rather than the inspiration. The reality of the latter is a small matter apart from the character of the former. The essential function of inspiration is the formation of the personalitiesboth the winds for the thought and the thought for the minds -through whom the religion is to be realised; and the essential function of revelation is to embody in historical form-literature, character, worship, institution-what inspiration has created.' But it is surely a false distinction thus to make the inarticulate divine and the articulate human. How can the former be a guarantee for the latter? And in so far as inarticulate, how is the inspiration of Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles to be distinguished from that of Hindu or Persian poet or sage? It is true that the inspiration of the men who read' is made 'as intrinsic and integral an element in the idea of revelation as the inspiration of the men who wrote.' But in both cases the

theory proposes a test which has all the subjectivity of one

appeal to the testimonium Spiritus Sancti without the recognition of the divine quality of the revelation itself which enters into the latter. It seeins open also to the same kind of criticism which Sir Wm. Hamilton, in a well-known essay, applied to Schelling's metaphysical theory: the intellectual intuition being only possible in the absence of consciousness, is no help to the conscious apprehension of what it alone can give assurance of; it is in the state of personality, and non-intuition of the Absolute, that the philosopher writes; in writing therefore about the Absolute, he writes of what is to him as zero.' What, in like manner, is to connect the revelation which man gives to man, with the inspiration, the state of possession, in which it is supposed to be received?

These instances serve to illustrate the difficulties surrounding the question. It is probable that no theory of inspiration will ever solve all these difficulties or be regarded as entirely satisfactory. It may be fully and freely recognised that the B. has a unique excellence of its own, qualities which set it apart from even the greatest literary achievements of the race, while yet it has been constructed in such a way that the human element, the peculiarities and even the limitations of its writers, have been consistently maintained. In two respects, we of this age are perhaps in a more favourable position for dealing with the question than those who have gone before us. On the one hand, it is possible to compare the Christian religion and its Scriptures with the non-Christian religions and their sacred books with both a knowledge and a sympathy which in earlier times were undreamt of. On the other, a closer and more intimate knowledge of the Bible itself as a living book and not as a mere repertory of proof texts, is one of the marks of our time. 'Criticism has, by bringing the sacred books into relation with sacred history, done something to restore them to their real and living significance by binding the book and the people together, and then connecting both with the providential order of the world, it has given us back the idea of the God who lives in history through His people, and a people who live for Him through His word' (Fairbairn, l.c. p. 508). Whatever be the results of the literary analysis of the biblical books, or the bearing of archæological discovery upon the history they record, this is the aim of historical criticism, and it can scarcely be doubted that the service it has rendered to classical and Oriental literature may be, and must be, rendered to the B. also. As a part of it, that practice which we have noticed of studying the thought of the B. in its development, and tracing it through its successive representations, is of the highest significance and value. In any case it is to be remembered that the B. contains the most ancient and most authentic documents bearing upon the origin, the nature, and the characteristic features of the Christian religion, and especially upon the person and work of its Founder. This gives to it an interest, if not an authority, which cannot be disputed. Of the revelation which we believe to have come through Christ, it is the early and reliable record. To it, therefore, the Church of later ages has naturally turned to correct her aberrations, and to obtain a renewal of her life. What the B. has been to individuals cannot be told. If the history of the world has a meaning, and is not a succession of fortuitous circumstances,

we cannot fail to recognise the centre of that history in Christ, and the animating force of its later stages in the spiritual movement He inaugu rated. Without the B. this movement could not be understood, or its influence continued and extended. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the God whose providence has ruled and shaped the history, whose Spirit moved and spoke in Christ, has also inspired the B. and made it what it isthe vehicle of the highest spiritual thought, the purest moral guidance man has known. It itself development. Sacred scholarship must finish the invites inquiry, and takes its place in the historical work upon it which it has begun. But withal the B. remains, and will remain, the most precious heritage of mankind.

