Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible"

See other formats








fE^ CO 


7 7 

'''//^"' ' '^' 








2 6 A. D. 1 




J^)^ ' 








The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D. 






A to D 




Copyright, 1899, 

By the macmillan company. 

NortDooU iPtfSB 

J. 8. CuBhing fc Co. - Berwick & Smith 

Norwood Mai. U.S.A. 





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, 

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 


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. 


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 



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- 


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 


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. 


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, 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 


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 


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. 


= 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 

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 


of Nabu-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabic, but also a fourth 
symbol h (see Egypt, ). 












































sh, i 







kh (k) 










W, V 


Extra Arabic Consonants: <i5, th, /; (3, dh, <f ; ^jfl, d; ja, 

' long 
Heb. a e i o u 


' short very short 
aeiou S.t-dor'^eo 

mere glide 

At. a 1 u a (e) 

Ar. diphthongs : ai, ay, ei, ey, e ; aw, au, 5. 



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. 



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., 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. 


The Academy : A Weekly Pevietv 

of Literature, Science, and Art. 

AV. . 

London, '69^. 

AF. . 

Sec A OP. 

b. . 

AHT. . 

Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See 

Ba. . 

Altltest\. Unt. . 

See Winckler. 

Anter. Journ. of 

American Journal of Philology, 

Bab. . 



Baed., or 


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) 


Ant. . 

Josephus, Antiquities. 



Altorientalische Porschungen. See 


Ba.NB. . 

Apocr. Anecd. . 

Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd 
series, published under the 

general title ' Texts and Studies ' 

Baraitha . 

at the Cambridge University 
Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp. 

BDB Lex. 

Aq. . . . 

revolt against Hadrian), author 

of a Greek translation of the Old 

Testament. See Text. 

Ar. . 



Aramaic. See Aramaic. 

Be. . 


Archeology or Archciologie. See 
Benzinger, Novvack. 

Ar. Des. . 

Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88. 

Ar. Heid., or 

Keste arabischen Heidentums. See 






Ass. . 


Beitr. z. Ass. 

Ass. HWB 

Assyrisches Handwdrterbuch. See 

As. u. Eur. 

W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa 

nach altdgyptischen Denkm'dlern, 

Benz. HA. 


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. 

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., 



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; 




73; Esra, 

Nehemia u. Ester, '62; <2), by 
Ryssel, '87. 

Beitrdge, especially Baethgen (as 

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. 


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. 


Buxt. Syn. Jud. 

Bu.\t. Lex. 

c., cir. 
Calwer Bib. 

c. Ap. 
CII . 

Chald. Gen. 


Proph. Is. 
Job and Sol. 
Ps. . 

OPs. . 

Aids . 
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. 


Cahver Kirchelexikon, I'heologi- 
sches Llandworterbuch, ed. P. 
Zfller, '89-'93. 
contra Apionem. See Josephus. 
Composition des llexateuchs. See 

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. 

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, 

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 



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. 



AF. . 

All\_Ust']. Unt. . 
A/ner. Journ. of 


Slem.] Liang.] 

Am. Tab. . . T 

Am. . 


Apocr. Anecd. . 


At. . 

Ar. Des. . 
Ar. //eid., or 

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^. 


Ancient Lfebrew Tradition. See 

See Winckler. 

American Journal of Philology, 

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 

Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd 
series, published under the 
general title ' Texts and Studies ' 
at the Cambridge University 

Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp, 
revolt against Hadrian), author 
of a Greek translation of the Old 
Testament. See Tkxt. 


Aramaic. See Aramaic. 

Archeology or Archaologie. See 
Hen/.inger, Nowack. 

Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88. 

Peste arabischen Ileidentutns. See 



Assyrisches ILandw'drterbuch. See 

W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa 
nach alt'dgyptischen Denkm'dlern, 

A T, A Tliche 
A T Unters. 


Bab. . 
Baed., or 
Baed. Pal. 

Baethg., or 


^2..NB. . 

Baraitha . 
BDB Lex. 


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. 

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., 



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 

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. 


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 _^. 

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. 


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. 


Buxt. Syn. Jud. 

Buxt. Lex. 

c, cir. 
Calwer Bib. 

c. Ap. . 

C/L . 

Chald. Gen. 


Proph. Ls. 
Job and Sol. 
Ps. . 

OPs. . 

Aids . 
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. 


Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologt- 
sches ILandivortcrbuch, ed. P. 
Zfller, '89-'93. 
cojitra Apionein. See Josephus. 
Composition des LLexateuchs. See 

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. . 



Crit. A/on. 

Cr. Rev. . 

D . . . 

D2 . . . 

Dalni. Grain. . 

IVorte Jesu 
Aram, Lex. 

ment, 91 





de C. Orig. 

De Gent. 

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, 


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 


in the light of Assyrian Re- 
search, '>i^. 
Prol. . Prolegomena cines neuen hehr.- 

aram. IVorterhuchszuin A 'I\ 
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch, 

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. 


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, 
Is. . . Lsaiah, /lis Life and Times, in 

' Men of the Bible,' (2), '93. 
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici 

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, 

E . . . Old Hebrew historical document. 
E2 . . . Later additions to E. See His- 
torical Literature. 
^^(3) . . Encyclopa:dia Britannica, 9th ed., 

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, 


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 . 








Exp\^os'\. T{imes'\ 
/and/-. . . 

Field, Hex. 

F[r.-\HG . 

Fl. and Hanb. 

Floigl, GA 

Founders . 

Fr. . 

Fra. . 


<@ . 

GA . 

GA . 


Gei. Urschr. 

Ilistoria Ecclesiastica. 

Praparatio Evangelica. 

English version (where authorised 

and revised agree). 
Hcinrich Ewald (1803-75) = 

Lehrbuch der hebr'dischcn 

Sprache, '44; 




Lex. . 


Geschichte des Volkes Israel ; 

(3' i.-vii, 64-'68 ; ET C^') 5 

vols. (jire-Christian period), 


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, 

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. 




GI . 





Ps. . 

Gr. Ven. 

HA or Hebr. 


Mil. . 

Harper, ABL 






Herzog, RE 
Ifet Herstel 


no . 

Hilgf. . 


Hist. Proph. 

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. 





'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. 


Continued as AJSL {q.v.). 

Reste arabischen Ileidentums. See 

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, 

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 . 


Hor. Hebr. 
HP . 


HPSm. . 

Samuel in 
HS . 
HWB . 

IJG . , 

Intr[od]. . 
Intr. Is. . 

It. . 

It. Anton. 


Jlourn.'] A[m.;\ 
0[r.-\ S[oc.^ 
Jastrow, Did. 

yl^ourn.'] As. 



JE . . 

Jensen, Kosm. 


/[(!/-.] Phil. 





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 

Israelitische u.ji'idische Geschichle. 

See Wellhausen. 
Introduction to Isaiah. See 

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 

Jahrbiicher fi'tr dcutsche Theologie, 

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, 

See JBL. 

Die Keilinschriftenu. d. .lite Testa- 
ment. See Schrader, 
E. Kautzsch : 

Grammalik des Biblischen- 

Aramaischen, '84. 
Die heilige Schrift des Allen 
Teslauienls, '94. 


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- 
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- 
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 
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. 


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) : 


Hagiographa Chaldaice, '73. 

Syr. . . 

Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo- 

cryphi Syriace, '61. 

Ges. Abh. . 

Gesammelte Ahhandlungen,''66. 


Mitteilungen, i.-iv., '84-"89. 


Symmicta, ii., '80. 


Proverbien, '63. 


Uehersicht iiher die itn Ara- 

or BN 

maischen, Arahischen, und 

Ilehrdischen iihliche Bildung 

der Nomina, '89. 


Bcitrdge z. haktrischen lexiko- 

graphie, '68. 


Prophetie Chaldaice, '72. 


Semi tic a, 'jSf. 

Arm. St. . 

Armenische Studien. 

Or. . 

Oricntalia, i., '79. 


E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English 

lexicon, '63^. 

Z [and] B . 

W. M. Thomson, The land and 

the Book, '59; new ed. '94. 


Later Biblical Researches. See 


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, 


Low . 

J. Low, Aramdische PJianzenna- 

men, '81. 



LXX or (5 

Septuagint. See above, p. xv f., 

and Text and Versions. 


Marq. Fund. 

Moses Maimonides (1131-1204). 
Exegete, author of Mishneh 
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc. 

Mandaean. See Aramaic, 5 


J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti- 
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, '96. 
K. Marti : 

Kurzgefasste Gramtnatik d. 
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. 







Mey . 


MH . 




The Struggle of the Nations 

^-SyP^' Syr id, and Assyria. 

Ilistoire Ancienne des Feuples 

de V Orient ('99#.)- 

Monatshericht der Berliner Aka- 

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, 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 


NB . 
Nestle, Eig. 

Neub. Geogr. 

NHB . 


no. . 

N6[ld]. . 

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^. 

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 

Neu-hebr. u. chaldTiisches Worter- 

buch. .See Levy, 
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 

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. . 


Onk., Onq 
OS. . 


Pal. Syr. 


Pat. Pal. . 
PE . 

PEEQiu. 5/.] 


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 

Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, '95. 

Pmparatio I-'.vangelica. See Euse- 

Palestine Exploration Fund 
[founded '65] Quarterly State- 
ment, '69^. 

Palestine /exploration Fund Me- 
moirs, 3 vols., '8 1 -'83. 




Ph., Phoen. 

Preuss. Jahrbb. 
Prim. Cult. 

Proph. Is. 

Prot. KZ . 


PS Thes. 

R . 

RjE . 

Rd . 
Rp . 


Rec. Trav. 


Rel. Pfl/. . 


Rev. Sem. 
Ri. Sa. . 



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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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). 
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 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. 



Sab. Denkm. 


Roscher . . Ausfiihrliches Lexikon d. Griech- 
ischen u. Romischen Mythologie 

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., 

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- 
Sabaische Denkm'dler, edd. Miiller 

and Mordtmann. 

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 






Smend, Listen 








SS . 

St., Sta. . 
GVI . 


St. Kr. . 
Stad. m. m. 

Stud. Bibl. 

Sw. . 


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. 

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 <', 
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, 
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- 

Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re- 
den u. Abhandlungen, '99. 
Studien und Kritiken, '22>ff. 
Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar- 

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, 


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- 

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 


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, 

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, 

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, 

Ur gesch. , . Die biblische Urgachichte. See 


V. . . . verse. 

Var. Apoc. . The Apocrypha (AV) edited with 

various renderings, etc., by C. J. 

Var. Bib. . The OldandNe-.u Testaments{.\\) 

edited with various renderings, 

etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R. 


Vet. Lat. . 

Vs. . 

We., Wellh 
De Gent. 


Phar. u. 


IJG . 

Kl. Proph. 
CH . 



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 

Die Pharts'deru. d.Snddiicaer; 
eine Uiiterstichtmg ziir in- 
neren judischen Geschicht 

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; (^\ 
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. 
J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen- 
tum Gracum, etc., 2 vols, folio ; 
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, 





WMM . 
Wr. . 


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, 

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. 

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 

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- 

ZTK . . Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und 

Kirche, '91 ff. 
ZWT . Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche 

Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), '587?". 


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. 


J. A. R. 

J. M. 

Bevan, Anthony Ashley, Lord 
Almoner's Professor of Arabic, Cam- 

Shipley, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S.. Fellow, 
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ's College, 

JiJi.iCHEK, ADOLF, Professor of Church 
History and New Testament Exegesis, 

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, 

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, 

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. 








A. C. 


J- (Jr.) 




N. S. 

0. C. W. 

P. W. S. 
R. H. C. 

R. W. R. 


A. C. 



T. G. P. 

T. K. C. 






Marii, Karl, Professor of Old Testa- 
ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan- 
guage, Berne. 

Gautier, Lucien, Professor of Old 
Testament Exegesis and History, 

King, Leonard William, M.A., F.S.A., 
Assistant to the Keeper of Egyptian 
and Assyrian Antiquities, British 

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, 

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 

Whitehouse, Rev. Owen C, M.A., 
Principal and Professor of Biblical 
Exegesis and Theology in the Countess 
of Huntingdon's College, Cheshunt, 

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, 

Rogers, Rev. Robert W., Ph.D., 
D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Drew 
Theological Seminary, Madison, New 

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- 

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, 

BOUSSET, W.. a.o. Professor of New 
Testament Exegesis, Gottingen. 


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. 



between cols. 352 and 353 

" 414 and 41J 




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 

- 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 


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 


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. 


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 
2 On the several forms see Ba. NB g 194 n. 2, S 224 b. 


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). 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. 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, 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. 


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 

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. 

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 



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 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- 


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, '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- 

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 


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, 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 

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) 


genitive relation is excluded ; inferentially it is equally 
so in the former. (2) The 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, 

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 < 


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). 


[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. 


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. 


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];, 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. 



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 

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 

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. 


' 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). 



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 


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 (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 

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. 


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,, 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). 


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). 


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.). 


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 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. 


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. 



(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. 


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- 


* So, long ago, Hitzig, following Btr. ratia, par. 43. 


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 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/. 



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/.). 



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. 


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, 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 ; 
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 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. 



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. 


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 

ACATAN (&KAT&N [B.\]), iEsd.838t .W=Ezr. 
812, Hakkatan. 

ACCABA (akkaBa [B]), i Esd.530 RV=Ezra246, 


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). 



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. 

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). 


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 


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., [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 

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 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. 


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. 

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 

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. 



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. 



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 


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. ( . 


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. 



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- 

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 ' 

or Journey 

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 


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), 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. 


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 

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. 

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. 


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 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 

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 

1. There is first \hc polilicul tendency, the desire to 
say as little as possible unfavourable to the Roman civil 

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 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 


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 

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 


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 

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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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 



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 

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. 


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- 

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. 



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. 



(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 

{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 -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 

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). 


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, 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 


(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 \>cen said immediately Ijcfore. For it is 
not possible to agree with 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 

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 

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, <). 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. 



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 


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 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 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. 



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 


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] ; 



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, '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, 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 a necessary reaction against that Hellenistic 
allegorising which transmuted evtTything that seemed 
low or trivial in the early narr.atives into some 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. 


2. NT views. 


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 

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 



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 

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 

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 

(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 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 



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.). 


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 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 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, 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. 



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 


4. The versions. 


{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. 



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 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 


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 


3. Ancestor of Azmavktu, </.v., ii. 4 (iCh. 27a5t atJcifA 

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. 

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 
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 


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). 



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. 



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, 

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]. 


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. 


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 


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 



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 


^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 ; 

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. 



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.\- 


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. 


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 



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~. 


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. 


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). 



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'. 


4. el-buruk, burk, -T13. 


5. .^-^7cv7;7r(.Schum.), n'T3- 

6. cl-wufla, 7uasl, ':'is'.'* 

7. kofrib (Post), mnp. 

8. halaka (Post). 


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 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). 



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). 


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 
in the earliest 
and all suc- 
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 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]. 


(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 


(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- 

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 

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 ^ 


'' 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. 



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 


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. 


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.' 


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 


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 


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.). 



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 

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 

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. 


14. Sentiment. 


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 

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. 



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). 


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]. 



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 


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). 



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 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 

That the siege of Samaria, at any rate, was before 
854 n.C. is rendered probable b)' the criticism given 
elsewhere (see, 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]). 


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 


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, 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 


[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- 



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 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, 

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 it is, it would still be to 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 



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^ 



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. 

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 


;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 


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). 



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 

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. 



AHIMAAZ ()*yp*nK, 45, meaning uncertain, cp 
Maa/. ; AxlejiMAAC [BAL]). 

1. b. Zadok; 2 S. 1627 (ax/"as [B]), 36 (axiM*'''- 
<ruios[.\*; (r2'*ras. A'*'''-]); 17i72o(oxf'Mas[B]), 18 19-29, 
and, according to the Chronicler, eleventh in descent 
from Aaron in the line of Eleazar, i Ch. 68/ , and 53 
(axfKraytia [B]). Along with his father and brother he 
remained faithful to David during the revolt of .Absalom, 
and brought important information from Jerusalem to 
the king as to the enemy's plans ; he was also the first 
courier to reach the king after the battle in which Absalom 
was killed. Most probably identical with 

2. One of Solomon's prefects (see Government, 18. 
end), governor of Naphtali ; 1 K. 4 15. Cp Ahuxd, 2. 

3. Father of Ahinoam (i), Saul's wife; iS. Hsof 
(ax[e]u'aas [B]). 

AHIMAN (p^riN,' 45 ; achiman, ahimas). ' Ahi,' 
as usual, is a divine title, and 'man' may be the 
name of a dt-ity (MCni ; see FORTUNE). 

I. One of the sons of the ANAK(y. J/.; cpalso Sheshai, 
Talmai) ; Nu. 1322 (ax[]iM'' [BFL], ax'^a/u [.A]); 
Josh. 15 14 (ax[e>Ma [B.\L]) ; Judg. 1 10 (axfaaK [B], 
axW'Ma" [B-'"^-^'"*-'- L], tov axifJ^aan [A]). 

2. One of the 'porters for the camps of the Levites' ; iCh. 9i7 
(ai^a^ [H], -i'l.\i.] ; A/iiinam, Cod. Am. A/timan [i| Neh.ll 19 
om. everj-where]) in list of those with foreign wives(EzRA, L 5, 
end)=Ezra IO24 (where he is called Uki)=i Esd.925 (EV 
oni.). The name in i Ch. is probably corrupt. See Uri, 3. 

AHIMELECH (^^p"^^<l, ' the [divine] king is brother, " 
see AiiiMKi.KCH and cp Phoen. "jTOn, Ass. Af^imilki ; 
a.y^i\fxt\ix [B.AL]). 

1. Father of Abiathar, erroneously described in 2 S. 
817 as son of Abiathar, also in four places in i Ch. , in 
the first of which, moreover, the name in MT is 
Abimi;i.kcii ; see Abiathar (last paragraph). For a 
conjecture that Jehoshaphat, David"s vizier, and Baana, 
Solomon's prefect, were also sons of this Ahimelech, see 
Ahu.ui), I and 2. 

A reads ajii^cAex in i S. 21 \a 229 and a/3ifi. in i S 21 1/^2 ; 
B h.-is ajSeifieAcx invariably except in i S. 21 \a, and Ps. 52 
title,'- a/3i^. ; and in 1 S. 30 7 and the five corrupt passages, 
oxfiM- '. ^'g- Achiiuelech, but in i Ch., though not in 2S. S17, 
Ahim. The Vg. and (5U read Ahimelech also in Ps. 34, title ; 
.see .\cHisH (end). 

2. .\ Hittite companion of David in the time of his outlawry, 
I S. 2.>6t (ax[e]t,xeAex [B^L], ap[.]i^. [BA]). 

AHIMOTH (niD^riN, 45, AAeiMcoe [B], oxiM- 
[A], A/VMCO0 [I-]), fi name in the genealog)- of Kohath 
(i Ch. 625 [10]). If the reading of MT and Versions is 
correct, -7noth should \y& a divine name or title. Barton 
compares the cosmogonic Mwt in Philo of Byblus ; but 
this is too doubtful (see Creation, 7), and though 
mo, 'death," in Ps. 49i4 [15] and elsewhere is personi- 
fied, a name like ' Death is (our) brother " or ' protector,' 
is improbable. Possibly Ahimoth should be Ahimahath 
(see -. 35 [20], cp 2 Ch. 29 12) ; see Mahath, 1. 

AHINADAB (2"7ynNI, 44; 'the [divine] brother 
apportions," but cp further Abinadab ; &XINA<^B 
[B], ainaAaB [A], axinaA&B [L]; AHIS-ADAB), Solo- 
mon's prefect over the district of Mahanaim beyond 
Jordan (i K. 4i4t). See Government, 18 (end). 

AHINOAM (DymNt, 45, ' the [divine] brother is 
plea-santness,' Ax[e]iNA&M[B.AL]; Jos. axina; achi- 
NOA^t). I. Daughter of .Ahimaaz and wife of Saul, 
1 Sam. 14 sot [a.-)^f\.vooy. [B.A]). 

2. Of Jezreel in Judah (see Abigail, 2) whom David 
married during his outlawry. Like Abigail, she was 
carried off by the Amalckites when they plundered Ziklag. 
At Hebron she bore to David his eldest son, Amnon, 
I S. '2543 (axetvaai' [B]) ; 273; SOs (axeivooM [B], 

1 A better pointing would be fDTIK ; the present vocalisa- 
tion, jO'nR, is based on a popular etymology; JD'nK, frater 
meus quis? (Jer. in OS'^) \hi\, etc.). 

- Other readings here, o^cifi. []; Achimehch; Pesh. quite 


ox"'aaM [A. o/x. sup. ras. A']), cp v. i8 ; a Sam. 2a 
{ax^foofi [BA]). 3 J (ax""/* [H]) ; r Ch. Sif. 

AHIO (VnX, 24, 43, possibly, if MT is correct, 
'brother of Yahwe,' or ' Yah\v6 is brother.' The 
analogy of other names ending in seems against this 
view ; Jastrow, //i/., 1894, p. loi). 

1. 1). .\binailab, brother of I' zzAri (y.7'., i), aS. 63/; || i Ch. 18 7 
has 'his brethren," and We. reads VriK, 'his brother'; see Dr. 
(in each case, however, bal has oi o3A^t avroO, i.e., VnK, 

in 2 S.). 

a. In genealogy of Bknjamin (89 ii. /3), one of the sotis of 
Ueriah, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath, i Ch. S i4(arA- 
^t aiiTou, ' his brother ' [B], oi aiAc/>ot aii., ' his brethren " [A], oi 
o. airrmv, ' their brethren ' [L] ; Be. and Kau. vnK ; We. VnK 
[DeCent. f. so]; Ki. OH'nK)- , ^. , 

3. In genealogy of Benjamin (8 9 u. P), son of Jehiel, the 
' father 'of (".ibeon ; i Ch. 8 31 aitK^o^ auToO [B], -<;>ol av. [A], oi 
i5. av. [I.l) = i)37t ("A om. auroO). 

AHIRA [Vrrn^:, AxCelipe [BAFL]; -^^ : 
AHIK.4). A Naphtalite family-name reported in P 
(Nu. 1 15 229 77883 1027!). The old interpretation ' my 
brother is evil ' must be abandoned. Either y is mis- 
written for n (see the Palmyrene characters), in which 
case we get the good Heb. name Ahiram,' or we have 
here a half-Kgyptian name meaning ' Ra' (or Re' i.e., 
the Egj'ptian sun-god) is brother or protector' (so C!he. 
/m. 2144). The latter view is quite possible (cp the 
Egv'ptian name Pet-baal). The Canaanites, who were 
strong in the territory of Naphtali, were very receptive 
of foreign religious influences.^ Cp AsHUR, Hi"K, 
Haknepiikr. The reading of Pesh. (uniformly Ahida') 
is no doubt either merely a natural variant, or a copyist's 
substitution of a more normal for a rarer form ; cp 
Amioa. t. k. c. 

AHIRAM (D"^*nN, 44, cp Jehoram ; AxCel'PAN 
[AL]. lAX. [B],' AXiAN [F]; aiuram). i. In the 
gcnealogj' of Benjamin ( 9 i. ); Nu. 2638 (where 
we have also the gentilic Ahiramite ; 'STnt* ; axf'pa" 
[1.], 10. . . vei [B], axipai [.\], -lavei [F]) = Gen. 4621, 
where ' .Xhiram, .Shei)hupham ' ought no doubt to 
be read for ' Khi and Rosh, Muppim ' (cEiErCTHN for 
C*rcrN-ivnN), cp Rosii. In the similar list in i Ch. 8 
we find in ?. i .Aiiarah [i/.t.] (mnx), and in that in 
iCh. 76^ in I'. 12, Aher y.v.](^nK), cp Hushim, 2 ; 
Dan, 9. 

2. Perhaps we should read Ahiram also for Ahir.\ 
(17. f.) in Xu. I5, etc. 

AHISAMACH ("^^p^^^{, ' the [divine] brother sus- 
tains ' ; axiC(\mak[B], -max [AFL]; Jos. ic&maxoc, 
IC&XA'WOC). aDanite; E.x. 316 (axiCAMAX C^]) 3534 
3823 [P]. See Dan, 9 n. 

AHISHAHAR (in;"'nN, 35, 44, 'the [divine] 
brother is dawning light,' cp Abner, Shehariah ; d,\e\- 
CA^^AP [1^]. AXICAAP [A], ACCAeip [L]). in genealogy 
of Bkniamin ( 9 ii. a), 1 Ch. 7 lof- See Jeuiael, 1. 

AHISHAB (">V"'nX, 44), Solomon's comptroller 
of the palace (iK. 46t). The name, however, is 

ipB gives the double rendering, oxi V o'lKovofiof, and eAiax 
o n'tK., and perhaps even a third rendering f\iap uib cra<f> iirX 
n't'i Trarpio? ; eKiax should be ayiTjA, which (P'- has, and may 
In: the true (S re.ading. But MT (a axio-op) has yet to be 
accounted for. For 1C"nj1_ we should probably read "ij? VriN. 
Zabud, who has just been mentioned, is descriljed as not merely 
a priest but ' the officer (placed) over the palace ' (so Klc). See 
Zabud, I. T. K. c. 

AHITHOPHEL (^Sh^HJ^, 45, meaning uncertain ; 
Ax[eliTO(})e\ [B.VL], -Aoc, Jos.), a Gilonite (see 
Giloh), a counsellor of David nmch esteemed for his 

1 Aveip* in 3 K. 2 46 A [B] answers to Adoniram (cp i K. 4 6) 
of MT. 

2 On names of foreign deities in Israelite names, see under 
Elidad, and Names, gg 4a, 81, 83. 



unerring in.sight (aS. 15i2 16a3). His son Eliam 
{^v., i) was, like Uriah, a member of David's body- 
guard (2 S. 2334 ; cp David, ii a i), and since H.ith- 
sheba, the wife of Uriah, is described as the daughter 
of Eliam (2S. II3), it has been conjectured that Ahi- 
thophel was her grandfather, and that indignation at 
Davids conduct to Bathsheba led Ahithophel to cast in 
his lot with Absalom's rebellion. This, however, is a 
mere possibility, and ambition would Ix; a sufficient 
motive for Ahithophel's tri-ason to David, just as the 
slight involved in .Absalom's preference of Hushai's 
counsel to his own was certainly one chief cause of his 
final withdrawal from .Absalom. At first, indeed, he 
had full possession of the ear of the pretender. It 
was by his advice that .Absalom took public possession 
of his father's concubines, and so pledged himself to 
a claim to the throne, from which there was no retreat 
(2 S. 1620^). Ahithophel was also eager in his own 
person to take another bold and decisive ste[). He 
wished to pursue David with 12,000 men and cut the 
old king down in the first confusion and entanglement 
of his flight towards the Jordan (2 S. 17 1-4). This 
plan was defeated by Hushai, whereupon Ahithophel, 
seeing that all hope was gone, went to Giloh and 
strangled himself. 

In iCh. II36 'Ahithophel the Gilonite' has been corrupted 
into 'Ahijah the Pelonitc," 'i^S:^ n^r.H for 'j'^i.T "?En'nK ; cp 
Klo. Sam., ad he. (axlejta [B.AKL]), and see Giloh, end. 

W. E. A. 

AHITOB (AXeiTCoB [B], etc. ), i Esd. 82 RV, 4 Esd. 
lit RV. See below, Ahitub, 2. 

AHITUB (n-in^nX or n-"mnN [i S. 143 2292], 45 ; 
cp Ahi-labu KB 5, no. 11 14, aXleJitooB [B.AL]). 

I. .A member of the family in which the priest- 
hood, first at Shiloh, then at Nob, appears for some 
generations to have been hereditary. He was grandson 
of Eli, son of Phinehas, and elder brother of Ichabod 
(iS. 143; cp4i9-2i). His son, .Ahijah, is mentioned as 
priest in iS. I43; another son, Ahimelech, api>ears 
as priest in i .S. 229 n 12 20. It is unnecessary with 
Thenius and Bertheau to identify Ahimelech with 
Ahijah ; but that .Ahitub, the father of Ahimelech, is 
identical with .Ahitub, the father of Ahijah, is clear from 
iK. 227, which implies that Abiathar, the son of 
Ahimelech (iS. 222o), was of the house of Eli. 
Nothing further is directly told of Ahitub ; but, if 
Wellhausen's suggestion that the destruction of .^hiloh 
(Jer. 7i2) took place after the battle of Aphek (i.S. 4) 
be accepted, the transference of the priestly centre 
from Shiloh to Nob (IS. 229-11), will have taken place; 
under him. 

The description of Ahitub as father of Zadok (2 S. S 17 = i Ch. 
18 16, iCh. 6 8 [634] 53 [38]) is due to an intentional early cor- 
ruption of the text in S.imuel, which originally ' .Abiathar, 
the son of .Xhimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Z.-idok were priests ' 
(for the argiunent see We. TUS 176 /). 

2 and 3. Father of a (later) Zadok, mentioned in 1 Ch. 6 i\/. 
[537/1, and in pedigree of Ezra (see Ezra, i. 1) Ezra72 = 
I Esd.S2 = 2Esd. 1 I (in the last two passages AV Achitob, 
R\' .AHnciii); and a priest, father of Meraioth and grandfather 
of Z.adok, in tbe list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ezra, ii. 5 {b\, 
15 [r] a), iCh. 9ii = Neh. 11 11 (aira>/3<ux [l''i, ajro^toic [N], aTw/f 
[Al). These references, however, are probably due to inten- or accidental amplification of the original genealogj-, .ind 
do not refer to any actual person. Kyle, app.irently takes 
another view ; see his notes on EzraT 1-5, and Neh. 11 11. 

4. Ancestor of Judith; Judith 8 if RV, AV following 0a <ueifla 
AciTHo, Ac/titoh ; so also It., Syr. ; om. B. g. b. g. 

AHLAB (n'pnX, .^., 'fat.' 'fruitful' ; Aa\a<J>[BAL], 
'. AaAA(}> [Clermont points out the place- 
name M.ahaleb, N. of Tyre (yV*^'. Crit. 1897, p. 503)]), 
a Canaanite town claimed by Asher (Judg. I31), and 
referred to probably in Josh. 19 29, at the end of which 
verse there appears to have been originally a list of 
names including (by a correction of the te.xt) Ahlab and 
Achzib.' See Helbah. 

1 Josh. 1929 ends 'bus, na'nK VniTD nS'n, which AV renders 
' at the sea from the coast to Achzib," and RV ' at the sea by the 


Many(r.c-., Neubauer, Grove, Fursl) identify either Ahlab or 
Hdbah with the Gu5 Hnmb (aSn ri3. 'fat clods') of the 
Talmuds the Giscala of Josephus. But this place {el Jish), 
which is mentioned with Meron (AfeifUn), and Biri (h'e/r 
Blr'im), must have lain on Naphtalite ground. The statement 
inTalm. Mcnachoth 85 b, that tlush Halab belonged to Asher is 
a mere gue>s, suggested by the blessing of Asher in Dt. 3824. 
Fur a sounder view see Hklbah. 

AHLAI C^riX, ace. to Olsh. IHeb. Gr. (>\6\ = uti,uim. 
Del., Prol. 210, compares Bab. 'v\X^x].-'n^m^ Ahulalpia, 

O that I at last. ' More probably the name is a cor- 
ruption of ?X*nX, or the like). 

1. Son, or (.-in inference from -.'. 34 which comes from a later 
hand) daughter of Sheshan b. Isha, a Jerahmeelite ; i Ch. 2 31 
(axai (H), aa&ai [A], ouAaei [L]). See Jehahmkkl, I. 

2. Father (or moilier?) of Zauad (t^.Z'.); 1 Ch. n4it (oX""* 
(H). axea [K]. oAi |.\], <ra^aaAi [L], i.e., a combination of part 
of ^afXfxa or ^a/maia with aoAi). T. K. C. 

AHOAHlHinX). iCh. 84t. See Ahij.vh, 2, Ben- 
J,\.MIN, 9 ii- i3. 

AHOHITE, THE ("nnxn, i.e., a man of the family 
of Ahoah or AuijAii? (^.v., 2). The designation (i) 
of Zalmon (2S. 232St, awfiTtji [B], eXco. [A], a\-axt 
[L]; Jfcs.d joJ ^joj) = Ii.Ai [see Zalmon, 2] (i Ch. 
II29: avax^f(L [Is*], ax- I BN'], final x tieing con- 
founded with v ; ax^^p [A* sup. las. seq. ras.], aKaOi 
[LI; t,.sCU3 ^>). 

Also (2) of Dodai, or of Elcazar b. Dodai (as in 
I Ch. 27 and in 2 S. and i Ch. 11 respectively ; see 
Dodai, Eleazar, 3), one of David's heroes (see 
Ei.EAZAR, 3) in the list iCh. 274 (f^'XwX [^J- "<-^^' 
[A], axcoxt [L]) = iCh.lli2 (apx^^"" [H S'X- W- 
ax^X' [A^. i''6s Aw5at irarpad^Xcpov avrov [!-]) = 
2S. 239 (that is, if with AV we treat -nnx-p as = 
nnxn of the parallel passages, and do not [with Marq. 
Fu/uf. 16/] correct the whole expression everywhere 
into 'cnVn na ' the Bethlehemite ' [cp v. 24], the corrup- 
tion in the Heb. text of Sam. being accounted for by the 
half-effacement of the letters, which the scribe lead in 
the false light of i: 28). evidently omits, since the 
forms aovati, [B], dovSei [B*'^''^-L], awaei [A] must be 
corruptions for ^-n, Dod(a)i. 

AHOLAH, RV correctly Ohdlah (H^HX ; ooAa [B 
indecl. and decl., and, except f. 44, Q: but B, not B 
-KK. V- 4]. oAAa [A and in v. 44 g]). a symbolical 
name equivalent to Oholibah (see Aholibah), given 
by Ezekiel to Samaria (284/. 644!). 

AHOLIAB, R\^ correctly Ohdliab (aS'-briX ; cAiaB 
[B.M'L]), the associate of Bezai.ekl {i/.v.) in the work 
of the tabernacle in P (Ex. 316 3.") :?4 36 1 2 38 23 [(5 
372it]). See Da.n. 8 n., and cp Hiram, 2. 

AHOLIBAH, RV correctly OhOlibah (na^^HN, i.e., 

she in whom are tents ' alluding to the worship at 
the high places; cp Ezek. I618; ogXiBa [BQr], o\. 
[A, V. 22 Q, c>. 36 B]), a symbolical name, equivalent to 
Oholah (see Aikjlah), given by Ezekiel to Jerusalem 
(234 112236 44t ) 

AHOLIBAMAH, RV correctly OhOUbamah 
(npivHX, 61, /.<., 'tent of the high place," cp Phoen. 

l^obnX C/S 1, no. 50, and see Hiram, 2. 

1. Wife of Esau {oXi^efia [ADE] ; eXt/Sa^o [L] ; 
aXt.iafxrjv [}os. ; cod. Laur. oX.]); Gen. 862 (oXi^aifia 
[E]), 514 (eXt^ejua [A], 18 (eXi/3f/ua [A once], oXi^f/j-fxa 
and (Xi^afia [D]), 25t (oXt^a [E], eXi^efmO [L ; before 
6vya.Tr)p]). See Bashe.math, i ; Anah, 3 (end). 

2. An Edomite chief {eX[f]i^afiai [D>''<'L], eXt^fyuas 
region of .\chzib,' but in the margin 'at the .sea from He he i. to 
Achzib.' 0, however, points the way to a correction of the 
text (17 0a\a<T(Ta Koi anb Af^ " (XO^oP [H], rj 0. k. a. toO 
iTXOivCtriiaTOi (XioP t-^l. V- * 'CTai a- r. cr. oxafi|S [b]). 
This implies the reading zSnC- which is not improbably a 
corruption of 2h~H- n:*ipN, which should rather be 3'J3N1, was 
an attempt to make sense with 27np. 



[A]), Gen. 3641. and (eX[e]a/3oAtas [BA], eXifiafia [L]), 
I Ch. 1 s't. See EuoM, 4. 

AHUMAI ('J?-in><,i65; AyeiMei [BA*]. aximai 
[A^ sup. ras. et in mg.], aXIMAN [E], ..v^.m/ ; Ahuiiiai 
[cod. am. AAimni]), the eponym of a clan of Judah 
(i Ch.4 2+). Should we read Ahiman (L)? 

AHUZAM, RV correctly Ahuzzam (D-THt*. perh. 
= ' possession ' ; for pr. names in am see Names, 77), 
one of the sons of Ashhur ' father of Tekoa ' ; i Ch. 

4Dt (COXAIA [B]. COXAZAM [A], OZA [L]). 

AHUZZATH (nrriN, possession ' ; oxozaG [AEL], 
-ZAX W]'' <-'cnoy..iTH), the 'friend' (, wrongly, 
v\>ix<pa.'yii}'^'j<i) of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 2626t). 
' Friend ' = minister ; cp 1 Ch. 2733, and see HUSHAI. 

The name with the title 6 i^fK^o-ytuybs aiiToCis introduced 
in (pAUL in the similar narrative of Gen. 21 22-34. For the 
termination -aih thereare parallels in Ba.semath (fern.), Gen. 2034 ; 
M.ihalath (fem.), (;en.2S9; Goliath (the Philistine), 1S.I74; 
Gciiuhalh, iK. II20; cp names in -ath in Aram, inscriptions 
(Cook, Gloss. Aram. Inscr. under n). Cp Dr. //T^^) 236, n. 2. 

AHZAI ("THN), Xeh. 11 i3t RV, AV Ahasai {q.v. ). 

AI (i) Cyn, always thus with def. article, i.e., 'the 
stone heap"; f^l [B.XL, etc.]; wriiicn Hai in Gen. 
123]33tAV; Arr<>'l i^-"^^^])- ^^^ name appears also 
in various other forms. 

AijA, or lather Ayya (N'j; ; om. BN*A, oiu [Nc-a mg. inf.], 
yai [L], Neh. Il3it); Ayvah, RV mg.(.i;j; [Ba Gil, not r\X]} 
as in most edd., AV Gaza \q."\_ 2], RV Azzah ; yaiaf [B], ya^ijs 
(genit.)[A], aaia[L];aca; bX.X; 1 Ch.728); Ai ath, or rather 
Ayyath (ri;j^: ayyat [BNAQ], Is. 10 28+). 

As to the site of .-\i, we learn from Josh. 72 (in clause 
b 7TJI' [-AKL] ; in w. 3 701 sup. ras. [B-]) that it was 
situated ' beside Beth-aven, on the east of Bethel," and, 
from the account of Joshua's stratagem, that it lay on 
the S. side of a steep valley (Josh. 811), while from 
the description in Gen. 128, it appears that there was 
a ' mountain ' or flat ridge with a wide view between 
Ai and Bethel. That there was a close connection 
between the two places appears also from the expression 
'the men of Bethel and Ai ' (Ezra228; aia [B.V])- 
With the position thus suggested, Isaiahs graphic 
picture of an .Assyrian invasion from the north (Is. 10 
28/:; arya-i. [B'S'^''-':b.\Q]; 0776 [X*] = Geha in 
V. 28) entirely agrees. Where, then, shall we place Ai 
on the map? Scarcely at et-Tell (Sir C. W. Wilson, 
PEFQ, 1869, 123-6, and Smith's /)/;i->) there 
are no signs that et-Tell was ever the site of a city 
but at some other spot in the neighbourhood of Dcr 
Drhin (a village twenty minutes .SE. of et-Tell). 
Robinson, with some hesitation, fixed on a low hill, 
just S. of this place, where there are still foundations 
of large hewn stones, and on the W. , ancient reser- 
voirs, mostly dug out of the rock. The spot (called 
Kliirbet Haiydn) is 'an hour distant from Bethel, 
having near by, on the N. , the deep Wady el-Matyah, 
and towards the SW. other smaller wadys, in which 
the ambuscade of the Israelites might easily have been 
concealed" (/?A'23i3). To Tristram in 1863, this con- 
jecture ' carried with it the weight of evidence," particu- 
larly because it would be difficult to assign a site to 
Abraham"s camp between Beitin and Tell el-Hajar 
(et-Tell), and because Robinson"s site affords such 
ample space for the military evolutions described in 
Josh. 8, over which, however, some uncertainty is 
thrown by the variations of in it\ 11-13. Both 
Gu6rin and the PEF Survey corroborate this view, 
which, if not proved, is at any rate probable. 

As to the history of Ai : it was a royal Canaanitish 
city, and was the second city conquered by Jo.shua, 
who destroyed it and doomed it to be ' a mound for 
ever" (cSii'-Sn). By Isaiah"s time, however, it had 
been rebuilt (Is. 10 28), and after the Exile it was re- 
1 See Gray, HPN62, 279, n. 10. 


occupied by Benjamites ; Ezra228 (ota [BA]) = Neh. 
732 {aXeta [HX], at [A])= i lisd. Sai (* and KV 
om. ; 7CU [L]). In the time of Kusebius (05 181, 76, 
Ayyai} it was once more deserted ; but its situation was 
still pointed out. Its name was jjrophetic of its history. 
Or had it some other name before its destruction by 
I oshua ? 

2. ('g; without article ; Tat [Q] ; Symm. ^ Zo-xt's) an 
Ammonite city, if the text in Jer. 49 st is correct ((S'"** 
omits : Rothstein in Kau. //S and Co. in SHOT, 
after (Jraf, read ' Ar n^). T. K. c. 

AIAH, more strictly Ayyah (H'X, 'falcon'). i. 
.\n Ixlomite tribal name individualised, Gen. 8624 
(.W Aj.Mi ; Aie [AD], N. [l''- ; N precedes], a^iAi [L]) = 
I Ch. l4o(i^ie [li], <MA [AL]). The tribe seems to have 
broken off from that of Zibeon, and to have been less 
important than that of Anau {q.v.). To identify this 
insigniticant Aiah with the 'goodly land' in which Se- 
nuhvt the ligyptian e.xile found a home, according to 
the 'old story (so Masjiero, RPC'^ 21723; PSBA 18 
106 [96]) is unsafe. On the laa (Maspero, Aia) of the 
story of Se-nuhyt, see WMM As. u. Kur. 47. 

2. Father of Saul's concubine Rizpah (28.87, 'a^ 
vel forte 10.0. [H*], io5 vel forte io\ [B'], Io\ [A], 2i^a [L], 
^t,iJaTos[Jos.] ;218^, Aia [BA], Acrata [L]). To draw 
a critical inference (with Mez, Der Bihel dcs Jos. 35/-), 
from L's 2(/3a in 3 7 seems unwise. We must not assume 
that Ziba is the original reading rather than Aiah. k 
and ^; could very easily be confounded, and from 2ia 
to :it/3a was but a step. The name of one of Rizpah's 
sons was Mephibosheth (Meribaal), and the son of 
Jonathan, whose steward was Ziba, was also called 
Mephibosheth (Meribaal). The question as to the source 
or sources of the passages in which Rizi'Aii {q.v.) is 
referred to, lemains therefore where it was. 

AIATH (n*y), Is. 1028t. See Ai, 1. 

AIJAlkSj];), Neh. II31. See Ai, i. 

AIJALON, or (Josh. 10 12 19 42; 2 Ch. 28i8+, all AV) 
less correctly AjALON (P?*X from ?*X 'hart'; mAooN 

1. A town in the Shephelah, assigned to Dan m 
Josh. 1942 {aiM/uiuv [li], laaXajv [A], eX. [L ; but with 
laXajj/ V. 43 for Elon]), and named as a Danite Levitical 
city in 2l24[P] (laXuv [A])=iCh. 669 [54] (corrected 
text, see Ball ad loc. in Ellicott's Bible; t-yKo-ii [B], 
7j/\wi/ [A]). It is the modern Yalo, situated on a ridge 
on the south side of the broad level valley of Aijalon, 
well known, from Joshua's poetical speech (Josh. 10 12 ; 
a:\w/Lt [L]), and now called Merj (the meadow of) Ibn 
'i'lnar. It is about 5 m. from Lower Beth-horon, and 
14 from Jerusalem. In the time of the Judges it 
w\T,s still in the hands of the Amorites (Judg. I35; 
apparently misread ai dpKoi. [B.\L], and translated a 
second time fjLX'paivusv [B], which, however, stands for 
HKKK.S in L), but was afterwards occupied by 
Benjamites, iCh. 813 (aiXa/j. [B], aSafi [A], aXw>' 
[L]); cp. 2Ch. llio. The Chronicler states that 
Rehoboam fortified it (2Ch. llio, aXduv [B], aiaXuv 
[AL]), and that Ahaz lost it to the Philistines (2Ch. 
28 18, aiXw [K]). o" whose territory it bordered. In 
I S. 1431, the occurrence of the word is doubtful. For 
'to Aijalon' Klost. and Budde (SBOT) read 'until 
night." "'^- omits altogether. Some fresh references 
to Aijalon are derived from Egyptian sources. For 
instance, Shishak (Sheshonk I. ) mentions Aiyurun i.e. , 
Aijalon among the conquered cities of Judah in his 
Karnak list, and there is an earlier mention still in the 
Amarna tablets, where Aialuna appears as one of the 
first cities wrested from the Egyptian governors. A 
vivid sketch of the battle-scenes of the valley of 
Aijalon will be found in GA.Sm. f/G 210-13. 

2. (Judg. 12 12 ; AiXwfi [B], -X[e]tya [AL]), a locality 
in Zebulun, the burial-place of Elon {^.v., ii. ly. ). 


Its name ought probably to be pointed [iV'K (Elon), 
and etymologically connected with ps^ or ,iSk, ' oak ' 
or ' terebinth ' (see Tkkkbinth, i), indicating a sacred 
spot. Cp Al.l.ON, 2. T. K. c. 

AIJELETH-SHAHAR, UPON, RV ' set to Aijeleth 
hash-Shahax ("int|'n fl^'N, [Ow^p] t^s d^'TiXTj/xt/'ewj 
Tijs iujOiuTJs ^BSAj ; Atj. [virip] rij^ eXatpov ttjs dpOpcv^s), 
Vs. 22, title. If we consider the tendency of the phrase, 
' Upon Al.AMOTH {i/.v. ),' to get corrupted, it seemshighly 
probable that ' Aijeleth ' should rather be read ' Alamoth ' 
(n and y confounded), while Shahar should perhaps rather 
be B'nn re', ' a new song.' (The article prefixed to Shahar 
may be in the interests of an exegetical theory. ) The 
latter corruption has very probably taken place in Ps. 
579 (see Che. /^j. ('-'). A 'new song' would be a song 
u[)oii a new model. 

AIN (yV). I. If MT may be followed, this is the 
name of a city in the Xcgeb of Judah (Josh. 1032) 
assigned to Simeon (19?; cp i Ch. 432). According 
to Josh. 21 16 it was one of the priests' cities ; but the 
parallel list in i Ch. 659 [44] probably correctly substitutes 
AsuAN ((/.I'.) which is mentioned in Josh. I97 [MT 
@uALj alongside of Ain as a distinct place. The name 
being thus removed from this list, Ain always appears 
in close conjunction with Rinunon, and Miihlau {HIVB t^' 
s.v. 'Ain') suggests that the two places may have lain 
so close together that in course of time they joined. 
Hence he would account for the En-klmmon (pan pj; ; 
om. BNA ; k. ev pe/uLpnov [X'^-'' '"*>' '"^] ; k. tv pe/i/xiov []^]) 
of Neh. 11 29. But ifweconsider the phenomena of (see 
below), and the erroneous summation (if M T be adhered 
to) in Josh. 1532, it becomes evident that Bennett's 
thorough revision of the readings in his Joshua {SHOT) 
is critically justified (cp AsuAN), and that the real name 
is En-RIMMON ' {q.v.). 

How, indeed, could a place dedicated to the god 
Rimmon (Ramman) have been without a sacred 
fountain ? 

Josh. 15 32, leat epuDtnaQ [Bl, Kai pefi/xwi' [A], Kai aiv Kai. pefiixMv 
[LI ; Josh. 197, aiv K. pffifxcoS [\]. ai.u k. pe/x/iior [LJ, but epefifj-iov 
[B] ; Josh. 21 16, ao-a [B] which favours j-^'y ' Ash.\n ' ig'.?'.), ate 
[A], raeir [L], which h.armonise witli MT. In i Ch.432(it. 
pen/Ltoji' IB], K. r)i' [sic] I'e sup. las. [A-'V| followed by -fifiwr [.A] ; 
K. ei'pe/u./LLwi/ [LJ) we should also, with Ki., read En-rimmou. 

2. (i'VlSl, the article being included ; (firl) irriyds 
[BAL] ; Vg. [contra) fontcm Daphnim ; Tg. Onk. as 
MT ; for the rest see below. ) A place mentioned in 
Nu. 34 1 1 to define the situation of one of the points on 
the ideal eastern frontier of Canaan : ' to Harbel on the 
east side of Ain ' is the phrase. Though both AV 
and RV sanction this view of j'y.i, it is more natural to 
render 'the fountain,' and to find here a reference to 
some noted spring. Jerome thought of the spring 
which rose in the famous grove of Daphne, near Antioch ; 
in this he followed the Targums of Ps. Jon. and Jerus. 
which render '(the) Riblah ' (.iSa-irj) by 'Daphne,' and 
'the fountain' (pyn) by 'Ainutha. Robinson ^ and 
Conder prefer the fountain which is the source of the 
Orontes. Both these views rest on the assumption that 
Riblah on the Orontes has just been referred to, which 
is a pure mistake (see Rini.AH). The fountain must at 
any rate be not too far N. of the Lake of Gennesaret 
which is mentioned at the end of the verse. Most 
probably it is the source of the Xahr Hasbany, one of 
the streams which unite to form the Jordan (see Ribi.AH). 
From this fountain to the ' east shoulder ' of the Lake 
of Gennesaret a straight line of water runs forming the 
clearest of boundaries. If, however, we place Baal-gad 
at Banias, we shall then, of course, identify ' the fountain ' 

1 Except of course in Josh. 21 16 (see above). In Zech. 14 lot 
the first half of the name is omitted (see En-rimmon). 

2 See A' A" 4534. Kob.'s view (p. 393) on the Daphnis of Vg. 
(connecting it with the spring at Djfneh, near Tell el-lf ady) 
seems erroneous. 



with that which springs from the fiinious and romantic 
cavern at the southern base of the Hermon mountains. 
It sliouUl be added that it is not impossible to alter the 
poiniinii and read j-yS ' (eastward) of IjON,' Ijon being 
mentioned elsewhere as on the N. frontier of the land 
of Israel. But then why did the writer introduce it 
merely incidentally? T. K. C. 

AIRUS (lAipoc [A]), iEsd.531 AV = Ezra247 
Reai.vii, 3. 

AJAH (nN). Oen. 3624! AV=RV Aiah {q.v., i). 

AJALON ((iS'X), Josh. 10 12 AV = RV Aijalon, i. 

Ch. I42 AV JAKAN. 

I Esd. 838! RV=Ezra 

AKAN (ii^V), Gen. 3()27t = 

Acts 1 i9t RV, AV 

AKATAN (akatan [BA]). 

812 HakKA TAN. 

AKELDAMA (akcAAamax i^])' 


AKKOS (akBcoc [B]), i Esd. SsSf RV = Ezra26i 
Hakki)/., I. 

AKKUB (^-Ipy, 'posthumous,' but the name seems 
corrupt ; AKOyB [BA], akk- [1>])- i- b. Elioenai, si.\ 
generations removed from Zerubbabel : i Ch. 824 {laKow 
[B], aKKovli [A], oiKovv [L]). 

2. The B'ne ."Vkkub, a group of doorkeepers in the great post- 
exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 9); Ezra 'J 42 (axoufi [HA], a/cx. IL]) = 
Neh. 745 {<^ov [H), -um' [XA], -v^ [L])=i Esd. 028 (Dacoiu ; 
RV Dacuhi ; aaxou^i [A], KaKov^Tov [I!]). Akkub is a porter 
in the list of inhabitants of lerusalem (see Ezka, ii. 5 [/'], 15 
[i]a\ iCh. '.>i7 (dKov^ lB|")=Neh. Uig (aKovfi [L]), cp Ezra 
10 24, = I Esd. it 25 (where, however, the name is omitted between 
Shallum and Telem). He is mentioned also in Neh. V2,2$ (aicou^ 
KCa ing. sup.]; om. BN*A). 

3. An expounder of the Law (see Ezra, ii. 13 [/.] ; cp i. 
8, ii. g 16 [5], 15 [>] c). Neh. 87 (aKov^ [L], om. HAK) = 
I Esd. 948 (EV, Jacuhus ; laxou^os [A], lapaou/Soo? [B]). 

4. The li'ne .\kkub, a family of Nkthinim iff.''.) in the great 
post-exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 9), Ezra245 (a.Ka.^u>6 [l!])=Neh. 
748(aKou5[Al, -oua[N]; om. B with MT, EV)= i Esd. 53o(a(covS 
[BA] ; AV acua ; RV akud). 

AKRABATTINE, RV ; AV incorrectly Ararattine 
I Mace. 5 3t, Jos. .-////. .\ii. 81 ; akraBatthnh [NA] ; 
-ATTANH IN^-'' V]; Acrahattene [Cod. Am.]; 
)^.ayXite'^P J^'^'^h 7 18, below), adistrict where Judas the 
Maccal>ec fought against the Edomites, situated 'in 
Idumaia ' [NV Jos.] or ' in Judasa ' [A]. The district in- 
tended is no doubt that to the SE. of Judnea, in Idumcea 
(see Akrabrim). There is no sufficient ground for the 
opinion of Ewald that the Edomites had settled as far N. 
as another Akrabatta, a toparchy or district in Central 
Palestine, to the N. of Juda;a [Akrabatta, aKpa^era, 
etc. [Jos. B/ iii. 3 5 II PI- //-V v. 14 iv. 939]; aKpa^^eiv 
[Eus. 05C'''2146i]), apparently represented by the 
modern 'Akrabeh, 8 m. SE. of Nablus. (The reading 
iv TouSat? in i Mace, must therefore be rejected.) See 
Schiir. Hist. I220 n. 2, 3 158. 

Doubtless, however, we should identify with 'Akrabeh 
the Ekkerel {fype^rjX [BN], Kpe^i]\ [A] ; K..^;"ftv ). 
near Chusi, on the brook Mochmur (Judith 7 iSf), the 
names being almost the same in the Syr. (=Talm. 
na-pv)- T. K. c. 

AKRABBIM, Ascent of, so always in RV ; also 
Nu. 344 in AV, which has in Judg. I36 'going up to 
Akrabbim,' in Josh. 15 3t mg. '. . .to Acrabrim," 
text Maaleh-Acrahbim (D^3"lpy n7j?p, i.e., 'ascent of 
Scorpions," [npoc]ANABACic'^ AKRABeiN [BAL] ; as- 
census scorpion um), mentioned in Josh. I53 (akraBBGIAA 
[sup. ras. A'"''], CKRABeiN [L]) as one of the localities 
marking the southern frontier of Judah. 

It must have been one of the passes leading up from 
the southern continuation of the Ghor into the waste 
mountain country to the west. Knobel identifies it 

1 Cp Bakbuk. 

2 titavia for oiro Trjt ai^o^atreuf in Judg. 1 36 [AL ; Lag. points 
iw' an,\. 


with the pass of es-Safa, leading up towards Hebron 
out of the W. el-Kikreh on the road from Petra. 
Robinson (/M'"*' 2i8o/. ) descrilies this pass as being ' as 
steep as a man can readily climb.' 'The rock is in 
general porous and rough, but yet in many spots smooth 
anil dangerous for animals. In such places a path has 
been hewn in the rock in former days ; the slant of the 
rock being sometimes levelled, and sometimes overcome 
by steps cut in it. The vestiges of this road are more 
frequent near the top. The appearance is that of a 
very ancient pass' (Z/A'<^'229i). Robinson, however, 
identifies this Nakb es-.Safa with Zephath or Hormah, 
and not with Akrabbim (see also Hai.ak, Mount). 
Scorpions arc of frequent occurrence throughout this 

AKUD (akoyA [B]), I Esd. 530 RV=Ezra245 
Akkur, 4. 

ALABASTER (aAaBactron [accus. Ti WH] Mk. 
14 3, also with art., thn A. [W & H after BX'^]. 
TON A. [Ti. after N*A], jO A. [TR after G, etc. ; also F 
in Lk.737]: cp o aAa. [B], to a\a. [A] 2 K. 21 13 
[for nnSs ' dish,' ' cup ']) was found in large quantities in 
Mesopotamia, and from it are made the huge bulls which 
are to be seen in the British Museum and in the Louvre. 
The alabaster of the ancients was a stalagmitic carbonate 
of lime hence called by mineralogists ' Oriental alabaster ' 
to distinguish it from the modern alabaster, which is the 
sulphate of lime. See ED*^^\ s.v. Alabaster. In 
Greek the word dXd/Sacrros or d.\d(3airTpoi is frequently 
used of vases or vessels made to hold unguents, as 
these were generally fashioned out of this material, 
which was thought by many (cp e.^., PL //A' xiii. 3) 
to preserve the aroma of the ointment : Theocritus (/</. 
16114) is able to speak of 'golden alabasters.' Many 
alabaster vases have been found in Egypt, and the 
specialised sense given to nn':'! in the Egyptian Greek 
version of Kings (see above) is natural enough. 
The town of Alabastron, near the famous quarries of 
Hat-nub^ (cp Erman, Anc. Eg. 470, n. 3), was well 
known for the manufacture of such articles (in fact it 
seems to have derived its name from the material ).'- 
Many of these go back to nearly 4000 B. c. and often 
show fine workmanship. Similar articles have been 
found in Assyria dating from the time of Sargon (8th 
cent. B.C.). 

Such a vessel was the ' alabaster cruse ' which was 
emptied upon Jesus's head by the woman at the house 
of Simon the Leper at Bethany (Mt. 26;= Mk. I43 
Lk. 737t)- The expression 'brake' in Mark does not 
refer, it would seem, to the breaking of a seal or of the 
neck of the vessel ; the object was to prevent profana- 
tion of the vessel by subsequent use for any commoner 
purpose (cp Comm. , ad loc. ). 

ALAMETH (HD^;?), i Ch. 78 AV, RV Alemeth. 

ALAMMELECH, RV Allammelech ('^I'pO^N [Ba.]. 
'^N [Gi.], ^7^'PX [v.d. Hooght]; eXet^eXe/c [B], 
eX/ieXex [L ; om. A]), a place in Asher on the border of 
Zebulun (Josh. 1926t), the name of which is possibly 
echoed in that of the Wddy el-melek, which drains the 
plain of the Buttauf (Asochis), and joins the Nahr el- 
Mukatta' (Kishon). So Di., Buhl. The pointing of 
the Heb. is peculiar: tiSsVk is usually explained as if 
TiSp dVn, "sacred tree of Melech' ; but n can hardly have 
been assimilated to c, nor is this the best reading. 
Possibly the real name was ijSo "? (^J*), El Melech ; 
cp El Paran. The authors of the points may have 
wished to avoid confusion with the personal name 
Eli melech. Or the name might be a corruption of 
elammak (see Almug Trees), if Solomon was able to 
naturalise this tree. t. K. C. 

1 Near Tell el-"Amama (see PSBAlGji ["04]). 

* The reverse supposition is sometimes held, viz. that the 
material is derived from the place-name. The ultimate origin of 
the word is unknown. 



[OTH, UPON {nVDbV'hv.). a technical musical 
phrase of uncertain meaning ; cp Mi;sic, 6. 

(a) Ps.4t5 title [i] (ujrip rmv Kpv4>imv [IiKRTl = niD'?;r'?j;; om. 
A; Aq. irl i'a'iOTJTu>' = rii'p':'jr'7y ; Symm. vnip luv alutvitov) ; 
(/') I Ch.lSao (iitX aAai/iwfl [H], . . oAf/ui. [K], . . oAij/i. [A], wtpl 
Tiii' (tpiM^i'ioK [L]: two anonymous C.k. versions have iiri tuii/ 
avafiaeixujv [niVyc] nnd n'"i Tiii/ aloivCuv InicSvD- '" '*" other 
passages, (f) Ps. 9 title [i] (vnip r. Kp. [BNAK] ; Aq. vfaviortiTot, 
Syniin. ntpi toO 6avaT0U - n^D'*?]}, Th., Quint, vnip aKixiji;, Sext. 
i/a>'iico7T)) ; ((/) in Ps.48i4 [isKei? tou? oiuiia? [KAR'l], /.f., ap- 
parently niaH' f"l ""* *'^1- "^""<^''<. Symm. tis to iiijuicei) it 
appears in the corrupt form n?S"'?{,', which Tg. talces to he n'D^J/ 
' youth (?). 

Thus we find it three times forming part of a heading 
of a psahn (for niB'^j; in d should be restored as nic'^fSy 
from its present position to the heading of Fs. 49, on the 
analogy of Ps. 4(.)). Of the two half-translations of AV 
and RV respectively ( ' upon Alanioth, ' ' set to Alamoth ' ), 
the former presupposes that the phrase denotes the 
particular instrumental accompaniment ; the latter, that 
Alamoth is the name of a tune. Most moderns explain 
'for sopranos,' 'alamoth having the constant meaning 
' maidens.' Whether soprano voices would be suitable 
for Ps. 46, the nmsical reader may judge. Gratz and 
Wellhausen suppose a reference to some Elamite 
instrument. There is, however, a more probable 
solution. See Psalms, and cp Muth-labben, 


ALCIMUS (aAkiaaoC [AN], occasional forms -|n. 
-eiM. 'Xi. [A], -|CM. [N] ; in several cursive MSS of i 
and 2 ^Iacc. and in Jos. Ant.\\\.%^ with add. [kai or 
O K.l l[co]<NK[e]lMOC ; in Ant. .\x. IO3, and one cursive 
at I Mace. 79 simply i[a)]AK[e]l/V\OC ; <. D^"5*=F:iia- 
kiin or Jehoiakim, for which he adopted the like-sound- 
ing Greek name by which he is known ; cp Names, 86), 
a priest ' of the race of Aaron ' ^ {Ant. xx. IO3, admitted 
by the inimical '^ writer of i Mace. ; ' of the seed of 
Aaron,' ^ 7 14), i.e. , a Zadokite, though not of the family 
of Onias (' not of this house,' * Ant. xxlOs). 

Ant. xii. 97, indeed equates ' another house ' ((TepovolKov) with 
'not of the stock of the high priests [at all]' (oiiK ofri ttjs riav 
apxiepetav yei/ea?) ; but the source here followed by Jos. is on 
other grounds apparently inferior, and we may conclude that 
Alcimus was really more eligible 5 to the high priest's office than 
his enemies the house of Hasmon, who were ordinary priests. 

When, therefore, the victorious king of Syria, 
Demetrius I. {^.v., i) determined (i Mace. 79) to 
support his claim to the high priest's office (v. 5) with 
force, Alcimus was accepted, not only by the Hellenising 
party but also (v. 13) largely by the legitimist party, the 
Assideans (i/.v.). 

The treaty (i Mace. 6 59) of Lysias (and the youthful Antio- 
chus V. Eupator) in 162 B.C., which satisfied the aims of the 
Assideans and made it unnecessary for them further to identify 
themselves with the ' friends of Judas' (i Mace. 026 ; cp 28), had 
been immediately followed, if we may trust -^^. xii.97, by the 
execution of the now ' impossible ' high priest Menei.aus (y.r'.) 
(i Mace, our most important source, not having mentioned 
Menelaus at all, says nothing of what took place between his 
tenure of office and the effective appointment [e<m)<rai' auToJ T. 
Itpoxrui^v, "9; cp 2 Mace. 14 13 (caTacr-njo-ai] of Alcimus by 
Demetrius). According to the same passage in Jos., which 
states also that a young Onias, son of Onias III., made his way 
to Egypt on the death of his father (on which, however, .see 
Onias; Lsrael, 69), Alcimus l)ecame (tyeVero) high priest 
on (/xera) the death of Alenelaus, the office being indeed bestowed 
(SeSuiKtv) on him by the king (Antiochus V. according to the 
present context). According to 2 Mace. 14 3, too, Alcimus had 
Deen at some time high priest before his appointment by Demetrius. 
We know really nothing certain about the events of this short 
interval. We first reach firm ground with the intervention of 

Demetrius did not mean to resume the hopeless policy 
of his uncle P'piphanes (or the Assideans would have 

1 ytfov^ pLtv ToO 'Aapiavof. 2 See i Mace. 7 9. 

3 fK TOv trWpfiaTO? '.\aptav. * T179 otictaf ravTTj^. 

5 Although we cannot of course trust 2 Mace. 14 7, 'mine 
ancestral glory ' (,tt)v jrpoyoi'Kcrji' S6(av). According to 2 Maec. 
Alcimus's fault was his voluntary Hellenising (cKovai'iot, 14 3 ; 
contrast 'by compulsion,' Kara{v, 15 2). Cp Kosters, 
r/4. 7-12538 ['78]. 



held aloof) ; but he wanted .Mcinuis and his friends to 
help him in crippling the Hasmoncan party of political 

There would be a special rea.son for Alcimus being active 
against the Hasmoneans if he was shrewd enough to foresee 
(what we now know) that their ultimate goal must lie the high 
priesthood. (On the other hand the 'calumny ' li'. 27I put into 
his mouth by the author of 2 Mace. [14 26] that Judas had already 
been made nigh priest .seems historically impo.ssible ; it belongs 
to the distorted story of 2 Mace, see next note.) 

Bacchides (q.v.) was the agent selected for the task.' 
At first the presence of Alcimus was a great help ; his 
legitimacy was a source of strength. 

This would have special weight if his predeces.sor Menelaus 
is really to be regarded, with 2 Maec. (84-^429) as a ' IJenjamite," 
and with Wellhausen (//6" 200, n. i, 2nd ed. 235, n. i) as one 
of the Tobiada; (see, however, Lucius, Der Kssenismui 77, and 
cp Israel, 6y). If we could trust the Talmud there would ! 
a special point tn his favour in his connection with Jose b. Joezer, 
leader of the Sanhedrin (his uncle, Ber. Rabba, ch. 06 ; his father, 
Bab. Bathta, 133 a). 

The mass of the people seem to have followed the 
Assideans, in accepting Alcimus (i Mace. 7 13 'first'; 
cp We. Pilar, u. Sad. 84, n. 2) ; Vjut the severity of the 
measures taken by the representatives of Demetrius,* 
sixty men (perhaps those that had been till now much 
implicated with the Hasnionean party) * being slain in 
one day (i Mace. 7 16), in face of solenm pledges of 
peaceable intentions, entirely changed the situation. 
Fear and dread fell on all the people (i Mace. 7 18). 
After some further severities Bacchides considered his 
task accomplished and returned to Antioch. The late 
severities, however, had turned the heart of the people 
again to Judas, who was trying to strengthen his position 
(i Mace. 724), and Alcimus judged it prudent to with- 
draw {v. 25). He had of course no difficulty in bringing 
further incriminating charges against Judas [ibid, and 
Ant. xii. IO3). This time XiCANOK {ij.v. ) was entrusted 
with the task of restoring Alcimus. During the various 
exciting incidents of the next interval, the diplomacy, 
battles, and death of Nicanor, we hear nothing of 
Alcimus (i Mace. 726-50). 

