A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology 9781463226602

Citation preview

A Dictionary of the Bible

Gorgias Historical Dictionaries

22

The difficulty of locating historical dictionaries has long been a source of frustration for scholars. Gorgias Press seeks to address this difficulty by the introduction of a series of historic dictionaries. The Gorgias Historical Dictionaries series makes available classic sources at affordable prices.

A Dictionary of the Bible

Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology

Volume 1 Edited by

James Hastings With the Assistance of

John A. Selbie

A

1 gotgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright© 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1898-1909 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

A l

2010

ISBN 978-1-61719-214-2

ISSN 1935-3189 Reprinted from the 1898-1909 New York edition.

Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE

d m ; heed to . . . teaching." Perhaps the Church of Christ has never given sufficient heed to teaching since the earliest and happiest days. I n our own day the importance of teaching, or, as we sometimes call it, expository preaching, has been pressed home through causes that are various yet never accidental; and it is probable that in the near future more heed will be given by the Church to teaching than has ever been given before. As a contribution towards the furnishing of the Church for that great work, this DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE is published. I t is a Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Old Testament Apocrypha, according to the Authorized and Revised English Versions, and with constant reference to the original tongues. Every effort has been used to make the information it contains reasonably full, trustworthy, and accessible. As to fulness. In a Dictionary of the Bible one expects that the words occurring in the Bible, which do not explain themselves, will receive some explanation. The present Dictionary more nearly meets that expectation than any Dictionary that has hitherto been published. Articles have been written on the names of all Persons and Places, on the Antiquities and Archaeology of the Bible, on its Ethnology, Geology, and Natural History, on Biblical Theology and Ethic, and even on the obsolete or archaic words occurring in the English Versions. The greater number of the articles are of small compass, for care has been exercised to exclude vague generalities as well as unaccepted idiosyncrasies ; but there are many articles which deal with important and difficult subjects, and extend to considerable length. Such, for example, and to mention only one, is the article in the first volume on the Chronology of the New Testament. As to trustworthiness. The names of the authors are appended to their articles. except where the article is very brief and of minor importance; and these names are the best guarantee that the work may be relied on. So far as could be ascertained, those authors were chosen for the various subjects who had made a special study of that subject, and might be able to speak with authority upon i t Then, in addition to the work of the Editor and his Assistant, every sheet has passed through the hands of the three distinguished scholars whose names are found on the title-page. These scholars are not responsible for errors of any kind, if such Bhould be disvii

nii

PKEFACT

covered in the Dictionary, but the time and care they have spent upon it may be taken as a good assurance that the work as a whole is reliable and authoritative. As to accessibility.

While all the articles have been written expressly for

this work, so they have been arranged under the headings one would most naturally turn to.

In a very few cases it has been found necessary to group allied subjects

together.

But even then, the careful system of black-lettering and crosB-referenee

adopted, should enable the reader to find the subject wanted without delay.

And so

important has it seemed to the Editor that each subject should be found under its own natural title, that he has allowed a little repetition here and there (though not in identical terms) rather than distress the reader by sending him from one article to another in search of the information he desires.

The Proper Names will be found

under the spelling adopted in the Revised Version, and in a few very familiar instances the spelling of the Authorized Version is also given, with a cross-reference to the other.

On the Proper Names generally, and particularly on the very difficult

and unsettled questions of their derivation, reference may be made to the article NAMES (PROPER), which will be found in the third volume.

The Hebrew, and (where

it seemed to be of consequence for the identification of the name) the Greek of the Septuagint, have been given for all proper and many common names.

It was found

impracticable to record all the variety of spelling discovered in different manuscripts of the Septuagint; and it was considered unnecessary, in view of the great Edition now in preparation in Cambridge, and the Concordance of Proper Names about to be published at the Clarendon Press.

The Abbreviations, considering the size and scope

of the work, will be seen to be few and easily mastered.

A list of them, together

with a simple and uniform scheme of transliterating Hebrew and Arabic words, will be found on the following pages.

The Maps have been specially prepared for this

work by Mr. J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S.

The Illustrations (the drawings for which

have been chiefly made in Syria by the Rev. G. M. Mackie, M.A.) are confined to subjects which cannot be easily understood without their aid. The Editor has pleasure in recording his thanks to many friends and willing fellow-workers, including the authors of the various articles.

In especial, after those

whose names are given on the title-page, he desires to thank the Rev. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, who has read many of the articles and given valuable assistance in other ways, and whose name might have appeared on the title-page, had not illness prevented him for some time from carrying out his intention of reading the proof-sheets as they were ready; next, his own early teacher, Dr. DONALD SHEABBR, who voluntarily undertook, and has most conscientiously carried out, the verification of the passages of Scripture; also Professor MAHAFFY of Dublin, who kindly read some articles in proof; Professor RYLE of Cambridge; Professor SALMOND of Aberdeen; Principal STEWABT of St. Andrews; and Principal FAIBBAIRN and Mr. J. VIBNON BAKTLET, M.A. of Mansfield College, Oxford.

*.* Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, have the sole right jt DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE in the United States and Canada.

publication of thia

SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION HEBREW.

ARABIC

'

•

t

t

« 1

b

CD

»

th

d

1

i

£

h

n

l.i

r

u, w

kh

t

d

j

dh

i

z

t

ll

n

t

D 1

r

j

i. y

z

j

k

s

U"

1

J*

m

sli

b a

s

u*

n

d

u" b

s

D

'

V

P

s

t ?

?

t gh f

k 1 9

r

k

J

s, sh

k

CJ

t

1

J

m

r

n

u

h

s

u, w

;

i. y

ui

ix

p

to » n

LIST OF A B B R E V I A T I O N S L

GENERAL

Alex. = Alexandrian. Apoc. = Apocalypse. Apocr. — Apocrypha. Aq. = Aquila. Arab. = Arabic. Aram. = Aramaic. Assyr. = Assyrian. Bab. =Babylonian. c. =• circa, about. Can. = Canaanite. cf. — Compare, ct. = Contrast. D = Deuteroriomist. E=Elohist. edd. = Editions or Editors. Egyp. = Egyptian. Eng. =English. Eth. = Ethiopic. f. — and following verse or page; as Ac 10*41, ff. = and following verses or pages ; as Mt 11289, G r . = Greek. H = Law of Holiness. Heb. = Hebrew. Hel. = Hellenistic. Hex. = Hexateuch. Isr. = Israelite. J = J ah wist. J" = Jehovah. Jems. = Jerusalem. Jos. = Joseph u».

II.

BOOKS

Old Testament. Ca = Canticles. Gn = Genesis. Is = Isaiah. Ex = Exodus. Jer = Jeremiah. Lv = Leviticus. La =: Lamentations. Nu—Numbers. Ezk = Ezekiel. Dt=Deuteronomy. Dn = Daniel. Jos = Joshua. Hos = Hosea. Jg=Judges. Jl = Joel. Ru = Ruth. 1 S, 2 S = 1 and 2 Sarauel. Am = Amos. 1 K, 2 K = 1 and 2 Kings. Ob = Obadiah. 1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2 Jon = Jonah. Chronicles. Mic = Micah. Ezr = Ezra. Nah = Nahum. Neh = Nehemiah. Hab = Habakkuk. Est=Esther. Zeph = Zephaniah. Job. Hag = Haggai. Ps = Psalms. Zee = Zechariah. Pr=Proverbs. Mai = Malachi. Ec=Ecclesiastes. Apocrypha. I Es, 2 Es - 1 and 2 To=Tobit. Esdras. Jth = Judith.

LXX ~ Septuagint. MSS = Manuscripts. MT = Massoretic Text. n.=note. N T - N e w Testament. Onk. = Onkelos. 0 T = 01d Testament. P = Priestly Narrative. Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. Pent. = Pentateuch. Pers. = Persian. Phil. = Philistine. Phcen. — Phcenician. Pr. Bk. = Prayer Boole. K = Redactor. Rom. = Roman. Sam. = Samaritan. Sem. = Semitic. Sept. =Septuagint. Sin. = Sinaitic. Symm. = Symmachus. Syr. =Syriac. T"alm.= Talmud. Targ. = Targum. Theod. =Theodotion. TR = Textus Receptus. tr. =translate or translation. YSS = Versions. Vulg. = Vulgate. W H = Westcott and Hort's text.

OF T H E

BIBLE

Ad. Est = Additions to Sus = Susanna. Bel = Bel and the Esther. Dragon. Wis = Wisdom. Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. Man = Prayer oi Manasses. asticus. 1 Mac, 2 Mac = l and 2 Bar = Baruch. Maccabees. Three = Song of tko Three Children. New Testament. 1 Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2 Mt = Matthew. Thessalonians. Mk = Mark. I Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2 Lk = Luke. Timothy. J n = John. Tit = Titus. Ac = Acts. Philem — Philemon. Ro = Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 2 He=Hebrews. Ja=James. Corinthians. 1 P, 2 P = 1 and 2 Peter Gal = Galatians. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 J n = l , 2 Eph = Ephesiane. and 3 John. P h = Philippians. Jnde. Col = Colossians. Rev = Revelation.

LIST

OF

IIL

ABBREVIATIONS

ENGLISH VERSIONS

Bish. = Bishops' Bible 1568. Tom. =Tomson's NT 1576. Rhem. = Rheinish NT 1582. Dou. = Douay OT 1609. AV = Authorized Version 1611. AVm = Authorized Version margin. RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885. RVm = Revised Version margin. EV = Auth. and Rev. Versions.

Wyc.=WycIif's Bible (NT c. 1380, OT c. 1382, Purvey's Revision c. 1388). Tind. = Tindale's NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. Cov. = Coverdale's Bible 1535. Matt, or Rog. = Matthew's {i.e. prob. Rogers') Bible 1537. 2ran. or Great=Cranmer's * Great' Bible 1539. Tav.=Taverner's Bible 1539. Gen.«Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

IV.

FOR

THE LITERATURE

AST ^ Ancient Hebrew Tradition. A T—Altes Testament. -ö-L = Bampton Lecture. BM=British Museum. ÄßP—Biblical Researches in Palestine. C/C5—Corpus Inscriptionum Gra?earum. CILss Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. OIS—Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. COT= Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. DB=> Dictionary of the tfible. GGA = Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. G VI= Geschichte des Volkes Israel. HCM= Higher Criticism and the Monuments. •ffü^Historia Ecclesiastica. History of the Jewish People. SGHL = Historical Geog. of Holy Land. H I = History of Israel. HPM— History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. JDTh=Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie. JBAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JQB=Jewish Quarterly Review. KAT=T)ie Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. 7>0T=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. 0JV=Otium Norvicense. 0TJG= The Old Test, in the Jewish Church.

PEF— Palestine Exploration Fund. PEFSt = Quarterly Statement of the same. PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. i\ß.Z? = Real-Encyclopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche. QPB = Queen's Printers' Bible. BEJ= Revue des Etudes Juives. BP— Records of the P a s t BS—Religion of the Semites. SBOT= Sacred Books of Old Test. SK=Studien und Kritiken, SWP = Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine. ThL or ThLZ=Thao\. Literaturzeitung. 77iT=Theol. Tijdschrift. TSBA = Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology. Western Asiatic Inscriptions. ZAW or ZA T^F^ Zeitschrift für die Alttest. Wissenschaft. ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen ländischen Gesellschaft. ZDP V= Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins. ZKW— Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft,

A small superior number designates the particular

idition of the work referred to, as KAT-\ LOT*.

MAPS IN VOLUME I Palestine

.

.

.

B A B Y L O N I A , A S S Y R I A , ETC.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

facing page

.

S I N A I PENINSULA AND CANAAN (ILLUSTRATING THE EXODUS)

.

1

,,

,,

176

„

„

8(12

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN YOL. I Rev.

WALTER

F.

ADENEY,

M.A.,

Professor

of

New Testament Exegesis in the New College, London.

Rev. The

V e n . A . S. AGLEN, H . A . , D . D . , A r c h d e a c o n of S t .

Andrews.

Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEK, M . Á . , Chaplain,

Fel-

low, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.

WINJTRID O .

BURROWS,

late

Rev.

JAMES

Rev.

ology in the Headingley College, Leeds.

M.A.,

of

D.D.,

M.A.,

ARTHUR THOMAS

M . D . , of

CHAPMAN,

the

M.A.,

Leb-

Fellow,

Tutor, and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel College, Cambridge. CHARI.ES,

M.A.,

of

Trinity

College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford.

house, Cambridge.

BARTLET,

M.A., Tutor

in

Mans-

field College, Oxford. Rev. L. W. BATTEN, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. R e v . W I L L I S JUDSON

CANDLISH,

anon Schools, Beyiout, Syria.

R e v . W . E . BARNES, M . A . , D . D . , F e l l o w of P e t e r - R e v . R O B E R T H E N R Y VERNON

S.

Principal

Professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Glasgow.

R e v . W I L L I A M CARSLAW,

R e v . JOHN S. BASKS, P r o f e s s o r of S y s t e m a t i c T h e -

JAMES

M.A.,

Leeds Clergy School.

BEECÍIER, D . D . ,

Professor

of

R e v . FREDERIC H E N R Y CHASE,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Prin-

cipal of the Clergy Training School, Cambridge, and Examining Chaplain to the Arclibishopof York.

Lieut.-Col. CLAUDE REGNIER CONDER, R . E . , M.R.A.S.

LL.D.,

Hebrew Language and Literature in Auburn FRED. C. CONYBEARE, M. A., late Fellow of University College, Oxford. Theological Seminary, N\ Y. R e v . J O S E P H A G A R B E E T , D . D . , P r o f e s s o r o f S y s - Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and Rector of Beaconsfield, Bucks. tematic Theology in the Richmond Theological College. R e v . H E N R Y COWAN, M . A . , D . D . , P r o f e s s o r of Church History in the University of Aberdeen. P. V. M. BENECKE, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Magdalen College, Oxford. W. E. CRUM, M.A., of the Egypt Exploration Fund. Rev. W. H. BENNETT, M. A., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in Hackney and New Colleges, R e v . E D W A R D L . C U R T I S , D . D . , P r o f e s s o r of Hebrew in Yale University, New Haven. London; sometime Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. R e v . A N D R E W B R U C E DAVIDSON, D . D . , LL.D., R e v . EDWARD RUSSELL BERNARD, H . A . , ChanProfessor of Hebrew in the New College, Edinburgh. cellor and Canon of Salisbury ; formerly Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. R e v . T . W I T T O N DAVIES, B . A . , P h . D . , M . R . A . S . , Professor of Biblical Literature in the Midland Rev. JOHN HENRY B E R N A R D , D . D . , F e l l o w of Baptist College, Nottingham. Trinity College, and Archbishop King's Lecturer in Divinity in the University of Dublin. Rev. W. T. DAVISON, M.A., D.D., Professor of R e v . R O B E R T MASSON BOYD, M . A . , Glenbervie, Systematic Theology in the Handsworth TheoKincardine. logical College, Birmingham. Rev.

FRANCIS

BROWN,

M.A.,

D.D..

P r o f e s s o r of

Rev.

M.A., D.D.,

P r o f e s s o r of

R e v . WILLIAM P .

Hebrew and Cognate Languages in Union Theological Seminary, New York.

R e v . W . ADAMS BROWN,

Systematic Theology in Union Seminary, New York.

F.

CRAWFORD

Rev.

Cambridge. CHARLES

BDRKITT. FOX

M.A.,

BURNEY,

Theological

Trinity

M.Á.,

Lecturer

DENNEY,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Professor

of

DICKSON, D . D . , L L . D . ,

Emeri-

tus Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow.

College, ! Rev. in

Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford. i

JAMES

Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rev.

xiii

SAMUEL

ROLI.ES

DRIVER,

D.D.,

Canon

of

Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. WILLIAM

EWING,

M.A.,

merly of Tiberias, Palestine.

Birmingham

for-

A U T H O R S O F A R T I C L E S I N VOL.

xiv

R e v . A L F R E D E R N E S T GARVIE, H . A . , B . D . ,

Mon-

trose ; Examiner in Biblical Languages in the Congregational Hall, Edinburgh.

I

D. S . MAIIGOLIOUTH, M . A . , F e l l o w of N e w Col

lege, and Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford.

Rev. SYDNEY C. GAYFORD, M . A . , E x e t e r College, R e v . J O H N T U R N E R MARSHALL, M . A . , P r o f e s s o r of

Classics in the Baptist College, Manchester. JOHN MASSIE, M.A., Yates Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford; Testament Exegesis in the Presbyterian Colformerly Scholar of St. John's College, Camlege, London. bridge. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, M . A . , L e c t u r e r in Mansfield R e v . J O S E P H BICKERSTETH MAYOR, M . A . , L i t t . D . , College, Oxford. Emeritus Professor of King's College, London, R e v . ALEXANDER GRIEVE, M . A . , P h . D . , F o r f a r . and Hon. Fellow of St. John's College, CamF R A N C I S L L E W E L L Y N G R I F F I T H , M . A . , F . S . A . , OT bridge. tbe British Museum; Superintendent of t i e Rev. SELAH MERRILL, D . D . , L L . D . , U. S. Consul Archaeological Survey of E g y p t at Jerusalem. -7 Oxford.

R e v . JOHN GIBB, M . A . ,

D.D.,

Professor

of

New

R e . H E N R Y M E L V I L L GWATKIN, M . A . , D . D . , F e l -

low of Emmanuel College, and Dixie Professor R e v . J A M E S M I L L A R , M . A . , B . D . , N e w C u m n o c k . of Ecclesiastical History in the University of R e v . GEORGE M I L L I G A N , M . A . , B . D . , C a p u t h , Perthshire. Cambridge. Rev. S. T. GWILLIAM, F.R.G.S., Hampton Poyle R e v . W I L L I A M MORGAN, M . A . , T a r b o l t o n . Rectory, Reading. Rev. R. WADDY Moss, Professor of Classics in the Didsbury College, Manchester. Rev. G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY, M . A . , Balliol College, Oxford ; Vicar of Mossley Hill, Liverpool. R e v . W I L L I A M M U I R , M . A . , B . D . , B . L . , B l a i r gowrie. R e v . E D W I N E L M E R HARDINO, M . A . , P r i n c i p a l of Saint Aidan'a Theological College, Birkenhead. Rev. J . 0 . F. MURRAY, M.A., Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. J . RENDEL HARRIS, M . A . , D . L i t t . , F e l l o w a n d Librarian of^Clare College, and Lecturer in Palae- JOHN L. MYRES, M.A., Student of Christ Church, ography in the University of Cambridge. Oxford. Rev.

ARTHUR

CAYLEY

HEADLAM,

M.A.,

B.D.,

R e v . THOMAS N I C O L , M . A . , D . D . , E d i n b u r g h .

Rector of Welwyn, Herts; formerly Fellow of Rev. JAMES ORR, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church All Souls College, Oxford. History in the United Presbyterian Hall, EdinR e v . ARCHIBALD H E N D E R S O N , M . A . , D . D . , C r i e f f . burgh. E. M. HOLMES, F.L.S., Curator of the Museum of JOHN WAUGH PATERSON, B . S c . , P h . D . , L e c t u r e r the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. on Agricultural Chemistry in the Glasgow and FRITZ HOMMEL, Ph.D., LL.D., Ord. Professor of West of Scotland Technical College. Semitic Languages in the University of Munich. R e v . W I L L I A M P . PATERSON, M . A . , D . D . , P r o EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.G.S., fessor of Systematic Theology in the University late Director of the Geological Survey of Ireof Aberdeen. land, and Professor of Geology in the Royal R e v . JAMES PATRICK, M . A . , B . D . , B . S c . , E x a m i n e r College of Science, Dublin. for Degrees in Divinity in the University of St MONTAGUE R H O D E S JAMES, M . A . , L i t t . D . , F e l l o w Andrews. and Dean of King's College, and Director of the R e v . JOHN PATRICK, M . A . , D . D . , E d i n b u r g h . Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. F R A N K BYRON JEVONS, M . A . , L i t t . D . , P r i n c i p a l of

Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham.

Rev.

Rev.

ARCHIBALD

R.

S.

KENNEDY,

M.A.,

D.D.,

HOUGHTON

KENNEDY,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages in the University of Edinburgh. JAMES

Assistant Lecturer in the Divinity School of Dublin University.

R e v . THOMAS B . K I L P A T R I C K ,

deen.

Rev.

JOHN

LAIDLAW,

M.A.,

M.A., B.D., D.D.,

Aber-

Professor

MACALISTER,

LL.D.,

M.D.,

tive Methodist College, Manchester, and Lecturer in Lancashire Independent College ; sometime Fellow of Merton and Lecturer in Mansfield Colleges, Oxford.

W . FLINDERS PETRIE, M . A . , D . C . L . , P r o f e s s o r of

Egyptology in University College, London.

R e v . GEORGE M . P H I L P S , M . A . , B . D . , F o r f a r .

I. A. PINCHES, Sippar House, London. T H E O P H I L U S GOLDRIDGE

F.R.S.,

PINCHES,

M.R.A.S.,

of

the Egyptian and Assyrian Department in the British Museum.

of

Systematic Theology in the New College, Edinburgh. Rev. "WALTER LOCK, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Magdalen and Warden of Keble Colleges, and Dean Ireland's Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Oxford. ALEXANDER

ARTHUR S. PEAKE, M . A . , P r o f e s s o r in t h e P r i m i -

Rev. ALFRED

PLUMMER,

M.A.,

University College, Durham.

Rev.

D.D.,

Master

of

FRANK C. PORTER, M . A . , D . D . , P r o f e s s o r of

Biblical Theology in Yale University, New Haven.

R e v . HARVEY PORTER, B . A . , P h . D . , P r o f e s s o r in

the American College, Beyrout, Syria. p.S.A., Fellow of St. John's College, and Professor of Anatomy in the University of Cam- Rev. GEORGE POST, M D . , F . L . S . , P r o f e s s o r in bridge. the American College, Beyrout.

R e v . J . A. M'CLYMONT, M . A . , D . D . , A b e r d e e n .

Rev.

JOHN

POUCHER,

M.A.,

D.D.,

Professor

in

De Pauw University, Ind. Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria. IRA M. PRICE, M.A., Ph.D., B.D., Associate Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in Bev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M . A . , F i n d h o r n , Moraythe University of Chicago, shire.

R e v . GEORGE M .

MACKIE,

M.A.,

Chaplain to t h e

AUTHORS

OF

ARTICLES

B e v . C Y B I L H E N R Y PKICHAKD, M . A . , l a t e C l a s s i c a l

Rev.

Scholar of Magdalen College, Cambridge.

Rev.

GEORGE T . P U R V E S , D . D . , L L . D . ,

Professor

IN

VOL.

ALEXANDER

I STEWART,

H.A.,

D.D.,

Prin-

cipal and P r i m a r i u s Professor of Divinity, St. Mary's College, University of St. Andrews.

of N e w Testament Literature and Exegesis in R e v . J A M E S STRACHAN, M . A . , S t . F e r g u s . Princeton Theological Seminary, N e w J e r - R e v . THOMAS B . STRONG, M . A . , S t u d e n t of C h r i s t sey. Cliurcli, O x f o r d .

W I L L I A M M . RAMSAY, M . A . , L L . D . , D . C . L . , P r o -

R e v . ISAAC TAYLOR, M . A . , L i t t . D . , L L . I ) . , R e c t o r

fessor of H u m a n i t y in the University of Aberof Settrington and Canon of York. deen, a n d formerly Fellow of Exeter and Lin- R e v . J O H N TAYLOR, M . A . , L i t t . D . , coln Colleges, Oxford. Winclicombe.

R e v . H E N R Y A . R E D P A T H , M . A . , V i c a r of

Spars-

holt with Kingstone Lisle, Berks.

R e v . ARCHIBALD

ROBERTSON, M . A . ,

cipal of King's College, London.

R e v . FORBES

D.D.,

H E N R Y ST. J O H N THACKERAY, M . A . , E x a m i n e r

and Theological Lecturer in Christ's Cambridge.

of in

the Education D e p a r t m e n t , formerly Divinity Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge.

PrinRev.

ROBINSON, M . A . , F e l l o w ,

Vicar

Chaplain,

College,

G.

W.

THATCHER,

M.A.,

B.D.,

Hebrew

T u t o r and Lecturer on Old Testament History and Literature in Mansfield College, Oxford.

