Azzdr

One of those -wlm sealed the covenant (Neh 10"). 2. Father ol Hananiah the false prophet (Jer 28'). 3. FathiT of Jaazaniah, one of the princes of the people (Ezli 11'). Nos. 2 and 3 are spelt in AV Azur. J. A. Selbix. B B. — This letter is used in critical notes in the OT and NT (except in Kev) to denote the readings of ' the Vatican MS' (Codex Vaticanua 1209).

It ia a quarto volume, consisting at present of 759 leaves of fine vellum, written (except the poetical books of OT) in three columns to a page. It has lost 31 leaves at the beginning (Gn 1-46^), part of a leaf at f. 178 (2 K 2»-' "i^), 10 leaves after f. 348 (Ps 105"-13T'') [Eng. 106. 138]. The NT begins on f. 618, and breaks oft at f. 759 in the middle of He 9". The liooks are arranged in the following order : Gn to2Ch, Eb 1 and 2, Ps, Pr, Ee, Ca, Job,Wi8,Sir, Est, Jth.

To, 12 Proph, Is, Jer, Bar, La, Ep. Jer, Ezk, Dn (Theodotion's version). Gospels, Ac, Cath. Epp., Ro, 1 and 2 Co, Gal, Eph, Ph, Col, 1 and 2 Th, He. The codex never contained the Prayer of Manasses or the Books of the Maccabees. Tlie loss of leaves at the end makes it impossible to speak definitely of the contents of its NT canon. Of the books now recoipised it lacks 1 and 2 Ti, Tit, Pliilem, Kev. The missmg chapters in He and the Rev were added in 15th cent.

, perhaps, asTregelles conjectures, in pre- paration for its presentation to the Library. This part of the MS is (juoted as ' 263 ' (Greg. ' 293') in He, aa ' 91 ' in Rev. The orig. MS was written at some time in 4th cent., and is the work, according to Tischendorf (the Roman editors reserve their judg- ment), of three scribes, one of whom, the scribe who wrote NT, is identified (also by Tischendorf) with the scribe who wrote part of OT and a few leaves of NT in N (which see).

On this identification it seems impossible as yet to pronounce a final verdict. Annitage Robinson, however, has pointed out that there is other evidence to show that the two great Bibles once stood side by side in the same library {Eul/uUiana, p. 37).

This evidence is supplied by the presence in the margin both of X and B (in each, apparently, as the result of an early insertion) of a remarkable system of chapter-numbering in the Acts, derived ultimately from the work of Eu- thalius, and found besicfes in two important MSS of the Latin Vulg. {am and /u). In the Gospels B lacks the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons, and presents a division into sections which appears besides only in E (Codex Zacynthius) an 8th cent. MS of St. Luke.

In Acti, besides the system already referred to, there is an earlier (?) one, making 36 chapters. The Cath. Epp. also show an earlier and a later system of division into chapters. From the earlier system 2 P was ajiparently excluded. The system m the Pauline Lpp. is remarkable.

They are treated as a single book, and the sections numbered continu- ously throughout, the sequence of the numbers showing that in the source from wliich this system of division was derived, Hebrews stood between Galntiant and Ephesians. The birthplace of the MS is still obscnre. Hort suggested Rome ; Amiitage Robinson's work on Kutlialius gives some plausibility to Rendel Harris' suggestion of Cirsarea.

The Text of the MS was revised soon after it had been written, with the helii of a fresh MS, by a corrector who is quoted as B» in the NT and B' by Swele in the OT. Six centuries later another scribe (B'' = B') retraced the faded original writing throughout. In consequence, the work of the original scribe is almost entirely hidden from siglit except in the case of isolated woias or letters which the restorer, for one reason or another, omitted to retrace.

The text of the OT section of this MS has been generally accessible since it was taken as the basis VOL. I. — 14 of the Roman edition of the LXX in 1587. Its NT text, on the other hand, during the first half of the present century, was to be ascertained only by a comparison of three more or less imperfect collations, — one made by Bartolocci in 1669, pre- served in Paris ; one made for Bentley by Mico about 1720 (supplemented by Rulotta 1730), preserved in Trin. Coll.

, Cambridge ; and one by Birch, pub- lished in 1788, 1798, and 1801. The MS was taken to Paris by Napoleon, and there carefully exam- ined, though not collated, by Hug in 1809. After its restoration to the Vatican it was inspected at various times by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, but under conditions that precluded thorough collation. Since 1850 three editions, purporting to give the text of the MS, l;?ive been published at Rome.

The first, under the names of Alai and Vercellone, in 1857 ; the second, under the same names, in 1859 ; the third, under the names of Vercellone and Cozza, at various dates between 1868 and 1881. These editions are now superseded by a magnificent reproduction in photo- graphic facsimile of the entire MS. Its readings in the or are most readily accessible in Swete's Camb. edition, 1887-1889. They are recorded in the NT in the critical editions of Tregelles and Tischendorf. Note.

