It is noteworthy that there is not a word so far either in J or E, which suggests that Aaron was a priest. But it is probable that by the time of E the belief had begun to grow up that Aaron was the founder of an hereditary priesthood. Dt 10:6 occurs in a parenthesis which seriously interrupts the narrative, and which was perhaps derived from E (cf. Jos 24:33).

3. In D, Aaron was probably not mentioned. Dt 10:6 has been referred to; 32:50 is from P; and the only remaining passage (9:20) appears to be a later insertion.

4. Outside the Hexateuch, two early passages (1 S 12:6, 8, Mic 6:4) refer to Aaron merely as taking a leading part in the Exodus.

5. In P, the process by which the tradition grew up that Moses delegated his priesthood to Aaron is not known. But the effect of it was that the great majority of ‘Levites,’ i.e. trained official priests, at local sanctuaries throughout the country traced their descent to Aaron. The priests of Jerusalem, on the other hand, were descendants of Zadok (1 K 1:39, 2:27); and when local sanctuaries were abolished by Josiah’s reforms, and the country priests came up to seek a livelihood at Jerusalem (see Dt 18:6–8), the Zadokite priests charged them with image-worship, and allowed them only an inferior position as servants (see 2 K 23:9, Ezk 44:9– 15). But at the Exile the priests who were in Jerusalem were carried off, leaving room in the city for many country (Aaronite) priests, who would establish themselves firmly in official prestige with the meagre remnant of the population. Thus, when the Zadokite priests returned from Babylon, they would find it advisable to trace their descent from Aaron (see Ezr 2:61f.). But by their superiority in culture and social standing they regained their ascendancy, and the country priests were once more reduced, under the ancient title of ‘Levites,’ to an inferior position.

This explains the great importance assigned to Aaron in the priestly portions of the Hexateuch. Reference must be made to other articles for his consecration, his purely priestly functions, and his relation to the Levites (see articles Priests and Levites, Sacrifice, Tabernacle). But he also plays a considerable part in the narrative of the Exodus and the wanderings. His family relationships are stated in Ex 6:20, 23, 25, Lv 10:4. He became Moses’ spokesman, not to the people but to

Pharaoh (7:1), in whose presence he changed the staff into a ‘reptile’ ( contrast ‘serpent’ in 4:3 J). P relates the 2nd plague (combined with J), the 3rd and the 6 th, in each of which Aaron is conspicuous. Aaron as well as Moses suffered from the murmurings of the people (Ex 16:2, Nu 14:2, 16:3, 41, 20:2); both were consulted by the people (Nu 9:6, 15:33); and to both were addressed many of God’s commands (Ex 9:8–10, 12:1, 43, Lv 11:1, 13:1, 14:33, 15:1, Nu 2:1). Aaron stayed a plague by offering incense (Nu 16:46–48). [On the combined narratives in chs. 16, 17 see Aaron’s Rod, Korah]. At Meribah-kadesh he, with Moses, sinned against J″ (Nu 20:1–13), but the nature of the sin is obscure (see Gray, Com. p. 262 f.). He was consequently forbidden to enter Canaan, and died on Mt. Hor, aged 123, Eleazar his son being clothed in the priestly garments (Nu 20:22–29, 33:38 f., Dt 32:50).

6. In the NT: Lk 1:5, Ac 7:40, He 5:4, 7:11, 9:4.

A. H. M‘Neile.

AARON’S ROD.—In a very complicated section of the Hexateuch (Nu 16– 18), dealing with various revolts against the constituted authorities in the wilderness period, the exclusive right of the tribe of Levi to the duties and privileges of the priesthood is miraculously attested by the blossoming and fruitbearing of Aaron’s rod. As representing his tribe, it had been deposited by Divine command before the ark along with 12 other rods representing the 12 secular tribes, in order that the will of J″ in this matter might be visibly made known ( see Nu 16:1–11 with G. B. Gray’s Com.). The rod was thereafter ordered to be laid up in perpetuity ‘before the (ark of the) testimony for a token against the rebels’ (17:10). Later Jewish tradition, however, transferred it, along with the pot of manna, to a place within the ark (He 9:4).

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AB.—See Time.

ABACUC.—The form of the name Habakkuk in 2 Es 1:40.

ABADDON.—A word peculiar to the later Heb. (esp. ‘Wisdom’) and Judaistic literature; sometimes synonymous with Sheol, more particularly, however, signifying that lowest division of Sheol devoted to the punishment of sinners ( see Sheol). Properly, its Gr. equivalent would be apōleia (‘destruction’), as found in the LXX. In Rev 9:11 Abaddon is personified, and is said to be the equivalent of Apollyon (‘destroyer’). Abaddon differs from Gehenna in that it represents the negative element of supreme loss rather than that of positive suffering.

Shailer Mathews.

ABADIAS (1 Es 8:35).—An exile who returned with Ezra; called Obadiah, Ezr 8:9.

ABAGTHA (Est 1:10).—One of the seven chamberlains or eunuchs sent by Ahasuerus (Xerxes) to fetch the queen, Vashti, to his banquet.

ABANAH.—The river of Damascus mentioned by Naaman, 2 K 5:12. It is identified with the Barada, a river rising on the eastern slope of the Anti-Lebanon, which runs first southward, then westward, through the Wady Barada and the plain of Damascus. About 18 miles from Damascus, after dividing fan-wise into a number of branches, it flows into the Meadow Lakes.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABARIM (‘the parts beyond’).—A term used to describe the whole east-Jordan land as viewed from Western Palestine. From there the land beyond Jordan rises as a great mountain chain to a height of 3000 feet and more from the Jordan valley. Hence Abarim is joined with ‘mount’ (Nu 27:12, Dt 32:49) and ‘mountains’ ( Nu 33:47); also with ‘Iyye, ‘heaps of’ (Nu 21:11). See also Jer 22:20 and Ezk 39:11 (RV; AV ‘passages’).

E. W. G. Masterman.

ABBA is the ‘emphatic’ form of the Aram. word for ‘father.’ It is found in the

Gr. and Eng. text of Mk 14:36, Ro 8:15, and Gal 4:6 (in each case Abbā, ho patēr, ‘Abba, Father’). Aram. has no article, and the ‘emphatic’ affix ā is usually the equivalent of the Heb. article. Both can represent the vocative case (for Hebrew see Davidson’s Syntax, § 21 f.); and abba occurs in the Pesb. of Lk 22:42, 23:34 for pater. The ‘articular nominative’ is found in NT sixty times for the vocative; and so we have ho patēr for ō pater (Moulton, Gram. of NT Greek, p. 70). Jesus often addressed God as ‘Father’ or ‘my Father.’ In both cases He would probably use ‘Abba’; for ’abbā may be used for ’ābī (Targ. on Gn 19:34). In Mk 14:36, ho patēr is perhaps a gloss added by the Evangelist, as in Mk 5:41, 7:11, 34 he adds an explanation of the Aram.: but in Ro 8:15 and Gal 4:6 the Gentile Christians had learned for importunity to use the Aram. word Abba; as the Jews in prayer borrowed Kyrie mou (‘my Lord’) from the Greek, and used it along with Heb.

words for ‘my master,’ ‘my father’ (Schöttgen, Hor. Heb. 252).

J. T. Marshall.

ABDA (‘servant,’ sc. of the Lord).—1. Father of Adoniram, master of Solomon’s forced levy (1 K 4:6) 2. A Levite (Neh 11:17); called Obadiah in 1 Ch

9:16.

ABDEEL.—Father of Shelemiah (Jer 36:26), one of those ordered by Jeboiakim to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch.

ABDI.—1. Grandfather of Ethan, 1 Ch 6:44. 2. Father of Kish, 2 Ch 29:12. 3. A Jew who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10:26 = Oabdius, 1 Es 9:27.

ABDIAS (2 Es 1:39).—Obadiah the prophet.

ABDIEL (‘servant of God’).—Son of Guni (1 Ch 5:15)

ABDON (‘servile’).—1. The last of the minor judges Jg 12:13–15. 2. A family of Benjamites, 1 Ch 8:23. 3. A Gibeonite family, 1 Ch 8:30, 9:36. 4. A courtier of Josiah, 2 Ch 34:20; in 2 K 22:12 called Achbor. 5. A Levitic city of Asher ( Jos 21:30, 1 Ch 6:74), perhaps (v. d. Velde) ‘Abdeh E. of Achzib on the hills.

ABEDNEGO.—Dn 1:7, etc.; probably a corruption of Abed-nebo, i.e. ‘servant of Nebo.’

ABEL.—Gn 4:2–10. The Heb. form Hebhel denotes ‘vapour’ or ‘breath’ ( cf. Ec 1:1, EV ‘vanity’), which is suggestive as the name of a son of Adam ( ‘man’ ).

But it is perhaps to be connected with the Assyr. aplu, ‘son.’ Abel was a son of Adam and Eve, and brother of Cain. But the narrative presupposes a long period to have elapsed in human history since the primitive condition of the first pair. The difference between pastoral and agricultural life has come to be recognized for Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground (see Cain). The account, as we have it, is mutilated: in v. 8 Heb. has ‘and Cain said unto Abel his brother’ (not as AV and RV). LXX supplies the words ‘Let us pass through into the plain,’ but this may be a mere gloss, and it cannot be known how much of the story is lost.

Nothing is said in Gn. of Abel’s moral character, or of the reason why his offering excelled Cain’s in the eyes of J″; cereal offerings were as fully in accord with Hebrew law and custom as animal offerings. He 11:4 gives ‘faith’ as the reason. In He 12:24 the ‘blood of sprinkling’ ‘speaketh something better than the blood of Abel,’ in that the latter cried for vengeance (Gn 4:10).

In Mt 23:35 || Lk 11:51 Abel is named as the first of the true martyrs whose blood had been shed during the period covered by the OT, the last being Zachariah (wh. see). In Jn 8:44 it is possible that Jesus was thinking of the story of Abel when He spoke of the devil as ‘a murderer from the beginning,’ i.e. the instigator of murder as he is of lies.

A. H. M’Neile.

ABEL.—A word meaning ‘meadow,’ and entering as an element into several place-names. In 1 S 6:18 a reference in AV to ‘Abel’ is in the RV corrected ‘great stone.’ Elsewhere the name is found only with to qualifying epithets.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABEL (OF) BETH-MAACAH.—Where Sheba took refuge from Joab (2 S

20:14–18); it was captured by Ben-hadad (1 K 15:20), and by Tiglath-pileser (2 K 15:29); corresponding to the modern Abil, west of Tell el-Kadi, and north of Lake Huleh.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABEL-CHERAMIM (‘meadow of the vineyards’).—The limit of Jephthah’s defeat of the Midianites (Jg 11:3) Site unknown.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABEL-MAIM (‘meadow of waters’).—An alternative name for Abel of Bethmaacah, found in 2 Ch 16:4, which corresponds to 1 K 15:20, quoted under that head.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABEL-MEHOLAH (‘meadow of the dance or circle’).—A place in the Jordan valley, the limit of Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites (Jg 7:22); in the administrative district of Taanach and Megiddo under Solomon (1 K 4:12); the native place of Adriel, husband of Merab, Saul’s daughter (1 S 18:19), and of Elisha (1 K 19:16). The suggested identifications are uncertain. See Moore’s Judges, p. 212.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABEL-MIZRAIM (‘meadow of the Egyptians’).—The scene of the mourning for Jacob (Gn 50:11). The only clue to its situation is its being ‘beyond Jordan.’

ABEL-SHITTIM (‘meadow of the acacias’).—In the plains of Moab ( Nu

33:49); otherwise Shittim, the last (Jos 3:1) trans-Jordanic stage where the

Israelites encamped. Identified with Ghor es-Seisaban, east of the Jordan, opposite Jericho. It was the scene of the offence of Baal-peor (Nu 25:1). Hence Joshua sent his spies (Jos 2:1).

R. A. S. Macalister.

ABI.—The name of a queen-mother of the 8th cent. (2 K 18:2), called Abijah in the parallel passage 2 Ch 29:1. The reading in Kings is the more probable.

ABIAH.—See Abijah.

ABI-ALBON.—See Abiel.

ABIASAPH (= ‘father has gathered’), Ex 6:24 = EBIASAPH (= ‘father has increased’), 1 Ch 6:23, 37, 9:18.—The name of a division of the Korahite Levites, mentioned only in the genealogies of P and the Chronicler. According to 1 Ch 9:19, 26:1 (in the latter passage read Ebiasaph for Asaph), a section of the division acted as doorkeepers.

ABIATHAR.—Son of Ahimelech, who was head of the family of priests in charge of the sanctuary at Nob (1 S 21:1). All except Abiathar were massacred by Saul (1 S 22:20). When the rest obeyed the king’s summons, he may have remained at home to officiate. On hearing of the slaughter he took refuge with David, carrying with him the oracular ephod (1 S 23:6; see also 1 S 23:9, 30:7).

Abiathar and Zadok accompanied the outlaw in his prolonged wanderings. During

Absalom’s rebellion they and their sons rendered yeoman service to the old king (2 S 15:17). At 2 S 8:17 (so also 1 Ch 18:16 [where, moreover, ‘Abimelech’ should be Ahimelech] 24:6) the names of Abiathar and his father have been transposed. Abiathar’s adhesion to Adonijah (1 K 1:7, 19, 25) was of great importance, not only because of his position as priest, but also owing to his long friendship with king David. Solomon, therefore, as soon as he could safely do it, deposed Abiathar from the priesthood, warned him that any future misconduct would entail capital punishment, and relegated him to the seclusion of Anathoth (1 K 2:26). His sons (2 S 8:17) lost the priestly office along with their father (1 K 2:27; cf. 1 S 2:27–36). At Mk 2:26 the erroneous mention of Abiathar is due to his having been so intimately associated with the king in days subsequent to the one mentioned.

J. Taylor.

ABIB (the ‘green ear’ month, Ex 13:4 etc.).—See Time.

ABIDA (‘father hath knowledge’).—A son of Midian (Gn 25:4, 1 Ch 1:33).

ABIDAN (‘father is judge’).—Representative of the tribe of Benjamin at the census and on certain other occasions, Nu 1:11, 2:22, 7:60, 65, 10:24.

ABIEL.—1. Father of Kish and Ner, and grandfather of Saul (1 S 9:1, 14:51). The latter passage should run, ‘Kish, the father of Saul, and Ner the father of Abner, were sons of Abiel.’ 2. One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:32), from Betharabah in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15:6, 61, 18:22). Abi-albon (2 S 23:31) is a transcriber’s error, the eye having fallen on albon below: some codices of the LXX have Abiel: possibly the original was Abibaal.

J. Taylor.

ABIEZER (‘father is help’).—1. The name occurs also in the abbreviated form

Jezer. He is called the son of Hammolecheth, sister of Machir, the son of Manasseh

(1 Ch 7:18). His descendants formed one of the smallest clans belonging to the

Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh, the best known member of which was Gideon. According to Jg 6:24, 8:32, the Abiezrites were settled at Ophrah; they were the first to obey the summons of Joshua to fight against the Midianites.—2. An Anathothite, one of David’s thirty-seven chief heroes, who had command of the army during the ninth month (2 S 23:27, 1 Ch 27:12).

W. O. E. Oestenley.

ABIGAIL, or ABIGAL.—1. Wife of Nabal (1 S 25:14). She dissuaded David from avenging himself on the surly farmer, and soon after the latter’s death married David (1 S 25:39–42), and accompanied him to Gath and Ziklag (1 S 27:3 , 30:5, 18). At Hebron she bore him a son, whose name may have been Chileab (2 S 3:3), or Daniel (1 Ch 3:1), or Dodiel (the LXX at 2 S 3:3 has Daluya). 2. Stepsister of David, mother of Amasa (2 S 17:25, 1 Ch 2:16f.).

J. Taylor.

ABIHAIL (‘father is might’).—1. As the name of a man it occurs (a) in 1 Ch 5:14 as that of a Gadite who dwelt in the land of Bashan. (b) It was also the name of Esther’s father, the uncle of Mordecai (Est 2:15, 9:29).

2. As the name of a woman it occurs three times: (a) 1 Ch 2:29, the wife of

Abishur, of the tribe of Judah; this is its only occurrence in pre-exilic writings. (b)

Nu 3:35, a daughter of the sons of Merari, of the tribe of Levi, the mother of

Zuriel, a ‘prince’ among the families of Merari. (c) 2 Ch 11:18, the mother of Rehoboam’s wife, Mahalath, and daughter of Eliab, David’s eldest brother.

It is a woman’s name in Minæan (South Arabian) inscriptions, where it occurs in the form Ili-hail.

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ABIHU (‘he is father’).—Second son of Aaron (Ex 6:23, Nu 3:2, 26:60, 1 Ch 6:3, 24:1); accompanied Moses to the top of Sinai (Ex 24:1, 9); admitted to the priest’s office (Ex 28:1); slain along with his brother Nadab for offering strange fire (Lv 10:1, 2, Nu 3:4, 26:61, 1 Ch 24:2).

ABIHUD (‘father is majesty’).—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:3).

ABIJAH.—1. Son and successor of Rehoboam (2 Ch 13:1), also called Abijam (1 K 14:31). The accounts of him in the Books of Kings and Chronicles are discrepant. The difference begins with the name of his mother, which 2 Ch. gives as Micaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, while 1 K. makes her to have been Maacah, daughter of Abishalom. As the latter is also the name of Asa’s mother (1 K 15:10, 2 Ch 15:16), there is probably some confusion in the text. Beyond this, the Book of Kings tells us only that he reigned three years, that he walked in the sins of his father, and that he had war with Jeroboam, king of Israel. 2. Samuel’s second son (1 S 8:2). The RV retains the spelling Abiah in 1 Ch 6:28. 3. A son of Jeroboam I. who died in childhood (1 K 14). 4. One of the ‘heads of fathers’ houses’ of the sons of Eleazar, who gave his name to the 8th of the 24 courses of priests (1 Ch 24:3, 10, 2 Ch 8:14). To this course Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged (Lk 1:5). The name occurs also in the lists of priests who ‘went up with Zerubbabel’ (Neh 12:4), and of those who ‘sealed unto the covenant’ in the time of Nehemiah (10:7). 5. A son of Becher, son of Benjamin, 1 Ch 7:8. 6. Wife of Hezron, eldest son of Perez, son of Judah, 1 Ch 2:24, RV Abiah. 7. Wife of Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah (2 Ch 29:1), named Abi in 2 K 18:2.

H. P. Smith.

ABILENE.—Mentioned in Lk 3:1, and also in several references in Josephus, as a tetrarchy of Lysanias [wh. see]. It was situated in the Anti-Lebanon, and its capital was Abila, a town whose ruins are found to-day on the northern bank of the river Barada, near a village called Sūk Wady Barada. It is one of the most picturesque spots on the railroad to Damascus. The ancient name is to-day preserved in a Latin inscription on a deep rock-cutting high up above the railway. By a worthless Moslem tradition, Abel is said to have been buried here.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ABILITY.—In AV ‘ability’ is either material (Lv 27:8, Ezr 2:69, Ac 11:29) or personal (Dn 1:4, Mt 25:15) capacity. The mod. meaning (‘mental power’) is not found in AV.

ABIMAEL (perhaps = ‘father is God’).—One of the Joktanids or S. Arabians (see art. Joktan), Gn 10:28 (J), 1 Ch 1:22.

ABIMELECH (‘father is king’ or perhaps ‘Melech is father’).—1. King of Gerar. According to E (Gn 20) he took Sarah into his harem, but on learning that she was Abraham’s wife, restored her uninjured and made ample amends. Subsequently he entered into a covenant with Abraham (21:22ff.). J (12:10 ff., 26:1ff.) gives two variants of the same tradition. The Book of Jubilees, in the section parallel to 12:10ff., exonerates Abraham from blame, and omits the other two narratives! 2. The son of Gideon. His mother belonged to one of the leading Canaanite families in Shechem, although Jg 8:31 calls her a concubine, and Jotham (9:18) brands her as a maidservant. On Gideon’s decease, Abimelech, backed by his maternal relatives, gathered a band of mercenaries, murdered his seventy halfbrothers ‘on one stone,’ and was accepted as king by the mixed Canaanite and Israelite population of Shechem and the neighbourhood. But Jotham sowed the seeds of dissension between the new ruler and his subjects, and the latter soon took offence because the king did not reside among them. At the end of three years they were ripe for revolt, and found a leader in Gaal, son of Ebed. Abimelech defeated him, took the city, and sowed the site with salt, in token that it should not again be built upon. Thebez, the next town attacked by him, fell into his hands, but he was mortally wounded by a woman whilst assaulting the citadel (Jg 9:50–54, 2 S 11:21). His significance in the history of Israel consists in the fact that his shortlived monarchy was the precursor of the durable one founded soon after. 3. 1 Ch 18:16: read Ahimelech. 4. Ps 34 (title): read Achish (cf. 1 S 21:13).

J. Taylor.

ABINADAB (‘father is generous’).—1. The second son of Jesse (1 S 16:8 ,

17:13, 1 Ch 2:13). 2. A son of Saul slain in the battle of Mt. Gilboa (1 S 31:2 = 1

Ch 10:2). 3. Owner of the house whither the ark was brought by the men of Kiriath-jearim (1 S 7:1), whence it was subsequently removed by David (2 S 6:3 f., 1 Ch 13:7).

ABINOAM (‘father is pleasantness’).—The father of Barak (Jg 4:6, 12, 5:12).

ABIRAM (‘father is the Exalted One’).—1. A Reubenite, who with Dathan conspired against Moses (Nu 16:1 etc., Dt 11:6, Ps 106:17). See art. Korah. 2. The firstborn son of Hiel the Bethelite, who died when his father rebuilt Jericho (1 K 16:34).

ABISHAG.—A beautiful young Shunammitess who attended upon David in his extreme old age (1 K 1:2ff., 15). After David’s death, Abishag was asked in marriage by Adonijah; the request cost him his life (1 K 2:13–25).

ABISHAI.—Son of Zeruiah, David’s step-sister (2 S 17:25, 1 Ch 2:16). His brothers were Joab and Asahel (2 S 2:18). He was a hot-tempered, ruthless soldier.

Accompanying David into Saul’s camp, he would fain have killed the sleeper (1 S 26:7). An editorial addition (2 S 3:30) associates him with Joab in the bloodrevenge taken on Abner. Abishai was second in command of the army (2 S 10, 18) , and if we make a slight necessary correction at 2 S 23:18f., we find that he was first of the famous thirty. He is credited with the slaughter of three hundred foes, and David once owed his life to Abishai’s interposition (2 S 23:18, 21:16f.). Notwithstanding their relationship and their usefulness, there was a natural antipathy between the king and the two brothers (2 S 3:39).

J. Taylor.

ABISHALOM.—See Absalom.

ABISHUA.—1. Son of Phinehas and father of Bukki (1 Ch 6:4f., 50, Ezr 7:5) ; called in 1 Es 8:2 Abisue, and in 2 Es 1:2 Abissei. 2. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:4; cf. Nu 26:38 ff. ).

ABISHUR (‘father is a wall’).—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:28f.).

ABISSEI.—See Abishua, No. 1.

ABISUE.—See Abishua, No. 1.

ABITAL (‘father is dew’).—Wife of David and mother of Shephatiah (2 S 3:4 = 1 Ch 3:3).

ABITUB.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:11).

ABIUD (i.e. Abihud).—An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1:13.)

ABJECT.—In Ps 35:15 ‘abject’ occurs as a noun, as in Herbert’s Temple—

‘Servants and abjects flout me.’

ABNER.—Saul’s cousin (1 S 9:1, 14:51) and commander-in-chief (1 S 17:55 , 26:5). He set Ish-bosheth on his father’s throne, and fought long and bravely against David’s general, Joab (2 S 2). After a severe defeat, he killed Asabel in self-defence (2 S 2:23). He behaved arrogantly towards the puppet-king, especially in taking possession of one of Saul’s concubines (2 S 3:7). Resenting bitterly the remonstrances of Ish-bosheth, he entered into negotiations with David (2 S 3:8– 12), and then, on David’s behalf, with the elders of Israel (2 S 3:17). Dreading the loss of his own position, and thirsting for revenge, Joab murdered him at Hebron (2 S 3:26f.). David gave him a public funeral, dissociated himself from Joab’s act (2 S 3:31–37), and afterwards charged Solomon to avenge it (1 K 2:5). Abner was destitute of all lofty ideas of morality or religion (2 S 3:8, 16), but was the only capable person on the side of Saul’s family.

J. Taylor.

ABOMINATION.—Four Hebrew words from three different roots are rendered in EV by ‘abomination’ and, occasionally, ‘abominable thing.’ In almost all cases (for exceptions see Gn 43:32, 46:34) the reference is to objects and practices abhorrent to J″, and opposed to the moral requirements and ritual of His religion. Among the objects so described are heathen deities such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the ‘abominations’ of the Zidonians (Phœnicians), Moabites, and Ammonites respectively (2 K 23:13); images and other paraphernalia of the forbidden cults (Dt 7:25, 27:15, and often in Ezk.); and the flesh of animals ritually taboo (see esp. Lv 11:10ff. and art. Clean and Unclean). Some of the practices that are an ‘abomination unto J″,’ are the worship of heathen deities and of the heavenly bodies (Dt 13:14, 17:4 and often), the practice of witchcraft and kindred arts (Dt 18:12), gross acts of immorality (Lv 18:22 ff.), falsification of weights and measures (Pr 11:1), and ‘evil devices’ generally ( Pr 15:26 RV).

One of the four words above referred to (piggūl) occurs only as a ‘technical term for stale sacrificial flesh, which has not been eaten within the prescribed time’ (Driver, who would render ‘refuse meat’ in Lv 7:18, 19:7, Ezk 4:14, Is 65:4).

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.—A term found only in Mk 13:14 and

its parallel Mt 24:15. It is obviously derived, as St. Matthew indicates, from Dn 11:31, 12:11, cf. 9:27. In these passages the most natural reference is to the desecration of the Temple under Antiochus Epihanes, when an altar to Olympian Zeus was erected on the altar of burnt sacrifices. As interpreted in the revision by St. Luke (21:20), the reference in the Gospel is to the encompassing of Jerusalem by the Roman army. It is very difficult, however, to adjust this interpretation to the expression of Mk. ‘standing where he ought not,’ and that of Mt. ‘standing in the holy place.’ Other interpretations would be: (1) the threatened erection of the statue of Caligula in the Temple; or (2) the desecration of the Temple area by the Zealots, who during the siege made it a fortress; or (3) the desecration of the Temple by the presence of Titus after its capture by that general. While it is impossible to reach any final choice between these different interpretations, it seems probable that the reference of Mk 13:14 is prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, because of its insistence that the appearance of the ‘abomination of desolation’ (or the

‘abomination that makes desolate’) is to be taken as a warning for those who are in Judæa to flee to the mountains. It would seem to follow, therefore, that the reference is to some event, portending the fall of Jerusalem, which might also be interpreted by the Christians as a premonition of the Parousia (2 Th 2:1–12). It would seem natural to see this event in the coming of the Romans (Lk 21:20), or in the seizure of the Temple by the Zealots under John of Giscala, before the city was completely invested by the Romans. A measure of probability is given to the latter conjecture by the tradition (Eusebius, HE iii. v. 3) that the Jewish Christians, because of a Divine oracle, fled from Jerusalem during the early course of the siege.

Shailer Mathews.

ABRAHAM.—Abram and Abraham are the two forms in which the name of the first patriarch was handed down in Hebrew tradition. The change of name recorded in Gn 17:5 (P) is a harmonistic theory, which involves an impossible etymology, and cannot be regarded as historical. Of Abraham no better explanation has been suggested than that it is possibly a dialectic or orthographic variation of Abram, which in the fuller forms Abirām and Aburamu is found as a personal name both in Heb. and Babylonian. The history of Abraham (Gn 11:27–25:18) consists of a number of legendary narratives, which have been somewhat loosely strung together into a semblance of biographical continuity. These narratives (with the exception of ch. 14, which is assigned to a special source) are apportioned by critics to the three main documents of Genesis, J, E, and P; and the analysis shows that the biographic arrangement is not due solely to the compiler of the Pent., but existed in the separate sources. In them we can recognize, amidst much diversity, the outlines of a fairly solid and consistent tradition, which may be assumed to have taken shape at different centres, such as the sanctuaries of Hebron and Beersheba.

1. The account of J opens with the Divine call to Abraham, in obedience to which he separates himself from his kindred and migrates to Canaan (12:1–8).

In the proper Jahwistic tradition the starting-point of the Exodus was Harran in Mesopotamia, but in 11:28ff. (cf. 15:7) we find combined with this another view, according to which Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees in S. Babylonia. In passing we may note the remarkable fact that both traditions alike connect the patriarch with famous centres of Babylonian moon-worship.

Arrived in Canaan, Abraham builds altars at Shechem, where he receives the first promise of the land, and Bethel, where the separation from Lot takes place; after which Abraham resumes his southern journey and takes up his abode at Hebron (ch. 13). This connexion is broken in 12:10–20 by the episode of

Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt, which probably belongs to an older stratum of Jahwistic tradition representing him as leading a nomadic life in the Negeb. To the same cycle we may assign the story of Hagar’s flight and the prophecy regarding Ishmael, in ch. 16; here, too, the home of Abraham is apparently located in the Negeb. In ch. 18 we find Abraham at Hebron, where in a theophany he receives the promise of a son to be born to Sarah, and also an intimation of the doom impending over the guilty cities of the Plain. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the deliverance of Lot, are graphically described in ch. 19, which closes with an account of the shameful origins of Moab and Ammon. Passing over some fragmentary notices in ch. 21, which have been amalgamated with the fuller narrative of E, we come to the last scene of J’s record, the mission of Abraham’s servant to seek a bride for Isaac, told with such dramatic power in ch. 24. It would seem that the death of Abraham, of which J’s account has nowhere been preserved, must have taken place before the servant returned. A note is appended in 25:1ff. as to the descent of 16 Arabian tribes from Abraham and Keturah.

2. Of E’s narrative the first traces appear in ch. 15, a composite and difficult chapter, whose kernel probably belongs rather to this document than to J. In its present form it narrates the renewal to Abraham of the two great promises on which his faith rested—the promise of a seed and of the land of Canaan—and the confirmation of the latter by an impressive ceremony in which God entered into a covenant with the patriarch. The main body of Elohistic tradition, however. Is found in chs. 20–22. We have here a notice of Abraham’s arrival in the Negeb, followed by a sojourn in Gerar, where Sarah’s honour is compromised by the deliberate concealment of the fact that she is married (ch. 20)—a variant form of the Jahwistic legend of 12:10–20. The expulsion of Hagar, recorded in 21:9–21, is an equally obvious parallel to J’s account of the flight of Hagar in ch. 16, although in E the incident follows, while in J it precedes, the births of both Ishmael and Isaac. The latter part of ch. 21 is occupied with the narrative of Abraham’s adventures in the Negeb—especially his covenant with Abimelech of Gerar— which leads up to the consecration of the sanctuary of Beersheba to the worship of Jahweh. Here the narrative has been supplemented by extracts from a Jahwistic recension of the same tradition. To E, finally, we are indebted for the fascinating story of the sacrifice of Isaac in ch. 22, which may be fairly described as the gem of this collection.

3. In P, the biography of Abraham is mostly reduced to a chronological epitome, based on the narrative of J, and supplying some gaps left by the compiler in the older document. There are just two places where the meagre chronicle expands into elaborately circumstantial description. The first is the account, in ch. 17, of the institution of circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, round which are gathered all the promises which in the earlier documents are connected with various experiences in the patriarch’s life. The second incident is the purchase of the cave of Machpelah after the death of Sarah, recorded at great length in ch. 23: this is peculiar to P, and was evidently of importance to that writer as a guarantee of Israel’s perpetual tenure of the land of Canaan.

4. Such is, in outline, the history of Abraham as transmitted through the recognized literary channels of the national tradition. We have yet to mention an episode, concerning which there is great diversity of opinion,—the story of Abraham’s victory over the four kings, and his interview with Melchizedek, in ch. 14. It is maintained by some that this chapter hears internal marks of authenticity not possessed by the rest of the Abrahamic tradition, and affords a firm foothold for the belief that Abraham is a historic personage of the 3rd millennium b.c., contemporary with Hammurabi (Amraphel?) of Babylon (c. 2300). Others take a diametrically opposite view, holding that it is a late Jewish romance, founded on imperfectly understood data derived from cuneiform sources. The arguments on either side cannot he given here; it must suffice to remark that, even if convincing proof of the historicity of ch. 14 could be produced, it would still he a question whether that judgment could be extended to the very different material of the undisputed Hebrew tradition. It is much more important to inquire what is the historical value of the tradition which lies immediately behind the more popular narratives in which the religious significance of Abraham’s character is expressed. That these are history in the strict sense of the word is a proposition to which no competent scholar would assent. They are legends which had circulated orally for an indefinite time, and had assumed varied forms, before they were collected and reduced to writing. The only question of practical moment is whether the legends have clustered round the name of a historic personality, the leader of an immigration of Aramæan tribes into Palestine, and at the same time the recipient of a new revelation of God which prepared the way for the unique religious history and mission of Israel. It cannot be said that this view of Abraham has as yet obtained any direct confirmation from discoveries in Assyriology or archæology, though it is perhaps true that recent developments of these sciences render the conception more intelligible than it formerly was. And there is nothing, either in the tradition itself or in our knowledge of the background against which it is set, that is inconsistent with the supposition that to the extent just indicated the figure of Abraham is historical. If it be the essence of legend, as distinct from myth, that it originates in the impression made by a commanding personality on his contemporaries, we may well believe that the story of Abraham, bearing as it does the stamp of ethical character and individuality, is a true legend, and therefore has grown up around some nucleus of historic fact.

5. From the religious point of view, the life of Abraham has a surprising inner unity as a record of the progressive trial and strengthening of faith. It is a life of unclouded earthly prosperity, broken by no reverse of fortune; yet it is rooted in fellowship with the unseen. ‘He goes through life,’ it has been well said, ‘listening for the true tōrā, 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 Jahweh’s sight a proof of genuine righteousness.’ He is the Father of the faithful, and the Friend of God. And that inward attitude of spirit is reflected in a character of singular loftiness and magnanimity, an unworldly and disinterested disposition which reveals no moral struggle, but is nevertheless the fruit of habitual converse with God. The few narratives which present the patriarch in a less admirable light only throw into bolder relief those ideal features of character in virtue of which Abraham stands in the pages of Scripture as one of the noblest types of Hebrew piety.

J. Skinner.

ABRAHAM’S BOSOM.—It was natural for the Jews to represent Abraham as welcoming his righteous descendants to the bliss of heaven. It was, also, not unusual for them to represent the state of the righteous as a feast. In the parable of Lk 16:19ff. Jesus uses these figures to represent the blessedness of the dead Lazarus. He was reclining at the feast next to Abraham (cf. Mt 8:11). A Rabbi of the third century, Adda Bar Ahaba, uses precisely this expression as a synonym for entering Paradise. Other Jewish writings occasionally represent Abraham as in a way overseeing the entrance of souls into Paradise.

‘Abraham’s Bosom,’ therefore, may very fairly be said to be a synonym for Paradise, where the righteous dead live in eternal bliss. There is no clear evidence that the Jews of Jesus’ day believed in an intermediate state, and it is unsafe to see in the term any reference to such a belief.

Shailer Mathews.

ABRECH.—A word of doubtful signification, tr. ‘Bow the knee,’ in AV and RV (Gn 41:43 ‘then he made him [Joseph] to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee; and he set him over all the land of Egypt’). The word should be either Hebrew or Egyptian. An Assyr. etymology has been proposed, viz. abarakku, the title of one of the highest officials in the Assyrian Empire, but no such borrowings from Assyria are known in Egypt. Hebrew affords no likely explanation. Egyptian hitherto has furnished two that are possible: (1) ‘Praise!’ but the word is rare and doubtful; (2) abrak, apparently meaning ‘Attention!’ ‘Have a care!’ (Spiegelberg). The last seems the least improbable.

F. Ll. Griffith.

ABRONAH.—A station in the journeyings (Nu 33:34, 35).

ABSALOM (‘father is peace’).—Third son of David, by Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (2 S 3:3). His sister Tamar having been wronged by her half-brother Amnon, and David having failed to punish the criminal, Absalom assassinated Amnon and fled to Geshur, where he spent three years (ch. 13). Joab procured his recall, but he was not admitted into his father’s presence. In his usual imperious fashion he next compelled Joab to bring about his full restoration (14:29ff.). Then he assumed the position of heir-apparent (15:1; cf. 1 S 8:11, 1 K 1:5), and began undermining the loyalty of the people. Four (not ‘forty’) years after his return he set up the standard of rebellion at Hebron, a town which was wellaffected towards him because it was his birthplace, and aggrieved against David because it was no longer the metropolis. The old king was taken by surprise, and fled to the east of the Jordan. On entering Jerusalem, Absalom publicly appropriated the royal harem, thus proclaiming the supersession of his father. By the insidious counsel of Hushai time was wasted in collecting a large army. But time was on David’s side. His veterans rallied round him; his seasoned captains were by his side. When Absalom offered battle, near Mahanaim, the king’s only anxiety was lest his son should be slain. This really happened, through Joab’s agency. The father’s natural, but unseasonable, lamentation was cut short by the soldier’s blunt remonstrance (2 S 19:5ff.). On the face of the history it is clear that, if Absalom lacked capacity, he possessed charm. His physical beauty contributed to this: 2 S 14:25–27 is probably a gloss, but certainly rests on a reliable tradition; the polling of the hair was a religious act. According to 2 S 18:18, Absalom had no son: this is more reliable than the statement in 2 S 14:27. It is said that later generations, following Pr 10:7, always avoided the name Absalom, preferring the form Abishalom (which appears in 1 K 15:2, 10).

J. Taylor.

ABSALOM (in Apocr.).—1. The father of Mattathias, one of the captains who stood by Jonathan at Hazor (1 Mac 11:70 = Jos. Ant. XIII. v. 7). It is perhaps the same Absalom whose son Jonathan was sent by Simon to secure Joppa (1 Mac. 13:11 = Jos. Ant. XIII. vi. 4). 2. An envoy sent by the Jews to Lysias (2 Mac 11:17).

ABUBUS.—Father of Ptolemy the murderer of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 16:11, 15).

ABYSS.—The Jewish eschatology of the time of Christ conceived of the abode of departed spirits as a great abyss, in the midst of which was a lake of fire, intended primarily as a place of punishment for the angels and giants, and accordingly for sinners. The abyss existed before the creation, and was the home of the various enemies of God, such as the dragon and the beast. In the NT it is used only in Apocalypse (AV ‘bottomless pit’) and in Ro 10:7 and Lk 8:31 ( AV

‘deep’).

Shailer Mathews.

ACACIA.—See Shittim Tree.

ACCABA, 1 Es 5:30 = Hagab, Ezr 2:46.

ACCEPTANCE denotes the being in favour with any one. In EV the noun is found only in Is 60:7, but ‘accept’ and ‘acceptable’ are used frequently both in OT and NT to express the acceptance of one man with another (Gn 32:20, Lk 4:24) , but above all the acceptance of man with God. In OT the conditions of acceptance with God are sometimes ceremonial (Ex 28:38, Ps 20:3). But of themselves these are insufficient (Gn 4:5, 7, Am 5:22, Jer 6:20, 14:10, 12), and only moral uprightness (Pr 21:3, Job 42:8) and the sacrifices of a sincere heart (Ps 19:14 , 119:108; cf. 40:6ff., 51:15ff.) are recognized as truly acceptable with God. In NT the grounds of the Divine acceptance are never ceremonial, but always spiritual (Ro 12:1, Ph 4:18, 1 P 2:5). Jesus Christ is the type of perfect acceptance (Mk 1:11 ||, He 10:5ff.). In Him as ‘the Beloved,’ and through Him as the Mediator, men secure their religious standing and fundamental acceptance with God (Eph 1:6). In serving Him (Ro 14:18), and following His example (1 P 2:20, 21), they become morally acceptable in the Father’s sight.

J. C. Lambert.

ACCESS (Gr. prosagōgē).—The word occurs only in Ro 5:2, Eph 2:18, 3:12 , and the question (regarding which commentators are much divided) is whether it ought to be understood in the trans. sense as ‘introduction,’ the being brought near by another, or in the Intrans. sense as ‘access’ or personal approach. The trans. sense is most in keeping with the ordinary use of the vb. prosagō in classical Gr. (cf. its use in 1 P 3:18 ‘that he might bring us to God’)—the idea suggested being that of a formal introduction into a royal presence. ‘Access,’ moreover, does not so well express the fact that we cannot approach God in our own right, but need Christ to Introduce us; cf. ‘by [RV ‘through’] whom’ (Ro 5:2), ‘through him’ ( Eph 2:18), ‘in whom’ (3:12). The word ‘access’ does not occur in Hebrews, but the writer has much to say on the subject of our approach to God through Christ, esp.

for the purpose of prayer (4:14ff.) and worship (10:19ff.).

J. C. Lambert.

ACCO.—Jg 1:31. See Ptolemais.

ACCOS (1 Mac 8:17).—Grandfather of one of the envoys sent to Rome by Judas Maccabæus in b.c. 161. Accos represents the Heb. Hakkoz, the name of a priestly family (1 Ch 24:10, Ezr 2:61).

ACCURSED.—See Ban.

ACELDAMA.—See Akeldama.

ACHAIA.—This name was originally applied to a strip of land on the N. coast of the Peloponnese. On annexing Greece and Macedonia as a province in b.c. 146 , the Romans applied the name Achaia to the whole of that country. In b.c. 27 two provinces were formed, Macedonia and Achaia; and the latter included Thessaly, Ætolia, Acarnania, and some part of Epirus, with Eubœa and most of the Cyclades. It was governed in St. Paul’s time by a proconsul of the second grade, with headquarters at Corinth (Ac 18:12). ‘Hellas’ (Ac 20:2) is the native Greek name corresponding to the Roman ‘Achaia.’ There were Jewish settlements in this province, at Corinth, Athens, etc. (Ac 17:17, 18:4, 7), and the work of St. Paul began amongst them and was carried on by Apollos (1 and 2 Cor. passim, Ac

17:16ff., 18, 19:1).

A. Souter.

ACHAICUS.—The name of a member of the Church at Corinth. He was with

Stephanas and Fortunatus (1 Co 16:17f.) when they visited St. Paul at Ephesus and

‘refreshed his spirit.’ Nothing more is certainly known of him. As slaves were often named from the country of their birth, it is a probable conjecture that he was a slave, born in Achaia.

J. G. Tasker.

ACHAN.—Son of Carmi, of the tribe of Judah (Jos 7:1). It is brought home to Joshua (Jos 7:8–12) that the defeat at Ai was due to the fact of Jahweh’s covenant having been transgressed. An inquiry is instituted, and Achan is singled out as the transgressor. He confesses that after the capture of Jericho he had hidden part of the spoil, the whole of which had been placed under the ban (chērem), i.e. devoted to Jahweh, and was therefore unlawful for man to touch. According to the usage of the times, both he and his family are stoned, and their dead bodies burned—the latter an even more terrible punishment in the eyes of ancient Israel. The sentence is carried out in the valley of Achor (‘troubling’). According to Jos 7:25, 26, this valley was so called after Achan, the ‘troubler’ of Israel. Later his name was changed to Achar to correspond more closely with the name of the valley (1 Ch

2:7).

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ACHAR.—See Achan.

ACHBOR (‘mouse’ or ‘jerboa’).—1. An Edomite (Gn 36:38). 2. A courtier under Josiah, son of Micaiah (2 K 22:12, 14), and father of Elnathan (Jer 26:22 om. LXX, 36:12). Called Abdon (2 Ch 34:20).

ACHIACHARUS, the nephew of Tobit, was governor under Sarchedonus = Esarhaddon (To 1:21 etc.). The nearest Hebrew name is Ahihud (1 Ch 8:7).

ACHIAS.—An ancestor of Ezra (2 Es 1:2), omitted in Ezr. and 1 Es.

ACHIM (perhaps a shortened form of Jehoiachim), an ancestor of our Lord (Mt 1:14).

ACHIOR (‘brother of light’).—A general of the Ammonites (Jth 5:5 etc.), afterwards converted to Judaism (ch. 14).

ACHIPHA (1 Es 5:31).—His children were among the ‘temple servants’ or Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel; called Hakupha, Ezr 2:51, Neh 7:53.

ACHISH.—The king of Gath to whom David fled for refuge after the massacre of the priests at Nob (1 S 21:10). In 1 S 27:2 he is called ‘the son of Maoch’ (possibly = ‘son of Maacah,’ 1 K 2:39). He received David with his band of 600 men, and assigned him the city of Ziklag in the S. of Judah. Despite the wishes of Achish, the other Phil. princes refused to let David take part in the final campaign against Saul. [‘Achish’ should be read for ‘Abimelech’ in Ps 34 ( title ).]

ACHMETHA.—The Ecbatana of the Greeks and Romans, modern Hamadan.

It was the capital of Media (in Old Persian Haghmatāna). It is mentioned but once in the canonical books (Ezr 6:2), as the place where the archives of the reign of Cyrus were deposited. It is several times mentioned in the Apocrypha (2 Mac 9:3 , To 3:7, 6:7, 14:13f., Jth 1:1 ff. ).

J. F. McCurdy.

ACHOR (’ēmeq ’ākhōr, ‘Vale of Grief’).—Here Achan (wh. see), with his family, was stoned to death. It lay on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15:7 etc.). Guthe identifies it with the plain south of Jericho, between the mountains on the west, and Jordan and the Dead Sea on the east. Wādy Kelt, a tremendous gorge which breaks down from the mountain W. of Jericho, probably formed the boundary between Judah and Benjamin. In the mouth of this valley, it seems likely, the execution took place.

W. Ewing.

ACHSAH (1 Ch 2:49, AV Achsa).—The daughter of Caleb. Her father promised her in marriage to the man who should capture Debir or Kiriath-sepher— a feat accomplished by Othniel, the brother of Caleb. Her dowry of a south land (Negeb) was increased by the grant of ‘the upper springs and the nether springs’ (Jos 15:16–19, Jg 1:9–15).

ACHSHAPH.—About 17 miles E. of Tyre, now called Iksaf or Kesaf, on N.E.

border of territory assigned to Asher (Jos 19:25). Its king joined Jabin’s confederacy, which was defeated by Joshua, and the ruler of Achshaph was amongst the slain (Jos 11:1, 12:20).

J. Taylor.

ACHZIB.—1. A town in Asher (Jos 19:29), from which the natives could not be dislodged (Jg 1:31): it lay on the coast between Acre and Tyre. The early geographers called it Ekdippa; now ez-Zib. 2. In the S. of the Shephelah ( Jos 15:44), near Mareshah. Mic 1:14 predicts that Achzib shall be to the kings of Judah achzab (‘deceptive’), a stream whose waters fail when most needed (cf. Jer 15:18).

J. Taylor.

ACRA.—See Jerusalem, I. 3, II. 2.

ACRE.—See Weights and Measures.

ACROSTIC.—Acrostic poems, i.e. poems in which initial letters recurring at regular intervals follow some definite arrangement, occur to the number of 14 in the OT; another instance is Sir 51:13–30. All these are of a simple type, and are so planned that the initials recurring at fixed intervals follow the order of the Hebrew alphabet; thus the first section of the poem begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph; the second with the second letter, beth; and so on down to the twenty-second and last letter, taw. The interval between the several letters consists of a regular number of lines. In Pss 111, 112 this interval is one line; in Pss 25, 34, 145, Pr 31:10–31, Sir 51:13–30, and in the fragment, which does not clearly extend beyond the thirteenth letter, contained in Nah 1, the interval is 2 lines; in La 4 it is 2 longer lines, in chs. 1 and 2 it is 3 longer lines; in Pss 9 and 10 (a single continuous poem), and in Ps 37, it is 4 lines. In La 3, where the interval between each successive letter of the alphabet is 3 long lines, each of each set of three lines begins with the same letter; and similarly in Ps 119, where the interval is 16 lines, each alternate line within each set of 16 begins with the same letter.

Certainly in La 2, 3 and 4, and, according to the order of the verses in the LXX, in Pr 31, probably also in Ps 34 (where the sense seems to require the transposition of v. 16 and v. 15) and in Ps 9, the sixteenth and seventeenth letters of the Hebrew alphabet occupy respectively the seventeenth and sixteenth places in the acrostic scheme. The reason for this is unknown.

Comparatively few of these poems have come down to us intact. They have suffered from accidental errors of textual transmission, and probably also from editorial alterations. In some cases an entire strophe has dropped out of the text; thus the sixth strophe (of 2 lines) has fallen out between v. 6 and v. 7 in Ps 34, and the fourteenth between v. 13 and v. 14 of Ps 145, though in the latter case it still stood in the Hebrew MS from which the Greek version was made. Occasionally lines have been inserted, as, apparently, in more than one place in Ps 37, and in Nah 1:2. But such corruption of the text is really serious only in Ps 9 f., Nah 1, and Sir 51:13–30.

The earliest of these fifteen poems are probably La 2 and 4, which may have been written in the earlier half of the 6th cent. b.c.; but the custom of writing such poems may have been much more ancient. Perhaps the latest of the poems is Sir

51:13–30 (about b.c. 180), but the Jews continued to compose such poems long after this.

The English reader will find the strophes clearly distinguished, and the initial Hebrew letters with their names in English letters indicated, in the RV of Ps 119. Unfortunately the RV does not give the initials in the other poems; but they will be found, in the case of the Psalms, in (for example) Kirkpatrick’s Psalms

(Cambridge Bible), Cheyne’s Book of Psalms, Driver’s Parallel Psalter. For La 2 and 4 see Expositor, 1906 (April) [G. A. Smith]; for Nah 1, Expositor, 1898 (Sept.), pp. 207–220 [G. B. Gray], or Driver, Century Bible, p. 26 f. Common though it is in other literatures and with such mediæval Jewish poets as Ibn Ezra, no decisive instance of the type of acrostic in which the initial letters compose a name, has been found in the OT, though some have detected the name Simeon ( or Simon) thus given in Ps 110, Pss 25 and 34 contain each an additional strophe at the close of the alphabetic strophes; in each case the first word of the verse is a part of the Hebrew verb pādāh, ‘to redeem,’ and it has been suggested that the author or a copyist has thus left us a clue to his name—Pedahel; but interesting as this suggestion is, it is for several reasons doubtful.

G. B. Gray.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

1. Summary of contents.—The fifth book of our NT gives the history of the Church from the Ascension till c. a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history (‘Acts of Peter’ and ‘Acts of the Hellenists’), and the other the life of St. Paul (‘Acts of Paul’) from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at 13:1, from which point forwards the Pauline journeys are described by one who for a considerable part of them was a fellow-traveller. The parallelism between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tübingen school to betray a fictitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equality of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the parallelism shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose.

2. Unity of authorship.—From 16:10 onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays his presence as a fellow-traveller by using the pronoun ‘we.’ It is generally conceded that these ‘we’ sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated in his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces of four strata, and assert that it is a compilation of the same nature as the Pentateuch, the Book of Enoch, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent. compiler, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences of style (as we do in Apost. Const.), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary ability, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun ‘we’ if he was a late writer copying a 1st cent. source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to him; his interests are those of the 1st, not of the 2nd century (§ 8). Further, the Third Gospel is clearly, from identity of style and the express claim in Ac 1:1 (cf. Lk 1:3), by our author, and yet the Gospel is now generally admitted to have been written by c. a.d. 80. Thus we may, with Harnack, dismiss the compilation theory.

3. The author.—Internal evidence, if the unity of authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names of the Apostle’s companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that all but four must be excluded, whether as having joined him after his arrival at Rome ( for the author made the voyage with him, 27:1), or as being mentioned in Acts in a manner inconsistent with authorship (so, e.g., Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, Trophimus must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman Christians and recent friends. Two of the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no specially intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for 2 Ti 4:10f. we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence (§ 4) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. passim), but perhaps Luke’s silence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. Exp. T. XVIII. [1907] 285, 335, 380.

The author was a Gentile, not a Jew (Col 4:10f., 14), a conclusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us (§ 8; see also Ac 1:19 ‘in their language’). He was a physician (Col 4:14), and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens, where he seems quite at home though not present at the

Athenian scenes he describes (Ac 17:16ff.). His native country is disputed. A Preface to Luke, thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was ‘by nation a Syrian of Antioch’; and Eusebius (HE iii. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, ‘according to birth, of those from Antioch’; while later writers like Jerome follow Eusebius. Certainly we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian Antioch is mentioned in Acts. Some ( Rackham, Rendall) conjecture that Pisidian Antioch is really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the ‘we’ sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a Macedonian of Philippi, since he took so great an interest in the claims of that colony (16:12). Indeed, Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 202 ff.) propounds the ingenious conjecture that Luke, having met Paul at Troas accidentally (16:10; it could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there), was the ‘certain man of Macedonia’ who appeared in the vision (16:9); it must have been some one whom the Apostle knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that against his having been a native of Philippi are the facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with Lydia (16:15), and that he only supposed that there was a Jewish place of prayer at Philippi (16:13 RV). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by his having been left in charge of the Church there (17:1, 20:5; in the interval between St. Paul’s leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun ‘they’ is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [Ac 27:2 is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a Gentile not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese ‘barbarians’ (28:2), i.e. nonGreek speaking, and in many other ways.

4. Patristic testimony.—There are probable references to Acts in Clement of Rome (c. a.d. 95), who seems to refer to 13:22, 20:35 etc.; and in Ignatius (c. a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4:41; also in Poly carp (c. 111); almost certainly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end of the 2nd cent. in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenæus, all of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorian Fragment (c. a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them of the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter.

5. Style.—The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (11:28, 24:27; cf. Lk 3:1), yet the writer often uses vague phrases like ‘after some days,’ which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events of the years spent by St. Paul in Tarsus (9:30), probably as being years of education in which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through Cyprus (13:6), though much work must have been done among the Jews then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with Sergius Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, e.g. 13:8 (no reason given for Elymas’ opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), 13:13 (the reason for Mark’s departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and Barnabas going to Pisidian Antioch), 16:35 (no reason given for the Philippi prætors’ change of attitude), 17:15 (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from 1 Th 3:1 we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at Athens and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in Ac 18:5 to Corinth), 20:16 (not stated that they arrived in time for Pentecost, but it must be understood), 27:43 (it must be inferred that the injunction was obeyed).

6. Crises in the history.—These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a ‘proselyte of righteousness, i.e. a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode of Cornelius (who was only a ‘proselyte of the gate,’ or ‘God-fearing,’ one who was brought into relation with the Jews by obeying certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those of 15:29, but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas]; this means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the first meeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman official in the person of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, the initial step in the great plan of St. Paul to make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (see § 7; henceforward the author calls Saul of Tarsus by his

Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the Council of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especially the association for the first time with the author (§ 3); the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallio’s action paved the way for the appeal to Cæsar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis is probably hinted at, the acquittal of St. Paul; for even if the book were written before that took place (§ 9), the release must have become fairly obvious to all towards the end of the two years’ sojourn at Rome (cf. Ph 2:24).

7. Missionary plan of St. Paul.—(a) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews first; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, 13:5, 14, 14:1, 16:13 (no synagogue at Philippi, only a ‘place of prayer’) 17:1f. (the words ‘as his custom was’ are decisive) 17:10, 16f., 18:4, 8, 19, 19:8f., 28:17; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it is not expressly mentioned, 14:7, 21, 25, or the Jews may have been weak and without a synagogue in those places.—(b) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. He was justifiably proud of his Roman citizenship (16:37, 22:25ff. etc.; cf. Ph 1:27 [ RVm ] 3:20, Eph 2:19). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the idea of Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary journeys he confines himself (if the South Galatian theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic in the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread Christian influence, just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civilization in the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek; they clearly did not know Lycaonian (cf. Ac 14:11 with 14:14). The Scriptures were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age.

Following the same idea, the author represents the Roman officials in the colonies as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek cities. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates at Iconium and Thessalonica who were active against him, or of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens who were contemptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Pisidian Antioch and Lystra, or the explicit statements about Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Claudius Lysias and Julius the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prætors at Philippi ended by apologizing profusely when they discovered Paul’s status.

8. The writer’s interests.—It is interesting to observe these, as they will lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an inquiry for the detection of a forgery or of a compilation. The principal interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St.

Paul’s dealings with Roman officials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect from ‘the beloved physician’; and the rival science of sorcery; the position and influence of women (1:14, 8:3, 12, 9:2, 13:50, 16:14, 17:4, 12, 34 , 21:5, 9, 22:4 etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in Greece proper); the organization of the Church (2:41ff., 4:31ff., 6:1ff., 8:5 ff., 15:2ff., 19:1ff. etc.); Divine intervention to overrule human projects ( note especially the remarkable way in which St. Paul was led to Troas, 16:6–8); and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional sailor. He describes the drifting in 27:27 as a zigzag course when it must have been straight; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from that on which they had passed it going eastward (27:4, 21:3), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writer’s interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler; e.g. the view of the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitian—or even (we may add) after that of Nero.

9. Date.—From the reasoning of §§ 2, 8 (see also § 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, 28:30f. (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70–80 a.d.

(Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke).—(a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peter’s death in Jn 21:19), or to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from Ecclesiastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Cæsar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle’s expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left 20:38 without remark [but see Paul, i. 4 (d)]. The optimistic tone (§ 8) , contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were written; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence.—(b) For the later date, a.d. 70–80, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. 1:1 , properly ‘first treatise,’ not ‘former’; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. 1 Co 13:13 RVm). It is also thought that Lk 21:20 must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori

Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable.

10. Sources.—The author had exceptional opportunities of getting information.

For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul.

John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to

Cyprus (12:1–13:13). For the ‘Acts of the Hellenists’ (chs. 6–8) and for the Cornelius episode he would have Philip the Evangelist as an authority, for he spent two years at Cæsarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) information about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Lk 1:1, though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark; this is pure conjecture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic.

11. The Bezan codex.—This great Uncial MS (D, now at Cambridge), supported by some MSS of the Old Latin Version, presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great Greek MSS, and has also many additions, especially in Acts. Dr. Blass’ theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke’s having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D are interpolations. He thinks that the ‘Bezan’ Acts represents the first draft, the ‘Bezan’ Luke the second draft. But the Bezan text of Acts is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent. by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful.—In 11:28 this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting ‘we,’ makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied.

12. Accuracy of Acts.—This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (a) the proconsul in Cyprus (13:7), which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed—otherwise the governor would have been a ‘proprætor.’ An inscription in Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus.’ (b) So the proconsul in Achaia (18:12); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a proprætor and then united, a few years before St. Paul’s visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul. (c) The ‘first men’ at Pisidian Antioch (13:50), i.e. the Duumviri and the ‘First Ten.’ This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. (d) The ‘first man’ in Malta (28:7) and (e) the

‘politarchs’ (‘rulers of the city’) at Thessalonica (17:6; probably a local

Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions. (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (17:19), which really ruled the city,—though it was a ‘free city,’—as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority. (g) The ‘Asiarchs’ at Ephesus (19:31 RVm), the presidents of the ‘Common Council’ of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Rev 2:13, 13:15 etc. No 2nd cent. author could have written thus. (h) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course.—Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the ‘South Galatian’ theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contemporary record.

A. J. Maclean.

ACUB (1 Es 5:31).—His sons were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned with Zerubbabel. Called Bakbuk, Ezr 2:51, Neh 7:53.

ACUD (1 Es 5:30).—His sons were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub, Ezr 2:45; omitted in Neh 7.

ADADAH (Jos 15:22).—A city of Judah in the Negeb; perhaps a corrupt reading for Ararah, i.e. Aroer of 1 S 30:28.

ADAH.—1. One of the two wives of Lamech, and mother of Jabal and Jubal (Gn 4:19, 20). The name possibly means ‘brightness’ (cf. Arab. ghadāt), Lamech’s other wife being named ‘Zillah’ = ‘shadow,’ ‘darkness’ 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives of Esau (Gn 36:2). In Gn 26:34 (P) the daughter of Elon the Hittite, whom Esau takes to wife, is named Basemath (wh. see).

ADAIAH (‘Jehovah has adorned’).—1. The maternal grandfather of Josiah, 2 K 22:1. 2. A Levite, 1 Ch 6:41, called Iddo in v. 21. 3. A son of Shimei (in v. 13 Shema) the Benjamite, 1 Ch 8:21. 4. The son of Jeroham, a priest, and head of a family in Jerusalem, 1 Ch 9:12. 5. The father of Maaseiah, a captain who helped to overthrow the usurpation of Athaliah, 2 Ch 23:1. 6. One of the family of Bani, who took a strange wife during the Exile, Ezr 10:29. 7. Another of a different family of Bani, who had committed the same offence, Ezr 10:39. 8. A descendant of Judah by Pharez, Neh 11:5. 9. A Levite of the family of Aaron, Neh 11:12; probably the same as No. 4.

ADALIA (Est 9:8).—The fifth of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

ADAM.—The derivation is doubtful. The most plausible is that which connects it with the Assyr. adāmu, ‘make,’ ‘produce’; man is thus a ‘creature’—one made or produced. Some derive it from a root signifying ‘red’ (cf. Edom, Gn 25:30), men being of a ruddy colour in the district where the word originated. The Biblical writer (Gn 2:7) explains it, according to his frequent practice, by a play on the word ’adāmāh, ‘ground’; but that is itself derived from the same root ‘red.’ The word occurs in the Heb. 31 times in Gn 1:5–5:5. In most of these it is not a proper name, and the RV has rightly substituted ‘man’ or ‘the man’ in some verses where AV has ‘Adam.’ But since the name signifies ‘mankind,’ homo, Mensch, not ‘a man,’ vir, Mann (see 5:2), the narrative appears to be a description, not of particular historical events in the life of an individual, but of the beginnings of human life (ch. 2), human sin (ch. 3), human genealogical descent (4:1, 25, 5:1–5). In a few passages, if the text is sound, the writer slips into the use of Adam as a proper name, but only in 5:3–5 does it stand unmistakably for an individual.

1. The creation of man is related twice, 1:26–27 (P) and 2:7 (J). The former passage is the result of philosophical and theological reflexion of a late date, which had taught the writer that man is the climax of creation because his personality partakes of the Divine (and in 5:3 this prerogative is handed on to his offspring); but the latter is written from the naïve and primitive standpoint of legendary tradition, which dealt only with man’s reception of physical life (see next article).

2. Man’s primitive condition, 2:8–25 (J). The story teaches: that man has work to do in life (2:15); that he needs a counterpart, a help who shall be ‘meet for him’ (vv. 18, 21–24); that man is supreme over the beasts in the intellectual ability, and therefore in the authority, which he possesses to assign to them their several names (vv. 19, 20); that man, in his primitive condition, was far from being morally or socially perfect; he was simply in a state of savagery, but from a moral standpoint innocent, because he had not yet learned the meaning of right and wrong (v. 25) ; and this blissful ignorance is also portrayed by the pleasures of a luxuriant garden or park (vv. 8–14).

3. The Fall, 2:16f., 3 (J). But there came a point in human evolution when man became conscious of a command—the earliest germ of a recognition of an ‘ought’ (2:16f., 3:3); and this at once caused a stress and strain between his lower animal nature, pictured as a serpent, and his higher aspirations after obedience (3:1–5) [N.B.—The serpent is nowhere, in the OT, identified with the devil; the idea is not found till Wis 2:23]; by a deliberate following of the lower nature against which he had begun to strive, man first caused sin to exist (v. 6); with the instant result of a feeling of shame (v. 7), and the world-wide consequence of pain, trouble, and death (vv. 14–19), and the cessation for ever of the former state of innocent ignorance and bliss (vv. 22–24).

On the Babylonian affinities with the story of Adam, see Creation, Eden.

A. H. M‘Neile.

ADAM IN THE NT

A. In the Gospels.—1. In Mt 19:4–6 || Mk 10:6–8 Jesus refers to Gn 1:27. His answer to the Pharisees is intended to show that the provision made for divorce in the Mosaic law (Dt 24:1) was only a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts. The truer and deeper view of marriage must be based on a morality which takes its stand upon the primeval nature of man and woman. And with His quotation He couples one from Gn 2:24 (see also Eph 5:21). The same result is reached in Mt., but with a transposition of the two parts of the argument.

2. In Lk 3:38 the ancestry of Jesus is traced up to Adam. As a Gentile writing for Gentiles, St. Luke took every opportunity of insisting upon the universal power of the gospel. Jesus is not, as in St. Matthew’s Gospel, a descendant of Abraham only, but of the man to whom all mankind trace their origin. But further, the same Evangelist who relates the fact of the Virgin-birth, and records that Christ was, in His own proper Person, ‘Son of God’ (1:35), claims, by the closing words of the genealogy, that the first man, and hence every human being, is ‘son of God.’ As Jesus is both human and Divine, so the genealogy preserves the truth that all mankind partake of this twofold nature.

B. In the Epistles.—The truth taught by St. Luke is treated in its redemptive aspect by his master St. Paul.

1. 1 Co 15:22. The solidarity of mankind in their physical union with Adam, and in their spiritual union with Christ, involves respectively universal death and life as a consequence of Adam’s sin and of Christ’s work.

2. In Ro 5:12–21 this is treated more fully.—(a) vv. 12–14. There is a parallelism between Adam and Christ. Both had a universal effect upon mankind—in the case of Adam by a transmission of guilt, and therefore of death; the corresponding statement concerning Christ is postponed till v. 19, because St. Paul intervenes with a parenthesis dealing with those who lived before any specific commands were given in the Mosaic law, and yet who sinned, owing to the transmitted effects of Adam’s fall, and therefore died. The Apostle, without attempting fully to reconcile them, places side by side the two aspects of the truth—the hereditary transmission of guilt, and moral responsibility; ‘and thus death made its way to all men, because all sinned.’—(b) vv. 15–17. The contrast is far greater than the similarity; in quality (v. 15), in quantity (v. 16), in character and consequences (v. 17).—(c) Summary of the argument (vv. 18–21).

3. 1 Co 15:44–47. In the foregoing passages St. Paul deals with the practical moral results of union with Adam and Christ respectively. These verses (a) go behind that, and show that there is a radical difference between the nature of each; (b) look forward, and show that this difference has a vital bearing on the truth of man’s resurrection.

(a) vv. 36–44. It is shown, by illustrations from nature, that it is reasonable to believe man to exist in two different states, one far higher than the other. In vv. 44b, 45 St. Paul adapts Gn 2:7 (LXX), and reads into the words the doctrinal significance that the body of the first representative man became the vehicle of a ‘psychical’ nature, while the body of the Second is the organ of a ‘pneumatical’ nature. The second half of his statement—‘the last Adam became a life-giving spirit’—appears to be based on a reminiscence of Messianic passages which speak of the work of the Divine Spirit, e.g. Is 11:1, 2, JL 2:28–32.

