ( q . ~ .2). ,
If, however, we hold with Conder that Megiddo, which
Ahaziah reached at last-to die-was Mujedda‘ at the
foot of Gilboa, a little to the S. of BeisHn, it will become
natural to identify Beth-haggHn with a northern Beit
Jenn, between Mt. Tabor and the S. end of the Lake
of Gennesaret (Beit Jenn is, in Arabic nomenclature, a
favourite name). Against this view of the flight of
Ahaziah, see GASm. HG 387,n. I. T. K. C.
BETH-HANAN. See ELON-BETH-HANAN.
BETH -HARAM, AV incorrectly BETH-ARAM (n’a
n?;! : oeapraei, or perhaps - & A ~ M[Bl, BHBapaM
[AL]), Josh. 1327 (P). For the true form of the name
see BETH-HARAN.
556
 BETH-HARAN
BETH-HARAN (177 n’a, probably ‘house of
HARAN,’B A l e A p A N [Bl, - A p p h [AI, -N [FLI, NU.
3236 [E]), the correct and original pronunciation of
the name of the place also called BETH-HARAM (Cp
GERSHOMfor GERSHON). The place thus designated
was an ancient Amorite city, fortified by the conquering
Gadites. .The site is occupied by the modern TeZl er-
RZmeh, which stands up in a wiidy of the same name,
between HesbLn and the Jordan, at no great distance
from the river. The objection to this raised by Guthe
(ZDPV 23. n. I ) is not decisive.
Rameh does indeed imply a form, Beth-harZm8h; but this
form is vouched for by the existenceof the Aramaic Beth-ramtha
(see below). It arose out of BETH-HARAM (a phonetic modifica-
tion of Beth-haran) when the older and correct form of the
name had passed out of use, and so the later form, Beth-haram,
came to he misinterpreted. Moreover Tristram’s discovery of
a ‘ conspicuous mound ’ called Beit Ha&n (Land ofMoa6,348)
has not been verifiedby subsequent travellers 1 though it is still (Gibeon), at a height of about 2300 ft. The h y n or
recognised in Baed.13) (map of Peraea), and the identification
(which stands in Di.’s comm.) is retained by von Riess in BibeL
AtZarP), on the assumption that Beit Harran (or Haram) is
nearer to the outlet of the wady than Tell er-RSmeh.
The really conspicuous mound is surely that of Tell
er-Rluneh, which is 673 ft. above the sea-level, and
certainly marks the site of an ancient town of importance
(Conder, PEFMem., E. Pal. 1238). Such a town
was the Beth-ramtha of the Talmud (Neubauer, Ge‘og.
TaZm. 247),the name of which is attested by Josephus,
3’
Eusebius, and Jero e.2
.
Herod had a palac here (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10 6 BJ ii. 4 2) ;
Herod Antipas walle it and called it Julias aftdr the wife of
Augustns, at the same time that Herod Philip rebuilt Bethsaida
and gave it the same name after the emperor’s daughter (Jos.
Ant. xviii. 2 I ;BJii. 9 I). Jerome, however, enablesus to correct it bears many marks of its age and long use. Carried
this statement (OS 10377). The older name of the city was Livias ;
the name was changed to Julias when Livia was received into
the gens Julia by the emperor’s testament (see Schiirer, Hisf.
ii. 1142). Eus. (OS 23488) and Theodosius(530 A.D.)also call it
.
Livias the latter (De Situ Terre Suncfre 65) describes it as
12 R. A. from Jericho, near warm springs that were efficacious
against leprosy. T. K. C .
BETH-HOGLAR, once (Josh. 156) AV Beth-hogla
(iD;a nQ, 104, ‘place of partridge,’ cp HOGLAH),3 history is, therefore, easily explicable (they do not occur,
a Benjamite city on the border of Judah (Jos. 156,
B A l e A r h A A M [B], -ha [L], - 8 A h [A]; 181921,
OAhACCAN and B € B € r A l C d [Bl, B A l e A h A r A [AI,
B H e A r h A [L, and A in 211). It is the modern ‘Ain
(and Isasr) Hajla, a fine spring and ruin situated be-
tween Jericho and the Jordan S. of Gilgal (cp Di. on
Gen. l r r and Baed.13) 154): Under the form Beth-
alaga it is, according to Jos. (Ant.xiii. 1 5 ) , the place
to which Jonathan fled before Bacchides, I Macc. 963
(but see BETHBASI). The Onom. erroneously identifies
Beth-hoglah with Atad (see ABEL-MIZRAIM, end). The
interpretation ‘ Belhagla, locus gyri’ of Jer., according
to WRS (ReL Sem.PI 191, n. I), may rest upon a local
tradition of a ritual procession around some sacred
object there (cp Ar. &ala, ‘ hobble, hop ‘)-similar Egypt invaded Judah by the Beth-horon passage,
perhaps to the Ar. ceremonial tawdf (for which see We.
U e i d ( 2 1 IIO).~ The form survives also in Ma-
khHdet Hajla (see BETH-ARABAH, z), a noted bathing-
place for pilgrims at the mouth of the WHdy el-Kelt
(Baed. 169).
BETH-HORON ((Tin n’a, also fiin ’2 and (Til ’1, advanced on Judah by Beth-horou ; Judas with a small
and in Ch. pm ’ 2 ; BaiewpwN or Bee. [BAL],
site.BsewpCi, Bale-, -8wpw, B H 8 . in JOS. [CP him
the modern form Beit ‘Ur], probably ‘the
place of the hollow’ or ‘hollow way’) was the name
qf two neighbouring villages, upper Beth-horon (’n ’1 horon, Judas attacked and slew him, and routed his
)V$q, Josh. 165 ; p7Owpwv [L]) and lower Beth-horon Beth-horon
(finnn TI ‘1,Josh. 163 ; but in 2 Ch. 85 j l 9 k I and (I Macc. 950was[p7Owpwv.
1 See e g Schick ZDPVZ IT. cp p. 2.
2 Jos: giv& the ndme as PqSa&aBa and &BapapQBa ; once
(Ant.xvii. 106) the text gives appaea. Eus. (OS23487) &e-
pap+Ba, with a fragmentary reference to the &UU+LOL.
(OS 25 11 ; 103 r6), ‘ Betharam domus sublimium vel montium Jec, Dr., and Bu. SBOT,following @B’s opwvqv (opawv [Avid],
quae a Syris dicitur Bethrarntha’).
3 The D in Hoglah is nyt supported, and all the evidence points
t o the reading ‘ Haglah.
4 For another explanation see EN-EGLAIM.
5 57
BETH-HORON
Itnnn;r-hence the dual form preserved by wpwvwl [B ;
but p@wpwv AL], Josh. ~ O I O ~ . )near , the head and the
Coot, respect‘ively, of the ascent from the Maritime Plain
to the plateau.of Benjamin, and represented to-day by
Beit ‘or ‘or
eZ-jii&a and Beit et-td?zta (large PEP Surv.
Map, Sheet xvii. \. The road leaves Beit Sira fin which
1 -
2. Beth-horon some see Uzzen-sheerah : see SHERAH),
840 ft. above sea-level, on the high
road. Dlain of Aiialon : climbs UD the suur of
the Benjamite hits in about 50 minutes to th’e lowerBeth-
horon, 1240 ft. ; and thence, dropping at first for a
Little, ascends the ridge, with the gorges of Wady
Selmau to the S., and WHdy es-Sant and Wridy el-
‘Imeish to the N., to the upper Beth-horon, 12 m.
from its fellow and 2022 ft. above the sea ; and thence,
still following the ridge, comes out on the Benjamite
plateau about 44 m. farther on, to the N. of el-Jib
ascent to Beth-horon (Josh. 1010)may be the road
towards the upper Beth-horon from Gibeon : it does
rise at first from the plateau before descending; the
y>jn or descent to the two Beth-horons (Josh. 1011,63.)
is the whole road from the edge of the plateau. More
probably, the two are the same taken from opposite
ends. This Beth-horon road is now no longer the high
road from Jerusalem and the watershed to the Maritime
Plain ; but it was used as such from the very earliest
times to at least the sixteenth century of our era, and
indeed forms the most natural, convenient, and least
exposed of all the possible descents from the neighbour-
hood of Jerusalem to the plain of Sharon. The line of
for the most part over the bare rock and rocky debris,
it has had steps cut upon it in its steeper portions, and
has remains of Roman pavement. Standing as they
do upon mounds, the two Beth-horons command the
most difficult passages of this route and form its double
key.
T h e constancy with which the Beth-horons appear in
3. MiliearJr however, in either the lists of the conquests
of Thotmes 111. or the Amarna letters).
history. According to JE, after Joshua had won
for Israel a footing on the Benjamite plateau and made
peace with Gibeon, the latter was threatened by the
Canaanites. Joshua defeated them at Gibeon, and
pursued them all the way down by the Beth-horons
(Josh. 10 1.3). I n the days of Saul the Philistines must
have held the pass from their camp at Michmash (I S.
13 18).2 Solomon fortified Beth-horon the nether, along
with Gezer, on the opposite side of Aijalon (I K. 917
[om, BL, Jos. p ~ r x w p a; in I K. 2353 parOwpw6, A] ;
2 Ch. 85 adds Beth-horon the upper [ p a d w p w p , B]).
During his son Rehoboam’s reign’shishak or SoSenk of
it would appear, for both Ai-yu-ru-u (Aijalon) and
Bi-ti-b-va-ru-n, (Beth-horon) occur in his lists of the
towns he conquered (Nos. 26 and 24 ; see WMM, As.
u. Eur. 166).
I n the Syro-Maccabean wars, Seron, a Syrian general,
force met him on the ascent, defeated him, and pursued
out upon the plain (I Macc. 313-24 [@* v. 16,
pteOwpwv] ; Jos. Ant. xii. 7 I ). A few years afterwards,
Nicanor having retired from Jerusalem upon Beth-
army as far as Gezer ( I Macc. 7 3 9 3 ; Jos. Ant. xii. 105).
among the places fortified by Bacchides
V*], Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 ) . See
also Judith44 (peOwpw [A]).
1 A similar dual (iTf1h) is to be read in 2 S. 1334 with We.,
u w aLp [L]).
$It was probably by the Beth-horons that the Philistines
were routed by Saul (I S. 1314) and ‘from Gibeon south t o
Gezer,’ by David (I S. 5 2s).
558
 BETH-JESHIMOTH
In 66 A.D. a Roman army under Cestius Gallus, ascending by
Beth-horon, had their rear disordered by the Jews, and after a
short and futile siege of Jerusalem retreated pell-mell by the
same way. Josephus describes the difficulties of the ground in
a manner that leads us to suppose that the Romans in their
haste cannot have kept to the high road by the Beth-horons, hut
were swept down the gorges on either side (Bjii. 19). Perhaps
because of this experience, Titus, in his advance upon Jerusalem
two years later, took another road : and Beth-horon is not again
mentioned in the military history of Palestine.
In the division of the land among the tribes of Israel,
the border line between Beniamin and EDhraim ran bv
4*
the Beth-hbrons (Josh. i 6 3 5 [L n. i,
I
BnBwowvl. 18 19
. I A.
f: \ which were counted
-,,
to Ephraim (Josh. 21.)2 They remained part of the
N. kingdom ; and we do not read of any Jews settled
there in post-exilic times. That is to say, they were held
by the Samaritans. Sanballat, one of the chief foes of
the Jews in Nehemiah's day, is called ' the H ORONITE '
(Neh. 210, apwv[e]i [BA]. avpwvei [Wid], wpwvrmp [L]
19 1328, om. BHA, wpavr7r)s [Kc.amg.], etc.). Schlatter
(ZUYTopog. I(. Gesch. Pal. 4, ' W a r Beth-horon der
Wohnort Sanballat's? ') seeks to prove that Horonite
means 'from Horonaim,' the town in S . Moab (Is. 155
Jer. 483 5 34, and Moabite stone), partly on the ground
that Sanballat is associated with Tobiah the Ammonite ;
but Ammonite may mean ' from CHEPHAR-AMMONI '
( a town of Benjamin, Josh. 1824) ; and Buhl (Geog. 1 6 9 )
points out that b ' s form of Beth-horon 'Opwveiv (Josh.
10 IO [B cp z S. 1334) confirms the possibility of &Mini
meanin8 'from Beth-horon.' By 1 6 1 B.C. Beth-horon
had become a city of Judaea (I Macc. 950 ; Jos. Ant.
xiii. 1 3 , cp 71).
According to the Talmud it was the birthplace of many rabbis
(Neub. G&g. Talm. 154). 'Jerome gives it in the itinerary of S.
Paula who came to it from Nicopolis (E$.
6. Post-biblical S. Pa;L,Hier. Op., ed. Migne, i. 883). There
references. are the ruins of a mediaeval castle in upper
Beth-horon, but the substructions in both
villages are probably more ancient. The name is given by very
few mediaeval travellers (Brocardus, ch. 9 ; Marin. Sanutus, 249)
and not at all, it would appear, by the Arab geographers-nnlesg
the 'UrZmah mentioned by YZktit but not located he the same
place. The mediaeval pilgrim's d e n t to Jerusaled by Ramleh
and the present line of road. In 1801 Dr. Clarke (?"raw&, pt.
ii. vol. i. 628) rediscovered the name.
See Rob. BX 3 59 ; Guerin, j u d . 1338,346 ; Stanley, SP a12 ;
GASm. HG zro-2x3, 254. G. A. S.
BETH-JESHIMOTH, once (Nu. 3349) AV Beth-
jesimoth ( n k y q n'2, BHClMOYe [AL]), is assigned
in Joshua (123hC[E]lMW8 [BAI, AICIM. [Fvid18 BH~-
hC[E!iM. [L], 1320 Bai88bC€iNw8 [B]) to the
Reubenites (cp Nu. 3349, dvd p & ~ o v arurpwB [BFL],
a. ,M. AC., [A]) ; but probably it was, like most of the
neighbouring places, in the possession of the Moabites
during a considerable period of the Hebrew monarchy.
We know that it was Moabite in the time of Ezekiel
(Ezek. 259, OiKOV BauipouO [B], O. PeOau. [Bb.(vid)A],
o. paiOa. [Q"], 0. p a d mu. [Qa]), who speaks of it
along with Baal-meon and Kiriathaim a s ' the glory of
the country.' As pr)ui,uhO it is mentioned by Josephus
(Bliv. 7 5) as having been taken by Placidus ; Eus. writes
p~OuipociO (OSP). 266 27) and pr)eaurpoue (233 S I ) ;
Jerome (i6. 103 g), writing Bethsimufh, describes it as a
village bearing in his day the name Zsimuth, opposite
Jericho at a distance of I O R. m. 'in meridiana plaga,
juxta mare mortuum.' The name and description point
to the modern KhirJet es-Suweimeh. The name Jeshi-
moth may be compared with the Jeshimon ' on the face'
of which ' the headland of Pisgah looked down ' (Nu.
21 zo).; for probably this Jeshimon ( = ' desolation ') is
not the Jeshimon of Judah, but the barren land off the
NE. end of the Dead Sea. With this name Hommel
( A N T 197) compares, Yusumfnu, the name of a
Palestinian district mentioned by an early Assyrian king.
Cp GASm. HG 564, n. +I.
BETH-LE-APHRAH (ill& Wg), Mic. 1IO+ RV,
AV A PHRAH, H OUSE OF.
BETH-LEBAOTH (niK$ nq,
IS 93, 104,--i.e.,
'abode of lions,'-Josh. 196, Baeapwe [B], Baleah-
559
BETHLEHEM
Bae CAI, BHehkBiwe [L]), or, simply, LEBAOTH(Josh.
1532, AaBoc [B], -we [AL]), an unidentified site in
the Negeb of Judah (Josh. 1532), assigned to Simeon
(Josh. 196). The parallel passage in I Ch. 431 has
B ETH- BIRI (wl?n.?), which has probablyarisen from a
corruption of the text. For 'and at Beth-biri and at
Shaaraim' d has K U ~O ~ K O V /3puoupu&pei,u [B], K . o.
.
Papoup' u. [A], K . <v pai0papeip K . $v uuupip [L].
BETHLEHEM (nri>-n+2 ~ 1 1i .r g , etc. ; nn) n'g
I S. 206, etc. ; B H ~ , ' , ~ c M [L commonly] some codd.
B€Bh€€M, Bal8heeM [BAI; JOS. BHBhBEMH and B H e -
A ~ M A; gentilic Bethlehemite, 'P3b?-n9& B H 8 -
AEBMEITHC, I S . 1618, etc.) meant, to the Hebrew,
'house of bread ' ; N AMES , I O ; on a less obvious
explanation of H. G. Tomliins, see E LHANAN , I, end.
I. Beth-lehem-judah (npn;'~ Judg. 1 7 7 8 ,etc.),
the modem Beit Lahm, 2350 ft. above sea-level, 5 m.
1. Site, S. of Jerusalem (Jos., zo stadia, Ant. vii.l24),
a little off the high road to Hebron, on a spur
running E. from the watershed, surrounded by valleys
among the most fertile of Judzea. The site is without
springs (the nearest being one 800 yards SE. of the
town, and others at Artas 14m. away), but receives
water from an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon
(C ONDUITS, § 3 ) compassing the SE. end of the spur,
and from many cisterns-of which the greatest are
three in front of the great basilica; there are three
others from 12 to 21 ft. deep, on the N., called Bi'Sr
Dl'fid. The immediate neighbourhood is very fertile,
bearing, besides wheat and barley, groves of olive and
almond, and vineyards. The wine of Bethlehem
('Talhami') is among the best of Palestine.
So great fertility must mean that the site was occupied,
in spite of the want of springs, from the earliest times ;
2. OT refer- but the references to it in Judges-as the
home of the Levite who sojourned in
Micah's house (177 g), and of the young
woman whom tlie Benjamites maltreated (19 I J r8)-and
in the Book of Ruth are of uncertain date, and into the
clear light of history Bethlehem first emerges with David.1
It was his home (I S. 206 28, very early), for the waters
of which, when it was occupied by the Philistines, he
expressed so great a longing-probably as a pledge of
his fatherland's enfranchisement-thathis three captains
broke the enemy's lines, and drewwater from the cistern
' in the town's gate ' ( 2 S. 23 1 4 8 , from the same e x l y
source), which tradition has identified with the Bi'Zr
Dl'fid (but GuBrin, Iud. 11 3 0 8 , following Quaresmius,
prefers those in front of the basilica). Other references
to Bethlehem as David's home are I S . 16 I 4 17 12 15 58
(from later strata). Asahel, brother of Joab, was buried
in Bethlehem in his father's grave ( z S. 232). Thus,
Joab, like his leader, was a Bethlehemite. Except for
a statement of z Ch. 1 1 6 (bB** puiflueep), that Reho-
boam fortified Bethlehem, the town is not mentioned
again till Micah, who describes it ( 5 2 ) as still one of the
smallest of the townships of Judah, but illustrious as
the birthplace of the Messianic king (see M ICAH , ii. z a).
According to Jer. 41 17. the Jews w-ho in 586 B.C. fled to
Egypt rested at Gidroth-chimham (see C HIMHAM ), necr
Bethlehem. The Bethlehemites carried into captivity
by Nebuchadrezzar repeopled their town after the return
(Ezra2z1 @p@uXuep [B], PEOhaep [A]; Neh. 726 Bom.,
PeOhXEep [K], pacuaheep [A], cp n. 6 ; I Esd. 5 17 paye8-
Xwpwv [B], PaiOhwpwv [A], piRXeep [L]). Bethlehem
is the scene of the beautiful story of Ruth, in connection
with which it is necessary to note that Moab is clearly
visible from about Bethlehem: thus, Ruth in her
adopted home must often have had her own fatherland
in sight. In the lists of the M T of Joshua (P) Beth-
lehem is not given ; but it is added with ten. others in
the dBAL text of 1559 (Kai'eq5puOa awr) EUTL BarOheep) :
6 ' s reading must be genuine, since the group which it
1 If it does so even then : see DAVID, $ I a. '
560
 BETHLEHEM
includes is too important to have been omitted from the
original.
The name Ephrathah or Ephrath of this passage is
assigned to Bethlehem also in Mic. 6 2 [I] (the reading
3. Ephrath. n-m or ilnim is not certain ; but the refer-
ence to Bethlehem is clear), in Ru. 411.,
virtually in Ru. 1 2 (L om.) in I S . 1 7 1 2 ( B om.),l and
probably also in Ps. 1326. Apart from Micah, the
documents in which Ephrath[ah] occurs are probably
so late that we might reasonably suppose that Bethlehem
was the earlier name of the town. On the other hand,
these documents are probably based on very early
material: Micah (if Mic. 6 2 is his work) takes the
name as well known. It is possible to argue from
I Ch. 21950 4 4 (pa~OAa8ev [B], paLOhep [A]), that
Ephrathrah] was the name of the whole district in
which Bethlehem lay.
Bethlehem is not mentioned by Josephus after Solo-
mon’s time, nor in the Books of Maccabees; which
proves how insignificant it continued to be. As the
place commanded the fertile wadies and water-supply
around it,-the Philistines had deemed it important
enough to occupy-this silence is very remarkable.
*’ Bethlehem reappears in Mt. 2 Lk. 2 as the
birthplace of Jesus, distinguished still as
B~p9help~7?js’Iou8aias (Mt. 21 5, cp 6 8 161,
‘the city of David’ (Lk. 2 4 15 cp Jn. 742). Lk. de-
scribes the new-born child as having been laid in a
manger (KABDL,“ omit the definite article of TR),
‘ because there was no room for them in the Khan ’ ;
they had retired then ‘ t o a stall or cave where there
was room for the mother and a crib for the babe.’
It is significant that Bethlehem appears to have been
chosen, along with the sites of the crucifixion and the
resurrection, for special treatment by the Emperor
Hadrian. As he set up there an image of Jupiter and
an image of Venus, so he devastated Bethlehem and
planted upon it a grove sacred to Adonis (Jer. Epist. ad
Paul., 583). This proves that even before 132 A. D .
Bethlehem was the scene of Christian pilgrimage and
worship, as the birthplace of Jesus. (The Talmud also
admits that from Bethlehem the Messiah must come :
Berachoth, jn.j About I jo A. D. Justin Martyr ( D i a l
c. Tryph. 70 78) describes the scene of the birth as in a
cave near the village. This tradition may be correct :
there were many ancient cave-stables in Palestine
(Conder, Tent IVorlZ, chap. lo), and caves are still used
!as stables. In 315 A . D . the site of Bethlehem was
still ‘ a wild wood’ (Cyr. Jerus. Catech. 1220). Con-
stantine cleared it and built a basilica. Soon after, in
Jerome’s time, a cave in the rock near the basilica was
venerated as the stable, and in a neighbouring grotto
Jerome himself prepared his translation of the Bible.
From that day to this the tradition has been constant.
The centre of interest in modern Bethlehem is, there-
fore, the large basilica S. Maria a Przsepio, surrounded
and fortified by the Latin, the Greek, and the Armenian
monazteries. Although the architecture is mixed and of
many periods, the bulk of the church is that built by
Constantine. Cp De VogiiB, &Zises de Za Palestine,
46 8
Eutychius (circa 937! quoted by Gueriii 2 161)asserts indeed
that the church is a buildinn of Tustinian.’who Dulled ddwn Coni
siantiiir’s 21s too sniiiil nnd &e2 a grander cd;lice. I’roiopiu,,
howevcr, in his / ) e 1EdiXc. /u.vtin., whilst recording that ihis
emperor linilt the wnlln of llerhlehern (Ss), does not mention any
basilica there of his construction as had there been one he must
have done. Probably Justinian dnly added to Con:tantine’s
church and the building is, therefore, the most ancient church
in P a l e h e and one of the most ancient in the world. The fine
mosaics are from the court of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus
(circa 1169 A.D.), and the rafters by Philip of Burgundy (in 1482).
1 In the lntter two passages Ephrathite means, of course, ‘of
Epbrath[ah] ’=Bethlehem. I t is interesting that in PEFQ Jan.
1898 Schick attempts to prove that Ramathaim-zophid the
tow; of Samyel ‘an Ephrathite ’ was in the neighbourhobd of
Bethlehem. Ephrathite’ in I S.’l I probably means Ephraimite
(cp Jndg. 12 5 where for ’ndl @B has Et#tpa%ciqsbut ZK
row E+puip):
36 561
BETH-MERH
Under the chancel is the Grotto of the Nativity, called
also the Milk-Grotto and the Grotto of our Lady;
‘ mghiiret el halib ’ and ’ nighiiret-es-Seiyide.’ We have
seen the precariousness of the tradition which sanctions
it : it is only probable that Jesus was born in a cave, and
there is nothing to prove that this was the cave, for the
site lay desolate for three centnries.
Among recent works, consult Tobler’s monograph Bethlehem
in.PaLZstina, and Palmer ‘Das jetzige Bethlehim,’ ZDPY
17 8 9 8 , with map and nade-lists.
