BACCHIDES BADGERS' SKINS
as the name of a spot (see R EPHAIM , VALLEY OF)
where there were Baca-trees. David took his stand
there to wait for YahwB's signal to attack the Philis-
tine's1 @ ( 2S. 524) speaks of it as a ' grove,' mean-
ing an Asherah; there is no mention of trees in @.
On the meaning of Baca trees see M ULBERRY.
BACCHIDES(BAKXIAHC~
also B&&lhHC ; BApAKX.
[I Macc. 78, A], K A K X . [ib. v. 12,A], BAKXX. [ib. 91,
K * X ] ) , the chief general of D EMETRIUS I. [q.v. ,.I], who
was sent to Judaea to enforce the claims of Alcimus to
the priesthood ( I Macc. 7 8 8). Almost immediately
after the death of NICANOB,he was sent again with
Alcimus, and inflicted a severe defeat on the Maccabaean
party at Elasa,2 who lost their leader Judas (chap. 9,
161 B.c.). Judaea suffered heavily at the hands of
Bacchides ; nor did any real advantage accrue when
Jonathan took up the leadership ( 9 3 2 8 ) . The capital
and other important strongholds remained in the hands
of Bacchides, who was engaged in fortifying them until
the death of Alcimus ( 1 5 9 B.c.), when he returned to
Demetrius (9 57). At the end of two years the opponents
of the Maccabzean party (whose hands had become
strengthened) agreed to betray Jonathan and his fol-
lowers to Bacchides. This piece of treachery was
discovered and avenged (958 8). Bacchides set out
against Judzea (158 B.c.) and besieged Beth-basi, but
met with ill success everywhere, until at last he was
only too glad to accept Jonathan's overtures of peace
(968). The Jewish.captives of the former wars were
restored, and the Maccabees had rest for four or five
years.
BACCHURUS (BAKXOYPOC CAKXOYP [Ll,
ZACCARUS), singer in list of those with foreign wives
(see EZRA,i. 5 , end), I Esd. 924; but not in 11 Ezra1024
[MT E V 65.K.1, though bLadds Z A K X O Y ~
BACCHUS (Liber), the equivalent of the Greek
Dionysus (so RVmg. AlpNycqc [AV]), is mentioned
in 2 Macc. 67, where it is said that on the occasion
of the birthday of Antiochus Epiphanes (175- 164)
the unhappy Jews were compelled to attend the feast
of Bacchus ( A ION yc I & ; RV'"g. ' feast of Dionysia ')
wearing the ivy-wreath (Kiuu6s), the peculiar emblem
of the god. A few years later Nicanor (the general of
Jkmetrius) threatened to pull down the temple and
supphnt it by one dedicated to Bacchus unless Judas
was handed over to him (ib. 1433, Aiavuuos [A]). The
worship of Bacchus seems to have been introduced
first by the Ptolemies, of which family he was the
patron-god, and according to 3 Macc. 229 several years
previously the Jews in Alexandria had been branded
by Ptolemy Philopator (222.204) with the sign of the
ivy; the object of this obviously being forcibly to
identify the unwilling Jews with the detested worship of
Bacchus. See CUTTINGS OF T H E FLESH, 9 6. His
worship would he specially abhorrent to pions Jews,
since one of the greatest of the Dionysian festivals fell in
the month Elaphebolion (March-April),thus synchronis-
ing closely with the passover. In course of time the
Hellenisiug Jews and Greek residents were more attracted
by the cult, and when Jerusalem became a Roman
colony ( E l i a Capitolina) we find Dionysus with his
thyrsus and panther figuring upon the coins as one of
the patron gods.3
The worship of Dionysus flourished at Czesarea,
a t Damascus, and in the Haursn. H e was the special
patron of Scythopolis, and from him the town Dionysia
(Soada) received its name. Dionysus, however, soon
became identified with the Nabatzean deity Dusares
(the Baal, the god of heaven, and of wine). The
1 In o. 24 emend ?llJs to 31yD (uuuuerup6s [Ll for w v .
1thc~up6s[BA]) ' whenib heaGit' the sound of a stormy wind
in the tops of the Baca trees.' If is in the tempest that Yahwi:
'goes out against the Philistines.
2 Doubtless an error for ADASA.
8 See Madden, Coins o f t h e J m s , 1881, p. z5zJ
455
Xonysiac character which the latter presents is not
lative : it is directly due to the northern influence.l
The priest of Dionysia (see above) calls himself the priest
)f Dusares, and on the coins of Bostra the latter appears
vith the Dionysian emblem of the wine-press. Figures
)f the vine and wine-cup are still found upon the lintels -
n many of the villages in the Hauran. Although the
vorship of Yahw& had little in common with that of
3acchus (nequayunm congruenti8r~s. institutis, Tacit.
Yist. 55), classical writers, observing the musical and
oyful nature of their ceremonial rites, now and then
ell into the error of making Bacchus a Jewish god
hat had heen worshipped by the earliest patriarchs (cp
?.g.Plut. Synzpos. 146).
For the various mythological forms of Bacchus, see
Ency. Brit.(9)S.V. ' Dionysus' ; and Roscher, S . V .
BACENOR occurs in an uncertain passage, 2 Macc.
1235, AwuiOeos 6P ris r L v TOO / h ~ f i v o p o s[VA]. It is
loubtful whether it is the name of a captain or the
:ognomen of a company or division in the army of
ludas. See DOSITHEUS.
BACHRITES, THE ('1230 ; Nu. 2635, @BAL [v. 391
2m.). See BECHER.
BADGER, ROCK (p$ Lev. 11.~R V W ; 1:v
EONEY.
BADGERS' SKINS, RV SEALSKINS (we??n%,
dnqlh!, ann,h€pMaTayaKIN81Na[lANeINA, Aq.,
Sym., Ezek. 1610] [BAL] ; Ex.255 2614 35723 3619
[BAL om.] 3934 Nu. 4 6 8 [&ppUTivq 6anrvOivy] 10-12
I425 Ez. 161of), are mentioned as the fourth or outer-
most covering of the tabernacle (next above the 'rams'
skins dyed red'), and as outer wrappings for the ark
and different vessels of the tabernacle during journeys.
In Ezekiel's figurative description of YahwB's adorning
of Israel as a beautiful maiden, shoes of this material
are included. As to the .meaning of ta&aS there have
been many opinions : five chief views may be indicated.
(I) The ancient versions with one consent understood
a colour : 6 Syr. Chald. Vg. render blue ' or ' violet,'
Ar. Samar. ' black ' or ' dark.' This view, which has
been strongly 'maintained by Bochart, rests, however,
on no philological ground, and is refuted by the syntax
of the Hebrew words2 Apart from the versions, all
Hebrew tradition is in favour of the view that ta&as'
is an animal.
( 2 ) In the discussion on this animal in the Talmud
(Shabb. c. 2, fol. 28) the opinion prevails that it is a
species of i$u u$n (prob. = ' ferret '), a description which
w-odd roughly suit the badfer; and the claim of this
animal has been supported (by Ges. and others) by
comparison with late Lat. Taxus or t a r o (Ital. tasso,
Fr. taisson) and Germ. Dachs.3 The common badger,
&'des taxus, found throughout Europe and Northern
Asia, reaches its southernmost limits in Palestine, where
it is common in the hilly and woody parts of the
country. It is, however, improbable that the reference
is to the skins of these animals. They would be diffi-
cult to procure either in Egypt or in the desert, and
there is no evidence of their being used in those regions
for such a purpose. J
1 For the god Dusares (Aovuapqr on Nab. inscr. uiwii)' see
ZDMG 14465,41711,Baethg. ⁢. 9 2 3 , WKS, Kins. &?&,,
and We. Heid.('4 4 8 8 The name means 'possessor(du) o f n w
The latter is often taken t o he equivalent to 'Sarah,' in which
case Dusares is equivalent to Abraham-a hazardous theory.
2 O'@?p is obviously gen. after n+--i.e., equivalent to DFS,
not to n y y , in the phrase for 'rams' skins dyed red.'
3 Philological explanations involving roots common to the
Aryan and Semitic languages are, however, notoriously pre-
carious.
4 How little value attaches to the opinion of the Rabbis may
be gathered from another view, strongly supported in the
Talmud, that the dnn was a kind of unicorn which specially
appeared to Moses for this purpose, and immediately afterwards
disappeared (Bochart, i. 3 30).
456
 BAEAN
(3) more scientific etymology is that which com-
pares the Ar. tubas or dubas, ‘ a dolphin.’ This would
indicate a marine animal,-probably (u)the seal (RV
text), or (6)the porpuise (RV”’g.),or ( c ) the d u p g or
sea-cow. ( a ) has in its favour the adaptability
of sealskins to the purposes referred to, the statement
of Artemidorus (in Strab. 16776) that seals abounded
in the Red Sea, one island there being called vijuor
+WK&J, and the actual use of a sealskin covering in
antiquity to protect buildings, because it was supposed
that lightning never struck this material (e.g., Pliny,
HN255, Suet. Oct. 90). One species of seal, M o n n -
chus uZ6iuenter, undoubtedly occurs in the Mediter-
ranean, and some authorities are of opinion that the
same is true of the common seal, Phocn vitulina.
(6)The poipoise, like the seal, is as a rule a denizen of
the colder waters of the globe ; but Phocena commzrnis,
the common porpoise of the British coasts, occasionally
enters {he Mediterranean, whilst the Indian porpoise,
Ph. phocmzoider, inhabits the shores of the Indian
Ocean from the Cape of Good Hope to Japan, and m?y
have been captured in the Red Sea. ( c ) The
Dugung, being more like the dolphin, has the etymology
in its favour. According to Knobel (Comm. on Ex. 255)
this animal (Halico~efndernaculi) ‘ i s found in the
Red Sea, attaining a length of 8 to I O or more feet, is
hunted like the whale, and has a skin well adapted for
sandals or coverings.’ Friedr. Del. sought to strengthen
the case for this identification (Prol. to Baer’s Exek. p.
xviJ) by comparison with Ass. ta&.?u,an animal whose
skin, according to various Ass. inscriptions, was used
to cover the beams of ships in the manner described by
Herodotus (1194). He has since (Prol. 77-79 [‘86]),
however, abandoned the view that t a g u was the
dugong, and supposes it to mean wether.1 The dugong
of the Indian Ocean, with the Manatee of the Atlantic,
composes the class Sirenia. They are usually found
in the estuaries of large rivers browsing on sea-weed,
and they are still actively sought off the coast of
Queensland for the sake of their blubber and hide.
(4)Much less probable is the opinion of Bottcher
(Neue Aehrenl. 3 2 8 ) that vnn is a form of w ; (he- ~ Absalom. Michal had been given by David‘s angry
goat) with the middle radical hardened; he supposes
that goat-skin was manufactured into a kind of morocco
leather. It is natural that ‘rams’ and ‘he-goats’
should come together as in Gen. 3215 [14] zCh. 1711 ;
but apart from this the explanation has little to recom-
mend it.
(5) The latest and perhaps most probable view is
that put forwaril by Bondi ( d g y p t i a c u , I j?), who
makes tthn a loan-word from Egyptian t@, ‘ Egyptian
leather,’ and gives a thorough discussion of views.
This meaning is especially suitable to Ez. 1610, but
is also appropriate in the other passages.
Of all the explanations those by Ar. dudus or tufzas,
by Ass. tngu, and by Eg. t&s, most deserve attention.
N. M.-A. E. S.
BAEAN (BAIAN [AKV]), I Macc. 5 4 f . R V ; AV
BEAN.
BAG. Several of the Hebrew words are much more
general in signification than the English ‘ bag.’-(I) D’B
Kis(Dt. 2513Pr. 1611 Mi. 611 Is. 466)forholdingmoney,
or the weights employed by merchants. In Pr. 1 1 4
(@hhdvnov), EV renders P URSE. ( z ) w?n, &irit (cp
Rr. fznri?atl”’, bag of skin, etc., and see Frank. 296)
in z K. 5 z j ( O ~ ~ U K O Sof) Naaman’s bag which con-
tained a talent of silver. In Is. 322 it is mentioned
in the list of ‘women’s adornments, and signifies
probably a satchel (so R V ; AV ‘crisping pin’). ( 3 )
*$p KZi, a word of very general meaning (see VESSEL),
used of a sack for containing corn (Gen. 4225 tlyyiov) or
1 Cp Shalmaneser; Monolith inscr. ii. 56, ina cZi6je .Fa
marah f d A ‘on boats of skins of wethers ; so Wi. for good
reasons; pul see references in Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Dict. S.V.
‘ gahlu-u.
457
BAHURIM
if .the instruments carried by a shepherd (Zech. 1115).
[t is rendered ‘ b a g ’ only in I S. 174049 (AV”lg.
vessel‘) : see SLING. (4) Ti?! TZr5r (\/bind, cp verb in
2 I(. 1910 [ I.], n~!,‘and they put in bags’), Job1417
‘ p a h h d v n o v ) , Pr. 7 2 0 , mp: ‘x, ‘ a bag with holes‘ (Hag.
16). It is rendered ‘ bundle’ in I S. 2529 Gen 4 2 3 5 (of
noney) and Cant. 1 1 3 (of myrrh, RV’W ‘ b a g ’ ) . (5)
~ u A X C L ~ T L O VLk., 1233, RV ‘purse’ ; and (6) yXwuo6-
K O ~ (Jn.Y 126 1329, RV”lg. ‘box’). See Box, 3.
BAG0 (&&yo[A]), I Esd. 840=Ezra814, BIGVAI,3.
BAGOAS (from Pers. 6a,qa, ‘ God’ ; see Ed. Meyer,
Ent. 157 ; cp Bigvai, Bigtha, Abagtha), a eunuch in
the household of Holofernes ; Judith12118 (B&yw&c
[BAl]; in v. I j B&rwC [A”]).
BAG01 (Bay01[A]), I Esd. 514=Ezra22, BIGVAI, 2.
BAGPIPE (RVW of nl!\DpKl Dan. 3 5 IO 15 [in v.
I O wJbD, Kr. ’am], Gr. CYM+WNI&, EV ‘ dulcimer ’).
The Aramaic word is from aup+wvia, a late Gr. word,
used, curiously enough, by Polybius in his account of
the festivities in which Antiochus Epiphanes (who is so
frequently alluded to in Daniel) indulged (xxvi.1,O5 xxxi.
48; see D ANIEL, § 7). For the form of the Arani. cp
liar,, d p + w v o ~ ,‘ agreed,’ in the Fiscal Inscription from
Palmyra, 137 A.D. (col. 3,IZ. ‘445j. See MUSIC, 0 4 (c).
BAHARUMITE, THE (9plTJg, I Ch. 11 3 3 ; 0
B E E P M ~ I N [B, Hc.a19 o BEIN IN [K”],o BAPCAMI [AI,
o B & p & ~ & l [L]), evidently a scribe’s error for ‘the
Bahurimite’-ie., ‘ the man of BAIIUKIM’ (’pmq.
The same reading should be restored in 2 S. 2331. See
BARHUMITE.
BAHURIM (D’?l!lp and D’lna ; Baoupcw [ A I ; 2 S.
316 BapaKsC [ B ] , -p [ L ] ; 1 6 5 B o u p a ~ p[ B ] , p p p a p [Ll; 1712
Baoperp [ B l , Bar0);oppov [Ll ; 19 16 B a o u p a p [ B I , ~ o p p a v[LI ;
I K.. 2 8 B a a O o u p ~ ~ [B],
p @aeoupacp [ A L ] , BOKXO~VS[Jos. A d
vii.9 TI), a place in Benjamin (z S. 19 16 [IT]), not included
in the list of Benjamite towns, which appears prominently
in two very interesting narratives-that of the return of
MICHALto David, and that of the flight of David from
father-in-law to PALTI (q.v.)or Paltiel of Gallim, and
David in his returning prosperity demanded her back. -
Followed by her weeping husband, Michal went from
Gallim to Bahurim. There Abner commanded Paltiel
to return. It may naturally be asked, Why was Bahurim
selected as the scene of this leave-taking? The answer
is furnished by the story of David’s flight. It is clear
from z S. 1 6 I 5 (cp 17 24) that Bahurim lay near the road
from Jerusalem to the Jordan valley. Abner would have
to take this road on his return to Mahanaim, and would
naturally wait at Bahurim until he knew for certain that a
visit to Hebron would he acceptable to the king. Mean-
time the envoys of David conducted Michal to Hebron.
Later it was David’s turn to pass by Bahurim, when
he sought the Jordan valley as a fugitive (z S. 1522).
At Bahurim he would apparently have made his first
halt had not the insults of SHIMEIcompelled him to go
farther 2 (z S. 16-14). It was at Bahuriin also that
Jonathan and Ahimaaz lay hid in a well, when pursued
by the servants of Absalom ( z S. 1718). The spot
which best answers the topographical conditions is (as
Barclay was the first to see) SE. of the village of el-
‘Zsdw,iyeh (see L AISHAH). Here, to the S. of the old
Roman road, van Kasteren found in the upper CI.ii.<v
er-Rawd6y a ruin without a name, which he believes to
be on the site of Bahurim ( Z D P Y ~ ~ I O I # ) . For
a less probable view, fully discussed by van Kasteren,
see Marti, ZDP V 3 2# T. K. C.
1 Sir G. Grove (Smith’s DB) thinks this may he doubtful.
The rendering of @L, however, in 2 S. 3 7 5 (vioS ufhheLp)suggests
that the verse originally closed with D$$, ‘from Gallim.’ That
Palti was with Ishhosheth at Mahanaim seems very improbable.
2 The name of the village where he ‘refreshed himself’ (2 S.
1614) seems to have dropped out. See AYEPHIM.
458
 BAITERUS
BAITERUS (BAITHPOC [BA]), I Esd. 517 RV, AV
METERlJS ; See G IBBAR.
BAJITH, RV BAYITH(nlaD, the temple’ ; text of
6 differs), is taken in EV of Is. 162 as the name of a
place, the article being neglected (cp AIN, 2). It is
perhaps more defensible to render the stichus containing
the word thus : ‘ They go np to the temple, Dibon (goes
up) to the high places to weep’ (so Ges. and formerly
Che.). The temple referred to might be the Beth-
bamoth of the inscription of Mesha (Z. 26 ; cp BAMOTH-
BAAL ). n q and nl, however, are so easily confounded
(see, e.g., Is. 1032 Kt.) that it is still better to read nnsy
li?*i nx, ’ the daughter (=people) of Dibon i s gone up,’
w t h Duhm and Cheyne (SBOT).
BAKBAKKAR (qpaza, form strange, probably
corrupt ; B A K A ~ [B], BAKB. [AL] ; Pesh. has !24nl?,
which in vu. 8 12, etc. =Heb. P?7), Jeroham), a Levite
in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA , ii. 5 5 [d],
5 15 [ I ] a ) , I Ch. 915 ; not in I/ Neh. 1116, but perhaps
transposed to ZJ. 17 (where M T and @Nc.al’ig. read
BAKBWKIAH [P.v.], though BBA omits, eL ~OKXELUS).
BAKBUK (PELZJ 38, 71, ‘pitcher’ ; but see
below ; BAKBOYK [AL]). The b’ne Bakbiik, a family
of Nethinim in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii.
5 9). Ezra251 (~uKouK[L], Pam. [B])=Neh.753 ( ~ U K ~ O
[B], ~ E K O U[&])=I~ Esd. 531f ( U K O U $ [B], ~ K O ~ , U ’[A];
EV, ACUR). l h e name can hardly be Hebrew. It
may be corrupted from Assyr. Habbakuka, a plant name
(see H ABAKKUK ). T. K. C.
BAKBUKIAH (??+?& 5 38, ‘pitcher of Yahwi:’?
[or else= Bakbuk, il? being probably a simple afforma-
tive (Jastrow, JBL 13 r27)], cp BAKBUK ; BAKB~KIAC
[NC,amg.suP. L], BX”A om.), one of the Nethinim ;
a singer in list of Levite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
E ZRA , ii. 5 [6], 5 15 [I] a, and cp HersteZ, IO^),
Neh. 1117 (BOKXEIAC /L]; omitted in 11 I Ch. 916 before
ObadiahzAbda of Neh.); and porter in Zerubbabel’s
baud (see E ZRA , ii. § 6 6, 5 11, and Hersteel, IIO),
Neh. 1225. In Neh. 1117, of the three persons named,
Mattaniah is a ‘ son’ of Asaph, and Abda is a ‘ son ’
of Jeduthun. It is plausible, therefore, to take Bak-
bulciah to be the same name as ?:I?; aL)
(cp and identify
“with BUKKIAH [ q . ~ . ] one
, of the sons of Heman. The
three great guilds of temple-singers will then be repre-
sented.
BAKEMEATS. In his dream Pharaohs chief baker
carried on his head ‘ three baskets of white bread’
’’ ( y i f l ’$D, Gen.4016-so RV and most
Baking’ modern scholars ; AV ‘ three white baskets‘ j,
in the uppermost of which were ‘ all manner of bakemeats
for Pharaoh,’ literally, as we read. in the margin of AV,
I meat [food] of Pharaoh, the work of a baker ’ (40 17).
The best commentary on these verses is the representa-
tion of the royal bakery on thq tomb of Ramses 111. at
Thebes, which has been reproduced by Wilkinson (Anc.
,Eg., 1878, 1176), and more recently by Erman (Anc.
Eg. 191). The process of making the ordinary house-
hold supply is described under B READ ; here it is pro-
posed to bring together the scattered notices in Scripture
regarding other products of the baker’s skill. In this
connection, it is interesting to note. the remarkable variety
of shapes assumed by the bread and pastry in the repre-
sentation referred to. Additional varieties are collected
by Erman from other sources and represented on the
same page. How far the Hebrew court bakers ( I S. 8
13) were able to imitate those of Egypt we do not know.
There is certainly no lack of names for different species
of bakemeats in the O T ; but it is now impossible to
2. cakes. identify them (cp B READ). Thus we can
only conjecture, although with a fair amount
of certainty, that the cake named kikkdr (v?, AV
1 Cp A KKUB , It is possible, however, that &A omit the
2.
name (L has paKpovK), since auov+, etc. may be a duplicate
of HAICUPHA
(q.0.).
459
BAKEMEATS
morsel,’ RV ‘ loaf’), I S. 236, must have been round,
ilre a Scottish ‘ bannock’ ; which, from the con’text.
nust hold good also of the barley-cake (%) of Gideon’s
iream (Judg. 7 qf). The nikkzidim (nwp?, possibly
iom 122, to prick) may have been thin cakes pricked
Iver like a modern biscuit, or dotted over with the seeds
if some condiment (see below). They were part of the
>resent which the wife of Jeroboam I. took to the
xophet Ahijah ( I I<. 143), and are rendered by EV
:racknels, for which the American revisers prefer to
-ead ‘ cakes.’ Still, judging from etymology, we may
:onsider the @nW (&n), the cake which so frequently
xcurs in the sacrificial ritual, as having been perforated
[5$n, to pierce) like a modern Passover cake. It was
made of the finest flour (n>b). Mention is made of
mother kind of sacrificial cakes, apparently of foreign
xigin, which the women of Jerusalem kneaded and
baked in connecion with the idolatrous worship of the
‘Q UEEN OF HEAVEN’ ( P . v . ) ,Jer.718 4419. @ merely
transliterates the Heb. word ( 0 ~ 2 ~. a u G v a s[BKAQ] ;
xaupGvus [R”], xauavas [Q”] in Jer. 441g), and the
exegetical tradition varies. That these knwu~i?zi,ti?n were
some kind of bakemeats is clear from the kneading of
the dough in their preparation (7x8). It is generally
U thought that they may have resembled the seZ.%zai
(ueh?jvar),cakes shaped like the full moon, which were
offered in Athens to Artemis, the moon-goddess, at the
time of full moon (see especially Kue.’s essay ‘ D e
melecheth des hemels,’ translated in Bu.’s edition of his
GesammeZte Abh. 208, and the comm. of Graf and of
Giesebrecht i n Zoc. ). A similar custom is said to have
prevailed in the worship of the Arabic goddess AL‘Uzza
(We. A Y. Heid.(l) 3 8 J , 2nd ed. 41f.j.
With regard to what may be called the pastry of the
Hebrews, all that can be said with any degree of certainty
3. Pastry. is that a more delicate relish was imparted to
the preparation of certain kinds of bakemeats
in three ways. ( I ) The dough was baked in olive oil.
Thus the taste of the manna is said in one passage (Nu.