(b) But as the living soul (psyche) preceded the life-giving spirit (pneuma), so it is with the development of mankind (v. 46). As the first man had a nature in conformity with his origin from clay, while the Second has His origin ‘from heaven’ (v. 47), so the nature of some men remains earthy, while that of some has become heavenly (v. 48). But further, in his present state man is the exact counterpart of the first man, because of his corporate union with him; but the time is coming when he shall become the exact counterpart of the Second Man (cf. Gn 2:25f.), because of our spiritual union with Him (v. 49).

4. In Ph 2:6 there is an implied contrast between ‘Christ Jesus, who … deemed it not a thing to be snatched at to be on an equality with God,’ and Adam, who took fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God said had made him ‘as one of us’ (Gn 3:22).

5. On 1 Ti 2:13f. see Eve; and on Jude 14 see Enoch.

A. H. M‘Neile.

ADAM (city).—A city in the Jordan valley, ‘beside Zarethan’ (Jos 3:16) ; usually identified with Jisr ed-Damieh, near the confluence of the Jabbok and the Jordan, where there was once a bridge. Hiram, Solomon’s worker in brass, may have had his furnace here (cf. 1 K 7:46).

G. L. Robinson.

ADAMAH.—A fortified city of Naphtali (Jos 19:36); identified by Conder with ’Admah on the plateau north of Bethshean; placed by the Palestine explorers at ed-Damieh, 5 miles S.W. of Tiberias. See Adami-nekeb

ADAMANT is twice (Ezk 3:9, Zec 7:12) used in AV and RV as tr. of shāmir, which is elsewhere rendered either ‘brier’ (Is 5:6, 7:23, 24, 25, 9:18, 10:17, 27:4 , 32:13) or ‘diamond’ (Jer 17:1). ‘Diamond,’ which arose from ‘adamant’ by a variety of spelling (‘adamant,’ or ‘adimant,’ then ‘diamant’ or ‘diamond’), has displaced ‘adamant’ as the name of the precious stone, ‘adamant’ being now used rhetorically to express extreme hardness.

ADAMI-NEKEB.—‘The pass Adami’ (Jos 19:33), on the border of Naphtali. Neubauer and G. A. Smith identify it with ed-Damieh, 5 miles S.W. of Tiberias. See Adamah.

G. L. Robinson.

ADAR (Ezr 6:15, Est 3:7, 13, 8:12, 9:1, 15ff., 1 Mac 7:43, 49, 2 Mac 15:36, Est 10:13, 13:6, 16:20).—The 12th month in the later Jewish Calendar. See Time.

ADASA.—A town near Bethhoron (1 Mac 7:40, 45, Jos. Ant. XII. x. 5), now the ruin ‘Adaseh near Gibeon.

ADBEEL.—The third son of Ishmael (Gn 25:13, 1 Ch 1:29), eponym of the N. Arab. tribe, which appears in cuneiform inscrip. as Idiba’il or Idibi’al, and which had its settlements S.W. of the Dead Sea.

ADDAN (1 Es 5:36).—Some of the inhabitants of this place returned with

Zerubbabel, but were unable to prove their true Isr. descent by showing to what clan or family they belonged (Ezr 2:59). The name does not appear in the later lists in Ezr 10, Neh 10. In Neh 7:61 it appears as Addon.

ADDAR.—1. A town on the border of Judah south of Beersheba (Jos 15:3). The site is unknown. 2. See Ard.

ADDER.—See Serpent.

ADDI.—An ancestor of Jesus, Lk 3:28.

ADDO.—The grandfather of the prophet Zechariah (1 Es 6:1). See Iddo. ADDON.—Neh 7:61. See Addan.

ADDUS.—1. His ‘sons’ returned with Zerub. (1 Es 5:34); omitted in the parallel lists in Ezr 2, Neh 7. 2. See Jaddus.

ADIDA.—A town in the Shephelah (Jos. Ant. XIII. vi. 5) fortified by Simon the Hasmonæan (1 Mac 12:38, 13:13). See Hadid.

ADIEL (‘ornament of God’).—1. A Simeonite prince, 1 Ch 4:36ff. 2. A priest, 1 Ch 9:12. 3. The father of Azmaveth, David’s treasurer, 1 Ch 27:25.

ADIN (Ezr 2:15, 8:6, Neh 7:20, 10:16, 1 Es 5:14m, 8:32).—See Adinu.

ADINA.—A Reubenite chief, 1 Ch 11:42.

ADINO.—The present Heb. text of 2 S 23:8 is corrupt, the true reading being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Ch 11:11 ‘Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, he lifted up his spear.’ The last clause, hū ‘ōrēr eth-hanīthō, was corrupted into hū ‘adīnō ha‘etsnī, and then taken erroneously as a proper name, being treated as an

alternative to the preceding ‘Josheb-basshebeth, a Tahche-monite’ ( see Jashobeam).

ADINU (1 Es 5:14, called Adin in 8:32).—His descendants returned with Zerub. to the number of 454 (1 Es 5:14, Ezr 2:15) or 655 (Neh 7:20). A second party of 51 (Ezr 8:6) or 251 (1 Es 8:32) accompanied Ezra. They are mentioned among ‘the chiefs of the people’ who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:16).

ADITHAIM (Jos 15:36).—A town of Judah in the Shephelah. The site is unknown.

ADLAI.—The father of Shaphat, one of David’s herdsmen, 1 Ch 27:29.

ADMAH (Gn 10:19, 14:2, 8, Dt 29:23, Hos 11:8).—One of the cities of the Ciccar or ‘Round.’ It is not noticed as overthrown in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19), but is included in their catastrophe in the two later passages.

ADMATHA (Est 1:14).—One of the seven wise men or counsellors of

Ahasuerus, who were granted admittance to the king’s presence (cf. 2 K 25:19).

ADMIRATION.—This word in AV means no more than wonder, as Rev 17:6 ‘I wondered with great admiration’ (RV ‘with a great wonder’).

ADNA (‘pleasure’).—1. A contemporary of Ezra, who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:30). 2. The head of the priestly house of Harim (Neh 12:15).

ADNAH.—1. A Manassite officer of Saul who deserted to David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:20). 2. An officer in Jehoshaphat’s army (2 Ch 17:14).

ADONI-BEZEK (perhaps a corrupted form of Adoni-zedek, Jos 10:1–27).—A king of Bezek (a different place from that mentioned in 1 S 11:8), who was defeated by Simeon and Judah. The mutilation inflicted upon him—the cutting off of the thumbs and great toes—was in order to render him harmless, while retaining him as a trophy; but he died on reaching Jerusalem. Adoni-bezek boasted of having mutilated seventy kings in a similar manner. The passage (Jg 1:5–7) which speaks of Adoni-bezek does not appear to be intact; the original form probably gave more details.

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ADONIJAH (‘Jah is Lord’).—1. The fourth of the six sons of David who were born in Hebron; his mother was Haggith, a name which is possibly of Philistine origin (2 S 3:4). The story of Adonijah (typical of many an Oriental court intrigue) is recorded in 1 K 1, 2:1–36; as here recounted it permits of more than one interpretation, for that this passage has been subjected to an ‘editorial’ process can scarcely be doubted, and, in face of the difficulties of interpretation brought about by this, we are forced to reconstruct the course of events to some extent.

After the death of Absalom, Adonijah became the rightful heir to the throne; there was no sort of doubt about his right, it was taken for granted both by himself and by the people at large (1 K 2:15). But Bathsheba, it appears, was anxious to secure the succession for her son, Solomon; with this object in view, she, assisted by the prophet Nathan, heads a party at the court inimical to the claims of Adonijah. It would not have been long before the friends of Adonijah discovered the intrigue that was on foot; and Adonijah, learning the peril he was in of losing his rightful succession, concerts means for counteracting the machinations of his enemies. The old, trusted servants of the kingdom, Joab and Abiathar, rally round him, as one would expect; he gathers his friends together at the stone of Zoheleth, and by the visible act of sacrificing, proclaims his kingship; this last was, however, an act of unwisdom, as it gave a handle to his enemies, for king David was still alive. These, naturally on the alert, represent the gathering to David, now very aged, as an attempt to usurp the throne while he is yet alive; Bathsheba reminds

David of his promise that Solomon, her son, should succeed him on the throne (1:17) [this may or may not have been the case; there is no reference to it elsewhere, and it certainly does not accord with what we read in 1:6, 2:15]; David, remembering perhaps the rebellion of Absalom (whom Adonijah seems to have resembled in temperament as well as in outward appearance), is easily prevailed upon to transfer the succession to Solomon (1:33ff.). Even so it is very doubtful whether Bathsheba would have succeeded in her plan had it not been that she was enabled to gain Benaiah to her side; as captain of the king’s body-guard ( the Cherethites and Pelethites), Beuaiah was the man upon whom the issue really depended, for he commanded the only armed troops that were immediately available. In an emergency such as this, everything would depend upon who could strike the first decisive blow. Had the old commander-in-chief Joab had time to assemble his forces, no doubt the issue would have been different; but Bathsheba and her friends had laid their plans too well, and they won the day. Adonijah is ‘pardoned’ (1:52, 53); it would nave been dangerous, owing to the attitude of the people (2:15), to put him to death until Solomon was secure on the throne; but as he was rightful heir, the safety of Solomon’s throne could never be guaranteed as long as Adonijah was alive. Bathsheba was not the woman to be oblivious of this fact, accordingly she recommences her intrigues; she represents to Solomon that Adonijah is desirous of marrying Abishag the Shunammite, the maiden who was brought to David in his old age (1:3, 4), and who, according to Oriental ideas, was regarded as one of the royal wives. Such a desire was naturally interpreted by Solomon as an intention of seeking the kingdom (2:22), and self-preservation compelled him to decree Adonijah’s death, a sentence which was carried out by Benaiah (v. 25).

The above is not in entire accord with the Biblical account, which in its present form gives rise to a number of serious difficulties. We shall mention but two of these. The request which Adonijah asks Bathsheba to convey (2:17) was the most grievous insult that could have been offered to the king; Adonijah would have known precisely what the result would be, viz. death to himself, unless supported by an army; but there is no hint that he contemplated an armed rising. Secondly, Bathsheba is quite the last person he would have asked to prefer this request; as mother of the king, and prime mover in the successful conspiracy which had robbed him of his succession, he would know better than to place himself so gratuitously within her power.

Adonijah is one of those men whose cruel fate and tragic death, both undeserved, must call forth deep sympathy and commiseration.

2. Perhaps = Adonikam, one of those that sealed the covenant (Neh 9:38 , 10:16).

3. One of those sent, in the third year of Jehosbaphat, to teach the Law in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17:7–9).

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ADONIKAM (‘my Lord has arisen’), Ezr 2:13, 8:13, Neh 7:18, 1 Es 5:14 , 8:39.—The head of a Jewish family after the Exile; apparently called in Neh 10:16 Adonijah.

ADONIRAM, ADORAM.—The latter name occurs 2 S 20:24, 1 K 12:18, and is probably a corruption of Adoniram. Adoniram superintended the levies employed in the public works during the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. He was stoned to death by the rebellious Israelites when sent to them by Rehoboam (1 K 12:18).

ADONIS.—The phrase rendered by EV ‘pleasant plants,’ and by RVm ‘plantings of Adonis’ (Is 17:10), alludes to the miniature gardens whose rapid decline symbolized the death of this god, or rather the spring verdure of which he is a personification. This phase of the myth, which the Greeks obtained from the Semitic Tammuz cult, through the Phœnicians, where the god was worshipped under the title of Adon (‘lord’), is used by Isaiah to depict the fading hope of Israel. See Tammuz.

N. Koenig.

ADONI-ZEDEK.—King of Jerusalem at the time of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. After the Gibeonites had succeeded in making a league with Israel, he induced four other kings to unite with him against the invaders. Joshua came unexpectedly upon the allied kings, and utterly routed them. They were discovered in a cave at Makkedah, and brought before Joshua, who ordered them to be slain. Their bodies were hung up until the evening, when they were taken down and flung into the cave where they had hid themselves. The mouth of the cave was filled up with great stones (Jos 10:1–27). Some have identified Adoni-zedek with Adoni-bezek of Jg 1:5.

ADOPTION.—The term ‘adoption’ is found five times in St. Paul’s letters ( Ro 8:15, 22, 9:4, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5), and not elsewhere in the NT. In Ro 9:4 reference is made to the favoured position of the Jews as the chosen people. To them belonged the adoption, the position of sons (Ex 4:22). In the remaining passages St. Paul uses the word to describe the privileges of the Christian as opposed to the unbeliever. He is trying, as a rule, to bring home to Gentile readers the great change wrought by the coming of Christ. Though W. M. Ramsay has attempted to identify peculiarities of Syro-Greek law in Gal 4, and though it is true that ‘no word is more common in Greek inscriptions of Hellenistic times: the idea like the word is native Greek,’ yet St. Paul’s use of the term seems to be based on Roman law. See Hastings’ ERE, s.v.

Adoption in Roman law could be effected by a modified form of the method of sale known as mancipation. ‘The Roman Mancipation required the presence, first, of all of the parties, the vendor and the vendee.… There were also no less than five witnesses; and an anomalous personage, the libripens, who brought with him a pair of scales to weigh the uncoined copper money of Rome. Certain formal gestures were made and sentences pronounced. The (purchaser) simulated the payment of a price by striking the scales with a piece of money, and the (vendor) ratified what had been done in a set form of words’ (Maine, Ancient Law, vi.). The witnesses were necessary, especially in the age before written documents, to vouch for the regularity of the procedure, and to ensure the genuineness of the transaction.

Some of the details of the procedure are said to be reflected in the language of St. Paul. ‘To redeem those under the law’ (Ga 4:5) suggests that God’s action in sending His Son to buy out mankind from slavery to the Law, may be illustrated by the adopting parent’s purchase of a son from his natural father.

Again, Dr. W. E. Ball (Contemp. Rev., 1891) has pointed out that the work of the Spirit (Ro 8:16) is parallel to the place of the five witnesses in the process of adoption. The reality of God’s adoption is assured by the Spirit’s witness. Dr. Ball brings out the general force of the metaphor thus. Any one who was made a son by adoption, severed all his former ties. Even his debts appear to have been cancelled. ‘The adopted person became in the eyes of the law a new creature. He was born again into a new family. By the aid of this figure, the Gentile convert was enabled to realize in a vivid manner the fatherhood of God, brotherhood of the faithful, the obliteration of past penalties, the right to the mystic inheritance.’ The figure of adoption describes clearly the effect of God’s revelation of Himself as Father.

St. Paul speaks of adoption, as both present (Ro 8:15) and future (v. 23). With Pfleiderer we must distinguish three moments in adoption. It involves here and now, freedom from the Law, and the possession of the spirit of adoption which enables us to address God as our Father. Adoption will be completed by the redemption of our body, the inheritance with Christ in glory. ‘Believers have this blessing (adoption) already, but only in an inward relation and as Divine right, with which, however, the objective and real state does not yet correspond’ (Meyer on Ro 8:23). With St. Paul’s view of adoption now and adoption hereafter compare 1 Jn 3:2. In Eph 1:5 adoption seems to mean that conforming to the character of Christ which begins here and is to he perfected in the future.

That the word ‘adoption’ does not represent believers as children of God by nature, is undeniable. But it would be a mistake to press the term as giving a complete account of St. Paul’s views of the relations of God to man. Roman law afforded St. Paul illustrations rather than theories. It is not clear whether in Ro 8:15 he conceives the spirit of sonship which cries ‘Abba, Father.’ to be received in baptism or at conversion, or on the other hand to be the natural cry of the human heart. But in any case, he has found the love of God in Christ, and the change in his life is such that the complete change produced in a man’s condition by adoption is only a pale reflex of the Apostle’s experience. See, further, Inheritance.

H. G. Wood.

ADORA (1 Mac 13:20).—The same as Adoraim.

ADORAIM (2 Ch 11:9).—A city of Judah fortified by Rehoboam on the S.W. of his mountain kingdom; now Dûra, a small village at the edge of the mountains W. of Hebron.

ADORAM.—See Adoniram.

ADORATION.—The word is not found in AV or RV, and even for the verb RV substitutes ‘worship’ in Bel 4; but both the idea and its expression in act are frequent.

Amongst the Hebrews the postures and gestures expressive of adoration underwent slight change in the course of time. Kissing the statue of a god (1 K 19:18, Hos 13:2; cf. Job 31:27) was an early Arab. custom, and became a technical meaning of adoratio amongst the Romans; but in this usage the sense is identical with that of worship. Adoration proper was expressed by prostration to the ground, or even by lying prone with the face touching the ground (Gn 17:3, Jos 5:14, Job 1:20, Ps 95:6, 99:5, Dn 3:5). As elsewhere, this posture was not at first confined to intercourse with God. As an act of special courtesy it was adopted towards kings (2 S 14:4), towards strangers of mysterious quality (Gn 18:2), as an expression of close and respectful attachment (1 S 20:41), or with the design to conciliate ( Gn 33:3, 1 S 25:23, Est 8:3, Mt 18:26), or to honour (2 K 4:37). ‘Sat before the Lord’

(2 S 7:18) may refer to a special and solemn mode of sitting, as in 1 K 18:42; the Arabs are said to have sat during a part of their worship in such a way that the head could easily be bent forward and made to touch the ground.

Outside the Christian sphere, prostration continued in the East to be a mark of submission and homage, rendered to such men as were for any reason or even by convention invested in thought with Divine qualities or powers. The NT, by example and less frequently by precept, confines this fullest mode of worship to God, and protests against its use towards men. Jairus’ act (Mk 5:22, Lk 8:41) was prompted by intense yearning, a father’s self-abandonment in the sore sickness of his child, and must not be taken as implying a full recognition of Christ’s Divinity. Like Mary’s posture at Bethany (Jn 11:32), it was a preparation for the attitude of the disciples after their visit to the empty tomb (Mt 28:9). Whatever Cornelius intended (Ac 10:25f.), Peter found an opportunity to lay down the rule that no man under any circumstances is an appropriate object of adoration; and John repeats that rule twice not far from the end of Scripture (Rev 19:10, 22:8f.). The attempt to alienate from God His peculiar honours is a work of Satan (Mt 4:9); and adoration naturally follows a conviction of the presence of God (1 Co 14:25).

R. W. Moss.

ADRAMMELECH.—1. Adrammelech and Anammelech (wh. see), the gods of Sepharvaim to whom the colonists, brought to Samaria from Sepharvaim, burnt their children in the fire (2 K 17:31). There is no good explanation of the name: it was once supposed to be for Adar-malik, ‘Adar the prince.’ But Adar is not known to be a Babylonian god, and compound Divine names are practically unknown, nor were human sacrifices offered to Babylonian gods.

2. Adrammelech and Sharezer (wh. see) are given in 2 K 19:37 as the sons of Sennacherib who murdered their father. [The Kethibh of Kings omits ‘his sons’].

The Babylonian Chronicle says: ‘On the 20th of Tebet, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in an insurrection’; and all other native sources agree in ascribing the murder to one son, but do not name him. Adrammelech is impossible as an Assyrian personal name, and probably arises here from some corruption of the text. The sons of Sennacherib known to us are Ashur-nādinshum, king of Babylon, b.c. 700–694; Esarhaddon, who succeeded his father, b.c. 681; Ardi-Bēlit, Crown Prince, b.c. 694; Ashur-shum-ushabshi, for whom Sennacherib built a palace in Tarbisi; Ashur-ilu-muballitsu, for whom Sennacherib built a palace in Asshur; and Shar-etir-Ashur. Possibly Ardi-Bēlit is intended.

C. H. W. Johns.

ADRAMYTTIUM.—A town of Mysia (in the Roman province of Asia) on the

Adramyttene Gulf, originally a native State, and only later Hellenized by the

Delians, who had been driven away from home by the Athenians (422 b.c.). In Roman times it was a place of considerable importance both politically and intellectually. It possessed a harbour, and a ship belonging to the place carried St. Paul from Cæsarea by Sidon and Cyprus to Myra (Ac 27:2–6).

A. Souter.

ADRIA (more correctly Hadria).—The name was at first confined to the northern part of what we call the Adriatic Sea, or to a stretch of land near that, and was derived from a once important Etruscan city, Atria, situated at the mouth of the Po. The rest of what we call the Adriatic Sea appears to have been at that time included in the term Ionian Sea or Ionian Gulf. It was only later, with the growth of the Syracusan colonies on the coasts of Italy and Illyria, that the name ‘Hadria’ came to include the whole Adriatic, and even then, at first, it was the practice to call the southernmost part the Ionian Sea. This reduction of the Ionian Sea to a part of Hadria led, when the name ‘Ionian Sea’ was transferred to the Sicilian Sea in the W. of Greece, to a misuse of the term

‘Hadria.’ It was extended to include the Tarentine Gulf, the Sicilian Sea, the

Corinthian Gulf, and even the waters between Crete and Malta, as in Ac 27:27.

A. Souter.

ADRIEL.—Son of Barzillai, the Meholathite. He married Merab, the eldest daughter of Saul, who should have been given to David as the slayer of Goliath (1 S 18:19, 2 S 21:8 [in the latter ‘Michal’ is a mistake for ‘Merab’]).

ADUEL.—An ancestor of Tobit, To 1:1; a variant form of Adiel, 1 Ch 4:36.

ADULLAM.—A city in the Shephelah, assigned to Judah; named between Jarmuth and Socoh (Jos 15:35 etc.). It is probably the modern ‘Id el-Ma’, about 8 miles N.W. of Beit Jibrīn. Rehoboam fortified it (2 Ch 11:7), and the children of Judah returned to it after the captivity (Neh 11:30). The Cave of Adullam, the refuge of David (1 S 22:1 etc.), must have been one of those in the adjoining valley. Adullamite (Gn 38:1 etc.) = an inhabitant of Adullam.

W. Ewing. ADULTERY.—See Crimes, Marriage.

ADUMMIM. The Ascent of (Jos 15:7, 18:17), is the steep pass in which the road ascends from Jericho to Jerusalem. Its modern name, Tal‘at ed-Dumm, ‘the ascent of blood’ or ‘red,’ is most probably due to the red marl which is so distinctive a feature of the pass. In this pass, notorious for robberies and murders, is the traditional ‘inn’ of Lk 10:34.

ADVENT.—See Parousia.

ADVERTISE.—Ru 4:4 ‘I thought to advertise thee,’ i.e. inform thee; so Nu 24:14.

ADVOCATE (Gr. paraklētos).—The word occurs only in the writings of St. John: four times in his Gospel (14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7) of the Holy Spirit, and once in his 1st Epistle (2:1) of Jesus. It is unfortunate that our English Versions have rendered it in the former ‘Comforter’ (RVm ‘or Advocate, or Helper, Gr.

Paraclete’) and in the latter ‘Advocate’ (RVm ‘or Comforter, or Helper, Gr. Paraclete’).

‘Comforter,’ though a true and beautiful designation of the Holy Spirit, is an impossible rendering. It is true that parakalein means either ‘comfort’ (Mt 5:4, 2 Co 1:4, 7:6) or ‘call to one’s side’ (Ac 28:20), but paraklētos must be associated with the latter signification. It is a passive form, and denotes not ‘one who comforts (parakalei)’ but ‘one who is called in to aid (parakaleitai).’ It was a forensic term, signifying the counsel for the defence and corresponding exactly to our ‘advocate’ (Lat. advocatus). Singularly enough, the Greek-speaking Fathers mostly took the word in the impossible sense of ‘Comforter,’ influenced perhaps by the false analogy of Menahem (Consolator), a Jewish name for the Messiah. Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xvi. 20: ‘He is called Parakletos because He comforts (parakalei) and consoles and helps our infirmity.’ Were it understood in its literal sense of ‘Strengthener’ (Confortator), ‘Comforter’ would be a fair rendering; but as a matter of fact it originated in an error; nor does it suggest the true idea to the English reader. It should be observed that ‘comfortless’ in Jn 14:18 lends it no support. RV gives ‘desolate’; literally, as in the margin of both Versions,

‘orphans.’

The substitution of ‘Advocate’ for ‘Comforter’ reveals a wealth of meaning in our Lord’s address to the Eleven on that night in which He was betrayed. During His earthly ministry He had been God’s Advocate with men, pleading God’s cause with them and seeking to win them for Him. He was going away, but God would not be left without an Advocate on the earth. ‘I will pray the Father, and another Advocate he will give you, that he may be with yon for ever—the Spirit of Truth.’ Not received, because unrecognized, by the unspiritual world, the Advocate would be recognized and welcomed by believers (Jn 14:16, 17, 25, 26). And He would testify to them about Jesus, the unseen Lord, and they would repeat His testimony to the world (15:26, 27). And He would make their testimony effective, ‘convicting the, world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment’ (16:8–11).

Jesus told the Eleven that it was ‘expedient for them that he should go away,’ since His departure was the condition of the advent of the Advocate (16:7); and 1 Jn 2:1 furnishes a profound commentary on this declaration. Jesus in the days of

His flesh was God’s Advocate on the earth, pleading with men for God. The Holy Spirit has taken His place, and performs this office. But Jesus is still an Advocate. He is the Advocate of sinners up in heaven, pleading their cause with God, and, in the language of St. Paul (Ro 8:34), ‘making intercession for them.’

And thus it was expedient for us that He should go away, that we might enjoy a double advocacy—the Holy Spirit’s here, pleading with us for God; and that of Jesus in the court of heaven, pleading with God for us. There are three dispensations in the history of redemption, each richer and fuller than the last: (1) The OT dispensation, under which men knew only of God in high heaven; (2) that of the Incarnation, under which the Father came near to men in Jesus Christ and by His gracious advocacy appealed to their hearts; (3) that of the Holy Spirit, under which the Holy Spirit is the Father’s Advocate here, and Jesus ‘our Advocate above, our Friend before the throne of love.’

David Smith.

AEDIAS (1 Es 9:27).—One of those who agreed to put away their ‘strange’ wives. The name is probably a corruption for Elijah of Ezr 10:26.

ÆNEAS.—The name of a paralytic at Lydda who was cured by Peter (Ac 9:33 ,

34).

ÆNON.—Jn 3:23, meaning ‘springs’; a site near Salim [wh. see].

ÆSORA (Jth 4:4).—An unknown Samaritan town, possibly mod. Asireh, N.E. of Shechem.

AGABUS.—A Christian prophet of Jerusalem (Ac 11:27ff., 21:10f.), whose prediction of a famine over the (civilized) world occasioned the sending of alms from Antioch to Jerusalem. The famine happened, not simultaneously in all countries, in Claudius’ reign (Suetonius, Tacitus). Agabus also foretold St. Paul’s imprisonment, by binding his feet and hands with the Apostle’s girdle (cf. Jer

13:1 ff. ).

A. J. Maclean.

AGADÊ (formerly but erroneously read Aganê).—A city of Northern

Babylonia and the capital of Sargon, the founder of the first Semitic empire (c. b.c. 3800). As was first discovered by George Smith, Agadê was the Semitic Akkadu (see Akkad). It stood near Sippara or Sepharvaim (wh. see), and may have been in later times a suburb of the latter town.

A. H. Sayce.

AGAG.—1. Nu 24:7, probably a copyist’s error: LXX has Gog. 2. 1 S 15, the king of Amalek, whom Saul defeated and spared; some Gr. MSS name his father Aser (15:33). Whether he met his fate bravely or timidly cannot be determined from the extant text (v. 32). Samuel considered him to be under the ban of extermination, and therefore killed him as a religious act (v. 33).

J. Taylor.

AGAGITE.—The designation of Haman (Est 3:1, 10, 8:3, 5, 9:24). Josephus (Ant. XI. vi. 5) calls him an Amalekite. The epithet in Esther indicates that, as

Agag was Saul’s adversary, so Haman was the foe of this other Benjamite. The LXX reads Bugaios, 3:1, 8:5, omits at 3:10, and at 9:24, 16:10 has Macedonian, a word of evil connotation after Antiochus Epiphanes.

J. Taylor.

AGAIN.—The Eng. word ‘again’ means in AV either ‘a second time,’ as Ph 4:16, ‘ye sent once and again’; or ‘back,’ as in Mt 11:4 ‘go and show John again those things which ye do hear’ (i.e. ‘go back and show John’).

AGAPE.—See Love Feast.

AGAR.—The sons of Agar are mentioned in Bar 3:23; they are called Hagarenes in Ps 83:6, and Hagrites in 1 Ch 5:19, 20, 27:31. Their country lay east of Gilead.

AGATE.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.

AGE, AGED, OLD AGE.—In the OT advancing age is represented by words of different root-meanings. The aged man is zāqen, perhaps ‘grey-bearded’ ( Gn 48:10, 2 S 19:32, Job 12:20, 32:9, Ps 71:18, Jer 6:11); ‘old age’ is also sêbhāh, i.e. ‘hoary-headedness’ (Gn 15:15, 1 K 14:4; cf. Gn 42:38, Ps 71:18). According to the Mishna (Ab. v. 21) the latter word implies a greater age (70) than the former (60). But in Job 15:10 (cf. 29:8) yāshīsh, i.e. ‘very aged,’ marks a further advance in years, of which the sign is a withering of strength. Ps 90:10 is the only passage in which a definite period is fixed for human life. The idea that ‘hale old age’ (kelach) is a blessing is expressed in Job 5:26; the contrast is furnished by the gloomy picture (30:2) of the ‘fathers’ whose old age lacks vigour.

The wisdom of the old was proverbial (Job 12:12, 32:7), though there were exceptions (Job 32:9, Ps 119:100). The experience of the older men fitted them for positions of trust and authority; hence by a natural transition of thought ‘elders’ became an official title Ex 3:16, Ac 11:30). Respect is to be shown to the old ( Lv 19:32, Pr 23:22), and the decay of reverence for age is an evil omen (Dt 28:50, 1 K 12:8, Is 47:6). It was to the grandmother of Obed that the Hebrew women said ‘he shall be … a nourisher of thine old age’ (Ru 4:15); the dutiful affection of children’s children illumined the gracious message of Israel’s God: ‘even to old age I am he, and even to hoar hairs will I carry you’ (Is 46:4).

J. G. Tasker.

AGEE.—The father of Shammah, one of ‘the Three’ (2 S 23:11).

AGGABA (1 Es 5:29).—In Ezr 2:45 Hagabah, Neh 7:48 Hagaba.

AGGÆUS.—The form used in 1 Es 6:1, 7:3 and 2 Es 1:40 for Haggai ( wh. see).

AGIA (1 Es 5:34).—In Ezr 2:57, Neh 7:59 Hattil.

AGONY (Lk 22:44) is not a translation but a transliteration of the Greek agōnia, equivalent to St. Matthew’s ‘sorrowful and sore troubled’ (26:37) and St. Mark’s ‘greatly amazed and sore troubled’ (14:33). The word does not mean ‘agony’ in the English sense. Agōn was ‘a contest,’ and agōnia the trepidation of a combatant about to enter the lists. Christ’s Agony in Gethsemane was the horror which overwhelmed Him as He faced the final ordeal.

David Smith.

AGRAPHA.—See Unwritten Sayings.

AGRICULTURE.—Throughout the whole period of their national existence, agriculture was the principal occupation of the Hebrews. According to the priestly theory, the land was the property of J″; His people enjoyed the usufruct (Lv 25:23). In actual practice, the bulk of the land was owned by the towns and village communities, each free husbandman having his allotted portion of the common lands. The remainder included the Crown lands and the estates of the nobility, at least under the monarchy. Husbandry—the Biblical term for agriculture (2 Ch 26:10)—was highly esteemed, and was regarded as dating from the very earliest times (Gn 4:2). It was J″; Himself who taught the husbandman his art (Is 28:26).

Of the wide range of topics embraced by agriculture in the wider significance of the term, some of the more important will be treated in separate articles, such as Cart, Flax, Food, Garden, Olive, Ox, Thorns, Vine, etc. The present article will deal only with the more restricted field of the cultivation of the principal cereals. These were, in the first rank, wheat and barley; less important were the crops of millet and spelt, and those of the pulse family—lentils, beans, and the like.

1. The agricultural year began in the latter half of October, with the advent of the early rains, which soften the ground baked by the summer heat. Then the husbandman began to prepare his fields for the winter seed by means of the plough. From the details given in post-Biblical literature, it is evident that the Hebrew plough differed but little from its modern Syrian counterpart (see PEFSt, 1891). The essential part or ‘body’ of the latter, corresponding in position to the modern plough-tail or ‘stilt,’ consists of a piece of tough wood bent and pointed at the foot to receive an iron sheath or share (1 S 13:20), the upper end being furnished with a short cross-piece to serve as a handle. The pole is usually in two parts: one stout and curved, through the lower end of which the ‘body’ is passed just above the share; at the other end is attached the lighter part of the pole, through the upper end of which a stout pin is passed to serve as attachment for the yoke. The plough was usually drawn by two or more oxen (Am 6:12), or by asses ( Is 30:24), but the employment of one of each kind was forbidden (Dt 22:10). The yoke is a short piece of wood—the bar of Lv 26:13 (RV)—fitted with two pairs of converging pegs, the lower ends connected by thongs, to receive the necks of the draught animals. Two smaller pegs in the middle of the upper side hold in position a ring of willow, rope, or other material, which is passed over the end of the pole and kept in position by the pin above mentioned. As the ploughman required but one hand to guide the plough, the other was free to wield the ox-goad, a light wooden pole shod at one end with an iron spike wherewith to prick the oxen ( cf. Ac 9:5), and having at the other a small spade with which to clean the ploughshare. Gardens, vineyards (Is 5:6 RV), and parts too difficult to plough were worked with the hoe or mattock (Is 7:25).

The prevailing mode of sowing was by hand, as in the parable of the Sower, the seed being immediately ploughed in. It was possible, however, to combine both operations by fixing a seed-box to the plough-tail. The seed passed through an aperture at the bottom of the box and was conducted by a pipe along the tail. It thus fell into the drill behind the share and was immediately covered in. The patriarch Abraham was credited by Jewish legend with the invention of this form of seedingplough (Bk. of Jubilees 11:23ff.). This mode of sowing is probably referred to in Is 28:25 (‘the wheat in rows’ RV). There is no evidence that harrows were used for covering in the seed.

2. During the period of growth the crops were exposed to a variety of risks, such as the delay or scanty fall of the spring rains (the ‘latter rain’ of the OT, Am 4:9), blasting by the hot sirocco wind, mildew, hail—these three are named together in Hag 2:17; cf. Dt 28:22, Am 4:9—and worst of all a visitation of locusts.

The productiveness of the soil naturally varied greatly (cf. Mt 13:8). Under favourable conditions, as in the Hauran, wheat is said to yield a hundredfold return.

3. Owing to the wide range of climatic conditions in Palestine, the time of the harvest was not uniform, being earliest in the semi-tropical Jordan valley, and latest in the uplands of Galilee. The average harvest period, reckoned by the Hebrew legislation (Lv 23:15, Dt 16:9) to cover seven weeks, may be set down as from the middle of April to the beginning of June, the barley ripening about a fortnight sooner than the wheat.

The standing corn was reaped with the sickle (Dt 16:9 RV), the stalks being cut considerably higher up than with us. The handfuls of ears were gathered into sheaves, and these into heaps (not into shocks) for transportation to the threshingfloor. The corners of the field were left to be reaped, and the fallen ears to be gleaned, by the poor and the stranger (Lv 19:9f., Dt 24:19, Ru 2:2 ff. ).

For small quantities the ears were stripped by beating with a stick (Ru 2:17, Jg 6:11 RV), otherwise the threshing was done at the village threshing-floor. This was a large, specially prepared (Jer 51:33 RV) space on an elevated situation.

Hither the corn was brought on asses or on a cart (Am 2:13), and piled in heaps.

Enough sheaves were drawn out to form a layer, 6 to 8 ft. wide, all round the heap. Over this layer several oxen, unmuzzled according to law (Dt 25:4), and harnessed together as represented on the Egyptian monuments, might be driven. More effective work, however, was got from the threshing-drag and the threshingwagon, both still in use in the East, the former being the favourite in Syria, the latter in Egypt. The former consists of two or three thick wooden planks held together by a couple of cross-pieces, the whole measuring from 5 to 7 ft. in length by 3 to 4 ft. in breadth. The underside of the drag is set with sharp pieces of hardstone (cf. Is 41:15), which strip the ears as the drag, on which the driver sits or stands, is driven over the sheaves, and at the same time cut up the stalks into small lengths. The threshing-wagon is simply a wooden frame containing three or more rollers set with parallel metal discs, and supporting a seat for the driver. The former instrument was used by Araunah the Jebusite (2 S 24:22), while the latter is probably referred to in ‘the threshing wheel’ of Pr 20:26 (RV). Both are mentioned together in the original of Is 28:27.

After the threshing came the winnowing. By means of a five- or six-pronged fork, the ‘fan’ of the OT and NT, the mass of grain, chaff, and chopped straw is tossed into the air in the western evening breeze. The chaff is carried farthest away (Ps 1:4, the light morsels of straw to a shorter distance, while the heavy grains of wheat or barley fall at the winnower’s feet. After being thoroughly sifted with a variety of sieves (Am 9:9, Is 30:28), the grain was stored in jars for immediate use, and in cisterns (Jer 41:8), or in specially constructed granaries, the ‘barns’ of Mt 6:26.

4. Of several important matters, such as irrigation, the terracing of slopes, manuring of the fields, the conditions of lease, etc.—regarding which Vogelstein’s treatise Die Landwirtschaft in Palästina is a mine of information for the Roman period—there is little direct evidence in Scripture. Agriculture, as is natural, bulks largely in the legislative codes of the Pentateuch. Some of the provisions have already been cited. To these may be added the solemn injunction against removing a neighbour’s ‘landmarks,’ the upright stones marking the boundaries of his fields (Dt 19:14, 27:17), the humanitarian provision regarding strayed cattle (Ex 23:4, Dt 22:1ff.), the law that every field must lie fallow for one year in seven (Ex 23:10 f.; see, for later development, Sabbatical Year), the law forbidding the breeding of hybrids and the sowing of a field with two kinds of seed (Lv 19:19 RV), and the far-reaching provision as to the inalienability of the land (Lv 25:8 ff. ).

The fact that no department of human activity has enriched the language of Scripture, and in consequence the language of the spiritual life in all after ages, with so many appropriate figures of speech, is a striking testimony to the place occupied by agriculture in the life and thought of the Hebrew people.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AGRIPPA.—See Herod, Nos. 6, 7.

AGUE.—See Medicine.

AGUR.—Son of Jakeh; author of the whole or part of Pr 30, one of the latest sections of the book. His name may signify ‘hireling’ or ‘assembler’; cf. Vulg. ‘Verba Congregantis filii Vomentis.’ Some have thought that massa (AV ‘the prophecy,’ RV ‘the oracle’), which otherwise is out of place, is the name of his country (Gn 25:14).

J. Taylor.

AHAB.—1. Son of Omri, and the most noted member of his dynasty, king of Israel from about 875 to about 853 b.c. The account of him in our Book of Kings is drawn from two separate sources, one of which views him more favourably than the other. From the secular point of view he was an able and energetic prince; from the religious point of view he was a dangerous innovator, and a patron of foreign gods. His alliance with the Phœnicians was cemented by his marriage with Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre (1 K 16:31), who was also, if we may trust Josephus, priest of Astarte. At a later date Ahab entered into alliance with Judah, giving his daughter Athaliab in marriage to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (2 K 8:18). His wealth is indicated by the ivory palace which he built (1 K 21:1, 22:39).

The reign of Ahab was marked by frequent wars with the Syrian kingdom of Damascus. Benhadad, the king of that country, was so successful that he claimed suzerainty over Israel—a claim which Ahab was at first disposed to admit (1 K

20:2ff.). But when Benhadad went so far as to threaten Samaria with

indiscriminate plunder, Ahab resisted. In two campaigns he defeated the invaders, even taking their haughty leader prisoner. Contrary to the advice of the prophetic party, he treated his captive magnanimously, and concluded an alliance with him, stipulating only that the cities formerly taken from Israel should be restored. The alliance was one for trade and commerce, each party having bazaars assigned him in the capital of the other (1 K 20:34). It is not improbable also that common measures of defence were planned against the Assyrians, who were showing hostile intentions in the region of the Lebanon. In the battle of Karkar, which was fought against these invaders in the year 854, Ahab was present with ten thousand troops. This we learn from the Assyrian inscriptions.

The religious innovation for which Ahab is held responsible by the Hebrew writers, was the introduction of the Phœnician Baal as one of the gods of Israel. It is clear that Ahab had no idea of displacing Jahweh altogether, for he gave his children names which indicated his devotion to Him. But to please his wife he allowed her to introduce and foster the worship of her own divinities. Her thought was that with the religion of her own country she would introduce its more advanced civilization. The champion of Jahweh’s exclusive right to the worship of Israel was Elijah. This prophet, by his bold challenge to the priests of Baal, roused the anger of Jezebel, and was obliged to flee the country (1 K 17–19). Other prophets do not seem to have been disturbed, for we find them at the court of Ahab in the last year of his life (22:6). These, however, were subservient to the crown, while Elijah was not only a protestant against religious changes, but the champion of the common people, whose rights were so signally violated in the case of Naboth.

Ahab died fighting for his people. The Syrian war had again broken out— apparently because Benhadad had not kept his agreement. Ahab therefore tried to recover Ramoth-gilead, being assisted by Jehoshaphat of Judah. In the first encounter Ahab was slain, his reputation for courage being vindicated by the direction of his adversary to his soldiers—‘Fight neither with small nor with great, but only with the king of Israel’ (1 K 22:31).

2. A false prophet ‘roasted in the fire’ by the king of Babylon (Jer 29:21f.).

H. P. Smith.

AHARAH.—See Ahiram.

AHARHEL.—A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4:8).

AHASBAI.—Father of Eliphelet (2 S 23:34), and a member at the family of Maacah, settled at Bethmaacah (20:14), or a native of the Syrian kingdom of Maacah (10:6, 8).

AHASUERUS (old Pers. Khshayārshā).—The Persian king (b.c. 485–465) known to Greek history as Xerxes. Complaints against the Jews were addressed to him (Ezr 4:6). It is he who figures in the Book of Esther; Dn 9:1 erroneously makes him father of Darius the Mede, confusing the latter with Darius Hystaspis, the father of Xerxes. The Ahasuerus of To 14:15 is Cyaxares.

J. Taylor.

AHAVA was a settlement in Babylonia lying along a stream of the same name, probably a large canal near the Euphrates. None of the conjectures as to the exact locality can be verified. It was here that Ezra mustered his people before their departure for Jerusalem (Ezr 8:15, 21, 31). Some district north or north-west of Babylon, near the northern boundary of Babylonia, is most probable.

J. F. McCurdy.

AHAZ, son and successor of Jotham, king of Judah, came to the throne about

b.c. 734. The only notable event of his reign, so far as we know, was the invasion made by his northern neighbours, Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus. These two kings had made an alliance against the Assyrians, and were trying to compel Ahaz to join the coalition. His refusal so exasperated them that they planned his deposition and the appointment of a creature of their own to the throne. Ahaz did not venture to take the field, but shut himself up in Jerusalem and strengthened its fortifications. It was perhaps at this time of need that he sacrificed his son as a burnt-offering to Jahweh. Isaiah tried to encourage the faint-hearted king, pointing out that his enemies had no prospect of success or even of long existence. But Ahaz had more faith in political measures than in the prophetic word. He sent a message to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, submitting himself unreservedly to him. The embassy carried substantial evidence of vassalage in the shape of all the gold and silver from the palace treasury and from the Temple (2 K 16, Is 7).

Tiglath-pileser was already on the march, and at once laid siege to Damascus, thus freeing Jerusalem from its enemies. Two years later the Assyrian king entered Damascus, and was visited there by Ahaz. The result of the visit was the construction of a new altar for the Temple at Jerusalem, and apparently the introduction of Assyrian divinities (2 K 16:10 ff. ).

H. P. Smith.

AHAZIAH.—Two kings of this name are mentioned in the OT, one in each of the Israelite kingdoms.

1. Ahaziah of Israel was the son of Ahab, and ruled after him only two years or parts of years. He is said to have been a worshipper of Baal, that is, to have continued the religious policy of his father. By a fall from a window of his palace he was seriously injured, and, after lingering awhile, died from the accident. The Moabites, who had been subject to Israel, took this opportunity to revolt. Ahaziah is accused of sending messengers to inquire of the celebrated oracle at Ekron, and is said unexpectedly to have received his answer from Elijah (2 K 1).

2. Ahaziah of Judah was son of Jehoram and grandson of Jehoshaphat. Under the influence of his mother, who was a daughter of Ahah and Jezehel, it is not surprising to read that he walked in the ways of Ahab. All that we know of him is that he continued the league with Israel, and that, going to visit his uncle Jehoram in Jezreel, he was involved in his fate at the revolt of Jehu (2 K 9:27).

H. P. Smith.

AHBAN.—A Judahite, son of Abishur (1 Ch 2:29).

AHER (‘another’).—A Benjamite (1 Ch 7:12).

AHI (‘brother’).—1. A Gadite (1 Ch 5:15). 2. An Asherite (1 Ch 7:34). But the reading is in neither case free from doubt.

AHIAH.—See Ahijah.

AHIAM.—One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:35).

AHIAN (‘fraternal’).—A Manassite, described as ‘son of Shemida’ (1 Ch 7:19); but the name is scarcely that of an individual; note in the context Ahiezer and Shechem, and cf. Nu 26:31 ff.

AHIEZER (‘brother is help’).—1. Son of Ammi-shaddai, one of the tribal princes who represented Dan at the census and on certain other occasions ( Nu 1:12, 2:25, 7:66, 7:71, 10:25 (P)). 2. The chief of the Benjamite archers who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:1–3).

AHIHUD (‘brother is majesty’).—1. The prince of the tribe of Asher ( Nu 34:27 (P)). 2. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:6, 7).

AHIJAH.—1. 1 S 14:3, 18 is (AV Ahiah), a priest, son of Ahitub, who had charge of the oracular ephod and consulted it for Saul [read ‘ephod’ for ‘ark’ at v. 18]. Ahijah is probably to he identified with Ahimelech (21:1). 2. 1 K 4:3, one of Solomon’s secretaries, who conducted the king’s correspondence and wrote out his decrees. His father Shisha seems to have held the same office under David. 3. 1 K 11:29f., 12:15, 2 Ch 10:15, a prophet of Shiloh, who foretold the division of the kingdom and the elevation of Jeroboam. Subsequently he predicted the death of Jeroboam’s son (1 K 14:2ff.). 4. 1 K 15:27, 33, father of Baasha. 5. 1 Ch 2:25 has an Ahijah, son of Jerahmeel, but is hopelessly corrupt. The LXX gets rid of the name. 6. 1 Ch 8:7 (AV Ahiah), son of Ehud, a Benjamite: at v. 4 Ahoah, but LXX Ahijah, 7. 1 Ch 11:36, one of David’s heroes, from Palon, an unknown locality: perhaps Giloh should be read, seeing that Palon has already been mentioned ( v. 27). 8. 1 Ch 26:20, a Levite, overseer of the Temple treasures. But we ought probably to substitute the words, ‘their brethren.’ 9. Neh 10:26 (RV Ahiah), a layman who joined Nehemiah in signing the covenant.

J. Taylor.

AHIKAM.—One of the deputation sent by king Josiah to Huldah the prophetess (2 K 22:12, 14, 2 Ch 34:20). Later he used his influence to protect Jeremiah from the violence of the populace during the reign of Jehoiakim ( Jer 26:24).

AHILUD.—1. Father of Jehoshaphat, the chronicler under David and Solomon (2 S 8:16, 20:24, 1 K 4:3, 1 Ch 18:15). 2. Father of Baana, one of Solomon’s twelve commissariat officers (1 K 4:12).

AHIMAAZ.—1. Saul’s father-in-law (1 S 14:50). 2. Son of Zadok. He and Jonathan were stationed outside Jerusalem to learn Absalom’s plans; after an adventurous journey they succeeded in warning David (2 S 15:27, 36, 17:17–21). Ahimaaz was eager to carry the tidings of Absalom’s defeat; but Joab preferred to send by an Ethiopian slave the unwelcome news of the prince’s death. Obtaining leave to follow, Ahimaaz outstripped this man, was recognized by the watchman through the style of his running, but left the Ethiopian to disclose the worst (2 S 18:19–32). It may be the same person who appears later as Solomon’s son-in-law and commissioner in Naphtali (1 K 4:15).

J. Taylor.

AHIMAN.—1. One of the sons of Anak, at Hebron (Nu 13:22): the three claus, of which this was one, were either destroyed by Judah (Jg 1:10), or expelled by the clan Caleb (Jos 15:14). 2. A family of Levites who had charge of that gate of the

Temple through which the king entered (1 Ch 9:17f.)

J. Taylor.

AHIMELECH.—1. Son of Ahitub, and grandson of Phinehas. He either succeeded his brother Ahijah in the priesthood, or more probably was the same person under another name (1 S 14:3, 18). For his fate see Doeo. In 2 S 8:17 and 1 Ch 18:16, 24:6 the names of Abiathar and Ahimelech have been transposed. 2. A Hittite, who joined David when a fugitive (1 S 26:6).

AHIMOTH.—A Kohathite Levite (1 Ch 6:25).

AHINADAB.—Son of Iddo, one of the 12 commissariat officers appointed by Solomon (1 K 4:14).

AHINOAM.—1. Daughter of Ahimaaz and wife of Saul (1 S 14:50). 2. A Jezreelitess whom David married after Michal had been taken from him. She was the mother of David’s firstborn, Amnon (1 S 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 2 S 2:2, 3:2, 1 Ch

3:1).

AHIO.—1. Son of Abinadab (No. 3), and brother of Uzzah. He helped to drive the cart on which the ark was placed when removed from Ahinadab’s house (2 S 6:3, 4, 1 Ch 13:7). 2. A son of Jeiel, and brother of Kish, the father of Saul (1 Ch 8:31, 9:37). 3. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:14).

AHIRA.—Prince of Naphtali, named at the census and on certain other occasions (Nu 1:15, 2:29, 7:78, 83, 10:27 (P)).

AHIRAM.—The eponym of a Benjamite family—the Ahiramites, Nu 26:38 (P). The name occurs in the corrupt forms Ehi in Gn 46:21 (P), and Aharah in 1 Ch 8:1.

AHISAMACH.—A Danite, father of Oholiab (Ex 31:6, 35:34, 38:23 (P)).

AHISHAHAR.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 7:10).

AHISHAR.—Superintendent of Solomon’s household (1 K 4:6).

AHITHOPHEL.—David’s counsellor (2 S 15:12, 1 Ch 27:33), whose advice was deemed infallible (2 S 16:23). Being Bathsheba’s grandfather, he had been alienated by David’s criminal conduct (11:3, 23:34), and readily joined Absalom (15:12). Ahithophel advised the prince to take possession of the royal harem, thus declaring his father’s deposition, and begged for a body of men with whom he might at once overtake and destroy the fugitive monarch (17:1–3). Hushai thwarted this move (17:11). Disgusted at the collapse of his influence, and foreseeing that this lack of enterprise meant the failure of the insurrection, Ahithophel withdrew, set his affairs in order, and hanged himself (17:23).

J. Taylor.

AHITOB (1 Es 8:2).—An ancestor of Ezra, son of Amarias and father of Sadduk. See Ahitub, No. 3.

AHITUB.—1. Son of Phinehas and grandson of Ell, the father of Ahimelech or Ahijah, the priest who was put to death by Saul (1 S 14:3, 22:9, 20). 2. Acc. to 2 S

8:17 (= 1 Ch 18:16) the father, acc. to 1 Ch 9:11, Neh 11:11 the grandfather, of Zadok the priest who was contemporary with David and Solomon. It is very doubtful, however, whether the name Ahitub here is not due to a copyist’s error. The text of 2 S 8:17 should probably run: ‘and Zadok and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub.’ 3. Even more doubt attaches to another Ahitub, father of another Zadok (1 Ch 6:11, 12; cf. 1 Es 8:2, 2 Es 1:1). 4. An ancestor of Judith, Jth 8:1.

AHLAB.—A city of Asher (Jg 1:31). The site has been Identified with the later Gush Halab or Giscala, now el-Jîsh in Upper Galilee; but this is, of course, uncertain.

AHLAI.—1. The daughter (?) of Sheshan (1 Ch 2:31, cf. v. 34). 2. The father of Zabad, one of David’s mighty men (1 Ch 11:41).

AHOAH.—Son of Bela, a Benjamite (1 Ch 8:4). See Ahijah (6). The patronymic Ahohite occurs in 2 S 23:9.

AHOLAH, AHOLIAB, AHOLIBAH, AHOLIBAMAH.—The forms in AV of the correct RV Oholah, Oholiab, Oholibah, Oholibamah (wh. see).

AHUMAI.—A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4:2).

AHUZZAM.—A man of Judah (1 Ch 4:6).

AHUZZATH.—‘The friend’ of Abimelech, the Philistine of Gerar, mentioned on the occasion when the latter made a league with Isaac at Beersheba (Gn 26:26). The position of ‘king’s friend’ may possibly have been an official one, and the title a technical one (cf. 1 K 4:5, 1 Ch 27:33). The rendering of the LXX gives a different conception, that of ‘pronubus,’ or friend of the bridegroom.

AHZAI.—A priest (Neh 11:13) = Jahzerah (1 Ch 9:12).

AI.—1. A place between which and Bethel Abraham was stationed before ( Gn 12:8) and after (13:3) his sojourn in Egypt. The repulse of the Israelite attempt on the city (Jos 7:2–5) led to the exposure of the crime of Achan; when that was expiated, the city was captured and destroyed (8:1–28) by a ruse. It never reappears in history, though it continued to be inhabited: it is the Aiath in Isaiah’s description of the march of the Assyrian (10:28), and the Aija of Neh 11:31. In 1 Ch 7:28 ‘Azzah, enumerated among the cities of Ephraim, is in many MSS ‘Ayyah, which is another form of the name. This, however, cannot in any case be the same place, which was within the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:23, where Avvim is possibly a corruption for the name of this city). After the Exile, Ai and Bethel between them supplied a contingent of 223 to the number that returned (Ezr 2:28), and the city was once more settled by Benjamites (Neh 11:31). That the city was insignificant is definitely stated in Jos 7:3, and indicated by the fact that in the list of captured cities it is almost the only one of which the situation is specified (Jos 12:9). Its capture, however, made a deep impression on the Canaanites (Jos 9:3, 10:1). As to its identification, the only indication to guide us is its proximity to Bethel ( agreed by all to be Beitin), on the east of that place (as follows from Gn 12:8). Various sites have been proposed—Turmus ‘Aya (which contains an element resembling the name, but the situation is impossible); Khurbet Hayan (which also has a similar name, but the antiquities of the place are not known to be old enough); Deir Diwan (which is in the right place, but also possibly not an old enough site); and et-Tell ( a mound whose name has the same meaning as the word Ai [‘heap’]. Possibly this last is the most likely site.

2. A wholly distinct place, mentioned in a prophecy against the Ammonites, Jer 49:3 (perh. a clerical error for Ar).

R. A. S. Macalister.

AIAH.—1. Son of Zibeon (Gn 36:24, 1 Ch 1:40). 2. Father of Rizpah, Saul’s concubine (2 S 3:7, 21:8, 10, 11).

AIATH, Is 10:28 ;

AIJA, Neh 11:31.—See Ai, No. 1.

AIJALON.—1. A city allotted to, but not occupied by, Dan (Jos 19:42, Jg 1:35). We find it in the hands of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:10); later the Philistines took it (2 Ch 28:18). It may be the modern Yālo, 3 miles N.E. of Latrūn, 14 miles from Jerusalem. 2. An unknown town in Zebulun (Jg 12:12).

W. Ewing.

AIJELETH HASH-SHAHAR, Ps 22 (title).—See Psalms.

AIN.—1. A town in the neighbourhood of Riblah (Nu 34:11), probably the modern el-’Ain near the source of the Orontes. 2. A town in Judah (Jos 15:32), or Simeon (Jos 19:7), where Ain arid Rimmon should be taken together. It is probably Umm er-Ramāmīn, to the N. of Beersheba.

W. Ewing.

AIN.—The sixteenth letter of the Heb. alphabet, and so used to introduce the sixteenth part of Ps. 119.

AKAN.—A descendant of Esau (Gn 36:27); called in 1 Ch 1:42 Jakan.

AKATAN (1 Es 8:38).—Father of Joannes, who returned with Ezra; called Hakkatan in Ezr 8:12.

AKELDAMA (AV Aceldama).—The name of the ‘potter’s field’ (Ac 1:19) , purchased for the burial of strangers with the blood-money returned by Judas ( Mt 27:3). The traditional site is at the E. side of the Wady er-Rababi (the so-called ‘Valley of Hinnom’) on the S. side of the valley. It is still known as Hakk edDumm (‘field of blood’). which represents the old name in sound and meaning. The identification has not been traced earlier than the Crusaders, who erected here a charnel-house, the ruins of which still remain—a vault about 70 feet long and 20 feet wide (internal dimensions) erected over and covering the entrance to some of the ancient rock-cut tombs which abound in the valley. The skulls and bones which once thickly strewed the floor of this charnel-house have all been removed to a modern Greek monastery adjacent. There is no evidence recoverable connecting this site with the work of potters.

R. A. S. Macalister.

AKKAD (ACCAD), AKKADIANS.—Akkad(u) Is the Semitic equivalent of the Sumerian Agadê, the capital of the founder of the first Semitic empire. It was probably in consequence of this that it gave its name to Northern Babylonia, the Semitic language of which came to be known as Akkadu or ‘Akkadian.’ In the early days of cuneiform decipherment ‘Akkadian’ was the name usually applied to the non-Semitic language of primitive Babylonia, but some cuneiform texts published by Bezold in 1889 (ZA p. 434) showed that this was called by the Babylonians themselves ‘the language of Sumer’ or Southern Babylonia, while a text recently published by Messerschmidt (Orient. Ltztg. 1905, p. 268) states that Akkadu was the name of the Semitic ‘translation.’ When Babylonia became a united monarchy, its rulers took the title of ‘kings of Sumer and Akkad’ in Semitic, ‘Kengi and Uri’ in Sumerian, where Uri seems to have signified ‘the upper region.’ In Gn 10:10 Accad is the city, not the country to which it gave its name.

A. H. Sayce.

AKKOS (AV Accoz), 1 Es 5:38.—See Hakkoz.

AKKUB.—1. A son of Elioenai (1 Ch 3:24). 2. A Levite, one of the porters at the E. gate of the Temple; the eponym of a family that returned from the Exile (1 Ch 9:17, Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45, 11:19, 12:25); called in 1 Es 5:28 Dacubi. 3. The name of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2:42); called in 1 Es 5:30 Acud. 4. A Levite who helped to expound the Law (Neh 8:7); called in 1 Es 9:48 Jacubus.

AKRABATTINE (1 Mac 5:3).—The region in Idumæa near Akrabbim.

AKRABBIM (less correctly Acrabbim Jos 15:3 AV, ‘Scorpion Pass’).—The name given to an ascent on the south side of the Dead Sea, a very barren region.

ALABASTER.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.

ALAMOTH, Ps 46 (title), 1 Ch 15:20.—See Psalms.

ALBEIT.—Albeit is a contraction for ‘all be it,’ and means ‘although it be.’ It occurs in Ezk 13:7, Philem 19, and in the Apocrypha.

ALCIMUS (the Greek for ‘valiant,’ suggested by the Hebrew Eliakim, ‘God sets up’) was son or nephew of Jose ben-Joeser, pupil to Antigonus of Socho ( b.c. 190). Antiochus V. (Eupator), king of Syria, appointed him high priest (b.c. 162).

Either because he was not of high priestly family (though of the stock of Aaron, 1 Mac 7:14), or, more probably, from his Hellenizing tendencies, his appointment was stoutly opposed by Judas Maccabæus, and received hut scanty recognition at

Jerusalem. Demetrius Soter, cousin and successor to Antiochus, in response to Alcimus’s solicitations, reinstated him by the means of Nicanor, the Syrian general. He now received, moreover, considerable local support from the Hellenizing party. It was not, however, till the defeat and death of Judas at Elasa that he was in a position to commence his Hellenizing measures, and shortly afterwards he died of paralysis (b.c. 160).

A. W. Streane.

ALCOVE.—RVm (Nu 25:8) for RV ‘pavilion,’ AV ‘tent.’ See Pavilion.

ALEMA (1 Mac 5:26).—A city in Gilead; site unknown.

ALEMETH.—1. A son of Becher the Benjamite (1 Ch 7:8). 2. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:36, 9:42).

ALEPH.—First letter of Heb. alphabet, and so used to introduce the first part of Ps 119.

ALEXANDER.—1. Son of Simon of Cyrene; like his brother Rufus, evidently a well-known man (Mk 15:21 only). 2. One of the high-priestly family (Ac 4:6). 3. The would-he spokesman of the Jews in the riot at Ephesus, which endangered them as well as the Christians (Ac 19:33); not improbably the same as the coppersmith (2 Ti 4:14) who did St. Paul ‘much evil,’ and who was probably an Ephesian Jew; possibly the same as the Alexander of 1 Ti 1:20 (see Hymenæus), in which case we may regard him as an apostate Christian who had relapsed into Judaism.

A. J. Maclean.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT.—A Jewish tradition, reported by Josephus and the Talmud, relates that whilst the renowned Macedonian conqueror was besieging Tyre (b.c. 333), rival embassies from the Jews and the Samaritans solicited his protection. At the close of the siege he set out for Jerusalem, and was met outside by the entire population, with the high priest at their head. Recognizing the latter as the person who had appeared to him in a dream and promised him victory, the king prostrated himself. He then entered the city, offered sacrifice, was shown the passages in Daniel relating to himself, granted the people unmolested use of their customs, promised to befriend their eastern settlements, and welcomed Jews to his army (Ant. XI. viii.). The objections to this story are: (1) that although there are references to Alexander and his successors in Daniel (2:40ff., 7:7, 8:5, 8, 21 , 11:3f.), they were not written till the 2nd cent. b.c.; and (2) that the accounts given by Arrian and Curtius do not mention these events. It is also most likely that when Josephus declares that Alexander gave to the Jews in Alexandria equal privileges with the Macedonians (c. Ap. ii. 4), he is anticipating by some years what happened under the Ptolemys.

The deep impression made by Alexander’s successes is evinced by the numerous legends connected with his name in later Jewish literature. But his real importance to the Biblical student consists in this—he brought the Jews into contact with Greek literature and life.

J. Taylor.

ALEXANDER BALAS.—A low-born youth called Balas, living in Smyrna, was put forward by the enemies of Demetrius I. as son of Antiochus IV., king of Syria. In their struggle for the throne the rivals sought to outbid each other for the support of Jonathan Maccabæus, who elected to side with Alexander, and was appointed high priest by him (b.c. 153). Jonathan defeated Apollonius, one of the generals of Demetrius, and received still further honours (1 Mac 10). But

Alexander Balas cared more for sensual pleasures than for kingly duties: his fatherin-law Ptolemy turned against him, and Alexander, fleeing to Arabia, was assassinated there (1 Mac 11:17).

J. Taylor.

ALEXANDRIA was founded (b.c. 332) by Alexander the Great after his conquest of Egypt. Recognizing the inconvenience caused by the want of a harbour for 600 miles along the shore, he selected as the site of a new port the village of Rhacotis, lying on a strip of land between Lake Mareotis and the sea. This he united to the little island of Pharos by a huge mole about a mile long, and thus he formed two splendid havens, which speedily became the commercial meetingplace of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The city was laid out in shape like the outspread cloak of a Macedonian soldier; in circumference about 15 miles: and it was divided into quarters by a magnificent street nearly 5 miles long, and 100 feet wide, running from E. to W., and crossed by another of somewhat lesser dimensions from N. to S. One of these quarters (Soma, ‘the body’) received the corpse of Alexander, and preserved it embalmed in the Royal Mausoleum. The Ptolemys, who succeeded to the Egyptian portion of Alexander’s divided empire, made Alexandria their capital, and by their extensive building operations rendered the city famous for the magnificence and beauty of its public edifices. Besides the Royal Palace, the Royal Mausoleum, the Temple of Neptune, the Great Theatre, the Gymnasium, and the vast Necropolis, Alexandria possessed three other structures for which it was celebrated. (1) The Museum, which was not a place where collections were laid out for instruction, but a spot where the fine arts, science, and literature were studied. The Museum of Alexandria became in course of time practically the centre of the intellectual life of the world. It answered very largely to what we associate with the idea of a great modern university. It had its staff of State-paid professors, its professorial dining-hall, its shaded cloisters, where eager students from all parts of the world walked to and fro, listening to lectures from men like Euclid, Eratosthenes, and Hipparchus. (2) The Library, which was the greatest treasure of the city, was founded by the first Ptolemy. His successors increased the number of volumes till the collection embraced upwards of 700,000 MSS, in which were inscribed the intellectual efforts of Greece, Rome, Asia Minor, Palestine, and even India. The value of this unrivalled collection was immense. The Library was in two portions; and, in the siege of Alexandria by Julius Cæsar, the part stored in the Museum was burned; a loss, however, which was largely made up by the presentation to Cleopatra, by Mark Antony, of the Royal Library of Pergamum. The other portion was stored in the Serapeum, which in 1895 was discovered to have been situated where ‘Pompey’s Pillar’ now stands.

History is undecided as to whether this celebrated Library was destroyed in a.d. 391 by Bishop Theophilus or by the Caliph Omar in a.d. 641. (3) The third structure which attracted the attention of the world to Alexandria was the Pharos (Lighthouse), erected by Ptol. II. Philadelphus, on the island which had been joined to the mainland by Alexander. Rising in storeys of decreasing dimensions to a height of 450–490 ft., adorned with white marble columns, balustrades, and

statues, it was justly reckoned one of the ‘Seven Wonders of the World.’ Though it was destroyed by an earthquake in a.d. 1303, it has nevertheless exercised a permanent influence on mankind. The idea of humanity to the mariner which it embodied was accepted by almost every civilized nation, and the thousands of lighthouses throughout the world to-day can all be traced to the gracious thoughtfulness which was displayed in the costly erection of this first Pharos.

In its times of greatest prosperity, Alexandria had a population of between 800,000 and 1,000,000. Trade, amusement, and learning attracted to it inhabitants from every quarter. It was an amalgam of East and West. The alertness and versatility of the Greek were here united with the gravity, conservativeness, and dreaminess of the Oriental. Alexandria became, next to Rome, the largest and most splendid city in the world. Amongst its polyglot community, the Jews formed no inconsiderable portion. Jewish colonists had settled in Egypt in large numbers after the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 42:14), and during the Persian period their numbers greatly increased. The Ptolemys, with one exception, favoured them, and assigned a special quarter of the city to them. More than an eighth of the population of Egypt was Jewish. Their business instincts brought to them the bulk of the trade of the country. They practically controlled the vast export of wheat. Some had great ships with which they traded over all the Mediterranean. St. Paul twice sailed in a ship of Alexandria (Ac 27:6, 28:11). The Jews were under their own governor or ‘Alabarch,’ and observed their own domestic and religious customs. Their great central synagogue was an immense and most imposing structure, where all the trade guilds sat together, and the 70 elders were accommodated in 70 splendidly bejewelled chairs of state.