2. Bethlehem of Zebulun (Josh. 19 15, BaLBpav [B]),
now Beit La&, 7 m. NW. of Nazareth, ‘ a miserable
village among oak woods ’ (GuCrin, GaZz’Lle, 1303 ; Rob.
BR 3113). In the Talmud it receives the designation
n ~ s perhaps
, a corruption for i l ~ s ~‘ of
, Nazareth ’
(Neubauer, Ghg. Talm. 189J ) The combination, of
two names so famous in the Gospel history is remark-
able. Most scholars take this Bethlehem to have been
the home and burial-place of the judge Ibzan (Judg.
128 IO). Josephus and Jewish tradition assign him to
Bethlehem Judah (Ant.v. 713). G . A. S.
BETHLOMON (BAI~AUMUN [A]), I Esd. 517=
Ezra221, BETHLEHEM, 2.
BETH - MAACHAH
ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH.
(n!gtp’;l j, 2 S. 20 14. See
BETH-MARCABOTH (nig?m;! n q , I96--i.e.,
‘the house of chariots’) and HAZAR-SUSAH(lra
ilpSb,-i.e., ‘ station of horses ’) are mentioned together
in Josh. 195J ( P ) in the list of Simeonite towns.
The @ readings are : for Beth-marcaboth ; in Josh. 195 Bar%-
p a x ~ p @[B] -8appa Xau@% [A] Bv%apaA aapB [L] ; in I Ch.
4 31, where’the Hegrew article’is omitre%, @aL%papsrpo% [XI,
-pXap KCLL EV papmj3wS [L], -8’. pappj3o0 [AI. For Hazar-susah ;
in Josh. 19 5 uapuouuew [B] uuepuouurp [AI A [ u a l p u o v u ~ v[Ll ;
in I Ch. 431, Hazar-susim e[:e below] vp~uv&opap [SI, ijpiuus
:os bphp [Babl, v p ~ u v e o u ~[A],
p auepuovui [Ll.
The names seem to indicate posts of war-horses and
chariots, such as Solomon is said to have established
( I K. 9191026). The two places may possibly be
identical respectively with M ADMANNAH and SANSAN-
NAH, ‘cities’ in the Negeb towards Edom. The
latter are the older names ; for Madmannah, at least,
appears in I Ch. 249 (which belongs to the list of pre-
exilic settlements of the Calebites), whilst it is impossible
to assign a very early date to I Ch. 431, where Beth-
marcaboth and HAZAK-SUSIM ( o n a ?TI!) are mentioned
as Simeonite towns ‘ before the reign of David. ’ That
the two places actually were regular stations for horses
and chariots may be taken for granted ; but it may be
questioned whether they were so before post-exilic times,
when the Persians ,established post-stations on the route
from the Sh6phdah into Egypt (by Gaza to Pelusium).l
On this view Sansannah may very well be the modern
Simsim, a village in an olive-grove on the road from
Eleutheropolis to Gaza (99 m. NE. from the latter
town), and Madniannah may be conjectured to be the
modern Kitin Yzinus, 14 m. SW. from Gam .(so
GuCrin, /ud. 2230). Khan Yzinus has always been
an important station. It may be noted that in the time
of Micah (113) Lachish (about 8 m. from Simsini) also
was a chariot city. Cp MARCABOTH. W. R. S.
BETH-MEON (till? nQ),Jer. 4823. See BAAL-
MEON.
BETH-MERHAK, AV l a place that was afar off,’
RVmg. ‘the Far House,’ (pi;np;! nrg, E N O I K Y
T@ M A K ~ A N [BAL], procud a domo). Beth-merhal;
is either the proper name (so Ges.PJ,BDBdoubtfully),-
in which case the name is Beth-hammerhgk, like Beth-
haccerem,-or a description (Ew., The., Ke., Kau. H S ,
‘ the last house ’) of the place outside Jerusalem where
David waited with his attendantsuntil the people and the
body-guard had passed, z S. 1517 (on the text, which
is doubtful, see Dr. HPSm. and Klo. ad Zoc.).
1 I t is evident that chariots went down to Egypt by this way
at least as earlyas the eighth cent. B.C. Cp Gen. 465 Mic. 113.
,562
 BETH-MILL0
BETH-MILLO p\bp n’p), ~ u d g . ’Rvmg.;
~ see
JERUSALEM.
BETH-NIMRAH (3??32n’2, perhaps I place of pure
water‘ ; cp Ar. namir, Ass. namri, ‘transparent’ ; but
see N IMRIM and N AMES, 5 104; Nu. 3236 N A M ~ A M
[BF], A M B ~ A N [A], [N]AM. [L]; Josh. 1327 B A l N e b N -
aBp&[B], B H e b N A M p A [ L ] , 6 H e A M N h [AI), or Nimrah
(Nu. 323 N A M B ~ A P I , -MP. P I , A M B ~ A M [AI, MAM-
Bpa~ [?I), one of the Amorite cities which were after-
wards built’ by Gad (Nu. 3236), is the p $ v a p ~ ~ i s
and Bethamnan’s of Eusebius and Jerome (OS242 43 ; zb.
102 I ), a village still extant in their day, about 5 R. m.
N. from Livias (B ETH -H ARAN , g . v . ) , the i-inn’3 and
7131 n q of the Talmud (cp Del. ad Zoc. ), the modern
Nimrin, a well-watered oasis on the brink of the Jordan
valley some 134 miles E. of Jordan (cp Baed. PaZ.r3) 162).
Beth-nimrah is nowhere mentioned under this name in
OT outside of Numbers and Joshua, but it is identified
by many modern critics with the waters of N IMRIM (4.27. ),
and, as stated elsewhere (B ETHANY, z), Beth-nimrah
may be the original of the variants Bethany, Bethabara,
in Jn. 128.
BETHORON (Judith44), RV BETH-HORON (q.27.).
BETH-PALET, or (Neh. 1126) BETH-PHELET, RV
always Bethpelet (D$@-W& ‘house of escape’), a n
unknown Calebite town (cp PELET[I], I Ch. 247), on the
Edomite border of Judah, Josh. 1627 ( ~ & I @ A A & A [B],
BAle@+e [AI, BHe@eh.[L]), mentioned in the list
of Judahite villages (see E ZRA , ii. 5 5 [b], 5 15 [I].) ;
Neh. 1126 (BHB@AAT [KC.amg.]9 B H B @ A h A T [L], om.
BK”A). For the gentilic Paltite (.c)h?), corruptly
PELONITE (I), see PALTITE.
BETH-PAZZEZ (y?Q-nQ), a n unknown point on
the border of Issachar, Josh. 1921 ( B H ~ C A @ H C [B],
B A I ~ @ A C H E [4, B H e @ A C C H C [L]). Compare the
equally obscure name HAPPIZZEZ.
BETH-PEOR (T\L(p n’a, OIKOC@orwp[BAFL]), a
placenamedinDt.3~9446326Josh. 1320. In Josh.13~0
( B a i e q o r w p [BLJ B€e. [AI) it is enumerated among
the cities of Reuben ; in Dt. 329 446 the ravine (W)) in
front of (5913) it is mentioned as the place where Israel
was encamped when the Deuteronomy discourses were
delivered ; and in Dt. 346 the same ravine is mentioned
a s the place of Moses‘ burial. The exact site is un-
certain; but it seems clear that it cannot have been
very far from the Pisgah ridge. Eusebius states (OS(2)
23378) that BE@+oyopwas near Mount Qoyop (cp ‘ the
top, or head, of Peor,’ iiy?? 9gi, Nu. 2328), opposite
to Jericho, 6 m. above Livias ( L e . , Tell er-Rsmeh ; see
B ETH- HARAN) ; and ( O S 2 ) 21347) that Mount Qoywp
was opposite to Jericho, on the side of the road leading
up from Livias to Heshbon,.a part of it being 7 m. from
the latter place (1151-2). If we may judge from themap
in the Szrrvey of E. PuZesd., the ascent from Livias to
Heshbon would be made naturally either along the
WZdy HesbZn (cp Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 525$ ;
Tristram, Moab, 346)or along the more circuitous road
N. of this, said by Tristram (p. 343) to be the one
ordinarily used. The statements of Eusebius, if correct,
would thus point to a site near one of these two
roads, some four or five miles N. of Nebs. The
‘head of Peor’ (Nu.2328) might be an eminence in
the same locality. The opinion that this was the site
is supported by the mention, in Josh. 1320, of Beth-
peor next to the ‘slopes (nitri~)of Pisgah.’-i.e., in
all probability, the declivities on the S. side of the
Wsdy ‘Ayiin MiisH. The ‘ravine in front of Beth-
poor’ might thus be the WZdy HesbBn. CondeI
(PEFQ 1882, p. 8 5 3 ; Heth a n d M ~ a b , ( 146 ~) J )
suggests a site farther to the S.-e.g., on the crest of a
hill above ‘Ain el-Minyeh, 8 m. SW. of Nebs., com-
manding (see Nu.2328 ; and 242 compared with 25 I )
563
BETH-REHOB
In extensive view of the lower valley of the Jordan.
’eor, however, the spot at which Baal of Peor was
vorshipped (which can hardly have been far from
3eth-peor), would seem (Nu.261-3) to have been more
,eadily accessible from the plain of Shittim (the Gh6r-
:s-Seisebiin) than ‘Ain el-Minyeh would be ; Nu. 2328
:ompared with v . 14 makes it probable also that it was
ess distant from Pisgah ; whilst, as we have seen, what-
:ver other indications we possess point to a site N. of
he Nebo-Pisgah ridge (the modern Nebs, RZs Si’aghah),
ather than to one S. of it. Until, therefore, it has
3een shown that there is no eminence in the neighbour-
iood of the Wady Hesbsn commanding the prospect
mplied in Nu.2328 and 242 (cp 2 5 r ) , it is here that
,he ancient Beth-peor must be sought. Travellers will
3erhaps explore this region with the view of ascertaining
nhether there is such a height. Cp PEOR. s. R. D.
BETHPHAGE ( B H e @ A r H [Ti. WH], BETrfPTSAGE),
a locality near the Mt. of Olives, on a small hlll on the
road from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is mentioned
together with BETHANY [ p . ~ . , I], and probably lay to
the E. of it (Mt.211 Mk.111 Lk.1929). Origen in
Mt. (vol. xvi. chap.17) describes it as a place of priests’
(cp OS(2)18875). According to various passages of
the Talmud, Beth-phagb was the name of the district
extending from the base of Olivet to the walls of
Jerusalem, and, according to the Talm. Bab. (Men. xi. 2,
78 a), Beth-phag&was one of the limits of the Sabbatic
zone around Jerusalem (cp G EZER ), whence C1. Ganneau
would identify it with Kefr e;-‘riir (see PEFQ 1878,
p. 60 ; but see BETH-ZUR).
The current explanation of the name is a little more
plausible than that of BETHANY (4.v.). B?$+uyq (the
9 1 ~ 3n q of Talm.) would naturally m e p ‘place of
young figs’ ; cp JLI in Cant. 213 with Delitzsch’s note.
This, however, may be no more than a popular ety-
mology. Nestle (PhiZ. Sac. 1896 ; cp 2 W T , etc. xl..
148) is convinced that the narrative of the barren fig-
tree, which in Mt.2117-19 Mk. 1112-14 is localised in
Bethany, has arisen out of this faulty popular explanation
of Beth-phagb. It has often been remarked that there
is a startling peculiarity in this narrative as compared
with the other evangelical traditions. See also A.
Meyer, Jesu Mzittersprache, 166.
The mediaeval Bethphagi: was discovered by Guillemot
and Clermont-Ganneau in 1877 between the Mount of
Olives and Bethany. In his account of this discovery
the latter scholar offers the suggestion that the ‘Village
of the Mount of Olives ’ (Key+ e;- Tzi~),which admittedly
stands on the site of some important ancient village,
may be the Bethphage of the Gospels and of the Talmud.
This view would clear up the Talmudic statement
respecting the Sabbatic zone already mentioned. See
PEFQ 1878, pp. 51-61.
BETH-PHELET (D>Cn*i)), Neh. 1126 AV. See
BETH-PALET.
BETH-RAPHA (K@?-n’i)), in an obscure genealogy
of Chelub (=Caleb), I Ch. 412 ( B A B p a i a N [B], -pe@a
[A], B H B p a @ A N [L]). No place of this name is
known ; Rapha appears to be a clan-name, unconnected
of course with ‘Rephaim.’ RAPHA [2] appears to
occur as a name in BENJAMIN ( 5 g, ii. p).
,
BETH-REHOB (ail? n’a, powB [BAL]), a n
Aramaean town and district, which with ZOBAHand
M AACAH sent men to the help of Ammon against
David ( z S. 106, ib. 8, REHOB[ p o ~ B A] , ; BAlepAAB
[L in b ~ t h ] ) . ~See ARAM, 5, 6. It IS stated in Judg.
9 means a jaw or cheek, and from Dt.
1 In the Talmud, ~ 2 also
183 we learn that the cheeks (Syr. has N P ~ )belonged to the
portion of the priests (cp Reland, 653). Hence, on the supposi-
tion that Beth-phage meant ‘place of cheeks,’ it was presumed
that there was a school of priests here.
2 A reference to a similar defeat at the hands of Saul in I S.
1447, Jcp @ pacfkwp [Bl, - p o w p ~ [I.],pfewP [AI). is open to
suspicion ; see SAUL, $ 3, and cp Wi. G V l 1 1421:
564
 BETHSAIDA
1828 that Laish-Dan was in 'the valley that lieth by
Beth-rehob' ( O L K O S pacta [B], 0. powp [L], 0. TUP [A]).
Beth-rehob is doubtless the REHOBof Nu. 1321, which,
according to P, was the most northern point reached
by the spies1 ( p a / ? [B], pow0 [F]). A connection
with the Asherite REHOB(i. 2, 3 ) is improbable (though
not impossible, see A RAM , 8 5 ) . a
The exact site of Beth-rehob is uncertain. It can
hardly be the Jebel Hiinin, finely situated above the
great plain of 'Hiileh to the W. of Biiniiis, and re-
markable for the remains, partly ancient, of a fortress
(so Rob. BR 4 3 7 o J ) . Others have thought of (;inl'at
B u y u , about I hour N. of D a n ; hut may not the
site of the town Beth-rehob he placed quite as reason-
ably at BBniiis itself (see CBSAREA,§ 7f:) ?
BETHSAIDA (BHBCAlhA [Ti.], BHBCAIAA W H 1 ;
Syr. ]+. ; place of fishing or hunting). Josephus
1. Julias. tells us (Ant.xviii. 21) that the Tetrarch
Philip raised a village ( ~ 6 ~Bethsaida
7) on
the Lake of Gennesareth to the rank of a city, and called
it Julias, after Julia the daughter of Augustus. Else-
where he describes Julias as in the Lower Gaulonitis
(BJii. 9 I ) , close to the Jordan ( Vit. 72),near where the
latter runs into the lake (BJiii. lo7). Pliny (v. 15) and
Jerome (Comm. Mt. 16 13) also. place it E. of Jordan.
In conformity with these data, the site has been fixed on
the fertile and very grassy plain El-Buteiha, in the NE.
corner of the lake, either at et-Tell, a mound with
many ruins, close to the Jordan where the latter issues
from the hills, or at Mas'adiyeh, by the mouth of the
river (to which Thomson [Land and Book, ed. 1877,
3601 heard the name Bethsaida attached by Bedouin).
Fish abound on either side of the Jordan's mouth and
(presumably) in the river itself. There can be little
doubt that this was the ' city called Bethsaida ' (Lk. 910;
els rbrrov Epqpoa ~ 6 X e w Ks U X O U ~ L C U pq0.
~ S is not found in
WaBL, etc., which reads els a6hiv KaXovpkqv a$.;
so Ti. W H , etc.) to which Jesus withdrew, as being
in Philip's jurisdiction, when he heard of John's murder
by Antipas (cp Mt.1413). Lk. places near it the
feeding of the five thousand, which Mt. (1414fi) and
Mk. ( 6 3 1 8 ) describe as in a desert ( L e . , uninhabited)
but grassy place (Mt. 1419 Mk. 639 green grass,' such
as grows in the Bufeiha, in contrast to the paler herb-
age of the higher and drier parts), to which Jesus pro-
ceeded by boat, followed by multitudes on foot. J.
also describes the scene on the E. shore of the lake
(61), and says 'there was much grass in the place'
(w. IO). A site on the Bufeiha suits also the Bethsaida
of Mk.. 822, for Jesus was already E. of Jordan (w. 13)
and went thence to the villages of Caesarea Philippi
(v.27). All interpreters of the Gospels are virtually
agreed about this.
The question has been raised, whether there was
not a second Bethsaida. After the feeding of the five
thousand, Jesus, it is said, constrained his
2' Mk' 45' disciples to go before him to the other side
to Bethsaida (Mk. 645, d s ~b aQpav rrpbs a$. ). This
has forced some scholars, one or two much against
their will (Reland, Pal. 6533,Henderson, PaL 156J),
to conclude that there was a Bethsaida to the W. of
Jordan, either a suburb of Julias, separated from it by
the river, or at 'Ain Tiibigha (Rob. LBR 358 f: ), 4 m.
along the coast, where there is a bay containing fish
in abundance, and the modern shrine of Sheikh *A&
ej-&zz$dd, 'Aly of the Fishermen, and strong streams
(Ewing). But, in the first place, the phrase ' to go to the
other side ' does not necessarily imply the passage from
the E. to the W. coast of the lake, for Josephus speaks of
' sailing over ' (&erreparhOvv) from Tiberias to Taricheze
1 The mention of the 'entrance to Hamath' here is possibly
a gloss (cp Moore 3un'g 399).
In zS.83 12 ;he king of Zobah is called 'son of Rehob';
see HADADEZER.
3 So Thomson, LandandBook,P)zr8; Buhl, PnL 240; Moore,
Judg. 399.
565
BETH-SHEAN
( E t . 59), though these towns lay on the same side ;
and, secondly, Jesus would not seek again the territories
of Herod Antipas so soon after leaving them for those
of Philip, but would most probably return to what
Lk. tells us he had just chosen as his headquarters.
We may be certain, then, that the Bethsaida of Mk. S45
is still Bethsaida Julias.
Nor need we seek for another in the 'Bethsaida of
Galilee' to which the Fourth Gospel (144 [45] 1221) says
3. John 144 that Andrew, Peter, and Philip belonged.
In the time of the Great War (66-70 A.D.)
["l 1221* the name Galilee appears to have been
extended round the Lake-Josephus calls Judas of
Gamala the Galilean (Ant.xviii. 16)-and at even an
earlier date the jurisdiction of the ruler of Galilee may
have comprised part of the E. coast (cp BJxx. 4).
Besides, a town which lay so immediately on the Jordan
might easily be reckoned to Galilee. In any case,
by 84 A.D. the E. coast was definitely attached to the
province, and Ptolemy (v. IS), writing about 140,
places Julias ' i n Galilee.' That being so, it is signi-
ficant that it is only the Fourth Gospel that speaks
of ' Bethsaida of Galilee.' There is, therefore (as held
by Wilson, Recov. of / e m s . ; Thomson, Land andBook,
ed. 1877. 372 8 ; Holtzmann, /PT,1878, pp. 383f:;
Furrer, ZDPV 2 66 8 ; Socin and Benzinger in Baed.
ed. 1891,p. 256 ; GASm. HG 4573; Buhl, Pal. 2413)
no reason compelling us to the theory of a second or
western Bethsaida. It is interesting that the disciple
of Jesus called Philip should come from Philip's Julias.
Early Christian tradition and the medieval works of travel
agree in showing no trace of more than one Bethsaida. The
site shown for it, however is uncertain, and may have varied
from age to age. Eusebins and Jerome define it only a s
on the Lake (OS). Epiphanius (Huer. ii. 51 73) merely says
i t was not far from Capernaum. Willihald's data (722 A.D.),
which place it on his journey between Capernaum and Chorazin.
suit the E. bank of the Jordan (in spite of what Robinson says)
even if Chorazin (q.u.) he KerBzeh, but Gergesa (Khersa) may
be meant.
In ,all probability Bethsaida remained locally distinct
from Julias after the erection of the latter by Philip.
The custom of Jesus was not to enter such purely Greek
towns as Julias must have been ; yet, according to Mt.
1121, he did many 'wonderful works ' in Bethsaida
Jnlias had fourteen villages round about it (Jos. Ant.
xx. 84). Schumacher suggests for Bethsaida some ruins
on the Lake called el-'Araj, which were joined with
et-Tell (Julias) by a Roman road (ZDPY 9 19).
G. A. S.
BETHSAMOS (BaieacMwe [A]), I Esd. 518 AV ;
RVmg. AZMAVETH (Y.v., i. ).
BETH-SHEAN ( p & V ~ , § go, cp Ba-y-tj-~a-'E-?y,
;.e., $NwncI, WMM AS. U. E ~ Y153.; . BAleCA[A]N
[BAL]), or Beth-shan (]g-njp,in pause
1. Position. \@'a ; B H ~ C A N[A], Bale. [L]),or Beth-
san (I Macc. 5521240 [p~Oua(A)]f. ), mod. Beisan,
320 ft. below the sea-level, was finely situated on a low
table-land above the Jordan valley, at the mouth of
the W. Jgliid, which leads gently np from the Jordan
to Zer'in (Jezreel). The Jordan itself is three miles
off (cp ZARETHAN, I ) ; but Beth-shbiin was unusually
well supplied with water, being intersected by two
streams. Amid the extensive ruins rises the teZ2 of the
ancient fortress, ' a natural mound, artificially strength-
ened by scarping the side' (PEFMem. 2108).
The illustration given in the Memoirs of the Survey Will enable
the. reader to divine the grandeur of the prospect from this
eminence. ' The eye sweeps from four to ten miles of the plain
all round, and follows the road westward to Jezreel, covers the
thickets of Jordan where the fords lie, and ranges the edge of the
eastern hills from Gadara to the Jabbok' (GASm. HG 357).
This ' farthest-seeing, farthest-seen fortress ' must
have been hard for the Israelites to conquer; yet
till it was in their hands they were ex-
2' HistOq' cluded from one of the main roads between
western and eastern Palestine, and from the occupation
of a coveted portion of the Jordan valley. That Beth-
566
 BETH-SHEAN
h e a n was included in one of the prefectures of Solomon's
kingdom is certain ( I I<. 412, 6 O ~ K O S6uu and /3uiuu@ouT
-Le., y ' d '3 [B], 6 OZKOS uuv and peOuuv [A], O ~ O S
uuuv and put&. [L]).1 On the death of Saul, on the
other hand, we find it in the hands of the Philistines
(I S. 3110, PuiOep [B], 12, -0uup [B], zS.2112, pur0
[B]); and, though Beth-shean may be one of the
' cities of the Jordan ' (I S. 31 7, corr. text) which the
Israelites deserted after the battle of Gilboa, it is
equally likely that it was still a Canaanitish city when
captured by the Philistines. We know, at any rate,
that it retained its Canaanite population for some time
after the Israelite occupation of Palestine (Judg. 127,
pui87h [B], peouuv [L] ; Josh. 17 XI, K u l ~ o u v [B"b],
pateuav [Bamg.], 16 patOatuav [B]). It may possibly
have been as. late as the time of David that this
great fortress fell into the hands of the Israelites.
Standing on the road from Damascus to Egypt and
also from Damascus by Shechem to Jerusalem and
Hebron, it had a commercial as well as a military
importance which would have attracted the notice of
such a keen-sighted Icing as David.
From the Macedonian period onwards Beth-shean
bore the strange Greek name Scythopolis (see Judg. 127,
@ p. 4 h t v ~ K U & ? l V d h t S ; 2 Macc. 1229-31, etc.),
which probably records the fact (or belief) that some
of the Scythian invaders of the seventh cent. B.C. (see
S CYTHIANS) had settled here. In N T times it was one
of the most important cities of the DECAPOLIS (g.v., § 2). that in E's narrative they turn S. (to Zarethan) through
BETH-SHEMESH (!&@ n'j, § 95$-i. e., 8 temple
of the sun '-BalecAMyc [BAL] : gentiliC '@?
d Zv p. [BA]. 6 6~ /3. [L], in I S. 614, 71. 18 purfbupu-
uetnp [BL], p ~ B 8 a p u u r ~ ~[A],
s EV. Beth-shemite).