Of course in the rejoicings over Nicanor 's day and the recovery 
of the Maccabean party he had no part ; perhaps he was absent. 
(It is at this point, indeed, that .-</. xii. 106 makes Alcimus 
die ;>'' but this belongs to the storj- there followed of Judas's suc- 
ceeding to the high-priesthood, on which see Maccahee.s, i. 8 4 
and cp below.) 

When Bacchides came a second time (i Mace. 9i) to 
carry through what Nicanor had been unable to accom- 
plish, Judas failed to find adequate support and fell 
(160 B.C.), and the Maccabean party were without a 
leader. Alcimus was once more installed, and probably 
accepted by all except the Maccal^eans, who ere long 
chose Jonathan as successor to his brother. 

How far the Hellenistic tendencies of Alcimus carried 
him we do not know. At his death (159 B.C.") he seems 
to have been engaged on some changes in the temple 
enclosure, the nature and even the object of which we 
do not know with any certainty. 

According to Josephus he hail ' formed the intention of pulling 
down the wall of the temple ' (^ovk<\divTi KoSiKtiv to tfi\o<i toO 
oyt'ou. Ant. xii. 106 beg.), i Mace, states ('.'54) that itwas the 
wall of the inner court of the temple (to. t. ttj? ovAijs tuiv ayiur 
Tijs <r(uTpas) that he commanded ((ireTa^ev) to pull down, 
adds that he pulled down the works (rd ipya) of the prophets, 
and then appends the peculiar statement that he began the pulling 

1 So I Mace. "8; on the distorted account in 2 Maec, where 
14x2 has to do duty for both i Maec. "sand T26, see Kosters, 
r/r. 7-12 533 535, and on the displacement of Bacchides to 
2 Mace. 830, ib. 504 y; (cp the place of liacchides in Jos. BJi. 1 1). 

- How far these transactions are to be attributed directly to 

Alcimus (.so apparently i Maec. 7 14 i?: 23), and how far they 
were due to Haeehides (so apparently Ant. XU.IO2 ; cp t Mace 
7 19) we cannot .say. 

3 His uncle being, according to Ber. Rabba and Baba Batkra 
Ul-cc), of the number. 

* On the motive of the author of 2 Mace, in representing 
Nicanor as untrue to his master (2 Mace. 14 28-35) a"d thus 
bringing Alcimus again on the scene (v. 26) see Kosters, p. J35. 

* And when he was de.-xd the people bestowed the high- 
priesthood on Judas, who, hearing of the power of the Romans,' 
etc. (=1 Mace. 8). 

Josephus assigns him variously three years {Ant. xx. IO3) or 
four years {ib. xii. lOe) of office. 


down. _ It seems rash to assume that this confused account is in 
its original form. If the last clause is not an interpolation (and 
there IS cursive MS authority for its omission, see H & P), and 
even perhaps if it is, should c not perhaps read ' to pull ' for 
'he pulled ((cafltAeii' for KoOtiAtf)'! 

The much discussed question what the wall (rtlxoi) referred 
to w;us, we havu really not the means of determining. Its identi- 
fication with a low barrier in the Herodian temple beyond which 
Cientiles must not pass, the sBn-g (J^1^) described in Mitiiiath 
'1 3 is at the best precarious 1 (see the remarks of Schiirer, Gjy 1 
176, n. 5 and the discussions there referred to). 

The somewhat sudden death of Alcimus ( i Mace, 
355/ ; cp however, Ant.\\\.\(i(i, o-i-xvas im^pas) was 
naturally treated by his enemies as a sign of divine dis- 
pleasure. The moderation (such as it is) of the writer of 
I Mace, was not at all to the taste of the later rabbis 
(see the stories in Hamburger, A* A' 428/'., Derenbourg, 
///j/. Pai. 52, n. 2). That on the whole, however, 
Alcimus did not interfere nmch with ritual and practice 
is plain, or at least probable, from this last act being all 
that is mentioned against him, and even in this case 
we do not know his motive (cp Grimm ad loc, and 
We. 216, //(/''262). Still, ifhe has been rather severely 
judged, even for the evidence supplied by the opposite 
party, W'ellhausen {I.e.) seems to go to the other 

The historical importance of this, perhaps in himself 
somewhat insignificant character (who figures all the 
more strikingly on the scene that we cannot find very 
clear traces of any immediate predecessor or successor ^), 
lies in the fact that his tenure of office formed a turning- 
point in the development of Jewish parlies.* The 
Assideans refused to follow the Hasmoneans. Two 
generations later, the meaning of this became more 
apparent (see Asside.vns, Ph.akiskks, ICssk.mcs). 

The primary source is i Mace. 7-9. Cp Jos. ^-Jh/. xii. O7-II 2, 
XX. 10 3, and on the relation of these see Maccahees, Fiksi', i. 
9 ; on the relative value of 2 Mace. 14 .see the elaborate article of 
Kosters, ' De polemiek van het tweede l)oek der Makkabeen,' 
j'h. 712491-552 ['78I, especially as cited al>ove ; on parties. We. 
J'/iar. u. Sad. v., y6ff. Lucius I.e.; on later Jewish sentiment 
concerning -Mcimus, Hamburger, KF.\ ^2?,/.\ on 3113, etc. 
Schurer, GJl' % 6, n. 5, and Griitz in MGH'J, 1876, pp. 385-397 ; 
on festival of 23rd Marchesvan in Meg^. Taan., Derenbourg, I.e., 
and Gratz, OV.ft/i. 3(^1 564 j!?! H. \v. n. 

ALCOVE y niip), Xu. 25 Sf RV mg. , AV Tent {q. v. ). 

ALEMA (cN aAaaaoic [A], -Ae/w. [N*], -A[e]iM. 
j^c.a c.b (vni.) V], Syr. y^\ ^, ill Alimis), a place men- 
tioned along with Bosora, Carnaim, etc. (i Mace. 526). 
Being in Gilead it cannot be, as some say, the Beer- 
elim spoken of in Is. 158 as belonging to Moab, and 
the Beer of Nu. 21 16 (see Bosor). It has been placed 
by Merrill at Alma, S. of Kdrei, and by Schumacher 
at Kefr el-Ma, E. of Lake of Galilee ; but it is probably 
' Ilmd, 10 m. SW. of the Leja, and of Busr el-Hariri, which 
is i^robably liosor. (Cp Buhl Topog. des A'. Osfjordan- 
landes 13 ; We. IJG 2\'2. [3rd ed. 257] n. ) c. .\. s. 

ALEMETH or ALLEMETH {Vxhyi^ ; so everywhere 
[Ba Gi], except i Ch. 7 8 ' in j^ause ' FIP ?y, .Xlameth, 
reMeee [H]. eAMeBe/W ^\] ; ordinary edd. have 
np?y, whence RV Alle.mkth in i Ch. 660 [45] = 
josh. 21 18, where the form is Almon, pD?y, pamaAa 
[H], aAmcon [A], cAm. [L] ; usually (-&AeMee [I5.\], 
&AAAAa)9 [L]). a Levitical town in Benjamin (i Ch. 660 
[451- fA^H^^Q [-'^l)- the name of which appears in 
iCh.836 (caAaimaB [B], ^A^M. [A], AAe4) [!>]) = 
942! (r&McAee [B], AAetJ) [I-^) fis that of a descendant, 
or family of Bknj.\.\iin ( 9, ii. j3). See also Zalmon, 

1 The seventeenth of the thirty-five festivals prescribed in 
MegiUath 'J'aantth viz. on 23rd Marchesvan has by some, e.g., 
Gratz, Ijeen brought into connection with the i(7r<y and Alcimus. 
This is however contested, f.^., by Derenbourg, Hist. Pal. 6oyC 
(see text of iV/-^. Taan., ih. ^^-i^.). 

2 Josephus, Ignoring his previous irreconcilable statement in 
xii. 106, already quoted above, expressly says {^Ant. xx. 10) that 
on the death of Alcimus the office of high priest was vacant for 
sevc-n years. 

3 Cp We. Phar. u. Sad. 8 v. ; I^ucius Der F.ssenisvtus, etc. 
Tiff. l'8i), with Schiirer's review ( TLZ ['81], especially col. 494). 


ii. (end), El.\M, ii. i. Robinson's identification (Z.5.^) 
with the modern 'Almif, i m. XE. from 'Andta 
(Anathoth), is generally accepted. 

ALEXANDER (aAcI&nApoc [ANV], 'helper of 
men). 1. .\le\ander HI., king of Macedon (336- 
323 K.c), surnamed the Great. The victories of 
Alexander powerfully impressed the Jewish imagination ; 
yet the only biblical passages in which he is mentioned 
by name are i Mace. 1 1-8 62. The writer of Daniel 
(166 or 164 B.C.) recalls a ' mighty king' ruling ' with 
great dominion,' whose kingdom is 'broken' after his 
death (Dan. 11 3/). In the vision of chap. 7, it is the 
fourth of a series of ' beasts ' ; it is ' dreadful and 
terrible,' and 'devoured and brake in pieces, and 
stamped' the rest. Xaturally, it was the destructive 
siile of Alexanders work that impressed the imagina- 
tion ; the fall of Tyre and Gaza would bring that 
aspect into prominence. His Palestinian conquests 
are thought to be alluded to in Zech. 9i-8 (see 
ZiccHARi.\n, Book of); and in Is. 25/, the fate of 
Tyre may be contrasted tacitly with that of Jerusalem 
(see IsAi.\H, ii. 13). It is during the seven 
months' siege of Tyre that Jewish history comes into 
connection with Alexander (333-332 B.C.). The tradi- 
tion is given by Jos. Ant. xi. 83^ (cp Yoma, 69a). 

The Jews refused compliance with Alexander's requisitions. 
After the two months' siege of Gaza he advanced on Jerusalem ; 
but Jatldua (Jaddus), the high priest (cp Neh. 12 11 22), warned 
by a dream how to avert his anger, met the conqueror at Scopus. 
Alexander worshipped the Name on the high priest's mitre, and 
entering Jerusalem s.acrificed in the Temple, heard Daniel's 
prophecies relating to himself, and gave the Jews autonomy, not 
only in Jerusalem but also in liabylon. 

As to all this other writers preserve absolute silence, 
and the story in Josephus seems inconsistent with the 
statement in Arr. iii. 1, that in seven days from Gaza Alex- 
ander was at Pelusium in Egypt. Vet Just. xi. lOsays that 
'many kings wearing fillets met him' ; and Curt. iv. 517, 
that he visited some who refused to submit. Jewish 
soldiers were certainly in his armies, even on his most 
distant expeditions ; and in Alexandria, founded im- 
mediately after the supposed visit, the Jewish element 
was large. The privileges conferred on the Jews are 
a feature of subsec)uent history. It is possible that 
Alexander derived from the Jews much valuable in- 
formation about the interior of Asia (Mahaffy, Greek 
Life, chap. 20). Whether true or false, the episode strikes 
a true note in Alexander's character. Xevertheless, 
it raises suspicion to find the story appropriated by the 
Samaritans. Still more, to remember the visit to 
Gordium before the battle of Issus, and that to the 
oracle of Amnion before the Persian expedition. 
Finally, the king's action at Babylon is a curious 
parallel (Arr. iii. 16). He there rebuilt the shrines 
destroyed by Xerxes, especially that of Belus t6l re 
fiXXa Kal T(j5 BiyXtf) Kada Kdvoi i^rpfovvro idvaev. 

The Jerusalem ej)isode must be characterised as an 
attempt to secure Jerusalem a place in the cycle of 
Alexander -legends, on the model of the visit to the 
Egyptian Amnion. (Cp H. Bois, Rev. de //it'o. 
et phil., Lausanne, 1891 ; Henrichsen, St. Kr., 1871). 

w. J. \v. 

2. Alexander Balas, a man of low origin, who passed 
himself off as the son of Alexander Epiphanes (cp i Mace. 
10 1, 'A. 6 Tov 'AvTtdxov 6 'ETri^avrj^ [ANV], see Mac- 
CAiiKKS, First Bcwk ok, 2) ; 'A\4^avdos [A] in t. 58. 
His real name was Balas (so Strabo [p. 751], rbv BdXai' 
'A\^^avSpov ; Jos. [A /it. xiii. 4 8], on the other hand, 'A. 6 
BdXas \fyofj.ei>oi), which may possibly be connected with 
N'rya. ' Lord. ' The additional name ' Alexander ' seems 
to have been given him by Attains II. of Pergamum, who 
was one of the first to support him against Dkmetrius. 
In rivalry with the latter Balas exerted himself to secure 
an alliance with Jonathan (i Mace. lOi ^), and by 
conferring upon him the title of ' high priest of the 
nation and friend of the king,' was successful (7'. 20). 
After a varying career he was compelled to flee to Arabia, 


where he was killed at Abse after a reign of five years, 
150-145 B.C. ( I Mace. 11 13 18). For classical references 
see Diet. Class, liiog. ,s.v.\ SchQrer, GJV\l^^,v\.\o, and 
for the history of the time see Israel, 76, Mac- 
CABKKS, i. 5. 

3. Son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned together with lii.s 
brother, Rukls Ijr.r/.j (Mk. 15 21). 

4. A member of the family of the high priest in Act.s46, 
probably to l)e iclentifie<l with the third son of Annas, called 
Kleasar by Josephus {Ant. xviii. 'J 2). See Annas. 

5. Uf Kphcsus, a Jew, who was ' brouj/ht forth ' (7rpo/3ij3a(Tac 
(I'ext. Reel) from the nuiltilude, or 'brought down ' ((care/S. 
1 1), etc.]) or (more probably) 'instructed' (ot/k/S. 115KA], cp 
KV mg.) bv the Jews, and unsuccessfully attempted their 
defence in the theatre, on the occasion of the tumult excited 
by Demetrius, the silversmith (Acts 19 33). There is no con- 
clusive reiLson either for or against identifying him with : 

6. The coppersmith (6 xaXK(v<;), who is described (2 Tim. 
4 14) as haying done Paul 'much evil ' (at his trial ?). 

7. Mentioned with HvMi;.N*:i;s (7.7/.) as having ' made .ship- 
wreck concerning the faith ' (i Tim. I \()/.\ and as having been, 
in consequence, delivered by the apostle unto Satan. Whether 
or not he is to be identified with no. 6 above, we cannot tell. 
In .some texts of the .Apocryphal Acts 0/ Paul and Thecla, 
he appears with Demas and Hermogenes xs a hypocritical 
companion of I'aul ; in others it is ' Alexander the Syriarch ' 
who is mentioned. See Lipsius, Apokr. A/>. Gesch. ii. 1 462 466. 

ALEXANDRIA (AAe?ANAp[e]iA [VA], sMacc. 3i ; 
gcntilicAAeiANApeYc[HNA]. Acts69l824+). The site 
of the city was chosen by Alexander the Great during his 

1. The city. 

pas.sage from Memphis down the 

Canobic (Canopic), or most westerly, 
branch of the Nile, on his way to the Oracle of Amnion 
(331 c.). 

Holm remarks that it was a nnveltv to call a city after its 
founder, this particular form ..t' . 1. ,,:..' h.n in- nrevi.'nisly been 
m.ade only from names of .i._i;i, (,.-.. ,\i>-ilania) ; it indicates 
Alex.ander's desire fur divine hon..i;r-, a 1 laiiu supported by the 
prn:sts of Amnion (Holm, (,X-. J/ist. 8384 VA). The city was 
laid out by Deinocrates under the king's supervision, 12 m. W. 
ot tlie Nile, and thus its harbours were not choked by the Nile 
nmd, which is carried east by the current. 

It lay on the neck of land, 2 m. broad, interposed 
between the Mareotis lagoon and the sea. A mile dis- 
tant, parallel with the coast, lay the island of Pharos, 
connected with the city by a dam (which served also as 
an aqueduct to sup[)ly the island), seven stades in 
length (hence called the Heptastadium), pierced with 
two openings. Two harlx)urs were thus created, both 
protected by projections from the mainland. 

The western harbour was called that of Eunostus, after a 
kiiiL; of Soli, son-in-law of Ptolemy I. (but see Mahaffy, Crcik 
LiJ,- 16^, for another suggestion). The eastern harbour was 
then the more important, although it is not so to-day. Its 
entrance was marked by the huge lighthouse (built on the island 
by the Cnidian Sostratus) which g.ave its name {pharos) to all 
similar structures. Opposite to it ran out the point of Lochias. 

Bordering on the great (eastern) harbour was the 
palace-quarter (Hrucheium), the abode of the Mace- 
donians. The western division of the city, occupied 
previously by the village Rhacotis, continued to be the 
Egyptian quarter. The Jewish colony was in the east 
of the city. 

Lake Mareotis was connected with the sea by a 
canal, and as it communicated also with the Nile, the 
periodical flood prevented the accunmlation of silt and 
the formation of morass. To this, and to the constant 
Etesian winds, Strabo traces the salubrity of the site 
(P- 793)- The lake was the haven for the products of 
upiJcr l-.gypt coming directly from Syene, as well as for 
those of India and the East, brought by way of Arsino6 
on the Red Sea and the royal canal to the Nile, or through 
Herenice or Myos Hormos, lower down the coast. 
Hence the commerce of the lake was more valuable 
than that of the outer ports, whose exports largely 
exceeded their imports (.Str. , p. 793). Alexandria became 
the great port of transshipment for eastern commodities, 
while Egypt, under the Ptolemies, also took the place 
of the Black Sea coast as a grain-producing countrv. 
Most of her grain went to Italy (cp Acts 276 28 11 ; Jo's. 
Z//vii. 2 1 ; Suet. Tit. 5). Near Ostia was a sanctuary 
modelled on the Alexandrian temple of Sarapis, with a 


mariners* guild (C//.I447). Even under the Lagids 
Alexandria contained a large colony of Italians engaged 
in the trade with the West (cp /<ph. />igr. 1 60^} 603). 
For the imjwrtance of Egypt to Rome see Momnis. 
J^rov. of Rom. limp. 2252 ET. 

Alexandria was not organised as a vb\i.%i.e., it pos- 
sessed neither delil>erative assembly nor senate {^ov\i\), 

2. Its constitu- ^'"'. 1"'''" ^^^^ '"""'' '^'"^^ ">*^''^"'y -"^ ' '^y-'^l 
|.JQj^ residence of the satrap king, never a 

foundation of Gntco- Macedonians 
with city privileges in a foreign land' (Mahaffy, Emp. 
of J'tol. 76). The burgess Iwdy was (jreek (primarily 
Macedonian), standingalongsideof the native Egyptiaii 
and the foreign elements not reckoned Hellenic, in 
somewhat the same way as the English in India along- 
side of the natives (Momm. Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2262 
ET). Chief among the non-Hellenes were the Jews, 
occupying two out of the five wards, apparently here 
not on the Ghetto system, but on the basis of original 
settlement ; they were naturally attracted by the com- 
mercial advantages of the city, and were also dclil)er- 
ately settled there by the founder (Jos. c. Ap. 24, /// 
ii. 187). Josephus asserts that the Alexandrian Jews 
had equal rights with the Macedonians and other 
Greeks. This, though technically an exaggerati(jn, was 
probably practically true, seeing that such rights can 
only have been jjrivileges enjojed by the (Jreeks over 
the natives ; but it is doubtful whether the Jews were 
free from the poll-tax. Of all the non-Hellenes, the Jews 
alone were allowed to form a comnmnity within that of 
the city, with a certain amount of self-government. 
'The Jews,' says Strabo (quoted by Jos. ^^Z. xiv. 7 2), 
' have in Ale.xandria a national head of their ow n 
(eOudpxv^). who presides over the people and decides 
processes and disposes of contracts as if he ruled an 
independent community' (ws 8.i> TroXiret'as dpxujy avro- 
TeXoCs). Josephus traces their legal position to Alex- 
ander ; but it was apparently Ptolemy I. who settled 
them in Egypt in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1 ; App. 
S_}'r. :iO). The general result was that 'in acknow- 
ledged independence, in repute, culture, and wealth, 
the body of Alexandrian Jews was, even before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, the first in the world ' (Momm. 
op. cit. 2267 ET). Cp Disi'KKSiON, 7, 15/7: 

Of the development of the city, and especially of the 
foundation of the institutions which gave it its place in 
3 Letters "''^ history of literature and science, little 
is known. The famous Museum was 
probably founded by Ptolemy I., aided by the advice of 
Demetrius of PhalCrum, who migrated to Egypt on his 
expulsion from Athens (307 K. c). 

"The name (Moixreioi') points to an Attic origin. No detailed de- 
scription can here Ijegiven. Kesides, thematerialsareveryscanty. 
It was a royal foundation, with a common hall, porticoes, and 
gardens, for the exclusive use of literary and scientific workers 
dependent on royal bounty, under the presidency of a priest who 
was the king's nominee ; it was the 'first example of a per- 
manent institution for the cultivation of pure science founded by 
a government ' (Holm, op. cit. 4 317 ET). It was not a tc.iching 
establishment or training-place for youth, but a home of research 
adequately endowed. Attached to it was the Library, with more 
than 500,000 volumes (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 1). 

The Museum and the Library combined were essenti- 
ally a centre of learning, not of creative power. In their 
artificial atmosphere exact science and literary criticism 
flourished with brilliant results ; but literature decayed 
perhaps the uninspiring environment of the city had no 
slight effect upon its art and poetrv (Mahaffy, Greek 
Life 165). 

The Museum served as a model for subsequent foundations 
e.g., that of the emjjeror Claudius ;lx)th Jews and Christians 
at a later time had smiilar centres of learning in the city. The 
fate of the library is uncertain ; it is doubtful whether it was 
accidentally burnt along with the arsenal in 48 B.C. (Ca;s. BC 
3 III). _ The words of Dio, 43 38 oio-re dAAa t (tol to lYtuptov, 
Tois T OTTotfrjKas <tai toO atirov xat noi' pi^Kiuv, iT\fi<TTiov it) <tai 
a(ti(TTiov, oj? (j)a(Ti, ytvofiei'iov, KauSjji'at, perhaps refer only to 
stores of books for sale (.Mahaffy, Emp. 0/ Eto!. 454). 

Ptolemy II. established a supplementary library in 
the Sarapieion, in the quarter Rhacotis. In science, 


especially, Alexandria maintained a sort of primacy 
throughout the imperial period, and residence in the 
Museum was the hall-mark of learning (cp Acts 18 24, 
and a <pi\6(To<pos airb Moucreioi;, in Halicarnassus, Bu//. 
de Corr. Hell. \ 405. Alexandrian physicians, in par- 
ticular, were regarded as the best in the empire ; cp 
ot iv 'Ei^(r<f airb tov Mouffejoi' iarpol [Wood, Epiuius, 
Appendix, Inscriptions from Tombs, etc., 7, /. 6]). 

In Roman times Alexandria was the second city in 
the empire, and the first commercial city in the world 
4 rhnrnrtj.r (^tr^bo, p. 798 ; M^7t(rTov e/x7r6pioi' r^s 
. UDaxacTier. o,-^.^,,^^^^, ) At the end of the Ptole- 
maic period she numbered upwards of 300,000 free 
inhabitants, and in imperial times still more (Uiod. 
1752)- Mommsen [op. cit. 2 262 KT) develops the com- 
parison between her and Antioch both ' monarchical 
cre;itions out of nothing " (Paus. viii. 383). 

The latter excelled in beauty of site and in the magnificence of 
her imperial buildings; the former in her suitability for world- 
trade. In the character of their population and their attitude 
towards their respective national religions, the similarity between 
the two cities is close. The .Mexandnan mob, like that of 
Antioch, was capricious .^nd turbulent ; the smallest spark 
kindled a conflagration to Ije quenched only with blood (Diod. 
I84, Dio39 57). 

Poljbius (3414) says that a personal visit to the city filled 
him with disgust at the demoralisation produced by the constant 
presence of masses of mercenaries necessary for keeping under 
control the mongrel mob, the degenerate descendants of the 
Greeks ; compared with these two, the native Egyptian element 
struck him as acute and educatetl.' C.'csar draws a similar picture 
(A'C3iio). .A vivid illustration is found in the bloody scenes 
which heralded the .accession of Ptolemy V. (Pol. 1530-33). .\ 
point of similarity with the ,\ntiochians was the fondness of the 
Alexandrians for giving nicknames (cp Paus. v. 21 12: (tat iria% 
(coi iiTix^piov TO ' Tas ciriKAijo-^tt roij 'Wf^ai'SpfiiirCv ((Ttlv. Id. 
i. 9 I ; .Sen. (ul Helv. 19 6: ' Loquax et in contumelias prsefec- 
torum ingeniosa provincia . . . etiam periculosi sales placent '). 
The Ptolemies had each a nickname, and even Vespasian, for his 
tax on salt fish, was called the ' sardine-dealer ' (Suet. Vesf>. 19 : 
Ku/SioaoxTTjv). As regards the status of tlie highly composite 

population, the Roman emperors mostly retained the old state 
of things. The .Mexandrians continued to stand quite apart 
from the rest of the country in character and in privileges (cp 
Philo, in Flacc. 10 ; CIG 4957), so much so that the Alex- 
andrian franchise was a necessary preliminary to the acquire- 
ment of Roman citizenship (Pliny, K/>.ad Tr. (i \1i\: '.\dmonitus 
sum a peritioribus debuisse me ante ei .Alexandrinam civitatem 
inpetrare, deinde Romanam, quoniam esset .itgyptius,' Jos. c. 
Ap.'li^. The Egyptians of the Xomes were unable to gain 
Roman citizenship, like other provincials, by enlistment in the 

The greatness of Alexandria has led some to speak 
of its founder as though he were endowed with more 

_ Ti.- than human foreknowleclirc, and had 

C IbS SUCC6SS. r , ^ ,- . . 

foreseen the future of the city as a 

centre of Hellenism and queen of the Levant. Others 

regard the city as merely a Greek emporium, a second 

and more successful Naucnltis, owing to accident its 

rise to the position of a cosmopolitan capital. 

Nevertheless, it nuisl have l>een evident to Alexander that, 
after the destruction of Tyre, 'the great trading area of the 
Levant was for the moment without focus ' (Hogarth, Philip and 
Alex. 1S8), and the site actually selected was the only one 
possible on the Egyptian coast (though .Mahaffy, Kmp. 0/ Ptol. 
12, calls this in question). Egypt, further, ottered peculiar 
facilities for that amalgamation of Greeks and Macedonians 
which he desired, and, owing to its support of his secret belief 
in his divinity, it had a special place in his affections. The 
success of Nauciatis undoubtedly exerted an influence in the 
way of directing attention to the W. of the Delta ; and it is not 
without reason that Cleomenes, a native of Naucriitis, created 
financial governor of Egypt, is called one of the architects of 
Alexandria (Justin 184). Nor should we fail to take account 
of the fact that the island of Pharos wxs the traditional landing- 
place of Odysseus (Hom. iW. 4355). This influence is dis- 
tinctly asserted in the story of the dream which directed the 
king to the site opposi'.c Pharos (Plut. Alex. _'<)). 

In fine, considering -Me.xander's economic designs and 

achievements in the far East, and the success of his 

eastern colonies, we cannot venture to deny that he 

consciously created a centre for a new mixed race, with 

a definite dream of the possibilities afterwards realised. 

Much has been hoped from systematic exploration. 

The modern town stands mainly on the silt gathered on either 

side of the Heptastadium, which has thus con- 

6. Sites not verted the island of Pharos into a peninsula. 

recoverable. '^" 'h* great monuments of the Ptolemaic age 

seem to nave stood within the present inhabited 



area, or on ground now absorbed by the sea ; but the site of no 
ancient building is known, except that of the Ciesareum, which 
was near the sea. The Sema or Soma, in which Alexander's 
body was deposited, may perhaps be represented by the mosaue 
of Nebi Danial, the most sacred locality in Alexandria. 1 he person known to have seen the body was the emperor Sep- 
timius Severus (Dio, 70 13). 

The general result is that, owing to subsidence, the 
remains of Ptolemaic Alexandria are now below water 
level, and that nothing is to be hoped for from the 
site (Egypt. Expl. Fund Report, 1894-5). See, also, 


Literature. Strabo, pp. 791-799; Herondas, Mim. 1 28 /.; 
Kiepert, 7.ur Topogr. des alien Alex. (Perl. 1872); Weniger, 
Das Alex. Museum (y,^t\. 1875): Pauly-Wissowa's .A^<?a/<-<-_)'f., 
' Alcxandreia' (Puchstein), and ' Alexandrinische Litteratnr' 
(Knaack). w. j. w. 

ALGUM ( D^e-ia^X), 2 Ch. 2 8 9 10/. t See Almug. 

ALIAH (n;^J?. Kt. ), Gen. 8640= i Ch. I51 Alvah. 

ALIAN {'fp^), I Ch.l4o = Gen. 3623t Alvan. 

ALIEN (nni, Job 19 IS Ps.69 8; -)33 |3, Is. 61 5; 
13, Ex. I83, RV 'sojourner,' Dt. 142it, RV 'foreigner'). 
See Stranger. 

ALLAMMELECH ("^^^i'N [v. d. Hooght], etc.). 
Josh. 1926t RV = AV Alammklech. 

ALLAR (aAAar [B]), i Esd. 536t RV = Ezra259 
j IMMER, 2 ; cp also Cherub, 2. 

! ALLEGORY (AAAHropoyMeNA [Ti.WH]), Gal. 
424t. See, I, 3, 5. 

ALLELUIA (aAAhAoyTa [Ti.], -ia [\VH]), Rev. 

19 1 3/. of. See Hallelujah. 

ALLEMETH (flD^y; but Ba. Gi. Hlp^J?), i Ch. 660 
[45] kV = .\V Alemeth. 

ALLOM. RV Allen (aAAoon [B]), i Esd. 5 34 = 
Neh. 759 Amo.n", 3. 

! ALLON ()1?X), Josh. 19 33 AV. As a proper name 
j this rightly disappears from RV. See Bezaanaxxi.M 
j (Greek readings at end). 

1 ALLON (|i?N ; cp Elon and see Aijalon, 2 ; amcon 
I [B], aAAcon i-^X ChA. [Lj), a Simconite (i Ch. 437!). 

ALLON -BACHUTH. RV Allon-Bacuth (p-'N 

1 n-"l23, i.e., 'the oak of weeping,' see also Bochim ; 

BaAanoc rreNeoyc [B.\L]) ; the spot 'below Bethel' 

1 where Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, was buried (Gen. 35 

8t E). According to another tradition (cp Debor.vh, 

i), however, it seems to have been a palm tree (Judg. 

45); or rather, perhaps, allCm could be used of a 

palm tree, just as the cognate words el (in Elparan) 

: and elath are undoubtedly used. In i S. IO3 it 

j seems to be called ' the terebinth [?] (fi'^N, Spi'os [B.AL]) 

j of Tabor,' where 'Tabor' (da^cjp [B.A], ttjs iKXfKrrji 

! [L]) may be a bad reading for ' Deborah' (Thenius). 

I T. K. c. 

1 ALLOY (^Jna), Is. I25 RV mg., EV 'tin.' See 

I Metals. 

j ALMODAD (Tl'lD^K, or rather as in (5*^ and Vg. 
I T110?X, Elmodad, i.e., 'God loves'; a Sab.-ean name 
I [ZD.UG 37 13 18] ; eAMCoA&A [AL]), one of the de- 
scendants of JOKTAN (tf.v.); Gen. 10 26 (eAMOoAA/W 
1 [E]. icAmcoAaA [L1)=i Ch. l2ot. See Glaser, 
j Siizse 280, 425, and cp Afudadi on a primitive 
, Bab. -contract-tablet (Hommel, AHT 113). 

ALMON (jiO^y), Josh. 21 iSf =1 Ch. 6 60 [45] 
Alemeth {g.v.). 

ALMON-DIBLATHAIM (nn*n5'?'l-;b^y ; on form 
of name see Na.mks, 107 ; reAwojN AeBAABAlAA 
[BALj), a station of the Israelites between Dibon-gad 
and the mountains of Abarim, Nu. 8846 and (p. A Ai fi- 


A&6&IN [A]) V. 47t ; apparently the same as Beth- 



0?'>;'^ KAPYON ;aUL; (.<!.. 1;{... Num. 17s ^23] 
k&ROIaL'^J; amyt^A'^on [l^^^AC,, Ecclcs. 125; as an 
adjective KApyiNHN [HQ and practically NA], Jer. 
1 nf ; l|3w*P= ' made like almond blossoms," KTTY" 
nooMGNOl K&PYICKOYC [BAKL], Ex.2533/; KAPY" 
COTA i^BAL] 37i9/.t)- Ihe Hebrew root means to 
' w ake ' or ' watch ' ; and the tree is said to be so named 
because it is the first to awake from the sleep of winter. ^ 
The etymology is alluded to in Jer. In/. 

The almond is referred to in the story of Jacob, who 
(Gen. 43 II, J) instructs his sons to take with them into 
Egypt a present of the fruits of Palestine including 
almonds. The verisimilitude of this detail cannot be 
questioned. It was natural for a Hebrew to presume 
that Palestinian almonds would be prized in Egypt, 
nor need we trouble ourselves as to the exact date of 
the acclimatisation of the almond tree on the banks of 
the Nile.* 

The original natis'e country of the almond [Prtinus 
Amvi^iialus, Stokes) was W. .Asia, from which it has 
gradually spread, in the main probably by human 
intervention, throughout the Mediterranean region. 
Almonds are still an important article of commerce in 
the Persian Gulf, nor is there anything improbable in 
their being exjiorted from Syria into Egypt in early or 
even in more recent times. No ancient writer, accord- 
ing to Celsius {Hicrob. I298), mentions them as grown 
in Egypt. 

The ' cups made like almond blossoms ' on the 
branches of the golden candlestick, consisting each of 
'a knop' or knob 'and a flower' (Ex. 2033/ 37i9/. ) 
represented, says Dillm. {ad loc. ), ' not the corolla 
but the calyx of the almond flower.' Some have 
proposed to translate n'^pu'D 'awakened' i.e., fully 
opened (as opposed to closed buds) ; but this is 
certainly untenable. In Jer. 1 n an almond staff seen 
by the prophet becomes, from the associations of its 
name, a symlxil of Yahwe's watchfulness. The most 
interesting reference is in the difficult passage Eccles. 
125. There are three clauses in the verse, and in 
each unfortunately there is some obscurity. It is the 
first, rendered by .\V, ' The almond tree shall flourish, 
[RV blossom],' which now concerns us. As regards 
this, it has been doubted, (i) whether ^pIr by itself can 
mean the almond tree ; (2) whether the pinkish-white 
blossoms are a likely metaphor (according to the ordinary 
view) for an old man's white hairs ; and (3) what is the 
meaning of the verb (fxr). The consonants of the 
Heb. text support the meaning ' he will reject the 
almond,' i.e. , will be unable to eat it, though a delicacy ; 
but the vowel-points and all the ancient versions have 
the same rendering as EV. This seems on the whole 
more probable. Though Jer. In is not sufficient to 
prove that npr can mean the tree, the equivalent form 
in Syriac, !Se_^dd, appears to have this sense. The 
metaphor is possible if we rememlwr that the flowers 
come out as a pale flash on the dark leafless branches ; 
if the metaphor is to be pressed closer, the flowers are, 
as Koch describes them, ' white or of a pale red." ^ 

(2) See Hazel. n. m. w. t. t.-d. 

ALMS. The English word is derived through the 

2. OT estimate. 

1. Terms. 

A.S. form ' aslmfesse ' from the eccl. Lat. 
eleemosyna, which again is borrowed from 

1 Syriac has the same word in the form tegdii; the Arabic 
for almond is lauz= Hebrew y^ (see Hazel). 
^ 2 Lag. Uebers. 45. Cp Plin. 1625 (quoted by Celsius): 'Ex 
lis quae hieme aquila exoriente concipiunt, fforet prima omnium 
amygdala mense Januario ; Martio vero pomum maturat." 


the Greek AojAMWiJn?. The Greek word, which is 
exceedingly rare in classical authors, means pity, and 
in the Greek of the NT(Lk.ll4i I233 ActsSa/. 10936 
10 4 31) signifies also a special result of pity viz., relief 
given in money or kind to the poor. In biblical 
Hebrew there is no corresponding word, and it is not 
even quite certain that the technical and restricted use 
of the word iXctjfioavvq occurs in . No doubt in 
such passages as Ecclus. 7 10 and Tob. 4; 128-ii, the 
author or translator has almsgiving chiefly or even 
exclusively in view. Still irouiv (XfrjfjLOffvvrjv does not 
in itself mean more than icn nbi', ' to do that which is 
merciful or kindly.' On the other hand, the NT use of 
'to give iXfTifjLoavvai,' etc., is quite decisive for the 
specialised sense of the word. 

The close connection lx;tween religion and deeds of 
mercy frecjuently appears in ancient religion. The 
Bedouin Arabs, maintaining therein 
a primeval usage, regard the way- 
farer as ' the guest of Allah,' to whom hospitality is 
due (Doughty, Ar. IJes.'[22S). The sacrificial meal 
often included an act of charity to the poor. 'I'hus 
the poor were allowed to take handfuls from the meal- 
offering made to the Arab god, al-'Okai.sir (WkS A'e/. 
Setn.^-^ 223), and the same use of sacrifice was familiar 
to the Greeks (see, e.g., Xen. Anad.wSg). Indeed 
the general law of sacrificial feasts was open-handed 
hospitality in which the poor shared. The OT, 

however, carries this lx:neficent tendency farther than 
any other ancient religion. It made systematic pro- 
vision for the poor, and institutions of this kind can Ije 
traced throughout the religious history of Israel, from 
the eighth century onwards. Indeed it is significant 
that in the OT scarcely a trace of beggars and begging 
in the strict sense is to be found (see, however, i S. 236 
Ps. 109io). In the 'Book of the Covenant' (see 
Exodus, ii. 3), Ex. 23 10/. , the Hebrew landowner is 
directed to leave his land fallow each seventh year ' that 
the poor of thy people may eat.' The merciful spirit 
of the Deuteronomist is conspicuous in the stress he 
lays on the care for the poor. Every third year the 
owner was to bring forth a tenth from his granaries and 
bestow it exclusively on the poor, including the Levites 
(Dt. 1-1 28/. ). According to a custom still preserved in 
Palestine, every Israelite was free to pick and eat grapes 
from his neighbour's vineyard, or to pluck ears from 
the cornfield, as he passed along (Dt. 2824/. [25/.]). 
Out of consideration for the poor, the owner nmst 
not, in a grasping spirit, glean to the uttermost his 
cornfield, vineyard, or oliveyard (Dt. 24 19-22). The 
j earliest part of the Priestly Code, viz. , the ' Law of 
Holiness' (see Leviticus), reflects the same precept 
i (Lev. 199/. 2322) ; besides this, in Deuteronomy and 
! generally in the later writers of the OT, private and 
I voluntary almsgiving is especially commended. On the 
whole it may be said that the prophets plead the rights 
of the poor as their advocates, while in Deuteronomy 
and in post-exilic literature, the needy Israelite is com- 
mended to the charity of his brethren. See, among 
passages too numerous to quote, Is. ffS; (a very late 
passage) Prov. I421 19i7 Ps. II29 Job 29i2/. One 
reference to almsgiving vi^. Dan. 427 [24] deserves 
special notice. Probably the force of the Aramaic 
words is ' redeem ' or ' make good thine iniquities . . . 
by showing mercy to the poor,' and if this interpretation 
of p-\3 be correct, we have here a clear implication of 
the later Jewish doctrine that alms had a redemptive or 
atoning power. 

In the OT Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature 

almsgiving assumes a new and excessive prominence. 

. V, ^ much was this the case that .-ipnx, 

3. Apocrypna ^j^j^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^j^j^^. ^.mings means 

* Cp Maspero, Dawn o/Ch: 27. 

* Prof. Cheyne informs us 

.^.. ^if^,,,^ ..I..-, i.^ that the wild almond, now rare, 

was noticed in a gla<le of Hermon by Robertson .Smith, who 
found its blossoms distinctly white. "Tristram speaks of many 
wild almond trees on Mt. Carmel {A'HB 332). 


and Rabbin, 

kTitmgs means 
'righteousness' in general, came to 
be used for almsgiving in particular, 

and this use of the word has been naturalised in the 
Arab, sadakaf" 'alms for God" (h'or. Sur. 9 104, etc.; 


Doughty, Ar. ). I446), and the Syr. zedkftha (Pesh. 
Lk. 1141. etc.). 

The following ciwtions furnish examples of the propitiatory 
virtue ascribed to alms in later Judaism: 'Shut up mercy 
((Aerj/xoirurrji', perh. ' alms ') in thy treasuries, and it sh.all deliver 
thee from all affliction" (Ecclus. -'9 12) ; 'Mercy' (or 'alms') 
' delivereth from death ' (Tob. 4 10) ; ' Through alms a man 
partakes of eternal life ' (Rosh haskshanah 3) ; 'He who says,' I 
give this piece of money as alms, that I or my sons may inherit 
eternal life, is a perfectly righteous man * (Pesachin, 5 ; Keff. 
from Weber, Altsynag. Theot. ^^(> /.)\ ' Almsdeeds are more 
meritorious than all sacrifices ' (San. 49 h) ; ' As sin-offering makes 
atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles ' {Baia Bath. 10 b ; 
Reff. from Levy, NHIVB, s.v. npns)- 

Alms were systematically collected in the synagogue 
of the Di;ispora for poor Jews in Palestine (this custom 
is mentioned by Jerome as existing in his time), and 
also every week for the poor of the synagogue itself. 
Officers were appointed to make the collection, and 
boxes for the reception of alms also were placed in the 
synagogues (Vitring. Syn. J 'et. iii. 1 13). In Mk. I241/. , 
however, the reference is not to alms-chests but to one of 
thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes, placed in the court of 
the women to receive contributions towards the expenses 
of the temple worship (.Schur. G/r22o<)). 

Jesus, then, did not need to awaken zeal for alms- 
giving among his countrymen : it was there already ; 
_p and there was apparently more occasion for 
it, since in the NT we meet with persons who 
were, in consecjuence of V>odily infirmity, beggars by 
profession (.\Ik. IO46 Lk. 1835'jn. 9/ , and note the 
technical term Trpoa-atxTjs). He purified it from the 
ostentation which often corrupted it (Mt. 62-4); he ac- 
centuated the feeling of compassion, without which it is 
worthless (Lk. IO33) ; above all, he taught that the dis- 
position which gives alms by mechanical rule and 
bargains with God for compensation here or hereafter 
should yield to that impulse of the new heart which sees 
the supreme reward in likeness to a heavenly Father 
(Mt. 545). We cannot wonder then that, in the infant 
church at Jerusalem, without compulsion or rigid com- 
munistic system (see Acts 5 4), there was an ideal 
charity which made 'all things conunon ' (.\cts432), 
and prompted rich men like Barnabas to sell their 
property for the sake of the needy (.Acts 436/.). No 
doubt the expectation that Christ's second coming was 
at hand stimulated this uncalculating generosity ; but 
low esteem of worldly goods and love of the brethren 
were the mainsprings of this new development. It is 
also significant that the first election of Christian 
officers was made to secure a due distribution of alms. 
The Gentile churches, moreover, were bound to the 
mother church at Jerusalem by the offerings which they 
made for the poor in that city (Rom. 15 26/. i Cor. 16 1-3 
2 Cor. 9 1 /. .Acts '24 17). Of course almsgiving found 
other channels. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews 
assumes that it is a necessary feature of the Christian 
life, and speaks of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving 
which continues after the Jewish altar has been done 
away with. From very early days each church had its 
lists of poor ( I Tim. 59) and its common fund (Ignat. 
Ad Polvc. 4) ; and whereas in heathen clubs ' charity 
was an accident, in Christian associations it was of the 
essence' (Hatch, Or^an. of Early Christ. Church 36). 
Cp Co.M.MU.N-iTV OF GOODS, especially 5. w. k. a. 

[BA], An. [L], iK. lOii/.t; D'Oia'pN. neyKiNA 
[B.VL], 2 Ch. '28 [7] 9 10/ [n. AneAcKHTA. L, v. 10; 
AneA., L, V. ii]t) yielded a precious wood, which was 
brought to Solomon, along with gold and gems, 
from Ophir {q.v. ; cp .Solomon) by the ships 
of Hiram, and was used to make 'pillars' (IVDO, 
viro(TTT}pLyfuiTa [BAL], RV mg. ' a railing," i K. 
10i2 = 2Ch.9ii ni7DD, dtra^daeis [B.\L]. EV 

1 The two forms, though differently rendered by and 
other versions, are obviously variants of the same word. The 
etymology is unknown. 


terraces') for the temple and the palace, as well as 
'harps and psalteries." In aCh. 28[7], these trees 
appear along with cedars and firs among the products 
of Lebanon, with which .Solomon asks Hiram to furnish 
him ; but there is no mention of them in the parallel 
passage in Kings. ^ 

The very various opinions that have been held as to 
the identity of the tree are enumerated by Celsius 
[nierob.\ 111 ff.). 

Three may be mentioned : (i) The Jewish traditional rendering 
is ' coral ' ; but this is obviously unsuitable, we ma>| 
understand by 'coral-wood' simply a red wood. (2) IjLimhi 
takes it to be 'brazil-wood,' the bakkani of the Arabs, a red 
dye-wood found in India. (3) Most moderns, following Celsius 
(see his reasons, op. cit. 1 179^), believe it to be 'sandalwood,' 
probably of the redder sort i^Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn.), 
which is still used in India for purposes similar to those recorded 
in Chronicles. The ancient versions yield no light ; but see 

The evidence appears to point to some valuable 
Oriental wood brought (like lign aloes and cassia) into 
the Eastern Mediterranean by the ancient commerce 
of the Red Sea. If we may assume it to be a red 
wood adapted for carving, it may well be either (i) 
brazil-wood (a name of uncertain origin ; the French 
braise, a glowing coal, has been suggested ; it was 
transferred to the S. American country) = Oj(z///// /a 
Sappaii, Linn., a tree of India and the Malay Isles, 
apparently the bakkam of the Arabs ; or it may be 
(2) red sandalwood, Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn., 
an inodorous dye-wood, still surviving as a colouring 
matter in pharmacy, a native of Southern India, w^here 
it is much valued for temple pillars. Possibly both 
species may be included under the expression. 

[ in 2 Ch. "2 8 9 10/ gives ^v\a irfVKiva, which agrees 
with the Chronicler's statement that the algum-wood 
came from Lebanon. Cheyne, therefore, proposes to 
identify ' almug ' (the form attested by the earlier record, 
that in Kings) with i-lammaku, the name of one of the 
trees used l)y Sennacherib in building his palaces. The 
tree seems from its name to have been of Klamite 
origin ; but so useful a tree may have been planted in 
Hernion and Lebanon. For tend in i K. 10 n, it is 
possible to read TjbC. Less probably we may suppose 
with Hommel that this hard and rare wood was ' a pro- 
duct of the trade of Ophir. ' See Exp. T. 9 470^ 
525 ('98), and cp Alammelech.] n. m. \v. T. t.-d. 

ALNATHAN (eANAOAN [A]), iEsd.844. RV 

El.N.VrilAN, 2. 

ALOES and (once) Lign Aloes* (D^'?n>? ; Num. 246 

CKHNAI [B.VLl, KV 'lign aloes'; Pr..7 17 TON OIKON 

1. Substance. ^^Y [I^^A] ; or nit'^^ Ps. 458 [9], 

CTAKTH [Aq. aAcoO]. Cant. 4i4AA60e 
[B.\], <\AOH [K] (Aq. a\oh, Sym. Gymiama). Jn- 
1939t aAoh [BX.V]),'' the vi\o(\Q.xx\eagle-u<ood, a precious 
wood exported from SE. Asia, which yields a fragrant 
odour w hen burnt. It is entirely distinct from ( i ) the 
common bitter ' aloe ' used in medicine, to which alone 
the name was given by classical writers ; (2) the plant 

1 The Chronicler probably mistaken an imported article 
of merchandise for a native product of Phoenicia. 

2 Jerome renders thyina i.e., 'citron wood ' {Callitris qucul- 
rtTahis, Vent.) an Algerian tree inordinately valued by the 
Romans for tables, not likely to have been known in biblical 
times or to biblical people. 

3 It was the ' sanders ' used in mediaeval cookery for colouring 

* I.e., lignum oAoj)?, a hybrid phrase ; vide Skeat, Etyin. 
Diet:, s.v. 

* (The critical student will not fail to observe that three of the 
four OT pass.iges in which c'SriN or n^S.IK occurs l)elong to 
books or parts of books which eminent critics have regarded as 
post-e.xilic, and may be reminded here that the occurrence of 
rare plant -n.imes is one of the phenomena which have to be 
considered in fixing the period of .such documents. He will 
also notice that the reading of the fjurth p.issage has on good 
grounds been amended. .'See the close of this article. Ed.] 

6 This latter is described, among ancient writers, by Pliny 
(//iV27 4) and Dioscorides (822), and its bitterness alluded to by 
Juvenal (0 iSi ; ' plus aloes quam uiellis habet '). 


commonly known as the American aloe (Agave ameri- 
cana), celebrated for the long period which elapses 
before its flowering. The biblical wood most probably 
corresponds to that dcscriljed by Dioscorides (I21) 
under the name dvdXXoxoi' * (cp Ges. Thcs. c''?nK) 'a 
wood imported from India and Arabia, resembling 
thyine wood (Rev. 18 12), compact, aromatic, in taste 
astringent and rather bitter, with a skin -like and 
somewhat variegated bark. ' He speaks of its medicinal 
use sweetening the breath and improving the internal 
condition of the body -and adds that it is burned instead 
of frankincense (cp Ar. kutdr and see Incknsk). 

The Hebrew name d'Six or niSnN and the (jreek 
ayaWoxov' are almost certainly, and the Greek i\&t) 
^ and English aloe not improbably, derived 

from the same Sanskrit word rt^r = eagle- 
wood (see especially Yule's Hobson-Jobson, art. ' Eagle- 
wood ' ). 

This appears in Pali as agaru or aealu, in Alahratti as agaru 
or agara ; probably another form is the Malayalam agil, whence 
Portug. agitila, Kr. hois itaigle, and Eng. eagle-ivood. ' The 
Malays call it Kayii (wood) -gakru, evidently the same name, 
though which way the etymology flowed it i? difficult to say ' 
(Yule, /.(.). (Hommel, Exfi. T. 0525, compares aigalluhu 
(var. akarhu'f)m Am. Tab.] 

It is, however, possible that Or. oXIyt], Syr. 'alwai 
(or 'ehi'iii), Pers. alwa^ have an entirely separate 
origin : the Syriac word oftener means the bitter 
medicinal aloes (so in the majority of references quoted 
in PS T/ics. , s. V. ), and the Persian word is so explained by 
the lexicographers.'* In that case we have an instance of 
what is not uncommon in language, viz., that two things 
have arrived at the same name from different starting- 

The ' aloes ' and ' lign aloes ' of the Bible are thus 

identified with the product of some tree of the genus 

o Aquilaria, the chief home of which is 

3. Source. ' ,..- , . , ,. A 1 

m Sh. Asia. According to Arab writers 

there were many different varieties of the aghdliiji or 

'//(/ found in different parts of India and Ceylon, differing 

from one another in value according to the greater or 

less compactness of the wood, though all had the 

property of yielding a fragrant vapour if burned when 

dry.' They speak of its use in perfuming clothes and 

persons, thus illustrating Ps. 45S [9] and Cant. 414; 

and there are parallels to the usage mentioned in 


It would seem that the kind of eagle- wood most likely to be 
introduced into Kurope in classical times was that yielded by a 
tree generally distributed throu'zli the Maliyan region, which in 
early Eastern commerce wouUi thcnloix- iiatunillv be associated 
with cassia. This is A.juilar-a ii:,i/,i, r.-nsis. u'liich is figured 
by Rumphius under the name of (.lar.i. ami has from ancient 
times been esteemed by the To this day 'it is the 
most important product of the forests of S. Ten.-isserim and the 
Mergui Archipelago.' Another eagle- wood is obtained in NE. 
\nA\a.hom Aqui/ana Agaliocha ; but it is less likely that this 
should have formed an article of commerce in biblical times. 
Other kinds were obtained from the East in the Middle Ages : 
what the early .\rab tr.-ivellers have to say about them may 
be seen in IJymock, Phannacograpliia Ituiica 3 218 220. 
They were similar but no doubt inferior products derived from 
different trees, and are probably to be regarded as comparatively 
modern substitutes. 

Eagle-wood consists of diseased wood, infiltrated 
with odoriferous oil and resin. It occurs in irregular 
pieces varying in colour from grey to dark brown. It 

1 In later Greek .also called fuAoAoT). 

2 This latter p.assed into Arabic as aghaliijl <yc aghdlukht ; 
but Arab writers usually call it al-'iid ' the wood ' f>ar exceUcnce, 
ox al-'ud al- Hindi, 'the Indian wood.' 

3 These three .ire evidently forms of the same word ; but here 
again it is difficult to say %yhich way the etymology flowed. 

On the other hand, in the single instance mentioned by 
Dozy {Sufifil.) of the occurrence of the same word {alwiy) in 
Arabic viz., in a poem quoted by .\1-Makkarl (tfist. and Lit. 
of Arabs in Spain, ed. Dozy, etc. '-'776, /. 15) it seems to have 
the same meaning as the biblical word. Describing the pride 
of certain people, the poet says, with allusion to the old .Arab 
custom of lighting fires in prominent places their dwellings 
to attract wanderers to hospitable entertainment, ' and they throw 
on the fire of hospitality, from pride, their ahuiy and their 
kiba ' (the latter also is said to be a species of agallochuni). 

S See the Arabic references discussed at length in Celsius, 
Hie robot. 1 135-171. 


is found in the centre of the tree, and the search for it 
is laborious. The account of Dioscorides (see above, 
I ) is accurate. The exterior, w hich cannot of course 
be the bark, is veined with a darker colour. 

As regards the importation of this substance into W. 
Asia no difficulty arises when we remember the un- 
doubted fact of a trade carried on by China with India 
and .Arabia in early times, of which Ceylon was probably 
a chief depot. See on this subject Fluckiger and 
Hanbury, Phartnacoi^raphia, 2nd ed., p. 520/'. A 
difficulty, however, appears when we consider Balaam's 
words (Num. 24s/ ) : 

' How good arc thy tents, O Jacob, 

Thy dwelling-places, O Israel I 

As valleys stretched forth, 

As gardens beside a river. 

As lign aloes | which Yahwe has planted. 

As cedars beside waters.' 
The wood may, indeed, have been imported by the 
Phoenicians, and thus be mentioned side by side with 
myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, etc., the spices of Arabia and 
India ; but how could a Palestinian writer use, as a 
suggestive simile for the expansion of Israel, the growth 
of a tree which ex hypothesi was never seen in Palestine, 
but only far away in SE. Asia? The difficulty is 
pointed out by Dillmann, who remarks, ' Perhaps the 
original reading was cS'N (palms, Ex. 1027 ; Gen. 146).' 
The word suggested, however, seems generally to mean 
' terebinths ' ; Prof. Cheyne points out the parallel 
in Is. 61 3.'- Pistacia Terebinthus, though often only a 
bush, may be a tree of from twenty to forty feet. 

N. M. w. T. T.-D. 
ALOTH (ni^j;). According to i K. 4 16 Solomon 
had a prefect, Baanah, ' in Asher and in .Moth ' (cN TH 
AAAaAa [B], . . . ta^AaA [I'] omitting ' Asher ' ; 
CN ACHp KAI eN maaAcot [A]). It is better, as in 
RV and Kau. HS, to read 'in Asher and Bealoth.' 
See Baai,.\th-beer. Klostermann, recognising that a 
more northerly place is desirable, suggests the emenda- 
tion ' Zebulun ' (notice ' Naphtali,' v. i s, and ' Issachar,' 
-.. 17). 

ALPHA AND OMEGA (to AA<t)A kai to go 
[Ti. WH] Rev. 18 216 and [to a in B] 2'2i3). For 
similar use of first and last letters of the alphabet in 
Rabbinic writings see Schottgen, Hora: Hebraiccr 1 1086/ 

ALPHABET. See Writing. 

ALPH.5:US (aA(1)AI0C [Ti- WH] ; Heb. [Aram.] 
^B?n [''Spn], either a contraction from H'^Sbn or a 
gentilicimn from the place-name Heleph ; on account 
of the n W & H write 'AX</)atos). 

1. Father of Levi the publican, named only in Mark 
(Mk. 2i4 = Lk. 527 = Wt. 99 [where Matthew is usually 
identified with Levi]). 

2. Father of the second James in the lists of apostles 
(Mt. IO3 Mk. 3i8 Lk. 615, Acts 1 13 ; see Aposti.e, 
i), not to be identified with Clopas and so made a 
brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. See Ci.oi'AS, 3. 

There is no reason for identifying (i) and (2). The 
Itala, it is true, and apparently also the more important 
of the MSS known to Origen, as well as D, read 
'laKu^ov instead of Aeveiv in Mk. 2 14 ; but if this had 
been the original reading, it would be impossible to 
account for the subsequent substitution for James of a 
quite unknown Levi. The reading 'Iolkw^ov arose 
simply because, at a very early date, a copyist knew 
of no son of Alphaeus but James, and therefore 
took AeueiJ' for an error which he was bound to 
correct. If the .Mph;i"us of Mk. 2 14 were to be 
identified with the .Alph.neus of the lists of apostles, on 
the assumption that Levi and the second James were 
brothers, then we should expect to find these two 

1 Instead of C"^nN "af reads D'Sni<, ' tents ' ; but this is 
obviously unsuitable. Cp its rendering in Pr. 7 17 (toi/ 5i oIk6v 


2 But see SBOT, Heb. on Is. I.e., and cp Cedar. 


brothers forming a pair in the lists just as Peter and 
Andrew do, or John and the tirst James. This objection 
to the identification, however, is vahd only on the 
assumption that Levi under the name of Matthew was 
admitted into the number of the twelve. 

The Syrian writer Amrus in the 14th cent, makes Alphseus 
accompany Nathanael ^identilitd with Bartholomew) on his 
journeyings throujjh Nisihis, Mesopotamia, and the rest of 
Western Asia (Lipsius, Apocr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 61/). v. w. s. 

ALTANEUS (aAtannmoc [A]). KV Maltan- 
NEUS, I Esd. 933t=Iizral033 Mattenai, 2. 

ALTAR.^ The Heb. nSTQ means literally ' a place 

of slaughter or sacrifice' (cp Ar. Madbah,"^ and Syr. 

Madhfha). The Gk. and Lat. terms. 

1. Names. ^^^^^ ^^.^ ^owb-i), ara (cp deipw), altare 
(cp altus), on the other hand, descrilie the form of the 
altar as a raised structure without reference to its 
purpose. Occasionally (23 times) uses the Gk. 
word /3w/u5j ; as a rule, however, naio i^ rendered 
by Qvai.a.(yTripi.ov. The translation thus effected is close 
and e.xact ; but dvixiaffT-qpiov is unknown in classical 
literature, being apparently confined to biblical, Jewish,^ 
and ecclesiastical writers. In the NT jBojfxds occurs only 
once (Acts 17 23). and there the writer is speaking of an 
altar used for heathen worship. Elsewhere dvcTiaarripiov 
is always employed. 

We have, then, in the Hebrew word an accurate 

definition of the altar : it is a place of sacrifice. Why 

_ . ... an altar should l)e reciuired in order that 

2. Primitive ^^^^ victim may be slain in a manner ac- 

^"** ceptable to the deity, and advantageous to 
the worshipper, is not so obvious as we might at first be 
inclined to think. We might deem it a sufficient explana- 
tion to say that the altar served ends of obvious con- 
venience. " The flesh of the victim being placed on a raised 
platform specially appropriated to this object, the sacri- 
fice was separated from contact with common things 
and from contamination, while a means was provided 
for performing the rite with due solemnity and in full 
sight of those who desired to associate themselves with 
the sacred offering. There is evidence, however, that 
in primitive times the altar possessed a much deeper 
significance than this. (The development of this 
primitive idea is traced elsewhere. See Idolatry, 2 ; 
Sacrifice ; M.\ssebah. ) 

To the .\rabs any stone might become for the nonce 
an altar, and evidently their Hebrew kinsfolk followed 
_ originally the same ancient way. Thus, 

3. Usage, ^j-j^^ jj^g victory of Michmash, when Saul 
was told that his hungry warriors were devouring the 
flesh meat which they had taken as booty, without 
reserving the blood as an offering to Yahwe, he com- 
manded his people to roll a great stone towards him, 
and on this natural altar the blood, the mysterious seat 
of the soul, was poured out, so that all was in order 
(i S. 1432-35). It is to be observed that here there is no 
question of burning. In Gideon's sacrifice, of which we 
have an account in Judg. 611^, the offering of cooked 
flesh and unleavened cakes is indeed consumed by fire 
miraculously kindled ; but the altar on which the gifts 
are placed is simply a rock, and the broth of the 
cooked flesh is poured out upon it or at its base. 

According to Ex. 2O24-26, on the other hand a 
passage which, whatever be its date (see Exodus, ii. 3), 
may represent an ancient usage the altar is to be of 
earth a material used in early times by other nations 
e.^'., Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks (for references 
see Di. , ad loc. ) or, if of stone, then of unhewn stone, 
the reason given being that an iron instrument would 

1 On references to Greek altars see Unknown God and 
Abomination, ii. 

2 The Arabic Madhak does not mean ' altar." It has acquired 
that meaning through translations of the Bible. It is also used 
in the sense of 'trench' (on which see WR.S Rel. Scm.(^ 341, 
n. I ; cp the remarks on ^haighah, op. cit. -^^o/. 198 228). 

3 Prof. Moore has pomted out that it occurs, not only as is 
sometimes stated, in Philo, but also in Eupolemus, Ep. Arist., 
Jos., and other Jewish authors. 



destroy the sanctity 01 the altar. Originally, it can 
scarcely be doubted, the idea was that changing the 
form of the sacred stone would drive the deity from his 
abode (cp Idolatry, 4) ; but such ideas had passed 
away when the compiler wrote, and iron tools continued 
to be forbidden in deference to ancient custom no longer 
understood. Further, the altar here prescribed was to 
have no steps. In this way the person of the sacrificer 
was to Ije saved from exposure, an object secured by 
the priestly legislator in a very different way viz. , by 
making linen breeches,' or drawers, part of the priestly 
attire. Altars so constructed might be erected all over 
Israel : see High Place, 2/ On the recognition of 
the altar as a sanctuary for homicides see WRS /ieL 
i:^;. 183/., and cp Asylum. 

Very different was the altar erected in the fore- 
court of Solomon's temple at Jerusalem. The first 
, Book of Kings (925) makes direct men- 
4. Solomon S ^-^^^ ^^ ^y^^ f^^^ ^^^^^ Solomon built an 
temple. ^j^^^. ^^ which he offered sacrifice three 
times a year. So, too, in 864, reference is made to the 
altar which 'stood l)efore Yahwe' i.e., in front 01 the 
temple proper and it is described as the ' brazen altar ' 
(r\cm naic)- Thus the material itself offers a striking 
contrast to the altars of earth and stone which had teen 
in use previously. Like the rest of the temple and its 
furniture, it was the work of a Phoenician artist, 
Huram-.Jibi (2Ch. 2i3, perhaps rightly; see, however, 
HiRA.M, 2). Unfortunately, the account of the altar, 
which we should expect before i K. 723. "s wanting. 

The text of the passage has been mutilated because a later 
editor, misinterpreting 1K.84 (itself a very late insertion), 
supposed that the furniture of the tabernacle, includmg, of 
course, the brazen altar, had been moved by Solomon into his 
temple, so that no further altar of this kind was needed. The 
excision of the passage describing Solomon's brazen altar must 
have been effected in comparatively modern times, for the 
Chronicler shows that he had it before him in the text of the 
Books of Kings which he used (see St. in ^^A 7";r3 157 ['83]). 

The Chronicler (2Ch. 4i) gives its dimensions. It 
was 20 cubits long and broad by 10 cubits high. Now, 
these are precisely the measurements of the altar in 
Ezekiel's temple (Ez. 43i3#). The prophet really 
constructs his ideal temple of the future from his re- 
collections of the old temple in which he may very well 
have served as a priest. We shall, therefore, not go far 
WTong if, with most modern archreologists, we take 
Ezekiel's description as applicable to Solomon's altar. On 
that supposition, although the altar was 20 cubits broad 
and long at the base, the altar-hearth ^ was only 12 cubits 
by 12. The altar consisted of three platforms or ledges, 
the higher being in each case two ells narrower than the 
lower ledge. At the base was a gutter (EV 'the 
bottom," RV mg. 'the hollow,' Ez. 4813) one ell 
broad (pn, KdXirwfxa, KoiXw/xa, KVKXuina in @), intended 
apparently for the reception of the sacrificial blood ; and 
there was a similar gutter at the top round the altar- 
, hearth. At the four corners on the top 
'* ^"^^ ' were four projections called 'horns." 
altar, etc. pogsj^y they represent, as Stade has 
suggested, the teginning of an attempt to carve the 
altar stone into the form of an ox, which symbolised the 
power of Yahwe 2 (Nu. '2322 '24 8). Be that as it may, 
down to the latest times the horns of the altar were 
regarded as specially sacred, so that in the consecration 
of priests (Ex. 29 12)' and in the ritual of the sin offering 
(Lev. 47^) the blood was sprinkled upon them. It 
has been inferred from Ps. II827 that at one time the 
horns were used also for fastening the victim ; but the 
meaning of the words is exceedingly obscure, and no 
conclusion of any value can be deduced from them. 
The ascent to the altar was made by a flight of steps 

1 The word for hearth or place for burning, which should 
probably be written St<nN (see Ariel, 2). occurs not only in Is. 
29 !_/?:, but also on the stone of Mesha (//. 12 17/). 

2 Robertson Smith, however, regards the ' horns of the altar 
as a modern substitute for the actual horns of .s.icrificial victims, 
such as the heads of oxen which are common symbols on Greek 
altars (A'.S- 436). 



on the E. side, and it is plain that an arrangement of 
this kind was absolutely necessary, when we consider the 
great height of the structure. 

