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, 