LITERATURE.-The Literature relating to the first part of this article will be found in connexion with the several special articles (CANON, TEXT, etc.) to which reference is made. On the subjects of Revelation and Inspiration, any of the great dogmatic works, or any History of Doctrines, may be consulted, as well as articles in such Encyclopædias as the Encycl. Brit., Herzog, Lichtenberger. Among monographs may be mentioned: Lee, Inspiration of Holy Scripture; Bannerman, Inspiration; Gaussen, Theopmeustie; Jamieson, Baird Lectures: Horton, Revelation and the Bible; and Sanday, Bampton Lectures, in which, after dealing with the early history and application of the doctrine, the writer compares in his concluding Lecture the traditional and inductive Theories of Inspiration.

A. STEWART.

BICHRI (1777).-In 2 S 201 Sheba is called 'the son of Bichri'; translate rather the Bichrite,' i.e. a member of the clan which traced its descent to Becher, the son of Benjamin (Gn_4621). J. F. STENNING.

BID, bade, bid (2 K 513, Zeph 17) or bidden (Mt and Lk passim), to invite' to a feast, etc. (now archaic or local); 1 S 913. 22 (7), Zeph 17 he hath bid his guests' (p, RV sanctified' with a ref. to 1 S 165); Mt 223 sent for his servants to call (kaλéw) them that were bidden (also kaλéw, but in perf. ptcp.) to the wedding' (RV marriage feast'). In i Co 107 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast' (kaλéw, with no word for 'feast'); Lk 1412 lest they also bid thee again' (avTIKAλéw).

BIGTHAN (102 Est 221), BIGTHANA (6).— One of two chamberlains or eunuchs of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) who conspired against the king's life. Their treachery was discovered and foiled by Mordecai. R. M. BOYD.

BIGYAI (2).-1. A companion of Zerub. (Ezr 22 Neh 77, cf. Ezr 214 Nel 719, Ezr 814, where the name appears as the head of a family of returning exiles). 2. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 1016). See GENEALOGY. J. A. SELBIE.

BILDAD (7, LXX Baλdáð, Bel hath loved'?). -Described in Job 2" as one of Job's three friends. He is called the Shuhite,' indicating his descent from Shuah (me), son of Abraham and Keturah (Gn 252). Abraham is described as sending Shuah, with other sons of concubines, to the East country,' and his descendants probably lived in a district of Arabia not far from Idumæa. The region is not to be confounded with the transHauran Schukka, or the Zakkaia of Ptolemy, to the east of Batanaa. The LXX describes B. as Tŵv Zavxalwr Túparvos. For a description of the part taken by B. in the colloquies, see JOB, Book of. It may be here briefly said that his position is in every sense intermediary between Eliphaz and Zophar. He speaks after the one and before the other; his speeches are shorter than those of Eliphaz, longer than those of Zophar. He is also more violent than the older and graver Eliphaz, but less blunt and coarse than the third spokesman who follows him. He speaks three times, in chapters 8, 18, and 25, the last time very briefly. W. T. DAVISON.

BILEAM (c), 1 Ch 670.-A Levitical city of Manassel, the same as Ibleam of Jos 17", Jg 17,2 K 94; prob. the mod. Bel'ame (see Moore on Jg 17). C. R. CONDER. BILGAH (a cheerfulness').-1. Head of the 15th course of priests (1 Ch 24). 2. A priest who returned with Zerub. (Neh 125. 18). The same as Bilgai (Nel 108). H. A. WHITE.

BILGAI.-See BILGAH.

BILHAH, PERSON (7, Báλλa; in B of 1 Ch 713 Baλáu; Bula, Bara).-A slave-girl given to Rachel by Laban, Gn 29 (P), and by her to Jacob as a concubine, Gn 303.4 (JE); the mother of Dan and Naphtali, Gn 307 (JE) 3525 (P) 4625 (R), 1 Ch 713. She was guilty of incest with Reuben, Gn 3522 (P). The etymology is uncertain. These narratives and genealogies are to be regarded as embodying early traditions as to the origin and mutual relations of the tribes, rather than personal history. Tribes are traced to a concubine ancestress, because they were a late accession to Israel. W. H. BENNETT.