On the whole matter we must remember that Solomon 

had no strict ruletofollow : hesimply desired, with the help 

., , of I'hoL'nician art, to consult for the splendour 

azB ofihe royal worship. We need not, therefore, 

* ^^" wonder that one of his successors, Ahaz 
(2 K. 16 10^ ), with the co-operation of Uriah the priest, 
constructed a new altar after the pattern of one that 
he had seen at Damascus, and made it the chief place of 

Solomon's altar was placed, as has been already 
implied, in front /'.<., on the K. side of the temple 
.. proper. Can we identify the exact site ? Not 
perhaps with anything like certainty ; but it is 
worth while to mention the theory advocated by Willis, 
and more recently by Nowack. The Kubbet es-sahra, 
or dome of the rock, which stands on the temple area, 
covers a great rock pierced by a channel which passes 
into a sink beneath, and is connected with a water- 
pipe. The rock has been an oV)ject of the highest 
veneration to Christians, and (especially) to Moslems. It 
has been supposed that the rock stood on the threshing- 
floor of Araunah the Jehusite (on the name see 
Ar.\lnah), that it was there David saw the angel 
(2 S. 24 16^) and erected his altar, and that Solomon 
(2Ch. Szjf.) afterwards included the ground within the 
temple site. Solomon would naturally build his altar 
on the spot already chosen by his father and hallowed 
by the apparition ; nor is it incredible, when we consider 
how tenaciously Orientals, under changed modes of belief, 
cling to the old sacred places, that David and Solomon 
built their altars on the rock now covered by the Kubbet 
es-sahra. The story of the apparition to David would, on 
this hypothesis, find a parallel in the apparition to Gideon 
(Judg. Oii^), and in that to Manoah (Judg. ISig). 
The perforation, the water, and the sink would be 
explained as means for carrying off blood and offal 
from the altar. It is true, as Dean Stanley has pointed 
out, that the rugged form of the rock would make it 
unsuitable for a threshing-floor ; but that is no reason 
why the rock should not have stood ' by the threshing- 
floor ' and been the place where the angel appeared. 
Cp Ak.mnah. 

Within the temple proper, and in front of the Debir or 

innermost shrine, stood another altar, mentioned in 

... , iK. 620/. The te.xt, which is corrupt, 

y, \^^ ^ii slioultl be emended thus, with the help of 
snewDreaa. ^^ (^.^5^0,,) . .he made an altar of cedar 
in front of the Debir. ' From Ez. 4I22 we learn that it 
was 3 cubits high by 2 cubits broad, and that the altar 
had ' corners ' which took the place of the horns of 
the brazen altar. Ezekiel speaks of it also as a ' table. ' 
Upon it, from ancient times (i S. 21[6]7), the shewbread 
was placed before Yahw^, to be afterwards consumed by 
the priests. 

We assume here that the Tabernacle (^.v.), as 
described by the 'priestly writer,' is an ideal structure. 
Said to have been made at Sinai, it was in 
reality an imaginary modification of the 
temple, suitable (so it was supposed) to the 
circumstances of the time when the Israelites wandered 
in the wilderness. 

(a) The altar, called simply ' the altar' (Ex. 27 1 30 18 
4O732, etc.). 'the altar of burnt offering' (Ex. 30 28 
3I9, etc.), or 'the brazen altar' (Ex.38303939), stood 
in the outer court, and was square, 5 cubits broad 
and long, by 3 high. Instead of being wholly of 
brass, it was a hollow framework of acacia planks over- 
laid with brass. It was thus small and portable. It 
had four ' horns ' ; midway between top and bottom 
ran a projecting ledge (so RV, AV 'compass'; 
2313 ; 275), intended, perhaps, as a place for the priests 
to stand upon when they ministered, though the meaning 
of the word and the purpose intended are disputed. 


9. P's brazen 



Below this ledge there was a brazen grating (so RV, 
AV 'grate,' 274) or Network {</.v.). nen .ncyo -1330 
ptrm, which may havelx.-en a device to support the ledge 
and admit the passage of the blood poured out at the lse 
of the altar. There were four brazen rings at the corners 
of this network, and into them the staves for carrying 
the altar were inserted. These staves, like the altar 
itself, were of acacia wood, overlaid with brass. So, 
too, the altar utensils viz. , nh'D or pans for clearing 
away ashes, c'y* or shovels, n'ipitp basons or saucers 
for catching the blood and sprinkling, nijStp fleshhooks 
for forks, ninno or fire-pans for removing coals, etc. 
were all of brass. Perpetual fire was to burn on this 
altar (Lev. 612/.). 

(/3) Ezekiel, as we have seen, mentions an altar 
within the 'holy place,' which he also calls 'the table 
10 P'a tabiA ' ^^'*^^ stands before Yahw6. ' The 
' priestly writer ' calls it ' the table ' 
(Ex.2523 37 10), 'the table of the face or presence' 
(Nu. 47, c'3S cnS cp Ritual, 2), because it stood 
before Yahw6 (Ezek. 41 22). ' the pure table ' (Lev. 246). 
In 2 Ch. 29 18 it is spoken of as ' the table of shewbread,' 
n3ni'5n jnStr lit. , the table on which rows (of loaves) 
were laid to describe the purpose for which it was 
intended. It was of acacia wood overlaid with gold, 
and was 2 cubits long, i cubit broad, i^ high. It 
was surrounded by a golden rim or moulding (nt, Ex. 
25 1 1 ; see Crown), and at the bottom there was a 
border or ledge (rrijpsn, Ex. 2025, EV ' border '), with a 
golden rim of its own. Where the feet of the tafjle 
joined the ledge, golden rings were placed for the 
insertion of staves. The table was furnished with deep 
plates (n'n^'p, Ex.2529, EV 'dishes'), 'spoons' or 
saucers (niss) for the incense (Lev. 247), 'flagons' 
(niw'p, Ex.2529 [see Flagon]) for the wine, 'bowls' 
(so EV, nvp:p 2529) for pouring the wine in libations. 

(7) The altar of incense (n^fap ^Bpp nsip, Ex. 30i, 
or nnbp naip), also called ' the golden altar' (Ex. 3938), 

11. P's incense 

belongs only to the secondary sections 
of the Priestly Code. Ezekiel knows of 

no altar within the temple proper save 
the altar of the shewbread, and originally ' the golden 
altar ' was only another name for this table. The 
Priestly Code, in its original form, speaks of the brazen 
altar as ' ike altar ' ; and, whilst in Ex. 30 10 the high priest 
on the day of atonement is to place blood on the horns 
of the altar of incense, in Lev. 16, where the solemn 
ritual of that great day is minutely prescribed, nothing 
is said of an altar of incense. The mention of the 
altar in the books of Chronicles and Maccabees (as 
also in the interpolated passage i K. 748) is due simply 
to the influence of these novellae in the ' Priestly 

This altar was to be made of acacia wood ; it was to 
be 2 cubits high, i cubit broad and long ; the tlat 
surface on the top (33, Ez. 43i3, AV 'higher place," 
RV ' base '), and the sides and horns, were overlaid with 
gold. It had a golden moulding round it (11), and 
beneath this at the four corners were golden rings for 
the staves, which also were overlaid with gold. 

In the reign of Darius a new altar of burnt offering 
was built, probaV)ly on the old site (cp Hagg. 215), 
,/. T i ! l^ut, in accordance with the law in 
12. Post-exillC. j.^ 2O25, of unhewn stone (i Mace. 
444^). It was desecrated, and, according to Josephus 
(Anf.xii.o^), removed by Antiochus Epiphanes. A 
new altar, also of unhewn stone, was built by Judas 
Maccabaius. Within the temple proper were the table 
for the shewbread and the golden altar of incense 
(i Mace. 1 21 449/.); but the latter, as far as it was 
distinct from the table, seems to have been introduced 
late, for Hecat^eus (Jos. c. Ap.lai) mentions only the 


candlestick and one altar (or table) as the furniture of 
the holy place. 

In Herod's temple the altar of burnt offering in the 
court of the priests was still of unhewn stones. The 
-- ,, .\Iishna {Middoth 3i) states that it was 
. ero s ^^ t-uiiits scjuare at the base, and gradually 
^mp e. ;^rrowe<l to 24 cubits at the top ; but the 
dimensions are differently given by Josephus (///v. 56), 
and, before him, by Hecatajus (Miiller, /-Va^w. 2394). 
The priests approached it by an a.seent of unhewn 
stone. There was <i pipe to receive the blood, which 
was afterwards carried by a sulnerrane.m passage into 
the Jordan, and there was a cavity beneath the altar for 
the drink offerings. On the N. side were brazen rings 
for securing the victims. A red thread marked the 
place for sprinkling the blood. The altar of incense 
stood within the holy place, Ijetween the golden candle- 
stick and the table of shevvbread. 

As we have seen (1), the word OvaiaffTT^piov is fre- 
quently used in the NT for the Jewish altars ; and the 
NT ^PO'-'^lypse speaks of the ' golden altar' (83, and 
' altar ' in the same sense /i/.o/w), because the 
writer pictures the worship of heaven under forms drawn 
from the old temple worship. In apassage which is uniciue, 
the author of Hebrews (13 10) speaks of a Christian 
altar. The altar is, of course, not material but spiritual ; 
it is the cross on which Christ offered himself, and the 
author is following the same line of thought when he 
e.xhorts believers ' to do good and communicate, since 
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.' 

For the origin of .iltars see luoi.Ariiv, 2 ; Sackifice; H|(;h 
Place, 3, and WK.S AV-/. Sfiii. ; for the Hebrew altars in 
later times Henzinger's and No^v.^ck's //c/'. Arch, (both works 
'94). See also Stade, ' Text d. lierichtes iib. Salomes Hauten ' 
{ZATlV?,i-2()jr.), Smend's EzMel C&o), Cornill's critical text 
of Ezekiel ('86), and the comm. of Hertholet in KHC. For an 
account of the older literature on the archjeology of Ezekiel's 
temple see Buttcher, J'roben ATlichi:r Scliriftcrklarting, 1833. 


Al - Tashheth ( nni"ri"^N ; 


BN Aq., Symm., mH AlA(t)eeipHC ; Symm. Ps. I'm, 
nepi &(t)0<\pCIAc)- It is usual to supply ^y or '^n 
before the phrase (Ps. 57-59 75t, headings [f. 1]), and 
to explain ' To the tune of " Destroy not " ' (cp Is. t)58 ; 
so WRS O'rjO") 209). If, however, the view of the 
musical notes in the headings taken in is 
correct, there can be no doubt that the phrase is corrupt, 
and that we should read with Griitz ri"r2:j'n-'7i;, ' on the 
Sheminith" (see Sheminith). 

ALUSH (C'-I^N ; Sam. \y>^^ AiAoyc [AFL],-AeiM^ 
[B] ;, a desert station of the Israelites between 
Dophkah and Rephidim (Nu. 33i3/.t [P])- Not 
identified with certainty ; but see Di. on Ex. 17 1. The 
Ar. (ed. Lag.) reads al-wathanain, 'the two idols,' 
probably because the translator understood by Alush 
the heathen temple at Elusa (see Berkd, i. i, and 
cp. WRS A7. 293/.). See W.-\nderi.\gs, 12, 14. 

ALVAH (ni^y. i-ojAa [ADEL] = nW ? Alva), 
Gen. 3640=1 Ch. Isit, Kr. (EV Aliah after Kt. 
riyV ; B.\ as above ; aXova. [L]), one of the ' dukes ' (?) 
of Edo.m ((/.I'. , 4). Cp Alvan. 

ALVAN {\h;^; rcoAcoN [A], -com [DE], -^.m [L] 
transposing ^ and )), Gen. 3623=1 Ch. l4ot Alian 
(|Vy, but in many MSS }1?y ; so aAoyan [L]. but 
CcoAam [B], icoAam [A]), a name in the genealogy 
of Seir. Cp .Xi.vah. 

AMAD (Ij;py; amihA [B], &m&A [A], aAcIjaaA 
[L]), an unidentified point in the border of Asher (Josh. 
1926t). * presupposes Ammiel. There are several 
other place-names compounded with dj;. See Gray, 
HPN 48/., who rightly declines the explanation of 

1 B points to a reading dS'K, Elim. Perhaps the writer, 
wishing to fill tip the interval between the wilderness of Sin and 
Rephidim (cp Ex. 17 1), repeated Elim, the name of an earlier 
station. See Elim. 


Am'ad as ' people of eternity.' C-'s aX^aaS may point 
to Vi'eSk (ICi.p.VAI,) for which " in i Ch. 811 gives 
o.\<po.ah. This may Ix; correct. T. K. C. 

AMADATHA, RV Amadathus (&maAa0oy [B]). 

Esth. 16 10, etc. See Ha.mmkua ruA. 

AMAL (?D^ ; a/v\(\a[B.\], aAam [L]), in genealogy 
of ASHKK (4ii-). lCh.735t. 

AMALEK {\hl^% amaAhk [BAL], but -hx i S. I525 
[.\]; gentilic, Amalekite, ""P^Oj^in, amaAhk [BAL], 

1 Seat ^^^ '^'^^ -K[e]iTHC [BAL]), a tribe with 
which the ancient Israelites, at several periods 
of their history, were engaged in warfare. According 
to two passages, each of which confirms the other, 
there appears to have been a time when Amalekites 
dwelt even in Central Palestine : in the Song of 
Deborah we read of ' liphraim whose root is in 
Amalek' (Judg. 514; (5'^'-, however, iv koCKoZi), and 
Pirathon in Kphraim (the modern Feratd, about 6 m. 
W.SW. of N'abulus) was situated ' on the mountains 
of the Amalekite,' or 'of the Amalekites' (Judg. 12 15, 
\ [.\I>]). Of these northern Amalekites nothing 
further is known. According to several passages of the 
OT, the home of Amalek was in the desert of the 
Sinaitic peninsula, the modern Tih, S. and SW. of 
Juckta. It is scarcely safe to conclude from Nu. 1829 
1425 43 45 that they once had settlements also in 
southern Jud.ea ; still less can we build any such theory 
upon Gen. 1-1 7, although the geographical allusions in 
this chapter have more authority than the legendary 
P , narrative itself. When the Israelites 
came out of Egypt into the desert of 
Sinai, they had an encounter with the Amalekites at 
Rephidim (P2x. 178-i6), which is not very far from 
Mount Sinai (Nu. 3815). It was natural enough that 
the nomads, who lived on the scanty products of this 
region, should do their utmost to expel the intruders, 
nor can we wonder at the mortal hatred with which 
the Israelites thenceforth regarded Amalek. That the 
narrative, in spite of its legendary features, has a 
historical foundation cannot be doubted. The story 
of an encounter in the desert of Paran i.e., the Tih 
itself (Nu. 14254345) is probably nothing more than 
a less accurate version of the same struggle, which, it 
is true, can hardly have been limited to a single skirmish. 
Whether the account of the Deuteronomist (Dt. 2517-19) 
was derived from any other source besides Ex. 178 _^ 
is not quite clear, although he mentions one additional 
circumstance, namely ' the cutting off of those who were 
wounded (?) ' the term c'Srm was perhaps suggested 
by B*'?n'i in Ex. 17 13. The verbal repetition of the curse 
is worthy of note. In iS. 152, there is an obvious 
allusion to the passage in Exodus. 

The mention of the Amalekites in Judg. 813 is perhaps 
due only to an ancient dittography (p'?Dj;i |icj'. ^ reading 
which, at all events, must have been known to the 
author of the Maccabean Psalm 83 see v. 7 [S]) ; but 
it may be questioned whether Budde is justified in con- 
sidering the reference to the Amalekites in connection 
with the Midianites (Judg. 6333 7 12) as a mere gloss ; it 
is in fact by no means improbable that besides the 
Midianites various other nomadic tribes made inroads 
upon the Israelite peasantry at the period in question. 

The account of the wars of Saul against the Amalekites 

(iS. 15) is unfortunately not altogether trustworthy. 

_ . J Even in its original form it must have con- 

' _ . , tained many exaggerations ; and it has 
been subjected to considerable revision. 
The high figures which appear in the narrative have no 
historical value. The same may be said of the vast extent 
attributed to the Amalekite territory in a passage imitated 
from Gen. 25 18 ( i S. 156). We may with some certainty, 
however, conclude that the very first king of Israel 
inflicted severe losses upon the wild nomads (cpSAUL, 
3). In this connection we read of King Agag (the only 

4. Later times. 


Anialekite proper name known to us, it may be noticed 
in passing), to whom the words of Balaam in Nu. '24 7 
refer. The description of the death of Agag, obscure 
as it is, has a very antique colouring, and reminds us 
of Judg. 818-21. Popular tradition has strangely 

interwoven the fate of the .\nialekitcs with that of .Saul. 
According to one story, which does not agree with the 
narrative in iS. 31, .Saul was slain by an Amalekite, 
who forthwith carried the news to David, but instead of 
being rewarded w;is put to death. Even in the book of 
Estlier, coniiiosed many centuries later, reference is made 
to the enmity Ix-'tween .Saul and Agag, as the kabhiiis 
long ago observed : the righteous Mordecai is descended 
from the one, and the wicked Ilaman from the 

.\t the moment when Saul fell on Mount Gilboa, the 
Amalckites, as it happened, were signally defeated by 
David. An ancient and well-informed narrator tells us 
how David, an exile at the court of the king of Gath, 
while professing to be very differently occujjicd (see 
Atiiisii, D.wii), 5), was in reality carrying on a 
war of extermination against the aboriginal tribes, in 
particular the .Xmalckiles ( i S. 278). On one occasion 
the Amalekites profited by his absence to seize his 
residence, Ziklag, and carried off all its inhabitants. 
He pursued them, however, made a sudden .attack with 
a band of only 600 nien, rescued the whole of the spoil, 
and slew them all, with the exception of 400 who 
escaped on their camels (iS. 30). Even the details of 
this narrative may, for the most part, \x regarded as 
historical ; it is obvious that the struggles here described 
were not wars on a large scale but mere raids such as 
are usual in the desert. 

In after times .\malek does not come into prominence. 
The words of Halaatn, which descrilje it as ' the first- 
born of nations' {i.e. , primeval nation?), 
and at the same time foretell its over- 
throw, are spoken rather from the point of view of the 
age in which Balaam is pLaced than from the point of 
view of the real author, who seems to have lived about 
the eighth century n.c. (cp Bala.\m). According to the 
remarkable notice contained in i Ch. 442^, 500 men of 
the tribe of .Simeon, under leaders whose names are 
specified, exterminated the last renmant of the Amalekites 
in the mountain country of Seir and settled down in their 
place. Hence it would appear that the last Amalekites 
dwelt in the mountains of Edom. With this it agrees 
that Gen. 36, the substance of which must be at all 
events jjre-cxilic, represents Amalek as the son of I".sau's 
first-born, I-.liphaz, by a concubine i.e., .as an Edoniite 
tribe of inferior rank : see Gen. 36 12 (of which i Ch. 1 36 
is an incorrect version), and compare i: 16. The con- 
cubine in question is Timna, according to i'. 22 ( = i Ch. 
I39), a sister of Lotan of -Seir, and according to the 
second list in v. 40 J^. (where Amalek is omitted), an 
Edomite tribe or settlement. Thus the renmants of 
Amalek are, to some extent, reckoned as members of 
the Edoniite race. 

The mention of Amalek among the contemporaneous 
enemies of Israel, by a psalmist of the Maccabean 
6.Latewriter8. P^""'^ (^\S3 7[8]), is merely an 
example of the poetical licence 
whereby an ancient name is applied to a modern 
people, just as, e.o-. , Greek writers of the sixth century 
A.u. call (ioths 'Scythians.' As far as we can judge, 
the Amalekites were never a very important trilx; ; at 
their first appearance in history they are threatened 
with total destruction, and it would seem that neither 
Egyptian nor Assyrian records allude to their existence. 
Ancient Arabic authors, indeed, descrilje them as a 
mighty nation which dwelt in Arabia, Egypt, and other 
countries, and lasted down into post-Christian times. 
The present writer, however, thinks that in his short 
essay 'On the Amalekites' (Gottingen, 1864), he has 
succeeded in proving that these and other similar 
statements are either fancies suggested by passages in 
9 129 


the OT, or else deliberate fictions, and therefore have 
no historical value. At the present day this opinion 
seems to be generally accejjted. 

One branch of the .Amalekites, it is true, apjjears to 
have lasted somewhat hunger than the rest. \\ hen Saul 
^ .. attacked the Amalekites he ordered the 

h'cnilcs to separate themselves from the 
doomed people, on the ground that they had shown 
kindness to Israel at the time of the exodus (i .S. Uib). 
The Kenites must therefore have lx:longed to Amalek, or 
must, at least, have stood in close connection with them 
(cp Judg. 1 16 as in SliO T). Thus we find that the oracle 
of (Xu. '24 2i^) mentions this people, under the 
name of Kain [v. 22, I^V mg. ), immediately after Amalek. 
Their friendly relations with Isr.ael are, moreover, 
shown by the fact that, according to Judg. 1 16, the father- 
in-law of Moses was a Kenite (elsewhere a Midianite), 
and also by the fact that his descendants entered 
Palestine in company with the tribe of Judah. Hence 
the Kenites are reckoned as a part of Judah (i S. 3O29, 
cp I Ch. 255) ; but according to the more accurate view 
they were a distinct people, though they dwelt in the 
south of Judtea, and were recognised as kinsmen by 
D.avid ( I S. 27 10). From i Ch. 255, it would apjx-ar that 
the kechabites, with whom the nomadic life had Ijecome 
a religious institution, were included among the Kenites 
(Jcr. 3.') 2K. IO1523). In another district, the 

great plain of S. Galilee, we meet with Helxr the Kenite 
(Judg. 4 / ). For VV. Max Miiller is mistaken when he 
derives the name from a city called Khi {As. u. Eur. 
174) ; the Song of Deborah reckons Jael, the wife of 
Hcber, among 'women in the tent' (Judg. 524), whicli 
shows that the people in question are nomads. 
Accordingly we have rfo right to regard these Kenites 
as wholly distinct from those in the South. The 

oracle of Balaam mentions Kenites in the rocky hills of 
the South, foretelling that they will be carried away 
captive by the Assyrians. Gen. 15 19 includes the 
Kenites among the ten nations whose land God will 
give to Israel. 

This people must therefore have been a nomadic 
tribe, which, at least in part, belonged to Amalek, in 
part was absorbed into Isr.ael, and in part, it may be, 
maintained a separate existence for some time longer. 
It is not impossible that the Bedouin tribe, Kain, 
which dwelt in the desert of Sinai and the neighbouring 
districts about six centuries after Christ, may be con- 
nected with the Kenites (Kain) of the OT, as the 
present writer, following Ewald, has stated {op. cit.). 
At the present time, some further arguments might be 
brought forward in favour of this hypothesis, which, 
however, is still very far from being absolutely proved. 

On the other hand, there are many objections to the 
theory that Cain, the fratricide, is a representative of the 
p . Bedouin tribe of the Kenites, as well as to 
7. Oain. ^jj^^.j. h^.potheses of Stade (/.-/ 7TF 14 250-318 
['94]), great as is the acuteness with which they are 
supported. A few points alone can be here referred to. 
C:ain, the brother of Abel the shepherd, is expressly 
described as a hushamimati. After his evil deed he 
becomes ' a wanderer and a fugitive ' i.e. , an outlawed, 
homeless criminal. This is something quite different 
from a nomad, who regularly goes to and fro within the 
same pastures in the ' desert. ' That the Kenites, from 
among whom Moses fetched a wife, and who have a 
good name almost everywhere in the OT, were a trilx; 
of smiths' (and therefore of pariahs), has no evidence 
in its favour, nor can we find any indication that the 
later Arabian tribe of Kain (Bal-Kain) was of such a 
character. In the Ar. kaiti, which, it is true, also 
means 'smith, craftsman,' several words appear to be 
combined. Besides, blood - vengeance, which is first 
mentioned in the story of Cain, is by no means a 

1 Similarly Sayce, Races 0/ OT 118. 'They formed an 
important guild in an .ige when the art of metallurgy w.os 
confined to a few.' See however Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 xSo-sd:. 


peculiarity of nomad tribes ; it prevailed also among the 
ancient Israelites, who of course were agriculturists 
(see also C.MN, 4/ ). TH. N. 

AMAM (DDN; chn [B] ; amam lAL]), an un- 
identified site in the Negcb of Judah (Josh. ISabf). 

AMAN. I. (am&n [A], aA&m [B], naA&B M) 
Ward of Tobit's nephew Achiacharus (Sennacherib's j 
vezir, Tob. I22). who basely ill-used his benefactor, I 
but came to grief himself while his victim escaped 
(Tob. 14 10); called Nadan in romance of Ahikar (see j 
ACHIACIIAKUS), and no doubt, therefore, the same as | 
NASB.\s(i/0(r/3ay[B.\], j'ada5[N] ; n'^ : nada/AlVg.], \ 
nabal [It.]), the (^d5f\(pos (EV 'brother's son') of I 
Achiacharus (Tob. lliSf), probably to be rendered, 
in accordance with the romance, ' sister's son ' (cp 
accompanying table). See AcHiACHAKUS. 



Achiacharus (Tob. 1 21/.) 

Nasba-s (Tob. 11 18) 
i.e., Nadan (romance) 
prob. = .\man (Tob. 14 lo). 

2. (a/xav [B.X.VL]) ' Rest of Esther ' 10 7, etc. See H aman. 
AMANA (n:pN 'firm, constant"; (5i*na translates 
' from the top of Amana ' avb dpTJs r-iareu^ ; ]{ ; 
Amaiia). i. The name of a mountain, in Cant. -18, 
where ' the top of Amana ' is introduced parallel to ' the 
top of Senir and Hermon.' 

'With me from I>ebanon, O bride, with me from Lebanon come ; 
From the summit of Amana, from' the summit of Senir and 

In the preceding distich reference is made to Lebanon. 
Evidently the poet means some part of the range of 
Antilibanus, probably the Jebel ez-Zebedani, below 
which is the beautiful village of Zebedani and the source 
of the Xahr Barada (the Heb. Abana, q.v.). In in- 
scriptions of Tiglath-ijileser III. and Sennacherib the 
mountain ranges Libnana and Ammanana are coupled 
(Del. Par. 103/). 

2. Considering how well the form .Amana is attested, 
it becomes a question whether in 2 K. f) 12 we should 
not adopt the Kr. in preference to the Kt., and read 
Amana ' (so AV mg. ) or Amanah (so RV mg. ) as the 
old Hebrew name of the Nahr Barada (see Ab.vna). 

Many MSS with the two Soncino and the Brescia editions 
have this reading in the text in Kings; Targ. and Pesh., with 
the Complut. ed. of <5 and the Syro-Hex. te.xt, also presuppose it. 

T. K. C. 

AMANAH (njOS' Kr.), 2 K. 5 i2t RV = AV 
Amana, 2. 

AMARIAH (nnOvS [and -innJON, see nos. 5, 6, 7] 
' Yahwe hath spoken ' [see Namks, 33] or ' promised.' 
Less probably ' man of Yahwe ' on analogy of Palm. 
n. pr. KccnoK 'man of the sun,' see Baethg. Beitr. 
89 n. ; 1 &MAp[e]i A [B.VL]), a name occurring frequently, 
but with the exception of (i) only in post-e.xilic 

I. b. Hezekiah, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1 1, 
a/Liop[e]toi; [B.A], afx/j-optov [N*], -piov [N'-^^'J], o/uo- 
piov [X<=<= ^'''- Q]). The readings with ' o ' as the .second 
vowel suggest the pronunciation ' Amori ' = .\morite. 
Another ancestor is called ' Cushi ' i.e., the Cushite. 

2. In list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii. 
S 5 W "5 [] ), Neh. 11 4 (Ta,iap[]ia [HA], a^. [], -lou [L]) 
= I Ch. i>4, Imki, abbreviated form ("pK, anp[e]i [B.A.], -/3pi [L]). 

3. One of the b'ne Hani in list of those with foreign wives 
(Ezra, i. 8 send), Ezral0 42(Mopia [HN], a^apios (AL]). 

4. A priest in Zeriibbal)ei's band (Ezka, li. 6/^), Neh. 12a 
([rSpa/i]apiafi[aAovA] (B), fiaptia [k1, a/ii. [j<'=-^l, a^apias [L]), 
cp V. 13 (oipajiio (]), and in list of signatories to the covenant 
(see Ezra, i. 7), Neh. 10 3 [4] (a/napiaj [L]). A comparison of 

1 For another suggested compound of x(k] see Mkribbaal. 


the lists in Neh. with i Ch. 24 makes it plausible to identify 
'Amariah' with the priestly house of 'Immer' (?'. 14) whose 
institution is a.scribed to David's time (see ImiMEK, 2). 

In the following (nos. 5-8), the unhistorical nature of the 
context strongly suggests that the name is introduced merely to 
give an air of antiquity to this priestly family. 

5. Chief priest, temp. Jehoshaphat (aCh. 19ii M'TCK ; Jos. 

6. A Levite, temp. Hezekiah, aCh. 31is (?nnCN ; /nopia? 
[BA], a,ji. [L]). 

7. One of the b'ne Hebron, a Kohathite Levite {aixaSia [B]); 
I Ch. 23 19 ; in 24 23 ^nnZH (a^apios [A]). 

8. Amariah occurs twice in the genealogy of the high priests, 
(a) as son of Meraioth ; 1 Ch. 67 [633] (a^xapiat [.\]: Jos. 
'Apo<^aios) = ti52 [37] (ixAiapeia [B, i.e., MA misread AlA]), and 
(/') as a son of Azariah, On {) -^j] (ofiapia; [AL]), cp Ezra 
73 (<Ta/xapeia [B.\] afiapiov [L]) = i Esd. 2 (afxapeeiov [B] 
ofj-aptov [.\L], EV .Xmakias, as in 4 Ksd. I2, Atller^t^ [ed. 
Bensley]), probably the same as 5 above (cp Be.). See further 
Hic.H Pkiest and note the su.spicious recurrence of the 
sequence Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok (cp We. Prol.^M 222). 
See Mhkaiah. 

AMARIAS (aaaarioy [A]), i Esd. 8 2 = Ezra 7 a 

AmAKIAH {q.v., 4). 

AMASA (i^b'py ; rather, perhaps, ^^"TS^ Ammishai, 
cp AMecCAGi [B in 2 S. 19, BA in c. 20, .\ in c. 17], 
-eCAl [A], -eccA [L always ; .K occasionally], and other 
variants, see below ; cp Ablshai, Amasai. The form 
Amasa rests on a false etymology [from j;-,-;;' = C3J?] ; cp 
AmasH-SAI ; so Marq. Fund. 24). 

1. Son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David 
(i Ch. 2 16/. 2 S. 1725 afxfcraei. [B], -(xaaei [A]). His 
father was Jether a Jezreelite not an ' Israelite' or an 
'Ishmaelite' (see Abigail, 2). He was among those 
that fell away from David to Absalom (q.v.), who 
entrusted him with the command of his forces (2 S. 
1725). In spite of this, David thought it prudent to 
conciliate Amasa by a promise of the same position in 
his own army, JoAB {q.z'.) having earned the king's dis- 
pleasure (2 S. 19 13 [14] a/MLffffai [A]). On the ronewal 
of revolt under Sheba (2 S. 20 1), in which according to 
one view he was implicated, Amasa was entrusted with 
mustering the men of Judah (z'. 4). Joab soon took 
his revenge upon his rival. Amasa having failed to 
appear at the appointed time, David commissioned 
Abishai (2 S. 206) Mo go with his men in pursuit of the 
rebels, and Joab naturally joined the party. The cousins 
met at Gibeon, and while Joab was pretending to give 
Amasa a friendly salute, he gave him a deadly blow^ 
(2 S. 20 8-10). The narrator is not interested enough in 
the unfortunate man to tell us whether he ever received 
an honourable burial (i'. 12 a^eaaaei [B once], afifffai 
[A once]). See SiiEBA, ii. i (end). 

His death is referred to in iK. 25 a/ite(7<roia [B], -<rja i(L], 
ajUAi.fO'a [A] and r. 32 (a/netro-a [1?L; A omits]). (The P of 
a^l^o(ra^ in i Ch. 2i7'[B] may come from the following Hebrew 

2. {aixa<T[e]M^ [B.\L]), an Ephramite, temp. Ahaz (2 Ch. 
28i2t). T. K. C. 

AMASAI (^bW, perhaps rather to be read ''CW, 
Ammishai [so We. //(7(-' 24, n. 2], cp u X> V taA.QJO 
in I Ch. 62535 Abishai; amacai [B.\L], -ce [N])- 
I. A name in the genealogy of Kohath (i Ch. 625 [to], 
a/Mcraei [B], -fM(n [A], -aa [L] ; i Ch. 6 35 [20], afiaOeiov 
[B], .;x [A]). 

2. Chief of David's 'thirty,' i Ch. 12i8 [19]; see 
David, ii a iii. , to whom the Chronicler ascribes an 
obviously not very ancient poetic speech. 

He has been variou.sly identified with Amasa (e.g:, by E\v.) 
and with Abish.-xi, who is called .'Mishai in i Ch. II20. Ki. 
even corrects to ' .\bishai ' (SBO T, ati ioc.\ Neither .\masa 
nor Abishai, however, occupied the rank of chief of the thirty, 
according to the lists in 2 S. 23 and i Ch. 11. 'The matter is 
of no great moment, since the connection in which .\ma.sai is 
mentioned in i Ch. 12 does not permit us to use the passage 
for historical purposes. The Chronicler's conception of Saul's 
fugitive son-in-law is dominated by the later view of David as 

1 Most critics change Abishai here and in v. 7 to 'Joab' (the 
reading of Pesh.), but perhaps mistakenly. See Bu. SBOT, 
ad loc. 

2 See Dr., or Bu., for restoration of the text. 



the 'anointed ' of Yahwc ami the founder of the one legitimate 
dynasty (We. ProlA'i^ i8o). 

3. A priest, temp. Daviil (i Ch. I524). 

4. Ancestor of Mahath, a Kohathite Levite, temp. 
Hezekiah ; probably a family name ; cp no. i (2 Ch. 
29i-- : ixaai [M.\], anrai [I.]). 

5. Soo Ik-Iow, Amash.m. 

AMASHAI. or rather, as in R\', Amashsai ('PLI^Jf. 
wlicrc D implies a reading 'DDV based on a false deriva- 
tion from DOy ; i)erha])s really to tx,- read ,\mmishai, see 
Amasai), a priestly name in the post-e.xilic list of in- 
habitants of Jerusalem (see I''ZKA, ii. 15 a), N'eh. 11 13 
(AMAclellA [HN]. -CM [I']. -Mec&l [A])=iCh.9i2 
where the name is Maasai, AV Maasiai ('CTD 
[Hii. Gi.], some authorities 'Jjp [CJi.]; maacaia [U]. 
-an fL], MACAl [A|; -'v*' ^ in Neh. tfn..n.^). 

AMASIAH (H'Dpr, 29, Vahwe Ix-ars,' cp Amos ; 

Jehoshaphafs captains (2 Ch. 17i6t). 

AMATHEIS (cMAeeic [B]), i Esd. 1^29 AV = Ezra 
10 2S 

AMATHIS (AAXAGeiTlN [A]), i Mace. 12 25! AV, 
RV IlAMATll (y.r. ). 

AMAZIAH (-in^'VPS*, and in nos. 2-4, n;ypN, 29, 
'Yahwc is mighty,' cp A.Moz ; AMecc[e]iAC L^AL], 
-eci. [ALJ, -MAc[e]|. [H.A(J], -MACCI- [L]). 

I. b. Joash ; father of Uzziah and king of Judah circa 
796-790 B.C. (see Chro.noi.ogy, 35, 37) 2 K. 14 1-20 
2 Ch. 25. Two points in his favour are mentioned in 
Kings viz., that he punished his father's nunclerers 
and that he reconquered the l-xlomites who had revolted 
(see Kdom, 8 ; Joktiikki., 2). Whether he was 
to any extent successful against that restless and war- 
like people has indeed lxen doubted, but on grounds 
which will not bear examination. 

.\m. 1 iiyr is, in fact, more than probably a later insertion 
(see Amos, 9), so that the inference, drawn from this passage 
by Stade (in '87) and Kittel, that Amos knew of no great calamity 
befalling Kdom in recent times, falls to the ground. 

Amaziah's unfortunate challenge to Joash king of 
Israel (who treated him, according to the narrative, ' as 
a good-natured giant might treat a dwarf,' 2 K. 14 8^) 
ended seriously enough, in the strengthening of the old 
supremacy of northern over southern Israel (see IsK.\EL, 
31). It is quite possible that the Kdomites took 
advantage of the weakness of Judah to recover in some 
degree their independence ; but of this we have no 

The Chronicler assures us (2 Ch. 2.5 14) that, on his return from 
the s.inguinary battle in the 'valley of .salt' (cp 2 K. I47), 
Amaziah adopted the worship of the Eclomitish deities, forgetting 
that such an act would be possible only if the Kdomites were 
either the masters or the allies of the people of Judah. 

Like his father, .Amaziah died a violent death ; possibly, 
as Wellhausen, Stade, and Kittel suppose, the con- 
spiracy against him was not unconnected with the 
disgrace which he had l)rought on his country. The 
Chronicler's treatment of Amaziah's reign is of special 
significance for the Chronicler's period (see Bennett, 
Chron. 413-417, and cp Kue. Einl. 51, n. 4). 

Sources. The account given in Kings is of composite origin. 
2 K. 148-14 comes from a somewhat unfriendly source, which 
may be of N. Israelitish origin. The rest of ch. 14 belongs to 
the Deuteronomistic compiler, who lays on Amaziah's 
better side, and who at the close of his stor>' probably makes 
use of the royal annals. 

2. Priest of liethel, temp. Amos (.\m. 7 10 12). See Amos, i. 

3. A Simeonite (i Ch. 4 34 a^a<j{(]t.a (HAl, -(t<ti.ov [\.]). 

4. .\ Merarite, temp. David (i Ch. 64SI30) ofieaatia (?) [B], 
-oaia [LI, /iaro-ia [A]). T. K. C. 

AMBASSADOR, the FA' rendering of the following 
three Hebrew words : 

1. .l/<=//^ (j-Sg) in 2 Ch. 3231 (irp(r^vTT)), more properly 'inter- 
preter ' (as E'V in Gen. 42 23 [ipivrtvtvTri<i], in Is. 43 27 [RV mg. 
anib.-issador, a.pxovTt<t (Pbnaoi-, \,^^^ .\q. Syni. epfi7)i/t?], and 
in Job 33 2:5 ((pHjA have Oafanjifropoi ]). 

2. Marrikh (^kSc) in 2 Ch. 3a2i Is. 3O433 7 Ez. 17 15 (\^^ 
to send ; cp BDB Lex. , ad loc. ; ayyeAos), a word used indefinitely 



ot any me.sscnger ; so, e.g., of a priest (cp Mai. 27), a prophet 

(Is. 4'2 19 ; oi Kupicvoi^rft), or (a.s fre(|ucnilj) an .niigel. Alara/t/i, 

accordingly, often approximates to the idea of ' ambavsadur ' : 

cp the emissaries sent to Kdom, Sihon king of the Anioritcs, and 

Ammon (NU.2O142I21 >rpr^tt, Judg. U 12; EV ' messengers 7. 

3. .S7r(T!<)'" Is. lS2(o^^pall5KAQr and Th., but Aq. irp<r. 

fiv-nn, Sym. an-ocTToAo*, ' hostages.'cp i Mace. 1 10 8 7!* 51, etc.]). 

Is. 67q KV (AV 'messengers'; np(<rPv^), jer. 4ili4 Fr. l.J 17 

25 13 (EV in the last, mes.sengcr, iyytXoK) and Ob. 1 i (wtpioxn, 

a confusion with ^^^ or lisC). The dcnom. vb. TCxn, 'to 

feign one's self an ambassador,' found in .\IT of Jos. 9 (cp EV) 

should be read n*B! ' 'akc provision ' (so RV mg. after most 

: cp Bennett, .SHOT, ati loc.).^ 

the Apocrypha 'ambassador' represents npr<Tpvi,npt<T- 

j /3|t]uT7)S in 1 Mace. '.)70 11 9 14 21 (trpeo-flvT^poi (KVJ) 40 (jrpto- 

PvTtpoii[V])V,,7 2 Mace. 11 34 (in 1 Mace. 13 14 21 AV has 

j 'messengers'), and ayyrAm in Judith 3i AV (RV licre and EV 

i elsewhere 'messenger). In NT the word occurs in 2 Cor. 620 

Eph. 20 (jrpr/3<i;tu), Philem. 9 RV mg. (npttrfivTrii). 

j A distinction between messengers and diplomatic 

agents naturally jiresupposes an acquaintance with 

! state-craft hardly ix)ssible in Israel lx.'fore the monarchy, 

I and even in David's time emissaries from one court to 

another were liable to Ije abused, although the punish- 

I meiit inflicted upon the oflenders may suggest that 

; ambassadorial rights were beginning to be recogni.sed 

(see 2 .S. 10 I ^). The first use of s/r, apparently the 

only approach to a specific word for 'ambassador,' 

naturally belongs to the time when Israel had Ijeen 

forced into diplomatic relations with H^gypt and Assyria 

(of whose fre(iuent intercomnuinication at a nuich earlier 

period the Amarna tablets tell us so much). I-'rom the 

' nature of the case sir is i^resumably a loan-word. ^ 

[ The employment of the term i/ie/is, ' interpreter,' is the 

more interesting since Aramaic was the language of 

[ diplomacy for .Assyrians and Hebrews; cp Is. 3(3ii, and 

see Aramaic La.nguagk, 2. .See Post, Kahsiiakkh. 

s. a. c. 
AMBER C'Crn; in pause [Kz. 82, where, however, 
Co. regards it as a gloss] .I'^rrrn). 

Cp Kgyp. hsmn, 'electriim'? or 'bronze'; see E(;vi"T, 361 

last note, also Lag. Uehers. ii\ ; but cp Erman, /Cl>.MC 4(5 

115 ['92], and also Ebcrs, ih. 31 454; again-st 

1. Hashmal the usual explanation of 'n see Konig, Lehrgtb. 

= amber. 1 9>. Fr. Del. in Hii. -Del. Kzckiel xii. 

identifies the word quoted, and also 

Heb. ^zxin, with Ass. Hmnru, which he defines in Ass. HUB 

as a costly brilliant metal (?). So Hommel, Die Seiuit. I'olker 

1 450. 

The Heb. hashmal occurs thrice (or twice ; see above) 
in ICzek.'', and is rendered by the I':V 'aml)er.' "-^Q 
has -ffKiKxpov, \'g. * clcctrum, a rendering which most 
scholars {e.g., Smend) have adopted, supposing, from 
the context, that some metallic substance is meant, and 
understanding ijXeKTpov to mean here a certain alloy of 
gold and silver (Egyptologists have given the same 
meaning to the apparently related Egyptian word). 
This interpretation, however, rests upon a mistake as 
to the ancient use of the term fjXeKTpov (see also Egyi'T, 
36, last note). 

It is true the n.-ime is sometimes used of a metallic substance. 
Thus, to cite the e.arliest c.-i-se, Sophocles (.1 11 1 ig. 1036-38) makes 
Creon speak of electrum from Sardis(Tb' jrpos ^dpSfoif ijXfKTpov) 
and Indian gold (tal r'ov '\vSikov xpv<t6v), doubtless mc.ining by 
the former what the Greeks commonly called pale gold (Afvit6 
Xpva-6^), a natural alloy of gold and silver (one part silver to three 
or four parts of gold) found native in great abundance in I.ydia. 
That electrum, however, was not a term commonly applied 
to such an alloy seems indicated by the pains which Strabo 
takes to expl.-iin the term as used in metallurgy of the residuum 
(KoBapijLa) left .after the first smelting of gold ore (t/rcvj 14li). He 

J TSi 'amha.ssador,' appears in in four other place.v in Is,^ 
viz. 13 8 (for Ts, 'a pang') 21 2 ("lO "1'S for "TO 'T'S) 39 1 
(between cnSD and rmZl) and 689 (for ^S compare Du., ad loc., 
Che. Intr. Isa. 350). 

2 The connection with Ar. far, 'to go ' (Ges.-Bu.), docs not 
commend itself. It may perhaps be compared with As,s. iirraiu, 
'stick' or ' sceptre (see Del. .\ss. ///r/.',f. 7'.) the official derives 
his name from the tmblem of office, originally the courier's 
stick (?). 

3 1 4 27, 'and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber,' 
'I saw as the colour of amber'; 82 'as the appearance of 
brightness .as the colour of amtier.' 

* For a rendering <pi% in Ezek. 1 4 see Field, Hexa^la. 



himself usually employs the expression ' pale gold ' when he 
alludes to the native alloy. Sophocles, too (/.c), shows that 
he is eiiiploving the word in an unusual and extended way, by 
appending the iiualifying phrase 'from Sardis.' 

Usually the word has quite another meaning. 
In Homer, e.g^., where the word occurs thrice and is signifi- 
cantly applied to an article trafficked in by Phtxviicians, the 
trader who captured l'".iinia;us is described (('</. I.") 460) as having 
a golden necklace (jitTo. S' ri\iKTpoi<Tif itpro) strung with pieces 
of electrum (similarly in Ot/. IS 296, ijAe'xTpoio-ii' itptLtvov). '1 he 
use of the term in the plural in these passages forbids us by 
any possibility taking it as meaning the gold and silver alloy. 

If, then, by electrum the versions do not mean metallic 
electrum they must mean amber. There are, however, 
two kinds of amber, and it remains to consider which is 
meant. The one, usually a dark red (rarely of a light 
colour), is found in the south of luiroix: (Catatiia, 
Reggio) and in the Lebanon ; the other, usually of a 
yellow or golden colour, but occasionally darker in 
hue. has from ancient times lx.'cn met with in great 
abundance on the shores of the Baltic (whence our 
chief modern supjily is derived), and also occurs on the 
co.ists of the North Sea. As the Ph(X'nician had red 
amber thus at his very door, he may early have learned 
to employ it for purposes of art and ornament, just as 
he learned his art of dyeing with purple from having 
the mure.\ in abundance by his shores. Moreover, red 
amber is, as stated above, also to be found in Sicily, 
and may have been procured thence. As increased 
demand called for an increased supply, traders, sailing 
round the coast of the .,Kgean in quest of new fishing 
grounds for the purple-fish, would naturally search 
keenly for fresh supplies of the precious substance, for 
the ancients prized amber far l^eyond its modern value. 
Its power of attr.-icting light substances, and the fact that 
when warmed it emitted a faint perfume, invested it for them 
with .an element of mystery. How far they actually .-uscribed 
to it certain medicinal properties, as is still the case in the East 
with ambergris an animal substance that has lent its name 
(adopted by us from the Arabs) to amber it is impossible to 
say. .\s these two substances, which have really nothing in 
common save the power to emit a kind of perfume, h.ive been 
called l)y the same name, the fact that ambergris is prized as 
an aphrodisiac may perhaps indicate that there was some 
belief that amber (electrum) possessed some similar potency. 
This is actually stated by Pliny (AV/xxxvii. 3 11), who tells 
us that in his own time the peasant women in the regions north 
of the I'o wore amber necklaces, chiefly as an ornament, but 
also for medical re.isons, and goes on to enumerate .1 number 
of ailiii^^nts for which it was regarded as a specific, either taken 
as a potion or applied externally. That its property of attrac- 
tion (whence our modern word electricity) was early known to 
the Greeks is proved by the notice of Thales. 

But how would red amber naturally give a name to 
a met.allic electrum ? To the eye of the Greek the 
essential difference Ix-'tween pure gold 
and the alloy (to which we have in 
English confined the name electrum) 
being the pale colour of the latter {XevKbs xp^'<^^^)' ^"X 
name which he would apply to it to differentiate it from 
pure gold would naturally Ije one which would indicate 
this paleness. The reddish amber of the South would 
not furnish such a name, having no resemblance in hue 
to metallic electrum. But the yellow Baltic amber, 
varying as it does in shade from almost white to a 
bright golden, would give a fairly accurate description 
of the alloy, whose hue varies with the proportion of 
its component parts. .Similarly when, in the second 
passage quoted above from the Odyssey, a necklace of 
gold set with pieces of amber is likened to the sun 
{q^Xiov <js), the golden (Baltic) amber answers to the 
description far letter than the red. We may assume, 
then, that from remote ages supplies of Baltic (yellow) 
amber as well as of red aml)er were available. 

Nor is this a mere hypothesis. It has been removed 
from the realm of probability into that of established 
fact, by the finding of amber in the tombs discovered 
at Mycenne by D. Schliemann in 1876, and of beads 
of the same material in his more recent excavations 
at Tiryns. As the red amber and the Baltic amlier 
differ essentially in chemical composition, Dr. Helm, 
an eminent chemist of Uantzig, has been able to prove 


2. Perhaps 
yellow amber. 


by actual analysis that this amber is the Baltic variety 
(Schliemann's Tiryns, 1886, App. p. 372). 

It was, doubtless, from the German tribes along one 
of the highways which were in constant use in historic 
times that the ancient supplies of Baltic amber were 
obtained. We know that down to the time of Herodotus 
(at>out 430 B.C. ) the Greeks had not as yet opened up 
any line of communication with the amber coasts from 
the side of the Euxine. 

Herodotus visited Olbia, and though he has given a pretty 
full account of those regions, mentioning a trade-route leading 
towards the East, and though we know from his own words 
(8115) that the amber trade was a subject which had excited 
his attention, he expresses the commonly received opinion that 
it was obtained at the mouth of the Eridanus [I'o]. 

Neither does Baltic amber seem to have reached 
Greece in his time by any Russian-Balkan route (5 9). 
Down to the time of Theophrastus (315 B.C.) it was 
entirely through northern Italy that the Greeks got 
their sup|3ly of it.^ The lake-dwellings of .Switzerland 
and the valley of the Po have yielded abundance of 
Ix-ads of Baltic amlser, and similar lx;ads are well known 
in the tombs of central Italy. We need have little 
hesitation, therefore, in believing the statement of Pliny - 
( AW.xxxvii. 844) that it was brought by the CJermans into 
Pannonia and thence reached the Veneti, who dwelt 
at the head of the Adriatic' As the main lines of 
commerce change but little through the ages, it was 
probably by this route that the amlx:r lx;ads reached 
MycenfE and Tiryns in the bronze age, and articles of 
the same kind may even have reached Palestine. The 
l)ead found at Lachish, however, has teen proved, since 
this article was in print, to be not Baltic amber, but, 
like that found at Tell-Zakarlya [PF.FQ, -April 1899, 
p. 107), a resin, and no trace of amljer has yet been 
found in Mesopotamia (Per. -Chip. , Art. Chald. 2362). 
Nevertheless it is possible that even the yellow variety 
may have reached Palestine in the sixth century B.C., 
and the view of the ancient versions that the Hebrew 
hashmal indicates this substance may be correct. 

w. K. 

AMEN (lOX;-* in usually -^ivoiTO \'^ in work of 
Chronicler d/UJ^i', and so in NT very often),'"' an adj." 
.J. _. signifying stability, used only as an interjec- 
tion expressive of assent of one kind or 
another." Three stages may be distinguished: (i) 
Initial Amen, referring back to words of another speaker : 
probably the earliest usage, occurring even in common 
speech" ( I K. 1 36 Jer.286ll 5, the only certainly pre-exilic 
Aniens). 1" (2) Detached Amen, the complementary sen- 
tence being suppressed (Dt. il 15-26 Neh. 5 13 ; double in 

1 They appear to have confused with it a stone called Xiy- 
yovpiQV or ti^uritis ; as so often occurs they mistook the region 
whence the article was transmitted to them for the actual place 
of production (Theophr. De>. 16). 

2 Pliny's statement is confirmed by a remark of Herodotus 
(1 196) from which it appe.irs that the only knowletlge then 
obtainable respecting central Europe came by way of the Veneti, 

a fact which shows that the Greeks knew of a line of 1 
cation in this direction. 

* Pytheas of Massilia had, in the fourth century B.C., found 
the Guttones gathering it and giving it in trade to the Tutones. 

It prob.-ibly occurs in twelve places in the Hebrew, for in 
Is. 05 16, although Aq. (TrtTri o-nofieViov), .Sym., Pesh., and Vg. 
have amen, it should probably (so Che. Di. Du. Rys. in US, 
and perhaps Targ. Jon. (!5"X'*0'" [oAiTflu-oi']) be vocalised other- 
wise, perhaps |"JN (as in Is. 2.5 i, where indeed the Gk. Vss. [but 
Sym. not, as usual, o.y.r^v, but TTi'orei] and Vg. read amen). 
^BKAQ j.gjjj [j jjIj^q^ Jjj jj corrupt text, in Jer. 15 11 and in Jer. 
819. EV has rtw/fw always ; RV even in Jer. 11 5. It occurs 
in six places in Apocr.'(for Judg. 13 20 cp Eth. Pesh.). Vg. 
adds-Tob. J" 12 13 23 and 2 Esd. [Neh.] 13 31 ; in Ecclus. 50 2 j it 
is probably late. 

o Eight (eleven) times, oArjflai? once. 

6 There is much variety of text. TR has it in some 119 places, 
of which RV rejects 19 (see below, g 2). 

7 See, however, Barth, NR |8 sc and 7/^. 

8 For three kinds see Shehu'oth 36<i (mid.). 

9 It seems most likely that in Jer. 3 19 re.-id "' as '-;'>'k = 

1" has it also in Jer. 3 19 15 11 (Is. 25 1 is not pre-exilic). 


Nu. 5aa and in Neh.86= i Ksd.947). Amen must have 
been in liturgical use in the time of the Chronicler ( 1 Ch. 16 
36= Ps. IO648). I^ter, but very similar, are Judith 132o 
Tob. 9 12 (Vg. ), and lob. 88. With the fact that none of 
these relates to temple service may be compared, e.g., 
Jer. lit-nuh. 14 r. The Chronicler, however, appends 
Amen {I.e.) to extracts from Pss. 105 and 96.' (3) An 
apparent />"(// Amen, there being no change of sjx;aker ; 
frequent from NT I''pp. onwards, but in OT only (a) 
in subscription to first three (four) divisions of i'salter and 
3 and 4 Mace. ; and {/>) at end of praver, Neh. 1831 and 
Tob. 13i8 (both only in Vg. ). In Tob. I415 (BNA) we , 
have almost a fourth stage : (4) a siniple subscriptional \ 
Amen, like that, e.g., of theTR of Lk., without, strictly 
speaking, any preceding doxology.'* 

Just as translates, as we have seen, by y^voiro 
in the Law, the Prophets, and even the Psalter, but has 
2 In NT "-f^^" '" ^'^^ Chronicler and Apocrypha, * 
so in NT Lk. often avoids (omits or trans- 
lates) Amen, and so even Mt. and to a /ess extent Mk. 
Stage (i) is represented by only Rev. Tu* 194 222o ; 
(2) by Rev. 5 14 and the usage testified to by i Cor. 
14 16 ; (3) by usage of Epistles (fifteen do.xologies, mostly 
well-attested ; * nineteen blessings, mostly ill-attested).** 
There is no real instance of (4). 

The Aniens of the Gospels (fifty-two in Synopt., 
twenty-five in Jn. ) are a peculiar class, declared by 
Delitzsch ^ unparalleled in Hebrew literature : initial 
Aniens * like group ( i ), but lacking the backward refer- 
ence. The sayings that they introduce are only some- 
times at all related to what now precedes them. The 
double afir)y (twenty-five times) of the Fourth Gospel, 
whichoccursevenin Jn. 1338( =Mk. I430, etc. ), Delitzsch 
tried (/.<r. ) to explain as = Aram. amen amena {ameti 
ater'n(i=:dfiTjf X^7w), which sounded like d/j.rji' d/xriv ; 
but Dalman argues strongly against this." F"or a 
suggestion of a different kind see Gosi'KL.s, 50 n.^** 

The key to Rev. 814 (6 duriv), ' the faithful and true 
witness,' is doubtless the traditional Massoretic pointing 
of Is. 65 16 (at least as old as Syni. ) with possibly a 
reminiscence of the practice of Jesus and of 2 Cor. 1 20. 
Here, again, dfx,rjv is neut. , and the meaning is not quite 
so clear ; but probably d/xTiv has about the same mean- 
ing as in I Cor. 1 4 16. 

The liturRical use of .\men, vouched for in apostolic times hy 

this List pass.^ge, is attested, as regards the Kucharist, by Justin 

Martyr for the second century (^Apol. i. 65, 

3. ElS6Wh6r6. 6 napiov Aao? eireiK^Tj/iti Af-yui/ 'Ajiuji'), and, 

e.g^., l>y Jerome two centuries later (preface to 
Bk. ii. of Com. in A"/, at/ Gal., 'ad similitudinem . . . tonitrui 
amen reboat '), while the introduction of Amen in the baptismal 
ser\'ice is probably later. Post-biblical Judaism greatly de- 
veloped the theory of the use of Amen.^' He who pronounced 
it was greater than he who blessed. It opened the gates of 
heaven." It must not be uttered in a slovenly or careless way, 
nor yet prolonged too much. 1* The synagogue still uses itjl^'and 
Mohammedans are in the habit of adding it after reciting the 
first Sura of the Koran. 

For references to older literature see, e.g:, Vigouroux, Bii. 
Diet., s.v. ; for references to passages in Talm. see, e.g., Kohut's 

Ar-uch, s.v.; for usage of temple doxology 

4. Literature. Onitz, mgif/, 1872, pp. 481-96, and 

I'saimen ti /. ^1 ff. ; for Rabbinic treat- 
ment, e.g., Jehuda Khalas, Se/er lia-Afusdr, Pereq. 4 (ed. 
Mantua, 42); V'osef Caro, Beth Yosef (Orach- IJajiiti) ed. 

1 Ciratz accordingly argues that our Psalms are a synagogue 

2 This is hardly true of K. 

3 Kxcept Judith 13 20. 

* VV & H give, in .square brackets, also a final ' Amen.' 
All except 2 Pet. 3 18. 

Also Rev. 1 7 (after i-ai ; neither doxology (?) nor benedic- 
tion). Rev. 1 18 ijn. 5 21 2jn. 13 are excluded in RV. Cp 
yd^98, n. 2. 

' 'Talm. Stud. ix. lni.r\v aiir)v' in ZLTh., 1856, pp. 422-4. 

8 All in sayings of Jesus. The five finals (.Mt. t> 13 2820 Lk. 
2-* S3 Jn. 21 25 Mk. 16 20) are wanting in the best MSS. 

9 See Dalm. Gram. T93 (cp 71 77 4", 228 146). 
1' See now also Dalman as cited below, g 4. 

11 See Shebu'oth as above and many other places. For an 
example of ' Amen ' in conversation see Aboda Zara 65 a. 
'2 Sliahhath \iab mid. of p. 
"iJ^r. 47 a. 
" Authorised Daily Prayer-Book, N. M. Adler, 1891. 



Venice, 1550, 1 fol. 84^85^. On the whole subject see H. W. 
Hogg, ' Amen, notes on its Significance and Use in Hiblical and 
Post-biblical times," /('A'li-2i (061, and in connection there- 
with Nestle, ' The Last Word in the Hible,' Exfiositorv Timet, 
January 1897, p. 190/; To the above must now be added 
Dalman, Die Irorte Jesu 185-7 ('98). 11. W. H. 

[L], ,imfl//\'s,'i/s. Il,^W *^^)- The amethyst is a variety 
of (juartz (SiOo) or rock-crystal (see Crvstai.) of a clear 
purple or bluish violet colour (from iron jxiroxide or 
manganese), often marked by zigzag or undulating lines 
(the colour being disposed in clouds). The Greek name 
(Rev. '21 20 ; cp Kx. '28i9 = 39i2 [8619 in ]), which was 
adopted into Latin, implies an ancient belief that the 
wearer of an amethyst could drink wine freely without 
fear of intoxication. The source of the Ijelief is found 
in Theophrastus {Lap. 31), who is the earliest Greek 
writer to mention the stone, which he calls rd dfxidvaov. 
It is a simple case of sympathetic magic, for Theophrastus 
says {Lap. 31) rb bi dfjiiOvaov olvwirbv ttj xP^I- ' '^ 's 
wine-coloured, hence its amuletic potency against the 
effects of wine. Greek engravers, accordingly, not in- 
frequently cut Bacchanalian subjects on this stone. 
Hence the point of several epigrams in the Anthologia 
Gncca {e.g., ix. 752, on the ring of Cleopatra, adorned 
with Methe, Drunkenness ; and ix. 748, on a gem 
engraved with a figure of Bacchus). It seems also to 
have been believed that the amethyst caused those who 
wore it to dream, or to have propitious dreams (cp the 
extract from Burhan in Lag. Mitth. 1 236). Hence 
the engraved ahldmd of the ' Breastplate ' of P ( Ex. 
28 19 = 39 12 ; explained by Kimchi as the dream-stone ; 
.ncSnK from oSn 'to dream') has been commonly 
identified with the amethyst (thus apparently (5), so 
much engraved by the Greeks. Cp Pkixiou.s .Stones. 

Del., on the other hand {Ifeb. Lang. 36 n.), derives the name 
from .-Ihlamu, an Armenian people and district often mentioned 
in Babylonian and Assyrian texts, supporting the suggestion by 
referring to Sennacherib's repeated mention of .\rmenia and its 
neighbourhood 'as a rich mine of certain precious stones. 
Bond! considers it an Egyptian loan-word {ekhnome), while Di. 
connects it with n'cSn, the mallow, and adopts the explanation 
'green malachite.' \V. R. 

AMI (*PN), Ezra257t=Neh. 759 Amon {q--'-. s)- 

AMINADAB (aminaAaB [Ti. WH]), Mt. I4 and 
(AAMeiN [WH], mg. aAam) Lk.333t AV = RV 

AMMIN.\I).\R ((/.7'. , l). 

AMITTAI ("npN, 52, from nON, ' truth,' perhaps a 
theophorous compound ; AMA6[e]l [B.\L]), father of 
the prophet Jonah (2 K. I425 Jonahl if). 

AMMAH, The Hill of (HSX ny25 ; o BoyNOC 

AMMAN [B], -MA [-^j. EMMAG [L], OMMATON or AMM. 
[Jos. ^///. vii. I3]), an unknown hill 'that lieth before 
(jiah'(?), where Joab and .Xbishai stayed their pursuit 
after Abner (2S. 224!). From a comparison of tf. 24 
and 25 it is probable that we should restore the name 
also in v. 25 for ' one hill,' AV ' an hill" (nnK 7\^z\). 

So Bu. (SBOT), Sam. ati loc, following We.'s suggestion that 
the two hills are the same. Otherwise Klo., who in v. 25 con- 
jectures D'a^K (n^i*;;), the ascent of Adummim. 

In V. 24 Sym. (yiirn, gully) Theod. (ii6p<iytoY<>0 and Vg. 
{aqutedtictus) give the word a meaning which it l>ears only in 
post-biblical Heb.; moreover, since the word ,^^^{ has no article 
prefixed, it cannot be an appell.ative here. 

AMMI (Hos. 2i, and, in Lo-ammi, 223[25]). See 

AMMI, Names with. The element 'ammi ('Oy) or. 

at the entl of words, 'am {WO) has been interpreted in 

_ ... . three different w.ays viz. , as meaning (i) 

1. initial i^j^j^.j people or (2) [my] kinsman or uncle, 

*^' ~. or else as being (3) the proper name of a 

" . god. 

'"^ So long as this group of names* was 

regarded by itself in the light of Hebrew philologj' alone, 

1 The exact limits of the group are uncertain ; for in the case 
of several names that have been included in it, it is open to doubt 



the interpretation of \iiiuni or 'am by ' people ' seemed 
the most olivious, aiul was most generally adopted for 
all names alike. The result was not quite satisfactory ; 
for ' the people of Cj<k1 ' or ' my peo]jle is God ' ('am mid) 
was, to say the least, an improbable meaning for the 
name of an individual. In the light of comparative 
philology and newly recovered parallel names in other 
languages, it became clear that ' people ' was not the real 
meaning of the element in at least some of the names. 

Names containing 'aiiimi are common in the S. .Arabian 
inscriptions; hut in Araliic 'amm signifies not 'people,' hut 
' paternal uncle ' ; the latter, therefore, is the most reasonable 
interpretation of the element in .Arabic words.' A closely 
similar interpretation is also thoroughly justifiable in Hebrew 
names ; for the sense ' uncle,' or perhaps rather the wider meaning 
'kinsman,' is secured for 'am in Hebrew by a comparison of the 
parallel phrases vni3K hvK 1DK: and ITIV 7K ' V.I \ cp the use of 
Ass. aww/ for ' relatives ' irl Am. TaJ>. 4b 32 ; A'S:>io6. Such 
an interpretation oCammi in Semitic names generally is further 
supported by the fact that names of this type are found side by 
.side in the same languages with names identical in form contain- 
ing another element (see Am, Names wiTH)denoting a kinsman ; 
thus, e.g:, in Helirew we have the series Amti-e\, A/>i-e\, Jfi-c\ 
( = .-f/7-el) ; Ammi-nax\i\h, W/i/-nadab, W/'/'-nadab ; and, in S. 
Aral)!an (following CIS 4, 'e.g., no.s. 73 lo'.'O i 6956 i), 'Am- 
karlb, >f*-karlb, Akhu-Vaxlh, Z?,W-karib.2 

The interpretation oVammi by 'uncle' (or 'kinsman') 
in the S. Arabian names and in several at least of the 
Hebrew instances (.\mmiel, .\mminadab, Eliam, .Ammi- 
shaddai (?). .\mmihud, .Anmiizabad, Ben-anmii) is now 
generally adopted ; and this much at least may be 
regardetl as well established, that names in .\mmi 
originated from the same circle of ideas as names in 
Abi, Ahi. 

On certain ambiguities common to all classes see Am, 
ii. (viz. on their syntactical interpretation, i^ ; on the lium.-in 
or divine, 4, and on the general or .special character of the refer- 
ence, g 5). 

With regard to the present group in particular a 
further question has arisen, viz., whether Ammi be not 
2 Not d' p 'he proper name of a deity, and whether, 

in consec|uence, we ought not to assume 
the worship of this deity where such 

proper name. 

names are found. The facts which have raised this 
question are these : 

(i) Compounds with 'atitmi are parallel not only to compounds 
with ahi, ahi, but also to compounds with divine proper names ; 
thus in Hebrew we have Ammiel, /oel ; Kliam, Eli/a/( ; Atntiii- 
n.idab, J '('//^nadab (cp Moabite CA('w<j.//nadal)), Rehab '> 
(Rehoboam), and Rehab_)'a/t. (2) The chief god of the Kataban 
(or -valad 'amm a S. Arabian people) was called '.-Vmm, and 
Kmu was a name given to the god Xergal by the Shuhites on 
the W. of the Euphrates; cp also the name .\m.mon (q.v., i). 

These facts, however, are insufficient to warrant us in 
separating names in 'ammi, at least so far as their origin 
is concerned, from names in Abi, .\hi. Still, it is clear 
that 'amm{i), originally an appellative, aijplicable and 
applied by different clans or peoples to different gods, 
became in certain cases the projjer name of a deity ; 
and, where this usage can be independently proved to 
have lieen current, it is reasonable to interpret 'am in 
such cases as the proper name of a deity (cp the parallel 
case of Baal) ; but we are scarcely justified in inferring 
from the mere existence of names in 'ammi among a 
certain people that the proper name of their deity was 
'Amm; in particular it is very hazardous to conclude | 
that the Hebrews worshipped a distinct deity 'Amm. 

