C\J
<
CT)
00
s
CD
ID
fi
fE^ CO
S*^ttt*i^ii:
7 7
'''//^"' ' '^'
FROMTHELIBRARYOF
TRINITYCOLLEGE TORONTO
FROM
1
THE WILLIAM
CLARK
MEMORIAL LIBRARY |
DONATED 19
2 6 A. D. 1
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
VOLUME I
J^)^ '
ENCYCLOPEDIA
BIBLICA
A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHAEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
OF THE BIBLE
EDITED BY
The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTL:RE AT OXFORD
AND FORMKKI.Y FELLOW OF BALI.IOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.
FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE ' ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA '
VOLUME I
A to D
TORONTO
GEORGE N. MORANG & COMPANY, Limited
1899
(3S
Copyright, 1899,
By the macmillan company.
NortDooU iPtfSB
J. 8. CuBhing fc Co. - Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mai. U.S.A.
TO THE
MEMORY
WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH
PREFACE
The idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bible on critical lines for the
benefit of all serious studencs, both professional and lay, was prominent in the
, , mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the
Genesis of the ^ , -u j t^ ^u >. i
p , ,. present volume is inscribed. It is more than twelve years since
Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this
idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the
importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopaedia, and his own earliest
contributions to the subject in the EncyclopcBdia Britannica carry us as far back
as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested
his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom
perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in
the series of biblical articles signed ' W. R. S.' which appeared in the E^icyclopcedia
Britaiinica between 1875 and 1888. The reader who is interested in Bible
study should not fail to examine the Hst, which includes among the longer articles
Bible, Canticles, Chronicles, David, Hebrew Language, Rosea, Jeru-
salem, Joel, Judges, Kings, Levites, Malachi, Messiah, Micah, Philis-
tines, Priest, Prophet, Psalms, Sacrifice, Temple, Tithes, Zephaniah :
and among the shorter. Angel, Ark, Baal, Decalogue, Eli, Eve, Haggai,
Lamentations, Melchizedek, Moloch, Nabat^ans, Nahum, Nazarite, Nine-
veh, Obadiah, Paradise, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees, Samuel, Tabernacle,
Vow.
Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far-
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English con-
tributors. That names Hke those of Noldeke, Tiele, Welhausen, Harnack, Schiirer,
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured
British scholars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopcedia was a guarantee of
freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough-
ness and accuracy of investigation.
Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the EncyclopcB-
dia Britannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Encyclopedia Biblica.
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the
guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the
lacunae being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wish for this ; but
there were three main opposing considerations. In the first place, there were
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of
viii PREFACE
the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less
and less disposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. And lastly, such con-
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical
results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and
recast, should have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world.
The waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by
pioneering researches in biblical archaeology, some of the results of which are
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled The Religion of the Semites
(1889). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars,
saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a
certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details. First of all, archaeological
details had their share and it was bound to be a large share of this scholar's
attention. Then came biblical geography a subject which had been brought
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the
collaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be
carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g.
Aphek, below, col. 191/.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre-
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend's persistent refusal
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article
Bible in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, to which we shall return later. The reader
will still better understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition
of The Old Testament in the Jeiuish Chnrch{iS^o), in the Encyclopcsdia Britatmica,
article Psalms (1885), and in the second edition of The Old Testament in the
Jeiuish Chnrch (1892).
It is only just, however, to the true 'begetter' of this work to emphasise the
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off,
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details a
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr.
J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were
drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to the various difficult practi-
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work.
In September, 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very dis-
tant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of
a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors,
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith's plan, communicated to this friend
of many years' standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be,
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof.
Smith was still intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas,
and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost,
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned.
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the
editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command.
PREFACE ix
Such is the history of the genesis of the Eiicyc lopes dia Biblica, which is the
result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans a fusion desired by
^ . . , , , Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of
p, ^, ,. realising adequately his own fundamental ideas. With regard to
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical
strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncom-
promisingly progressive spirit. The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible,
as illuminated by criticism a criticism which identifies the cause of religion
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo-
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions,
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities,
under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most
adverse. The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com-
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures
that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so
well already. 'There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.' Let us
assume, then, that the readers of this EncyclopcBdia, whatever be their grade of
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely
extended land in possession.
Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an
alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment
of points in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references,
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles
(such as, in Part I, Apocalyptic Literature, Cainites, Dragon), it has
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical
study. Often the received view of the subject of a ' minor article ' proved to be
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more com-
prehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles.
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both
classes of articles.
It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the
editors are, upon the whc^le, with what is commonly known as 'advanced ' criticism,
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a
circumspect and experienced scholar, takes account of facts and phenomena which
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They
have no desire, however, to ' boycott ' moderate criticism, when applied by a critic
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original
a2
X PREFACE
to say. An * advanced ' critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his
more ' moderate ' colleague, for probably he himself held, not very long ago, views
resembling those which the ' moderate ' critic holds now, and the latter may find
his precautionary investigations end in his supporting, with greater fulness and
more complete arguments, as sound the views that now seem to him rash. Prof.
Robertson Smith's views of ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear
to be ' moderate ' criticism ; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard
of critics, and there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much
of his time to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence
passed to others.
There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have
been represented in the present work ; and that, it may be remarked, suggests
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith's early EncyclopcBdia Britajinica
article, Bible, could not have been republished, even by himself. When he wrote
it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly
Code). He was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. The funda-
mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production
of his pen. See, for example. The Old Testament in the JewisJi ChurcJi^-\ pp. i6
ff. (cp 1st ed. pp. 24. ff.), and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 :
* Ancient books coming doivn to us from a period many centuries before the invention of
printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in
imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by
editors, 7vho mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book
fell altogether out of sight for a long time, and when it came to light again all knowledge of its
origin was gone ; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. And, when
such a nafneless roll was again brought into notice, some half-informed trader or transcriber
7vas not unlikely to give it a new title of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter
as if it had been original. Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became
obscure in the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has
handed down to us many writings 7vhich are sheer forgeries, like some of the Apocryphal books,
or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of
Bentlefs great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy the received
view, in order to establish the truth. He must review doubtful titles, purge out interpolations,
expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains of
antiquity in their real character. A book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to
fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its worth in a clearer light, and establish its
authority on a surer basis.''
The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Ejicyclopcedia
Britaniiica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a
large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously ;
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical
articles for the former Encyclopaedia. The procedure of those who have revised
our friend's articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per-
PREFACE xi
manencc, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date.
Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas
now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, liible
students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching.
There is also a certain amount of a new material from Prof. Smith's pen (in two or
three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected.
Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in
two directions viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that
of biblical archaeology. The object of the editors has been, with the assistance
of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the best
published writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond
the point hitherto reached in print. Without the constant necessity of investi-
gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one
to realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical archae-
ology, geography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points
in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed
been applied ; but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with
somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archaeology, such a
claim can be advanced only to a slight extent. More progress perhaps has been
made of late years in the field of critical archaeology than in that of texual criti-
cism. All, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort
to keep abreast of recent archaeological research both in Old Testament and in
New Testament study.
The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given
may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and
they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a
more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served
at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. It
may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here,
again, experience has directed the course to be pursued. In the present transi-
tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with
simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or have
already appeared.
With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they
have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important
subject which is rapidly becoming the hi.story of the movement of religious life and
thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate,
but it is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology
have had their day ; it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded
as a storehouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor-
tunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. It may not be long before a real
history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period will
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer, if
we may infer anything from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing
handbook of New Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz-
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at
xii PREFACE
present called ' Biblical Theology ' ; but, instead of attempting what is at present
impossible, they have thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future
editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, con-
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the
Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently com-
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find
cause to agree with them ! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira-
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopcsdia.
To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith, it may seem almost
superfluous to render thanks for the indispensable help they have so
^" courteously and generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond
between scholars of different countries and several religious com-
munities which the editors can never forget. But the special services of the
various members of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the
editors have much pleasure in making. Mr. Hope W. Hogg became a contributor
to the Eiicyclopcedia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the
editorial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly
indebted in every direction. In particular, Mr. Hogg has had the entire responsi-
bility for the proofs as they passed in their various stages through the hands of the
printer, and it is he who has seen to the due carrying out of the arrangements
many of them of his own devising for saving space and facilitating reference
that have been specified in the subjoined ' Practical Hints to the Reader.' Mr.
Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only has contributed various
signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise of fine work in the
future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are of composite
authorship and unsigned. Finally, Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff in
1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful in
every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Further, the editors desire to
acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A.,
editor of the Concordance to the Septnagint, who placed his unrivalled experience
at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special
reference to the LXX readings. He also verified the biblical references.
T. K. Cheyne.
J. Sutherland Black.
20th September 1899.
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
Further Explanations. The labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the
preparation of this Eucvciflpccdia has seemed to be warranted by the hope that it may be
found useful as a students' handbook. Its value from this point of view will be facilitated by
attention to the following points :
1. Classes of Articles. The following notes will give a general idea of what the reader may
expect to find and where to look for it :
i. Proper A'U/ncs. Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as
found in the AV text. Aiioraim, on the .same line as Adora (col. 71). and Adidlamite, three
lines below Adullam (col. 73), are examples of space-.saving contrivances.
ii. Books. Every book in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed
in a special article e.i^. Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. The 'Song of Solomon' is dealt with
under the title Canticles, and the last book in the NT under Apocalvpse.
iii. General Articles. With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest pos-
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt
with concisely with the help of cross-references. Such general articles are : Abi and Ahi,
names in Agriculture, Apocalyptic Literature, Apocrypha, Army, Bakemeats, Bread,
Canon. Cattle, Chronology, Clean and Unclean, Colours, Conduits, Cuttings of the
Flesh, Dispersion, Divination, Dress.
iv. Other Subjects. The following are examples of important headings: Ada.m and Eve,
Angels, Antichrist, Blessings and Cursings, Christian, Na.me of. Circumcision, Com-
munity OF Goods, Council of Jerusalem. Creation, Deluge, De.mons, Dragon.
V. Things. The Encyclopcedia Biblica is professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and
a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight it
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The
only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about {e.g.') Chain is to distinguish the
various things that are called, or should have been called, chain ' in the English Version, and
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with.
vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i. ; and below, 2).
2. Method of Cross-Ref erences. A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the
cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately
dealt with within the limits of one volume. They have made possible a conciseness that is not
attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different headings
being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in alphabetical
order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, and have been worked up together con-
stantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross-references
have not been inserted at random ; they have always been verified. If any be found to be
unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after the
reference was made, to remove something from the article referred to to another article. The
removed matter will no doubt be repre.sented by a cross-reference (cp, <f.^., ).
The method of reference employed is as follows :
i. Identification of Article. {a) Long Names. To save space long headings have been
curtailed in citations ^.^., Apocalyptic Literature is cited as Apocalyptic.
{b) Synonymous Articles. Persons of the same name or places of the same name are
ranged as i. 2, 3, etc., under a common heading and cited accordingly. In other cases (and
even in the former case when, as in Adnah in col. 67, one English spelling represents different
xiv PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
Hebrew spellings (the articles usually have separate headings, in which case they are cited as
i., ii., iii., etc, although they are not so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio-
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus Samuel i., 2 is the second person called Samuel;
Sa.mukl ii. is the article Samuel, B00K.S of. If a wrong number should be found the reason
is not that it was not verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in
which the original order of the articles had to be changed and the cross-reference was not
detected. Thus in the article Alusii the reference to Beked ii., i, ought to be to Bered i., i.
ii. Indication of Place in Article Cited. Articles of any length are divided into numbered
sections ({; i, 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con-
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. Logical subordination of sections,
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometimes indicated in the text by
I., 11., etc, and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers (, b, c, a. /?, y, i., ii., iii.).
References like (Be.N'JAMIN, 9, ii. (3) are freely used. Most of the large articles have prefi.xed
to them a table of contents.
iii. A/anner 0/ Citation. The commonest method is (see David, 11, (c) ii.). Ezra (g.T.,
ii. 9) means the article Ezra-Nehemiah, Book of, 9. Sometimes, however, the capitals or
the g.v. may be dispensed with. Chain printed in small capitals in the middle of an article
would mean that there is an article on that term, but that it hardly merits g.v. from the present
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references g'.v. is generally
omitted ; so, e.g., in Abadias in col. 3.
3. Typographical Devices, i. Size of Type. {a) Letters Two sizes of type are used,
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually
the general meaning of an article can be caught by reading simply the large-type parts. The
small-type passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni-
cal details. In these passages, and in footnotes and parenthesis, abbreviations (see below, 8).
which are avoided as much as possible elsewhere, are purposely used. (J)) Numbers. Two
sizes of Arabic numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from
the next larger (5 and is). In giving references, when only the volume is given, it is usually
cited by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabic numbers except where (as is often the
case) pages of a preface are marked with Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are
required, two sizes of Arabic numbers (.") 5) are used irrespectively of whether the reference be to
book and chapter, volume and page, or section and line. If three ranks are needed, Roman
numbers are prefixed (v. 5 5).
ii. Italics. Italic type is much used in citing foreign words. In geographical articles, as a
rule, the printing of a modern place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies
it with the place under di.scussion. For the significance of the different kinds of type in the map
of Assyria see the explanations at the foot of the map. On the two kinds of Greek type see
below. 4 ii. {b).
iii. Small Capitals. Small Roman capitals are used in two ways: (i) in giving the equiva-
lent in RV for the name in AV. or vice 7>ersa, and (2) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 2 iii.).
On the use of small italic capitals see below, 4 ii. (1^).
iv. Symbols. {a) Index Fii^nres. In 'almost always ^ clear,' '6' indicates footnote 6. In
' Introd.'^',' '(6)' means sixth edition. In ' D2' '2' means a later development of D (see below, ).
{b) Asterisk. B* means the original scribe of codex B. *'"'nho means that the consonants
are known but the vowels are hypothetical, v. 5* means 7/. 5 (partly).
(f) Dagger. A dagger f is used to indicate that all the passages where a word occurs are
cited. The context must decide whether the English word or the original is meant.
{d) Sign of Equality. 'Aalar, i Esd. ') 36 AV = Ezra '2 59 Immer, i..' means that the two
verses quoted are recensions of the same original, and that what is called Aalar in the one is
called Immer in the other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled Immer.
{e) Sign of Parallelism. || is the adjective corresponding to the verb =. Thus 'Aalar of
I Esd. o 36 AV appears as Immer in |1 Ezra 2 59.'
(/) Other devices. '99 means 1899. i Ch. 681 [6^] means that verse 81 in the English
version is the translation of that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. V is used to indicate the 'root'
of a word.
v. Punctuation. No commas are used between citations, thus: 2 K. 6121 25 Is. 'Jl 7.
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whenever ambiguity seems thus to be
avoided <?.;f., the father Achbor [i] is called 'Father of Baal-hanan [i] king of Edom,' and the
son Baal-hanan [1] is called 'ben Achbor [i] ; one of the kings of Edom.'
4. Text-Critical Apparatus. As all sound investigation must be based, not on the ancient
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER xv
texts as they lie before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make
to their original reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed before
it is used in the Encyclopadia Bihlica.
i. Traditional Original Text. In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer
and of Ginsburg have been relied on as a rule ; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort (see below, ).
ii. Evidence of Versions. The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorff) and the Peshitta (ed. Lee
and London Polyglott) and the minor Greek versions (Field, Hexapla : Hatch-Redpath, Con-
cordance) have been quoted quite freely ; the testimony of the Septuagint has been attended to on
every point.
In exceptional cases 'Holmes and Parsons' has been consulted; ordinarily Swete's manual
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde's Tars Trior have been considered sufficient. In
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im-
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym-
bols indicating the documents cited (thus vtot [BAL]). This does not necessarily imply that in
some other MS or MSS a ditTerent reading is found; it is simply a guarantee that Lagarde and
Swete's digest of readings have both been consulted. The formula [BAL] standing alone means
that the editors found no variant in Lagarde or Swete to report. In the parts, therefore, where
Swete cites K or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them unless the context indicates other-
wise ; BAL might even be used where B was lacking. When BAL stands alone the meaning is
everywhere the same; it is a summary report of agreement in Lagarde and Swete.
Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment ; the aim has been to give under
each name the readings of Lagarde and all the variants of BxA as cited in Swete. The com-
monest, or a common form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are. Where all the passages con-
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at,
has not been found possible.
The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed ; but
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns)
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc-
ceeding name, the intniding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very
obvious cases tliey may have been ignored.
When MSS differ only in some giving i and others ci that is indicated concisely thus: *a/?ia
[B], a^ a [AL],' becomes 'tty3[e]ta [BAL].' Similarly, -t., -tt. becomes -\t'\t.
A great deal of pains has been bestowed on the readings, and every effort has been made to
secure the highest attainable accuracy. In this connection the editors desire to acknowledge their
very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A., editor of the Concordance to the
Septuagint, who has placed his unrivalled experience in this department at their disposal by con-
trolling the proofs from the beginning with special reference to the LXX readings. He has also
verified the biblical references.
Unfortunately, misprints and other inaccuracies inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the
first time after the last proof reading cannot be avoided. Corrections of errors, however minute,
addressed to the publishers, will always be gratefully received.
Some typographical details require to be explained :
(a) In giving proper names initial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with ; they
were unknown in the oldest MSS (see Swete, i p. xiii 2).
(J)) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, and the Vulgate read-
ings in small italic capitals ; elsewhere ordinary type is used.
(c) The first Greek reading is given in full; all others are abbreviated as much as possible.
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a
period. In every case the abbreviated form is to be completed by reference to the Greek form
immediately preceding, whether that is given in full or not. Thus, e.g., ' afitXaaTreifx, (3. . . rri/i,
-TTctv, /SeAo-a.'^ means ^ af^cXcraTTei/x, ^(.XaaTTLfx, jSeXaaTTCiv, (itXcramLv .'' That is to say, the
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two exceptions
are sometimes made. The dash sometimes represents the whole of the preceding form e.g., in
cases like afiui, -s, and one letter has sometimes been simply substituted for another : e.g., v for
Ii. in ei/i, -V. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity.
{d) The following are the symbols most commonly quoted from Swete's digest with their
meaning :
1 This is a misprint in the art. ABEL-SHiniM. * /3eX(7a." should be ' ^e\<Ta \ without the period.
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
= original scribe.
1 = his own corrections.
, b, c = other correctors.
b = first corrector confirmed by second.
a? b? = a or b.
? b = b, perhaps also a.
(vid)= prob. a.
vid = a, if it be a bona fide correction at all.
D = testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of D before
U was partly destroyed (see Swete, i p. xxiv).
Z?" = readings inferred from the collation (D)e silentio.
K= = a corrector of K belonging to the 7th cent (Sw.,
2 p. viii ; cp 1, p. xxi).
Bedit = e.g., on Sirach 461, p. 471.
j<c.b. = see Sw., 2 p. viii.
K<^'- = e.g., Sir. 107, p. 663.
{e) The following are the MSS most commonly cited
K Sinaiticus (see Swete, i p. xx).
A Aiexandrinus (Swete, p. xxii).
B Vaticanus (Swete, i p. xvii).
C Cod. Eplirttmi (Swete, 2 p. xiii).
D Cod. Cottonianus Gcneseos (Swete, i p. xxiii).
E Cod. Bodleianus Geneseos (Swete, i p. xxvi).
F Cod. Ambrosianus (Swete, i p. xxvi).
87 Cod. Chisianus (Swete, 3 xii).
Syr. Cod. Syro. Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (3 xiii).
V Cod. Venetus (= 23, Parsons ; Swete, 3 p. xiv).
Q. Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, 3 p. vii).
r Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferratensis (Swete, 3 p. ix /).
5. Proper Name Articles. Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed
by a parenthesis giving (i) the original; (2) where necessary, the number of the section in the
general article Names where the name in question is discussed or cited; (3) a note on the ety-
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of similar names; (4) the readings of
the versions (see above, 4 ii.)-
6. Geographical Articles, The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article
Names. The maps that are issued with Part I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of
Babylon, and 'Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia' (between cols. and ). The last-mentioned
is mainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Part I. which happen to
fall within its bounds.
In all maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question
regards the identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the
article).
The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated :
Der, deir, ' monastery.'
Haj(j), ' pilgrimage to Mecca.
yede/ (}.), ' mountain."
A'e/r, kafr, ' village.'
Khan, ' caravanserai.'
Khirbet-(Kh?), 'ruins of .'
Nahr (N.), ' river."
Tell, ' mound " (often containing ruins).
Wiidi (W.), 'valley,' 'torrent-course.'
Well, wely, ' Mohammedan saint,' ' saint's tomb."
7. Transliteration, etc. Whilst the Encydopc^dia Biblica is meant for the student, other
readers have constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. In certain cases transliteration also
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been
thought sufficient. When pronunciation is indicated e.g.., Behemoth, Leviathan what is meant
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the original as represented by the
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling.
In the case of proper names that have become in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form,
that form has been preserved : e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative,
naturally the closer to the original is selected : therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with r as in Ezek., etc.),
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised form an exact transliteration of the original has been
given e.g., Asur-res-isi and the component parts of Assyrian names are thus separated by
hyphens, and begin with a capital when they are divine names.
In the case of modern (Arabic) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the
student. The diacritical marks have been checked or added after verification in some Arabic
source or list.
On the Assyrian alphabet see Babylonia, 6, and on the Egyptian, Egypt, 12. One
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration
in tabular form. The Hebrew h (n) represents phijologically the Arabic h and h, which are
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken language very likely marked the distinction.
As the written language, however, ignores it, n is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural
transliterated with an h, on the other hand, oftenest represents the Arabic h, and is therefore
always transliterated h (in Muss. -Am. Did., x\ for x) never h. There is no h .in transliterated
Assyrian; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabic h from the Arabic h 'g or',
representing them all indifferently by '. which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian,
mean simply K but K or n or h or U or g. Hence e.g., Nabu-nahid is simply one interpretation
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER xvii
of Nabu-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabic, but also a fourth
symbol h (see Egypt, ).
TRANSLITERATION Oh
HEBREW (AND A
RABIC) CONSONANTS
.
K
>
z
T
;
1
b
J
s
2:
u
b
a
^
h
n
r
h
m
D
r
k(q)
P
O
bh(b)
g
gh(g)
3
:
:
c
j.g
t
IS
t
Jo
h
n
s
3
D
r
s
sh, i
-1
;
d
dh(d)
h
1
n
y
kh (k)
3
v5
P
phi
t
g
f
t
th(t)
n
n
CJ
W, V
)
Extra Arabic Consonants: <i5, th, /; (3, dh, <f ; ^jfl, d; ja,
' long
Heb. a e i o u
VOWELS.
' short very short
aeiou S.t-dor'^eo
mere glide
&or'or'
At. a 1 u a (e)
Ar. diphthongs : ai, ay, ei, ey, e ; aw, au, 5.
i(e)
u(o)
8. Abbreviations, Symbols, and Biographical Notes. The following pages explain the
abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see above Si-C'^:)) of the EncyclopcEdia.
The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and for the most part it takes no account of well-established
abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly obvious. The bibliographical notes will be not
unwelcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex.. Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Jos., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezr., Neh., Est., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccle.s., C(an)t.,
Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mai. ;
I Esd., 4 Esd. {i.e. 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, cap. 6 {i.e.. Epistle of
Jeremy), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna. Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses,
1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Tlies., Tim., Tit., Philem.,
Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Apoc. [or Rev.] . An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B.
etc.), now generally used to denote certain Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found
above, at p. vx. It may be added that the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work
to which they are attached ; thus OTJCC-^ = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition
(exceptions RP^'-\ AOF^-^ : see below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ;
for those under the line see below under D^, etc.
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that the Encyclopedia Biblica itself be cited as EBi. It will be observed that
all the larger articles can be referred to by the numbered sections ; or any pa.ssage can readily be
cited by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end of
the work.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv. 3 i. []) of the Encyclopiedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliograpiiical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. (/.^., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith. Wi.sd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy {i.e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc].
An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OT/C^-'> = T/ie Old I'estameiit in the JeivisJi C/iurc/i, 2nd edition (exceptions RP^^'', AOF'^-^ ; see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes; for those under the line see
below under D2, E.>, J-.-, Pj.
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested tliat this work be referred to as the Encyclopcedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Ency. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections () ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abuhv. .
Abulwalld, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
A T, A Tliche
Roots, etc.
A T Unters.
Acad.
The Academy : A Weekly Pevietv
of Literature, Science, and Art.
AV. .
London, '69^.
AF. .
Sec A OP.
b. .
AHT. .
Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See
Ilonimcl.
Ba. .
Altltest\. Unt. .
See Winckler.
Anter. Journ. of
American Journal of Philology,
Bab. .
Phil.
'80^.
Baed., or
A\jiier.'\J[ourn.'\
Amertcan lournal of Semitic Lan-
Baed. Pal.
S\_em.'\ L[ang.] guages and Li/erature} (^con\.m\i-
ing Hebraica ['84-'95]), '95/".
Baethg., or
Am. Tab. .
IheTell-cl-Amarna Letters( = A'jy5)
Buethg.Beitr.
Ant. .
Josephus, Antiquities.
BAG
AOF
Altorientalische Porschungen. See
Winckler.
Ba.NB. .
Apocr. Anecd. .
Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title ' Texts and Studies '
Baraitha .
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp.
BDB Lex.
Aq. . . .
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See Text.
Ar. .
Arabic.
Aram.
Aramaic. See Aramaic.
Be. .
ArcA.
Archeology or Archciologie. See
Benzinger, Novvack.
Ar. Des. .
Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88.
Ar. Heid., or
Keste arabischen Heidentums. See
Heid
Wellhausen.
Beitr.
Arm.
Armenian.
Ass. .
Assyrian.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Ass. HWB
Assyrisches Handwdrterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
As. u. Eur.
W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa
nach altdgyptischen Denkm'dlern,
Benz. HA.
'93-
Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
Authorised Version.
ben, b'ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch's critical edition
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
'69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin),
(2), '94; i3)^ 'gg (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baethgen, Beitrdge zur seniitischen
Peligions-geschichte, '88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '88.
Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den
seniitischen Sprachen, i., '89; ii.,
(i!)
94-
See Law Liter.\ture.
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon'\
A Hebre~v and English lexicon
of the Old 'J'estament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, '92, and following vears.
E-Bertheau (1812-88). InKGH;
Pichter u. Ruth, '45 ; W '83;
Chronik,
'54;
(2).
73; Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, '62; <2), by
Ryssel, '87.
Beitrdge, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrdge zur Assyriologie u. senii-
tischen Sprachwissenschaft : ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
{.,'90; ii., '94; iii., '98; iv. I, '99.
I. Benzinger, Jlehrdische Archd-
ologie, '94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix
K'dn. . Konige in KIIC, '99.
Ikrthulct, Stel- A. Bertlu)lct, Die Stellung lit-r Is-
lung raeliUn u. tier Jtulcn zu dt-n
Fremden, '96.
Bi. . . . GuUv Bickell :
Grundriss der hebriiiscken
Craiiiiitatik, '69/; ; KT, '77.
Car mi nil I'T metriceetc, '82.
Diclituugcn der Ilehrder, '82/
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Frav., '90.
Biblioth. Sac. . Bibliot/ucn Sacra, '43^.
B/ . . . J)e Hello Judaico. See Josephus.
BL . . . Schcnkcl, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real-
\v6rterl)uch zuin Handgebrauch
fiir Cleistliclie u. Gemeiiule-
glieder, 5 vols., '69-'75.
Boch. . . S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geograpkia Sacra, 1646 ;
Ilicrozoicon, sivc de Animali-
bus Script II nr Surra; 1663.
Boeckh . . AngAk^ccVh, Corpus /nscr. Griic,
4 vols., '28-'77.
BOR . . Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfiihrliches
Lehrbucli dt-r hebrdischen Spra-
che, '66-'68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, '79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
I-124). '83.
Rt.Sa. . Die Richer Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau,'^0.
Sam. . . Samuel in SHOT (Heb.), '94.
Das Buck Hiob in //A', '96.
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KUC, '98.
Buhl
Buxt. Syn. Jud.
Bu.\t. Lex.
c., cir.
Calwer Bib.
Lex.
c. Ap.
CII .
Chald. Gen.
Che.
Proph. Is.
Job and Sol.
Ps. .
OPs. .
Aids .
Founders
Intr. Is.
See Pal.
Johann Buxtorf (i 564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc.
Joliann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, I'almudi-
cum et RaN'inicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with ailditions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., '69 and '74.
circa.
Cahver Kirchelexikon, I'heologi-
sches Llandworterbuch, ed. P.
Zfller, '89-'93.
contra Apionem. See Josephus.
Composition des llexateuchs. See
Wfllhausen.
The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. \ new edi-
tion, thoroughly revised and cor-
rected by A. li. Sayce, '80.
T. K. Cheyne :
The Prophecies 0/ Isaiah, 2 vols.
('8o-'8i; revised, <), '89).
Job and Solomon, ox 7'he IVisdom
of the Old Testament ('87).
The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ('88); <-'), re-
written (forthcoming).
The Origin and Religious Con-
tents of the Psalter (Bampton
Lectures, '89), '91.
Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, '92.
Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, '94.
Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ('95).
Class. Rev.
Cl.-tian. .
Rec. .
Co. .
Is.SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.],
(97); [Heb.J, (-99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in * Men of the
Bible' ('88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, '98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Gracarum
(ed. Dittenberger), '82^. See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, '63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CLS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semttica-
rutn, Paris, "6\ ff. Pt. i., Phccni-
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
The Classical Rez'iew, "i"] ff.
Clermnnt-(ianneau:
Recueil d\4rchiologie, '85 _^.
Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buck des Propheten
Ezechiel, '86.
Einl. . Einleilung in das Alte Testa-
ment, '91 ; '*, '<)6.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, '98.
COT . . TheCuneiform Inscriptions and the
Old I'estament. See Schrader.
Crit. Man. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments, '94,
Cr. Rcz>. . . Critical Re-'ieiv of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond], '91^.
D . . . Author of Deuteronomy; also used
Deuteronomistic passages.
D2 . . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
Historical Ln kkatlke.
Dalni. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
paldstinischen .iramdisch, '94.
IVorte Jesu Die IVorle Jesu,\.,\)'i.
Aram, Lex. Arainaisch - Xeuhebrdisches
IV'nrtcrbuch zu Targum,
'fa I'll lid, mid .Midrasch,
Teil i., '97.
Dav. . . A. B. D.ividson:
Job . . /;(W-<y'>/'inCamb. Bible,'S4.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, '92.
DB . . . W. Smith, .-/ Diitionary of the
Bible, comprising its .4ntii]uities,
Biography, Geography, and Xat-
ural History, 3 vols., '63; DB^'^\
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
'93-
or, J. Hastings, ,/ Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan-
guage, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology,
vol. i., '98; vol. ii., '99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, '95 y.
de C. Orig. . Alph. de C'andolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivees, '82; *<>, '96.
ET in the International Scien-
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
ceding, author of:
Par.. . Wo lag das Raradies? i'^x).
Heb. Lang. Tlu Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv. 3 i- [a]) of the Encyclopiedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. {i.e., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith. Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy {i.e.. Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Act.s, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn.. Jude. Rev. [or Apoc].
An explanation of some of the symbols (.A, N, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OTJC^-'i'r/ie Old lestaiiteid in t/ie Jewish Clitirch, 2nd edition (exceptions RP^'^\ AOF^-^ \ see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes; for those under the line see
below under D2, E-, J.-, P...
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that this work be referred to as tlie Encyclopcedia Hiblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Ency. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections () ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abulw.
Acad.
AF. .
ANT.
All\_Ust']. Unt. .
A/ner. Journ. of
Phil.
Almer.}/[ourK.]
Slem.] Liang.]
Am. Tab. . . T
Am. .
AOF
Apocr. Anecd. .
Aq.
At. .
Aram.
AreA.
Ar. Des. .
Ar. //eid., or
Heid.
Arm.
Ass. .
Ass. HWB
As. u. Eur.
Abulwalld, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
A'oo/s, etc.
T/ie .lea demy : A li/^eekly Bevie7u
of Literature, Science, and Art.
London, '69^.
See/^O/-;
Ancient Lfebrew Tradition. See
Hommel.
See Winckler.
American Journal of Philology,
'80/:
American Journal of Semitic Lan-
guages and Literature} (continu-
ing Hebraica ['84-'95]), '95/;
heTell-el-Amarna Letters(=A'iy5)
Josephus, .Antiquities.
Allorientalische Forschungen. See
Winckler.
Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title ' Texts and Studies '
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp,
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See Tkxt.
Arabic.
Aramaic. See Aramaic.
Archeology or Archaologie. See
Hen/.inger, Nowack.
Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88.
Peste arabischen Ileidentutns. See
Wellhausen.
Armenian.
Assyrian.
Assyrisches ILandw'drterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa
nach alt'dgyptischen Denkm'dlern,
'93-
A T, A Tliche
A T Unters.
AV.
Bab. .
Baed., or
Baed. Pal.
Baethg., or
Baethg.^^iVr.
BAG
^2..NB. .
Baraitha .
BDB Lex.
Be.
Beitr.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Benz. HA.
Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
Alttestumentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
Authorised Version.
ben, li'ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch's critical edition
of the Massorctic Text, Leipsic,
'69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, L\ilestine (ed. Socin),
(2), '94; ('i*, '98 (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baetligen, Beitr'dge zur semitischen
Peligions-geschichte, '88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '88.
Barth, Die A'ominalbildung in den
semitischen Sprachen, i., '89; ii.,
'91;
94-
See Law LrrERATURE,
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]
A Llebre-M and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, '92, and following vears.
KBertheau (1812-88). In KGLL;
Pichter u. Ruth, '45 ; (2) 'g^.
Chronik, '54; *2)^ y^. Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, '62; <2)^ by
Ryssel, '87.
Beitr'dge, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrd^e zur Assyriologie u. semi-
tischen Sprach7vissenschaft ; ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and PaulHaupt,
i., '90; ii., '94; iii., '98; iv. i,'99.
I. Benzinger, LLebrdische .Archa-
ologie, '94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix
Is. SHOT. Isaiah in 5^07" [Eng.l,
(97): [Heb.J, ('99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times m ' Men of the
Hible' ('88).
Jnv. A'el. Life Jewish Keli^ous Life after the
Exile, '98.
CIG . . Corpus fnsiriptionum Gracarum
(ed. Dittenbergcr), '%z ff. Sec
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriplionum Latinarum,
licrlin, '63, and following years,
14 vols., with supi)lements.
CIS . . Corpus Inscriplionum Semttica-
rum, Paris, "61 ff. Pt. i., Ph<cni-
cian and I'unic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
The Classical Review, '87 _^.
Clcrniont-danneau:
Kecueil J'ArchMogie, '85^.
Cornill :
Das Buch des Propheten
Kzechiel, '86.
Einleilutig in das Alle Testa-
K'dn, . Konige in KIIC, '99.
Bertholct, Siel- A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is-
lung raeliten u. der Juden zu di-n
Fremden, '96.
Bi. . . . Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hehriiischen
Granimatik, '69/; ; Kl', '77.
Carmina VT tnetrice etc., '82.
Dichtungen der llehr'der, '82/
Kritische Bearbeitnng der
Prov., '90.
Biblioth. Sac. . Bihliotheca Sacra, '43^.
BJ . . . De Hello Judaico. See Joseph us.
BL . . . Schcnkel, BiM- lexicon; Real-
wortcrbuch /urn Handgebrauch
fiir Cieistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., '69-'75.
Boch. . . S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hicrozoicon, sivc de Animali-
bus Script uriT Sncrie, 1663.
Boeckh . . K\s^.V>otcV\\^, Corpus Inscr.Grtec,
4 vols., '28-'77.
BOR . . Baltylonian and Oriental Record,
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, .iusjiihrliches
Lehrbuch der hcbr'dischen Spra-
che, '66-'68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Joseplius, '79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgescli. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
I-I24).'83.
Rt.Sa. . Die Hiicher Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Ai(fbau,'<^.
Sam. . . Samuel in SHOT (Heb.), '94.
Das Buch Hiob in HK, '96.
Klagelieder and Llohelied in KHC, '98.
Buhl
Buxt. Syn. Jud.
Buxt. Lex.
c, cir.
Calwer Bib.
Lex.
c. Ap. .
C/L .
Chald. Gen.
Che.
Proph. Ls.
Job and Sol.
Ps. .
OPs. .
Aids .
Founders
Intr. Ls.
See Pal.
Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1 603, etc.
Johann Huxtorf, son (1599-1644),
L.exicon Chaldaicum, Talinudi-
cum et Rabhinictiin, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., '69 and '74.
circa.
Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologt-
sches ILandivortcrbuch, ed. P.
Zfller, '89-'93.
cojitra Apionein. See Josephus.
Composition des LLexateuchs. See
Wcllhausen.
The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. .\ new edi-
tion, thoroughly revised and cor-
rected by A. H. Sayce, '80.
T. K. Cheyne :
I'he Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
('8o-'8i; revised. <>, '89).
Job and Solomon, ox The Wisdom
of the Old Testament ('87).
7he Book of Psalms, transl.
with comni. ('88); <'->, re-
written (forthcoming).
The Origin and Religious Con-
tents of the Psalter (Bampton
Lectures, '89), '91.
Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, '92.
Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, '94.
Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ('95).
Class. Rev.
Cl.-(ian. ,
Rec. .
Co. .
Fzek.
Einl.
LList.
COT
Crit. A/on.
Cr. Rev. .
D . . .
D2 . . .
Dalni. Grain. .
IVorte Jesu
Aram, Lex.
ment, 91
.,6.
Dav.
Job
Ezek.
DB
de C. Orig.
De Gent.
Del.
Par. .
Heb. Lang.
History of the People of Lsrael
from the earliest times, '98.
The Cuneiform Lnscriptions and the
Old 'Testament. See Schrader.
A. H. Sayce, The LLigher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments, '94.
Critical Revino of Theological and
Philosophical L.iterature [ed.
Salmond], '91^.
Author of Deuteronomy; also used
1 )euteronomistic passages.
Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
Historical Li ikratlke.
Dalman, Grammatik des Jiidisch-
palditinischen .Aramiiisch, '94.
Die Worle Jesu, i., '98.
Aramiiisch - Xcuhcbriiisches
IVorlcrbuch zu Tar gum,
Tal'niid, und .Midrascli,
Teil i., '97.
A. B. Davidson :
Book of Job in Camb. Bible, '84.
Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, '92.
W. Smith, .-/ Diitionary of the
Bible, comprising its .4ntii]uities,
Biography, Geography, and Xat-
ural LLt story, 3 vols., ''63 ; ZW ->,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
'93-
or, J. Hastings, ./ Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its L^an-
guage. Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Iheology,
vol. i., '98; vol. ii., '99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, '95^.
Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
LHantes Cultivces, '82; i-", '96.
ET in the Lnternational Scien-
tific Series.
De Gentibus. .See Wellhausen.
Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
ceding, author of:
Wo lag das Paradiesf ('Si).
The LLebre^v Language viewed
XX ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
in the light of Assyrian Re-
search, '>i^.
Prol. . Prolegomena cines neuen hehr.-
aram. IVorterhuchszuin A 'I\
'86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
'96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Muller, Epigraphische Denk-
vi'dler aus Arabien, '89.
Die Propheten in ihren ursprUnglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tischen Foesie, 2 Bde., '96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, yA ed. of
Knobel,'75; **>, '82 ; C", '92 (LT
by Stevenson, '97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
'80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, '97;
Numb., Dent., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, "id; Isaiah, <'', '90; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Uie-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, '98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRVi'HA, 31, i.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, 'T)ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
IIT. . A Treatise on the Use of the
lenses in Hebrew, '74;
'81; (, '92.
(2).
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, '90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera-
ture of the Old Testament,
(I), 'gi; (6)^ 'g7_
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, '98.
Dent. . Deuteronomy in 7 he Inter-
national Critical Commen-
tary, '95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, '97.
Lev. SPOT SB or (Eng.), Leviticus, as-
sisted by H. A. White, '98.
' Hebrew Authority ' in Authority and Archteology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
'99.
Is. . . Lsaiah, /lis Life and Times, in
' Men of the Bible,' (2), '93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die I heologie der Propheten
als Grundlage fiir die innere
Entivicklungsgeschichte der
israelitischen Religion, '75.
Is. . . Das Buch Jesaia in HK, '92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erklart, in KHC,
'99.
E . . . Old Hebrew historical document.
E2 . . . Later additions to E. See His-
torical Literature.
^^(3) . . Encyclopa:dia Britannica, 9th ed.,
'75-'88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ('37-'98), Aegypten u.
die Bi'uher Mose's, i., '68.
Einl. . . Einleitung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
Eng. Hist. Rev. The English Historical Review,
'86/:
Ent\^st^. . . Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopic.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Cnesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; ' On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.'
LIE .
P\_ra-p.-\E[v.]
Chron.
EV
Ew.
L.ehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Proph.
L^xpos.
Exp\^os'\. T{imes'\
/and/-. . .
FFP
Field, Hex.
F[r.-\HG .
Fl. and Hanb.
I'harm.
Floigl, GA
Founders .
Fr. .
Fra. .
Frankenb.
Frazer
Fund.
<@ .
GA .
GA .
GBA
GASm.
GAT
Gei. Urschr.
Ilistoria Ecclesiastica.
Praparatio Evangelica.
Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Hcinrich Ewald (1803-75) =
Lehrbuch der hebr'dischcn
Sprache, '44;
{).
'70.
Ges.
Thes.
Gramm.
Lex. .
Ges..Bu.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
(3' i.-vii, 64-'68 ; ET C^') 5
vols. (jire-Christian period),
'69-'8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundei
(3), '66/
Die Propheten, '40/; <2), '67
/; ET'76/
Expositor, 5th ser., '95/
Expository 'Times, '89-'90/.
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
Fauna and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua
supersuntsive Veterum Inter pre-
tum GriEcorum in totum Vetus
7'estamentum Fragmenta ('75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Grcsco-
ruin, ed. Muller, 5 vols., '4i-'72,
F. A. Fluckiger and D. Hanbury,
Pharmacographia.
P"loigl, Geschichte des semitischcn
Altertums in 'Tabellen, '82.
I'ounders of Old 7'estament Criti-
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com-
mentaries on books of the Apo-
crypha in A'lIG.
Sigismund Friinkel, Die aramdi-
schen Fremdivorter im Arabi-
schcn, '86.
\V. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche in
KII, '98.
J. G. Frazer :
Totemism ('87).
Golden Bough ('90); (-' in prep.
Pausanias's Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., '98).
J. Marcjuart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. Jiidischer Geschichte, '96.
Greek Version, see above, p. xv./
and Text and Versions.
Geschichte d. Alterthums (see
Meyer, Floigl).
Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens
(see Winckler, Hommel)^
George Adam Smith. See Smith.
Reuss, Geschichte des Alien Testa-
ments, '81; <->, '90.
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Al>-
h'iingigkeit von der inneren Ent-
wickluiig des Judenthums, '57.
F. H. W. Gesenius (i 786-1842):
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti-
cus Ling. Ilebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testamenti, '35-'42.
Hebrdische Grammatik, '13;
(2), by E. Kautzsch, '96;
ET '98.
Hebraisches u. chalddisches
Llandiv'drterbttch, '12 ; <">
(Muhlauu.Volck), '90; <
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern),'95; C^) (jjuhl), '99.
Gesenius Buhl. See above, Ges.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxi
Geuh.
GGA
GGN
GI .
Gi[nsb].
GJV
Glaser
Skizze
Gr.
Gra.
Gesch.
Ps. .
Gr. Ven.
GVI
HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hal.
Mil. .
Hamburger
Harper, ABL
HC
Heh.
Hebraica
Heid.
HersL
Herzog, RE
Ifet Herstel
Hex.
Iltxap.
no .
Ilierob.
Hilgf. .
Hist.
Hist. Proph.
Man.
Geschichle (History).
G'dttitiffisc/ie GeUhrte Anzeigen,
GottiHt^ische Gelehrte jVachrichten,
'45 f-
Geschichle Israels. See Winckler.
Giiisburg, Massoretico-critical Edi-
tion of the Hebrew Bible, '94, In-
troduction, '97.
Geschichle des jiidischen Volkes.
See Schiirer.
Eduanl Cilaser :
Skizze der Gesch. u. Ceogr.
Arabiens, '90.
K. Grimiii (1807-91). Maccabees
('53) and \Visdoin(^(M) mA'GH.
Heiiirich Gratz :
Geschichle der Juden, i.-x., '74
ff.\ ET i.-v., '9i-'92.
Kritischer Commentar zi
Psalmen, '82/
Versio Veneta. See Text.
Gesch. des Volkes Israel.
EvvakI, Stade, etc.
den
See
HiO].
HK
'The Law of Holiness' (Lev. 17-
26). See Leviticus.
Hebraische Arch'dologie. See Ben-
zinger, Nowack.
Joseph Ilalevy. The inscriptions
in Rapport stir tine Mission Ar-
chi-ologiqiie dans le Yemen ('72)
are cited : Hal. 535, etc.
Melanges d^ Epigraphie et
d ' A rchcologie Sew itiques, ' 74.
Hamburger, Realencyclopadie fiir
Bibel tind Talmud, \. '70, (2) '92;
ii. '83, suppl. '86, '91/, '97.
R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby-
lonian letters belonging to the
A'[Kuyunjik] collection of the
British Museum, '93^.
Hand-Corn mentar zutn Neuen
Testament, bearbeitet von H. J.
Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, 'Sg-'gi.
Hebrew.
Continued as AJSL {q.v.).
Reste arabischen Ileidentums. See
Wellhausen.
Kosters, Ilet Herstel 7'an Israel in
het Perzische I'ijdvak. '93; Germ,
transl. Die iViederherstellung
Israels, '95.
See PRE.
See Ilerst. . *
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Ilolzinger,
etc.).
See Field.
Historical Geography of the Holy
Land. See Smith, G. A.
See Bochart.
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar {Einl.,
etc.), and ed. since '58 of Z WT.
See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc.
J. F. M'Curdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments: i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ('94) ; ii.
To the Fall of Nineveh ('96).
F. Hitzig (1807-75), in K'GII: Pre-
diger ('47), Ilohelied {'^^), Die
kleinen Propheten ('38; '^\ '63),
Jeremias{\l; (-'','66). WsoDie
Psalmen ('35-'36; <'", '63-'65).
Handkommentar zum Allen Testa-
ment, ed. Nowack, '92 ff.
Holz. Einl.
Hommel .
AHT
GBA
Hor. Hebr.
HP .
IIPN
HPSm. .
Samuel in
HS .
HWB .
IJG . ,
Intr[od]. .
Intr. Is. .
It. .
It. Anton.
J
h
Jlourn.'] A[m.;\
0[r.-\ S[oc.^
Jastrow, Did.
yl^ourn.'] As.
JBL
JBIV
JDT
JE . .
Jensen, Kosm.
Jer.
Jon.
Jos.
/[(!/-.] Phil.
JPT
JQR
JRAS
JSBL
KAT
Kau.
Gram.
HS .
IL Holzinger, Einleilung in den
Hexateuch ('93), Genesis in the
A' lie ('98).
Fritz Hommel:
Die allisraelitische Ueberliefer-
ung; El", Ancient Hebrew
I radition, '97.
Geschichle Babyloniens u. As-
syriens, '85/:
Liglitfuot, Horn Ilebraicw, 1684.
Ilohiies and Parsons, Vetus Testa-
mentum Griccum cum variis
Icctionibus, 179.S-1827.
G. ii. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Aames, '9O.
Henry Preserved Smith.
International Critical Commentary.
Die Ileilige Schrift. See Kautzsch.
Richm's Iland'toorterbuch des bibli-
schen Alterlhtims, 2 vols., '84;
'-', '93-'94. See also Delitzsch
(Friedr.).
Israelitische u.ji'idische Geschichle.
See Wellhausen.
Introduction.
Introduction to Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Ilineraium Antornini, Fortiad'Ur-
ban, '45.
Old Hebrew historical document.
Later additions to J.
Journal of the American Oriental
Society, '5 1 ^f.
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the I'ar-
gumim, the I'almud Babli, etc.,
and Midrashim, '^6fjf.
Journal .Isiatiquc, '53 ff.; 7th
ser.,'73; 8thser., '83; 9thser.,'93.
Journal of Biblical literature and
Exegesis, 'go Jf.; formerly ('82-
'88) caWed Journal of the Society
of Biblical lit. and Exeg.
Jahrbiicher der bibl. Wissenschaft
('49-'65)-
Jahrbiicher fi'tr dcutsche Theologie,
'56-'7S.
The ' Prophetical ' narrative of the
He.xateuch, composed of J and E.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier, '90.
Jerome, or Jeremiah.
Jonathan. .See Targum.
Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Anti-
quitales Judaicic, De Bella
Judaico, Vita, contra .Apionem
(ed. Niese, 3 vols., '87-'94).
Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and
2, '68), ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, '69), etc.
Jahrbiicher fur protestantische 1 heo-
k^>'^ 'IS- 92.
Jewish Quarterly Review, 'SS-'Sq^.
Journal of Royal .tsialic Society
(vols. 1-20, '34^.; new ser.,
vols. i-24,'65-'92; currentseries,
93/".).
See JBL.
Die Keilinschriftenu. d. .lite Testa-
ment. See Schrader,
E. Kautzsch :
Grammalik des Biblischen-
Aramaischen, '84.
Die heilige Schrift des Allen
Teslauienls, '94.
xxii ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Apokr. . . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi-
graphen des alien I'esia-
ments, '98/!
KB. . . Keilinschrifdiche Bihliothek,
Satntulungvon ass. u. hah. 1 exlen
in Umschrift u. Uehersetzung, 5
vols, (i, 2, 3 <7, ^, 4, 5), '89-'y6.
Edited by Schrader, in coUaljora-
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold,
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and
H. Winckler.
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. '88).
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Velus
Teslanienlum Hehraicuin cum
variis lectionihus, 2 vols., 1776-
80.
KG . . . Kirchengeschichle.
KGF . . Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforsch-
ung. See Schrader.
KGH . . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
Inu/i. See Di., Hitz., Knob., Ol.
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den
hciligen Schriften Alten u. Neuen
I'estavienls sowie zu den Apo-
kryphen, ed, H. Strack and
O. Zockler, '87^^.
KHC . . Kurzer Hand-cotnmentar zum
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, '97_^
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel :
Gesch. . Geschichte de}- Hebt(ier,2\o\s.,
'88, '92; Eng. transl., I/is-
tory of the Hehrews, '95-
'96.
Ch. SBOT TheBookofChronicles,<Zx\\:\cz\
Edition of the Hebrew text,
'95 (translated by Bacon).
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, f/;ra 1200 A.n.,
the famous Jewish scholar and
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided.
A'?[j3. . . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arahia. See W. R. Smith.
Kl. Proph. . Kleine Propheten ( Minor Prophets) .
See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.
KIo[st]. . . Aug. Klostermann, Die Pitcher
Samuelisundder K'onige ('87) in
KGK.
G VI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel his
zur A'estauration unterEsra
und Nehetnia, '96.
Kn[ob], . . Aug. Knobel(i8o7-63) in A'G'//.-
Exodus und leviticus, <-' by Dill-
mann, '80; Der Prophet Jcsaia,
'43. ^^'. '6i. See Dillmann.
K6. . . . F. E. Konig, Ilistorisch-Kritisches
Lehrgeh'dude der Ilehrdischen
Sprache, 3 vols., '8l-'97.
Koh. . . Aug. Kohler.
Kr. . . . Kre (lit. 'to be read '), a marginal
reading which the Massoretes
intended to supplant that in the
text (Kethib); see below.
Kt. . . . Kethib (lit. 'written'), a reading
in the MT; see above.
Kue . . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) :
Ond . . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek
naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de Boeken
des Ouden Verhonds, 3 vols.,
'6i-'65; <2','85-'89; Germ,
transl., Ilistorisch-kritische
Einleitting in die Biicher
des Alten Testaments, '87-
'92; vol. i., I he Ilexateuch,
translated by Philip Wick-
steed, '86.
Godsd.
De Godsdienst van Israel, '69 '70;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., "73-'75.
De Profeten
en der Profetie onder Israel, '75;
ET, '77.
Ges.Ahh. .
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur
bibl. Wissenschaft, Cierman
by Budde, '94.
L . . .
de Lagarde, librorum Veteris
Testatncnti Canonicorum, Pars
Prior Greece, ^'i'i,.
Lag. . .
Paul de Lagarde ('27-'9i) :
Hag.
Hagiographa Chaldaice, '73.
Syr. . .
Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
cryphi Syriace, '61.
Ges. Abh. .
Gesammelte Ahhandlungen,''66.
Mitt.
Mitteilungen, i.-iv., '84-"89.
Sym.
Symmicta, ii., '80.
Prov.
Proverbien, '63.
Uhers.
Uehersicht iiher die itn Ara-
or BN
maischen, Arahischen, und
Ilehrdischen iihliche Bildung
der Nomina, '89.
Beitr.
Bcitrdge z. haktrischen lexiko-
graphie, '68.
Proph.
Prophetie Chaldaice, '72.
Sem.
Semi tic a, 'jSf.
Arm. St. .
Armenische Studien.
Or. .
Oricntalia, i., '79.
Lane
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
lexicon, '63^.
Z [and] B .
W. M. Thomson, The land and
the Book, '59; new ed. '94.
LBR
Later Biblical Researches. See
Robinson.
Levy, NHWB
J. Levy, Neuhehrdisches u. chal-
ddischcs Worterhnch, '76-'89.
Chald. lex.
Chalddisches IVorterhuch iiher
die Targumim, '67^.
Lehrgeh. .
See Konig.
Leps. Denkm. .
R. Lepsius, Denkvidler aus Aegyp-
ten u. Aethiopien, '49-'6o.
Lightf. .
John Lightfoot (1602-75), Horce
Ilehraicce (1684).
Joseph B. Lightfoot ('28-'89);
commentaries on Galatians
((*), '74); Philippians (<),
'73); Colossians and Phile-
mon ('75).
Lips. I / .
Lipsius, Die Apokryphen A paste l-
geschichten u. Apostellegenden,
'83-'90.
Low .
J. Low, Aramdische PJianzenna-
men, '81.
Luc.
SeeL.
LXX or (5
Septuagint. See above, p. xv f.,
and Text and Versions.
Maimonides
Mand.
Marq. Fund.
Moses Maimonides (1131-1204).
Exegete, author of Mishneh
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc.
Mandaean. See Aramaic, 5
10.
J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, '96.
K. Marti :
Kurzgefasste Gramtnatik d.
bihlisch-Aramdischen
Sprache, '96.
Geschichte der Israeli tischen Peligion^^\ '97 (a
revision of A. Kayser, Die
Theol. des AT).
Das Buchjesaia, in KHC, '99.
J. Maspero :
Daivn of Civilisation, Egypt
and Chaldea ((2), '96).
Les premieres Melees des
Peuples ; ET by McClure.
Marti
Gram.
Jes
Masp.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
MBBA
MDPV
Merx
Mey .
GA
Entstleh\
Meyer
MGWJ .
MH .
MI
Midr.
Mish.
I
The Struggle of the Nations
^-SyP^' Syr id, and Assyria.
Ilistoire Ancienne des Feuples
de V Orient ('99#.)-
Monatshericht der Berliner Aka-
demic,
Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des
Deutschen Paldsttna- Vereins,
'95 #
A. Merx, Archiv f, wissenschaft-
liche Erforschung d. AT ('69).
Ed. Meyer :
Geschichte des Alter thums ;
i., Gesch. d. Orients bis ztir
Ben-iindung des Perserreichs
('04) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend-
landes bis auf die Per-
serkriege ('93).
Die hnislehung des Juden-
tliums, '96.
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73),
founder of the series Kritisch-
exegctischer Kotnmentar i'tber das
Neue 'J'eslainenk
Monatsschrifl fur Gesch, u. Wiss.
des Judenthunis, '51^.
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
rashim, and considerable parts of
the Talmud.
Mesha Inscription, commonly
known as the ' Moabite Stone.'
See Mesha.
Midrash. See Chroxici.es, 6 (2).
Mishna, the standard collection
(completed, according to tradi-
tion, by R. Judah the I loly, about
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises
(representing the Jewish tradi-
tional or unwritten law as devel-
oped by the second century
A.D.), arranged in six groups or
Seders thus: i. Zerd'lm (11
tractates), ii. Mo' id (12), iii.
Ndshim (7), iv. Nezlkln (10), v.
Koddshim ( 1 1 ), vi . Tohoroth (12).
Aboda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa'oth, vi. 6
Aboth, iv. 9 Moed Katan, ii. 11
'Arakhin, v. 5 Nazir, iii. ^
Baba Bathra, iv. 3 N6darim, iii. 3
V. I Nega'im, vi. 3
Nidda, vi, 7
Ohaloth, VI. 2
'Orla, i 10
Para, vi. 4
Pe'a, i. 2
Pgsachim, ii. 3
Rosh Ha(sh)shana,
Baba Kamma
Baba Mesia, iv. 2
Bekhoroth, v. 4
Berakhoth, i. i
Be a, ii. 7
Bikkurim, i. 11
ChSgiga, ii. 12
Challa, i. 9
ChuUin, V. 3
Demai, i. 3
'Eduyoth, IV. 7
'Erubiiij ii. 2
Gittin, iii. 6.
Horayoth, iv. lo
Kelim, vi. i
Kgrithoth, V. 7
Kgthuboth, iii. 2
Kiddushin, iii. 7
Kil'dyim, 1. 4
Kinnim, v. 11
Ma'Sser Shemi, i.
Ma'Sseroth, i. 7
Makh.shirin, vi. 8.
Makkoth, iv. 5
Mggilla, ii. 10
Mg'ila, V. 8
M6nachoth, v. 2
Middoth, V. 10
MT .
Sanhedrin, iv. 4
Shabbath, ii. i
Shgbu'oth, iv. 6
Shebi'ith, i. 5
Shelfalim, ii. 4
Sota, iii. 5
Sukka, ii. 6
Ta'Snith, ii. 9
Tamjd, v. 9.
T6bul Yom, vi. 10
Tgmura, v. 6
Tgrumoth, i. 6
Tohoroth, vi. s
Uksin, vi. 12
Yadayim, vi. 11
Yfbamoth, iii. i
Yoma, ii. 5
Zabim, vi. 9
ZSbachira, v. 1
Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
the or substantially as it was in
the early part of the second
century A.D. (temp. Mishna).
It remained unvocalised until
n.
Nab.
NB .
Nestle, Eig.
Marg.
Neub. Geogr.
NHB .
NHWB .
no. .
N6[ld]. .
Unters.
about the end of the seventh
century a.d. See Text.
Murray . . A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
H. Murray, '88 ff.; also H.
Bradley, '97^.
Muss- Am. W. M uss-Arnolt, A Concise Diction-
ary of the Assyrian Language,
'94-'99 (a-.mag).
MVG . . Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat-
ischen Gesellschaft, '97^.
note.
Nabataean. See Aramaic, 4.
Notninalbildung, Barth ; sec Ba.
Die israelitischen Eigeniiamen
nach Hirer religionsgeschicht-
lichen Bedeutung, '76.
Maj-ginalien u. Materialien, '93.
A Neubauer, Geographic du 'Pal-
mud, '68.
Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.
Neu-hebr. u. chaldTiisches Worter-
buch. .See Levy,
number.
Th. Noldeke :
Untersuchungen z. Kritik d.
Alien 7'estaments, '69.
Altteslamentliche Litteratur, '68.
Now. . . W. Nowack :
Hlebr.'] A[rch.] Lehrbuch d. Hebraischen
Archaologie, ' 94.
Die Kleinen Propheten (in
//A-Q, '97.
New Testament, Xeues Testament.
Justus Olshausen :
Die Psalinen, '53.
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache,
'61 [incomplete].
OLZ (or Or. LZ) Orientalistische Litteratur- Zei-
tung, ed. Peiser, '98/
L/istorisch-critisch Onderzoek. See
Kuenen.
Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ.
See" OS.
Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne.
Onontastica Sacra, containing the
' name-lists ' of Eusebius and
Jerome (Lagarde, <-*, '87; the
pagination of i^) printed on the
margin of (2) is followed).
OT . . . Old Testament.
OTJC . . Old Testament in the Jewish
Church. See W. R. Smith.
Kl. Proph.
NT .
Ol[sh]. .
Ps. .
Lehrb.
Ond.
Onk., Onq
Onom,
OPs.
OS. .
P
P2
Pal.
Palm.
Pal. Syr.
PA OS
Pat. Pal. .
PE .
PEEQiu. 5/.]
PEFMlem.-]
Priestly Writer. See Hist. Lit.
Secondary Priestly Writers.
F. Buhl, Geographic des alien Pal-
astina, '96. See also Baedeker
and Reland.
Palmyrene. See Aramaic, 4.
Palestinian Syriac or Christian
Palestinian. See Aramaic, 4.
Proceedings of American Oriental
Society, 'S^ff- (printed annually
at end of/.-/ (95).
Wo lag das Paradies ? See
Delitzsch.
Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, '95.
Pmparatio I-'.vangelica. See Euse-
bius.
Palestine Exploration Fund
[founded '65] Quarterly State-
ment, '69^.
Palestine /exploration Fund Me-
moirs, 3 vols., '8 1 -'83.
ABBREVIATIONS. SYMBOLS. AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Per.-Chip.
Pers.
Pesh.
Ph., Phoen.
PRE
Preuss. Jahrbb.
Prim. Cult.
Proph. Is.
Prol.
Prot. KZ .
PSBA
PS Thes.
Pun.
R .
RjE .
Rd .
Rp .
1-5R
Rab.
Rashi
Rec. Trav.
REJ
Rel. Pfl/. .
Rev.
Rev. Sem.
Ri. Sa. .
Rob.
BR
LBR or BR iv.
or ^y?(2) iii.
Perrot and Chipiez :
Histoire de PArt dans Panti-
quite. Agypte Assyrie
Perse Asie Mineuere
Grece trurie Rome;
'81 #.
ET: Ancient Egypt, '83;
Chaldaa and Assyria, '84;
Phcenicia and Cyprus, '85;
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., '90;
Primitive Greece, '94.
Persian.
Peshltta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd-
3rd cent.). Vetus 1 estatnentum
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, '23, 1' and
NT, '24.
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri-
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, '97.
Phcenician.
Real- F.ncyklopadie fi'ir protestan-
tise he J heologie u. K ire he, ed,
J. J. Ilerzog, 22 vols., '54-'68;
<2), ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., '77-
'88; (3), ed. Alb. Hauck, vol.
i.-vii. [A-Hau], '96-'99.
Preussische Jahrbiicher, '''J'2. jf.
E. B. 'i'ylor. Primitive Culture,
'71; (3), '91.
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Prolegomena. See Wellhausen.
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fi'ir
das Evangelische Deutschland
(vols.i -xliii.,'54-'96); continued
as Prot. Alonatshffte ('97 _^.).
Proceedings of the Society of Bibli-
cal Archaology, ^"J^ff-
Payne Smith, 1 liesaurus Syriacus.
Punic.
Redactor or Editor.
Redactor (s) of JE.
Deuteronomistic Editor(s).
Priestly Redactor(s).
H. C. Ravvlinson, I'he Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia,
i.-v. ('61-84; iv. t-'), '91).
Rabbinical.
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki
(1040- 1 1 05), the celebrated
Jewish commentator.
Recueil de travaux relatifs a la
philol. et a V Archeol. egypt. et
assyr. '-joff.
Revue des Etudes jtiives, \., '80; ii.
and iii., '81; and so on.
Reland, Pahsstina ex Monumentis
veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714.
Revue,
Revue semitique, '93 _^.
Die Biicher Richter u. Samuel.
See Budde.
Edward Robinson:
Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine, Alt. Sinai, and Arabia
Petraa, a journal of travels
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., '41
= i^/v'<-'), i.-ii., '56).
Later Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine and the adjacent Regions, a
journal of travels in the year
1852 ('56).
Physical Geography of the Holy
Land, '65.
Rys.
Saad.
Sab.
Sab. Denkm.
Sam.
SB AW
Roscher . . Ausfiihrliches Lexikon d. Griech-
ischen u. Romischen Mythologie
('84/:).
RP . . . Records of the Past, being English
translations of the Ancient Monu-
ments of Egypt and Western
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols, i.-xii.
('73-'8i ). New series [A'/A-')] ed.
A. H. Sayce, vols, i.-vi., '88-92.
See A.SSYRIA, 35.
RS or Rel. Sem. Religion of the Semites. See W.
R. Smith.
RV . . . Revised Version (NT, '80; OT,
'84; Apocrypha, '95).
RWB . . G.B. Winer(i789-i858),5?Mjf//d'i
Real-worterbuch, '20; (3)^ 2 vols.,
'47/
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau.
R. Sa'adya (Se'adya; Ar. Sa'Id),
the tenth century Jewish gram-
marian and lexicographer (b,
892); Explanationsofthe//rt/tf.v-
legomena in the 1', etc.
Sabaean, less fittingly called
Himyaritic; the name given to
a class of S. Arabian inscrip-
tions.
Sabaische Denkm'dler, edd. Miiller
and Mordtmann.
Samaritan.
Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
SBE . . The Sacred Books of the East,
translated by various scholars
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.
Max Miiller, 50 vols. 1879^.
SBOT {Yxig.') [Otherwise known as the Poly-
chrome Bible'] The Sacred Books
of the Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl., with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial Illustrations ; pre-
pa red by em inent biblical schola rs
of Europe and of America, and
edited, with tJie assistance of
Horace Iloiuard Eurness, by Paul
Haupt, '97/:
SBOT (Heb.) , Haupt.. The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament ; a critical edition of
the Hebreio text, printed in
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminent biblicalscholars of Europe
and America, under the editorial
direction of Paul Haupt, '93^.
Sch'opf. . . Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in
Urzeit u. Endzeit, '95.
Schr. . . E. Schrader ; editor of KB
iq.v.-] :
KGF . Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, '78.
KA T . D ' Keilinschriften u. d. Alte
Testament,'' ]2; ''-'>, ''?>},.
COT . Eng. transl. of KAT(^-^ by
O. C. Whitehouse, The
Cuneiform Inscriptions and
* the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
'85, '88 (the pagination of
the German is retained in
the margin of the Eng. ed.).
Schiir. . . E. Schurer:
GJV . Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ;
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge-
schichte, '90; ii. Die Inneren
Zustande Paliistinas u. des
Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Hist.
Selden
Sem.
Sin.
Smend, Listen
Smith
GASm.
HG
WRS.
OTJC
Proph.
Kin.
KleL'\Slem.
SP
Spencer
SS .
St., Sta. .
GVI .
Abh.
St. Kr. .
Stad. m. m.
Stud. Bibl.
Sw. .
SWAW
Jesu Christi, '86; new ed. vol.
ii. Die Inneren Zustande, '98,
vol. iii. Das Judenthum in der
Zerstrcuung u. die jiidische Lite-
ratur, '98.
ET of above {'90 ff.). Vols. 1/
{i.e , Div. i. vols, i /) = vol. i
of German; vols. 3-5 (/.<., Div.
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German
[= vols, ii., iii of (3)].
, J. Selden, de Jure naturali et
gentium juxta disciplinatn Ebnc-
oruin, 7 i)ks., 1665.
de Diis Syr is, 1 61 7.
Semitic.
Sinaitic; see Aramaic, 4.
Smend, Die Listen der Biicher
Esra u. A'ehemia/i, '81.
George .Vdani Smith :
T/ie LListorical Geography of
the Holy L.and, especially in
relation to the History of
Lsrael and of the Early
Church, '94 (additions to <',
'96).
William Robertson Smith C'46-'94 :
The Old Testament in the Jewish
Church,'2,\ ; <-', revised and much
enlarged, '92; (Germ, transl. by
Rothstein, '94).
The Prophets of Lsrael and their
place in LListory, to the close of
the eighth century B.C., '82; (-',
with introduction and addi-
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
'95-
Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia, '85.
] Lectures on the Peligion of the
Semites: 1st ser.. The Funda-
mental Institutions, '89; new
and revised edition {PS(-1), '94;
Germ, transl. by Stube, '99.
[The MS notes of the later Burnett
Lectures on Priesthood, Divina-
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic
Polytheism and Cosmogony
remain unpublished, but are
occasionally cited by the editors
in the Encyclopiedia Biblica as
' Burnett Lects. MS '].
A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
in connection with their history,
'56, last ed. '96.
De Legibus LLebrivorum Ritualibus
(2 vols. 1727).
Siegfried and Stade, LLebrdischcs
Worterbuch zum Alien Testa-
mente, '93.
B. Stade :
Gesch. d. Volkes Lsrael, '81-
'88.
Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re-
den u. Abhandlungen, '99.
Studien und Kritiken, '22>ff.
Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar-
cianus).
Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical
ArcluFology and Criticism and
kindred subjects, 4 vols., '85-'9i.
H. B. Swete, The Old Testament
in Greek according to the Septua-
gint; (, '87-'94; (2), '95-'99.
Sitzungsberichte d. IViener Aka-
demie d. IVissenschaften.
Sym[m] . . Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
{circa 200 A.D.). See Text.
Syr. . . Syriac. See Aramaic, 11/
Tab. Peut. . Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins,
'68.
Talm. Bab. Jer. Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
consisting of the text of the
Mishna broken up into small
sections, each followed by the dis-
cursive comment called Gemara.
See Law Litkratlre.
T[ar]g. . . Targum. See Text.
Jer. . . The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
shalmi.
Jon. . . Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
the Prophets.
Onk. . . Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian
Targum to the Pentateuch
(towards end of second century
A.D.).
ps.-Jon. . The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.
TBS . . Der 'Text der Biicher Samuelis :
see Wellhausen; or Azotes on the
Hebre-M 'Lext of the Books of
Samuel : see Driver.
temp. . . tempore (in the time [of]).
T[e.\tus] R[e- The 'received text' of the NT.
ceptus] See Text.
Th[e]. . . Thenius, die Biicher Samuelis in
A'G/L '42; (-'', '64; (3), Lohr, '98.
Theod. . . Theodotion (end of second cen-
tury), author of a Greek version
of the Old Testament (' rather a
revision of the LXX tiian a new
translation'). See Text.
Theol. Studien . Studien, published in connection
with Th. T (see Deutero.nomy,
33^)-
LVies. . . See Gesenius.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria-
ciis, '(ySff.
Th. T . . Theologisch Tijdschrift, '67^.
Ti. or Tisch. . Tischendorf, iVovum 'Lestamentum
Gncce, editio octava critica
maior, '69-'72.
TLZ . . Theoloi^ische LJteraturzeitung,
Tosephta . . See Law Litkkatire.
Treg. . . S. P. Tregelles, The Greek Xezu
Testament ; edited from ancient
authorities, '57-'72.
Tristram . . II. B. Tristram :
LLP. . 77te Eauna and Flora of Palestine,
'89.
ATHB . The Xatural History of the Bible,
<>, '89.
TSBA . . Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archieol.,
vols, i.-ix., '72^.
Tiib. Z. f Theol. Tiibingen Zeitschrift f Theologie,
'34 #
Untersuch. . Untersuchungen. See Xoldeke,
Winckler.
Ur gesch. , . Die biblische Urgachichte. See
Budde.
V. . . . verse.
Var. Apoc. . The Apocrypha (AV) edited with
various renderings, etc., by C. J.
Ball.
Var. Bib. . The OldandNe-.u Testaments{.\\)
edited with various renderings,
etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.
xxvi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Vet. Lat. .
Vs. .
We., Wellh
De Gent.
TBS
Phar. u.
Sadd.
Gesch.
Prol.
IJG .
lAr.lHeid.
Kl. Proph.
CH .
Weber
Wetstein
Wetz.
WF .
WH [W & H]
Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke,
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT)
[otherwise known as the Queen's
printers' BibW].
VersioVctus Latina; the old-Latin
version (made from the (Ireek);
later superseded by the Vulgate.
.See Text and Vkusions.
Vulgate, Jerome's Latin Bible:
or from Heb., NT a revision
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be-
ginning of 5th cent.). See Text.
Julius Wellhausen.
De Gentilnis et Fa7tiiliis Judceis
qtuc hi I C7ir. 2 4 nume-
raniur Dissertatio ('70).
Der 7 'ext der Biicher Sai uelis
('70-
Die Pharts'deru. d.Snddiicaer;
eine Uiiterstichtmg ziir in-
neren judischen Geschicht
('74).
Gescliichte Israels, vol. i. ('78).
2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled
Prolegomena ziir Gesch. Is-
raels, '83; ET '85; 4th
Germ. ed. '95.
Israelitische u. Ji'idischc Ge-
scliichte, '94; <''^', '97; an
amplification of Ahriss der
Gesch. Israels u. Juda's in
' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,'
'84. The Ahriss was sub-
stantially a reproduction of
'Israel' in /s'^gW ('81; re-
pulilished in ET of Prol.
['85] and separately as
Sketch of Hist. 0/ Israel and
Judah, (3), '91).
Reste Arabischen Heidcntums
(in ' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten')
('87; <^', '97).
Die Kletnen PropJieten iiber-
selzt, niit A'oten ('92; (^\
'98).
Die Composition des Hexa-
teuchs und der historischen
Biicher des Alten Testaments
('85; Zweiter Druck, mit
Nachtragen, '89; originally
published in JD T 21 39^ ff.,
['76], 1'2 407 ['77], and in
Bleek, Am/. (4', '78).
System der Altsynagogalen Paldsti-
nischen Ilieologie ; ox Die lehren
des Talmud, '80 (edited by Franz
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder-
mann); (2)^ JUdische Ilieologie
auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandter Schriften, '97 (ed.
Schnedermann).
J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen-
tum Gracum, etc., 2 vols, folio ;
1751-1752.
Wetzstein, Ausgewdhlte grtechische
und lateinische Inschriften, ge-
sammelt auf Keisen in den
Trachonen und um das Ilau-
rdnge/>irge,'(>T, ; Reisehericht iiber
Ilaurdn und Trachonen, '60.
Wellhausen- Furness, The book of
Psalms ('98) in SPOT {Eng.).
Westcott and Hort, The New Tes-
tament in tfie Original Greek,
'81.
Wilk.
Winer
RWB
Gram.
WMM .
Wr. .
Comp.
Gram.
Hugo Winckler:
Unters. . Untersuchungenz. Altoriental-
ischen Gcschichte, '89.
A/tltestl. Alttestamentliche Untersuch-
Unt. ungen, '92.
GBA . Geschichte Bahyloniens u. As-
syriens, '92.
A OF or AF Altorientalische Forschungen,
1st ser. i.-vi., '93-'97; 2nd
ser. (/^/<-'))i.^'g8y;
GI . . Geschichte Israels in einzel-
darstellungen, i. '95.
Sarg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons,
'89.
KBs . . Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-
Amarna (ET Metcalf).
J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
'37-'4i ; (^> by Birch, 3 vols., '78.
G.B.Winer:
Bibl. Realworterbuch ; see
R WB.
Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Sprachidioms(^\ neu
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh.
Schmiedel, '94^; ET of
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, '70.
See As. u. Eur.
W. Wright :
Lectures on the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, '90.
Ar. Gram. A Grammar of the Arabic
Language, translated from
the German of Caspari and
edited, with numerous addi-
tions and corrections by W.
Wright; (2) 2 vols., '74-'75 ;
(3) revised by W. Robertson
Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
vol. i. '96, vol. ii. '98.
WRS . . William Robertson Smith, See
Smith.
WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift filr d. Kunde
des Morgenlandes, ^'] ff-
Yakut . . The well-known Arabian geo-
graphical writer (i 179-1229).
Kitab Mdjam el-Bulddn edited
by . Wiistenfeld {Jacufs Geo-
graphisches VVorterbuch, '66-'7o).
Z . . . Zeitschrift (Journal).
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie u. ver-
wandte Gebiete, '86^.
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde, '63^.
ZATW . . Zeitschrift fUr die Alttestamentliche
IVissenschaft, '81/".
ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
Idndischen Gesellschaft, '46^.
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-
vereins, 'j?>ff-
ZKF . . Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforschung
und verwandte Gebiete, '84 f,
continued as ZA.
ZKM . . See WZKM.
ZKW . . Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissen-
schaft u. kirchliches Lehen (ed.
Luthardt), i.-ix., 'So-'Sg/".
ZLT . . Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luther-
ische Theologie und Kirche, '40-
'78.
ZTK . . Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und
Kirche, '91 ff.
ZWT . Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), '587?".
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I
Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the signatures appended to their articles.
Joint authorship is where possible indicated thus : A. b. 1-5; c. D. 6-io.
A. A. B.
A. J.
A. K.
A. R. S. K.
C. C.
C. F. B.
C. H. W. J.
C. J. B.
C. P. T.
E. M.
F. B.
G. A. Si.
G. B.G.
G. F. M.
H. G.
H. V. S.
H. W. H.
H. Z.
LA.
I.E.
J. A. R.
J. M.
Bevan, Anthony Ashley, Lord
Almoner's Professor of Arabic, Cam-
bridge.
Shipley, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S.. Fellow,
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ's College,
Cambridge.
JiJi.iCHEK, ADOLF, Professor of Church
History and New Testament Exegesis,
Marburg.
Kamphausen, Adolf, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis, Bonn.
Kennedy, Akchihald, R. S., M.A.,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.
Creigh roN, C, M.U., 34 Great Ormund
Street, London.
Burnev, Rev. C. F., M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John's
College, Oxford.
JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Queen's
College, Cambridge.
Ball, Rev. C. J., M.A., Chaplain to
the Honourable Society of Lincoln's
Inn, London.
TlELE, C. P., Professor of Comparative
History and Philosophy of Religion,
Leyden.
Meyer, Eduard, Professor of Ancient
History, Halle.
Brown, Rev. Francis, D.D., Daven-
port Professor of Hebrew and the
cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
Smith, Rev. Georce Adam, D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, Free Church
College, Glasgow.
SIMCOX, G. A., M.A., Queen's College,
Oxford.
Gray, G. Buchanan, M.A., Lecturer
in Hebrew and Old Testament The-
ology, Mansfield College, Oxford.
Moore, Rev. George F., D.D., Pro-
fessor of Hebrew in Andovcr Theo-
logical Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Guthe. Hermann, a.o. Professor of
Old Testament Exegesis, Leipsic.
Soden, Baron Hermann von. Profes-
sor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin.
Hogg, Hope W., M.A., 4 Winchester
Road, Oxford.
ZlMMERN, Heinrich, a.o. Professor of
Assyriology, Leipsic.
Abrahams, Israel, London, Editor of
the Jewish Quarterly Review.
Benzingek, Dr. IMMANUEL, Berlin.
Robinson, Rev. J. Armitage, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster.
Massie, John, M.A., Yates Professor of
New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield
College, Oxford ; formerly scholar of
St. John's College, Cambridge.
BUDDE, Karl, Professor of Old Testa-
ment Exegesis, Strassburg.
K.
M.
Lu
.G.
L.
W.K.
M
A. C.
M
J- (Jr.)
M.
R.J.
N.M.
N. S.
0. C. W.
P. W. S.
R. H. C.
R. W. R.
s
A. C.
s.
R.D.
T. G. P.
T. K. C.
T.
N.
T.
W.D
W.B.
Marii, Karl, Professor of Old Testa-
ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan-
guage, Berne.
Gautier, Lucien, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and History,
Lausanne.
King, Leonard William, M.A., F.S.A.,
Assistant to the Keeper of Egyptian
and Assyrian Antiquities, British
Museum.
Canney, Maurice A., M.A. (Oxon.).
St. Peter's Rectory, Saffron Hill, Lon-
don, E.C.
Jastrow, Jun., Morris, Ph.D., Pro-
fessor of Semitic Languages in the
University of Pennsylvania.
James, Montague RiiqDP:s, Litt.D.,
Fellow and Dean of King's College,
Cambridge.
M'Lean, Norman, M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ's College,
Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Cams
College, Cambridge.
Schmidt, Nathanael, Professor of
Semitic Languages and Literatures,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York.
Whitehouse, Rev. Owen C, M.A.,
Principal and Professor of Biblical
Exegesis and Theology in the Countess
of Huntingdon's College, Cheshunt,
Herts.
SCHMIEDEL, Paul W., Professor of
New Testament Exegesis, Zurich.
Charles, Rev. R. H., M.A., D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity
College, Dublin; 17 Bradmore Road,
Oxford.
Rogers, Rev. Robert W., Ph.D.,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Drew
Theological Seminary, Madison, New
Jersey.
Cook, Stanley A., M.A. (Cantab.),
Ferndale, Rathcoole Avenue, Homsey,
London, N.
Driver, Rev. Samuel Rolles, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
Pinches, Theophilus G., M.R.A.S.,
Egyptian and Assyrian Department,
British Museum.
Cheyne, Rev. T. K., M.A., D.D., Oriel
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro-
chester.
NoLDEKE, Theodor, Professor of Se-
mitic Languages, Strassburg.
DAVIF.S, T. W., Ph.D., Professor of Old
Testament Literature, North Wales
Baptist College, Bangor; Lecturer in
Semitic Languages, University College,
Bangor.
BOUSSET, W.. a.o. Professor of New
Testament Exegesis, Gottingen.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I
W. E. A. Addis, Rev. W. E.. M.A., Lecturer in
Old Testament Criticism, Manchester
College, Oxford.
W. H. B. Bennktt, Rev. W, H.. M.A., Professor
of Biblical Languages and Literature,
Hackney College, London, and Pro-
fessor of Old Testament Exegesis, New
College, London.
W. H. K. KosTERS, The late W. H., Professor of
Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. J. W. WooDHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Lecturer in
Classical Philology, University College
of North Wales, Bangor.
W. M. M, MULLER, W. Max, Professor of Old
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis-
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.
W. R. RiDGEWAY, William, Professor of
Archaeology, Cambridge.
W. R. S. Smith, The late W. Robertson, Pro-
fessor of Arabic, Cambridge.
W. S. Sanday, Rev. William, D.D., LL.D.,
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
W. T. T.-D. Thisei.ton-Dyer, Sir William Tur-
ner, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director
Royal Gardens, Kew.
MAPS IN VOLUME I
SYRL\, ASSYRIA, AND BABYLONLV
PLAN OF BABYLON .
DISTRICT OF DAMASCUS .
between cols. 352 and 353
" 414 and 41J
987/
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
A
AALAR (&A\Ap [B]), i Esd.536t AV = Ezra259.
Immek, i. ; cp albo Chkkub, 2.
AARON (pnN, 7; see also below, 4, end; A^pcoN
[BAL], a^p, [A] ; AARON). In the post-exilic parts of the
or (including Ezra, Neh. , Ch. , and for our present pur-
pose some of the I'salms) Aaron is the ancestor of all
lawful priests,^ and himself the first and typical high-
_ p priest. This view is founded upon the priestly
document in the Hexaleuch, according to
which Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, took a promi-
nent part, as Moses' prophet or interpreter, in the negotia-
tions with Pharaoh, and was ultimately, together with his
sons, consecrated by Moses to the priesthood. The rank
and inlluence which are assigned to him are manifestly
not equal to those of Moses, who stood to Pharaoh
as a god ( Ex. 7 1). He does, indeed, perform miracles
before Pharaoh he changes his rod into a serpent
which swallows up the rods, similarly transformed, of
the Egyptian sorcerers ; and with the same rod he
changes the waters of Egypt into blood, and brings the
plagues of frogs and lice but the order to execute the
marvel is in each case communicated to him through
Moses (Ex.7/). It is Moses, not Aaron, who disables
the sorcerers by boils {Ex.98/.), and causes the tinal
destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea (14 15-18).
Through his consecration by Moses, Aaron became
' the priest ' (so usually) or, as he is elsewhere called,
'the anointed priest' (Lev. 43 5 16 6 15) or 'the high-
priest' (Lev. 21 10 Nu. 352528). His sons, representing
the common priests, act under him (Nu. 84). As high-
priest he has splendid vestments, different from those of
his sons (Ex. 28); he alone is anointed (Ex.297)-; he
alone, once a year, can enter the holy of holies (Lev. 16).
He is the great representative of the tribe of Levi ; and
his rod, unlike the rods taken to rei^rcsent the other tribes,
buds miraculously, and is laid up for ever by the ark
(Nu. 176/ [21/]). Within this tribe, however, it is only
the direct descendants of Aaron who may approach the
altar, so that Korah the Levite, when he claims the
power of the priesthood, is consumed by fire from
Yahwe (Xu. I635). Aaron occasionally receives the
law directly from Yahwe (Nu. 18). Even his civil
authority is great, for he, with Moses, numbers the
people (Nu. 1 317), and it is against him as well as against
Moses that the rebellion of the Israelites is directed
(Ex. lt)2 Nu. 142526 I63). This authority would have
been greater but for the exceptional position of Moses,
for in the priestly portions of Joshua the name of
Eleazar (^.i'. i), the next high -priest, is placed before
_ J In I Ch. 1227, if MT is correct, Aaron (AV AARONtTEs)
is .ilmnst .-i C'llfctive term for priests s.-iici liy the Chronicler
to have joined David ac Hebron. In 27 lyf RV rightly reads
'.\aron.'
- On pa.ssages in P which seem to conflict with this, see the
circumspect and conclusive note of Di. on Lev. 8 12.
1 I
3. In E.
that of Joshua. The ' priestly ' writer mentions only
one blot in the character of .Aaron : viz. , that in some
way, which cannot be clearly ascertained in the present
state of the text, he reljelled against Yahwe in the wilder-
ness of Zin, when told to ' speak to the rock ' and bring
forth water (Nu. 2O12). In penalty he dies, outside
Canaan, at Mount Hor, on the borders of Edom
(Z..22/).
As we ascend to the exilic and pre-exilic literature,
Aaron is still a prominent figure ; but he is no longer
.J .. either the high-priest or the ancestor of
-t^rs "^^ legitimate priests. Ezekicl traces the
origin of the priests at Jerusalem no farther
back than to Z.vuoK {<].v. i, 3), in Solomon's time.
Dt. 106 (which mentions Aaron's death, not at Hor but
at Moserah, and the fact that Eleazar succeeded him in
the priesthood) is generally and rightly regarded as an
interpolation. In Mic. 64 (time of Manasseh ?) .Aaron is
mentioned between Moses and Miriam as instrumental
in the redemption of Israel. In the Elo-
histic document of the Hexateuch (E) he
is mentioned as the brother of Miriam the prophetess
(Ex. If) 20; for other references to him see Ex. 17 12
24 1 9 10 14, Nu. 12i); but it is Joshua, not .Aaron, who
is the minister of Moses in sacred things, and keeps
guard over the tent of meeting (Ex. 3:3 11), antl 'young
men of the children of Israel ' offer sacrifice, while the
solenm act of sprinkling the blood of the covenant
is reserved for Moses (Ex.2456). Aaron, however,
seems to have counted in the nnnd of E as the
ancestor of the priests at 'the hill of Phinehas' (Josh.
24 33) and perhaps of those at Bethel. At all events,
the author of a section added in a later edition of E
speaks of Aaron as yielding to the people while Moses
is absent on Mount Horeb, and taking the lead in the
worship of Yahwe under the form of a golden calf. The
narrator, influenced by prophetic teaching, really means
to attack the worship carried on at the great sanctuary
of Bethel, and looks back to the di ?iruction of Samaria
by the Assyrians in 721 as Yahwe's ' visitation' of the
idolatrous worship maintained in N. Israel (Ex. 32 ; see
especially v. 34).
It is extremely probable that Aaron's name was absent
altogether from the earliest document of the Hexateuch
(J) in its original form. In it Aaron
* ^' appears only to disappear. For example,
according to our present text, Pharaoh sends for Moses
and .Aaron that they may entreat Yahwe to remove
the plague of frogs ; but in the course of the narrative
Aaron is ignored, and the plague i^ withdrawn simply at
the word of Moses ' (Ex. 88-15 a [4-11 ]). Apparently,
therefore, the name of Aaron has l)een introduced here
and there into J by the editor who united it to E (cp
Exonus, 3 n. ). If that is so we may perhaps agree
with Oort that the legend of Aaron belonged orignnally
AARONITES
to the 'house of Joseph,' which regarded Aaron as
the ancestor of the priests of Hethel, and that single
members of this clan succeeded, in spite of Kzekiel, in
oi:)taining recognition as priests at Jerusalem. So,
doubtfully, Stade {(U7 i. 583), who points out that no
strict proof of this hypothesis can be offered.
As to the derivation of 'Aaron,' kedslob's ingenious
conjecture that it is but a more flowing pronunciation
of /lil'dnm. 'the ark," is worth considering only if we
can regard .-Xaron as the mythical ancestor of the priests
of Jerusalem {hue hii'drdn = bni Aharon). So Land,
De Ciiis, Nov. 1 87 1, p. 271.
See 1'kif.sts ; and cp, besides the works of We., St., and
Ki., Oorts essay ' De Aaronieden ' in 7"/j '/" xviii. 289-^5 ['84]-
\V. E. A.
AARONITES, RV '[the house of] Aaron' (pHN'?;
TU) AAPCON [H], TOON A- [A], TOON yiWN A- [I']:
yOi? ali>.:>jjw?; vf- sTiRPE .lARON), iCh. 1227.
See .\AK()N, note i.
ABACUC {.niAcra, 4l-:sd. l4ot. See Habakkik.
ABADDON (fl"^3X, but in Prov. 272o Kr. H^X, by
contraction ' or misreading, though the full form is also
cited by Gi., for Kt. maX ;- &nu>A[e]iA [BNA],
but job31i2 TT&NTCON TOJN Mepu)N [BNAJ, . . .
AepooN [='=]; Rev.9ii, aBaAAcon [XA, etc.],
aB&aA. [B etc.], aBBaaA. [some curss.] etc.; \j^(;
PFRDiTio, but Rev. 9 II ABADDO.v), RV Job 266, Prov.
15ii272o; RV mg. Job282231i2, Ps. 8811 [12], else-
where EV Dkstkuction ; in Rev. 9ii Abaddon is
stated to be the Hebrew equivalent of Apollvos ( ahoA"
AY<j^N [XA]|. Etymologically it means '(placcof ) destruc-
tion." We find it parallel to Sheol in Job 2G6 28 22 ; Prov.
15 II 2720 (see readings above). In these cases RV makes
it a proper name, either Abaddon or Destruction, as
being parallel to the proper names Sheol or Death.
In Ps. 88 II [12] ' Destruction ' is parallel to ' the grave ' ;
in Job 31 12 the same term (in RV) is equivalent to
' utter ruin. ' Thus Abaddon occurs only in the Wisdom-
Literature. There is nothing in the usage to indicate
that in OT it denotes any place or state different
from Sheol (q.v.), though by its obvious etymology it
emphasises the darker aspects of the state after death.
An almost identical word (prx) is used in Esth. 9s
(constr. p3K ; 86) for ' destruction ' in its ordinary sense
as a common noun. In later Hebrew jnax is used
for 'perdition' and 'hell' (jastrow. DicL s.-\), and
is explained in Targ. on Job 26 6 as k:i2N n"3, house
of perdition i.e., hell. The Syriac equivalent word
(Ij^^'') has the meaning 'destruction,' and is used to
translate 'n.
Rev. 9 1 1 mentions a king or angel of the abyss, whose
name in Hebrew is .Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon
('AiroXXi^ou', Destroyer), the -o?i being supposed to be a
personal ending in Hebrew, as it is in Greek. This is,
of course, poetic personification (cp Rev. 68 20 14), and
may be paralleled in the OT (Job2822;cp Ps. 49i4
[15]), and in Rabbinical writers (Schottgen, Horcr Hehr.
Apoc. ix. II, and PRE^-^'i s.v.). The identification with
the ASMODEUS of the Book of Tobit is a mistake.
Apollyon has Ix'come familiar to the world at large
through the Pilgrim's Progress, but Abaddon may be
said not to exist outside of the Apocalypse. W. H. B.
ABADIAS (aBaAiac [B.\]), lEsd. Bast = Ezra 89.
OnADIAII. II.
ABAGTHA iXJlJlX. etymology doubtful, but see
BlGVAi, BAf;()AS ; according to Marq. [Fund. 71] the
corresponding Cir. is. aBataza [BX.\], which [reading
a/3a^ara] he regards as presupposing XOTSX. cp
BiGTHA ; the fifth name in the iist as it stands is
t Ko. Hebr. .'\f>rache, ii. 479 7, gives parallel contractions ; cp
BDB.
2 On the several forms see Ba. NB g 194 n. 2, S 224 b.
ABARIM
ZAeoABA [BX], ZHBAGAeA [A]), a chamberlain of
Ahasuerus (Est. 1 lot). See Esther, ii. 3.
ABANA, R\' Abanah (HjaX, 2 K.Sizt Kt.,
n:OX [Kr.]; aBana [BL], ApB.'[(p superscr.) 3"].
ana8.[B^""k], NAeB.[A]; ^jj/; abaka), one of the
' rivers ' (ni^HJ) of Damascus. The name, which occurs
nowhere else, should probably be read Amana ( AV mg. )
or Amanah (RV mg. ; see further Amana, 2) ; in this
form, as meaning ' constant,' it would be equally suitable
to a river and to a mountain, though it was first of all
given to the mountain range of Antilibanus, from which,
near Zebedani, the Nahr Barada (' the cold ') descends to
refresh with its sparkling waters the city and the gardens
of Damascus.^ The romantically situated ' Aiu Fijeh
(irriy^), a little to the S. of S/ii Wddy Barada (the
ancient Abila), appears from its name to have been
regarded as the chief source of the Barada. It is not,
certainly, the most distant one ; but it does, at any rate,
' supply that stream with twice as much water as it
contains before it is thus augmented ' (Baed. A;/. '2' 336).
Qo.se to it are the remains of a small temple, which
was presumably dedicated to the river-god. The clear
waters of the Nahr Barada have a charm which is
wanting to the Jordan through the greater part of its
course. This explains Naaman's question in 2 K. 5 12,
as far as the Amana is concerned. It is the fate of the
Barada to disappear in the swamps called the Meadow
Lakes, about 18 m. to the E. of Damascus, on the verge
of the desert. See Pharpar. T. K. C.
ABARIM, THE (Dnnj^il ; aBapcim [B.\L], -in
[BL], and phrases with iripav [B.-\L], see below ; Jos.
ABApeic). literally ' Those -on -the -other -side ' i.e.,
of the Jordan is employed by the latest documents of
the Pentateuch (P and R) in the phrase, Mt. or Mts.
of the Abarim, to describe the edge of the great
Moabite plateau overlooking the Jordan valley, of which
Mt. Nf.bo was the most prominent headland : Nn. 27i2
[Rl TO 0009 TO iv T(3 TTfpav [BAl, T. 6 ... IT. [toG iof^avov]
[LI; Dt. 3249 (P[K]), T. 6. T. a^apt^v [BL], . . . ei^ [A],
'this Mt. of the ..\l,arim, Mt. Nebo' ; Nu. 8847 / (l'(Ri in
Israel's itinerary between the Moab plateau and the plains of
Shittim), 'Mts. of the Abarim' (to. opy) to. aftoLptifi, opiujv o.
[BAL]). In Nu. 3344 we find Ije-ha-abarim (AV
Ijk-Abarim), 'heaps of the Abarim' (to distinguish it
from the Ijim of Judah, Josh. 1029 ; see Il.vi, i), on the
extreme SF.. of Kloab. Since the employment of the
name thus confined to Moab occurs only in late docu-
ments, it is probably due to the fact that at the time
these were written the Jews were settled only over
against Moab. Josephus, too, uses the word m the
same limited application (.1^/. iv. 848, ^iri tij 6fxi t(^
A^api), and Eusebius (05<2>2164. 'A^apeifi) so quotes
it as employed in his own day. But there are traces
in the OT of that wider application to the whole trans-
Jordanic range which the very general meaning of
Abarim justifies us in supposing to have been its original
application. In Jer. 222o (RV), Abarim (AV 'the
passages ' ; "*<0, dividing the word in two, t6 n^pav
T^s ea\d(rar]i) is ranged with Lebanon and Bashan
that is to say, is probably used as covering both Gilead
and Moab; and in the corrupt text of Ez. 39ii,
' the valley of the passengers,' as AV gives it (similarly
RV), most probably should rather be ' a valley of [Mt.]
Abarim ' (nnnv for D-iny ; so Hi., Co., Siegfr., Bu. ).
If so, that extends the name to Ba.shan. Thus the
plural noun Abarim would denote the K. range in its
entire e.vtent being, in fact, practically equiv.alent to
the preposition -i^y (originally a singular noun from the
1 Rev. William Wright, formerly of Damascus, states that
the river whose water is most prized is called the Abanias,
doubtless the Abana ' (Leisure Hour, 1874, p. 284 ; so Exf>ositor,
Oct. 1896, p. 204). Is the name due to a confusion wuh Nahr
Banias (certainly not the ancient Amana)? No Abanias is men-
tioned in Porter's FtTe Years in Damascus or in Barton and
Drake's Umxplortd Syria.
ABBA
same root). There is no instance of the name earlier
than Jeremiah. Targ. Nu. 27 la Ut. 3249 g'ves units
As seen from W. Palestine this range forms a con-
tinuous mountain-wall, at a pretty constant level, which
is broken only by the valley - mouths of the Yarmuk,
Zerka or Jabbok, and Arnon. Across the gulf of the
Jordan valley it rises with great iiuprcssiveness, and
constitutes the eastern horizon (cp Stanley, SP ;
GASm, //(/' 53, 519, 548). The hardly varying edge
masks a considerable difference of level l)ehind. On
the whole the level is maintained from the foot of
Hermon to the S. end of the Dead Sea at a height of from
2000 to 3000 feet alxjvc the ocean. The Ijasis through-
out is limestone. N. of the Yarmuk this is deeply
covered by volcanic deposits, and there are extinct craters
NE. of the I^ake of Galilee. Hetween the Yarmak
and the Wady Hesbiin, at the N. end of the Dead Sea,
run transverse ridges, cut by dtp wadies, and well
wooded ;is far S. as the Zerka. S. of Wady Hesban
rolls the breezy treeless plateau of Moal , indented in
its western edge by short wadies rising cjuickly to the
plateau level, with the headlands that are more properly
the Mts. of Abarim between them ; and cut right through
to the desert by the great trenches of the wadies, Zerka,
Main, and Mojib or Arnon. Kor details see A.sui:)OTH-
PlSG.Ml, B.\M()T1I-BAAI., Beth-Feor, Moab, Nkbo,
PiSGAH, Zoi'HiM, etc., with authorities quoted there.
On .\u. .3347 see Wandkkings, 11. G. A. s.
ABBA (aBBa [Ti- WH], i.e. N3S, Ab, 'father," in
the 'emphatic stale'), an Aram, title of God used by
Jesus and his contemporaries, and retained by Greek-
speaking Christian Jews. See Mk. 14 36 Kom. 815 Gal.
46t ; where in each case 6 van/jp is subjoined.
ABDA (Nl^y, 51, frequent in Phoen. and Aram.
On the form cp Kenan, A'/i/ v. i65y. ['82], and see
Na.mes, 37, 51).
1. Father of Adoiiiram (i K. 46 ; afiam [A] ; tApa [B] ; ejoofi
(Lj).
2. Levite in list of inh.ibitants of Jerusalem (see EzR.\, ii. $ 5/',
f I5[i|rt), Neh. ni7(a/M[i<ca.inK. ^\>], LU,pT,p[t(*], ^^P [B],
lui. [Al, a^iiasll.j) iCh. yi6, OBAL)rAH,9(r/.r'.).
ABDEEL (^S'^^y, 21, 'servant of God), father
of Shelemiah, Jer. 3()26t. (Not in .)
ABDI O^^y, 52. abbr. for 'servant of Yahw6'?
cp I'ahii. n^y, and see Okadiah ; aBAia [I-])-
1 . Father of Kish, a Levite under Hezekiah, mentioned
in the genealogy of ETHAN [^.i'.], 1 Ch. 644 [29] 2 Ch.
29.2: a/i5[6> [BAL].
2. One of the bne Ei.AM [f.v. ii. i], in list of
those with foreign wives (see EZKA, i. 5 end), Ezral026
(a/33[]ta [BXA], -s[L])= i Esd. 927 (RVOabuils, AV
om. , u;a/i5[eJtoj [B.A]).
ABDIAS (.iBD/.is). 4 Esd.l39t. See Obauiah, i.
ABDIEL (V^9V. i?i^ 21, 37, 'servant of God ' ;
ABAeH\ [B]; -AihA [AL]), in genealogy of Gad,
I Ch. i.st.
ABD0N(l"n3y; aBAujn [AL], see also below).
one of the four Lcvitical cities within the tribe
of Asher ; Josh. 21 30 i Ch. 674(59)1- The site has
not been identified, but Gudrin has suggested that of
'Abdch, 10 m. N. from 'Akka (Acre). The same city is
referred to in Josh. I928, where t^'^V. (AV Hkbrun ;
RV Ebron) is a graphical error for p3y. Abdon, which,
in fact, some MSS. read (Josh. 21 30, Safi^uv [B] ; 1 Ch.
674[59]. aliapaif [B], om. [L]; josh. I928, eXjSwi' [B],
axpau [ALjI.
ABDON (fn3y. 77; dim. ofEsED; ABAa)N[BAL]).
I. b. Hillel, one of the six minor judges (see
Judges, ). After judging Israel eight years,
he was buried at Pirathon in Ephraim, his native
5
ABEL-BETH-MA ACHAH
place. He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, ' that
rode on three-score and ten ass colts ' i.e. , was head of
a large and wealthy family (cp Judg. 610). Judg. 12 131$!
{XafiSufi. [.AL], i: 15 -w [A]) ; on Ew.'s conjecture that
his name should be restored in i S. 12 11. see Bkdan, 1.
2. b. Sha.shok, a Kciijaiiiitc (i Ch. 823!, afiaSuiy [H]).
). b. Jeiel the father of Gibeon ; i Ch. I
Ch. U 36 (^trafiaimv [ii], cafiiutv | A]).
Mi<ah, ;i courtier of King Josiah (2 Ch. 34 30
[H)), elsewhere called AcHlioK {q.v. 2). 5. .Sec JJtnA.v
ABEDNEGO (133 nay or NUi 131?, 86 ; a
corruption of 133 13y, ' servant of Nebo.' which
occurs in an Aisyrio-Arain.nic inscription, CC>7"2i26;
ABAeNArw [BA 87]; q^. ">"%>! ; AnoEyAGo), th^
court name given to .Xzariah [\6], the friend of Daniel
(Dan. I7, etc.). On name see al.so Nkrgai_
ABEL (ban, 6; aBcA [ADL] ; abei). Gen. 42
ff. There are three phases in Jewish beliefs respecting
Abel. The second and the third may be mentioned first
The catastrophe of the Exile shifted the mental horizon,
and made a right view of the sior)- of .\bel impossible.
Abel was therefore at first (as it would seem from P)
neglected. -Afterwards, however, he was restored to
more than his old position by devout though uncritical
students of Scripture, who saw in him the type of the
highest saintliness, that sealed by a martyr's death (cp
Kohler, /(^A" v. 413 ['93]). The same view appears in
parts of the NT (Mt. 2335=Lk. llsi ; Heb. II4; I224 ;
I John 3 12). God lx>re witness, we are told ( Heb. 1 1 4),
that Abel was rigliteous i.e., a possessor of true faith,
and it was by faith that Alx-1 offered irXdova (Cobet
conjectures ^5/oi'a) dvalav. Hence Magee assumes that
Abel had received a revelation of the Atonement (Adnt-
mcnl and Sacrijice, i. 50-53). The original narrator (J ),
however, would certainly wish us to regard .\brahan> as
the first believer ; the story of Cain and Aljel is an early
Israelitish legend retained by J as having a profitable
tendency. On this earliest phase of l^elief, see Cain, 4/
Meaning qf the nanu. The Massorites understood .Abel
(Hebel) to mean 'a breath," 'vanity' (cp Ps. 35*6 [7]): but
the true meaning, I)oth of Abel and of the collateral form Jalal,
must be something concrete, and a right view of the stnry
favours the meaning " shepherd,' or, more generally, ' herdman."
This is supjjortcd by the e.\islence of a group of .Semitic words,
some of which denote domesticated animals, while others are the
corresponding words for their herdnien. Cp, r.(/., -Vss. ibilu,
' ram, camel, ass ' (but some e.xplain 'wild sheep': see Muss-
Arn. s.7>.); Aram. /laAdd/d, 'herdman' (used widely; see PS,
S.7'.) ; At. ihii, 'camels,' abhat, 'camel-herrl.' The attempt of
I-cnormant (/, origines, i. 161) and, ranre definitely, Sayce
{Hibbert Li-cts. 186, 236, 249), to find in the name a trace
of a n.iture-myth, Aliel ( = Bab. ab/u, ' son ') being originally ' the
only son Tammuz, who was a shepherd like Jabal and .\l)el '
(Sayce), and whom Lenormant regards as, like Abel in early
theology, a kind of type of Christ, is adventurous. The name
'son' is insufficient as a title of Tammuz (./i^a/wa//}/;) ; and
there is nothing said of a mourning for Abel's death. The
title of 'shepherd ' applied to Tammu/ in 4 R i~ i is explained
by the following word 'lord' (see Jercniias, Izciubi^r .\imroti,
50). In the Testament 0/ .ibtaJtam (ed. James) Alicl plays
the part of Judge of the nether world, like the Jama (Vima) of
the .\r>ans. T. K. C.
ABEL (73X, 89-100) occurs, apparently in
the sense of ' meadow,' in the place-names dealt with in
the following si.x articles. .\s a i>lace-name it is to be
struck out of I S. 618^, where for MT H^Hin ^3K TV
(so also Pesh.) "^ reads iuK [i. too [L ) \l$ov toO
HtydXov, with which the Targ. Jon. agrees (so also
RV). Ew., We., and others further change the points
so as to read : ' and a w itness is the great stone. ' Dr.
suggests as an alternative : ' and still the great stone,
whereon ' -etc. On Abel in 2 S. 20 18, see Abei.-
Betii-Maachah. g. a. s.
ABEL - BETH - MAACHAH. RV Abel -Beth -
Maacah (2S. -20.4: nayp n'31 nJ>3N. to Al)el
and Beth-niaacali,' RV unto Abel and to Beth-
maac(h)ah' [many strike out the conjunction, but the
places may have been different; cp a S. 20 15 I-
6
ABEL-CHERAMIM
2 K. 1529 BAL], eic ABe\ km eic BaiOm&xa [^l
. BhGm&xa t-"^]' K. aBhXa k. BaiGmakko) [L])-
Cp 2S.2O15, nrj*"?.! n'3 "'^pnKa, EV 'in Abel of Beth-
maac(h)ah,'<>' A/3eA ttji/ Baid^iaxa [ H ], (f A. ei/ B>)9/uiaxa [A], tv nj
A. (t. BaiO^oucxu [LI; I K. l.>20, 'a-'z'yiK, XStKfjLoB [B], \PK
ovKov (sic) Maaxa [A], \Pe\^aaxa [L] : 2 K.ir)2q, 'c'lhlK,
.\^e\ K. T>)f Ma^aa^a 115), Ka/3eA ic. t. Bpjnaax<i [A], A^eA ic. T.
Baifl/xaaxa [L); 2 S. 'JOiS (on which see Aram, 5), 73K,
EV AuEi., (tt,) A/3<rA [iis BAL].
This place, mentioned, although in now mutilated
form [A]-bi-il, by Tiglath-pileser III. (cp Schr. COT
on 2 K. 1529), is the present Afii/ called also Abil el-
Kamh ( ' of the wheat ' ) to distinguish it from Abiles-Siik
(see .\bile.\e) a small village inhabited by Christians on
the Ndhr Bareighit, on a hill 1074 ft. above the sea,
overlooking the Jordan valley, almost directly opposite
to Danids, and on the main road thence to Sidon and
the coast. It is a strong site, with a spring and a
(probably artificial) mound ; below is a broad level
of good soil, whence the modern name. See Yakut
I56; Rob. LBR 372/. (who argues against Ibel el-
Hawd, a site 8 m. farther north) ; PEF Mem. i. 85 107;
Merrill, East of the Jordan, 309, 315. In 2 Ch. I64,
we have, instead of the Abel - beth - maacah of the
parallel passage (i K. 152o), Abel-mai.m (c;d Sax,
A^eXfjiaiv [A], -/lav [B], -/xaeiix [L] ; cp Jos. Ant. viii.
124, A^eXavrj), or ' .\bel of Waters," a name suitable
for so well-watered a neighbourhood. On Judith 44X3
where Pesh. reads .\belmeholah, and K apparently .Abel-
maim, see Bklmkn (cp also Bek.Ai). On the ancient
history of the place see Akam, 5. c. A. s.
ABEL-CHERAMIM (D^OnS ^3N, ' meadow of vine-
yards,' 103; eBeAxAp/weiN [B] ; ABe\ AMneAco-
NCON [AL] : Judg. Il33t KV), the limit of Jephthah's
pursuit and slaughter of the Ammonites. Eus. and Jer.
(OS(-> 2255 96 10, 'A/SeX afxiriXuv , Abe/ uinearuin) iden-
tify it with a village of their day, named "A/SeX, 7 R.
m. from Philadelphia. This Abel may be any of the
many fertile levels among the rolling hills around
'Amman, on which the remains of vineyards and of
terraces are not infrequent. G. A. S.
ABEL-MAIM (D^D ^2^. 2 Ch. I(i4), see Abel-
Beth-Maachah.
ABEL-MEHOLAH (nbinO "plN*. i.e., 'dancing
meadow'; eBeXMACoAA, ABcoMCOyAa, eBAAMAO-
[B]; ABeXMAOYA(A),BAceX/weo.[A]; ABeXMeoyAiA).
-AAA(jO\a [L] ; ABii!..MJ:(H)L-L.4 : Jos. Ant. viii. 187,
aBgAa). t'le home of Elisha the prophet (i K. 19i6),
and probably also of .\driel b. Barzillai ' the Meholathite'
(i S. 1819 ; 2 S. 218), is mentioned in conjunction with
Bethshean as defining the province of one of Solomon's
officers (i K.412). Gideon pursued the Midianites 'as
far as Beth-shittah towards Zererah as far as the bor-
der' lit. ' lip,' probably the high bank which marks the
edge of the Jordan valley proper ' of Abel-meholah, by
Tabbath ' (Judg. 722). According to Eus. and Jer. [OS
97" 22735), Abelmaula (or ' A^eXfiaeXai) lay in the
GAdr, 10 R. m. to the south of Scythopolis (Bethshean),
and was still an inhabited village in their time, with the
name Bethaula, lir]0/j.aeX6. (though they mention also
an Abelmea, 'A^eXyued). This points to a locality at or
near the ]il.ace where the IV. Mdlih, coming down
from ' .\\\\ M:dih, joins the Jordan valley.
ABEL-MIZRAIM(DnyO ij^S [see below], neNGoc
AirYHTOY [BAL]; so Pesh. Vg.). Gen. 50iit (Jj.
otherwise \v. 10/ ) called GOREN ha-ATAD (IDXH p]| ;
AXcONI ATAA [B'AL], a. TAA [B* vi<l.], A. ATATii])
or 'the threshing-floor of the thorn-shrub" (EV 'of
Atah," see Brambi.k, i), and said to be situated
' beyond Jordan " (cp v. 10 J). It was there that Joseph
made a second mourning for his father, whence the
ABEL-SHITTIM
etymological play on the name {v. n). After this,
Joseph and his brethren carried the embalmed body of
Jacob to Machpelah for burial, and then returned to
Egypt {v. 13/. J and P). The words ' which is beyond
Jordan' (v. 10/.), however, cannot be accurate: the
original text of J must, it would seem, have been altered,
owing to a misreading or an editorial misunderstanding.
The circuitous route round the north end of the Dead
Sea has no obvious motive : had it really been meant,
something more would have been said about it (cp
Nu. 1425). For p-iM, ' the Jordan,' J nmst have written
either nna'n (less probably nK;n) /. ^. , the most easterly
arm of the Nile (a frontier of Canaan, according to
Josh. 183) or n,i3,i, 'the stream' i.e., the Wddy el-
'Arish, the usual SW. boundary of Canaan (cp Gen.
15 18, where J calls this Wady, not the Vm but the
n,i3 of Egypt i.e., ' the stream on the border of Egypt*
(Kautzsch-Socin), on which see Egyi'T, River of).
The meaning of the narrative is this. At the first
Canaanite village (the first after the border had been
crossed) the 'great company' (v.g) halted, while
Joseph and his fellow- Hebrews mourned in their own
way (cpi'. 3^) in the very place where wedding and
funeral ceremonies are still performed in the Syrian
villages (Wetz. ). The repetition of 'which is beyond
Jordan ' must be due to the editor.
It is remarkable that Jer. (OS 85 15), though he does not
question the reading 'beyond Jordan,' identifies Area Atath
with Bethagta i.e., Beth-hoglah (q.v.), which is certainly
on the west bank of the Jordan. Dillm. is more consistently-
conservative, and, followed by Sayce (Crit. and Man. ^y/l),
finds in the trans-Jordanic Abel-Mizraiin a testimony to the
Egyptian empire in Palestine in the pre-Mosaic age, proved by
the Am.irna tablets. The exegetical difficulties of this view,
however, are insuperable.
As to the name Abel-mizraim it is not improbable that
its original meaning was 'meadow of Musri " (in X.
Arabia, see Mizkaim), but that before J's time it had
come to be understood as meaning ' meadow [on the
border] of Egypt." Cp Wi. A/tor. Forsch. 34, and
see Egypt, River of. t. k. c.
ABEL-SHITTIM (D^t2:rn bzN*. 100, i.e., 'the
meadow of the acacias ' ; Saniar. omits the article ; aBgX-
CATTel^^ [L]. B . . ttim [A], -ttgin \y\ BeAcA [B] ;
ABiu.-s.-iTiM, Num.3349), or, more briefiy, Shittim
(D^t^tf'H, 'the acacias, cATTeiN [BA], -m [L] ; but
Nu. 25 I CATTeiM [F], -N [L] ; Josh. 2i eK CATTGI [A],
e^ATTeiN [I'M. 3i CKATTeiN [1 ] ; Mic. BstTCON cxoi-
NCON [B.AQ] (for CXINCON ? cp Sus. 54), in the Arabah
or Jordan basin at the foot of Mount Peor and opposite
Jericho. In the time of Jos. {Ant. iv. 81, v. 1 1) a town
named Abila {'A^iXri), rich in palm trees, occupied such
a site at a distance of 60 stadia (7^ R. m. ) from the
river. Cp B/ iv. 7 6, where it is described as near the
Dead Sea, and Jer. (Comm. on Joel), who locales it
6 R. m. from Livias. This seems to point to the
neighbourhood of Khirbet el-Kefrein, where the Wady
Kefrein enters the Jordan valley, and there are ruins,
including those of a fortress. It was at Abila, according
to Jos., that Moses delivered the exhortations of Dt.
The palm trees have disappeared, but there is an
acacia grove at no great distance (Tristram, Conder).
According to A'/'(-*v. 50, this is the Aubal or ' Abel ' men-
tioned among the places conquered by Thotnies III.
In Joel 3 [4] 18 d'cc should perhaps be treated as a
common noun and translated ' acacias ' (so RV mg. , and
Marti in HS ; cp rcD;' axo^vusv [BNAQ]). At all events
the reference is not to Abel-shittim across the Jordan.
Some (We., Now.) think the name has been preserved
in the Wddy es-Sant (see Elah, Valley of), but
the latter does not recjuire the watering of which Joel
speaks ; and he intends, rather, some dry gorge nearer
Jerusalem, perhaps (like Ez. 47 1-12) some part of the
Kedron valley, Wddy en-Ndr (cp Dr. ad loc. ; GASm.
HG 511 ; also, for acacias on W. of Dead Sea, Tristr.
Land of I sr. 280, 298).
ABEZ
ABEZ, RVEbezO'nN ; peBec [B], agmc [A], -mic
[L] ; .ti!i:s; Josh. lOaot),' one of the sixteen cities of
Issachar. The site is unknown, but the name is
evidently connected with that of the judge Ibzan (i/.v.)
of Bethlehem i.e., the northern liethlehem. This
Bethlehem, it is true, is Zebulunite, while P'bez is
assigned to Issachar ; but the places must have liccn
very close to each other, and the frontiers doubtless
varied. Conder's identification with F.l lieidd, 2 m. from
Beit Lahm, might suit as to position, but 'the while
village ' can have nothing to do with the old name.
W. R. S.
ABI (*3N. so Targ. Jon. ; abbrev. of abijah ;
aBoy[BA], -efM; Jos. 'A/3/a ; abi), daughter of Zecha-
riah, wife of King .Aiiaz, and mother of King Hczekiah
(2 K. ISst). In the parallel jiassage (2 Ch. '29i) the
name is given as Abijah (n;3K, a/3pla [B : see Swete],
ap^aOve [A], a/9ta [L] ; wj/ t'^] : ^^i^). but the
probability is perhaps in favour of the contracted form
in K. (.SotJray, //PA' 24.)
ABI, Names with. There has l)een much discussion
as to the interpretation of the names compounded
with iifii, ii/ii, and some other words denoting relation-
ship' (cp Ammi-, Hami'-, Dod-). Without assuming
that this discussion is in all points closed (cp Namks,
44), the writer thinks it best to state the theory which
he has himself long held, adopting certain points (with
acknowletlgnient) from Gray's very lucid and thorough
exposition, and then to consider the religious and
archivological aspects of the subject.
The question whether these names are sentences has
long l)een answered by some critics in the affirniative,
anti the arguments of Gray {//P.\ 75-86)
1. Are the
names
sentences ?
put the student in possession of all the
points to be urged. He also ably criticises
the alternative view (viz. , that the two
elements in Abimelech, Ammiel, etc. , are related as
construct and genitive). It is usual to refer on this
side to such Phci-nician names as -j^cnnN, in which the
term of relation is always fern, in names of women and
niasc. in those of men. But this is decisive only for
Ph(cnician names, atul even in their case only for names
in 'nx and nnK ('brother' and 'sister'). Compounds
with ab ('father') are used indifferently of men and
women in Phuenician, just as they are in Hebrew. In
the latter case, therefore, at least, the term of relation
cannot refer to the bearer of the name i.e. , cannot be in
the construct state. No doubt in Ps. 110 4 Melchizedek
(which suffers, along with other compound names con-
taining a connective i [see below, 3], from the same
ambiguity as names containing a term of kinship) is
understood as a construct relation, ' king of righteous-
ness,' and the phrase ii.n 'ax as we should certainly read
in Is. 95 [6] for ly <3k'- obviously means for the writer
'glorious father' (i.e., glorious ruler of the family of
Israel; cp Is. 222i). It would seem, therefore, that
in the post-exilic age some names of this type were so
understood. But we nmst remember that in later times
the original sense of a formation may be forgotten.
Gray's main objections to taking abi etc. as originally
constructs are as follows : ( i ) The theory will not
account for names like Eliab, Joah, etc. Eliab clearly
stands to Abiel as Elijah to Joel ; in the latter case the
' On some possible hut by no means clear instances of em,
'mother,' in compound names, see Gray, ///'.V'64 n. 1.
2 The intcrpret.-ition of i> 'an as 'everlasting one' stands or
falls with the interpretation of, e.g., Abinoam as 'father of
graciousness," and of Abitub as 'father of goodness.' Though
defended by reference to such names by Guthe {^/.ukun/tshild
ties Jfs. 41 ('85]), it is now generally rejected in favour of
'perpetual father (of his people),' or 'father (/.c. proilucer) of
booty.' Hut neither of these explanations gives a satisfactory
parallel to ' prince of peace.' We must read 11:7 3(c 'Prince
of peace 'suggests a reminiscence of AbSalom, which the writer
probablyinterpreted 'father of peace,'/.^., peaceful (or prosperous)
ruler.
ABI
genitive relation is excluded ; inferentially it is equally
so in the former. (2) The u.se of ab with a nouti
denoting a quality is a pure Arabism,' which should not
be lightly admitted, while such an interpretation as
' father of Yah' for Abijah is unlikely. (3) A woman's
I name like ' brother of graciousness ' (Ahinoam) is incon-
ceivable.''* In favour of taking the names compounded
I with a term of relationshij) as sentences Cj ray urges that,
though ab, ah, 'am, etc., all denote a male relative, the
proper names compounded with them are u.sed in-
differently of men and women ; while, on the other
hand, nouns with ben (son) prefixed are used exclusively
of men, the corresponding names of women having bath
(daughter) for ben. He infers, therefore, that, while in
the case of names in bin and bath the element denoting
kindred refers to the bearer of the name, in the case of
ab etc. it does not.
Assuming that these compound names are sen-
tences, are there grounds for determining which of the
XtThi Vi r* *^^" elements is .subject and which is
. Wlicn paiX predicate? (1) In cases like Abijah,
18 predicate 7 ^y^^;^^^^ o,y j^g fir^t part can be
regarded as indefinite* and therefore as predicate. We
must, therefore, render ' Yahw^ is father," etc. The
same principle would apply to Joab, Joah (if these are
really compounds). Quite generally, therefore, when-
ever one element is a proper name it must \x subject.*
But (2) a divine proper name may give place to Sn (el) or
some divine title e.g.. Lord. Hence Abiel, Abimelech,
will be best explained on the analog}' of Abijah i.e.,
' God is father,' ' the divine king is father.' Lastly (3)
the divine name or title may give place to an epithet,
such as ram, 'lofty.' Here the syntax is at first sight
open to doubt. The usages of the terms of relation-
ship in the cases just considered would suggest that
-ram in Abi-ram is subject ; but the fact that ram
nowhere occurs by itself designating Yahwe seems to
the writer to show that it must be predicate. Abrani,
therefore, means, not 'the exalted one is father,' but
'the (divine) father is e.xalted." Cp Adomram,
Jkhor.vm.
The question whether the connective /", which occurs
in most of the forms, is the suffix of the first [x-rs. sing. ,
or an old ending, has been variously
answered. Should Abinoam, Ahinoam
be rendered ' my father (or my brother) is graciousness "
(so Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. 277 e), or ' the
(divine) father, or brother, is graciousness " ? Gray
well expounds the reasons for holding the latter view .
Thus, there are certain forms in which does not occur
e.g., Abram, Absalom, beside Abiram, Abisalom. We
also find Abiel beside Eliab. Lastly, the analogy of
in'DT (Jeremiah), iri'pin' (Hezekiah), etc., favours the
theory that the names before us contain utterances
respecting the relation of a deity to all the members of
the tribe or clan which worships him. To some this
may appear a slight argument ; but to the writer it has
long tx^en an infiuential consideration. An argument
on the opposite side offered by Boscawen and Honmiel
will be considered later (see 5).
It is not easy at first to appreciate, or even to under-
stand, the conception which underlies compound names
,. . of this chiss. The representation of a
4. KellglOUS g^^ ^ jj^^. j-j^j^^.^ ^f ^ j^ij^ Q^ j,,^,, ,.^y
conception. ^ j^^^ repulsive to us than the representa-
tion of him as a brother or as some other kinsman.
Even a prophet does not object to the expression ' sons
of the living God ' ( Hos. 1 10 [li 1] : see the commentators) ;
but any one can see that to substitute some other relation
1 R.nre in ancient Arabic (see Names, | 45).
2 Kvin if in modern Ar. aim is so used of a woman (see
Namks, g 45, third note).
3 This assumes that the connective I is not pronominal (see
below 3).
The same principle will apply to other compounds contammg,
instead of a term of kinship, a title, e.g.y as in Melchizedbk
(y.7'.), Adonijah, etc., or a concrete noun, as in Uriah.
3. Connective <
ABIA
for sonship would in such a context be impossible.
Names in Abi-, Ammi-, etc., are, in fact, of primitive
origin, and must be explained in connection with
primitive ideas of the kinship of gods and men (see
WRS /^S(-> Lcct. 2). Names like Ahijah, Ahinoam,
etc. , imply a time when the god was regarded as brother.
The question then arises, May we take 'brother' in a
wide sense as kinsman ? or did such formations descend
from a remote age when society was polyandrous?
Strabo (16 4) wrote of a polyandrous society in Arabia
Feli.x that 'all are brothers of all,' and Robertson Smith
{A'in. 167/) was of opinion that far back in the Sfx.ial
development of Hebrew life lay a form of fraternal
polyandry. Now, sup[X)sing that the Hebrews when
in this stage conceived themselves to be related to a
male deity, it is difficult to see under what other form
than brotherhood such relationship could be conceived.
Of course, if names expressing this conception were
retained in later ages, they would receive a vaguer and
more satisfactory meaning, such as ' Yahw6 is a kins-
man,' or ' protector.' ^
I^astly, to supplement the Hebraistic arguments in 3,
we must briefly consider the argument in favour of the
5. Relationship \^P^ff^^ \ll^' ^f^""' ^- ^'''''' ^'
individual ^'^'shalom, My father is gracious-
or tribal ?
ness' for Abinoam, etc., based on
early Babylonian and S. Arabian
names. Boscawen {Afigration of Abraham, Victoria
Institute, Jan. 1886) long ago pointed out a series of
primitive Babylonian names such as Ilusu-abisu, ' his
god is his father,' Ilusu-ibnisu, ' his god made him,'
which, in complete correspondence with the Babylonian
penitential psalms, indicate a sense of the relation of a
protective god not merely to a clan but to a person;
and Hommel, in the interest of a too fascinating historical
theory, has more recently given similar lists [AHT
Ti. ff-), to which he has added a catalogue of S. Arabian
names {ib. 83, 85/) compounded with Hi, abi, where
these elements appear to mean ' my God,' ' my father,*
etc. The present writer, however, must confess that,
though aware of the names collected by Boscawen, he
has long been of opinion that the course of the develop-
ment of Israelitish thought and society is entirely adverse
to the view that the relation of the deity described by
abi, ahi, etc. , was primarily to the individual. This is a
question of historical method on which no compromise
is possible and not of Assyriology. We cannot argue
that because the Babylonians, even in remote ages, bore
names which imi>ly a tendency to individualistic religion,
the Israelites also who, as far as our evidence goes, were
much less advanced in all kinds of culture than the early
Babylonians had a similar tendency, and gave expres-
sion to it in their names. It is, therefore, wise to use
these Babylonian and S. Arabian names, not as suggest-
ing a theory to be followed in interpreting Israelitish
names, but as monuments of early attainments of
Semitic races which foreshadow those of the choicest
part of the Jewish people at a much more recent period.
The value of these names for explaining the formation
of Hebrew proper names may be comparatively slight ;
but they suggest the idea that it was only the want of
the higher spiritual prophecy (as known in Israel), as a
teaching and purifying agent, and of somewhat different
historical circumstances, which prevented the Baby-
lonians from rivalling the attainments in spiritual
religion of the later Jewish church. T. K. C.
ABIA (n3N), RV Abijah. For i Ch.3io Mt. 1 7
see .Ahij.-^h, i ; for Lk. 1 sf, ibid., 6.
ABIAH, an English variant of Abijah [q.v.) in AV
of I.Sam. 82 iCh. 224 628[i3] 78, corrected in RV
to the more usual form, except in i Ch. 224628f 13].
ABIALBON, the Arbathite ('na-iyn pSSinaK, 4.
1 Cp Barton, ' Kinship of god.s and men among the ancient
Semites,' /A'Z, xv. 168^, especially 179^ ('96).
ABIATHAR
[rAA]ABiH\ Y'oc TOY apaBcoBaioy [B]. AcieABcoN
o ApcoBooGeiAC [A], [taAcJaBihc o caraiBaBi
[L]), 2 S. 2331, the name of one of David's 'thirty,'
should in all probability be ' Abibaal a man of Beth-
arabah' (so Bu., and partly Klo. and Ki. ), the al (^j;)
in Abi-albon being a relic of Baal (7y3), and the final
syllable bon a corruption of Beth (71^3). '"-, it is
true, agrees with iCh. II32 (-nanyn sk-^n ; o,3i7j\ 6
yapa^aiddi [B], a. 6 yapafieff [X], a. 6 ffapafifdOa [A],
o. 6 apajiadi [L]) in supporting the name Abiel (see
Dr. TBS 283) ; but we know that early names of
persons contained the name baal as a title of Yahsve
where later writers would have preferred to see el (see
Beeli.\ua). t. k. c.
ABIASAPH (^DK^3N, 44 ; ' the (divine) father
gathers ' or ' removes ' or [if the X be not original, see
below] ' adds' [cp the popular etymologies of Joskph],
unless it be supposed that P and the Chronicler adopted
an ancient name indeed [Gray, BPN 244], but under-
stood it in the sense ' father of Asaph ' [077C'-' 204 n.] ;
aBiacap [B], -cA<j> [FL]), Ex.624 [P], one of the
three sons of Korah, i.e. eponym of one of the three
divisions of the Korahite guild of Levites, see AsAPH,
3. In I Ch. 623 [8] [a^iaOap [B], -acra0 [AL], .^mjld/
[sic-]. Abiasaph), 637 [22] (alSiaaap [BA], -acra^ [B^'- '^"'-'b.
L], ,^^j!as( ; Abiasaph), 9i9 (a/3ia(Ta<^[BAL], ,a*^Lo/,
Asaph) the name occurs also, without consonantal k as
Ebias.\ph, f|D^3N (Samar. text omits k in Ex. 624), which
name ought to be read for that of Asaph also in i Ch.
26 I (.-jCN ; a(3La<Ta(f>ap [B], a(ra.<p [AL], .a m 7 . . Asaph).
ABIATHAR ("in^aX, 44, i.e., 'the (divine) father
is pre-eminent'; cp Ithkkam ; aBiaGar [BXAL];
in I Ch. 18 16, ABieAOep [N*] ; aBiaGapoc. Jos. [A^i/.
vi. 146]), the son of Ahimelech and descendant of Eli ;
the priestly guild or clan to which he belonged seems to
have claimed to trace back its origin through Phinehas
and Eliezer to Moses, who, in the early tradition (E.x.