BILHAH, PLACE (, A Balaa, B'Aßeλλá, Bala). -A Simeonite city, 1 Ch 4 Baalah (727), Jos 159; Balah (2), Jos 193, and (?) Baalath (n), Jos 19", IK 918, 2 Ch 86. Site uncertain. Kittel (Sacred Books of OT, 1 Ch 429) proposes to point Ballah; cf. VSS and parallel passages.

W. H. BENNETT. BILHAN (1).-1. A Horite chief, the son of Ezer (Gn 361 Ch 142). 2. A descendant of Benjamin, son of Jediael, and father of seven sons who were heads of houses in their tribe (1 Ch 710). See GENEALOGY. R. M. BOYD.

BINNUI (a building').-1. Head of a family that returned with Zerub. (Neh 715 Bani of Ezr 210). 2. A Levite (Ezr 8 (prob. = Bani of Nel 87 and Bunni of Nel 9), Neh 12). 3. A son of Pahathmoal (Ezr 1030 Balnuus of 1 Es 91). 4. A son of Bani who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 1038). There appears to be a confusion in some instances between the similar names P, 39, 12. See BAVVAI, GENEALOGY. J. A. SELBIE.

BIRDS.-See FOWLS.

BIRSHA (, etym. and meaning unknown).— King of Gomorrah at the time of Chedorlaomer's invasion (Gn 14).

BIRTH.-Among the Hebrews, as among the Orientals generally (comp. Herod. i. 136, of the Persians), a high value was placed upon the possession of children (see, e.g., Gn 162 29o1. 34 301, iS 16 25, 2 K 444, Ps 1273.5), and especially of sonз (see 1 S 1, Jer 2015, Job 3), while childlessness 15) and punishment (2 S 623, Hos 911.14). was regarded as a heavy reproach (Gn 30, Lk Parturition seems generally to have been easy (Ex 119, yet see Gn 316), as it is with Syrian and Arabian mother died in childbirth (Gn 3518, 1 S 420) were women at the present day, and cases in which the probably quite exceptional. From the phrase used in Gn 5023, cf. 303, it has been supposed that in early times the child was actually born upon its father's knees (see Nowack, Heb. Archaol. ì. 165), according to customs of which traces are found in several primitive peoples (Ploss, Das Weib,2 ii. 177 ff.); or at least that the newly-born infant was placed in its father's lap as a token of recognition and adoption. We find, however, no clear reference to such customs in historical times. Indeed, the father was not present at the birth of the child (Jer 2015); the mother was attended by other women (1 S 420), and the assistance of a midwife was often called in (Gn 3517 382, Ex 115ff. Compare article MIDWIFE). The newly-born infant, after its navel-cord had been cut, was bathed in water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in swaddling-clothes (Ezk 16, Lk 27). The practice of rubbing infants with salt is still retained among the fellaheen of Pal., who believe that children are strengthened and hardened by this means (ZDPV iv. p. 63). The child received its name from the mother (Gn 2932. 30, 1 S 120, 1 Ch 4") or from the father (Gn 1615 1719, Ex 2, Hos 1.; see especially Gn 3518), the choice of name being often determined by special circumstances attending the birth. In later times, at any rate, a boy received his name at his circumcision on the eighth day (Lk 159 221). The mother was regarded as unclean for the space of seven+thirty-three days after the birth of a son, or for fourteen + sixty-six days after the birth of a daughter (Lv 12). This difference may probably be explained from the belief, which existed also elsewhere, that the symptoms of a puerperal state continued longer in the latter case (Hippocr. ed. Kühn, i. 392; Dillmann on Lv 12). See PURification. The

firstborn, when a son, belonged to J", and must therefore be redeemed (Ex 1312. 3420) for the sum of five shekels (Nu 18151.). The child was usually suckled by the mother (Gn 217, 1 S_1221., 1 K 3), but a nurse (n) is sometimes mentioned (Gn 24 35, 2 K 112); it was not fully weaned for two or three years (2 Mac 727; cf. 1 S 1-2-4),—in Mohammedan law, indeed, mothers are bidden to suckle their children for at least two years,-and | the completion of the weaning was sometimes celebrated by a feast (Gn 21°). H. A. WHITE.