The compound personal and local names m'am (final) 

present some considerable difficulties, which require 

T.- 1- further consideration. Is the sense ' kins- 

3. rina.1 am. . / . , 

man for am always the most natural 

whether the text is sound, sometimes even in its consonants. 
The apparent of initial 'ammi are the following six : 
Ammiel, Ammihud, .'\mmihur, Amminadab, Ammishaddai, 
Ammizabad, and the place-name Amad ; those of final 'am the 
following .seven:, Kliam, Ithream, Ja.shobeam, leka- 
meam, Jeroboam, Rehoboam. and the five place-names Jibleam, 
Jokdeam, Jokmeam, Jokneam, Jorkeam. Cp also Ben-ammi. 
See Jekoboam ; Amasa, Amasai, Amashai. 

1 Glaser produces evidence from the Minsan inscriptions to 
show that ammi,' as a term for God, was long in use, though 
at a distance from Palestine : see Hommel, ZDMGi^i^d ('95). 
Cp, however, Gray's remark, HPN 53. 

3 But cp DoD, Names with, where a different view is taken. 



one? Or may we in some cases prefer the sense 
'people,' 'kinsfolk,' on the grounds put forward in 
HP.V 59 (cp 215) ? The question is sometimes compli- 
cated by the uncertainty of the form in MT. It must 
also be remembered that Kehoboani (Rehab' am) was the 
son of an .Ammonitish mother, and that the eponym of the 
Ammonites is called I5en-ammi (see Ammon, i); also 
that some have conjectured that Jeroboam was of foreign 
origin. Cp Ibi.kam, Ithkicam, Jashohkam, Jkka- 
MK.v.M. Ji.KOHoAM, JoKNEAM, etc. (see col. 138, n. 1). 
As to the history of the names. Actual usage proves 
_. - that, like compounds with abi and ahi, 

IS ry Semitic compounds with '(/otw/ (=kins- 
man) are of a very ancient origm. 
We find at least two names (.Ammi-satana, Ammi-zaduga) of 
the type among the kings of Babylon belonging to the ^ammu- 
rfibi dynasty (c/>r (I faooo B.C.), and not improbably a third in the 
name Hammurabi itself. 1 The non-Iiabylonian character of 
these names has gained general acceptance in .spite of Jen.sen's 
criticism (/?^ 10342^ ['95]); according to Winckler (C/130) 
they are of Canannitish, according to Sayce (A'/'(2) 3 io_^.) and 
Hommel {A H T <)i jff'.), of Arabian origin. 

Names of the type are certainly common in the early 
S. Arabian inscriptions ; and Hommel goes so far 
as to assert that the biblical names Ijeginning with 
'ammi are, like those of the kings of the Hanmiurabi 
dynasty, of Arabian origin, and were introduced among 
the Hebrews at the time when they had close intercourse 
with the Arabs in Sinai (Z/Al/V; 49525. n- i ['95])- 
However this may be, it is clear not only that these 
names are of ancient origin, but also that at a still com- 
paratively early period they fell into disuse among the 
Hebrews, and also, according to Hommel (AIIT 86), 
among the S. Arabians. The only question with 

regard to the Hebrew instances is whether one or two 
of them (especially Ammi-sh.\ddai, q.v. ) are late i.e., 
post-e.xilic artificial formations. Hommel has recently 
defended the genuine anticjuity of 'Ammi-shaddai on the 
ground of its virtual equivalence to Animi-satana (see 
above) ; but, even granting his premises, his conclusion 
does not necessarily follow, and, as a matter of fact, 
the equivalence is questionable ; for ( i ) the translitera- 
tion of Ammi-satana is uncertain: some c./^., Sayce 
(PSBA, Nov. '97, p. 292) transliterate .'\mmiditana ; 
and (2), if it be correct, the word is quite as possibly a 
3rd sing. pf. (so Winckler, I.e.) as='our mountain.' 
Cp Shaddai, 2. 

The most recent discussions of these names (together with 
references to the literature, which is considerable) will be found 
in firay, Jl/'.V 41-60 198./! 245 253^ 323, Expositor, Sept. 1897, 
173-190, and Hommel, AJIT afiZ^ff. ic6ff. g. B. G. 

AMMIDIOI, AV Ammidoi (ammiAioi [B]), i Esd. 
520. See Ch.\di.\.sai. 

AMMIEL ("piCpj;, 46, 'El is my [?] kinsman,' cp 
Eliam and Amad, and see Ammi, i/, amLcJihA 

1. Danite'spy'(Nu. 13i2[P]). 

2. Father of Machir, 2 S. 94 (a/jLarip [P.], -/h^it/A [L]), 5, 17 27 
(a^ijjp [A]). 

3. Doorkeeper (i Ch. 26 5). 

4. Father of Hathsheba, iCh.35 (TjAa [L]), called in 2 S. 

AMMIHUD (n-in^rsy, my [?] kinsman is glory," 46, 

see Am.mi, i, cp also Ahiiiud ; e/VMOyA [BA], ^M. 


1. Father of Talmai, king of Ge.shur ; 2 S. 1837 Kr., Kt. 
nn-cr. .A.MMmuR (,a.v.). 

2. Father of Elishama (i), temp. Moses ; Nu. I1021874853 
1022t [P] (e|aiou [FL], <7fi. [AF in 1 10, and F in 748 IO22J); 
I Ch. 726 (AMtoueii [B], -ov [A]). 

3. Father of Shemuel (2), temp. Joshua; Nu. 34 2o [P] 
(o-t/oiiovJ [B], tfj.. [Pv'l'AFL]). 

4. Father of Pedahel, temp. Joshua; Nu.34a8 [P] (^tvia- 
Mlltov [B], a/iioui lAFL]). 

5. F"ather of Uthai, one of the b'ne Perez; iCh. 94 
(craiu./oiiou [Bl, afiiovS [AL]). The name is not found in the || 
NVh. II4. See .Xthaiah. 

AMMIHUR (-l-in-Ci;). father of Talmai, king of 
Geshur (2S.I337 Kt. ; Kr. [ace. to Gi. also Kt. in some 

1 Cp HPN 56, and see Ham (i.). But cp references in Muss- 
Arnolt, Ass. Diet. 320, s.v, xammu. 



textsj ; 0"*^, etc. . Ammihuij [^.v. , i]). Kr. may be a 
niiscorrection, since a compound of ^1^ would l)e not 
unlikely for a native of the S. Palestinian Geshur (sec 
Gksiilu, 2). Cp perhaps the Nab. and Sin. nin ; and 
sec UUK. 

AMMINADAB (^n^'Oy, 46, 'my kinsman 
apportions,' or 'the [divine] kinsni;ui is munificent'; 

1. K.ithfr of I'^isheba, .Aaron's wife, and of Nahshon ' head ' of 
Iu<l:ill (scL- Kl-IMlhRAl (Kx. 1)2^, a^ivaBafi (.\) ; Nu. 1 7, -a/Lt [F]; 
23 7 12 17 10 14 1 1') aL^ivaap[V\i). The names of father and son 
have been introduced into the genealogy of iJavid (Ruth 4 19 A 
iCh. 'iio; also Mt. I4 Lk.333, where AV .\minaoab (on the 
variations .\minadani, .\, see Tisch.] ; cp We. De Gent. 17). 

2. \ Levite, temp. iJavid (i Ch. 15 10/;). 

3. b. Kohath, i Ch. 022(7] (lo-o-oap U\], i.e., Izhar, the MT 
reading in the II v. 38). See Izhar (i), Elisheua. 

4. See .\bihaii,, 5. 

AMMINADIB, an imaginary name in Cant. C 12 AV, 

= 3''"I3''py, a reading .sui)ported by (D (AM[e]iNAA(\B 
[BNa/), and the St. I'eter.sburg Heb. MS (Strack) and 
other codices. To be consistent, however, AV should 
have recognised the existence of a proper name also in I 
7 1 [2] CSVV butk-naiiil' ; EV 'prince's daughter'; d. I 
vaSa/S [BNJI, and rendered 'O daughter of Nadib,' or 
with '^ (^. aMt''<^^tt/i) ' of Anmiinadib. ' The dramatis \ 
persoiur of the pastoral poem or drama will then receive 1 
the addition of the fiither of the heroine (so (jriitz). It | 
has iK-en shown elsewhere, however (see Cantici.KS, | 
6/. ), that the supposed drama or pastoral poem and 
its i)lot are non-c.xistent ; we are not in want of an 
' .Anmiinadil). ' In 7i[2], the rendering of YN , 'O I 
prince's daughter,' is suflicient, and 3^: {<uiib) at the 
end of 6 12 probably means ' prince,' as in 7i[2]. That | 
' aninii and nddJb in 612 are separate words is expressly 
stated in the Massora, and most of our MSS follow 
this rule (so, too, Rashi and Ibn Ezra). On the right , 
reading and translation of 6121*, and the right position 
of 611/. , see Canticlks, 16. T. k. c. | 

AMMISHADDAI (^^rSV. 42, 46. &M[e]ic<\AAi 
[B.VF], -Ae [I']), father of Ahiezer (i), temp. Mose.s 
[P]; Nu. I12225 (cam. [A]). 76671 10 25 (mi. [A])t. 
The name seems to be a genuine old Semitic per- 
sonal name (cp, perhaps, Ammi-satana at Babylon, 
2161-2148 B.C.), and may mean 'The divine kinsman 
is n\y Lord.' Cp Sii.\uij,\l, 2^ (end); AMMt, i. 

T. K. C. 

AMMIZABAD (inrsy ; see Ammi. i), apparently 
son and lieutenant of Bknaiah, i (i Ch. 276) ; but the 
passage is obscure and certainly corrupt (AaiBaza6 
[B], AMI PAZ. [A], amCINAZABaA [I-. pointing to the 
reading .Vniinadab], i^JuJf )-^ See D.WID, 11 r. 

AMMON, ammonites! The people are called 
'Children of .\mmon ' (pDJ/ ''221) or '.\mmonites' 
CJItSy, etc. ) ; only twice is the tribe referred 
to as ' .\mmon ' ( i .S. 11 11 [but see J, Ps. 
837). For 2 Ch. 20 1 see Meum.M {c), and for 2 Ch. 2G8, 
ib. (b) n. 

<P HAL ajii/iiwi/ but ofi/iai; in Gen. 19 38 [ ADE], Nu. 21 24 [B once, 
AF twice]; Deut. 21937 [BatbA] 3 11 [HaJi'AFL] i6[l'.AFL]; 
Ofifxuv Zeph.28[K*]. The Ethnic a/ji/'[<]iTTjs, or a/ia. [A 
in 2 S. H I y^ 23 37, I K. 14 21] ; and afjiiiuv[t]i Ezra 9 i 
Neh. 2 10, but a^/iio'tn)v [L] Nell. /.c. and in 13 1. The 
Ammonite persons mentioned in OT are Raalis, Hanun, 
Naamah (2), Nahash, Shimeath, Shobi, Tobiah, and Zelck ; 
and in .Vpocr. .Achior and Timotheus. 

In the cuneiform inscriptions the land of Ammon is 
called Bit-Amman (shortened into Ammdn), on the 
analogy of BIt-Humri (Omri) = Samaria, us if Ammon 
were a person. The ancestor of the tribe, however, is 
not said, in the Hebrew Genesis, to be Anmion, as the 
ancestor of the Moabites is .styled Moab, but Ben-ammi 
(a>'"|2 ; Gen. 19 38 [J]). The name of the reputed 
ancestor is indeed given in Gen. 19 38 (B.AL ; with which 
Vg. agrees) as Ammon ; (KdXtffev rb ivofxa ainou 

1 See Barnes, The Peshitta Text 0/ Chronicles. 


'kufxiv ,bvlb%Tou ftvovi fiov. The received Hebrew text , 
however, appears to regard the name of the father of 
the Ammonites as Ben-ammi ('son of my kinsman'), 
and it should be noted in this connection that '*'*'- (not 
\'g. ) of V. 37 inserts an etymology for Moab, viz. ' from 
my father.' The Yahwists etymologies are, as they 
stand, examples of pojxilar jjaronomasia. llicy may 
point the way, however, to more prol^able explanations, 
and we may safely regard Ixjth ab ' father ' and 'am 
(' uncle,' ' kinsman ') as divine names. 

Gesenius long ago compared the compound proper names 
Amniiel, Amminad.-ib,t and J. Derenbourg in 1880 suKKested 
(AV-.y 1 123) th:it .\mmi may be a name of the i<x;al divinity 
of the .Xnimonitcs, comparing the Annnuiiitish royal n.ime 
Amminad.ib (Del. /'ar. 294), which on the analogy of Kammu.5- 
nadab = Chemosh-nadab, should contain a divine name. .\ 
comp.irison with the parallel names shows however that Ammi, 
if a divine name at all, was clearly known as such over a much 
wider area than the narrow territory of Ammon (cp Names, { 46;''' 
Am.mi, ii. 2). 

According to Judg. 1 1 13 22, the land ' from Arnon unto 

Jabbok and fronj the wilderness unto Jcjrdan,' was 

- , originally occupied by the Ammonites, who 
z. ijana , ,.,.., ,,., .... _,.. , ._ 


were dispossessed by the Amorites under 

1. Name. 

p , Sihon, some time before the Israelitish in- 
" vasion. This evidence, however, is of doubt- 
ful value, since the section Judg. 11 12-29 's of uncertain 
origin, and may be no longer in its original form (see 
Bu. Comm. 81 ; and cp Bu. A"/. Sa. 125 ; Ki. Gisch. 2 
So). At any rate, all that Nu. 2I24 (cp Judg. II21/. ) 
affirms is that the Israelites concjuered the land of 
the .Amorites 'from .\rnon unto Jabbok, (that is) unto 
(the land of) the Ammonites,' and, as the same verse 
continues, 'the border of the Ammonites was Jazer" 
(so Ew., Di. , NOld. reading -iij?' with "ail i,istea<I 
of vj) i.e., the frontier town of the .Amorites towarr.s 
Anmion was Jazer (see v. 32). According to this state- 
ment, the .Anunonites occujjied the east of the district 
now called Belka, a view which accords excelleiuly 
with the e.isterly position of the ancient capital city 
Rabbah or Rabbath-.Xnmion, and is no doubt accurate 
for the period to which ]E belongs. 

Little is known of the social condition of this people ; 
but there is nothing to suggest a high degree of cixiiisa- 
tion. There were no doubt other ' cities' lx;sides Rabbah 
(Judg. 11 33 2 S. 1231) ; but they were too insignificant to 
be mentioned by name. Although the district of 
Rabbah (see R.\HB.\h) was exceptionally well irrigated, 
the total area of tillage lx?tween the Israelite frontier 
and the arid steppes to the east was narrow. Some of 
the Ammonitish clans must have ranged over these 
steppes as nomads. Their population, too, must have 
been comparatively small. According to all analogies 
they would enter frcmi time to time into loose and 
shifting alliances with the neighbouring tribes ; so that 
their fighting strength would be subject to great and 
sudden fluctuations. 

The real history of the Ammonites does not iK'giii 
till the time of Saul, though we ha\e 
one very interesting and probable tradi- 
tion from the legendary period of the Judges (see below 
on Jephthah). 

We do indeed hear, in a passage that sounds like history 
(Gen. 14 5), of a people, called Zuzim, whom Chedorl.iomer ' smote 
in Ham' (CnZ) a name which is most probably corrupt (see 
Ham, ii.), but which .some regard as another form of Amnion ; 
and it is tempting to identify the 2uzim with the Zamzumrnim, 
whom, according to Deut. 'I10/., the .\mmonitts in early times 
dispossessed, liut what we of the Z.;uTiziimmim ha.s a 
family likeness to the legends of other aboriginal r.ices which 
were expelled by more powerful invaders, and the author of 
Dt. 1-440 (D^) did not write till .ifter 597 B.C. (K.ue. Hex. 
270). In his time there were various influences at work to 
hinder the accurate writing of history, .-ind it is even doubtful 
whether we can safely accept what he tells us of the early 

1 Cp also Nestle, Eig. 50. 187 (n.). _ 

2 For further evidence in favour of a Semitic god Ammu, 
Ammi, see Hommel's review of Meissner's ' Beitr. zum altbab. 
Privatrecht,' ZDMGi^siiff. ['95]: but cp Jensens cnticism 
{.ZA 10342/ ['9S])- 


3. Traditions. 


relations between the Israelites on the one hand and the 
Moabites and the Ammonites on the other (Dt. 291937). 
All we can say is that the story in Gen. 19 36-38 (J) proves an 
early Israelitish sense of kinship (combined however with moral 

repugnance) to the Moabilcs and Ammonites, so that it is not in 
itself incredible that the Israelites should have refrained from 
attacking these two peoples. True, in Jos. 13 25 (I') we are told 
that 'half the land of the Ammonites' was assigned to the tribe 
of Gad ; but the district intended here may be the .\nioritish 
kingdom of Sihon, and so prc-suppose the view of history given 
in Judg. 11 13-22 (see above, 2). 

Dt. 234 [3] affirms that the Ammonites and Moabites 
hired Balaam to curse Israel, and did not supply Israel 
with provisions, as a punishment for which they are to 
be excluded from the Israelitish community to the tenth 

The spirit and purport of this passagej however, is at variance 
witli that of Dt. 227, and the narrative of lialaam in Nu. 
22-25 (mainly JE) speaks only of the Moabites. For several 
reasons it is very probable that Dt. 23i-8 [2-9] (see Hai.aam, 
I 7) is a record, not of the pre -exilic, but of the post -exilic 
period when ' the problem as to who should and who should not 
be admitted into the community wxs a burning question ' (Ku. 
Hex. 265). At any rate the view which this passage presents 
of the Ammonites cannot be accepted. 

It is of more historical interest that in Nu. 22 we 
have a combination of two distinct traditions (E and J) 
respecting the origin of Balaam, one of which represents 
him as an Ammonite (see B.\l.\.\m, i). 

The settlement of Israelitish tribes in Gilead and 
Bashan (see Manas.skh) could not but excite the 
animosity of the neighbouring peoples. No doubt 
there was a chronic border-warfare sometimes develop- 
ing into more serious hostilities, sometimes mitigated 
by truce, alliances, or the subjection of one or oilier of 
the combatants. In Judg. IO6-I27 we have an account 
of the deliverance of the Israelites of (jilead from 
Ammonitish oppressors by a recalled outlaw named 
Jephthah. The traditional stories have Ijeen much 
edited (see Judgks, 17) and tell us naturally more 
about Jephthah (who was one of the actors in a most 
4 Saul and '"^''"S tragedy) than about the Am- 

jj . , monites. \\'e are ujjon safer ground 

^ in the story of Saul. The victory of this 
heroic chieftain over the Ammonitish king Nahash, who, 
encouraged by the weakness of cis-Jordanic Israel, had 
besieged Jabesh-gilead, and displayed his deep contempt 
for his foes, is doubtless historical (iS. 11). It is also 
thoroughly credible that David, when out of favour with 
Saul, received friendly treatment from Nahash (so we 
must interpret 2S. IO2). Equally intelligible is it that 
a change ensued in the relations between David and the 
Ammonitish court when the former had taken up the 
work, interrupted by the death of Saul, of liberating 
and u.iiting the Israelitish tribes. Only we must not, 
it would seem, place the war with the Ammonites too 
late. The gross insult offered by Hanun, the son of 
Nahash, to the ambas.sad()rs of David implies that the 
power of the latter had not yet been so consolidated as 
to wipe out the recollection of the days of Israel's 
humiliation. The insult was bitterly avenged. Amnion 
and its allies were defeated, and the power of the former 
was, for the time, broken (see 2 S. I231). 

It is noteworthy that .Shobi, son of Nahash, of Rabbath- 
ammon, was friendly to David during Absalom's revolt (2 S. 17 
27), that Zelkk, an Ammonite, was amon^ David's 'thirty' 
(2 S. 2337), and that Solomon had an Ammonitish wife(NAAMAH, 
2) whom one account (.see Klostermann) makes the grand- 
daughter of Nahash, and who became the mother of Rehoboam 
(i K. 14 21 ; the details in i K. 11 1-8 are untrustworthy). See 
Nahash, 3. 

It is probable that the Ammonites recovered their 
independence after Solomon's death. Later, like the 

6 Assyrian '''"^^ '^ ^'- '^'''^^'' '^^^' became tribu- 
Ae-e t^riL's of the Assyrians ; this is e.xpressly 

mentioned by Shalmaneser II., Tiglath- 
pileser III., Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon (Schr. KGF 
and COT). So far as our oldest evidence goes, they 
caused no serious trouble again to the Israelites till the 
time of Jeroboam II. , when, as Amos tells us (Am. 1 13), 
they made incursions into Gilead, and displayed great 



inhumanity, which probably from their own point of 
view was but justifiable revenge. The Chronicler, 
indeed, relates victories over the Ammonites won by 
Jehoshaphat and Jotham (2 Ch. 20 275. cp 268) ; but 
these, according to Robertson Smith {OTJO") 146), 
are Midrash. From Jer. 49i, we may infer that after 
the deportation of the trans-Jordanic Israelites in 734 
the Ammonites occupied the land of Gad ; and, even if 
Jer. 49 be post-exilic, the fact is too probable to be 
doubted. It is this outrage upon ' Yahwe's people ' 
which seems to be alluded to in Zeph. 28-ii Jer. 926 [25] 
2521. Once again the vindictiveness of the Ammonites 
was manifested when, in the reign of Jehoiakim, they 
madp incursions into Judah as the auxiliaries of 
Nebuchadrezzar (2K. 242). This is probably referred 
to in Ezek. 2I28/. [25/.]. Later, however, the general 
fear of the Babylonian rule seems to have altered the 
policy of the Ammonites, for Jer. 27 3 brings before us the 
king of .\mmon entering into a league against Babylon 
with Zedekiah and other princes. It is to this act of 
rebellion that Ezekiel refers (21 18-32 [13 _^]) when he 
anticipates the punishment of the Ammonites, while in 
25 1-7 he threatens the same people with destruction for 
their malicious demeanour at the captivity of the Jews. 
Did the Anmionites withdraw in time from the anti- 
Babylonian league? It is a verj' probable conjecture, 
and, strange as it may seem, Jewish fugitives are said to 
have sought refuge with Baalis, king of Ammon, who 
instigated them basely to assassinate the noble 
Gkdai.i.mi, I (Jer. 40 14). 

In later times we find an Ammonite' among the chief 
ojjponents of Nehemiah, and at the same time con- 
p . nected by marriage with distinguished 
andSeek. \^^ (N'eh. 618 134 ; cp T.,.ua, ,Y 
Other Ammonitish women had married 
into Jewish families (EzraDi/. ) i.e., according to 
Kosters, into families which had remained on Jewish 
soil and not been touched by the reforming spirit of 
Ezra (see Ezra, ii. 12). This would be all the easier 
if we are right in inferring from Jos. 18 24 {z'v. 12-28 
belong to P) that in post-exilic times there was in 
Benjamin a place called ' Village of the Ammonites ' 
(CnKi'iiAK-H.XAMMONAi). It is to this period of mixed 
marriages that we should not improbably refer the com- 
position of Dt. 23 1-8 (see above), in \\hich passage are 
mentioned the same three peoples as in Ezra 9 2. '^ 

Nearly three hundred years later the Ammonites 
(Tiniotheus) are among the enemies defeated by Judas 
IMaccabaiUS (i Mace. 56-iS) ; they are also mentioned in 
a psalm assigned by some to the same critical period 
(Ps. 887).* Up to this time, then, Ezekiel's threat 
(ICzek. 25) against the Ammonites as well as against 
the Moabites and (virtually) the Edomites that they 
should be dispossessed by the ' sons of the East ' 
{i.e., the Arabian nomads) had not been fulfilled so 
far as the Ammonites are concerned. Their fate, 
however, cannot have been very long delayed. In the 
fifth century B.C. we already find 'Arabians' among 
the enemies of Nehemiah (Neh. 219 47 [i]), and we can 
hardly doubt that by degrees the Ammonites, like the 
Moabites before them, had to amalgamate with the 
land-hungry intruders. 

It is true, Justin Martyr, who died i66 A.D., states (cp 7"r)7//. 
119) that the Ammonites were still numerous in his time; but 
Josephus {.4nt. i. 11 5) once says precisely the same thing of the 
Moabites, though elsewhere he speaks of the Moabites and 
Gileadites as .Arabians (.-!/. xiii. 9 :), which agrees with the 
statement of Origen {in Jolnim 1 i) that the term Ammonites 
had become merged in that of Arabs. This makes it probable 
that the-omission of 'Ammonites' in i Esd. 869 ( = Ezra".t i) 
was not accidental but deliberate. 

The close connection of Ammon with Moab, and, in 

1 See, however, Reth-horon, 4. 

2 Prof. Ryle (Ezra and Neh. 115) thinks that ' the mention of 
the Ammonite, Moabite, and Egyptian together, suggests the 
influence of Deut. 283-7 UffV Outhe XSBOT) assigns the 
enumeration of the peoples to the Chronicler. 

' Cp also AcHlOK. 


a less degree, with Israel, and the fact that the Moabites 

7. Language. 

spokea dialect of Hebrew(see Hkhkevv, 
6) renders it almost certain that the 
Ammonites also si>oke the ' language of Canaan. ' This 
view is confirmed by Ammonitish proper names, e.g., 
Hanun, 2S. lOi (jn 'treated graciously ') ; Nahash, 
iS. Ill (c^m 'serix;nt'); Naamah, iK. Hai (noya 
'pleasant'); and the royal names Amminadab (see 
alwve, i), Puduilu = Abdeel (Jer. 3G26), and Ba'sa=: 
Haasha (Schr. CO T li^y). Bacthgcn's argu- 

ment (in his licit riige) for the polytheism of the 
_- .. . Ammonites is based partly on Judg. 106, 
^*"^' partly on the analogy of Moahitish 
religion. The only extant Ammonitish proper name, 
however, which can be held to be compounded with 
a tlivine name other than that of the supreme God, 
is Haalis (see B.\Al,ls). At any rate Milcom was 
as much the great national god of Amnion as 
Chcmosh was of Moab (see Moi.ocii) ; the strange 
slip by which Jephthah is made to speak of Chcmosh 
as the god of Ammon suggests that ' Anmion ' has been 
substituted by an editor for ' Moab ' in the passage 
(Judg. 11 12-28) in which it occurs. In 2 S. 12 30 where 
Nlilcom [q-v.) should be read instead of vialkdni 
'their king," reference seems to be made to a huge 
statue of Milcom in the capital city. The statement 
that Solomon became a worshipper of Milcom in 
Ills old age rests on no good authority (see"). 
When we pass to later times, it is tempting to infer with 
A\'o. (//(7(-' 156, n. i) from the name of Nehemiah's 
Ammonitish enemy that the worship of Yahwe had 
begun to attract the Ammonites. The dissolution of the 
old national bonds may have favoured the growth of a 
monotheistic tendency. t. k.c. (w. h.B. ) 

AMMONITES (D"'3ir3r), 2Ch.20i, RV'e- Meunim 
(y.t-., M). 

AMMONITESS (D^Jby), iK. 14 21 31 2Ch. 1213 



AMNON (|i:pN*, in 2S. 132ot pJ^pS^, i.e., 'safe'?, 
by some regarded as a diminutive used in a con- 
temptuous sense [cp Dr. TBS, ad loc. W'r. Ar. Grai.(-^ 
I. 269; Ges. Heb. Gram. [ET 98] 250. n. i] ; We. 
[//(7'-' 24, n. 2] explains as |-13*t3S, ' my mother is the 
serpent," see Nun ; amnoon [BAL], ammcon [A, 2S. 
13 1-6 lort]). 

1. David's elJcst son (see David, 11 iii. <i), slain by 
Absalom in revenge for his outr.ige on Tamar (2.S. 82 Viiff. ; 

2. In genealogy of J I' UAH (iCli.42ot). 

AMOK (piO]^, ' deep, inscrutable ' ), post-exilic priestly 
family; Neh. 12720 (om. BN*A ; AMOyK [L and. in 

V. 7, X^-' "'t-'- '"!', in V. 20 X-:-^ ""K- '"f- AMOy])- '"^ee 

I';ZKA, 2, 6 i^, II. 

AMOMUM (AMtoMON [Ti. WH following N*AC]), 
an unidentified aromatic substance, mentioned only 
in RV mg.. Rev. 18 13 (RV Spice, AV om. with 
BX'^ ; Wyclif, however, gives ' amome"). The classical 
' amomum ' ( = ' blameless ' ?) was a shrub of Eastern 
origin ( ' Assyrium vulgo nascetur amomum,' Verg. 
/;V/. 425), from which were made oil for funeral rites 
and unguents for the hair. As, however, it is used 
also of any odour pure and sweet (Salm. ad So/in. 
284), its identification is uncertain. It may possibly be 
the vine Cis.ut.t vi/igena (Linn.), a native of Armenia. 
The modern term is applied to a genus of aromatic 
plants (X.O. Zingibraceae), including the cardamon and 
seeds of Paradise. 

AMON (pON), Jer. 4625 RV. See Xo-.\M()N. 

AMON (Jinx, |bX, 67 ; ' firm ' ? ' workmaster ' ? but 

see below), i. (a/iiws [BA], -wj/ [L] ; .CUO(.) Fairly 

well attested as the name of the son of king Manasseh, 

himself also king of Judah ; 2 K. 21 18-26 (a/x/jiuv [A]), 

10 145 


iCh. 3i4 (afjivwy [BA, see Swete]), aCh. 3820-25. 
After a reign of 'two years' {drca 638 B.C. ; see 
CnKONOLOcy, 36) he was assassinated by certain of 
his courtiers (see Kittel, //;j/. 2378). The event pro- 
duced a profound sensation. Amon, though disliked 
by religious reformers, was a favourite with the people, 
who avenged his death. If his name is derived from 
the Egyptian (Theban) sun-god, it is an interesting 
proof of the fluctuations of [xjlitical party (Egyptian and 
Assyrian) in the reign of .Manasseh (cp Israel, 36). 

2. (arfintip [AL]) less certainly, the name of a governor of 
Samaria under Aliab ; iK.-''J26 (^rfinp [H], Aniiutv 1AJ) = 
2Ch. IS25 (l>t/p 11'.]). pleads strongly against the correct- 
ness of the form Amon. Semer or Semmer, indeed, can 
hardly be correct, but Knier or Kmmer is the form for the 
Immerof MT in Jer. 20 i and elsewhere (see Immkk), and out 
of this form both Amon and Semer (TCC') can easily have arisen 
as misreadings. See Sta. ZATIV t> 173-175 ('851. 

3. {aixtei [1^].) The b'ne Amon (so Sl'I), a group of 
'Solomon's servants' (see Nethinim) in the great post-exilic 
list (see Ezra, ii. 9); Neh. 759 (i)>ifi/ui IR<A])=Kzra257 
Ami ('ON; cp - everywhere; rj/iet [U.\])=i Ksd..'i34 Allo.m, 
RV Allon (oAAwi/ [H], oA. [A], i.e., AA and AA for M). 

T. K-. c. 

AMORITES (*lip,X, collective, and always with 
article, except Nu. 2l29Ezek. I645; AMOPRAIOI [BAI,]). 

Other readings are : a/u/iioppoi (Is. \~ g ], afjiappaioi |l)t. 
1 4 F, 2 K. 21 II A, I Ch. 1 14 I.], Ofioppei [Judg. 108 li], a^opis 
[Gen. 14 13 A], aiJ.op[e]i [Kzra t) i I'AJ, a/i/xopaiot [i K. 7 14 .A], 
A )ui/ /</). 

In the List of Peoples ' the .\morite ' apjx^ars among 
sons ' begotten ' by Canaan (Gen. 10 16 J = i Ch. 1 14I. 

The term is used : (1) of a pre-lsraelitish people living L. of 
the Jordan, Nu. 21 13 21 25 Josh. 24 8 (all E), .also Josh. 2 10 '. 10 
OE), Dt. I4 3289 Judg. 108 II I K.419 (HLom.), Ps. 13.". 11 
130 19, and elsewhere ; (2) of a people on the W. of Jordan, 
Josh. 10 5/. 24 12 15 18 (.all E), also Josh. 7 7 (JE), 5 i 10 i2(both 
D), Judg. 1 34-36 10 ; I K. 21 26, 2 K. 21 1 1, i ,S. 7 14, 2 S. 21 2 ; 
(3) of a southern people, Dt. 1 7-44, cp C.en. 14 7 ; (4) of the ancient 
population of Canaan in general, Gen. 1.'. 16 (J or R), 4S22 (E), 
Am. 29/:, andls. 179(Lag. WRS Che. following "KAor) with 
the Hiviles. 

The Amorites are mentioned also in the lists of 
Canaanitish peoples subjugated by the Isr.aelites (Gen. 
15 21 E.v. 3 8 and elsewhere). The lists commonly 
include the Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, 
Jebusites, and Perizzites, and once, in Gen. 15 19-21, 
the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim, 
for which reference must Ix; made to the separate 
articles. On the variation in the order of these enumer- 
ations, which are obviously ' rhetorical rather than 
geographical or historical,' cp Dr. Dent, qb ff. 

The passage in Amos (29/^) is remarkable, because 
Amorite is used, precisely as by the Elohist (E), as a 
general term for the primitive population of Canaan, and 
because the Amorites, as an extinct race, are invested 
with a half-mythical character (like the Anakim). 

Wellhausen (C//341 f.) regards the designation 
'Amorites' as substantially synonymous with that of 
Canaanites, though not cjuite so comprehensive. 
According to this view, the Canaanites, in the time of 
the biblical narrators, are still living in the land (/.<'. , 
in the cities of the plain which were not occupied by the 
Israelites). The Amorites, on the other hand, are 
thought of as the old inhabitants of the hill-country E. 
and W. of the Jordan, now inhabited by the Israelites. 
Thus the Amorites belonged exclusively to the past ; 
they had their day and ceased to Ix; (Gen. 151. This 
explains how it is that, although under ordinary peace- 
ful circumstances the Canaanites are sjwktn of as the 
old inhabitants of the land, whenever mention is made 
j of war and conquest, the Amorites at once take their 
place (Gen. 48 22). So Moses' adversaries, Sihon and 
Og, are kings of the 'Amorites' ; and, similarly, it is 
with the twelve kings of the .Amorites that Joshua has to 
deal W. of the Jordan. Winckler however (Gl 1 ^"2 ff.) 
disputes the synonymity of the terms ' Canaanites ' 
and ' -Amorites ' on the ground that, as the Amarna 
letters show, the coast -land as far N. as Sidon or 
even farther, was called Kinahi (= Canaan), and that 

1. Prophetic 


the Amorite population had its seat in the interior. He 
explains the distinction in the nomenclatures from the 
different local origin of the two writers (an Ephraimite 
and a Judahite rcsijectivcly). On the e.xtra-biblical 
facts, and on the inferences to be drawn, see Canaan, 

^ 3-9 and cp I'HtK.MCIA. 

AMOS (DV^y. 56, 'borne [by God]'; cp Ama- 
SiAii. Ar. -OmJis. Phcen. DDyjO'J'X ; amcoC [B.\g]). 
.\mos is the earliest of the projjhets of 
whose discourses and predictions we 
possess written records with an ac- 
comfianying statement of their authorship. Of the 
external facts of his life we should know little but for 
the narrative digression in 7 10-17, which interrupts the 
series of prophetic visions on the fall of Israel. From 
a statement there iissigned to Am.aziah, ' the land is 
not able to bear all his words,' we may reasonably 
infer that .Anios's ministry in the northern kingdom had 
lasted for some time, when it w.-is brought to an abrujjt 
close by an act worthy of the heroic 1-^lijah. Amos, it 
appears, came forward at length in a place where 
success was more difficult than anywhere else, and 
uttered a prophecy to this effect 'Jeroboam shall die 
by the sword, and Israel shall tie carried away from its 
land." It was in Bethel, the seat of the royal temijle 
corresfxjnding to that of Jerusalem in the south, and 
probably at some great festival, that Amos said this ; 
and the priesthood, faithful to its royal head, took the 
al.arm. S'ot so much because the prophet had threatened 
the reigning dynasty (for he had not done so in the 
interests of any upstart noble) as because he begun 
to weaken the moral courage of the Israelitish people 
(Jer. .384). With the half-contemptuous s[)eech, ' Carry 
thy prophecies to those in the neighlK>uring country 
who may think them worth paying for,' .\ma/.iah, the 
head priest of liethel, by the royal authority, bade 
Amos fly from the land of Israel. Amos would not 
retire without a parting lestiinony. These are his 
significant words : ' No prophet, no member of a 
guild of prophets, am 1 ' ; that is, I am no ecstatic 
enthusiast, like the prophets of Bethel, whose pro- 
phesying is a trade, and whose oracles are mere 
heathenish divinati<jn (cp Mic. :jii). 'But a sheep- 
breeder am I,'^ he continues, 'and one who lends 
sycomore figs' (see, Sycomork) : that is, I am 
above the sordid temptation to take fees. ' Yahwe 
took me from following the flcx:k ; Yahwe said unto 
me, (jo, prophesy unto my people Israel.' That is, 
My prophesying has an immediate practical object 
which concerns the whole nation, and it is due to a 
moral impulse which has come straight from Israel's 
God. Then, in answer to the command. Prophesy 
not against Israel, .^mos repeats his message with a 
startling application (cp Is. 22 17 18). 

Such was .-Vmos a strange phenomenon to the head 
priest of Bethel, as representing an entirely new type of 
2 Home prophecy. Whence then did this projihet 
come? Was he a native of Israel or a 
' sojourner ' from Judah ? The heading of the book (on 
the origin of which see below, 4 ) at first sight appears to 
be decisive in favour of the latter view. Budde has 
made it probable ^ that we should render ' Amos, who 
had been among the sheep-breetlers, (a man) of Tekoa.' 
In any case, Amos is represented asa Tekoite. Now, there 
is no trace in ancient or in modern nomenclature of more 
than one Tekoa (iJ.v.). That Amos Ix^longed to the 
southern kingdom has, nevertheless, been doubted, ^ 

1 Read ^pi3 with Oort, We. (UAg, aliroAot) ; cp 1 i. Mesha 
is also called ^p1J (2 K. 3 4). The word refers to a breed of 

stunted sheep, valued for their fine wool (see Shkei>\. 

2 Kohut, Semitic Stu<iies jo laSJT. 

3 According to Oort, Atnos was an Israelite who cultivated 
sycomores in his own country, but after his expulsion dwelt 
among the shepherds of Tekoa (Th. T'2b lai, etc ['91]). Gratz 
(and so formerly Oort), following Kimhi, supposes a second 
Tekoa in the north. 



on the twofold ground ( i ) that the interest of Amos is 
absorbed by (northern) Israel, and (2) that Tekoa lies too 
high for sycomores to be grown there. As to the first 
point, Amos, though deeply interested in Israel, is not, 
like the native Israelitish prophet Hosea, a sympathetic 
observer of the life and manners of the north. The 
inner impulse from above sending him to Israel is 
psychologically accountetl for by the' vastly greater 
importance of Israel as compared with Judah in religion, 
in politics, and, we may add, in literature. As to 
the second, Amos may very well have possessed a 
plantation of sycomores in some low-lying district in 
the Shephelah or in the Jordan valley (see Syco.mokk). 
We may accept it, then, as a fact, that Amos was a 
Judahite, and sprang from a place famous in the time 
of David for the quick wits of its inhabitants (2 S. Ha). 
9 'D-anoKofi/.n ^^^ situation, too, of Tekoa, was 
6. rreparauon. ^.^,j ^^^^^^ ^^ develop the future pro- 
phet's cap.-icities. From the extensive view which his 
own hill commanded, he would gain, at any rate, a 
sense of natural grandeur, though we must not infer 
from this that he was capable as a Tekoite of writing 
Am. 4 13 and the parallel pa.ssages.i Not far off, 
he would meet with the caravans of the Dedanites 
(Is. 21 13) and other Arabian peoples, and would 
imbitxj from them a longing to see other men and 
maimers. Possibly, too, such an idiom as CTD'Q 'ac* c;? 
(4 10) may be explained from Arabian influence (so 
We. ).'^ Whatever the social position of Amos may have 
been, he was not tied to the soil, and may, before 
his journey to Samaria, have wandered, either on 
business or from curiosity, far away from home, and 
have seen and heard much of which his neighbours were 
ignorant. To suppose this is not to deny that even 
the stayer at home had opportunities of hearing news,^ 
but to try to understand the alertness of Anios's 
intellect, the width of his knowledge, and the striking 
culture and refinement of his style. At any rate, it is 
plain that he studied thoroughly, on the spot, the con- 
dition of life and thought in the northern kingdom, and 
we must regret that we have no further contemporary 
traditions respecting him, than that contained in 710-17. 
One very singular tradition, indeed, we have, which 
appears to be a very late distortion of his story. It is 
the story (i K. 13) of the man of God from Judah, who 
went to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam I. and threatened 
the altar there with destruction by an earthquake (cp 
Am. 3 147991). Though this teaches us much con- 
cerning a late view of prophecy, however, it affords no 
fresh glimpse of Amos. 

A post-exilic editor says (Am. li) that Amos pro- 
phesied during the contemporary reigns of Uzziah of 
4. Notes of J"'^'''^^' ^^'^ Jeroboam II. of Israel. Of 
date Uzziah there is no express mention in 

the book ; but the description of the care- 
less ease of Jerusalem in 6i(Z accords with the circum- 
stances of his reign ; to Jeroboam II. the prophet refers 
in 79, and his biographer in 7ioy". The heading also 
states that the prophecy as a whole was delivered (i.e., 
in its original form) 'two j'ears before the earthquake." 
Unfortunately, our only other authority for this earth- 
quake* in Uzziah's reign is about as late as this note 
(Zech. 144). It is no doubt plausible to defend its his- 
torical character by referring to 4 n ( ' I wrought an over- 
throw among you'), and by our prophet's vivid idea of 
earthquakes as one of God's means of punishment (88; cp 
Is. 21921). Am. 88, however, is certainly an interpola- 
\ion, and it is not impossible that the rather too precise 

1 G._ A. Smith {HG 315) has given eloquent expression to 
this view. In T7ve/ve Prophets, however, he admits the late 
origin of the passages. 

2 On the intellectual opportunities of Tekoa see Stickel 
{Hiofi 269-276), who makes Job to have been written in this 

S Robertson, Early Religion 0/ Israel 510. 

* Klo. Sam. u. KSn. J40, and cp Kings, { 8, note. 

8 Jos. (Ant. ix. IO4) gives a long fabulous story about it. 


statement in 1 1 is merely an exegetical inference from 
736 (cp 78 8a). which seemed to the editor to imply 
that Israel's punishment had been twice postponed, and 
that each postponement nuant a year's grace (so (i. 
Hoffmann ; cp Chronolocjv, 3). It is remarkable 
that the author of the heading, if he had access to 
tradition, did not rather refer to the solar eclijisc pro- 
phcsie<l in 89 (in its i)resent form). This seems to be 
the eclipse which an Assyrian list of eixjnyms assigns 
to the month Sivan 763 B.C.' It is less important 
that, according to the same list, i^estilenccs ravaged 
Assyria in 765 (the year of a campaign in the land 
of Hadrach, near Damascus and Hamath) and 
in 759. Pestilence in the land of Israel is indeed 
mentioned in Am. 4 10 ; but it is described as ' after the 
manner of Kgypt. ' The Egyptian Delta was of course 
not the only source of pestilences : the Assyrian plague 
_. may have germinated elsewhere. Still, it 

. ircum- ^^.^.^jp5 tpye t^at the period indicated by 
these last dates sufficiently accords with 
hints dropped in the Book of Amos. For e.xample, the 
Israelites, according to Amos, have no -ipprohensipn 
of a Sfjeedy attack from .Assyria. The circumstances of 
the period just mentioned enable us fully to account for 
this. Shalmaneser III. (783-773) had too nmch trouble 
with the land of Urartu(see Ararat, 2, As.syria, 32), 
and his successor Asur-dAn III. (772-755) had too 
many revolts at home to put down, to tje dangerous to 
the kingdom of Israel. .Assyria t>eing thus occupied, 
it was easy for Jerotx)am II. to recover from Damascus 
(repeatedly humiliated of late by A.ssyria) the districts 
which Hazael had taken from Israel. Hence, when 
Amos wrote, the e.\tent of the Israelitish dominion was 
' from the point where the Hamathile territory begins 
(non Ki3^) to the torrent of the Arilbah,' a definition 
which is presumably equivalent to that in 2 K. 14 25, which 
gives ' the sea of the Arabah ' i.e. , the Dead Sea. The 
prophet's hearers delighted to sun themselves in this 
new prosperity, and boasted of the capture of Lodeb.xr 
and K.\RN.\IM in Gilead as a great military feat (see 
LoDEHAR, and We. on Am. 613). True, melancholy 
thoughts of the past would sometimes intrude thoughts 
of the recent terrible earthquake, of the famines and 
{jestilences, of the friends and neighbours lost in battle, 
and of the revolting cruelties of the Syrians and their 
Ammonitish allies in Gilead (I31346-11). Nor is it 
arbitrary to connect the splendour and fulness of 
Israelitish ritual in the prophet's time with the popular 
anxiety lest Yahwe should renew the troubles of the 
past. On the whole, however, the tone of Israelitish 
society is joyous and optimistic. As in Isaiah's earliest 
discourses, the upper classes appear as self-indulgent 
and luxurious, and, as in Isaiah, the women come in 
for' a share of the blame (4i ; cp Is. 3 16). Not only 
the king (i K.2239) but also the nobles have houses 
inlaid with ivory (815 cp 64(2). Feasting is habitual 
(64-6), and the new custom of half-reclining on tl\e 
divan* has lieen introduced at Samaria (3i2iJ). The 
good old sentiment of brotherliness is dying away ; 
oppression and injustice are rampant (26-8 89 end, 10 
4 1 5 11/. 846). This indicates that great economic 
changes are going on (Isaiah makes the same com- 
plaint. Is. 5). Side by side with this we notice a 
keen interest in the ritual side of religion (44/. 521-23 
814 9i). Jubilant worshippers sing the praises of the 
incomparable 'God of Jeshumn' (023 ; cp Deut. 8826), 
and, as they think of his deliverances in the past, they 
even 'desire the battle day of Yahw6' (5 18). Amos, a 
stranger, alone sees below the surface of things. He 
does not, indeed, once name Assyria,* and seems to have 

1 -See Schr. COT 2 193; Sayce, TSBASng; Schr. A'GF 
338 yC, and cp Chron(>lo<;v, 24. 

* In 3 12 render ' that sit in Samaria in the corner of a couch, 
and on the cushion of a divan ' (for peTJl read arcs, an obvious 
correction, which We. has somehow not made). See/(7^ 10 572. 

According to uaq^ however, there is once an express 
mention of Assyria (89, -nrK = "lirK, for TlPKi Ashdod). 


no clear idea of the geograjjhy of the region ' beyond 
Damascus ' ; but every one knows what he means when 
he warns his hearers that Yahw6 ' will raise up against 
them a nation '(614 ; cp Is. 626, where read 'ijS). and 
' will carry them into captivity Ijeyond Damascus ' (52?). 
On the whole, we may prolxibly date the original pro- 
phecies of Amos between 765 and 750 n.c. * 

'ITiere are only two passages which may Ix; regarded 
as inconsistent with this date, as referring to later 
6 Obi actions '^^'^"'^- (a) In 1 5* it is predicted that 
i - . ^ 'the iieople of Aram shall go into 
to 766-760 B.O. eaptivity unto Kir,' which was ful- 
filled, according to 2 K. IG9, on the capture of Dam.ascus 
by Tiglath-l'ileser III. in 732. The prediction, how- 
ever, was not meant to be taken so literally. ' Unto 
Kir' is evidently suggested by the tradition (97) that 
the Aramteans came from Kir ; the prophet cannot 
mean to lay stress upon such points as the locality of a 
captivity ; * otherwise, why does he describe the scene of 
Israel's captivity so vaguely? The 'fulfilment' in 
2K.I69 is obviously due to interpolation; the later 
view of prophecy differed from that held by the great 
prophets themselves. (/>) The other passage is 62, which, 
as emended by Geiger'' (to make sense), reads thus, 
' Pass ye to Calneh, and look ; and go thence to Great 
Hamath, and go down to Philistian Gath ; are ye 
better than these kingdoms, or is your region greater 
than theirs?" These places, says the writer, have 
already succumbed to the common enemy : how can 
Israel ho[3e to escape? Calneh (not the Calneh 
of Gen. 10 10, but the N. Syrian city Kullani) was 
conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. in 738, Hamath by 
Sargon in 720, and Gath by the same king in 711 ;* 
and the passage breaks the connection Ijctween 6 i and 5, 
and is not in the rhythm which is so closely adhered 
to in 61 3-7. The verse must, therefore, be a later 
insertion, by a scribe or editor who had read Is. IO9 
(Calno = Calneh), and is properly a marginal gloss on 
the words, ' Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ' (^i i ). 
Observe that Great Hamath (H. Rabba) contr;ibts v.ith 
the simple Hamath of v. 14. 

A strict analysis is indispensable, both for a sound 

view of the origin of this book, and for a clue compre- 

... hension of the great proi)het himself. 

- * ^^^ We nmst, therefore, test the common 
assertion that the lx)ok possesses such a 
true literary unity as Amos, when in retirement, might 
naturally wish to give to his remembered prophecies. 
5>o much, at any rate, is clear, that, as it now stands, 
the book has three well-marked divisions. (1) Chaps. 
1 2-2 16 present a series of judgments on the peoples of 
Syria and Palestine, each framed on the same plan, 
and coupling the description of an unpardonable moral 
fault with the declaration of punishment. The most 
detailed of the accusations is that brought against 
Israel, which forms a striking culmination of the series. 
The vaguest and least impressive is Judahs, which 
comes next before Israel's, and somewhat spoils its 
effect. ( 2 ) Chaps. 3-6 seem at first sight to contain three 
discourses, each introduced by ' Hear ye this word ' 
and closing with a prediction of national ruin. Upon 
a closer examination, however, none of the ' discourses' 

1 The reason offered for a later date (745-744) by Zeydner 
and Valeton (in Wildebocr, A7/. no) is insufficient. Any 
observer who was not blinded by a fanatical rcllK'ous belief 
could see that the inactivity of Assyria was only temporary, not 
to mention that the year 765 saw the .Assyrians on the northern 
border of Palestine. Resides, the events which accomp.-\nied 
the accession of Tifilath-pileser III. in 74s w'ere of too exciting 
a nature not to have suggested to .Amos a fuller and more precLse 
threatening than we find in his prophecies. 

2 On the former part of this verse see Beth -EDEN and 
AvEN, 3. 

* On 0's readings see KiR. 

* Urschri/l g6/. Torreys hesitation to remove v. a from 
the context which it distorts (J^L, 1894, p. 62 yC) seems very 

5 Schr.'s view of Calneh {COT 2143/ ; HIVB I254) seems 
untenable (see Calnbh). 



proves to hiive more than a semblance of unity. The 
section may be analysed into ten loosely connected 
passages 3i/ 83-8 89-15 41-344/. 46-13 5i-i7* 518-27 
61-768-14. (3) Chaps. 7-9. This is a series of live 

visions, interrupted, first by a short biographical elucida- 
tion of the third vision (7 10-15), and then by a threatening 
address (84-14), and followed by an evidently composite 
discourse, closing with most unexpected promises of the 
regeneration of Judah. 

Now, if this summary is correct, it becomes im- 
possible to maintain the true literary unity of the book. 
More than one editor must have been concerned 
in its arrangement, and the latest editor has had 
considerable difficulty in so disposing his material 
as to produce three portions, each one of a reason- 
able length. Considering that the book of the Twelve 
Minor Prophets comes to us from the post-exilic 
age (see C.\NON, 39), and that the primary object 
of the later editors was not critical accuracy but 

o Ti J. -T edification, we are bound to look out 
8. Ir ost-exilic > ,- , 

. very sharply for post-exilic msertions. 


Such an insertion we find at the very 
outset. The opening verse (I2) has 
been often viewed as the te.xt of the following dis- 
course ; but it seems very ill-adapted for that purpose, 
for the object of the discourse is not to exhibit the 
connection between Yahw^ and a privileged sanctuary, 
but to show that even Israel (which has so many altars 
of Yahwe, 28) shall be punished like the other nations. 
Nor is the elegiac tone of 1 2b at all in harmony with 
the cycle of stern declarations which follows. The 
truth is that 1 2rt is borrowed from Joel 3 [4] 16a, where 
alone the words suit the context, and 1 2b has a close 
phraseological affinity to Joel and other late writings.'* 
It is no argument to the contrary that in 38 Yahw^ is 
said to ' roar ' and that the phrase ' the top of Carmel ' 
is used by Amos in 93 : the editor had naturally made 
some slight study of the language of Amos. The 
reason of the insertion will be clear if we compare 
(a) I9/. with Joel 82-6, {b) In /. with Joel 819, and 
(c) 9 13 with Joel 3[4]i8. These passages can all be 
shown to be late insertions, and 1 2 can be understood 
only in connection with them. 

First, as to (a) and {b) it will be noticed that I9/. 
differs from 16/. only in the substitution of ' Tyre' for 
- , , , y. 'Gaza,' and in the addition of the 
ap. 9/. 11/. ^yQ^jjg_ ^x\d remembered not the 
covenant of brethren.' (Even if, with Winckler, we 
correct ns in v. 9/ into n;>s i.e., the N. Arabian 
Musri [see MiZK-MM], part of the following argument 
is still applicable. ) It seems incredible that Amos 
should have condescended to repeat himself in this 
way, and doubtful whether the early Israelitish prophets 
knew anything about such an act as is imputed to Tyre 
in 1 9. And what can be the meaning of ' the covenant 
of brethren' in Amos's mouth? Many critics, indeed, 
have found in the phrase an allusion to the alliance 
between Solomon and Hiram (RV mg. refers to i K. 5i 
911-14) ; but this was a purely personal connection, and 
lay far back in the past. We might also think of the 
covenant between the kings of Israel and Tyre pre- 
supposed in I K. I631/. ; but would the Elijah-like 
prophet Amos have been the man to recognise this? 
Moreover, this was a personal or family covenant, 
whereas the charge against Edom in In, that he 
'pursued his brother with the sword,' presupposes a 
true national covenant resting on kinship (cp Mai. I2). 

1 Observe that between Am. 615 and 16 something analogous 
to w. 7 10 must have fallen out (jrzi. 8 9 are an interpolation). 
Vv. 14-17 should correspond to 7iv. 4-7 10-13. 

^ Vax metaphorically, as Joel 1 10 ; n'lKJ, as Joel 1 19 / 2 22 ; 
ITT as Joel 1 12. Cp also 1 2/^ as a whole with Jer. 9 [10] 9 23 10 
2537: Is. 339; Nah. 1 4 (all post-exilic passages except the 
first). See Che. Introd. to WRS's i^n Isr. xv./. [Volz. has 
lately expressed the same view (/)/> vorexil. Jah7<ef>ro/etie 
p. i9j/C), which Nowack (A7. Proph., ad loc.) does not refute.] 


This view is confirmed by Obad. 12, where ' in the day 
of thy brother ' implies the same charge that is brought 
against Edom in the words quoted from Am. In. 
Thus, the fault imputed to Tyre is that it co-oijerated 
with Edom in the time of Israel's distress, by making 
raids into Israelitish territory and selling captive 
Israelites to their unnatural 'brethren.' Was there 
ever such a time of distress for Israel between the age 
of David and that of Amos? It is, of course, the 
history of Judah, not that of N. Israel, that we have 
to search, for the claim to the overlordship of Edom 
was maintained by the Davidic family. The answer 
depends primarily on the results of our criticism of 
Chronicles. If we can regard the Chronicler as an 
only slightly prejudiced recorder of old traditions, 
we may believe that the Philistines and Arabians broke 
into and plundered Jerusalem (2 Ch. 21 16/ ), and 
conjecture that Tyrian slave -merchants drew their 
profit from the circumstances. F'urther, if, some time 
before that, the Edomites revolted from Judah and 
defeated King Joram (this, happily, is a fact attested not 
only in 2 Ch. but also in 2 K. 820-22), it is easily con- 
ceivable that Edomitish passion vented itself in a great 
slaughter of fugitive Israelites. Is it worth while, how- 
ever, to defend the integrity of Am. 1 and the accuracy 
of the Chronicler by such a lavish use of conjectures ? 
A prophet such as Amos was could not have fastened on 
such an offence of the Edomites to the exclusion of the 
cruel treatment of I'^domites by Judahites referred 
to in 2 K. 147 (cp 2Ch. 25i2), and we ought not to 
imagine a case of special barbarity in the ninth century 
when there is a well attested one in the sixth. It was, 
in fact, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 that the P3domites, 
who had no such stern moralists as Amos and Isaiah to 
reprove them, filled up the measure of their revenge, to 
the indignation of Jewish writers, who forgot the cruelties 
of their own ancestors. Hence, to explain Am. 1 11-12 
aright, we must refer to Ezek. 25 12 35 5 Is. 84 Obad. 
10-14 Ps. 1377, together with Joel 8[4]i9 ; and, to under- 
stand I9/. , we must compare (besides the passages just 
mentioned) the description of the offence of Tj're in 
Joel 3(4)2-6 (subsidiary evidence for the late date of 
Am. In/, is given below ).' If it be asked, when 
these judgments on Tyre and Edom were inserted, the 
answer is, during (or much more probably after) the 
Exile, at a time when some fresh insult on the part of 
the Edomites reminded Jewish writers of earlier and 
deeper injuries (see Is.MAH, ii. 14). 

Next as to (c). Plainly, Joel 3(4)i8rt is the original of 
Am. 9i3<5. Theopposite view would be inconsistent with 
K Qfi the fact that Am. 9 13(1 is dependent on 
10. Chap. y8-i5. ^j^g j^jg passage Lev. 265 (see Levi- 
ticus). Am. 9 13, however, is not a later insertion in the 
section in which it occurs. From 9n (or rather from 
98) onwards, we are struck by affinities in expression 
or idea to works of the Babylonian and Persian periods, 
and by corresponding divergences from the st)le and 
thought of Amos. "^ That v. 7 cannot have been the 
conclusion of the prophecy is certain ; but we have to 
regard w. 8-15 as a post-exilic substitute for the original 
close. The editor cannot endure the idea of the final 
destruction of the whole house of Israel, and so he 
makes Amos declare in a strangely softened mood that 
only the 'sinful kingdom' [i.e., that of Ephraim) will 
be wiped out, whereas the less guilty Judahites will 

1 Notice (1) the vague description of the offence of Edom. 
Does it consist in the purchase of Israelitish slaves from the Tyrian 
slave-merchants? or in the slaughter of Israelitish fugitives? or, 
more probably, did Edom prove that 'he kept his wrath for 
ever' in both these ways? (2) The mention of ' Teman ' and 
' Bozrah,' which names seem first to occur in Jer. 487 13. Cp 
the threat in 1 12 with that in Obad. 9. 

2 For the evidence, which is singularly strong, see Cheyne, 
'Notes on the Prophets,' Expositor, Jan. 1897, pp. 44-47. On 
Am. 98-15 see also Preuschen, ZATW\h2^.2^ (95); Torrey, 
'Notes on Am. 27 etc.,' JBL 168-172 ('96); T>r'\\er, Joel and 
Amos 120 jff., who vainly endeavours to diminish the force of 
the arguments. 


suffer the milder doom of dispersion among the nations. 
Even this will Ix; only for a time. Israel shall return, 
the old Davidic kingdom shall lie restored, and the 
sweet commonplaces of prophetic idylls shall be fulfilled. 

Now, can we not see the reason of the insertion of the 
opening verse or prologue? It was to assure the post- 
e.xilic readers of Amos that the threats of the prophet 
had long since been fulfilled, and that restored Zion 
should be safe under the care of its lion-like divine 
protector. In other words, Amos was to be read in the 
light of the concluding portion of Joel. The insertion 
of the epilogue (98-15), in which we ought to note the 
reference to Kdom (cp Joel 819), has a similar reason.' 

Here, then, are already four certain |K)st-exilic inser- 
tions. The companion passages now to lje enumerated 
are eciually noteworthy. No .satisfactory ])icture of the 
prophet Amos is possible till we have recognised them. 

Kirst, Am. 2^f> is too deficient in concreteness to 
be the work of Amos, and is, on phraseological 

11. chap. 24/ F""'''' '^''-'' , ^\^' l^"" '"*"^f [ "^^ 

^ '' judgment upon Judah also must be late. 

This is e%-ery way a gain. In particular, we can now 
see lietter how thoroughly Amos was ab.^orlxid in his 
mi.ssion to N. Israel. He cannot perhaps forget Judah ; 
but his native country is only a fragment : the national 
pulse beats most vigorously in Kphraim (cp Is. 98/. 
[7/.]). The post-e.\ilic editor, however, felt the need 
of a distinct reference to the sin and punishment of 
Judah, which he meant to Ije taken in combination 
with the encouraging statements of 1 2 and 9 11-15. 
It was a different feeling which prompted the insertion 

12. chaps. 4 12^13 '^ ^ '3 ^''''^ '''^''''^ * "'' '^. connected) 
rofa f 5 ^f- 9 sf. The conception of God 

'' '' had become deeper and fuller ; the 
germs long ago deposited by the preaching of Amos 
and Isaiah had, through a widened experience, develojjed 
into the rich theology of II. Isaiah and the Hook of 
Job. Not only by the wonders of history but also by 
those of nature was the sole divinity of Yahwe proved, 
and an ordinary reader of .\mos inserted these doxologies 
(as we may call them) to relieve the gloom of the pro- 
phetic pictures. 3 Another such insertion was made 
(according to the text used by ) in Hos. 184. 

We now pass on to .-\m. .'126. The construction and 
rendering of this passage have been much disputed. 
13. chaps. 52662. "" the assumption that Am. 525-27 
was all written by .Amos, it is 
perhaps easiest (see Driver) to render cnurr, ' So ye 
shall take up . . . (Saccuth' your king and Kaiwan 
your god, which ye made for yourselves),' 'nS^ni. 
'and I will carry (you) into exile.''* But how 
unnatural this is ! Nowhere else does the prophet 
mention an inclination of the Israelites to the worship 
of Assyrian gods, and the carrying of .Assyrian gods by 
Israelites into Assyria is a very strange feature in a 
threat. Hence the whole verse is more than probably 

1 There are similar interpolations in Hosea {e.g., I7 1 io-2 i 
[2i-3]and the words' D.-ivid their king 'in 3 5). See Hosea, 4. 

i' Cp 2 K. IO15, Deiiteronomistic. Critics on the other side 
quote Is. 624; Hos. 2 2 [4]; Ex. 18 16 ; Deut. 30io; but they 
do not meet the argument from weakness of style, and produce 
no parallel for the second part of the description of Judah's sin. 
Moreover, the two Pentateuch pas.sages are not in point. Nor 
have critics realised the consequences of admitting the post -exilic 
origin of the prophetic books in their present form. 

3 The style is that of II. Isaiah .and the later poets (cp Stickel, 
Hiob p. 276), not that of Amos. The strings of participles 
remind us of Is. 40 22./: ; Job 12 17-24 ; Zech. 12 i ; D.-in. 221/ 
Notice also ((13 (cp Cheyne, /nt. Isa. xxi. 252), 'nsa^Sj; Tn 

pK, no'D, S'Ds, mo'^'i-, j'Saa, mSvo nj3n. In 95 nixasn ''- 

violates the us.ige of Amos (but cp (P). The ideas are equally 
late, though they are such as .\mos, he met with them, 
would have owned. Inter alia, comn. the third descrip- 
tive phr.-ise in 4 13 with Ps. 13!t 2. It is prob.-ible that bif. 
originally stood after 413. Am. fls/, however, presumably 
retains its original position. 

On the text see, besides the comment.iries, N. Schmidt, 
JBL, 1894, p. I _/?: ; Torrey. ib. p. 61 ; WRS .-ind Che., 
Profih. Isr.i'ii y^ff.\ G. Hoffmann, ;?^ /"/r 3 112/ : Tiele, 
Gesch. van het godsdienst 315. On the construction see Dr. 
in Smith, /?5(2) 122 (art. Amos). 

513-15 629 


a later insertion, which took th<; place of a passage 
that had become illegible. The case of Is. 104rf 
seems exactly parallel (see SHOT, ad U>c.). Whether 
or no Succoth-iienoth, the name of a god in 2 K. 17 30, 
contains the divine name .Saccuth,' we may suppose that 
the writer of the inserted passage merely antedates a 
worship introduced into .Samaria by the Babylonian 
colonists after 722 .< . The awkwardness of the con- 
nection need not surprise us (this against Konig, Synt. 
368 (^) ; the 1 in cnKrji is simply the Waw explica- 
tivitm so often prefixed to glosses. Render, ' That is, 
ye carried in procession ' ; cp Is. 45 20. See Chiun A.nd 


Am. 62, another insertion, has been treated of 
already (see 6 \b\f. We pass on to 8811/ Verse 8 
. . , o 1 is not at all suitable as a description of 

r 'P^' '4 jj^g threatened punishment (see We., 
Nowack). The comparison with the 
Nile recurs in an interpolated verse 
(95). Passing on, we note that v. 13 speaks of literal 
thirst (suggested by the mention of the festivals in 
V. 10) ; but in v. 11 the hunger and thirst are meta- 
phorical. Verses 9/. 13/. announce a sudden cata- 
strophe; but in V. II f. a lengthened time of misery is 
descritied. The passage is clearly late, and is parallel to 
Is. 820/. (partly late). The silence of prophecy is 
spoken of as a sore trial in Ps. 74 9. Other probable 
late insertions are 814^513-15 (cp Mic. 76), and the 
expression Tn^ in 65 (see David, 13) ; and 69/ is 
at any rate misplaced. To these it is plausible to add 
the reference to ' those who are at ease in Zion ' in 6 i 
(but it may he better to correct p's into ,-ii-in ; so Che. 
/(^A' 10573) I also 87, which, as Duhm points out, may 
be a gloss on v. Z ; certainly it interrupts a noble 
passage {v. 8 for K33' read nnn- with We. , or, much better, 
3K3'). The last insertion is 98-15 (see 10). 

After these insertions have been removed, may we 

safely suppose that the rest of the book represents what 

IB Pre exilic '^""o^ ^''^''^' '" P"^''ic ? No : the analogy 


of the prophecies of Isaiah makes such 

a supposition highly improbable. Let 
us be content with knowing that we have a truthful 
record of the prophetic certainties of .Amos, even though 
he did not always utter them in public. The manner 
and the contents of the passages into which the true 
Book of Amos falls must he our guide in determining 
the class (whether that of public or of private prophecies) 
to which they severally belong. It is both inherently 
difl^cult and contrary to analog)' to suppose that 1 2- 
2 16 was ever really uttered ; at any rate, l2-'J6,7 s is 
more adapted to produce an effect on readers than on 
hearers. Nor can we possibly imagine that the visions 
in chaps. 7-9 were used by the prophet as texts of spoken 
addresses ; passages from discourses are no doubt here 
and there introduced, but they come from the arranging 
hand of the editor of this part. 