I. Bethshemesh or IR-SHEMESH ( WDJq 7'7,Josh. 1941,
rrohic CAMBC [AL], rrohsic CAMMAYC [B]), a
Levitical city (Josh. 2116, BEeCAMEC [AIS T H N CAMEC
[L] ; I Ch. 659 [44], B A C ~ M Y C [B]) on the borders of
Judah (Josh. 1510, no hi^ H A I O Y [BAL]),but assigned
to Dan (Josh. 194r), is the modern Am Shems,
917feet above sea level, on the south side of the broad
and beautiful and still well-cultivated W. e s - S a r ~ , names, the vicinity of Hebron, and the fruitfulness of
opposite Zorah and two m. from it : 'anoble site for
a city ; a low plateau at the junction of two fine pl2ns '
(Robinson). It is a point in the lowland on the road
from I'hilistia (Ekron) to the hill-country of Judah
(I Sam. 6 g 1zb 13 15 19 PeBBu@ur [A], I + Z O PeBuu. [A]),
and probably was an ancient sanctuary, since the field
of Joshua the Beth-shemite was for some time during
the Philistine domination the resting-place of the ark.
In truth, it is difficult not to identify it with the gama-
Bana of the Palestinian lists of Rameses 11. ( R N 627 ) ; Nimrin.
WMM As. u. Eur. 166) and Rameses I I L 2 (RE'(') The notices of Eus. and Jer. (OS 235 17 104 17 ; cp 156~0)
6 39), whose sanctuary may be presumed to be connected
with the myth of SAMSON ( q . 7 ~ ) . It was at Beth-
sliemesh that Amaziah of -Judah was defeated and
made prisoner by Jehoash, king of Israel (2 K. 14 11-13,
IT p7Buupue EA4],13 pee. [A], 2 Ch. 2521-23). According
to the Chronicler, it was one of the cities in the lowland
of Judah taken by the Philistines from Ahaz, ' king of
Israel ' (2Ch. 28 18). The place was still shown in
the days of Eusebius and Jerome, who give its position
as I O R.m. E. of Eleutheropolis on the road to Nico-
polis-a statement which suits the identification given
above. There are many traces of ancient buildings.
2. An unidentified city within the territory of Naph-
tali, apparently in its northward portion (Josh. 1938,
Oeuuupus [B], &upour [A], p i h a p s [L]). From Judg.
133 (pe8uupus [A]) we learn that, along with Bethanath,
its population continued to be chiefly Canaanite.
3. An unidentified city on the border of Issachar
(Josh. 1922, parsupus [A], piBuupts [L]), perhaps= (2), with Penuel; for elision of K cp HAMUL. It is
if the latter lay in the extreme south of Naphtali.
1 The double mention of Beth-shean probably arises from a
corruption of the text.
a The latter was discovered by Sayce at Medinet Habti in 1892.
567
BETHUL
4. A city of Egypt, mentione-d in Jer. 4313, ( $ w u
rohews [B&AQ]) ' he shall break the obelisks of Beth-
,hemeshin the land of Egypt.' It is commonly supposed
e.,r., by Griffith in Hastings' DB) that what is meant is
-Ieliopolis, the city of the sun (see ON) ; but n92 is
;imply dittographed from n i l in nixn.. We should
.cad VDO nnxn, 'pillars of the sun' or obelisks (Wi.
4T Untei-s. S o $ ; Che. Zntr. Is. 102, n. 2).
BETH-SHITTAH (ny&;? nq--i.e., 'place of
tcacias') is mentioned in Judg. 722 (BHeCBbTA [B],
3 b C 8 6 T T A [AI, BAleACETTA [L]) as a Point to which
.he panic-stricken Midianites fled before Gideon. It
was on the way toward ZERERAH (see ZARETHAN,
legin. ), but has not been identified ; probably it was
well down in the Jordan valley, at the mouth of some
wady where acacias qourished. The identification with
Shatta on the north side of the W. JBlkd, 5 m. NW. of
Beisan and 6 m. E. of Zer'in (cp Rob., Conder, etc.)
has little to recommend it : it lies much too near the
supposed scene of the surprise. More, perhaps, could
be said for BeisBn. Others compare el-Meshetta (see
M D P K 1895, pp. 81 8 ; Schnmacher, Z D P K
1564 writes mnsha&z) 14 m. SSE. of Jogbehah. The
whole narrative is, however, composite (see J UDGES, 8),
and the Heb. construction favours the assumption that
Zererah does not belong to the same source as Beth-
shittah. In J Midian flees east from Shechem to the
other side of the Jordan, whereas from 71. 24 it appears
the Jordan valley, where they are intercepted by the
Ephraimites
@ (cp Moore,
I% ludg. 212).,
BETH-SURA ( H Beecoypa [A]), I Macc. 461;
z Macc. 11 5 RV Bethsuron. See BETH-ZUR.
BETH-TAPPUAH (nlbn-np, § 103-i.e., ' place
of tappk&h' ; see APPLE), a town in the hill-country of
Judah (Josh. 1553, Baieaxoy [Bl, Beeearr@oys [AI,
BHeeac$. [L]), having a traditional connection with its
greater neighbonr Hebron (I Ch. 243, see TAPPUAH, I),
and very possibly identical with the fortified town called
TAPHON (4.v.)in I Macc. 950. If the similarity of
the district prove anything, the modern Tej%& is the
ancient Beth-tappuah. The village so named is 39 m.
W . by N. from Hebron, and stands on a high hill, the
slopes of which are planted with aged olive-trees;
indeed, the whole of the Wkdy Tufk+ abounds in fruit-
trees of all kinds. Traces of old buildings remain, and
there are two anccent wells (Rob. LBR 2 428 ; GuBrin,
Tu&, 3374). Several ancient sites named Beth have
lost this prefix. Thus the ;nnj .w> of Nu. 3236 is modern
are of interest only as showing that there was another place
on the confines of Palestine and Egypt bearing the same name.
Whatever the fruit called tappiisb was (see APPLE), it was as
common in Palestine as quinces and apricots are now.
5,.
BETHUEL ($&in:, for K9nD, 'man of El ?-cp
Methushael, and see CAINITES, § 7 ; hardly for Ass.
d i t i6, 'house of a deity' ; BAeoyHh [ADEL]).
I. B. Nahor ; father of Laban and Rebekah (Gen.
2222f. 2415 [J]). In Gen. 2520285 [PI he is called an
' Araniaean,' as is also his son Laban in 31 2024. See
A RAM, § 3.
2. See BETHUL.
BETHUL ( h p ) ,a Simeonite town (Josh. 194, Boyha
[B], BAOoyh [AL]): called BETHUEL ($wq BaeoyN
[B], -oyA [A], - o y ~ A [L]) in I Ch. 430,and corruptly
CHESIL ($?p?)in11 Josh. 1530 ( Baie~A[E]. xaceip [AI,
csisih [L]). The form s N i n > may perhaps be classed
doubtless the BETHEL (hyn-2, part?+ [AL], p a t h o u p
-Le., Beth-zur [R]) of I S. 30 27, mentioned along with
1 The situation of Beth-zur is less suitable (We., Dr.).
568
 BETHULIA
Jattir and other places in the Negeb ; but the site has
not yet been identified. There was probably a Bethel
near Gaza.’
BETHULIA ( B e ~ y A o y [BRA],
~ [the preferable
reading ; but BAITOYAOYA [BKJ BAITYAOYA [BKA]
are also found] ; B E T H U L A [vg.] ; &a b )the , Hebron, 4& m. N. from the latter city. The modern
centre of the action in the book of Judith (221 [S”]
46 [SI, BAITOYAIA 61o[ 14718): In the shorter
version of the narrative its place is taken by Jeru-
salem, and there is little doubt that Bethulia (properly
Betylua) represents ’y-n.9, the house of God-viz.,
Jerusalem (see JUDITH, ii. ). So already Reuss, who,
however, together with Welte, derived the name from
@$E n.2. Bertholdt’s conjecture vim?,
‘ virgin of
Yahw&I) may be worth noticing.
According to therepresentations of the book (cp 4673),
Bethutia lay near Jezreel, upon a rock by a valley,
commanding the passes to the S. (so Buhl, Pal. 201,
n. 627). Various identifications have been suggested.
Some have sought for it near the modern Kefr Knd formerly
Capharcatia NE. of the plain of Dothan (Hi cp alsd Riehm):
other sug$e&ions are the fortress SBniir (Grovz in Smith‘s DB),
Kh. Hatiilk el-Mellsh Marta, quoted in ZDPV 12 117) Jenin
(Ew ) Beit Ilfi (Schult$,,and plau doubt (6 and Az being
often ’confounded) Mithiliyeh or (Conder ; Socin, also
inclines to this ;iew, Bad. Pb, 226). More recently, Torrey
(]our%. Anz. Or. Soc. 20 1 6 0 3 1’991) argues ably in favour of
Shechem.
So large and important a place as Bethulia-with its
rulers and elders (61416), its streets and towers ( ~ z z ~ z ) , BETONIM ( D p b a , 5 103-ie.,
and its siege, lasting for four-and-thirty days, by an
immensely superior army (7 20)-cannot reasonably be
identified with any small and insignificant locality. I t
remains to be added that the mention of Jerusalem
and Bethulia as two distinct places (cp 46 1 5 5 J ) is
probably to be assigned to a time when the identity of
the ideal Bethnlia with Jerusalem was forgotten.
S. A. C.
BETHZACHARIAS, AV (by misprint ?) BATH-
ZACHARIAS (BEezaXbpia [AI, BAle. [KV] ; JOS. Beez.,
BHTZ.), the scene of the defeat of Judas the Maccabee is TU,, RV ‘ espouse.’ There is some disorder in the text.
by Lysias, and of the death of his brother Eleazar
( I Macc. 632J). Its position is defined by Josephus
(Ant. xii. 94) as 70 stadia (N.) from Bethsur ; it is thus
represented by the modern Beit-Sukdrid (described by
Robinson (’4 3283f. and PEP Mem. 335 108).
BETHZATHA ( B H ~ z A ~ A ) , the reading adopted by
Ti. WH in Jn. 5 n, where T R has BETHESDA. For the
evidence, see WH. ii. App. 76 : perhaps the purest
form would be B@j-uarO&, ‘ the place of the olive’ (cp
BEZETH).
BETH-ZUR ( V X T ’ ~ ,Bsecoyp [AL], § 96, ‘house
of rock,’ or, on the analogy of Beth-el, ‘house of Zur’
-a divine name, Nestle, Eigennamen,47, n. I ; Hommel
A H T 319; see ZUR),a city in the hill-country of
Judah, mentioned between Halhul and Gedor (Josh.
1558, @.iOuoup [B]; cp I Ch. 245, where Bethzur-
ysSuoup [B], prltluoup [ALI-is the ‘ son ’ of Maon), is
stated in z Ch. 117 (paiOuoupu [B], T+JY paiOu. [A],
T$V pah’uoup [L]) to have been fortified by Rehoboam.
It was head of a district in Nehemiah’s time (Neh.
3 16, p ~ u o p[BR], uoup [A]). Frequently an object
of struggle in the Maccabean wars (4 paiOuoodpa, T$
(p. [KV]. $ /3eOa., TUP. [AK], I Macc. 42961 6726314950 (SBOr),and on the other side Di., who gives no paralld, how-
952; 1014 paiOuoupos [Vi]; 116514733),5it was in the
time of Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5 6 ) ‘ the strongest place in
1 Bethel @7pJshia) a populous village of Gaza with very
ancient and much-rivered temples, is mentioned by Sozomen
(v. 15 14, p. 202). [MS note of WRS.1
a For the form Betylua, cp the magical stones Bretylia, which
derive their name from Beth-el; and on interchange of the
forms Bethn- and Beth- see BETHUL.
3 So Jerusalem is rAferred to as ~ 6 p qin Sihyll. 3784-786
(APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 0 8 6 8 ) . Cp DAUGHTER, 4.
4 Possibly also in I S. 302; (see BETHEL, 2).
6 In zMacc. 13 r g z z G-4 has c, pa&. 115 ,¶sOuoupov [AI, naim ’ (following the points), or of ‘ Bezaanim,’ or ‘ of
parOuoupwv [VI.
569
BEZAANANNIM
all Judaea,’ and was still an inhabited village (p$uwpo
Bethsoro) in the days of Eusebius and Jerome ( O S
104,z7; 326 26). It is represented by Bit S i r (Bz&
S i r ) . and occupies a position of strategic import-
ance as commanding the road from Jerusalem to
village has a ruined tower, and ‘ there are hewn stones
scattered about, as also some fragments of columns,
and many foundations of buildings. ...It must have
been a small place ’ (Robinson).
I f the statements in 2 Macc. 115 (RV BETKSURON)
are reliable
there mnst have been asecond Beth-zur in the neighbourbood of
Jerusalem. Grimm suggests the modern village of Bet-SXbiir
half-an-hour SE from Jerusalem. Schick, with more prohahilit<
identifies it with the modern Kefr-et-Tzzr’(the Ar. form of Beth-
znr) on the central height of the Mbint of Olives (PEFQ, Jan.
1895, p. 37, see Camb. Bibk on I Macc. 4 2 9 . See, however,
BETHPHAGE.
BETOLIUS ( B E T O A I ~ [B]), I Esd.521 A V ; RV
Betolion= Ezra 2 28, BETHEL.
BETOMESTHAM, RV Betomesthaim in Judith
46, or Betomasthem, RV Betomasthaim in 154
(BAITOMA[llCeAlM P I , - A C e € N [KIP BETOMEC~AIM
[A] ; p h ; om. C W Vg. in 46 and @*
Vg. Syr. in 154) lay over against Jezreel in face of the
plain that is near Dothan.’ If ‘ toward ’ ( K U T ~7rp6uw7rov)
can be taken as meaning a eastward of’ the plain of
Dothan, we are able to determine its position pretty
nearly ; but the exact site has not been identified.
‘ pistachio nuts,’
BOTANEI [Bl, -NIN [A], -NEIM [L]), in Gadite
territory (Josh. 1326), may perhaps be Baganah, 3 m.
W. from es-Salt (Ramoth-gilead).
BETROTHAL. The Heb. verb is * h R ’&a? (65
M N H C T E Y E C ~ A I ) , on which see M ARRIAGE , I.
In 2 S. 3 14, RV rightly has ’ betrothed ’ instead of AV
espoused. ’ S o also in Mt. 1 18 Lk. 12 2 5. In Lev. 19 z o t
the verb is qm,and seems to denote marriage by capture
rather than marriage by purchase. In Ex. 218J.f. it
5
BEULAH( ;I 9Y3, ‘married’; OIKOYMENH [BKAQ],
Aq. ECXHMENH, Symm. Theod. C Y N F K I C M E N H ) ,
the symbolical name (Is. 624) by which Zion may fitly
be called when her land is ‘ married’ (spzc ; cp BAAL).
Two primitive and related ideas underlie the expression.
The first is that the people of a land, as well as all
other ‘fruits’ (Dt. 284), arise from the fertilising influ-
ence of the lands Baal or divine Husband (cp RS(4
107 f.); the second, that a people which remains
faithful to the land’s divine Husband is sure of his pro-
tection. The former is merely hinted by means of the
contrast of the two names ‘ Desolate ’ and ‘ Married ’
(Is.624) ; in Is.541-6, on the other hand, it engrosses
the mind of the prophetic writer. It is on the latter,
as the context shows, that the writer of Is. 62 (who is
not the author of Is. 54) wishes to concentrate our
attention. Zion is at present despised (v. 7), and her
harvests are plundered by the heathen (v. Sf.) ; but
when her land is once more ‘married,’ she will be
entitled to the protection of the God of the whole earth.
The sense of the passage has been obscured by an error in the
vowel points. For ,;S!: ‘thy sons’ (v.5), read ?@h‘he who
bnildeth thee up’ (cp 5411f: Ps.147~). See Du. Che.
ever, for the startling play upon meanings which he assumes.
T. K. C.
BEZAANANNIM (D’JJgY:) occurs in Josh. 1933
RVmg.9 ‘ the oak of Bezaanannim,’ where EV has ‘ the
oak in ZAANANNIM,‘ a view of the text now pretty
generally abandoned. The ‘oak (or sacred tree)of Bezaa-
nannim ’ is a landmark on the W. border of Naphtali,
following Heleph, and preceding Adanii-nekeb and
Jahneel, and is usually identified with ‘ the oak of Bezaa-
Bezaanannim (K’rE) in Judg. 411,where RV has ‘the
570
 ’ BEBAANANNIM BIDKAR
oak in Zaanannim,’ and has inconsistently omitted to foreign Wives (see E z m , i. 5, end), Ezra 1030 (j+ueAqX [BA],
record the modern view of the text in the margin. d p~uu.[N], p r u u d q h [L]=I Esd. 931, SESTHEL(uEuO~A[BA]).
rzads in Josh. 1933 K U ~pwha Kul ~ E U E ~ L E W[B]. K. T. K. C.
pqhwv Kal Pemvaucp [A], K. whap ueevuve~p[L]; in BEZEK (p];, cp § 100,‘gravel’? cp Syr. ; B E Z ~ K
Judg. 4 11 hws Gpvbs T ~ E O Y E K T O ~ Y T W V[B ; so Theod.], [BAL] ; BEZEC). I. A place at which Saul mustered
npbs SpOv dvanauopdvwv [AL] ; see Field‘s HexapZu. the force he had raised for the relief of Jabesh-gilead ;
The difficulty connected.with the phrase is twofold. I S. 118 (apie&K cv papa [B] ; EY P E ~ [A]~ K; Zuouh ev
(I) In Joshua Lc., this famous tree is placed on the
pupa [L]). Eusebius ( O S 2 )23752) locates two neigh-
border of Naphtali ; but Judges Z.C., read in the light of bouring villages of this name 17 R. m. from Neapolis
J’ldg. 417 524, makes the tree much nearer to the battle- on the road to Scythopolis ; beyond doubt Khirbet Ibzik,
field, which, according to Judg.51gz1, was by the 14 Eng. m. from NTLbulus and nearly opposite the lower
stream Kishon. (z) The name is inexplicable, whether end of Wiidy Yiibis, with which Eshtori Parchi (A.D.
we read nqys2 (Bezaanim ?) or omyr> (Bezaanannim ?). 1322)identified it. See PEFMem. 2231237.
If, however, several times in Judges (see K ADESH), and 2. A place at which Judah and Simeon, in invading
once in Judg.4 (see H AROSHETH ), the name fidip= the S. of Palestine, encountered a3d routed the
lc‘1.2 has been correctly restored, it is plausible to Canaanites under Adoni-bezek ; Judg. 1 4 f. (Pa@%
suppose that the incomprehensible name, pronounced [A] ; om. BY in v. 5 ) . Many scholars, from Eusebius
sometimes Bezaanaim or (better) Bezaanim, sometimes downwards, identify this with No. I ; but this is in-
Bezaanannim, may conceal the same old name, especially admissible.
as in Judg. 411 the words ‘which is by Kedesh’ are Judah and Simeon set out from the neighbonrhood of Gilgal
(Judg. 116f: 2 I) to invade the region in which they afterwards
added. It is extremely probable that both in the settled ; the end of the story of Adoni-bezek conducts him to
far north (see K ADESH, z) and in the territory of Jerusalem, which was probably his own city (Adoni-zedek, king
Issachar there was a place which bore the name of of Jerusalem ’ see ADONI.&EZEK and ADONI-ZEDEC). Ihzik
lies wholly o d of this sphere of action and in a quite differeit
Kadshon (Kidshon) ; the people of either place could direction.
be called Kadshonim (Kidshonim). Nor need we The Bezek of Judg. 1 must be sought much farther
hesitate to emend wiyrz (the form which the best critics south. Conder would find it at Bezkeh, 6 m. SE. of
prefer) to n>$dia, a form which should be restored, Lydda (PEFMem. 336) ; but this view is scarcely
as the present writer has sought to show, in Judg. 5226 probable. In view of the change which the name of the
(see K A D E S H ~ ) .It is easier to suppose that the ‘oak’ king has suffered, it may be questioned whether the
or ‘ sacred tree ’ which forms the subject of this article name of the place has been correctly preserved.
was near the Kidshon (Kedesh) of Issachar than to follow G. F. M.
the Priestly Writer in Joshua, who places it on the border BEZER (75’2,5 106, ‘fortress’ ; Bocop [BAL]), a
of Naphtali. The error o f the latter seems to have
arisen from the statements in Judg. 4 6 9 5 . which place levitical city and city of refuge, Dt. 443 Josh. 208 2136
the mustering of the Israelitish warriors at Kedesh- (om. M T ; Bocwp [L]), I Ch. 678 [63]-the B OZRAH [ I ]
Naphtali. The error of the scribe who wrote ~ q y y z (?&I of
)Jer. 4824 (apouop)-is described in Josh. 208
was facilitated by an inopportune recollection of the as lying in the wilderness on the (Amorite) ‘ Mishor ’ or
form n’Jyi3 KBna‘ anim (Canaanites). Whether he also Tableland, and is usually identified with the modern
thought of the new Heb. nyaz, ‘ ditch, dike, pond ’ (cp @:zir eZ-Besheir (or Beshir), about 2 m. SW. of Dibon,
m p , ‘marsh,’ Job 811 ~ O Z I ) , cannot be determined and about the same distance N. of Aroer. King Mesha
of Moab in his inscription (1.27) says : ‘ I built Bezer,
(cp Neub. Ghg?. TuZm. 225). for ruins had it become.’ With this place some have
An identification of ‘Bezaanim’ with Khirbet Bessfim, E. of identified BOSOR(4.v., 2).
Tabor, on the plateau of the Sea of Galilee, was proposed by
Conder in PEFQ ’77, p: 25 (so T e d Work, 2 732); cp
GASm. HG 396, who considers it ‘well supported.’ But we BEZER (75’2;coBah [B], Bacap [ALI), in genealogy
must first of all be sure of the reading of the name. I t is of ASHER[§ 4 (ii.)], I Ch. 737f.
remarkable that tradition still affirmed that the ‘oak o f . .
which was a fixed element in the story, was ‘by Kedesi:’ BEZETH (BHZE8 [AI, BH8za18 [K], B a 1 0 z ~ [VI, 8
Of course, n 7 - m i t y ~is not required when we read BHpZHeW [JOS. A d . Xii. 102 ; but BHBZHBW, ib.,
~’>a.rpp+N-ly, ‘to the sacred tree of the Kidshonim.’ BHpZH00,xii. 11I ; Schlatter, ZDPY19zz4]), a place
T. K. C.
near Jerusalem where Bacchides encamped, and, having
BEZAI (’Y3, § 52 ; Hilprecht has found the Jewish slain some deserters and prisoners, threw them into ‘ the
name BiSH on a tablet from Nippur [PEFQ, Jan. 1898, great pit ’ which was there ( I Macc. 7 19). The readings
p. 551). The b’ne Bezai, a family in the great post- of @R and Syr. in this passage (b? b [ed. Lag.])
exilic list (see E ZRA, ii., §§ 9, 8c). Ezra217 (Bacoy point to an original Beth-zaith (house of the olive).
P I 3 -cc. [AI, Bacei [LI)=Neh.723 (Becel [BK], Hence it is possible that Bezeth may be the later Bezetha
Baci [A], -CCH [L]=rEid.516 BASSA, RV BASSAI ( I place of olives’), the name given to the N. end of the
(Baccai [BI, -cca [AI, -CCEI [Ll) ; represented among plateau, on the S. part of which lay Jerusalem. See
the signatories to the covenant (see E ZRA , i. J 7). BETHZATHA, JdRUSALEM, OLIVES. MOUNT OF.
Neh.1018[19] (BHCEI [BAI, BH&l [KIP Becei [Ll).
BEZALEEL, RV Bezalel (\&?, $8 22, 29, ‘ in the
shadow of God ’ ; cp BESODEIAH ; P E U E I E ~ [BAL]).
X
The form is improbable. Sil-Bel, ‘ Bel is a shelter,’ the BICBRI (*???, 61 ; Boxopei [BAI, BeAAaAi [I2])
name of a king of Gaza in Sennacherib’s time (KA n Sheba b. Bichri (2S. 20 I 3 ), a gentilic from BECHER
n2) iCq.v.1.
162),even if correctly represented, is not parallel. Read
The plural Bichrites (PW?;?) is postulated
h r h , ‘ God rescues,’ and cp the Phmn. names ’7yzlc$n, by BRAKC^ ~ d v r e hv
s Xappa) in z S. 20 74 in place of
y5ninrz~. The number of the artificial religious names [u.v.]. See SHEBA,
BERITES ii. (I), BENJAMIN, § g, ii. p.
--
of later times has been exaeeerated.
I. b. Uri h. Hnr of the tribe of Jodah, a Calebite (I Ch. 2 20))
BIDKAE (7273; BAAEK [Ll, -I(&
[Bl, - ~ a [BbAl),
p
a skilled workman in gold silver, and brass, who together with B a A a ~ a p[Bamg;], Jehu’s adjutant (L&@), 2 K. 925.
Aholiab executed the wdrk of the tabernacle (Ex. 31 z 35 30 The name is noteworthy, because the chief support of
361 f: 371 3822, all P). H e is mentioned in zCh. 1 s as
having made the brazen altar. the theory that 2 at the heginning of proper names some-
2. One of the b‘ne Pahath-Moab in the list of those with times stands for ‘ son of’ i s that Pesh. here has ~ R Y - ~ ~ & z Y
(hence ‘2 = ~p?,-]?,‘ son of piercing ’- a suitable name for
a warrior ; cp Lanzknecht ; cp Ass. 6indiKiri [Del. ZKF
572
 BIER
21721, and see BENDEKER). For other examples, all
doubtful, see Ges. Thes. col. 349; Konig, Lehrgeb.