BIRTHDAY.-The custom of observing a birthday as a festival seems to have been widely spread in ancient times. Herodotus (i. 133) speaks of this practice among the Persians. In Gn 400 we hear of the celebration of the birthday of the king of Egypt, and in the times of the Ptolemies the inscriptions of Rosetta and Canopus bear witness to the same custom. "The birthdays of the kings were celebrated with great pomp. They were looked upon as holy, no business was done upon them, and all classes indulged in festivities suitable to the occasion' (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1847, v. 290). For Roman birthdays, cf. Marquardt, Privatleben d. Römer, i. 244 f. According to 2 Mac 67 the birthdays of the Syrian kings were com memorated every month by means of sacrifices, of which, in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Jews were forced to partake. In the Gospels (Mt 14o, Mk 621) we read of the feast made by Herod Antipas to his nobles on his birthday, on which occasion the daughter of Herodias danced before the guests. The proper Greek term for such festival is Tà Yevé@dia (cf. Jos. Ant. II. v. 3), rà yevéola being used to denote a feast commemorating a person's death (Herod. iv. 26); but in later Greek we find Ta Yevéola and similar phrases used in the sense of birthday (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 18, lvi. 46, lxvii. 2; Alciphro, iii. 18, 55; cf. Jos. Ant. XII. iv. 7: Thy Yevéσlov nμépar). The meaning of rà yevéola in the Gospels has indeed been disputed, many commentators referring the word to the anniversary of the king's accession-a day which we know to have been observed by some of the Herodian princes (Jos. Ant. xv. xi. 6: Tǹy nμéрav тŷs ȧpxns). In support of this view appeal is made to the Mishna (Ab. Sar. i. 3), where by the side of the yevédia of the kings' (b), mention is also made of prea chy anka oi, i.e. the day of birth and the day of death.' So Wieseler, Beitrage, p. 182; Hausrath, New Testament Times (E.T. ISSU), ii. 122; Edersheim, Life and Times (1891), i. 672. But no certain instance can be quoted from Greek literature to support the supposed meaning of ra yevéσia; and the Pal. Gemara (Jer. Ab. Sar. i. 39c) explains as equivalent to birthday. In the Bab. Gemara indeed (Ab. Sar. 10a), where the meaning of the word is discussed, the final decision is in favour of the interpretation ‘day of accession'; but from the context it appears highly probable that here, as elsewhere, the Talmudists were guessing at the meaning of an unknown word. Cf. Meyer on Mt 146; Schürer, HJP 1. ii. 26 f. H. A. WHITE.

BIRTH, NEW.-See REGENERATION. RIGHT.-See FAMILY.

BIRTH

BIRZAITH ( Kethibh, nna Kere, AV Birzavith), 1 Ch 731.—Apparently a town of Asher, probably Bir-ez-Zeit, near Tyre. C. R. CONDER.

BISHLAM (=-17 'peaceful '?).-An officer of Artaxerxes in Pal. at the time of the return from captivity under Zerub., Ezr 47. Called BELEMUS in 1 Es 216. The LXX renders the name by év eipnvy, in peace, as if it were the greeting at the beginning of the letter which follows. H. ST. J. THACKERAY.

BISHOP (ἐπίσκοπος) and ELDER (πρεσβύτερος). The words are too closely connected in NT and sub-apostolic writings to be separated here. First, to trace their use outside the churches.