It is a further question whether the arrangement of 
the different sections may be due to .Amos himself. In 
answering it we must leave sufficient room for the f^rmvih 
of the book. It is not unreasonable to suppose that on 
his expulsion from Bethel the prophet paid a visit (per- 
haps a second visit; cp6i) to Jerusalem, and there 
'noted' his prophecies 'in (on) a book for a later 
day' (Is. 808), when the judgment upon Israel should 
have been .accomplished. There, too, he may have 
committed his record (enriched with some never-spoken 
prophetic certainties) to the custody of those ' disciples ' 
of Yahwe and of his prophets (see Is. 816), who l)egan 
the long succession of students and editors of the re- 
ligious literature. In their hands we may suppose that 
the book assumed by degrees its present form. .At any 
rate, a written record of .Amos must have become 
quickly known ; for Isaiah, it is clear, steeped himself in 
the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly 

1 So Del. Par. 21s/., but see Succoth-Benoth. 


original genius. To Hosea, however, such a record 
cannot be proved to have Ix-cn known (see We. on Hos. 
814 4 IS IO58) : in other words, the circulation of Amos's 
prophecies was, originally at least, confined to Judah. 
The latest editor of the book, as we have seen, was 

A special interest attaches to the description of the 
visions, together with the historical interludes in chaps. 
7-9, partly because they exhibit the growth of Amos's 
prophetic certainty resj^ecting the fall of Samaria, and 
partly because, like Is. 6 7 1-8 18, and 20 (in their 
original form), they appear to come from a partly 
biographic, partly prophetic, work, written or dictated 
by the prophet himself. 

Some have been surprised to find 'a plain country- 
man ' like Amos possessed of such a refined and yet 
. , vigorous style.* They forget that the 
16. ^niOS S differences of culture in the East are still 
^ sometimes comparatively trifling, and that 
a man of low rank may express himself with considerable 
elegance. It is still more in point to remark that the 
most classic Arabic poems are the work of men who 
had a calling similar to that of .Amos, while, even 
under the new Moslem empire, sons of the desert were 
wont to appear at court and win a rich guerdon by the 
finished style of their improvisations. Such critics have 
also forgotten the opportunities of self-culture which, both 
at Tekoa and elsewhere, Amos must have enjoyed ; and 
when even G. Baur and Ewald point to certain ' sole- 
cisms in pronunciation and orthography ' as evidences of 
provincialism, it may be replied that the errors in ques- 
tion may reasonably be ascribed to late copyists.- That 
Amos delights in images drawn from nature is clearly 
no fault (see, e.g., 2934/812519, and the first, second, 
and fourth visions). Only one of them is distinctively 
the comparison of a shepherd (812) ; and Amos is just 
as willing to speak of wonders of which he knows only 
by hearsay such as the giant cedar trees (29), and (if 
the text be correct) the inundation of the Nile (88) or 
of which he has a true Israelitish dread such as an 
earthquake or a solar eclipse (88/), or the mysterious 
sea which yields no harvest (G12; cp arpvyeTos), and 
which somewhere hides the terrible serpent of primitive 
mythology (93 ; see Skri'knt, 3/ ). It is a pity that, 
for reasons already given, we cannot speak of Amos as 
a sympathetic observer of the sky* fhat is an essential 
characteristic of a much later poet (see Job). As a 
literary craftsman he ranks high. In 1 3-2:6 we have a 
literary prophecy, which, until .\mos forgets his art in his 
grief at the manifold offences of Israel, is marked by great 
regularity of structure. .So in 46-ii we have the literary 
model of an equally symmetrical passage in Isai.ah (Is. 
98-21 [7-20] 526-30 10 1-4), and in 62 we have a short 
but strictly rhythmical elegy. .Altogether, the Book of 
D crrpft of -^'"^^ forms a literary as well as a pro- 

"cinaditv P'^*^'"'^ phenomenon. It is true that 
orig y. ^^Yx as a writer and as a speaker he 

must have had models ; J and E were, of course, not the 
only writers of the pre-Amosian period, and Elijah and 
Elisha (of whose doings a faint echo has reached us) 
were not the only prophetic reformers (.Am. 2 11/ 87). 
There is no occasion, however, to suppose that there were 
prophets of precisely .Amos's type before him prophets 
who had exactly his conception of their duties, and 
were also, in a qualified sense, writers. It would be a 
mistake to infer, from Amos's use of formula, that he 
was acquainted with earlier written prophecies. Pro- 
phetic formulae could be transmitted by word of mouth 

1 Against Jerome's application of Paul's self- depreciating 
language in a Cor.ll 6 to Amos sec Lowth, Prerlect. 21 (Lectures, 
ET,2 97/). 

2 Take, e.g., pn^*' ("9) for P"^'. The same form occurs in 
Jer. 3326, Ps. 1059, l)oth post -exilic passages. In 5 11 0P13 
is not a ' dialect form ' for doi3 \ the scribe wrote x! by an error, 
and then corrected it by writing o- Read simply nn with We. 

3 GASm. (HG 3.5). 


as well as by the pen. That Amos had left Tekoa at 
intervals before his prophetic call is not only inherently 
probable, but also follows from such a passage as 87/ (if 
correct), which .Amos could hardly have written unless he 
had had the most vivid and direct ocular evidence of the 
effects of a true prophetic impulse even before his own 
turn came to receive one. His originality is shown, 
not only in his prophetic message, but also in his being 
(probably) the first to conceive the idea of using the \>&\\ 
in aid of the voice. The /Jra-literature of the priests 
had already taken a considerable development (Hos. 
812); Amos was, it appears, the first prophet who 
followed the exanipie of the literary priests. The im- 
portance of this step it was Ijeyond his i)ower to esti- 
mate. Within a generation h.; expected Israel as a 
nation to disappear ; but he thought it worth while to 
gather disciples who, like himself, could praise Yahwe 
even in the midst of ruin ; and, after all, who could tell 
but Yahw6 might have some other secret to reveal to 
one of these to a Hosea or to an Isaiah ? See 18. 

That Amos's message is a gloomy one is in accord- 
ance with his conception of the divine character. In 

18. Pessimism. ''" ^f 'I'^'^J^'^' ^^e divine purpose 
could not be one of peace, though 
it required an immense devotion to Yahwe to be able 
to declare, seemingly unmoved, that He purposed the 
complete destruction of Israel (or, as we should say, of 
Israel and Judali). In spite of the universal scepticism 
which meets him (for how, it is said, can Yahwe be con- 
ceived of apart from his people?), .Amos persists in his 
message, and even conceives the possibility that legend- 
ary supernatural agencies may be used to make the 
destruction more complete (93). It is not, therefore, 
open to us to account for the confidence of Amos simply 
by the advance of the Assjxian power. He does, indeed, 
regard Assyria as the chief destructive agent (614 7 17) ; 
but Assyria, when Amos spoke and wrote, was passing 
through a period of decline ; consequently his conviction 
must have some other ground which naturally sharpens 
his eyes for the still present danger from Assyria. 
To this it must be added that, according to Amos, it 
would be easy for A'^ahwe, if the agency of Assyria 
were not available, to bring some other hostile nation 
from some corner of the earth, just as he ' brought 
up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arama^ns 
from Kir' (97). The real ground of Amos's prophetic 
fjessimism is the increasingly unsound religious con- 
dition of his people. He may very possibly have ad- 
mitted that there were fifty or at least ten Israelites 
who lived by the same pure religion as himself ; but 
he could not conceive of Yahw^'s saying, ' I will not 
destroy the land for ten's sake. ' The righteous must, 
according to him, suffer with the wicked (9 10 was in- 
serted to correct this idea), though he might perhaps 
have left a door of hop>e open for those who, like him- 
self and his disciples, had close personal contact with 
the true God : the nation might perish ; but when this 
had happened, God nught have some secret purpose for 
those who ' knew ' him. 

Of this vague hope we hear nothing from Amos 
(cp Isaiah). What the popular religion was, we 
know but too well. Whatever the nobler minds 
may. have believed, 'the mass of the people,' as 
Robertson Smith well says, ' still thought of Him as 
exclusively concerned with the affairs of Israel,' and the 
connection between Yahwe and Israel had a non-moral,, basis. Ritual tended to make morality almost 
superfluous, and by its increasing costliness actually 
promoted that injustice and inhumanity which Yahw^ 
abhorred. There were also immoral superstitions at 
which Amos glances less (see 27) than Hosea. To this 
19 Idea of P^''"''^'0"s system the religion of Amos 
Ood '^ diametrically opposed. Once, at any 

rate, he uses the striking title, ' Yahwe, 
the God of the Hosts' (627 is admittedly a genuine 
passage) i.e., the God of celestial as well as earthly 



legions together with ' the Lord Yahwi ' (perhaps nine- 
teen times), in antithesis to tlic nationalistic expression, 
' Yahwir, the God of Israel.' The Vahwe whom he 
himself worshipped was, in virtue of his perfect moral 
nature, the Sovereign alike of nature and of nations. 
Amos had not, indeeil, fathonicd the depths of this 
conception as had the Second Isaiah and the author 
of Job (.\m. 4i3 and the parallel passages are later 
insertions : see alx)ve, 12) ; but he is already to 
all intents and purposes an ethical monotheist, and 
his conviction of the impending destruction of Israel 
does but intensify his sense of the majesty of the one 
Gotl. He does not, indeed, reject the old belief in the 
connection lx:t\veen Yihwe and Israel altogether (cp 
7 15 "my people Israel'): he moralises it. For some 
wise object, Yahwe brought Israel out of Egypt (3i S>7), 
and enteretl into a [XMsonal moral relation to it ; but his 
will, at any rate, is not unknown to the other nations, and 
their history is equally uiuler his direction. Once, in- 
deed, under the stress of moral passion, Amos even 
places the ' sons of Israel ' on a level w ith the ' sons of 
the Cushites'- ; this occurs near the end of his prophecy 
(y?), and is evidently intended as a final wiiiulrawal of a 
temporary and conditional privilege. It is not, how- 
ever, on all the nations of the earth, but only on those 
which are in close pro.ximity to Israel, that judgment is 
pronounced by Amos, as the spokesman of Yahw6 ; he 
aims at no theoretic consistency. These nations are to 
suffer the same doom as Israel at the hand of Assyria, 
b<_'cause they, like Israel, have violated the unwritten 
law of justice and humanity. [Thus we can divine 
Amos's free attitude towards the lately written cthico- 
religidus priestly laws (see I'2xoi)US, 3). He is prob- 
ably acquainted with such laws (28 ; cp Ex. 2225/. ) ; but 
he docs not recognise them as of primary authority, for 
lie nowhere appeals to them.'] And if by many favours, 
including the crowning favour of prophecy (2ii), Yahwe 
has made himself specially known to the Israelites, it 
follows that he will judge Israel more strictly than he 
will judge the other nations (3 12). As a faithful friend, 
Amos assures his people that if they would only ' seek ' 
the true Yahw^ they would 'live' (5414) :.c., would 
escape captivity and enjoy prosjx;rity in their own land 
(cp Hos. 62/). He has no ho|>e, however, that they 
will do so : the false pojiular religion is loo deeply rooted. 
Indeed, Am. 5 has been so much interfered with by 
editors that it is doubtful whether vv. 4 14 can l>e 
appealed to as authorities on such a point ; ?. 14, at all 
events, appears to belong to an inserted section (see 

It is not idolatry that Amos complains of. When he 
says, ironically, 'Go to Bethel and transgress' (44), he 

20. Denuncia- "''"^"f' ^' ^'^ expressly tells us, ' Carr>' 
. . out the prescriptions of jour wilfully 

devised ritual law. ' Nor can we venture 
to say that a protest against the ' golden calves ' is im- 
plied,* for no prophet is more explicit than Amos in 
mentioning the sins of his people. The two passages 
in which a reproof of Israelitish idolatry does apjjear to 
occur are certainly interpolations. In 814, for ' the sin 
of Samaria"' we should read 'the god of Bethel' (cp 
Gen. 31 13), in parallelism to 'thy god (t;',^Sn), O Dan,' 
and ' thy patron (read ;;-it with W'i. and see Uod), 
O Beersheba,' and the whole of 526 is a later insertion, 

1 'Thy Cod (O Israel)' is put into Amos's mouth by a later 
editor (4 12/' ; see atiove, 12). 

'^ Who these Cushites are, is uncertain (see Ci SH i. 8 2 A). 
Apparently they had recently experienced some calamity. 

* Here he contrasts with Hosea, who clearly invests the 
written tlirflth which arose in certain priestly circles with primary 
authority (Hos. 8 12). Perhaps, as Duhm suggests, Hosea was 
himself a priest. 

.So Davidson {Expositor, 1887 (i), p. 175). To .say that 
Amos docs not protest against the 'golden calves,' is of course 
not 10 assert that he thinks them worthy syml>ols of Yahwfe. Cp 
St. Gl'f 1 579; WRS, /'n>//. 575/ 

"The text appears to have been altered^ by the same editor 
who inserted the reference to ' the two iniquities ' in Hos. 10 10. 



I and is not true to the facts of the age of Amos (see 
above, 12). What Amos most vehemently denounces 
I is sacrifice. One may perhaps be tempted to suppose 
j that he says more than he means, and that he docs not 
object to sacrifices altogether, but only to the Ix-'lief that 
when duly performed they can change the mind of the 
Deity. His language, however, seems too strong to Xx: 
I thus explained away, especially when we find him ap- 
: pealing in support of his statement to the fact that in 
the olden time, when Yahwe w;is so near to Israel, no 
sacrifices were offered (625). Is there, then, no form 
of worship in which ^'ahwe delights? None, except 
the practice of righteousness i.e., justice and humanity 
(see 021 24). liut, alas, the Israelite will not recognise 
this. Pilgrims who are wholly indifferent to plain 
moral duties crowd to the sanctuaries of Bethel and 
Gilgal, and even to the far-off southern shrine of Beer- 
sheba' (55 814, cp Hosea4i5), and parade their devo- 
tion to the different local forms of Yahwe in i)ious 
o;iths, as if the true Yahwe could Ije pleased with the 
offerings or the oaths of such worshippers. How 
painful will be the awakening from this moral sleei), 
when the greatest of all realities makes its existence 
known, annihilating at one blow the sanctuaries of 
Israel and their worshippers (9i)! Such was the an- 
nouncement of the shepherd of Tekoa. 

21. Estimate 

Taken in connection with the ideas on 

which it is based, it seems to justify us 
I in calling him a surprising phenomenon. 'Ihat the 
phenomenon can be partly explained there is no doubt. 
Neither Amos nor his special follower Isaiah is so 
entirely abnormal a product as an unthinking study of 
the works of either might suggest (see rKoi'Hixv). 
But not the most comprehensive study of the history of 
Israel will altogether account for their appearance. And 
if they neither of them saw the whole truth, and lx)th 
needed the correction of history and of later prophets 
and sages, we may still pay them the reverence which 
belongs to those who first uttered great moral and 
religious truths with the power that lx;longs to God- 
possessed men. 

See references in art. and cp also We. Die kleinen Prophcten 

(for a corrected text), 1892, and his Hist. 0/ Isr. and Juii. KT, 

. , 1891, pp. 81-E6 ; WR.S Proph. A.(2) 120-143, 194. 

22. Special 401; l)r.,art. ' Amos,' /JAV-'i (with full biblio- 

helps. graphy) ; also /<)(/ atui Amos (Camhr. I'ible), 

1897 ; Duhm, Die Tluol. ti. Pto/>li., 1875, pp. 

109-125; Smend, Alt-test. Ki/.-gcsch., 1893, pp. 159-188; \\ i. 

C/ <)\ff.\ Oort (on the home of Amos, and on tlie genuineness of 

413589956), Th.T, 1891, pp. 121-126; G. Hoffmann (on the 

text of Amos), ZA7II', 1883, pp. 87-126; Schmidt, y/f/,, 1894, 

Fp. 1-15; (j.VSm., Tivelve Prophets \(i\--i\o\ Nowack, AV. Pr. 
97] (thorough and judicious). T. K. c. 

2. .Vmos (.\|xa>f [XBCD]) is the best supported reading in 
Mt. 1 to, where, however, King Anion (^.T'.) is plainly intended ; 
so TR and EV. It is a constant variation in ah. 

3. An ancestor of Joseph, Mary's husband (Lk. 825 [BKA]). 
On the two lists see Ge.nealogies ok Ji:sls. 

AMOZ (pDX, 57. ' strong' ; amcoc [BNAOQFL], 
AMM. [A in 2K. 192 20 1 Is. 372]; amos), father of 
I.S.\I.\H, I (Is. li A/V\OCrGIN] = AMOC HN [N*"''], 2O2 
[NAQ om.], 2 Ch. 2622 [BA oin.]). 

AMPHIPOLIS (AMcjJinoAiN [Ti. WH], ttoAin 
[N*]). one of the most important }K)sitions in northern 
Greece ; it stands on a Ijend of the river Strynion, 
between the lower end of lake Cercinitis and the head of 
the Strymonic gulf, thus commanding the pass leading 
from the east into Macedonia ( Li v. 45 30). Consequently 
it was a station on the ]'ia l-.i^iatia, ' the great military 
road which ran through Macedonia and connected 
Rome with the Hellespont' (Cic. De fnn: cons. 2 
4). Paul, therefore, ' passed through ' Amphipolis 

' Hal. thinks that a northern Beer-sheba (perhaps Beeroth) is 
intended (A'A/ 11 72-77) ; but if Klijah went on pilgrimage to 
Horeb, which was not even in Palestine, why should not N. 
Israelites have gone to a venerated spot in S. Israel? n3^ is 
precisely the right word to use of a sanctuary across the border 
(cp 6 2). 



on his %v;iv Irom Philippi to Thessalonica (SioSfVffavrfs, 
Acts 17 it). 

The site was intimately connected with some of the most 
interesting passages in Greek history ; but it would he a mistake 
to imagine that the apostle or his companions cither knew or 
caicd for these things. It is now Ntochori. [l.cake, North. 
6>. 3i8i/.) w. J. w. 

AMPLIAS. or rather as in RV Ampliatus (AAAnXr- 
ATOC ["' ^^'H]), saluted as ' my lieloved in the Lord' 
(Rom. 168t) ; not otherwise known. 

The name was not unfrcquently borne by slaves. In the 
list of the seventy disciples (Pscudo-I)orotheus) Aniplias is 
represented as having been bishop of Odessus or Odyssus (on 
the Hlack Sea, near the site of the modern Varna). 

AMRAM (D"ipy, 77, ' in good condition ' ? or, 'the 
[(li\ ino] kinsman is e.xalted ' ; AMBpAM [BL ; A in Ex. 
Nu.J, AMp. [.VF; Bin Xu.]). 

1. b. Kohath, head of a Levitical subdivision, and 
father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Ex. G 1820 ; Nu. 3 19 
a/x^pa/x [-M"]. -/3pa;'[L]; 2658/ i Ch. 62 [628]) ; from 
him come the Amramites (dt.cV'^ ^'"- 32?, a/ipafxeis 
[B], a/xjipaa/x' fis [.\], -pan' j [K], -pav eis [L] ; i Ch. 
2623, a/J-pa/j-i [.\J). -See Licvi. 

2. One of the b'ne Hani, 2, in list of those with foreign wives 
(KZRA i. 8 5 end) Ezra 10 34 (fiapleli [H], an^pa/oi [N], aixppaiJi 
(cat (.\l.l)=iEsd.!>34 Omakkus, RV Ismaickus (jxaripo'; [15], 
i(r/0L. [.\], aiipafi [L]). See Ezka, ii. g 14 /'. 

3. I Ch. 1 41 (["ran), RV Hamkan. See Hemdan. 

AMRAPHEL (^a^PS ; amap^&A [ADEL] ; Jos. 
'Afxapa ^I'iSrjs), king of Shinar ((}en. 14 i 9!) = Ham- 
murabi, king of Babylon, who, according to trustworthy 
cuneiform data, may have flourished about 2250 n.c. 
This assumes that iBiZH is corrupted from "msn or ( Lindl, 
Savce) sk ^-cn ; but sec Ciikdori.aomkk ( 4/), 
and op Schr. COT 2299/:; Hommel, Ji.4(? 169, .-I'/fT 
193; Wi. JOF iJ,3f.\ Bezold, FSBA 1188 ['88]. 
Targ. Jon. ingeniously, if uncritically, identifies Am- 
raphel with Nimrod, who 'commanded Abram to 
be cast into the furnace.' If the identification with 
Hammurabi be accepted, we may be reminded that 
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar delighted to imitate 
this founder of Babylonian greatness, both in his 
building plans and in his niclliods of administration 
(see B.\BVI,0.\'IA, 66, and cp Rogers, Outlines of Early 
Dab. Hist. 27-30). It m.ay be that some Jewish 
favourite at the Babylonian court, who had received a 
Babj'lonian education (Sanabassar or Sheshbazzar for in- 
stance note the Babylonian name), heard Hammurabi 
spoken of. and made historical notes from cuneiform 
tablets on events which had happened ' in the days of 
Amraphel,' also that one of these was adopted by later 
writers as the basis of a Midrash on Abraham and 
Melchizedek. On the other hand, those who identify 
NiMKOi) (</. J'. ) with Nazi-maraddas (Nazi-maruttas) may 
incline to think that the setting of contemporary history 
may be derived from an early pre-exilic traditional 
source, though the narrative in its present form is un- 
doubtedly the production of post-exilic writers. The 
latter view is the more difficult one, but not therefore 
to be hastily rejected. Cp Lehmann, Z~wci Haupt- 
probleme der altoricnt. Chronologic (1898) 84, and see 
Abr.\h.\m, 4, Chkuoki-.xomkr (g 2, 4 end), H.\m 
(i. ), Mki.cmizeukk ( 2), Sh.weh, i. t. k. c. 

AMULETS is the RV rendering of fiha^im. D^'t^'n'?, 
Is. 820, a word used elsewhere of any charm (Is. 83, 
C'n? p33 , RV ' skilful enchanter' not 'eloquent orator ' 
or ' skilful of sjxiech ' as in ,\V and AV mg. ), or, more 
specifically, of a charm against serpents (Jer. 8 17 I'ccles. 
lOii). In Is. 820 some sort of female ornament is 
meant, most probably earrings (so .\V), which seem 
to be treated as idolatrous in Gen. 354. Doubtless, as 
WR.S suggests ( ' Divination and Magic ' in /. Phil. 
14 122 ['85]), the amulet is worn in the ear to prevent 
an incantation from taking effect. Among early 



peoples amulets and ornaments are closely connected 
(cp We. Heid.'^^ 165). When the early significance 
of the protective power of the object is forgotten it 
serves as a simple adornment.' The Syr. equivalent 
kfdilM is proix;rly ' a holy thing,' and the same idea is 
seen in the occurrence of the root in the old Yemenite 
htdts, 'pearls'; cp WRS Rel. Sem.i^) 453; and see 
M.\Gic, 3 (3). cp also Ring, 2. 

AMZI (*VPX, 52, perhaps abbrev. from Amaziah). 

1. In the genealogy of Ethan : i Ch. O46 [31] (afie<r(rta [B], 
fLataaia [.\], atiaaia (L]). See also Lkvi. 

2. In genealogy of .\daiah, 3, the priest (see Malchijah, 3); 
Neh. 11 12 (ajia(r(e]i [H.X], -<riou (Lj, o/xco-art [K]), omitted, how- 
ever, in the il i Ch. 9 12. 

ANAB (23J?. ANCOB [AL]). a hill-town of Judah, 
Josh. 1050 (anoon [B], anaB [L]), one of the seats of 
the Anakim ; Josh. II21 (anaBcoG [f^D- I' is doubt- 
less to be connected with Hinianabi (3jj'-['v), mentioned 
in Am. Tab. 237, 26 with M.ngdali (see Migdai.-G.\d) 
and other cities of the land of Gar (.SW. Judah). There 
is still a place of the name ('Andb) on the west side 
of the Wady el-Khalil, about 14 miles to the SW. of 
Hebron, and 4 or 5 m. W. from Shuweikeh (Rob. BR 
2 159 ; so P E.Mem. 8392/ ). See also Anub. 

ANAEL (anahA [BXA], i.e., ^N33i^, Hananeel). 
brother of Tobit and father of ACHIACHARUS (Tob. I21). 
See also Aman. 

ANAH (njy, meaning uncertain, cp Gray, HPN 
no ; ANA [B.ADEL]), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36). 
As the text stands the descent of Anah is represented 
in three ways. Anah is 

1. Daughter of Zibeon(aiva'[L]), \nvv. 214, 'Hivite' 
in V. 2 being obviously an old error of the text for 
' Horite.' 

2. .Son of Seir and brother of Zibeon, v. 20 {a.i.vav 
[L]), I Ch. l38(A'a^[L]). 

3. Son of Zibeon, v. 24 bis (ojvav [.AD], atcac [L], 
uva [E], uvas [AE]), also i Ch. 140/. (^uvav [B], wvafj. 
[A ; T'. 41 ova], avav [L]), 25 bis 29. 

The first of these may, however, safely be disregarded. 
'Daughter of Zibeon' is a variant (based on v. 24) of 
' daughter of Anah ' (dependent on w. 20 25), which has 
intruded into the text ( so Di. , Kau. ). As to ( 2 ) and ( 3 1 , 
the differences of statement need not surprise us, for 
the genealogy only symbolises tribal relations. Anali 
was originally a sub-clan of the clan called Zibeon, and 
both alike were ' sons of Seir ' i.e. , Horites. A twofold 
tradition, therefore, could easily arise. The ' mules ' 
which, from v. 24 AV, Anah would appear to have 
' found in the wilderness ' are an invention of the Mid- 
rash, some Rabbis explaining cc" (lafifiv [ADE], 
eafiiv [L]) by ijfj.lovos, others by tj/ulktv {Her. rabba, 
par. Ixxxii. ). The ' hot springs ' of Vg. and RV are 
purely conjectural ; the word cc'.ri is evidently corrupt. 
As Ball points out (SDOT Gen. crit. notes, 93), it 
may have come in from v. 22 (cp'rr). In -^v. 2 14 and 
18 (where ael omits), Anah is called the father of 
Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. See Bashemath. 

T. K. c. 

ANAHARATH (JTinJX ; peHpcoG k. ANAxepeG 
[B], P6NAG K. AppANeG [A], AancrgG [L]), -1 site 
on the border of IssACiiAR (Josh. 19 19)!. The reading 
seems corrupt (note the conflate readings of ^"A). 
Perhaps we should read mrnx and identify with 
'Arrdneh, a village on rising ground in the plain of 
Esdraelon, a little northward of Jenin ( = En-gannim). 
So Schenkel's Bib.-Lex. and Riehms NIVBC^) (after 

Knobel's alternative view (adopted from de Saulcy by Conder) 
identifies Anaharath with en-Na fira, which is not far from Iksal 
(Chesulloth)and .S,-,l."in\ (Shunem), and is therefore not altogether 
unsuitable, but somewhat remote from every attested form of the 
ancient name. 

1 For analogies cp Cuttings of the Flesh. 



ANAIAH (n;3y, 33. -Yahwi has answered'; 
ANANia(c> L'*^-^'']> *hus identifying the name with 

1. In list of Ezra's supporters (sec Ezra, ii. f i^f. ; cp i. | 8) 
at ihe reading of the law (Neh. 84 = 1 Esti.043 Ananias, 4). 

2. Signatory to the covenant ; Neh. 1022 [23J (Ata [B] ; Acaia 
[An'I). See EZKA, i. 7. 

ANAK. See Anakim. 

ANAKIM kV ; W , less correctly, Anakims (D^pjr ; 
aiul D'pjrn ; in Targg. generally rendered N*^33 
' giants '-.'eNAKLellMCBAFL], but -n [l-'"Dt. 'iio]'; 

The Anakim are mentioned in Dt. '2ioyC2i Josh. ll2xyC 
14 12 15 Jer. 475 ((B"Kaij; Heb. reads 'of their valley'); else- 
where called 'sons of Anak ' (?:>', ivolk [BAL]) Nu. 1823 {tvax 
IBFl) ; Dt. 92/* and (MT ' sons of the Anak ') Josh. 15 14a ; Judg. 

1 20 ; 'sons of the Anakim,' l)t. 1 28) uioi yfyofTtoi/ (BALJ) 92a 
(viol 'Y.vaK) ; ' the children CT'?:)of Anak ' (MT ' the Anak ') Nu. 
1323a 28 ((va\ (B), ai.v(LK [A]), Josh. 15 14^. The phrases are 
ex.ictly parallel to ' Rephaim ' and 'children of the Kapha' (see 
Rki'haim); indeed in Dt. "in a writer of the Deuteronomic 
school, ' interested in history and archaeology ' (Kue.), makes 
the .Anakim a branch of the Rephaim. 

These and other descriptive terms (which are not to 
be mistaken for race-names) are given at any rate to 
some portions of the pre-Israelitish pojjulation of 
Palestine, whoni, like the Amorites, tradition endowed 
with colossal height (cp Nu. ]333).^ On the inhabitants 
of Palestine generally see C.\NAAN. 

.According to Josh. 11 21 (D.^), the .Anakim were to Ijc 
found in the mountains about Hebron, in the fenced 
cities Debir and .Anab, and, in general, in the mountains 
of Judah and Israel, whence Joshua and Israel drove 
them out. Verse 22 also states that a remnant of them 
survived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and 
Ashdod (cpjer. 47$ ; oi KaraXonroi fi>aK(ifi[Bi<AQ], 
where MT has 'the remnant of their valley'). The 
oldest narrator, however, gives the credit of their expul- 
sion to Caleb, who drove out from Kirjath-arba the 
three sons of .Anak : Sheshai, Ahinian, and Talmai i.e. , 
the three triljes or clans which bore those names (Josh. 
1514). The editor of Judg. 1, quoting this passage, 
refers the deed to the tribe of Judah {v. 10) ; see 
Hkhkon. In later times, a too literal interpretation of 
'sons,' and genealogical interest, led to the transforma- 
tion of .Anak, and what is still stranger of Arba' 
('four') in the place-name Kirjath-arba, into personal 
names. Thus .Anak (virtually a personal name where 
it has the article) becomes father of .SuKSH.M, .Ahiman 
( I ), and Tai.mai ( i ), and son of Kirjath-arba ; cp Josh. 
21 II (MT piji-rt), 1513/ Judg. lio {evafji [A]). 

The proof of this is supplied by bal, which in Josh. 15 13 
21 II instead of ' father of Anak ' has fxrjTpdiroAii' [Tuif] tuax. 
This no doubt represents the original text, which stated that 
Kirjath-.-irba, or Hebron, was .^n important city (a ' mother,' cp 

2 S. 2O19) of the Anakim. A later scribe, prepared to find a 
genealogical notice and therefore surprised to find the word 
'mother' in apposition to Arba, altered 'mother' (CN) into 
'father' ('an). Thus he obtained the statement that Hebron 
was the city of one Arba, who was the father of '(the) Anak.' 
In Josh. 14 15, however, lie took a different course. 'I'he true 
reading must be that of (EJHal which gives (ne.-irly as in the 
parallel pass,iges) n-oAtt ap/3 ([L], ap^o [A], opyojS [B]), fiTjrpo- 
no\i^ TUiv ei'aKle]in auTij. For this the scribe substituted 'the 
city of .Arba, the greatest man among the An.ikim.' The con- 
sequence was that Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talm.-ii (the three 
Anakites mentioned in Josh. 15 14) became, literally, 'sons of 
(the) Anak,' and grandsonsof Arba no contemptible acquisition 
for genfcalogists. So virtually Schleusner|(lhes., j.z/. /uujTpo- 
iroAn); but see especially Moore, Judges 2x /. Cp also 
Sclnv.illy, Z.l Tir, 1898, p. 139^ T. K. c. 

ANAMIM (0*03^), one of the peoples of Mizraim, 
Gen. 10 13 = I Ch. 1 nf ; unidentified. See GEOGRAPHY, 

ANAMMELECH {r\hjp;]}, anhmcAex [B]. amh- 
[A] ; om. L ; (.i3*^A.V. ; Auamelech), a Babylonian 

J Anak, 'long-necked' (St. and most), or 'those with neck- 
laces' (KIo.), with which cp Heb. 'dndk, 'a chain for the neck,' 
Aram, 'unak, Ar. 'unk, ' neck.' 

11 161 


deity, whose worship was carried by the Sepharvites 
into Samaria when, along with the inhabitants of other 
Babylonian cities, they were transplanted thither by 
Sargon. As in the case of the kindred deity Adramnie- 
lech (see, however, .AUKA.M.MHl.Kcii, i), the worship of 
Ananmielech was accompanied by the rite of human 
sacrifice (2 K. I731). The name Anammelech is 
probably to be explained" as Anu-malik ' Anu is the 
decider or prince ' 1 (Schr., Del.), although there is no 
evidence that Anu enjoyed any special veneration in 
Sippara (see SeI'HARVAIM). a city that was especially 
devoted to the worship of Samas the Sun-god. 

It is very possible, however, that the text is corrupt (Hommcl 
proposes a rather elaliorate restoration [A>/. T. H \y>/.\). It 
IS also possible (see Nisroch) that Anammelech is merely a 
faulty variant of .Adrammelech (rather Adarmelech). I- in 
2 K. 17 31 has only aSpaixf^tx- 

Anu was the god of Heaven, and with him were 
identified a number of gods representing personifications 
of powers or localities of the upper region, such as 
Ural, Ansargal, Atilar, Etnur, Du'ur, Liihma, Ekiir, 
A lata, Alala-alam, and Enuriila. He stood at the 
head of the Babylonian pantheon, forming one of the 
supreme triad of Babylonian divinities, in which he was 
associated with licl, the god of Earth and of created 
things, and Ea, the god of the Abyss and all that is 
beneath the earth. See B.\hylonia, 26. According 
to G. Hoffmann {'/.A, 1896, p. 258), however, the 
name is i'?c[n]3V '<'-. Anath-malk. Cp .Astar[t]- 
Kemosh and Melk[at]-.Astart. Anath (Anta) was the 
consort of .Anu (see .An'.\th). l. w. k. 

ANAN (|3J?, 50; shortened from A.vaniah). 
I. Signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. 7) ; Neh. 
1026[27] {y\va.\x [B], f)va. [k]. -ac [.A], r) [Lj). 

2. .Anan (a.v\v\av [BAL]) in i Esd. 630 = Hanan, 3 ([jn) 
Ezra 2 46. 

ANANI CpiJ?, 50, abbr. from Ananiah, cp -Sab. 
p:y and Palm, 'jjy ; manci [B], anani [AJ, -iac 
[L]), descendant of Zkkuhhahki, (i Ch. 824). 

ANANIAH (n;^JV, BN*A om., anania [N^-*"'*-''"^], 
AN I A [I']) in Benjamin, mentioned (:. 32t) in the list 
of villages, Neh. 11 20-36 (see E/.KA, 2, ^b, 15 {i)a), 
along with Nob and Ramah (Neh. II32), and possibly 
represented by the modern Beit-Hanina, 3 J ni. 
NNW. of Jerusalem. 

ANANIAH {T\im, 33. 50; anania [BAL]). 
ancestor of one of Nehemiah's builders (Neh. 823). 

ANANIAS (ananiac [BAL]), the Gk. form of 
Hanamah or Anamaii. 

1. RV -Ann IS, nig. Annias, a family in the great post-exilic 
list (see Ezka, ii. 9), mentioned only in i Esd. 5 16 (oi'vcit 
[B], aivvia.% [.A], om. L). The name has probably arisen from a 
misreading of Hodiah (nnn read n'jn) I cp Neh. 10 17 y?, and 
see HouiAH, 2. Cp also Meyer, EJ 143, 155. 

2. I Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 20 Hanani, 3. 

3. I Esd. 9 29 = Ezra 10 28 Hananiah, 7. 

4. I Esd. 9 43 = Neh. 8 4 An Ai ah, i. 

5. iEsd.9 48(a>'i/ias[B])=Neh.8 7 Hanan, 4. 

6. A kinsrn.-in of Tobit. The .irchangel Raphael, while in 
disguise, cKiimed to be his son (Tob. 5 12). He is designated 
Ananias ' the great,' son of Semeus or Semelius (see Shemaiah, 
23), also called 'the great.' 

7. b. Gideon, ancestor of Judith (Judith 8 i, om. B). 

8. In Song of Three Children, v. 66 ( Theod. Dan. 3 8k) ; see 
Hananiah, i. 

9. Son of Nedebaios {Ant. x.v. 52, Ne/3e5ai6j in 
some MSS [AE] ytSe^aioi ; cp Nedabiah), high 
priest, circa 47-59 A.D. , under Herod Agrippa II., 
king of Ch.alcis. He is mentioned in Acts 232^ 24 i as 
the high priest before whom Paul was accused during 
the procuratorship of Felix. He flourished in the 
degenerate days of the priesthood, and, though 
Josephus says {An(. xx. 92) that after his retirement 
he 'increased in glory every day,' allusion is made 
to him in the Talnmd (Pesahim) in terms of the 
greatest contempt. Cp Annas (end). 

1 In which case cp Anu(m) Sarru = Anu the king, the usual 
title of the god Anu (Muss-Arn. Ass. Diet. 65). 


lo. Husband of Sapphira (f.v.), Acts 5 1. See 
Community of Goods, 3. 

ir. A 'disciple' at Damascus, who was the means 
of introducing l^aul, after his conversion, to the 
Christian community there (Acts 9 10-19). 
, ANANIEL (ananihA[BSA]; Heb. [ed. Neubauer] 
7NJ:n, Hananccl), Tobit's grandfather (I'ob. li). 

ANATH (r\2V,; anaG [HAL]), a divine name, 
mentioned in connection with Shamgar in Judg. 831 
(AeiN&x [B]) '"'d 56t (KCNAe [A]). If Shamgar 
ig.v.) were an Israelite, and b. Anath (' son of Anath') 
his second name, it would be tempting to take ' Anath ' 
in ' ben Anath ' as shortened from Ebed Anath ' servant 
of Anath" (so Baethgen, Ilei/r. 141 ; but see Noldeke, 
ZZ?.l/(; 42479 ['88]). More probably, however, Ren- 
anath is a Hebraised form of the name of a foreign 
oppressor who succeeded Shamgar' (certainly a foreign 
name), and in this case Anath must designate a foreign 
deity. Who then was this deity ? Evidently the 

well-known goddess worshipped in very early times in 
Syria and Palestine (as appears, e.g., from the names 
mentioned below), and adopted, as the growing 
evidence of early Babylonian influence on Palestine 
scarcely permits us to doubt, from the Babylonian 
pantheon. An(a)tu was in fact the daughter of the 
primitive god .Anu, whose name is mentioned as that 
of a Syrian deity in 2K. I731 (see Anammei.kch, 
Seph.^RV.^im). Of her character as a war-deity there 
can be no doubt. In ancient Egypt, where her cultus 
was introduced from Syria, she was frequently coupled 
with the terrible war-goddess Astart, and on an Egyptian 
stele in the British Museum she ap[5ears with a helmet on 
the head, with a shield and a javelin in the right hand, and 
brandishing a battle-axe in the left. She was, therefore, 
a fit patron-deity for Shamgar or for Sisera. That the 
fragmentary Israelitish traditions make no direct refer- 
ence to her cultus, need not be matter for surprise. 
The names Anathoth, Bi:th-an.\th, Beth-anoth, 
compensate us for this omission. Wellhausen thinks 
that we have also one mention of Anath in Hos. 148[9], 
where he renders an emended te.xt ' I am his Anath and 
his Asherah' (in clause 2) surely an improbable view. 
For a less difficult correction see Che. Exp. Times, 
April 1898. 

For ArchsEology see Jensen, Kos)n. 193 211/. \ E. Meyer, 
ZDMG 31 717 ['77]; Tiele, Gesch. van den Godsdienst in die 
oudheid, etc. ('93), 224 ; WMM As. u. Eur. 313. t. k. c. 

ANATHEMA. See Ban, 3. 

ANATHOTH (ninsy, anaGcoG [RAL]), a town of 
Benjamin (cp below, 2), theoretically included by later 
writers among the so-called I^vitical cities (see 
Levites), Josh. 21 18 P; i Ch. 66o[45] (AfX^ox [B], 
-toe and anaGcoG [A], cnaGcoG [L]. Neh. 727 
NAGcoG [A ; om. B]). 

The form of the ethnic varies in edd. and versions2(cp also 
Antothijah). -Abiezek, 2, is called 'nh|yn, 28.2827, AV 
the Anethothite (awodeiTTjs [B], a.va6uS. [A], -loCi [L]), 
'n"in3j;n, iCh. 2712 (AV, Anetothite, 6 ef o^aea>9 [BAL]), 
and finally 'nhjy^, i Ch. 11 28 (AV Antothite, ofafliodteli 
[BA], -<oflm7? [L]). The last-mentioned form is used to designate 
Jehu, 5, in i Ch. Vl 3 (o ameu>e[]i [BAL], -)3u>9ei [] ; 4, ava6<ad. 
[({] not in Heb. or i'a). RV in each case Anathothite. 

The name appears to be the plural of An.\th, and 
may refer to some images of that goddess which once 
stood there. Under the form Anath the place seems 
to be once referred to in the Talmud ( Yoma \oa), 
where its building is assigned to Ahiman the Anakite. 
Tradition said that Abiathar, the priest in David's 
time, had 'fields' at Anathoth (1K.226); and 

1 Reading in Judg. 56, 'In the days of Shamgar and Ben 
Anath.' The notice in 3 31, which is much later than the song 
(see Moore) is, of course, valueless. 

2 Ba. and Ginsb., however, read everywhere 'DIDij; (cp the 
former's note on i Ch. 11 28). ' Exceptionally in Sam. I.e. Ginsb. 



Jeremiah was born of a priestly family which had 
property there (Jer. 1 1 2927 827-9, o-vavo.Owd [A*t'. 7] 
37 12). It is once referred to by Isaiah (Isa. IO30), and 
is mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. 
9), Ezra 223 = Neh. 7 27 = i Esd. 5 18 {ivarov [B]). 

The connection of Anathoth with Jeremiah gives a 
special interest to its identification. A tradition, not 
older than the 15th century, fixes it at Kariet el-'Enab 
(Robinson's Kirjaih-jearim) ; but, as Robinson has 
shown, it can only be the village now called 'Atiata, 
which is situated NE. of Jerusaleni, just at the 
distance required by the Onomasticon, and by the 
reference in Isa. IO30. 'Anata is well-placed, but only 
froin a strategical point of view. Eastward and south- 
eastward its inhabitants look down on the Dead Sea and 
the Lower Jordan ^striking elements in a landscape, no 
doubt, but depressing. Jerusalem is quickly accessible 
by the Wady Sulem and Scopus, but is not within 
sight. Here the saddest of the prophets presumably 
spent his earlier years. 

2. b. Becher (q.v.) in genealogy of Benjamin [ 9, ii. a], 
iCh.7 8(ai'ae<oi'[BAL]). 

3. Signatory to the covenant (Neh. 10 19 [20]). See Ezra, 
i. 7- I- K. c. 

ANCHOR (AfKYPA). Acts2729. See Ship. 

ANDREW (AN^peAC [Ti. WH] 'manly'), one of's twelve disciples. Like Philip, he bore a 
Greek name ; but so did many Jews of his time, and 
in Dio Cassius (6832) we meet with another instance 
of a Jew called Andrew. 

Besides the account of his call (see Peter), and 
his inclusion in the lists of the apostles (see Apostle, 
i), nothing is said of Andrew in the Synoptics, except 
that, in Mk. 183, he appears as one of the inner circle 
within the twelve, for he is one of the four who question 
Christ ' privately ' about the impending ruin of the 

In the Fourth Gospel the picture is more fully drawn, 
and in one respect completes and explains the account 
of Andrew's call given in the Synoptics. We read that 
he belonged originally to Bethsaida (Jn. 1 44), that he 
was a disciple of the Baptist and heard his witness to 
Christ, that he and a companion (no doubt John) asked 
the wandering teacher where he dwelt, and went with 
him to his temporary home. Then, having ' found 
the Messiah,' Andrew made his brother, Simon Peter, a 
sharer in his joy. We next meet with Andrew, 

on the E. of the lake of Galilee, at the miraculous 
feeding of the multitude, on which occasion it is he that 
tells our Lord (68/) of the lad in the crowd who 
has ' five barley loaves and two fishes. ' Once more, 
when the end is near, he shows in a memorable scene 
his special intimacy with the Master. When Greeks 
approach Philip with the 'desire to see Jesus,' it is to 
Andrew first that Philip communicates the request 
which they together lay before Christ (Jn. 12 22). 

The rest of the NT, apart from the list of the 
disciples in Actsl 13, is absolutely silent alx)ut Andrew. 
Such other tradition as we have is worthless. 

Eusebius (^i5'iii.)speaksof him as preaching in Scythia, and 
we have in Andrew's 'Acts' the story of his martyrdom, at 
Patrae in Achaia, on a cross shaped like the letter X. Acts 

of Andrew the Apostle were in circulation among the Gnostics 
of the second century, but survived only in various Catholic 
recensions of much later date. Harnack enumerates (i) Acta 
AndrtiF et Matthiie (and their mission to the Anthropophagi) 
in Greek (edited by Tisch. Act. A/>ost. Af>ocrypli.), Syriac 
(edited by Wright, Apoc. .Acts 0/ the A/>ostlcs), Ethiopic, and 
Coptic (fragmentary). The Latin version survives only in its 
influence on the Anglo-Saxon Andreas and Elene by Cyne- 
wulffand in the Mi> acuta />. Andreir by Gregory of Tours; 
see Lips. A/>okr. Af: -gesch. 1 543^, cpp. 27. (i) Acta Petri et 
Andretr, in Greek (fragments edited by Tisch.) as well as in an 
Ethiopic recension and a Slavonic translation (cp Lips. 1 553^/^). 
(3) Martyriunt Andreie in various Greek recensions (one edited 
by Tisch.), and in Latin (Harnack, Altchrist. Lit. 1 t^y /., cp 
Lips. 1 564 y?;). A 'gospel of Andrew' is mentioned in the 
Decretum Gelasii. 

ANDRONICUS (anAronikoc [VA ; anAroyion] 
2 Mace. 4 38 A*). 1. The Deputy of Antiochus Epiphanes 



ill Antioch, who (according to a Mace. 431^), at the 
instigation of Menelaus, put to death the deposed high 
priest Onias a deed for which he was himself slain with 
ignominy on the return of the king. See MACCABEES, 
Second, 3, end. 

2. Deputy of Antiochus at (Jerizim (a Mace. 623). 
See Maccabees, Second, 3, end. 

3. Andronicus and Junias are named in Rom. I67 as 
kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of I'aul, as of note among 
the apostles, and as having been ' in Christ ' before him. 
The expression 'kinsmen,' if taken literally, seems to 
imply that they were Jesvs by birth ; ' fellow-prisoners,' 
on the hypothesis tliat Rom. 16 3-20 Ix^longs really to 
an Ephesian Epistle, has l)een conjectured by Weiz- 
siicker to allude to an imprisonrm-nt which they shared 
with Paul in Ephesus, most likely in connection with 
the great 'affliction' (2 Cor. 1 8-11), which uhimately 
led to his leaving that city (.\cts 1923-20 1) ; on the 
application of the term ' apf)stle ' to them see 
ApoSTLii, 3. The name Andronicus was not un- 
common among Greek slaves ; and it has been con- 
jectured that this Andronicus may ha- e been the 
Jewish freedman of a Greek master. 

In the lists of 'the seventy disciples' which we owe to the 
Pscudo-Dorotheus and the Pseudo-Hippolytu.s Andronicus is 
spoken of as bishop of ' Pannonia,' or of 'Spain.' In the frag- 
ments of the (( Inostic) n-ept'oioi '\utdvt'Ov, he and his wife Drusiana 
figure prominently as hosts of the apostle John at Kphesus, and 
he is represented as having been made by that apostle rrpoe&pov, 
or president, of the church of Smyrna. In the Greek church 
Andronicus is commemorated, along with Crescens, Silas, and 
Epsnetus, on 30th July. See Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 
(Index, p. i8^). 

ANEM (D:V)' iCh.673[58]-Josh.l92i En-gannim 


ANER (i:^). I- (Sam. Dljy ; avvav [AZ?EL] ; 
Jos. eNNHpoc. a Hebronite) Gen. 14i324t. Perhaps 
a local name; cp Nelr, a hill near Hebron {ZDMG 
l'-i479 L'sSj). The correctness of the name Aner, how- 
ever, is doubtful. The at'vai' of (S points to jry, Enan 
(/.(., place of a spring), a name which may refer to 
one of the si.x springs near Hebron e.g. , the deep 
spring of Sarah called 'Ain Jedideh (Baed.*^) 137), at 
the E. foot of the hill on which ancient Hebron lay. 

2. (a^ua/) [B], (.vr\p [A], a.v. [L]) a city in Western 
Manasseh ( i Ch. 670 [55!) perhaps a corruption of 
T.XANACII (-Ji-n) ; cp Josh. 21 25. t. k. c. 



ANGEL. The English word ' angel ' is a transcrip- 
tion of d77fXoy, 's translation of Heb. mal'dkh 

1. Names. nf<?D)- The English word denotes 
primarily superhuman beings ; but both 
the Hebrew and the Greek terms are quite general, 
and, signifying simply messenger, are used indifferently 
of human or superhuman beings. ^ Other terms, less 
ambiguous in this particular respect, also occur. 

These are : ' gods ' (dmVk. cp Ps. 8 5 [6], and see AV, RV 
mg. ih. 8'2i6 97 7 138 i), 'sons of [the] god[s]' (o'^Wrtl 'J', 
cpGen.624 Jobl62i 387, or d'Sk :2, Ps. 20 i 89 6f7], EV 
text), ' (sons of] the mighty,' ' mighty ones ' (oTax. Ps. "8 25, cp 
Ih. 103 20, nj "123), ' holy ones ' (c>C*ip. Jb. 5 i Ps. 89 5 [6] Zech. 
145 Dan. 4 14 [17] 8 13), 'watchers' (VTy, Dan. 4 14 [17]), 'host 
of lieaven (<2ci;i x^s, i K. 22 19 Dt. 17 3), ' host of the height ' 
(cha xas. Is. 2421), or 'host of Y.ihwc'(nirT Ka^i, Josh. 5 14, 
cp use of Kas in Ps. 1032i 1482 Neh.96, and 'God's camp,' 
Cm':;N nmr:, Gen. 32 2 [3]). Iti the case of Ps.fi8i7 [18] (<sSk 

IKJC*) we owe the AV rendering 'thousands of angels' to old 
leb. tradition (Targ. S.aad. and Abulw.), which treated the 
difficult jKjc- as a synonym of -jnSs (cp Del., ad he). RV 
' thousands upon thousands ' is equally hazardous ; cp Dan. 7 10. 
In the NT also we find other terms in use : ' spirits ' (n-i-eu^ara, 
Heb. 1 14), ' principalities' (apx<'', Rom. 838), 'powers' (iufo/ifiS 

' Karppe {Joum. As. ser. ix., 9 128) reads -jVo. a derivative 
of -^Sn, as if ' the walker ' = ' the messenger," or Yahwi marching 
(Is. 03 1, SBOT) as opposed to Yahwi mounted on the cherub 
(Ps. 18 10 [I I]). "^^^ 



ii., i^oytrlax, Eph. O12), 'thrones' (0poi/oi, Col. 1 16X and 

'donunions' (icupi6t>)t, i/'.): ip further Cremer, Lex. ATO 
20^ 237, and the Heb. and NT Lexicons, i.jv. 

The earhest OT writings contain no definite or 
systematic angelology, but indicate a prevalent Ijclief 

2 Pre-exilic '" ^^^'^^ superhtiman beings Ix^sides 
Yaliwe. These were (i) the 'other 
gods' or ' gods of the nations,' who were credited with 
real existence and activity ; cp, e.g., Nu. 21 29 Judg. 1 1 24 
and V. Baudissin, Slud. 155-79- (2) Closely connc-cied 
with these were the 'sons of God' j.<r. , memlx-rs of 
tlie divine guild. There is but one pre-exilic reference 
to these (Gen. 62 4), whence it api)ears that they were 
not subject to Yahw^, but might break through the 
natural order of his world with impunity. (3) 
Attendants on Yahw6 in Is. 6 some of these attendants 
are termed Seraphim (see Serai'HIM), but others 
distinct from these seem to be implied ; cp v. 8. In a 
similar scene (i K. '2219-22), those who attend Yahwe 
and form his council are termed collectively ' the host 
of heaven.' Such divine councils are also implied in 
Gen. 322 11 7 (both J ) ; cp the plurals in these passages 
with that in Is. 68, and the question in i K. 222o. In 
another passage (Jos. 5 14^) the pre-exilic origin of 
which, however, has Ijeen questioned (Kue. Hex. 248 
ET)^ the host of Yahwe appears as disciplined and 
under a captain. According to some, the ' hosts ' in 
the phrase ' Yahw^ (God of) hosts ' a phrase current 
in early times were angels (Che. Frofh. /s.*^' \\\ff.\ 
see further Names, 123). The original text of 
Deut. 33 2/. contained no reference to angels (see 
Dillm. Comrn.; cp also Driver). Another element in 
early Hebrew folklore worthy of notice in the present 
connection is the belief in the horsemen of the air 
(2 K. 2 12 617). For a parallel in modern Bedouin 
folklore cp Doughty, Ar. De. 1 449. ' The melaika 
are seen in the air like horsemen, tilting to and fro.' 
Angelic horsemen play a considerable part in later 
literature e.g., in Zech. , Apoc. 

The most noteworthy features, then, of the pre-exilic 
angelology are the following ; (i) except in Gen. 28 32, 
these beings are never termed ' angels.' ' Angel ' occurs 
frequently in the singular, but only in the jihrase 
'angel of Yahwe' (more rarely, 'of God'), which 
denotes, not a messenger of, and distinct from, Yahwe, 
but a manifestation of Yahwe himself in human form 
(see TiiKOPiiANiES, 4). Kostcrs treats even Cien. 
2810-1217 32i[2] I81/. 19i/. as statements of the 
manifestation of the one God in many forms (cp W'KS 
Rel. Sem. 426/., 2nd ed. 445/), and concludes that, 
before the Exile, -jh^d was used exclusivel}- of appear- 
ences of Yahwe. Against this, Schultz's reference 
{OT TheoL2^ig) to i S. 299 2 S.14 17 1927[28] is not 
quite conclusive. (2) These attendants on Yahwe are 
not also messengers to men. Even if the angels of 
Gen. 28 32 be distinct from God, they bring no 
message. For such a function there was no need so 
long as Yahw6 himself appeared to men. (3) Beside 
these .sulxjrdinate divine beings that attend Yahwe, 
but have no relations with men, there are other beings 
('other gods,' 'sons of the gotls') which are not 
subject to Yahw^, and do enter into relations with men. 

Comparatively few as are the early references to 
angels or kindred beliefs (cp Demons, 1), they are 
... 3'et such as to justify us in attributing a 

comparatively rich folk-lore on these matters 
to the early Hebrews ; but it is not until the exilic and 
post-exilic periods that angels come into prominence 
theologically. They do so then in consequence of the 
maturing belief, on the one hand, in the transcendence 
of Yahw^, on the other, in his supremacy. The develop- 
ment of angelology at this time must also have been 
favoured by the contact of the Jews with the Persians ; 
and some details of the later doctrine may be due to 
the same influence e.g. , the naming of angels, although 
the great majority of the names themselves (as in 


Enoch 6 69) are quite clearly Hebraic, though of a late 
type (cp JIPN, p. 2IO). 

With the growing sense of Yahw^'s transcendence, 
belief in his self-manifestation in human form ceased ; 
and thus the phrase 'angel of Yahwe,' set free from 
its old meaning, now came to denote one of the lieings 
intermediate between Yahw6 and men. At first it was 
apparently the title of a particular angel (Zech. 1 ii/. ), but 
subsequently it Ijccame a quite general term (note the pi. 
Ps. 10320, cp 347[8] and NT passim). It is now by 
angels, and no longer directly, that Yahwe communicates 
with men even prophets. The e.xperience of Ezekiel 
marks the transition Yahwe speaks to him, sometimes 
directly (44 2), sometimes through another (40 3). With 
Zechariah the change is complete. He never sees 
Yahw6 ; he receives all divine instructions through angels 
(contrast Am. 7/. ). Daniel receives the explanation of 
his visions in the same way ; and in NT, warnings or 
other conmiunications of the divine will are given by 
angels (Mt. 1 20 '2 13, Lk. 1 19, ActslOsso). The angels 
thus become the intermediaries of Yahwe's revelation ; 
but they are also the instruments of his aid (Ps. 91ii 
Dan. 828, and frequently ; cp later, 2 Mace. 1] 6 3 Mace. 
61S, Susan. 42^ [in LXX, but not in Theod.], Bel 
and Drag. 34-39 ; cp Acts 82639/ Tobit, passim. Acts 
\llff., and especially Heb. 1 14), or punishment (Ps. 
7849355/ Enoch 533 6Ti62ii 63i Apoc. Bar. 21 23 
Rev. 6/, also in Job20is 8823 40ii \z<. 6 in Heb. 
and EV] and see further below, 5). Especially 
prominent in the apocaly[)tic literature is the cognate 
t)>lief in the intercession of angels with God, in behalf 
of the righteous, or against the unrighteous : see, e.g. , 
Enoch 9 10 152 406 (where the function is specially 
referred to Gabriel, 4O69 ; yet cp also Tob. 12 12 15 where 
Raphael intercedes) 99316 104 i Rev. 83/ Cp also in 
or, Zech. 1 12 Job 5 I 8823 Eccles. 56[5], and perhaps 
in N'T, Mt. I810, unless this be a case of angelic 

In other respects also, the later angelologv shows the 
influence of the growing sense of Yahwe's transcendence ; 
the angels, exalted far above men by 

4. Supremacy 
of Yahwe. 

the functions just mentioned, are them- 
selves aba.sed before God (Job 4 18). 
The awful exaltation of even angels above men, is 
prominent in Daniel (Dan. 816-18 IO16/). The count- 
less number of the angels is emphasised (Job 8823, Dan. 7 
10, and later, Enoch 40 1 718 Mt. 2653 Heb. 12 22 Apoc. 
Bar. 48io 51 n 59ii), and they are divided into ranks. 
Even in Zech. the angel of Yahw6 is a ' kind of grand 
vizier receiving the report of (less exalted) angels' 
(Smend). This conception of ranks becomes, later, 
more detailed' (see Dan. 10 13 12 1 Tob. 12 15, and 
Enoch e.g., chap. 40), and creates in Gk. the term 
d/)xa77fXos (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 67 ; i Thcs. 
4 16 Judeg); it may be traced farther, in NT, in the 

J [The influence of non-Jewish upon Jewish beliefs can here 
scarcely be denied. These are the facts of the case : In Daniel 
(1013) we hear of a class of 'chief princes,' two of whom 
(Gabriel and Michael, 11) are named (chaps. 10-12 ; cp also 
Raphael and Ukiel). In Tob. (12 15) the number of the 'holy 
angels who present the prayers of the saints, and go in before 
the glory of the Holy One,' is given as seven (if the text is 
correct). In Enoch the number of the chief angels varies 
between, three, four, .six, and seven (see chaps. 20 40 z 78 i 89 i 
90 21 31, and other passages). Manifestly this highest class of 
angels was suggested by the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas 
or Amsha.spands (' immortal holy ones '), who (like the counsel- 
lors of the king of Persia, Ezra 7 14) are seven ; and this seems to 
be confirmed by the reference to the archangels in the Book of 
Tobit, which also mentions the Zend name of the chief demon 
(see AsMODEUs). In referring to this Iranian belief, however, we 
must not forget the possibility that it is to some extent 
historically connected with Babylonian .spirit-lore. The cultus 
of the seven planets is no doubt primeval in Babylonia, and 
may have spread thence to the Iranian peoples. To explain 
the belief in the archangels soleljj from Babylonian sources would 
be plausible only if the Zoroastrian Gathas, which are pervaded 
by the belief in the Amshaspands, were not earlier than the 
time of Philo. For this bold theory see Darmesteter, Le 
ZendaveUa 3 56 ('93), etc. ; but contrast the same writer's 
earlier theory in SBE (ZcnJavcsta, i. Introd.). t.k.c] 



references to the 'seven spirits of God' (Rev. 4s cp 
82), and to Michael (Judeg Rev. \1^) and Gabriel (Lk. 
1 19) ; probably also in the use of several terms together, 
in certain passages [e.g. , thrones, dominions, principali- 
ties, [jowers, C'ol. 1 16), and perhaps in the term ' elect 
angels' (i Tim. hi\). 

The doctrine of Yahwe's supremacy involved either 
an absolute denial of the existence of other super- 
human Ixiings or their subordination to him. To the 
latter method of acconmiodation post-exilic angelology 
owes some striking features. Thus, the patron angels 
of nations (clearly referred to in Dan. IO1320 12i, 
probably also in Is. 24 21/: Joel 3 [4] 11 Pss. 82 58 10 ; see 
Che. Book of Fsahns^^'i 229^ and comm.) are merely 
the ancient 'gods of the nations' for which, in this 
connection, cp especially Dt. 419 292$ f 338 trans- 
formed to suit the new doctrine. Again, the 'sons of 
the lilohim '- formerly independent of Yahwe, whose 
laws they broke with impunity now become identified 
with the angels (cp Ps. 29 1 with 1032o, and @'s transla- 
tion of Gen. 62 [not L] Job 16 etc., cp also Lk. 20 36) ; 
as such they constitute his council and do his bidding 
(Jobl6 2i; cp Zech. In/). Similarly, the host of 
heaven, which in the later years of the monarchy had been 
favourite objects of worship (cp, e.g., Zeph. I5 Jer. 82 
Dt. 4 19), and therefore rivals of Yahwe, now again 
become subject to him and do him homage ( Neh. 9 6) ; he 
is as supreme over them as over men (Is. 45 12, cp 40 26) ; 
he is equally supreme over all gods (e.g. , cp Ps. 964). 

On the other hand, the difficulty with which Yahwe's 
claim to universal w^orship against all others was 
B Suuremacv "^^^^^^I'^hed is also reflected in the new 

"incomDlete ^"g^'lology. Yahwe's supremacy over 
^ ' the 'gods,' or the 'host of heaven," 
was won and maintained only by force (Job 252 cp 
2I22 Is. 2421 3445; cp 27 1 for the passages in Job 
see Davidson's, for those in Isaiah, Cheyne's Comm.). 
This incomplete assimilation of the ' other gods ' etc. 
to beings wholly subservient to Yahw^, combined with 
a growing dislike to attribute evil or disorder directly 
to him, led to the differentiation of angels as beneficent 
or maleficent (see Demons, 5, Satan, 3) ; but the 
or nowhere lays stress on the moral character of 
angels, or knows anything of their 'fall.' Conse- 
quently, angels were divided not into good and bad, 
but into those who worked wholly, and those who worked 
only partly, in obedience to God. This latter division 
still seems to hold its own in NT alongside of the former ; 
and, for this reason, in passages such as Rom. 838 
I Cor. 1024/, the question 'Are the angels referred to 
good or bad?' is probably out of place (cp Everling). 

For several centuries after the Exile the lx;lief in 
angels did not gain equal prevalence in all circles : thus 
G Schools '' "*^^''^'' mentions them (on Gen. 1 26 2r see 

of belief. 


) ; the Priestly Chronicler does so but 

rarely save when quoting directly from hi 
sources and Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and 
Maccabees, are marked more by the absence than by 
the presence of such references ; ' Angel ' does not 
occur in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 4821. Still later the 
differences become conspicuous ; the Sadducees were 
credited with complete scepticism (Acts238); the 
EssENES {t/.v. , 3) attached an exaggerated importance 
to the doctrine ; the popular Pharisaic party and all 
the NT writers share, in general, the popular beliefs. 
Yet in John angels are alluded to only in 20 12 I51 
(a pa.ssage based on an OT narrative), I229 (a saying of 
the populace), and the intrusive verse 54; the epistles 
contain no mention of them (cp the comparative 
infrequency of references in John to demons {i^.v. , 6). 
Several features of NT angelology have been already 
incidentally discussed ; they are common to both Jewish 
7 Annr>a1vnaaa '"^"^ Christian Writings. Scarcely less 
S NT influential over the writers of the NT 
than the OT were the apocalypses then 
already extant especially Enoch. It is in Enoch we 

8. Jesus. 


first see elaborated a doctrine of the ' fall ' of angels. 
The fall is regarded as the punishment for the intercourse 
mentioned in (ien. 62-4. !i"d for an improper revelation 
of 'the secret things of the world' (cp in NT Jude 6 
2lVt. 24). Through their fall they Ijecome inferior 
to men, who therefore judge them (En. I44-7 102; cp 
I Cor. 63 Heb. 2). Enoch .should be especially com- 
pared with Revelation. 

The influence of the OT may be clearly seen in the 
NT angelophanies, which seem moflelled on those of 
the early OT narratives, only that now, under the 
influence of the later development, the angel is quite 
distinct from God (ActslOs/ is not an exception). 
These angelophanies abound in the nativity and re- 
surrection narratives and in Acts (519826-40 10 3-7 30-32 
127-11 2723), but are conspicuous by their absence from 
the narratives of the life of Christ the badly attested 
passage Lk. 2243 being unitiuc, except so far as Mt. 
4ii = Mk. I13 (contrast Lk.iijf.) may be considered 

Jesus accepts the popular belief in the existence of 
angels, but never (even in Mt. I810 or 2653) counte- 
nances the l>elief that they influence life in j 
the present perhaps in the parable of the i 
wheat and the tares (,Mt. 1824-30 37-40) he directly 
discountenances it. All he says of them has reference 
to themselves alone, or to their relations to men after 
life. Thus, at the second coming they will accompany 
the Son of Man (Mt. I627 and parallels ; Jn. I51), and 
will then separate the good from the evil {e.^. , Mt. 1841 ; I 
cp Lk. I622). They do not marry (Mt. 2230, and | 
parallels); their knowledge is limited (Mt. 24 36 = Mk. 
I032) ; and they rejoice over repentant sinners (Lk. 
1 .') 10 ; cp Lk. 1 2 8/ , with w hich contrast Mt. 1 32/ , and 
cp earlier, Job 8823). In particular, Jesus breaks away 
from the prevailing tendency to make angels the inter- 
mediaries of revelation : he himself liecomes the sole 
revealer (Mt. 11 27 Jn. 176 ; cp 146^), he will himself 
always be with his disciples (Mt. 2820), and will instruct [ 
them directly (Lk. 2I15), or through the Spirit whom ' 
he sends (Jn. 1326 I41726). Thus this part of the 
doctrine of angels was doomed to give way to the 
Christian doctrines of the abiding presence of Christ 
and of the Holy Spirit. It still survives, however, in 
Revelation (li 17i2l9; cp also in the contemporary 
Jewish .'Ipoc. Bar. 55 3, 'The angel Ramid who pre- 
sides over true visions'); also in Acts (103^ 2723?) 
yet here alongside of the new belief (10 13-16). Paul 
p . already shows the influence of the teaching of i 
Jesus he claims to receive his gospel direct 
from him (Gal. I1215/: cp Acts93-6) but still shares 
((jal.819) the common belief (Acts 753 Heb. 22 Jos. 
.I///. XV. 03 ; cp Dt. 882 ) in the past instrumentality 
of angels in revelation, perhaps also in the present 
possibility ofthe same (Gal. 18; cp?4i4). With him, too, 
angels still play a large part in human life ; his own 
practice and practical exhortations are governed by 
this l)elief (i Cor. 49 63 11 10). An emphatic warning, 
however, is uttered against a practice (which was 
springing up in some quarters) of worshipping angels 
(Col. 2 18 cp Rev. 19 10). In the same epistle the 
creation of angels is asserted (I16) a point to which, 
as might be expected, no reference had been made in 
OT, where they are once mentioned as being present at 
the creation of the world. Job 887 (in Jewish literature, 
cp Jub. 2 2 Apoc. Bar. 216). The question whether 
Paul associated angels with cosmical forces turns on 
the interpretation of ra <TT0ix^7a rod Kde/xov, Gal. 4 3 
Col. 2820 (see, on the one hand, Lightfoot, in loc, on 
the other, Everling, as cited Iielow, and cp lu.KMENT.s). 
Such an association would, at least, have accorded with 
the tendency of the time : note the angels of winds, 
sun, fire, and water, etc. (Rev. 7i 19i7 14i8 16 cp 
Heb. 1 7 and Jn. 54, and, somewhat earlier, Enoch 
60 11/; 61 10). The tendency began much earlier; in j 
the or angels and stars are closely associated (cp Job ! 