— The same Bymbol, In critical notes on Rev, denotes an 8th cent. MS of Rev, also preserved in the Vatican. It is to be carefully dit^tin^ished from the MS described above, and it would preveut coufujsioD ii this latter MS were referred to as B,. J. O. F. Murray. B. — A symbol used in criticism of Hex. by DUlmann to signify the work of the Elohist (E) ; by Sehultz for that of the JahwLst (J). See Hexateuch. F. H. Woods. BAAL Cji'S, BdaX or BodX).

— The word means omier or lord, and is used both of men and gods. When used of men it implies possession, so owner of house, land, cattle, etc. ; then it comes to mean husband. When applied to gods it also means owner, not sovereign, possessor of the land rather than ruler of men. Thus we have the B. of Tyre, the B. of Peor, etc., and, by an extension, B. of other objects, e.g. B.-berith ; sometimes B. is prefixed to the name of a god, so possibly in the case of Baal- gad.

The name was so obnoxious to the Jews in later times that nya (bCsketh, shame) was freq. sul)8tituted for it (see I.SHliOSHETH). Thus we get Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth for Ishbaal, Meribbaal ; and Dillmann has shown that this is the origin of the fem. ^ lidaX (^ afcrxi'i") being the kcrr) that we find in the prophetic books (LXX) and Ro 11*. The origmal conception is a problem of great dilficulty and obscurity, the more so on account of the misconceptions that have gathered about it.

It is commonly held that there was a supreme deity known as Baal, who is frequently identified with the sun. It will be convenient to examine first the alleged solar character of Baal. The evidence may be thus summarised. We find on inscriptions fjaal llammon, and on a Carthagnninn monument Baal Hammon ia represented with a crown of rays. The Hammnnim are sun-pillars, and used in idolatrous worship. The root means 'to be hot.' P'urther, Baalbek was called by the Greeks Heliopolis (sun-city).

At Beth-shemesh (house of the sun) tliere was a temple to B. But this evidence is far from cogent, and much too slender to bear the identification of B. with the sun ; at the most it will show only that the sun was sometimes regarded as a B. This is all that can be inforred from the temple of B. at Beth-shemesh ; and the (Jr. name of Baalbek is even loss weighty, since evidence of that kind is necessarily somewhat late. And, on the other hand, B. and the sun are distinguished, 2 K 23°.

It was perfectly natural for suu-worshippers to speak of the sun as a B., but it does not follow tliat the converse is true, and that B.-worshippers identified the object of their worship with the sun. It is not probable that B. was even a sky-god. It is true that the Baalim were regarded as the producers of fertility, and to thera were ascribed the corn and wine and oil (Hos 2'"*). We think of the sun and rain as givers of fertility. But much of the district where li.

worship prevailed was not fertilised by rain, but by natural and artificial irrigation. The land that was thus naturally watered and made fruitful was said in Arabia to be ' watered by the Ba'l' ; and in the plirase ' what the sky waters and what the Ba'l waters,' the latter is expressly distinguished from the former. So the Mishna and Talmud draw a distinction between land artificially irrigated and land naturally moist, calling the latter the ' house of B.

' or ' field of the house of B ' ( W. R. Smith, ES' 97). It is true that in Pal. the cultiva- tion of com depended on rain, and com was cer- tainly regarded as a gift of the Baalim. But analogy would make the transition possible from the idea of the BaalLm as givers of fertility through the springs of the oa.sis to the idea that they gave it through the rains of heaven.

It is true that analogy may have worked the other way, and that they may first have been conceived as givers of rain, and then as givers of the fertilisino^ streams and underground waters. If, as Niildeke and Wellhausen think, B. -worship originated in Arabia, the former view would be more probable. W. R. Smith, however, arjjues that ' cults of the B. type and the name of B. itself were borrowed alon^ with agriculture from the Northern Semites, and entered Arabia with the date-palm.

At the same time, he argues forcibly that B.'s land is not origin- ally land watered by the sky, but by ' springs, streams, and underground flow,' although later the Baalim were regarded as fertilising the land watered by rain. We may now pass to the miestion whether the common view is correct, that 15. was the name for the supreme deity of the Canaanites. It is a serious objection to this view, that, except in names, neither on the monuments nor in the OT can we find B.

as a proper name standing by itself. We frequently have B. with the article, the B., or B. followed by the name of a place, quality, etc. In the former case the use of the article precludes us from treating B. as a proper name : it means the divine owner or landlord of the district in question. Similarly in the latter case the particular B. in- tended IS distinguished from other Baals by the addition of the qu.alifying words. It is said by some that B.

was originally one and the same deity, but for the consciousness of the people, the B. of one place was a difTerent god from the B. of another (cf. Baethgen, Beitrage, p. 19). But if that had been so, we should have expected to find traces of this original deity, whereas all we find is the Baals into which he has been differentiated. Nor is it easy on this view to account for the use of the plural 'the Baalim.' This has been inter- preted as an emphatic plural 'great B.,' or as images of B.