118 J E ) to be, like the taste of ‘calces baked with oil’
(RVW,, @)), generally understood of some dainty
cooked in’oil (but EV ‘like the taste of fresh oil’). ( 2 )
The dough was prepared by being mixed with oil and
then fired. This mode of preparation was extensively
used in the ritual of P : see, for example, Lev. 2 4 8 ,
where a distinction is made between cakes ‘mingled
(n3rsg-see 551 in BDB Le$.) with oil ’ and cakes merely
‘ anointed (n*n@) with oil.’ ( 3 ) In the passage parallel
to that quoted above ( I ), viz., Ex. 1631 [PI, the taste of
the manna is likened to ‘wafers ( 7 ~ 2for , which sec
B READ) made with honey.’ From this passage, from
the prohibition of honey in the ritual (Lev. ~ I I ) ,and
from the post-biblical use of the verbal stem i y i ( D B ~ ) ,
we learn that honey (dPauJ)-no doubt both the product
of the bee and the artificial grape-syrup (the modern
dibs: see HONEY)-was used in the preparation of certain
kinds of bakemeats. @BAL. in both the passages dis-
cussed (Nu. 11 8 Ex. 1631) renders by JyKpls, which,
according to Athenaeus (in Di. on Ex. 1631) denoted ‘ a
balcemeat made with oil and honey.’ Saadia’s word
here is ka@’ifZc(pastiZZi dzdciayii), a species of confec-
tion still made in Syria. Landberg (Prouer6es et Dictons,
125) defines it as ‘ a flaky paste (pdtisserie feuiZZefk)
made with walnut and sugar and, in spring, with cream.’2
Some sort of dainty confection is evidently intended by
the obscure ZlbZbcith (nix?! ; z S. 136 8 1.1. ; EV ‘ cakes ’)
which Tamar baked for A m n ~ n . If ~ the etymology
1 For Josh. 95, the only other passage where n*?r?>occiirs
(EV ‘mouldy’), see Di. i9z Zoc.
2 The curious in these matters are referred to Landberg’s hook
for a detailed list of modern Arab confections, 123-128; cp Wet%
ZDMG 11 517.f.
8 On the reading in v. g see C OOKING U TENSILS , 8 5 Li.1
460
 BAKING
from 325 (heart) were more secure, we might conclude
that the tit-bit in question was heart-shaped. '
In Ez.2717 we find among the trade-products of
Tyre a substance called pannug (xm)which, according
to the Targum, was a ' kind of confection ' ; so RVWJ
The meaning is quite uncertain, and probably the text
is corrupt (co. would read jiii, wax; see P A N N A G ) .
For the frequently mentioned at$'@$ or grape-cake, see
FRUIT, 5 5 ; and for the use of condiments in baking,
see FOOD and SPICES. 'A. R. S. K.
BAKING. See B READ, § z ; OVEN.
BAKING PAN ( n q y , Lev. 2 5 79. See COOKING
U TENSILS, 7.
BALAAM (Fl&'a : etymology uncertain ; Winckler's
BeL'am [GZ 11201 seems improbable ; cp perhaps Ba-lum-
me-e (Am. Tab. ) and see IBLEAM,BELA,
1. Two
accounts. NICOLAITANS ; BAAAAM [BAL] ; Joseph.
B & ~ & M o c ) , b. Beor ; a soothsayer or prophet
whom BALAK,king of Moab, made anxious by Israel's
victory over the Amorites, summoned to curse his
enemies. Instead of doing so, Balaam bore himself as
the prophetic mouthpiece of YahwB, whom he acknow-
ledged as his God (Nu. 2218), and by the spirit of
Elahim (242) foretold the future glory of Israel. No
wonder that a prophet of Judah, writing probably in
the dark and idolatrous days of Manasseh, recalled the
history of Balaam, when he would remind his ungrateful
countrymen of YahwB's ' beneficent deeds ' (Mic. 6 5 ) .
Balaam's character has long been regarded as an enigma,
and from Bishop Butler's time onwards many subtle'
solutions have been offered. The enigma, however, is
mainly produced by the combination of two traditions
belonging to different periods, and it is the duty of the
critic to distinguish, as far as possible, the two traditions
which, though one in spirit, present a palpable difference
in details.
According to J , Balak, king of Moab, dismayed by
the number of his new and unwelcome neighbours,
called Balaam from the land of the b'ne Ammon2 to
curse Israel. Balaam protested that he could not, for
all the royal treasure, go beyond YahwB's word ; but he
saddled his ass and set On the road, the angel
'of YahwB, invisible to Balaam, but visible to the beast
he rode, stopped his way with a drawn sword. Yahwk
endowed the ass with speech, and at last opened the
prophet's eyes to the apparition, and, had it not been
for the fear which held the animal back, Balaam would
have paid for his rashness with his, life. Still, he re-
ceived permission to go, and was only warned to report
YahwB's oracle faithfully. The Elohist has no
occasion for these marvels. In his account, Balaam,
who is an Aramzan of PETHOR (9.71. ) on the Euphrates
{or perhaps rather a N. Arabian of Rehoboth by the
river of MuSri), did not yield to Balak's repeated solici-
tations till God (El6hhim) appeared in a dream and told
him to go with the Moabite ambassadors.
From this point it is not possible to separate the
E and J documents with full confidence. In what
follows we have four great prophecies concerning Israel's
future, besides three short oracles on the destruction of
the Amalekites, the Kenites, and the Assyrians. Prob-
ably the first two of the four great prophecies come to
us in their present form from the hand of the Elohist,4
1 The word ' confection ' here used in the RVmx. refers every- of Israel. I n reality, however. v. 136 destroys the progress
where else in E V toperfumes or spices (Ex.,30 35, RV 'perfume' ; which E intended from 2241 to2313. Since a limited view of
I Ch. 9 30, AV ointment,' RV ' confection ; Ecclus. 38 8 ) ;cp the
' confectionaries ' or perfume-compounders of I S. 8 13.
2256; read limy for iny with Di. after Sam. Pesh. Vg.,
and some Heb. MSS. For a third view, however, see PETHOR.
3 Nu. 22 19-zra belongs to E. The reason why Balaam went
is not told in the extant portions of J.
4 The Elohistic account of the prophecies must however, have
made some reference to Moab and must therekore, have con-
tained more than is now given {n chap. 23.'
461
BALAAM
while the last two are derived from the narrative of the
Yahwist.
Balaam prepares for his work rather after the fashion
of a sorcerer' than in accordance with the spiritual ideas
2. Oracles of Hebrew prophecy. In order to influ-
ence Elehim, he directs Balalc to offer
and sacrifices of special solemnity1 (seven
altars, seven oxen, seven rams; cp BEER-SHEBA).
Bamoth-bad, the scene of the sacrifices, was no ordinary
'high place,' but (probably) one of those high hills
where huge dolmens still suggest primaeval communing
with God, and, as we learn, it commanded a view of at
least ' the utmost part ' of the Israelitish encampment.
This was important, for a curse must be uttered in sight
of those upon whorn. it is to fall (cp 2313 u). When
Balaam returns to Balak and his princes after meeting
God, he can but break forth into jubilant praise of
Israel. Curse it he cannot. The people has a destiny
of its own which parts it from the surrounding nations.
The Israelite hosts N. of Arnon are the token of a
mightier multitude unborn. All individual desire loses
itself in the sense of Israel's greatness. Happy is
he who dies in Jeshurun, and, dying, knows that his
people is immortal ! In vain Balak changes the seer's
place of outlook. As Balaam beholds all Israel from
the top of PISGAH,~ he receives a divine oracle which
confirms and transcends the former blessing. God,
says Balaam, is not a man : he does not change his
mind. Nor can trouble touch Israel, for Yahwk himself
reigns in their midst ; and the people (if vie may trust
the reading3) greet this divine king with exultant shout.
With the strength of a wild-ox, they fling their foes to
the ground. No magical arts avail in Israel's case : even
I now all has been decided, and one can but cry ' What
has God done ! ' Like a lion, Israel rises up to devour
the prey.
Again sacrificialrites are performed, and again Balaam
has to disappoint the king (see PEOR). The third
3. Oracles prophecy (J), together with some striking
and M. ;arallels to the ~ e c o n dhas , ~ characteristic
eatures of its own. The poet still dwells
on the numbers and prowess of Israel, but adds a
panegyric of its well-watered and fruitful land, and
surprises us by a definite mention of the kingly power
as distinct from the reign of YahwB. The king of Israel
is described as raised even above AGAG (4.71.). Still
more definite is the fourth prophecy. 'The seer beholds
in spirit the rise of David, and chaunts the victories
which are to crush Moab and subdue Edom.
The basis of the story of Balaam is evidently a patri-
otic legend, which, as we now have it, presupposes a
comparatively advanced historical period.
*' Origin It is true, the story of the ass, which sees
Of story' the angel invisible to man, and speaks
(Nu. 2222-34; cp 2 Pe. 2 r 6 ) , has a highly primitive
flavour.6 Still, this story, though welded with some
psychological skill into the surrounding narrative, is a
decoration derived from folklore, and the narrative as
a whole is designed to accentuate the uselessness of
jealous and rebellious feelings in the Ammonitish and
Edomitish neighbonrs of Israel. Ammor, and Edom
1 I t is Balak, not Balaam, who sacrifices. ' Balak and Balaam '
in Nu. 232 should evidently be omitted (adin @BAL).
2 This is certainly E's meaning in Nu. 23 r3a. The second
part of v. 13, which limits Balaam's range of vision to 'the
utmost part of the people,' must be due to a redactor. Its
object is to harmonise v. 13a [El with 242(J) which tells us
that Balaam is 1zow taking his first complete vie'w of the people
Israel had not resulted in the utterance of a curse, Balak deemed
it necessary to try the effect of the wider outlook from Pisgah.
3 Cheyne, hoyever, reads niKDnnl, 'and the glory of the king
is among them.
4 It is doubtful, however, whether Nu. 2322 23 is not a Yah-
wistic fragment (see Bacon, Triple Tradition, 228, and cp Di.'s
note). According to Cheyne, nx;an occurs both in o. 2~ d a n d
in v. 22 6.
5 Cp the Babylonian beast-stories the speaking horse in
Hom. IZ. 19 404, and the speaking serient in Genesis.
462
 BALAAM
were older as hations; but Israel alone had secured
permanent foothold W. of Jordan, and for a timereduced
the oldest nationalities to vassalage. The story of
Balaam points out that Yahwb had ordained these
privileges of Israel long before. The Moabitish king
and the Ammonitish, Arabian,’ or Arama3an sooth-
sayer had striven to turn aside the irreversible decree,
and Yahwk had turned the very means they took into the
instrument by which he announced the triumphs and
the unique destiny of his people.
It is much harder to fix the date and origin of the
poems. W e can scarcely attribute them withoct reserve
5. Origin of to J and E, for the points of contact
between the prophecies (cp especially 2322
poems’ and 2 4 8 ) suggest that an ancient poem
has been expanded and changed in diverse ways. The ~ literature Balaam is the type of false teachers (,?both,
kernel of the poem may go back to the early days of
the kingdom,-even, it may be, to those of Solomon.
’The national fortune is painted in glowing colours, and
the historical references stop short at David, who was
the only king to conquer both Moab and Edom. On
the other hand, the clear sense of Israel’s separateness
from the nations ( 2 8 9 ) had not arisen, so far as is
known, before the time of the literary prophets, and
the phraseology does not permit us to place the poems,
as we now have them, earlier:
The appendix (2420-24), at any rate, is generally
admitted to be comparatively modern (note the exag-
6. ap- geration respecting the Amalekites). The
structnre shows that the oracles are from
pendix, one hand (cp 2420, end, with v. 24, end).
The writer was quite familiar with the Assyrian power,
and speaks of the deportation of the Kenites by the
Assyrians. H e speaks of the Kenites, rather than more
famous peoples, becanse he considers them to be (like
the Amalekites ; cp I S. 1 5 6 ) within Balaam’s horizon.
He also (if the text of 2 4 2 4 be correct) predicts that
Xssyria in its turn will be destroyed by ships from
CRITTIM ( g . ~ . ) . Was he thinking of the Persian
empire (AsSyria= Persia, EzraSzz), and its overthrow
by Alexander the Great (cp I Macc. 1I ) ? The theory
has hcen widely accepted, and much controversy as to
the limits of prophecyhas grown out of it. It seems
bolder than the evidence as a whole warrants (see Di.),
and it has lately been pointed out that ‘they shall
afflict ’ (vp, v. 24) is a misreading which has arisen out
of the loss of an ethnic name in v. 23. Analogy requires
that the last of the three little oracles in m.22-24 should
begin thus :
And he saw . .. and began his oracle, and said,
Alas who will live (survive) of . . .
And the discoveries of the Tell of Zenjirli enable us to
‘restore the missing name, which was, not ‘ Samuel’
( h w , as many MSS and some editions), but
‘ Sham’al.’ Then in v. 24 we may continue :
And there shall he ships from the direction of Cyprus,
And Assyria shall aflict him (by), and Eher shall nflict him,
And he too (shall come) to destruction.2
The kingdom of Sham’al in NW. Syria was not so very
far from Balaam’s native place Pethor. (The poet,
at any rate, placed Pethor in Aram.) That it was
destroyed by Assyrians and peoples from the other side
of the Euphrates (=Eber), and plundered by shipmen
from Cyprus, was probably within the recollection of the
author, who is, therefore, not to be regarded as post-
1 See above, $ I , second paragraph. Cp Gen. 3632, and see
BELA(z), MIZRAIM.
2 The importance of this correction will appear if we corn
the alternative explanation of Hommel ( A H T 245x1, ,WE:;
produces the following most unnatural and unworthy dlstich :
‘Jackals (n:’!) shall come from the north
And wild cats (0’;:) from the coast of Kittim,’
where ‘jackals ’ and ‘wild cats ’ are figurative expressions for
wild invaders, and Kittim is, Hommel says, ‘the familiar term
for the Hittites (var. chittim).’ See ASSHURIM, EBER.
463
BALANCE
exilic. Assyria may have been no longer at the height
of its prosperity, but was still a conquering power.1
We have passing notices of Balaam’in Josh. 2 4 9 (E2)
and in Ut. 2 3 4 f . , cp Neh. 131f. (seeAMMONITE.5,5 3).
7. Allusions In Dt. Lc., as in E, he is an AramEan
to Ealaam. from Mesopotamia, hired to curse Israel ;
but Y A W & turned his curse into a blessing.
T h e Priestly Writer represents Balaam in a much more
unfavonrable light, Nu. 3 1 8 16 Josh. 1322 (cp Nu.
256-18). H e is a sorcerer, at whose instigation the
Midianite women seduced the Israelites into sensual
idolatry ; and he died in the battle between the Israelites
and the Midianites. Jos. (Ant. iv. 6 6 ) dwells at great
length on the corrupting advice of Balaam, given in the
first instance (cp Rev. 214) to Balak, and in Rabbinical
5 1 9 ; cp Rev. Z.C.) and sorcerers. Cp also z Pet. 215
Jude11. For Arabic parallels to the efficacy of
Balaam’s oracles, see Goldziher, A6handZ. ZUT a m b .
P h i l d o p ‘ e , 26 8
See Di.’s Comnz. and cp Tholuck ‘Die Gesch. Bileams ’
l’ermischte Schrifeen, 1 406-432 ; Oo:t, Disjut. de Nu.xxii.’-
xxiv.,. 1860; Kalisch, Bible Studies, p;. I ,
8 . Literature. 1877: Kue. 7he;pr ~ y d .18 497.540 [84];
van Hoonacker Observations critiques con-
cernant Bileam ’ Le Musdoon 18h8 ’ Halevy Rev. sdm. 1894
pp. 201-zog ; Schr. C O T 1 7431-145 : h e . C H ;46& ; Kit. Hist:
1 202,214, 229 ; Kautzsch, Abriss (sketch of literature appended
to HS), 143 ; Hommel, GBA g ; Che. Ex$. 7’imes, June 1899,
PP. 399-402. W. E. A. .
BALAC (Baha~[Ti. WH]), Rev. 214. See BALAK.
BALADAN (t&z),
2 K. 2o12 IS. 391. See MERO-
DACH-BALADAN.
BALAH (ha). Josh. 19 3. See BAALAH, 2.
BAL- (?$a,B a h [BAL];
~ b.
GALAC), Zippor,
an early king of Moab (Nu. 22-24 Judg. 1125, and else-
where; cp Rev. 214, B ALAC), inseparably connected with
Balaarn. For the alliteration cp Jabal and Jubal, Bera
and Birsha, Eldad and Medad, etc. See BALAAM.
BALAMO, RV Balamon (BAAAMON [BHA]), Judith
83. See BELMEN.
BALANCE. ( I ) iMdzZndim (D?J&,-the dual
refers to the two ear-like pendantsz) are scales for
weighing money (Jer. 32 I O ), hair (Ez. 5 I , $&VND),
etc. ; cp the metaphor of weighing calamity (Job62).
men (Ps.629 [IO], cp Dan. 577),3 and hills (Is.401~).
The dust of the balance is a simile for an insignificant
or negligible quantity (Is. 4015). The frequent metaphor
of a just or even balance ( p a ’D,Lev. 1936, cp Job316
Ez. 45 IO ; p)?$n ’D,Prov. 16 11, RV ‘ scales ’), as opposed
to one that is false ( m 7 p ‘n, Prov. 1111, cp 20 23 Am. 8 5
Hos. 127 [8] ; ~ $ ‘n,
1 Mic. ~ I I )is, analogous to the well-
known Heb. and Aram. idiom which expresses honour
and integrity by the simile of ‘ heaviness ’ (cp 122 and
(2) For kind, q (Is. 4 6 6 : only here in this sense),
see R EED, I , n. Other words are (3)pdLes, D$F, Prov.
16 TI RV, AV ‘weight,’ Is. 4012 (a~aOp6sLBKAQ]), EV
r3]
‘ scales ’ ; cp the verb in Ps. 58 z ; but hardly *&an in
Job3716, ‘the balancings (&E) of the clouds?’ (see
Budde). (4) (u:vy6v, Rev. 65, frequent in d for the
above.
The balances used in Palestine were probably similar
to those found on Egyptian monuments. One type
consists of an upright pole rising from a broad base with
1 Che. Ex$osz%or, 1896, pp. 77-80 (following D. H . Midler,
Die Projlwtez, 12153).
2 In Ar. ?nizZn with e, whereas z&z (= ]!,k) has g’; see
Frankel, 198.
8 Cp Phcen. & &, ‘B. hath weighed out.’
4 Cp the deprecation of unfair weights ( D m N , lit. ‘ stones ’) in
Lev. 1935 Prov. 11 I Mic. 611.
464
 BALASAMUS
cross beams turning upon a pin. An arm on either side
ended in a hook to which the article to be weighed was
attached in bags (cp Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2246, fig. 415,
5 d , see BAG, I ). Small ones of a particularly ingenious
nature, as well as hand-scales, are found (Wilk. 1285
fig. 95). Above the pole is sometimes placed the
fignre of a baboon representing Thoth the regulator of
measures. The steelyard (in Egypt) does not seem to
have been known until the Roman period.
BALASAMUS (BAAAC&MOC [BA]), I Esd. 9 4 3 =
Neh.84.M AASEIAH , 15.
BALD LOCUST (@\a; ATTAKHC [BAFL]). The
sol'dm is apparently a species of edible locust, or a
locust in a particular stage of growth. See further
LOCUST, 2.
BALDNESS. See CUTTIXGS,5 I : H AIR.
BALM ('14f or '13 ; ~ H T I N H[ PIT . AEF] PITHNH
[E' once] : cp Ezek. 2717 AV1"g. 'rosin' ; Vg. resina
1. OT s6rI,rf;Gen. 3725 4311,Jer. 822 4611 518, Ezek.
2717), a valuable product of Palestine,
the identification of which has given much trouble.
EV's rendering, ' balm,' is an unfortunate inheritance
from Coverdale's Bible (see New Eng. Diet. s.v.). Let
us look first at the Hebrew name : q (p?ri). The Arabic
d a m or &rw' is identical with it, and since the root
means to ' drip ' or ' bleed,' the product referred to must
be resinous, but it need not be aromatic. From the
OT notices we learn that sbi-i (EV ' balm ') was found
abundantly in Gilead, that it was in early times exported
thence to Egypt (Gen. 3725), was sufficiently prized to
form an appropriate gift to a lord of that country (Gen.
4311), was applied as a remedy for violent pain
(Jer. ZZ. cc. ), and was among the chief products of Pales-
tine that were brought into theTyrian market (Ez. 27 I?).
Next, we must point out that the modern commerclal
name ' balm of Gilead ' has, like the botanical specific
name Gileadense, no foundation but the hypothesis that
the substance so designated is the O T ' :&-i of Gilead' ;
and that from the earliest times resins and turpentines
have been used in medicine, as stimulants and as anti-
septics for wounds, arid as counter-irritants for pain.
'I'he r8ri.i ( E V ' balm') of Jer. 822 4611 is clearly a local
product in Gilead : its association with nzir (EV
' myrrh ' ) in Gen. 37 25 43 II proves that it was a valuable
article of commerce.
It has been shown elsewhere (B ALSAM) that the so-
called 'balsam of Mecca,' produced by the BaZsamo-
2. probably dendron OpobuLsanzum, is most probably
not the ' sari of Gilead' but the Hebrew
=mastic. m f r ,whichEVmistalcenly renders 'myrrh'
(see BALSAM, MYRRH). Sari (EV balm), then, must
be something else.
( I ) Arabic usage is in favour of the rendering of RVmZ.
Gen. 37 25 etc., MASTIC-i.e., the resin yielded by the
mastic tree, Pistucia Lentisczrs.
This tree 'is a native of the Mediterranean shores, and is
found in Portugal Morocco and the Canaries' (Fliickiger and
Hanbury's Plu.&acop-. 161). According to Tristram (NHB
362), it is extremely com&on in all the Mediterranean countries,
especially on the African coasts and in the Greek islands, where
it overruns whole districts for many miles. Tristram states, also,
that it is indigenous in all parts of Palestine, though, according
to Post (Hastings B D 236a),it is not now to he found E. of the
Jordan. T h e ma& of commerce is mainly derived from the
Isle of Scio. Down to the seven eenth century mastic was an
ingredient of many medicines. Anlike most resins, it readily
softens with moderate heat, even that of the mouth.
As the Arabic word $ a m (or $iw) is used mainly of
this tree and its products, we are not rash in concluding
that a substance of this kind is intended in the biblical
passages, though it seems unnecessary to limit 9 3 sari
to the resin of P. Lentiscus: it may include the resins
of the terebinth (P. Terebinthus) and Akppo pine
(Pinus halepensis; see ASH). ,The former yields ' Chian
1 The Syriac $ar?uA must he a loan-word from Arabic (Lag.
Miith. 1234).
30 , r .
BALSAM
turpentine,' which has recently been brought into notice
as an .alleged remedy for cancer. According to Tris-
tram (op. cit. 400), the terebinth is not now tapped for
turpentine in Palestine, ' where the inhabitants seem to
be ignorant of its commercial value.' There is abundant
evidence of the medicinal use of these resins in antiquity
(see Mcwers, Phiin. AZt. iii. 1223).
(2.) Balanites e~yjtiaca, called zahkZm hy the Arabs (Tris-
tram, o j . cit. 336), yields an oil 'prepared by the Arabs of
Jericho and sold iu large quantities to the pilgrims as balm of
Gilead.' This, however, was the m p u 1 of Greek writers, and
clearly, therefore, distinguished by them from Bcihr~apovor
p ~ ~ i q It. is merely a modern substitute.
(3.) Lastly must be mentioned Lagarde's view that Gr.
UT+& = '72: (!&+). There is great probability in this
identification of the words, for UT- is employed in several
instances to transliterate s (F) : but evidence is wanting to con-
nect 'lx with the substance cniput, which seems to have been
called $ Hebrew (Zidhneh). See further S T O R A X .
W. T. T.-D.-N. M.
BALNUUS (BAANYOC [B], B ~ A N O Y O C[A]), I Esd.
931=Ezral03o. BINNUI,4.
BALSAM appears in RVW., once for P@? bdsdnz
(Cant. 51f, & p a i \ n & ~ & ) ,and twice in rendering the
1. Heb. bzssm. phrase O p g n>\7? 'arrgath hn6-
disem, 'bed of balsam' (Cant. 51362,
+I+&! TOY A P U M ~ T ~ C ) . RV text and AV have
' spice, 'bed of spices. The verb (in Aram. d & h )
signifies to ' have pleasure,' ' be attracted by desire,'
and in Heb. the nominal forms2 denote enjoyment con-
nected with one particular sense-that of smell. From
one or other of the Semitic forms comes Gr. pdluafiov.
Although duff in^ and bfsem in the above passages may
have the general sense of spice or p e r f ~ m eit, ~is more
probable that, like da&n and pcihuufiov, they denote the
balsam tree or plant par excelknee. W e now know
that the proper source of Mecca balsam is Balsamuden-
dron Opoba~sanzzrnz(see 5 4 ) ; and a tree of this kind
seems to be intended in the passages from ancient
writers which are here sunimarised.
(a)Theophrastus ( H i s t . Plant. 96) has a long passage about
the production of balsam. I t is produced he says ' i n the
hoilow about Syria (.'v'T+ a;h& ~ i r)r g i
2. Ancient zUpia~). This phrase. Stackhouse explains
References. from Strabo as. meaning Koihe-ZupLa ; but
circa322 B,C, a t the present day Balsamoa'edron Ojo-
dalsawzicm does not grow farther N. than
Suikim; i t is essentially a tropical plant. Theophrastus, who
is so minutely accurate in all his other details (note his happy
expression +dAhov &E ... Bpo~ov wqydvy, 'with leaves like
rue') cannot have meant what Stackhouse supposes. I t is cer-
tain,'however, that the term CCELE-SYRIA [ q . ~ . ]in the Greek
period had ,a wider application, and Veslingius (O~odalsanzi
Vindicicz 243) rightly remarks, ' !allem hic intelligendant esse
Hierichubtis ... persuademur. The fruit, Theophrastus
continues, resembles the terminth (turpentine) in size, shape, and
colour. The 'tear' is gathered from an excision made wit'i
iron a t the season when the stems and the upper parts are
tensest ( r r v i y ~ ) . The odour is very strong ; the twigs also are
very sweet.smelling. No wild balsam is met with anywhere.