337, E), guards the sanctuary of Yah we and delivers
his oracles. It was Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, who
officiated as chief priest in the sanctuary of Nob when
David came thither, fleeing from the jealous fury of
Saul. Having no other bread at hand, Ahimelech gave
the fugitives the holy loaves from the sanctuary. One
of the royal couriers, however (see i S. 21 7 [8], with Dr. 's
note), saw the act, and betrayed Ahimelech to Saul,
who forthwith put the priests to death. No less than
eighty-five (according to MT) ^ fell by Doeg's hands,
and of the whole number Abiathar alone escaped.
It may be inferred from i S. 22 15 that David
had before this contracted friendship and alliance with
the house of Eli, and we can readily believe that,
just as Samuel marked out Saul as the destined leader
of Israel, so the priests at Nob, noting the tendency
of the king to melancholy madness, and his inability
to cope with the difficulties of his position, selected
David as the future king and gave a religious
sanction to his prospective claims (cp David, 3).
Certain it is that the massacre of the priests at Nob told
strongly in David's favour. The odium of sacrilegious
slaughter clung to Saul, while David won the prestige of
close friendship with a great priestly house. Henceforth
David was the patron of Abiathar, and Abiathar was
bound fast to the interests of David ' Abide thou with
nie,' said the warrior to the priest, 'for he that seeketh
my life seeketh thy life' (i S. 2223). Moreover,
Abiathar carried the ephod or sacred image into the
camp of David : it was in the presence of this image
that the lot was cast and answers were obtained from
Yahw6 : nor does it need much imagination to under-
stand the strength infused into David's band by the
confidence that they enjoyed supernatural direction in
1 See David, fan.
ABIB
their perplexities. Abiathar was faithful to David
through every change of fortune. It was with the
sanction of the sacred oracle that David settled at
Hebron and became king of Judah {2 S. 21-3). and it was
Abiathar who carried the ark. that palladium of Israel,
which David used to consecrate Jerusalem, the capital of
his united kingdom ( i K. '226). Abiathar maintained his j
sacerdotal dignity amidst the splendour of the new
court, though later (we do not know when) others were
added to the list of the royal chaplains viz., Zadok, of
whose origin we have no certain information, and Ira,
from the Manassite clan of Jair,' while David's sons
also officiated as priests (2S. 817/ '2026). Zadok
and Abiathar both continued faithful to their master
during Absalom's revolt, and by means of their sons
conveyed secret intelligence to the king after he had left
the city.
When David was near his end, Abiathar along with
Joab supported the claim of Adonijah to the throne,
and consequently incurred the enmity of Solomon, the
younger but successful aspirant. Solomon spared Abi-
athar's life, remembering how long and how faithfully
he had served David. But he was banished from the
court to Anathoth, his native place, and Zadok, who
had chosen the winning side, became chief priest in his
stead. To the men of the time, or even long after the
time at which it happened, such a proceeding needed no
explanation. It was quite in order that the king should
place or displace the priests at the royal sanctuary. But
in a later age the writer of i S. 227-36,''^ who lived after
the publication of D, did not think it so light a matter
that the house of Eli should be deprived, at a monarch's
arbitrary bidding, of the priesthood which they had
held by immemorial right. Therefore, he attributes the
forfeiture to the guilt of Eli's sons. A 'man of God,'
he says, had told Eli himself of the punishment waiting
for his descendants, and had announced Yahwe's pur[)ose
to substitute another priestly line which was to officiate
before God's ' anointed ' i.e. , in the royal presence. A
late gloss inserted in i K. 227 calls attention to the fulfil-
ment of this prediction.
A sjiecial point which has occasioned some difficulty
remains to be noticed. In 2 S. 8 17 [MT ual and
Vg.] and I Ch. I816 [tb. and Pesh. ; MT. however,
reading .Akimki.kch], instead of Abiathar b. Ahimelech
it is .Ahimelech b. Abiathar that is mentioned as priest
along with Zadok. In i Ch. 2-1631 as well. MT has
this reading, in v. 6 also "al pesh. except that **
reads viol ; in v. 3 these versions all read ' .Ahimelech of
the sons of Ithamar,' while in v. 31 MT (^''^l V'g. omit
the phrase ' b. Abiathar, and Pesh. the whole passage.
It is reasonable to suppose that this confusion is due to
an early corruption of the text, and that in 2 S. 817
we should read with the Pesh. ' Abiathar b. Ahimelech '
(so The. ad loc. ; Baudissin, A T Pr tester I hum, 195 ;
Dr. ad loc. ). The Chronicler, however, must have had
2 S. 817 before him in its present corrupt form. In
Mk. 226, by a similar confusion. David is said to have
gone into the house of God and received the shew-
bread 'when Abiathar was high-priest.' In reporting
our Lord's words the evangelist has confused Abiathar
with Ahimelech, a mistake into which he was led by the
constant association of David's name with that of
Abiathar. Suggestions made to evade thedifficulty e.g. .
that father and son each bore the same double name, or
that Abiathar officiated during his father's lifetime and
in his father's stead are interesting when we remember
the great names which have supported them, but are
manifestly baseless (see Zadok. i ). See Bu. RiSa 195/.
W. E. A.
ABIB (3*3K, i.e., ' [month of] young ears of barley ').
See Month, 2, 5.
1 See, however, Ira, 3, where a Judahite orifjin is suggested.
The section in its present form is from the school of the
Deuteronomist. But the expression ' walk before my anointed '
proves conclusively that there is an older substratum.
ABIGAIL
ABIDA, and (AV in Gen.) Abidah (jn'3K, 44.
' the (divine) father knoweth ' ? c]) llliada, Bccliada,
Jehoiada; &B[e]lAA [BAL], aBira [AZ^], aBia [E].
aBi<\^& [I-] ; ^ii)a), one of the five ' sons ' of Midian,
and grandson of Abraham by Keturah ((jen. 264
I Ch. 1 33+). Unexplained, as yet. except that the same
name occurs in Sab. inscriptions (yrzK. cp also auyr,
Hal. 192, 202, etc.).
ABIDAN (p^3N, 44, 'the (divine) father is judge' ;
cp Daniel; ABleliAAN [HAL]; ahid.is), chief of
Benjamin in the time of Moses (Nu. In 222 76o6s
1024!). On the age of the name see Gray, UJ'N
202, 244. Possibly P had a consciousness that -dan
was archaic (cp Dan, 1). and therefore suitable in
the name of a tribal chief at the time of the I'^xodus.
To infer with Hommel [AHT 298-301) from such a
name as Abidan that P's record is itself ancient, is critic-
ally unjustifiable. P also gives the names SJIAI'HAT and
SniriiT.\N, which are scarcely archaic.
ABIEL (bx^SN, 4, 44. 'God is father' (of the
clan?); AB[e]iHA [BAL] ; AKni.).
1. Father of Ner and Kish (i.S. 9i. also 14 sif,
-t]p [B]) ; see Abnek.
2. One of David's thirty mighty men (iCh. II32);
see A Bi A I, BON.
ABIEZER, A\- Abi-ezer ("lir^K. 44. * the (divine)
father is help,' cp Ahiezer ; ABiezep [BAL]: Judg.
634 etc.).
1. The clan from which Gideon sprang belonged to
the Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh. In
Gideon's time its seat was at Ophrah (Judg. 624), an
unidentified site, but apparently on the west side of
Jordan. It is probable that the first settlements of the
Manassites lay to the west of that river, but the date at
which their conquests were extended to the eastward is
not known (Josh. 172 tefet [B], ax'er/> [A], ajiu^ep
[L] ; Judg. 61124). In Nu. '2630 the name Abiczer
appears, not as in the parallel i Ch. 7 18, but in an
abbreviated form as Iezek (ni^'ht, AV Jeezer, axifj'ep
[BAL]), and the gentilic as Iezerite (niy-K, AV
Jeezerite, 6 axi-fi'fi-pfi [B], -fepi [.AL]). In i Ch.
7 18 Abiezer finds a place in the Manassite genealogy as
son of Hamniolecheth the sister of Machir b. Manasseh.
The patronymic Abi-ezrite AV, Abiezkite RV (;
nturt), occurs in Judg. 611 24 (irarpbi toO eaSpei [B] ; ir.
a/sJfpi, 7r. T. iefpi[A]; 7r.(r.) efpei [L]) and (j>erhaps
as a gloss, see Moore, ad loc.) 832 (ajiifaSpi [B], rrps
o^iefpet [A], Trarpds a. [L]).
2. Of Anathoth, one of David's heroes (2 S. 23 27,
a^eiftfp [B] ; i Ch. 11 28 27. 2!). see David, 11 (a) i.
ABIGAIL (usually ^'J'^K, but ^^JUK in i S.25i8
Kt.,and^r3K in i S.2532. 2 S.33Kt.. and [so RV
Abigal] in 1725 ; and, perhaps with * and i transposed,
?''33N in I S. 25336 ; possibly we should point /'^DS,
45 ; so oftenest ^^,^*( . sometimes M^q^J ; cp
BDB Lex. s.v. ; AB[e]ir<MA [BAL], but in i S.253
ABipAiA [A]; meaning uncertain; ' Abi ' is a divine
title (see Names. 44. and cp HPN77. 85).
1. Wife of Nabai, (q.v.), and. after his death, of
David ( I S. 25). Her tactful speech against the causeless
sheddingofblood( i S. 25 22-31) is noteworthy for the hi.story
of Israelitish morality. Like Ahinoam. she accompanied
David to Gath and Ziklag. and was taken capme by the
Amalekites, but was recovered by David ( i S. 27 3 30s '8).
While at Hebron she bore David a son (see Daniel, 4).
2. A sister of David, who married Jether or Ithra,
and became the mother of Amasa, 2 S. 17 25 (see above),
I Ch. 2 i6i 17. In M T of the former passage, her father
1 B omits Abigail in v. 16, and BA read aiA^j for aJcA^'
of L.
14
ABIGAL
is called Nahash (an error also found in "*, and
clearly produced by the proximity of that name in v. 27 ;
' gives the correct reading, 'Jesse,' tf<r<rai), and her
husband is called ' the Israelite ' (so MT ; iapar)\fiT-qs
[B], }..\ ;rs.^) which, however, seems to be a corrup-
tion from ' the Jezreelite ' (tefpaTjXiTT?^ [L], de iesraeli
[ed. Rom.], de Hiesreli [cod. Amiat.]), just as ' Ahinoam
the Jezreelitess (i S. 273) becomes in B axfivaafi 7)
iffparjXfiTii. It is true, in i Ch. /.r. Jether is called
the Ishmaelite' (t<r/ia7;\(f)iTr;s [BA], ismahelites), but
this is plainly a conjectural emendation of ' the Israelite'
(L indeed has LOpa.; Pesh. om. ). InaS. 17 25 the same
emendation appears in * (jo-^a. ). David's sister was
not likely to marry an Ishmaelite. Heyse wonders
to what town Jerome's reading can refer. We can easily
answer the question. It was the Jezreel situated in Judah
(Josh. 1556), from which not only David's brother-in-law
but also his first wife Ahinoam probably came (so Marq.
Fund. 24 ; see Jezreel, i. 2). T. K. c.
ABIGAL l/'i'^S), 2 S. 1725 RVf. See Abigail, 2.
ABIHAIL (^"H'^S, 45, 'the (divine) father is
strength,' cp Sab. ^^PIDS :">'! th^ ^- Arabian woman's
name, Ili-hail [Hommel, .-///r 320] ; written ^'nnX
[Gi. Ba.] in 2 and 4 ; Hommel [in the Ebers Festschrift,
29 ; cp AHT 320] compares the same name [with 11]
in S. Arabian inscriptions from Ghazzat (Gaza) ; but
h'^rVI^ is supported by ; AB[e]lX<MA [BAL],
^jtA^^- --IBIHAirj., abihail).
1. Father of Zuriel (Xu. Ssst. a/3txaiai [F"]).
2. Wife of Abishur the Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 229+
Sm'IN [Gi. Ba.] ; a/3etxa'a ^ [B], OL'^i-y. [A], a/StrjX [L]).
3. A Gadite (i Ch. 5 14!. a)3[ejixa'a [BA], a/3n?\
4. Daughter of Eliab, David's brother, and wife of
Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 iSf, S'.tdx [f^i. Ba.], ^a.iav\\\\ a/3.
[B^b. vid.]_ a^iataX [A], rov warpos avTou [L, who
reads 3N''7n d-hh irrnn]).
5. Father of Esther, whose name however is given
as Aminadab by C (Esth. 2 15 929t, afi[]ivaoa^
[BNALP], and -5a^ [N]).
ABIHU (Xin^nX, 44. "my father is he ' ; aBiOyA
[B.\L], i.e. ABiHCDr' ABiCOyp [A i" Ex. 623], abh-).
See N.\i).\B AXD Abihu.
ABIHXJD (nin''3X, 45, 'the (divine) father is
glory,' a name probably appearing in contracted form
in Ehud [i/.z'. i. and ii.], cp Ammihud, Ishhod, as
also nin ^3X \'ibi hud], an almost certain correction of
ny *3N [EV ' everlasting father '] in Is. 95, which, how-
ever, is to be treated as an Arabic ktinya, ' father of
glory' [Che. 'Isaiah,' in SHOT]; aBioyA* [BAL];
>Oo*<o/ ; abivd), a Benjamite (i Ch. Sst)-
ABIJAH (in3N, n^'3SI, 44, 'Yahwe is father';
on names ending in n\ -IH^, see Names, 24; AB[e]lA
[BAL]).
I. Son of Rehoboam by a ' daughter of Absalom '
(see M.^ACAH, 3), and for three years king of Judah
(somewhere about 900 B.C. ; see Chronology,
32). The writer of the ' epitome' in Kings (see Dr.
Introd. 178) only tells us (i K. 15 1-57)* that he con-
tinued his father's war against Israel, and that he
1 A mere scribal error, A for A ; so invariably in the case of
Abigail.
2 Yet BA have oPiou (;.f. in'^K) 5 times for Abijam. See
AnijAH, I end.
3 In BAi- this name is regularly substituted for Abihu of
MT exc. Ex.623 [A]. See Ahihu.
4 According to Klo. i K. 15s/ should run thus, 'Because
David had done that which was right ... all the days of his
life.' From ' all the days of his life ' to ' Abijam (so read in
accordance with the correction in T'. 7) and Jeroboam ' is probably
a late gloss from the margin. The notice resi>ecting the war
between Abijah and Rehoboam seems to be derived from 2 Ch.
13 2, where alone it is in point.
ABILENE
' walked in all the sins of his father ; ' and, since the first
of these notices is very possibly due to an interpolator,
we may confine our attention to the second. Why
then does the epitomist take this unfavourable view of
Abijah? As Stade points out, he must have read in
the Annals of the kings of Judah statements respecting
this king which, if judged by the standard of his
later day, involved impiety, such as that Abijah,
unlike his son Asa, tolerated foreign worships. It is
surprising to find that the Chronicler (2 Ch. 13) draws
a highly edifying portrait of Abijah, whom he repre-
sents as delivering an earnest address to Jeroboam's
army (for ' there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam ')
on the sin of rebellion and schism, and as gaining a
great victory over the Israelites, because he and liis
people 'relied on Yahw6 the God of their fathers.'
This, however, is a late Midrash, and has no historical
value. The Chronicler (or his authority) wished to
emphasize the value of the true ritual, and did this by
introducing an artificial episode into an empty reign.
Cp Bennett, Chron. 2>'^6 ff. (Pesh. always J^/ ; Jos.
a|3ias : in 1 K. 14 31 \hiff., MT has five times the
corrupt reading c'lN Abijam, ' a/3ioi/^ [B-A], -ta [L]. )
2. A son of Jeroboam I., king of Israel, who died in
his father's lifetime.* The account of his illness is given
in I K. 14 1-18 (MT '^), and in another recension in
*'- immediately after the narrative of Jeroboam's
return from l'".gypt on the death of Solomon (3 K. 12 24 gff.
[Swete], 13 1-13 [L]). If we accept the former version as
original, we are bound to bring it down to the age which
was under the influence of Dt. , for the prophecy in i K.
147-16 is in tone and phraseology closely akin to similar
predictions in I61-4, 21 20-24, 2 K. 97-10, the Deutero-
nomistic affinities of which are unmist.ikable. Nor is it
possible to simplify the narrative without violence. The
"'- version, on the other hand, can, without arbitrari-
ness, be brought into a simple and very natural form.
Jeroboam is not yet king. His wife, not being queen,
has no occasion to disguise herself, and Ahijah simply
predicts the death of the sick child, without any refer-
ence to sins of Jeroboam which required this punish-
ment. The writers who supplemented and expanded
the older narrative were men of Judah ; the original
story, however, is presumably Israelitish. (See Kue.
Einl. 25; St. GVI\. 350 n. ; Wi. ATUnters. 12 f.)
Cp Jeroboam, i.
3. A Benjamite, i Ch. 7 8t (AV AniAH ; a/3io [B], -ou [A]).
4. Wife of Hezron, i Ch. 2 24! (EV Abiah).
5. Son of the prophet Samuel, iS. 82 (AV Abiah ; a^ripa
[L]), I Ch. 628 [islt (EV Abiah).
6. The eighth of the twenty-four courses of Priests (i^.v.)
that to which Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, belonged,
I Ch. -'i 10 (AV Ahijah); Lk. 1 5! (AV Asia).
7. Mother of King Hezekiah, 2Ch. 29 I. See Am.
8. Priest ill Zerubbabel's band (see Ezka, ii. 6^), Neb. 12 4
(a/3ias (L], 17 fB om. Zf.]); perhaps = No. 6.
9. Priestly signatory to the covenant(see Ezra, i. g 7), Neh. 10
7 [8]. T. K. c. w. E. A.
ABIJAM (Dnjf). I K. 14 /.f See Abijah, i.
ABILENE (aB6iAhnh [BA ; W. and H.], aBiA.
[N-'' ; Ti]), given in Lk. 3 1 as the tetrarchy of Lysanias,
at the time when Christ's ministry began, was a territory
round Abila (aBiAa). a town of some importance in
Antilibanus, and known to both Josephus and Ptolemy
as Abila of Lysanias ("A. 17 Avaavlov), to distinguish
it from others of the same name, especially Abila of the
Decapolis i^.v.). The Antonine and Peutinger
Itinei;aries place it 18 R. m. from Damascus on the way
to Heliopolis or Baalbek, which agrees with that portion
of the gorge of the Abana in which the present village,
Sfik Wady Barada, lies. Not only are there remains of
a large temple on the precipitous heights to the E. of
this village, with ancient aqueducts and a Roman road,
1 It is defended, however, by Jastrow, /BL xiii. 114 ("94).
2 I.e. '"I'^N, see Abihu.
3 Josephus calls this son *0^i>r) (Ant. viii. 11).
16
ABIMABL
tombs and other ruins on IxDth sides of the river, but
inscriptions have been discovered, one of which records
the making of the road by ' a freedman of Lysanias the
tetrarch,' and another its repair ' at the expense of the
Abilenians." Moreover, a Moslem legend places on the
temple height the tomb of Abel or Nebi Habil, doubtless
a confused memory of the ancient name of Abila, which
probably meant 'meadow' (cp Abici,, Ahkl-Hkth-
Maacicau). The place was in fact, still called Abil es-
Siik by Arabic geographers (Yakut, 1 57 ; Mardsi' , 1 4).
The site is, therefore, certain (cp. Rob. LHh' 478^ and
Porter, Five Years in Damascus, i. 261 ff., where there
is a plan of the gorge). On the political relations of
Abilene, see Lysanias. g. a. s.
ABIMAEL (i'S0'3N. "God is a father,* cp Sab.
name -innj?D3S, '^i father is 'Attar' [inC'y], Hal.
Mt'l.; ZDMii, xx.wii. 18 ['83], and see JKKAHMKKI,, in.
I ; ABiMenA [AL] ; B om. or wanting), a descendant of
JoKTAN (Gen. IO28; ABiMeAeHA [K]: iCh. l22t.
-AAeeiA [I'])- Tribal connection uncertain, but see
(jlaser, Skizze, ii. 426.
ABIMELECH (^l^O^as ; &B[]iMeAex [BAL], -AeK
[B* Judf,'. 928], i.e., most proliably, ' Melech (Milk), the
divine kin.ij, is father." Al)imilki and Ahimilki occur as
names of princes of Arvad in the Annals of Asurbanipal
(A'/? ii. 172 /. ); the former name, which is e\idently
C'anaanitish, also belongs to the Egyptian governor of
Tyre in the Aniarna tablets.
1. A Philistine, king of Gerar (see below), Gen.
26 I 7-1116, who, according to a folk-story in J, took
Ri'bckah to be Isaac's sister, and reproved Isaac for
having caused this mistake, and so very nearly brought
guilt uix)n the Philistines. The same tradition is
preserved in !: (Cien. 20), but without the anachronistic
reference to the Philistines. The persons concerned are
.\bimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham, and Sarah. The
details are here much fuller, and the differences from J's
narrative are striking. There is reason, however, to
think that the narrative of E in its original form made
no mention of Gerar. In this case the principality of
Abimelech was described by E simply as being ' between
Kadesh and Shur ' (omitting the following words). In
J's account (Gen. 26) there are traces of a confusion
between two Gerars, the more southerly of which (the
true seat of Abimelech's principality) was probably in
the N. .Arabian land of Musri (for particulars on this
region see Mizraim, 2 [^]). J's account also refers
to disputes between the herdsmen of .Abimelech and those
of Isaac about wells, which were terminated by a covenant
between Isaac and Abimelech at Beersheba (Gen. 26 17
19-33). The Elohistic form of this tradition passes lightly
over the disputes, and lays the chief stress on the deference
shown to Abraham by Abimelech when the oaths of
friendship were exchanged. The scene of the treaty is,
as in J, Beersheba (Gen. 21 22-323). On Ps. 34, title,
see AcmsH. T. K. c.
2. Son of Jerubbaal (Gideon). His history, as
related in Judg. 9, is of very great value for the light
which it throws on the relations between the Israelites
and the older population of the land in this early
period. His mother was a Shechemite, and after his
father's death he succeeded, through his mother's
kinsmen, in persuading the Canaanite inhabitants of
Shechem to submit to his rule rather than to that of the
seventy sons of Jerubbaal. With silver from the temple-
treasure of Baal-hekith (q.v.) he hired a band of
bravos and slaughtered his brothers, Jotham, the
youngest, alone escaping, and was acclaimed king by
the people of .Shechem and Beth-millo, at the sacred
tree near Shechem. From a safe height on Mt.
Geri/.im, Jotham cried in the ears of the assembly his
fable of the trees who went about to make them a king
(see Jotham, i), and predicted that the partners in the
crime against Jerubbaal's house would destroy each
2 T7
ABINBR
other, a prophecy which was signally fulfilled. After
a short time (three years, J'. 22), the Shecliemitcs rose
against Abimelech. Of the way in which this came
about, and of Abimelech's vengeance, the chapter
contains two accounts. According to the first of these
(jT. 23-25, 42-45), an evil spirit froni Vahwe sows discord
between the Shechemites and Abimelech, who takes the
city by a stratagem and totally destroys it. According
to the other account (i/7'. 26-41), the insurrection is
fomented by a certain Gaal b. Obed (sec Gaal, i ),
who shrewdly appeals to the pride of the old Shechemite
aristocracy against the Israelite half-breed, Abimelech.'
Abimelech, appri.sed of tlie situation by Zebul, his
lieutenant in the city, marches against it ; Gaal, at the
head of the Shechemites, gotJS out to meet him, but is
beaten and driven back into the city, from which he,
with his partizans, is expelled by Zebul (on this episode,
C[) G.\AL). Abimelech, carrying the war against other
places'^ which had taken part m the revolt, destroys
Migdal-Shechem {vr. 46-49, .swjuel of ft'. 42-451. While
leading the assault upon Theliez he is niortally hurt
by a mill-stone which a woman throws from the wall.
To save himself from the disgrace of dying by a
woman's hand, he calls on his armour-bearer to
despatch him {in). 50-55 ; cp i S. 31 4).
Many recent scholars gather from the story of
Abimelech that Israel was already feeling its way
towards a stronger and more stable form of govern-
ment. Jerubbaal, it is said, was really king at Ophrah,
as appears from Judg. 92;* his son Abimelech reij;ned
not only over the Canaanites of Shechem, but over
Israelites also (v. 55). A short-lived Manassite
kingdom thus preceded the Benjamite kingdom of
Saul (We., St., Ki.). This theory rests, however, on
very insecure foundations. That Jerubbaal's power
descended, if Abimelech's representation is true, to his
seventy sons (92), not to one chosen successor among
them, does not prove that he was king, but rather the
opposite. Abimelech was king of Shechem, to whose
Canaanite people the city-kingdom was a familiar form
of government ; that he ruled in that name over
Israelite towns or clans is not intimated in the narrative,
and is by no means a necessary inference from the fact
that he had Israelites at his back in his effort to
suppress the revolt of the Canaanite cities (9 55)- Cp
GiDKON. G. V. M.
3. iCh. I816. A scribe's error for Ahimklech.
See .Xhiathar (end).
ABINADAB (3nj^3K, 'my father apportions,' see
N.XMKS, 5; 44, 46, or ' the father (i.e., god of the clan)
is numitKcnl,' cp Jehonadab ; amLcJinaAaB [BNA],
aBin. [E])-
1. David's second brother, son of Jesse ; i S. 168
17 13. also iCh. 2 13 {ifi-'-v. [L]). See David, i (a).
2. Son of Saul, slain upon Mt. Gilboa, according to
iS. 3I2. The name .Abinadab, however, is not
given in the list in i S. 11 49. There may have been a
mistake ; Jesse's second son was named Abinadab. So
Marq. Fund. 25 (twva5a/3 [B] /.<. , JONAliAB [q.v. 3]).
iCh. 833 939; also iCh.102 (afupi'aSafi [B ""],
3. Of Kirjath-jearim, in whose house the ark is said
to have been kept for twenty years (iS. 7i/. 2 S.
63/ I Ch. 137). See Ark. 5.
4. I K. 4ii, see Be.n-.Abinaoab.
ABINER (i:''3S), I S. 14 sot. AV mg. See Abner.
1 Judg. 2S : ' Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that
we should bt subject to him? Were not the son of Jcrubb.ial,
and Zobul his lieutenant, subjects cf Hamor(the blue blood of
Shechem)? Why should < be subject to him?' For other
interpretations and emendations of this much-vexed verse, see
Moore, y</iVi, 257.
2 On the statement (Judg. 922) that 'Abimelech ruled over
Israel three years," see Sloore, Jutiges, 253.
S Judg. SaayC is considered under Gideon. Cp also Moore,
J urges, aag /
ABINOAM
ABINOAM (DJ?i''3, 45. 'the (divine) father is
pleasiintntss,' cp Ahiiioam, Elnaam ; &B[e]lNeeM
[HAL], iaBin. [A iti Jiidg. 412]; abinof.m). father of
Barak (Judg. 46 1201 laf).
ABIRAM (ny3X, 44 '. 'the Father is the
High One.' cp Aui, NAMES with, 2; ABeipcoN
[BA], aBhp. [1>] ; v- ua l ! ABiRos), another form of
Abu-ram, which (Abu-ramu) is a well -attested Baby-
lonian and Assyrian name (it occurs, ct;., in a contract-
tablet of the time of Abil-sin, 2324-2300 B.C., and in
the Assyrian cponym-canon under B.C. 677).' The
second element in the name (-ram) is a divine title (cp
'Paulas 6 vfiffTos Oeds, Hcsych. ), but is also used, in the
plur. , of all heavenly beings (Job 21 22). Parallel
Hebrew names .are Ahi-ram, Adoni-ram, Jeho-ram,
Malchi-ram (see also Abram). Ahiramu is the name
of a petty Babylonian king under Asur-nasir-pal, and
Malik-ram-mu that of a king of Edom in the time of
Sennacherib (C'O 7" i. 95, 281).
1. A fellow conspirator of Dathan {i/.v.), Nu. 16
{aSapwv [A once], ojSjp. [F twice]); Ut. 116 Ps. IOG17
and (AV Abikon) Ecclus. 45 18, 4 Mace. 217! (afi^puv
[V-J]).
2. Eldest son of Hiel the Bethelite, who died when
his father laid the foundation of Jericho anew ; i K.
1634! (.4B1RAM ; L om. verse), cp Josh. 626 (5"'^'-.
See HiEi,. T. K. c.
ABIR0N(DT3N), Ecclus. 45i8t AV. SccAbiram, i.
ABISEI (./AV55/r/ etc ), 4 Esd. 1 2t. See Abishua, 2.
ABISHAG (Jk?'''?^' 45. meaning obscure ; ^BeiCA
[B], ABiCAr [^i' -C&K [I-]; *^*s/ ; n^'s.ic) the
Shunammite, David's concubine (i !<.. 1 1-4), afterwards
sought in marriage (2iT,ff.) by Adonijaii, i.
ABISHAI ('tr^N, 45, written ^IfbX^ in 2 S.
10 lo and always [five times] in Ch., where moreover
A omits final t ; meaning doubtful, cp Je.sse, Amasa,
and for Lag. 's view see Abnek ; ABeiCA.[Bt<; A once],
aBiCAI [A], -Aei [A three times], ABecCA[L, also seven
times B, and three times A], -Bicc- [A, iCh. 2i6],
AC&l [A, 2.S. 330], AMecCA [L, 2S. 206]), the brother
of Joab, is mentioned immediately after the ' first three'
and at the head of ' the thirty ' in the list of David's
worthies (2S. 23i8/;; iCh. II20/. ; reading 'thirty'
for ' three ' with SBOT etc. , after Pesh. ). He was one
of David's close associates during his outlawry, and was
his companion in the visit to Saul's camp on the hill
of Hachilah (iS. 266). He was faithful to him in
Absalom's rebellion (2S. I69), commanded a third
part of the army (2S. I82), saved David's life when
it was threatened by a Philistine (2S.2I1617), and,
according to the Chronicler (iCh. I812), slew 18,000
Edomites in the \'al!ey of Salt (but see Joab, i).
ABISHALOM (niy^r-aX), iK. 152iot. See
Absalom, i.
ABISHUA (yV^aX, 44, for view of Lag. see Abner ;
'the (divine) father is opulence'? cp Malchishua,
and Abi-isua, Wi. Gl 130 n. 3. See also Horn. AHT
liii. 108 n. 209 n. i, ZDMG .xli.x. 525 ['95]).
1. A son of Bela (q.v. ii. 2), iCh.84 (a/3et(7-a.aaj '
[B], a^iffove [AL] ; -^OAAsi'; .-is/sra).
2. b. I'liinehas, b. Eleazar, b. Aaron (iCh. 64/ [5
30/]. 5o[35].a/3[e]i(roi;[B.A], a^iovd, -t(70va[L]; Ezra7s.
1 See Hommel, PS/i.4 xvi. 212 ['941: Schr. COTW. 187.
2 Krmnn and Maspcro connect this name with Ab-sha,
the Egyptian form of the name of the Asiatic chief repre-
sented on a famous wall -painting at Beni- Hasan. But sub-
sidiary evidence is wanting. .See Joseph, i, io, and cp WMM,
Ms. u. Eur. 36 n. 2. Hommel (AHT 53) connects Ab-sha or
Ebshu'a with Abishua.
3 This presupposes ViyO'^Vi, a name for which there is no
parallel in the OT, cp Samso.n, Shimshai.
ABNER
a^[e]Krove [B.-\L]=i Esd. 82, Abisum [.AV], i.e.,
a^iaovfi [343, 248], RV Abi.sue {ajieia-ai [B], a^iaovau
[A], afii<Tove [L]). Called Abisei in 4 Esd. Izf {Abissei
[ed. Bensly], Abisaei [cod. Amb.]).
ABISHUE (>V>nN, 44. ' the (divine) father is
(as) a wall' ?cp Sab. "lliJ'^N, Assvr. Abudiiru; AB[e]l-
COYP [J^A], aBiac. [E] ; ahisvr), b. Shammai the
Jerahmeelite (i Cii. 228/.t). Derenbourg [RI-.J, 1880.
p. 58) gives -iiB-aK as a Himyaritic divine title (Hal.
148, 5). But the second part of Abi-shur may be a
corruption of nns* ; cp Ahishah.\r.
ABISUM, RV Abisue (aBicoym [243 etc.]), i Esd.
82t-E/.r. 75, Abishua, 2.
ABITAL (Vi?^3X. 45, 'my father is dew'? cp
HAMriAi, ; but should not these names be Abitub
[Qp-aX], Hamutub [cp Ahitub]? A name com-
pounded with 7t3 seems very improbable. 7 and 3
might be confounded in Palmyrene characters ; abitai.) ;
wife of David, mother of Shephatiah ; 2.S. 84, i Ch.
Sat (aBgitaA, thc caB. [B] ; aBit. [A] ; -taaA,
-TAAA [E]). In 2 Ch. 3t)2, " reads A^eiraX for
Ha.mut.vi,, the name of Jehoahaz's mother. T. K. c.
ABITUB (3"1D''2X : perhaps properly, as in versions,
Abitob, 'the (divine) father is good,' see N.vmes,
45 ; cp Aram. aO^QX I aBitcoB [BAL] ; abitob), b.
Shaharaim (iCh. 8iit).
ABIUD (aBioyA [BA], -oyt [X*], i.e., Abihud, or
Abihu), son of Zerubbabel, and ancestor of Joseph,
husband of Mary (Mt. 1 13), see Ge.vealogies of Jesus,
2 c.
ABNER (inX. 44. but in iS. 1450 l.^aX ;
aBgnnhp [BAL], -CNH- [A five times], aBainhr [A
twice]; abner. Lag. Uebers. 75, holds that Abner =
"13 prX] = ' son of Ner. ' This is suggested by the (5
form 'Abenner'; but cp ,n|^3T = 'Pe^Se/cKa, n^s^ =
Bo<ro^pa. 'Abner' or 'Abiner' might mean 'my
(divine) father is (as) a lamp'). Captain of the
host under Saul and under Ishbaal. As a late but
well-informed writer states, he was Saul's first cousin
(iS. 1450, cp 9i), Ner the father of Abner and Kish
the father of Saul being both sons^ of Abiel. The
fortunes of Saul and Abner were as necessarily linked
together as those of David and Joab, but tradition
has teen even less kind to Abner than to his master.
Of his warlike exploits we hear nothing, though there
was ' sore war against the Philistines all the days
of Saul' (i S. 1452), and tradition loved to e.xtol the
prowess of individual heroes. Even at the battle of
Gilboa there is no mention of Abner, though it was a
part of his duty, according to David, or at least an early
narrator, to guard the sacred person of the king (iS.
2615). All that we hear of him in Saul's reign is that
he sat next to the king at table (i S. 2O25), that, accord-
ing to one tradition, he introduced David to the presence
of Saul (i S. 1757). and that he accompanied the king
in his pursuit of David (iS. 265^). It was natural
that upon Saul's death he should take up the cause of
Ishbaal (David, 6). It suffices to mention here some
personal incidents of that unhappy time. That Abner
slew his pursuer Asahel (one of Joab's brothers) was,
doubtless, not his fault but his misfortune. But his
motive in passing over from Ishbaal to David was a
shameful one. Ishbaal may indeed have been wrong in
interpreting Abner's conduct to Rizpah. Saul's concu-
bine, as an act of treason (cp 2.S. I621 1K.222);
but to give up the cause of the Benjamite kingdom on
this account, and transfer his allegiance to David, was
1 In 1 S. 1451 read '}3 for -fa with Jos. Ant. vi. 6 6,
followed by Dr., Bu., KIo. The text of i Ch. 833 = 8 39 should
doubtless run, 'And Ner begat Abner, and Kish begat Saul
(see Kau. note in US).
ABOMINATION
ifl^oble. The result was not what he had expected
the highest place undrr a grati-ful king. He had just
left David with the view of prtK'uring a popular a.sseinl)]y
for the recognition of David as king of all Israel, when
Joah enticed him back, and treacherously assassinated
him beside the gale of Hebron (sec Sikau, Well ok),
partly jx-'rhaps from jealousy, partly in revenge for the
death of Asahel (2 S. 830).
Abnir's death was regarded by David as a national
calamity. ' Know ye not," he said, 'that a prince and
a great man is fallen this day in Israel?" He ordered
a public mourning for Abner, and himself sang an elegy
over his grave, a fragment of which is preserved (2S.
831-39) : see Poetical Literatuke, 4, iii. (h). The
Chronicler gives Abner a son named JAASIEL ((j.v. 2).
T. K. C.
ABOMINATION, a word occurring over a hundred
limes in the OT as a rendering of four* somewhat
technical expressions (sometimes paraphrased ' abomin-
able thing,' etc. ).
1. Vua (pi.i^ul) occurs four times in exilic and post-
exilic writings (Ilz. 414 ['s -vra]. Lev. 7i8/ita(r/i ; 19?
ILdxTov ; Is. 604! [C'S;9 pTD, 'broth,' Xwfibv . . .
fi.eixo\vfjiiu.eva ; Kt. 's pis, ' scraps ']) as a technical term
for sacrificial flesh become stale (/c/j^aj ?wXov or ^((iT)\ou
in Ez. [HAQ]), which it was unlawful to eat. See
Sackikice. In the last passage WRS regarded pijCiCUl
as carrion, or flesh so killed as to retain the blood in it
(A\S"(*-'I 343 n. 3).
2. j-pr [sekfs), also confined to exilic and post-exilic
writings^ (Ez. 8 10 Lev. 7 21 11 10-42 Isa. 66 lyt ;
(i5i\i'-yna [B.\]), is a term for what is taboo. See
Clean and Unclean.
3- y\f)v{^'kkus, variously rendered ^5^\ii7/ia, eWojXoi',
etc. ), a much commoner word, of the same form as ( i ),
and from the same root as (2), occurring once in the
present text of Hos. 9io, is freely used (over twenty
times), chiefly from the E.xile onwards, as a contemptuous
designation ofu-nest of images of deitfcs or of foreign
deities themselves. See below, ABOMINATION OF
Desolation and Idol, 2/.
4. n^vin {to'ebdh ; fideXvyfjia), a word of uncertain ety-
mology frequently occurring from Dt. onwards (esp. in
Ezek. ), is by far the commonest of these terms. It
designates what gives offence to God (Dt. I231) or man
(Pr. 2927), especially the violation of established custom.
The former usage is the more common ; it applies to
such things as rejected cults in general, Dt. 1231 (see
Idol, 2/. ), child-sacrifice (Jer. 3235), ancestral worship
(Ez. 438), images (Dt. 27i5). imperfect sacrificial
victims {Dt. 17 1), sexual irregularities (Ezek. 22 n), false
weights and measures (Dt. 25 16), etc. The latter us;ige,
however, is not rare (esp. in Prov. ). Thus J tells us
eating with foreigners (Gen. 4832), shepherds (4634),
Hebrew sacrifices (Ex.826 [22]), were an abomination
to the Egyptians (see Egypt, 19, 31).
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. THE (to
BAeAyr^A thc epHMUicecoc). an onit;matical expres-
sion in the apocalyptic section (Mt. 2415-28) of the
discourse of Christ respecting HisnApoyciAlMt- 24 15 =
Mk. 1314)- The passage containing the phrase runs
thus in Mt. ' When therefore ye see the atomination of
desolation, which was sjx)kcn of by Daniel the prophet.
Standing (e^Toj) in the holy place (let him that readeth
understand), then let them that are in Judaia flee unto
the mountains.' The reference to Daniel, however,
which is wanting in Mk., is clearly an addition of
Mt. (cp Mt. 223 4 14, etc. ), and Mark's fffrrjKirra (masc. ),
' It is also used in 1S.I34 for PKaj, the word rendered
' sunk in 2 S. 106 (AV).
2 But in Is. /.c. Duhm and Cheyne read j*^C ; so also
Sam. and some MSS. at l^v.7ai. In I.ev.llio^ we may
point |-|3r, and in Ez.810 read D'xpt? (with O, Co.).
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
being more peculiar than Matthew's iffrdt (neut.),
is to be preferred. Eioth reports agree in inserting
the parenthetic appeal to the trained intelligence of
the reader, which, being both natural and in accordance
with usage in an ap<jcalyptic context, it would be un-
ruxsonable to set aside as an 'ecclesiastical note*
(Alford). There is an exact parallel to the clause in
Rev. 13 18 (cp 179), ' Here is wisdom : let him that hath
understanding count the number of the beast,* and a
parallel of sense in Rev. 2; 189 : ' He that hath an ear
(or, if any man have an ear), let him hear,' i.e., let him
understand (as Is. 33 19) ; the Ijest commentary on which
is a terzinu in Dante (//. 961-63), 'O voi, che avete
gl' intelletti sani," etc. In fact, the whole section is a
fivarripiov, not of the class in which Jesus delighted
(Mt. 13ii), nor expressed in his highly original style,
and is easily separable from its context. It is [irobably
(apart from some editorial changes) the work of a Jewish
writer, and was inserted to adapt the discourse, which
had been handed down (itself not unaltered) by tradition,
to the wants of the next generation.
Some light is thrown upon it by the ' little apocalypse
in 2 Thess. 2 1-12, which evidently presupposes an
eschatological tradition (see AnticukI.st). It is there
explained how the irapovala. of Christ must be preceded
by a great apostasy and by the manifestation of the
'man of sin,' whose irapovaia is 'with lying signs and
wonders,' and who ' opposcth and exalteth himself
against all that is called God or that is worshipix-d, so
that he sitteth in the s;inctuary (va6^) of God, selling
himself forth as (Jod,' but whom 'the Lord Jesus will
slay with the breath of his mouth. ' The resemblance
between the two Apocalypses is strong, and we can
hardly avoid identifying the ' abomination of desolation '
in Mt. and Mk. with the ' man of sin' in 2 Thess. 'I iiat
the one stands and the other sits in the sanctuary con-
stitutes but a slight difference. In both cases a statue
is obviously meant. The claimant of divinity would not,
of course, be tied to one place, and it was Ix-lievcd that
by spells a portion of the divine life could be cc m-
niunicated to idols, so that the idol of ihe false god was
the false god himself. In both ca>cs, loo, there is a
striking resemblance to the dr}pia of Rev. 13, the second
of whom, indeed, is said to be represented by an
image which can speak, trickery coming to the help of
su(>erstilion (Rev. 13 15). In fact, the 'abomination ' or
' the man of sin ' is but a humanised form of the original
of these dT)fiLa viz., the apocalyptic dragon, who in his
turn is but the Hebraised version of the mythical dragon
Tiamat, which was destroyed by the liabylonian light
god (see C'reation, 2). We can now recover the
meaning of t% ipyfutlxreu^. The ' alKimination ' which
thrusts itself into the ' holy place ' has for its nature
'desolation' i.e., finds its pleasure in undoing the
divine work of a holy Creator.'
But why this particular title for the expected opponent
of God ? It was derived from the first of the great
apocalypses. In Dan. 927 11 31 12ii, according to the
cxegetical tradition in , mention is made (combining
the details of the several {passages) of an apostasy, of an
'abomination of desolation' (or ' of desolations ') in the
sanctuary, of a time of unparalleled tribulation, of resur-
rection, and of glory. That the original writer meant
' abomination ' to be taken in the sense descrilx^l above,
and the appended qualification to Ix- rendered ' desolat-
ing ' or 'of desolation,* cannot indeed Ix- said, ppv
as used in Daniel means ' image of a false god ' (cp i K.
II5; 2 K. 2813), and the most natural rendermg of
DEC' and (if the text be correct) cpitrp or ccrs is ' appal-
1 It is no objection that in I.k. 21 20 the iprnmai^ is referred
to thc hemming in of Jerusalem by Ronuin armies ; cp Jos. Ant.
X. 11 7, where the passages in Dan. are explained of the desola-
tion by the Romans. The true meaning must be decided by
Matthew and Mark, where nothing is said bf injuries from
invaders. "The memory of the experiences of 70 a.d. suggested
to Luke a new interpretation of the traditional phrase.
ABRAHAM
ling. The phrase appears to be an intentional alteration
of DDE' hv2 (Baal skiimim), 'heaven's lord.' That this
was a current title of Zeus may be inferred from the
Syri<ic of 2 Mace. 62, where the temple at Jerusalem is
called by the emissary of Antiochus ' the temple of be'el
shemin' (see Nestle, ZATW iv. 248 ['84]; cp his
Marginalien u. Matenalien, 35 / ; G. Hoffmann,
Ueb. ein. phon. Inschr. 1889, p. 29 ; Bevan, Daniel,
193). The author of Daniel (whose meaning is correctly
given by, l/T") contemptuously says, 'Call it not "heaven's
lord," but "an appalling abomination " ' ; and the object
to which he refers is an image of Olympian Zeus, which,
together with a small jiiofidi, the agents of Antiochus set
up on the great altar (dvcriaaTrjpioi') of burnt offerings.
The statement in i Mace. 1 59 is not destructive of this
theory, for altars and idols necessarily went together,
and the phrase of the Greek translator of the Hebrew
original in v. 54 ^ (|35Ai7^a epTyyuuxrews ; cp rb (id4\vyfia,
67) might be used equally well of both or of either.''^
All this, however, had been forgotten when the apoca-
lyptic section in Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 was written.
Another (a highly plausible) interjjretation of the
little evangelical apocalypse is given by Spitta (IJie Offen-
bafung Jo/iaruiis, 493-497), who thinks that it was
written in apprehension of the erection of a statue of
Caligula in the temple (see Schiir. IJist. ii. ). This
implies that rb 8i\. rrjs iptifi. means the statue of a
historical king who claimed to be the supreme God,
which, considering the nature of the context, is im-
probable, and is not supported by the use of the
Hebrew phrase in Daniel. It is, no doubt, highly
probable that apocalyptic writers regarded the mad
Caligula as a precursor of the expected embodiment of
the principle of ' lawlessness ' [avoixia, 2 Thess. 2?) ; but,
without putting some violence on their inherited eschato-
logical phrases, they could not have said that he was
ipr)fj.w(n% or dvo/j-la in person. For, after all, a Roman
emperor could not be a purely destructive or lawless
agent. Spitta's view, however, is preferable to that
of Weiss, wlio, appealing to Lk. 21 20, understands
the ' abomination ' to be the Roman armies ; and to
that of Bleek and Alford, who explain it of the desecra-
tion of the holy place by the Zelots (Jos. B/ iv. 36-8).
For the criticism and exegesis of the difficult passages,
iJan. 927 11 31, see the commentary of Bevan and the
translation and critical notes in Kau. NS ; cp also Van
Lennep's treatise on the seventy year- weeks of Daniel
(Utrecht, i888), where it is proposed, on amply sufficient
grounds, to change the impossible r^:3 h^) (927) into
iir'Syi, 'and instead thereof.' The greatest problem is
how to explain or rather correct cctrp D'sijSB' ; in ppa'n
C2TO (11 31)- for c?rp we should perhaps read Dtxn. or
delete ','2 as a gloss from 9 27. There is a similar problem
in 813. T. K. c.
ABRAHAM (DHn^N, 44; aBra&m [BAL] ;
once ABpAM [-^J)- The name has no meaning in
1 Name etc ^^^'"^^^' ^^^ seems to be another form
' of Abram (g.v.), due probably to a
misunderstanding of an early orthography.* In J and
P, however, the latter is represented as the original
name, which was changed at a critical point in the
patriarch's life into Abraham (Gen. 17 s, P. where the
etymology is a mere word-play ; on J's narrative, see
Fripp, Gen. 53). It is only from the time of Ezekiel
1 See Ko. Finl. 482.
2 Ges., Berthi)ldt, Griitz, and others explain the 'abomination'
ofa statue of Zeus; Hitz., HilKenfeld, Bleek, Kue., of an altar.
The insertion of the did.-ictic story of Nebuchadrezzar's golden
image slightly confirms the former view.
3 Honimel maintains that n in the Minsean (S. Arabian)
alphabet represents a (a) or, in some cases, /. The same
peculiarity (n for a) characterises the Moabite, the Hebrew, and
the Samalite script. cmaK, therefore, was originally pronounced
AbrSm (Hommel, Das graphische ,t itn Mindischcn, 22-24).
WMM {As. u. Eur. 309 n. 3) finds an Egjptian proper name
B-'-rj-ru-m^y = Baal-ram.
23
ABRAHAM
(see Ez. 3824)! that Abraham was reverenced by the
Jews as their greatest ancestor ; cp Is. 41 8/ 51 12 63 16
Neh.97/. 2Ch.207 306 Fs. 479 ['o] 1056942 Ecclus.
44 19 I Mace. 252I221 Mt. Ii39 Lk. IG2430 lOg Jn.
8395356 Acts72l326 Rom. 411216 Heb. 6131117 Jas.
221, cp Gal. 37-9. But to give time for this general
reverence to have arisen, we cannot help supposing
that the name and, in some form, the story of Abraham
were current in certain circles considerably earlier.
Local traditions respecting him doubtless existed before
the glory of the southern kingdom departed, and these
traditions form the basis of the composite niSinor ' family
history" of Abraham (P for a special reason substitutes
Terah) contained in Gen. 11 27-25 18. That these tradi-
tions are legends, and not historical records of the times
which the ' family history ' appears to describe, is certain
(see Historical Literature). But that in their
]iresent setting they are much more than legends needs
to be not less firmly held. They have been purified both
by abridgment and by expansion ; and, since the fusion
of the original and of the added elements is by no means
complete, it is not impossible to study the one from the
point of view of prehistoric research, and the other from
that of the history of religion. Let us, then, briefly con-
sider these two questions : (i) What did the Abraham
narratives of Genesis mean to their first editors and
readers ? and ( 2 ) may any of them be regarded as contain-
ing a historical element ?
I. The first question can be readily answered.
Abraham to J and E is not so much a historical per-
sonage as an ideal type of character.
2. Story of J
and .
This theory alone will account for the
' dreamy, grand, and solemn ' impres-
sion which this patriarch makes upon us. The frame-
work of the narrative may be derived from myths and
legends, but the spirit comes from the ideals stored up
in the minds of the narrators. A school of writers (for
J and E are not merely individuals) devoted them-
selves to elaborating a typical example of that unworldly
goodness which was rooted in faith and fervently
preached by the prophets. That typical example was
Abraham, who might, with a better right than the old
Babylonian king, Hammurabi, have called himself the
prophet of the heaven-god, and indeed is actually recog-
nised by the Pharaoh (Gen. 2O7 E) as a prophet of
Elohim. The ' dreaminess ' which has been noticed in
him is caused by his mental attitude. The Moliam-
medans appropriately call him 'the first Moslem.'
He goes through life listening for the true tora, which
is not shut up in formal precepts, but revealed from
time to time to the conscience ; and this leaning upon
God's word is declared to be in Yahwe's sight a proof
of genuine righteousness (15 6 J). The Pirqe Aboth
[c. 5 ; cp Ber. rabba, par. 56) reckons ten trials of
Abraham's faith, ' in all of which he stood firm ' ; but
this simply marks the intense Jewish reverence for the
'father of the faithful.' The word ,id3, ' (he) tried,'
occurs only once in the narratives (Gen. 22 1), but from
the first the faith of Abraham was tried like gold in the
fire. He marries a woman who is ' barren ' ( 1 1 30 1 8 n /.
both J ; 152_/; JE). He leaves his home at the divine
bidding to seek an unknown land (12i J). As the
climax, he is commanded to offer up the child of
promise as a sacrifice (22 1-13 E). It is characteristic
of the pre-exilic age that this privileged life presents no
reverses of fortune (contrast Job). But prosperity does
no moral harm to Abraham. He retains a pure and
disinterested philanthropy, which would even, if possible,
have saved wicked Sodom (1822^-330, a late Yahwistic
passage). '^ Once, indeed, he appears as trusting in an
arm of flesh, and defeating mighty kings (Gen. I41-17) ;
1 This is the earliest mention of Abraham outside the Hexa-
teuch ; for Is. 29 22 Jcr. 33 26 Mic. 7 20 belong to passages inserted
after the F.xile.
2 See We. CH) 27/ ; Documents o/the Hex. i. 26 ; Fripp,
Gen. 48-50.
ABRAHAM
but this unique narrative, so flattering to the pride of
the later Jews, is evidently a fragment of a post-exilic
midrash on the life of Abraham.' It even contains a
specimen of the mystic reckoning called 'gematria,'
the number 318 in 14 14 being suggested by the name
of Abraham's servant Eliezer,- of which it is the
numerical equivalent, just as it is stated in the Haggada
that Abraham served God from his third year, Ixjcause
apy in nyctr* -afftt ipu (2'2i8) is equivalent to 172 (he was
175 when he offered up Isaac, according to the Midrash
Tanchuma), and as the ' number of the beast ' in Rev.
13i8 is 666 (or 616).
The narratives of P differ, it is true, in some respects
from those of J and E. This writer, who is a lover of
. , p gradual, orderly progress, even in the
^ ** history of revelation, represents the
mii^ration into ('anaan as having been planned, without
any express divine command, by Terah (CJen. II31),
and admits no tlieopliany before that in Abraham's
ninety-ninth year (17 1)- He introduces, also, some
important modifications into the character of the patri-
arch. The friendly intimacy between Yahw^ and
Abraham has disappeared ; when Yahw6 at length
manifests himself, Abraham falls upon his face (17 3 17).
A legal element, too, finds its way into his righteousness,
the rite of circumcision having been undergone, accord-
ing to P, by Abraham and all the males of his house-
hold. Still, it may be said of P as truly as of his prede-
cessors that he regards Abraham as the greatest of men,
and exhibits him as the ])attern for Israelitish piety.
With this object in view, he has no scruple in dealing
very freely with the traditional material. Since all
things are best at their Ijeginnings, he asserts that the
ancestor of Israel was all, and more than all, that his
own sober imagination can devise. Later writers
attempted to supply his deficiencies. Even in the OT
we have a strange reference in Is. 2922 (i)ost-exilic) to
dangers incurred by Abraham, which agrees with the
hints dropped in the Book of Jubilees [c. VI), and
points the way to the well-known legend of the furnace
of N'imrod. Not less did the enigmatical war-chronicle
in Gen. 14 stimulate later writers. Nicolaus of
Damascus, the court historian of Herod the Great,
related (Jos. Ant. \.l-2\ cp Justin, 862) that Abraham
came with an army out of Chalda;a and reigned in
Damascus, after which he settled in Canaan ; he adds
that lh(Te still exists a village called 'Afipdfwv olKrjffLi
(see Hobah). The only Biblical trace of such a story is
in Gen. 152, where, however, ' Damascus' appears to be
a gloss (see Elikzkk, i). It is bold in Ew. {Htsf. i. 312)
to assume on such a basis that Damascus was a
traditional link in the chain of the Hebrew migration.
More i^robably these stories were invented by the Jews
of Damascus (who were a numerous body) to glorify
the national ancestor. The Moslems took up the
tradition with avidity (see Ew. I.e. ), and still point to
the village of Berza, or Bcrzat el Halll ( ' the marriage-
tent of .Abraham '), one hour N. from Damascus, where
the marriage of the p:Uriarch furnishes the occasion of
an annual festival (Wetz. /Z>.V/f7 xxii. 105 ['68]).
2. What historical element (if any) do these narratives
contain ? The Abraham traditions are twofold. Some
4 Historica.1 '^*^''^"K exclusively to the great patri-
Kpm 1 ^^^^ ' '^'^''^ '^''^ ^'^ attached to one
or another of his successors. The
latter we can disregard : the foundation of the sanc-
tuaries of Shechem and Bethel has a better tra-
ditional connection with Jacob (Gen.33i8-2o 2811-22),
and that of Bt;cr.->hcba with Isaac (2624/.), while the
^ Much confusion has been caused by the uncritical use of
cuneiiorm research (see Che. Foutuiers, i-yj j^.). That the
writer of Gen. 14 i-ii had access, directly or indirectly, to Baby-
lonian sources for some of his statements is denied by none.
But this does not make him a historian. See Kue. Hex.
43. 324 ; We. r//*'! 26 ; E. Mey. GA i. 165/: and cp Chedor-
LAOMKK, MeLCHIEKDRK, g 4.
* So, long ago, Hitzig, following Btr. ratia, par. 43.
25
ABRAHAM
story of the imperilled wife has at least as good (or as
bad ) a claim to be connected with Isaac ( 26 i-i i ). There
] remain (a) the migration from Harran or from Or
Kasdlni ; (b) the close affinity between Abraham and
; Sarah, Abraham and Hagar (and Keturah), Abraham
and Lot ; {c) the abode and burial of Abraham near
' Hebron ; * and, underlying all these, (</) the existence
' of an ancestor of the people of Israel bearing the name
; of Abraham or Abram. Let us first briefly consider (c)
I and (</).
i. Existence of Abraham and connection with
Hebron. The tradition, as it stands, is doubtless
inadmissible. So much may lie conceded to that
destructive criticism which, denying that the old rever-
ence for the story of .Abraham has any justification,
would throw that story aside as an outworn and useless
myth. But the view taken by the patient reconstructive
criticism of our day is that, not only religiously, but even,
in a qualified sense, historically also, the narratives of
Abraham have a claim on our attention. The religious
value is for all ; the historical or quasi -historical for
students only. In the present connection it is enough
to say (but see further Historical Litkk.vturk) that,
since Abraham may be a genuine personal name, it
cannot be unreasonable to hold that there is a kernel of
tradition in the narratives. Hebrew legend may have
told of an ancient hero (in the Greek sense of the word)
bearing this name and connected specially with Hebron.
I This supposed hero (whose real existence is as doubtful
I as that of other heroes) cannot originally have been
' grouped with Jacob or Israel, for the name Abraham
has a different linguistic colouring from the two latter.
It was natural, however, that when Hkbkon [q.v.)
became Israelitish the southern hero Abraham should
be grouped with the northern hero Jacob- Israel, and
that the spirits of both heroes should be regarded as
having a special connection with their people, and even
as entitled to a kind of national cultus (cp Idolatry),
I which, though discouraged by the highest religious
teachers, has left traces of itself both in early and in
late books, and is characteristically Semitic.'-* The cuUus
was no doubt performed at Machpelah, on the posses-
sion of which P lays such great stress (f. 23) ; but that
the traditional hero was actually buried there cannot
Ix; affirmed. Even among the Arabs there is hardly one
well -authenticated case of a tribe which possessed a
really ancient tradition as to the place where the tribal
ancestor was interred.'
ii. Relation of Abraham to Sarah, Hagar, Lot.
With regard to {b) it should be noted that, though an
assertion of relationship may be literally correct, it may
also merely mean that two particular trilx-s or peoples
have been politically connected. If, with Robertson
Smith, we may regard Sarah as a feminine corresponding
to Israel, we may take the marriage between .\braham
and .Sarah (or rather Sarai) to symbolise the political
fusion between a southern Israelitish tribe and non-
Israelitish clans to the south of Hebron (see, however,
Sakah, i. 2). The relationshi[) lx>tween .Abraham and
Hai;ar may also have a political meaning, for the close
intercourse, and at times jiolitical union, between Egypt*
and Palestine and parts of .Arabia is well attested. The
story of the separation between .Abraham and Lot ' may
1 It is unnecessary to discuss here P's account of the origin of
circumcision (see Cikcumcision, 4), or the story of the defeat of
the four kings in Gen. 14 (see above, 8 2), or the birth and subse-
quent offering up of Isa.ic (see Isaac, S$ \/.\
2 See i.S.--'8i3 ('I saw Klohim '), ls.63i^ Jer.SlM, cp I.k.
16 22 In. 8 56, and cp Che Intr. Is. 352/ For parallel Arabian
beliefs, see Goldziher, Ka: ete thist. des rd. 1884, p. 336/,
and for the later Jewish belief in the pr.iyers of the fathers,
see 2 Mace. 1613/;, and Talmudic references in Castelli, //
Messitx, 184 /
8 WRS Kin. 18.
* We assume provisionally th.it Hagar is correctly regarded,
from the point of view of the original tradition, as an Egyptian.
See, howtver, Hagar, and especially Mizkaim, f a (b), Ueek-
Lahai-Roi, 8 2.
8 On the details of the story, cp WRS Kin. n/.
26
ABRAHAM
be but a foreshadowing of the separation between Israel
and Moab and Amnion ; but, if Lot is to be explained
by Lotan (the eponym of an Edomilish clan, Gen. 36
20-29), the asserted relationship between Abraham and
Lot accords with the theory of the original non-Israelitlsh
character of Abraham.
iii. Connection with Harrdn or Or. As to {a), even
if we reject the theory of the migration of a clan called
after Abraham from Harran or Ur Kasdim, it does
not at once follow that the tradition is altogether
unhistorical. Not only Abraham, but the wives of
Isaac and Jacob also, are declared to have come from
Harran. This cannot be a baseless tradition. Critics,
it is true, are divided as to its historical value, nor
can we discuss the matter here. But there is, at
any rate, as Stade admits, nothing a priori improb-
able in the view that certain Hebrew clans came
from the neighbourhood of Harran to Palestine. The
fluctuation of the tradition between Harran and Ur
Kasdim need not detain us (see special articles). Both
Harran and Uru were seats of the worship of the moon-
god under different names, and we can well believe that
at some unknown period the moon-worship of Harran
affected the Hebrew clans (cp Sarah, i. 2, Milcah, 1 ).
For what critic of to-day can venture to assume that it
was repugnance to this worship, and in general to idolatry
(cp Josh. 242/ ),^ that prompted the Hebrew clans to
leave their early homes ? Surely this asserted religious
movement is a specimen of that antedating of religious
conditions which is characteristic of the OT narrators,
and was copied from them by Mohammed. First, the
insight of Isaiah is ascribed to Moses ; then, as if this
were not wonderful enough, it is transferred to Abraham.
But how recent is the evidence for either statement, and
how inconsistent is the spiritual theism ascribed to
Abraham with sound views of historical development !
Instead therefore of speaking of ' that life of faith which
historically began with Abraham' (H. S. Holland, Lux
Mundi, 41), should we not rather say ' that life of faith
which, though germinally present from the earliest
times, first found clear and undoubted expression in the
writings of the prophets and in the recast legends of
Abraham ' ?
Hommel's ambitious attempt to prove the strictly
historical character of the Abraham narratives from the
Arabian personal names of the dynasty of Hammurabi
is, critically regarded, a failure. The existence in
early Semitic antiquity of personal names expressing
lofty ideas of the divine nature in its relation to man
has long been known, though it is only in recent years
that such names have been discovered so far back in the
stream of history. But hitherto scholars have with good
reason abstained from inferring the extreme antiquity of
Hebrew narratives in which similar names occurred,
because the age of these narratives had necessarily to be
first of all determined by the ordinary critical methods,
and the existence of such a phrase as ' in the days of
Amraphel ' (Hammurabi?) proves only that the writer
may have been acquainted with documents in which
events of this period were referred to, not that his own
narrative is strictly historical.
For the later Haggadic stories concerning Abraham
see Beer, Leben Abrahams tiach Anffassung der jiid.
Sage, 1859; Hamburger, RE fiir Bib. u. Talm.W
(s.v. 'Abraham'); also Griinbaum, Neue Beitr. zur
sent. Sagenkunde, 1893, pp. 89-131 (Jewish and
Mohammedan legends) ; and, especially, a late apocry-
phal book called The Testament of Abraham ( Texts
and Studies, Cambridge, 1892), which presents perhaps
the finest imaginable glorification of the character of the
patriarch. All that he needs is to see the retributions
1 The words, ' and worshipped other gods,' belong lo R. But
the sense of the earlier narrators is correctly given (cp. Gen.
31 1953354). And, of course, Israel's point of religious departure
must, considering primitive circumstances, have been in some
sense polytheistic (cp Reinach, R EJ xv. 311 ['87]; Boscawen,
The Migration 0/ Abram, m/.).
27
ABRECH
of heaven and hell that he may learn (like Jonah) to
have pity on sinners (see Aix:)CRYPiia, 11). For the
archaeological aspects of the life of the patriarch see
Tomkins, Studies on the Times of Abraham ('78 ;
second ed. '97). The best critical literature is cited
by Ki. Hist. i. ; add to his list Hal. REJ xv. 161^
{'87); Rev. s^m. \. \ ff. ('93); Renan, Hist, du peuple
d Israel, i. (1887) ; and reviews of Renan by Reinach,
RE:Jx\. 302^/ and by WRS, Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 128/.
('88). Renan's statements that the Abraham of Genesis
is the type of an Arab sheikh, and that the ancient
Hebrews, represented by Abraham, worshipped a ' patri-
archal, just, and universal God,' from whom the worship
of Yahw6 was a falling away, are fantastically erroneous.
For Nold.'s view that Abraham and Sarah are divine
names, see his essay on the patriarchs in Im neuen
Reich, 1 87 1, p. 508 J^, and on the other side Baethg.
Beitr. z. sent. Rel.-gesch. 154^ See also EDO M (2;
supposed divine character of Abraham) and Hoii.'\H
(his connection with Damascus). T. K. c.
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM (Lk. 1622!). See Hades.
ABRAM (D-i:3X, 44, Gen. 11 27-I7 s'l i Ch.
I27 Neh. 97t ; aBRAM [BADL], but -p^N [A twice in
Gen.], -pAAM [A once in Gen.; B in Ch. and B* ^'''
NL in Neh. ; p;.^/; ^ibram), i.e. probably, in the mind
of the priestly writer (Gen. ITs), 'high father" (patriarch),
to which the name Sarai, if taken as another form of
Sarah [^.^'. ], would be a suitable companion. If,
however, the name Abram be a genuine traditional
one, it will be related to Abiram [y.t'.], as Abni:r
[^.t'.] is to Abiner, and be explained similarly (cp
Abraham, 1).
ABRECH ("^"!?N), Gen. 4l43t. 'Then he made
him ride in the chariot next in rank to his own, and
they cried before him Abrech. So he set him over
all Egypt ' (Kau. HS). The passage occurs in E's (or
Eg's) version of the appointment of Joseph to be
grand-vizier, and the strange word Abrech greatly
puzzled the ancient interpreters. *^'- gives Kal
iKqpv^ev . . . Krjpv^ ; the Targums NsSdS N3N, while
Pesh. , omitting jhji, paraphrases f V -V,^ n \^^ [cp458
Pesh.], and Vg. clamante pro-cone ut omnes coram eo
genu flecterent. Jerome himself, however {Quccst. in
Gen. ), remarks, ' Mihi videtur non tam praeco sive
adgeniculatio . . . intelligenda, quam illud quod
Hebrsei tradunt, dicentes " pat rem tenerum," . . .
significante Scripture quod juxta prudentiam quidem
pater omnium fuerit, sed juxta aetatem tenerrimus
adolescens et puer.' So, in fact, the Midrash [Ber.
rabba, par. 90) and the two later Targums (as an
appendage to ' father of the king ' ) expressly interpret,
and in Bab. Bathra, 4a we even find this justified by
the combination of -p and rex. In Jubilees 40; (Charles)
the form is Ablrer, i.e. Abirel (' God is a mighty one,"
or, being an imaginary form, ' mighty one of God ').
The different views of modern senolars can only be
glanced at here. Luther is content with Landesvater,
EV with ' bow the knee. ' RV mg. adopts the view-
that the original word was ' similar in sound to the
Hebrew word meaning to kneel ' (so Benfey, Brugsch,
Chabas). The Mas. vocalisation, however, is guess-
work, and the Hiphil of 713 occurs only once again
(Gen. 24ii), and then in the sense of 'to cause (the
camels) to kneel down.' If we look at the context, we
sharll find reason to doubt whether any outward display
of reverence at all (prostration would be more natural
than kneeling) can be meant by Abrech. An official
title is what the context most favours, not, however,
such a title as ' chief of the wise men ' ' (ap-rex-u) ; but
rather ' great lord," or some other equivalent to ' grand-
J Harkavy, J As., mars-avril 1870, pp. 161-163. I-e Page
Renouf's e.xplanation {P.SB.l xi. s Jf. ['88]), 'tliy command is
our desire ' (ai(-u)-reh), i.e., ' we are at thy service,' is much less
suitable to the context.
ABRONAH
vizier.' No such title including the letters b-r-k is
quoted from the pure Egyptian vocabulary ; but may
it not be really a loan-word ? This might account
for the fact that Abrech is passed over in <S- It
is well known that from the fifteenth century onwards
there was close intercourse iKjtvveen the l-Igyptians and
the Semitic peoples, and that many technical words
were borrowed from the latter. This being the case, it
aj^pears reasonable to connect Abrech with the Ass. -Bab.
abarakku (fern, aharakkatii), which is applied to one of
the five highest dignitaries in the empire. ' Schrader,
who once opposed this view [COT \. 139), now thinks
th.1t the Amarna discoveries (1888) have made it
much more probable ; and Briinnow has expressed the
opinion that 'the Assyrian a-ba-rak-ku seem undoubtedly
to be the prototype of Abrech ' ^ (private letter). In
spite of Dillmann's peremptory denial (1892), it has
become very difficult to think otherwise. We might,
indeed, correct the word out of existence ; but Ball's text
[SDOT) is hardly an improvement except in the substi-
tution of the Nip'i of the Sam. text (cp Pesh. ) for
iNip'i, which is justified by the context, and had already
been made by Geiger (Urschr. 463). T. K. C.
ABRONAH, AV Ebronah (nriaj?), one of the stages
in the w.-mdering in the wilderness (Nu. 3334/.f, P;
ceBpWNA [B]. eB. [AFL]). See Wandkki.ng.s, 12,
14. On afip(j}va [AB] in Judith 224, see Akbo.vai.
ABSALOM (Di7w'?X, 45, or less correctly, as
Nold. thinks as in i K. 152io Di?'J"3X, Abish.alom,
ytBHSSALOAf ; probably ' the [divine] father is peace,'
cp Yahwe-shaloin Judg. 624, a title of Yahwe, but
not Ps. I2O7; ABecCAAcOM [B.A, and in 2 S. 83,
and I Ch., also L], -ecA- [A. 2S.I815], -eCA. [L ;
but in I K. 228 COAOAAOONTOC, where also f%>f\.\-j
sjiMfONKM] ^o\^.->/ ; ABecAcoM [A], 2S. I815 ;
Jos. ABecCAAcOMOC and AyAAwMOC I ABSALOM) was
D.ivid's third son, his mother being Maacah, daughter of
Talmai, king of Gkshuk (q.v. 2). Born at Hebron, he
grew up at Jerusalem, the idol of his father, and popular
from his manly beauty and his winning manners. His
tragic history is faithfully recorded by an ancient and
well-informed writer in 2 S. 13-18.
We first hear of him in connection with the outrage
on his sister Tamar by her half-brother Aninon, whom
David, out of weak-minded affection for his first-
born (2 S. 1321, '''^'), omitted to chastise. Absalom
soothed his sister, and silently bode his time. Then,
after two years, he lured Amnon with the other princes
to a feast of sheep-shearing on Absalom's estate at
Baal-hazor (see H.AZOR, 2), and at a concerted sign his
servants slew Amnon during the banquet. The next
three years Ab.salom passed in exile in Geshur (q.v. 2),
till Joab, knowing that the king pined for the fugitive,
contrived by the help of a ' wise woman ' from Tekoa to
bring him back. The form of the parable (2S. 14 5-7)
may belong to the 'wise woman,' but the ideas which
it suggested came froni Joab. Why was the king so
willing to mitigate the custom of blood-vengeance for a
stranger, and so hard towards his own son ? We die,
and are like water spilt on the ground ; but God spares
the life of him whose thoughts are bent on the restora-
tion of the banished (2 S. 14 14 with Ewald's emenda-
tion). The king gave way to this gentle pressure, and
allowed his son to come back to Jerusalem, but refused
to see him for two whole years. Nor would Joab take
any further step, till the impetuous prince set his barley
field on fire, and, when Joab came in person to
complain, declared that death was better than con-
1 Friedr. Del., /feh. in the tight of Assyrian Restarth
(1883), p. 25./:; cp rar. 225; .4m. hub 12. This l.riUiant
suggestion w.us temporarily adopted by the present writer
(Acitd. i2ih Apr. 1884), who has, since the Amarna discoveries,
returned to it.
a So also Sayce (,Acad. 7th May 189a; Crit. Mon. ^n /.),
but with an interpretation which needs fuller evidence.
29
ABSALOM
tinued disgrace. He had his way. The king kissed
him and restored him to full favour.
Four years followed (2 S. I07, L. Pesh. and Jos. ; MT
"'^ \'g. have ' forty ') during which Absalom prepared
men's minds for coming events. He let his hair grow
enormously long (2 S. 14 26), in token, as Kol)crtson
Smith thinks (A'6'<-' 484), of the sacredness of his person,
though the ordinary view that it was merely a proof
of vanity possesses the recommendation of simplicity.
He rode in a chariot with horses (then scarcely
known in Israel) and was accompanied by a guard
of fifty men. He made every suitor's cause his own,
and lamented aloud that his jxiwer did not match
his desire to help (2 S. 15 1-6). At last he fired the
train which had been so long and so carefully laid.
On pretence of a sacrificial feast, he withdrew to
Hebron, accompanied by 200 men, doubtless needy
dependents, who followed him in ignorance of his
plan. Here, at the old capital of Judah, amidst a
people who were still unreconciled to their absorption
in a larger state, he raised the standard of revolt.
Ahithophel, a man of southern Judah, he made his
principal counsellor ; Aniasa, Absalom's cousin, also
from Judah, took command of the troops (cp Gkshur,
2). But an ai^peal was also made to the centrifugal
forces always at work in the N. tribes, for, as he set out
for Hebron, the rebel prince sent men through the land
of Israel. At the sound of the trumpet these were to
proclaim the accomplished fact, ' Absalom has been
made king in Hebron.'
David, once the darling of the nation, was compelled
to fly from the capital. Absalom as quickly entered
it, and gave that public sign of his accession to the
throne which the crafty Ahithophel recommended.
The number of his counsellors was now increased by
the addition of Hushai, ' David's friend' (on the epithet
see Hush.'M), whose flattery he failed to see through.
In reality Hushai only pretended to join the rebels. His
object was twofold to frustrate the counsel of .Ahitho-
phel, and to betray Absalom's plans to the priests, Zadok
and Abiathar. These trusty friends of David were to
coninumicatc with a maid, and she was to impart her
knowledge to two sons of the priests, who waited to
bear it to the king. This counterplot attained its end.
Ahithophel, who knew how deceptive was the popular
enthusiasm, wished Absalom to 'strike David before
there was time for second thoughts' (WkS). But
Hushai persuaded the pretender to wait, and so David,
who was informed of all that happened at Jerusalem,
safely crossed the Jordan and established himself at
Mahanaim, once Ishbaal's cai)ital.
Thence, in three divisions, David's army sallied forth,
and in the neighbouring forest (see Ei'HR.MM, Wood
ok) the rebel troops were routed. In the flight
Absalom's head (hair?; Heb. cin, cp 2 S. I426) was
caught in the branches of a terebinth tree, and his mule
left him hanging between heaven and earth. ' Not for a
thousand shekels ' would the soldier who saw him hanging
have taken his life. How could he venture to disregard
the king's charge to watch over the young man Ab-
salom? If he had treacherously attempted Absalom's
life, would not the king have found it out. and would
not Joab himself have stood aloof? But Joab, who felt
his courage called in question (2 S. 18 14, "'^'- ; see
Bu. SHOT), with an emphatic denial of the statement,
plunged three javelins into Absalom's body. The
corpse of the ill-fated prince was flung into a pit, and
the soldiers cast stones upon it, that the restless spirit
might trouble them no more.* Meantime the old king
was waiting at the gate of Mahanaim. The pathetic
story of his broken-hearted grief at hearing the news of
his dearly loved son's death is enshrined in all memories.
.Such was the close of the sad tragedy which opened
with the barbarous outrage upon Tamar. Just eleven
years had passed since that event, so that if Absalom
1 See Tylor's Prim. Cult. ii. 29.
ABUBUS
was about twenty when he took up his sister's cause,
he must have died a little over thirty. Apparently
his three sons died before him (2 S 14 27 18 18). On
his 'daughter,' see Tamar, 3, and Maacah, 3, 4.
The notice respecting Absalom's monument in 2SI818
is not very clear, perhaps owing to some confusion in
the text of z'v. 17-19 (so Klo. ). It is evidently paren-
thetical, and reminds the reader that Absalom had a
suitable monument (erected, according to Klo.'s read-
ing, by David) in the King's Vale (see Shavkh, i.,
Mkixhizedek, 3). The building close to Jerusalem,
now known as Absalom's tomb, is of very late origin, as
its Ionic pillars prove. w. E. A.
2. Father of Mattathias (i Mace. 11 70; 'Ai/zoAw^os [AV],
i^aA/Li(uJo [xD- Zdckler proposes to read 'Jonathan' for
'Mattathias' here; or else to read Mattathias in i Mace.
13 II also.
3. Father of Jonathan (i Mace. 13 11: 'Ai/zoAiojaos [AVn]),
probably the same as (2).
4. An ambassador to Lysias ; 2 Mace. 11 17 (APe<roraXu/u. [A],
/xeacroAal A [sic V]). Possibly also to be identified with (2).
ABUBUS (aBoyBoc [A>V]; )-sr.^.,. cp Hubbah,
iCh. 734 Kr. ; Ano/ius), father of Ptolemy, captain of
the plain of Jericho, and son-in-law to Simon the
Maccahee (i Mace. 16 n ist).
ABYSS, THE (h aByccoc), the term substituted in
RV of NT for the ' deep ' and the ' bottomless pit ' of
AV; see Lk.831; Rom.107; Rev.9i/ii II7
178 20 1 3t. In the second of these passages, by
an inexact use of the term, ' the abyss ' is equivalent
to Sheol ; ' over the sea ' in Dt. 30 13 is taken to mean
' over the world-encircling ocean into which the " rivers "
of the underworld (Ps. 184[5]. V'?^ -hm) discharge
themselves to " the place where all flesh wanders " {i.e. ,
Sheol; EnocklK,).' Elsewhere it means the deeply-
placed abode of the 'dragon' or devil, of the 'beast'
his helper, and of the 5ai/x6;'ia, whether this abode be
taken to be the ' deep (/<%(>/) that coucheth beneath'
(Gen. 4925 RV), or the ' waste place ' with ' no firmament
above and no foundation of earth beneath,' by which
the fire-filled chasm was thought to be bordered {Enoch
18 12; cp 21 27). The former view is in accordance
with OT usage, the tt^hom of MT and the d^vacxos of
(5 being the flood or ocean which once enfolded
the earth, but is now shut up in subterranean store-
chambers (Ps. 337); and it is favoured by the use of
OaXaffcra in Rev. 1-3 1 as synonymous with S-^vaaos.
But the latter is more probably right in the Apocalypse,
which agrees with Enoch in asserting the existence of a
lake of fire, destined for the final punishment of the
devil and his helpers. This fiery lake is not in either
book technically called 'the abyss' ; in Enoch 10 13 the
Greek has rd xaoj rod nvpos, and in 21 7 5LaK0Trr]v elxf
6 rdTTOs tuis TTJs a^vaaov. The angelic overseer of this
region is Uriel, who is described in Enoch'10-z (Gizeh
Gk. ) as 6 eTTt toO Kbdjiov koX toO Taprdpov. ' Tartarus '
occurs also in Job4l23, , in the phrase rbv Taprapov
Trji dfiiKTcrov [BN.-\], which, being used in connection with
Leviathan, is doubtless to be taken of the subterranean
abode of Yahwe's enemy, the dragon (see Dragon,
4 / ). Cp Taprapdjaas, used of the fallen angels,
2 Pet. 24. T. K. C.
ACACIA (na*^), E.K. 25 5 etc., RV. See Shittah
Trki:.
ACATAN (&KAT&N [B.\]), iEsd.838t .W=Ezr.
812, Hakkatan.
ACCABA (akkaBa [B]), i Esd.530 RV=Ezra246,
HAf;AB.
ACCAD (nSX; arx^A [AL]. ax- [DE] ; ->/ ;
yicn.tD) is one of the four cities mentioned in Gen,
10 10 as forming the beginning of the kingdom of
Nimrod in the land of Shinar or Babylonia. In the
cuneiform inscriptions the name of Akkad is most fre-
^ If a Hebrew original could have been supposed for 2 Mace.
lie<T(Ta\a might have represented a transliteration of part of a
participle of n'?t!' (o' irtii<f>6evTtt follows).
31
ACELDAMA
quently met with in the title /ugai ICingi{ki) Uri(ki),
which is rendered in Semitic hy .(ar (mdiu) humeri u
{mt'itu) Akkadi. This title, which implied dominion
over the whole of Babylonia, was borne from the earliest
times by the Babylonian kings, and was adopted by
those kings of Assyria who conquered Babylon (cp Bahy-
I.O.NIA, 1). The Akkad referred to in Gen. 10 lo has
lieen identified by some with the ancient city of Agade
which was situated in northern Babylonia and attained
a position of supremacy over the rest of the country under
Sargon I. about 3800 B.C. This identification, however,
is entirely hypothetical, and is based only on the super-
ficial resemblance of the names. L. W. K.
ACCARON (AKK&pcoN [A*]), I Macc.l089t AV =
RV Ekron {q.v.).
ACCHO, RV Acco (iSJ?), Judg. 1 31 and (see Ummah)
Josh. IQsof ; see Ptolemais.
ACCOS (akxojc [A], AKKOOC [N], iakk. [V] ; same
as Hakkoz \_q.v.'\], grandfather of Eupolemus ; i Mace.
8.7t.
ACCOZ (akBcoc [B]), iEsd.53St AV=Ezra26i
RV, Hakkoz, i.
ACCUSER (KATHrwp [Ti., \V & H following A],
KATHropoc [BN, etc.]. The form of word found in
the best texts is simply a Hebraised form pi3'*Pi5] of the
common word KATHfOpOC- For Rabbinic usage see
e.g. Buxt. Lex.), Rev. 12iot. See Satan, 6 (3) 7.
ACELDAMA AV ; RV Akeldama (axeAAamax'
[Tisch. A, etc.], aciieldemach [96 lat.j, <\Ke. [B fol-
lowed by W & H], -Aaim. [D], aceldemach [d]),
the name according to Acts 1 19 of a field bought
by Judas Iscariot for some unknown purpose. The vet.
Lat. of Mt. 278 applies the name (not, as in the Gk.
MSS. , merely in translation, but in the original) also
to a field bought by the priests of Jerusalem to bury
strangers in.
MS. evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of some
such form as Akeldaniach that the RV is quite unjusii-
. fied in rejecting it, especially when it
1. ine name, ^.^^rects the c into k. Acts 1,9 states
that in the language of the dwellers at Jerusalem this
name meant 'the field of blood' {x^^piov ai/xaros).
~01 hpn {hdkel dlmdkh), however, is obviously 'the field
of Ml' blood, ' an impossible expression. Klostermann
has therefore argued with great acuteness [Probleme im
Apostcltexte, 1-8 ['83]) that -jai (DMKh) is one word
viz. , the well-known Aram, root ' to sleep. ' All we ha\ e
to do, then, is to understand it of the sleep of death, a
usage known in Syr. , and ' field of sleep ' will mean
cemetery, which, as Mt. tells us, was what the priests
meant to make of the potter's field. Klostermann's
argument is very strong it is certainly natural to
suppose that the name originated in some fact known
to the people at large, as the transformation of a
potter's field into a burying place would be and his
view was adopted by Wendt (MeyerC' ad loc. ). But we
have no instance of a noun "im so used, and ch, x. may
= K (cp iu3<jy)X [Lk. 326, BN. etc.] = 'Dr ; 2et/)ax, Sirach
= NTD, Sira). Hence, whatever may have been the real
origin of the name we can never know its form was
probably n,'3t "jpri (Dalm. Gram. 161 and 105 n. i re-
spectively), ''' the field of blood ' (so Dalm. 161 n. 6 ; Am.
Mey. Jesu Muttersprache, 49 n. i). On the questions
who bought the field and why it was called Aceldama
see also AcT.s, 14. Cp Judas, 9.
Tradition which goes as far back as to the fourth
century has placed .Aceldama on a level overhanging the
- m_ j-i- 1 Valley of the Son of Hinnom on the
2. Traditional ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ hjh ^f ,,41 counsel.
site. ^ tradition which rests precariously
on Jer. 18/, where the situation of the potter's house in
Jeremiah's day is thought to be indicated. Potter's
1 On this form see Dalm. (Gram. 304 n. 2), Kau. (Gram. 8).
ACHAIA
material is still <lug out in the neighlxjurhood. The
traditional Aceldama was used to bury Christian pilgrims
in at least from 570 {Anton. Plac. I tin. 26) : especially
during the Crusades, but, according to Maundrell, who
says it was then called Campo Santo, even as late as
1697. A charnel house into which the bodies were let
down from above has stood here from very early times.
The best history and description of the site (with plans)
is that by Schick, PEFQ, 1892, pp. 283^
G. A. s. H. w. H.
ACHAIA (axaia [Ti.WH]). It is a fact of some
interest that both at the beginning and at the end of their
history the word ' Achaian' was used as the general de-
signation of the inhabitants of (irecce proper. During
the classical pxTJod Achaia denoted only the narrow strip
of coastland and the adjoining mountain stretching along
the S. shore of the Ciorinthian gulf from the river
Sythas (mod. Trikalitikos) 20 m. west of Corinth, to the
river Larisus near Cape .Xraxus (mod. Kalogria). In the
time of Paul, Achaia signifietl the Roman province i.e.,
the whole country south of Macedonia and Ulyricum, in-
cluding some of the adjacent islands. The 'lanie Achaia
was given to it in consetjuence of the part played by the
Acho-MU League in the last spasmodic effort which
occasioned the sack of Corinth and the downfall of Greek
independence, 146 B.C. (Paus. vii. I610). Whether the
formation of the province dates from that year, or not, is
of no consequence to the student of the Bible. It was in
27 B.C. that Augustus definitely settled the boundaries of
Achaia, assigning to it Thessaly, /J'ltolia, Acarnania, and
part of Epirus (.Strabo, p. 840). The Achaia of Paul is,
therefore, practically synonymous with the modern
kingdom of Greece, but a little more extensive towards
the north-west. The combination ' Macedonia and
.-\chaia ' embraces the whole of European (ireece, as in
Acts 19 21, 5u\dij.)v TT]i> "MoLKedoviav Kal 'Axo-iav (see
also Rom. l.'')26 i Thess. 1 7/. ). From 27 B.C. Achaia
naturally ranked as a senatorial province /. e. , its governor
was an ex-jjra^tor, with the title proconsul (Strabo, /.c. ).
In 15 A.I)., however, owing to their financial embarrass-
ments, both Achaia and Macedonia were taken charge
of by Tiberius ; and it was not until 44 A. D. that Claudius
restored them to the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76 ; Suet.
Claud. 25). The writer of ActslS 12 is thus quite correct
in speaking of Gallio in 53 or 54 A.d. as avQi-Kcro-i
i.e. , i^roconsul. The fiasco of Nero's proclamation made
all Greece free, but this state of things lasted only a
short time. With this exception, a proconsular governor
was stationed in Corinth, the capital of Achaia, until
the time of Justinian.
In the NT we hear of only three towns of Achaia
Athens, Corinth, and Ck.nchrka ; but the Saluta-
tions of the two Corinthian Epistles (esp. 2 Cor. 1 1 iv
6\ri TTj 'Axa^ff) imply other Christian communities in
the province. In i Cor. 16 15 the ' house of Stephanas '
is called the 'first-fruits of Achaia' {dirapxv''^^ 'Axo-io-s).
In this place, for ' .Vchaia ' we should expect ' Corinth' ;
for, according to Acts 17 34, Dionysius the Areopagite
and other .Athc^nians must have been the first-fruits of
teaching in the province of Achaia. In Rom. 16 5, where,
according to the Text. Rec. , Epaenetus is spoken of as
the d.irapxv ttjs 'Axat'aj, the best texts read 'Aaias [Ti.
W & H, following B.\N, etc.]. The charity of Achajan
converts is praised in 2 Cor. 92 Rom. 1026; but the
reference may be merely to the church at Corinth (cp
2 Cor. 810). \v. J. w.
ACHAICUS (axaikoc [Ti.WH]), a member of the
Corinthian church, who, along with .Stejihanas and For-
tunatus, had carried to Paul at Ephesus news of the
Corinthians which had gladdened and refreshed him
(i Cor. 16 17/. ). He is enumerated as one of the
Seventy (Lk. 10 1) in Chron. Pasc. (Bonn ed. i. 402).
ACHAN (IPV- Josh. 7), called Achar (13]; .^.,
' troubled ' , cp OCR AN, n^y) in i Ch. 27 and {achar
[ed. Bensly]) in 4 Esd. 737 [107] RV. 6's readings are
3 33
ACHIACHARUS
AXAp[ni'"-ind(exc<-ptJosh. 7i, &xan)IO. AXAN [A ; but
AXApin Josh.724 iCh. 27]); thesonofCarniib. Zalxlib.
Zerah b. Judah, who unlawfully took possession of some
of the ' devoted ' spoil of Jericho (si-e liAN ). His breach
of a talxK) had involved the whole host in guilt {RS^'^
162), and the conununity had to free itself of responsi-
bility by destroying not only Achan but also his whole
family (Josh. 7). This is quite in accordance with
primitive notions (A'.S'W 421), although our present text
is due to later insertions in v. 24/ With the variety
in the form of the name is to be connected the word-
play in Josh. 725. Cp Cakmi, i.
ACHAZ (axaz [Ti], Ax&C [\VH], .\It.l9), KV
Aha/ (</.?. i).
ACHBOR (li33y, 68, i.e., Mol.sk [y.z'.]; cp Ph.
-I32y, N-iaDy, D-I33y; AXoBoopfBAL]).
1. Father of Baal-hnnan [ i] king of Edom ((Jen. ;}6 38,
Xofioip [A*Z>] ; 39 ; I *^h. 1 49, liry [Ba. CJinsb. ], ax<'/iwp
U^l X- [L]) ; a'so V. 50 in "'^. See Edom, 4.
2. b. Micah ; a courtier of King Josiah (2 K. 212 1214 ;
Jer. 2622, MT and Thcod. in (J nig. [I5.\N om.] ; Jer.
36 12, aKXojiujp [BK'], -(iv [N*]. aKofiwp [Q]) ; in 2 Ch.
3-4 20 named Abdon [</.;. ,4] (ajioooofj. [li], a(i8u}t> [.\L]).
ACHIACHARUS (axiaXAROC [HA]; see further
below).
I. The prosperous nephew of Tobit (see Tobit).
He was cup-bearer, signet-keeper, steward, and overseer
of accounts to Esarhaddon at Nineveh (Tob. 1 21/).
In i88o George Hoffmann pointed out* the identity
of the Achiacharus of Tob. I21/. lli8l4iot with
Ahikar (on the name see below), a legendary sage and
vezir of Sennacherib, who is the hero of a romance found
in certain Syriac and Arabic MS.S. According to this
romance, he almost lost his life through the base
treachery of his sister's son (cp Pesh. in Tob. 11 18),
Nadan ( = Aman of Tob. 14 10 cp [ewoiria-fi'] a5ajtt [B],
vaSafi (N); see Aman and probably = Nabal [or I.al an
or other form] of Tob. 11 18 ; see Nasbas), whom he
had adopted. Restored to favour, he gave sundry
proofs of his marvellous wisdom, especially in connec-
tion with a mission to a foreign king. Assemanni had
already observed {Bifi. Or. 3, pt. I286 <?) that in the
Arabic story ' de Hicaro eadem fere narrantnr quae
de .Esopo Phryge ' ; chaps. 23-32 of the legendary IJ/e
of yEsop (Maximus Planudes) in fact tell of /Esop and
his kinsman Ennos a quite similar story. There can
be little doubt that the story is oriental in origin ; but
it has been argued by Meissner (see below) that the
^Esop romance has preserved in some respects a more
original form. The Greek recension, however, that
must be assumed as the basis of certain Roumanian
and Slavonic versions still surviving, was probably an
independent version now lost, made from the Syriac.
Allusions to an eastern sage axai'^apoy are found
elsewhere {e.^^., Strabo, p. 762) ; and traces of his story
seem to have made their way into the Talnmd {ZD.MG
48194/ ['94])- The nmtual relations of these various
recensions are still obscure ; but there seems little
reason to question that the allusions in Tobit are to
an already well-known story. M. R. James (Guardian,
Feb. 2, 1898, pp. 163/. ) suggests parallels to the same
story in the NT.
Of the allusions, that in 11 18 is wanting in the It.; these in
11 18 and 14 10 are absent from the ' Chaldee ' and Heb. te.xts ;
while the Vg. omits all s.ive that in 11 13 (Acltior) jwrhaps the
allusions were felt to have little to do with the .story of Tobit.
(Ircek variants of the name are ax(i\apov [j< in c. 1, "ax-
once in J<<^-''1, axcli]*- Ik in !* 'oJ. axiKop [K' in 11 18, ax'ia-
Xo^f K<^-^1, cp It. Achicarus, and in 14 10 Acktcar. The
equivalent Hebrew would be -pTK. and Meissner has pointed
out that Pesh. has i.Q'a( for |?3 in iCh. 05. The name
remains obscure however. Pesh. has ; f* - f* ^ ; ' Chald.' H3,
\p-p ; Hi |nnK 'ntt: Vg- Achior, and Pes h. in I2 1/. >Q*-(.
1 ' Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischen Martyrer,' in
Ahhatuil.f. d. Kunde d. Morgtnlandes, 7, no. 3, p. t8a.
ACHIAS
In the romance the forms are , \ p - ^ ; ^^ft -^ [cod. Sach.];
lf*-,'( [cod. in Brit. Mus.].
Published texts ([) Semitic: Arabic, A. galhani, Carifes
araies, 2-20 (Beyrouth, 1890) ; Ar. and Neo-Syr., M. Lidzbarski,
from cod. Sachau 339, in K>xiinzungsh,-fte zur /.A Hefte 4-5, 1
Teil, with Germ, traiisl.; English transl. of Syriac (compared with
Ar. and Neo.-Syr.), E. J. Dillon, Contevip. Ktv. March '98, p.
369-386; cp also versions of the .Arabian Nights <f.^^., Sir R. F.
Burton, Alf Laylah 7va Lay/ah, supplemental volumes, 6 3-38 ;
iEthiopic (precepts), C. H. Cornill, Vas Buck der veiseu Fhilo-
sophen, 19-21, 40-44. (2) Slavonic: Germ, transl. V. Jagic,
Byzant. Zeitsch. 1 11 1-126. (j) Armenian, printed at Constanti-
nople, in 1708, 1731, and 1862.I (4) Tlu Story 0/ A hikar, Cony-
beare, Harris, and Lewis, Camb. 1898 (Glc. text ; Armen., Syr.,
and Arab, texts and transl.; Slav, and Eth. transl.) appeared
as these sheets were being passed for press.
Discussions : Bruno Meissner, ZDMG 48 171-197 ['94) ; Jagic
(op. cit. 107-111); Ernst Kuhn (/A 127-130); Lidzbarski {I.e.
x/-); Bickell, Atheturum, 22nd Nov. 1890, p. 700, and 24th
Jan. 1891, p. 123; cp also 20th Nov. 1897, p. 711, and 27th
Nov., p. 750; J. R. Harris in Story o/A/i/iar (see above), pp.
vii.-lxxxviii.
2. 'King of Media' (Tob. 14 15 [.y*] ; It. .^r///e<ir)= Nebu-
chadnezzar (/.'^ [B]) = Ahasuerus (/A [A]). See ToBiT,
Book (>f.
ACHIAS [ach/as), 4 Esd. 1 2!. See Ahijah, i.
ACHIM (AxeiM [BN*], -j^, a^in, -hn [A etc.],
AXiM [N'' etc.], cp AxeiM = DN^nN, Aiiiam, i Ch.
11 35 [BN*A], and = pr, J.-vcm.v, Gen. 46io [.A*"'i-], i Ch.
24 i7[i<3] [B]), a name in the ancestry of Joseph (Mt. 1 14).
See Gk.nkai.ogiks of Jesus, 2 c.
ACHIOR (Ax[e]ia)p [BXA], 44), in the romance
of Judith {q.v.), 'captain of all the sons of Ammon."
Having dared to warn Holofernes of the danger of
attacking the Israelites, he was handed over to them to
share their fate on the expected triumph of the Assyrian
arms (65^). He was hospitably received, and ultimately
became a Jewish proselyte no doubt to the great
edification of Jewish readers of the story.
In some versions of 'lobit his name t.ikes the place of that of
AcHiACHARus {q.v.)nn error due to the similarity of /t and w
in Svri.ac.
ACHIPHA (AxeiB<\ [B]),
251, HAKll'liA.
Esd.Ssit RV = Ezra
ACHISH (""3X, ArXOYC [BA], akx- [L]), a Phihs-
tine, .son of Maoch (i S. 272) or Maachah (i K. 239/ ;
AfXiC [A]) ; a king of Oath, with whom David and i
his band took refuge from the persecution of Saul (see
D.Win, 5). He is described as a credulous man
whom David found it easy to deceive, representing that |
his raids against Bedouin tribes were really directed [
against the Judahites and their allies, and taking care
not to leave any of his captives alive to reveal the truth
to Achish. At Ziklag, which had been assigned to
him as his place of residence, David hved as a freebooter
in vas.salage to Achish for a year and four months
(only four months). The confidence, however, with
which his suzerain regarded him was not shared by
the Philistine lords, who prevailed upon Achish to
dismiss David from his army when starting to meet
Saul at Gilboa. See i S. 27^-282 29i-ii, a'connected
passage of date prior to 800 {SBOT). In another passage
(1K.239/), where the execution of Shimei [i] is ac-
counted for by his having gone to Gath in search of
some runaway slaves, it is said that the fugitives went
to Achish. No doubt the same king is meant (son of
Maacah, v. 39), though the reference to Achish has the
appearance of being a later ornamental insertion made
in oblivion of chronology.
To a very much later writer (see i S. 21 10-15 [11-16])
the account in i S. 27-29 seemed to reflect on David's
patriotism. He therefore devised an entertaining and
unobjectionable story, in the style of the Midrash,
which he hoped would supplant the no longer intelligible
historical tradition. According to him, David went
alone, and was compelled to feign madness for safety
1 According to information received from Mr. F. C. Cony-
beare, there are two Armenian recensions, the earlier of which
appears to be in some respects more primitive than the Syriac.
There is also, probably, a Georgian version.
35
ACHSAH
till he could escape. The author of the title of Ps. 34
accepted this story, but by mistake (thinking of Gen.
2O2) wrote 'Abimelech' for 'Achish' (a/3[e]i/ie\ex
[BN.VR], axM- [U], Achimelech ; Pesh. quite different).
T. K. c.
ACHITOB (AxeiTOoB [B]), iEsd.82 = 4 Esd. lif
AV = Ezra 72, Ahitub, 2.
ACHMETHA (NnpnX), Ezra 6 2t, the capital of
Media ; see Ecbatana.
ACHOR ("1133^; axwP [BAL]), a valley on the
N. boundary of Judah (Josh. 15 7), which, as we may
infer from josh. 7 (E/ie/cax^p [BAL]) combined with
Hos. 2i5[i7], led up from Jericho into the highlands of
Judah. In Is. 65 10 it represents the E. portion of Canaan
on this side the Jordan. To an Israelite its name natur-
ally suggested gloomy thoughts. Hosea promises that
in the future, when Israel has repented, the evil omen
shall be nullified, and a much later prophetic writer
(Is. I.e.) that the valley of Achor shall become a
resting-place of flocks. Early legend connected the
name with the sin of Achan the ' troubler ' of Israel
(Josh. 724-26t, JE). Many (^.^. Grove, very positively,
in Smith's DB) have identified the valley with the
Wady el-Kelt, which leads down through a stupendous
chasm in the mountains to the plain of the Jordan, and
is, to unromantic observers, dark and dismal. This
wady, however, is scarcely lifeless enough to be Achor,
for its slender torrent-stream rarely dries up. It is
also scarcely broad enough ; it would never have
occurred to the most ecstatic seer that flocks could
lie down in the Wady el-Kelt. Some other valley
must be intended. According to the 05(21725 8934)
the valley was to the N. of Jericho, and its old name
still clung to it. This cannot be reconciled with the
statement in Josh. I.e. respecting the N. boundary of
J udah.
ACHSAH (nppy, 71, 'anklet- ; ^CXA [B], axca
[.\L]), according to Josh. I516-19, and (aza [B],
ACXA [B^'i-'-'g-A]) Judg.l 12-15 (cp iCh. 249; AV
Achsa, o2a [L]). a daughter of Caleb, who offered
her in marriage to the conqueror of Kirjath-sepher. She
was won by his younger brother Othniel. At her peti-
tion, because her home was to be in the dry southland
(Negeb), Caleb bestowed upon her certain coveted waters
called the Upper and the Lower Golath (see below).
The simple grace of the narrative holds us spell-bound ;
but we must not, with Kittel [Hist. 1 299), pronounce
the story historical on this account. That some clans
should have been named after individuals is not incon-
ceivable ; but it is most improbable that we have any
true traditions respecting the fortunes of such possible
individuals, and it would be throwing away the lessons
of experience to admit the lifelikeness of a narrative as
an argument for its historicity. According to analogy,
Achsah must represent a Kenizzite clan, allied in the
first instance to the Calebites of Hebron, but also, very
closely, to the clan settled at Debir and called Othniel ;
and the story arose in order to justify the claim of the
Achsah clan to the possession of certain springs which
lay much nearer to Hebron than to Debir (so Prof
G. F. Moore, on Judg.l). That the cause is amply
sufficient, can hardly be denied (cp the Beersheba and
Rehoboth stories in Genesis). It only remains to discover
the right springs. We know where to look, having
identified Debir with the highest degree of probability.
And our search is rewarded. In all other parts of the
district the water supply is from cisterns ; no streams or
springs occur. But about seven miles (Conder) N. of
ed-Ddheriyeh (the true Debir), and near Van de Velde's
site for Debir (A7^. ed-Dilheh), are beautiful springs
(worthy of being Achsah's prize), which feed a stream
that runs for three or four miles, and does not dry up.*
The springs, which are fourteen, are in three groups,
1 PEF Mem.Z->pi; see also GASm. Hist. Geog. 279 (cp
p. 78), who speaks of only two springs.
36
ACHSHAPH
and the two which are nearest to the head of the
valley may be presumed to lie the Upper and Lower
Golath. The identification is certainly a valuable one.
Sec, further, Goi.A th-Maim.
ACHSHAPH (fli;ON. i.e. 'sorcery'; &zl(J) [B],
AXCACJ) [A]. &XAC- [1-]). one of the unknown sites
in the hook of Joshua. It lay, according to P, on the
Ixjrdcr of the .\slierite territory (Josh. I925 ; Kea(p [H]).
Its king (if the s;\me Achshaph is meant) joined the
northern confederation under Jabin, king of Hazor (11 i ;
ox'<^ [A], axt/i [1'"]. [fiacuXta] x'^<'-'t> ['-]) i and
shared the defeat of his allies (I220). Rob. (liRAss)
connects it with the modern Kesaf, a village near the
bend of the river Litany where there are some ruins of
uncertain date; this identification would suit Josh. 11 1,
but not 1925. Maspero, on the other hand, followed
by WNLVI (As. u. Eur. 154, cp 173), identifies
Achshaph with the Aksap of the name-list of Thotmes
III. (A'/'IS*, 546). In this part of the li^t. however,
there are names of localities in the region of Jezreel,
which is outside the land of Asher. Flinoers Petrie
(Hist, of Eg. 2326) connects Aksap with ' Asdfek, 9 m.
SSW. of Jeba, which is hazardous. At any rate there
were probably several places noted anciently for their
sorcerers and therefore called Achshaph. The form Kea(^
(see above) has suggested a most improbable identification
with Haifa (FEE Mem. 1 165). The statement of Eus.
in OS, 21854^ (o.Kaa.<l>) is geographically impossible.
ACHZIB (3'T3X ; probably 'winter-torrent').
I. .\ town of Judah in the Shephelah, mentioned with
Ke'ilah and Mareshah, Jos. I544 (aKtefei :. *cefet/i [B],
axf \.-^\ axf"/* [I-]), also Mic. 1 ^f, where "'W,
losing the intended paronomasia, renders ' the houses
of .Achzib ' oXkovs fiaraiovs. The name becomes Chkzib
(3*13; Samar. te.xt, Chazbah; x-<^^'- [''^^L]) in Gen. 38 st,
where the legend presupposes that Chezib is the centre
of the clan of Shelah ; and since in i Ch. 4 22t ' the
men of Cozeba ' (n3I3 ; x^fvi^a [AL] ; but ffuixn^o-
[R], cp ffwxa = Socoh) are said to belong to the same
clan, we may safely recognise COZKBA (so RV ; AV
Chozeba) as another form of the same name. The
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
name may perhaps linger in 'Ain el h'etbeh, between
Yarmuk (Jarmuth) and Shuweikeh (Socoh), but to tlie
E. of both (So GASm. , after PEE Mem. 3 36). Conders
identification of Cozeba with the ruin of Kuweiziba, 2^
ni. NE. of Halhul towards Hebron (PEE Mem. '6^)
is therefore superfiuous. IJuhl wi.scly doubts the pro-
posal to identify it with Kus.sabe SE. of Tell el-Hesy
(J'al. 192).
2. A Canaanite town, 9 m. to the north of Accho,
like which city it was claimed but not conquered by the
irilje of Asher, Josh. 19 29 {(xo^ofi [li], axf<^ [A'].
af^ [A*], axaf^ [L]), Judg. Ijif (a<rxaf*i [HL],
XivSn [.A]). Sennacherib mentions Akzibi and Akku
together in the Taylor inscription (P/''-> 688). Achzib
(Aram. AcMifi) is the Ecdippa, fKSiTrira, of O.S, 95i3
2'24 77, the (KSi-mrwi' [/y/l 134], exSetTrocj (.-////. v. 1 22,
where it is said to have been also called ipKrj) of Jos. ,
the modern ez-'/.lb. i . k. ( .
ACIPHA (AXeiBA [B]).
Hakui>iia.
Esd. 53it AV = Ezra2 5i
ACITHO (AKiBca [A]), Judiths. f. RV, Ahitub
(q.v., 4).
ACRA(<\KpA [ ANV]), I Mace. 1 33 etc., AV ' strong-
hold,' KV 'citadel.' See jKKrsALEM.
ACEABBIM (D*3npy). Josh. 153t. RV Akkabbim.
ACRE ("ip'ii, zeYPOC in Is. ; for in i Sam. cp
We. Dr. ad he.). Is. 5 10, i S. 14i4 AV mg. RV. The
Heb. word seems to denote the amount of land which a
span or Yoke \q.~'.~\ of o.xen could plough in the course
of a day (cp below) ; perhaps, like the Egyptian dpovpa,
it ultimately became a fixed quantity (cp Now. Arch. 1
202). Even at the present day the fellahin of Palestine
measure by the fadddn ( = Syr. paddand ' yoke ' ; cp
ZZ?/'/' 4 79) ; cp also \^aX. Ji/i^i/nt , jugcrum. The term
is not restricted to arable land, being applied in Is. I.e.
to a vineyard. Winckler, however (AUE, 2nd scr. , 2
90), derives semed from Bab. samddu {=:Iai'd/u) to
weigh, properly to measure off (which is at any rate
barely possible), and attempts to show that seined in
Is. can denote only a liquid measure (which is by no
means obvious). See Weights and Measures.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES^
CONTENTS
T/u HVe' sect ions distinct in characier/roiu rest o/i>ook(% i); inaccuracies (% 2); ' Tendency '(^i 3-7); ' Journey Record' (% &/.)',
Ot/ier Sources {^ 10/); Trust2uorthi>u'ss {%% i2-n); Authorship {^ 15); Date {% 16) ; Blasss hypothesis (% 17/.); Religious
Value o/Acts ( 19) ; Literature ( 20).
Apart from scanty notices supplied by the NT epistles,
this book is our only source for the history of Christianity
during its first thirty or thirty-five years. The question
of its trustworthiness is, therefore, of fundamental im-
portance.
The sections in which, as an eye-witness, the writer
gives his narrative in the first person plural (16 10-17 -0
1. The ' We '
sections
or Journey
Record.
5-15 21 1-18 27 1-28 16) may be implicitly
accepted. But it may be regarded as
ecjually certain that they are not by the
same writer as the other parts of the
book. In the sections named, the book
shows acquaintance with the stages of travel of almost
every separate day, and with other very unimportant
details (2O13 2I2/. 16 28ii, etc.); outside these limits
it has no knowledge even of such an important fact as
that of Paul's conflicts with his opponents in Galatia and
Corinth, and mentions only three of the twelve adventures
catalogued so minutely in 2 Cor. 11 24/. cp 23 (Acts 14 19
16 22 23/ ). Even had the writer of the book as a whole
(assuming him to have been a companion of Paul) been
separated from the apostle remaining behind, e.g. , in
Macedonia during the interval between 1617 and 20 5
he would surely afterwards have gathered the needful
details from eye-witnesses and embodied them in his I
37
book, instead of satisfying himself with such extra-
ordinarily meagre notes as we have in I821-232O1-3 or
16 5-8. Even were he following an old journal, he
could never have passed over so many important matters
in silence simply because they were not to be found in
his notes. P'urther, he contradicts the Epi-^tle to the
Galatians so categorically (see Gai.ATI.^ns, Epistle to,
5/., and Coi;nc:l ok Jekusali.m) th.at, if we assume
his identity with the eye-witness who writes in the first
I person, we are compelled (see below, 6) to adopt one of
j two courses. We must either make Galatians non-Pauline
I or pronounce the writer of Acts as a whole to be a
' tendency ' writer of the most marked character hardly
less so than a post-apostolic author who should have
simply invented the ' we ' sections. To suppose that
the 'we' sections were invented, however, is just as
inadmissible as to question the genuineness of Galatians.
If the sections had been invented, they would not
have been so different from the rest of the took. We
must therefore conclude that the sections in question
come from a document written by an eye-witness, the
so-called ' we ' source, and that this was used by a later
writer, the compiler of the whole book.
It is upon this assumption of a distinct authorship for
1 On title see below, Ian.
38
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
the ' we ' sections that we are best able to pass a compara-
tively favourable judgment on the compiler's deviations
from historical facts in other parts of the book. But
there is one charge from which he cannot be freed, viz. ,
that he has followed the method of retaining the ' we '
without change. In the case of so capable a writer,
in whom hardly a trace can be detected, either in
vocabul.-iry or in style, of the use of documents, this fact
is not to be explained by lack of skill, such as is some-
times met with in the Mediceval chroniclers. The
inference is inevitable that he wished what has actually
happened that the whole book should be regarded as
the work of an eye-witness. An analogous case is to
be found in the ' I ' taken over from the Memoirs of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 727-834 Qi-is; Neh. li-7s
I231I36-31 ; also in Tob. I3-36, and in Protevangclium
Jacobi, -i.if.). Just as EzralO and Neh. 8, as well as
the sections just mentioned, must be held to rest on
those Memoirs, although modilied and with the ' I '
dropped out, so in Acts we may assume much other
matter to have been drawn from the source from which
the 'we' sections are derived. Any attempt, however,
to assign to this source whole sections of the book not
having the ' we,' and to use the conclusion so gained as
a proof of the trustworthiness of everything thus assumed
to belong to it, must be postponed until this trustworthi-
ness has been investigated by the means otherwise at our
command.
In this investigation we begin with certain obvious
inaccuracies first of all with those which cannot be
.. . traced to the influence of any tendency.
2. inaccuracies ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ j,^^ manifestation of Christ
b^T d ^^^ to Paul near Damascus. According to
' ^' 229 his companions see the light from
heaven but do not hear the voice of Jesus ; according
to 97 they hear the voice but see no one and do not fall
down ; according to 26 12-18 they fall down indeed with
Paul, but it is he alone who sees the heavenly light,
and hears the voice. This last account, moreover,
represents him as having received at the time an ex-
planation of what had occurred ; according to 22n f.,
he did not receive the explanation until afterwards,
through Ananias.
Further inconsistencies of statement are to be found when we
compare the explanation of the departure from Jerusalem in
926-30 with that in 2'2 17-21 ; the account in IO44 (en) with that
in 11 15 (a.p^(x<idai) ; the explanation of the offering in 21 20-26
with that in 24 177^ ; the accounts in 21 31-34 2223-29 2827 with
2817, according to which Paul was, in Jerusalem, a prisoner of
the Jews and not as yet of the Romans ; the occasion of the
appeal to Caesar in 2.59-11 with that in 28 iSy; The liberation
of Paul and .Silas from prison at Philippi (1023-40) is not only a
very startling mir.icle (with resemblances to what we read in
Euripides, Bacchie, 436-441, 5027^, 606-628 [cp Nonnus, Diony-
siaca, 45262-285], ^"J ^^ regards Acts 10 35-J9, in Lucian,
Toxaris, 27-33), b'lt is scarcely reconcilable with i Thess. 2 2,
where the language of the apostle hardly suggests that his
' boldness in God ' was in any measure due to an occurrence of
this kind.
So much for inaccuracies that cannot be attributed to
any tendency on the part of the writer. There are
others and these of much greater importance which
can only be so explained. Before discussing these, let us
ascertain clearly what the tendency of the writer is.
Every historian who is not simply an annalist must
have ' tendency ' in the wider sense of that word.
Tflniiencv ^'^ trustworthiness is not necessarily
* XI. 1, 1 affected thereby : indeed, it has actually
of tne book. , .. r.. i-.r
been urged by one of the apologists for
Acts,* as an argument for the trustworthiness of the book,
that it was designed to be put in as a document at the
trial of Paul, and was written entirely with this view a
position that cannot, however, be made good. Now, it
is clear that the book does not profess to be a history of
the first extension of Christianity, or of the Church in the
apostolic age : it covers really only a small portion
of this field. It is equally certain that the title irpa^eis
irCJvf) dwoffrbXwv does not express the purpose of its
1 Aberle, Tiib. Theol. Quartahchr. 1863, pp. 84-134.
39
author, who relates hardly anything of James and John,
and of nine of the apostles mentions nothing but the
names. 1 Neither is the book a history of Peter and
Paul, for it tells also of John, of both the Jameses, of
the deacons, of Stephen, Philip, Apollos, and others.
Nor is it a history of the spread of the gospel from
Jerusalem to Rome ; for the founding of the Roman
church is not described but presupposed (2815), and all
that has any interest for the writer is the arrival there
of Paul (1921 23 11). It is often supposed that the aim
of the book is expressly formulated in 18, and that
the purpose of the author was to set forth the spread of
Christianity from Jerusalem, through Samaria, and to
the ends of the earth. This is much too indefinite to
account either for the difference in scale of the various
narratives, sometimes so minutely detailed and some-
times so very vague, or for their marked divergences
from actual history.
It is, therefore, no prejudice on the part of critics,
but the nature of the book itself, that leads us to ascribe
tendency to the writer. Only (i) we must not, with the
Tiibingen School, consider it 'conciliatory.' According
to tiiat view, Acts was an attempt from the Pauline side,
by means of concessions, to bring Judaism to a recogni-
tion of Gentile Christianity. A reconciliation of the
two was thus to be effected in face of the danger that
threatened both, from Gnosticism on the one side and
from state persecution on the other. This cannot have
been the purpose. Acts is much too harsh towards non-
Christian Jews, for whom Christian Jews continued to
retain a certain sympathy (223 751-53 I85/ 12-17 1913-16
21 27-36 23 12-15, etc. ) ; besides, most of the details which
it gives have no relation to any such purpose. The
main point on which the supposed reconciliation turns,
the Apostolic Decree (1528/. ), is to be explained other-
wise (see Council ok Jerusalem, 10). (2) On the
other hand, the book is not a mere apology for Paul.
If it were, much of its contents would be unsuitable {e.g. ,
the enumeration of the conditions required in an apostle
[121/], which were not fulfilled in Paul); it does not
even give such a view of the personality of Paul as the
facts known to us from the epistles demand (see below,
7, 14). There remains only (3) one other possible
view of the author's tendency. His aim is to justify the
Gentile Christianity of himself and his time, already on
the way to Catholicism, and he seeks to do this by
means of an account of the origin of Christianity. The
apostles, including Paul, are the historical foundation
of Christianity, and 432 a, where we are told that all
Christians were of one heart and soul, may be regarded
as forming a motto for the book.
A whole series of demonstrable inaccuracies becomes
J . comprehensible when viewed as result-
4. inaccuracies j^^ ^^^^^ ^^-^ tendency. Paul never
resulting irom ^^^^^^ .^^^^ conHict with the original
tnis tenaency. j^p^gties or their followers as he does
in Gal. 4 17 57 10 12 ; 2 Cor. 10 14/. 11 13-15 18-23.
The one misunderstanding (Acts 15) that arises is cleared
away by the original apostles ; the attempt to enforce the cir-
cumcision of Titus (Gal. 2 3-5)^nay, the whole personality of
Titus is just as carefull>r passed over in silence as are the dis-
pute with Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2 11-21; see Council of
Jerusalem, 3) and the Judaising plots to impose on the
Galatians and Corinthians another Gospel, that of circumcision
(Gal. Isy: 612/), and another Christ (2 Cor. 11 4/). Apart
1 It is not to be inferred from the absence of the article from
the title in good MSS (irpa|eis ano<TTo\uv [BD]) that the author
me^nt to say that it wa.s with the acts of only some of the apostles
that he proposed to deal ; for it would be very strange that he
should admit such an incompleteness in the very title of his
work. The article before aTroo-ToAoji/ is omitted because irpofeis
is without it ; and that is so simply bec.iuse such is the usual
practice at the beginning of books (cp Mt. 1 1 Acts 1 i, and see
Winer (8), g 1!>4, 10). Since therefore no form of the title can
be assigned to the author of the book, we conclude that the title
must date from the time when the book was first united with
others in one collection its first occurrence is in the last third of
the second century (Mur. Fragm. Tert. Clem.Al.). The simple
npa^tii [k], common since Origen, is meaningless as an original
title, and intelligible only as an abbreviation.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
from the Gentiles, who seldom show hostility to Paul (14 s
Id 16-33 ld3-4>). >( is (notwithstandinK the end of 3 Cor. II36)
only at the hands of non-Christian Jews that Paul meets with
difficulties (13 45 18 6 HI 9 28 34) or persecutions (1 23/ 39 13 50
14 3 5 19 17 5-8 13 IS lay. 20 3 19 21 27-36 23 12-21 24 1-9 25 2-9 24).
For further illustrntiuns of the operation of this tendency in the
writer of Acts see Simo.n and Bakjksus.
On the other hand, Paul brings forward nothing
whatever in which the original apostles had not led the
way : far from going beyond them at all, he appears
to Ix' entirely dependent on them.
His journeys to .Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal. 1 17 31) are
passed over in silence, and thus it is made out that not he but
Peter gains the first Gentile convert, for Cornelius, in opposi-
tion to 10 3 23 35, where he is a senii-proselyte, is represented in
102845 11 I 18 157 as a pure Gentile. (Historically, however,
after Peter had, in face of the doubts of the primitive church, so
completely, and as a question of general pruiciple, justified the
reception of Cornelius into the Christian comniunily without
his being subjected to the requirements of the Mosaic law,
as is related m 11 1-18, the question that led to the Council of
Jerusalem could never again have sprung up.)
Again, whenever Paul comes into a strange city, he seeks (as
we should expect him to do) to establish relations first of all with
the synagogue, since, tliroufih the proselytes w)io might be
looked for there, he could obtain access to the Gentiles: our
view agrees also with Rom. 10 18-21. According to Acts, how-
ever, in almost every place where Paul betakes himself with
his message to the llentiles as distinct from the Jews, he has
to purchase anew the right to do so, by first of all preaching
to the Jews and being rejected by them (13i4 45yC IS4-6 I'.l8_/C
281724-28). The only exceptions to this rule are Benta (17
10-12), Paphos, Lystra, and Athens (13 6 14 7 17 17) where the
narrative passes at once to a quite singular incident and towns
so summ.-irily dealt with as Derbe and Perga (14 21 25), along
with Iconium, where Gentiles are brought to Christianity
through the sermon in the synagogue (14 i). In 28 17-28, in
order to make the right to preach to the Gentiles dependent
on the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, the very existence
of the Christian church, already, according to 2.S 15, to be found
in Rome, is ignored. Such a dependence of Paul's life-work
his mission to the f".cntile> -cm the ilcpurtiuent of the Jews,
arid that too in rwry in.iivi.iual city, is ,|iiilc iriL-cnncilable
with Gal.l 1627 /;, ami with the iiii>tivc-s wliii h llic author him-
self indicates in .Acts i:i 47 L's .(',, as ul-II a^ with '.' is-'' \T f.
After the appciraiK.- ..f Ksus hinis.lf" to I'.ii;! mai 1 ),iiii.iscus,
the apostle lias vet linthcr to be iiitn..iui:. .1 to hi- work by
human agency (in tlie tii-t in--tan. e l.y Ananias j'.i , 10-19 'Jl' 10
14-16], and suhscinioiitly 111 25I l>y IIaknahas \<i.~'.\, a nieniljer
of the original cluircli). and this happens after the church of
Antioch the first Gentile Christi.an Church, and Paul's first
important coiiijregation had already been founded by Chris-
tians from Jerusalem (11 20-24). (Both of these statements are
contradicted by Cial. I16; the latter of them vi'so by the
order in which Syria and Cilicia are taken in (lal 1 21.)
Moreover, at the Council of Jekusali-;m (^.7'. 6) Paul has only
to give in a report and to accept the decisions of the primitive
church.
The tendency we have pointed out throws ligjht also
on the parallel (which is tolerably close, especially where
miracles are concerned) between the acts and experiences
of Peter and of Paul.
Both begin by healing a man lame from birth (3 2-10= 14 8-10),
and go on to the cure of another sick man (9 33^^ = 28 8); they
heal many men at once, both directly (.1 16 = 289) ^"^^ mediately
(5 15 = 19 12), besides doing signs and wonders generally (243
5 12 = 14315 12 19 11); both bring a dead person to life (936-42 =
2O9-12); both perform a miracle of judgment (5 i-io = 13 6-11I ;
both, by the laying-on of hands, confer the gift of the Holy
Ghost (814-17 = 191-7), and in doing .so also impart the gift of
tongues (1044-46 = 196); both have a vision corresponding with
one experienced by another man (101-22 = 93-16); both are
mir.-iculi>usly delivered from prison (5 i8y; 12 3-11 = 1023-34) ;
both are scourged (540= 1('> 227C) ; both decline divine honours
in almost identical words (10 25^1 = 14 ii-iS, cp 28 6).
The life of Paul included many more incidents of this
kind than that of Peter ; but from what we have already
observed we can understand how the author's wish not
to allow r'eter to fall behind Paul must have influenced
the narrative. Still, he has by no means wholly sacrificed
history to his imagination ; had this been so, he would
certainly have brought his narrative into much closer
agreement with his own ideals. He has not, for ex-
ample, introduced in the case of Peter, as in that of
Paul, a stoning (14 19), or threats against life (923/.
29145), or an exorcism (I616-18). And in like manner
the omission of many of the items enumerated in 2 Cor.
11 23-27 12 12 may be explained, at least in part, by the
supposition that he had no definite knowledge alxjut
them. He has, it would seem, at least in the main.
confined himself to matter preserved by tradition, merely
making a selection and putting it into shape.
B SubBidiarv ^^'^ ^"'''"'' ^^ '* tendencies in
tendencies *^^'''" ' ^^^ religious - theological
one.
1. There is first \hc polilicul tendency, the desire to
say as little as possible unfavourable to the Roman civil
power.
In the Third Gospel we already find Pilate declaring that he
finds no fault in Jesus, and he has this judgmcm confirmed by
Herod, who in the other gospels is not mentioned at all in con-
nection with the examination of Jesus. Pilate declares thrice
over that he will relea.se Jesus, and he is prevailed upon
to pass adverse sentence only by the insistence of the Jews
(I.k. 23 1-25). In Acts (which has even been regarded by some
as an apology for Christianity intended to be laid tieforc
Gentiles ; see above, 3 n.), the first converts of Peter and Paul
are Roman officers (10 i 13 7), while it is the Roman authorities
who definitely declare Paul to be no political criminal as the
Jews would have it (18 14^; 19 37 23 29 25 iSyT 2ri3iy:); it is by
them also that he is protected (in more than one instance at
any rate) from conspiracies (18 12-17 I931 21 31-36 23 1023-33
25 2-4).
When this political tendency is recognised, the con-
clu.sion of the book becomes intelligible. Other\vise
it is a riddle. Even if the author meant to add still
a TpLros X670S (third treatise) which is pure con-
jecture he could not suitably have ended the divrepoi
\670s (second treatise) otherwise than with the death of
Paul : that he did not survive Paul is even less likely
than that he was otherwise interrupted at this point of
his work. When we take account of this political ten-
dency, however, ' none forbidding him ' (dKwXvTws) is
really a skilfully devised conclusion. The very last
word thus says something favourable to the Roman
authorities, and, in order not to efface this impression,
the writer leaves the death of Paul unnientioned.
2. Secondly, he has in his mode of narration an
esthetic as well as a political tendency : he aims at
beiitg graphic.
Thisend is promoted very specially by the 'we,' and thedetails,
otherwise purposeless, appropriated from the Journey Record ;
but it is also served by much in chaps. 1-12 that, without having
any claim to be regarded as historical, contributes to the en-
livening of the picture of the primitive Christian community
(see below, 13); also by the speeches (see 14), and par-
ticularly by the miracle- narratives, which in almost every
case where they are not lUriM'i ir- ni the 'we' doeutnent (see
8) are characterised by to a hcs ni remarkable vigour (I9-11
^'-134331-11 5 i-ii 12 15/. 17-.5 I' -Soy: 13397: 9 3-1933-42
IO1-22 123-11 13 It 14 38-13 10 23-34 19 iiy:).
The total influence of all these tendencies not having
been so great as to lead the author wholly to disregard
/. m 1. 1 .IT i. the matter supplied to him by tradition,
, , It has often been supposed possible to
. , . affirm that he had no such tendencies
th h"r ""^ -'"' ^'"- '^''''-' '"^'^^"''^'^i^^ f the book
^' are in this case explained simply by
the assumption that the writer was not in pos-
session of full information, and that, in a naive yet
still unbiassed way, he first represented to himself the
conditions of the apostolic age, and afterwards described
them, as if they had been similar to those of his own,
when the conflict of tendencies in the primitive Christian
Church had already been brought to an end. Certain
it is that in his uncjuestioning reverence for the a|xjstles,
it was impossible for him to conceive the idea of their
having ever been at variance with one another. On
the other hand, it cannot possibly be denied that he
must at the same time have either passed over accounts
that were very well known to him or completely changed
them. It is hard to understand how any one can airily
say that to this writer, a Paulinist, the Pauline epistles
remained unknown. Paradoxical as it sounds, it is
certainly the fact that such a lack of acquaintance would
be more easily explicable had he Ijeen a companion of
Paul (a supjxjsition which, however, it is impossible to
accept ; see above, i ) than it is on the assumption
that he lived in post-apostolic times. It is conceivable,
though not probable, that Paul might sometimes have
been unable to communicate his epistles to his companions
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
before sending them off. But a companion of Paul
would at least be familiar with the events which are
recorded in the epistles events with which the represen-
tation in Acts is inconsistent. If we are not prepared
to declare the whole mass of the Pauline epistles to
be spurious, and their statements about the events to
which they allude unhistorical, there is no way of
acquitting the writer of Acts from the charge of having
moukied history under the influence of 'tendency.'
Only this tendency must be understood as being simply
a consistent adherence to the view of the history that he
had before he studied his sources.
The tendencies of the author once established in
regard to points where his historical inaccuracy admits
7. Possible
further influ-
ences of
tendency.
of definite proof from a trustworthy
source, one may perhaps found on
them presumptions in regard to matters
that admit of no such control. Did
Paul circumcise Timothy (16 3)? Since
Timothy's mother is called a Jewess, and Paul held
the principle laid down in i Cor. 920, it is impossible
to deny categorically that he did. Nevertheless, it
remains in the highest degree improbable, especially
after Paul had, just before (Gal. 23-5), so triumphantly
and as a question of principle, opjxjsed the circum-
cision of Titus. The difficulty of the case is not much
relieved even by the supposition that the circumcision
happened before the Council of Jerusalem, and only on
account of the Jews of that place (16 3) and therefore,
notwithstanding the statement of the same verse, not
with a view to the missionary journeys. Again, did
Paul take a Nazirite vow? We leave 18 18 out of
account, since the text does not enable us clearly to
decide whether that assertion concerns Paul or Aquila,
and since a Nazirite could shave his head only in
Jerusalem. In 21 20-26, however, Paul is represented as
having taken such a vow, not only without waiting for
the minimum ])eriod of thirty days required by tradi-
tional law (21 27 24 1 II, cp Jos. Bf\\. 15 i [ 313] ; Num.
613-21; see N.\zikite), but also, and above all, with
the expressly avowed purpose of proving that the report
of his having exempted the Jewish Christians of the
Diaspora from obligation to the ceremonial law was
not true, and that he himself constantly observed that
law (cp28i7). This would, for Paul, have been simply
an untruth, and that, too, on a point of his religious
conviction that was fundamental (Gal. 49-11 ; Rom. IO4,
etc. ). Just as questionable, morally, would it have been
had he really described himself, especially before a court
of justice (236, cp 24 21 265-8 2820), simply as a
Pharisee, asserted that he was accused only on account
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and
held his peace about his Christianity.
In view of the tendencies that have been pointed out,
there is, unhappily, some room for the suspicion that
the author has not held himself bound
8. The Journey
Record : a. its
treatment.
to appropriate the ' we ' source in its
integrity. This is indeed made ante-
cedently probable by the fact that he
has already in the Third Gospel passed over much that
lay before him in his sources, and that the sections
of the Journey Record actually adopted supply for
the most part only superficial notices of the stages
pa.ssed, or miracle stories. And just in proportion to
the freedom of the latter from legendary embellishments
(16 16-18 2O9-12 283-9), and to their credibility even in
the eyes of those who wholly reject the supernatural
(although, of course, the narrators thought them
miraculous), must be our regret at every instance in
which the Journey Record has been set aside, or even in
which its words (as has been conjectured to be some-
times the case ; see above, i ) are not reproduced
e.xactly.