387 Is. 344, and, in general, the double meaning 
attaching to the phrase 'host of heaven'); and the 
transition from Ps. IO44 to a fixed belief in elemental 
angels is easy. See Persia. 

The literature of the subject is large ; all the Old and New 
Testament Theologies contain discussions ; on the OT, Fie|)en- 
bring's Thiol, de Cancien Test. 1888 (KT, 
10. Literature. New York, 93) and Smend's A T KeL-geuh. 
(<V3) are soecially helpful. The chief mono- 
graphs for the OT are by Kosters (' De Mal'ach Yahwe ' and 
' Het ontstaan en de onlwikkeling dtr Angelologie onder Israel ' 
rZ/.Tit 367-415 ['75], 10 34-69 113-141 ['76]; for the Pauline 
Doctrine, by Everling (Pie Paulinische Angelologie und 
Daiitonologie ['881). On the vocabulary of the subject see M. 
Schwab, / 'ocahu/aire de C angelologie (tapris maniiscrits 
hel>reu.r (Paris, '97). The question of foreign influence is dis- 
cus.sed by Kohut (Ueher d. jiid. Angelologie u. I>,'monologie in 
ihrer Abluingigkeit voin I'arsismus); for further literature on 
this point see Che. OI's 282. See further the valuable discus- 
sions of Montefiore (///^(i. Led. viii., esp. p. 429^), and Clicyne 
ipPs 322-327, 334-337)1 and cp Lueken, Michael <^()9i). 

G. c. G. 

ANGLE (Is. 198Hab. I15). See Hook, 3, Fisii. 3. 

ANIAM (DJ/^3N, surely not ' mourning of the people ' 
[Ges.], but miswritten [see "] for c^-Vk. see Eliam ; 
differently Gray, ///*.V 44 n. i, who would omit ., and 
derive from cy: ; aAiaAeim [H]. aniaaa [A], eN. [L]), 
in genealogy of Manasskh (i Ch. 7i9t). T. K. c. 

ANIM (D'JV' AiCAM [B], <^NelA^ [A], -iB [L]). 
Josh, losof, a hill town of Judah, mentioned after 
Eshtemoa (a name etjually distorted in "). I'erhaps 
the modern el-Ghuwein, which lies to the south of 
el-Khalil (Hebron) between es-Semu" and Tell 'Arad. 

ANISE (anhBon [Ti. WH], Mt. 2323t)or Diu.(RV 
mg. ) is the plant Ancthuvi ^raveolens.^ The correct 
rendering is 'dill,'^ and the plant is distinct from 
Pimpinella Anisum, which is the modern ' anise.' The 
biblical plant is described (Fluckiger and H anbury's 
Pharmacop-aphia '-' 327 /. ), as ' an erect, glaucous 
annual plant, with finely striated stems, usually one foot 
to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with 
setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers. It is 
indigenous to the Mediterranean region. Southern Russia, 
and the Caucasian provinces, but is found as a corn- 
field weed in many other countries, and is frequently 
cultivated in gardens. ' ^ 

It is mentioned in Mt. 2823, along with mint 
and cunmiin,^ as being subjected by the scribes and 
Pharisees to tithe. This practice accords with the 
general principle stated at the commencement of the 
Mishnic tract on 'tithes' ('Whatsoever is food, and is 
private possession, and has its increase out of the earth, 
is subject to tithe ' a rule based on the precept of 
Deut. 1422, 'Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of 
thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by 
year'), and the liability of dill in particular to tithe is, 
in the Talmud, specially mentioned (see the references 
in Celsius, Hierobot. 1 497). N. -M. W. T. T.-D. 

ANKLETS and ANKLE -CHAINS. These have 
ever been favourite ornaments among Orientals.' Prob- 
ably the oldest specimens are some in gold and 
silver which have been found in Egypt, where they 
appear to have been worn by men as well as women. 
The chains obliged the wearers to take short and 
tripping steps. To enhance the effect, bells were (at 

1 The Syriac and the Ar.abic versions correctly render by the 
word sitehhetid, shihitta name for this plant which is probably 
derived from Persian (see Liiw, 373). t^ r l 

2 This, though supplanted by 'anise' in all the English 
versions from Wyclif onwards, is the word used in the A.S. 
version, ' myntan and dile and cymmyn." 

3 Virgil gives it a place in the flower-garden ( 2 48), and 
Pliny in the veget.ible-garden (//A' xix. 8 52). Cp the Creek reff. 
in Liddell and Scott. . . , 

In the parallel passage in Lk. (11 42) dill is not mentioned 
'mint and rue and every herb (jrofAoxai'Oi').' >. . 

Cp Ar. halhal, and Ok. ntpic^vfu.ov and irfM(TitAi, the 
latter of which is 0s rendering of the Heb. DjaO (in the plur. 
or dual) ' breeches.' 


any rate, in later times) attached to the chain a practice 
which is alluded to in terms of disapproval in the Koran 
(5r. 2431). Ornaments of this nature are referred to 
in Is. 3 18. 

They are here called C'03}/|,1 RV ' anklets,' AV ' tinkling orna- 
ments ' ( e/xn-Xdicia), a word from which comes the denominative 
verb in 7'. 16 (r!:D3yn rf'i'Jin ' they make a tinkling with their 
feet,' irai^ovcrai). Similar is ^^{?"i Is. 3 2ot, RV ' ankle 
chains,' AV ' ornaments of the legs,' uncertain (cp Targ. 
K'SjT 'Tc) ; cp mi'SK. ^Jn- 31 5. RV as above, AV ' chains,' 
^KiSuyy. In spite of its apparently obvious connection with ty^ 
'to walk,' rnys 's applied also to ornaments worn on the arms : 
see Bkacelet, 5. 

ANNA (anna [BNA]), the Greek form of the name 

1. Wife of Tobit (Tob. Igf.). 

2. Daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Lk. 
236-38). Like Simeon, she represents the class of 
those who ' waited for the consolation of Israel,' and, 
like him, she is said to have had the gift of prophecy. 
Being constantly in the temple, and prepared for the 
honour by fastings and prayers, she was enabled to 
meet the child Jesus and his parents, when, like 
Simeon, she burst into a prophetic song of praise. 
She is also, it would seem, a prototype of the 
' widows indeed ' (see Widow) of the early Christian 
community (i Tim. 659): hence the particularity with 
which the circumstances of her widowhood are described. 

The name Anna or Anne became common among Christians 
from the tradition that the mother of the Virgin Mary was so 

ANNAAS (c&NAAC [A]), lEsd. 523 AV = Ezra235 
Sen A AH. 

ANNAS (ANN AC [A]). lEsd. 932 RV [Heb. J^H, 
5o] = Ez. 10 31 Harim. 

ANNAS and CAIAPHAS (annac [Ti. WH] ; kai- 
A4)Ac[li- ^^IIJ)- ln6.\.i). Quirinius, who on the de- 
position of Archelaus became governor of Syria, followed 
the custom of the Herodian family and appointed a new 
high priest. His choice fell on a certain Ananos (so in 
Josephus) or Annas (so in NT), son of Sethi (Jos. Ze^i) 
who continued to hold the office until the change of 
government in 15 .\. I). Valerius Gratus, who succeeded 
Quirinius, gave the post in succession to three men, none 
of whom, however, held it for more than a year. The 
second of the three was a son of Annas, called 
Eleazar by Josephus {An/, .xviii. 22). Atlast, in 18 A.D., 
Valerius found in Joseph, called Caiaphas, one who was 
strong enough to hold the office till 36 A. U. Then 
Vitellius (35-39 .A.D. ) once more, in 36 and 37, 
appointed, one after the other, two sons of Annas 
named Jonathan and Theophilus (^/. xviii. 4353). 
Jonathan still held a prominent position in 50-52 {/i/ 
ii. 12 sy.), a point of which we have good proof in the 
fact that Peli.x caused him to be assassinated (B/h. IS3 
Anf. -xx. 8s). As in Acts 46, Annas, Caiaphas, Jonathas 
(so D ; the other MSS have Joannes, EV John), and 
Alexander are assigned high-priestly rank, and the first 
three can be identified from Josephus, Jonathan being a 
son, andC.MAPHAS, according to Jn. 18 13, a son-in-law, 
of Annas, we seem to have good reason for conjecturing 
Alexander to be the Graecised name of Eleazar the son 
of Annas. . 

Cai.M', then, was the acting high priest at the 
time of the trial of Jesus. His long term of office shows 
that in his relations with the Romans he nmst have 
been oljsequious and adroit. Mk. and Lk. do not 
mention him in their account of the passion ; but in 
Jn. II49I813/ 2428 and Mt. 26357, we read that he 
presided over the proceedings of the Synedrium ; he 
therefore it was who rent his clothes. According to 

1 Cp 03? a fetter (?) in Pr. 7 22, the pr. name HMV (see 
AcHsAii) and the Ar. 'ikds, a chain connecting the head and 
forefoot of a camel the usual method of hobbling the animal. 


Jn. 11 49-52, he became also an involuntary prophet as to 
what the death of Jesus meant.' With regard to his 
character in general, the accounts accessible to us give 
no details. 

The most important personality in the group would 
appear to have been old Annas. This seems to be 
sufficiently implied in the fact that four of his sons' 
and a son-in-law successively held the high - priestly 
office^whether we assume that Annas expressly wrought 
for this end, or whether it was simply because those in 
power sought by this means to win him over to them- 
selves. Only on the assumption that he was, in truth, 
the real manager of affairs, can we account for it that, 
according to Jn. I813-24, he gave a private hearing in 
the case of Jesus, as also that Lk. (Lk. 82) names him 
as colleague with Caiaphas, and (.'\cts46) enumerates 
him in the first place, along with Caiaphas and two 
of his high-priestly sons, as holding high-priestly rank. 
Other instances, however, of a similar co-ordination of 
past high priests are not unknown ; for example, in 
the case of Jonathan, son of Annas (/?/ ii. I25/. ), of 
Ananias son of Nedebaios (Ant. xx. 92-9; see AnaniA-S, 
9), and of the younger Ananos and Jesus son of Gamaliel, 
both of whom were high priests for some time during 
the years 62-65, and had the conduct of affairs in their 
hands during the first period of the Jewish wars. 

The Annas (Ananos) just mentioned, son of Annas, 
appointed in 62 A.D. by Agrippa II., availed himself of 
the confusion following on the death of Festus to procure 
the death of his enemies by tumultuary sentence. Among 
the victims of his tyranny was, it would seem, James, 
the brother of the Lord. The passage relating to it in 
Josephus (20 91), however, may perhaps be a Christian 
interpolation (see James, 3, end). In any case, the 
king himself, even before the arrival of the new pro- 
curator, put an end to Annas's reign of terror by 
deposing him from the high-priesthood after a tenure of 
three months. H. v. s. 

ANNIS. (anngic [B]). I Esd. 5 16 RV, RVmg. 
Annias, AV Ananias [q.v., i). 

ANNTJUS (annoynon [A], om. BL), i Esd. 848, a 
name not in Ezra 8 19 in Ezra's caravan (see Ezra, i. 
2, ii. 15 (i) d) supposed by some to be a corruption 
of ' with him ' (IDX) in Ezra, which may itself be a mis- 
read sign of the accusative (so "*'-). 

ANOINTING. In the OT two distinct Hebrew terms, 
j frequently occurring, are translated in EV by 'anoint,' 

1. Terms. 

,hile a third (-;o:) is mcorrectly so under- 
stood in Ps. 2 6 by Targ. and Sym. and 
also by Ewald (cp We. Heid.K^^ 118). [a) tjio {siik) 
is always (Dt. 2840 Ruth 83 2S.I220I42 2Ch.28i5 
Ezek. I69 Dan. IO3 Mic. 615) used of the application of 
unguents to the human body as a matter of toilet, and 
hence Ex. 30 32 means that the holy anointing oil 
shall not be used for ordinary toilet purposes, (b) nc'D 
(vidshah) and its derivatives.^ In this case we have to 
distinguish between the primary physical, and a secondary 
and metaphorical use. In its physical sense nao is used 
(1) rarely, probably with the retention of the original 
meaning of the root, of rubbing an unguent or other 
substance on an object,*.^'., oil on shields (Is. 21 5 

t It has been suggested that the reference to his prophesying 
may have arisen out of a popular etymology of Caiaphas, cp Ar. 
*'//= soothsayer ('qui movit vestigia et indicia rerum, physio- 
gnomus,' Freyt.) ; cp Nestle, /?/''7"/r. 40 149, and see Palm. Gram. 
127, n. 4. Blass thinks that Nestle has upset the etymology 
from KS'3 'stone' and KB'3 'oppression,' by showing that the 
name in .\r.-imaic is written with p, not 3. 

2 The fourth, .Matthias, was appointed to the oflfice for a 
short time, between 41 and 44, by Agrippa ; perhaps .\nnas did 
not live to .see this, and certainly he did not survive to see the 
priesthood held by his fifth son, .Ananos II. (in 62 a.d.). 

' On, as well as on several matters referred to in the 
course of this article, Weinel's study ' nrO und seine Derivate ' 
(/.ATli^ 18 1-82 ['98]) should be consulted. Unfortunately, it 
appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the present 


aS. l2i), paint on a ceiling, Jer. 22i4 (here translated 
in EV by ' painted '), and probably we should interpret 
the word similarly in the recurring phrase {e.g. , in Ex. 
292) 'wafers unleavened anointed with oil' ; (2) of the 
application of unguents to persons or things as a religious 
rite ; for details see below ( iff.), but observe that, 
with the possible' exception of Am. 66, npo 's never 
used in the sense of :jic- In its metaphorical sense 
na'O is used of the divine appointment or selection of a 
man for a particular purjKDse viz. , for the kingship 
(iS. lOi 15i7 2S. 127 2 K. 93612 Fs. 457[8] 892o[2i] 
2 ('h. 227 ; cp below, 5). For the relation of the term 
n'ro to the usages under discussion see Messiah, i. 
'Anoint' in Ps. 92io[ii] corresponds to Heb. SSj,'^ in 
Ps. 235 it corresponds to jb*! ; ' anointing" in the prob- 
ably corrupt passage Is. 10 27 corresponds to ice* ("*'^Q 
oni. ) and ' anointed ones ' in Zech. 4 14 (AV ; but RV 
' sons of oil ' ; "K-^O viol r^j TrtirTjros) to \r\-i'r\ "33. 

In NT the EV also confuses two sharply distinguished 
terms. XP"^' which in the LXX, as in classical Greek, 
may be used in a physical sense, is in the NT used ex- 
clusively (Lk. 4 iS [cp Is. 61 1] Acts 427 IO38 2 Cor. 1 21) 
of (jod in a metaphorical sense ; for we can hardly 
regard the quotation from Ps. 457[8] in Heb. I9 as an 
e.xception. The derivatives xpiatx-o. (ijn. 22027) and 
XptcT^s are used similarly ; but the compounds fjxploj 
(Rev. 3 18 also Tob. 68 [9] 11 8) and fVtxpiw (Jn. 96ii) 
retain the original physical sense. 

Thus the NT use of XP"^ resembles the meta- 
phorical use of nro- The other NT term, d\ei(po}, is 
ahc'iiys used of the application of unguents to the body, 
whether (like the Heb. rj^o which it frequently represents, 
e.g., Ruth 3 3 Micah6i5, cp also 2 K. 4 2 0"'^'-) for 
toilet purposes (Mt. 617 Lk. 73846 Jn. 11 2), or medicin- 
ally (.VIk. 613 Ja. 514), or as a tribute of respect to 
the dead (Mk. 16 1 cp Jn. 1237).^ 

From the foregoing analysis of the terms, it will 
be clear that ' anointing ' was practised by the 
Hebrews both for secular and for sacred 
purposes. The unguent used was olive oil, 
with or without the addition of aromatic spices ; for 
details see On.. Anointing formed among the Hebrews, 
as among many other peoples (cp, d'._o'., PI. NN xVd. 1-6), 
a regular part of a full toilet, being in particular 
associated with washing (Ruth 83 Ezek. I69 Sus. 17) ; 
the omission of it was a sign of mourning, the 
resumption of the practice a sign that mourning was 
over (2 S. 142 Dan. 10 3 [cp Mt. 617] 2 S. 1220 Judith IO3 
cp Is. 61 3 Eccl. 98) ; and hence ' to anoint ' is a suitable 
figure for 'to make glad' (Ps. 23$ cp 457 [8]). The 
head and face appear to have been most usually anointed 
(Ps. 104i5 Judith 16io Mt.617 Lk. 738 cp Ps.235 I4I5 
Eccles. 98), and the anointing of the feet to have been a 
special luxury (Lk. 746 Jn. 12 3). The medicinal use of 
unguents is referred to not only in Ja. 5 14 Mk. 613, 
but also in Is. 16 Lk. IO34. On anointing the dead 
see Embalming. 

Leaving the significance of anointing as a religious 
rite to a final section, we will here simply classify the 

-i Rplie-iniK? persons or objects which were so 

H+ a-nnlnH^o. anointed ; and first the persons, (a) 

"'0" p^ri"^ l'^ ^'>^- '" '^ OT,%eciallySr! 

'^ the earlier wntmgs, there are numerous 

references to the anointing of kings (cp, e.g., 1 S. 1631a 

1 Possible, but hardly probable (cp Gcs.-Ru., J.7'. riUS)- The 
feast described in the context is sacrificial: see i'. 4"and cp 
WRS AV/. Sem.^'i) 241, 258, 430 n. 4, and note that the word 
used in 7/. 6 for bowl (pnta) is elsewhere exclusively used in 
connection with .sacrifice ; cp Driver (ad loc.\ who, however, 
takes the passage as a description of effeminate luxury. 

* The text, however, is very questionable. Many (r^. Cheyne, 
Psalms (1, Baethgen), following ujiart Sym. Jer., point 'n^3 
instead of 'n?3, and translate ' my old age ' or ' my wasting 
strength' instead ot 'I am anointed.' In Psalmsi") Che. 
reads n'?0 = nxS3. 

3 In Mk. 14 8t ' anoint ' is iivpi^ut (see Myrrh, a). 

2. Toilet. 


9 16 2 K. 23 30 Ecclus. 4613), and so fre()uently of the 
Hebrew kings to whom the term 'Messiah of Yahwe' 
belonged pre-eminently, if not exclusively, in the days 
of the monarchy and even later (Lam. 4 20) ; for the 
anointing of a Syrian king (by a Hebrew prophet) see 

1 K.19i5. and cp the general reference in Judg. 9815, 
and ^w. 7V/I*. 376 ' Manahbi(r)ia, king of Egypt, . . . 
established my father . . . over the kingdom, and 
poured oil on his head.' {b) The prophet. How far it 
was usual to anoint a prophet we cannot say ; but we 
have one allusion (in a narrative of the 9ih or 8th 
cent. ) to such an anointing which camiot be reasonably 
explained away ; if ' anoint ' in i K. 19 15^ i6</ Ix; literal, 
it would be unnatural to consider it in i'. 16^ (as in 
Is. 61 1 ) metaphorical ; cp Ecclus. 488. (c) The priest. 
References to the anointing of priests, as part of the 
rite of consecration, are numerous in P. We have to 
distinguish, however, Ijetween those passages which refer 
to the anointing of the high priest (Aaron) alone, and 
those which refer to the anointing of the priests in general 
(for the former cp Ex. 29? Lev. 812 6 2o[i3], and, outside 
P, Ps. 1332 Ecclus. 4015; for the latter, E.x. 3O30 
40:3-15). It seems proliable that passages of the 
latter class are secondary (cp We. CH 141/. ; Di. on 
Lev. 8to-i2; Nowack, Arch. 2 124). In this case the 
anointing of the high priest may be inferred to have 
been an earlier custom than that of anointing all 
priests. This would account for the origin of the term 
n'tiicn pan, 'the anointed priest' a|)plied to the high 
priest (Lev. 43516 622[i5]; cp Nu. 3^25 Lev. 21 1012 

2 Mace. 1 10, and perhaps Uan. 925/ ), and for its subse- 
quent disappearance when all priests were anointed (cp 
D'na'Dn C':rT2.T Nu. 33). We may infer from Zech. 4 14 that 
the custom of anointing the high priest was at least as 
ancient as the close of the sixth century ; but we have 
no earlier evidence. On the other hand, the contrast 
between a priest and ' Yahwe's anointed (iS. 235 a 
Deuteronomic passage), and the different terms in 
which the Chronicler (iCh. 2922) and the earlier 
historian (iK. 235) refer to Zadok's appointment, are 
worthy of attention. Cp further (for some differences of 
view) Haudissin, Die Gesch. des AT Priesterthums 25/. 
48/ 140 253. 

Lifeless objects also were anointed, [a) Gen. 28 18 
31 13 35x4 are, as far as OT is concerned, isolated 
references to the anointing o{ sacred pillars 

4. Lifeless 

(see Massebah) ; but the custom was well- 
known in antiquity (cp Di. on Gen. 28 18; 
WRS Rel. Sem.i'^^ 232). {f>) The tabernacle and its 
appurtenances. P contains directions or statements 
about anointing ' the tent of meeting ' and all its furniture 
(which is mentioned in detail, Ex. 30 26), or 'the 
tabernacle and all that is therein' (Ex. 4O9 Lev. 8 10 
Nu. 7i), as part of the rite of consecration. Special 
reference 'is made to the anointing of the altar (Nu. 
7108488). In Dan. 924 we find an allusion to the 
anointing of 'the most holy' (probably = the altar) in 
the reconsecration after the pollution of the temple by 
Antiochus h^piphanes. 

NT contains no reference to anointing as a religious 
rite, unless, indeed, we ought to infer from Mk. 613 
Ja. 5 14 that magical and so far religious pro- 
perties were attributed to the oil used in anointing 
the sick (as distinct from the wounded, Lk. IO34) ; 
but before the close of the second century A. u. it had 
come to form part of the ceremony of baptism. See 
Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Antiq.,'. 
'Chrism,' 'Unction'; Mayor's Comni. on James 
(on 514). 

Anointing occurs repeatedly as a metaphorical term 

to express a religious idea. As we have seen (1) the 

K Twr 1, Heb. term (nrc) is sometimes ani the 

0. metapnors. ^.p ^^^^ ^^^,^^ ^,^.3^.^ ^^^ j^^,^. 

phorically with God as subject. The metaphor may 
have originated in, as it was certainly subsequently 
used to express, the idea of God pouring out his spirit 


on a man (or people) for a particular purpose e.g. , on 
Saul to smite the Amalekitts (iS. 15i7), on Jehu to 
smite the house of Ahab (2 K. 96/ ), on ' the Servant ' 
' to preach good tidings ' (Is. (il i). Thus, after Yahw6 
has anointed Saul (i S. lOi), the spirit of Yahwe comes 
mightily upon him {v. 6), cp i S. I613; and the con- 
nection lx;t\veen the outpouring of the spirit and 
anointing is clear in Is. 61 1 (Lk. 4 18) 2 Cor. 1 21. and 
especially in Acts 10 38. Similarly, ' the anointing from 
the holy one' (ijn. 22027) is the illumination of the 
Holy Spirit, which teaches those that receive it con- 
cerning all things. Hence, the term ' anointed ' could 
suitably Ix; applied to Israel as a people e._i,^. , Hab. 3 13 ; 
see further Messiah, 3. In Ps. tf)? 892o, the 
whole phrase ' to anoint with oil ' is used with CJod as 
subject ; in these cases either the whole phrase is a 
metaphor, or mdla/i has accjuired a quasi-causative 

On the relation of the various terms and customs 
to one another there have been different views, some 

fi Primiti a ^ which must te briefly referred to. 
._ Some {f.: , Kamjihausen in the article 

sigmncance. . ,.^^. j,^ // , , -/j ,2, , j,^.,i,.(. ,he religious 

from the toilet use, seeing in the rite of anointing 
both the means of setting apart to (Jod some person or 
thing as clean and sweet-smelling, and also the symbol 
of such a condition. But (i) it may Ix: questioned 
whether the sharp distinction of terms relative to 
the two uses (cp i) lie not against this view; (2) 
there is no positive evidence that the Hebrews in- 
terpreted the rite in this way, unless we so regard the 
custom of mi.xing sweet -smelling substances in the 
anointing oil a custom which cannot be traced liefore 
P ; and (3) the metaphorical use cannot be satisfactorily 
explained in this way. Reasons have l>een given in the 
preceding section for thinking that the religious rile of 
anointing men was at any rate understood at an early 
period to the outpouring of the divine spirit ; 
but it is possible that this symbolism is not original, 
even in the case of persons. It certainly does not 
e.\plain the anointing of things particularly the pillar 
at Bethel. This custom Roliertson Smith {ke/. Sem.(^> 
233 379#. especially 313 ^, cp S.\ckikick) seeks 
to explain as a sacrifice, the oil being a substitute 
for the animal fat which was smeared (smearing, it is 
to be remembered, being the original sense of ne'e) 
by the Arabs on similar pillars, and played a consider- 
able part in many other forms of sacrifice. Fat being, 
according to ancient thought, one of the great seats 
of life, was peculiarly fitted for the food of the gods 
(hence the anointing of the pillar), and also for imparting 
living virtue to the persons to whom it might be applied 
(hence the anointing of things or other persons). In 
this case the view that anointing symbolised the impart- 
ing of the divine spirit, is a refinement of the idea in 
which the custom may l)e presumed to have originated 
(cp CovKN.VNT, 5 end). The anointing of the temple 
and sacred furniture will then l>e a survival similar to 
that of sprinkling them with blood. G. n. o. 

ANOS (ancoc [B.\ ; om. L]), i Esd. 934. apparently 
V.AM.Mi of l';zral036. 

Classical writers often refer to the 
industry, forethought, and ingenuity 
of the ant, and especially to its habit 
1 The etymoloRy of this word is very doubtful. It has been 
proposed to derive it (i) from a doubtfid Heb. verb ^j^^ (cp Sio) 
' to cut,' referring tither to the shape of the ant's body ( = ' in- 
sect '), or to its habit of cutting seeds from the corn-ears, or to the 
incision it is supposed to make in the seeds themselves to prevent 
their .sproutine (though this was hardly known to the ancient 
Hebrews); (2) from .\r. namala 'to creep' or 'to ascend by 
creeping ' ; (3) from asuppo.sed root akin to Heb. ck:. ' to make a 
slight sound '. The connection with Ar. namaltt is certain ; 
but pos.sibly the meaning of the verb may be derived from the 
noun. A kindred word is Ar. anmul, ' fingertip ' (Lag. Uebers. 
21). The Syr. equivalent is JfKjaa(' keen-scented "?) ; Ar. 
has the same word as Wch.nanila. 

1. Name and 

2. Species. 


of storing grain -seixls beneath the ground in time 
of harvest. ' 

Thus ifllian tells us that so great is the industry of ants that, 
when there is moonlight, they work by night as well as by day. 
It was noticed how carefully their work was organised; they 
were descrilied as marching like an army, the oldest acting 
as generals ; when they reached the cornfield, the older ants 
ascended the stalks and threw down the grains to the others, 
who stood around the fix)t. Each took its part in carrying 
away the food to their .subterranean homes, which were care- 
fully constructed with several chamliers, and protected above by 
walls of earth to keep out the rain. The seeds were divided 
into two, .sometimes uito four, segments, and in other cases 

Ceeled, to prevent their sprouting ; if wetted by rain, they were 
rought out and carefully dried in the sun. The ant showed 
a weather-knowledge far surpas.sing man's. It was in all respects 
a TToAiTiKov ^(^v, and is so classed by Aristotle along with the 
cmne and the bee. 

The same observations are repeated in later times by 
Arabic and Jewish writers. 

The Mohammed.ins .seem to have a.ssociated the ant with 
.Solomon: the 27th chapter of the Koran is styled 'the ant," it mentions that Solomon, on his march, once entered 
'the valley of ants,' whereupon an ant said, 'O ants, enter 
into your habitations, lest Solomon and his army tread you 
underfoot and perceive it not.' It was a custom with the Arabs, 
.says lioL-hart, to place an ant in the hand of a new-born child, 
with a prayer that he might grow up wise ami .sagaciou.s. 

The only two passages in the OT which mention the 
ant obviously refer to some species of Harvesting Ant 
probably either to Aphanogaster (for- 
merly called Attn) barhara, or to A. 
stnictor, or to Pheidole 7negacephala, which are to this 
d.ay found in Syria, and, indeed, all round the Mediter- 
ranean basin. 

Numerous other species of ant have been descril)ed in 
Palestine ; but, as far as is known, they resemble in their habits 
the ants of temperate and colder climates, and do not lay up any 
store of provi.sions against the winter : it is po.ssible that, like 
the latter, they the cold season in a torpor or winter sleep. 

The harvesting ants all belong to the genus 
Aphnenogaster, or are closely allied to it. Their habits 
_ .. were well known to the ancients and 

arves mg ^^ niedineval writers. These observers, 
generalising on insufficient data, as- 
sumed that all ants stored up food for winter con- 
sumption. When, however, the centre of learning 
shifting farther N. from the shores of the Mediterranean, 
the leaders of science were found in central and northern 
Europe, the position of things was reversed. 

Naturalists, noticing that the ants whose habits 
they observed did not store grain and seeds, arrived 
at the conclusion that no ants did, and attem]5ted to 
explain the accounts of the earlier writers by pointing 
out that they had probably mistaken for seeds the 
pupre which, when anything disturbs the ants' nest, are 
at once seized and Iwrne to a place of safety. The 
consensus of opinion, accordingly, until about a quarter of 
a century ago, was that ants never lay up stores of food. 

The investigations of Moggridge and Lespes, how- 
ever, showed that, although this opinion is probably 
correct as far as ants in more northern climates are 
concerned, many of the ants in the countries bordering on 
the Mediterranean store up seeds collected from different 
plants. Not only do they collect seeds that have fallen, 
but they also frecjuently tear the fruit or seed-pod off the 
plants and bear them to the formicarium or nest. 
They will, moreover, travel considerable distances to 
obtain their food, marching in two nearly continuous 
parallel lines, the length of the column sometimes 
measuring 24 yards or more. The two lines are moving 
in contrary directions the one toiling laden with spoils 
towards the nest, the other hurrying back with empty 
mouths to the harvest ground. 

Thenests both of .4. harbara and of A. structor are 
simply excavations in the ground long cylindrical pas- 
4 N tu sages or rounded hollows, the floors of which 

storintr ^'^''' ' some extent smoothed and cemented. 
' In these hollows, about the size of a billiard 

J Seethe list ofpa-ssaees quoted in Bochart, Hier. among 
them Hor. Sat. i. 1 3j ; Virg. Ain. 4 402 ; Plin. NH 11 30 ; itiian, 
2 25 4 43 6 43. A brief account of the Jewish notices by Rev. 
A. Lowy in PSBA 868 [1880-81]. 



ball, the seeds are stored. In one nest Moggridge 
counted seeds from twelve different species of plant, and 
he enumerates eighteen distinct tx}tanical families con- 
taining plants which furnish ants with seeds. . /. structor 
is frequently found in the neighl)ourhood of towns or 
villages, and even in the streets ; A. barbara, usually in 
the country. 

The ants" nests are entered by one or two holes, 
whose presence is usually indicated by small heaps of 
refuse, partly composed of the earth excavated from the 
nest, and |Kirtly built up of tiie husks and other useless 
matter, w hich is carefully removeil from the seeds Ixifore 
the latter are stored up. All this refuse is scrupulously 
removed from the nest, which is kept very clean. The 
ants do not allow the seeds to sprout ; possibly by 
making an incision in them. 

The amount of seed collected and stored in the 
granaries is very considerable and may cause serious 
loss to the agriculturist ; from one nest an amount of 
seed estimated at i lb. in weight was taken, and there 
nmst be many hundreds of nests to the acre. The seed 
stores of the ants of Palestine are suflicie'itly important 
to l)e mentioned in the Mishna, which records the rules 
adopted as to their ownershij). 

The industry of the harvesting ants, and the amount 
of work they .accomplish, justify their being held up as 
e.xamples of untiring energy. They begin work early in 
the morning and keep at it far into the night, working 
as hard in the dark as in the sunlight. Meer Hasan 
.\li in his History of the Mussulmans describes how- 
eight or twelve very small harvesting ants will find it 
difticult to nune a grain of wheat, and yet they manage 
to transport such grains over a distance of looo yards 
to their nest. Their great sagacity is shown in 
numerous ways the complexity of the organisation 
of their colonies (involving the differentiation of 
individuals to jjcrform different duties), their powers of 
communicating one with another, and their slave- 
making pro|x;nsities. Their habit of laying-up food 
for the future, and even (in some South -American 
species) of actually cultivating certain fuTigi for food, 
places them with the Ijees and wasps, as regards intelli- 
gence, second only to man in the animal kingdom. 

The ants belong to the order Hymenoptera (which 
includes l)ees, wasps, and saw-flies), and to the family 
Forniicida-. N. m. a. IC. S. 

ANTELOPE (ixri t'o, Dt. Hs; Nin /J', Is. 51 20 ; 
Opyi L"-^'- J^>t. ; and Aq. Syni. Theod. in Is.]; 
ceyTAlON [O'*'*'^-'' in Is.]), an unclean animal mentioned 
along w ith the pygarg and chamois. The above is the 
rendering of R\' and is much preferable to .W Wild O.X, 
\\'ii.i) Bui-i. (which is based upon Targ. Gr. Ven., and 
is accepted by Kim. ), although wild o.xen and wild 
bulls were common enough throughout Palestine and 
Mesopotamia (see Catti.k, 4). The allusion in Is. 
{I.e.) to the capture of the animal by nieans of a net 
wholly agrees with what is known of the manner in 
which antelojxis, gazelles, etc. were usually captured. 

The species here intended may be the Antilope 
leucoryx (or ory.x, cp (S), or the A. huhalis. Against 
the former proposal the objection has been raised that 
the ory.x is called in the modern vernacular of N. Africa 
yuhmur, which = Heb. Tcn' 'fallow-deer' (see Rok) ; 
but it is not uncommon for the same name to be given 
to memlx-TS of different species by different peoples. ^ 
On Ox-.\n iKi.oi'K see U.NicoRN (beg.). S. A. C. 

ANTHOTHIJAH (n^nh3y) I Ch. 824t RV, AV 
Antothijah (./.T. ). 

ANTICHRIST (antixPICTOC [Ti. WH]). History 

1 History "^ ^^"^ Question.- Researches into 
Earlv Per^d ''^'^ meaning of ' Antichrist ' have 

' ' always started from the exegesis of 

I'or oilier ex.imples see Unicorn, note. 

2 Cp. Liicke, /.//. in d. OJTfnb. Jolt. 35-) ff. \ Bornemann, 
' Die Thessalonicherbriefe ' in Aleyer's Handbuch ^oojff'. 

l'-2 .77 


3 Thess. 2 1-I3 and certain jxissages in the Apocalypse 
(chap. 13). 

The first period of the history of the discussion em- 
braces the Greek and I^atin ecclesiastical writers down 
to the l>eginning of the Middle Ages. Within this 
}x.'riod the tradition is unusually stable. The Antichrist 
is taken to l)e a manifestation which is to be made at 
the end of time a definite personality, as to whose 
origin, career, and end, perfectly definite and tradition- 
ally fixed views are set forth, which rest but partially 
on the NT. This exegetical tradition, the importance 
of which is greatly undervalued by recent commentators 
such as Hornemann, is, for reasons which w ill afterwards 
apjjcar, of the utmost value. To say that the naive 
dogmatic lx;lief of the church-fathers in ' the truth of 
this eschatological phant.isy dow n to its least detail ' 
was absolute does not in any way disprove the correct- 
ness of their e.xegesis. 

Of the two methods that came into vogue during the 
Middle Ages the ecclesiastico-political method with 
jx)lemical purpose (since Joachim of Floris, .afterwards 
in chief favour with Protestant scholars, especially in 
the form hostile to papal claims) and the universal- 
historical (perhaps, since Nicolas de Lyra) neither 
advanced the cjuestion in the le.ast. 

The beginnings of a truly scientific maimer of looking 

at these as well ,as at other eschatological traditions 

_ TUT. J were made by certain .Spanish and l-Vench 

2. Modem. , .. . .u .. , , 

Jesuits, who threw themselves mto the 

polemic against Protestant attacks with great learning 
and acumen. Their first step was to revert to the 
tradition of the church fathers, which they endxxiied in 
extensive works. ' Thus the futurist method 
restored to its ascendency. 

This method maintained its ground, until quite recently, 
among all scientific interpreters of the apologetic scIkxiI. There 
is one point, however, in which the exegesis of the moderns as, 
for example, Hofman (Si/iri/t/h-itvis) and Luthardt {Ou- l.ihrc 
von den letzten Dingen) ami ahiiost tlie whole boily of Kiiglish 
writers on the sulyect falls far l>elow that of the church 
fathers: the concrete eschatological figures are more or less 
spiritualised. Thus, Antichrist becomes an impersonal general 
tendency; the 'temple '(2 'I'liess. 24) is interpreted as meaning 
Christendom ; and the Ka.f(\usv, as law and order. 

It is in the work of Ludovicus {I'estigatio 
arcani sensus in Apocal. , Antwerp, 161 4) that we find the 
earliest indications of a thoroughly scientilic, historical, 
and critical handling of this ciuestion. The labours and 
the method of the Jesuit scholars, however, were afti-r- 
wards made available for the Protestant Church by Hugo 
GroUus {A nnotiit/ones, Paris, 1644), who in the treatment 
of Antichrist may l)e regarded as the founder of the 
'historical' or ' preterist ' method. He interpreted 
2 Thess. 2i-i2, point by point, as referring to the 
occurrences of the reign of Caligula. In this method 
he was followed by Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, and 
Harduin ; and, since Kern ( Ti/b. Z. f. Theol. , 1833. i. ), 
the preterist interpretation of the Antichrist has lx.'come 
almost, but as referring to Nero redivivus (so 
F. C. B.aur, Theol. Jahrbb., 1855 ; Holtzmann, in BL ; 
Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1862, 1866; H.ausrath ; and many 
others, including Renan, L Antichrist. 1876). Follow- 
ing an example partly given by Kl6pjx;r, however, 
Spitta {Zum Gesch. u. Lilt, iles I'nhristenthums 
\oc) ff.) again sought the explanation of the prcnlic- 
tions reg.arding Antichrist in the circumstances of the 
reign of Caligula. 

Abandoning this (on the whole, mistaken) line, a few- 
scholars have sought an interpretation of Antichiist in a 

_ ^. . Jewish tradition dating farther Ixick than 

^ ^ ' the Christian era and not resting on any 
historical events. 

Among these scholars may l>e named Reiche, I)e Welte, Lilne- 
mann, and Horneinann (in their respective commentaries) and 
Kahler (in /'A'A*). Ewald's observations in Jahrb. /. bibl. 
Il'iss., 1851, p. 250, and i860, p. 241, are of special interest: 

1 Malvenda's De Aniichrisfo (Lvons, 1647) being perhaps the 
fullest. The commentaries of Rilwira (Salamanca. 1591) and 
Ulasius Yiegas (Ebora, 1601) were specially inlluential. 

4. NT. 


for the first time he combined 2 Thess. 2 with Mt. 24is^ and 
Rev. 11 "iff., and thus the problem ceased to be one of exegesis 
merely. The best work in this direction has been that of 
Schncckenburger (see HOhmen's survey of his writings in /<i//-^. 
f. (ieutsche 'I keol., 1859), who endeavoured systematically (as 
the only true method) to ascertain the kindred Jewish tradition 
that lay at the basis of the NTpassages. (Prelimmary researches 
in the same sense had been contributeil by Corrodi, Krit. Gcsch. 
des Cliiliasmus 1781^ ; Hertholdt, Christol. Juti., 1811, 16; 
and GfrOrer, JahrhuiuUrt des Heils ii^d ff. ^o^ ff- 436.) 
Schnerkenburger also brought Mt. 24 Rev. 11 ami jn. 643 into 
the field of his survey, and his view may be said on the whole to 
have stood the test of time.l 

Still more recently Bousset {Der Antichrist in der 
Ueberlieferung des Judenthttms, dcs NT. u. der Alien 
Kirche, 1895), following up the suggestions of Gunkel's 
Schopfung 71. Chaos (1895), and the method then for the 
first time securely laid down, has souglu to supplement 
these investigations in two directions: (i) by a com- 
prehensive induction based on all the eschatological 
portions of the NT that belong to the same circle of 
idciis, and the careful exclusion of all that do not 
so belong; and (2) by an attempt at a comprehensive 
and complete presentation of the tradition (which comes 
before us in the NT only in a fragmentary way) as it 
is to l)c met with in the Jewish sources, and, still more, 
in the later Christian exegetical and apocalyptic tradition. 
This tradition is in great measure quite independent of 
the NT, and in all probabilitj' dates, as far as its sources 
are concerned, from pre-Christian times. '' 

The NT Tradition. The name avrLxpiffroi occurs 
in the NT only in the Johannine l-^[)istlcs ( i Jn. 2 18 22 : 
43: 2 Jn. 7), and thus in all probability its 
formation belongs to the late NT period. 
For an answer to the question who or what is 
meant by the name, it is best to start from tlie well- 
known (probably Pauline) passage in 2 Thess. 2i-i2, 
where we read that before the end of all things the man 
of sin, or, rather, of lawlessness (6 AvOpcoiros rijs duo/uLias), 
the lawless one (6 ivofws), the son of perdition (6 vibs rrjs 
djrwXeias), nmst be revealed. This ' man of sin,' it is 
clear, is to make his appearance as a false Messiah an 
observation which, from the outset, precludes us from 
referring the expression to any foreign potentate such as 
Caligula or Nero. He is sent to ' them that are 
perishing' (namely the Jews), because they received 
not the love of the truth (the true Messiah).'' He does 
not employ any outward force, but accomplishes his 
work by means of false signs and lying wonders (cp the 
tradition of the Church fathers, as continued by De 
Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger, B. Weiss, Lunemann, 
Bornemann). He will make his appearance in Jeru- 
salem. In this account of the Antichrist the specially 
perplexing assertions are that he is to seat himself 
in the temple of God and that he is to declare himself 
to be God. This last act, at any rate, does not belong 
to the ro/e of a ftilse Messiah. It is also doubtful 
who or what ought to be understood by 6 Karix'^", 
rb Kar^x^"- ^^'^ power that stands in the way of 
the manifestation of .Antichrist. If once a reference in 
the passage to a Jewish false Messiah be accepted, the 
mystery of iniquity (lawlessness : rb /jlvctt. rrji dvofxias) 
will most probably mean the cruelty which the Jews 
as a whole had begun to show towards the Christians 
(same authorities as above). At this point we obtain 
a clear light ufKjn Rev. 11. The perplexing fact 
that there the beast rises out of the deep and makes 
its appearance in Jerusalem (a view of the passage that 
appears certain not only from 11 8, but also from the 
connection of 11 12 with 11 3 as against the other inter- 
pretations referring it to Rome) is explained by 2 Thess. 
2. The beast that rises out of the deep and appears in 

1 This applies also to the first part of the Apocalyptische 
Studien of B. Weiss, 1869. 

2 Attempts in this direction had already been made by 
Bertholdt and Schneckenburger. 

3 a Thes.s. 24 does not at all fit in with Spitta's interpretation 
of the pa.ssage as referring to Caligula's proposal to set up a 
statue of himself in Jerusalem. 




Jerusalem is the Antichrist. If this be so, we are 
supplied with the following additional elements in the 
tradition : ( i ) a great drought that comes over the 
world in the last times (in Rev. through the two 
witnesses) ; (2) the two witnesses, their slaughter by 
the .Antichrist, and their resurrection ; (3) a previous 
assemblage of many nations in the neighbourhood of 
Jerusalem. The dim and fragmentary character of the 
whole narrative, however, is striking. In .another pKace 
in the .Apocalypse we find another parallel to the figure 
of the -Antichrist in Rev. \'6\\ ff. The beast that ' had 
two horns like unto a lamb' (RV) is designated by the 
author of Revelation himself as a False Prophet. When 
it is spoken of as 'coming up from the land' (not 
'earth' as in EV), we may reasonably understand 
Palestine to be meant. This false proj>het also does 
his work by means of signs and wonders. Here we 
meet w ith a new and rather perplexing consideration : the 
sealing on their foreheads anil hands of those whom he 
has led astray, and the buying and selling of them 
is thus made possible. To the same great group of 
traditions a part of the eschatological discourse in the 
Synoptic (iospels (especially in Mt. ) also appears to 
belong. Older theories of the ^diXvyfia ttjs ip-qfiilianci 
of Mt. 24 15 having broken down, and Spitta's explana- 
tion of it as referring to Caligula being beset with 
difficulties (indeed, an apocalypse which arose only in 
40-41 A.I), could surely not have found its way among 
utterances of the Lord which were already Ixiconiing 
fixed), we seem comp>elIed to fall back on an older 
tradition, and to explain the strange phrase of the Anti- 
christ of 2 Thess. 24 sitting in the Temple (on these 
points cp .AuoMiN.VTioN OF Uk.soi..\tion). In this case 
we arrive at new elements in the tradition : the subsequent 
flight of those who have lx;lieved, the shortening of the 
days ( Mt. 2422), and the picture of the end of the world 
and of the final judgment (.Mt. 24 2gff.). Here again 
the fragmentary brevity of the tradition is surprising. 

If we now survey these eschatological fragments as a 
whole, two conjectures immediately force themselves on 

5. Results. "'= <'! *^^' all' these eschatological 
ph.antasies were not independently con- 
ceived by the various authors from whom we derive 
them ; ^ that, on the contrar)-, the authors are mostly 
reproducing a tradition which already lay before them ; 
and (2) that it is a single consistent tradition that 
underlies all these (partly coincident, partly com- 
plementary) fragments. If the second conjecture 
be true, we may venture to think that the tradition 
in question has not been lost beyond all possibility of 
recovery. In point of fact, our very first glance at later 
Christian apocalyptic literature satisfies us that this 
literature rests upon a tradition which is but partially 
dependent on the NT. 

The Tradition 0/ the Early Church regarding Antichrist. 

Sources."^ The tradition becomes tangible as soon as we have a 

Christian literature copious enough. The 

6. Early Church influence of this tradition is already visible 

tradition. '" '^e Teaching of the 'Twelr'e Apostles 

(chap. Hi). Irenacus (Ad7'. haer. 5 25-3o)also 
presents himself in this connection. Special importance, how- 
ever, among the earlier witnesses, attaches to Hippolytus's 
airojeift; ittpX toC ai'TixPiVrov, the Cantten A/>ologeticum of 
Commodian, I.actantiuss Inst. Div.l \^ ff. (Commodian and 
Lactantius have a place of their own in the tradition), and the 
Commentary on the Apocalypse of Victorinus. A further group 
of writings ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer of very- great 
influence, Ephraim Syrus, must be mentioned. Under his name 
are current three Homilies on the .Antichrist : (i) One in Syriac 
(De L.imy, 3187^, all of it genuine with the exception of a few 
chapters); (2) one in Greek (.Assemani, 2222-30 3 134-143), 
perh.-ips genuine ; and (<) one in Latin (Caspari, ut sup. ic&jf.). 
The historical event from which all these prophecies start is the 

1 See the detailed argument for the impossibility of this in 
Gunkel, SchSpf. u. Chaos. 

^ .See .Malvenda, De Ant/chri>to{i6^j): Ebert, 'On Com- 
modian's " Carmen Apologeticum " ' in Arh. d. kdn. Sachs. Ges. 
d. Wissensch.h-),iT ff,\ Caspari, Brie/e und Abhandlun^en 
('90) 2oZff. 429_^ and, for the Liter period, Zezschwitz, / om 
rSmischen Kaiserthum deutscher Nation, 1877 ; Gutschmid, 
Kleine Schri/tenhy>%ff. : W. Meyer, Ludus de Antichristo, 



beginning of the great barturian migrations, the invasion of 
the eastward regions of the Kninan Kmpire hy the Huns (Gog 
and MiiKog). Allied in character to the foregoing are 

Cyril's Catechesis (xv), the psctido-Johannine Apocalypse 
('lisch. AfHX. afocr.), and the Commenlary on the Apocalypse 
by Andrew of Cxsiirca. Dependent on Kphraim's (ircck 
homily are the irrpi njt <rurr<Aia toO Koaiiou (cd. Lagarde) of 
the pscudo- Hippoljlus, and the Dioptra of I'hilip Solitariu:t 
{^\off.; Migne, /'. (,>. 127). This whole moss of tradition is 
exceedingly valuable on account of its archaic oriental ch;tractcr. 
Of the older church fathers, Jerome also {AJ Algasiaui, Quaist. 
xi. ; / Danieltm vii. and xi.) and Thcodoret {ffieret. /al>. 
623), but not Augustine, and, of the later, John Damascenus 
(itern 427) claim special attention. 

As, in the uniform view of these apocalyptic interpreters, the 
advent of the Antichrist is after the downfall of Rome, one might 
reckon almost with certainty on finding evidence of the currency 
of the tradition about the time of that downfall. Such evidence 
we actually possess in the primary document which was the com- 
mon source of both the so-cillcd Apocalypses of Daniel, the Greek 
(ed. Klostermann, Analtrta), ancl the .Armenian (cli. Kalemkiar, 
H'ivm-r /.. ti 1277; \ cp Zahn, Forschungcn 5 119^^). Atjain, 

at the time of the Slohamniedan conquests a new rallying-point 
was given for this eschatolojjical tradition, as we see in the apoca- 
lypse of the pseudo-.\Iethodius(7th century, OrthoiioxografhaK-), 
Basel, 1569), closely connected with which is the later .Apocalypse 
of Peter, now extant in Syriac, .\rabic, and llthiopic redactions 
(Hratke, ZIVT, 1892), and also a series of late Byzantine 
(V'assiliev, Aneciioia Gra-co- liyzantina i, Moscow, 1893), 
and late Jewish apocalypses (Jellinek, lict-ha-Muirash; cp 
Bousset, i^ff. iT\Jf.'). This l)ody of tradition reached the west 
through a compilation (/V Antichristo) by the monk -Adso 
(Migne, /'. Lat. 101 1291^.), b:ised on the l>ook of Methodius 
and on a .Sibylline book, which last is to be found also (in a 
red.icted form) in the works of Heda (.Migne, 90 1183) and dates 
perhaps from the fourth century. Lastly, an isolated and very 
archaistic source is to be found also in the Apocalypse of 
Zephaniah (Stern, ZA, xS86). 

7 He ' who ^ii''j"'"ecl is a brief summary of this 
letteth ' tradition as it occurs, almost uniformly, 

in the sources that have Ijeen named. ^ 
In the first place, the universally prevalent conviction is that 
the (toTe'xioi' (2 Thess. 27) is the Roman empire. This, we may 
be sure, was the view of Paul also : if he expected a Jewish 
false Messiah, then the one power left which could ' hinder ' was 
the Roman empire (cp on this point 4 Esd. 4t_^.). The 
political rrf/f- played by this idea in the history of Christianity 
may be seen in Tertullian (A/'o/. 32, ad Sca/>. 2) and Lactantius 
{/nst. div. 7 25). Of equally universal prevalence is the 

conception of .\ntichrist, not as a Roman or 

8. Antichrist, foreign ruler, but as a false Messiah, who is 
to arise among the Jews themselves in 
Jerusalem. .Almost universally (with the exceiitions to be after- 
wards mentioned) it is predicted that he is to c-.t.ililish himself 
in the temple and lay claim to Messianic (.md, so f;ir. (li\ine) 
honours. (Sometimes, as in Ascens.Jes.ib, Vici. in A/oc. 13 13, 
and in the Ethiopic Ajjocalypse of Peter, we read that he will 
set up his statue in the temple doubtless a reminiscence of 
the Caligula episode.) After the destruction of Jerusalem, 
accordingly, the expectation that the Antichrist will rebuild 
the temple in Jerusalem becomes univers.-il. He will show 
special frivour to the Jews, will receive circumcision himself, and 
will compel others to do so. He will arise from the tribe of 
Dan (t/.v., g 9 ; Jewish ha^gada is at the root of this [cp Tcs/atn. 
Dan s/. : also the omission of Dan in Rev. 7 5 ^, as to which 
see Iren. v. 30 2, perhaps also even i Ch.(i6i (46l(see.SV;<)r)69l54] 
7 12) ; see Schneckenburger-Hiihmer, 412). If, bearing all this in 
niind, we once more turn to 2 Thess. -J 97?: Jn.543 Rev. 11 3^, it 
jmmetliately becomes plain that any ' historical ' or preterist 
interpretation of the .Antichrist is out of the question. On the 
basis of a hagg.-jdic view of Dan. 11 43 78, there came into 
the tradition this further element, that the .Antichrist, at 
his first appearing, is to comiuer the kings of Egypt, Ethiopia, 
and Libya. Another invariable element of the tradition under 
consideration is the enumeration of the miracles to be wrought 
by the .Antichrist, particularly celestial signs (Rev. 13 iiyi), and 
miracles of healing (although that of raising the dead is Iwyond 
his reach). Hereupon the .Antichrist will achieve the dominion 
of the whole world, and gather round himself to his capital all 
peoplesand vast armies(4 Esd. 13 iJT. Apoc. Bar. 40 Rev. 1 1 9^.). 
_ Next, a great drought and famine will come upon 

9. Conflict, the whole earth (differently and less clearly put in 
Rev. 11 6), and in these straits the Antichrist will 
order his servants (spoken of also as demons) to mark men with 
his mark (according to the Latin Homily of the pseudo-Ephraim, 
a serpent mark), so that only those who bear it shall be permitted 
to buy bread (Rev. 13 \6/.). Against the .Antichrist come 
forward the two witnesses (almost unanimously taken to be 
Elijah and Enoch), who disclose his real character, .so that 
many turn away from him (otherwise, and very obscure, what 
we read in Rev. 11 3^). It is noteworthy that in many sources 
there is no inention of the resurrection of the two witnesses 
doubtless an incident introduced for the first time by the author 


of Rev. n. At the preaching of the witnesse* a coniiderabl 
company of Israel are converted and l^c^in the opposition to the 
Antichrist O^rhaps Rom. 9 20 is to be interpreted in thi.* con- 
nection). The 144,000 who are scaled in Rev. 1 $ ff. certainly 
have their explanation here. The faithful now l>ctake thcm- 
.selves to the wilderness or to the mountains (.Mt. 24 16^.) ; but 
the rlays of Antichrist's reign of terror shall be shortened. The 
years shall Iwcume months, the months days, the days hour* 
(Mt. 24 22). Then the .Antichrist will send his armies in pursuit 
of the faithful who have fled into the wilderness ; but there they 
shall l; delivered by the angel.s of (lod or by the Mcvsiah 
(Rev. 1213^.), and the army of^ the Antichrist destroyed (cp the 
mysterious angelic battle outside the city, in Rev. 14 14^., and, 
in connection with this, the appearance of the lamb with the 
, T X i c '44.000 in Rev. 16 1 J^.). The Antichrist is 

10. Defeat of finally slain, according to authorities, by the 
Antichrist. Messiah, with the breath of his mouth (Is. 11 4 

2 Thevs. 2 B^the same statement is found in 
late .sources, such as Targ. Jon. on Is. 1 1 4 and others). 
Perhaps .in older tradition may be traced in the view that 
the archangel Michael is to be the conqueror of the Antichrist 
(Dan. 12 I Rev. 126, Ass. Mas. 10). Now is seen a mighty 
sign in hea\x-n (Mt. 2430) the sign of the Son of Man 
interpreted _ by_ later writers (cp alreaily />/>/. 16 6, inuitlov 
iKitfTaroot iv ovpavio) as referring to the Cross, but originally, we 
may be sure, betokening the Divine Judge of the world (Housset, 
154). Then follows the coming of the Divine Messiah to judg- 
ment, amid mighty convulsions of nature (Wi.Hii) /. Rev. 
6i2 7f".). From the four corners of heaven desolating storms 
burst upon earth ami cleanse it (Rev. 7i z^^), and before the 
divine advent descends a tempest of fire, whicli burns the earth 
down to its depths, and dries up the sea and the rivers 
(Rev. 21 i). 

At the very first gLince it is plain that, in this tradition, we 

are dealing not with an artificial exegetical mosaic of the various 

passagesof the New Testament (and the Old) 

11. Coherence which here come into account, but with an 
of tradition, original l)ody of tradition, organically and 

inherently consistent ; and that the separate 
escbatological fragments of this tradition in the NT become 
intelligible only when they are brought into their organic place 
in the scheme of the tradition as a whole, so that their essential 
consistency becomes m.inifest. 

Origin of the Tradition. Naturally we turn, in the 
first instance, to the eschatological ideas of the O'l". 
Schneckenburger will have it that the 

idea of the Antichrist comes from the 
prophecies concerning Gog and Magog 

1 For the references in detail see Bousset, Der Antichrist, 
Gott. 1895. 


12. OT 

in Kzck. (38/.). That in every form of the tradition 
the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog occurs in 
close connection with the story of the Antichrist is 
indeed true to the extent that they are made to a])iK'ar, 
sometimes after (Rev. 2O7/. ), and sometimes Ix-fore, 
the time of his rule. Positive identification of (Jog 
with Antichrist, however, does not occur till the seventh 
century, and even then only in Jewish sources. Many of 
the details of the traditions can be traced, as has tieen 
already said, to Jewish haggada. In this particular 
point Dan. 7 11/ is approximated to most nearly; but 
even here there is a marked difference, and the 
originality of the view outlined above is conspicuous. 
In Daniel the disturber is a foreign power ; but here 
the seducer, who personates God or simulates the 
Messiah, rises up from amid the people of (jod. 
Thus there has lx;en an important development since 
Daniel. Perhaps, as was suggestt?d in conversation to 
the present writer by Prof. Smend, the historical occasion 
for this advance was supplied by the experiences of Israel 
under the Maccal>ees and the Herods. In any case, we 
RT 1 tiutst note a parallel in Jewish .Apocalyptic. 
That ideas allied to those in our tradition 
were active among the Jews al>out the time of Christ is 
shown by 4 I^sd. biff. (56 ; regnabit quern non sperant), 
Apoi. liar. 36-40, Sibyll. ^63 ff. (2167^), Test. Dun 5. 
Ass. Mas. 9,ff., and the (probably Jewish) nucleus oiAsc. 
Jfs. (323-413). Now, in this tradition, the constantly 
recurring name of the great enemy of the last times a 
name already known to the apostle l^ul (2 Cor. 615) 
is Belial (Beliar). Rut, according to many passages 
of the Testaments, Belial is a spirit of the air, ruler of 
the evil spirits. According to Test. Dan ft. the Messiah 
will fight against him in the last days. The supporters 
of Belial are the children of Dan. In Sib. 863 ff. 
(probably dating from the time of Cleopatra). Belial is 
already presented in an aspect closely resembling that 


of Antichrist (still more so in the Ascensio, which, how- I 
ever, has unquestionably undergone Christian revision). ! 
In the Ascensio the angel Samtnael interchanges parts 
with Belial, and Sammael figures also in later Jewish j 
tradition as the enemy of the last times' (on the origin ' 
of Belial, and on the various developments of meaning, { 
see Bkmal). Suggestions of the same idea occur in ' 
Lk. IO18 Jn. 1231 (Col. 215). Here we would seem to 
have an aspect of the tradition that, in point of time and 
contents, comes a great deal nearer that of Antichrist 
(2 Cor. 615: 'and what concord hath Christ with 
lieliar?'), which is not of historical but of purely 
eschatological origin : the idea of a rebellion of an 
angelic power against God at the end of time. Perhaps 
it is out of this figure behind which in 
turn stands the wilder figure of the dragon 
rising in relx,'llion against (Jod in the last times, which 
Gunkel conjectures to have its origin in the Babylonian 
creation-myth (see Cke.vtion, 2/. ) that, under the ex- 
periences of the Maccabean period, the humanised figure 
of a pseudo- Messiah came into existence. In this way 
we can explain also the superhuman traits in the picture, 
such as his declaring himself to be God (2rhess. 24), 
and his sitting in the temple of God (cp the myth of the 
storming of heaven by the dragon in Rev. 12 1^). 
These conjectures find further confirmation in the fact 
that, in later tradition, the ghostly-demonic element in 
the portrayal of Antichrist comes again more con- 
spicuously to the front, and the Antichrist is even 
represented .as a dragon who rebels against God (cp 
the writings of I*2phraim Syrus, and Apoc. Zeph. ). 

Points of Contact with other Traditions. One 
legend that comes into relation with that of Antichrist 

14. Dragon. 

16. Nero 

in many ways is that of Nero redivivus. 
Not that the figure of Antichrist had its 
beginning in the story of Nero. Originally 
both legends had currency side by side. It was only 
after Nero's return at the head of the Parthians (at first 
conceived of in a purely human way cj) the nucleus of 
Rev. 17) had become indefinitely delayed, and after men 
had liegun to expect the returning Nero only as a spirit 
from the under-world, that they gradually transferred 
to him some traits lielonging to the Antichrist- (cp 
Sib. ^61 ff. , where, in like manner, Belial is interpreted 
to mean one of the Cnesars ; see Ai'oc ai.vitic, 95). 
Such an amalgamation of the two figures is already 
met with in Rev. 13 and 17 (in their present form). 
The old form of .Antichrist, however, retains such 
vitality that in the end (Rev. 13 n^^) it appears as a 
second beast, servant of the first and on the same scene. 
A similar and (as far as its occasion is concerned) still 
more manifest doubling of .\ntichrist is seen in Com- 
modian's Carmen Apoloi^eticiim, in Lactantius (as 
above), in Martin (see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 2n), 
and in the ^i^Xiov K\riiJ.VTOi (Lagarde, Reliq. juris 
eccl. Zoff.). There is a complete fusion in the Ascensio 
Jesaiir, and in the commentary on the Apocalypse 
of Victorinus. This complicated figure of Nero redivivus 
took special hold on the Sibylline literature of the second 
century,^ and here again, in the delineation of this, we 
meet once more with the old features of the dragon 
myth. A fusion between the Antichrist tradition and 
the Simon Magus legend has already been observed by 
Schneckenburger, and tr.aced in a variety of points by 
the present writer. The same tradition comes into 
fusion w ith the later .Alexander legend and the old German 
saga of the end of the world (Muspilli, EJda). 

On this and other connected subjects see Houssct, /)fr .,4/;- 
christ, in the English translation of which (1896) special atten- 
tion has been bestowed on the index (see, e.g., 'Simon Magus,' 
'Alexander'). See also K. VVadstein, 'i)ie eschatologische 
Ideengruppe; Antichrist, Weltsabbath, Weltende und Welt- 
eesicht in ihrer christlichmittelalterlichen Gesammtentwicke- 
lung,' ZiVT, 1895 and 1896. On the Armenian form of the 

t V.X^jtnmcn^cr, Kfttdecktes /ttdentum 1 70^; cp .^sc. /es. 7 g. 

> This has been already remarked by Schneckenburger. 

' Cp Zahn, ' Apocal. Studien ' in Z.y. kirchl. Ltben u. IVtss. 



Antichrist-Iegena see Conybcare, Acnd., 26th October 1895 ; 
and on a singular Mohammedan tradition see Lvdda at end. 

w. B. 

ANTILIBANUS (antiAiBanoc [BA], om. ). 
Judith 1 7. See Lkh.V.NO.N. 

ANTIMONY (11-1S), Is. 54.. RV mg.. F:V 'fair 
colours.' See P.MNT. 

ANTIOCH (ANTioxeiA [Ti. WH]). i. in Pisidia ; 
more correctly, ' .\ntioch towards Pisidia' ('Aj'ri6xeta 
T) irpbi lliffidiqi), to distinguish it from the Antioch on 
the Me.ander (the form ' Pisidian Antioch,' 'AvTioxfia. 
7) WiaiSia [Ti. WH], Actsl3i4, arose to distinguish it 
from the more famous .Antioch of Syria). It was 
really a Phrygian city ; but in NT times it was of course 
included within the Roman province Galatia. Stralx) 
(p. 577) accurately descrilx;s it as lying 'on a hill,' on 
the south side of the range now called Sultan Uagh, in 
Phrygia Parorea ; but it was not until 1833 that 
Arundell found its ruins at Yalobatch. The town was 
founded about 300 H.C. by the Seleucid kings, and the 
transportation of 2000 Jewish families to the fortresses 
of Lydia and Phrygia, as recorded by Josephus {Ant. 
xii. 3), must in part refer to Antioch. By Augustus it was 
made a Roman colony (6 B.C. ) ; hence its coins Ijear the 
legend Cajsarea. Antioch was adopted as the centre of 
military and civil administration in Southern Galatia, 
and from it rarliated the roads to the colonies designed 
to check the unruly highlanders of Pisidia and Isauria. 
As an element in the pacification of this district, the 
privileges of the Jews were confirmed by the Emperors, 
and Paul found a large Jewish colony in the city. The 
Romanisation of this part of Galatia was in especially 
active progress during the reign of Claudius, 41-54 .A. n. 
At the time of Paul's visit, therefore, Antioch was at 
the height of its importance. Besides its relations with 
Apamea (on the W. ) and with Iconium, Lystra, and east- 
ern Asia Minor, it must have had a commercial connection 
with the Pamphylian seaports, among them Attalia and 
Perga ; and Paul must have reached Antioch by following 
this southern trade-route, which probably ran through 
Adada [Kara Bavlo, Bavlo being the modern pro- 
nunciation of the apostle's name). There was a large 
body of Jewish proselytes in Antioch, many of them 
women of position through whom the Jews were able to 
influence the magistrates against the apostles (.Acts 
13 so). The magistrates had summary jurisdiction over 
disturbers of the public peace, such as the apostles 
were alleged to be (cp v. 44, irao-a t) ttoXis avvrix&V- 
and z'. 45, Iddvres tous 6x^ovs) ; but the 'casting of 
them out of the borders' of the colony could not imply 
permanent banishment at any rate in the case of Paul, 
who was a Roman citizen. Accordingly we find the 
latter returning to Antioch from Derlx; (Acts 14 2.) and 
perhaps revisiting the city at least twice (.Acts 166 18 23, 
see Galati.\ ). If the trade of Antioch was concentrated 
in the hands of the Jews, we can the more easily under- 
stand Paul's first success here in Asia Minor : the new 
teaching did not conflict with any commercial interests of 
the gentile inhabitants, as it did at Ephesus and Philippi, 
while at the same time the Jewish proselytising had 
prepared the people for its reception. It is also not 
without significance that on the death of king Amyntas, 
some seventy years l)efore Paul's visit, the ancient 
worship of ' ^ien ' (MV 'AffKaio^. 'ApKoios Strabo, 
'A<TKrjif6i coins) had been abolished, so that there was 
probably no gentile hierarchy in existence to oppose the 
apostles. Hence the effect of their preaching more 
marked here than in any other case, except Corinth 
(Acts 134448/). .All the more strange is the sub- 
sequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches. 