The unmixed juice is sold for twice its weight in silver ; even
the mixed, which is often met with in Greece, is singularly
fragrant.
(6) Strabo (763) is somewhat less full; but there can he no
doubt that it IS the Mecca balsam plant which he describes as
24 B, c, grown in a rrupd8sruop at Jericho. H e says that it is
shruh-like (BapvGSss) resembling cytisus and ter-
minth, and sweet-smelling. Th; juice is obtained by means of
incisions in the bark; it is very much like a viscous milk
(yhiu,ypo ya'hanrb) and solidifies when stored in little shells
(novXdp;a). H e praises its medicinal use, and says that it is
proauded nowher; else.
Diodorus Siculus (248) mentions 'a certain hollow' in the
neighbourhood of the Dead Sea as the hahitat of the halsam,
B, c. and adds that great revenue is derived from this plant,
because it is met with nowhere else in the world, and is
of great value to physicians.
Pliny too (H.V 1Uzj) affirms that the balsam plant is confined
~ ~~~ ~
1 Curiously enough, Ar. dasinzn has the contrary sense of
Zoathing(see Lag. Ueders. 143); hut baRhinz denotes the balsam
tree.
2 Heb. does not possess the verb.
3 See SPICE? Besenz is the word used in I K. 10 z 102;
(Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon).
466
 BALSAM
to Judaea. 'In former times it was cultivated only in two
7o A. D. gardens both of them royal ; one of them was no more
than t w k t y jugerain extent, and the other less. l'he
emperors Vespasian and Titus had this shrub exhibited at
. .
Rome; . it bears a much stronger resemblance to the vine
[ie., in the stems; here Pliny seems to borrow from 'l'rogus
Ponipeius] than to the myrtle. The leaf bears a very close
resemblance to that of [rue11 and it is an evergreen. . At . .
the present day it is cultivated by the fiscal authorities, a'nd the
plants were never known to be mpre nunierous. They never
exceed a couple of cubits in height.
Josephus makes several references to the balsam. H e says
(Ant. viu. F6) that the first routs of balsam (bmj3ahc&ou) were
9o A.D. brought to Palestine by the queen of Sheba. To
give an idea of the site of Pompey's camp (at Jericho)
he says it is where that balsam (broj3bhuapou) which is of ali
unguents (pOpa) the chief grows, and describes how the juice
( b r 6 s ) is obtained (Ant.xiv. 4 I). Again, when speaking of the
districts arouiid Jericho assigned to Cleopatra, he speaks of the
preciousness of this plant, which grows there alone (.Ant. XV. 42).
Lastly in a second reference to Pompey, he says that the region
of JeAcho bears the balsam tree (Bduapov), wh(ise stems
( ~ p Q u a )were cut with sharp stones, upon which the juice 'drops
down like tears ' (01i. 6 6).
'l'rogus, an author of the time of Augustus, is reproduced by
Justin (36 3). H e describes the closely shut-in valley in which
Ist cent. A, D, alone the opobalsamum grows ; the name of the
place is Jericho (Hierichus). 'In that valley
is a wood, notable alike for its fertility and its pleasantness,
being adorned with a palm grove and opobalsamum. The opo-
balsamum trees have a form like pine trees (piceis), except that
they are less tall (nzagish z ~ i d e s )and , are cultivated after the
manner of vineyards. 'These at a certain time of the year sweat
balsam.'
It is remarkable that the Greek and the Roman writers
dwell so constantly on the uniqueness of the balsam-tree
Some of them, at any rate
3. Balsam in of Jericho.
(e.g., Strabo, Pausanias, Diodorus), were
Arabia. not unaware that the plant grew on the
coasts of Arabia ; and Josephus, in his legendary style,
actually attributes to importation from Arabia its
presence in Palestine (Ant.viii. 66). No doubt this is
substantially correct. Prosper Alpinus (De BaZsamo,
1592) and Veslingius (OfodaZsa'snmiVindicie, 1643) long
ago investigated the subject. In the time of the former,
balsam plants were brought to Cairo from Arabia;
Alpinus himself (of. cit. 64) apparently possessed a
living specimen. The Arabic writer 'Abdallatif ( d . 1231)
also speaks of the balsam tree as in Egypt at 'Ain
Shems ('Fountain of the Sun')-Le., in the gardens of
Matariya, close to Heliopolis. It was about a cubit
high, and had two barks ; the outer red and fine, the
inner green and thick. When the latter was macerated
in the mouth, it left an oily taste, and an aromatic
odour. Incisions were made in the barks, and the
amount of balsam oil obtained formed a tenth part of
all the liquid collected.z The last balsam tree cultivated
in Egypt died in 1615 ; but two were alive in 1612.
This was the only place in Egypt where the balsam
tree would grow. W e can well understand, therefore:
that the neighhourhood of Jericho was the only habitat
of the tree in Palestine.
It would, however, be unreasonable to suppose that
the needs of the luxurious 'class in Palestine in pre-
4, probably = Roman times were altogether supplied
OT mbr EV from Jericho. The precious unguent
derived from the balsam tree, not less
myrrh, than the costly frankincense, was doubt-
less always one of the chief articles brought by Arabian
caravans. The tree that produces the so-called ' balsam
of Mecca' is the BaZsn?nodendron Opobalsamum. This
tree, as Schweinfurth report^,^ ' averages above 15 ft. in
height, possesses a yellow papery exfoliating bark, and
produces thin, grayish black twigs, from the ends of
which a small quantity of balsam exudes.' ' It is widely
distributed over the coast territory of Arabia, the adjacent
islands, and S. Nubia' ; hut ' the balsam is collected
only in the valleys near Mecca.' It is thus described by
Dymock (Phurtnacop. Znd. 1317) : ' Balsam of Mecca,
when freshly imported into Bombay, is a greenish turbid
1 Rutre in old editions : hut Mayhoff prefers tu6un'(fu6eri).
2 See 'Abdallayif, ed. De Sacy, 88 (Budge, The Nile, r8r).
3 We quote from a rimmi of his researches in Phaum.
Jouun. April 1894, p. 897.
467
BAN
fluid of syrupy, consistence, having a very grateful
odonr, something like oil of rosemary.' Jewish tradition
seems to have held that Mecca balsam is what the O T
writers call sdi-i-whence the rendering ' balm ' of AV
and KV (text) ; but the tradition was impugned long
ago by Bochart ( H i e ~ o zi.. 251), and does not agree
with the use of the Arabic cognate word &ztnmu (mastic ;
see BALM, I ). Schweinfiirth holds that the OT name
for Mecca balsam was not :Jri (EV balm, perhaps
really mastic; see BALM, I ) , nor dtsesenz (see above,
$ I ) , but m d r (see M YRRH ). Certainly mir w-as (like
Mecca balsam) strongly aromatic and also a Ziiyuid
substance (Ex. 3023 Cant. 5 5 13). whilst the O T refer-
ences do not necessarily imply that s&-i-iwas aromatic.
It is not unlikely that both hisem. (§ I ) and m5r mean
Mecca balsam. (Cp Kew BuZleletin for Mar.-Apr. 1896,
p. 89.) See MYRRH. N. M.--W. T. T.-D.-T.I<..C.
BALSAM TREES (DlV?? ; RV"'g. 2 S. 5 2 3 I Ch.
1414 Ps. 846). See'MULBERRY.
BALTHASAR, RV Baltasar ( B A A T A C A ~ [BAQI']),
Bar. 1I I ~ : See B ELSHAZZAR.
BAMAH (YIP?, Ez. 2029). See H IGH P LACES, $ 5.
BAMOTH ( n \ D z ; BAM(&l [RAFL]), a station of
the Israelites between N AHALIEL (4.v.)and ' the glen
(@A vdav) which is in the field [plateau] of Moab,
[by] the summit of [the] Pisgah, etc.' (Nu. 21 19). Eus.
(OS10122) describes it as 'on the Arnon' (like Nahaliel),
which must be wrong. See BAMOTH-BAAL.
BAMOTH-BAAL (?&'a
iliD?-i.e., ' the high places
of Baal') lay in the Moabite territory (see Nu. 2241,
R V ; CTHAH T O Y [BAFL]), to the north of the
Arnon, and was asslgned to Reuben (Josh. 1317:
B A I M W N BAAA P I , BaMwI3 B. [ALII. The order of
enumeration in Nu. 21 1 9 6 , where it is called simply
BAMOTH, leads to the supposition (so Di.) that it must
have lain somewhere on or near the Jebel 'AttFiriis, on
the south side of the Wady ZerkS Ma'in (cp Is. 1 5 2 :
' the high places '). Conder (Beth and Mooad, 144)
and G. A.Smith ( H G 562), however, find the Bamoth
in the dolmens immediately north of el-Maslfibiyeh,
near the W2dy Jideid. The Beth Bamotb of the
Moabite stone is perhaps the same place (cp B AJITH) ;
but.this whole region is thickly strewn with the remains
of ancient altars and other religious monuments (Conder,
op cit. 1 4 0 8 ) . The name Bamoth-baa1 is suggested
also by Nu. 21 28, where the Ij7g nia? $29 (EV ' lords
of the high places of kmon'-but see 6 )are mentioned
in parallelism with Ar of Moab. G. A. S
BAN, RVmg. BAENAN(B A N [AI, BAENAN [BI), I
Esd. 537=Ezra260, T OBIJAH, z
BAN (Dan),t o Ban ( W
QB renders by bv&Oepa Bva'Bqpa, bva~~Oepa~~up&vov, and
in a few instances Qrroheid. and other words denoting destruc-
tion ; QvaOcpa~i<~w and more rarely avarrOdva~
1. Terms. once I Esd. Y 4 bv~epoOv ;&hoc?pnisw and in a
few instances &her verb; denoting 'kill' or 'de-
stroy.' Vg. has anathema, consecratio, etc. ; occido, consnnzo,
consecuo, etc. AV translates curse, ntter@ destroy, acctirsed
thing, etc. ; RV, devote, utter@ destroy,devoted thing.
The root e k ' M in Hebrew denotes devoting any-
thing to Yahwk by destroying it : hirein is any person
or thing thus devoted. The root is found in a similar
sense in all the Semitic languages, of sacred things
which men are partly or wholly forbidden to use. It is
especially common in Arabic : e.g., the sacred territory
of Mecca and Medina is &nranz,and the harim (harem)
is ground forbidqen to all men other than the master
and his eunuchs. It may be noted that the exclusive
use of the root in the strong. sense of devoting by
destroying is characteristic of Hebrew (and of the dialect
spoken by the Moabites ; see 1s 3$), and that in other
languages hrm bears a meaning more nearly approaching
N ~ F(unclean), tjjp (consecrated).
468
 BAN
(a).,Idols are herem in themselves. In Dt. 725 the
Israelites are ordered to burn all heathen idols and not
2. Law of to bring them into their houses. The idols
$6rem. are herem, and make those who keep them
herem. (6) Public herern. The Israelites
or their rulers are ordered to treat as h5rem in certain
circumstances, guilty citizens or obnoxious enemies. In
Ex. 22 19 [zo] (tloolc of the Covenant, E) any one sacri-
ficing to any deity other than Yahwb is to be made
herem. So in substance Dt.136-11, though the term
hErem does not occur till V. 16. In Dt. 1313-19[12-18]
any idolatrous Israelite city is to be made herem : all
living things are to be killed and ' all its spoil' is to be
burnt. S o far, in (a)as in (a), the herem is something
abominable in itself and distasteful to God. Its de-
struction is a religious duty, and an acceptable service
to YahwB. Similarly, in Dt. 2016-18 all Canaanite cities
are to be made herem, that they may not seduce Israel
to idolatry. In Dt. 2010-14, if any distant city refuses
to surrender when summoned, all the males are to be
slain, and all other persons and things may be taken as
spoil. The term 'herem' is not used in that paragraph,
and is perhaps not applicable to it. (c) W e gather
from certain passages that individuals might devote
some possession to destruction as a kind of service to
Yahwb, and that also is called herem (see VOW). In a
section of P concerning vows, Lev. 27, two verses (28f:)
deal with this individual herem. Other vows may be
redeemed ; but individual (like public) herem must be
destroyed-it may not be sold or redeemed : it is most
holy (Kiu'esh 4i;nZshim) unto Yahwb. Among the objects
which an individual may make herem, men are specially
mentioned : they must be put to death. It is startling
to find such a provision in,one.of the latest strata of the
Pentateuch. Possibly only criminals could be made
herem ; or the text may be fragmentary. Cp Dillmann
and Kalisch on Lev. 27 28 29.
In Josh. 624 we have a provision that metal hhem
(obviously because indestructible) is to be pnt into the
treasury of the sanctuary. By an extension of this
principle, Nu. I8 14 ( P ) and Ez. 4429 ordain that hErem
shall be the property of the priests.
Herem is met with in Hebrew literature in all periods.
The sweeping statements that all Canaanite cities E.
3. Practice. and W. of the Jordan were made herem
are late generalisations ; but Nu. 21 z
(JE) and Judg. 117 (J), though otherwise discrepant,
agree that the city on whose site Hormah was built
was made herem. Other instances of hPrem are Jabesh-
gilead (Judg. 21 IO J ) , Jericho (rebuilding forbidden
under supernatural penalty, Josh. 6 26 J ) , the Amale-
kites (1S.l5), and the children of Ham at Gedor
( ICh.441). Similar cases-in regard to which, however,
the term herem is not used-are Gibeah and Benjamin
(Judg. 20) and Saul's attempt to execute Jonathan ( I S.
1424-46). On the Moabite stone (Z. 1 6 J ) Mesha' says
that he made the whole Israelite populace of Nebo
herem to Ashtarchemosh. The prophets speak of
Israel or Yahwk making herem of enemies (Is. 34 2
etc. ) or of enemies' property (Mic. 413), or, conversely,
of the heathen (Jer. 259), or Yahwb (Is. 4328), making
herem of Israel. In the later literature the root (zrm
often only means exterminate ( 2 Ch. 2023). The old
meaning, however, was not quite forgotten, and in
Ezra 108, if any Jew failed to obey Ezra's summons
to Jerusalem, his property was to be made herem and
he himself excommunicated. In post-biblical Hebrew
herem came to mean excommunication as well as pro-
perty set apart for the priests and the temple (Levy and
Jastrow's Dictionaries, S.V. ; S. Mandl, Der Bann,
'98, pp. 24-51) See, further, EXCOMMUNICATION.
The character of hsrem, the diffusion of the root in a
similar sense throughout Semitic languages, and its use
in the Hebrew sense by the Moabites, show that it was
an ancient Semitic institution belonging to Israel in
common with its kinsmen. Stade (Gesch. 1490) holds
469
BANI
-_-
that a Semitic DeoDle besieging a citv , vowed to make it
'4. Origin and h!rem to, their god in order to secure his
parallels. aid. Moreover, the idea of hErem-
as the use of the root in allied ~. ~ ~~~ ~
languages shows-was kindred to that of sanctity and
uncleanness. Like these, it was contagious (cp C LEAN,
§§ 2 , 14) : the possessor of hhem became hhem (Dt. 7 2 6
Josh. 618 ; Achan). O T legislation, as we have seen,
converts the bribe to a venal deity into a legitimate
penalty. The various degrees of severity are not im-
portant in relation to the principle.
Herem has something in common with taboos,
especially in its fatal effect on its possessor-e.g., in
New Zealand tabooed food is fatal to any one who eats
it (Frazer, GoZden Bough, vol. ii. ' Taboos ') ;-but it is
not so closely allied to taboos as the idea of uncleanness
( N m ; WRS, ReZ. Sem.12) 450 8). The Arab (zarim
often assimilates to herem : e.g., clothes used at the
circuit of the Ka'aba are (zarim, and may not be worn
or sold. Cp also the Roman ceremony of dewotio, by
which an enemy was devoted to destruction as an
offering to the infernal gods (Preller, RCm. iWyth. 124,
466). The instance of Kirrha and the Amphictyonic
council, in which the cultivation of land laid under a
curse was made the pretext for a holy war, may also be
compared with the case of Jericho. W. H. B.
BANAIAS (BAN&I&C [BA]), I Esd. 935=Ezral043,
BENAIAH, IO.
BAND. I. In the sense of a troop or company of
men, soldiers, etc. (see ARMY, 3).
The rendering of 'iigappim, O'?!F (prop. wings, cp Bab.
ugapPu), Ez. 1 2 14, etc. ; gZd@d, Tl?, K. 1124 AV 2 I<. 1321,
I
etc. ;kuyz'Z, $!(prop. force), I S. 1026 AV Ezra822 ; ma&iineh,
a!?'?, Gen. 327[81 AV (prop. camp), see M A H A N A I;M aiid r&,
~ i d i ,I Ch. 1223 AV Job 117 ; by bands,' Pr. 3027, represents
a participle ygn, &?!, 'dividing (itself).' In this sense the
yommon Gr. word is r r r a i p a (cp Mt. 2127 Mk. 1516, etc.),
cohort ' (so RVmz., Acts 10 I).
2. In the sense of a ribbon.
So @ M h , >en, Ex. 288, RV 'cunningly woven band'; AV
' curious girdle.
3. Finally, to denote anything that connects or
encloses, the following words (also rendered ' bonds,'
etc. ) are employed.
'Eszir, llDK, Judg. 1514, cp Aram. 7 D $ , Dan. 415 23 [IZ 201 ;
&ebheZ, sn
;, Ps. 11961 (RV CORDS, q.v.), and esp. Zech. 117 14,
where ' Bands ' (mg. 'binders ' or 'union') is the name of one of
the prophets staves; /iar&dbth, tIi,lyln,' Is. 586 and Ps.734
(RVmg. ' pangs,' doubtful) ; ma+%, @D, Lev. 26 13 Ez. 3427,
R V bars ' (AGRICULTURE, 5 4) ; mas&', lDiD, Job 39 j Ps. 2 3,
mraWhbth, ni+, Job3831t, of the 'bands' of Orion; see
STARS, 5 3 6; 'dbhath, n i g Job 39 IO, elsewhere (in plur.)
rendered 'cords, 'ropes, etc.
BANI (92, 3s 5 , 5 2 ; cp Palm. and Nab. 'J2;
probably shortened from BENAIAH,' Yah hath built
u p ' ; cp Gen. 303 Dt. 259 Rnth411, and see Haupt,
Proc. Am. Or. SOL. Ap. 22 cg2]; B A N [ ~ ] I [BKAL],
-AI [L], -&I& [BI,], - A l h C [KAL], BAAN[€]I, LBHAI)
is a frequently occurring name (chiefly post-exilic), aiid
in some cases it is difficult to separate the persons
bearing i t ; there is often confusion between it, the
parallel names BUNNIand BINNLJI [qq.v.], and the noun
B'ne (.a). See Mey. Entsteh. 142.
I. A Gadite one of David's 'thirty'; 2 S. 23 96 (ulbs yahaaS8sb
[B], ut. ya&'[A], ut. ayq,m [L])=I Ch.1138, on which see
HAGRI. Cp DAVID,5 11 (ii.).
2. A family of B n e Bani occurs in the great post-exilic list
(see E ZRA, ii. 88 9 8 c), E u a 2 I O (Pavou [Bl, -ut [AI) = Neh. 7 15
(Pavou' [BNA], a o u [L]) AV BINNUI(q.u.)=r Esd. 5 IZ ; and
various members of it are enumerated in Ezra 10 29 ( P ~ Y O U C[Bw])
L
= I Esd. 9 30 (pave' [BA]) E V MANEand among those who had
married foreign wives (see E ZRA , i. g! 5) in Ezra 10 34-42 : viz.,
in v. 34 (AYFL[BN], &vaieL [L])=I Esd. 9 34 AV MAANI,RV
BAANI,and in v. 38 ( o t 'viol pavoui [BNA]. povva, Kai uioi
470
 BANIQ BAPTISM
P o v v e ~[L]=MT 'U?? '??I, E V B ANI and B I N N U I ) = I E S ~ . ~ ~ ~
s strikingly illustrated by the regulations prescribed for
(EV BAXNUS, ELIALI;~ a v v o u s ,ESLaAeis [Bl, P., EhLahsL [AI, :he latter in the DidachC, to be noticed presently ; but,
j3evva: KaL U L O Lpovve~[L]). It is plausible, however, to correct the ceremonial baptisms of Judaism, though they lie
Bani into BINNUIor perhaps Bigvai in v. 34 (cp 2 14). The behind Christian baptism and exert an influence on its
family is also referred to on important occasions in Neh. 3 17 history, are not its immediate antecedent. The Jewish
and 10 13 (POVOULQ[Ll?) and as in Ezra's caravan (see E ZRA, i.
8 2, ii. $ 15 ( I ) d), T Esd. 636, AV B A N ~ DRV , BANIAS(Pavmas baptisms were the outcome of the Jewish distinction
[B], -vaLaq [Ll -VL ar- [A])=Ezra8 IO (uiQv [2ahapou6', Bl, ul. between clean and unclean-a distinction which was
[XaALpwO,, Ll, ~ ~ Q V L[~AhcrppovO'.,
S A*f"l) where Bani should be done away by Christianity (cp W ASHINGS). Christian
restored in MT (see Be. ad Zoc.).
3. One of the expounders of the Law (Neh. 6 7 ; see E ZRA ii. baptism is a purification, not from ceremonial, but
~ 3 : cp 3 i. 0 8, ii. 0 16 [ 5 ] 15 [I] c) who officiated at the ion- from moral impurity. The historical link is found
stitution of the 'congregation' (94J; see E Z R A , ii. $ 12, s in the baptism of John in the river Jordan. John
13 [AI). I n 9 4 (Bani Kadmiel ; @BRKAL,u;& Ka8pqh) the name adapted the familiar ceremony of baptism to a
is repeated, probably by an error (90' Ryssel); Gratz, aiter moral purpose : his was ' a baptism of repentance for
Pesh., reads Binnui for the.secS&'Bani. In 95 @ B R A has the remission of sins,' a purification of the nation
simply ~ a S p q h . Cp also Ezra 2 40 (' and Kadmiel of the children
of Hodaviah')=Neh. 743 with I Esd. 526 (KaSpqhov K Q L pavvou from that moral uncleanness of which ceremonial un-
[A]). I n Neh. 1122, UZZI(5) h. Bani @ o v a [ N q , p o v v a [Ll) is cleanness was properly typical. It was by means of
called overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem. this developmen? of its true significance that baptism
4. Signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA , i. 5 7), Neh. 10 14 [IS] was rescued from mere formalism, and prepared to *
,,,@ii&~[Ll: viol Paw [BNAl ; cp BUNNI,I). become the initiatory rite of the new Christian society.
5. A Merarite ; I Ch. 6 31 [46]. As Jesus' work took up John's, and as he him-
6. A Judahite ; I Ch. 9 4 Kr. (@BAL omit).
self had chosen to be baptized by John, it was natural
BANID, RV Banias ( B A N E I A C [B]), ie., BANI (q.71. that his first preaching of repentance should be coupled,
2 [end]). like John's, with a baptism. It is significant, how-
BANISHMENT. On various forms of temporary or ever, that he did not perform the rite himself: only
permanent exclusion from the community as a con- his disciples did so (Jn. 41J). Christian baptism
sequence of crime or ceremonial disqualification, see was not yet instituted; and when it came it was to
BAN, § 3 ; CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, § 15 f.; SYNA- add a spiritual element which John's baptism lacked.
GOGUE ; EXCOMMUNICATION. Meanwhile Jesus was indicating by his own action, and
I
I n a S.1414 allusion-is made t o Absalom in the nsord n??
by his defence of the action of his disciples, that the
(EV 'banished'), elsewhere usually rendered 'outcast' ('out- frequent Pharisaic baptisms-the ceremonial washing
casts' or 'dispersed of Israel'); see DISPERSION, s I. The of the hands, and the ' baptisms ' of vessels and dishes
nature of the punishment threatened in Ezra7 26t ()uiv) KVW. (Mli. 74)-had no permanent claim on the conscience ;
'rooting out' (rrarSsia [BA] ~ ~ Q L S E ~ E [L]) L V was already ob- and certain of his words are direcily e-plained by one
scure to the editor of I Esd.'(8 24 : mpopia [BA], && [Ll).
Ezra108 ('separated [57331,from the congregation of the captiv. of the Evangelists as repealing altoge:.her the ceremonial
ity ') may give an explanation of the phrase. distinction of clean and unclean, and as ' cleansing all
BANK. For sil&th, il$yD9 in 2 S. 20 15 z 1L.1 9 3 2 meats ' (141~.719). Only when the whole purport of
Is. 3733 AV (elsewhere EV always M OUNT) and ~ d p a E Jewish baptisms was annulled was the way clear for the
in Llc. 1943 (AV T RENCH, RVW. P ALISADE) see F OR- institution of the Christian rite, one of the essential
TIFICATION.
principles of which was that it shonld be performed once
for all, with no possibility of repetition.
BANK ( T ~ A ~ E Z ALk.
~ B Z I T H C , M t . 2 5 2 7 RV).