This free treatment of the Journey Record increases
the difficulty of ascertaining who was its author.
Had the record been adopted intact, we should have
been certain that it was not composed by any of those
who appear among the companions of Paul in the
sections where the narrative ' we ' does
9. b. Its
author.
not occur. But this means of solution is
out of the question. And if the source
came into the hands of the author of Acts as (let us
, say) an anonymous document, or if, in the interest of
greater vividness, he used the ' we ' without regard to
the person originally meant, he may also at the same
time have spoken of the writer of the Journey Record
in the third jxjrson, even when he was otherwise
following the document. Yet 20 5 is a strong indica-
tion that by the ' we ' he does not wish us to
understand any one at least of the seven mentioned in
the immediately preceding verse. Thus the text at all
events gives nowhere any ground for thinking of
Timothy, who, moreover, is mentioned in 17 14/. 18 5
in the third jierson. If we are to regard the record as
coming from Silas, the author of Acts must have used
it without the 'we,' and, in a very fragmentary way
indeed, for long periods during which, according to his
own statement (I540 16 19 25 29 174 10 I85), Silas was
with Paul. This, though not quite impossible, is very
unlikely. Moreover, Silas is never again mentioned in
Acts after 18 5 ; neither, from the same period that of
Paul's first stay in Corinth (2 Cor. 1 19) is he again
mentioned in the Pauline Epistles ; and in i Pet. 5 12,
he appears by the side of Peter. Whoever attributes
the Journey Record to Titus must in like manner
assume that much of it has been either not used at all
or used without the 'we.' For Titus was with Paul
at the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Gal. 2i), and
continued to be his companion at least during the latter
part of the three years' stay at Ephesus, as also during
the subsequent stay in Macedonia (2 Cor. 2 13 76 8 idf. 23
12i8i). Besides, the writer of Acts would use a work
of Titus somewhat unwillingly, for he completely sup-
presses his name (see above 4-). Still, if so valuable
a writing by Titus had been really available, the author
of Acts would scarcely have completely neglected it.
If it is thus just possible that Titus wrote the
Journey Record, it is perhaps still more conceivable
that it wa^ written by Luke. In this way we should
best be able to explain how, ever since the time of the
Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus [Adv. Haer. iii. 14 i),
the entire book of Acts as well as the Third Gospel came
to be ascribed to him. It is true that, in the Pauline
Epistles, the first mention of Luke is in Col. 4 14 ; Phil.
24; 2 Tim. 4 II in other words, not before Paul's
imprisonment and the closing years of his life. Never-
theless, he may have been one of Paul's companions at
an earlier period, if we are allowed to suppose that he
occupied a subordinate position. The most suspicious
fact is that, whilst Luke (see Luke), if we may trust
Col. 4 II 14, was, like Titus (Gal. 23), uncircumcised, the
writer of the Journey Record not only uses Jewish
specifications of date (Actsl6i3 206/ 279), and goes
to the synagogue or the Jewish place of prayer (16 16),
but also includes himself (16 13) among those who taught
there i^lovhaXoi., 16 20, must not be pressed, as it may
rest on an error on the part of the speakers ; cp
16 37). We must thus, perhaps, abandon all attempt to
ascribe the Journey Record to any known companion
of Paul.
Other sources for Acts, in addition to that just
meptioned, have long been conjectured : e.g. a
Barnabas source for chap. 13/! Here the
10. Other
Sources.
naming over again of Barnabas and Saul,
and the omission of John Mark (13 1),
notwithstanding 12 25, are indeed remarkable, as are also
1 Add to this that, if 2 Tim. 4 10 is to \x taken as accurately
preserving an incident in Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, it
could hardly have been Titus that accompanied Paul to Rome
(.Vets 27 28). The notices in the epistle to Titus are too un-
trustworthy to sen-e as a foundation for historical combiiiations.
2 It is just as incorrect to suppose that he is named in Acts
18 7 as it is to identify him with Silas.
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
the circumstance that, apart from II30 1225 15i33s, it
is precisely in these two chapters that Barnabas is often
(1^27 1414; contrast 18434650 14 ao) mentioned before
I'aul, and that it is only here (I4414) that I'aul (with
Barnabas) is called an 'apostle' (see Aposti.k).
Of primary importance would be the establishment of
sources for chaps. 1-12.
.Many traces of distinct .sources can be detected. In addition
to what is iaid utider (liK 1 s, Simkituai., and under Communitv
OK (JdODs, $$ 1-4, two themes had been long recognised
as running through the speech of Steplien : viz. refutation
of the idea that the blessing of Cjod depended on the
possession of the temple (748-50), and censure of the national
rebellion of the people against the divine will (751-53). The
stoning of Stephen, moreover, is narr.-jted twice (7 58^1 and 59a),
in a very confusing way, and his burial does not follow lifi 8 2,
after the mention of the great persecution and the flight of all
the Christians except the :ii)ostles(8 lic). In 8 3, the persecution
is resumed, but, as in S la, only Satil is thought of as persecutor.
The mention of Saul seems thus throughout (7 58^ 8 la 3) to be
a Liter insertion into a source in wliich he was not originally
named. Besides, 811^1: seems also to be an interpolation into
the account of the last hours of .Stephen. In as far as this
interpolation speaks of the dispersion of the Christians, it is con-
tinued in 11 19, while 84 may easily be an ingenious transition
of some editor leading up to the story of Philip. 11 ig is
further followed by the statement (11 22) that the church at
Jerusalem elected a ^jV/^^^rt/A This representation of the right
of the church to elect delegates, which is found also in 6 5, seems
to be more primitive than that in 8 14, according to which such
an election was made by the apostles. Further, in 8 15-17 the
apostles are raised to a rank unknown to the earliest times.
For, that Christians did not receive the Holy ('.host by baptism,
but only through subsequent l.iying-on of hands, ami those the
hands of the .Tposlles, is disproved by (;al.3 2 46, and even by
the presupposition underlying Acts 1!'2_/C, although the s.ime
notion reappc.Trs shortly afterw.irds (116). In like manner,
finally, the words 'except the :i|)<.stlcs ' (8 i) may have been
subsequently inserted, to prescrxc ihc di-nity of the apostles
arid tlie continuity of their rule in Jriu-altm. In 1 1 30 the
friendly gifts destined for distril)Uti<;n during the famine come
into the hands of the presbyters, nut, as 1-6 would have led us
to expect, into those of the deacons.
Observations such as the preceding have of late been
11. Theories as ^^'P'^"'.'*^^ '"'^ comprehensive theories
to Sources assir;ning the whole book to one source
or to several sources, with additions
by one editor or by several editors.
So B. Weiss, Em/, in Jas NT (1886, 3rd ed. '97), 8 50, and .//.-
gesrli., 1893 (vol. 0, pts. 3 and 4, of Gebhardt and Harnack's
Textt- u. L'nUrs.); Sorof, KntsUltutiir <ftr ' ; 1 );
van .\Ianen, J^auius, i : de hatvielingen d, , ) ;
Feine, F.inf vork-anonischtr Ucberlie/eruii. i "gi
(onlyon chaps. 1-1'2); Spitta, y^/.-i'^f^fA., 180T : I v/,i/.
der Paulin. lir. 1893 and (for chaps. 1-.^) in .S7. A';-., 1895,
pp. 297-357; Joh. Weiss, Si. Kr., 1893, pp. 480-540, 'Das
Judenchristenthum in der Ap.-gesch.', etc., and 1895, pp. 252-269,
DieChronol. der Paulin. Br.' : (iercke in /A-rwct, 1894, pp. 373-
392 (only on the first chapters); jiingst. Die Qucllen der Ap.-
gesch., 1895; Hilgenfeld, Z\l 7', 1805, pp. 65-115, 186-217, 384-
447. 481-517: 1896, pp. 24-79, 177-216, 351-386, 5I7-558-
No satisfactory conclusion has as yet been reached
along these lines ; but the agreement that has been
arrived at upon a good many points warrants the hope
that at least some conclusions will ultimately gain general
recognition. It is certainly undeniable that this kind
of work has sharpened the wits of the critics, and rendered
visible certain inec|ualities of representation, joints and
seams, even in places where they are not so conspicuous
as in 758-84.
_ Thus the tumult In Thessalonica is told in 178 for a second
time after 17 5 in a disturbing way that leaves it impossible to
say who it was that the Jews were trying (17 5) to drag before
the people, or why it was that J.-ison (17 $/), whose part in the
affair does not become clear till 17 7, was brought before the
authorities. It is proliable that 13 52 originally followed im-
mediately on 1349. Similarly, the account of the wholesale
miracles of the original apostles (.*) i-2a -f,/.) is interrupted by
the interpolation of^ a fragment (012^14) w'lich is itself not
homogeneous. The least that could be done here would l>e to
arrange as follows: 5 12a 15 16 14 121^ 13. But that the text
should have Iwcome so greatly disarranged by transposition is
much less likely than the supposition of several successive inter-
polations. On 1824-28 15 1-34, see AroLi.os, and Council of
jERi'SALKM, {!$ 4 5. In the latter passage (15 1-34) the attempt
has been made, by separation of sources, to solve questions to
which otherwise only tendency-criticism seemed to provide an
answer. Simil.irly in the case of 21 20^-26. After the presbyters
have just praised God for the success of Paul's mission to the
Gentiles ('21 20a) the proposal that he should put it in evidence
how strictly legal he is in his views follows with but little fitness.
45
I And had Paul been engaged in carryinR out a Nazirile vow, it
I is hardiv likely that his presence in the temple ('21 27-29) could
I have led to an attempt on his life. A reason for this attempt
is found ('21 28^:) in the alleged introduction of a Gentile within
the sacred precincts of the temple, a proceeding which no one
would guess to be simultaneous with the presentation of an
offering. Since, moreover, for a Nazirite vow at least thirty
days are necessary (see alx>ve, i 7), it has l>een projx.scd to
detach 21 20(^-26, and to lefer the seven days of 21 27 to the
duration of the feast of Pentecost which I'aul, according to '20 16,
was to spend in Jerusalem. 21 19 2ort 27^ would then also,
along with 20 lO and '21 1-18, Iwlong to the Journey Record.
We come now to the question how far this distribu-
tion of the matter among various sources affects the
12. Bearing of '^^'"'"^['i^y .^^ h ^^^; '' ^^ indeed
these theories IJ,""' ^^l'' '" ^.^^ ''^'^ ^,"^' mentioned.
on trust archa-ological mistake of assigning
worthines's. ."'y ''"'T, t^'" ^'"^ '^^ ^'"'"'''^
rites would become more comj)re-
hensible if we recognised a variety of sources ; yet
even .so we should liave to admit that there is an
error, and that the editor had been guilty of the over-
sight of incautiously bringing the two accounts together.
And he, as well as the source from wliich 21 2.^^-26 is
perhaps taken, would still remain o{>en to the reproach
of having, under the inHuence of a tendency of the kind
described above (ij 6), ascrilx'd to I'aul a repudiation of
his principles of freedom from the law. It cannot Ije
too strongly insisted that in as far as Acts, viewed
as a homogeneous work, has to be regarded as a
tendency writing, it is imjiossible to free it wholly of
this character by distributing the matter among the
various sources : the most that can be done is in cases of
excessive misrepresentation to put this in a softer light.
In general, however, the editor has dealt with his sources
in so masterful a manner that an unlucky hit in the
selection and arrangement of the pieces has but rarely
to be noted. It has been a practice among some of
the scholars enumerated above to claim absolute trust-
worthiness for the whole of an assumed source wliich
they suppose themselves to have made out, irre-
spectively of the nature of some of the contents,
as soon as they have found it trustworthy in some
particulars. Such an abuse of discrimination of sources
in the interest of apologetics is not only illegitimate:
it speedily revenges itself. These very critics for the
most part find themselves compelled to attribute
to their secondary sources and their editors an extra-
ordinary amount of ignorance and awkwardness. In par-
ticular, all theories according to w hich a single assumed
source (of which the 'we' sections form part) is taken
as a basis for the whole of Acts nmst from the outset
be looked upon with distrust. There is nothing to
suggest that any diary-writing companion of Paul also
wrote on the beginnings of the church at Jerusalem,
and. even if there were, any assumption that his in-
formation on such a subject would be as trustworthy as
his assertions founded on his own experience, would be
quite unwarranted.
The results then with reference to the tmstworthiness
of Acts, as far as its facts are concerned, are these.
_ TVi f Apart from the 'we' sections no state-
'.,. , ment merits immediate acceptance on
or iness o ^j^^ ^^^^^.^ ground of its presence in the
narrative. y^^^ j^ ^^^^ contradicts the Pauline
epistles must be absolutely given up, unless we are to
regard these as spurious. Positive proofs of the trust-
worthiness of Acts must be tested with the greatest
caution.
Ramsay thinks he has discovered such proofs in the
accuracy with which geographical names and con-
temporary conditions are reproduced in the journeys
of Paul (Church, 1894, 1-168 ; S/. Paul, 1895).
Some of the most important of these points will be
considered elsewhere ((Jai..\TIA, 0-13. 22I. Of the
other detailed instances many will be found to break
down on closer examination.
For example, Ramsay goes so far as to say (St. Paul, chap. II,
4) : ' Aquila, a man of Pontus, settled in Rome, bears a I-atin
46
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
name ; and must therefore have belonged to the province and not
to non-Roman Pontus. This is a good example of Luke's prmciple
to use the Roman provincial divisions for purposes of classifica-
tion.' As if a Jew from non-Roman Ponlus, settled in Rome,
could not have assumed a subsidiary Roman name, as countless
other Jews are known to have done! And as if Luke would
not have found it necessary to call him nofTticds even if he were
from non-Roman Pontus !
I?ut it is not necessary to go thus into details which
might be adduced as proving the author's accurate
acquaintance with localities and conditions. For
Ramsay attributes the same accuracy of local knowledge
also to one of the revisers of the text, assigned by him to
the second century A.D., whose work is now preserved
to us in D, and also to the author of one source of the
Ac/a Paiili ct Thcchr ( 3), assigned by him to the second
half of the first century, whose work, however, he
declares to be pure romance [Church.'lsf^ a,). If so,
surely any person acquainted with Asia Minor could,
even without knowing very much about the experiences
of Paul, have been fairly accurate about matters of
geography, provided he did not pick up his information
so late in tlie second century as to betray himself by his
language, as according to Ramsay (2364 [end] 5 [end]
759 83-6; St. Paul, see Index under ' Hezan Text')
the above mentioned reviser, whose work lies at the
foundation of D, has done. In point of fact, Weiz-
siicker {Ap. Zeitaltcr, 239/., 2nd ed. 230/; ET
I274/. ) thinks that in Acts 13/ the account of the
route followed does come from an authentic source,
but yet that the contents of the narrative are almost
legendary.
Such, for example, are the incidents at Paphos in Cyprus,
13 6-12 (see Bakjesus) ; also 13 14 46/ 14 !_/, spoken of above
( 4) ; the .speech in 13 16-41 (see below, 14) ; the healing of a
lame man, 148-io, recorded after the model of 3 i-ii ; the
paying of divine honours to Barnabas and Paul, I411-13, after
the manner of the heathen fables (^Philemon and Baucis, in
adjacent Phrygia, .see Ov. Met., 8621 626/:); and the institu-
tion of the presbyterial organisation, 14 23. In the first main
division of the booK (1-T-'), great improbability attaches to the
publicity with whicli the Christian community comes to the
front, to the sympathy that it meets with even among the
masses, although not joined by them (247 4 21 5 13), and to the
assertion that only the Sadducees had anything against it, and
they only on account of the doctrine of the resurrection (4 z/.\
-while the Pharisees had given up all the enmity they had dis-
played against Jesus, adopting a slightly expectant attitude.
See, further, Barnabas, Barsabas, Gifts, Community of
Goods, Philip. Pkter. Cornelius, Christian, and also, for
thejourneysof Paul to Jerusalem, and the attempted rearrange-
ment of them. Council OF Jerusalem, i.
But, after every deduction has been made, Acts
certainly contains many data that are correct, as, for
example, especially in the matter of proper names such as
Jason (I75), Titius Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes (I87/ 17),
or in little touches such as the title iroKiTapxa-i (176),
which is verified by inscriptions ^ for Thessalonica, as is
the title of TrpcDros (287) for Malta, and probably the
name of Sergius Paulus as proconsul for Cyprus (187).
Only, unfortunately, we do not possess the means of
recognising such data as these with certainty, where
confirmation from other sources is wanting.
With regard to tlie speeches, it is beyond doubt that
the 'author constructed them in each case according to
14 T f ^'^ """^ conception of the situation. In
, . ' doing so he simply followed the acknow-
wortniness j^^jg^j practice of ancient historians.
Ot speecnes. (-rhucydides[i. 22 1] expresses himself dis-
tinctly on this point ; the others adopt the custom
tacitly without any one's seeing in it anything morally
questionable. ) This is clearly apparent at the very out-
set, in Acts 1 16-22.
It is not Peter who needs to recount these events to the
primitive Church already familiar with them : 2 it is the author
of Acts who feels called on to tell his readers of them. And it
was only for the readers of the book that there could have been
any need of the note that the Aramaic expression Aceldama
belonged to the Jerusalem dialect, for that was the very dialect
1 A detailed discussion by De Witt Burton will be found in the
Amer. Joum. o/TheoL, i8p8, pp. 598-632.
2 Unless the passage be indeed a legendary development of
Mt. 273-10.
47
which the supposed hearers were using (cp. further Theudas,
and Judas of Galilee).
The speeches of Paul in Acts embody a theology quite
different from that of his epistles.
A thought like Acts 17 28 is nowhere to be found in the
epistles. Paul derives idolatry, not, as in Acts 17 29,/^, from excus-
able ignorance, but from deliberate and criminal rejection of God
(Rom. 1 18-32). Only in Acts 13 38/ lt> 31 20 28, do some really
Pauline principles begin to make themselves heard. The most
characteristically Pauline utterances come, in fact, from Peter
(157-11), or even James (1619; see Council of Jkkusalem,
8). 'The speeches of Paul, especially that in 13 16-41, are so
like those of Peter in idea, construction, and mode of expression,
that the one might easily be taken for the other. For example,
Paul's speech in 13 38/ resembles Peter's in 10 43. Or cp
3 17 13/ (Peter) with 13 27/ (Paul) ; 2 25-31 with 1835-37; or
6 6iKaios for ' Christ ' in 3 14 with 22 14, but also with Stephen's
in 752. For the speeches of Paul, especially 13 16-41, show
affinities also with that of Stephen : see 13 17-19 22 as compared
with 7 2 6_/I 36 45y^ In like manner, the apologetic discourses of
Paul in his own defence betray clearly an unhistorical origin
(see 7).
In short, almost the only element that is historically
important is the Christology of the speeches of Peter.
This, however, is important in the highest degree. Jesus
is there called ttois 0eoO that is to say, according to
425, not ' son,' but ' servant ' of God (3 13 26), holy and
righteous (814 427 227); he was not constituted Lord
and Messiah before his resurrection (236) ; his death
was not a divine arrangement for the salvation of men,
but a calamity the guilt of which rested on the Jews
(3 13-15 530), even if it was (according to 223 428) fore-
ordained of God ; on earth he was anointed by God (427)
with holy spirit and with strength, and he went about
doing good and performing cures, but, according to
10 38, only upon demoniacs ; his qualification for this is
in the same passage traced to the fact that God was
with him. God performed miracles through him (222).
A representation of Jesus so simple, and in such exact
agreement with the impression left by the most genuine
passages ^ of the first three gospels, is nowhere else to
be found in the whole NT. It is hardly possible not
to believe that this Christology of the speeches of Peter
must have come from a primitive source. It is, never-
theless, a fact sufficiently surprising that it has been
transmitted to us by a writer who in other places works
so freely with his sources. At the same time, however,
the DidacM or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
especially 9/!, also bears evidence that in the second
century, in spite of Paul, and of the Epistles to the
Hebrews, to the Colossians, and to the Ephesians, and
of the Gospel of John, an equally simple Christology
still reappieared at least in many Christian circles. That
the writer of Acts also respected it may be conjectured
from the fact that he has not put into the mouth even
of Paul any utterances that go beyond it (1823 2214).
It has already been repeatedly assumed in the pre-
ceding sections that the writer of Acts is identical with
the writer of the Third Gospel. The
15. Author-
ship.
similarity of language, style, and idea,
constantly leads back to this conclusion.
Differences of spirit between the two writings are so
difficult to find that their existence at any time can be
held only on the assumption of a subsequent revision of
the Gospel, with a view to their removal, by the author
of Acts. The most important divergence between
the two books is that according to Acts 1 3 (cp 1831) the
ascension of Jesus did not occur till forty days after
his resurrection, while according to Lk. 24 13 29 33 36 50/ ,
as also the F2pistle of Barnabas (109) and probably even
Jn. 29^17, it was on the very evening of the resurrection.
According to the original view, as indicated by the
absence of any special separate mention of the ascension,
in I Cor. 154-12; Rom. 834; Heb. I3 IO12 122 ; Eph.
I20 25/49/ ; I Pet. 81922, and perhaps even also in
Acts 232-35 (see olv 233) the resurrection and the ascen-
1 Such passages as Mk.l0i7y:32i I33265; Lk.ll29-32;
Mt. 1(15-12 11 5/ 1231/ as contrasted with those in the same
gospels which already present secondary reproductions of the
same facts viz., Mt. 19 16/ 12 23 (efiVracTO : see below, 17 .)
24 36 13 58 12 40 14 15-21 ; Lk. 7 21 ; Mk. 3 28-30.
48
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
sion were the same act, and all appearances of the risen
Jesus were thoiiglit of as being made from heaven.
Whether this follows also from ' goeth before' {irpodyei) in
Mk. 16 7 and in Mt. 28 7, may be doubted. In any case the
forty days indicate a significant development of the idea,
already at work in the Third Gospel, that Ijefore his
ascension Jesus must have contiimed on earth to
maintain intercourse with his disciples, in order that he
might instruct them as to matters which he had not
been able to take up before his death. A develop-
ment of this kind in the story of the ascension recjuire<l
time. Even the repetition of the list of apostles in 1 13
from Lk. 614-16 marks Acts as a new work. It is,
accordingly, very rash to suppose that Lk. 1 1-4 applies
to -Vets also, or to draw conclusions from this.
.\s the book is dedicated to Thcophilus, Blas.s thinks {Neue
kirchliche Zeitsch., 1895, pp. 720-725) that the latter must,
according to the custom that prevailed in antiquity, have been
named in the title (that the title Trpiifti? Ttof ajroo'ToAwi' is not
original, see al)ove, % 3 n.). The same custom, too, he argues,
would require the author to mention his own name in the title.
Accordingly as, since the end of the second centu'y, the author
has been believed to l)e l.uke (see above, 9), lil.iss thinks he is
justified in restoring the title thus Aovica 'Ai/Ttoxf'ws Trpb?
fo<^iAoi/ Aoyos Sfiirepo?. Hut this pure conjecture cannot over-
throw the proof that the book does not come from a companion
of I'aul. On the contrary, had the title really run thus, it
must have licen regarded as a fiction. We should have had to
suppose that the author, not content with suggesting (by retain-
ing the 'e' of his source [see i]) that he_ had been a com-
panion of Paul on his missionary journeys, desired to make this
claim e.xpressly in the title.
The date of composition of Acts thus falls at least
some time later than that of the Third Gospel. The
_ . latter is now, on account of its accurate
allusions to actual incidents in the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem (Lk. 1943/! 21 20), almost universally
set clown to a date later than 70 A.d. , and on some
other grounds, which, however, it must be said, are
less definite, even considerably later (see Gosi'Kl.s).
Similarly, for Acts, the dying out of all recollection of
the actual conditions of apostolic times in particular,
the ignorance as to the gift of tongues (see GiKTS,
Si'iRiTU.M.) and the approaches to hierarchical ideas
(I1720 814-17 1028 2O28) [)oints only in a general way
to a late period. Hence the surest datum is the author's
acquaintance with the writings of Josephus.^ For an
instance see THf:UDAS. Josephus comi^Ieted \\\%Je2uish
War shortly before 79 h.Y>. , his Antiquities in 93 or 94,
the work Against Apiun after that, and his Autobiography
somewhat after 100. As to the inferior limit, Marcion
about 140 A.D. had the Third Gospel, but not Acts,
in his collection ; but we are not aware whether he
rejected it or whether it was wholly unknown to him.
As for the Apostolic Fathers, i Clem. 18 1, if it have
any literary connection with Acts 1822, can just as easily
be the earlier as the later ; and as regards the rest of
their writings, apart from Polycarpl2 (=Acts224),
dating from about 150 A.D., we can find traces only of
the speech of Stephen, in the Epistle of Barnabas (16 2
94/ 5ii 48 143 = Acts 750 51 52 40-43), which in I64
speaks of Hadrian's projected building, about 130 A.U.,
of a heathen temple in place of the Jewish temple as
imminent.'-^ In Justin, about 152 A.i>. (not 137 ; see
Acad. 1896, No. 1239, p. 98), the points of contact are
more marked. If Acts 20 18-35 has many ideas in
common with those of the Pastoral Epistles, the in-
discriminate use of irp(T^VTfpoL and iirl<TKOiroi (20 17 28)
shows that the author has not yet reached the stage in
the development of church government which character-
izes the First I'3pistle to Timothy, the latest of the
Pastoral Epistles, which wishes to see the bishop,
conceived of as a sole ruler and represented in the
1 The evidence for this has of late been brought together with
very great completeness by Krenkel {Josephus und Lucas,
1894) : see also the Fortnightly Rev. 22 485-509 ('77].
2 The reference cannot l>e to the (historically very doubtful)
rebuilding of the Jewish temple (about 120-125 ?) The itoi after
auToi must be deleted, a-cording to the best MSS and indeed
as the connection demands.
4 49
l)erson of Timothy as apostolic vicar, set over the
Ijresbytery (i Tim. 5 119). The date of Acts must,
accordingly, tie set down as somewhere between 105
and 130, or, if the gospel of Luke already presupix)ses
acquaintance with all the writings of Josephus. Ijetwccn
no and 130 A.D.
The conclusions reached in the foregoing sections
would have to be withdrawn, however, and the author
17 Bla ' ^^ '^^^^ regarded as an eye-witness, if the
,4,, views recently put forth by Hlass ' should
^' prove to be correct. According to Hlass,
the markedly divergent readings of D, and those of
the .same character found in some other authorities,*
all came from the author's rough draft of the lx)ok
(which he calls ^), while the ordinary text, o, found in
B, N, A, C, etc., comes from the fair copy of this
intended for Thcophilus, which the author (Ix-ing a jjoor
man) made with his own hand. In doing so he
changed his original without special tendency or
motive and, still more, abridged it as only authors do
in cojjying their own work. And here, as we have
intimated, Blass says, the author can be no other than
the eye-witness who can give his narrative in the first
person with 'we. '-^ To pronounce uj)on this certainly
interesting hypothesis is, however, not nearly so simple
a matter as Blass allows himself to suppose.
(a) Blass himself says that D and the additions or
marginal readings in Syr. hi. in many cases already exhibit
a combination of a and j3, and that as is witnessed by
15 5 18 19, etc., where both sources coincide this
occurred even in the archetype itself from which both
(directly or indirectly) are derived.
But there are many cases where Blass ought to have expressly
recognised this combination, where, instead of (inin;: sn, he
simply deletes something in ^ without giviiiL; f' '
tion. For example, eK0afiPoL at the end of ? 1 r.
alongside of oi Si 9a/ut/3t)6eVTes ea-rri<Tav iv in p. ;
but Blass does not recognise the eKdaiJ.fioL as
^ (i.e., by the process of combinatinn just nic:
it is supported by the best witnesses for tliis t
TTicTTeucrao-H' eiri xbi' Ku'pioi' 'IrjcroOi' Xpicrror i
from a, is an expression p;irailel to inuTixxTaan ... ., . -^ ....-i
ToC /irj ioiivai. aurois nvfv^j.a. ixyiov in fi at the end uf the vcr^e.
Here Blass wrongly questions the well-supported in<TrivcraL<i\.v
in auT(p.
He points out other corruptions also in the zuitncsses
to ^. _
For example, in cod. 137 and Syr.hl. after '\pi(TTap\ov
MaKeSdi-os (27 2), instead of eero-aAoriice'a)?, the words 0ecr<ra-
XovLKftav 5i '\pi(rTapxo<; Kal SeicoOi'So?, which can originally
have taken their place in the margin only as a reiiiiiiisc-nco of
i!04 and not as a variant. He does well to put all such things on
one side when trying to reconstruct an old recension ^ as
distinct from a.
1 St.A'r. 1894, pp. 86-iiq; j^c/a Apost^Ui^niiir, ediiio philo-
logica, GiUt., 1895 : anil Acta Apostoloruiii sccuiuitDiiforiitam
. . Uoiiiaiiaiu, Leipzig, 1S96. 'I'iie tlic.ry of i'.hi>s finds a
supporter in Joh. Bclscr, Ih-itr. zur J.>li,ir. d. Ap.-^^csch. auf
Crund d,->- I.tsartc-n di-s Cod. D u. sclnvr Ccnosscn (Freiburg
ini Breisgau, 1S97) ; it is argued against by Bernhard Weiss, Der
Codc.v n in dcr Ap.-i;es</i., iSg;, vol. 17 part i of Gebh.
and Harnack's Textc' u. Untosuchungen (well worthy of
attention, though not comprehensive enough). On Ramsay, see
above, 13.
2 The additions and marginal readings of the Harklensian
version (syr.hl.) ; the Fleury palimpsest (ed. Sam. Berger, 18S9);
an Old Latin text of Acts 1 1-136 and 28 16-31, inserted in a MS
of the Vg. from Perpignan (also edited by Berger; L'n nncien
textc latin des actes dcs apdtres, 1895, reprinted from Notices ft
ex traits des manuscrits de la bihliotluque nationalc, B.-iris,
tome 35, i partie); Cyprian, and Augustine, and in a .>.ccon.;ary
degree the composite texts E, 137, Gigas Librorum (ed. Bels-
heim, 1879), Sahid., Irenaus, etc.
3 In his second book Blass no longer calls the rough draft
of Luke himself, but says : 'Actorum primum exempl.arpostiiuain
Romje confectum est vel mansit ibidem vel Christianis Komanis
ah auctore ad describendum commodatum est ; altera autem
forma orientis ab initio fuit ubi Theophilum ilium vixisse . . .
puto'(pp. vii./.). In support ofthis,heappealsespecially(p.xi.) to
the more detailed description in a of the journey on the coast of
Crete (.Acts 27), which would be more interesting in the East than
in Rome, and on the other hand to the greater precision in
with regard to the journey by sea to Malta and to Italy, w-hich
would be interesting to people at Rome. This seems, how-
ever, to he no improvement on his earlier view, siiice (to mention
no other reason) the dedication to Theophilus is to be found
also in |3.
SO
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
(i) Further, before putting forward this alleged
recension as the original draft of Luke the eye-witness,
he ought to have established it from the witnesses on
objective principles ; but there is often no indication
of his having done so.
From the verj; witnesses in which he gets his readings for fi
reailings often indeed found in only one of them he omits a
great many additiDns and readings which, judged by the criteria
mentioned above under (a),show no signs of a secondary character
but stand on exactly the same footing with those which he
adopts. It is very misleading when in .SV. A>. (where he deals
with only a selection of instances) it is made to appear (p. 117)
as if there were strictly only four p-ossages (227 839 94272)
which from their attestation should belong to 0, but are open to
the suspicion of having been iruerpolatcd, and value is attached
to the fact that D and the Fleury palimpsest are free of them.
For although Hlass, in his second edition, admits such additions
as airdcTToAoi after ovv (041), tmv iiadr)Tuiv before Ka'i efeAtfai/TO
(fis), Toj ayt'o) after irvevtiaTi. (liio), which these two authorities
agree in supporting, he still, in spite of the attestation of the
same documents, rejects the addition ev KopivBu) before evmvTOv
(18 11), and the re.iding aTrb toO '.Vxu'Aa instead of iKfiOey (18 7).
Moreover, in spite of weighty testimony, Hlass rejects^ for
example, the Hebraism aiTiAeyoiTf? kol before ^Aao-c^rj^oiu'Tts
in 1345, which even Tischendorf (in a) accepts (in his second
edition he substitutes on the authority of the Latin of the Gigas
a reading, ovTiTacrcrofiei'oi, for which there is no support in
Greek MSS) ; on the single testimony of Augustine he adds
before <cal Trpijrjj? in 1 18 the words ' ef colhun sihi alligavit '; on
that of the t leury palimpsest alone he deletes 9 12. In tliese
last two cases, as well as in many others, it is difficult to repress
a suspicion that Hlass allowed his decision to be intluenced by
his hypothesis. The credibility of the author and the possibility
of making him out to have been Luke would have been called
in question had he not intended to convey, in agreement with
Mt. 275, that Judas had hanged himself, with the additional
implication that the rope had broken, and had he recorded in
9 12 a vision of so remarkable a character that even Blass finds
it too marvellous. This last, therefore, he questions even in a.
That it might also have struck the scribe of the Palimpsest or one
of his predecessors as too marvellous, and that Augustine or one
of his predecessors could have hit upnn the reconciliation be-
tween Mt. and Acts adopted by P.lass is not taken into con-
sideration. It is, however, a reconciliation that cannot be
maintained, for assuredly Luke would not have left out the most
important particulars of all namely, that the rope had broken,
and that Judas h.nd han<;ed himself over the edge of a precipice
without which his fall could not have had the consequences
described. Enough has been said to show what caution re(]uircs
to be exercised with respect to the establishment of Blass's /3
tevt, quite apart from any judgment as to the manner of its
origin.
{c) The very greatest difficulties present themselves
when it is attempted to establish /3 in a really objective
way. In many cases, more than two readings present
themselves so many sometimes that Blass in his first
edition silently gives up the attempt to settlers ; though
in the second edition, as he (here) prints only /3, he
has been compelled to determine its te.vt throughout.
Take, for example, 14 18 or 10 1 1. Cases such as these are the
first indication we meet with that we have to deal not 7i<ith tiuo
hut ivith severitl/orins of the text, and thus that Blass's hypo-
thesis is false because insufficient. But, more particularly, there
is an entire group of MSS HLP which on Blass's own ad-
mission contains, if not so many various readings, readings
quite as independent in character as those in fi: e.g., 16 6 the
SieAflofTe? etc., which has found its way into the TR, and
plays so important a part in the criticism of the epistle to the
Galatians (see Galatia, 9; also below, under >). In its
divergent readings E comes still closer than HLP to D ; in D
and E the substance is often the same, and only the expression
different. Blass conjectures, therefore, that in the text from which
E was copied additions from |3 had once been inserted in Greek
and Latin, and that the Greek had afterwards faded : they had
therefore to be restored by translating back from the Latin. In
point of fact, this would explain very well why the addition of
D in 147 (icai (Kii'rj'h] oAov to ttAtjAo?) liecomes in E Koi efejrA7J(r-
o-ETO na(Ta ri iroAuirA^Seia, and would apply equally well to some
ten other examples poiiited out by P.lass. But such readings as
the TOUTuiv KexjI^vTiov of E in 1 23 after the first Kai ; or the
subj. (cal 'pv<TBi>itTiv in E instead of the ind. aTrijAAao-eroi'TO yap
(a.TTO JTOOTJS aTBeveiai) m D's addition after 5 15; or i^eK86vTe<:
Si tK rrjv AuAaicii? in E instead of a.Kov<TavT(^ Sf in .')2i such
readings do not admit of this explanation : they are simply
instances of the same kind of freedom as that with which a
changes ^ (or ^ changes a). The same freedom m.ay have
manifested itself in other cases where Blass's hypothesis about
E would in itself be considered adequate enough ; the hypothesis
therefore dem.Tnds fuller investiirationl '
therefore demands fuller investigatK
(see further below, imder e).
before it can be accepted
I In Acts 2, which we have specially examined with this view,
we find that Blass omits no fewer than seven readings of E
which on his principles ought to have been noted as variants ;
{d) On the other hand, it is proved that ike Greek
text of D rests partly on retranslation from the Latin.
Of the many passages adduced in support of this by Rendel
H.arris, m<\ccA(!CoJex Bezirm Texts and Studies, ed Robinson,
ii. 1, 1891), the present writer holds only nine to be really valid
proofs. But it IS surely worthy of remark that three of these
(326632 I82) are not even mentioned by Blass in his list of
variants where so much that is less important is to be found
but simply passed over as et vitiosa et emendatu/acitia ; while
of two others, one (146) is mentioned only in the first ed., and
theother(1626)only in the second; Harris's hypothesis is merely
mentioned by Blass, and not taken into further account. This
would from his point of view have been excusable if the Latini.sms
in D had been merely such as even an author writing in Greek
might himself have employed, and in point of fact has employed
in, for example, I79 (in a and /3 Aa^^aveci/ to 'iKav6v = satis
accipere). It is to this category that the oidy in.stances from
IJ discussed by Blass belong : 7rtflVres = iinpontntes for
(TTi/SaAdi'Tes (18 12), eli/at for ovaav (li'35), and, especially,
Keil>a\rj = caput for irpuirri (10 12). But these last two Blass him-
self does not venture to attribiUe to Luke. Thus we are led,
according to his own view, to the much more serious result that
there are Latinisms in D which cannot have proceeded fromhe
author of Acts. The same holds good of all Harris's nine
passages referred to above. In 1829 21 21, we find an el<rCv
meaninglessly added to an expression in which to or tou's occurs,
because the original expression had been rendered into Latin by
a sentence with sunt (in like manner .538 only, the sunt is now
w.anting in the Latin text); in 826 I82, the infinitive preceded
by the article has its subject in the nominative instead of ihe
accusative, because the construction had been changed in the
Latin by the employment of a subordinate clause ; in 15 26 we
have napaSeSioKaa-iv instead of Trapa&eStaK6<Tt.t>, because the
participle had been rendered by fui tradideritnt ; 14 6 has
<TvviS6vTe% Ka'i. KaTe<^vyov intellexerunt et fiigeriint ;^ 632 has
Ttvevfx.tx Of {\ns,tii:iA of 6)-spiritus guetit. Lastly. I'.'2i directly
concerns one of the readings of /3. According to Blass this runs :
KoX (Tvvexodr\ oArj 77 TrdAis, instead of (cal 67rA>j<r9i) i) ir6\i<; rffi
crv7xvo"6u>9 (so a). But this is found only in the Gig.is -a
secondary authority and in Pesb., which according to Blass is
to a still less extent an authority for /3. D, in this case the sole
authority (in the proper sense of the word) for fi, has : (cat
avvex"^^ o-^l 17 toAis aio-xui'jjs. As Harris has pointed out, this
aicrx^fis can only be a retranslation from the Latin text of D:
et repleta est tota civitas confiisione(nt). This is a correct
rendering of the Greek of a as above. But con/usio is also used
for oX<Tx\>vT\ compare, for example, Lk. 14 9 and confundi
(often) for oj.iTx\ivt<TSa.\.. aio-vvi'Tjs, however, could in the present
instance have been employed in retranslation only if the verb
was 7-eplcta est (en-A>/<r0i)>. a-vve\\>6i], therefore, can only have
come in later, from another copy, to take the place of k-n\T\cT&i\.
One sees how precarious a proceeding it is to seek for the most
original form of Acts in a MS the text of which has passed
throuiih such vicissitudes. If Harris has in any instances
proved retranslation from the Latin, the other instances also,
though in themselves incapable of proof, gain in probability.
We mention only kfLOX) for e/xe (822), r\v for ^s (825), and the
additions (cai before TrpocTKapTepui' (S 1 3), atTt'ai'(4 2i), >)<rai'(4 34),
avrovi (752), as also ical iKe\cv<Te Kripv<T<reii> to evayyeXiov
(1 2), the last four again being like 19 29 readings of 0. In fact,
it becomes a possibility that even such passages as reveal no
error in retranslation were nevertheless originally Latin, and
the suspicion falls naturally in the first instance upon the
additions in /3.
(f) Other passages in /3 we cannot accept as original,
for the reason that they are plainly derived from a fusion
of two texts.
Is it possible that Luke can actually have written : (16 39)
napiKoXftrav a.vTOv<; e^e\9eiv eiTToi/Tf?' -qyvo-^crafiev to. KaO' viiaf,
OTt k{TT avSpi*; StKaioi. *tat i^ayayovre^ TrapfKd\e(rai' avToit^
\f'yovTei- K nis iroAeuis Taur>)9 efe'ASaTe, ic.t.A. ? Cod. 137 and
the interpolation in .Syr.hl. prove conclusively the inadmissibil-
ity of this repetition, by omitting (<cai) e^ayayovrei; nap(Ka\e(rav
avTOvi Aeyoi/Tes. The probability is rather that jrapeicaA<rai'
stood, in the one MS with indirect speech, and in the other
with direct (so also, for example, in 21 36 direct varies with in-
direct narration in the MSS) ; in this case ef eAdeiv had reference
originally to the city, like e^fKBart, and not, as now, to the
prison. In 20 18 the addition in /3 6ii6<Te oi^iav avriiv wholly
tautological as it is after <os Si napeyevovTO rrpbs avrov, is
certainly not to be attributed to the author : it is a variant of
cos fie (c.T.A. which was at first noted in the margin and after-
beside^ three others which he does notice (2334147), four of
these seven (2 22 irfieif navTe^ instead of outoi ; 2 24 Si avToii after
Awcras; 243 ov fitxpa. after cnj/Lcfia, and Tcii ;(ccp<iic before rdv
arro<TT6\tav) are unsusceptible of expl.anation by means of his
hypothesis.
1 .'Xs another instance we may add Siappj^^ayre^ . . . cai
i((mqSr](Tav (\in) = consciderunt et e.rilirrunt . So also .") 2iyr
7 4 13 29 16 17 34 20 10. Moreover o (for o) AciA^cras (4 25) is due
to retr.anslation of <7ui [locutus est]; similarly 3ii4i2lli
And the co? of \\ 1^ (i^rikOtv ava^-qruv avrov icac ix; irvvTvxotv
ira.pfKd\e<rev i\9eii>) can hardly be explained otherwise than as
derived from the parallel Latin text : cufu (inveMissrlH]t
deprecat>a[n]tur venire).
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
ward* crept into the text of DA Vg. G!gM, but in E, on the
other hand, with skilful avoidance of lautolocj', was changed to
buoOvixaiov. The case is similar with the addition in 5 31 (found
only in I)) yptffWet to rpif-an addition which, moreover,
comes in very awkwardly after irapayivanti'ov 6i 6 apx"P*^f ***
ot aiiy avrm, especially as, instead of trvftKaXfo-av, I) Koc'ion to
say Koi <rvyKa\Ki<ifiti^i. Here even lllass asks whether perhaps
irapayivofitm^ iiuty have been wanting in fi.
Yet, it may \)c said that, in this and in the similar
cases here passed over, the hypothesis of Blass is simply
deprived of one of the arjjfumeiits on which its demon-
stration rests, while there appear to be enough of
thent left.
(/) Decisive, however, against this appearaiKe, is the
fact that precisdy the most characteristic of the variations
of text between a and fi hear witness against Blass s theory.
This confutation of liis hypothesis follows inevitably from
the hypothesis itself.
Just in prop<irtion to the clearness and pointedness of /3 and
the weakness of a in these respects, is the improbahility of the
author's having with his own hands obscured and perverted the
sense. And here in the meantime we can leave altoj^ctlier out
of account the ciuestion whether or not he w.-.s also the eye-
wimess. In any case, after writing in his draft of '.M 27 that it
was on account of his wife Drusilla that Felix left Paul Ijound,
he would not have said in his fair copy simply that it was on
account of the Jews even if, as Blass thinks, both statements
were correct. If in his draft he had stated that Paul had
proclaimed the apostolic decree, not only in the later course
(1('>4), but also at the outset, of his new missionary journey
(I541), he would not in his fair copy have omitted to state this
in the first and therefore more iiniJortant of the places. In
this instance even lilass considers an interpolation m /3 as con-
ceivable in 1541, but chiefly because the expression seems to him
to be somewhat obscure. In 'Hit)/., although the officer is in
fear because a Roman citizen has been bound, Paul is not
rele.Tsed, according to a. till the following day, not as in /3,
immediately (jrapaxp>)M<)- Riass himself says (St. Kr. 108) ;
' one cannot but be astonished at the carelessness of the abridg-
ment in a.' .'\U the more readily might it have occurred to him
that it was the writer of ^ that perceived and corrected the
defects of a. In his Editio philoloi;ica Blass wishes rp iita-vpiov
without any authority either deleted or changed to t^ iairecxf.
This would be justifiable only if it were perfectly certain that
the narrative, even in a, is all of one piece and absolutely to the
point. But such critics as .Spitta, Clemen, and Jiingst have
assii^ned -2 29 and 'M jo to two separate sources. If it is only
the aiUlilion o 6i Kiipios eSajxef Ta^u fi()>(Tji' after 14 2 in the
draft that enables us to understand how it was that in spite of
the disturbance (or, according to fi, jwrsecution) mentioned in
14 2, Paul and P.arnalias remained in Icoiiium, why docs the
author omit the words in his fair copy? More accurately con-
sidered, they are toW regarded as an interixilation, designed to
do away with the contradiction, an interpolation which carried
with it the fiirther change of <<rx'Ve7}6e(144) into ^cieeo'Y'O'MeVov
and, in 14 5^, the interpolation of itettim and secundo. It is not
in f ), hosvever, that this interpolation occurs, but only in Syr.hl.,
which elsewhere also smoothes away the evidences of the work
of various hands in I) as for example, in 19 14 by the introduc-
tion of qui before t'flo* t\\ov, in 1S6 by the omission of 5< after
airiTaao-o/ieVtoi', and in 14 2 by omitting the last two words in
the cpiile tautological expression oi a.p\i<Tvva.yuiyoi nof'Iovfiatoji'
Kai oi apxoi'Tf? T179 (ruj-ayioyrj?. If, as Blass supposes, it were
necessary to hold that .Syr.hl. has preserved the origin.il, whom
could we possibly imagine, for example, to have added the words
Tr\t (j-ufayuiy^s, or omitted the words i/ettmi and si-ciindo'l
But, moreover, in 14 2-5 the changes mentioned above would
not have Ijeen at all necessary unless first 14 2 had been wrongly
interpolated between 14 1 and I43. Even though it may perhaps
be a fragment from another source, 142 has its immediate con-
tinuation in 144. Here even Ramsay supposes a 'corruption ' :
only it is I43 which he takes for a gloss. Thus we come ag.ain
upon one of the many cises in which Blass holds /3 to be the
original simply because it never occurs to him to bring the unity
of Acts into question. Similarly, for example, he drops from fi,
and also even from a, the ima of 19 14, which is irreconcilable
with the atA.<f>oTefMv of 19 16, on the sole authority of D, without
recognising that the omission in I) may have been a late
exiiedient for removing the contradiction just xs much as the duo
for eirra in (Jigas. If the author in his draft had already written,
after "louioi'as in 15 1, the words ntv rctitKrrevKOTtov awo Tiijs
a'lptiTtiai tCiv 4>apt(Tac'uii>, and in 15 5 had referred to this (by a
simple oi Si), why is it that in the clean copy his first use of the
expression is in 165, so as almost inevitably to suggest the thought
that a piece derivetl from another^ource begins at this point 1 (see
Council or Jp.kusaiem, 4). If, according to the rough
draft (not only in 166y;, but also in 17 15 11> i 2O3), the journeys
of Paul were determined by inspiration, why in his clean copy
does the author leave this out in the last three of these passages?
Here.too, wecan seethe inapplicability of another of Blass'sasser-
tions, viz. that nowhere in a or is the narrative changed so as
to l)ecome more interesting or more marvellous. Further, the
author of this three-fold mentiim of divine inspiration has
fallen into an oversight that, namely, of attributing to Paul
S3
(19 1) the intention of making a journey to Jerusalem jut after
he hitd returned from th^t city, without even the slightest
reference to what h.id \>cen said immediately Ijcfore. For it is
not possible to agree with Hla.ss in regarding the j>jurney of 19 1
as identical with that which had been intended by Paul, accord-
ing to the addition of fi in I821 (found also in TR). This last
wa.H actually carried out (IU22, sec Council ok Jkmcsalkm,
J i). And even if it had not been, the inspiration which
hindered it must have )>een mentioned in 18 si, and not in Hli,
after he had already got back to Phrygia from Ca:.sarea, which
is only a few miles Irom Jerusalem. Cp further Bakjesus, | i ^.
{g) Over against these instances, the list of which
could Ix; greatly increased, there are a few rare cases
in which /i might really be held to he the original.
The additions KaTtfirja-av Toiit c jrra ^aBfiovt Kai Ijefore irpoijAfloi'
(12 10), rf 6< inavptov Ixrfore 10 1 1 and in 27 i, anb iopa^ iiiii.nTr)%
iia% itKa-nji after I'.'o, tal fidVai/Tf? iv "VpiayiKiia after 'i.afLoy
(2O15), ii rtixfpC>v StKanetrre before icttT^ASo^frC.'T 5)do not seem
to be inventions. And yet Blass not only op|Mjscii, at least in
his first edition, the quite similar addition of ai Miipa after
!laTapa(21 i) in I>, Sail., and tligas, inasmuch as it could have
been introduced from 27 5, bi't also refused to accept the
sei/ucnii autiin die which we find in d (21 5) instead of 6t
hi iyivfjo ^p.a.<i i^apTivai ra^ irj/if^? (the Creek text of I) is
wanting here). (Jii the other hand, in 21 16 the text of a is not
materially inferior to that of /3, to which Blass attaches a very
high value ; for the impcrf. ofe^aiVo^cc of 21 15 does not mean
" we went and arrived at Jerusalem " (this follows in 21 17), but
" we took the road fir Jerusalem," and thus, even accordiiii; to
aMnason may very well be thought of as living in a village
between Ca;sarea and Jerusalem, as is expressly stated in p.
The author in this instance the author ol the 'we' source
has here quite naturally taken for granted that the journey from
CsEsarea to Jerusalem cannot well be made in a single day.
(h) After what has been said, it is clear that there
is not the slightest necessity for assuming the hulk of the
remaining variations in j3, which are indecisive, to be
original.
They consist partly of what are simply changes in the con-
struction, or periphrases without changing the sense (f.jr Injth
see for cx.-imph- !' 'V N- nf a .somewhat more vivid way of
expressin.; tip . however, in the cases we have in
view null h 11: . -could li.-ive been derived by a
simplecopyi^t t; .;conte\t. Compare, for example,
the very wtll-dcv iscd adtlitioii roii? Aoiiroi/s a<r^aAt(ro^c'0? after
eftt) in 10 50.
(?) But do not these changes materially so unim-
portant, but in form so considerable at least prove that
both forms of the text, no matter which is the earlier,
emanate from the author of the book itself? They do
not.
After having seen that precisely in the most significant pas-
sages of the book (sec above, <rand/) this does not hold, one
must further remember that in HLP, and also in F2, equ.-jlly
important variations are met with (see ab.ne, <). These, like
those in |3, resemble the variation by which one gospel is dis-
tinguished from another. Here, accordingly, transcribers have
allowed themselves liberties which are usually regarded as jier-
missible only to the authors of independent works. However
surjirising this may seem to us, the fact cannot be denied. When
in Mk. 321, for oji. i^taTi\ (a reading which is a stumbling-
block to many theologians even of the present day) V) substi-
tutes oTi efe'o-TaTot auTou?, ' that he has ev.^ded them,' or at least
'that he has stirred them up,' is not the lil)erty taken with the
text just as bold as .Mt.'s in the exactly corresponding place,
1223 (i.e., just before the reference to a league with Beelze-
bub), when he changes it to efio-Tavro? But this freedom
of treatment is by no means without analogies elsewhere in the
literature of the time. The text of Plato in the Flinders- Petrie
papyri (Cunningham Mtmoirs 0/ the Academy of DuhtiH,
1891) shows similarly pronounced deviations from the ordinary
text deviations which, according to l'scncr(A'<i<//r. d. Geselisck.
der Wiss. tu GStt., 1892, pp. 25-50, 181-215), are to lie attributed
to the copyists of the papyri, perhaps as early as within 120 years
after Plato's death. In the papyrus text of Hyperides, Against
Philippides (Classical Te.xts from Papyri in Brit. Mus., ed.
Kenyon, i8gi), Blass himself discovers 'very often . . . inter-
polation and arbitrary emendation,' and in the third Demo-
sthenes letter published in the same collection, 'extensive
variation '(/o^jr^i./ class. Philol., 1892, p. 42, and 1894, p. 447X
In order more easily to comprehend the possibility of
changes in the te.\t on the part of a transcrilx^r, it
may be allowable to conjecture that he may have been
accustomed to hear the book recited or even himself to
recite it (with variations of the kind e.vemplified), on the
basis of a perusal of it, but without its being committed
to memory. Such recital was by no means impossible
in the second century.
{k) The question whether D shows in the gospels Ike
same variations as in Acts may be left out of account.
54
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
It would be important only if it could be answered in the
affirmative for Mt., Mk., and In. For, that in these cases
also the rough draft should have gone into circulation as
well as the clean copy is really very improbable. Hut the
independent variations are too few to warrant an affirmative
answer. If the same be the c.ise with the Third Gospel, then,
according to HIass's hypothesis, we must assume that the draft of
it was not copied ; but if they are sufficiently numerous, as lilass
has recently declared {Hermathena, 21, 1895, pp. 121-143 ; and
22, 1896, pp. 291-313 ; E7>angetiutn secumiuni Lucaiii . . .
secundum Jonnam quie videtur Ronianam, 1897; Pliilology
o/tfu Gospels, \Z<)%\ there is nothing to hinder our applying to
them the judgment applied to those in Acts, however that
judgment m.iy go.
Neither is it decisive of the question that |3 is frequently
not fuller but briefer than a {e.g., 2626 74).
(/) Very important, on the other hand, is Blass's
assertion that the uniformity of expression in a and fi is
a ' very strong proof ' that both recensions come from
the hand of the author. But it is sufficiently met by
Blass's own inde.x.
According to this, there occur in the divergent passages of /3
(which are by no means of great compass) 64 words never else-
where met with in Acts or the Third Gospel. If we deduct from
these, besides 5 proper names, the 9 vouched for only by the
Latin text (although Hlass himself has not succeeded in giving
them a Greek form that suggests the authorship of Luke), there
still remain 50 (not 44, as is stated in HIass's Editio philologica,
p. 334). After deduction of 4 numbers, and the expressions
la-riov and (rTpaT07re5ap;(r)?, for which no other word could
possibly have been chosen, the number stands at 44. So also in
his second edition (see the enumeration in his Kvang. sec. Luc.
p. xxvii.), although, from the somewhat different form of text
adopted, the words that appear to be peculiar to (3 are not quite
the same.
(/) In support of Blass's highly important assertion
that the eye-witness Luke alone could have given his work
in both the forms which we have in a and (3, the most
that can be adduced out of all that has been remarked
on in the course of the section are the passages referred
to under (g). But of the ' seven steps ' in Jerusalem, Luke,
according to Blass's own view, gained his knowledge
not from personal observation, but only from the written
(or oral) testimony of an eye-witness.
All the same he takes the liberty, according to Blass, of leaving
the note out in writing his fair copy. This being so, the omission
of the five other details, even if with Hlass one carries this back
to the author of the book, does not prove that they had formed
part of his own experience; he m.iy equally well have obtained
them from a written source. Four of them (Itiii 2O152715)
belong, in point of fact, to the 'we' source. It is not at all
easy to see why a transcriber might not have ventured to omit
them, with so much else, as of inferior interest. We may there-
fore thankfully accept tliem, as well as other data in p which
have been shown or may ultimately appear to be more original
than a, as contributions to our historical knowledge ; but they
do not prove more than this that in such cases /3 has drawn
more fiiithfully from a true source than a has. There remains,
accordingly, in favour of the eye-witness as author of Acts, only
11 28, where D (.along with, essentially, the Perpignan Latin
text, and Augustine), instead of araaras Se, has riv Si noKKri
oyoAAtatris' (Tuvea-rpafifjievuii' Si i^/nioc i<j)r), and then <Tr)iJ.a.ivu>v
instead o^iayiixavfv. This might possibly be from the 'we' source ;
but the inference is not that it can only have been by an eye-
witness that the ' we ' in a was set aside. Or why is it that ' we '
is set aside by L in 16 17, by X* (and differently by ABCH) in
21 10, by H in 2S 16, by P and Vg. in 27 i (tows rrepi to;/ IlaiJAof ,
or eum, for i^M-as). by HLP in 2O7 ilia 28 i IO13, by C^ also
in 28 I, by D also in Iti 13 {iSoKfi for ivofj-i^ofj^^v)'! And why, on
the other hand, in 27 19 does it stand only m HLP Pesh. ? In
all of these cases (except 27 i, see below) Blass has the same
reading in ^ as in a. (In Iti 13, he has, it is true, in /3 the cSoicet
mentioned above, but he likewise obtains in o also [by the con-
jecture i'd>ii^oi/i'7rpoo-uxn "'o-'] a reading in the third person.)
He thus acknowledges that it is copyists, not the eye-witness, .
that allowed themselves to remove the ' we,' or to introduce it.
Only in 11 28 does Blass assume that it was Luke himself who
changed into the third person in a the ' we ' which he had written
in /S. .So also it is only in one place, and even that only in his
second edition, that Hlass regards the third person in placeof ' we'
as a reading of^ namely, in 20 5 (on the authority of D), for in
27 I it is only through a change of the whole of the first part of
the verse, rendering ^/xas impossible, that the third person is
introduced. At all events, it is impossible that 11 30 as well as
11 28 can be derived from the 'we' source (see Council of
Jerusalem, $ i). Even the 'we' of 11 28 may possibly have
been the insertion of a transcriber who knew (with Eus. HE
iii. 46, Jer. De Vir. III. 7, and the Prologue [earlier than Jerome]
to the Third Gospel in codd. Corbeiensis, Colberlinus, Amiatiims,
Fuldensis, Aureus, etc.) that Luke was understood to have been a
native of Anlioch. Or has Blass himself not recognised that
Irena;us also (iii. 14 i), or one of Irena;us's predecessors, has per-
mitted himself on his own responsibility to say nos venimus instead
55
of KartfiriiTav in 168? The insertion of ' we ' in 11 28 would not be
boUler than the other infelicitous changes in fi. It ought to be
noted th.at Syr.hl. is not implicated in this insertion; and the
text of D is by no means in order, for it has </>i) without telling
what it was that Agabus did say (in the sense of cAoArt), while
in the whole of the NT it is direct speech, or, as in four isolated
exceptions in the ca.se of Paul, at least indirect speech, that is
connected with <j)r]nC. In Acts 11 28 the indirect speech depends
rather on oTj/naii'ui'.
() A very dangerous support to the theory of Blass
has been contributed by Nestle.^
In his view t'/Sapui^are in D {Ircnxushas ag-gya7'asiis), instead
of ripvTi<Ta<T8e in 314, comes from a confusion of -133 (Job 35 16
15 10) and -123 in the Semitic source 0/ Acts 1-12 (similarly,
before him, Harris, p. 187, but otherwise pp. 162^!), and in like
manner k6<j\i.o%, instead of Aaos in 2 47, from confusion of oVy and
Dy (or in Aramaic Nd'?:^ and NSy). In itself considered, all evi-
dence for the existence of a source (now pretty generally con-
jectured ; see above, 8 10/.) for Acts 1-12 cannot be otherwise
than welcome ; but in the form thus suggested the evidence
points rather to the conclusion (which Nestle leaves also open)
that some person other than the author himself had, in tran-
scribing, adopted another translation of the Semitic text.
(o) No happier is an attempt of Conybeare to provide
a new prop for Blass's theory.
He points out in the American Joum. of Philology (172
[1896], pp. 135-171) the most interesting fact that the Greek
commentary of Chrysostom, and, to an even greater extent, the
many extracts from it in an Armenian Catena on Acts, follow
or at least presuppose a series of ^ readings to be found partly
in D (and other witnesses for the ^ text), partly only in
Syr.hl. or in cod. 137. He thinks he can thus prove that
originally all the ^ readings were united in a single cod.,
in the copying of which they were partly removed to secure
greater agreement with the prevailing text. Hut the number
of /3 readings used by Chrysostom is insignificantly small
when compared with those of which he shows no trace ; and
0/ such as do not appear in D Conybeare has adduced only
five. Chry.sostom accordingly furnishes no stronger support
for Conybeare's thesis than any other witness for would, for
each of them shares some of its readings with D and some with
other witnesses for ^. But to explain this there is no need of
Conybeare's assumption that all ^ readings are from one hand :
it would be explained equally well by suppo.sing them due to
the labours of successive copyists (or editors). Conybeare,
however, goes much further, and asserts that Luke himself is the
author of all these ^ readings. He ventures to rest this
assertion on a single passage a very small foundation for such
a structure. Moreover, it would have been just as easy for
another as for Luke to add ' so natural a phrase ' as, according to
Conybeare, uvvTt-f^ylTai. is in 19 25.
Blass's theory, then, it would seem, is so inadequately
proved that it cannot l>e held to have subverted any of
18. Estimate of ''^'^ ^o-^clusions regarding Acts in
Rlnqs'R thporv l^^ecedrng sections of this article. It
uiass s uneory. ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^j^ however, of having
called attention in a very emphatic way to the im-
portance of ^. It has also raised new problems for the
science of textual criticism not to s[3eak of the many
valuable contributions it has itself made to that science
and to the interpretation of the Book of Acts.
The value of Acts as a devout and edifying work,
cannot be impaired by criticism. Indeed, the book
19 Relisious '^ helped by criticism, which leads
value of Acts. "' "'>' ^^""^ ^ T'''^ ^^'"^ u''^ '"
Its contents, but also beyond the un-
historical assumption that one is entitled to impose
on the author the demands of strict historical accuracy
and objectivity. Its very ideal, in apostolic times un-
happily not reached, according to which the company
of believers were of one heart and one mind (4 32),
shows that the author knew where the true worth of
Christianity was to be found. The early Christians
pray everywhere with and for one another ; they ac-
company the apostles and take pathetic farewells of
them ; "they distribute their possessions and have all
things in common. Particularly beautiful figures .are
those of Stephen, Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer at
Philii)pi. The jailer knows that most important question
of religion, ' What must I do to be saved?' (I630), and
Peter also (4 12), as well as Paul, expresses the con-
viction that Christianity alone has a satisfactory answer
to give. The writer of Acts is able to rise above all
1 Expositor, Sept. 1895, pp. 235-239 ; St. Kr., 1896, pp.
102-104.
56
ACUA
narrowness of sympathy (10 15 34/ 15 ) ; and the con-
ception of cjod in 1728, which cannot be attributed to
Paul, is really much more apt, and is more closely
in accord with the results of philosophically purified
thought, than that apostle's, still hampered as it was by
Jewish moflcs of thinking. Lastly, sayings such as we
tind in 24i6 4 2o2024 14 22 21 13/ are of the deepest
that can be said about the inner Christian life.
As Liglitfoot rciiKirks, the literature which has gathered
round Acts is too larne to cataloj-uc profitably. To his own
list (Smith's OJi-) may tic added Holtzmanii's
20. Literature, comm. in the Hatui-comnt. zum NT(ii&<), 2nd
ed. 1892). In the criticism of the book the most
important landmarks are as follows : Schneckcnburgcr (Ztveck
der Ap.-gcich.y 1841), whilst maintaining its absolute trustworthi-
ness, credited it with tendency to vindicate Paul against
Judaisers. Uaur (/'</x, 1845) and Zeller (.-?/. AVi^rA., 1854)
regarded its tendency as ' reconciling ' {unionistisch) in its scope,
and its contents as untrustworthy. Bruno Bauer (Ap.-gesch.,
1850), whilst holding the .same view as to its tendency, went
much further as regarded its contents, taking them to be free
and often even purposeless invention. Overbeck, in his revised
4th edition of De Wette's Hamlhuch (1870), propounded a
modification of the tendency theory substantially identical with
that which has Ixien set forth in the present article. Pfleidercr
{Paulinismus, 1873, 2nd ed. 1890; Urchristenthum, 1887), Weiz-
sacker (.)/. Zeitalter, 18S6, 2nd ed. 1892 ; ET, 1894-95), and
JuIicher(A";/. in das NT, 1894) "'Kc. often with justice, that the
author wrote in simple faith, and has much that is trustworthy.
The most thorough-goingapologistshavebeen Mich. Baumgarten
(A/>.-g;fsclt., 1852, 2nd ed. 1859), Karl Schmidt {Ap.-gesch. i.
1882). and Nosgen (Comtn., 1882). The most promising new
phase of the criticism of the book is that which has for its task a
separation of the sources (see above, 11). In this connection
mention must be made of a very remarkable return to tendency-
criticism in a Marburg University Program of Johannes Weiss
(which appeared after the present article was in type) entitled
Ueherdie Ahsicht u. den literar. Char, der Afi.-^esch. (18^7).
Weiss regards Acts as 'an apology for the Christian religion
(against the accusation of the Jews) addressed to pagans, showing
how it has come about that Christianity has taken over from
Jud.iism its world-mission.' p. \v. s.
Esd. f) 3ot = Ezra
ACUA, RV Acud (akoyA [BA]),
245, .\kkub, 4.
ACUB (&KOY<t)[B]). iEsd.53it = Ezra25i, B.vkbuk.
ACUD, see above, AcuA.
ADADAH (m;;nV), josh. 1522t, probably (We.. Di.)
a corrupt re.iditiij for iTTjny 'Ar'drah i.e., Aroer
("liny) ; see Akokk, 3.
(Aaa [ALj; apouijA [B], implying '^yny ", cp payou. [iS. 30
28, L].)
ADAH (nn^; aAa [.\DKL], w/).-/).
1. Wife of Laiiiech (Gen. 4i9-23t, a55a [L]). See
Cainitks, 9.
2. Daughter of Elon the Hittite, and wife of Esau
(Gen. 362 4 10 12 16 [R ?]) ; called Basemath in Gen. 2634
[I'J. .SlC HASHKM.VTH, I.
ADAIAH (r\''.;iV, 35. once -innyCNo. 8]; 'Yahw^
passes by,' cp. AuiKi. ; aA&ia, [B.VL]).
1. Clrandfather of king Josiah, 2 K. 22 i {tteiva. (B); teSiJa,
[.\], i.e. ."ITT^ the name of Josiah's mother ; ofiou [I.]).
2. I Ch. 641 [26], see Ii>i)o, iii. 2.
1. b. Shimei, in genealogy of Benjamin (g 9 ii. P), i Ch. 821
(a^.alBl, aAa.a[.\]).
4. A priest in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
SsFH 8 15 ['l-?), ' Ch.9i2(<ro5tas(A])=Neh. 11 12 (BK* om.,
a5ata{ [L]). This name should perhaps be read instead of
Jeuaiah (g.v. i. i) in Neh. 12 6 or 7.
5 and 6. Two members of the b'ne Ban I \q.7'. 2) in list of
those with foreign wives (Ezka, i. g 5, end), Ezra 10 29 (a.&a. (B],
aata [.\I,])=i Esd. 830, Jkoeus (taios (BA), alaia.^ [L]),
and Ezra 10 39 (aStiofi. [K], aScua^ [.\L])=i Esd. 9 34 (a&Satai
(L), om. (BA; EV]).
7. b. Joiarib, in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
Ezra, h. $ 5 |/.], 8 15 [il ). Neh. 11 5 (ioA.a [B], ax<ua [A]).
8. The father of M.iaseiah [4], 2 Ch. 23 i (.^rin^, o^fto [B],
aStia [Bab], aJatov (gen.) [I.]).
ADAUA (X'VnK). son of Haman, Est. 98t (Barca
[B], BApe\ [N.\], -eA [L]). See Esther, 3, 7.
ADAM (DnX, to which Kt. prefixes 3, Kr. D[so'-
Symm. Targ. Pesh. Vg. , and many MSS and editions] ;
57
ADAM AND EVE
Kt. is to be preferred ; see Di.'s note') is mentioned once,
if not twice. In Josh. 3 16 it is the name of the place
beside or near which the descending w.aters of the Jordan
' stood and rose up in one heap ' ; here it is followed by
the worils (which may possibly be a gloss) ' the city that
is beside Zarethan.' An echo of this name may very
plausibly Ije found in Tf// ed-Dumich and Jiir ed-
Ddinith, names of a hill and bridge at the confluence of
the Jabtx)k {/.erkd) with the Jordan, some 16 m. in a
direct line above the ford opposite Jericho. Indeed it
is possible that for cjk (.Adam) we should read ,icik
(Adamfih), the r\ having dropped out owing to the
circumstance that the following word lx;gins with n (so
KampfTmeyer, ADl'VX'a 14). In this case the resem-
blance of the ancient and the modern name will Ijc
closer. The same s|X)t seems to be refc-rred to in 1 K.
746, where, for "in the thickness of the ground"- (.\V
mg. ), we should prob.ibly re.ad, 'at the crossing of
Adamah,'^ the name of some definite locality, not
a description of the soil, being plainly re<|uired by the
context (so G. F. Moore and C'lermont-fjanneau).* This
gives us a definition of the site of Adam or Adamah. It
was at a ford of the Jordan between .Succoth and /;irethan.
Putting all the evidence together, we may hold that the
Succoth of I K.746 was K. of the Jordan on or near
the Jablx)k ; while Zarethan was W. of the river, in the
valley opposite Succoth. Beside Zarethan , at the ' cross-
ing ' or ford, was a town called Adam or Adamah (cp
Succoth, 2 ; Zakkthan, 1).
The second mention of a place of this name is in
Hos. 67 where, for k'Add7n{\<V 'like.Vdam,' RV mg.
' like men ' ; w-i AvOpwiros [B.A(J]), we must at any
rate read i \iddm i.t: , ' at Adam ' to suit ' there ' in the
ne.xt clause, and to correspond to the localisation of
Israel's sin in z'. 8 (so in the main We.). There ' the
Israelites ' were traitors to Yahwe ' and ' broke his
covenant. ' Of course there may \x; a doubt \n hich of the
places called Adam or Adamah is meant, and it may
even be surmised that the letters ciK (ad.m) .are in-
correct. '' The fact, how ever, that the ford of Ddmieh is on
the direct route (so we must iK'lieve) to the place called
Gilead in v. 8, suggests that the ' city Adam ' of Josh. 3 16
is intended. The confluence of two inij)ortant streams
may well have been marked by a sanctuary.
ADAM AND EVE.s The use of Adam ami Eve as
proper names within the Reformed Churches symbolises
, T r i- a theory of the Paradise story which
1. Information j^ distiiictively modern and western,
antipathy to ,^^^^ Reformers, alwavs hostile to
allegory.
allegory, atid in this matter especially
influcnccil by the Augustinian anthropology, adhered
strictly to the literal interpret.ation, which has continued
to be generally identified with Protestant ortho(lo.\y."
This w.as a necessary reaction against that Hellenistic
allegorising which transmuted evtTything that seemed
low or trivial in the early narr.atives into some spiritu.al or
theological truth. The reaction had begun no doubt in
pre-reformaiion days. Honaventura, for instance, s.ays
that ' under the rind of the letter a deep and mjstic
1 The <T<t>6Spa <7(^oSpaKt of (p" may be s.-ifely neglected, (hough
if (TtfmSpia^ (which is wanting in A) l>e correct, it testifies to the
antitjuity of the inferior re.iding (c>1KC- Syinm., according
to Held's restoration from the Syr. Hex., gives an'o oJo/x ;
I- ajrb aSofij) (interpolated); Vg. / ur/>e quir vacatur
Adorn. Bennett in .SBOTifirW. notes) regards the name ' Adam '
and the description of it a.s 'the city, '.is suspicious. But '.Adam'
should perhaps rather be 'Adamah,' and 'the city,' etc. looks
like a glos.s. The text on the whole is correct.
2 .nDIKn 7\-1^1- The II 2 Ch. 4 17 has Ttcn.r\ 'ai'S.
['95] ; Clermont-
Ganneau, PEFQu.St., Ian. 1896, p. 80.
5 One might conjecturally read Dum.ih i.e., the Eduma of the
<^.V ('J.').') 74 ; 119 22, cp (Juirin, .SViw. 2 14/), which is described
as a village about 12 R. m. E. from Neapolis (Nablus), and is
the modern PautHfk (see Rob. BR 4 292/.). This is obviously
not the ' city ' intended in Josh. 3 16. It is also not very likely
to be meant by Hosca.
* On the names see below, | 3.
58
2. NT views.
ADAM AND EVE
meaning is hidden," but states also that 'he who
despises the letter of sacred Scripture will never rise to
its spiritaal meanings.' Still the completion of the
movement (within certain limits) was reserved for the
great exegetesof the Reformation Luther, Melanchthon,
and Calvin. Thus Luther explicitly says ' It were
better to read mere poetic fables than attach one's self to
the so-called spiritual and living sense to the exclusion
of the literal ; ' and again, ' We should stay by the dry
clear words, except where the Scripture itself, by the
absurdity of the simple meaning, comijcls us to under-
stand some sayings figuratively' (quoted by Diestel,
Gesch. lies A T in der clir. Kirche). This predilection
for a grammatical and historical interpretation was
closely connected with the revival of classical studies,
but had its primary justification in the endorsement
which the NT api>e*rcd to give to the historical accuracy
of the story of Paradise. It is the correctness of the
historical acceptation of that story which criticism denies,
and before proceeding to consider the results of criticism
(see Creation, i and Pak.vuise), Protestant students
may ask whether Jesus Christ and the NT writers really
attached importance to the story of Eden as a piece of
history. Our conclusion will of course have a direct
bearing on the interpretation of the other early
narratives.
Let us turn to (i. ) passages spoken or written from a
purely Jewish point of view, (a) In Mk. 106-8 (Mt. 19
4-6) we have a combined quotation from
Gen. 1 27 224. Jesus passes over the facts
of the Paradise story altogether, and fastens attention
on the statement that man was from the beginning
differentiated sexually, and that, by divine ordinance (so
no doubt Jesus interprets Gen. 224), the marriage union
was to be complete. His silence about the facts may no
doubt be explained by the circumstances ; elsewhere
Jesus appears to many to accept the historical character
of the deluge story (Mt. 2437-39 1 Lk. I72627). But
one must be cautious ; the reference to the deluge story
presupposes the typical character of the early narratives,
a theory which is inconsistent with a strictly historical
point of view, [b) In Rev. 2722214, a literalistic view
of the tree of life is presujiposed. But these passages
are undeniably based, not so much on Gen. 2, as on the
apocalyptic descri])tion in Enoch 24 / (<r) In Rev.
129 2O2 we have a description of Satan (q.v. 6) as
' the ancient serpent,' alluding to Gen. 3 1 ; it is also
said that he will ' deceive ' the world as he deceived the
first man. It is certain, however, that the writer also
draws from a well of popular belief, enriched from a
wider Oriental source, to which he gives as implicit a
belief as to the biblical statement.
Passing to (ii.) the Pauline writings, we find {d) and
{e) in Rom. 5 14 and i Cor. 102245 references to details
in the story of .-Vdam ; but the reference is made in
a didactic interest. Paul accepts (as also probably
does Luke) the .-Mexandrian idea of the typical character
of the early narratives, and of the double creation
of a heavenly and an earthly Adam. The latter doc-
trine, which the Alexandrian theology founded on
the two separate accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and
2, Paul professes to base on the language of Gen. 2?.
There are also other anthropological ideas which he
supports by reference to the fall of Adam. His real
interest is in these ideas, not in the story of Paradise.
He did not deduce them from the Eden story, and
only resorts to that narrative as containing material
which may, by the methods of Christian Gnosis, be
made to furnish arguments for his ideas. (/) In
Phil. 26 we have probably a contrast between the first
Adam who thought equality with God an kpira-yixbi
(an object of grasping) and the second Adam who,
thinking far otherwise, humbled himself even to the
death of the cross, and thereby actually reached equality
with God (Hilgenfeld). Here the story of Eden is only
illustrative of an idea, though the illustration is suggested
59
ADAM AND EVE
by the favourite typical view already referred to. {g)
In 2 Cor. 11 3 there is a mere casual illustration.
(iii.) Other NT writers, (h) In Lk. 838 Adam is the
last human link in the genealogy of the Saviour. Tiie
evangelist suggests a contrast between the first and the
second Adam (see Lk. 3) ; but, scholasticism apart, what
he really values is, not the historical character of Adam,
but the universal Saviourship of Jesus. (<) John 844
contains a reference to Satan which presupposes the
reality of the temptation and fall of the first man, but
is simply and solely dogmatic, anil belongs to the
peculiar dualism of the Fourth Gospel, (k) In i Tim.
2 12-14 the social doctrine of the subordination of women
is apparently inferred from the story of the first woman's
temptation.
The conclusion to which these phenomena point could
be fully confirmed by a similar examination of (iv. )
Apocrypha passages even the references in 4 Esd. ,
which imply so much brooding over the Paradise
story, being in close connection with the typical theory
of the early narratives, and the whole system of thought
being quite as much based on the imaginative book of
Enoch as on the sober narrative in Gen. 2-3. As
a final proof that a historical character could not be
assigned to the latter in the early Christian age, it is
enough to refer to the Book of Jubilees (first cent.
A.D., but before 70), which, at any rate in its view of
the biblical narratives, represents the mental attitude
of the times. Here the biblical stories are freely
intermixed with legendary and interpretative matter (see
Charles's translation).
We conclude, therefore, that the NT writers, whether
purely Jewish or touched by Greek influences, regard
traditional facts chiefly from a didactic point of view,
as furnishing either plausible evidence for theories
derived from other sources or at any rate homiletical
illustrations.
The literal and historical acceptation of the story
in Gen. 24(^-4, which strong church authority still con-
3. Names
' Adam ' and
' Eve.'
siders ' nearer to the truth than any
other interpretation as yet propounded, ' *
may be supposed to be reiiuired by the
phenomena of the narrative itself. Is
this the case ? First, are the proper names Adam and
Eve found in the original story of Eden ? The facts are
these.
(a) Adam (din ; adafi), as a quasi proper name for the
first man (cp Enosh), belongs with certainty only to
Po ((jen. 53-5),* who has used it just before generically,
in the sense of 'man' or 'men' (Gen. 5i avOpwtrwv
[AL]) followed by tov ASafi [ib.'] (cp I2627). The
Yahvvist (J) habitually uses the term Dixn, ' the man.
Once, however, if the text be correct,* we find din (adam)
used generically for ' man ' or ' men ' (220^), and once in
lieu of a proper name subsequently to the birth of Cain
and Abel (425), if we should not rather refer 425/. to
an editor. The conclusion is obvious. It is a true
insight which is expressed in the quaint old couplet in
Exeter Cathedral,
Primus Adam sic pressit Adam, salvet Deus ilium,
Is qui venit Adam quierere factus Adam.
' Adam ' can be used only in one of two senses ( i ) man-
kind, (2) the first man (apart from all historical refer-
ence), and to compare a supjxjsed proper name Adam*
1 Bp. John Wordsworth, The One Religion (Rampton
Lectures for 1881), p. 138. .So Bp. H. Browne in the S/eal-er's
Comm.'and Dr. Leathes in .Smith's DB>^).
2 In Gen. 219-2388/204, RV has rightly 'the man
( = ^l??) 'o'' '^V ' Adam ' ; so in Dt. 82 8 ' children of men for
' sons of Adam ' : so EV mg. in Job 31 ^3 ' after the manner of
men' for 'as [like] Adam' ((S otherwi.se 1 25). In 5ai. the
article is omitted in Gen. 2 19* 20a 23 3 I2[L] 20 4 i 25 Dt. 328
1 Ch. 1 I ((SB also in the last two passages).
8 In 2 20^817 21 read DlljS 'for the man ' (t<3 ASaji [AEL])
with Schr., Dillm., .ind Kau. /AS'.
* The present writer can see no probability in the view of
Homme! (PSBA, 7th March 1893, pp. 244y:)that Adam in Gen
60
ADAM AND EVE
to that of the Babylonian divine hero Adapa (Sayce,
Crit. and Mon. 94). or, stranger still, to the Egyptian
Atuni (I-ef?bure, TSBA 9) are s|)cciineiis of e(|ual
audacity. The word Wdatn is of course earlier than
any dcvelo[)ed creation-myth (j7 venia verba), though
it implies (cp Ass. admu, ' child ' i.e. , ' one made ' by
God),' the existence of the central element of all such
mythic stories (see ("kkation. ao/).
{i) We must now [jroceed to consider the name Eve
(Hawwah ,nin ; Gen. 3ao AV mg. Chavah, RV mg.
Havvah. far7 [.M.]. Aq. Ai>o, Symm. Zwoy6vo^, else-
where ei'o [M.\L] ; Jcu* ; m-y-i). This undoubtedly
occurs as a proper name (820 4 i) ; but it is most probable
that ;i2o formed no part of the original story, and that in
4 I the name Kve is a later insertion.- Can its meaning
be recovered? According to 820 Eve w-as so called
'because she was the mother of all living' (-n). This
suggests the meaning ' a living being,' or, less probably,
because an abstract conception, ' life' (O'^'''- Zw^).' It
is also possible, no doubt, to compare iS. I818 (Kau.
HS) and render ' niother of every kindred,'* in which
case Eve (.i5n) will mean 'kinship,' or more strictly
'mother-kinship,' the primitive type of marriage being
supjxjsed to l)e based on mother-kinship (cp Gen. 820).
It is l)est, however, to adhere to the first explanation,
if we qualify this with the admission that Hawwah may
possibly be a Hebraised form of a name in a non-
Hebraic story.
Next, did the writer of the Eden story understand
it historically ? There are at least three points which
. m, must be regarded as decisive against this
Narratives ^.''^'^' /'^ ^*^*'' "'^'''"'^ ^'^ .''^^ descrip-
tion. The same writer (J), in Nu. 2228,
ascrilx;s the speaking of Balaam's ass to a special
divine interference ; but the speaking serpent and the
enchanted trees in Gen. 2/. appear as if altogether
natural. Why? Because the author h,as no fear of
being misunderstood. He knows, and his readers know,
that he is not dealing with the everyday world, but
with a world in which the natural and the supernatural
are one. (2) The idealism of the narratives. The writer
chiefly values certain ideas which the narrative is so
arranged as to suggest. (3) The total disregard of
the contents of these stories in the subseciuent narratives
of the Yahwist. To these most critics will add (4) the
licence which the Yahwist appears to have taken of
adding certain features to the [)rimitive story, e.g. at
any rate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It
is not safe to add (5) the poetical form of the story in
Gen. 24'^-3 (Briggs), for all that seems probable is
that this story is ultimately based to some e.vtent on
lost poetical traditions.
It is equally certain, however, that the writer of our
Eden story did not explain it allegoriailly. Reverence
for tradition must have assured him that the kernel of it
at any rate was trustworthy. After purifying the
traditional story by the criticism of his religious sense,
he nmst have supposed it to give an adecjuate impression
of what actually took place once upon a time. Kant,
among his other services in refutation of the unhistorical
6 1-5 is altered from Adon, i.e. Yahu or Ea. We have no right
to take our critical starting-iioint in a list given to us only in P ;
apart from this, the theory that the lists of the patriarchs in
Gen. 4 and 5 are derived, as they stand, from liabylonian lists is
scarcely tenable (see Cainites, g$ \Jf.).
I To the proposal of Wi. (,AOF -i^i,, following Stucken)
to connect DIK with Ar. adamat"", adhn'"', 'skin,' Del.'s note
on (Jen. 2 7 (Cc.(5) 77) will suggest a probable answer.
a Cp Ru. Urgcsch. 141, 212/ ; St. ZA Tit', 1894, pp. 266 ^f.
* NOld. however (with We. [see now l/eid.i-) 154] and St.),
thinks that njn properly meant 'serpent "(Aram. H.^)n), ZDMG
42487. The Midrash {Her. rah. par. 21, on Gen. 820) actually
compares the same .Aram, word, explaining the name thus,
'She was given to Adam to glorify his life, but she counselled
him like a serpent." This hardly favours NTild.'s suggestion.
* WRS Kin. 177. But note that 'rrVs and 'n.T'?3 mre
standing Hebrew phrases (see BDB Lex.).
ADAMAH
I rationalism of the last century, has the merit of
having forcibly recalled attention to the fact that the
narrative of (ienesis, even if we do not take it Ittei^illy,
must Ije regarded as p-esenting a view of the lieginnings
of the history of the human race [Muthmasilicher
I Anfiing der Menschengeichichte, 1786).
What, then, is the Eden story to be called? It is a
problem which there is a growing disjxjsition to solve
by adopting, in one form or another, what is called the
mythical theory. The story camiol indeed Ix; called a
myth in the strict sense of the word, unless we are pre-
pared to place it on one litie with the myths of
heathenism, produced by the unconscious play of plastic
fancy, giving shajx; to the impressions of natural
phenomena on primitive observers. Such a course is
to be deprecated. The story of Gen. 24^-3 h.as Ix.-en
too nmch affected by conscious art and reflection to l^e
combined with truly popular myths. Hermann .Schultz
has coined the expression ' revelation-myth ' ; but this is
cumbrous, and may suggest to some an entirely
erroneous view of the pre-D<uteronomic conception of
revelation (cp Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 86, 292). The
truth is that the story of ICden cannot be descrilx-d by a
single phrase. The mythic elements which it contains
have been moralised far enough for practical neetis, but
not so far as to rob it of it.'* primeval colouring. The
parallel story in the Zoroastrian Scripture called Vendi-
dad (I'argard ii.) is dry and pale by comfjarison. In
its union of primitive concreteness with a nascent sense
of spiritual realities our Eden story stands alone.
There is therefore no reason for shutting our eyes to
the plain results of historical criticism. It is only
when, .as was the ca.se when the late George Smith
made his great discoveries (see his Chaldean Genesis),
Babylonian myths are adduced as proofs of the his-
toricity of Gen. 1-11, th.1t they may truly Ix; called
Adwpa dwpa. It is not the mythic basis, but the infused
idealism of the Eden story, that constitutes its abiding
interest for religious men ; and it was owing to a sense
of this, ciuite as much as to a tlesire to harmonise Greek
philosophy with Scripture, that the allegoric spiritualism
of .Alexandria found so much fiivour in Greek Christen-
dom. From the point of view of the pre-critical j)eriod
this system could not but conmieiul it.self to earnest and
devout thinkers. Who, said I'hilo, could take the
story of the creation of Eve, or of the trees of life and
knowledge literally ? The ide.as, however, which the sage
derives from the stories are Greek, not early Jewish.
For instance, his interpretation of the creation of Eve is
plainly suggested by a I'latonic myth. The longing for
reunion which love imjjlants in the divided halves of the
original dual man is the source of sensual {ileasure
(symbolised by the serpent), which in turn is the begin-
ning of all transgression. Eve represents the sensuous
or perceptive part of man's nature, Adam the rea.son.
The serpent therefore does not venture to attack Adam
directly. It is sense which yields to ple-.isure, and in
turn enslaves the reason and destroys its inunortal virtue.
Ihese ideas are not precisely those which advocates of a
mystical interpretation would put forw.ard to-day. There
is an efjual danger, however, of arbitrariness in motlern
allegorising, even though it be partly veiled by reverence
for exegetical tradition. It is only by applying critical
methods to the story, and distinguishing the different
elements of which it is comjxjseil, that we can do justice
to the ideas which the Later editor or editors may have
sought to convey.
For a discussion of ' Biblical Mythus ' sec Schultr, O T Theol.,
c. 2, and cp Smend, AT Rel.-gesck. 113, 119-122; WRS
^.Vl2| 19, 446. On the Avesta parallels, see r>armestetcr, Le
ZentiaTtsia, tome 3, pp. %T ff., and Kohut, ' The Zcndavesta and
Gen. 1-11,' JQU l'9o], 223-229. On apocrj-phal romance of
Adam and Eve, see below, AroCRVPiiA, g 10. T. K. c'
ADAMAH ( HDIN). i , One of the ' fenced cities ' of
Napht.ali (Josh. 1936t ARMAiB [B], AAA/v\[e]i [AL]).
1 The above article is written on the lines and Mmetimes in
the words of WRS.
62
ADAMANT
Apart from its being mentioned along with Chinnereth
and Ramah and Hazor we have no clue to its site (cp
Di. ad loc. ). Cp AuAMl'.
2, see AuAM, i.
ADAMANT ("1*0^', adamas ; see below, 4). In
modern English poetry and rhetorical prose for the
word is now not otherwise used adamant
J is simply a term for ' the embodiment of
corundum, .^^^passing hardness.' In the EV of OT
it can 1)6 retained only if understood in the sense in
which it is employed liy Theophrastifi i.e., in the
sense of corundum (see 2). This is crystallised
alumina (.-VUDj), an excessively tough and difficultly
frangible mineral ; transparent or translucent ; vitreous,
but pearly to metallic on basal face. Emery is a com-
pact, crystalline, granular variety grey to indigo-blue.
In a purer state corundum occurs in transparent crystals
of various tints of colour red (Ruby), blue (Sapphire),
green (Oriental Emerald), yellow (Oriental Topaz),
purple (Oriental Amethyst), colourless (White Sapphire)
little inferior to the diamond in brilliancy, though
they do not disperse rays of light to the same extent.
The term dSd/iaj, which is not known to Homer, was
applied by the Cireeks to that substance which from
time to time was the hardest known. In
2. adamas of
the Greeks.
Hesiod it means hardened iron or steel,
and the adamantine bonds by which
Prometheus was fastened to a peak of the Caucasus
(^sch. /^;'6, 64) must have been of this material, for
the manufacture of which the tribes near the Caucasus,
such as the Colchians and the Chalybes, were famous.
The aMfxas of Theophrastus, however, though it is not
included in his list of twelve stones used for engraving
on, nor mentioned as employed in the art of engraving
was (i) a stone and (2) probably the white sapphire
(a corundum). This is probable from the fact that a
particular kind of carbuncle (duffpa^) found near Miletus
and described as hexagonal {yuvLwdrjs iv (^wep Kal to,
i^dyiova) was compared to it. For noble corundums
(sapphires, rubies, oriental topaz, and oriental emerald)
are, as a matter of fact, found as hexagonal prisms.
It is most unlikely that Theophrastus meant the true
diamond (see Diamond, 1), though F^liny (^V^yxxxvii.
415) confuses with this his adamas, which being
hexagonal (whereas the diamond would be rather de-
scribed as octohedral, or a double pyramid) was, like
that of Theophrastus, the white sapphire. As, however,
Manilius ( ist cent. A. D. ) knows the real diamond-
he says ' sic adamas, punctum lapidis, pretiosior auro
est" (Astronotn. iv. 926) it is quite possible that
Jerome (in the Vg. ) meant by adamas the actual diamond ;
though in that case he was almost certainly wrong (see
Diamond, i).
In the three places where Vg. uses adamas, adaman-
tinits, it is to render the Hebrew shdmir, a word which
_ OL .c^m may mean either ' sharp - pointed ' or
3.S//a/n/rofOT.J^^i^^3. ^^ each passage the
^ ' reference is not to a brilliant gem but
to something extremely hard : ' harder than flint ' (Ezek.
89); parallel to 'a pen of iron' (Jer. 17i); similarly
Zech.7i2. In the Pesh. shdmir appears in the Sjt.
form lamm/rd. Although the Arabic forms sdmur""
and lammtir"" are identified by the native lexicographers
with 'almds, 'diamond,' the Syriac sammird is used
not only of dSd/xas as the ' hardest stone ' employed
in cutting others (Bar Bahlul, Ij:x. col. 39 /. 14, col.
863 /. i), or in similes, for something hard (Isaac of
Antioch, ed. G. Bickell, 2 62. /. 39) but also definitely
as = fl-juiv/Jts or fffxlpn, .<vt, j . x^fft (Duval -Berthelot,
La Chimie au moycn as^e, 2 9, /. 5). There is some
probability, therefore, in Bochart's suggested connection
of TDB- with (T^i'pis (whence the English emery), which
meant both corundum itself and granulated corundum,
emery. Diosc. (v. 166) says: ' ffixipa is a stone
with which gem-engravers polish gems," and Hesychius
63
4. The versions.
ADASA
{s.v. ff/xiLipii), 'a kind of sand with which hard stones
are polished.' The afiipLTjjs Xidos of (S (Job 41 7 [15]
[BXC] ; -Tos X. [A] ,=-)^ omn of MT a close seal ' of
EV, V. 15) is the same as the crfiupis of Dioscorides,
by which he meant corundum in mass. Hesychius
plainly means corundum in grains i.e. emery. The
latter, called Naxium by the Romans (Pliny, /yNxxwi.
7 10) from the island of Naxos, where it is still produced
in great quantities, was much used by the Greek gem-
engravers of the fourth century B.C. Indeed corundum
and emery were the only means of cutting gems known
to them up to that time. For Theophrastus {La/>. 44),
writing in 313 B.C., speaks of it alone as used by the
engravers. He identifies it with the stone from which
whetstones were made, and says that the best came
from Armenia. Both corundum and emery are found
in many places in Asia Minor, as well as in several of
the Greek islands.
EV renders shdmir by adamant only in Ezek. 89 and
Zech. 7i2. In the remaining passage, Jer. 17 1, it less
happily renders it diamond. The
word adamant occurs also in Ecclus.
16 16 AV; but RV, following bka_ o^jts the passage.
Vg. and Pesh. have been already dealt with ( 3). in
Ezek. 39 (Sia navT6<; [BAQ]) and Zech. 7 12 (ijreiei [BKAQr]
represents another readinR, while in the case of Jer. 17 i it omits
the whole passage [B.'VNQ] (though the verses appear in the
Conipl. Pofygl. and, following Orig. and Theod., on the mg.
of Q, where TCt; is rendered by [oioixi] afia^ai-TtVu)). With
Zech. 7 12 cp 4 Mace. 16 13. Strangely renders TJJN by aSaiiai
in Am. 7, EV Plumbline. In the Targura tsc is identified
with r-aSn (see Flint), although the Talm. regards it as a
worm, about which extraordinary legends are told (see reff. in
Buxt. Le.r. or Levy (N// IF-B s.v.),^ and Paul Cassel in a
monograph ('56) tried to show that "I'DC was an excessively
fine, dust-like substance. w. K.
ADAMI. See below, Adami-Xekkb.
ADAMI-NEKEB, as RV, or more correctly, Adami-
Hannkkkb (2p3n 'pnN), i.e. the pass Adam i, on the
frontier of Naphtali, Josh. 1933! ; cp Vg. Adami qucB est
Neceb. AV makes two names, ' Adami, Nekeb.' So
<5, Ap/we KAi naBook [B], or apmai kai nakcB
[A]; L, however, aAgmmh ANNEkB- The Jer.
Talm. (.lA',^'-. 1 1) also divides the expression, Adami
being represented as Ddinin, and Hannekeb as
Caidatah. Neub. {La Gdog. dii Talm. 222) and
GASm. [HG 396) identify Adami with Damieh. 5 m.
W. of Tiberias, the site which the PE Survey proposes
for the 'fenced city" Adamah of v. 36 (.l/^/. I384).
This, however, seems much too far S. when we con-
sider that the 'tree of Bezaanim ' (see Bezaanannim)
was close to Kedesh, while Jabneee [q.v. n. 2) appears
to have been a north Galilfean fortress. These are the
two localities between which Adami-nekeb is mentioned
in Josh. 1933. It is probable that the name Nkbu in
the Karnak list of Thotmes III. {RPy^^ 5 4?) means
the pass Adami. T. K. C.
ADAR, RV, more correctly. Addar ("T^N ; [eic]
CAPAAa [B], a2^Aapa [AL]), an unknown site men-
tioned after Hezron [q.v.) as one of the points on the
southern frontier of Judah (Josh, lost)-
ADAR ("l"TNI [Aram.]. EzraSist; "ll^ [Heb.]),
Esth. .3713 812 91-19; iMacc.74349; 2 Mace. 1036).
See Month, 3, 5.
ADASA (a2^aca [ANV]), the scene of the victory of
Judas the Maccabee over Nicanor (i Mace. 74045). lay.
as is implied in the narrative, not very far from Beth-
horon. Josephus [Ant. xii. IO5) makes its distance from
Beth-horon 30 stadia, and Jer. and Eus. call it a village
near Gophna ( OS, 93 3 220 6). Gophna being obviously
the modern Jifna between Jerusalem and Shechem, it
is reasonable to identify Adasa with the ruin 'Adaseh,
on a bare shapeless down, 8 m. S. of that place {PEP
J Cp Leopold Low, ' Graphische Requisiten u. Erzeugnisse
bei den Juden' ('70), pp. 181-83, in Beitr. z. jfut. Alterthums-
kunde, Bd. 1 of the Leipzig 'Institut zur FOrderung d. Israel.
Literatur.'
64
ADBEEL
A/rm.Sio6). The remark of Kus. that Adasa belonped
to Judah, at which Jcr. expresses so muclj surprise,
rests oil a confusion between aSaffa, the <?* reading
of IIadashah (i/.v.) in Josh. 1. '137, and the place of
like name in the passage before us.
ADBEEL (^N3"|N. n&BAehA [AKI> in (Jen., A in
Cli]; -Aaih\ [/^ in Gen., H inCh.]; aBAihA [L in
< li- ] ; aBAch Aoc [Jos. .-//. i. 12 4] ; cp Sab. 7mX ; see
Ges. -Hu. s.r.), one of the twelve sons of Ishmael
(Gen. 2r>i3; iCh. 129!). Doubtless the Arabian trilx;
Idibiil, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III. (A'/iiio/. 56)
with Tenia, Sheba, and Kphah, but distinct from the
Idibi'ilu named in in.scriptions of the same king, who
was a A'i/>u i.e., not 'warden of the marches' but
'governor' (of the N. Arabian land of Musri. See
MiZKAiM II. {/]). CpWi. ./M.r. /WscA. 25'. For a
sli!,'Iitl\- (iiflereiit view, see Lsn.MAKl,, 4 (3).
ADDAN (I'J'X, 57, connected with the divine name
.\cUlu ; SCO HadaI), Adoniua.m), the name, or part of
the name, of an uiiidentitied town or district in Hahy-
lonia, mentioned in the great post-e.\ilic list (see Kzka,
ii. 9): Kzra259 (hA&n [B.\L]) = Neh. 76i, Addon
(hrcoN [MN.\], hAan [L])=iEsd.5 36, where pS is
represented by -alir, -alan of AV CilAKA.V niAl.AK,
KV CJIAKAATHAI.AN (. . . o.\av [B], [A^] oXap [.\],
. . . ibav [L]). Cp Cherub, ii.
ADDAR (TIN), Josh. ISst RV, AV Auar [q.v. ).
ADDAR (TIX ), I Ch. 8 at- See Ard.
ADDER. The details are given under Skri'KNT ( i,
nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). The Hebrew names are :
1. 2vj':v, \ik'u,b (Ps. I4O3 [4]!), generally believed
to be a kind of adder. See Serpk.nt, r (4).
2. fns, pfthen (Ps. f;84[5] 91 13. AV nig. 'asp,' like
AV elsewhere), also believed to be some species of adder
or viper. See Skrpent, 1(5).
3- 'Ji'Es, J//A'(;///(Pr.2332 ; nig. like text elsewhere,
AV 'cockatrice,' RV ' basilisk,' ka, Kfpi.ary)%; also
Is. 11 8 595 E\' nig. ), likewise some kind of viper. See
Skkpknt, I (7).
4- I'SS. sepha (Is. 14 29 EV mg. ). See Serpk.nt, g i,
no. 6.
5. fSi'Sr, ifphiphon (Gen. 49i7t, AV mg. 'arrow-
snake,' RV mg. 'horned snake'), the cerastes. See
SKRI'KNT. 2 (2).
ADDI. I. The sons of Addi in lEsd. 931 [aZhdv
[B], a5ot [.\], thva [L]) appear to take the place of
the b'ne Pahath Moab of Ezral03o; but the name
probably represents Adna [q.v., no. i), the first in the
group. In - the missing name is restored, but
without <S5''s usual rryovfi^vov (see Pah.\TH-Moab).
!. Twenty-fourth in the ascending gene.-ilogical series, which
hci^ins with Joseph, Mary's husb.ind, in Lk. 3 23-38 (aSSti
[Ti. WFI f.illowing UNA]). See Genealogies of Jesls, 3.
ADDO ( aAAu) [A], etc. ), i Esd. 6 1. See Iddo, iii. 3.
ADDON (I'nX), Neh. 76i = Ezra 2s9, Addas.
ADrUS. I. The sons of .\ddus, one of the groups
added in i Esd. 534[B.\] (ai55oi's, see Swete ; perhaps
corresponding to ArrtX [\.]) to the ' .sons of the servants
of Solomon' (see I.evitks) in the gre.at post-exilic list,
Ezra2 = Neh. 7 = i Esd. 5 ; see Ezra, ii. 8.
2. I Esd. 538. RVjADDi-s. See Bakzii.lai, 3.
ADER nyj). I Ch. 8i5t, RV Eder (,/.v., ii. i).
ADIDA (aAiAa [A]), 1 Mace. 1238 1813. See
IlADID.
ADIEL {hn'iy, 38, ' God passes by '?cpAdaiah).
I. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed
the Meunim (see RV). i Ch. 4 36t {eSiv\ [A], o5ai7X [L],
perhaps awtraX [B]). See Geixjr, 2. and Ham, ii. ; and
cp .Amai.ek, 4.
2. A priest in the genealogy of Maasai (iCh. 9i2t aSiijA
ADMAH
3. Ancestor of Azmavktu, </.v., ii. 4 (iCh. 27a5t atJcifA
(HAL)).
4. .See Adlkl.
ADIN(P1J^, 57, perhaps shortetied from jnyW.
' Yahwe is pleasant,' cpjKHOADUAN, Eui-.S i ; aA[]iN
[B.\], AAAei [E]. .//v.v).
The b'ne Adin, a family in the great post-exilic list (see Kzka, ii.
I9); Kzra2i5 (oil.- [HI, aa. [A], Mti (Lj)- Neh. 72o(T,lf)i./
1BA1)=I Esd. 5 14 (aietAiou or-iav(I!J, aiM>i;IAl, KV AuiNi).
A hand of fifty males of this family came up with Kzra ; Kzra86
= I Ksd. 8 32 (At)A.v a^ifa&ap | L], /.<., Adin and KU-d, the name
of their head), '^he family was represented among tlic signa-
tories to the covenant, Neh. 10 16I17] (ijitrjif [liKA], oieic [I,]).
See K/KA. i. S 7.
ADINA (K:ny, ' blissful,' cp under Adi.n ; AA[eJiN&
[BAL] ; .i/i/.v.i ), a Reubenite chieftain in David's service
(i Ch. ]l42t). See DAVID, 11 u, ii.
ADINO, ' the I'ziiite,' is aiJ[x.'nded unexpectedly in
EVof 2 S. 238 to the description of D.avid's princi|)al hero.
The readings of (D are.: aSavuiv o aauivaioi [U], aittv o -coot
[A], with the doublet {ovTOi) etriraaaTO Triv f>Ofj.(f)aiav avTou|in |{,
though not in A] from i Ch. 11 11 (I5KAL), where A* has ttTvaro
.... L, however, gives the single rendering (of a different
text], OUTOS &t(KO<rtiti tijv 6ia<T<ffui)' avTwv.
A comparison of z'. 18 shows that what is required to
make sense is ' brandished his spear,' in":n-nK ttj', and
these words are actually given in iCh. llii in lieu of
I3i'>'.i ijnv. the words out of w hich MT (reading jsj,-.-) and
its followers including E\' vainly atlemiJt to extract sense.
Modern critics (except Klo. ) correct .MT in accordance
with iCh.
Klo.'s correction, 'He is our pride, he is our terrible one'
(.ifter which he ventures to render Vj? 'because o{')-'iy-j^ K?n
13;i"i;^' N'^, words which are supposed to be a quotation from a
warlike song referring to this hero, is too ingenious. The words
niigbt, it is true, be viewed as a misplaced marginal quot.itii ti
relative to I)n7-iti ; but then we should still have to supply sonm
verb as a predicate to complete the account of David s warrior.
See ISHIIAAI. ; Jashobea.m.
ADINU (aAinoY [A]). I Esd. 5i4 RV ; AV, RV m-r.
.\dkn.
ADINUS, RV lAOiNLS (iAA[e]iNOC [BA]), i Esd.
94S ^ Nth. S7, JAMIN.
ADITHAIM (D^n""!!? ; on form of name see Names,
107 ; AreeOAlM [E]; B.V om., but in r. 34 A h.as
AAlAGAeiM and B has lAoyecoe for 'Tajjpuah'), an
unknown site in the ShephClah of Judah, apjjarentiy
somewhere in its NE. portion (Josh. ir36t).
ADLAI ('"p-iy; aAai [BA] ; aAAi [L] ; .v/v/,-
I Ch. 27 29t), see Shapiiat, 5.
ADMAH (npiN, aAama [BAL]) and Zeboim
(Hos. 118 EV, Gen. 10 19 AV, Dt. 2923 [22] AV), or, as
in (ien. 1428 ICV ami everywhere RV except in Hos.,
Zeboiim (Hos. 118 Kt. CNis. probably = c-yis [see
below]; Gen. IO19 Kt. op^i 142 8 Dt.2923 [22] all
Kt. c"2s ; Kr. everywhere d;i:v : ceBcoeiM [B.\E] ;
.Samar. textom. both names in (Jen. 10 19; aabana. [E] in
Gen. 142), are mentioned togetheriii passagesof the Penta-
teuch and in Hos. 118. In (ien. 14 2 8 they are slated to
have had kings of tlTeir own(see Shin ab) who joined in the
revolt of certain southern |)eoples against Chedorlaoiiier
king of Elam ; in Dt. 2923 [22] {(Xfjiufiv [AV]) to have
shared the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Gen.
10:9 {(Tt^m/M [A]) they are mentioned in the definition
of the boundaries of Can-aan proper ;.<'., the land W.
of the Jordan. P2xcept in Hos. 118 the names Admah
and Zelx)im are always preceded by those of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Of the Pentateuch passages all except
Gen. 10 19 are certainly post-exilic, and it is very possible
that Kautzsch and Socin are right in regarding the
mention of Gomorrah, .Admah, and Zeboim in Gen. 10 lo
as interpolated. In this case we have no right to
assume it as certain that Admah and Zeboim were
among the cities which an early Hebrew tradition stated
to have been destroyed by brimstone and fire out of
66
ADMATHA
heaven. Hos. 118 (imitated perhaps in Is. 159^) only
implies that Admah and Zeboim had suffered some
terrible destruction. As to the mode of their destruc-
tion and as to their locality no information is given. It
is, in fact, not at all likely that the least famous of the
' cities of the plain ' should have been selected by Hosea
as representatives; Amos (4ii) and Isaiah (I910)
mention only Sodom and Gomorrah. It is possible
that there was once some distinct legend respecting the >
destruction of Admah and Zeboim. Possibly, too,
Zeboim was not a town, but the name of the district in
which Admah was situated. Against this we must not
appeal to Uen. 14 2, since the names of the kings there
given are probably unhistorical. Nor can one help con-
jecturing that (if, as Rodiger, in Ges. Thes. suggests,
n'N3s = n'5;3!i) Hosea alludes to a story which accounted
for the dreary character of the Valley of Zeboim (now
the Wddy el-Kclt ; see Zkboim, i), analogous to that
connected with the valley of Achor. Such stories of
overthrown villages are not uncommon. See Sodom
AND Gomorrah. t. k. c.
ADMATHA (NnOHX), one of the 'seven princes'
(cp Ezra 7 14) at the court of Ahasuerus (Est. Ii4t;
[BAN, L om. ]). According to Marquart, however, these
seven names have arisen from an original three (cp the
three satraps, Dan. 61 / ) of which Carshena [q.v. ) is
one, Shethar and Tarshish are corrupt variations of the
second (see SHi:Tii.\R), and Meres and Marsena corrup-
tions of the third (see Marsena). Admatha (or rather
Nmcn) would then be the father of Haman, and for
'31CD (cp note to Memucan) should be substituted '::xn
(the designation applied to Haman). See, further, Fund,
b^ff. Cp Esther, 3.
ADMIN (AAA\eiN [I^N]), a link, in the genealogy
of Joseph, between ^Vniiiiinadab and Arni (Aram),
in Lk. 833 RV mg. and W&H. See Genealogies
OFjESL-S, 3.
ADMINISTRATION. See Government.
ADNA. I. (X3-|y [Ginsb. q.v.\ Hiiy [Ba.]. ) One of
the b'ne Pahath-moah in the list of those with foreign
wives (see Ezra, i. 5 end), F:zral0 3o {aiSaive [B], e5.
[B^''], fdve [A], aiavaatjie [L combining with next name,
which in i Esd. 9 31 (L) is (Ti8ia\, eSevex rjk [n =
Adna -I- following name, Chelae]) = 1 Esd. 931 [eSva
[L]), Addi, I. With this name should be compared
Hadauna, a Jewish name of the fifth century R. C. ,
mentioned by Hilprccht as found at Nippur (cp Hazitu
2. (n:"!); [Ginsb. Bii.]), priest temp. Joiakim (see Ezra, ii. ,6 b,
11), Neh. 1-2 15 (aSam? [H^-^ "' '"f], om. [BN*A], eSi/a? [L]).
ADNAH [ry-nV; eANAAc[BA], -NAc[L]), a cap-
tain in Jehoshaphat's army (2 Ch. 17 14).
ADNAH (n^ny [Ginsb. Ba.]. other readings mny,
n:*!!?; eANA [BAXL], Ednas). A Manassite, who
deserted from Saul to David (i Ch. I220 [21]). See
David, ii a iii.
ADONAI CnX). See Names, 119, 109 n.
ADONI-BEZEK (pH "yiX, in v. 7 with makkef;
AAtONiBezeK [B.VL] Judg. I4-7 ; has AAoiNlBezCK
also in Josh. 10 13 where MT has Adoni-zedek; a third
variation is AAcoNizeBeK [Jos. Procop. dd.-] . the
change may be accidental or harmonistic), a Canaanite
king whom Judah and Simeon, invading southern Pales-
tine, encountered and defeated at Bezek. Adoni-bezek
fled, but was overtaken, made prisoner, and mutilated.
He was afterwards carried to Jerusalem, where he died
(Judg. I4-7). The name Adoni-bezek is commonly
interpreted 'Lord of (the city) Bezek'; but such a
1 closes this verse thus, koi to Kutakoi-nov "XSafia [I5NA;
ft sup. ras. 1], i.e., 'and the remnant of Admah.' This may
possibly be correct (see Duhm, /es. 105, Ch. /ntr. Is. 91V
Moab may be figuratively called Admah, just as Jerusalem IS
figuratively called Sodom (Is. 1 10).
67
ADONIJAH
formation is entirely anomalous. In similar compounds
(Adoni with proper name) the second element is
regularly the name of a god, never of a place (there
are, in fact, no Hebrew or Canaanite proper names of
persons in the OT thus compounded with the name of
a locality) ; nor is 'lidon used of the sovereign of a city
or country. In Jos. lOi /;, which, in spite of radical
differences, is based on a source closely akin to that of
Judg. 1, if not identical with it, the head of the native
kings who first made front against the Israelite invasion
of the S. is Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem (see Adoni-
ZEDEC) ; and it is to Jerusalem that Adoni-bezek is
taken (? by his own servants) to die (Judg. 1 7). Hence
the conjecture offered under Adoni-ZEDEC appears very
probable. See also Bezek. g. F. M.
ADONIJAH (nnN, 2S. 34; 1K.I5718228; iCh.
82; Neh. 10i6[i7]^elsewhere-"in*nN; ' Yah we is lord,"
36; cp Phoen. Si'njiK, ic::wnN ; AAooN[e]iAC [I^A],
OPNIA [L])-
I. David's fourth son (in i Ch. 82 a5wv[e]ia [BA ; so
also in 2 K. 2 21^], opuias [L]). Nothing is known of his
mother, Haggith. Like Absalom, he was born at Hebron
(2 S. 84 ; opvt.\ [B], -j/ias [A]) ; like him he was conspic-
uous by his graceful presence, while like all David's sons
he never felt the constraint of his father's authority. Ab-
salom's death left him heir to the throne, and ' all Israel,"
as he said himself, ' expected that he would become king '
(iK. 215). He therefore, in the manifest failure of
the old king's faculties, thought it time to assume a
semi-royal state, like Absalom before him (iK. I5).
On his side were the old and tried servants of David
Joab, the commander of the forces, Abiathar, who repre-
sented the old priestly family of Eli, and had been the com-
panion of David's wanderings followed by the pcoplfe
as a whole (see i K. 215). The ' new men,' however,
Benaiah, captain of the body-guard, and Zadok, a priest
of origin comparatively obscure, looked with evil eyes
on his pretensions, and with the powerful aid of the
prophet Nathan espoused the cause of the son of
Bathsheba. The chance of each party, unless David's
death was to be followed by civil war, lay in a sudden
stroke which would put their claimant in possession and
overawe his opponents.
The storj' is graphically told, though perhaps with
a secret sympathy with Adonijah. Nor can we doubt
that, like the other narratives of the same writer, it is
in the main trustworthy. Adonijah made the first
move. He invited all the royal princes save Solomon,
together with Job and Abiathar and ' all the men of
Judah,' to a sacrificial feast at a well-known sacred
stone (see Zoheeeth) close to Jerusalem (r K. I9/. ).
They had left the weak old king, however, exposed to the
machinations of their enemies, while the fortress was in
the hands of Benaiah and his trained soldiers. Nathan
was quick to seize the opportunity. By the help of
Bathsheba, and with a presentation of facts which may
or may not have been perfectly accurate, ^ he obtained
from David an order for the immediate enthronement
of Solomon. Adonijah's banquet was disturbed by
news that Solomon reigned by his father's will, and
was protected by Benaiah and the foreign guard. The
company broke up in dismay, and Adonijah sought an
asylum at the horns of the altar. The clemency
of Solomon, however, spared his life, and but for an
ill-timed revival of his ambitious dreams he might have
rei^iained in a happy obscurity. The cause of his ruin
was a petition to be allowed to marry Abishag, for
which he obtained the support of Bathsheba. Appar-
ently the queen-mother did not detect his secret political
1 The question is whether the promise of Solomon asserted
by Nathan in i K. 1 24 is a clever fiction of Nathan, or not, and
whether the description of the doings of Adonijah is, or is not,
exaggerated. The former point is the more important of the
tvvo. We. (C//261 n.)and Ki. (Hist. ii. 180/) take different
sides. We.'s reply is, of course, to us the less palatable one;
but we must consider Semitic craftiness, and the improbability
of a merely private promise of Solomon. See i K. 1 12 13.
68
ADONIKAM
motive ; indeed Abishag had only nominally been
David's concubine. Solomon, however, regarded the
pro(K)saI as virtually, if not expressly, a claim to the
throne, and Adonijah perished by Solomon's sentence
and Benaiah's sword.
Compare the narrative of Stade ((7/i. bk. v. c. 2),
with the somewhat different treatment of the matter
by Kittfl (/Hit. ii. c. 4). w. e. a.
2. A signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. $ 7), Neh. 10 16
[17] ((jafia [HK (tliDUgh the names are otherwise divided)],
ooi'aa [A], aScDi'ia? [1,)). In the great post-exilic list, Ezra'2 =
Neh. 7 = I Esd. 5 (see Ezra, ii. 9), and in the list (Ezra 8) of
those who came with Ezra, the name appears {zm. 13 18 14 13
respectively) perhaps more correctly (so Gray, HPN 137, n. 2)
as Adonikam (^.?'.).
3. A Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat : 2 Ch. 17 8 (aiiaviav [BA1,
-.-.a[L]).
4. See Arau NAH.
5. See Aknan.
ADONIKAM (D|'^"jhK; 'the Lord is risen up,' cp
Ahikam ; AA^N[eliK&M[BAL]).
The b'ne Adoiiikani, a family in the great post-exilic list
(see EzKA, ii. 9, St); Ezra 2 13 {a&uviKav [Bl)=Xeh. 7i8
(aJetxa^ [B], ofiffiKa^i [J<J)= i P2sd. 5 14 ; represented in Ezra's
caravan (see Ezra, i. 2, ii. 15 (i) tf), Ezra 8 13 (aSoveiKa/n
[B])= 1 Esd. 8 39 {aStoviaKaifi. [B]); and prol>ably among the
signatories to the covenant (see Ezra, i. 7), Neh. 10 16 [17] ;
see Adonijah, 2.
ADONIRAM (D-rnX, 40, 'the Lord is high';
AAa)N[e]ipAM [H.-\.L] ; apoaikam). chief receiver of
tribute under David (2 S. 2O24), Solomon (iK. 46;
5r4 [2S]), and Rehoboam, on whose deposition he was
stoned to death by the Israelites ( i K. 12 18 ; 2 Ch. 10 i8t
Diin, Hadokam, aSojpafi [A]).
'in 2 S. 20 24 (ititSpaflh]) and i K. 12 t8 (apafi [B] ; Aiiuram),
it is incorrectly (cp We. Dr. TL'S) written Adoram (Cl'lN).
Hilprecht (PEF Qu. Si., Jan. '98, p. 55), indeed, attempts to
explain the form by connecting it with Adduramu ('Addu is
high'), a Jewish name on a tablet from Nippur; notice, how-
e\or, that 1 is not expressed and that (Rbal reads 'Adonirain.'
ADONIS only in the phrase D*pDW "ytpj (a double
plur. ), Is.l'ioRVmg. 'plantings of Adonis '^ (EV has
1. OT reference, 'f^"^^^"^] ^^^^'^ ') }}} Justification of
the rendering see Che. Is.^^^ 1 108,
Kittel in Di. /.(' To Ewald (Proph. 2 116, Lekrb. d.
lu'br. S/>r. 718, n. 3) and still more to Lag. {Semitica,
1 31, llcbers. 205, n.) is due this important correction
of the rendering. Clermont -Ganneau should also
be consulted (Etudes d'airht'ol. orientale 1, 1880, pp.
26^). also WRS Eng. Hist. Re^K, 1887, p. 307; but
cp We. Ar. Heid.^^'i 7 n. Na'aman ( = pleasant,
gracious) was doubtless a title of the ' Lord ' (Adon,
whence Adonis), and Adonis -worship seems to have
penetrated under this title into Syria and Palestine, as
we gather from the OT name Xa.aman {q.v.\ from the
names Numana and Namana in S. Palestine in pre-
Israelitish times (Thotmes III.), and from the Nahr
Na'man (N. of Carmel), which seems to be the Belus
of the ancients. That Adonis-worship flourished in Pales-
tine when Isaiah wrote can easily be believed. The
N. Israelites were at this time specially of)en to Syrian
influences. They ' forgot ' Yahwe because he seemed
unable to protect them. So Isaiah indignantly exclaims,
' Therefore, though thou plantest (little gardens with)
shoots of Adonis, and stockest them with scions (dedi-
cated) to a foreign god . . . the harvest shall vanish
in a day of sickness and desperate pain.' The phrase
' shoots of Adonis ' points to the so-called ' gardens of
Adonis,' baskets containing earth sown with various
plants, which quickly sprang, up and as quickly
withered. In reality they were symbols of the life and
death of Adonis ; but Isaiah takes the withering as an
image of the withered hopes of Israel. On these
' gardens ' see Frazer, Golden Bough 1 2S4 / ; WRS
Rel. Sem.i"^) 414; Ohnefalsch Richter, Kvpros 1^2/. ;
and cp Che. 'Isaiah,' in SBOT (Eng.), 146.
Adonis was one of those local gods who live with
and in nature, who suffer in sunmier's drought, die
1 <;(^;Tev^oa7^l<^T0' [BKAQr].
ADONI-ZEDEC
with the winter, and live again with the early spring.
Legend, however, explained the death of the god as
2 Leeeiid ^" event of far-off times. Adonis, it said,
and cult ^^''^ '^'"''"'^ ^*"'^' hunting the Xxxit in Leb-
anon, and accordingly in the heat of summer
was solemnised the great mourning festival (cp WRS
Ril. Scm.*-> 411), at which his corpse was exhibited
resting upon a bed of flowers the quickly fading
Adonis-garden. Far up in I^-banon, near the fountain
of 'Afka, death suddenly overtook him ; whereupon
the spring became red with his blood. By Afka was
an ancient temple of the goddess Aphrodite (so Luc.
Dea Syr. 9 ; l':us. I'it. Const. 3 55, Sozom. HE 2 5),
of which the ruins still remain ; probably it contained
the grave of the god. This legend, and the cult con-
nected with it, must be very ancient. Indeed, in a
source as early as the papyrus Anast. I., mention is
made of the goddess of the ' mysterious ' city of Byblus.
In its origin it was distinct from the Babyh^nian legend
of the loves of Istar and Tammuz, though at an early
date both this legend and the Egyptian story of Osiris
were combined with it (Plut. de Is. 15, Luc. Dea Syr. 7;
cp Apollodor. ii. 1, 3, 7, etc. ). The cult spread through
all the Phoenician colonies, especially to Cyprus, whence
in the seventh century it was imported into Greece.
Adonis, however, is not to be taken as the true name
of the god ; every god can be called ' Adon,' lord, just
as every goddess is entitled to Ije called Rabbath, 'the
lady.' At Byblus (see Gehal, i. ) the favourite of the
goddess of Byblus was invoked as the ' lord ' par excel-
lence, and thus it was that the Greeks came to call him
Adonis. What his real name was we do not know ;
for the name Tammuz, which he also bears, is Baby-
lonian, and it is doubtful whether it ever becanje
naturalised in Phoenicia.
Possibly his name survives, unsuspected, among the many
divine names. Or perhaps the recollection of his sad fate may have
hindered the formation of prof)er names derived from his : nor is it
impossible that in the worship he never received a real name at
all.l For in point of fact Philo, who never mentions Adonis, says
of a certain Eliun (r\'^];) = v\\ii.<no';, that he lived with a woman
named Berut in Byblus, that he was slain by wild beasts, and
was afterwards deilied, and that 'his children brought him liba-
tions and offerings.' This seems to be the euhemeristic version
of the Adonis legend. Now in 'Abedat in the neighbourhood of
Byblus, where doubtless the village Saarna lay, there has Iwen
found an altar Aii ovpavito vi/ziVto) 'S.aa.pvaii^ enriKom (Kenan,
234), and although such attributes are of frequent occurrence in
Syria, Renan is probably right in recognising in this 'highest
god' the Eliiin of Philo, and .Adonis. Moreover, according to
Philo (ii. 10), the god 'A-ypoiijjpos rj 'Ayporn^, ' 'he farmer," whose
brother is called '.\yp6i, 'field' {i.e., rrir)* and who 'had a
sacrosanct image and a temple carried about Phoenicia on
wheels,' was honoured in Byblus as Beuiv 6 iieyiaroi. He also
recurs in the Greek inscriptions. In Byblus a temple was
erected under .Augustus Aii vn/rio-Tai (Renan, 223; cp 232 fiecji
All . . . ) and the same god had a temple deep in the recesses
of the mountains near Kal'at Fakra to the SE. of Byblus
(CIG 4525 ... tic Tioi' ToO MeYi'cTTov 6(ov (UKoo/Li7J^). The
Phoenician name represented by 'Aypovijpo? is unknown. See
Tam.miz. t. k.c. I-li. m. 2.
ADONI-ZEDEC, or rather -Zedek, as R\' (p'lV-'nX,
'Sedek is lord,' cp Meixhizedek, though to later
readers the name very probably meant ' lord of right-
eousness' ; AAcoNiBezeK [BAL] ; .iinKWiSHDHc), a king
of Jerusalem at the time of the Israelitish invasion. See
Josh. \Qijf., where he leads a confederation of five
kings of S. Canaan. According to Josh. 10, Joshua
came from Gilgal to the relief of the Gibconites threatened
by the coalition ; surprised and completely routed the
army of the Amorite kings near Gibeon ; captured the
five kings in the cave of Makkedah ; put them to death
and impaled their bodies ; then, turning back, razed
Lachish, E^glon, and Hebron, with many other cities in
the region. This story stands in a narrative of the
1 The inscription from the district of Hippo Diarrhytus {CIL
viii. I1211) sacerdos Adoni (sic) proves nothing as to the
cultus-name of the god ; Adonis has here, as among the Greeks,
become a proper name.
2 From the time of Scaliger it has been assumed that this
name arose from a corruption or misunderstanding of "yff (see
Shaddai). This is possible, but very far from certain.
ADOPTION
conquest of all Palestine by Joshua in two great
campaigns (Josh. 10/) which cannot be historical. A
much more credible account is to be found, though in
an ai:)ridged form, in Judg. 1 (see JosHU.\, 8 ; JfDGKS,
3). Here Adoni-liezck is the king who opjxssos the
first resistance to the advance of the tribes of Judah
and Simeon against the Canaanites of the S. It is
therefore in Hudde's opinion (/.-/ yiT 7 148 ['87]) not
improbable that the reading ' Adoni-bezek, king
of Jerusalem" in Josh. HU 3 is correct, especially as
Judg. 1 7 may be understood as saying that his own
followers carried Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, and so as
iniplying that that city was his capital. The objection
to this view is that the second element in Adoni-bezek
ought to be a god, and we know of no god named
Bezek. Hence it is very possible that Adoni-bezek
in Josh. 10 ["*'-] is a scribe's error, and that the
original narrative of Judg. 1 had not Adoni-lx:zek, king
of some nameless city, but Adoni-zedek, king of
Jerusalem (see Auoni-hkzkk). w. k. s. g. K. m.
ADOPTION (yioeeciA). Ro. 8 .5 23 94 Gal. 45 Eph.
Isf. .See I-AMII.V.
ADORA (see below) or Adoraim (D'^'llX ; on form
of name see Xamks, 107 ; aAcoRAI [H]. -M [A and
Jos. .Inf. viii. 10 1], -pAM [1-] ; .i/Ha'.i.u), mentioned
with Mareshah, Zijih, and Lachish among the cities
fortified by Hehoboam (2 Ch. 11 gt). The sites of all
these places having been securely fixed, there can be no
hindrance to identifying Adoraim with the modern Diira,
which is 5 m. W. by .S. from Hebron, and is described
by Robinson (2215) as 'one of the largest (villages)
in the district.' The site is well adapted for a town,
being ' on the gradual eastern slope of a cultivated
hill, with olive groves and fields of grain all round '
(cp PEF Mem. 3 304). Under the new Egyptian
empire an Adoraim is perhaps mentioned twice (V\'MM.
As. u. I'.iir. 167, 174) ; but it is not clear that Rehoboam's
city is intended. At any rate, Adoraim is doubtless
the Adora or Dora of Josephus (^Aiit. .xiii. I54 and else-
where abiiipa, aoujpeoi, 8. ; C. Ap. 9 Scupa), and the ADC)k.\
of I Mace. l:32o(a5ajpa [.\NV]). In the latter, .Vdora is a
point on the route by which Tryphon entered Juda;a ;
in the former, it is usually coupled as an ldum:ean city,
with Marissa (.Mareshah), the fate of which it shared,
being captured by John Hyrcanus and compelled to
accejJt circumcision and the Jewish law (Jos. Ant. xiii.
9i ; BJ \. 26). T. K. c.
ADORAM (D'lnX), 2S. 2O24; i K. 12i8t. See
A DOM RAM.
ADRAMMELECH ("?]^r3^1X, aAramgAcx [L],
-A6k[A]; Jos. -Aexoc, ANApoMAXOc)-
I. A Babylonian deity. According to 2 K. iTsi,
after 'the king of Assyria,' i.e., Sargon (see Sakgon),
had transplanted the Sepharvites into Samaria, they
there continued to worship Adrammelech and Anam-
MKi.Kcii {q.v. ), the gods of Sepharvaim. This passage
presents two difficulties. In the first place, according
to the biblical account the worship of Adrammelech
was accompanied with the sacrifice of children by
fire : ' they burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech
and Anammelech.' Throughout the cuneiform inscrip-
tions, however, there is no allusion to human sacri-
fice, and in the scul[)tures and reliefs no representa-
tion of the rite has lieen discovered. The second
difficulty concerns the explanation of the name Adram-
melech and its identification with some known divinity
of Babylonia. The name was originally explained as
Adar-malik, ' Adar the prince,' Adar being regarded
as the phonetic rendering of the name of the god Ninib.
This identification, however, was unsupported by any
evidence, and has now Iieen abandoned. A clue to the
solution of the problem, however, is afforded by the
statement that Adrammelech was a god of Sepharvaim,
a city that is generally identified with Sippar (cp
Sepharvaim). The god whose worship was especially
7
ADRIA
centred at Sippar was ama the Sun-god. That this
was the case is abundantly proved by references through-
out the historical and religious texts of the Babylonians
and Assyrians, and the remains of the great temple of
the sun-god exist in the mounds of Abu-1.4abbah at the
pi-esent day. Some scholars, therefore, would see in
Adrammelech a subsidiary name or title of the Sun-god
himself Others, however, do not accept this view.
They strike at its chief support by repudiating the
identification of c'nsD with Sippar, suggesting that it is
to 1^ identified with Sahara in, a city mentioned in the
Babylonian Chronicle. No satisfactory explanation of
the name, therefore, has yet been offijred. But cp
N is KOCH. L. W. K.