It was in Alexandria that one of the most important events in the history of religion took place, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greek tongue. The legendary tales narrated by Josephus regarding the accomplishment of this task may be dismissed as baseless. But it is undisputed that during the reigns of the earlier Lagidæ (somewhere between b.c. 250 and 132) the ‘Septuagint’ made its appearance. It is certainly not the product of a syndicate of translators working harmoniously, as Jewish tradition asserted. The work is of very unequal merit, the Pentateuch being the best done, while some of the later books are wretchedly translated. The translation was regarded by the Jews with mingled feelings,— execrated by one section as the grossest desecration of the holy oracles, extolled by another section as the means by which the beauties of the Law and the Prophets could be appreciated for the first time by the Greek-speaking Gentile world. The LXX became, under God’s providence, a most valuable preparation for the truths of Christianity. It familiarized the heathen nations with the God of righteousness as He had been revealed to the Jewish race. It paved the way for the gospel. It formed the Bible of the early Church. In the Eastern Church to-day it is the only orthodox text of the OT.

The wars of the Ptolemys with the Seleucidæ at Antioch are described in Dn 11. Ptolemy II. Philadelphus left his mark on Palestine in the cities of Philadelphia (= Rabbath-ammon, Dt 3:11), Ptolemais (Ac 21:7 = Acco, Jg 1:31), Philoteria, etc. Under Ptolemy III. Euergetes I. (b.c. 247–222) the famous ‘stele of Canopus’ was inscribed. With Ptolemy IV. Philopator the dynasty began to decline, and his oppressions of the Jews (largely mythical) are narrated in 3 Maccabees. Under Ptolemy V. Epiphanes the Alexandrian supremacy over Palestine was exchanged for that of Antiochus III. the Great (Dn 11:14–17). In his reign the celebrated ‘Rosetta stone’ was erected. The ten succeeding Ptolemys were distinguished for almost nothing but their effeminacy, folly, luxury, and cruelty. The city increased in wealth, but sank more and more in political power. Julius Cæsar stormed Alexandria in b.c. 47, and after a brief spell of false splendour under Cleopatra, it fell after the battle of Actium into the hands of the Romans, and its fortunes were henceforth merged with those of the Empire.

But while its political power was thus passing away, it was developing an intellectual greatness destined to exercise a profound influence through succeeding centuries. Among its Jewish population there had arisen a new school which sought to amalgamate Hebrew tradition and Greek philosophy, and to make the OT yield up Platonic and Stoic doctrines. This attempted fusion of Hebraism and Hellenism was begun by Aristobulus, and reached its climax in Philo, a contemporary of Jesus Christ. The Jews found in the Gentile writings many beautiful and excellent thoughts. They could logically defend their own proud claim to be the sole depositaries and custodians of Divine truth only by asserting that every rich and luminous Greek expression was borrowed from their Scriptures. Plato and Pythagoras, they declared, were deeply in debt to Moses. The Greeks were merely reproducers of Hebrew ethics, and Hebrew religious and moral conceptions. The next step was to re-write their own Scriptures in terms of Greek philosophy, and the most simple way of doing this was by an elaborate system of allegory. Philo carried the allegorizing of the OT to such an extent that he was able to deduce all the spurious philosophy he required from the most matter-of-fact narratives of the patriarchs and their wives. But it was a false issue. It was based on a logical figment, and Philo’s voluminous works, gifted and learned though he was, merely reveal that there was no hope either for Greek philosophy or for Hebrew religious development along these lines. The results of the allegorical method of interpretation, however, were seen in Christian Church history. We read of a ‘synagogue of the Alexandrians’ in Jerusalem, furiously hostile to St. Stephen with his plain declaration of facts (Ac 6:9). Apollos of Alexandria (Ac 18:24–28) needed to be ‘more accurately instructed’ in Christian doctrine, though we have no direct evidence that he was a disciple of Philo. The Ep. to the Hebrews shows traces of Alexandrian influence, and there are evidences that St. Paul was not unfamiliar with Alexandrian hermeneutics and terminology (cf. Gal 4:24–31). But there is no proof that St. Paul ever visited Alexandria. He seems to have refrained from going thither because the gospel had already reached the city (cf. Ro 15:20). Eusebius credits St. Mark with the introduction of Christianity into Egypt. In the 2nd and 3rd cents. Alexandria was the intellectual capital of Christendom. The

Alexandrian school of theology was made lustrous by the names of Pantænus, Clement, and especially Origen, who, while continuing the allegorical tradition, strove to show that Christian doctrine enshrined and realized the dreams and yearnings of Greek philosophy. The evil tendencies of the method found expression in the teachings of the Alexandrian heretics, Basilides and Valentinian. Alexandria became more and more the stronghold of the Christian faith. Here Athanasius defended contra mundum the true Divinity of Christ in the Nicene controversy, and the city’s influence on Christian theology has been profound. In a.d. 641, Alexandria fell before Amrou; in the 7th cent. it began to decline. The creation of Cairo was another blow, and the discovery in 1497 of the new route to the East via the Cape of Good Hope almost destroyed its trade. At the beginning of the 19th cent. Alexandria was a mere village. To-day it is again a large and flourishing city, with a rapidly increasing population of over 200,000, and its port is one of the busiest on the Mediterranean shore.

G. A. Frank Knight.

ALGUM.—See Almug.

ALIAH.—A ‘duke’ of Edom (1 Ch 1:51); called in Gn 36:40 Alvah.

ALIAN.—A descendant of Esau (1 Ch 1:40); called in Gn 36:23 Alvan.

ALIEN.—See Nations, Stranger.

ALLAMMELECH.—A town of Asher, probably near Acco (Jos 19:26). Site unidentified.

ALLAR (1 Es 5:36).—One of the leaders of those Jews who could not show their pedigree as Israelites at the return from captivity under Zerubbabel. The name seems to correspond to Immer in Ezr 2:59, Neh 7:61, one of the places from which these Jews returned. In 1 Es ‘Cherub, Addan, and Immer’ appear as ‘Charaathalan leading them and Allar.’ ALLEGORY.—See Parable.

ALLELUIA.—See Hallelujah.

ALLEMETH, AV Alemeth, l Ch 6:60; Almon, Jos 21:18.—A Levitical city of Benjamin. It is the present ’Almīt on the hills N. of Anathoth.

ALLIANCE.—In the patriarchal age alliances between the Chosen People and foreign nations were frequent. Many of the agreements between individuals recorded in Genesis implied, or really were, treaties between the tribes or clans represented (Gn 21:22ff., 31:44ff.). ‘During the period of the Judges confederations between the more or less isolated units of which the nation was composed were often made under the pressure of a common danger (Jg 4:10, 6:35). When Israel became consolidated under the monarchy, alliances with foreigners were of a more formal character, e.g. Solomon’s treaty with Hiram (1 K 5, 9). His marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter probably had a political significance (3:1, 9:16). The policy of alliance between Israel and Phœnicia was continued by Omri and Ahab (16:31); Am 1:9 speaks of it as a ‘covenant of brethren’; it rested, no doubt, on reciprocal commercial interests (cf. Ac 12:20). Asa and Baasha contended for alliance with Benhadad (1 K 15:19), and Judah and Israel themselves are allied during the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Ahab. Such a friendship is denounced in 2 Ch 25, Pekah and Rezin are united against Judah (2 K 16:5, Is 7). With the appearance of Assyria, relations with foreign nations become important and complicated. The temptation is to stave off the danger from the east by alliance with Damascus or Egypt. Sennacherib assumes that this will be the policy of Hezekiah (2 K 18:21 ,

24). The prophets from the first set their faces against it (Dt 17:16, Hos 8:9, Is 20 , 30, Jer 2:18, 36). It is ‘the hiring of lovers’ in place of J″, leading to sin and idolatry (2 K 16), and is politically unsound, resting ‘on a broken reed.’ The parties being so unequal, the ally easily becomes the tributary (16:7). After the Return, Ezra and Nehemiah oppose any alliance with ‘the people of the land.’ In later times, for a short period only, did the nation gain sufficient independence to make an alliance; in this case it was with Rome (1 Mac 8:17, 15:16).

C. W. Emmet.

ALLON.—1. The head of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (1 Es 5:34). He may be the same as Ami (Ezr 2:57), or Amon (Neh 7:59). 2. A Simeonite prince (1 Ch 4:37).

ALLON BACUTH (‘oak of weeping’).—The place where Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried; it was near Bethel (Gn 35:8).

ALL TO BREAK.—This phrase (Jg 9:53) means altogether broke. The ‘all’ is used for altogether, as in 1 K 14:10 ‘till it be all gone’; and the ‘to’ is not the sign of the infin., but an adverb like Germ. zer, meaning thoroughly. Thus, ‘His brest to-broken with his sadil bowe’—Chaucer, Knight’s Tale, 2759. The correct spelling (as in the original ed. of AV) is ‘all to brake.’

ALLOW.—To ‘allow’ generally means in AV ‘to approve,’ as Ro 7:15 ‘that which I do I allow not.’ But in Ac 24:16 it has the mod. sense, admit.

ALLOY.—RVm (Is 1:25) for EV ‘tin.’ See Mining and Metals.

ALMIGHTY is the regular rendering of Shaddai, which occurs altogether 45 times in the OT; 6 times qualifying El (God) and 39 times [31 of these in Job] standing by itself. In the Hexateuch its use is almost confined to P, according to which source it is the name by which God revealed Himself to the patriarchs ( Ex 6:3, cf. Gn 17:1, 35:11). The meaning and derivation are alike obscure. The LXX usually render by Pantokratōr (‘Almighty’); 6 times by a fanciful derivation they paraphrase by ‘He that is sufficient.’ But in Gn. El Shaddai is always represented in the LXX by a pronoun, ‘my (or thy) God’; in Ezk 10:6 it is merely transliterated. Other suggested renderings are ‘the Destroyer,’ i.e. ‘the Storm-God,’ ‘the Pourer,’ i.e. ‘the Rain-God,’ ‘the Mountain’ (cf. ‘Rock’ as a title of God in Dt 32:4, 18, 30, 31), or ‘Lord.’ The last two have the most probability on their side, and it is hard to choose between them; but the fact that in Babylonian ‘the Great Mountain’ (shadu rabu) is a common title of Bel seems to turn the scale in favour of the former of the two meanings proposed: some slight confirmation is perhaps afforded by 1 K 20:23. In composition the word occurs in two personal names: Zurishaddai (Nu 1:6) and Ammishaddai (Nu 1:12); perhaps also in Shedeur ( Nu 1:5). The first (‘Shaddai is my Rock’) is specially interesting if the meaning given above is correct.

In the NT, with the exception of 2 Co 6:18 (a quotation from 2 S 7:14), the name is confined to the Apocalypse. That it renders Shaddai rather than Sabaoth seems proved (in spite of 4:8 from Is 6:3) by the fact that it always either stands alone or qualifies ‘God,’ never ‘Lord.’ The writer is fond of piling up the titles or attributes of God, and among them his favourite is that ancient title which carries him back to the patriarchal age, the title El Shaddai.

H. C. O. Lanchester.

AL-MODAD was, according to Gn 10:26 (1 Ch 1:20), the oldest son of Joktan (wh. see). Joktan is the eponym of the tribes and peoples of eastern and southern Arabia. From the position of Al-modad in the list of ‘sons,’ it would appear that he is to be located in the south of the peninsula. As yet the name can neither be explained nor identified with any known region.

J. F. McCurdy.

ALMON.—See Allemeth.

ALMON-DIBLATHAIM.—A station in the journeyings (Nu 33:46, 47), prob. identical with Beth-diblathaim (Jer 48:22). The meaning of Diblathaim is a double cake of figs; its application to a town may indicate the appearance of the place or neighbourhood.

ALMOND (shāqēd).—The fruit in Gn 43:11, Ex 25:33, 34, 37:19–20, Nu 17:8 ; the tree in Ec 12:5, Jer 1:11. Luz (Gn 30:37), mistranslated ‘hazel,’ is certainly the almond; it is the name of the almond in modern Arabic. The almond (Amygdalus communis) is in Palestine the earliest harbinger of spring, bursting into beautiful white blossom late in January in Jerusalem, before its leaves appear. Hence its name and symbolism: shāqēd means to waken or watch, and in Jer 1:11, 12 there is a play on the word ‘almond’ (shāqēd), and ‘I will hasten’ (shōqēd). Probably the whiteness of the blossom from a little distance—the delicate pink at the bases of the petals being visible only on closer inspection—suggested its comparison to the white hair of age (Ec 12:5). The fruit is a great favourite. It is eaten green before the shell hardens, especially by children, and the ripe kernels are eaten by themselves or with nuts and puddings, and are also made into sweetmeats with sugar, both as ‘almond icing’ and ‘burnt almonds.’ A present of Palestine almonds would be sure to be appreciated in Egypt (Gn 43:11), as they did not grow in the latter country.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ALMS, ALMSGIVING.—‘An alms’ (Ac 3:3) is something freely given, in money or in kind, to the needy, from motives of love and pity for the recipient, and of gratitude to the Giver of all. Hence what is given or paid to the poor under the authority and compulsion of law, as the modern poor rate, is not alms. For such legal provision in OT times see Poor. Much might be of the humane spirit which pervades the whole of the Hebrew legislation, and in particular the legislation of Dt, of which, in this respect, 15:1 may be taken as the epitome: ‘Thou shalt surely open thine hand unto thy brother, to thy needy and to thy poor’ (RV). The writings of the prophets, also, are full of generous advocacy of the rights of the poor. In the later pre-Christian centuries almsgiving became one of the most prominent of religious duties (Ps 112:9, Pr 14:21, 19:17, 31:20, Job 29:12f.). The sentiment of the 2nd cent. b.c.—by which time it is significant that the Hebrew word for ‘righteousness’ had acquired the special sense of almsgiving as in the true text of Mt 6:1 (see RV)—is fully reflected in the Books of Sirach (7:10, 17:22, 29:11 ff. ) and Tobit (see esp. 4:7–11). From this time onwards, indeed, almsgiving was considered to possess an atoning or redemptive efficacy (Sir 3:30 ‘alms [ RV ‘almsgiving’] maketh an atonement for sins,’ To 4:10, 12:9 ‘alms delivereth from death,’ cf. Dn 4:27). After the cessation of sacrifice, almsgiving appears to have ranked among the Jews as the first of religious duties, more meritorious even than prayer and fasting. Arrangements were made by the Jewish authorities for the systematic collection and distribution of the alms of the people. An offertory for the poor also formed a recognized part of the synagogue service.

Almsgiving occupies a prominent place in the teaching of our Lord, who rebukes the ostentatious charity of His day (Mt 6:1–4), emphasizes the blessedness of giving (Ac 20:35), its opportunities (Mt 25:35ff.), and its highest motive, ‘in my name’ (Mk 9:41). In the early Christian community of Jerusalem the needs of the poor were effectively supplied, for its members ‘had all things common, neither was there among them any that lacked’ (Ac 4:32, 34). The need for careful distribution of the Church’s alms led to the institution of the diaconate (Ac 6:1 ff. ). The provision of a poor’s fund for the behoof of the mother Church was much in the thoughts of the Apostle of the Gentiles (1 Co 16:1ff., 2 Co 9:1ff.), and until a period within living memory the care of God’s poor continued to be the almost exclusive privilege of the Christian Church.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ALMUG, or ALGUM (1 K 10:11, 12, 2 Ch 2:8, 9:10, 11; the two names are probably variants of the same word, caused by transposition of letters, as is common in Heb. and Arabic).—This tree was imported by Solomon from Ophir (1 K 10:11, 12) and from Lebanon (2 Ch 2:8) for staircases, balustrades, and musical instruments. There is nothing certain known of the nature of this wood, but as Jewish tradition states that it was a red wood, red sandal wood (Pterocarpus santalinus)—now used chiefly for its colouring properties—has been very generally accepted.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ALOES (’ahālim, Pr 7:17, Nu 24:6 [‘lign aloes’]; ’ahāloth, Ps 45:8, Ca 4:14 ; also alǒē, Jn 19:39).—This is the modern eagle-wood (a name derived from the Skr. aguru); it has nothing to do with the familiar bitter aloes of medicine, or with the American aloe, now much cultivated in gardens in Palestine, but a recent importation. This eagle-wood is obtained from plants of the order Aquilariaceæ, but the fragrant parts are those which are diseased; the odoriferous qualities are due to the infiltration with resin, and the best kinds sink when placed in water. The development of this change in the wood is hastened by burying it in the ground. A trade in this wood has gone on from early times; it comes from India, the Malay Peninsula, etc., and has long been a favourite with the Arabs, who call it el ‘ud.

The use of the word (translated ‘lign aloes,’ Nu 24:6) by Balaam creates a difficulty. Either he must have referred to the tree from mere hearsay, or some other plant of the same name may at that time have grown in the Jordan valley, or, as seems most probable, the Heb. word has been wrongly transcribed. Both ‘palms’ and ‘terebinths’ have been suggested as suitable alternatives.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ALPHA AND OMEGA.—A title of God in Rev 1:8, 21:6, of Jesus in 22:13 [its presence in 1:11 AV is not Justified by the MSS]. Alpha was the first, and Omega the last letter of the Greek, as Aleph and Taw were the first and the last of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Talmud, ‘From Aleph to Taw’ meant ‘From first to last,’ including all between. Cf. Shabb. 51. 1 (on Ezk 9:6): ‘Do not read “My Sanctuary,” but “My saints,” who are the sons of men who have kept the whole

Law from Aleph to Taw.’

This explains the title. In each instance St. John defines It. Rev 1:8 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty’ (AV ‘the beginning and the ending’ is an interpolation from 21:6, 22:13), i.e. the Eternal, the Contemporary of every generation. Rev 21:6 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end’; 22:13 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last (cf. Is 44:6, 48:12), the beginning and the end,’ i.e. He who comprehends and embraces all things, from whom all come and to whom all return, the fons et clausula, the starting-point and the goal of history (cf. Col 1:17). The ascription of this title to Jesus as well as to God in a writing so early as the Apocalypse strikingly attests the view of our Lord’s Person which prevailed in the primitive Church.

Aurelius Prudentius makes fine use of the title in his hymn on The Lord’s Nativity (‘Corde natus ex parentis’), thus rendered by Neale:

‘Of the Father’s love begotten

Ere the worlds began to be,

He is Alpha and Omega,

He the source, the ending He,

Of the things that are, that have been,

And that future years shall see,

Evermore and evermore.’

David Smith.

ALPHABET.—See Writing.

ALPHÆUS.—1. The father of James the Apostle (Mt 10:3 = Mk 3:18 = Lk 6:15 = Ac 1:13), commonly identified with James the Little, son of Mary and brother of Joses or Joseph (Mk 15:40 = Mt 27:56). The identification is confirmed by Jn 19:25, if it be allowed that Clopas is the same name as Alphæus. And this is most likely. Both names probably represent the Aramaic Chalphai (cf. 1 Mac 11:70). St. John’s ‘Clopas’ is almost a transliteration, while ‘Alphæus’ is the name in a Greek dress, the disguise being more apparent if it be written, with WH,

‘Halphæus.’

2. The father of Levi the tax-gatherer (Mk 2:14), afterwards Matthew the

Apostle and Evangelist (Mt 9:9, 10:3). It is remarkable that in Mk 2:14 Codex

Bezæ and some cursives read James for Levi, and there is a tradition (Chrysost. in Matth. xxxiii.) that the Apostles Matthew and James had both been tax-gatherers. It is perhaps possible that Alphæus the father of James was identical with Alphæus the father of Levi, and that the two tax-gatherer Apostles were brothers. Nothing is recorded of Alphæus; yet, if these identifications be allowed, great was his glory. He was evidently himself a believer; his son Joses, though undistinguished, was evidently a believer also; his son James was an Apostle; his son Matthew was an Apostle and an Evangelist; and his wife Mary was one of the faithful women who stood by the Cross and visited the Sepulchre (Mk 16:1).

David Smith.

ALTAR.—1. The original purpose of an altar was to serve as a means by which the blood of an animal offered in sacrifice might be brought into contact with, or otherwise transferred to, the deity of the worshipper. For this purpose in the earliest period a single stone sufficed. Either the blood was poured over this stone, which was regarded as the temporary abode of the deity, or the stone was anointed with part, and the rest poured out at its base. The introduction of fire to consume the flesh in whole or in part belongs to a later stage in the history of sacrifice (wh. see). But even when this stage had long been reached, necessity might compel a temporary reversion to the earlier modus operandi, as we learn from Saul’s procedure in 1 S 14:33f. From the altar of a single ‘great stone’ (1 S 6:14) the transition was easy to an altar built of unhewn stones (Ex 20:25, Dt 27:5 f. RV), which continued to he the normal type of Hebrew altar to the end (see 1 Mac 4:41; Jos. BJ V. v. 6).

2. Another type of pre-historic altar, to which much less attention has been paid, had its origin in the primitive conception of sacrifice as the food of the gods. As such it was appropriately presented on a table. Now the nearest analogy to the disc of leather spread on the ground, which was and is the table of the Semitic nomad, was the smooth face of the native rock, such as that on which Manoah spread his offering (Jg 13:19f., cf. 6:20f.). The well-known rock-surfaces, in Palestine and elsewhere, with their mysterious cup-marks—typical specimens are illustrated PEFSt, 1900, 32 ff., 249—to receive the sacrificial blood, can scarcely be other than pre-historic table-altars. The similarly marked table-stones of Syrian dolmens also belong here. A further stage in the evolution of the table altar is seen in the elaborate structures recently discovered within the West-Semitic area. In these the rock is cut away so as to leave the altar standing free, to which rock-cut steps lead up, an arrangement forbidden, from motives of decency, by the earliest legislation (Ex 20:26, with which cf. 28:42f. and parall. from a later date). The uppermost step served as a platform for the officiating priest. Some show cuphollows for libations of blood (see illust. in Moore’s ‘Judges’ in SBOT p. 83) , while that first discovered at Petra has a depression for the altar-hearth (PEFSt, 1900, 350 ff. with sketch; see also Ariel). Its dimensions are 9 ft. by 6, with a height above the platform of 3 ft. The altars of the more important sanctuaries under the Hebrew monarchy, such as Bethel, were probably of a similar nature. A description of ‘the altar of burnt-offering’ of the Tabernacle will be given under Tabernacle; for the corresponding altars of the Temple of Solomon and its successors, and of Ezekiel’s sketch, see Temple.

3. A third variety of primitive altar is the mound of earth (Ex 20:24), a copy in miniature of the hill-tops which were at all times favourite places of worship ( see High Place).

4. All the types of altar above described were intended for the ordinary open-air sacrificial service, details of which will be found under Sacrifice. There is no clear reference earlier than Jeremiah to the use of incense, and no reference at all to any altar of incense in the legitimate worship before the Exile, for 1 K 7:48 in its present form is admittedly late, and the altar of 1 K 6:20 must be the table of shewbread (see Temple, Shewbread).

5. From what has already been said, it is evident that an altar was the indispensable requisite of every place of worship. It was not until the 7th cent. b.c. that Josiah succeeded in abolishing ‘the high places’ and destroying or desecrating their altars (2 K 23:5ff.), in accordance with the fundamental demand of the Deuteronomic law-code (Dt 12:1ff.). In the older historical and prophetical writings, however, and even in the earliest legislation (see Ex 20:24 RV), the legitimacy of the local altars is never called in question. On the contrary, religious leaders such as Samuel and Elijah show their zeal for the worship of J″ by the erection and repair of altars.

6. As altars to which a special interest attaches may be mentioned that erected by David on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 S 24:18ff.), the site of which is marked by the present mosque of ‘the Dome of the Rock’; the altar erected by Ahaz after the model of one seen by him at Damascus (2 K 16:10ff.); the sacrificial and incense altars to the host of heaven in the courts and probably even on the roof of the Temple (2 K 23:12, Jer 19:13); and finally, the altar to Olympian Zeus placed by Antiochus Epiphanes on the top of the altar of burnt-offering (1 Mac 1:54).

7. Reference must also be made to altars as places of refuge for certain classes of criminals, attested both by legislation (Ex 21:13f.) and history (1 K 1:51, 2:28 ; see more fully, Refuge [Cities of]). The origin and precise significance of the horns of the altar, of which the refugee laid hold (1 K ll. cc.), and which played an important part in the ritual (Ex 29:12, Lv 4:7ff.), have not yet received a satisfactory explanation. A small limestone altar, showing the horns in the form of rounded knobs at the four corners, has just been discovered at Gezer (PEFSt, 1907 , p. 196, with illust.).

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AL-TASHHETH.—Pss 57, 58, 59, 65, (titles). See Psalms.

ALUSH.—A station in the journeyings (Nu 33:13, 14).

ALVAN.—Son of Shobal, a Horite (Gn 36:23); called in 1 Ch 1:40 Alian, in Gn 36:40 Alvah, 1 Ch 1:51 Aliah, one of the ‘dukes’ of Edom.

AMAD (Jos 19:26 only).—A city of Asher. The site is douhtful; there are several ruins called ‘Amud in this region.

AMADATHUS (Est 12:6, 16:10, 17).—See Hammedatha.

AMAL.—A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7:35).

AMALEK, AMALEKITES.—A tribe which roamed, from the days of the

Exodus till the time of king Saul, over the region from the southern boundary of Judah to the Egyptian frontier and the peninsula of Sinai. They are not counted among the kindred of the Israelites, and probably were among the inhabitants of the region whom the Hebrew and Aramæan immigrants found already in the land. With this agrees the statement of a poem quoted in Nu 24:20 ‘Amalek was the first of the nations.’

Israel first met with the Amalekites in the region near Sinai, when Amalek naturally tried to prevent the entrance of a new tribe into the region (cf. Ex 17:8– 16). The battle which ensued produced such a profound impression, that one of the few things which the Pentateuch claims that Moses wrote is the ban of Jahweh upon Amalek (Ex 17:14). It appears from Dt 25:17–19 that Amalek made other attacks upon Israel, harassing her rear. On the southern border of Palestine the Amalekites also helped at a later time to prevent Israel’s entrance from Kadesh ( Nu 13:29, 14:25).

During the period of the Judges, Amalekites aided the Moabites in raiding

Israel (Jg 3:13), and at a later time they helped the Midianites to do the same thing (6:3, 33, 7:12). This kept alive the old enmity. King Saul attempted to shatter their force, and captured their king, whom Samuel afterwards slew (1 S 15). Although Saul is said to have taken much spoil, the Amalekites were still there for David to raid during that part of Saul’s reign when David was an outlaw (1 S 27:8). The boundaries of the habitat of the Amalekites at this time are said to have been from Telem, one of the southern cities of Judah (Jos 15:24), to Shur on the way to Egypt (1 S 15:4). Most modern critics also read Telem for Havilah in 1 S 15:7, and for ‘of old’ in 1 S 27:8.

It was formerly supposed, on the basis of Jg 5:14 and 12:15, that there was at one time a settlement of Amalekites farther north, in the hill country of Ephraim. That is, however, improbable, for in both passages the text seems to be corrupt. In 5:14 ‘Amalek’ is corrupted from the Hebrew for ‘valley,’ and in 12:15 from the proper name ‘Shalim.’ Individual Amalekites, nevertheless, sojourned in Israel (2 S 1:8, 13).

In 1 Ch 4:42ff. there is a remarkable statement that a remnant of the Amalekites had escaped and dwelt in Edom, and that 500 Simeonites attacked and smote them. Perhaps this accounts for the priestly genealogies which make Amalek a descendant of Esau and a subordinate Edomite. tribe (cf. Gn 36:12, 16 and 1 Ch 1:36). Perhaps here we learn how the powerful Amalek of the earlier time faded away. Ps 83:7—a late composition—refers to the Amalekites as still aiding Israel’s enemies; but this is probably a poetical imitation of ancient conditions.

On their close kindred, the Kenites, see Kenites.

George A. Barton.

AMAM (Jos 15:26 only).—An unknown city of Judah, in the desert south of Beersheba.

AMAN.—1. The persecutor of Achiacharus (To 14:10). 2. Est 12:6, 16:10, 17. See Haman.

AMANA (Ca 4:8).—Probably the mountains near the river Abana or Amana, being connected with Hermon and Lebanon; or else Mount Amanus in the north of

Syria.

AMARIAH (‘J″ said’ or ‘promised’).—1. Zeph 1:1, great-grandfather of the prophet Zephaniah, and son of a Hezekiah who may be the king. This is the only instance of the name that is certainly pre-exilic. 2. 1 Ch 6:7, 52, grandfather of Zadok the priest. 3. 1 Ch 23:19, 24:23, a Levite in David’s time. 4. 1 Ch 6:11, Ezr 7:3 (Amarias, 1 Es 8:2, 2 Es 1:2), son of Azariah, who is said to have ministered in Solomon’s temple. The lists in which 2 and 4 occur are very uncertain, and the name may refer to the same person in both. 5. 2 Ch 19:11, a high priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat. 6. 2 Ch 31:16, a Levite, a gate-porter, in Hezekiah’s time. 7. Neh 12:2, 18, 10:3, a priestly clan which returned to Jerusalem, and sealed the covenant under Nehemiah (probably the same as Immer, 1 Ch 24:14, Ezr 2:37, 10:20, Neh 7:40 [Meruth, 1 Es 5:24]). 8. Ezr 10:42, a Judahite, one of the sons of Bani (v. 34 , cf. 1 Ch 9:4) who had taken strange wives. 9. Neh 11:4, a Judahite who offered to dwell in Jerusalem. 10. Neh 12:12, where Meraiah is probably a corruption of Amariah (which is found in Syr. and Luc.).

A. H. M‘Neile.

AMARIAS (1 Es 8:2).—An ancestor of Ezra, called Amariah in Ezr 7:3.

AMASA.—1. The son of Ithra an Ishmaelite, and of Abigail the sister of king David. He commanded the army of the rebel Absalom (2 S 17:25); but was completely routed by Joab in the forest of Ephraim (18:6–8). David not only pardoned him, but gave him the command of the army in place of Joab (19:13). He was treacherously slain by Joab at ‘the great stone of Gibeon’ (2 S 20:9–12). 2. An Ephraimite who opposed the bringing into Samaria of the Jewish prisoners, whom Pekah, king of Israel, had taken in his campaign against Ahaz (2 Ch 28:12).

AMASAI.—1. A Kohathite (1 Ch 6:25, 35); the eponym of a family (2 Ch 29:12). 2. One of the priests who blew trumpets on the occasion of David’s bringing the ark to Jerus. (1 Ch 15:24). 3. One of David’s officers at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:18), possibly to be identified with Amasa, No. 1.

AMASHSAI (Neh 11:13).—A priest of the family of Immer.

AMASIAH.—One of Jehoshaphat’s commanders (2 Ch 17:16).

AMAZIAH.—1. Son of Jehoash of Judah. He came to the throne after the assassination of his father. It is recorded in his favour (2 K 4:6) that although he put the murderers of his father to death he spared their children—something unheard of up to that time, we infer. Our sources know of a successful campaign of his against Edom, and an unsuccessful one against Israel. In this he seems to have been the aggressor; and after refusing to hear the advice of Jehoash, whom he had challenged to a trial of strength, he had the mortification of seeing his own capital plundered. The conspiracy by which he perished may have been prompted by his conduct in this war. In the matter of religion he receives qualified praise from the author of Kings (2 K 14:3f.), while the Chronicler accuses him of gross apostasy (2 Ch 25:14ff.). 2. The priest at Bethel who opposed the prophet Amos (Am 7:10 ff. ).

3. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:34). 4. A Merarite (1 Ch 6:45).

H. P. Smith.

AMBASSADOR, AMBASSAGE.—As diplomatic agents of sovereigns or other persons in high authority, ambassadors are frequently mentioned in OT and Apocrypha from the days of Moses (see below) to those of the Maccabees (1 Mac

9:70, 11:9, 14:21, 15:17). Insult to their persons was a sufficient casus belli (2 S

10:4ff.). In several passages (e.g. Nu 20:14, 21:21, Dt 2:26, Jg 11:12, 19, 2 S 5:11 , 2 K 19:9) the ‘messengers’ of EV are practically ‘ambassadors,’ as the Heb. word is elsewhere rendered (2 Ch 35:21, Is 30:4, Ezk 17:15). Jos 9:4, however, should be read as in RVm. The ambassador of Jer 49:14 (= Ob 1) is probably an angel. In NT the word is used only metaphorically (2 Co 5:20, Eph 6:20).

‘Ambassage,’ the mission of an ambassador (2 Mac 4:11 RV), is used also as a collective for ambassadors themselves (Lk 14:32, 19:14 RV). In 1 Mac 14:23 read with RV ‘the copy of their words.’

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AMBER (chashmal, Ezk 1:4, 27, 8:2).—The translation ‘amber’ is much questioned, a metallic substance being generally considered more probable. Prof. Ridgeway (Encyc. Bibl., s.v.) has, however, shown that amber may well have been known to Ezekiel. The amber commonly seen is the opaque yellow variety from the Baltic, a resinous substance changed by long submersion in the sea. It is a favourite ornament, in necklaces and bracelets, in the Orient, especially among Jewesses, and is credited with medicinal virtues.

E. W. G. Masterman.

AMBUSH.—See War.

AMEN.—A Hebrew form of affirmation usually translated in the LXX by an equivalent Greek expression (Nu 5:22, Dt 27:15 ‘so be it,’ Jer 28:6 (36:6) ‘truly’), but sometimes transliterated (1 Ch 16:36) as in English. It is an indication of solemn assent, chiefly in prayer, to the words of another, on the part either of an individual (Nu 5:22) or of an assembly (Dt 27:15); sometimes reduplicated ( Ps 41:13), sometimes accompanied by a rubrical direction (Ps 106:48). From the synagogue it passed into the liturgical use of Christian congregations, and is so referred to in 1 Co 14:16—‘the (customary) Amen at thy giving of thanks’ ( ? Eucharist). The use peculiar to the NT is that ascribed to our Lord in the Gospels, where the word—‘verily’ followed by ‘I say’—introduces statements which He desires to invest with special authority (Mt 5:18, Mk 3:28, Lk 4:24 etc.) as worthy of unquestioning trust. The Fourth Gospel reduplicates—a form which, though Christ may Himself have varied the phrase in this manner, is nevertheless stereotyped by this Evangelist (Jn 1:51 and 24 other places), and marks the peculiar solemnity of the utterances it introduces. The impression created by this idiom may have influenced the title of ‘the Amen’ given to the Lord in the Epistle to Laodicea (Rev 3:14). A strikingly similar phrase is used by St. Paul in 2 Co 1:20—‘through him (i.e. Jesus Christ as preached) is the Amen’—the seal of God’s promises. Its use in doxologies is frequent.

J. G. Simpson.

AMETHYST.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.

AMI.—The head of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2:57); called in Neh 7:59 Amon.

AMITTAI (‘true’).—Father of the prophet Jonah (2 K 14:25, Jon 1:1).

AMMAH (2 S 2:24 only).—A hill near Giah, in the wilderness of Gibeon. Site unknown.

AMMI (‘my people’).—The name to be applied to Israel in the time of restoration. It is to take the place of Lo-ammi (= ‘not my people’), the name given in the first instance by Hosea to Gomer’s third child, but in the prophetic fragment, Hos 1:9–11 [in Heb 2:1–3], referred to the people of Israel.

AMMIDIOI.—One of the families that returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5:20) ; omitted in the parallel lists (Ezr 2 = Neh 7).

AMMIEL (‘kinsman is God’).—1. Son of Gemalli, and spy of the tribe of Dan (Nu 13:12 (P)). 2. Father of Machir (2 S 9:4f., 17:27). 3. The sixth son of Obededom, who with his family constituted one of the courses of doorkeepers in the time of David; to them was allotted charge of the S. gate (of the Temple) and the storehouse (1 Ch 26, esp. vv. 5, 15). 4. See Eliam, 1.

AMMIHUD (‘kinsman is majesty’).—1. An Ephraimite, father of Elishama

(Nu 1:10, 2:18, 7:48, 53, 10:22 (P)). 2. A Simeonite, father of Shemuel (Nu 34:20

(P)). 3. A Naphtalite, father of Pedahel (Nu 34:28 (P)). 4. According to the Qerē of 2 S 13:37 and the AV, the name of the father of the Geshurite king Talmai (Kethibh and RV Ammihur). 5. Son of Omri, father of Uthai (1 Ch 9:4).

AMMIHUR.—See Ammihud, No. 4.

AMMINADAB.—1. Son of Ram and father of Nahshon (Ru 4:19f. = l Ch

2:10, Mt 1:4, Nu 1:7, 2:3, 7:12, 10:14); father-in-law of Aaron (Ex 6:23). 2. Son of

Kohath and father of Koran (1 Ch 6:22). 3. A chief of a Levitical house (1 Ch

15:10f.).

AMMINADIB occurs in AV and RVm of a very obscure passage, Ca 6:12 , ‘my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.’ RV and AVm do not regard the term as a proper name, but render’ my soul set me on (RV ‘among’) the chariots of my willing (RV ‘princely’) people.’

AMMISHADDAI.—A Danite, father of Ahiezer (Nu 1:12, 2:25, 7:56, 71 , 10:25 (P)).

AMMIZABAD.—Son of Benaiah (1 Ch 27:6).

AMMON, AMMONITES.—A people inhabiting the territory between the tribe of Gad and the Arabian desert, from the Israelitish conquest of Palestine to the 4th cent. b.c., and perhaps till the 1st cent. a.d.

In Gn 19:38 the Ammonites are said to have descended from a certain BenAmmi, but in the Assyrian inscriptions Shalmaneser II., Tiglath-pileser III., and

Sennacherib call them Beth-Ammon, placing the determinative for ‘man’ before Ammon. Except in Ps 83:7, which is late, the people are never called ‘Ammon’ in the Hebrew OT, but the ‘children of Ammon,’ or ‘Ammonites.’

The really important feature of the story of Gn 19 is that it reveals a consciousness that the Israelites regarded the Ammonites as their kindred. The proper names of individual Ammonites, so far as they are known to us, confirm this view. Probably, therefore, the Ammonites formed a part of that wave of Aramæan migration which brought the Hebrews into Palestine. Perhaps, like the Hebrews, they adopted the language of the people in whose land they settled, thus later speaking a Canaanite dialect. The genealogy which traces their descent from Lot probably signifies that they settled in the land of Lot, or Lotan, called by the Egyptians Ruten, which lay to the east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan.

In Dt 2:20 the Ammonites are said to have displaced the Zamzummim, a semimythical people, of whom we know nothing. Jg 11:12–29 represents Ammon as having conquered all the land between the Jabbok and the Arnon, and a king of Ammon is said to have reproved Israel for taking it from them. The statement is late, and of doubtful authority. Israel found the Amorites in this territory at the time of the conquest, and we have no good reason to suppose that the Ammonites ever possessed it. Their habitat was in the north-eastern portion of this region, around the sources of the Jabbok. Rabbah (modern ‘Amman) was its capital and centre.

At the time of the conquest the Gadite Israelites did not disturb the Ammonites (Nu 21:24, Dt 2:37), or attempt to conquer their territory. During the period of the Judges the Ammonites assisted Eglon of Moab in his invasion of Israel (Jg 3:13) , and attempted to conquer Gilead, but were driven back by Jephthah the judge (11:4–9, 30–36, 12:1–3). Later, Nahash, their king, oppressed the town of Jabesh in Gilead, and it was the victory which delivered this city from the Ammonites that made Saul Israel’s king (1 S 11). Saul and Nahash thus became enemies. Consequently, later, Nahash befriended David, apparently to weaken the growing power of Israel. When David succeeded Saul in power, Hanun, the son of Nahash, provoked him to war, with the result that Rabbah, the Ammonite capital, was stormed and taken, the Ammonites were reduced to vassalage, and terrible vengeance was wreaked upon them (2 S 10–12). Afterwards, during Absalom’s rebellion, a son of Nahash rendered David assistance at Mahanaim (2 S 17:27). Zelek, an Ammonite, was among David’s heroes (2 S 23:37). These friendly relations continued through the reign of Solomon, who took as one of his wives the Ammonite princess Naamah, who became the mother of Rehoboam, the next king (1 K 11:1, 14:21, 31). After the reign of Solomon the Ammonites appear to have gained their independence.

In the reign of Ahab, Ba’sa, son of Rehob, the Ammonite, was a member of the confederacy which opposed the progress of Shalmaneser into the West (cf. KAT³42). According to 2 Ch 20:1, the Ammonites joined with Moab and Edom in invading Judah in the reign of Jehoshaphat. Before the reign of Jeroboam II. the Ammonites had made another attempt to get possession of Gilead, and their barbarities in warfare excited the indignation of the prophet Amos (Am 1:13–15) , Chronicles represents them as beaten a little later by Jotham of Judah, and as paying tribute to Uzziah (2 Ch 26:8, 27:5). When next we hear of the Ammonites, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is employing them to harass the refractory Judæan king Jehoiakim (2 K 24:2). Perhaps it was at this period that the Ammonites occupied the territory of Gad (Jer 49:1ff.). Later, the domination of the Babylonian compelled Ammon and Israel to become friends, for Ammon conspired with King Zedekiah against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:3), and during the sieges of Jerusalem many Judæans had migrated to Ammon (Jer 40:11). The Babylonian king regarded both Ammon and Judah as rebels, for Ezekiel represents him as casting lots to see whether he should first attack Rabbah or Jerusalem (Ezk 21:20ff., cf. Zeph 2:8, 9).

Perhaps there was a settlement of Ammonites in Israelitish territory, for Dt 23:3ff. recognizes the danger of mixture with Ammonites, while Jos 18:24 seems to indicate that there was in post-exilic times a village in Benjamin called ‘the village of the Ammonites.’

After the destruction of Jerusalem, Baalis, king of Ammon, sent a man to assassinate Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had made governor of Judah ( Jer 40:14). Again, 140 years later, the Ammonites did everything in their power to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 2:10, 19, 4:3 , 7). Nehemiah and Ezra fomented this enmity by making illegal the marriages of

Ammonitish women with Israelitish peasantry who had remained in Judah ( Neh 13:23).

Between the time of Nehemiah and Alexander the Great the country east of the Jordan was overrun by the Nabatæans. Perhaps the Ammonites lost their identity at this time: for, though their name appears later, many scholars think it is used of these Arabs. Thus in 1 Mac 5:6ff. Judas Maccabæus is said to have defeated the Ammonites; Ps 83:7 reckons them among Israel’s enemies; while Justin Martyr (Dial. Tryph. 19) says the Ammonites were numerous in his day. As Josephus (Ant. I. xi. 5) uses the same language of the Moabites and Ammonites, though elsewhere (XIV. i. 4) he seems to call them Arabians, it is possible that the Ammonites had lost their identity at the time of the Nabatæan invasion. Their capital, Rabbah, was rebuilt in the Greek style by Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt in the 3rd cent. b.c. and named Philadelphia. Its ruins amid the modern town of ‘Amman are impressive. The god of the Ammonites is called in the OT Milcom, a variation of Melek, ‘king.’ When the Jews, just before the Exile, to avert national disaster, performed child-sacrifice to Jawheh as Melek or ‘king,’ the prophets stamped this ritual as of foreign or Ammonite origin on account of the similarity of the name, though perhaps it was introduced from Phœnicia (cf. G. F. Judgesin Encyc. Bibl. iii. 3188 ff.). The Ammonites appear to have been a ruthless, semi-savage people. Such a rite may have been practised by them too; if so, it is all that we know of their civilization.

George A. Barton.

AMNON.—1. Eldest son of David by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess. He dishonoured his half-sister Tamar, and was, on that account, slain by her brother Absalom (2 S 3:2, 13:1f.). 2. Son of Shimon (1 Ch 4:20).

AMOK.—A priestly family in the time of Zerubbabel and of Joiakim ( Neh 12:7, 20).

AMOMUM.—Rev 18:13 RVm. See Spice.

AMON.—1. Son and successor of Manasseh king of Judah. He reigned two years or parts of years. Our Biblical books know only that he carried on the religious practices of his father. He was put to death by a palace conspiracy, but the assassins were punished by the populace, who placed Josiah on the throne (2 K 21:19ff.). It has been suggested that his name is that of the Egyptian sun-god (see next art.). 2. A governor of Samaria (1 K 22:26). 3. See Ami.

H. P. Smith.

AMON (Gr. Ammon, Egyp. Amūn).—An Egyptian divinity, who, primarily worshipped as the god of fertility, and later as Amen-ra-setn-nteru (‘Amon, the sun-god, the king of the gods’), was the local deity of Thebes. With the subjugation of the petty princes of lower Egypt by Aahmes I. of Thebes (c. b.c. 1700), he became the Egyptian national god. His supremacy, recognized for 1100 years by all Egyptian rulers with the exception of Amenophis IV. (c. b.c. 1450), came to an end with Esarhaddon’s invasion of Egypt (b.c. 670; cf. Jer 46:25f.) and the destruction of Thebes by Ashurbanipal (c. b.c. 662; cf. Nah 3:8). After these events he was relegated to the ranks of the local gods. See No, No-Amon.

N. Koenig.

AMORITES.—An ancient people whose presence can be traced in Palestine and Syria and also in Babylonia. From Dt 3:9 it appears that their language differed only dialectically from Canaanite, which was Hebrew. This view is confirmed by many proper names from the monuments. They were accordingly of the same race as the Canaanites. Contract tablets of the time of Hammurabi (b.c. 2250) show that Amorites were in Babylonia at that time (cf. Meissner, Altbab. Privatrecht, No. 42). At this period their country was designated by the ideogram MAR-TU. It has long been known that this ideogram stood for Palestine and Syria. At that time, then, the Amorites were already in the West.

Because of the identity of their proper names, it is believed that the Amorites were identical in race with that Semitic wave of immigration into Babylonia which produced the first dynasty of Babylon, the dynasty of Hammurabi (cf. Paton, Syria and Palestine, 25–29). Paton holds that an Amoritic wave of migration overran Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast about b.c. 2500, but Johns (Expos., April, 1906, p. 341) holds it probable, also on the basis of proper names, that the Amorites were in both Babylonia and the West before the time of Sargon, b.c. 3800.

About b.c. 1400 we learn from the el-Amarna tablets that the great valley between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges, which was afterwards called Cœle-Syria, was inhabited by Amorites, whose prince was Aziru (cf. KIB, v. Nos.

42, 44, and 50). At some time they seem to have overrun Palestine also, for in the E document they are regarded as the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of the mountainland of Palestine, whom the Hebrews conquered (cf. Nu 13:29, Jos 24:8, 18). This was also the view of the prophet Amos (2:9, 10), and, in part, of Ezekiel (16:8, 45). The J document, on the other hand, regards the Canaanites (wh. see) as the original Inhabitants of the country. As the J document originated in the southern kingdom and the E document in the northern, some have inferred that the Amorites were especially strong in Northern Palestine; but even the J document (Jg 1:34, 35) recognizes that the Amorites were strong in the Valley of Aijalon. In Jg 1:36 ‘Amorites’ is probably a corruption of ‘Edomites.’ (So G. F. Moore in SBOT.)

Both J (Nu 32:39) and E (Nu 21:13) represent the trans-Jordanic kingdom of king Sihon, the capital of which was at Heshbon, and which extended from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as Amoritic, and several later Biblical writers reflect this view. This kingdom was overcome by the Israelites when they invaded Canaan. After the Israelitish conquest the Amorites disappear from our view.

George A. Barton.

AMOS

1. The man.—Amos, the earliest of the prophets whose writings have come down to us, and the initiator of one of the greatest movements in spiritual history, was a herdsman, or small sheep-farmer, in Tekoa, a small town lying on the uplands some six miles south of Bethlehem. He combined two occupations. The sheep he reared produced a particularly fine kind of wool, the sale of which doubtless took him from one market to another. But he was also a ‘pincher of sycomores.’ The fruit of this tree was hastened in its ripening process by being bruised or pinched: and as the sycomore does not grow at so great a height as Tekoa, this subsidiary occupation would bring Amos into touch with other political and religious circles. The simple life of the uplands, the isolation from the dissipation of a wealthier civilization, the aloofness from all priestly or prophetic guilds, had doubtless much to do with the directness of his vision and speech, and with the spiritual independence which found in him so noble an utterance. While he was thus a native of the kingdom of Judah, his prophetic activity awoke in the kingdom of Israel. Of this awakening he gives a most vivid picture in the account of his interview with Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (7:10–17). He had gone to Bethel to some great religious feast, which was also a business market. The direct call from God to testify against the unrighteousness of both kingdoms had probably come to him not long before; and amidst the throng at Bethel he proclaimed his vision of Jehovah standing with a plumb-line to measure the deflection of Israel, and prepared to punish the iniquity of the house of Jeroboam II. The northern kingdom had no pleasant memories of another prophet who had declared the judgment of God upon sin (2 K 9:25ff.); and Amaziah, the priest, thinking that Amos was one of a prophetic and official guild, contemptuously bade him begone to Judah, where he could prophesy for hire, (7:12). The answer came flashing back. Amos disclaimed all connexion with the hireling prophets whose ‘word’ was dictated by the immediate political and personal interest. He was something better and more honest—no prophet, neither a prophet’s son, but a herdsman and a dresser of sycomores, called by God to prophesy to Israel. Herein lies much of his distinctiveness. The earlier prophetic impulse which had been embodied in the prophetic guilds had become professional and insincere. Amos brought prophecy back again into the line of direct inspiration.

2. The time in which he lived.—Am 1:1 may not be part of the original prophecy, but there is no reason to doubt its essential accuracy. Amos was prophesying in those years in which Uzziah and Jeroboam II. were reigning contemporaneously, b.c. 775–750. This date is of great importance, because few prophetic writings are so interpenetrated by the historical situation as those of Amos. For nearly 100 years prior to his time Israel had suffered severely from the attacks of Syria. She had lost the whole of her territory east of Jordan (2 K 10:32f.); she had been made like ‘dust in threshing’ (13:7). But now Syria had more than enough to do to defend herself from the southward pressure of Assyria; and the result was that Israel once more began to be prosperous and to regain her lost territories. Under Jeroboam II. this prosperity reached its climax. The people revelled in it, giving no thought to any further danger. Even Assyria was not feared, because she was busy with the settlement of internal affairs, rebellion and pestilence. Amos, however, knew that the relaxation of pressure could be but temporary. He saw that the Assyrian would eventually push past Damascus down into Palestine, and bring in the day of account; and although he nowhere names Assyria as the agent of God’s anger, the references are unmistakable (5:27, 6:7, 14 , 7:17).

It is this careless prosperity with its accompanying unrighteousness and forgetfulness of God that is never out of the prophet’s thoughts. The book is short, but the picture of a time of moral anarchy is complete. The outward religious observances are kept up, and the temples are thronged with worshippers (5:5, 9:1) ; tithes and voluntary offerings are duly paid (4:4, 5, 5:22). But religion has divorced itself from morality, the stated worship of God from reverence for the character of God (2:8). The rich have their winter houses and their summer houses (3:15) , houses built of hewn stone (5:11), and panelled with ivory (3:15). They drink wine by the bowlful (6:6), and the fines unjustly extorted from the defenceless are spent in the purchase of wine for the so-called religious feast (2:8). Lazy, pampered women, ‘kine of Bashan,’ are foremost in this unholy oppression (4:1). There is no such thing as justice; the very semblance of it is the oppression of the weak by the strong. The righteous are sold for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes (2:6); the houses of the great are stored with the spoils of robbery (3:10); bribery and corruption, the besetting sins of the East, are rampant (5:12). Commerce shares in the prevailing evil; weights are falsified and food is adulterated (8:5, 6).

Immorality is open and shameless (2:7). Small wonder that the prophet declares as the word of the Lord, ‘I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies’ (5:21). While the observances of religion are maintained, the soul of religion has fled. Those who are responsible for the evil condition of things ‘are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph’ (6:6).

3. Contents of the book.—The book is framed upon a definite plan, which is clearer in the opening section than in those which follow.

(i) 1:2–2:16 treats of the judgment upon the nations for their sins. Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, and Israel are all passed under review. The assumption is that each people is subject to the dominion of Jehovah. Punishment will be visited upon each for the violation of some broad and universally recognized principle of humanity.

(ii) Chs. 3, 4, 5, three threatening discourses, each introduced by ‘Hear ye this word.’

(iii) 7–9:10, a series of five visions, interrupted in 7:10–17 by the account of

Amaziah’s attempt to intimidate Amos. The visions are (a) the devouring locusts (7:1–3); (b) the consuming fire (7:4–6); (c) the plumb-line (7:7–9); (d) the basket of summer fruit (8:1–3); (e) the smitten sanctuary, and destruction of the worshippers (9:1–10).

9:11–15 is in striking contrast to the tone of the rest of the book. Instead of threatenings there are now promises. The line of David will be restored to its former splendour; the waste cities shall be built up; the settled agricultural life shall be resumed. This Epilogue is generally acknowledged to be a late addition to the prophecy. It contains no moral feature, no repentance, no new righteousness. It tells only of a people satisfied with vineyards and gardens. ‘These are legitimate hopes; but they are hopes of a generation of other conditions and of other deserts than the generation of Amos’ (G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, i. 195).

4. Theology of Amos.—In his religions outlook Amos had many successors, but he had no forerunner. His originality is complete.

(i) His view of Jehovah.—Hitherto Jehovah had been thought of as a Deity whose power over His own people was absolute, but who ceased to have influence when removed from certain geographical surroundings (1 K 20:23). The existence of other gods had not been questioned even by the most pious of the Israelites; they denied only that these other gods had any claim over the life of the people of Jehovah. But Amos will not hear of the existence of other gods. Jehovah is the God of the whole earth. His supreme claim is righteousness, and where that is not conceded He will punish. He rules over Syria and Caphtor, Moab and Ammon, just as truly as over Israel or Judah (1, 2, 6:14, 9:7). Nature too is under His rule. Every natural calamity and scourge are traced to the direct exercise of His will. Amos therefore lays down a great philosophy of history. God is all-righteous. All events and all peoples are in His hands. Political and natural catastrophes have religious significance (6:14).

(ii) The relationship of Jehovah to Israel.—Amos, in common with his countrymen, considered the relation of Jehovah to Israel to be a special one. But while they had regarded it as an indissoluble relationship of privilege, a bond that could not be broken provided the stated sacrifices were maintained, Amos declared not only that it could be broken, but that the very existence of such a bond would lay Israel under heavier moral responsibilities than if she had been one of the Gentile nations (3:2). As her opportunities had been greater, so too would her punishment for wasting them be proportionately severe. Jehovah’s first demands were morality and justice and kindliness, and any sacrificial system that removed the emphasis from these things and placed it on the observance of ritual was an abomination (5:21–25).

(iii) The inevitable judgment.—It is his certainty of the moral character of God that makes Amos so sure of the coming catastrophe. For the first time in Hebrew literature he uses the expression ‘the day of the Lord’—a phrase that may already have been current in a more genial and privileged sense to indicate the day that will utterly destroy the nations (2:14–16, 3:12–15, 4:2, 3, 13). With this broad view of history, a view from which the idea of special privilege is excluded, he sees in the northern power the instrument of Jehovah’s anger (5:27, 6:14); a power that even in its self-aggrandisement is working out Jehovah’s purpose.

5. Style.—It was the custom for many a century to accept the verdict of Jerome, that the prophet was rustic and unskilled in speech. That, however, is anything but the case. The arrangement of the book is clear; the Hebrew is pure; and the knowledge of the outside world is remarkable. The survey of the nations with which the prophecy opens is full of precise detail. Amos knows, too, that the Aramæans migrated from Kir, and the Philistines from Caphtor (9:7); he has heard of the swellings of the Nile (8:8, 9:5), and regards the fact with a curious dread. He has been a close observer of the social conditions in Israel. Much of his imagery is drawn from nature:—earthquakes and the eclipse of the sun, the cedars and the oaks, the roaring of the lion, the snaring of birds, the bite of the viper; once only does he draw a comparison from shepherd life (3:12).

6. Religious significance.—Amos’ true significance in religious history is that with him prophecy breaks away on its true line, individual, direct, responsible to none save God. The word of the Lord had come to Amos and he could not but speak (3:8). Such a cause produced an inevitable effect. In that direct vision of Jehovah, Amos learned the truths which he was the first to proclaim to the world:—that Jehovah was the God of the whole earth; that the nations were in His keeping; that justice and righteousness were His great demands; that privilege, if it meant opportunity, meant likewise responsibility and liability to the doom of those who have seen and have not believed.

R. Bruce Taylor.

AMOZ (’Amōts).—Father of the prophet Isaiah (2 K 19:2, Is 1:1 etc.), to be carefully distinguished from Amos (‘Amōs) the prophet.

AMPHIPOLIS.—A town in a part of Macedonia formerly reckoned to Thrace, on the river Strymon, about 3 miles from its mouth, where the harbour Eion was situated. It was a place of great strategic and mercantile importance. It underwent various vicissitudes, but retained its importance based on its abundant supplies of excellent wine, figs, oil, and wood, its silver and gold mines, its woollen fabrics. The Romans raised it to the rank of a free town and the chief town of the first district of the province Macedonia; through it the Via Egnatia passed. The verb in the Greek (Ac 17:1) seems to indicate that St. Paul passed through it without preaching there.

A. Souter.

AMPLIATUS (AV Amplias).—Greeted by St. Paul (Ro 16:8), perhaps of the imperial household (Lightfoot on Ph 4:22), and a prominent Christian (SandayHeadlam). The name, a common slave designation, is found inscribed in the catacombs.

A. J. Maclean.

AMRAM.—1. A Levite, son of Kohath and grandson of Levi (Nu 3:17–19, 1 Ch 6:2, 3, 18). He married Jochebed his father’s sister, by whom he begat Aaron and Moses (Ex 6:18–20) and Miriam (Nu 26:59, 1 Ch 6:3). The Amramites are mentioned in Nu 3:27, 1 Ch 26:23. 2. A son of Bani who had contracted a foreign marriage (Ezr 10:34).

AMRAPHEL.—The king of Shinar (Gn 14:1). He has been identified ( by Schrader and usually) with Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, but apart from the difficulties due to differences of spelling, there is no evidence that Hammurabi was ever allied with a king of Elam and a king of Larsa to invade the West. Boscawen

suggests Amar-Pal, the ideographic writing of Sinmuhallit, the father of

Hammurabi, for whom such an alliance is more likely. See Chedorlaomer.

C. H. W. Johns.

AMULETS AND CHARMS.—1. The custom of wearing amulets (amuletum from Arab. root = ‘to carry’) as charms to protect the wearer against the malign influence of evil spirits, and in particular against ‘the evil eye,’ is almost as widespread as the human race itself. Children and domestic animals are supposed to be specially subject to such influence, and to-day ‘in the Arabic border lands there is hardly a child, or almost an animal, which is not defended from the evil eye by a charm’ (Doughty). The Jews were in this respect like the rest of the world, and in the Talmud it is said that ninety-nine deaths occur from the evil eye to one from natural causes (see Magic Divination and Sorcery).

2. RV has substituted ‘amulets’ for AV ‘ear-rings’ in Is 3:20, the Heb. word being elsewhere associated with serpent-charming. There is nothing to indicate their precise nature or shape. Our knowledge of early Palestinian amulets has been greatly increased by the recent excavations at Gezer, Taanach, and Megiddo. These have brought to light hundreds of amulets, bewildering in their variety of substance and form—beads of various colours (the blue variety is the favourite amulet at the present day), pendants of slate, pieces of coral, bronze hells (cf. Ex 28:33, 39:25), a tiny ebony fish from the Maccabæan period, a yellow glass pendant with ‘good luck to the wearer’ in reversed Greek letters (PEFSt, 1904, illust. p. 354), a small round silver box with blue enamel (ib. 1903, illust. p. 303), etc. The influence of Egypt, where amulets were worn by men and gods, by the living and the dead, is shown by the great number of scarabs and ‘Horus eyes’ unearthed at Gezer and Taanach.

3. The ‘consecrated tokens’ (2 Mac 12:40 RV) found by Judas Maccabæus on the bodies of his soldiers were heathen charms against death in battle, the peculiar Gr. word being a tr. of the Aram. word for ‘amulet.’ The Mishna (c. a.d. 200) shows that in NT times a favourite charm (qemia’, whence our ‘cameo’) consisted of a piece of parchment inscribed with sacred or cabalistic writing, and suspended from the neck in a leather capsule. In this connexion it may be noted that ‘phylactery’ signifies an amulet, and like the mezuzah or door-post symbol, was often so regarded.

4. In antiquity jewels were worn quite as much for protective as for decorative purposes, being supposed to draw the attention of the spirit from the wearer. A popular form of jewel-amulet was the moon-shaped crescent in gold and silver, like those worn by the Jerusalem ladies (Is 3:18 RV), and the ‘crescents and pendants’ worn by the Midianite chiefs and hung from the necks of their camels (Jg 8:21, 26 RV). The ear-rings of Gn 35:4, also, were evidently more than mere ornaments, so that AV and RV may both be right in their renderings—‘ear-rings,’ ‘amulets’—of Is 3:20.

For the amulets worn by the heathen Arabs see Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heidenthums (1887), 143 ff., and for modern Jewish amulets the art. ‘Amulet’ in Hastings’ DB.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AMUSEMENTS.—See Games.

AMZI.—1. A Merarite (1 Ch 6:46). 2. A priest in the second Temple ( Neh

11:12).

ANAB.—A city of Judah in the Negeb hills (Jos 11:21, 15:50), inhabited first by the Anakim. Now the ruin ‘Anab near Debir.

ANAEL.—Brother of Tobit and father of Achiacharus (To 1:21).

ANAH.—1. A daughter of Zibeon, and mother of Oholibamah, one of Esau’s wives (Gn 36:2, 14, 18, 26 (R)). Some ancient authorities (including LXX. Sam. Pesh.) read son instead of daughter, which would identify this Anah with—2. A son of Zibeon (Gn 36:24 (R), 1 Ch 1:40, 41). 3. A Horite ‘duke,’ brother of Zibeon (Gn 36:20, 29 (R), 1 Ch 1:38). If we take Anah as an eponym rather than a personal name, and think of relationships between clans rather than individuals, it is quite possible to reduce the above three references to one. In regard to No. 2 the note is appended, ‘This is Anah who found the hot springs (AV wrongly ‘the mules’) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father’ (Gn 36:24).

ANAHARATH (Jos 19:19), mentioned with Shion and Rabbith on the east side of the Plain of Esdraelon in Issachar. It is perhaps the modern en-Na‘urah in the Valley of Jezreel.

ANAIAH (‘J″ hath answered’).—1. A Levite (Neh 8:4), called Ananias in 1 Es 9:43. 2. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:22).

ANAK, ANAKIM.—Early inhabitants of the high levels of Judah, whom tradition credited with colossal height. The word Anak is properly a race-name, and, being often used with the article, it is really an appellative, probably meaning ‘the long-necked (people).’ In the genealogizing narrative of Jos 15:13, 14 there were three sons or clans of Anak; Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai. These were all driven out by Caleb (cf. Jg 1:20). Jos 11:21 gives them a wider habitat, as scattered over the hill-country of Palestine generally, whence they were exterminated by Joshua. In Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod some remnants were to be found after Joshua’s time (11:22). See also Arba.

J. F. McCurdy.

ANAMIM.—A people, not yet identified, named in Gn 10:13 (1 Ch 1:11) among the descendants of Mizraim, and therefore to be found somewhere in Egypt.

J. F. McCurdy.

ANAMMELECH.—A god worshipped by captives transplanted from Sepharvaim to Samaria by the Assyrians (2 K 17:24). As human sacrifice (v. 31) was the most prominent rite connected with the god’s worship, the name, which might be interpreted as meaning ‘Anu is prince,’ in all probability owes its origin to a scribal endeavour to identify the god with Molech, in whose cult a similar practice existed. See also Adrammelech.

N. Koenig.

ANAN.—1. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:26). 2. 1 Es 5:30 = Hanan, Ezr 2:46, Neh 7:49.

ANANI.—A son of Elioenai (1 Ch 3:24).

ANANIAH.—1. Neh 3:23, the father of Maaseiah, and grandfather of Azariah, who took part in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. 2. A town inhabited by Benjamites after the Captivity (Neh 11:32). Possibly the modern Beit Hanina, a village 2 miles N. of Jerusalem.

ANANIAS.—This name occurs several times in the Apocrypha: in 1 Es 9:21 ,

29, 43, 48 (representing ‘Hanani’ and ‘Hananiah’ of Ezr 10:20, 28, ‘Anaiah’ and

‘Hanan’ of Neh 8:4, 7) and in To 5:12f., Jth 8:1. It is the name of three persons in

NT. 1. The husband of Sapphira, who in the voluntary communism of the early Church sold ‘a possession’ and kept part of the price for himself, pretending that he had given the whole (Ac 5:1ff.). The sudden death of husband and wife, predicted by St. Peter, was the signal proof of God’s anger on this Judas-like hypocrisy. 2. A ‘devout man according to the law’ at Damascus, a disciple who instructed and baptized Saul of Tarsus after his conversion, restoring to him his sight by imposition of hands; he had been warned by the Lord in a vision (Ac 9:10 ff., 22:12ff.). 3. The high priest at the time when St. Paul was arrested at Jerusalem (Ac 23:2ff.), a Sadducee, son of Nedebæus, and a rapacious oppressor. He had been in trouble at Rome, but was acquitted, and was now at the height of his power. He pressed the prosecution against St. Paul at Cæsarea (Ac 24:1ff.). In the Jewish war he was murdered by his countrymen in Jerusalem, out of revenge for his pro-Roman tendencies.

A. J. Maclean.

ANANIEL.—One of the ancestors of Tobit (To 1:1).

ANATH.—The father of Shamgar (Jg 3:31, 5:6). ‘Anāt is the name of a goddess worshipped in Pal. (cf. Jg 1:33, Jos 15:59, Is 10:30); it is found on Egyptian monuments from the 18th dynasty.

ANATHEMA.—See Ban.

ANATHOTH.—1. A town in Benjamin given to the Levites (Jos 21:18); the modern ‘Anāta, 2¹/₄miles N. of Jerusalem, an insignificant village with considerable ruins. It was the home of Abiathar (1 K 2:26) and of Jeremiah ( Jer 1:1); re-occupied after the exile (Neh 7:27, 10:19). 2. A Benjamite, son of Becher (1 Ch 7:8).