, 1 9 2 3 EV), BANKER (TPA-
See T RADE AND COM-
. On the day of Pentecost Peter answers the inquiries
of the multitude in words which, whilst they recall the
MERCE. baptism of John, indicate the fuller significance of
BANNAIA ( B A N N A I O Y C [A]), I Esd. 933 AV= Christian baptism : ' Repent ye, and be baptized, each
. E z r a l 0 3 3 , ZABAD,5 . one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
BANNAS BAN NO^ [BA]), I Esd. 6 2 6 RV=Ezra Spirit ' (Acts238). About three thousand were there-
2 4 0 ~B ANI , 3. upon added by baptism to the original band of believers.
BANNEAS ( B A N N A I A C [BA]), I Esd. 926 RV=Ezra It is expressly stated that at Samaria, as the result
1025, BENAIAH, 7. of Philip's' preaching, both men and women were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ' ; but the gift
BANNER (DJ,$Jy9 nR). See ENSIGNS, $ I, a,6, c. of the Holy Spirit did not follow until the arrival of Peter
BANNUS (BANNOYC [BA]), I Esd. 934=Ezra1038, and John from Jerusalem (812-17). The eunuch after
B ANI, 2. Philip's instructions asks for baptism ; and 'they go
BANQUET, Banqueting House. See MEALS. down both together into the water ' ( 8 36 38). Saul is
baptized by Ananias at Damascus (9 16). When Peter
BANUAS (B A N NOY [BA]), I Esd. 5 26, apparently a preached to Cornelius and his friends ' the Holy Spirit
misprint for Bannas (so RV). See BANI (3). fell on all that heard the word ' ; whereupon the apostle
BAPTISM ( B P ~ T I C M A , B A I T T I Z ~ I N ) . Among ' commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus
the permanent witnesses to the birth of Christianity Christ ':,(1044f.). Special stress is laid on this incident
1. Origin. o,ut of Judaism is the primary institu- as the first occasion of the baptism of Gentiles as such
tion of the Christian Church, the rite of (1045 11118). It was justified by the apostle on the
baptism. With the Jews the bathing of the whole body ground of the, previous gift of the Holy Spirit, which
in pure cold water-if possible, in a running stream- was the baptism promised by Christ in contradistinction
was a recognised means of restoration from a state of to John's baptism ( 1 1 1 6 8 ) .
ceremonial uncleanness. Passages like Num. 19 I I J , Baptism was thus recognised as the door of admission
31 19, also Is. 116 Zech. 13I, and especially Ezek. into the Christian Chiwh for Jews and Gentiles alike ;
36 2 4 8 , may be compared. The pouring of water on the and certain disciples of the Baptist whom Paul found nt
hands-a symbolic representation, perhaps, of baptism Ephesus were baptized afresh ' in the n a v e of the Lord
in a running stream-was a Pharisaic precaution in- Jesus ' (19 5). Of Lydia, the purple seller of Thyatira,
sisted on before every meal (cp Mk. 7 3 Lk. 1138). The found by Paul at Philippi. we read that she 'was bap-
Gentile, whose whole life had been ceremonially un- tized, and her household' (1615) ; and of the Philippian
clean, was required to submit to baptism among other gaoler, that he was baptized, ' he and all his straight-
conditions of his reception as a Jewish proselyte (Schurer, way,'-Le., in the middle of the night (1633). At
Gesch. ('4 256gj? ; 3rd ed. 3 129). See PROSELYTE, 5 5. Corinth a few of the earliest converts were baptized by
The connection between Jewish and Christian baptism P a d himself-crispus, Gains, and the household of
471 472
 BAPTISM
Stephanas ;-hut the apostle's language shows that this
was'quite exceptional ( I Cor. 114-17). In I Cor. 1529
Paul mentions a custom; apparently prevailing in
Corinth, of vicarious baptism ixi- behalf of the dead.
H e neither commends nor rebukes it, and it 'would
seem to have soon died out.'
The earliest notice of the method of baptism is
perhaps that which is found in the Didacht?, and, as we
2. Method. have already said, it illustrates the recog-
nition of a connection between the Jewish
and, the Christian baptisms. The Didacht?, here as
elsewhere, is strongly anti-Judaic in its tone, and at the
same time shows the influence of Jewish practices upon
the community which it represents. The Mishna draws
six distinctions in the kinds of wafer available for
i.arions purificatory purposes (Mi&oE'~th 1r-8, qnoted
by Schiirer, 2403f.), and in certain cases it insists
upon the full stream of running water, in which the
whole body can be immersed. The DidachC (chap. 7 )
recognises ' living water '-;.e., the running streani-
* other water,' ' cold,' and ' warm' ; and finally allows.
a triple pouring, where a suficiency of any water for
immersion cannot be h a d ; but, though it indicates a
preference in the order here given, it admits the validity
of baptism under any of these conditions.
It is sometimes urged that, because p a d ( w means
' to dip,' Christian baptism must originally have been sake they are simply said to have been baptized in the
by immersion. In the NT, however, as in classical
writers, the usual word for ' to dip ' is p d r 7 . w (Lk. 1624
Jn. 1326). ~ U T T ~ { Chad L ~ a wider usage, and could
be used even of a mere cerenionial handwashing,
as we see from Lk. 1138, ' he marvelled that he had not
first washed ( < @ d u O ~ )before dinner. ' Already the
partial ablution would seem to have been regarded as
symbolical of the whole. It is difficult to suppose that
the 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost could all have
been baptized by immersion. Such a method is indeed
presupposcd as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul's words
about death, burial, and resurrection in baptism (Rom.
6 3 5 ) ; but pouring water on the head was in any case
symbolical of immersion, and tantamount to it for ritual
purposes.
( a ) Zn the Name, not ' into the name.' Although d s
is the preposition most frequently wed, we find Bv in
Acts '238 1 0 4 8 ; and theinterchangeability
3. of the two prepositions in late Greek
may be plentifully illustrated from the NT. Moreover,
the expressiou is a Hebraism; cp Qv 6v6pun K U ~ ~ O I J
Mt. 2 1 9 (=Ps. 11826 og$) ; so in the baptismal formula
(
of Mt. 28 19 the Syr. ,version has ?& (Lat. in nomine).
(6) Zn the nnine of JPSUS Ckrist, or of the L o i d Yesus.
The former expression is used in Acts 238 1 0 4 8 ; the
latter in Acts 8 16 19 5 ; cp also Acts 22 16, ' Arise and
be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his
name.' From these passages, and from Paul's words
in I Cor. 1 1 3 ( ' Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye
baptized in the name of Paul? '), it is natural to conclude
that baptism was administered in the earli
the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that ' of the
This view is confirmed by the fact that the e
of the. baptismal confession appear to have been single
-not triple, as was the later creed. When Philip's Ithe name of the Lord Jesus ' (Acts 195).
baptism of the eunuch appeared to have been abruptly
narrated, the confession was inserted in the simple form,
' I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ' (Acts
1 Tertullian (Res. 48 c. Marc. 5 IO) assumes that the custom
was current in Paul's time, hut is wrongly cited as attesting it for this is not independent evidence.
his own day. Chrysostom (adroc.) says that Marcionites prac-
tised it : and Epiphanius (Hay. 2s 6) had heard of a tradition
that the Corinthians had done the same. This is very weak
evidence for a second-century custom, and it is most probable
that if the practice was found it was due to the passage in Paul's
Epistle, and cannot be regarded as independent testimony to
the existence of the custom among primitive Christians.
The difiiculties in which.Copmentatora.whoreject the obvious
meaning of the words find themselves involved may he seen at
length in Stanley's Corinfhialrs (ad Zoc.).
473
BAPTISM
8 37) ; and the forniula Jesus is Lord ' appears soon to
have become a stereotyped confession of Christian faith
(cp Ro. 109 I Cor. 1 2 3 Phil. 211) ; moreover the 'ques-
tion and answer ' (Pmpch~pa)connected with baptism
in I Pet. 321 would appear to represent only the central
section of the later creed.
On the other hand, we have in Mt. 2819 the full
formula, ' in the name of the Father and of the. Son and
of the Holy Ghost.' W e have no synoptic parallel at
this point ; and thus, from a documentary point of view,
we must regard this evidence as posterior to that of
Paul's Epistlesand of Acts.
The apparent contradiction was felt by Cyprian, who
suggested (E$. 7 3 1 7 J ) that in baptizing Jews the
apostles may have been contented with the one name
of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they already believed in the
Father ; whilst in baptizing Gentiles they used the full
formula, which was given (as he points out) with the
command to 'make disciples of. all the nations' or
' Gentiles.' This explanation, however, breaks down
in face of Acts 1045-48, the opening of the door to.the
Gentiles.
Three explanations deserve consideration-: ( I ) that
in Acts we have merely a compendious statement-;.e.,
that as a matter of fact all the persons there spoken of
were baptized in the thr'eefold name, though for brevity's
single name; ( 2 ) that Matthew does indeed report
exactly the words uttered by Jesus, but -that those
words were not regarded as prescribing an actualformula
to be used on every occasion, and that the spirit of them
t
was fulfilled by ba ism in the name of the Lord Jesus ;
( 3 ) that Matth es not here report the ipsissima
verba of Jesus, b ransfers to him the familiar language
of the Church of evangelist's own time and .locality.
The first of the xplanations cannot be regarded as
satisfactory in the absence of any historical evidence of
the employment of the threefold formula in the earliest
times. A decision between the second and the third
would involve an inquiry into the usage of the evangelist
in other parts of his Gospel, and belongs to the dis-
cussion of the synoptic problem ; but in favour of the.
third it may be-stated that the language of the First
Gospel, where it does not exactly reproduce an earlier
document, shows traces of modifications of a later kind.
It has been argued that when. Paul (ActslYzf.), in
answer to the statement of the Ephesian disciples of the
Baptist, ' W e have not so much as heard if there be a
Holy Spirit' (el rrveijpa tlyibv &nv), said, ' Unto what,
then, were ye baptized? ' he presupposed the use of the
longer formula which 'expressly named the Holy Spirit.
The statement can hardly mean, however, that they had
never even heard of a Holy Spirit, for disciples of the
Baptist could scarcely so speak (Mk. 1 8 ) : it mist refer to
the special gift of the Holy Spirit which Christians were
to receive. Accordingly, Panl's question simply implies
that Christian baptism could scarcely have been given
without some instruction as to this gift which was to
follow it. In any case, it would be exceedingly strange
that at this point Lk. should not have referred to the
threefold formula, had it been in use, instead of simply
saying, 'When they heard it, they were baptized in
The threefold formula is attested by the DidacJzC
(chap. 7),both in express words and by the mention of
the alternative practice of triple effusion; but, as the
DidachC shows elsewhere its dependence on Matthew,
Justin Martyr (chap. 153), in describing baptism to
heathen readers, gives the full formula in a paraphrastic
form (ApoL 1 6 ~ )'in, the name of God, Father of the
Universe and Ruler, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit.' Such a paraphrase was neces-
sary to make the meaning clear to those for whom h e
wrote.
We find the full formula again in Tertullian some
474
 BAPTISM
forty years later (De Bapt. 13, Adv. &ax. 26) ; and
when the First Gospel was widely known it was certain
to prevail. Exceptions are found which perhaps point
to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 7 3 ) and the
Apostolic Canons (n. 50) combat the shorter formula,
thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordin-
ance of Can. Apost. 50 runs-' If any bishop or pres-
byter fulfil not three baptisms of one initiation ( ~ p h
~ U T T ~ U ~ U pias
TU pufimws), but one baptism which is
given (as) into'the death of the Lord, let him be
deposed.' This was the formula of the followers of
Eunomius (Socr. 524), ' for they baptize not into the
Trinity, but into the death of Christ' (for other refer-
ences see Usener, Relig. Uiztersuch., 1889, 1184); they,
accordingly, used single immersion only.
No statement is found in the N T as to the age at
which baptism might be administered. Circumcision,
which Paul regards as fulfilled in Christian
** Age' baptism (see below, § s), enrolled the Jewish
boy in the covenant of his fathers on the eighth day
after birth, so that there could be no doubt that young
children were truly members of the holy people. Thus,
if children had been excluded from baptism when
whole families were won to Christianity, we should
almost certainly have had some record of the protest
which would have been raised against what must have
seemed so inconsistent a limitation to the membership
of the new ' Israel of God. ' It seems reasonable to snp-
pose. therefore, that where ' households ' are spoken of
as being baptized (Acts1615 31-33 I Cor. l r 6 ) , there must
have been, at least in some cases, instances of the
baptism of hfants. That Paul could speak of the
children of a believing husband, or of a believing wife,
as ' holy' is an indication in the same direction.
Paul, as we might expect, sees in baptism the means
by which the individual is admitted to his place in the
one body, of which he thus becomes a
5. Inter-
member ; For as the body is one and
pretation' hath many members, but all the members,
many though they he, are one body, so also is the
Christ ; for indeed by one Spirit (QY &vi TYE~&LUTL) we
all were baptized into one body-whether Jews or Gen-
tiles, whether bondmen or free ' ( I Cor.12 I Z ~ ). : Bap-
tism was thus the fundamental witness of Christian
unity (Eph. 45, one baptism') ; and in both the
passages here referred to it is emphasised as such in
view of the variety of spiritual gifts. A parable of
Christian baptism might be found in the cloud and the
sea through which all the Israelites had alike passed ;
' they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in
the sea ' ( I Cor. 10 2).
In Rom. 61 8 Paul regards baptism as effecting a
union with the death of Christ : ' we were baptized into
his death.' It was a kind of burial of the former self,
with a view to a resurrection and a new life. The same
conception recurs in Col. ZII-J, where it is immediately
preceded by the thought that'it corresponds in a certain
way to the circumcision of the old covenant. It is ' the
putting off '-totally, not merely partially and symbolic-
ally-of the whole ' body of the flesh ' ; and so it is the
fulfilment of the old rite : it is ' the circumcision of the
Christ.
In Gal. 326J Paul further speaks of baptism as involv!
ing a kind of identification with the person of Christ, so
that the divine sonship becomes ours in him ; ' For ye
are all sons of God, through faith (or ' t h e faith') in
Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as were baptized into
Christ put on (or ' clothed yourselves with ') Christ.' The
old distinctions, he again reminds us, thus disappeared
-Jew and Greek, bond-man and free, male and female
-' for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus ' ( d s 6ud Cv
xp.'I.).
Eph. 626 speaks of Christ as cleansing the Church
by the 'washing ( X O U T ~ ~ = V 'washing,' probably
not laver.' [In @ vq is always hour+^ : Xourp5v is
nsny Cant. 42 65 Ecclus. 3425 ; so Aquilarenders y m in
475
BARABBAS
Ps. 6010 10810l)of water w-ith the word' (2u P f i p a ~ ~ ) .
rhis last expression finds its interpretation in the &jpu,
)r formula of faith, to which we have already referred-
which, whether as the confession in the mouth of the
mptized or as the baptismal formula on the lips of the
baptizer, transformed the process of ablution into the
rite of Christian baptism. With this passage we may
,ompare Tit. 3 5 , ' He saved us through the washing of
regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit ' (ai&A O I J T ~ O ~
T U X L U ~ E Y E U L U S K U ~ U U K U C U ~ U CTWUS. dy.).
This last passage reminds us of the teaching of Jn. 3.
The relation of that chapter to the sacrament of baptism
is exactly parallel to that of chap 6 to the sacrament of
the eucharist (see E UCHARIST ). W e are secure in
saying that the evangelist's interpretation of the signifi-
cance of baptism must have followed the line of Jesus'
conversation with Nicodemus as there related. That
a Gentile, or even a Jew who had been neglectful of
the Rabbinical discipline of ablutions, should need to
begin entirely anew in the religious life, to be 'born
again of water and the Spirit,' as a condition of entry
into ' the kingdom of God,' would seem natural. The
marvel and the stumbling-block was that this should be
required of those who, like this ' teacher of Israel,' had
been strictest in their ceremonial purity ; ' Marvel not
that I said'unto z'hee; y e must be born again.'
Jn., then, recognises, with Paul, the universal character
of the initial rite ; whilst at the same time the narrative
teaches the radical nature of the change in the individual
soul. J. A. R.
BAPTISMS (BAITTICMOI), Mk. 7 4 , etc., RVmg,,
EV W ASHINGS (a,..).
BARABBAS ( B A ~ A B B A C[Ti. WH], $ 4 8 ) , the name
of the prisoner whom, in accordance with a Passover
custom, Pilate released at the demand of the Jews while
condemning Jesus to death (so Mt. 2715-26 Mk. 156-15
Lk. 2317-25 Jn. 1 S 3 g f : ) .
More precisely than Mt., who simply calls him a
'notable' (d~Luqpou)prisoner, and Jn., who calls him
1. Story. trobber, Mk. describes him as lying
bound with them that had made insurrec-
tion ( p e d TGU UTUULUUTGYB E B E ~ ~ Y O Smen
) , who in the
insurrection had committed murder.' As Mk. has not
previously referred to these insurgents, it seems all the
more probable that he is borrowing verbatim from
another source, although about this particular insurrec-
tion we are in as complete ignorance as about the
Galileans mentioned in Lk. 13 I. Lk. (23 IS), whofollows
Mk., adds that the insurrection had occurred in Jeru-
salem, but says nothing about any fellow-prisoners with
Barabbas, and thus leaves the impression that Barabbas
personally had committed murder. Mk. is entitled to
the preference, not only on this point but also when he
represents the Jews as having demanded the release of
a prisoner on their own initiative, as against the less
probable view that Pilate offered them this of his own
accord.
Those who find some difficulty in accepting the
narrative as it stands may perhaps find themselves
better able to explain its origin on the lines 'indicated
by W. Brandt, by whom every detail has been discussed
with great care (Evangelische Geschichtr, 1893. pp.
94-105). Brandt takes the kernel of the story to be
that a certain prisoner who had been arrested in con-
nection with some insiirrection, but against whom no
476
 BARACHEL
crime or at least' n o grave crime coul'd be proved, was
released on the application of the people, who intervened
in his behalf because he was the son of a Rabbin (see
below, z). 'The incident, even although it was not
simultaneous with the condemnation of Jesus, gave
occasion in Christian circles for the drawing of this
contrast : the son of the rabbin was interceded for and
released, Jesus was condemned. In the course of
transmission by oral tradition the statement of this con-
trast might gradually, without any conscious departure
from historical truth, have led to the assumption that
the two things occurred at the same time and on the
same occasion. Finally, the liberation of a seditious
prisoner-in any case a somewhat surprising occurrence
-seemed explicable only on the assumption of some
standing custom to account for it ; this assumption
must presumably have arisen elsewhere than in Palestine.
The above theory presupposes that papuppas stands
for m e 18, 'son of the father'-Le., here, of the
2. NAme.rabbinical ' master.' (It was not till after-
wards that Abba began to come into use
as a proper name [of rabbins], explained by Dalman
[Gram. 1421 as an abbreviation, like ~BN,of 3 9 2 ~: in
the time of Jesus it was a title of honour [Mt. 2391.)
Jerome indeed, in his commentary on Mt. 27 16-18 says that
in the GAspel of the Hebrews ( p o d s r d i t z i r j z c x t n He6rceos)
Barahbas is explained as ' son of their teacher ' (Jflizls mupktri
eomm), where e o ~ z q napparently implies an etymology similar
to that found -in a scholion of a Venice MS in W H App. 196-
viz. that j3apapj32u (only another form for papaPj32u ; see Winer
Gr&z.(d) 5 5, n. 70) means 'son of our teacher.' In that c a d
we mnst (with Syr. hr.) write j3appa@au, taking the second
element as being 'teacher,' and assume that I;aP&iw was explained
as = N;??, 'our teacher,' or $322, 'their teacher.' The mean-
ing, however, is not essentially changed by this, as?:] (as also
$37) is, like "?e, a title of honour for a great teacher.
The most remarkable fact in connection with the
name of Barabbas is that Origen knew MSS, and did
not absolutely reject them, in which Mt. 2716f: read
' Jesus ' ('I~moGv) before ' Barabbas '- a reading still
extant in some cursives, as well as in the Armen. vers.,
in Syr. sin., and partly also in Syr. hr. Whether the
Gospel of the Hebrews, referred to by Jerome, also had
this reading is uncertain (see WH). In this reading
' Barabbas ' would be only an addition made for the
sake of distinction, as in Simon Bar-jona, but not yet
with the full force of a proper name.
Some support for it might perhaps he found in the fact that
the first mention.of the name in Mk. is preceded by6 heyy6pfuos.
The meaning would then be ' H e who, for distinction's sake
(though it was .not his proper name) was called Barabbas.'
Only, in that case, in Mt. the heyy6;euou (here without the
article) since it is followed on the reading at ?resent in question
by 'I&iiu BapaPpiw, wohd simply mean whose name wai
Jesus Barabbas'. and it may be so in Mk. also. In any case
it is remarkable t i a t in all the MSS in question Barahbas should
have the name 'Iquoirs exclusively in Mt. and there only in two
verses, while 7/21. 20 and 26 simply give rbw Bapapp&, ~ b 82 u
'Iquoiru as an antithesis. Thus we may be tolerably certain that
the name Jesus as given to Barabbas has arisen merely from
mistake.
A fairly obvious explanation would be the conjecture
of Tregelles. that a very early transcriber had 'per
incuriam ' repeated the last two4etters of hp?v and that
these were at a later date taken for the familiar abbrevia-
tion of the name of Jesus. If this theory be adopted we
must assume further that a later copyist inserted also in
v, 16 the name 'IguoOv, which he had found in v. 17 ;
but it is specially interesting to observe that in the
Latin translation of Origen the word Jesus stands in
v. 17 but not in v. 16 also. Cp Zahn, Gesch. des N T
1<mzons, 2 697-700. P. w. s.
BARACHEL(5&???, 'Godblesses,'§ 28; Bapaxi~A
[BKA]), the father of Job's friend Elihu (Job3226).
BARACHIAH ( Q:;, 9?l>?>?), Zech. 117. the
reading of AV ed. 1611,and some other old editions.
See B ERECHIAH (4).
BARACHIAS, RV Barachiah (Bapaxiac [Ti.
WH]), Mt(2935. See ZACHARIAS.
477
BARJESUS
BARAK (372, -'lightning,' § 66, cp Sab. DP12
Palm. Pl2, Pun. Banrcas [the snrname of Hamilcar],
tnd the Ass. divine names Kamman-bir& and Gihi2-
5ir& [Del. Ass. H W B 187]), b. Abinoam (Judg. 46-
5x2 ; Bapa~ [BL], BAPAX [A]). See DEBORAH.
BARBARIAN (BapB~poc).primarily, one who
:peaks in an unintelligible manner : hence a foreigner
cp 12.2 867), in which sense it is employed by Paul in
t Cor. 1 4 IT Acts 28 2. This usage was not restricted to
:he Greeks alone : it is met with among the Romans
Icp Ovid, Trist. v. 1037), and (according to Herod.
2 158) among the Egyptians. In agreement with this, the
people of Melita, who perhaps spoke some Phcenician
dialect, are called ' barbarians ' (Acts 282 4 ) , and @
uses pbppapos to render the iyi5 of Ps. 1141-a people
'of strange tongue' (Targ. v m i 2 The not
uncommon "EhA~pwsK U ~pdppapoc, accordingly, includes
the whoie world : cp Rom. 114 (also Jos. Ant. xi. 7 1)
and the similar ' Barbarian, Scythian,' Col. 311 ; see
HELLENISM, 2.
The use of Pa'pSapos became so customary that the term was
s e d actually In referring to the speaker's or writer's own
peo le cp Philo Yit. Mos. 6 5 and Jos. (By, pref $ I) who
q p i e s ; the d e s i g h o n 'upper iarharians ' to his c&nt&nen
beyond the Euphrates3 At a later date the word gets the
meaning ' cruel ' 'savage,' etc. (cp Cic. Fmtei. 1021, ' immanis
ac barhara conskudo'), in which sense it recurs in z Macc. 221
425 152 and in the Q of Ez.2136 [31] (for M T Q$i, 'brutish').
BARBER (2i3, Ph. 253, Ass. gallabu), Ez. SI.?
See BEARD.
BARCHUS (Bapxoye [A], I Esd. 532 R y = E z r a
253, BARKOS.
BARHUMITE, THE (9n?lra, zS. 2331 : o Bap-
AIAMEITHC P I , o B A P A I ~ M . [Mail, o BAPUM. [AI8
0 ~ B E N N I [L]). See BAHARUMITE.
BARIAH (n9?$,MAPEI [B], B ~ p i a[AL]), a de-
scendant of Zerubbabel ( I Ch. 3 2.)
BARJESUS, the Jewish sorcerer and false prophet
in the train of the proconsul Sergius Panlus at Paphos,
in Cyprus, who (Hcts136-rz) withstood the preaching of
Paul, and was punished with temporary blindness.
At the outset, the names present great difficulties.
In 136 his name (6vopa) is expressly said to have been
Barjesus (BaprTaoDs), and such a compound
Names* (son of a father named Jesus) can quite
easily have been a proper name (cp Barabbas, Barnabas,
Bartholomew). In v. 8, however, he is abruptly called
' Elymas the sorcerer, for so is his name by interpreta-
tion (Ehupas b pbyos, o i h s yZlp ,i&%ppgv~6wat rb
bvopa a u ~ o i ? ) . A translation has relevance only when
it is a translation into the language of the readers : in
any other case it would be incumbent on the author to
state what foreign language he is translating into.