2248; and against this 01s. Ne6. Gr. 613. Halevy
(Rech. Bi61. iii., REI, Jan,-June 1885) thinks 3 in all
these words=[3]3~. For this 3= p theory we can hardly
cite the one or two cases in Phcenician, probably
accidental (CIsi. 1922, 3933). Does C F ' s BU&Kimply
a reading v w h w i pix, ' €3. chief (ddi) of his (Jehu's)
captains ' ? . W. R. S .
BIER (a&, K ~ I N H ) .2s. 331 ; ( C O P O C ) ~Lk. 714.
See DEAD, 5 I.
BIGTHA (HQag; BUPAZH [BKL21, [oaps] B ~ A interest in the fortunes of Joseph : Gen. 37 22 29 : E.,)
[A]), a chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Esth. 110). Marq.
(Fund. 71) finds its Gr. equivalent in fqpaOaOa [A], for
pa{qOaOa, whence he restores ~ n i 3 (misread 3 Nniiz) =O.
Pers. bagadZta, 'given by God ' ; cp BAGOAS, and see
ESTHEX, ii. 3.
BIGTHAN ()Q?3,etymology doubtful ; B a r a e a N 2) the son of Reuben (Josh. 156 18 17), as an indication
[Kc.a mg. sup.] ; BKAL om. ; Jos. B a r a e w o c ) , Esth. 221,
or Bigthana, Esth. 62 (H;iI;J; d as in 221 ; Jos. W. of the Jordan ( ' in that land : ' Gen. 35 22) ? That
raBATAlOC), a chamberlain of Ahasuerus, who, in
Esth. 12 I, is called GABATHA (-yupuOa [BKALa]). See
ESTHER, ii. § 3.
BIGVAI (VJJ, rather BAGOI, L e . , BAGOAS[4.v.] ; De Gent. 12 n. I). It was Rachel, however, not Bilhah,
B A r O y A [AI, -oyia [L]).
I . A leader (see E ZRA , ii. $ 8 e) in the great post-exilic list (8.
ii. 0 g), Ezra 2 2 (pa7ouuL [Bl, payouat [Ll)=Neh. 7 7 (paroe6
[BN] payou'ac [A])=I Esd. 5 8 , 6 V REELIUS
fiay&c
(@opoAe~ou[BA]
[L]); signatory t o the covenant (see E ZRA , i. $ 7), N e d
10 16 [IT](payom [Bl, -OCL PA],. pauouc [LI).
a. Family in great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. $8 9, Sc),
Ezra 2 14 ( p a o y a [B], payoua [Avid], -ouaL [LI)=Neh. 7 19
(j3ama [BNA])=r Esd. 5 74, BAGOI(j3ouac [B], @ayoc [A], -ouaL
Family in Ezra's caravan (see E ZRA , i. 5 2, ii. $ 15 [i.] d),
Ezra 814 (payo [Bl apouaa [AI, yapouca [L])=I Esd. 640
BAGO (pavat [Bl, pa;olA]). Cp H EGAI.
BIKATH-AVEN (\~$7l&'~J),
Am. 1 5 AVmg. See
AVEN,3.
BILDAD (73\3, § 43, BahAaA [BKACI, -hac [AI),
the Shuhite ('see S HUAH ), one of Job's friends (Job2 II
andelsewhere). The name either means 'Bel has loved'
(cp Nold. ZDMG 42 479 r88])! or is a softened form
of Bir-dad, which appears to lie at the root of BEDAD
(so Del. Par. 298). See ELIDAD, and cp DOD.
BILEAM (D!$3, J 77), I Ch. 670 [55]. See IBLEAM.
I 2 3,
BILGAH (1
I.
;\
, ' cheerfulness ' 1).
Head of the fifteenth course of priests, I Ch. 24 14 (PEA a
[AI, -a8 [L]). @ B has fppyp, which must represent Immer txe
head of the sixteenth course. ( y d p a , the name of the h d d of
the fourteenth in @B [MT X??;],is merely a transposed form
of Bilgah in a different place in the list.)
2. A priest @aAyas [Nc.a'"g.], OCA. [Ll ; om. BRA) in Zerub-
babel's hand (E ZRA, ii. 0 6 a), Neh. 12 5 ;in v. 18(p.aAya [ N u mg.],
pehyas [L] ; om. BNA) a 'father's house.' Cp also BILGAI.
BILGAI (Behrb[e]i [AL], -Ac[elia [BRI), a priestly
signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA , 1. 6,7),Neh.
108 [g]. No doubt the same as BILGAH.
BILHAH ( ail
T\ 3 ; [BADEL], but I Ch. 7 13
BAAAM [BIB- h a b ~ , [ L ] ) .
I. The 'mother of the tribes Dan and Naphtali,
according to J ; also represented as the maid of Rachel
(mother of the house of Joseph) and concubine of Jacob
and his eldest son Reuben.
W e have not, unfortunately, the means of determining
how far we are warranted in regarding these relations
as representing traditions of fact, and how far they may
be imaginative incidents of the story. Was Rilhah, e.g.,
a tribe (Canaanitish? AramEan ?), elements of which
were taken up into some of the clans of the house of
Joseph (the first Israel) in the earliest days after their
arrival in W. Palestine before they crystallized into the
three well-known branches (Manasseh-Machir, Ephraim,
573
BINDING AND LOOSING
Benjamin) ? Or does the name, which occurs nowhere
outside of Genesis (and the equivalent I Ch. 7 13), simply
indicate that not only Dan but once also Naphtali tried
unsuccessfully to settle somewhere in the Highlands of
Ephraiin before betaking itself to the extreme north ?
Or, once more, is this true only of Dan, the inclusion
of Naphtali being then due simply to its geographical
nearness to Dan in its later seat, and to its worthiness
to stand by the side of the noble Rachel tribes (Judg.
5 18)? Again, is the Reuben story (Gen. 35 22 I Ch. 5 I )
to be brought into connection with the other traces of
the extension of the house of Joseph (cp Reuben's
beyond Jordan (M ACHIR ; E PHRAIM , WOOD O F ), or is it
to be explained, as Stade (Cesch. 1119)explains it, as a
memorial of the primitive society that survived E. of the
Jordan when there had been a change in W. Palestine?
Or are we to give serious consideration to a combination
(G. H. B. Wright) with the story of BOHAN (cp B ILHAH,
that Reubenite elements were once actually to be found
there really was contact between Benjamin and the
Bilhah tribe Dan was a matter of course ; Ono and Lod
ultimately became Benjainite (cp BENJAMIN, 3 ; We.
that died when, Ben-oni was horn.
2. In Simeon (I Ch. 429). See BAALAH,2.
H. W. H.
BILHAN (I&?, § 77 ; CP BILHAH; 6 t . h ~ ~[BAI). ~
I. A HORITE ( p . ~ . ) ,Gen. 36 27 ( p d u a p [D'" ELI) ; I Ch. 1 4 2
( - a w [BLI).
2. In genealogy of B EN J AMIN (0 g, ii. a ) : I Ch. 7 I O (pahaap
[Ll).
BILSHAN (&Q, 5 83 ; perhaps Bab. BeZfm ; but
more probably we should read Bel-lax, a mutilated form
of Bel-iar-ezer--i.e., Bab. Bel-Gar-uSur ;-cp dBAL in
I Esd.). A name in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA,
ii. § 9).borne by one of the ten (Ezra), or eleven (Neh.,
I Esd. ), persons who accompanied Zerubbabel from
Babylon (see E ZRA , ii. 8 e). Ezra22 ( ~ a u $ a p[B],
paXauap [A], -hauav [L]) = Neh. 7 7 (pau+av [HI,
paauav [A], paXu. [B], L om. ) = I Esd. 5 8 BEELSAKUS
(/?~eXuapou[BA], puhuap [L]). If Bel-gar is correct,
may not this be the Sharezer of Zech. 72 (see S HAXEZER,
z ) ? This undesigned coincidence (if accepted) may
have important bearings on criticism. T. X. C.
: :
BIMHAL ($TilfXl), in genealogy of ASHER (0 4 [ii.]),
( IMABAHA [BIT &AMAHA [AI, BaaMae [LI).
I Ch. 7 3 3
BINDING AND LOOSING (Mt. 16 19 18 18t). T h e
explanation given under MAGIC (5 3 [4]) may account
for the origin of the Jewish phrase 'binding ( ~ D R and)
loosing' (iTn3) ; but in usage ' to hind ' and ' to loose '
mean simply ' to forbid' and ' to permit' by an indis-
putable authority, the words of authoritative prohibition
and permission being considered to be as effectual as he
spell of an enchanter (cp i ~ Targ.
? Ps.,
585[6]). The
wise men or rabbis had, in viitue of their ordination, the
power of deciding disputes relating to the Law. A
practice which was permitted by them was said to be
'loosed' (inla), and one which was forbidden was
called ' bound' ('IIDN). Such pronouncements were
made by the different schools ; hence it was said, The
school of Shammai binds ; the school of .Hillel looses.'
Theoretically, however, they proceeded from the San-
hedrin, and there is a Talmudic statement that there
were three decisions made by the lower ' house of judg-
ment ' to which the upper 'house of judgment ' ( i . e . ,
the heavenly one) gave its supreme sanction (Mass&,
23 6). Probably, therefore, Jesus adopted a current
mode of speech when he said to the disciples that what-
soever they bound or loosed on earth ( L e . , in expound-
ing the new Law) should be bound or loosed in heaven
(Mt. 1818). Probably, too, it is a less authentic tradition
574
 BINDING AND LOOSING
which makes Jesus give the same promise to Peter
individually (Mt. 16 19). Nowhere is it recorded that
the great Teacher made Peter the president (N??;) of
his council of wise men. The words which immediately
precede 'Mt. 16 19 6-self-evidently taken by the editor
from another context-represent Peter, not as an ex-
pounder of the new transfigured Law, but as a practical
administrator (cp Is. 2222). It is in favour of the view
here adopted (viz., that the words on ' binding' and
' loosing' were addressed to the disciples in general and
not to Peter individually) that in Jn. 2023 the power to
remit and to retain is granted to the disciples collectively,
not to any one of them individually. Though the use
of Kpareiv in that passage has no exact Hebrew or
Aramaic equivalent, the saying is not a new one, but
a paraphrase of Mt. 18 18. T. K. C.
BINEA (ng??,Kq??), in genealogy. of BENJAMIN
(I 9, ii. [PI), I (3.837 (BANA [B], BAAN. [ALl)=943
(BAANA [BKLI, BAN. [AI).
BINNUI (9.133, ' a building up ' ; on form cp NAMES,
§ 5).
I. Family in great post-exilic list (see EZRA, ii. p$ g, 8 c), Neh.
'7 15 (pavovc [BHA], -vaiov [Ll)=Ezra2 IO, BANI [g.v., 21 (pavou
[B], -om [A], v a i a [L])=r Esd. 5 12, BANI (pavaL [BA], -Yam
r Ll).
2. A Levite, temp. Ezra (see E ZRA, i. $ 2 , ii. $ 15 [~ld),Ezra
8 33 (&A epavvuLa [Bl, ULOS &zvaba [ALl)= I Esd. S 63 SABBAN,
RV SABANNUS (uapavuov [BA], 6 ~ b spavaLou [L]), and probably
Neh. 12 24 (MT 'the son of' ; KaC V ~ O L[BNA], K , ot w . a h o v
[L]) ; so Smend, Die Lis& etc. Most probably the same as
3. A Levite in the list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, $ IA,
EZRA, ii. $$ 16 [I], 15 4, Neb. 3 24 (ppvec [BRA], -vai'[Ll) : sig-
natory to the covenant (see E ZRA , 1. 9 7), 109 [IO] (pavaLov
[BNAL], 4. [Nc,a]), possibly the same as the Levite Binnui in
Zerubbabel's band (see EZRA, ii. $ 66) 128 @worn [BNA], mi ot
uioi a h o O [L]). In Neh.3.4, BAVAI ('32: B e S a [Bl, &'ep
IN], j3eve~[AI, f3avaL [Ll) seems a textual error.
4. and 5. One of the b'ne Pahath-moab, Ezra1030 (OavovsL
[BN], pavow[slc [4Ll)=1 Esd. 931, BALNUUS (8ahvovr [Bl, -OVOF
[AI, pavom [Ll) and one of the b'ne Bani (Ezra 10 38 ; Bavom
[BNA], ~ O Y V E L[L])=I Esd. 934 E LIALI ; bothin the list of those
with foreign wives (see E ZRA, i. $ 5 end).
BIRD. References to birds generally are very . frequent
. 279 Mt. 1332 Lk. 1319); how sweetly they warbled
in O T and NT.
The following terms (translated in EV 'bird ' or ' fowl ') are
used to denote the members of the family Awes collectively :
qiy, '8jh, Eccles. 10 20 Is. 16 2 Hos. 9 I T ;7\@
1. Kinds
referred to. Gen. 7 14 Lev. 146 51 8 : 122 5 p ,
6a'uZ KlinZjh, Prov. 117 ; and [of birds of prey]
D)ip, 'uyit, Gen. 1511 Is. 18 6 46 IT Jer. 1 2 9 Ezek. 39 4 Job 26 7
(I/ ?llF, 'uyyuh); T ~ T F L V & and T& m.reav&,Mt.8 20 13 32 Lk.9 58
Rom. 1 2 3 Jas. 3 7 ; 78 mqvb, I Cor. 15 39, and [of birds of prey]
Bpvsov,Rev. 18 2 19 17 ZT.
Birds of the smaller kinds are not so often distinguished
as the larger ; but special reference is made to several
species, both large and small. Mention seems to be
made, for example, of the BITTERN, Buzzard (see
G LEDE ), Blue Thrush (see S PARROW ), CORMORANT,
C RANE , D OVE, Egyptian Vulture (see G IER E AGLE),
Griffon (see E AGLE), H AWK, H ERON , HOOPOE, Sacred
Ibis (see S WAN ), K ITE , NIGHT H AWK (?), OSPREY,
OSSIFRAGE, OSTRICH, O WL, Pigeon (see DOVE ), PAR-
TRIDGE, PEACOCK, PELICAN, Q UAIL , R AVEN , S T O R K ,
SWALLOW, Tern (see CUCKOW), Black Vulture (see
V ULTURE), and the domestic fowl (see COCK), details
and discussions concerning all of which will be found
in the special articles. S PARROW occurs occasionally in
the EV as a translation of the word (iigr) which denoted
any small passerine bird.
That feathered animals (11: S g ) abounded in Pales-
tine is clear from the many references to them in OT
2. Use. and N T , and lapse of time has produced
no change in this respect (see PALESTINE).
Naturally the eggs and the birds themselves were used
for food (Ex. 16:2$ Nu. 1132 Job66 Neh. 518 Ps. 7827
Llr.111~Acts1012 1 1 6 ; see FOWLS, 4, 6, and cp
575
BIRSHA
FOOD, § 8) ; the Torah divides them into clean and UP
clean (Lev. 1113 Dt. 1420 ; see CLEAN and U NCLEAN,
5 9). Many,contrivances for capturing birds were in
common use (Ps.913 1247 Prov.117 65 723 Am.35
Eccles. 9 12 Jer. 5 27 Hos. 7 12 9 8 Ecclus. 1130). The
Torah protects them against cruelty (Dt. 226 f.).,
Sometimes the captives were tamed and treated as pets
(Job 41 5 [4Ozg], Bar. 3 17 Ecclus. 27 19 Jas. 3 7 ) . Only
in cases of extreme poverty does the Torah allow birds
to be used for sacrifice (see SACRIFICE). Naturally,
common small birds, on account of their abundance,
were of little value ; they were probably so numerous as
to prove a nuisance (Mt. 1029 31 Lk. 126.J ; cp Land
and Book, 43). To what extent-if any-birds were
studied for omens in Israel as in Babylonia (see BABY-
LONIA , § 32, MAGIC, B ABYLONIAN , § 3 ) it is difficult to
determine (see Lev. 1926 Dt. 1810 2 K. 216 2 Ch. 336
I K. 433 [513], and cp DIVINATION, § 2, beg., and
Schultz, O T TheoL 1 2 5 0 8 ET).
Allusions to their habits in metaphors, similes, and
proverbial expressions prove how prominent thev were
3. Literary'in the life and thought of the people ( c p
15, and see Lowth,
and popular AGRICULTURE,
allusions. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the
NeJrews. Lect. vii. vol. i. ET 1787). I I ,
They were evidently observed with the keenest interest
as being links between earth and heaven, and regarded
with a certain awe (Job127 2821 3511 Eccles. 1020). I t
was noticed how they cared for and protected their young
(Dt.3211 Ex.194 Is. 315 Mt.2337); how and where
they made their nests (Ps. 10412 17 Ezek. 316)-some-
times (according to a pleasing but very doubtful inter-
pretation) in the very temple itself1 (Ps. 843 [4]); in
what sad plight they wandered about when cast out of
the nest (Prov. 278 Is. 162 Ps. lO27[8]); how swiftly
they flew away when scared (Hos.911 Ps. 111); how
eagerly they returned to their nest (Hos. 1111) ; how
free from care they were (Mt. 626) ; how regularly they
migrated (Jer. 8 7 Prov. 26 2) ; how voracious they were
(Gen. 40 17 Mt. 13 4 Mk. 44 Lk. 8 5) ; how they descended
from the clouds in a bevy (Ecclus. 4317), and with what
delight they gathered in a leafy tree (Dan. 49 [I.] Ecclus.
(Eccles. 124 Wisd. 1718 Cant. 212 [see, however, VINE]
Ps. 104 12) ; how God recognises and protects them (Ps.
5011 Lk.1224) ; and how they praise and reverence
him (Ps. 148 I O Ezek. 38 2 0 ) . Further, Israel's enemy
is often pictured as a rapacious bird that sights its prey
afar off and swoops down upon it (Is.4611 Jer. 12g2
Dt. 2849 Rev. 19 17 " , I ) . Thus, ' to destroy ' is to give a
man's flesh to the birds of the air for meat (Gen. 4019
Dt. 2826 I S. 174446 I K. 1411 164 2124 Ps. 792 Jer.733
164 197 3420 Ezek.295). A place is desolate when
its only inhabitants are the birds of the air (Jer. Ezek.
3113 324 Is. 1 8 6 ) , and an utter desolation when even
these too have perished (Jer. 425 124 Hos. 43 Zeph. 13).
The saying in Mt. 8 2 0 , where Jesus contrasts himself
with the birds which have nests, has not yet been made
perfectly clear (but see SON OF M AN ).
BIRSHA (y&hg, scarcely with [or, in] wickedness ':
the name is corrupt ; cp B ERA ), king of Gomorrah who
1 Cp WRS Rei.Se?iz.(2116a, and Che.'s note, PsuZmsP). The
common view of the meaning is untenable on all gronnds-
exeaetical. historical, metrical. I . No natural exeEesis can be
given, if nN, 'thine altars,' has any relation to tGe birds. 2.
The sanctity of the temple proper would certainly have excluded
the winged visitors; Jos. B j v . 5 6 speaks of pointed spikes on
the top of the (Herodian) temple to-prevent birds from sitting
even on the outside. This seems to have been generally over-
looked. 3. The psalm consists of long verses (lines) divided by
a ciesura into two unequal parts. 'Thine altars, my King and
my God,' is too much to form the second and shorter portion
of one of these verses. See Che. Psal;m,(~) and cp Baethg. ad
Zoc. who attempts an exegetical compromise.
2 Read thus, 'Do I count my heritage a carcase torn by
bysenas (pi>! ng???; @ ur<hacov 6 a h p = ' S niyn)? Are
vultures round about it ?'
576
 BIRTHDAY
joined the league .against C HEDORLAOMER (5 z ) , Gen.
142 (Bapca [.4DEL] ; Ba)&,iac, Jos. Ant. i. 91).
BIRTHDAY (n+? Pi', ~ M s p rsNEcewc
a LADE];
r. H. [L], G e n . 4 0 ~ 0 ;r E N s C l a [Ti. WH]. Mt. 146
Mk. 621). The only express mention of the celebra-
tion of the anniversary of birth in OT or NT,is in con-
nection with kings : Pharaoh's birthday (Gen. ~ O Z O ) ,
when the ' chief butler' was restored to his office and
the ' chief baker' hanged ; Antiochus Epiphanes' birth-
day ( z Macc. 6 7) ; and Herod's birthday (Mt. 146 Mk.
B z r ) , when Herodias's' dancing was the occasion of
the execution of John the Baptist. When it is said
in Job14 that Job's sons ' were wont to go and feast
in the house of 'each one upon his day,' 'his day'
denotes a weekly and not an annual feast ; and in Hos.
7 5 'the day of onr king' may refer to the anniversary
of his succession quite as well as to a birthday. How-
ever, this silence on the subject is no warrant for us to
conclude that the Israelites did not follow the general
custom of observing birthdays, especially those of kings
(see, for Egypt, RPW 4 77, and for Persia, Herod. 9 110).
The curses invoked by Job (31.12) and Jeremiah
(2014-18)on the days of,their birth imply that under
happier conditions these days would have been re-
membered in more cheerful fashion.
Doubts have been raised as to whether Herod's yev6uia
meant his birthday or the anniversary of his accession.
The Mishna (Aboda Zara, 1 3 ) mentions as heathen
festivals, calends, Saturnalia, Kpur4ueis, kings' days of
-y.evCuia ( K ' D ~ Y nit), and the day of birth and the day of
death. It is probable that the last two mean the actual
days and not the anniversaries ; the Kparljueis would
naturally be the anniversaries of accessions and the
~ ~ - 1 ni-
- i the birthday. So Talm. Jer. Aboda Zara,
1396 takes ' 2 01' as m?$,i n i y (birthday), but Bab. Adoda
Zara, roa understands ' I 01' as anniversary of accession.
r e v h a is used as birthday in late Greek (in classical
Greek it is anniversary of death) and never as anni-
versary of accession : thus the sense of birthday seems
well established. Cp Schurer, H i s t . 2 ~ 6and , the Talm.
Lexx. of Levy and Jastrow on N'D'JY; also Gratz,
MG WJ 20 230 ['TI]. See also LORD'S DAY, 2.
W. H. B.
BIRTHRIGHT (n$q, Gen. 2 5 3 1 ; . n p w ~ o ~ o ~ i adesire.
Heb. 1216); see FIRSTBORN, LAW AND JUSTICE, § 14.
On the story of Esau and Jacob see ESAU,§ 2.
'
BIRZAITH (n~~l~, Kr. ), AV Birzavith (nV73,Kt. ;
' well of the"oiive'tree ') s e e k to suggest a lbcality.
BISHLAM ; E N E I P H N H [BAI, E N E I P H N H as such ; and the same may be said of the epithets i.;I
PEOYM BEATEEM [L]), Ezra47, for which I Esd. 216
has BELEMUS(BHAEMOC [BA] or B E ~ ~ C I M O C[Ll),
the name of a Persian officer of unknown origin, who
joined with others in writing a letter of complaint
against the Jews. @BA takes the name as descriptive
of the tranquil state of the writers of the letter (&
~ i p 4 u y ) ;but Bishlam is clearly a proper name. It
either means 'in peace,' cp BEZALEEL, BIRSHA. or,
more probably, like those names, it is a corruption.
The true name may be Babylonian. It may perhaps be
recovered if we start from one or the other of the forms
presented in the MSS of I Esd., where the proper
names are sometimes more accurately preserved. Ball
( Yay. Apocr. ad loc.), adopting ~ ~ X E ~ supposes O S ,
corruption of Bab. Bel-ibus-Le., ' Bel made.'
would seem, however, that the PeeXuipos of bL must
be more original, and this form may have arisen from
Bel-Sum-iSkun--i.e., ' Bel made a name ' (Nestle, Murg.
23, 29). T. K. C.
1 E V 'the day of the king's birth every month': so 6 5 and
Pesh., Vg. om. ~a&p<va. Grimm suggested that 'every month
is from I Macc. 1 5 9 ; but it is probably genuine (see LORD'S
DAY,5 2).