R e v . JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, M . A . , D . D . , L i t t . D . , D.D., :

Bussey Professor of N e w Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity School of Fellow of Christ's College and Norrisian ProH a r v a r d University. fessor of Divinity in the University of Cam; C Ü T H B E R T HAMILTON T U R N E R , M . A . , F e l l o w of bridge. Magdalen College, O x f o r d . Rev. HERBERT EDWARD RYLE, M . A . , D.D., President of Queen's College, and Hulsean R e v . G E O R G E W A L K E R , M . A . , B . D . , C a l l a n d e r . Professor of Divinity in the University of R e v . B E N J A M I N B R E C K I N R I D G E W A R F I E L D , D . D . , Cambridge. L L . D . , Professor of Systematic Theology in R e v . S T E W A R T DINGWALL FORDYCE SALMOND, Princeton Theological Seminary, New J e r s e y . M . A . , D . D . , F . E . I . S . , Professor of Systematic L i e u t . - G e n e r a l S i r CHARLES W A R R E N , G . C . M . G . , Theology in the F r e e Church College, AberK . C . B . , F . R . S . , Royal Engineers. deen. R e v . J . ARMITAGE ROBINSON, M . A . , P h . D . ,

Rev.

ARCHIBALD

HENRY

R e v . CHARLES

ANDERSON

P a r k , London.

Rev. Rev.

JOHN

A.

cardineshire. JOHN

SELBIE,

SKINNER,

SCOTT,

M.A.,

M.A.,

LL.D.,

M.A.,

M.A.,

College

Maryculter, D.D.,

Professor of H e b r e w College, Glasgow. VINCENT

HENRY

in

M.A.,

the

Free

Helensburgh.

R e v . H E N R Y ALCOCK W H I T E , M . A . ,

T u t o r in t h e

late F e l l o w of New-

Rev. NEWPORT J . D. W H I T E , M . A . , B . D . , Assist-

ant Lecturer in Divinity a n d H e b r e w in the University of D u b l i n .

Kin-

Professor

D.D.,

R e v . ADAM C . W E L C H , M . A . , B . D . ,

University of D u r h a m ; College, O x f o r d .

R e v . OWEN C. WHITEHOÜSE, M . A . , P r i n c i p a l

of

Maior-General

LL.D.,j

Church '

Sir

R.E., K.C.B., F.R.S.

CHARLES

WILLIAM

K.C.M.G.,

D.C.L.,

WILSON,

LL.D.,

R e v . FRANCIS H E N R Y WOODS, M . A . , B . D . , STANTON,

M.A.,

Fellow of T r i n i t y College, and E l y Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. Theology, W a d h a m College, O x f o r d .

Vicar

of Chalfont St. Peter, B u c k s , a n d late Fellow and Theological L e c t u r e r of St. J o h n ' s College, Oxford.

D.D.,

J O H N F . STENNING, M . A . , L e c t u r e r i n H e b r e w a n d

and

Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology, Cheshunt College, Herts.

H e b r e w and Old Testament Exegesis in the Presbyterian College, London.

R e v . GEORGE ADAM S M I T H ,

Rev.

SYYCE,

Fellow of Queen's College, and Professor of Assyriology in the University of Oxford.

Rev.

I

JOHN

Syria.

WORTABET,

M.A.,

M.D.,

Beyrout,

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

A.—This letter is used in critical notes on the text of OT and NT to denote the Codex Alexandrinus, a MS of the Greek Bible written apparently in Egypt c. A.D. 460, placed in the library of the Patriarch of Alexandria in 1098, presented by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople (formerly of Alexandria), to Charles I. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. It con14 1 tains the whole Bible except Gn 14 " ' 151"518 9 M 16 M , 1 K [1 S] I2 -14 , Ps 49(50) -79(80)", Mt P-25«, Jn 65°-852, 2 Co 4 ,3 -12'. The Psalter is introduced by a letter of Athanasins to Mareellinus, the Hypotheses of Eusebius, and various tables; and is concluded by a collection of Canticles from OT and NT, and a Christian Morning Hymn. Rev is followed by two Epistles of Clement (wanting l5»"63 213"20), both apparently still in ecclesiastical use at the time when this MS. was written. Last of all, marked as extra-canonical, came eighteen Psalms of Solomon ; but this part has disappeared. Its readings in OT can be most readily ascertained from Professor Swete's edition of the LXX. Its NT text was published by Woide in 1786, by K. H. Cowper in 1860, and by E. H. Hansell in a parallel text, 1864. The whole MS was published in a photographic facsimile by the Curators of the British Museum in 1879. J. O. F. MURRAY.

of an Origenic character, certainly do not embody the complete Hex&plaric text. There seems to be no clear evidence to show either where the MS was written, or how it passed into the possession of the monks of St. Catherine. While in their possession it fell into decay, and long ago the outside sheets were cut up for bookbinding purposes; and Tischendorf was convinced that the sheets he rescued in 1844 were only waiting their turn for use in the oven. I t is not surprising, therefore, that the MS is now far from complete. It contains portions of Gn1 23. 24 and oi Nu 5. 6. 7 ; 1 Ch !F-19", 2 Es 9»-«™ [Ezr 9»-Neh], Est, To, J t h , 1 Mac, 4 Mae (3 Mac perhaps lost), Is, Jer, La l-22°, Jl, Ob, Jon, Nah, Hab, Zeph. Hag, Zee, Mai, Ps, Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Sir, Job The NT is complete, and is followed by the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hennas. The text has been published in facsimile typo(1) in 1846,' Cod. Frid.-Aug.,' containing the sheets of OT secured in 1844; (2) in 1862, ' Cod. Sin.,' containing, besides NT, the rest of OT, with the exception of a few verses (published in an appendix in 1867). Tischendorf also published the NT text in a handy volume in 1863. The OT readings are most easily accessible in Swete's edition of the LXX (Cambridge, 1887-95, ed. 2, 1895 8).

X (Aleph), the first letter in the Heb. alphabet. This symbol in crit. app. denotes the Codex Sinaiticus, a MS of the Greek Bible discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai by C. Tischendorf, 1844 and 1859. It was written towards the middle or end of the 4th cent. Four scribes a t least were employed on it. The scribe who copied Tobit and Judith wrote also9 six cancel leaves in the NT containing Mt 16 -1812 2436-266, Mk 14»-Lk 1 B , 1 Th 2"-5 28 , He 4I6-81, besides various headlines, titles, subscriptions, and section numbers. This scribe Tischendorf further identified with the scribe who wrote the NT in Codex B, Vaticanus (which see). The MS shows marks of revision due to various hands from the 4th cent, to the 12th cent. One of these, «"», 7th cent., declares in a note a t the end of 2 Es [EzrNeh] and at the end of Est, that he had compared the MS in these books with a very ancient copy transcribed by Antoninus the Confessor, and collated with Origen's Hexapla bv the holy martyr Pamphilus when in prison at Csesarea. The corrections introduced by him in these books, though

A.—A symbol used in OT criticism by Dillmann to signify the Priestly elements of the Hex., more usually known as P. See HEXATEUCH.

VOL. I . — I

J . O . F . MURRAY.

F . H . WOODS.

A is frequently used in AV, and sometimes retained in RV, in constructions that are now obsolete. I t is found both as an adj. (or indef. art.) and as a prep. 1. A, as an adj., is a worndown form of the Old English adj. an, 'one.' (1) In modern Eng. a is used before a consonantal sound, an before a vowel sound. In the Eng. VSS of the Bible this usage is not invariable. See AN. (2) A is found qualifying abstract17 nouns without affecting their meaning: Wis 12 ' thou art of a full power' (RV ' perfect in power'); 1219 ' to be of a good hope' (RV ' of good hope'); 2 Co 106 'having in a LA readiness' (RV ' being in readiness'); 2 Mac 13 ' commanded they should be in a readiness.' Cf. Guylforde, Pylgrymage 7 : ' alwaye in a redynesse to set forth when they woll.' On the other hand it is sometimes omitted where it is required for individualising •• Sir 39" ' at time convenient.' (3) In Lk 95a ' about

2

AARON

AARON

an eight days (RV about eight days) after these sayings'15the art. is used as in 4 a good m a n y ' ; so 1 Mac 4 * there were slain of them upon a three thousand men' (RV ' about three thousand'). 2. In other expressions A is a prep., being a worn-down4 form of an or on, ana stands for the modern a t / 'in,' or 'on.' 2 Ch 2W 'three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people a work' (RV ' awork'); 1 Co 97 'who goeth a warfare (RV3 ' serveth'} any time at his own charges?' J t h 7 'horsemen . . . and other men that were afoot.' Most8 frequently with a verbal noun in ' i n g ' : 2 Ch 16 'wherewith Baasha was a building' (AV of 1611» later edd. 'was building,' KV 'had builded'); 1 Es 620 'Being still a building, it is not yet fully ended'; Lk 8® ' She lay a dying.' The full form an or on remained side Ly side with this worn-down form : Ac 13s* 4 David . . . fell on sleep'; Mt 4a ' He was afterward an hungered ' (RV ' He afterward hungered.' 'An 26hungered' occurs also Mt 121, 8 253a. 87. 42.« Mk 2 , Lk 6», and in all these places RV leaves it unchanged).

and seventy elders of Israel (24lf* 9 * n ); and when Moses with Joshua alone is about to approach still nearer to God, Aaron and Hur are temporarily appointed supreme judges of the people (2413-" E). Moses' absence being prolonged, Aaron, at the people's request, makes a golden calf as a visible symbol of J", for which he afterwards weakly excuses himself to Moses, throwing the blame upon the people (321"0,2l'25). At a later period Aaron with Miriam opposes Moses, on the ground that they also are recipients of divine revelations, Miriam being apparently regarded as the leader on this occasion, since the punishment falls upon her (Nu 12 E). Some further particulars relating to Aaron are to be learnt from Dt, in passages apparently based on the narrative of J E ; namely the intercession offered by Moses on his account after the making of the golden calf (Dt 9 20 ); the choice of Levi as the priestly tribe, probably in consequence of the zeal shown by them against the idolaters (108f-) ; the death of Aaron at Moserah (site unknown), and the succession of his son Eleazar to the priestly office (108-\ the itinerary probably from E, of.. Nu 2ii2f.iB. i8fr.^ ^he last passage is important as showing that the tradition of a hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron was found even outside the priestly history. Comp. Jos 24M E, where mention is made of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron.

Literature.—Besidei the necessary edd. of the Eng. Bible, Skeat, Etymoi. Diet, of the Eng. Lang.2; Murray and Bradley, Eng. Diet, on Hist. Principles (called the Oxford, Eng. Diet.); Whitney, Century Diet.; Wright, Bible Word Book*; Michie, Bible Words ana Phrases; Mayhew, Select Glossary of Bible Words; Trench, Select Glossary; together with the Concordances to Shakespeare, Milton, etc.; and the Clarendon Press and Pitt Press edd. of the En;, works of the period. J . HASTINGS.

AARON LXX 'Kaptbv).—In the narratives of the Exodus, Aaron is, after Moses, the most prominent figure. Often appearing as the colleague or representative of the great leader and lawgiver, he is in particular the priest, and the head of the Israelitish priesthood. We must, however, distinguish between our different authorities in the Pent., for in the priestly narrative Aaron not unnaturally occupies a far more important place than in the earlier account of JE. In JE, Aaron is first introduced as Moses1 brother, and with the title of the Levite, in Ex 14 4 J, where J", sending Moses on his mission to the Israelites, appoints him, on account of his fluency in speech, to be the spokesman of Moses to tne people (vv. u-M ), Aaron meets his brother in the mount of God ; together they return to Egypt and assemble the elders of the Israelites, before whom Aaron, instructed by Moses, delivers God's message and performs the appointed signs. The people believe; but when Moses and Aaron request Pharaoh to grant the people temporary leave of absence, the king refuses to listen to them (Ex 4—61). In the account of the plagues Aaron occupies quite a subordinate place, being the silent companion of his brother. It is Moses who is sent to Pharaoh and announces the coming plagues (Ex 714ff- 9lfl< *>*• 9lff> 13ff- [J mainly]—with 103 contrast 10® *he turned'). Aaron is merely called in four times 8along with Moses to entreat for their removal (8 -M 1016). Indeed it seems probable that the mention of Aaron in these passages is due, not to the original narrative of J, but to the editor who combined J and E ; for in each case Moses alone answers, and in his own 18 name; in 8s® 9s® 10 his departure alone is mentioned, while in 8 ia it is Moses alone who prays for the removal of the frogs. In the history of the wanderings the passages relating to Aaron are for the most part derived from E, where indeed Miriam is described as the sister of Aaron (1520). With Hur he assists Moses in holding up the10,12 rod of God to ensure the defeat of Amalek (17 E), and together with the elders he is called to Jethro's sacrifice (18iaE). AtSinai,while priests and people remain below, Aaron accompanies Moses up the mountain (19^ J), together with Nadab, Abihu,

It is, however, in the priestly tradition, where the institution of the ordinances of divine worship is described at length, that Aaron figures most prominently as the founder of the Israelitish priesthood, and becomes, indeed, with Moses the joint leader of the people. P records several details respecting Aaron's family : he is the son of Amram and Jochebed (Ex 620),s9 and three years older than Moses (ib. V, Nu 33 ). His wife was Elisheba, his sons Nadab, Abihu (cf. Ex 241'9 E ?), 33 Eleazar (cf. Jos 24 E), and Ithamar. See Ex fi23 etc. A slightly different representation of Aaron's first commission is given m Ex 62-7113 P, from that in the parallel narrative Ex 4-6 JE. Here Aaron is appointed the spokesman of Moses, not to the people, but to Pharaoh (see 71), and it is before the king that Aaron works a wonder, turning his rod into a serpent. From this point onwards the importance assigned to Aaron in P becomes very marked. He regularly cooperates with Moses at the time or the Egyp. plagues, usually bringing these to pass by means of his rod in accordance with Moses' instructions (Ex 7UI* 8M* 16f>). Many commands8 of God are addressed to both leaders alike (Ex 9 "10 121-48, Lv 11» 131 14» 15l, Nu 2\ cf. 8 they are consulted by the people (Nu 9 15®, cf. 132®), and against botn of them the murmurings of the3 4fpeople are directed (Ex 16*, Nu 142, cf.28 18 2 16 - cf. 20 ). All this, however, does not prevent distinct and characteristic parts being assigned to each of them. Thus the first place is given to Moses throughout. He receives the divine revelation on Mount Sinai respecting the appointment 1of4 Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Ex 28 " 29^), and upon the completion of the tabernacle solemnly consecrates them, and offers the appointed sacrifices (Ex 29, Lv 8. 9). Aaron,10on 19the 21other hand, is specially ' t h e priest' (Ex 31 35 38 , Lv 13s, Nu 182*),48who stays a plague by an offering of incense (Nu 16 "48);5,19,2?f to his charge the tabernade is committed {ib. 4 - ^j, and to him the Levites are given in exchange for the firstborn {ib. 33air')- Aaron is distinguished from his sons, the inferior priests, by the anointing which he receives 32(Ex 1029127, Lv 8 ia ,s5 cf. Ex 2929, L v 43.6.16 g2o. 23 16 21 - , Nu 35 ): — passages which speak of his sons as being also anointed

AARO.NITES probably belong to the later additions to the Priestly Code (Ex 2841 303° 40IS, Lv 73s, Nu 33). Between the family of Aaron and the rest of the Levites a sharp distinction is drawn (see esp. Nu 3. 4). In this connection it is to be noticed that in the main portion of Nu 16 Korah's companions in his rebellion are called ' princes of the congregation' (162), i.e. not all Levites (cf. Nu 27 3 ); their complaints are directed against the exclusive claims of the tribe of Levi, and all murmuring« are finally silenced by the miraculous budding of the rod of Aaron, the representative of the house of Levi (Nu 171'11). But certain additions seem to have been made to the chapter to emphasize a different point, and in these passages Korah's companions are regarded as wholly Levites, who protest against the superior claims of the house of Aaron (Nu 169""-1®-'»-3«-'»). See further, PKIESTS ; a l s o AARONITES, AARON'S ROD, KORAH.

For failing to show due honour to J " a t Meribah Kadesh, in the fortieth year of the wanderings, Aaron was forbidden to enter the promised land (Nu 208"ls). Shortly afterwards, accompanied bv Moses and his own son Eleazar, Aaron ascended Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom, and after being solemnly stripped of his priestly garments, which were put on Eleazar, died there a t the age of 123 (Nu 2022"29 3338'- P). The site of Mount Hor is uncertain, the traditional identification with Jebel Nebi Harun, S.W. of Petra, being very doubtful (see Dillm. on Nu 20 22 ); the itinerary of P (Nu 33s0"88) names six stages between Moseroth (Dt 10® Moserah) and Mt. Hor. In the older literature outside the Pent., the mission of Moses and Aaron in Egypt is alluded to in Jos 24" E, and 1 S 12s-8 (a passage which has affinities with E). Micah (64) names as the leaders of the people at the time of the Exodus, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, but Aaron is not mentioned elsewhere in the prophets. H. A. WHITE. AARONITES (JhqN -j? 'sons of Aaron').—This phrase might, according to Sem. idiom, denote either the members of a class or guild (comp. sons of Korah, sons of Asaph, sons of the prophets), or members of a family connected by blood kinship. As used in OT it was understood in the latter sense, all the priests, a t anyrate from the time of the second temple, tracing their descent from Aaron, as the head and founder of the Israelitish priesthood. The term does not occur earlier than the priestly portions of the Pent., where in certain groups of laws the epithet Aaronites is often given to the priests (see esp. Lv 1-3, and comp. 69 ' Aaron and his sons'), and a sharp distinction is drawn between the Aaronite priests and the Levites who wait upon them (see esp. Nu 3W 16« 181-'). I t is doubtful whether any mention of the Aaronites or seed of Aaron was to be found in the original H (Law of Holiness), the present text of Lv 172 211-17-21 • 24 22 2 - 4 ' 18 being probably due to the R. The Chronicler divides the priests into the houses of Eleazar and Ithamar, assigning sixteen courses to the former and eight to the l a t t e r ; and, probably without ood authority, he connects the former with the adokite priests of Jerus., and the latter with the family of Eli (I Ch 24), though the name of one of Eli's sons (cf. also 1 S 22"-) would suggest a connexion between this family and Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Jos 2433). Throughout his work the priests are frequently termed the Aaronites (sons of Aaron)—viz. 1 Ch 6M-57 154 2 3 3 2 24'- 31 2 Ch 13»-» 2618 2921 3119 33", Neh 1038 12". In ] Ch 1227 27" the house or family of Aaron is placed on a level with the other tribes; and similarly in some late Psalms, by the side of the House of Israel and the House of Levi, the priestly

f

3

ABADIAS 1

class is described as the House of Aaron (Pa 115 "-" 118 s 135 1 8 ).

H . A. WHITE.

AARON'S ROD.—Aaron's rod is the centre of interest in an important incident of the desert wanderings—time and place are both uncertain— as recorded by the priestly narrator (P), Nu 171'11 (Heb. text 1716"26). The passage should be studied in connexion with the more complex narrative in ch. 16, to the events of which the incident in uestion forms the sequel (see Driver, LOT 59 f.). n obedience to a divine command, 12 rods, representing the 12 princes of the tribes, each with the name of a prince engraved upon it, together with a 13th rod (cf. Vulg. fueruntque virgse duodecim absque virga Aaron) to represent the tribe of Levi, but bearing the name of Aaron, were deposited by Moses before ' t h e testimony,'i.e. before the ark. The following morning it was found that ' the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and put forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and bare ripe almonds' (17s RV), by which it was miraculously proved t h a t J" had Himself selected the tribe of Levi to be the exclusive possessors of the priestly prerogatives. The standpoint of the narrator is thus different from that of a later stratum in the foregoing section, which represents a party of Levites in revolt against the exclusive nesthood of the sons of Aaron. ' Aaron's rod that udded' was ordered to be put back to its former place 'before the [ark of the] testimony' (1710) as a token to future generations of the divine choice. A later Jewish tradition, at variance with this command, and with the express statement of 1 K 8", is found in He S*, and in later Jewish writers, that the rod, like the pot of manna, had a place with the tables of stone within the ark.

?

A . R . S . KENNEDY. A B . — S e e NAMES (PROPER), a n d TIME.

ABACUC—The form in which the name of the prophet Habakkuk appears in 2 Es l 40 . ABADDON.—This word is found in the OT only in the Wisdom Literature. When it first appears, the old view of Sheol as a place where the family, national, and social distinctions of the world above are reproduced, had been partially displaced; and in some measure the higher conception had gained acceptance, which held t h a t in Sheol at all events moral distinctions were paramount, and t h a t men were treated there according to their deserts. In Job 3112 Abaddon (¡njs) bears the general meaning of • ruin,' • destruction.' I But see Dillm. and Dav. in loc.) In the other instances of its occurrence, however, it is specialised, and designates the place of the lost in Sheol. Thus in J o b 26s, P r 15" 2720 (max, in KerS jhjK) it occurs in conjunction with ' S h e o l ' ( W ) , and in Ps 88" with ' g r a v e ' (•np). Again, in Job 2823 a further development is to be observed. In this passage it is linked with death (mo), and personified in the same way as we find K;cif> in Dn 423 and Hades in Rev 6 s , and DOT and oipD in the Talmud. The word is found once more in the Bible in Rev 9". In this passage it is used as the proper name of a prince of the infernal regions, and explained by the word 'AiroXXiW = 'Destroyer.' In the LXX [nan is always rendered by i-mbXem, except in Job 3112 where LSiX implies a different text. The first two meanings above given are found in the Aram, and later Heb Finally, in the latter in the 'Emek Hammeiech, f. 15 3, Abaddon becomes the lowest place of Gehenna. CHARLES.

ABADIAS ( A/3aJia!), 1 Es 8s5.—Son of Jezelus of the sons of Joab, returned with Ezra from captivity Called Obadiah. son of Jehiel, Ezr 8'. H . ST. J . THACKERAY.

4

ABAGTHA

A13DA

10

ABAGTHA ( N ^ S , E s t l ), one of t h e seven chamberlains or eunuchs sent by A h a s u e r u s (Xerxes) to fetch the queen, Vashti, to his banquet. The name, which is apparently Persian, is probably a k i n to the names Bigtha (l 10 ) and Bigthan (221). For the derivation, bagdana=' God's gift,' has been suggested, but cannot be regarded as certain. In the LXX the names of the chamberlains are quite different from t h e Hebrew. II. A . WHITE.

ABANAH (n;;*, Ker6 n;cN, A V A b a n a ; A V m Amana, R V m A m a n a h ; 2 K 512). This ' river of Damascus,' t h e Chrysorrhoas of t h e Greeks,is identified with t h e Barada, to whose w a t e r s Damascus owes her life. Rising in the uplands near Baalbec, it drains t h e hollow in the bosom of Anti-Lebanon. 'Ain

el Barada,

i n t h e p l a i n of Zebeddny,

swells

the stream, which then plunges down t h e deep picturesque gorge of Wady Barada. About 14 miles N . W . of Damascus, in a beautiful romantic spot in t h e h e a r t of t h e hills, rises the mighty fountain el Fijeh {Gr. ir-qy-fi, a s p r i n g ) ; a river born in a moment, which, a f t e r a brief, foaming course, joins t h e Barada, more t h a n doubling its volume. I t then flows along t h e bottom of a deep winding valley, shaded by beautiful and f r u i t f u l trees ; bare, yellow rocks towering high on either hand above t h e green. A b o u t half t h e w a t e r is led captive along the eastern b a n k towards the city, t h e Beyrout road passing between the streams. J u s t where t h e precipitous clifts advance as if t o close t h e gorge, it escapes from t h e mountains, and, throwing itself o u t f a n l i k e in m a n y branches, waters the plain, supplies t h e city, and drains off into t h e northern two of t h e m a r s h y lakes eastward. One branch is called Nahr Banias, a reminiscence of t h e ancient name. W . EWING. ABARIM ( o n ^ n ) . — A plural form of t h e word signifying ' p a r t beyond ' ; and with respect to t h e J o r d a n , on t h e E. side of it. I t is used as a proper name preceded by "in 4 m o u n t 5 (Nu 2712, D t 324y), and by ' mountains ' (Nu 3347). I t is also found with [see IYE-ABARIM] (NU 2 1 n 3344). In all these places the def. art. is used with Abarim, but in J e r 22-u (RV Abarim, A V 4 the passages') the def. art. is not used. For t h e geogr. position see NEBO. The L X X translate A. by T6 iripav, except in N u 3347, D t 324a where t h e y have rd (rd) 'Apapeivfa). For Ezk 39 n , and a very d o u b t f u l use of this word, s e e S m e n d , in lac.

A . T . CHAPMAN.