(u) This being assumed, we must take it that 'the
sorcerer' (6 pbyos) is the translation. Elymas (Ehupus),
in that case, would be the word translated. Accord-
ingly, the name has been identified with the Arabic
' d i m , which occurs in the Koran (7106 IO^] 2633 and
36 [34 and 371) as an adjective following the noun sibhir
which denotes a sorcerer, and has thus been taken to
mean ' wise,' ' able.' Less appropriate is the derivation
from Aram. ! !si or n*$y, meaning 'strong.' Equate
pciyos, however, etymologically, with Ehupas as we
1 Del. (Ass. HWB) explains Ass. dar6aru 'jackal.'
2 Akin to this are the expressions oi ;.$(I Cor. 51zJ)and
Z9vq (like the Heb. 094, see GENTILES, 5 I) to denote those
outside the Christian world. Cp the Talm. use of n\r?!.
3 Similarly, the Jews frequently .employed f N l D l N , Syr:
am<cip-i.e., 'Aramaean,' in the sens&of ' barbarian,'-and so
the Syr. translations of the NT, undertheir influence retain the
term to translate ' E A A ~ V , ~ ~ , ieuisoi -etc. 111 process'of time it
was felt that a word which was ;sed in the N T to designate
'heathen ' could hardlv he borne by q Christian people, and
the old name was modified into drcimciyci; cp. NO. ZDnlG
25 113, Wright, Coq3. Gram. 15.
478
 BARJESUS
m a y , it still has to b e explained how Bxrjesus came
suddenly to b e called by t h e o t h e r nanie, Elymas.
'The only way i n which a plausible explanation could be
reached would be if E l y m a s ( i n t h e sense indicated)
could be t a k e n as a title or cognomen assumed by Bar-
jesus-a foreign tongue being used t o heighten' still
further t h e prestige which he sought t o acquire by it.
It is n o t as a title, however, t h a t t h e a u t h o r employs it.
On t h e contrary, h e gives t h e word without t h e definite
article, a n d expressly a d d s t h a t the word which h e i s
translating w a s t h e a c t u a l n a m e (bvopa) of the bearer.
(a) It w a s quite s o u n d m e t h o d , therefore, to t a k e
13arjesus for t h e n a m e translated, and E l y m a s for t h e
translation.
Even Pesh., in v. 8, for Ehvpas b p6yas arbitrarily has 'this
sorcerer Barshuma [so Pesh. reads for Bapquous in v. 6 ; see
below, (c)], whose name, being interpreted, means Elymas.'
Klostermann (Pro6bme b i z Aposteliexre, 1883, pp. 21-33), how-
ever, is able to support this view only on three assumptions,
each one of which is bolder than the other. We must read, h e
.
holds not Ehupas hut "Erorpos secoudly we must read, not
Uap&oSs, hut Bbpquouau, or, 'to be ex& the Latiu Bar-
jesrchaar; and, in the third place, the ]$: 1s so transcribed
(whether we derive it etymologically from the root n,d, or, with
more probability, from the root id, which underlies V:, presto
est) means 'son of preparedness' or 'son of fitness,' and thus,
by the same Hebraism as we find in the name Barnahas (q.v.),
paratus, Zro~par.
a. As to the first of these assumptions it has to be noted
that the reading " E ~ o r p o sis met with only in Lucifer of Calaris
(06. 371) and even there not as Hetcemus but as Etcemus; D
has Erdrpas, which, indeed, we cannot explain, but which
from its ending, is clearly intended to be taken as a prope;
name ; paratus is found only in Lucifer, one Vg. MS, and two
Latiu MSS, in which in many places is found the markedly
divergent text of Acts which Blass takes to be Luke's earliest
draft (see ACTS, $ 17)
8. Next, as regards the second assumption. Bapquouav is
found only in n ; Barjcsua?u, only in the Latin translation of
D ; Barjesuban or rather, according to the one MS known to
us, Bnt-jesrcham, only in Lucifer. The corrector of D has re-
stored Bap~quovv,which, as accusative, fits his reading bv6pan.
v $ gvopa, but, in spite of :< &pa, is found also
~ a h o l i p ~ ofor
in AHLP and the Greek margin of the Philoxenian ; N, Vg.,
Copt., Armen., and the Philoaenian version as well as ' aonaulli'
known to Jerome read Bapquou-that is to say, the simple
Hebrew form without a Greek termination. On this Jerome
(on the Hebrew names in Acts; Opera ed. Vallarsi 399)
remarks ' nonnnlli Barjesu corrnpte leg"; ' himself dedlaring
the rig& reading to be Barieu or Berieu, >or which, by very
daring etymologisinq from the Hebrew, he obtains the meanings
maleficiunr or maleficus, or in malo. Perhaps, however even
Jerome's akrsion to Bapquou rests upon the very o6vious
dogmatic 'consideration put forward by Beda in the eighth
century, 'non convenit hominem flagitiosum et magum filium
Jesu, id est, salvatoris, appellari quem e contrario Paulos (v.
IO) filium diaholi nuncupat.' The form Barjeu in Jerome can
readily be accounted for as merely a clerical error for Barjesu
or as arising out of the Greek abbreviation IHY which is me:
with in the oldest MSS along with the more frequently occurring
IY for 'Iquoir. The explanation in the case of the readings
preferred by Klostermann is much less easy. On this account
in spite of their weak attestation, one might he inclined t;
regard them as the true ones ; hut all the authorities for the read-
ing paratus have the word, not in v. 8 instead of Ehupas, hut as
an interpolation after Bapquous in v. 6, 'quod interpretatur
paratus.' This addition is met with elsewhere only in E, in
the form 6 pf0B"ppquderaLEhupas-rendered in the Latin of this
M S : guod interpretatur Elymas. I t is evident that in neither
case have we more than a late attempt to obviate the impression
that Elymas, first introduced in v. 8, was the name of another
person. Blass, on the other hand, regards the added words as
part of Luke's earliest draft. H e sees, however, that Luke
could not have written at the same time in v. 8 'for thus is his
name interpreted ' (odrws yip pe0sppque6crat r b 6uopa ahoir);
and, accordingly, he rejects these words from Luke's earliest
draft. For this he has not a single authority ; and how can he
explain Luke's having after all, introduced the words into his
second transcript, lea:ing out those in v. 6 instead? Are we
really to believe that with hisown hands Luke changed his good
a,id thoroughly intelligible first text into a positively misleading
after-text? Cp ACTS, 5 17 (f).If, however, the addition Lquod
btPrprefafurparatus'a t the end of ZI. 6 is to be regarded as a
late interpolation, Lucifer also, who has it, lies open to suspicion :
his form Etcemus in ZI. 8 may be not taken from an authoritative
source, but a mere conjectural adaptation to allow of the word's
being rendered paratus aud itself regarded as a rendering of Bap-
quous. What etymology he was following when he preferred
(or perhaps conjecturally intrcduced) the form Barjesuban is
a matter of indifference. In ancient times, as the Onomartica
Sacra abundantly show, people made out Hebrew etymologies
in a most reckless way.
479
, BARJESUS
y. Klostermann's proposed etymology, .fa?-atus,rests upon a
rery weak foundation, as no such word as p i , (YiSwBn) caiibe
shown toexist(thepr0pername aid., ISHVAH, inGen.4R17hasno
mportance in this connection), and the root a i 1 or N)Wwhich is
ised i? Syrjac frequently for &os tuos bpahis, as also for
m y - opo-, &o-, in rompounds,.,i; nev& used for Zroorpas.l
Besibes, as we have said, the codex has not Barjesuda?z but
Barjesubam. Above all, however, Klostermann's hypothesis
.eniains untenable as long as one is unprepared to accept the
'urther assumption that b p6yos after EAvpas (or "Eroipor) in
7. 8 is a mere gloss to he deleted ; for b piyos necessarily leads
o the assumption dealt with under (a). This had no doubt
ilready been perceived by the scribe of H, who wrote b pgyas
the great) for b p&yos, and so also by Lucifer, if the cditio
nrinceps (of Tilius) is right in attributing the reading m a p u s
o him (the only MS of Lucifer at present known has n i a p s ) .
[f Lucifer really wrote nuignas, this increases the suspicion
hat the other variants in Lucifer are i n like manner arbitrary
iiid unauthorised alterations of the text.
(6) In o r d e r t o m a k e o u t Elymas to be a translation
if the n a m e of the sorcerer, stress h a s been laid o n the
*emarkable Peshitta rendering B a r s h u m a for Bapquous.
Already, in the seventeenth century, we find Castell (Lex.
He,5tngZ. S.V. o>V) and Lightfoot (Hor. He6r. ad loc.) iuter-
preting Bapquous as filius z r u h e r i s , and deriving Elymas
From the Arabic 'a&za=doZwit (&). Over and above the
easons to the contrary that have already been urged under
6) however it has to be observed (see above) that a trans-
adon into Arabic would explain nothing to the readers : it
would itself require to be explained. A somewhat
different turn is given to the matter by Payne Smith (The$.
Syr. 598). Barshuma was in the first indance given in v. 8
3s a rendering of Elymas, and only later introduced by copyists
also into v. 6 in substitution for Barjesus in the erroneous
belief that it was the man's proper name. But the Peshitta in
Its arbitrary change of text in v. 8 (see above (6), ad init.j says
precisely the opposite -that Barshuma was the proper name,
a n d Elymas the translkon. I t must, therefore, from the outset
have held Barshuma to be a reproduction of the proper name
Barjesus. Thus Barshuma probably means merely 'son of the
name ; and the name' is most easily to he accounted for as a
substitute for 'Jesus' from the feeling of reverence which we
have already heard expressing itself in Beda [see above (h) B] a
revereuce similar to that shown by the Jews when they d i d
'the name' instead of ' Y a h d . '
( d ) Van M a n e n , contrariwise (Pnulus 1, Leyden,
1890, pp. 98 f: 147),holds E l y m a s to b e t h e proper
n a m e , a n d interprets Barjesus i n t h e H e b r e w sense as
mcaning I s o n of Jesus '--i. e . , e follower of Jesus. '
I n this he assumes that the primary document here made
use of by the author of Acts did not refer to the man as a
Jew or as a sorcerer, or as a false prophet; that it simply
contkned the information that at Paphos Paul came into
opposition with one of the older and very conservative disciples
of Jesus, and got the better of him with Sergius Paulus. l h i s
hypothesis admittedly departs so widely from the trxt of Acts
that it is impossible to control it thereby.
( e ) D a l m a n ( G m m . 129, n. I [ ' 9 4 ] ) proposes a
purely Greek explanation.
'EhupLs (so accented) he regards as cmtractsd from 'Ehupaios
(on these contractions see NAnlIss, 6: 86 adfi71.). In 6 [except
fhe Apocrypha] and N T indeed, the Elamites are always
Ehap, 'Ehapirar ; hut with the Greeks the forms are as in-
variably 'Ehupal's, 'EAupa2oL; su in Tobit 2 I O Judith 16 ;
I Macc. 6 I has 'Ehdpai.
Philologically this derivation i s t h e simplest of a l l ;
b u t it contributes nothing towards t h e solution of t h e
riddle.
T h e failure of all t h e a t t e m p t s enumerated above
renders inevitable t h e suggestion t h a t here t h e author of
Acts h a s a m a l g a m a t e d t w o sources, o n e
2.
of which called t h e n i a n Barjesus while
sources9 t h e other called him Elymas. Even
K l o s t e r m a n n , i n order t o explain t h e peculiar distribu-
tion of t h e n a m e s i n vu. 6 8, seeks t h e aid of this
hypothesis in addition t o t h e hypotheses already referred
t o [above (a), beg.]. T h e addition, O ~ W y S i p p&p-
p~vederac~6 bvopa a b ~ o C(for so is his n a m e translated),
however, would i n a n y case b e a very unskilful way of
a m a l g a m a t i n g t h e t w o sources unless 6 pdyos (sorcerer),
as sugggested above, be deleted a s a gloss. Still, it
o n c e i t IS agreed t o assume t w o sources, a further a n d
larger question arises : t h e question, namely, whether t h e
addition itself b e substantially right- that is to say,
whether t h e o n e n a m e be really a translation of t h e other.
Nay, m o r e : it is even conceivable t h a t the two names d o
not d e n o t e t h e s a m e person ; t h a t accounts relating to
1 So Nestle, in private letter to the present writer.
480
 BARJESUS
two different persons haQe been transferred t0.a 'single
'person. 'This inference is suggested also by the epithets
applied : for, though it is not. altogether inconceivable
that a ' sorcerer',(&os) should be a "false prophet"
(~eu8oapoq%$~?s), the two ideas are widely different.
. Of. the critics mentioned in ACTS, $ 1 1 who discuss our
present passage with reference to the disthction of sources,
only Spitta and B. Weiss regard 136-12 as all of one piece.
Clemen'and Hilgenfeld are convinced of the opposite, but mak;
n o definite suggestions as to separation of the portions ; Sorof
and Jiingst derive v. 6 J from a written source, vu. 8-12from
the pen of the redactor or from oral tradition. Ji.ngst further
attributes to the redactor the word pLyov in u. 6. Yet not even
so,are all the difficulties cleared up.
How far the narrative as a whole is to be accepted as
historical becomes a serious question as soon as it has
3. Credibility been traced to more than one source ;
of Narrative. but its credibility has been doubted
even by Spitta, R. Weiss, and others,
who defend its unity. . As regards the miracle in
particular, one is not only surprised by its suddenness,
but is also at a loss to see its moral justification. On
the other hand, a misunderstanding would account for
it readily enough. A sorcerer, a false prophet-nay,
any Jew (Acts2827)-is. in the judgment of the Christian,
spiritually blind, and this is what Paul and Barnabas
proved of Barjesus in their disputation with him. In
being handed down by tradition this thought could
easily undergo such a change as would lead to the
representation that physical blindness had been brought
'on as & apunishment- by the words of Paul. On the
other hand, one would expect the blindness, if it is to
be regarded as merited, to be permanent, or, at least,
would expect to be told of some reason for its subse-
quent removal, as, for example, that the sorcerer had
'ceased to withstand'Pau1 and Barnabas, or even had
become a convert to Christianity. It is very noticeable
that the narrator shows but little interest in the subse-
quent history of the man. The conversion of the pro-
consul (not his existence ; see ACTS, § 13 adfln.) also
is doubtful to many.
All the more does it now become incumbent to
4. Tendency. enquire whether the narrative reveals
in any measure the tendencies dis-
cerned elsewhere in Acts.
);( In the first place, and generally, it is clear that
it'has a place in the parallelism between Peter and Paul
(Xcrs, 4), in respect alike of the miracle of chastise-
ment, the confutation of a sorcerer, and the conversion
of a high Roman officer (cp Acts61-IO 818-24 101-48).
It is also in harmony with that other tendency of Acts,
to represent the Roman authority as friendly, and the
Jews as hostile to Christianity (ACTS, 5 (I) ; 4 f d 3 quished not by Peter but by Paul.
init. ; compare very specially the Jewish exorcists in
close rel,ation to sorcery, Acts19 13-16).
( d ) A conjecture of wider scope1 connects itself with
what is said of Simon Magus (see SIMON M A G U S ).
If Paul was the person originally intended in the story
of Simon. then in Acts 89-24 we find attributed to
,him the one deed which used to be flung in his teeth
by his Judaistic adversaries-that, by his great col-
lections made in Macedonia and Achaia, he had sought
to, purchase at the hands of the original apostles that
recognition of his equality with them which they had so
.persistently withheld. The romance of Simon Magus,
however, of which we still possess large portions (see
S IMON M A G U S ), had for its main contents something
different, viz., that the sorcerer had spread his false
doctrines everywhere and supported them by miracles,
but in one city after another was vanquished in dispute
and excelled in miracle by Peter. Thus, apart from
the repetition of the occurrence in many cities, we are
1 See for example, Hilgenfeld, Z W T 1868, pp. 365.67. D e
Wette-Overbeck on Acts 136-12. Lipsins, QueZlen der &xi-
schenPeZrussage 1872, pp. 28, 32 'alsoJP7; 1876, p. 573: Holtz-
ma'nn,'ZWT, 18i5, p. 437 ; and vkry specially Krenke1,Josefihws
16. Lukus 180-190 ['gr]. Lipsius afterwards withdrew his
earlier view; see Afiokyjh. A$. -gesch. ii. 1 ('87), p. 52 ; cp.
51,. n. 2.
31 481
BARJESUS
told of Barjesus in Acts ,136-12exactly what is told in
the romance about Simon (that is, Paul), and of Paul
exactlywhat is told in the romance about Peter. Hence
the belief that in 136-12 we can discover the same pur-
pose on the part of the author as we discover in 8 18-24.
H e was acquainted with the unfriendly allegation about
Paul, did not believe it, and wished to set forth another
view. In the two passages, however, the method is
not the same. ' I n 818-24 it is shown that Paul could
not possibly have been the infamous sorcerer, inasmuch
as Simon the sorcerer was a Samaritan and was quelled
by Peter indeed, but before the conversion of Paul. In
136-12, on the other hand, it is shown that it was Paul
himself who victoriously met a sorcerer of this kind.
One of the reasons for this divergence is seen in the
desire, already noted, to establish a close parallelism
between Paul and Peter. It is believed possible also' to
explain on the same lines why in Acts 136-12 the scene
is laid in Cyprus, with a Jew in the entourage of a high
Roman officer as one of the dramatis persona T o
Cyprus, according to Josephus (Ant.xx. 'i2, 141-143),
belonged the Jewish sorcerer Simon, who, at the instance
of Felix of Judaea, procurator ( L e . , highest Roman
officer), had induced Drusilla to quit her husband, King
Azizus of Emesa, and marry Felix. The purpose of the
narrator would have been sufficiently served had he
been able to say that the sorcerer in question-Simon, *
to wit-under whose name the Judaisers imputed to
Paul so much that was shameful, had been met and
vanquished by Paul himself. That, however, was im-
possible; the tale had already been related of Peter.
Accordingly (so it is supposed) the narrator found it
necessary to give another name to the sorcerer worsted
by Paul.
(c) His choice of the names Barjesns and Elymas is
still unaccounted for. There is, therefore, a motive for
our attributing a historical character to a certain other
sorcerer, Barjesus (or Elymas), as well as to a Samaritan
sorcerer named Simon. Although it is not easy to
believe that Peter met the Samaritan Simon, there is no
reason for assuming that Paul did not meet Barjesus.
Indeed, it can easily be conceded that in Acts 136-12,
just as, in Acts 89-24, the author was not consciously
giving a false complexion to what he had heard. He
believed himself able to offer a material correction. H e
assumed, that is to say, that what the Judaisers were in
the habit of relating of Simon the sorcerer, while really
intending Paul and his opposition to the ' true ' Gospel,
rested in actual fact upon a mistaken identification with
this Barjesus (or Elymas), and that the latter was van-
It is less easy to
suppose that Cyprus was given by tradition as the scene
of the occurrence. Even without any 'tradition, the
name could be suggested by Josephus's mention of the
native place of the Jewish sorcerer, and the name of
Paphos would naturally present itself from the fact that
the Roman proconsul had his residence there.
( d ) The hypothesis has received developments to a
point where we have to depend on less clear indications.
If the accusations in Acts against Simon and Barjesus
had originally been brought against Paul, what is said
of the intimate relations of Barjesus with Sergius Paulus
would belong to 'the same class. Now, in Acts 2426, it
is said that Felix often sent for Paul and communed
with him. It is assumed that the Judaisers had gone
so far as to allege that Paul had purchased the friendli-
ness of Felix with money; or even, perhaps, to insinuate
that he had been negotiator between Drusilla and Felix.
It is to meet those accusations (so it is assumed) that
the writer of Acts alludes to bribery by Paul as merely
a hope on the part of Felix, and informs us that Paul
had stirred Felix's conscience by a solemn ' reasoning '
with him about.his sinful marriage (2425f: ).
( e ) There are two more explicit indications that what
we now read about Barjesus was originally told of Paul.
'EXBpbs, ' enemy,' the epithet applied by Paul to Bar-
482
 BAR-JONA
jems (13IO), is, with or without the substantive &vOpwnos,
the standing designation for Simon (that is, Paul) in
the pseudo-Clenientine Homilies and Recognitions.
The name, ’ enemy of righteousness,’ fits Paul and his
doctrine of the abrogation of the Mosaic law through
Christ (Rom. 104) all the more because his Judaistic
opponents in Corinth came forward as servants of
righteousness,’ that is, men of strict observance of the
law (2Cor. 111 5 ) . In that case, the temporary blind-
ing of Barjesus will represent what befel Paul at his
conversion ; even the expressions pX&rwv (without
sight) and x ~ i p a y w y o D v ~(leading
~s by the hand) in
98f. have their parallels in 1311. Here, then, unless
the whole hypothesis under consideration be rejected,
we may say, with rea3onable probability, that the
blindness of Paul at his conversion (whether historical
or not is immaterial) was originally represented by the
Judaisers as a divine visitation for his hostility to the
‘ true’ (that is, the legal) gospel, and that it was simply
passed on by the author of Acts to Barjesus the Jew.
Whatever else be the result of what has been said in
the present section, one thing at least is clear: it is
impossible to reach a definite conclusion unless the
tendency of the author is taken into account.
According to the nepplo6oi Bapvd/?a-a legendary work
composed by a Cyprian abont 488-Barjesus opposed the
work’of Barnabas when, along with Mark
6. Later
(Acts1539), Barnabas visited Cyprus for
legends. a second time. H e withstood him in
various ways at his entrance into the cities where he
desired to preach, and at last stirred up the Jews to
burn him at the stake at Salamis. (Cp Lipsius, Apokr.
Ap.-gesch. ii. 2, pp. 283-286 278 297.) P. w. s.
BAR-JONA, RV BarLJonah, the patronymic of
Simon Peter (Mt. I 6 171. B A ~ [Ti. WH]). See
PETER.
Iova is a Gr. contraction of ~ w b v q s(cp Jn. 1 4 2 Xlpov Q ulbs
’Iwa‘vvau [Ti.], 2. b vi. ’ I w l v o u [WHl; 21 16 2. ’IwBuvou [Ti.], 2.
’Ioa‘vou [WH] ; Elzev. etc. present ~ B v a ;see Var. Bib.), which
corresponds to an Aram. N J ~ ) ,12 ; cp B. Talm. HuZZ. 133 a,
Dalm. Jiiu’-PaZ. Aram. 142 n. g, and see JOANNA.
BARKOS (D$l$, § 82, B e p ~ w c[L]). The B n e
Bad&, a family of NETHINIMin the great post-exilic
list (see E ZRA , ii. 9), Ezra253 ( B ~ P K O Y C [B], - K O C
[A])=Neh. 755 ( ~ a p ~ o [BKA],
ye 1, o m . ) = ~ E s d 532,
. on Egyptian monuments. The kind most frequently
’CHARCuS, RV BARCHUS (Baxoyc [B], B A ~ X O Y G[A]).
The NETHINIM (4.v.) were mainly of foreign origin,
and the name Barkos seems to be Aramaic and to
signify ‘son of the God Kos or Kaus.’ The name of
this god occurs in many theophorous proper names
among the Northern Semites ; we have Kaus-mal&
as king of Edom on an Assyrian inscription (Schr.
KA TP) 150), Kosnathau (VmDip) in Euting’s Nubat.
Zmcr. n. 12 I. I , and a variety of Semitic names on
Greek inscriptions from Egypt containing the same
element (Rm-ArchloZ., Feb. 1870, p. 109 8).Cp
also the Edomite Kostobafosl (Jos. Am!. xv. 79).
Names designating the worshipper as son of his god are
common in Aramaic-e.g., the biblical BENHADAD
[probably], the Palmyrene m i 2 , ‘ son of Kebo’ (cp
B ARNABAS , 5 I ), wnwm 3 1 2 , ‘sons of the son of the
Sun-god,’ the Syrian Bar-ba‘Pmin, ‘son of the lord
of heaven,’ BarlZhZ, ‘son of God,’ etc. w. R. s.
BARLEY (fi$$s n’ii)’i,2 KPleH, KpleAl [BAL],
Ex. 931 Lev.2716 Dt. 88 Judg. 713, etc.) was m
Vblical times one of the most character-
1. use istic products of Palestine (Dt. 88), re-
* garded as one of the necessaries of life
(Joellrr). It comes second in the series of grains
1 [tcouro,Sapor may perhaps be a scribal error for tmqo,Sapos-
?.e., lXDliJ-which finds a striking parallel in the name Kaug-
gabri, an Edomite king mentioned on an inscription of Esar-
haddon (cp Schr. Z.C.).]
The less common singular form is used for the growing
crop. The name which Hebrew has in common with Aramaic
but not with ArLbic, is derived from a root meaning ‘ t o b;
rough ’ or ‘ bristling.’
483
BARNABAS
mentioned in Ez. (49) as ingredients to be used in
bread-making-wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and
spelt (cp B READ). It may be inferred from a variety of
passages, such as Ru. 2 1 7 Jn. 6913, that barley was, even
iuring the times when it was cultivated along with wheat,
the staple food of the poorer class (cp FOOD). Such a
reference as that in I K. 428 ( 6 8) shows us bow largely it
was used to feed horses and catt1e.l It may also be
Tathered from the part played by the barley-cake in the
dream of the Midianite, overheard by Gideon (Jndg.