37 577
BISHOP
BISHOP (errickonoc). The word is of rare occur-
'ence in the NT.l
The elders of the church summoned from Ephesus to Miletus
o receive Paul's farewell ciarge (Acts 20 17), are thus addressed :
' Take heed to yourselves and to the whole
1. OCCUlTenCe flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath set you
of name in NT.as overseers ( 6 p k ...
feed (or rule : ~ o ~ g a i w s c w
;&ro ITLUK~TOUS) to
the
) church of God'
U. 28). I t is not clear from this passage whether the word is
ised as a definite title, or merely as a description implying that
' T L U K O ~ oversight
~, or superintendence was a function of the
xesbyterate. In the address of the Edistle to the Philippians,
iowever we have 'bishops and deacons formally mentioned ; it
s diMc<lt, in view of the later usage of the words, to suppose
.hat this is merely a general description of 'those who rule and
.hose who serve.' In I Tim. 3 18 the bishop and the deacon
ire again brought together. The qualifications of a bishop are
:numerated : SE; o f v rbv &&KOWW K.r.A., where the article is
:ommonly regarded as generic, or a t least as not implying that
:here was only one bishop in the Ephesian church. I n Tit. 1 5 8 ,
n connection with the duty of appointing presbyters in the
.owns of Crete, a similar description of a bishop's qualifications
:s given ( 6 ~ yi i p ~ b v~ T ~ U K O T O V K . T . A . ) ; but no reference is
nade to deacons. The only other occurrence of the word is in
r Pet. 2 25, where it is applied to Christ himself, 'the shepherd
md bishop of your souls. It is not necessary to interpret these
:itles as metaphors drawn from the Christian ministry.
W e note, then, that the word is found in all cases on
Sreek ground, and it would seem as if those who in the
Palestinian churches were called ' presbyters ' were in
the Greek churches spoken of at first as 'bishops ' and
then indifferently as ' presbyters ' or as ' bishops. ' This
view, however, assumes that P ~ U K O T O P was already at
this time in use as a title of office ; and the assumption
requires a careful examination. It will be best to begin
such an examination with what is admittedly the latest
portion of the N T evidence.
I Tim. 3 1 8 ' If a man seeketh 67riuKomj he desireth
L good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without
K.T.X.). The whole conception of the function of an
ZT~UKO'~TOS, as it is here described, suggests that the
authority which he wields is independent, not merely
that of a member of a governing board. T o begin
with, $?riuKomj does not give any idea of assessors : it
is distinctly personal. It is a position of independent
importance and control, such as a man may naturally
, Secondly, the epithet ' given to hospitality '
(@d&uos) suggests a personal responsibility ; the
Church's duty of show-ing hospitality to Christians from
other parts seems naturally to centre in some one person ;
we could scarcely have had ' Presbyters must be given
to hospitality ' ( 6 2 08u T ~ ~ U ~ ~ V T + O U+iXo@uovs
S dum).
'
I n like manner, 'apt to teach ' (bibaKriK6S)would scarcely
be a qualification for a member of the presbyteral body
rdpoivos, p+ T X T ~ K T ~ S' ,not passionate or ungoverned in
temper.' The control of his own house, again, gives
the thought of independent jurisdiction in the case to
which it is made a parallel--'how shall he act as
6 r i p d ? ) r 4 s of the church of God ? '
The singular noun with the article may, according to
Greek usage, be taken generically; but we must ob-
serve that ( I ) when the writer passes on to give a similar
list of qualifications for a deacon the plural is used :
' Deacons in like manner ... Women in like manner
... Let deacons be husbands of one wife' [&aKduous
cjuallrws . .. ~ V U U ~ K cjuari~ws
U S .. . 6idKovoi Qurwuw
pias yuvaiKbs du6pes (in the last case the use of the
a singular with the generic article would have avoided an
It awkward phrase)] ; ( z ) in Tit. 17, we have an exact
parallel: 8 ~ y&p i rbv ~ T ~ U K O T O V K.T.X., where we
might easily have had BE: yzlp tiriuK6'iTous K.T.X. ; (3)
the usage of the article in the Pastoral Epistles is a
further reason for hesitating to explain it here as gcneric,
for the axticle is very sparingly employed, and thera
1 [Analogous t o M H ]ig, superintendent in the synagogue or
elsewhere. See Jastrow's Lex.].
578
 BISHOP
seems no example at all parallpl to these in any of the
three Epistles.
The difficulty is to some extent met by insisting on
the use of ~ T ~ U K O T O Sas a descriptive epithet rather than
as a formal title : ' H e who exercises &LUKOT+', In so
far as his status in the Church is dwelt on, such a man
would be spoken of most naturally as 'one of the
elders ' ; but here the subject in hand is the function to
be exercised by him individually. That function is
~ T L U K O T ~: in the exercise of it he is B?rfuiKo?ros. The
watchful oversight which is regarded as ' a n excellent
work' is not an eminent position, but a responsible
activity. H e who is 10 exercise it needs to have certain
special qualifications, W e feel the contrast when we
come to GraKbvovs rjuadrws, which introduces in an
ordinary way the members of a large and subordinate
class.
The passage in Acts20 is, a s we have seen, quite
indeterminate. If BT~UKOTOS can be shown to be a title
3. (6) Other in use at the time in question, we may
NTwritings. render the words, ' hath set you as
bishops.' Otherwise we should perhaps
render them, ' hath set you for oversight.' The phrase
in the Epistle to the Philippians, if taken quite by itself,
would, in the light of later history, be naturally rendered
'with the bishops and deacons' (ubv ~ T L C T K ~ T O L SK U l
~ L U K ~ V O L S notwithstanding
), the absence of the definite
article. If, however, P x l u ~ o ~ obes not yet found as a
title, a less definite interpretation may be allowed. T h e
decision between the two views must depend on a
further consideration which shall include the use of the
term G L ~ K O V O Sat this period [see DEACON, 61, and
the use of P ~ U K O T O S outside the N T , in other than
Christian contexts, and in the earliest Christian
writings.
In the use of &&Ko?~os, 8?rruiKo?r&vv, in other than
Christian contexts, a great width of meaning is notice-
*. Nan- able, due, no doubt, to the original significa-
Christian tion which fitted the words for application
to any person who exercised an office of
usage. superintendence. The commissioners who
superintended Athenian colonies, various other commis-
sioners or inspectors, magistrates who regulated the sale
of provisions, and, apparently, financial officers of a
temple or of a guild (Lightf. PltiZ. 95 ; Hatch, O q a n i s a -
tion of E a r @ Christian Churches, 37J:)-all these are
spoken of as E ~ U K O T O L , or are said PTLUKOTE~V. Nor
was this the only term which had a similar largeness of
reference : quite parallel is the usage of dm,u&& and
duarpeh~r.;ls (Hatch, see above).
In the LXX the word ~ T ~ U K O T O Sis equally wide in
the persons and offices which it embraces. Taskmasters,
captains or presidents, and commissioners, are in turn
so entitled ; and as a synonym in the last of these cases
we find also 8&rarar (Lightf. : see above).
All this evidence points to the fact that ~ T ~ U K O T O Sand
~ L U K O were ~ V words which naturally offered themselves
as descriptions of any persons charged with responsible
oversight, and were the more available in that they had
no predominant association with any one class of officers
in particular. The words were, as far as possible,
colourless, much as o w words ' preside ' and ' president'
are to-day.
Hatch's position, adopted by Harnack, in reference
to ~ ~ U K O T OisLasfollows :-Themost important corporate
5. Hatch,s function of the earliest Christian communities
was that of providing for their poor and sick
theory. members. They were, in fact, benevolent
societies, and as such they had parallels a11 around
them in the heathen world, in the countless clubs and
guilds which combined social purposes with certain
religious practices. The finance officers of these heathen
societies were called IT~UKOTOL. Now, the dnties which
the Christian ~ T ~ U K O T O Shad to perform are described as
intimately connected with the care of the poor, with
hospitality to travelling brethren, and with the manage-
579
' BISHOP
ment of the common fund which was devoted to these
and similar purposes. It is probable, therefore, that
both the title and the functions of the Christian & ~ U K O T O S
are directly derived from his heathen counterpart.
The best examination of this theory is that by Loen-
- ,(Gemeindeverfassunz
ing. , -des Urchristenthumns. ,
21 IE 1.
Y I
6. Criticism After pointing out the yery general signifi-
cation of the word E'T~CTKOTOS in Greek
of it. literature-a signification which enabled
"
it to be applied to any person in authority for whom
there was no fixed title already, and so to be used with
great freedom by the LXX as a rendering for various
officers mentioned in the Or-he takes up the evidence
of the inscriptions on which Hatch's theory mainly rests.
They fall chronologically into two classes. The first
class is pre-Christian: one inscription of the Macedonian
period in the island of Thera, which contains a decree
ordering certain ~ T ~ U K O T O Cto receive moneys and invest
them ; and two inscriptions of the second century B. c.,
in the island of Rhodes, relating to municipal officers
not further defined. Those of the second class belong
to the second and the third century A . D., and are found
in a district E. of the Jordan. They are ten, and
refer to municipal officers. In one case the officers are
charged with some responsibility for the moneys of a
temple. I n this district they seem to have formed a
kind of municipal board, chosen from various tribes
or divisions of the community. Further, in a Latin
inscription of the fonrth century certain episcopi regulate
prices in the market.
This appears to be the whole of the evidence on which
the statement that BT~UKOTOC were the finance-officers of
clubs and guilds is found to rest. In Loening's opinion
it points exactly in the opposite direction.
As to the other part of the argument,-viz., that the
Christian &&TKOTOS is, as a matter of fact, a finance-
oficer,-that is no peculiarity of function linking itself
especially to the title. T o the presbyters at Jerusalem
gifts are brought ; and presbyters are warned not to
exercise their office ' for filthy lucre ' (EV ; U ~ U X ~ O K E ~ G G S ,
I Pet. 5 2 ) : moreover, in Polycarp's letter to the Philip-
pians (chap. 11)presbyters are charged with duties to-
wards the poor and are warned against covetousness.
The word B ? ~ ~ U K O T O S in itself suggests a far wider re-
sponsibility than the mere charge of finance : it implies
superintendence of persons as well as of things.
Loening even goes so far as to suggest that the word
PT~UKOTOS was chosen just because it had no fixed
associations either in the Jewish or in the Greek world,
and was, therefore, free to be used in a community
which stood in contrast to all other communities sur-
rounding it.
In the extreme scarcity of evidence, we may be
content to say that the theory that the Christian
6?rfUKO?rOS derived his title and functions from those of
the officers of the Greek guilds or of the Greek munici-
palities has not been established.
W e may say, then, that the N T evidence seems to
point to the existence in the apostolic age of two classes
,. General of administration-a class of rulers and
concIusions. a class of humbler ministrants who acted
under their orders. As far as the first
of these has a distinctive official title its members are
called Elders ; but, since their function was summed
up in the general responsibility of oversight ( ~ T L U K O ~ ~ T ) ) ,
they could be spoken of as ' overseers ' ( ~ T ~ U K O T O L a) ,
term which was alrcady passing from a mere description
of function into a definite title. The men of the second
class aided those of the first in the humbler parts of
their ministration. They were naturally described by
the general designation of ' servants ' ( B L ~ K O V O ;L ) but
this term too is passing in the apostolic age into a
recognised title. On the whole, it seems simpler to
suppose that the latter stage has been reached in Phil. 1I
and in the Pastoral Epistles ; but the decision of this
point is not a matter of serious importance.
580
 BISHOP
In the later history, the second class retains its
designation, which in some localities comes to be a title
of considerable dignity. The first class, on the other
hand, presently undergoes a subdivision : one member
comes to stand out above his fellows, and, whilst all
continue alike to be Elders, the title of 6aiurto?ros,
which in itself connotes an individual responsibility and
importance, is not unnaturally appropriated as the
designation of the one who has come to be the supreme
officer of the community. The causes which led to a
monarchical development are still wrapt in obscurity ;
but the appropriation of the name ~ ~ J K O T O Sto the
chief ruler is not hard to understand. We are fortunate
8. Clement in possessing a document of the last
decade of the first century, by which we
of Rome. can, to some extent, test the position
which we have taken up. The Epistle of Clement of
Rome to the Corinthians was occasioned by the ejection
from their office of certain Elders of the church in
Corinth. As the writer may quite well have had
personal knowledge of one or more of the apostles, his
evidence is of high importance, not only for determining
the existing organisation of the church <n Corinth (and
probably in Rome as well) in his time, but also as
indicating the belief that this organisation was instituted
by the apostles themselves.
First let us consider the use of the designations in
question in the most important passage.
(I 42) ‘The apostles ... appointed their first fruits (cp I Cor.
lG15), having tested them by the Spirit, to be overseers and
senants (6;s B ~ L U K ~ T O U S K a l 6LaK6vour) of them which should
believe.’ The words have clearly become titles and their use
as such is justified-as being not new, hut foritold in Is.616.
IC is curious that Scar6vous in this citation is an insertion of
Clement’s, an4 is not found in the LXX. H e is clearly quoting
from memory, and his memory has played him false. ($44) ‘ The
Fpostles foresaw that there would he strife ahout the, title (or
office’) of oversight (rrepi 703 bv6paros BTLUKOT+). Hence
they ap ointed the aforesaid and provided for successors t o
them. f t is a sin to turn such, if they have discharged their
ministry blamelessly out of their B T C U K O ~ ~ ~ ~ .‘ Blessed,’ he goes
on a t once, ‘are the hZ&rs who have gone before,’ and are safe
from such treatment. I n $ 4 7 we have the offence described as
a revolt ‘against the Elders In $ 54 we read ‘Let the flock of
Christ he a t peace along wiih the appointed Elders’; and in
$ 57, ‘ ?o ye who hegau this sedition submit yourselves to the
Elders.
It is plain, then, that the persons whom the apostles
‘appointed as &rlurto?roi,’ and as their successors, are
spoken of also as ‘ the appointed Elders.’ These Elders
are not to be rashly ejected from their Xwroupyia or
t%lUKOT$.
The difficulty which Clement’s epistle’presents in the
matter of these designations belongs to the earlier
chapters, before he has come to speak definitely of the
Corinthian disorders : he seems to use the term ’ elders ’
as though he referred not to an office, but only to a
grade of persons dignified by that name in contrast to
the young (ol YQOL).
I n the first of the passages in question (I I ) he. praises their
former orderliness ‘submitting yourselves to your rulers (or
“leaders,” 70;s +y&,ivo~s dpGv), apd paying the due honour to
the elders that were among you : and on the young ye enjoi?ed
modesty and gravity; and on the women’ certain appropriate
duties. Similarly, in g 21 we have, ‘let us reverence our rulers
(703s r r p o ~ y ~ u p Q v ~GpGv),
us and let us honour our elders, let us
instruct the young ... let us guide our women aright.’ Here
we seem to have a contrast between ‘rulers’and ‘elders’ : and
it has been held (e.g. by Harnack) that the ‘rulers’ are a class
of persons whose Luthority came from their possessing the
cLarisnza of teaching(cp Heh. 137 24), whilst the Elders are an
undefined grade of senior members of the Church to whom
honour is due on account of age and length of discipleship.
But the word vdoi, occurring in both passages (not ve$Tepoi, as
elsewhere so often), is an important clue, which has not been
sufficiently attended to. Clement is in fact alluding to a passage
of Isaiah, which he cites with some additions in 9 3 : ‘so,’ he
says, ‘of old the mean rose up against the hononrahle, the
young against the elder (ot U&L Bwi ~ 0 3 swpeupu~6pous)’ Is. 35.
It would he possible to interpret ‘the rulers’ as h e civil
rulers to whom Clement several times applied the term $yo$-
p v o c ($ 37); but on the whole it seems most natural to sup-
pose that at first he is carefully avoiding definite references
t o the Corinthian. revolt, and only preparing the way for its
$irect rebuke. Thus he speaks in the most general terms of
the rulers,’ and passes rapidly away from the word ‘ elders,
581
BISHOP
iust introducing it as a hint beforehand but dwelling on the
coot-meaning which was still strongly ?elt in the word, and
contrasting it with 02 v b i in accordance with the OT passage
which is in his mind.
No argument, therefore, can safely be based on the
rhetorical use of the word ‘ elders ’ in the opening part
of the letter. No doubt the Elders were elder men;
and no doubt the revolt came from some of the younger
men : this was a part of its heinousness, and the covert
allusion would be understood by those to whom the
letter was addressed.
The development of the monarchical episcopate lies
outside the limits of the N T ; but even
9. Later
development. within the Canon we find indications of a
tendency which the later history enables
us to interpret as moving in this direction.
~
W e have noticed that all passages which describe the
functions and responsibilities of Elders speak of them
as a class and in the plural number; whilst, on the
other hand, where the duties of oversight (Paiurtoa?))
are pourtrayed, the &T~UKOTOS is spoken of as a single
person, charged with responsibility-and this in one
place in sharp contrast to the 6 i 6 r t o v o ~ and , in the other
immediately after Elders have been mentioned in the
plural number. From this we may gather that, in as
far as a member of the ruling class was thought of as
& ~ U K O T O S , it was natural to consider him by himself as
exercising an independent control and holding a position
of eminent authority.
As far as terminology, then, is concerned, the way was
prepared
- - for the distinction that presently came into force.
Episcopos, The word &dartoaos suggests an in-
indi.Ezlised. dividual, just as the word ?rpeu,86repos
suggests the member of a ruling class,
or the word G L ~ K O V O Sthe member of a
serving class. The class of rnlers, however, did not
need two designations, and when the course of develop-
ment led to a supreme officer it was easy and natural to
appropriate to him the word Q T ~ U K O T O S , while his inferior
colleagues were simply termed apeupthepoi.
But this consideration does not really give us any
-guidance as to the causes of the change from covernment
ll. Change by a body of co-orzinate < ~ l o r t o a o r or
.___
foreshadowed apeuphepoi to government by a single
6 a i u r t o a o s with a consultative colleee of
inter pares. The apostolic age, however, presents us
with several foreshadowings of the monarchical rule
which presently became universal. In the church in
Jerusalem the position of James, the Lord’s brother,
was one of real if undefined authority, and, though not
marked by any special title, it closely resembles that
of the bishop of the second century. We have the
statement of Hegesippus that on the death of James his
cousin Symeon was appointed by general consent to
fill his place (Eus. H E iii. 11). Here, then, was a
monarchical type of government, naturally evolved and
continuously recognised ; and such an example could
not f&, as time went on, to exercise an influence on
other communities.
In the Greek world the churches of Paul’s foundation
were from the first controlled by the strong hand of
their founder. I t is true that he urged them to corporate
action of their own in the exercise of jurisdiction and
discipline; but he himself commanded them with an
authority beyond challenge, and his commands were
obeyed. I n certain cases he transferred this his apos-
tolic authority to delegates, such as Timothy and Titus ;
but only, it would seem, for a period, and in order to
cope with special needs. Still, in doing this, he had
given a practical proof of the advantage gained by the
presence in a community of one who could rule with
supreme authority ; and this temporary sway would
doubtless help in determining the tendency of subse-
quent development.
These examples, however, would have been powerless
582
 BISHOP
by themselves to produce so great a change, hadthere not
12. Bishop been elements in the life of the communities
which made for the concentration of authority
chait&n. in particular hands. It is often said that
such an element is discoverable in the
working of the presbyteral college itself. Any board
which meets for the transaction of business must
needs have a president. The hoder of this position
would naturally acquire a large share of the authority
of the board itself ; in time he would tend to become a
supreme officer over the whole commnnity. This
suggestion is open to two serious criticisms. On the
one hand, there is no ground for thinking that in
parallel cases at that period such a development from
oligarchical to monarchical rule came about. Presidents
of this kind were often elected for a month or for a
year, and in any case did not acquire an independent
authority. Moreover, the term ‘ presbyteral college ’
may be challenged, if it is intended to suggest that the
practical adiiiinistration of the Church was carried on
by means of formal meetings of the Elders as such.
We have no evidence of any kind that they regularly
met in this way. It is probable that they had special
seats in the assembly of the community ; but that they
met by themselves for the transaction of business and
required a chairman is a hypothesis for which no evi-
dence has yet been given.
It is only when we turn our attention away from the
administration and fix it on the common worship of the
13. Rather church, that we begin to get any rays of
leader in light on this problem. If we knew better
the history of the eucharist, it is not un-
worship. likely that the history of the episcopate
would cease to bk so perplexing.. In the disorders
which disgraced the Lord’s Supper in Corinth, and in
Paul’s regulations for checking them, we hear nothing
at all of any kind of presidency or leadership. In the
same church before the end of the century we find
elders spoken of as the leaders of the eucharistic worship
and as offering the gifts.‘
The picture which, fifty years later, Justin draws of
the eucharist in Rome, shows us a single officer, spoken
14. Justin,s of simply as ’ the president ’ (6 rrpoeu~bs
TOY d&h@Gv), receiving and offering the
account. eucharistic elements, and making the
eucharistic prayer, to which the whole congregation re-
sponds with the AMEN (§ 3). Likewise, after the read-
ing of the Gospels or the Prophets ‘ the president ’ makes
an exhortation based upon what has been read. He is,
moreover, the depositary of the collection made in
behalf of the poor, and has a general responsibility for
widows aud,orphans, for the sick and needy, for prisoners,
and for travelling brethren from other communities
(Ap. i. 65-67). This president is clearly the bishop,
though Justin’6 language does not help us to decide
whether he was at that time known in Rome by the
title Prrlu~orros or not. If he was, it by no means
follows that ‘Justin would have said so. H e is writing
for heathen readers, and he avoids technical terms ; or,
if he finds it convenient to use them, he explains them.
Thus, in speaking of the deacons, he describes them as
‘ those who with us are called BidKovoi’ (ot Kahodpevoi
rap’ +$p%G L ~ K O Y O L;) and his usual term for the Gospels
is ‘the memoirs of the apostles,’ t o . which in one
place he adds ‘ which are called gospels ’ (a KaheiTai
eLayyihia). We can argue nothing from the absence
of the designation ‘ bishop ’ : had he cared to introduce
it, he would no doubt have done so by the phrase ‘ h e
who with us is called ~ T ~ U K O T O S ’(6 Kahodfiwos rap’
+p?v 6rturoros). But the person is there, if the name
is not ; and we see that important collateral functions
belong to the officer who presides at the eucharistic
service. H e appears as at once the instructor and the
.almoner of,the whde community.
It is a long step, however, from Clement to Justin, and
it is of some importance to us that we should have evidence
583
BITHIAH
)f a like development in other parts of the Church.
Two passages may be cited which point in the same
15. Eastern direction for the eastern side of the Medi-
Church. terranean. I . In the Didach)(chap. lo$)
the prophets are spoken of as holding a
iositionof special importance in reference to the eucharist:
.hey are not bonnd by the prescribed formulie of thanlis-
:ivings, but may ‘give thanks as they will.’ This
mplies that, if present, they naturally take a prominent
Jart in the service. They may order an a@@’ to be
ield (6pl&v ~ p d m ~ a a;v and ) to them the first fruits are
io be given, ‘ for they are your chief-priests’ (chap. 13).
The same document declares, however, that the ministry
: A E ~ T o L J of
~ ~ the
~ u )prophets and teachers was likewise
2xercised by the bishops and deacons (chap. 15). It is
safe to suppose that if no prophet were present the
Eonduct of the service would be in the hands of the
permanent local ministry, although in this case there
would be no exemption from the duty of using the
prescribed formulie.
2. The Ignatian Epistles, as is well known, portray
the completed development of the three orders for
certain Asiatic churches at a comparatively early period.
It is noteworthy that the one bishop is expressly con-
nected with the one eucharist (for references, see
EUCHARIST). No eucharist is to be held without
the bishop, or some person deputed by him to conduct
it. There is ‘One bishop, one altar, one eucharist’
(e& P ~ U K O T O S , 8v ewlauT~plov, pla edxapiaria).
We may feel confident, then, that in the development
of the eucharistic service we have an element-perhaps
the most important element-of the development of the
monarchical episcopate.
As soon as this monarchical rille had been established
in a church various sacred parallels which would be
16. Final taken as confirmatory of the divine order of
stage. the institution, would be observed. The
bishop and his presbyters might be com-
pared with Christ and his apostles. Or again, the three
orders of the Christian Church-bishop, presbyters,
and deacons-would find a ready analogy in the high
priest, priests, and Levites of the Jewish ritual. Swch
parallels would serve to confirm -the validity of the
institution, and would facilitate its adoption in other
localities.
Meanwhile, the extraordinary ministry of apostles
and prophets had passed or was rapidly passing away.
Some of the functions which they had exercised were
essential in the Church; and these devolved as a heritage
upon the permanent ministry. The prestige which had
attached to their exercise passed over in the main to
the chief officers of the community, who thus came to
be regarded, with a large measure of truth, as the
successors of the apostles, wielding apostolic authority
as the rulers of the Church and the defenders of the
Christian faith. . J. A . R.
BISON (fkh, d&n), Dt. 145-F AVmg.; RV has
PYCARG ( p...).
BIT (In?), Ps. 329 EV. See BRIDLE, 3
BITHIAH (3;nJ; rshla P I v Bseeia [AI, +&e-
goyla [L]), ‘daughter of Pharaoh,’ and wife of Mered
ben Ezrah, in the genealogy Of JWDAH ( I Ch. 418). On
the assumption that ‘ Pharaoh ’ (?)?a) is correctly read,
Bithiah (which might be explained ‘ daughter-Le.,
worshipper-of Yahwh’ [Olsh. § 277 61) niiqbt be a
Hebraised form of an Egyptian name such as Eiint-Anta,
‘ daughter of Anta ’ (‘Anath), to indicate that the bearer
of the name had entered the Israelitish community.