ABASE, ABASEMENT. — A b a s e is three times used in AY, and retained in R V t o translate ^sy sh&jihcl, otherwise rendered ' b r i n g l o w ' or ' m a k e low,' ' b r i n g d o w n ' or ' b o w down,' ' h u m b l e ' ; and once to t r . n ^ , Is 314 ' h e will not be a f r a i d of their voice, nor abase himself ( = be cast down) for t h e noise of t h e m . ' In N T it is five times used to render raireivou, changed in R V into ' humble,' except in P h 412 ' I know how to be abased,' a n d 2 Co l l 7 ' C o m m i t a sin in abasing myself.' A b a s e m e n t , meaning humiliation, occurs in Sir 2 0 n ' There is a a a. because of g l o r y ; and there is t h a t l i f t e t h up his head f r o m a low estate.' Cf. Sir 2523 R V ' A wicked woman is a. of h e a r t ' (AV ' a b a t e t h t h e courage'). Notice t h a t ' abasem e n t ' a n d ' b a s e m e n t 5 (a mod. word) are distinct, both in derivation a n d meaning. J . HASTINGS.

shall be made) from t h y e s t i m a t i o n ' (Lv 271B) (See ESTIMATION'.) ' T h e waters were a b a t e d (RV ' d e c r e a s e d ' ) (Gn 8 s ). R V t r . still another Heb. w o r d ' a b a t e d ' in N u l l 8 ( A V ' w a s q u e n c h e d ' ) . T h e word is also found with t h e same sense in W i s 16'24, Sir 2523, 1 Mac 5 3 ll 4 9 . Cf. Shakespeare 4

Abate thy rage, abate thy manlv rag-e.' —Henry

V. III. ii. 24.

A n d W a l t o n , ' Lord, a b a t e m y g r e a t affliction, 01 increase m y patience,' Lives, iv. 288. J . HASTINGS.

ABBA.—The transliteration (a/3;3a) of t h e Aram, word for ' f a t h e r ' ; see, for example, t h e Targ. of Onk. (perhaps of the 1st cent.) a t Gn 1934 (cr. G. D a l m a n , Gram.

d. jud.-palast.

Aramaisch,

§ 4 0 , c.

3). I t occurs three times in t h e N T , a n d always in direct address, viz. in our Lord's prayer in Gethsemane as given by St. M a r k (143b), and in t h e ' c r y ' of the Spirit as referred t o by Sc. Paul (Ro 815, Gal 46). The phenomena connected with t h e form and use of t h e word have occasioned divers opinions, t h e merits of which our present knowledge does not always enable us to pronounce upon with positiveness. I t has been held, for instance (see John

Lightfoot,

Horce

Hebr.

ad

Mc.

I.e.),

that

when spelt with t h e double b a n d final a, t h e word refers to physical f a t h e r h o o d ; accordingly, our Lord's choice of t h a t form is t h o u g h t to indicate special closeness of relationship. B u t the f r e q u e n t use of Abba simply as a title of honour in t h e Mishna and Tosefta seems t o disprove t h i s opinion (Schurer, HJP § 25, n. 30 ; cf. J g 1710, 2 K 2 i 2 , M t 239). On t h e other hand, it has been asserted t h a t in Syr. t h e word with t h e double b denotes a spiritual father, with a single b t h e n a t u r a l . B u t this distinction also seems not to be sustained by usage (see P a y n e Smith's Lexicon, s.v.). Again, it is noteworthy that the Gr. equivalent, 6 irar^p, is appended to the term in all three instances of its occurrence. The second Evangelist, indeed, in other cases sometimes introduces t h e Aram, t e r m s used b y our Lord (see 541 7 1 1 , 3 4 ); but in those cases t h e added Gr. translation is preceded by a n explanatory phrase distinctly m a r k i n g i t as such. Moreover, t h e Apostle P a u l makes the same addition of 0 irar^p in both instances. Had t h e t e r m ' A b b a , ' then, become a quasi proper name ? Indications are not w a n t i n g tliat i t had already t a k e n on a degree of conventional sacredness; servants were forbidden to use i t in addressing t h e head of t h e house (Berachoth 166, cited by Delitzsch on Rom. I.e.). I t seems to have been t h e favourite appellation of God employed by J e s u s in prayer (cf. M t ll 2 5 - 2 8 2G 39 - 42 ,.Lk 1021 2242 23 w , J n l l 4 1 1227-2» 1 7 u n - ; 4 ' 2 5 ) . This would greatly promote i t s use in Christian circles; and though t h e second word w as probably added primarily by Gr.-speaking J e w s in explanation of t h e first, usage doubtless soon gave t h e phrase t h e force of an intensified repetition and the currency of a devotional formula. Merely impassioned repetition, indeed, ordinarily adheres to

the

same

term

(as

Ktipie,

Kvpte,

Mt

722 ;

^Xi,

7]\[t 27 46 ); such expressions, therefore, as val, a w , Rev l 7 (cf. 2 Co l 2 0 ); ' A m e n , So be i t ' ; ' H a l l e l u j a h , Praise t h e Lord,' are closer analogues. Rabbinical examples are n o t wanting of similar combinations; see Schoettgen, Horce Eebr.

o n M a r k , I.e.

J . H . THAYI;R.

ABDA (N^ny), 'servant, sc. of the Lord'; cf. names ABATE.—This verb occurs only six times in AV (all in OT), and yet i t translates five Obadiah, Abdeel, Ebed.—1. 'Epd B, 'A/3a. great power.' (A) To dwell, reside, as Lk 8 " 'And 2. A sister of Zeruiah—and according to 1 Ch 2W wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, also of David—who through her union with Ithra but in the tombs' ; Ps 61" ' I will abide (RV the Ishmaelite (see art. ITIIRA) became mother of ' dwell ') in Thy tabernacle for ever ' ; J n S35 Amasa. The words in 2 S 1725 (pro ju), which ' And the bond-servant abideth not in the 5house assert that she was a daughter of Nahash, are for ever : the son abideth for ever ' ; Jn 15 ' He probably an intrusion from v.w (tra )3 = the son of that abideth in Me, and I in him.' (c) To last, Nahash); cf. Weilhausen, i.l. G. B. GRAY. endure (esp. in the face of trial, cf. 1 (A), above), as 1 Co 3" < If any man's work abide'; Ps 119* ABIHAIL (Heb. fe'ss! 'father is might').— ' Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.' Abiding, as an adj., is used by BV, He 1031 ' a According to the Massora s the name is read V.nK better possession and an a. one,' and 13" 'an a. (with n, not n) in 1 Ch 2 2 Ch 11«; but this is probably the result of a pre-Massoretic tran-

8

ABIHU

ABILENE s5

Bcriptional error. 1. Mentioned only in N u 3 (P) in t h e phrase ' Zuriel, son of A b i h a i l ' (see ZURIEL). 2. 4 W i f e ' of A b i s h u r , 1 Ch 2 s9 . 3. D a u g h t e r of Eliab, son of Jesse, and consequently a niece of David's. T h e only passage (2 Ch ll 3 8 ) where she is mentioned is slightly c o r r u p t ; b u t , according to t h e most probable emendation, Abihail was t h e m o t h e r of R e h o b o a m ' s wife M a h a l a t h . According to a n o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Abihail was wife of Rehoboam ; b u t this is n o t t h e n a t u r a l sense of t h e Heb. t e x t , a n d is out of h a r m o n y with t h e c o n t e x t ; v v iy. 20 imply t h a t only one wife h a s been mentioned. 4. In t h i s case the n a m e occurs only in 1 Ch 5 W in a Gadite genealogy ; this Abihail was a p p a r e n t l y a clan resident in Gilead. 5. F a t h e r of E s t h e r , a n d uncle of Mordecai (Est 2 16 9 s9 ). F o r t h e curious v a r i a n t of L X X , which gives t h e r e g u l a r L X X equivalent of Abinadab, i t is difficult to account. ABIHU (wiva* ' h e is A a r o n b y Elisheba (Ex 24 J ): accompanied Moses 24 1 * 9 ): a d m i t t e d t o t h e slain for offering s t r a n g e 1 Ch 242).

G . B . GRAY.

f a t h e r ' ) , second son of 6 s3 , N u 3 2 206y, 1 Ch 6 3 t o t h e top of Sinai (Ex priest's office ( E x 28 1 ): tire (Lv JO1*2, N u 3 4 2G61, VV. C. ALLEN.

ABIHUD (h.t?r ' m y f a t h e r is m a j e s t y ' ) . — A B e n j a m i t e , son of Bela (1 Ch 83). See GENEALOGY.

reads like an echo of the heroic a g e of Israel 4 J e r o b o a m caused a n ambuslinient to come about behind t h e m . . . . t h e priests sounded w i t h the t r u m p e t s (cf. N u 10* 31«, J o s 6 16 ), t h e n t h e men of J u d a h gave a shout (cf. J o s 6 2 0 ); a n d a s t h e men of J udah shouted, i t came t o pass t h a t God smote J e r o b o a m and all Israel.* T n r e e cities of Israel were t a k e n : Bethel, J e s h a n a h , and E p h r o n . T h e last t w o are otherwise u n k n o w n , unless E p h r o n or E p h r a i n (RVm) be t h e s a m e a s E p h r a i m (2 S 1323, J n ll 5 4 ). Bethel m u s t soon h a v e been recovered b y B a a s h a (2 Ch 161). A f t e r t h i s we are told t h a t A b i j a h ' w a x e d m i g h t y , and took u n t o himself fourteen wives.' P r e s u m a b l y m o s t of his t h i r t y - e i g h t children were born before h e came to t h e throne. T h e Chronicler m e n t i o n s a s his aut h o r i t y for t h i s reign t h e c o m m e n t a r y (Midrash) of t h e prophet Iddo, who was also one of t h e biographers of Rehoboam. 2. Samuel's second son, who w i t h his brother J o e l judged a t Beersheba (1 S 8-). T h e i r c o r r u p t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of justice was one of t h e reasons alleged b y t h e elders of Israel in j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r d e m a n d for a king. The R V retains the spelling A b i a h in I Ch 6» 3. A son of J e r o b o a m I. w h o died in childhood. H i s m o t h e r h a v i n g gone disguised t o t h e prophet A h i j a h to inquire if he should recover, received the h e a v y tidings of t h e f u t u r e annihilation of the house of J e r o b o a m , a n d of t h e i m m e d i a t e d e a t h of her child, ' t a k e n a w a y from t h e evil t o c o i n s ' : ' A n d all Israel shall m o u r n for h i m , and b u r y him ; for he only of J e r o b o a m shall coine t o t h e grave, because in him t h e r e is found some good thing t o w a r d t h e LORD t h e God of Israel in t h e hou.se of J e r o b o a m ' (1 K 1413). 5. 1 Ch 2410. One of t h e ' h e a d s of fathers 5 h o u s e s ' of t h e sons of Eleazar, who gave his n a m e to t h e 8 t h of t h e 24 courses of priests, t h e arrangem e n t of w h o m is ascribed t o David (1 Ch 243, 2 Ch 8 14 ). To t h i s course Zacharias, t h e f a t h e r of J o h n t h e Baptist, belonged (Lk l 5 ). It is probable t h a t t h i s clan, and n o t a n individual, is indicated in t h e lists of priests who ' w e n t up with Z e r u b b a b e l ' (Neh I24). L X X omits t h i s a n d other n a m e s in N e h 12 (they a r e supplied by K c,a -), and in t h e list of priests w h o ' sealed u n t o t h e covenan~' in t h e t i m e of Nehemiah (107) ('Apad, B, *). Of t he 21 n a m e s in Neh 10, 13 occur in n e a r l y t h e same order in a list of 22 in ch. 12, while t h r e e others are very s i m i l a r ; and of t h e names in these t w o lists 9 a r e f o u n d in t h e n a m e s of David's courses. On t h e other hand, ' t h e book of t h e genealogy of t h e m t h a t came u p a t t h e f i r s t ' (Neh 7, E a r 2) m e n t i o n s only f o u r families of priests, n o r do t h e r e seem to have been more in t h e t i m e of Ezr (1013"22). 5. A son of Becher, son of B e n j a m i n , 1 Ch 78. 6. R V r e t a i n s 4 A b i a h , ' 1 Ch 2 s4 . W i f e of Hezron, eldest son of Perez, son of J u d a h . She 21 was probably d a u g h t e r of Machir (2 ). 7. W i f e of Ahaz, and m o t h e r of Hezekiah (2 Ch 29 1 ), named Abi, 2 K 182. Her father Zechariah is possibly mentioned in I s 8 2 .

ABIJAH (.T;N ' J a h is m y f a t h e r ' ) . — 1 . K i n g of J u d a h (ifrai«, 2 Ch 1320-21). H e is called A b i j a m (Vulg. Abiam), 1 K 14 3i 151-7-8- Nestle explains t h i s as equivalent t o cjrax ' f a t h e r of t h e p e o p l e ' ; b u t since A b i j a h is read by t h i r t e e n of K e n n i c o t t ' s a n d de Rossi's MSS, supported by t h e L X X 'A/Stotf, A b i j a m is probably a m i s t a k e . A s being t h e eldest son of M a a c a h , t h e favourite wife of Rehoboam, his f a t h e r appointed him ' to be chief, even t h e prince a m o n g his b r e t h r e n ; for he was minded to m a k e h i m k i n g ' (2 Ch 1l 22 ). H i s m o t h e r ' s n a m e is variously given a s M a a c a h t h e d a u g h t e r of Abishalom (1 K 152) (Absalom, 2 Ch ll 20 -* 1 ), or Micaiah t h e d a u g h t e r of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Ch 132). See MAACAH. H e reigned a b o u t t w o years, f r o m t h e e i g h t e e n t h to t h e t w e n t i e t h y e a r of Jeroboam. T h e r e is probably no reign t h e accounts of which in Kings a n d Chronicles a r e so discrepant as t h a t of A b i j a h . I n K i n g s t h e r e is n o t h i n g related of h i m except t h a t ' h e walked in all t h e sins of his f a t h e r , ' and t h a t ' t h e r e was war between A b i j a m a n d J e r o b o a m ' ; a n d , in t h e history of Asa, an incidental allusion t o ' t h i n g s t h a t A b i j a h had d e d i c a t e d ' for t h e temple. I n f a c t , a s in t h e case of J e h o r a m (2 K 8' 9 ), he was spared by God merely on account of t h e divine promise to "David. B u t in Chronicles n o t only is t h e r e much additional historical m a t t e r , b u t A b i j a h seems to be a g r e a t and good m a n , a n d he is made t h e u t t e r e r of a sort of m a n i f e s t o of t h e theocratic principles of J u d a h . T h e desultory w a r f a r e implied in Kings becomes in Chronicles"one decisive pitched b a t t l e f o u g h t in t h e t e r r i t o r y of E p h r a i m , in which A b i j a h ' s a r m y of 400,000 slay 500,000 out of t h e 800,000 marshalled b y J e r o b o a m . T h e b a t t l e is preceded by N. J. D. WHITE. an oration spoken on M t . Zemaraira by A b i j a h . ABIJAM.—See ABIJAH. A f t e r strongly affirming t h e divine r i g h t of t h e Davidic line, h e dwells on t h e previous i m p i e t y of A B I L E N E fAjfcXiH), Lk S 1 .—A t e t r a r c h y a b o u t J e r o b o a m ' s rebellion against Rehoboam when t h e l a t t e r ' w a s young and tender-hearted, and could A.D. 26 in Syria (Jos. Ant. XVIII. vi. 10, XIX. v. 1, n o t w i t h s t a n d t h e m ; and now ye t h i n k to w i t h s t a n d XX. vii. 1 ; Wars, II. xi. 5), the cap. being a t Abila t h e k i n g d o m of t h e Lord in t h e hands of t h e sons of on t h e N . slope of Hermon. T h e r u i n s of Abila David.' T h e gods and priests of J u d a h and Israel are surround a small village on t h e r i g h t b a n k of t h e ' t h e m a r k e t of t h e sharply contrasted : ' W h o s o e v e r cometh to conse- river a t Silk Wddy Barada, c r a t e himself w i t h a young bullock and seven rams, valley of t h e A b a n a River.' T h e n a m e h a s given the same m a y be a priest of them t h a t are no gods.' rise t o a local t r a d i t i o n (based on t h e Koran) t h a t The ceremonial of t h e daily worship a t J e r u s a l e m is Cain here buried Abel, whose t o m b is shown a t a m i n u t e l y described, and t h e loyalty of J u d a h to large t a n k cut in t h e rock on t h e t o p of a clill' to J* is twice affirmed. The b a t t l e which follows t h e south. I t is also preserved in t h e L a t i n text of Lucius Verus, on t h e N. side of t h e rock-cut

ABILITY

ABIMELECH

passage of t h e Iipm. road W . of the town. The region of Abilene is also noticed in a (ir. text found in 1873 a t l i u r k u s h on Hermon, showing t h a t t h e district included t h e Antilebanon and Hermon, N . W . of Damascus. There is a cemetery a t Abila of liom. rock-cut tombs on the left of the stream, which here forms a cascade. They are adorned with bas-relief busts, and there are several tombstones with Gr. texts, giving the names of Lucius, Archelaus, Phedistus, Antonia, and Philander. N. of t h e river and E. of t h e town are foundations of a small Rom. temple. LITERATURE.—Reland, Palästina, p. 527 if.; Robinson, Later BR, pp. 479-484; Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, p. 352 f. ; Schürer, BJP I. ii. 835-339; Conder, Tent-Work in Pal. p. 127 ; Furrer, Zeitschrift ties deutschen Palästina- Vereins, viii. -Kl; SWP Special Papers; Waddington, Jnscrip. Grec. et Lat. de la Syrie, s.v. 'Abila.' C. R. CONDER.

ABILITY.—Both in OT and N T ability occurs in two senses, which m u s t be distinguished. 1. I t signifies material capacity, resources, wealth, as Ezr 2® ' T h e y gave a f t e r their a. (lieb. 'acc. as his hand m a y reach ') into the t r e a s u r y ' ; Lv 278 ' According to t h e a. of him t h a t vowed shall the priest value him.' Cf. L X X of Lv 252"-Ja with Ac l l 2 0 below ; and ' Out of my lean and low ability I'll lend you something:.' —Shakespeare, T. N. iii. 4.

This is t h e meaning also of An ll 2 9 ' T h e n t h e disciples, every man according to his a., determined to send relief unto t h e brethren,' though the original is a verb, «atfcos ev-rropuro m , meaning ' acc. as each prospered.' 2. I t signifies personal capacity, strength of body or of mind. Thus Dn 1 J ' Such as had a. (ra) in them to stand in the king's p a l a c e ' ; M t 2ä 15 ' He gave talents . . . to every man according to Iiis several a. (Sfoaim).' So W i s 13 w , Sir 313 A V m . I n modern Eng. a. is almost confined to mental capacity, though one hears it locally used of physical strength. In the sense of wealth the latest example found is in Goldsmith's Vicar of Wake-field. J . HASTINGS.

ABIMAEL (l-N?'®, perhaps = ' f a t h e r is God,' but t h e force of t h e o is uncertain) was one of the J o k t a n i d s or (S.) Arabians (see art, JOKTAN), Gn 10-'s (J), 1 Ch I 22 . Nothing f u r t h e r is known of this tribe, hut it is m a r k w o r t h y t h a t another n a m e of the same peculiar formation, viz. -ifijiDnx, has been found on t h e S. Arabian inscriptions; see D. H . Müller in ZDMG 1883, p. 18. G . B . GRAY.

ABIMELECH ( ^ j ^ S 'Melech [Malki or Molech] is father').—1. A king of Gerar mentioned in connexion with t h e history of Abraham, Gn 20 1 ' 17 2)22-32

( t o t l l

a n d

o{ IsaaCi G n

2g7-u.2a.33 j j ^

J)_

W i t h all their points of difference, it appears impossible to resist t h e conclusion t h a t we have in J and E two variants of t h e same story. In both t h e patriarch resorts to t h e same method of defence to protect himself from t h e same danger (20a 26'); in Doth A. is righteously indignant a t the deceit practised upon him (20!ltr- 20 l u ); in both a t r e a t y is entered into with A. (2l2si- 2(i28'-); in both Phicol 32 2Ö33) are mentioned. (2i22 26=«) and Boersheba (21 In all probability J has preserved t h e earlier form of the tradition, acc. to which Isaac, and not Abraham, was the patriarch concerned. The parallel story in Gn IS1»'20 (where Pharaoh of Egypt takes the place of A. of Gerar) is also from a Jahwistic source, but scarcely from the sam® pen as 267"11. If t h e title J ' be adopted for t h e latter, we m a y designate t h e other J 2 , whether we accept or not of Kuenen's theory t h a t he edited a Judaian- recension of J . LITERATDRE.— Comm. of Dillm. and Del. on Gm. II. eit.; Cornill, Einleite 5 4 i . ; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T. 78, 138;

Kautzsch u. Sociu, Genesis; VV. R. Smith, OTJC* ill); Ilexateueh, 234, 252.

Ivuenen,

j {

2. A king of Gath acc. to title of Ps 341. Here A. is possibly a mistake for Achish (cf. 1 S 21ua-), a better known Phil, n a m e being substituted for a less familiar one, or it may be t h a t Abinielech is less a personal name than a title of Phil, kings like Egyp. Pharaoh (see Oxf. Jieb. Lex. s.v.). 3. This A, is generally reckoned one of the judges (so in J g 10', b u t probably not by editor of 9 nor in 1 S 12"). Acc. to J g 831 (R) lie v/as a son of Gideon by a Shechemite concubine. Upon his father's death he gained over ' his mother's b r e t h r e n ' in Shechem, and with t h e aid of a hired troop of ' vain and light fellows' murdered all his 70 brothers except t h e youngest, J o t h a m , who contrived to escape. A. then ascended t h e throne and assumed t h e kingly title (91'13). J o t h a m , leaving his place of concealment, spoke a t M t . Gerizim his well-known parable (vv.7-21), which was calculated to sow dissension amongst t h e Shechemites, who were partly of Can. and partly of Isr. blood. A f t e r three years both sections were weary of t h e rule of A., who seems to have t a k e n u p his residence elsewhere (vv.22-25). Gaal, t h e leader of t h e Israelite faction (see, however, .Moore on J g 92a), made such headway in Shechem t h a t Zebul, t h e governor, an adherent of A., was obliged to feign compliance with his designs. All t h e while, however, he was keeping A. secretly informed of t h e revolutionary movement, and suggesting methods of checking it (vv.25-33). A t length A. advanced to a t t a c k t h e city, a n d Gaal was completely routed, and a f t e r his defeat expelled by Zebul (vv.34"41). I n a second day's fight A. captured Shechem and put to t h e sword all t h e inhabitants t h a t fell into his hands. A number having taken refuge in t h e temple of El-berith, he burned t h e building over their heads (vv.'12-'19). Sometime afterwards A. met his death while besieging Thebez. Being struck down bv a millstone which a woman flung from t h e wall, he ordered his armour-bearer to kill him in order to escape t h e disgrace of perishing by t h e hand of a woman (vv.50-57). The above is a reasonable and in general selfconsistent narrative, but there are not a few points of detail where t h e course of events is involved in considerable obscurity. Zebul upon a n y theory plays a double part, but it is not quite certain whether there was to t h e last a complete understanding between him and A. Kittei t h i n k s there was, and supposes t h a t Z. was p u t to death by t h e Shechemites after they discovered his treachery. Wellhausen, on t h e contrary, believes t h a t he perished along with t h e Shechemites, A . having come to regard him as t h e real instigator of t h e revolt, and refusing to be propitiated by t h e offering of Gaal as a scape-goat. I t is f u r t h e r doubtful whether A. himself acted in t h e interests of t h e Can. or of the Isr., b u t a t all events Wellhausen rightly r e m a r k s t h a t ' t h e one permanent f r u i t of his activity was t h a t Shechem was destroyed as a Can. city and rebuilt for I s r a e l ' (cf. 1 K 121-2S). The story of A. in J g 9 is t h e n a t u r a l sequel of t h e version of Gideon's hist, contained in &4"*1 (note also how t h e sentiments of J o t h a m ' s parable agree with S22-23 unless, indeed, these latter two verses are an 8th cent, interpolation). T h e narrative is one of t h e oldest in OT, belonging to t h e same type as t h e narratives concerning the minor judges. It is free from Deuter. touches and t u r n s of expression, and m a y in its present form date from t h e earliest ears of t h e monarchy. I t s purpose is to show ow t h e murder of Gideon's sons was avenged on A. and t h e Shechemites, who were practically his accomplices (957, cf. vv. 7 - "-»). Budde attributes t h e preservation of the story to E, who, however,

! I

! j | ; |

10

ABNER

A B I N A D A B s0 3

3 - »). The victory in the Valley of Salt ovel Edom 13 (ef. 2 K 14'), which is ascribed to David in (Syrians), and to Joab in 1's 60 title 2 S 815 (1 K ll - 16 ), is attributed to Abishai in 1 Ch 1812. In the war t h a t was caused by Hanun's insult to David's envoys, Joab gave Abishai command of the second division against the Ammonites, while he himself opposed the Syrians (2 S ]0"- 14 ). 33, 82, 232 ; Driver, LOT 157 1 Wellhausen, Corny, d. Hex. 227 IT., Abisbai's character is well brought out in the story 353ff.;Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 117 ff.; Iiittel, Hist, of Heb. ii. of David's flight, when he retorts the abuse of 13 Q., 18 n., 82 a., 85 ff.; Moore, Judges, 237 fi. Shimei in true Oriental style, and is impatient 9 4. A priest, the son of Abiathar, acc. to 1 Ch to slay the offender at once (2 S 16 "^). Nor could 16 Shimei's subsequent abject submission induce 18 , where, however, the reading of MT. ' Aftimelech the son of Abiathar,' is obviously a mistake Abishai to forgive the s1man t h a t had ' cursed the for ' Abiathar the son of AAimelech ' (cf. 2 S 8 " and Lord's anointed' (19 ). In the battle with of David's notes on it by Budde in Haupt's Sacred Bks. of OT, Absalom, Abishai shared the command 2 5 12 and by Kittel in Kautzsch's^4.2\). See ABIATHAR. army with Joab and Ittai (18 - - ). In 2 S 20» the name Joab should probably be substituted J . A . SELBIE. t h a t of Abishai (so Jos. Ant. VII. xi. 6, the ABINADAB 'father is generous'; LXX for Syr. vers., Wellhausen, Thenius, and Driven, and always 'Ap.eu>addp (A 'A/UCASCI/3), except at 1 S 312, v.' read as in the L X X : ' And there went out where B (but not A) reads 'Iueaod^).—1. Owner of after him Abishai and Joab's men,' etc. I t ia the house whither the ark was brought by the natural to suppose t h a t Abishai connived a t the men of Kirjath-jearim after the catastrophe at murder of Amasa by Joab, 2 S 2010 (so Josephus). Beth-Shemesh (1 S 7'), whence it was subsequently His special exploits were, rescuing David from removed by David, 2 S 6 3 \ 1 Ch 13'. During Ishbi-benob, 2 S 21", and slaying three hundred its stay here it was kept by Eleazar, son of men, 2318. These feats earned for him the first Abinadab. 2, The second son of Jesse, specially place ' of the three in the second r a n k ' (1 Ch II 2 ', mentioned in the narrative of 1 S 16 as not being KVm), the other two being probably Joab and the elect of J" for the kingdom. He accom- Benaiah j the first three being Jashobeam, Eleazar, panied his brothers Eliab and Shammah to join and Shammah. Saul's 13 army against the Philistines—1 S 168 1713, in the battle of 1 Ch 2 . 3. A son 2of Saul slain Abishai probably died before the rebellion of Mt. Gilboa, 1 S 31 =1 Ch 102. Otherwise men- Adonijah. If he had been alive, he must have been tioned only in the genealogies of Chronicles, 1 Ch mentioned among the leaders of either side.

himself composed the Jotham parable. Moore considers t h a t it 22is26 possible to disentangle two narratives, (A) w. " -i2"45-5"'-, cognate with which are w . M 1 , (B) vv.26"41. The first nf these he would assign to E, the second to J . This scheme has the advantage of removing a good many difficulties presented by the chapter in its present form. L I T E R A T U R E — C o r n i n , Einlcit? 5C; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T.