W. Ewing.

ANCESTOR-WORSHIP.—Every people whose religious beliefs have been investigated appears to have passed through the stage of Animism, the stage in which it was believed that the spirits of those recently dead were potent to hurt those they had left behind on earth. The rites observed to-day at an Irish wake have their origin in this fear that the spirit of the dead may injure the living. There are several traces of a similar belief in the OT. When a death took place in a tent or house, every vessel which happened to be open at the time was counted unclean (Nu 19:15). It remained clean only if it had a covering tied over it. The idea was that the spirit of the dead person, escaping from the body, might take up its abode in some open vessel instead of entering the gloomy realms of Sheol. Many mourning customs find their explanation in this same dread of the spirit but lately set free from its human home. The shaving of the head and beard, the cutting of the face and breast, the tearing of the garments—apparently a survival of the time when the mourner stripped off all his clothes—are due to the effort of the survivor to make himself unrecognizable by the spirit.

But to admit that the OT contains traces of Animism is not the same as to declare that at one stage the Israelites practised Ancestor-worship. Scholars are divided into two groups on the subject. Some (Stade, GVI i. 451; Smend, Alttest. Relig. 112 f.) affirm that Ancestor-worship was of the very substance of the primitive religion of Israel. Others do not at all admit this position (Kautzsch, in Hastings’ DB, Extra Vol. 614^a; W. P. Paterson, ib. ii. 445^b). The evidence adduced for Ancestor-worship as a stage in the religious development of Israel proceeds on these lines:

(a) Sacrifices were offered at Hebron to Abraham, and at Shechem to Joseph, long before these places were associated with the worship of Jehovah. When a purer faith took possession of men’s hearts, the old sacred spots retained their sanctity, but new associations were attached to them. A theophany was now declared to be the fact underlying the sacredness; and the connexion with the famous dead was thus broken. In the same way sacred trees and stones, associated with the old Canaanitish worship, had their evil associations removed by being linked with some great event in the history of Israel. But this existence of sacred places connected with the burial of a great tribal or national hero does not at all prove Ancestor-worship. It is possible to keep fresh a great man’s memory without believing that he can either help or hinder the life of those on earth.

(b) Evidence from mourning customs. It is held that the cutting and wounding (Jer 16:6, 41:5), the covering of the head (Ezk 24:17, Jer 14:3), the rending of the garments (2 S 1:11, 3:31), the wearing of sackcloth (2 S 21:10, Is 15:3), are to be explained as a personal dedication to the spirit of the dead. But all this, as we have seen, can be explained as the effort so to alter the familiar appearance that the spirit, on returning to work harm, will not recognize the objects of its spite. Then the customs that had to do with food, the fasting for the dead (1 S 31:13, 2 S 3:35)—the breaking of the fast by a funeral feast after sundown (Hos 9:4, 2 S 3:35 ,

Jer 16:7), the placing of food upon the grave (Dt 26:14)—do not prove that

Ancestor-worship was a custom of the Hebrews. They only show that the attempt was made to appease the spirit of the dead, and that this was done by a sacrifice, which, like all primitive sacrifices, was afterwards eaten by the worshippers themselves. When these funeral rites were forbidden, it was because they were heathenish and unfitting for a people that worshipped the true God.

(c) The teraphim, it is said, were some form of household god, shaped in human form (1 S 19:13, 16), carried about as one of the most precious possessions of the home (Gn 31), consulted in divination (Ezk 21:21), presumably as representing the forefathers of the family. But nothing is known with certainty regarding the teraphim. That they were of human form is a very bold inference from the evidence afforded by 1 S 19:13, 16. The variety of derivations given by the Jews of the word teraphim shows that there was complete ignorance as to their origin and appearance.

(d) In 1 S 28:13 the spirit of Samuel, called up by the witch of Endor, is called elohim. But it is very precarious to build on an obscure passage of this kind, especially as the use of the word elohim is so wide (applied to God, angels, and possibly even judges or kings) that no inference can be drawn from this passage.

(e) It is argued that the object of the levirate marriage (Dt 25:5ff.) was to prevent any deceased person being left in Sheol without some one on earth to offer him worship. But the motive stated in v. 6, ‘that his name be not put out in Israel,’ is so sufficient that the connexion of the levirate marriage with Ancestor-worship seems forced.

The case for the existence of Ancestor-worship among the Hebrews has not been made out. As a branch of the Semitic stock, the Hebrews were, of course, heirs of the common Semitic tradition. And while that tradition did contain much that was superstitious with regard to the power of the dead to work evil on the living, it does not appear that the worship of ancestors, which in other races was so often associated with the stage of Animism, had a place in Hebrew religion.

R. Bruce Taylor.

ANCHOR.—See Ships and Boats.

ANCIENT OF DAYS occurs 3 times in Daniel (7:9, 13, 22) as a title of God in His capacity as Judge of the world. In the Vision of the Great Assizes He is depicted as a very old and majestic figure, with white hair and white raimeot, seated on a fiery throne, and having the books of the records of man opened before Him. The picture is no doubt suggested by the contrast between the Eternal God

(Ps 55:19) and the new-fangled deities which were from time to time introduced

(Jg 5:8, Dt 32:17), rather than, as Hippolytus (quoted by Behrmann, Das Buch Daniel, p. 46) suggests, by the idea of God as making the ages old without turning old Himself. In the troublous times which are represented by the Book of Daniel, it was at once a comfort and a warning to remember that above the fleeting phases of life there sat One who remained eternally the same (Ps 90:1–3, 102:24–27). At the same time it is worth remembering that the phrase in itself has no mystical significance, but, by an idiom common in Hebrew as in other languages, is merely a paraphrase for ‘an old man.’

H. C. O. Lanchester.

ANDREW.—One of the twelve Apostles, Simon Peter’s brother (Jn 1:40). He belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee (v. 44), the harbour-town of Capernaum ( see Bethsaida), and was a fisherman on the lake in company with Simon (Mt 4:18 = Mk 1:16), whose home he also shared (Mk 1:29). Ere he knew Jesus he had been influenced by the preaching of John the Baptist, and became his disciple, and it was on hearing the Baptist’s testimony that he attached himself to Jesus (Jn 1:35– 40). He brought his brother Simon to the newly found Messiah (v. 41), thus earning the distinction of being the first missionary of the Kingdom of heaven; and it seems that, like the favoured three, he enjoyed a special intimacy with the Master (Mk 13:3). Tradition adds that he was crucified at Patræ in Achaia, and hung alive on the cross for two days, exhorting the spectators all the while.

David Smith.

ANDRONICUS.—A Christian greeted by St. Paul (Ro 16:7) as a ‘kinsman,’

i.e. as a fellow-countryman (cf. Ro 9:3, 16:11, 21), who had been imprisoned for Christ; distinguished as an Apostle (in the largest sense of the name), and a believer from early days, having perhaps come to Rome after the persecution of Ac 11:19).

A. J. Maclean.

ANEM (1 Ch 6:73 only).—A town of Issachar, noticed with Ramoth. It appears to answer to En-Gannim (wh. see) in the parallel list (Jos 21:29).

ANER.—1. One of the three Amorite chieftains, the other two being Mamre and Eshcol, who were in covenant with Abraham (Gn 14:13, 24). As Mamre is an old name for Hebron (Gn 23:2), and Eshcol is the name of a valley not far from Hebron (Nu 13:23), it is natural to suppose that Aner also was the name of a locality which gave its name to a clan. 2. (1 Ch 6:70 only).—A town of Manasseh, west of Jordan. The site is doubtful.

ANGEL

1. Old Testament.—That in the OT the existence of angels is taken for granted, and that therefore no account of their origin is given, is to be explained by the fact that belief in them is based upon an earlier Animism, such as is common to all races in the pre-polytheistic stage of culture. The whole material for the development of Israelite angelology was at hand ready to be used. It must therefore not cause surprise if we find that in its earlier stages the differentiation between Jahweh and angels should be one of degree rather than of kind (see Angel of the

Lord). This is clearly brought out in the earliest of the Biblical documents (J), e.g. in Gn 18; here Jahweh is one of three who are represented as companions, Jahweh taking the leading position, though equal honour is shown to all; that the two men with Jahweh are angels is directly asserted in 19:1, where we are told that they went to Sodom, after it had been said in 18:33 that Jahweh ‘went his way.’ Moreover, Jahweh’s original identity with an angel, according to the early Hebrew conception, is distinctly seen by comparing, for example, such a passage as Ex 3:2 with v. 4; in the former it is the ‘angel of the Lord’ who appears in the burning bush, in the latter it is God; there is, furthermore, direct identification in Gn 16:10 , 13, 21:17ff. In the earliest document in which angels are mentioned (J) they appear only by twos or threes, in the later document (E) they appear in greater numbers (Gn 28:12, 32:1, 2); this is just what is to be expected, for J, the earlier document, represents Jahweh in a less exalted form, who Himself comes down to earth, and personally carries out His purposes; by degrees, however, more exalted conceptions of Him obtain, especially as the conception of His characteristic of holiness becomes realized, so that His presence among men comes to appear incongruous and unfitting, and His activity is delegated to His messengers or angels (see Angel of the Lord).

(a) The English word ‘angel’ is too specific for the Hebrew (mal’akh) for which it is the usual equivalent; for in the Hebrew it is used in reference to men (e.g. Gn 32:4 (3), Dt 2:26, Jg 6:35, Is 33:7, Mal 1:1), as well as to superhuman beings. Besides the word mal’akh there are several other expressions used for what would come under the category of angels, viz.: ‘sons of God’ (bene ’elohim), Gn 6:2, 4 ; ‘sons of the mighty’ (bene ’elim), Ps 89:7 (8), 29:1; ‘mighty ones’ (gibborim), JL

4:11 (3:11 EV); ‘the holy ones’ (qedoshim), Zec 14:5; ‘keepers’ (shōmerim), Is 62:6; ‘watchers’ (‘irim), Dn 4:14 (17). There are also the three expressions: ‘the host of Jahweh’ (zeba’ Jahweh), Jos 5:14; ‘the host of the height’ (zeba’ marom) , Is 24:21; ‘the host of heaven’ (zeba’ shamaim), Dt 17:3 (see also Cherubim, Seraphim).

(b) Angels are represented as appearing in human form, and as having many human characteristics: they speak like men (1 K 19:5); they eat (Gn 18:8); they fight (Gn 32:1, JL 4:11, (3:11), cf. 2 S 5:24); they possess wisdom, with which that of men is compared (2 S 14:17, 20); they have imperfections (Job 4:18). On the other hand, they can become Invisible (2 K 6:17, Ps 104:4), and they can fly, if, as appears to be the case, seraphim are to be included under the category of angels ( Is

6:8).

e.g. an angel guides the children of Israel on their way to the promised land ( Ex 23:20ff., see below), and it is by the guidance of an angel that Abraham’s servant goes in quest of a wife for Isaac (Gn 24:7, 40); in Job 33:23 an angel guides a man in what is right; they are more especially the guides of the prophets (1 K 13:18 , 19:5ff., 2 K 1:3, 15, Zec 1:9); they bring evil and destruction upon men (2 S 24:16 , 17, 2 K 19:35, Ps 35:6, 78:49, Job 33:22; in Pr 16:14 the wrath of a king is likened to angels of death); on the other hand, they are the protectors of men (Ps 34:8, (7) , 91:11), and save them from destruction (Gn 19:15ff.); their power is superhuman

(2 K 6:17, cf. Zec 12:8); they report to God what is going on upon the earth ( Job

1:6, 2:1), for which purpose they are represented as riding on horseback (Zec 1:8–

10, cf. Ps 18:11 (10), Is 19:1); their chief duty above is that of praising God ( Gn 28:12, Ps 103:20). Angelic beings seem to be referred to as ‘watchmen’ in Is 62:6 and Dn 4:14 (17). An early mythological element regarding angels is perhaps reechoed in such passages as Jg 5:20, Is 40:25, 26, and elsewhere.

(d) In Ezekiel, angels, under this designation, are never mentioned, though the angelology of this book ehows considerable development; other names are given to them, but their main function, viz. messengers of God, is the same as in the earlier books; for example, in 2:2 it is a ‘spirit,’ instead of an ‘angel,’ who acts as an intermediary being, see, too, 3:12ff., 11:5ff.; in 8:1ff., 40:1 a vision is attributed to ‘the hand of the Lord’; in 40:3ff., it is a ‘man’ of a supernatural kind who instructs the prophet; and again, in 9:5ff., ‘men,’ though clearly not of human kind (see v. 11), destroy the wicked in Jerusalem. In Ezk., as well as in Zec., angels take up a very definite position of intermediate beings between God and man, one of their chief functions being that of interpreting visions which Divine action creates in the mind of men; in both these books angels are called ‘men,’ and in both the earlier idea of the ‘Angel of the Lord’ has its counterpart in the prominent position taken up by some particular angel who is the interpreter of visions. In Zec. different orders of angels are for the first time mentioned (2:3, 4, 3:1–6, 4:1). In Daniel there is a further development; the angels are termed ‘watchers’ (4:13, 17), and ‘princes’ (10:13); they have names, e.g. Michael (10:13, 12:1), Gabriel (8:16), and there are special angels (‘princes’) who fight for special nations (10:20, 21). As in Zec. so in Daniel there are different orders among the angels, but in the latter book the different categories are more fully developed.

In the attitude taken up in these later books we may see the link between the earlier belief and its development in post-Biblical Jewish literature. The main factors which contributed to this development were, firstly, Babylon; during the Captivity, Babylonian influence upon the Jews asserted itself in this as well as in other respects; according to Jewish tradition the names of the angels came from Babylon. Secondly, Persian influence was of a marked character in post-exilic times; the Zoroastrian belief that Ormuzd had a host of pure angels of light who surrounded him and fulfilled his commands, was a ready-made development of the Jewish belief, handed down from much earlier times, that angels were the messengers of Jahweh. Later still, a certain amount of Greek influence was also exercised upon Jewish angelology.

2. The Apocrypha.—Some of the characteristics of angels here are identical with some of those found in the OT, viz.: they appear in human form (2 Es 1:40) , they speak like men (To 5:6ff.), they guide men (v. 21), they bring destruction upon men (1 Mac 7:41, 42); on the other hand, they heal men (To 3:17), their power is superhuman (12:19, Bel 34ff., Three 26), and they praise God (2 Es 8:21 , Three 37). The angelology of the Apocrypha is, however, far more closely allied to that of Ezk., Zec., and Daniel than the angelology of these to that of the rest of the OT; this will be clearly seen by enumerating briefly the main characteristics of angels as portrayed in the Apocrypha.

In 2 Esdras an angel frequently appears as an instructor of heavenly things; thus in 10:28 an angel causes Esdras to fall into a trance in order to receive instruction in spiritual matters; in 2:42, after an angel has instructed Esdras, the latter is commanded to tell others what he had learned; sometimes an angel is identified with God, e.g. in 5:40, 41, 7:3, but usually there is very distinct differentiation; sometimes the angel seems almost to be the alter ego of Esdras, arguing with himself (cf. 5:21, 22, 12:3ff.). In To 12:6–15 there are some important details,— here an angel instructs in manner of life, but more striking is the teaching that he brings to remembrance before God the prayers of the faithful, and that he superintends the burial of the dead; he has a name, Raphael, and is one of the seven holy angels (‘archangels’) who present the prayers of the saints, and who go constantly in and out before the presence of God; that there are ranks among the angels is thus taught here more categorically than in the later Biblical books. Further, the idea of guardian-angels is characteristic of the Apocrypha; that individuals have their guardian-angels is clearly implied in To 5:21, that armies have such is taught in 2 Mac 11:6, 15:23, while in 2 Mac 3:25ff. occurs a Jewish counterpart of the Roman legend of Castor and Pollux; there is possibly, in Sir 17:17, an indication that nations also have their guardian-angels; if so, it would be the lineal descendant of the early Israelite belief in national gods. The dealings of angels with men are of a very varied character, for besides the details already enumerated, we have these further points: in Bar 6:3ff. an angel is to be the means whereby the Israelites in Babylon shall be helped to withstand the temptation to worship the false gods of the land; in To 6:7, 16, 17 an angel describes a method whereby an evil spirit may be driven away; in v. 8 an angel gives a remedy for healing blindness; in Bel 34ff. an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and carries him from Judah to Babylonia, in order that he may share his dinner with Daniel in the lion’s den; and, once more, in Three 26, 27 an angel smites the flame of the furnace into which the three heroes had been cast, and makes a cool wind to blow in its place (cf. Dn 3:23 ff. ).

It will thus be seen that the activities of angels are, according to the Apocrypha, of a very varied character. One further important fact remains to be noted: they are almost invariably the benefactors of man, their power far transcends that of man, sometimes an angel is identified with God, yet in spite of this, with one possible exception, 2 Mac 4:10–13, no worship is ever offered to them; this is true also of the OT, excepting when an angel is identified with Jahweh; in the NT there is at least one case of the worship of an angel, Rev 22:8, 9, cf. Col 2:18. The angelology of the Apocrypha is expanded to an almost unlimited extent in later Jewish writings, more especially in the Book of Enoch, in the Targums, and in the Talmud; but with these we are not concerned here.

3. New Testament.—(a) In the Gospels it is necessary to differentiate between what is said by Christ Himself on the subject and what is narrated by the Evangelists. Christ’s teaching regarding angels may be summed up thus: Their dwelling-place is in heaven (Mt 18:10, Lk 12:8, 9, Jn 1:51); they are superior to men, but in the world to come the righteous shall be on an equality with them ( Lk 20:36); they carry away the souls of the righteous to a place of rest (Lk 16:22) ; they are (as seems to be implied) of neither sex (Mt 22:30); they are very numerous (Mt 26:53); they will appear with Christ at His second coming [it is in connexion with this that most of Christ’s references to angels are made Mt 13:39, 16:27 , 24:31, 25:31, Mk 8:38, Lk 9:26, cf. Jn 1:51]; there are bad as well as good angels (Mt 25:41), though it is usually of the latter that mention is made; they are limited in knowledge (Mt 24:36); there are guardian-angels of children (Mt 18:10); they rejoice at the triumph of good (Lk 15:10). Turning to the Evangelists, we find that the main function of angels is to deliver God’s messages to men (e.g. Mt 1:20 , 2:10, 28:5, Lk 1:28, 24:23). On only one occasion are angels brought into direct contact with Christ (Mt 4:11, with the parallel passage Mk 1:13), and it is noteworthy that in the corresponding verse in the Third Gospel (Lk 4:13) there is no mention of angels. Thus the main differences between Christ’s teaching on angels and that which went before are that they are not active among men, their abode and their work are rather in the realms above; they are not the intermediaries between God and men, for it is either Christ Himself, or the Holy Spirit, who speaks directly to men; much emphasis is laid on their presence with Christ at His second coming. On the other hand, the earlier belief is reflected in the Gospel angelophanles, which are a marked characteristic of the Nativity and Resurrection narratives; though here, too, a distinct and significant difference is found in that the angel is always clearly differentiated from God.

(b) In the Acts there seems to be a return to the earlier beliefs, angelic appearances to men being frequently mentioned (5:19, 7:30, 11:13, 12:8; etc.); their activity in the affairs of men is in somewhat startling contrast with the silence of Christ on the subject. It is possible that most of the references in the Acts will permit of an explanation in the direction of the angelical appearances being subjective visions (e.g. 8:26, 10:3, 27:23, 24); but such occurrences as are recorded in 5:19, 20, 12:7 (both belonging to the Petrine ministry) would require a different explanation; while that mentioned in 12:23 would seem to be the popular explanation of an event which could easily be accounted for now in other ways. The mention, in 12:15, of what is called St. Peter’s ‘angel’ gives some insight into the current popular views concerning angels; it seems clear that a distinction was made between an angel and a spirit (Ac 23:8, 9).

Christ (Col 1:16); as in the Acts, they are concerned with the affairs of men (1 Co 4:9, 11:10, Ro 8:38, 1 Ti 5:21); at the same time St. Paul emphasizes the teaching of Christ that God speaks to men directly, and not through the intermediacy of angels (Gal 1:12, cf. Ac 9:5); in Col 2:18 a warning against the worshipping of angels is uttered, with which compare the worshipping of demons in 1 Co 10:21; in accordance with Christ’s teaching St. Paul speaks of the presence of angels at the Second Coming (2 Th 1:7).

(d) In the Ep. to the Hebrews the standpoint, as would be expected, is that of the OT, while in the Apocalypse the angelology is that common to other apocalyptic literature (cf. also the archangel of Jude 9).

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ANGEL OF THE LORD (JAHWEH), called also the ‘Angel of God.’—He occupies a special and unique position; he is not merely one among the angels, albeit a great one, but one sui generis, in a special way Jahweh’s representative among men. He may be regarded as in some sense the guardian-angel of the nation of Israel, in that he appears to be the nation’s representative at important crises (e.g. Gn 22:11, 15ff., Ex 3:2, 14:19, 23:23, Nu 22:22, Jg 6:11, 2 K 1:3, Zec 1:9).

He appears in human form, and most of the characteristics of angels generally are his. The main difficulty with regard to him is that while in some passages he is identified with Jahweh Himself (e.g. Gn 48:15, 16, Jg 6:11–24), in others there is a distinct differentiation, (e.g. Gn 16:11, 21:17, 24:7; in this last he is spoken of as having been sent from Jahweh); this differentiation becomes more and more marked in the later books (e.g. Zec 1:12). The contradiction here presented can be adequately explained only on the supposition that the evolution of thought on the subject must have run somewhat on the following lines. From the earliest angelology of the Hebrews, itself the offspring of still earlier Animistic conceptions (see Angel), there emerged the figure of Jahweh; originally, i.e. long before the time of Moses, Jahweh must, in the popular mind, have been regarded as belonging to the angelic host, and by degrees He assumed a more and more exalted position; as subjective revelation increased, the more fully did the personality of Jahweh become realized, and His superiority to the angels recognized, though in the process it was inevitable that the differentiation should not always be complete. When ultimately, under the Mosaic dispensation, the holy character and the real nature of Jahweh began to be apprehended, the belief that He personally appeared among men necessarily became more and more untenable; hence, while Jahweh Himself receded further from men, His messenger, or angel, appeared in His stead, and became His representative in all His dealings with men. What must have been such a revolution in the time-honoured faith would meet with many retrograde movements before it finally triumphed, as is shown by such passages as Jg 6:19 ff.

Some such process must be predicated in order to understand the otherwise unaccountable contradiction referred to above.

The angel of the Lord spoken of in the NT (e.g. Mt 1:20, Lk 2:9) must not be confounded with the OT ‘Angel of Jahweh’; an OT parallel is to be found rather in such a passage as Zec 3:6, 7, where the angel is one of a kind, not the only one of his kind.

W. O. E. Oesterley.

ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES (Rev 1:20, 2, 3).—1. According to one set of opinions, these angels were men, and the majority of writers have held them to be (1) the presiding presbyters or bishops of their respective churches. But while this view is attractive and popular, the reasons against it are strong. Human officials could hardly be made responsible for their churches as these angels are. A bishop might be called an angel, i.e. a messenger, of God or of Christ (cf. Hag 1:13, Mal 2:7, 2 Co 5:20), but would he be called ‘the angel of the church’? Above all, it is certain that at the early date to which the Apocalypse is now generally assigned a settled episcopate was unknown. (2) Others have supposed that the angels were congregational representatives, church messengers or deputies ( which would be in harmony with the proper meaning of the word ‘angel’), or even the person who acted as ‘Reader’ to the assembled church (notice ‘he that readeth’ in v. 3). But if the responsibility put upon the angels is too great for bishops, it is much too great for any lesser functionaries. Besides, the glory and dignity assigned to them as the stars of the churches (1:20) is inconsistent with a position like that of a mere Reader or deputy.

2. A good many have held that ‘angels’ is to be understood in its ordinary

Scriptural application, not to men, but to celestial beings. In support of this are— (1) the fact that throughout the rest of the book the Gr. word, which is of very frequent occurrence, is invariably used in this sense; (2) our Lord’s utterance in Mt 18:10, which suggests a doctrine of angelic guardianship; (3) the fact that in Daniel, to which the Apocalypse is so closely related, the guardianship of angels is extended to nations (12:1). The objections, however, are serious. No definite Scriptural teaching can be adduced in favour of the idea that churches have their guardian-angels. Messages intended for churches would hardly be addressed to celestial beings. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that such beings would be identified with particular churches in all their infidelities and shortcomings and transgressions, as these angels are (see, e.g., 3:1, 15 ff. ).

3. The most probable view, accordingly, is that the angels are personifications of their churches—not actual persons either on earth or in heaven, but ideal representatives. It is the church, of course, that receives the letter, the ‘Thou’ of address having manifestly a collective force, and it is to the church itself that the letter is sent (cf. 1:11, where there is no mention of the angels). The idea of angels was suggested, no doubt, by the later Jewish beliefs on the subject, but it is used in a figurative manner which suits the whole figurative treatment, where the glorified Jesus walks among the golden candlesticks, and sends to the churches messages that are couched in highly metaphorical language. It might seem to be against this ideal view that the seven churches, as candlesticks, are definitely distinguished from the seven angels, as stars (1:12, 16, 20). But it is quite in keeping with the inevitable distinction between an actual and an ideal church that they should be thus contrasted as a lamp and a star.

J. C. Lambert.

ANGER.—In OT ‘anger’ represents about a dozen Heb. roots, which occur as nouns, vbs. (once ‘angered’ is used transitively, Ps 106:32), and adjs. By far the most frequent words are anaph (lit. ‘to snort’) and its deriv. noun aph, which is used of the anger both of men (Gn 27:45, 30:2, Ex 11:8, 32:19; etc.) and God ( Ex 4:14, 32:22, Ps 6:1, 7:6 etc.). In NT ‘anger’ is of much less frequent occurrence, and represents only 2 roots: (1) the noun orgē (wh., however, is usually tr. ‘wrath’), the vb. orgizomai, the adj. orgĭlos (only in Tit 1:7), and the trans. vb. parorgizō (Ro 10:19, the only case of a trans, use of ‘anger’ in NT); (2) the vb. cholaō (lit. ‘to be full of bile,’ fr. cholē, ‘bile’), used only in Jn 7:23 to express the bitter anger of ‘the Jews’ against Jesus. With regard to the distinction between orgē and the synon. thumos, it is to be noted that while orgē is very often tr. ‘wrath,’ thumos is never tr. ‘anger,’ and when the two words occur together, thumos in each case is ‘wrath’ (Ro 2:8, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8) and orgē ‘anger’ (Eph 4:31, Col 3:8) or ‘indignation’ (Ro 2:8). Thumos is the more violent word, denoting anger as a strong passion or emotion, while orgē points rather to a settled moral indignation. Thus orgē is used of the sorrowful anger of Jesus (Mk 3:5); thumos of the rage of His enemies (Lk 4:28; cf. Ac 19:28). And, outside of the Apocalypse, thumos is applied almost exclusively to the wrath of men (the only exception being Ro 2:8) , while orgē in the great majority of cases (Mt 3:7, Jn 3:36, Ro 1:18 etc.) denotes the righteous indignation of God.

J. C. Lambert.

ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD.—It might seem that the idea of the Divine anger, manifesting itself in judgments of destruction, belongs to an early and anthropomorphic stage of religion. Yet, on the whole, the Biblical conception will be found consistent and profoundly ethical. God is holy—a term which seems to unite all the unapproachable perfections of Deity, especially His majesty and awful purity. He is the ‘Holy One of Israel,’ in covenant relation with a nation to whom He has revealed Himself as holy, and whom He will fashion with slow redemptive purpose into ‘an holy people.’ Moreover, God is righteous, a moral governor and lawgiver, demanding obedience and punishing transgression of His commands. The Divine holiness is not an element in an abstract conception of Deity: it is not a passive perfection, but an active attribute of a self-revealing and redeeming God. It follows that one side of this activity is necessarily a reaction against, a repudiation of, what is unholy and unrighteous in His creatures. This disposition towards sin is the anger or wrath of God. In the history of Israel it appears as a terrible factor in the discipline of the nation to righteousness: the ungrateful, the rebellious, and especially the idolatrous, are destroyed by fire and sword, pestilence and famine (Ps 78, Dt 32:15–43). So ‘jealous’ is God for His holiness, that even accidental profanation of its symbol, the Ark, is visited by extreme penalty (1 S 6:18, 20, 2 S 6:7). But the anger of the Lord, though fierce, is also just: it is ‘provoked’ by moral causes and for moral ends, and is averted by penitence and moral acquiescence in the righteousness of His judgments (Ex 32, Lv 10:8, Nu 25:11, Dt 13:17). Psalmist and Prophet dwell upon the subordination of the Divine anger to the Divine mercy. God is ‘slow to anger’ (Ps 103:8, 145:8, JL 2:13, Jon 4:2, Nah 1:3), and His anger passes away (Ps 30:6, Is 12:1, Jer 3:12, Mic 7:18).

Yet the wrath of God remains an essential element of His revelation through the prophets, a real Divine attribute, conplementary, not antithetic to the Divine mercy (Is 1:18–20, 5:25, 42:25, 54:8). In the NT, although the stress has shifted to the love of God revealed to the world in Jesus Christ, the anger of God still holds place. The teaching of Jesus, while refusing to see in all physical ills the Divine displeasure against sin (Lk 13:1–5, Jn 9:3), contains impressive warning of the terrible reality of God’s judgments (Lk 13:3–6, Mt 25:30, 41, Lk 12:5). In St. Paul’s writings this conception of judgment, held in reserve against unrepentant sin, is expressed in the phrase ‘the wrath of God,’ or, more simply, ‘the wrath’ ( Ro 1:18, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, Ro 2:8, 5:8). There is a coming ‘day of wrath’ (Ro 2:5, cf. Mt 3:7); sinful man unredeemed by Christ is necessarily a ‘vessel of wrath,’ a ‘child of wrath’ (Ro 9:22, Eph 2:3).

It is true that the NT references to God’s anger are mainly eschatological and contain figurative elements (see esp. Rev 6:16 ‘the wrath of the Lamb,’ 11:18 , 14:10, 16:19, 19:15). But for the significance of the Divine wrath as an ethical necessity in God, though His fundamental attribute is love, it may he noted that (1) the writer through whom the revelation of the Divine love attains its culminating expression (‘God is love,’ 1 Jn 4:8) declares also of him that obeys not the Son, ‘the wrath of God ahideth on him’ (Jn 3:36). (2) The Epistle which shows how in Christ the aloofness and terror of Israel’s worship are done away in favour of full and free access to a ‘throne of grace,’ has, as the climax to its glowing description of Christian privilege, the solemn warning ‘our God is a consuming fire’ ( He 12:18–28).

S. W. Green.

ANGLE.—Is 19:8, Hab 1:15. The same Heb. word is translated ‘book’ in Job

41:1.

ANIAM.—A man of Manasseh (1 Ch 7:19).

ANIM (Jos 15:60 only).—A town of Judah, in the mountains near Eshtemoh. It seems probable that it is the present double ruin of Ghuwein, west of Eshtemoh.

ANISE (RV ‘dill,’ Mt 23:23) is the familiar plant Anethum graveolens, one of the Umbelliferæ. It is indigenous in Palestine, and is extensively used both in cooking and in the form of ‘dill water’ as a domestic remedy for flatulence. It is expressly stated in Jewish writers that the dill was subject to tithe.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ANKLE-CHAINS, ANKLETS.—See Ornaments, § 1.

ANNA (the Greek form of Heb. Hannah, which means ‘grace’).—The name of an aged prophetess (Lk 2:35–38), one of the godly remnant in Israel who in the dark days which preceded the Messiah’s advent were looking for the dayspring from on high and waiting for the consolation of Israel. She was the daughter of Phanuel, and belonged to the ancient tribe of Asher, whose women were celebrated for their beauty, which fitted them for wedding with high priests and kings. She had attained a great age, upwards of a hundred years, since she had been a wife for seven years and a widow for eighty-four (see RV). She bad given herself to a life of devotion, frequenting the Temple and ‘worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day’ (cf. 1 Ti 5:6). At the Presentation of the Infant Messiah (Lk 2:22–24) she entered the sacred court, and, hearing Simeon’s benediction and prophecy, took up the refrain of praise and talked about the Holy Child to her godly intimates, quickening their hope and preparing a welcome for the Saviour when He should by and by be manifested unto Israel.

David Smith.

ANNAS.—1. High priest from a.d. 6 to 15, an astute and powerful ecclesiastical statesman. At the time of our Lord’s trial he was merely high priest emeritus, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, the acting high priest, presided ex officio over the meeting of the Sanhedrin (Jn 18:24, Mt 26:67). Nevertheless, since the high priest emeritus retained not only his title (cf. Jn 18:15, 16, 19, 22, Ac 4:6), but all his obligations and many of his prerogatives, it is not surprising that the masterful Annas took an active and independent part in the proceedings. After Jesus’ arrest at dead of night, ‘they led him to Annas first’ (Jn 18:13). The Sanhedrin might not meet until daybreak, and the interval seemed well employed in a preliminary examination of the prisoner by the skilful veteran (Jn 18:12, 19– 23). Subsequently be took part also in the trial of Peter and John (Ac 4:6). 2. 1 Es 9:32 = Ezr 10:31 Harim.

David Smith.

ANNIS.—The eponym of a family that returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5:16).

Omitted in Ezr. and Neh.

ANNUS.—A Levite (1 Es 9:48 = Neh 8:7 Bani).

ANNUUS (1 Es 8:48).—The name does not occur in Ezr 8:19.

ANOINTING, ANOINTED.—1. The Hebrews distinguished between anointing with oil in the sense of its application to the body in ordinary life (suk) , and anointing by pouring sacred oil on the head as a rite of consecration (māshach). As regards the former, olive oil, alone or mixed with perfumes, was largely used in the everyday toilet of the Hebrews, although among the poor its use would be reserved for special occasions (Ru 3:8). To abstain from anointing in this sense was one of the tokens of mourning (2 S 14:2), its resumption a sign that mourning was at an end (12:20). Honour was shown to a guest by anointing his head with oil (Ps 23:5, Lk 7:46), and still more by anointing his feet (Lk 7:38). For medicinal anointing see Oil.

2. Anointing as a religious rite was applied to both persons and things. Kings in particular were consecrated for their high office by having oil poured upon their heads, a practice which seems to have originated in Egypt. Though first met with in OT in the case of Saul (1 S 10:1, cf. David, 2 S 2:4, 5:3, Solomon, 1 K 1:39 etc.), the rite was practised in Canaan long before the Hebrew conquest. By the pouring of the consecrated oil upon the head (see 2 K 9:3), there was effected a transference to the person anointed of part of the essential holiness and virtue of the deity in whose name and by whose representative the rite was performed. By the Hebrews the rite was also believed to impart a special endowment of the spirit of J″ (1 S 16:13, cf. Is 61:1). Hence the sacrosanct character of the king as ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (Heb. meshiach [Jahweh], which became in Greek messias or, translated, christos—both ‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ,’ therefore, signifying ‘the anointed’). The application of this honorific title to kings alone in the oldest literature makes it probable that the similar consecration of the priesthood ( Ex 29:7, 40:13–15, LV 8:1–12) was a later extension of the rite. Only one exceptional instance is recorded of the anointing of a prophet (1 K 19:16–Is 61:1 is metaphorical).

In the case of inanimate objects, we find early mention of the primitive and wide-spread custom of anointing sacred stones (Gn 28:18 etc., see Pillar), and in the Priests’ Code the tabernacle and its furniture were similarly consecrated ( Ex 30:29ff., 40:9). For 2 S 1:21 see War. See also Mary, No. 2.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ANON.—A contraction for ‘in one (moment),’ ‘anon’ means at once, as Mt 13:20 ‘he that received the seed into stony places, the same is be that heareth the word, and anon (RV ‘straightway’) with joy receiveth it.’

ANOS.—1 Es 9:34 = Vaniah, Ezr 10:36.

ANSWER.—An answer is (1) an apology or defence, as 2 Ti 4:16 ‘at my first answer no man stood by me’; so perhaps 1 P 3:21 ‘the answer of a good conscience’; (2) oracle, Divine response, as Ro 11:4 ‘what saith the answer of

God?’

ANT (nemālāh, Arab. namlah).—Ants are exceedingly abundant all over Palestine, where, through their vast numbers, they perform a most important rôle, by continually changing the surface soil in the way earthworms do in northern countries. No more apt illustration of diligence (Pr 6:6–8) could be found than these little insects, which, in all but the wettest weather, can be seen scurrying backwards and forwards on the long tracks they have made. Some common varieties of Palestine ants (Aphœnogaster barbara, A. structor and Pheidole megacephala) store up great quantities of various kinds of seeds, which they are able, in some unknown way, to prevent germinating and make use of as food ( Pr 30:25). Whole troops of these little insects may be seen carrying seeds, often many times their own size and weight, from a distant garden or corn-field. The writer has even seen a procession of ants carrying their harvest under the thickness of a broad mud wall which bounded the corn-field, and then across a wide and frequented road. The stores of seeds so collected have been found so great that the Mishna laid down rules in regard to their ownership. If they were discovered in the field before reaping, they belonged to the owner, but if afterwards, they were all or in part for the poor. The sagacity of the ant in this and other respects is widely recognized both in Oriental lore—as in Pr 30:24, 25—and even more forcibly by the modern naturalist.

E. W. G. Masterman.

ANTELOPE (RV).—A doubtful translation of te’ō, Dt 14:5 and Is 51:20. Tradition, our only guide here, is in favour of ‘Ox’ [wh. see].

E. W. G. Masterman.

ANTHOTHIJAH.—A man of Benjamin (1 Ch 8:24).

ANTICHRIST.—The great opponent and counterpart of Christ, by whom he is finally to be conquered. The word appears only in the NT (1 Jn 2:18–22, 4:3, 2 Jn 7), but the idea was present in Judaism and developed with the growth of the Messianic hope.

1. The origin of the conception.—While the precise term ‘Antichrist’ is lacking in Jewish literature, the idea of an opponent who persecutes God’s people and is ultimately to be conquered by the Messiah, is an integral part of that general hope, born in Prophetism, which developed into Messianism in the NT period. As in the case of so many elements of Messianism, the beginning of the ‘opponent’ idea may fairly be said to have been Dn 11:36 (cf. also Zec 12–14), where the reference is to Antiochus IV.; but it would be a mistake to see in the Antichrist conception of the Johannine literature an unprecedented description of distinct personalities. There seems to have been rather a gradually developing antiMessianic scheme, which at many points duplicated the developing Messianic hope. This general conception, which played an important rôle in early Christianity, was probably due to the synthesis of at least five factors, each independent in origin.

(a) The historical opponents of the Jews, such as Antiochus IV., Pompey, and the Roman Empire in general (cf. the position of Gog in Prophetic thought). These naturally aroused the most intense hatred on the part of the Jews, particularly those under the influence of Pharisaism. Their hostility was regarded as extending not only to the Jews as a nation, but as heathen, to Jehovah himself, and particularly to His plans for the Jewish people. This political hatred of the Pharisees entered into the Antichrist expectation, just as their political hope went into the Messianic programme. Both alike tended to grow transcendental.

(b) The dualism of Babylonia and Persia, especially as it was expressed by the dragon, between whom and the agents of righteousness there was to be a fight to the death. This dragon conception may with much probability be seen not only in the identification of the serpent of the Temptation with the devil, but also in the beast of the Johannine Apocalypse, the great opponent of the Christ, and in the sea monster of Rabbinism.

(c) The Beliar (or Belial) myth, which underlies the NT thought (cf. 2 Co 6:15) , as well as Jewish fears. The first reference to Beliar seems to have been in Jubilees 1:20, but the myth is not unlike that of the Babylonian Tiamat, queen of the abyss, who was conquered by Marduk. Subsequently he was identified with Satan, who was also identified with the dragon (cf. Ascens. Is 4:3, 4, Rev 12:10). This identification was the first step towards the fully developed expectation of the Talmud, of a conflict between God and the devil.

(d) Belief in the return from death of the persecuting Emperor Nero.—This expectation seems to have been widely diffused throughout the Roman Empire in the latter part of the first Christian century (Sib. Or. iv. 119–150, v. 363 ff.), and lies behind the figures of Rev 13, 16, and 17. He is apparently to return with the kings of Parthia, but he is also, in Rev 17:8–11, identified with the beast of the abyss (cf. Sib. Or. v. 28–34).

(e) The myth of Simon Magus, or that of the false prophet.—This myth seems to have been common in Christian circles, and Simon Magus (wh. see) became the typical (Jewish) prophet and magician who opposed Christianity.

2. Synthesis of the elements.—These various elements possess so much in common that it was inevitable that they should be combined in the figure of the Satanic opponent whom the Christ would utterly destroy as a pre-condition of establishing His Kingdom of God. A study of the Book of Revelation, as well as of other NT writings (e.g. 2 Th 2:1–12, 2 Co 6:15, 1 Jn 2:18–22, 4:3, 2 Jn 7, Rev 11:4–13, 13:1–18, 17, 19:11–21, Mk 13:14–20), will show that there was always present in the minds of the writers of the NT a superhuman figure, Satanic in power and character, who was to be the head of opposition both to the people of Christ and to the Christ Himself. This person is represented in Assumption of Moses (ch. 8), Ascension of Isaiah (ch. 4), as well as in other Jewish writings, as one who possessed the Satanic supremacy over the army of devils. He was not a general tendency, but a definite personality. As such it was easy to see his counterpart or incarnation in historical characters. Indeed, the entire anti-Messianic programme was employed to characterize historical situations. We must think similarly of the use of ‘the man of lawlessness’ of St. Paul (2 Th 2:3; see Man of Sin) and the various opponents of Christ in the Apocalypse. Transcendental pictures and current eschatology set forth the Christian’s fear on the one hand of the Roman Emperor or Empire as a persecuting power, and on the other of Jewish fanaticism. Just which historical persons were in the mind of the writers it is now impossible to say with accuracy, but Nero and Domitian are not unlikely.

In the Patristic period the eschatological aspects of the anti-Messianic hope were developed, but again as a mystical picture of historical conditions either existing or expected. In Ephraem Syrus we have the fall of the Roman Empire attributed to Antichrist. He is also by the early Church writers sometimes identified with the false Jewish Messiah, who was to work miracles, rebuild the Temple, and establish a great empire with demons as his agents. Under the inspiration of the two Witnesses (Elijah and Enoch) the Messianic revolt against the Antichrist was to begin, the Book of Revelation being interpreted literally at this point. The saints were to be exposed to the miseries that the book describes, but the Messiah was to slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and establish the Judgment and the conditions of eternity.

Thus in Christian literature that fusion of the elements of the Antichrist idea which were present in Judaism and later Christianity is completed by the addition of the traits of the false prophet, and extended under the influence of the current polemic against Jewish Messianism. The figure of Antichrist, Satanic, Neronic, falsely prophetic, the enemy of God and His Kingdom, moves out into theological history, to be identified by successive ages with nearly every great opponent of the Church and its doctrines, whether persecutor or heretic.

Shailer Mathews.

ANTILIBANUS.—Jth 1:7. See Lebanon.

ANTIMONY.—Is 54:11 RVm. See Eye.

ANTIOCH (Syrian).—By the issue of the battle of Ipsus, Seleucus Nikator (b.c. 312–280) secured the rule over most of Alexander the Great’s Asiatic empire, which stretched from the Hellespont and the Mediterranean on the one side to the Jaxartes and Indus on the other. The Seleucid dynasty, which he founded, lasted for 247 years. Possessed with a mama for building cities and calling them after himself or his relatives, he founded no fewer than 37, of which 4 are mentioned in the NT—(1) Antioch of Syria (Ac 11:19), (2) Seleucia (Ac 13:4), (3) Antioch of Pisidia (Ac 13:14, 14:21, 2 Ti 3:11), and (4) Laodicea (Col 4:13–16, Rev 1:11 , 3:14). The most famous of the 16 Antiochs, which he built and named after his father Antiochus, was Antioch on the Orontes in Syria. The spot was carefully chosen, and religious sanction given to it by the invention of a story that sacred birds had revealed the site while he watched their flight from a neighbouring eminence. It was politically of advantage that the seat of empire should be removed from the Euphrates valley to a locality nearer the Mediterranean. The new city lay in the deep bend of the Levant, about 300 miles N. of Jerusalem. Though 14 miles from the sea, the navigable river Orontes, on whose left bank it was built, united it with Seleucia and its splendid harbour. Connected thus by the main caravan roads with the commerce of Babylon, Persia, and India, and with a seaport keeping it in touch with the great world to the W., Antioch speedily fell heir to that vast trade which had once been the monopoly of Tyre. Its seaport Seleucia was a great fortress, like Gibraltar or Sebastopol. Seleucus attracted to his new capital thousands of Jews, by offering them equal rights of citizenship with all the other inhabitants. The citizens were divided into 18 wards, and each commune attended to its own municipal affairs.

His successor, Antiochus I., Soter (b.c. 280–261), introduced an abundant water supply into the city, so that every private house had its own pipe, and every public spot its graceful fountain. He further strove to render Antioch the intellectual rival of Alexandria, by inviting to his court scholars, such as Aratus the astronomer, and by superintending the translation into Greek of learned works in foreign tongues. In this way the invaluable history of Babylon by Berosus, the Chaldæan priest, has been rescued from oblivion.

The succession of wars which now broke out between the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemys is described in Dn 11. The fortunes of the war varied greatly. Under the next king but one, Seleucus II., Kallinikus (b.c. 246–226), Ptolemy Euergetes captured Seleucia, installed an Egyptian garrison in it, and harried the Seleucid empire as far as Susiana and Bactria, carrying off to Egypt an immense spoil. Worsted on the field, Kallinikus devoted himself to the embellishment of his royal city. As founded by S. Nikator, Antioch had consisted of a single quarter. Antiochus I., Soter, had added a second, but Kallinikus now included a third, by annexing to the city the island in the river and connecting it to the mainland by five bridges. In this new area the streets were all at right angles, and at the intersection of the two principal roads the way was spanned by a tetrapylon, a covered colonnade with four gates. The city was further adorned with costly temples, porticoes, and statues. But the most remarkable engineering feat begun in this reign was the excavation of the great dock at Seleucia, the building of the protecting moles, and the cutting of a canal inland through high masses of solid rock. The canal is successively a cutting and a tunnel, the parts open to the sky aggregating in all 1869 ft., in some places cut to the depth of 120 ft., while the portions excavated as tunnels (usually 24 ft. high) amount in all to 395 ft.

With Antiochus III., the Great (b.c. 223–187), the fortunes of the city revived. He drove out the Egyptian garrison from Seleucia, ended the Ptolemaic sovereignty over Judæa, reduced all Palestine and nearly all Asia Minor to his sway, until his might was finally shattered by the Romans in the irretrievable defeat of Magnesia (b.c. 190). After the assassination of his son Seleucus IV., Philopator (b.c. 187–175), who was occupied mostly in repairing the financial losses his kingdom had sustained, the brilliant but wholly unprincipled youth Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (b.c. 175–164), succeeded to the throne. With the buffoonery of a Caligula and the vice of a Nero, he united the genius for architecture and Greek culture which he inherited from his race. In his dreams Antioch was to be a metropolls, second to none for beauty, and Greek art and Greek religion were to be the uniform rule throughout all his dominions. To the three quarters already existing he added a fourth, which earned for Antioch the title ‘Tetrapolis.’ Here he erected a Senate House, a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on one of the eminences of Mt. Silpius, and a strong citadel on another spur of the mountains that surround the city. From E. to W. of Antioch he laid out a splendid corso with double colonnades, which ran for 5 miles in a straight line. In wet weather the populace could walk from end to end under cover. Trees, flowers, and fountains adorned the promenade; and poets sang of the beauty of the statue of Apollo and of the Nymphæum which he erected near the river. To avert the anger of the gods during a season of pestilence, he ordered the sculptor Leios to hew Mt. Silpius into one vast statue of Charon, the infernal ferryman. It frowned over the city, and was named the Charonium. Epiphanes’ policy of Hellenizing Palestine evoked the determined opposition of the Maccabees, and in the wars which ensued his forces suffered many defeats, though the injuries and atrocities he committed in Jerusalem were unspeakable. With Antiochus Epiphanes died the grandeur of the Syrian throne.

Succeeding princes exercised only a very moderate influence over the fortunes of Palestine, and the palmy days of Antioch as a centre of political power were gone for ever. The city was the scene of many a bloody conflict in the years of the later Seleucidæ, as usurper after usurper tried to wade through blood to the throne, and was shortly after overcome by some rival. In several of these struggles the Jews took part, and as the power of Antioch waned, the strength and practical independence of the Jewish Hasmonæan princes increased. In b.c. 83 all Syria passed into the hands of Tigranes, king of Armenia, who remained master of Antioch for 14 years. When Tigranes was overwhelmed by the Romans, Pompey put an end to the Seleucid dynasty, and the line of Antiochene monarchs expired in

b.c. 65. The strong Pax Romana gave new vigour to the city. Antioch was made a free city, and became the seat of the prefect and the capital of the Roman province of Syria. Mark Antony ordered the release of all the Jews in it enslaved during the recent disturbances, and the restoration of their property. As a reward for Antioch’s fidelity to him, Julius Cæsar built a splendid basilica, the Cæsareum, and gave, besides, a new aqueduct, theatre, and public baths. Augustus, Agrippa, Herod the Great, Tiberius, and, later, Antoninus Pius, all greatly embellished the city, contributing many new and striking architectural features. The ancient walls were rebuilt to the height of 50–60 ft., with a thickness at the top of 8 ft., and surmounted by gigantic towers. The vast rampart was carried across ravines up the mountain slope to the very summit of the hills which overlook the city. Antioch seemed thus to be defended by a mountainous bulwark, 7 miles in circuit. Earthquakes have in later ages demolished these walls, though some of the Roman castles are still standing.

When Christianity reached Antioch, it was a great city of over 500,000 inhabitants, called the ‘Queen of the East,’ the ‘Third Metropolis of the Roman Empire.’ In ‘Antioch the Beautiful’ there was to be found everything which Italian wealth, Greek æstheticism, and Oriental luxury could produce. The ancient writers, however, are unanimous in describing the city as one of the foulest and most depraved in the world. Cosmopolitan in disposition, the citizens acted as if they were emancipated from every law, human or Divine. Licentiousness, superstition, quackery, indecency, every fierce and base passion, were displayed by the populace; their skill in coining scurrilous verses was notorious, their sordid, fickle, turbulent, and insolent ways rendered the name of Antioch a byword for all that was wicked. Their brilliance and energy, so praised by Cicero, were balanced by an incurable levity and shameless disregard for the first principles of morality. So infamous was the grove of Daphne, five miles out of the city, filled with shrines to Apollo, Venus, Isis, etc., and crowded with theatres, baths, taverns, and dancing saloons, that soldiers detected there were punished and dismissed the Imperial service. ‘Daphnic morals’ became a proverb. Juvenal could find no more forcible way of describing the pollutions of Rome than by saying, ‘The Orontes has flowed into the Tiber.’ In this Vanity Fair the Jews were resident in large numbers, yet they exerted little or no influence on the morals of the city. We hear, however, of one Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch (Ac 6:5), and there may have been more. But after the death of St. Stephen, Christian fugitives from persecution fled as far north as Antioch, began to preach to the Greeks there (Ac 11:19), and a great number believed. So great was the work that the Jerus. Church sent Barnabas to assist, who, finding that more help was needed, sought out and fetched Saul from Tarsus. There they continued a year, and built up a strong Church. Antioch had the honour of being the birthplace of (1) the name ‘Christian’ (Ac 11:26), and (2) of foreign missions. From this city Paul and Barnabas started on their first missionary journey (Ac 13:1–4), and to Antioch they returned at the end of the tour (Ac 14:26). The second journey was begun from and ended at Antioch (Ac 15:35–41, 18:22); and the city was again the starting-point of the third tour (Ac 18:23). The Antiochene Church contributed liberally to the poor saints in Jerus. during the famine ( Ac 11:27–30). Here also the dispute regarding the circumcision of Gentile converts broke out (Ac 15:1–22), and here Paul withstood Peter for his inconsistency ( Gal 2:11–21). After the fall of Jerusalem, Antioch became the true centre of Christianity. A gate still bears the name of ‘St. Paul’s Gate.’ It was from Antioch that Ignatius set out on his march to martyrdom at Rome. The city claimed as its natives John Chrysostom, Ammianus Marcellinus, Evagrius, and Libanius. From a.d. 252–380 Antioch was the scene of ten Church Councils. The Patriarch of

Antioch took precedence of those of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Antioch was captured in a.d. 260 by Sapor of Persia; in a.d. 538 it was burned by Chosroes; rebuilt by Justinian, it again fell before the Saracens in a.d.

635. Nicephorus Phocas recovered it in a.d. 969, but in a.d. 1084 it fell to the Seljuk Turks. The first Crusaders retook it in 1098 after a celebrated siege, signalized by the ‘invention of the Holy Lance’; but in 1268 it passed finally into the hands of the Turks. Earthquakes have added to the ruining hand of man. Those of b.c. 184, a.d. 37, 115, 457, and esp. 526 (when 200,000 persons perished), 528 , 1170, and 1872 have been the most disastrous. The once vast city has shrunk into a small, ignoble, and dirty town of 6,000 inhabitants, still, however, hearing the name of Antaki (Turkish) or Antakiyah (Arabic). It is again the centre of a Christian mission, and the Church of Antioch, as of old, is seeking to enlighten the surrounding darkness.

G. A. Frank Knight.

ANTIOCH (Pisidian).—The expression ‘Antioch of Pisidia’ or ‘Antioch in Pisidia’ is incorrect, as the town was not in Pisidia. Its official title was ‘Antioch near Pisidia,’ and as it existed for the sake of Pisidia, the adjective ‘Pisidian’ was sometimes loosely attached to it. It was actually in the ethnic district of Phrygia, and in the Roman province of Galatia (that region of it called Phrygia Galatica). Founded by the inhabitants of Magnesia, it was made a free town by the Romans, and a colonia was established there by the emperor Augustus to keep the barbarians of the neighbourhood in check. The municipal government became Roman, and the official language Latin. St. Paul visited it four times (Ac 13:14 , 14:21, 16:6, 18:22), and it is one of the churches addressed in the Epistle to the Galatians.

A. Souter.

ANTIOCHIANS (2 Mac 4:9, 19).—The efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to spread Gr. culture and Gr. customs throughout his dominions were diligently furthered by a section of, the Jews. The leader of this Hellenizing party, Jason, brother of the high priest Onias III., offered a large sum of money to Antiochus to induce the king to allow the inhabitants of Jerusalem ‘to be enrolled as

Antiochians.’ Antiochus acceded to the proposal, and shortly afterwards a party of ‘Antiochians’ from Jerusalem was sent by him with a contribution of money for the festival of Heracles at Tyre.

ANTIOCHIS (2 Mac 4:30).—A concubine of Antiochus Epiphanes, who assigned to her the revenues of the two Cilician cities, Tarsus and Mallus.

ANTIOCHUS (1 Mac 12:16, 14:22; cf. Jos. Ant. XIII. v. 8).—The father of Numenius, who was one of the envoys sent (c. b.c. 144) by Jonathan the Maccabee to renew the covenant made by Judas with the Romans, and to enter into friendly relations with the Spartans.

ANTIOCHUS.—A name borne by a number of the kings of Syria subsequent to the period of Alexander the Great.

1. Antiochus I. (b.c. 280–261) was the son of Seleucus Nikator, the chiliarch under Perdiccas who was regent immediately after the death of Alexander. On the murder of his father he came into possession of practically the entire region of Asia Minor as far east as the provinces beyond Mesopotamia. The most important fact of his reign was his defeat of the Celts, who, after devastating Macedonia and Thrace, swarmed into Asia Minor and established a kingdom which was subsequently known as Galatia. The date and place of the victory are unknown, but it won him the name of Soter (‘Saviour’). His capital was Antioch in Syria, but he was never able to bring his vast empire into complete subjection. He was a friend of literature and art, and it is possible that under him the beginning was made for the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.

2. Antiochus II., Theos (b.c. 261–246).—Son of the foregoing, essentially a warrior, carrying on interminable struggles both with the free Greek cities of his own territory, to which he finally gave something like democratic rights, and with Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt. Under him, however, the Jews of Asia Minor gained many civic rights.

3. Antiochus III., the Great.—He ascended the throne when only 15 years of age, and he reigned from b.c. 223 to 187. Along with Antiochus I. and Antiochus II. he may be referred to in the early portions of Dn 11. His reign, like that of most of his contemporaries, was one of constant war, particularly with Egypt. In the course of these wars he gained possession of Palestine through the battle of Banias (b.c. 198), and established the Syrian administration over Judæa, although for a time he ruled the province jointly with Ptolemy Epiphanes of Egypt. Like Antiochus I., he was a great colonizer, and induced 2000 Jewish families to go from Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia, thus laying the foundation for the influential Jewish Dispersion in those regions. So warlike a monarch could not fail to come into conflict sooner or later with Rome. He was defeated in the battle of Magnesia in b.c. 190, and three years later was killed, according to some authorities, while plundering a temple at Elymais.

4. Antiochus IV., Epiphanes (‘the Illustrious’; also nicknamed Epimanes, ‘the Madman’).—The son of the preceding, who had been sent as a hostage to Rome. In b.c. 175 he seized the Syrian throne, and began a series of conquests which bade fair to rival his father’s. While in Egypt, however, he was ordered by the Romans to leave that country, and thus found himself forced to limit his energies to Syria. In the course of his conflict with Egypt he had become suspicious of Judæa, and determined to force that country into complete subjection to his will. His motives were probably more political than religious, but as a part of his programme he undertook to compel the Jews to worship heathen gods as well as, if not in place of, Jehovah. His plans were first put into active operation probably towards the end of b.c. 170, when he returned from Egypt, although the chronology at this point is very obscure and it may have been a couple of years later. He plundered the Temple of some of its treasures, including the seven-branch candlestick, the altar of incense, and the table of shewbread. He also placed a garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem, and set about the complete Hellenizing of Judæa. Circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath were forbidden under penalty of death. Pagan sacrifices were ordered in every town in Judæa, and every month a search was made to discover whether any Jew possessed a copy of the Law or had circumcised his children. In December 168 b.c. a pagan altar, probably to Olympian Zeus, was erected on the altar of burnt-offering, and the entire Jewish worship seemed threatened with extinction. This probability was increased by the apostasy of the high priest.

This excess of zeal on the part of Antiochus led to the reaction, which, under the Chasidim and Mattathias, the founder of the Maccabæan house, ultimately brought about the release of Judæa from Syrian control. The events of this period of persecution are related in detail,—though with a large element of legend,—in 2 Maccabees, and reference is to be found to them also in Dn 11:21–45. Antiochus finally died on an expedition against the Parthians in b.c. 164. (For an account of the struggle of Mattathias and Judas against Antiochus, see Maccabees).

5. Antiochus V., Eupator.—Son of the preceding; began to reign at the death of his father, when a mere boy of 9 (or 12) years. He was left by his father under the control of Lysias, his chief representative in Palestine, and with him was present at the victory of Beth-zacharias, b.c. 163, when Judas Maccabæus was defeated (1 Mac 6:32–47). The complete conquest of Judæa was prevented by the rise of the pretender Philip, who, however, was conquered. In the midst of their success, both young Antiochus and Lysias were assassinated by Demetrius I. (b.c. 162). Their death reacted favourably on the circumstances surrounding the rising Maccabæan house.

6. Antiochus VI.,—Son of Alexander Balas. Trypho, one of the generals of Alexander Balas, at first championed the cause of this boy after his father had been killed in Arabia. After a few months, however, he caused the assassination of

Antiochus by the physicians of the court, and reigned in his stead (1 Mac 13:31f.).

7. Antiochus VII., Sidetes (b.c. 138–128), the last of the energetic Syrian monarchs, came to the throne during the imprisonment of Demetrius II. After defeating Trypho, he undertook to establish his sovereignty over the Jews. Simon partially won his favour by presents and by furnishing auxiliary troops, but at last refused to meet his excessive demands for permitting such independence as Judæa had come to enjoy under the weak predecessor of Antiochus. Thereupon Antiochus sent his generals into Judæa, but they were defeated by the sons of Simon (1 Mac 15, 16). He himself came during the first year of John Hyrcanus (135–134), and after devastating Judæa shut up Hyrcanus in Jerusalem. He was about to capture the city through starvation when he unexpectedly made terms with Hyrcanus, probably because of the interference of the Romans. These terms laid very heavy demands upon the Jews, and included the destruction of the fortifications of the city. Until b.c. 129–128 Judæa was again subject to the Syrian State, but at the end of that year Antiochus was killed in a campaign against the Parthians, and Hyrcanus was enabled to reassert his independence. See Maccabees.

Shailer Mathews.

ANTIPAS.—1. See Herod, No. 3.—2. A martyr of the church of Pergamum, mentioned only in Rev 2:13, unless some credit is to be given to the late accounts of his martyrdom. According to these, he was roasted to death in a brazen bowl in the days of Domitian. Cures of toothache were believed to be accomplished at his tomb.

Shailer Mathews.

ANTIPATER.—Son of Jason, one of two ambassadors sent by Jonathan to the Romans and to the Spartans to renew ‘the friendship and the confederacy’ (1 Mac 12:16, 14:22).

ANTIPATRIS.—Hither St. Paul was conducted by night on the way from Jerusalem to Cæsarea (Ac 23:31). It was founded by Herod the Great, and probably stood at the head of the river ‘Aujeh (now Rās el-‘Ain). Here are the remains of a large castle of the Crusaders, probably to be identified with Mirabel.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ANTONIA.—See Jerusalem.

ANUB.—A man of Judah (1 Ch 4:8).

ANVIL.—See Arts and Crafts, 2.

APACE in AV means ‘at a quick pace,’ as Ps 68:12 ‘kings of armies did flee apace.’

APAME.—Daughter of Bartacus, and concubine of Darius I. (1 Es 4:29).

APE.—Apes were imported along with peacocks from Ophir by Solomon (1 K

10:22, 2 Ch 9:21). In importing monkeys, Solomon here imitated the custom of the Assyrian and Egyptian monarchs, as we now know by the monuments. No kind of monkey is indigenous in Palestine.

E. W. G. Masterman.

APELLES.—The name of a Christian who is greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16:10 , and who is described as the ‘approved in Christ.’ It was the name borne by a distinguished tragic actor, and by members of the household.

APHÆREMA (1 Mac 11:34).—A district taken from Samaria and added to Judæa by Demetrius Soter (Ant. XIII. iv. 9). See Eprhaim, No. 1.

APHARSACHITES.—See next article.

APHARSATHCHITES (probably the same as the Apharsachites, Ezr 5:6 , 6:6).—A colony of the Assyrians in Samaria; an eastern people subject to the Assyrians.

APHARSITES (Ezr 4:9).—One of the nations transported to Samaria by the Assyrians. Otherwise unknown. The text is doubtful.

APHEK.—1. An unidentified city in the plain of Sharon (Jos 12:18). It may be the same as Aphek of 1 S 4:1, and of Jos BJ II. xix. 1. 2. A city which Asher failed to take (Jos 13:4, 19:30, Jg 1:31). It may be Afqa, on Nahr Ibrahīm. 3. Some authorities identify this (1 S 29:1) with No. 1, and make the Philistines advance upon Jezreel from the S.W. But if they approached from Shunem (28:4), Aphek must have been in Esdraelon in the neighbourhood of el-Fūleh. 4. The place where Ahab defeated Benhadad (1 K 20:26, 30), in the Mīshōr, probably the modern Fīq, or Afīq, on the brow of the plateau, overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Possibly Joash smote the Syrians here (2 K 13:17 ff. ).

W. Ewing.

APHEKAH (Jos 15:53).—Probably same as Aphek, 1.

APHERRA (1 Es 5:34).—His descendants were among the ‘sons of Solomon’s servants’ who returned with Zerubbabel; omitted in the parallel lists (Ezr. and Neh.).

APHIAH.—One of Saul’s ancestors (1 S 9:1).

APHIK.—A city of Asher (Jg 1:31), the same as Aphek, 2.

APHRAH.—See Beth-le-Aphrah.

APOCALYPSE.—See Revelation [Book of].

APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.—The apocalypse as a literary form of

Jewish literature first appears during the Hellenistic period. Its origin is to a considerable degree in dispute, but is involved in the general development of the period. Among the Hebrews its forerunner was the description of the Day of Jehovah. On that day, the prophets taught, Jehovah was to punish the enemies of Israel and to establish His people as a world power. In the course of time this conception was supplemented by the further expectation of a judgment for Jews as well as for heathen (Am 2:3–8, 3:9–15, 5:10–13, Zec 1:2–18, 2:4–15, JL, 2:18–28 ,

Ezk 30:2f.). The first approach to the apocalyptic method is probably to be seen in Zec 9–14. It was in the same period that the tendencies towards the aesthetic conceptions which had been inherited from the Babylonian exile were beginning to be realized under the influence of Hellenistic culture. Because of their religion, literature was the only form of aesthetic expression (except music) which was open to the art impulses of the Jews. In the apocalypse we thus can see a union of the symbolism and myths of Babylonia with the religious faith of the Jews, under the influence of Hellenistic culture. By its very origin it was the literary means of setting forth by the use of symbols the certainty of Divine judgment and the equal certainty of Divine deliverance. The symbols are usually animals of various sorts, but frequently composite creatures whose various parts represented certain qualities of the animals from which they were derived.

Apocalyptic is akin to prophecy. Its purpose was fundamentally to encourage faith in Jehovah on the part of those who were in distress, by ‘revealing’ the future. Between genuine prophetism and apocalyptic there existed, however, certain differences not always easy to formulate, but appreciable to students of the two types of religious Instruction. (a) The prophet, taking a stand in the present, so interprets current history as to disclose Divine forces at work therein, and the inevitable outcome of a certain course of conduct. The writers of the apocalypses, however, seem to have had little spiritual insight into the providential ordering of existing conditions, and could see only present misery and miraculous deliverance. (b) Assuming the name of some worthy long since dead, the apocalyptist re-wrote the past in terms of prophecy in the name of some hero or seer of Hebrew history. On the strength of the fulfilment of this alleged prophecy, he forecast, though in very general terms, the future. (c) Prophecy made use of symbol in literature as a means of enforcing or making intelligible its Divinely inspired message. The apocalyptists employed allegorically an elaborate machinery of symbol, chief among which were sheep, bulls, birds, as well as mythological beings like Beliar and the Antichrist.

The parent of apocalyptic is the book of Daniel, which, by the almost unanimous consensus of scholars, appeared in the Maccabæan period (see Daniel [Bk. of]). From the time of this book until the end of the 1st cent. a.d., and indeed even later, we find a continuous stream of apocalypses, each marked by a strange combination of pessimism as to the present and hope as to the future yet to be miraculously established. These works are the output of one phase of Pharisaism, which, while elevating both Torah and the Oral Law, was not content with bald legalism, but dared trust in the realization of its religious hopes. The authors of the various works are utterly unknown. In this, as in other respects, the apocalypses constitute a unique national literature. Chief among apocalyptic literature are the following:—

1. The Enoch Literature.—The Enoch literature has reached us in two forms: (a) The Ethiopic Enoch; (b) The Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch. The two books are independent, and indicate the wide-spread tendency to utilize the story of the patriarch in apocalyptic discourse.