2. A son of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who,
according to 2 K. 1^37 (aSpe/ifXex [-'^]) fi'id Is. 3738
(aSpa/ifXex [BX'AOQ], avSpafj.. [ii*]), in conjunction
with his brother Shakkzek {</.v.), slew his father while he
was woishipjjiiig in the tem])le of Xisroch at Nineveh,
and thence escaped into Armenia. In the Babylonian
Chronicle mention is made of this r-evolt, in which Sen-
nacherib met his death ; but the only trace of the name
Adrammelech hitherto found is in Abydenus under the
form Adramelus, and in Polyhistor under that of Ardu-
musanus. Scheil however thinks that Adkmlk and
Adramelus are corruptions of Assur-MU-M-iK (or
-G.\l), the idiographic reading of the name pronounced
Asur-sum-usabsi. This is the name of a son of Sen-
nacherib for whom his father erected a house amidst
the gardens of Nineveh. For analogies cp the royal
name Sammiighes = Samas-MU-Gl-NA. The Ardumu-
sanus of Polyhistor nray be a corruption of the phonetic
form given above, just as 2aoo-5ot''X''os is .Samas-sum-
ukin, the phonetic reading of Samas-MU-Gl-.\.\. (.Sec
Scheil, ZA 12 i ; J^fv. bib., April 1897.) Cp Esak-
haddon, Nisroch.
ADRAMYTTIUM (aAramytiON or atr. : the ad-
jective, which alone occurs in the .\T, is, as in some
cursive MSS of Acts, aAramythnoc or atr.; neither
inscriptions nor coins give the form -JTHNOC of Tisch.
following NB^ ; W & H -yNTH. after AH*). .\ seaport
of Mysia, which gave, and still gives, its name to the
gulf, a great triangular indentation along the S. foot
of Mt. Ida, whence it was called also the ' Id;tan."
Adramyteum, in the E. recess of the gulf, was always
important. It would profit by the trade in timl^er from
Ida. There were also copper mines in the neighbourhood,
and iron mines at Andeira not far to the N\V. Strabo
(p. 606) describes it accurately as ' a colony of Athens,
a city with a harbour and roadstead ' ; but its importance
goes back to a much earlier epoch if, as Olshausen asserts
{Rhein. .Mus. f. Phil. '53, p. 322 ; cp Hazar-maveth),
the name points to foundation by the Phoenicians. Of
necessity Adramyteum was intimately connected with
the road system of NW. Asia. The coast road from
Ephesus and the inland road from Pergamus converged
to Adramyteum, whence they diverged, on the one hand,
across the Mysian peninsula to Cyzicus on the sea of
Marmora, and, on the other, to Assos, Troas, and the
Hellespont. Consequently, it became an assize town, or
head o{a.conventus juridicus. .-\draniytian coasters such
as that in which Paul performed the first stage of his
journey to Rome (Acts272t) must have been familiar
visitors to Caesarea and the Syrian harbours. Adramyti
{Rdrcmid), which preserves the old name, is 5 m. from
the sea. Thus, Kiepert is perhaps right in putting the
ancient town on an eminence by the sea, 8 m. S\V'.
of the modern Adramyti (Z. d. Geselhch.f. Erdk., 1889,
292/. ). Nevertheless, Edremid is heir to the importance
of .'\diamyteum. Silver mines are now worked in the
hills behind the town. w. j. vv.
ADRIA (eN TOO aAria. Acts2727 [BX.A], .//m/../.s/
'stony sea,' Wiclif), the division of the Mediterranean
which lies between Sicily and Malta o\\ the W. and
Crete on the E. So the name is applied by Paus. v. 203
(speaking of the straits of Messina), toO 'ASpiov Kal
73
ADRIEL
^f iripov irf\ti7ouj t KaXfirai. Tvp<rr]v6v. Cp id. viii. 54 3.
I'rocopius considers Malta as lying on the boundary
(/?ri. 14: Tai/Xcf; re Kal 'MfXirr) irpoaiaxop, at rdre
'ASptaTiKbv Kal Tvpprji/iKdv ir^Xayos Siopi^ovaiv). Ptolemy
distinguishes between the Adriatic sea and the Adriatic
/^u//. Acts reproduces the language of the sailors.
For this extended application of the name cp Strabo,
who, writing about 19 A.u. , says that the Ionian Sea is
'part of what is now called Adrias ' (p. 123). This
implies that the ancient use of the word had l^jen more
limited. In medi;i!val times the name was still more
widely extended, lx;ing practically = ' Levant, ' as opposed
to '/Egean' (cp Ram. Pm^/ 298. See Myra). The
question is connected with the identification of the
island upon which Paul was cast ( Acts 28 i) after fourteen
days' drifting in Adria (see Mei,it.\). We may com-
pare the shipwreck of Josephus ' in the middle of the
Adria' (Kara fiiuov t6v 'ASpiav) : he was picked up by
a ship sailing from Cyrene to Puteoli ( Vif. 3).
w. J. w.
ADRIEL (PX^iny, not 'God's flock,' out either (a)
miswritten for ?X*"lTy, 'God is helper' [cp forms of
name in (5, 2S. 218 below]; or (/') the Aram, form ^
of Heb. ^S'^TJ?. The former view is adopted in
Names, 28 ; the latter by Nestle, ZDPT 15 257 ; cp
Barzill.m ; see also HPN 266 n. i, 309 n. 8). Son
of Barzillai (</.!'. , n. 4) the Meholathite, to whom Saul
married his daughter Mkrab [q.v. ) ; i S. 18 19 (om. B ;
irj\ (usually = t(r/)a7;\) [A], e8pi7j\ [L]), 2S. 21 8 (aepei [B],
eaSpt [A], etpi [L]).
ADUEL (aAoyhA [BX], nayh [A] ; ^^(o?J). the
great grandfather of Tobit (Tob. 1 1 ). No doubt another
form of AuiKL ((/.J'. ).
ADULLAM (D^ny. oAoAAam [BAL], oAoAam [R.
2 Ch. ; Bavi.i^ Mi.; A, i S.]. oAoAAa [A, Josh. I535],
aAaA&m [L /6.]; onor./.AAf, variants adu{i,)lam,
ODOL.iM, odcllam; gentilic "'Dpiy, AduUamite,
oAoAAAAA[e]iTHC [ADI':l], -mhthc, oGoAAamithc
[K]), a town in the Shephelah (Josh. 1.') 33 35), with
a changeful history. For a considerable time it seems
to have remained Canaanitish. We still have a legend
in Gen. 38 i/. (J) which describes the fusion of Judahite
clans with a Canaanitish clan whose centre was AduUam.
This fusion had apparently not been accomplished in
David's time, for Adullam was still outside the ' land of
Judah ' when David took refuge there ( i S. 22 1 ; cp v.
5). We cannot therefore accept the editorial statement
in Josh. 12 15 (cp I'. 7) that Joshua 'smote' the king of
Adullam. The Chronicler speaks of Rehoboam as
having fortified Adullam (2Ch. II7). He names the
place in conjunction with Soco (Shuweikeh), which
harmonises geographically with Micah's combination of
it (Mic. I15, if the text be correct) with Mareshah
(Merash). It is included in the list of cities which are
stated to have been occupied by the Jews in the time of
Nehemiah or Zerubbabel ( Neh. 1 1 30 ; so N'=-'' '"'' '"f- L ;
BNA om. ) ; but the list in Neh. 11 25-36 appears to be
an archaeological fiction of the Chronicler. Judas the
Maccaljee, at any rate, in a raid into ' Idumaea,' occupied
Adullam and kept the sabbath there (2 Mace. 1238).
The chief interest of Adullam, however, lies in its con-
nection with David {q.v., 3). Here, not in some
enormous cave (such as that fixed upon by tradition at
Khareitun),* but in the ' stronghold ' of the town, David
on two occasions found a safe retreat ( i S. 22 1 ; 2 S. 5 17 ;
cp23i3).
Where was Adullam? The authority of the Pales-
1 The word is found both with d and with z on Aramaic seals ;
e-S- , yinin (C/S 2, n<3. 1 24) bu t -ny-in, ' Horus is a help ' (//>. 77).
2 The Magharct Khareilfin enters historj-, not with David,
but with an ascetic named Chariton, who, after having been
taken by robbers on the way to Jerusalem, founded one of his
two lauras here, and died in the cave about 410 a.d.
73
AGABUS
tine Survey has led many recent writers to adopt the
identification of Adullam with 'Id-el-mS, proposed in
1871 by M. Clermont-Ganneau. This is the name of
a steep hill on which are ' ruins of indeterminate date,'
with an ancient well at the foot, and, near the top, on
both sides, caves of moderate size. The site is in the
east of the Shephelah, about 3 m. UK. of Soco, and
8 from Mareshah ; and, though it is much more from
Bethlehem, ' the journey would be nothing for the light-
footed mountaineers who surrounded David ' (Clermont-
(ianneau, PEI-'Q i-j-j ['75]). The identification, how-
ever, is only conjectural. The caves are unimportant ( i )
because the MT (cp Jos. Aut. vi. 12 3) speaks of a single
cave, and (2) teeause with We., Ki. , Bu. , and Kau.
we should correct ,n-i;'c, 'cave,' in i S. 22i 2 S. 23 13
1 Ch. II15, into ,-insp. 'stronghold'; cp i S. 224/
2 S. 23 14. Nor does the position of 'Id-el-ma exactly
agree with that assigned to Adullam in the Ono-
masticon. On the very slight resemblance of the name
to Adullam no reliance can be placed. Other sites are
quite possible. Cp GASm. //C 229 /. See MiCAii,
2 a, n. T. K. c.
I ADULTERY. See Marriage, 4.
ADUMMIM, The Ascent of (D'P"1N n'pyp ; Josh.
1^7 AAAAMeiN [H], aAommi [A], aAammein [I-]:
I817 AiGAMeiN [l^]. eAcoMi [A\ eAcoweiAA [I-];
; adom.ujm), a point marking the frontier between Judah
\ and Benjamin. The sharp rise near the middle of the
road from Jericho to Jerusalem ajjpears to be intended ;
the name (connected with mx, 'red') was perhaps
; suggested by the ruddy hue of the chalk rocks in that
I neighbourhood, to which appears to be due the name
j of the khan el-Ahmar ( ' the red '), the traditional ' inn '
of the (jood Samaritan, and that of Tula at ed-Dam
('the hill of blood'), NE. of the khhn. With the
latter spot the ascent of Adummim has been plausibly
identified [PEF Mem. 3 172).
ADVERSARY. The word so translated in 1 S. 1 6t
(J\yi sdra, RV 'rival,' &nti2hAoc [L].^ cp Lev. I818
[B.VL]) is the technical term for a fellow-wife, answer-
ing to Ass. sirritu, Ar. 4arrat"", Syr. 'artha (\irra).
All these forms are dialectal variations of a single
Old-Semitic word. Similarly, in Lev. 18 18 the words
' to vex her ' are better rendered by RV ' to be a rival
to her.' The words that follow may be rendered, in-
terpreting the metaphor, ' marrying the second sister, in
addition to the first, in the lifetime of the latter.'
The sense of the metaphor is given by the Arabic Utakiina
darrataha. See Dr. TKS, ad loc. and especially Lag.'s
'Mittheitungen 1 125/ (GGN, 1882, no. 13). w. K. s.
ADVOCATE (n&RAKAHTOc), i Jn. 2i, see Par.\-
CI.ETK.
AEDIAS (ahAciac [B]), I Ksd. 9 27 = Ezra 10 26, RV
Elijah, 3.
^NEAS (aincac [BNA]), a paralytic at Lydda
healed by Peter (Acts933t). The form of the name,
.(^neas, not as in Homer /l-".ncas, is noteworthy. It is
met with in Thucydides, Xenophon, and Pindar.
.ffiNON (aincon [Ti.WH]), Jn.323t. See Salim.
^SORA (aicoora [BA], etc.), Judith44t RV = AV
ESOKA (./.f. ).
AFFINITY. See Family, Ki.nship.
AGABA, RV AccABA (akk&Ba [B]). i Esd. 530 =
Ezra 2 46, Hagab.
AGABUS (apaBoc [Ti. WH] ; 68). one of the
' projihits ' w ho came from Jerusalem to Antioch at the
time of the dispersion from Jerusalem ' upon the tribula-
tion that rose about Stephen' (Acts 11 19, cp 84)- He
predicted a great fanune over all the world, ' which came
to pass in the days of Claudius' (.Nets 11 27 28). The
reference, doubtless, is to the great dearth which visited
Judtea and the surrounding districts especially Jerusa-
lem between 44 and 48 A.D. (Jos. Ant. xx. 26; 5a;
I The text of BA differs.
74
AGAG
Kus. HE ii. 11 3). For other famines in the reign of
Claudius, see Suet. Claud. 18; Tac. Ann. xii. 43.
The next mention of Agabus is in Acts 21 10/., where
it is said that he * came down from Judaea ' to Cajsarea
when Paul was there, and, taking Paul's girdle, bound
his own feet and hands with it to symbolise the captivity
of the apostle. As this leference looks like a first
mention of Agabus, those who ascribe the whole of
Acts to one writer regard it as an indication that the
second half of the book was written first. By others
the passage is naturally regarded as one of the indications
that the author of Acts did not himself write the ' we '
passages, but adopted them from an earlier source.
On the other hand, Overbeck and Van Manen legard
vj. 10-14 ^s an interpolation, and suppose that the
'we' was introduced by the last redactor. Jiingst
thinks that the prophecy cannot originally have lx.'en
ascribed to Agabus, but must have been assigned to one
of Philip's prophesying daughters, or these would not
have tjeen mentioned. At all events, it is to be noted
that ' from Juda-a' (21 10) does not harmonise with 218,
for Caesarea belonged to Judtea.
Agabus is included in the lists of the ' seventy disciples of our
Lord' by pseudo-Dorotheus and pseudo- Hippolylus, and is
commemorated in the great Clieek Menaai (.Apr. 8), along with
Rufu';, Herodion, and Asynciilus.
AGAG (3^X, 33X, cp Ass. agagu, 'be powerful,
vehement, angry' ; Igigi, the spirits friendly to man,
Maspero, DawnofCiv. 634 ; e^rA,p[B.\L]), akingof the
Amalekites, so celebrated in early tradition that the
Yahwist makes Balaam say, by an obvious anachronism,
of the future Israelitish kingdom, ' His king shall be
higher than Agag ' (Nu. 247; r^^r [^--^L], following
Samar. text). Saul, after his successful campaign against
the Amalekites, exempted Agag from the general doom of
devotion to the deity by slaughter, and brought him to
Gilgal, where Samuel hewed him in pieces before Vahwe
i.e., at the great sanctuary where festal sacrifices
were offered ( i S. 158/. 20/. 32/ ). Making allowance
for the endeavour of the narrator to harmonise an old
tradition with later ideas (see S.\UL, 3), and throwing
ourselves back into the barbarous period which begins
to pass away under David, we cannot doubt that the
slaughter of Agag was a eucharistic sacrifice (see
S.\ckifice), akin to that of the nakl'a (lit. 'victim
rent in pieces'), which was in use among the Arabs
after a successful fray, and which might be a human
sacrifice (WRS ES^-) 491, cp 363; We. Ar. Held.
1.2 [87]).
AGAGITE('33X ; for Greek readings see below),
a mcniber of the family of Agag ; a title applied ana-
chronistically to Haman (Ksth. 3i 10835). Haman, as
an Anialekite, is opposed to Mordecai, the descendant
of Kish (Esth. 25). Neither description is to be taken
literally (see Esther, i, end). The meaning is
that there is an internecine struggle between the Jews
and their enemies, like that between Saul and Agag of
old. Similarly, Haman is called a ' Macedonian ' in
the Greek parts of Esther ; 126 {n.Q.Kehova [L"] ; but
/Soi'voios [BN.\L3] ; AV Agagite ; RV Bugean) I610
(EV Macedonian; fiUKeowv [BNAL^]; but ^ovyaios
[L"]), and the name has made its way back into
924(iJ.aKf5t.jv [BSALfl]); cp Esthek, 10. Elsewhere
the reading is ^ovyaios [BN-AL^^] (only in 3i 85
[j^c.a mg.])^ ()erhaps a corruption of raryoios (in Nu. 24;,
the same version has Tory for A7a7).
AGAR (AfAP [I^A]). I. The sons of Agar, Bar. 3
as kV ; A\' Agarenes. See H.vgak, 2, n.
2. Gal. 424/. KV Hagar (<^.v., end).
AGATE {n5-]3. Is. 54.2, lAcnic [BNj\Q] ; n'S*]?,
Ez. 27i6 [Ba. Ginsb.], xopxop [BQ], KOpxopyC [A],
etc. ; i2C', axathc [B.AL]) occurs four limes in AV,
twice for Heb. kadkod, RV ' rubies ' and twice
for shlbo. On the identification of these stones,
see Chalcedony. On the question whether the
75
AGRICULTURE
agate, which is a variegated chalcedony (translucent
quartz) with layers or spots of jasper, was known to
Israel, see Precious Sto.nes.
AGEE (N:X. apoaLA]; &c& [B] ; hAa [L] ; Jos.
hAoy [g'^n-]; -^f-^). father of Shammah {q.v., 3);
2 S. 23ii. His name should doubtless be cor-
rected to Ela {<?N (so Marq. Fund. 17) ; 3 and 7 in
the older character were very similar. He is mentioned
again in i K. 4 18. See Elah, 6.
AGGABA (ArrABA[B='""e- A]), i Esd. Szgf RV =
Ezra 245, Hagahah.
AGG^US, AV Aggeus {Aggci [ed. Bensly]), i Esd.
6 1 73, 4 Esd. l^of. See H.\GGAI.
AGIA (AflA [BA]), I Esd. 534t RV=Ezra257.
Haiti L.
AGRICULTURE. Agriculture is here considered
(i) as conditioned by the land ( i), (2) as conditioned
by the people ( 2-10), (3) as a factor in the life of the
people ( 11-15); a concluding paragraph ( 16) will
contain some notes on historical points.
I. The great variety of the conditions in the different
natural divisions of Palestine (Dt. I7) must be kept in
j-i- J mind.i The various local products,
1. Conditioned ^^^^^^^^ ^,^^ industrial, of these dis-
by land. ^^.j^.^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ alluded to by the
Old Testament writers, the most important of which
are wheat and barley, olive and vine and fig, will be de-
scribed in special articles [qq.v.). On the seasons see
Rain, Dew. We simply note here First, the long
dry season (Apr.-Oct. ), including all the harvests, the
dates of which vary slightly in the different districts
(cp Feasts, 10) : the Tsp in spring, when rain
seemed miraculous (rS. 12x6/) and the steady W.
wind every evening made it possible to winnow with
ease, barley beginning in April, wheat about a fort-
night later ; the j'>p, summer fruits and vegetables,
in summer ; olives in autumn ; the -\-iZ, vines, from
August onwards. Second, the wet season (Oct. -Apr. ),
the earlier part of which saw the preparation of the soil
by the early rain (mv, rrk) for the winter crops, to be
brought to maturity by the succeeding showers, especially
those in March-.April (rip':';;), before which was the
time for sowing the summer crops.
With such stable conditions, all that seems to be
needed is a fair amount of intelligent industry ; and the
lack of this, rather than any great change of climate, is
probably the cause of the retrogression of modern times. -
The productivity, however, was not uniform (cp parable
of sower), and there seems to be a somewhat periodic
diminution in the amount of rainfall. Agriculture is
also exposed to pests ; the easterly wind c'lp, drought.
Mildew, and Locusts (</</?'. : see also Ant, 4).
II. We consider now, more in detail, agriculture as
dependent on the energy, skill, and general condition
_ f ^'^ ^^^ inhabitants. Our account must
infoSfon naturally be fragmentary.3 The minute
prescriptions of the Mishna must of
course be used with caution. We begin with
I. Technical details of agricultural procedure. (For
the most part we shall deal only with the raising of grain
crops. For other departments see Vines, Garden,
Cattle, etc. ) Incidentally the biblical records de-
scribe many agricultural processes, and mention by name
some of the implements used. Of these implements,
however, they give no description ; and the only speci-
mens found, up to the present time, are of sickles (see
below, 7).
For Egypt, however, we have fuller sources many pictures
of processes and implements, and some actual specimens. And
1 .See Palestine for details on (leology ( 3), Physical
divisions ( ^ff-). Hydrography (g 13), Climate and Vegetation
( '4 A)-
2 See however Fraas, Aus dent Orient 199.
3 There is no Hebrew word corresponding to our termy&rw.
Tilling the soil is .TDlun miy \ husbandman is laK, etc. ; field
is ,mL~.
AGRICULTURE
since modern Egypt and modern I'alestine are very similar,
these ancient Egyptian remains may be used to illustrate ancient
Palestine. Further, since modern implements and methods
are, in Egypt, very like those of antiquity, the same is probably
true of Palestine. Hence it is reasonable to hold that, m Pales-
tine also, modern may be taken to illustrate ancient.
Our main side-lights,' therefore, are modern Palestine
and ancient Kgypt ; and they are best used in this order,
subordinated always to the actual data of the OT itself.
We shall take the processes in natural order.
Sometimes land had to be cleared of wood or shrub
(xna Josh. 17 18), or of stone Cjpo). chiefly in vineyards.
For loosening or otherwise moving the
soil many words are used, such as
3. Prepar-
ing soil.
t:.
nn, nSs. nPB, p?y, my: ; nit-, nc', of
which the first group denotes ploughing, the second,
breaking up the soil (hcik) or the clods (nimJS Joel
1 17) with the mattock or hoe, while the third as clearly
means levelling off the surface with something serving
for a harrow. Of the names of the instruments '^ we have
riw'tnc or n-b:^inc. nx. -\ii;r2, of which the first pair probably
representsthe plough ( NT di/joTpoj'); the last, a sort of mat-
tock ; while riN must remain undetermint- J, ploughshare
or hoe. It is clear, therefore, that we have at least three
processes ploughing, hoeing, and harrowing. We
cannot be sure that there was of old in different parts
of the country any more uniformity than there is now.
It is not likely that the shallow soil would ever be much
more deeply ploughed
than now, when a depth
of 5-6 inches is consid-
ered sufficient. Perhaps
ploughing would some-
times (as now), after
sufficient rain, be dis-
pensed with.^ Hoeing
would probably take the
place of ploughing in
steep places (Is. 725), as
now in stony ground.*
In modern Juda;a there
is no ploughing before
sowing except where
manure is used. In
Galilee, on the other
Fig. i.-Eg>'ptian Hoe (/?r/V. ^^"^1- ^h^^e is one
Mus.). For picture of hoe in ploughing, and in some
use .see fig. 3, and cp Egypt, districts more than one.
^ 34. n- \\'hen ground has been
left unsown with grain and is overgrown with weed,
this is ploughed in.
Turning now to the implements used for these
purposes, and beginning with the less important, we
4. Implements "'f "'^' '"''^ Egyptian //-..^ (fig. ,), ^f
for nrenar ^ '^ nuportance m ancient Kgypt as to
in? soil ^^ ^^^ natural symbol of agriculture, as
the goad is in modern Palestine,^ has no
representative in modern Syria ; but neither has it in
1 Babylonia, as well as Egypt, no doubt presented points of
contact with Palestine ; but in the department of agriculture our
direct knowledge of Babylonia is very slight. See A'/'(2) 3 94^,
and Meissner, Beitr. z. althah. Privatrccht.
2 See partial list of Talmudic names in Hamburger and
Ugolinus, and now also a very full collection in Vogelstein's
work (see below, 17).
< In Egypt two ploughs seem generally to have been used,
the one behind the other ; perhaps the second turned up the
soil between the furrows made by the first (cp, however, next
note). On the other hand, at least in later times, the Egyptians
sometimes used a lighter plough, drawn by men or boys.
* If we could regard the Egyptian agricultural pictures as
representations of actual scenes we should have to conclude that
in Egypt the hoe was used sometimes before (so always [?] in
the Old Empire), sometimes after, or both before and after the
plough, to break up the great clods of earth. The depicting of
the various operations side by side, however, is very likely a mere
convention designed to represent in one view all kinds of field
work. So Prof. W. Max Muller in a private communication to
the present writer.
6 The illustration (fig. i) needs only the explanation that
the twisted cord adjusts the acuteness of the angle of the two
other p.-irts.
* Cp Wetzstein's note on Judg. 3 31 (/.r. below, 17).
77
AGRICULTURE
modern Egypt. A modern Syrian hoe may be seen in
PEFQ, 1891, pp. 110-115; as also mattock, spade, etc.
'I"he harnnv does not seem to have been used by the
ancient Egyptians, although their modern representatives
use a weighted plank or a totjthcd roller. In modern
Palestine a bush of thorns is sometimes used. The
writer of Job 39 10, however, seems to have known of
some implement drawn by beasts following the labourer ;
but this throws little light on general usage.
ThQ plough, although it is probably, strictly speaking,
an inferior substitute for the spade, is in common
practice a very important implement, and merits more
detailed treatment.
Of the Israelitish plough we know only that it had, at
least sometimes, an iron share that needed sharpening
(roS, I S. 1820, editorial comment in corrupt text).
That the Syrian plough was light ' we have the testimony
of Theophrastus. The modern Syrian plough, which is
light enough to be carried by the ploughman on hLs
shoulcfer, and is simpler than the usual ancient Egyptian 2
plough (tig. 3) in having only one handle and therefore
Fig. 2. a. Babylonian Plough (from cylinder seal, ciic. 2000
B.C., belonging to Dr. Hays Ward). /. Syrian Plough and
Goad (after I'l^FQ, 1891).
1. cs-sikka jp:,-?-^
2. cd-dakar, dhckr, 3-^-
3. cl-kahnsa, kdlmsa.
9. eUara, skcr'.
io.i//)-,0'./i(Post).
4. el-buruk, burk, -T13.
i2.'/.Ar/J;,(Post).
5. .^-^7cv7;7r(.Schum.), n'T3-
6. cl-wufla, 7uasl, ':'is'.'*
7. kofrib (Post), mnp.
8. halaka (Post).
ii,.jciizlr.
14. nu-ssns or minsds.
15. ,mkuza.
16. 'a/'a, s.MUt.
not needing two men to manage it, may safely be taken
to illustrate that used by the Israelites. There is no more
uniformity in its construction than in any other matter
relating to agriculture, and it would seem to be at its
simplest in Southern Palestine. The woodcut (fig. 2)
illustrates its general form. It is of wood, often oak. The
stake on to which the pointed metal sheath that serves for
ashareis thrust, passes up through ahole in the pole, toend
in a cross handle piece. The pole is of two pieces, joined
end to end. T\\g yoke {S'y, ,ij:ic more rarely cic. nifiio
Vyn ; ^vyov, ^i>y6s) is repeatedly mentioned in the OT.
It varied in weight according to circumstances ( r K.
124). It is now made as light as possible, often of
willow. Two pegs, joined below by thongs or by hair
string, form a collar for each of the o.xen, and two
smaller pegs in the middle keep in position the ring
or other arrangement for attaching the plough pole.
Repairs are attended to once a jear by a travelling
1 The simplest plough would be made of one piece of a tree,
bent while growing. See N'erg. GVor:.'-. 1 169, and illustration in
Graevius, T/ics. Antiq. Koiii. 11, p. 1674.
- The ancient Egyptian plough, which underwent little
modification in the course of millenniums, was all of wood,
although, perhaps, the share w.-is of a wood (harder?) different
from the rest of the plough, and may .sometimes have been
sheathed in metal (Wilkinson). Of the .As-syrian plough we
know from an embossed relief found ne.ir Mosul, that it (some-
times) had 4 board for turning over the earth, and just in front
of it a drill that let the seed down, to be covered by the soil
as it turned over.
3 Where two forms of the .-Xrabic name are given, the first is
from .Schumacher, and the second from Post (of', cit. below, 8 17X
The Hebrew names are from Vogelstein (pp. cit. below, 17).
78
AGRICULTURE
expert. The ploughman holds in his left hand a
goad (messds = ic^c. pni,^ n'uaTn) some eight or nine feet
in length, having at one end a metal point, and at the
other a metal blade to clean the share.
The /I'a/n (ics, i;(uyos) would, as now, oftenest
consist of oxen (Am. G12), but sometiuies of cows (Job
6. Sowing.
Fig. 3. Ploughing, hoeing, and sowing. From the ma^faba of Ti at Sakkara
(Old Empire). After Baedeker.
1 14, Heb. text), and perhaps sometimes of asses (Is.
30 24; Dt. 2"2io). Even camels and mules may now
be seen occasionally. In Armenia many pairs of o.xen
draw one plough, the driver sitting on the yoke ; but
this is hardly the meaning of i K. 19 19.
'Y\iG. furrows were called '70, n^ya^ (n'3i'c)- They
are now sometimes very carefully drawn (cp ?3"ii<n,
Ps. 120 3), and are some nine to ten inches apart.
Irrigation {7\\-\7\. npc'n ; see G.\KnKN) must have been
.. . one of the processes used by Israel. ^ Pales-
C. imga- ^jj^g indeed, differed from Egvpt(Dt. 11 10/..
tion. etc. , , T- o \ 1
' on which see Egypt, 34, n. ) m havmg
a copious supply of rain and in having natural springs
(Deut. 8 7) :
gation, and there may have been districts under culti-
vation which were entirely dependent on it. It would not
be safe to assign an early date to the elaborate methods
and regulations of Mishna times ; and it is difficult to
determine whether by the streams that were so highly
prized (Dt. 87 ; Nu. 246, Cant. 415),* and without which
a garden could not live (Is. I30), artificial canals are
meant, and whether, e.g., the bucket (-St,, Is. 40 15;
Num. 247) was used in irrigation. The Mishna has '
regulations concerning manuring (Ssi), and there may '
be a reference to it in such passages as Ps. 8-3 10 [n]
(toin'? P~) or Is. 2.5 10 (Kthib). In NT times, at least,
manure was used for trees (Lk. 138; /3d\w Koirpia),
as now for figs, olives, etc. ; it was worked in at the
last yearly ploughing, which was after the first winter
rain. For grain crops the use of manure is exceptional
(e.g., at Hebron). Remains show that in the hilly j
country ferraa'f/g (c^np'VD niSiJS. Cant. 5 13?) was used 1
even more than now, especially for vine cultivation ; :
but the wider terraces are still used for grain, the
clearing of the soil being called ak/>.
Fences (nj) were employed, perhaps only in vine-
1 Vogelstein argues from Kelim, 96 that this is the n.ame of
the metal he.-id.
2 Cp, however, Del. on Ps. 120 3, Ges.-Buhl sub voc. etc.
3 See now the account in Vogelstein, 4.
4 Cp.ff.bM2) ,06.
6 The prophets delight to speak of the copious supplies of
water that will refresh even the most unlikely places in the ideal
future (see Cheyne on Is. 30 25).
AGRICULTURE
yards (Is. 5s ; Ecclus. 2828), where hedges (.isicvo Is.
5 5 ) were also in use ; and there was sometimes a border,
e.g., of nDD3 (see Fitches, 2) (Is. 2825). Between
grain-fields, however, the commonest practice was to
set up sloncs to mark the line of partition Cj^^j Hos.
5 10) ; on the strong sentiment that prevailed as to the
unrighteousness of tampering with these,
see below (g 12, 14).
Whether the various words used for
sowing the seed were technical terms we
cannot tell, jm is a word
of general significance. In
Is. 2825 three words are used in one
verse : pEn and ^^v of scattering n:ip (see
FiTCiiKS, i) and cummin with the hand ;
Cb,^ of setting wheat and barley in the
straight furrows.^ Nowadays a drill is
sometimes used. The common practice
is, whether the land has been already ploughed or not,
to plough in the seed.^ This protects it from ants and
from dryness due to intermission of the early rain.'*
As to protection from man and beast, see HuT.
To reap is -jiip. Two names of implements have
been preserved ( eo-in, only in Dt. [16 9 ; 2326t] ; V-:c. only
in Jer. [50 16 ; AV mg. scythe*] and Joel
[3 (4)13]; ^pi-Kdvov) ; but whether they
refer to the same thing or to varieties, we do not
know. Perhaijs the commonest method was to pull
up by the root (see fig. 5), a practice confined in
ancient Egypt to certain crops, but still followed
both in Egypt and in Palestine. The use of sickles in
Canaan in very
early times
is, however,
pro\ed by the
finding of
sickle Hints "at
Tell-el-Hesy
in the earliest
and all suc-
ceedinglayers,
while the use
of iron sickles
by the Jews in
at least pre-
Hellenis t i c
times is proved
by the finding of the specimen represented in fig. 7.
By putting together different allusions," we can follow
the various steps. The reaper (":'j'p) filled his hand
7. Reaping.
taha of Ti. After Baedeker.
Fig. 5. Pulling up grain. After Erman.
1 In Am. 13 jnt.T 7]-vo is used of the process of sowing.
2 It is not unlikely that .Tiib- is to be dropped, with We. Che.
and Du. (against IM.), as = ri-)ij,'C'.
3 Accordmg to Strabo, this w.is done also in Babylon (cp
above, col. 78, n. 2), and in ancient Egypt the seed was sometimes,
especially m the Old Empire, trodden in by sheep (Erman,
Life in Ancient Egypt, ET 429; not goats), in the time of
Herodotus by swine.
* On the stages and accidents of growth cp Vogelstein, 10.
" For '"I^Cja, which AV mg. thrice renders 'scythe,' EV has,
more correctly, Pki^N'ING-hooks (y.r'.).
6 The method of setting the sickle flints is shown by the
specimens found by Dr. Petrie in Egypt (Illahun, etc. pi. 7
no. 27 ; see above, fig. 6).
7 E.g., Ruth223; Ps.1297; Is. 17s ; Job24a4 : Jer. 922[2i].
AGRICULTURE
(12) with ears (o'Vac') of the standing corn (ncp). and
with his arm (yi'ii) reajjud thcin (nsp)- i'he stalks (nzp)
were, in I't^ypt, and still are, in Palestine, cut pretty
high up (Anderlind ; knee high). They must some-
times have been cut,
whether at this or at
a later stage, very
near the ear (^jin
nSas* Job 2424).
The armfuls (nay)
would fall (Jen
922 [21]) in a heap
("I""!') behind the
reaper, to be ga-
thered by the navn
ID.xc, in his bosom
(ir-.T:2) and tied
(c'^.n::) into sheaves
(rf^Sx) and set in heaps (cnr^)'
In Kgypt the sheaf consisted of two bundles, with
their heads in opposite directions. In modern ^yria fii.'-
quently the sheaves are not tied at all. It has l)r>ii
Fio. 6. Sickle with cutting edge of
flints found at lllahun. After IVtrie.
Fig. 7. Iron sickle found at Tell el Hesl. After ^FQ.
.pposcd- that already in An;
;:;) may sometimes have bee
time the bundles
:aped into a heavy
AGRICULTURE
(Is. 2827) it was usual to beat out cummin and rap(see
Fitches, i) with /vi/s{nt:D and ear res|>cctively). The
other processes were probably more conunon in later
times. For these was needed a threshing-Jhor (pS,' 4Xwy,
fiXwc), for which was selected some spot freely exposed
to the wind, often a well-known place (2 S. 24i6).'
Beating the floor hard for use may be alluded to in
Jer. 5I33 (Heb. Te.xt ; .rionnn). Sometimes the wheat
heads may have been struck off the straws by the sickle
onto the threshing-floor (Job 21 24), as Tristram
describes {East. Cust. 125); but usually the bundles
would be first piled in a heap (crna) on the floor, and
thiMi from this a convenient cjuantity (ntrno)^ from time
to time spread over the floor.
The threshing then seems to have been done in two
ways : either {h) by driving cattle round the floor on the
loosely scattered stalks till their hoofs gradually trampled
(c'n) out the grain (12). for which purpose o.xen'* were
used (Hos. lOii),''^ or {c) by special imphments.^
The instruments mentioned, which were drawn usually
by o.xen, are [a) j-nn', j-nn* (?), (pin) Jiic ; " {b) .^^jy
with pini" (wheel) prefixed (Is. 2827), and perhaps
alone (Am. 2i3t; .see, however. We. ad Ivc). These
two sets of expressions probably correspond pretty
closely to l.vo instruments stili in use in Palestine, and
a description of them and llicir use will be the nearest
we can come to an account of their ancient representa-
tives.
a. The .Sj'rian inn-aif (inic) is a \\ooden drag'^ (see
fig. 10) with a rough under-surface, which when drawn
over the stalks chops them up. The illustration
needs few explanations. The roughness is produced by
the skilful insertion in holes, a cubic inch in size, of
blocks of basalt (nvB'S Is. 41 15) which protrude (when
nc>v) some inch and a half. The sledge is weighted by
heavy stones, or by the weight of the driver, who, when
tired, lies down and even sleeps, or sits on a three-
legged stool.
8. Sickling and bundling. .Xfter l.cpsius
load on a cart (rhvj .^m. 213) ; but the reference mr.y
very well be to the threshing wain.^ In Kgypt they
were conveyed in baskets or bags, by men or on donkeys,
to the threshing-Uoor.
Threshing was called
t;nn, pp-^, en,
S-hi ccn ; of
which the first describes beating with a rod, the second
ft TVironTiititr ''' indefinite (to break \x\> fine), and the
. inresnmg. ^^^^^^ j^ literally to tram])le. {a) The
first of these evidently represents the most primitive
practice, still followed sometimes in both Palestine
and I'.gvpt. Naturally, gleaners (cpSo) and apparently
others in certain circumstances e.g., Gideon in time
of danger beat out the grain ; and in much later times
1 It is hardly possible to determine how many of these terms
re practically synonyms. .-Vccording to Vogelstein op. cit.
dijjf., the loose D'HrS were tied into fliaSx and piled into C"1J^^
while TDU (see Excurs, I.) is an entirely distinct word meaning
hav.
2 E.g-., by Wellhausen.
* So, e.g., Hoffman and Wetzstein in Z.4 TW.
6 81
/3. The Jlrlan of Northern Syria, called in Egypt by
1 ' T'.arn-floor,' 2 K. (''27 .W.
2 lUit in I K. 'I'l iopj2 is probably dittography for C^j3
"' So written, without dagesh, by Raer.
^ It is not clear how the horses of Is. C82S are supposed to
sed. Du. proposes to read VE'IEI ^s a ^
i:rb.
'' In Eg>-pt in later times o.\en were so used, three in a line,
with their heads bound together at the horns by a Inam (see
fig. 0), or in the ancient empire, donkeys, ten in a line ; so in
modern Syria, the line being called a iaran.
> Just as several rods are used together in method (.a), so
there could be duplicates of ffaran {^, or of implement (r), or
mi.xtures of (i^) and (r) used simultaneously, as now in Hauran.
7 ' Threshing-wain,' Job 41 30 [22] RV.
** Cle.irly some kind of sharp instrument of iron (2 S. 12 31 =
I Ch. -'0 3f), EV 'harrow,' HofTm. (/T.-/ 7'// "266) 'pick.'
" Perhaps by a gloss we have here independent names for one
thing (Is. 41 15). Ry D"3pi3(Iudg. 87, i6t), which some would
add here, the Talmud (with ipL [once]; 5ual (on) trans-
literates) understands 'thistles': a view that is confirmed by
the existence in modern Egyptian .\rabic of a word terkdn as
the name of a thorny plant. See Bkiek, i.
10 jrjit, alone = (threshing) wheel, Prov. 20 26 RV
" Some 7 ft. X 3 ft. X 2 in.
82
AGRICULTURE
the name of the unused nora/ (see fig. 1 1 ) , and known to
ttie Romans as plcstcllum Foenicum, has in place of sharp
stones revolving metal discs, which, when pressed down
by the weight of the driver seated in a rude arm-chair,
eflectually cut up the straw
AGRICULTURE
The process of winnowing (.-iit) is often mentioned.
Two names of instruments are preserved, the nnio (EV
fan') in Is. (3O24) and Jer. (loy), and
9. Winnowing.
the nm (EV ' shovel ') in Is. alone (30
24). 1 They seem to refer to different things : perhaps to
Fig. 9. Carrying from harvest-field, and threshing. After Rosellini.
The work is done sometimes by horses, but most
commonly, as of old, by oxen, either singly or (oftener)
in pairs, sometimes muzzled, contrary to ancient Egyptian
usage and Hebrew maxim. ^
The modern tioor is a circle some fifty feet in diameter.
^i^
Fig. 10. S>Tian threshing-sledge. After Beiizinger.
with the heap [kadis) in the centre, from which a supply
(far/ia) is from time to time spread all round in ring
form, some two feet deep and seven or eight feet broad.
When one farAa has been thoroughly threshed to
insiu^e which, it is from time to time stirred up with the
-Modern Egyptian threshing-machine (norag).
.\fter Wilkinson.
handle of the winnowing instrument, or even with a
special two-pronged fork (deikal, 5i\-eX\a) the mixed
mass (darts) of grain {^aM), chopped straw {(ii/i [zn), and
chaff etc. {favydr), is formed into a heap ( 'arama), to
make room for a new tarha.
1 The Mishna seems to assume the practice in KelIt\<S-j
iSr CIDn.T i-e., np3 '^v- I' douhtful whether the preceding
phrase "npa Sc* CpScn refers to a practice, reported by some
travellers, of banaaging the eyes of the oxen in threshing.
Philological consider.-itions would give the preference to
Maimonides's explanation : ' Sacculus fielliceus in quern colligunt
stercus jumenti ne pereat triticum dum trituratur.'
83
the implements still called by similar names in Palestine ^
the fork and the shovel. The products are grain
(ns), choppedstraw(pn),andchaff(j'b, zx'r\, my, dx^'P'"')-
The first is heaped up in round heaps (,^D-|J; Ru. 87;
Cant. 73, Heb. Text). The second is kept for pro-
vender (Is. 11 7). The third is blown away by the
wind (Ps. I4).
In modern SjTia the 7nidrd (see fig. given in Wetzstein,
op. cit. below, 17) is a wooden fork almost 6 ft. in
length, with some at least of
its five or six prongs separate-
ly inserted, so that they are
easily repaired. The prongs
are bound together by fresh
hide, which on shrinking forms
a tight band. The raht is a
kind of wooden shovel (see
fig. in Wetzstein, I.e.), with
a handle 4 ft. long. It is
used chiefly for piling the
grain, but also for winnowing
leguminous plants and certain
parts of the daris that have
had to be re-threshed. The
winnowers stand to th,e E. of
the '(/ra/rt heap, and (some-
times first with a two-pronged
fork called shaul and then),
with the midrd, either toss
the darls against the wind or straight up, or simply
let it fall from the inverted fork, according to the
strength of the evening W. breeze. Wltile the chaff
is blown away some 10 to 15
ft. or more, the straw [tihn)
falls at a shorter distance,
and is preserved for fodder ;
the heavy grain, unbruised
ears, and joints of stems, fall
almost where they were, ready
for sifting.
Strange to say, in the case
of sifting it is the names of
the implement that are best
10. Sifting, etc. PI"'^':^^^-
The siei-e is
called Krbhdrak (,^^;2,^ Am.
Pgt) and ndphah (nsj, Is.
30 28). In the former case
probably the good grain, in the latter probably the
refuse, passes through. In modern Sjria there are
1 omits these words ; but rm;oi'_ occurs repeatedly in the NT.
2 Fleischer denies any philological connection between Ar.
raht and nm, regarding the former as a Persian word, borrowed
in the sense of tool.
3 But KKKp.6<i.
Fig. 12. Winnowing.
After Erman.
FiG. 13. Sifting. After
Lepsius.
AGRICULTURE
two main kinds of sieve used on the threshing-floor.
They are made of a hoop of wood with a niesh-work
of strips of camel-hide put on fresh, and become
tight in drying. The coarser meshed kirbdl is like the
kebhdrah of Amos. When the winnowed heap is sifted
with it, the grains of wheat pass through, while the
unbruised ears etc. remain in the sieve,' and are flung
back into the tarha to be re-threshed. The finer meshed
ghirbdl is like the he: of Is. 30 28; all dust, bruised j
grains, etc. pass through, but none of the good wheat.
When the grain has been finally separated, it is
heaped with the raljt in hemispherical piles (sodba),
which probably represent the 'arema (nany) of the
metaphor in Cant. 7 3 (Heb. ). By this Boaz slept (Ru.
87), as do the owners still, while (as a further pre-
caution) private marks are made on the surface, and a
scarecrow is set up.
Storage. In Jen, Dt. , Joel, Ps., 2Ch., there are
names of places for keeping stores of grain ; - but we do
not know anything about them.^ In the dark days of
Gedaliah corn and other stores were hidden in the ground
(Jer. 41 8) ; dry cisterns hewn out of the rock are still so
used. For a representation of an ancient cistern see
ZDPyS, opp. p. 69. The mouth is just wide enough
to admit a man's body, and can be carefully covered
over. Grain will keep in these cisterns for years.
2. Ne.xt falls to be considered the dependence of
agriculture on the general condition of the people, a
dependence that is very obvious from tlie present state
of agriculture in Palestine.
In the days of Israel's greatness, when agriculture
was the chief occupation of the people, the population,
., _ , whatever may have been its numerical
11. General
conditions.
strength, was certainly enough to bring
the country, even in pl.aces that are now
quite barren, into a state of cultivation. The land
would be full of husbandmen tilling their fields by day,
and returning to their villages at night. Yet, down to
the end of the monarchy, the old nomadic life still had its
admirers (Jer. 35), who, like the Bedouin of to-day,
would despise the settled tiller of the soil. At the
other extreme also, in such a society as is described,
e.g., by Amos and Isaiah, there was an aristocracy that
had little immediate connection with the land it owned.
Slave labour would doubtless, as elsewhere, be a weak
point in the agricultural system, tending to lower its
status (Zech. 13 5 ; Ecclus. 7 15 [16]) ; though this would
not preclude the e.xistence, at some period or other, of
honourable offices such as those attributed by the
Chronicler to the age of David (i Ch. 2725-31). After
making allowance for homiletic colouring, we are bound
to suppose that agricultural enterprise must have suffered
grie\'ously from a sense of insecurity in regard to the
claims of property, and from the accumulation of debts,
with their attendant horrors. Civil disturbances (such
as those abounding in the later years of Hosea) and
foreign wars would, in later times, take the place of
exposure to the inroads of nomadic tribes. The burden
of taxation and forced labour (i S. 812) would, as now
in many eastern lands, foster the feelings that find ex-
pression in the narrative of the great schism (i K. I24)
and in some of the accounts of the rise of the kingdom
(on the 'king's mowings," Am. 7i, see MOWINGS and
Government, -20).
The existence of an effort to ameliorate evils of the
kind to which allusion has just been made, and of a
y consciousness of their inconsistency with
. aws. ^j^g ^^^^ national life, is attested by the
inclusion in the Pentateuchal codes of a considerable
number of dicta on agricultural matters, in which we see
1 For lins is most likely stones.
2 D'D2K0, DTDX, nr.siN, nnaSD, '.11^p, rfasps, NT afro9^<nf.
3 In Egypt corn was stored in buildings with a flat roof
reached by an outside stair. There were two openings, or sets
of openings, near the top, for pouring in the grain, and near the
bottom, for withdrawing it (see model in Brit. Mus.).
85
AGRICULTURE
how religious sanctions became attached to traditional
agricultural practices.
Already in the Book of the Covenant a fallow year
(Ex. 23 11), once in seven, is prescribed for the sake of
the poor and the Ixast, and a day of rest [v. 12). once
in seven, for the sake of the cattle and the slave ; while
the principle is laid down that for damage done to a
neighbour's field reparation must be made (Ex. 22s/.
[4/.]). In the Deuteroiiomic Code, if there is already
the precept against sowing in a vineyard two kinds of
seed (229), or ploughing with an ox and an ass together
(22 10), and the requirement of a tithe (14 22), there are
still such maxims as the sacredness of property (19 14,
landmarks ; = Prov. 22 28 = 23 lort [cp Job242], and, in
the form of a curse, Dt. 27i7) on the one hand, and,
on the other, generous regard for the needs of others
(2325 [26], plucking ears; 24 19, sheaf; 20, olive;
21 2324 [23], grapes), even of beasts (254, mu/zle), with
a provision against abuse of the privilege (2325 [26],
no sickle; 2324 [25J, no vessel); while an effort is
made to moderate the damage done to agriculture
by war (2O7, exemption from conscription; 2019/".,
preserve trees). In the Priestly Code there is still,
in the remarkable collection preceding the last chapter
of Leviticus, a further development of the provision
for the poor at harvest time (19 9, corners = 23 22),
with a repetition of the charitable maxims (I99/. ) ; but
there is on the whole an emphasising of such prescrip-
tions as non-mixture of seeds (19 19), defilement of seed
(II37/. ), uncircumcision of fruit-trees (I923-25), strict
calculation of dates of agricultural year (23 16); while
the Jubile year makes its appearance. Here we are
appreciably nearer the details of such discussions as
those in Zera'im etc. Of course, the c|uestion how far
such maxims made themselves felt in actual practice, or
even as a moral directive force, is not answered by
pointing out their existence in literary form.
III. We pass now to the consideration of agriculture
as a factor in the life of the people.
That agriculture was an important element in popular
life is very evident. Land was measured by yokes
S. 14 14 ; Is. 5 10) and valued by the
13. Common
life.
amount of seed it needed (Lev. 27 16).
Time was measured by harvests (Judith
227 1), and places were identified by the crops growing
on them (2 S. 23ii, lentils ; i Ch. 11 13, barley). Tilling
the soil was proverbially the source of wealth (Pr. 12 ti
28 19) ; implements not needed for other purposes would
as a matter of course be turned to agricultural use
(Is. 24) and so on. That work in the fields was not
confined to slaves and jjeople of no culture is evident,
not only from the existence of such narratives as that
of Joseph's dream, but also from what is told of Saul
(1S.II5), and Elisha (1K.I919), and Amos (714)
before they appeared on the stage of history. On the
other hand, the narrator of the story of Ruth seems
to represent neither Boaz himself nor his deputy as
doing more than overseeing and encouraging the
labourers (Ru. 2s); and in the time of the writer of
Zech. 13s (RV) a tiller of the soil seemed to be most
naturally a purchased slave, while the ideal of the writer
of Is. 61 5 is that ploughmen and vine-dressers should be
aliens.
At all times, howe%'er, even the rich owner entered
naturally into the spirit of the agricultural life. If it
was perhaps only in the earlier times that he actually
ploughed or even followed the oxen, he would at all
times be present on the cheerful harvest field and visit
his vineyard to see the work of the labourers (Mt. 208),
his sons' included (Mt. 21 28), and give directions about
the work (Lk. 187). when he would listen respectfully
to the counsel of his men (Lk. 138/. ). It was not
derogatory, in the mind of the Chronicler, to kingly
dignity to interest one's self in agriculture (2 Ch. 26 10),*
1 The text of a S. 23 13 is verj- doubtful ; cp Dr. ad loc.
2 The meaning of Eccles. 6 9 [81 is obscure.
86
14. Sentiment.
AGRICULTURE
and a proverb-writer points out the superiority of the
quiet prosperity of the husbandman to an insecure
diadem (Prov. 2723-27).
Not unnaturally it is the life of harvest-time that has
been most fully preserved to us. We can see the men,
especially the younjjer men (Ru. 29), cutting the
grain, the young children^ going out to their fathers
(2 K. 4 18) in the field, the jealousies that might spring
up between the reapers ((ien. 37?), and the dangers that
young men and maidens might be exposed to(Ru. 29
perh. Hos. 9 \f. ), the simple fare of the reapers ( Ru. 2 14),
and the unrestrained joviality of the evening meal ( Ru.
87) after the hot day's work (2 K. 4 19), the poor women
and girls gleaning behind the reapers and usually finding
more than they seem sometimes to find nowadays,
beating out the grain (Ru. 217) in the evening and
carrying it away in a mantle to the older ones at home
(Ru. 815), not only the labourers but also the owners
sleeping by the corn heaps at night (Ru. 87), so that
the villages would, as now in Palestine and Egj'pt, l)e
largely emptied of inhabitants. The Egyptian monu-
ments could be drawn on for further illustrations.
Such a mode of life had naturally a profound effect
on the popular sentiment, the religious conscience, and,
in time, the literary thought of the
people ; and, to complete our survey of
the subject, a few words must be said here on these
matters.
That the agricultural mode of life was regarded as
originating in the earliest ages is evident from Gen. 3
and 4 ; '^ but it was sometimes regarded as a curse
(817/.), or at least as inferior to pastoral life (43/.),
while at other times nomadic life was a curse (4 12),
instead of being a natural stage (4 20). These two
sides are perhaps reflected in the glowing descriptions
in which certain writers delight e.g. , Dt. 8828 : a tilled
land of corn and wine and oil (Dt. 87-9), a pasture land
flowing with milk and honey (Ezek. 2(16). This land,
which is lovingly contrasted with other lands (I'^zek.
206 15), was felt to be a gift of Yahwe to his
people, and specially under his watchful care (Ut.
11 12). The agricultural life was, therefore, also of his
appointment (Gen. 823; Ecclus. 7 15 [6]), and indeed
lay as the basis of his Torah. From him the husband-
man received the principles of his practice (Is. 2826),
as also, he depended absolutely on Yahwe for the bringing
into operation of the natural forces (Dt. 11 14) without
which all his labour would be in vain [v. 17). This, how-
ever, was only a ground of special security (Dt. 11 12), for
no other god could give such blessings as rain ( Jer. 14 22),
and Yahwe did give them (Jer. 024). If they were not
forthcoming, therefore, it was because Yahwe had with-
held them (Am. 47), and this was Ix.'cause of his people's
sins (Jer. 525), which also brouLjht more special curses
( Dt. 28 38-40). The recognition of N'ahw^ had, therefore,
a prominent place in connection with the stages of
agricultural industry (see Feast.s, 4), the success of
which was felt to depend on the nation's rendering him
in general loyal obedience (Dt. 11 8-17); the land itself
was Yahw^'s ; the people were but tenants (Lev. 2523) ;
and the moving of the ancient landmarks, though not
unknown, was a great wrong (Job 24 2). Some of the
moral aspects of agricultural life have been already
sufficiently touched on. It is probable that many of the
maxims referred to were widely observed, being congruent
with the better spirit of the people. Thus Amos records
it as an outrage on the ordinary sentiments of common
charity, that even the refuse of the wheat should be sold
for gain (Am. 86). Other maxims, again, can be little
traced in practice.
In this description of Hebrew ideas we have taken no
note of the differences between earlier and later times.
Deuteronomy and the prophets have been the main
1 Several children may .sometimes now be .seen weighting and
driving the threshing-sledge.
2 Cp also Gen. 1 28/ and WRS RS'!^) 307.
87
AGRICULTURE
authority. In the public consciousness, however, there
lived on much of the old Canaanitish popular belief, in
which the liA'alim hold the place here assigned to
Yahwe, so that, e.g., the fertile spot is the Baal's plot of
land, who waters it from unseen sources, underground or
in the heavens (see B.\AL, i) a mode of expression
that lived on into Mishna times, although its original
meaning had been long forgotten.
The influence on Hebrew literature was very deep.
The most cursory reader ^ must have observed how much
16. Literature.
the modes of expression reflect the
agricultural life. Prophetic descrip-
tions of an ideal future abound in scenes conceived in
agricultural imagery.^ Great joy is likened to the joy
of harvest (Is. Kig/. ); what is evanescent is like chaflf
that is burned uj) or blown away ; something unexpected
is like cold ( I'r. 25 13), or rain ( Pr. 26 1), in harvest and
so on. Lack of sjjace prevents proof in detail of how,
on the one hand, figures and modes of speech are drawn
from all the operations and natural phenomena of agri-
j culture, while, on the other hand, every conceivable
subject is didactically or artistically illustrated by ideas
and expressions from the same source. It is a natural
carrying forward in the NT of this mode of thought, to
find Jesus publishing his epoch-making doctrines of the
i ' kingdom ' so largely through the help of the same
imagery. No doubt the commonest general expression
is ' kingdom ' ; but even this often becomes a vineyard,
or a field, or a tree, or a seed ; and it is extended by
sowing etc. It is unnecessary to pursue the subject
farther. The whole mode of thought has passed over
into historical Christianity, and thus into all the
languages of the world.
1 c TT* 1 ^^ shall now in closing give some
fragmentary notes towards a historical
outline of the subject.
The traditional account of the mode of life of the
ancestors of Israel in the earliest times introduces agri-
cultural activity only as an exceptional incident. Agri-
culture must be rudimentary in the case of a nomadic
people. That Canaan, on the other hand, was for the
most part well under cultivation,-' when the Israelites
settled in the highlands, there can be no doubt. The
Egyptian Mohar found a garden at Joppa,'* and of the
agricultural produce claimed by Thotmes III. at the
hands of the Rutennu some at least must ha\e been
grown in Palestine. Israel doubtless learned from the
Canaanite not only the art of war (Judg. 82), but also
the more peaceful arts of tilling the soil, which, as the
narratives of Judges and Samuel prove, were practised
with success, while it is even stated that Solomon sent
to Hiram yearly 20,000 Kor of wheat and 20,000
Bath of oil (i K. 5ii [25] Var. Bible). Later, Ezekiel
(27 17 ; see Cornill) tells us how Judah bartered wheat
with Tyre,^ as well as honey, oil, balm, and jjs (see
Pannag) ; which illustrates the tradition in iK. 2O34
(see COT) that there were bazaars (see Tk.\de ;
Stk.\nger, 2) for Israelitish merchants in Damascus,
and for those of Damascus in Samaria. It is strange,
but true, that in the very period to which this last notice
refers, there arose a popular reaction against the precious
legacies of Canaanitish civilisation (see Rpxhaisites).
The Assyrian conquest of Samaria naturally checked
for a time the cultivation of the soil (2 K. 17 25, lions),
the colonists introduced by Sargon and Asur-bani-pal
being imperfectly adapted to their new home. In Judaea
under Gedaliah the Jews ' gathered wine and summer
1 Even of the English version, which .sometimes hides such
metaphors as, f.c. , 'ploughing evil' tran.slated 'deviseth,'
Prov. 14.
2 Am. 9 tj,_ff: ; Ho.s. 14 ey: [t/.] ; Mic. 44 ; Jer. 31 12 ; Zech.
812; Mai. 3 II.
^ The implements found at Tell-el-Hesy appear to carry us
back to the earliest days.
* Cp RP ist ser., '1 113.
5 //'/(/. 23 and cp Brugsch, Jigy/'t under tlie Pharaohs ('91),
p. 167.
6 Cp a similar relation in the time of Herod (Acts 12 20).
AGRIPPA
fruits very nuich ' (Jtr. 4O12), and liaci stores of wheat,
barley, oil, and honey, carefully hidden in the ground j
(Jer. 41 8). In Is. 41 15 mention is for the first time j
explicitly made of a threshing instrument with teeth
(nvB'S) ; hut whether this was of recent introduction it is
impossible to determine. On the fall of the Babylonian
[K)wer the old relations with Tyre were doubtless renewed
(Kzra37; cp Is. 23 15 18). The imperial tribute, however,
is regarded as heavier than the agricultural resourcesof the
country could then well bear (Neh. 63/. ). This tribute
may have been partly in money (54), but also apparently
to a considerable e.xtent in produce (Neh. 937, nKOn)-
In Joel, of course, there is a description of agricultural
distress, but in such a way as to imply that agriculture
was in general receiving full attention. In Eccles. (25/. )
there is acquaintance, as in other things, so in agri-
culture, with several artificial contrivances. To go into
the detailed accounts of the Mishna is beyond the
present purpose.
I'"or complete bibliographies see the larger Cyclopaedias,
liililical and Classical. Of special treatises may be mentioned
that in vol. 29 of the V'/us. of Ugolinus ;
17. Literature, ofspecial articles, on ajj^r/cw/Zwre" in general,
in Mod. Palestine, Anderlind, /.DPy^ \ff.;
Klein, //'. 3100-115 OSi-ioi, but especially 457-84; Post,
PEFQ, 1891, p. 1107?; ; on the plough, Schumacher, /.DPVVl
157-166 ; on sickles, V. C. J. Spurrell in Archieolog. Jourti. A9,
no. igj, iS.^2, p. 54^ and Plate I., fig. i ; on tlinshing sledge,
Wcti-striii. /.. f. l\ihnoloi;ie, 1873, p. q-jo Jf. ; on niintwiving,
Wit/.t. i!i ii. I )< 1. /.v.(2) 709/ ; on the .f/Wv, Wctzstein, /.DPl^
14 I //. : .ill i>la,.- in OT literature, O. I'ngewitter, Die land
ivir:i:.Jt.i/':iiJ:c>i lUlder u. Metaphern i. d. poet. Biicli. d.
--I /' ( K.r)nigsbg., 1885); on later usage, Hermann Vogelstein,
Die Liiiiii'.virt/isclia/t in /^allistitia zur Zeit der Mischna, I.
(Berlin, 1894), a clissertiilinn that did not reach the writer till
this article had been written. H. w. H.
AGRIPPA (AfPinnA), -Vets 25 /.f See Herodian
Family, 7.
AGUR (1-liK; so Pesh. ; ia,^/; but and Vg. ,
translating, ct)OBHaHTl [r5AS] ; Congrcgantis), h.
Jakeh, an author of moral verses (Prov. 30i). His
name is variously explained as ' hireling ' of wisdom
(Bar Bahlul) and 'collector' of words of Torah (Midr. |
Shfiiioth K'.,Yyar.6). Such theories assume that Solomon j
is the author of the verses, which (see Provkrbs) is
impossible. All the description given of him in the
heading is 'the author of wise poems' (read, not Nb'Sn,
but 'rc'E.i, with Griitz, Cheyne, Bickell). Very possibly
the name is a pseudonym. The poet who ' takes up
his parable' in 7^.5 expresses sentiments very different
from those of .Xgur ; he seeks to counteract the bold
and scarcely Israelitish sentiments of his predecessor.
See Ew., Salotn. Seliri/ten 250^; Che., /ol' ami Solomon
1497?:, Jewish Rel. Li/e, Lect. V. ; Sniend, A I' Rel.-gesch.
479y? ; and, with cautton, Dillon, Sceptics 0/ the OT 131^
26977; Cp also Proverbs ; Ithiei, ii.; Lemukl. t. k. c.
AHAB (2NnN, 65,1 'father's brother,' cp Ahiam
and the Assyr. woman's narne, Ahnt-abisu, and see \\\.
/.A', 1898, Heft I ; also 3Nn [for ^XflN] on an inscrip-
tion from Safa [Jonrn. As. 188 1, 19 463]). i. (Axaa^
[B.AL], -oa/t4 [A once] ; Achab ; Assyr. .lijahbu.) Son
of Omri, and king of Israel (875-853? B.C. Cp
ChK()NOLO<;y, 32, and table in 37). The im-
portance of this king's reign is shown by the large
space devoted to it in the Book of Kings.
. bources. ^^ obtain a just idea of his character,
however, is not easy, the Israelitish traditions being
derived from two very different sources, in one of
which the main interest was the glorification of the
pro[)hcts, while the other was coloured by patriotic feel-
ngs, and showed a strong partiality for the brave and
bold king. To the former belong i K. 1 7-19 and 21 ; to
the latter, chaps. 20 and 22.- Both groujis of narratives
are very old ; but the former is more difficult than the
latter to understand historically. In chaps. 20 and 22 we
1 Cp Niildeke, ' Verwandtschaftsn.amen als Personenn.imen '
in Kleini^keitcn zur seinitisc/u-n Onotiiatologie (ll'ZA'.M 307-
316 (92I):
2 .See Kings, 8, .-ind cp Ki. Gesch. .' 184-186 [ET. 2214-216].
89
AHAB
seem to get nearer to the facts of history than in chaps.
17-19, 21 ; at the same time we nmst rememljer that
even here we have to deal, not with extracts from the
royal annals, but with popular traditions which are
liable to exaggeration, es[x--cially at the hands of well-
meaning interiX)lators. ' The story of Ahab in his
relation to Elijah has lx;en considered elsewhere (see
Elijah, 1/:). We can hardly deny that the writer
exalts the prophet to the disadvantage of the king. Ahab
2. Ahab's
policy.
was not an irreligious man, but his interests
were mainly secular. He wished to see
Israel free and prosjjerous, and he did not
believe that the road to political salvation and physical
ease lay through the isolation of his [Kjople from all
foreign nations. The most pressing danger to Israel
seemed to him to lie in its being slowly but surely
Araniaised, which would involve the depression and per-
haps the ultimate extinction of its national peculiarities.
Both under Baashaand under Omri, districts of Israelitish
territory had been annexed to the kingdom of Damas-
cus, and it seemed to ,\hab to be his life's work to guide
him.self, not by the re(|uirements of Yahwe's prophets,
but by those of political prudence. Hence he not only
maintained a fiim hold on Moab, but also made himself
indispensable as an ally to the king of Judah, if he did
not even become, in a (|ualified sense, his suzerain (see
jKHOSiiAi'iiAT, i). Besides this, he formed a close
alliance with Ethbaal, king of Tyre (Jos. Artl. viii. 13 1),
whose daughter Jezebel (Baalizebel ?) he married. The
object of this alliance was doubtless the improvement of
Israel's commerce. The drawback of it was that it
required on -Ahab's part an official recognition of the
Tyrian BaaP (commonly known as Melkart), which
was the more offensive because the contrast between the
cultus even of the Canaanitish Baalim and that of the
God of Israel was becoming stronger and stronger, owing
to the prophetic reaction against the earlier fusion of wor-
ships. -Ahab himself had no thought of apostatising
from Yahwe, nor did he destroy the altars of Yahwe
and slay his prophets. Indeed, four hundred prophets
of Yahwe are said to have prophesied before him when
he set out on his fatal journey to Ramath Gilead. His
children, too, receive the significant names of Athaliah,
Ahaziah, and Jehoram.
We can understand Ahab's point of view. But for
its moral dangers, we might call it thoroughly justifi-
able. It was of urgent im[X)rtance to recover the
lost Israelitish territory and to secure the kingdom of
Israel against foreign invasion. If Israel were absorbed
by Damascus, what would become of the \\ 01 ship of
Yahwe? To this question E,lijah would have given the
answer which Amos (i/.t-. , 18) gave after him : ' Perish
Israel, rather than that the commandments of Yahwe
should be dishonoured.' Jezebel's judicial murder of
Naboth and -Ahab's tame acquiescence show ed El ijah what
might be expected from the continued combination of
two heterogeneous religions. It was for the nmrder of
Naboth that Elijah threatened king Ahab with death, ^
1 We must begin, however, with an analysis of the narratives.
Van Doorninck ( ///- /'. iSo:;. on. ^76-584) has m.ade it highly
probable that til .if Samaria and the battle
ofAphekin i K interpolations tending to
make thedeli\' ,,wre wonderful, in addition
to those alre.-iu\ jiumieu i.ui ..> .w-. (C// 285/), and Kue.
(Einl. 25, n. 10).
'^ Of H.aalath, the fem.ile counterpart of Baal, the Hebrew
tradition m.akes no mention. It is an interpolator who has
introduced into 1 K. IS 19 thewords 'and the prophets of the
Ashera, 400,' which are wanting in the MT of r'. 22, though
-supplied in <P"i 1(P'- omits 400 in r. 22] (cp WKS, A".S'(2(
189; We. Cll 281 ; Klo. Sa. Kff. 367; Ki. in Kau. /IS). Of
course, Paalath may have had her cultus by the side of P..ial,
but not in such a way as to strike Israelitish observers. Nor
could either Haalath or Astarte (Jezebel's father had been a
priest of Astarte, Jos. c. A p. 1 18) have been called ' the Asherah '
Dy a contemporary writer.
3 Note that i K. 21 20^-26 in which (i) the whole house of
Ahab is threatened, and (2) the punishment is connected with
Ahab's religious policy forms no part of the old narrative (see
Ki. in Kau. US).
90
AHAB
and it was probably for this, or for other unrecorded
moral offences of Ahab and the partizans of Baal, that
the uncourtly prophet Micaiah ' never prophesied good
concerning Ahab, but evil ' ( i K. 228).
To what precise period of Ahab's reign his encounters
with Elijah belong, we are not told. Nor is it at all
certain to which years the events recorded in i K. 20 are to
be referred. To the popular traditions further reference
is made elsewhere (see Israel, History ok, 29).
Suffice it to say here that they show us Ahab's better
side ; we can understand from them that to such a king
. much could be forgiven. Our remaining
Inscriptio^n. ^^'""' '"'" ^ '^^^"'''''^ ' '^"^ '7 ''""^fK
^ tions relative to episodes m the life of
Ahab. The earliest record comes from MoAB (g.v-).
King Mesha informs us in his famous inscription (/. 8)
that Moab had been made tributary to Israel by Omri,
and that this subjection had continued ' during Omri's
days and half of his son's days, forty years," after which
took place the great revolt of Moab.^ How this state-
ment is to be reconciled with that in 2 K. 1 1 84 need not
be here considered. It is, at any rate, clear that the loss of
the large Moabitish tribute, and of the contingent which
Moab would have to furnish to Israelitish armies, must
_. . have been felt by Ahab severely. The
^ , ' second mention of this king occurs in
neser . s ^j^^ Monolith Inscription of Sh.^lma-
Inscription. ^.^^^.^ jj ^^^ ., ^ j^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^
given of the allied kings of .Syria whose forces were
defeated by Shalmancbcr at the battle of Karkar (near
the river Orontes) in 854 k.c. occurs the name of
Ahabbu Sir'Iai, which, as most scholars are now agreed,
can only mean Ahab- of Israel* (or, as Hommel thinks,
of Jezreel). Two important questions arise out of this
__, record. (i) Did Ahab join Bir'idri
Ahab^t^^ (Benhadad I. ) of Damascus of his
^ , own accord, jealousies being neutral-
ised by dread of a common foe?
or was he a vassal of Bir'idri, bound to accept the
foreign policy of his suzerain and to support it with
(or at any rate through) his warriors on the field of
battle? The former alternative is adopted by Kittel'*
and M' Curdy ; the latter by Wellhausen and Winckler.
To discuss this here at length is impossible. The
remarks of Wellhausen will seem to most students very
cogent. ' If feelings of hostility e.\isted at all between
Ahab and Benhahad, then Ahab could not do otherwise
than congratulate himself that in the person of Shalma-
neser II. there had arisen against Benhadad an enemy
who would be able to keep him effectually in check.
That Shalmaneser might prove dangerous to himself
probably did not at that time occur to him ; but if it
had, he would still have chosen the remote in preference
to the immediately threatening evil. For it was the
political existence of Israel that was at stake in the
struggle with Damascus.'* Cp Ben-hadad, 2.
It does not follow, however, that we must give Well-
hausen's answer to the second question, which is (2) Are
RpI f '^"^ events related in i K. 20 22, with
Ht V^* the exception of the contest for Ramath
_ ^ J Gilead, to be placed before or after the
1 K 20^ battle of Karkar (854 B.C.)? It is, no
" doubt, highly plausible to suppose that
J For a somewhat different view, see Chronologv, 29, n. i.
2 Against Kamph.'s view, that Ahab is mentioned by a mis-
take of the Assyrian scribe instead of Joram, cp Schr. A'GF 370.
3 The form Sir'Iai may be illustrated by the vocalisation
^fOr-K Asarel, i Ch. 4 16, which Lag. {Uebers. 132) thinks may
represent the original pronunciation rather than 7l*Tip\
* Ki., however, after adopting this view of the course of events
in his narrative, turns round, and with some hesitation indicates
his preference for the view of Kamph. {Chronologic der fuhr.
Kdn. 80), held also formerly by We., according to which the As-
syrian scribe confounds Ahab with his son Jehoram {Hist. 2 273X
On the whole question cp Schr. A'^Ji"^ 356-371.
8 //isi.i^l 61. So the conservative critic KShler {Bii/. Gesch.
8379X On the other side, see M 'Curdy, Hist. Proph. Man.
AHAB
Ahab took advantage of the blow dealt to the power
of Damascus at Karkar to shake off the suzerainty of
Benhadad : so far, at least, it seems reasonable to
follow Wellhausen. But it is not likely that, consider-
ing the threatening attitude of Assyria, Benhadad
would have thought it prudent to fritter away his
strength on those ' furious attacks ' on Isr.ael to which
Wellhausen refers ; ^ it is not likely, in short, that the
siege of Samaria and the battle of Aphek are to
be placed after 854 n.c. It may be asked, if they
are not placed thus, where are we to find room for
them ? In i K. 20 23-34, Ahab is represented as gaining
the mastery over Benhadad, who has to make most
humiliating concessions to him. After such a success,
how can we account for Ahab's enforced presence at
Karkar as vassal of Benhadad? The answer is that
tradition selects its facts, and that the facts which
it selects it idealises as an artist would idealise them.
We may admit that Ahab, in his obstinate and patriotic
resistance to Damascus, was not unvisited by gleams
of good fortune ; but the fact, which tradition itself
records, that he was once actually besieged in his
capital, cannot have stood alone. Of Ahab's other
misfortunes in war tradition is silent ; but we can easily
imagine that the fxswer which was too strong for Omri
was at last able to force his son to send a large con-
tingent to the army which was to meet Shalmaneser at
Karkar.
That the siege of Samaria, at any rate, was before
854 n.C. is rendered probable b)' the criticism given
elsewhere (see Jkhgr.am, i, 2) of the narrative in
2 K. 7. In particular, the kings of the Hittites and of
Musri, who are referred to in f. 6, are just those with
whom Benhadad would have to deal before 854 B.C.,
while Shalmaneser was still occupied at a distance.
The above solution of the historical problem is that
of Winckler, which unites elements of Wellhausen's
view and of that of Kittel.
_ The last-named critic deserves credit for an ingenious explana-
tion ((JwcA. 2232) of the magnanimity attributed to Ahab in
I K. 20 31-34. It will be remembered that, according to Kittel,
Ahab sent forces to Karkar of his own accord, not as a vassal of
Benhadad. This enables him to suggest that the king of Israel
may have spared his rival's life in order to enlist him in a
coalition against Assyria, the idea of which (according to this
hypothesis) was Ahab's. It must be confessed, however, that
this view ascribes more foresight to Ahab than, according; to
Amos {q.v., 5), was possessed by the Israelites even at a later
day, and it was certainly unknown to the compiler of our
traditions, who makes no mention of the battle of Karkar.
We may regard it, then, as highly probable that the
battle of Karkar was fought at some time in the ' three (?)
years without war between Syria and Israel ' mentioned
in I K. 22 I.
The numbers of the force assigned by Shalmaneser
in his inscription to Ahab (2000 chariots, 10,000 men),
_ ., ,, as compared with those assigned to
7. AuAD s amiv. ,,.)>
'' other kings,- deserve attention. It
is possible, no doubt, as Winckler suggests, that
contingents from Judah and Moab were reckoned
among the warriors of Ahab. ^ This does not, however,
greatly diminish the significance of the numljers. After
all, the men of Judah were southern Israelites. Even
if Moabitish warriors were untrustworthy against a foe
such as Benhadad, there is no reason to doubt that the
men of Judah would sooner see Israel free from Benhadad
than swallowed up by its deadly foe. Ahab was
8 Hia death '^^'"tainly no contemptible anUigonist in
respect to the number of warriors he
could bring into the field. He himself, like David
(2S. I83), was 'worth ten thousand," and the dread
with which he inspired the Syrians is strikingly shown
in the account of his last campaign. We read that
1 IJC 50 ; and and 3rd ed. p. 71.
2 Hir'idri (Benhadad) h.ns 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen,
o,ooo men (.Schrader, COT 1 186).
3 That Jehoshaphat's military support of .\hab was not
altogether voluntary is surmised by We. and i>ositively .-usserted
by Wi. That it only began at the expedition to Ramath
Gilead is too hastily supposed by Ki. {Gesch. 2 232 (ET, 2 272]).
AHARAH
Benhadad charged the captains of his chariots to ' fight
neither with small nor great, save only with the king
of Israel," and that when they thought they had found
him they 'surrounded him (0) to tight against him'
(i K.2231/). It was not, however, by a device of
human craft that the great warrior was to die. A chance
shot from a bow pierced Ahab's armour. The grievous
wound prompted the wish to withdraw ; but for the
king in his disguise (t-. 30) withdrawal was impossible,
for the battle became hot and the warriors pressed on
from behind. The dying king stood the whole day
through, upright and armed as he was, in his chariot.
At sunset he died, and when the news spread ' The king
is dead' (2 K. 2237, ), the whole Israelitish army
melted away. In Micaiah's language, it became ' scat-
tered abroad, as sheep that had no shepherd ' (2 K. 22 17).
The dead body of the king was carried to Samaria and
buried there. ^
A brief reference is made in iK. 2239 to Ahab's
luxury, wliich confirms the reading of (5'' in Jer. 22 15 :
' Art thou a true king because thou vicst with Ahab ? '
(if Axaaji [A], ey axaf [BSg], *ce5pw [g "'e]. Ml'
iTxa). an indignant protest addressed by Jeremiah to
Jehoiachin (so Cornill in SHOT, who enters into tlie
te.\t-critical points more thoroughly than Giesebrecht).
2. (Axtd/3 [BNAg], perhaps the most correct form ;
see N.\MES, 65. In Jer. 2922 anw is clearly a scribe's
error ; Eastern MSS ha\e a Kr 3KnN. ) Son of Kolaiah
and fellow-exile of Jehoiachin (Jer. 2O21 /. ). He and
another exile (Zedekiah) fed the fanaticism of the Jews
with false hopes of a speedy return. They were
denounced by Jeremi.ih. who predicted for them a
violent death at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar. We
learn more about them from the writer (probably the
editor of the Book of Jeremiah) who inserted z-v. 21b-
3i(Z. It was in his time, perhaps, a matter of notoriety
that Ahab and Kolaiah had suffered the cruel punish-
ment of being burned alive (cp Saulmugina's fate, RP"^)
I77). Therefore, he makes Jeremiah refer to this, and
at the same time accuse the false prophets of having
led a profligate life, in accordance with the idea
which underlies Gen. 8824 ; Lev. 20 14 21 9. Cp Cornill,
Jeremiah {SHOT, Heb. text). T. K. c.
AHARAH {Vrm, [Ba]), or Ahrah (mnN [Ginsb.]),
third son of Benjamin ( 9 ii. /3), iCh. Sif. See
AlIIKAM.
AHABHEL (^n-^riN ; &A6A(})0Y RhxaB [BA],
APAihA AAeA4)OY PhxaB [L.] ; AUARnnEi.), a name
in an obscure part of the genealogy of JuDAii ( r Ch. 48t).
AHASAI, or rather as RV, Ahzai (*TnX ; in some
MSS and edd. ^THN ; a shortened form of Ahaziah ;
om. B.\, AZAXIOY [X='* ">-' '"f], ZAKXIOY [L]). a priest-
ly name in a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
5 \P\ IS [t]''). Neh. Ili3t=l Ch. 9i2t Jahzkkah
(J\-\\n\ leAeiOY [^l lezpiOY [A], ezepA [L]), which
is probably a corruption of Jahzeiah (see J.'\h.\ZIAH).
AHASBAI ('2pnt<), 2 S. 2834. See Ei.iphf.i.et, 2.
AHASUERUS (Cnil^rnN ; in Kt. of Esth. 10., the
edd., following the Palestinian reading, have BnUTlS).
I. An Ahasuerus is mentioned in MT in Ezra 46 and
Dan. 9 1 ; and in ILsther he is one of the leading dramatis
person (P.
In MT of Esther he is mentioned in 1 if.^f. i^*/* 192 i* 12*
1621: Z\(iff. \i\ f.2 "5* 817*; io: 1292*2030*101*3.2 The
readings of are : Ezra 4 6, ao-#7)pou [B], ao-crouJj. [.^1, airinrq.
t In 22 38, the words ' They w.ashed his chariot in the pool of
Samaria and the dogs licked his blood,' etc., are an interpolation
intended to explain how the dogs could lick Ahab's blood (which
must have been dried up in the long journey from Ramah) and
so fulfil the prediction of 21 19. But this was to happen at
Jezreel, not at Samaria (We. C// 360).
2 The asterisks (*) indicate that (Pal omits the proper name,
which is sometimes inserted by Kca hir. The double-daggers ({)
indicate that the editions following the Palestinian reading omit
the second v
AHASUERUS
[L] ; Dan. 9 i, avovyfpov [Thcod.l, but tfp(ov (87, i.e., the LXX ;
also Syr. mg.j ; in Esther aatrviipou la text of '-, on which see
below], but opTuftpfou [p text of l- and I'KA], .(,(. [W "d.
once], aTap(tp(tts (.A* once], aprapitpifj^ (A thrice].
In Ezra 4 6, where he is a king of I'ersia whose
reign fell between that of Koresh (Cyrus) and that
of Artahsasta (Artaxerxes Longimanus), he can hardly
be any other than the king called Khshaydrshd in the
Persian inscriptions (Persep. , Elvend, Van), c'IKTH in
an Aramaic inscription [481 B.C.] from Egypt (CIS
ii. Ii22), and A^p^rji by the Greeks (cp above, readings
of Dan. 9 1 ). This name, which to Semites presented
difficulties of pronunciation, was distorted likewise
by the Babylonians in a variety of ways. As I'rof.
Bezold has informed the writer of the present article,
we find on Babylonian tablets not only such fornis as
Khishiarshu, Akhshiyarslni, Akkasliiarshi, Akkisharshti,
but also Akhshiyaivarsliu, Akhshuwarshi, and Akhshi-
ivarsku, with the substitution of ^u for/, as in pmcnK.^
In other cases also the OT uses 'c'rK to represent the
Persian khsh, at the beginning of words. The inser-
tion of () lx;fore the final sh rendered the pronunciation
easier to the Hebrews ; but whether the vowel was
contained in the original form of the Hebrew texts we
cannot determine.^
The Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is a king of
Persia and Media (I318/. ), whose kingdom extends
from India to Ethiopia and consists of 127 satrapies
(1 I 89 930). He has his capital at Shushan in Elam.
He is fond of splendour and display, entertaining
his nobles and princes for 180 days, and afterwards
the people of his capital for seven ((5'"**- six) days
(I3-8). He keeps an extensive harem (2314/.), his
wives being chosen from among all the ' fair young
virgins' of the empire (22-412-14). As a ruler he
is arbitrary and unscrupulous (38-ii, and/flw/w). All
this agrees well enough with what is related of Xerxes
by classical authors, according to whom he was an
effeminate and extravagant, cruel and capricious despot
(see Esther, i). This is the prince, son of Darius
Hystaspis (Vishtaspa), whom the author of Esther
seems to have had in mind. There has been an attempt
to show, from the chronological data which he gives, that
he knew the history of Xerxes accurately. He tells us
that Esther was raised to the throne in the tenth month
of the seventh year of Ahasuerus (2 16 /. ), after having
spent twelve months in the ' house of the women '
(2 12). The command to assemble all the ' fair young
virgins' in his palace (2 1-4) must, therefore, have been
promulgated in his sixth year. But, in what is usually
reckoned as the sixth year of his reign viz. 480 B.C.
he was still in Greece. He could not, therefore, issue a
decree from Shushan till the following year. This can
be regarded as the sixth of his reign only by not counting
the year of his accession, and taking 484 as the first of
his reign. It is not impossible that the Persians may
have taken over from the Babylonians the practice (see
Chronology, 9) of reckoning the whole of the year,
in the course of which a change of ruler occurred, to
the late king ; but it is not known as a fact. In this
uncertainty we shall do well to suppose that the author
of F",sther has arbitrarily assumed his chronological data,
and that his occasional coincidences with historv- are
accidental merely.
2. Eor the Ahasuerus who is called the father of
Darius the Mede in Dan. 9i, see Darics, i.
3. Tobias heard (Tob. ]4i5t) of the destruction of
Nineveh by ' Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus' (so RV.
AV AssuERU.s : a<Tvi\po% [B], a<j<J\'. [N'^'^]. MOv. [A],
but ' Achiacharus, king of Media ' [N*], cp AcHlA-
CHARUS, 2). See ToBiT, Book of.
C. p. T.-W. H. K.
Cp Strassmaier, Actes du viiit congres dcs oricntalisits,
sect. s^m. 18 / for a form corresponding to v^ysTM (Ahsha-
warsh?) found on Babylonian contract tablets.
a See further Bevan, Daniel 149, where Ahas>-ar!> or
AhSayarJ is proposed as the original Jewish form-
94
AHAVA
AHAVA (XinX). a place (EzraSis; eyeiM [B],
eyei [AL]) or, as in the parallel i I^sd. 841 (TuEKAS;
om. H; Gf/Kif, accus. [A]; eeiA [L]) antl Kzra 82131
(eoye [H]. AOye [li'A ; in v. 31 sup. ras.]. Aa()YA6
[L])= I Ksd. 8 50 (' for the young men,' ron ytavianois
[HAL], .<., apparently cini for ki.ik in:) 861 (Theras,
GPa[RA], eiA[L]),ariver, near which Ezra assembled
his caravan before its departure for Jerusalem. The
site and the river remain unidentified. We know that
both were in the Euphrates basin, and that CasiI'HIA
{f.v.; cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 5 2 ; see He-Rys, sra, ad lor.)
was not very far off. The form Theras (see al)ove)
seems to have arisen from Kin(K) for kihk, which is the
rc.-iding of some MSS for nlik in I-".zra8.
AHAZ (THN, a shortened form of JKUOAIIAZ, the
Jauhazi of the inscriptions: see h'B 22o). 1. (&XAZ
, _ T. . rBNAorLl see also below, is 4
Ssh wa^"" -" Jos.'Axar.. AcnAz[Vg. lA
lusn war. ^^ ^^ ^^.^ ^ j^^^^ ^^ Jotham and
eleventh king of Judah (733?-72i, cp Chronology,
34 ^ and table in 37). He was young, perhaps
only twenty years of age ' (2 K. 10 2), when he ascended
the throne, and apJx^^rs already to have struck keen
observers such ns Isaiah bya want of manliness which was
quite consistent with tyranny (Is. 3 12a). The event
seems to have lx;en regarded by Rezin (or rather Rezon)
of Damascus as favourable to his plan for uniting Syria
and Palestine in a league against .Assyria. Pekah, who
had just become king of Israel by rclx?llion and
assassination, was only too glad to place himself at the
disposal of Rezin, who alone could defend him from
Tiglath-pilcser's wrath at the murder of an Assyrian
vassal. Rezin and Pekah, therefore, marched southward,
being safe for the moment from an Assyrian in\ asion
with the object of forcing Judah to join their league
(2K. 16 5; Is. 81-9; cp Isaiah, i. 11). They could
feel no confidence, however, in any promise wliich they
might e.xtort from Ahaz. For Ahaz, who, unlike Rezin,
had no personal motive for closing his eyes to the
truth, was conscious of the danger of provoking Assyria.
Let us, then, said Rezin and Pekah, place a creature
of our own, who can be trusted to serve us, on t^ie
throne of Judah (Is. 76). Tiieir nominee is called ten-
Tahfl (see Tahkki,, i ), whom the language ascrilx-'d to
the allies hardly allows us to identify with Rezin. ^ He
w.as probably one of Rezin's courtiers, and thus (what a
disgrace to Judah!) a mere Syrian governor with the
title of king. The attempt to lake Jerusalem was a
failure. The fortress proved too strong to be taken by
storm, and to have prolonged the siege, in view of the
provocation given to Assyria and the terrible prompt-
ness of Assyrian vengeance, would have been imprudent.
Ahaz, too, in his .alarm (which was fully shared by the
citizens).' had already made this vengeance doubly
certain hy sending an embassy to Tiglath-pileser with
the message, ' I am thy slave and thy .son : come up and
deliver me' (2K. I67 ; this verse should be read im-
mediately after v. 5).*
1 In 2 Ch. 28i some MSS of and Pesh. read 'twenty-
five' for 'twenly.' 'iliis is more natural, in view of the age
assigned to Hezckiah M. his accession. The ' five ' may, however,
have crept in from -'7 i 2'. i. (&"*'- reads ' twenty.'
2 Wi. W 7" Vntersuch. 73-75; cp, however, Israi:!., Hist, of,
832-
S See Is. 7 a 8 6. The latter passage is partly corrupt ; but
it_ is clear, at least, that the people of Judah are reproved for
distrusting Yahwc's power to save his people, anil 'desponding'
because of ' Rezin and hcn-kenialiah.' The ' waters of Shiloah '
are a symbol of V'ahwe (cp I's. 4t> 4 ; Is. 33 21). Sec Che.
' Isaiah ' (SHOT). The interpretation of (B, which paraphrases
"UK jrirp (.\V and RV, ungrammatically, ' rejoice in ') by
SovAeo^ai <x">' ^a<rtA(a, is certainly wrong, though supported
by .some eminent names (Gcs., Ew., Kue., St.), for it is opposed
to Is. 72812. Even were the supposition that there was a
large party in the capital favourable to Rezin and Ptkah more
plausible th.an it is, it would still be unwi.se to b.-i.se the sup-
position on a passage so strangely expressed and of such question-
able accuracy as Is. 85.
* If the statement of the compiler in 2 K. 10 3 that Ahaz
95
AHAZ
One man, Isaiah ben Anioz, had kept his head cool
amid this excitement. He assured Ahaz on the
_ - . , , authority of the God of prophecy that
*f aian S ^j^^ attempt of Rezin and Pekah would
Ixj al)orti\e and that Damascus and
Samaria themselves would almost immediately become
a prey to the Assyrian soldiery (Is. 7 4-9 168 1-4 17
i-ii). He bade Ahaz be wary and preserve his composure
(tspc'rii TOffn) to take no rash step, but quietly perform
his regal duties, trusting in Yahw6. When the
news came that .\haz had hurriedly offered himself as
a humble vassal to Assyria in return for protection
from Rezin, Isaiah changed his tone. He declared
that Judah itself, having despised the one means of
safety (faith in Yahw6 and olxjdience to his commands),
could not escape puni.shment at the hands of the
Assyrians. Under a variety of figures he described the
ha\oc which those dreaded warriors would produce in
Judah a description to which a much later writer has
added some touches of his own {vz'. 21-25 '< see SHOT).
Was .Ahaz right or wrong in seeking the protection
of Assyria ? Stade has remarked that ' he acted as any
_ ,, , ,. other king would have acted in his
3. Ahazspohcy. p^^iji,^,^,. ^^ the other hand,
RolKTtson Smith thought that ' the advice of Isaiah
displayed no less political sagacity than elevation of
faith.' ' If .\ha/ had not called in the aid of Tiglath-
pileser, his own interests v.ouid soon have compelled
the Assyrian t) strike at Damascus; and so, if the
Juda-an king had had faith to accept the prophet's
assurance that the immediate danger could not prove
fatal, he would have reajxjd all the advantages of the
Assyrian alliance without finding himself in the perilous
position of a vassal to the robtx.'r emjjiru. As yet the
schemes of Assyria hardly reached as far as Southern
Palestine." "* There is some force in this. The sending
of tribute to Assyria was justifiable only as a last
resource. To take such a step prematurely would
show a disregard of the interests of the poorer class,
which would suffer from Assyrian exactions severely.
It is doubtful, however, whether the plans of Assyria
were as narrowly limited as is supposed. Tiglath-pileser
did not, even after receiving the petition of Ahaz, attack
Damascus instantly. First of all he invaded Philistia and
Northern Arabia.
We shall have occasion to refer again to the important
chapter of Isaiah which descril)es the great eni i;nter
between the king and the prophet (see IsAlAH, i. Jj 2 (^).
Suffice it to say that we misimderstand Isaiah if
we connect his threat of captivity in chap. 7/. too closely
with the foreign policy of Ahaz. It was not the foreign
policy but the moral weakness of ,\haz and his nobles
which had in the first instaiice drawn forth this threat
from Isaiah (Is. 5 8-16). Nor can we venture to doubt
that, if .Ahaz had satisfied the moral standards of Isaiah,
this would have had some effect on the prophet's picture
of the future. ' \'isions ' and ' tidings ' of men of God
such as Isaiah are not merely political forecasts : they
are adjusted to the mural and mental state both of
him who speaks and of those who hear.
It is not to Isaiah or to a disciple of Isaiah, but to
the royal annalist, that we owe the notice that the
. - tribute of Ahaz was derived from
4. Consequences. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ p^,^^^ ^^^ ^^
the temple, and that .Ahaz did not sjiare even the sacred
furniture (2 K. 168 17).* It would be interesting to
know whether he sent the brazen oxen on which the
brazen 'sea' had hitherto rested (they were copies of
Babylonian sacretl objects, and properly symbolised
Marduk) to Tiglath-pileser, or whether he melted them
offered up his son (l- and Symm. say 'his sons,' with
2 Ch. 2S 3) is correct, we may perhaps assigii the fearful act to
this period.
1 CI 7 1 -^95.
WHS }'ro/>h.^ 26s ; cp Kittel, Hist. 1 346 (near foot).
On the text of z K. 1(5 17, which is corrupt, see St. ZA Tll^
6163.
96
AHAZIAH
down for himself. It is more important, however, to
notice that this time, apparently, the tribute for Assyria
was provided without any increase in the taxation.
Isaiah, we may suppose, would have approved of this.
Isaiah's forecasts were verified, not, indeed, to such
an extent as much modern speculation about the prophetic
books demands, but as far as his own generation re(|uired.
Danuiscus fell in 732 ; Samaria had a breathing time
till 722 ; and, according to Sennacherib, there was a
partial captivity of Judah in the next reign. It was after
the first of these events that Ahaz first came in contact
with an .Assyrian kitig. In 734 the name of Jauhazi of
Judah occurs among the names of the kings who had
paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser ; but we have no reason
to supiwse that he paid it in person. It was in 732,
after the fall of Damascus, that he paid homage in [person
to his suzerain. On this occasion he ' saw the altar that
was at Damascus' (2 K. 16 10), and, on aesthetic grounds,
liked it better than the bronze altar which had hitherto
been used at Jerusalem for burnt offerings. It was
probably an .Assyrian altar, for the Assyrians on
principle introduced their own cultus into conquered
cities. So .Ahaz sent a model of the altar to the chief
priest Uriah (cp Is. 82), who at once made an altar
upon the pattern, and transferred the old altar to a new
position. This was, doubtless, against the will of Isaiah,
who in his earliest extant prophecy so strongly denounces
the love of foreign fashions. Possibly at tlie same
time .Ahaz borrowed the sun-dial (if EV rightly para-
phrases the expression, ' the steps of .Ahaz' ; see, how-
ever, Dial). .N'or is it likely that .Ahaz paused here.^
A suggestive allusion to the addiction of .Ah;xz to foreign
worship is traceable in 2 K. 23i2; but there is a textual
difficultv in the passage (see Kamphausen's note in Kau.
HS).-
The reign of .Ahaz was inglorious, but on the w hole
peaceful. It was a severe blow to the connnerce of
Judah when Rezin, on the accession of .Ahaz, attacked
and captured l-'.lath (on the Arabian (nilf), and restored
it to its former possessors, the Edoniites ; but at the
close of .Ahaz's reign Isaiah was able to contrast the
peace enjoyed by ' the poor of Yahwe's peo|)le ' with
the chastisement inflicted by Assvria on the restless
Philistines.
Othe
;aclinj;s of <E5 are : a-xa.^ [B often, A'? vcl I
A once, Qa once], -xaa^ [.A twice], axa/3 [.\, 2 Ch. IS). In Jer.
2215 tpHKQ '.Ahaz' takes the place of the true reading '.Ahab'
of <pA(see .Ahau, i [eiKl]).
2. (xaaf [A] ; a^ai [L]), a descendant of .Saul ; i Ch. 835/
( [li]) = 9 4i (om. KV .MT ba ; but correctly inserted by t-
Pesh.), i>42 (axai [1?]). See Benja.min, 9 ii. p.
T. K. C. W. E. .X.
AHAZIAH (-in^.TriX, iTTHN, ' he whom Yahw6 sup-
ports '; 0X02[ejl<\C [B.AL] ; for other readings see
end of no. 2). i. Son of .Ahab and Jezebel,
and king of Israel (853-851 ? B.C. Cp Chkonoi.ogy,
28 and table in 37). A poor successor to
the heroic Ahab. Once more Israel must have been
de|x;ndent on Damascus, while Moab (see .Ahab, 2)
continued to enjoy its recovered independence. The
single political action reported of him is his offer to
jKiiosiiAi'H.VT (q.v., i) to join in a trading ex-
pedition to Ophir (i K.2250). The close of his life
is described in a prophetic legend of very late origin
(see Elijah, 3). He fell through the lattice of an
up[x;r room in his palace in Samaria, and though he
lingered on a sick-bed for some time, did not recover.
The story (2 K. 1 2-17) is a painful one, and was used by
Jesus to point the contrast between the unchastened
zeal of his disciples and the true evangelical spirit ( Lk. 9
54-56). The one probably historical element is the
consultation by .Ahaziah of the oracle of Baal-zebub of
Ekron. To most of .Ahaziah's contemporaries his
1 Schr. COT\ 249 25 s ; Wi. GBA 234.
2 For CInS read CIn'^ ; cp the Kre. D*0nK1 for D'OIIKV
3 The heading of Is. 1428-32 is probably correct. See Che.
Inir. Is. 80/ ; but cp Duhm ad loc.
7 97
AHIEZER
action would have seemed tiuite natural ' (cp 2 K. 5
87./ )
2. Son of Jehoram (or Jorani) and Ahab's daughter
Athaliah, king of Judah (843-842? u.c". Cp Chkono-
LCKiV, 28 and table in <^ 37). He was only twenty-
two when he ascended the throne,'- and only one event
in his brief reign has lx.'en recorded the part which
he took with Jehoram king of Israel in a campaign
against Hazael of Damascus. The kings of Israel
and Judah laid siege to Ramah in Gilead (the
place before which Ahab lost his life in battle)
which was still held by the Arama;ans. Jehoram
withdrew wounded. Ahaziah also went to his home,
but afterwards visited his sick kinsman at Jezrc-el.
During this visit jKiiu {i^.v.) revolted, and the two
kings (ec|ually obnoxious to Jehu) went forth in their
chariots to meet him. Ahaziah saw his uncle Jehoram
pierced by an arrow, and took to flight. As he fled
in the direction of Hi;rii-iiA<;(;A.\ (q.v.; 2 K.927, 0)
Jehu dashed after him with the cry, 'Him too.' .At
the ascent of (iiir by Ibleain, on the road to Jerusalem,
he too was struck by an arrow. Thereupon he turned
his horse northwest, and reached Megiddo, but died
there of his wound. He was buried in the royal
cemetery at Jerusalem. The conflicting account in
2Ch. "229, from whatever late source derived, is of
no historical value
(Otlier rc-idings 2K. S29!t2i oxo^et [B] ; 2 K. 14 13 nuavai
[B], aa^.a [A], L om. ; i Ch. 3 11 ofe.a [B], o^.at [A].) In 2Ch.
21 17 he is called Jchuahaz, and in 22 6 Azariah. See
jEHt)AHAZ, 3. W. K. A.
AHBAN (i3nS, 45, meaning obscure, for form
cp Eshban, 'brother of an intelligent one' [HUH], or
less improbably ' brother has giv<'n heed,' so (iray, HI'N
83, n. 2, who suggests the vocalisation |5nv>). a Jerah-
meelite family name, i Ch. 229t (ax&Bar [1^]. 02A [A],
NAAaB [I>. cp IT'. 2830], AHOHH.l.X).
AHER (inX; ^ep [B], aor [A], om. [L Pesh.] ;
.iiiHR), a very doubtful Benjamite name (iCh. 7i2t).
See HusHi.M, 2 ; I)A.\, 9 ; Benjami.n, 9 ii. a.
Be. (/ he.') explains the name as meaning 'the other one,'
and conjectures it to be a euphemism for Dan, the express
niention of the name of this tribe seeming in more than one
instance to h.-ive l)een dcliberatLly avoided. (See however Dan,
9.) On the other hand (pUAi. rc.ids ' his son ' for ' the sons of
(133 f<Jr 'j^X and the name is entirely wanting in Ipt- and Posh.,
the former (and perhaps originally also the latter) connecting
Hnshim (te<r(rou5, /;/) with what goes before (see Iri). See
also .\HAKAH.
AHI (^n^, 52, probably abbrev. from Ahijah).
1. In genealogy of Gaii, iCh. .Tist (Vg. wrongly trans-
lates, fratres qtioquc; IVsh. and (P'oni. ; P"A CDmhines with
the preceding name l!uz^|^a/3]ouxa/ii IB], axiOovi) |A1).
2. In genealogy of Ashkk( 4 n.), I Ch. V ;4t. (P'^A, attach-
ing part of the following name (see KomjAH), produces
Axt(ovpa) [.\], or Ax<(outa) [B] ; but i- has Tjfty.
AHI, NAMES WITH. See Am, Namks with.
AHIAH, frequently in AV and once (Neh. 10 26 [25])
inconsistently in RV. See .Amj All, 1/ 4.
AHIAM (DX'nK, 65, for which we should i^obably
point DX'riN, ' mother's brother ' [cp .Ahab], analogous
to the Sab. pr.n. innxnfiX, ' sister of his mother ' ; cp
fIPN6.\, n. 2), one of I )avid's heroes, 2 S. 23 ^3 (amnan
[B.A], om. [L])=iCh. Il35t (AXeiM [BNJ, AXl&M
[AL]). SeeDAVin, 11,2 i. ^
AHIAN (}*nN. 65, 'relative, cousin,' cp M^l :
l&AIM [B], AeiN [A]. &ei/v\ [E]; ^///v). a Mannssiie
name ( i Ch. 7 i9t). See SllKMiDA.
AHIEZER (1Tl"nN, 44, ' the [divine] brother is
help,' cp .Abiezer, P21iezer ; &x'2ep [BAFE]).
1. b. .Ammish-addai, chief of the Danites, temp. Moses (P)
(Nu. I12 2 25x'- [fl: "6671 1025)t.
2. One of David's archers (i Ch. 12 3!). See Davih, 811a iii.
1 S^mmtl, AT Rel.-gesch. 157.
a .So 2 K. S26. In 2 Ch. 22 2 his age is given as forty-two
(0BA 20) ; but this is clearly miswrittcn for twenty-two (so 9^ ;
cp 21 5 20).
98
AHIHUD
AHIHUD (lirrnX, 'the [divine] brother is praise.'
cp Amiiui) ; AyitoB [A], -lop [HKL]. auihvd). an
Asherite selected to assist Joshua and Eleazer in the
division of Canaan (Nu. 342? P+).
AHIHUD (irrnjj: ; i&xeiXCoA [B]. -xixaA [A], OYA
[L] ; .niiUD), in genealogy of BENJAMIN ( 9 ii. /3),
iCh. 87t. Cp UzzA. 1.
AHIJAH (nnj<. 'Yahw^ is brother" \i.e., protector];
cp Abijah and the Babylonian name A-hi-ia-a ; Jastrow,
JUL, 1894. p. 105 : AxWiA [BAL]).
1. b. Ahilub, priest at Shiloh, bore the ephod, temp. Saul ;
iS. 143 (Jos. "Exio?, 'Axios, AV Ahiah). In 4 Esd. 1 2t he
appears as AcniAs (.4cA/Vu [ed. Bensly]) between Ahitub and
Amariah of Ezra 7 -i/., or i Ch. 67.
2. In genealogy of Benjamin ( o ii. 0), one of those who were
'carried captive (1 Ch.8 7 ; AV .\hiah), whose name should
perhaps be read in v. 4 for Ahoah (ninK ; auio. [L], Ahoc ; but
oxta [B], jLucf ; .^ oni.); see further Ahiihite.
3. The Pelonite ; a corruption of Ahithophel the Gilonitc, the
name of his son (one of David's heroes) being omitted (iCh.
11 36; see E1.IAM, 1 ; Ahithoi'HEl).
4. b. Shi>ha (Shavsha), .and brother of Ki.ihoreph (^.v.);
one of Solomon's secretaries of state (i K. 4 3 ; .W Ahiah). See
Ben-hesei>, 3.
5. A Levite, who owes his existence to a demonstrable text-
corruption (i Ch. -'620; read with B.\L, a5cA<^o't ovtwi', 'and
the Levites their brethren").
6. .\ccording to AV (which with (8'- prefixes 'and "), the fifth
son of Jerahmeel (q.v., i), i Ch. 2 25. But * gives cor-
rectly a5eA(^6 a'v-tav, i.e., H'nN (so Ki.). We. iDe Gent. 15)
prefers VriK, ' his brothers." (L ax"^.)
7. .An Issach.-irite, father of King B.a.-isha (i K. 15 27 33, etc.).
8. Signatory to the covenant; Neb. 10 26 [25] (apo [B] ; aio
[{Tid. A], a.htia.% [L] ; F.CHAI.X). See EZKA, i. 7.
9. A Shilonite ; the prophet who foretold to Jero-
boam {q.v., i) the disruption of Solomon"s kingdom
(iK. II29, etc.; ax[e]'OS [B.\ twice]). In 2Ch. IO15
(xta A* but not in ], i K. 12 15), and in the storj' of his
meeting with Jeroboam's wife (i K. 144i'7-i8), the name
appears in the form r-rnx (Ahiyyahu), on which see
Abijah (beginning).
AHIKAM (Di^'nX, 44. ' the [divine] brother riseth
up,' cp .\clonikam and Phoen. Dp3X ; ax[c]ikam
[BSAQL]; xeiK&M [N* once]: Jos. axikamoc, IK..
AHICA.m), like his father Sh.\phan [q.v.) a courtier of
Josiah. He appears to have belonged to the party
favourable to religious reforms. Hence he was included
in the royal deputation to Huldah (2 K. 221214,=
aCh. 34 20 ; cp Hui.d.\h), and was foremost in the defence
of Jeremiah on a critical occasion (Jer. 2624). He was
the father of Gedaliah [q.v., i] (2 K. 2522 Jer. 39 14
4O5).
AHILUD (n-l'^'n^S. 45)- 1- Father of Jehoshaphat.
Davids 'recorder' or vizier (2S. 816; axfa [B],
ax'Mf^fX [A], ax'^aaitt [L], Jos. 'Ax'Xoj ; 2O24,
ax[]Xoi'^ [BA], axi^aXaa [L] ; i K. 43, axetXiaS [BX],
ox'Aia [A]; ax^^aXa/x [L] ; iCh. I815, oxeia [BS],
ax'Xoi5 [.AL]). The name does not mean 'child's
brother " (BDB with a ?), nor is it connected with the Ar.
tribal name Laudhan (Hommel? see Exp. Times 8
283 ['97])- It is difficult not to suggest that niS-nK =
nynK = ~':{a]"nK = -^himelech (cp above 2S. 816 [.\], and
below [2], iK. 4i2 [B]). For his vizier David would
naturally choose some one' from a family well known to
him. (Dne son of .^himelech (.Abiathar) was a priest of
David ; another might well have been his vizier. See
Jehoshaphat, 2 ; Ahimelech, i.
2. Father of Baana, one of Solomon's prefects or
governors of departments, i K. 4 12 (axf'/MiX [B]. fkovh
[A], axta^S [L]). The governor of N'aphtali {v. 15) is
called Ahimaaz no doubt the son of Zadok who bore
this name. Probably therefore this Ahilud is the same
as no. I. Solomon provided well for the families of his
father's friends Zadok, Ahimelech, Hushai, and Nathan
(cp Ahihaaz, I, 2; Baana, 2; Azariah, 6).
T. K. c.
99
AHINOAM
AHIMAAZ ()*yp*nK, 45, meaning uncertain, cp
Maa/. ; AxlejiMAAC [BAL]).
1. b. Zadok; 2 S. 1627 (ax/"as [B]), 36 (axiM*'''-
<ruios[.\*; (r2'*ras. A'*'''-]); 17i72o(oxf'Mas[B]), 18 19-29,
and, according to the Chronicler, eleventh in descent
from Aaron in the line of Eleazar, i Ch. 68/ , and 53
(axfKraytia [B]). Along with his father and brother he
remained faithful to David during the revolt of .Absalom,
and brought important information from Jerusalem to
the king as to the enemy's plans ; he was also the first
courier to reach the king after the battle in which Absalom
was killed. Most probably identical with
2. One of Solomon's prefects (see Government, 18.
end), governor of Naphtali ; 1 K. 4 15. Cp Ahuxd, 2.
3. Father of Ahinoam (i), Saul's wife; iS. Hsof
(ax[e]u'aas [B]).
AHIMAN (p^riN,' 45 ; achiman, ahimas). ' Ahi,'
as usual, is a divine title, and 'man' may be the
name of a dt-ity (MCni ; see FORTUNE).
I. One of the sons of the ANAK(y. J/.; cpalso Sheshai,
Talmai) ; Nu. 1322 (ax[]iM'' [BFL], ax'^a/u [.A]);
Josh. 15 14 (ax[e>Ma [B.\L]) ; Judg. 1 10 (axfaaK [B],
axW'Ma" [B-'"^-^'"*-'- L], tov axifJ^aan [A]).
2. One of the 'porters for the camps of the Levites' ; iCh. 9i7
(ai^a^ [H], -i'l.\i.] ; A/iiinam, Cod. Am. A/timan [i| Neh.ll 19
om. everj-where]) in list of those with foreign wives(EzRA, L 5,
end)=Ezra IO24 (where he is called Uki)=i Esd.925 (EV
oni.). The name in i Ch. is probably corrupt. See Uri, 3.
AHIMELECH (^^p"^^<l, ' the [divine] king is brother, "
see AiiiMKi.KCH and cp Phoen. "jTOn, Ass. Af^imilki ;
a.y^i\fxt\ix [B.AL]).
1. Father of Abiathar, erroneously described in 2 S.
817 as son of Abiathar, also in four places in i Ch. , in
the first of which, moreover, the name in MT is
Abimi;i.kcii ; see Abiathar (last paragraph). For a
conjecture that Jehoshaphat, David"s vizier, and Baana,
Solomon's prefect, were also sons of this Ahimelech, see
Ahu.ui), I and 2.
A reads ajii^cAex in i S. 21 \a 229 and a/3ifi. in i S 21 1/^2 ;
B h.-is ajSeifieAcx invariably except in i S. 21 \a, and Ps. 52
title,'- a/3i^. ; and in 1 S. 30 7 and the five corrupt passages,
oxfiM- '. ^'g- Achiiuelech, but in i Ch., though not in 2S. S17,
Ahim. The Vg. and (5U read Ahimelech also in Ps. 34, title ;
.see .\cHisH (end).
2. .\ Hittite companion of David in the time of his outlawry,
I S. 2.>6t (ax[e]t,xeAex [B^L], ap[.]i^. [BA]).
AHIMOTH (niD^riN, 45, AAeiMcoe [B], oxiM-
[A], A/VMCO0 [I-]), fi name in the genealog)- of Kohath
(i Ch. 625 [10]). If the reading of MT and Versions is
correct, -7noth should \y& a divine name or title. Barton
compares the cosmogonic Mwt in Philo of Byblus ; but
this is too doubtful (see Creation, 7), and though
mo, 'death," in Ps. 49i4 [15] and elsewhere is personi-
fied, a name like ' Death is (our) brother " or ' protector,'
is improbable. Possibly Ahimoth should be Ahimahath
(see -. 35 [20], cp 2 Ch. 29 12) ; see Mahath, 1.
AHINADAB (2"7ynNI, 44; 'the [divine] brother
apportions," but cp further Abinadab ; &XINA<^B
[B], ainaAaB [A], axinaA&B [L]; AHIS-ADAB), Solo-
mon's prefect over the district of Mahanaim beyond
Jordan (i K. 4i4t). See Government, 18 (end).
AHINOAM (DymNt, 45, ' the [divine] brother is
plea-santness,' Ax[e]iNA&M[B.AL]; Jos. axina; achi-
NOA^t). I. Daughter of .Ahimaaz and wife of Saul,
1 Sam. 14 sot [a.-)^f\.vooy. [B.A]).
2. Of Jezreel in Judah (see Abigail, 2) whom David
married during his outlawry. Like Abigail, she was
carried off by the Amalckites when they plundered Ziklag.
At Hebron she bore to David his eldest son, Amnon,
I S. '2543 (axetvaai' [B]) ; 273; SOs (axeivooM [B],
1 A better pointing would be fDTIK ; the present vocalisa-
tion, jO'nR, is based on a popular etymology; JD'nK, frater
meus quis? (Jer. in OS'^) \hi\, etc.).
- Other readings here, o^cifi. []; Achimehch; Pesh. quite
different.
AHIO
ox"'aaM [A. o/x. sup. ras. A']), cp v. i8 ; a Sam. 2a
{ax^foofi [BA]). 3 J (ax""/* [H]) ; r Ch. Sif.
AHIO (VnX, 24, 43, possibly, if MT is correct,
'brother of Yahwe,' or ' Yah\v6 is brother.' The
analogy of other names ending in seems against this
view ; Jastrow, //i/., 1894, p. loi).
1. 1). .\binailab, brother of I' zzAri (y.7'., i), aS. 63/; || i Ch. 18 7
has 'his brethren," and We. reads VriK, 'his brother'; see Dr.
(in each case, however, bal has oi o3A^t avroO, i.e., VnK,
in 2 S.).
a. In genealogy of Bknjamin (89 ii. /3), one of the sotis of
Ueriah, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath, i Ch. S i4(arA-
^t aiiTou, ' his brother ' [B], oi aiAc/>ot aii., ' his brethren " [A], oi
o. airrmv, ' their brethren ' [L] ; Be. and Kau. vnK ; We. VnK
[DeCent. f. so]; Ki. OH'nK)- , ^. ,
3. In genealogy of Benjamin (8 9 u. P), son of Jehiel, the
' father 'of (".ibeon ; i Ch. 8 31 aitK^o^ auToO [B], -<;>ol av. [A], oi
i5. av. [I.l) = i)37t ("A om. auroO).
AHIRA [Vrrn^:, AxCelipe [BAFL]; -^^ :
AHIK.4). A Naphtalite family-name reported in P
(Nu. 1 15 229 77883 1027!). The old interpretation ' my
brother is evil ' must be abandoned. Either y is mis-
written for n (see the Palmyrene characters), in which
case we get the good Heb. name Ahiram,' or we have
here a half-Kgyptian name meaning ' Ra' (or Re' i.e.,
the Egj'ptian sun-god) is brother or protector' (so C!he.
/m. 2144). The latter view is quite possible (cp the
Egv'ptian name Pet-baal). The Canaanites, who were
strong in the territory of Naphtali, were very receptive
of foreign religious influences.^ Cp AsHUR, Hi"K,
Haknepiikr. The reading of Pesh. (uniformly Ahida')
is no doubt either merely a natural variant, or a copyist's
substitution of a more normal for a rarer form ; cp
Amioa. t. k. c.
AHIRAM (D"^*nN, 44, cp Jehoram ; AxCel'PAN
[AL]. lAX. [B],' AXiAN [F]; aiuram). i. In the
gcnealogj' of Benjamin ( 9 i. ); Nu. 2638 (where
we have also the gentilic Ahiramite ; 'STnt* ; axf'pa"
[1.], 10. . . vei [B], axipai [.\], -lavei [F]) = Gen. 4621,
where ' .Xhiram, .Shei)hupham ' ought no doubt to
be read for ' Khi and Rosh, Muppim ' (cEiErCTHN for
C*rcrN-ivnN), cp Rosii. In the similar list in i Ch. 8
we find in ?. i .Aiiarah [i/.t.] (mnx), and in that in
iCh. 76^ in I'. 12, Aher y.v.](^nK), cp Hushim, 2 ;
Dan, 9.
2. Perhaps we should read Ahiram also for Ahir.\
(17. f.) in Xu. I5, etc.
AHISAMACH ("^^p^^^{, ' the [divine] brother sus-
tains ' ; axiC(\mak[B], -max [AFL]; Jos. ic&maxoc,
IC&XA'WOC). aDanite; E.x. 316 (axiCAMAX C^]) 3534
3823 [P]. See Dan, 9 n.
AHISHAHAR (in;"'nN, 35, 44, 'the [divine]
brother is dawning light,' cp Abner, Shehariah ; d,\e\-
CA^^AP [1^]. AXICAAP [A], ACCAeip [L]). in genealogy
of Bkniamin ( 9 ii. a), 1 Ch. 7 lof- See Jeuiael, 1.
AHISHAB (">V"'nX, 44), Solomon's comptroller
of the palace (iK. 46t). The name, however, is
suspicious.
ipB gives the double rendering, oxi V o'lKovofiof, and eAiax
o n'tK., and perhaps even a third rendering f\iap uib cra<f> iirX
n't'i Trarpio? ; eKiax should be ayiTjA, which (P'- has, and may
In: the true (S re.ading. But MT (a axio-op) has yet to be
accounted for. For 1C"nj1_ we should probably read "ij? VriN.
Zabud, who has just been mentioned, is descriljed as not merely
a priest but ' the officer (placed) over the palace ' (so Klc). See
Zabud, I. T. K. c.
AHITHOPHEL (^Sh^HJ^, 45, meaning uncertain ;
Ax[eliTO(})e\ [B.VL], -Aoc, Jos.), a Gilonite (see
Giloh), a counsellor of David nmch esteemed for his
1 Aveip* in 3 K. 2 46 A [B] answers to Adoniram (cp i K. 4 6)
of MT.
2 On names of foreign deities in Israelite names, see under
Elidad, and Names, gg 4a, 81, 83.
lOI
AHLAB
unerring in.sight (aS. 15i2 16a3). His son Eliam
{^v., i) was, like Uriah, a member of David's body-
guard (2 S. 2334 ; cp David, ii a i), and since H.ith-
sheba, the wife of Uriah, is described as the daughter
of Eliam (2S. II3), it has been conjectured that Ahi-
thophel was her grandfather, and that indignation at
Davids conduct to Bathsheba led Ahithophel to cast in
his lot with Absalom's rebellion. This, however, is a
mere possibility, and ambition would Ix; a sufficient
motive for Ahithophel's tri-ason to David, just as the
slight involved in .Absalom's preference of Hushai's
counsel to his own was certainly one chief cause of his
final withdrawal from .Absalom. At first, indeed, he
had full possession of the ear of the pretender. It
was by his advice that .Absalom took public possession
of his father's concubines, and so pledged himself to
a claim to the throne, from which there was no retreat
(2 S. 1620^). Ahithophel was also eager in his own
person to take another bold and decisive ste[). He
wished to pursue David with 12,000 men and cut the
old king down in the first confusion and entanglement
of his flight towards the Jordan (2 S. 17 1-4). This
plan was defeated by Hushai, whereupon Ahithophel,
seeing that all hope was gone, went to Giloh and
strangled himself.
In iCh. II36 'Ahithophel the Gilonite' has been corrupted
into 'Ahijah the Pelonitc," 'i^S:^ n^r.H for 'j'^i.T "?En'nK ; cp
Klo. Sam., ad he. (axlejta [B.AKL]), and see Giloh, end.
W. E. A.
AHITOB (AXeiTCoB [B], etc. ), i Esd. 82 RV, 4 Esd.
lit RV. See below, Ahitub, 2.
AHITUB (n-in^nX or n-"mnN [i S. 143 2292], 45 ;
cp Ahi-labu KB 5, no. 11 14, aXleJitooB [B.AL]).
I. .A member of the family in which the priest-
hood, first at Shiloh, then at Nob, appears for some
generations to have been hereditary. He was grandson
of Eli, son of Phinehas, and elder brother of Ichabod
(iS. 143; cp4i9-2i). His son, .Ahijah, is mentioned as
priest in iS. I43; another son, Ahimelech, api>ears
as priest in i .S. 229 n 12 20. It is unnecessary with
Thenius and Bertheau to identify Ahimelech with
Ahijah ; but that .Ahitub, the father of Ahimelech, is
identical with .Ahitub, the father of Ahijah, is clear from
iK. 227, which implies that Abiathar, the son of
Ahimelech (iS. 222o), was of the house of Eli.
Nothing further is directly told of Ahitub ; but, if
Wellhausen's suggestion that the destruction of .^hiloh
(Jer. 7i2) took place after the battle of Aphek (i.S. 4)
be accepted, the transference of the priestly centre
from Shiloh to Nob (IS. 229-11), will have taken place;
under him.
The description of Ahitub as father of Zadok (2 S. S 17 = i Ch.
18 16, iCh. 6 8 [634] 53 [38]) is due to an intentional early cor-
ruption of the text in S.imuel, which originally r.in ' .Abiathar,
the son of .Xhimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Z.-idok were priests '
(for the argiunent see We. TUS 176 /).
2 and 3. Father of a (later) Zadok, mentioned in 1 Ch. 6 i\/.
[537/1, and in pedigree of Ezra (see Ezra, i. 1) Ezra72 =
I Esd.S2 = 2Esd. 1 I (in the last two passages AV Achitob,
R\' .AHnciii); and a priest, father of Meraioth and grandfather
of Z.adok, in tbe list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ezra, ii. 5 {b\,
15 [r] a), iCh. 9ii = Neh. 11 11 (aira>/3<ux [l''i, ajro^toic [N], aTw/f
[Al). These references, however, are probably due to inten-
tion.al or accidental amplification of the original genealogj-, .ind
do not refer to any actual person. Kyle, app.irently takes
another view ; see his notes on EzraT 1-5, and Neh. 11 11.
4. Ancestor of Judith; Judith 8 if RV, AV following 0a <ueifla
AciTHo, Ac/titoh ; so also It., Syr. ; om. B. g. b. g.
AHLAB (n'pnX, .^., 'fat.' 'fruitful' ; Aa\a<J>[BAL],
'. AaAA(}> [Clermont Ganne.au points out the place-
name M.ahaleb, N. of Tyre (yV*^'. Crit. 1897, p. 503)]),
a Canaanite town claimed by Asher (Judg. I31), and
referred to probably in Josh. 19 29, at the end of which
verse there appears to have been originally a list of
names including (by a correction of the te.xt) Ahlab and
Achzib.' See Helbah.
1 Josh. 1929 ends 'bus, na'nK VniTD nS'n, which AV renders
' at the sea from the coast to Achzib," and RV ' at the sea by the
AHLAI
Many(r.c-., Neubauer, Grove, Fursl) identify either Ahlab or
Hdbah with the Gu5 Hnmb (aSn ri3. 'fat clods') of the
Talmuds the Giscala of Josephus. But this place {el Jish),
which is mentioned with Meron (AfeifUn), and Biri (h'e/r
Blr'im), must have lain on Naphtalite ground. The statement
inTalm. Mcnachoth 85 b, that tlush Halab belonged to Asher is
a mere gue>s, suggested by the blessing of Asher in Dt. 3824.
Fur a sounder view see Hklbah.
AHLAI C^riX, ace. to Olsh. IHeb. Gr. (>\6\ = uti,uim.
Del., Prol. 210, compares Bab. 'v\X^x].-'n^m^ Ahulalpia,
O that I at last. ' More probably the name is a cor-
ruption of ?X*nX, or the like).
1. Son, or (.-in inference from -.'. 34 which comes from a later
hand) daughter of Sheshan b. Isha, a Jerahmeelite ; i Ch. 2 31
(axai (H), aa&ai [A], ouAaei [L]). See Jehahmkkl, I.
2. Father (or moilier?) of Zauad (t^.Z'.); 1 Ch. n4it (oX""*
(H). axea [K]. oAi |.\], <ra^aaAi [L], i.e., a combination of part
of ^afXfxa or ^a/maia with aoAi). T. K. C.
AHOAHlHinX). iCh. 84t. See Ahij.vh, 2, Ben-
J,\.MIN, 9 ii- i3.
AHOHITE, THE ("nnxn, i.e., a man of the family
of Ahoah or AuijAii? (^.v., 2). The designation (i)
of Zalmon (2S. 232St, awfiTtji [B], eXco. [A], a\-axt
[L]; Jfcs.d joJ ^joj) = Ii.Ai [see Zalmon, 2] (i Ch.
II29: avax^f(L [Is*], ax- I BN'], final x tieing con-
founded with v ; ax^^p [A* sup. las. seq. ras.], aKaOi
[LI; t,.sCU3 ^>).
Also (2) of Dodai, or of Elcazar b. Dodai (as in
I Ch. 27 and in 2 S. and i Ch. 11 respectively ; see
Dodai, Eleazar, 3), one of David's heroes (see
Ei.EAZAR, 3) in the list iCh. 274 (f^'XwX [^J- "<-^^'
[A], axcoxt [L]) = iCh.lli2 (apx^^"" [H S'X- W-
ax^X' [A^. i''6s Aw5at irarpad^Xcpov avrov [!-]) =
2S. 239 (that is, if with AV we treat -nnx-p as =
nnxn of the parallel passages, and do not [with Marq.
Fu/uf. 16/] correct the whole expression everywhere
into 'cnVn na ' the Bethlehemite ' [cp v. 24], the corrup-
tion in the Heb. text of Sam. being accounted for by the
half-effacement of the letters, which the scribe lead in
the false light of i: 28). evidently omits, since the
forms aovati, [B], dovSei [B*'^''^-L], awaei [A] must be
corruptions for ^-n, Dod(a)i.
AHOLAH, RV correctly Ohdlah (H^HX ; ooAa [B
indecl. and decl., and, except f. 44, Q: but B, not B
-KK. V- 4]. oAAa [A and in v. 44 g]). a symbolical
name equivalent to Oholibah (see Aholibah), given
by Ezekiel to Samaria (284/. 644!).
AHOLIAB, R\^ correctly Ohdliab (aS'-briX ; cAiaB
[B.M'L]), the associate of Bezai.ekl {i/.v.) in the work
of the tabernacle in P (Ex. 316 3.") :?4 36 1 2 38 23 [(5
372it]). See Da.n. 8 n., and cp Hiram, 2.
AHOLIBAH, RV correctly OhOlibah (na^^HN, i.e.,
she in whom are tents ' alluding to the worship at
the high places; cp Ezek. I618; ogXiBa [BQr], o\.
[A, V. 22 Q, c>. 36 B]), a symbolical name, equivalent to
Oholah (see Aikjlah), given by Ezekiel to Jerusalem
(234 112236 44t )
AHOLIBAMAH, RV correctly OhOUbamah
(npivHX, 61, /.<., 'tent of the high place," cp Phoen.
l^obnX C/S 1, no. 50, and see Hiram, 2.
1. Wife of Esau {oXi^efia [ADE] ; eXt/Sa^o [L] ;
aXt.iafxrjv [}os. ; cod. Laur. oX.]); Gen. 862 (oXi^aifia
[E]), 514 (eXt^ejua [A], 18 (eXi/3f/ua [A once], oXi^f/j-fxa
and (Xi^afia [D]), 25t (oXt^a [E], eXi^efmO [L ; before
6vya.Tr)p]). See Bashe.math, i ; Anah, 3 (end).
2. An Edomite chief {eX[f]i^afiai [D>''<'L], eXt^fyuas
region of .\chzib,' but in the margin 'at the .sea from He he i. to
Achzib.' 0, however, points the way to a correction of the
text (17 0a\a<T(Ta Koi anb Af^ " (XO^oP [H], rj 0. k. a. toO
iTXOivCtriiaTOi (XioP t-^l. V- * 'CTai a- r. cr. oxafi|S [b]).
This implies the reading zSnC- which is not improbably a
corruption of 2h~H- n:*ipN, which should rather be 3'J3N1, was
an attempt to make sense with 27np.
103
AI
[A]), Gen. 3641. and (eX[e]a/3oAtas [BA], eXifiafia [L]),
I Ch. 1 s't. See EuoM, 4.
AHUMAI ('J?-in><,i65; AyeiMei [BA*]. aximai
[A^ sup. ras. et in mg.], aXIMAN [E], ..v^.m/ ; Ahuiiiai
[cod. am. AAimni]), the eponym of a clan of Judah
(i Ch.4 2+). Should we read Ahiman (L)?
AHUZAM, RV correctly Ahuzzam (D-THt*. perh.
= ' possession ' ; for pr. names in am see Names, 77),
one of the sons of Ashhur ' father of Tekoa ' ; i Ch.
4Dt (COXAIA [B]. COXAZAM [A], OZA [L]).
AHUZZATH (nrriN, possession ' ; oxozaG [AEL],
-ZAX W]'' <-'cnoy..iTH), the 'friend' (, wrongly,
v\>ix<pa.'yii}'^'j<i) of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 2626t).
' Friend ' = minister ; cp 1 Ch. 2733, and see HUSHAI.
The name with the title 6 i^fK^o-ytuybs aiiToCis introduced al.so
in (pAUL in the similar narrative of Gen. 21 22-34. For the
termination -aih thereare parallels in Ba.semath (fern.), Gen. 2034 ;
M.ihalath (fem.), (;en.2S9; Goliath (the Philistine), 1S.I74;
Gciiuhalh, iK. II20; cp names in -ath in Aram, inscriptions
(Cook, Gloss. Aram. Inscr. under n). Cp Dr. //T^^) 236, n. 2.
AHZAI ("THN), Xeh. 11 i3t RV, AV Ahasai {q.v. ).
AI (i) Cyn, always thus with def. article, i.e., 'the
stone heap"; f^l [B.XL, etc.]; wriiicn Hai in Gen.
123]33tAV; Arr<>'l i^-"^^^])- ^^^ name appears also
in various other forms.
AijA, or lather Ayya (N'j; ; om. BN*A, oiu [Nc-a mg. inf.],
yai [L], Neh. Il3it); Ayvah, RV mg.(.i;j; [Ba Gil, not r\X]}
as in most edd., AV Gaza \q."\_ 2], RV Azzah ; yaiaf [B], ya^ijs
(genit.)[A], aaia[L];aca; bX.X; 1 Ch.728); Ai ath, or rather
Ayyath (ri;j^: ayyat [BNAQ], Is. 10 28+).
As to the site of .-\i, we learn from Josh. 72 (in clause
b 7TJI' [-AKL] ; in w. 3 701 sup. ras. [B-]) that it was
situated ' beside Beth-aven, on the east of Bethel," and,
from the account of Joshua's stratagem, that it lay on
the S. side of a steep valley (Josh. 811), while from
the description in Gen. 128, it appears that there was
a ' mountain ' or flat ridge with a wide view between
Ai and Bethel. That there was a close connection
between the two places appears also from the expression
'the men of Bethel and Ai ' (Ezra228; aia [B.V])-
With the position thus suggested, Isaiahs graphic
picture of an .Assyrian invasion from the north (Is. 10
28/:; arya-i. [B'S'^''-':b.\Q]; 0776 [X*] = Geha in
V. 28) entirely agrees. Where, then, shall we place Ai
on the map? Scarcely at et-Tell (Sir C. W. Wilson,
PEFQ, 1869, 123-6, and Smith's /)/;i->) there
are no signs that et-Tell was ever the site of a city
but at some other spot in the neighbourhood of Dcr
Drhin (a village twenty minutes .SE. of et-Tell).