G33

GM

UUT c f ,

ART.

ISIIVI.

i . On A b i n a d a b in

1 K 4 " ( A V , n o t R V ) , see BEN-AEINADAB.

N. J. D.

ABISHALOM.—See a r t . ABSALOM.

WHITE.

G . B. GRAY.

ABISHUA meaning uncertain; pel haps ABINOAM (DSi'SN 'father is pleasantness'), the father of Barak, is mentioned both in the song ' f a t h e r is wealth.'—1. According to the genealo12 8 12 gies of Chron., where alone the name occurs, (Jg 5 ) and the prose narrative (Jg 4 - ) of the father of Bukki, 1 Ch li4'-i0, campaign of Barak and Deborah against the son of5 Pliinehas and 2 Canaanites.

G. B. GRAY.

ABIRAM (DT3X ' my father is the Exalted One'). —1. The son of Eiiab, a Reubenite, who with Dathan1 et0< (which see) conspired against Moses (Nu 16 , Dt ll 6 , Ps 106"). 2. The firstborn son of Hiel the Bethelite, on whom the curse fell for rebuilding Jericho (1 K 16"). G . HARFORD-BATTERSBY.

E z r 7 ; cf. 1 E s 8

a n d a r t . ABISUE.

2. A

Ben-

jamite ; presumably the name was t h a t of a clan, since other names in the context are certainly clan G. B. GRAY. names, 1 Ch 8 4 ; cf. Nu 26 38i \ ABISHUR ("OT'SR ' f a t h e r is a wall').—A Jerahmeelite described as ' son' of Shamrnai; Abihail was his wife, and Ahban and Molid his children (1 Ch 228'-).

ABISHAG (J®"?«, meaning uncertain; possibly ABISSEI (AV Ablsei).—One of the ancestors of ' father has wandered').—A very beautiful «rang 2 4 Shunammitess who was brought to comfort David Ezra (2A Es l ), called in 1 Ch 6 ABISHUA, and in 1 E s 8 A B I S U E . in his extreme old age, according to the advice of his servants, 1 K l 2 "- 15 . After David's death, ABISUE (LXX, B 'Kpuml, A 'A,8.oW) 1 Es 8 ! , Abishag, as his father's widow, was asked in marriage by Adonijah; the request was refused AV Abisum, is identical with Abishua. by Solomon, who appears to have seen in it a ABITAL (W'3S 'father is dew'), wife of David, renewal of Adonijah's claim to the throne, 1 in Hebron, she K 212"24; cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, to whom, during his 4 residence bore Shephatiah, 2 S 3 = 1 Ch 33. p. 8 9 f . G . B. GRAY. ABISHAI but 2 S 10», 1 Ch 218 11» IS 12 19 n -1615 ' My father is Jesse').—A. appears from 1 Ch 2 to have been the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister. More impetuous than the crafty Joab, but equally implacable, ' h a r d ' (2 S 339 19J2), the first mention of Abishai (1 S 26s) presents him to us as already one of the most daring and devoted of David's followers. He volunteers to go down with David to Saul's camp by night, and is only prevented by David's veneration for the king's sacred office from smiting Saul ' to the18 earth at one stroke.' We next find him (2 S 2 -24) with his two brothers at that battle of Gibeon which had such fatal results, first to Asahel, and ultimately to Abner, in whose treacherous murder by Joab, Abishai shared as joint avenger of blood (2 S

ABITUB (wis), M t l13.

1 Ch 8 U , and ABIUD fA^oiiS),

S e e GENEALOGY.

ABJECT, now only an adj., was formerly also a subst. and a verb. As a subst., meaning theI! dregs of the people, abject is found in Ps 35 ' The abjects ( r s , RVm ' smiters') gathered themselves together against me.' Cf. T. Bentley (1082), ' O Almi'ghtie God ; which raisest up the abjects, and exaltest the miserable from the dunghill,' Mon-u. Matr. iii. 328 ; G. Herbert, ' Servants and abjects flout me,' Temple : Sacrifice, 36. J . HASTINGS.

ABNER, -IB* (ii-?* 1 S 14s0), ' m y father is Ner,' or ' i s a lamp.'' Saul's first cousin, according to 1 S 14B0-51 (the more probable account),

ABOMINATION

ABNEK 29

but uncle according to 1 Ch 8 -ss 93«». Jos. follows Chronicles in Ant. VI. iv. 3, but Samuel in VI. vi. 6. The language used of him by David, ' A r t not thou a valiant man, and who is like to thee in Israel»' (1 S 26 15 ); ' K n o w ye nut t h a t there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel ?' (2 S 338), is not inconsistent with the reooided facts of Abner's life, although the one speech was uttered in a tone of banter, and the other possibly dictated by motives of policy. As captain of the host (I S 145B 1755), Abner sat next Saul a t the banquet (1 S 2025), and lay near him in the camp (265-'). A Jewish tradition (Jerome, Qu. Heb. in loc.) states t h a t the witch of Endor was Abner's mother. On Saul's death Abner secured for Ishboslieth the allegiance of all t h e tribes except J u d a h (2 S 28"1»). He placed the feeble king a t Mahanaim, while he himself conducted the war with David west of Jordan. One of the battles—that of the pool of Gibeon—is detailed on account of its fatal results. Here we have evidence of Abner's comparative mildness of character. It is possible t h a t the preliminary encounter of the champions of t h e two armies was suggested by him in order to decide t h e claims of the rival houses without unnecessary bloodshed. Then we have his reiterated reluctance to slay Asahel, and, finally, his protest against the unnaturalness of the w a r : ' S h a l l the sword devour for ever? . . . How long shall i t be ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren ?' As t h e war proceeded in David's favour ' Abner made himself strong in the house of S a u l ' (2 S 3s). This rendering lends some plausibility to Ishbosheth's insinuation t h a t he was aiming a t the crown by a liaison with the late king's concubine (cf. 2 S 12s 1621, 1 K 2 T h e indignation, however, with which Abner repelled the charge, and the absence of self-seeking in his subsequent conduct, support the paraphrase of A V and liVm, ' showed himself strong for (3) the house of Saul.' Be t h a t as it may, the accusation alienated Abner, who forthwith declared t h a t he would accomplish J"'s will by making David king over all Israel. He entered at once into negotiations both with David and the elders of Israel and Benjamin. David, on his part, astutely demanded as a preliminary the restitution of Michal, who would be a t once a link with the house of Saul and a living memorial of David's early prowess. Ishbosheth's shadowy authority was made use of to carry out this condition. Abner was now hospitably entertained by David at Hebron, and had scarcely departed to 'fulfil his engagements to David when J o a b returned from a foray. Asahel's death was still unavenged; here was a plausible pretext for ridding himself of a dangerous rival; so J o a b secretly recalled Abner, and with the connivance of Abishai treacherously murdered him in the gate of Hebron, a city of refuge. The enormity of this crime called forth from David a bitter curse (2 S 329) on the perpetrator, and was never forgotten by him (1 K 2s-32). Abner was buried in Hebron, amidst the lamentations of the nation. The king himself acted as chief mourner, and honoured the dead warrior with an elegy which pithily expresses the strange irony of fate by which the princely Abner died a death suitable to a profane and worthless man. (Heb. ' was A. to die [i.e. ought lie to have died] as Nabal dieth'!') The dismay caused by Abner's death (2 S 41) seems to prove t h a t neither Ishboslieth nor his subjects in general ha,d realised Abner's defection. The inevitable crisis was hastened, and by a curious chance the head of the murdered Ishbosheth was buried in Abner's grave (2 S 412). W e learn from t h e Chronicler t h a t Abner dedicated certain spoil for (he repairs of the tabernacle (I Ch 2(i"'3), and t h a t

11

his son Jaasiel was captain of Benjamin in David's reign (1 Ch 2721). N. J . D. WHITE. ABODE.—1. The past tense of ABIDE (which see). 2. In J n 1423 (• W e will come unto him, and make our abode with h i m ' ) a. is tr. of the same word (umii) which in J n 142 is rendered MANSION ( w h i c h see).

J . HASTINGS.

ABOMINATION.—Four separate Heb. words are thus rendered in OT (sometimes with the variation abominable thing), the application of which is in many respects very different. (1) The commonest of these words is ."ny'in, which expresses most generally the idea of something loathed (cf. the verb, Mic 3 s ), esp. on religious grounds : thus Gn 4332 * to eat food with the Hebrews is an abomination to t h e Egyptians,'—a strong expression of the exclusiveness with which the Egyptians viewed foreigners, esp. such as had no regard for their religious scruples; thus, on account of their veneration for the cow (which was sacred to Isis), they would not use the knife or cooking utensil of a Greek, which might have been employed in preparing t h e flesh of a cow as food (Hdt. ii. 41); Gn 46s4 'every shepherd is an abomination t o the Egyptians,'—shepherds, viz., were ranked, i t seems, with the pov«b\m, whose occupation was deemed a degrading one, who from living with their herds in reed cottages on the marshes were called marshmen, and who are depicted on the monuments as dirty, unshaven, poorly clad, and even as dwarfs and deformed (cf. Del. ad loc.; Birch-Wilkinson, Ane. Eg. 1878, i. 288 f., ii. 444; Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Bitch, 1890, p. 371 f . ; Erman, Life in Ane. Eg. p. 439); EX 822 M the Israelites are represented as unwilling to sacrifice ' the abomination of the E g y p t i a n s ' in E g y p t itself, with allusion, probably, to animals which the Egyptians abstained religiously from sacrificing, though they were sacrificed freely by t h e Hebrews, as the cow, which was sacred to Isis, the bull, unless it was pronounced by the priests to be aaOapis, or free from the sacred marks of Apis (Herodotus' statements on this point are not entirely borne out by the monuments, but there seems to be some foundation for them), sheep at Thebes, and goats [according to Wiedemann, an error for rams] in Mendes (Hdt. ii. 38, 41, 42, 46 • cf. Birch-Wilk. ii. 460, iii. 108 f., 304 f. ; Wiedemann, I.e. pp. 180-182, 183, 187 f., 196 f., 218 f.). Two special usages may be noted : (a) the phrase Jehovah's abomination, of idolatry or practices connected with it, or of characters or acts morally displeasing to God, D t 7-:> 1231 17' 1812 2319 2510 2715 (cf. 244, Lk 1615), P r 332 11'- 40 12^ 15». a. m s 15 10 23 16 17 20 - (comp. in a Phoen. inscription, ap. Driver, Samuel, p. xxvi, t h e expression ''Ashtoreth's abomination,' of the violation of a t o m b ) ; (b) esp. in the plur., of heathen or immoral practices, principally in H and Ezk, as Lv 18-2-20- -1a. so 2 0 i 3 ) 1 3 , 5 (u, 17 4 1 8 9 . ,2 2 0 , s J e r 7 , 0 3 2 3 5 14«, 2 K 163 21 s -», Ezk 5 9 - 11 7s- a - 9 8 s - 1 3 • e t c . (43 times in Ezk), rarely of an actual idol, 2 K 2313 (of Milcom), Is 4419, and perhaps Dt 32l". (2) Viis, the technical term for stale sacrificial flesh, which has not been eaten within the prescribed time, only Lv 71" 197, Ezk 4 " (where the prophet protests t h a t he has never partaken of it) and (plur.) Ts 65J. For distinction this might be rendered refuse meal; the force of the allusion in Ezk 414, Is ii34, in particular, is entirelv lost by the rendering ' abominable t h i n g ' of AV, liV. (3) 1W) the technical term for the flesh of prohibited animals (see article UNCLEAN), LV 7 n « U i»-is. =o. 23. u . « ( c f . t h e corresponding verb, v."20-s) •. this sense of the word gives the point to Ezk 8'", Is 66". -{ii? would be best represented by

12 ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

detestation, or detestable thing (cf. detest for the verb, Dt 726). Note that in D t 143 abomination is ipyip, not the technical f ^ used in Lv 11. (4) ppe*, allied in etymology to (3), but in usage confined almost exclusively to objects connected with idolatry, and chiefly a contemptuous designation of heathen deities themselves: iirst in Hos9 10 ' a n d became detestations like that which they loved' (Baal of Peor, named just before); more frequently in writers of the age of J e r and Ezk, viz. Dt 2910'17), Jer-4 1 7 30 (s=32:M) 1327 1618, Ezk 511 720 ll 18 - 21 207-8-80 3T23, 1 KII®4 Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites,' v.7-7, 2 K 23 l3 - ia {not of Milcom), v. 24 ; also Is 66s, Zee 97. In AV, RV, where this word occurs beside n^'m (No. 1), as Ezk 511 720 (and Ezk 3723, even where it stands alone), it is rendered for distinction detestable thing; and either this or detestation would be the most suitable Eng. 8. R. DRIVER. equivalent for it.

title found often in Phcen. and (with yc& for me») Aram, inscriptions, and the Sem. equivalent of the Gr. Zets: according to 2 Mac 6* Antiochus desired to make the temple a sanctuary of Zet)s 'OXi//moy,—as his coins show (Nestle, MarginaUen, p. 42, who cites Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, pp. xiv, xlviii), his patron deity,—who in the Syr. vers, of the same passage is actually called your tya Baal of heaven. Upon this view, we are released from the necessity of searching for a meaning of cse' in exact accordance with the context; the (with, possibly, an image connected with it) erected by the Syrians upon the Altar of burnt-ofiering was termed derisively by the Jews the 'desolate abomination,' the ' abomination' being the altar (and image?) of Zeus (Baal), and * desolate* (shomem) being just a punning variation of ' heaven' (shamaim). The Gr. trs. of Dn and 1 Mac, in so far as they supposed the expression to mean pdtXvyna ¿prqixihuem, nc doubt understood the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, THE (rd idolatrous emblem to involve, by its erection, the 15 u ryfia rrjs ¿pijfjutxreus), Mt 24 , Mk 13 , desertion of the temple by its usual worshippers, its actual ' desolation' (see 1 Mac 'spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' the appearance and ultimately ll 3 1 and 813 (the subst. with the art., the of which, * standing eV T6TT^> ay/y (Mt), or forou OI4*). 5 5« (Mk),' is mentioned by Christ as the signal for ptcp. without it), and still more (if, as is probable, reference be to the same idolatrous emblem) the flight of Christians from Judaea, a t the time of the s7 the approaching destruction of Jerus. The Gr. 9 (the subst, plur., the ptcp. sing.), are grammatic27 phrase is borrowed from Dn d LXX ¡3S!» f.. Kin I. nam A " / ' s , p.3S3i'., w i t h of Sodom, a n d Melchizedek k i n g of Salem. Melt h e r e f e r e n c e s » r e g a r d M t 24 1 3 28 , M k l - i ! 4 ' 2 7 , a s an i n d e p e n d e n t chizedek solemnly blesses A. for his h e m i c deed ; J e w i s h ( o r . i e w i s h - C h r i s H a n ) a p o c a l y p s e o n ^ i n a t i n « : s h o r t l y bea n d the Heb. p a t r i a r c h , in recognition of Melf o r e A.L>. 7", w h i c h h a s b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h o u r L o r d ' s d i s c o u r s e , c a n . of c o u r s e , a d o p t still m o r e readily t h e s a m e chizedek's priestly office, gives him a tenth of the e x p l a n a t i o n : b u t it is d i t t i c u l t t o t h i n k t h a t o v e n t h e s e v e r s e s , spoil. On the other h a n d , he proudly declines t h o u g h p a r t i c u l a r p h r a s e s m a y h a v e b e e n m o d i f i e d in M e c o u r s e t h e offer which the k i n g of Sodom makes, that. A. of o r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n , a r e w i t h o u t a . s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s in t h e w o r d s of C h r i s t . should receive the spoil for h i m s e l f ; lie a s k s only t B o u s s e t {!>. 1. A., who bv reason of his childlessness c a n n o t ;>0. 4 ; see f u r t h e r p a s s a g e s ;ri B o u s s r t . p. 104 f . ) : b u t it m a y ho e n t e r t a i n hopes of the fulfilment ot t,Ue divine d o u b t e d w h e t h e r t h e v i e w of M t 24 10 «'-, u p o n w h i c h t h i s e x I promise, receives in a special vision a s s u r a n c e of p l a n a t i o n d e p e n d s , is c o r r e c t . ** Covvriaht.

1R98, by Charles

f-rrihvefx

Snns

14

ABRAHAM

ABRAHAM

the great future of the race that shall spring from him. By the gracious condescension, of the Almighty, a covenant is made by sacrifice between the patriarch and God ; and during the night, when a deep sleep has fallen upon A., he learns the future destiny of his descendants, and the vision is ratified by an outward symbol (15esP-12-17). Sarai, who has no hope of having children, persuades A. to take Hagar, her Kgyp. maidservant, as a concubine. Ilagar, finding herself with child, is insolent towards Sarai, who thereupon treats her so harshly that Hagar flees into the desert. She is there stopped by an angel, and sent back, comforted by the promise respecting the child that is to be born. This is Ishmael (16). But Ishmael is not the promised son. Thirteen more years elapse before God appears again to A., and again promises that his descendants will be a mighty nation. In pledge of the fulfilment of his word, he changes Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai's to Sarah, and ordains that the rite of circumcision shall be the sign of the covenant between God and the house of Abraham. The promise that Sarah shall have a son, and the command to call his name Isaac, prepare us for the longexpected consummation (17). But it is not to be yet. Another great scene intervenes, to try, as it were, the patriarch's faith, and make proof of the character of the father of the Heb. race. J", accompanied by two angels, appears in human form to A. as he sits before his tent by the oaks of Mamre. A.'s offer of hospitality is accepted; and as the three strangers partake of the meal, the one who is J" promises to A. a son by Sarah, who overhears, and laughs incredulously (181-15). The two angels proceed to Sodom and Gomorrah; J " remains with A., and discloses to him the approaching destruction of ' the cities of the plain.' A. pathetically intercedes, and obtains the assurance that if but ten righteous be found in the city it should be spared for their sake (IS1*-33). J " leaves A. ; and then ensues the description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the vividness of which is enhanced by the brief reference to A., who in the morning looks forth from the hill country of Hebron, where he had stood daring his colloquy with J " , and sees thence the reek of the smoke rising as from a furnace (19 28 ). Strangely out of place though it seems, we find interposed at this point the story how A. journeyed to the South-land or Negeb, and dwelt 'in the territory of Gerar, where Abimelech was king, and how A. once more fears for his life on account of Sarah's beauty, represents her to be his sister, and temporarily loses her, when she is taken to Abimelech's harem. As in the Egyp. story, Sarah is kept from harm by a special visitation ; Abimelech is warned by God, releases Sarah, and rebukes A. (20). At length the long-promised son is born to A. of Sarah ; he is circumcised the 8th day, and receives the name of Isaac (211-7). Sarah takes offence at the sight of Ishmael playing with Isaac ; and A. is instructed by God to yield to Saralrs demand, and dismiss both Hagar and Ishmael from his tent (21 8 ). A.'s prosperity and success induce Abimelech to seek alliance with the patriarch. A covenant between them is struck; the well, which Abimeiech's servants had taken by force from A., is restored to him, and receives the name of BeerSheba. A. dwells for some time in Phil, territory, encamped in the vicinity of the well (2l~2'34). Some years later, when Isaac has grown to be a lad, comes the last trial of A.'s faith. God orders him to sacrifice his only son upon a lofty hill, distant three days' journey from his place of encampment. He does not hesitate. All is done in perfect obedience; the knife is raised to slay Isaac, when a voice from heaven is heard. God

wishes not a hair of the lad's head to suffer ; He is satisfied with this proof of the patriarch's alsclute trust in God, his readiness to sacrifice that wnich was most precious in his eyes. A ram is sacrificed in the stead of Isaac; and the holy covenant between J " and A. is ratified anew (221-13). Then Sarah dies; and A., whose seed is to possess the whole land, has to purchase a burialplace. The field and cave of Machpelah at Hebron is the portion of ground which he buys with all due formality from Ephron the Hittite ; and there he buries Sarah (23). Feeling his days drawing to a close, A. causes his steward to swear not to let Isaac take to wife one of the daughters of the land, and sends him to Haran, where he finds Rebekah, and brings her back to be Isaac's wife (24). It is strange next to read that A. takes Keturah to be his wife, and becomes the father of six sons, the patriarchs of Arabian tribes ( 2 5 w ) . But at the age of 175 he dies, and is buried in the cave of Machpelah

(2o'~n).