(a) The Ethiopic Book of Enoch is a collection of apocalypses and other material written during the last two centuries before Christ. It was probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated into Greek, and from that into Ethiopic and Latin. As it now exists, the collection is a survival of a wide-spread Enoch literature, and its constituent sections have been to a considerable extent edited by both Jews and Christians. Critics, while varying as to details, are fairly well agreed as to the main component sources, each probably representing a different author or school.

(i.) The original ground-work of the present book is to be found in chs. 1–36 and 72–104, in the midst of which are, however, numerous interpolations (see iv. below). These chapters were probably written before b.c. 100. Chs. 1–36 deal chiefly with the portrayal of the punishment to be awarded the enemies of the Jews and sinners generally on the Day of Judgment. The eschatology of these chapters is somewhat sensuous as regards both the resurrection and rewards and punishments. In them we have probably the oldest piece of Jewish literature touching the general resurrection of Israel and representing Gehenna as a place of final punishment ( see Gehenna).

The dream visions (chs. 83–90) were probably written in the time of Judas Maccabæus or John Hyrcanus. By the use of symbolic animals—sheep, rams, wild beasts—Hebrew history is traced to the days of the Hasmonæan revolt. The years of misery are represented by a flock under seventy shepherds, who, in the new age about to dawn, are to be cast with the evil men and angels into an abyss of fire. The Messiah is then to appear, although his function is not definitely described. In ch. 91 the future is somewhat more transcendentally described.

In the later chapters of this oldest section the new eschatology is more apparent. In them are to be found representations of the sleep of the righteous, the resurrection of the spirit of the Messiah, though human, as God’s Son (105.2), the Day of Judgment, and the punishment of the wicked in hell.

(ii.) Whether or not the second group of chapters (37–71), or the Similitudes, is post- or pre-Christian has been thoroughly discussed. The general consensus of recent critics, however, is that the Similitudes were probably written somewhere between b.c. 94 and 64: at all events, before the time of Herod. The most remarkable characteristic of these Similitudes is the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ for the Messiah. But it is not possible to see in the use of this term any reference to the historical Jesus. More likely it marks a stage in the development of the term from the general symbolic usage of Dn 7:13 to the strictly Messianic content of the NT. In the Similitudes we find described the judgment of all men, both alive and dead, as well as of angels. Yet the future is still to some extent sensuous, although transcendental influences are very evident in the section. The Messiah pre-exists and is more than a man. The share which he has in the reorganization of the world is more prominent than in the older sections.

(iii.) Interspersed throughout the book are sections which Charles calls ‘the book of celestial physics.’ These sections are one of the curiosities of scientific literature, and may be taken as a fair representative of the astronomical and meteorological beliefs of the Palestinian Jews about the time of Christ.

(iv.) Interpolations from the so-called Book of Noah, which are very largely the work of the last part of the pre-Christian era, although it is not possible to state accurately the date of their composition.

The importance of Enoch is great for the understanding of the eschatology of the NT and the methods of apocalyptic.

(b) The (Slavonic) Secrets of Enoch probably had a pre-Christian original, and further, presupposes the existence of the Ethiopic Enoch. It could not, therefore, have been written much prior to the time of Herod, and, as the Temple is still standing, must have been written before a.d. 70. The author (or authors) was probably a Hellenistic Jew living in the first half of the 1st cent. a.d. The book is particularly interesting in that in it is to be found the first reference to the millennium (xxxii. 2–xxxiii. 2), which is derived from a combination of the seven creative days and Ps 90:4. At the close of the six thousand years, the new day, or Sabbath of the thousand years, was to begin. The Secrets of Enoch is a highly developed picture of the coming age and of the structure of the heaven, which, it holds, is seven-fold. Here, too, are the Judgment, though of individuals rather than of nations, the two æons, the complete renovation or destruction of the earth. There is no mention of a resurrection, and the righteous are upon death to go immediately to Paradise.

2. The Book of Jubilees is a Haggadist commentary on Genesis, and was probably written in the Maccabæan period, although its date is exceedingly uncertain, and may possibly he placed in the latter half of the last cent. b.c. In this writing angelology and demonology are well developed. While there is no mention of the Messiah, the members of the Messianic age are to live a thousand years, and are to be free from the influence or control of Satan. The book contains no doctrine of the resurrection; but spirits are immortal. While there is punishment of the wicked, and particularly of evil spirits and the enemies of Israel, the Judgment is not thoroughly correlated with a general eschatological scheme. The chief object of the book is to incite the Jews to a greater devotion to the Law, and the book is legalistic—rather than idealistic.

The ‘new age’ was to be inaugurated by wide-spread study of the Law, to which the Jews would be forced by terrible suffering. Certain passages would seem to imply a resurrection of the dead and a renewing of all creation along with the endless punishment of the wicked.

3. The Psalms of Solomon—a group of noble songs, written by a Pharisee ( or Pharisees) probably between b.c. 70 and 40, the dates being fixed by reference to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the death of Pompey (Ps-Sol 2:30, 31). The collection is primarily a justification of the downfall of the Maccabæan house because of its sins. Its author (or authors) was opposed to monarchy as such, and looked forward to the time when the Messiah would really be king of Judæa. The picture of this king as set forth in Psalms 17–18 is one of the noblest in Jewish literature. He is to be neither sufferer nor teacher, pre-existent nor miraculously horn. He is not to be a priest, or warrior. He is to be sinless, strong through the Holy Spirit, gaining his wisdom from God, conquering the entire heathen world without war, ‘by the word of his mouth,’ and to establish the capital of the world at Jerusalem. All the members of the new kingdom, which, like the Messiah, is miraculous, are to be ‘sons of God.’ These two Psalms are not of a kin with the ordinary apocalyptic literature like the Enoch literature, and probably represent a tendency more religious than apocalyptic. At the same time, the influence of the apocalyptic is not wanting in them.

4. The Assumption of Moses was probably written in the opening years of the 1st cent. a.d., and narrates in terms of prophecy the history of the world from the time of Moses until the time of its composition, ending in an eschatological picture of the future. As it now stands, the writing is hardly more than a fragment of a much larger work, and exists only in an old Latin translation. The most striking characteristic is the importance given to Satan as the opponent of God, as well as the rather elaborate portrayal of the end of the age it narrates. The Judgment is to be extended to the Gentiles, but no Messiah is mentioned, the Messianic kingdom rather than He being central. Further, the writer, evidently in fear of revolutionary tendencies among his people, says distinctly that God alone-is to be judge of the Gentiles.

5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a composite work purporting to preserve the last words of the twelve sons of Jacob. It was probably written during the first two centuries of the Christian era, although some of its material may be earlier. As it now stands, it is full of Christian interpolations, and it has little apocalyptic material, being rather of the nature of homilies illustrated with much legendary matter, including eschatological pictures and references to demons and their king Beliar. The new age is not distinctly described, but apparently involves only earthly relationships. God’s judgment on wicked men and demons is, however, elaborately pictured, sometimes in terms hard to reconcile with the less transcendental accounts of the blessings assured to the Jewish nation. Each of the patriarchs is represented as dealing with that particular virtue or vice with which the Biblical account associates him, and also as foretelling appropriate blessings or curses. The work is preserved in Greek and Armenian translations.

6. The Ascension of Isaiah is a composite book which circulated largely among the Christian heretics of the 3rd century. At its basis lies a group of legends of uncertain origin, dealing with the Antichrist and Beliar. These in turn are identified with the expectation that Nero would return after death. The book, therefore, in its present shape is probably of Christian origin, and is not older than the 2nd cent., or possibly the latter part of the 1st. The Isaiah literature, however, was common in the 1st cent., and the book is a valuable monument of the eschatological tendencies and beliefs of at least certain groups of the early Christians. Particularly important is it as throwing light upon the development of the Antichrist doctrines. It exists to-day in four recensions—Greek, Ethiopic, Latin, and Slavonic.

7. The Apocalypse of Ezra (Second Esdras), written about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is the most complete expression of Pharisaic pessimism. Written in the midst of national misery, it is not able to see any relief except in the creation of a new world. The age was coming to an end, and the new age which was to belong to Israel would presently come. The judgment of Israel’s enemies was presently to be established, but not until the number of the righteous was complete. The book is no doubt closely related to the Apocalypse of Baruch, and both apparently reproduce the same originally Jewish material. It has been considerably affected by Christian hopes. Both for this reason and because of its emphasis on generic human misery and sin, with the consequent need of something more than a merely national deliverance, it gives a prominent position to the Messiah, who is represented as dying. As Second Esdras the book has become part of the Apocrypha of the OT, and has had considerable influence in the formation of

Christian eschatology. In 7:30–98 is an elaborate account of the general Resurrection, Judgment, and the condition of souls after death; and it is this material quite as much as the Messianic prediction of chs. 12–14 that make it of particular interest to the student. It is possessed, however, of no complete unity in point of view, and passes repeatedly from the national to the ethical ( individual ) need and deliverance. The separation of these two views is, however, more than a critical matter. As in Mk 13, the two illustrate each other.

8. The Apocalypse of Baruch is a composite work which embodies in itself a ground-work which is distinctly Jewish, and certain sections of which were probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Criticism, however, has not arrived at any complete consensus of opinion as regards its composition, but there can be little doubt that it represents the same apocalyptic tendencies and much of the material which are to be seen in Second Esdras. Just what are the relations between the two writings, however, has not yet been clearly shown. The probability is that the Apocalypse of Baruch, as it now stands, was written in the second half of the 1st cent. a.d., and has come under the influence of Christianity (see esp. chs. xlix–li). Like Second Esdras, it is marked by a despair of the existing age, and looks forward to a transcendental reign of the Messiah, in which the Jews are to be supremely fortunate. It exists to-day in Greek and Syriac versions, with a strong probability that both are derived from original Hebrew writing. This apocalypse, both from its probable origin and general characteristics, is of particular value as a document for understanding the NT literature. In both the Apocalypse of Baruch and Second Esdras we have the most systematized eschatological picture that has come down to us from Pharisaism.

9. The Sibylline Oracles are the most important illustration of the extraPalestinian-Hellenistic apocalyptic hope. As the work now exists, it is a collection of various writings dealing with the historical and future conditions of the Jewish people. The most important apocalyptic section is in Book iii. 97–828, written in Maccahæan times. In it the punishment of the enemies of the Jews is elaborately foretold, as are also the future and the Messianic Judgment. This third book was probably edited in the middle of the 2nd century by a Christian. In general, however, this Sibylline literature, although of great extent, gives us no such distinct pictures of the future as those to be found in the Ezra-Baruch apocalypses.

Shailer Mathews.

APOCRYPHA.—The term ‘Apocrypha’ is applied to a body of literature that has come down to us in close connexion with the canonical books of the Bible, and yet is not of them. This term (Gr. apokryphos, ‘hidden’) seems to have been used to specify certain documents or writings that were purposely hidden from general public contact, either because of their supposed sacredness, or to retain within the precincts of a certain sect their secret wisdom and knowledge. The name was given either by those who hid the books or by those from whom they were hidden.

All such books bore, as their alleged authors, the names of notable men in Hebrew history. These names were not sufficient of themselves to carry the books over into the canonical collection of the Bible. The term applied to them as ‘apocryphal,’ that is, withheld from public gaze and use, was at first rather complimentary to their character. But their rejection by the Jewish Palestinian body of worshippers, as well as by the larger proportion of the early Church, gradually stamped the name ‘apocryphal’ as a term of reproach, indicating inferiority in content and a spurious authorship. Henceforth such books lost their early sacredness, and became embodied in a collection that remained entirely outside the Hebrew Bible, though in general found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

The word ‘Apocrypha,’ as used by Protestant Christians, signifies the books found in the Latin Vulgate as over and above those of the Hebrew OT. Jerome incorporated in his revision and translation, in the main as he found them in the Old Latin Version, certain books not found in the Hebrew canonical writings. These books had been carried over into the Old Latin from the Septuagint.

The real external differences, then, between the Protestant and Rom. Cath.

Bibles to-day are to be traced to the different ideas of the Canon on the part of the Jews of Palestine, where the Hebrew Bible was on its native soil, and on the part of the Jews of Alexandria who translated that same Hebrew Bible into Greek. With this translation, and other books later called the Apocrypha, they constructed a Greek Bible now called the Septuagint (the Seventy).

In the transfer of the works from the Septuagint to the Old Latin and to the Vulgate, there is some confusion both as to their names and their order.

These so-called Apocryphal books may be roughly classified as follows:—

1. Historical: First and Second Maccabees, and First Esdras [Third Esdras in Vulgate].

2. Legendary: Additions to Esther, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Holy Children, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith.

3. Prophetical: Baruch (ch. 6 being the ‘Epistle of Jeremy’), Prayer of Manasses.

4. Apocalyptical: Second Esdras [Fourth Esdras in Vulgate].

5. Didactic: Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon.

In some classifications Third and Fourth Maccabees are included.

Most of these books are found in their original form in Greek, with the exceptions noted below, and not in the Hebrew; therefore the Jewish religious leaders did not regard them as inspired. Furthermore, some of their writers (1 Mac 4:46, 9:27, 2 Mac 2:23) disclaim inspiration as the Jews understood it. The NT writers do not quote these books, nor do they definitely refer to them. Their existence in the Greek Bible of the times of Christ does not seem to have given them any prestige for the Jewish authorities of that day. The Church Fathers made some use of them, by quotation and allusion, but were not so emphatic in their favour as to secure their incorporation in the regular canonical books of the Bible.

Jerome, in his revision of the Old Latin Bible, found the Apocryphal books therein, as carried over from the Septuagint; but in his translation of the OT he was careful not to include in the OT proper any hooks not found in the Hebrew Canon. In fact, he regarded his time as too valuable to be spent in revising or translating these uninspired books.

It was not until the Council of Trent, April 15, 1546, that the Roman Catholic Church publicly set its seal of authority on eleven of the fourteen or sixteen (including 3 and 4 Mac.) Apocryphal books. This Council names as canonical the following hooks and parts of books: First and Second Maccabees, Additions to Esther, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Holy Children, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon; omitting from the above list the Prayer of Manasses, First and Second Esdras [Vulgate Third and Fourth Esdras].

The Council of Trent settled the Canon of Scripture for the Roman Catholic Church, and decreed an anathema against any one who did not agree with its statement. Even before the meeting of that famous Council, Coverdale, in 1535 , had introduced the Apocrypha into the English Bible edited by himself. It was published in the first edition of the AV in 1611, but began to be left out as early as 1629. It was inserted between the OT and NT. As a result of a controversy in 1826 , it was excluded from all the Bibles published by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

In our discussion of the character and contents of these books, we must keep in mind the fact that the word ‘Apocrypha’ is used in the Protestant sense as inclusive of the fourteen books given in the RV of 1895, eleven of which are regarded as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church.

The general character and the contents of these books are as follows:—

1. First Maccabees.—This is a historical work of rare value on the Jewish war of independence against the encroachments and invasions of Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 168–164). Its author is unknown, though thought to have been a Jew of Palestine, who wrote between b.c. 105 and 64. The book is known in a Greek original, though it was translated, according to Jerome, from a Hebrew original that was current in his day (end of 4th cent.).

2. Second Maccabees is an abridgment of a five-volume work by Jason of

Cyrene (2:23). It is prefaced by two letters said to have been sent from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt. This book deals with the history of the Jews from the reign of Seleucus IV. (b.c. 175) to the death of Nicanor (b.c. 161). The multiplication of the marvellous and miraculous in the narrative discounts the value of the material as a source of historical data. The book was written somewhere between b.c. 125 and the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. It is extant in Greek.

3. First Esdras (Third in the Vulgate) is the canonical book of Ezra in Greek, which in reconstructed form tells the story of the decline and fall of the kingdom of

Judah from the time of Josiah. It recites the overthrow of Jerusalem, the Babylonian exile, the return under Zerubbabel, and Ezra’s part in the reorganization of the Jewish State. Josephus refers to the legend regarding the three courtiers contained in this book. Its author is unknown. The Council of Trent placed it in an appendix to the NT as Third Esdras, and not among their regular canonical books.

4. Additions to Esther.—The canonical Esther concludes with 10:3; this chapter is filled out by the addition of seven verses, and the book concludes with six additional chapters (11–16). The regular text of the book is occasionally interpolated and amplified by some writer or writers, to give the story a fuller narrative and make the telling of it more effective. These additions sometimes contradict the Hebrew, and add nothing new of any value. This editorial work is thought to have been done by an Egyptian Jew somewhere in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (b.c. 181–145).

5. The History of Susanna is an account of Daniel’s discovery of a malicious slander against the good woman Susanna. The story is prefixed to the book of Daniel. It is found in the Greek, and was prepared by an unknown author at an unknown date.

6. The Song of the Three Holy Children is found inserted between v. 23 and

v. 24 of Dn 3. Its author and date are unknown.

7. The Story of Bel and the Dragon follows Dn 12. It is a proof by Daniel that the priests of Bel and their families ate the food set before the idol. Daniel slays the dragon, and is a second time thrown into the lions’ den. The origin of this story is unknown, though it is by some attributed to Habakkuk. The three preceding stories are found in the Septuagint of Daniel, and a MS of No. 6 has recently been found.

8. Tobit is a romantic story of the time of Israel’s captivity. Tobit is a pious son of Naphtali who becomes blind. He sends his son Tobias to Rages in Media to collect a debt. An angel leads him to Ecbatana, where he romantically marries a widow who was still a virgin though she had had seven husbands. Each of the seven had been slain on their wedding-day by Asmodæus, the evil spirit. On the inspiration of the angel, Tobias marries the widow, and, by burning the inner parts of a fish, puts the spirit to flight by the offensive smoke. The blindness of Tobit is healed by using the gall of the fish, the burning of whose entrails had saved the life of Tobias. The book is found in an Aramaic version, three Greek, and three Old Latin versions, and also in two Hebrew texts. Its date is uncertain, though it doubtless appeared before the 1st cent. b.c.

9. Judith is a thrilling tale of how Judith, a Jewish widow, secured the confidence of Holofernes, an Assyrian commander who was besieging Bethulia. Stealthily in the night time she approached him in his tent, already overcome with heavy drinking, took his own scimitar and cut off his head, and fled with it to the besieged city. This valorous act saved the distressed Israelites. The story bristles with absurdities in names, dates, and geographical material. It seems to have imitated in one respect Jael’s murder of Sisera (Jg 4:17–22). It may have been written some time about b.c. 100, so long after the life of Nebuchadrezzar as to have made him king of Nineveh, instead of Babylon. The original text is Greek.

10. Baruch.—This is a pseudepigraphical book attributed to Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah. Its purpose seems to have been (1) to quiet the souls of the Jews in exile by telling them that they would soon return to their native land; and (2) to admonish them to flee the idolatry that was everywhere prevalent in Babylonia. Bar 6 is called the ‘Epistle of Jeremy,’ and is nominally a letter of that prophet, warning the exiles against worshipping idols. This book is thought to have originated sometime about b.c. 320. Its original language is Greek, though there is reason for believing that 1:1–3:8 was first written in Hebrew.

11. Prayer of Manasses, king of Judah, when he was a captive of Ashurbanipal in the city of Babylon (2 Ch 33:12, 13). It probably originated in some of the legends current regarding this notable king, and may have been intended for insertion in the narrative of 2 Ch 33:13. Its original is Greek. It is not a part of the Vulgate adopted at the Council of Trent, but is in the appendix thereof.

12. Second Esdras [Vulg. Fourth Esdras. If First Esdras is the reconstructed

Ezra, and the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah are taken as one book, then this is Third Esdras (as in the Septuagint). If Ezra and Nehemiah are left out of account, this book is Second Esdras (as in the Apocrypha of RV). If, as in the Vulgate, Ezra is reckoned as First Esdras, and Nehemiah as Second Esdras, and the reconstructed Ezra as Third Esdras, then this book is Fourth Esdras]. This work is a peculiar combination of matter. It is not history at all, but rather a religious document imitative of the Hebrew prophets, and apocalyptic in character. Its Greek original, if it had one, has been lost, and the work is extant in Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. It is attributed to at least two different dates, the 2nd and 3rd cents. a.d. The character of the matter shows that some Christian interpolated the original to give it a Christian colouring. This matter does not appear, however, in the Arabic and Ethiopic texts. It stands in the appendix to the NT of the Vulgate.

13. Ecclesiasticus, or, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.—This is one of the most valuable of the Apocryphal books. It resembles the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job in its ethical characteristics. It was written by a Jew called Jesus, son of Sirach, probably early in the 3rd cent., though the Greek translation was issued about b.c. 132. The book was originally written in Hebrew, and in this language about one half of it has recently been discovered in Egypt and published. It is one of the works that give us a vivid idea of the Wisdom literature produced in the centuries preceding the Christian era.

14. Wisdom of Solomon lauds wisdom and a righteous life, but condemns idolatry and wickedness. The author employs, in the main, illustrations from the Pentateuch. He purports to be Solomon, and makes just such claims as one would imagine Solomon would have done if he had been the author. He is thought to have lived anywhere between b.c. 150 and b.c. 50, and to have been a Jew of Alexandria. The book possesses some valuable literary features, though in its present form it seems to be incomplete. Its original text was Greek.

If we should include Third and Fourth Maccabees in this list, as is done by some writers (but not by the Vulgate), we find these peculiarities:

15. Third Maccabees describes an attempt to massacre the Jews in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (b.c. 222–205), and a notable deliverance from death. The work is extant in Greek (in LXX), but not in the Vulgate.

16. Fourth Maccabees is a discussion of the conquest of matter by the mind illustratively, by the use of the story of the martyrdom of the seven Maccabees, their mother and Eleazar. The work is found in the Alexandrian MS of the Septuagint, and in Syriac.

In addition to these Apocryphal books, but not included either in the

Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the RV, there is an ever-increasing list of works that scholars have chosen to call pseudepigrapha. These were written at various periods, but mainly just before, during, and just after the times of Christ. Many of them deal with the doctrinal discussions of their day, and present revelations to the author under strange and even weird conditions. These writers attached to their books as a rule the name of some famous personage, not by way of deception, but to court favour for the views set forth. It would carry us too far afield to take up these works one by one. Merely the titles of some of them can be mentioned. As a piece of lyrical work the Psalms of Solomon is the best example in this group. Of apocalyptical and prophetical works, there are the Book of Enoch, quoted in Jude, the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Legendary works are the Book of Jubilees and the Ascension of Isaiah. One of the curious cases of mixed material is that of the Sibylline Oracles, See Apocalyptic Literature.

To these might be added scores of lesser lights that appeared in that period of theological and doctrinal unrest, many of which are now published, and others are being discovered in some out-of-the-way place almost yearly. Their value lies in the revelations that they give us of the methods adopted and the doctrines promulgated in the early centuries of the Christian era, by means of such works.

Ira Maurice Price.

APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.—See Gospels [ Apocryphal ].

APOLLONIA (Ac 17:1).—Paul and Silas passed through this town on the way from Amphipolis to Thessalonica. It is known that it was on the important Egnatian road which ran between Dyrrhachium (mod. Durazzo) and Thessalonica, but its exact site has not yet been discovered. It was about half-way between

Amphipolis and Thessalonica, and lay between the rivers Axius and Strymon.

A. Souter.

APOLLONIUS.—1. A governor of Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia under Seleucus IV. (2 Mac 4:4), who suggested the abortive attempt of Heliodorus on the Templetreasury. To this he probably owes the title mysarches (2 Mac 5:24), which the Vulg. renders odiosum principem, AV ‘detestable ringleader,’ RV ‘lord of pollutions.’ In b.c. 168–167 he was sent to Hellenize Jerusalem, and he initiated the great persecution with a cruel massacre on the Sabbath (2 Mac 5:24–26). Judas Maccabæus defeated and slew him, wearing his sword ever after (1 Mac 3:10 ff.,

Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 7). 2. An envoy sent to Egypt by Antiochus IV., b.c. 173 (2 Mac 4:21). 3. An official under Antiochus V. who molested the Jews (2 Mac 12:2). 4. A governor of Cœle-Syria who fought against the Jews (b.c. 147) on the side of Demetrius (1 Mac 10:69–85; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 3f. is in error). From Jamnia he sent a pompous defiance to Jonathan Maccabæus, who, however, captured Joppa and defeated Apollonius.

J. Taylor.

APOLLOPHANES (2 Mac 10:37).—A Syrian killed at the taking of Gazara by Judas Maccabæus.

APOLLOS (a pet name, abbreviated from Apollonius, which appears in D text of Ac 18:24).—Apart from a doubtful reference in Tit 3:13, we derive our knowledge of Apollos from 1 Cor. and Ac 18:24–28. In Acts he is described as an Alexandrian Jew, an eloquent man, with an effective knowledge of the OT. He came to Ephesus before St. Paul sojourned there, and, having been instructed in the way of the Lord, he zealously proclaimed his views in the synagogue, where Priscilla and Aquila heard him. What exactly his views were, it is not easy to decide. Ac 18:25 suggests that he was a Christian in some sense, that he knew the story of Jesus, believed in Him as Messiah, but did not know of the coming of the Holy Ghost. The disciples mentioned in Ac 19:1ff., who are clearly in a parallel position, do not seem to know even so much as this; and ‘instructed in the way of the Lord’ need not mean Christianity, while even the phrase ‘the things concerning Jesus’ may refer simply to the Messianic prophecies (cf. Lk 24:27, and see art. ‘Apollos’ by J. H. A. Hart in JThS, Oct. 1905). In Ephesus, Apollos may have preached only John’s baptism of repentance. But Priscilla and Aquila made him a full Christian.

Later on Apollos worked in Corinth, with great success. His eloquence and Philonic culture won him a name for wisdom, and made his preaching attractive, so that many declared themselves his special followers (1 Co 1:12). Apollos’ teaching in Corinth may have been marked by allegorical interpretation, insistence on Divine knowledge, and on the need of living according to nature (see St. Paul’s sarcastic reference to ‘nature’ in 1 Co 11:14). But the party-strife at Corinth was not of his intending. Apollos and Paul were agreed in their gospel (1 Co 3:8)—a fact the Corinthians overlooked. Apollos refused the request of the Corinthians for a speedy second visit (1 Co 16:12). St. Paul apparently speaks of Apollos as an Apostle (1 Co 4:9). We have no certain records of Apollos’ teaching, but it has been suggested that he wrote the Wisdom of Solomon before, and the letter to the Hebrews after, his conversion.

H. G. Wood.

APOLLYON (‘the Destroyer’).—The Greek equivalent in Rev 9:11 of

Abaddon, the angel of the bottomless pit, who was also the king of the locusts ( see Abaddon). The word does not appear in its Greek form in later Rabbinic writings, and only here in the NT. As an angel Apollyon seems to have been regarded as equivalent to Asmodæus, king of demons, in Judaistic mythology; but our data are too few to warrant precise statements.

Shailer Mathews.

APOPLEXY.—See Medicine.

APOSTASY.—A defection from the tenets of some religious community. In Ac 21:21 it describes the charge brought against St. Paul by the Jews, viz., that he taught that the Jews should abandon Mosaism. In 2 Th 2:3 it describes the defection of Christians which was to accompany the ‘man of lawlessness’; i.e. the Antichrist. This expectation is an illustration of what seems to have been a common belief—that the return of the Christ to establish His Kingdom would be preceded by exceptional activity on the part of His superhuman opponent, and that this would result in an abandonment of Christian faith on the part of many of those nominally Christian.

Shailer Mathews.

APOSTLES.—Apostle, ‘one commissioned,’ represents a Heb. word which signified not merely a messenger but a delegate, bearing a commission, and, so far as his commission extended, wielding his commissioner’s authority. ‘The Apostle of any one,’ says the Talmud, ‘is even as the man himself by whom he is deputed.’

The term was applied by Jesus to the twelve disciples whom He attached to Himself to aid Him in His ministry and to be trained by the discipline of His example and precept for carrying it on after His departure (Lk 6:13, Mt 10:2). Cf. Jn 17:18 ‘Even as thou didst commission me unto the world, I also commissioned them unto the world’ (where ‘commission’ is the verb cognate to ‘Apostle’).

Jesus appointed twelve Apostles corresponding to the twelve tribes, thus intimating that their mission was meanwhile to Israel (cf. Mt 10:5, 6); but by and by, when He was setting out on His last journey to Jerusalem, He ‘appointed other seventy and commissioned them’ (Lk 10:1), thus intimating the universality of His gospel, inasmuch as, according to Jewish reckoning, mankind was composed of seventy nations.

After the Lord’s departure the Twelve were the Apostles par excellence (cf. Ac 6:2, 6). They were the men who had been with Jesus, and their peculiar function was to testify of Him, and especially of His Resurrection (Ac 1:21, 22; cf. v. 8 and Lk 24:48). But they were not the only Apostles. The title was given to Barnabas (Ac 14:4, 14, 1 Co 9:5, 6) and Andronicus and Junias (Ro 16:7). It may be that it was extended to men of Apostolic character, but then why was it withheld from one like Timothy (2 Co 1:1, Col 1:1)? If Barnabas, as tradition declares, and Andronicus and Junias, as Origen suggests, belonged to the order of the Seventy, it may well be that those others besides the Twelve who were styled ‘Apostles’ were the Seventy. It is true the title is given to James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19, 1 Co 15:7) and to Paul, who belonged neither to the Twelve nor to the Seventy. But theirs were exceptional cases. It was natural that James, who was recognized as the head of the Church at Jerusalem, should be accorded the dignity of Apostleship, as well for his extreme sanctity as for his relationship to Jesus. And as for Paul, his Apostolic title was bitterly contested; and he triumphantly defended it on the double ground that, though he had not companied with Jesus in the days of His flesh, he had seen Him after His glorification on the road to Damascus (1 Co 9:1) , and though he was not one of the original Apostles, his Apostleship had the Lord’s own sanction (1 Co 9:2, 2 Co 12:12). Perhaps it was his example that emboldened others outside the ranks of the Twelve and the Seventy to claim Apostleship on the score of Apostolic gifts, real or supposed (2 Co 11:13, Rev 2:2). See also Disciples.

David Smith.

APOTHECARY.—In all the 8 occurrences of this word in OT and Apocr. we should render ‘perfumer,’ as does RV in half of these (Ex 30:25, 35, 37:29, Ec 10:1); elsewhere the former is retained (2 Ch 16:14, Neh. 3:8 (cf. marg.), Sir 38:8 , 49:1). See Perfumer.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

APPAIM.—A man of Judah (1 Ch 2:30, 31).

APPAREL.—See Dress.

APPARITION.—In RV of Mt 14:26 and Mk 6:49 for AV ‘spirit.’ The Gr. word (phantasma) differs from the usual word for ‘spirit’ (pneuma). It occurs only in these passages.

APPEAL.—See Justice.

APPHIA.—A Christian lady of Colossæ, a member of the household of Philemon, probably his wife (Philem 2).

APPHUS (1 Mac 2:5).—The surname of Jonathan the Maccabee. The name is usually thought to mean ‘dissembler’; and some suppose that it was given to Jonathan for his stratagem against the tribe of the Jambri, who had killed his brother John (1 Mac 9:37–41).

APPII FORUM.—Ac 28:15 AV; RV ‘The Market of Appius.’ See next article.

APPIUS, MARKET OF.—A market-town (without city rights) on the Appian Way, 10 Roman miles from Tres Tabernœ (Three Taverns), near the modern railway station, Foro Appio. As the Appian Way was the main road from Rome to the south and east of the Roman Empire, it was traversed by nearly all travellers from or to those parts (Ac 28:15).

A. Souter.

APPLE.—That the apple (tappuah) of the OT is the fruit known by that name to-day is extremely doubtful. It is true that the tree in size and foliage would answer to the reference in Ca 8:5, JL 1:12; the fruit too in its sweetness (Ca 2:3) and its smell (Ca 7:8) is very appropriate. It is also suggestive that Heb. tappuah closely resembles the Arabic for ‘apple,’ tuffah. On the other hand, it is a substantial difficulty that the apple does not grow well in Palestine proper, as distinguished from the Lebanon. The native fruit is small and wanting in sweetness; almost all eatable apples are imported from the North. In consequence of this, several fruits which to-day are found in Palestine have been suggested. The citron, a favourite with the Jews on account of its smell and golden colour, is certainly a more recent introduction. The apricot, suggested by Tristiam, which flourishes in parts of Palestine in greater profusion than any other fruit, would seem to answer to the references well. It is deliciously sweet, with a pleasant smell, and, when ripe, of a brilliant golden colour. The tree is one of the most beautiful in the land, and when loaded with its golden fruit might well suggest the expression ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver’ (Pr 25:11). Unfortunately there is considerable doubt whether this tree, a native of China, was known in Palestine much before the Christian era. A fourth fruit has been suggested, namely, the quince. This is certainly a native of the land, and is common all over Palestine. The fruit, when ripe, though smelling pleasantly, is not ‘sweet’ according to our ideas, but even today is much appreciated. It is a great favourite when cooked, and is extensively used for making a delicious confection. The quince, along with the true apple, was sacred to Aphrodite, the goddess of love.

E. W. G. Masterman.

APPLE OF THE EYE (lit. ‘child or daughter of the eye,’ i.e. that which is most precious [the organ of sight], and most carefully guarded [by the projecting bone, protecting it as far as possible from injury]).—A figure of God’s care of His people (Dt 32:10, Ps 17:8, Zec 2:8), and of the preciousness of the Divine law ( Pr 7:2). In La 2:18 it is the source of tears.

C. W. Emmet.

APRON.—See Dress.

AQUILA AND PRISCILLA.—The names of a married couple first mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Co 16:19, and by St. Luke in Ac 18:2. Only in these passages do the names occur in this order; in later references the order is always ‘Priscilla and Aquila’ (Ac 18:18, 26, Ro 16:3, 2 Ti 4:19). A natural inference from this fact is that Priscilla was a more active worker in the Christian Church than her husband. In favour of this view is the statement of Chrysostom (i. 306 D, 177 A, iii. 176 B, C) that it was Priscilla’s careful expositions of ‘the way of God’ ( Ac 18:26) that proved so helpful to Apollos. On this testimony Harnack bases his ingenious but doubtful theory that Priscilla was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. From the prominence given in Roman inscriptions and legends to the name Prisca (St. Paul) or its dimioutive Priscilla (St. Luke), Hort concludes that she belonged to a distinguished Roman family (Rom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.). Aquila was a Jew of Eastern origin—‘a man of Pontus by race’ (Ac 18:2).

From Rome, Aquila and Priscilla were driven by the edict of Claudius (a.d. 52). As the unrest among the Jews, which led to their expulsion, arose ‘through the instigation of Chrestus,’ it is not improbable that Aquila and Priscilla were at least sympathizers with Christianity before they met St. Paul. On this supposition their ready welcome of the Apostle to their home at Corinth is most easily explained. Their hospitality had a rich reward; both in private and in public they were privileged to listen to St. Paul’s persuasive reasonings (Ac 18:4). Nor was the advantage all on one side; from these ‘fellow-workers in Christ Jesus’ (Ro 16:3) it is probable, as Ramsay suggests (Hastings’ DB I. p. 482), that the Apostle of the Gentiles learnt ‘the central importance of Rome in the development of the Church.… We may fairly associate with this friendship the maturing of St. Paul’s plan for evangelizing Rome and the West, which we find already fully arranged a little later (Ac 19:21, Ro 15:24) .’

At the close of St. Paul’s eighteen months’ residence in Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him to Ephesus. At their house Christians assembled for worship, and, according to an early gloss (DG al) on 1 Co 16:19, the Apostle again lodged with them. At Ephesus they remained whilst St. Paul visited Jerusalem; there Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian, profited greatly from their ripe Christian experience, and learnt, from one or both of them, the secret of power in ministering the gospel of grace (Ac 18:26ff.); there also it is probable that they made ‘the churches of the Gentiles’ their debtors by risking their lives in defence of St. Paul. The allusion to this courageous deed is in Ro 16:3, and from this passage we learn that Aquila and Priscilla sojourned for a while in Rome, where once more their hospitable home became a rendezvous for Christians. This statement affords no ground for disputing the integrity of the Epistle. Their former connexion with Rome, their Interest in the Church of Christ in the imperial city, and their migratory habits, rather furnish presumptive evidence in favour of such a visit. From these trusted friends St. Paul may have received the encouraging tidings which made him ‘long to see’ his fellow-believers in Rome (Ro 1:11). The last NT reference to this devoted pair shows that they returned to Ephesus (2 Ti 4:19); their fellowship with Timothy would, doubtless, tend to his strengthening ‘in the grace that is in Christ Jesus’ (21).

J. G. Tasker.

AQUILA’S VERSION.—See Greek Versions.

AR.—A city on the Arnon, the border between Moab and the Amorites ( Nu

21:15, Dt 2:9), now Wādy Mōjib. It is called Ar Moab (Nu 21:28, Is 15:1),’Ī Moab (Nu 22:35), and ‘the city that is in the valley’ (Dt 2:36 etc.). It is possibly the ruin seen by Burckhardt in the valley below the junction of the Lejjūn and the Mōjib.

W. Ewing.

ARA.—A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7:38).

ARAB (Jos 15:52).—A city of Judah in the mountains near Dumah. Perhaps the ruin er-Rabiyah near Domeh.

ARABAH.—The name given by the Hebrews to the whole of the great depression from the Sea of Galilee to the Gulf of Akabah. (For the part N. of the Dead Sea, see Jordan.) The name is now applied only to the southern part, extending from a line of white cliffs that cross the valley a few miles S. of the Dead Sea. The floor of the valley, about 10 miles broad at the N. end, gradually rises towards the S., and grows narrower, until, at a height of 2000 feet above the Dead Sea, nearly opposite Mt. Hor, the width is only about ¹/₂mile. The average width thence to Akabah is about 5 miles. The surface is formed of loose gravel, stones, sand, with patches of mud. Up to the level of the Red Sea everything indicates that we are traversing an old sea-bottom. Apart from stunted desert shrub and an occasional acacia, the only greenery to be seen is around the springs on the edges of the valley, and in the wadys which carry the water from the adjoining mountains into the Wādy el-Jaib, down which it flows to the Dead Sea. The great limestone plateau, et-Tīh, the Wilderness of Paran, forms the western boundary, and the naked crags of Edom the eastern. Israel traversed the Arabah when they went to Kadesh-barnea, and again when they returned to the south to avoid passing through the land of Edom (Nu 20:21, 21:4, Dt 2:6).

W. Ewing.

ARABIA, ARABS.—In the present article we have to do not with the part played by the Arabs in history, or with the geography of the Arabian peninsula, but only with the emergence of the Arab name and people in Bible times.

‘Arāb (for which we should have expected rather ‘ārāb) is scarcely at first a proper name, but stands merely for ‘waste,’ ‘desolation.’ So in Is 21:13 ( which may really belong to Isaiah himself, but should perhaps be ascribed to a later hand): ‘Bivouac in the copse [made up of thorn-bushes, something like an Italian macchia], in the waste, ye caravans of Dedan.’ In this passage the title massā ba’ rāb, which in any case is late and wanting in the ancient Gr. version, incorrectly takes ‘arāb as a proper name [we need not stop to notice the false interpretation of this word adopted by the LXX here and in other passages]. More commonly the word used for ‘waste’ is the fem. form ‘arābāh (e.g. Is 35:1, Job 24:5, 39:6 etc.), which, preceded by the art. (hā-‘Arābāh), stands for the deep gorge which, commencing to the north of the Dead Sea and including the latter, stretches to the Red Sea (Dt 2:8 etc.). Whether ‘arābī in Is 13:20 and Jer 3:2 means simply an inhabitant of the desert, or should be taken as a proper name, is uncertain; but at bottom this distinction has no Importance, for the two notions of ‘Bedouin’ (Badawī, which also = ‘inhabitant of the desert’) and ‘Arab’ were pretty much identical in the mind of civilized peoples. It may be noted that here the Massoretes appear to assume the appellative sense, since they point ‘arābī, whereas for ‘Arab’ they use the form more akin to Aramaic than Hebrew, ‘arbī (Neh 2:19, 6:16). The plural ‘arbīm in Neh 21:16, 22:1 and 2 Ch 26:7 Qerē, from ‘arbī’īm (Kethibh of the last passage) may also be justified from the standpoint of Hebrew usage. The form in 2 Ch 17:11 can hardly be original; it is due to attraction from the following mebī’īm. ‘Arāb is certainly a gentilic name in we’ēth kol malkē ‘Arāb of Jer 25:24 [the following words we-ēth kol malkē hā-‘ereb, which are wanting in the LXX, are of course a pure dittography; for, although the Massoretes, for the sake of distinction, point in the second instance hā-‘ereb, this has no value] and in Ezk 27:21. In these passages ‘Arāb can hardly be taken as the name of a single clan quite distinct from Dedan and the rest. The prophetic authors do not speak with the exactness of a prose narrator, and in point of fact were perhaps not very well informed about the various branches of the Bedouins, of whose territory the Israelite peasant and townsman thought only with a shudder. It is possible, indeed, that the rise of the name ‘Arab’ among the Hebrews (c. b.c. 700) is connected with the circumstance that the ancient clans of Ishmael, Midian, Amalek, etc., had by that time disappeared or at least lost all significance. In the desert there goes on a constant, if for the most part a slow, interchange in the rise and fall of tribes and tribal names. A brave tribe may be weakened by famine or defeat; it may be compelled to migrate or to adopt a settled mode of life, and thus its name becomes lost among a peasant population; or it may become otherwise broken up and its fragments attached to other tribes, so that small clans by assimilating foreign elements become great tribes. So it was millenniums ago; so it is still.

The Assyrian sources name the Arabs as early as the 9th cent. b.c. (see the passages cited by Bezold in his Catalogue, vol. v. 1964). King Darius I., in his inscriptions, enumerates Arabāya among the countries subject to him. The name always follows Babylonia, Assyria (which as a province included Mesopotamia proper and also probably N. Syria), and precedes Egypt. We shall have to understand by this name the great desert region not only of Syria, but also of Mesopotamia as well as the peninsula of Sinai. About this same time at the latest the name of the Arabs became known also to the Greeks. Æschylus (Persœ, 316) names an Arab as fighting in the battle of Salamis, and his contemporary, from whom Herodotus borrowed his description of the host of Xerxes, enumerated Arab archers as forming part of the latter (Herod. vii. 69). But while Æschylus (Prom. 422) has quite fabulous notions about the dwelling-places of the Arabs, Herodotus is well acquainted with them. His account of the situation of the Arabian peninsula is approximately correct, but he has specially in view those Arabs who inhabit the region lying between Syria and Egypt, i.e. the desert lands with whose inhabitants the ancient Israelites had frequent relations, peaceful or warlike. Xenophon appears to use the term ‘Arabia’ in essentially the same sense as King Darius. He too gives this name to the desert to the east of the Euphrates, the desert which separates Babylonia from Mesopotamia proper (Anab. VII. viii. 25),—the same region which was still called ‘Arab by the later Syrians. This tract of country, so far as we can learn, has always been peopled by Arab tribes.

In the 5th cent. b.c. we find, in the above-cited passages from the Memoirs of Nehemiah, repeated mention of an Arabian—Geshem or Gashmu, whose real name may have been Gushamō—who gave Nehemiah no little trouble. About this time, perhaps, the Arab tribe of Nabatæans had already pressed their way from the south and driven the Edomites from their ancient seats. Towards the end of the 4 th cent. they were firmly established at least in the ancient Edomite capital, Petra; and they gradually extended their dominion widely. The First Book of Maccabees clearly distinguishes the Nabatæans from other Arabs, whereas the Second Book simply calls them ‘Arabs’ (2 Mac 5:8), as do also other Greek and Latin writers. The Nabatæan kingdom counted, indeed, for so much with Westerns that they could regard it as ‘the Arabs’ par excellence. The Apostle Paul (Gal 4:25), like profane writers, reckons the Sinaitic peninsula, which was part of the Nahatæan kingdom, as belonging to Arabia. Again, the part of Arabia to which he withdrew after his conversion (Gal 1:17) must have been a desert region not far from Damascus, which then also was under the sway of the king of the Nabatæans. By the ‘Arabians’ mentioned in Ac 2:11, in connexion with the miracle of Pentecost, the author probably meant Jews from the same kingdom, which, it is true, had in his time (?) become the Roman province of Arabia (a.d. 105).

We do not know whether the name ‘Arab originated with the Arabs themselves or was first applied to them by outsiders. In any case, it first extended itself gradually over the northern regions and the great peninsula. Uncivilized and much divided peoples recognize their national unity only with difficulty, whereas this is more readily perceived by their neighbours. In the first case a man knows only his own tribe, and regards even the neighbouring tribe, which speaks the same language, as strange. But the wide wanderings of the Arab nomads, due to the nature of their country, brought them readily into contact with peoples of other language and other customs, and this could awaken in them the consciousness of their own nationality. Perhaps the recognition of Arab unity was favoured also by the trading journeys of the civilized Arabs of the south and of other parts of Arabia. But be that as it may, the ancient Arab epitaph of Namāra to the S.E. of

Damascus, dating from the year a.d. 328, concerns Maralqais, ‘king of all Arabs.’ And from the oldest documents of classical Arabic that have come down to us it is a sure inference that at that time (i.e. in the 6th cent. a.d.) ‘Arab had been for an inconceivably long period known as their national designation. But the close connexion between this common name and the meaning ‘desert’ still reveals itself in the circumstance that the plural form ‘Arāb (later more freq. ‘Urbān) stands especially for the Bedouins as opposed to Arabs who live in towns, and that afterwards in common speech, as had been the case even in the Sabæan inscriptions, ‘Arab is often used simply for ‘Bedouin,’ ‘inhabitant of the desert.’

Th. Nöldeke.

ARAD.—1. A city in the Negeb, the king of which provoked Israel (Nu 21:1) and was slain by Joshua (Jos 12:14). In its vicinity the Kenites settled (Jg 1:16). It is probably Tell ‘Arād, 16 miles S. of Hebron. 2. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:15).

W. Ewing.

ARADUS (1 Mac 15:23).—See Arvad.

ARAH.—1. In the genealogy of Asher (1 Ch 7:39). 2. His family returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:5, Neh 6:18, 7:10, 1 Es 5:10 mg. ).

ARAM.—1. A grandson of Nahor (Gn 22:21). 2. An Asherite (1 Ch 7:34). 3. AV of Mt 1:3, Lk 3:33. See Arni, Ram.

ARAM, ARAMÆANS (often in AV and RV ‘Syrians’).—A number of

scattered but kindred tribes which made their appearance in the Euphrates valley about b.c. 1300 and rapidly pushed westward. Their chief habitat stretched from Harran, east of the Euphrates, south-westward to the Hauran. The north-eastern part of this region was called ‘Aram of the rivers’ (Aram-naharaim, Ps 60, title). The Aramæans are first mentioned by Shalmaneser I. of Assyria about b.c. 1300 (WAI iii. 4, No. 1). About the same time their name occurs in an inscription of Rameses II. (cf. Müller, Asien und Europa, 222, 234). Tiglath-pileser I. (c. b.c. 1110) mentions Aramæans (KIB i. 33) as dwelling east of the Euphrates, and in this same region they were later (885–824) conquered by Ashurnazirpal and Shalmaneser II. Many of them continued to live in the Euphrates valley, where their language spread to such an extent that, in the reign of Sennacherib, Aramaic glosses begin to make their appearance on Babylonian contracts. In Nippur many similar documents from the Persian period have been found. They indicate that the use of Aramaic was spreading among the common people of Babylonia. It probably came into general use here, as the Babylonian Talmud is written in it.

The Aramæans pushed into the West in large numbers shortly after b.c. 1300. In course of time they occupied Damascus and a part of the country to the south as far as the Hauran, some of them mingling with tribes still farther to the south and becoming the Ammonites, Moabites, and Israelites. A part of the Aramæans also displaced the Hittites in Hamath. Damascus became the leading Aramæan State (cf. Am 1:5 and Is 7:8), but other independent Aramæan kingdoms were AramGeshur, and Aram-Maacah in the Hauran to the north of Bashan; Aram-Zobah, farther north towards Damascus; and Aram-Rehob, near the town of Dan ( Nu 13:21, Jg 18:28), conjecturally identified with Banias (Moore, Com. on Judges, 399).

King David married a daughter of the king of Geshur, and she became the mother of Absalom (2 S 3:3), who afterwards fled thither (13:38). Damascus was conquered by David (8:6), who also made Zobah, Rehob, and Maacah tributary (ch. 10). Zobah is mentioned by Ashurbanipal three centuries later as Subiti.

After the death of David, Damascus regained its independence. In the reigns of Baasha and Asa it was an ally now of Israel and now of Judah (1 K 15:18). During the century from Ahab to Jehoash of Israel, Damascus and Israel were frequently at war, and Damascus held much of Israel’s trans-Jordanic territory. After this the Aramæan kingdom became weaker, but in the reign of Ahaz it made an attempt on Judah (Is 7). It was finally subdued by Tiglath-pileser- III. of Assyria in b.c. 732.

The Aramæans continued to form the basis of population in the region from

Aleppo to the Euphrates and beyond. Early in the Christian era this region became Christian, and in that Aramaic dialect called Syriac a large Christian literature exists.

George A. Barton.

ARAMITESS.—A feminine form which occurs in both AV and RV of 1 Ch

7:14, for the elsewhere frequent term Syrian.

ARAM-GESHUR, ARAM-MAACAH, ARAM-NAHARAIM, ARAMREHOB, ARAM-ZOBAH.—See Aram.

ARAN.—Son of Dishan the Horite (Gn 36:28, 1 Ch 1:42), a descendant of

Esau. The name denotes ‘a wild goat,’ and Dishan ‘an antelope’ or ‘gazelle’; while

Seir the ancestor is ‘the he-goat.’

ARARAT (Gn 8:4, 2 K 19:37 [|| Isa 37:38], Jer 51:27) is the Hebrew form of the Assyrian Urartu, which on the monuments from the 9th cent. downwards designates a kingdom in the N. of the later Armenia. The extension of the name naturally varied with the political limits of this State; but properly it seems to have denoted a small district on the middle Araxes, of which the native name Ayrarat is thought to be preserved in the Alarodioi of Herodotus (iii. 94, vii. 79). Jerome describes it as ‘a level region of Armenia, through which the Araxes flows, of incredible fertility, at the foot of the Taurus range, which extends thus far.’ The Araxes (or Aras), on its way to the Caspian Sea, forms a great elbow to the S.; and at the upper part of this, on the right (or S.W.) bank of the river, the lofty snowclad summit of Massis (called by the Persians the ‘mountain of Noah’) rises to a height of nearly 17,000 ft. above sea-level. This is the traditional landing-place of the ark; and, through a misunderstanding of Gn 8:4 (‘in [one of] the mountains of Ararat’), the name was transferred from the surrounding district to the two peaks of this mountain, Great Ararat and Little Ararat,—the latter about 7 m. distant and 4000 ft. lower.

Whether this is the site contemplated by the writer in Genesis (P) is not quite certain. The Syrian and Mohammedan tradition places it at Jebel Jûdî, a striking mountain considerably S. of Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain. It is just possible that this might be included among the

‘mountains of Ararat’ in the wider sense of the term. This seems the view of

Joseph us (Ant. I. iii. 5, 6), who is unconscious of any discrepancy between ‘Armenia’ and the ‘Kordyæan’ mountain of Berosus. His statement about relics of the ark being shown in his time appeals to be borrowed from Berosus, and applies to whatever mountain that writer had in mind—possibly Jebel Jûdî! The Targums and Peshiṭta, however, which are influenced by this tradition, read Ḳardû

(Kurdistan), in verbal agreement with Berosus. The cuneiform Flood-legend puts it much farther S., at the ‘mountain of Nisir,’ probably in one of the ranges E. of the Tigris and S. of the Lesser Zab. This, of course, is quite beyond any imaginable extension of the name Ararat. Assuming, therefore, that the Biblical and Babylonian narratives have a common origin, the landing-place of the ark would seem to have been pushed gradually northward, the natural tendency of such a tradition being to attach itself to the highest mountain known at the time. On this principle the ultimate selection of the imposing Mount Massis would be almost inevitable: and it is probable that this is the view of Gn 8:4, although the alternative hypothesis that Jebel Jûdî is meant has still some claim to be considered. The suggestion of Nöldeke, that Ararat is a late substitution for Ḳardû in the original text of Genesis, has nothing to recommend it.

J. Skinner.

ARARITE (2 S 23:33b RV).—See Hararite, No. 2.

ARATHES, formerly called Mithridates, was king of Cappadocia b.c. 163– 130. In b.c. 139 the Romans wrote letters to Arathes and certain other eastern sovereigns in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 15:22).

ARAUNAH (2 S 24:18; called in 1 Ch 21:15, 2 Ch 31 Ornan).—A Jebusite who owned a threshing-floor on Mount Moriah. This spot was indicated by the prophet Gad as the place where an altar should he erected to J″, because the plague, which followed David’s numbering of the people, had been stayed. David bought the threshing-floor and oxen for 50 shekels of silver. The price paid is given in 1 Ch 21:15 as 600 shekels of gold—a characteristic deviation from the earlier account.

ARBA is named ‘the father of the Anak’ in Jos 14:15 (so read also 21:11, cf. 15:13). This means simply that he was the founder of the city which bore his name; that is Kiriath-arba, later Hebron (wh. see), where was a chief seat of the Anakim.

J. F. McCurdy.

ARBATHITE (2 S 23:31).—‘A native of Beth-arabah,’ a town in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15:6, 51, 18:22).

ARBATTA (AV Arbattis), 1 Mac 5:23.—A district in Palestine. The situation is doubtful. It may be a corruption for Akrabattis—the toparchy of Samaria near ’Akrabeh E. of Shechem.

ARBELA.—The discrepancy between 1 Mac 9 and Jos. Ant. XII. xi. 1, our only authorities, makes uncertain the route of Bacchides in his march on Jerusalem. Josephus makes him pitch his camp at Arbela in Galilee: 1 Mac. brings him ‘by the way that leadeth to Gilgal,’ to ‘Mesaloth which is in Arbela.’ His course thence points to Jiljilia as Gilgal, about 5 miles N. of Bīr ez-Zeit, where the battle was fought with Judas. Mesaloth might then he sought in Meselieh, about 3 miles S.E. of Dothan. But no name resembling Arbela, either of town or district, is found in the neighbourhood; although Eusebius (Onomasticon) seems to have known an Arbela not far from Lejjun. On the other hand, Arbela in Galilee survives in the modern Irbil or Irbid, a ruin on the S. lip of the gorge, Wādy Hamām, which breaks westward from Gennesaret. There is, however, no trace of a Mesaloth here, unless indeed Robinson’s ingenious suggestion is right, that it may be the Heb. mesillīth, referring to the famous caverned cliffs in the gorge, whence Bacchides extirpated the refugees.

W. Ewing.

ARBITE.—The LXX (2 S 23:35) apparently reads ‘the Archite,’ cf. Jos 16:2 and ‘Hushai the Archite,’ 2 S 15:32; but a place ‘Arab., in the S. of Judah, is mentioned Jos 15:52. In the parallel passage 1 Ch 11:37 we find ‘the son of Ezhai,’ a reading which is supported by several MSS of the LXX in 2 Sam. l.c., and is probably correct.

ARBONAI (Jth 2:24).—A torrent apparently near Cilicia. It cannot be represented by the modern Nahr Ibrahīm, since the ancient name of that river was the Adonis.

ARCH.—It is usually stated that the Hebrews were unacquainted with the architectural principle of the arch, but in view of the extreme antiquity of the arch in Babylonian mason work, as e.g. at Nippur, of the discovery of early arches by recent explorers, and of the vaulted roofs of later Jewish tombs, this view is now seen to be erroneous, although the arch is not mentioned in Scripture. The word ‘arch’ does, indeed, occur in the EV of Ezk 40:16ff., but this is a mistake for ‘porch,’ ‘porches.’ See Temple.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARCHANGEL.—See Angel.

ARCHELAUS.—Mt 2:22. See Herod, No. 2.

ARCHER.—See Armour, Army.

ARCHEVITES.—‘The people of Erech’ (wh. see). Some of the inhabitants of Erech were deported as colonists to Samaria by king Ashurbanipal (668–626). Their name is mentioned in Ezr 4:9 along with dwellers in Babylon; and the deportation of Archevites most probably indicates that Erech sided with Babylon in the revolt of Samas-sum-ukin against the Assyr. king.

ARCHIPPUS (Philem 2, Col 4:17) was evidently a member of the household of Philemon of Colossæ, probably his son. He shared his spirit, since St. Paul, referring doubtless to his aid in missionary operations in those parts, styles him ‘our fellow-soldier.’ He had been entrusted with some important office in the Church, whether at Colossæ, or, as Lightfoot, in view of the preceding context, more probably supposes, at the neighbouring town of Laodicea; and, considering the spiritual atmosphere of the place (Rev 3:14–19), one is not surprised that the Apostle should have thought it needful to exhort him to zeal in his ministry.

David Smith.

ARCHITE.—The native of a town [in Jos 16:2 read ‘the Archites,’ not ‘Archi’ as in AV] situated on the north border of Benjamin, possibly the modern ‘Ain ‘Arik, west of Bethel. Hushai, David’s friend (2 S 15:32), belonged to this town.

ARCHITECTURE.—The Hebrews never developed a native style of architecture. The genius of the people lay elsewhere. Alike in civil, religious, and funerary architecture, they were content to follow alien models. David’s palace in his new capital was probably the first building since the conquest which gave scope for architectural display, and in this case workmen, plans, and decorative materials were all Phœnician (2 S 5:11). The palace and temple of Solomon were likewise the work of Phœnician architects, and the former doubtless supplied the model for the more ambitious private buildings under the monarchy. Late Egyptian influence has been traced in the tombs of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, but the prevailing influence from the beginning of the 3rd cent. onwards was undoubtedly Greek (cf. 1 Mac 1:14, 2 Mac 4:12). The many magnificent buildings of Herod, for example, including the colonnades and gates of the Temple, were entirely built in the prevailing Græco-Roman style. When the excavations at Gezer,—where Mr. Macalister claims to have discovered, with much else of architectural interest, the palace of Simon Maccabæus (1 Mac 13:48),—Taanach, and Megiddo are finished and the results published in final form, and still more when other historical sites, such as Samaria (cf. Am 3:15, 1 K 22:39), shall have been similarly laid bare, it may be possible to write a history of Palestinian, including pre-Israelite or Amorite architecture, but that day is not yet. See, further, Fortification, Palace, Temple, Tomb.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARCHIVES.—The ‘house of the archives’ (Ezr 6:1 RV; AV ‘rolls’) was a part of the ‘treasure house’ (5:17) of the Persian kings at Babylon, in which important State documents were preserved.

ARCTURUS.—See Stars.

ARD.—Benjamin’s son in Gn 46:21, but his grandson in Nu 26:40 = 1 Ch 8:3 (Addar). Patronymic Ardites (Nu 26:40).

ARDAT (2 Es 9:26 AV Ardath).—‘A field’ in an unknown situation.

ARDITES.—Nu 26:40. See Ard.

ARDON.—A son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:18).

ARELI.—A son of Gad (Gn 46:16, Nu 26:17). Patronymic Arelites ( Nu

26:17).

AREOPAGUS.—This is a compound name, which means ‘Hill of Ares,’ that is, Hill sacred to (or connected with) Ares, the Greek god of war, who corresponded to the Latin Mars. The hill referred to is a bare, shapeless mass of rock in Athens, about 380 feet high. It is due west of the Acropolis, and separated from it only by a ridge. From the earliest times known to us this hill was associated with murder trials, and a court known as the ‘Council from the Areopagus’ met on or near it to try such cases. In the account in Acts (17:19, 22) it is not the hill, but the ‘Council’ itself that is referred to, the name of the hill being often used for the Council which met there. In Roman times the Council had power to appoint lecturers at Athens, and St. Paul appears before them to have his aptitude tested. The proceedings were audible to the surrounding crowd. St. Paul’s claim was rejected, and only one member of the Council, Dionysius ‘the Areopagite’ (17:34), was convinced by his teaching.

A. Souter.

ARES (1 Es 5:10).—756 of his descendants returned with Zerub.: they correspond to the 775 (Ezr 2:5) or 652 (Neh 7:10) children of Arah.

ARETAS.—This is the dynastic name (Aram. Charethath) of several kings of the Nahatæan Arabs whose capital was Petra (Sela), and whose language for purposes of writing and commerce was an Aramaic dialect, as is seen from the existing inscriptions. (Cooke, N. Semitic Inscr. p. 214 ff.). The first of the line is mentioned in 2 Mac 5:8; the fourth (whose personal name was Æneas) in 2 Co 11:32, where his ‘ethnarch’ is said to have ‘guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take’ St. Paul; but the Apostle escaped. This was within three years after his conversion (Gal 1:17f., Ac 9:23ff.). There is a difficulty here, for Damascus was ordinarily in the Roman province of Syria. Aretas III. had held it in b.c. 85; the Roman coins of Damascus end a.d. 34 and begin again a.d. 62–3. It has been supposed that the Nabatæans held the city during this interval. Yet before the death of Tiberius (a.d. 37) there could hardly have been any regular occupancy by them, as Vitellius, proprætor of Syria, was sent by that emperor to punish Aretas IV. for the vengeance that the latter had taken on Herod Antipas for divorcing his sister in favour of Herodias. It has therefore been thought that a.d. 37 is the earliest possible date for St. Paul’s escape; and this will somewhat modify our view of Pauline chronology (see art. Paul the Apostle, § 4). Yet the allusion in 2 Co 11:32 f. does not necessarily imply anything like a permanent tenure of Damascus by Aretas’ ethnarch. A temporary occupancy may well have taken place in Aretas’

war against Herod Antipas or afterwards; and it would be unsafe to build any chronological theory on this passage. The reign of Aretas IV. lasted from b.c. 9 to

a.d. 40; inscriptions (at el-Hejra) and coins are dated in his 48th year (Cooke, l.c.).

A. J. Maclean.

ARGOB.—1. Argob and Arieh were guards of Pekahiah (2 K 15:25), who fell by the hands of Pekah along with their master. 2. A district in the kingdom of Og, abounding in strong cities and unwalled towns. It was subdued by ‘Jair son of Manasseh,’ and became the possession of his tribe (Dt 3:3, 13, 1 K 4:15 etc.). It is called ‘the Argob’ (Dt 3:13). This, together with the fact that chebel, ‘measured area,’ always precedes the name, seems to indicate a definitely marked district. This would apply admirably to the great lava field of el-Lejā, N.W. of Jebel Haurān. Within this forbidding tract the present writer collected the names of 71 ruined sites. Had Gesenius rightly translated ‘a heap of stones,’ the identification would be almost certain. But the name seems to mean ‘arable land’ (regeb = ‘clod,’ Job 21:33, 38:38). Argob must therefore be sought elsewhere. The W.

slopes of the mountain (now Jebel ed-Druze) would always form a clearly defined district. They abound in ruins of antiquity; while the rich soil, now turned to good account by the Druzes, would amply justify the name of Argob.

W. Ewing.

ARIDAI (Est 9:9).—The ninth of Haman’s sons, put to death by the Jews.

ARIDATHA (Est 9:8).—The sixth son of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

ARIEH (‘the lion’).—Mentioned with Argob in a very obscure passage (2 K

15:25).

ARIEL.—1. One of Ezra’s chief men (Ezr 8:16). 2. The name of a Moabite (according to RV of 2 S 23:20, 1 Ch 11:22) whose two sons were slain by Benaiah. 3. A name of uncertain meaning, perhaps = ‘God’s altar-hearth,’ given to

Jerusalem by Isaiah (29:1ff.). It has recently been proposed to read Uri-el (‘city of God’) as a paronomasia or play of words on Uru-salim, the earliest recorded form of the name ‘Jerusalem.’

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARIMATHÆA (Mt 27:57, Mk 15:43, Lk 23:51, Jn 19:38).—A place known only in connexion with Joseph. It was probably near Lydda.

ARIOCH.—1. The king of Ellasar (Gn 14:1). It has been suggested by Schrader that Arioch is the transcription of Eri-a-ku, the Sumerian writing of the name Rim-Sin of the king of Larsa, son of Kudur-Mabug, an Elamite, who ruled Southern Babylonia till conquered by Hammurabi. See Chedorlaomer. 2. The captain of the king’s guard in the time of Nebuchadrezzar (Dn 2:14). 3. King of the Elymæans (Jth 1:6).

C. H. W. Johns. ARISAI (Est 9:9).—The eighth son of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

ARISTARCHUS.—The name of one of St. Paul’s companions in travel. He was ‘a Macedonian of Thessalonica’ (Ac 19:29, 27:2), and a convert from Judaism (Col 4:10f.). From Troas, Aristarchus accompanied St. Paul on his departure for Jerusalem at the close of the third missionary journey (Ac 20:4); he also embarked with the Apostle on his voyage to Rome (27:2). In Col 4:10 he is called St. Paul’s ‘fellow-prisoner’ (cf. Philem 23, where Epaphras, not Aristarchus, is styled ‘my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus’). The expression probably refers not to a spiritual captivity, but either to a short imprisonment arising out of the turmoil described in Ac 19:29, or to a voluntary sharing of the Apostle’s captivity by Aristarchus and Epaphras.

J. G. Tasker.

ARISTOBULUS.—1. The name of a son and of a grandson of Herod the

Great. The grandson lived as a private Individual at Rome, and was a friend of the Emperor Claudius; those greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16:10 were probably some of his slaves. If he was then dead, they might have become members of the Imperial household, but would still retain Aristobulus’ name. 2. The teacher of Ptolemy (2 Mac 1:10).

A. J. Maclean.

ARIUS (1 Mac 12:7, 20).—A king of Sparta, grandson and successor of Cleomenes II. His reign lasted from b.c. 309 to b.c. 265, and he was contemporary with the high priest Onias I., the successor of Jaddua. Friendly letters were interchanged between Arius and Onias (probably about b.c. 300); and Jonathan Maccabeus refers to these communications in a letter which he sent by his ambassadors to Sparta (c. b.c. 144), 1 Mac 12:7ff., 19ff. AV Darius in v. 7 is due to corrupt text.

ARK.—This word, from Lat. arca, ‘a chest,’ is the rendering of two Hebrew words, of which one (tēbhāh, probably a loan-word) is applied both to the basket of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was exposed, and to the ark built by Noah (see Deluge). The other (’ǎrōn, the native word for box or chest, 2 K 12:10f.), is used for a mummy-case or coffin (Gn 50:26), and in particular for the sacred ark of the Hebrews.