This, however, does not accord with the view implied
in the vowels of the name of Bithiah’s husband. Mered
apparently means ‘rebellion,’ and suggests a warning
against the wickedness of taking foreign wives (see
EzraSr, and cp z Ch.24q6). It would he inconsistent
with this that Mered‘s wife should bear the honourable
584
 BITH R 0N
name ' daughter of Yahwe ' : we should expect to find
the old heathen name retained. Perhaps, then, Bithiah
is not the right name; d B ' syehra suggests to Kittel
&y3 and dL's q5aRRouia may conceivably be based on
mn3, which in turn may have sprung from n h , pro-
ducing a description of Mered's non-Jewish wife as ' a
young Egyptian princess ' (Mered's other wife ' the
Jewess' [JEHUDIJAH (p.v.)I is not named). However,
the corruption is antecedent to 6 , and the whole story
(half-told, half-implied, by the text as it now stands) is
imaginary. The idea of the double marriage of Mered
had not occurred to the original compiler ; the true text
conveys no warning against mixed marriages. Four at
least out of the'five names, Mered, Bithiah, Pharaoh,
Jehudijah, and Hodiah, are corrupt; perhaps indeed
all five are. Mered, or, more strictly, M-R-D, has
probably come from M-R-TH, which is an incorrect
form of R-M-TH-i.e., Ramoth-or rather of Jarmuth
(see MERED). ' Bithiah ' is not improbably a corruption
of ' Bealiah' (a;)y?, I Ch. 125 [Gi. Ba. 61). Pharaoh
should rather be rips, a clan name (cp PIRATHON).
Ha-Jehudijah (RVmg.) and Hodiah are plainly the
same name (in v. 19 read in+ ' his wife '). Accepting
this view, we have two accounts of the family of Mered.
It is not quite certain, however, that the person mis-
called Mered is represented as having two wives.
Hodiah may have been deliberately substituted for
Bealiah, from a dislike to the first element in that name.
We are now rid of the only case in the O T of a name
compounded with Jah (n*)-of such names there are 157
--being borne by a foreigner (cp Gray, HPN 158).
Next, another mistake has to be noted. It is plain that
I Ch. 417 as it stands is not right. The remedy is (with
Berth. and Ritt.) to transpose v. 186 to the middle of
v. 17. inserting of course i)~! after mni. This gives us,
as the children of Bithiah or Realiah, Miriam (?),
Shanimai, and Ishbah tbe father of Eshtemoa. Eshtemoa
also occurs (together with Keilah) in the list of the
children of Hodiah (v.19), while Gedor, Soco, and
Zanoah are connected with Mered through Hodiah's
double, Ha-Jehudijah-animportant notice (SeeMERED).
It is perhaps sad to have lost what was supposed to be
an early testimony to the presence of an Egyptian ele-
ment at and about Eshtemoa, as contrasted with the
more purely Jewish character of Gedor, Soco, and
Zanoah; but we gain an attestation of the traditional
importance of Jarmuth. It may be added that in
Jewish legend Bithiah becomes the foster-mother of
Moses ( Vayyikra, R.,par. I). T. K. C.
BITHRON (filnp?, T H N r r a p a ~ e i ~ o y c[BAL].
a~
8- dJl, BETH-HORON) 1 the groove ' or I cleft *
p u r exceZZence situated between the Jordan and Maha-
naim ( 2 S. 229f), and possibly to be identified with
the W. ' A j h n , along which, though at a later time,
ran a Roman road from 'AjlEn to Mahanaim (Buhl,
PuZ. 121); see EPHRAIM, W OOD OF. For the sense
of Bithroii cp 6 ' s rendering of ~ 1 3 in Cant.217 (Sf?)
W Y Koihds in d for pny).
K O L ~ W ~ ~ T (like The reading
Bithron is not certain, and the Vss. give little help,l
although Vg. (cp also Aq.'s P ~ B w p w v )suggests that
there was another Beth-horon E. of Jordan (see HORO-
NAIM). Thenius's conjecture, B ETH- HARAM, is im-
prohable.
BITHYNIA (BIeyNla [Ti. WH]), the district round
the central Sangarius (Sakarz^u)in the NW. corner of
1. Geonaphy. Asia Minor, extending from the mouth
of the Rhyndacus (Edrenos Chai) east-
wards to that of the Sangarius.
The boundary between Bithynia and the province of Asia
coincided not as might have been expected with the line of the
Rhvndacis, b;it with that of the range of the hlysian Olympus
(!<eshish Dugh) lying N. of the river (Pliny, H N 5 1 4 2 ) . The
1 E3 is unintelligible and, to judge from its similarity to the
Heb. (cp We. Dr. ad Zoc.), has arisen perhaps from a trans-
literation.
585
BITHYNIA
eastern frontier is often made to coincide with the Rillaios o r
with the Parthenios, or even to extend beyond the latter river
in spite of Strabo's statement that the mouth of the Sangarid
marked the boundary (543, .;lv BLBuviav bp& lrpbc ~ a i c
&pohak). Inland, it ran out far E. of the river ; hut the line
is indeterminate. According to P1it.y ( H N 5 149) the Hieros or
Siberis separated Bithynia from the province GLlatia ; hut the
boundary fell some 12 m. E. of that stream (Rams. Hist. G p o g ~ .
of A M rgg), whence it ran W. between the Sangarius and its
tributary, the Tembris.
The will of Nicomedes III., the last of its kings, left
Bithynia to the Romans in 74 B. c. ; but it was not until
2. History. 2 B. c., when the sultan of Pontus had been
nally expelled from Asia, that Pompeius
could mndertake the organisation of the province (cp
Plin. Ep. ad Tmi. 79). With it was now combined
the whole of the kingdom of Pontus, with the exception
of those districts towards the E., as well as those in
the interior (Paphlagonia), which were assigned to native
dynasts in recognition of their services to Rome (Str.
541. See Niese in Bermes, 1339, and Rhein Mus. 38
567 ['83]). Amisos, which lay immediately E. of the
Halys (Kizil Irma?), was the most easterly community
of that part of Pontus which was combined with the old
kingdom of NiconiEdes to form the Roman province.
This dual origin of the province was recognised in its official
title, Pontus et Githynia (so generally in inscriptions, both Lat.
and Gr. ; cp Appian, Mithr. 121, CZG 3532 3548, CZL 55262).
T h e reverse order is perhaps upon the whole later, encouraged
by the gradual growth in importance of the western section.
Either name, apparently might be used to denote the entire
province (cp Tac. Ann. i 2 2 1 with Dio Cas. 6033 ; CIG 2590,
BUZZ. HeZZ. 11212). In administration also the two parts
retained a certain degree of formal independence, each having
its own metropolis and Diet (conciZiunz).
In the distribution of provinces by Augnstus in 27
B. c. Pontus- Bithynia remained senatorial-Le., its
8. Post- governors, who were of PrEtorian rauli,
bore the title 'proconsul' (Str. 840, Tac.
Apostolic*Ann. 1 7 4 1 6 18). The official residence
was Nicomedeia. Under the ineffective supervision of
the Senate the province gradually became disorganised :
its finances fell into disorder, and unregulated coZ2ep.a
gave birth to turbulence and faction. In order to carry
out the necessary reforms, the younger Pliny was sent
into the province in 112 A.D. His importance arises
from his official contact with Christianity (E$$. ad Trai.
96 and 97. See Hardy, PZiny's Correspondence, 51 f:,
Rams. Church, 1963,and cp CHRISTIAN, 0 63).
In the early period of post-apostolic history Bithynia
is illustrious ; but it has little connection with the
apostles themselves. The salutation of I Pet. 1 I, where
Pontus and Bithynia are mentioned separately, bears
witness to the rapid evangelisation of the province.
Before 1 1 2 A.D. Christianity had made such progress in
Bithynia that pagan ritual was interrnpted and the
temples in great part deserted (Pliny, Ep. ad T r a i . 96).
W e get a hint that there, as in Ephesus, trade interests
were at the bottom of the attack then made upon
the Christians. The conz'ugio istius superstitionis (xuper-
s t i z ' i o p a v u immodica), a s Pliny calls the faith, would
most easily enter the province by way of Amisus, along
the route leading from the Cilician Gates by T y h a and
CEsarea Mazhca in Cappadocia. Ramsay (Church,
225) conjectures from Pliny's letter that its introduction
must fall about 65-75 A. D.
Amisus is now Saiizst2n. Even in Strabo's time it was
gradually displacing SinBpE (Sinub) as the great harbour on
the north coast. The route from Czsarea M a z k a northwards
sia Aqua: Saravenae, Euagina, and AmZseia, to Amisus, is even
to-day 'the only road practicable for arabas, and must always
have heen a great trade-route' (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM,
268).
The interpretation of the word Bithynia in Acts 1 6 7
is connected with the question concerning the Galatian
4. Acts 167. churches (see GALATIA). On the N.
Galatian theory, the object of Paul's vain
attempt to enter Bithynia must have been to reach either
Amisus or Amastris; for a design of preaching in the
barbarous interior is improbable. The direct route to
Amastris went, it is true, by way of Ancyra in Galatia
586
 BITTER HERBS BITUMEN
but on the other hand no such route could have brought web :1 the use of the noun Z l z ? in Ezek. 725 accords well enough
the apostle ‘ over against Mysia ’ (so RV ; KCLTZL T*V nith this derivation.
Yuulav). Further, both in Roman and in ordinary fCz$ptd is equivalent in form to Aram. kup$e”dh&,
usage Amastris, and still more Amisus, was a city of 4r. Runfudh ;2 and that these are the words for ‘hedge-
Pontus, not of Bithynia; and only the word Pontus hog ’ in their respective languages is made clear for Ar.
could have been allowable as a single term to express (e.& ) by Damiri’s account ( g a y a t al-Haiwdn, Biilgk
the dual province to which it belonged (as is clear from ?dition, ii. 219) and for Aram. by the Syr. Physiolo~vs
Str. 541 compared with 543, in speaking of Heraclea). [Lands Anecduta Syriaca. 4 4 ~ f . ) . ~The instances of
T h e expression ‘ to go into Bithynia’ can only be taken iisg, ~ p p in, late Heb. and Aram. prove the same for
to imply W. Bithynia-Le., the district round Nicaea post-biblical Jewish usage (see Lewysohn, ZooZo& a’u
and Nicomedeia, where the wealth and administrative TaZmuds, 100).
machinery of the province were centred. Dorylaion Whilst the philological evidence is thus entirely in
(Eski-shehr), only a few miles S. of the Bithynian favour of the rendering ‘ hedgehog’ or ‘ porcupine,’ it
frontier, was the point to which all the roads from the 2. zoology. must be admitted that, zoologically,
south converged ; Paul and his companions must have there are considerable difficulties. The
been somewhere in this neighbourhood when they were animal is always spoken of in connection with desola-
suddenly diverted westwards (Acts 167). w. J. w. tion, and once in relation to pools of water: and,
BITTER HERBS, BITTERNESS (8’579; ni- whilst both these conditions would be natural in the
K p l ~ e c , ~aalrtuce
’~ agrestes, EX. 1 2 8 Nu. 911 ; m[Kpl&, habitat of the Bittern, they have no particular associa-
arnaritudines, Lam. 3 15 ; in Mishna also in sing. ) are tion with either the Hedgehog or the Porcupine.
twice mentioned along with n\%pas the accompaniment Again, in Is. 3411, the lis? is mentioned among birds ;
of the paschal feast. Probably such herbs-whether and in Zeph. 214 it is prophesied that the Pelican and
separately or mixed-as lettuce (Lactuca ScarioZu, var. the &pptd shall lodge together in the capitals of ruined
sativa), chicory (Cichorium Zntybus), and endive (Cich- Nineveh, while ‘ a voice’ (if the text may be trusted)
orium Endiivia) are meant. Doubtless they originally shall sing in the windows. The answers made by
came into use simply as a relish or salad,2 though the Bochart to these objections-that the Porcupine or
prescription of them in the Law may have to do with the Hedgehog was regarded as an unfriendly, desert-loving
atoning significance of the Passover : their association animal on account of its formidable equipments ; that
with the sufferings of the people in Egypt is probably we can find parallels to the mention of a beast among
a later new (Nowack, HA 2 173). See, further, PASS- birds in such enumerations as Lucian’s large oxen, and
OVER. horses, and eagles, and bears, and lions ‘; and that the
‘ Bitter herbs,’ rather than ‘ bitterness ’ (a,
EV), capitals on which the animal is to sit may be those of
seems to he the proper rendering in Lam.315, where fallen columns-are ingenious, but perhaps scarcely
03Tip answers to &, ‘wormwood,’ in the parallel satisfying. It has been suggested that the translation
c1ai.e. N. M.-W. T. T.-D. ‘bittern’ may be reconciled with the etymology by
considering the fact that this bird has the power of
BITTERN, RV Porcupine (TiBp, E ~ ~ N ericizs;
~ ~ : drawing in its long neck so that its head almost rests
Is. 1423 3411 Zeph. 214f). The identit7 of this animal upon its b r e a ~ t . ~ Still, it, is not easy to set aside the
1. Philology. (Web. &&td) is far from certain : opinions argument derived from the meaning of the word in the
of great variety have been held. cognate languages.
The ancient vers<ons unanimously render ‘ Hedgehog’ (or Bittern, Bufaurus steZZalaris, is found in marshy
‘Porcupine’-the two were scarcely distinguished), and this is andThe reedy places throughout Europe, Asia (including
in general supported by Jewish tradition though Rashi thinks
that in Is.84rr Zeph.214 a bird is ,‘,ant, and D. Kimhi India), and Africa. Canon Tristram records its occur-
interprets ‘Tortoise’4 in all three passages (see their com- rence in the marshes of Hiileh. It is a nocturnal bird
mentaries in ZOCC.). Of modern Bibles Wycliffe’s has in all of considerable size, and is remarkahle for its loud
three places ‘ F h i n , ’ and so Luther (followed as usual by the
Dutch). ‘ Ieel. Tunius and Tremellius in their Latin OT render -~.booming note. Formerly a common bird in suitable
anatapia 7 ducg-eagle’); Coverdale followed by the Great localities in Britain, it is no’w but a winter visitor. It
Bible, bas ‘Otter’ in Is.1423 and ‘Stork’ in 15.3411 Zeph. is grouped with the Herons in the family Ardeide.
2 14, while the Geneva Bible has in Isaiah ‘ Hedgehog’ (1423
mg. or ‘tortoise’), and in Zephaniah ‘Owl’ (mg: or ‘hedge- ( c p also C O R M O R A N T and PELICAN. )
hog’). The French Protestant version seems alone to have For Is. 34 I I (qi~??;RVm& ‘bittern ’) see OWL, 5 z(4)
anticipated AV in the rendering ‘butor’ (mg. ou ‘hiidre’). N. M.-A. E. S.
The Roman Catholic Bibles follow the Vulgate.5
The etymology of the Hebrew word is not, however, BITTERNESS, WATER OF (h’lQg Nu. 518 ’n),
unchtain. RV, AV ‘ bitter water.’ See JEALOUSY, ORDEAL OF.
I t is derived from a verb which in Assyrian means ‘to plot ’
transitively (Sargon, KIB 2 6 6 3 ) and in Arabic (I) ‘to infli& BITUMEN, the proper rendering ( I ) of 7Qn,6as
a blow on the neck of another’ ’ ( 2 ) ‘to have a thick or loose RVmg. recognises ( & c + & A T o ~; bitumen; EV has
neck.‘ The original sense is Gerhaps better seen in Syriac
where the same verb means ‘ t o gather into a heap or hali 1 This evidence seems enough to show that the original sense
(trans. or intrans.): the sense of drawine toaether .~~~
~~D also nndrrlips
_.
_..
...
I
was ‘ t o contract or ‘cause contraction by striking ’ not to
‘cut ; and that those were misled who, like Fuller aAd nearly
~ ~ ~~~

;he Assyrian use (cp ‘ intrigue,’ intricare). The verb occurs

but once in OT Hebrew (in Pie1 form) Is. 38 12-‘ I have rolled
rCp (or possibly ‘ shortened,’ see Dillmhnn ad Zoc.) like a weaver
my life,’-a simile referring to the treatment of the finished
1 W L K ~ is,
~ F according to Dioscorides (2 159)~the wild variety of
U$LF (chicory or endive): Pliny (xix. 838) mentions it as the
bitterest sort of ladwca (see the reff. in Di. on Ex.128 and
in Nowack, H A 2 173) : Picks eckioides is probably indnded
all the older scholars, explained the name of the animal from
the latter sense. I n post-biblical Hebrew and W. Aramaic the
sense of cutting is fairly common ; but this may be explained
partly perhaps from a misinterpretation of ’ i p , ? in Is. 38 12,
and partly from association with Gr. ~ d r mand its derivatives :
cp Syr. Ku$di (N.S. &bti), ‘a piece of flesh’-late Gr.
KO?&LO”.

by both. I t does not of course follow that the meaning of
O’!pl is identical with that of r r ~ p Q s r .
2 Vegetable food with meat is a dietetic necessity, and would
naturally be eaten raw until it was discovered that certain kinds
were best cooked. It is a matter for curious inquiry why so
many salad herbs were bitter, at any rate in their feral form.
Dandelion is a striking example.
3 Also used to render in, Is. 1322, and iirq, Is. 3415.
4 Which he wrongly supposes to he the meaning of Ar.
&nfiLdh.
6 Explanations of these various renderings will he found in
Fuller‘s MisceZlaneu Sacra, 1 18 ; Bochart’s Hierae. 3 36.
587
2 So Bthiopic Kenfez. I t seems more probable that the
Arabic word is a loan-word from Aramaic, than that lisp is
horrowed. FrPnkel however (Aram. Fremdw. xiv.), holds that
the latter is the cas:.
3 Cp, for Syriac the other references cited by P. Smith.
Ku$$dka appears’to he used for the ‘owl’ in KaL w. D i k .
(4“)
\>“,I.
1 Cp Brehm’s Tkiede6en (Leipsic ‘79) 6388. ‘When it
(the Bittern) rests and is a t ease, it holds the body erect in a
somewhat forward position and draws in its long neck to such
an extent that its head rests upon its neck.’
6 Ar. homar. Perhaps with reference to the reddish colour
occasionally observed ? (Diosc. 199).
588
 BIZJOTHJAH BLASPHEMY
slime’) in Gen. 1 1 3 1410 Ex.23T; but also ( 2 ) of towards God or man, things holy or things profan
793, which, like its Aram. cognate, is an 4ss. loan-word (Jer. 33 24 Is. 60 14 I S. 2 17).
(EV P ITCH) in Gen. 6 14f, where its occurrence furnishes ‘ Blaspheme’ (cp the verb ‘to blame,’ Romanic 62as?ma~e,
one of the proofs of the Babylonian origin of the L. blasjhSncrire, and see Murray, s.v.), however, occurs in the
EV as a Gendering also of the following ,words : 712 I K.
Deluge-Story (see DELUGE, § 13). I n the Bab. 211013 AV (RV ‘curse’l RVmg. ‘renounce ; cp Dav. on Job
Deluge-Story six ‘ faus’ of Rupru (-@, ‘ bitumen ’) and 15); 172 zK.19622 EV=Is.3?623 EV, Ezek.2027 EV, Nu.
three of iddu (naphtha : Jensen) are poured upon the 153oRV(AV ‘reproach’), Ps.4416[17]EV; ( W L z m ) 2 p Lev.
outer and inner sides of the ship, respectively. Iddu, 2411 (” De) 2). 16 EV, and the Gk. Bharr+~p& z Macc.1034
‘ naphtha,’ is the word used in the legendary account of (not V) 1214 Mt. 2739 Mk. 328 (followed by ~b &opa TOQ OaoG),
the infancy of Sargon I. (3 R. 458a ; RP(l)5 56) :-‘ she Rev.136, I Pet.414.
placed me in a basket of reeds, with id& my door I n I Macc. 738 ‘blasphemies’ is the rendering of
‘she shut’ ; in the similar story of Moses the words Gvuq5vplaL ; in n. 41 ‘ t o blaspheme’ represent: the
igg, ‘ bitumen,’, and jm,PITCH ( q . ~ . ) ,are combined related verb 6uuq5vpeLv ; the object of the blasphemies
is the temple, It is important to determine the sense of
(E: 2 3 & U ~ ~ U X T O S m u m [Ban b]. but ~ U ~ ~ U X T ~ T L U U UpXau$gp~iv accurately, because the sense of ‘ to blas-
[B AF]). The origin of bitumen, or asphalt, and pheme’ in E V follows this exactly. I n a word, the
naphtha need not delay us long. Together with conception of ‘blasphemy ’ in current English is narrower
petroleum and mineral tax, they form a series of sub- than the conception that we find in this supposed pattern
stances which are the result of certain changes in of English speech, which includes all modes of reviling
organised matter. These substances merge into each or calumniating God or man (see d on z K. 196 [Heb.
other by insensible degrees, and it is impossible to
WIJ] 194 [Heb. ph] and Is. 525 [Heb. yam uncertain
say at what point mineral tar ends and asphalt ,begins.
Naphtha, which is the first of the series is in some places conj.], and cp Acts 1345 186 Jude g with Lk. 521 Jn.
found flawingout of the earth as a clear lidpid, and colourless 1036).
liquid. As such it is a mixture of hydrdcarbons, some of which Among the Hebrews (whose view, it is needless to
are very volatile and evaporate on exposure ; it takes up oxygen
from the air, becomes brown and thick, and in this state it say, profoundly affected our own comiuon law)
is called petroleum. A continuation of the same process of 2. OT senti- blasphemy or the expression of unjust,
evaporation and oxidation gradually transforms the material derogatory opinions regarding God or his
into mineral tar, and still later into solid glassy asphalt. merit. government of the world was made a
Asphaltic deposits are widely diffused throughout capital offence-(Lev. 24 11 ; cp I K. 21 13, and see Jos.
the world, more especially in tropical and sub-tropical Ant. iv. 8 6 ) ; the blasphemer must be ‘ cut off’ from his
regions-for example in the basin of the DEAD SEA people (Lev. 2415 P ; see LAW AND JUSTICE, $ 13).
(q.n., $6). The asphalt of the Dead Sea (which was It was forbidden to use the name of God lightly (o;n
very well known to the ancients) is not at present of
commercial importance ; but the sources of the supply of Dt. 5x1). whether to ask a blessing or to invoke a curse
ancient Babylon, the bitumen springs of Hit (the .Is of (cp Ex. 207, and see BLESSING A ND CURSING, $ I, and
Schultz, O T TheoZ. 2 122 fl [ET]). Whenever Israel
Herod. lqq), are still used. At this very old city on
the Euphrates the shipwrights adhere to the ancient is brought to shame G o d s name is scoffed at by the
heathen (Ps. 7410 18). At a later date it was held to be
fashion of boat- building. , Tamarisk and mulberry
branches form the substratum, which is covered with a mark of profanity even to pronounce the real name of
mats and thickly besmeared with bitumen (cp Ex. 23).2 the God of Israel (see Lev. 2411 and cp NAMES, 109).
Bitumen was much used in architecture (see Gen. 113). Josephus (Ant. iv. 86), and the Rabbis interpret Ex.
2228 as a prohibition of blaspheming ‘ strange gods ’ ;
Unburned brick protected by a plaster of bitumen
but the interpretation, however much in the interests of
proved the most indestructible of materials (see ASSYRIA,
the Jews themselves, implies a misunderstanding of the
6, BABYLONIA, 5 15, and cp Peters, Nippur, 2162).
use of dl6him (see Schultz, 2127). It was on a charge
Bitumen was used in ancient times as a fuel (Verg.