2. In Syria (i and 2 M.acc. AV Antiochia). This 
great city, the third metropolis of the Roman world, 

1 Citv *^^ Queen of the Ivist {rj Ka\^ Athen. I75 ; 

' oricntis apex pulcher), and the residence of 

the impsrial legate of Syria, survives in Antdkleh, 



a town of only 6000 inhabitants. It is situated at 
the point of junction of the ranges of Libanus and 
Taurus, on a fine site hard by the left bank of the 
Orontes, just where the river turns westwards to run 
lx;tween Mt. Pieria on the N. and Mt. Casium on the 
S. , to the sea 16 m. distant. A little higher up the 
river .Antigonia had Ixx-n built in 307 n.c. by Antigonus ; 
but seven years later Scleucus Nicator transferred its 
inhabitants to his new city of .Antioch. 

.Stralx)'s meagre account (p. 750) is the foundation 
of our topographical knowledge of the city. Like the 
district in which it lay, Antioch was a rerpdiroXti, an 
agglomeration of four parts. 

The first contained the population of Antigonia ; the second 
the bulk of the citizens. 'Ihe third part was the creation of 
SeleucusCallinlcus (246-226 B.C.), and the fourth, on Mt. Silpius, 
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Each part had its own wall ; but in 
addition, the whole vast area, larger than that of Rome, was 
surrounded by huge walls running over the mountains and 
across the ravines. From Nicator's time dates the well-known 
statue ' the Fortune ' (Twvi;) of Antioch, a work of the Sicyonian 
Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus (Paus. vi. 2 7). The memory 
of it is preserved on the coins, and in a small marble statuette 
in the Vatican. The goildess, a graceful gentle figure, rests 
negligently on a rock ; while the river, a vigorous youth, seems 
to swnn out from under her feet. 

Seleucus Nicator also embellished Daphnf, (Aci^i/tj 
[V.\]), 5 m. distant from .Antioch, but reckoned a 
suburb. It was a spot musical with fountains ; its 
groves, crowded with temples, halls, and baths, were 
the seat of a cult of Apollo and Artemis. 

.\mong its artistic treasures was a statue of .Apollo Musagetes 
by the .Athenian Hryaxis. The precincts of Daphne were 
endowed with the right of asylum and naturally became the 
haunt of villany of runaway slaves, debtors, and cut-throats 
(Tac. Ann. 36o; Tiberius in 22 a.d. attempted to regulate this 
abuse in several cities) : if we may trust the story of Onixs in 
2 M.-icc. 4 33, D.iphne 'flung awav the one rare chance of shelter- 
ing virtue.' The site is now called Bet el Ma, the ' house of 
Water.' It retains no traces of its former magnificence. 

From this suburb, which Roman wealth, Greek art, 
and Oriental licentiousness conspired to make unique 
even in the ICast, .Antioch took its distinguishing name 
i] iirl Aa<pvri. In itself the title bore no reference to 
the pleasure pursuits of the suburb as though insinu- 
ating that there the true life of the city was to be found : 
it was a genuine official title. 

.Accordingly we find it on coins (cp '.\i'tiox'<oi' tSiv iir\ 
KoAAipoT) ; Tiov iv tilvy&oviif ; toic jrpot tcS idpoi). Hence 
I'liny (//,V,'i 21 [18]) writes ' Antiochia Epiclaphnes.' Tacitus 
(Ann. 2 83) transliterates the Greek, and calls the suburb itself 
' Epidaphna.' 

Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the 
historical position of .Antioch under the Seleucid kings. 
2. Character -^J*^""^^ ^'^^ 'o the sea (avatrXovi 
ai't)r]ij.cp6i> Strabo, p. 751), it was yet 
no seaport ; on the borders of the desert, it was yet 
something more than a centre for the caravan trade 
Ixitween the East and the Wx-st. The city reflected the 
character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a 
kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval 
nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city, 
just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose 
upon the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas. 
Yet, in the capital as in the kingdom at large, there was 
no true Hellenism ; the commingling of Oriental and 
Western elements resulted in the jjerpetuation of the 
worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness 
of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic tem- 
perament of the (ircek merely the means of concealing 
the crudities of his own life. The characteristic 
failing of the Greek also was e.\hibited on a great scale. 
.A third element, and that the one most important 
for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The 
colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from 
the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the lews the same 
privileges as he gave the (Greeks (Jos. .-///A .\ii. 3 1). > For 
this connection with the Syrian kings see i Mace. 11 42/ 
Herod completed the marble-paved street which we can 
1 According to 2 Mace. 49 (cp also v. 19) Jason conferred on 
the people of Jerusalem the status of citizens of Antioch 
(Antiochians) on which see T/i. T 12 544 ('78). 



trace from the ' Gate of St. Paul ' to the modem town 
(Jos. An/, xvi. 53). Thus all the forms of the civilised 
life of the Empire found in Antioch some representative. 
In its agora, said Libanius, the customs of the world 
might \)K studied. In no city was pleasure more earnestly 
pursued. Daphnici mores were proverbial ; the Orontes 
was synonymous with suix.Tstition and depravity (Juv. 
Sat. 862). Yet it would ix; of value to discover to what 
extent the lower and middle orders of the [x)()uIation 
were really affected by the lu.\ury and abandon of which 
we hear so much ; that is after all but one side of the 
city's life, and there is a temptation to exaggerate it. 
There w;is little real intellectual life ; epigram and light 
prose were the most flourishing forms of literature. 
Cicero {Fro Arch. 3, 4) is exaggerating with his 
' eruditissimis hominibus lilx-ralissimiscjue studiis ad- 
fluenti." Antioch is far less celebrated than Alexandria 
in the literature of the first and second centuries A. D. 
This intellectual attitude is a fact of some imjxjrtance, 
in its relation to the first Christian teaching. 

The mixture of Roman, CJreek, and Jewish elements 
admirably adapted .Antioch for the great part she playrd 

S.Christianity, l'!/^': ''^'''>' '?'''''>' ^ <^hristiamty. 
wiiiiBuiaiiiujr. J j^^ ^ijy ^^.^^ j^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j. ^^^ church. 

There, as elsewhere, Judaism prepared the ground for 
the seed of the word (cp Chrys. Horn. xxv. ). ' Nicolas, 
a proselyte of Antioch," one of the first deacons (Acts 65), 
was only one of a ' vast nmltitude of Greeks ' w ho in 
that city were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and 
ritual (Jos. BJ \'\\. 83 ; cp Acts 11 19-21). The ancient and 
honourable status of the Jews in Antioch gave to the 
infant church a firm and confident organisation. Very 
early the city became a centre on a level with Jerusalem in 
importance (Acts 11 22 26-30 13 i). The cosmopolitanism 
of its inhabitants inevitably reacted upon the Christians 
in the way of familiarising them with universalist ideas, 
and Antioch conseciuently became the centre of mis- 
sionary labour. It was Paul's starting-point on his 
first journey with Barnabas (Acts 13 1-3), and thither he 
always returned with his report of work done ( Acts 1 4 26/ 
1530 I822). It was at the instance of the church at 
-Antioch that the council of Jerusalem sent the circular 
letter to the gentile Christians (,Actsl523 Gal. 24-14), 
and, according to .Acts 11 26 (on which see Christian, 
beginning, and 2 [end]), it in .Antioch that ' the 
disciples were called C:hristians first ' undoubtedly as a 
nickname. W'e know that the |x;ople of Antioch were 
noted for their scurrilous wit (Philost. /'/'/. 3 16 Zos. 3n 
441 Procop. BP'IZ). w. J. \v. 

ANTIOCHIA (ANTiox[e]iA [ANV]), i and 2 Mace. 
AV, RY .Antioch, 2. 

ANTIOCHIANS (ANTioxeic [V.A]), 2 Mace. 4.9 
("XIAC L-A]!, and in AV also v. 9 (-XON [V]), where 
RV has ' titizcris of Antioch.' See Antioch 2, 2 n. 

ANTIOCHIS (ANTiox[e]lC [V'A]). concubine of 
Antiochus 1\'. l'2piphanes (2 Mace. 430). 

ANTIOCHUS (&NTIOXOC [ANV] ; anticoxoc [N* 
once, \'* once, .A once]), i. Antiochus III., surnamed 
the Great, was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and 
ascended the Syrian throne at the age of fifteen, on the 
death of his brother Seleucus Ceraunus. He is the 
earliest of the great Sklkucid.*: (</.:.) mentioned in 
the .Apocrypha, but Antiochus II. Theos and .Antiochus 
I. Soter (his grandfather and great-grandfather re- 
spectively) are alluded to in Dan. 11 (see Daniel, 6). 
His reign (223-178 B.C.) embraced a series of wars 
against revolted provinces and neighbouring kingdoms, 
wars in the prosecution of which his disasters and 
successes were equally great. The events of his life aiii 
briefly alluded to in Dan. 11 10^ notably his expedition 
in Asia Minor in 197 B.C. (cp v. 18) which, after varying 
fortune, ended in a crushing defeat at the hands of 
Scipio .Africanus near Magnesia in 190 B.C. (cp v. 18). 
This was one of the exploits of the Romans which 


Judas the Maccabec is said to liave heard of (i Mace. 

8-8)- . . . ... 

The account in its present form is not free from inaccuracies. 
Thus, the writer states that Antiochus, the 'great king of Asia,' 
had with him 120 elephants (?'. 6, incep. oj'tioi't (*]); but accord- 
inz to Livy (37 39) there were only fifty-four. ' It is not 
unlikely that in the popular tradition the original number was 
exaggerated' (Cambr. liible, ad ioc.). Cp MAtcAHEt^s, First, 
I 10. 

One of the conditions of the humiliating peace imposed 
in 1 88 B.C. was that twenty hostages, incluc'ing a son of 
the king (cp i Mace. 1 10 and lx;low, 2). should be sent 
to reside in Rome. .Antiochus the Great was killed in 
an attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais (187 n.c. ), 
and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV. I'hilopator. 
See SiiLEUCio^:^ 

2. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes ('E7ri(/>aj^s ' the illus- 
trious ' [cp I Mace. 1 10 where A -eij], called in mockery 
'Ewi/itti'ijs 'the madcap'), youngest son of no. i. On 
his place as hostage (see above, i) being taken by his 
nephew Ukmktkius, he returned to the East, and his 
elder brother, Seleucus IV., having meanwhile been 
murdered seized the Syrian throne (175 B.C. ), and soon 
became famous for his conquests in Coele - .Syria, 
Palestine, and Egypt (cp i Mace. 1 ibff. 2 Mace. 5i ^, 
and see Dan. 11 21^). During his Egyptian campaign 
he twice took Jerusalem ( i .\Iacc. 1 20^ 2 Mace. buff.). 
In spite of the presence of a strong favourable Hellenistic 
party (see Jason, Menelaus), Antiochus appears to 
have seen that he could never hope to subdue Judita 
until he had rooted out the peculiar Jewish religion (see 
Israel, 69/ ). He accordingly promulgated a decree 
enjoining uniformity of worship throughout his dominions 
(i .Mace. 141^), and even went so far as to endeavour 
to force upon the Jews the worship of heathen deities 
(see Abomination, ii. ). His persecuting policy w;\s 
responsible for the rise of the .-\ssiDEANS, and stirred up 
the successful resistance of the Maccabees. His end 
(164 B.C.) is variously described. According to i 
Mace. 61-16 he was visiting a rich and celebrated temple 
in Persia (see Ei,ym.\is), when tidings of the ill-success 
of his troops in Judaea, and remorse for his sacrilege at 
Jerusalem, caused his death according to Polybius 
(31 2) at Tab.B in Persia.^ The usually accepted 
reference to his end in 2 Mace. 1 10-17 is not very prob- 
able, see Maccabees, Second, 7. He is doubtless 
alluded to in Ps. 75 ^f. , and there are numerous references 
tohis life and character in Daniel(^.i'. ,i, 6, 8, 10, 18). 

The post-Talmudic tract Megillath Antiochus is a legendary 
account, in Aramaic, of the persecutions in his reign ; cp Schii. 
Cjy\ 123 (see Maccaukks, Second, 11). See Sei.euciu.. 

3. Antiochus V. Eup.ator (Ei>7rdTW/3), the young son 
of -Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (see 2, above), was left 
under the care of Lysias, whilst the father conducted 
his wars in Persia (i Mace. 832/). On the death of 
Epiphanes (164 B.C.) Lysias obtained the regency, 
ousting his rival Pun. IP, 5, and set up Epiphanes' son as 
king, giving him at the same time the surname Eupator 
(i Mace. 614^) 'on account of the virtues of his 
father' (Appian). Together they entered Jud:ea (see 
Israel, 75 beg. ) and, encamping at Beth-zacharias, be- 
sieged Bethsura (see Beth-ZUr). The Maccabreans were 
defeated and the famous Eleazar [q.v. , 7) was killed (i 
Mace. 6 28 ff. ).^ The war was brought to an abrupt close, 
however, by the news that Philip had occupied Antioch, 
and a hasty peace was concluded restoring to the Jews 
the privileges they had enjoyed previous to the persecu- 
tions of Antiochus F^piphanes (cp Isr.ael, /.c. ). In the 
following year (162 B.C. ) the king and his guardian were 
put away by Demetrius [q.v., i] (i Mace. 7i^ 2 
Mace. 14i^). See SeleuciD/E. 

4. Antiochus VI., surnamed Theos (Oe6s), son of 
Alexander Balas, spent his early youth as a ward of 

1 His father, Antiochus III. the Great, died whilst engaged 
in this same district upon a similar errand. Tradition may have 
confused the son with the father. 

* 3 Mace. 13 21 ascribes their ill-success to treachery (see 



an Arabian (see Imalcue). He was brought forward by 
Tryphon, a former follower of lialas, and set up as king 
in opposition to Demetrius Nicaior (see Demetrius, 
2) who was rapidly becoming unpopular (i Mace. 
11 39 54 ; 145 B.C.). On his coronation he received the 
surnames ' Ejiiphanes ' and 'Dionysus.' Henceforth 
he became a mere UkA in the hands of Tryphon, who 
ultimately found an opportunity of slaying him ( i Mace. 
1831). See further Tkvi'Hon, SELEUCiUiK. 

5. Antiochus VII. SidCtes(2::i5^7;$), ".., man of Sid6 
in Pamphylia, called also Ei/at^ris (Jos. Ani. xiii. 82), 
was the son of Demetrius I. and younger brother of 
Demetrius 1 1. N'icator. The capture of his brother by 
the Parthians gave Sidetes the opportunity of asserting 
his claim to the Syrian throne in opposition to the 
unpopular Tryphon. To win over the Jews he wrote, 
from Rhodes, to Simon ' the chief priest and governor,' 
and by advantageous concessions, remission of royal 
debts, and the formal f)ermission to coin money, attained 
his end (1 Mace. \;)iff. ; acrtwxos [k* v. i]). Tryphon 
was besieged at Dor [v. 25), and ultimately forced to 
flee to Orthosia {v. 37). 'Ihe situation immediately 
changed. Antiochus felt his position secure, and sent 
Athenobius to Simon demanding Joppa, Gazara, the 
citadel of Jerusalem, and the arrears of tribute (28 _^). 
The refusal of these demands brought about war, and 
Cendkheus was dispatched against the Jews (ir>38^). 
Sidetes appears no more in i Mace. ; but in the time of 
John Hyrcanus (see Macc.vhi:es, i. 7) he came and 
Ixjsieged Jerusalem (133 B.C.), and five years later met 
his death whilst fighting the Parthians under Phraortes 
II. (.\rsaces VII., 128 B.C.). See Seleucid.e. 

6. Father of Numemus (i Mace. 12 16 14 22). 

ANTIPAS (&NT[e]inAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from 
dfTiiraTpos. see Jos. ^/. xiv. I3; cp Cleopas from 
KXeoTTarpos). i. See Herodian Family, 2. 

2. The 'faithful witness' of Pergamum named in Rev. 213. 
According to the ^!c7a Sancto>-um (.\pr. 11) he was bishop of 
Pergamum, and suffered death (by the ' brazen bull ') under 

ANTIPATER (^NTinATpoc [AKV]), son of Jason 
[3], an ambassador sent by the Jews to the Lacedae- 
monians (i Mace. 12 16 14 22). See Sparta. For the 
Antipater from whom Antipatris (see below) was named 
see Hekodian Family, i. 

ANTIPATRIS ( ANTinATRlC [Ti. WH]) was founded 
by Herod the Great on ' the finest plain ' of his kingdom 
... . i.e., .Sharon in memory of his father 

1. Allusions. ,i^jip.^jgr (Jos. /?/i.2l9),but also, as the 
history of the town abundantly proves, for strategical 
reasons. The other details given by Josephus are, that 
it lay 'close to the mountains' {BJ\.\^) o\\ the plain 
of Kaphar Saba (Ka</)ap(7a/3a), fertile and well-watered, 
that a river encompassed the city, and a grove of very 
fine trees (.f/'. xvi. 52). In another passage, probably 
from a different source, Josephus identifies it with 
Kaphar Saba (Xa/3apfa;3a ^ vvv 'AvrnraTpls KaXeiTat), 
and tells how, to resist Antiochus on his march against 
the Arabians (circa 85 B.C.), Alexander Jannaeus made 
a deep ditch and a wall, which however Antiochus 
destroyed, extending thence, a distance of 150 (?) 
stadia, to the sea at Joppa {id. xni.l5i). During 
Roman times Antipatris was a station at or near the 
junction of the military roads from Lydda and from 
Jerusalem respectively to Cresarea, where the latter 
road issued from the hills. Thus Paul was brought 
by night from Jerusalem to Antipatris and thence, part 
of his escort returning, to Cnesarea (Acts233i). The 
return of so much of Paul's escort is explained by the 
fact that, Antipatris l)eing according to the Talmud 
{Tnlm. nab., Gittin, j6a) on the limits of Jewish soil, 
all danger of an attack by the threatened Jewish ambush 
(.Acts 23 16 20 ^ ) was now past. There, in 66 A. D. , 
Cestius Gallus halted on his way to Lydda {li/'n. 19 1), 
and to this point, on his subsequent retreat from 
Jerusalem, he was pursued by the Jews (ib. 9). There, 


too, in the same year, Vespasian halted on his march 
from Cx'sarca to Lydda (ib. iv. 8i). 

AiUipatris is not marked in the Tab. Pent. The 
Bordeaux I'ilgrinj (333 A.n. ) j;ivi.s it as 10 k.m. from 
_.. Lydda and 26 from Ciu-sarea ; the ///'. Ant. 
' as 28 from Ca;sarea ; and Eus. and Jer. in 
the Ofiom. as 6 S. from Galgulis (in all probability the 
present Jiljuliyeh). Schiirer (Hist. Zi-^o) and others, 
following Rob. (i^A'4 139/. ), identify it with the present 
Kefr Sfiba, 23 R. m. (as the crow flies) from Cajsarea. 
Hut, as Kefr Saba is no less than 17 R.m. from Lydda 
and 2 R.m. N. from Jiljuliyeh; as, besides, it has no 
ancient remains, nor any such wealth of water or en- 
compassing river as Josephus descrilxis, it is more 
probable that Antipatris lay farther S. on the upjx;r 
waters of the 'Aujch, which are about 29 R.m. from 
Cajsarea, 4 S. of Jiljuliyeh, and about 11 N. of Lydda, 
in a district which better suits the data of Josephus. 
Here Dr. Sandreczky and Sir C. W. Wilson {FEF 
Qu.Sf., 1874, p. 192/.) have suggested the site of 
Kal'at Rds el-'Ain, at the very copious sources of 
the 'Aujeh, which they identify with die crusading 
castle of Mirabel (el-Mirr being a neighbouring place- 
name). They point out, too, that the valley of the 
'Aujoh would Ije a more natural line for the great ditch 
of .\le.\ander Janiuvus than a line from Kefr Saba to 
the sea. Although Neubauer [G^og. du Talin. 80 jf.) 
tiiinks that tiie Talmud distinguishes between Kefr Saba 
and .Antipatris, this is doubtful, for, while their names 
are given separately, both are defined as border towns 
Ijctween Samaria, a heathen country, and Judaea. 
These are all the data for the question of position. 
Without excavation on the sites named, and the dis- 
covery of the rest of the Roman road probably the 
road by which r\aul was brought traced by l':ii Smith 
in 1843 from Gophna to the plain, but lost at the edge 
of the hills [Biblioth. Sac .\ ^^'& ff.) , it is imix^ssible for us 
to be certain where exactly Antipatris stood. We cannot 
exjject to find many ruins on the site. Unlike other 
Herodian sites, it is not stated to have Ix^n embellished 
by great buildings ; and the town did not afterwards 
develop. Huhl (Pal. 199) f;ivours Ras cl-'Ain. 

In 333 the Bordeaux Pilgrim calls it a vtutaiio, or change- 
house, not a chitas like Lydda (the next 'change' he mentions 
Hetthar, 10 R.m. towards Ca;sarea is perhaps the present 
e{.Tlreh, PEF Mem. 2 166). In 404 the Peretp: S. I'autce calls 
it 'semirutum oppidulum.' In 451 it had a bishop {Acts 0/ the 
Coun. o/Chalceiion : cp Descr. Parochice Jerusalem, circa 460), 
and in 744 it still contained Christians. With their disappear- 
ance before the .^rabs, the Greek ecclesiastical name would 
vanish, and has not been recovered (but see the curious state- 
ment of a native in /'A'/-" .V^-w/. 2 134, that the name of Kefr 
S.'iba is Aiuifatrus). The Crusaders wrongly identified Antipatris 
with ' Arsuf, tlie ancient Apollonia. c. A. S. 

ANTONIA, see Jkkusalkm. 

ANTOTHIJAH,or rather RVANTHOTnijAH(n>nh3y, 
n^rinpV [Oi.], n^phay [BS.]; probaWy a feminine 
adjective formed from .Anatiioth [^.t'-]), in genealogy 

of UlNJA.MIN [q.v.. 9 ii. /3), I Ch.824t (ANOOGAie 
[ANABcoeiA. A] KAI A,eeiN [5"'^], ANAea)e(5j.L]). 

Al^OTHITE ('ninpy), i Ch. ll 28 AV. See 
Anatiioi H, I. 

ANUB(3-i::;; eNNcoNtCn], erNcoB[A], ANcoB[L]; 
Axoii), a Judahite, descendant of Coz (RV Hakkoz) 
( I Ch. 48). Probably to be identified with Anak (We. ). 

ANUS (annac [B]), I Esd. 948 AV=Neh.87 
Han AN, 4. 

ANVIL (DyS), Is. 41 7t. See Metal Work. 

APAME (ahamh [BAl, -hh- [L]; \-^ <=^<*: apeme), 
daughter of Bartacus and concubine of Darius (i Esd. 

APAMEA (Jer. Talm. Kil. 932^ N*DDN. but oftener 
N^ODDX), mentioned in the Vg. text of Judith3i4, 
apparently as a district ( ' pertransiens . . . omnem 
Apameam ' ) in the line of march of Holofernes. 


Airafi>>ni,oneof the ten districts of N. Syrui under Rome(I>tol. 
C^tyr. V. 16 19), took its name from 'Atroficta, a fortified town 
(named after Seleucus Nicator'.s Persian wife), built on a hill 
some six or more miles east of the Orontes, half-way between 
Emesa and Antioch, and now represented by important ruins 
under the village that occupies the site of the old citadel, now 
calleil l<al'atelMudllf. Sec .Stral>o, p. 752; Ritter, Erdkunde 
17, Abth. ii. 1075-86 ; E. Sachau, Keise in Syrien u. Meso^t. 
Ti-Zji (photographs and map) ; also reff. in Hoettg. Lex. Jos. 

APE(D*Dp, D^Sip; meHKOi [BAL]; si,ni<r, 1 K. 
IO22, Xiewv TopfiTuiv [BL], cp 7'. 1 1 ; 2 Ch. 021+). An 
animal mentioned among the rarities brougiil from Opiiir 
by Solomon's fleet. The Heb. /kH/iA, 'ajx;,' is evidently 
a loan-word,' and is usually connected with Jta/>i,^ the 
Sanscr. name of the ape ; thus the home of the animal, 
though r\ot necessarily the situation of Ophir, will be 
indicated. It is mentioned in each case, in MT (the 
phenomena of (S are here very peculiar), in connection 
with the jjeacocks (if the common theory is correct) 
imi^orted by Solomon from Oi'UiK. Perhaps ' monkey' 
would Ije a more correct modern English rendering than 
'ape,' which suggests the tailless quadrumaiia, wiiile 
the animals of this order represented on the Assyrian 
and Egyi^tian inscriptions have tails. Just so, Kr)Aot. 
would have been a lx;tter Greek rendering than iriOrjKoi 
(the LXX word), if Aristotle is correct in making the 
iri9riKoi tailless. Four kinds of motikeys are repre- 

sented on the Assyrian monuments. Those on the black 
obelisk of Shalmaneser II. seem to belong to an Indian 
sjjecies ; they appear in company with the Indian 
elephant and the Bactrian camel (Houghton, 'On the 
Manmialia of the Assyrian Sculptures," TSPA 5319/ 
Vn^)- Monkeys (,^(7^) and balloons were nmch in 
request in Eg>-pt. Queen Ha'tsepsut ('Hatasu,' i8th 
dynasty) received them among other rarities from 
the (African) land of Punt ; see the picture of the 
native ambassadors leading specimens of the Cyno- 
cepluilus Hamadrj'as and the Cynocef^halus Bubuinus.'^ 
Halevy, however [K'EJ'lltif. ), would identify Solomon's 
C'Eip and c\'3n (see Pkacocks) with the tuku and 
kukupi mentioned in the Amarna tablets in the requests 
of the Asiatic princes i.e., different sorts of vessels full 
of aromatic oil, etc.'* Plutarch [de Is. et Osir. 81) gives 
an account of the sixteen ingredients of the ICgyjJtian 
K\)(pi.^ N. M. A. K. s. 

APELLES (AneAAHC [Ti- WH], contracted from 
A7ro\\6oapoj) is saluted in Rom. 16 10, where he is 
called 'the approved {Sokl/jlos) in Christ,' an exjjression 
which seems to suggest that he had shown constancy 
as a confessor in time of trial. Nolliing further is 
known of him. Weizsiicker suggests that his Christian 
activity may have been chiefly within the household of 
Aristobulus also mentioned in v. 10 (Ajost. Age 1 399). 

In the list of the 'seventy apostles' which we owe to Pseudo- 
Dorotheus, Apelles is represented as bishop of Heraclea ; that 
of Pseudo-Hippolytus mentions Smyrna. According to the 
viro/uiTj/ua of Peter and I'aul by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes, 
he was consecrated bishop of .Smyrna by Peter. 

APHAEREMA (^ctiAipeMA [NV']), i Mace. 11 34 


APHARSACHITES (N'SD'lDX [Ba.]; '"laX [Gi.]; 
Ac})ApcAXAiOi [B.\], but -CAKKAIOI [B] in Ezra56; 
-RACBaxaiOI [L] ; see also next article), a word used 
(P>.ra56 tJ6t) apparently as the title of certain ofticers 
under Darius. Another form is Ahuaksathchitks ; see 
Ezra 49, where the word is misunderstood (see Ezra, ii. 

1 If it belongs to the original text : see Edonv, 2 A 

2 Whence also Ki\fio^ or ttijjro?, and Eng. a^e. 

' Edwards, Pharaohs, Petlahs, ami KxJ>lorers 292. See 
also the apes and baboons on a wall-painting in a tomb. El 
Bersheh (Egypt. Explor. Fund), Pt. IL, plate .vi. ; cp p. 29. 

* See Am. 'Tab. B 28 = Wi. 294, col. 2,40; i kukupu 5a . . . 
(ka]-du naktamiSu, 'a kukupu . . . with its lid ' ; col. 3, 43 . . . 
kukubu samni {abi, '. ._ . a kukubu of gixxl oil"; B 5, i, 25 
(recto) samni .5a tabu aljiya uSiranni II duk kukupu, 'send me, 
my brother, good oil, two vessels kukupu ' (so Hal., not in Wi.). 
>uk or tuk (pi. tuke) is the ordinary ideogram for ' vessel, 

* The Assyriological notices are mostly due to Prof. Cheync 


lo) and treated as the uanic of a tribe settled in 
Palestine by Asnai'I'KR. Its etymology is still very 
uncertain. See G. Hoffmann, Z^ 254 / ; Marquart, 
Fund. 64 ; and Andreas in Marti, Bibl.-aram. Gram., 
Glossary, p. 53*. 

APHARSATHCHITES, The (N^^JilpnDN [Bii.] ; 
N-DHDIDX [Gi.]; 4)&pece^x<MOl L'^]. A(J)ApCAe- 
[A]VA<i)ApACT&X- [L]). I':z>a49t. See Al'HAKSAClI- 

APHARSITES (S^DnSN [Bii. Gi.]; A(t)p&CMOi [B]. 
A(J)APC- [Al ; cJ)ApAceAlOI [1^1). mentioned in I'>.ra49t 
as a tribe settled in Palestine by AsNAPi'EK. Various 
attempts al identification have Ijcen made {Persians, by 
Kawlinson, Pulp. Com. ad loc. , but see A'AT^"^^ 376; 
Par sua, a Median tribe, by Del. Par. 327) ; but the 
word is Ijest regarded as a scribe's error, related (some 
think) to N-32-12X (EV Apiiaksachites, Kzraf)6 66), 
or, more probably, miswritten for Nnea 'scribes.' The 
last letter of n-i-eu (MT K-^tn^, see -Tarpki.itks) was 
attached bv dittography to the ne.\t word (Marquart, 
Pun J. 64).' 

APHEK(pD.^f Acj)eK [BAL]). It is not easy to 
determine how many i)laces of this name are mentioned 
in the OT. Only one of them has Ix^en satisfactorily 

1. In Josh. 134 (ra0e/c [B], a^e/ca [A], -kk. [L]) 
.\phek appears as the limit of the Sidonian country, 
apparently as its northern limit towards the Giblites or 
Byblians. This Aphek, therefore, is commonly identified 
with Aphaca (now Afka), famous for its sanctuary of 
Astarte, which lies at the source of the river of Byblus, 
the ,\donis or (as it is now called) Nahr Ibrahim ; cp 
Lucian, Dea Syria 6-8. 

2. The Aphek assigned in Josh. 19 30 to the tribe of 
.\sher is mentioned in Judg. 1 31 (where the name 
is written p-EN, Ai'iiiK, a^eK [AL], vaei [B]) as one 
of the towns which the Canaanites were able to maintain 
against the invaders. Here also some suppose that 
.\phaca is meant ; but it is difticult to believe that .Asher 
ever attempted to extend so far north, and, as it appears 
from Josh. 17iii that .Asher had a theoretical claim to 
l)art of the plain of Sharon S. of Mt. Carniel as far at 
least as Dor, it is probable that Aphek in Sharon (no. 
3) is meant. 

3. In Josh. 12 18 {o<l>iK [B]) we read, in the list of the 
kings smitten by Joshua, ' the king of Aphek, one ; the 
king of Lasharon, one ' ; but it is better to emend the 
verse with the aid of (0</>^(c r^s 'ApwK) and read ' the 
king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon, one' (see Di. 
on the passage). This Aphek in Sharon, as W'ellhausen 
has pointed out, is the city {a) from which the Syrians 
of Damascus made repeated attacks on Samaria, i K. 
2O2530 (a</)eKa [B.\], -kk. [L]), aK.lSi?,^ and {b 
and c) from which the Philistines assembled their forces 
for war with Israel before the battles of Gilboa ( i S. 
29 1 ) and of Eben-ezer (i S. 4i ; Jos. a/i^eKa or a<pKa). 

(a) As regards the Aphek of Kings : that it lay in a 
lowland plain is clear from i K. 20 23, and that the plain 
is that of Sharon follows from 2 K. 1822 (S^, where we 
find the addition (undoubtedly genuine) 'and Hazael 
took the Philistine from his hand from the Western sea 
to .\phek. Aphek therefore lay on the verge of Philistia 
i.e.. in Sharon and we must understand that, both 
in Benhadad's time and in the time of Hazael, the Syrians 
avoided the difficulties of a direct attack on the central 
mountain-land of Canaan by striking into the maritime 
plain south of Carmel and so securing the mastery of 
the fertile coast-land without having to besiege Samaria. 
Their route would, in fact, be the present great road from 
Damascus to Ramleh through Megiddo.^ At Aphek, 


soinewhcre in the north of the Sharon Plain, they had a 
great military post from which they could direct their 
armies either against Samaria or against the Philistines 
(2K. 12i7[i8]). 

{b) As regards the Aphek of Samuel : it is clear that 
a point in the northern part of the Sharon Plain, on 
the road to Megiddo and the plain of Esdraelon, is 
appropriate to i S. 29 1. The mustering-place of the 
Philistines cannot have teen in the heart of the Hebrew 
territory, least of all at such a place as el-Faku' on Mt. 
Gilboa (in the rear of Sauls army !) where it is absurdly 
placed by Conder and Armstrong. It is argued that 
the Philistines were at Shunem (iS. 284) tefore they 
reached Aphek ; but to argue thus is to forget that i S. 
283-25, the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, is 
a distinct narrative, by a different hand, and that 29 1 
originally followed directly on 28 if. 

(c) Finally, the attack on central Israel which issued 
in the battle of Eten-ezer and the destruction of Shiloh 
(iS. 4) would naturally te taken to have teen made 
from the same .Vphek, were it not that commentators have 
assumed that the position of Eten-ezer, and therefore 
of Aphek, is fi.xed somewhere near Mizpah by i S. 7 12. 
It is certainly safer, however, to distinguish the battle- 
field of Eten-ezer in i S. 4 1 from the stone Eten-ezer 
set up by Samuel many years later, than to assume the 
existence of two Apheks fitted to te the starting-point 
of a Philistine campaign (cp Eben-ezkk). And here 
also it is to te observed that chaps. 4 and 7 are derived 
from distinct documents, and that the historical value 
of the second is very insecure. 

Eriini w hat has been said it will appear without further 
argument that it is illegitimate to seek an Aphek in the 

region, between 

Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee, to 

1 On this passage see Asher, 3. 

- - '/., ET, 39 [but cpGASm. //G 


-' .See We. C// 254 ; cp //ist., 

s'Cp the route of Al-NabulusI, ed. Tuch. 


which Eus. and Jer. give the name of Saron, or to place 
the .\phek of Kings at the caravan-station of Elk in the 
mountains to the E. of the Sea of Galilee. This may 
be the Apheca near Hippus or Hippe of OS 91 24 and 
219 72 ; but is not a biblical site. W. K. S. 

The existence of an Aphek in Sharon is put te-yond 
doubt by the following additional evidence. Firsf, in 
the lists of Thotmes III. {c 1600 B.C.) nos. 60-76 
form a group V)y themselves ; 62 is Joppa, 64 Lydda, 65 
Ono. Then come 66 Apukn, 67 Suka, 68 Yhm. At 
this last place, Thotmes had to decide which of three 
roads he should take over Carmel. Yhm must therefore 
have lain near the most southerly road that is, somewhat 
south of the mouth of the Wady 'Abu Nar and may 
be the present Yemma by the high road along the edge 
of the Samarian Hills. Suka is doubtless the present 
Shuweikeh, 2 m. farther S. Apukn therefore lay 
between it and Ono. Maspero, it is true, identified 
Suka and Apukn with the Judoean Shocoh and Apheka 
of josh. 154853; butW. Max Miiller {As. u. Eur. 161) 
has shown that the list contains nothing S. of Ajalon. 
The n of Apukn may te the common termination of 
place-names jr. Max Mtiller says it may also te 
read as i. Secondly, in the autumn of 66 A. D. Cestius 
Gallus, advancing on Jerusalem from Caesarea, reached 
Antipatris, and ' sent before ' a party to drive the Jews 
out of 'the tower of Aphek' (IIi;p70S 'A^ckoO). After 
taking the tower he marched on Lydda (Jos. DJ\\. 19 i). 
This agrees with the data of Thotmes III. and places 
Aphek te'tween the River "Aujeh and Lydda. Here 
there is now no place-name which affords any help in 
the case, unless it te that of the village Fejjeh i.e., 
originally, Feggeh about 9 m. NE. of Joppa (which, 
however, does not lie quite near enough to the E. limit 
of the plain to suit Lucian's text of 2 K. 1822), and it 
ought not to te overlooked that in a list of mediaeval 
Arab place-names quoted by Rohricht {ZDPV, 1896) 
there occur both Sair Fuka and Fakin. A,^ain, in a 

fragment of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.) a city Apku is 
descrited as 30 ' kasbu-kakkar ' from Raphia on the 
Egyptian frontier. Schrader( A'.-/ rC-' 204), who translates 
kasbu-kakkar by * double leagues," takes Apku to lie on 


the K. of the lake of Ciennesaret {i.f., the present Fik) 
and the Aplick of i K. 2O26, etc. This, however, seems 
less likely to give the distance from Raphia of a place so 
situated than of an Aphek on the plain of Sharon. The 
'Aujth, it may Ix; remarked, is 70 m. from Raphia. 
It oufjht not to Ix; overlooked that the particularis- 
ing of one Aphek as ' in Sharon ' (Josh. 12 18, see 
above, 3) implies the existence of other Apheks in the 
land. f;. A. .s. 

APHEKA (Hi^QN, a^jaka [AL], (|>akoya ['5]). an 
miidctiliticd citv in the mountain-land of fudah (Josh. 


APHEREMA, RV Ai'I1/Kkkm.\ (AcJjAipeMA [N], 
A4)ep. \y'-'^] fUiSii ). I .Mace. 1134, probably a 
CJnvciscd form of the city-name I-".rnK.\iM (i/.z'., ii. ). 

APHERRA (A(i)eppA [HA]), a group of children of 
Solomon's servants (see NiCTlllNlM) in the great post- 
exilic list (I'>.K.\, ii. 9, 8(), one of eight inserted in 
I I-".sd. 0^4 (om. L) after I'ochereth-hazzeljaim of j I'.zra 
257 = N'eh.7 59- 

APHIAH(n'DX; A(t)eK[BL], -(t)AX [A*]. -(J)ix [A'']). 
iS. Oif, according to MT, one of Saul's ancestors; 
but '.son of Aphiah, a Hcnjamitc,' should probably l)e 
' of Gilxjah of Benjamin ' (p' j3 [njvajc). So virtually 
Wellhau.seii ; but he did not notice that Aphiah (cp 
and note that k = ];, e.i;., in Rcba \u. :n8) is a corrup- 
tion of (jilx-ah. This was reserved for Marcjuart {I'lnul. 

15). T. K. C. 

APHIK (p*pX), Judg. 1 3it- Sec .\i'iiKK, 2. 

APHRAH, HOUSE OF, R\' Eeth-lcs-Aplirah (n'5 
rr\^t>- OIKOY KATAreAooTA [HA(JJ), Mic. I10+, the 
name of a town not identified with any certainty. The 
determination of the site of Beth-le-Aphrah cannot be 
separated from the larger question of the text of the 
whole passage, Mic. 1 10-15, which cannot be discussed 
here (see Taylor, MT of Mic. ; Ryssel, Untersuch. on 
the Hook of Mic. 26 ff. ; We. Kl. Pn>ph. ; Wi. A T 
Unters. 185/., AOF\io^). So much, however, is 
plain the vocalisation cannot \vi trusted, especially 
in view of the paronomasia ( ' house of dust ' RV mg. ), 
and even the consonants were differently read by . 
The older writers {e.g. , Winer, so now also Xowack) 
identified -Aphrah with Ophr.-mi {q.v.)\ cp Pesh. 'the 
houses of Ophrah.' But the context seems to demand 
some place farther ^^^ and S. Winckler, w ith his rather 
too ingenious emendation ' Bethel ' (reading iSjr'^N for 
"icy r\-\-:'^ AOF, I.e.), seeks to avoid this objection by 
reading '(Jilgal' for the historically im[)ossible '(iath," 
and (with We.) ' Bekaim ' (see BociiiM) for the very 
questionable bdko (133) in 1 io. Ww/.. [KG I!, ad loc), 
followed by Miihlau in H\VB<-\ suggests a ' Afrd that 
Yakut [Mo jam el bulddii, sub voc. ) mentions as 'a castle 
in Palestine near Jerusalem. ' Ges. -Bu. suggests doubt- 
fully lietogabra (Kleutheropolis, Be it Jibrln), which, 
however, represents an Aram, xiaj n'a(-N'estle in '/.DPV 
I224/). Perhaps the name of the Wady el-Ghafr 
running E. not far S. of Mirash may be an echo of 
Micah's Aphrah. So GASm. [Twelve Proph.X^Z^), 
Che. (JQR, July 1898). The ? in .iisy'? seems to be a 
scribe's error (as if ' in the dust '). 

APHSES (VVSn). I Ch.24i5t AV, RV H.vpi'izzez. 

APIS (^in; o &nic [BXAQ J. ott. [Q* (superscr. 
a (J' f<'")] ; Egyptian Hapi), the bl.ick bull-god of Mem- 
phis (sc-e Egyht, 14). Though the name of this famous 
deity does not occur in EV, he is mentioned once in OT 
(Jer. 46 isrz). alone has preserved the true division 
of the words : for r^nDj, AV ' are swept away ' (similarly 
RV Pesh. Vg. ), we must read rn D3. 'hath fled Apis' 
[^(fivyev 6 'Airts). Cp Konig, Syntax 210, n. i. 
For an analogous correction see Giesebrecht and Cornill 
aJ loc. and cp C.VLi",, 2. 
13 193 


APOCALYPSE, THE (Hook ok Revki.ation). 
According to the best authorities (NC.\ [in subscription] 

1 Name ^^' ^^' ^^' ^^ ' ' '' ^^^^)' '^*^ *'''*^ ''"'"' 

, , ' a7^o^aX^'j'lJ \(t)a.[v^vo^<. Later MSS add toi/ 
ftZlCl Pid.C6 /I , ^-^ 1 V 

in NT "^0^070" (v '*"^' many cursives), or tov 
aTTOffToXov, or tov air. Kai evayYeXiffrov 
( P vg. cod. , Syr. ). 

In almost all MSS the Apocalypse now holds the 
last place in the NT. The stichometry of Cod. Claro- 
montanus (D, Paul) arranges as follows : Evang. Paul. 
Cath. Apoc. Act. (see (Jreg. Prol. '.i 136 ; cp also 
what is said alxjut the Evangeliaria, 175 and 368). In 
the Syriac version of the A])ocalypse which has t)een 
edited by Gwj-nn, the book was preceded by the Fourth 
(jospel. The hiatus in Cod. D was perhaps originally 
occupied by the Apocalypse and Johannine Epistles 
(Bousset, TI.'A, 1892), thus giving the order Evang., 
-Apoc, Epp. Joh. , Acts. All this jjerh;i|3s indicates that 
the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings were 
originally handed down together. In point of fact, 
Tcrtullian actually speaks of an ' instrumentum 
Johannis,' which consisted of .Apoc. and i Jn. [Resiirr. 
38, 39 ; Pud. 19 ; Pi/ga 9 ; Pnrscr. 33). Cp Ronsch, 
Da.<: neue Tertull. 528. 

The Book seems to be presupposed in two places in 
the Ignatian epistles, [a) Ad Eph. 153 : '" tI'M"' aiToO 

2. External 
evidence ; 


(NA read \aol in Rev. 21 3) k(x.I avrbi 
^ (V rj/j-iv Oeos. [b) Ad Pliilad. 6 i : oi'rot 
//oi aTy)\a.i. elaiv Kai rd^oi vcKpQv icp' oh 
yeypavTai fiovov opofxara avOplwwv (cp 
Rev. 3 12/. , in the ej)tstle to the church of Philadelphia). 
Andrew of Ctesarea, UKjreover, mentions Papias, amongst 
others, as bearing witness to the Apocalypse (raiVr; 
TTpojxapTvpovvTwv t6 OL^LbiTLaTov), and on Rev. 12 7 
adduces (.3240 ^. , ed. Sylb. ) two observations taken 
verbatim from Papias. That Eusebius does not mention 
the testimony of Papias is doubtless to be accounted 
for by the historian's unfriendly attitude towards the book. 
Iren;uus appeals in support of the traditional number 
666 to 'elders' who had actually seen John. (In all 
probability we could reduce this testimony of the elders 
to that of Papias alone : Harnack, Chron. der alkhristl. 
Lit. 1333^.). We find a writer so early as Justin 
asserting the book to be apostolical [Dial. 81 : Trap' 
ir)iLiv avrip ris v dvo/xa 'lajdvprji eh twv dTrocrT6\un> 
XpLffTod ev dwoK. ) and canonical [Apol. 1 28 : (is fK rdv 
r]fXT/>wi' avyypa/x/jLaTwv fxaduv dvvaade). This early 
recognition of the Apocalypse as a canonical writing 
need not surprise us : the book itself puts forward a 
claim to this character (1 18/: 22 18). 

In the second half of the second century we find the 
Apocalypse widely recognised. 

It is generally current (a) in Asia Minor, alike among Mon- 
tanists, anti-Montanists (Apollonius ; Euseb. //A" v. 18 14), and 

mediating writers (.Melito of .Sardis; I'b. iv. 2i) 2; ; 
3. 2nd and (/) in Caul, both with Irenaeus (,-/,/^'. Jhr>. 
Cent. ' rt 3 ^- iii- 1 I 34 .\i. I v. :;0 i 3) and in the 

writing; of the church of Lugdiinum and Vienn.i 
(in Pais, ///i v. 1 58). {c) In .Africa, as already mentioned, 
Tertulliart knows of an insiruiiientuiii Jo/iannii to which bi.tti 
the Apocalypse and i Jn. belong; the Arts of J\'rpetua and 
Feliciias shows acquaintance with it (cp cc. 4 and I'.'), (if) In 
Egypt the /udiciiiin Petri seems to know the book (Hilgtnf. 
Naz'. Test.'cxtr. Can. Reccptuin loi); (<) for Antioch, lii^hop 
Theophikis (Eus. II Ii iv. 24 i) is our witness 10 the same efTuct ; 
and (y ) for Home, the Muratorian Canon, (g) Clement of .Mex- 
andria cites the Apocalypse (I'ud. 2 108 iig; Strom. 106), 
Origen is unaware of any reason for doubting its apostolic origin 
{in Jos. J loin. 6; cp Eus. HE vi. 209). 

The situation changes, however, in the third century. 

As early as in the second century Marcion had refused 

, to recognise the book (Tert. Adz: Marc. 45) 

4, oFu , ., _ __ii_,i _f .u \i : .^**^;k..*.^. 


and the so-called sect of the Alogi attributed 

both the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gosjiel 
to Cerinthus (Epiph. ///-. 51, Philastr. Hirr. 60 -- 
Hippolytus ; cp Iren. iii. 11 9) probably on account of 
their own hostility to Montanism (after Irenxus ; Th. 
Zahn, Kaiioin-gesch. 1239^, Bousset, Koinm. 16/). 

This opposition by the .Alogi was continueil by the Roman 
presbyter Caius, who, in his dispute with the Montanist Proclus, 



also attributed the work to Cerinthus (Eus. HE iii. 28a). From 
the refutation of Cains by Hippolytiis ((cn/)aAaia acaro. raiov, 
As-iem. Bihl. Or. iii. 1 15; fragments in Gwynn, Hermalh. 6 
3)7-418 ; cp also the writuijj catalogued in the inscription on the 
throne iiirfp toO ko-to. '\\oa.vvi\vtva.-f^tKLovKaL\ airoKaAvi^cuit) we 
learn that Caius directly took up and continued the criticism of 
the Alogi. 

The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. HE 
vii. 25) was more moderate and more effective. He 
does not liold Cerinthus to have l)ecn the author of the 
Apocalypse, but conjectures that it must have l)ccn the 
work of some other John than the son of Zchedee, 
arguing from a comparison between the Apocalypse on 
the one hand and the Cjosijel and Epistles on the other 
as to style, language, and contents. The criticism of 
Dionysius was afterwards taken up by Eusebius, who 
was the first to provide a firm basis for the conjecture of 
Dionysius as to a second John by a reference to what 
Papias says of ' both ' Johns {HK iii. 39) and inclines to 
class the Apocalypse with the spurious books, voOoi \ IIP. 
iii. 254). 

Henceforward the view of Dionysius and Eusebius 
became the prevailing one in the Eastern Church. 

The book was recognised, indeed, by Methodius of Tyre 
(.?;w/r'j. I5O5 84^) and I'amphilus (. )/o/., ed. de la Rue, 
4 25 3^), but on the other hand unrecognised 
0. Eastern l,y Cyril (fatcch. 4 33-36), Greg, of Naz. (Carm. 
Church. 33)1 the Synod of Laodicea (Can. 64, see Zahn, 
iif>. cit. 2 197 Jf.), the Afiostolical Constitu- 
tions (Can. 85 (84]; Zahn, 2 191^^), the Janihics of .Seleucus 
(Zahn, 2 217). The Apocalypse is not mentioned by Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, or by Chrysostom (cp the wpo6e<opia of the 
Synopsis of Chrysostom, Zahn, 2 230), or by Theodoret. In the 
Stichometry of Nicephorus manipulated in Jerusalem (circa 
850; Zahn, 22882967^) it figures among the Aniilcgomena ; 
in the list of the sixty canonical books it is not found, though it 
is again introduced into the Syno/>sis of .\thanasius. 

The unf;ivourable judgment of the Syrian church re- 
garding it is very noteworthy. 

The Doctrine 0/ Addai which, in the form in which we now 
have it, dates from about 400 A.U., recognises, as authoritative 
scripture, nothing beyond the four gospels (Diates- 
6. Syrian saron), the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. p'rom 
Church, 'he Peshitta it is wholly absent. Whether Ephraim 
recognises the Apocalypse as canonical is, to say 
the least, doubtful. The Greek works that pa-ss under his name, 
beingofuncert.ain authenticity, cannot here betaken into account, 
and thus the evidence that he did appears to rest mainly on a single 
passage (Opera, Assem. 2 232, cp Rev. 01-3).! In any case, 
the noteworthy fact remains that Ephraim cites the Apocalypse 
but little, and develops his apocalyptical ideas on lines supplied 
by other writings. Besides, the Syrian Church did not look upon 
the book with favour.^ Jacob of Edessa (oh. 708) cites it 
(Ephraemi opera, ed. Assem. 1 192), and ." r Salll) (oh. 1171), 
bishop of Mabug (MabbOgh), comments on it (Gwynn, Ixx.xvii 
ci); but Kar-Hebrsus (oh. 1286) holds it to be the work of 
Cerinthus or of the 'other' John (Assem. Hihl. Or. 3 15), and 
'Ebed Je'Su' (oh. 1318) omits it from his list of canonical scriptures. 
In an Armenian Canon also, by Mechitar of Aivirank (1290), 
the .Vpocalypse is reckoned among the Aiitilegomena. 

Though the opposition to the Apocalypse was thus 
. - persistent in the S3Tian Church, it gradu- 

ally died away in the other Eastern prov- 

^ inces. 

The book is acknowledged by Athanasius, Didymus, Cyr. Alex., 
Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium (Egypt),^ Gregory of Nyssa, 
Epiphanius of Salamisj and Johannes Damascenus. Andrew, 
archbishop of Csesarea \n Cappadocia, wrote his commentary on 
it in the first half of the fifth century. He was not, however, 
followed in this until the ninth century, when Arethas, his suc- 
cessor in office, also undertook the task. 

In the Western Church, on the other hand, the 
Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first. 
8 West Hippolytus (sec above) defended and com- 
mented on it in a no longer e.\tant work, 
and makes copious quotations from it in his Com- 
mentary on Daniel and in his De Antichristo. 

Similarly, it is recognised by Lact.antius (fnstit. 2 2 T 10, 
epit. 42; cpTis^X Hilary {De Trin. (52043), Ambrose 

1 Owjnn(7"/j<' Apocalypse 0/ St. John in a Syriac I'ersion, 
Dublin-London, 1897, p. ciii) cites also De Lamy, Hymn. 1 66 
a pass.ige which the present writer finds himself unable to 
accept as proof. 

2 Thomas of Harkel, it is true, included it in his translation, 
as probably also (according to the latest researches of Gwynn) 
did Philoxenus of Mabug (Mabbugh). 

3 See Lflcke, V^ersuch einer vollst&ndigen Einleitung in die 
Offenbarung Johannis (*), Bonn, 185a. 



(De Virg. 14, De Spiritu 3 ao), Rufinus {Exp. in Symh. 37) ; 
on Novatus, Commodian, Arnobius, and others see Lardner, 
Credibility o/the Gospel History. 

Augustine (in Evang.-Joh. 1836, Epist. 118, Civ. 
Dei 2ii7) insists on the identity of the author of the 
Gospel with the writer of the .^pocalypse. 

The liook was acknowledged at the synods of Hippo (39p)and 
Carthage (397). As early as the end of the third century it was 
commented on by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (i;;^. 303 a.d.). 
j He was followed by the Uonatist Ticonius (Ixrfore 380). 

An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who, 
under eastern influence, relegated the Af>ocalypse to the 
second class of script urce ecclesiastiae {in Ps. 149), 
as also afterwards by Philastrius, if it be indeed the case 
that the book was not mentioned in the Canon of his 
De hceresibus 87/. 

At a later date the capitulum Aquisgranense {Corp. Jur. 
Germ., ed. Walter, ii. l77y;, cap. 20), adopting the decision of 
the Synod of Laodicea, removed it from the Canon. 

At the Reformation the view of Jerome was revived 

by I'',rasmus in his Annotationes. Luther's well-known 

_. adverse judgment, pronounced in his 

I .. ' preface of 1522, rests more on a religious 

than on a scientific foundation. Sub- 

sec|uently he gradually modified his view in a sense more 

favourable to the book. In his translation, however, he 

indicated his unfavourable opinion so far at all events 

that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apoca- 

lyi)se to the end of the NT without pagination. The 

last edition of the NT in this form appeared in 1689. 
C'arlstadt {Libellus de caiumicis scriptttris, 1520), 
falling back on the criticism of Eusebius, classed the 
Apocalypse among the seven Aniilcgomena. The 
opposition to its reception lasted down to the following 
century, and disappeared only after the introduction of 
John Gerhard's cunningly devised distinction between 
canonical and deutero-canonical writings {Loc. theol. i. 
cap. 9, 241). In the reformed churches the opposition 
disappeared much earlier from the time of Calvin, 

In the eighteenth century the question was again revived by 
Abauzit (Discours hist, surtapoc. (in (Euz'res diverses, torn, i., 
1770); Hermann Oeder {Christlich freie Untersuch. iib. d. 
sogcnanntc Offenh. Joh., published by Sernler, Halle, 1769), 
reverting to the view of Caius of Rome, attributed the book to 
Cerinthus. He was followed by Sernler (Freie Untersuch. des 
Canons, 1772, and in many controversial writings), and byCorrodi 
(Gcsch. des Chiliasmus, 1781). The best defence was that of 
Ha.n\v\g {Apolo/;ic der ApoA., 1780-83). Cp also the .successive 
editions of J. D. Michaelis, Junl. in die gSttliclien SchHften 
from 1750 onwards. 

Our sources for the text are the following : 

A. Greek .1A9.9. (t) Uncials. It exists in KAC (89-5 14 V 14-17 
85-016 IO10-II3 1013-182 19 5-22 21 being absent), also in P 

Porfirianus Chiovensis s^c. 9 Act. Cath. Paul. 

10. Text:' Apoc. (10 12-17 I 1912-20 2 226-21 being absent), 

the material. =i"J Q ('" Tischendorf, li), Vaticanus 2066 

sa;c. 8 (Apoc. only). (2) Cursives. Of these 
some seventy are more or less collated. Their readings can be 
learned from the editions and collations of Mill-Kuster (1710), 
IJengel (i734#), Wetstein (1751-2), Matthsei (1782-88, torn, x.). 
Alter (1786-87), Birch {\'arite Lectt. in Apok., 1800), Scholz 
('30-36), Scrivener {Codex Augiensis, 1859; Adversaria 
Critica, '93), Tregelles ('57-72), Ti.schendorf (ed. octava major), 
Alford {.Me^v Test. vol. iv. ed. 2, 1885), Simcox (/. Phil. 22 

B. I'ersions. (i) Latin. .\ good deal is now known about 
these. The oldest stage is represented by h (Floriacensis), the 
Latin translation used by Primasius (Haussleiter, Forschungen 
zur Gesch. des Kanons iv.) ; the intermediate, by the 
Holmensis (ed. Belsheim, '79). The best material for the 
Vulgate is lirought together in Lachmann (.\o7\ Test.) and 
Tischendorf. (2) Syriac A valuable Syriac rendering 
(probablv the Philoxeniana) has recently been edited by Gwynn 
{op. cit.y^ The Syriac MSS hitherto known (see Gwynn, xiv._^.) 
represent the text of Thomas of Harkel. (3) Importance also 
attaches to the still comparatively unexplored Coptic (see 
Goussen, Stud. Theol. i.) and Armeni.-n versions. 

C. Church Fathers. There are copious citations in Origen, 
Hippolytus (especially in the De Antichristo and in the com- 

' See F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 1861 ; B. Weiss, 
'Die Joh. -Apok.' in Texte u. Untersuch.' i ('91); W. 
Bousset, ' Text-kritische Studien ' in Texte u. L 'ntersuch. 1 1 4 
('94); Gwynn, The Apocalypse in a Syriac version, 1897; on 
which see T. K. Abbot, 'Syriac version of Apocalypse,' Htrm- 
athena, 1897, pp. 27-35. 

2 See last note. 



nietitarj- on Daniel; ee the new edition by lionwetMih and 
Acheliii), and Cyorian. The text used hy Andrew of Ca:>area 
and Arelha.1 in tneir commentaries han nut a-s yet t>een fully 
cstalilished. The text of the lost coninicntary of Ticonius can 
1m-xi l>e made out from the excerpt from the commentary on the 
INrudo-Augustinian Homilies. 

In the attrnipi to classify this material, it is l>est to 

Ikj;!!! witli ilu- class which shows the latest text namely, 

11 Clasaifica. ^ ' ^ ^^^ Arethas class, so named because 

tion. '^ "^"^ ^^ *'"'' order was used by Arethas 

for his Commentary (hence also many 

cursives of this class are, strictly sijcaking, MSS of 

Arethas-Comnientaries). To this class belong Q and 

about forty of the more or less known cursives. The 

material being so defective, separate groups within the 

class can hardly be distinguished. 

Tentatively and under great reservation a few may here be 
suggested, (i.) 9, 13, 27, 93 are somewhat closely connected 
(cp 7V,/r, j8^, p. 658) ; {ii.)2, 8, (14), 140, 151, 29, 50, 97 (the last 
three very mtimately related), 94; (iii.) 6, 11, 31, (47); (iv.) 
lastly, y, 14, 93 show near affinities. The group "formed by (v.) 
7, 16. 39, 45, 69 represents the transition-stage between this class 
(i) and the next class (2). 

The second class, which we can detach from the rest 
as having arisen out of a Liter redaction, is (2) the so- 
called ' .Andrew ' class the to which the text used 
by Andrew (see alxne, 10 (') in his conmientary 
belonged. It falls into several clearly distinguishable 
sulMjrdinate groups. 

(i.) The group consisting of 35, 68, 87, 121 stands almost 
entirely apart, presenting .is it does many points of contact 
with the .\ group, but often showing a very peculiar text. 
The following three groups, on the other hand, are very closely 
akin : (ii.) i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (often with a very archaic Latinising 
substratum); (iii.) 28, 73, 79, 80, 09 ; (iv.)io, 17, 37, ^9, (72], 91, 
96, (154], 161. Cod. P admits of Ijeing ranked with this class as 
a whole, but cannot be associated with any of the subordinate 
groups in particular. 

Of all the known cursives there are only (3) four [26], 
38, 51, 95 which it h.-is hitherto been found impossible 
to classify ; they show an ancient te.xt. 

It is as yet difficult to detect the 'Western text" 
12. 'Western Jf":^ '^.':''') '" the Apocalypse ; hut 
Text ' ^^' gradually l>ecome practic- 

able as in recent years new sources 
have lieconie accessible. 

Witnesses to it, though only in part, are the uncial K (with a 
very erratic and only ijarlially ancient text), the text of Priniasius 
(identical, according to Haussleiler's investigations, with C'y- 
prian's text, and thus old African), the fragments of A, the (ligas 
Holniensis g; Ticonius (containing a later development of the 
text), and the Syriac version edited by Gwynn and designated 2 
(the later version known .ys ,S shows a text almost everywhere 
corrected in accordance with the .Arethas class, though in many 
places also it contains a text older than 2). To the same cate- 
gory l)elong also, in part, the ^roup i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (cp (Iwynn, 
cxli.) and, finally, the Armenian version, which, unfortunately, 
is not yet sufficiently known (note the coincidence of i, 12, 36, 
etc. with arm. ; cp Uousset, Koiiiih. 178). .A further point 
worthy of notice is the close affinity of K, 2 (S), and Origen ; one 
might almost venture to constitute N20r. a distinct group in the 
Western (Housset, 181 ; Gwynn, Iv^). 

Distinctly the best text is that presented by ACVg. 
The \'ulgate furnishes us with good means of con- 

13 Result ^""""'"S 'h^ t^"' f -^^^ especially where 

the two differ or where (J is wanting. 
A\g. , therefore, w here C is wanting, often constitutes a 
stronger testimony than that of all the other witnesses 

' I John am he that heard and saw these things ' 
(228 k\' ; cp 1 4 9). Are we to identify this John with the 

14 V^ntaaaaA '^postle, the son of Zebedee? Within 

author '^^ ^^"^ ''^'^'^ ^^ ' "''S^' f'^''"'>' ^ 

urged against this identification. The 
first to submit the question to thorough discussion was 
Dionysius of .Me.xandria (see above, 4) ; in the result 
he attributed the txjok to another John. 'Ihis theory 
of a second John, adopted also by Eusebius (HE 
iii. 39 I ff.), revived in the present century (Hleek, 
Ewald, de Weite, LUcke, Neander, Diisterdieck. 
etc. ), the John of the .Apocalypse l)eing usually in this 
case identified with the ' IVesbyter ' of Eus. HE 
iii. 39 1 ff. Criticism advanced another step, however. 



I and declared the whole tradition regarding the presence 
of John the .AiH)stle (and Evangelist) in .Asia Minor to 
have been due to a confusion Ijetween his name and that 
of the presbyter. 

.So Vogel, Der EvaH^tlist Johannts, 1801-4 ; LiitzcllieTger, 
Die kinklicht Trattilton fiber den Aposttt Joktinn,s, 1840; 
Keim, Cesch. Jesu voh Sazam, 1867, 1 161 / ; Scholtcn, Per 
Af>. Johantus in Kleinasien, 187a; WeiflTenbach, Dot t'ufiat- 
fragment, 1874 ; Thoma, Das Johannisev., 1882 ; and other*. 
.Against .Scholten cp Hilgenfeld, /UT, 1876 77, also Zahn, 
St. A'r. 1866, p. 649^. ; Actajoannis civ., .Steitz, St. Kr., 1868, 
p. 509^., Herzog, A' A' 11 78^ 

The question is difficult. The first remark to l)e made 
upon it is that the assumption that there were two Johns 

16 Onlv '" '^^''^ Minor the ajwstle and the presbyter 
one John *^"''^ ""'X slender supix)rt in ancient 

in Asia "'^'^''''""- Whatever the interpretation we 

Minor '"'^^ ''"^ ^^ ^^^ important testimony of 
Fapias preserved by Eu.sebius {I/Ji iii. 
39 1 ^), it is at least certain that I^ipias spe-aks not of 
two Johns in Asia Minor the ajKjstle and the presbyter 
but of one John, whom we are to look for as a near 
neighlxjur of Papias in space and time. Of a second 
John the second century and the first half of the third 
know nothing ; he is unknown to Iren;vus and to those 
who disputed the claims of the Fourth {jos(x;I, to the 
Alogi and to Caius, to Tertullian, to Clement, and to 
Origen. Not till the time of Dionysius of .Alexandria is 
reached do we find any indication of the sort (Eus. I/E 
vii. 25i6). Even Dionysius alleges no other evidence 
than that in his day two graves of ' John ' were shown. 

The inference he draws from this that there must have Ijcen 
two Johns is by no means a stringent one. It would not lie less 
reasonable to suppose that in his day the precise burial-place of 
John was no longer known, or that the twofxi^/iiaTa represented 
two distinct holy ' places ' of John (so Jer. <ie vir. ill. 9 : ilu,r 
tiientoricf ; Zahn, Acta Jo. civ). For this supposition, Kusebius 
h.xs supplied a plausible basis by combining the statement of 
Papias about two Johns with the traditions mentioned by 
Dionysius about two graves of John at Ephesus. 