7 r3), where it stands as a type of the Israelite peasant
army, that as in other countries, so in Palestine, the
cultivation of barley preceded that of wheat, and was the
earliest stage in the transition from a nomadic to an agri-
cultural life.2 (Cp Pi. NNxbiii. 72, ’ antiquissimum in
cibis hordeum.’) This is, on the whole, more probable
than the view of Jos. (Ant.v. 64). which has been very
generally accepted, that barley-cake represented the
fee.Zkness of Gideon’s three hundred, and we are entitled
to conclude that there was a time when barley was the
staple food of all classes among the Israelites. The
fact referred to in Ex. 9 3 1 J , that in Egypt barley
ripens some time earlier than wheat, is supported by
the testimony of Pliny (HNxviii. 106) as well as of
modern writers (see references in Di. ad Znc.).
In the single case in which the use of barley is pre-
scribed in an offering under the ritual law (see J EALOUSY,
z),it is somewhat difficult to
2. Ritual. ORDEAL OF,
determine the reason. Some (.g., Bahr,
S y m M i k , 2 445) have regarded it as expressive of the
sordid nature of the alleged offence and the humilia-
tion of the accused3 (a wife suspected of adultery).
A reason which has recently found more acceptance
is that in the case of a simple appeal to God for
a judicial decision a less valuable offering was suffcient
than was requisite when a suppliant besought God for
the bestowal or continuance of his divine grace4 (Di.
on Nu. 511,etc.). The prohibition to mingle oil or
frankincense with the offering will, of course, receive a
similar explanation.
Two-rowed barley (Hordeum distichon), which may
be presumed to be the feral form, is a n&ve of W.
It may hiwe been cultivated by
3*Variety’ &%ic races ; but it is not represented
cultivated in antiquity was six-rowed barley (Hordeum
hexustichon). This occurs on the most ancient Egyptian
monuments and on the coins of Metapontuin six cen-
turies B . C . It was no doubt derived by cultivation from
the two-rowed kind (cp De Candolle, Orig.((9 294-297,
and authorities quoted there).
The word ‘gerah’ (Ex.3013) ‘is defined by Rabbinical
writers as equal to sixteen barley-corns ’ ; hut see W E IGHT S AND
MEASURES. N. M. -W. T. T. -D.
BARN (?Ql@), Hag. 2 9 ; see A GRICULTURE, 5 IO.
Also for Job 3912 (123) and (AV BARNFLOOR) 2 K. 6 27.
RV correctly ‘threshing floor.’
BARNABAS ( B A P N A B ~ C p3. W H ] ; §48), othe&se
JOSEPH (or JOSES).
According to the author of Acts (436), the name Barnabas
(=vibc mpaKh?jvsos) is derived from the Aram. 1s (son) and
the same root as the Heb. N’?;, ~rpo++jrjnlr- the
1. Name. duty of rapa’rhqurs (‘address, exhortation’), ac-
cording to I Cor. 14 3, and also according to Acts
153rJ’, being one of the duties of the vrppo+?jqs. When more
1 So in the Physiologus (Land, Anecd. Syr. 4 2 4 3 , cited hy
L6w, 277) barley is called the food of cattle as apposed to wheat
the food of man.
2 Cp, especially, the parallel cited by Budde (ZDPPlX93)
passage.
__
from Radloff’s Aus Silirien., 1 z m . CD also Moore on the
~
3 I t is noteworthy that barley formed part of the price paid by
Hosea to redeem his adulterous wife (Hos. 3 z) ; hut this may be
a mere coincidence.
4 See, especially the full discussion by Nowack (Arch. 2
1498) who agrees h t h Dillmann’s view, and points out that the
offerink in question is neither a sin-offering nor a guilt-offering
in the ritualistic sense.
484
 BARNABAS
closely examined, however, this etymology is not without its
difficulties. It combines words from two different languages,
and moreover fails to account for the form -va,Ba. Klostermann
(Pvob1. im AliosteZtext.. 1884, __
_. UP. 8-14)seeks
.. to derive the mean-
ing napbKh?pLs from the Aram. XI!? 1?,fiZius quietis, but finds
in it no further reference than to thesatisfaction which Barnabas
caused to the apostles by becoming a convert to Christianity.
Ualman’s etymology (Gram. a‘. jiid.-paLast. Aramiiisch, 1894,
p. 142), which makes IrapdrchquLs a rendering of EQiI?, this last
being an abbreviation (not elsewhere met with) of a proper name
i1’13iIl or ]Qn! (‘I,???),
takes us very f u from the form to be
explained. Deissmann comes nearer the sound when (Bibeb
studien, 175-778 [‘g51; Neua BzGeZsiudien, 15-17 [‘97]) he
compares the Earnebo (13113of a Palmyrene inscription of the
year 114 A.D. (see De Vogue La Sy& Cenfvnb no. 73) and
the Semitic BapmPoSs (son ofkeho) on a North Syrian inicrip-
tion of the third or fourth century A . D . ~ In Is. 46 I, as also
in Na,BovXo8ououop, Na,Bov<ap8av, Neb0 is transliterated into
Greek with a instead of e, and the termination -as may possibly
have been substituted for - o w with the view of disguising the
name of the heathen divinity. (For examples of such a custom,
see Winer, G r a m a‘. NTZichen Sprachidiomns (8) 0 5 27a.) On
this theory the rendering lra b h ~ u c sis merely A piece of popular
etymology: Nestle (Pkilolsacv., 1Sg6, p. r g x ) is inclined to
take the Syr. q ~ x which
, signifies VapaKahaiv, as the starting-
point of the etymological interpretation ; but ‘he refrains from
explaining more minutely the structure of the form.
If Joseph really did first receive the surname of
Barnabas from the apostles, this seems to have been on
account. of his distinction as a speaker. In this re-
spect, however, the author of Acts (1315 16 14 12) invari-
ably subordinates him at least to Paul. Many Jews,
with a view to their dealings with Greeks and Romans,
assumed in addition to their Jewish name a Greek (or
Latin) or at least Greek-sounding surname (e.$., Acts
1 2 3 1225 131gCol. 411, and’Iavva?os=y); and it may
at least be asked whether this cannot perhaps have
been the case with Barnabas also (see NAMES, §§ 48, 84).
According to the Epistle to the Galatians (our
primary source),Barnabas was a companion of Paul in
his missionary jojrneys for at least
2.
some time before the council of
in Galatians. Jerusalem. In the council he joined
Paul in supporting- the immunity of Gentile Christians
from the Mosaic Law (Gal. 2 1 9), which makes it all
the more surprising that he afterwards retreated from
the position he had taken long before, that a Jewish
Christian was at liberty to eat at the same table
with a brother Gentile freed from the law (Gal. 2 13).
As in the case of Peter, so also in that of Barnabas,
the reproach of hypocrisy hurled at both by Paul
on this account may safely be toned down into
one of inconsistency (see C OUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM,
0 3). In point of fact, Barnabas had shaken off the
Mosaic law ; but he had never thought out all the
bearings of the step so fully as to be able to vindicate
it when the venerable and sacred duty of observing the
whole law was so authoritatively pressed upon him.
From this date it was, of course, no longer possible for
him to work along with Paul on the same lines ; and
thus the dispute at Antioch more than sufficiently ex-
plains why the two separated. The mention of Bar-
nabas in I Cor. 9 6 only proves that at that time also
he was a prominent missionary, and that he held
to the Pauline principle of supporting himself by his
own labour ; it is no evidence that he was personally
known to the Corinthians, or that he had again become
one of the companions of Paul.
In the Acts of the Apostles the separation of Barnabas
from Paul is explained as due not to a difference on a
3. In Acts. matter of principle, but to a personal
question ; Barnabas wished to take John
Mark-a near relation of his, according to Col. 4 To-as
companion on a second journey planned by Paul and
himself; but Paul objected, because on a previous
occasion (Acts1313) Mark had left them in the lurch
1 I n Die Wovte 3 32 (‘98) Dalman comes over to Deiss-
mann’s view, which islalso abl; defended by G. B. Gray Exp.
Times, Feb. 1899, p. 232f: Cp also Arnold Maye;, fesu
Mutierspyache, 4 7 3 (‘96).
485
BARNABAS
Acts 1516-19). Even if this be accepted as a historical
xplanation-land we have no means of controlling it), it
:annot be said to have been the chief one (see above,
i z ) ; as to which Acts (see ACTS, 4, 6 ) is scrupulously
,ilent. In virtueof the intermediate position, -as between
’auline and Jewish Christianity,-which was held, as
ve have seen, by Barnabas, he is admirably fitted for a
iiediating role in Acts. ’ Although a native of Cyprus,
le is regarded as a member of ’the church of Jerusalem
4363 ; on the sale of his estate, see C OMMUNITY OF
>OODS, 9s I , 5) ; it is he who negotiates Paul’s admis-
;ion to that church (927) ; it is on that church’s conimis-
ion that he inspects the church which had been founded
3y dispersed Christians at Antioch in Syria (1122-24);
t is he who fetches Paul to Antioch from Tarsus and
ntroduces him to his field of work ( 1 1 2 5 J ) , and he
ilso is the apostle’s travelling companion when the
:ollection for the poor Christians there is being brought
.o Jerusalem (1130 1225) ; as in this case, so also in
.he so-called first missionary journey, undertaken along
with Paul through Cyprus and the south of Asia
Minor, his name is placed first, at least till 1 3 7 , and
then again in 1414 and even 151225. .All this is
not easy to reconcile with Paul’s well-known inde-
pendence as shown in his letters ; but the journey in
Acts1130 1225 must also on other grounds be pro-
nounced’ unhistorical (see C OUNCIL OF J E F ~ S A L E M ,
5 I ), and the rest of what is related in Acts11 is in-
consistent with the order rijs Zuplas Kal rijs Iiihr~lar
in Gal. 121, as is the rest of what we read in Acts 9
with Gal. 115-20 (cp ACTS, 5 4, and, for the doubt-
fulness of the contents of Acts 1 3 3 , and the probability
of a Barnabas source there, 13 and I O ). But,
although the object of the narrative in Acts is incon-
sistent with history in as far as it seeks to suggest
that the missionary activity of Paul among the Gentiles
was no departure from the views of the primitive
church,-that on the contrary it was authorised and
even set on foot by it,-we may without hesitation accept
as historical (see ACTS, 4 ) not only the co-operation
of Barnabas with Paul shortly before and at the Council
at Jerusalem, which is vouched for by the Epistle to
the Galatians, but also the part which he took in the
first missionary journey (Acts 13$), and even perhaps
in Paul’s introduction to Jerusalem (of course accord-
ing to Gal. 1 1 8 3 ) at his first visit to that city three
years after his conversion. We may also accept in all
probability the second journey of Barnabas to Cyprus
in company with Mark (Acts1539). From this point
his name disappears from the NT.
Our later notices of him are of little value. Accord-
ing to Clem. Al. (Styom. ii. 20, § 116 ; cp Eus. H E
4. Later i’. 1 4), he was one of the Seventy of Lk. 10 I ;
notices. in the frankly anti-Pauline CZem. Homilies
(i.g-16), which datefrom theend of the second
or the beginning of the third century-or rather, in the
sources from which these Homilies were dravn-he was
a personal disciple of Jesus, Palestinian by origin, but
Alexandrian by residence, a strict adherent of the law ;
according to Nom. i. 8, ii. 4, Clement meets him in
Alexandria, but in Clem. Recos (1 7 ) the meeting was
in Rome. According to this presumably earlier (but
none the less unhistorical) representation, he pro-
claimed the gospel in Rome even during the lifetime of
Jesus, and therefore before Peter. In Nom. 1 7 this
statement is made only of some person who is left
unnamed, and later means were found for the com-
plete suppression 01 any such tradition, so full of
danger to the authority of Peter and his alleged
successors. From the fifth century onwards its place
was taken by the statement that Barnabas was founder
and bishop of the Church of Milan-a statement, how-
ever, accompanied by the clause, ‘ after he had been the
first to preach the gospel in Rome.’ It was upon this
allegation that the archbishops of Milan afterwards
based their claims to metropolitan authority over the
486
 BARODIS
whole of Northern and part of Central Italy. In the
interests of Roman supremacy (which had originally
been helped by it), the allegation was violently disputed
by Roman theologians of the eighteenth century.
In complete independence of the Roman and
Milanese tradition, there arose, after 431 A. D ., the
legend that Barnabas had been the missionary to his
native island of Cyprus, and had suffered niartyrdom at
Salamis, where he was buried. On this plea the
Cyprian church, between 485 and 488 A. D., obtained
from the Emperor Zen0 its independence of the Patri-
archate of L4ntioch. The implied assumption is that
Barnabas was an apostle in the full sense of the word.
Ecclesiastical writers often substitute him for Barsabbas
(Acts 123 ; cp BARSABAS, z), perhaps on account of
the name Joseph, common to both (the Sahidic and
Philoxenian versions have, on the other hand, Joses in
both cases, and there are isolated authorities for
Barnabas alone), but perhaps in order to bring him
nearer the apostolic circle. This object is effected in
a more pronounced way by CZeem. Recog. (160), which
identify him with Matthias (Acts 7 26). There is an
isolated notice in the (Gnostic) Actus Petri VemelZenses
to the effect that Barnabas was sent along with Timothy
to Macedonia before Paul's journey to Spain. Cp.
Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2, pp. 270-320 (especially
310),260, 373.
Tertullian's claim of the authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews for Barnabas is quite inadmissible. It is
5. Alleged dificult to attribute to a born Levite
(Acts 436) such grave errors about the
authorship. temple (or tabernacle) as occur in Heb.
9 3 f: 7 27 ; or to any member of the primitive church of
Jerusalem any such declaration as that in Heb. 2 3 , that
he had first received the gospel at second hand through
hearers of Jesus. Nor is such an origin consistent with
the thoroughly Alexandrian character of the Epistle.
Even, however, if we must refrain from basing any
argument on the statements about Barnabas in Acts
436, we are still confronted by a decisive fact : the man
who at a critical moment was so much subject to the
Mosaic law (Gal. 213)~could not have spoken of its
abolition and even of its carnal character, as the writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks in 712 18 16.
Doubtless the Epistle to the Hebrews was attributed
to Barnabas because it was supposed that tlie X6yor
T $ S rrapaKh4uews of Heb. 1322 could only have come
from the uibs aapaKh?jucws of Acts 436.
That Barnabas should have written the anonymous
epistle which since the time of Clement of Alexandria
has borne his name, and on that account bas been
included among the writings of the ' apostolic fathers,'
is still more inconceivable than his authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. It goes far beyond Paul in
its assertion of freedom from the law. As to its date,
see under ACTS (S 16). -_ P. w. s.
BARODIS ( B A ~ U A B I C [BA]), a group of children of
Solomon's servants (see NIITHINIM) in the great post-
exilic list (E ZRA , ii. §§ 9 8 c , 15 I a ) , one of the eight
inserted in I Esd. 534(om. 6") after Pochereth-hazzebaim
of 11 Ezra 257 = Neh. 7 59.
BARREL (73 yApla [BAL] ; I I<. 1712 1416 1833).
See COOKING UTENSILS, $ 2 ; POTTERY.
BARRICADE ($&V),I S. 1720 RVmS See C AMP ,
5 1.
BARSABAS or BARSABBAS (§§ 48, 72). The
etymology is doubtful. Bapuapas has been derived
from i s (' son ') and N?W or N?D ( ' Sheba,'
1. Name.
-which, however, as far as we know, is
always the name of a country, never of a person), from
'18 and NXS ( =' warrior' ; cp Nu. 31 53), or from i s
and N?? (' old man's son,'). Bapuappas ([Ti. WH] the
better attested form of the name) suggests ' child of the
487
BARSABAS
Sabbath.' Dalman (Gram. d. jgd. -pahist. Ayamiisch,
1894, p. 143)instances analogies to show that 'mw or
vnci
_ : _ could by contraction become N?W, though N @ 1~
is what we should more naturally expect in such a case.
I. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus ('IOGUTOS [Ti.
WH]), was nominated, though not chosen, for the
2. Joseph. vacancy in the apostolate caused by the
death of Judas. The account of the election
in Acts 115-26 could not be held to be historical if we
regarded the number twelve for the original apostolate
as having been fixed, and invested with special dignity.
only after the controversy as to Paul's equality in privi-
lege with the apostles of Jerusalem. But even were we
to set aside the reference to the 666wa in I Cor. 1 5 5 , as
being unparalleled elsewhere in the Pauline writings, we
should still be at a loss to explain why Paul never
vigorously protested against an innovation--if inno-
vation it was--so arbitrary and so derogatory to his
own position. Occasion enough for doing so presented
itself in Gal. 2 and z Cor. 10-13. W e must, accordingly,
ascribe to Jesus himself the choice of twelve of his
disciples who stood in peculiarly close relations to their
Master. But in that case it was very natural that these
should seek to keep up their number-that'of the twelve
tribes of Israel.
Whether the election was in Jerusalem is more open
to question. On the arrest of Jesus all the disciples,
according to h4k. 1 4 5 0 Mt. 2656, had taken to flight,
and that they should have returned to Jerusalem so soon
is not likely. The view of Lk. and Jn., according to
which they are present in Jerusalem on the day of the
resurrection of Jesus (and remain there), cannot be
reconciled with what we are told by Mk. and Mt. ; the
explanation is .that the third and fourth evangelists
found the statement of the first and second incredible.
According to this last, Jesus, in, Jerusalem, through the
women, sends the disciples, who are also in Jerusalem,
to Galilee, in order that he may there show himself to
them. The kernel of historical fact, however, is not as
1.k. and Jn. have it, but the reverse : namely, that the
apostles were not in Jerusalem at all, but in Galilee, and
thus in Galilee received the manifestations of their risen
Lord. It may even be questioned whether they were
again in Jerusalem and able to come forward publicly
and unopposed so early as at the following Pentecost
(see GIFTS, SPIRITUAL).
In a still higher degree must the discourse of Peter
in Acts 116-22 be regarded as entirely the work of the
author (see ACTS, 5 14).
Instead of 'Iwu.;l$ in Actslzg, there is some (though
inferior) authority for 'Iwurjs, a reading due perhaps to
a conjecture that the ' brethren of Jesus ' named in Mk.
6 3 wereof the number of the Twelve ; the same con-
jecture, if in Acts123 the reading ' I w m j 9 be retained,
appears to find support in the fact that in Mt. 13 55 the
brother of Jesus in question is called, not as in Mk. 6 3
' I w u ~buts , according to the best MSS 'Iwu+$. The
assumption, however, is quite inadmissible (see CLOPAS,
§§ 4s 5).
According to Papias (Eus. HE iii. 3 9 g ) , Justus
Barsabas drank deadly poison with impunity. From
the fifth century onwards he is named as one of the
seventy of Lk. 101 ; in the list of these preserved in
Chron. Pusch. (Bonn ed. i. 400) he is identified with
Thaddaeus = Lebbreus : in that of Pseudo-Dorotheus
(ib. ii. 128),with Jesus Justus (Col. ~ I I ) to
, whom the
see of Eleutheropolis is assigned. In the Passio Pauli
(attributed to Linus, but really dating from the 5th or
6th cent.) ' Barnabas et Justus,' in another redaction
' Barnabas Justus,' and in a third 6 Bapcrapas 'IOGUTOS,
are enumerated among servants of Nero who, converted
by Paul, are cast into prison and condemned to death
by the emperor, but afterwards released after an appear-
ance of the risen Paul to the latter. The identification
of this Justus with the biblical Barsabas seems to have
488
 BARTACUS
been made at a comparatively late date. See Lipsius;
Apokv. ilp.-psch. i. 201-3, 24 ; ii. 1 94-96, 1-50,161,
281f:
2. Another Barsabeas called Judas appears in Acts
1522-34, along with Silns, as a prominent member of the
3. Judas. early church in Jerusalem, and as a r p o -
$+r?s-that is to say, as a man endowed
with the gift of r r a p d r h p s (see BARNABAS, I ) . The
mission ascribed to him-that of conveying the decree
of the council of Jerusalem-cannot, of course, be more
historical than the decree itself (see COUNCIL OF JERU-
SALEM, § IO). P. w. s.
BARTACUS ( B A ~ T A K O Y PA]. BAZAKOY [I.],
EEZACZS [Vg.]), father of Apame, a concubine of Darius
( I Esd. 429). His title or epithet 700 0aupau.roO is
obscure. Jos. (Ant. si. 35) gives it as T O O Ocpaulou,
which may possibly be for paOeumu=old Pers. lnathifta
(simply 'colonel'), and, at any rate, is hardly a mis-
understanding of the TOO Oaupau702 in I Esd. (RV ' the
illustrious B.'), which is not a very natural epithet.
The form given by Josephb, PapelaKou (cp Syr.
e d j j bj),seems nearest to the original name,
which was probably ArtabEzak. Out of this 'Bartacus'
may have arisen in this way : the MS had ~ U { U K O U ,
and over the first four letters was written apra-a
correction which the scribe misunderstood (so Marq.
P / d . 65).
BARTHOLOMEW ( B a p 8 o h o M A i o c [Ti. WH]) is
enumerated in Mt. l o 3 Mk. 318 Lk.614 Acts1 13 (see
1. In NT. APOSTLE, § I ) as one of the twelve apostles
of Jesus. The second portion of the name
re resents the 01' proper name vocalised by M T as
p!g (BoXpa; for the variants see TALMAI). In
Josephus (Aaf. xx. 1I 5) the name Tholomaios ( B o b
paios) occurs as borne by a robber-chief. It is not
S )B
necessary to derive from Ptolemy ( W T O ~ ~ ~ U ~; Othe
instead of T is against this, though the second o for E
1
presents no difficulty (Winer,(R) 5 20 d). Bartholo-
mew may have been either a genuine proper name like
Barnabas, Barjesus, etc., or a mere addition to the real
proper name of the bearer, given for the sake of dis-
tinction, like Simon Bar-jona (cp BARARBAS, § 2) ; on
the latter supposition we do not know the true name of
Bartholomew. It is the merest conjecture that identifies
him with Nathanael [see N ATHANAEL). If we neglect
this conjecture the N T has nothing further to tell us
about Bartholomew.
Ecclesiastical tradition makes him a missionary to the most
widely separated countries, and attributes to him a variety of
martyrdoms. The oldest writer from whom we have
2. PO&- an account of him is Eusebius ( H E v. 103) who
biblical. represents him as having preached in India (i; those
days a very wide geographical expression, including,
for example, Arabia Felix), and as having left behind him there
the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew ;but Lipsius (Apolrr.
Aj.-gesclt. ii. 2 54-108. cp Erginz-heft. 130f 189-191), from the
closely related charaiter of the tradition gegarding him and
Matthew, assigns an earlier date to a tradition that the shores of
the Black Sea were the scene of the labours of both, although
this tradition is found only in authors later than Eusehius.
According to other accounts he preached the Gospel among
the Copts, or (with Thomas) in Armenia, or (with Philip) in
Phrygia, and, after the death of Philip, in Lycaonia. In the
lists of the apostles his name is always coupled with, that of
Philip,-a fact which makes it all the more remarkable that in
this group of legends he is expressly designated as one of the
' seventy ' disciples of Lk. 10I . On the other hand, the Parthian
legend which gives Mesopotamia and Persia as the field of
his labours, identifies him with Nathanael. A heretical Gospe2
of BarLltoZoszew is mentioned by Jerome in his preface to Mt.
P.w. s.
BARTIMEUS (BAPTIMA~OC [Ti. W H ] ; on the
accent see below, § 2, end), the name of the blind
beggar whom (according to Mk. 1046-5')
Jesus healed as he was leaving Jericho
for Jerusalem. The parallel narratives of Mt. and 1,k.
show various discrepancies in points of detail. According
to IL. 1835-43 the healing happened as Jesus was enter-
ing, not when he was leav,ing, Jericho, and according
489
BARTIMZEUS
J Mt.2029-34 two blind men were healed. It might
Nerhaps be suggested that each of the two evangelists,
r at least Mt., was thinking of some occurrence other
ian that recorded by Mk. ; but, as against this, the very
lose coincidence with the text of Mk. shows clearly that
loth are dealing with the story which is associated in
dk. with the name of Bartimzus.
As regards this pardcular class of miracle, our judgment on
rhich must depend on our doctrine of miracles in general, so
iuch at least may he remarked that in speaking to the disciples
f John(Mt.115=Lk.722) of i i s giving sight to the blind, and
ther similar wonders, Jesus meant to be understood in a
piritual, not in a physical, sense. Otherwise the closing words,
and to the poor the gospel is preached,' would have no forcq ;
Dr no propf of supernatural physical power is involved in this
rowning instance. I t is plain however, that the evangelisfs
inderstood his words in a phy&al sense. For in Mt. there.is
ecorded, before the account of the message to John, not only
he healing of a leper (81-4) and of a lame man (91-8), as in Lk.,
but also the bringing to life of Jairus's daughter (918-26), which
,k. records after that message (Lk.840-56), the healing of a
:w+& (Ygzf.), which Mk. does not record at all and which Lk.
elates, like the raising of Jairus' daughter, after the message to
lohn (1114), and, above all, the healing of two blind men(9 27-31),
vhich does not appear in the parallel narratives. I t thus appears
hat, in the first gospel, instances of all five classes of miracle
xe recorded as having occurred before Jesus a peals to them (if
r e may disregard the consideration that in $tt.9pf: KW+& is
ised in the sense of dumb ' while Jesus in the message to John
ises it in the sense of dead. Lk., on the other hand, in whose
iarrative the message to John is preceded only by the raising of
he widow's son at Nain (711-17), in addition to the healing of a
eper and a lame man (512-26) relates in 727 that Jesus wrought
ipon many persons in the presence oi the disciples of John the
niracles to which he was immediately afterwards to appeal.