, or li. under his various manifesta- tions. But, taken with the facts already men- tioned, by far the most natural explanation is that the word is a collective plural, and means the local Baals. And if this he so, it follows that B. can hardly be the sun for it is the same everywhere, while the Baalim were distinct from each other. and thus our previous conclusion is confirmed by an independent line of argument. The evidence seems to warrant the following statement.

There was originally no supreme deity called B., nor is B. to be identified with the sun. There was only the Baal (or Bajils) of particular places distinct from each other. The worship probably arose in connexion with ap-iculture. The local Baals fertilised each his own district by his streams and springs, and hence they were the owners of these naturally fertile spots.

Tribute was therefore due to them, whether for the crops raised on the fertile ground, or for the water used in making land fertile by irrigation. By a natural extension the fertility of land watered by rain was also ascribed to the Baals. But by a process, to which we have abundant parallels in the cults of the powers of fertility, the giving of animal fruitfulness was attributed to them, and their worship was thus debased by repulsive immorality.

These Baalim seem from Hos 2" to have had their individual names. It is admitted by W. R. Smith that ' in later times B. or Bel became a proper name, esp. in con- nexion with the cult of the Bab. Bel ' (iJS^ 95). When Israel entered Canaan the worship of the Baalim was everywhere present. As it was esp.

associated with agriculture, which the Israelites learnt from the Canaanites, there was danger lest they should take over also the religious festivals connected with the various agricultural seasons, and thus succumb to the deadly fascination of the sensual nature-worship of the older inhabitants. That this actually happened we learn from the history. Matters were made worse by the custom, which we find among the Israelites, of speaking of J" as Baal. Since B.

was not a proper name, but only an appellative, this custom was perfectly innocent, and all that was meant was that J" was the divine owner of His people, or the husband of Israel. But this double use of the term Baal for the local deity and for J" tended to produce confusion between them, and by this syncretism the conception of J" was debased by elements borrowed from nature-worship, and the lapse into idolatry was made much easier.

The fact referred to, that the Israelites spoke of J" as Baal, has been disputed, but rests on very strong evidence. We have names such as Ishbaal and Meribbaal, and even such a name as Bealiah (1 Ch 12°), 'J" is Baal.' Further, we learn from Hosea that the Israelites called J" Baali, i.e. my Baal (Hos 2"^ ; see Driver, Sam. 186, 195 f., 279 ; Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, Ulif.) With Ahab a new phase emerges. The B. whose worship he established was Melkart, the B. of Tyre, his wife's home(l K 16'-).

We have here an instance of a local B. worshipped in a foreign country. The worship of Melkart was not in- tended to supersede the worship of J", but to exist side by side with it. Elijah forced on the popular mind the conviction that J" and Melkart were mutually exclusive. The worship was discontinued by Jehoram, the son of Ahab (2 K 3-), but stamped out by .Jehu's treacherous slaughter of its adherents (2 K lO"'-'').

In Judali it seems to have been estab- lished by Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, and continued by Ahaziah (2 K 8'"- '■"). We find it in the reign of Athaliah, and it was suppressed at her death (2 K 11'*). The later B.-worship, to which we find several references in the prophets ( Hosea, Jeremiah, Zejihaniah), seems to have been the worship of the local Baalim rather than of Melkart. The Baalim were chiefly worshipped at the high-places, but also on housetops.

Obelisks stood beside their altars, and sometimes an Asherah or sacred pole. Children were olTered as bumt- oll'erings in the valley of Hinnom (Jer 19'; Init cf ."jiS' 372 n. ). We often read of incense being BAAL BAAL-ZEPHON 2H oflered to them. Mellfart was worsliipped with aiiiiua) sacrilites, and liomage was done lo him by bowing the knee and kissing his image, lie had not only priests, but prophets.

These are numbered at 4oU in the time of Ahab, and a very graphic picture of their frenzied prayers and cutting of thenuelves to gain the attention of their god is given in 1 K 18-*. LiTBRATi'RB. — Bv far the most important discussion is that of W. K. Smith, Reiijioii of the SrmiUe,' pp. 93113. Tllf follow- ing may also be consulted ; — Oorl, Thf H'orxfiip of Bun/itn in Itr. ; Baudissin, Jahre W Molocti, and in Ilerzog, HK g.v. ; Nowack. IJt-b. Archaot. ii.

301 30;'i ; Baetlif,'un, Beitriujfi zur S'fn. Hiti'jwHJigfiich. ■^ Konij;, DU- llauptprutdenw, pp. 35-33 ; Diltmann, ilonaUt/*nchU der Akad. <Ur Wi»Kenisch. lu Berlin^ 1881, p. BOX fl. A. S. Peake.