1. éπiσкOTOS is common in the general sense of an overseer; rarer as an official title. We have (a) in the flourishing age of Athens, e. sent to regulate new colonies or subject cities like Spartan harmosts. They were called équeλntal in Rom. times. (b) After Alexander, two T. at Thera are directed to receive some money and put it at interest; and e. at Rhodes are municipal officers whose duties are unknown. (c) In LXX éπ. are taskmasters, as Is 6017 (), or minor officers, as Neh 119 (79), or 1 Mac 1 the commissioners of Antiochus who enforced idolatry. In LXX also, as Ps 1088, we first find the office denoted by Tokoh. (d) In the 3rd cent. A.D. we have é. as municipal oflicers in about ten inscriptions from Batanæa, the Decapolis, and those parts, where they seem to have had some authority over sacred revenues (rà Toù coù). Of its use (e) for the treasurers of private associations there are no very clear traces. The common word was éñiμeλŋrýs, as with the Essenes.

2. πрEσBUTEроs. The city councils in Rom. times were commonly called βουλαί, not γερουσίαι or wрeσßuτépia. The γερουσία, of which πρεσβύτεροι were members, were not private societies, but corporations for purposes like the games, or the worship of the city-god, or the burial of their members. Their officers were pooтáται, äρXOVтES, ponyovμevo. (b) The Jewish cities of Pal. were governed by a South of 7, or, in larger places, 23 Tp. (1). These formed a court of justice, and may have managed the synagogue. The organisa tion of the Jews in Antioch, Alexandria, etc. was on the same lines, except that in Rome there were several such corporations.

Now, though the Lord commanded His disciples to form a society, there is no indication that either He or His apostles ever prescribed any definite form for it. We should therefore expect to find them following existing models till the new spirit of the society began to express itself in new forms.

In NT we have fairly frequent mention of bishops and elders (passages collected in art. CHURCH GOVERNMENT), and the two offices seem much the same. This is proved thus:-(1) Bishops and elders are never joined together, like bishops and deacons, as separate classes of officials. (2) Ph 11 to bishops and deacons' (no article). If there had been a distinct order of elders, it could scarcely have been omitted. So 1 Ti 3 passes over the elders, though (57) there certainly were elders at Ephesus, and had been (Ac 2017) for some time past. Conversely, Tit 15-7 passes over bishops, describing elders in their place, and in nearly the same words. (3) The bishops described to Timothy, the elders of 1 Ti 57, and those of 1 P 52, have distinctly pastoral functions. So, too, have the elders of Ac 20 and those described to Titus. (4) The same persons seem to be called bishops and elders (Ac 2017. 28, Tit 15. 7 ἵνα καταστήσῃς πρεσβυτέρους . . . δεῖ yàp TOV ETT LOKOTO K.T.A.). The words are also synonyms in Clement ad Cor. xlii. 44, and (by implication) in Teaching, xv., and Polycarp, Phil. i. It is only in Ignatius that the bishop takes a distinct position. The general equivalence of the two offices in the apostolic age seems undeniable, though so far we must not assume that every bishop was an elder or vice versa, or that there never were any minor differences between them. The difference of name may of itself point to some difference of origin: and this is our next question.

As regards elders, it seems likely that the name comes from Jewish sources. The office is already half

hinted at in Lk 2226 (hardly in Ac 56 verepo: cf. 10 Veaviokoɩ); and we have every reason to think that the churches (even those not of Jewish origin) largely followed the arrangements of the synagogue. Their meeting is actually called ovvaywyn | in Ja 22, and the Ebionites retained the name even in the 4th cent. It may, however, be noted at once, that if the office and the name were adopted from the Jews, it does not follow that the duties were even originally quite those of the 1 of the synagogue.

The origin of bishops is more doubtful. The name may perfectly well be Jewish, though the early connexion of the word with Gentile churches is against this. The LXX use of éπioxowos and Èπɩσkowǹ may have suggested it; but Gentile Christians might have found a still readier hint in the general meaning of the word, combined with its freedom from special associations with idolatry. Yet on the other side is the connexion of bishops with deacons, and Clement's direct appeal to Is 6017. The question is best left undecided.