The foregoing outline shows the truth of what has been remarked above, that the life of A. in the Bk of Gn is not so much a consecutive biography as a series of scenes derived from groups of Heb. tradition, and loosely strung together. How far the three main groups of patriarchal narrative— the J, E, and P—overlapped one another we cannot say, but the fact that the existing account is derived from different sources sufficiently explains some of the chief difficulties and discrepancies that strike the ordinary reader. J . — T h e narrative of J opens with A. being in Haran, arid migrating with Lot to Can. at the command of J " . It mentions A.'s nomadic movements in Can., and the altars at Bethel and Shechem. I t records the separation of A. and Lot, and A . ' s sojourn at Hebron. It describes A.'s journey to E g y p t , and his return to t h e S. of Can. I t contains the promises made to A,, and the covenant in ch. 15. I t records the marriage with Hagar, H a g a r s riight, aad the birth of Ishmael. It gives the long epic narrative of the visit of the three n e n to A . ; A.'s intercession ; and the overthrow of the cities of the plain. It narrates the birth of Isaac, and the mission of A . ' s servant to Haran. J

) the seed of A . shall become a mighty nation ; (c) A. shall have a son born of Sarah, and t h e son is to be called Isaac. The n u m b e r of times t h a t the promise appears is due to the compilers having selected this as the most conspicuous f e a t u r e in the narrative of A. in each of t h e sources of tradition. T h e seemingly strange fact, t h a t the narrative in ch, 17 should t a k e no notice of the mention of the same promise in ch. 15, is at once accounted f o r when it is seen to be an instance of the m a n n e r in which the different narratives overlap one another. The promises, contained in the different traditions, seemed to the compiler so i m p o r t a n t in view of the general purpose of his book, that, at the risk of considerable repetition, he has incorporated them all. These promises ever ranked among the religious privileges of Israel (Ro 9 4 ). They proclaimed God's covenant with His people, according to which He required of them simple obedience and

19

justice ( G n 18 ); t h e y also announced that through Israel all nations should be blessed. The Sacrifice of Isaac m a r k s t h e crowning event in the life of A. Obviously, it m u s t rank as the surpassing act of the patriarch's faith in God. But a difficulty arises in some minds f r o m the wickedness of the act which God a t first c o m m a n d s A. to do. Even though l i e never intended A. eventually to execute the terrible command, still is it consistent with divine goodness and justice to issue an order, to obey which seemed to have the result of placing blind trust in a positive command above the reasonable recognition of the n a t u r a l demands of love, mercy, and justice? But there are two considerations which cut the ground f r o m beneath this objection. (1) We are tempted to assume t h a t in the patriarchal narrative the voice of God is an audible external communication. But then, as now. God speaks in different ways, and by conscience most directly. The question p u t by A.'s conscience was whether his complete trust in God extended even to the readiness to surrender his only son ; it was in the truest sense a word of God to A. (2) T h a t the answer to this questioning was given in the shape of h u m a n sacrifice on a mountain top, illustrates the importance of bearing in m i n d the imperfect development of the moral consciousness in that remote period. H u m a n sacrifice was frequently practised in Sem. races. If t h e worshippers of other Sem. deities were ready to sacrifice their firstborn to their gods, was A . to be behind Assyria, Amnion, and Moab in devotion ? The moral standard of the age would n o t be shocked at a deed too fa.tally common. T h e ideas of mercy and justice were, in t h a t period, low, and needed to be raised. To propitiate the Deity by child m u r d e r was regarded as the height of religious devotion. The narrative, therefore, fulfils the twofold object of giving the crowning proof of A . ' s absolute faith in J " ; and f u r t h e r , of demonstrating the moral superiority of faith in J" over the religious customs of other Sem. races. J " forbade the sacrifice of the firstborn : J " upheld the instinct implanted in human nature which s h r u n k in horror f r o m the act. He taught t h a t J ' ' had no pleasure in the infliction of suffering upon the innocent; t h a t the character of .J" was raised above t h a t of the heathen gods by higher love and t r u e r justice. ii.

A.

IN

THE

HISTORY

OF

ISRAEL. — T h e

a t t e m p t has been m a d e to deprive the story of A. of all hist, value, and to represent the patriarch either as a mythical personage or as the typical impersonation of the virtues of t h e religious isr. ; b u t as yet no evidence has been f o u n d to connect the name of A. with t h a t of a tribal deity, while the endeavour to find in his story a philosophical description of abstract qualities seems to presuppose a stage of literary development to which the .materials of the Hex. can m a k e no claim, and to desiderate a literary unity which those materials emphatically contradict. On the other hand, it cannot be denied t h a t recollections of the nomadic age, committed to writing (in the form that has come down to us) in a post-Mosaic era, and evidently stronulv coloured b y the teaching of the prophets of J'-', are likely to have preserved the hist, facts of the remote past in a form in which personal details are inextricably intertwined with racial movements, and, for simplicity's sake, the destinies of a f u t u r e nation are anticipated in the features of family experience. According to this view, A. was the leader of a great nomadic movement of the Hebrews (Gn 10-' 14 13 ), who migrated f r o m Mesopotamia into Canaan. These Hebrews penetrated as f a r as Egyv-t (Gn 12), I but for the most p a r t established themselves in the i

16

ABRAHAM

S. of Canaan, and in Hebron and Beershtba formed friendly relationships with the dwellers of tlie land (Gn 14. 21—). The story of Lot seems to indicate that the peoples of Amnion and Moab had originally belonged to the Heb. migration which was led by A . , and, having separated themselves from their comrades, occupied the territory of the Rephaim, the Emhn, and the Zamzummim (Dt Again, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that some of the references to Ishmael and the allusion to Keturah contain an Isv. picture of the relationship of the Arabian tribes and clans to the Heb. stock rather than the record of personal history. The Kgyp. origin of Hagar (Gn 161) and of Ishmael's wife (Gn 212*) will then indicate that the new settlers received into their community a considerable admixture of an Kgyp. element at the time when thev dispersed throughout N". Arabia. The fact that ; the sons of b a i l o r ' (Gn22 2 % 2 + ), 'the sons of Ishinael' (Gn 251-~l!i-), ' the sons of Edoin' (Gn 3015-19), form groups of twelve, and that 'the sons of Iveturali' thus form a half-group of six, is an additional sign of the probability that the record is not only that of the domestic life of a family, but also that of the political distribution of a race. While this consideration must modify the acceptance of a uniform literal historicity for the narrative of A., it is not incompatible with the view that in A . we have the great leader of a racial movement, and one who left his mark upon his fellow-tribesmen, not only by the eminence of his superior gifts, but by the distinctive features of his religious life, the traditional features of which were the devotion to one God, the abandonment of the polytheism of his ancestors, and the adoption of circumcision as the symbol of a purer cult. iii. A . ix t h e T h e o l o g y o f O T . — T h e scattered reminiscences of the patriarchs were collected and compiled, even more for the purpose of illustrating the fundamental principles of the Isr. revelation than with the object of retailing any exhaustive biography. The religion of Israel dates, according to OT, from A., not from Moses. A . ' s servant addresses J" as the God of his master A. (Gn 241-) ; J " is to Isaac the God of A . (Gn 20- 1 ); to .Jacob Tie is 'the God of A . and the fear of Jsaac' (Gn 31*2). A . never speaks of J " as the God of his fathers. A . is the founder of the religion ; he is the head of the family which had J " for its God. There is no designation of the God of Israel which can go farther back to the origin of the Heb. faith than the often-repeated title 4 the God of A . ' (cf. Ts 47 y ). The story of A . reflects the belief in the free grace of God which chose the patriarch and brought him from a distant land, and in spite of his failures loved him and made His covenant with him. The call of A . and the promises made him tints represent the Election (¿xXoyr}) of Israel. A . as the chosen servant is the prophet, the instrument of J " ' s purpose (Gn 20 7 ). He is the friend of God (Is 41g, 2 Ch 20". Cf. Arab. El-Kholil). God's mercies towards him are appealed to by the prophets of the Captivity (Is ol-, Ezk !33'24) as the ground of confidence that J " would not forsake the heirs of the promises made to A . The unique relation in which A., in Isr. theology, stood to the God of revelation is indicated by the ref. of the prophets to A . as ' the one ' (see Is 511-2, Ezk 3$", Mai 2 ^ ) . In the Bk of Sir, A. is spoken of as 4 great father of a multitude of nations; and til ere was none found like him in glory ; who kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with Him : in his flesh he established the covenant; and when he was proved he was found

ABRAHAM faithful 1

(44 ly '

In these words are summarised the chief points upon which the later «Jewish literature esp. insisted in any reference to the life and character of A . He was the founder of the race ; he was credited with a perfect knowledge of the Torah ; he was the institutor of circumcision ; he was tried, and in virtue of his faith was declared rigiiteous. "iv. A . IX t h e T h r o l o g y OF N T . — I n NT, A. is referred to in a variety of ways. The words of John the Baptist in Mt 39, L k 3s, and of St. Paul, Ko 9T, rebuke the popular Jewish supposition that descent from A. carried with it any special claim upon divine favour. Our Lord speaks of A . as one with whom all the partakers of divine redemption shall be privileged to dwell ( M t 8 11 ) ; and as -:f one who is both cognisant of things on earth, and is also entrusted with the special charge over the souls of the blest ( L k 1622). Our Lord employs the imagery of current religious belief; A. is the typical representative of ' t h e righteous' who have been redeemed; he is ' the father of the faithful.' Hence He says (Jn 8 6ti ), ' Y o u r father A . rejoiced ~o see M y day; and he saw it, and was glad.' He obtained a vision of the meaning of the promises, and rejoiced in the hope of their future fulfilment. Christ was the consummation of all the aspirations of A., the father of the race. According to the Jewish tradition (Bereshith Babba 44, Wünsche), A . saw the whole history of his descendants in the mysterious vision recorded in Gn 15 8ff \ Thus he is said to have 'rejoiced with the joy of the h.w' (Westcott on Jn 8 ^ ) . The subject of the faith of A . seems to h.ive formed a stock subject of discussion in the Jewish synagogue. It is alluded to in 1 Mac 2 5 2 ' Was not A . found faithful in temptation, and it was reckDiied unto him for righteousness ? ' The 1 locus classic.is' for the subject was Gn 15 6 ; and the question propounded by the Jewish teachers turned ux>on the nature of the faith which was counted to A . for righteousness. T o Philo the whole history of A . was merely an allegory descriptive of r.lie truly wise man whose inner nature is made' one with the divine by teaching (SiSavnaXia], as Isaac's by nature (0t/cm), and Jacob's by discipl.ne (äcrK7) T R A N S M I S S I O N . — Although our probability the solution lies in the direction authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in suggested by W H (p. 122 f.). If we compare the main similar to those for the Gospels, they are the phenomena presented by the text of apocr. fewer in number. I,ike the Gospels, it is contained writings we find just the same tendency to variain the five leading Uncials ( s A B C D), in the Vulg., tion, but in an even more exaggerated form. ill the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, In the two Popular literature was treated with great freedom chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, convenience was the one thing considered. During defective. W e have nothing corresponding to the the first seventy years of their existence, i.e. up to Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac, nor do we even know the year A.\>. 150, the books of XT were hardly whether sucli a text existed ; and the Old Latin is treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and very inadequately represented. On the other hand, the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interprewe possess one other Uncial of considerable im- tation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. These portance, namely, the Codex Laudianus ( B ) of the could be exhibited most easily in early and Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS. of the popular translations into other languages. It. was a Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally process which would have a tendency to continue found forming one volume with the Catholic until the book was treated as canonical, ami its text looked on as something sacred. Although Epistles. The inadequate representatioil of the Old Latin some whole classes of readings may be due to one and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be ! definite place or time, y e t for the most part they regretted, owing to the fact that the particular represent rather a continuous process, and it is textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in not probable that any theory which attempts to tie some authorities of the Acts in a very conspicuous all variations down to a special locality or a definite form, namely, what is called the Western text (by revision will now be made good. In one point, however, W I l ' s conclusions will Sanday and Headiam, Romans, p. lxxi, the 5 t e x t ; by Blass, Acta Apustolnrnm, p. 24. the /3 text). require modification. It must not be forgotten This is represented more or less definitely by the that Western authorities represent ultimately an two bilingual MSS. 1) Ii, by the marginal readings independent tradition f r o m the Archetype, It is of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and reading, which is clearly not Western in its similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, character, tlicy may preserve a better tradition than edited by M. Bergev), and by Western Fathers, the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We esp. Iremeus, Tertuilian, Cyprian, Lucifer, must, in other words, distinguish Western readings For Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed from readings in Western authorities. t e x t ) . The characteristics oi this text are well example, "EAA Jvas read by A D in 11® may be known ; it adds passages of considerable length, it correct. iii. T h e L I T E R A R Y H I S T O R Y of t h e A c t s i s paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the shorter t e x t ; and all these characteristics appear, similar to that of the great number of books of but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts ; NT. In the last quarter of the second century, ¡t sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage wdien we begin to have any great extent of bv the variations from the shorter text, sometimes Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, its variations give additional and apparently treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. L o b e . authentic information. The problem of the origin This is the case esp. with Irenasus, who cites of this text has caused in recent years a consider- passages so continuous as to make it certain that able a m o u n t of discussion. Some few critics, such he had the book before him substantially as we as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to have it, but with many of the readings we call consider it the original t e x t ; but that opinion has Western. lie lays stress on tlie fact that there is found few followers. liendel Harris, in 1891, internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and started a series of modern discussions by suggesting is followed in this by the Muratorian Fragment that the variations of Codex Bez;e were dne to (Iren. Adv. /At r. i. 23.1; iii. 12.12, 1 3 . 3 , 1 4 . 1 , 1 5 . 1 ; Latiuisation, and implied the existence of a iv. 15. 1). The book is also ascribed to St. Luke bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 A.D. He also bv Tertuilian (De Teiunio, 10) and Clement of Airx. p. 60f.) ; found signs of Montanist influence. His main (Strom, v. 12. §83, p. (¡90, cf. Sanday, theory was adequatelv refuted by Sanday in the while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates Guardian (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed of Iiphesus (Eus. Hist. Keel. v. 24), ill the etter the recension suggested by the Western text to concerning the m a r t y r s of Vienne and Lyons (¡7). Antioch. Ramsay, in 1892 (Church in limn. Emp. v. l ) , a n d ' a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth Bv tills date the work is an p. 151, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser (Jb. iv. 23).

ACTS

OF

THE

APOSTLES

ACTS

OF

THE

APOSTLES

27

integral portion of t h e Canon in all C h u r c h e s , a n d O r i g e n ' s t i m e t h e o r d e r of t h e Gospels w a s Jn t h e r e are no signs of a n y difference of opinion. Nor | Mt Mk Lk, a n d t h a t these w e r e followed. by t h e is t h e r e a n y reason for a r g u i n g t h a t because our Acts. In t h e case of I r e m e u s , however, our oldest knowledge of it begins s u d d e n l y , t h e r e f o r e t h e evidence for Asia a n d t h e West, w e find the Gospel hook s u d d e n l y a p p e a r e d in t h e C a n o n . W e h a v e already separated f r o m t h e A c t s a n d definitely (ieschkhu 110 decisive evidence earlier, because we have no grouped w i t h t h e other Gospels ( Z a h n , hooks t o contain t h a t evidence. Moreover, the wide lies Xcutest. Kanons, ii. «4:3-88«). iv. MODE it N CRITICISM.—1. BY f a r t h e m o s t a r e a over w h i c h our evidence e x t e n d s seems to imply t h a t t h e ascription to St. L u k e is a genuine prevalent opinion c o n c e r n i n g the Acts has a l w a y s been, a n d still is, t h a t which ascribes it to St. L u k e t r a d i t i o n , a n d n o t a m e r e critical deduction. For an earlier period t h e i n d u s t r y of critics has t h e companion of St. P a u l . T h i s is the opinion, n o t only of those critics who a r e classed as orthocollected a n u m b e r of parallels, on w h i c h indeed, for t h e m o s t p a r t , no g r e a t s t r e s s can be laid; b u t dox, b u t of Kenan, whilst it h a s recently been two lines of a r g u m e n t enable us to t a k e the hook m a i n t a i n e d with great vigour b y K a m s a y a n d f a r t h e r back. T h e u n i t y of a u t h o r s h i p of the A c t s Biass. I t is, of course, c o m p a t i b l e w i t h very v a r y While a n d St. L u k e ' s Gospel m u s t be a d m i t t e d as axio- ing estimates of its historical authority. K e n a n considers it valuable m a i n l y as a witness to matic, a n d it is quite clear t h a t T a t i a n , J u s t i n , a n d Marcion were a c q u a i n t e d w i t h St. L u k e ' s t h e opinions a n d ideas of t h e a u t h o r ' s o w n time, R a m s a y , on the other h a n d , claims for St. L u k e Gospel. Now, t h e existence of St. L u k e ' s Gospel a place in the very first r a n k of h i s t o r i a n s — i.e. implies t h e existence of t h e A c t s , a n d t h i s cona m o n g s t those w h o have good material, w h o use it clusion is supported b y a n u m b e r of parallels well, a n d who write their history with a very clear b e t w e e n t h e A c t s a n d J u s t i n , which would not insight into t h e t r u e course of events. E v e n he, p e r h a p s be b v themselves of great weight ( A c l 8 = Ap. i. 50, 2*> = Dial 08, 75* = Dial 10, "17-* -- Ap. however, a d m i t s t h a t f o r t h e earlier p o r t i o n its 23 ii. 10 , 26 = Dial, «6, 70). T h e use of St. L u k e value is d e p e n d e n t on the value of the sources u s e d . by Marcion clearly carries t h e Acts b a c k to t h e early 2. A s soon as B a u r began t o develop his t h e o r y p a r t of the second c e n t u r y ; b u t we can go still earlier. of C h u r c h history, it became a p p a r e n t t h a t it w a s A m o n g t h e apostolic F a t h e r s t h e r e are suggestions i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e A c t s ; a n d p a r t l y arising f r o m of c o n t a c t with B a r n a b a s , H e n n a s , a n d Clement on a comparison with the history recorded in the which little stress can be laid, while P a p i a s shows Galatians a n d for o t h e r critical reasons, b u t p a r t l y himself a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e p e r s o n s m e n t i o n e d by owing to a different a priori conception of w h a t St. L u k e ; b u t in Ignatius a n d P o l y c a r p ( A c 24 = w a s t h e n a t u r e of the d e v e l o p m e n t of the early Pol. 1, 10« = Pol. 2, 205» = P o l . 2, 7 W = Pol. 0. 8- 1 Church, an opinion has widely prevailed t h a t the = Pol. 12, l 2 5 = Ign. Mag. 5, 6 5 3 = Ign. Phil. I I , A c t s p r e s e n t s us with a f a n c y p i c t u r e w r i t t e n in t h e 1041 = Ign. Smyn. 8) t h e r e are r e s e m b l a n c e s which, second c e n t u r y in t h e interests of the growing although slight, are so exact as to m a k e t h e hyCatholicism of the day. This has been t h e view of pothesis of l i t e r a r y obligation a l m o s t necessary, Baur, Schwegler, Zelier (to w h o m we owe b y f a r as H o l t z m a m i even seems to t h i n k {Einleitnnu* t h e fullest investigation on this side). Ililgenfeld, 1802, p. 400, 4 there are still more n o t e w o r t h y resemV o l k m a r , I l a u s r a t h , Moisten. Lipsius, Davidson, blances with J u s t i n , Polycarp, a n d I g n a t i u s ' ) . T h i s van M a n e n , and others. But. in the e x t r e m e f o r m last evidence is of increasing i m p o r t a n c e , as not in which it was held it is gradually being given up. only the genuineness h u t also the early d a t e of the Neither the late date nor t h e e x a g g e r a t e d view of letters of Polycarp a n d I g n a t i u s is becoming daily t h e differences of parties in t h e early C h u r c h is b e t t e r established, a n d these q u o t a t i o n s almost really tenable. T h e u n h i s t o n e n l c h a r a c t e r comes, compel u s to t h r o w b a c k t h e writing of the Acts it is n o w said, r a t h e r f r o m defective knowledge into the 1st c e n t . — t h i s is, of course, provided a n d insight, not f r o m deliberate p u r p o s t . a n d t h e we accept t h e literary u n i t y . If we accept t h e w r i t e r w r o t e as he could r a t h e r t h a n as he would, elaborate distinction of sources (see § x.) which He represents, in fact, the opinions of bis day, those h a s become fashionable lately, no evidence at a n of 4 H e a t h e n Christianity developing in;o Cathoearly d a t e is valuable e x c e p t f o r t h e words quoted. l i c i t y ' ( H a r n a c k , Ilist. of Doyma, Eng. tr. i. 5 0 ) . Moreover, few would care for a m u c h later dale T h e history s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e second c e n t u r y t h a n 100 A.!>. ' T h e a u t h o r s h i p by St,. Luke would need not detain us. Some f e w heretics a p p e a r to be just conceivable if some t i m e a b o u t the y e a r so have left the w o r k o u t of t h e Canon, a n d were t a k e n as t h e fermimis ad queia ' ( I l o l t z m a n n , C h r y s o s t o m complains t h a t it was n o t much r e a d Hamlkomm. p. 812). in his t i m e ; b u t it is a l w a y s with him as with all 8. T h e school of B a u r h a d the g r e a t m e r i t of other C h u r c h writers, one of t h e accepted books. I I t s place in t h e C a n o n varies. T h e o r d i n a r y establishing the f a c t t h a t t h e A c t s is a n artistic position is immediately a f t e r t h e Gospels (Ecu. Act. whole, t h a t the writer h a d a clear conception of the m a n n e r in which t h e Church developed, Oath. Paul, or Eov. Act. Paul. Calk.), and this is t h e place it occupies in almost all Gr. MSS. f r o m and w r o t e with t h a t idea always before him. the Vatican onwards, in the M u r a t o r i a n F r a g m e n t I n the last ten y e a r s a series of w r i t e r s have a t t a c k e d the question of the sources of t h e book a n d later lists, in Syr. a n d Lat. MSS. T h e order, En-. Paul Act. Calh., is t h a t of t h e Sin., some (see § x . ) iu a m a n n e r quite inconsistent with tiiis. Minuscules. 'MSS. of t h e P e s h i t t a of the 5th a n d T h e y have imagined a n u m b e r of writers who have 0th cent., the Codex F u l d e n s i s a n d Vulg. MSS. g r a d u a l l y compiled the book by collecting and f r o m t h e 18 th cent. A t h i r d order is Em. piecing together scraps of other books, a n d by Paul. Cath. Act., which is f o u n d in t h e Apostolic altering or c u t t i n g out such passages in the s a m e C a n o n s , 85, the Bohairic and p e r h a p s the Sahidie as seemed inconsistent with t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r opinMSS., in J e r o m e ' s Bible a n d Spanish Vulg. MSS. ions. This view, in a n y t h i n g like a n e x t r e m e f o r m , Tiie only point of i m p o r t a n c e in the order would is absolutely inconsistent with the whole c h a r a c t e r be w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a n early tradition grouping of the work. t h e writings of St. L u k e together. T h e r e is very A sutiicient a m o u n t has been said about the little evidence of this. I n s o m e cases S t . L u k e ' s various opinions which have been held, a n d it will w a s placed f o u r t h a m o n g t h e Gospels, but this be m o s t convenient to pursue our s u b s e q u e n t h a p p e n e d , as a rule, in authorities which do not p u t investigations f r o m the point of view which we t h e Acts n e x t ; for example, t h e Codex Claromon- consider m o s t probable. t a n u s a n d some Coptic authorities. There seems, v. PruPOSK A\L> CONTEXTS.—The purpose which however, some evidence f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t in the writer of the A c t s h a d b e f o r e h i m may be

28

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

gathered from his own preface, corresponding as it does with the plan and arrangement of the work. There is indeed a slight obscurity. He begins by referring to his previous book in the words rhv /xeu itpwrov \6-yov, and very clearly sums up the contents Of t h e W O r k a s b e i n g irepl irai>t&v wv

'np^aro

6

'ly-Jovs

els ¿arijv iluxtv.

In

•jroietp re xal 5. this took place a t least ten years later, u n d e r Cuspins Eadus, and long a f t e r that of J u d a s t h e G a l i l a a n . So f a r the problem was simple, b u t it is now maintained that the mistake arose from t h e misapprehension of a passage of Josephus. I n one paragraph he speaks about Theudas, in the next of t h e got* of Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the origin of the mistake. The two passages are quoted thus — A c t s 5» Jos. Ant. xx. v. 1 f. acetjTTj (-jf o 5 « s Af ytav QevSas . . . Tretdei rby av elpat Tiva kavjov . . . bs ?r AeiOTov ox^ TrpotpjjTTls yap HAeyep elyai, avripeflr] Kai irafTes OGOI K. r . A.