Ed. 8 83), for medicinal purposes (Jos. BJ iv. 8 4 ) 3. NT. of blasphemy-claiming to be the Christ, the
and for embalming (see EMBALMING). Son of God-that Jesus was found worthy of
death (Mk. 1461-64 Mt. 2665 ; cp Jn. 1033), and for
BIZJOTHJAH, RV Biziothiah (Vn\?2), among blasphemons words against ‘the holy place and the
the cities of Judahin the Negeb (Josh. 1528). BBA ( K U ~ law’ Stephen was condemned to be stoned (Acts613
al KGpaL U ~ T & K . ai B T U ~ X E L Sad. [L om.]) enables us to 7 5 6 3 ) . See STEPHEN. By blasphemy against the
restore thus-~v$ip (‘and her villages ’). See We. C H Holy Spirit in Mk. 329, Mt. 1232, was meant originally
132, and Hollenbeig, AZex. Ue6ers. a.‘ B. /os. (’76), 14. a definite offence of the scribes and Pharisees, who had
ascribed Jesus’ cures of demoniacs to a power derived
BIZTHA (K>l$ [sa., Ginsb. for common ’131, from the prince of the demons. This was blasphemy
MAZAN [BK*LB], BAZ. [Kc.=], -zsaJA]). a chamberlain against the divine power which had come upon
of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1IO). If any reliance could be put on Jesus at his baptism (Mlr. 1IO Mt. 316 Lk. 322). I n
the reading of the Vss., one might, with Marq. (Fund. Mt. 1232,however, a later interpretation is given, which
71),compare pafav with 0. Pers. nzazdana-i.e., IiTn, or implies that the disciples of Jesus had thoroughly
pafav, with /#a&vqs, the name of a eunuch of Darius 111. absorbed the idea of the indwelling Spirit. The Holy
BLACK (Dtn,7h4,772, ?@J) and BLACKISH Spirit is put in antithesis to the ‘Son of Man.’ One
(7lb) Job 616 ; see COLOURS,$ 8. BLACKNESS ; for who fails to pierce below the humble exterior of Jesus
Prov. 79 RV and Joel26 Nah. 210, see COLOURS,§ 17; may be forgiven. One who not merely rejects, but
for Job 3 5 i6. 8 n., for Is. 503 ib. 8. openly disparages, that great gift which ‘ the Heavenly
Father will give to those who ask him’ (Lk.1113)
BLAINS (n’y+p%),Ex. 99J.q. See BOIL, 3. cannot be forgiven : the inward impediment in the man
BLASPHEMY (nuy? 2 K. 193 IS. 373 ; n\Yi$J himself is too strong. The idea of the original distinc-
tion was suggested by that in the Law (Num. 1527-31).
Neh. 9 18 26 ; ’5; Ezek. 85 12 ; BAAC@HMIA Tob. 118 A parallel to it will be found in the Mishna (Sanhedr.
I Macc. 26 Mt. 1231 2665). The word lor)-’ He who says that the Law is not from Heaven
The word* so translated is derived from a root has no part in the world to come’ (w>n phy). The
HI) meaning literally to scorn or reject’ (see z S. later interpretation, however, has no parallel, and is a
1214 Ps. 741018 Is. 525). I n Hebrew, therefore, it can
1 This rendering of ?(lzis very doubtful: but it is quite
naturally be used to describe an attitude of hostility
possihle that in passa es like Job 1 5 I I<. 21 TO 13 a later editor
1 Perhaps connected with bamtu, ‘burning. fiery’ (Halevy). substituted 712 for 5\p or yxi. In Ps.103 we may even have
a See the illustration called ‘ A Noachian Boatyard at Hit,’
Peter., iVzippur, 2 162. side by side the correction 712 and the original reading YS!.

589 590
 BLASTING
product of the Spirit of Christ working in the hearts of
the first disciples.
BLASTING (fiPye; GBAFLaNeMo@Bopia [Dt.
25 2 2 2 Ch. 6 281, ENTTYPICMOC [I K. 8 371 ; GBAQ
r r y p w c ~ c[Am. 491 ; dBNcbQI’, a@opia, bA a@eo.
@N* a m . [Hag. 2171) is, as we learn from Gen. 41,
a term specially applied to the blighting effect of wind
upon corn. The root in Arabic means blackness ; and
the Heb. word thus describes a blackening (almost
burning) process which is regarded as due to a severe wind
-a sense which is expressed by the various renderings
of 6. The word is in each passage coupled with fipz,:
‘ mildew.’ Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether wind is
in itself sufficient to account for such a blackening. In
the British Islands wheat when young assumes a yellow
colour from cold, a well-known physiological effect.
Under a burning drying wind, it might turn brown,
but scarcely bZack. Further, it must be noted that in
Gen. 41 6 the corn was in ear ; it had made its growth,
but the ears were thin-i. e . , diseased. It seems prob-
able, then, that the effect conceived in the dream was
that produced by corn smut,‘ UstiZago Carbo; and that
this is the real meaning of ]im@. ‘ Mildew ’ is the other
common disease of corn, Puccinia graminis.
N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
BLASTUS ( BAac~oc[Ti. WH]), the chamberlain
(6 8 d 703 KoirGvos, prefeGtzls c u b i c ~ l i )of King Herod
Agrippa I. (Acts 12 2.).
BLESSINGS and CURSINGS (773, to bless-a
denominative from T? ;, the knee, with the lower part of
the leg; perhaps ‘ t o cause to make progress,’-and
776,to curse [cp Ass. ardru ( I ) ‘ to curse,’ ardru ( 2 ) ‘ to
bind ’1,and their derivatives ?l?JL n?&p, in parallelism,
chiefly in poetic and legal sources of JED ‘and later
imitations ; cp Gen. 27 zg Dt. 1126 Josh. 8 34 etc. ).
LB represents -p-~by s&Aoyeiv, 3113 by &Aoyia (also NT
words). In Hebrew for ‘ cursing ’ we find also (a)%p Z\\c
(prop. tobelittle?)frequently. (6) &, verb and noun, c p nY?t
n>$ ‘oath of cursing’ Nu. 5 21 (RVmg. ‘adjuration’), rendered
‘execration,’ Jer.4218 4422, and RV only Jer.2918; its
derivative Z2,Kp occurs in Lam. 3 65t. (c) Dlfl, i3’lr7> see BAN.
(d) 22p only in the Balaam stories (Nu. 22 IT 23 8 24 IO) and
possibly to be connected wjth 233 (prop. ‘ to pierce ’) rendered in
Lev. 24 II 16 ‘blaspheme. From the Jewish tradition which
explained it to mean ‘pronounce, speak aloud’ arose the deep
rooted belief that the divine name was not to be uttered undeI
any circumstance (see NAMES, 0 109 n.)! IDOLATRY, 8 8. (e)
?1p13$,Is. 65 15, E V ‘curse,’ properly ‘oath ’ as in R V w ; see
OATH and cp COVENANT, $3 5.
The N T words are (a)bva&pad<w Mk. 1471 (in ‘l3 foI
nyn, nqn>) ; ~ a ~ a v a O e p a [ ~ ~ <Mt.
m , l ,26 74 Rev. 22 3 ; see BAN.
(h) ~a?-ap&[opat]Rom. 12 14 Jam. 3 g (in 9 for 557, lw), alsc
KaTa‘pa Gal. 3 10 13 and KaTa‘Bepa (RVW. anythikg accursed
Rev. 22 3 ; cp also ;?rrranipams ‘ under a curse,’ Gal. 3 IO. (c
KaKoAoy6E)v Mt. 15 4 Mk. T IO, RV ‘ speak evil of’ (in ‘l3 for $ 5 ~ )
see OATH.
In the primitive sense of the word, a blessing or a
curse was a spell, pronounced by ‘ holy ’ persons, and
containing a divine name, or divine names, which drew
down the divine favour or disfavour (i.e., prosperity 01
adversity), as the case might require, on certain otheI
persons. It was a consequence of the hardness of life
that curses were more frequently in demand than
blessings. Thus (u) the breaking out of hostilitiei
between states naturally led to the solemn utterance oi
formulze of cursing against the enemy. These invoca.
tions would be uttered at the opening of a campaign, anc
especially when the warriors were on the point o
advancing against the foe. Goliath, we are told
‘cursed David by his gods’ ( I S. 17 43). The battle
shout certainly had a religious character ; and, if it dic
not always devote the enemy to destruction, at any rat(
it invoked a blessing on the national side. Cp Ps. 68 I-
and the story of B ALAAM [q.v.].l (a) The laws too hac
1 Nu. 22 6 shows that Balak, according to the narrator, wa
about to fight with the Israelites.
591
BLUE
)metimes an increased sanction through the cursing
irmulae attached. Thus KE iv. mentions a statute
:specting the maintenance of boundaries, which is
iforced by a curse on any one who should violate it.
’O this category of curses belong those in Dt. 28.
It is true that a series of blessings is attached to the
:ries of cursings. Moses, from his close connection with
le Deity, had a special power of blessing and cursing.
.fter him the priests had a similar power, which they
xerted in the interests of the faithful community (cp
J RIM AND T HUMMIM, § 6). The uplifted hands of the
riest drew down (as it were) a blessing on Israel (cp
,ev. 9 22 Nu. 6 23-27) and a curse on Israel’s enemies.
,o potent, indeed, were the blessings and the curses ot
he reputed founder of Israel that they could be said to
e on the two sacred mountains which enclose the
Sriginal centre of the people-the valley of Shechem-
eady to descend, as the case might be, ,with rewards or
iunishments (Dt. 1129).I
Within the family it was the father who (according to
)rimitive ideas not unconnected with the worship of
mcestors) had the mystic privilege of determining the
veal or woe of his children (Gen. 9 2 5 8 ) , and more
:specially when his days were manifestly numbered (see
%Au, 2, I SAAC , 5 5, JACOB). Nor does it appear
hat the early Israelites linuted this power by moral con-
iiderations (see Gen. 27 35). Obviously, however, such
L limitation was a necessary consequence of a pure
nonotheism. The post-exilic writers declare that only
.he offspring of the righteous can be blessed (Ps. 37 26),
md that the observance of God‘s laws ensures his favour
without the aid of priests or enchanters. Fear not,
.hen, said the later sages to their pupils, if thine enemy
:uses thee : ‘ the curse causeless shall not come ’ (I’rov.
26 2):
Still, even in post-exilic time we sometimes find a
strange half-consciousness that curses had an inherent
power. I t was worth while to curse a bad man,
to ensure his full punishment-such is the idea of Ps.
109-a strange survival of primitive superstition.
In the discourses of Jesus we find blessings and
curses. They are, however, simply authoritative declara-
tions of the eternal connection between right-doing and
happiness. wrong-doing and misery (e.g.,in the case of
Judas).
Parallels to the Israelitish view of blessings and
cursings outside of the Semitic peoples hardly need to be
quoted. The objective existence of both, but especially
of curses, was strongly felt by the Assyrians and
Babylonians, as the magical texts show. The Arabian
beliefs on the subject axe also very suggestive, as
Goldziher has pointed out. See MAGIC, z n., and
on the ‘ curse-bringing water’ (Nu. 5 1 8 3 ) see J EALOUSY,
WATER OF. T. K. C.
BLINDNESS (n’?gD, Gen. 1911 2 K. 618 ; fi?$,
Dt. 2828 Zech. 124). See EYE, DISEASES, and MEDI-
CINE.
BLOOD. For blood in law and ritual, see S ACRIFICE ;
PASSOVER; CLEAN A N D UNCLEAN, $I$ ; COVENANT, 5 5f: ;
KINSHIP, $3 13;and Foon, $3 9. For ‘avenger of blood’ (5ch
a??; Dt. 19% see GOEL. For ‘issue of blood’(pdccs d l p a m s ;
Mk. 525), see DISEASE, MEDICINE.
BLOOD, Field of (arpoc MMATOC), Mt. 278. See
ACELUAMA.
BLUE (n$ag), Ex. 25 4, etc., a variety of Purple.
See COLOURS, $5 13. 15.
Blue ’ is employed in E V of Esth. 1 6 to distinguish certain
kinds of stones. Thus for iiilii we have AV ‘blue marble,’ AVmg.
~~
1 The blessing and the curse referred to were those attaching
to the fulfilment and the non-fulfilment of the commands of the
Law. They were ‘laid before’ Israel by Moses and were
to be ‘laid’ by them on their arrival in the proksed land,
probably by solemn proclamation on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal
respectively. In Dt. 27 12f. we dave a later writer’s interpreta-
tion of this command. See Kue. TAT,1878, pp. 2 9 7 3
592
 BOANERGES
‘marble’ RV ‘white marble’: and for n i n b EVmg. ‘stone
of blue ’colour,’ EV ‘black marble.’ See, however, MARBLE,
and cp COLOURS, B 16.
For ‘blueness’ in Prov. 20 30t AV (us9 n)lmn, ‘blueness of
wound’) RV has, better, ‘stripes that wound.
BOANERGES ( B O A N H ~ ~ W [Ti. Treg. W H follow-
ing KABC, etc. ; BOANAP. [A*], T R B O A N E ~ ) , aname
given, according to Mk. 3 1 7 , to ~ James [I] and John
the sons of Zebedee. The reading of K, etc., points to
poavv WESas the accepted analysis of the name, and
the evangelist explains it by ut01 ppovr?js, ‘sons of
thunder.’ Each element, however, presents some
difficulty.
I. The difficulty in taking Boane- to be r z , #ne‘,
‘sons of,’ is to.account for o a = s h e w ~ .
Attempts to explain it as a phonetic ‘corruption’ have been
unsatisfactory. There does not appear to he any Fiistorical
foundationafor Bretschneider’s explanation3ofaaas a corrupt pro-
nunciation of a provincial (Galilean) a, or for Hugh Broughton’s
statement4 (Works 620) that the Jews pronounced shew& as oa.
I t is more plaukhle to regard the corruption as textual.
Since shew&=a is natural enough (cp paq-papar, Josh. 1 Y 45
[A]), and shewii=o is not unknown (cp e.g. Lcpopoap), oa
might be a conflate reading.6 Dalman (Gram. 122, n. 2)6
supposed the transposition of an o which originally stood after
p (see below). H e now prefers to regard either o or a as a
gloss ( W o r t e /ern, 39, n. 4). I n some such way the double
vowel must have arisen : it is strange that the MSS 7 have not
preserved any trace of variation in the first syllable.
The orthography, therefore, cannot he explained
quite satisfactorily. W e may be reasonably certain,
however, about the signification.
a. This cannot be said of the second element in the
word. The evangelist (or a scholiast) understood pyes
to mean &xwr$, ‘ thunder’ ; but we do not know what
Semitic word it was supposed to represent, nor can we
say whether the interpretation was an original hypothesis
or a really current belief.
(a) In the Syriac versions (Pesb. and Sin.) pycs appears as
WIT. That may, however, be nothing more than a translitera-
tion. Only in Arabic does ~ 3 mean7 ‘thunder.’ If it occurs in
the O T at all8 it probably mcans ‘throng. In h a m . it means
‘tumult,’ ‘rushing,’ etc. If PYES is w i i , therefore, it can hardly
..
mean ‘ thunder.’g’
Jerome, indeed, conscious of this, declares (Comnt. ad Dan.
17) that the true readine is (emenriatius l e d r r ) denereem (var.
Y~ I ,
danerrenz, danarehenz)-i.e., sons of re‘lm, p y i (cp. Ex. 10 16
Pseudo-Jon.)-and this readiig he quietly assumes in his L i d .
de nonzm. Hed. under ‘John. That he ignores it in the Comm.
on Mk. however, probably shows that it is a mere hypothetical
emendition 10 not a variant reading (cp BARTIMBUS,0 2).
Apparently: therefore, we must adhere to pyes.
(6) The second letter of pyss, however, might represent not J
hut y, as in peypa=Nnyi; but w y i is no nearer ppovmj than w j l .
Besides, y h,ecomes y , as a rule only when it is represented in
Arabic by g, not by ‘. but al;bough there is in Ar. a word
ra&su, the phonetic hquivalent of which in Hebrew would be
vyl, ra’afa (not ra+..ra) agrees most closely with vy’l in
meaning, and a wyi=ra‘a&z would not as a m l e appear as
“?Le common word for ‘thunder’ in Hebrew and Aramaic
would not conflict with this phonetic principle ; the nearest word
in Arabic to Hebrew ru‘am IS ra&ama. Drusius (Ad voces NT
Comnz. prior 39 [1616]) therefore and Glassius (PhiZ. Sacra,
[1625]) revived the theory of Jerome that p y ~ sshould be p e p
regarding the s as merely a Greek termination substituteJfo;
a final consonant dropped as e.g in Gehenna. No doubt -ES
would be rather stranee t&minhtion for a man’s name’: but
Boanerges is not a mazs name : it is the name of two ’men.
Indeed Suidas gives the name as poavspyas (as if the
1 There is no hint of such a name anywhere else in the N T
(cp, however, \I Lk.6 14 [D]) ; but too much must not be made of
that. Glassius pointed out that Boanerges is professedly a name
shared by two men (more conveniently called ‘the sons of
Zebedee ’), one of whom met an early death (Acts 12).
2 Cp the strong language of Kautzsch, Gram. d. BidZ.-
dram. 9.
3 NTLex., S.V.
4 Adopted by Lightf. (Hor. He& ad Zoc.), who instances
MoavaGa (Strabo, 764) for N!$p.
5 So (practically) Glassius (d. 1656).
6 So now Arnold Meyer, Jesu Mutfersprache.
7 See below (8).
8 M T has w17 in Ps. 5515 and 7 ~ 1 in 1 643 (cp 1 ~ 1 in
1 21)
but in each case it has been questioned whether the text iz
correct. See Che. Ps. (2).
9 There is no reason to suppose thqt in the passage cited ,hy
Lightfoot ( M e g Z a h B. zgn, mid.) the word means ‘thunder.
10 A corruption-of p y i into wyi (see p) would be easy.
38 593
BOCHIM
dural of poavep s). Beza on the other hand (Adnotatioxes
vrajores, ad Zoc. y25941). t d d to improve on Drusius by suggest-
ng that a mistake had occurred in a Semitic text: p y i was
nisread ~ y i . I t is difficult to see how this could be. A
Semitic text containing the name pylq3 would not need to give
m explanation of the name (cp col. 490, n. I). On the other
hand, a Greek translator could not have given the supposed
zorrect translation if he had misread the word.1
( y ) There remains the possibility that s=l (see e.g. A NAZ
BOAZ). Kautzsch (Z.C.) suggests that pyes may represen;
’ 4 2 (l’?l), ‘anger’ (cp Dan. 313 and, asused of thunder, the Ar.
irtajaza ’r-ra‘dfc) ; and this solution is adopted by Dalman (Z.C.)
who further accounts for the translation ppovnj by comparin;
Job 372, I;>, used of thunders (k,o:a e&$.
The historical origin of the name not being known
(cp J AMES , i. I ) , we cannot determine the second
Semitic element with certainty. There is no evidence
that ‘ Boanerges ’ can ever have meant strictly ‘ sons of
thunder.’ On the other hand, what is said in the
Gospels of the sons of Zebedee gives a certain appro-
priateness to such a title as i n 713, taken in the sense of
1 angry,’ ‘ soon angered’ (or the like).
H. W. H.
BOAR (l’Fn, cyc), Ps. 8013 1141. See SWINE (end).
BOAZ. I. (rq2hardly, ‘quickness’ [BDB L e x . ] ;
Ass. piazzi or 8iazu means a wild boar or the like;
but see JACHIN A ND BOAZ; Booc [BA], -002 A and
L in Ru. 2 1 5 4 8 I Ch. 211f.) of Bethlehem, kinsman
of Naomi and husband of RUTH [ P . v . ] . According to
the post-exilic genealogy, Ru. 4 1 8 8 (cp I Ch. 2118).
he was the son of S ALMON or S ALMAH, and the ancestor
of D AVID (I I, n. a ) . See RUTH, BUZITE.
2. The name of one of the two pillars set up before
Solomon‘s temple ( I K. 721= z Ch. 3 17). See J ACHIN
AND BOAZ.
I Esd. 8 z = Ezra74, BUIIKI,I.
BOCCAS(BoKK&[BA]),
BOCHERU (n$3,§61 : for the ending -u, cp JETHRO
and see GESHEM), a son of Azrikam, Saul’s descendant
(I Ch. 8 38 = 9 44). @BNAL, however, punctuated and
read - doubtless correctly - ‘ Azrikam his firstborn ’
( w p w v 5 m K o s atmil : iija).
@ L makes up the six sons of Azel by enumerating u[alp~a
in
the fifth place, besides acapras in the third.
BOCHIM (avai, § 103, ‘weepers,’ KAAYeMWN
[BAL]), the name of a place near Gilgal, where the
b‘ne Israel sacrificed after the visit of the angel of Yahwb
(Judg. 2 IU P’?a? ; 5a KhAyeMWNEC [ B ] ) , and a h 0
probably of a place in Judah (Mic. 1IO emended text ;
see below). The name of the former place is interpreted
‘ Weepers ’ ; but the passage which refers to this (an.18-
sa) is an insertion (see JUDGES, 4 ) based upon I U ,
where we may expect to find the older and more gener-
ally used name of the place. Here, however, @ com-
bining two readings gives 6rrl rbv K X U U O ~ G V KU U ~err1
par0vX (on the corrupt Kal [irl]rbv ~ K O UiupavX, see
Moore ad Zoc.), and the latter, which suits the con-
text well, is accepted a s correct by most critics (Bu.
Ri. Sam. 20 8 ,We., Mey., Kue., Bu., Kitt.).
W e must therefore correct Rochim in ~a to
‘Bethel.’ The explanation of ‘Bochim’ in v. 5a
suggests a doubt as to the correctness of the present
form, which may have been changed to agree with a
more than half sportive derivation from ‘ to weep.’
The correct pronunciation must have been BEki’im
(o’K??, p?g)-i.e., ‘Baca-trees‘ (see MULBERRY). These
trees were probably abundant near Bethel, and it is
possible that the ‘Tree of Weeping’ (ALLONBACuTH)
grew near them. The play on the name would, at any
rate, be familiar to the ancient Israelites, and may have
led to a variety in the pronunciation of the name (cp
Mareshah, Moresheth).
~
1 Of course a gloss embodying a true tradition may have made
its way into a translation of a faulty MS.
2 J. F . K. Gurlitt had considered this word in his careful
discussion in St. Kr. (1829, pp. 715-738).
3 So now also Arnold Meyer, 3esu Mutterspraclre, 51f.
594
 BOHAN
T h e r e is an e a r l y testimony to the form Bochim i n
Mic. 110, if >j>n-SN 133 ( E V weep not at all’) may be
e m e n d e d into 133n n q 3 3 (@Q”’g. [IN] p a x a p ) , ‘in
Hochim (HEkii’ini) weep ’ (Elhorst, We., Now., Che.,
omitting the intrusive h, ‘ n o t ’ ; c p Che. IQR, July
1898). No locality called Bekaim n e a r Micah’s native
town is k n o w n t o us. T h i s causes no difficulty. T h e r e
m a y h a v e been m a n y places where Baca-trees grew.
T h e alternative correction, ‘ I n Acco weep n o t ’ (Reland,
Hitzig, etc. ), i s geographically inadmissible. We c a n n o t
well s u p p o s e a Philistine city of that name (G. A. Smith),
nor d o e s Micah concern himself with Philistia(cp GILOH).
BOHAN, THE STONE OF (]?3i7K. BMWN [BA]),
an u n k n o w n point on t h e h o n n d a r y between J u d a h and
BENJAMIN (§ 31, Josh. 156 (BEWN EL]), 1817 ( B ~ A M
[A], -N [L]). B o h a n is called i n b o t h places t h e son
(sometimes sons [eBL in 18 17)) of REUBEN ; possibly,
however, the s t o n e o r r o c k w a s a well-known l a n d m a r k ,
t h u s designated on account of its supposed resemblance
to a t h u m b (1.3).
BOIL, BOIL (Botch)l of Egypt. The Heb. word
vnrtj,
,.:, . (lit. ‘an inflammation. f r o m a root f o u n d
%%in > i n e d t o man, whilst the fifth stood for epizootic disease
1. OT names i n Syr. and Ar., m e a n i n g ‘ to b e h o t ’) for
reE. the ‘ b o i l ’ i n the sixth plague of E g y p t ,
and the ‘ botch of EgvDt’
-, i n Dt. 2827. is
L
applied a g a i n t o the ‘ b o i l ’ of Hezekiah and to s o m e
diagnostic s i g n t h a t occurred i n o n e or m o r e of t h e
various contagious a n d mostly parasite skin-affections
included u n d e r t h e c o m m o n n a m e of rips (see
LEPROSY) i n Lev. 13 18J 20 23-the variety called ‘ burn-
i n g b o i l ’ 2 (really a pleonasm) b e i n g clean, and t h e
variety of boil which g a v e place t o a white o r bright
s p o t being unclean. The reference i s almost certainly
to local o r limited s p o t s of inflammation, although it is
h a r d l y possible t o give a m o d e r n n a m e to t h e m or to
identifythem. -
I n Dt. 28 35 and Job 2 7 the same word is applied to a skin-
disease ‘from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head’ ; but
probably it is so used without any precise nosological intention,
and merely to express a peculiarly loathsome affliction.
It is only t h e boii disease specially associated with
E g y p t t h a t i s h e r e considered.