Robinson, with some hesitation, fixed on a low hill,
just S. of this place, where there are still foundations
of large hewn stones, and on the W. , ancient reser-
voirs, mostly dug out of the rock. The spot (called
Kliirbet Haiydn) is 'an hour distant from Bethel,
having near by, on the N. , the deep Wady el-Matyah,
and towards the SW. other smaller wadys, in which
the ambuscade of the Israelites might easily have been
concealed" (/?A'23i3). To Tristram in 1863, this con-
jecture ' carried with it the weight of evidence," particu-
larly because it would be difficult to assign a site to
Abraham"s camp between Beitin and Tell el-Hajar
(et-Tell), and because Robinson"s site affords such
ample space for the military evolutions described in
Josh. 8, over which, however, some uncertainty is
thrown by the variations of in it\ 11-13. Both
Gu6rin and the PEF Survey corroborate this view,
which, if not proved, is at any rate probable.
As to the history of Ai : it was a royal Canaanitish
city, and was the second city conquered by Jo.shua,
who destroyed it and doomed it to be ' a mound for
ever" (cSii'-Sn). By Isaiah"s time, however, it had
been rebuilt (Is. 10 28), and after the Exile it was re-
1 See Gray, HPN62, 279, n. 10.
104
AIAH
occupied by Benjamites ; Ezra228 (ota [BA]) = Neh.
732 {aXeta [HX], at [A])= i lisd. Sai (* and KV
om. ; 7CU [L]). In the time of Kusebius (05 181, 76,
Ayyai} it was once more deserted ; but its situation was
still pointed out. Its name was jjrophetic of its history.
Or had it some other name before its destruction by
I oshua ?
2. ('g; without article ; Tat [Q] ; Symm. ^ Zo-xt's) an
Ammonite city, if the text in Jer. 49 st is correct ((S'"**
omits : Rothstein in Kau. //S and Co. in SHOT,
after (Jraf, read ' Ar n^). T. K. c.
AIAH, more strictly Ayyah (H'X, 'falcon'). i.
.\n Ixlomite tribal name individualised, Gen. 8624
(.W Aj.Mi ; Aie [AD], N. [l''- ; N precedes], a^iAi [L]) =
I Ch. l4o(i^ie [li], <MA [AL]). The tribe seems to have
broken off from that of Zibeon, and to have been less
important than that of Anau {q.v.). To identify this
insigniticant Aiah with the 'goodly land' in which Se-
nuhvt the ligyptian e.xile found a home, according to
the 'old story (so Masjiero, RPC'^ 21723; PSBA 18
106 [96]) is unsafe. On the laa (Maspero, Aia) of the
story of Se-nuhyt, see WMM As. u. Kur. 47.
2. Father of Saul's concubine Rizpah (28.87, 'a^
vel forte 10.0. [H*], io5 vel forte io\ [B'], Io\ [A], 2i^a [L],
^t,iJaTos[Jos.] ;218^, Aia [BA], Acrata [L]). To draw
a critical inference (with Mez, Der Bihel dcs Jos. 35/-),
from L's 2(/3a in 3 7 seems unwise. We must not assume
that Ziba is the original reading rather than Aiah. k
and ^; could very easily be confounded, and from 2ia
to :it/3a was but a step. The name of one of Rizpah's
sons was Mephibosheth (Meribaal), and the son of
Jonathan, whose steward was Ziba, was also called
Mephibosheth (Meribaal). The question as to the source
or sources of the passages in which Rizi'Aii {q.v.) is
referred to, lemains therefore where it was.
AIATH (n*y), Is. 1028t. See Ai, 1.
AIJAlkSj];), Neh. II31. See Ai, i.
AIJALON, or (Josh. 10 12 19 42; 2 Ch. 28i8+, all AV)
less correctly AjALON (P?*X from ?*X 'hart'; mAooN
[HALj).
1. A town in the Shephelah, assigned to Dan m
Josh. 1942 {aiM/uiuv [li], laaXajv [A], eX. [L ; but with
laXajj/ V. 43 for Elon]), and named as a Danite Levitical
city in 2l24[P] (laXuv [A])=iCh. 669 [54] (corrected
text, see Ball ad loc. in Ellicott's Bible; t-yKo-ii [B],
7j/\wi/ [A]). It is the modern Yalo, situated on a ridge
on the south side of the broad level valley of Aijalon,
well known, from Joshua's poetical speech (Josh. 10 12 ;
a:\w/Lt [L]), and now called Merj (the meadow of) Ibn
'i'lnar. It is about 5 m. from Lower Beth-horon, and
14 from Jerusalem. In the time of the Judges it
w\T,s still in the hands of the Amorites (Judg. I35;
apparently misread ai dpKoi. [B.\L], and translated a
second time fjLX'paivusv [B], which, however, stands for
HKKK.S in L), but was afterwards occupied by
Benjamites, iCh. 813 (aiXa/j. [B], aSafi [A], aXw>'
[L]); cp. 2Ch. llio. The Chronicler states that
Rehoboam fortified it (2Ch. llio, aXduv [B], aiaXuv
[AL]), and that Ahaz lost it to the Philistines (2Ch.
28 18, aiXw [K]). o" whose territory it bordered. In
I S. 1431, the occurrence of the word is doubtful. For
'to Aijalon' Klost. and Budde (SBOT) read 'until
night." "'^- omits altogether. Some fresh references
to Aijalon are derived from Egyptian sources. For
instance, Shishak (Sheshonk I. ) mentions Aiyurun i.e. ,
Aijalon among the conquered cities of Judah in his
Karnak list, and there is an earlier mention still in the
Amarna tablets, where Aialuna appears as one of the
first cities wrested from the Egyptian governors. A
vivid sketch of the battle-scenes of the valley of
Aijalon will be found in GA.Sm. f/G 210-13.
2. (Judg. 12 12 ; AiXwfi [B], -X[e]tya [AL]), a locality
in Zebulun, the burial-place of Elon {^.v., ii. ly. ).
AIN
Its name ought probably to be pointed [iV'K (Elon),
and etymologically connected with ps^ or ,iSk, ' oak '
or ' terebinth ' (see Tkkkbinth, i), indicating a sacred
spot. Cp Al.l.ON, 2. T. K. c.
AIJELETH-SHAHAR, UPON, RV ' set to Aijeleth
hash-Shahax ("int|'n fl^'N, [Ow^p] t^s d^'TiXTj/xt/'ewj
Tijs iujOiuTJs ^BSAj ; Atj. [virip] rij^ eXatpov ttjs dpOpcv^s),
Vs. 22, title. If we consider the tendency of the phrase,
' Upon Al.AMOTH {i/.v. ),' to get corrupted, it seemshighly
probable that ' Aijeleth ' should rather be read ' Alamoth '
(n and y confounded), while Shahar should perhaps rather
be B'nn re', ' a new song.' (The article prefixed to Shahar
may be in the interests of an exegetical theory. ) The
latter corruption has very probably taken place in Ps.
579 (see Che. /^j. ('-'). A 'new song' would be a song
u[)oii a new model.
AIN (yV). I. If MT may be followed, this is the
name of a city in the Xcgeb of Judah (Josh. 1032)
assigned to Simeon (19?; cp i Ch. 432). According
to Josh. 21 16 it was one of the priests' cities ; but the
parallel list in i Ch. 659 [44] probably correctly substitutes
AsuAN ((/.I'.) which is mentioned in Josh. I97 [MT
@uALj alongside of Ain as a distinct place. The name
being thus removed from this list, Ain always appears
in close conjunction with Rinunon, and Miihlau {HIVB t^'
s.v. 'Ain') suggests that the two places may have lain
so close together that in course of time they joined.
Hence he would account for the En-klmmon (pan pj; ;
om. BNA ; k. ev pe/uLpnov [X'^-'' '"*>' '"^] ; k. tv pe/i/xiov []^])
of Neh. 11 29. But ifweconsider the phenomena of (see
below), and the erroneous summation (if M T be adhered
to) in Josh. 1532, it becomes evident that Bennett's
thorough revision of the readings in his Joshua {SHOT)
is critically justified (cp AsuAN), and that the real name
is En-RIMMON ' {q.v.).
How, indeed, could a place dedicated to the god
Rimmon (Ramman) have been without a sacred
fountain ?
Josh. 15 32, leat epuDtnaQ [Bl, Kai pefi/xwi' [A], Kai aiv Kai. pefiixMv
[LI ; Josh. 197, aiv K. pffifxcoS [\]. ai.u k. pe/x/iior [LJ, but epefifj-iov
[B] ; Josh. 21 16, ao-a [B] which favours j-^'y ' Ash.\n ' ig'.?'.), ate
[A], raeir [L], which h.armonise witli MT. In i Ch.432(it.
pen/Ltoji' IB], K. r)i' [sic] I'e sup. las. [A-'V| followed by -fifiwr [.A] ;
K. ei'pe/u./LLwi/ [LJ) we should also, with Ki., read En-rimmou.
2. (i'VlSl, the article being included ; (firl) irriyds
[BAL] ; Vg. [contra) fontcm Daphnim ; Tg. Onk. as
MT ; for the rest see below. ) A place mentioned in
Nu. 34 1 1 to define the situation of one of the points on
the ideal eastern frontier of Canaan : ' to Harbel on the
east side of Ain ' is the phrase. Though both AV
and RV sanction this view of j'y.i, it is more natural to
render 'the fountain,' and to find here a reference to
some noted spring. Jerome thought of the spring
which rose in the famous grove of Daphne, near Antioch ;
in this he followed the Targums of Ps. Jon. and Jerus.
which render '(the) Riblah ' (.iSa-irj) by 'Daphne,' and
'the fountain' (pyn) by 'Ainutha. Robinson ^ and
Conder prefer the fountain which is the source of the
Orontes. Both these views rest on the assumption that
Riblah on the Orontes has just been referred to, which
is a pure mistake (see Rini.AH). The fountain must at
any rate be not too far N. of the Lake of Gennesaret
which is mentioned at the end of the verse. Most
probably it is the source of the Xahr Hasbany, one of
the streams which unite to form the Jordan (see Ribi.AH).
From this fountain to the ' east shoulder ' of the Lake
of Gennesaret a straight line of water runs forming the
clearest of boundaries. If, however, we place Baal-gad
at Banias, we shall then, of course, identify ' the fountain '
1 Except of course in Josh. 21 16 (see above). In Zech. 14 lot
the first half of the name is omitted (see En-rimmon).
2 See A' A" 4534. Kob.'s view (p. 393) on the Daphnis of Vg.
(connecting it with the spring at Djfneh, near Tell el-lf ady)
seems erroneous.
106
AIRUS
with that which springs from the fiinious and romantic
cavern at the southern base of the Hermon mountains.
It sliouUl be added that it is not impossible to alter the
poiniinii and read j-yS ' (eastward) of IjON,' Ijon being
mentioned elsewhere as on the N. frontier of the land
of Israel. But then why did the writer introduce it
merely incidentally? T. K. C.
AIRUS (lAipoc [A]), iEsd.531 AV = Ezra247
Reai.vii, 3.
AJAH (nN). Oen. 3624! AV=RV Aiah {q.v., i).
AJALON ((iS'X), Josh. 10 12 AV = RV Aijalon, i.
Ch. I42 AV JAKAN.
I Esd. 838! RV=Ezra
AKAN (ii^V), Gen. 3()27t =
Acts 1 i9t RV, AV
AKATAN (akatan [BA]).
812 HakKA TAN.
AKELDAMA (akcAAamax i^])'
ACKl.DAMA.
AKKOS (akBcoc [B]), i Esd. SsSf RV = Ezra26i
Hakki)/., I.
AKKUB (^-Ipy, 'posthumous,' but the name seems
corrupt ; AKOyB [BA], akk- [1>])- i- b. Elioenai, si.\
generations removed from Zerubbabel : i Ch. 824 {laKow
[B], aKKovli [A], oiKovv [L]).
2. The B'ne ."Vkkub, a group of doorkeepers in the great post-
exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 9); Ezra 'J 42 (axoufi [HA], a/cx. IL]) =
Neh. 745 {<^ov [H), -um' [XA], -v^ [L])=i Esd. 028 (Dacoiu ;
RV Dacuhi ; aaxou^i [A], KaKov^Tov [I!]). Akkub is a porter
in the list of inhabitants of lerusalem (see Ezka, ii. 5 [/'], 15
[i]a\ iCh. '.>i7 (dKov^ lB|")=Neh. Uig (aKovfi [L]), cp Ezra
10 24, = I Esd. it 25 (where, however, the name is omitted between
Shallum and Telem). He is mentioned also in Neh. V2,2$ (aicou^
KCa ing. sup.]; om. BN*A).
3. An expounder of the Law (see Ezra, ii. 13 [/.] ; cp i.
8, ii. g 16 [5], 15 [>] c). Neh. 87 (aKov^ [L], om. HAK) =
I Esd. 948 (EV, Jacuhus ; laxou^os [A], lapaou/Soo? [B]).
4. The li'ne .\kkub, a family of Nkthinim iff.''.) in the great
post-exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 9), Ezra245 (a.Ka.^u>6 [l!])=Neh.
748(aKou5[Al, -oua[N]; om. B with MT, EV)= i Esd. 53o(a(covS
[BA] ; AV acua ; RV akud).
AKRABATTINE, RV ; AV incorrectly Ararattine
I Mace. 5 3t, Jos. .-////. .\ii. 81 ; akraBatthnh [NA] ;
-ATTANH IN^-'' V]; Acrahattene [Cod. Am.];
)^.ayXite'^P J^'^'^h 7 18, below), adistrict where Judas the
Maccal>ec fought against the Edomites, situated 'in
Idumaia ' [NV Jos.] or ' in Judasa ' [A]. The district in-
tended is no doubt that to the SE. of Judnea, in Idumcea
(see Akrabrim). There is no sufficient ground for the
opinion of Ewald that the Edomites had settled as far N.
as another Akrabatta, a toparchy or district in Central
Palestine, to the N. of Juda;a [Akrabatta, aKpa^era,
etc. [Jos. B/ iii. 3 5 II PI- //-V v. 14 iv. 939]; aKpa^^eiv
[Eus. 05C'''2146i]), apparently represented by the
modern 'Akrabeh, 8 m. SE. of Nablus. (The reading
iv TouSat? in i Mace, must therefore be rejected.) See
Schiir. Hist. I220 n. 2, 3 158.
Doubtless, however, we should identify with 'Akrabeh
the Ekkerel {fype^rjX [BN], Kpe^i]\ [A] ; K..^;"ftv ).
near Chusi, on the brook Mochmur (Judith 7 iSf), the
names being almost the same in the Syr. (=Talm.
na-pv)- T. K. c.
AKRABBIM, Ascent of, so always in RV ; also
Nu. 344 in AV, which has in Judg. I36 'going up to
Akrabbim,' in Josh. 15 3t mg. '. . .to Acrabrim,"
text Maaleh-Acrahbim (D^3"lpy n7j?p, i.e., 'ascent of
Scorpions," [npoc]ANABACic'^ AKRABeiN [BAL] ; as-
census scorpion um), mentioned in Josh. I53 (akraBBGIAA
[sup. ras. A'"''], CKRABeiN [L]) as one of the localities
marking the southern frontier of Judah.
It must have been one of the passes leading up from
the southern continuation of the Ghor into the waste
mountain country to the west. Knobel identifies it
1 Cp Bakbuk.
2 titavia for oiro Trjt ai^o^atreuf in Judg. 1 36 [AL ; Lag. points
iw' an,\.
ALAMMELECH
with the pass of es-Safa, leading up towards Hebron
out of the W. el-Kikreh on the road from Petra.
Robinson (/M'"*' 2i8o/. ) descrilies this pass as being ' as
steep as a man can readily climb.' 'The rock is in
general porous and rough, but yet in many spots smooth
anil dangerous for animals. In such places a path has
been hewn in the rock in former days ; the slant of the
rock being sometimes levelled, and sometimes overcome
by steps cut in it. The vestiges of this road are more
frequent near the top. The appearance is that of a
very ancient pass' (Z/A'<^'229i). Robinson, however,
identifies this Nakb es-.Safa with Zephath or Hormah,
and not with Akrabbim (see also Hai.ak, Mount).
Scorpions arc of frequent occurrence throughout this
neighbourhood.
AKUD (akoyA [B]), I Esd. 530 RV=Ezra245
Akkur, 4.
ALABASTER (aAaBactron [accus. Ti WH] Mk.
14 3, also with art., thn A. [W & H after BX'^].
TON A. [Ti. after N*A], jO A. [TR after G, etc. ; also F
in Lk.737]: cp o aAa. [B], to a\a. [A] 2 K. 21 13
[for nnSs ' dish,' ' cup ']) was found in large quantities in
Mesopotamia, and from it are made the huge bulls which
are to be seen in the British Museum and in the Louvre.
The alabaster of the ancients was a stalagmitic carbonate
of lime hence called by mineralogists ' Oriental alabaster '
to distinguish it from the modern alabaster, which is the
sulphate of lime. See ED*^^\ s.v. Alabaster. In
Greek the word dXd/Sacrros or d.\d(3airTpoi is frequently
used of vases or vessels made to hold unguents, as
these were generally fashioned out of this material,
which was thought by many (cp e.^., PL //A' xiii. 3)
to preserve the aroma of the ointment : Theocritus (/</.
16114) is able to speak of 'golden alabasters.' Many
alabaster vases have been found in Egypt, and the
specialised sense given to nn':'! in the Egyptian Greek
version of Kings (see above) is natural enough.
The town of Alabastron, near the famous quarries of
Hat-nub^ (cp Erman, Anc. Eg. 470, n. 3), was well
known for the manufacture of such articles (in fact it
seems to have derived its name from the material ).'-
Many of these go back to nearly 4000 B. c. and often
show fine workmanship. Similar articles have been
found in Assyria dating from the time of Sargon (8th
cent. B.C.).
Such a vessel was the ' alabaster cruse ' which was
emptied upon Jesus's head by the woman at the house
of Simon the Leper at Bethany (Mt. 26;= Mk. I43
Lk. 737t)- The expression 'brake' in Mark does not
refer, it would seem, to the breaking of a seal or of the
neck of the vessel ; the object was to prevent profana-
tion of the vessel by subsequent use for any commoner
purpose (cp Comm. , ad loc. ).
ALAMETH (HD^;?), i Ch. 78 AV, RV Alemeth.
ALAMMELECH, RV Allammelech ('^I'pO^N [Ba.].
'^N [Gi.], ^7^'PX [v.d. Hooght]; eXet^eXe/c [B],
eX/ieXex [L ; om. A]), a place in Asher on the border of
Zebulun (Josh. 1926t), the name of which is possibly
echoed in that of the Wddy el-melek, which drains the
plain of the Buttauf (Asochis), and joins the Nahr el-
Mukatta' (Kishon). So Di., Buhl. The pointing of
the Heb. is peculiar: tiSsVk is usually explained as if
TiSp dVn, "sacred tree of Melech' ; but n can hardly have
been assimilated to c, nor is this the best reading.
Possibly the real name was ijSo "? (^J*), El Melech ;
cp El Paran. The authors of the points may have
wished to avoid confusion with the personal name
Eli melech. Or the name might be a corruption of
elammak (see Almug Trees), if Solomon was able to
naturalise this tree. t. K. C.
1 Near Tell el-"Amama (see PSBAlGji ["04]).
* The reverse supposition is sometimes held, viz. that the
material is derived from the place-name. The ultimate origin of
the word is unknown.
108
ALAMOTH
[OTH, UPON {nVDbV'hv.). a technical musical
phrase of uncertain meaning ; cp Mi;sic, 6.
(a) Ps.4t5 title [i] (ujrip rmv Kpv4>imv [IiKRTl = niD'?;r'?j;; om.
A; Aq. irl i'a'iOTJTu>' = rii'p':'jr'7y ; Symm. vnip luv alutvitov) ;
(/') I Ch.lSao (iitX aAai/iwfl [H], . . oAf/ui. [K], . . oAij/i. [A], wtpl
Tiii' (tpiM^i'ioK [L]: two anonymous C.k. versions have iiri tuii/
avafiaeixujv [niVyc] nnd n'"i Tiii/ aloivCuv InicSvD- '" '*" other
passages, (f) Ps. 9 title [i] (vnip r. Kp. [BNAK] ; Aq. vfaviortiTot,
Syniin. ntpi toO 6avaT0U - n^D'*?]}, Th., Quint, vnip aKixiji;, Sext.
i/a>'iico7T)) ; ((/) in Ps.48i4 [isKei? tou? oiuiia? [KAR'l], /.f., ap-
parently niaH' f"l ""* *'^1- "^""<^''<. Symm. tis to iiijuicei) it
appears in the corrupt form n?S"'?{,', which Tg. talces to he n'D^J/
' youth (?).
Thus we find it three times forming part of a heading
of a psahn (for niB'^j; in d should be restored as nic'^fSy
from its present position to the heading of Fs. 49, on the
analogy of Ps. 4(.)). Of the two half-translations of AV
and RV respectively ( ' upon Alanioth, ' ' set to Alamoth ' ),
the former presupposes that the phrase denotes the
particular instrumental accompaniment ; the latter, that
Alamoth is the name of a tune. Most moderns explain
'for sopranos,' 'alamoth having the constant meaning
' maidens.' Whether soprano voices would be suitable
for Ps. 46, the nmsical reader may judge. Gratz and
Wellhausen suppose a reference to some Elamite
instrument. There is, however, a more probable
solution. See Psalms, and cp Muth-labben,
M.MIALATH, NkHILOTH, and AlJELETH-SHAHAR.
ALCIMUS (aAkiaaoC [AN], occasional forms -|n.
-eiM. 'Xi. [A], -|CM. [N] ; in several cursive MSS of i
and 2 ^Iacc. and in Jos. Ant.\\\.%^ with add. [kai or
O K.l l[co]<NK[e]lMOC ; in Ant. .\x. IO3, and one cursive
at I Mace. 79 simply i[a)]AK[e]l/V\OC ; <. D^"5*=F:iia-
kiin or Jehoiakim, for which he adopted the like-sound-
ing Greek name by which he is known ; cp Names, 86),
a priest ' of the race of Aaron ' ^ {Ant. xx. IO3, admitted
by the inimical '^ writer of i Mace. ; ' of the seed of
Aaron,' ^ 7 14), i.e. , a Zadokite, though not of the family
of Onias (' not of this house,' * Ant. xxlOs).
Ant. xii. 97, indeed equates ' another house ' ((TepovolKov) with
'not of the stock of the high priests [at all]' (oiiK ofri ttjs riav
apxiepetav yei/ea?) ; but the source here followed by Jos. is on
other grounds apparently inferior, and we may conclude that
Alcimus was really more eligible 5 to the high priest's office than
his enemies the house of Hasmon, who were ordinary priests.
When, therefore, the victorious king of Syria,
Demetrius I. {^.v., i) determined (i Mace. 79) to
support his claim to the high priest's office (v. 5) with
force, Alcimus was accepted, not only by the Hellenising
party but also (v. 13) largely by the legitimist party, the
Assideans (i/.v.).
The treaty (i Mace. 6 59) of Lysias (and the youthful Antio-
chus V. Eupator) in 162 B.C., which satisfied the aims of the
Assideans and made it unnecessary for them further to identify
themselves with the ' friends of Judas' (i Mace. 026 ; cp 28), had
been immediately followed, if we may trust -^^. xii.97, by the
execution of the now ' impossible ' high priest Menei.aus (y.r'.)
(i Mace, our most important source, not having mentioned
Menelaus at all, says nothing of what took place between his
tenure of office and the effective appointment [e<m)<rai' auToJ T.
Itpoxrui^v, "9; cp 2 Mace. 14 13 (caTacr-njo-ai] of Alcimus by
Demetrius). According to the same passage in Jos., which
states also that a young Onias, son of Onias III., made his way
to Egypt on the death of his father (on which, however, .see
Onias; Lsrael, 69), Alcimus l)ecame (tyeVero) high priest
on (/xera) the death of Alenelaus, the office being indeed bestowed
(SeSuiKtv) on him by the king (Antiochus V. according to the
present context). According to 2 Mace. 14 3, too, Alcimus had
Deen at some time high priest before his appointment by Demetrius.
We know really nothing certain about the events of this short
interval. We first reach firm ground with the intervention of
Demetrius.
Demetrius did not mean to resume the hopeless policy
of his uncle P'piphanes (or the Assideans would have
1 ytfov^ pLtv ToO 'Aapiavof. 2 See i Mace. 7 9.
3 fK TOv trWpfiaTO? '.\aptav. * T179 otictaf ravTTj^.
5 Although we cannot of course trust 2 Mace. 14 7, 'mine
ancestral glory ' (,tt)v jrpoyoi'Kcrji' S6(av). According to 2 Maec.
Alcimus's fault was his voluntary Hellenising (cKovai'iot, 14 3 ;
contrast 'by compulsion,' Kara a.va.yKi{v, 15 2). Cp Kosters,
r/4. 7-12538 ['78].
109
ALCIMUS
held aloof) ; but he wanted .Mcinuis and his friends to
help him in crippling the Hasmoncan party of political
independence.
There would be a special rea.son for Alcimus being active
against the Hasmoneans if he was shrewd enough to foresee
(what we now know) that their ultimate goal must lie the high
priesthood. (On the other hand the 'calumny ' li'. 27I put into
his mouth by the author of 2 Mace. [14 26] that Judas had already
been made nigh priest .seems historically impo.ssible ; it belongs
to the distorted story of 2 Mace, see next note.)
Bacchides (q.v.) was the agent selected for the task.'
At first the presence of Alcimus was a great help ; his
legitimacy was a source of strength.
This would have special weight if his predeces.sor Menelaus
is really to be regarded, with 2 Maec. (84-^429) as a ' IJenjamite,"
and with Wellhausen (//6" 200, n. i, 2nd ed. 235, n. i) as one
of the Tobiada; (see, however, Lucius, Der Kssenismui 77, and
cp Israel, 6y). If we could trust the Talmud there would !
a special point tn his favour in his connection with Jose b. Joezer,
leader of the Sanhedrin (his uncle, Ber. Rabba, ch. 06 ; his father,
Bab. Bathta, 133 a).
The mass of the people seem to have followed the
Assideans, in accepting Alcimus (i Mace. 7 13 'first';
cp We. Pilar, u. Sad. 84, n. 2) ; Vjut the severity of the
measures taken by the representatives of Demetrius,*
sixty men (perhaps those that had been till now much
implicated with the Hasnionean party) * being slain in
one day (i Mace. 7 16), in face of solenm pledges of
peaceable intentions, entirely changed the situation.
Fear and dread fell on all the people (i Mace. 7 18).
After some further severities Bacchides considered his
task accomplished and returned to Antioch. The late
severities, however, had turned the heart of the people
again to Judas, who was trying to strengthen his position
(i Mace. 724), and Alcimus judged it prudent to with-
draw {v. 25). He had of course no difficulty in bringing
further incriminating charges against Judas [ibid, and
Ant. xii. IO3). This time XiCANOK {ij.v. ) was entrusted
with the task of restoring Alcimus. During the various
exciting incidents of the next interval, the diplomacy,
battles, and death of Nicanor, we hear nothing of
Alcimus (i Mace. 726-50).
Of course in the rejoicings over Nicanor 's day and the recovery
of the Maccabean party he had no part ; perhaps he was absent.
(It is at this point, indeed, that .-</. xii. 106 makes Alcimus
die ;>'' but this belongs to the storj- there followed of Judas's suc-
ceeding to the high-priesthood, on which see Maccahee.s, i. 8 4
and cp below.)
When Bacchides came a second time (i Mace. 9i) to
carry through what Nicanor had been unable to accom-
plish, Judas failed to find adequate support and fell
(160 B.C.), and the Maccabean party were without a
leader. Alcimus was once more installed, and probably
accepted by all except the Maccal^eans, who ere long
chose Jonathan as successor to his brother.
How far the Hellenistic tendencies of Alcimus carried
him we do not know. At his death (159 B.C.") he seems
to have been engaged on some changes in the temple
enclosure, the nature and even the object of which we
do not know with any certainty.
According to Josephus he hail ' formed the intention of pulling
down the wall of the temple ' (^ovk<\divTi KoSiKtiv to tfi\o<i toO
oyt'ou. Ant. xii. 106 beg.), i Mace, states ('.'54) that itwas the
wall of the inner court of the temple (to. t. ttj? ovAijs tuiv ayiur
Tijs <r(uTpas) that he commanded ((ireTa^ev) to pull down,
adds that he pulled down the works (rd ipya) of the prophets,
and then appends the peculiar statement that he began the pulling
1 So I Mace. "8; on the distorted account in 2 Maec, where
14x2 has to do duty for both i Maec. "sand T26, see Kosters,
r/r. 7-12 533 535, and on the displacement of Bacchides to
2 Mace. 830, ib. 504 y; (cp the place of liacchides in Jos. BJi. 1 1).
- How far these transactions are to be attributed directly to
Alcimus (.so apparently i Maec. 7 14 i?: 23), and how far they
were due to Haeehides (so apparently Ant. XU.IO2 ; cp t Mace
7 19) we cannot .say.
3 His uncle being, according to Ber. Rabba and Baba Batkra
Ul-cc), of the number.
* On the motive of the author of 2 Mace, in representing
Nicanor as untrue to his master (2 Mace. 14 28-35) a"d thus
bringing Alcimus again on the scene (v. 26) see Kosters, p. J35.
* And when he was de.-xd the people bestowed the high-
priesthood on Judas, who, hearing of the power of the Romans,'
etc. (=1 Mace. 8).
Josephus assigns him variously three years {Ant. xx. IO3) or
four years {ib. xii. lOe) of office.
ALCOVE
down. _ It seems rash to assume that this confused account is in
its original form. If the last clause is not an interpolation (and
there IS cursive MS authority for its omission, see H & P), and
even perhaps if it is, should c not perhaps read ' to pull ' for
'he pulled ((cafltAeii' for KoOtiAtf)'!
The much discussed question what the wall (rtlxoi) referred
to w;us, we havu really not the means of determining. Its identi-
fication with a low barrier in the Herodian temple beyond which
Cientiles must not pass, the sBn-g (J^1^) described in Mitiiiath
'1 3 is at the best precarious 1 (see the remarks of Schiirer, Gjy 1
176, n. 5 and the discussions there referred to).
The somewhat sudden death of Alcimus ( i Mace,
355/ ; cp however, Ant.\\\.\(i(i, o-i-xvas im^pas) was
naturally treated by his enemies as a sign of divine dis-
pleasure. The moderation (such as it is) of the writer of
I Mace, was not at all to the taste of the later rabbis
(see the stories in Hamburger, A* A' 428/'., Derenbourg,
///j/. Pai. 52, n. 2). That on the whole, however,
Alcimus did not interfere nmch with ritual and practice
is plain, or at least probable, from this last act being all
that is mentioned against him, and even in this case
we do not know his motive (cp Grimm ad loc, and
We. 216, //(/''262). Still, ifhe has been rather severely
judged, even for the evidence supplied by the opposite
party, W'ellhausen {I.e.) seems to go to the other
e.xtreme.
The historical importance of this, perhaps in himself
somewhat insignificant character (who figures all the
more strikingly on the scene that we cannot find very
clear traces of any immediate predecessor or successor ^),
lies in the fact that his tenure of office formed a turning-
point in the development of Jewish parlies.* The
Assideans refused to follow the Hasmoneans. Two
generations later, the meaning of this became more
apparent (see Asside.vns, Ph.akiskks, ICssk.mcs).
The primary source is i Mace. 7-9. Cp Jos. ^-Jh/. xii. O7-II 2,
XX. 10 3, and on the relation of these see Maccahees, Fiksi', i.
9 ; on the relative value of 2 Mace. 14 .see the elaborate article of
Kosters, ' De polemiek van het tweede l)oek der Makkabeen,'
j'h. 712491-552 ['78I, especially as cited al>ove ; on parties. We.
J'/iar. u. Sad. v., y6ff. Lucius I.e.; on later Jewish sentiment
concerning -Mcimus, Hamburger, KF.\ ^2?,/.\ on 3113, etc.
Schurer, GJl' % 6, n. 5, and Griitz in MGH'J, 1876, pp. 385-397 ;
on festival of 23rd Marchesvan in Meg^. Taan., Derenbourg, I.e.,
and Gratz, OV.ft/i. 3(^1 564 j!?! H. \v. n.
ALCOVE y niip), Xu. 25 Sf RV mg. , AV Tent {q. v. ).
ALEMA (cN aAaaaoic [A], -Ae/w. [N*], -A[e]iM.
j^c.a c.b (vni.) V], Syr. y^\ ^, ill Alimis), a place men-
tioned along with Bosora, Carnaim, etc. (i Mace. 526).
Being in Gilead it cannot be, as some say, the Beer-
elim spoken of in Is. 158 as belonging to Moab, and
the Beer of Nu. 21 16 (see Bosor). It has been placed
by Merrill at Alma, S. of Kdrei, and by Schumacher
at Kefr el-Ma, E. of Lake of Galilee ; but it is probably
' Ilmd, 10 m. SW. of the Leja, and of Busr el-Hariri, which
is i^robably liosor. (Cp Buhl Topog. des A'. Osfjordan-
landes 13 ; We. IJG 2\'2. [3rd ed. 257] n. ) c. .\. s.
ALEMETH or ALLEMETH {Vxhyi^ ; so everywhere
[Ba Gi], except i Ch. 7 8 ' in j^ause ' FIP ?y, .Xlameth,
reMeee [H]. eAMeBe/W ^\] ; ordinary edd. have
np?y, whence RV Alle.mkth in i Ch. 660 [45] =
josh. 21 18, where the form is Almon, pD?y, pamaAa
[H], aAmcon [A], cAm. [L] ; usually (-&AeMee [I5.\],
&AAAAa)9 [L]). a Levitical town in Benjamin (i Ch. 660
[451- fA^H^^Q [-'^l)- the name of which appears in
iCh.836 (caAaimaB [B], ^A^M. [A], AAe4) [!>]) =
942! (r&McAee [B], AAetJ) [I-^) fis that of a descendant,
or family of Bknj.\.\iin ( 9, ii. j3). See also Zalmon,
1 The seventeenth of the thirty-five festivals prescribed in
MegiUath 'J'aantth viz. on 23rd Marchesvan has by some, e.g.,
Gratz, Ijeen brought into connection with the i(7r<y and Alcimus.
This is however contested, f.^., by Derenbourg, Hist. Pal. 6oyC
(see text of iV/-^. Taan., ih. ^^-i^.).
2 Josephus, Ignoring his previous irreconcilable statement in
xii. 106, already quoted above, expressly says {^Ant. xx. 10) that
on the death of Alcimus the office of high priest was vacant for
sevc-n years.
3 Cp We. Phar. u. Sad. 8 v. ; I^ucius Der F.ssenisvtus, etc.
Tiff. l'8i), with Schiirer's review ( TLZ ['81], especially col. 494).
ALEXANDER
ii. (end), El.\M, ii. i. Robinson's identification (Z.5.^)
with the modern 'Almif, i m. XE. from 'Andta
(Anathoth), is generally accepted.
ALEXANDER (aAcI&nApoc [ANV], 'helper of
men). 1. .\le\ander HI., king of Macedon (336-
323 K.c), surnamed the Great. The victories of
Alexander powerfully impressed the Jewish imagination ;
yet the only biblical passages in which he is mentioned
by name are i Mace. 1 1-8 62. The writer of Daniel
(166 or 164 B.C.) recalls a ' mighty king' ruling ' with
great dominion,' whose kingdom is 'broken' after his
death (Dan. 11 3/). In the vision of chap. 7, it is the
fourth of a series of ' beasts ' ; it is ' dreadful and
terrible,' and 'devoured and brake in pieces, and
stamped' the rest. Xaturally, it was the destructive
siile of Alexanders work that impressed the imagina-
tion ; the fall of Tyre and Gaza would bring that
aspect into prominence. His Palestinian conquests
are thought to be alluded to in Zech. 9i-8 (see
ZiccHARi.\n, Book of); and in Is. 25/, the fate of
Tyre may be contrasted tacitly with that of Jerusalem
(see IsAi.\H, ii. 13). It is during the seven
months' siege of Tyre that Jewish history comes into
connection with Alexander (333-332 B.C.). The tradi-
tion is given by Jos. Ant. xi. 83^ (cp Yoma, 69a).
The Jews refused compliance with Alexander's requisitions.
After the two months' siege of Gaza he advanced on Jerusalem ;
but Jatldua (Jaddus), the high priest (cp Neh. 12 11 22), warned
by a dream how to avert his anger, met the conqueror at Scopus.
Alexander worshipped the Name on the high priest's mitre, and
entering Jerusalem s.acrificed in the Temple, heard Daniel's
prophecies relating to himself, and gave the Jews autonomy, not
only in Jerusalem but also in liabylon.
As to all this other writers preserve absolute silence,
and the story in Josephus seems inconsistent with the
statement in Arr. iii. 1, that in seven days from Gaza Alex-
ander was at Pelusium in Egypt. Vet Just. xi. lOsays that
'many kings wearing fillets met him' ; and Curt. iv. 517,
that he visited some who refused to submit. Jewish
soldiers were certainly in his armies, even on his most
distant expeditions ; and in Alexandria, founded im-
mediately after the supposed visit, the Jewish element
was large. The privileges conferred on the Jews are
a feature of subsec)uent history. It is possible that
Alexander derived from the Jews much valuable in-
formation about the interior of Asia (Mahaffy, Greek
Life, chap. 20). Whether true or false, the episode strikes
a true note in Alexander's character. Xevertheless,
it raises suspicion to find the story appropriated by the
Samaritans. Still more, to remember the visit to
Gordium before the battle of Issus, and that to the
oracle of Amnion before the Persian expedition.
Finally, the king's action at Babylon is a curious
parallel (Arr. iii. 16). He there rebuilt the shrines
destroyed by Xerxes, especially that of Belus t6l re
fiXXa Kal T(j5 BiyXtf) Kada Kdvoi i^rpfovvro idvaev.
The Jerusalem ej)isode must be characterised as an
attempt to secure Jerusalem a place in the cycle of
Alexander -legends, on the model of the visit to the
Egyptian Amnion. (Cp H. Bois, Rev. de //it'o.
et phil., Lausanne, 1891 ; Henrichsen, St. Kr., 1871).
w. J. \v.
2. Alexander Balas, a man of low origin, who passed
himself off as the son of Alexander Epiphanes (cp i Mace.
10 1, 'A. 6 Tov 'AvTtdxov 6 'ETri^avrj^ [ANV], see Mac-
CAiiKKS, First Bcwk ok, 2) ; 'A\4^avdos [A] in t. 58.
His real name was Balas (so Strabo [p. 751], rbv BdXai'
'A\^^avSpov ; Jos. [A /it. xiii. 4 8], on the other hand, 'A. 6
BdXas \fyofj.ei>oi), which may possibly be connected with
N'rya. ' Lord. ' The additional name ' Alexander ' seems
to have been given him by Attains II. of Pergamum, who
was one of the first to support him against Dkmetrius.
In rivalry with the latter Balas exerted himself to secure
an alliance with Jonathan (i Mace. lOi ^), and by
conferring upon him the title of ' high priest of the
nation and friend of the king,' was successful (7'. 20).
After a varying career he was compelled to flee to Arabia,
ALEXANDRIA
where he was killed at Abse after a reign of five years,
150-145 B.C. ( I Mace. 11 13 18). For classical references
see Diet. Class, liiog. ,s.v.\ SchQrer, GJV\l^^,v\.\o, and
for the history of the time see Israel, 76, Mac-
CABKKS, i. 5.
3. Son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned together with lii.s
brother, Rukls Ijr.r/.j (Mk. 15 21).
4. A member of the family of the high priest in Act.s46,
probably to l)e iclentifie<l with the third son of Annas, called
Kleasar by Josephus {Ant. xviii. 'J 2). See Annas.
5. Uf Kphcsus, a Jew, who was ' brouj/ht forth ' (7rpo/3ij3a(Tac
(I'ext. Reel) from the nuiltilude, or 'brought down ' ((care/S.
1 1), etc.]) or (more probably) 'instructed' (ot/k/S. 115KA], cp
KV mg.) bv the Jews, and unsuccessfully attempted their
defence in the theatre, on the occasion of the tumult excited
by Demetrius, the silversmith (Acts 19 33). There is no con-
clusive reiLson either for or against identifying him with :
6. The coppersmith (6 xaXK(v<;), who is described (2 Tim.
4 14) as haying done Paul 'much evil ' (at his trial ?).
7. Mentioned with HvMi;.N*:i;s (7.7/.) as having ' made .ship-
wreck concerning the faith ' (i Tim. I \()/.\ and as having been,
in consequence, delivered by the apostle unto Satan. Whether
or not he is to be identified with no. 6 above, we cannot tell.
In .some texts of the .Apocryphal Acts 0/ Paul and Thecla,
he appears with Demas and Hermogenes xs a hypocritical
companion of I'aul ; in others it is ' Alexander the Syriarch '
who is mentioned. See Lipsius, Apokr. A/>. Gesch. ii. 1 462 466.
ALEXANDRIA (AAe?ANAp[e]iA [VA], sMacc. 3i ;
gcntilicAAeiANApeYc[HNA]. Acts69l824+). The site
of the city was chosen by Alexander the Great during his
1. The city.
pas.sage from Memphis down the
Canobic (Canopic), or most westerly,
branch of the Nile, on his way to the Oracle of Amnion
(331 c.).
Holm remarks that it was a nnveltv to call a city after its
founder, this particular form ..t' . 1. ,,:..' h.n in- nrevi.'nisly been
m.ade only from names of .i._i;i, (,.-.. ,\i>-ilania) ; it indicates
Alex.ander's desire fur divine hon..i;r-, a 1 laiiu supported by the
prn:sts of Amnion (Holm, (,X-. J/ist. 8384 VA). The city was
laid out by Deinocrates under the king's supervision, 12 m. W.
ot tlie Nile, and thus its harbours were not choked by the Nile
nmd, which is carried east by the current.
It lay on the neck of land, 2 m. broad, interposed
between the Mareotis lagoon and the sea. A mile dis-
tant, parallel with the coast, lay the island of Pharos,
connected with the city by a dam (which served also as
an aqueduct to sup[)ly the island), seven stades in
length (hence called the Heptastadium), pierced with
two openings. Two harlx)urs were thus created, both
protected by projections from the mainland.
The western harbour was called that of Eunostus, after a
kiiiL; of Soli, son-in-law of Ptolemy I. (but see Mahaffy, Crcik
LiJ,- 16^, for another suggestion). The eastern harbour was
then the more important, although it is not so to-day. Its
entrance was marked by the huge lighthouse (built on the island
by the Cnidian Sostratus) which g.ave its name {pharos) to all
similar structures. Opposite to it ran out the point of Lochias.
Bordering on the great (eastern) harbour was the
palace-quarter (Hrucheium), the abode of the Mace-
donians. The western division of the city, occupied
previously by the village Rhacotis, continued to be the
Egyptian quarter. The Jewish colony was in the east
of the city.
Lake Mareotis was connected with the sea by a
canal, and as it communicated also with the Nile, the
periodical flood prevented the accunmlation of silt and
the formation of morass. To this, and to the constant
Etesian winds, Strabo traces the salubrity of the site
(P- 793)- The lake was the haven for the products of
upiJcr l-.gypt coming directly from Syene, as well as for
those of India and the East, brought by way of Arsino6
on the Red Sea and the royal canal to the Nile, or through
Herenice or Myos Hormos, lower down the coast.
Hence the commerce of the lake was more valuable
than that of the outer ports, whose exports largely
exceeded their imports (.Str. , p. 793). Alexandria became
the great port of transshipment for eastern commodities,
while Egypt, under the Ptolemies, also took the place
of the Black Sea coast as a grain-producing countrv.
Most of her grain went to Italy (cp Acts 276 28 11 ; Jo's.
Z//vii. 2 1 ; Suet. Tit. 5). Near Ostia was a sanctuary
modelled on the Alexandrian temple of Sarapis, with a
ALEXANDRIA
mariners* guild (C//.I447). Even under the Lagids
Alexandria contained a large colony of Italians engaged
in the trade with the West (cp /<ph. />igr. 1 60^} 603).
For the imjwrtance of Egypt to Rome see Momnis.
J^rov. of Rom. limp. 2252 ET.
Alexandria was not organised as a vb\i.%i.e., it pos-
sessed neither delil>erative assembly nor senate {^ov\i\),
2. Its constitu- ^'"'. 1"'''" ^^^^ '"""'' '^'"^^ ">*^''^"'y -"^ ' '^y-'^l
|.JQj^ residence of the satrap king, never a
foundation of Gntco- Macedonians
with city privileges in a foreign land' (Mahaffy, Emp.
of J'tol. 76). The burgess Iwdy was (jreek (primarily
Macedonian), standingalongsideof the native Egyptiaii
and the foreign elements not reckoned Hellenic, in
somewhat the same way as the English in India along-
side of the natives (Momm. Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2262
ET). Chief among the non-Hellenes were the Jews,
occupying two out of the five wards, apparently here
not on the Ghetto system, but on the basis of original
settlement ; they were naturally attracted by the com-
mercial advantages of the city, and were also dclil)er-
ately settled there by the founder (Jos. c. Ap. 24, ///
ii. 187). Josephus asserts that the Alexandrian Jews
had equal rights with the Macedonians and other
Greeks. This, though technically an exaggerati(jn, was
probably practically true, seeing that such rights can
only have been jjrivileges enjojed by the (Jreeks over
the natives ; but it is doubtful whether the Jews were
free from the poll-tax. Of all the non-Hellenes, the Jews
alone were allowed to form a comnmnity within that of
the city, with a certain amount of self-government.
'The Jews,' says Strabo (quoted by Jos. ^^Z. xiv. 7 2),
' have in Ale.xandria a national head of their ow n
(eOudpxv^). who presides over the people and decides
processes and disposes of contracts as if he ruled an
independent community' (ws 8.i> TroXiret'as dpxujy avro-
TeXoCs). Josephus traces their legal position to Alex-
ander ; but it was apparently Ptolemy I. who settled
them in Egypt in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1 ; App.
S_}'r. :iO). The general result was that 'in acknow-
ledged independence, in repute, culture, and wealth,
the body of Alexandrian Jews was, even before the
destruction of Jerusalem, the first in the world ' (Momm.
op. cit. 2267 ET). Cp Disi'KKSiON, 7, 15/7:
Of the development of the city, and especially of the
foundation of the institutions which gave it its place in
3 Letters "''^ history of literature and science, little
is known. The famous Museum was
probably founded by Ptolemy I., aided by the advice of
Demetrius of PhalCrum, who migrated to Egypt on his
expulsion from Athens (307 K. c).
"The name (Moixreioi') points to an Attic origin. No detailed de-
scription can here Ijegiven. Kesides, thematerialsareveryscanty.
It was a royal foundation, with a common hall, porticoes, and
gardens, for the exclusive use of literary and scientific workers
dependent on royal bounty, under the presidency of a priest who
was the king's nominee ; it was the 'first example of a per-
manent institution for the cultivation of pure science founded by
a government ' (Holm, op. cit. 4 317 ET). It was not a tc.iching
establishment or training-place for youth, but a home of research
adequately endowed. Attached to it was the Library, with more
than 500,000 volumes (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 1).
The Museum and the Library combined were essenti-
ally a centre of learning, not of creative power. In their
artificial atmosphere exact science and literary criticism
flourished with brilliant results ; but literature decayed
perhaps the uninspiring environment of the city had no
slight effect upon its art and poetrv (Mahaffy, Greek
Life 165).
The Museum served as a model for subsequent foundations
e.g., that of the emjjeror Claudius ;lx)th Jews and Christians
at a later time had smiilar centres of learning in the city. The
fate of the library is uncertain ; it is doubtful whether it was
accidentally burnt along with the arsenal in 48 B.C. (Ca;s. BC
3 III). _ The words of Dio, 43 38 oio-re dAAa t (tol to lYtuptov,
Tois T OTTotfrjKas <tai toO atirov xat noi' pi^Kiuv, iT\fi<TTiov it) <tai
a(ti(TTiov, oj? (j)a(Ti, ytvofiei'iov, KauSjji'at, perhaps refer only to
stores of books for sale (.Mahaffy, Emp. 0/ Eto!. 454).
Ptolemy II. established a supplementary library in
the Sarapieion, in the quarter Rhacotis. In science,
114
ALEXANDRIA
especially, Alexandria maintained a sort of primacy
throughout the imperial period, and residence in the
Museum was the hall-mark of learning (cp Acts 18 24,
and a <pi\6(To<pos airb Moucreioi;, in Halicarnassus, Bu//.
de Corr. Hell. \ 405. Alexandrian physicians, in par-
ticular, were regarded as the best in the empire ; cp
ot iv 'Ei^(r<f airb tov Mouffejoi' iarpol [Wood, Epiuius,
Appendix, Inscriptions from Tombs, etc., 7, /. 6]).
In Roman times Alexandria was the second city in
the empire, and the first commercial city in the world
4 rhnrnrtj.r (^tr^bo, p. 798 ; M^7t(rTov e/x7r6pioi' r^s
. UDaxacTier. o,-^.^,,^^^^, ) At the end of the Ptole-
maic period she numbered upwards of 300,000 free
inhabitants, and in imperial times still more (Uiod.
1752)- Mommsen [op. cit. 2 262 KT) develops the com-
parison between her and Antioch both ' monarchical
cre;itions out of nothing " (Paus. viii. 383).
The latter excelled in beauty of site and in the magnificence of
her imperial buildings; the former in her suitability for world-
trade. In the character of their population and their attitude
towards their respective national religions, the similarity between
the two cities is close. The .Mexandnan mob, like that of
Antioch, was capricious .^nd turbulent ; the smallest spark
kindled a conflagration to Ije quenched only with blood (Diod.
I84, Dio39 57).
Poljbius (3414) says that a personal visit to the city filled
him with disgust at the demoralisation produced by the constant
presence of masses of mercenaries necessary for keeping under
control the mongrel mob, the degenerate descendants of the
Greeks ; compared with these two, the native Egyptian element
struck him as acute and educatetl.' C.'csar draws a similar picture
(A'C3iio). .A vivid illustration is found in the bloody scenes
which heralded the .accession of Ptolemy V. (Pol. 1530-33). .\
point of similarity with the ,\ntiochians was the fondness of the
Alexandrians for giving nicknames (cp Paus. v. 21 12: (tat iria%
(coi iiTix^piov TO ' Tas ciriKAijo-^tt roij 'Wf^ai'SpfiiirCv ((Ttlv. Id.
i. 9 I ; .Sen. (ul Helv. 19 6: ' Loquax et in contumelias prsefec-
torum ingeniosa provincia . . . etiam periculosi sales placent ').
The Ptolemies had each a nickname, and even Vespasian, for his
tax on salt fish, was called the ' sardine-dealer ' (Suet. Vesf>. 19 :
Ku/SioaoxTTjv). As regards the status of tlie highly composite
population, the Roman emperors mostly retained the old state
of things. The .Mexandrians continued to stand quite apart
from the rest of the country in character and in privileges (cp
Philo, in Flacc. 10 ; CIG 4957), so much so that the Alex-
andrian franchise was a necessary preliminary to the acquire-
ment of Roman citizenship (Pliny, K/>.ad Tr. (i \1i\: '.\dmonitus
sum a peritioribus debuisse me ante ei .Alexandrinam civitatem
inpetrare, deinde Romanam, quoniam esset .itgyptius,' Jos. c.
Ap.'li^. The Egyptians of the Xomes were unable to gain
Roman citizenship, like other provincials, by enlistment in the
legions.
The greatness of Alexandria has led some to speak
of its founder as though he were endowed with more
_ Ti.- than human foreknowleclirc, and had
C IbS SUCC6SS. r , ^ ,- . .
foreseen the future of the city as a
centre of Hellenism and queen of the Levant. Others
regard the city as merely a Greek emporium, a second
and more successful Naucnltis, owing to accident its
rise to the position of a cosmopolitan capital.
Nevertheless, it nuisl have l>een evident to Alexander that,
after the destruction of Tyre, 'the great trading area of the
Levant was for the moment without focus ' (Hogarth, Philip and
Alex. 1S8), and the site actually selected was the only one
possible on the Egyptian coast (though .Mahaffy, Kmp. 0/ Ptol.
12, calls this in question). Egypt, further, ottered peculiar
facilities for that amalgamation of Greeks and Macedonians
which he desired, and, owing to its support of his secret belief
in his divinity, it had a special place in his affections. The
success of Nauciatis undoubtedly exerted an influence in the
way of directing attention to the W. of the Delta ; and it is not
without reason that Cleomenes, a native of Naucriitis, created
financial governor of Egypt, is called one of the architects of
Alexandria (Justin 184). Nor should we fail to take account
of the fact that the island of Pharos wxs the traditional landing-
place of Odysseus (Hom. iW. 4355). This influence is dis-
tinctly asserted in the story of the dream which directed the
king to the site opposi'.c Pharos (Plut. Alex. _'<)).
In fine, considering -Me.xander's economic designs and
achievements in the far East, and the success of his
eastern colonies, we cannot venture to deny that he
consciously created a centre for a new mixed race, with
a definite dream of the possibilities afterwards realised.
Much has been hoped from systematic exploration.
The modern town stands mainly on the silt gathered on either
side of the Heptastadium, which has thus con-
6. Sites not verted the island of Pharos into a peninsula.
recoverable. '^" 'h* great monuments of the Ptolemaic age
seem to nave stood within the present inhabited
"5
ALMON-DIBLATHAIM
area, or on ground now absorbed by the sea ; but the site of no
ancient building is known, except that of the Ciesareum, which
was near the sea. The Sema or Soma, in which Alexander's
body was deposited, may perhaps be represented by the mosaue
of Nebi Danial, the most sacred locality in Alexandria. 1 he
l.ist person known to have seen the body was the emperor Sep-
timius Severus (Dio, 70 13).
The general result is that, owing to subsidence, the
remains of Ptolemaic Alexandria are now below water
level, and that nothing is to be hoped for from the
site (Egypt. Expl. Fund Report, 1894-5). See, also,
DiSPKKSION, 7.
Literature. Strabo, pp. 791-799; Herondas, Mim. 1 28 /.;
Kiepert, 7.ur Topogr. des alien Alex. (Perl. 1872); Weniger,
Das Alex. Museum (y,^t\. 1875): Pauly-Wissowa's .A^<?a/<-<-_)'f.,
' Alcxandreia' (Puchstein), and ' Alexandrinische Litteratnr'
(Knaack). w. j. w.
ALGUM ( D^e-ia^X), 2 Ch. 2 8 9 10/. t See Almug.
ALIAH (n;^J?. Kt. ), Gen. 8640= i Ch. I51 Alvah.
ALIAN {'fp^), I Ch.l4o = Gen. 3623t Alvan.
ALIEN (nni, Job 19 IS Ps.69 8; -)33 |3, Is. 61 5;
13, Ex. I83, RV 'sojourner,' Dt. 142it, RV 'foreigner').
See Stranger.
ALLAMMELECH ("^^^i'N [v. d. Hooght], etc.).
Josh. 1926t RV = AV Alammklech.
ALLAR (aAAar [B]), i Esd. 536t RV = Ezra259
j IMMER, 2 ; cp also Cherub, 2.
! ALLEGORY (AAAHropoyMeNA [Ti.WH]), Gal.
424t. See Parahi.es, I, 3, 5.
ALLELUIA (aAAhAoyTa [Ti.], -ia [\VH]), Rev.
19 1 3/. of. See Hallelujah.
ALLEMETH (flD^y; but Ba. Gi. Hlp^J?), i Ch. 660
[45] kV = .\V Alemeth.
ALLOM. RV Allen (aAAoon [B]), i Esd. 5 34 =
Neh. 759 Amo.n", 3.
! ALLON ()1?X), Josh. 19 33 AV. As a proper name
j this rightly disappears from RV. See Bezaanaxxi.M
j (Greek readings at end).
1 ALLON (|i?N ; cp Elon and see Aijalon, 2 ; amcon
I [B], aAAcon i-^X ChA. [Lj), a Simconite (i Ch. 437!).
ALLON -BACHUTH. RV Allon-Bacuth (p-'N
1 n-"l23, i.e., 'the oak of weeping,' see also Bochim ;
BaAanoc rreNeoyc [B.\L]) ; the spot 'below Bethel'
1 where Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, was buried (Gen. 35
8t E). According to another tradition (cp Debor.vh,
i), however, it seems to have been a palm tree (Judg.
45); or rather, perhaps, allCm could be used of a
palm tree, just as the cognate words el (in Elparan)
: and elath are undoubtedly used. In i S. IO3 it
j seems to be called ' the terebinth [?] (fi'^N, Spi'os [B.AL])
j of Tabor,' where 'Tabor' (da^cjp [B.A], ttjs iKXfKrrji
! [L]) may be a bad reading for ' Deborah' (Thenius).
I T. K. c.
1 ALLOY (^Jna), Is. I25 RV mg., EV 'tin.' See
I Metals.
j ALMODAD (Tl'lD^K, or rather as in (5*^ and Vg.
I T110?X, Elmodad, i.e., 'God loves'; a Sab.-ean name
I [ZD.UG 37 13 18] ; eAMCoA&A [AL]), one of the de-
scendants of JOKTAN (tf.v.); Gen. 10 26 (eAMOoAA/W
1 [E]. icAmcoAaA [L1)=i Ch. l2ot. See Glaser,
j Siizse 280, 425, and cp Afudadi on a primitive
, Bab. -contract-tablet (Hommel, AHT 113).
ALMON (jiO^y), Josh. 21 iSf =1 Ch. 6 60 [45]
Alemeth {g.v.).
ALMON-DIBLATHAIM (nn*n5'?'l-;b^y ; on form
of name see Na.mks, 107 ; reAwojN AeBAABAlAA
[BALj), a station of the Israelites between Dibon-gad
and the mountains of Abarim, Nu. 8846 and (p. A Ai fi-
nd
ALMOND
A&6&IN [A]) V. 47t ; apparently the same as Beth-
DIBI.ATHAIM (^.V.).
ALMOND, M.MOND TREE, ALMOND BLOSSOM
0?'>;'^ KAPYON ;aUL; (.<!.. 1;{... Num. 17s ^23]
k&ROIaL'^J; amyt^A'^on [l^^^AC,, Ecclcs. 125; as an
adjective KApyiNHN [HQ and practically NA], Jer.
1 nf ; l|3w*P= ' made like almond blossoms," KTTY"
nooMGNOl K&PYICKOYC [BAKL], Ex.2533/; KAPY"
COTA i^BAL] 37i9/.t)- Ihe Hebrew root means to
' w ake ' or ' watch ' ; and the tree is said to be so named
because it is the first to awake from the sleep of winter. ^
The etymology is alluded to in Jer. In/.
The almond is referred to in the story of Jacob, who
(Gen. 43 II, J) instructs his sons to take with them into
Egypt a present of the fruits of Palestine including
almonds. The verisimilitude of this detail cannot be
questioned. It was natural for a Hebrew to presume
that Palestinian almonds would be prized in Egypt,
nor need we trouble ourselves as to the exact date of
the acclimatisation of the almond tree on the banks of
the Nile.*
The original natis'e country of the almond [Prtinus
Amvi^iialus, Stokes) was W. .Asia, from which it has
gradually spread, in the main probably by human
intervention, throughout the Mediterranean region.
Almonds are still an important article of commerce in
the Persian Gulf, nor is there anything improbable in
their being exjiorted from Syria into Egypt in early or
even in more recent times. No ancient writer, accord-
ing to Celsius {Hicrob. I298), mentions them as grown
in Egypt.
The ' cups made like almond blossoms ' on the
branches of the golden candlestick, consisting each of
'a knop' or knob 'and a flower' (Ex. 2033/ 37i9/. )
represented, says Dillm. {ad loc. ), ' not the corolla
but the calyx of the almond flower.' Some have
proposed to translate n'^pu'D 'awakened' i.e., fully
opened (as opposed to closed buds) ; but this is
certainly untenable. In Jer. 1 n an almond staff seen
by the prophet becomes, from the associations of its
name, a symlxil of Yahwe's watchfulness. The most
interesting reference is in the difficult passage Eccles.
125. There are three clauses in the verse, and in
each unfortunately there is some obscurity. It is the
first, rendered by .\V, ' The almond tree shall flourish,
[RV blossom],' which now concerns us. As regards
this, it has been doubted, (i) whether ^pIr by itself can
mean the almond tree ; (2) whether the pinkish-white
blossoms are a likely metaphor (according to the ordinary
view) for an old man's white hairs ; and (3) what is the
meaning of the verb (fxr). The consonants of the
Heb. text support the meaning ' he will reject the
almond,' i.e. , will be unable to eat it, though a delicacy ;
but the vowel-points and all the ancient versions have
the same rendering as EV. This seems on the whole
more probable. Though Jer. In is not sufficient to
prove that npr can mean the tree, the equivalent form
in Syriac, !Se_^dd, appears to have this sense. The
metaphor is possible if we rememlwr that the flowers
come out as a pale flash on the dark leafless branches ;
if the metaphor is to be pressed closer, the flowers are,
as Koch describes them, ' white or of a pale red." ^
(2) See Hazel. n. m. w. t. t.-d.
ALMS. The English word is derived through the
2. OT estimate.
1. Terms.
A.S. form ' aslmfesse ' from the eccl. Lat.
eleemosyna, which again is borrowed from
1 Syriac has the same word in the form tegdii; the Arabic
for almond is lauz= Hebrew y^ (see Hazel).
^ 2 Lag. Uebers. 45. Cp Plin. 1625 (quoted by Celsius): 'Ex
lis quae hieme aquila exoriente concipiunt, fforet prima omnium
amygdala mense Januario ; Martio vero pomum maturat."
ALMS
the Greek AojAMWiJn?. The Greek word, which is
exceedingly rare in classical authors, means pity, and
in the Greek of the NT(Lk.ll4i I233 ActsSa/. 10936
10 4 31) signifies also a special result of pity viz., relief
given in money or kind to the poor. In biblical
Hebrew there is no corresponding word, and it is not
even quite certain that the technical and restricted use
of the word iXctjfioavvq occurs in . No doubt in
such passages as Ecclus. 7 10 and Tob. 4; 128-ii, the
author or translator has almsgiving chiefly or even
exclusively in view. Still irouiv (XfrjfjLOffvvrjv does not
in itself mean more than icn nbi', ' to do that which is
merciful or kindly.' On the other hand, the NT use of
'to give iXfTifjLoavvai,' etc., is quite decisive for the
specialised sense of the word.
The close connection lx;tween religion and deeds of
mercy frecjuently appears in ancient religion. The
Bedouin Arabs, maintaining therein
a primeval usage, regard the way-
farer as ' the guest of Allah,' to whom hospitality is
due (Doughty, Ar. IJes.'[22S). The sacrificial meal
often included an act of charity to the poor. 'I'hus
the poor were allowed to take handfuls from the meal-
offering made to the Arab god, al-'Okai.sir (WkS A'e/.
Setn.^-^ 223), and the same use of sacrifice was familiar
to the Greeks (see, e.g., Xen. Anad.wSg). Indeed
the general law of sacrificial feasts was open-handed
hospitality in which the poor shared. The OT,
however, carries this lx:neficent tendency farther than
any other ancient religion. It made systematic pro-
vision for the poor, and institutions of this kind can Ije
traced throughout the religious history of Israel, from
the eighth century onwards. Indeed it is significant
that in the OT scarcely a trace of beggars and begging
in the strict sense is to be found (see, however, i S. 236
Ps. 109io). In the 'Book of the Covenant' (see
Exodus, ii. 3), Ex. 23 10/. , the Hebrew landowner is
directed to leave his land fallow each seventh year ' that
the poor of thy people may eat.' The merciful spirit
of the Deuteronomist is conspicuous in the stress he
lays on the care for the poor. Every third year the
owner was to bring forth a tenth from his granaries and
bestow it exclusively on the poor, including the Levites
(Dt. 1-1 28/. ). According to a custom still preserved in
Palestine, every Israelite was free to pick and eat grapes
from his neighbour's vineyard, or to pluck ears from
the cornfield, as he passed along (Dt. 2824/. [25/.]).
Out of consideration for the poor, the owner nmst
not, in a grasping spirit, glean to the uttermost his
cornfield, vineyard, or oliveyard (Dt. 24 19-22). The
j earliest part of the Priestly Code, viz. , the ' Law of
Holiness' (see Leviticus), reflects the same precept
i (Lev. 199/. 2322) ; besides this, in Deuteronomy and
! generally in the later writers of the OT, private and
I voluntary almsgiving is especially commended. On the
whole it may be said that the prophets plead the rights
of the poor as their advocates, while in Deuteronomy
and in post-exilic literature, the needy Israelite is com-
mended to the charity of his brethren. See, among
passages too numerous to quote, Is. ffS; (a very late
passage) Prov. I421 19i7 Ps. II29 Job 29i2/. One
reference to almsgiving vi^. Dan. 427 [24] deserves
special notice. Probably the force of the Aramaic
words is ' redeem ' or ' make good thine iniquities . . .
by showing mercy to the poor,' and if this interpretation
of p-\3 be correct, we have here a clear implication of
the later Jewish doctrine that alms had a redemptive or
atoning power.
In the OT Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature
almsgiving assumes a new and excessive prominence.
. V, ^ much was this the case that .-ipnx,
3. Apocrypna ^j^j^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^j^j^^. ^.mings means
* Cp Maspero, Dawn o/Ch: 27.
* Prof. Cheyne informs us
.^.. ^if^,,,^ ..I..-, i.^ that the wild almond, now rare,
was noticed in a gla<le of Hermon by Robertson .Smith, who
found its blossoms distinctly white. "Tristram speaks of many
wild almond trees on Mt. Carmel {A'HB 332).
117
and Rabbin,
literature.
kTitmgs means
'righteousness' in general, came to
be used for almsgiving in particular,
and this use of the word has been naturalised in the
Arab, sadakaf" 'alms for God" (h'or. Sur. 9 104, etc.;
ALMUG OR ALGUM TREES
Doughty, Ar. ). I446), and the Syr. zedkftha (Pesh.
Lk. 1141. etc.).
The following ciwtions furnish examples of the propitiatory
virtue ascribed to alms in later Judaism: 'Shut up mercy
((Aerj/xoirurrji', perh. ' alms ') in thy treasuries, and it sh.all deliver
thee from all affliction" (Ecclus. -'9 12) ; 'Mercy' (or 'alms')
' delivereth from death ' (Tob. 4 10) ; ' Through alms a man
partakes of eternal life ' (Rosh haskshanah 3) ; 'He who says,' I
give this piece of money as alms, that I or my sons may inherit
eternal life, is a perfectly righteous man * (Pesachin, 5 ; Keff.
from Weber, Altsynag. Theot. ^^(> /.)\ ' Almsdeeds are more
meritorious than all sacrifices ' (San. 49 h) ; ' As sin-offering makes
atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles ' {Baia Bath. 10 b ;
Reff. from Levy, NHIVB, s.v. npns)-
Alms were systematically collected in the synagogue
of the Di;ispora for poor Jews in Palestine (this custom
is mentioned by Jerome as existing in his time), and
also every week for the poor of the synagogue itself.
Officers were appointed to make the collection, and
boxes for the reception of alms also were placed in the
synagogues (Vitring. Syn. J 'et. iii. 1 13). In Mk. I241/. ,
however, the reference is not to alms-chests but to one of
thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes, placed in the court of
the women to receive contributions towards the expenses
of the temple worship (.Schur. G/r22o<)).
Jesus, then, did not need to awaken zeal for alms-
giving among his countrymen : it was there already ;
_p and there was apparently more occasion for
it, since in the NT we meet with persons who
were, in consecjuence of V>odily infirmity, beggars by
profession (.\Ik. IO46 Lk. 1835'jn. 9/ , and note the
technical term Trpoa-atxTjs). He purified it from the
ostentation which often corrupted it (Mt. 62-4); he ac-
centuated the feeling of compassion, without which it is
worthless (Lk. IO33) ; above all, he taught that the dis-
position which gives alms by mechanical rule and
bargains with God for compensation here or hereafter
should yield to that impulse of the new heart which sees
the supreme reward in likeness to a heavenly Father
(Mt. 545). We cannot wonder then that, in the infant
church at Jerusalem, without compulsion or rigid com-
munistic system (see Acts 5 4), there was an ideal
charity which made 'all things conunon ' (.\cts432),
and prompted rich men like Barnabas to sell their
property for the sake of the needy (.Acts 436/.). No
doubt the expectation that Christ's second coming was
at hand stimulated this uncalculating generosity ; but
low esteem of worldly goods and love of the brethren
were the mainsprings of this new development. It is
also significant that the first election of Christian
officers was made to secure a due distribution of alms.
The Gentile churches, moreover, were bound to the
mother church at Jerusalem by the offerings which they
made for the poor in that city (Rom. 15 26/. i Cor. 16 1-3
2 Cor. 9 1 /. .Acts '24 17). Of course almsgiving found
other channels. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews
assumes that it is a necessary feature of the Christian
life, and speaks of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving
which continues after the Jewish altar has been done
away with. From very early days each church had its
lists of poor ( I Tim. 59) and its common fund (Ignat.
Ad Polvc. 4) ; and whereas in heathen clubs ' charity
was an accident, in Christian associations it was of the
essence' (Hatch, Or^an. of Early Christ. Church 36).
Cp Co.M.MU.N-iTV OF GOODS, especially 5. w. k. a.
ALMUG or ALGUM 1 TREES (D'SO^N, TTe\eKHT<\
[BA], An. [L], iK. lOii/.t; D'Oia'pN. neyKiNA
[B.VL], 2 Ch. '28 [7] 9 10/ [n. AneAcKHTA. L, v. 10;
AneA., L, V. ii]t) yielded a precious wood, which was
brought to Solomon, along with gold and gems,
from Ophir {q.v. ; cp .Solomon) by the ships
of Hiram, and was used to make 'pillars' (IVDO,
viro(TTT}pLyfuiTa [BAL], RV mg. ' a railing," i K.
10i2 = 2Ch.9ii ni7DD, dtra^daeis [B.\L]. EV
1 The two forms, though differently rendered by and
other versions, are obviously variants of the same word. The
etymology is unknown.
ALOES
terraces') for the temple and the palace, as well as
'harps and psalteries." In aCh. 28[7], these trees
appear along with cedars and firs among the products
of Lebanon, with which .Solomon asks Hiram to furnish
him ; but there is no mention of them in the parallel
passage in Kings. ^
The very various opinions that have been held as to
the identity of the tree are enumerated by Celsius
[nierob.\ 111 ff.).
Three may be mentioned : (i) The Jewish traditional rendering
is ' coral ' ; but this is obviously unsuitable, unle.ss we ma>|
understand by 'coral-wood' simply a red wood. (2) IjLimhi
takes it to be 'brazil-wood,' the bakkani of the Arabs, a red
dye-wood found in India. (3) Most moderns, following Celsius
(see his reasons, op. cit. 1 179^), believe it to be 'sandalwood,'
probably of the redder sort i^Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn.),
which is still used in India for purposes similar to those recorded
in Chronicles. The ancient versions yield no light ; but see
below.''^
The evidence appears to point to some valuable
Oriental wood brought (like lign aloes and cassia) into
the Eastern Mediterranean by the ancient commerce
of the Red Sea. If we may assume it to be a red
wood adapted for carving, it may well be either (i)
brazil-wood (a name of uncertain origin ; the French
braise, a glowing coal, has been suggested ; it was
transferred to the S. American country) = Oj(z///// /a
Sappaii, Linn., a tree of India and the Malay Isles,
apparently the bakkam of the Arabs ; or it may be
(2) red sandalwood, Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn.,
an inodorous dye-wood, still surviving as a colouring
matter in pharmacy, a native of Southern India, w^here
it is much valued for temple pillars. Possibly both
species may be included under the expression.
[ in 2 Ch. "2 8 9 10/ gives ^v\a irfVKiva, which agrees
with the Chronicler's statement that the algum-wood
came from Lebanon. Cheyne, therefore, proposes to
identify ' almug ' (the form attested by the earlier record,
that in Kings) with i-lammaku, the name of one of the
trees used l)y Sennacherib in building his palaces. The
tree seems from its name to have been of Klamite
origin ; but so useful a tree may have been planted in
Hernion and Lebanon. For tend in i K. 10 n, it is
possible to read TjbC. Less probably we may suppose
with Hommel that this hard and rare wood was ' a pro-
duct of the trade of Ophir. ' See Exp. T. 9 470^
525 ('98), and cp Alammelech.] n. m. \v. T. t.-d.
ALNATHAN (eANAOAN [A]), iEsd.844. RV
El.N.VrilAN, 2.
ALOES and (once) Lign Aloes* (D^'?n>? ; Num. 246
CKHNAI [B.VLl, KV 'lign aloes'; Pr..7 17 TON OIKON
1. Substance. ^^Y [I^^A] ; or nit'^^ Ps. 458 [9],
CTAKTH [Aq. aAcoO]. Cant. 4i4AA60e
[B.\], <\AOH [K] (Aq. a\oh, Sym. Gymiama). Jn-
1939t aAoh [BX.V]),'' the vi\o(\Q.xx\eagle-u<ood, a precious
wood exported from SE. Asia, which yields a fragrant
odour w hen burnt. It is entirely distinct from ( i ) the
common bitter ' aloe ' used in medicine, to which alone
the name was given by classical writers ; (2) the plant
1 The Chronicler h.is probably mistaken an imported article
of merchandise for a native product of Phoenicia.
2 Jerome renders thyina i.e., 'citron wood ' {Callitris qucul-
rtTahis, Vent.) an Algerian tree inordinately valued by the
Romans for tables, not likely to have been known in biblical
times or to biblical people.
3 It was the ' sanders ' used in mediaeval cookery for colouring
sauces.
* I.e., lignum oAoj)?, a hybrid phrase ; vide Skeat, Etyin.
Diet:, s.v.
* (The critical student will not fail to observe that three of the
four OT pass.iges in which c'SriN or n^S.IK occurs l)elong to
books or parts of books which eminent critics have regarded as
post-e.xilic, and may be reminded here that the occurrence of
rare plant -n.imes is one of the phenomena which have to be
considered in fixing the period of .such documents. He will
also notice that the reading of the fjurth p.issage has on good
grounds been amended. .'See the close of this article. Ed.]
6 This latter is described, among ancient writers, by Pliny
(//iV27 4) and Dioscorides (822), and its bitterness alluded to by
Juvenal (0 iSi ; ' plus aloes quam uiellis habet ').
ALOES
commonly known as the American aloe (Agave ameri-
cana), celebrated for the long period which elapses
before its flowering. The biblical wood most probably
corresponds to that dcscriljed by Dioscorides (I21)
under the name dvdXXoxoi' * (cp Ges. Thcs. c''?nK) 'a
wood imported from India and Arabia, resembling
thyine wood (Rev. 18 12), compact, aromatic, in taste
astringent and rather bitter, with a skin -like and
somewhat variegated bark. ' He speaks of its medicinal
use sweetening the breath and improving the internal
condition of the body -and adds that it is burned instead
of frankincense (cp Ar. kutdr and see Incknsk).
The Hebrew name d'Six or niSnN and the (jreek
ayaWoxov' are almost certainly, and the Greek i\&t)
^ and English aloe not improbably, derived
from the same Sanskrit word rt^r = eagle-
wood (see especially Yule's Hobson-Jobson, art. ' Eagle-
wood ' ).
This appears in Pali as agaru or aealu, in Alahratti as agaru
or agara ; probably another form is the Malayalam agil, whence
Portug. agitila, Kr. hois itaigle, and Eng. eagle-ivood. ' The
Malays call it Kayii (wood) -gakru, evidently the same name,
though which way the etymology flowed it i? difficult to say '
(Yule, /.(.). (Hommel, Exfi. T. 0525, compares aigalluhu
(var. akarhu'f)m Am. Tab.]
It is, however, possible that Or. oXIyt], Syr. 'alwai
(or 'ehi'iii), Pers. alwa^ have an entirely separate
origin : the Syriac word oftener means the bitter
medicinal aloes (so in the majority of references quoted
in PS T/ics. , s. V. ), and the Persian word is so explained by
the lexicographers.'* In that case we have an instance of
what is not uncommon in language, viz., that two things
have arrived at the same name from different starting-
points.
The ' aloes ' and ' lign aloes ' of the Bible are thus
identified with the product of some tree of the genus
o Aquilaria, the chief home of which is
3. Source. ' ,..- , . , ,. A 1
m Sh. Asia. According to Arab writers
there were many different varieties of the aghdliiji or
'//(/ found in different parts of India and Ceylon, differing
from one another in value according to the greater or
less compactness of the wood, though all had the
property of yielding a fragrant vapour if burned when
dry.' They speak of its use in perfuming clothes and
persons, thus illustrating Ps. 45S [9] and Cant. 414;
and there are parallels to the usage mentioned in
Fr.7.7.
It would seem that the kind of eagle- wood most likely to be
introduced into Kurope in classical times was that yielded by a
tree generally distributed throu'zli the Maliyan region, which in
early Eastern commerce wouUi thcnloix- iiatunillv be associated
with cassia. This is A.juilar-a ii:,i/,i, r.-nsis. u'liich is figured
by Rumphius under the name of (.lar.i. ami has from ancient
times been esteemed by the Chine.se. To this day 'it is the
most important product of the forests of S. Ten.-isserim and the
Mergui Archipelago.' Another eagle- wood is obtained in NE.
\nA\a.hom Aqui/ana Agaliocha ; but it is less likely that this
should have formed an article of commerce in biblical times.
Other kinds were obtained from the East in the Middle Ages :
what the early .\rab tr.-ivellers have to say about them may
be seen in IJymock, Phannacograpliia Ituiica 3 218 220.
They were similar but no doubt inferior products derived from
different trees, and are probably to be regarded as comparatively
modern substitutes.
Eagle-wood consists of diseased wood, infiltrated
with odoriferous oil and resin. It occurs in irregular
pieces varying in colour from grey to dark brown. It
1 In later Greek .also called fuAoAoT).
2 This latter p.assed into Arabic as aghaliijl <yc aghdlukht ;
but Arab writers usually call it al-'iid ' the wood ' f>ar exceUcnce,
ox al-'ud al- Hindi, 'the Indian wood.'
3 These three .ire evidently forms of the same word ; but here
again it is difficult to say %yhich way the etymology flowed.
On the other hand, in the single instance mentioned by
Dozy {Sufifil.) of the occurrence of the same word {alwiy) in
Arabic viz., in a poem quoted by .\1-Makkarl (tfist. and Lit.
of Arabs in Spain, ed. Dozy, etc. '-'776, /. 15) it seems to have
the same meaning as the biblical word. Describing the pride
of certain people, the poet says, with allusion to the old .Arab
custom of lighting fires in prominent places ne.ir their dwellings
to attract wanderers to hospitable entertainment, ' and they throw
on the fire of hospitality, from pride, their ahuiy and their
kiba ' (the latter also is said to be a species of agallochuni).
S See the Arabic references discussed at length in Celsius,
Hie robot. 1 135-171.
ALPH^US
is found in the centre of the tree, and the search for it
is laborious. The account of Dioscorides (see above,
I ) is accurate. The exterior, w hich cannot of course
be the bark, is veined with a darker colour.
As regards the importation of this substance into W.
Asia no difficulty arises when we remember the un-
doubted fact of a trade carried on by China with India
and .Arabia in early times, of which Ceylon was probably
a chief depot. See on this subject Fluckiger and
Hanbury, Phartnacoi^raphia, 2nd ed., p. 520/'. A
difficulty, however, appears when we consider Balaam's
words (Num. 24s/ ) :
' How good arc thy tents, O Jacob,
Thy dwelling-places, O Israel I
As valleys stretched forth,
As gardens beside a river.
As lign aloes | which Yahwe has planted.
As cedars beside waters.'
The wood may, indeed, have been imported by the
Phoenicians, and thus be mentioned side by side with
myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, etc., the spices of Arabia and
India ; but how could a Palestinian writer use, as a
suggestive simile for the expansion of Israel, the growth
of a tree which ex hypothesi was never seen in Palestine,
but only far away in SE. Asia? The difficulty is
pointed out by Dillmann, who remarks, ' Perhaps the
original reading was cS'N (palms, Ex. 1027 ; Gen. 146).'
The word suggested, however, seems generally to mean
' terebinths ' ; Prof. Cheyne points out the parallel
in Is. 61 3.'- Pistacia Terebinthus, though often only a
bush, may be a tree of from twenty to forty feet.
N. M. w. T. T.-D.
ALOTH (ni^j;). According to i K. 4 16 Solomon
had a prefect, Baanah, ' in Asher and in .Moth ' (cN TH
AAAaAa [B], . . . ta^AaA [I'] omitting ' Asher ' ;
CN ACHp KAI eN maaAcot [A]). It is better, as in
RV and Kau. HS, to read 'in Asher and Bealoth.'
See Baai,.\th-beer. Klostermann, recognising that a
more northerly place is desirable, suggests the emenda-
tion ' Zebulun ' (notice ' Naphtali,' v. i s, and ' Issachar,'
-.. 17).
ALPHA AND OMEGA (to AA<t)A kai to go
[Ti. WH] Rev. 18 216 and [to a in B] 2'2i3). For
similar use of first and last letters of the alphabet in
Rabbinic writings see Schottgen, Hora: Hebraiccr 1 1086/
ALPHABET. See Writing.
ALPH.5:US (aA(1)AI0C [Ti- WH] ; Heb. [Aram.]
^B?n [''Spn], either a contraction from H'^Sbn or a
gentilicimn from the place-name Heleph ; on account
of the n W & H write 'AX</)atos).
1. Father of Levi the publican, named only in Mark
(Mk. 2i4 = Lk. 527 = Wt. 99 [where Matthew is usually
identified with Levi]).
2. Father of the second James in the lists of apostles
(Mt. IO3 Mk. 3i8 Lk. 615, Acts 1 13 ; see Aposti.e,
i), not to be identified with Clopas and so made a
brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. See Ci.oi'AS, 3.
There is no reason for identifying (i) and (2). The
Itala, it is true, and apparently also the more important
of the MSS known to Origen, as well as D, read
'laKu^ov instead of Aeveiv in Mk. 2 14 ; but if this had
been the original reading, it would be impossible to
account for the subsequent substitution for James of a
quite unknown Levi. The reading 'Iolkw^ov arose
simply because, at a very early date, a copyist knew
of no son of Alphaeus but James, and therefore
took AeueiJ' for an error which he was bound to
correct. If the .Mph;i"us of Mk. 2 14 were to be
identified with the .Alph.neus of the lists of apostles, on
the assumption that Levi and the second James were
brothers, then we should expect to find these two
1 Instead of C"^nN "af reads D'Sni<, ' tents ' ; but this is
obviously unsuitable. Cp its rendering in Pr. 7 17 (toi/ 5i oIk6v
fiOv).
2 But see SBOT, Heb. on Is. I.e., and cp Cedar.
ALTANEUS
brothers forming a pair in the lists just as Peter and
Andrew do, or John and the tirst James. This objection
to the identification, however, is vahd only on the
assumption that Levi under the name of Matthew was
admitted into the number of the twelve.
The Syrian writer Amrus in the 14th cent, makes Alphseus
accompany Nathanael ^identilitd with Bartholomew) on his
journeyings throujjh Nisihis, Mesopotamia, and the rest of
Western Asia (Lipsius, Apocr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 61/). v. w. s.
ALTANEUS (aAtannmoc [A]). KV Maltan-
NEUS, I Esd. 933t=Iizral033 Mattenai, 2.
ALTAR.^ The Heb. nSTQ means literally ' a place
of slaughter or sacrifice' (cp Ar. Madbah,"^ and Syr.
Madhfha). The Gk. and Lat. terms.
1. Names. ^^^^^ ^^.^ ^owb-i), ara (cp deipw), altare
(cp altus), on the other hand, descrilie the form of the
altar as a raised structure without reference to its
purpose. Occasionally (23 times) uses the Gk.
word /3w/u5j ; as a rule, however, naio i^ rendered
by Qvai.a.(yTripi.ov. The translation thus effected is close
and e.xact ; but dvixiaffT-qpiov is unknown in classical
literature, being apparently confined to biblical, Jewish,^
and ecclesiastical writers. In the NT jBojfxds occurs only
once (Acts 17 23). and there the writer is speaking of an
altar used for heathen worship. Elsewhere dvcTiaarripiov
is always employed.
We have, then, in the Hebrew word an accurate
definition of the altar : it is a place of sacrifice. Why
_ . ... an altar should l)e reciuired in order that
2. Primitive ^^^^ victim may be slain in a manner ac-
^"** ceptable to the deity, and advantageous to
the worshipper, is not so obvious as we might at first be
inclined to think. We might deem it a sufficient explana-
tion to say that the altar served ends of obvious con-
venience. " The flesh of the victim being placed on a raised
platform specially appropriated to this object, the sacri-
fice was separated from contact with common things
and from contamination, while a means was provided
for performing the rite with due solemnity and in full
sight of those who desired to associate themselves with
the sacred offering. There is evidence, however, that
in primitive times the altar possessed a much deeper
significance than this. (The development of this
primitive idea is traced elsewhere. See Idolatry, 2 ;
Sacrifice ; M.\ssebah. )
To the .\rabs any stone might become for the nonce
an altar, and evidently their Hebrew kinsfolk followed
_ originally the same ancient way. Thus,
3. Usage, ^j-j^^ jj^g victory of Michmash, when Saul
was told that his hungry warriors were devouring the
flesh meat which they had taken as booty, without
reserving the blood as an offering to Yahwe, he com-
manded his people to roll a great stone towards him,
and on this natural altar the blood, the mysterious seat
of the soul, was poured out, so that all was in order
(i S. 1432-35). It is to be observed that here there is no
question of burning. In Gideon's sacrifice, of which we
have an account in Judg. 611^, the offering of cooked
flesh and unleavened cakes is indeed consumed by fire
miraculously kindled ; but the altar on which the gifts
are placed is simply a rock, and the broth of the
cooked flesh is poured out upon it or at its base.
According to Ex. 2O24-26, on the other hand a
passage which, whatever be its date (see Exodus, ii. 3),
may represent an ancient usage the altar is to be of
earth a material used in early times by other nations
e.^'., Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks (for references
see Di. , ad loc. ) or, if of stone, then of unhewn stone,
the reason given being that an iron instrument would
1 On references to Greek altars see Unknown God and
Abomination, ii.
2 The Arabic Madhak does not mean ' altar." It has acquired
that meaning through translations of the Bible. It is also used
in the sense of 'trench' (on which see WR.S Rel. Scm.(^ 341,
n. I ; cp the remarks on ^haighah, op. cit. -^^o/. 198 228).
3 Prof. Moore has pomted out that it occurs, not only as is
sometimes stated, in Philo, but also in Eupolemus, Ep. Arist.,
Jos., and other Jewish authors.
123
ALTAR
destroy the sanctity 01 the altar. Originally, it can
scarcely be doubted, the idea was that changing the
form of the sacred stone would drive the deity from his
abode (cp Idolatry, 4) ; but such ideas had passed
away when the compiler wrote, and iron tools continued
to be forbidden in deference to ancient custom no longer
understood. Further, the altar here prescribed was to
have no steps. In this way the person of the sacrificer
was to Ije saved from exposure, an object secured by
the priestly legislator in a very different way viz. , by
making linen breeches,' or drawers, part of the priestly
attire. Altars so constructed might be erected all over
Israel : see High Place, 2/ On the recognition of
the altar as a sanctuary for homicides see WRS /ieL
i:^;. 183/., and cp Asylum.
Very different was the altar erected in the fore-
court of Solomon's temple at Jerusalem. The first
, Book of Kings (925) makes direct men-
4. Solomon S ^-^^^ ^^ ^y^^ f^^^ ^^^^^ Solomon built an
temple. ^j^^^. ^^ which he offered sacrifice three
times a year. So, too, in 864, reference is made to the
altar which 'stood l)efore Yahwe' i.e., in front 01 the
temple proper and it is described as the ' brazen altar '
(r\cm naic)- Thus the material itself offers a striking
contrast to the altars of earth and stone which had teen
in use previously. Like the rest of the temple and its
furniture, it was the work of a Phoenician artist,
Huram-.Jibi (2Ch. 2i3, perhaps rightly; see, however,
HiRA.M, 2). Unfortunately, the account of the altar,
which we should expect before i K. 723. "s wanting.
The text of the passage has been mutilated because a later
editor, misinterpreting 1K.84 (itself a very late insertion),
supposed that the furniture of the tabernacle, includmg, of
course, the brazen altar, had been moved by Solomon into his
temple, so that no further altar of this kind was needed. The
excision of the passage describing Solomon's brazen altar must
have been effected in comparatively modern times, for the
Chronicler shows that he had it before him in the text of the
Books of Kings which he used (see St. in ^^A 7";r3 157 ['83]).
The Chronicler (2Ch. 4i) gives its dimensions. It
was 20 cubits long and broad by 10 cubits high. Now,
these are precisely the measurements of the altar in
Ezekiel's temple (Ez. 43i3#). The prophet really
constructs his ideal temple of the future from his re-
collections of the old temple in which he may very well
have served as a priest. We shall, therefore, not go far
WTong if, with most modern archreologists, we take
Ezekiel's description as applicable to Solomon's altar. On
that supposition, although the altar was 20 cubits broad
and long at the base, the altar-hearth ^ was only 12 cubits
by 12. The altar consisted of three platforms or ledges,
the higher being in each case two ells narrower than the
lower ledge. At the base was a gutter (EV 'the
bottom," RV mg. 'the hollow,' Ez. 4813) one ell
broad (pn, KdXirwfxa, KoiXw/xa, KVKXuina in @), intended
apparently for the reception of the sacrificial blood ; and
there was a similar gutter at the top round the altar-
, hearth. At the four corners on the top
'* ^"^^ ' were four projections called 'horns."
altar, etc. pogsj^y they represent, as Stade has
suggested, the teginning of an attempt to carve the
altar stone into the form of an ox, which symbolised the
power of Yahwe 2 (Nu. '2322 '24 8). Be that as it may,
down to the latest times the horns of the altar were
regarded as specially sacred, so that in the consecration
of priests (Ex. 29 12)' and in the ritual of the sin offering
(Lev. 47^) the blood was sprinkled upon them. It
has been inferred from Ps. II827 that at one time the
horns were used also for fastening the victim ; but the
meaning of the words is exceedingly obscure, and no
conclusion of any value can be deduced from them.
The ascent to the altar was made by a flight of steps
1 The word for hearth or place for burning, which should
probably be written St<nN (see Ariel, 2). occurs not only in Is.
29 !_/?:, but also on the stone of Mesha (//. 12 17/).
2 Robertson Smith, however, regards the ' horns of the altar
as a modern substitute for the actual horns of .s.icrificial victims,
such as the heads of oxen which are common symbols on Greek
altars (A'.S- 436).
124
ALTAR
on the E. side, and it is plain that an arrangement of
this kind was absolutely necessary, when we consider the
great height of the structure.
On the whole matter we must remember that Solomon
had no strict ruletofollow : hesimply desired, with the help
., , of I'hoL'nician art, to consult for the splendour
azB ofihe royal worship. We need not, therefore,
* ^^" wonder that one of his successors, Ahaz
(2 K. 16 10^ ), with the co-operation of Uriah the priest,
constructed a new altar after the pattern of one that
he had seen at Damascus, and made it the chief place of
sacrifice.
Solomon's altar was placed, as has been already
implied, in front /'.<., on the K. side of the temple
.. proper. Can we identify the exact site ? Not
perhaps with anything like certainty ; but it is
worth while to mention the theory advocated by Willis,
and more recently by Nowack. The Kubbet es-sahra,
or dome of the rock, which stands on the temple area,
covers a great rock pierced by a channel which passes
into a sink beneath, and is connected with a water-
pipe. The rock has been an oV)ject of the highest
veneration to Christians, and (especially) to Moslems. It
has been supposed that the rock stood on the threshing-
floor of Araunah the Jehusite (on the name see
Ar.\lnah), that it was there David saw the angel
(2 S. 24 16^) and erected his altar, and that Solomon
(2Ch. Szjf.) afterwards included the ground within the
temple site. Solomon would naturally build his altar
on the spot already chosen by his father and hallowed
by the apparition ; nor is it incredible, when we consider
how tenaciously Orientals, under changed modes of belief,
cling to the old sacred places, that David and Solomon
built their altars on the rock now covered by the Kubbet
es-sahra. The story of the apparition to David would, on
this hypothesis, find a parallel in the apparition to Gideon
(Judg. Oii^), and in that to Manoah (Judg. ISig).
The perforation, the water, and the sink would be
explained as means for carrying off blood and offal
from the altar. It is true, as Dean Stanley has pointed
out, that the rugged form of the rock would make it
unsuitable for a threshing-floor ; but that is no reason
why the rock should not have stood ' by the threshing-
floor ' and been the place where the angel appeared.
Cp Ak.mnah.
Within the temple proper, and in front of the Debir or
innermost shrine, stood another altar, mentioned in
... , iK. 620/. The te.xt, which is corrupt,
y, \^^ ^ii slioultl be emended thus, with the help of
snewDreaa. ^^ (^.^5^0,,) . .he made an altar of cedar
in front of the Debir. ' From Ez. 4I22 we learn that it
was 3 cubits high by 2 cubits broad, and that the altar
had ' corners ' which took the place of the horns of
the brazen altar. Ezekiel speaks of it also as a ' table. '
Upon it, from ancient times (i S. 21[6]7), the shewbread
was placed before Yahw^, to be afterwards consumed by
the priests.
We assume here that the Tabernacle (^.v.), as
described by the 'priestly writer,' is an ideal structure.
Said to have been made at Sinai, it was in
reality an imaginary modification of the
temple, suitable (so it was supposed) to the
circumstances of the time when the Israelites wandered
in the wilderness.
(a) The altar, called simply ' the altar' (Ex. 27 1 30 18
4O732, etc.). 'the altar of burnt offering' (Ex. 30 28
3I9, etc.), or 'the brazen altar' (Ex.38303939), stood
in the outer court, and was square, 5 cubits broad
and long, by 3 high. Instead of being wholly of
brass, it was a hollow framework of acacia planks over-
laid with brass. It was thus small and portable. It
had four ' horns ' ; midway between top and bottom
ran a projecting ledge (so RV, AV 'compass';
2313 ; 275), intended, perhaps, as a place for the priests
to stand upon when they ministered, though the meaning
of the word and the purpose intended are disputed.
125
9. P's brazen
altar.
ALTAR
Below this ledge there was a brazen grating (so RV,
AV 'grate,' 274) or Network {</.v.). nen .ncyo -1330
ptrm, which may havelx.-en a device to support the ledge
and admit the passage of the blood poured out at the lse
of the altar. There were four brazen rings at the corners
of this network, and into them the staves for carrying
the altar were inserted. These staves, like the altar
itself, were of acacia wood, overlaid with brass. So,
too, the altar utensils viz. , nh'D or pans for clearing
away ashes, c'y* or shovels, n'ipitp basons or saucers
for catching the blood and sprinkling, nijStp fleshhooks
for forks, ninno or fire-pans for removing coals, etc.
were all of brass. Perpetual fire was to burn on this
altar (Lev. 612/.).
(/3) Ezekiel, as we have seen, mentions an altar
within the 'holy place,' which he also calls 'the table
10 P'a tabiA ' ^^'*^^ stands before Yahw6. ' The
' priestly writer ' calls it ' the table '
(Ex.2523 37 10), 'the table of the face or presence'
(Nu. 47, c'3S cnS cp Ritual, 2), because it stood
before Yahw6 (Ezek. 41 22). ' the pure table ' (Lev. 246).
In 2 Ch. 29 18 it is spoken of as ' the table of shewbread,'
n3ni'5n jnStr lit. , the table on which rows (of loaves)
were laid to describe the purpose for which it was
intended. It was of acacia wood overlaid with gold,
and was 2 cubits long, i cubit broad, i^ high. It
was surrounded by a golden rim or moulding (nt, Ex.
25 1 1 ; see Crown), and at the bottom there was a
border or ledge (rrijpsn, Ex. 2025, EV ' border '), with a
golden rim of its own. Where the feet of the tafjle
joined the ledge, golden rings were placed for the
insertion of staves. The table was furnished with deep
plates (n'n^'p, Ex.2529, EV 'dishes'), 'spoons' or
saucers (niss) for the incense (Lev. 247), 'flagons'
(niw'p, Ex.2529 [see Flagon]) for the wine, 'bowls'
(so EV, nvp:p 2529) for pouring the wine in libations.
(7) The altar of incense (n^fap ^Bpp nsip, Ex. 30i,
or nnbp naip), also called ' the golden altar' (Ex. 3938),
11. P's incense
altar.
belongs only to the secondary sections
of the Priestly Code. Ezekiel knows of
no altar within the temple proper save
the altar of the shewbread, and originally ' the golden
altar ' was only another name for this table. The
Priestly Code, in its original form, speaks of the brazen
altar as ' ike altar ' ; and, whilst in Ex. 30 10 the high priest
on the day of atonement is to place blood on the horns
of the altar of incense, in Lev. 16, where the solemn
ritual of that great day is minutely prescribed, nothing
is said of an altar of incense. The mention of the
altar in the books of Chronicles and Maccabees (as
also in the interpolated passage i K. 748) is due simply
to the influence of these novellae in the ' Priestly
Code.
This altar was to be made of acacia wood ; it was to
be 2 cubits high, i cubit broad and long ; the tlat
surface on the top (33, Ez. 43i3, AV 'higher place,"
RV ' base '), and the sides and horns, were overlaid with
gold. It had a golden moulding round it (11), and
beneath this at the four corners were golden rings for
the staves, which also were overlaid with gold.
In the reign of Darius a new altar of burnt offering
was built, probaV)ly on the old site (cp Hagg. 215),
,/. T i ! l^ut, in accordance with the law in
12. Post-exillC. j.^ 2O25, of unhewn stone (i Mace.
444^). It was desecrated, and, according to Josephus
(Anf.xii.o^), removed by Antiochus Epiphanes. A
new altar, also of unhewn stone, was built by Judas
Maccabaius. Within the temple proper were the table
for the shewbread and the golden altar of incense
(i Mace. 1 21 449/.); but the latter, as far as it was
distinct from the table, seems to have been introduced
late, for Hecat^eus (Jos. c. Ap.lai) mentions only the
126
AL-TASCHITH
candlestick and one altar (or table) as the furniture of
the holy place.
In Herod's temple the altar of burnt offering in the
court of the priests was still of unhewn stones. The
-- ,, .\Iishna {Middoth 3i) states that it was
. ero s ^^ t-uiiits scjuare at the base, and gradually
^mp e. ;^rrowe<l to 24 cubits at the top ; but the
dimensions are differently given by Josephus (///v. 56),
and, before him, by Hecatajus (Miiller, /-Va^w. 2394).
The priests approached it by an a.seent of unhewn
stone. There was <i pipe to receive the blood, which
was afterwards carried by a sulnerrane.m passage into
the Jordan, and there was a cavity beneath the altar for
the drink offerings. On the N. side were brazen rings
for securing the victims. A red thread marked the
place for sprinkling the blood. The altar of incense
stood within the holy place, Ijetween the golden candle-
stick and the table of shevvbread.
As we have seen (1), the word OvaiaffTT^piov is fre-
quently used in the NT for the Jewish altars ; and the
NT ^PO'-'^lypse speaks of the ' golden altar' (83, and
' altar ' in the same sense /i/.o/w), because the
writer pictures the worship of heaven under forms drawn
from the old temple worship. In apassage which is uniciue,
the author of Hebrews (13 10) speaks of a Christian
altar. The altar is, of course, not material but spiritual ;
it is the cross on which Christ offered himself, and the
author is following the same line of thought when he
e.xhorts believers ' to do good and communicate, since
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.'
For the origin of .iltars see luoi.Ariiv, 2 ; Sackifice; H|(;h
Place, 3, and WK.S AV-/. Sfiii. ; for the Hebrew altars in
later times Henzinger's and No^v.^ck's //c/'. Arch, (both works
'94). See also Stade, ' Text d. lierichtes iib. Salomes Hauten '
{ZATlV?,i-2()jr.), Smend's EzMel C&o), Cornill's critical text
of Ezekiel ('86), and the comm. of Hertholet in KHC. For an
account of the older literature on the archjeology of Ezekiel's
temple see Buttcher, J'roben ATlichi:r Scliriftcrklarting, 1833.
RV
Al - Tashheth ( nni"ri"^N ;
AL-TASCHITH,
BN Aq., Symm., mH AlA(t)eeipHC ; Symm. Ps. I'm,
nepi &(t)0<\pCIAc)- It is usual to supply ^y or '^n
before the phrase (Ps. 57-59 75t, headings [f. 1]), and
to explain ' To the tune of " Destroy not " ' (cp Is. t)58 ;
so WRS O'rjO") 209). If, however, the view of the
musical notes in the headings taken in P.s.m.ms is
correct, there can be no doubt that the phrase is corrupt,
and that we should read with Griitz ri"r2:j'n-'7i;, ' on the
Sheminith" (see Sheminith).
ALUSH (C'-I^N ; Sam. \y>^^ AiAoyc [AFL],-AeiM^
[B] ; Ai.us), a desert station of the Israelites between
Dophkah and Rephidim (Nu. 33i3/.t [P])- Not
identified with certainty ; but see Di. on Ex. 17 1. The
Ar. (ed. Lag.) reads al-wathanain, 'the two idols,'
probably because the translator understood by Alush
the heathen temple at Elusa (see Berkd, i. i, and
cp. WRS A7. 293/.). See W.-\nderi.\gs, 12, 14.
ALVAH (ni^y. i-ojAa [ADEL] = nW ? Alva),
Gen. 3640=1 Ch. Isit, Kr. (EV Aliah after Kt.
riyV ; B.\ as above ; aXova. [L]), one of the ' dukes ' (?)
of Edo.m ((/.I'. , 4). Cp Alvan.
ALVAN {\h;^; rcoAcoN [A], -com [DE], -^.m [L]
transposing ^ and )), Gen. 3623=1 Ch. l4ot Alian
(|Vy, but in many MSS }1?y ; so aAoyan [L]. but
CcoAam [B], icoAam [A]), a name in the genealogy
of Seir. Cp .Xi.vah.
AMAD (Ij;py; amihA [B], &m&A [A], aAcIjaaA
[L]), an unidentified point in the border of Asher (Josh.
1926t). * presupposes Ammiel. There are several
other place-names compounded with dj;. See Gray,
HPN 48/., who rightly declines the explanation of
1 B points to a reading dS'K, Elim. Perhaps the writer,
wishing to fill tip the interval between the wilderness of Sin and
Rephidim (cp Ex. 17 1), repeated Elim, the name of an earlier
station. See Elim.
AMALEK
Am'ad as ' people of eternity.' C-'s aX^aaS may point
to Vi'eSk (ICi.p.VAI,) for which " in i Ch. 811 gives
o.\<po.ah. This may Ix; correct. T. K. C.
AMADATHA, RV Amadathus (&maAa0oy [B]).
Esth. 16 10, etc. See Ha.mmkua ruA.
AMAL (?D^ ; a/v\(\a[B.\], aAam [L]), in genealogy
of ASHKK (4ii-). lCh.735t.
AMALEK {\hl^% amaAhk [BAL], but -hx i S. I525
[.\]; gentilic, Amalekite, ""P^Oj^in, amaAhk [BAL],
1 Seat ^^^ '^'^^ -K[e]iTHC [BAL]), a tribe with
which the ancient Israelites, at several periods
of their history, were engaged in warfare. According
to two passages, each of which confirms the other,
there appears to have been a time when Amalekites
dwelt even in Central Palestine : in the Song of
Deborah we read of ' liphraim whose root is in
Amalek' (Judg. 514; (5'^'-, however, iv koCKoZi), and
Pirathon in Kphraim (the modern Feratd, about 6 m.
W.SW. of N'abulus) was situated ' on the mountains
of the Amalekite,' or 'of the Amalekites' (Judg. 12 15,
\a.va.K [.\I>]). Of these northern Amalekites nothing
further is known. According to several passages of the
OT, the home of Amalek was in the desert of the
Sinaitic peninsula, the modern Tih, S. and SW. of
Juckta. It is scarcely safe to conclude from Nu. 1829
1425 43 45 that they once had settlements also in
southern Jud.ea ; still less can we build any such theory
upon Gen. 1-1 7, although the geographical allusions in
this chapter have more authority than the legendary
P , narrative itself. When the Israelites
came out of Egypt into the desert of
Sinai, they had an encounter with the Amalekites at
Rephidim (P2x. 178-i6), which is not very far from
Mount Sinai (Nu. 3815). It was natural enough that
the nomads, who lived on the scanty products of this
region, should do their utmost to expel the intruders,
nor can we wonder at the mortal hatred with which
the Israelites thenceforth regarded Amalek. That the
narrative, in spite of its legendary features, has a
historical foundation cannot be doubted. The story
of an encounter in the desert of Paran i.e., the Tih
itself (Nu. 14254345) is probably nothing more than
a less accurate version of the same struggle, which, it
is true, can hardly have been limited to a single skirmish.
Whether the account of the Deuteronomist (Dt. 2517-19)
was derived from any other source besides Ex. 178 _^
is not quite clear, although he mentions one additional
circumstance, namely ' the cutting off of those who were
wounded (?) ' the term c'Srm was perhaps suggested
by B*'?n'i in Ex. 17 13. The verbal repetition of the curse
is worthy of note. In iS. 152, there is an obvious
allusion to the passage in Exodus.
The mention of the Amalekites in Judg. 813 is perhaps
due only to an ancient dittography (p'?Dj;i |icj'. ^ reading
which, at all events, must have been known to the
author of the Maccabean Psalm 83 see v. 7 [S]) ; but
it may be questioned whether Budde is justified in con-
sidering the reference to the Amalekites in connection
with the Midianites (Judg. 6333 7 12) as a mere gloss ; it
is in fact by no means improbable that besides the
Midianites various other nomadic tribes made inroads
upon the Israelite peasantry at the period in question.
The account of the wars of Saul against the Amalekites
(iS. 15) is unfortunately not altogether trustworthy.
_ . J Even in its original form it must have con-
' _ . , tained many exaggerations ; and it has
been subjected to considerable revision.
The high figures which appear in the narrative have no
historical value. The same may be said of the vast extent
attributed to the Amalekite territory in a passage imitated
from Gen. 25 18 ( i S. 156). We may with some certainty,
however, conclude that the very first king of Israel
inflicted severe losses upon the wild nomads (cpSAUL,
3). In this connection we read of King Agag (the only
4. Later times.
AMALEK
Anialekite proper name known to us, it may be noticed
in passing), to whom the words of Balaam in Nu. '24 7
refer. The description of the death of Agag, obscure
as it is, has a very antique colouring, and reminds us
of Judg. 818-21. Popular tradition has strangely
interwoven the fate of the .\nialekitcs with that of .Saul.
According to one story, which does not agree with the
narrative in iS. 31, .Saul was slain by an Amalekite,
who forthwith carried the news to David, but instead of
being rewarded w;is put to death. Even in the book of
Estlier, coniiiosed many centuries later, reference is made
to the enmity Ix-'tween .Saul and Agag, as the kabhiiis
long ago observed : the righteous Mordecai is descended
from the one, and the wicked Ilaman from the
other.
.\t the moment when Saul fell on Mount Gilboa, the
Amalckites, as it happened, were signally defeated by
David. An ancient and well-informed narrator tells us
how David, an exile at the court of the king of Gath,
while professing to be very differently occujjicd (see
Atiiisii, D.wii), 5), was in reality carrying on a
war of extermination against the aboriginal tribes, in
particular the .Xmalckiles ( i S. 278). On one occasion
the Amalekites profited by his absence to seize his
residence, Ziklag, and carried off all its inhabitants.
He pursued them, however, made a sudden .attack with
a band of only 600 nien, rescued the whole of the spoil,
and slew them all, with the exception of 400 who
escaped on their camels (iS. 30). Even the details of
this narrative may, for the most part, \x regarded as
historical ; it is obvious that the struggles here described
were not wars on a large scale but mere raids such as
are usual in the desert.
In after times .\malek does not come into prominence.
The words of Halaatn, which descrilje it as ' the first-
born of nations' {i.e. , primeval nation?),
and at the same time foretell its over-
throw, are spoken rather from the point of view of the
age in which Balaam is pLaced than from the point of
view of the real author, who seems to have lived about
the eighth century n.c. (cp Bala.\m). According to the
remarkable notice contained in i Ch. 442^, 500 men of
the tribe of .Simeon, under leaders whose names are
specified, exterminated the last renmant of the Amalekites
in the mountain country of Seir and settled down in their
place. Hence it would appear that the last Amalekites
dwelt in the mountains of Edom. With this it agrees
that Gen. 36, the substance of which must be at all
events jjre-cxilic, represents Amalek as the son of I".sau's
first-born, I-.liphaz, by a concubine i.e., .as an Edoniite
tribe of inferior rank : see Gen. 36 12 (of which i Ch. 1 36
is an incorrect version), and compare i: 16. The con-
cubine in question is Timna, according to i'. 22 ( = i Ch.
I39), a sister of Lotan of -Seir, and according to the
second list in v. 40 J^. (where Amalek is omitted), an
Edomite tribe or settlement. Thus the renmants of
Amalek are, to some extent, reckoned as members of
the Edoniite race.
The mention of Amalek among the contemporaneous
enemies of Israel, by a psalmist of the Maccabean
6.Latewriter8. P^""'^ (^\S3 7[8]), is merely an
example of the poetical licence
whereby an ancient name is applied to a modern
people, just as, e.o-. , Greek writers of the sixth century
A.u. call (ioths 'Scythians.' As far as we can judge,
the Amalekites were never a very important trilx; ; at
their first appearance in history they are threatened
with total destruction, and it would seem that neither
Egyptian nor Assyrian records allude to their existence.
Ancient Arabic authors, indeed, descrilje them as a
mighty nation which dwelt in Arabia, Egypt, and other
countries, and lasted down into post-Christian times.
The present writer, however, thinks that in his short
essay 'On the Amalekites' (Gottingen, 1864), he has
succeeded in proving that these and other similar
statements are either fancies suggested by passages in
9 129
AMALEK
the OT, or else deliberate fictions, and therefore have
no historical value. At the present day this opinion
seems to be generally accejjted.
One branch of the .Amalekites, it is true, apjjears to
have lasted somewhat hunger than the rest. \\ hen Saul
^ .. attacked the Amalekites he ordered the
h'cnilcs to separate themselves from the
doomed people, on the ground that they had shown
kindness to Israel at the time of the exodus (i .S. Uib).
The Kenites must therefore have lx:longed to Amalek, or
must, at least, have stood in close connection with them
(cp Judg. 1 16 as in SliO T). Thus we find that the oracle
of Bala.im (Xu. '24 2i^) mentions this people, under the
name of Kain [v. 22, I^V mg. ), immediately after Amalek.
Their friendly relations with Isr.ael are, moreover,
shown by the fact that, according to Judg. 1 16, the father-
in-law of Moses was a Kenite (elsewhere a Midianite),
and also by the fact that his descendants entered
Palestine in company with the tribe of Judah. Hence
the Kenites are reckoned as a part of Judah (i S. 3O29,
cp I Ch. 255) ; but according to the more accurate view
they were a distinct people, though they dwelt in the
south of Judtea, and were recognised as kinsmen by
D.avid ( I S. 27 10). From i Ch. 255, it would apjx-ar that
the kechabites, with whom the nomadic life had Ijecome
a religious institution, were included among the Kenites
(Jcr. 3.') 2K. IO1523). In another district, the
great plain of S. Galilee, we meet with Helxr the Kenite
(Judg. 4 / ). For VV. Max Miiller is mistaken when he
derives the name from a city called Khi {As. u. Eur.
174) ; the Song of Deborah reckons Jael, the wife of
Hcber, among 'women in the tent' (Judg. 524), whicli
shows that the people in question are nomads.
Accordingly we have rfo right to regard these Kenites
as wholly distinct from those in the South. The
oracle of Balaam mentions Kenites in the rocky hills of
the South, foretelling that they will be carried away
captive by the Assyrians. Gen. 15 19 includes the
Kenites among the ten nations whose land God will
give to Israel.
This people must therefore have been a nomadic
tribe, which, at least in part, belonged to Amalek, in
part was absorbed into Isr.ael, and in part, it may be,
maintained a separate existence for some time longer.
It is not impossible that the Bedouin tribe, Kain,
which dwelt in the desert of Sinai and the neighbouring
districts about six centuries after Christ, may be con-
nected with the Kenites (Kain) of the OT, as the
present writer, following Ewald, has stated {op. cit.).
At the present time, some further arguments might be
brought forward in favour of this hypothesis, which,
however, is still very far from being absolutely proved.
On the other hand, there are many objections to the
theory that Cain, the fratricide, is a representative of the
p . Bedouin tribe of the Kenites, as well as to
7. Oain. ^jj^^.j. h^.potheses of Stade (/.-/ 7TF 14 250-318
['94]), great as is the acuteness with which they are
supported. A few points alone can be here referred to.
C:ain, the brother of Abel the shepherd, is expressly
described as a hushamimati. After his evil deed he
becomes ' a wanderer and a fugitive ' i.e. , an outlawed,
homeless criminal. This is something quite different
from a nomad, who regularly goes to and fro within the
same pastures in the ' desert. ' That the Kenites, from
among whom Moses fetched a wife, and who have a
good name almost everywhere in the OT, were a trilx;
of smiths' (and therefore of pariahs), has no evidence
in its favour, nor can we find any indication that the
later Arabian tribe of Kain (Bal-Kain) was of such a
character. In the Ar. kaiti, which, it is true, also
means 'smith, craftsman,' several words appear to be
combined. Besides, blood - vengeance, which is first
mentioned in the story of Cain, is by no means a
1 Similarly Sayce, Races 0/ OT 118. 'They formed an
important guild in an .ige when the art of metallurgy w.os
confined to a few.' See however Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 xSo-sd:.
AMAM
peculiarity of nomad tribes ; it prevailed also among the
ancient Israelites, who of course were agriculturists
(see also C.MN, 4/ ). TH. N.
AMAM (DDN; chn [B] ; amam lAL]), an un-
identified site in the Negcb of Judah (Josh. ISabf).
AMAN. I. (am&n [A], aA&m [B], naA&B M)
Ward of Tobit's nephew Achiacharus (Sennacherib's j
vezir, Tob. I22). who basely ill-used his benefactor, I
but came to grief himself while his victim escaped
(Tob. 14 10); called Nadan in romance of Ahikar (see j
ACHIACIIAKUS), and no doubt, therefore, the same as |
NASB.\s(i/0(r/3ay[B.\], j'ada5[N] ; n'^ : nada/AlVg.], \
nabal [It.]), the (^d5f\(pos (EV 'brother's son') of I
Achiacharus (Tob. lliSf), probably to be rendered,
in accordance with the romance, ' sister's son ' (cp
accompanying table). See AcHiACHAKUS.
Tobiel
Tobit
Achiacharus (Tob. 1 21/.)
Nasba-s (Tob. 11 18)
i.e., Nadan (romance)
prob. = .\man (Tob. 14 lo).
2. (a/xav [B.X.VL]) ' Rest of Esther ' 10 7, etc. See H aman.
AMANA (n:pN 'firm, constant"; (5i*na translates
' from the top of Amana ' avb dpTJs r-iareu^ ; ]Ll.ao{ ;
Amaiia). i. The name of a mountain, in Cant. -18,
where ' the top of Amana ' is introduced parallel to ' the
top of Senir and Hermon.'
'With me from I>ebanon, O bride, with me from Lebanon come ;
From the summit of Amana, from' the summit of Senir and
Hermon.'
In the preceding distich reference is made to Lebanon.
Evidently the poet means some part of the range of
Antilibanus, probably the Jebel ez-Zebedani, below
which is the beautiful village of Zebedani and the source
of the Xahr Barada (the Heb. Abana, q.v.). In in-
scriptions of Tiglath-ijileser III. and Sennacherib the
mountain ranges Libnana and Ammanana are coupled
(Del. Par. 103/).
2. Considering how well the form .Amana is attested,
it becomes a question whether in 2 K. f) 12 we should
not adopt the Kr. in preference to the Kt., and read
Amana ' (so AV mg. ) or Amanah (so RV mg. ) as the
old Hebrew name of the Nahr Barada (see Ab.vna).
Many MSS with the two Soncino and the Brescia editions
have this reading in the text in Kings; Targ. and Pesh., with
the Complut. ed. of <5 and the Syro-Hex. te.xt, also presuppose it.
T. K. C.
AMANAH (njOS' Kr.), 2 K. 5 i2t RV = AV
Amana, 2.
AMARIAH (nnOvS [and -innJON, see nos. 5, 6, 7]
' Yahwe hath spoken ' [see Namks, 33] or ' promised.'
Less probably ' man of Yahwe ' on analogy of Palm.
n. pr. KccnoK 'man of the sun,' see Baethg. Beitr.
89 n. ; 1 &MAp[e]i A [B.VL]), a name occurring frequently,
but with the exception of (i) only in post-e.xilic
literature.
I. b. Hezekiah, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1 1,
a/Liop[e]toi; [B.A], afx/j-optov [N*], -piov [N'-^^'J], o/uo-
piov [X<=<= ^'''- Q]). The readings with ' o ' as the .second
vowel suggest the pronunciation ' Amori ' = .\morite.
Another ancestor is called ' Cushi ' i.e., the Cushite.
2. In list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
S 5 W "5 [] ), Neh. 11 4 (Ta,iap[]ia [HA], a^. [], -lou [L])
= I Ch. i>4, Imki, abbreviated form ("pK, anp[e]i [B.A.], -/3pi [L]).
3. One of the b'ne Hani in list of those with foreign wives
(Ezra, i. 8 send), Ezral0 42(Mopia [HN], a^apios (AL]).
4. A priest in Zeriibbal)ei's band (Ezka, li. 6/^), Neh. 12a
([rSpa/i]apiafi[aAovA] (B), fiaptia [k1, a/ii. [j<'=-^l, a^apias [L]),
cp V. 13 (oipajiio (]), and in list of signatories to the covenant
(see Ezra, i. 7), Neh. 10 3 [4] (a/napiaj [L]). A comparison of
1 For another suggested compound of x(k] see Mkribbaal.
AMASAI
the lists in Neh. with i Ch. 24 makes it plausible to identify
'Amariah' with the priestly house of 'Immer' (?'. 14) whose
institution is a.scribed to David's time (see ImiMEK, 2).
In the following (nos. 5-8), the unhistorical nature of the
context strongly suggests that the name is introduced merely to
give an air of antiquity to this priestly family.
5. Chief priest, temp. Jehoshaphat (aCh. 19ii M'TCK ; Jos.
a^acriaf).
6. A Levite, temp. Hezekiah, aCh. 31is (?nnCN ; /nopia?
[BA], a,ji. [L]).
7. One of the b'ne Hebron, a Kohathite Levite {aixaSia [B]);
I Ch. 23 19 ; in 24 23 ^nnZH (a^apios [A]).
8. Amariah occurs twice in the genealogy of the high priests,
(a) as son of Meraioth ; 1 Ch. 67 [633] (a^xapiat [.\]: Jos.
'Apo<^aios) = ti52 [37] (ixAiapeia [B, i.e., MA misread AlA]), and
(/') as a son of Azariah, On {) -^j] (ofiapia; [AL]), cp Ezra
73 (<Ta/xapeia [B.\] afiapiov [L]) = i Esd. 2 (afxapeeiov [B]
ofj-aptov [.\L], EV .Xmakias, as in 4 Ksd. I2, Atller^t^ [ed.
Bensley]), probably the same as 5 above (cp Be.). See further
Hic.H Pkiest and note the su.spicious recurrence of the
sequence Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok (cp We. Prol.^M 222).
See Mhkaiah.
AMARIAS (aaaarioy [A]), i Esd. 8 2 = Ezra 7 a
AmAKIAH {q.v., 4).
AMASA (i^b'py ; rather, perhaps, ^^"TS^ Ammishai,
cp AMecCAGi [B in 2 S. 19, BA in c. 20, .\ in c. 17],
-eCAl [A], -eccA [L always ; .K occasionally], and other
variants, see below ; cp Ablshai, Amasai. The form
Amasa rests on a false etymology [from j;-,-;;' = C3J?] ; cp
AmasH-SAI ; so Marq. Fund. 24).
1. Son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David
(i Ch. 2 16/. 2 S. 1725 afxfcraei. [B], -(xaaei [A]). His
father was Jether a Jezreelite not an ' Israelite' or an
'Ishmaelite' (see Abigail, 2). He was among those
that fell away from David to Absalom (q.v.), who
entrusted him with the command of his forces (2 S.
1725). In spite of this, David thought it prudent to
conciliate Amasa by a promise of the same position in
his own army, JoAB {q.z'.) having earned the king's dis-
pleasure (2 S. 19 13 [14] a/MLffffai [A]). On the ronewal
of revolt under Sheba (2 S. 20 1), in which according to
one view he was implicated, Amasa was entrusted with
mustering the men of Judah (z'. 4). Joab soon took
his revenge upon his rival. Amasa having failed to
appear at the appointed time, David commissioned
Abishai (2 S. 206) Mo go with his men in pursuit of the
rebels, and Joab naturally joined the party. The cousins
met at Gibeon, and while Joab was pretending to give
Amasa a friendly salute, he gave him a deadly blow^
(2 S. 20 8-10). The narrator is not interested enough in
the unfortunate man to tell us whether he ever received
an honourable burial (i'. 12 a^eaaaei [B once], afifffai
[A once]). See SiiEBA, ii. i (end).
His death is referred to in iK. 25 a/ite(7<roia [B], -<rja i(L],
ajUAi.fO'a [A] and r. 32 (a/netro-a [1?L; A omits]). (The P of
a^l^o(ra^ in i Ch. 2i7'[B] may come from the following Hebrew
word.)
2. {aixa<T[e]M^ [B.\L]), an Ephramite, temp. Ahaz (2 Ch.
28i2t). T. K. C.
AMASAI (^bW, perhaps rather to be read ''CW,
Ammishai [so We. //(7(-' 24, n. 2], cp u X> V taA.QJO
in I Ch. 62535 Abishai; amacai [B.\L], -ce [N])-
I. A name in the genealogy of Kohath (i Ch. 625 [to],
a/Mcraei [B], -fM(n [A], -aa [L] ; i Ch. 6 35 [20], afiaOeiov
[B], .;x [A]).
2. Chief of David's 'thirty,' i Ch. 12i8 [19]; see
David, ii a iii. , to whom the Chronicler ascribes an
obviously not very ancient poetic speech.
He has been variou.sly identified with Amasa (e.g:, by E\v.)
and with Abish.-xi, who is called .'Mishai in i Ch. II20. Ki.
even corrects to ' .\bishai ' (SBO T, ati ioc.\ Neither .\masa
nor Abishai, however, occupied the rank of chief of the thirty,
according to the lists in 2 S. 23 and i Ch. 11. 'The matter is
of no great moment, since the connection in which .\ma.sai is
mentioned in i Ch. 12 does not permit us to use the passage
for historical purposes. The Chronicler's conception of Saul's
fugitive son-in-law is dominated by the later view of David as
1 Most critics change Abishai here and in v. 7 to 'Joab' (the
reading of Pesh.), but perhaps mistakenly. See Bu. SBOT,
ad loc.
2 See Dr., or Bu., for restoration of the text.
132
AMASHAI
the 'anointed ' of Yahwc ami the founder of the one legitimate
dynasty (We. ProlA'i^ i8o).
3. A priest, temp. Daviil (i Ch. I524).
4. Ancestor of Mahath, a Kohathite Levite, temp.
Hezekiah ; probably a family name ; cp no. i (2 Ch.
29i-- : ixaai [M.\], anrai [I.]).
5. Soo Ik-Iow, Amash.m.
AMASHAI. or rather, as in R\', Amashsai ('PLI^Jf.
wlicrc D implies a reading 'DDV based on a false deriva-
tion from DOy ; i)erha])s really to tx,- read ,\mmishai, see
Amasai), a priestly name in the post-e.xilic list of in-
habitants of Jerusalem (see I''ZKA, ii. 15 a), N'eh. 11 13
(AMAclellA [HN]. -CM [I']. -Mec&l [A])=iCh.9i2
where the name is Maasai, AV Maasiai ('CTD
[Hii. Gi.], some authorities 'Jjp [CJi.]; maacaia [U].
-an fL], MACAl [A|; -'v*' ^ in Neh. tfn..n.^).
AMASIAH (H'Dpr, 29, Vahwe Ix-ars,' cp Amos ;
MACAIAC ['VL -AIIAC [A], AMACIAC [L]). One of
Jehoshaphafs captains (2 Ch. 17i6t).
AMATHEIS (cMAeeic [B]), i Esd. 1^29 AV = Ezra
10 2S Atiii.ai.
AMATHIS (AAXAGeiTlN [A]), i Mace. 12 25! AV,
RV IlAMATll (y.r. ).
AMAZIAH (-in^'VPS*, and in nos. 2-4, n;ypN, 29,
'Yahwc is mighty,' cp A.Moz ; AMecc[e]iAC L^AL],
-eci. [ALJ, -MAc[e]|. [H.A(J], -MACCI- [L]).
I. b. Joash ; father of Uzziah and king of Judah circa
796-790 B.C. (see Chro.noi.ogy, 35, 37) 2 K. 14 1-20
2 Ch. 25. Two points in his favour are mentioned in
Kings viz., that he punished his father's nunclerers
and that he reconquered the l-xlomites who had revolted
(see Kdom, 8 ; Joktiikki., 2). Whether he was
to any extent successful against that restless and war-
like people has indeed lxen doubted, but on grounds
which will not bear examination.
.\m. 1 iiyr is, in fact, more than probably a later insertion
(see Amos, 9), so that the inference, drawn from this passage
by Stade (in '87) and Kittel, that Amos knew of no great calamity
befalling Kdom in recent times, falls to the ground.
Amaziah's unfortunate challenge to Joash king of
Israel (who treated him, according to the narrative, ' as
a good-natured giant might treat a dwarf,' 2 K. 14 8^)
ended seriously enough, in the strengthening of the old
supremacy of northern over southern Israel (see IsK.\EL,
31). It is quite possible that the Kdomites took
advantage of the weakness of Judah to recover in some
degree their independence ; but of this we have no
information.
The Chronicler assures us (2 Ch. 2.5 14) that, on his return from
the s.inguinary battle in the 'valley of .salt' (cp 2 K. I47),
Amaziah adopted the worship of the Eclomitish deities, forgetting
that such an act would be possible only if the Kdomites were
either the masters or the allies of the people of Judah.
Like his father, .Amaziah died a violent death ; possibly,
as Wellhausen, Stade, and Kittel suppose, the con-
spiracy against him was not unconnected with the
disgrace which he had l)rought on his country. The
Chronicler's treatment of Amaziah's reign is of special
significance for the Chronicler's period (see Bennett,
Chron. 413-417, and cp Kue. Einl. 51, n. 4).
Sources. The account given in Kings is of composite origin.
2 K. 148-14 comes from a somewhat unfriendly source, which
may be of N. Israelitish origin. The rest of ch. 14 belongs to
the Deuteronomistic compiler, who lays stre.ss on Amaziah's
better side, and who at the close of his stor>' probably makes
use of the royal annals.
2. Priest of liethel, temp. Amos (.\m. 7 10 12). See Amos, i.
3. A Simeonite (i Ch. 4 34 a^a<j{(]t.a (HAl, -(t<ti.ov [\.]).
4. .\ Merarite, temp. David (i Ch. 64SI30) ofieaatia (?) [B],
-oaia [LI, /iaro-ia [A]). T. K. C.
AMBASSADOR, the FA' rendering of the following
three Hebrew words :
1. .l/<=//^ (j-Sg) in 2 Ch. 3231 (irp(r^vTT)), more properly 'inter-
preter ' (as E'V in Gen. 42 23 [ipivrtvtvTri<i], in Is. 43 27 [RV mg.
anib.-issador, a.pxovTt<t (Pbnaoi-, \,^^^ .\q. Syni. epfi7)i/t?], and
in Job 33 2:5 ((pHjA have Oafanjifropoi ]).
2. Marrikh (^kSc) in 2 Ch. 3a2i Is. 3O433 7 Ez. 17 15 (\^^
to send ; cp BDB Lex. , ad loc. ; ayyeAos), a word used indefinitely
133
AMBER
ot any me.sscnger ; so, e.g., of a priest (cp Mai. 27), a prophet
(Is. 4'2 19 ; oi Kupicvoi^rft), or (a.s fre(|ucnilj) an .niigel. Alara/t/i,
accordingly, often approximates to the idea of ' ambavsadur ' :
cp the emissaries sent to Kdom, Sihon king of the Anioritcs, and
Ammon (NU.2O142I21 >rpr^tt, Judg. U 12; EV ' messengers 7.
3. .S7r(T!<)'" Is. lS2(o^^pall5KAQr and Th., but Aq. irp<r.
fiv-nn, Sym. an-ocTToAo*, ' hostages.'cp i Mace. 1 10 8 7!* 51, etc.]).