¿irtWovTo

i-». UO G;ti 211 f. » A c ir>3'>-5». ( a ) If w e e x a m i n e t h e first p a s s a g e s w e n o t i c e q u i t e d e f i n i t e l y certain d i s c r e p a n c i e s . T h e A c t s c o n t a i n 110 r e f e r e n c e to t h e visit t o A r a b i a ; w e should n o t g a t h e r f r o m t h e n a r r a t i v e t h a t t h r e e y e a r s h a d e l a p s e d b e f o r e t h e visit to J e r u s a l e m ; w h i l e the s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e was u n k n o w n b y face to t h e C h u r c h e s t h a t w e r e in J i u b e a , is s u p p o s e d to b e i n c o n s i s t e n t , w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t he p r e a c h e d in t h e s y n a g o g u e s of J e r u s a l e m . B u t h o w f a r do t h e s e d i s c r e p a n c i e s t a k e u s ? I t i s q u i t e clear t h a t St. L u k e s e l e c t s w h a t he r e q u i r e s for h i s p u r p o s e , a n d i t is p o s s i b l e f h a t lie k n e w of t h e j o u r n e y to A r a b i a a n d d i d n o t t h i n k i t n e c e s s a r y t o r e c o r d i t ; nor, again, d o e s he g i v e e x a c t i n d i c a t i o n s of t h e t i m e e l a p s e d . T h e r e is no n e c e s s a r y i n c o n s i s t e n c y ; b u t still t h e o b v i o u s i m p r e s s i o n c r e a t e d b y t h e n a r r a t i v e is t h a t t h e w r i t e r did n o t k n o w of the A r a b i a n j o u r n e y , n o r of t h e l e n g t h of t i m e w h i c h had e l a p s e d b e f o r e t h e J e r u s a l e m v i s i t , a n d t h e t w o narratives give a s o m e w h a t different impression. St. P a u l w i s h e s to e m p h a s i z e his i n d e p e n d e n c e of t h e a p o s t l e s ; St. L u k e w i s h e s to s h o w t h a t St. P a u l w a s r e c e i v e d b v t h e m . B u t each h i n t s a t t h e o t h e r side, St. P a u l clearly i m p l i e s t h a t h e w a s received by t h e m ; S t . L u k e as c l e a r l y , t h a t t h e r e w a s s o m e h e s i t a t i o n a b o u t d o i n g so, a n d St. L u k e ' s l a n g u a g e m a k e s it plain t h a t e v e n if he had p r e a c h e d in s y n a g o g u e s in J e r u s a l e m h e h a d n o t p r e a c h e d in J m h e a . T h e a c c o u n t s a r e d i f f e r e n t and t o ail a p p e a r a n c e i n d e p e n d e n t , t h e y r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of v i e w , t h e y s u p p l e m e n t o n e a n o t h e r ; t h e y a r e n o t i n c o n sistent. (ft) T h e s a m e m a y bo said in t h e m a i n c o n c e r n i n g t h e n e x t n a r r a t i v e (Gal •2 1 - 1 0 =Ac 15 1 " 33 ). T h e very c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n of L i g h t f o o t {Galafu/ns, p. 1 (> r e p r e s e n t s , on t h e w h o l e , a very fair historical c o n c l u s i o n . N o s e n s i b l e p e r s o n will find a n y disc r e p a n c y if S t . Paul, giving his i n t e r n a l m o t i v e , s t a t e s t h a t h e w e n t by revelation, and St. L u k e gives the external motive. I t is q u i t e n a t u r a l that. St. L u k e s h o u l d g i v e t h e p u b l i c h i s t o r y , St. P a u l t h e p r i v a t e . W h a t is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o notice i s t h e i n c i d e n t a l t e s t i m o n y t h a t each a c c o u n t g i v e s to t h e o t h e r . We g a t h e r f r o m S t . P a u l h i s g r e a t d e s i r e to b e 011 good t e r m s w i t h t h e l e a d i n g apostles—if h e is n o t , h e f e a r s he will r u n in vain a n d l a b o u r in v a i n ; w e g a t h e r t h a t t h e y receive h i m in a f r i e n d l y m a n n e r — t h e y g i v e hirii t h e r i g h t h a n d of f e l l o w s h i p ; a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e looked u p o n b y s o m e of t h e i r f o l l o w e r s as b e i n g a n t a g o n i s t i c t o S t . P a u l , St. P a u l d o e s not t h i n k so. A g a i n , f r o m t h e A c t s w e g a t h e r t h a t t h e conclusion w a s n o t carried o u t w i t h o u t much dispute, and presumably was not a c c e p t a b l e to a l l ; a n d we e q u a l l y g a t h e r , as w e w o u l d f r o m S t . P a u l , t h a t t h o s e w h o h a d c a u s e d t h e d i s t u r b a n c e had claimed t h a t t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e o p i n i o n s of t h e chief a p o s t l e s . I t h a s been a s s u m e d t h a t A c To r e f e r s to t h e s a m e e v e n t as Gal 2 1 " 1 0 ; b u t this, a l t h o u g h c o m m o n l y , is nor. u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t e d . W h y , it is a s k e d , d o e s S t . P a u l o m i t all r e f e r e n c e to t h e visit r e c o r d e d in Ac l l 3 0 ? T h i s is a g e n u i n e difficulty. I t h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e h a s been a d i s a r r a n g e m e n t in t h e A c t s , a n d , o w i n g to a c o n f u s i o n of s o u r c e s , o n e of the l a t e r visits h a s been d u p l i c a t e d . T h e a r g u m e n t , a g a i n s t t h i s is t h a t B a r n a b a s is r e p r e s e n t e d as t h e c o m p a n i o n of S t . P a u l , a n d t h a t h e had left him a t a later d a t e . A m i s t a k e in c h r o n o l o g y is p r o b a b l e , b u t n o t a m i s t a k e as t o t h e c o m p a n i o n s h i p . O n t h e o t h e r side, R a m s a y (St. Paul, p. 4S) i d e n t i f i e s t h e visit of (ial 2 1 - 1 0 w i t h t h a t of Ac l l 3 0 . H e l a y s g r e a t s t r e s s on t h e difficulty involved in s u p p o s i n g t h a t St. P a u l o m i t t e d all r e f e r e n c e to t h i s j o u r n e y . B u t t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n bv L i g h t f o o t — t h a t t h e a p o s t l e s w e r e n o t in J e r u s a l e m , a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e r e w a s no n e e d fur t h e visit to be m e n t i o n e d — a r e a c c e p t e d b v l l o r t i J u i / a i f i t i i ' ChrixtianiUj, p. (¡1) as suHieieiit. W e m u s t r e f e r tlx r e a d e r t U a t n s a y ' s o w n book for t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s u b j e c t , b u t can only say t h a t he h a s n o t s u c c e e d e d in c o n v i n c i n g u s . A r e a s o n a b l e

32

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

criticism m u s t say that the t w o narratives w e are considering refer to the same e v e n t s ; that tin; accounts thav contain are independent and supplementary, b u t not contradictory (see the discussion between San day and Ham say in Expositor, Feb. 1896, and foil, numbers). (c) The third point need not detain us long. I t is merely t h a t St. L u k e does not record a narrative concerning St. Peter mentioned by St. Paul. H e may have been ignorant of i t ; he may have thought that it did not answer his purpose ; he may even have thought it better to QUI it an incident which lie felt was discreditable. "What is important to notice is that the narrative in Galatians proves conclusively that the standpoint of the Acts is correct. I t was quite impossible that St. Paul could accuse St. Peter of hypocrisy unless he had already adopted his view. ' I t is clear from Gal 2 l l f f - that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the standpoint of P a u l ' (Harnack, Hint, of Dogma, E n g . t r . vol. i. p. SW).

An examination of these narratives proves the independence of the two accounts, and each corroborates the other in various points. When we turn to the general narrative in the Acts and compare it with that which can be gathered from the Epistles, we find three characteristic«—independence, broad resemblances, and subtle points of contact. All the Epistles which correspond to the same period will fit into the narrative, while the minute coincidences which have been brought out by Paley, whose argument is not out of date,— more particularly that concerning the collection for the saints,—have very substantial evidential value. 3. The Archaeological Evidence.—A great test of the accuracy of the writer in the last twelve chapters is given by the evidence from archaeology. Its strength and value are so great that we need only refer to it. The investigations of the last twenty or thirty years have tended more and more to confirm the accuracy of the writer. In almost every point where we can follow him, even in minute details, he is right. He knows that at the time when St. Paul visited Cyprus it was governed by a proconsul; this was the case only between the years tt.C. 22 and some time early in the 2nd cent. ; then a change was made, probably in Hadrian's reign. He knows that the magistrates of Philippi were called a-rparijyoi, and were attended by lictors, but that those of Thessalonica were iroK'napxai. He knows thatDerbe and Lystra, but not Iconium, are cities of Lycaonia. The subject has been worked out in considerable detail by Lightfoot and liamsay, and it is sufficient to refer to them. It is enough, too, to refer here to the very complete investigations of the account of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck made by James Smith ( Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul). We need not enter into details, as tiiey are admitted. W h a t we must emphasize is the bearing of this evidence. It proves, in the first place, that in the latter portion of the Acts the writer had good and accurate sources of information. It is quite impossible that he should be correct in all these points unless he had good material, or was himself conversant with the events. But it also proves, however we think he acquired the information, that he was accurate in the use of his sources. It is quite inconceivable that a writer who is so accurate in a large number of small and difficult points could have, as is maintained, used Josephus, and used him with incredible inaccuracy. This evidence, on the other hand, does not prove that the writer is necessarily as trustworthy in the earlier portions of the history, where his sources of information were less good. It does suggest that he would get as accurate information as possible, and reproduce it correctly. 4. We pass backward to the transition period, which begins with the preaching of Stephen and 3xtends to the end of the apostolic council. This is clearly the most important period in the history, and we have few means of controlling it. We have little independent evidence. What we can

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES point to, in the first place, is the naturalness of the whole history. There were the germs of universalism in Christianity, but these needed opportunity to develop; and the whole history shows that the expansion arose from the natural reaction of events on the Christians, not from any deliberate purpose or from any one definite event. Take first the persecution. Zeller (Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 229) lays great stress on the fact that in the early chapters the Sadducees are the persecutors, in the later the Pharisees. But this inconsistency is thoroughly natural. At first the Sadducees oppose the Christians, because, being the official hierarchy responsible to the Romans for the order of the country, tliey fear disturbances; the Christians are merely a sect of devout and zealous Jews in favour with the Pharisees. But when once the universalist element inherent in Christianity is made apparent by the teaching of Stephen, the devout and zealous Jews are offended, the Pharisees take up the persecution, and it becomes a r e d i t y . We may notice again incidentally how it is the entrance of the freer Hellenic spirit in the person of Stephen which first brings out this universalis tic element. The persecution leads quite naturally to a dispersion of the Christians, more particularly of those associated with Stephen, and consequently to the spread of Christianity. In all that follows St. Peter takes the lead, a position which is quite in accordance with what we know from Galatians (see above, § ix. 2). The stages work out gradually and naturally, the pressure of faith and enthusiasm leads the preachers of Christianity onwards. First come the Samaritans, then 'devout m e n ' who are yet not circumcised ; then the preaching to Gentiles ; then the growth of a definite Christian community in Antioch, i.e. a community which the outer world clearly recognised as something distinct from Judaism, and which would naturally appear first in a place removed from older associations ; then the first recorded journey of St. Paul, with its unexpected and far-reaching developments, and its subtle corroborations in the Romans (10 12 ). Naturally enough, there gradually arises a Judaising party in Jerusalem, and the older apostles find themselves acting as mediators between the two parties. The position which is ascribed to them by the Acts is always recognised by St. Paul, and he claims equally to be recognised by l.hem ; while both the Acts and St. Paul recognise the extreme party as claiming their authority although without entire justification (Ac 1524, Gal 2 12 ). The whole story as told in the Acts is natural and consistent, and gives a much more credible account of the development of Christianity than any modern one constructed on a priori ideas. o. The Early Community in Jerusalem.—The first section of the Ac (l 1 2 -5 4 2 ) has been often treated as the least historical portion of the book. It is less true to say that it has been attacked. It is rather the case that it has been set on one side ( ' t h e idealised picture of the Jerusalem community,' Holtzmann). And the examination of it is difficult, for we have little that is definite with which to compare it. The theory, however, put forward is that this was written from the point of view of the author's own time, and from that aspect we can examine it. We know how the writer of the Clementine Homilies reproduces in the earliest days of the Church the doctrine and the organisation of his own time—he represents St. Peter as appointing bishops in every church. Now, at any rate, the writer of the Acts lived forty years later, and at a time when both the doctrine and the organisation of the Church were much more developed; yet we find absolutely no traces of this either in the speeches or in the narrative of the first five chapters.

ACTS OF THE

APOSTLES

To work this out in detail would be beyond the scope of the present article, bat it may be illustrated in some points. The Christoloyy is throughout primitive. Our Lord is called 'Ir?a-oOs xpicrrbs 6 Na(iopaios (2 22 3 0 410_), a name which occurs in the Gospt'ls, but elsewhere only twice, when St. Paul, in the later chapters of the Acts, is referring to his earlier life. So again the next phrase that meets us is 7reus Qeov (3 13 * -i 27, 30 ), which occurs nowhere else in NT of our Lord, and elsewhere is used of Him in the Didache, which clearly represents very early tradition. Again, we notice how very markedly Xpwros is not a personal name, rbv ei T 1 VQV •TpoKsx P'-' l * vp-lv X/>. 'Irjcr. ( 3 2 i ) , Kvpiov avrbv Ka\ SLpiarbv o deos eVotTjcrev (2 ;i(i )- One more phrase we may notice, apx-nyd* (3 15 5 3 1 ), which occurs elsewhere in ..Iebrews twice (2 10 12 2 ), and nowhere else in NT. We find nowhere the expression vtbs deov. "Whereas St. Paul 'placarded' Christ crucified (Gal 3 1 ), we find here, as we might expect, that St. Peter lias to take towards the death of Christ a purely defensive attitude (3 1 8 ). We have no reference to Christ's pre-existence. W e have, in fact, a representation of what must have been, and what we have independent evidence to show was tlie eai'iest Christian teaching about C h r i s t : — t h e proof that He was the Messiah, afforded by His resurrection, of which the apostles were witnesses, and by the Scriptures. Similar is the relation to tlie universal character of the Gospel. We are told that the Acts was written from a universalis! point of view, and the statement is quite true in a sense ; but we find that St. Peter's speeches are not effected by it. God raised up Jesus to give repentance to Israel (5 3 1 ) ; Y e are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant (3 2 5 ). There are elements of universalism, but they are incidental. The promise is to Israel first (S 26 ) ; so (2 38 ) ' t o you is the promise and to your children, and to all those that are afar off' ; S*5 1 in Israel all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' The standpoint of these chapters is, in fact, that of the Jewish prophets. There is the germ from which future development can come, but the development is not there. One last point we may mention in this connexion is the eschatoJogij. It is thoroughly .1 ewish and primitive, 1 that He may send the Christ, who liath been appointed for you, even J e s u s : whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restoration of all things,' 319- - 1 ; the Messianic kingdom is called the Katpol avaThere is nothing about the personal resurrection, which, of course, is a point which would not trouble the primitive community in the first years of its existence ; and it is difficult to v.nderstand how a Greek writer who had seen the Neronian persecutions, and knew the needs of a later generation, could have invented this primitive idea of things. If we pass to the organisation of the community, again, it is quite unlike the conception which we should expect from a Gentile Christian of forty or fifty years later. I t is perfectly true that stress is laid on the unity of the primitive community, and it may be that this is exaggerated with a purpose ; but no object could be gained by the representation which is given of its form and character. There is no trace of any later organisation, nor mention of presbyters. The Christians have, in fact, not yet been cast out of t:ie synagogues. They are regular in their worship in the temple (Ac 24'r, Lk 24 6 3 ). They take part in the morning and evening sacrifices. They observe the Jewish hours of prayer. They join in the synagogue worship (6 9 9 2 ) . They are not only conforming Jews, they are devout (Ac 21 20 22 1 2 ). They do not yet realise that they are separate from Judaism. They are but a sect, the sect of VOL. r.— i

the Nafapatoi ( A c 2 4 5 ) . One more point, may be noticed, the community of goods ; the exact character of this it is unnecessary to discuss here. It is sufficient to point out that no reason l a s been suggested to explain why it should have so much emphasis laid on it, or why it should have been invented if it were not historical. It has been said that we have little evidence for correcting this. The archaeological evidence which we found in cli. 13 f. here fails us. But we have a few indirect hints. The position of the Twelve we may gather from 1 Co 9 5 15°; of St. Peter from 1 Co"l5 5 , Gal 2 9 ; of St. John from Gal 2»; of the brethren of the Lord from 1 Co 9*. A certain amount of incidental evidence is given by the Ebionite traditions concerning the position of St. J a m e s ; and they correspond with what is suggested by the later parts of the Acts, where we have an account of the state of affairs by one who is presumably an eye-witness. It is clear that these early chapters give a picture of the primitive community which is quite different from what existed within the experience of the writer, and which is in itself probable. Is it then likely that this should be the result of the historical imagination of the writer, or is it not more probable that it is historical in character and based on written evidence ? We have no reason to doubt that we possess an historical account of the words of the Lord ; and the same witnesses who recorded these, either by tradition or in writing, would be equally likely to record the speeches and acts of the leading apostle of the infant Church. 6. The Speeches.—One more point under this heading demands investigation, namely, the speeches. Are these genuine records of speeches actually delivered, or were they written by the historian in accordance with the fashion of th¿ d a y ? We may notice two points, to begin with. They are all very short, too short to have been delivered as they stand, and for the most part the style in which they are written is that of the historian. They are clearly, therefore, in a sense his own compositions. B u t the same can also be said of a considerable number of the speeches in the Gospel. We can compare St. Luke's account in this case with that of other authorities, and we find, indeed, a slight modification side by side with general accuracy ; we find the style of the author, but the matter of the authority. On the other hand, there is no reason for thinking a priori that the speeches cannot be historical. As has just been pointed out, the speeches of the leading apostles would impress themselves on the growing community, and would be remembered as the words of the Lord were remembered. Putting aside a priori considerations, we must as far as possible examine the character of the speeches themselves; and we must first see what light St. Paul's Epistles throw on the subject. According to 1 Co 15 l f - the main subjects of St. Paul's preaching were the death and resurrection of Christ, as proved by the Scriptures and as witnessed to by the apostles, and other incidental allusions in the Epistles support this (1 Th I 1 0 4 1 4 ). Now, if we turn to St. Paul's speech at Pisidian Antioch addressed to the Jews (l:!115 -11), we find that the writer has exactly realised what was necessary for the situation. The basis is scriptural, and the central fact clearly is, the proof of the resurrection. Just at the end we have a definitely Pauline touch introduced (v. 3i1 ). This shows that the writer clearly grasps the situation as it is hinted at by the apostle in his own letters, and as was exactly in accordance with the demands of the situation ; and this is compatible either with his being a writer using a good source, a\\79; g.

ADAH

35

Berger, La Palimpseste de Fleur y, 1889 ; extr. delà Revue de théol. et philos. ; J. Hendel Harris, Study of Cod. Be za e Texts and Studies, II. i. 1891 ; P. Corssen, Der Cyprian inch e Text der Acta A post, program of the Gymnasium of Schoeaberg at Berlin, 1S92 ; W. Sandav, Guardian, ISth and 2.5th M ay 1892; F. H. Chase, Old Syr. Element in the Text of Cod. itas.i«, 1893 ; F. Blass, SK, 1S94, p. 86, HerDKI then a, xxi. p. 121, 1895 ; 8. Berger, Un Ancien texte Latin di'ft Actes den apôtres retrouvé Tiré den notices dan s un Manuscrit provenant de Perpignan; et extraits, 1S95. (2) Commentaries. — Chrysostom (ob. 40T), Beda (ob. 735), Calvin (ob. 1564), Grotius (1644), Bengel (1T42), Ophausen (1882, ed. iv.by Ebrard, 1S62), Meyer (1885, ed. vii. by Wendt, 188S, Eng. tr. bv Gioag and Dickson), de Wette ( 1S3S, e'd. iv. bv Overbeck, 1870), Alford (1849, ed. vi. 1SCS), "Wordsworth (1857, éd. iv. IbST), Ewald, Die 3 ersten Evangelien und die A poste}geschieh te (1871), Cook in the Speaker's Com. (ISSI). Nisgen (1882), Luthardt and Zöckler in Strack and Zöckler's Kom. (1886, ed. ii. 1894), T. E. Page (1886), Iloltzmann in Hand-kommentar sum Neuen Testament(1892); Blass, Acta Ajoost. siveLucaead Theophilum Liber alter (1S95); 'Rendali. Act* of A posti es (1S97). (3) General Introductions.— S. "Davidson (1848-51, a:id again, from a different point of view, 1S68, ed. iii. 1894), Heuss (1860), F. Bleek (1864, Eng. tr. 1869), Ad. Hilgenfeld (1875), If. ,7. Iloltzmann (1S85, ed. iii. 1892), G. Salmon (1885, ed. vii. 1894), B. Weiss (1886. Eng. tr. 188S). (4) Special Treatises on the Acts.— John Lightfoot, Hebrew, Exer citations on the Act* of the Apnstles and Talmudical (1678) ; Palcy, Horae Paulin a e (1770, ed. by Kirks 1850) ; Zclier, Die Apostelgeschichte (1854, Eng. tr. 1875); J. B. Lightfoot. Galatians, 1865, pp. SI f.. S8 f.. 109 f., 276 f. ; Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. (1877) : .T. B. Lightfoot in Smith's /.'A'® i. 25. (5) Works on Early Church History.— Neander, ¡'fanzung und Leitung (1832, ed. v. 1862, Eng. tr. 1842. lS4tn ; Ranr, Paulus (1845) ; Conybeare and Ilowson, St. Paul. ed. ii. (1»56) ; Kitschl, Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirch". (od. ii. 1857 ) ; Lech 1er, Da s A postolisch e und Na ch a postol isvh 6); Ewald, Gesch. des A post. Zeitaltern (Eng. tr. History of Israel, vol. vi. ) ; lie nan, Les Apntres. p. x. (1866), Les Evangiles, p. 435 U877) ; Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul (1872), Earl v/ Day*, of Christian iiy (1882) ; Lewin, Life and Epistles of St. Pa id (1ST2) ; Weizsäcker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter (1S86, 2nd ed. 1892, Eng. tr. 1894) ; Ptìciderer. Urchristenthum (18S7) ; Kamsay, The Church in the. Horn. Empire. (1893) ; Ilort, Judaistic Christianity (1894); Kamsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895). (6) Monographs on Special Paints.—Tames Smith, Voyage and Ship ter eck of St. Paul (1*48, ed.iv. 1S80) ; J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on 4Supernatural Religion,'' pp. 291-302, Discoveries illustrating the Acts of the Apostles (1889); J. Friedrich, Dan Lukas-Evangelium und d ieApostelgeschichteWerk e desselben Verfassers (1890); Th. Mom m sen und Ad. Harnack. Zvr A poxtelgeschichte.xxviii. 16 \ Sitzungsberichte der königlich I'reussischen Akademie- der Wissenschaft su- Berlin, p. 491 (1895). (7) The Acts and Jos. (see Carl OU-trien, Die Chremologie der PaidinischenBriefe, p. 66, n. 53) ; Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, iii. pp. 134, 480 (1872), and ' Jos. im Neuen Testament' in Aus dem UrChristenthum, i. j>. 1 (1878) ; Iloltzmann Z.fitrW. Th. 1873, p. 85, 1877, p. 535 ; Krenkel, ib. 1873. p. 441 ; Schürer, ib. 1876, p. 574 ; The author of'Supernatural Religion,' Fortnightly Review, xxii. p. 496, 1877 ; Krenkel, Josephu*. -u. Lucas, Leipzig, 1894; Bousset in Theo!. Litzg. 1895, col. 391. (8) Sources.— Sorof, Die Entstehung der Apostel g e ach. 3890; Feine, Einevorkanon. Überlieferung des Lukas in Eräug.und Aposlelgesch. 1891; Spitta, Die Apostelgesch. ihre Quellen Wert (1891) ; van Manen, Po ulus f . , und deren geschichtlicher Die Handel in g er der Aposteln (1890); C.Clemen, Die, Chronologie der Paidinischen Briefe, (1S93). and SK ( 1895, p. 297); Johann .längst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte (1S95) ; Ad. Hilgenfeld. Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellenschriften untersucht, Z.fïir W. Th. 1S95, pp. 66, 186. 384. 481. A . C. HEADLAM.

ACUB (B 'AKOVoration in t i e

38

AJDITHAIM

A D A M A H

following Christian works which still survive. 1. The Ethiopia Bk. of Adam, pub. by Dillmann, Gbttingen, 1853; tr. also by Malan, London, 1882. 2. A Syr. work, resembling the foregoing, entitled The Treasure-Cave, ed. by Bezold, Leipzig, 1883. 3. The Si-qyqins Kal TroXireia 'Adafi tcai Etfas, ed. by Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphal, 1866; and condensed by Ronsch, Buch der JubUiien, pp. 468476. 4. 4 V i t a Adoe et Eva»,' a Lat. rendering of the same material, ed. by W . Meyer in Transactions oj Munich Academy, xo\. xiv. 1878, 5. The 'Testamentum Adanii,' which has been published by Renan, Syriac text with French tr. in Journ. Asiatique, 1853. 6. The sacred Look of the Mandaites is called the Bk of Adam, b':.t has little in common with the foregoing. Eild., Norberg's, 1815; Petermann's, Berlin, 1867. LITERATURE.—Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1-94, ii. 1-43; Hort, art. ' A d a m ' i n Smith and Wace, Diet, of Chr. Diog.; Schurer, HJP II. iii. 81, 147 f . ; Zockler, Apoor. des A1. 422. 3 ; Zunz, Die gvttcsd. Vortrage der Juden, 1S92, p. 136.

J. T . MARSHALL.

AD AMAH (n,?™), Jos 193B, ' r e d lands.'—A city of Naphtali mentioned next to Chinnereth. Probably the ruin 'Admah on the plateau north of Bethshean. See SWP vol. i. sh. vi. 0 . R . COLDER.