If the assumption that there were two Johns in Asia 
Minor proves to tie a baseless hypothesis and its base- 
ifi Vi th lessness is shown bv the fact, among other 

Presbyter *'^'"S^' ^'^'' """ ' J"*^" ' ^^ ^^^ ^''"o*" '^ 
" so often spoken of w ithout distinguishing 
phrase of any kind the question which next arises is as 
to whether this John was the ajnistle or the presbyter. 
At this point the inijxirtant testimony of Fapias turns the 
scale in favour of the presbyter. For his contem]j<3rary 
and the authority w hom he cjuotes is next to Aristion 
the ' presbyter ' John (Eus. ///.' iii. 394) ; and Aristion 
and John are doubtless also to Ik- identified with the 
Trpfff^vTfpoi whom, according to Eus. ///;' iii. 393, Fapias 
could still directly interrogate. The evidence of 2 Jn. 
and 3 Jn. , claiming as they do to l>e written by the 
Tfxa^VTfpos, points in the same direction. Moreover, 
as has already lieen ix)inte(l out (^ 14), the .Apocalypse 
I apparently does not profess to have Ijeen written by the 
I apostle. On the other sitle, it is true, we already find 
Justin [Dial. 81 ; see above, 2) asserting the apo.stolic 
authorship. It is, however, noticeable that Ircnanis 
for whom the tjospel, the Epistles, and the .Ajjocalyjise 
are all by one and the same author sjwaks of John 
as an apostle only in indefinite expressions similar to 
those in (ial. 1 19, but elsewhere invariably designates 
I him as 'disciple' (/ia^Tp-i^s) ; see liousset, op. cit. 41/ 
I Further, Ircn.tus, who calls Papias a disciple of John. 
i also speaks of Folycarp as his fellow disciple ( Eus. 
//^iii. 39i). If we refuse to supjxjse that Iren;eus 
had already confounded the presbyter with the apostle, 
then the great teacher of Folycarp was also, according 
to Irenaius, the ' presbyter ' John ; for Fapias was a 
disciple of the presbyter. In the Muratorian canon, 
further, John is called simply ' discipulus,' whereas 
Andrew is 'apostolus.' The testimony also of Foly- 
crates in the letter to Victor (ap. Eus. HE\. 24 a_^) 
claims particular attention in this connection. Here, 
in a passage where everything turns upon the exact 
titles of the persons named. Polycrales designates 


as the <rroix<** of Asia Minor (i) the apostle Philip 
and his daughters ; (2) John who lay on the bosom 
of the Lord, fidprvi Kal SiSdffKaXoi, who was buried 
in Kphesus, 6s (yevrjd-rj lepei's t6 iriraKov ire(f)o- 
priKu)i ; (3) the bishops Polycarp, Thrascas, Sagaris, 
F'apirius, Melito. Polycrates thus designates, plainly 
with intention, the author of the Fourth Gospel also 
as teacher and witness, not as apostle. Indeed, the 
traditions relating to the Fourth Gospel Ijeconie much 
more intelligible if we are al>le to assume that the 
witness (Jn. 19 35, ^Ktivos olStv) is not the Galihean 
apostle, the son of Zelx.'(lee, but another John, a 
Jerusalemite (Fiousset, h'omin. 43/.). It may also be 
remarked that the statement of the Fourth Gos[x;l 
that the beloved disciple was ' known unto the high 
priest' (18 15) -harmonises well with the account of 
Polycrates, 'who Ix-came priest' (5s ie/iei/y eyevijdr) ; 
cp further, II. Dclff, .S7. A>. , 1891, and Harnack, 
Chronol. I456/. ). 

The inference from all this would seem to be that the 
(one) John of Asi.i Minor, who was the presbyter, was 
one who had seen Jesus indeed, but not one of the 
numljcr of the apostles. The John of the Apocalypse 
(cp the superscription of the lipistlcs) is thus the 

Whether the .\pocalypsc was really written b\' him is 
another question. In order to understand how the 

17 Rpal Apocalypse and the Fourth (iospel could 
authorship ' ''""^ ''*^ attributed to the same disciple 
^' of the Lord, it is necessary to remove 
them both a little distance away from him. John 
is only the eye-witness, not the author of the Fourth 
Gospel ; .so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse we 
may have here and there a passage that can be traced 
to him, but the book as a whole is not from his pen. 
Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse all come from the same 
school. They show also at various points linguistic 
affinities (Housset, Komm. 202 ff.). They had, moreover, 
at first the same history : they were, it would seem, the 
favourite writings of Montanism, and were all three 
alike rejected by the opponents of Montanism, the 

The earliest Cireek fathers who in any measure 
attempted to interpret the Apocalypse were Iren;BUS, 
Hippolytus, and .Methodius : 

Iren;;iis, in Adv. /f,rr. 5; Hippolytus, in Comm. on Daniel, 

in airoSetfis ;repi toD acnypio-Tou, in extant fragments of the 

_ KecJaAaia Kara. Vaiov, and in a no longer 

18. Interpreta- extant commentary on the book itself; 

tion : - Greek -Methodius in Sym/>. 150584^ Of 

and Latin. continuous commentaries originating in the 
(Ireek Church we possess only those of 
.Andrew (5th cent., ed. .Sylburg) and of Arethas (9th cent., ed. 

The oldest Latin commentary, which contains much 
interesting and ancient material (for example, the 
interpretation of various passages referring to Nero), is 
that of Victorinus of Pettau (o/'. 303). We possess it 
only in Jeromes redaction. Haussleiter is about to 
edit it in its original form. An e.xceedingly powerful 
influence was exercised also by the commentary of 

This work is, unfortunately, no longer extant, and has to be 
reconstructed, as far as the materials allow, from the pseudo- 
Augustinian Iloinilite in Afioc. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 35), the 
commentary of Prim.asius {oh. 586, ed. princ. Ha.sel, 1544), 
and (mainly) the great compilations of Beatus, written in 776 
(in .-{/'ocrily/'sim, ed. F'lorez, i77o).'' 

In his commentary, written before 380 A.ii. , wholly 
from the Donatistic point of view, Ticonius consistently 
carries out the spiritualistic interpretation. In his 
explanation of the millennium pas.sage (20 i^) he was 
afterwards followed by Augustine (Mousset, Komm. 65). 
Down to the Middle .\ges the exegesis of the book 
continuetl to follow that of Ticonius, if his Donatistic 
tendency \vi left out of account. 

1 Cp also below, 8S 28 and 34. 

2 See Liicke, Einl. in dit Offeyibarung ^'^^ 1853; Holtzmann, 
HK \\ Bousset, Komm. ^iff. 

3 See Haussleiter, ZKW'L 7 -iyiff. \ Bousset, Komm. (>off. 



Apart from the works already named, mention must be 
made of those of Cassiodorus (Comfilexiones in apocalyfuin 
[ed. Scipio Maffey, Florence, 1721]), Bcda (oA. 735; expianatio 
apocalypsis in Biblioth. I'atr. Cologne, vol. v.), and Ambrosius 
Ansbertus (c. 770 : in Af>ocalyftiim UM x., Bihl. Patr., Col., ".t 
2). Dependent, in turn, on Ansbertus are Alcuin (Migne, J'nt. 
y.a/. 100)and Haymo of Halberstadt [84J] (Migne, 117), while 
Walafried Strabo s Glossa oniinaria (Migne, Pal. I. at. 114) 
depends on Haymo. To the same class of interpretations 
l)elong the ]>erforniances of Ansclm of Laon (Migne, ItVJ), 
Bruno of .\ste (.Migne, Wo), Rupert of Deutz (Migne, lOit), 
Richard of St. Victor (Migne, I'.Ml), Albertus M.-ignus (O^eia, 
Lyons, 1651, tom. 12), a commentary, prokibly in reality of 
Waldensian origin, which is found, in two recensions, among 
the works of Thomas Aquinas (Opera, Parma, 1869; tom. T.\ 
3247^ 5."j^-). Hugh of St. Caro(i263; J'oslilla), Dionysius 
Carthusius (14th cent.). Thus the single commentary of 
Ticonius continued to dominate the whole interpretation of the 
Apocalypse until far down in the Middle Ages. 

The next interpreter of the Apocalypse to attain wide 
influence was Joachim of Floris (soon after 1195; 

10 Tnar>>iim Hxpositio . . . abbatis Joachim in Apoc. , 

i. joacmm. Venice, 1527). With him the fantastic 
futurist (chiliastic) interpretation Ijcgan to gain the 
upix;r hand over the formerly prevalent spiritualising 
view. He was at the same time the originator of a 
'recapitulation theory,' which he carried out into the 
minutest details. As ' the Age of the Spirit,' associated 
with a mendicant order that was to ajjpear, occupied a 
central place in the prophecies of Joachim, he naturally 
became the prophet of the ' opposition ' Franciscans, 
and his works were accepted by them as sacred. It 
was in these circles accordingly that his immediate 
followers in the interpretation of the Apocalypse arose 
(Peter Johannes Olivie, Ubertino de Casale, Sera- 
phinus de Fermo, Annius Viterbiensis, Petrus Galatinus) ; 
but his influence spread very widely in the course of 
succeeding centuries, and a continuous chain of many 
links connects the name of Joachim with that of 
Cocceius, who, in virtue of his Coj^ita/iones de apoc. S. 
Joannis (Leyden, 1605), is usually taken as the typical 
representative of the modern ' recapitulation theory. ' 

Among the precursors of the Reformation the anti- 
Roman and anti- papal interpretation began to gain 

20. Reforma- 

ground, although the only methodic: 
exposition of this view that can be 
named is the commentary (by J(jhn 
Purvey?), emanating (rom \\'yclifiitei circles and 
written in 1390, which was afterwards published by 
Luther [Commen/arius in Apoc. ante centum annos 
editus, 1530). 

The founder of a consistently elaborated universal- 
historical interpretation was Nicolaus de Lyra (1329, 
, -- . 1 ''^ ^^^ Postils, which have been often 

h- t^^^ 1 " printed). He is followed by certain 
nfpthofT Catholic interpreters, and, in method 
at least, by Luther, who in his pre- 
face of 1534 (Walch. , 11) gives, in the sp.ace of a 
few pages, a clever but fantastic interpretation of the 
entire book, in which, as might be expected, the anti- 
papal interest holds a central place. Luther's view- 
continued to dominate the interpretation of the Apoca- 
lypse within the Lutheran church. 

it prevailed from the time of Lucas Osi.tnder (BiHiorum 
sacrorum, pars 3) down to that of Jo. Gerhard (.Xnnot. in 
Apoc. /oh., ]ena., 1643) .ind Abr. Calovius (Hi/'lia K07: Test. 
Illtistr., tom. 2 Frankfort, 1672 a learned work with valu- 
able introductory material and persistent polemic .igainst Hugo 
Grotius ; for a list of the commentaries dependent on Luther 
see Bousset, Komm. 94). None of the works mentioned was 
of any value for the real interpretation of the book ; the 
.\poc:dvpse and its interpretation, so far as the Lutheran Church 
in Germany is concerned, became merely the arena for anti- 
(iatholic polemics. 

Within this period the number of works produced in 
Germany and Switzerland on this subject without 
dependence on the dominant Lutheran view was very 

.\mong them the Dilis^ens atque eruiiita enarratio lihri 
Apoc. Joh., 1547, of Theodor Bibliander is worthy of notice; 
in it we can discern in the treatment of chaps. 12 and 13 the 

1 Cp Wycliflfe's own interpretation of Rev. 20 in the Dialofcui 
in Neander, KG 6 228. 

22. Scientific. 


beginnings of an interprct.-xtion looking to contemporary con- 
ditions. Kullin^cr (I'redigUH, 15^7) and Junius (Afioc. Joli. 
lUuitratit, 1591) have a good deal vn common with Hil>liander. 

Wildest and most fanUistic of all are the English 
commentaries of this [x^riod. 

Among them may \x named Napier of Merchiston, the 
inventor of logarithms (A Plain nisan'try 0/ the ivhoU Rtvela- 
tion 0/ Saint fohn, 1593), Thom.-is Hrightman (AfuKalyfisis 
A/>oca/y/>sfos, Frankfort, 1609), Joseph Nietle (Clavii a/>,na- 
lyptica, 1627), and .Sir Is.-iac Newton {Cf/iscrrations u/><in II: f 
I'rophfcies 0/ Daniel and the Apocalypse 0/ St. John, 1732 
dcjMindent upon Mcde). 

'I'hc history of a strictly scientific interpretation of 
the .\|)()c:ilyijsc, on the other hand, must bo held to 
Ix'jjin wit!) the learned commentaries of 
French and .Spanish Catholic theo- 
logians. They meet the Protestant polemic with con- 
spicuous and indeed often astounding erutlition, and, 
going back to tiie pointof view of the earlier (.'hurch 
fathers, lay the foundations of .n cautious and for the 
most part purely escliatological interpretation. 

In this connection the works of Franciscus Ribeira (1578), 
Ulasius Vieg.xs(i6oi ? cpalso Hell.irniinus, Df SuiHino /'onti/ice, 
lib. tert. De .^ntichristo), Hcnedictiis IVreyra ( i ^^.06 ?), and Cor- 
nelius a I^apide (1626) are well worthy of mention. 

Conspicuous alwve them all is the Ve^ligatio arcani 
sensui in Afocalypsi of Ludovicus ab Alca/.ar. That 
writer was the first to carry out consistently the idea that 
the .\pocalypse in its earlier part is directed against 
Judaism, and in its second against Paganism, so that in 
ch.ips. 12 / we read of the first persecution of the 
Christians in the Roman Empire, and in ch. 19 of the 
tinid conversion of that Empire. He thus presents us 
with tlie first serious attempt to arrive at a historical 
and psychological understanding of the book. 

The ide.- worked out Ijy .Mcazar had already been expressed 
by McMtc-nius in the preface to his edition of .Arethas (("/;, uinenii 
Coiitiitrntor., ed. .Morelius et Hentenius i), and by .Salmeron 
(C^ptra, 12, Coliv^ne, 1614, 'In sacram Jo. Apoc. prailudia '). 
It ouRht to be added here that the explanation of the wounded 
head as referring to Nero Redivivus is found (for the first time 
since Victorinns) in the commentary of the Jesuit Juan Mariana. 
It U.1S fro'u the Jesuits that Protestant science first learned how 
to v.ork thi, field. 

(irotius [Aftnot. ad XT, Paris, 1664), who is so often 
spoken of as the founder of scientific e.\egesis, is, in his 
remarks on the .Apocalypse at any rate, entirely depend- 
ent on .Mcazar, whose interi)retation, indeed, he has not 
improved by the details assuming references to universal 
history and contemporary events which he has introduced 
into it. 

(Irotius in turn was followed by Hammond (cp the Latin 
editions of Clericus, torn. 1, .\msterdam, 1698, and Clericus's 
notes to Hammond), Bossuet (i633), and Herva;us (1684). In 
Holland and ( lermany the fantastic school of interpretation 
continued to flourish for some time longer, prominent repre- 
sentatives Ijeing, in Holland, Vitringa, with his profoundly 
learned acaKpio-tt ajroKoAui/ifait (1705; dependent on Mede), 
and his many followers, and in tlermany, Bengel, with his 
commentary (1740-46-58) and sixty practical discourses on the 
Ap<3calypse. Much greater sobriety is shown by ^oh. Marck 
in his fn Apoc. Coinm. 1699, with its copious exegetical material 
and valuable introduction; also by a group of eschatological 
interpreters in which .are included F^leonora Peters (1696), 
Antonius I Iriessun (1717), and Jo.-ichim Lange {.-Ipokalyptisches 
Liclit u. Kfc/U, 1730). 

In the eighteenth century, although Aubert de Verse 
(/.<: I If/ lie I' apocalypse, 1703) followed the lines laid 
23 Since dow n by Grotius, Hannnond, and Hos- 
18th"century. ""T'- ^''^ "''^rpretation founded on 
' allusions to contemporary events gained 
the ascendency, and in a very narrow form. At this 
lx;riod it took for the most part the very unfortunate 
course of endeavouring to treat the w hole of the AjxJca- 
lypse, after the analogy of Mt. 24, as a prophecy of the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 

In this category must be placed the expositions of A))auzit 
{Kssai siir Tapoc., 1733), Harduin (1741). Wetstein (A/7'<-//i a*/ 
crisin atquc interpretationcm .^'7'ed. Semler, 1766), Harenbcrg 
(1759), Hartwig (cp g 9), and, finally, Zidlig (1834). 

On the other hand, we find much that is rightly said 
in Semler's noies to Wetstein in Corrodi's Gesch. des 
Chiliasmus. And a return was made to the sounder 
general principles of Alcazar by Herrenschneider 


{Inaugural disi., Str.issburg, 1786) and by Kichhorn 
(Cummenlarius, 1791). Even those shreds of the 
interpretation that l(xjks to universal history, which had 
still jx'rsisted in showing thcm.selves in .Alcazar's work, 
were now stripped away, and thus a provisional resting- 
place was reached. 

This stitge is seen in the works of Bleek (Theol. Ztschr. 2, 
licrlin, 1820, I'orlesungen iiher d ie A Pol; . publi-hcd by Hossb.ich 
ill 1862), Kwald (Cow///;. 1828, Die Johann. S^hriften, 2, 1862), 

De VVette (Kurze Krklitrun^, 1848-54-62), I.iitke ( / enuch cinet 
vollst&ndigen liinleitung tn die Offenba 

1852), V * * 


ttie Offent'arung, 1812, 2nd 
1852), Volkmar ('62), and also, for the most part, iJiisterdicck 

In all these works the interpretation from contem- 
porary history is consistently carried out. All set forth 
from the decisive observation that in chap. 11 the preserva- 
tion of the temple is jiredicted, and all, accordingly, date 
the book from Ijefore 70 A.I). Further, they .-ill rightly 
recognise that the main drift of the .Xpf/calyiJse is 
directed against Rome ; all, too (e.vcept Diisterdieck), 
recognise Nero Redivivus in the woundeti head. In 
particular, since the discovery, independently arrived at 
by Fritzsche, lienary, and Reuss, that the nunilxT 666 
is intended for pij ^Dp, the reference to Nero has Ijecome 
the rocker de bronce of all exegesis of the Apocalypse. 

In passing, mention may be made ol some works which, 
although following obsolete exegetical methods, are not without 
a scientific value: Hengstenberg ^'49-'5i-'6i), Kbrard ('53), Kiliot 
{Hone Apocalyptictf, 1851; univ. -hist.), .\iiberlen ('54-'74), 
Christian ('61), Luthardt ('61), Alford (A'rtf Testament, 4 2), 
Kliefoth ('74), P.eck {Erkl. von Offenh. i.-xii. ; eschatol.) and 
Kiibel (in .Strack-Zdckler's IfK, 1888; this takes a mcdi.-iting 
course between the standpoints of contemporary history and 
eschatology). See also Zahn, 'Apokalyptische Stutlien," in 
ZKHL, 1885-85. 

The interpretation of the Apocalypse entered on a 
new ph.^se ' as soon as doubts arose regarding the unity 
of the work and the method of literary 

24. Question 
of unity. 

criticism to be applied. The conjecture, 
which had l)een hazarded more than once,- 
that the .Apocalypse was really a com[X)site work was 
again taken up independently (i) by Daniel \'blter, at 

nr T>j_ i- _ the suggestion of W'eizsacker, whose 
26. Redaction i u t-u . i u 

hvDothe-is P"'"' ^^ ^'''^- ^^^ particular hypo- 

nypoineois. ^,^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^, \o\xqx as to the 

composition of the .Apocalypse may for convenience 
be called the redaction hyjxithesis [Ueberarbeitungs- 

He .issumed in his first sketch, which he has not substantially 
modified, a fundamental text (Crvndscliri/t) consisting (apart 
from .single verses) of 1 1-4 4-fi 7 1-8 8/ 14 1-7 18 19 1-4 14 14-20 
195-10 dating from the sixties, and an appendix IO1-II13 17, 
dating from 68-70 a.d. This underwent three (or rather four) 
redactions, of which the latest was in 140 A.u. or, at all events, 
later than 130. 

The work of Vdlter is based on a few happy observa- 
tions. For example, he saw that 14 14-20 really forms the 
close of an apocalypse, recognised the divergence Ijetween 
7 1-8 and 79-17. the true character of lOi-ll 13, and so 
forth. Nevertheless, broadly, \'olter's performance 
gave the student an impression of excessive arbitrariness, 
and was rejected on almost every hand. 

Against the first edition see Harnatk, TL/,, 1882, Dec. ; 
Hilgenfeld, ^Cll'T, 1882; Warfield, /'/w/, Ke7'. 1884, p. 228; 
against the second edition, Jiilicher, G'tP.-i, 1886, pp. 25-38; Zahn, 
ZKH-L, 1886. 

The question was next taken up from an entirely 
different side (2) by E. Vischer ( ' Die Offenb. Joh. eine 
jiidische Schrift in christlicher fiearbeitung,' in l^exle u. 
Unters., 1886, 2nd ed. 1895); the result has been a 
lively and fruitful discussion. Vischer lx;lieved himself 
to have discovered that the ruling chapters (11/.) of 
the Apocalypse can be understood only on the as- 

1 In connection with what follows see Holt?mann, JPT, 1891; 
Baldensperger, /../. 7'lieol. u. Kircltc, 1894 ; .A. Meyer, Theol. 
Rundschau, 1897, Hefie 2-3. 

2 (;rotius, Hammond, V'ogel (Comm. vii. De Apoc. J ok. i8ii- 
1816), Bleek (lierl. theol. /.tschr. 2 24oyC; he aljandoned his 
view in Beitr. 2. Evang.-Ktitik, 1846, p. 81 ; St. h'r. 1855, p. 

3 Die Entsteh. der Apok., 1882, and ed. 1885; Tk. T, i8<}i, 
pp. 259i?: 608^; Prot. KZ, 1886, p. 32/ ; Dot Problem der 
Apoc., 1893. 


sumption of a Jewish origin. As he nevertheless con- 
tinued to Ijc convinced of the essential unity of the 
book, he inferred that in the form in which we now 
have it it is a Ckristian redaction of a Jewish writing. 
To the Christiaiv redactor, besides isolated expressions, 
he attributed the following passages: 1-3 59-14 79-17 1^ " 
139/ 14I-S13I3 103 I615 17i4 199-'i3^2U4-6 2l5*-8 

Vischer's able treatise found wide acceptance. Among those 
who signified their acceptance of his main thesis were Iselin 
(Theol. /.. aus iter Schveitz, 1887 ; ' Apocalyplische Studien ') ; 
an anonyi ' ^ '' "" ""^ '- '^ i-.,i. :_ 


ZATn\ i886, pp. 167-71 ; Overbeck 

1887, p. 28 / ; Mdn^^oz in Re-,: tie tlUol. et phil. 
161 ; Krriger in CGA, 1887, pp. 26-35; Simcox in Ex- 
poiitor, 1887, p. 425/; On the other hand, Viiher (/J/V Offenb. 
Jolt, keine ursfiriint;!. jud. Apok., 1886), Beyschlag (St. Kr. 
1888), and Hilgenfeld (ZW'T, 1890) declared themselves against 

Athough it must be cordially acknowledged that to 
Vischer belongs the honour of having first raised the 
question in its entirety, it nmst be said that he was 
not successful in his attempt to solve it. He has 
neither proved the Jewish character of chap. 11 / nor 
justified his fundamental thesis regarding the unity of 
the book. We shall Ix; doing him no injustice if we 
classify him among those who uphold the ' redaction ' 

The earliest exponent of the ' sources ' hypothesis 
{QueUen-Hypotkese), which has lately come into coiu- 
__ _ petition with that of redaction, was VVey- 

26. Sources , . 1 1 1 

. ., . land,whowrote almost contemporaneously 

hypothesis. ^^.,^j^ y.^^^^^^ ^.^1^ ^_ jggg pp ^^^.^^^ . 

and Om-verking en Compilatiehypothesen toegepast op de 
Apocal. van /. , 1888). Weyland finds in the Apocalypse 
tico Jewish sources (N and 3) which have been worked 
over by a Christian redactor. 

K corresponds, roughly, to Viilter's primary document ; 3 to 
the first and second of VOlter's redactors (in Vulter's Appendix 
K and 3 are separ.-\ted). Weyland's Christian redactor corre- 
sponds in a general way with Vischer's redactor. In 1894 Kauch 
(Die Offo.b. des J.) signified his adherence to Weyland. 

Against both the hypotheses we have just described 
serious and far-reaching objections present themselves. 
_, . ,. Against the 'sources' hypothesis must 

27. ODjectlons. j^ ^^ggj jj^ substance! the linguistic 
unity of the Iwok (see below, 34); against the redaction 
theory it has to be observed (</) that the fundamental 
document made out by Volter and his followers (see 
above, 25) has no special character of its own, inasmuch 
as all the really living and concrete passages occurring 
within it are attributed to the redactor ; {h) that the 
disapp)earance of every trace of these numerous later 
redactions is remarkable. 

From such considerations the necessity for a third 

way became apparent. This third way was first 

. pointed out by Weizsiicker in his Apo- 

h Jf. ^tolic Age. He rightly discerned in the 

fiypo Apocalyptist's thrice repeated number 

of seven the fi.xed plan of an author who wrote the 
Apocalypse as a whole, and gave to his work the 
character of a literary unity. Into this literary 
unity certain interpolations intrude with disturbing 
effect (71-89-17 11 1-13 12 i-ii 12-17 13 17). Thus Weiz- 
siicker arrived at his fragment hypothesis. According 
to him the Apocalypse is a literary unity proceeding 
from a single author, into which, however, apocalyptic 
fragments of various date have been introduced by the 
author himself. In the opinion of the present writer 
these are the lines along which the true solution of the 
problem is to be sought. All later investigators in this 
field have followed one or other of the three hypotheses 
just enumerated. 

Oscar Holtzmann (CrV 2 658-664) assumes a ground- 
work into which again a still older source (13 14 6-13) has been 
worked in a Christian revision. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum, 
1887, pp. 318-56) steers an eclectic course ; Sabatier (Les i^ri^inei 
littcraires de Capocalypse, 1887) and Schoen (L'origine de 
fapoc. 1887) represent a combination of Weizsacker and Vischer 
(regarding the Apocalypse as the work of a Christian author who 
has embodied Jewish fragments in bis book). 


30. Gunkel. 


A thoroughly elalxjrated ' sources ' theory is that of 

Spitta {Offenb. Joh. , 1884). In diametrical opposition 

2fi Snitta. '" Weizsacker, he claims to see, in the 

P thrice repeated series of seven, three 


These are (a) the seal source or Christian primitive Apoca- 
lypse U (U = Urapokalypse), written soon after 60 A.u. (practjc- 
alfy, apart from the specifically Christian inteqjolations of the 
redactor, chaps. 1-tl and "9-17 81 19 9 10 228-21); (h) the trumpet 
source J(l), a writing (J = Judi.sch)of the reign of Caligula 
(7i-a 89 IO1-7 11 15 12 13 14i-ii I613-20 19ii-2o liOi-is 21 1-8); 
(c) the vials source Ji2), from the time of Pompcy (containing, 
approximately, the remainder of the book). 

These three have been worked together into a collected 
whole by a Christian redactor. (The additions assigned 
to iiim by Spitta are of alxjut the same e.xtent as those 
assigned to him by Vischer. ) 

The sources theory was next carried to the utmost 
by P. .Schmidt {Anmerkungen iiber die Comp.der Offenb. 
Joh., 1891). 

Erl>es(/>/> Oj^enb.Joh., 1891) in his separation of the literary 
sources agrees in the main with O. Holtzmann, but also main- 
tains with Volter (whose hypothesis he simplifies) the thoroughly 
Christian character of the whole book. Bruston (Les origines 
de l^ apocalypse, 1888) pursues a path of his own. .Mi-ndgoz 
(.Xniiales de bihliogr. tlieot. 1 ('88] pp. 41-45) assumed two 
Jewish apocalypses and a Christian redactor. 

The unity of the book is defended by certain scholars : 

Not only by the critics of Vischer mentioned above, but also 
by B. Weiss (AY/., and Texte u. V ntersuch. 8 1891), Bovon 
(Revue de tlu-ol. et phil., 1887, pp. 329-62), Hirsclit (Die Apoc. 
u. ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), and Bloin ( Tit. T, 1883-84). .\n ex- 
pectant attitude is taken by H Holtzmann (Junl., 1892 ; Hand- 
koiiim., 1893). 

Finally, altogether new lines of investigation were 
opened up by (Junkel in his Schbpf. u. Chaos ('94). He 
controverted sharply, and sometimes per- 
haps not altogether fairly, both the current 
me.thods of interpreting the .\pocalypse (that which 
looks to contemporary history for a clue, and that 
which adheres to literary critical methods), and pro- 
posed to substitute for them, or at least to co-ordinate with 
them, a history of apocalyptic tradition. He insisted 
with emphasis upon the thesis that the (one) Apocalyp- 
tist was not himself the creator of his own representa- 
tions ; that his prophecies were only links in a long 
chain of tradition. In his investigation of this apo- 
calyptic tradition he greatly enlarged the scope of the 
usual question ' Jewish or Christian ? ' by his endeav- 
ours to prove for chap. 12 a Babylonian origin, and 
in other places also (see below, 40) to trace Baljylonian 
influences in the book. Even if we grant that Gunkel 
has often overshot the mark, as, for example, when 
he refuses to recognise Xero in the beast and its number 
it is undeniable that his book marks the beginning 
of a new epoch in the interpretation of the Apocalypse. 

Stimulated by Gunkel, and accepting some of his 
results, Bousset {Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung 
_ . des Judenthians, des neuen Testaments, 

31. iJOUBSet. ^^^^^ j^^ ^^.^^^ Kirche, 1895) proceeded 
to illustrate Gunkel's method by applying it to a definite 
concrete example, investigating the entire tradition 
regarding .\ntichrist, and endeavouring to show that 
in this instance a stream of essentially uniform tradition 
can be traced from New Testament times right through 
the Middle Ages and beyond them. In his view the 
Apocalypse can be shown to be dependent in a series 
of passages, particularly in chap. 11, on this already 
ancient tradition regarding .Antichrist. 

This view has been controverted by Erbes (T/ieologisckt 
Arbeiten aus detti r/teinischen ivissenschaftiichen Prediger- 
verein geivaudt, Neue Folge, 1, Freiburg, i. B., 1897), who, as 
against it, argues for the contemporary-history method in its 
most perverse form. 

Finally, in the Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar ('96), 
Bousset has sought to bring to a focus the result of the 
labours of previous workers. In his method of inter- 
pretation he follows Weizsacker (fragment hypothesis), 
and therefore gives a continuous commentary, describing 
the character of each particular fragment in its own 
I place. In his exegesis he has given special attention to 


the indications of (Junkcl, and to the result of his own 
researclies on the sul)jcct of Antichrist. 

To Sinn up the result of the lalxjurs of the last fifteen 

years upon the Apocalypse. It seems to be settled that 

P It ^^^ Ajx)calypse can no longer Ik: rej^arded 

32. Kesuits. ^ ^ literary unity. Against such a view 

criticism finds irresistible considerations. 

.\mong these is the intuiigruiiy between 7 j-8 and 79-17, as 
also th.-\t Ijctween 7 i-8 and 12^, the two explanations of the 
144,000 in 7 i_^ and 14 ij/"., the interruption of the connection 
caused by 10-U 13, the jieculiar new becinning made in 12 i, the 
sini;ular character of chap. 12, the tioublelte presented bv chaps. 
13 and 17, the fact tliat in 14 14-20 a Last judBment is depicted, 
whilst that involved in 13 does not arrive till I'J 11^; the observ.-i- 
tion that in chap. 17 two representations of the beast and his 
associates are given alongside each other (see below, 45) ; and 
the isolated character of chaps. 17 and 18, 21 9-22 5. 

Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious 
level. Chap. 7 1-8 (cp 20 7-9), with Us particularistic character, 
is out of harmony IxJth with cliaps. 1-3 and with "9-17 ; in 11 \/. 
the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in 21 22 the 
new Jerus.nlem is to have none. 

Moreover, different parts of the book require different dates : 
chap. 11 1-2 must h.ive been written Ijefore 70 a. I)., chap. 17 prob- 
ably when Vesp.-isian had alre.idy been emperor for some time ; 
whilst the svriting, as a whole, cannot, at the earliest, have been 
llnislied before the time of Do 


This result holds good notwithstanding Gunkd's 
warning against the overhasty efforts of criticism. That 
a variety of sources and older traditions have been 
worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even 
by the student who holds that it is no longer possible 
to reconstruct the sources. 

It may seem doubtful whether a general character, 

date, and aim can be assigned to the Apocalypse ; 

T? 1 f ^'^' '^ ^'^^ been seen, the work is not a 

33. Keiative jij^^^ary unity. Still, if there be good 

f ^^ J grountl for the critical conclusion indicated 

structure. :_^^^^.^^ that the Apocalyptist is himself 
an inde|x'ndent writer who has simply introduced various 
fragments into his corpus apocalypticum (Weizsiicker, 
Schon, Sabatier, Bousset), a relative unity has already 
been proved for the Apocalypse. This conclusion is 
contirmed, step by step, when the details of the book 
are examined. 

The relative unity is shown (i) in the artificial 
structure of the whole. 

Four separate times do groups of seven occur (epistles, seals, 
trumpets, vials) ; within these groups the prevailing distribution 
is into 4 + 3. The delineations of judgment and its horrors are 
reijularly followed by pictures of joy and heavenly bliss ; cp 
7 11 14-19 14 1-5 15 1-4 19i-io. Everywhere artificial con- 
nections are employed in order to bind the separate parts 
together into one whole : cp, for example, 1 20 and 4 i, 64 and 
I4 10 5-7 11 11 13; also 19 2 14689-11 165-12^; also IS 19 
7 8 21 2. 

(2) Further, the relative unity is shown clearly in 
the uniformity of the language throughout. 

The following are the more important 

34. Of language facts. Throughout the entire boi)k are 

and style. found (a) strongly marked gr.ammatical 

irregularities anacolutha and impossible 

constructions {f.g., 1 ^f. 12 7), and confusions of case, especially 

with following participles(l4 io2 18 [see the reading of X] 20812 

5 11/ Oi 7 4 9^;^; s 9 9 14 10 8 11 1 14 6 12 14 10 12 1748 IS i2y: 

10 6 20 2 21 27 [reading of K]). In 1 13 and 14 14 (to Like only one 
instance) the reading ii/itoioi' vl'ov avOpiunov cannot have been 
due to two separate persons. 

(/') Hebraisms, especially the repetition of the demonstrative 
pronoun in the relative cl.ause (38 72 9 138 12 208, cp I2014 
179, also 271726 3x2 21 O4 21 6), and the Hebraistic cai' (3 20 

10 7 149/). 

(<) The const rue tio ad sensum is specially frequent (e.g.. 
Ait/. 5 6 12/ 74 93^. 13 11 4 15 13 14 143 173 II 16 194 14); 
sometimes involving a plural predicate after a neuter plural 
subject (324 4589 5 14 920 11 2 13 18 1^4 16 14 18 3 23 21 24). 
Less clearly attested is the simple ungramm.atical confusion of 
gender (9 7 14 19 19 20 21 14 22 2 ; see the MSS.). 

((j) Various other systematic peculiarities of idiom. For 
example, irpoaKvvtiv governs the dative when the object is 
efO(4 10 7 II 11 16 19 4 229, cp 14 7) or JpaKajr (13 4), whilst, on 
the other hand, we have wpoo-ic. to ^piov, ttji' e'tKOva, 13[4l8 13 15 
14 9 1 1 [19 20) 20 4 (in 16 2 also we should read tfji' t'lKova accord- 

1 A justification of these results in detail will be found in the 
Author's Commentary on this l)Ook (Introd. pp. 183-208). In 
some cases, where the reading adopted is less strongly attested, 
the citations are in brackets. 



ing to the readings of K, which are wrongly given in the primed 
editions). The instrumenlal dative is extremely rare in the 
Apocalypse j its place is often taken by the construction with 
Hebraistic ty, or even (but rarely) with 6ia and the accusative 
(4 1 1 12 1 1 13 14). The vocative is rarely used (twice only : kv/h*, 
11 17; ovpavi, IS 20). After a neuter plur.'il ihe predicate is 
usually also plural (1 19 8 11 I64 lti2o[18i4| 20 12 21 4). The 
Apocalvptist, except in a very few cases, construes 6 KaBrnityot 
itrC with the accusative, tow KoBi'itLtvov ini with the accusative, 
TOW Ka0rijxii'ov ini with the genitive, T<j KoBriiitixf ini with the 
dative ; he writes rl to litriunov, but tni Tiuf inrutnutv (ex< tp- 
tion in 14 9), and f'lrl riji' Kt<fM\r)v invariably (except in 12 1). 
He construes either 7ri rji yrj? or it rijf yiji' (14 16, <ri Trif yiji'), 
rl r^ #aAa<r<jTjs or i Tijf da^atraav. He invariidjly construes 
ypajftfLv, ioTofai ini with accusative (14 i ytyp. in\ tuv fitTunutv 
and 10 5 iaTai-ai 'irt ttjs yVjt are no exceptions but only con- 
firmations of other rules). Noteworthy, also, is the 
vacillation in tense between present and future, and, in descrip- 
tions, between present and aorist. The Apocalyptist uses llie 
infinitive almost invari.ably in the aorist. Exceptions occur in ilie 
case of p Aim IV, of which he apparently never makes an aorist ; 
ahio in Il6l3i3(?). On the other han<l, following the rule that is 
customary elsewhere, he construes fjw'AAtii' almost always with the 
present infinitive. The copula is often wanting, particularly in 
relative sentences (1 4 2 13 5 13 9 1 1 20 ic). A clumge in the use 
of subjunctive and indicative is made only after iVa (oirut does 
not occur at all), but here also a certain regularity prevails. A 
quite extraordinary use of iva occurs in 12 14 and 14 13 (cp Jn. 
856 92 11 15). In its use of particles the book displays an 
oppressive monotony : Kai is predominant everywhere ; only in 
the epistles to the seven churches is the style somewhat 

The arrangement of the words is markedly Hebraistic. In 
choice of words it is remarkably so. 'I'he following characteristic 
phr.ases and turns of expression may be noted : Aoyo? toO 9<oO 
Ka'i fiap-rvpia 'lijcroi/ ; o Kvpio^ 6 6(iii o navroKpaTuip ; oTi'Of Tou 
dvfxoi) TTj? opy*)? ^**"' *i5 TOU9 aiuiua^ tujj' atwfuji' ; Aifjiimj Tov 
TTDpot <cal Sfiou ; (^uAal yAJxrcrai Aaoi tdti) ; /Si^Aov ni? iVirit ; 
^poi'Tttl (^Mui/al aarpaiTai creicrfios ; 7rj)-yai_ viaTiup ; 6 iiv Kai o ^v 
Kai 6 fp\6^i'o^ ; AoAcii/ and aKo\ov0(iu fxtrd', oi'Ofxa avru*; 
fitTo. Taiira ; aAr)6i'0 ; oouAos (in a pregnant sense), iJ.apTvpia, 
fi.apTvp(lv ; heiKvvtiv \ ciicdi' ; cr<f>dTTfiv ', <rKr)fovi> ; njptii/ rat 
tiToAav. Compare, furllier, the eiuimcrations in 15 11 18 l;f 16 
19518 20 12 (tlie formula fiocpoi Kai fieydXoi); the beatitudes 
(jiaicapios ; I3 14 13 10 15 19 9 206 22714): the doxologies (lb 
4 II 59 12/ 7 12 153 19 I 6); the formul.e introduced with ii&t 
(\3ioiS l-i iil7g);'JiA0i'rir)p.epa(,ipYi'i,iopa etc.; tii7lli8147 
15 18 10 197). 

The general style of the Apocalyjise is monotonously 
diffuse : article and pre[5osition are almost always 
rejjealed when there are more substantives than one, as 
also is the governing word before the governed. Whole 
clauses are gone back upon and repealed in the 
negative : Hebrew parallelism is not unconuiion. 

We are now at last able to form a tolerably clear 

conception of the personality, the time, the circum- 

stances, and the literary aims of the apo- 

calyptist who planned the .Apocalypse, as a 

whole, in the form in which we now have it. 

(a) The Apocalyptist writes at a time in which violent 
persecutions have already broken out indeed they are 
beginning to become, so to say, epidemic. 

Of the seven churches, four Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna, 
Philadelphia are passing through such times of trial. The 
martyrs already form a distinct class in the general body of 
believers. They are destined to have part in the first resur- 
rectionbefore the thousand - years reign begins (204^. cp 
Tgj/'.). The seer beholds them under the altar (69^.). All 
through the book this time of struggle is kept in mind (13 i 
149^. ISijf 106 17 6 IS 20-24). 

{!>) The .Apocalyptist predicts a still mightier and 
more strenuous struggle. 

In this struggle the predestinated number of martyrs is to be 
fulfilled (69^:). Philadelphia is to be preserved^in this Last 
great tribulation (3 10 ; cp the jxeyoAij #Ai'i/t of 7 14). This 
time is not far off: the martyrs who have already suffered arc 
bidden endure only a little longer (0 1 1). Therefore, ' Blessed 
are they that die in the Lord from henceforth ' (oir' oprt ; 14 1 3). 

(c) This Struggle turns, and will in the future turn, 
upon the worship of the beast. That this beast is 
in one sense or another the Roman Empire or con- 
nected with it, is admitted on all hands. It is important, 
however, to consider the grounds on w hich the .Apocalypse 
opposes Rome. Rome's horrible deed is not, as might 
perhaps be guessed, the destruction of Jerusalent, nor 
yet in the first instance, at le;isi the Neronian per- 
secution, but the worship of the beast i.e., Cwsar 
worship (cp 13 149/". 152/: ItJs/ o 17619ji/: 20 
4-6; cp Mommsen, J?dm. Gesch. Ssaon.). What the 


book predicts is the great conflict about to break out all 
over the world between Christianity on the one hand and 
the Roman Empire (with the Roman state religion, the 
worship of the emperors) on the other (cp Antichrist, 


(</) This great battle will begin with the return of 
Nero Rcdivivus. 

In common with the rest of the men of his day, the 
Apocalyptist shares the popular expt-ctatioii of tlie coming again 
of that emperor. Nero is(13 3 12 14) the head that was wounded 
to death and afterwards healed. He is only ' .as it were ' (u)) 
slain, like the lamb (.'> 6). For as the latter continues to live on 
in heaven, so does Nero prolong a shadowy existence in hell. 
Out of the abyss (17 s) he will again return, and as Roman 
Kmperor demand acloration. Then will l>e the days of the great 
future struggle. Hence the name of the beast is 656 i.e., 

nop nn: (cp An iichkist, 15). 

(() Thus the date of the Ai5ocaly[)se admits of lieiiig 
ajjproximately determined. The ciui of tlic first century 
is already sufficiently indicated by the fact tiiat the 
Apocalyptist expects the return of Xero from hell (Th. 
Zahn, 'Apocal. Stud.' inZA'II'Z., 1885, pp. 561-76, 
1886, pp. 337-52 393-405 ; see below, 45). The 
following consideration points to the same inference, 
liehind the Apocalyptist in point of time there already 
lies a great persecution. He himself is again living in 
limes of persecution, and is expecting worse to come. 
Inasmuch as the former persecution must be assumed 
to be the Xeronian, we are compelled to carry the 
Apocalypse down to the later period of Domilian. 
When we do so the fact that 11 i ff. points 
to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem need 
not cause us any luisgiving : doubtless the passage 
comes from an earlier source. On the other side we 
sh(juld be able to fix an inferior limit for the date, 
could it be shown that the epistles were already known 
to Ignatius (see above, 2). The date thus indicated 
the close of the first century was in ]joint of fact the 
date at which, it would seem, the general persecutions 
of the Christians, turning substantially on the rendering 
of divine honour to the emperor, first broke out (see 
CiiKisTiAN, 6). Tiie Apocalypse, as we now have it, 
presupposes conditions very siinilar to those which we 
meet in the well-known corresjjondence between I 'liny 
and Trajan. In this it is not implied that the Apocalypse 
could not have been written some ten years or more earlier. 

In the conclusion just indicated we find ourselves in 
agreement with the best attested tradition as to the date 
of the writing of the Apocalypse. 

According to Irenitus (v. 30 2 ; cp v. 20 7), the Apocalypse was 
'seen ' at the close of Domilian's reign at Patmos, and therefore, 
of course, to say the least, not written earlier (cp Vict. Pettau. 
Comin. on Apoc. 10 11 ; Eus. HE iii. 18 1-3 ; Jer. Dc vir. iltus. 
p; Sulp. Sev. Chron.'l-},\). .A. different tradition is met with, it 
IS true perhaps in Tertullian, who (De pru-scr. Hit-r. 36) 
mentions the martyrdom of John (by boiling oil a death from 
which he was miraculously delivered), and his subse(|uent banish- 
ment, in connection with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul 
(but see, on the other hand, Scot-piace 15). It is certain that at 
all events Jerome {Adv.Jcmin. 1 26 [2 16]) understood Tertullian 
as assigning this martyrdom and banishment of John to the 
reign of Nero (cp Eus. Dem. ETans:. 3 ; the superscription of 
the .Syriac translation of the Apocalypse edited by Ludovicus 
de Dieu ; the Gnostic Acts of John; Theophylact [who gives 
the date as thirty-two years after the Ascension ; cp the notes 
of some of the Greek cursives of the Fourth Gospel : thirty years 
after the Ascension, under Domitian (I); Erbes, 48]). Finally, 
Epiphanius (Hier, .51 12 33) will have it that the book was written 
under Claudius. The same statement occurs in the Commentary 
of Apringius (upon whom see Rousset, CGN, 1895, p. 2), whence 
it found its way into that of Heatus (ed. Florez, 33). 

The Apocalj'p-se is distinguished from the apocalyptic 
literature of Judaism from the time of the book of 

37. Details 
of criticism. 

36. Personality 
of Apocalyptist. 

Daniel onwards by the high pro- 
phetic consciousness which it displays. 
The Apocalyptist as he stands at 
one of the turning-points of the world's history looks 
with a clear eye into the future and feels himself to be a 
prophet. He is a Christian of an especial type. For 
the prophets are servants of God in a peculiar sense 
( 1 1 I O7 11 18 226 [cp 153]) : they are the fellow-servants 
of the angels (229) ; other Cliristians are so only in 
so far as they follow the revelation of the prophets 


(229). God is master of the spirits of the prophets 
(226 cp 17 17 19 10). Hence the author directly claims 
for his work the rank of a sacred book. It is intended 
from the first to Ije publicly read ( 1 3) ; those who hear 
it and obey what is written therein are blessed ( 1 3 
227), and whosoever adds to or takes away from it falls 
under the most grievous curse (22 18/). The frec|uent 
mention of tiie propliets along with the saints {i.e.. 
Christians in general) see 11 18 166 I82024 is a proof, 
not, as many critics have supposed, of the Jewish, but of 

j the Christian, origin of the related passages. The .Apoca- 
lypse in this respect was the forerunner of Montanism, 
and it is no matter for surprise that it was specially 
valued in Montanistic circles. It is also noteworthy 

' that the Apocalyptist speaks to his own age and time. 

( Whilst Daniel is represented as receiving, at the close of 
his vision, the command to seal the book for long, here 

! in sharp contrast we read (22 10) ' Seal not up the words 

i of the pro]5hecy. ' The Apocalyptist seems to have been 

j a Jewish Christian of universalistic sympathies. For 

i him the name of Jew is a name of honour (29 89) ; he 
seems to uphold a certain prerogative for the Jewish 

I peo|)le(7 1-8 11 1-132O7/. ). He shows himself intimately 
familiar with the language of the OT. 

Into the apocalyptic unity thus defined, isolated frag- 
ments ha\e been introduced in a manner which can 
still be more or less clearly detected. 
Of these the more imjiortant at least must 
now be discussed, and some detailed 
account of the more noteworthy results of criticism given. 
Of recent critics the majority (Vischer, \'61ter, 
Weyland, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Schmidt) regard 

; _, , p the epistles to the seven churches (chaps. 

aps. - . ^_g^ ^^ having been originally separate 

from the rest of tlie book and as having been prefixed 

j only after the Apocal3'pse had in other respects assumed 
its present form ; but Spitta has shown good grounds 
for believing that chaps. 1-3 and 4-6 ought not to be 
separated, and (as against Vischer and others) has 
established for the whole of chaps. 4-6 that Christian 
character which unquestionabl)' belongs to ^d ff. Thus 
Spitta takes chaps. 1-6 as a single original document 
((Christian primitive apocalypse = U). 

He seeks to prove this by pointing out that there is a definite 
close at the end of (>, and a fresh beginning of a new apocalypse 
in V I (so also P. Schmidt). But the sixth seal (Oi2_^.) does not 
represent the final catastrophe ; it only pictures a great earth- 
quake in the typical apocalyptic manner. In t3i5_^ the end is 
still to come, and if, with .Spitta, we pass on to 79-17 immedi- 
ately after 617, any representation of the end of all things 
completely disappeared from our reconstructed Apocalypse. In 
any case, it is impossible that one should fail to recognise 
an interpolated fragment in the .short passage (C9-11) relating 
to the fifth seal. We have an exact parallel to it in 4 
435 (cp also /Ethiop. Enoch 47). And the tradition of 4 
Esd. must l)e regarded as the original one. It speaks quite 
generally of a predestined number of the righteous which has 
to be fulfilled before the coming of the end, whilst in the 
Apocalypse the conception is applied to the predestined number 
of the martyrs a modification which can be explained very 
easily from his general position (see above, 35). 

Spitta's view that 7 1-8 constitutes a fresh beginning, 
which has nothing to do with the preceding chapters, 
is certainly correct ; but neither has 
the passage anything to do with that 
which follows it (79-17) ; as to this practically all critics 
are agreed. These facts, however, will not justify us in 
attributing 79-17 to the redactor (as do Volter, Vischer, 
Pfleiderer and Schmidt), nor yet in carrying out a system 
of deletions in chap. 7 (as do Erbes, Wej-l. , Rauch) until 
the two disparate sections have been brought into 
harmony. Our proper course is to recognise (cp also 
Spitta)- in 7 1-8 an interpolated fragment probably 

The sudden mention of the four winds, which are held by the 
angels and are nowhere in the succeeding narrative let loose, 
points to this conclusion, as also does the introduction of the 
144,000 I.sraelites of the twelve tribes a numl^er which in 14 1_^ 
is interpreted in a sense inconsistent with the original ' ' 

Bousset has hazarded the conjecture that here 
have a fragment of the Antichrist legend. 

39. Chap. 

41. Chap. 



The next passage wliicli presents sjx;cial difficulties is 
11 1-13. Here all critics are agreed in recognising a 
_. fragment interpolated Ixilsveen the sixth 

'. P' trumpet and the seventh (cp 9 11 and 
'"'^' 11m). Further, almost all critics agree 
in regarding chap. 10 as an introductory chapter 
connected with this fragment. On closer examination 
it is found, moreover, that 11 1-13 really consists of two 
smaller fragments: (a) lli /, a prediction of the 
preservation of the temple, written before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and presenting points of contact with 
Lk. 2124; (/'I the prophecy relating to the beast and 
the two witnesses (11 3-13). This latter piece is of 
an extremely fragmentary and enigmatical character. 

Certain matters are introduced without any preparation : 
the two witnesses, the l)cast from the ahyss, the war of the 
beast with the witnesses, the jjeoples and tribes rejoicing over 
the death of these last. .\li these are disjecta membra which 
point to some larger connection. 

In this passage, too, Housset has sought to show that 
we have a fragment from the Antichrist legend. 

In accordance with Jewish :ind primitive Christian anticip-ition 
tlie .\ntichrist is destined to appear as a (jod-defying ruler in 
Jerusalem, to lead the people astray and tyrannise over them, and 
to gather together a great army from all nations. Against liim 
will arise the two prophets Elijah and Enoch, and Israelites 
to a definite number (7 1-8?) will be converted. A great famine 
and drought will come. Then .Xntichrist will put to death the 
two witnesses, and the end will draw near. It is evident that 
here we have a coherent tradition, of which some fragments are 
preserved in ch.ap. 11. 

Chap. 12 is the most difficult in the book. It 
also falls into two sections, 12 1-12 and I213-17, and 
betrays itself as a foreign intrusion both by 
its unfamiliar character and by its strange 
and bizarre representations. 

.\. Dietrich (Abraxas) was the first who sought to trace in the 
chapter an adaptation of the myth of the birth of Apollo : he 
liL-ld tlie i^x^iiaiil tu^jitive woman to be Leto, the dragon was 
tlii; I'Nihoii, the child (who in the original legend himself slew 
llu- l'\tlii)ii, Mich.icl liL-iiig a later introduction) was Apollo. 
The water which in the ("ireek myth figured as a protecting 
power h;is here become auxiliary to the dragon. 

Recently Guiikel, in his Schopjiitig u. Chaos, has 
directed special attention to this chapter, and shown 
that an adequate understanding of it could Ix: arrived 
at neither on the assumption of a Christian nor on that 
of a Jewish origiti (\'ischer, W'eyland, Spitta) that on 
either hypothesis there remains an intractable residuum, 
bearing a mythological character. Here, accordingly, as 
elsewhere in the Apocalypse (cp the seven angels, stars, 
candlesticks, torches [EV 'lamps'], e3'es, pp. 294-302; 
the twenty-four elders, 302-8 ; Armageddon, 263-66, 
and p. 325 n. 2; the numlx;r 3^, pp. 266-70; also 
chaps. 13 and 17, 379^), he found elements taken from 
Babylonian mythology, and in particular the myth of 
the l)irth of the sun-god Marduk and of the persecution 
of Marduk by the dragon Tiamat. The difficulty 

in this construction of Gunkel's is that down to the 
present date it has been impossible to find in the liaby- 
lonian mythology any trace of the myth of the birth 
and ])ersecution of the youthful sun-god. Bousset 
(Apok. 410/;), however, has called attention to parallels 
with one chapter in Egyptian mythology (the myth of 
the birth of Horus). 

In the result, there seems much probability in the 
supposition that chap. 12 embodies a myth of the birth of 
the sun-god and the persecution of the young child by 
the dragon, the deity of winter and of night. The Apoca- 
lyptist has changed the sun-god, however, into the ttois 
'iTjffoOj Xpiarbs, the persecutor into the devil, and the 
deliverance of the child into the resurrection (observe 
the inconcinnity of this adaptation). In this treatment 
of the material laid to his hand, he was not able 
to give full significance to the flight of the woman, 
which is so prominent a feature in the original myth. 
This is accordingly only briefly touched on in 126 ; but 
it receives copious and special treatment in the second 
half of the chapter {w. 13-17). Hence the incongruity 
between 12 1^ and 12 13/; which \\'eizsacker pointed 

14 20Q 


What historical occurrence is intended by the flight 
of the woman in 12 13-17 is not quite clear. Usually the 
42 ChaD *^'^'^' '** ^*"'"" '^^ refi-'Ting to circumstances 

, A *^* connected with the destruction of Jerusalem 
'^''^" either to the destruction and (in a sense) 
the deliverance of Judaism, or, better, to the flight of 
the primitive Christian ( hurch. 

Erijes, who seeks to explain ch. 13 as referring to the Caligula 
period (see below), interprets the flight and deliverance of the 
woman in connection wuh the first persecution of Christians 
at Jerusalem, strangely taking v. 17, 'the remnant of her seed 
who hold the testimony of Je.sus,' as pointing to the Jews (I) at 
the time of the Caligula persecution. Spitta actually takes the 
persecution of the woman as representing an occurrence in 
heaven. ' The remnant of the seed of the woman ' represents, 
he thinks, the actual Israel as contrasted with the ideal pre- 
existent Jerusalem (Israel?). Others (Vischer) interpret the 
rentnant as meaning believers as distinguished from tlie Nlessi.ih. 

Chap. 13 also contains two passages of a peculiar 
character describing the first beast and the 

.o /^i. 10 second. O. Holtzmaiui, Spitta, and 

43. Cnap. 13:,., , . '. . , 

i.v c i. I. J. I'-rbes were agreed m recoijinsinij here 
the first beast. ^ j^^^.^,^ (Holtzm.. Sp.) or a Christian 
(Erb. ) source dating from the time of Caligula. 
Independently of each other, they all (as had already 
been done by Th. Zahn) acceiited the numlier 616 
which is given in some .\I.SS (C. 11 Ticoiiiiis), 
instead of 666, and inter]3ieted it as meaning Tdibs 
Katcrap. The beast demanding worship, whose image 
{('iKihv) is repeatedly spoken of, is, on this view, 
the half- mad tyrant Caius Caligula, who in 39 .\.n. 
ordered his i)rocurator, I'etronius, to set uj) his statue in 
the temple at Jerusalem. Parallels to this prop-hecy 
belonging to the same date were found in Mt. 2-1 
( ' abomination of desolation ' ) and in 2 Thess. 2. The 
' wound (irXrjyri) of the beast was interjjreted by Spitta 
as meaning the sickness which befel Caligula towards 
the beginning of his reign. These conjectures are by 
no means impossible ; but if they are acceisted, 
certain important particulars in the cha[)ter must be 
deleted in particular, references to the wounded head 
of the beast. This and the number 666 {-op jnj) show- 
distinctly that (in its present form) the chapter was 
intended to be understood of the return of Xero 
Redivivus. Whether an older source dating from Cali- 
gula's time has here been worked over remains doubtful. 

As compared with this interpretation, the view which takes 
the wounded head to be Julius Ca;sar (Ciunkel, P.ruston) has 
little to be said for it since the number 666 in that case remains 
unexplained ; nor we reasonably interpret the deatli-wouiid 
to mean the interregnum of (ialba-Otho-Vitelliiis, or refer the 
number to the Roman empire (Aareti'os, Diisterdieck ; C'CII 1ST> 
Ewald). ' 

Still greater has been the perplexity of interpreters 

over the second beast. All attemjjts to make it out to 

^ be some definite personality have hitherto 

, been unsuccessful. Bousset {Cumm. ad loc.) 

vf ^'^'t upholds the view that it is in reality a modifi- 
cation of the older conception of Antichrist, 
who is here represented as serving the first l)east, the 
Roman emperor, and perhaps is to be interpreted as 
signifying the Roman provincial priesthood, the active 
agency in promoting the worship of the emperor. 

The objection usually urged against referring the pass- 
age to Nero that the beast whose number is 666 
cannot mean Nero the man ; that it must mean the 
Roman empire is not valid. To the .Xpocalyptist Xero 
Redivivus is at the same time the incarnation of all that 
is dreadful in the Roman empire. The number of the 
beast is the number of a man : cp 17 " ' and the lieast 
... is himself also an eighth ' {koX avroi 5y8oos e<XTiv). 
Chap. 17 is intimately connected with chap. 13, and this 
duplicate treatment of the same subjects is in itself proof 
_, .. sufficient that the .\pocalyptist had l)efore 
ap. /. him older prophecies, which he has worked 
over more than once. In this chapter also the reference 
to the returning X'ero is clear. Since Eichhorn, h<iw- 
ever, it has further been recognised on all hands (cp Ue 
Wette, Bleek, Lucke), and with justice, that the kings with 
w hom the beast returns for the destruction of Rome are 


the Parthians, whose satraps might already be regarded 
as independent kings (Momnisen, Rom. Kaisergesch. 
5521). Thus our present chapter also conies into a 
larger historical connection. As early as the year 69 
A.I), a psoudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia 
Minor and (Ireece (Tac. Hist. 2if. ; Dio C;issius, 649 ; 
Zonaras, 11 15) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo- 
Nero showed himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 18) 
and was acknowledged by the I'arthian King Artabanus 
(Momm.sen, 5521). About 88 A. u. a third pseudo-Nero 
again made his appe;irance, also among the Parthians, 
and threatened the Roman empire (Suet. i\'cro, 50 ; Tac. 
IJis'. 1 2). In this form we find the same expectation 
also in the fourth Sibylline book, written shortly after 
79 -X. D. {Sil'vll. 4 119^ ^yi ff-)< ^"d '" 'he oldest portion 
of the fifth book, written about 74 A.I). (5143^ 361^) ; 
in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation of 
Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem 
(Rev. IS 21) ; cp Zalms exhaustive researches (as above, 
35)- tiy '*"'l^ iwwv: and place our chapter (perhaps 
associated with the threatening utterance against Rome 
and the prophecy of a new Jerusalem) belongs to the 
same circle of expectations and predictions. It was 
doubtless written in Asia Minor ; but the e.xact date is 

According to 17 10 the Apocalyptist represents himself as 
writinj; under the sixth eniptror, five having died and .1 seventh 
having yet to cume, to be succeeded by the eiglilh, who is to be 
one of the seven (Xero). In reckoning, it is possible to begin 
either with Juhus Ocsar or with .\ugustus, to count or not to 
count the interregnum of C.alba-Otho-Vitellius, and finally to 
ask whether the p.issage was really written under the si.xth 
emptror, and not, rather, as a vaticinium ex enentu, under the 
seventh or eighth. Thus interpreters have taken the si.xth 
emperor to be now Nero (so all who hold the Apocalypse to have 
been written before 70 a.u. ; also V'Olter), now "Vespasian, and, 
conformably, take the chajiter to have been written now under 
the last-named emperor, now under Titus (the .seventh ; Wey- 
land) or Domitian, who is then taken, on rationalising lines, as 
Nero Redivivus (Erbes). 

The parallels cited above appear to render the reign 
of \'cspasian the most probable date. The writer 
probably a Christian expected after Vespasian a short 
reign for his successor The tradition was that 
seven Roman emperors were destined to reign. There- 
after Xero was to come back with the Parthians, and, 
in alliance with these, to take vengeance on Rome, the 
bloody persecutor of the Christians (176; 'with the 
blood of the saints ' ; the words ' with the blood of the 
martyrs of Jesus ' appear to be a gloss). The denuncia- 
tion of Rome (chap. IS) connects itself very well with this 
prophecy (see Sibyll. 5). 

It is further to be noted that chap. 17 has already, in 
the form in which we now have it, undergone redaction. 

On the nne hand, Nero is simply the eighth ruler who was one 
of the seven ; on the other, he is the beast who comes up from 
the abyss. On the one hand, he wages war along with the 
Parthians against Rome ; on the other, he wages war along with 
the kings of the earth against the lamb. In this redacted form 
(17812-14 or 15; cp also Volter) Nero is designated as the 
dread spectre of the time of the end who comes back from hell. 
Now, we find the same expectation in chap. 13, where Nero is 
plainly represented as dead (ws eiriftaytievev, 'as though it had 
been smitten unto death ') and as counterpart (Wiederspiel) of 
the lamb that had been slain and is to come again. This mode 
of repre.senting Nero probably comes from the latest redactor. 
Parallels to it can be found in the later portions of the fifth book 
of tlie Sibyllines (33/^ 215-26), and in the eighth book (1-215). 

The legend of Nero Redivivus first arose towards the 
end of the century, a full generation after Nero's death, 
when he could no longer well be supposed to be still 
alive among the Parthians (cp Zahn, as above). Its 
reception into the Apocalypse supplies one of the 
elements for determining the date of the book. 

Chap. 16 12^ (the sixth and seventh vials) also must 

have originally belonged to chap. 17. In this passage the 

46 Various =^"5'"' Po^''^^"' his vial upon the Euphrates, 

fraBinenta '^^^ ''^^ ^^'^^ '"'^^ ^ made ready for the 

^^ kings from the east' (cp 9i3j^, with its 

reference to the angels bound and loosed at the 

Euphrates ; on which, see Iselin in TAeo/. Z. aus der 


Schweiz, 1887, as above, 25). The representation of 
the gathering of the kings at Armageddon (Har- 
Magedon) in this passage is noteworthy ; it is not very 
intelligible, as we read of no mountain of Megiddo, but 
only of a plain (but see Armageddon). It recalls the 
ancient accounts of battles of the gods upon the moun- 
tains (Gunkel, Schopf. 263^ 389 n. 2). 

Chap. 14 14-20 also appears to be an ancient fragment. 
It thus early sets forth a final judgment by the Son of 
\lan. The passage, however, is so very fragmentary 
that it is hardly possible for us to make out what its 
original character may have been (cp the expression 
'without the city' in 14 20). liousset has sought to 
explain it by reference to the Antichrist legend. 

Fragments of older date seem to have been in- 
troduced into the account of the chaining of the 
dragon, the millennium, the irruption of (Jog and 
Magog (2O1-10; cp 2O9, irapffxjioXT} rCiv ayiwf, ttoXij 
qyairy}fj.ivri, and .^thiop. Enoch 56, Sil'vll. '6 319- 
322). The description of the binding and loosing of 
Satan recalls the Persian legend of the chaining of the 
dragon Azi Dahak on Mt. Dcmavend. Finally, a 
continuous piece perhajjs of Jewish origin (see 21 24 26 
222) lies before us in the description of the new 
Jerusalem, 21 9-225. 

We ought to compare Tob. 13 16^, Ps. Salom. 17 23^, Sil'vll. 
6247-85, 414-33, and the Hel)rew Apocalypse 0/ Elijah, edited 
by M. Buttenwieser, 65-67. In this last-named Jewish source 
also we find the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven. 

To summarise the results of the forcs^oing analysis : 
With the conclusion of the epistles to the seven churches 
47 Summarv (chaps. 1-3) the Apocalypse, properly so 
^' called, begins. Here the first six seals 
succeed one another uninterruptedly, till the interpolated 
fragment in 7 1-8 is reached. As a pendant to this 
fragment, with its distinctly Jewish character, the Apoca- 
lyptist proleptically introduces in 79-17 a picture of the 
blessedness of believers from every nation who have 
come out of the great tribulation. Now follow the 
seventh seal and, arising out of this, the seven trumpets 
(chaps. 8-11). Between the sixth and tlie seventh trumpet -x 
the passage 10 i-ll 13 has lx;en interpolated. In chap. In 
the Apocalyptist indicates to some extent what the ' dis- 
position ' of the remainder of the book is to be (cp 10 n). 
It is to be observed that in chaps. ^ ff- , in addition to the 
distribution under seven trumpets, the Apocalyptist has 
attempted a second under three woes. The first woe 
answers to the fifth trumpet ; the second, the mention 
of which might have been expected after the sixth 
trumpet, does not come up until 11 14, after the great 
interpolation has been reached. The third great woe 
(which is not expressly named by the Apocalyptist) 
is doubtless indicated in 12 12. It is hardly likely that 
we have here a redaction from an older source. 
Before, then, he comes to the culmination of his 
prophecy, in chap. 13, the Apocalyptist casts his glance 
backwards in chap. 12. Borrowing the imagery of an 
ancient sun-myth, he depicts the birth, persecution, and 
rescue of the Saviour, and afterwards the persecution of 
the Church. In chap. 13 he goes on to foretell the coming 
final struggle, the last great ,ind decisive battle between 
the faithful ones and the beast who demands adoration. 
For him the supreme crisis of this struggle still lies in 
the future, when Nero Redivivus is to appear. In the 
bright picture which he prophetically introduces at 14$ 
by way of contrast to chap. 13, he adapts and modifies 
7 1-8. 146-13 is intended to effect the transition to what 
follows. 1 4 14-20 is a smaller interpolated fragment. 
The great finale remains. The Apocalyptist still had 
to work in the prophecies contained in chap. \7 /. \ 
by way of introduction to these, chap. 1.')/ are given. 
Then follows, after an intermediate passage (19i-io), 
the picture of the final judgment (19ii-2l8); after 
which we have a new fragment, 21 9-22 5, followed by 
the close. 

Literature. The literature of the subject has been indicated 
in the course of the article. w. B. 




Introductory 08 i-4)- 

Apocalypse of Karuch (g 5-17). 

Enoch ; Kthiopic (fS 18-32), Slavonic (88 33-41). 

Ascension of Isaiah (88 43-47)- 
Jubilees (88 48-58). 
Assumption of Alose.s (88 59-67). 
Sec Ai'OCKVi-HA for references to the following less important apocalypses. 

Abraham (Apockyimia, 8 O- Elias (Ai-ockvpiia, 8 21, no. 10). 

.\ (ii>. 8 10). Edras {i7>. g 22