Ark of the Covenant

1. Names of the ark.—Apart from the simple designation ‘the ark’ found in all periods of Heb. literature, the names of the ark, more than twenty in number, fall into three groups, which are characteristic (a) of the oldest literary sources, viz. Samuel and the prophetical narratives of the Hexateuch; (b) of Deuteronomy and the writers influenced by Dt.; and (c) of the Priests’ Code and subsequent writings. In (a) we find chiefly ‘the ark of J″,’ doubtless the oldest name of all, and ‘the ark of God’; in (b) the characteristic title is ‘the ark of the covenant’—alone or with the additions ‘of J″,’ ‘of God,’ etc.—a contraction for ‘the ark or chest containing the tables of the covenant’ (Dt 9:9ff.), and therefore practically ‘the ark of the Decalogue’; in (c) the same conception of the ark prevails (see below), but as the Decalogue is by P termed ‘the testimony,’ the ark becomes ‘the ark of the testimony.’ All other designations are expansions of one or other of the above.

2. History of the ark.—The oldest Pentateuch sources (J, E) are now silent as to the origin of the ark, but since the author of Dt 10:1–6 had one or both of these before him, it may be assumed that its construction was there also assigned to Moses in obedience to a Divine command. It certainly played an important part in the wanderings (Nu 10:33ff., 14:44), and in the conquest of Canaan (Jos 3:3 ff., 6:6f.), and finally found a resting-place in the temple of Shiloh under the care of a priestly family claiming descent from Moses (1 S 3:3). After its capture by the Philistines and subsequent restoration, it remained at Kiriathjearim (1 S 4:1–7:1) , until removed by David, first to the house of Obed-edom, and thereafter to a specially erected tent in his new capital (2 S 6:10ff.). Its final home was the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Solomon (1 K 8:1ff.). Strangely enough, there is no further mention of the ark in the historical books. Whether it was among ‘the treasures of the house of the Lord’ carried off by Shishak (c. b.c. 930), or whether it was still in its place in the days of Jeremiah (3:16f.) and was ultimately destroyed by the soldiers of Nebuchadrezzar (587 b.c.), it is impossible to say. There was no ark in the Temples of Zerubbabel and Herod.

3. The significance of the ark.—In attempting a solution of this difficult problem, we must, as in the foregoing section, leave out of account the late theoretical conception of the ark to be found in the Priests’ Code (see Tabernacle), and confine our attention to the oldest sources. In these the ark—a simple chest of acacia wood, according to Dt 10:3—is associated chiefly with the operations of war, in which it is the representative of J″, the God of the armies of Israel. Its presence on the field of battle is the warrant of victory (1 S 4:3ff., cf. 2 S 11:11), as its absence is the explanation of defeat (Nu 14:44). Its issue to and return from battle are those of J″ Himself (Nu 10:35f.). So closely, indeed, is the ark identified with the personal presence of J″ in the oldest narratives (see, besides the above, 1 S 6:20, 2 S 6:7f., 14), that one is tempted to identify it with that mysterious ‘presence’ of J″ which, as a fuller manifestation of the Deity than even the ‘angel of J″,’ was Israel’s supreme guide in the wilderness wanderings (Ex 32:34, 33:2 compared with v. 14f., Dt 4:37, and Is 63:9, where read ‘neither a messenger nor an angel, but his presence delivered them’). The ark was thus a substitute for that still more complete Presence (EV ‘face’) which no man can see and live.

Under the prophetic teaching Israel gradually outgrew this naive and primitive, not to say fetish-like, conception, and in the 7th cent. we first find the ark spoken of as the receptacle for the tables of the Decalogue (Dt 10:2ff.). Apart from other difficulties attending this tradition, it is quite inadequate to explain the extreme reverence and, to us, superstitious dread with which the ark is regarded in the narratives of Samuel. Hence many modern scholars are of opinion that the stone tables of the Deuteronomic tradition have taken the place of actual fetish stones, a view which it is impossible to reconcile with the lofty teaching of the founder of Israel’s religion.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARKITE is used (Gn 10:17, 1 Ch 1:15) for the people of Arka, a town and district of Phœnicia about 12 miles north of Tripolis. It was taken by Tiglathpileser III. in b.c. 738. As the birthplace of the Emperor Alexander Severus, it was later called Cæsarea Libani. It is probably mentioned, under the form Irkata, in the Amarna Letters.

J. F. McCurdy.

ARM.—Part of the insignia of royalty amongst Oriental peoples was a bracelet worn on the arm (2 S 1:10; cf. W. R. Smith’s reading of 2 K 11:12 where, agreeing with Wellhausen, he would substitute ‘bracelet’ for ‘testimony’ [OTJC²311 n.]). The importance attached to the functions discharged by this organ are incidentally referred to by Job in his solemn repudiation of conscious wrong-doing (‘Let my shoulder fall from the shoulder-blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone’ 31:22). The heart was said to be situated ‘between the arms,’ and, therefore, in the murder of Joram, the deadly aim of Jehu resulted in the instantaneous death of the former (2 K 9:24). It is interesting to recall here the means by which Jeremiah escaped the vengeance of his political enemies, especially as the narrative reveals the affection inspired by the prophet amongst some of the courtiers (Jer 38:12). A note of vividness is introduced into the narratives telling of St. Paul’s method of bespeaking attention from a crowd which he was anxious to address (Ac 13:16 , 21:40, cf. 12:17). There is in the Gospels no more beautiful picture than the two presented by St. Mark, in which the tenderness of Jesus to little children is emphasized. In each of them is pointed out the startling method by which His teaching was often enforced objectively on His hearers’ attention (Mk 9:36, 10:16 , cf. Lk 2:28).

Besides this literal use, there is also an extensive employment of the word in a metaphorical or a spiritual sense. Sometimes we find it used to denote the strength of the ungodly and their power to commit acts of cruel tyranny on God’s people (cf. Ps 10:15, Job 38:15, Ezk 30:21f.; cf. ‘arm of flesh,’ 2 Ch 32:8, Jer 17:6). Sometimes the word expresses the might of God’s ceaseless activity either on behalf of His chosen (Dt 33:27, Ps 44:3, Is 33:2, 63:12, Ac 13:17), or in breaking the power of His enemies (Ex 6:6, Dt 5:15, Ezk 21:6, 32:21), or again in upholding the movements and harmony of His creation, ruling in justice with unswerving sternness (Ezk 20:33f., Job 40:9, Is 40:16, 51:5, Jer 27:5, 32:17). The doom pronounced on the house of Eli contains this word to express the removal of that latent vitality which shows itself in prolonged hereditary strength and activity (1 S 2:31, cf. Zec 11:17).

The cognate verb is also used not only literally, to furnish arms for the purposes of war (Gn 14:14, Nu 31:3, 5), but also in a spiritual sense, to procure and make use of those graces and helps which are meant as weapons, offensive and defensive, of the soul against sin (1 P 4:1, cf. Eph 6:13).

J. R. Willis.

ARMAGEDDON.—See Har-Magedon.

ARMENIA.—See Ararat.

ARMLET.—See Ornaments, § 4.

ARMONI.—Son of Saul by Rizpah (2 S 21:8)

ARMOUR, ARMS.—The soldier’s arms, offensive and defensive, are never so termed in our EV; ‘armour,’ ‘whole armour’ (Eph 6:11 [Gr. panoplia], the ‘harness’ of 2 Mac 15:28, RV ‘full armour’), and more frequently ‘weapons of war’ are the terms employed. In RV ‘harness’ in this sense has in most cases given place to ‘armour.’

1. Offensive arms.—In a familiar representation from an Egyptian tomb of date

c. b.c. 1895, a band of Semitic nomads are depicted with the primitive arms of their race—the short spear, the bow, and the throw-stick—the last perhaps the handstaves of Ezk 39:9. In OT the principal arms of attack are the sword, the spear, the javelin, the bow, and the sling. (a) The spear claims precedence as an older weapon than the sword. The normal Hebrew form, the chanith, had a stout wooden shaft with a flint, bronze, or iron (1 S 13:19) head, according to the period. Like the spear of the modern Bedouin sheikh, it figures as a symbol of leadership in the case of Saul (1 S 22:6, 26:7, cf. 18:10ff. RV). The rōmach appears to have been a lighter form of spear, a lance, and to have largely supplanted the heavier spear or pike in later times (Neh 4:13, 16, Jl 3:10). Both are rendered ‘spear’ in EV. (b) The kīdōn was shorter and lighter than either of the above, and was used as a missile, and may be rendered javelin (Jos 8:18, 26 RV, Job 41:29 RV ‘the rushing of the javelin’) or dart. The latter term is used as the rendering of several missile weapons, of which the precise nature is uncertain.

(c) The sword had a comparatively short, straight blade of iron (1 S 13:21, Is 2:4), and was occasionally two-edged (Ps 149:6, He 4:12). Ehud’s weapon, only 18 inches long, was rather a dagger (Jg 3:16 AV, RV ‘sword’). The sword was worn on the left side in a leather or metal sheath (1 S 17:51), attached to a waist-belt or girdle (1 S 17:51, 25:13, 2 S 20:8 RV). It occurs frequently in symbol and metaphor in both OT and NT. It is appropriately the symbol of war, as the ploughshare is of peace (Is 2:4, Mic 4:3, JL 3:10). In NT the word of God is described as a two-edged sword (He 4:12), and by St. Paul as the ‘sword of the Spirit’ ( Eph

6:17).

(d) The bow is common to civil (Gn 21:20) and military life, and vies in antiquity with the spear. It was made of tough, elastic wood, sometimes mounted with bronze (Ps 18:34 RV, Job 20:24). Horn also was used for bows in ancient times, and those with the double curve seem to have been modelled on the horns of oxen. The bowstring was usually of ox-gut, the arrows of reed or light wood tipped with flint, bronze, or iron. The battle bows (Zec 9:10, 10:4), at least, must have been of considerable size—the Egyptian bow measured about 5 ft.—since they were strung by pressing the foot on the lower end, while the upper end was bent down to receive the string into a notch. Hence the Heb. expressions ‘to tread (= string) the bow,’ and ‘bow-treaders’ for archers (Jer 50:14, 29). The arrows,

‘the sons of the quiver’ (La 3:13, RV shafts), were carried in the quiver, which

was either placed on the back or slung on the left side by a belt over the right shoulder.

(e) The sling was the shepherd’s defence against wild beasts (1 S 17:40), as well as a military weapon (2 K 3:25 and often). The Hebrew sling, like those of the Egyptians and Assyrians, doubtless consisted of a long narrow strip of leather, widening in the middle to receive the stone, and tapering to both ends. At one end was a loop by which the sling was held as the slinger swung it round his head, while the other end was released as the stone was thrown. The Benjamites were specially noted for the accuracy of their aim (Jg 20:16).

(f) The battle axe (Jer 51:20, RVm maul; cf. Pr 25:18), lit. ‘shatterer’ (no doubt identical with the ‘weapon of his shattering,’ Ezk 9:2 [RVm ‘battle axe’]), was probably, as the etymology suggests, a club or mace of hard wood, studded with iron spikes, such as was carried by the Assyrians in the army of Xerxes (Herod. vii. 63). See Rich, Dict. of Ant., s.v. ‘Clava.’

2. Defensive arms.—(a) First among the arms of defence must be placed the shield, of which two main varieties are common to all periods, the small shield or buckler (māgēn), and the large shield (zinnah), the target of 1 K 10:16ff. The distinction between these is rarely preserved in our EV (e.g. Jer 47:3—in Ps 35:2 , Ezk 23:24 they are reversed), but the relative sizes of the two kinds may be seen in the passage of 1 Kings just cited, where the targets or large shields each required four times as much gold as the smaller buckler. These, however, were only for state processions and the like (14:28, but cf. 1 Mac 6:39). The māgēn was the ordinary light round shield of the ancient world, the Roman clypeus; the zinnah was the scutum or large oblong shield which more effectively protected its bearer against the risks of battle. The normal type of both was most probably made of layers of leather stretched on a frame of wood or wickerwork, since ‘both the shields and the bucklers’ might be burned (Ezk 39:9). The shield, as a figure of God’s protecting care, is a favourite with the religious poets of Israel ( Psalms, passim). St. Paul also in his great military allegory introduces the large GræcoRoman shield (Eph 6:16).

(b) Of the shapes of the Hebrew helmets we have no information. Kings and other notables wore helmets of bronze (1 S 17:5, 38), but those prepared by Uzziah for ‘all the host’ (2 Ch 26:14 RV) were more probably of leather, such as the monuments show to have been worn by the rank and file of other armies until supplanted in the Greek age by bronze, for the élite of the infantry at least (1 Mac 6:35).

(c) The same difference of material—bronze for the leaders, leather for the common soldier—holds good for the cuirass or coat of mail (1 S 17:5, 38). The latter term takes the place in RV of the antiquated habergeon (2 Ch 26:14, Neh 4:16), and brigandine (Jer 46:4, 51:3). The cuirass, which protected both back and front, is also intended by the breastplate of Is 59:17 (RVm ‘coat of mail’), 1 Mac 3:3, 1 Th 5:8, Eph 6:14. Goliath’s coat of mail was composed of scales of bronze, and probably resembled the Egyptian style of cuirass described and illustrated by Wilkinson (Anc. Egyp. [1878] i. 219 ff.). This detail is not given for Saul’s cuirass (1 S 17:38). Ahab’s ‘harness’ consisted of a cuirass which ended in ‘tassels’ or flaps, the ‘lower armour’ of 1 K 22:34 RVm. The Syrian war-elephants were protected by breastplates (1 Mac 6:43), and probably also the horses of the Egyptian cavalry (Jer 46:4).

(d) Greaves of hronze to protect the legs are mentioned only in connexion with Goliath (1 S 17:6). The military boot is perhaps referred to in Is 9:5 ( RVm ).

The armourbearer is met with as early as the time of Abimelech (Jg 9:54), and later in connexion with Jonathan, Saul, and Goliath, and with Joab, who had several (2 S 18:15). This office was held by a young man, like the squire of mediæval knighthood, who carried the shield (1 S 17:7), cuirass, the reserve of darts (2 S 18:14), and other weapons of his chief, and gave the coup de grace to those whom the latter had struck down (1 S 14:13).

An armoury for the storage of material of war is mentioned by Nehemiah (3:19), but that this was built by David can scarcely be inferred from the difficult text of Ca 4:4. Solomon’s armoury was ‘the house of the forest of Lebanon’ (1 K 10:17, Is 22:8). The Temple also seems to have been used for this purpose (2 K 11:10). See further the articles Army, Fortification and Siegecraft, War.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARMOURBEARER, ARMOURY.—See Armour.

ARMY.—1. In default of a strong central authority; an army in the sense of a permanently organized and disciplined body of troops was an impossibility among the Hebrews before the establishment of the monarchy. The bands that followed a Gideon or a Jephthah were hastily improvised levies from his own and neighbouring clans, whose members returned with their share of the spoil to their ordinary occupations when the fray was at an end. The first step towards a more permanent arrangement was taken by Saul in his operations against the Philistines (1 S 13:2, cf. 14:52). David, however, was the first to establish the nucleus of a standing army, by retaining as a permanent bodyguard 600 ‘mighty men’ ( their official title) who had gathered round him in his exile (1 S 23:13, 30:9, 2 S 10:7 , 16:6). To these were added the mercenary corps of the Cherethites and Pelethites (wh. see), and a company of 600 Gittites (2 S 15:18). Apart from these, David’s armies were raised by levy as before, but now from the whole nation, hence the technical use of ‘the people’ in the sense of ‘the army’ (2 S 20:12 and often). Solomon’s organization of his kingdom into administrative districts (1 K 4:7 ff. ) doubtless included matters of army administration (cf. v. 28, 9:19, 10:26).

2. The organization of the Hebrew army was by units of thousands, originally associated with the civil divisions of the same name, with subdivisions of hundreds, fifties, and tens (1 S 8:12, 17:18, 22:7, 2 K 1:9ff., 11:4), an arrangement which continued into the Maccabæan period (1 Mac 3:55). Each of these divisions had its special ‘captain.’ The whole was under the supreme command of the ‘captain of the host.’ The relative positions and duties of the shōterīm ( AV ‘officers’) and other military officials are quite uncertain. The former appear to have been charged with keeping and checking the lists of the quotas to be furnished by the various districts (Dt 20:5 ff. ).

3. The army was composed in early times entirely, and at all times chiefly, of infantry, the bulk of whom were armed with the spear or pike and the large shield or target (see Armour). The archers carried a sword and buckler (1 Ch 5:18), and with the slingers (2 Ch 26:14) made up the light infantry. Chariots, although long before a vital part of the forces of the surrounding nations, were first introduced into the Hebrew army by Solomon (1 K 4:25, 9:22, 10:26ff.; see Chariot, Horse).

4. The period during which a citizen was liable for military service extended from his twentieth (Nu 1:3, 2 Ch 25:6) to his fiftieth year (Jos. Ant. III. xii. 4). Exemption was granted in the cases specified in Dt 20:6ff., at least under the Maccabees (1 Mac 3:56), and to the members of the priestly caste (Nu 2:33).

5. As regards maintenance, each city and district had doubtless to supply its own quota with provisions, in so far as these were not drawn from the enemy’s country. The soldier’s recompense consisted in his share of the loot, the division of which was regulated by the precedent of 1 S 30:24. The first mention of regular pay is in connexion with the army of Simon Maccabæus (1 Mac 14:32). Foreign mercenaries figure largely in the armies of the later Maccabæan princes and of Herod. No reference has been made to the numbers of the Hebrew armies, since these have in so many cases been greatly corrupted in transmission.

For methods of mobilization, tactics, etc., see War, also Fortification and Siegecraft; and for the Roman army in NT times see Legion.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARNA.—One of the ancestors of Ezra (2 Es 1:2), corresponding apparently to Zerahiah of Ezr 7:4 and Zaraias of 1 Es 8:2.

ARNAN.—A descendant of David (1 Ch 3:21).

ARNI (AV Aram).—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:33), called in Mt 1:3, 4 Ram (RV). Cf. Ru 4:19, 1 Ch 2:9, 10.

ARNON.—A valley with a stream in its bed, now called Wādy el-Mōjib, which gathers the waters from many tributary vales—the ‘wadys’ [AV ‘brooks,’ RV ‘valleys’] of Arnon (Nu 21:14)—as it flows westward to the Dead Sea. It was the

N. border of Moab. cutting it off from the land of the Amorites in old time ( Nu

21:13 etc.), and later, from that of the Eastern tribes (Jos 12:1 etc.). It is named in Is 16:2 (‘the fords of Arnon’) and Jer 48:20 (where the reference may be to the inhabitants of the valley, or to a city of that name now unknown). Mesha made the ‘high way in Arnon,’ and built (possibly ‘fortified’) Aroer (Moabite Stone). This ‘high way’ probably followed the line of the Roman road, traces of which still remain, with indications of a bridge, some distance W. of Aroer—the modern ‘Ar‘āir, or ‘Ar‘ar, which stands on the N. bank.

W. Ewing.

AROD.—A son of Gad (Nu 26:17) = Arodi Gn 46:16. Patronymic Arodites (Nu 26:17).

AROER.—Three distinct places. 1. ‘Aroer which is by the brink of the river

Arnon’ (Dt 2:36) is probably the ruin ‘Arā‘ir, on the north bank of the Wady Mojib (Arnon). In such a position it necessarily became a frontier town, and as such is mentioned (cf. Dt 2:36, 2 K 10:33 etc.). It was captured by Sihon, king of the Amorites (Dt 2:36, 4:48, Jos 12:2 and 13:9, Jg 11:26); when conquered by Israel it was assigned to Reuben (Dt 3:12); it was taken by Hazael, king of Syria (2 K 10:33), and apparently later on by Moab (Jer 48:19). 2. A city of Judah (1 S 30:28) , perhaps the ruin ‘Ar‘āra, 12 miles east of Beersheba. 3. A city of Gad near Rabbah, i.e. ‘Amman (Jos 13:25, Jg 11:33). The site is unknown.

E. W. G. Masterman.

AROM (1 Es 5:16).—His descendants are mentioned among those who returned with Zerubbabel. The name has no parallel in the lists of Ezr. and Neh., unless it represents Hashum in Ezr 2:19.

ARPACHSHAD was, according to Gn 10:22, the third son of Shem, and, according to 11:10, he was the second in the line of descent from Shem to Abraham. Gn 10:22 is an enumeration of peoples (or countries) descended from Shem, from which Babylonia or Chaidæa is absent in the present text. The latter portion of the word furnishes Chesed (cf. Gn 22:22), which is the singular form of Chasdim (Chaldees). Probably two words in the original of 10:22 were combined into one, the latter being Chesed and the former Arpach, which is a region southwest of Assyria, possibly the same as the Arrapachitis of Ptolemy. The mistaken reading in 10:22 was then taken as the basis of 11:10 ff.

J. F. McCurdy.

ARPAD.—A city of Syria north-west of Aleppo (2 K 18:34, 19:13, Is 10:9 , 36:19, 37:13, Jer 49:28). Now the ruin Tell Erfud.

ARPHAXAD.—1. A king of the Medes (Jth 1:1ff.). He reigned at Ecbatana, which he strongly fortified. Nebuchadrezzar, king of Assyria, made war upon him, defeated him, and put him to death. 2. The spelling of Arpachshad in AV, and at Lk 3:36 by RV also. See Arpachshad.

ARROW.—See Armour, and Magic Divination, etc.

ARROWSNAKE (Is 34:15 RV).—See Owl, Serpent.

ARSACES.—A king of Parthia (known also as Mithridates I.). When opposed by Demetrius Nikator, who thought the people would rise in his favour and afterwards assist him against Tryphon, he deceived Demetrius by a pretence of negotiations, and in b.c. 138 took him prisoner (1 Mac 14:1–3; Justin, xxxvi. 1). In 1 Mac 15:22 Arsaces is mentioned among the kings to whom was sent an edict (Jos. Ant. XIV. viii. 5) from Rome forbidding the persecution of the Jews.

ARSIPHURITH (AV Azephurith), 1 Es 5:16.—112 of his sons returned with Zerubbabel. The corresponding name in Ezr 2:18 is Jorah; and in Neh 7:24 Hariph.

ART.—Among the Hebrews the fine arts, with the possible exception of music, were not seriously cultivated (cf. Architecture). The law of Ex 20:4 constituted an effective bar to the development of the plastic art in particular. As to the nature and workmanship of the early ephods (Jg 8:27, 17:5) and teraphim (Gn 31:19, Jg 17:5 , 1 S 19:13 RV), as of the ‘graven images’ and the later ‘molten images,’ we can only speculate. Sculpture in wood, but of Phœnician workmanship, both in relief (1 K 6:18, 29) and in the round (v. 23ff.), found a place in the Temple of Solomon. The only specimens yet discovered of ‘genuine Israelite’ sculpture (according to the discoverer, Professor Sellin) are the beardless human heads ( cherubim?), foreparts of lions and other motifs that adorn the unique altar of incense from Taanach (illust. PEFSt, 1904, 390).

Of painting there is no trace in OT. The coloured representations which Ezekiel saw with abhorrence on the Temple walls were not true paintings, but, as the original implies, figures chiselled in outline, with the contours filled in with vermilion (Ezk 23:14f., cf. 8:10). The decorative work on pure Hebrew pottery was practically confined to geometrical designs. Of the minor arts, gem-engraving must have attained considerable development (Ex 28:11). The finest product of modern excavation in Palestine in the domain of art is probably the Hebrew seal with the lion marchant found at Megiddo (see Seals). Mention may also be made of the filigree and other gold work implied in such passages as Ex 28:11f. The products of the Hebrew looms must also have shown considerable artistic merit (Ex 26:1). See, further, Jewels, Music, Seals, Temple, Spinning and Weaving.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARTAXERXES is the Greek form of the Old Persian Artakhshatra, the

Hebrew being Artachshast (ā). The Artaxerxes of the Bible is Artax. Longimanus

(b.c. 465–424), son of Xerxes (Bibl. Ahasuerus). By him Ezra was permitted to go to Jerusalem from Babylon and restore the affairs of the Jewish community ( Ezr 7:1ff., 8:1). He also favoured the similar mission of his cup-bearer Nehemiah thirteen years later (Neh 2:1, 5:14, 13:6). The events narrated in Ezr 4:7ff. and said to have occurred in the time of Artaxerxes must have taken place during an earlier reign, probably that of Cambyses, unless, indeed, they are to be regarded as unhistorical. His regime was more important for Israel than that of any other king of Persia except Cyrus the Liberator.

J. F. McCurdy.

ARTEMAS.—A trusted companion of St. Paul, in the later part of his life ( Tit 3:12). There is no evidence for the statements of Dorotheus (Bibl. Maxima, Lugd. 1677, iii. p. 429) that he had been one of the 70 disciples, and was afterwards bishop of Lystra.

ARTEMIS.—Ac 19:24, 27 RVm. See Diana.

ARTIFICER.—See Arts and Crafts.

ARTILLERY.—1 S 20:40 AV (in obsol. sense, of Jonathan’s bow and arrows; RV ‘weapons’); 1 Mac 6:51f. (see Fortification, § 7).

ARTS AND CRAFTS.—One of the most characteristic distinctions between the Hebraic and the Hellenic views of life is found in the attitude of the two races to manual labour. By the Greek it was regarded as unworthy of a free citizen; by the Jew it was held in the highest esteem, as many Talmudic aphorisms bear witness. The general term in OT for craftsman (2 K 24:14, Jer 24:1 RV), artificer (1 Ch 29:5), or skilled artizan is chārāsh, from a root meaning ‘to cut.’ Most frequently, however, it is qualified by the name of the material. This suggests the following divisions. [In RV ‘craft’ has been displaced by the more modern ‘trade’].

1. Workers in wood.—The productions of the ‘worker in timber’ (1 Ch 22:15) , elsewhere in OT carpenter (also Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3), probably surpassed in variety those of any other craftsman, for they comprised not only those of the modern carpenter and cabinetmaker, but also of the ploughwright, woodcarver, and other specialized arts and crafts of to-day. His tools cannot have differed much from the tools of his Egyptian contemporaries described and illustrated by Wilkinson (Anc. Egyp., see Index). Various axes are named in OT. For one variety the text distinguishes between the iron head and the wooden helve (Dt 19:5). Another is from the context probably an adze (Jer 10:3), while a third appears as a hatchet in Ps 74:6 RV. The carpenter’s hammer (Jer 10:4) was rather a wooden mallet (cf Jg 4:21); his saw (Is 10:15), to judge from analogy and from the excavations, was single-handed, and of bronze in the earlier period at least. Holes were bored with a drill worked as in the present day by a bow and string. In Is 44:13 are further named the measuring line (AV ‘rule’), the sharp metal pencil (AV ‘line’) or stylus for outlining the work, the planes, which were more probably chisels, and the compasses ( RV ).

2. Workers in metal.—The principal metals of OT times are enumerated in Nu 31:22. The ‘brass’ of OT, however, is probably always bronze, i.e. copper with an alloy of tin, except where pure copper is intended, as Dt 8:9. The excavations have shown that iron makes its appearance in Palestine about the beginning of the monarchy (c. b.c. 1000), although bronze continued in use for several centuries, and was ‘not fully conquered till the period of the captivity’ (PEFSt, 1904, 122). The coppersmith (2 Ti 4:14), ‘artificer in brass’ (Gn 4:22 AV), ‘worker in brass’ (1 K 7:14), as he is variously termed, was thus the chief metal worker of the earlier period. For the more artistic handling of copper the Hebrews were at first dependent on Phœnician craftsmen (1 K 7:13ff.). Later, as we have seen, the ironsmith (1 S 13:19), or ‘worker in iron’ (2 Ch 24:12), supplanted the coppersmith. The tools of both were the hammer (Is 44:12) and the anvil (Is 41:7 , Sir 38:29)—the latter probably then as now ‘a boot-shaped piece of metal inserted in a section of an oak or walnut log’—the tongs (Is 44:12) and the bellows ( Jer 6:29). For the goldsmith and the silversmith see Mining and Metals, s.vv. ‘Gold’ and ‘Silver.’ The smiths carried away by Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 24:14, Jer 24:1) were probably those specially skilled in the manufacture of weapons of war.

3. Workers in stone.—From the far-off palæolithic days man has been a ‘worker in stone,’ a term confined in OT to those who cut and dressed stone for building purposes (1 Ch 22:15). The more usual rendering is masons (2 S 5:11, 1 Ch 14:1). References are given to various processes, such as the ‘hewing out’ (1 K

5:17 RV) of the stones in the quarry (6:7 RV), the ‘hewing’ of wine-vats (Is 5:2 RV) and tombs (22:16) in the solid rock, the cutting and dressing of ‘hewn stones’ for various constructions (Ex 20:25, 1 K 5:17, 2 K 2:12, Am 5:11). The stonesquarers of 1 K 5:18 (AV) were rather men from the Phœnician city of Gebal ( RV ‘Gebalites’), experts in this branch of industry. The builders (Ps 118:22) worked from a prepared plan or model (Ex 25:9, 1 Ch 28:11, EV pattern), using the measurnig-reed (Ezk 40:3) and the plumbline (Am 7:7) or plummet (2 K 21:13 , Zec 4:10). The large hammer used in quarrying (Jer 23:29) is different from the smaller hammer of the stone-cutter (1 K 6:7). The axe of the last passage is rather the pick for stone-dressing, and was the tool used in cutting in the Siloam tunnel as the workmen tell us in their famous inscription. For the ‘engraver in stone’ of Ex 28:11 see Seals.

4. Workers in clay.—Clay, not stone, was the ordinary building material among the Hebrews (see House). Brickmaking, however, was too simple an operation to attain the dignity of a special craft in OT times, as was also ‘plaistering’ with clay (Lv 14:42) or lime (Dn 5:6, cf. Mt 23:27 and Ac 23:3 ‘whited wall’). It was otherwise with the potter and his work, perhaps the oldest of all crafts, for which see Pottery.

5. Workers in leather.—First among these is the tanner (Ac 9:43), who prepared the leather from the skins of domestic and other animals, including the marine dugong (Ex 25:5, RV ‘seal,’ AV ‘badger’). The hair was removed by means of lime, or the acrid juices of plants, applied to the skins after they had been soaked for some time in water. Owing to their uncleanly accompaniments, the tanner and his trade were regarded by the Jews with much disfavour. Like the fuller, he was forbidden to carry on his work within the city, which explains the situation of Simon’s tannery ‘by the sea side (Ac 10:32). In early times the tanner not only supplied the material but probably actually manufactured the leather shields and helmets required by soldiers, while the making of shoes, girdles, and other articles of leather (Lv 13:48), and the preparation of skins for water, wine, and milk (see Bottle) were long matters of purely domestic economy.

6. Trades connected with dress.—The closing words of the preceding paragraph apply equally to the making of the ordinary dress of the Hebrews (cf. 1 S 2:19). The tailor first appears in the Mishna. Certain of the processes, however, gradually developed into separate crafts, such as that of the weaver (Ex 35:35, 1 S 17:7; see Spinning and Weaving), the embroiderer (Ex l.c.), whose designs were sewed upon the finished fabric, the dyer and the fuller. From the Mishna it is evident that in NT times the dyers were a numerous body in Jerusalem. The wool was usually dyed before or after being spun (Ex 35:25). Both animal and vegetable dyes were employed (see Colours). The work of the fuller (Is 7:3, Mal 3:2, Mk 9:3) was of two kinds, according as he dealt with the web fresh from the loom, or with soiled garments that had already been worn. The latter he cleaned by steeping and treading in water mixed with an alkaline substance (rendered soap in Mal 3:2) and fuller’s earth. The new web—the ‘undressed cloth’ of Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21 RV—on the other hand, after being thoroughly steeped in a similar mixture, was stamped and felted, then bleached with fumes of sulphur, and finally pressed in the fuller’s press. Fulling, like tanning, was carried on outside the towns, but the precise situation of the ‘fuller’s field’ of Isaiah’s day (Is 7:3) is still uncertain. Here may be mentioned the barber (Ezk 5:1) and the perfumer (AV ‘apothecary,’ ‘confectionary’), for whom see Hair and Perfumer respectively.

7. Employments connected with food.—Cooks, as a special class, were to be found only in the houses of the wealthy (see Food). The Hebrew name shows that they killed as well as cooked the animals. The shambles of 1 Co 10:25, however, are not, as in modern English, the slaughter-house, but the provision-market of Corinth, where meat and other provisions were sold. The bakers were numerous enough to give their name to a street of the capital in Jeremiah’s day (Jer 37:21) ; for their work see Bread. Public mills employing millers appear late, but are implied in the rendering ‘great millstone’ of Mt 18:6 RV (cf. marg. and see Mill). The well-known Tyropœonor Cheesemakers’ valley in Jerusalem received its name from the industry carried on there (Jos BJ V. iv. 1).

8. Employments connected with the land.—Most of these are noticed in other connexions; see Agriculture, Sheep, Vine, etc. The prophet Amos describes himself as ‘a dresser of sycomore trees’ (Am 7:14 RV), for which see Amos, ad init.

9. Miscellaneous employments.—If to the above there be added the tentmaker, representing the craft (RV ‘trade’) of St. Paul and his friends Aquila and Priscilla (Ac 18:3, see Tent), and the fisherman (see Nets), no trade or manual employment of importance will, it is hoped, have been overlooked. Most of the remaining employments will be found under their own (e.g. Recorder, Scribe) or kindred titles, as ‘merchant’ under Trade, ‘physician’ under Medicine, etc.

10. Two general characteristics.—This article may fitly close with a brief reference to two characteristics of all the more important handicrafts and employments. The first is still a feature of Eastern cities, namely, the grouping of the members of the same craft in one street or quarter of the city, to which they gave their name. Thus we find in Jerusalem, as has been noted, ‘the bakers’ street,’ ‘the fullers’ field,’ and ‘the cheese-makers’ valley,’ to which should perhaps he added ‘the valley of craftsmen’ (Neh 11:35). Josephus mentions a smiths’ bazaar, a wool-market, and a clothes-market in the Jerusalem of his day (BJ v. viii. 1).

The second point to he noted is the evidence that the members of the various crafts had already formed themselves into associations or guilds. Thus we read in Nehemiah of a ‘son of the apothecaries,’ i.e. a member of the guild of perfumers (3:8), and of ‘a son of the goldsmiths’ (3:31). Cf. Ezr 2:42 ‘the sons of the porters’ and the familiar ‘sons of the prophets.’ In 1 Ch 4:21ff. there is mention of similar associations of linenweavers and potters, for which see Macalister, ‘The Craftsmen’s Guild,’ etc. PEFSt, 1905, 243 ff. The expression ‘sons of to denote membership of an association goes back to the days when trades were hereditary in particular families. A guild of silversmiths is attested for Ephesus (Ac 19:25). For the probable earnings of artizans among the Jews see Wages.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ARUBBOTH.—An unknown district, probably in S.W. Palestine (1 K 4:10).

ARUMAH.—The place of refuge of Abimelech (Jg 9:41), perhaps el-‘Ormeh, 6 miles S.E. of Nāblus ( Shechem ).

E. W. G. Masterman.

ARVAD (modern (Ruwād) was the most important of the northerly cities of Phœnicia. It was built on an island 70 miles north of Beyrout—a sort of second Tyre, with another town on the mainland opposite. In Ezk 27:8, 11 it is named as furnishing oarsmen for the galleys of Tyre and warriors for its defence. In the ethnological list of Gn 10:18 (1 Ch 1:16) it is mentioned among the chief settlements of the Canaanites or Phœnicians. Throughout antiquity it was a place of renown for trade and general enterprise, ranking next to Tyre and Sidon. It is the Aradus of 1 Mac 12:53.

J. F. McCurdy.

ARZA.—Prefect of the palace at Tirzah, in whose house King Elah was assassinated by Zimri at a carouse (1 K 16:9).

ARZARETH (2 Es 13:45).—A region beyond the river from which the ten tribes are to return. It became the subject of many later Jewish legends concerning the Sabhatic River beyond which the lost tribes were to be found—variously identified with the Oxus and the Ganges.

ASA.—1. The third king of Judah after the disruption, succeeding Ahijah. Since his mother’s name is given as the same with that of Abijah’s mother, some have supposed the two kings to have been brothers. But there may be some mistake in the text. Asa is praised by the Biblical writer for his religious zeal, which led him to reform the worship, and even to depose his mother from her place of influence at court because of her idolatrous practices. Politically he took a mistaken course when he submitted to Benhadad of Damascus to secure his aid against Baasha of Israel, who had captured Ramah. The Temple treasures were sent to Benhadad, who thereupon invaded Israel, and Baasha was compelled to evacuate the threatening fortress (1 K 15:9ff.). The Chronicler (2 Ch 14:9 ff. ) credits Asa with a victory over an enormous force of Ethiopians. 2. A Levite (1 Ch

9:16).

H. P. Smith.

ASADIAS (‘J″ is kind,’ cf. 1 Ch 3:20).—An ancestor of Baruch (Bar 1:1).

ASAHEL.—1. The youngest son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and the brother of Joab and Abishai. He was famous for his swiftness of foot, a much valued gift in ancient times. He was one of David’s thirty heroes, probably the third of the second three (2 S 23:24). He was also commander of a division in David’s army (1 Ch 27:7). He was slain by Ahner (2 S 2:18–23). 2. A Levite, who taught the people in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17:8). 3. A subordinate collector of offerings and tithes in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31:18). 4. Father of Jonathan, who opposed Ezra’s action in connexion with the divorce of foreign wives (Ezr 10:16).

ASAIAH (‘J″ hath made’).—1. One of the deputation sent by Josiah to consult Huldah the prophetess, 2 K 22:12, 14 (AV Asahiah), 2 Ch 34:20. 2. One of the Simeonite princes who attacked the shepherds of Gedor, 1 Ch 4:36. 3. A Merarite who took part in bringing the ark to Jerusalem, 1 Ch 6:30, 15:6, 11. 4. The firstborn of the Shilonites, 1 Ch 9:5; called in Neh 11:5 Maaseiah.

ASANA (1 Es 5:31).—His descendants were among the ‘temple servants’ or Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel; called Asnah in Ezr 2:50 [Neh. omits].

ASAPH (‘gatherer’).—1. The father of Joah, the ‘recorder’ or chronicler at the court of Hezekiah (2 K 18:18, 37 etc.). 2. The ‘keeper of the king’s forest,’ to whom king Artaxerxes addressed a letter directing him to supply Nehemiah with timber (Neh 2:8). 3. A Korahite (1 Ch 26:1), same as Abiasaph (wh. see). 4. The eponym of one of the three guilds which conducted the musical services of the Temple in the time of the Chronicler (1 Ch 15:16f., etc.). The latter traces this arrangement to the appointment of David, in whose reign Asaph, who is called ‘the seer’ (2 Ch 29:30), is supposed to have lived. At first the Asaphites alone seemed to have formed the Temple choir, and in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ( wherever we have the memoirs of the latter in their original form) they are not yet reckoned among the Levites. At a later period they share the musical service with the ‘sons of Korah’ (see Korahites). Pss 50 and 73–83 have the superscription le-Asaph, which means in all probability that they once belonged to the hymn-book of the Asaphite choir (see Psalms).

ASARA (1 Es 5:31).—His sons were among the Temple servants or Nethinim who returned under Zerubbabel: omitted in the parallel lists in Ezr. and Neh.

ASARAMEL (AV Saramel).—A name whose meaning is quite uncertain (1 Mac 14:28). See RVm.

ASAREL (AV Asareel).—A son of Jehallelel (1 Ch 4:16).

ASBASARETH (1 Es 5:69).—A king of Assyria, probably a corrupt form of the name Esarhaddon, which is found in the parallel passage Ezr 4:2. The AV form Azbazareth comes from the Vulgate.

ASCALON.—See Ashkelon.

ASCENSION.—The fact of our Lord’s Ascension is treated very scantily in the Synoptic Gospels. From Mt. it is entirely omitted. In the appendix to Mk. the words in which it is stated are rather the formula of a creed than the narrative of an event (Mk 16:19). Lk. is somewhat more circumstantial, and, though the chronology is uncertain, mentions the journey to the neighbourhood of Bethany and the disappearance of Christ in the act of blessing, together with the return of the disciples to Jerusalem (Lk 24:50–52). The narrative, meagre as it is, is not inconsistent with, and may even presuppose, the events recorded at greater length in Acts (1:6–12). Here we learn that the scene was more precisely the Mount, of

Olives (v. 12); that the final conversation, to which allusion is possibly made in

Mk 16:19, concerned the promise of the Holy Spirit (vv. 6–8); and that the Ascension, so far as it was an event and therefore a subject of testimony, took the form of the uplifting of the bodily form of Jesus from the earth till it disappeared in a cloud (vv. 9, 10). Whether this experience involved more than the separation of Christ from immediate contact with the earth, and included His gradual recession into the upper air, there is nothing directly to show. The general form of the narrative recalls the Transfiguration (Lk 9:28–36 ||). The words of the ‘two men in white apparei’ (v. 10) suggest that the final impression was that of disappearance above the heads of the onlookers (v. 11). It will be noticed that, while the Markan appendix and Luke, unless the latter narrative is interpolated, blend fact and figure (Mk 16:19 ‘received up [fact] into heaven [partly fact, partly figure], and sat down at the right hand of God [figure]’; Lk 24:51 ‘he parted from them [fact], and was carried up into heaven [partly fact, partly figure; but see RVm],’ as must necessarily be the case where the doctrine of the Ascension is concerned; Acts, on the other hand, which purports to describe an event, rigidly keeps within the limits of testimony.

There are certain anticipations of the Ascension in the Gospels which must be regarded as part of their witness to it. Thus Lk. introduces the account of our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem with the words ‘when the days were being fulfilled that he should be received up’ (Lk 9:51 RVm). It is probable that the Ascension is here delicately blended with the Crucifixion, as apparently by Christ

Himself in Jn 12:32. Again, the word exodos in Luke’s account of the

Transfiguration, rendered in the text of RV ‘decease,’ but marg. ‘departure,’ seems to have the same double reference (Lk 9:31). Our Lord’s predictions of the Second Coming ‘on the clouds’ (Mt 24:30, 26:64; cf. 1 Th 4:16, Rev 1:7) almost necessarily imply the Ascension. The Fourth Gospel, while in its accustomed manner omitting the story of the Ascension, probably regarded as known, introduces definite references to it on the part of Christ both before and after the Resurrection (Jn 6:62, 7:33, 14:19, 28, 16:28, 20:17 etc.). And if we compare statements in the Epistles (Eph 4:8, He 1:3, 4:14) with the Ascension narrative, it is scarcely possible to doubt that the writers accepted the historic fact as the basis of their teaching. To this must be added all those passages which speak of Jesus as exalted to the right hand or throne of God (Ro 8:34, Eph 1:20, He 10:12 etc.), and as returning to earth in the glory of the Father (Mt 25:31, Mk 8:38, Ph 3:20 etc.). In connexion with the Session, St. Peter, after mentioning the Resurrection, uses the expression ‘having gone his way into heaven’ (1 P 3:22, cf. Jn 14:3). Nor can we omit such considerations as arise out of the fact of the Resurrection itself, which are satisfied only by an event that puts a definite period to the earthly manifestation of the incarnate Christ.

From what has been said it will appear that the Ascension stands on a somewhat different level from the Resurrection as an attested fact. Like the Virginbirth, it did not form a part of the primitive preaching, nor does it belong to the evidences of Christianity. The fragment of what is thought to be a primitive hymn quoted in 1 Ti 3:16 somewhat curiously places ‘preached among the nations’ before ‘received up in glory.’ But it is nevertheless a fact which came within the experience of the Apostles, and can therefore claim a measure of historical testimony. The Resurrection is itself the strongest witness to the reality of the Ascension, as of the Virgin-birth, nor would either in the nature of the case have been capable of winning its way to acceptance apart from the central faith that Jesus actually rose from the dead. But neither the fact itself nor its importance to the Christian believer depends upon the production of evidence for its occurrence. It will not be seriously disputed by those who accept the Apostolic gospel. On the other hand, the fact that the Ascension was accepted in the primitive Church as the event which put a term to the earthly manifestation of Christ brings out the Resurrection in striking relief as in the full sense of the word a fact of history. It is the Ascension, represented as it is in Scripture not only historically but mystically, and not the Resurrection, which might be viewed as an apotheosis or idealization of Jesus. That ‘Jesus is now living at the right hand of God’ (Harnack) is not a sufficient account of the Christian belief in the Resurrection in view of the Ascension narrative, which, even if Keim and others are right in regarding it as a materialization of the doctrine of the eternal Session as set forth in the Epistles, becomes necessary only when the Resurrection is accepted in the most literal sense.

The Ascension is the point of contact between the man Jesus Christ of the Gospeis and the mystical Christ of the Epistles, preserving the historical character of the former and the universality of the latter in true continuity. It enabled the disciples to identify the gift of Pentecost with the promise of the Holy Spirit, which had been specially connected with the withdrawal of Jesus from bodily sight and His return to the Father (Jn 16:7, cf. 7:39). An eternal character is thus given to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, which becomes efficacious through the exaltation of His crucified and risen manhood (He 10:11–14, 19–22).

J. G. Simpson.

ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. See Apoc. Lit., p. 41^a.

ASCENT OF BLOOD (Jos 15:7, RV ‘ascent of Adummim’).—The steep road from Jericho to Jerusalem, so called, according to Jerome, from the deeds of the brigands who infested t (cf. Lk 10:30); but see Adummim.

David Smith.

ASEAS (1 Es 9:32).—One of the sons of Annas who agreed to put away his ‘strange’ wife; called Isshijah, Ezr 10:31.

ASEBEBIAS (AV Asebebia).—A Levite who accompanied Ezra to Jerusalem (1 Es 8:47).

ASEBIAS (AV Asebia).—A Levite who returned with Ezra (1 Es 8:48).

ASENATH.—Daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On, wife of Joseph and mother of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gn 41:45, 50; 46:20). The name, like the other Egyptian names in the story of Joseph, is of a well-known late type, prevalent from about b.c. 950; it should probably be vocalized Asneit or Esneit, meaning ‘belonging to Neit.’ Neit was the goddess of Sais, and her name was especially popular in names from the 26th (Saite) Dyn., c. b.c. 664, and onwards for some two centuries.

Asenath is the heroine of a remarkable Jewish and Christian romance, in which she renounces her false gods before her marriage with Joseph; it can be traced back to the 5th cent. a.d., and is probably a good deal earlier.

F. Ll. Griffith.

ASH.—See Fir.

ASHAN (Jos 15:42, 19:7, 1 Ch 4:32, 6:69).—Perhaps the same as Cor-Ashan (wh. see). It was a town of Judah, near Libnah and Rimmon, belonging to Simeon, and not far from Debir. The site is doubtful.

ASHARELAH (AV Asareiah).—An Asaphite (1 Ch 25:2), called in v. 14 Jesharelah.

ASHBEA occurs in an obscure passage (1 Ch 4:21 ‘house of A.’) where it is uncertain whether it is the name of a place or of a man.

ASHBEL (‘man of Baal’).—The second son of Benjamin (1 Ch 8:1; cf. Gn. 46:21, Nu 26:38). In Nu 26:38 Ashbelite, inhabitant of Ashbel, occurs.

ASHDOD (‘fortress’; Greek Azotus).—A city in the Philistine Pentapolis; not captured by Joshua (Jos 13:3), and a refuge for the unslaughtered Anakim ( Jos 11:22); theoretically assigned to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:47). Hither the Phliistines brought the ark, and sent it thence to Gath, on account of an outbreak probably of bubonic plague (1 S 5:1–8). Uzziah attacked the city, destroyed its walls, and established settlements near it (2 Ch 26:6). The Ashdodites joined with Sanballat in opposing Nehemiah s restoration of Jerusalem (Neh 4:7), yet some of the Jews of the period married wives from Ashdod, and their children spoke in its dialect (Neh 13:23, 24). It was captured by Sargon’s commander-in-chief (Is 20:1). Jeremiah, Amos, Zephaniah, and Zechariah speak denunciations against it. It was again captured by Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 5:68), and again by Jonathan (10:84). The solitary reference to it in the NT is the record of Philip’s departure thither after the baptism of the Ethiopian (Ac 8:40). It is identified with the modern Esdud, a village about two-thirds of the way from Jaffa to ‘Askalan, and some 3 miles from the sea. It is on the slope of a hill, and at its entrance are the remains of a large mediæval khan. There are fragments of ancient buildings to be found here and there in the modern walls.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ASHER.—1. A town on the S. border of Manasseh (Jos 17:7). Site unknown.

2. To 1:2 = Hazor, No. 1.

ASHER.—The eighth son of Jacob, by Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid. Leah, joyful over his birth, named him ‘Happy’ (Gn 30:13). This ‘popular etymology’ dominates J’s thought in the ‘Blessing of Jacob’ (Gn 49:20) and in the ‘Blessing of Moses’ (Dt 33:24). Asher’s territory was especially fertile and fitted to promote prosperity. Whether this fact operated in its naming, or whether the name was originally that of a divinity of a militant Canaanite clan mentioned frequently in the Tell el-Amarna letters as the Mārī abd-Ashirti (‘Sons of the servant of Asherah’), or whether the Canaanite tribe ‘Asaru, known from the inscriptions of the Egyptian king Seti I. (14th cent.), gave the name to the tribe, it is impossible to say. The two last theories imply an amalgamation of original inhabitants with a Hebrew clan or tribe, which, probably prior to the entrance of the southern tribes, had found its way into the North. A predominance of the Gentile element thus introduced would account, in a measure at least, for the non-participation of the Asherites in the war against Sisera, although they are said to have sent a contingent to the support of Gideon in his war with the Midianites (Jg 6:35, 7:23), and, according to the Chronicler, went 40,000 strong to Hebron to aid David in his struggle for the kingship (1 Ch 12:36). According to the earliest writing extant in the OT, viz., the Song of Deborah, the other northern tribes, Zebulun to the south and Naphtali to the east of it, flung themselves with fierce abandon against the army of Sisera, while ‘Asher sat still at the haven of the sea’ (Jg 5:17f.). According to P’s census, there were 41,500 males ‘twenty years old and upward’ at Sinai, and when they arrived in the plains of Moab they had increased to 53,400 (Nu 1:41, 26:47).

P gives also the territorial boundaries, including the names of 22 cities and their dependent villages, the majority of which are unidentified (Jos 19:24–30; cf. Jg 1:31, 32, and Jos 17:11 J). Asher’s territory was gained by settlement, not by conquest (Jg 1:31f.). The tribe played an unimportant rôle in Israel. It is not mentioned in 1 Ch 27:16ff., where the tribes are enumerated together with their respective leaders under David. For the genealogies see Gn 46:17, Nu 26:44, 1 Ch 7:30ff. See also Tribes of Israel.

James A. Craig.

ASHERAH.—In RV Asherah (plur. Asherim, more rarely Asheroth) appears as the tr. of a Hebrew substantive which AV, following the LXX and Vulgate, had mistakenly rendered grove. By OT writers the word is used in three distinct applications.

1. The goddess Asherah.—In several places Asherah must be recognized as the name of a Canaanite deity. Thus in 1 K 18:19 we read of the prophets of Baal and of Asherah, in 15:13 (= 2 Ch 15:16) of ‘an abominable image,’ and in 2 K 21:7 of ‘a graven image’ of Asherah, also of the sacrificial vessels used in her worship (23:4), while Jg 3:7 speaks of the Baalim and the Asheroth. These references, it must be allowed, are not all of equal value for the critical historian and some of our foremost authorities have hitherto declined to admit the existence of a Canaanite goddess Asherah, regarding the name as a mere literary personification of the asherah or sacred pole (see § 3), or as due to a confusion with Astarte (cf. Jg 3:7 with 2:13).

In the last few years, however, a variety of monumental evidence has come to light (see Lagrange, Études sur les religions semitiques²(1905), 119 ff.)—the latest from the soil of Palestine itself in a cuneiform tablet found at Taanach— showing that a goddess Ashirat or Asherah was worshipped from a remote antiquity by the Western Semites. There need be no hesitation, therefore, in accepting the above passages as evidence of her worship in OT times, even within the Temple itself.

The relation, as to name, history, and attributes, of this early Canaanite goddess to the powerful Semitic deity named Ishtar by the Babylonians, and Ashtart ( OT ‘Ashtoreth’) by the Phœnicians, is still obscure (see KAT ³, Index; Lagrange, op. cit.). The latter in any case gradually displaced the former in Canaan.

2. An image of Asherah.—The graven image of Asherah set up by Manasseh in the Temple (2 K 21:7), when destroyed by Josiah, is simply termed the asherah (2 K 23:6). Like the idols described by the prophet of the Exile (Is 41:7, 44:12ff.), it evidently consisted of a core of wood overlaid with precious metal, since it could be at once burned and ‘stamped to powder’ (cf. 2 Ch 15:16 for the corresponding image of Maacah), and was periodically decorated with woven hangings ( Luc. ‘tunics’) by the women votaries of Asherah (2 K 23:7). There is therefore good warrant for seeing in the asherah which Ahab set up in the temple of Baal at Samaria (cf. 1 K 16:33 with 2 K 10:28)—according to the emended text of the latter passage it was burned by Jehu but was soon restored (13:6)—something of greater consequence than a mere post or pole. It must have been a celebrated image of the goddess.

3. A symbol of Asherah.—In the remaining passages of OT the asherah is the name of a prominent, if not indispensable, object associated with the altar and the mazzēbah (see Pillar) in the worship of the Canaanite high places. It was made of wood (Jg 6:26), and could be planted in the ground (Dt 16:21), plucked up or cut down (Mic 5:14, Ex 34:13), and burned with fire (Dt 12:3). Accordingly the asherah is now held to have been a wooden post or pole having symbolical significance in the Canaanite cults. How far it resembled the similar emblems figured in representations of Babylonian and Phœnician rites can only be conjectured.

When the Hebrews occupied Canaan, the local sanctuaries became seats of the worship of J″, at which the adjuncts of sacred pole and pillar continued as before. The disastrous results of this incorporation of heathen elements led to the denunciation of the asherahs by the prophetic exponents of Israel’s religion ( Ex 34:13, Jer 17:2, Mic 5:13f., and esp. Dt 7:5, 12:2ff., 16:21), and to their ultimate abolition (2 K 18:4, 23:4 ff. ).

4. Significance of the asherah.—The theory at present most in favour among OT scholars finds in the asherahs or sacred poles the substitutes of the sacred trees universally revered by the early Semites. This theory, however, is not only improbable in view of the fact that the asherahs are found beside or under such sacred trees (Jer 17:2, 1 K 14:23, 2 K 17:10), but has been discredited by the proved existence of the goddess Asherah. In the earliest period of the Semitic occupation of Canaan (c. b.c. 2500–2000), this deity probably shared with Baal ( cf. Jg 3:7, 6:25 etc.) the chief worship of the immigrants, particularly as the goddess of fertility, in which aspect her place was later usurped by Astarte. In this early aniconic age, the wooden post was her symbol, as the stone pillar was of Baal. Bearing her name, it passed by gradual stages into the complete eikōn or anthropomorphic image of the deity as in Samaria and Jerusalem.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ASHES.—Ashes on the head formed one of the ordinary tokens of mourning for the dead (see Mourning Customs as of private (2 S 13:19) and national humiliation (Neh 9:1, 1 Mac 3:47). The penitent and the afflicted might also sit (Job 2:8, Jon 3:6) or even wallow in ashes (Jer 6:25, Ezk 27:30). In 1 K 20:38, 41 we must, with RV, read ‘Headband’ (wh. see) for ‘ashes.’

In a figurative sense the term ‘ashes’ is often used to signify evanescence, worthlessness, insignificance (Gn 18:27, Job 30:19). ‘Proverbs of ashes’ (13:12 RV) is Job’s equivalent for the modern ‘rot.’ For the use of ashes in the priestly ritual see Red Heifer.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ASHHUR (AV Ashur).—The ‘father’ of Tekoa (1 Ch 2:24, 4:5).

ASHIMA.—A god whose form of worship is unknown, and who has been identified with the Phœnician Eshmun and the Babylonian Tashmitu. As Hamath, the god’s seat of worship (2 K 17:30), was occupied by the Hittites, the deity was probably non-Semitic.

N. Koenig.

ASHKELON (Greek Ascalon).—A city of the Philistine Pentapolis. It is mentioned several times in the Tell el-Amarna correspondence. According to Jos 13:3, it was left unconquered; but the interpolated passage, Jg 1:18, enumerates it among the places captured by Israel. It is doubtful whether Samson took the spoil with which he paid his wages (Jg 14:19) from this city, which is two days’ journey from Timnath, or from a similarly styled village, much nearer at hand, now possibly represented in name by Khurbet ‘Askalan, near Tell Zakariya. It is referred to in the story of the return of the ark (1 S 6:17), and in David’s lament (2 S 1:20), and with the other Philistine cities is made an object of denunciation by various prophets. Here Jonathan Maccabæus was honourably received (1 Mac 10:86, 11:60), and it was the birthplace of Herod the Great. It was captured by the Crusaders, but recaptured by the Muslims after the battle of Hattin. Extensive remains of ancient buildings still exist on the site, which retains the name of ‘Askalan: numerous fragments of statues etc., are found by the natives from time to time.

R. A. S. Macalister.

ASHKENAZ in Gn 10:3 (1 Ch 1:6) appears as a son of Gomer (wh. see), which means apparently that the name represents a people akin to the Cimmerians, an Indo-European people who made trouble for the Assyrians in and about

Armenia in the later days of their empire, in the 7th cent. b.c. In Jer 51:27 Ashkenaz is coupled with Ararat and Minni. The view now generally accepted by scholars is that Ashkenaz in the Hebrew text is a slight misreading for Ashkūz, an important tribe akin to the Cimmerians who had to do with Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the last great kings of Assyria, the name appearing in the inscriptions as Ashgūz. Further, it is probable that the Skythoi, ‘Scythians,’ represent the same people and word.

J. F. McCurdy.

ASHNAH.—Two unknown sites of towns in Judah (Jos 15:33 and 15:43).

ASHPENAZ.—The chief of Nebuchadrezzar’s eunuchs (Dn 1:3).

ASHTAROTH.—This city (pl. of Ashtoreth [wh. see]), originally held by Og, king of Bashan (Dt 1:4, Jos 9:10, 12:4, 13:12, 31), later captured by the Israelites and by them awarded to the Gershonites (Jos 21:27 Be-eshterah, ‘dwelling [ or temple] of Ashtoreth’; cf. || 1 Ch. 6:56, which reads Ashtaroth), might, without contradicting Biblical records, be identified with Ashteroth-Karnaim (wh. see). However, a statement found in Eusebius’ Onomasticon favours the view that the names designate two localities. Eusebius relates that there were at his time two villages of the same name, separated by a distance of 9 miles, lying between Adara (Edrei) and Abila; viz., (1) Ashtaroth, the ancient city of Og, 6 miles from Abila, and (2) Karnaim Ashtaroth, a village in the corner of Bashan, where Job’s village is shown (cf. Book of Jubilees 29:10). Eusebius’ Karnaim Ashtaroth evidently lay in the corner or angle formed by the rivers Nahr er-Rukkad and Sharī‘at elManadireh, in which vicinity tradition places Uz, Job’s fatherland. At long. 36° E., lat. 32° 50' N., on the Bashan plateau, stands Tell (‘hill’) ‘Ashtarā, whose strategical value, as shown by the ruins, was recognized in the Middle Ages. Its base is watered by the Moyet en-Nebī Ayyūb (‘stream of the prophet Job’). Following this rivulet’s course for 2¹/₂miles N.N.E., passing through the Hammam

Ayyūb (‘Job’s bath’), is found its source, a spring said to have welled forth when Job in his impatience stamped upon the ground. In the immediate vicinity towards the S., Job’s grave is shown. Furthermore, upon the hill at whose base these two places are situated lies the village of Sa‘dīyeh or Sheikh Sa‘d, whose mosque contains the Sakhret Ayyūb, a large basalt boulder against which Job is said to have leant while receiving his friends. Indeed, ¾ of a mile S. of Sa dīyeh at el-Merkez, another grave (modern) of Job is shown, and a Der (‘monastery’) Ayyūb, according to tradition built by the Ghassanide Amr I., is known to have existed. Eusebius’ Ashtaroth must then have been in the proximity of Muzerib, 9¹/₂miles S. of

Sa‘dīyeh, and 8 miles N.W. of Adara, almost the distance of the Onomasticon.

Even Tell Ash‘arī, 4¹/₄miles S. of Tell ‘Ashtarā, protected on the one side by the Yarmuk, on the second by a chasm, and showing evidences of having been fortified by a triple wall on the third, is admirably situated for a royal stronghold.

None of these modern place-names, with the exception of Tell ‘Ashtarā, is linguistically related to the ‘Ashtaroth and ‘Ashteroth-karnaim of the Bible and the Onomasticon. The description of ‘Ashteroth-karnaim (2 Mac 12:21f., cf. 1 Mac 5:43) as a place hard to besiege and difficult of access because of numerous passes leading to it, in whose territory a temple was situated, is applicable to Sa‘dīyeh or to Tell ‘Ashtarā or even to Tell Ash‘arī, whose double peak at the S. summit is partly responsible for the translation of the name ‘Ashtaroth of (near) the double peak’ (see Ashtoreth). The similarity of name between Tell ‘Ashtarā and

‘Ashteroth-karnaim, even though Tell ‘Ashtarā does not lie directly between Adara and Abila, and lacks, with the other places, narrow passes, would favour the identification of ‘Ashteroth-karnaim with Tell ‘Ashtarā, and hence, according to the distances of Eusebius, the location of ‘Ashtaroth near Muzerib. However, until the ancient name of Muzerib is known, and the various sites excavated, a definite determination of the location of these cities, and even of the difference between them, must remain impossible.

N. Koenig.

ASHTEROTH-KARNAIM.—The scene of Chedorlaomer’s defeat of the Rephaim (Gn 14:5). It is perhaps mentioned in Am 6:13 (EV ‘Have we not taken to us horns (Karnaim) by our own strength?’). It is identical with Carnion or Carnain, after whose capture, in b.c. 164, Judas Maccabæus destroyed the temple of Atargatis (wh. see), whither the inhabitants had fled for refuge (2 Mac 12:21 f., cf. 1 Mac 5:43f.). For interpretation of name see Ashtoreth, and for location, Ashtaroth.

N. Koenig.

ASHTORETH.—This deity, especially known as the Sidonian goddess for whom Solomon erected a shrine, later destroyed by Josiah (1 K 11:5, 33, 2 K 23:13), was worshipped by all Semitic nations. In her temple at Ashkelon, the

Philistines hung the armour of Saul (1 S 31:10). In Bashan, the cities Ashtaroth or Be-eshterah and Ashteroth-karnaim presumably derived their names from the fact that various Ashtoreth-cults were located there. At Ashteroth-karnaim ( ‘horned Ashtaroth’) one might even be justified in supposing from the name that

‘Ashtoreth was represented with the horns of a cow or a ram. Mesha, king of Moab, dedicated his prisoners to a composite goddess ‘Ashtar-Chemosh. Indeed, her existence in S. Arabia is evidenced by the probably equivalent male god ‘Athtar. In Abyssinia, she was called Astar; in Assyria and Babylonia, Ishtar ( used also in the pl. ishtarāti to denote ‘goddesses,’ cf. ‘Ashtaroth, Jg 2:13, 10:6, 1 S 7:13, 12:10); in Syria, ‘Atbar, and in Phœnicia, ‘Astart, whence the Hebrew ‘Ashtoreth, with the vowels of bōsheth (‘shameful thing’) substituted for the original. See Molech, Baal.

The character of this goddess, concerning which the OT makes no direct statement, is most clearly depicted in the Assyro-Babylonian literature. Here she appears as the goddess of fertility, productiveness, and love on the one hand, and of war, death, and decay on the other, a personification of the earth as it passes through the summer and winter seasons. To her the sixth month, Elul, the height of the summer, is sacred. In this month, through her powers, the ripening of vegetable life takes place, represented by Tammuz, whose coming is heralded by Ishtar’s festival in Ab, the fifth month. From this period of the year, the crops and verdure gradually decay, and finally disappear in the winter. Thus, since Ishtar has failed to sustain the life which her powers had created, popular belief made her the cause of death and decay. She therefore became a destructive goddess, who visited with disease those who disobeyed her commands, and even a goddess of war (cf. 1 S 31:10). However, filled with remorse, because she had destroyed the vegetable life (= Tammuz, the consort of her youth), she sets out to the lower world in search of healing waters to revive Tammuz. During this quest (winter) the propagation of all life ceases. Successful in her search, she brings forth the new verdure, and once more assumes the role of a merciful goddess, to whom all life is due.

At a later period, when all gods had obtained a fixed position to each other and the necessity of assigning an abode to them was felt, the gods were identified with the heavenly bodies. Thus Ishtar was given the planet Venus, whose appearance at certain seasons as morning-star and at other times as evening-star paralleled the growth and decay of nature. Hence, in accordance with one theological school of the Babylonians, which considered Sin (moon) the ruler of the luminaries of the night, Ishtar was also known as the ‘daughter of Sin.’ By others she was designated as ‘daughter of Anu (lord of heaven),’ and even as the ‘sister of Shamash ( sun),’ since, as the evening-star Venus disappears in the west, and reappears in the east to be called the morning-star.

The cults of this goddess were extant at various localities of Babylonia and Assyria. At some of these, both phases of her character were worshipped, side by side, with equality; at others, more importance was attached to one of her aspects. Thus at Uruk (Erech) in her temple E-Anna (‘house of heaven’) she was both a goddess of fertility and a martial deity in whose service were Kizretl, Ukhati, and Kharimati, the priestesses of Ishtar. At Agade, Calah, and Babylon greater stress seems to have been laid upon the milder aspect, and it is doubtless with the worship of this side of Ishtar’s nature that the religious prostitution mentioned by Greek writers was connected (Hdt. i. 199; Strab. xvi. i. 20; Ep. Jerem. 42f.; Luc. de Dea Syr. 6 f.). Among the Assyrians, three Ishtars, viz., Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Kidmuru (temple at Nineveh), and Ishtar of Arbela, were especially worshipped. This warrior-nation naturally dwelt upon the martial aspect of the deity almost to the exclusion of her milder side as a mother-goddess, and accorded to her a position next to Ashur, their national god. Indeed, Ishtar was even designated as his wife, and since he ruled over the Igigi (spirits of heaven), so she was said to be ‘mighty over the Anunnaki’ (spirits of the earth).

Thus Ishtar is the goddess whom Ashur-nazir-pal (b.c. 1800) aptly calls ‘queen of the gods, into whose hands are delivered the commands of the great gods, lady of Nineveh, daughter of Sin, sister of Shamash, who rules all kingdoms, who determines decrees, the goddess of the universe, lady of heaven and earth, who hears petitions, heeds sighs; the merciful goddess who loves justice.’ Equally does Esarhaddon’s claim, that it was ‘Ishtar, the lady of onslaught and battle,’ who stood at his side and broke his enemies’ bows, apply to this deity—a goddess, to whom the penitent in the anguish of his soul prays— ‘Besides thee there is no guiding deity.

I implore thee to look upon me and hear my sighs.