ADAMANT is twice (Ezk Zee used in A V and R V as tr. of vo^ shamlr, which is else* where rendered either «brier' (Is 5s V23'24-25 918 1 017 274 3213) or 'diamond' (Jer 171)- Diamond, which arose ftom adamant by a variety of spelling (adamant or adimant, then diamant or diamond), has displaced a. as the name of the precious stone, a. being now used rhetorically to express extreme hardness. See under art. STONES (PRECIOUS). ' A ^ a s occurs in L X X at A m 7 7,8 bi3 as tr. of ^»j ' p l u m m e t ' ; this is the origin and meaning of a. in its only occurrence in Apocr., Sir 16ia A V . See 39,

PLUMMET.

712)

J. HASTINGS.

ADAMI-NEKEB Jos 1933, 1 red lands the pass.'—A city of Naphtali. I t is doubtful if the names should not be divided (see NEKEB). The site is probably at the present village Ed-DCimieh on the plateau north-east of Tabor, where the basaltic soil is reddish. The site of Nekeb (Seiyddeh) is not far oil". See SWP vol. i. sh. vi. C. R .

CONDER.

ADDAR, 1 Ch

8 :i .—See

Alio.

ADDAR, A V Adar (-nx), Jos 15 3 .—A town on the border of Judah south of Beersheba. There is a ruin east of Gaza which bears the name 'Adart but this seems perhaps too far west. C. R . CONDER.

ADDER.—See SERPENT. ADDI ( A5SA).—An ancestor of Jesus Christ, Lk Z^.

See GENEALOGY.

ADDICT.—' T o a. oneself to,' now used only in a bad sense, was formerly neutral, and is found in a good sense in 1 Co 1615 ' they have a. themselves to the ministry of the saints' ( R V 4 they have set themselves to minister unto the saints '). Cf. Hist. Card. (1670):' The greatest part of the day he addicts either to study, devotion, or other spiritual exercises.' J. HASTINGS. AD DO (A'A55t6, B'ESSeiy).—The grandfather of the prophet Zechariah (1 Es 61). The name is similarly spelt in L X X of Ezr 51 (A'AS54, B'A54). See IDDO. ADDON ( p x ) , Neh 761.

See ADDAN.

ADDUS.—1. ('ASSotis) 1 Es 5 M .—His sons were among the children of Solomon's servants who returned with Zerub. ; the name does not occur in the parallel lists in Ezr 2, Neh 7. 2. See JADDUS. A D I D A ('A5t5d).—A town in the Shephelah (Jos. Ant. XIII. vi. 5) fortified by Simon the Hasmonasan (1 Mac 1238 1313). The same as Hadid. A D I E L (W-i^ 'ornament of God'). — 1. A Simeonite prince who attacked the shepherds of Gedor, 1 Ch 43Bff-. 2. A priest, 1 Ch 9 « 3. The father of Azraaveth, David's treasurer, 1 Ch 2725. A D I N (p:; 'luxurious'?), Ezr 21S 86, Neh 720 1018, 1 Es 5 I4m 83J. The head of a Jewish family, oi which some members returned with Zerub., and with Ezra. A D I N A (KiHj/), a Rcubenite chief, one of David's mighty men, 1 Ch ll 4 2 .

ADAR (Tw Ezr 615, Est 37-13 812 91-15£f-, 1 Mac 743-49, ADINO ([Kethibh usjm] ir-iy 4 Adino the 2 Mae 153,i, Est 1013 136 16 20 ).—The 12th month in the Eznite, 3 B 'ASeifwy o 'Aauptuos, A 'ASetP 6 'Acrajvaoj).— later Jewish Calendar. See TIME. The Kere is clearly an attempt to introduce some sense into the meaningless Kethibh. The present ADASA fASaud).—A town near Bethhoron (I Mac Heb. text of 2 S 238 must be corrupt, the true reading ~4o. jos xir x n o w r u j u >j.daseh being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Ch l l 1 1 near Gibeon ¿'Pi'Fvol. iii. sh. xvii. ' Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, he lifted up his spear,' The last clause (W:n JW NI.I) was A D B E E L (VxaiN), the third son of Ishmacl, Gn corrupted into myn uny ton, and then taken erro2513, 1 Ch l 29 , eponym of the N. Arab, tribe, which neously as a proper name, being treated as an alterappears in cuneiform in scrip, as Idiba'il or Idihial, native to the preceding 4 Josheb-bassheheth, a and which had its settlements S . W . of the Dead Tahchemonite' (see JASHOBEAM). B has the addiSea (Sayce, HCM 202 ; Schrader, KA T2 148 ; Oxf. tion oSros iaTTa.aa.ro rrjv po/x or simply bending head or b o d y ; submission and reverence, by t h e folded hands and city of the country Mysia, in the Rom. province c.owncast eyes; wonder and awe, by the uplifted Asia, with a harbour, at the top of t h e gulf Sinus The population and the name hands with palms turned o u t w a r d s ; invocation Adramyttenus. and supplication, by hands and arms outstretched ; were moved some distance inland during the Middle Ages to a site which is now called Edremid. dependence and entreaty, by clasped hands or meeting palms. Among the Hebrews, standing It m u s t have been a city of great importance when was the more usual a t t i t u d e in public prayer, as it Pergamos was the capital of the kings of A s i a ; is among t h e Jews to this d a y ; it indicates, per- and hence, when Asia became a Rom. province, haps, more a consciousness of t h e presence of other A d r a m y t t i u m was selected as the metropolis of men and less self-abandonment than kneeling (cf. the N . W . district of Asia, where the assizes the Parable of t h e Pharisee and the Publican), (conventus) of t h a t whole district were held. which therefore was more appropriate to private Its ships made trading voyages along 2the coast? devotion. Solomon, it is true, knelt at the dedi- of Asia and as far as Syria (Ac 27 ); and a cation of the temple fl K 8 M , 2 Ch 613). Ezra (Ezr kind of ointment exported from the city was 95) and Daniel (I)n 610) likewise fell upon their highly esteemed (Pliny, NH xiii. 2. 5). Its knees; and St. Paul knelt in prayer with the importance as a trading centre is shown by its elders of Ephesus. In all these instances, however, being one of the cities where cistophori, the great the idea conveyed is rather t h a t the spectators were commercial coinage of t h e east, were struck beoverlooking or assisting a t an act of private tween 133 and 67 B.C. It sullered greatly during devotion, than t h a t they were taking part in public the Mithridatic wars, and rather declined in imor common prayer. In one instance (2 S 7 1 8 =1 Ch portance ; but, even as late as the 3rd cent., ] 716) we read of sitting as an a t t i t u d e of p r a y e r ; under Caracalla, it still ranked sufficiently high to but this probably is a form of kneeling, t h e strike alliance coins with Ephesus (implying cerbody being thrown back so as to rest upon tain reciprocal rights in respect of religious festiW. M. RAMSAY. the heels, as in other cases (I K IS4'2) it was vals and games). t hrown forward until the head was placed between the knees. To fall at the feet of a person (irpocnctJVT]hecy of Agabus (A.D. 59) followed t h e OT J . HASTINGS, AFFRAY.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS.

AGAINST

AGE, AGED, OLD AGE

47

AGAINST. — 1. In its primitive meaning of ecclesiastical term. W h e n the Lord sought to set ' opposite t o ' against is rarely found alone, usually forth the high meaning of discipleship with regard ' o v e r a., 5 as D t l 1 ' i n the plain over a. the Red to enmity, slander, immorality, and murder, He at S e a 5 ; b u t we find Gn 1510 ' a n d laid each piece once reached a point t h a t seemed beyond the ideal one a. a n o t h e r ' (RV ' e a c h half over a. the other'); when He alluded to the law revered by age and it must be J Ch 258 ' They cast lots, ward a. w a r d ' ; Ezk 38 authority, and declared t h a t 21even 23 ' I have made t h y face strong a. their f a c e s ' ; esp. vitalised and transfigured (Mt 5 ' ). Nu25 4 ' T a k e all t h e heads (RV 'chiefs'} of the 3. Mutual Affection.—The teaching of t h e Bible people, and hang them up before t h e Lord a. t h e on age appeals as much to t h e heart as to the s u n ' (RV ' unto the Lord before the s u n ' ) ; head, and m a n y affectionate interests are made to and 1 S 252u ' D a v i d and his men came down cluster around the relationship of old and young. a. h e r ' (i.e. opposite her, so as to meet her). In the language of endearment, 4 the beauty of old 29 ), and 4 T h e hoary 2. From the meaning ' opposite to 5 of place, easily men is the grey h e a d ' (Pr 20 31 arises ' opposite t o ' of time, of which we have an head is a crown of glory' (Pr 16 ). T h e presence example in Ro 25 ' t r e a s u r e s t up unto thyself of the aged in a community is regarded as a sign of wrath a. (Gr. iv, R V ' i n ' ) the day of w r a t h ' ; peace and goodwill, just as the rarity of old age and of natural death indicates a state of blood-feud I Mac 527. Cf. Spenser, Prothalamion— and party strife (Job 22 ie ). John, who in youth ' Against the Brydale day, which is not long.' came to Christ with a petition of selfishness, lives 4 3. In this sense a. is found as a conjunction to say in his old age, Greater joy have I none t h a n 1 of my children walking in t h e t r u t h ' in three places, Gn they made ready the this, to hear 4 present a. Joseph came a t n o o n ' ; Ex 715, 2 K 1611. (3 J n v. ). The women of Bethlehem in their rejoicing over the child of Boaz and R u t h , bring J . HASTINGS. their joy to her who would feel it AGAR.—The sons of Agar are mentioned (Bar S23) the expression of and say, 4 There is a son born to N a o m i ' (Ru along with the merchants of Midian and Teman, most, 17 4 ). In the same spirit the aged apostle, in his as ignorant of t h e way t h a t leads to the secret h a u n t of Wisdom. They are called Hagarenes appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, gives a predominance to love over law, saying, ' I rather 19 20 31 (which see), Ps 83° ; and Hagrites, 1 Ch 5 - 27 . beseech, being such an one as Paul the aged' (Philem Their country lay east of Gilead. v.9). The last and softest fold of this affectionate J . T . MARSHALL. relationship is the feebleness of age, and its. claim AGATE. S e e M I N E R A L S AND PRECIOUS STONES. upon the protection of t h e strong. I t was the absence of this t h a t made Moses stand apart and AGE, AGED, OLD AGE.—Respect towards t h e unique. Barzillai is too old for new friendships aged as such, a p a r t from any special claims of kin- and fresh surroundings. The limit is set at threesiiip, wealth, or public office, has always been a score and ten, and excess of t h a t is increase of characteristic feature in Oriental life. In modern sorrow. Jacob's retrospect is over days 4 few and Syria and Egypt it has a foremost place among evil.' There are days in which there is no pleasure. social duties, taking rank with the regard paid to Along with the recognition of long life as a mark the neighbour and the guest. A n y failure to show of divine favour, the apostle can say, 4 To die is this respect on the part of t h e young is severely gain.' Lastly, when heart and flesh fail, the frowned down as unseemly and unnatural. In prayer is made to the Almighty, 4 When I am old, Israel the general custom was strengthened by forsake me n o t ' (Ps 7118). the command in the law of Moses, ' T h o u shalt rise up before the hoary h e a d ' (Lv 1932). This Along with this devotion to t h e old and reverence beautiful bond between youth and age may be for t h e past, the Bible keeps a large space for the described as a threefold cord of wisdom, authority, fact of reaction against routine, and the superseding and affection. of the provincial and preparatory. Elihu occupies it 1. Wisdom.—Where there is a scarcity of written when ne says with the intensity of epigram, ' There record, personal experience becomes t h e one book is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty of wisdom. As it is put by the Arab, proverb, ' H e giveth them understanding. I t is not t h e great the aged t h a t understand t h a t is older than you by a day is wiser than you t h a t are wise, nor 7 9 ' A new commandment by a year.' There is a similar emphasis on the judgment* (Job 32 " ). Cf. 34 value of experience when they say, ' Consult the I give unto y o u ' (Jn 13 ). The old existed for patient, not t h e physician.' Hence t h e diffidence the young, not the young for the old. As the and respectful waiting of the youth Elihu, ' Days wisdom of the man of years grew into the teachshould speak, and multitude of years should teach ing of the historical past, it was discovered t h a t wisdom' (Job 327). Similarly; t h e t a u n t of Eliphaz, the new was really the old, and t h a t the latest ' A r t thou t h e first man t h a t was born ?' (Job 157), born might be the most mature. The very reverand his claim, ' W i t h us are the grey-headed and ence for the wisdom of t h e past set the limitation t^ery aged m e n ' (Job 1510). Thus also Moses, to its authority. The well-worn garment had to though possessed of the learning of t h e Egyptians, be protected against t h e loud predominance of the receives helpful advice from J e t h r o ; and later on, new patch. The old bottles were once new. Hence the tragedy of t h e divided kingdom in the days of along with the exhortation to seek t h e ' old p a t h s ' Eehoboam turns upon the difference of opinion we have the announcement t h a t 'old things are between t h e old and young advisers of the passed away.' Further, in the Via Dolorosa of the centuries along which the Word of God walked king. 2. Authority.—It was natural t h a t the voice with the questionings and sorrows of men, as the of experience and wisdom should also be the voice light forced the darkness into self-consciousness, of authority. I t was t h e tide-mark of Job's pros- and the kingdom of God came nearer, it could not psrity t h a t the aged rose u p before him. From but happen t h a t the august form would sometimes the dignity conferred on t h e father as lord of the appear to block the way, and dispute the passage house and head of t h e family, the title soon of the t r u t h for which it existed. The appeal to passed into one of public office. The old men t h e Burning Bush is always for some newer name Hence in the course became the ' elders' of Israel and of t h e Christian than t h e God of the fathers. Church. Similarly among the Arabs, the family of revelation, as the purpose of divine grace grows luminous, t h e infinite spirit chafes against the o:f the ruling sheikh (old man) bore the title of sheikhs from their youth—an extension of the limited form, and a distaste is provoked towards orig. meaning t h a t is seen also in the corresp. regimental wisdom and macadamized morality.

48

AGEE

The refreshment of the brook makes men think of the fountainhead. Hence in Israel the akedia of Ecclesiastes on account of the omnipresent past; and in heathenism the inscription of religious despair, 'To the unknown god/ and the unrest that urged philosophy to 'some new thing' (Ac IT21). The Bible witnesses throughout to this vital relationship between the new and the old ; for its last scene is a repetition of the first—the new creature stepping into the new heavens and new earth, and m the eternal service behind the veil new notes are heard in the song of Moses and the Lamb. As long as the power of vision remains limited, it is essential to the sublime that something of blue haze and boundlessness should lie on the horizon both of life and landscape.

AGRICULTURE

the form of the domestication of wild animals, and this, by bringing man into closer and more deliberate contact with the soil, contained the promise of further progress. The domesticati on of wild plants naturally succeeded, and the neolithic man is known, not only to have reared cattle, goats, and swine, but to have cultivated wheat, barley, and millet, which he ground with millstones and converted into bread or pap. While the Aryans were still virtually in the astoral stage, the A*1 art was being actively eveloped in Egypt and Assyria. In the Nile Valley nature bountifully paved the way. The inundations of the Nile create an admirable bed for the seed by reducing the irrigated .soil to a ' smooth black paste,' and the monuments exhibit the people as improving from the earliest times their great natural advantages. The G. M . MACKIB. AGEE (to*).—The father of Shammah, one4 of early traditions of the Hebrews, on the other hand, were essentially nomadic. The association 'the Three' (2 S 2311). We should prob. read the, Hararite' here in conformity with v.33 and 1 Ch of Cain with A. (Gn 4) implies a disparagement ll 34 , the Jonathan of v.33 (as emended) being the of the calling. Abraham is represented as a pure as is indicated in the grandson of Agee. Wellhausen, however, prefers nomad. And although, 12 the reading 'Shage' (1 Ch ll 34 ) to 'Shammah' of histories of Isaac (Gn 26 ) and Jacob, the bes3 ginnings of A. would naturally have a place in the here for 2 S 23 , and would restore ' Shage' of ' Agee'; on this view, Jonathan (v.sy) would be the primitive period, it is only after the conquest Can. that the Jews take rank as an Aal people ; brother of Shammah. J. F. STENNING. and even then the tribes of the trans-Jordanic plateau, whose territory was unsuitable for ullage, AGGABA (A 'Ayyafa B oxn., AVGraba), continued to depend on cattle-rearing. 1 E S 529.—In Ezr 2« Hagabah, Neh Hagaba. The agrarian legislation of the Pent, in reference The source of the AV form is doubtful. to the settlement of Can. doubtless embodies some AGGAEUS (AV Aggeus), 1 Es 61 7\ 2 Es I40, for ancient laws and customs regulating the tenure of the soil, although other enactments must be Haggai (which see). regarded as of later origin, or even as the s7 unfulfilled aspirations of the exilic age. To the AGIA ('Ayid, AV Hagia), 1 Es 5".—In Ezr 2 , 59 last class probably belong the institution of the Neh 7 Hattil. sabbatical year (Ex 2311, Lv 254), the produce of AGONE.—1 S3013 'Three days agone I fell sick.' which, or its 'volunteer' crop, was reserved for the This is the earlier form of the past part, of the poor, the stranger,8 and cattle ; and that of the year verb agan or agon, ' to pass by,' or 'go on.' Only of jubilee (Lv 25- ), in which the dispossessed heir the part, is found after 1300, and alter Caxton's resumed possession of his ancestral acres. Among clay this longer form gradually gave place to ago. the enactments of a greater antiquity and validity may be mentioned 14the law against the removal of Chaucer (Troilus, ii. 410) says— landmarks (Dt 19 ), which was made urgent by 4 the fact that the arable lands, unlike tlie vineOf this world the feyth is all agon.' yards, were not divided by hedges (Is 55). J . HASTINGS. The climate of Pal., owing to the removal of AGONY.—In the sense of great trouble or distress, agony is used in 2 Mac 314 'There18,21 was forests, must now be much less humid than in early no small a. throughout the whole city' (cf. 3 ). times. The summer is rainless and warm, the In Canonical Scripture the word is found only in winter and early spring are rainy and colder. Lk 22'" of our Lord's Agony in the Garden. And During the dry season the heat, esp. in the low there it seems to have been introduced by Wyclif country, is excessive, and rapidly burns up all directly from the Vulg. agonia, just as the Lat. of minor vegetation; while any surface-water, as the Vulg. was a transliteration of the Gr. dywla from springs, is evident in the spots of unwonted (on which see Field, Otium Norv. iii., ad loc.), verdure which it induces on the parched landscape. Tindale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva (1557), In autumn the cisterns are nearly empty, and the the Kheims (1582), the AV (1611), and the BV ground has become very hard. The husbandman (1881) all have 'an agony' here; Wyclif himself must consequently wait for the rains before he can start ploughing. The rainy season begins about has simply 'agony.' J. HASTINGS. the end of Oct., and is divided into three periods— AGREE TO.—In the sense of 'assent 40to,' with a early rains (¡Vjic), which prepare the land for the person as object, a. is found in Ac705 ' T o him reception of the seed, heavy winter rains they a.' iirdadrijav airr$. In Mk 14 it is used in saturating the ground and filling the cisterns, and the obsolete sense of ' agree with' or ' correspond late rains (enpta), falling in spring and giving the with,' 'Thou art a Gaiilsean, and thy speech crops the necessary moisture. Snow is often seen agreeth thereto' {6fj.oi6.fri, T R ; RV following edd.on the higher lands in winter, and hail is not infrequent. The coldest month is February, the omits the clause). J. HASTINGS. warmest August. The soil of Pal. varies widely in texture and AGRICULTURE. —Agriculture, which in its wider sense embraces horticulture, forestry, and the appearance. In the higher regions it is formed pastoral industry, is here restricted to the art of mostly from cretaceous limestone or decomposing arable farming — including not only ploughing, basalt rocks; in the maritime plain and the Jordan hoeing, etc., but reaping and threshing. As the Valley there are more recent formations. Like savage phase has been followed by the pastoral, so the sedentary soils, where of sufficient depth, the the pastoral has been followed by the Aal, in the alluvial deposits are naturally fertile ; and under history ol the progressive peoples. The first the intensive and careful cultivation of ancient 8,17 important advance upon the primitive stace took times the fertility was proverbial (cf. Ex 3 ,

S

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE

J e r 11®, Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. c. 6). The lessened productiveness of modern times is due in part to the diminished rainfall, but mainly to political and social changes. The high farming of antiquity took several forms. Low walls, built along Mil-slopes to prevent ' soil-washing,' gave rise to fiat terraces. Various methods of irrigation were practised (Gn 210, P r 211, Is 30* 32-Canals conveyed the water from the natural sources to the fields, or water-wheels might be used. Other A0,1 improvements were the removal of stones from the fields, and the utilisation of the ash residue of stubble and weeds. Ordinary dung, made in dunghills by treading in straw (Is 25lu), was also in common use (2 K 937). A bare fallow would be occasionally allowed to raise the temporary fertility of the soil. The number of Crops under cultivation was large. The most important was wheat (nen). The supply exceeded the requirements of the country, and it was possible to export it in considerable quantities (Ezk 2717). Second in importance was barley (nni'^), which was extensively used as food (Ru 315), esp. by the poorer classes. Spelt was frequently grown on the borders of fields. Millet (jiti), beans (Sid), and lentils (o'zh;:.) were cultivated and used as food (Ezk 49, 2 S 17-8). Flax (nny?) was grown (Ex 931), and probably also cotton (D3T3). Among the statutory regulations relating to the crops, the most noteworthy are :—the prohibition again&t sowing a field with mixed seed

"7

V

t r V o

S

y

V

t

Zayift

tt

Hetli

g d

s

> 1 ü

y

r

V.

VI.

Jî VII.

y k i m

Lamed

Mem

»

Nun

3

Samekh

Zade

p

V 3

Shin

k T si

Tau

c

Koph

Kesti

31

h t

'Ayiri

n

T\

z

KapTi

Pe

V

V

Yod

3 17

h

Teth

u

tin

a h '

1 rr

IV

b

Vau

*

V

h fi

'a

He

1

y

V » i i

h

w

+

Values,

' A l e ] ill

J

ft

>> s J )

1

X

lr

y

NamiiS.

Daleth

r

—

Û

X

T

?

18

X

X

1.6 IV

S

z

14

15

*

\

n

k

1

S*

1

12 1.3

v

H

V

w

11

4

HEBREW.

s

9 10

ARAM/EAN.

vin.

EXPLANATION O F THK T A B L E . Col. I. EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS, fating to the left. Col. II. ITIKKATIC CHARACTERS, facing to the right. Col. III. OLDEST ISRAELITE OR PHCENICIAN LETTERS, from the Baal Lebanon and Moabite inscriptions (sec. X I . to I X . JJ.C.). Col. IV. ARAMAEAN, right to left, from the coins of the Satrapies and Egvp. inscriptions and papyri (sec. V. t o I. B.C.). Col. V. OLDEST SQI-ARE liiantrw, from inscriptions near .Jerusalem (llorodian period). Col. VI. SQI'VUK HiiiiiiKW, fro-N Babylonian bowls (sec. IV to V I A A ). Col. V I I . «(¿fAUii HauilEv,-, from Codex Babylonia us a t St. Petersburg (010 A.U.). COL V I I I . ' MOI>LR>- Sui-viia IIK:;KI:\»-.