APPOINTMENT. In the first age popular election and apostolic institution seem to have been coordinate. The Seven (Ac 65. ) are chosen by the people, and instituted by the apostles with prayer and laying on of hands. Something similar seems indicated for the Lycaonian elders, though xepoTOVÝσATES (Ac 1423) grammatically refers to the apostles who by prayer with fastings commended them to the Lord. The elders in Crete are appointed (Tit 15 tva karaoтhons) by Titus, and apparently the bishops at Ephesus by Timothy in like manner, though 1 Ti 5, He 62 seem not specially concerned with the matter; but it does not follow that there was no popular election. In any case Timothy or Titus would have to approve the candidate before instituting him: so that the particular description of his qualifications need not mean that they had to select him in the first instance. As soon as we get outside NT (Teaching, xv., Clement, xliv. liv.) popular election becomes very conspicuous, though neither does this exclude a formal institution. The elders are already attached to the apostle even in the conveyance of special gifts (1 Ti 414, where the contrast of uerà with the dia of 2 Ti 16 may indicate their secondary position); and when the unlocal ministry died out, they would act alone in the institution to local office. How soon an episcopate was developed is a further question; and very much a question of words, if the development was from below.

In conclusion, it would seem that the outline of the process was much the same in all church offices-first designation, then institution by prayer with (at least commonly) its symbolic accompaniments of laying on of hands and fasting. But there is one all-important distinction, that if the designation to local office was by popular election, that to unlocal office was by the will of the Holy Spirit (Ac 132, of Apostles; 1 Ti 414 118, apparently of an Evangelist, 2 Ti 43).

DUTIES. (1) General Superintendence.-Elders in Ac 2028, 1 Ti 57, Tit 17, 1 P 523 (KATAKUρ. is Kupieve done the wrong way), bishops in 1 Ti 35. Indicated possibly in Kußepvhσeis, ávтiλýμÝeis, 1 Co 1228; more distinctly Eph 4" Toùs de Touevas Kal διδασκάλους, το pointedly contrasted with the unlocal officers. 5ο προϊστάμενοι 1 Th 51, Ro 128 remind us of the bishops and elders, 1 Ti 34 #poïσṛáμενον, 517 προεστώτες. The ἡγούμενοι οι προηγ. also of He 137. 17. 24, and of Clement, ad Cor. i. 26, 37, may be set down as bishops or elders, for (a) men entitled to obedience must have other than the purely spiritual functions of the unlocal ministry; (b) the bishops at Corinth evidently own no higher authority, so that they must themselves be the ἡγούμενοι.

Under this head we may place the share taken by the elders (a) at Jerus., in the deliberations of the apostles (Ac 156) and in the reception held by James (Ac 2118); (b) elsewhere, in the laying of hands on Timothy, 1 Ti 4.

(2) Teaching.-1 Th 512 рoïoráμevo admonishing in the Lord, I Ti 32 the bishop apt to teach, 5ii elders who toil in word and teaching, Tit 19 the elder or bishop must be able to teach, and to convince the gainsayers.

Preaching is rather connected with the unlocal ministry; but in its absence the whole function of public worship would necessarily devolve on the local. This may be hinted He 137. 17. 24 (no officers named but youμevo), and in any case it is plain enough in Teaching, xv., and Clement speaks of bishops poopéрovтes тà dŵpa, which must not be limited to the Lord's Supper.

(3) Pastoral Care.-This is everywhere so conspicuous that references are hardly needed.

To it we may refer (a) visiting of the sick, with a view (Ja 514) to anointing and cure; (b) care of strangers and à fortiori of the poor, 1 Ti 32, Tit 18, the bishop to be φιλόξενος.