Is. 67q KV (AV 'messengers'; np(<rPv^), jer. 4ili4 Fr. l.J 17
25 13 (EV in the last, mes.sengcr, iyytXoK) and Ob. 1 i (wtpioxn,
a confusion with ^^^ or lisC). The dcnom. vb. TCxn, 'to
feign one's self an ambassador,' found in .\IT of Jos. 9 (cp EV)
should be read n*B!J.li ' 'akc provision ' (so RV mg. after most
: cp Bennett, .SHOT, ati loc.).^
the Apocrypha 'ambassador' represents npr<Tpvi,npt<T-
j /3|t]uT7)S in 1 Mace. '.)70 11 9 14 21 (trpeo-flvT^poi (KVJ) 40 (jrpto-
PvTtpoii[V])V,,7 2 Mace. 11 34 (in 1 Mace. 13 14 21 AV has
j 'messengers'), and ayyrAm in Judith 3i AV (RV licre and EV
i elsewhere 'messenger). In NT the word occurs in 2 Cor. 620
Eph. 20 (jrpr/3<i;tu), Philem. 9 RV mg. (npttrfivTrii).
j A distinction between messengers and diplomatic
agents naturally jiresupposes an acquaintance with
! state-craft hardly ix)ssible in Israel lx.'fore the monarchy,
I and even in David's time emissaries from one court to
another were liable to Ije abused, although the punish-
I meiit inflicted upon the oflenders may suggest that
; ambassadorial rights were beginning to be recogni.sed
(see 2 .S. 10 I ^). The first use of s/r, apparently the
only approach to a specific word for 'ambassador,'
naturally belongs to the time when Israel had Ijeen
forced into diplomatic relations with H^gypt and Assyria
(of whose fre(iuent intercomnuinication at a nuich earlier
period the Amarna tablets tell us so much). I-'rom the
' nature of the case sir is i^resumably a loan-word. ^
[ The employment of the term i/ie/is, ' interpreter,' is the
more interesting since Aramaic was the language of
[ diplomacy for .Assyrians and Hebrews; cp Is. 3(3ii, and
see Aramaic La.nguagk, 2. .See Post, Kahsiiakkh.
s. a. c.
AMBER C'Crn; in pause [Kz. 82, where, however,
Co. regards it as a gloss] .I'^rrrn).
Cp Kgyp. hsmn, 'electriim'? or 'bronze'; see E(;vi"T, 361
last note, also Lag. Uehers. ii\ ; but cp Erman, /Cl>.MC 4(5
115 ['92], and also Ebcrs, ih. 31 454; again-st
1. Hashmal the usual explanation of 'n see Konig, Lehrgtb.
= amber. 1 9>. Fr. Del. in Hii. -Del. Kzckiel xii.
identifies the Egypti.in word quoted, and also
Heb. ^zxin, with Ass. Hmnru, which he defines in Ass. HUB
as a costly brilliant metal (?). So Hommel, Die Seiuit. I'olker
1 450.
The Heb. hashmal occurs thrice (or twice ; see above)
in ICzek.'', and is rendered by the I':V 'aml)er.' "-^Q
has -ffKiKxpov, \'g. * clcctrum, a rendering which most
scholars {e.g., Smend) have adopted, supposing, from
the context, that some metallic substance is meant, and
understanding ijXeKTpov to mean here a certain alloy of
gold and silver (Egyptologists have given the same
meaning to the apparently related Egyptian word).
This interpretation, however, rests upon a mistake as
to the ancient use of the term fjXeKTpov (see also Egyi'T,
36, last note).
It is true the n.-ime is sometimes used of a metallic substance.
Thus, to cite the e.arliest c.-i-se, Sophocles (.1 11 1 ig. 1036-38) makes
Creon speak of electrum from Sardis(Tb' jrpos ^dpSfoif ijXfKTpov)
and Indian gold (tal r'ov '\vSikov xpv<t6v), doubtless mc.ining by
the former what the Greeks commonly called pale gold (Afvit6
Xpva-6^), a natural alloy of gold and silver (one part silver to three
or four parts of gold) found native in great abundance in I.ydia.
That electrum, however, was not a term commonly applied
to such an alloy seems indicated by the pains which Strabo
takes to expl.-iin the term as used in metallurgy of the residuum
(KoBapijLa) left .after the first smelting of gold ore (t/rcvj 14li). He
J TSi 'amha.ssador,' appears in in four other place.v in Is,^
viz. 13 8 (for Ts, 'a pang') 21 2 ("lO "1'S for "TO 'T'S) 39 1
(between cnSD and rmZl) and 689 (for ^S compare Du., ad loc.,
Che. Intr. Isa. 350).
2 The connection with Ar. far, 'to go ' (Ges.-Bu.), docs not
commend itself. It may perhaps be compared with As,s. iirraiu,
'stick' or ' sceptre (see Del. .\ss. ///r/.',f. 7'.) the official derives
his name from the tmblem of office, originally the courier's
stick (?).
3 1 4 27, 'and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber,'
'I saw as the colour of amber'; 82 'as the appearance of
brightness .as the colour of amtier.'
* For a rendering <pi% in Ezek. 1 4 see Field, Hexa^la.
134
AMBER
himself usually employs the expression ' pale gold ' when he
alludes to the native alloy. Sophocles, too (/.c), shows that
he is eiiiploving the word in an unusual and extended way, by
appending the iiualifying phrase 'from Sardis.'
Usually the word has quite another meaning.
In Homer, e.g^., where the word occurs thrice and is signifi-
cantly applied to an article trafficked in by Phtxviicians, the
trader who captured l'".iinia;us is described (('</. I.") 460) as having
a golden necklace (jitTo. S' ri\iKTpoi<Tif itpro) strung with pieces
of electrum (similarly in Ot/. IS 296, ijAe'xTpoio-ii' itptLtvov). '1 he
use of the term in the plural in these passages forbids us by
any possibility taking it as meaning the gold and silver alloy.
If, then, by electrum the versions do not mean metallic
electrum they must mean amber. There are, however,
two kinds of amber, and it remains to consider which is
meant. The one, usually a dark red (rarely of a light
colour), is found in the south of luiroix: (Catatiia,
Reggio) and in the Lebanon ; the other, usually of a
yellow or golden colour, but occasionally darker in
hue. has from ancient times lx.'cn met with in great
abundance on the shores of the Baltic (whence our
chief modern supjily is derived), and also occurs on the
co.ists of the North Sea. As the Ph(X'nician had red
amber thus at his very door, he may early have learned
to employ it for purposes of art and ornament, just as
he learned his art of dyeing with purple from having
the mure.\ in abundance by his shores. Moreover, red
amber is, as stated above, also to be found in Sicily,
and may have been procured thence. As increased
demand called for an increased supply, traders, sailing
round the coast of the .,Kgean in quest of new fishing
grounds for the purple-fish, would naturally search
keenly for fresh supplies of the precious substance, for
the ancients prized amber far l^eyond its modern value.
Its power of attr.-icting light substances, and the fact that
when warmed it emitted a faint perfume, invested it for them
with .an element of mystery. How far they actually .-uscribed
to it certain medicinal properties, as is still the case in the East
with ambergris an animal substance that has lent its name
(adopted by us from the Arabs) to amber it is impossible to
say. .\s these two substances, which have really nothing in
common save the power to emit a kind of perfume, h.ive been
called l)y the same name, the fact that ambergris is prized as
an aphrodisiac may perhaps indicate that there was some
belief that amber (electrum) possessed some similar potency.
This is actually stated by Pliny (AV/xxxvii. 3 11), who tells
us that in his own time the peasant women in the regions north
of the I'o wore amber necklaces, chiefly as an ornament, but
also for medical re.isons, and goes on to enumerate .1 number
of ailiii^^nts for which it was regarded as a specific, either taken
as a potion or applied externally. That its property of attrac-
tion (whence our modern word electricity) was early known to
the Greeks is proved by the notice of Thales.
But how would red amber naturally give a name to
a met.allic electrum ? To the eye of the Greek the
essential difference Ix-'tween pure gold
and the alloy (to which we have in
English confined the name electrum)
being the pale colour of the latter {XevKbs xp^'<^^^)' ^"X
name which he would apply to it to differentiate it from
pure gold would naturally Ije one which would indicate
this paleness. The reddish amber of the South would
not furnish such a name, having no resemblance in hue
to metallic electrum. But the yellow Baltic amber,
varying as it does in shade from almost white to a
bright golden, would give a fairly accurate description
of the alloy, whose hue varies with the proportion of
its component parts. .Similarly when, in the second
passage quoted above from the Odyssey, a necklace of
gold set with pieces of amber is likened to the sun
{q^Xiov <js), the golden (Baltic) amber answers to the
description far letter than the red. We may assume,
then, that from remote ages supplies of Baltic (yellow)
amber as well as of red aml)er were available.
Nor is this a mere hypothesis. It has been removed
from the realm of probability into that of established
fact, by the finding of amber in the tombs discovered
at Mycenne by D. Schliemann in 1876, and of beads
of the same material in his more recent excavations
at Tiryns. As the red amber and the Baltic amlier
differ essentially in chemical composition, Dr. Helm,
an eminent chemist of Uantzig, has been able to prove
13s
2. Perhaps
yellow amber.
AMEN
by actual analysis that this amber is the Baltic variety
(Schliemann's Tiryns, 1886, App. p. 372).
It was, doubtless, from the German tribes along one
of the highways which were in constant use in historic
times that the ancient supplies of Baltic amber were
obtained. We know that down to the time of Herodotus
(at>out 430 B.C. ) the Greeks had not as yet opened up
any line of communication with the amber coasts from
the side of the Euxine.
Herodotus visited Olbia, and though he has given a pretty
full account of those regions, mentioning a trade-route leading
towards the East, and though we know from his own words
(8115) that the amber trade was a subject which had excited
his attention, he expresses the commonly received opinion that
it was obtained at the mouth of the Eridanus [I'o].
Neither does Baltic amber seem to have reached
Greece in his time by any Russian-Balkan route (5 9).
Down to the time of Theophrastus (315 B.C.) it was
entirely through northern Italy that the Greeks got
their sup|3ly of it.^ The lake-dwellings of .Switzerland
and the valley of the Po have yielded abundance of
Ix-ads of Baltic amlser, and similar lx;ads are well known
in the tombs of central Italy. We need have little
hesitation, therefore, in believing the statement of Pliny -
( AW.xxxvii. 844) that it was brought by the CJermans into
Pannonia and thence reached the Veneti, who dwelt
at the head of the Adriatic' As the main lines of
commerce change but little through the ages, it was
probably by this route that the amlx:r lx;ads reached
MycenfE and Tiryns in the bronze age, and articles of
the same kind may even have reached Palestine. The
l)ead found at Lachish, however, has teen proved, since
this article was in print, to be not Baltic amber, but,
like that found at Tell-Zakarlya [PF.FQ, -April 1899,
p. 107), a resin, and no trace of amljer has yet been
found in Mesopotamia (Per. -Chip. , Art. Chald. 2362).
Nevertheless it is possible that even the yellow variety
may have reached Palestine in the sixth century B.C.,
and the view of the ancient versions that the Hebrew
hashmal indicates this substance may be correct.
w. K.
AMEN (lOX;-* in usually -^ivoiTO \'^ in work of
Chronicler d/UJ^i', and so in NT very often),'"' an adj."
.J. _. signifying stability, used only as an interjec-
tion expressive of assent of one kind or
another." Three stages may be distinguished: (i)
Initial Amen, referring back to words of another speaker :
probably the earliest usage, occurring even in common
speech" ( I K. 1 36 Jer.286ll 5, the only certainly pre-exilic
Aniens). 1" (2) Detached Amen, the complementary sen-
tence being suppressed (Dt. il 15-26 Neh. 5 13 ; double in
1 They appear to have confused with it a stone called Xiy-
yovpiQV or ti^uritis ; as so often occurs they mistook the region
whence the article was transmitted to them for the actual place
of production (Theophr. De I.af>. 16).
2 Pliny's statement is confirmed by a remark of Herodotus
(1 196) from which it appe.irs that the only knowletlge then
obtainable respecting central Europe came by way of the Veneti,
a fact which shows that the Greeks knew of a line of 1
cation in this direction.
* Pytheas of Massilia had, in the fourth century B.C., found
the Guttones gathering it and giving it in trade to the Tutones.
It prob.-ibly occurs in twelve places in the Hebrew, for in
Is. 05 16, although Aq. (TrtTri o-nofieViov), .Sym., Pesh., and Vg.
have amen, it should probably (so Che. Di. Du. Rys. in US,
and perhaps Targ. Jon. (!5"X'*0'" [oAiTflu-oi']) be vocalised other-
wise, perhaps |"JN (as in Is. 2.5 i, where indeed the Gk. Vss. [but
Sym. not, as usual, o.y.r^v, but TTi'orei] and Vg. read amen).
^BKAQ j.gjjj [j jjIj^q^ Jjj jj corrupt text, in Jer. 15 11 and in Jer.
819. EV has rtw/fw always ; RV even in Jer. 11 5. It occurs
in six places in Apocr.'(for Judg. 13 20 cp Eth. Pesh.). Vg.
adds-Tob. J" 12 13 23 and 2 Esd. [Neh.] 13 31 ; in Ecclus. 50 2 j it
is probably late.
o Eight (eleven) times, oArjflai? once.
6 There is much variety of text. TR has it in some 119 places,
of which RV rejects 19 (see below, g 2).
7 See, however, Barth, NR |8 sc and 7/^.
8 For three kinds see Shehu'oth 36<i (mid.).
9 It seems most likely that in Jer. 3 19 re.-id "' as '-;'>'k =
1" has it also in Jer. 3 19 15 11 (Is. 25 1 is not pre-exilic).
136
AMEN
Nu. 5aa and in Neh.86= i Ksd.947). Amen must have
been in liturgical use in the time of the Chronicler ( 1 Ch. 16
36= Ps. IO648). I^ter, but very similar, are Judith 132o
Tob. 9 12 (Vg. ), and lob. 88. With the fact that none of
these relates to temple service may be compared, e.g.,
Jer. lit-nuh. 14 r. The Chronicler, however, appends
Amen {I.e.) to extracts from Pss. 105 and 96.' (3) An
apparent />"(// Amen, there being no change of sjx;aker ;
frequent from NT I''pp. onwards, but in OT only (a)
in subscription to first three (four) divisions of i'salter and
3 and 4 Mace. ; and {/>) at end of praver, Neh. 1831 and
Tob. 13i8 (both only in Vg. ). In Tob. I415 (BNA) we ,
have almost a fourth stage : (4) a siniple subscriptional \
Amen, like that, e.g., of theTR of Lk., without, strictly
speaking, any preceding doxology.'*
Just as translates, as we have seen, by y^voiro
in the Law, the Prophets, and even the Psalter, but has
2 In NT "-f^^" '" ^'^^ Chronicler and Apocrypha, *
so in NT Lk. often avoids (omits or trans-
lates) Amen, and so even Mt. and to a /ess extent Mk.
Stage (i) is represented by only Rev. Tu* 194 222o ;
(2) by Rev. 5 14 and the usage testified to by i Cor.
14 16 ; (3) by usage of Epistles (fifteen do.xologies, mostly
well-attested ; * nineteen blessings, mostly ill-attested).**
There is no real instance of (4).
The Aniens of the Gospels (fifty-two in Synopt.,
twenty-five in Jn. ) are a peculiar class, declared by
Delitzsch ^ unparalleled in Hebrew literature : initial
Aniens * like group ( i ), but lacking the backward refer-
ence. The sayings that they introduce are only some-
times at all related to what now precedes them. The
double afir)y (twenty-five times) of the Fourth Gospel,
whichoccursevenin Jn. 1338( =Mk. I430, etc. ), Delitzsch
tried (/.<r. ) to explain as = Aram. amen amena {ameti
ater'n(i=:dfiTjf X^7w), which sounded like d/j.rji' d/xriv ;
but Dalman argues strongly against this." F"or a
suggestion of a different kind see Gosi'KL.s, 50 n.^**
The key to Rev. 814 (6 duriv), ' the faithful and true
witness,' is doubtless the traditional Massoretic pointing
of Is. 65 16 (at least as old as Syni. ) with possibly a
reminiscence of the practice of Jesus and of 2 Cor. 1 20.
Here, again, dfx,rjv is neut. , and the meaning is not quite
so clear ; but probably d/xTiv has about the same mean-
ing as in I Cor. 1 4 16.
The liturRical use of .\men, vouched for in apostolic times hy
this List pass.^ge, is attested, as regards the Kucharist, by Justin
Martyr for the second century (^Apol. i. 65,
3. ElS6Wh6r6. 6 napiov Aao? eireiK^Tj/iti Af-yui/ 'Ajiuji'), and,
e.g^., l>y Jerome two centuries later (preface to
Bk. ii. of Com. in A"/, at/ Gal., 'ad similitudinem . . . tonitrui
amen reboat '), while the introduction of Amen in the baptismal
ser\'ice is probably later. Post-biblical Judaism greatly de-
veloped the theory of the use of Amen.^' He who pronounced
it was greater than he who blessed. It opened the gates of
heaven." It must not be uttered in a slovenly or careless way,
nor yet prolonged too much. 1* The synagogue still uses itjl^'and
Mohammedans are in the habit of adding it after reciting the
first Sura of the Koran.
For references to older literature see, e.g:, Vigouroux, Bii.
Diet., s.v. ; for references to passages in Talm. see, e.g., Kohut's
Ar-uch, s.v.; for usage of temple doxology
4. Literature. Onitz, mgif/, 1872, pp. 481-96, and
I'saimen ti /. ^1 ff. ; for Rabbinic treat-
ment, e.g., Jehuda Khalas, Se/er lia-Afusdr, Pereq. 4 (ed.
Mantua, 42); V'osef Caro, Beth Yosef (Orach- IJajiiti) ed.
1 Ciratz accordingly argues that our Psalms are a synagogue
arrangement.
2 This is hardly true of K.
3 Kxcept Judith 13 20.
* VV & H give, in .square brackets, also a final ' Amen.'
All except 2 Pet. 3 18.
Also Rev. 1 7 (after i-ai ; neither doxology (?) nor benedic-
tion). Rev. 1 18 ijn. 5 21 2jn. 13 are excluded in RV. Cp
yd^98, n. 2.
' 'Talm. Stud. ix. lni.r\v aiir)v' in ZLTh., 1856, pp. 422-4.
8 All in sayings of Jesus. The five finals (.Mt. t> 13 2820 Lk.
2-* S3 Jn. 21 25 Mk. 16 20) are wanting in the best MSS.
9 See Dalm. Gram. T93 (cp 71 77 4", 228 146).
1' See now also Dalman as cited below, g 4.
11 See Shebu'oth as above and many other places. For an
example of ' Amen ' in conversation see Aboda Zara 65 a.
'2 Sliahhath \iab mid. of p.
"iJ^r. 47 a.
" Authorised Daily Prayer-Book, N. M. Adler, 1891.
137
AMMI
Venice, 1550, 1 fol. 84^85^. On the whole subject see H. W.
Hogg, ' Amen, notes on its Significance and Use in Hiblical and
Post-biblical times," /('A'li-2i (061, and in connection there-
with Nestle, ' The Last Word in the Hible,' Exfiositorv Timet,
January 1897, p. 190/; To the above must now be added
Dalman, Die Irorte Jesu 185-7 ('98). 11. W. H.
AMETHYST (nDJjnX, AMceYCTOC [BAF], -coc
[L], ,imfl//\'s,'i/s. Il,^W *^^)- The amethyst is a variety
of (juartz (SiOo) or rock-crystal (see Crvstai.) of a clear
purple or bluish violet colour (from iron jxiroxide or
manganese), often marked by zigzag or undulating lines
(the colour being disposed in clouds). The Greek name
(Rev. '21 20 ; cp Kx. '28i9 = 39i2 [8619 in ]), which was
adopted into Latin, implies an ancient belief that the
wearer of an amethyst could drink wine freely without
fear of intoxication. The source of the Ijelief is found
in Theophrastus {Lap. 31), who is the earliest Greek
writer to mention the stone, which he calls rd dfxidvaov.
It is a simple case of sympathetic magic, for Theophrastus
says {Lap. 31) rb bi dfjiiOvaov olvwirbv ttj xP^I- ' '^ 's
wine-coloured, hence its amuletic potency against the
effects of wine. Greek engravers, accordingly, not in-
frequently cut Bacchanalian subjects on this stone.
Hence the point of several epigrams in the Anthologia
Gncca {e.g., ix. 752, on the ring of Cleopatra, adorned
with Methe, Drunkenness ; and ix. 748, on a gem
engraved with a figure of Bacchus). It seems also to
have been believed that the amethyst caused those who
wore it to dream, or to have propitious dreams (cp the
extract from Burhan in Lag. Mitth. 1 236). Hence
the engraved ahldmd of the ' Breastplate ' of P ( Ex.
28 19 = 39 12 ; explained by Kimchi as the dream-stone ;
.ncSnK from oSn 'to dream') has been commonly
identified with the amethyst (thus apparently (5), so
much engraved by the Greeks. Cp Pkixiou.s .Stones.
Del., on the other hand {Ifeb. Lang. 36 n.), derives the name
from .-Ihlamu, an Armenian people and district often mentioned
in Babylonian and Assyrian texts, supporting the suggestion by
referring to Sennacherib's repeated mention of .\rmenia and its
neighbourhood 'as a rich mine of certain precious stones.
Bond! considers it an Egyptian loan-word {ekhnome), while Di.
connects it with n'cSn, the mallow, and adopts the explanation
'green malachite.' \V. R.
AMI (*PN), Ezra257t=Neh. 759 Amon {q--'-. s)-
AMINADAB (aminaAaB [Ti. WH]), Mt. I4 and
(AAMeiN [WH], mg. aAam) Lk.333t AV = RV
AMMIN.\I).\R ((/.7'. , l).
AMITTAI ("npN, 52, from nON, ' truth,' perhaps a
theophorous compound ; AMA6[e]l [B.\L]), father of
the prophet Jonah (2 K. I425 Jonahl if).
AMMAH, The Hill of (HSX ny25 ; o BoyNOC
AMMAN [B], -MA [-^j. EMMAG [L], OMMATON or AMM.
[Jos. ^///. vii. I3]), an unknown hill 'that lieth before
(jiah'(?), where Joab and .Xbishai stayed their pursuit
after Abner (2S. 224!). From a comparison of tf. 24
and 25 it is probable that we should restore the name
also in v. 25 for ' one hill,' AV ' an hill" (nnK 7\^z\).
So Bu. (SBOT), Sam. ati loc, following We.'s suggestion that
the two hills are the same. Otherwise Klo., who in v. 25 con-
jectures D'a^K (n^i*;;), the ascent of Adummim.
In V. 24 Sym. (yiirn, gully) Theod. (ii6p<iytoY<>0 and Vg.
{aqutedtictus) give the word a meaning which it l>ears only in
post-biblical Heb.; moreover, since the word ,^^^{ has no article
prefixed, it cannot be an appell.ative here.
AMMI (Hos. 2i, and, in Lo-ammi, 223[25]). See
Lt)-I<rii.\M.\n.
AMMI, Names with. The element 'ammi ('Oy) or.
at the entl of words, 'am {WO) has been interpreted in
_ ... . three different w.ays viz. , as meaning (i)
1. initial i^j^j^.j people or (2) [my] kinsman or uncle,
*^' ~. or else as being (3) the proper name of a
" . god.
'"^ So long as this group of names* was
regarded by itself in the light of Hebrew philologj' alone,
1 The exact limits of the group are uncertain ; for in the case
of several names that have been included in it, it is open to doubt
138
AMMT
the interpretation of \iiiuni or 'am by ' people ' seemed
the most olivious, aiul was most generally adopted for
all names alike. The result was not quite satisfactory ;
for ' the people of Cj<k1 ' or ' my peo]jle is God ' ('am mid)
was, to say the least, an improbable meaning for the
name of an individual. In the light of comparative
philology and newly recovered parallel names in other
languages, it became clear that ' people ' was not the real
meaning of the element in at least some of the names.
Names containing 'aiiimi are common in the S. .Arabian
inscriptions; hut in Araliic 'amm signifies not 'people,' hut
' paternal uncle ' ; the latter, therefore, is the most reasonable
interpretation of the element in .Arabic words.' A closely
similar interpretation is also thoroughly justifiable in Hebrew
names ; for the sense ' uncle,' or perhaps rather the wider meaning
'kinsman,' is secured for 'am in Hebrew by a comparison of the
parallel phrases vni3K hvK 1DK: and ITIV 7K ' V.I \ cp the use of
Ass. aww/ for ' relatives ' irl Am. TaJ>. 4b 32 ; A'S:>io6. Such
an interpretation oCammi in Semitic names generally is further
supported by the fact that names of this type are found side by
.side in the same languages with names identical in form contain-
ing another element (see Am, Names wiTH)denoting a kinsman ;
thus, e.g:, in Helirew we have the series Amti-e\, A/>i-e\, Jfi-c\
( = .-f/7-el) ; Ammi-nax\i\h, W/i/-nadab, W/'/'-nadab ; and, in S.
Aral)!an (following CIS 4, 'e.g., no.s. 73 lo'.'O i 6956 i), 'Am-
karlb, >f*-karlb, Akhu-Vaxlh, Z?,W-karib.2
The interpretation oVammi by 'uncle' (or 'kinsman')
in the S. Arabian names and in several at least of the
Hebrew instances (.\mmiel, .\mminadab, Eliam, .Ammi-
shaddai (?). .\mmihud, .Anmiizabad, Ben-anmii) is now
generally adopted ; and this much at least may be
regardetl as well established, that names in .\mmi
originated from the same circle of ideas as names in
Abi, Ahi.
On certain ambiguities common to all the.se classes see Am,
ii. (viz. on their syntactical interpretation, i^ ; on the lium.-in
or divine, 4, and on the general or .special character of the refer-
ence, g 5).
With regard to the present group in particular a
further question has arisen, viz., whether Ammi be not
2 Not d' p 'he proper name of a deity, and whether,
in consec|uence, we ought not to assume
the worship of this deity where such
proper name.
names are found. The facts which have raised this
question are these :
(i) Compounds with 'atitmi are parallel not only to compounds
with ahi, ahi, but also to compounds with divine proper names ;
thus in Hebrew we have Ammiel, /oel ; Kliam, Eli/a/( ; Atntiii-
n.idab, J '('//^nadab (cp Moabite CA('w<j.//nadal)), Rehab '>
(Rehoboam), and Rehab_)'a/t. (2) The chief god of the Kataban
(or -valad 'amm a S. Arabian people) was called '.-Vmm, and
Kmu was a name given to the god Xergal by the Shuhites on
the W. of the Euphrates; cp also the name .\m.mon (q.v., i).
These facts, however, are insufficient to warrant us in
separating names in 'ammi, at least so far as their origin
is concerned, from names in Abi, .\hi. Still, it is clear
that 'amm{i), originally an appellative, aijplicable and
applied by different clans or peoples to different gods,
became in certain cases the projjer name of a deity ;
and, where this usage can be independently proved to
have lieen current, it is reasonable to interpret 'am in
such cases as the proper name of a deity (cp the parallel
case of Baal) ; but we are scarcely justified in inferring
from the mere existence of names in 'ammi among a
certain people that the proper name of their deity was
'Amm; in particular it is very hazardous to conclude |
that the Hebrews worshipped a distinct deity 'Amm.
The compound personal and local names m'am (final)
present some considerable difficulties, which require
T.- 1- further consideration. Is the sense ' kins-
3. rina.1 am. . / . ,
man for am always the most natural
whether the text is sound, sometimes even in its consonants.
The apparent ca.ses of initial 'ammi are the following six :
Ammiel, Ammihud, .'\mmihur, Amminadab, Ammishaddai,
Ammizabad, and the place-name Amad ; those of final 'am the
following .seven: Ani.am, Kliam, Ithream, Ja.shobeam, leka-
meam, Jeroboam, Rehoboam. and the five place-names Jibleam,
Jokdeam, Jokmeam, Jokneam, Jorkeam. Cp also Ben-ammi.
See Jekoboam ; al.so Amasa, Amasai, Amashai.
1 Glaser produces evidence from the Minsan inscriptions to
show that ammi,' as a term for God, was long in use, though
at a distance from Palestine : see Hommel, ZDMGi^i^d ('95).
Cp, however, Gray's remark, HPN 53.
3 But cp DoD, Names with, where a different view is taken.
139
AMMIHUR
one? Or may we in some cases prefer the sense
'people,' 'kinsfolk,' on the grounds put forward in
HP.V 59 (cp 215) ? The question is sometimes compli-
cated by the uncertainty of the form in MT. It must
also be remembered that Kehoboani (Rehab' am) was the
son of an .Ammonitish mother, and that the eponym of the
Ammonites is called I5en-ammi (see Ammon, i); also
that some have conjectured that Jeroboam was of foreign
origin. Cp Ibi.kam, Ithkicam, Jashohkam, Jkka-
MK.v.M. Ji.KOHoAM, JoKNEAM, etc. (see col. 138, n. 1).
As to the history of the names. Actual usage proves
_. - that, like compounds with abi and ahi,
IS ry Semitic compounds with '(/otw/ (=kins-
man) are of a very ancient origm.
We find at least two names (.Ammi-satana, Ammi-zaduga) of
the type among the kings of Babylon belonging to the ^ammu-
rfibi dynasty (c/>r (I faooo B.C.), and not improbably a third in the
name Hammurabi itself. 1 The non-Iiabylonian character of
these names has gained general acceptance in .spite of Jen.sen's
criticism (/?^ 10342^ ['95]); according to Winckler (C/130)
they are of Canannitish, according to Sayce (A'/'(2) 3 io_^.) and
Hommel {A H T <)i jff'.), of Arabian origin.
Names of the type are certainly common in the early
S. Arabian inscriptions ; and Hommel goes so far
as to assert that the biblical names Ijeginning with
'ammi are, like those of the kings of the Hanmiurabi
dynasty, of Arabian origin, and were introduced among
the Hebrews at the time when they had close intercourse
with the Arabs in Sinai (Z/Al/V; 49525. n- i ['95])-
However this may be, it is clear not only that these
names are of ancient origin, but also that at a still com-
paratively early period they fell into disuse among the
Hebrews, and also, according to Hommel (AIIT 86),
among the S. Arabians. The only question with
regard to the Hebrew instances is whether one or two
of them (especially Ammi-sh.\ddai, q.v. ) are late i.e.,
post-e.xilic artificial formations. Hommel has recently
defended the genuine anticjuity of 'Ammi-shaddai on the
ground of its virtual equivalence to Animi-satana (see
above) ; but, even granting his premises, his conclusion
does not necessarily follow, and, as a matter of fact,
the equivalence is questionable ; for ( i ) the translitera-
tion of Ammi-satana is uncertain: some c./^., Sayce
(PSBA, Nov. '97, p. 292) transliterate .'\mmiditana ;
and (2), if it be correct, the word is quite as possibly a
3rd sing. pf. (so Winckler, I.e.) as='our mountain.'
Cp Shaddai, 2.
The most recent discussions of these names (together with
references to the literature, which is considerable) will be found
in firay, Jl/'.V 41-60 198./! 245 253^ 323, Expositor, Sept. 1897,
173-190, and Hommel, AJIT afiZ^ff. ic6ff. g. B. G.
AMMIDIOI, AV Ammidoi (ammiAioi [B]), i Esd.
520. See Ch.\di.\.sai.
AMMIEL ("piCpj;, 46, 'El is my [?] kinsman,' cp
Eliam and Amad, and see Ammi, i/, amLcJihA
[BAL]).
1. Danite'spy'(Nu. 13i2[P]).
2. Father of Machir, 2 S. 94 (a/jLarip [P.], -/h^it/A [L]), 5, 17 27
(a^ijjp [A]).
3. Doorkeeper (i Ch. 26 5).
4. Father of Hathsheba, iCh.35 (TjAa [L]), called in 2 S.
II3ELIAM, 2. See AniTHOPHEL.
AMMIHUD (n-in^rsy, my [?] kinsman is glory," 46,
see Am.mi, i, cp also Ahiiiud ; e/VMOyA [BA], ^M.
[L])-
1. Father of Talmai, king of Ge.shur ; 2 S. 1837 Kr., Kt.
nn-cr. .A.MMmuR (,a.v.).
2. Father of Elishama (i), temp. Moses ; Nu. I1021874853
1022t [P] (e|aiou [FL], <7fi. [AF in 1 10, and F in 748 IO22J);
I Ch. 726 (AMtoueii [B], -ov [A]).
3. Father of Shemuel (2), temp. Joshua; Nu. 34 2o [P]
(o-t/oiiovJ [B], tfj.. [Pv'l'AFL]).
4. Father of Pedahel, temp. Joshua; Nu.34a8 [P] (^tvia-
Mlltov [B], a/iioui lAFL]).
5. F"ather of Uthai, one of the b'ne Perez; iCh. 94
(craiu./oiiou [Bl, afiiovS [AL]). The name is not found in the ||
NVh. II4. See .Xthaiah.
AMMIHUR (-l-in-Ci;). father of Talmai, king of
Geshur (2S.I337 Kt. ; Kr. [ace. to Gi. also Kt. in some
1 Cp HPN 56, and see Ham (i.). But cp references in Muss-
Arnolt, Ass. Diet. 320, s.v, xammu.
140
AMMINADAB
textsj ; 0"*^, etc. . Ammihuij [^.v. , i]). Kr. may be a
niiscorrection, since a compound of ^1^ would l)e not
unlikely for a native of the S. Palestinian Geshur (sec
Gksiilu, 2). Cp perhaps the Nab. and Sin. nin ; and
sec UUK.
AMMINADAB (^n^'Oy, 46, 'my kinsman
apportions,' or 'the [divine] kinsni;ui is munificent';
AM[e]lNAA<\BlHAL]).
1. K.ithfr of I'^isheba, .Aaron's wife, and of Nahshon ' head ' of
Iu<l:ill (scL- Kl-IMlhRAl (Kx. 1)2^, a^ivaBafi (.\) ; Nu. 1 7, -a/Lt [F];
23 7 12 17 10 14 1 1') aL^ivaap[V\i). The names of father and son
have been introduced into the genealogy of iJavid (Ruth 4 19 A
iCh. 'iio; also Mt. I4 Lk.333, where AV .\minaoab (on the
variations .\minadani, .\d.in, see Tisch.] ; cp We. De Gent. 17).
2. \ Levite, temp. iJavid (i Ch. 15 10/;).
3. b. Kohath, i Ch. 022(7] (lo-o-oap U\], i.e., Izhar, the MT
reading in the II v. 38). See Izhar (i), Elisheua.
4. See .\bihaii,, 5.
AMMINADIB, an imaginary name in Cant. C 12 AV,
= 3''"I3''py, a reading .sui)ported by (D (AM[e]iNAA(\B
[BNa/), and the St. I'eter.sburg Heb. MS (Strack) and
other codices. To be consistent, however, AV should
have recognised the existence of a proper name also in I
7 1 [2] CSVV butk-naiiil' ; EV 'prince's daughter'; d. I
vaSa/S [BNJI, and rendered 'O daughter of Nadib,' or
with '^ (^. aMt''<^^tt/i) ' of Anmiinadib. ' The dramatis \
persoiur of the pastoral poem or drama will then receive 1
the addition of the fiither of the heroine (so (jriitz). It |
has iK-en shown elsewhere, however (see Cantici.KS, |
6/. ), that the supposed drama or pastoral poem and
its i)lot are non-c.xistent ; we are not in want of an
' .Anmiinadil). ' In 7i[2], the rendering of YN , 'O I
prince's daughter,' is suflicient, and 3^: {<uiib) at the
end of 6 12 probably means ' prince,' as in 7i[2]. That |
' aninii and nddJb in 612 are separate words is expressly
stated in the Massora, and most of our MSS follow
this rule (so, too, Rashi and Ibn Ezra). On the right ,
reading and translation of 6121*, and the right position
of 611/. , see Canticlks, 16. T. k. c. |
AMMISHADDAI (^^rSV. 42, 46. &M[e]ic<\AAi
[B.VF], -Ae [I']), father of Ahiezer (i), temp. Mose.s
[P]; Nu. I12225 (cam. [A]). 76671 10 25 (mi. [A])t.
The name seems to be a genuine old Semitic per-
sonal name (cp, perhaps, Ammi-satana at Babylon,
2161-2148 B.C.), and may mean 'The divine kinsman
is n\y Lord.' Cp Sii.\uij,\l, 2^ (end); AMMt, i.
T. K. C.
AMMIZABAD (inrsy ; see Ammi. i), apparently
son and lieutenant of Bknaiah, i (i Ch. 276) ; but the
passage is obscure and certainly corrupt (AaiBaza6
[B], AMI PAZ. [A], amCINAZABaA [I-. pointing to the
reading .Vniinadab], i^JuJf )-^ See D.WID, 11 r.
AMMON, ammonites! The people are called
'Children of .\mmon ' (pDJ/ ''221) or '.\mmonites'
CJItSy, etc. ) ; only twice is the tribe referred
to as ' .\mmon ' ( i .S. 11 11 [but see J, Ps.
837). For 2 Ch. 20 1 see Meum.M {c), and for 2 Ch. 2G8,
ib. (b) n.
<P HAL ajii/iiwi/ but ofi/iai; in Gen. 19 38 [ ADE], Nu. 21 24 [B once,
AF twice]; Deut. 21937 [BatbA] 3 11 [HaJi'AFL] i6[l'.AFL];
Ofifxuv Zeph.28[K*]. The Ethnic a/ji/u.ai'[<]iTTjs, or a/ia. [A
in 2 S. H I y^ 23 37, I K. 14 21] ; and afjiiiuv[t]i Ezra 9 i
Neh. 2 10, but a^/iio'tn)v [L] Nell. /.c. and in 13 1. The
Ammonite persons mentioned in OT are Raalis, Hanun,
Naamah (2), Nahash, Shimeath, Shobi, Tobiah, and Zelck ;
and in .Vpocr. .Achior and Timotheus.
In the cuneiform inscriptions the land of Ammon is
called Bit-Amman (shortened into Ammdn), on the
analogy of BIt-Humri (Omri) = Samaria, us if Ammon
were a person. The ancestor of the tribe, however, is
not said, in the Hebrew Genesis, to be Anmion, as the
ancestor of the Moabites is .styled Moab, but Ben-ammi
(a>'"|2 ; Gen. 19 38 [J]). The name of the reputed
ancestor is indeed given in Gen. 19 38 (B.AL ; with which
Vg. agrees) as Ammon ; (KdXtffev rb ivofxa ainou
1 See Barnes, The Peshitta Text 0/ Chronicles.
141
AMMON
'kufxiv ,bvlb%Tou ftvovi fiov. The received Hebrew text ,
however, appears to regard the name of the father of
the Ammonites as Ben-ammi ('son of my kinsman'),
and it should be noted in this connection that '*'*'- (not
\'g. ) of V. 37 inserts an etymology for Moab, viz. ' from
my father.' The Yahwists etymologies are, as they
stand, examples of pojxilar jjaronomasia. llicy may
point the way, however, to more prol^able explanations,
and we may safely regard Ixjth ab ' father ' and 'am
(' uncle,' ' kinsman ') as divine names.
Gesenius long ago compared the compound proper names
Amniiel, Amminad.-ib,t and J. Derenbourg in 1880 suKKested
(AV-.y 1 123) th:it .\mmi may be a name of the i<x;al divinity
of the .Xnimonitcs, comparing the Annnuiiitish royal n.ime
Amminad.ib (Del. /'ar. 294), which on the analogy of Kammu.5-
nadab = Chemosh-nadab, should contain a divine name. .\
comp.irison with the parallel names shows however that Ammi,
if a divine name at all, was clearly known as such over a much
wider area than the narrow territory of Ammon (cp Names, { 46;'''
Am.mi, ii. 2).
According to Judg. 1 1 13 22, the land ' from Arnon unto
Jabbok and fronj the wilderness unto Jcjrdan,' was
- , originally occupied by the Ammonites, who
z. ijana , ,.,.., ,,., .... _,.. , ._
and
were dispossessed by the Amorites under
1. Name.
p , Sihon, some time before the Israelitish in-
" vasion. This evidence, however, is of doubt-
ful value, since the section Judg. 11 12-29 's of uncertain
origin, and may be no longer in its original form (see
Bu. Comm. 81 ; and cp Bu. A"/. Sa. 125 ; Ki. Gisch. 2
So). At any rate, all that Nu. 2I24 (cp Judg. II21/. )
affirms is that the Israelites concjuered the land of
the .Amorites 'from .\rnon unto Jabbok, (that is) unto
(the land of) the Ammonites,' and, as the same verse
continues, 'the border of the Ammonites was Jazer"
(so Ew., Di. , NOld. reading -iij?' with "ail i,istea<I
of vj) i.e., the frontier town of the .Amorites towarr.s
Anmion was Jazer (see v. 32). According to this state-
ment, the .Anunonites occujjied the east of the district
now called Belka, a view which accords excelleiuly
with the e.isterly position of the ancient capital city
Rabbah or Rabbath-.Xnmion, and is no doubt accurate
for the period to which ]E belongs.
Little is known of the social condition of this people ;
but there is nothing to suggest a high degree of cixiiisa-
tion. There were no doubt other ' cities' lx;sides Rabbah
(Judg. 11 33 2 S. 1231) ; but they were too insignificant to
be mentioned by name. Although the district of
Rabbah (see R.\HB.\h) was exceptionally well irrigated,
the total area of tillage lx?tween the Israelite frontier
and the arid steppes to the east was narrow. Some of
the Ammonitish clans must have ranged over these
steppes as nomads. Their population, too, must have
been comparatively small. According to all analogies
they would enter frcmi time to time into loose and
shifting alliances with the neighbouring tribes ; so that
their fighting strength would be subject to great and
sudden fluctuations.
The real history of the Ammonites does not iK'giii
till the time of Saul, though we ha\e
one very interesting and probable tradi-
tion from the legendary period of the Judges (see below
on Jephthah).
We do indeed hear, in a passage that sounds like history
(Gen. 14 5), of a people, called Zuzim, whom Chedorl.iomer ' smote
in Ham' (CnZ) a name which is most probably corrupt (see
Ham, ii.), but which .some regard as another form of Amnion ;
and it is tempting to identify the 2uzim with the Zamzumrnim,
whom, according to Deut. 'I10/., the .\mmonitts in early times
dispossessed, liut what we he.ir of the Z.;uTiziimmim ha.s a
family likeness to the legends of other aboriginal r.ices which
were expelled by more powerful invaders, and the author of
Dt. 1-440 (D^) did not write till .ifter 597 B.C. (K.ue. Hex.
270). In his time there were various influences at work to
hinder the accurate writing of history, .-ind it is even doubtful
whether we can safely accept what he tells us of the early
1 Cp also Nestle, Eig. 50. 187 (n.). _
2 For further evidence in favour of a Semitic god Ammu,
Ammi, see Hommel's review of Meissner's ' Beitr. zum altbab.
Privatrecht,' ZDMGi^siiff. ['95]: but cp Jensens cnticism
{.ZA 10342/ ['9S])-
143
3. Traditions.
AMMON
relations between the Israelites on the one hand and the
Moabites and the Ammonites on the other (Dt. 291937).
All we can say is that the story in Gen. 19 36-38 (J) proves an
early Israelitish sense of kinship (combined however with moral
repugnance) to the Moabilcs and Ammonites, so that it is not in
itself incredible that the Israelites should have refrained from
attacking these two peoples. True, in Jos. 13 25 (I') we are told
that 'half the land of the Ammonites' was assigned to the tribe
of Gad ; but the district intended here may be the .\nioritish
kingdom of Sihon, and so prc-suppose the view of history given
in Judg. 11 13-22 (see above, 2).
Dt. 234 [3] affirms that the Ammonites and Moabites
hired Balaam to curse Israel, and did not supply Israel
with provisions, as a punishment for which they are to
be excluded from the Israelitish community to the tenth
generation.
The spirit and purport of this passagej however, is at variance
witli that of Dt. 227, and the narrative of lialaam in Nu.
22-25 (mainly JE) speaks only of the Moabites. For several
reasons it is very probable that Dt. 23i-8 [2-9] (see Hai.aam,
I 7) is a record, not of the pre -exilic, but of the post -exilic
period when ' the problem as to who should and who should not
be admitted into the community wxs a burning question ' (Ku.
Hex. 265). At any rate the view which this passage presents
of the Ammonites cannot be accepted.
It is of more historical interest that in Nu. 22 we
have a combination of two distinct traditions (E and J)
respecting the origin of Balaam, one of which represents
him as an Ammonite (see B.\l.\.\m, i).
The settlement of Israelitish tribes in Gilead and
Bashan (see Manas.skh) could not but excite the
animosity of the neighbouring peoples. No doubt
there was a chronic border-warfare sometimes develop-
ing into more serious hostilities, sometimes mitigated
by truce, alliances, or the subjection of one or oilier of
the combatants. In Judg. IO6-I27 we have an account
of the deliverance of the Israelites of (jilead from
Ammonitish oppressors by a recalled outlaw named
Jephthah. The traditional stories have Ijeen much
edited (see Judgks, 17) and tell us naturally more
about Jephthah (who was one of the actors in a most
4 Saul and '"^''"S tragedy) than about the Am-
jj . , monites. \\'e are ujjon safer ground
^ in the story of Saul. The victory of this
heroic chieftain over the Ammonitish king Nahash, who,
encouraged by the weakness of cis-Jordanic Israel, had
besieged Jabesh-gilead, and displayed his deep contempt
for his foes, is doubtless historical (iS. 11). It is also
thoroughly credible that David, when out of favour with
Saul, received friendly treatment from Nahash (so we
must interpret 2S. IO2). Equally intelligible is it that
a change ensued in the relations between David and the
Ammonitish court when the former had taken up the
work, interrupted by the death of Saul, of liberating
and u.iiting the Israelitish tribes. Only we must not,
it would seem, place the war with the Ammonites too
late. The gross insult offered by Hanun, the son of
Nahash, to the ambas.sad()rs of David implies that the
power of the latter had not yet been so consolidated as
to wipe out the recollection of the days of Israel's
humiliation. The insult was bitterly avenged. Amnion
and its allies were defeated, and the power of the former
was, for the time, broken (see 2 S. I231).
It is noteworthy that .Shobi, son of Nahash, of Rabbath-
ammon, was friendly to David during Absalom's revolt (2 S. 17
27), that Zelkk, an Ammonite, was amon^ David's 'thirty'
(2 S. 2337), and that Solomon had an Ammonitish wife(NAAMAH,
2) whom one account (.see Klostermann) makes the grand-
daughter of Nahash, and who became the mother of Rehoboam
(i K. 14 21 ; the details in i K. 11 1-8 are untrustworthy). See
Nahash, 3.
It is probable that the Ammonites recovered their
independence after Solomon's death. Later, like the
6 Assyrian '''"^^ '^ ^'- '^'''^^'' '^^^' became tribu-
Ae-e t^riL's of the Assyrians ; this is e.xpressly
mentioned by Shalmaneser II., Tiglath-
pileser III., Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon (Schr. KGF
and COT). So far as our oldest evidence goes, they
caused no serious trouble again to the Israelites till the
time of Jeroboam II. , when, as Amos tells us (Am. 1 13),
they made incursions into Gilead, and displayed great
143
AMMON
inhumanity, which probably from their own point of
view was but justifiable revenge. The Chronicler,
indeed, relates victories over the Ammonites won by
Jehoshaphat and Jotham (2 Ch. 20 275. cp 268) ; but
these, according to Robertson Smith {OTJO") 146),
are Midrash. From Jer. 49i, we may infer that after
the deportation of the trans-Jordanic Israelites in 734
the Ammonites occupied the land of Gad ; and, even if
Jer. 49 be post-exilic, the fact is too probable to be
doubted. It is this outrage upon ' Yahwe's people '
which seems to be alluded to in Zeph. 28-ii Jer. 926 [25]
2521. Once again the vindictiveness of the Ammonites
was manifested when, in the reign of Jehoiakim, they
madp incursions into Judah as the auxiliaries of
Nebuchadrezzar (2K. 242). This is probably referred
to in Ezek. 2I28/. [25/.]. Later, however, the general
fear of the Babylonian rule seems to have altered the
policy of the Ammonites, for Jer. 27 3 brings before us the
king of .\mmon entering into a league against Babylon
with Zedekiah and other princes. It is to this act of
rebellion that Ezekiel refers (21 18-32 [13 _^]) when he
anticipates the punishment of the Ammonites, while in
25 1-7 he threatens the same people with destruction for
their malicious demeanour at the captivity of the Jews.
Did the Anmionites withdraw in time from the anti-
Babylonian league? It is a verj' probable conjecture,
and, strange as it may seem, Jewish fugitives are said to
have sought refuge with Baalis, king of Ammon, who
instigated them basely to assassinate the noble
Gkdai.i.mi, I (Jer. 40 14).
In later times we find an Ammonite' among the chief
ojjponents of Nehemiah, and at the same time con-
p . nected by marriage with distinguished
andSeek. \^^ (N'eh. 618 134 ; cp T.,.ua, ,Y
Other Ammonitish women had married
into Jewish families (EzraDi/. ) i.e., according to
Kosters, into families which had remained on Jewish
soil and not been touched by the reforming spirit of
Ezra (see Ezra, ii. 12). This would be all the easier
if we are right in inferring from Jos. 18 24 {z'v. 12-28
belong to P) that in post-exilic times there was in
Benjamin a place called ' Village of the Ammonites '
(CnKi'iiAK-H.XAMMONAi). It is to this period of mixed
marriages that we should not improbably refer the com-
position of Dt. 23 1-8 (see above), in \\hich passage are
mentioned the same three peoples as in Ezra 9 2. '^
Nearly three hundred years later the Ammonites
(Tiniotheus) are among the enemies defeated by Judas
IMaccabaiUS (i Mace. 56-iS) ; they are also mentioned in
a psalm assigned by some to the same critical period
(Ps. 887).* Up to this time, then, Ezekiel's threat
(ICzek. 25) against the Ammonites as well as against
the Moabites and (virtually) the Edomites that they
should be dispossessed by the ' sons of the East '
{i.e., the Arabian nomads) had not been fulfilled so
far as the Ammonites are concerned. Their fate,
however, cannot have been very long delayed. In the
fifth century B.C. we already find 'Arabians' among
the enemies of Nehemiah (Neh. 219 47 [i]), and we can
hardly doubt that by degrees the Ammonites, like the
Moabites before them, had to amalgamate with the
land-hungry intruders.
It is true, Justin Martyr, who died i66 A.D., states (cp 7"r)7//.
119) that the Ammonites were still numerous in his time; but
Josephus {.4nt. i. 11 5) once says precisely the same thing of the
Moabites, though elsewhere he speaks of the Moabites and
Gileadites as .Arabians (.-!/. xiii. 9 :), which agrees with the
statement of Origen {in Jolnim 1 i) that the term Ammonites
had become merged in that of Arabs. This makes it probable
that the-omission of 'Ammonites' in i Esd. 869 ( = Ezra".t i)
was not accidental but deliberate.
The close connection of Ammon with Moab, and, in
1 See, however, Reth-horon, 4.
2 Prof. Ryle (Ezra and Neh. 115) thinks that ' the mention of
the Ammonite, Moabite, and Egyptian together, suggests the
influence of Deut. 283-7 UffV Outhe XSBOT) assigns the
enumeration of the peoples to the Chronicler.
' Cp also AcHlOK.
AMMONITES
a less degree, with Israel, and the fact that the Moabites
7. Language.
spokea dialect of Hebrew(see Hkhkevv,
6) renders it almost certain that the
Ammonites also si>oke the ' language of Canaan. ' This
view is confirmed by Ammonitish proper names, e.g.,
Hanun, 2S. lOi (jn 'treated graciously ') ; Nahash,
iS. Ill (c^m 'serix;nt'); Naamah, iK. Hai (noya
'pleasant'); and the royal names Amminadab (see
alwve, i), Puduilu = Abdeel (Jer. 3G26), and Ba'sa=:
Haasha (Schr. CO T li^y). Bacthgcn's argu-
ment (in his licit riige) for the polytheism of the
_- .. . Ammonites is based partly on Judg. 106,
^*"^' partly on the analogy of Moahitish
religion. The only extant Ammonitish proper name,
however, which can be held to be compounded with
a tlivine name other than that of the supreme God,
is Haalis (see B.\Al,ls). At any rate Milcom was
as much the great national god of Amnion as
Chcmosh was of Moab (see Moi.ocii) ; the strange
slip by which Jephthah is made to speak of Chcmosh
as the god of Ammon suggests that ' Anmion ' has been
substituted by an editor for ' Moab ' in the passage
(Judg. 11 12-28) in which it occurs. In 2 S. 12 30 where
Nlilcom [q-v.) should be read instead of vialkdni
'their king," reference seems to be made to a huge
statue of Milcom in the capital city. The statement
that Solomon became a worshipper of Milcom in
Ills old age rests on no good authority (see Soi.o.mo.n").
When we pass to later times, it is tempting to infer with
A\'o. (//(7(-' 156, n. i) from the name of Nehemiah's
Ammonitish enemy that the worship of Yahwe had
begun to attract the Ammonites. The dissolution of the
old national bonds may have favoured the growth of a
monotheistic tendency. t. k.c. (w. h.B. )
AMMONITES (D"'3ir3r), 2Ch.20i, RV'e- Meunim
(y.t-., M).
AMMONITESS (D^Jby), iK. 14 21 31 2Ch. 1213
2\.
.Sou Am.mom.
AMNON (|i:pN*, in 2S. 132ot pJ^pS^, i.e., 'safe'?,
by some regarded as a diminutive used in a con-
temptuous sense [cp Dr. TBS, ad loc. W'r. Ar. Grai.(-^
I. 269; Ges. Heb. Gram. [ET 98] 250. n. i] ; We.
[//(7'-' 24, n. 2] explains as |-13*t3S, ' my mother is the
serpent," see Nun ; amnoon [BAL], ammcon [A, 2S.
13 1-6 lort]).
1. David's elJcst son (see David, 11 iii. <i), slain by
Absalom in revenge for his outr.ige on Tamar (2.S. 82 Viiff. ;
iCh.Sit).
2. In genealogy of J I' UAH (iCli.42ot).
AMOK (piO]^, ' deep, inscrutable ' ), post-exilic priestly
family; Neh. 12720 (om. BN*A ; AMOyK [L and. in
V. 7, X^-' "'t-'- '"!', in V. 20 X-:-^ ""K- '"f- AMOy])- '"^ee
I';ZKA, 2, 6 i^, II.
AMOMUM (AMtoMON [Ti. WH following N*AC]),
an unidentified aromatic substance, mentioned only
in RV mg.. Rev. 18 13 (RV Spice, AV om. with
BX'^ ; Wyclif, however, gives ' amome"). The classical
' amomum ' ( = ' blameless ' ?) was a shrub of Eastern
origin ( ' Assyrium vulgo nascetur amomum,' Verg.
/;V/. 425), from which were made oil for funeral rites
and unguents for the hair. As, however, it is used
also of any odour pure and sweet (Salm. ad So/in.
284), its identification is uncertain. It may possibly be
the vine Cis.ut.t vi/igena (Linn.), a native of Armenia.
The modern term is applied to a genus of aromatic
plants (X.O. Zingibraceae), including the cardamon and
seeds of Paradise.
AMON (pON), Jer. 4625 RV. See Xo-.\M()N.
AMON (Jinx, |bX, 67 ; ' firm ' ? ' workmaster ' ? but
see below), i. (a/iiws [BA], -wj/ [L] ; .CUO(.) Fairly
well attested as the name of the son of king Manasseh,
himself also king of Judah ; 2 K. 21 18-26 (a/x/jiuv [A]),
10 145
AMORITES
iCh. 3i4 (afjivwy [BA, see Swete]), aCh. 3820-25.
After a reign of 'two years' {drca 638 B.C. ; see
CnKONOLOcy, 36) he was assassinated by certain of
his courtiers (see Kittel, //;j/. 2378). The event pro-
duced a profound sensation. Amon, though disliked
by religious reformers, was a favourite with the people,
who avenged his death. If his name is derived from
the Egyptian (Theban) sun-god, it is an interesting
proof of the fluctuations of [xjlitical party (Egyptian and
Assyrian) in the reign of .Manasseh (cp Israel, 36).
2. (arfintip [AL]) less certainly, the name of a governor of
Samaria under Aliab ; iK.-''J26 (^rfinp [H], Aniiutv 1AJ) =
2Ch. IS25 (l>t/p 11'.]). pleads strongly against the correct-
ness of the form Amon. Semer or Semmer, indeed, can
hardly be correct, but Knier or Kmmer is the form for the
Immerof MT in Jer. 20 i and elsewhere (see Immkk), and out
of this form both Amon and Semer (TCC') can easily have arisen
as misreadings. See Sta. ZATIV t> 173-175 ('851.
3. {aixtei [1^].) The b'ne Amon (so Sl'I), a group of
'Solomon's servants' (see Nethinim) in the great post-exilic
list (see Ezra, ii. 9); Neh. 759 (i)>ifi/ui IR<A])=Kzra257
Ami ('ON; cp - everywhere; rj/iet [U.\])=i Ksd..'i34 Allo.m,
RV Allon (oAAwi/ [H], oA. [A], i.e., AA and AA for M).
T. K-. c.
AMORITES (*lip,X, collective, and always with
article, except Nu. 2l29Ezek. I645; AMOPRAIOI [BAI,]).
Other readings are : a/u/iioppoi (Is. \~ g ], afjiappaioi |l)t.
1 4 F, 2 K. 21 II A, I Ch. 1 14 I.], Ofioppei [Judg. 108 li], a^opis
[Gen. 14 13 A], aiJ.op[e]i [Kzra t) i I'AJ, a/i/xopaiot [i K. 7 14 .A],
A )ui/ /</).
In the List of Peoples ' the .\morite ' apjx^ars among
sons ' begotten ' by Canaan (Gen. 10 16 J = i Ch. 1 14I.
The term is used : (1) of a pre-lsraelitish people living L. of
the Jordan, Nu. 21 13 21 25 Josh. 24 8 (all E), .also Josh. 2 10 '. 10
OE), Dt. I4 3289 Judg. 108 II I K.419 (HLom.), Ps. 13.". 11
130 19, and elsewhere ; (2) of a people on the W. of Jordan,
Josh. 10 5/. 24 12 15 18 (.all E), also Josh. 7 7 (JE), 5 i 10 i2(both
D), Judg. 1 34-36 10 ; I K. 21 26, 2 K. 21 1 1, i ,S. 7 14, 2 S. 21 2 ;
(3) of a southern people, Dt. 1 7-44, cp C.en. 14 7 ; (4) of the ancient
population of Canaan in general, Gen. 1.'. 16 (J or R), 4S22 (E),
Am. 29/:, andls. 179(Lag. WRS Che. following "KAor) with
the Hiviles.
The Amorites are mentioned also in the lists of
Canaanitish peoples subjugated by the Isr.aelites (Gen.
15 21 E.v. 3 8 and elsewhere). The lists commonly
include the Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites,
Jebusites, and Perizzites, and once, in Gen. 15 19-21,
the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim,
for which reference must Ix; made to the separate
articles. On the variation in the order of these enumer-
ations, which are obviously ' rhetorical rather than
geographical or historical,' cp Dr. Dent, qb ff.
The passage in Amos (29/^) is remarkable, because
Amorite is used, precisely as by the Elohist (E), as a
general term for the primitive population of Canaan, and
because the Amorites, as an extinct race, are invested
with a half-mythical character (like the Anakim).
Wellhausen (C//341 f.) regards the designation
'Amorites' as substantially synonymous with that of
Canaanites, though not cjuite so comprehensive.
According to this view, the Canaanites, in the time of
the biblical narrators, are still living in the land (/.<'. ,
in the cities of the plain which were not occupied by the
Israelites). The Amorites, on the other hand, are
thought of as the old inhabitants of the hill-country E.
and W. of the Jordan, now inhabited by the Israelites.
Thus the Amorites belonged exclusively to the past ;
they had their day and ceased to Ix; (Gen. 151. This
explains how it is that, although under ordinary peace-
ful circumstances the Canaanites are sjwktn of as the
old inhabitants of the land, whenever mention is made
j of war and conquest, the Amorites at once take their
place (Gen. 48 22). So Moses' adversaries, Sihon and
Og, are kings of the 'Amorites' ; and, similarly, it is
with the twelve kings of the .Amorites that Joshua has to
deal W. of the Jordan. Winckler however (Gl 1 ^"2 ff.)
disputes the synonymity of the terms ' Canaanites '
and ' -Amorites ' on the ground that, as the Amarna
letters show, the coast -land as far N. as Sidon or
even farther, was called Kinahi (= Canaan), and that
1. Prophetic
activity.
AMOS
the Amorite population had its seat in the interior. He
explains the distinction in the nomenclatures from the
different local origin of the two writers (an Ephraimite
and a Judahite rcsijectivcly). On the e.xtra-biblical
facts, and on the inferences to be drawn, see Canaan,
^ 3-9 and cp I'HtK.MCIA.
AMOS (DV^y. 56, 'borne [by God]'; cp Ama-
SiAii. Ar. -OmJis. Phcen. DDyjO'J'X ; amcoC [B.\g]).
.\mos is the earliest of the projjhets of
whose discourses and predictions we
possess written records with an ac-
comfianying statement of their authorship. Of the
external facts of his life we should know little but for
the narrative digression in 7 10-17, which interrupts the
series of prophetic visions on the fall of Israel. From
a statement there iissigned to Am.aziah, ' the land is
not able to bear all his words,' we may reasonably
infer that .Anios's ministry in the northern kingdom had
lasted for some time, when it w.-is brought to an abrujjt
close by an act worthy of the heroic 1-^lijah. Amos, it
appears, came forward at length in a place where
success was more difficult than anywhere else, and
uttered a prophecy to this effect 'Jeroboam shall die
by the sword, and Israel shall tie carried away from its
land." It was in Bethel, the seat of the royal temijle
corresfxjnding to that of Jerusalem in the south, and
probably at some great festival, that Amos said this ;
and the priesthood, faithful to its royal head, took the
al.arm. S'ot so much because the prophet had threatened
the reigning dynasty (for he had not done so in the
interests of any upstart noble) as because he h.ad begun
to weaken the moral courage of the Israelitish people
(Jer. .384). With the half-contemptuous s[)eech, ' Carry
thy prophecies to those in the neighlK>uring country
who may think them worth paying for,' .\ma/.iah, the
head priest of liethel, by the royal authority, bade
Amos fly from the land of Israel. Amos would not
retire without a parting lestiinony. These are his
significant words : ' No prophet, no member of a
guild of prophets, am 1 ' ; that is, I am no ecstatic
enthusiast, like the prophets of Bethel, whose pro-
phesying is a trade, and whose oracles are mere
heathenish divinati<jn (cp Mic. :jii). 'But a sheep-
breeder am I,'^ he continues, 'and one who lends
sycomore figs' (see Shf.kp, Sycomork) : that is, I am
above the sordid temptation to take fees. ' Yahwe
took me from following the flcx:k ; Yahwe said unto
me, (jo, prophesy unto my people Israel.' That is,
My prophesying has an immediate practical object
which concerns the whole nation, and it is due to a
moral impulse which has come straight from Israel's
God. Then, in answer to the command. Prophesy
not against Israel, .^mos repeats his message with a
startling person.al application (cp Is. 22 17 18).
Such was .-Vmos a strange phenomenon to the head
priest of Bethel, as representing an entirely new type of
2 Home prophecy. Whence then did this projihet
come? Was he a native of Israel or a
' sojourner ' from Judah ? The heading of the book (on
the origin of which see below, 4 ) at first sight appears to
be decisive in favour of the latter view. Budde has
made it probable ^ that we should render ' Amos, who
had been among the sheep-breetlers, (a man) of Tekoa.'
In any case, Amos is represented asa Tekoite. Now, there
is no trace in ancient or in modern nomenclature of more
than one Tekoa (iJ.v.). That Amos Ix^longed to the
southern kingdom has, nevertheless, been doubted, ^
1 Read ^pi3 with Oort, We. (UAg, aliroAot) ; cp 1 i. Mesha
is also called ^p1J (2 K. 3 4). The word refers to a breed of
stunted sheep, valued for their fine wool (see Shkei>\.
2 Kohut, Semitic Stu<iies jo laSJT.
3 According to Oort, Atnos was an Israelite who cultivated
sycomores in his own country, but after his expulsion dwelt
among the shepherds of Tekoa (Th. T'2b lai, etc ['91]). Gratz
(and so formerly Oort), following Kimhi, supposes a second
Tekoa in the north.
147
AMOS
on the twofold ground ( i ) that the interest of Amos is
absorbed by (northern) Israel, and (2) that Tekoa lies too
high for sycomores to be grown there. As to the first
point, Amos, though deeply interested in Israel, is not,
like the native Israelitish prophet Hosea, a sympathetic
observer of the life and manners of the north. The
inner impulse from above sending him to Israel is
psychologically accountetl for by the' vastly greater
importance of Israel as compared with Judah in religion,
in politics, and, we may add, in literature. As to
the second, Amos may very well have possessed a
plantation of sycomores in some low-lying district in
the Shephelah or in the Jordan valley (see Syco.mokk).
We may accept it, then, as a fact, that Amos was a
Judahite, and sprang from a place famous in the time
of David for the quick wits of its inhabitants (2 S. Ha).
9 'D-anoKofi/.n ^^^ situation, too, of Tekoa, was
6. rreparauon. ^.^,j ^^^^^^ ^^ develop the future pro-
phet's cap.-icities. From the extensive view which his
own hill commanded, he would gain, at any rate, a
sense of natural grandeur, though we must not infer
from this that he was capable as a Tekoite of writing
Am. 4 13 and the parallel pa.ssages.i Not far off,
he would meet with the caravans of the Dedanites
(Is. 21 13) and other Arabian peoples, and would
imbitxj from them a longing to see other men and
maimers. Possibly, too, such an idiom as CTD'Q 'ac* c;?
(4 10) may be explained from Arabian influence (so
We. ).'^ Whatever the social position of Amos may have
been, he was not tied to the soil, and may, before
his journey to Samaria, have wandered, either on
business or from curiosity, far away from home, and
have seen and heard much of which his neighbours were
ignorant. To suppose this is not to deny that even
the stayer at home had opportunities of hearing news,^
but to try to understand the alertness of Anios's
intellect, the width of his knowledge, and the striking
culture and refinement of his style. At any rate, it is
plain that he studied thoroughly, on the spot, the con-
dition of life and thought in the northern kingdom, and
we must regret that we have no further contemporary
traditions respecting him, than that contained in 710-17.
One very singular tradition, indeed, we have, which
appears to be a very late distortion of his story. It is
the story (i K. 13) of the man of God from Judah, who
went to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam I. and threatened
the altar there with destruction by an earthquake (cp
Am. 3 147991). Though this teaches us much con-
cerning a late view of prophecy, however, it affords no
fresh glimpse of Amos.
A post-exilic editor says (Am. li) that Amos pro-
phesied during the contemporary reigns of Uzziah of
4. Notes of J"'^'''^^' ^^'^ Jeroboam II. of Israel. Of
date Uzziah there is no express mention in
the book ; but the description of the care-
less ease of Jerusalem in 6i(Z accords with the circum-
stances of his reign ; to Jeroboam II. the prophet refers
in 79, and his biographer in 7ioy". The heading also
states that the prophecy as a whole was delivered (i.e.,
in its original form) 'two j'ears before the earthquake."
Unfortunately, our only other authority for this earth-
quake* in Uzziah's reign is about as late as this note
(Zech. 144). It is no doubt plausible to defend its his-
torical character by referring to 4 n ( ' I wrought an over-
throw among you'), and by our prophet's vivid idea of
earthquakes as one of God's means of punishment (88; cp
Is. 21921). Am. 88, however, is certainly an interpola-
\ion, and it is not impossible that the rather too precise
1 G._ A. Smith {HG 315) has given eloquent expression to
this view. In T7ve/ve Prophets, however, he admits the late
origin of the passages.
2 On the intellectual opportunities of Tekoa see Stickel
{Hiofi 269-276), who makes Job to have been written in this
district.
S Robertson, Early Religion 0/ Israel 510.
* Klo. Sam. u. KSn. J40, and cp Kings, { 8, note.
8 Jos. (Ant. ix. IO4) gives a long fabulous story about it.
AMOS
statement in 1 1 is merely an exegetical inference from
736 (cp 78 8a). which seemed to the editor to imply
that Israel's punishment had been twice postponed, and
that each postponement nuant a year's grace (so (i.
Hoffmann ; cp Chronolocjv, 3). It is remarkable
that the author of the heading, if he had access to
tradition, did not rather refer to the solar eclijisc pro-
phcsie<l in 89 (in its i)resent form). This seems to be
the eclipse which an Assyrian list of eixjnyms assigns
to the month Sivan 763 B.C.' It is less important
that, according to the same list, i^estilenccs ravaged
Assyria in 765 (the year of a campaign in the land
of Hadrach, near Damascus and Hamath) and
in 759. Pestilence in the land of Israel is indeed
mentioned in Am. 4 10 ; but it is described as ' after the
manner of Kgypt. ' The Egyptian Delta was of course
not the only source of pestilences : the Assyrian plague
_. may have germinated elsewhere. Still, it
. ircum- ^^.^.^jp5 tpye t^at the period indicated by
these last dates sufficiently accords with
hints dropped in the Book of Amos. For e.xample, the
Israelites, according to Amos, have no -ipprohensipn
of a Sfjeedy attack from .Assyria. The circumstances of
the period just mentioned enable us fully to account for
this. Shalmaneser III. (783-773) had too nmch trouble
with the land of Urartu(see Ararat, 2, As.syria, 32),
and his successor Asur-dAn III. (772-755) had too
many revolts at home to put down, to tje dangerous to
the kingdom of Israel. .Assyria t>eing thus occupied,
it was easy for Jerotx)am II. to recover from Damascus
(repeatedly humiliated of late by A.ssyria) the districts
which Hazael had taken from Israel. Hence, when
Amos wrote, the e.\tent of the Israelitish dominion was
' from the point where the Hamathile territory begins
(non Ki3^) to the torrent of the Arilbah,' a definition
which is presumably equivalent to that in 2 K. 14 25, which
gives ' the sea of the Arabah ' i.e. , the Dead Sea. The
prophet's hearers delighted to sun themselves in this
new prosperity, and boasted of the capture of Lodeb.xr
and K.\RN.\IM in Gilead as a great military feat (see
LoDEHAR, and We. on Am. 613). True, melancholy
thoughts of the past would sometimes intrude thoughts
of the recent terrible earthquake, of the famines and
{jestilences, of the friends and neighbours lost in battle,
and of the revolting cruelties of the Syrians and their
Ammonitish allies in Gilead (I31346-11). Nor is it
arbitrary to connect the splendour and fulness of
Israelitish ritual in the prophet's time with the popular
anxiety lest Yahwe should renew the troubles of the
past. On the whole, however, the tone of Israelitish
society is joyous and optimistic. As in Isaiah's earliest
discourses, the upper classes appear as self-indulgent
and luxurious, and, as in Isaiah, the women come in
for' a share of the blame (4i ; cp Is. 3 16). Not only
the king (i K.2239) but also the nobles have houses
inlaid with ivory (815 cp 64(2). Feasting is habitual
(64-6), and the new custom of half-reclining on tl\e
divan* has lieen introduced at Samaria (3i2iJ). The
good old sentiment of brotherliness is dying away ;
oppression and injustice are rampant (26-8 89 end, 10
4 1 5 11/. 846). This indicates that great economic
changes are going on (Isaiah makes the same com-
plaint. Is. 5). Side by side with this we notice a
keen interest in the ritual side of religion (44/. 521-23
814 9i). Jubilant worshippers sing the praises of the
incomparable 'God of Jeshumn' (023 ; cp Deut. 8826),
and, as they think of his deliverances in the past, they
even 'desire the battle day of Yahw6' (5 18). Amos, a
stranger, alone sees below the surface of things. He
does not, indeed, once name Assyria,* and seems to have
1 -See Schr. COT 2 193; Sayce, TSBASng; Schr. A'GF
338 yC, and cp Chron(>lo<;v, 24.
* In 3 12 render ' that sit in Samaria in the corner of a couch,
and on the cushion of a divan ' (for peTJl read arcs, an obvious
correction, which We. has somehow not made). See/(7^ 10 572.
According to uaq^ however, there is once an express
mention of Assyria (89, -nrK = "lirK, for TlPKi Ashdod).
AMOS
no clear idea of the geograjjhy of the region ' beyond
Damascus ' ; but every one knows what he means when
he warns his hearers that Yahw6 ' will raise up against
them a nation '(614 ; cp Is. 626, where read 'ijS). and
' will carry them into captivity Ijeyond Damascus ' (52?).
On the whole, we may prolxibly date the original pro-
phecies of Amos between 765 and 750 n.c. *
'ITiere are only two passages which may Ix; regarded
as inconsistent with this date, as referring to later
6 Obi actions '^^'^"'^- (a) In 1 5* it is predicted that
i - . ^ 'the iieople of Aram shall go into
to 766-760 B.O. eaptivity unto Kir,' which was ful-
filled, according to 2 K. IG9, on the capture of Dam.ascus
by Tiglath-l'ileser III. in 732. The prediction, how-
ever, was not meant to be taken so literally. ' Unto
Kir' is evidently suggested by the tradition (97) that
the Aramteans came from Kir ; the prophet cannot
mean to lay stress upon such points as the locality of a
captivity ; * otherwise, why does he describe the scene of
Israel's captivity so vaguely? The 'fulfilment' in
2K.I69 is obviously due to interpolation; the later
view of prophecy differed from that held by the great
prophets themselves. (/>) The other passage is 62, which,
as emended by Geiger'' (to make sense), reads thus,
' Pass ye to Calneh, and look ; and go thence to Great
Hamath, and go down to Philistian Gath ; are ye
better than these kingdoms, or is your region greater
than theirs?" These places, says the writer, have
already succumbed to the common enemy : how can
Israel ho[3e to escape? Calneh (not the Calneh
of Gen. 10 10, but the N. Syrian city Kullani) was
conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. in 738, Hamath by
Sargon in 720, and Gath by the same king in 711 ;*
and the passage breaks the connection Ijctween 6 i and 5,
and is not in the rhythm which is so closely adhered
to in 61 3-7. The verse must, therefore, be a later
insertion, by a scribe or editor who had read Is. IO9
(Calno = Calneh), and is properly a marginal gloss on
the words, ' Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ' (^i i ).
Observe that Great Hamath (H. Rabba) contr;ibts v.ith
the simple Hamath of v. 14.
A strict analysis is indispensable, both for a sound
view of the origin of this book, and for a clue compre-
... hension of the great proi)het himself.
- * ^^^ We nmst, therefore, test the common
assertion that the lx)ok possesses such a
true literary unity as Amos, when in retirement, might
naturally wish to give to his remembered prophecies.
5>o much, at any rate, is clear, that, as it now stands,
the book has three well-marked divisions. (1) Chaps.
1 2-2 16 present a series of judgments on the peoples of
Syria and Palestine, each framed on the same plan,
and coupling the description of an unpardonable moral
fault with the declaration of punishment. The most
detailed of the accusations is that brought against
Israel, which forms a striking culmination of the series.
The vaguest and least impressive is Judahs, which
comes next before Israel's, and somewhat spoils its
effect. ( 2 ) Chaps. 3-6 seem at first sight to contain three
discourses, each introduced by ' Hear ye this word '
and closing with a prediction of national ruin. Upon
a closer examination, however, none of the ' discourses'
1 The reason offered for a later date (745-744) by Zeydner
and Valeton (in Wildebocr, A7/. no) is insufficient. Any
observer who was not blinded by a fanatical rcllK'ous belief
could see that the inactivity of Assyria was only temporary, not
to mention that the year 765 saw the .Assyrians on the northern
border of Palestine. Resides, the events which accomp.-\nied
the accession of Tifilath-pileser III. in 74s w'ere of too exciting
a nature not to have suggested to .Amos a fuller and more precLse
threatening than we find in his prophecies.
2 On the former part of this verse see Beth -EDEN and
AvEN, 3.
* On 0's readings see KiR.
* Urschri/l g6/. Torreys hesitation to remove v. a from
the context which it distorts (J^L, 1894, p. 62 yC) seems very
needless.
5 Schr.'s view of Calneh {COT 2143/ ; HIVB I254) seems
untenable (see Calnbh).
ISO
AMOS
proves to hiive more than a semblance of unity. The
section may be analysed into ten loosely connected
passages 3i/ 83-8 89-15 41-344/. 46-13 5i-i7* 518-27
61-768-14. (3) Chaps. 7-9. This is a series of live
visions, interrupted, first by a short biographical elucida-
tion of the third vision (7 10-15), and then by a threatening
address (84-14), and followed by an evidently composite
discourse, closing with most unexpected promises of the
regeneration of Judah.
Now, if this summary is correct, it becomes im-
possible to maintain the true literary unity of the book.
More than one editor must have been concerned
in its arrangement, and the latest editor has had
considerable difficulty in so disposing his material
as to produce three portions, each one of a reason-
able length. Considering that the book of the Twelve
Minor Prophets comes to us from the post-exilic
age (see C.\NON, 39), and that the primary object
of the later editors was not critical accuracy but
o Ti J. -T edification, we are bound to look out
8. Ir ost-exilic > ,- ,
. very sharply for post-exilic msertions.
^P.l2.
Such an insertion we find at the very
outset. The opening verse (I2) has
been often viewed as the te.xt of the following dis-
course ; but it seems very ill-adapted for that purpose,
for the object of the discourse is not to exhibit the
connection between Yahw^ and a privileged sanctuary,
but to show that even Israel (which has so many altars
of Yahwe, 28) shall be punished like the other nations.
Nor is the elegiac tone of 1 2b at all in harmony with
the cycle of stern declarations which follows. The
truth is that 1 2rt is borrowed from Joel 3 [4] 16a, where
alone the words suit the context, and 1 2b has a close
phraseological affinity to Joel and other late writings.'*
It is no argument to the contrary that in 38 Yahw^ is
said to ' roar ' and that the phrase ' the top of Carmel '
is used by Amos in 93 : the editor had naturally made
some slight study of the language of Amos. The
reason of the insertion will be clear if we compare
(a) I9/. with Joel 82-6, {b) In /. with Joel 819, and
(c) 9 13 with Joel 3[4]i8. These passages can all be
shown to be late insertions, and 1 2 can be understood
only in connection with them.
First, as to (a) and {b) it will be noticed that I9/.
differs from 16/. only in the substitution of ' Tyre' for
- , , , y. 'Gaza,' and in the addition of the
ap. 9/. 11/. ^yQ^jjg_ ^x\d remembered not the
covenant of brethren.' (Even if, with Winckler, we
correct ns in v. 9/ into n;>s i.e., the N. Arabian
Musri [see MiZK-MM], part of the following argument
is still applicable. ) It seems incredible that Amos
should have condescended to repeat himself in this
way, and doubtful whether the early Israelitish prophets
knew anything about such an act as is imputed to Tyre
in 1 9. And what can be the meaning of ' the covenant
of brethren' in Amos's mouth? Many critics, indeed,
have found in the phrase an allusion to the alliance
between Solomon and Hiram (RV mg. refers to i K. 5i
911-14) ; but this was a purely personal connection, and
lay far back in the past. We might also think of the
covenant between the kings of Israel and Tyre pre-
supposed in I K. I631/. ; but would the Elijah-like
prophet Amos have been the man to recognise this?
Moreover, this was a personal or family covenant,
whereas the charge against Edom in In, that he
'pursued his brother with the sword,' presupposes a
true national covenant resting on kinship (cp Mai. I2).
1 Observe that between Am. 615 and 16 something analogous
to w. 7 10 must have fallen out (jrzi. 8 9 are an interpolation).
Vv. 14-17 should correspond to 7iv. 4-7 10-13.
^ Vax metaphorically, as Joel 1 10 ; n'lKJ, as Joel 1 19 / 2 22 ;
ITT as Joel 1 12. Cp also 1 2/^ as a whole with Jer. 9 [10] 9 23 10
2537: Is. 339; Nah. 1 4 (all post-exilic passages except the
first). See Che. Introd. to WRS's i^n Isr. xv./. [Volz. has
lately expressed the same view (/)/> vorexil. Jah7<ef>ro/etie
p. i9j/C), which Nowack (A7. Proph., ad loc.) does not refute.]
AMOS
This view is confirmed by Obad. 12, where ' in the day
of thy brother ' implies the same charge that is brought
against Edom in the words quoted from Am. In.
Thus, the fault imputed to Tyre is that it co-oijerated
with Edom in the time of Israel's distress, by making
raids into Israelitish territory and selling captive
Israelites to their unnatural 'brethren.' Was there
ever such a time of distress for Israel between the age
of David and that of Amos? It is, of course, the
history of Judah, not that of N. Israel, that we have
to search, for the claim to the overlordship of Edom
was maintained by the Davidic family. The answer
depends primarily on the results of our criticism of
Chronicles. If we can regard the Chronicler as an
only slightly prejudiced recorder of old traditions,
we may believe that the Philistines and Arabians broke
into and plundered Jerusalem (2 Ch. 21 16/ ), and
conjecture that Tyrian slave -merchants drew their
profit from the circumstances. F'urther, if, some time
before that, the Edomites revolted from Judah and
defeated King Joram (this, happily, is a fact attested not
only in 2 Ch. but also in 2 K. 820-22), it is easily con-
ceivable that Edomitish passion vented itself in a great
slaughter of fugitive Israelites. Is it worth while, how-
ever, to defend the integrity of Am. 1 and the accuracy
of the Chronicler by such a lavish use of conjectures ?
A prophet such as Amos was could not have fastened on
such an offence of the Edomites to the exclusion of the
cruel treatment of I'^domites by Judahites referred
to in 2 K. 147 (cp 2Ch. 25i2), and we ought not to
imagine a case of special barbarity in the ninth century
when there is a well attested one in the sixth. It was,
in fact, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 that the P3domites,
who had no such stern moralists as Amos and Isaiah to
reprove them, filled up the measure of their revenge, to
the indignation of Jewish writers, who forgot the cruelties
of their own ancestors. Hence, to explain Am. 1 11-12
aright, we must refer to Ezek. 25 12 35 5 Is. 84 Obad.
10-14 Ps. 1377, together with Joel 8[4]i9 ; and, to under-
stand I9/. , we must compare (besides the passages just
mentioned) the description of the offence of Tj're in
Joel 3(4)2-6 (subsidiary evidence for the late date of
Am. In/, is given below ).' If it be asked, when
these judgments on Tyre and Edom were inserted, the
answer is, during (or much more probably after) the
Exile, at a time when some fresh insult on the part of
the Edomites reminded Jewish writers of earlier and
deeper injuries (see Is.MAH, ii. 14).
Next as to (c). Plainly, Joel 3(4)i8rt is the original of
Am. 9i3<5. Theopposite view would be inconsistent with
K Qfi the fact that Am. 9 13(1 is dependent on
10. Chap. y8-i5. ^j^g j^jg passage Lev. 265 (see Levi-
ticus). Am. 9 13, however, is not a later insertion in the
section in which it occurs. From 9n (or rather from
98) onwards, we are struck by affinities in expression
or idea to works of the Babylonian and Persian periods,
and by corresponding divergences from the st)le and
thought of Amos. "^ That v. 7 cannot have been the
conclusion of the prophecy is certain ; but we have to
regard w. 8-15 as a post-exilic substitute for the original
close. The editor cannot endure the idea of the final
destruction of the whole house of Israel, and so he
makes Amos declare in a strangely softened mood that
only the 'sinful kingdom' [i.e., that of Ephraim) will
be wiped out, whereas the less guilty Judahites will
1 Notice (1) the vague description of the offence of Edom.
Does it consist in the purchase of Israelitish slaves from the Tyrian
slave-merchants? or in the slaughter of Israelitish fugitives? or,
more probably, did Edom prove that 'he kept his wrath for
ever' in both these ways? (2) The mention of ' Teman ' and
' Bozrah,' which names seem first to occur in Jer. 487 13. Cp
the threat in 1 12 with that in Obad. 9.
2 For the evidence, which is singularly strong, see Cheyne,
'Notes on the Prophets,' Expositor, Jan. 1897, pp. 44-47. On
Am. 98-15 see also Preuschen, ZATW\h2^.2^ (95); Torrey,
'Notes on Am. 27 etc.,' JBL 168-172 ('96); T>r'\\er, Joel and
Amos 120 jff., who vainly endeavours to diminish the force of
the arguments.
AMOS
suffer the milder doom of dispersion among the nations.
Even this will Ix; only for a time. Israel shall return,
the old Davidic kingdom shall lie restored, and the
sweet commonplaces of prophetic idylls shall be fulfilled.
Now, can we not see the reason of the insertion of the
opening verse or prologue? It was to assure the post-
e.xilic readers of Amos that the threats of the prophet
had long since been fulfilled, and that restored Zion
should be safe under the care of its lion-like divine
protector. In other words, Amos was to be read in the
light of the concluding portion of Joel. The insertion
of the epilogue (98-15), in which we ought to note the
reference to Kdom (cp Joel 819), has a similar reason.'
Here, then, are already four certain |K)st-exilic inser-
tions. The companion passages now to lje enumerated
are eciually noteworthy. No .satisfactory ])icture of the
prophet Amos is possible till we have recognised them.
Kirst, Am. 2^f> is too deficient in concreteness to
be the work of Amos, and is, on phraseological
11. chap. 24/ F""'''' '^''-'' , ^\^' l^"" '"*"^f [ "^^
^ '' judgment upon Judah also must be late.
This is e%-ery way a gain. In particular, we can now
see lietter how thoroughly Amos was ab.^orlxid in his
mi.ssion to N. Israel. He cannot perhaps forget Judah ;
but his native country is only a fragment : the national
pulse beats most vigorously in Kphraim (cp Is. 98/.
[7/.]). The post-e.\ilic editor, however, felt the need
of a distinct reference to the sin and punishment of
Judah, which he meant to Ije taken in combination
with the encouraging statements of 1 2 and 9 11-15.
It was a different feeling which prompted the insertion
12. chaps. 4 12^13 '^ ^ '3 ^''''^ '''^''''^ * "'' '^. connected)
rofa f 5 ^f- 9 sf. The conception of God
'' '' had become deeper and fuller ; the
germs long ago deposited by the preaching of Amos
and Isaiah had, through a widened experience, develojjed
into the rich theology of II. Isaiah and the Hook of
Job. Not only by the wonders of history but also by
those of nature was the sole divinity of Yahwe proved,
and an ordinary reader of .\mos inserted these doxologies
(as we may call them) to relieve the gloom of the pro-
phetic pictures. 3 Another such insertion was made
(according to the text used by ) in Hos. 184.
We now pass on to .-\m. .'126. The construction and
rendering of this passage have been much disputed.
13. chaps. 52662. "" the assumption that Am. 525-27
was all written by .Amos, it is
perhaps easiest (see Driver) to render cnurr, ' So ye
shall take up . . . (Saccuth' your king and Kaiwan
your god, which ye made for yourselves),' 'nS^ni.
'and I will carry (you) into exile.''* But how
unnatural this is ! Nowhere else does the prophet
mention an inclination of the Israelites to the worship
of Assyrian gods, and the carrying of .Assyrian gods by
Israelites into Assyria is a very strange feature in a
threat. Hence the whole verse is more than probably
1 There are similar interpolations in Hosea {e.g., I7 1 io-2 i
[2i-3]and the words' D.-ivid their king 'in 3 5). See Hosea, 4.
i' Cp 2 K. IO15, Deiiteronomistic. Critics on the other side
quote Is. 624; Hos. 2 2 [4]; Ex. 18 16 ; Deut. 30io; but they
do not meet the argument from weakness of style, and produce
no parallel for the second part of the description of Judah's sin.
Moreover, the two Pentateuch pas.sages are not in point. Nor
have critics realised the consequences of admitting the post -exilic
origin of the prophetic books in their present form.
3 The style is that of II. Isaiah .and the later poets (cp Stickel,
Hiob p. 276), not that of Amos. The strings of participles
remind us of Is. 40 22./: ; Job 12 17-24 ; Zech. 12 i ; D.-in. 221/
Notice also ((13 (cp Cheyne, /nt. Isa. xxi. 252), 'nsa^Sj; Tn
pK, no'D, S'Ds, mo'^'i-, j'Saa, mSvo nj3n. In 95 nixasn ''-
violates the us.ige of Amos (but cp (P). The ideas are equally
late, though they are such as .\mos, h.id he met with them,
would have owned. Inter alia, comn. the third descrip-
tive phr.-ise in 4 13 with Ps. 13!t 2. It is prob.-ible that bif.
originally stood after 413. Am. fls/, however, presumably
retains its original position.
On the text see, besides the comment.iries, N. Schmidt,
JBL, 1894, p. I _/?: ; Torrey. ib. p. 61 ; WRS .-ind Che.,
Profih. Isr.i'ii y^ff.\ G. Hoffmann, ;?^ /"/r 3 112/ : Tiele,
Gesch. van het godsdienst 315. On the construction see Dr.
in Smith, /?5(2) 122 (art. Amos).
513-15 629
AMOS
a later insertion, which took th<; place of a passage
that had become illegible. The case of Is. 104rf
seems exactly parallel (see SHOT, ad U>c.). Whether
or no Succoth-iienoth, the name of a god in 2 K. 17 30,
contains the divine name .Saccuth,' we may suppose that
the writer of the inserted passage merely antedates a
worship introduced into .Samaria by the Babylonian
colonists after 722 .< . The awkwardness of the con-
nection need not surprise us (this against Konig, Synt.
368 (^) ; the 1 in cnKrji is simply the Waw explica-
tivitm so often prefixed to glosses. Render, ' That is,
ye carried in procession ' ; cp Is. 45 20. See Chiun A.nd
SUCCOTH.
Am. 62, another insertion, has been treated of
already (see 6 \b\f. We pass on to 8811/ Verse 8
. . , o 1 is not at all suitable as a description of
r 'P^' '4 jj^g threatened punishment (see We.,
Nowack). The comparison with the
Nile recurs in an interpolated verse
(95). Passing on, we note that v. 13 speaks of literal
thirst (suggested by the mention of the festivals in
V. 10) ; but in v. 11 the hunger and thirst are meta-
phorical. Verses 9/. 13/. announce a sudden cata-
strophe; but in V. II f. a lengthened time of misery is
descritied. The passage is clearly late, and is parallel to
Is. 820/. (partly late). The silence of prophecy is
spoken of as a sore trial in Ps. 74 9. Other probable
late insertions are 814^513-15 (cp Mic. 76), and the
expression Tn^ in 65 (see David, 13) ; and 69/ is
at any rate misplaced. To these it is plausible to add
the reference to ' those who are at ease in Zion ' in 6 i
(but it may he better to correct p's into ,-ii-in ; so Che.
/(^A' 10573) I also 87, which, as Duhm points out, may
be a gloss on v. Z ; certainly it interrupts a noble
passage {v. 8 for K33' read nnn- with We. , or, much better,
3K3'). The last insertion is 98-15 (see 10).
After these insertions have been removed, may we
safely suppose that the rest of the book represents what
IB Pre exilic '^""o^ ^''^''^' '" P"^''ic ? No : the analogy
editing.
of the prophecies of Isaiah makes such
a supposition highly improbable. Let
us be content with knowing that we have a truthful
record of the prophetic certainties of .Amos, even though
he did not always utter them in public. The manner
and the contents of the passages into which the true
Book of Amos falls must he our guide in determining
the class (whether that of public or of private prophecies)
to which they severally belong. It is both inherently
difl^cult and contrary to analog)' to suppose that 1 2-
2 16 was ever really uttered ; at any rate, l2-'J6,7 s is
more adapted to produce an effect on readers than on
hearers. Nor can we possibly imagine that the visions
in chaps. 7-9 were used by the prophet as texts of spoken
addresses ; passages from discourses are no doubt here
and there introduced, but they come from the arranging
hand of the editor of this part.
It is a further question whether the arrangement of
the different sections may be due to .Amos himself. In
answering it we must leave sufficient room for the f^rmvih
of the book. It is not unreasonable to suppose that on
his expulsion from Bethel the prophet paid a visit (per-
haps a second visit; cp6i) to Jerusalem, and there
'noted' his prophecies 'in (on) a book for a later
day' (Is. 808), when the judgment upon Israel should
have been .accomplished. There, too, he may have
committed his record (enriched with some never-spoken
prophetic certainties) to the custody of those ' disciples '
of Yahwe and of his prophets (see Is. 816), who l)egan
the long succession of students and editors of the re-
ligious literature. In their hands we may suppose that
the book assumed by degrees its present form. .At any
rate, a written record of .Amos must have become
quickly known ; for Isaiah, it is clear, steeped himself in
the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly
1 So Del. Par. 21s/., but see Succoth-Benoth.
154
AMOS
original genius. To Hosea, however, such a record
cannot be proved to have Ix-cn known (see We. on Hos.
814 4 IS IO58) : in other words, the circulation of Amos's
prophecies was, originally at least, confined to Judah.
The latest editor of the book, as we have seen, was
post-exilic.
A special interest attaches to the description of the
visions, together with the historical interludes in chaps.
7-9, partly because they exhibit the growth of Amos's
prophetic certainty resj^ecting the fall of Samaria, and
partly because, like Is. 6 7 1-8 18, and 20 (in their
original form), they appear to come from a partly
biographic, partly prophetic, work, written or dictated
by the prophet himself.
Some have been surprised to find 'a plain country-
man ' like Amos possessed of such a refined and yet
. , vigorous style.* They forget that the
16. ^niOS S differences of culture in the East are still
^ sometimes comparatively trifling, and that
a man of low rank may express himself with considerable
elegance. It is still more in point to remark that the
most classic Arabic poems are the work of men who
had a calling similar to that of .Amos, while, even
under the new Moslem empire, sons of the desert were
wont to appear at court and win a rich guerdon by the
finished style of their improvisations. Such critics have
also forgotten the opportunities of self-culture which, both
at Tekoa and elsewhere, Amos must have enjoyed ; and
when even G. Baur and Ewald point to certain ' sole-
cisms in pronunciation and orthography ' as evidences of
provincialism, it may be replied that the errors in ques-
tion may reasonably be ascribed to late copyists.- That
Amos delights in images drawn from nature is clearly
no fault (see, e.g., 2934/812519, and the first, second,
and fourth visions). Only one of them is distinctively
the comparison of a shepherd (812) ; and Amos is just
as willing to speak of wonders of which he knows only
by hearsay such as the giant cedar trees (29), and (if
the text be correct) the inundation of the Nile (88) or
of which he has a true Israelitish dread such as an
earthquake or a solar eclipse (88/), or the mysterious
sea which yields no harvest (G12; cp arpvyeTos), and
which somewhere hides the terrible serpent of primitive
mythology (93 ; see Skri'knt, 3/ ). It is a pity that,
for reasons already given, we cannot speak of Amos as
a sympathetic observer of the sky* fhat is an essential
characteristic of a much later poet (see Job). As a
literary craftsman he ranks high. In 1 3-2:6 we have a
literary prophecy, which, until .\mos forgets his art in his
grief at the manifold offences of Israel, is marked by great
regularity of structure. .So in 46-ii we have the literary
model of an equally symmetrical passage in Isai.ah (Is.
98-21 [7-20] 526-30 10 1-4), and in 62 we have a short
but strictly rhythmical elegy. .Altogether, the Book of
D crrpft of -^'"^^ forms a literary as well as a pro-
"cinaditv P'^*^'"'^ phenomenon. It is true that
orig y. ^^Yx as a writer and as a speaker he
must have had models ; J and E were, of course, not the
only writers of the pre-Amosian period, and Elijah and
Elisha (of whose doings a faint echo has reached us)
were not the only prophetic reformers (.Am. 2 11/ 87).
There is no occasion, however, to suppose that there were
prophets of precisely .Amos's type before him prophets
who had exactly his conception of their duties, and
were also, in a qualified sense, writers. It would be a
mistake to infer, from Amos's use of formula, that he
was acquainted with earlier written prophecies. Pro-
phetic formulae could be transmitted by word of mouth
1 Against Jerome's application of Paul's self- depreciating
language in a Cor.ll 6 to Amos sec Lowth, Prerlect. 21 (Lectures,
ET,2 97/).
2 Take, e.g., pn^*' ("9) for P"^'. The same form occurs in
Jer. 3326, Ps. 1059, l)oth post -exilic passages. In 5 11 0P13
is not a ' dialect form ' for doi3 \ the scribe wrote x! by an error,
and then corrected it by writing o- Read simply nn with We.
3 GASm. (HG 3.5).
AMOS
as well as by the pen. That Amos had left Tekoa at
intervals before his prophetic call is not only inherently
probable, but also follows from such a passage as 87/ (if
correct), which .Amos could hardly have written unless he
had had the most vivid and direct ocular evidence of the
effects of a true prophetic impulse even before his own
turn came to receive one. His originality is shown,
not only in his prophetic message, but also in his being
(probably) the first to conceive the idea of using the \>&\\
in aid of the voice. The /Jra-literature of the priests
had already taken a considerable development (Hos.
812); Amos was, it appears, the first prophet who
followed the exanipie of the literary priests. The im-
portance of this step it was Ijeyond his i)ower to esti-
mate. Within a generation h.; expected Israel as a
nation to disappear ; but he thought it worth while to
gather disciples who, like himself, could praise Yahwe
even in the midst of ruin ; and, after all, who could tell
but Yahw6 might have some other secret to reveal to
one of these to a Hosea or to an Isaiah ? See 18.
That Amos's message is a gloomy one is in accord-
ance with his conception of the divine character. In
18. Pessimism. ''" ^f 'I'^'^J^'^' ^^e divine purpose
could not be one of peace, though
it required an immense devotion to Yahwe to be able
to declare, seemingly unmoved, that He purposed the
complete destruction of Israel (or, as we should say, of
Israel and Judali). In spite of the universal scepticism
which meets him (for how, it is said, can Yahwe be con-
ceived of apart from his people?), .Amos persists in his
message, and even conceives the possibility that legend-
ary supernatural agencies may be used to make the
destruction more complete (93). It is not, therefore,
open to us to account for the confidence of Amos simply
by the advance of the Assjxian power. He does, indeed,
regard Assyria as the chief destructive agent (614 7 17) ;
but Assyria, when Amos spoke and wrote, was passing
through a period of decline ; consequently his conviction
must have some other ground which naturally sharpens
his eyes for the still present danger from Assyria.
To this it must be added that, according to Amos, it
would be easy for A'^ahwe, if the agency of Assyria
were not available, to bring some other hostile nation
from some corner of the earth, just as he ' brought
up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arama^ns
from Kir' (97). The real ground of Amos's prophetic
fjessimism is the increasingly unsound religious con-
dition of his people. He may very possibly have ad-
mitted that there were fifty or at least ten Israelites
who lived by the same pure religion as himself ; but
he could not conceive of Yahw^'s saying, ' I will not
destroy the land for ten's sake. ' The righteous must,
according to him, suffer with the wicked (9 10 was in-
serted to correct this idea), though he might perhaps
have left a door of hop>e open for those who, like him-
self and his disciples, had close personal contact with
the true God : the nation might perish ; but when this
had happened, God nught have some secret purpose for
those who ' knew ' him.
Of this vague hope we hear nothing from Amos
(cp Isaiah). What the popular religion was, we
know but too well. Whatever the nobler minds
may. have believed, 'the mass of the people,' as
Robertson Smith well says, ' still thought of Him as
exclusively concerned with the affairs of Israel,' and the
connection between Yahwe and Israel had a non-moral,
natur.al, basis. Ritual tended to make morality almost
superfluous, and by its increasing costliness actually
promoted that injustice and inhumanity which Yahw^
abhorred. There were also immoral superstitions at
which Amos glances less (see 27) than Hosea. To this
19 Idea of P^''"''^'0"s system the religion of Amos
Ood '^ diametrically opposed. Once, at any
rate, he uses the striking title, ' Yahwe,
the God of the Hosts' (627 is admittedly a genuine
passage) i.e., the God of celestial as well as earthly
156
AMOS
legions together with ' the Lord Yahwi ' (perhaps nine-
teen times), in antithesis to tlic nationalistic expression,
' Yahwir, the God of Israel.' The Vahwe whom he
himself worshipped was, in virtue of his perfect moral
nature, the Sovereign alike of nature and of nations.
Amos had not, indeeil, fathonicd the depths of this
conception as had the Second Isaiah and the author
of Job (.\m. 4i3 and the parallel passages are later
insertions : see alx)ve, 12) ; but he is already to
all intents and purposes an ethical monotheist, and
his conviction of the impending destruction of Israel
does but intensify his sense of the majesty of the one
Gotl. He does not, indeed, reject the old belief in the
connection lx:t\veen Yihwe and Israel altogether (cp
7 15 "my people Israel'): he moralises it. For some
wise object, Yahwe brought Israel out of Egypt (3i S>7),
and enteretl into a [XMsonal moral relation to it ; but his
will, at any rate, is not unknown to the other nations, and
their history is equally uiuler his direction. Once, in-
deed, under the stress of moral passion, Amos even
places the ' sons of Israel ' on a level w ith the ' sons of
the Cushites'- ; this occurs near the end of his prophecy
(y?), and is evidently intended as a final wiiiulrawal of a
temporary and conditional privilege. It is not, how-
ever, on all the nations of the earth, but only on those
which are in close pro.ximity to Israel, that judgment is
pronounced by Amos, as the spokesman of Yahw6 ; he
aims at no theoretic consistency. These nations are to
suffer the same doom as Israel at the hand of Assyria,
b<_'cause they, like Israel, have violated the unwritten
law of justice and humanity. [Thus we can divine
Amos's free attitude towards the lately written cthico-
religidus priestly laws (see I'2xoi)US, 3). He is prob-
ably acquainted with such laws (28 ; cp Ex. 2225/. ) ; but
he docs not recognise them as of primary authority, for
lie nowhere appeals to them.'] And if by many favours,
including the crowning favour of prophecy (2ii), Yahwe
has made himself specially known to the Israelites, it
follows that he will judge Israel more strictly than he
will judge the other nations (3 12). As a faithful friend,
Amos assures his people that if they would only ' seek '
the true Yahw^ they would 'live' (5414) :.c., would
escape captivity and enjoy prosjx;rity in their own land
(cp Hos. 62/). He has no ho|>e, however, that they
will do so : the false pojiular religion is loo deeply rooted.
Indeed, Am. 5 has been so much interfered with by
editors that it is doubtful whether vv. 4 14 can l>e
appealed to as authorities on such a point ; ?. 14, at all
events, appears to belong to an inserted section (see
Nowack).
It is not idolatry that Amos complains of. When he
says, ironically, 'Go to Bethel and transgress' (44), he
20. Denuncia- "''"^"f' ^' ^'^ expressly tells us, ' Carr>'
. . out the prescriptions of jour wilfully
devised ritual law. ' Nor can we venture
to say that a protest against the ' golden calves ' is im-
plied,* for no prophet is more explicit than Amos in
mentioning the sins of his people. The two passages
in which a reproof of Israelitish idolatry does apjjear to
occur are certainly interpolations. In 814, for ' the sin
of Samaria"' we should read 'the god of Bethel' (cp
Gen. 31 13), in parallelism to 'thy god (t;',^Sn), O Dan,'
and ' thy patron (read ;;-it with W'i. and see Uod),
O Beersheba,' and the whole of 526 is a later insertion,
1 'Thy Cod (O Israel)' is put into Amos's mouth by a later
editor (4 12/' ; see atiove, 12).
'^ Who these Cushites are, is uncertain (see Ci SH i. 8 2 A).
Apparently they had recently experienced some calamity.
* Here he contrasts with Hosea, who clearly invests the
written tlirflth which arose in certain priestly circles with primary
authority (Hos. 8 12). Perhaps, as Duhm suggests, Hosea was
himself a priest.
.So Davidson {Expositor, 1887 (i), p. 175). To .say that
Amos docs not protest against the 'golden calves,' is of course
not 10 assert that he thinks them worthy syml>ols of Yahwfe. Cp
St. Gl'f 1 579; WRS, /'n>//. 575/
"The text appears to have been altered^ by the same editor
who inserted the reference to ' the two iniquities ' in Hos. 10 10.
157
AMPHIPOLIS
I and is not true to the facts of the age of Amos (see
above, 12). What Amos most vehemently denounces
I is sacrifice. One may perhaps be tempted to suppose
j that he says more than he means, and that he docs not
object to sacrifices altogether, but only to the Ix-'lief that
when duly performed they can change the mind of the
Deity. His language, however, seems too strong to Xx:
I thus explained away, especially when we find him ap-
: pealing in support of his statement to the fact that in
the olden time, when Yahwe w;is so near to Israel, no
sacrifices were offered (625). Is there, then, no form
of worship in which ^'ahwe delights? None, except
the practice of righteousness i.e., justice and humanity
(see 021 24). liut, alas, the Israelite will not recognise
this. Pilgrims who are wholly indifferent to plain
moral duties crowd to the sanctuaries of Bethel and
Gilgal, and even to the far-off southern shrine of Beer-
sheba' (55 814, cp Hosea4i5), and parade their devo-
tion to the different local forms of Yahwe in i)ious
o;iths, as if the true Yahwe could Ije pleased with the
offerings or the oaths of such worshippers. How
painful will be the awakening from this moral sleei),
when the greatest of all realities makes its existence
known, annihilating at one blow the sanctuaries of
Israel and their worshippers (9i)! Such was the an-
nouncement of the shepherd of Tekoa.
21. Estimate
Taken in connection with the ideas on
which it is based, it seems to justify us
I in calling him a surprising phenomenon. 'Ihat the
phenomenon can be partly explained there is no doubt.
Neither Amos nor his special follower Isaiah is so
entirely abnormal a product as an unthinking study of
the works of either might suggest (see rKoi'Hixv).
But not the most comprehensive study of the history of
Israel will altogether account for their appearance. And
if they neither of them saw the whole truth, and lx)th
needed the correction of history and of later prophets
and sages, we may still pay them the reverence which
belongs to those who first uttered great moral and
religious truths with the power that lx;longs to God-
possessed men.
See references in art. and cp also We. Die kleinen Prophcten
(for a corrected text), 1892, and his Hist. 0/ Isr. and Juii. KT,
. , 1891, pp. 81-E6 ; WR.S Proph. A.(2) 120-143, 194.
22. Special 401; l)r.,art. ' Amos,' /JAV-'i (with full biblio-
helps. graphy) ; also /<)(/ atui Amos (Camhr. I'ible),
1897 ; Duhm, Die Tluol. ti. Pto/>li., 1875, pp.
109-125; Smend, Alt-test. Ki/.-gcsch., 1893, pp. 159-188; \\ i.
C/ <)\ff.\ Oort (on the home of Amos, and on tlie genuineness of
413589956), Th.T, 1891, pp. 121-126; G. Hoffmann (on the
text of Amos), ZA7II', 1883, pp. 87-126; Schmidt, y/f/,, 1894,
Fp. 1-15; (j.VSm., Tivelve Prophets \(i\--i\o\ Nowack, AV. Pr.
97] (thorough and judicious). T. K. c.
2. .Vmos (.\|xa>f [XBCD]) is the best supported reading in
Mt. 1 to, where, however, King Anion (^.T'.) is plainly intended ;
so TR and EV. It is a constant variation in ah.
3. An ancestor of Joseph, Mary's husband (Lk. 825 [BKA]).
On the two lists see Ge.nealogies ok Ji:sls.
AMOZ (pDX, 57. ' strong' ; amcoc [BNAOQFL],
AMM. [A in 2K. 192 20 1 Is. 372]; amos), father of
I.S.\I.\H, I (Is. li A/V\OCrGIN] = AMOC HN [N*"''], 2O2
[NAQ om.], 2 Ch. 2622 [BA oin.]).
AMPHIPOLIS (AMcjJinoAiN [Ti. WH], ttoAin
[N*]). one of the most important }K)sitions in northern
Greece ; it stands on a Ijend of the river Strynion,
between the lower end of lake Cercinitis and the head of
the Strymonic gulf, thus commanding the pass leading
from the east into Macedonia ( Li v. 45 30). Consequently
it was a station on the ]'ia l-.i^iatia, ' the great military
road which ran through Macedonia and connected
Rome with the Hellespont' (Cic. De fnn: cons. 2
4). Paul, therefore, ' passed through ' Amphipolis
' Hal. thinks that a northern Beer-sheba (perhaps Beeroth) is
intended (A'A/ 11 72-77) ; but if Klijah went on pilgrimage to
Horeb, which was not even in Palestine, why should not N.
Israelites have gone to a venerated spot in S. Israel? n3^ is
precisely the right word to use of a sanctuary across the border
(cp 6 2).
158
AMPLIAS
on his %v;iv Irom Philippi to Thessalonica (SioSfVffavrfs,
Acts 17 it).
The site was intimately connected with some of the most
interesting passages in Greek history ; but it would he a mistake
to imagine that the apostle or his companions cither knew or
caicd for these things. It is now Ntochori. [l.cake, North.
6>. 3i8i/.) w. J. w.
AMPLIAS. or rather as in RV Ampliatus (AAAnXr-
ATOC ["' ^^'H]), saluted as ' my lieloved in the Lord'
(Rom. 168t) ; not otherwise known.
The name was not unfrcquently borne by slaves. In the
list of the seventy disciples (Pscudo-I)orotheus) Aniplias is
represented as having been bishop of Odessus or Odyssus (on
the Hlack Sea, near the site of the modern Varna).
AMRAM (D"ipy, 77, ' in good condition ' ? or, 'the
[(li\ ino] kinsman is e.xalted ' ; AMBpAM [BL ; A in Ex.
Nu.J, AMp. [.VF; Bin Xu.]).
1. b. Kohath, head of a Levitical subdivision, and
father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Ex. G 1820 ; Nu. 3 19
a/x^pa/x [-M"]. -/3pa;'[L]; 2658/ i Ch. 62 [628]) ; from
him come the Amramites (dt.cV'^ ^'"- 32?, a/ipafxeis
[B], a/xjipaa/x' fis [.\], -pan' j [K], -pav eis [L] ; i Ch.
2623, a/J-pa/j-i [.\J). -See Licvi.
2. One of the b'ne Hani, 2, in list of those with foreign wives
(KZRA i. 8 5 end) Ezra 10 34 (fiapleli [H], an^pa/oi [N], aixppaiJi
(cat (.\l.l)=iEsd.!>34 Omakkus, RV Ismaickus (jxaripo'; [15],
i(r/0L. [.\], aiipafi [L]). See Ezka, ii. g 14 /'.
3. I Ch. 1 41 (["ran), RV Hamkan. See Hemdan.
AMRAPHEL (^a^PS ; amap^&A [ADEL] ; Jos.
'Afxapa ^I'iSrjs), king of Shinar ((}en. 14 i 9!) = Ham-
murabi, king of Babylon, who, according to trustworthy
cuneiform data, may have flourished about 2250 n.c.
This assumes that iBiZH is corrupted from "msn or ( Lindl,
Savce) sk ^-cn ; but sec Ciikdori.aomkk ( 4/),
and op Schr. COT 2299/:; Hommel, Ji.4(? 169, .-I'/fT
193; Wi. JOF iJ,3f.\ Bezold, FSBA 1188 ['88].
Targ. Jon. ingeniously, if uncritically, identifies Am-
raphel with Nimrod, who 'commanded Abram to
be cast into the furnace.' If the identification with
Hammurabi be accepted, we may be reminded that
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar delighted to imitate
this founder of Babylonian greatness, both in his
building plans and in his niclliods of administration
(see B.\BVI,0.\'IA, 66, and cp Rogers, Outlines of Early
Dab. Hist. 27-30). It m.ay be that some Jewish
favourite at the Babylonian court, who had received a
Babj'lonian education (Sanabassar or Sheshbazzar for in-
stance note the Babylonian name), heard Hammurabi
spoken of. and made historical notes from cuneiform
tablets on events which had happened ' in the days of
Amraphel,' also that one of these was adopted by later
writers as the basis of a Midrash on Abraham and
Melchizedek. On the other hand, those who identify
NiMKOi) (</. J'. ) with Nazi-maraddas (Nazi-maruttas) may
incline to think that the setting of contemporary history
may be derived from an early pre-exilic traditional
source, though the narrative in its present form is un-
doubtedly the production of post-exilic writers. The
latter view is the more difficult one, but not therefore
to be hastily rejected. Cp Lehmann, Z~wci Haupt-
probleme der altoricnt. Chronologic (1898) 84, and see
Abr.\h.\m, 4, Chkuoki-.xomkr (g 2, 4 end), H.\m
(i. ), Mki.cmizeukk ( 2), Sh.weh, i. t. k. c.
AMULETS is the RV rendering of fiha^im. D^'t^'n'?,
Is. 820, a word used elsewhere of any charm (Is. 83,
C'n? p33 , RV ' skilful enchanter' not 'eloquent orator '
or ' skilful of sjxiech ' as in ,\V and AV mg. ), or, more
specifically, of a charm against serpents (Jer. 8 17 I'ccles.
lOii). In Is. 820 some sort of female ornament is
meant, most probably earrings (so .\V), which seem
to be treated as idolatrous in Gen. 354. Doubtless, as
WR.S suggests ( ' Divination and Magic ' in /. Phil.
14 122 ['85]), the amulet is worn in the ear to prevent
an incantation from taking effect. Among early
159
ANAHARATH
peoples amulets and ornaments are closely connected
(cp We. Heid.'^^ 165). When the early significance
of the protective power of the object is forgotten it
serves as a simple adornment.' The Syr. equivalent
kfdilM is proix;rly ' a holy thing,' and the same idea is
seen in the occurrence of the root in the old Yemenite
htdts, 'pearls'; cp WRS Rel. Sem.i^) 453; and see
M.\Gic, 3 (3). cp also Ring, 2.
AMZI (*VPX, 52, perhaps abbrev. from Amaziah).
1. In the genealogy of Ethan : i Ch. O46 [31] (afie<r(rta [B],
fLataaia [.\], atiaaia (L]). See also Lkvi.
2. In genealogy of .\daiah, 3, the priest (see Malchijah, 3);
Neh. 11 12 (ajia(r(e]i [H.X], -<riou (Lj, o/xco-art [K]), omitted, how-
ever, in the il i Ch. 9 12.
ANAB (23J?. ANCOB [AL]). a hill-town of Judah,
Josh. 1050 (anoon [B], anaB [L]), one of the seats of
the Anakim ; Josh. II21 (anaBcoG [f^D- I' is doubt-
less to be connected with Hinianabi (3jj'-['v), mentioned
in Am. Tab. 237, 26 with M.ngdali (see Migdai.-G.\d)
and other cities of the land of Gar (.SW. Judah). There
is still a place of the name ('Andb) on the west side
of the Wady el-Khalil, about 14 miles to the SW. of
Hebron, and 4 or 5 m. W. from Shuweikeh (Rob. BR
2 159 ; so P E.Mem. 8392/ ). See also Anub.
ANAEL (anahA [BXA], i.e., ^N33i^, Hananeel).
brother of Tobit and father of ACHIACHARUS (Tob. I21).
See also Aman.
ANAH (njy, meaning uncertain, cp Gray, HPN
no ; ANA [B.ADEL]), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36).
As the text stands the descent of Anah is represented
in three ways. Anah is
1. Daughter of Zibeon(aiva'[L]), \nvv. 214, 'Hivite'
in V. 2 being obviously an old error of the text for
' Horite.'
2. .Son of Seir and brother of Zibeon, v. 20 {a.i.vav
[L]), I Ch. l38(A'a^[L]).
3. Son of Zibeon, v. 24 bis (ojvav [.AD], atcac [L],
uva [E], uvas [AE]), also i Ch. 140/. (^uvav [B], wvafj.
[A ; T'. 41 ova], avav [L]), 25 bis 29.
The first of these may, however, safely be disregarded.
'Daughter of Zibeon' is a variant (based on v. 24) of
' daughter of Anah ' (dependent on w. 20 25), which has
intruded into the text ( so Di. , Kau. ). As to ( 2 ) and ( 3 1 ,
the differences of statement need not surprise us, for
the genealogy only symbolises tribal relations. Anali
was originally a sub-clan of the clan called Zibeon, and
both alike were ' sons of Seir ' i.e. , Horites. A twofold
tradition, therefore, could easily arise. The ' mules '
which, from v. 24 AV, Anah would appear to have
' found in the wilderness ' are an invention of the Mid-
rash, some Rabbis explaining cc" (lafifiv [ADE],
eafiiv [L]) by ijfj.lovos, others by tj/ulktv {Her. rabba,
par. Ixxxii. ). The ' hot springs ' of Vg. and RV are
purely conjectural ; the word cc'.ri is evidently corrupt.
As Ball points out (SDOT Gen. crit. notes, 93), it
may have come in from v. 22 (cp'rr). In -^v. 2 14 and
18 (where ael omits), Anah is called the father of
Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. See Bashemath.
T. K. c.
ANAHARATH (JTinJX ; peHpcoG k. ANAxepeG
[B], P6NAG K. AppANeG [A], AancrgG [L]), -1 site
on the border of IssACiiAR (Josh. 19 19)!. The reading
seems corrupt (note the conflate readings of ^"A).
Perhaps we should read mrnx and identify with
'Arrdneh, a village on rising ground in the plain of
Esdraelon, a little northward of Jenin ( = En-gannim).
So Schenkel's Bib.-Lex. and Riehms NIVBC^) (after
Knobel).
Knobel's alternative view (adopted from de Saulcy by Conder)
identifies Anaharath with en-Na fira, which is not far from Iksal
(Chesulloth)and .S,-,l."in\ (Shunem), and is therefore not altogether
unsuitable, but somewhat remote from every attested form of the
ancient name.
1 For analogies cp Cuttings of the Flesh.
160
ANAIAH
ANAIAH (n;3y, 33. -Yahwi has answered';
ANANia(c> L'*^-^'']> *hus identifying the name with
Anamaii).
1. In list of Ezra's supporters (sec Ezra, ii. f i^f. ; cp i. | 8)
at ihe reading of the law (Neh. 84 = 1 Esti.043 Ananias, 4).
2. Signatory to the covenant ; Neh. 1022 [23J (Ata [B] ; Acaia
[An'I). See EZKA, i. 7.
ANAK. See Anakim.
ANAKIM kV ; W , less correctly, Anakims (D^pjr ;
aiul D'pjrn ; in Targg. generally rendered N*^33
' giants '-.'eNAKLellMCBAFL], but -n [l-'"Dt. 'iio]';
es.icim).
The Anakim are mentioned in Dt. '2ioyC2i Josh. ll2xyC
14 12 15 Jer. 475 ((B"Kaij; Heb. reads 'of their valley'); else-
where called 'sons of Anak ' (?:>', ivolk [BAL]) Nu. 1823 {tvax
IBFl) ; Dt. 92/* and (MT ' sons of the Anak ') Josh. 15 14a ; Judg.
1 20 ; 'sons of the Anakim,' l)t. 1 28) uioi yfyofTtoi/ (BALJ) 92a
(viol 'Y.vaK) ; ' the children CT'?:)of Anak ' (MT ' the Anak ') Nu.
1323a 28 ((va\ (B), ai.v(LK [A]), Josh. 15 14^. The phrases are
ex.ictly parallel to ' Rephaim ' and 'children of the Kapha' (see
Rki'haim); indeed in Dt. "in a writer of the Deuteronomic
school, ' interested in history and archaeology ' (Kue.), makes
the .Anakim a branch of the Rephaim.
These and other descriptive terms (which are not to
be mistaken for race-names) are given at any rate to
some portions of the pre-Israelitish pojjulation of
Palestine, whoni, like the Amorites, tradition endowed
with colossal height (cp Nu. ]333).^ On the inhabitants
of Palestine generally see C.\NAAN.
.According to Josh. 11 21 (D.^), the .Anakim were to Ijc
found in the mountains about Hebron, in the fenced
cities Debir and .Anab, and, in general, in the mountains
of Judah and Israel, whence Joshua and Israel drove
them out. Verse 22 also states that a remnant of them
survived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and
Ashdod (cpjer. 47$ ; oi KaraXonroi fi>aK(ifi[Bi<AQ],
where MT has 'the remnant of their valley'). The
oldest narrator, however, gives the credit of their expul-
sion to Caleb, who drove out from Kirjath-arba the
three sons of .Anak : Sheshai, Ahinian, and Talmai i.e. ,
the three triljes or clans which bore those names (Josh.
1514). The editor of Judg. 1, quoting this passage,
refers the deed to the tribe of Judah {v. 10) ; see
Hkhkon. In later times, a too literal interpretation of
'sons,' and genealogical interest, led to the transforma-
tion of .Anak, and what is still stranger of Arba'
('four') in the place-name Kirjath-arba, into personal
names. Thus .Anak (virtually a personal name where
it has the article) becomes father of .SuKSH.M, .Ahiman
( I ), and Tai.mai ( i ), and son of Kirjath-arba ; cp Josh.
21 II (MT piji-rt), 1513/ Judg. lio {evafji [A]).
The proof of this is supplied by bal, which in Josh. 15 13
21 II instead of ' father of Anak ' has fxrjTpdiroAii' [Tuif] tuax.
This no doubt represents the original text, which stated that
Kirjath-.-irba, or Hebron, was .^n important city (a ' mother,' cp
2 S. 2O19) of the Anakim. A later scribe, prepared to find a
genealogical notice and therefore surprised to find the word
'mother' in apposition to Arba, altered 'mother' (CN) into
'father' ('an). Thus he obtained the statement that Hebron
was the city of one Arba, who was the father of '(the) Anak.'
In Josh. 14 15, however, lie took a different course. 'I'he true
reading must be that of (EJHal which gives (ne.-irly as in the
parallel pass,iges) n-oAtt ap/3 ([L], ap^o [A], opyojS [B]), fiTjrpo-
no\i^ TUiv ei'aKle]in auTij. For this the scribe substituted 'the
city of .Arba, the greatest man among the An.ikim.' The con-
sequence was that Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talm.-ii (the three
Anakites mentioned in Josh. 15 14) became, literally, 'sons of
(the) Anak,' and grandsonsof Arba no contemptible acquisition
for genfcalogists. So virtually Schleusner|(lhes., j.z/. /uujTpo-
iroAn); but see especially Moore, Judges 2x /. Cp also
Sclnv.illy, Z.l Tir, 1898, p. 139^ T. K. c.
ANAMIM (0*03^), one of the peoples of Mizraim,
Gen. 10 13 = I Ch. 1 nf ; unidentified. See GEOGRAPHY,
15(2)-
ANAMMELECH {r\hjp;]}, anhmcAex [B]. amh-
[A] ; om. L ; (.i3*^A.V. ; Auamelech), a Babylonian
J Anak, 'long-necked' (St. and most), or 'those with neck-
laces' (KIo.), with which cp Heb. 'dndk, 'a chain for the neck,'
Aram, 'unak, Ar. 'unk, ' neck.'
11 161
ANANIAS
deity, whose worship was carried by the Sepharvites
into Samaria when, along with the inhabitants of other
Babylonian cities, they were transplanted thither by
Sargon. As in the case of the kindred deity Adramnie-
lech (see, however, .AUKA.M.MHl.Kcii, i), the worship of
Ananmielech was accompanied by the rite of human
sacrifice (2 K. I731). The name Anammelech is
probably to be explained" as Anu-malik ' Anu is the
decider or prince ' 1 (Schr., Del.), although there is no
evidence that Anu enjoyed any special veneration in
Sippara (see SeI'HARVAIM). a city that was especially
devoted to the worship of Samas the Sun-god.
It is very possible, however, that the text is corrupt (Hommcl
proposes a rather elaliorate restoration [A>/. T. H \y>/.\). It
IS also possible (see Nisroch) that Anammelech is merely a
faulty variant of .Adrammelech (rather Adarmelech). I- in
2 K. 17 31 has only aSpaixf^tx-
Anu was the god of Heaven, and with him were
identified a number of gods representing personifications
of powers or localities of the upper region, such as
Ural, Ansargal, Atilar, Etnur, Du'ur, Liihma, Ekiir,
A lata, Alala-alam, and Enuriila. He stood at the
head of the Babylonian pantheon, forming one of the
supreme triad of Babylonian divinities, in which he was
associated with licl, the god of Earth and of created
things, and Ea, the god of the Abyss and all that is
beneath the earth. See B.\hylonia, 26. According
to G. Hoffmann {'/.A, 1896, p. 258), however, the
name is i'?c[n]3V '<'-. Anath-malk. Cp .Astar[t]-
Kemosh and Melk[at]-.Astart. Anath (Anta) was the
consort of .Anu (see .An'.\th). l. w. k.
ANAN (|3J?, 50; shortened from A.vaniah).
I. Signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. 7) ; Neh.
1026[27] {y\va.\x [B], f)va. [k]. -ac [.A], r)i.va.v [Lj).
2. .Anan (a.v\v\av [BAL]) in i Esd. 630 = Hanan, 3 ([jn)
Ezra 2 46.
ANANI CpiJ?, 50, abbr. from Ananiah, cp -Sab.
p:y and Palm, 'jjy ; manci [B], anani [AJ, -iac
[L]), descendant of Zkkuhhahki, (i Ch. 824).
ANANIAH (n;^JV, BN*A om., anania [N^-*"'*-''"^],
AN I A [I']) in Benjamin, mentioned (:. 32t) in the list
of villages, Neh. 11 20-36 (see E/.KA, 2, ^b, 15 {i)a),
along with Nob and Ramah (Neh. II32), and possibly
represented by the modern Beit-Hanina, 3 J ni.
NNW. of Jerusalem.
ANANIAH {T\im, 33. 50; anania [BAL]).
ancestor of one of Nehemiah's builders (Neh. 823).
ANANIAS (ananiac [BAL]), the Gk. form of
Hanamah or Anamaii.
1. RV -Ann IS, nig. Annias, a family in the great post-exilic
list (see Ezka, ii. 9), mentioned only in i Esd. 5 16 (oi'vcit
[B], aivvia.% [.A], om. L). The name has probably arisen from a
misreading of Hodiah (nnn read n'jn) I cp Neh. 10 17 y?, and
see HouiAH, 2. Cp also Meyer, EJ 143, 155.
2. I Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 20 Hanani, 3.
3. I Esd. 9 29 = Ezra 10 28 Hananiah, 7.
4. I Esd. 9 43 = Neh. 8 4 An Ai ah, i.
5. iEsd.9 48(a>'i/ias[B])=Neh.8 7 Hanan, 4.
6. A kinsrn.-in of Tobit. The .irchangel Raphael, while in
disguise, cKiimed to be his son (Tob. 5 12). He is designated
Ananias ' the great,' son of Semeus or Semelius (see Shemaiah,
23), also called 'the great.'
7. b. Gideon, ancestor of Judith (Judith 8 i, om. B).
8. In Song of Three Children, v. 66 ( Theod. Dan. 3 8k) ; see
Hananiah, i.
9. Son of Nedebaios {Ant. x.v. 52, Ne/3e5ai6j in
some MSS [AE] ytSe^aioi ; cp Nedabiah), high
priest, circa 47-59 A.D. , under Herod Agrippa II.,
king of Ch.alcis. He is mentioned in Acts 232^ 24 i as
the high priest before whom Paul was accused during
the procuratorship of Felix. He flourished in the
degenerate days of the priesthood, and, though
Josephus says {An(. xx. 92) that after his retirement
he 'increased in glory every day,' allusion is made
to him in the Talnmd (Pesahim) in terms of the
greatest contempt. Cp Annas (end).
1 In which case cp Anu(m) Sarru = Anu the king, the usual
title of the god Anu (Muss-Arn. Ass. Diet. 65).
ANANIEL
lo. Husband of Sapphira (f.v.), Acts 5 1. See
Community of Goods, 3.
ir. A 'disciple' at Damascus, who was the means
of introducing l^aul, after his conversion, to the
Christian community there (Acts 9 10-19).
, ANANIEL (ananihA[BSA]; Heb. [ed. Neubauer]
7NJ:n, Hananccl), Tobit's grandfather (I'ob. li).
ANATH (r\2V,; anaG [HAL]), a divine name,
mentioned in connection with Shamgar in Judg. 831
(AeiN&x [B]) '"'d 56t (KCNAe [A]). If Shamgar
ig.v.) were an Israelite, and b. Anath (' son of Anath')
his second name, it would be tempting to take ' Anath '
in ' ben Anath ' as shortened from Ebed Anath ' servant
of Anath" (so Baethgen, Ilei/r. 141 ; but see Noldeke,
ZZ?.l/(; 42479 ['88]). More probably, however, Ren-
anath is a Hebraised form of the name of a foreign
oppressor who succeeded Shamgar' (certainly a foreign
name), and in this case Anath must designate a foreign
deity. Who then was this deity ? Evidently the
well-known goddess worshipped in very early times in
Syria and Palestine (as appears, e.g., from the names
mentioned below), and adopted, as the growing
evidence of early Babylonian influence on Palestine
scarcely permits us to doubt, from the Babylonian
pantheon. An(a)tu was in fact the daughter of the
primitive god .Anu, whose name is mentioned as that
of a Syrian deity in 2K. I731 (see Anammei.kch,
Seph.^RV.^im). Of her character as a war-deity there
can be no doubt. In ancient Egypt, where her cultus
was introduced from Syria, she was frequently coupled
with the terrible war-goddess Astart, and on an Egyptian
stele in the British Museum she ap[5ears with a helmet on
the head, with a shield and a javelin in the right hand, and
brandishing a battle-axe in the left. She was, therefore,
a fit patron-deity for Shamgar or for Sisera. That the
fragmentary Israelitish traditions make no direct refer-
ence to her cultus, need not be matter for surprise.
The names Anathoth, Bi:th-an.\th, Beth-anoth,
compensate us for this omission. Wellhausen thinks
that we have also one mention of Anath in Hos. 148[9],
where he renders an emended te.xt ' I am his Anath and
his Asherah' (in clause 2) surely an improbable view.
For a less difficult correction see Che. Exp. Times,
April 1898.
For ArchsEology see Jensen, Kos)n. 193 211/. \ E. Meyer,
ZDMG 31 717 ['77]; Tiele, Gesch. van den Godsdienst in die
oudheid, etc. ('93), 224 ; WMM As. u. Eur. 313. t. k. c.
