and the English Monasteries (ch. iii. 1899 ed.); T. E. Bridgett, Life of Blessed John Fisher (1888); vols. vi. and vii. of Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.; James Gairdner, The English Church in the 16th Century (1899); Strype, Memorials, I. i. 271, and Cranmer; a detailed account of the case is contained in the published Act of Attainder 25 Henry VIII. c. 12.
BARTON BEDS, in geology, the name given to a series of softish grey and brown clays, with layers of sand, of Upper Eocene age, which are found in the Hampshire Tertiary basin, where they are particularly well exposed in the cliffs of Barton, Hordwell, and in the Isle of Wight. Above the highly fossiliferous Barton Clay there is a sandy series with few fossils; these are the Headon Hill or Barton Sands. Either of these names is preferable to the term “Upper Bagshot Beds,” which has been applied to these sands. The Barton Beds are absent from the London basin, and the Upper Bagshot Sands of that area are probably at a lower horizon than the Barton Sands. The term “Bartonien” was introduced by Mayer-Eymar in 1857 for the continental equivalents of the series.
| Hampshire basin and Isle of Wight. |
Paris Basin. | ||||
| Barton Sands Barton Clay |
140–200 ft. 162–255 ft. |
Bartonien | Limestone of St. Ouen. Sands of Beauchamp (sables moyen). | ||
Fusus longaevus, Volutilithes luctatrix, Ostrea gigantea, Pectunculus (Glycimeris) deleta are characteristic fossils; fishes (Lamna, Arius, &c.) and a crocodile (Diplocynodon) are also found in the Barton Clay. The sands are very pure and are used in glass making.
See “Geology of the Isle of Wight,” Mem. Geol. Survey (2nd ed., 1889); “The Geology of the Country around Southampton,” Mem. Geol. Survey (1902). (J. A. H.)
BARTON-UPON-HUMBER, a market town in the N. Lindsey or Brigg parliamentary division of Lincolnshire, England, the terminus of a branch of the Great Central railway, 44 m. N. by E. of Lincoln. Pop. of urban district (1901) 5671. It lies beneath low hills, on flat ground bordering the Humber, but the centre of the town is a mile from the river. The church of St Peter has a remarkable west tower of pre-Conquest workmanship, excepting the early Norman top storey. Against the western face is a low building of the date of the lower tower-storeys, measuring 15 ft. by 12, with rude, deeply-splayed windows. The tower itself is arcaded in the two lower storeys, having round arches in the lower and triangular in the upper, and there is a round-headed S. doorway and a triangular-headed N. doorway. The rest of the church is Decorated and Perpendicular. The church of St Mary is fine Early English with Perpendicular clerestory. Industries include brick-making, malting, and rope-making. Barton appears in Domesday, when the ferry over the Humber existed. As a port, moreover, it subsequently rose into some importance, for it was able to supply eight ships and men to the expedition of Edward III. to Brittany.
BARUCH, the name (meaning “Blessed” in Hebrew) of a character in the Old Testament (Jer. xxxvi., xxxvii., xliii.), associated with the prophet Jeremiah, and described as his secretary and spokesman.
Book of Baruch. This deutero-canonical book of the Old Testament is placed by the LXX. between Jeremiah and Lamentations, and in the Vulgate after Lamentations. It consists of several parts, which cohere so badly that we are obliged to assume plurality of authorship.
Contents.—The book consists of the following parts:—
i. 1-14. The historical preface with a description of the origin and purpose of the book.
i. 15–ii. 5. A confession of sin used by the Palestinian Remnant. This confession was according to i. 14 sent from Babylon (i. 4, 7) to Jerusalem to be read “on the day of the feast and on the days of the solemn assembly.” The confession is restricted to the use of the remnant at home (see next paragraph). In this confession there is a national acknowledgment of sin and a recognition of the Exile as a righteous judgment.