Proclaim peace, and may thy soul he appeased.

How long, O my Lady, till thy countenance be turned towards me.

Like doves, I lament, I satiate myself with sighs.’

N. Koenig.

ASHURBANIPAL.—Son and successor of Esarhaddon on the throne of Assyria, b.c. 668–626. He is usually identified with Asnappar, Ezr. 4:10. He included Manasseh of Judah among his tributaries, and kept an Assyrian garrison at Gezer. See Assyria, Osnappar.

C. H. W. Johns.

ASHURITES.—One of the tribes over whom Ishbosheth ruled (2 S 2:9). The name is clearly corrupt, for neither the Assyrians (Asshur) nor the Arabian tribe Asshurim (Gn 25:3) can be intended. The Pesh. and Vulg. read ‘the Geshurites,’ whose territory bordered on that of Gilead (Jos 12:5, 13:11), and who might therefore be suitably included here. It has been urged, however, against this view, that Geshur was an independent kingdom at this time (cf. 2 S 3:3, 13:37), so that Ishbosheth could not have exercised control over it. We should probably read hāAshēri ‘the Asherites,’ i.e. the tribe of Asher (cf. Jg 1:32).

ASHVATH.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:33).

ASIA.—In the NT this word invariably means the Roman province Asia, which embraced roughly the western third of the peninsula which we call Asia Minor. It was bounded on the N.E. by the province of Bithynia, on the E. by the province of Galatia, on the S. by the province of Lycia, and had been ceded to the Romans by the will of the Pergamenian king Attalus III. in b.c. 133. The following ethnic districts were in this province—Mysia, Lydia, Western Phrygia, and Caria. The province was the richest, and, with the one exception of Africa, its equal, the most important in the Roman Empire. It was governed by a proconsul of the higher grade, with three legati under him. Ephesus, Pergamum, and Smyrna were its principal cities. St. Paul’s preaching in Ephesus was the most powerful cause of the spread of the gospel in this province, and the Epistle ‘to the Ephesians’ is probably a circular letter to all the churches in it. Seven are enumerated in Rev 1–3, which is post-Pauline.

A. Souter.

ASIARCH.—The form of the word is parallel with Lyciarch, Bithyniarch, etc., but the signification is by no means certain. The title of Asiarch could be held in conjunction with any civil office, and with the high priesthood of a particular city, but the high priest of Asia and the Asiarch were probably not identical; for there was only one high priest of Asia at a time, but there were a number of Asiarchs, as Ac 19:31 shows, even in one city. The honour lasted one year, but re-election was possible. It was held in connexion with the Koinon (Council) of the province, the main duty of which was to regulate the worship of Rome and of the Emperor; and the Asiarchs were probably the deputies to the Council elected by the towns.

A. Souter.

ASIBIAS (1 Es 9:26).—One of the sons of Phoros or Parosh who agreed to put away his ‘strange’ wife; answering to Malchijah (2) in Ezr 10:25.

ASIEL.—1. Grandfather of Jehu a Simeonite ‘prince’ (1 Ch 4:35). 2. One of five writers employed by Ezra to transcribe the Law (2 Es 14:24). 3. (AV Asael) An ancestor of Tobit (To 1:1).

ASIPHA (1 Es 5:29).—His sons were among the Temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel; called Hasupha, Ezr 2:43, Neh 7:46.

ASMODÆUS, the ‘evil demon’ of To 3, 6, 8, appears freely in the Talmud as Ashmĕdai, which popular etymology connected with shāmad, ‘to destroy.’ It is fairly certain, however, that it is the Avestan Aēsma daēva, ‘fury demon,’ conspicuous from the earliest to the latest parts of the Parsi scriptures. It would seem that the Book of Tobit is really a Median folk-story, adapted for edification by a Jew, with sundry uncomprehended features of the original left unchanged. For these see ‘Zoroastrianism’ in Hastings’ DB, § 4. In the Talmud Ashmedai is king of the Shēdîn, demons supposed to be mortal, and of either sex.

James Hope Moulton.

ASNAH.—The head of a family of Nethinim which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:50, 1 Es 5:31m).

ASNAPPER.—See Osnappar.

ASOM (1 Es 9:33). His sons were among those who put away their ‘strange’ wives; called Hashum, Ezr 10:33.

ASP.—See Serpent.

ASPALATHUS (Sir 24:16).—The name of an aromatic associated with cinnamon in the passage cited, but impossible to identify. It is probable that there were two or more plants, and more than one vegetable product, known by this name.

ASPATHA (Est 9:7).—The third son of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

ASPHALT.—See Bitumen.

ASPHAR (1 Mac 9:33).—A pool in the desert of Tekoa, or Jeshimon, where Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees encamped. The site is not known with certainty, although it may plausibly be identified with the mod. Bīr Selhūb, a reservoir 6 miles W.S.W. of Engedi.

ASPHARASUS (1 Es 5:8).—One of the leaders of the return under Zerubbabel, called Mispar, Ezr 2:2, and Mispereth, Neh 7:7.

ASRIEL (in AV of 1 Ch 7:14 Ashriel).—A Manassite (Jos 17:2, Nu 26:31; in the latter the patronymic Asrielite occurs).

ASS (hamōr; ‘she-ass,’ ’āthon [Gr. onos of both sexes]; ‘young ass’ or ‘colt,’ ‘ayir [Gr. pōlos]; ‘wild ass,’ pere’ and ‘ārōdh).—The ass (Arab. hamar) is the most universally useful domesticated animal in Palestine. On it the fellah rides to his day’s work, with it he ploughs his fields, threshes out his corn, and at last carries home the harvest (Neh 13:15). Whole groups of donkeys traverse every road carrying corn (Gn 42:26, 27), fire-wood (Gn 22:3), provisions (1 S 16:20) , skins of water or baskets full of sand, stone or refuse. A group of such animals are so accustomed to keep together that they would do so even if running away (1 S 9:3, 20). The little ass carrying the barley, which leads every train of camels, is a characteristic sight. Whenever the traveller journeys through the land, the braying of the ass is as familiar a sound as the barking of the village dog. The man of moderate means when journeying rides an ass, often astride his bedding and clothes, as doubtless was done by many a Scripture character (Nu 22:21–38, Jos 15:18, 1 S 25:20–28, 2 S 17:23, 19:26 etc.). A well-trained ass will get over the ground rapidly at a pace more comfortable than that of an ordinary horse; it is also very sure-footed. The man of position in the town, the sheikh of the mosque, lawyer or medical man—indeed, any peaceful citizen—is considered suitably mounted on donkey-back, especially if the animal is white (Jg 5:10). A well-bred white ass fetches a higher price than a fairly good horse. A she-ass (Arab. ’atar) is preferred (Nu 22:21–33, 1 S 9:3, 2 K 4:22–24, 1 Ch 27:30), because quieter and more easily left tied up; a strong mals is almost uncontrollable at times, and gives vent to the most dismal brays as he catches sight of female asses. The castrated animal is not often seen, because frequently wanting in ‘go’ and very timid. Sheasses are also, when of valuable breed, prized for breeding purposes. The common ass is brown, sometimes almost black or grey. Skeletons of asses are not uncommon by the high-road sides, and the jawbone might be a not unhandy weapon in an emergency (Jg 15:16, where the play on the word ‘ass’ [hamōr] and ‘heap’ [hamōr] should be noticed). Although the ass was forbidden food to the Jews, we read (2 K 6:25) that ‘an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver’ in the extremity of famine in besieged Samaria. In ploughing, the modern fellahin actually seem to prefer to yoke together an ox and an ass, or a camel and an ass (contrast Dt 22:10). The idea of the stupidity of the ass is the same in the East as in the West.

The young ass (Is 30:5, 24) or colt (Job 11:12, Zec 9:9, Lk 19:33 etc.), the Arab. jahsh, is referred to several times. Little colts of very tender age trot beside their mothers, and soon have small burdens put on them. They should not be regularly ridden for three years. The young asses in the Bible are all apparently old enough for riding or burden-bearing.

Wild asses are not to-day found in Palestine, though, it is said, plentiful in the deserts to the East (Job 24:5), where they roam in herds and run with extraordinary fleetness (Job 39:5). Ishmael is compared in his wildness and freedom to a wild ass (Gn 16:12), while Issachar is a wild ass subdued (49:14, 16).

E. W. G. Masterman.

ASSAMIAS (AV Assanias).—One of twelve priests entrusted with the holy vessels on the return to Jerusalem, 1 Es 8:54.

ASSAPHIOTH (AV Azaphion), 1 Es 5:33.—His descendants returned with Zerubbabel among the sons of Solomon’s servants. Called Hassophereth, Ezr 2:55; Sophereth, Neh 7:57.

ASSASSINS, THE.—In the time of Felix a band of robbers so named disturbed Judæa. They are mentioned in Ac 21:38 (sicarii, AV ‘murderers’). Josephus says that at Felix’s suggestion they murdered Jonathan son of Ananus, the high priest (Ant. XX. viii. 5). They took a leading part in the Jewish War. See art. Egyptian [ The ].

A. J. Maclean.

ASSEMBLY.—See Congregation.

ASSHUR.—See Assyria.

ASSHURIM.—The Asshurim, Letushim, Leummim (Gn 25:3) were Arabian tribes, supposed to be descended from Abraham and Keturah through Dedan. By the Asshurim the Targum understood dwellers in encampments to be meant. A tribe A’shur appears on two Minæan inscriptions.

J. Taylor.

ASSIDEANS.—See Hasidæans.

ASSIR.—1. A son of Korab (Ex 6:24, 1 Ch 6:22). 2. A son of Ebiasaph (1 Ch 6:23, 37). 3. A son of Jeconiah (AV and RVm of 1 Ch 3:17). It is probable, however, that RV correctly renders ‘Jeconiah the captive.’

ASSOS.—A town over half a mile from the Gulf of Adramyttium (in Mysia, province of Asia), in a splendid position on a hill about 770 feet high at its highest point. The fortifications are amongst the most excellent of their kind. It passed through various hands before it was from b.c. 334–241 under Alexander the Great and his successors, and from b.c. 241–133 under the Pergamenian dynasty. At the last date it became Roman (see Asia). It was the birth-place of the Stoic Cleanthes. St. Paul went from Troas to Assos by the land-route on his last visit to Asia ( Ac 20:13f.).

A. Souter.

ASSUMPTION OF MOSES.—See Apoc. Lit., p. 40^b.

ASSURANCE.—The word is used both in an objective and a subjective sense, according as it denotes the ground of confidence or the actual experience. When St. Paul declares at Athens (Ac 17:31) that God has appointed Christ to judge the world, and ‘has given assurance’ of this unto all men by raising Him from the dead, it is an objective assurance that he means, for he knew very well that all men were not personally assured of the fact of the Resurrection. In 2 Ti 3:14, again, Timothy’s assurance of the things he has learned is identified with the outward authority of the person from whom he has received them. For the most part, however, ‘assurance’ in Scripture denotes not an objective authority or fact, but a reality of inward experience. The word occurs once in OT (Is 32:17 AV), and quite characteristically assurance is there represented as the effect of righteousness. In NT assurance (plerophoria) is an accompaniment and result of the gospel (1 Th 1:5). And the assurance produced by the gospel is not intellectual merely, or emotional merely, or practical merely, it fills and satisfies the whole inner man. There is a full assurance of understanding (Col 2:2), and a full assurance of faith (He 10:22; cf. 2 Ti 1:12), and a full assurance of hope (He 6:11). [Cf. 11:1 RV, where the last two forms of assurance run into each other—faith itself becoming the assurance (hypostasis) or underlying ground of hope]. But there is also an assurance of love (1 Jn 3:19); love being, however, not a mere feeling but a practical social faculty, a love of deed and truth that ministers in all good things to its brethren (vv. 14–18). Thus on a higher plane—the plane of that Christian love which is the fulfilling of the Law—we come back to the prophetic ideal of an inward peace and assurance which are the effects of righteousness.

In any doctrine of assurance a distinction must again be recognized between an objective and a subjective assurance. The grounds of Christian assurance as presented in the gospel are absolute, and if faith were merely intellectual assent, every believing man would be fully assured of his salvation. But, as a positive experience, assurance must be distinguished from saving faith (cf. 1 Co 9:27). Yet the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God (Ro 8:16); and those in whom the consciousness of that witness is dim and faint should seek with more diligence to grow in faith and hope and love and understanding also, that thereby they may make their calling and election sure (2 P 1:10).

J. C. Lambert.

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA

I. Assyria

1. Natural features and Civilization.—Strictly speaking, Assyria was a small district bounded on the N. and E. by the mountains of Armenia and Kurdistan, on the W. by the Tigris, on the S. by the Upper Zab. The W. bank of the Tigris was early included, and the limits of the kingdom gradually extended till the Empire included all Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and parts of Asia Minor and Egypt. The term ‘Assyria,’ therefore, was widely different in meaning at different periods. The earliest capital was Asshur, on the W. of the Tigris, between the mouths of the Upper and Lower Zab. The above-named district, a natural stronghold, was the nucleus of the country. For the most part hilly, with well-watered valleys and a wide plain along the Tigris, it was fertile and populous. The cities Calah at the junction of the Upper Zab, Nineveh on the Chōser, Dur-Sargon to the N.E., ImgurBel S.E., Tarbis to the N.W., and Arbēla between the rivers Zab, were the most noted in Assyria itself.

The climate was temperate. The slopes of the hills were well wooded with oak, plane, and pine; the plains and valleys produced figs, olives, and vines. Wheat, barley, and millet were cultivated. In the days of the Empire the orchards were stocked with trees, among which have been recognized date palms, orange, lemon, pomegranate, apricot, mulberry, and other fruits. A great variety of vegetables were grown in the gardens, including beans, peas, cucumbers, onions, lentils. The hills furnished plenty of excellent building stone, the soft alabaster specially lent itself to the decoration of halls with sculptures in low relief, while fine marbles, hard limestone, conglomerate and basalt, were worked into stone vessels, pillars, altars, etc. Iron, lead, and copper were obtainable in the mountains near. The lion and wild ox, the boar, deer, gazelle, goat, and hare were hunted. The wild ass, mountain sheep, bear, fox, jackal, and many other less easily recognized animals are named. The eagle, bustard, crane, stork, wild goose, various ducks, partridge, plover, the dove, raven, swallow, are named; besides many other birds. Fish were plentiful. The Assyrians had domesticated oxen, asses, sheep, goats, and dogs. Camels and horses were introduced from abroad.

The Assyrians belonged to the North Semitic group, being closely akin to the Aramæans, Phœnicians, and Hebrews. Like the other Mesopotamian States,

Assyria early came under the predominating influence of Babylonia. According to

Gn 10:11, Nimrod went out from the land of Shinar into Assyria and built Nineveh, etc. That Babylonian colonies settled in Assyria is probable, but it is not clear that they found a non-Semitic population there. The Assyrians of historic times were more robust, warlike, ‘fierce’ (Is 33:19), than the mild, industrial Babylonians. This may have been due to the influence of climate and incessant warfare; but it may indicate a different race. The culture and religion of Assyria were essentially Babylonian, save for the predominance of the national god Ashur. The king was a despot at home, general of the army abroad, and he rarely missed an annual expedition to exact tribute or plunder some State. The whole organization of the State was essentially military. The literature was borrowed from Babylonia, and to the library of the last great king, Ashurbanipal, we owe most of the Babylonian classics. The Assyrians were historians more than the Babylonians, and they invented a chronology which is the basis of all dating for

Western Asia. They were a predatory race, and amassed the spoils of all Mesopotamia in their treasure-houses, but they at least learned to value what they had stolen. The enormous influx of manufactured articles from abroad and the military demands prevented a genuinely native industrial development, but the Assyrians made splendid use of foreign talent. In later times, the land became peopled by captives, while the drain upon the Assyrian army to conquer, garrison, colonize, and hold down the vast Empire probably robbed the country of resisting power.

2. History.—The excavations conducted at Nineveh and Calah by Layard, 1845 to 1851; by Botta at Khorsabad, 1843–1845; continued by Rassam, G. Smith, and others up to the present time; the edition of the inscriptions by Rawlinson, Norris, and Smith, and the decipherment of them by Rawlinson, Hincks, and Oppert, have rendered available for the history of Assyria a mass of material as yet only partially digested. Every year fresh evidence is discovered by explorers in the East, and the wide-spread influence of Assyria may be illustrated by the discovery of a stele of Sargon in Cyprus, a stele of Esarhaddon at Zinjerli on the borders of Cilicia, a letter from Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, to Amenophis IV., king of Egypt, at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, of statues of Assyrian kings at Nahrel-Kelb near Beyrout. Besides this primary source of history, chiefly contemporaneous with the events it records, we have scattered incidental notices in the historical and prophetical books of the OT giving an important external view, and some records in the Greek and Latin classics, mostly too late and uncritical to be of direct value. Owing to the intimate connexion of Assyria and Babylonia, a great deal may be treated as common matter, but it will conduce to clearness to separate their history. Some of the common sources for history will be noticed here.

(a) Chronology

(α) Year-names.—The Babylonians gave each year a name. Thus the names of the first four years of the reign of Hammurabi are: (1) the year in which Hammurabi became king; (2) the year in which Hammurabi established the heart of the land in righteousness; (3) the year in which the throne of Nannar was made; (4) the year in which the wall of Malgā was destroyed. These dates, or year-names, were decided upon and notice sent round to the principal districts, early each year. Thus we know that the date, or year-name, to be used for the eighth year of Samsuiluna was sent as far as the Lebanon, where the tablet giving the order was found. Until the new year-name was known, the year was dated ‘the year after’ the last known date. Thus the fourth year of Hammurabi would be called ‘the year after that in which the throne of Nannar was made.’ The scribes kept a record of these dates, and a long list of year-names, in two recensions, has been published, which, if perfect, would have given the year-names from Sumu-abi to the tenth year of Ammi-zaduga. It was natural that the same ideogram MU should denote ‘year’ and ‘name.’ When, therefore, this list counts 43 MU to the reign of Hammurabi, we do not know that he reigned ‘43 years,’ but only that he used 43 year-names in his reign. We know that the same year was sometimes called by two different names. When, therefore, the King’s List gives him a reign of 55 years, we may explain the discrepancy by supposing that the list of year-names gives only the number of separate names. As a year-name often mentions a campaign, it seems most unlikely that it could have been given at the beginning of the year, still more when it records such an event as the fall of a city. The list of year-names records some event, usually domestic, religious, or military, for each year, and consequently has been called a ‘chronicle.’ This system of dating occurs as early as Sargon I. Its ambiguity for future generations is obvious. The kings of Larsa developed an era, the years being called the first, second, etc. (up to the 30th), ‘after the capture of Isin.’ In the third dynasty the method of dating by the year of the king’s reign was introduced. If a king died in the 20th year of his reign, he is said to have reigned 20 years. The remainder of the year was ‘the accession year’ of his successor, and his first year was that beginning on the first of Nisan after his accession. Thus over a long series of years, the sum of the reigns is accurately the length in years, except for the margin at the beginning and end: it is exact to a year.

(β) Eponym Canon.—The Assyrians devised a modification of the year-name which avoided all difficulty. They named each year after a particular official, who could be selected at the beginning of the year, which was called his limmu or eponymy. The particular official for each year was originally selected by lot (pūru), but later a fixed order was followed, the king, the Tartan, the chief of the levy, the chief scribe, etc., then the governors of the chief cities. As the Empire extended, the governors of such distant places as Carchemish, Razappa, Kummuh, or even Samaria, became eponyms. Later still the order seems to be quite arbitrary, and may have been a royal choice. Lists of these officials, in their actual order of succession, known as the Eponym Canons, were drawn up, are fairly complete from b.c. 911 to b.c. 668, and can be restored to b.c. 648. This method of dating is at least as early as Arik-dēn-ilu, and was in use in Cappadocia, possibly much earlier. A very large number of names of Eponyms are known, which are not in the Canons, but as yet they can rarely be dated.

(γ) Chronological statements.—This system, however, provided an accurate means of dating, and warrants great reliance on the statements of the kings as to the dates of events long before their times. Provided that they had access to earlier Eponym Canons than we possess, there is no reason why they should not be exact.

Later kings were not disinclined to give such chronological statements. Thus

Shalmaneser I. states that Erishum built the temple of Ashur, in Asshur, which Shamshi-Adad rebuilt 159 years later, but which was destroyed 580 years later by a fire and built afresh by him. The king does not state in which year of either of the reigns these events took place. Esarhaddon also states that the temple was built by Erishum, restored by Shamshi-Adad, son of Bel-kabi, and again by Shalmaneser I.

434 years later, and again by himself. The former statement may be preferred, as Shalmaneser I. was much nearer to the events, and it is easier to reconcile with other statements. Sennacherib’s Bavian inscription states that he recovered the gods of Ekallati, which had been carried away by Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Akkad, in the days of Tiglath-pileser I., 418 years before, thus dating both Marduknadin-ahe and Tiglath-pileser I. at about b.c. 1107. Tiglath-pileser I. tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Ashur and Adad which had been pulled down by his greatgrandfather Ashur-dan I., 60 years before, and had then stood 641 years since its foundation by Shamshi-Adad, son of Ishme-Dagan. This puts Shamshi-Adad about b.c. 1820 and Ashur-dan about 1170. Sennacherib also states that a seal captured from Babylon by Tukulti-Ninib I. had been carried away to Babylon again and was brought back by him 600 years later. This puts Tukulti-Ninib I. about b.c. 1289. Ashurbanipal states that on his capture of Susa he brought back the image of Nana, which had been carried off by Kudur-nanhundi, 1635 years before. This puts an invasion of Babylon at b.c. 2275. A boundary stone dated in the 4th year of Bēlnādin-apli states that from Gulkishar, probably the sixth king of the second

Babylonian Dynasty, to Nebuchadrezzar I. there were 696 years. This puts Gulkishar about b.c. 1820. Nabonidus states that he restored a temple in Sippara, which had not been restored since Shagarakti-shuriash, 800 years before. This puts that king about b.c. 1350. Further, that Naram-Sin, son of Sargon I., was 3200 years before him, which dates Naram-Sin about b.c. 3750. Further, that Hammurabi lived 700 years before Burna-buriash. This dates Hammurabi about b.c. 2100, or b.c. 2150, according as we understand Burna-buriash I. or II. to be intended. It is evident that all such dates are vague. The numbers may be only approximate, 600 for 560 or 640, say. Further, we do not know from which year of the writer’s reign to reckon, nor to which year of the king named. This may add a further margin of uncertainty.

(δ) The Kings’ List, Ptolemy’s Canon, Eponym List.—The Babylonian Kings’

List, if complete, would have given the names of the kings of Babylonia from the First Dynasty down to the last native ruler, Nabonidus, with the lengths of their reigns. It does furnish these particulars for long periods. The famous Canon of Ptolemy begins with Nabonassar, b.c. 747, and gives the names of the kings, including the Assyrians Poros (Tiglath-pileser III.), Sargon, and Esarhaddon, with the dates of their reigns, down to Nabonidus, then the Achæmenids to Alexander the Great, the Ptolemys and Romans, so connecting with well-known dates. The Eponym Canon lists record the eclipse of b.c. 763, and their dates are thus fixed. So far as they overlap, the last three sources agree exactly. We may then trust the Eponym Canons to b.c. 911 and the Kings’ List wherever preserved.

(ε) Genealogies, Date Documents.—The kings usually mention their father and grandfather by name; often an earlier ancestor, or predecessor, naming his father, and we are thus enabled to trace back a dynasty from father to son over long periods. Unfortunately we are rarely told by them how long a king reigned, but where we have documents dated by the year of his reign, we can say he reigned at least so many years.

In both Assyrian and Babylonian history there are still wide gaps, but exploration is continually filling them up. The German explorations at Asshur added quite 20 new names to the list of Assyrian rulers. It is dangerous to argue that, because we do not know all the rulers in a certain period, it ought to be reduced in length. It is as yet impossible to reconcile all the data, because we are not sure of the kings referred to. We already know five or six of the same name, and it may well be that we mistake the reference.

(ζ) Synchronous History.—The so-called Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylonia dealt with the wars and rectification of boundaries between the two countries from b.c. 1400 to b.c. 1150 and b.c. 900 to b.c. 800; and the Babylonian Chronicle gave the names and lengths of reign of the kings of Assyria, Babylonia, and Elam from b.c. 744 to b.c. 668. These establish a number of synchronisms, besides making considerable contributions to the history.

The bulk of the history is derived from the inscriptions of the kings themselves. Here there is an often remarked difference between Assyrian and Babylonian usage. The former are usually very full concerning the wars of conquest, the latter almost entirely concerned with temple buildings or domestic affairs, such as palaces, walls, canals, etc. Many Assyrian kings arrange their campaigns in chronological order, forming what are called Annals. Others are content to sum up their conquests in a list of lands subdued. We rarely have anything like Annals from Babylonia.

The value to be attached to these inscriptions is very various. They are contemporary, and for geography Invaluable. A king would hardly boast of conquering a country which did not exist. The historical value is more open to question. A ‘conquest’ meant little more than a raid successful in exacting tribute. The Assyrians, however, gradually learnt to consolidate their conquests. They planted colonies of Assyrian people; endowing them with conquered lands. They transported the people of a conquered State to some other part of the Empire, allotting them lands and houses, vineyards and gardens, even cattle, and so endeavoured to destroy national spirit and produce a blended population of one language and one civilization. The weakness of the plan lay in the heavy taxation which prevented loyal attachment. The population of the Empire had no objection to the substitution of one master for another. The demands on the subject States for men and supplies for the incessant wars weakened all without attaching any. The population of Assyria proper was insufficient to officer and garrison so large an empire, and every change of monarch was the signal for rebellion in all outlying parts. A new dynasty usually had to reconquer most of the Empire. Civil war occurred several times, and always led to great weakness, finally rendering the Empire an easy prey to the invader.

The following table of monarchs is compiled from the above-mentioned materials. Where the relationship of two kings is known, it is indicated by S for ‘son,’ B for ‘brother,’ of the preceding king. When two kings are known to be contemporaries = is placed between their names. Probable dates of accession are given with a query, known dates without. Where a figure with + is placed after a name it indicates monumentally attested minimum length of reign, thus 25 + means ‘at least 25 years.’ The lengths of reigns in the Year List or Chronicle for the First Dynasty are given in brackets.

b.c. I. First Dynasty of Babylon.

Length of Reign.

Patesis of Asshur.

b.c.

2396 ? Sumu-abi 2382 ? Sumu-lā-el 35(36) 2347 ? Zabum, S 14 2333 ? Apil-Sin, S 18 2325 ? Sin- 30(20) muballit, S				15(14)
2285 ? Hammurabi, 55(43) S			=	ShamshiAdad i.
2230 ? Samsu- 35(38) ilūna, S				Ushpia
2195 ? Abēshu, S 25				Kikīa
2170 ? Ammi- 25 satana, S				KateAshir
2145 ? Ammi- 21				Shalim-
zadūga, S					abum, S
2124 ? Samsu- 31 satāna, S II. Dynasty of Uru-azag.					Ilu- shūma, S
2093 ?	Iluma- ilu	60
2033 ? ltti-ili-ibi	55				SharkenkateAshir
1978 ? Damkiilishu	36				Ishme- Dagan i.
1942 ? Ish-ki-bal	15				Ashurnirari i. S
1927 ? Shushshi, B	27				Bēl-kabi
1900 ? Gulkishar	55				Shamshi-

Adad ii.

1845 ? Peshgal- 50 Igurdaramash, S kapkapi

1795 ? A-darakalama, S	28	ShamshiAdad iii. S
1767 ? Akur-ulauna	26	Ishme- Dagan ii.
1741 ? Melamkurkurra	7	Shamshi- 1820 ? Adad iv. S
1734 ? Ea-gāmil	9

III. Kassite Kings of Dynasty. Assyria.

	1725 ?				Gandash			16
	1709 ? Agum I. S	22				Bēl-ibni, S
	1687 ? Agu-iashi	22				Bēlkapkapi
	1665 ? Adshi, S	8				Sulīlu
1657 ? Adumetash							Ashurrabi, S
Tazzigurumash				Ashurnirari ii. S
Agum ii. S Kurigalzu i. S				Ashurrīmnishēshu, S
Melishihu i. S				Puzur- Ashur i.
Mardukapliddina i. S				Ashurnirari iii.
Kara-indash i.			=	Ashurbēlnishēshu, S
Burna-buriash i. S			=	Puzur- Ashur ii.

Adad.…

Ashurnādinahi

Kara-indash ii.				ErbaAdad i. S
Kadashmanharbe i.				Ashur- uballit i. S
Nazi-bugash				Ashurnādinahe
Kurigalzu ii.			=	Ashur- uballit ii. S
Burnaburiash ii. S	25	+		Bēl- nirari, S
Kurigalzu iii. S	26		=	Arikdēnilu, S
Nazimaruttash, S	24	+	=	Adad- nirari

i. S

Kadashman- 16 Turgu	+
Kadashman- 6 Bēl	+
Kudur-Bēl 9	+
1355 ? Shagaraktishuriash, S	2 3	+		Shulmanuashared i. S
Bitiliashu, S	8		=	Tukulti- 1310 ? Ninib i. S
Bēl-nādinshum	11/2			Ashurnāzir-apli i. S
Kadashmanharbe ii.	11/2			Ashurnirari iv.
Adad-shumiddina	6			Nabū-dan
Adad-shumusur	3 0		=	Ninib- 1289 ? tukulti-

Ashur

Ashurshum-

lishir

Bēl-kudurusur

Melishihu 1 ii. 5			=	Erba-Adad ii.
Marduk- 1 apliddina ii. 3				Ninibapil- Esharra, S
Zamama- 1 shum-iddina Bēl-nādin- 3 ahi IV. Dynasty of Isin.				Ashur-dan i. S
Mardukahē-erba					17
(Unknown 6 name)				MutakkilNusku, S
Nabūkudur-usur i.			=	Ashur- rēsh-ishi, S
Bēl-nādinapli	4	+
Marduknādin-ahē	1 0	+	=	Tukulti- 1107 ? apil- Esharra i. S
Marduk- shāpik-zēri			=	Ashur-bēlkala, S
Adadapliddina	2 2			Shamshi- Adad v. B
Marduk.…	11/2			Ashur-dān ii. B
Mardukzēr.…	1 3			Adad- nirari ii. S
Nabūshum.…	9			Ashurnāzir-apli

ii.

V. Dynasty

of the

Sealand.

Simbar 18

shihu

Ea-mukēn- 5 mo.

zēri

Kashshu- 3

nādin-ahi

VI. Dynasty of Bazi.

Eulmash 17

shākinshum

Ninib- 3

kudur-usur

Shilanum- 3 mo. shuqamuna

VII. Dynasty of Elam.

An 6

Elamite

VIII. Dynasty of Babylon.

Shulmānuashared ii.

851	? Marduk- balatsu-ikbi			=	Shamshi- Adad vi. S	823
	Bau-ahiddina				Adadnirari v. S	810
	Marduk.…				Shulmānuashared iii. S	781
	Nabū-shumishkun ii.	8	+		Ashur-dan iv.	771
747	Nabū-nāsir				Adadnirari vi. S	763
733	Nabū-nādinzēr	2			Ashurnirari v. S	753
731	Nabū-shumūkīn	4 2	days	=	Tukultiapil- Esharra iii.	745

IX. Dynasty of Shashī.

731 Ukīn-zēr

729 Pūln

Dynasty of

Tinu

727	Ululai			=	Shulmānuashared iv.	727
721	Mardukapliddina iii.	1 2			Sharrukēnu ii	722 =
710	Sharru-kēnu ii.
704	Sin-aheerba			=	Sin-aheerba, S	705
	Mardukzākir-shum	1	mo.
	Marduk- apliddina iii. ( returned )	9	mo.
702	Bēl-ibni	2
700	Ashurnādin-shum	6
693	Nergal-	1

ushēzib

692 Mushēzib- 3

Marduk

689 Sin-ahe- 7

erba

681	Ashurahiddin		=	Ashurahiddin, S	681
667	Shamashshum-ukīn		=	Ashur- bāni-apli, S	668
648	Kandalānu			Ashur-etililāni. S, 4+	626
	X. Chaldæn Dynasty.			Sin-sharishkun, B, 7+	?
625	Nabū-apluusur	2 1	=	Fall of Nineveh	606

604 Nabū- 4 kudur-usur 3

ii. S

561 Amel- 2

Marduk, S

559 Nergal-shar- 3

usur

556 Labashi-

Marduk

555 Nabū-nā’id 1

539 Oct. 10 ,

Fall of

Babylon

(b) Early traditions.—We may dismiss as mythical the Assyrian claim that Nineveh was founded directly after the Creation, but it points to a tradition of immemorial antiquity. Sargon claimed to have been preceded on his throne by 350 rulers of Assyria; but even if he counted ancient Babylonian overlords of Assyria, we have no means of checking his figures. Sennacherib professed to trace his lineage back to Gilgamesh, Eabāni, and Humbaba, the heroes of the Babylonian National Epic, through such ancient rulers as Egiba, La’iti-Ashur, Ashur-gamilia, Shamash-sulnlishu, etc., whose names are not otherwise known. The reference made by Gudea to his having built a temple for Nana (= Ishtar) in Nineveh may be meant for the Babylonian city of the same name, and an inscription of Dungi found in Nineveh might have been carried there by Assyrian conquerors.Adad-nirari iii.Ashur-kirbiAdasiIkunum, SErishūm, S

(c) Earliest mention.—Hammurabi, however, in one of his letters refers to troops in Assyria, and in the prologue to his celebrated code of laws states that he ‘returned to Asshur its gracious protecting deity and made glorious the name of Ishtar in her temple at Nineveh.’ As these benefactions are placed after the benefits conferred on the Babylonian cities, we may conclude that Asshur and Nineveh were subject to him, and that the deity referred to had been carried off by invaders, perhaps the Elamites, or Kassites. A contemporary letter mentions a defaulting debtor as having gone to Assyria. These are the earliest references to the country.

(d) Earliest rulers.—The earliest rulers of Assyria styled themselves ‘patesi of Asshur.’ The title was that borne by the city rulers of Babylonia. Its Assyrian equivalent was ishshakku, and it often interchanges with shangū, ‘priest.’ It was still borne by the kings of Assyria, but while it designated them then as ‘chief priest’ of the nation, we may conclude that when used alone it implied that its bearer was subject to some king. Hence it has usually been supposed that the patesi of Asshur was subject to Babylonia. In the fourth year of Hammurabi one Shamshi-Adad is named in a way that suggests his being the patesi of Asshur, subject to Hammurabi. We know the names of many of these rulers. Thus Ushpia was the founder of the temple of Ashur in the city of Asshur, and may be the earliest of all. Kikīa, who may be the same as Kiki-Bēl otherwise known, founded the city wall of Asshur, and may be as early, if not earlier. The title descended from father to son for five generations, of whom we put Erishum as early as b.c. 2000. Then we know some pairs, father and son, of whom the last Ishme-Dagan II. and Shamshi-Adad IV. are about b.c. 1820. The order in which these groups are arranged is at present purely conjectural, and we know nothing of the intervals between them. Shamshi-Adad II., son of Bēl-kabi, should be some sixty years before Shamshi-Adad IV.

(e) Early kings.—We do not know the exact date at which Assyria achieved her independence of Babylon, but it may well have synchronized with the Kassite conquest of Babylonia, or have contributed to it. A possible reference to the ‘war of independence’ is contained in a tablet which names a great conflict between the king of Babylon and the prince of Assyria, to whom the title ‘king’ is not conceded, which ended in the spoils of Babylon being carried to Assyria; but we are given no names to date events. Esarhaddon traced his descent from Adasi, father of Bēl-ibni, ‘who founded the kingdom of Assyria.’ If we credit this, Adasi or Bēl-ibni was the first ‘king.’ Adad-nirari III. states that Bēl-kapkapi was an early king who lived before Sulīlu. It is doubtful whether the group of three, Ashur-rabi, Ashur-nirari II., and Ashur-rīm-nishēshu, the last of whom restored the city wall of Asshur, should not be put before the ‘kings.’ As Ashur-bēl-nishēshu restored the wall of the ‘Newtown’ of Asshur, which a Puzur-Ashur had founded, we must put a Puzur-Ashur I. before him. The interval of time we do not know, but a city wall surely lasted years before the reign of Ashur-bēl-nishēshu’s father, Ashur-nirari III.

(f) Relations with Egypt and Babylonia.—About b.c. 1500 an Assyrian ruler sent gifts to Thothmes III., in his 24th and 30th years; but we are not told which king. The synchronous history now comes to our aid. Ashurbēl-nishēshu made a treaty with Kara-indash I. as to the boundaries of the two countries: a few years later Puzur-Ashur II. made a fresh treaty with Burna-buriash I. Ashur-uballit names Erba-Adad I. his father and Ashurnādin-ahi his grandfather, in the inscription on the bricks of a well he made in Asshur. Adad-nirari I. names Puzur-Ashur, Ashurbēl-nishēshu, Erba-Adad and Adad …, in this order, as builders at the wall of ‘Newtown.’ But the Ashur-uballit who wrote to Amenophis IV. in the Tell elAmarna tablets says that his father Ashur-nādin-ahe was in friendly relationship with Amenophis III., and he was followed by his son Bēl-nirari, whose son was Arik-dēn-ilu and grandson Adad-nirari I., who names this Adad.… He must therefore follow Ashur-uballit I.

(g) Extension to the West.—Ashur-uballit II. gave his daughter MuballitatSherūa to Burna-buriash I. to wife. Her son Kadashman-harbe I. succeeded to the throne of Babylon, but the Kassites rebelled against him, put him to death and set up a Kassite, Nazi-bugash. Ashur-uballit invaded Babylonia, deposed the pretender, and set Kurigalzu II., another son of Burna-buriash, on the throne. With Asher-uballit also begins Assyrian history proper—the expansion to the W., which was so fateful for Palestine. In the time of the Tell el-Amarna tablets Egypt was the overlord of Palestine, but already Mitanni, the Hittites, and further to the east Assyria and Babylonia, were treating with Egypt on equal terms. Tushratta, king of Mitanni, offered to send Ishtar of Nineveh to Amenophis III. This has been taken to mean that Mitanni then ruled over Nineveh; it may mean only that Ishtar of Nineveh was worshipped in Mitanni. But Ashur-uballit wrested Melitia from Mitanni, and conquered the Shubari to the N.W. of Assyria. Hence he probably ruled Nineveh also. Bēl-nirari was attacked by Kurigalzu III. at Sugagu on the Zalzallat, but defeated him and made a fresh boundary settlement. Arik-dēn-ilu

(often read Pudi-ilu) conquered N., E., and W., penetrating as far as Halah on the

Habor, subduing Turuku, Nigimtu, Gutium, the Aramæans, Ahlami, and the Bedouin Sūti. Adad-nirari I. was, early in his reign, defeated by Kurigalzu III., and lost the southern conquests of his predecessors, but later conquered Gutium, the Lullumi and Shubari, turned the tables by defeating Nazi-maruttash, and rectified his boundary to the S. On the W. he extended his conquests over Haran to the Euphrates. Shalmaneser I. (Shulmanu-ashared) crossed the upper waters of the Tigris, placed Assyrian colonies among the tribes to the N., subdued the Aramæans of Upper Mesopotamia, took Melitia, the capital of Hani, defeated the Hittites, Ahlami, Musri, and Sūti, captured Haran and ravaged up to Carchemish. He made Calah his capital, and restored the temple of Ishtar at Nineveh. He first bore the title shar kishshāti, supposed to mark the conquest of Haran.

(h) Capture of Babylon.—Tukulti-Ninib I. conquered Gutium, the Shubari, 40 kings of Nairi, the Ukumāni, Elhūnia, Sharnida, Mehri, Kurhi, Kummuh, the Pushshē, Mumme, Alzi, Madāni, Nihāni, Alaia, Arzi, Purukuzzi. His chief triumph, however, was over Babylon. He defeated and captured Bitiliashu, and took him prisoner to Assyria, ruling Babylonia seven years by his nominees. The first, Bēlnādin-shum, ruled eighteen months. Elam now appeared on the scene, invaded Babylonia, and a Kassite, Kadashman-harbe II., was set up. After eighteen months more, Tukulti-Ninib I. took Babylon, slew its people with the sword and set up Adad-shum-iddina, who ruled six years. Tukulti-Ninib deported the god Marduk to Assyria and carried off great spoil from Esaggila, his temple in Babylon. Among other things he carried off a seal of lapis lazuli, which had belonged to Shagaraktishuriash, father of Bitiliashu, and engraved his own name and titles on it. It was afterwards carried back to Babylon, whence Sennacherib brought it once more 600 years later. We thus get a date b.c. 1289, which must fall either in Tukulti-Ninib’s reign or in that of Ninib-tukulti-Ashur’s, 16 (?) years later, when Marduk was carried back to Babylon. After Adad-shum-iddina had reigned six years, the Kassites and Babylonians set Adad-shum-usur on ‘his father’s throne.’ TukultiNinib had built a city called Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, close to Asshur, which he intended for a new capital, but that evidently estranged his own people, for his son Ashurnazir-apli I. rebelled against him, besieged him in a house in his new city, and finally killed him. Of the reign of the parricide we know nothing. Adad-shum-usur corresponded with two kings of Assyria, Ashur-nirari IV. and Nabū-dān, who appear to be reigning both at the same time. Perhaps they were sons of TukultiNinib I., or it may be another Adad-shum-usur who was their contemporary. They are usually placed here, but we know nothing further about them. It was Ninibtukulti-Ashur who carried back Marduk, and perhaps the seal above named, to Babylon. Possibly he took refuge from Ashur-shum-lishir. There is much doubt about this period, but Adad-shum-usur lived to defeat and kill Bēl-kudur-usur. Erba-Adad II. is known only as father of Ninib-apil-Esharra, whom Tiglath-pileser I. calls ‘a powerful king that truly shepherded the hosts of Assyria.’ He was besieged by Adad-shum-usur in Asshur. Ashur-dān I. defeated Zamama-shumiddina and captured several Babylonian cities, carrying off much spoil to Assyria. He had a long reign. We know little of Mutakkil-Nusku. Ashur-rēsh-ishi began to revive the military glories of Assyria, conquering the Ahlami, Gutium and Lullumi. He then invaded Babylonia, and Nebuchadrezzar I. attacked him in Assyria, but was defeated and lost his commander-in-chief.

(i) Tiglath-pileser I., etc.—Tukulti-apil-Esharra (Tiglath-pileser) I. has left us very full accounts of a long reign and series of conquests; chiefly in Upper Mesopotamia along the base of the Caucasus, Armenia, and W. to the N.E. corner of the Mediterranean, ‘in all 42 countries with their princes.’ The Bedouin Sūti were driven back across the Euphrates. The Babylonian king Marduk-nādin-ahe invaded the S. of Assyria and carried off the gods of Ekallāte, but, after two years’ fighting, Tiglath-pileser defeated him and captured the chief cities of North Babylonia, including Sippara and Babylon itself. He was no less distinguished by his restorations of home cities, and he acclimatized all sorts of useful trees and plants. Ashur-bēl-kala, Shamshi-Adad V., and Ashur-dān II., sons of Tiglathpileser, followed on the throne, but in what order is not known. Adad-nirari II. was son of Ashur-dān II., and Ashur-nāzir-apli II. was son of Shamshi-Adad V.; but beyond these relationships nothing much is known of them. Shalmaneser II. tells us that he recaptured Pitru and Mitkunu on the far side of the Euphrates, which Tiglath-pileser had taken, but which were lost to Assyria in the reign of Ashurkirbi. As Shalmaneser’s six predecessors cannot be separated, it is usual to put

Ashur-kirbi here. Whether the king Ilu-hirbe who set up his image near the Amanus, also named by Shalmaneser, be the same or an earlier and more successful conqueror, is not yet clear. The interval between Tiglath-pileser I. and Ashur-nirari IV., with whom accurate chronology begins, also contained Adadnirari III., Tukulti-apil-Esharra II., and Ashur-dān III., as known from genealogical notices, but as there is a gap of unknown extent at the commencement of the 8 th Dynasty of Babylon, we cannot tell its length or how many things are still unknown to us. Adad-nirari IV. warred with Shamash-mudammīk and Nabū-shumlshkun of Babylon; Tukulti-Ninib II. continued the subjugation of the mountaineers N. of Assyria, gradually winning back the Empire of Tiglath-pileser I.

With Ashur-nāzir-apli III. began a fresh tide of Assyrian conquest, b.c. 885. He rebuilt Calah, and made it his capital. The small Aramæan State of Bīt-Adīni, between the Balih and Euphrates, held out against him, but he conquered the Mannai, Kirrūr, and Zamūa between Lake Van and Lake Urmia. Carchemish, Unki (‘Amk), or Hattin on the Orontes were raided, and the army reached the Lebanon. Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, Arvad, etc., were fain to buy off the conqueror. Ashur-nāzirapli had invaded the Babylonian sphere of influence, and Nabū-apli-iddina sent his brother Zabdānu to support his allies. Ashur-nāzir-apll took Zabdānu and 3000 troops prisoners.

(j) Shalmaneser II., etc.—The reign of Shalmaneser II., his son and successor, was one long campaign. He records 33 separate expeditions, and began to annex his conquests by placing governors over the conquered districts. The Armenian Empire now began to bar Assyria’s progress north. Assyria now first appeared on

Israel’s horizon as a threatening danger. Shalmaneser’s celebrated bronze doors at Balawat and the Black Obelisk give us pictures of scenes in his reign. They represent ambassadors from Girzān near Lake Urmia, from Jahūa (Jehu) of Israel, from Musri, from Marduk-aplu-usur of Suhi, and from Karparunda of Hattin. This Musri is N.E. of Cilicia (1 K 10:28), whence Solomon brought his horses. Shalmaneser invaded Kuē in Cilicia, and Tabal (Tubal), where he annexed the silver, salt, and alabaster works. He reached Tarzi (Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul). To the N.E. he penetrated Parsūa, the original Persia, in Babylonia, Nabūapli-iddina was deposed by his son, Marduk-shum-iddina, against whom arose his brother Marduk-bēl-usāte, who held the southern States of the Sealand, already peopled by the Chaldæans. Shalmaneser invaded Babylonia, and, passing to the E., besieged Marduk-bēl-usāte in Mē-turnat, drove him from one stronghold to another, and finally killed him and all his partisans. In the role of a friend of Babylon, Shalmaneser visited the chief cities and sacrificed to the gods, captured most of the southern States, and laid them under tribute.

Shalmaneser’s campaign against Hamath on the Orontes took place in b.c. 854. The fall of Bīt-Adīni had roused all N. Syria to make a stand. At Karkar the Assyrian army had against them a truly wonderful combination.

Chariots. Horsemen. Foot.

Bir-idri of 1200 1200 20,000

Damascus

Irhulini of Hamath 700 700 10,000

Ahabbu of Sir’il 2000 10,000

The Guī (Kuē) 500

Musri 1,000

Irkanat 10 10,000

Matin-ba’al of 200

Arvad

Usanat 200

Adunu-ba’al of 30 10,000

Shiana

Ba’sa of Ammon 1,000

Gindibu the Arab 1000 Camels.

The presence of Ahab in this battle in which Shalmaneser claims to have won the victory is most interesting. The battle was not productive of any settled results, as Shalmaneser had to fight the same foes in b.c. 849 and again in b.c. 846. In b.c.

842 Shalmaneser defeated Hazael, besieged him in Damascus, and carried off the spoils of Malaha, his residence. At this time he received tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Jehu, ‘of the house of Omri.’ Jehu’s tribute is interesting—it includes silver, gold, a vessel of gold, a ladle of gold, golden drinking cups, golden beakers, tin, a sceptre, and bedolach.

Shalmaneser’s last years were clouded by the rebellion of his son Ashur-dāninapli, who alienated more than half the Empire, and was not subdued by the successor to the throne, his brother Shamshi-Adad VI., till after eight years’ struggle. He may be considered actual king for those eight years. Shamshi-Adad had to fight the Babylonian kings Bau-ah-iddina and Marduk-balatsu-ikbi. He warred in Chaldæa and advanced into Media as far as Mt. Elvend to secure the Mannai and Parsūa against the rising power of Armenia. Adad-nirari V. penetrated Media right up to the Caspian Sea. Armenia had pushed W. and secured Hanirabbat and Daiēni, old conquests of Assyria. Adad-nirari V., however, fought several campaigns in the West. From the upper part of the Euphrates to the land of Hattl (N. Syria), Amurri (N. Palestine), Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri ( Israel), Udumu (Edom), and Palastu (Philistia), to the Mediterranean, he exacted tribute. He besieged Mari’a, king of Damascus, in his capital, captured it and carried off rich spoil. These expeditions may be placed in b.c. 804 and b.c. 797.

(k) Tiglath-pileser III.—Armenia was steadily rising in power, and Assyria gradually lost all its northern conquests in Upper Mesopotamia; under Ashur-nirari V. the dynasty fell and a new line came to the throne in Tiglath-pileser III., b.c.

745. The world of small States had given way to a few strong kingdoms; the

Chaldæans were strongly forcing their way into lower Babylonia; in the north, Armenia was powerful and ready to threaten W. Syria; Egypt was awaking and anxious to interfere in Palestine. Assyria and Babylonia bade fair to fall a prey to stronger nations, when Tiglath-pileser III. roused the old energy. The Aramæans were pouring into Babylonia, filled the Tigris basin from the lower Zab to the Uknu, and held some of the most celebrated cities of Akkad. Tiglath-pileser scourged them into subjection, and deported multitudes to the N.E. hills. The Medes were set in order, and then Tiglath-pileser turned to the west. The new kingdom of Arpad was strongly supported by Armenia, and Tiglath-pileser swept to the right into Kummuh, and took the Armenians in the rear. He crushed them, and for the time was left to deal with the West. Arpad took three years to reduce: then gradually all N. Syria came into Assyrian hands, b.c. 740. Hamath allied itself with Azrijahu of Iaudl (Azariah of Judah?) and Panammu of Samal. Tiglath-pileser broke up the coalition, devastated Hamath, and made the district an Assyrian province. The Southern States hastened to avoid invasion by paying tribute. Menahem of Israel, Zabibi of Arabia, Razunnu (Rezon) of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre are noteworthy; but Gebal, Carchemish, Hamath, Militia, Tabal, Kullāni (Calno, Is 10:9) also submitted, b.c. 738. In b.c. 734 Hanno of Gaza was defeated. In b.c. 733–732 Damascus was besieged and taken, Israel was invaded, the whole of Naphtali taken, and Pekah had to pay heavy toll. In b.c. 731 he was murdered, and Tiglath-pileser acknowledged Hosea as successor. Ammon, Moab, Ashkelon.

Edom, and Ahaz of Judah paid tribute. Samsī, queen of the Arabians, was defeated, and the Sabæans sent presents. This Tiglath-pileser is the Pul of 2 K 15:19, 20 , who, after defeating the Chaldæan Ukīn-zēr, who had got himself made king of Babylon, in b.c. 728 was crowned king of Babylon, as Pulu.

(l) Sargon.—Shalmaneser IV. seems to have been son of Tiglath-pileser. He was king of Babylonia as Ulnlai, and succeeded to Tiglath-pileser’s Empire. In b.c. 724 he began the siege of Samaria, which fell after three years. We have no Assyrian accounts of this reign. Sargon at once succeeded him, but we have no knowledge of his title to the throne. He never mentions his immediate ancestors, nor does Sennacherib, but the latter evidently wished to claim ancient royal descent, and Esarhaddon claimed descent from an early king. That Sargon is called arkū, ‘the later,’ in his own inscriptions may be meant to distinguish him from the great Sargon of Akkad, whose reign he so closely reproduced, or from some early Assyrian monarch, Shar-kēn (Shar-kenkate-Ashir?). Samaria fell almost immediately (b.c. 722), and the flower of the nation, to the number of 27,290 persons, was deported and settled about Halab on the Habor, in the province of Gozan and in Media (2 K 17:6), being replaced by Babylonians and Syrians. Merodach-baladan, a king of Bīt Iakin, a Chaldæan State in S. Babylonia, who had been tributary to Tiglath-pileser III., had made himself master of Babylon, and was supported there by Elam. Sargon met the Elamites in a battle which he claimed as a victory, but he had to leave Merodach-baladan alone as king in Babylon for twelve years. This failure roused the West under Iaubidi of Hamath, who secured Arpad, Simirra, Damascus, and Samaria as allies, supported by Hanno of Gaza and the N. Arabian Musri. Sargon in b.c. 720 set out to recover his power here. At Karkar, Iaubidi was defeated and captured, and the southern branch of the confederacy was crushed at Raphia. Hanno was carried to Assyria, 933 people deported, Shabi (Sibi, Sewe, So), the Tartan of Pirn of Musri, fled, the Arabians submitted and paid tribute. Azuri of Ashdod, who began to intrigue with Egypt, was deposed and replaced by his brother, Ahimitl. A rebellion in Ashdod led to a pretender being installed, but Sargon sent his Tartan to Ashdod (Is 20:1), the pretender fled, and Ashdod and Gath were reduced to Assyrian provinces. Judah, Edom, and Moab staved off vengeance by heavy toll. Sargon’s heaviest task was the reduction of Armenia. Rusa I. was able to enlist all Upper Mesopotamia, including Mita of Mushki, and it took ten years to subdue the foe. Sargon’s efforts were clearly aided by the incursions of the Gimirri (Gomer) into N. Armenia. Having triumphed everywhere else, Sargon turned his veterans against Babylonia.

The change of kings in Elam was a favourable opportunity for attacking Merodach-baladan, who was merely holding down the country by Chaldæan troops. Sargon marched down the Tigris, seized the chief posts on the east, screened off the Elamites and threatened Merodach-baladan’s rear. He therefore abandoned Babylon and fell on Sargon’s rear, but, meeting no support, retreated S. to his old kingdom and fortified it strongly. Sargon entered Babylon, welcomed as a deliverer, and in b.c. 709 became king of Babylon. The army stormed Bīt Iakin, but Merodach-baladan escaped over sea. Sargon then restored the ancient cities of Babylonia. His last years were crowned with the submission of far-off lands; seven kings of Cyprus sent presents, and Sargon set up a stele there in token of his supremacy. Dilmun, an island far down the Persian Gulf, did homage. Sargon founded a magnificent city, Dūr Sargon, modern Khorsabad, to the N.E. of Nineveh. He died a violent death, but how or where is now uncertain.

(m) Sennacherib.—Sennacherib soon had to put down rebellion in S.E. and N.W., but his Empire was very well held together, and his chief wars were to meet the intrigues of his neighbours, Elam and Egypt. Babylonia was split up into semiindependent States, peopled by Aramæans, Chaldæans, and kindred folk, all restless and ambitious. Merodach-baladan seized the throne of Babylon from Marduk-zākir-shum, Sargon’s viceroy, b.c. 704. The Aramæans and Elam supported him. Sennacherib defeated him at Kish, b.c. 703, and drove him out of Babylon after nine months’ reign. Sennacherib entered Babylon, spoiled the palace, swept out the Chaldæans from the land, and carried off 208,000 people as captives. On the throne of Babylon he set Bēl-ibnl, of the Babylonian seed royal, but educated at his court. Merodach-baladan had succeeded in stirring the W., where Tyre had widely extended its power, and Hezekiah of Judah had grown wealthy and ambitious, to revolt. Ammon, Moab, Edom, the Arabians joined the confederacy, and Egypt encouraged. Padi, king of Ekron, a faithful vassal of Assyria, was overthrown by a rebellion in his city and sent in chains to Hezekiah. Sennacherib, early in b.c. 701, appeared on the Mediterranean coast, received the submission of the Phœnician cities, isolated Tyre, and had tribute from Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Tyre he could not capture, so he made Itubai of Sidon overlord of Phœnicia, and assailed Tyre with the allied fleet. Its king escaped to Cyprus, but the city heid out. Sennacherib meanwhile passed down the coast, reduced Ashkelon, but was met at Eitekeh by the Arabians and Egyptians. He gained an easy victory, and captured Eitekeh, Timnath, and Ekron. Then he concentrated his attention upon Judah, captured 46 fortified cities, deported 200,150 people, and shut up Hezekiah, ‘like a bird in a cage,’ in Jerusalem. He assigned the Judæan cities to the kings of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza, imposed fresh tribute, and received of Hezekiah thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, precious stones, couches of ivory, thrones of ivory, precious woods, his daughters, his palace women, male and female singers, etc., an enormous spoil, which was carried to Nineveh. His siege of Lachish is depicted on his monuments. Before his campaign was over, Merodach-baladan had again appeared in Babylon. A difficulty has always been felt about the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, because, if it took place after this campaign, he could hardly have been so successful in Babylonia. His inscriptions end with b.c. 689, but Esarhaddon’s references to the conquests of his father in Arabia, and a fragmentary reference to Azekah, suggest that he invested Jerusalem again, on a second campaign, and that the destruction occurred then. The Biblical narrative suggests that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, had already appeared on the scene. This would date the event after b.c. 691. Further, it seems to have occurred soon before his death in b.c. 681.

In Babylonia, Bēl-ibni proved unfaithful and was recalled. Ashur-nādin-shum, Sennacherib’s son, was installed as king, and reigned six years. Sennacherib devastated Bīt Iakin and defeated Shuzub, a Chaldæan king. He then employed Phœnician shipbuilders and sailors to build ships at Til-barsip, on the Euphrates, and at Nineveh, on the Tigris. He floated his fleets down to the mouth of the rivers, shipped his army, and landed at the mouth of the Karūn, where the Chaldæans had taken refuge, b.c. 695. He sent the captives by ship to Assyria, and marched his army into S. Elam. The king of Elam, however, swooped down on Babylon and carried off Ashur-nādin-shum to Elam. Nergal-ushēzib was raised to the throne, and, aided by Elamite troops, proceeded to capture the Assyrian garrisons and cut off the southern army. Sennacherib retreated to Erech and awaited Nergal-ushēzib, who had occupied Nippur. He was defeated, captured, and taken to Assyria, b.c. 693. The Babylonians now made Shuzub, the Chaldæan, king under the name of Mushēzib-Marduk. A revolution in Elam tempted Sennacherib to invade that country, perhaps in hope of rescuing his son. He swept all before him, the Elamite king retreating to the mountains, but the severe winter forced Sennacherib to retreat, b.c. 692. Mushēzib-Marduk and the Babylonians opened the treasury of Marduk to bribe the Elamites for support. A great army of Elamites, Aramæans, Chaldæans, and Babylonians barred Sennacherib’s return at Haiūie, on the E. of the Tigris, b.c. 691. Sennacherib claimed the victory, but had no power to do more, and left Mushēzib-Marduk alone for the time. He came back to Babylonia in b.c.

690, and the new Elamite king being unable to assist, Babylon was taken, Mushēzib-Marduk deposed and sent to Nineveh. Babylon was then sacked, fortifications and walls, temples and palaces razed to the ground, the inhabitants massacred, the canals turned over the ruins, b.c. 689. Sennacherib made Babylonia an Assyrian province, and was king himself till his death (b.c. 681). There is reason to think that he appointed Esarhaddon regent of Babylonia; at any rate it seems that this prince began to rebuild Babylon before his father’s death.

Sennacherib chose Nineveh, which had become a second-rate city, as his capital, and, by his magnificent buildings and great fortifications, made it a formidable rival to Calah, Asshur, and even Babylon before its destruction. His last few years are in obscurity, but he was murdered by his son or sons. See Adrammelech.

(n) Esarhaddon came to the throne b.c. 680, after a short struggle with the murderers of his father and their party. He had to repel an incursion of the Cimmerians in the beginning of his reign, and then conquered the Medes. In b.c.

677 Sidon was in revolt, but was taken and destroyed, a new city called KarEsarhaddon being built to replace it and colonized with captives from Elam and Babylonia, Ezr 4:2. In b.c. 676, Esarhaddon marched into Arabia and conquered the eight kings of Bazu and Hazu (Buz and Huz of Gn 22:21). In b.c. 674 he invaded Egypt, and again in 673. In b.c. 670 he made his great effort to conquer Egypt, drove back the Egyptian army from the frontier to Memphis, winning three severe battles. Memphis surrendered, Tirhakah fled to Thebes, and Egypt was made an Assyrian province. In b.c. 668 it revolted, and on the march to reduce it Esarhaddon died. He divided the Empire between his two sons, Ashurbanipal being king of Assyria and the Empire, while Shamash-shum-ukīn was king of Babylon as a vassal of his brother.

(o) Ashurbanipal at once prosecuted his father’s reduction of Egypt to submission. Tirhakah had drawn the Assyrian governors, some of them native Egyptians, as Necho, into a coalition against Assyria. Some remained faithful, and the rising was suppressed; Tirhakah was driven back to Ethiopia, where he died b.c. 664. Tantamon invaded Egypt again, and Ashurbanipal in b.c. 662 again suppressed a rising, drove the Ethiopian out, and captured Thebes. Ashurbanipal besieged Ba’al, king of Tyre, and although unable to capture the city, obtained its submission and that of Arvad, Tabai, and Cilicia. Gyges, king of Lydia, exchanged embassies, and sent Ashurbanipal two captive Cimmerians, but he afterwards allied himself with Psammetichus, son of Necho, and assisted him to throw off the Assyrian yoke. The Minni had been restless, and Ashurbanipal next reduced them. Elam was a more formidable foe. Allying himself with the Aramæans and Chaldæans, Urtaku, king of Elam, invaded Babylonia, but he was defeated and his throne seized by Teumman. Ashurbanipal took advantage of the revolution to invade Elam and capture Susa; and after killing Teumman put Ummanigash and Tammaritu, two sons of Urtaku, on the thrones of two districts of Elam. He then took vengeance on the Aramæans, E. of the Tigris. His brother, Shamash-shumukīn, now began to plot for independence. He enlisted the Chaldæans, Aramæans, and Ummanigash of Elam, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt. A simultaneous rising took place, and Ashurbanipal seemed likely to lose his Empire. He invaded Babylonia. In Elam, Tammaritu put to death Ummanigash and all his family, but was defeated by Indabigash, and had to flee to Assyria. Ashurbanipal defeated his opponents and laid siege to Babylon, Borsippa, Sippara, and Cutha, capturing one after the other. Shamash-shum-ukīn burnt his palace over his head, and Babylon surrendered b.c. 648. The conquest of S. Babylonia and Chaldæa was followed by campaigns against Elam, culminating in the capture of Susa and its destruction. Ashurbanipal then punished the Arabians, who, in his enforced absence in

Babylonia, had invaded Palestine, overrun Edom and Moab, and threatened Damascus. The inscriptions, however, do not come down below b.c. 646, and the last years of the reign are in obscurity. Ashurbanipal appears to have reigned over Babylon as Kandalānu.

(p) Fall of Nineveh.—Ashurbanipal was succeeded by Ashur-etil-iiani, his son, who was succeeded by Sin-sharishkun, his brother. We do not know how long they reigned, but in b.c. 606 the Medes captured Nineveh and took the N. half of the

Empire, while Nabopolassar, king of Babylon (since b.c. 626?), took Babylonia.

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA

II. Babylonia

1. History.—The history of Babylonia, as monumentally attested, falls naturally into periods: (a) the rise of the city-States and their struggle for supremacy; (b) the supremacy of Babylon and the First Babylonian Empire; (c) the

Kassite supremacy and the rise of Assyria; (d) the contemporaneous kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia; (e) the supremacy of Assyria to its fall; (f) the New Babylonian Empire.

(a) The city-States.—The prehistoric remains of the earliest settlers in Babylonia are numerous, but they have received no systematic study. The existence of a non-Semitic race, the so-called Sumerians, is at least the most convenient assumption to account for the problems of the earliest history, but it is impossible to decide how early they were intermixed with Semitic folk. It is as yet difficult to decide whether these Semites entered from the S.W., or from the side of Elam, or from N. Mesopotamia. The earliest monuments we possess show a variety of towns, each of which served as a nucleus to a wide area of villages. As populations grew, the needs of pasture for an eminently pastoral people brought about disputes as to boundaries, and wars ensued. The States entered into keen rivalry in other directions, as commerce developed. As early as b.c. 5000 the condition of things may be aptly compared with that of England under the Heptarchy. Eridu, modern Abu Shahrein, lay on the Gulf and W. of the Euphrates mouth. As the seat of the worship of Ea, god of the waters, its business was rather on the sea than on the land, but it was always reverenced as the primitive home of civilization and religion. We have no evidence that it was ever the seat of a kingdom. Some 10 miles to the W. lay Ur, modern Mugheir, then also on the Gulf, the home of the worship of Sin, the moon-god. Across the Euphrates, 30 miles to N.E., lay Larsa, modern Senkereh, where Shamash, the sun-god, was chief god.

Twelve miles to the N.W. was Uruk, modern Warka (Erech), with its Ishtar cult.

To the N. was Mar, modern Tel Ede. From Mar, 35 miles to the E., on the Shatt-el-

Hai canal from the Tigris to the Euphrates, was Shirpurla or Lagash, modern Telloh, with its god Ningirsu. These six cities form the group with whose fortunes most of the Telloh finds are concerned. Nippur, modern Niffer, lay halfway between the Tigris and Euphrates, 60 miles from the Gulf. Its god was the very ancient En-lil, the old Bēl, ‘lord of mankind.’

In the N. more than 50 miles N.W. of Nippur was Cutha, modern Tel Ibrahim, with its god Nergal, lord of the world of the dead. Further N., on the E. bank of the Euphrates, was Sippar, modern Abu Habba, with its sun-god Shamash. Near by must have been Agade. The monuments place here: Kulunu (Calneh); Uhki, later Opis; and Kish. Later, Babylon (wh. see) and its sister city Borsippa came into importance. In Upper Mesopotamia, Haran was probably not much later in its rise as a commercial capital and centre of the moon-god cult.

The history of this period has many gaps, probably because systematic exploration has been carried out only at Telloh and Nippur. The evidence for other cities consists chiefly of references made by the rulers of these two cities, who either ruled over others or were ruled over by them. A king of Ur might leave offerings at Nippur, or order some building to be done there; or the rulers of Nippur might name the king of Ur as their overlord. Out of such scattered references we must weave what history we can. About b.c. 4500 Eushagsagana, king of Kengi in S.W., offered to Bēl of Nippur the spoils of Kish. Later, Mesilim, king of Kish, made Shirpurla a subject State. About b.c. 4200 Ur-Nina was able to call himself king of Shirpurla. Eannatum and Entemena of Shirpurla won several victories over other cities and imposed treaties upon them. Soon Lugalzaggisi, king of Uhki, about b.c. 4200, could call himself king of Erech, Ur, and Larsa. He was practically ruler of the First Babylonian Empire, from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. About b.c. 3850, Alusharshid, king of Kish, conquered Elam and Bara’se, to N.E. and E. of Babylonia.