ANATHEMA. See Ban, 3.
ANATHOTH (ninsy, anaGcoG [RAL]), a town of
Benjamin (cp below, 2), theoretically included by later
writers among the so-called I^vitical cities (see
Levites), Josh. 21 18 P; i Ch. 66o[45] (AfX^ox [B],
-toe and anaGcoG [A], cnaGcoG [L]. Neh. 727
NAGcoG [A ; om. B]).
The form of the ethnic varies in edd. and versions2(cp also
Antothijah). -Abiezek, 2, is called 'nh|yn, 28.2827, AV
the Anethothite (awodeiTTjs [B], a.va6uS. [A], -loCi [L]),
'n"in3j;n, iCh. 2712 (AV, Anetothite, 6 ef o^aea>9 [BAL]),
and finally 'nhjy^, i Ch. 11 28 (AV Antothite, ofafliodteli
[BA], -<oflm7? [L]). The last-mentioned form is used to designate
Jehu, 5, in i Ch. Vl 3 (o ameu>e[]i [BAL], -)3u>9ei [] ; 4, ava6<ad.
[({] not in Heb. or i'a). RV in each case Anathothite.
The name appears to be the plural of An.\th, and
may refer to some images of that goddess which once
stood there. Under the form Anath the place seems
to be once referred to in the Talmud ( Yoma \oa),
where its building is assigned to Ahiman the Anakite.
Tradition said that Abiathar, the priest in David's
time, had 'fields' at Anathoth (1K.226); and
1 Reading in Judg. 56, 'In the days of Shamgar and Ben
Anath.' The notice in 3 31, which is much later than the song
(see Moore) is, of course, valueless.
2 Ba. and Ginsb., however, read everywhere 'DIDij; (cp the
former's note on i Ch. 11 28). ' Exceptionally in Sam. I.e. Ginsb.
163
ANDRONICUS
Jeremiah was born of a priestly family which had
property there (Jer. 1 1 2927 827-9, o-vavo.Owd [A*t'. 7]
37 12). It is once referred to by Isaiah (Isa. IO30), and
is mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii.
9), Ezra 223 = Neh. 7 27 = i Esd. 5 18 {ivarov [B]).
The connection of Anathoth with Jeremiah gives a
special interest to its identification. A tradition, not
older than the 15th century, fixes it at Kariet el-'Enab
(Robinson's Kirjaih-jearim) ; but, as Robinson has
shown, it can only be the village now called 'Atiata,
which is situated NE. of Jerusaleni, just at the
distance required by the Onomasticon, and by the
reference in Isa. IO30. 'Anata is well-placed, but only
froin a strategical point of view. Eastward and south-
eastward its inhabitants look down on the Dead Sea and
the Lower Jordan ^striking elements in a landscape, no
doubt, but depressing. Jerusalem is quickly accessible
by the Wady Sulem and Scopus, but is not within
sight. Here the saddest of the prophets presumably
spent his earlier years.
2. b. Becher (q.v.) in genealogy of Benjamin [ 9, ii. a],
iCh.7 8(ai'ae<oi'[BAL]).
3. Signatory to the covenant (Neh. 10 19 [20]). See Ezra,
i. 7- I- K. c.
ANCHOR (AfKYPA). Acts2729. See Ship.
ANDREW (AN^peAC [Ti. WH] 'manly'), one of
Chri.st's twelve disciples. Like Philip, he bore a
Greek name ; but so did many Jews of his time, and
in Dio Cassius (6832) we meet with another instance
of a Jew called Andrew.
Besides the account of his call (see Peter), and
his inclusion in the lists of the apostles (see Apostle,
i), nothing is said of Andrew in the Synoptics, except
that, in Mk. 183, he appears as one of the inner circle
within the twelve, for he is one of the four who question
Christ ' privately ' about the impending ruin of the
temple.
In the Fourth Gospel the picture is more fully drawn,
and in one respect completes and explains the account
of Andrew's call given in the Synoptics. We read that
he belonged originally to Bethsaida (Jn. 1 44), that he
was a disciple of the Baptist and heard his witness to
Christ, that he and a companion (no doubt John) asked
the wandering teacher where he dwelt, and went with
him to his temporary home. Then, having ' found
the Messiah,' Andrew made his brother, Simon Peter, a
sharer in his joy. We next meet with Andrew,
on the E. of the lake of Galilee, at the miraculous
feeding of the multitude, on which occasion it is he that
tells our Lord (68/) of the lad in the crowd who
has ' five barley loaves and two fishes. ' Once more,
when the end is near, he shows in a memorable scene
his special intimacy with the Master. When Greeks
approach Philip with the 'desire to see Jesus,' it is to
Andrew first that Philip communicates the request
which they together lay before Christ (Jn. 12 22).
The rest of the NT, apart from the list of the
disciples in Actsl 13, is absolutely silent alx)ut Andrew.
Such other tradition as we have is worthless.
Eusebius (^i5'iii.)speaksof him as preaching in Scythia, and
we have in Andrew's 'Acts' the story of his martyrdom, at
Patrae in Achaia, on a cross shaped like the letter X. Acts
of Andrew the Apostle were in circulation among the Gnostics
of the second century, but survived only in various Catholic
recensions of much later date. Harnack enumerates (i) Acta
AndrtiF et Matthiie (and their mission to the Anthropophagi)
in Greek (edited by Tisch. Act. A/>ost. Af>ocrypli.), Syriac
(edited by Wright, Apoc. .Acts 0/ the A/>ostlcs), Ethiopic, and
Coptic (fragmentary). The Latin version survives only in its
influence on the Anglo-Saxon Andreas and Elene by Cyne-
wulffand in the Mi> acuta />. Andreir by Gregory of Tours;
see Lips. A/>okr. Af: -gesch. 1 543^, cpp. 27. (i) Acta Petri et
Andretr, in Greek (fragments edited by Tisch.) as well as in an
Ethiopic recension and a Slavonic translation (cp Lips. 1 553^/^).
(3) Martyriunt Andreie in various Greek recensions (one edited
by Tisch.), and in Latin (Harnack, Altchrist. Lit. 1 t^y /., cp
Lips. 1 564 y?;). A 'gospel of Andrew' is mentioned in the
Decretum Gelasii.
ANDRONICUS (anAronikoc [VA ; anAroyion]
2 Mace. 4 38 A*). 1. The Deputy of Antiochus Epiphanes
164
AN EM
ill Antioch, who (according to a Mace. 431^), at the
instigation of Menelaus, put to death the deposed high
priest Onias a deed for which he was himself slain with
ignominy on the return of the king. See MACCABEES,
Second, 3, end.
2. Deputy of Antiochus at (Jerizim (a Mace. 623).
See Maccabees, Second, 3, end.
3. Andronicus and Junias are named in Rom. I67 as
kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of I'aul, as of note among
the apostles, and as having been ' in Christ ' before him.
The expression 'kinsmen,' if taken literally, seems to
imply that they were Jesvs by birth ; ' fellow-prisoners,'
on the hypothesis tliat Rom. 16 3-20 Ix^longs really to
an Ephesian Epistle, has l)een conjectured by Weiz-
siicker to allude to an imprisonrm-nt which they shared
with Paul in Ephesus, most likely in connection with
the great 'affliction' (2 Cor. 1 8-11), which uhimately
led to his leaving that city (.\cts 1923-20 1) ; on the
application of the term ' apf)stle ' to them see
ApoSTLii, 3. The name Andronicus was not un-
common among Greek slaves ; and it has been con-
jectured that this Andronicus may ha- e been the
Jewish freedman of a Greek master.
In the lists of 'the seventy disciples' which we owe to the
Pscudo-Dorotheus and the Pseudo-Hippolytu.s Andronicus is
spoken of as bishop of ' Pannonia,' or of 'Spain.' In the frag-
ments of the (( Inostic) n-ept'oioi '\utdvt'Ov, he and his wife Drusiana
figure prominently as hosts of the apostle John at Kphesus, and
he is represented as having been made by that apostle rrpoe&pov,
or president, of the church of Smyrna. In the Greek church
Andronicus is commemorated, along with Crescens, Silas, and
Epsnetus, on 30th July. See Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch.
(Index, p. i8^).
ANEM (D:V)' iCh.673[58]-Josh.l92i En-gannim
[q.v.).
ANER (i:^). I- (Sam. Dljy ; avvav [AZ?EL] ;
Jos. eNNHpoc. a Hebronite) Gen. 14i324t. Perhaps
a local name; cp Nelr, a hill near Hebron {ZDMG
l'-i479 L'sSj). The correctness of the name Aner, how-
ever, is doubtful. The at'vai' of (S points to jry, Enan
(/.(., place of a spring), a name which may refer to
one of the si.x springs near Hebron e.g. , the deep
spring of Sarah called 'Ain Jedideh (Baed.*^) 137), at
the E. foot of the hill on which ancient Hebron lay.
2. (a^ua/) [B], (.vr\p [A], a.v. [L]) a city in Western
Manasseh ( i Ch. 670 [55!) perhaps a corruption of
T.XANACII (-Ji-n) ; cp Josh. 21 25. t. k. c.
ANETHOTHITE, ANETOTHITE. See Ana-
TIIOTH, I.
ANGEL. The English word ' angel ' is a transcrip-
tion of d77fXoy, 's translation of Heb. mal'dkh
1. Names. nf<?D)- The English word denotes
primarily superhuman beings ; but both
the Hebrew and the Greek terms are quite general,
and, signifying simply messenger, are used indifferently
of human or superhuman beings. ^ Other terms, less
ambiguous in this particular respect, also occur.
These are : ' gods ' (dmVk. cp Ps. 8 5 [6], and see AV, RV
mg. ih. 8'2i6 97 7 138 i), 'sons of [the] god[s]' (o'^Wrtl 'J',
cpGen.624 Jobl62i 387, or d'Sk :2, Ps. 20 i 89 6f7], EV
text), ' (sons of] the mighty,' ' mighty ones ' (oTax. Ps. "8 25, cp
Ih. 103 20, nj "123), ' holy ones ' (c>C*ip. Jb. 5 i Ps. 89 5 [6] Zech.
145 Dan. 4 14 [17] 8 13), 'watchers' (VTy, Dan. 4 14 [17]), 'host
of lieaven (<2ci;i x^s, i K. 22 19 Dt. 17 3), ' host of the height '
(cha xas. Is. 2421), or 'host of Y.ihwc'(nirT Ka^i, Josh. 5 14,
cp use of Kas in Ps. 1032i 1482 Neh.96, and 'God's camp,'
Cm':;N nmr:, Gen. 32 2 [3]). Iti the case of Ps.fi8i7 [18] (<sSk
IKJC*) we owe the AV rendering 'thousands of angels' to old
leb. tradition (Targ. S.aad. and Abulw.), which treated the
difficult jKjc- as a synonym of -jnSs (cp Del., ad he). RV
' thousands upon thousands ' is equally hazardous ; cp Dan. 7 10.
In the NT also we find other terms in use : ' spirits ' (n-i-eu^ara,
Heb. 1 14), ' principalities' (apx<'', Rom. 838), 'powers' (iufo/ifiS
' Karppe {Joum. As. ser. ix., 9 128) reads -jVo. a derivative
of -^Sn, as if ' the walker ' = ' the messenger," or Yahwi marching
(Is. 03 1, SBOT) as opposed to Yahwi mounted on the cherub
(Ps. 18 10 [I I]). "^^^
165
ANQEL
ii., i^oytrlax, Eph. O12), 'thrones' (0poi/oi, Col. 1 16X and
'donunions' (icupi6t>)t, i/'.): ip further Cremer, Lex. ATO
20^ 237, and the Heb. and NT Lexicons, i.jv.
The earhest OT writings contain no definite or
systematic angelology, but indicate a prevalent Ijclief
2 Pre-exilic '" ^^^'^^ superhtiman beings Ix^sides
Yaliwe. These were (i) the 'other
gods' or ' gods of the nations,' who were credited with
real existence and activity ; cp, e.g., Nu. 21 29 Judg. 1 1 24
and V. Baudissin, Slud. 155-79- (2) Closely connc-cied
with these were the 'sons of God' j.<r. , memlx-rs of
tlie divine guild. There is but one pre-exilic reference
to these (Gen. 62 4), whence it api)ears that they were
not subject to Yahw^, but might break through the
natural order of his world with impunity. (3)
Attendants on Yahw6 in Is. 6 some of these attendants
are termed Seraphim (see Serai'HIM), but others
distinct from these seem to be implied ; cp v. 8. In a
similar scene (i K. '2219-22), those who attend Yahwe
and form his council are termed collectively ' the host
of heaven.' Such divine councils are also implied in
Gen. 322 11 7 (both J ) ; cp the plurals in these passages
with that in Is. 68, and the question in i K. 222o. In
another passage (Jos. 5 14^) the pre-exilic origin of
which, however, has Ijeen questioned (Kue. Hex. 248
ET)^ the host of Yahwe appears as disciplined and
under a captain. According to some, the ' hosts ' in
the phrase ' Yahw^ (God of) hosts ' a phrase current
in early times were angels (Che. Frofh. /s.*^' \\\ff.\
see further Names, 123). The original text of
Deut. 33 2/. contained no reference to angels (see
Dillm. Comrn.; cp also Driver). Another element in
early Hebrew folklore worthy of notice in the present
connection is the belief in the horsemen of the air
(2 K. 2 12 617). For a parallel in modern Bedouin
folklore cp Doughty, Ar. De. 1 449. ' The melaika
are seen in the air like horsemen, tilting to and fro.'
Angelic horsemen play a considerable part in later
literature e.g., in Zech. , Apoc.
The most noteworthy features, then, of the pre-exilic
angelology are the following ; (i) except in Gen. 28 32,
these beings are never termed ' angels.' ' Angel ' occurs
frequently in the singular, but only in the jihrase
'angel of Yahwe' (more rarely, 'of God'), which
denotes, not a messenger of, and distinct from, Yahwe,
but a manifestation of Yahwe himself in human form
(see TiiKOPiiANiES, 4). Kostcrs treats even Cien.
2810-1217 32i[2] I81/. 19i/. as statements of the
manifestation of the one God in many forms (cp W'KS
Rel. Sem. 426/., 2nd ed. 445/), and concludes that,
before the Exile, -jh^d was used exclusivel}- of appear-
ences of Yahwe. Against this, Schultz's reference
{OT TheoL2^ig) to i S. 299 2 S.14 17 1927[28] is not
quite conclusive. (2) These attendants on Yahwe are
not also messengers to men. Even if the angels of
Gen. 28 32 be distinct from God, they bring no
message. For such a function there was no need so
long as Yahw6 himself appeared to men. (3) Beside
these .sulxjrdinate divine beings that attend Yahwe,
but have no relations with men, there are other beings
('other gods,' 'sons of the gotls') which are not
subject to Yahw^, and do enter into relations with men.
Comparatively few as are the early references to
angels or kindred beliefs (cp Demons, 1), they are
... 3'et such as to justify us in attributing a
comparatively rich folk-lore on these matters
to the early Hebrews ; but it is not until the exilic and
post-exilic periods that angels come into prominence
theologically. They do so then in consequence of the
maturing belief, on the one hand, in the transcendence
of Yahw^, on the other, in his supremacy. The develop-
ment of angelology at this time must also have been
favoured by the contact of the Jews with the Persians ;
and some details of the later doctrine may be due to
the same influence e.g. , the naming of angels, although
the great majority of the names themselves (as in
166
ANGEL
Enoch 6 69) are quite clearly Hebraic, though of a late
type (cp JIPN, p. 2IO).
With the growing sense of Yahw^'s transcendence,
belief in his self-manifestation in human form ceased ;
and thus the phrase 'angel of Yahwe,' set free from
its old meaning, now came to denote one of the lieings
intermediate between Yahw6 and men. At first it was
apparently the title of a particular angel (Zech. 1 ii/. ), but
subsequently it Ijccame a quite general term (note the pi.
Ps. 10320, cp 347[8] and NT passim). It is now by
angels, and no longer directly, that Yahwe communicates
with men even prophets. The e.xperience of Ezekiel
marks the transition Yahwe speaks to him, sometimes
directly (44 2), sometimes through another (40 3). With
Zechariah the change is complete. He never sees
Yahw6 ; he receives all divine instructions through angels
(contrast Am. 7/. ). Daniel receives the explanation of
his visions in the same way ; and in NT, warnings or
other conmiunications of the divine will are given by
angels (Mt. 1 20 '2 13, Lk. 1 19, ActslOsso). The angels
thus become the intermediaries of Yahwe's revelation ;
but they are also the instruments of his aid (Ps. 91ii
Dan. 828, and frequently ; cp later, 2 Mace. 1] 6 3 Mace.
61S, Susan. 42^ [in LXX, but not in Theod.], Bel
and Drag. 34-39 ; cp Acts 82639/ Tobit, passim. Acts
\llff., and especially Heb. 1 14), or punishment (Ps.
7849355/ Enoch 533 6Ti62ii 63i Apoc. Bar. 21 23
Rev. 6/, also in Job20is 8823 40ii \z<. 6 in Heb.
and EV] and see further below, 5). Especially
prominent in the apocaly[)tic literature is the cognate
t)>lief in the intercession of angels with God, in behalf
of the righteous, or against the unrighteous : see, e.g. ,
Enoch 9 10 152 406 (where the function is specially
referred to Gabriel, 4O69 ; yet cp also Tob. 12 12 15 where
Raphael intercedes) 99316 104 i Rev. 83/ Cp also in
or, Zech. 1 12 Job 5 I 8823 Eccles. 56[5], and perhaps
in N'T, Mt. I810, unless this be a case of angelic
i^uardianship.
In other respects also, the later angelologv shows the
influence of the growing sense of Yahwe's transcendence ;
the angels, exalted far above men by
4. Supremacy
of Yahwe.
the functions just mentioned, are them-
selves aba.sed before God (Job 4 18).
The awful exaltation of even angels above men, is
prominent in Daniel (Dan. 816-18 IO16/). The count-
less number of the angels is emphasised (Job 8823, Dan. 7
10, and later, Enoch 40 1 718 Mt. 2653 Heb. 12 22 Apoc.
Bar. 48io 51 n 59ii), and they are divided into ranks.
Even in Zech. the angel of Yahw6 is a ' kind of grand
vizier receiving the report of (less exalted) angels'
(Smend). This conception of ranks becomes, later,
more detailed' (see Dan. 10 13 12 1 Tob. 12 15, and
Enoch e.g., chap. 40), and creates in Gk. the term
d/)xa77fXos (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 67 ; i Thcs.
4 16 Judeg); it may be traced farther, in NT, in the
J [The influence of non-Jewish upon Jewish beliefs can here
scarcely be denied. These are the facts of the case : In Daniel
(1013) we hear of a class of 'chief princes,' two of whom
(Gabriel and Michael, 11) are named (chaps. 10-12 ; cp also
Raphael and Ukiel). In Tob. (12 15) the number of the 'holy
angels who present the prayers of the saints, and go in before
the glory of the Holy One,' is given as seven (if the text is
correct). In Enoch the number of the chief angels varies
between, three, four, .six, and seven (see chaps. 20 40 z 78 i 89 i
90 21 31, and other passages). Manifestly this highest class of
angels was suggested by the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas
or Amsha.spands (' immortal holy ones '), who (like the counsel-
lors of the king of Persia, Ezra 7 14) are seven ; and this seems to
be confirmed by the reference to the archangels in the Book of
Tobit, which also mentions the Zend name of the chief demon
(see AsMODEUs). In referring to this Iranian belief, however, we
must not forget the possibility that it is to some extent
historically connected with Babylonian .spirit-lore. The cultus
of the seven planets is no doubt primeval in Babylonia, and
may have spread thence to the Iranian peoples. To explain
the belief in the archangels soleljj from Babylonian sources would
be plausible only if the Zoroastrian Gathas, which are pervaded
by the belief in the Amshaspands, were not earlier than the
time of Philo. For this bold theory see Darmesteter, Le
ZendaveUa 3 56 ('93), etc. ; but contrast the same writer's
earlier theory in SBE (ZcnJavcsta, i. Introd.). t.k.c]
167
ANGEL
references to the 'seven spirits of God' (Rev. 4s cp
82), and to Michael (Judeg Rev. \1^) and Gabriel (Lk.
1 19) ; probably also in the use of several terms together,
in certain passages [e.g. , thrones, dominions, principali-
ties, [jowers, C'ol. 1 16), and perhaps in the term ' elect
angels' (i Tim. hi\).
The doctrine of Yahwe's supremacy involved either
an absolute denial of the existence of other super-
human Ixiings or their subordination to him. To the
latter method of acconmiodation post-exilic angelology
owes some striking features. Thus, the patron angels
of nations (clearly referred to in Dan. IO1320 12i,
probably also in Is. 24 21/: Joel 3 [4] 11 Pss. 82 58 10 ; see
Che. Book of Fsahns^^'i 229^ and comm.) are merely
the ancient 'gods of the nations' for which, in this
connection, cp especially Dt. 419 292$ f 338 trans-
formed to suit the new doctrine. Again, the 'sons of
the lilohim '- formerly independent of Yahwe, whose
laws they broke with impunity now become identified
with the angels (cp Ps. 29 1 with 1032o, and @'s transla-
tion of Gen. 62 [not L] Job 16 etc., cp also Lk. 20 36) ;
as such they constitute his council and do his bidding
(Jobl6 2i; cp Zech. In/). Similarly, the host of
heaven, which in the later years of the monarchy had been
favourite objects of worship (cp, e.g., Zeph. I5 Jer. 82
Dt. 4 19), and therefore rivals of Yahwe, now again
become subject to him and do him homage ( Neh. 9 6) ; he
is as supreme over them as over men (Is. 45 12, cp 40 26) ;
he is equally supreme over all gods (e.g. , cp Ps. 964).
On the other hand, the difficulty with which Yahwe's
claim to universal w^orship against all others was
B Suuremacv "^^^^^^I'^hed is also reflected in the new
"incomDlete ^"g^'lology. Yahwe's supremacy over
^ ' the 'gods,' or the 'host of heaven,"
was won and maintained only by force (Job 252 cp
2I22 Is. 2421 3445; cp 27 1 for the passages in Job
see Davidson's, for those in Isaiah, Cheyne's Comm.).
This incomplete assimilation of the ' other gods ' etc.
to beings wholly subservient to Yahw^, combined with
a growing dislike to attribute evil or disorder directly
to him, led to the differentiation of angels as beneficent
or maleficent (see Demons, 5, Satan, 3) ; but the
or nowhere lays stress on the moral character of
angels, or knows anything of their 'fall.' Conse-
quently, angels were divided not into good and bad,
but into those who worked wholly, and those who worked
only partly, in obedience to God. This latter division
still seems to hold its own in NT alongside of the former ;
and, for this reason, in passages such as Rom. 838
I Cor. 1024/, the question 'Are the angels referred to
good or bad?' is probably out of place (cp Everling).
For several centuries after the Exile the lx;lief in
angels did not gain equal prevalence in all circles : thus
G Schools '' "*^^''^'' mentions them (on Gen. 1 26 2r see
of belief.
Di
) ; the Priestly Chronicler does so but
rarely save when quoting directly from hi
sources and Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and
Maccabees, are marked more by the absence than by
the presence of such references ; ' Angel ' does not
occur in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 4821. Still later the
differences become conspicuous ; the Sadducees were
credited with complete scepticism (Acts238); the
EssENES {t/.v. , 3) attached an exaggerated importance
to the doctrine ; the popular Pharisaic party and all
the NT writers share, in general, the popular beliefs.
Yet in John angels are alluded to only in 20 12 I51
(a pa.ssage based on an OT narrative), I229 (a saying of
the populace), and the intrusive verse 54; the epistles
contain no mention of them (cp the comparative
infrequency of references in John to demons {i^.v. , 6).
Several features of NT angelology have been already
incidentally discussed ; they are common to both Jewish
7 Annr>a1vnaaa '"^"^ Christian Writings. Scarcely less
S NT influential over the writers of the NT
than the OT were the apocalypses then
already extant especially Enoch. It is in Enoch we
168
8. Jesus.
ANGEL
first see elaborated a doctrine of the ' fall ' of angels.
The fall is regarded as the punishment for the intercourse
mentioned in (ien. 62-4. !i"d for an improper revelation
of 'the secret things of the world' (cp in NT Jude 6
2lVt. 24). Through their fall they Ijecome inferior
to men, who therefore judge them (En. I44-7 102; cp
I Cor. 63 Heb. 2). Enoch .should be especially com-
pared with Revelation.
The influence of the OT may be clearly seen in the
NT angelophanies, which seem moflelled on those of
the early OT narratives, only that now, under the
influence of the later development, the angel is quite
distinct from God (ActslOs/ is not an exception).
These angelophanies abound in the nativity and re-
surrection narratives and in Acts (519826-40 10 3-7 30-32
127-11 2723), but are conspicuous by their absence from
the narratives of the life of Christ the badly attested
passage Lk. 2243 being unitiuc, except so far as Mt.
4ii = Mk. I13 (contrast Lk.iijf.) may be considered
parallel.
Jesus accepts the popular belief in the existence of
angels, but never (even in Mt. I810 or 2653) counte-
nances the l>elief that they influence life in j
the present perhaps in the parable of the i
wheat and the tares (,Mt. 1824-30 37-40) he directly
discountenances it. All he says of them has reference
to themselves alone, or to their relations to men after
life. Thus, at the second coming they will accompany
the Son of Man (Mt. I627 and parallels ; Jn. I51), and
will then separate the good from the evil {e.^. , Mt. 1841 ; I
cp Lk. I622). They do not marry (Mt. 2230, and |
parallels); their knowledge is limited (Mt. 24 36 = Mk.
I032) ; and they rejoice over repentant sinners (Lk.
1 .') 10 ; cp Lk. 1 2 8/ , with w hich contrast Mt. 1 32/ , and
cp earlier, Job 8823). In particular, Jesus breaks away
from the prevailing tendency to make angels the inter-
mediaries of revelation : he himself liecomes the sole
revealer (Mt. 11 27 Jn. 176 ; cp 146^), he will himself
always be with his disciples (Mt. 2820), and will instruct [
them directly (Lk. 2I15), or through the Spirit whom '
he sends (Jn. 1326 I41726). Thus this part of the
doctrine of angels was doomed to give way to the
Christian doctrines of the abiding presence of Christ
and of the Holy Spirit. It still survives, however, in
Revelation (li 17i2l9; cp also in the contemporary
Jewish .'Ipoc. Bar. 55 3, 'The angel Ramid who pre-
sides over true visions'); also in Acts (103^ 2723?)
yet here alongside of the new belief (10 13-16). Paul
p . already shows the influence of the teaching of i
Jesus he claims to receive his gospel direct
from him (Gal. I1215/: cp Acts93-6) but still shares
((jal.819) the common belief (Acts 753 Heb. 22 Jos.
.I///. XV. 03 ; cp Dt. 882 ) in the past instrumentality
of angels in revelation, perhaps also in the present
possibility ofthe same (Gal. 18; cp?4i4). With him, too,
angels still play a large part in human life ; his own
practice and practical exhortations are governed by
this l)elief (i Cor. 49 63 11 10). An emphatic warning,
however, is uttered against a practice (which was
springing up in some quarters) of worshipping angels
(Col. 2 18 cp Rev. 19 10). In the same epistle the
creation of angels is asserted (I16) a point to which,
as might be expected, no reference had been made in
OT, where they are once mentioned as being present at
the creation of the world. Job 887 (in Jewish literature,
cp Jub. 2 2 Apoc. Bar. 216). The question whether
Paul associated angels with cosmical forces turns on
the interpretation of ra <TT0ix^7a rod Kde/xov, Gal. 4 3
Col. 2820 (see, on the one hand, Lightfoot, in loc, on
the other, Everling, as cited Iielow, and cp lu.KMENT.s).
Such an association would, at least, have accorded with
the tendency of the time : note the angels of winds,
sun, fire, and water, etc. (Rev. 7i 19i7 14i8 16 cp
Heb. 1 7 and Jn. 54, and, somewhat earlier, Enoch
60 11/; 61 10). The tendency began much earlier; in j
the or angels and stars are closely associated (cp Job !
169
ANKLETS
387 Is. 344, and, in general, the double meaning
attaching to the phrase 'host of heaven'); and the
transition from Ps. IO44 to a fixed belief in elemental
angels is easy. See Persia.
The literature of the subject is large ; all the Old and New
Testament Theologies contain discussions ; on the OT, Fie|)en-
bring's Thiol, de Cancien Test. 1888 (KT,
10. Literature. New York, 93) and Smend's A T KeL-geuh.
(<V3) are soecially helpful. The chief mono-
graphs for the OT are by Kosters (' De Mal'ach Yahwe ' and
' Het ontstaan en de onlwikkeling dtr Angelologie onder Israel '
rZ/.Tit 367-415 ['75], 10 34-69 113-141 ['76]; for the Pauline
Doctrine, by Everling (Pie Paulinische Angelologie und
Daiitonologie ['881). On the vocabulary of the subject see M.
Schwab, / 'ocahu/aire de C angelologie (tapris maniiscrits
hel>reu.r (Paris, '97). The question of foreign influence is dis-
cus.sed by Kohut (Ueher d. jiid. Angelologie u. I>,'monologie in
ihrer Abluingigkeit voin I'arsismus); for further literature on
this point see Che. OI's 282. See further the valuable discus-
sions of Montefiore (///^(i. Led. viii., esp. p. 429^), and Clicyne
ipPs 322-327, 334-337)1 and cp Lueken, Michael <^()9i).
G. c. G.
ANGLE (Is. 198Hab. I15). See Hook, 3, Fisii. 3.
ANIAM (DJ/^3N, surely not ' mourning of the people '
[Ges.], but miswritten [see "] for c^-Vk. see Eliam ;
differently Gray, ///*.V 44 n. i, who would omit ., and
derive from cy: ; aAiaAeim [H]. aniaaa [A], eN. [L]),
in genealogy of Manasskh (i Ch. 7i9t). T. K. c.
ANIM (D'JV' AiCAM [B], <^NelA^ [A], -iB [L]).
Josh, losof, a hill town of Judah, mentioned after
Eshtemoa (a name etjually distorted in "). I'erhaps
the modern el-Ghuwein, which lies to the south of
el-Khalil (Hebron) between es-Semu" and Tell 'Arad.
ANISE (anhBon [Ti. WH], Mt. 2323t)or Diu.(RV
mg. ) is the plant Ancthuvi ^raveolens.^ The correct
rendering is 'dill,'^ and the plant is distinct from
Pimpinella Anisum, which is the modern ' anise.' The
biblical plant is described (Fluckiger and H anbury's
Pharmacop-aphia '-' 327 /. ), as ' an erect, glaucous
annual plant, with finely striated stems, usually one foot
to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with
setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers. It is
indigenous to the Mediterranean region. Southern Russia,
and the Caucasian provinces, but is found as a corn-
field weed in many other countries, and is frequently
cultivated in gardens. ' ^
It is mentioned in Mt. 2823, along with mint
and cunmiin,^ as being subjected by the scribes and
Pharisees to tithe. This practice accords with the
general principle stated at the commencement of the
Mishnic tract on 'tithes' ('Whatsoever is food, and is
private possession, and has its increase out of the earth,
is subject to tithe ' a rule based on the precept of
Deut. 1422, 'Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of
thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by
year'), and the liability of dill in particular to tithe is,
in the Talmud, specially mentioned (see the references
in Celsius, Hierobot. 1 497). N. -M. W. T. T.-D.
ANKLETS and ANKLE -CHAINS. These have
ever been favourite ornaments among Orientals.' Prob-
ably the oldest specimens are some in gold and
silver which have been found in Egypt, where they
appear to have been worn by men as well as women.
The chains obliged the wearers to take short and
tripping steps. To enhance the effect, bells were (at
1 The Syriac and the Ar.abic versions correctly render by the
word sitehhetid, shihitta name for this plant which is probably
derived from Persian (see Liiw, 373). t^ r l
2 This, though supplanted by 'anise' in all the English
versions from Wyclif onwards, is the word used in the A.S.
version, ' myntan and dile and cymmyn."
3 Virgil gives it a place in the flower-garden (h.cl. 2 48), and
Pliny in the veget.ible-garden (//A' xix. 8 52). Cp the Creek reff.
in Liddell and Scott. . . ,
In the parallel passage in Lk. (11 42) dill is not mentioned
'mint and rue and every herb (jrofAoxai'Oi').' >. .
Cp Ar. halhal, and Ok. ntpic^vfu.ov and irfM(TitAi, the
latter of which is 0s rendering of the Heb. DjaO (in the plur.
or dual) ' breeches.'
ANNA
any rate, in later times) attached to the chain a practice
which is alluded to in terms of disapproval in the Koran
(5r. 2431). Ornaments of this nature are referred to
in Is. 3 18.
They are here called C'03}/|,1 RV ' anklets,' AV ' tinkling orna-
ments ' ( e/xn-Xdicia), a word from which comes the denominative
verb in 7'. 16 (r!:D3yn rf'i'Jin ' they make a tinkling with their
feet,' irai^ovcrai). Similar is ^^{?"i Is. 3 2ot, RV ' ankle
chains,' AV ' ornaments of the legs,' uncertain (cp Targ.
K'SjT 'Tc) ; cp mi'SK. ^Jn- 31 5. RV as above, AV ' chains,'
^KiSuyy. In spite of its apparently obvious connection with ty^
'to walk,' rnys 's applied also to ornaments worn on the arms :
see Bkacelet, 5.
ANNA (anna [BNA]), the Greek form of the name
Hannah.
1. Wife of Tobit (Tob. Igf.).
2. Daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Lk.
236-38). Like Simeon, she represents the class of
those who ' waited for the consolation of Israel,' and,
like him, she is said to have had the gift of prophecy.
Being constantly in the temple, and prepared for the
honour by fastings and prayers, she was enabled to
meet the child Jesus and his parents, when, like
Simeon, she burst into a prophetic song of praise.
She is also, it would seem, a prototype of the
' widows indeed ' (see Widow) of the early Christian
community (i Tim. 659): hence the particularity with
which the circumstances of her widowhood are described.
The name Anna or Anne became common among Christians
from the tradition that the mother of the Virgin Mary was so
called.
ANNAAS (c&NAAC [A]), lEsd. 523 AV = Ezra235
Sen A AH.
ANNAS (ANN AC [A]). lEsd. 932 RV [Heb. J^H,
5o] = Ez. 10 31 Harim.
ANNAS and CAIAPHAS (annac [Ti. WH] ; kai-
A4)Ac[li- ^^IIJ)- ln6.\.i). Quirinius, who on the de-
position of Archelaus became governor of Syria, followed
the custom of the Herodian family and appointed a new
high priest. His choice fell on a certain Ananos (so in
Josephus) or Annas (so in NT), son of Sethi (Jos. Ze^i)
who continued to hold the office until the change of
government in 15 .\. I). Valerius Gratus, who succeeded
Quirinius, gave the post in succession to three men, none
of whom, however, held it for more than a year. The
second of the three was a son of Annas, called
Eleazar by Josephus {An/, .xviii. 22). Atlast, in 18 A.D.,
Valerius found in Joseph, called Caiaphas, one who was
strong enough to hold the office till 36 A. U. Then
Vitellius (35-39 .A.D. ) once more, in 36 and 37,
appointed, one after the other, two sons of Annas
named Jonathan and Theophilus (^/. xviii. 4353).
Jonathan still held a prominent position in 50-52 {/i/
ii. 12 sy.), a point of which we have good proof in the
fact that Peli.x caused him to be assassinated (B/h. IS3
Anf. -xx. 8s). As in Acts 46, Annas, Caiaphas, Jonathas
(so D ; the other MSS have Joannes, EV John), and
Alexander are assigned high-priestly rank, and the first
three can be identified from Josephus, Jonathan being a
son, andC.MAPHAS, according to Jn. 18 13, a son-in-law,
of Annas, we seem to have good reason for conjecturing
Alexander to be the Graecised name of Eleazar the son
of Annas. .
Cai.M'H.as, then, was the acting high priest at the
time of the trial of Jesus. His long term of office shows
that in his relations with the Romans he nmst have
been oljsequious and adroit. Mk. and Lk. do not
mention him in their account of the passion ; but in
Jn. II49I813/ 2428 and Mt. 26357, we read that he
presided over the proceedings of the Synedrium ; he
therefore it was who rent his clothes. According to
1 Cp 03? a fetter (?) in Pr. 7 22, the pr. name HMV (see
AcHsAii) and the Ar. 'ikds, a chain connecting the head and
forefoot of a camel the usual method of hobbling the animal.
ANOINTING
Jn. 11 49-52, he became also an involuntary prophet as to
what the death of Jesus meant.' With regard to his
character in general, the accounts accessible to us give
no details.
The most important personality in the group would
appear to have been old Annas. This seems to be
sufficiently implied in the fact that four of his sons'
and a son-in-law successively held the high - priestly
office^whether we assume that Annas expressly wrought
for this end, or whether it was simply because those in
power sought by this means to win him over to them-
selves. Only on the assumption that he was, in truth,
the real manager of affairs, can we account for it that,
according to Jn. I813-24, he gave a private hearing in
the case of Jesus, as also that Lk. (Lk. 82) names him
as colleague with Caiaphas, and (.'\cts46) enumerates
him in the first place, along with Caiaphas and two
of his high-priestly sons, as holding high-priestly rank.
Other instances, however, of a similar co-ordination of
past high priests are not unknown ; for example, in
the case of Jonathan, son of Annas (/?/ ii. I25/. ), of
Ananias son of Nedebaios (Ant. xx. 92-9; see AnaniA-S,
9), and of the younger Ananos and Jesus son of Gamaliel,
both of whom were high priests for some time during
the years 62-65, and had the conduct of affairs in their
hands during the first period of the Jewish wars.
The Annas (Ananos) just mentioned, son of Annas,
appointed in 62 A.D. by Agrippa II., availed himself of
the confusion following on the death of Festus to procure
the death of his enemies by tumultuary sentence. Among
the victims of his tyranny was, it would seem, James,
the brother of the Lord. The passage relating to it in
Josephus (20 91), however, may perhaps be a Christian
interpolation (see James, 3, end). In any case, the
king himself, even before the arrival of the new pro-
curator, put an end to Annas's reign of terror by
deposing him from the high-priesthood after a tenure of
three months. H. v. s.
ANNIS. (anngic [B]). I Esd. 5 16 RV, RVmg.
Annias, AV Ananias [q.v., i).
ANNTJUS (annoynon [A], om. BL), i Esd. 848, a
name not in Ezra 8 19 in Ezra's caravan (see Ezra, i.
2, ii. 15 (i) d) supposed by some to be a corruption
of ' with him ' (IDX) in Ezra, which may itself be a mis-
read sign of the accusative (so "*'-).
ANOINTING. In the OT two distinct Hebrew terms,
j frequently occurring, are translated in EV by 'anoint,'
1. Terms.
,hile a third (-;o:) is mcorrectly so under-
stood in Ps. 2 6 by Targ. and Sym. and
also by Ewald (cp We. Heid.K^^ 118). [a) tjio {siik)
is always (Dt. 2840 Ruth 83 2S.I220I42 2Ch.28i5
Ezek. I69 Dan. IO3 Mic. 615) used of the application of
unguents to the human body as a matter of toilet, and
hence Ex. 30 32 means that the holy anointing oil
shall not be used for ordinary toilet purposes, (b) nc'D
(vidshah) and its derivatives.^ In this case we have to
distinguish between the primary physical, and a secondary
and metaphorical use. In its physical sense nao is used
(1) rarely, probably with the retention of the original
meaning of the root, of rubbing an unguent or other
substance on an object,*.^'., oil on shields (Is. 21 5
t It has been suggested that the reference to his prophesying
may have arisen out of a popular etymology of Caiaphas, cp Ar.
*'//= soothsayer ('qui movit vestigia et indicia rerum, physio-
gnomus,' Freyt.) ; cp Nestle, /?/''7"/r. 40 149, and see Palm. Gram.
127, n. 4. Blass thinks that Nestle has upset the etymology
from KS'3 'stone' and KB'3 'oppression,' by showing that the
name in .\r.-imaic is written with p, not 3.
2 The fourth, .Matthias, was appointed to the oflfice for a
short time, between 41 and 44, by Agrippa ; perhaps .\nnas did
not live to .see this, and certainly he did not survive to see the
priesthood held by his fifth son, .Ananos II. (in 62 a.d.).
' On the.se, as well as on several matters referred to in the
course of this article, Weinel's study ' nrO und seine Derivate '
(/.ATli^ 18 1-82 ['98]) should be consulted. Unfortunately, it
appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the present
article.
ANOINTING
aS. l2i), paint on a ceiling, Jer. 22i4 (here translated
in EV by ' painted '), and probably we should interpret
the word similarly in the recurring phrase {e.g. , in Ex.
292) 'wafers unleavened anointed with oil' ; (2) of the
application of unguents to persons or things as a religious
rite ; for details see below ( iff.), but observe that,
with the possible' exception of Am. 66, npo 's never
used in the sense of :jic- In its metaphorical sense
na'O is used of the divine appointment or selection of a
man for a particular purjKDse viz. , for the kingship
(iS. lOi 15i7 2S. 127 2 K. 93612 Fs. 457[8] 892o[2i]
2 ('h. 227 ; cp below, 5). For the relation of the term
n'ro to the usages under discussion see Messiah, i.
'Anoint' in Ps. 92io[ii] corresponds to Heb. SSj,'^ in
Ps. 235 it corresponds to jb*! ; ' anointing" in the prob-
ably corrupt passage Is. 10 27 corresponds to ice* ("*'^Q
oni. ) and ' anointed ones ' in Zech. 4 14 (AV ; but RV
' sons of oil ' ; "K-^O viol r^j TrtirTjros) to \r\-i'r\ "33.
In NT the EV also confuses two sharply distinguished
terms. XP"^' which in the LXX, as in classical Greek,
may be used in a physical sense, is in the NT used ex-
clusively (Lk. 4 iS [cp Is. 61 1] Acts 427 IO38 2 Cor. 1 21)
of (jod in a metaphorical sense ; for we can hardly
regard the quotation from Ps. 457[8] in Heb. I9 as an
e.xception. The derivatives xpiatx-o. (ijn. 22027) and
XptcT^s are used similarly ; but the compounds fjxploj
(Rev. 3 18 also Tob. 68 [9] 11 8) and fVtxpiw (Jn. 96ii)
retain the original physical sense.
Thus the NT use of XP"^ resembles the meta-
phorical use of nro- The other NT term, d\ei(po}, is
ahc'iiys used of the application of unguents to the body,
whether (like the Heb. rj^o which it frequently represents,
e.g., Ruth 3 3 Micah6i5, cp also 2 K. 4 2 0"'^'-) for
toilet purposes (Mt. 617 Lk. 73846 Jn. 11 2), or medicin-
ally (.VIk. 613 Ja. 514), or as a tribute of respect to
the dead (Mk. 16 1 cp Jn. 1237).^
From the foregoing analysis of the terms, it will
be clear that ' anointing ' was practised by the
Hebrews both for secular and for sacred
purposes. The unguent used was olive oil,
with or without the addition of aromatic spices ; for
details see On.. Anointing formed among the Hebrews,
as among many other peoples (cp, d'._o'., PI. NN xVd. 1-6),
a regular part of a full toilet, being in particular
associated with washing (Ruth 83 Ezek. I69 Sus. 17) ;
the omission of it was a sign of mourning, the
resumption of the practice a sign that mourning was
over (2 S. 142 Dan. 10 3 [cp Mt. 617] 2 S. 1220 Judith IO3
cp Is. 61 3 Eccl. 98) ; and hence ' to anoint ' is a suitable
figure for 'to make glad' (Ps. 23$ cp 457 [8]). The
head and face appear to have been most usually anointed
(Ps. 104i5 Judith 16io Mt.617 Lk. 738 cp Ps.235 I4I5
Eccles. 98), and the anointing of the feet to have been a
special luxury (Lk. 746 Jn. 12 3). The medicinal use of
unguents is referred to not only in Ja. 5 14 Mk. 613,
but also in Is. 16 Lk. IO34. On anointing the dead
see Embalming.
Leaving the significance of anointing as a religious
rite to a final section, we will here simply classify the
-i Rplie-iniK? persons or objects which were so
H+ a-nnlnH^o. anointed ; and first the persons, (a)
"'0" p^ri"^ l'^ ^'>^- '" '^ OT,%eciallySr!
'^ the earlier wntmgs, there are numerous
references to the anointing of kings (cp, e.g., 1 S. 1631a
1 Possible, but hardly probable (cp Gcs.-Ru., J.7'. riUS)- The
feast described in the context is sacrificial: see i'. 4"and cp
WRS AV/. Sem.^'i) 241, 258, 430 n. 4, and note that the word
used in 7/. 6 for bowl (pnta) is elsewhere exclusively used in
connection with .sacrifice ; cp Driver (ad loc.\ who, however,
takes the passage as a description of effeminate luxury.
* The text, however, is very questionable. Many (r^. Cheyne,
Psalms (1, Baethgen), following ujiart Sym. Jer., point 'n^3
instead of 'n?3, and translate ' my old age ' or ' my wasting
strength' instead ot 'I am anointed.' In Psalmsi") Che.
reads n'?0 = nxS3.
3 In Mk. 14 8t ' anoint ' is iivpi^ut (see Myrrh, a).
173
2. Toilet.
ANOINTING
9 16 2 K. 23 30 Ecclus. 4613), and so fre()uently of the
Hebrew kings to whom the term 'Messiah of Yahwe'
belonged pre-eminently, if not exclusively, in the days
of the monarchy and even later (Lam. 4 20) ; for the
anointing of a Syrian king (by a Hebrew prophet) see
1 K.19i5. and cp the general reference in Judg. 9815,
and ^w. 7V/I*. 376 ' Manahbi(r)ia, king of Egypt, . . .
established my father . . . over the kingdom, and
poured oil on his head.' {b) The prophet. How far it
was usual to anoint a prophet we cannot say ; but we
have one allusion (in a narrative of the 9ih or 8th
cent. ) to such an anointing which camiot be reasonably
explained away ; if ' anoint ' in i K. 19 15^ i6</ Ix; literal,
it would be unnatural to consider it in i'. 16^ (as in
Is. 61 1 ) metaphorical ; cp Ecclus. 488. (c) The priest.
References to the anointing of priests, as part of the
rite of consecration, are numerous in P. We have to
distinguish, however, Ijetween those passages which refer
to the anointing of the high priest (Aaron) alone, and
those which refer to the anointing of the priests in general
(for the former cp Ex. 29? Lev. 812 6 2o[i3], and, outside
P, Ps. 1332 Ecclus. 4015; for the latter, E.x. 3O30
40:3-15). It seems proliable that passages of the
latter class are secondary (cp We. CH 141/. ; Di. on
Lev. 8to-i2; Nowack, Arch. 2 124). In this case the
anointing of the high priest may be inferred to have
been an earlier custom than that of anointing all
priests. This would account for the origin of the term
n'tiicn pan, 'the anointed priest' a|)plied to the high
priest (Lev. 43516 622[i5]; cp Nu. 3^25 Lev. 21 1012
2 Mace. 1 10, and perhaps Uan. 925/ ), and for its subse-
quent disappearance when all priests were anointed (cp
D'na'Dn C':rT2.T Nu. 33). We may infer from Zech. 4 14 that
the custom of anointing the high priest was at least as
ancient as the close of the sixth century ; but we have
no earlier evidence. On the other hand, the contrast
between a priest and ' Yahwe's anointed (iS. 235 a
Deuteronomic passage), and the different terms in
which the Chronicler (iCh. 2922) and the earlier
historian (iK. 235) refer to Zadok's appointment, are
worthy of attention. Cp further (for some differences of
view) Haudissin, Die Gesch. des AT Priesterthums 25/.
48/ 140 253.
Lifeless objects also were anointed, [a) Gen. 28 18
31 13 35x4 are, as far as OT is concerned, isolated
references to the anointing o{ sacred pillars
4. Lifeless
objects.
(see Massebah) ; but the custom was well-
known in antiquity (cp Di. on Gen. 28 18;
WRS Rel. Sem.i'^^ 232). {f>) The tabernacle and its
appurtenances. P contains directions or statements
about anointing ' the tent of meeting ' and all its furniture
(which is mentioned in detail, Ex. 30 26), or 'the
tabernacle and all that is therein' (Ex. 4O9 Lev. 8 10
Nu. 7i), as part of the rite of consecration. Special
reference 'is made to the anointing of the altar (Nu.
7108488). In Dan. 924 we find an allusion to the
anointing of 'the most holy' (probably = the altar) in
the reconsecration after the pollution of the temple by
Antiochus h^piphanes.
NT contains no reference to anointing as a religious
rite, unless, indeed, we ought to infer from Mk. 613
Ja. 5 14 that magical and so far religious pro-
perties were attributed to the oil used in anointing
the sick (as distinct from the wounded, Lk. IO34) ;
but before the close of the second century A. u. it had
come to form part of the ceremony of baptism. See
Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Antiq., j.tt'.
'Chrism,' 'Unction'; Mayor's Comni. on James
(on 514).
Anointing occurs repeatedly as a metaphorical term
to express a religious idea. As we have seen (1) the
K Twr 1, Heb. term (nrc) is sometimes ani the
0. metapnors. ^.p ^^^^ ^^^,^^ ^,^.3^.^ ^^^ j^^,^.
phorically with God as subject. The metaphor may
have originated in, as it was certainly subsequently
used to express, the idea of God pouring out his spirit
ANOS
on a man (or people) for a particular purpose e.g. , on
Saul to smite the Amalekitts (iS. 15i7), on Jehu to
smite the house of Ahab (2 K. 96/ ), on ' the Servant '
' to preach good tidings ' (Is. (il i). Thus, after Yahw6
has anointed Saul (i S. lOi), the spirit of Yahwe comes
mightily upon him {v. 6), cp i S. I613; and the con-
nection lx;t\veen the outpouring of the spirit and
anointing is clear in Is. 61 1 (Lk. 4 18) 2 Cor. 1 21. and
especially in Acts 10 38. Similarly, ' the anointing from
the holy one' (ijn. 22027) is the illumination of the
Holy Spirit, which teaches those that receive it con-
cerning all things. Hence, the term ' anointed ' could
suitably Ix; applied to Israel as a people e._i,^. , Hab. 3 13 ;
see further Messiah, 3. In Ps. tf)? 892o, the
whole phrase ' to anoint with oil ' is used with CJod as
subject ; in these cases either the whole phrase is a
metaphor, or mdla/i has accjuired a quasi-causative
sense.
On the relation of the various terms and customs
to one another there have been different views, some
fi Primiti a ^ which must te briefly referred to.
._ Some {f.: , Kamjihausen in the article
sigmncance. . ,.^^. j,^ // , , -/j ,2, , j,^.,i,.(. ,he religious
from the toilet use, seeing in the rite of anointing
both the means of setting apart to (Jod some person or
thing as clean and sweet-smelling, and also the symbol
of such a condition. But (i) it may Ix: questioned
whether the sharp distinction of terms relative to
the two uses (cp i) lie not against this view; (2)
there is no positive evidence that the Hebrews in-
terpreted the rite in this way, unless we so regard the
custom of mi.xing sweet -smelling substances in the
anointing oil a custom which cannot be traced liefore
P ; and (3) the metaphorical use cannot be satisfactorily
explained in this way. Reasons have l>een given in the
preceding section for thinking that the religious rile of
anointing men was at any rate understood at an early
period to symboJi.se the outpouring of the divine spirit ;
but it is possible that this symbolism is not original,
even in the case of persons. It certainly does not
e.\plain the anointing of things particularly the pillar
at Bethel. This custom Roliertson Smith {ke/. Sem.(^>
233 379#. especially 313 ^, cp S.\ckikick) seeks
to explain as a sacrifice, the oil being a substitute
for the animal fat which was smeared (smearing, it is
to be remembered, being the original sense of ne'e)
by the Arabs on similar pillars, and played a consider-
able part in many other forms of sacrifice. Fat being,
according to ancient thought, one of the great seats
of life, was peculiarly fitted for the food of the gods
(hence the anointing of the pillar), and also for imparting
living virtue to the persons to whom it might be applied
(hence the anointing of things or other persons). In
this case the view that anointing symbolised the impart-
ing of the divine spirit, is a refinement of the idea in
which the custom may l)e presumed to have originated
(cp CovKN.VNT, 5 end). The anointing of the temple
and sacred furniture will then l>e a survival similar to
that of sprinkling them with blood. G. n. o.
ANOS (ancoc [B.\ ; om. L]), i Esd. 934. apparently
V.AM.Mi of l';zral036.
ANT(n^p?,'MYpMH?[B*<A];>r;;/?Vrt,Pr.663025t).
Classical writers often refer to the
industry, forethought, and ingenuity
of the ant, and especially to its habit
1 The etymoloRy of this word is very doubtful. It has been
proposed to derive it (i) from a doubtfid Heb. verb ^j^^ (cp Sio)
' to cut,' referring tither to the shape of the ant's body ( = ' in-
sect '), or to its habit of cutting seeds from the corn-ears, or to the
incision it is supposed to make in the seeds themselves to prevent
their .sproutine (though this la.st was hardly known to the ancient
Hebrews); (2) from .\r. namala 'to creep' or 'to ascend by
creeping ' ; (3) from asuppo.sed root akin to Heb. ck:. ' to make a
slight sound '. The connection with Ar. namaltt is certain ;
but pos.sibly the meaning of the verb may be derived from the
noun. A kindred word is Ar. anmul, ' fingertip ' (Lag. Uebers.
21). The Syr. equivalent is JfKjaa(' keen-scented "?) ; Ar.
has the same word as Wch.nanila.
1. Name and
allusions.
2. Species.
ANT
of storing grain -seixls beneath the ground in time
of harvest. '
Thus ifllian tells us that so great is the industry of ants that,
when there is moonlight, they work by night as well as by day.
It was noticed how carefully their work was organised; they
were descrilied as marching like an army, the oldest acting
as generals ; when they reached the cornfield, the older ants
ascended the stalks and threw down the grains to the others,
who stood around the fix)t. Each took its part in carrying
away the food to their .subterranean homes, which were care-
fully constructed with several chamliers, and protected above by
walls of earth to keep out the rain. The seeds were divided
into two, .sometimes uito four, segments, and in other cases
Ceeled, to prevent their sprouting ; if wetted by rain, they were
rought out and carefully dried in the sun. The ant showed
a weather-knowledge far surpas.sing man's. It was in all respects
a TToAiTiKov ^(^v, and is so classed by Aristotle along with the
cmne and the bee.
The same observations are repeated in later times by
Arabic and Jewish writers.
The Mohammed.ins .seem to have a.ssociated the ant with
.Solomon: the 27th chapter of the Koran is styled 'the ant,"
becau.se it mentions that Solomon, on his march, once entered
'the valley of ants,' whereupon an ant said, 'O ants, enter
into your habitations, lest Solomon and his army tread you
underfoot and perceive it not.' It was a custom with the Arabs,
.says lioL-hart, to place an ant in the hand of a new-born child,
with a prayer that he might grow up wise ami .sagaciou.s.
The only two passages in the OT which mention the
ant obviously refer to some species of Harvesting Ant
probably either to Aphanogaster (for-
merly called Attn) barhara, or to A.
stnictor, or to Pheidole 7negacephala, which are to this
d.ay found in Syria, and, indeed, all round the Mediter-
ranean basin.
Numerous other species of ant have been descril)ed in
Palestine ; but, as far as is known, they resemble in their habits
the ants of temperate and colder climates, and do not lay up any
store of provi.sions against the winter : it is po.ssible that, like
the latter, they pa.ss the cold season in a torpor or winter sleep.
The harvesting ants all belong to the genus
Aphnenogaster, or are closely allied to it. Their habits
_ .. were well known to the ancients and
arves mg ^^ niedineval writers. These observers,
generalising on insufficient data, as-
sumed that all ants stored up food for winter con-
sumption. When, however, the centre of learning
shifting farther N. from the shores of the Mediterranean,
the leaders of science were found in central and northern
Europe, the position of things was reversed.
Naturalists, noticing that the ants whose habits
they observed did not store grain and seeds, arrived
at the conclusion that no ants did, and attem]5ted to
explain the accounts of the earlier writers by pointing
out that they had probably mistaken for seeds the
pupre which, when anything disturbs the ants' nest, are
at once seized and Iwrne to a place of safety. The
consensus of opinion, accordingly, until about a quarter of
a century ago, was that ants never lay up stores of food.
The investigations of Moggridge and Lespes, how-
ever, showed that, although this opinion is probably
correct as far as ants in more northern climates are
concerned, many of the ants in the countries bordering on
the Mediterranean store up seeds collected from different
plants. Not only do they collect seeds that have fallen,
but they also frecjuently tear the fruit or seed-pod off the
plants and bear them to the formicarium or nest.
They will, moreover, travel considerable distances to
obtain their food, marching in two nearly continuous
parallel lines, the length of the column sometimes
measuring 24 yards or more. The two lines are moving
in contrary directions the one toiling laden with spoils
towards the nest, the other hurrying back with empty
mouths to the harvest ground.
Thenests both of .4. harbara and of A. structor are
simply excavations in the ground long cylindrical pas-
4 N tu sages or rounded hollows, the floors of which
storintr ^'^''' ' some extent smoothed and cemented.
' In these hollows, about the size of a billiard
J Seethe list ofpa-ssaees quoted in Bochart, Hier. among
them Hor. Sat. i. 1 3j ; Virg. Ain. 4 402 ; Plin. NH 11 30 ; itiian,
2 25 4 43 6 43. A brief account of the Jewish notices by Rev.
A. Lowy in PSBA 868 [1880-81].
176
ANTELOPE
ball, the seeds are stored. In one nest Moggridge
counted seeds from twelve different species of plant, and
he enumerates eighteen distinct tx}tanical families con-
taining plants which furnish ants with seeds. . /. structor
is frequently found in the neighl)ourhood of towns or
villages, and even in the streets ; A. barbara, usually in
the country.
The ants" nests are entered by one or two holes,
whose presence is usually indicated by small heaps of
refuse, partly composed of the earth excavated from the
nest, and |Kirtly built up of tiie husks and other useless
matter, w hich is carefully removeil from the seeds Ixifore
the latter are stored up. All this refuse is scrupulously
removed from the nest, which is kept very clean. The
ants do not allow the seeds to sprout ; possibly by
making an incision in them.
The amount of seed collected and stored in the
granaries is very considerable and may cause serious
loss to the agriculturist ; from one nest an amount of
seed estimated at i lb. in weight was taken, and there
nmst be many hundreds of nests to the acre. The seed
stores of the ants of Palestine are suflicie'itly important
to l)e mentioned in the Mishna, which records the rules
adopted as to their ownershij).
The industry of the harvesting ants, and the amount
of work they .accomplish, justify their being held up as
e.xamples of untiring energy. They begin work early in
the morning and keep at it far into the night, working
as hard in the dark as in the sunlight. Meer Hasan
.\li in his History of the Mussulmans describes how-
eight or twelve very small harvesting ants will find it
difticult to nune a grain of wheat, and yet they manage
to transport such grains over a distance of looo yards
to their nest. Their great sagacity is shown in
numerous ways the complexity of the organisation
of their colonies (involving the differentiation of
individuals to jjcrform different duties), their powers of
communicating one with another, and their slave-
making pro|x;nsities. Their habit of laying-up food
for the future, and even (in some South -American
species) of actually cultivating certain fuTigi for food,
places them with the Ijees and wasps, as regards intelli-
gence, second only to man in the animal kingdom.
The ants belong to the order Hymenoptera (which
includes l)ees, wasps, and saw-flies), and to the family
Forniicida-. N. m. a. IC. S.
ANTELOPE (ixri t'o, Dt. Hs; Nin /J', Is. 51 20 ;
Opyi L"-^'- J^>t. ; and Aq. Syni. Theod. in Is.];
ceyTAlON [O'*'*'^-'' in Is.]), an unclean animal mentioned
along w ith the pygarg and chamois. The above is the
rendering of R\' and is much preferable to .W Wild O.X,
\\'ii.i) Bui-i. (which is based upon Targ. Gr. Ven., and
is accepted by Kim. ), although wild o.xen and wild
bulls were common enough throughout Palestine and
Mesopotamia (see Catti.k, 4). The allusion in Is.
{I.e.) to the capture of the animal by nieans of a net
wholly agrees with what is known of the manner in
which antelojxis, gazelles, etc. were usually captured.
The species here intended may be the Antilope
leucoryx (or ory.x, cp (S), or the A. huhalis. Against
the former proposal the objection has been raised that
the ory.x is called in the modern vernacular of N. Africa
yuhmur, which = Heb. Tcn' 'fallow-deer' (see Rok) ;
but it is not uncommon for the same name to be given
to memlx-TS of different species by different peoples. ^
On Ox-.\n iKi.oi'K see U.NicoRN (beg.). S. A. C.
ANTHOTHIJAH (n^nh3y) I Ch. 824t RV, AV
Antothijah (./.T. ).
ANTICHRIST (antixPICTOC [Ti. WH]). History
1 History "^ ^^"^ Question.- Researches into
Earlv Per^d ''^'^ meaning of ' Antichrist ' have
' ' always started from the exegesis of
I'or oilier ex.imples see Unicorn, note.
2 Cp. Liicke, /.//. in d. OJTfnb. Jolt. 35-) ff. \ Bornemann,
' Die Thessalonicherbriefe ' in Aleyer's Handbuch ^oojff'.
l'-2 .77
ANTICHRIST
3 Thess. 2 1-I3 and certain jxissages in the Apocalypse
(chap. 13).
The first period of the history of the discussion em-
braces the Greek and I^atin ecclesiastical writers down
to the l>eginning of the Middle Ages. Within this
}x.'riod the tradition is unusually stable. The Antichrist
is taken to l)e a manifestation which is to be made at
the end of time a definite personality, as to whose
origin, career, and end, perfectly definite and tradition-
ally fixed views are set forth, which rest but partially
on the NT. This exegetical tradition, the importance
of which is greatly undervalued by recent commentators
such as Hornemann, is, for reasons which w ill afterwards
apjjcar, of the utmost value. To say that the naive
dogmatic lx;lief of the church-fathers in ' the truth of
this eschatological phant.isy dow n to its least detail '
was absolute does not in any way disprove the correct-
ness of their e.xegesis.
Of the two methods that came into vogue during the
Middle Ages the ecclesiastico-political method with
jx)lemical purpose (since Joachim of Floris, .afterwards
in chief favour with Protestant scholars, especially in
the form hostile to papal claims) and the universal-
historical (perhaps, since Nicolas de Lyra) neither
advanced the cjuestion in the le.ast.
The beginnings of a truly scientific maimer of looking
at these as well ,as at other eschatological traditions
_ TUT. J were made by certain .Spanish and l-Vench
2. Modem. , .. . .u .. , ,
Jesuits, who threw themselves mto the
polemic against Protestant attacks with great learning
and acumen. Their first step was to revert to the
tradition of the church fathers, which they endxxiied in
extensive works. ' Thus the futurist method w.as
restored to its ascendency.
This method maintained its ground, until quite recently,
among all scientific interpreters of the apologetic scIkxiI. There
is one point, however, in which the exegesis of the moderns as,
for example, Hofman (Si/iri/t/h-itvis) and Luthardt {Ou- l.ihrc
von den letzten Dingen) ami ahiiost tlie whole boily of Kiiglish
writers on the sulyect falls far l>elow that of the church
fathers: the concrete eschatological figures are more or less
spiritualised. Thus, Antichrist becomes an impersonal general
tendency; the 'temple '(2 'I'liess. 24) is interpreted as meaning
Christendom ; and the Ka.f(\usv, as law and order.
It is in the work of Ludovicus Alcas.ar {I'estigatio
arcani sensus in Apocal. , Antwerp, 161 4) that we find the
earliest indications of a thoroughly scientilic, historical,
and critical handling of this ciuestion. The labours and
the method of the Jesuit scholars, however, were afti-r-
wards made available for the Protestant Church by Hugo
GroUus {A nnotiit/ones, Paris, 1644), who in the treatment
of Antichrist may l)e regarded as the founder of the
'historical' or ' preterist ' method. He interpreted
2 Thess. 2i-i2, point by point, as referring to the
occurrences of the reign of Caligula. In this method
he was followed by Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, and
Harduin ; and, since Kern ( Ti/b. Z. f. Theol. , 1833. i. ),
the preterist interpretation of the Antichrist has lx.'come
almost univers.al, but as referring to Nero redivivus (so
F. C. B.aur, Theol. Jahrbb., 1855 ; Holtzmann, in BL ;
Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1862, 1866; H.ausrath ; and many
others, including Renan, L Antichrist. 1876). Follow-
ing an example partly given by Kl6pjx;r, however,
Spitta {Zum Gesch. u. Lilt, iles I'nhristenthums
\oc) ff.) h.as again sought the explanation of the prcnlic-
tions reg.arding Antichrist in the circumstances of the
reign of Caligula.
Abandoning this (on the whole, mistaken) line, a few-
scholars have sought an interpretation of Antichiist in a
_ ^. . Jewish tradition dating farther Ixick than
^ ^ ' the Christian era and not resting on any
historical events.
Among these scholars may l>e named Reiche, I)e Welte, Lilne-
mann, and Horneinann (in their respective commentaries) and
Kahler (in /'A'A*). Ewald's observations in Jahrb. /. bibl.
Il'iss., 1851, p. 250, and i860, p. 241, are of special interest:
1 Malvenda's De Aniichrisfo (Lvons, 1647) being perhaps the
fullest. The commentaries of Rilwira (Salamanca. 1591) and
Ulasius Yiegas (Ebora, 1601) were specially inlluential.
4. NT.
ANTICHRIST
for the first time he combined 2 Thess. 2 with Mt. 24is^ and
Rev. 11 "iff., and thus the problem ceased to be one of exegesis
merely. The best work in this direction has been that of
Schncckenburger (see HOhmen's survey of his writings in /<i//-^.
f. (ieutsche 'I keol., 1859), who endeavoured systematically (as
the only true method) to ascertain the kindred Jewish tradition
that lay at the basis of the NTpassages. (Prelimmary researches
in the same sense had been contributeil by Corrodi, Krit. Gcsch.
des Cliiliasmus 1781^ ; Hertholdt, Christol. Juti., 1811, 16;
and GfrOrer, JahrhuiuUrt des Heils ii^d ff. ^o^ ff- 436.)
Schnerkenburger also brought Mt. 24 Rev. 11 ami jn. 643 into
the field of his survey, and his view may be said on the whole to
have stood the test of time.l
Still more recently Bousset {Der Antichrist in der
Ueberlieferung des Judenthttms, dcs NT. u. der Alien
Kirche, 1895), following up the suggestions of Gunkel's
Schopfung 71. Chaos (1895), and the method then for the
first time securely laid down, has souglu to supplement
these investigations in two directions: (i) by a com-
prehensive induction based on all the eschatological
portions of the NT that belong to the same circle of
idciis, and the careful exclusion of all that do not
so belong; and (2) by an attempt at a comprehensive
and complete presentation of the tradition (which comes
before us in the NT only in a fragmentary way) as it
is to l)c met with in the Jewish sources, and, still more,
in the later Christian exegetical and apocalyptic tradition.
This tradition is in great measure quite independent of
the NT, and in all probabilitj' dates, as far as its sources
are concerned, from pre-Christian times. ''
The NT Tradition. The name avrLxpiffroi occurs
in the NT only in the Johannine l-^[)istlcs ( i Jn. 2 18 22 :
43: 2 Jn. 7), and thus in all probability its
formation belongs to the late NT period.
For an answer to the question who or what is
meant by the name, it is best to start from tlie well-
known (probably Pauline) passage in 2 Thess. 2i-i2,
where we read that before the end of all things the man
of sin, or, rather, of lawlessness (6 AvOpcoiros rijs duo/uLias),
the lawless one (6 ivofws), the son of perdition (6 vibs rrjs
djrwXeias), nmst be revealed. This ' man of sin,' it is
clear, is to make his appearance as a false Messiah an
observation which, from the outset, precludes us from
referring the expression to any foreign potentate such as
Caligula or Nero. He is sent to ' them that are
perishing' (namely the Jews), because they received
not the love of the truth (the true Messiah).'' He does
not employ any outward force, but accomplishes his
work by means of false signs and lying wonders (cp the
tradition of the Church fathers, as continued by De
Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger, B. Weiss, Lunemann,
Bornemann). He will make his appearance in Jeru-
salem. In this account of the Antichrist the specially
perplexing assertions are that he is to seat himself
in the temple of God and that he is to declare himself
to be God. This last act, at any rate, does not belong
to the ro/e of a ftilse Messiah. It is also doubtful
who or what ought to be understood by 6 Karix'^",
rb Kar^x^"- ^^'^ power that stands in the way of
the manifestation of .Antichrist. If once a reference in
the passage to a Jewish false Messiah be accepted, the
mystery of iniquity (lawlessness : rb /jlvctt. rrji dvofxias)
will most probably mean the cruelty which the Jews
as a whole had begun to show towards the Christians
(same authorities as above). At this point we obtain
a clear light ufKjn Rev. 11. The perplexing fact
that there the beast rises out of the deep and makes
its appearance in Jerusalem (a view of the passage that
appears certain not only from 11 8, but also from the
connection of 11 12 with 11 3 as against the other inter-
pretations referring it to Rome) is explained by 2 Thess.
2. The beast that rises out of the deep and appears in
1 This applies also to the first part of the Apocalyptische
Studien of B. Weiss, 1869.
2 Attempts in this direction had already been made by
Bertholdt and Schneckenburger.
3 a Thes.s. 24 does not at all fit in with Spitta's interpretation
of the pa.ssage as referring to Caligula's proposal to set up a
statue of himself in Jerusalem.
CpJn.643.
179
ANTICHRIST
Jerusalem is the Antichrist. If this be so, we are
supplied with the following additional elements in the
tradition : ( i ) a great drought that comes over the
world in the last times (in Rev. through the two
witnesses) ; (2) the two witnesses, their slaughter by
the .Antichrist, and their resurrection ; (3) a previous
assemblage of many nations in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem. The dim and fragmentary character of the
whole narrative, however, is striking. In .another pKace
in the .Apocalypse we find another parallel to the figure
of the -Antichrist in Rev. \'6\\ ff. The beast that ' had
two horns like unto a lamb' (RV) is designated by the
author of Revelation himself as a False Prophet. When
it is spoken of as 'coming up from the land' (not
'earth' as in EV), we may reasonably understand
Palestine to be meant. This false proj>het also does
his work by means of signs and wonders. Here we
meet w ith a new and rather perplexing consideration : the
sealing on their foreheads anil hands of those whom he
has led astray, and the buying and selling of them th.at
is thus made possible. To the same great group of
traditions a part of the eschatological discourse in the
Synoptic (iospels (especially in Mt. ) also appears to
belong. Older theories of the ^diXvyfia ttjs ip-qfiilianci
of Mt. 24 15 having broken down, and Spitta's explana-
tion of it as referring to Caligula being beset with
difficulties (indeed, an apocalypse which arose only in
40-41 A.I), could surely not have found its way among
utterances of the Lord which were already Ixiconiing
fixed), we seem comp>elIed to fall back on an older
tradition, and to explain the strange phrase of the Anti-
christ of 2 Thess. 24 sitting in the Temple (on these
points cp .AuoMiN.VTioN OF Uk.soi..\tion). In this case
we arrive at new elements in the tradition : the subsequent
flight of those who have lx;lieved, the shortening of the
days ( Mt. 2422), and the picture of the end of the world
and of the final judgment (.Mt. 24 2gff.). Here again
the fragmentary brevity of the tradition is surprising.
If we now survey these eschatological fragments as a
whole, two conjectures immediately force themselves on
5. Results. "'= <'! *^^' all' these eschatological
ph.antasies were not independently con-
ceived by the various authors from whom we derive
them ; ^ that, on the contrar)-, the authors are mostly
reproducing a tradition which already lay before them ;
and (2) that it is a single consistent tradition that
underlies all these (partly coincident, partly com-
plementary) fragments. If the second conjecture
be true, we may venture to think that the tradition
in question has not been lost beyond all possibility of
recovery. In point of fact, our very first glance at later
Christian apocalyptic literature satisfies us that this
literature rests upon a tradition which is but partially
dependent on the NT.
The Tradition 0/ the Early Church regarding Antichrist.
Sources."^ The tradition becomes tangible as soon as we have a
Christian literature copious enough. The
6. Early Church influence of this tradition is already visible
tradition. '" '^e Teaching of the 'Twelr'e Apostles
(chap. Hi). Irenacus (Ad7'. haer. 5 25-3o)also
presents himself in this connection. Special importance, how-
ever, among the earlier witnesses, attaches to Hippolytus's
airojeift; ittpX toC ai'TixPiVrov, the Cantten A/>ologeticum of
Commodian, I.actantiuss Inst. Div.l \^ ff. (Commodian and
Lactantius have a place of their own in the tradition), and the
Commentary on the Apocalypse of Victorinus. A further group
of writings ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer of very- great
influence, Ephraim Syrus, must be mentioned. Under his name
are current three Homilies on the .Antichrist : (i) One in Syriac
(De L.imy, 3187^, all of it genuine with the exception of a few
chapters); (2) one in Greek (.Assemani, 2222-30 3 134-143),
perh.-ips genuine ; and (<) one in Latin (Caspari, ut sup. ic&jf.).
The historical event from which all these prophecies start is the
1 See the detailed argument for the impossibility of this in
Gunkel, SchSpf. u. Chaos.
^ .See .Malvenda, De Ant/chri>to{i6^j): Ebert, 'On Com-
modian's " Carmen Apologeticum " ' in Arh. d. kdn. Sachs. Ges.
d. Wissensch.h-),iT ff,\ Caspari, Brie/e und Abhandlun^en
('90) 2oZff. 429_^ and, for the Liter period, Zezschwitz, / om
rSmischen Kaiserthum deutscher Nation, 1877 ; Gutschmid,
Kleine Schri/tenhy>%ff. : W. Meyer, Ludus de Antichristo,
180
ANTICHRIST
beginning of the great barturian migrations, the invasion of
the eastward regions of the Kninan Kmpire hy the Huns (Gog
and MiiKog). Allied in character to the foregoing are
Cyril's Catechesis (xv), the psctido-Johannine Apocalypse
('lisch. AfHX. afocr.), and the Commenlary on the Apocalypse
by Andrew of Cxsiirca. Dependent on Kphraim's (ircck
homily are the irrpi njt <rurr<Aia toO Koaiiou (cd. Lagarde) of
the pscudo- Hippoljlus, and the Dioptra of I'hilip Solitariu:t
{^\off.; Migne, /'. (,>. 127). This whole moss of tradition is
exceedingly valuable on account of its archaic oriental ch;tractcr.
Of the older church fathers, Jerome also {AJ Algasiaui, Quaist.
xi. ; / Danieltm vii. and xi.) and Thcodoret {ffieret. /al>.
623), but not Augustine, and, of the later, John Damascenus
(itern 427) claim special attention.
As, in the uniform view of these apocalyptic interpreters, the
advent of the Antichrist is after the downfall of Rome, one might
reckon almost with certainty on finding evidence of the currency
of the tradition about the time of that downfall. Such evidence
we actually possess in the primary document which was the com-
mon source of both the so-cillcd Apocalypses of Daniel, the Greek
(ed. Klostermann, Analtrta), ancl the .Armenian (cli. Kalemkiar,
H'ivm-r /.. ti 1277; \ cp Zahn, Forschungcn 5 119^^). Atjain,
at the time of the Slohamniedan conquests a new rallying-point
was given for this eschatolojjical tradition, as we see in the apoca-
lypse of the pseudo-.\Iethodius(7th century, OrthoiioxografhaK-),
Basel, 1569), closely connected with which is the later .Apocalypse
of Peter, now extant in Syriac, .\rabic, and llthiopic redactions
(Hratke, ZIVT, 1892), and also a series of late Byzantine
(V'assiliev, Aneciioia Gra-co- liyzantina i, Moscow, 1893),
and late Jewish apocalypses (Jellinek, lict-ha-Muirash; cp
Bousset, i^ff. iT\Jf.'). This l)ody of tradition reached the west
through a compilation (/V Antichristo) by the monk -Adso
(Migne, /'. Lat. 101 1291^.), b:ised on the l>ook of Methodius
and on a .Sibylline book, which last is to be found also (in a
red.icted form) in the works of Heda (.Migne, 90 1183) and dates
perhaps from the fourth century. Lastly, an isolated and very
archaistic source is to be found also in the Apocalypse of
Zephaniah (Stern, ZA, xS86).
7 He ' who ^ii''j"'"ecl is a brief summary of this
letteth ' tradition as it occurs, almost uniformly,
in the sources that have Ijeen named. ^
In the first place, the universally prevalent conviction is that
the (toTe'xioi' (2 Thess. 27) is the Roman empire. This, we may
be sure, was the view of Paul also : if he expected a Jewish
false Messiah, then the one power left which could ' hinder ' was
the Roman empire (cp on this point 4 Esd. 4t_^.). The
political rrf/f- played by this idea in the history of Christianity
may be seen in Tertullian (A/'o/. 32, ad Sca/>. 2) and Lactantius
{/nst. div. 7 25). Of equally universal prevalence is the
conception of .\ntichrist, not as a Roman or
8. Antichrist, foreign ruler, but as a false Messiah, who is
to arise among the Jews themselves in
Jerusalem. .Almost universally (with the exceiitions to be after-
wards mentioned) it is predicted that he is to c-.t.ililish himself
in the temple and lay claim to Messianic (.md, so f;ir. (li\ine)
honours. (Sometimes, as in Ascens.Jes.ib, Vici. in A/oc. 13 13,
and in the Ethiopic Ajjocalypse of Peter, we read that he will
set up his statue in the temple doubtless a reminiscence of
the Caligula episode.) After the destruction of Jerusalem,
accordingly, the expectation that the Antichrist will rebuild
the temple in Jerusalem becomes univers.-il. He will show
special frivour to the Jews, will receive circumcision himself, and
will compel others to do so. He will arise from the tribe of
Dan (t/.v., g 9 ; Jewish ha^gada is at the root of this [cp Tcs/atn.
Dan s/. : also the omission of Dan in Rev. 7 5 ^, as to which
see Iren. v. 30 2, perhaps also even i Ch.(i6i (46l(see.SV;<)r)69l54]
7 12) ; see Schneckenburger-Hiihmer, 412). If, bearing all this in
niind, we once more turn to 2 Thess. -J 97?: Jn.543 Rev. 11 3^, it
jmmetliately becomes plain that any ' historical ' or preterist
interpretation of the .Antichrist is out of the question. On the
basis of a hagg.-jdic view of Dan. 11 43 78, there came into
the tradition this further element, that the .Antichrist, at
his first appearing, is to comiuer the kings of Egypt, Ethiopia,
and Libya. Another invariable element of the tradition under
consideration is the enumeration of the miracles to be wrought
by the .Antichrist, particularly celestial signs (Rev. 13 iiyi), and
miracles of healing (although that of raising the dead is Iwyond
his reach). Hereupon the .Antichrist will achieve the dominion
of the whole world, and gather round himself to his capital all
peoplesand vast armies(4 Esd. 13 iJT. Apoc. Bar. 40 Rev. 1 1 9^.).
_ Next, a great drought and famine will come upon
9. Conflict, the whole earth (differently and less clearly put in
Rev. 11 6), and in these straits the Antichrist will
order his servants (spoken of also as demons) to mark men with
his mark (according to the Latin Homily of the pseudo-Ephraim,
a serpent mark), so that only those who bear it shall be permitted
to buy bread (Rev. 13 \6/.). Against the .Antichrist come
forward the two witnesses (almost unanimously taken to be
Elijah and Enoch), who disclose his real character, .so that
many turn away from him (otherwise, and very obscure, what
we read in Rev. 11 3^). It is noteworthy that in many sources
there is no inention of the resurrection of the two witnesses
doubtless an incident introduced for the first time by the author
ANTICHRIST
of Rev. n. At the preaching of the witnesse* a coniiderabl
company of Israel are converted and l^c^in the opposition to the
Antichrist O^rhaps Rom. 9 20 is to be interpreted in thi.* con-
nection). The 144,000 who are scaled in Rev. 1 $ ff. certainly
have their explanation here. The faithful now l>ctake thcm-
.selves to the wilderness or to the mountains (.Mt. 24 16^.) ; but
the rlays of Antichrist's reign of terror shall be shortened. The
years shall Iwcume months, the months days, the days hour*
(Mt. 24 22). Then the .Antichrist will send his armies in pursuit
of the faithful who have fled into the wilderness ; but there they
shall l; delivered by the angel.s of (lod or by the Mcvsiah
(Rev. 1213^.), and the army of^ the Antichrist destroyed (cp the
mysterious angelic battle outside the city, in Rev. 14 14^., and,
in connection with this, the appearance of the lamb with the
, T X i c '44.000 in Rev. 16 1 J^.). The Antichrist is
10. Defeat of finally slain, according to authorities, by the
Antichrist. Messiah, with the breath of his mouth (Is. 11 4
2 Thevs. 2 B^the same statement is found in
late Jewi.sh .sources, such as Targ. Jon. on Is. 1 1 4 and others).
Perhaps .in older tradition may be traced in the view that
the archangel Michael is to be the conqueror of the Antichrist
(Dan. 12 I Rev. 126, Ass. Mas. 10). Now is seen a mighty
sign in hea\x-n (Mt. 2430) the sign of the Son of Man
interpreted _ by_ later writers (cp alreaily />/>/. 16 6, inuitlov
iKitfTaroot iv ovpavio) as referring to the Cross, but originally, we
may be sure, betokening the Divine Judge of the world (Housset,
154). Then follows the coming of the Divine Messiah to judg-
ment, amid mighty convulsions of nature (Wi.Hii) /. Rev.
6i2 7f".). From the four corners of heaven desolating storms
burst upon earth ami cleanse it (Rev. 7i z^^), and before the
divine advent descends a tempest of fire, whicli burns the earth
down to its depths, and dries up the sea and the rivers
(Rev. 21 i).
At the very first gLince it is plain that, in this tradition, we
are dealing not with an artificial exegetical mosaic of the various
passagesof the New Testament (and the Old)
11. Coherence which here come into account, but with an
of tradition, original l)ody of tradition, organically and
inherently consistent ; and that the separate
escbatological fragments of this tradition in the NT become
intelligible only when they are brought into their organic place
in the scheme of the tradition as a whole, so that their essential
consistency becomes m.inifest.
Origin of the Tradition. Naturally we turn, in the
first instance, to the eschatological ideas of the O'l".
Schneckenburger will have it that the
idea of the Antichrist comes from the
prophecies concerning Gog and Magog
1 For the references in detail see Bousset, Der Antichrist,
Gott. 1895.
t8z
12. OT
eschatology.
in Kzck. (38/.). That in every form of the tradition
the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog occurs in
close connection with the story of the Antichrist is
indeed true to the extent that they are made to a])iK'ar,
sometimes after (Rev. 2O7/. ), and sometimes Ix-fore,
the time of his rule. Positive identification of (Jog
with Antichrist, however, does not occur till the seventh
century, and even then only in Jewish sources. Many of
the details of the traditions can be traced, as has tieen
already said, to Jewish haggada. In this particular
point Dan. 7 11/ is approximated to most nearly; but
even here there is a marked difference, and the
originality of the view outlined above is conspicuous.
In Daniel the disturber is a foreign power ; but here
the seducer, who personates God or simulates the
Messiah, rises up from amid the people of (jod.
Thus there has lx;en an important development since
Daniel. Perhaps, as was suggestt?d in conversation to
the present writer by Prof. Smend, the historical occasion
for this advance was supplied by the experiences of Israel
under the Maccal>ees and the Herods. In any case, we
RT 1 tiutst note a parallel in Jewish .Apocalyptic.
That ideas allied to those in our tradition
were active among the Jews al>out the time of Christ is
shown by 4 I^sd. biff. (56 ; regnabit quern non sperant),
Apoi. liar. 36-40, Sibyll. ^63 ff. (2167^), Test. Dun 5.
Ass. Mas. 9,ff., and the (probably Jewish) nucleus oiAsc.
Jfs. (323-413). Now, in this tradition, the constantly
recurring name of the great enemy of the last times a
name already known to the apostle l^ul (2 Cor. 615)
is Belial (Beliar). Rut, according to many passages
of the Testaments, Belial is a spirit of the air, ruler of
the evil spirits. According to Test. Dan ft. the Messiah
will fight against him in the last days. The supporters
of Belial are the children of Dan. In Sib. 863 ff.
(probably dating from the time of Cleopatra). Belial is
already presented in an aspect closely resembling that
182
ANTICHRIST
of Antichrist (still more so in the Ascensio, which, how- I
ever, has unquestionably undergone Christian revision). !
In the Ascensio the angel Samtnael interchanges parts
with Belial, and Sammael figures also in later Jewish j
tradition as the enemy of the last times' (on the origin '
of Belial, and on the various developments of meaning, {
see Bkmal). Suggestions of the same idea occur in '
Lk. IO18 Jn. 1231 (Col. 215). Here we would seem to
have an aspect of the tradition that, in point of time and
contents, comes a great deal nearer that of Antichrist
(2 Cor. 615: 'and what concord hath Christ with
lieliar?'), which is not of historical but of purely
eschatological origin : the idea of a rebellion of an
angelic power against God at the end of time. Perhaps
it is out of this figure behind which in
turn stands the wilder figure of the dragon
rising in relx,'llion against (Jod in the last times, which
Gunkel conjectures to have its origin in the Babylonian
creation-myth (see Cke.vtion, 2/. ) that, under the ex-
periences of the Maccabean period, the humanised figure
of a pseudo- Messiah came into existence. In this way
we can explain also the superhuman traits in the picture,
such as his declaring himself to be God (2rhess. 24),
and his sitting in the temple of God (cp the myth of the
storming of heaven by the dragon in Rev. 12 1^).
These conjectures find further confirmation in the fact
that, in later tradition, the ghostly-demonic element in
the portrayal of Antichrist comes again more con-
spicuously to the front, and the Antichrist is even
represented .as a dragon who rebels against God (cp
the writings of I*2phraim Syrus, and Apoc. Zeph. ).
Points of Contact with other Traditions. One
legend that comes into relation with that of Antichrist
14. Dragon.
16. Nero
redivivus.
in many ways is that of Nero redivivus.
Not that the figure of Antichrist had its
beginning in the story of Nero. Originally
both legends had currency side by side. It was only
after Nero's return at the head of the Parthians (at first
conceived of in a purely human way cj) the nucleus of
Rev. 17) had become indefinitely delayed, and after men
had liegun to expect the returning Nero only as a spirit
from the under-world, that they gradually transferred
to him some traits lielonging to the Antichrist- (cp
Sib. ^61 ff. , where, in like manner, Belial is interpreted
to mean one of the Cnesars ; see Ai'oc ai.vitic, 95).
Such an amalgamation of the two figures is already
met with in Rev. 13 and 17 (in their present form).
The old form of .Antichrist, however, retains such
vitality that in the end (Rev. 13 n^^) it appears as a
second beast, servant of the first and on the same scene.
A similar and (as far as its occasion is concerned) still
more manifest doubling of .\ntichrist is seen in Com-
modian's Carmen Apoloi^eticiim, in Lactantius (as
above), in Martin (see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 2n),
and in the ^i^Xiov K\riiJ.VTOi (Lagarde, Reliq. juris
eccl. Zoff.). There is a complete fusion in the Ascensio
Jesaiir, and in the commentary on the Apocalypse
of Victorinus. This complicated figure of Nero redivivus
took special hold on the Sibylline literature of the second
century,^ and here again, in the delineation of this, we
meet once more with the old features of the dragon
myth. A fusion between the Antichrist tradition and
the Simon Magus legend has already been observed by
Schneckenburger, and tr.aced in a variety of points by
the present writer. The same tradition comes into
fusion w ith the later .Alexander legend and the old German
saga of the end of the world (Muspilli, EJda).
On this and other connected subjects see Houssct, /)fr .,4/;-
christ, in the English translation of which (1896) special atten-
tion has been bestowed on the index (see, e.g., 'Simon Magus,'
'Alexander'). See also K. VVadstein, 'i)ie eschatologische
Ideengruppe; Antichrist, Weltsabbath, Weltende und Welt-
eesicht in ihrer christlichmittelalterlichen Gesammtentwicke-
lung,' ZiVT, 1895 and 1896. On the Armenian form of the
t V.X^jtnmcn^cr, Kfttdecktes /ttdentum 1 70^; cp .^sc. /es. 7 g.
> This has been already remarked by Schneckenburger.
' Cp Zahn, ' Apocal. Studien ' in Z.y. kirchl. Ltben u. IVtss.
183
ANTIOCH
Antichrist-Iegena see Conybcare, Acnd., 26th October 1895 ;
and on a singular Mohammedan tradition see Lvdda at end.
w. B.
ANTILIBANUS (antiAiBanoc [BA], om. ).
Judith 1 7. See Lkh.V.NO.N.
ANTIMONY (11-1S), Is. 54.. RV mg.. F:V 'fair
colours.' See P.MNT.
ANTIOCH (ANTioxeiA [Ti. WH]). i. in Pisidia ;
more correctly, ' .\ntioch towards Pisidia' ('Aj'ri6xeta
T) irpbi lliffidiqi), to distinguish it from the Antioch on
the Me.ander (the form ' Pisidian Antioch,' 'AvTioxfia.
7) WiaiSia [Ti. WH], Actsl3i4, arose to distinguish it
from the more famous .Antioch of Syria). It was
really a Phrygian city ; but in NT times it was of course
included within the Roman province Galatia. Stralx)
(p. 577) accurately descrilx;s it as lying 'on a hill,' on
the south side of the range now called Sultan Uagh, in
Phrygia Parorea ; but it was not until 1833 that
Arundell found its ruins at Yalobatch. The town was
founded about 300 H.C. by the Seleucid kings, and the
transportation of 2000 Jewish families to the fortresses
of Lydia and Phrygia, as recorded by Josephus {Ant.
xii. 3), must in part refer to Antioch. By Augustus it was
made a Roman colony (6 B.C. ) ; hence its coins Ijear the
legend Cajsarea. Antioch was adopted as the centre of
military and civil administration in Southern Galatia,
and from it rarliated the roads to the colonies designed
to check the unruly highlanders of Pisidia and Isauria.
As an element in the pacification of this district, the
privileges of the Jews were confirmed by the Emperors,
and Paul found a large Jewish colony in the city. The
Romanisation of this part of Galatia was in especially
active progress during the reign of Claudius, 41-54 .A. n.
At the time of Paul's visit, therefore, Antioch was at
the height of its importance. Besides its relations with
Apamea (on the W. ) and with Iconium, Lystra, and east-
ern Asia Minor, it must have had a commercial connection
with the Pamphylian seaports, among them Attalia and
Perga ; and Paul must have reached Antioch by following
this southern trade-route, which probably ran through
Adada [Kara Bavlo, Bavlo being the modern pro-
nunciation of the apostle's name). There was a large
body of Jewish proselytes in Antioch, many of them
women of position through whom the Jews were able to
influence the magistrates against the apostles (.Acts
13 so). The magistrates had summary jurisdiction over
disturbers of the public peace, such as the apostles
were alleged to be (cp v. 44, irao-a t) ttoXis avvrix&V-
and z'. 45, Iddvres tous 6x^ovs) ; but the 'casting of
them out of the borders' of the colony could not imply
permanent banishment at any rate in the case of Paul,
who was a Roman citizen. Accordingly we find the
latter returning to Antioch from Derlx; (Acts 14 2.) and
perhaps revisiting the city at least twice (.Acts 166 18 23,
see Galati.\ ). If the trade of Antioch was concentrated
in the hands of the Jews, we can the more easily under-
stand Paul's first success here in Asia Minor : the new
teaching did not conflict with any commercial interests of
the gentile inhabitants, as it did at Ephesus and Philippi,
while at the same time the Jewish proselytising had
prepared the people for its reception. It is also not
without significance that on the death of king Amyntas,
some seventy years l)efore Paul's visit, the ancient
worship of ' ^ien ' (MV 'AffKaio^. 'ApKoios Strabo,
'A<TKrjif6i coins) had been abolished, so that there was
probably no gentile hierarchy in existence to oppose the
apostles. Hence the effect of their preaching w.as more
marked here than in any other case, except Corinth
(Acts 134448/). .All the more strange is the sub-
sequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches.
2. In Syria (i and 2 M.acc. AV Antiochia). This
great city, the third metropolis of the Roman world,
1 Citv *^^ Queen of the Ivist {rj Ka\^ Athen. I75 ;
' oricntis apex pulcher), and the residence of
the impsrial legate of Syria, survives in Antdkleh,
184
ANTIOCH
a town of only 6000 inhabitants. It is situated at
the point of junction of the ranges of Libanus and
Taurus, on a fine site hard by the left bank of the
Orontes, just where the river turns westwards to run
lx;tween Mt. Pieria on the N. and Mt. Casium on the
S. , to the sea 16 m. distant. A little higher up the
river .Antigonia had Ixx-n built in 307 n.c. by Antigonus ;
but seven years later Scleucus Nicator transferred its
inhabitants to his new city of .Antioch.
.Stralx)'s meagre account (p. 750) is the foundation
of our topographical knowledge of the city. Like the
district in which it lay, Antioch was a rerpdiroXti, an
agglomeration of four parts.
The first contained the population of Antigonia ; the second
the bulk of the citizens. 'Ihe third part was the creation of
SeleucusCallinlcus (246-226 B.C.), and the fourth, on Mt. Silpius,
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Each part had its own wall ; but in
addition, the whole vast area, larger than that of Rome, was
surrounded by huge walls running over the mountains and
across the ravines. From Nicator's time dates the well-known
statue ' the Fortune ' (Twvi;) of Antioch, a work of the Sicyonian
Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus (Paus. vi. 2 7). The memory
of it is preserved on the coins, and in a small marble statuette
in the Vatican. The goildess, a graceful gentle figure, rests
negligently on a rock ; while the river, a vigorous youth, seems
to swnn out from under her feet.
Seleucus Nicator also embellished Daphnf, (Aci^i/tj
[V.\]), 5 m. distant from .Antioch, but reckoned a
suburb. It was a spot musical with fountains ; its
groves, crowded with temples, halls, and baths, were
the seat of a cult of Apollo and Artemis.
.\mong its artistic treasures was a statue of .Apollo Musagetes
by the .Athenian Hryaxis. The precincts of Daphne were
endowed with the right of asylum and naturally became the
haunt of villany of runaway slaves, debtors, and cut-throats
(Tac. Ann. 36o; Tiberius in 22 a.d. attempted to regulate this
abuse in several cities) : if we may trust the story of Onixs in
2 M.-icc. 4 33, D.iphne 'flung awav the one rare chance of shelter-
ing virtue.' The site is now called Bet el Ma, the ' house of
Water.' It retains no traces of its former magnificence.
From this suburb, which Roman wealth, Greek art,
and Oriental licentiousness conspired to make unique
even in the ICast, .Antioch took its distinguishing name
i] iirl Aa<pvri. In itself the title bore no reference to
the pleasure pursuits of the suburb as though insinu-
ating that there the true life of the city was to be found :
it was a genuine official title.
.Accordingly we find it on coins (cp '.\i'tiox'<oi' tSiv iir\
KoAAipoT) ; Tiov iv tilvy&oviif ; toic jrpot tcS idpoi). Hence
I'liny (//,V,'i 21 [18]) writes ' Antiochia Epiclaphnes.' Tacitus
(Ann. 2 83) transliterates the Greek, and calls the suburb itself
' Epidaphna.'
Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the
historical position of .Antioch under the Seleucid kings.
2. Character -^J*^""^^ ^'^^ 'o the sea (avatrXovi
ai't)r]ij.cp6i> Strabo, p. 751), it was yet
no seaport ; on the borders of the desert, it was yet
something more than a centre for the caravan trade
Ixitween the East and the Wx-st. The city reflected the
character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a
kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval
nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city,
just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose
upon the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas.
Yet, in the capital as in the kingdom at large, there was
no true Hellenism ; the commingling of Oriental and
Western elements resulted in the jjerpetuation of the
worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness
of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic tem-
perament of the (ircek merely the means of concealing
the crudities of his own life. The characteristic
failing of the Greek also was e.\hibited on a great scale.
.A third element, and that the one most important
for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The
colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from
the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the lews the same
privileges as he gave the (Greeks (Jos. .-///A .\ii. 3 1). > For
this connection with the Syrian kings see i Mace. 11 42/
Herod completed the marble-paved street which we can
1 According to 2 Mace. 49 (cp also v. 19) Jason conferred on
the people of Jerusalem the status of citizens of Antioch
(Antiochians) on which see T/i. T 12 544 ('78).
185
ANTIOCHUS
trace from the ' Gate of St. Paul ' to the modem town
(Jos. An/, xvi. 53). Thus all the forms of the civilised
life of the Empire found in Antioch some representative.
In its agora, said Libanius, the customs of the world
might \)K studied. In no city was pleasure more earnestly
pursued. Daphnici mores were proverbial ; the Orontes
was synonymous with suix.Tstition and depravity (Juv.
Sat. 862). Yet it would ix; of value to discover to what
extent the lower and middle orders of the [x)()uIation
were really affected by the lu.\ury and abandon of which
we hear so much ; that is after all but one side of the
city's life, and there is a temptation to exaggerate it.
There w;is little real intellectual life ; epigram and light
prose were the most flourishing forms of literature.
Cicero {Fro Arch. 3, 4) is exaggerating with his
' eruditissimis hominibus lilx-ralissimiscjue studiis ad-
fluenti." Antioch is far less celebrated than Alexandria
in the literature of the first and second centuries A. D.
This intellectual attitude is a fact of some imjxjrtance,
in its relation to the first Christian teaching.
The mixture of Roman, CJreek, and Jewish elements
admirably adapted .Antioch for the great part she playrd
S.Christianity, l'!/^': ''^'''>' '?'''''>' ^ <^hristiamty.
wiiiiBuiaiiiujr. J j^^ ^ijy ^^.^^ j^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j. ^^^ church.
There, as elsewhere, Judaism prepared the ground for
the seed of the word (cp Chrys. Horn. xxv. ). ' Nicolas,
a proselyte of Antioch," one of the first deacons (Acts 65),
was only one of a ' vast nmltitude of Greeks ' w ho in
that city were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and
ritual (Jos. BJ \'\\. 83 ; cp Acts 11 19-21). The ancient and
honourable status of the Jews in Antioch gave to the
infant church a firm and confident organisation. Very
early the city became a centre on a level with Jerusalem in
importance (Acts 11 22 26-30 13 i). The cosmopolitanism
of its inhabitants inevitably reacted upon the Christians
in the way of familiarising them with universalist ideas,
and Antioch conseciuently became the centre of mis-
sionary labour. It was Paul's starting-point on his
first journey with Barnabas (Acts 13 1-3), and thither he
always returned with his report of work done ( Acts 1 4 26/
1530 I822). It was at the instance of the church at
-Antioch that the council of Jerusalem sent the circular
letter to the gentile Christians (,Actsl523 Gal. 24-14),
and, according to .Acts 11 26 (on which see Christian,
beginning, and 2 [end]), it w.is in .Antioch that ' the
disciples were called C:hristians first ' undoubtedly as a
nickname. W'e know that the |x;ople of Antioch were
noted for their scurrilous wit (Philost. /'/'/. 3 16 Zos. 3n
441 Procop. BP'IZ). w. J. \v.
ANTIOCHIA (ANTiox[e]iA [ANV]), i and 2 Mace.
AV, RY .Antioch, 2.
ANTIOCHIANS (ANTioxeic [V.A]), 2 Mace. 4.9
("XIAC L-A]!, and in AV also v. 9 (-XON [V]), where
RV has ' titizcris of Antioch.' See Antioch 2, 2 n.
ANTIOCHIS (ANTiox[e]lC [V'A]). concubine of
Antiochus 1\'. l'2piphanes (2 Mace. 430).
ANTIOCHUS (&NTIOXOC [ANV] ; anticoxoc [N*
once, \'* once, .A once]), i. Antiochus III., surnamed
the Great, was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and
ascended the Syrian throne at the age of fifteen, on the
death of his brother Seleucus Ceraunus. He is the
earliest of the great Sklkucid.*: (</.:.) mentioned in
the .Apocrypha, but Antiochus II. Theos and .Antiochus
I. Soter (his grandfather and great-grandfather re-
spectively) are alluded to in Dan. 11 (see Daniel, 6).
His reign (223-178 B.C.) embraced a series of wars
against revolted provinces and neighbouring kingdoms,
wars in the prosecution of which his disasters and
successes were equally great. The events of his life aiii
briefly alluded to in Dan. 11 10^ notably his expedition
in Asia Minor in 197 B.C. (cp v. 18) which, after varying
fortune, ended in a crushing defeat at the hands of
Scipio .Africanus near Magnesia in 190 B.C. (cp v. 18).
This was one of the exploits of the Romans which
ANTIOCHUS
Judas the Maccabec is said to liave heard of (i Mace.
8-8)- . . . ...
The account in its present form is not free from inaccuracies.
Thus, the writer states that Antiochus, the 'great king of Asia,'
had with him 120 elephants (?'. 6, incep. oj'tioi't (*]); but accord-
inz to Livy (37 39) there were only fifty-four. ' It is not
unlikely that in the popular tradition the original number was
exaggerated' (Cambr. liible, ad ioc.). Cp MAtcAHEt^s, First,
I 10.
One of the conditions of the humiliating peace imposed
in 1 88 B.C. was that twenty hostages, incluc'ing a son of
the king (cp i Mace. 1 10 and lx;low, 2). should be sent
to reside in Rome. .Antiochus the Great was killed in
an attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais (187 n.c. ),
and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV. I'hilopator.
See SiiLEUCio^:^
2. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes ('E7ri(/>aj^s ' the illus-
trious ' [cp I Mace. 1 10 where A -eij], called in mockery
'Ewi/itti'ijs 'the madcap'), youngest son of no. i. On
his place as hostage (see above, i) being taken by his
nephew Ukmktkius, he returned to the East, and his
elder brother, Seleucus IV., having meanwhile been
murdered seized the Syrian throne (175 B.C. ), and soon
became famous for his conquests in Coele - .Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt (cp i Mace. 1 ibff. 2 Mace. 5i ^,
and see Dan. 11 21^). During his Egyptian campaign
he twice took Jerusalem ( i .\Iacc. 1 20^ 2 Mace. buff.).
In spite of the presence of a strong favourable Hellenistic
party (see Jason, Menelaus), Antiochus appears to
have seen that he could never hope to subdue Judita
until he had rooted out the peculiar Jewish religion (see
Israel, 69/ ). He accordingly promulgated a decree
enjoining uniformity of worship throughout his dominions
(i .Mace. 141^), and even went so far as to endeavour
to force upon the Jews the worship of heathen deities
(see Abomination, ii. ). His persecuting policy w;\s
responsible for the rise of the .-\ssiDEANS, and stirred up
the successful resistance of the Maccabees. His end
(164 B.C.) is variously described. According to i
Mace. 61-16 he was visiting a rich and celebrated temple
in Persia (see Ei,ym.\is), when tidings of the ill-success
of his troops in Judaea, and remorse for his sacrilege at
Jerusalem, caused his death according to Polybius
(31 2) at Tab.B in Persia.^ The usually accepted
reference to his end in 2 Mace. 1 10-17 is not very prob-
able, see Maccabees, Second, 7. He is doubtless
alluded to in Ps. 75 ^f. , and there are numerous references
tohis life and character in Daniel(^.i'. ,i, 6, 8, 10, 18).
The post-Talmudic tract Megillath Antiochus is a legendary
account, in Aramaic, of the persecutions in his reign ; cp Schii.
Cjy\ 123 (see Maccaukks, Second, 11). See Sei.euciu..
3. Antiochus V. Eup.ator (Ei>7rdTW/3), the young son
of -Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (see 2, above), was left
under the care of Lysias, whilst the father conducted
his wars in Persia (i Mace. 832/). On the death of
Epiphanes (164 B.C.) Lysias obtained the regency,
ousting his rival Pun. IP, 5, and set up Epiphanes' son as
king, giving him at the same time the surname Eupator
(i Mace. 614^) 'on account of the virtues of his
father' (Appian). Together they entered Jud:ea (see
Israel, 75 beg. ) and, encamping at Beth-zacharias, be-
sieged Bethsura (see Beth-ZUr). The Maccabreans were
defeated and the famous Eleazar [q.v. , 7) was killed (i
Mace. 6 28 ff. ).^ The war was brought to an abrupt close,
however, by the news that Philip had occupied Antioch,
and a hasty peace was concluded restoring to the Jews
the privileges they had enjoyed previous to the persecu-
tions of Antiochus F^piphanes (cp Isr.ael, /.c. ). In the
following year (162 B.C. ) the king and his guardian were
put away by Demetrius [q.v., i] (i Mace. 7i^ 2
Mace. 14i^). See SeleuciD/E.
4. Antiochus VI., surnamed Theos (Oe6s), son of
Alexander Balas, spent his early youth as a ward of
1 His father, Antiochus III. the Great, died whilst engaged
in this same district upon a similar errand. Tradition may have
confused the son with the father.
* 3 Mace. 13 21 ascribes their ill-success to treachery (see
RhodocusX
187
ANTIPATRIS
an Arabian (see Imalcue). He was brought forward by
Tryphon, a former follower of lialas, and set up as king
in opposition to Demetrius Nicaior (see Demetrius,
2) who was rapidly becoming unpopular (i Mace.
11 39 54 ; 145 B.C.). On his coronation he received the
surnames ' Ejiiphanes ' and 'Dionysus.' Henceforth
he became a mere UkA in the hands of Tryphon, who
ultimately found an opportunity of slaying him ( i Mace.
1831). See further Tkvi'Hon, SELEUCiUiK.
5. Antiochus VII. SidCtes(2::i5^7;$), ".., man of Sid6
in Pamphylia, called also Ei/at^ris (Jos. Ani. xiii. 82),
was the son of Demetrius I. and younger brother of
Demetrius 1 1. N'icator. The capture of his brother by
the Parthians gave Sidetes the opportunity of asserting
his claim to the Syrian throne in opposition to the
unpopular Tryphon. To win over the Jews he wrote,
from Rhodes, to Simon ' the chief priest and governor,'
and by advantageous concessions, remission of royal
debts, and the formal f)ermission to coin money, attained
his end (1 Mace. \;)iff. ; acrtwxos [k* v. i]). Tryphon
was besieged at Dor [v. 25), and ultimately forced to
flee to Orthosia {v. 37). 'Ihe situation immediately
changed. Antiochus felt his position secure, and sent
Athenobius to Simon demanding Joppa, Gazara, the
citadel of Jerusalem, and the arrears of tribute (28 _^).
The refusal of these demands brought about war, and
Cendkheus was dispatched against the Jews (ir>38^).
Sidetes appears no more in i Mace. ; but in the time of
John Hyrcanus (see Macc.vhi:es, i. 7) he came and
Ixjsieged Jerusalem (133 B.C.), and five years later met
his death whilst fighting the Parthians under Phraortes
II. (.\rsaces VII., 128 B.C.). See Seleucid.e.
6. Father of Numemus (i Mace. 12 16 14 22).
ANTIPAS (&NT[e]inAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from
dfTiiraTpos. see Jos. ^/. xiv. I3; cp Cleopas from
KXeoTTarpos). i. See Herodian Family, 2.
2. The 'faithful witness' of Pergamum named in Rev. 213.
According to the ^!c7a Sancto>-um (.\pr. 11) he was bishop of
Pergamum, and suffered death (by the ' brazen bull ') under
iJoiiiitian.
ANTIPATER (^NTinATpoc [AKV]), son of Jason
[3], an ambassador sent by the Jews to the Lacedae-
monians (i Mace. 12 16 14 22). See Sparta. For the
Antipater from whom Antipatris (see below) was named
see Hekodian Family, i.
ANTIPATRIS ( ANTinATRlC [Ti. WH]) was founded
by Herod the Great on ' the finest plain ' of his kingdom
... . i.e., .Sharon in memory of his father
1. Allusions. ,i^jip.^jgr (Jos. /?/i.2l9),but also, as the
history of the town abundantly proves, for strategical
reasons. The other details given by Josephus are, that
it lay 'close to the mountains' {BJ\.\^) o\\ the plain
of Kaphar Saba (Ka</)ap(7a/3a), fertile and well-watered,
that a river encompassed the city, and a grove of very
fine trees (.f/'. xvi. 52). In another passage, probably
from a different source, Josephus identifies it with
Kaphar Saba (Xa/3apfa;3a ^ vvv 'AvrnraTpls KaXeiTat),
and tells how, to resist Antiochus on his march against
the Arabians (circa 85 B.C.), Alexander Jannaeus made
a deep ditch and a wall, which however Antiochus
destroyed, extending thence, a distance of 150 (?)
stadia, to the sea at Joppa {id. xni.l5i). During
Roman times Antipatris was a station at or near the
junction of the military roads from Lydda and from
Jerusalem respectively to Cresarea, where the latter
road issued from the hills. Thus Paul was brought
by night from Jerusalem to Antipatris and thence, part
of his escort returning, to Cnesarea (Acts233i). The
return of so much of Paul's escort is explained by the
fact that, Antipatris l)eing according to the Talmud
{Tnlm. nab., Gittin, j6a) on the limits of Jewish soil,
all danger of an attack by the threatened Jewish ambush
(.Acts 23 16 20 ^ ) was now past. There, in 66 A. D. ,
Cestius Gallus halted on his way to Lydda {li/'n. 19 1),
and to this point, on his subsequent retreat from
Jerusalem, he was pursued by the Jews (ib. 9). There,
ANTONIA
too, in the same year, Vespasian halted on his march
from Cx'sarca to Lydda (ib. iv. 8i).
AiUipatris is not marked in the Tab. Pent. The
Bordeaux I'ilgrinj (333 A.n. ) j;ivi.s it as 10 k.m. from
_.. Lydda and 26 from Ciu-sarea ; the ///'. Ant.
' as 28 from Ca;sarea ; and Eus. and Jer. in
the Ofiom. as 6 S. from Galgulis (in all probability the
present Jiljuliyeh). Schiirer (Hist. Zi-^o) and others,
following Rob. (i^A'4 139/. ), identify it with the present
Kefr Sfiba, 23 R. m. (as the crow flies) from Cajsarea.
Hut, as Kefr Saba is no less than 17 R.m. from Lydda
and 2 R.m. N. from Jiljuliyeh; as, besides, it has no
ancient remains, nor any such wealth of water or en-
compassing river as Josephus descrilxis, it is more
probable that Antipatris lay farther S. on the upjx;r
waters of the 'Aujch, which are about 29 R.m. from
Cajsarea, 4 S. of Jiljuliyeh, and about 11 N. of Lydda,
in a district which better suits the data of Josephus.
Here Dr. Sandreczky and Sir C. W. Wilson {FEF
Qu.Sf., 1874, p. 192/.) have suggested the site of
Kal'at Rds el-'Ain, at the very copious sources of
the 'Aujeh, which they identify with die crusading
castle of Mirabel (el-Mirr being a neighbouring place-
name). They point out, too, that the valley of the
'Aujoh would Ije a more natural line for the great ditch
of .\le.\ander Janiuvus than a line from Kefr Saba to
the sea. Although Neubauer [G^og. du Talin. 80 jf.)
tiiinks that tiie Talmud distinguishes between Kefr Saba
and .Antipatris, this is doubtful, for, while their names
are given separately, both are defined as border towns
Ijctween Samaria, a heathen country, and Judaea.
These are all the data for the question of position.
Without excavation on the sites named, and the dis-
covery of the rest of the Roman road probably the
road by which r\aul was brought traced by l':ii Smith
in 1843 from Gophna to the plain, but lost at the edge
of the hills [Biblioth. Sac .\ ^^'& ff.) , it is imix^ssible for us
to be certain where exactly Antipatris stood. We cannot
exjject to find many ruins on the site. Unlike other
Herodian sites, it is not stated to have Ix^n embellished
by great buildings ; and the town did not afterwards
develop. Huhl (Pal. 199) f;ivours Ras cl-'Ain.
In 333 the Bordeaux Pilgrim calls it a vtutaiio, or change-
house, not a chitas like Lydda (the next 'change' he mentions
Hetthar, 10 R.m. towards Ca;sarea is perhaps the present
e{.Tlreh, PEF Mem. 2 166). In 404 the Peretp: S. I'autce calls
it 'semirutum oppidulum.' In 451 it had a bishop {Acts 0/ the
Coun. o/Chalceiion : cp Descr. Parochice Jerusalem, circa 460),
and in 744 it still contained Christians. With their disappear-
ance before the .^rabs, the Greek ecclesiastical name would
vanish, and has not been recovered (but see the curious state-
ment of a native in /'A'/-" .V^-w/. 2 134, that the name of Kefr
S.'iba is Aiuifatrus). The Crusaders wrongly identified Antipatris
with ' Arsuf, tlie ancient Apollonia. c. A. S.
ANTONIA, see Jkkusalkm.
ANTOTHIJAH,or rather RVANTHOTnijAH(n>nh3y,
n^rinpV [Oi.], n^phay [BS.]; probaWy a feminine
adjective formed from .Anatiioth [^.t'-]), in genealogy
of UlNJA.MIN [q.v.. 9 ii. /3), I Ch.824t (ANOOGAie
[ANABcoeiA. A] KAI A,eeiN [5"'^], ANAea)e(5j.L]).
Al^OTHITE ('ninpy), i Ch. ll 28 AV. See
Anatiioi H, I.
ANUB(3-i::;; eNNcoNtCn], erNcoB[A], ANcoB[L];
Axoii), a Judahite, descendant of Coz (RV Hakkoz)
( I Ch. 48). Probably to be identified with Anak (We. ).
ANUS (annac [B]), I Esd. 948 AV=Neh.87
Han AN, 4.
ANVIL (DyS), Is. 41 7t. See Metal Work.
APAME (ahamh [BAl, -hh- [L]; \-^ <=^<*: apeme),
daughter of Bartacus and concubine of Darius (i Esd.
4291.
APAMEA (Jer. Talm. Kil. 932^ N*DDN. but oftener
N^ODDX), mentioned in the Vg. text of Judith3i4,
apparently as a district ( ' pertransiens . . . omnem
Apameam ' ) in the line of march of Holofernes.
189
APHARSACHITES
Airafi>>ni,oneof the ten districts of N. Syrui under Rome(I>tol.
C^tyr. V. 16 19), took its name from 'Atroficta, a fortified town
(named after Seleucus Nicator'.s Persian wife), built on a hill
some six or more miles east of the Orontes, half-way between
Emesa and Antioch, and now represented by important ruins
under the village that occupies the site of the old citadel, now
calleil l<al'atelMudllf. Sec .Stral>o, p. 752; Ritter, Erdkunde
17, Abth. ii. 1075-86 ; E. Sachau, Keise in Syrien u. Meso^t.
Ti-Zji (photographs and map) ; also reff. in Hoettg. Lex. Jos.
APE(D*Dp, D^Sip; meHKOi [BAL]; si,ni<r, 1 K.
IO22, Xiewv TopfiTuiv [BL], cp 7'. 1 1 ; 2 Ch. 021+). An
animal mentioned among the rarities brougiil from Opiiir
by Solomon's fleet. The Heb. /kH/iA, 'ajx;,' is evidently
a loan-word,' and is usually connected with Jta/>i,^ the
Sanscr. name of the ape ; thus the home of the animal,
though r\ot necessarily the situation of Ophir, will be
indicated. It is mentioned in each case, in MT (the
phenomena of (S are here very peculiar), in connection
with the jjeacocks (if the common theory is correct)
imi^orted by Solomon from Oi'UiK. Perhaps ' monkey'
would Ije a more correct modern English rendering than
'ape,' which suggests the tailless quadrumaiia, wiiile
the animals of this order represented on the Assyrian
and Egyi^tian inscriptions have tails. Just so, Kr)Aot.
would have been a lx;tter Greek rendering than iriOrjKoi
(the LXX word), if Aristotle is correct in making the
iri9riKoi tailless. Four kinds of motikeys are repre-
sented on the Assyrian monuments. Those on the black
obelisk of Shalmaneser II. seem to belong to an Indian
sjjecies ; they appear in company with the Indian
elephant and the Bactrian camel (Houghton, 'On the
Manmialia of the Assyrian Sculptures," TSPA 5319/
Vn^)- Monkeys (,^(7^) and balloons were nmch in
request in Eg>-pt. Queen Ha'tsepsut ('Hatasu,' i8th
dynasty) received them among other rarities from
the (African) land of Punt ; see the picture of the
native ambassadors leading specimens of the Cyno-
cepluilus Hamadrj'as and the Cynocef^halus Bubuinus.'^
Halevy, however [K'EJ'lltif. ), would identify Solomon's
C'Eip and c\'3n (see Pkacocks) with the tuku and
kukupi mentioned in the Amarna tablets in the requests
of the Asiatic princes i.e., different sorts of vessels full
of aromatic oil, etc.'* Plutarch [de Is. et Osir. 81) gives
an account of the sixteen ingredients of the ICgyjJtian
K\)(pi.^ N. M. A. K. s.
APELLES (AneAAHC [Ti- WH], contracted from
A7ro\\6oapoj) is saluted in Rom. 16 10, where he is
called 'the approved {Sokl/jlos) in Christ,' an exjjression
which seems to suggest that he had shown constancy
as a confessor in time of trial. Nolliing further is
known of him. Weizsiicker suggests that his Christian
activity may have been chiefly within the household of
Aristobulus also mentioned in v. 10 (Ajost. Age 1 399).
In the list of the 'seventy apostles' which we owe to Pseudo-
Dorotheus, Apelles is represented as bishop of Heraclea ; that
of Pseudo-Hippolytus mentions Smyrna. According to the
viro/uiTj/ua of Peter and I'aul by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes,
he was consecrated bishop of .Smyrna by Peter.
APHAEREMA (^ctiAipeMA [NV']), i Mace. 11 34
RV, AV Al'HKKK.MA.
APHARSACHITES (N'SD'lDX [Ba.]; '"laX [Gi.];
Ac})ApcAXAiOi [B.\], but -CAKKAIOI [B] in Ezra56;
-RACBaxaiOI [L] ; see also next article), a word used
(P>.ra56 tJ6t) apparently as the title of certain ofticers
under Darius. Another form is Ahuaksathchitks ; see
Ezra 49, where the word is misunderstood (see Ezra, ii.
1 If it belongs to the original text : see Edonv, 2 A
2 Whence also Ki\fio^ or ttijjro?, and Eng. a^e.
' Edwards, Pharaohs, Petlahs, ami KxJ>lorers 292. See
also the apes and baboons on a wall-painting in a tomb. El
Bersheh (Egypt. Explor. Fund), Pt. IL, plate .vi. ; cp p. 29.
* See Am. 'Tab. B 28 = Wi. 294, col. 2,40; i kukupu 5a . . .
(ka]-du naktamiSu, 'a kukupu . . . with its lid ' ; col. 3, 43 . . .
kukubu samni {abi, '. ._ . a kukubu of gixxl oil"; B 5, i, 25
(recto) samni .5a tabu aljiya uSiranni II duk kukupu, 'send me,
my brother, good oil, two vessels kukupu ' (so Hal., not in Wi.).
>uk or tuk (pi. tuke) is the ordinary ideogram for ' vessel,
receptacle.'
* The Assyriological notices are mostly due to Prof. Cheync
APHARSATHCHITBS
lo) and treated as the uanic of a tribe settled in
Palestine by Asnai'I'KR. Its etymology is still very
uncertain. See G. Hoffmann, Z^ 254 / ; Marquart,
Fund. 64 ; and Andreas in Marti, Bibl.-aram. Gram.,
Glossary, p. 53*.
APHARSATHCHITES, The (N^^JilpnDN [Bii.] ;
N-DHDIDX [Gi.]; 4)&pece^x<MOl L'^]. A(J)ApCAe-
[A]VA<i)ApACT&X- [L]). I':z>a49t. See Al'HAKSAClI-
ITES.
APHARSITES (S^DnSN [Bii. Gi.]; A(t)p&CMOi [B].
A(J)APC- [Al ; cJ)ApAceAlOI [1^1). mentioned in I'>.ra49t
as a tribe settled in Palestine by AsNAPi'EK. Various
attempts al identification have Ijcen made {Persians, by
Kawlinson, Pulp. Com. ad loc. , but see A'AT^"^^ 376;
Par sua, a Median tribe, by Del. Par. 327) ; but the
word is Ijest regarded as a scribe's error, related (some
think) to N-32-12X (EV Apiiaksachites, Kzraf)6 66),
or, more probably, miswritten for Nnea 'scribes.' The
last letter of n-i-eu (MT K-^tn^, see -Tarpki.itks) was
attached bv dittography to the ne.\t word (Marquart,
Pun J. 64).'
APHEK(pD.^f Acj)eK [BAL]). It is not easy to
determine how many i)laces of this name are mentioned
in the OT. Only one of them has Ix^en satisfactorily
identified.
1. In Josh. 134 (ra0e/c [B], a^e/ca [A], -kk. [L])
.\phek appears as the limit of the Sidonian country,
apparently as its northern limit towards the Giblites or
Byblians. This Aphek, therefore, is commonly identified
with Aphaca (now Afka), famous for its sanctuary of
Astarte, which lies at the source of the river of Byblus,
the ,\donis or (as it is now called) Nahr Ibrahim ; cp
Lucian, Dea Syria 6-8.
2. The Aphek assigned in Josh. 19 30 to the tribe of
.\sher is mentioned in Judg. 1 31 (where the name
is written p-EN, Ai'iiiK, a^eK [AL], vaei [B]) as one
of the towns which the Canaanites were able to maintain
against the invaders. Here also some suppose that
.\phaca is meant ; but it is difticult to believe that .Asher
ever attempted to extend so far north, and, as it appears
from Josh. 17iii that .Asher had a theoretical claim to
l)art of the plain of Sharon S. of Mt. Carniel as far at
least as Dor, it is probable that Aphek in Sharon (no.
3) is meant.
3. In Josh. 12 18 {o<l>iK [B]) we read, in the list of the
kings smitten by Joshua, ' the king of Aphek, one ; the
king of Lasharon, one ' ; but it is better to emend the
verse with the aid of (0</>^(c r^s 'ApwK) and read ' the
king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon, one' (see Di.
on the passage). This Aphek in Sharon, as W'ellhausen
has pointed out, is the city {a) from which the Syrians
of Damascus made repeated attacks on Samaria, i K.
2O2530 (a</)eKa [B.\], -kk. [L]), aK.lSi?,^ and {b
and c) from which the Philistines assembled their forces
for war with Israel before the battles of Gilboa ( i S.
29 1 ) and of Eben-ezer (i S. 4i ; Jos. a/i^eKa or a<pKa).
(a) As regards the Aphek of Kings : that it lay in a
lowland plain is clear from i K. 20 23, and that the plain
is that of Sharon follows from 2 K. 1822 (S^, where we
find the addition (undoubtedly genuine) 'and Hazael
took the Philistine from his hand from the Western sea
to .\phek. Aphek therefore lay on the verge of Philistia
i.e.. in Sharon and we must understand that, both
in Benhadad's time and in the time of Hazael, the Syrians
avoided the difficulties of a direct attack on the central
mountain-land of Canaan by striking into the maritime
plain south of Carmel and so securing the mastery of
the fertile coast-land without having to besiege Samaria.
Their route would, in fact, be the present great road from
Damascus to Ramleh through Megiddo.^ At Aphek,
APHEK
soinewhcre in the north of the Sharon Plain, they had a
great military post from which they could direct their
armies either against Samaria or against the Philistines
(2K. 12i7[i8]).
{b) As regards the Aphek of Samuel : it is clear that
a point in the northern part of the Sharon Plain, on
the road to Megiddo and the plain of Esdraelon, is
appropriate to i S. 29 1. The mustering-place of the
Philistines cannot have teen in the heart of the Hebrew
territory, least of all at such a place as el-Faku' on Mt.
Gilboa (in the rear of Sauls army !) where it is absurdly
placed by Conder and Armstrong. It is argued that
the Philistines were at Shunem (iS. 284) tefore they
reached Aphek ; but to argue thus is to forget that i S.
283-25, the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, is
a distinct narrative, by a different hand, and that 29 1
originally followed directly on 28 if.
(c) Finally, the attack on central Israel which issued
in the battle of Eten-ezer and the destruction of Shiloh
(iS. 4) would naturally te taken to have teen made
from the same .Vphek, were it not that commentators have
assumed that the position of Eten-ezer, and therefore
of Aphek, is fi.xed somewhere near Mizpah by i S. 7 12.
It is certainly safer, however, to distinguish the battle-
field of Eten-ezer in i S. 4 1 from the stone Eten-ezer
set up by Samuel many years later, than to assume the
existence of two Apheks fitted to te the starting-point
of a Philistine campaign (cp Eben-ezkk). And here
also it is to te observed that chaps. 4 and 7 are derived
from distinct documents, and that the historical value
of the second is very insecure.
Eriini w hat has been said it will appear without further
argument that it is illegitimate to seek an Aphek in the
region, between
Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee, to
1 On this passage see Asher, 3.
- - '/., ET, 39 [but cpGASm. //G
401/].
-' .See We. C// 254 ; cp //ist.,
s'Cp the route of Al-NabulusI, ed. Tuch.
350
which Eus. and Jer. give the name of Saron, or to place
the .\phek of Kings at the caravan-station of Elk in the
mountains to the E. of the Sea of Galilee. This may
be the Apheca near Hippus or Hippe of OS 91 24 and
219 72 ; but is not a biblical site. W. K. S.
The existence of an Aphek in Sharon is put te-yond
doubt by the following additional evidence. Firsf, in
the lists of Thotmes III. {c 1600 B.C.) nos. 60-76
form a group V)y themselves ; 62 is Joppa, 64 Lydda, 65
Ono. Then come 66 Apukn, 67 Suka, 68 Yhm. At
this last place, Thotmes had to decide which of three
roads he should take over Carmel. Yhm must therefore
have lain near the most southerly road that is, somewhat
south of the mouth of the Wady 'Abu Nar and may
be the present Yemma by the high road along the edge
of the Samarian Hills. Suka is doubtless the present
Shuweikeh, 2 m. farther S. Apukn therefore lay
between it and Ono. Maspero, it is true, identified
Suka and Apukn with the Judoean Shocoh and Apheka
of josh. 154853; butW. Max Miiller {As. u. Eur. 161)
has shown that the list contains nothing S. of Ajalon.
The n of Apukn may te the common termination of
place-names jr. Max Mtiller says it may also te
read as i. Secondly, in the autumn of 66 A. D. Cestius
Gallus, advancing on Jerusalem from Caesarea, reached
Antipatris, and ' sent before ' a party to drive the Jews
out of 'the tower of Aphek' (IIi;p70S 'A^ckoO). After
taking the tower he marched on Lydda (Jos. DJ\\. 19 i).
This agrees with the data of Thotmes III. and places
Aphek te'tween the River "Aujeh and Lydda. Here
there is now no place-name which affords any help in
the case, unless it te that of the village Fejjeh i.e.,
originally, Feggeh about 9 m. NE. of Joppa (which,
however, does not lie quite near enough to the E. limit
of the plain to suit Lucian's text of 2 K. 1822), and it
ought not to te overlooked that in a list of mediaeval
Arab place-names quoted by Rohricht {ZDPV, 1896)
there occur both Sair Fuka and Fakin. A,^ain, in a
fragment of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.) a city Apku is
descrited as 30 ' kasbu-kakkar ' from Raphia on the
Egyptian frontier. Schrader( A'.-/ rC-' 204), who translates
kasbu-kakkar by * double leagues," takes Apku to lie on
APHEKA
the K. of the lake of Ciennesaret {i.f., the present Fik)
and the Aplick of i K. 2O26, etc. This, however, seems
less likely to give the distance from Raphia of a place so
situated than of an Aphek on the plain of Sharon. The
'Aujth, it may Ix; remarked, is 70 m. from Raphia.
It oufjht not to Ix; overlooked that the particularis-
ing of one Aphek as ' in Sharon ' (Josh. 12 18, see
above, 3) implies the existence of other Apheks in the
land. f;. A. .s.
APHEKA (Hi^QN, a^jaka [AL], (|>akoya ['5]). an
miidctiliticd citv in the mountain-land of fudah (Josh.
ir)5;tl-
APHEREMA, RV Ai'I1/Kkkm.\ (AcJjAipeMA [N],
A4)ep. \y'-'^] fUiSii ). I .Mace. 1134, probably a
CJnvciscd form of the city-name I-".rnK.\iM (i/.z'., ii. ).
APHERRA (A(i)eppA [HA]), a group of children of
Solomon's servants (see NiCTlllNlM) in the great post-
exilic list (I'>.K.\, ii. 9, 8(), one of eight inserted in
I I-".sd. 0^4 (om. L) after I'ochereth-hazzeljaim of j I'.zra
257 = N'eh.7 59-
APHIAH(n'DX; A(t)eK[BL], -(t)AX [A*]. -(J)ix [A'']).
iS. Oif, according to MT, one of Saul's ancestors;
but '.son of Aphiah, a Hcnjamitc,' should probably l)e
' of Gilxjah of Benjamin ' (p' j3 [njvajc). So virtually
Wellhau.seii ; but he did not notice that Aphiah (cp
and note that k = ];, e.i;., in Rcba \u. :n8) is a corrup-
tion of (jilx-ah. This was reserved for Marcjuart {I'lnul.
15). T. K. C.
APHIK (p*pX), Judg. 1 3it- Sec .\i'iiKK, 2.