3f these miracles we have no indication in the other evangelists.
r h e conclusion is that the words 'to the poor the gospel is
>reached ' cannot have been the addition of the evangelists or of
my of their predecessors. The words destroy the hysical-
iupernatural interpretation which rhe evangelists see{ to put
ipon the preceding clauses. They are the authentic words of
resus himself, and they prove that he did not claim to be a
iealer of the physically blind.
Some of the critics who argue that the evangelists
lave misapprehended Jesus's words do not deny the
iistoricity of the story of Bartimzeus. They point
>ut that, in Mk.'s narrative at least, Bartimzus,
'casting away his garment, sprang up and came to
lesus ' (and thus cannot have been completely blind) ;
~ l s othat the event helps to render intelligible the
popular enthusiasm at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
immediately afterwards. They account for the divergence
of Lk. by pointing out that for the story of Zacchzeus
a great concourse of people befoove the entry of Jesus into
Jericho is required, and that the evangelist (erroneously)
believed this to have been due to the healing of the
blind m a n ; Mt.'s divergence they account for by
supposing that he had fused together the story of
Bartimaeus and that of the blind man, recorded in Mk.
822-26, which he had previously passed over. Finally,
they appeal to the express mention of the name of the
person healed-a rare thing in the gospels-as guaran-
teeing a genuine reminiscence.
This last argument would, of course, lose its validity
2. Name. should the name prove to be no real name
but merely a description.
According to Payne Smith's Thes. S ~ Y 588, . 1461-2, the
Syrian lexicographers Bar 'Ali (circa 885 A.D.) and Elins of Anbar
(circa 92.) interpret Timaeus as meaning blind (sanzyri). similarly
Onont. Sacr., ed. Lag.(l) 11635 ; Baprrpalos, v d r u b A 6 ~ ;
and Jerome (2.66 IO) even gives the corrected form ' Barsemla
filius caecus' and adds: 'quod et ipsurn conrupte quidam
Bartimaeum legunt. The reading Barsemia, however has no
support except in Barhehrzeus (06. 1,286 A.D.), who founh in two
Greek MSS ',Samya bar Samya ;1 and the interpretation
1 The reading is suspicious for the veryreason that it depends
on that of the Syriac translation, which could not render o vibs
Tipaiou Bapsipabs otherwise than by the awkward and meaning-
less rep'etition of 1s. I t accordingly left 1, ui6s untranslated, thus
making Timaeus the blind man's own name, and designating
him 'p'p 'I?'p! (so in Syr. sin. and nearly so in Syr. hr. ; cp
Land Anec. 4 141 : 'Fn7e ?acwyr)). This might he held to
indicite that the combination o uibs T'paiov Bapripdos cannot
he due to the evangelist who habitually introduces the Greek
translation of an Aramaik expression by 6 durcv (3177 T I 34) or
b: ~ S T W pdeppqvrn6pevov (541 152234). Thus 1, uibs Tcfiaiov is
the marginal note of some very ancient reader.
490
 BARUCR
‘blind’ cannot he est+lished. Hitzig, who upholds it, has
only inferred an Aramaic >no,‘to he blind,’ as being the inter-
mediate step between the Syr. semi and the Arabic ‘ a z i y a
of this meaning (in Merx’s Archiv, 1 1 0 7 6 , and k i i t i k $a&’-
rrischer Bnkfi, 1870, p. 9 6 ) ; but the inference is not sound.
It would appear, then, that the ancient interpretation ‘blind ’
was hit upon simply because TU@& stood near. Neubauer
(Stud. Bib. 1 57j, without expressing any view as to the
etymology, gives NG‘e 12 as the original form. This rests,
however only on the writing of the name in some MSS of the
Vet. La;. with th instead of t , and the termination - e m instend of
-eus,-to which, however, the unanimous testimony of the Greek
MSS is surely to he preferred (only D has Bap‘rquas). Thus the
most likely rendering of the name would he ’8pp - ‘son of
- . - 18,
the unclean.’
Accepting this interpretation, Volkmar still regarded the name
as only a description of the actor in the story. Uncleannesq,
hP
.. . armed. is the characteristic of the Gentile world : what
Mk~&ns to say is not~thatan individual man but that the
whole Gentile world,’is freed from spiritual hlindniss by Jesus-
that is, hy the preaching of his gospel (Marcz~su. h Sym@e
4.22, 502-6, 675! 711f. ;Jesus Nazarrsus, 2665). But in thk
sight of Christianity, Judaism, as well as heathenism is blind,
and Volkmar finds Judaism too, represented, in the dlind man
whose healing is described’in an earlier chapter (Mk. 8 22-26 ;
see Marcus, 338x, 403-11 ; 3esas 1Vaznrenzrs, 243-5). The
text, however, supplies not the slightest indication or hint that
in the one place the Jews, in the other the Gentiles, are intended ;
in fact as Bartimzus uses the words ‘son of David’ and
‘ RabbGni,’ Volkmar finds himself constrained to pronounce him
not a Gentile in the full sense of the word but a proselyte-
thereby, however, destroying his own posikon which is that
the two healings taken tosether express the delkerance hy the
gospel of the whole of humanity from spiritual blindness.
W e are shut up, then, to the conclusion that Bartimaeus
is a proper name like Barnabas, Barjesus, and the like,
and it is a matter of indifference whether the second
element be the appellative ’ ~ p p ‘unclean,’ or the
personal name 9n.a (Levy, Neuhehr. Worterh. 2 154),l
or the place name N‘DD (ib. 166), or the second part of
the Syriac place-name ’Q’F n y (Ther. Syr. 486, 1462),
and whether any or all of the last three forms admit
of being traced to a Jcwish-Aramaic root D*D,‘ to close
up’ (Syr. om).
Bartimaeus remains a proper name, also, if the second part of
it be supposed to he the Greek name Ti+acos (found e.g in
Plato). Origen seems to have had this derivation in his &nd
when hecalled Bartimaeusb+nprjF d&vuf~*os. Such a blending,
,however, of Aramaic and Greek is unlikely. On the other
hand, it is not impossible that the Greek word may have had
influence on the accent. With a Semitic derivation this would
naturally be Eapripaios, as in MadaBaios, Zaqaios, and so forth.
But just as, on the analogy of the very common Greek termina-
tion -avds, the accepted pronunciation of Urbanus and Silvanus
was Ohppavds and BLhouauXs (Rom. 169 z Cor. 119), a!though in
Latin the accent lay on the penultimate, so concelvably the
name under consideration may have been accented Baprlpatos,
even without supposing it to be etymologically derived from the
Greek.
For the philology see, especially Nestle, Murg. u. Mat., 1893, the same time, the Jewish exiles send the following book,
pp. 8 y p , and for the subject in ieneral, Keim, Gesch. Jes. voo1z
Naz. 3 51-54(ET 5 61-64). P. w. s.
BARUCH (77-12, ‘blessed [of God]’ ; B ~ p o y x that
[BS14Q] ; Bbpoyxoc [Jos.]), son of Neriah and brother
of SE~ZAIAH (9.. ., 4), one of Jeremiah’s most faithful
friends in the upper class of the citizens of Jerusalem
(cp JOS. Ant. x. 91, Zg E?r~a+~p.ouqb68pa O ~ K ~ U S ) . of the prophets.
W e hear of Baruch first in 604 B.C. as the scribe who
committed to writing the prophecies delivered by his
master up to that date, and then in 603 B.C. (?) as
the fearless reader of those prophecies before the
people, the princes, and the king (Jer. 36). After the
roll from which he read had been burned, Baruch
wrote down the substance of the former roll afresh
-a fact not without significance for the cr
of the Book of J EREMIAH ( q . ~ . ) . In 587 B . c . , it was
to Baruch that Jeremiah when in prison committed
the deeds of the land which he purchased from his
cousin Hanamel at Anathoth (321z), and after the fall
of Jerusalem it was this faithful scribe who was charged
1 This personal name ’n‘m, however, is not certainly made
out, for, according to Dalman(ThooL Lit.-Glatt, ‘893, p. 2 5 7 6 , produced upon the people by the reading of the hook.
and AYU?IC. u. netche6r. UGrfer6uch, 1898,,p. 162)) in the sole
proof-textcited, the reading in the first editlon is *)yw, which he
explains from jiyDw.
491
BARUCH, BOOK OF
vith having induced Jeremiah to dissuade his country-
nen from seeking a refuge in Egypt (433). The
lisciple appears to have been similar in character to his
naster. In the language of syong emotion he com-
dained of the troubles which had come upon him, and
)f the wandering life which he was forced to lead.
Seeliest thou great things for thyself’ (i.e . , the leader-
;hip of a new and better Israel) ? : ‘ Seelc them not ’ was
he answer ; for still worse troubles are in prospect ;
)ut Baruch‘s own life will be spared (451-5 ; cp 121-5).
We may be thankful for this brief record of Baruch‘s
nner life, Its genuineness has been too hastilydoubtccl:’
.he date given in 45 I is, of course, too early to suit the
:ontents, and must be interpolated ; but the prophecy
-
tself is altogether in character with Teremiah.
No other trustworthy facts respecting Baruch have reached us
[n the M i d r a s h Shiv ha-Shirinz (on Cant. 5 j) and in Megilla
r6E, he is said to have been the teacher of Ezra ; and the Midrash
xdds that Ezra did not go up to Jerusalem directly after the
:dict of Cyrus, because he did not like to miss the instructionsof
his teacher. This is obvlonsly an attempt to prove the unbroken
transmission of the oral tradition. An equally great and
equally groundless honour was conferred on Baruch when
Bunsen represented him as the ‘great unnamed’ prophet who
:omposed Is. 40-1,G. That various apocryphal writings claimed
Baruch as their author is not surprising : Ezra and Baruch, the
two great scribes, were marked out for such distinctions. See
A POCRYPHA. S 2 0 : APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 5 . s &,
.. and
B ARUCH BooL of. ’
2. In fist of Judahite inhabitants o f Jerusalem (see E ZRA , ii.
8 56 5 15 [ I ] a). Neh. 114. Not mentloned in (1 I Ch. 9 2 8
3.’b. Zabbai(drZaccai),In list of wall-builders(seeNEHEMIAH,
13EZRAii. $$16 [I] 15 4; Neh.320.
1: Prieshv si&natory’ to the covenant (see EZRA, i. 5 7) : Neh.
BARUCH,Book of, a short book which in the LXX is
placed immediately after Jeremiah, and is reckoned by
the Roman Catholic Church as one of the so-called
deutero-canonical writings.
Its contents may be summarised as follows :-
(Chap. 11-2.) The book is said to have been written
1. Contents. by Baruch the son of Neriah at Babylon
in the fifth year, at the time when Jeru-
salem was burned by the Chaldeans.
(Chap..l;-l4.) Baruch reads his book in the presence
of Jeconiah (z.e., Jehoiachin), the son of Jehoialcim, king
of Judah, and in the presence of the other Jewish exiles
who dwell at Babylon by the river Sud ( ZotG [?I).
After
mourning and fasting, they send money to Jerusalem to
the priest Jehoiakim ( ’ I w u K .the
~ ~son
) , of Hilkiah, com-
manding him to offer sacrifices in behalf of Nubuchodo-
nosor (Nehuchadrezzar) Icing of Babylon and his son
Belshazzar, in order that Israel may find mercy. At
which is to be read publicly on feast days in the Temple.
(Chaps. 115-38.) This section is a confession of sin,
put into the mouth of Israel and accompanied by prayers
God will at length pardon his people whom he
has so justly punished. Special stress is laid upon the
sin which the people committed in refusing to serve the
king of Babylon, notwithstanding the solemn injunctions
(Chaps. 39-5 9. ) Now follows a discourse addressed
to the Israelites dispersed among the Gentiles. It begins
by showing that the calamities of the people are due
to their having forsaken God, the only source of wisdom,
and then proceeds to console them with promises of
restoration-Jerusalem will he gloriously re-established
for ever and ever, and the oppressors of Israel are to
be humbled to the dust.
It will be seen that the book is very far from present-
ing the appearance of an organic unity. After the
heading of chap. 1, ‘ These are the words
2. Integrity* of the book which Baruch wrote,’ etc.,
we might expect the book itself to follow immediately ;
but, instead of this, we have a long account of the effect
Nor are we clearly informed whether ‘ the book’ sent
1 Schwally, ZATW8217.
492
 BARUCH, BOOK O F
by the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem (114), which they
cite at full length in the following section (115-38),
is or is not identical with ‘ the book ‘ written by Baruch.
Moreover, the historical situation described in the
narrative (13-13) does not agree very well with the sub-
sequent portion, since the narrative assumes the con-
tinued existence of the temple, whereas 226 implies
its destruction. Finally, the discourse which occupies
all the latter half of the book begins quite abruptly and
stands in no definite relation to what precedes : it pre-
supposes, indeed, the dispersion of Israel ; but to Baruch
and to the special circumstances of the B a b y h i a n
captivity there is no allusion.
To these general considerations may be added several
difficulties of detail. The date given in 1 2 is so ob-
scurely worded that several modern commentators (e.f.,
Ewald and Rneucker) have felt obliged to emend the
text. Even if the omission of the month be explained,
we still have to decide whether ‘ the fifth year ’ means
the fifth year of Jeconiah’s captivity or the fifth year
after the burning of Jerusalem ; and to both views there
are serious objections. Chap. 1 8 disturbs the sense,
and if it be genuine must originally have stood in some
other place.
Though the Book of Baruch never formed part of the
Hebrew Canon (for which reason Jerome excluded it
3. Origin. from his Latin translation of the Bible), it
was regarded as authentic by many of the
Christian fathers, from the second century onwards.
Sometimes, owing to the place which it occupies in the
LXX, it is cited as a part of Jeremiah. Even in quite
remnt times, it has been maintained by Roman Catholic
theologians that the book is a translation of a genuine
work of the well-known Baruch, the friend and
secretary of the prophet Jeremiah. All competent
critics, however, have long ago concluded that it dates
from a very much later period, ’and belongs to the
large class of Jewish books which were put forth
under false names. Its origin and history remain, how-
ever, in some respects obscure. That 115-38 and 39-
5 9 are by different authors is generally acknowledged :
both in substance and in style there is a marked con-
trast, the language of the former section being simple
and full of Hebraisms, while that of the latter is highly
rhetorical. The dates of the various parts, however, and
the question whether the whole or any part was originally
written in Hebrew are matters about which critics differ.
Ewald ascribed the first half (11-58) to a Jew living in
Babylonia or Persia under one of the latter Achaemenian
kings, and regarded the rest of the book as having been
written soon after the capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy
Soter (320 B. C. ) ; 432 Ewald explained as a reference to
the deportation of Jews to Alexandria. Very few critics,
however, are now in favour of so early a date. Kneucker
thinks that the work, in its original form, was com-
posed in the reign of Domitian, and conSisted of only the
heading (i.e., 1 T z in part, 3), and the discourse contained
in 3 9-5 g ; the confession of sin (115-38) was, according
to Kneucker, probably written a little earlier (in any case
after the year 73 of our era) as an independent work,
and was subsequently inserted into the Book of Baruch
by a scribe, who himself composed 14-14. Schurer, on
the contrary, whilst admitting that the middle of chap. 1
does not harmonise very well with what precedes and
follows, thinks it on the whole probable that.al1 the first
half of the book (11-38) is by the same author, whom
he places soon after the destruction of Jerusalem (70
A.D.), the second half being by a different hand but of
about the same period. With regard to the
original language, Ewald, Kneucker, and others believe
the whole to be a translation from the Hebrew, whilst
Bertholdt, Havernick, and Noldeke regard the Greek
a s the ,primitive text. Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, and
Schiirer maintain the theory of a primitive Hebrew text
in the case of the first half only. In favour of this
hypothesis, it niay be mentioned that on the margin of
493
BARZILLAI
the Syro-Hexaplar text of Baruch there are three notes
by a scribe stating that certain words in 117 and 23
are ‘not found in the Hebrew’ (cp APOCRYPHA, § 6
(1)).
As to the question of historical credibility, it is.obvious
that if, with the majority of critics, we ascribe the book
Q.Historical to the Roman period, its value as a record
value. of facts is reduced to nothing. Whether,
for example, thestatements about Baruch‘s
residence in Babylon, the river 2068, and the priest
Jehoiakim are based upon any really ancient tradition
it is impossible for us to decide. The author of the
first half borrows largely from Jeremiah and from Daniel ;
in the second half we find many reminiscences of Job
and of the latter part of Isaiah; and it may be that
sources now lost also were employed. It is par-
ticularly important to observe that the closing passage
(436-5 9) bears a striking resemblance to one of the pieces
in the so-called ‘ Psalms of Solomon ’ (Ps. I 1-see the
edition of Ryle and James, pp. 1xxii.-lxxiv.), which prob-
ably date from about the middle of the first century B. c.
Since there is every reason to believe that the Psalms
of Solomon were originally composed in Hebrew (cp
APOCALYPTIC, 83), the close verbal agreement seems
to indicate that the author of this part of Baruch
used the Psalms of Solomon .in their present Greek
form.
The most important of the MSS containing the Greek text
ofBaruchare B, A,,a?d the Marchalianus (Q). I n N this hook is
missing. Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha
6. Texts and (Librinpocryphiveteris testamentignzce, 1871)
comm. does not accurately represent the B text of
Baruch ; but trustworthy iuforniation about this
hlS may be obtained from Swete’s Sejtuugint iii., in the pre-
paration of which the photographic reproduction of B was used.
The ancient versions are-(i) the old Latin, contained in the
editions of the Vg.; ( 2 ) another Latin version, first published a t
Rome in 1688 by Joseph Maria a Caro Tommasi ; (3) the Old
Syriac, edited by Paul de Lagarde in his Libri veteris t ~ s t u -
menti npocryPhi syriuce 186r from a MS jn the British
Museum, Add. 17,105 ; (45 the iyro-Hexaplar-z.e., the Syriac
translation of Origen’s Hexaplaric text-contained in the Codex
Ambrosianus, which was reproduced in photo-lithography by
Ceriani in 1874 ’ (5) the Ethiopic-a much abridged form of the
text-ed. by Diilmann (Berlin 1894)in the 5th vol. of his Vetus
T’estunzentuirrWthiopicunz ;(6) the Armenian, of which the best
edition is contained in the Armenian Bible published a t Venice
in 1805. (7) the Coptic edited by Brugsch in 22 x.-xii.
Of dodern commeAtaries the most valuable are those of
Fritzsche (in Kurzgef: Handb., 1851), Reusch (ErkZZrzmg des
Bzrclrs Baruch, 18531, Ewald (Propheten des aZfen Bundes,C4
iii. r867-68) Kneucker (Dus Buch B a m h , 1879)~and Gifford
(in Wace’s hpocryjhu, ~ 8 8 8 ) . The best general account of the
book will be found in Schiirer ( W V ,1886-90, ii. pp. 721-726,
ET). The reader may consult also Bertholdt (Einleitung,
1812-19, pt. iv.) Havernick (De Z i h Baruchi coinmentatiu
criticu, 1843). Hitzig (in ZWT 3 262.~73)~ Hilgenfeld (i6id. 5
199.203, 22 437’454 23 412-422) Nijldeke ( A TZicke Lit. 1868
p. 214 n.) Reuss (Gesch. d. h h e n Schriften ATs.,P1’18go):
and the &&le on this book in Smith’s DB,(Zl 18 3 an artlcle
valuable chiefly on account of the additions made 8yYrof. Ryle.
I n many MSS and printed editions the apocryphal EjistZe of
Jeremiah is appended to Baruch, and it is reckoned in the Vg. as
the sixth chapter of the book. The Book
6. Appendices. of Baruch is not to be confounded with the
ApocaZyjse of Baruch (see APOCALYPTIC
LITERATURE 5 5 3 ) . The work known as ‘The Rest of the
words of Ba;uch ’ extant in Greek, Ethiopic, and Armenian,
seems to be a Ch;istian imitation of the Apocalypse of Baruch.
We possess, moreover, a third apocalypse of Baruch extant in
Greek and in Slavonic, and a fourth extant only in Ethiopic.
T h e Greek text of the former has been puhlished by James in
his dpocryjhu Anecdotu second series [‘g7] (Textsand Studies,
vol. 5 no. I ) where somk information will be found also about
the Eihiopic’apocalypse (lii.). A. A. B.
BARZILLAI ($I-$ ; BEPZEAA[E]I [BKAL]). The
meaning can scarcely be ’ iron,’ for such a name would
be without a,parallel. According to Nestle ( Z D P Y
1 5 2 5 7 ; cp Kampfmeyer, 2’6. 9), the nzme is Aramaic
(‘ son of -?’) ; but the latter part of it is still
obscure.
I. A wealthy Gileadite of RbgElim, who befriended
David in his flight from Absalom at Mahanaim (z S.
1727). He refused David’s offer to live at the court at
Jerusalem, but entrusted to him his son C HIMHAM
494
 BASALOTH
(q.v. ; 2 S. 1 9 3 2 8 ) ) . David on his death recommended
the sons of Barzillai to Solomon ( I K. 27).
3. A man who married one of the daughters of (2) and changed
his name to Barzillai.1 In post-exilic times the b’ne Barzillai
were among those deposed from the priesthood because they were
unable to prove their pedigree. In I Esd. 5 38 the original name
of the founder of the family is said to have been JADDUS, AV
AIIDUS (raSSour [Bl, LOSS. [A]+.a., Jaddua(cp Jos. Ant. xi. 8 4 ;
raSSour) ;-but in the parallel passages he is simply called Bar-
zillai ; E z r a 2 6 r a (<up@eA+ [B], <ep@eAhab[A])=Neh. 7 6 3 a
(&<dAab [A]), and so L in I Esd. 5 38 (@fp<rhAa). The same
passage gives AUCIAas the name of his wife.
A . A man of Ahel-meholah (not far. therefore. from Gilead).
wh‘ose son ADRIEL(g.v.) also has been thought to bear i n
Aramaic name (z S.21 8).
BASALOTH (Baahwe [A]), I Esd. 531 = Ezra252,
BAZUTH, q.v.
BASCAMA (BACKAM& LAW] ; B,ACKA, Jos. Ant.
xiii. 6), an unknown place, in Gilead, where Jonathan
the Maccabee was put to death by Trypho (I Macr.
13 23). Furrer’s identification (ZDPV12 151) with TeZ& volcano at the NW. corner of the Jebel Hauriin. The
Bdzzik on the W.’GoramLye (to the E. of the extreme N.
of Lake Tiherias) is precarious (see Buhl, PuZ. 241).
Equally unsubstantiated is the identification with BE-
ZEK, i.
BASE. For ;11nn, ;113n. nzekl&zih, the word em-
ployed to denote the structure upon which each of Solomon’s
lavers rested ( I K. 7 27 f: 30.32 34 J 3 7 3 4 2 3 : 2 IC. 16 17
25 13 16 2 Ch. 4 14, pexwvw0 [sing. and pl.] ; Jer. 27 [341 Ig om.
~~
RNA, pqywuw0 [Theod.] ; Jer. 53 17 @amw[BUQF]), see LAVER; especially in its central and southern parts, are there
also for p, kBn, Ex.319 etc., RV [AV ‘foot’]. For ~ T V , abundant forests of evergreen oak (cp the allusions to
ydn?kh, EX. 25 31 37 17 R V [AV ‘shaft’], see CANDLESTICK,
B z , n. 3 ;and for 22, gdh, Ezek. 43 13 RV, see ALTAR, 11. ~. 21 6, also Is. 3 3 9 (64l’aX[~]~Xaia),Nah. 1 4 ) . In ancient
BASEMATH (nD?$),Gen. 3 6 3 RV ; AV BASHE- times, also, it must have supplied rich pastures : the
MATH.
BASEMENT (RJJ), Ez. 418 RV. See G ABBATHA,
PAVEMENT.
BASHAN (I@, always in prose [except I CIL fiZ31. forming the HaurLn range (cp Porter, 183, 186, rgo, 227,
and sometimes also in poetry, with the art. : the
1. Name, appellative sense of the word, to judge
from the Arab. dut/zninnt”n, was probably
‘ fertile, rich and stoneless soil ’ : see Wetzstein, in Del.