Shargāni-shar-ali (Sargon I.), king of Agade, b.c. 3800, and his son Naram-Sin, b.c. 3750 according to Nabonidus, were lords of Nippur, Shirpurla, Kish, Babylon, and Erech, and ruled, or at least levied tribute, from the Mediterranean N. into Armenia, over part of Elam, and S. into Arabia and the islands of the Persian Gulf.

About b.c. 3500 Ur-Bau of Shirpurla ruled in peace, as a subject prince, or patesi. Gudea, about b.c. 3100, erected wonderful buildings, evidently had great resources, and even conquered Anshan, in Elam, but was not a king. About b.c. 3000, Ur-Gūr and his son Dungi, kings of Ur, built temples not only in Ur but in Kutha, Shirpurla, Nippur, and Erech. A dynasty of Erech and a dynasty of Isin later claimed authority over Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and other less noted cities. The next dynasty of Ur, founded by Gungunu, included Ine-Sin, Bur-Sin II., Gamil-Sin, Dungi II. and others, b.c. 2800–2500. They warred in Syria, Arabia, and Elam.

(b) Supremacy of Babylon.—The First Dynasty of Babylon (b.c. 2396) was founded by Sumu-abi. But Larsa was under its own king Nūr-Adad, who was followed by his son Sin-iddinam. The Elamites invaded the land, and under Kudurnanhundi carried off the goddess Nanē from Erech about b.c. 2290. Larsa became the seat of an Elamite king, Rim-Sin, son of Kudur-mabuk, ruler of Iamutbal in W. Elam. He ruled over Ur, Eridu, Nippur, Shirpurla, and Erech, and conquered Isin. He is thought by some to be Arioch of Ellasar who with Chedorlaomer of Elam, Amraphel of Shinar, (Hammurabi?), Tidal of Goiim overthrew the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 14). At any rate he was expelled from Larsa by Hammurabi in

the 31st year of his reign. Hammurabi ruled all Mesopotamia, from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. His reign was the climax of Babylonian civilization and culture. His successors maintained his Empire for a while, but then Babylonia had to submit to foreign conquest. His period is known to us by an enormous number of inscriptions and monuments, and deserves attention as characteristic of Old Babylonia at its best.

The second dynasty has left remarkably few monuments in the districts hitherto explored, and beyond its existence we know little of it.

(c, d, e) Kassite supremacy, and rise of Assyria, etc.—The third dynasty rose on the conquest of Babylonia by the Kassites, a mountaineer people from the N.E., of non-Semitic race, thought by many to be Cush in Gn 10:8. The Kassites attempted an invasion as early as the 9th year of Samsu-iluna, but were driven back. They first established themselves in the South, giving the name of Karduniash to it. They adopted the royal titles, worshipped the ancient gods, and wrote in the Babylonian language. The first king of whom we have important inscriptions was Agumkakrime (Agum II.). He claims to rule over the Kashshu, the Akkadians, Babylonia, Ashnunak, Padan, Alman, and Gutium. He restored the images of Marduk and Zarpanit his consort, which had been carried away to Hani in N. Mesopotamia. Later we learn from the Tell el-Amarna letters that as early as the time of Amenophis III., king of Egypt, Kurigalzu of Babylon was in friendly relations with Egypt, and refused to support a Canaanite conspiracy against its rule. The relations with Assyria have been already dealt with. Kadashman-harbe cooperated with his grandfather in driving out the Sūti, who robbed the caravans from the West and Egypt. Kurigalzu II. waged successful war with Elam, captured the king Hurbatila with his own hands, and sacked Susa. With Melishihu and Marduk-apliddina I. Babylonian power revived, but fell again under their successors. The Kassites first gave Babylonia a national name and exalted the worship of Bēl of Nippur. In their time, Babylonia had trade relations not only with Mesopotamia Syria, and Egypt, but with Bactria, and possibly China on the E., and with Eubœa on the West.

(f) New Babylonian Empire.—The new Babylonian dynasty was that of Pashe, or Isin, a native dynasty. Nebuchadrezzar I. was apparently its founder. He defeated the Elamites and wrested from them the provinces already occupied by them, and brought back the statue of Bēl which they had captured. He also reconquered the West, and left his name on the rocks of the Nahr el-Kelb. His attempts upon Assyria were unsuccessful. Henceforth Babylonia was pent up by Assyria and Elam, and merely held its own. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth dynasties yield but a few names, of whose exploits we know next to nothing. The Aramæan migration swallowed up Mesopotamia and drove back both Assyria and Babylonia. The Chaldæans followed the old route from Arabia by Ur, and established themselves firmly in the S. of Babylonia. Akkad was plundered by the Sūti. Thus cut off from the West, the absence of Babylonian power allowed the rise of Philistia; Israel consolidated, Phœnicia grew into power. Hamath, Aleppo, Patin, Samal became independent States. Damascus became an Aramæan power. Egypt also was split up, and could influence Palestine but little. When Assyria revived under Adad-nirari, the whole W. was a new country and had to be reconquered. Babylonia had no hand in it. She was occupied in suppressing the Chaldæans and

Aramæans on her borders; and had to call for Assyrian assistance in the time of

Shalmaneser. Finally, Tiglath-pileser III. became master of Babylonia, and after him it fell into the hands of the Chaldæan Merodach-baladan, till Sargon drove him out. Under Sennacherib it was a mere dependency of Assyria, till he destroyed Babylon. Under Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Babylonia revived somewhat, and under Nabopolassar found in the weakness of Assyria and the fall of Nineveh a chance to recover.

Nabopolassar reckoned his reign from b.c. 625, but during the early years of his rule some Southern Babylonian cities such as Erech continued to acknowledge Sinshar-ishkun. According to classical writers, he allied himself with the MedoScythian hordes, who devastated Mesopotamia and captured Nineveh. He claims to have chased from Akkad the Assyrians, who from the days of old ruled over all peoples and with their heavy yoke wore out the nations, and to have broken their yoke. The Medes seem to have made no attempt to hold Mesopotamia, and Pharaoh Necho, who was advancing from Egypt to take Syria, was defeated at Carchemish b.c. 605 by Nebuchadrezzar. So Babylonia succeeded to the W. part of the Assyrian Empire. Beyond a few building inscriptions we know little of this reign.

Nebuchadrezzar’s inscriptions hardly mention anything but his buildings. He fortified Babylon, enriched it with temples and palaces; restored temples at Sippara, Larsa, Ur, Dilbat, Baz, Erech, Borsa, Kutha, Marad; cleaned out and walled with quays the Arahtu canal which ran through Babylon, and dug a canal N. of Sippara. He left an inscription on the rocks at Wady Brissa, a valley N. of the Lebanon Mountains and W. of the upper part of the Orontes; another on a rock N. of the Nahr el-Kelb, where the old road from Arvad passes S. to the cities of the coast. A fragment of his annals states that in his 37th year he fought in Egypt against Amasis.

Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), his son, was not acceptable to the priests, and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who had married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, and was son of Bēl-shum-ishkun, the rubū-imga. He, too, was occupied chiefly with the temples of his land. Neriglissar was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk, a ‘bad character,’ whom the priests deposed, setting up Nabonidus, a Babylonian. He was an antiquary rather than a king. He rebuilt many of the oldest Babylonian temples, and in exploring their ruins found records which have helped to date early kings, as quoted above. For some reason he avoided Babylon and left the command of the army to his son Belshazzar. The Manda king, Astyages, invaded Mesopotamia, and was repelled only by the aid of Cyrus, king of Anshan, who a little later by his overthrow of Astyages became king of Persia, and then conquered Crœsus of Lydia. On the 16th of Tammuz b.c. 539 Cyrus entered Babylon without resistance. Nabonidus was spared and sent to Karmania. Belshazzar was killed. Cyrus was acceptable to the Babylonians, worshipped at the ancient shrines, glorified the gods who had given him leadership over their land and people, made Babylon a royal city, and took the old native titles, but the sceptre had departed from the Semitic world for ever.

2. Literature.—Babylonia was very early in possession of a form of writing. The earliest specimens of which we know are little removed from pictorial writing; but the use of flat pieces of soft clay, afterwards dried in the sun or baked hard in a furnace, as writing material, and strokes of a triangular reed, soon led to conventional forms of characters in which the curved lines of a picture were replaced by one or more short marks on the line. These were gradually reduced in number until the resultant group of strokes bore little resemblance to the original. The short pointed wedge-shaped ‘dabs’ of the reed have given rise to the name ‘cuneiform.’ The necessities of the engraver on stone led him to reproduce these wedges with an emphasized head that gives the appearance of nails, but all such graphic varieties make no essential difference. The signs denoted primarily ideas: thus the picture of a bull, or a bull’s head, would symbolize ‘power,’ and all the words derived from the root ‘to be powerful,’ then from the word ‘powerful’ a syllabic value would be derived which might be used in spelling words. Thus the picture of a star might signify ‘heaven,’ the supreme god Anu, the idea ‘above,’ and be used to denote all things ‘high, lofty, or divine’; its syllabic value being an it would be used in spelling wherever an had to be written. But, again, as ‘god’ was ilu, it might be used in spelling for il. Thus many signs have more than one value, even as syllables; they may also denote ideas. The scribes, however, used not far short of 500 signs, and there is rarely any doubt of their meaning. The values attached to the signs in many cases are not derivable from the words which denote their ideas, and it has been concluded that the signs were adopted from a nonSemitic people called the Sumerians. Many inscriptions cannot be read as Semitic, except by regarding them as a sort of halfway development of pictorial writing, and when read syllabically are supposed to be in the Sumerian language, which continued to be used, at any rate in certain phrases, to the last, much as Latin words and abbreviations (like £. s. d.) are used by us. There is still great obscurity about this subject, which can be solved only by the discovery of earlier or intermediate inscriptions.

At any rate, we are now able to read with certainty, except for a few obscure expressions, inscriptions which possibly date back to b.c. 6000. The earliest inscriptions hitherto recovered have been from temple archives, and naturally relate to offerings to the gods or gifts to the temples. From very early times, however, contracts such as deeds of sale, dispositions of property, marriage settlements, etc., were preserved in the archives, and many families preserved large quantities of deeds, letters, business accounts, etc. Writing and reading were very widely diffused, even women being well educated in these respects, and we have enormous collections in our museums of material relating to the private life and customs of the people at almost all periods of the history.

The Babylonians early drew up codes of laws, hymns, ritual texts, mythology, and made records of observations in all directions of natural history. The supposed influence of the heavenly bodies led to works associating celestial phenomena with terrestrial events—the so-called astrological texts which recorded astronomical observations from very early dates. A wonderful collection of extraordinary events, as births of monsters or abnormal beings, were regarded as ominous, and an attempt was made to connect them with events in national or private history. These ‘omen tablets’ also deal with morals, attaching to human acts consequences evincing royal or Divine displeasure. Evil conduct was thus placed under a ban, and the punishment of it was assigned to the ‘hand of God or the king.’ It was a very high morality that was so inculcated: to say yea with the lips and nay in the heart, to use false weights, to betray a friend, to estrange relations, to slander or backbite, are all forbidden. The conduct of a good king, of a good man, of a faithful son of his god, are set out with great care, and culminate in the precept, ‘To him that does thee wrong return a gracious courtesy.’ Medicine was extensively written upon, and the number of cases prescribed for is very great. We are not able, as a rule, to recognize either the ailment or the prescription; but it seems that magical spells were often used to drive out the demon supposed to be the cause of the disease.

The Babylonians had some acquaintance with mathematics, so far as necessary for the calculation of areas, and they early drew up tables of squares and cubes, as well as of their measures of surface and capacity. To them we owe the division of time into hours, minutes, and seconds. Their measures still lack the fundamental explanation which can be afforded only by finding some measured object with its Babylonian measure inscribed upon it, in a state allowing of accurate modern measures. See Weights and Measures.

3. Religion.—The religion of Babylonia was a syncretic result of the union of a number of city and local cults. Consequently Shamash the sun-god; Sin the moongod; Ishtar, Venus; Marduk the god of Babylon, Nabū of Borsippa, Bēl of Nippur, Nergal the god of pestilence, Nusku the new-moon crescent, and a host of others, were worshipped with equal reverence by both kings and people. Most men, however, were specially devoted to one god, determined for them by hereditary cult, or possibly personal choice: a man was ‘son of his god’ and the god was his ‘father.’ In the course of time almost every god absorbed much of the attributes of every other god, so that, with the exception of such epithets as were peculiarly appropriate to him, Shamash could be addressed or hymned in much the same words as Marduk or Sin. By some teachers all the gods were said to be Marduk in one or other manifestation of his Divine activity. The whole pantheon became organized and simplified by the identification of deities originally distinct, as a result of political unification or theological system. The ideal of Divinity was high and pure, often very poetic and beautiful, but the Babylonian was tolerant of other gods, and indisposed to deny the right of others to call a god by another name than that which best summed up for him his own conception.

Magic entered largely into the beliefs and practices of life, invading religion in spite of spiritual authority. The universe was peopled with spirits, good and bad, who had to be appeased or propitiated. Conjurations, magic spells, forecasts, omens were resorted to in order to bind or check the malign influences of demons. The augurs, conjurers, magicians, soothsayers were a numerous class, and, though frowned upon by the priests and physicians, were usually called in whenever disease or fear suggested occult influence. The priest was devoted to the service of his god, and originally every head of a family was priest of the local god, the right to minister in the temple descending in certain families to the latest times. The office was later much subdivided, and as the temple became an overwhelming factor in the city life, its officials and employees formed a large part of the population. A temple corresponded to a monastery in the Middle Ages, having lands, houses, tenants, and a host of dependants, as well as enormous wealth, which it employed on the whole in good deeds, and certainly threw its influence on the side of peace and security. Although distinct classes, the judges, scribes, physicians, and even skilled manufacturers were usually attached to the temple, and priests often exercised these functions. Originally the god, and soon his temple, were the visible embodiment of the city life. The king grew out of the high priest. He was the vicegerent of the god on earth, and retained his priestly power to the last, but he especially represented its external aspect. He was ruler, leader of the army, chief judge, supreme builder of palaces and temples, guardian of right, defender of the weak and oppressed, accessible to the meanest subject. The expansion of city territory by force of arms, the growth of kingdoms and rise of empires, led to a military caste, rapacious for foreign spoils, and domestic politics became a struggle for power between the war party of expansion and conquest and the party of peace and consolidation.

The Babylonian Literature was extensive, and much of it has striking similarities to portions of the Bible (see Creation, Deluge, etc.). It also seems to have had influence upon classical mythology.

N.B.—See Appendix note at end of volume.

C. H. W. Johns.

ASTAD, ASTATH.—1322 or 3622 of Astad’s descendants are mentioned as returning with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5:13). He is called Azgad in the can. books; and 1222 descendants are mentioned in the parallel list in Ezr 2:12, 2322 in Neh 7:17. He appears as Astath, 1 Es 8:38, when a second detachment of 111 return under Ezra (= Ezr 8:12). Azgad appears among the leaders who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10:15).

ASTROLOGY, ASTRONOMY.—See Magic, etc.

ASTYAGES (Bel 1) was the last king of Media. He was defeated and dethroned by Cyrus the Great in b.c. 550.

J. F. McCurdy.

ASUPPIM.—1 Ch 26:15, 17 AV; RV correctly ‘storehouse.’

ASUR (AV Assur). 1 Es 5:31.—His sons returned among the Temple servants under Zerubbabel; called Harhur, Ezr 2:51, Neh 7:53.

ASYLUM.—See Altar, Kin [Next of], Refuge [Cities of].

ASYNCRITUS (Ro 16:14).—A Christian greeted by St. Paul with four others ‘and the brethren that are with them,’ perhaps members of the same small community. The name occurs in Rom. Ins. CIL vi. 12,565, of a freedman of Augustus.

ATAD (Gn 50:10–11).—A threshing-floor on the road to Hebron. The site is unknown.

ATAR (AV Jatal). 1 Es 5:28.—His sons were among the porters or doorkeepers who returned with Zerubbabel; called Ater, Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45.

ATARAH.—Wife of Jerahmeel and mother of Onam (1 Ch 2:26).

ATARGATIS (RV less correctly Atergatis).—In addition to the sanctuary of this goddess (= Gr. Derceto) at Carnion (2 Mac 12:26), other shrines were situated at Hierapolis and Ashkelon. Here sacred fish were kept, and at the latter place the goddess was represented as a mermaid, resembling the supposed form of the Philistine Dagon (wh. see). Some expositors, because of the ancient name of Carnion, i.e. Ashteroth-karnaim, have identified the goddess with Astarte. The name, however, a compound of ‘Athar (= Phœn. ‘Astart, Heb. ‘Ashtoreth [ wh. see]) and of ‘Atti or ‘Attah, which latter term appears as a god’s name upon inscriptions, shows her to be Astarte who has assimilated the functions of ‘Atti. This etymology, together with her mermaid-form and the fact that fish were sacred to her, apparently makes her a personification of the fertilizing powers of water.

N. Koenig.

ATAROTH.—1. A town not far from Dibon (Nu 32:3, 33), probably the modern Khirbet ‘Attārūs, to the N.W. of Dhībān. 2. A town on the S. border of the territory of the children of Joseph (Jos 16:2), called Ataroth-addar in v. 5 , probably identical with ed-Dārīyeh, 1¹/₂mile S.W. of Bethhoron the Lower. 3. A town not identified, towards the E. end of the same border (Jos 16:7). 4. The name of a family (1 Ch. 2:54, RV Atroth-beth-Joab).

W. Ewing.

ATER.—1. The ancestor of certain Temple porters who returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2:15, 42, Neh 7:21, 45; cf. Atar. 2. (AV Aterezias), 1 Es 5:15; cf. Ezr 2:16. His sons returned with Zerubbabel.

ATETA (AV Teta), 1 Es 5:28 = Hatita, Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45.

ATHACH, 1 S 30:30.—Unknown town in the south of Judah.

ATHAIAH.—A man of Judah dwelling in Jerusalem (Neh 11:4).

ATHALIAH.—1. The only queen who occupied the throne of Judah. She was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and was married to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. On the accession of her son Ahaziah she became queen-mother, second only to the king in power and influence. When Ahaziah was slain by Jehu, she could not bring herself to take an Inferior position, and seized the throne for herself, making it secure, as she supposed, by slaying all the male members of the house of David so far as they were within her reach. One infant was preserved, and was successfully concealed in the Temple six years. The persons active in this were Jehosheba, sister of Ahaziah, and her husband Jehoiada, the chief priest. The story of the young prince’s coronation by the bodyguard is one of the most dramatic in Hebrew history. The death of Athaliah at the hands of the guard forms the logical conclusion of the incident. The destruction of the temple of Baal, which is spoken of in the same connexion, indicates that Athaliah was addicted to the worship of the Phœnician Baal, introduced by her mother into Israel (2 K 11). 2. See Gotholias. 3. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:26).

H. P. Smith.

ATHARIM (Nu 21:1).—Either a proper name of a place from which the route was named; so RV ‘the way of Atharim,’ as LXX,—or, ‘the way of tracks,’ i.e. a regular caravan road. (The rendering of AV, ‘way of the spies,’ follows Targ. and Syr.) The ‘way of Atharim’ will then be that described in Nu 13:21–25.

ATHENOBIUS (1 Mac 15:28–35).—A friend of Antiochus VII. Sidetes. He was sent to Jerusalem to remonstrate with Simon Maccabæus for the occupation of Joppa, Gazara, the citadel of Jerusalem, and certain places outside Judæa. Simon refused the terms proposed, and Athenobius was obliged to return in indignation to the king.

ATHENS.—In the earliest times, Athens, on the Gulf of Ægina, consisted of two settlements, the town on the plain and the citadel on the hill above, the Acropolis, where the population fled from invasion. Its name and the name of its patron-goddess Athene (Athenaia) are inextricably connected. She was the maiden goddess, the warlike defender of her people, the patroness of the arts. The city lies about 3 miles from the seacoast on a large plain. When Greece was free, during the period before b.c., 146 Athens was the capital of the district Attica, and developed a unique history in Greece. It first gained distinction by the repulse of the Persian invasions in b.c. 490 and 480, and afterwards had a brilliant career of political, commercial, literary, and artistic supremacy. It was in the 5th cent. b.c. the greatest of Greek democracies, and produced the greatest sculptures and literary works the world has ever seen. In the same century Socrates lived and taught there, as did later Plato and Aristotle. The conflict with Sparta, the effects of the Macedonian invasion, and ultimately the Roman conquest of Greece, which became a Roman province under the name ‘Achaia’ (wh. see), lessened the political importance of Athens, but as a State it received from Rome a position of freedom and consideration worthy of its undying merits. Athens remained supreme in philosophy and the arts, and was in St. Paul’s time (Ac 17:15–18:1, 1 Th 3:1) the seat of a famous university.

A. Souter.

ATHLAI.—A Jew who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:28; called in 1 Es 9:29 Emmatheis).

ATIPHA (1 Es 5:32).—See Hatipha.

ATONEMENT.—The word ‘atonement’ (at-onement), in English, denotes the making to be at one, or reconciling, of persons who have been at variance. In OT usage it signifies that by which sin is ‘covered’ or ‘expiated,’ or the wrath of God averted. Thus, in EV, of the Levitical sacrifices (Lv 1:4, 4:21, 26, 31, 35 etc.), of the half-shekel of ransom-money (Ex 30:15, 16), of the intercession of Moses ( Ex 32:30), of the zeal of Phinehas (Nu 25:13), etc. In the NT the word occurs once in

AV as tr. of the Gr. word katallagē, ordinarily and in RV rendered ‘reconciliation’ (Ro 5:11). The ‘reconciliation’ here intended, however, as the expression ‘received,’ and also v. 10 (‘reconciled to God through the death of his Son’) show, is that made by the death of Christ on behalf of sinners (cf. Col 1:20 ‘having made peace through the blood of his cross’). In both OT and NT the implication is that the ‘reconciliation’ or ‘making-at-one’ of mankind and God is effected through expiation or propitiation. In its theological use, therefore, the word ‘atonement’ has come to denote, not the actual state of reconciliation into which believers are introduced through Christ, whose work is the means to this end, but the reconciling act itself—the work accomplished by Christ in His sufferings and death for the salvation of the world.

i. In the Old Testament.—In tracing the Scripture teaching on the subject of

atonement, it is desirable to begin with the OT, in which the foundations of the NT doctrine are laid. Here several lines of preparation are to be distinguished, which, as OT revelation draws to its close, tend to unite.

1. The most general, but indispensable, preparation in the OT lies in its doctrines of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God; also, of the sin and guilt of man. God’s holiness (including in this His ethical purity, His awful elevation above the creature, and His zeal for His own honour) is the background of every doctrine of atonement. As holy, God abhors sin, and cannot but in righteousness eternally react against it. His grace shows itself in forgiveness ( Ex 34:6, 7); but even forgiveness must be bestowed in such a way, and on such conditions, that the interest of holiness shall not be compromised, but shall be upheld and magnified. Hence the bestowal of forgiveness in connexion with intercession (Moses, etc.), with sacrificial atonements, with signal vindications of the Divine righteousness (Phinehas). On man’s side sin is viewed as voluntary, as infinitely heinous, as entailing a Divine condemnation that needs to be removed. All the world has gone astray from God, and the connexion in which each individual stands with his family, nation, and race entails on him a corporate as well as an individual responsibility.

2. A second important line of preparation in the OT is in the doctrine of sacrifice. Whatever the origins or ethnic associations of sacrifice, it is indisputable that sacrifice in the OT has a peculiar meaning, in accordance with the ideas of God and His holiness above indicated. From the beginning, sacrifice was the appointed means of approach to God. Whether, in the earliest narrative, the difference in the sacrifices of Cain and Abel had to do with the fact that the one was bloodless and the other an animal sacrifice (Gn 4:3–5), or lay solely in the disposition of the offerers (v. 7), is not clear. Probably, however, from the commencement, a mystic virtue was attached to the shedding and presentation of the sacred element of the blood. Up to the Exodus, we have only the generic type of the burnt-offering; the Exodus itself gave birth to the Passover, in which blood sprinkled gave protection from destruction; at the ratification of the Covenant, peace-offerings appear with burnt-offerings (Ex 20:24, 24:5); finally, the Levitical ritual provided a cultus in which the idea of atonement had a leading place. Critical questions as to the age of this legislation need not detain us, for there is an increasing tendency to recognize that, whatever the date of the final codification of the Levitical laws, the bulk of these laws rest on older usages. That the propitiatory idea in sacrifice goes back to early times may be seen in such pictures of patriarchal piety as Job 1:5, 42:7, 8; while an atoning virtue is expressly assumed as belonging to sacrifice in 1 S 3:14. Cf. also allusions to sin- and guilt-offerings, and to propitiatory rites in so old a stratum of laws as the ‘Law of Holiness’ ( Lv 19:21, 22, 23:19), and in Hos 4:8, Mic 6:6, 7, Ezk 40:39, 42:13 etc.

It is in the Levitical system that all the ideas involved in OT sacrifice come to clearest expression. The Epistle to the Hebrews admirably seizes the idea of the system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ideas that underlay heathen rites, but rests on a basis of its own. It provides a means by which the people, notwithstanding their sin, maintain their fellowship with God, and enjoy His favour. It rests in all its parts on the idea of the holiness of God, and is designed throughout to impress on the mind of the worshipper the sense of the separation which sin has made between him and God. Even with sacrifice the people could not approach God directly, but only through the priesthood. The priests alone could enter the sacred enclosure; into the Most Holy Place even the priests were not permitted to enter, but only the high priest, and he but once a year, and then only with blood of sacrifice, offered first for himself and then for the people; all this signifying that ‘the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest’ (He 9:7 ,

8).

The details of the sacrificial ritual must be sought elsewhere (see Sacrifice). It is to be noted generally that the animal sacrifices were of four kinds—the burntoffering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering (a species of sin-offering which included a money-compensation to the person injured), the peace-offering. The victims must be unblemished; the presentation was accompanied by imposition of hands (on meaning, cf. Lv 16:21); the blood, after the victim was killed, was sprinkled on and about the altar: on the Day of Atonement it was taken also within the veil. The burnt-offering was wholly consumed; in the case of the peaceoffering a feast was held with part of the flesh. No sacrifice was permitted for sins done ‘presumptuously,’ or with ‘a high hand’ (Nu 15:30).

The design of all these sacrifices (even of the peace-offering, as features of the ritual show) was ‘to make atonement’ for the sin of the offerer, or of the congregation (Lv 1:4, 4:20, 26, 31, 5:6, 17:11 etc.). The word so translated means primarily ‘to cover,’ then ‘to propitiate’ or ‘expiate.’ The atoning virtue is declared in Lv 17:11 to reside in the blood, as the vehicle of the soul or life. The effect of the offering was to ‘cover’ the person or offence from the eyes of a holy God, i.e. to annul guilt and procure forgiveness. It ‘cleansed’ from moral and ceremonial pollution.

From this point theories take their origin as to the precise signification of sacrificial atonement. (1) Was the act purely symbolical—an expression of penitence, confession, prayer, consecration, surrender of one’s life to God? Hardly; for if, in one way, the victim is identified with the offerer, in another it is distinguished from him as a creature through whose blood-shedding expiation is made for his sin. (2) Is the idea, then, as many hold, that the blood represents a pure life put between the sinful soul and God—an innocent life covering a polluted one? In this case the death is held to be immaterial, and the manipulation of the blood, regarded as still fresh and living, is the one thing of importance. The theory comes short in not recognizing that, in any case, there is in the act the acknowledgment of God’s righteous sentence upon sin—else why bring sacrifice of atonement at all? It is true that the blood represents the life, but it is surely not as life simply, but as life taken—life given up in death—that the blood is presented on the altar as a covering for sin. It would be hard otherwise to explain how in the NT so much stress is always laid on death, or the shedding of the blood, as the means of redemption. (3) There remains the view that the victim is regarded as expiating the guilt of the offerer by itself dying in his room—yielding up its life in his stead in acknowledgment of the judgment of God on his sin. This, which is the older view, is probably still the truer. The theory of Ritschl, that the sacrifices had nothing to do with sin, but were simply a protection against the terrible ‘majesty’ of God, is generally allowed to be untenable.

3. There is yet a third line of preparation for this doctrine in the OT, viz.: the prophetic. The prophets, at first sight, seem to take up a position altogether antagonistic to sacrifices. Seeing, however, that in many indirect ways they recognize its legitimacy, and even include it in their pictures of a restored theocracy (cf. Is 56:6, 7, 60:7, 66:23, Jer 17:24–27, 33:17, 18 etc.), their polemic must be regarded as against the abuse rather than the use. The proper prophetic preparation, however, lay along a different line from the sacrificial. The basis of it is in the idea of the Righteous Sufferer, which is seen shaping itself in the Prophets and the Psalms (cf. Ps 22). The righteous man, both through the persecutions he sustains and the national calamities arising from the people’s sins which he shares, is a living exemplification of the law of the innocent suffering for the guilty. Such suffering, however, while giving weight to intercession, is not in itself atoning. But in the picture of the Servant of Jehovah in Is 53 a new idea emerges. The sufferings arising from the people’s sins have, in this Holy One, become, through the spirit in which they are borne, and the Divine purpose in permitting them, sufferings for sin—vicarious, healing, expiatory. Their expiatory character is affirmed in the strongest manner in the successive verses, and sacrificial language is freely taken over upon the sufferer (vv. 5, 6, 8, 10–12). Here at length the ideas of prophecy and those of sacrificial law coincide, and, though there is no second instance of like clear and detailed portraiture, it is not difficult to recognize the recurrence of the same ideas in later prophecies, e.g., in Zec 3:9, 12:10, 13:1, 7, Dn 9:24–26. With such predictions on its lips OT prophecy closes, awaiting the time when, in Malachi’s words, the Lord, whom men sought, would come suddenly to His Temple (3:1).

ii. In the New Testament.—The period between the OT and the NT affords little

for our purpose. It is certain that, in the time of our Lord, even if, as some think, there were partial exceptions, the great mass of the Jewish people had no idea of a suffering Messiah, or thought of any connexion between the Messiah and the sacrifices. If atonement was needed, it was to be sought for, apart from the sacrifices, in almsgiving and other good deeds; and the virtues of the righteous were regarded as in some degree availing for the wicked. It was a new departure when Jesus taught that ‘the Christ should suffer’ (cf. Mk 9:12, Lk 24:46). Yet in His own suffering and death He claimed to be fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (Lk 22:37, 24:46).

1. Life and Teaching of Jesus.—The main task of Jesus on earth was to reveal the Father, to disclose the true nature of the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, in opposition to false ideals, to lead men to the recognition of His Messiahship, to recover the lost, to attach a few faithful souls to Himself as the foundation of His new Kingdom, and prepare their minds for His death and resurrection, and for the after duty of spreading His gospel among mankind. The dependence of the Messianic salvation on His Person and activity is everywhere presupposed; but it was only in fragmentary and partial utterances that He was able for a time to speak of its connexion with His death. Alike in the Synoptics and in John we see how this dénouement is gradually led up to. At His birth it is declared of Him that ‘he shall save his people from their sins’ (Mt 1:21); He is the promised ‘Saviour’ of the house of David (Lk 1:31–33, 2:11); the Baptist announced Him, with probable reference to Is 53, as ‘the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’ (Jn 1:29, cf. v. 36). From the hour of His definite acceptance of His vocation of Messiahship in His baptism, and at the Temptation, combined as this was with the clear consciousness of a break with the ideals of His nation, Jesus could not but have been aware that His mission would cost Him His life. He who recalled the fate of all past prophets, and sent forth His disciples with predictions of persecutions and death (Mt 10), could be under no delusions as to His own fate at the hands of scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mt. 9:15). But it was not simply as a ‘fate’ that Jesus recognized the inevitableness of His death; there is abundant attestation that He saw in it a Divine ordination, the necessary fulfilment of prophecy, and an essential means to the salvation of the world. As early as the Judæan ministry, accordingly, we find Him speaking to Nicodemus of the Son of Man being lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish (Jn 3:14f.). He sets Himself forth in the discourse at Capernaum as the Bread of Life, in terms which imply the surrender of His body to death for the life of the world (Jn 6:32ff.). Later, He repeatedly speaks of the voluntary surrender of His life for His sheep (Jn 10:11, 15 , 17, 18 etc.). After Peter’s great confession, He makes full announcement of His approaching sufferings and death, always coupling this with His after resurrection (Mt 16:21, 17:22, 23, 20:18, 19 ||). He dwells on the necessity of His death for the fulfilment of the Divine purpose, and is straitened till it is accomplished ( Mk 10:32, Lk 9:51, 12:50). It was the subject of converse at the Transfiguration ( Lk 9:31). Yet clearer intimations were given. There is first the well-known announcement to the disciples, called forth by their disputes about pre-eminence: ‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’ (Mt 20:28 ||). Here Christ announces that His death was the purpose of His coming, and, further, that it was of the nature of a saving ransom. His life was given to redeem the lives of others. To the same effect are the solemn words at the Last Supper. Here Christ declares that His body, symbolized by the broken bread, and His blood, symbolized by the poured-out wine, are given for His disciples for the remission of sins and the making of a New Covenant, and they are invited to eat and drink of the spiritual food thus provided (Mt 26:26ff. ||, 1 Co 11:23ff.). It is reasonable to infer from these utterances that Jesus attached a supreme importance and saving efficacy to His death, and that His death was a deliberate and voluntary surrender of Himself for the end of the salvation of the world.

If we inquire, next, as to the nature of this connexion of Christ’s death with human salvation, we can scarcely err if we assume Jesus to have understood it in the light of the great prophecy which we know to have been often in His thoughts (Is 53). Already at the commencement of His Galilæan ministry He publicly identified Himself with the Servant of Jehovah (Lk 4:13ff.); the words of Is 53:12 were present to His mind as the last hour drew near (Lk 22:37). What prophecy of all He studied could be more instructive to Him as to the meaning of His sufferings and death? This yields the key to His utterances quoted above, and confirms the view we have taken of their meaning. Then came the crisis-hour itself. All the Evangelists dwell minutely on the scenes of the betrayal, Gethsemane, the trial, the mocking and scourging, the crucifixion. But how mysterious are many of the elements in these sufferings (e.g. Mk 14:33ff., 15:34, Jn 12:27); how strange to see them submitted to by the Prince of Life; how awful the horror of great darkness in which the Christ passed away! Can we explain it on the hypothesis of a simple martyrdom? Do we not need the solution which the other passages suggest of a sinbearing Redeemer? Finally, there is the crowning attestation to His Messiahship, and seal upon His work, in the Resurrection, and the commission given to the disciples to preach remission of sins in His name to all nations—a clear proof that through His death and resurrection a fundamental change had been wrought in the relations of God to humanity (Mt 28:18–20, Lk 24:47, Jn 20:21–23).

2. The Apostolic teaching.—The OT had spoken; the Son of Man had come and yielded up His life a ransom for many. He was now exalted, and had shed forth the Holy Spirit (Ac 2:32, 33). There remained the task of putting these things together, and of definitely interpreting the work Christ had accomplished, in the light of the prophecies and symbols of the Old Covenant. This was the task of the Apostles, guided by the same Spirit that had inspired the prophets; and from it arose the Apostolic doctrine of the atonement. Varied in standpoints and in modes of representation, the Apostolic writings are singularly consentient in their testimony to the central fact of the propitiatory and redeeming efficacy of Christ’s death. St. Paul states it as the common doctrine of the Church ‘how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures’ (1 Co 15:3, 4). St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, are at one here. The class of expressions in which this idea is set forth is familiar: Christ ‘bore our sins,’ ‘died for our sins,’ ‘suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,’ ‘was made sin for us,’ was ‘the propitiation for our sins,’ was ‘a sinoffering,’ ‘reconciled us to God in the body of his flesh through death,’ was our ‘ransom,’ procured for us ‘forgiveness of sins through his blood,’ etc. (cf. 1 P 1:2 ,

18, 19, 2:21, 24, 3:18, Ro 3:24, 25, 5:8–11, 8:34, 2 Co 5:21, Gal 1:4, 3:13, 4:4, 5 ,

Eph 1:7, 2:13–17, 20, 5:2, Col 1:14, 20–22, 1 Ti 2:5, 8, Tit 2:14, He 1:3, 2:17 , 7:26, 9:24–28, 10:10–14, 1 Jn 1:7, 2:2, 3:5, 4:10, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc.). It is customary to speak of the sacrificial terms employed as ‘figures’ borrowed from the older dispensation. The NT point of view rather is that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant are the figures, and Christ’s perfect offering of Himself to God, once for all, for man’s redemption, is the reality of which the earlier sacrifices were the shadows and types (He 10:1 ff. ).

Several things stand out clearly in the Apostolic doctrine of the atonement; each of them in harmony with what we have learned from our study of the subject in the OT. The presuppositions are the same—“the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God, and the sin and guilt of man, entailing on the individual and the race a Divine condemnation and exposure to wrath which man is unable of himself to remove (wrought out most fully by St. Paul, Ro 1:17, 3:9, 19–23, Gal 2:16 etc.). The atonement itself is represented (1) as the fruit, and not the cause of God’s love ( Ro 5:8, 1 Jn 4:10 etc.); (2) as a necessity for human salvation (Ro 3:19ff., He 9:22) ;

(3) as realizing perfectly what the ancient sacrifices did imperfectly and typically

(He 9:10); as an expiation, purging from guilt and cancelling condemnation ( Ro

8:1, 32, 33, He 1:3, 9:11–14, 1 Jn 1:7, Rev 1:5 etc.), and at the same time a

‘propitiation,’ averting wrath, and opening the way for a display of mercy ( Ro 3:25, He 2:17, 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10); (4) as containing in itself the most powerful ethical motive—to repentance, a new life, active godliness, Christian service, etc. ( Ro 6:1ff., 1 Co 6:20, 2 Co 5:14, 15, Gal 2:20, 6:14, Eph 5:1, 2, 1 P 1:21, 22, 1 Jn 4:11 etc.; with this is connected the work of the Holy Spirit, which operates these sanctifying changes in the soul); (5) as, therefore, effecting a true ‘redemption,’ both in respect of the magnitude of the price at which our salvation is bought (Ro 8:32, 1 Ti 2:6, He 10:29, 1 P 1:18, 19 etc.), and the completeness of the deliverance accomplished—from wrath (Ro 5:9, 1 Th 1:10), from the power of indwelling sin (Ro 6:6, 12–14, 8:2 etc.), from bondage to Satan (Eph 2:2, 3, 6:12 , He 2:14, 15 etc.), from the tyranny of the evil world (Gal 1:4, 6:14, Tit 2:14, 1 P 1:18 etc.), finally, from the effects of sin in death and all other evils (Ro 8:23, 1 Co 15:20ff. etc.).

In the NT teaching, therefore, the sacrifice of Christ fulfils all that was prefigurative in the OT doctrine of atonement; yet, as the true and perfect sacrifice, it infinitely transcends, while it supersedes, all OT pre-figurations. The relation of the Christian atonement to that of the Law is, accordingly, as much one of contrast as of fulfilment. This is the thesis wrought out in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but its truth is recognized in all parts of the NT. The sacrifices of the OT were, in their very nature, incapable of really removing sin (He 10:4). Their imperfection was shown in the irrational character of the victims, in their frequent repetition, in their multiplication, etc. (He 9:10). In Jesus, however, every character meets, qualifying Him to make atonement for humanity—Himself at once perfect priest and perfect sacrifice: Divine dignity as Son of God (Ro 1:4, 8:32, He 1:2, 3 etc.); a perfect participation in human nature (Ro 1:3, 8:3, Gal 4:4, He 2:14–18 etc.); absolute sinlessness (2 Co 5:21, He 4:15, 1 P 1:19, 2:22, 1 Jn 3:5 etc.); entire human sympathy (Ro 8:34, He 2:17, 4:14–16); as regards God, undeviating obedience and surrender to the will of the Father (Ph 2:7, 8, He 4:8, 9, 10:8–10). He is ‘Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 Jn 2:1), and His sacrificial death is the culmination of His obedience (Ro 5:19, Ph 2:8, He 10:9, 10).

iii. Rationale of the Atonement.—The way is now open to our last question— How was atonement for sin by Christ possible? And in what did Christ’s atonement consist? The NT does not develop a theology of the atonement; yet a theology would not be possible if the NT did not yield the principles, and lay down the lines, of at least a partial solution of this problem.

A chief clue to an answer to the above questions lies in what is taught (1) of

Christ’s original, essential relation to the creation (cf. Jn 1:3, 4, 1 Co 8:5, Eph 1:19 , Col 1:15–20, He 1:2, Rev 1:11, 3:14); and (2), as arising out of that, of His archetypal, representative relation to the race He came to save (cf. Jn 1:4, 8–14, Ro 5:12ff., 1 Co 15:21, 22, 45–47). This connects itself with what is said of Christ’s Divine dignity. Deeper even than the value His Divine Sonship gives to His sacrifice is the original relation to humanity of the Creative Word which renders His unique representative relation to the race possible. It is not going beyond the representations of the NT to say, with Maurice and others, that He is the ‘root of humanity.’ In Him it is grounded; by Him it is sustained; from Him it derives all the powers of its development. While He condescends to take on Him the nature of created humanity, His personality is above humanity. Hence His generic relation to the race—‘Son of God’—‘Son of Man.’ In this ‘mystery of godliness’ (1 Ti 3:16) lies the possibility of a representative atonement for the race.

For this is the next point in the solution of our problem; Christ’s identification of Himself with the race He came to save is complete. It is not merely ‘federal’ or ‘legal’; it is vital, and this in every respect. His love is unbounded; His sympathy is complete; His purpose and desire to save are unfaltering. He identifies Himself with humanity, with a perfect consciousness (1) of what He is; (2) of what the race He came to save is and needs; (3) of what a perfect atonement involves (cf. Jn 8:14ff.). Himself holy, the well-beloved Son, He knows with unerring clearness what sin is, and what the mind of God is about sin. He does not shrink from anything His identification with a sinful race entails upon Him, but freely accepts its position and responsibilities as His own. He is ‘made under the law’ (Gal 4:4); a law not merely preceptive, but broken and violated, and entailing ‘curse.’ Identifying Himself thus perfectly with the race of men as under sin on the one hand, and with the mind of God about sin on the other, He is the natural mediator between God and man, and is alone in the position to render to God whatever is necessary as atonement for sin.

But what is necessary, and how did Christ render it? Here come in the ‘theories’ of atonement; most of them ‘broken lights’; all needed to do full justice to the Divine reality. We would dismiss as infra-Scriptural all theories which affirm that atonement—reparation to the violated law of righteousness—is not necessary. Christ’s work, while bringing forgiveness, conserves holiness, magnifies law, vindicates righteousness (Ro 3:21–31). Also defective are theories which seek the sole explanation of atonement in the ethical motive; purely moral theories. Atonement is taken here in the sense only of ‘reconciliation’—the reconciliation of man to God. Scripture recognizes obstacles to salvation on the side of righteousness in God as well as in man’s unwillingness, and atonement aims at the removal of both. It has the aspect of propitiation, of expiation, of restitutio in integrum, as well as of moral influence. It is an act of reconciliation, embracing God’s relation to the world equally with the world’s relation to God (cf. Ro 3:25 , 5:11, 10, 2 Co 5:18–21).

There remain two views, one finding the essence of Christ’s atonement in the surrender of a holy will to God—in the obedience of Christ unto death, even the death of the Cross (Maurice and others). This assuredly is a vital element in atonement, but is it the whole? Does Scripture not recognize also the submission of Christ to the endurance of the actual penal evil of sin—specially to death—as that rests in the judgment of God upon our race? All that has preceded necessitates the answer that it does. The other,—the legal or forensic view,—accordingly, puts the essence of atonement in this penal endurance; in the substitutionary submission of Christ to the penalty due to us for sin. But this also is one-sided and unethical, if divorced from the other, and from the recognition of the fact that not simply endurance of evil, but the spirit in which the evil is endured, and the response made to the Divine mind in it, is the one acceptable thing to God (cf. J. M‘Leod Campbell). It is here, therefore, that we must seek the inmost secret of atonement. The innocent suffering with and for the guilty is a law from which Jesus did not withdraw Himself. In His consciousness of solidarity with mankind, He freely submitted to those evils (shame, ignominy, suffering, temptation, death) which express the judgment of God on the sin of the world, and in the experience of them—peculiarly in the yielding up of His life—did such honour to all the principles of righteousness involved, rendered so inward and spiritual a response to the whole mind of God in His attitude to the sin of the world, as constituted a perfect atonement for that sin for such as believingly accept it, and make its spirit their own. ‘By the which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (He 10:10). See Propitiation, Reconciliation, Redemption.

James Orr.

ATONEMENT, DAY OF.—The Day of Atonement, with its unique and

impressive ritual, is the culmination and crown of the sacrificial worship of the OT. The principal details are given in Lv 16, supplemented by 23:26–32, Nu 29:7–11, Ex 30:10, all from the Priests’ Code, though not all, as we shall see, from the oldest strata of the priestly legislation. The date was the 10th day of the seventh month (Tishri) reckoning from evening to evening (Lv 16:29 , 23:27ff.). Not only was this day a ‘sabbath of solemn rest,’ on which no work of any sort was to be done, but its unique place among the religious festivals of the OT was emphasized by the strict observance of a fast. The rites peculiar to ‘the Day’ (Yōmā), as it is termed in later literature, may be conveniently grouped in five stages.

(a) In the preparatory stage (Lv 16:3–10), after the special morning sacrifices had been offered (Nu 29:7–11), the high priest selected the appointed sin- and burnt-offerings for himself and ‘his house,’ i.e. the priestly caste, then laid aside his usual ornate vestments, bathed, and robed in a simple white linen tunic and girdle. He next selected two he-goats and a ram for the people’s offerings, and proceeded to ‘cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for J″, and the other lot for Azazel’ (AV ‘scapegoat,’ see Azazel). These preparations completed, the proper expiatory rites were hegun, and were accomplished in three successive stages. (b) In the first stage (vv. 11–14) the high priest made atonement for himself and the priesthood. After slaying the bullock of the sin-offering, he took a censer filled with live charcoal from the altar of burnt-offering and a handful of incense, and entered the Most Holy Place. Here he cast the incense on the coals, producing a cloud of smoke, by which the dwelling-place of the Most High between the Cherubim was hidden from mortal gaze (see Ex 33:20). This done, he returned to the court, to enter immediately, for the second time, the inner sanctuary, carrying a basin with the blood of the bullock, which he sprinkled on the front of the mercyseat once, and seven times on the ground before the ark.

(c) In the second stage (vv. 15–19) atonement was made in succession for the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place, and the outer court. The goat on which the lot

‘for J″’ had fallen was slain by the high priest, who then entered the Most Holy Place for the third time with its blood, which he manipulated as before. On his return through the Holy Place a similar ceremony was performed (v. 33, cf. Ex 30:10), after which he proceeded, as directed in vv. 18f., to ‘cleanse and hallow’ the altar of burnt-offering, which stood in the outer court.

(d) These all led up to the culminating rite in the third stage (vv. 20–22). Here the high priest, placing both hands on the head of the goat allotted to Azazel, made solemn confession—the tenor of which may still be read in the Mishnic treatise Yōmā—of all the nation’s sins. By this ceremony these sins were conceived as not only symbolically but actually transferred to the head of the goat (vv. 21f., see below), which was solemnly conducted to ‘a solitary land’ (RV), the supposed abode of the mysterious Azazel. In NT times the goat was led to a lofty precipice in the wilderness about 12 miles east of Jerusalem, over which it was thrown backwards, to be dashed in pieces on the rocks below (Yōmā, vi. 6 ff. ).

(e) We now reach the concluding stage of ‘the Day’s’ ceremonial (vv. 23–28). The fact that the essential part was now accomplished was strikingly shown by the high priest’s retiring into the Holy Place to put off ‘the holy garments’ (vv. 23, 32) , bathe, and resume his ordinary high-priestly vestments. Returning to the court, he offered the burnt-offerings for himself and the people, together with the fat of the sin-offering. The remaining verses (26–28) deal with details, the characteristic significance of which will be discussed presently.

Reasoning from the literary history of Lv 16, from the highly developed sense of sin, and from the unique prominence given to fasting, as well as on other grounds which cannot be fully set forth here, OT scholars are now practically unanimous in regarding the Day of Atonement as an institution of the post-exilic age. There is good reason for holding—although on this point there is not the same unanimity—that it originated even later than the time of Ezra, by whom the main body of the Priests’ Code was introduced. The nucleus from which the rites of Lv 16 were developed was probably the simpler ceremonial laid down by Ezekiel for the purification of the sanctuary 45:18ff.). Other elements, such as the earlier provisions for the entry of the high priest into the Most Holy Place still found in the opening verses of Lv 16, and perhaps the desire to make an annual institution of the great fast of Neh 9:1ff., contributed to the final development of the institution as it now appears in the Pentateuch. It is doubtless much older than the earliest reference in Sir 50:5 (c. b.c. 180). In NT it is referred to as ‘the Fast’ ( Ac 27:9), and so occasionally by Josephus. To this day it remains the most solemn and most largely attended religious celebration of the Jewish year.

The dominating thought of Lv 16 is the awful reality and contagion of sin, which affects not only priest and people, but the sanctuary itself. Its correlate is the intense realization of the need of cleansing and propitiation, as the indispensable condition of right relations with a holy God. The details of the ritual by which these relations were periodically renewed are of surpassing interest, as showing how the loftlest religious thought may be associated with ritual elements belonging to the most primitive stages of religion. Thus, in the case before us, the efficacy of the blood, the universal medium of purification and atonement, is enhanced by cessation from labour and complete abstinence from food—the latter the outward accompaniment of inward penitence—and by the high priest’s public and representative confession of the nation’s sins. Yet alongside of these we find the antique conception of holiness and uncleanness as something material, and of the fatal consequences of unguarded contact with the one or the other. It is only on this plane of thought that one understands the need of the cleansing of the sanctuary, infected by the ‘uncleannesses’ of the people among whom it dwelt (16:16, RV, cf. Ezk 45:18ff.). The same primitive idea of the contagion of holiness underlies the prescribed change of garments on the part of the high priest. The ‘holy garments’ in which the essential parts of the rite were performed had to be deposited in the Holy Place; those who had been brought into contact with the sacrosanct animals (vv. 26ff.) must bathe and wash their clothes, lest, as Ezekiel says in another connexion, ‘they sanctify the people with their garments’ (44:19), i.e. lest the mysterious contagion pass to the people with disastrous results. The most striking illustration of this transmissibility, however, is seen in the central rite by which the nation’s sins are transferred to the head of ‘the goat for Azazel,’ the demonic spirit of the wilderness (cf. the similar rite, Lv 14:6f.).

These survivals from the earlier stages of the common Semitic religion should not blind the modern student to the profound conviction of sin to which the institution bears witness, nor to the equally profound sense of the need of pardon and reconciliation, and of uninterrupted approach to God. By its emphasis on these perennial needs of the soul the Day of Atonement played no unimportant part in the preparation of Judaism for the perfect atonement through Jesus Christ. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in a familiar passage contrasts the propitiatory work of the Jewish high priest on this day with the great propitiation of Him who, by virtue of His own atoning blood, ‘entered in once for all into the holy place’ ( He 9:12 RV), even ‘into heaven itself,’ where He remains, our great High Priest and Intercessor (7:25f.).

A. R. S. Kennedy.

ATROTH-BETH-JOAB.—See Ataroth, No. 4.

ATROTH-SHOPHAN.—A town E. of Jordan, near Aroer and Jazer, fortified by Gad (Nu 32:35). Some place it with Atareth 1. at ‘Attārūs. This is hardly possible. The site is unknown.

W. Ewing.

ATTAI.—1. A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:35f.). 2. A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:11). 3. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:20).

ATTAIN.—In Ac 27:12 ‘attain’ has the literal meaning of reach a place ( so RV). Elsewhere it has the figurative sense still in use.

ATTALIA (modern Adalia).—A town on the coast of Pamphylia, not far from the mouth of the river Catarrhactes, founded and named by Attalus II. It was besieged in n.c. 79 by P. Seruilius Isauricus, when in possession of the pirates. In the Byzantine period it was of great importance. It has the best harbour on the coast. Paul and Barnabas came on there from Perga, and took ship for Antioch ( Ac 14:25).

A. Souter.

ATTALUS.—King of Pergamum (b.c. 159–138). He was one of the kings to whom the Roman Senate is said to have written in support of the Jews in the time of Simon the Maccabee (1 Mac 15:22).

ATTENDANCE.—In 1 Mac 15:32 ‘attendance’ is used for a king’s retinue; while in 1 Ti 4:13 it is used in the obsolete sense of attention: ‘Till I come give attendance (RV ‘heed’) to reading.’

ATTHARATES (1 Es 9:49).—A corruption of the title tirshatha; cf. Neh 8:9 and art. Attharias.

ATTHARIAS (1 Es 5:40).—A corruption of the title tirshatha; cf. Ezr 2:63 and art. Attharates.

ATTIRE.—See Dress.

ATTUS (AV Lettus).—Son of Sechenias (1 Es 8:29); same as Hattush of 1 Ch 3:22 and Ezr 8:2.

AUDIENCE.—From Lat. audientia; ‘audience’ means in AV the act of hearing, as Lk 20:45 ‘in the audience of all the people.’ Now it means the people gathered to hear.

AUGIA.—A daughter of Zorzelleus or Barzillai (1 Es 5:38).

AUGURY.—See Magic, Divination and Sorcery.

AUGUSTAN BAND (RV), AUGUSTUS’ BAND (AV).—See Band.

AUGUSTUS.—This name is Latin, and was a new name conferred (16th Jan.

b.c. 27) by the Roman Senate on Caius Octavius, who, after his adoption by the dictator Caius Julius Cæsar, bore the names Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The word means ‘worthy of reverence’ (as a god), and was represented in Greek by Sebastos, which has the same signification, but was avoided by Lk 2:1 as impious. In official documents Augustus appears as ‘Imperator Cæsar Augustus.’ He was born in b.c. 63, was the first Roman emperor from b.c. 23, and died in a.d. 14. He was equally eminent as soldier and administrator, and the Empire was governed for centuries very much on the lines laid down by him. In Lk 2:1 he is mentioned as having issued a decree that all inhabitants of the Roman Empire should be enrolled (for purposes of taxation). There is evidence for a 14-year cycle of enrolment in the Roman province of Egypt.

A. Souter.

AUTEAS.—A Levite (1 Es 9:48); called in Neh 8:7 Hodiah.

AUTHORITY.—The capability, liberty, and right to perform what one wills. The word implies also the physical and mental ability for accomplishing the end desired. Authority refers especially to the right one has, by virtue of his office, position, or relationship, to command obedience. The centurion was ‘a man under authority,’ who knew what it meant to be subject to others higher in authority than himself, and who also himself exercised authority over the soldiers placed under him (Mt 8:8, 9). In like manner ‘Herod’s jurisdiction’ (Lk 23:7) was his authority over the province which he ruled. Hence the authority of any person accords with the nature of his office or position, so that we speak of the authority of a husband, a parent, an apostle, a judge, or of any civil ruler. The magistrates who are called in Ro 13:1 ‘the higher powers,’ are strictly the highly exalted and honoured authorities of the State, who are to be obeyed in all that is right, and reverenced as the ‘ministers of God for good.’ God is Himself the highest authority in heaven and on earth, but He has also given unto His Son ‘authority on earth to forgive sins’ (Mt 9:6) and to execute judgment (Jn 5:27). After His resurrection Jesus Himself declared: ‘All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth’ (Mt 28:18; cf. Col 2:10, 1 P 3:22). In the plural the word is used in Eph 2:2, 3:10, 6:12 , Col 1:16, 2:15, to denote good and evil angels, who are supposed to hold various degrees and ranks of authority. See Dominion, Power.

M. S. Terry. AUTHORIZED VERSION.—See English Versions.

AVARAN (‘pale’?).—Surname of Eleazar, a brother of Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 2:5, 6:43).

AVEN.—An insulting substitute (in Ezk 30:17) for On (wh. see).

AVENGER OF BLOOD.—The practice of blood-revenge has been very

widely spread among societies in a certain stage of civilization, where there has been no central authority to enforce law and order, and where the certainty of retaliation has been the only guarantee for security of life. Among the Semites the custom was in full force from the earliest times, and it is still the only spring of order in Arabia. It depends for its maintenance upon the solidarity of the clan or tribe. All the members of the tribe, whatever may be the immediate parental relationship, are counted as being of one blood; a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all, to be avenged if necessary by all the offended clan upon all the clan of the offender. The phrase used by the Arabs is, ‘Our blood has been shed.’

Of the form of blood-revenge that involved the whole clan or tribe in the murder of a single individual there are still traces in the OT (Jos 7:24, 2 K 9:25). Naturally, however, the duty of avenging the shedding of blood fell primarily upon him who was nearest of kin to the slaughtered man. This next of kin was called the gō’ēl. The word in Hebrew law was used in a wide sense for him whose duty it was to redeem the property or the person of an impoverished or enslaved relative (Lv 25:26, 47–49, Ru 4:1ff.), but it came to be used specially of the man who had to perform this most tragic duty of kinship. The steady effort of Hebrew law was to limit this ancient custom so as to ensure that a blood feud should not perpetuate itself to the ruin of a whole clan, and that deliberate murder and accidental homicide should not come under the same penalty. It is possible to trace with some definiteness the progress of this sentiment by which the gō’ēl was gradually transformed from being the irresponsible murderer of a possibly blameless manslayer to being practically the executioner of a carefully considered sentence passed by the community. See Kin [Next of].

R. Bruce Taylor.

AVITH.—A Moabite city (Gn 36:35); site unknown.

AVOID.—This verb is used intransitively in 1 S 18:11 ‘David avoided out of his presence twice.’ So Coverdale translates Mt 16:23 ‘Auoyde fro me, Sathan.’

AVOUCH.—This word, now obsolete except in legal phrases, means to acknowledge.

AVVA, AVVITES (2 K 17:24, 31).—See Ivvah.

AVVIM.—1. The Avvim are spoken of in Dt 2:23 (cf. Jos 13:4) as primitive inhabitants of S.W. Palestine near Gaza, who were absorbed by the immigrants from Caphtor (wh. see), i.e. the Philistines. 2. A Benjamite town (Jos 18:23); site unknown.

J. F. McCurdy.

AWAY WITH.—This phrase is used idiomatically with the force of a verb in Is 1:13 ‘the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with,’ i.e. tolerate. This verb is omitted (= ‘get away with,’ i.e. in mod. English ‘get on with’).

AWL.—A boring instrument, named only in connexion with the ceremony whereby a slave was bound to perpetual servitude (Ex 21:6, Dt 15:17).

AWNING.—Correctly given by RV in Ezk 27:7 as tr. of Heb. miksēk, corrected from mekassēk (AV ‘that which covered thee’).

AX, AXE.—See Arts and Crafts, 1, 3.

AXLE, AXLE-TREES.—See Wheel.

AYEPHIM.—RVm of 2 S 16:14, where the text is uncertain.

AZAEL.—Father of one of the commission appointed to investigate the foreign marriages (1 Es 9:14); same as Asahel No. 4.

AZAELUS.—One of those who put away their foreign wives (1 Es 9:34).

AZALIAH.—Father of Shaphan the scribe (2 K 22:3, 2 Ch 34:8).

AZANIAH.—A Levite (Neh 10:9).

AZARAIAS.—The father or, more probably, a more remote ancestor of Ezra (1 Es 8:1); = Seraiah of Ezr 7:1.

AZAREL.—1. A Korahite follower of David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:6). 2. A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:18; called in V. 4 Uzziel). 3. Prince of the tribe of Dan (1 Ch 27:22). 4. A son of Bani, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:41). 5. A priest (Neh 11:13). 6. A Levite (Neh 12:36).

AZARIAH.—1. King of Judah; see Uzziah. 2. 2 Ch 22:6 for Abaziah. 3. 2 Ch 15:1–8 a prophet, son of Oded, who met Asa’s victorious army at Mareshah, and urged them to begin and persevere in a religious reform. 4. High priest in the reign of Solomon (1 K 4:2). 5. 1 Ch 6:10, Ezr 7:3, father of Amariah, who was high priest under Jehoshaphat. 6. High priest in the reign of Uzziah (2 Ch 26:16–20); he withstood and denounced the king when he presumptuously attempted to usurp the priests’ office of burning incense upon the altar. 7. High priest in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch 3:10, 13). 8. 1 Ch 6:13, 14, Ezr 7:1 (Ezerias, 1 Es 8:1; Azarias, 2 Es 1:1), son of Hilkiah the high priest. 9. 1 K 4:5, a son of Nathan, who ‘was over the officers’ (v. 7). 10. 1 Ch 2:8, son of Ethan whose wisdom was surpassed by that of Solomon (1 K 4:31). 11. 1 Ch 2:38, a man of Judah who had Egyptian blood in his veins (v. 34). 12. 1 Ch 6:36, a Kohathite Levite (called Uzziah in 1 Ch 6:24). 13. 14. 2 Ch 21:2, Azariah and Azariahu, two of the sons of Jehoshaphat. 15. 16. 2 Ch 23:1, Azariah and Azariahu, two of the five ‘captains of hundreds’ who assisted Jehoiada in the restoration of Joash. 17. 2 Ch 28:12, one of those who supported the prophet Oded when he rebuked the army of Israel for purposing to enslave the captives of Judah. 18. 19. 2 Ch 29:12, two Levites, a Kohathite and a Merarite. 20. Neh 3:23, one of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem. 21. Neh

7:7 (called Seraiah, Ezr 2:2; Zacharias, 1 Es 5:8), one of the twelve leaders of Israel who returned with Zerubbabel. 22. Neh 8:7 (Azarias, 1 Es 9:48), one of those who helped the Levites to ‘cause the people to understand the law.’ 23. Jer 43:2, son of Hoshaiah (the Maacathite, 40:8), also called Jezaniah (40:8, 42:1) and Jaazaniah (2 K 25:23). He was one of the ‘captains of the forces’ who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. 24. The Heb. name of Abednego (Dn 1:6, 7, 11, 19; 2:17).

AZARIAS.—1. 1 Es 9:21; called Uzziah, Ezr 10:21. 2. 1 Es 9:43, one of those who stood beside Ezra at the reading of the Law. 3. 1 Es 9:48 = Azariah of Neh 8:7. 4. Name assumed by the angel Raphael (To 5:12, 6:5, 13, 7:8, 9:2). 5. A captain of Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 5:18, 56, 60).

AZARU.—Ancestor of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5:15). AZAZ.—A Reubenite (1 Ch 5:8).

AZAZEL.—The name in Hebrew and RV of the desert spirit to whom one of the two goats was sent, laden with the sins of the people, in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:8, 10, 26 RV, see Atonement [Day of]). Etymology, origin, and significance are still matters of conjecture. The AV designation scapegoat (i.e. the goat that is allowed to escape, which goes back to the caper emissarius of the Vulgate) obscures the fact that the word Azazel is a proper name in the original, and in particular the name of a powerful spirit or demon supposed to inhabit the wilderness or ‘solitary land’ (16:22 RV). The most plausible explanation of this strange element in the rite is that which connects Azazel with the illicit worship of field-spirits or satyrs (lit. ‘he-goats’) of which mention is made in several OT passages (Lv 17:7, Is 13:21 etc.). It may have been the intention of the authors of Lv 16 in its present form to strike at the roots of this popular belief and practice by giving Azazel, probably regarded as the prince of the satyrs, a place in the recognized ritual. Christianity itself can supply many analogies to such a proceeding. The belief that sin, disease, and the like can be removed by being transferred to living creatures, beasts or birds, is not confined to the Semitic races, and has its analogy in Hebrew ritual, in the ceremony of the cleansing of the leper (Lv 14:53). In the Book of Enoch (c. b.c. 180) Azazel appears as the prince of the fallen angels, the offspring of the unions described in Gn 6:1 ff.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

AZAZIAH.—1. A Levite (1 Ch 15:21). 2. Father of Hoshea the prince of Ephraim (1 Ch 27:20). 3. An overseer of the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Ch 31:13).

AZBUK.—Father of Nehemiah, who took part in rebuilding the walls ( Neh

3:16).

AZEKAH.—A city of Judah (Jos 10:10f., 1 S 17:1, 2 Ch 11:9, Neh 11:30) , near the Valley of Elah; inhabited by the Jews after the Captivity. Site unknown.

AZEL.—1. A descendant of Jonathan (1 Ch 8:37f., = 9:43f.). 2. An unidentified site in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (Zec 14:5).

AZETAS.—Head of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Es 5:15).

AZGAD.—See Astad.

AZIEI.—An ancestor of Ezra (2 Es 1:2); called Azariah, Ezr 7:3, and Ozias, 1 Es 8:2.

AZIEL.—A Levite (1 Ch 15:20); called in v. 18 Jaaziel—the full form of the name.

AZIZA.—A Jew who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:27); called in 1 Es 9:28 Zardeus.

AZMAVETH.—1. A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:36). 2. One of David’s mighty men (2 S 23:31, 1 Ch 11:33), probably identical with the Azmaveth of 1 Ch 12:3, 27:25, whose sons joined David at Ziklag, and who was ‘over the king’s treasuries.’ 3. A Benjamite town (1 Ch 12:3, Ezr 2:24, Neh 7:28 [Beth-azmaveth] , 1 Es 5:18 [Bethasmoth]); mod. Higmeh, S.E. of Gibeah.

AZMON.—An unknown place on the border of Judah (Nu 34:4, Jos. 15:4) ; called in Jos 15:29, 19:3 Ezem.

AZNOTH-TABOR.—The lower slopes of Mt. Tabor, marking the S.W. corner of the portion of Naphtali (Jos 19:34).

AZOR.—An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1:13f.).

AZOTUS.—See Ashdod.

AZRIEL.—1. Head of a ‘father’s house’ in the E. half tribe of Manasseh (1 Ch 5:24). 2. A Naphtalite (1 Ch 27:19). 3. Father of Seraiah (Jer 36:26).

AZRIKAM.—1. Son of Neariah (1 Ch 3:23). 2. A descendant of Jonathan (1 Ch 8:38, 9:44). 3. A Levite (1 Ch 9:14, Neh 11:15). 4. The ‘ruler of the house’ under Ahaz (2 Ch 28:7).

AZUBAH.—1. Wife of Caleb (1 Ch 2:18f.). 2. Mother of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22:42 = 2 Ch 20:31).

AZZAN.—Father of Paltiel (Nu 34:28).

AZZUR.—1. One of those who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:17). 2. Father of Hananiah the false prophet (Jer 28:1). 3. Father of Jaazaniah, one of the princes of the people (Ezk 11:1).

			Nabūmukīn-			36
			apli			36
	Unknown	8	mo.		Tukultiapil- Esharra ii. S
					Ashur-dan iii. S	914 ?
	Shamashmudammik				Adadnirari iv. S	911
	Nabū-shumishkun i.			=	Tukulti- Ninib ii. S	889
879	? Nabū- apliddina	3 1	+	=	Ashurnāzir-apli iii. S	884
	Marduk-					858