So far we have not discriminated the duties of bishops and elders. But was there any difference at all? Harnack thinks that while bishops and deacons had the care of public worship and the poor, elders rather formed a court attached to the church, and as such were occupied with government and discipline. The apparent identity of the offices would then be no more than an identity of persons. The weightiest members of the church would naturally hold both offices, and give the tone to both. This theory explains points like the difference of names and the marked separation between the two classes. It may contain more than a germ of the truth; but it cannot be accepted without important reservations. (a) It is not likely that duties were quite so definitely separated. If the elders began with discipline and genera oversight, they would be likely soon to take up more spiritual duties, as the Seven did. Those who had gifts to minister the word and teaching, would rather be honoured than hindered; so that many of them might easily be doing pastoral work (esp. if they were bishops also) before the end of the apostolic age. In any case (b) bishops and elders are identical in the Pastoral Epistles, so that the distinction must by that time have been nearly lost. This, however, depends on their date. Harnack (Chronologie, 1897, p. 484) still places the relevant passages in the middle of the 2nd cent.

LITERATURE.-Loening, Gemeindeverfassung d. Urchristenthums; Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 181-269: Gore, Christian Ministry, esp. note K; 1latch, Bampton Lectures (1880), tr. into Germ. with excursuses by Harnack (1883); artt. on Origin of the Christian Ministry by Sanday, Harnack, Gore, Rendel Harris, Macpherson, Simcox, and Milligan in Expositor, 3rd series, vols. v. and vi.; Weizsäcker, Apost. Zeitalter, pp. 599–612. H. M. GWATKIN.

BISHOPRICK.-Ac 120 His b. let another take' (RV'office' with marg. Gr. overseership.') The Gr. is OKOT, which here and in 1 Ti 3' means the office or work of an érioкOTOS (SEE BISHOP); but primarily and chiefly in NT describes God's visitation, as Lk 19" the time of thy visitation,' 1 P 21 the day of v.' The same office is described in Ac 15 as ministry and apostleship' (diakovia kai αποστολή). J. HASTINGS.

.(רָפֶן עַל לְחַי עַמִּים) 'the jaws of the peoples

2. in metheg; xaλivos (2 K 1928, I'r 26, Is 3729, Ja 35 RV, Rev 14) is a bridle, which includes the bit, as the primitive bridle was simply a loop on the halter-cord passed round the lower jaw of the horse. Hence in Ps 329 RV, 'whose trappings must be bit and bridle,' the meaning is rather bridle and halter, as the two means of holding them in. The Psalmist had been speaking of willing service that only needed a directing eye, and the contrast is to the disinclination of the horse and mule that needed bridle and halter to bring them near.

3. cions maksom, is a muzzle. Hence, I will keep my mouth with a bridle' (Ps 39') should

MODERN SYRIAN MUZZLE.

clearly be 'with a muzzle,' as in RVm. To lose the distinction is here to lose the meaning, which is enforced silence. A bridle is not used to keep a horse from biting. The muzzle is the basket of rope network that was not to be put on the oxen of the threshing-floor, but must be put over the mouth of the horse, mule, or donkey that bites its companions, the other baggage-animals, and causes disarrangement of their loads. G. M. MACKIE.

BITHIAH ( daughter,' i.e. worshipper, of J").-The daughter of a Pharaoh, who became the wife of Mered, a descendant of Judah (1 Ch 418). Whether l'haraoh is to be taken here as the Egyp. royal title or as a Heb. proper name, it is difficult to determine. The nanie B. may indicate one who had become a convert to the worship of J", which would favour the first supposition (but LXX B reads l'exd). If the other wife of Mered is distinguished as 'the Jewess,' RV (AV Jehudijah), this would still further strengthen the supposition. But the text of 1 Ch 417. 18 appears to be defective, and does not afford ground for more than conjecture. (See Kittel, ad loc. in Haupt.)