Hied(*) [App.], 5 5 6 J : @jBAL pauav or 4 p a u a v e k i s ) ,
the name of the broad and fertile tract of country
on the E. of Jordan, bounded (somewhat roughly)
on the S. by the Yarmiik and a line passing through
Edre‘i and Salchah (mentioned as border cities in
Dt. IO), on the E. by the imposing range of extinct
volcanoes called the Jehel Hauriin, on the W . by
Geshur and Ma‘acah (see Josh. 125), and on the N.
stretching out towards Hermon (cp Dt. 3322 : see
further, on the limits of Bashan, Guthe, ZDPV, 1890,
pp. 231-4). The name (in its Gk. form B a ~ a v a i a , ~ by extensive remains belonging to the Roman age.
and its Arabic form Bat?zanTye?z3)was, however, after-
wards restricted to the southerri portion of the area thus
defined, other parts of the ancient ‘ Bashan ‘ being dis-
tinguished as TRACHONITIS (q.v.)+e., the remarkahle
pear-shaped volcanic formation in the NE. now called
the LejL-Auranitis (probably the Jebel Hauriin and
its environs in the SE.), and Ganlanitis (which, how-
ever, may have included parts of Geshur and Ma‘acah,
beyond the limits of Bashan proper) in the West. The
principal part of the Bashan of the O T must have
been the broad rolling prairie now called by the Be-
dawin en-Nu+, a word properly denoting the ‘ hollow
hearth’ dug by the Bedawi in the middle of his tent,
and applied to this great plain because, though it is
* The adoption of the family name of the wife suggests that
she was an heiress.
2 See Schiirer GJV 1353.
3 Wetzstein, k a u r a n , 83-88, and in the app. to Del. Hio6,P)
553-558, where it is shown also that the modern “ard el-
Bathaniyeh,’ or ‘Land of Bathaniyeh,’ is the name of a born-
paratively small district N. of the Jebel HaurLn and E. of the
Le& which can never (as was supposed by Porter and others)
have formed part of either B;rshan or the province of Bwavat’a.
495
BASHAN
some 1800-2000 ft. above tlie level of the sea, it forms
a depression between the hilly JaulHn (across the Nahr
er-Rukkiid) on the W., the Zumleh range on the S., and
the Jebel HaurLn and the LejE on the E. :l the S. and
SE. part of en-Nukra also hears the special name of
HAURAN(q...) .
Bashan, as defined above, is distinguished geologically
from the country S. of it. The YarmGk forms a natural
dividing line, on the S. of which the
2. limestone comes to the surface, while
on the N. it is covered by volcanic deposits. Jebel
Hauriin, on the SE., is simply a range of extinct vol-
canoes ; volcanic peaks extend from N. to S. in JaulZn,
along the edge of the Jordan valley, on the W. ;= and
there are isolated volcanic hills in other parts of the
country. The Lejii, that strange petrified ocean ’ NW.
of the Jebel Hanriin, which measures some 25 m. from
N. to S. by 19 from E. to W. (see T RACKONITIS ),
owes its origin entirely to streams of basaltic lava
emitted from the Ghariirat el-Kibliyeh, a now extinct
soil both of the slopes of the Jebel HaurZn and of the
Nukra is a rich red loam,3 formed by the lava scoria,
which has become disintegrated under atmospheric
action. The soil thus constituted is celebrated for its
fertility : the best corn grows upon it, and in summer
time the plain is covered far and wide with waving crops.
The country is, however, in general almost entirely
destitute of trees : only on the slopes.of Jebel HanrHn,
the ‘ oaks of Bashan ’ in the OT : Is. 2 13 Zech. 11z Ez.
strong and well-nourished herds of Bashan are men-
tioned in Ps. 2213[12] (@ omits) Am.41 Ez.3918 (@
omits) Dt. 3214 (@ Tadpwv) ; cp also Mic. 7 14.Jer. 5019
(aomits). The lofty conical summits of the volcanoes
250) are no doubt the ‘ mountains with peaks,’ which the
poet of Ps.6816J IS,^] pictures as looking enviously
at the coniparatively unimposing mountain of Zion.
The principal towns of Bashan mentioned in the OT
are the two royal cities of ‘Og (Dt. 1 4 Josh. 124 paua
[B]), ‘ASHTAROTE,now probably either
3’ Towns* Tell ‘Ashterii or Tell ’Ash‘ari, in the middle
of en-Nuluii, and EDRE‘I,now Der‘iit, on its S. border,
GOLAN(Dt. 443), somewhere in the W . , and SALCHAII
(Dt. IO), how Salchad, a frontier-fortress in a com-
manding position overlooking the desert in the SE.
corner of Bashan, S. of Jebel Hauriin. BoSra, between
Edre‘i and Salchah, though not mentioned till I Macc.
5 2 6 8 (pouop [AHV*] ; but see BOSOR),also was, no
donht, an important place : the site is still niarkcd
‘ Threescore fenced cities, with high walls, gates aud
bars,’ forming the kingdom of ‘Og, are likewise men-
tioned in Dt. 3 4 (cp I K. 4 1 3 ) as situate in the ‘ region
of Argoh,’ in Bashan. The position of Argob, and,
consequently, the positions of those cities as well, are
uncertain (see A RGOB, I ) ; hut there are remains of
many ancient towns and villages in these parts, especi-
ally in the Lejii, and on the sloping sides of the Jehel
Hanriin ; according to Wetzstein, for example (Hnurun,
42), there are 300 such ancient sites on the E. and S .
slopes of the Jebel Hauriin alohe.
The dwellings in these deserted localities are of a remarkable
character. Some are the habitations of Troglodytes, being
caverns hollowed out in the mountain-side, and so arranged as
-.
1 Wetzstein, Hanran, 87 n., Hioh, 552 ;. GASm. HG 536f:
See the excellent map of this district uhhshed in the ZDPV,
18 0, Heft 4, chiefly on the hasis of St&el’s survey.
8 Schumacher, TheJauZiin, 18-20.
3 Wetzstein, HauTan, 40f: Cp the map at the end of the
volume.
4 Porter, E v e Years in Da?nascxs,P) 186. 190,zoo, 202, etc. :
GASm. Geog. 613f: The mountainous region of JaulZn, W. of
the Ru!&id, also is well wooded.
496
 BASHAN
to form.separate chambers ; these are found chiefly on the E.:of
the Jebel HaurSn. Others are subterranean abodes entered by
shafts invibible froni.above; these are frequent on the W. of the
Zumleh range, and a t Edrei the dwellings thus constructed
form quite an underground city. Commonly, the dwellings
are built in the ordinary manner above ground; but they
are constructed of massive well-hewn blocks of black basalt
-the regular and indeed the only building material used in
the country-with heavy doors moving on pivots, outside stair-
cases, g+lleries and roofs all of the same material ;1 of this
kind .are, for &ample, t i e houses a t BurZk, on the N. edge
of the Leja, at Sauwarah, El-Hazm, Deir Nileh, HiyZt Hit,
Bathaniyeh, Shaki Shnhba, E. of it, Kanawlt and Suw;ideh,
on the W. slo es'of Jebel Haurln, GalChad, Kureiyeh and
Bosra on its $E. slope, and N e j r a , Ezra', Khubab, dSmi,
and Mismeiyeh, within the Leji itself.2 Many of these cities are
in such a .:ood state of preservation that it is difficult for the
traveller to realise that they are uninhabited, and in the Lejl
especially, where the ground itself is of the same dark and
sombre hue, unrelieved by a touch of green, or a single sign of
life, a feeling of weirdness comes over him as he traverses their
desolate and silent streets.
The architecture of the buildings contained in these
cities (comprisingtemples, theatres, aqueducts, churches,
etc.) stamps them as belonging to the Grzeco-Roman
age, and is such as to show that between the first and
the seventh centuries A . D . they were the home of a
thriving and wealthy people. May any of these cities
date from a remoter antiquity, and be actually the
fortified places pointed to with wonder in Dt. 3 4 f : and
I K. 413? The question was answered in the affirma-
tive b y Porter and by Cyril Graham,' who believed
that they had really rediscovered the cities ' built and
occupied some forty centuries ago ' by the giant race of
the Kephtiim ; hut this view cannot be sustained. The
best authorities are unanimous in the opinion that,
though in some cases very ancient building materials
niay be preserved in them, the extant remains are not,
as a rule, of a date earlier thap the first century, A . D . 5
Dt. 3 4 f. and I I<. 413 are sufficient evidence that in
the seventh century B. C. there were in Bashan strongly
fortified places which were popularly supposed to have
belonged to the ancient kingdom of O g ; but none
of the existing deserted cities Can be as ancient as this.
At the same time, it is not improbable that some of
the cities built during and after the reign of Herod
may have stood upon the sites of cities belonging to
a much earlier age, and that in their construction the
materials employed in building the more ancient cities
may in some cases have been utilised and preserved.
As regards the history of Bashan, it is stated in Nu.
21 33-35 that the Israelites after their conquest of Sihon,
4. History. king of Heshbon, turned in the direction
of Bashan, defeated Og its king, who
came out to meet them as far as his frontier fortress of
Edrei, and took possession of his territory. The
passage,is in the context of JE ; but it agrees so closely,
in form as well as in substance, with Dt. 3r-3, that
Dillniann and other critics consider this to have been
its original place, supposing it to have been inserted
afterwards into the text of Numbers for the purpose of
supplying what seemed to be an omission.
All other notices of the same occurrence in the historical books
are Deuteronomic (or later) : Israel's ancient victories over
' Sihon king of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan ' being
two national successes, to which, especially, the writers of the
Deuteronomic school were never weary of referring (Dt. 1 4
3 1 s 447 296[71 314 Josh.2ro 910 1 2 4 3 13113 r K . 4 1 9 ;
see also, later, Nu. 32 33 [R], Neh. 9 22 Ps 135 IT 136 ~ 9 3 )
The territory of Bashan fell to the possession of the
half-tribe ofManasseh (Dt. 313 443 Josh. 1329-31[@uava
B v. 301). Golan and 'Ashtaroth are stated in P to have
1 See more fully Wetzstein Hauran, 4 4 8 : on Edrei, also,
Schumacher, A c ~ o s stheJordLn 1 2 1 8
2 See for particulars Porter, &zascm, chaps. 10-14; Heber-
Percy, A Visit t o Bashan and Argob, 1895,pp. 40,47, etc. (with
photographs).
3 Damascus,P) 2573, 263 f.; Giant Cities of Bashan, 12 f:
30, etc. ?&I.
4 Cam6nX.e Essays for 1858, p. 1 6 0 3
5 Wetzstein Hauran, 49, 1033 : Waddington, Inscriptions
Grecques et )Latines etc., in. 1534; and De VoguB, the
principal authority An the architecture of Hauran, Syrie
Centrate, Archit. Civile et Rdig. 4 (cited in Merrill, East
ofJordan, 63); GASm. HG 624.
32 497 .#
BASHEMATH
IJeen Levitical cities (Josh. 2127, cp I Ch. 656 [TI]) ; the
Former also is named as a city of refuge (Dt. 443 Josh.
208 21 27).
Bashan played no prominent part in the liistory ; and
it is rarely mentioned in a historical connection. In
I K. 4 13 it forms one of Solomon's commissariat dis-
tricts ; and in z K. 1 0 3 3 it is included in the enumera-
tion of trans-Jordanic regions which were ' smitten ' by
Hazael. Its inhabitants may be presumed to have
suffered, like their neighbonrs in Gilead, on other
occasions during the Syrian wars, and finally to have
been carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser in 734 ( z K.
1529). ; but in neither connection are they expressly
mentioned. Apart from the prehistoric ' threescore
cities ' of the Argob, settled civilisation appears to have
begun for the region of Bashan about the time of the
Christian era, when its Semitic inhabitants first .fell
under Greek and Roman influence. The most im-
portant event in the history of the country, however,
was its incorporation by Trajan, in 106 A.D., in his
newly-founded province of Arabia. Then it was that
Roman culture impressed itself visibly upon both the
surface of the country and the character of its in-
habitants; and towns, with great public buildings, of
which the remains, as described above, survive to this
day, sprang up in every part of it and continued to
thrive for many centuries.l
The most important works on the topography of Bashan are,
Wetzstein's Reisebericht &er Hairran und die T?-achonen
('60), and Guthe and Fischer's art: in the
6. Literature. Z D P V 18~0, Heft 4, pp. 225-302 (containing
Dr. Stibel sitineraryand map, and numerous
bibliographical references) ; on Southern Basban, or the Nukra,
Schumacher, Z D P V , 1897, pp. 65-226 ; on Western HaurSn also,
Scbumacher, Across the Jordan, 20-40, 103-zqz . Porter Five
Years in Damascus; GASm. HG575 8, 6113' Inscriptions
(chiefly Greek and Latin) have been published by Wetzstein in
the A6h. of the Berlin Ac. 1863, p. 255-368 ; Waddington, 0).
cif. Nos. 2071.2548 ; Clermont-Ganneau ReczceiZXArch. O r i e d
11-23; GASm. Crit. Rev., 1892, p. 5 5 2 ; W. Ewing, PEFQ,
1895(4papers); C1.721, fasc. 2, Nos. 162-193. s. R . D.
BASHAN-HAVOTH-JAIR (iyni?q p$. V .; I) occurs
in Dt. 314 ( B A C C G M A e A y w e I A G l p [B"], B A C A N A Y w e
lasip [BabWid.) (ut vid.) AFL]), where AV renders, 'and
(J+) called them after his own. name, Bashan-havoth-
j a r . ' This version does justice to the present text, but
certainly does not represent the mind of the original
writer. The awkward (indeed, impossible) expression
Bashan-havoth-jair can be accounted for only on the
hypothesis that the first element in it (Bashan) is a mis-
placed gloss from the margin. RV seeks to evade the
difficulty by rendering, ' called them, even Bashan, after
his own name, H AVVOTH-JAIR.' On the geographical
difficulty which still remains, see HAVVOTH-JAIR.
BASHEMATH, or, as RV, correctly, BASEMATH
( n ~ ~ ~ = a p w M A T I N §H 54
? ; B A C e M M A e [AD]).
Other readings are : Gen. 2G 34 paueppa9 [AEI BauwfpaB
D i d . paue9ap [L ; elsewhere .@awepa91; 36 3 paufppa0 [Dl ;
[Dl ; 4 pausppae [Dl paue9pae [El ; IO pauueppaO[El;
13 paw€. [AI pauuepa0 [DEI ; 17 paufppa9 [AE] [ p a l u ~ p a e
[Dvid].
I . Daughter of Ishniael, and wife of Esan, called
MAHALATH in Gen.2S9 and Hittite ( s y c \ l o y [A];
Xtxra. [El; XGTTA. [L]) in Gen. 2634 [PI. The
names and tribal origin of Esau's three wives are given
twice (cp ANAH): by P in Gen. 2634 289, and by R (?)
in Gen. 36zf: A wife Basemath, and descent from
Ishmael and from Elon the Hittite occur in both
accbunts (see CAINITES,§ 9), but differently assigned ;
while the other names have no connection whatever :
thus-
P Beeri-Nittite Elon-Hittite Ishmael
I
I.
J?dith 2.Ba!emath 3. Mahalath
R (or J) EZon-Hittite Ziheon-Hivite Ishmael
I [Horite?] I
I. Adah Anah 3. Basemath
2. Oholibnmah
1 See, further, GASm. HG 616fl.
498
 BASILISK
(AV BASMATH,RV BASEMATH),daughter of Solomon,
2.
I K. 4 15 (MauepaB [A]).
BASILISK, RV rendering of Y Q u (Is. 142g), ’?\Ygy
(Is. 118), for which AV has C OCKATRICE Iq.v.1.
BASKETS of vaxious kinds were used by the Hebrews,
and were doubtless not unlike those which are often
found depicted upon Egyptian monuments-large open
baskets for fruit etc. (cp illustration, Wilk. Anc. E&@. 1
379), which could be borne upon the head (ib. 383, cp
Gen. 40 16f.), baskets to collect earth in the manufacture
of bricks (on a supposed reference to which in Ps. 81 6 ,
see B RICK ), or deep wicker ones slung upon a yoke (ib.
380). Especially noteworthy is the large carpenter’s
tool-basket made of rush (a kind common throughout
W. Asia), a specimen of which is now in the British
Museum (cp i6. 401). The references to baskets
present many points of interest ; suffice it to refer to the
difficult saying in Prov. 2511, which RV renders, ‘ A
word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in baskets (AV
I pictures ’; KVW. ‘ filigree work ’) of silver,’ where
the implied notion is that the golden-hued apples look
all the more beautiful in silver baskets. But ( I ) golden,
not golden-hued apples (quinces) must be meant, if the
text be correct ; ‘ gold ’ and ‘ silver ’ must both be talcen
literally. ( 2 ) ’ Baskets ’ is an impossible rendering, and
‘filigree work,’ though more plausible, is still hypo-
thetical. ( 3 ) :Fitly’ has no sound linguistic basis.
This is a case IU which no weak emendation, affecting
one or two letters, suffices.
Frankenberg has tried such a one ; the sense produced is-
Golden gravings (.nrng) on silver chased work,
(So is) a word spoken to the trustworthy (oqinK-\y, cp @),
;.e., a word spoken to the receptive is as ineffaceable as the
chased work referred to. Not very natural, and not a good
parallel to v. 12.
By emending the text more boldly (but avoiding
arbitrary guessing, and following parallels f o h d else-
where) it is possible to reach this excellent sense l-
A necklace of pearls in sockets of wreathen gold,
(So is) a word of the wise to him who hears it.
It is really only a slightly different version of the next
proverb :
A ring of gold and an ornament of fine gold,
(So is) a word of the wise to a hearing ear.
Of the other Hebrew words rendered ‘basket,’ dua’(~?q),
(N?!), and saZ(5;) were used for general purposes, see COOKING,
5 2. Nowack (Arch. 1146) suggests that these were similar in
character to the clay and straw kaw66i of the modern fellahin.
The former may perhaps denote-loosely any pot or jar since we
find it used for cooking in I S. 2 14 (cp BDB s.v.). ’The last-
named (sal), areed basket(equiva1ent to the Gr. KavoSvLby which
it is rendered] and Lat. canisfmm),zhas been brought into con-
nection with the reduplicated form nibD\D, Jer. 6 g (EV ‘ grape-
gatherers’ baskets’. @ ~ & p ~ a h h o s ) . 3This, however, is doubtful,
and indeed the t e i t is uncertain (cp Pesh.). l<Vtw. renders
‘shoots’; but this is O-$!\! ; cp VINE. For 2?$? (Am. 81 ;
Zyyos4 [@I), used also of a bird-cage, see CAGE.
~
1 @helps alittle: uapXov=OfiD. which should take the place of
: but dv 6 p p L ~ ~ = * ! ? ? ,wh;fchmust have come from v. 12. upon the Vss. ( k ?rbpvVs [gab’”g. et sup ras AaL],
ny3onl is a corruption of nix???? (Ex. 28 IT, see OUCHES).
3;11 yq>D> evidently conceals the name of some precious stone
or the like. If so, there is but one possible explanation ; >;1iq and among the Rabbius it was the term applied to
comes from ~ - 1 i y n(just as 2iii m, Gen. 36 39 comes from ~ ~ i ;s arelations between whom marriage was forbidden (cp
see BELA,z), which means pearls strung tigether (see N ECK -
LACE). Lastly, ign probably comes from Tin (string or necklace).
Thus v. I r a corresponds closely to v. i z a ; conse uently v. 1r6
must correspond to v. 126,where, with Bi. (Prov.$)), we should
read o3n 111 (see @); n*j>nis based on n3n. ym-+-5y might
come from i;r~y&, ‘for its purpose,’ hut more probably comes
from $‘?v-sY, which is equivalent to i l Y W jlN-5Y (u. 126)
Render as above, and cp GOLD.
2’ On the sacred canistrum of early Christian times, see Smith,
Dict. Christ. Ant., S.V.
3 The Kdprahhos (also in 2 K. 10 7 for h,and in Dt. 26 z 4 for
N;!?) was a basket with a tapering extremity.
4 i y i o s (cp Dt. 23 25 I K. 17 IO M T 3 5 3 ) used of vessels
of various kinds :cp in N T , Mt. 13)48 25 4 (WH prefer d & )I
In Am. 2.c. Sym., more suitably, has K M O ~(cp
for y~),
OS@ in g.24
a vase-shaped basket ; especially the basket upon the
head of Demeter in ancient statues.
499
BASTARD
I n the N T mention is made of ( a ) u a p y d y , a basket of braid-
work (used especially of fish-baskets), in which Paul escaped
From Damascus (2 Cor. 1133). In Acts 9 25, however the word
is (6) urrupis ( W H prefer u+u 6) the basket in the kiracle of
, , theqooo(Mt. 15 37 etc.). Botg w&probably larger than(<) the
rd+avos, in the miracle of the 5000 (Mt. 1420 etc.). The last-
mentioned was an essentially Jewish article ( q r o ~ ~cojhinus ~m
F w n w w p e supellex, Juv. 3 I.+), whose size may perhaps be
3etermined from the use of the word to denote a Bceotiau measwe
Jf about z gallons (vide Corp. Inscr. Gr., 1625,46). T. K. c.
BASMATH (my?), I K. 415 AV; see BASHE-
MATH, 2.
BASON (Amer. RV B ASIN). That all the words
(one Greek and four Hebrew) denote hollow vessels
adapted to receive and contain liquids is certain ; but
what was the general form, and wherein the peculiarity
of each consisted we have no means of determining.
This uncertainty is sufficiently proved by the frequent
variations in the EV renderings. ’ On the whole subject,
see BOWL, C UP , GOBLET, and cp A LTAR, I O;
C OOKING UTENSILS, FOOD, MEALS, 112 ; POTTERY. ’
I. ,!;I a,g@n (see BDB Le$. s.v.; Kpan’p [IWA etc.11, a large
bason (EV) or bowl used in the temple ritual (Ex. 246). In Is.
2224 E V . ‘cup<’(om. BNAQl’, a avw0 [Theod. Qmg.1). On
account of its sbape,.it is employex in Cant. 7 2 [3]t as a simile
in the eulogy of the bride (EV ‘goblet ’); see Cbe. ad Zoc. JQR,
April 1899.
2. 1\53,k y w ( c p M H lb? goblet), for which AV ‘ bason,
RV ‘bowl ’ consistently, occurs only as a vessel used in the
temple. @ found it unintelligible. I Ch. 2817 ((mi. H ,
KE++OVPC [A] K++. and KF++WP [L]) Ezra1 IO ( K C + + O U ~ ~ S [BI,
xer#mvpq [A], K E a ~ o $ p a r[L]=I Esd. 2 13 (Bidhat x p u u 2 ~[BAL]),
and Ezra 8 27t (Ka+ovEqB [B], K U + O U ~ ~[AI, L as in 1I O ) = I
Esd. 8 57 k p u u h j p a m [BAL]).
3. ?!!I?, mizr+ (a vessel for throwing or tossing a liquid,
+~6Aq).1 With the exception of Am. 6 6 (@BAQ, rbv GLVALU~IL~VOV
d u o v , as though ??!?; see MEALS, 5 12 and 2 Ch.4rr), this
utensil is used only in the temple sacrificial ritual. EV renders
yaryingly ‘bason’ ( e g . , Ex. 27338 3 2 K. 12 r3[r41 etc.) or
bowl’ (Am. Lc., Zech. 9 15 1420 Nli. 7 13 etc); see ALTAR, 5 9.
4. qp, sa&?, a temple utensil (I K. 7 50 z K. 12 13 t141 Jer.
52 19 [where Aq. (Qmg.) 6s ia Sym. +~&hql; AV ‘howls,’ but
RV ‘cups’ [so E V in Zec$. i221), used also in the ritual of
the Passover (Ex. 1 2 22). The pl. nbp, evidently denoting
domestic utensils, occurs in 2 S. 17 28 (@BAL h$qrcs);2 but see
Klo. ad Loc.
5. v ~ d used p in Jn. 13 5 of the ‘.bason’ (EV) in which Jesus
fene’ washed the feet of the disciples (cp vIrrmw=yn> Gen. 184etc.).
The utensil must have been larger than any of the above.
The Pal.-Syr. (Evang. Hierosol.) renders by fl>sm; cp
Heb. \?$, and see BOWL, 7.
BASSA, RV Bassai ( B A C C ~ I [B]), I Esd. 516=Ezra
2 1 7 ~BEZAI,q.v.
BASTAI, RV Basthai (Baceal [BA]), I Esd. 531
=Ezra249, BESAI.
BASTARD (?,??2). The mamx$is mentioned along
with the Ammonite and Moabite as excluded from the
‘congregation (Dt. 232 [3]). The Heb. word is of
uncertain derivation, and the EV rendering is based
BXF om.). More probably the word means one of
mixed or alien birth (so Zech. 96, &kkoyevr)s [BKAQ]),
Mish. Yebnnz, 4 13). It is presupposed by @ in Nah.
3 1 7 (6 ufi,u,uiKTJs uou [BSAQ]), where M T has TirJn
(EV ’ thy crowned ones ’), and is rather infelicitously
accepted by Wellhausen who thinks that the refer-
ence is to the mixed population of Nineveh. Ruben
is certainly right in conjecturing q w i ~ ‘, thy measuring
1 In some cases where several vessels are named @ appears
to have transposed p i a : see e.g. Nu. 4 14.
2 Apart from the two exceptions mentioned, 48 regularly
thinks of qD ‘threshold,’ and renders 0 6 p a rrp68vpov (in Jer.
IC.,ua$+w@).
3 The only kind ofjoreign marriage which D contemplates
seems to be found in Dt. 21 10-14. In Dt. 7 7-4 only Canaanitish
peoples are excluded ; but I K. 11I 2 assumes the exclusion of
other nations, and so, in Ezra 9, D’s law is extended to cover all
foreign neighbours (from MS note of WRS).
500