APHRAH, HOUSE OF, R\' Eeth-lcs-Aplirah (n'5
rr\^t>- OIKOY KATAreAooTA [HA(JJ), Mic. I10+, the
name of a town not identified with any certainty. The
determination of the site of Beth-le-Aphrah cannot be
separated from the larger question of the text of the
whole passage, Mic. 1 10-15, which cannot be discussed
here (see Taylor, MT of Mic. ; Ryssel, Untersuch. on
the Hook of Mic. 26 ff. ; We. Kl. Pn>ph. ; Wi. A T
Unters. 185/., AOF\io^). So much, however, is
plain the vocalisation cannot \vi trusted, especially
in view of the paronomasia ( ' house of dust ' RV mg. ),
and even the consonants were differently read by .
The older writers {e.g. , Winer, so now also Xowack)
identified -Aphrah with Ophr.-mi {q.v.)\ cp Pesh. 'the
houses of Ophrah.' But the context seems to demand
some place farther ^^^ and S. Winckler, w ith his rather
too ingenious emendation ' Bethel ' (reading iSjr'^N for
"icy r\-\-:'^ AOF, I.e.), seeks to avoid this objection by
reading '(Jilgal' for the historically im[)ossible '(iath,"
and (with We.) ' Bekaim ' (see BociiiM) for the very
questionable bdko (133) in 1 io. Ww/.. [KG I!, ad loc),
followed by Miihlau in H\VB<-\ suggests a ' Afrd that
Yakut [Mo jam el bulddii, sub voc. ) mentions as 'a castle
in Palestine near Jerusalem. ' Ges. -Bu. suggests doubt-
fully lietogabra (Kleutheropolis, Be it Jibrln), which,
however, represents an Aram, xiaj n'a(-N'estle in '/.DPV
I224/). Perhaps the name of the Wady el-Ghafr
running E. not far S. of Mirash may be an echo of
Micah's Aphrah. So GASm. [Twelve Proph.X^Z^),
Che. (JQR, July 1898). The ? in .iisy'? seems to be a
scribe's error (as if ' in the dust ').
APHSES (VVSn). I Ch.24i5t AV, RV H.vpi'izzez.
APIS (^in; o &nic [BXAQ J. ott. [Q* (superscr.
a (J' f<'")] ; Egyptian Hapi), the bl.ick bull-god of Mem-
phis (sc-e Egyht, 14). Though the name of this famous
deity does not occur in EV, he is mentioned once in OT
(Jer. 46 isrz). alone has preserved the true division
of the words : for r^nDj, AV ' are swept away ' (similarly
RV Pesh. Vg. ), we must read rn D3. 'hath fled Apis'
[^(fivyev 6 'Airts). Cp Konig, Syntax 210, n. i.
For an analogous correction see Giesebrecht and Cornill
aJ loc. and cp C.VLi", Goi.dk.n, 2.
13 193
APOCALYPSE
APOCALYPSE, THE (Hook ok Revki.ation).
According to the best authorities (NC.\ [in subscription]
1 Name ^^' ^^' ^^' ^^ ' ' '' ^^^^)' '^*^ *'''*^ ''"'"'
, , ' a7^o^aX^'j'lJ \(t)a.[v^vo^<. Later MSS add toi/
ftZlCl Pid.C6 /I , ^-^ 1 V
in NT "^0^070" (v '*"^' many cursives), or tov
aTTOffToXov, or tov air. Kai evayYeXiffrov
( P vg. cod. , Syr. ).
In almost all MSS the Apocalypse now holds the
last place in the NT. The stichometry of Cod. Claro-
montanus (D, Paul) arranges as follows : Evang. Paul.
Cath. Apoc. Act. (see (Jreg. Prol. '.i 136 ; cp also
what is said alxjut the Evangeliaria, 175 and 368). In
the Syriac version of the A])ocalypse which has t)een
edited by Gwj-nn, the book was preceded by the Fourth
(jospel. The hiatus in Cod. D was perhaps originally
occupied by the Apocalypse and Johannine Epistles
(Bousset, TI.'A, 1892), thus giving the order Evang.,
-Apoc, Epp. Joh. , Acts. All this jjerh;i|3s indicates that
the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings were
originally handed down together. In point of fact,
Tcrtullian actually speaks of an ' instrumentum
Johannis,' which consisted of .Apoc. and i Jn. [Resiirr.
38, 39 ; Pud. 19 ; Pi/ga 9 ; Pnrscr. 33). Cp Ronsch,
Da.<: neue Te.st. Tertull. 528.
The Book seems to be presupposed in two places in
the Ignatian epistles, [a) Ad Eph. 153 : '" tI'M"' aiToO
2. External
evidence ;
canonicity.
(NA read \aol in Rev. 21 3) k(x.I avrbi
^ (V rj/j-iv Oeos. [b) Ad Pliilad. 6 i : oi'rot
//oi aTy)\a.i. elaiv Kai rd^oi vcKpQv icp' oh
yeypavTai fiovov opofxara avOplwwv (cp
Rev. 3 12/. , in the ej)tstle to the church of Philadelphia).
Andrew of Ctesarea, UKjreover, mentions Papias, amongst
others, as bearing witness to the Apocalypse (raiVr;
TTpojxapTvpovvTwv t6 OL^LbiTLaTov), and on Rev. 12 7
adduces (.3240 ^. , ed. Sylb. ) two observations taken
verbatim from Papias. That Eusebius does not mention
the testimony of Papias is doubtless to be accounted
for by the historian's unfriendly attitude towards the book.
Iren;uus appeals in support of the traditional number
666 to 'elders' who had actually seen John. (In all
probability we could reduce this testimony of the elders
to that of Papias alone : Harnack, Chron. der alkhristl.
Lit. 1333^.). We find a writer so early as Justin
asserting the book to be apostolical [Dial. 81 : Trap'
ir)iLiv avrip ris v dvo/xa 'lajdvprji eh twv dTrocrT6\un>
XpLffTod ev dwoK. ) and canonical [Apol. 1 28 : (is fK rdv
r]fXT/>wi' avyypa/x/jLaTwv fxaduv dvvaade). This early
recognition of the Apocalypse as a canonical writing
need not surprise us : the book itself puts forward a
claim to this character (1 18/: 22 18).
In the second half of the second century we find the
Apocalypse widely recognised.
It is generally current (a) in Asia Minor, alike among Mon-
tanists, anti-Montanists (Apollonius ; Euseb. //A" v. 18 14), and
mediating writers (.Melito of .Sardis; I'b. iv. 2i) 2; ;
3. 2nd and (/) in Caul, both with Irenaeus (,-/,/^'. Jhr>.
Cent. ' rt 3 ^- iii- 1 I 34 .\i. I v. :;0 i 3) and in the
writing; of the church of Lugdiinum and Vienn.i
(in Pais, ///i v. 1 58). {c) In .Africa, as already mentioned,
Tertulliart knows of an insiruiiientuiii Jo/iannii to which bi.tti
the Apocalypse and i Jn. belong; the Arts of J\'rpetua and
Feliciias shows acquaintance with it (cp cc. 4 and I'.'), (if) In
Egypt the /udiciiiin Petri seems to know the book (Hilgtnf.
Naz'. Test.'cxtr. Can. Reccptuin loi); (<) for Antioch, lii^hop
Theophikis (Eus. II Ii iv. 24 i) is our witness 10 the same efTuct ;
and (y ) for Home, the Muratorian Canon, (g) Clement of .Mex-
andria cites the Apocalypse (I'ud. 2 108 iig; Strom. 106),
Origen is unaware of any reason for doubting its apostolic origin
{in Jos. J loin. 6; cp Eus. HE vi. 209).
The situation changes, however, in the third century.
As early as in the second century Marcion had refused
, to recognise the book (Tert. Adz: Marc. 45)
4, oFu , ., _ __ii_,i _f .u \i : .^**^;k..*.^.
Cent.
and the so-called sect of the Alogi attributed
both the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gosjiel
to Cerinthus (Epiph. ///-. 51, Philastr. Hirr. 60 --
Hippolytus ; cp Iren. iii. 11 9) probably on account of
their own hostility to Montanism (after Irenxus ; Th.
Zahn, Kaiioin-gesch. 1239^, Bousset, Koinm. 16/).
This opposition by the .Alogi was continueil by the Roman
presbyter Caius, who, in his dispute with the Montanist Proclus,
194
APOCALYPSE
also attributed the work to Cerinthus (Eus. HE iii. 28a). From
the refutation of Cains by Hippolytiis ((cn/)aAaia acaro. raiov,
As-iem. Bihl. Or. iii. 1 15; fragments in Gwynn, Hermalh. 6
3)7-418 ; cp also the writuijj catalogued in the inscription on the
throne iiirfp toO ko-to. '\\oa.vvi\vtva.-f^tKLovKaL\ airoKaAvi^cuit) we
learn that Caius directly took up and continued the criticism of
the Alogi.
The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. HE
vii. 25) was more moderate and more effective. He
does not liold Cerinthus to have l)ecn the author of the
Apocalypse, but conjectures that it must have l)ccn the
work of some other John than the son of Zchedee,
arguing from a comparison between the Apocalypse on
the one hand and the Cjosijel and Epistles on the other
as to style, language, and contents. The criticism of
Dionysius was afterwards taken up by Eusebius, who
was the first to provide a firm basis for the conjecture of
Dionysius as to a second John by a reference to what
Papias says of ' both ' Johns {HK iii. 39) and inclines to
class the Apocalypse with the spurious books, voOoi \ IIP.
iii. 254).
Henceforward the view of Dionysius and Eusebius
became the prevailing one in the Eastern Church.
The book was recognised, indeed, by Methodius of Tyre
(.?;w/r'j. I5O5 84^) and I'amphilus (. )/o/., ed. de la Rue,
4 25 3^), but on the other hand unrecognised
0. Eastern l,y Cyril (fatcch. 4 33-36), Greg, of Naz. (Carm.
Church. 33)1 the Synod of Laodicea (Can. 64, see Zahn,
iif>. cit. 2 197 Jf.), the Afiostolical Constitu-
tions (Can. 85 (84]; Zahn, 2 191^^), the Janihics of .Seleucus
(Zahn, 2 217). The Apocalypse is not mentioned by Theodore
of Mopsuestia, or by Chrysostom (cp the wpo6e<opia of the
Synopsis of Chrysostom, Zahn, 2 230), or by Theodoret. In the
Stichometry of Nicephorus manipulated in Jerusalem (circa
850; Zahn, 22882967^) it figures among the Aniilcgomena ;
in the list of the sixty canonical books it is not found, though it
is again introduced into the Syno/>sis of .\thanasius.
The unf;ivourable judgment of the Syrian church re-
garding it is very noteworthy.
The Doctrine 0/ Addai which, in the form in which we now
have it, dates from about 400 A.U., recognises, as authoritative
scripture, nothing beyond the four gospels (Diates-
6. Syrian saron), the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. p'rom
Church, 'he Peshitta it is wholly absent. Whether Ephraim
recognises the Apocalypse as canonical is, to say
the least, doubtful. The Greek works that pa-ss under his name,
beingofuncert.ain authenticity, cannot here betaken into account,
and thus the evidence that he did appears to rest mainly on a single
passage (Opera, Assem. 2 232, cp Rev. 01-3).! In any case,
the noteworthy fact remains that Ephraim cites the Apocalypse
but little, and develops his apocalyptical ideas on lines supplied
by other writings. Besides, the Syrian Church did not look upon
the book with favour.^ Jacob of Edessa (oh. 708) cites it
(Ephraemi opera, ed. Assem. 1 192), and ." r Salll) (oh. 1171),
bishop of Mabug (MabbOgh), comments on it (Gwynn, Ixx.xvii
ci); but Kar-Hebrsus (oh. 1286) holds it to be the work of
Cerinthus or of the 'other' John (Assem. Hihl. Or. 3 15), and
'Ebed Je'Su' (oh. 1318) omits it from his list of canonical scriptures.
In an Armenian Canon also, by Mechitar of Aivirank (1290),
the .Vpocalypse is reckoned among the Aiitilegomena.
Though the opposition to the Apocalypse was thus
. - persistent in the S3Tian Church, it gradu-
ally died away in the other Eastern prov-
^ inces.
The book is acknowledged by Athanasius, Didymus, Cyr. Alex.,
Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium (Egypt),^ Gregory of Nyssa,
Epiphanius of Salamisj and Johannes Damascenus. Andrew,
archbishop of Csesarea \n Cappadocia, wrote his commentary on
it in the first half of the fifth century. He was not, however,
followed in this until the ninth century, when Arethas, his suc-
cessor in office, also undertook the task.
In the Western Church, on the other hand, the
Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first.
8 West Hippolytus (sec above) defended and com-
mented on it in a no longer e.\tant work,
and makes copious quotations from it in his Com-
mentary on Daniel and in his De Antichristo.
Similarly, it is recognised by Lact.antius (fnstit. 2 2 T 10,
epit. 42; cpTis^X Hilary {De Trin. (52043), Ambrose
1 Owjnn(7"/j<' Apocalypse 0/ St. John in a Syriac I'ersion,
Dublin-London, 1897, p. ciii) cites also De Lamy, Hymn. 1 66
a pass.ige which the present writer finds himself unable to
accept as proof.
2 Thomas of Harkel, it is true, included it in his translation,
as probably also (according to the latest researches of Gwynn)
did Philoxenus of Mabug (Mabbugh).
3 See Lflcke, V^ersuch einer vollst&ndigen Einleitung in die
Offenbarung Johannis (*), Bonn, 185a.
195
APOCALYPSE
(De Virg. 14, De Spiritu 3 ao), Rufinus {Exp. in Symh. 37) ;
on Novatus, Commodian, Arnobius, and others see Lardner,
Credibility o/the Gospel History.
Augustine (in Evang.-Joh. 1836, Epist. 118, Civ.
Dei 2ii7) insists on the identity of the author of the
Gospel with the writer of the .^pocalypse.
The liook was acknowledged at the synods of Hippo (39p)and
Carthage (397). As early as the end of the third century it was
commented on by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (i;;^. 303 a.d.).
j He was followed by the Uonatist Ticonius (Ixrfore 380).
An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who,
under eastern influence, relegated the Af>ocalypse to the
second class of script urce ecclesiastiae {in Ps. 149),
as also afterwards by Philastrius, if it be indeed the case
that the book was not mentioned in the Canon of his
De hceresibus 87/.
At a later date the capitulum Aquisgranense {Corp. Jur.
Germ., ed. Walter, ii. l77y;, cap. 20), adopting the decision of
the Synod of Laodicea, removed it from the Canon.
At the Reformation the view of Jerome was revived
by I'',rasmus in his Annotationes. Luther's well-known
_. adverse judgment, pronounced in his
I .. ' preface of 1522, rests more on a religious
than on a scientific foundation. Sub-
sec|uently he gradually modified his view in a sense more
favourable to the book. In his translation, however, he
indicated his unfavourable opinion so far at all events
that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apoca-
lyi)se to the end of the NT without pagination. The
last edition of the NT in this form appeared in 1689.
C'arlstadt {Libellus de caiumicis scriptttris, 1520),
falling back on the criticism of Eusebius, classed the
Apocalypse among the seven Aniilcgomena. The
opposition to its reception lasted down to the following
century, and disappeared only after the introduction of
John Gerhard's cunningly devised distinction between
canonical and deutero-canonical writings {Loc. theol. i.
cap. 9, 241). In the reformed churches the opposition
disappeared much earlier from the time of Calvin,
indeed.
In the eighteenth century the question was again revived by
Abauzit (Discours hist, surtapoc. (in (Euz'res diverses, torn, i.,
1770); Hermann Oeder {Christlich freie Untersuch. iib. d.
sogcnanntc Offenh. Joh., published by Sernler, Halle, 1769),
reverting to the view of Caius of Rome, attributed the book to
Cerinthus. He was followed by Sernler (Freie Untersuch. des
Canons, 1772, and in many controversial writings), and byCorrodi
(Gcsch. des Chiliasmus, 1781). The best defence was that of
Ha.n\v\g {Apolo/;ic der ApoA., 1780-83). Cp also the .successive
editions of J. D. Michaelis, Junl. in die gSttliclien SchHften
from 1750 onwards.
Our sources for the text are the following :
A. Greek .1A9.9. (t) Uncials. It exists in KAC (89-5 14 V 14-17
85-016 IO10-II3 1013-182 19 5-22 21 being absent), also in P
Porfirianus Chiovensis s^c. 9 Act. Cath. Paul.
10. Text:' Apoc. (10 12-17 I 1912-20 2 226-21 being absent),
the material. =i"J Q ('" Tischendorf, li), Vaticanus 2066
sa;c. 8 (Apoc. only). (2) Cursives. Of these
some seventy are more or less collated. Their readings can be
learned from the editions and collations of Mill-Kuster (1710),
IJengel (i734#), Wetstein (1751-2), Matthsei (1782-88, torn, x.).
Alter (1786-87), Birch {\'arite Lectt. in Apok., 1800), Scholz
('30-36), Scrivener {Codex Augiensis, 1859; Adversaria
Critica, '93), Tregelles ('57-72), Ti.schendorf (ed. octava major),
Alford {.Me^v Test. vol. iv. ed. 2, 1885), Simcox (/. Phil. 22
28577:).
B. I'ersions. (i) Latin. .\ good deal is now known about
these. The oldest stage is represented by h (Floriacensis), the
Latin translation used by Primasius (Haussleiter, Forschungen
zur Gesch. des Kanons iv.) ; the intermediate, by the Gig.as
Holmensis (ed. Belsheim, '79). The best material for the
Vulgate is lirought together in Lachmann (.\o7\ Test.) and
Tischendorf. (2) Syriac A valuable Syriac rendering
(probablv the Philoxeniana) has recently been edited by Gwynn
{op. cit.y^ The Syriac MSS hitherto known (see Gwynn, xiv._^.)
represent the text of Thomas of Harkel. (3) Importance also
attaches to the still comparatively unexplored Coptic (see
Goussen, Stud. Theol. i.) and Armeni.-n versions.
C. Church Fathers. There are copious citations in Origen,
Hippolytus (especially in the De Antichristo and in the com-
' See F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 1861 ; B. Weiss,
'Die Joh. -Apok.' in Texte u. Untersuch.' i ('91); W.
Bousset, ' Text-kritische Studien ' in Texte u. L 'ntersuch. 1 1 4
('94); Gwynn, The Apocalypse in a Syriac version, 1897; on
which see T. K. Abbot, 'Syriac version of Apocalypse,' Htrm-
athena, 1897, pp. 27-35.
2 See last note.
196
APOCALYPSE
nietitarj- on Daniel; ee the new edition by lionwetMih and
Acheliii), and Cyorian. The text used hy Andrew of Ca:>area
and Arelha.1 in tneir commentaries han nut a-s yet t>een fully
cstalilished. The text of the lost coninicntary of Ticonius can
1m-xi l>e made out from the excerpt from the commentary on the
INrudo-Augustinian Homilies.
In the attrnipi to classify this material, it is l>est to
Ikj;!!! witli ilu- class which shows the latest text namely,
11 Clasaifica. ^ ' ^ ^^^ Arethas class, so named because
tion. '^ "^"^ ^^ *'"'' order was used by Arethas
for his Commentary (hence also many
cursives of this class are, strictly sijcaking, MSS of
Arethas-Comnientaries). To this class belong Q and
about forty of the more or less known cursives. The
material being so defective, separate groups within the
class can hardly be distinguished.
Tentatively and under great reservation a few may here be
suggested, (i.) 9, 13, 27, 93 are somewhat closely connected
(cp 7V,/r, j8^, p. 658) ; {ii.)2, 8, (14), 140, 151, 29, 50, 97 (the last
three very mtimately related), 94; (iii.) 6, 11, 31, (47); (iv.)
lastly, y, 14, 93 show near affinities. The group "formed by (v.)
7, 16. 39, 45, 69 represents the transition-stage between this class
(i) and the next class (2).
The second class, which we can detach from the rest
as having arisen out of a Liter redaction, is (2) the so-
called ' .Andrew ' class the cla.ss to which the text used
by Andrew (see alxne, 10 (') in his conmientary
belonged. It falls into several clearly distinguishable
sulMjrdinate groups.
(i.) The group consisting of 35, 68, 87, 121 stands almost
entirely apart, presenting .is it does many points of contact
with the .\reth.as group, but often showing a very peculiar text.
The following three groups, on the other hand, are very closely
akin : (ii.) i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (often with a very archaic Latinising
substratum); (iii.) 28, 73, 79, 80, 09 ; (iv.)io, 17, 37, ^9, (72], 91,
96, (154], 161. Cod. P admits of Ijeing ranked with this class as
a whole, but cannot be associated with any of the subordinate
groups in particular.
Of all the known cursives there are only (3) four [26],
38, 51, 95 which it h.-is hitherto been found impossible
to classify ; they show an ancient te.xt.
It is as yet difficult to detect the 'Western text"
12. 'Western Jf":^ '^.':''') '" the Apocalypse ; hut
Text ' ^^' gradually l>ecome practic-
able as in recent years new sources
have lieconie accessible.
Witnesses to it, though only in part, are the uncial K (with a
very erratic and only ijarlially ancient text), the text of Priniasius
(identical, according to Haussleiler's investigations, with C'y-
prian's text, and thus old African), the fragments of A, the (ligas
Holniensis g; Ticonius (containing a later development of the
text), and the Syriac version edited by Gwynn and designated 2
(the later version known .ys ,S shows a text almost everywhere
corrected in accordance with the .Arethas class, though in many
places also it contains a text older than 2). To the same cate-
gory l)elong also, in part, the ^roup i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (cp (Iwynn,
cxli.) and, finally, the Armenian version, which, unfortunately,
is not yet sufficiently known (note the coincidence of i, 12, 36,
etc. with arm. ; cp Uousset, Koiiiih. 178). .A further point
worthy of notice is the close affinity of K, 2 (S), and Origen ; one
might almost venture to constitute N20r. a distinct group in the
Western Cla.ss (Housset, 181 ; Gwynn, Iv^).
Distinctly the best text is that presented by ACVg.
The \'ulgate furnishes us with good means of con-
13 Result ^""""'"S 'h^ t^"' f -^^^ especially where
the two differ or where (J is wanting.
A\g. , therefore, w here C is wanting, often constitutes a
stronger testimony than that of all the other witnesses
together.
' I John am he that heard and saw these things '
(228 k\' ; cp 1 4 9). Are we to identify this John with the
14 V^ntaaaaA '^postle, the son of Zebedee? Within
author '^^ ^^"^ ''^'^'^ ^^ ' "''S^' f'^''"'>' ^
urged against this identification. The
first to submit the question to thorough discussion was
Dionysius of .Me.xandria (see above, 4) ; in the result
he attributed the txjok to another John. 'Ihis theory
of a second John, adopted also by Eusebius (HE
iii. 39 I ff.), w.as revived in the present century (Hleek,
Ewald, de Weite, LUcke, Neander, Diisterdieck.
etc. ), the John of the .Apocalypse l)eing usually in this
case identified with the ' IVesbyter ' of Eus. HE
iii. 39 1 ff. Criticism advanced another step, however.
97
APOCALYPSE
I and declared the whole tradition regarding the presence
of John the .AiH)stle (and Evangelist) in .Asia Minor to
have been due to a confusion Ijetween his name and that
of the presbyter.
.So Vogel, Der EvaH^tlist Johannts, 1801-4 ; LiitzcllieTger,
Die kinklicht Trattilton fiber den Aposttt Joktinn,s, 1840;
Keim, Cesch. Jesu voh Sazam, 1867, 1 161 / ; Scholtcn, Per
Af>. Johantus in Kleinasien, 187a; WeiflTenbach, Dot t'ufiat-
fragment, 1874 ; Thoma, Das Johannisev., 1882 ; and other*.
.Against .Scholten cp Hilgenfeld, /UT, 1876 77, also Zahn,
St. A'r. 1866, p. 649^. ; Actajoannis civ., .Steitz, St. Kr., 1868,
p. 509^., Herzog, A' A' 11 78^
The question is difficult. The first remark to l)e made
upon it is that the assumption that there were two Johns
16 Onlv '" '^^''^ Minor the ajwstle and the presbyter
one John *^"''^ ""'X slender supix)rt in ancient
in Asia "'^'^''''""- Whatever the interpretation we
Minor '"'^^ ''"^ ^^ ^^^ important testimony of
Fapias preserved by Eu.sebius {I/Ji iii.
39 1 ^), it is at least certain that I^ipias spe-aks not of
two Johns in Asia Minor the ajKjstle and the presbyter
but of one John, whom we are to look for as a near
neighlxjur of Papias in space and time. Of a second
John the second century and the first half of the third
know nothing ; he is unknown to Iren;vus and to those
who disputed the claims of the Fourth {jos(x;I, to the
Alogi and to Caius, to Tertullian, to Clement, and to
Origen. Not till the time of Dionysius of .Alexandria is
reached do we find any indication of the sort (Eus. I/E
vii. 25i6). Even Dionysius alleges no other evidence
than that in his day two graves of ' John ' were shown.
The inference he draws from this that there must have Ijcen
two Johns is by no means a stringent one. It would not lie less
reasonable to suppose that in his day the precise burial-place of
John was no longer known, or that the twofxi^/iiaTa represented
two distinct holy ' places ' of John (so Jer. <ie vir. ill. 9 : ilu,r
tiientoricf ; Zahn, Acta Jo. civ). For this supposition, Kusebius
h.xs supplied a plausible basis by combining the statement of
Papias about two Johns with the traditions mentioned by
Dionysius about two graves of John at Ephesus.
If the assumption that there were two Johns in Asia
Minor proves to tie a baseless hypothesis and its base-
ifi Vi th lessness is shown bv the fact, among other
Presbyter *'^'"S^' ^'^'' """ ' J"*^" ' ^^ ^^^ ^''"o*" '^
" so often spoken of w ithout distinguishing
phrase of any kind the question which next arises is as
to whether this John was the ajnistle or the presbyter.
At this point the inijxirtant testimony of Fapias turns the
scale in favour of the presbyter. For his contem]j<3rary
and the authority w hom he cjuotes is next to Aristion
the ' presbyter ' John (Eus. ///.' iii. 394) ; and Aristion
and John are doubtless also to Ik- identified with the
Trpfff^vTfpoi whom, according to Eus. ///;' iii. 393, Fapias
could still directly interrogate. The evidence of 2 Jn.
and 3 Jn. , claiming as they do to l>e written by the
Tfxa^VTfpos, points in the same direction. Moreover,
as has already lieen ix)inte(l out (^ 14), the .Apocalypse
I apparently does not profess to have Ijeen written by the
I apostle. On the other sitle, it is true, we already find
Justin [Dial. 81 ; see above, 2) asserting the apo.stolic
authorship. It is, however, noticeable that Ircnanis
for whom the tjospel, the Epistles, and the .Ajjocalyjise
are all by one and the same author sjwaks of John
as an apostle only in indefinite expressions similar to
those in (ial. 1 19, but elsewhere invariably designates
I him as 'disciple' (/ia^Tp-i^s) ; see liousset, op. cit. 41/
I Further, Ircn.tus, who calls Papias a disciple of John.
i also speaks of Folycarp as his fellow disciple ( Eus.
//^iii. 39i). If we refuse to supjxjse that Iren;eus
had already confounded the presbyter with the apostle,
then the great teacher of Folycarp was also, according
to Irenaius, the ' presbyter ' John ; for Fapias was a
disciple of the presbyter. In the Muratorian canon,
further, John is called simply ' discipulus,' whereas
Andrew is 'apostolus.' The testimony also of Foly-
crates in the letter to Victor (ap. Eus. HE\. 24 a_^)
claims particular attention in this connection. Here,
in a passage where everything turns upon the exact
titles of the persons named. Polycrales designates
APOCALYPSE
as the <rroix<** of Asia Minor (i) the apostle Philip
and his daughters ; (2) John who lay on the bosom
of the Lord, fidprvi Kal SiSdffKaXoi, who was buried
in Kphesus, 6s (yevrjd-rj lepei's t6 iriraKov ire(f)o-
priKu)i ; (3) the bishops Polycarp, Thrascas, Sagaris,
F'apirius, Melito. Polycrates thus designates, plainly
with intention, the author of the Fourth Gospel also
as teacher and witness, not as apostle. Indeed, the
traditions relating to the Fourth Gospel Ijeconie much
more intelligible if we are al>le to assume that the
witness (Jn. 19 35, ^Ktivos olStv) is not the Galihean
apostle, the son of Zelx.'(lee, but another John, a
Jerusalemite (Fiousset, h'omin. 43/.). It may also be
remarked that the statement of the Fourth Gos[x;l
that the beloved disciple was ' known unto the high
priest' (18 15) -harmonises well with the account of
Polycrates, 'who Ix-came priest' (5s ie/iei/y eyevijdr) ;
cp further, II. Dclff, .S7. A>. , 1891, and Harnack,
Chronol. I456/. ).
The inference from all this would seem to be that the
(one) John of Asi.i Minor, who was the presbyter, was
one who had seen Jesus indeed, but not one of the
numljcr of the apostles. The John of the Apocalypse
(cp the superscription of the lipistlcs) is thus the
presbyter.
Whether the .\pocalypsc was really written b\' him is
another question. In order to understand how the
17 Rpal Apocalypse and the Fourth (iospel could
authorship ' ''""^ ''*^ attributed to the same disciple
^' of the Lord, it is necessary to remove
them both a little distance away from him. John
is only the eye-witness, not the author of the Fourth
Gospel ; .so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse we
may have here and there a passage that can be traced
to him, but the book as a whole is not from his pen.
Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse all come from the same
school. They show also at various points linguistic
affinities (Housset, Komm. 202 ff.). They had, moreover,
at first the same history : they were, it would seem, the
favourite writings of Montanism, and were all three
alike rejected by the opponents of Montanism, the
Alogi.
The earliest Cireek fathers who in any measure
attempted to interpret the Apocalypse were Iren;BUS,
Hippolytus, and .Methodius :
Iren;;iis, in Adv. /f,rr. 5; Hippolytus, in Comm. on Daniel,
in airoSetfis ;repi toD acnypio-Tou, in extant fragments of the
_ KecJaAaia Kara. Vaiov, and in a no longer
18. Interpreta- extant commentary on the book itself;
tion : - Greek -Methodius in Sym/>. 150584^ Of
and Latin. continuous commentaries originating in the
(Ireek Church we possess only those of
.Andrew (5th cent., ed. .Sylburg) and of Arethas (9th cent., ed.
Cramer).
The oldest Latin commentary, which contains much
interesting and ancient material (for example, the
interpretation of various passages referring to Nero), is
that of Victorinus of Pettau (o/'. 303). We possess it
only in Jeromes redaction. Haussleiter is about to
edit it in its original form. An e.xceedingly powerful
influence was exercised also by the commentary of
Ticonius.
This work is, unfortunately, no longer extant, and has to be
reconstructed, as far as the materials allow, from the pseudo-
Augustinian Iloinilite in Afioc. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 35), the
commentary of Prim.asius {oh. 586, ed. princ. Ha.sel, 1544),
and (mainly) the great compilations of Beatus, written in 776
(in .-{/'ocrily/'sim, ed. F'lorez, i77o).''
In his commentary, written before 380 A.ii. , wholly
from the Donatistic point of view, Ticonius consistently
carries out the spiritualistic interpretation. In his
explanation of the millennium pas.sage (20 i^) he was
afterwards followed by Augustine (Mousset, Komm. 65).
Down to the Middle .\ges the exegesis of the book
continuetl to follow that of Ticonius, if his Donatistic
tendency \vi left out of account.
1 Cp also below, 8S 28 and 34.
2 See Liicke, Einl. in dit Offeyibarung ^'^^ 1853; Holtzmann,
HK \\ Bousset, Komm. ^iff.
3 See Haussleiter, ZKW'L 7 -iyiff. \ Bousset, Komm. (>off.
I9Q
APOCALYPSE
Apart from the works already named, mention must be
made of those of Cassiodorus (Comfilexiones in apocalyfuin
[ed. Scipio Maffey, Florence, 1721]), Bcda (oA. 735; expianatio
apocalypsis in Biblioth. I'atr. Cologne, vol. v.), and Ambrosius
Ansbertus (c. 770 : in Af>ocalyftiim UM x., Bihl. Patr., Col., ".t
2). Dependent, in turn, on Ansbertus are Alcuin (Migne, J'nt.
y.a/. 100)and Haymo of Halberstadt [84J] (Migne, 117), while
Walafried Strabo s Glossa oniinaria (Migne, Pal. I. at. 114)
depends on Haymo. To the same class of interpretations
l)elong the ]>erforniances of Ansclm of Laon (Migne, ItVJ),
Bruno of .\ste (.Migne, Wo), Rupert of Deutz (Migne, lOit),
Richard of St. Victor (Migne, I'.Ml), Albertus M.-ignus (O^eia,
Lyons, 1651, tom. 12), a commentary, prokibly in reality of
Waldensian origin, which is found, in two recensions, among
the works of Thomas Aquinas (Opera, Parma, 1869; tom. T.\
3247^ 5."j^-). Hugh of St. Caro(i263; J'oslilla), Dionysius
Carthusius (14th cent.). Thus the single commentary of
Ticonius continued to dominate the whole interpretation of the
Apocalypse until far down in the Middle Ages.
The next interpreter of the Apocalypse to attain wide
influence was Joachim of Floris (soon after 1195;
10 Tnar>>iim Hxpositio . . . abbatis Joachim in Apoc. ,
i. joacmm. Venice, 1527). With him the fantastic
futurist (chiliastic) interpretation Ijcgan to gain the
upix;r hand over the formerly prevalent spiritualising
view. He was at the same time the originator of a
'recapitulation theory,' which he carried out into the
minutest details. As ' the Age of the Spirit,' associated
with a mendicant order that was to ajjpear, occupied a
central place in the prophecies of Joachim, he naturally
became the prophet of the ' opposition ' Franciscans,
and his works were accepted by them as sacred. It
was in these circles accordingly that his immediate
followers in the interpretation of the Apocalypse arose
(Peter Johannes Olivie, Ubertino de Casale, Sera-
phinus de Fermo, Annius Viterbiensis, Petrus Galatinus) ;
but his influence spread very widely in the course of
succeeding centuries, and a continuous chain of many
links connects the name of Joachim with that of
Cocceius, who, in virtue of his Coj^ita/iones de apoc. S.
Joannis (Leyden, 1605), is usually taken as the typical
representative of the modern ' recapitulation theory. '
Among the precursors of the Reformation the anti-
Roman and anti- papal interpretation began to gain
20. Reforma-
tion.
ground, although the only methodic:
exposition of this view that can be
named is the commentary (by J(jhn
Purvey?), emanating (rom \\'yclifiitei circles and
written in 1390, which was afterwards published by
Luther [Commen/arius in Apoc. ante centum annos
editus, 1530).
The founder of a consistently elaborated universal-
historical interpretation was Nicolaus de Lyra (1329,
, -- . 1 ''^ ^^^ Postils, which have been often
h- t^^^ 1 " printed). He is followed by certain
nfpthofT Catholic interpreters, and, in method
at least, by Luther, who in his pre-
face of 1534 (Walch. , 11) gives, in the sp.ace of a
few pages, a clever but fantastic interpretation of the
entire book, in which, as might be expected, the anti-
papal interest holds a central place. Luther's view-
continued to dominate the interpretation of the Apoca-
lypse within the Lutheran church.
it prevailed from the time of Lucas Osi.tnder (BiHiorum
sacrorum, pars 3) down to that of Jo. Gerhard (.Xnnot. in
Apoc. /oh., ]ena., 1643) .ind Abr. Calovius (Hi/'lia K07: Test.
Illtistr., tom. 2 Frankfort, 1672 a learned work with valu-
able introductory material and persistent polemic .igainst Hugo
Grotius ; for a list of the commentaries dependent on Luther
see Bousset, Komm. 94). None of the works mentioned was
of any value for the real interpretation of the book ; the
.\poc:dvpse and its interpretation, so far as the Lutheran Church
in Germany is concerned, became merely the arena for anti-
(iatholic polemics.
Within this period the number of works produced in
Germany and Switzerland on this subject without
dependence on the dominant Lutheran view was very
small.
.\mong them the Dilis^ens atque eruiiita enarratio lihri
Apoc. Joh., 1547, of Theodor Bibliander is worthy of notice;
in it we can discern in the treatment of chaps. 12 and 13 the
1 Cp Wycliflfe's own interpretation of Rev. 20 in the Dialofcui
in Neander, KG 6 228.
22. Scientific.
APOCALYPSE
beginnings of an interprct.-xtion looking to contemporary con-
ditions. Kullin^cr (I'redigUH, 15^7) and Junius (Afioc. Joli.
lUuitratit, 1591) have a good deal vn common with Hil>liander.
Wildest and most fanUistic of all are the English
commentaries of this [x^riod.
Among them may \x named Napier of Merchiston, the
inventor of logarithms (A Plain nisan'try 0/ the ivhoU Rtvela-
tion 0/ Saint fohn, 1593), Thom.-is Hrightman (AfuKalyfisis
A/>oca/y/>sfos, Frankfort, 1609), Joseph Nietle (Clavii a/>,na-
lyptica, 1627), and .Sir Is.-iac Newton {Cf/iscrrations u/><in II: f
I'rophfcies 0/ Daniel and the Apocalypse 0/ St. John, 1732
dcjMindent upon Mcde).
'I'hc history of a strictly scientific interpretation of
the .\|)()c:ilyijsc, on the other hand, must bo held to
Ix'jjin wit!) the learned commentaries of
French and .Spanish Catholic theo-
logians. They meet the Protestant polemic with con-
spicuous and indeed often astounding erutlition, and,
going back to tiie pointof view of the earlier (.'hurch
fathers, lay the foundations of .n cautious and for the
most part purely escliatological interpretation.
In this connection the works of Franciscus Ribeira (1578),
Ulasius Vieg.xs(i6oi ? cpalso Hell.irniinus, Df SuiHino /'onti/ice,
lib. tert. De .^ntichristo), Hcnedictiis IVreyra ( i ^^.06 ?), and Cor-
nelius a I^apide (1626) are well worthy of mention.
Conspicuous alwve them all is the Ve^ligatio arcani
sensui in Afocalypsi of Ludovicus ab Alca/.ar. That
writer was the first to carry out consistently the idea that
the .\pocalypse in its earlier part is directed against
Judaism, and in its second against Paganism, so that in
ch.ips. 12 / we read of the first persecution of the
Christians in the Roman Empire, and in ch. 19 of the
tinid conversion of that Empire. He thus presents us
with tlie first serious attempt to arrive at a historical
and psychological understanding of the book.
The ide.- worked out Ijy .Mcazar had already been expressed
by McMtc-nius in the preface to his edition of .Arethas (("/;, uinenii
Coiitiitrntor., ed. .Morelius et Hentenius i), and by .Salmeron
(C^ptra, 12, Coliv^ne, 1614, 'In sacram Jo. Apoc. prailudia ').
It ouRht to be added here that the explanation of the wounded
head as referring to Nero Redivivus is found (for the first time
since Victorinns) in the commentary of the Jesuit Juan Mariana.
It U.1S fro'u the Jesuits that Protestant science first learned how
to v.ork thi, field.
(irotius [Aftnot. ad XT, Paris, 1664), who is so often
spoken of as the founder of scientific e.\egesis, is, in his
remarks on the .Apocalypse at any rate, entirely depend-
ent on .Mcazar, whose interi)retation, indeed, he has not
improved by the details assuming references to universal
history and contemporary events which he has introduced
into it.
(Irotius in turn was followed by Hammond (cp the Latin
editions of Clericus, torn. 1, .\msterdam, 1698, and Clericus's
notes to Hammond), Bossuet (i633), and Herva;us (1684). In
Holland and ( lermany the fantastic school of interpretation
continued to flourish for some time longer, prominent repre-
sentatives Ijeing, in Holland, Vitringa, with his profoundly
learned acaKpio-tt ajroKoAui/ifait (1705; dependent on Mede),
and his many followers, and in tlermany, Bengel, with his
commentary (1740-46-58) and sixty practical discourses on the
Ap<3calypse. Much greater sobriety is shown by ^oh. Marck
in his fn Apoc. Coinm. 1699, with its copious exegetical material
and valuable introduction; also by a group of eschatological
interpreters in which .are included F^leonora Peters (1696),
Antonius I Iriessun (1717), and Jo.-ichim Lange {.-Ipokalyptisches
Liclit u. Kfc/U, 1730).
In the eighteenth century, although Aubert de Verse
(/.<: I If/ lie I' apocalypse, 1703) followed the lines laid
23 Since dow n by Grotius, Hannnond, and Hos-
18th"century. ""T'- ^''^ "''^rpretation founded on
' allusions to contemporary events gained
the ascendency, and in a very narrow form. At this
lx;riod it took for the most part the very unfortunate
course of endeavouring to treat the w hole of the AjxJca-
lypse, after the analogy of Mt. 24, as a prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem.
In this category must be placed the expositions of A))auzit
{Kssai siir Tapoc., 1733), Harduin (1741). Wetstein (A/7'<-//i a*/
crisin atquc interpretationcm .^'7'ed. Semler, 1766), Harenbcrg
(1759), Hartwig (cp g 9), and, finally, Zidlig (1834).
On the other hand, we find much that is rightly said
in Semler's noies to Wetstein in Corrodi's Gesch. des
Chiliasmus. And a return was made to the sounder
general principles of Alcazar by Herrenschneider
APOCALYPSE
{Inaugural disi., Str.issburg, 1786) and by Kichhorn
(Cummenlarius, 1791). Even those shreds of the
interpretation that l(xjks to universal history, which had
still jx'rsisted in showing thcm.selves in .Alcazar's work,
were now stripped away, and thus a provisional resting-
place was reached.
This stitge is seen in the works of Bleek (Theol. Ztschr. 2,
licrlin, 1820, I'orlesungen iiher d ie A Pol; . publi-hcd by Hossb.ich
ill 1862), Kwald (Cow///;. 1828, Die Johann. S^hriften, 2, 1862),
De VVette (Kurze Krklitrun^, 1848-54-62), I.iitke ( / enuch cinet
vollst&ndigen liinleitung tn die Offenba
1852), V * *
(59-87)-
ttie Offent'arung, 1812, 2nd
1852), Volkmar ('62), and also, for the most part, iJiisterdicck
In all these works the interpretation from contem-
porary history is consistently carried out. All set forth
from the decisive observation that in chap. 11 the preserva-
tion of the temple is jiredicted, and all, accordingly, date
the book from Ijefore 70 A.I). Further, they .-ill rightly
recognise that the main drift of the .Xpf/calyiJse is
directed against Rome ; all, too (e.vcept Diisterdieck),
recognise Nero Redivivus in the woundeti head. In
particular, since the discovery, independently arrived at
by Fritzsche, lienary, and Reuss, that the nunilxT 666
is intended for pij ^Dp, the reference to Nero has Ijecome
the rocker de bronce of all exegesis of the Apocalypse.
In passing, mention may be made ol some works which,
although following obsolete exegetical methods, are not without
a scientific value: Hengstenberg ^'49-'5i-'6i), Kbrard ('53), Kiliot
{Hone Apocalyptictf, 1851; univ. -hist.), .\iiberlen ('54-'74),
Christian ('61), Luthardt ('61), Alford (A'rtf Testament, 4 2),
Kliefoth ('74), P.eck {Erkl. von Offenh. i.-xii. ; eschatol.) and
Kiibel (in .Strack-Zdckler's IfK, 1888; this takes a mcdi.-iting
course between the standpoints of contemporary history and
eschatology). See also Zahn, 'Apokalyptische Stutlien," in
ZKHL, 1885-85.
The interpretation of the Apocalypse entered on a
new ph.^se ' as soon as doubts arose regarding the unity
of the work and the method of literary
24. Question
of unity.
criticism to be applied. The conjecture,
which had l)een hazarded more than once,-
that the .Apocalypse was really a com[X)site work was
again taken up independently (i) by Daniel \'blter, at
nr T>j_ i- _ the suggestion of W'eizsacker, whose
26. Redaction i u t-u . i u
hvDothe-is P"'"' ^^ ^'''^- ^^^ particular hypo-
nypoineois. ^,^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^, \o\xqx as to the
composition of the .Apocalypse may for convenience
be called the redaction hyjxithesis [Ueberarbeitungs-
Hypothcse).
He .issumed in his first sketch, which he has not substantially
modified, a fundamental text (Crvndscliri/t) consisting (apart
from .single verses) of 1 1-4 4-fi 7 1-8 8/ 14 1-7 18 19 1-4 14 14-20
195-10 dating from the sixties, and an appendix IO1-II13 17,
dating from 68-70 a.d. This underwent three (or rather four)
redactions, of which the latest was in 140 A.u. or, at all events,
later than 130.
The work of Vdlter is based on a few happy observa-
tions. For example, he saw that 14 14-20 really forms the
close of an apocalypse, recognised the divergence Ijetween
7 1-8 and 79-17. the true character of lOi-ll 13, and so
forth. Nevertheless, broadly, \'olter's performance
gave the student an impression of excessive arbitrariness,
and was rejected on almost every hand.
Against the first edition see Harnatk, TL/,, 1882, Dec. ;
Hilgenfeld, ^Cll'T, 1882; Warfield, /'/w/, Ke7'. 1884, p. 228;
against the second edition, Jiilicher, G'tP.-i, 1886, pp. 25-38; Zahn,
ZKH-L, 1886.
The question was next taken up from an entirely
different side (2) by E. Vischer ( ' Die Offenb. Joh. eine
jiidische Schrift in christlicher fiearbeitung,' in l^exle u.
Unters., 1886, 2nd ed. 1895); the result has been a
lively and fruitful discussion. Vischer lx;lieved himself
to have discovered that the ruling chapters (11/.) of
the Apocalypse can be understood only on the as-
1 In connection with what follows see Holt?mann, JPT, 1891;
Baldensperger, /../. 7'lieol. u. Kircltc, 1894 ; .A. Meyer, Theol.
Rundschau, 1897, Hefie 2-3.
2 (;rotius, Hammond, V'ogel (Comm. vii. De Apoc. J ok. i8ii-
1816), Bleek (lierl. theol. /.tschr. 2 24oyC; he aljandoned his
view in Beitr. 2. Evang.-Ktitik, 1846, p. 81 ; St. h'r. 1855, p.
220^).
3 Die Entsteh. der Apok., 1882, and ed. 1885; Tk. T, i8<}i,
pp. 259i?: 608^; Prot. KZ, 1886, p. 32/ ; Dot Problem der
Apoc., 1893.
APOCALYPSE
sumption of a Jewish origin. As he nevertheless con-
tinued to Ijc convinced of the essential unity of the
book, he inferred that in the form in which we now
have it it is a Ckristian redaction of a Jewish writing.
To the Christiaiv redactor, besides isolated expressions,
he attributed the following passages: 1-3 59-14 79-17 1^ "
139/ 14I-S13I3 103 I615 17i4 199-'i3^2U4-6 2l5*-8
226-21.
Vischer's able treatise found wide acceptance. Among those
who signified their acceptance of his main thesis were Iselin
(Theol. /.. aus iter Schveitz, 1887 ; ' Apocalyplische Studien ') ;
an anonyi ' ^ '' "" ""^ '- '^ i-.,i. :_
TLZ,
ZATn\ i886, pp. 167-71 ; Overbeck
1887, p. 28 / ; Mdn^^oz in Re-,: tie tlUol. et phil.
161 ; Krriger in CGA, 1887, pp. 26-35; Simcox in Ex-
poiitor, 1887, p. 425/; On the other hand, Viiher (/J/V Offenb.
Jolt, keine ursfiriint;!. jud. Apok., 1886), Beyschlag (St. Kr.
1888), and Hilgenfeld (ZW'T, 1890) declared themselves against
it.
Athough it must be cordially acknowledged that to
Vischer belongs the honour of having first raised the
question in its entirety, it nmst be said that he was
not successful in his attempt to solve it. He has
neither proved the Jewish character of chap. 11 / nor
justified his fundamental thesis regarding the unity of
the book. We shall Ix; doing him no injustice if we
classify him among those who uphold the ' redaction '
hypothesis.
The earliest exponent of the ' sources ' hypothesis
{QueUen-Hypotkese), which has lately come into coiu-
__ _ petition with that of redaction, was VVey-
26. Sources , . 1 1 1
. ., . land,whowrote almost contemporaneously
hypothesis. ^^.,^j^ y.^^^^^^ ^.^1^ ^_ jggg pp ^^^.^^^ .
and Om-verking en Compilatiehypothesen toegepast op de
Apocal. van /. , 1888). Weyland finds in the Apocalypse
tico Jewish sources (N and 3) which have been worked
over by a Christian redactor.
K corresponds, roughly, to Viilter's primary document ; 3 to
the first and second of VOlter's redactors (in Vulter's Appendix
K and 3 are separ.-\ted). Weyland's Christian redactor corre-
sponds in a general way with Vischer's redactor. In 1894 Kauch
(Die Offo.b. des J.) signified his adherence to Weyland.
Against both the hypotheses we have just described
serious and far-reaching objections present themselves.
_, . ,. Against the 'sources' hypothesis must
27. ODjectlons. j^ ^^ggj jj^ substance! the linguistic
unity of the Iwok (see below, 34); against the redaction
theory it has to be observed (</) that the fundamental
document made out by Volter and his followers (see
above, 25) has no special character of its own, inasmuch
as all the really living and concrete passages occurring
within it are attributed to the redactor ; {h) that the
disapp)earance of every trace of these numerous later
redactions is remarkable.
From such considerations the necessity for a third
way became apparent. This third way was first
. pointed out by Weizsiicker in his Apo-
h Jf. ^tolic Age. He rightly discerned in the
fiypo Apocalyptist's thrice repeated number
of seven the fi.xed plan of an author who wrote the
Apocalypse as a whole, and gave to his work the
character of a literary unity. Into this literary
unity certain interpolations intrude with disturbing
effect (71-89-17 11 1-13 12 i-ii 12-17 13 17). Thus Weiz-
siicker arrived at his fragment hypothesis. According
to him the Apocalypse is a literary unity proceeding
from a single author, into which, however, apocalyptic
fragments of various date have been introduced by the
author himself. In the opinion of the present writer
these are the lines along which the true solution of the
problem is to be sought. All later investigators in this
field have followed one or other of the three hypotheses
just enumerated.
Oscar Holtzmann (CrV 2 658-664) assumes a Jewi.sh ground-
work into which again a still older source (13 14 6-13) has been
worked in a Christian revision. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum,
1887, pp. 318-56) steers an eclectic course ; Sabatier (Les i^ri^inei
littcraires de Capocalypse, 1887) and Schoen (L'origine de
fapoc. 1887) represent a combination of Weizsacker and Vischer
(regarding the Apocalypse as the work of a Christian author who
has embodied Jewish fragments in bis book).
203
30. Gunkel.
APOCALYPSE
A thoroughly elalxjrated ' sources ' theory is that of
Spitta {Offenb. Joh. , 1884). In diametrical opposition
2fi Snitta. '" Weizsacker, he claims to see, in the
P thrice repeated series of seven, three
sources.
These are (a) the seal source or Christian primitive Apoca-
lypse U (U = Urapokalypse), written soon after 60 A.u. (practjc-
alfy, apart from the specifically Christian inteqjolations of the
redactor, chaps. 1-tl and "9-17 81 19 9 10 228-21); (h) the trumpet
source J(l), a Jewi.sh writing (J = Judi.sch)of the reign of Caligula
(7i-a 89 IO1-7 11 15 12 13 14i-ii I613-20 19ii-2o liOi-is 21 1-8);
(c) the vials source Ji2), from the time of Pompcy (containing,
approximately, the remainder of the book).
These three have been worked together into a collected
whole by a Christian redactor. (The additions assigned
to iiim by Spitta are of alxjut the same e.xtent as those
assigned to him by Vischer. )
The sources theory was next carried to the utmost
by P. .Schmidt {Anmerkungen iiber die Comp.der Offenb.
Joh., 1891).
Erl>es(/>/> Oj^enb.Joh., 1891) in his separation of the literary
sources agrees in the main with O. Holtzmann, but also main-
tains with Volter (whose hypothesis he simplifies) the thoroughly
Christian character of the whole book. Bruston (Les origines
de l^ apocalypse, 1888) pursues a path of his own. .Mi-ndgoz
(.Xniiales de bihliogr. tlieot. 1 ('88] pp. 41-45) assumed two
Jewish apocalypses and a Christian redactor.
The unity of the book is defended by certain scholars :
Not only by the critics of Vischer mentioned above, but also
by B. Weiss (AY/., and Texte u. V ntersuch. 8 1891), Bovon
(Revue de tlu-ol. et phil., 1887, pp. 329-62), Hirsclit (Die Apoc.
u. ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), and Bloin ( Tit. T, 1883-84). .\n ex-
pectant attitude is taken by H Holtzmann (Junl., 1892 ; Hand-
koiiim., 1893).
Finally, altogether new lines of investigation were
opened up by (Junkel in his Schbpf. u. Chaos ('94). He
controverted sharply, and sometimes per-
haps not altogether fairly, both the current
me.thods of interpreting the .\pocalypse (that which
looks to contemporary history for a clue, and that
which adheres to literary critical methods), and pro-
posed to substitute for them, or at least to co-ordinate with
them, a history of apocalyptic tradition. He insisted
with emphasis upon the thesis that the (one) Apocalyp-
tist was not himself the creator of his own representa-
tions ; that his prophecies were only links in a long
chain of tradition. In his investigation of this apo-
calyptic tradition he greatly enlarged the scope of the
usual question ' Jewish or Christian ? ' by his endeav-
ours to prove for chap. 12 a Babylonian origin, and
in other places also (see below, 40) to trace Baljylonian
influences in the book. Even if we grant that Gunkel
has often overshot the mark, as, for example, when
he refuses to recognise Xero in the beast and its number
it is undeniable that his book marks the beginning
of a new epoch in the interpretation of the Apocalypse.
Stimulated by Gunkel, and accepting some of his
results, Bousset {Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung
_ . des Judenthians, des neuen Testaments,
31. iJOUBSet. ^^^^^ j^^ ^^.^^^ Kirche, 1895) proceeded
to illustrate Gunkel's method by applying it to a definite
concrete example, investigating the entire tradition
regarding .\ntichrist, and endeavouring to show that
in this instance a stream of essentially uniform tradition
can be traced from New Testament times right through
the Middle Ages and beyond them. In his view the
Apocalypse can be shown to be dependent in a series
of passages, particularly in chap. 11, on this already
ancient tradition regarding .Antichrist.
This view has been controverted by Erbes (T/ieologisckt
Arbeiten aus detti r/teinischen ivissenschaftiichen Prediger-
verein geivaudt, Neue Folge, 1, Freiburg, i. B., 1897), who, as
against it, argues for the contemporary-history method in its
most perverse form.
Finally, in the Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar ('96),
Bousset has sought to bring to a focus the result of the
labours of previous workers. In his method of inter-
pretation he follows Weizsacker (fragment hypothesis),
and therefore gives a continuous commentary, describing
the character of each particular fragment in its own
I place. In his exegesis he has given special attention to
204
APOCALYPSE
the indications of (Junkcl, and to the result of his own
researclies on the sul)jcct of Antichrist.
To Sinn up the result of the lalxjurs of the last fifteen
years upon the Apocalypse. It seems to be settled that
P It ^^^ Ajx)calypse can no longer Ik: rej^arded
32. Kesuits. ^ ^ literary unity. Against such a view
criticism finds irresistible considerations.
.\mong these is the intuiigruiiy between 7 j-8 and 79-17, as
also th.-\t Ijctween 7 i-8 and 12^, the two explanations of the
144,000 in 7 i_^ and 14 ij/"., the interruption of the connection
caused by 10-U 13, the jieculiar new becinning made in 12 i, the
sini;ular character of chap. 12, the tioublelte presented bv chaps.
13 and 17, the fact tliat in 14 14-20 a Last judBment is depicted,
whilst that involved in 13 does not arrive till I'J 11^; the observ.-i-
tion that in chap. 17 two representations of the beast and his
associates are given alongside each other (see below, 45) ; and
the isolated character of chaps. 17 and 18, 21 9-22 5.
Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious
level. Chap. 7 1-8 (cp 20 7-9), with Us particularistic character,
is out of harmony IxJth with cliaps. 1-3 and with "9-17 ; in 11 \/.
the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in 21 22 the
new Jerus.nlem is to have none.
Moreover, different parts of the book require different dates :
chap. 11 1-2 must h.ive been written Ijefore 70 a. I)., chap. 17 prob-
ably when Vesp.-isian had alre.idy been emperor for some time ;
whilst the svriting, as a whole, cannot, at the earliest, have been
llnislied before the time of Do
\
This result holds good notwithstanding Gunkd's
warning against the overhasty efforts of criticism. That
a variety of sources and older traditions have been
worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even
by the student who holds that it is no longer possible
to reconstruct the sources.
It may seem doubtful whether a general character,
date, and aim can be assigned to the Apocalypse ;
T? 1 f ^'^' '^ ^'^^ been seen, the work is not a
33. Keiative jij^^^ary unity. Still, if there be good
f ^^ J grountl for the critical conclusion indicated
structure. :_^^^^.^^ that the Apocalyptist is himself
an inde|x'ndent writer who has simply introduced various
fragments into his corpus apocalypticum (Weizsiicker,
Schon, Sabatier, Bousset), a relative unity has already
been proved for the Apocalypse. This conclusion is
contirmed, step by step, when the details of the book
are examined.
The relative unity is shown (i) in the artificial
structure of the whole.
Four separate times do groups of seven occur (epistles, seals,
trumpets, vials) ; within these groups the prevailing distribution
is into 4 + 3. The delineations of judgment and its horrors are
reijularly followed by pictures of joy and heavenly bliss ; cp
7 11 14-19 14 1-5 15 1-4 19i-io. Everywhere artificial con-
nections are employed in order to bind the separate parts
together into one whole : cp, for example, 1 20 and 4 i, 64 and
I4 10 5-7 11 11 13; also 19 2 14689-11 165-12^; also IS 19
7 8 21 2.
(2) Further, the relative unity is shown clearly in
the uniformity of the language throughout.
The following are the more important
34. Of language facts. Throughout the entire boi)k are
and style. found (a) strongly marked gr.ammatical
irregularities anacolutha and impossible
constructions {f.g., 1 ^f. 12 7), and confusions of case, especially
with following participles(l4 io2 18 [see the reading of X] 20812
5 11/ Oi 7 4 9^;^; s 9 9 14 10 8 11 1 14 6 12 14 10 12 1748 IS i2y:
10 6 20 2 21 27 [reading of K]). In 1 13 and 14 14 (to Like only one
instance) the reading ii/itoioi' vl'ov avOpiunov cannot have been
due to two separate persons.
(/') Hebraisms, especially the repetition of the demonstrative
pronoun in the relative cl.ause (38 72 9 138 12 208, cp I2014
179, also 271726 3x2 21 O4 21 6), and the Hebraistic cai' (3 20
10 7 149/).
(<) The const rue tio ad sensum is specially frequent (e.g..
Ait/. 5 6 12/ 74 93^. 13 11 4 15 13 14 143 173 II 16 194 14);
sometimes involving a plural predicate after a neuter plural
subject (324 4589 5 14 920 11 2 13 18 1^4 16 14 18 3 23 21 24).
Less clearly attested is the simple ungramm.atical confusion of
gender (9 7 14 19 19 20 21 14 22 2 ; see the MSS.).
((j) Various other systematic peculiarities of idiom. For
example, irpoaKvvtiv governs the dative when the object is
efO(4 10 7 II 11 16 19 4 229, cp 14 7) or JpaKajr (13 4), whilst, on
the other hand, we have wpoo-ic. to ^piov, ttji' e'tKOva, 13[4l8 13 15
14 9 1 1 [19 20) 20 4 (in 16 2 also we should read tfji' t'lKova accord-
1 A justification of these results in detail will be found in the
Author's Commentary on this l)Ook (Introd. pp. 183-208). In
some cases, where the reading adopted is less strongly attested,
the citations are in brackets.
205
APOCALYPSE
ing to the readings of K, which are wrongly given in the primed
editions). The instrumenlal dative is extremely rare in the
Apocalypse j its place is often taken by the construction with
Hebraistic ty, or even (but rarely) with 6ia and the accusative
(4 1 1 12 1 1 13 14). The vocative is rarely used (twice only : kv/h*,
11 17; ovpavi, IS 20). After a neuter plur.'il ihe predicate is
usually also plural (1 19 8 11 I64 lti2o[18i4| 20 12 21 4). The
Apocalvptist, except in a very few cases, construes 6 KaBrnityot
itrC with the accusative, tow KoBi'itLtvov ini with the accusative,
TOW Ka0rijxii'ov ini with the genitive, T<j KoBriiitixf ini with the
dative ; he writes rl to litriunov, but tni Tiuf inrutnutv (ex< tp-
tion in 14 9), and f'lrl riji' Kt<fM\r)v invariably (except in 12 1).
He construes either 7ri rji yrj? or it rijf yiji' (14 16, <ri Trif yiji'),
rl r^ #aAa<r<jTjs or i Tijf da^atraav. He invariidjly construes
ypajftfLv, ioTofai ini with accusative (14 i ytyp. in\ tuv fitTunutv
and 10 5 iaTai-ai 'irt ttjs yVjt are no exceptions but only con-
firmations of other rules). Noteworthy, also, is the coiist.int
vacillation in tense between present and future, and, in descrip-
tions, between present and aorist. The Apocalyptist uses llie
infinitive almost invari.ably in the aorist. Exceptions occur in ilie
case of p Aim IV, of which he apparently never makes an aorist ;
ahio in Il6l3i3(?). On the other han<l, following the rule that is
customary elsewhere, he construes fjw'AAtii' almost always with the
present infinitive. The copula is often wanting, particularly in
relative sentences (1 4 2 13 5 13 9 1 1 20 ic). A clumge in the use
of subjunctive and indicative is made only after iVa (oirut does
not occur at all), but here also a certain regularity prevails. A
quite extraordinary use of iva occurs in 12 14 and 14 13 (cp Jn.
856 92 11 15). In its use of particles the book displays an
oppressive monotony : Kai is predominant everywhere ; only in
the epistles to the seven churches is the style somewhat
livelier.
The arrangement of the words is markedly Hebraistic. In
choice of words it is remarkably so. 'I'he following characteristic
phr.ases and turns of expression may be noted : Aoyo? toO 9<oO
Ka'i fiap-rvpia 'lijcroi/ ; o Kvpio^ 6 6(iii o navroKpaTuip ; oTi'Of Tou
dvfxoi) TTj? opy*)? ^**"' *i5 TOU9 aiuiua^ tujj' atwfuji' ; Aifjiimj Tov
TTDpot <cal Sfiou ; (^uAal yAJxrcrai Aaoi tdti) ; /Si^Aov ni? iVirit ;
^poi'Tttl (^Mui/al aarpaiTai creicrfios ; 7rj)-yai_ viaTiup ; 6 iiv Kai o ^v
Kai 6 fp\6^i'o^ ; AoAcii/ and aKo\ov0(iu fxtrd', oi'Ofxa avru*;
fitTo. Taiira ; aAr)6i'0 ; oouAos (in a pregnant sense), iJ.apTvpia,
fi.apTvp(lv ; heiKvvtiv \ ciicdi' ; cr<f>dTTfiv ', <rKr)fovi> ; njptii/ rat
tiToAav. Compare, furllier, the eiuimcrations in 15 11 18 l;f 16
19518 20 12 (tlie formula fiocpoi Kai fieydXoi); the beatitudes
(jiaicapios ; I3 14 13 10 15 19 9 206 22714): the doxologies (lb
4 II 59 12/ 7 12 153 19 I 6); the formul.e introduced with ii&t
(\3ioiS l-i iil7g);'JiA0i'rir)p.epa(,ipYi'i,iopa etc.; tii7lli8147
15 18 10 197).
The general style of the Apocalyjise is monotonously
diffuse : article and pre[5osition are almost always
rejjealed when there are more substantives than one, as
also is the governing word before the governed. Whole
clauses are gone back upon and repealed in the
negative : Hebrew parallelism is not unconuiion.
We are now at last able to form a tolerably clear
conception of the personality, the time, the circum-
stances, and the literary aims of the apo-
calyptist who planned the .Apocalypse, as a
whole, in the form in which we now have it.
(a) The Apocalyptist writes at a time in which violent
persecutions have already broken out indeed they are
beginning to become, so to say, epidemic.
Of the seven churches, four Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna,
Philadelphia are passing through such times of trial. The
martyrs already form a distinct class in the general body of
believers. They are destined to have part in the first resur-
rectionbefore the thousand - years reign begins (204^. cp
Tgj/'.). The seer beholds them under the altar (69^.). All
through the book this time of struggle is kept in mind (13 i
149^. ISijf 106 17 6 IS 20-24).
{!>) The .Apocalyptist predicts a still mightier and
more strenuous struggle.
In this struggle the predestinated number of martyrs is to be
fulfilled (69^:). Philadelphia is to be preserved^in this Last
great tribulation (3 10 ; cp the jxeyoAij #Ai'i/t of 7 14). This
time is not far off: the martyrs who have already suffered arc
bidden endure only a little longer (0 1 1). Therefore, ' Blessed
are they that die in the Lord from henceforth ' (oir' oprt ; 14 1 3).
(c) This Struggle turns, and will in the future turn,
upon the worship of the beast. That this beast is
in one sense or another the Roman Empire or con-
nected with it, is admitted on all hands. It is important,
however, to consider the grounds on w hich the .Apocalypse
opposes Rome. Rome's horrible deed is not, as might
perhaps be guessed, the destruction of Jerusalent, nor
yet in the first instance, at le;isi the Neronian per-
secution, but the worship of the beast i.e., Cwsar
worship (cp 13 149/". 152/: ItJs/ o 17619ji/: 20
4-6; cp Mommsen, J?dm. Gesch. Ssaon.). What the
306
APOCALYPSE
book predicts is the great conflict about to break out all
over the world between Christianity on the one hand and
the Roman Empire (with the Roman state religion, the
worship of the emperors) on the other (cp Antichrist,
7).
(</) This great battle will begin with the return of
Nero Rcdivivus.
In common with the rest of the men of his day, the
Apocalyptist shares the popular expt-ctatioii of tlie coming again
of that emperor. Nero is(13 3 12 14) the head that was wounded
to death and afterwards healed. He is only ' .as it were ' (u))
slain, like the lamb (.'> 6). For as the latter continues to live on
in heaven, so does Nero prolong a shadowy existence in hell.
Out of the abyss (17 s) he will again return, and as Roman
Kmperor demand acloration. Then will l>e the days of the great
future struggle. Hence the name of the beast is 656 i.e.,
nop nn: (cp An iichkist, 15).
(() Thus the date of the Ai5ocaly[)se admits of lieiiig
ajjproximately determined. The ciui of tlic first century
is already sufficiently indicated by the fact tiiat the
Apocalyptist expects the return of Xero from hell (Th.
Zahn, 'Apocal. Stud.' inZA'II'Z., 1885, pp. 561-76,
1886, pp. 337-52 393-405 ; see below, 45). The
following consideration points to the same inference,
liehind the Apocalyptist in point of time there already
lies a great persecution. He himself is again living in
limes of persecution, and is expecting worse to come.
Inasmuch as the former persecution must be assumed
to be the Xeronian, we are compelled to carry the
Apocalypse down to the later period of Domilian.
When we do so the fact that 11 i ff. points
to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem need
not cause us any luisgiving : doubtless the passage
comes from an earlier source. On the other side we
sh(juld be able to fix an inferior limit for the date,
could it be shown that the epistles were already known
to Ignatius (see above, 2). The date thus indicated
the close of the first century was in ]joint of fact the
date at which, it would seem, the general persecutions
of the Christians, turning substantially on the rendering
of divine honour to the emperor, first broke out (see
CiiKisTiAN, 6). Tiie Apocalypse, as we now have it,
presupposes conditions very siinilar to those which we
meet in the well-known corresjjondence between I 'liny
and Trajan. In this it is not implied that the Apocalypse
could not have been written some ten years or more earlier.
In the conclusion just indicated we find ourselves in
agreement with the best attested tradition as to the date
of the writing of the Apocalypse.
According to Irenitus (v. 30 2 ; cp v. 20 7), the Apocalypse was
'seen ' at the close of Domilian's reign at Patmos, and therefore,
of course, to say the least, not written earlier (cp Vict. Pettau.
Comin. on Apoc. 10 11 ; Eus. HE iii. 18 1-3 ; Jer. Dc vir. iltus.
p; Sulp. Sev. Chron.'l-},\). .A. different tradition is met with, it
IS true perhaps in Tertullian, who (De pru-scr. Hit-r. 36)
mentions the martyrdom of John (by boiling oil a death from
which he was miraculously delivered), and his subse(|uent banish-
ment, in connection with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
(but see, on the other hand, Scot-piace 15). It is certain that at
all events Jerome {Adv.Jcmin. 1 26 [2 16]) understood Tertullian
as assigning this martyrdom and banishment of John to the
reign of Nero (cp Eus. Dem. ETans:. 3 ; the superscription of
the .Syriac translation of the Apocalypse edited by Ludovicus
de Dieu ; the Gnostic Acts of John; Theophylact [who gives
the date as thirty-two years after the Ascension ; cp the notes
of some of the Greek cursives of the Fourth Gospel : thirty years
after the Ascension, under Domitian (I); Erbes, 48]). Finally,
Epiphanius (Hier, .51 12 33) will have it that the book was written
under Claudius. The same statement occurs in the Commentary
of Apringius (upon whom see Rousset, CGN, 1895, p. 2), whence
it found its way into that of Heatus (ed. Florez, 33).
The Apocalj'p-se is distinguished from the apocalyptic
literature of Judaism from the time of the book of
37. Details
of criticism.
36. Personality
of Apocalyptist.
Daniel onwards by the high pro-
phetic consciousness which it displays.
The Apocalyptist as he stands at
one of the turning-points of the world's history looks
with a clear eye into the future and feels himself to be a
prophet. He is a Christian of an especial type. For
the prophets are servants of God in a peculiar sense
( 1 1 I O7 11 18 226 [cp 153]) : they are the fellow-servants
of the angels (229) ; other Cliristians are so only in
so far as they follow the revelation of the prophets
207
APOCALYPSE
(229). God is master of the spirits of the prophets
(226 cp 17 17 19 10). Hence the author directly claims
for his work the rank of a sacred book. It is intended
from the first to Ije publicly read ( 1 3) ; those who hear
it and obey what is written therein are blessed ( 1 3
227), and whosoever adds to or takes away from it falls
under the most grievous curse (22 18/). The frec|uent
mention of tiie propliets along with the saints {i.e..
Christians in general) see 11 18 166 I82024 is a proof,
not, as many critics have supposed, of the Jewish, but of
j the Christian, origin of the related passages. The .Apoca-
lypse in this respect was the forerunner of Montanism,
and it is no matter for surprise that it was specially
valued in Montanistic circles. It is also noteworthy
' that the Apocalyptist speaks to his own age and time.
( Whilst Daniel is represented as receiving, at the close of
his vision, the command to seal the book for long, here
! in sharp contrast we read (22 10) ' Seal not up the words
i of the pro]5hecy. ' The Apocalyptist seems to have been
j a Jewish Christian of universalistic sympathies. For
i him the name of Jew is a name of honour (29 89) ; he
seems to uphold a certain prerogative for the Jewish
I peo|)le(7 1-8 11 1-132O7/. ). He shows himself intimately
familiar with the language of the OT.
Into the apocalyptic unity thus defined, isolated frag-
ments ha\e been introduced in a manner which can
still be more or less clearly detected.
Of these the more imjiortant at least must
now be discussed, and some detailed
account of the more noteworthy results of criticism given.
Of recent critics the majority (Vischer, \'61ter,
Weyland, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Schmidt) regard
; _, , p the epistles to the seven churches (chaps.
aps. - . ^_g^ ^^ having been originally separate
from the rest of tlie book and as having been prefixed
j only after the Apocal3'pse had in other respects assumed
its present form ; but Spitta has shown good grounds
for believing that chaps. 1-3 and 4-6 ought not to be
separated, and (as against Vischer and others) has
established for the whole of chaps. 4-6 that Christian
character which unquestionabl)' belongs to ^d ff. Thus
Spitta takes chaps. 1-6 as a single original document
((Christian primitive apocalypse = U).
He seeks to prove this by pointing out that there is a definite
close at the end of (>, and a fresh beginning of a new apocalypse
in V I (so also P. Schmidt). But the sixth seal (Oi2_^.) does not
represent the final catastrophe ; it only pictures a great earth-
quake in the typical apocalyptic manner. In t3i5_^ the end is
still to come, and if, with .Spitta, we pass on to 79-17 immedi-
ately after 617, any representation of the end of all things h.as
completely disappeared from our reconstructed Apocalypse. In
any case, it is impossible that one should fail to recognise
an interpolated fragment in the .short passage (C9-11) relating
to the fifth seal. We have an exact parallel to it in 4 E.sd.
435 (cp also /Ethiop. Enoch 47). And the tradition of 4
Esd. must l)e regarded as the original one. It speaks quite
generally of a predestined number of the righteous which has
to be fulfilled before the coming of the end, whilst in the
Apocalypse the conception is applied to the predestined number
of the martyrs a modification which can be explained very
easily from his general position (see above, 35).
Spitta's view that 7 1-8 constitutes a fresh beginning,
which has nothing to do with the preceding chapters,
is certainly correct ; but neither has
the passage anything to do with that
which follows it (79-17) ; as to this practically all critics
are agreed. These facts, however, will not justify us in
attributing 79-17 to the redactor (as do Volter, Vischer,
Pfleiderer and Schmidt), nor yet in carrying out a system
of deletions in chap. 7 (as do Erbes, Wej-l. , Rauch) until
the two disparate sections have been brought into
harmony. Our proper course is to recognise (cp also
Spitta)- in 7 1-8 an interpolated fragment probably
Jewish.
The sudden mention of the four winds, which are held by the
angels and are nowhere in the succeeding narrative let loose,
points to this conclusion, as also does the introduction of the
144,000 I.sraelites of the twelve tribes a numl^er which in 14 1_^
is interpreted in a sense inconsistent with the original ' '
Bousset has hazarded the conjecture that here
have a fragment of the Antichrist legend.
39. Chap.
41. Chap.
12i-io.
APOCALYPSE
The next passage wliicli presents sjx;cial difficulties is
11 1-13. Here all critics are agreed in recognising a
_. fragment interpolated Ixilsveen the sixth
'. P' trumpet and the seventh (cp 9 11 and
'"'^' 11m). Further, almost all critics agree
in regarding chap. 10 as an introductory chapter
connected with this fragment. On closer examination
it is found, moreover, that 11 1-13 really consists of two
smaller fragments: (a) lli /, a prediction of the
preservation of the temple, written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and presenting points of contact with
Lk. 2124; (/'I the prophecy relating to the beast and
the two witnesses (11 3-13). This latter piece is of
an extremely fragmentary and enigmatical character.
Certain matters are introduced without any preparation :
the two witnesses, the l)cast from the ahyss, the war of the
beast with the witnesses, the jjeoples and tribes rejoicing over
the death of these last. .\li these are disjecta membra which
point to some larger connection.
In this passage, too, Housset has sought to show that
we have a fragment from the Antichrist legend.
In accordance with Jewish :ind primitive Christian anticip-ition
tlie .\ntichrist is destined to appear as a (jod-defying ruler in
Jerusalem, to lead the people astray and tyrannise over them, and
to gather together a great army from all nations. Against liim
will arise the two prophets Elijah and Enoch, and Israelites
to a definite number (7 1-8?) will be converted. A great famine
and drought will come. Then .Xntichrist will put to death the
two witnesses, and the end will draw near. It is evident that
here we have a coherent tradition, of which some fragments are
preserved in ch.ap. 11.
Chap. 12 is the most difficult in the book. It
also falls into two sections, 12 1-12 and I213-17, and
betrays itself as a foreign intrusion both by
its unfamiliar character and by its strange
and bizarre representations.
.\. Dietrich (Abraxas) was the first who sought to trace in the
chapter an adaptation of the myth of the birth of Apollo : he
liL-ld tlie i^x^iiaiil tu^jitive woman to be Leto, the dragon was
tlii; I'Nihoii, the child (who in the original legend himself slew
llu- l'\tlii)ii, Mich.icl liL-iiig a later introduction) was Apollo.
The water which in the ("ireek myth figured as a protecting
power h;is here become auxiliary to the dragon.
Recently Guiikel, in his Schopjiitig u. Chaos, has
directed special attention to this chapter, and shown
that an adequate understanding of it could Ix: arrived
at neither on the assumption of a Christian nor on that
of a Jewish origiti (\'ischer, W'eyland, Spitta) that on
either hypothesis there remains an intractable residuum,
bearing a mythological character. Here, accordingly, as
elsewhere in the Apocalypse (cp the seven angels, stars,
candlesticks, torches [EV 'lamps'], e3'es, pp. 294-302;
the twenty-four elders, 302-8 ; Armageddon, 263-66,
and p. 325 n. 2; the numlx;r 3^, pp. 266-70; also
chaps. 13 and 17, 379^), he found elements taken from
Babylonian mythology, and in particular the myth of
the l)irth of the sun-god Marduk and of the persecution
of Marduk by the dragon Tiamat. The difficulty
in this construction of Gunkel's is that down to the
present date it has been impossible to find in the liaby-
lonian mythology any trace of the myth of the birth
and ])ersecution of the youthful sun-god. Bousset
(Apok. 410/;), however, has called attention to parallels
with one chapter in Egyptian mythology (the myth of
the birth of Horus).
In the result, there seems much probability in the
supposition that chap. 12 embodies a myth of the birth of
the sun-god and the persecution of the young child by
the dragon, the deity of winter and of night. The Apoca-
lyptist has changed the sun-god, however, into the ttois
'iTjffoOj Xpiarbs, the persecutor into the devil, and the
deliverance of the child into the resurrection (observe
the inconcinnity of this adaptation). In this treatment
of the material laid to his hand, he was not able
to give full significance to the flight of the woman,
which is so prominent a feature in the original myth.
This is accordingly only briefly touched on in 126 ; but
it receives copious and special treatment in the second
half of the chapter {w. 13-17). Hence the incongruity
between 12 1^ and 12 13/; which \\'eizsacker pointed
out.
14 20Q
APOCALYPSE
What historical occurrence is intended by the flight
of the woman in 12 13-17 is not quite clear. Usually the
42 ChaD *^'^'^' '** ^*"'"" '^^ refi-'Ting to circumstances
, A *^* connected with the destruction of Jerusalem
'^''^" either to the destruction and (in a sense)
the deliverance of Judaism, or, better, to the flight of
the primitive Christian ( hurch.
Erijes, who seeks to explain ch. 13 as referring to the Caligula
period (see below), interprets the flight and deliverance of the
woman in connection wuh the first persecution of Christians
at Jerusalem, strangely taking v. 17, 'the remnant of her seed
who hold the testimony of Je.sus,' as pointing to the Jews (I) at
the time of the Caligula persecution. Spitta actually takes the
persecution of the woman as representing an occurrence in
heaven. ' The remnant of the seed of the woman ' represents,
he thinks, the actual Israel as contrasted with the ideal pre-
existent Jerusalem (Israel?). Others (Vischer) interpret the
rentnant as meaning believers as distinguished from tlie Nlessi.ih.
Chap. 13 also contains two passages of a peculiar
character tho.se describing the first beast and the
.o /^i. 10 second. O. Holtzmaiui, Spitta, and
43. Cnap. 13:,., , . '. . ,
i.v c i. I. J. I'-rbes were agreed m recoijinsinij here
the first beast. ^ j^^^.^,^ (Holtzm.. Sp.) or a Christian
(Erb. ) source dating from the time of Caligula.
Independently of each other, they all (as had already
been done by Th. Zahn) acceiited the numlier 616
which is given in some .\I.SS (C. 11 Ticoiiiiis),
instead of 666, and inter]3ieted it as meaning Tdibs
Katcrap. The beast demanding worship, whose image
{('iKihv) is repeatedly spoken of, is, on this view,
the half- mad tyrant Caius Caligula, who in 39 .\.n.
ordered his i)rocurator, I'etronius, to set uj) his statue in
the temple at Jerusalem. Parallels to this prop-hecy
belonging to the same date were found in Mt. 2-1
( ' abomination of desolation ' ) and in 2 Thess. 2. The
' wound (irXrjyri) of the beast was interjjreted by Spitta
as meaning the sickness which befel Caligula towards
the beginning of his reign. These conjectures are by
no means impossible ; but if they are acceisted,
certain important particulars in the cha[)ter must be
deleted in particular, references to the wounded head
of the beast. This and the number 666 {-op jnj) show-
distinctly that (in its present form) the chapter was
intended to be understood of the return of Xero
Redivivus. Whether an older source dating from Cali-
gula's time has here been worked over remains doubtful.
As compared with this interpretation, the view which takes
the wounded head to be Julius Ca;sar (Ciunkel, P.ruston) has
little to be said for it since the number 666 in that case remains
unexplained ; nor c.in we reasonably interpret the deatli-wouiid
to mean the interregnum of (ialba-Otho-Vitelliiis, or refer the
number to the Roman empire (Aareti'os, Diisterdieck ; C'CII 1ST>
Ewald). '
Still greater has been the perplexity of interpreters
over the second beast. All attemjjts to make it out to
^ be some definite personality have hitherto
, been unsuccessful. Bousset {Cumm. ad loc.)
vf ^'^'t upholds the view that it is in reality a modifi-
cation of the older conception of Antichrist,
who is here represented as serving the first l)east, the
Roman emperor, and perhaps is to be interpreted as
signifying the Roman provincial priesthood, the active
agency in promoting the worship of the emperor.
The objection usually urged against referring the pass-
age to Nero that the beast whose number is 666
cannot mean Nero the man ; that it must mean the
Roman empire is not valid. To the .Xpocalyptist Xero
Redivivus is at the same time the incarnation of all that
is dreadful in the Roman empire. The number of the
beast is the number of a man : cp 17 " ' and the lieast
... is himself also an eighth ' {koX avroi 5y8oos e<XTiv).
Chap. 17 is intimately connected with chap. 13, and this
duplicate treatment of the same subjects is in itself proof
_, .. sufficient that the .\pocalyptist had l)efore
ap. /. him older prophecies, which he has worked
over more than once. In this chapter also the reference
to the returning X'ero is clear. Since Eichhorn, h<iw-
ever, it has further been recognised on all hands (cp Ue
Wette, Bleek, Lucke), and with justice, that the kings with
w hom the beast returns for the destruction of Rome are
APOCALYPSE
the Parthians, whose satraps might already be regarded
as independent kings (Momnisen, Rom. Kaisergesch.
5521). Thus our present chapter also conies into a
larger historical connection. As early as the year 69
A.I), a psoudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia
Minor and (Ireece (Tac. Hist. 2if. ; Dio C;issius, 649 ;
Zonaras, 11 15) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo-
Nero showed himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 18)
and was acknowledged by the I'arthian King Artabanus
(Momm.sen, 5521). About 88 A. u. a third pseudo-Nero
again made his appe;irance, also among the Parthians,
and threatened the Roman empire (Suet. i\'cro, 50 ; Tac.
IJis'. 1 2). In this form we find the same expectation
also in the fourth Sibylline book, written shortly after
79 -X. D. {Sil'vll. 4 119^ ^yi ff-)< ^"d '" 'he oldest portion
of the fifth book, written about 74 A.I). (5143^ 361^) ;
in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation of
Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Rev. IS 21) ; cp Zalms exhaustive researches (as above,
35)- tiy '*"'l^ iwwv: and place our chapter (perhaps
associated with the threatening utterance against Rome
and the prophecy of a new Jerusalem) belongs to the
same circle of expectations and predictions. It was
doubtless written in Asia Minor ; but the e.xact date is
disputed.
According to 17 10 the Apocalyptist represents himself as
writinj; under the sixth eniptror, five having died and .1 seventh
having yet to cume, to be succeeded by the eiglilh, who is to be
one of the seven (Xero). In reckoning, it is possible to begin
either with Juhus Ocsar or with .\ugustus, to count or not to
count the interregnum of C.alba-Otho-Vitellius, and finally to
ask whether the p.issage was really written under the si.xth
emptror, and not, rather, as a vaticinium ex enentu, under the
seventh or eighth. Thus interpreters have taken the si.xth
emperor to be now Nero (so all who hold the Apocalypse to have
been written before 70 a.u. ; also V'Olter), now "Vespasian, and,
conformably, take the chajiter to have been written now under
the last-named emperor, now under Titus (the .seventh ; Wey-
land) or Domitian, who is then taken, on rationalising lines, as
Nero Redivivus (Erbes).
The parallels cited above appear to render the reign
of \'cspasian the most probable date. The writer
probably a Christian expected after Vespasian a short
reign for his successor al.so. The tradition was that
seven Roman emperors were destined to reign. There-
after Xero was to come back with the Parthians, and,
in alliance with these, to take vengeance on Rome, the
bloody persecutor of the Christians (176; 'with the
blood of the saints ' ; the words ' with the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus ' appear to be a gloss). The denuncia-
tion of Rome (chap. IS) connects itself very well with this
prophecy (see Sibyll. 5).
It is further to be noted that chap. 17 has already, in
the form in which we now have it, undergone redaction.
On the nne hand, Nero is simply the eighth ruler who was one
of the seven ; on the other, he is the beast who comes up from
the abyss. On the one hand, he wages war along with the
Parthians against Rome ; on the other, he wages war along with
the kings of the earth against the lamb. In this redacted form
(17812-14 or 15; cp also Volter) Nero is designated as the
dread spectre of the time of the end who comes back from hell.
Now, we find the same expectation in chap. 13, where Nero is
plainly represented as dead (ws eiriftaytievev, 'as though it had
been smitten unto death ') and as counterpart (Wiederspiel) of
the lamb that had been slain and is to come again. This mode
of repre.senting Nero probably comes from the latest redactor.
Parallels to it can be found in the later portions of the fifth book
of tlie Sibyllines (33/^ 215-26), and in the eighth book (1-215).
The legend of Nero Redivivus first arose towards the
end of the century, a full generation after Nero's death,
when he could no longer well be supposed to be still
alive among the Parthians (cp Zahn, as above). Its
reception into the Apocalypse supplies one of the
elements for determining the date of the book.
Chap. 16 12^ (the sixth and seventh vials) also must
have originally belonged to chap. 17. In this passage the
46 Various =^"5'"' Po^''^^"' his vial upon the Euphrates,
fraBinenta '^^^ ''^^ ^^'^^ '"'^^ ^ made ready for the
^^ kings from the east' (cp 9i3j^, with its
reference to the angels bound and loosed at the
Euphrates ; on which, see Iselin in TAeo/. Z. aus der
APOCALYPSE
Schweiz, 1887, as above, 25). The representation of
the gathering of the kings at Armageddon (Har-
Magedon) in this passage is noteworthy ; it is not very
intelligible, as we read of no mountain of Megiddo, but
only of a plain (but see Armageddon). It recalls the
ancient accounts of battles of the gods upon the moun-
tains (Gunkel, Schopf. 263^ 389 n. 2).
Chap. 14 14-20 also appears to be an ancient fragment.
It thus early sets forth a final judgment by the Son of
\lan. The passage, however, is so very fragmentary
that it is hardly possible for us to make out what its
original character may have been (cp the expression
'without the city' in 14 20). liousset has sought to
explain it by reference to the Antichrist legend.
Fragments of older date seem to have been in-
troduced into the account of the chaining of the
dragon, the millennium, the irruption of (Jog and
Magog (2O1-10; cp 2O9, irapffxjioXT} rCiv ayiwf, ttoXij
qyairy}fj.ivri, and .^thiop. Enoch 56, Sil'vll. '6 319-
322). The description of the binding and loosing of
Satan recalls the Persian legend of the chaining of the
dragon Azi Dahak on Mt. Dcmavend. Finally, a
continuous piece perhajjs of Jewish origin (see 21 24 26
222) lies before us in the description of the new
Jerusalem, 21 9-225.
We ought to compare Tob. 13 16^, Ps. Salom. 17 23^, Sil'vll.
6247-85, 414-33, and the Hel)rew Apocalypse 0/ Elijah, edited
by M. Buttenwieser, 65-67. In this last-named Jewish source
also we find the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven.
To summarise the results of the forcs^oing analysis :
With the conclusion of the epistles to the seven churches
47 Summarv (chaps. 1-3) the Apocalypse, properly so
^' called, begins. Here the first six seals
succeed one another uninterruptedly, till the interpolated
fragment in 7 1-8 is reached. As a pendant to this
fragment, with its distinctly Jewish character, the Apoca-
lyptist proleptically introduces in 79-17 a picture of the
blessedness of believers from every nation who have
come out of the great tribulation. Now follow the
seventh seal and, arising out of this, the seven trumpets
(chaps. 8-11). Between the sixth and tlie seventh trumpet -x
the passage 10 i-ll 13 has lx;en interpolated. In chap. In
the Apocalyptist indicates to some extent what the ' dis-
position ' of the remainder of the book is to be (cp 10 n).
It is to be observed that in chaps. ^ ff- , in addition to the
distribution under seven trumpets, the Apocalyptist has
attempted a second under three woes. The first woe
answers to the fifth trumpet ; the second, the mention
of which might have been expected after the sixth
trumpet, does not come up until 11 14, after the great
interpolation has been reached. The third great woe
(which is not expressly named by the Apocalyptist)
is doubtless indicated in 12 12. It is hardly likely that
we have here a redaction from an older source.
Before, then, he comes to the culmination of his
prophecy, in chap. 13, the Apocalyptist casts his glance
backwards in chap. 12. Borrowing the imagery of an
ancient sun-myth, he depicts the birth, persecution, and
rescue of the Saviour, and afterwards the persecution of
the Church. In chap. 13 he goes on to foretell the coming
final struggle, the last great ,ind decisive battle between
the faithful ones and the beast who demands adoration.
For him the supreme crisis of this struggle still lies in
the future, when Nero Redivivus is to appear. In the
bright picture which he prophetically introduces at 14$
by way of contrast to chap. 13, he adapts and modifies
7 1-8. 146-13 is intended to effect the transition to what
follows. 1 4 14-20 is a smaller interpolated fragment.
The great finale remains. The Apocalyptist still had
to work in the prophecies contained in chap. \7 /. \
by way of introduction to these, chap. 1.')/ are given.
Then follows, after an intermediate passage (19i-io),
the picture of the final judgment (19ii-2l8); after
which we have a new fragment, 21 9-22 5, followed by
the close.
Literature. The literature of the subject has been indicated
in the course of the article. w. B.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
CONTKMS
Introductory 08 i-4)-
Apocalypse of Karuch (g 5-17).
Enoch ; Kthiopic (fS 18-32), Slavonic (88 33-41).
Ascension of Isaiah (88 43-47)-
Jubilees (88 48-58).
Assumption of Alose.s (88 59-67).
Sec Ai'OCKVi-HA for references to the following less important apocalypses.
Abraham (Apockyimia, 8 O- Elias (Ai-ockvpiia, 8 21, no. 10).
.\ci.im (ii>. 8 10). Edras {i7>. g 22, no. 13).
Bartholomew (ib. g 10 (1) ).
iMc
i (//'. 8 10, nos. I [a], no. 2, and g
Testaments of xii. Patriarchs (f| 68-76).
Psalms of .Solomon (gg 77-85).
Sibylline Oracles (gg 16-98).
Paul (Apocrypha, g 13).
Zcphaniah (//'. g 21, no. i).
Introductory : The objects and nature of apocalyptic
literature (g 1-4).
I. Ai'ocai.yi'sk of Baki'CH J. A composite work derived
' . from at least five authors, written mainly in
1. Synopsis Palestine, if not in Jeru.salem, by Pharisees
of Article. "" ^.u. 5o-(,o. Preserved only in Syriac
(85-i7).
II. Lthiopic liooK OF Enocm. Written originally in Hebrew
or Aramaic by at least five Assidcan authors (20^.64 D.c.) in
Palestine. Part I. chaps. 1-3(5 earlier than 170 n.c. Part II.
chaps. 83-!H), i66-i6i B.C. Part III. chaps. 1-104, 134-95 B.C.
Part IV. (the Similitudes) chaps. 37-70, Q4-64 '..c. Part V. (the
Bi)ok of Celestial Physics) chaps. 72-78, 82, 70. Part VI.
(Fr.iKments of a lost Apocalypse of Noah) (8 i8-32).2
HI. Slavonic Hook ok E.moch, or The Hook ok the Secrets
OF Enoch. Written by an Alexandrian Jew, mainly frnm pre-
existing materials, about a.d. 1-50. Eclectic in character ;
preserved only in Slavonic ( 33-41).
IV. Ascension ok Isaiah. A composite work, written
originidly in Greek, partly by Jewish, partly by Christian
authors, a.d. i-ioo. Preserved in Ethiopic and partially in
Latin (8 42-47).
V. H()oK OF Ji'BiLEES. Written originally in Hebrew by a
Palestininn Jew. a Pharisee of the Pharisees, probably 40-10 B.C.
Prt^. i\.'l ill luliinpic and partially in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek,
Lati:., .::ia Sl..^ . ..ic (S 48-5S).
>Ni OK MosKs. Written in Palestine, in Hebrew,
'harisee. Preserved only in Latin ( 59-67).
KNTS OF THE XII. Patkiarchs. A Composite
originally in Hebrew by two Jewish authors
Vl..\sM MI'l
7-30 A.D., by a
VII. Testa
work written
representing respectively the legalistic and the apocalyptic sides
of Pharisaism, 130 B.c.-io a.u., and interpolated by a succession
of Christian writers from the close of the jst century down to
the 4th century a.d. Preserved in Greek, Armenian, and
Slavonic versions ( 68-76).
VIII. Psalms ok Solomon. Written originally in Hebrew,
possiblv in Jerusalem, by two or more Pharisees, 70-40 u.c.
(88 77-85).
IX. SiiiVLi.i.NE Oraci ES. Written in Greek hexameters by
Jewish and Christian authors, mainly by the latter the earliest
portions belon;;ing to the 2nd century B.C., the latest not earlier
than the 3rd century A.D. ( 86-98).
Introductory. The object of apocalyptic literature
in general was to solve the difficulties connected with
2 Problem ^ be'ie'^ ^^ God's righteousness and the
suffering condition of his servants on
earth. The righteousness of God postulated the
temporal prosixirity of the righteous, and this postulate
was accepted and enforced by the Law. But while the
continuous exposition of the Law in the post-e.xilic
period confirmed the people in their monotheistic faith
and intensified their hostility to hcathenisiti, their
e.xpectations of m.aterial well-being, which likewise the
Law had fostered, were repeatedly falsified, and a
grave contradiction thus emerged between the old
prophetic ideals and the actual e.xperience of the nation,
between the promises of God and the bondage and per-
secution which the people had daily to endure at the
hands of their pagan oppressors. The difficulties arising
from this confiict between promise and experience might
be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectively
with the position (i) of the righteous as a community,
and (2) of the righteous man as an individual.
The or prophets had concerned themselves chiefly
with the former, and pointed in the main to the restora-
tion (or 'resurrection') of Israel as a nation, and to
Israel's ultimate possession of the earth as a reward of
righteousness. Later, with the growing claims of the
individual, and the acknowledgment of these io the
1 On other Apocalypses of Baruch. see below, Apocrypha,
8 20.
'.i On chaps. 71 80/, see g 30/
213
S I 49).
religious and intellectual life, the second problem pressed
itself irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and
made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule
and righteousness which did not render adecjuale satis-
faction to the claims of the righteous individual to gain
acceptance. Thus, in order to justify the righteousness
of God, there was postulated not only the resurrection
of the righteous nation but also the resurrection of the
righteous individual. Apocalyptic literature, therefore,
strove to show that, in resj^ect alike of the nation and
of the individual, the righteousness of (jod would be
fully vindicated ; and, in order to justify its contention,
it sketched in outline the history of the world and of
mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the
final consummation of all things ; and thus, in fact,
it presented a Semitic philosophy of religion (cp
Chronology ok OT, i). The righteous as a
nation should yet possess the earth either in an eternal
or in a temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny
of the righteous individual should finally be determined
according to his works. For, though lie might perish
untimely amid the world's disorders, he would not fail
to attain through the resurrection the reconipen.se that
was his due in the Messianic kingdom, or in heaven
itself. The conceptions as to the duration and character
of the risen life vary with each writer.
The writings that are treated of in the rest of this article,
however, deal not only with the Messianic e.x|)ectations
but also with the exposition and aijjilication of the Law
to the numberless circumstances of life. As Schiirer
has rightly observed, the two subjects with which Jewish
thought and enthusiasm were concerned were the Law
and the Messianic kingdom. These were, in fact, parallel
developments of Pharisaism. As we have the former
its legalistic side represented in the Book of JubiUcs,
so we have the latter its apocalyptic and mystical side
set forth in the Book of Enoch. The Tcstannnts of
the Twelve Patriarchs give expression to lx)th sides of
Pharisaism ; but this book, as we shall see in the
sequel, is really a composite work and springs from
authors of different schools. The rest of the books here
discussed belong mainly to the apocalyptic side of
Pharisaism.
It is a characteristic of apocalyptic as distinguished
from prophecy that the former trusts to the written, the
3 Method. ^^^^'^'^ ' '^^ spoken, word. This is due
largely to the fact that the prophet
addresses himself chiefly to the present and its concerns,
and that, when he fixes his ga/.e on the future, his
prophecy springs naturally from the circumstances of
the present. The apocalyptic writer, on the other
hand, almost wholly despairs of the present ; his main
interests are supramundane. He entertains no hope of
arousing his contemporaries to faith and duty by direct
and jxjrsonal appeals. His pessimism and want of faith
in the present thus naturally lead him to pseudonymous
authorship, and so he approaches his countrymen \s ith
a writing which purports to be the work of seme
great figure in their history, such as Enoch, Moses,
Daniel, or Baruch. The standfxjint thus assumed is as
skilfully preserved as the historical knowledge and
conditions of the pseudonymous author admit, and the
future of Israel is ' foretold ' in a form enigmatical indeed
214
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
but generally intelligible. All precision ceases, howcvei ,
when we come to the real author's own time : his
j)redictions, thenceforward, are mere products of the
religious imagination, and vary with each writer. In
nearly every case, we should add, tliuse books claim to
Ix; supernatural revelations given to the men by whose
names they are designated.
It will not be amiss here to notice the gross mis-
.i[)prehcnsion under which Jost, Graetz, and other
4. Historical
value.
Jewish writers laboured when they pro-
nounced this literature to be destitute
of value for the history of Jewish
religion. To such statements it is a sufficient answer
that from 200 n.c. to 70 A.n. the religious and political
ideals that really shaped the history of Judaism found
their expression in this literature. It is not in the
discussions and logomachies of tlie Rabbinical schools
tliat we are to look for the intiuences and aims that
called forth some of the noblest patriotism and self-
sacrifice the world has ever witnessed, and educated the
nation for the destinies that waited it in the first century
of our era, but in the ajjocalyptic and pseudepigraphic
books which, beginning with Daniel, had a large share
ill |)reparing the most religious and ardent minds of
(Jalilee and Judiua cither to i)ass over into Christianity,
or else to hurl themselves in fruitless efforts against the
invincible might of Rome, and thereby all but annihilate
their country and name. Still it is true that the work of
the scribes and the exposition of the schools had opened
the way for this new religious and literary development.
The eschatological element, moreover, which later
attained its full growth in such pseudepigraphical
writings as Daniel, Enoch, Noah, etc., had already
strongly asserted itself in later prophets such as Is.
24-27, Joel, Zech. 12-14. Not only the beginnings,
therefore, but also a well-defined and developed ty[)e of
this literature had already established itself in the OT.
Its further developments were moulded, as we have
pointed out above, by the necessities of the thought and
by the historical exigencies of the time.
Cp Smend's introductory essay on Jewish apocalyptic, ZA TIV
5 222-250 ('35) ; Schiirer, //I'si. 644^; Hilgenfeld, />/' />/.
Apokalyptikin i/irergeschichtlicken Ilntivickelung, 1857 (Kin!.).
I. The Ai'oc.m.vp.sk ok Bakuch. The Apocalypse
of Baruch was for the first time made known to the
5. The Syriac
modern world through a Latin version
Baruch.
of Ceriani in 1866 {Mon. Sacr. i.
273-98). This version was made from
a Syriac M.S of the sixth century, the text of which was
also in due course published by the same scholar, in
ordinary type in 1871, and in a photo-lithographic
facsimile in 1883. An examination of the Syriac version
_ . , , makes it clear that this version is a
6. A transla-
tion from
translation from the Greek. It occasion-
_ . ally transliterates Greek words, and
the text is at times explicable only
on the supposition that the wrong alternatives of two
possible meanings of certain Greek words have been
followed by the translator. Even before Ceriani's
publication, however, we had some knowledge of the
Apocalypse of iiaruch ; for chaps. 78-8(), which contain
Baruch's Epistle to the nine tribes and a half that were
in captivity, had already appeared in Syriac and Latin,
in the London and the Paris Polyglots, in Syriac alone in
Lagarde's Lib. Vet. Test. Apoc. Syr. 1861, in Latin
alone in Fabricius's Cud. Pseiidep. Vet. Test., and in
I'.nglish in Whiston's Authentic Records. Ceriani's Latin
version was republished in F"ritzsche's Lib. Apoc. Vet.
Test. ('71) in a slightly emended form; but, as the
Syriac text was still inaccessible, I'Yitzsche's emendations
are only guesses more or less fortunate generally less.
We have just remarked that the Syriac version is
_, a translation from the Greek. We shall
.' . I now enumerate the reasons from which
Y it appears that the Greek was in turn
translated from a Hebrew original.
(i.) The quotations from, or unconscious reproductions of, the
2 IS
OT agree in all cases but one with the Mas.soretic text against
. (li.) Hebrew idioms survive in the Syriac text. Thus
there arc niany instances of the familiar Hebrew idiom of the
infinitive absolute combined with the finite verb, and many
breaches of Syriac grammar in the Syriac text are probably to Ijc
explained as survivals of Hebrew order and Hebrew syntiix.
(iii.) Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained
and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew. '1 bus,
among many others, the pas.sages 'Jl 9, 11, 12, 'J4 2 and
02 7 can be restored by retranslation into Greek and thence
into Hebrew. The Syriac in these verses is the stock rendering
of ftKatoOcrdat, and this in turn of
pis ; .
but
'"f
also^Sixaiot
eti/ac, and this is the meaning required in the' above pas.sages,
where the Greek translator erroneously adopted the commoner
rendering. (iv.) .Many paronomasitr discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 44-53.
The final editor of this work assumes for literary
purposes the person of Baruch, the son of Xeriah.
8 Contents ^^^ scene is laid in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem ; the supposed time is the
period immediately preceding and subsequent to the
capture of the city by the Chakhuans. Baruch, who
begins by declaring that the word of the Lord came
to him in the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah,* speaks
throughout in the first jxjrson. If we exclude the letter
to the tribes in the captivity (chaps. 78-87), the work
naturally divides itself into seven sections, separated from
one another in all but one instance (i.e. after 35) by
fasts which are, save at the end of the first section, of
seven days' duration. The omission of a fast after chap.
35 may have been due either to an original oversight of
the final editor or to the carelessness of a copyist.
That the text requires the insertion of such a fast is to be con-
cluded on the following grounds : According to the scheme of
the final editor events proceed in each sectinn in a certain
order (see Charles, Apoc. Hnr. g, <6, 61). Thus first we
find a fast, then generally a prayer, then a divine message or
disclosure, and finally an announcement of this to an individual
or to the people. Thus in the tifth section, il-34, we have a
seven-days' fast (21 1), a prayer (-214-26), a revelation (22-30),
and an address to the people (21 24). Then another seven-days'
fa-t should ensue at the beginning of the sixth section (30-40).
With the exception of this omission events follow in this section
as in the others.
These sections are very uner|ual in length 1-56
57-8 9-124 125-20 21-35 36-46 47-77 a fact that,
though it does not in itself make against unity of
authorship, confirms the grounds afterwards to be
adduced for regarding the work as composite.
1. The first section (l-'ie) opens with God's revelation to
Raruch regarding the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But a
time of prosperity .should return.
2. According to the next section (5 7-9 i), Baruch fasts until
the evening, and the Chalda;ans encompa.ss Jerusalem next day.
In a vision Baruch sees the sacred vessels removed from the
temple by angels and hidden in the earth till the last times.
The angels next overthrow the walls, the enemy are admitted
and the people carried away captive to Babylon.
3. In the third section (9 2-12 4), Baruch fasts seven days, and
receives a divine command to tell Jeremiah to go to Babylon ;
but Baruch himself is to remain at Jerusalem to receive God's
revelations regarding the future. I5aruch bewails Jerusalem
and the lot of the survivors. ' Would that thou hadst ears, O
earth, and that thou hadst a heart, O dust, that ye might go and
announce in Sheol and say to the dead : " Blessed are ye more
than we who live."'
4. In the fourth section (12 5-20), Baruch fasts for seven days,
and is told by God that he will be preserved till the end of time
in order to bear testimony against the nations that oppressed
Zion. When Baruch complains of the prosperity of the wicked
and the calamities of the righteous, God answers that the future
world is made on account of the righteous that the blessings of
life are to be reckoned not by its length but by its quality and
its end. Baruch is bidden not to publish this revelation (20 3).
5. In the fifth section (21 i-S.'i), Baruch fasts, as usual, seven
days. He deplores the bitterness of life, and suppliaites God to
bring about the promised end. God reminds him of his ignor-
ance, and declares that the end, though close at hand, cannot
arrive till the predestined number ot men be fulfilled, and again,
in answer to Baruch's question respecting the nature and the
duration of the judgment of the ungodly, descril>es the coming
time of tribulation, which will be divided into twelve parts At
its close the Messiah will be revealed. Baruch summons a
meeting of the elders in the valley of Kedron, and announces to
them the future glory of Zion.
6. The sixth section (3rt-40) should begin with the mi.ssing fast
of seven days. Shortly after, he has a vision of a cedar and a vine
1 We may observe here that Jeconiah reigned only three
months, and was carried captive to Babylon eleven years before
the fall of Jerusalem.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
wiilth symbolise the Roman power and thetriumphofthe Messiah.
When liaruch asks who shall share ni the future hlessciiness, God
answers : To those who have U-lieved there will be the blessed-
ness that was spoken of aforetime.' Haruch then (4-I-47) calls
together his first-l)<>rn son and seven of the elders, tells them of
his approaching end, and exhorts them to keep the law, lor ' a
wise man will not be wanting to Israel, nor a son of the law to
the race of Jacob.'
7. After a fast of seven days, Taruch in the seventh section
(47-77) prays for Israel. The revelations that ensue tell of the
coming tribulation, liaruch bow:. Us the evil eflccls of Adam's
fall. In answer to his request, he is instructed as to the nature
of ihe resurrection bodies. Then, in a new vision (.)3-74), he sees
a cloud a.scending from ihe sea and covering the whole earth.
There was lightning about its summit, and soon it began
to discharge first black waters and then clear, and again black
waters and then clear, and so on till there had been six black
waters and six clear. At last it rained black waters, darker
than had been all that were before. Thereupon, the lightning
on the summit ot the cloud flashed forth and healed the earth
wheie the last waters had fallen, and twelve streams came up
from the sea and became subject to that lightning. In
the fillowing chapters the vision is interpreted. The cloud is
the world, and the twelve successive discharges of black waters
and clear waters symbolise six evil periods and six good periods
of the world's history. The eleventh pcriutl, s\ iiil>(>li-,t(i by the
black waters, pointed to the supposed present trilnilantiii of Jeru-
silen?. The rest of the interpretation follows i , tin future tense.
The twelfth clear waters point to the renewed prosperity of Israel
and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The last black waters that
were to flow pointed to troubles, earthquakes, and wars over
the whole earth. Such as survived these were to fall by the
haiulscf the .Messi.ih. These bl.ickevt of .ill the waters were
to Ik- f..ll.)\sca hy clear waters, which s\inl>.)Ii/i:(l tlie blessedness
of tin: Mo-iaiiic times. This Messianic jirriiHUhould form the
l)iiii:iil.iiy line- lii-tween corru])tion ami iiicurruiiiioii. 'That time
i>5 til.- I .n-iiiiiinati'.n <if that which is corruptible, and the begin-
ning .f i!i. a wliirli is inc.rruiiiible.' liaruch thanks God for
the ivAclat 1.111 \iniclisafc(i. lie is then informed of his coming de-
partuie from the earth, but is bidden first to g.) and instruct the
people. He admonishes them to be faithful (chap. 77), and at
their reiiuest sends two epistles, one to their brethren in liabylon
(' the two and a half tribes ') and the other to the tribes (' nine
and a half) beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in
chaps. 7S 87. It is probable that the lost letter to the two tribes
and a half is identical with, or is the source of, the Greek Haruch
39-429. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 65-57.
From the discovery of the Apocalypse of Rainich in
_ . . ,, 1866 till 1 89 1, it was regarded by scholars
9. Kabiscns ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ author. In the latter
tneory ot ^^^^^ KalMscli, in an article entitled ' Die
sources. Qudlen der Apocalypse Baruchs ' {JPT,
1891, PI). 66-107), showed beyond the possibility of
(luestion tliat the work was composite and derived from
at least three or four authors.
Thus he distinguishes 1-24 i, 302-34, 41-52, and 75-87 as the
groundwork written after 70 A.D., since these chapteis imply
the destruction of the temple. He further observes that these
parts are marked by a despair which no longer looked for peace
and happiness in this world, but fixed its regards on the world
of incorruption. In the other jjieces of the book there is a
strong faith in Israels ultimate triumph here, and an optimism
which looks f.>r the ,ni,>uniiii..ti..i, of Messianic bliss in this
life ; and. as Kabisch ri-htiv ..marks, the ten. pic is still standing.
These other secti'.ns, l,wJv,:i-, are the w,.rk n,,t of .,ne writer
but of three, being cunstituied us follows : a short Ap..c. 24 3-
2!t, the Vine and Cedar Vision :i(i-40, and the Cloud Vision
53-74 : 30 I '>'! 2-4, 35 are due to the final editor.
This theory is certainly in the right direction. It is
<)|)LMi. however, to unanswerable objections. 'I'here is
no unity in the so-called groundwork.
10. Present
writer's
results.
When submitted to a detailed criticism, it
exhibits a mass of conflicting conceptions
and staten)ents. The results of such a
criticism mav lie stated briefly as follows (for the details
see Charles.' .-//<^t:. liar. 53-67). 1-26 31-35 41-52 75-
87 were written after the fall of Jerusalem, and were
derived from three or possibly four authors, Bj, Bj, B3,
and possibly S.
Bi = l-i>i 43-447 45/77-82 84 8()/, written by a Pharisee
who expected Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the dispersion to be
brought kick from exile.
R.., = 9-12 13-25 302-35 41/ 448-15 47-52 75/ 83, also by
a Pharisee who looked for no national restoration, but only for
the recompense of the righteous in heaven.
P,3 = S5, written by a Jew in exile.
S. =106-124, possibly by a Sadducee, but perhaps to be as-
signed to H.J.
The rest of the lx)ok was written before the fall of
Jerusalem. It consists of an Apocalypse 27-30 1 ( = Ai)
217
and the two Visions 36-40 ( = Aj) and 53-74 ( = A,
already mentioned. All these different elements were
combined by the final editor, to whom we owe also
42-6 2t5 284/. 322-4 and possibly some other additions.
Jewish religious thought busied itself, as already
observed, mainly with two subjects, the Messianic hope
... . and the Law ; and in proportion as the
.. . one Ijecame more prominent the other
criteria. j^^. j^^^ ^^^ background. Now, the
chapters written Ixifore 70 A.U. are mainly Messianic.
Chaps. 27-30 i (Ai) and 30-40 (.V.) take account of the I-aw
only indirectly, whereas in those written after that date the whi le
thought and hopcsof the writers centre in the Law as their presei t
mainstay and their source of future bliss. In chaps. 53-74 (A:/,
again, the Messianic hope and the Law are eijually emphasized.
iTiis writing marks the fusion of early Kabbinism and tie
popular Messianic expectation. (See Charles, oJ<. cit.)
In the sections B, and B,2, on the other hand, written
after the fall of Jerusalem, we have two distinct outlooks
as to the future. In B, the writer is still hopeful as to
the future of Jerusalem.
It is delivered into the hands of its enemies indeed, but only
for a time (41O9). The consolation of Zion should yet be
accomplished (44 7 hi i 4), and the ten tribes brought back from
their captivity (7S 7 84 10). Moreover, the retribution of the
Gentiles was close at hand (82 2-9), and in due time would arrive
the judgment, in which God's justice and truth should exact
their mighty due (809).
In B.2. on the other hand (and if possible still more in
B3 = chai3. 85), the writer is full of irremediable desjjair
as to the earthly fortunes of Zion and its people in this
world (106-11).
Destruction awaits this world of corruption (21 19 31 5). The
righteous have nought to look for save the new world (44 12). the
world that dies not (.'d 3), the world of incorruption (85 5). Only
in the world to cmie will every man be recompensed in the
resurrection according to his works (50/), when the wicked
shall go into torment and the righteous shall be made like unto
the angels.
In the sections written l)efore the fall of Jerusalem,
the Messianic element, which was wanting in B,, B.^,
and B.J, is predominant. The three Apocalypses '27-30
(.Aj) 36-40 (Aj) 53-74 (A,) have many features in
common such as an optimistic outlook as to Israel's
earthly prosperity, the earthly rule of the Messiah till the
close of this world, and the material blessings of his
kingdom. There are, however, good grounds for regard-
ing them as of different authorship. The Messianic reign
is to close with the final judgment. On the Escha-
tology of the book see, further, IvsciiATOLoGV, 78.
All the elements of this book are distinctly Jewish.
Its authors, as already observed, were Pharisees, full of
confidence in the future glories of their
nation, either in this world or in the next,
12. Author-
ship.
notwithstanding their present hum
tions. They entertain the most lofty coiicejitioiis as to
the divine election and the absolute pre-eminence of
their race.
It was on Israel's account that not only the present world
(14 19) but also the coming world (107) was created. Israel is
God's chosen people whose like is not on earth (is 20); the
perpetual felicity of Israel lay in the fact that tlty had not
mingled with the nations (-18 23). The one haw which they had
received from the one God (4824) could help and justify them
(51 3); for so far as they kept its ordinances they could not fall
(4S22): their works would save them (14 12 51 7<>3 3). In <!iie
time also all nations should serve Israel ; but such of them as h.-\d
injured Israel should be given to the swa.rd (72 6). The carnal
.sensious nature of the Messiah and his kingdom (20-30 30 ; -40
72-74) is essentially Pharisaic. There w.is to be a general
resurrection (42 8 12); but apparently only Israel .should l.e
saved (51 4).
1 It is possible to determine approximately the earlier limit
of the composition of .-\;t by means of what we might call the
Enochic canon. This is : No early Jetvish book -u-hich extols
Enoch could have been ivrittcn after 50 a.d., ami tlu attribu-
tion 0/ Enoch's words and achievements in a Jc.vish tvotk 10
other O T heroes is a sign that it was written after the Pauline
preaching 0/ Christianity. This hostility to I- noch from 50
A.U. onwards (cp Knoch) is to be traced to Lnochs .-icccptance
among the Christians as a Messianic prophet. Kor the grounds
and illustrations of this canon see Charles, .-iyVv. Bar.
21-22, loT. Now, in .50 5-11 of this Apocalypse many of 1 noch s
functions and revelations are assigned to Moses. Hence Aj
was written after 50 A.D.
ai8
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
The affinities of Apoc. Bar. with 4 Esdras are so strik-
ing and so many that Kwald ascribed the two books to the
. _ Aflinitv '''^'"^ author. Though this view has not
th 4 F ri '**^'''" ^'^cepted in later criticism, it will
not be amiss to draw attention to these
affinities, (r) The main features of the two books are
similar. They have one anti the same object to de-
plore Israel's present calamities and awaken hope in the
coming glories, temporal or spiritual, of their race.
In both the speaker is a notable figure of the time of the
Babylonian captivity. In both there is a sevenfold division of
the work, and an interval (as a rule, of seven days) between each
two divisions ; and, whereas in the one Ezra devotes forty days
to the restoratiiin of the scriptures, in the other Haruch is
bi Idsn to spend forty days in admonishing Israel before his de-
parture from the earth.
(2) They have many doctrinal peculiarities in common.
According to l)oth, man is saved by his works (4 Esd. 7 77 8 33
97, A(>. Bar. 22l4i2etc.); the world was created in belialfof
Israel (4 Esd. 6 55 7 1 1 ! 13, A/>. Bar. 14 19 l.'> 7 etc.) ; man came
not into the world of his own will (4 Esd. 8 5, Ap. Bar. 14 11 48
15) ; a predetermined number of men must be attained before
the end (4 Esd. 436/, Ap. Bar. 2845); God will visit his
creation (4 Esd. 5 56 18 it 2, Ap. Bar. 20 2 24 4) ; Adam's sin was
the cause of physical death (4 Esd. 3 7, Ap. Bar. 23 4) ; the souls
of the good are kept safe in treasuries till the resurrection (4 E.sd.
435-377328095, Ap. /)'jr. 3O2).
This list might have been indefinitely added to.
On the other hand, there are clear points of divergence.
14 Divereence ^" ^'-^'^^''^^s the Messianic reign is limited
from 4 Esd * "^ years (7 28/ ), whereas in Baruch
this period is quite indeterminate.
Again, in the former {729) the Messiah is to die, and
the Messianic reign is to close with the death of all
living things ; whereas in the latter, according to 30, the
Messiah is to return in glory to heaven at the close of
his reign, and, according to 73/, this reign is to be
eternal, though it is to belong partly to this world and
partly to the ne.xt.
Again, in Esdras the writer urges that God's people should be
punished by Gods own hands and not by the hands of their
enemies {Jji() /.), for these have overthrown the altar and
destroyed the temple, and made the holy place a desolation (10
217C). In Haruch it is described at length how the holy vessels
were removed by angels and the walls of Jerusalem demolished
by the same agency before the enemy drew nigh (0-8).
On the question of original sin likewise these two books are
at variance. Whilst in Esdras the entire stream of physical and
ethical death is traced to Adam (3 7 2iyC 4 307 48), and the guilt
of his descendants minimised at the cost of their first parent
(yet see S 55-61), Haruch derives physical death indeed from
Adam's transgression (17 3 23 4 54 15), but as to ethical death de-
clares that "each man is the Adam of his own soul " (54 19 ; yet
see 4842).
It will be clear from the facts set forth above that
the relations of these two apocalypses constitute a com-
15 Real ^'^'^ problem. If we attempt to deal with
,' .. this problem on the supposition that each
book is derived from a single author, no
solution is possible ; and the barrenness of criticism
hitherto in this direction is due to this supposition of their
unity. When, however, we come perforce to recognise
their comjiosite nature, we enter at the same time on
the road that leads to the desired goal. For a pro-
visional study of the relations lietween the various con-
stituents of this apocalypse and 4 Ksdras, the reader
can consult Charles, Apoc. Bar. 67-76. The results of
this study tend to show that, whilst some of the con-
stituents of 4 Ksdras are older than the latest of Baruch,
other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than
the remaining ones of 4 Esdras.
The points of contact between this apocalypse and
the NT are many ; but they are for the most part
IR PI f insufficient to establish a relation of de-
to NT^**" pendence on either side. The thoughts
and expressions in questions are explicable
from pre-e.xisting literature or as commonplaces of the
time.
Such, among many others, are Mt. 3 16, Ap. Bar. 22 i, Mt. 26
24, Ap. Bar. 106, Lk. 21 28, Ap. Bar. 287, Rom. 818, Ap.
Bar. 15 8.
The following passages are of a diflferent nature
and postulate the dependence of our apocalypse on the
219
NT, or possibly, in one or two of the instances, of both
on a common source.
With Mt. 16 26, 'For what shall a man be profited, if he
.shall gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? or what shall a
man give in exchange for his soul?' cp Ap. Bar. 61 15, ' For
what then have men lost their life, or for what have those who
were on the earth exchanged their soul?' Also with i Cor. 15
19, ' If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all
men most miserable,' cp Apoc. Bar. 21 ij, ' For if there were
this life only . . . nothing could be mure bitter than this.' Also
with I Cor. 15 35, ' How are the dead raised and with what
manner of body do they come?' cp 4i> 2, ' In what shape will
those live who live in that day?' Cp also Lk 1 42 with Ap.
Bar. 54 10, Jas. 1 2 with 52 6, and Rev. 4 6 with 51 2.
As the Apocalypse of Baruch was written between
50 and 100 A.D. it furnishes us with the historical setting
17 'Valufl ^""^ background of many of the NT prob-
lems, and thereby enables us to estimate
the contributions made in this respect by Christian
thought. Thus, whereas, from 492-51, we see that the
Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in i Cor. 15 35-50 was
not an innovation but a developed and more spiritual
exposition of ideas already current in Judaism, it is clear,
on the other hand, from the teaching of this book on
Works and Justification, Forgiveness and Original Sin
and Freewill (see Charles, op. cit. pp. 80-85), what a
crying need there was for the Pauline dialectic, and
what an immense gulf lay herein between Christian and
Rabbinic teaching. No ancient book is so valuable in
attesting the Jewish doctrine of that period.
Bihliof^raphy. In addition to the works already mentioned,
the reader may consult Langen, De Apoc. Bar. comtii. ('67) ;
Ew. CGA ('67), 1706-17, 1720; /fist. 0/ Israel, 857-61;
Drummond, The Jeiois/t Messiah ('77), 1 17-132; Kneucker,
Das Buch Bar. ('79), 190-198; Di. ' Pseudep." in PRE^^,
12356-358 ; Deane, I'scudtp. ('91), 130-162.
II. The Book of Enoch. By the exegesis of later
times, the statement that ICnoch walked with God (Gen.
24 ; see Enoch) was taken to mean
18. Jewish
view of
Enoch.
that he enjoyed superhuman privileges of
intercourse with God, and in this inter-
course received revelations as to the nature
of the heavens and the earth, the present lot and the
destinies of men and angels. It was natural, there-
fore, that an apocalyptic literature should seek the
shelter and authority of his name in ages when such
literature became current. In the Book of Enoch pre-
served in Ethiopic we have large fragments of this
literature proceeding from a variety of Jewish writers
in Palestine ; and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch
preserved in Slavonic we have further portions of it,
written originally by Hellenistic Jews in Eg\-pt. To
the latter book we shall return.
The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic
belongs to the last two centuries B.C. All the writers of
, , the NT were fannliar with it and were
_ , . . more or less influenced by it in thought
Enoch : its , , t ;
, and diction. It is quoted as a genuine
lorDune . production in the Epistle of Jude( 14/) and
as Scripture in that of Barnabas [Ep. 43 It) 5)- The
wl^ho'cso{^.\^(i Secretsof Enoch, Jubilees, Test. xii. Pair.,
Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esd. laid it under contribution. With
the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of
a canonical book ; but towards the close of the third and
the beginning of the fourth centuries it began to be dis-
credited, and finally it fell under the ban of the Church.
The latest references to it are to be found in Synccllus
and Cedrenus, who have preserved large fragments of
the Greek version. The book was then lost sight
of till 1773, when two MSS of the Ethiopic version
were discovered by Bruce. From one of these M.SS
Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch
in 1821.
Enoch was originally written in Heb. or Aram.,
T jre "' '" Greek. On this question the
i . gu g . ^.j^jgf Apocalyptic scholars are practi-
cally agreed.
In the case of chaps. 1-32 this view is established beyond the
reach of controversy ; for in IO9 19 188 27 2 28 i 21) i 31 i of the
Greek version we find that the translator transliterated Heb. or
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
Aram, words that were unintelliKible to him. The name view
as lo the remaining chapiers has been amply proved in the
Joum. As. ('67) 352-395 by Halivy, who regards the entire
work as derived from a Hebrew orii-inal. See also Charles,
Book 0/ Enoch, 21-22, 325. Recently some Dutch and flerman
scholars have argued for an Aram, original on the ground that
three Aram, forms have lecn preserved in the Gi/eh ( Ireck frag-
ment \\t.. ^ova in 18, (Lavio^apa. in 28 i, and fia^ijpa. in L'l i.
The first is, it is true, an .\ram. form of ^15 and the two latter
onaip. Thisargumcnt, however, is inconclusive. Wc find oxava
in2 K. H9/' [U.\*l asatransliterationof nin, and Xiva in Neh.
'J 14 (HKJ as a transliteration of ['V; and there are other inst.-inces
of the siime pcailiarity in *. Hence the presence of such
Arani.ii>nis in a text is not sufficient in itself to establish an
Aram, original.
The Hel). original was translated into Greek, and
from (ircok into J-2lhiopic and Latin. Of the Greek
21 Versions ^'^''*'"" c^^V^- 6-94 84-IO14 158-16i
^Greek '''^^ ^' come down to us through Syncel-
lus((/rf. 800 A. u. ). and 8942-49 through
a \':itican MS. ; hut tlie most important fragment of
this version the CJi/ch tJreek fragment was discovered
only a few years ago by the Mission Archtologique
I'^ranfaise at Cairo, and published in 1892.
.M. I,od's critical edition of this frajjnient, accompanied by a
translation, appeared almost simultaneously, and next year it was
edited by the present writer, with an exhaustive comparison of
the llreek and Ethiopic versions of 1-32, as an .Appendix to his
work on Rnoch. The other Greek fragments will be found in
the same work. The Gizeh fragment was edited also by Dill-
mann (.S7;.-i;r ['92], li.-liii. 1039-1034, 1079-1092). The frag-
ments of the Greek Knoch with a critical apparatus are to be
published in the 2nd edition of vol. iii. of .Swete's Cambridge
The Latin version is wholly lost with the exception
of 1 9, which is found in a treatise of the Pseudo-Cyi)rian
22 Latin. *^"'''''^*^ -^"' ^'ovutiatium (see Zahn's
(n-sth. it XTliclicn h'anoris, 2797-801), and
100 1-18, which owes its thscovery to Mr. James, in
an eighth-century MS in the Hrit'ish Museum. This
fr:iginent is critically edited in Charles's Ihiok of Enoch,
372-375' .I-inies, Apocrypha Auecdota, 146-150.
The Ethiopic version alone preser%es the entire text,
and that in a more ancient and trustworthy form than
23. Ethiopic. thf otl''-''- versions. It has fewer
'^ additions, fewer omissions, and fewer
and less serious corruptions.
_ \. The Kth:\>/>ic .1/.S".S".~Tlie Ethiopic MSS are comp.-ira-
tively many. I here are about twenty scattered throughout the
libraries of Europe ; half of them are found in the liritish
Museum. The best of all the known MSS is undoubtedly that
design.itcd Orh-nt. ./V,- in the Hritish Museum.
I I. Fditions 0/ the I'.tkiopic Text.~Ox\\y two editions have
api)eared that of Lawrence in 1S38 from one AIS, and that of
iJiUmann in 1851 from five M.SS. Unhappily, these MSS
were late and corrupt. The present writer hopes to issue a
text based on the incomparably better MSS now accessible to
scholars. Such a text is actually presupposed in his Translation
and Commentary of 1893.
III. Translations and Commentaries. Translations accom-
panied by Commentaries have been issued by I-awrence ('21),
Hoffmann Cas-'^S), Dillniann (-53), Schodde (52), and Charles
^'??,^V P*" ^^'"'"T'n's and Schoddes Translations the reader
will find a short review in Charles (6-9).
_ IV. Critical fntjuir.es. - Some account of these will be found
in Schiirer, Hist. 70-73. and in Charles's Jiook pf Knoch, 9-21
309-31 1. Of the many works on this book the following deserve
spcial mention here. Lucke, Kinl. in d. Offenh. dcs Joh.^i)
( >2); Ew. Abhandl. ah. d. nth. Jiuches Henokh Entstehunc,
Sinn, und Zusammenseizung {'55); Kostlin, ' Ueb. die
Entsteh. d. B. Henoch' (T/ieol. Jahrh. 1856, pp. 240-279 370-
j86); Hilgenfeld, Die j fid. A/>okalyfitik ('57), 91-184 ; Geb-
hardt, ' Die 70 Hirtcn des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen '
(Merx's Archiv /. wissoischafll. Er/orschung des AT, 1872,
vol. 11. Heft 2 163-246) ; Dnimmond, The Je^vish .Messiah (87),
17-73; Eipsius in Smith and W^ct:'^ Diet. o/Chr. .fi/V- ('80),
2124-128; Schiirer, Hist. 54-73 ; Lawlor, y^Krw. I'hil. vol.
xxy. pp. 164-225 I97].
The Hook of iMioch is a fragmentary survival of an
entire literature that once circulated under his name.
24. Com- '^ *'''^ ^^'^^ ^^ plurality of books as-
positeness S'o"ed to Enoch front the first may in
some sense point : as, for instance, the
exi)rcssion 'books' in 104 12 ; Te.tf. .vii. Patr. Jud. 18 ;
Origen, c. Cchiiin, 554. and elsewhere. Of this literature
five distinct fragments have been preserved in the five
books into which the Book of Enoch is divided (1-36
37-71 72-82 83-90 91-108). These bookswereoriginally
separate treatises ; in later limes they were collected
and edited, but were much nmtiiaied in the course of
retlaction and incorporation into a single work. In
addition to this Enoch literature, the final editor of the
Ixiok made use of a lost ai)OcaIypsc, the Hook of Noah
(mentioned in Jubilees 10 13 21 10), from which he drew
C-Il (?) 17-19 3Di2-/ 41 3-8 43/ 547 i:>i 59/ G5-
6925 106/ Another fragment of the Hook of .Noah
has l)een embodied in the Hook of Jubilees (see below,
57).
We have already remarked that in the five books into
which the whole work is divided we liave the writings
25. Criticism.
of five different authors. I'cfore we
proceed to give some of the grounds
for this statement, we 