ii. 6–iii. 8. A confession of the captives in Babylon and a prayer for restoration. This confession opens as the former (in i. 15) with the words found also in Daniel ix. 7, “To the Lord our God belongeth righteousness, &c.” The confession is of the Exiles and not of the remnant in Palestine, as Marshall has pointed out. Thus it is the Exiles clearly who are speaking in ii. 13, “We are but a few left among the heathen where thou hast scattered us”; ii. 14, “Give us favour in the sight of them which have led us away captive”; iii. 7, “We will praise thee in our captivity”; iii. 8, “We are yet this day in our captivity where thou hast scattered us.” On the other hand the speakers in the confession in i. 15–ii. 5 are clearly the remnant in Jerusalem. i. 15, “To the Lord our God belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of face . . . to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The Exiles are mentioned by way of contrast to the speakers; ii. 4, 5, “He hath given them to be in subjection to all the kingdoms that are round about us to be a reproach among all the people round about where the Lord hath scattered them. Thus were they cast down . . . because we sinned against the Lord our God.”[1]
iii. 9–iv. 4. The glorification of wisdom, that is, of the Law. Israel is bidden to walk in the light of it; it is the glory of Israel and is not to be given to another.
iv. 5–v. 9. Consolation of Israel with the promise of deliverance and lasting happiness and blessing to Jerusalem.
Integrity.—From the foregoing description it seems clear that the book is derived from a plurality of authors. Most scholars, such as Fritzsche, Hitzig, Kneucker, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, agree in assuming that i.–iii. 8 and iii. 9–v. 9 are from distinct writers. But some critics have gone farther. Thus Rothstein (Kautzsch, Apok. und Pseud. i. 213-215) holds that there is no unity in iii. 9–v. 9, but that it is composed of two independent writings—iii. 9–iv. 4 and iv. 5–v. 9. Marshall (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 251-254) gives a still more complex analysis. He finds in it the work of four distinct writers: i. 1-14, i. 15–iii. 8, iii. 9–iv. 4, iv. 5–v. 9. The evidence for a fourfold authorship is strong though not convincing. In any case i.–iii. 8 and iii. 9–v. 9 must be ascribed to different authors.
Original Language.—(1) Some scholars, as Ewald, Kneucker, Davidson, Rothstein and König, believe that the whole book was originally written in Hebrew; (2) Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Gifford, Schürer, and Toy advocate a Hebrew original of i.–iii. 8 and a Greek original of the rest; (3) Marshall argues that i.–iii. 8 is translated from a Hebrew original, iii. 9–iv. 4 from an Aramaic, and the rest from the Greek; (4) and lastly, Bertholdt, Havernick and Nöldeke regard the Greek as the primitive text. The last view must be put aside as unworkable. For the third no convincing evidence has been adduced, nor does it seem likely that any can be. We have therefore to decide between the two remaining theories. In any case we can hardly err in admitting a Hebrew original of i.–iii. 8. For (1) we have such Hebraisms as οὗ . . . ἐπ’ αὐτῷ＝עליו . . . אשר (ii. 26); οὗ . . . ἐκεῖ＝אשר . . . שׁם (ii. 4, 13, 29; iii. 8); ὧν . . . τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν＝אשר . . . רוחם (ii. 7). (2) We have meaningless expressions which are really mistranslations of the Hebrew. It is noteworthy that these mistranslations are for the most part found in Jeremiah—a fact which has rightly drawn scholars to the conclusion that we owe the LXX of Baruch i.–iii. 8, and of Jeremiah to the same translator. Thus in i. 9 we have δεσμώτης, “prisoner,” where the text had מַסְגֵר and the Greek should have been rendered “locksmith.” The same mistranslation is found in Jer. xxiv. 1, xxxvi. (xxix.) 2. Next in ii. 4 we have ἄβατον, “wilderness,” where the text had שׁמה and the translation should have ἔκστασιν. The same misrendering is found several times in Jeremiah. Again ἐργάζεσθαι is used in i. 22, ii. 21, 22, 24 as a translation of עבד in the sense of “serving,” where δουλεύειν ought to have been the rendering. So also in Jer. xxxiv. (xxvii.) 11, xxxvii. (xxx.) 8, &c. Again in πόλεων Ἰούδα καὶ ἔξωθεν Ἰερουσαλήμ the ἔξωθεν is a misrendering of בחוצות as in Jer. xi. 6, xl.
- ↑ Toy (Jewish Enc. ii. 556) thinks that the “them” in ii. 4, 5 may be a scribal slip and that we have here not the confession of the Palestinian remnant and that of the Exiles, but simply a juxtaposition of two forms of confession.