There occur four other references to diseases specially
Egyptian but not called M@n. Two of these(Dt. 7 15 and 2860,
n:?y9 m l p [>)?pl, ‘the evil diseases of Egypt,’ and ‘all
the diseases of Egypt’) are in admonitory passages written in
a popular style. In the third (Zech.1418) a plague is to
smite the Egyptians if they do not comd up to keep the
Feast of Booths. I t is the same aflliction that is to befall
the other peoples who neglect this ordinance, and there is
nothing, as the text now stands,4 to indicate that the writer is
1 Botch is a name commonly and with the definite article
distinctively, given to plague in ;he Elizabethan and the Stuart
periods. I n the Edinburgh treatise on plag,ue by Ur. Gilbert
Skene (1568) it occurs in the form of ‘boiche. I n the Vision q
Piers Ploughman the spelling is 6oche, and the meaning specific
or generic(‘ byles and boches and brennyngagues’). The most
probable etymology is Fr. poche, meaning pocket, poke, pock
(cp also It. dozzu, a bubble), and applied in the plural b
$ o d e s , like the Spanish k s bubas, to epidemics of camp kick.
ness, about A . D . 1528, which seem to have been typhus, bul
may have included bubonic cases, or perhaps cases of truf
plague. The translators of the AV seem to have meant bJ
‘ botch’ the familiar bubo plague of tb‘eir time. Milton alsc
may use the word in its exact sense of bubo plague, where hc
says of the sixth ppgue of Egypt : ‘botches and blains must a1
his flesh emboss (PL12 180). With the disappearance o
\ decay under the influence oE Persian, Greek, and Roman con-
plague from Britain after 1666, the word lost its technica
meaning.
2 Rather, ‘scar of the boil,’ ]?I?? (v. 23 ; cp RV).
3 [As Rudde points out the expressions in Dt. 2.c. a n
borrowed from the Prologud to Job. That section of the boo1
appears to be based on a folk-tale; the designation which i
gives to Job’s malady is, therefore, general, not technical. W I
must remember, however, that in Lev. 13 1 8 3 the is th<
forerunner of leprosy, and that in the speeches hf Job th<
symptoms of his malady, though poetically expressed, point (a
most scholars admit) to leprosy in its worst form. See LEPROSV.
4 [The text is disfigured by two errors due to dittography
One is the word ‘not’ before ‘upon them,’ repeated from v. 17
the other is ‘the nations that go not up to keep the Feast o
Booths,’ repeated from v. 19. @ has simply K& L?iC TO&OUS,
595
BOIL
linking of the ‘botch of Egypt.’ The reference in the fourth
im. 4 IO), however, may possibly be to some actual epidemic
i the history of the northern kingdom. T h e ‘pestilence in th?
lanner of Egypt’ may well be equivalent to the ]>nvor ‘botch
f Dt. 25 27 which should mean some specific disease such as
l e ‘emerdds’ (KV ‘ tumours’ ; or plague-boils) of I 5156, with
rhich it is coupled, certainly means. As the sixth plague is
pecially called one of ‘boils and blains,’ this also may be taken
3 stand for some definite boi!-disease of Egypt.
We m u s t now consider which of t h e boil diseases of
Cgypt i s m e a n t b y E&%.’ It is s t a t e d that the boil
2. shshrn accompanied b y blains broke forth u p o n
b o t h man a n d beast. T h i s , if nosologically
Of Egypt* meant, would exclude b u b o plague, as b e i n g
inknown i n cattle. O n t h e other h a n d , a n t h r a x , which
night be correctly described a s the boil of cattle, is
:qually excluded, inasniuch as in man it i s never
:pidemic, b u t only sporadic. I f we might s u p p o s e
he narrative, or (as t h e critics s a y ) t h e interwoven
iarratives, of t h e plagues to be based on a simpler
iarrative, or simpler narratives, which would bear to be
reated as matter-of-fact description, w e might expect
hat i n the original narrative the sixth p l a g u e repre-
;ented t h e p l a g u e proper ( b u b o plague), which i s con-
n general. 1
Certainly the special association of b u b o plague with
tncient E g y p t is historically correct, so that t h e word
b o t c h ’ i n the AV i s a h a p p y choice ( c p I , n. I ).
Besides t h e constructive evidence as to the disaster
vhich is said t o have befallen Sennacherib’s a r m y
x f o f e Pelusinm (see PESTILENCE, and, on t h e historical
Joints, HEZEKIAH, I), there is, indeed, no extra-biblical
Zestimony t o b u b o p l a g u e i n E g y p t earlier t h a n a b o u t
300 B.c., and even this testimony has been only indirectly
?reserved.
Oribasius, who was physician to the Emperor Julian cites a
Jassage from Rufus of Ephesus, a physician in the’time of
rrajan, wherein he describes bubo plague with singular clear-
less ; it is indeed rare as Daremberg remarks to find in ancient
iuthors such positive d a r k s of the identity of k pestilential type.
Rufus says that the disease was most common, and very mortal,
in Libya, Egypt, and Syiia. H e adds that Dipscorides and
Poseidonios had enlarged upon pestilential buboes in writing
upon the pestilence which in their time ravaged Libya-
supposed to have been the same great epidemic, about 127 B.c.,
which is mentioned by Livy, Julius Obsequens and Orosius.
Rufus further says that the pupils of one Dion;sius, 6 KU 76s
make mention of these pestilential buboes. An ancieiit &,e$
loss to the Vatican codex of Oribasius explains that Dionysius
h h the above surname (‘Hunchback’) conies into the bio-
:raphies of Hermippus. This would fix his date prior to
280 B.C.
W h i l s t the botch of E g y p t cannot, u p o n independent
testimony, b e traced farther b a c k t h a n 300 B.c., i t i s
highly improbable t h a t i t was first seen then. As
Lorinser points out, the endemic inflnences favouring
plague i n E g y p t , depending u p o n the peculiar alterna-
tions of wet a n d d r y s o i l (caused by t h e periodic rise
and fall of the Nile), were t h e r e l o n g before.
Pariset (Causes de Zu Peste, etc., Paris, 1837) has argued
with great cogency that the elaborate pains taken in the best
period of ancient Egypt to preserve the soil from putrefying
animal matters human and other were inspired by the risk of
plague, and m;st have been in high degree effective. It is
clear however that any failure of the sanitary code would give
plag;e its opbortunity the pressure of population and the
climate or hydrology be& constant, and that such failure may
reasonably be assumed at first as an occasional thing and then-
from the time that the ancient civilisation, with sabitation (en-
forced by religious sanctions) a principal part of it, began to
quests-as permanent.
without the negative particle, but ‘it has the second insertion.
A critical edition should give the text thus : ‘And if the
Egyptian people go not up nor come, upon ;hem will the stroke
come with which Yahwk will strike. ...
The close of the
sentence may early have become effaced. The plague intended
was, at any rate, not that of the other nations. which was want
ofrain.] ’
1 The qualification (‘in general’) is designed. What is said
of the ‘murrain’ upon the horses, camels, asses, oxen and
sheep is expressed in a sense too comprehensive for any :ingle
epizootic malady (.E., anthrax is a disease that oxen and sheep
suffer from in common, but not horses,,nor, so far as is known,
asses and camels).
596
 BOILS, PLAGUE BOSOR
That the sanitary precautions did utterly break down BOILING PLACES (nl\vlq), Ezek. 4623, E V ;
under Mohammedan conquest, and that bubo plague
did become for fourteen centuries the standing pestilence
and BOILING HOUSES (a+yj~ponq),
Y. 24, RV.
See COOKING, § I.
of Egypt, we know as matter of fact. We know also
that it was from Pelusium that the great' plague of BOLLED ( i . e . , ' swollen,'. see Skeat, Etym. Dict. ;
Justinian's reign (542 A. D.) started-to overrun the RV'"g. ' in flower' ; $974, C T T B P M ~ * T I Z O N [BA4L]:
whole known world. It is probable, further, that Ex. 931T). The Hebrew word occurs only once, but
the pestilence in Lower Egypt 'at the time of the s evidently (see Ges. Thes., Levy, Tuyg. W&.1421,
massacre of Christians in the episcopate' of Cyprian NHWB 1 2 9 6 ) connected with y-?;, ' cup ' ; and the
included bubo plague. The valuable testimony pre- Mishnic usage (Ges. Z.C.) is in favour of its referring to
served by Oribasins as to Egyptian, Libyan, and
the flower-cup (perhaps as a closed bud), rather than
Syrian pestilential buboes, as early as 300 B.c.. has (as d supposed) to the formation of the seed-pods (see,
been already cited. If beyond that date we are left to however, Tristram, IVNB(~) 445).
conjecture, there is still a high probability that the plague
was known in 'Egypt at a much earlier date. BOLSTER (rI&Ty, I S. 1913 267. SeeBED, $4 (u).
This historical bubo plague of Egypt answers best BONDAGE (il$, hoy hela), Ex. 1 1 4 Rom. 8 15,
to the sixth plague. The boil breaks out in the
manner of the plague bubo, which may be etc., and BONDMAN (V;?, Aoyhoc), Dt. 15 15 Rom.
3. Nature
of disease. single or multiple. Its situations are the 6 16, etc. See SLAVERY.
armpits, groins, and the sides of the neck ; BONNET. For ilLQJQ, mig&a"dlt, Ex.2840, etc. (RV
and it consists of one (or of a packet) of the natural
lymphatic or absorbent glands of those regions enlarged
'headtire'), see MITRE, 5 I (I); for @"ZY, Is.%e,
320 (RV 'headtire'), Ezek.4418 (RV 'tire'), see
to the size of a hen's (or even a turkey's) egg, often of T URBAN, 0 z.
a livid colour, hard, tense, painful, and attended with
inflammatory swelling of the skin for some distance BOOK (lgb,
Gen.51 etc. ; BiBAoc, Lk. 3 4 etc.,
around it. Just as in Asiatic cholera and yellow fever BIBAION, Lk.417 etc.). See W RITING, § 3, end;
there are ' explosive ' attacks so suddenly fatal that the HISTORICAL LIT., s$
3, 5, 16 ; C ANON, 1-4,20.
distinctive symptoms have hardly time to develop, so
there may be death from plague without the bubo or BOOK OF LIFE ([H]BIBhoC [THC] Z W H C ) , PhiIiP.
the botch. Still, the latter is the distinctive mark of 4 3 Rev. 35. Cp Ex. 3232 Is.43, and see LAW AND
plagne, the same in all countries and in all periods of JUSTICE, $ 14.
history. BOOT (ON?),Is. 95 [4]t., RVmg. See SHOES, 3.
Other signs of plague were livid or red hzemorrhagic spots of
the skin (called 'the tokens' in English epidemics), large car- BOOTHS (nDp), Lev. 2 3 4 2 3
See T ABERNACLE ,
buncles (especially on the fleshy parts), and blains (niygyz?), , PAVILION, I, SUCCOTH, and cp T ENT, I, and
which were really smaller carbuncular formations or cores with CATTLE, I, 5.
a collection of fluid on their summits. Besides the pain of the
hard and tense buboes there were often delirium gentle or BOOTY (13, etc.), Jer. 4932, etc. See SPOIL.
raving, vomiting, qui/ering of muscles (affect& gait and
speech), and many other symptoms as if from a deadly poison. BOO2 (Bow [Ti. WH], Mt. 1 5 , BOOC [Ti. WH],
About three days was perhaps the average duration of fatal Lk. 332). RV has BOAZ.
cases.
Usually half the attacks were mortal. In'the beginning BOR-ASHAN ($&)-7\a ; BUPACAN [AI, B H ~ C A B B ~
of the epidemic there would be but few recoveries, while [BL] ; Vg. Zacz Asun; Pesh. &ir'a.Gzn), the true MT
4.,Mortality. at the end of it as many as four out of reading (Gi. sa.)
in I S. 3030, where many printed
five might recover. Recovery was most edd. have 1!3'$-713 (AV CHOR-ASHAN, RV COR-
likely when the buboes broke and ran ; sometimes the ASHAN). Probably the same as ASHAN(4.n.).
suppuration, especially in the groin, would continue for
months, the :victims being able to go limping in the BORDER. For IlTlDD, misgereth ( u ) in Ex. 25 25 z?
streets. In the history of plague in London, which is (u~+Livq) 37 1214 (Iom.), in P's description of the 'table
see ALTA;, $ I O ; (a) in I K. 728f: 3rf: 35f; 2 K. 16 17indescriG-
continuous from the Black Death of 1348 to 1666, the tion of the lavbr bases ( & V P & C U ~ Q ; in 728 O V V K X F L U T ~ V : in
great epidemics came at intervals, and, in those for 7 2 9 m'yrh~pa [A]; in 731f: 8 ~ L i q - p[A; om. BL]; E V w .
which we have the statistics, carried off from a fifth to a 'panels'), see LAVER, 5 I ; for q j j , krin@h (KP&U&OV) in Nu.
sixth of the population, including but few of the richer 15 38 (RVmg. 'corner' [of garment]), see F R I N G E S ; for ~ p k u -
mdov, Mt. 9 20 14 36 RV, see FRINGES.
class. With a population of nearly half a million in
1665, the highest mortality from plague was 7165 in BORITH (EORITX),4 Esd. 12. See BUKKI, I.
the week 12th-1gth September. Sometimes for a suc-
cession of years' the deaths from plague kept at a high BORROW (k'K@,
Ex. 322 ; AaNlcacOal, Mt. 642),
annual level, especially during the summer and autumn andLEND (fi!??, Ex. 2224 [ z s ] ; A ~ N I Z B I N634).
,L~.
months. During the whole three centuries of plague See L AW AND JUSTICE, $ 16,TRADE AND COMMERCE.
in London there were few years which did not have
some deaths in the warmer months. From what BOSCATH (ne??), 2 K. 221AV ; RV BOZKATH.
is known of the mediaeval history of plague in Cairo BOSOR (Bocop [Ti.]), zPet.215 AV, RV BEOR
(from Arabic annals ; cp von Kremer in S WA W,Phil. (q.v., 2).
Hist. Class. Bd. xcvi.), and of its modern history (cp
Pruner, KranR. des Orients), it appears to have come, BOSOR (Boccop [ A I , -OCO. [KVTI, - C C W P [val~
a s in London, in terrific outbursts at intervals of years, and in v. 36 -0~0. [A ; cp Is. 346 631,in d]), a town of
Galaaditis, taken by Judas the Maccabee in 164 B.C.
and to have been at a low level or apparently extinct in
(I Macc. 52636), is identified by some with BEZER (p.v.,
the years between.
T h e plagoe season in Egypt; within the period of exact i.) in Moab. Galaaditis, however, was the name of
records has begun as early as September and as late as the country N. of Moab (GASm. HG 549, n. 5), and
Januar;, has reached its height in March and April, and has the campaign in which Judas took Bosor was waged
ended with great regularity almost suddenly about St. John's in the latitude of the YarmCik. If Bosora ( q . ~ . be
)
day (24th June), the height bf the epidemic ck-responding with
the. lowest level of the Nile. There bas been no plague since the present BuSrg, Bosor may be the present Bup-eZ-
~844. The last gmat,epidemic was that of 7835, described hy @arirf, in the SE. corner of the LejS, which the
Kinglake in ' Eothen. c. c. Arabian geographer Wkat in 1225 A.D. (1621)still calk
BOILS, PLAGUE (D>Qg), .Deut.2827 RVmg. See only Busr [sic]. The passage in which it is mentioned
EMERODS. is obscure; YV. 26f. are probably corrupt. (Cp We.
597 598
 BOSORA
Z/G(3) 212, n. I). Herod the Great, in order to keep
the Leja in his power (Jos. Ant. xvii. l z ) , fortified a
village called Bathyra, and this may have been the
same as Bosor (cp GASm. N G 618). G. A. S.
BOSORA (Boccopa [AI, - 0 ~ 0[XI,
. - O C O P P A [ ~; CP
d I Ch. 1441, I
Macc. 526 ; Jos. BOCOp&[Ant. xn. 83]),
in Gilead, held by some to be the Bozrah in Moab
spoken of in Jer. 4824, must have lain farther N. (see
BOSOR,ii. ). Hence many (Ewald ; PEF Map ; etc.)
more plausibly take it to have been Bostra, the capital
of the Roman province of Arabia, modern Busy& 22 m.
SE. of Edrei (cp Porter, FiveyearsW, IZ ; Merrill, E. of
Jordan, 53, 58 ; Rey, Dans Ze Haouran Atlas; Buhl,
PaZ.’z51). See, however, Bathyra under BOSOR,ii.
G. A. S.
BOSS (3$,
text doubtful), Job1526. See SHIELD.
BOTCH (]T!!$), D t . 2 8 2 7 3 5 A V ; RV BOIL (P.v.,
§ 2J).
BOTTLE. The statement that ‘what we call
bottles were unknown to the Hebrews’ (Riehm,
HCVBIz)),art. ‘ Flasche’) needs qualification. It has
long been known that the Egyptians manufactured
glass from an early period. The Phcenicians and the
Assyrians were well acquainted with glass (see the
relative volumes of Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. de ?Art,
etc. ), that manufactured by the former being of special
repute in antiquity (see GLASS). It is impossible,
therefore, that among the imports from Phcenicia,
glass bottles should have had no place. They must
always, however, have been a luxury of the rich (cp Job
28 17 [RV]).
The ‘ bottles’ of Scripture fall into two ‘very different
classes : ( I ) leather skins for holding and carrying water,
wine, and other liquids, and (2) earthenware jars for
the same and other purposes.
For the Hebrews in the nomadic stage of civilisation,
as for the Bedouin of the present day, the skins of
1. Skins a6 beasts of their flocks supplied the readiest
and most efficient means of storing and
kettles. transporting the necessary supply of water
in the camp and on the march. This method was
found so simple and so satisfactory that it was retained
in a more settled state of society, and, indeed, has
prevailed throughout the East until the present day.
The writers of classical antiquity, from Homer down-
wards, contain many references to this use of the skins
of domestic animals. The skins used by the Hebrews
for this purpose, as in modern Syria and Arabia, were
chiefly skins of the goat and of the sheep. When a
smaller size than ordinary was required, the skin of
a lamb or of a kid sufficed ; for larger quantities there
was the skin of the ox,l and, perhaps, of the camel
(Herod. 39). Among the Hebrews the pig-skin was, of
course, excluded.
The method of preparation varied in complexity and
efficiency according as the peasant prepared his own skins (cp
Doughty, A r . Des. 1227) or employed a professional tanner.
The head and the lower part of the legs are cut off (such is the
method at the present day), and the animal is skinned from the
neck downwards, somewhat as one removes a tight-fitting glove
care being taken that no incision is made in the skin of th;
carcase. When the tanning process is completed (cp Tristram
NHBP) 92, Robinson, BRW 2 440), all other apertures havini
previously been closed, the neck is fitted with a leather thong,
by means of which the skin is opened and closed (cp LEATHER).
In the OT we find such skin bottles designated by a
variety of names.
Such are (a) nQn, (zameth (LUK~S[ADL]), the water-skin
(probably of a kid) which Abraham put upon Hagar’s shoulder
(Gen. 21 143t). The Bedouin name is girby-i.e., KWatfrn
(Doughty, op. cit. index). I n Hos.75 (RV ‘heat’)’ and in
Hab. 2 15 (RV ‘venom,’ mg. ‘fury’), the RV more advisehly finds
another word of similar sound (npq). (6) lgl, ncidh, like the
sewzily (samiZaf7~) of the modern Bedouin, is the milk-skin of
the nomad Jael (Judg. 4 19 ; cp Doughty op. cit. passim). I t
1 According to Lane (Mod. Eg.) an ox-hide holds three or
four times as much as a goat-skin (@%a).
599
BOX TREE
lso occurs frequently as a wine-skin-Josh. 9 4 13 I S. 16 20, etc.
i s a water-skin it is used metaphorically in Ps. 5G8[9l (‘put my
ears into thy bottle’), where there is no reference to the much
ater ‘ tear-bottles,’ so called, and where the text is doubted
see 65). The exact sense of Ps.11983, where the poet likens
himself to a ‘bottle (RVw. “wine-skin”) in the smoke,’ is
loubtful (see the comm. in Zoc.). (c) i.?,n26heZ, and i?:,ne6heZ,
ilso frequently of the ordinary wine-skin ( 6 ~ ~ [BAL]),
6s IS.
.O 3, etc. ( d ) ZiR,’66h, has the same signification in Job 32 ‘9,
where we read of ‘new bottles ... ready to burst. Budde
’96) renders ‘skins with new (wine),’ which gives us an OL‘
iarallel to the familiar passage in the N T (Mt. 9 r7=Mk. 2 2 2
=Lk. 53735)-‘ Neither do men piit new wine into old wine-
,kins,‘ etc.-where the ,RV has rightly discarded the mislead-
ng rendering ‘bottles. In judith105 we have the curious
word L U K O T U T [BA],-RV
~V~ a leathern bottle’ of wine.
Vessels of earthenware also are mentioned in the O T
%sreceptacles for wine. Such was ( a ) the Jer.
z. Earthenware 19 I IO (QBNAQ, prxbs), made ’ by the
_-
””__”. potter,
hn+,t,le4 perhaps with a narrow neck
which caused a gurgling sound (Ar.
la@a+aP) when the jar was being emptied. It was
dso used to hold honey, I K. 1 4 3 ( U T & ~ V O E [AL ; om.
B] ; EV C RUSE [q.v., 21). (6) The name h a was also
;ken to wine-jars or urn$ziZZe of earthenware, as is
:lear from Is. 30 14 (EV ‘ [potters’] vessel ’ ; AVW. ‘bottle
If potters’), and Lam. 42 (EV ‘pitcher’). In both
:hese passages d has tlyyrov. W e have no indication
If the size or even of the shape of the earthen nZbheZ
‘see POTTERY ; also C RUSE). A. R. S. K.
BOW (IleR),
Gen. 2 7 3 , Bowstrings (Wl?’)?),
21 12, RV. See WEAPONS.
Ps.
BOWL. The various Hebrew and Greek words will
be dealt with in the articles mentioned below.
I. e..;?,
gE6ia‘, Ex. 2531. See CUP, MEALS, $3 12.
2. ai?,
pZZah, the bowl or reservoir of a lamp, Zech. 4 2
:Aapm&ov) ; see CANDLESTICK, $ 2 . Used in a simile in Eccles.
126 ( ~ 6vOdp.rov).
b The globe-shaped bowls or capitals of the
twin pillars of JACHIN A N D BOAZ( 7 1:. 7413, r h u r p ~ m d[as
:hoogh o h 8 7 see FRINGES] 11 zCh. 41235, AV ‘pommels,’
p A a 0 [BAI, Pdue~s[Ll). See P ILL A R .
3. l b a , kqhar, I Ch. 28 17,etc., RV. See BASON,2.
4. Q?, mizr$, Ex. 273. See BASON,3.
5. ni’?!?, 7nenakk*yaU, Kv’a0os [BAFL], used in temple
ritual especially upon the table of shew-bread, Ex. 25 29 37 16
Nu.4 7 Jer. 52 19 (where AV ‘cups ’).
6. 72, haph, I K. 7 50 ; see BASON,4.
7. SBD, sZjh2, a larger bowl or bason, probably of wood,
Jud. 5 25 6 38 ( A f K d q [BAL] ; in 5 z j A a K . [AL]); cp Pal.-Syr.
u.&m.
8. u~d+?,Bel, 33, a vessel for holding food (in Acts 27 1630 32,
a boat).
9. +idAq, Rev. 58 157, etc. (AV ‘vial’). In OT it represents
P2!!; see BASON.3 ; MEALS, $ 12, and cp generally BASON,
CUP, GOBLET, POTTERY.
BOX, synonymous in AV with jar or cruise, not a
case of wood or nietal.1
I. 7%j a k h ( z K.9 I 3 ; RV and in I S. 10 I, AV ‘ vial ’ ; @:BAL
+CLK~S). Shape and material are both uncertain.
2. For the ‘alabaster box’ (6 b A a ’ @ ~ ~ p ~of
s ) Mk. 143, etc.
AV (RV ‘alabaster cruse’) see CRUSE, 4, ALABASTER.
3. I n R V w . of Jn. 126’13 29, where EV has BAG; ‘box’ is
suggested as an alternative rendering of ~ A C O U U ~ K O ~ Owhich
V,
originally and etymologically signified a case in which the mouth-
pieces (yA9uuaa) of wind instruments were kept. Later it
assumed a more general significance and denoted any similarly
shaped box or case. @BAL employs it to indicate the chest
(PlE) set up by Josiah in the Temple (2 Ch. 248&), whilst
Josephususes it ofthe ‘coffer ‘($15I S. 6 8 8 E V ; see COFFER),
or small chest, in which the Philistine princes deposited the
golden mice. I n the Mishna it is used to signify a case for
books ( ~ n p 1 5 in ~Lexx.) and even a coffin (cp the parallel use
of ZocuZus); in the latter sense also in Aquila (Gen. 5026, of
Joseph’s mummy-case; see COFFIN). Thus it would appear
that the preferable rendering in John (Z.C.) is that of R V m .
A. R. S. K.
BOX TREE, BOX, RVmS ‘ cypress ’ ; once (Fzek.
276; d O ~ K O U S dhur56ers) RV Boxwood (lWeq,
1 For this EV employs ‘chest.’
boo