R. M. BOYD. BITHRON (a), 2 S 229, the gorge,' probably not a proper name,-a ravine leading to Mahanaini. C. R. CONDER.

BITHYNIA (Bovvia), a country in the north of Asia Minor, bordering on the Propontis (Sea of

Marmora), the Bosphorus, and the Euxine (Black Sea), was bequeathed to the Romans in B.C. 74 by the last king, Nicomedes III. The coast of Pontus was united with it in a single province by Pompey in B.C. 65, and the joint province was administered according to the principles embodied in a lex Pompeia. But the two parts of the province always retained a certain distinction from one another; the official name was regularly double (Bithynia et Pontus); there were two high priests, the Bithyniarch and the Pontarch (like Asiarch,_Galatarch, Lykiarch, etc.); and hence Pontus and B. are mentioned separately in 1 P 1. Bithynia adjoined Asia, and hence, when Paul and Silas were prevented from preaching in Asia (Ac 16"), they naturally proceeded towards B., but, coming near the frontier, were not permitted to enter it; and they kept on towards the W. through Mysia till they came out at Troas. B. was a senatorial province, governed like Achaia (which see); but Pliny governed it on a special mission from the emperor, 111-3, and wrote the reports to Trajan which give so much information about the province and the Christians in it. B. was a rich, fertile, peaceful, and highly civilised province. Jews in B. are mentioned by Philo. Legatio ad Gaium, § 36 (Mang. ii. 587); but they are not noticed in the list given in Ac 29-11 It is remarkable that Byzantium (Constantinople), along with, doubtless, the peninsula at the end of which it was situated, was included in the province of Bithynia et Pontus, as we learn from Pliny, ad Traj. Ep. 43, 44. Two great roads traversed B., one connecting Nikomedia and Nicea (the two chief cities) with Doryiaion and Phrygia in general, the other connecting them with Ancyra direct-a road which in later times became important as the route of European pilgrims by land to Jerusalem.

LITERATURE.-Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 1. pp. 349-357; Hardy in Pref. to his ed. of Pliny, Epist. ad Trajan; Ainsworth in Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc vol. ix.; Hamilton, Researches in As. Min.; Ritter, Kleinasien (Erdkunde von Asien, vols. xx. xxi.), i. pp. 650-768; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of As. Min. pp. 179-211, 240 ff.; Th. Reinach, Numism. des Rois de Bith. Pliny's report on the Bithynian Christians is treated in all Early Church histories and in the works on the position of the Church in the empire by Neumann, Hardy, etc. W. M. RAMSAY.

BITTER, BITTERNESS.-In the literal sense of b. to the taste, the word occurs in such passages as Pr 277 (of food, opposed to sweet), Ex 15, Ja 311 Rev 811 (of water), and Is 249 (of strong drink). See also article BITTER HERBS. In most of the passages, however, where the words above given are used in Scripture, it is in a figurative or tropical sense. The examples that follow do not claim to be exhaustive.

i. We may note, in the first place, the use of bitter' in an objective sense, of cruei, biting words (cf. TIKрol Abyol), Ps. 643; of the keenness of the misery which results from forsaking God, Jer 219; from a life of sin in general, Jer 4's, and of impurity in particular, Pr 5. It is applied to the misery of servitude, Ex 114; and to the misfortunes due to bereavement, Ru 120, Am 810.

ii. In a more subjective sense, bitter and bitterness describe such emotions as sympathy in bereavement, Ru 113, and misfortune, Ezk 2731; the poignant sorrow of childlessness, 1 S 110, and penitence, Mt 2675; the keenness of disappointment, Gn 2734; and the general feeling of misery and wretchedness, Job 3; emotions often relieved by a corresponding b. cry,' Gn 27, Est 41 etc., and by the shedding of 'bitter tears' (cf. Homer's Tikpòv dáκpuov), Mt 2675 and often.

Under this head inay be classed the cases where 'bitter' in the original refers rather to fierceness of disposition, as in 2S 178 (as a bear robbed of her whelps'), allied with a readiness to take oflence