72

ALPHABET

ALPHABET

porary forms, b u t are separated by a t least ten, or corresponded with the Egyj' kings in a cursive more probably by twelve centuries, a period during form of the Babylonian cuneiform. The oldest known forms of the Sem. letters are which considerable differences of form must almost necessarily have arisen, in addition to wlxich the shown in col. 3 of the table, where their names and Hieratic forms are cursive, freely traced on papyrus their approximate phonetic values may also be found. Thirteen may be represented by letters in our with a brush, while the Sem. letters are lapidary types, engraved with a chisel upon stone or bronze, own Alphabet. These are both, gimel, daieth, he, which would entail differences of form similar to zayin, kaph, lamed, mem, nun, samekh, pe, resh, and those which exist between our printed capitals tau, which correspond to our letters b, g, d, h, z, k, A, 1!, E and the script forms a, b, e of our modern I, m, n, s, p, r, and t. The other nine letters reprehandwriting. This alone would account for the sent sounds which we do not exactly possess. Of alterations in the shapes of such letters as daleth, these, two are called 'Unguals,' or ' emnbatics,' heth, resh, or mem, the change from a cursive to a namely, teth, a gutturalised t, which is called, the lapidary type causing the characters to become emphatic dental, and zade, a gutturalised s, called more regular in size and inclination, bold curves the emphatic sibilant. The letter koph was not being simplified, closed ovols becoming triangles our q, but a k formed farther back in t h e throat, There are also four or squares, and the curved sweeping tails becom- and here represented by k. ' faucal breaths,' 'aleph, he, heth, and 'ayin, of ing straight and rigid lines. which 'aleph, the lightest, was a slightly ex plosive For 21 of the 22 letters of the Sem. alphabet De consonant, heard in English a f t e r t h e word No I Rouge lias found a prob. Hieratic prototype, in 18 when uttered abruptly, and nearly equivalent to cases taking the normal Egyp. equivalent of the the spiritus lenis of the Greeks; ' a y i n was a sound Sem. sound, and in .3 instances only, aleph, beth, of the same kind, but harder than 'aleph, approachand zayin, having recourse to a less usual homo- ing a g rolled in the t h r o a t ; heth, called the phone. In one case he fails. The peculiar g u t t u r a l ' fricative faucal,' wras a continuous guttural, breathing denoted by the Sem. letter 'mjin did not resembling the ch in the Scotch loch ; and he was a exist in Egyp. speech. For this letter no Egyp. fainter sound of the same kind, approaching our prototype has been discovered, and it is supposed h. The primitive sound of shin was p r o b a c y t h a t t h a t it was an invention of the Semites, the symbol of our sh, but was subject to dialectic variation. C being regarded, as the n i m e suggests, as the Yod and van were semi-consonants, or r a t h e r picture of an 'eye.' (See No. 16, col. 3.) consonantal vow els, usually equivalent to y and v, How, when, or by whom the Sem. A. was but passing readily into i and u. thus evolved from the Egyp. Hieratic it is imNone of the Sem. A.s have possessed symbols possible to say with precision. The possible limits of date are believed to lie between the 23rd and for the true vowels, which are now denoted, not by letters, but by diacritical points, a notation the 17th centuries B.C. I t seems probable t h a t t h e development was effected by some Sem. people essentially non-alphabetic, and not of any great w ho were in commercial intercourse with the antiquity. The vowels in non-Semitic A.s, such Egyptians,—possibly, it has been conjectured, the as Greek, Zend, Armenian, Georgian, Sanskrit, Semites of S. Arabia, possibly the Hyksos, if and Mongolian, have been de veloped out of charthese Shepherd kings were Semites, and not, as acters representing t h e Sem. breaths and semiis now supposed, of Mongolian race, hardly the consonants. Thus the Gr. alpha, whence our A, lenis; Hebrews, who seem to be excluded by the limits was obtained from 'aleph, t h e spiritus of date, b u t most probably a Phcen. trading epsilon, whence our E, is from he, an aspirate ; eta colony settled on the shores of Lake Menzaleh in and our H from heth, the fricative faucal ; iota the Delta. On the Egyp. monuments they are and our I and J from yod, a semi-consonant; called Fenekh (Phoenicians), and also Char or Chal, omicron and omega, and our 0 , from 'ayin, the a name used to designate the coast tribes of Syria. spiritus asper ; while upsilon and our U, V, W , Y f The native land of the Char was called K a f t , and F, came from vau, a semi-consonant. whence part of the Delta was called Caphtor, or Besides the absence of symbols for the vowels, the ' g r e a t e r Kaft.' If the A. arose in Caphtor most of the Sem. scripts, Heb., Syr., and Arab., it would easily spread to Phoenicia, and then to agree in being written from right to left, the the kindred and neighbouring races. direction following the example of the prototype, The a r t of waiting must, however, have been the Hieratic of the Papyrus Prisse, whereas in known to the Hebrews at an early period of their the n o n - S e m . scripts the direction has mostly history. Hiram, we are told, wrote a letter to been changed. The Sem. A.s have also adhered Solomon, and David wrote a letter to Joab. From to the primitive 22 letters, none of which have the lists of the kings and dukes of Edom, preserved fallen into disuse, any additional notation required in Gn 36 and 1 Ch 1, we gather t h a t the Edomites, being effected by diacritical points, whereas in other at the time when their capital was taken by J o a b scripts new forms have been evolved by differentiain t h e reign of David, possessed state annals, going tion, as in the case of our own letters V, U, W , Y, back to a remote period. The list of the encamp- and 1', which are all differentiated forms of the ments of the Israelites in the Desert, given in same symbol. The pictorial character of t h e Hieroglyphs had Xu 33, cannot have been handed down by oral tradition ; while it is the only incorporated docu- disappeared in the Hieratic of the Papyrus Prisse, ment in the Pent, which we are expressly told was and hence it is no m a t t e r for surprise to find t h a t written down bv Moses, and its geogr. correctness the Egyp. symbols were renamed by the Semites, has been curiously confirmed by recent researches. on the acrologic principle, by words significant In T he census of the congregation preserved in N u 1-4 Sem. speech, the new names being due to a resemand 26 is also manifestly a very ancient written blance, real or fanciful, between t h e form assumed record which has been incorporated in the text. by the letter and some object whose name began All these documents were presumably written in with t h e letter in question, as in our nursery the primitive Sem. A. But the discoveries of the picture-books, in which O is an orange, S a swan, last few years have led scholars to believe t h a t and B a butterfly. Thus the first symbol was no non-alphabetic writing of another kind was used longer ahom, the 'eagle,' as in Egyp., b u t became in Pal. long before the Exodus, as early as the 'aleph, the ' o x , ' from the resemblance to the rront reign of Khu-n-Aten, the recent excavations at view of the head and horns of t h a t a n i m a l ; and the Lachish and the discoveries a t Tel e l - A m a r n a 13th, instead of being mulak, t h e 'owl,' becamei«em, proving t h a t the governors of t h e Syrian cities the ' waters,' what had been t h e ears an.1 beak of

ALPHABET

ALPHABET

the owl coming to resemble the undulations of waves (see col. 2 and 3). T h e Sem. names are sometimes more easily explained by t h e Egyp. forms of the Papyrus Prisse t h a n by those in the oldest Sem. inscriptions. The Sem. names are usually interpreted as follows: 'alephmeans an £ ox ; hcth signifies a * house' ; and gimel, a ' camel,' the Ilieratic form resembling a recumbent camel, with the head, neck, body, tail, and saddle, of which only the head and neck are preserved in the oldest Sem. l e t t e r ; daleth means a ' door,' not a house door, but the curtain forming the entrance to ail Eastern t e n t ; he signifies a ' w i n d o w ' ; vau is a nail, peg, or hook for hanging things on ; zayin probably denotes ' w e a p o n s ' ; heth, a fence or ' p a l i s a d e ' ; Uth, from a root meaning curvature, is supposed to have been a picture of a coiled s n a k e ; yod is the ' h a n d ' ; kaph the ' palm ' of the hand, or the bent hand ; lamed is an ' o x - g o a d ' ; mem, the ' w a t e r s ' ; nun, a ' fish ' ; savickh is probably a prop or support; 'ayin is the 4 e y e ' ; JJO, t h e 4 mouth ' ; zade is probably a ' javelin,' or perhaps a hook ; koph is usually supposed to mean a ' k n o t ' j resh is the ' h e a d ' ; shin, the ' t e e t h ' ; tan, a ' cross,' or sign for marking beasts. I t will be noticed t h a t six of these names, gimel, he, yod, nun, pe, and samelh, must be very ancient, being most easily explained by reference to the Hieratic forms.

Stone and the Baal Lebanon bowls, must also have been the contemporary A. of the Hebrews. This was ingeniously proved by Gesenius, long before these monuments were discovered. He contended t h a t the earlier books of the OT could not have been written, as was formerly supposed, in w h a t is now known as the Heb. A., since many obvious corruptions in the text could only have arisen from the errors of copyists, who confounded letters which are much alike in the old Phcen., but are quite dissimilar in the square Hebrew. For example, in the list of David's mighty men, recorded in 2 S 23-J, we have the name Heleb, which in the parallel passage in 1 Ch ll 3 0 appears as Hcled. One oi these readings is obviously corrupt, and the corrup tion can only be due to the original record having been written in the older or Phcen. A., in which the letters beth and daidh diiier so slightly a> often to be hardly distinguishable, whereas in the later or square Heb. A. the letters 3 and i arc unmistakably distinct. Hence, he argued, the record must be prior to the Captivity, when, according to the Rabbinic tradition, the new A. was introduced. When Gesenius wrote, the evidence as to the nature of the older Heb. A. was scanty in the extreme, being limited DO a few engraved gems in the Phcen. A., supposed to be Heb. because of their bearing names apparently Jewish. Now, however, all doubts have been set at rest by t h e accidental discovery in 18S0 of the famous Siloam inscription, engraved in a recess of the tunnel which pierces the ridge of Ophel, and brings water from the Pool of the Virgin to the Pool of Siloam. The inscription which records the construction of the tunnel is in six lines of writing, manifestly later in date than the Moabite inscription, though of .he same type. On palceographical grounds it has been assigned to the reign of Manasseh, B.C. 685-641, though i t is possible t h a t it may be as early as the reign of Hezekiah, and m a y refer to the conduit constructed by him at the end of the 8th cent., as recorded in 2 K 20'20 and 2 Ch 3230. This A. is of special interest, as in it most of the writings of t h e Jewish prophets must have been composed. This older A. lingered long, being employed on t h e coins of the Maccabees and on those of the Hasmonjean princes. It survives as the sacred script of the few Samaritan families at Nablfts, who still worship in their temple on Mt. Gerizim, and keep the Passover with the ancient rites. W i t h this exception, t h e old Phcen. A., the parent of all existing A.s, has become extinct.

T h e early history of the A . has to be reconstructed from inscriptions, m a n y of which have only been discovered in recent years. Among the monuments of the older stage of the Phcen. A. the great inscrimion of Meslia, king of Moab, ranks iirst in importance. In 1868 Mr. Klein, of the C. M. S., visited the site of Dibon, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Moab. Here he was shown a block of basalt, with an inscription in 31 lines of wr ,ing. The interest excited by this discovery, and the rival efforts of the European consuls to secure the treasure, unfortunately aroused the jealousy of the Arabs, by whom the stone was broken into fragments, some forty of which have been recovered, enough to lay the foundation of early Sem. palaeography. In this inscription, which must be referred to the middle of the 9th cent. B.C., Meslia, in language closely akin to Bibl. Hebrew, gives an account of the wars between Israel and Moab, narrating more esp. those events in his own reign which took place after the death of A h a b in 853 B.C. The year 850 B.C. has been generally accepted by scholars as an approximate date for the record. Somewhat earlier, though of less historical importance, are some inscribed fragments of bronze vessels, obtained from Cyprus in 1876, which proved to be portions of two bowls containing dedications to Baal Lebanon. They must have been carried olf to Cyprus as a part of the spoils from a temple on Lebanon. The writing on one of the bowls proves on pakeographical grounds to be nearly of the same date as t h e Moabite inscription, while t h a t on the other bowl exhibits more archaic forms of several letters, and may probably be older by a century, belonging to the close of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th cent. B.C. I t is from these bowls, supplemented by the evidence of the Moabite Stone, t n a t the A . in col. 3 has been constructed. I t is called the Israelitic A. in older to avoid confusion with a much later A . , which, having been first known to scholars, usurped the name of the Heb. A . I t cannot be too carefully remembered t h a t at successive periods in their history the Hebrews employed two A.s, identical in all essential particulars, b u t wholly unlike in the external appearance of the letters. Prom the earliest period of which we possess any knowledge, down to the captivity in Babylon, this Phcen. A., of which the oldest monuments are the Moabite

73

This earliest type of the Sem. A . .gradually passes into another, somewhat more cursive, which goes by the name of the Sidonian, its chief representative being the g r e a t inscription on the magnificent basalt sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon, now in the Louvre, which is assigned to the end of the 5th cent. B.C. Out of this Sidonian type was evolved the Aramcean A., which was destined to replace the Phcen. a f t e r the decadence of the Phcen. power. The great trade route from the Red Sea and Egypt to Babylon passed through Damascus, Hamath, and Carcliemish, and the trade fell into the hands of t h e Aramreans, the people of N. Syria. Hence, on t h e political decline of the Phcen. cities, the Aramsean language and A. became the medium of commercial intercourse throughout W . Asia. A t Nineveh in the 7th cent. B.C., and a t Babylon in the 6th, the Sidonian type begins to be replaced by the Aramaean, whose continuous development may be traced from the 5th to the 1st cent. B.C., first on the coins struck by Persian satraps of Asia Minor, and then by the aid of mortuary inscriptions and papyri from Egypt, which carry on the record after the conquests of Alexander had p u t an end to the Persian satrapies. An inspection of col. 4 in the table will

ALPHABET

ALPH^EXJS

shoff t h a t t h e chief characteristics of t h e Araimean A.—due evidently to the free use of t h e reed pen a n d papyrus—are a progressive opening of the closed loops of t h e letters beth, daleth, teth,'ayin, koph, and resh; while he, vau, zayin, helh, a n d tau tend to lose their distinctive bars. A t the same t i m e t h e script continually becomes more cursive in character, t h e tails of the letters c u r v i - g more and more t o t h e left, while t h e introduction of ligatures led t o a distinction between t h e final and t h e medial or initial forms of certain letters. These changes, while t h e y made writing easier and more rapid, a t t h e same time m a d e i t less legible. On the r e t u r n of t h e J e w s f r o m the Bab. exile, the ancient A . of Israel, though retained on t h e Maccabaean coins, and possibly in copies of t h e law, was gradually abandoned for the more cursive b u t f a r inferior Aramaean, which h a d become the mercantile script of t h e W . provinces of Persia. A Jewish tradition, preserved in t h e Talm., a t t r i b u t e d this change to E z r a ; b u t there can be no doubt t h a t both scripts were for a time employed concurrently —the Aramaean by t h e mercantile classes a n d the r e t u r n i n g exiles, a n d the older A . by those who, like t h e Samaritans, h a d been l e f t behind in the land. T h e older Phcen. style h a d f o r t n n a t e l y been transmitted to the Greeks before t h e Aramaean deformation h a d t a k e n place. Consequently t h e Kom. A . which we have inherited, being a W e s t e r n form of t h e Greek A . , has retained in such letters as B, D, O, Q, R , E, F, H those loops a n d bars whose disappearance in the Heb., Syr., A r a b . , a n d other A . s descended f r o m the Aramaean, has contributed t o m a k e t h e m so illegible. Our own capitals are, in fact, much nearer to the primitive Phcen. or Isr. A. t h a n a n y of the existing Sem. A.s, a n d it is to this retention of t h e archaic forms t h a t t h e y owe their excellence and general superiority. T h e closed loop of D a n d E and the upper loop of B reproduce the closed triangles of t h e earlier Sem. script, which were lost by t h e Ar&miean deformation, and are consequently much superior to the formless shapes n a which we have in modern Hebrew. W h e n t h e Seleucidan empire h a d come t o a close, t h e Aramaean broke u p into national scripts, the A . of E a s t e r n Syria developing a t Bozra, P e t r a , and the H a u r a n into the Nabataian, which was the parent of Arabic, while t h e Aramsean of N. Syria developed a t Edessa into Syriac, a n d t h a t of S. Syria, a t J e r u s . a n d Bab., in to w h a t is calledHebrew. T h e early form of square Heb. used a t J e r u s . in the t i m e of our Lord, with which H e must Himself have been familiar, a n d in which probably the roll was w r i t t e n which H e read in t h e synagogue (Lk 4"), is given in col. 5 of the table. This A. has been obtained from monuments of t h e Herodian period found in Galilee or a t Jerus., all of which m u s t be anterior t o the siege by Titus. These inscriptions are chiefly from t o m b s ; b u t one of them, of special interest, is a f r a g m e n t of one of the notices, enjoining silence a n d reverent behaviour, set up, as we learn from Josephus, when the temple was rebuilt by Herod. T h e materials for t h e history of t h e Heb. A . during the period of the dispersion, from the 1st cent, t o t h e 10th, when i t practically assumed its present form, have been gathered from regions curiously remote. Some are from the Jewish Catacombs a t Rome, m a n y from the Crimea, others from t h e Jewish cemeteries a t Vienne, Aries, a n d N a r b o n n e in Gaul, a t Tortosa, in Spain, Venosa in I t a l y , f r o m Prag, Aden, Tillis, and Derbend, and, not least in importance, the writing on some cabalistic bowls found a t Babylon, dating from t h e 4th to the 7th cent. A.D. (see col. 6). The earliest existing codex, the A . of which is given in col. 7, dates f r o n the beginning of t h e 10th cent., when the

l e t t e r s had practically assumed t h e i r modern forms though not their modern aspect, t h e useless ornamental apices in our printed books (col. 8) being due to t h e schools of Heb. caligraphy which arose in t h e 12th cent. The square Heb. of our printed Bibles is t h u s one of the most modern of existing A.s, a n d w a s not, as w a s formerly believed, t h e most ancient of all. T h e forms of these letters are t h u s neither legible nor venerable. Their adoption was almost a m a t t e r of accident. There were two styles, t h e Spanish a n d t h e German, and t h e l a t t e r was used in the Münster printed Bible, t h e types being imitated f r o m those in MSS. then in fashion. T h e result is t h a t our eyes are fatigued with t h e fantastic a n d vicious caligraphy of the 14th cent., a period when t h e odious black letter w a s developed out o£ the beautiful Caroline minuscule, to which in our printed books we have now f o r t u n a t e l y reverted. So in Heb. i t would have been much b e t t e r t o have reverted t o the far superior forms of earlier times, such, for instance, as those in use in t h e 8th cent. T h e earlier forms are better, because t h e letters are free f r o m useless o r n a m e n t a l flourishes which are so t r y i n g to t h e eyes of students a n d compositors, a n d are more legible a n d more distinct. A s in t h e case of our own vicious black letter, some characters are assimilated so as t o be difficult t o distinguish—in particular • beth, 3 kaph; j nun, j gimel; i daleth, i resh; 1 kaph final, | nun f i n a l ; i vau, i zayin;; or of D samekh, a n d • mem final; while n n a n d N stand for h, h, and t.

74

Six of t h e Heb. letters gradually acquired an alternative softer aspirated sound, a n d the harder primitive sounds are now denoted by a n internal point (Dagesh lene) 3 n 3 3 n, representing t h e sounds b, g, d, k, p, t, the same forms w i t h o u t t h e Dagesh, or with a superscript line called Raphe, s t a n d i n g for bh, gh, dh, kh, ph, th._ The letter shin also split up into two sounds, distinguished by diacritical points, t> approaching t h e sound of our s, and v t h a t of our sh. The vowel points are l a t e a n d of little a u t h o r i t y . T h e Greek transliterations of Heb. names in t h e Sept. and in Josephus suffice to prove t h a t t h e r e were no vowel points in the copies of t h e Heb. Scriptures t h e n in use, a n d as l a t e as t h e time of St. J e r o m e t h e Heb. vocalisation w a s only k n o w n by oral teaching. T h e Heb. points were suggested by those which had been introduced i n t o Syriac in t h e 5th a n d 6th cent. A.D. T h e y merely represent t h e traditional pronunciation used in the synagogues of Tiberias in t h e 7th cent. A.D. (See a r t . L A N G U A G E OF O T . )

ISAAC TAYLOR.

ALPHJEUS,'AX0aios (Westeott and Hort, Introd. § 408, assuming t h a t t h e n a m e is a transliteration of t h e Aramaic 's)n, write i t with t h e rough breathing, 'A\0cuos), occurs four times in t h e Gospels and once in Acts. A s t h u s used i t is t h e n a m e of two different men. 1. The f a t h e r of the Apostle M a t t h e w or Levi (Mk 214), not elsewhere named or otherwise known. 2. All the other references are evidently tc another man (Mt 10s, M k 3 18 , L k 615, Ac l 13 ), whe is represented as f a t h e r of J a m e s t h e apostle, second of t h a t n a m e in t h e list. A considerable controversy has long been carried on as t o whether this A. may be identified with the Clopas of J n 1925 a n d t h e Cleopas of L k 2418. Thia question has been of special interest as involved in the discussion regarding J a m e s a n d the Brethren of the Lord (wh. see). Ewald boldly assumes that the Clopas of J o h n and t h e Cleopas of L u k e are one, b u t maintains t h a t the identification with Alphoeus is a n unreasonable confounding of a purely Greek with a purely Hebrew n a m e (Hist, of Israel, v i 305, note 4). Meyer affirms t h e i d e n t i t y of the

!

i ' ! ! | ! I

ALTAR

ALTAR

Clopas of J o h n with t h e A r a m a i c 'c 1 -, t h e Alph.eus of t h e Synoptics. A n d Alford (on M t 103) regards the two Greek n a m e s a s simply two different ways of expressing t h e Hebrew n a m e It fieeras better t o distinguish the Cleopas of L u k e from the^ Clopas of J o h n . It is q u i t e evident t h a t Cleopas is simply a shortened form of Cleopater 1 K\eo7rar/jo?), like A n t i p a s for A n t i p a t e r . Lightfoot, indeed, while a d m i t t i n g this, still favours t h e identification of t h e t w o names. On t h e other hand, Clopas m a y with t h e highest probability be regarded as a simple transliteration of t h e A r a m a i c Halphai. Clopas (as in t h e Greek t e x t a n d R V , :aot Cleopas as in t h e A V ) is represented in J n 1925 as t h e husband of one of t h e M a r y s who stood beside t h e cross. If we assume t h a t four women are there referred to, t h e r e is no indication of a n y relationship between t h e wife of Clopas a n d t h e mother of Jesus. The synoptic passages, however, all mention a m o n g t h e women a t t h e cross t h i s 3ame M a r y as t h e m o t h e r of J a m e s . T h e r e is no reason for supposing t h a t t h i s J a m e s , son of M a r y , is a n y other t h a n J a m e s t h e son of Alphseus. B u t t h e assumption t h a t Clopas w a s h u s b a n d of M a r y and brother of Joseph, and t h e usual assumption t h a t M a r y was t h e sister of our Lord's mother, a r e equally groundless, a n d have no support w h a t e v e r from a n y s t a t e m e n t in our Gospels. T h e r e seems no reason for supposing t h a t J a m e s t h e little and J a m e s t h e brother of t h e Lord are one and t h e same person. Eusebius, indeed, mentions, on t h e authority of He^esippus, t h a t Symeon, who succeeded J a m e s in t h e bishopric of J e r u s a l e m , was son of Clopas t h e brother of J o s e p h ; b u t Symeon is evidently regarded, n o t a s a b r o t h e r , b u t only a s a relative, probably a cousin, of his predecessor J a m e s ,

ceived t h a t t h e d e i t y could not only reside in such objects of n a t u r e ' s own creation as those above specitied, b u t could be persuaded ' to come and t a k e for his embodiment a s t r u c t u r e set u p for him b y t h e w o r s h i p p e r ' (W. K. Smith, Eel. ¿em. p. 180). T h e consideration of t h i s all-important advance belongs elsewhere ; i t is sufficient t o n o t e here t h a t recent researches, esp. those of Wellhausen and W . R. Smith, have a b u n d a n t l y proved t h a t t h e h e a t h e n Semite regarded t h e stone or cairn which h e had himself erected, as a dwellingplace of a deity, a Beth-el i^rn'S, cf. Gn 2'6lH; for t h e significance of t h i s passage, see PILLAR), a n a m e which passed, t h r o u g h t h e Phoenicians as intermediaries, to t h e G r e e k s (¡3CUT6\LCV) and K o m a n s (bcetulus). Such a stone was termed b y t h e Arabs, in t h e d a y s before Islam, nusb (pi. ansdb), a word identical in origin a n d signification w i t h t h e Heb. navo (AV ' p i l l a r ' ) . Beside it t h e victim was s l a u g h t e r e d ; t h e blood was either poured over t h e stone, or w i t h p a r t of i t t h e stone was smeared, while t h e rest was poured o u t a t its base, t h e essential idea in t h i s primitive rite being t h a t in this w a y t h e blood w a s b r o u g h t into imm e d i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e deity who, for t h e time being, had t a k e n up his abode in tiie stone.

LITERATURE.—Besides t h e works referred t o in t h e t e x t , see Lightfoot, Gulaiians, 10th ed. London, 1890, p, 2 6 7 ; Mayor, The Bristle of St. James, 1S92, p. x v i f . See also an interesting and clever but perverse n o t e in Keiia, Jesus of Nazara, iii. 276. J.

MACPHERSON.

ALTAR.—i. ALTAR is the invariable rendering in t h e OT of nsjD * (Aram, ng*© E z r 717), and in t h e N T of $vcria. In A V i t also occurs a s t h e rendering of (Ezk 4315a), R Y ' u p p e r a.', and of V i s (Ezk '43 16b - 16 — K e t h i b WOK), R V ' a . h e a r t h . ' I n t h e N T /JOJ^ÓS is found once (Ac 1723) in t h e sense of a h e a t h e n a. T h i s distinction is very clearly b r o u g h t o u t in 1 M a c I 59 ' t h e y did sacrifice upon t h e idol a l t a r (éirl T6V punóv) which was upon t h e a l t a r of God (r. dvaiacT-qpíov).' Similarly t h e Vulg. and early L a t . F a t h e r s avoid t h e use of ara, preferring altaría a n d altare. Another designation is m e t with, viz. jnV, prop. 4 table, 5 Ezk 4122 4416, Mal l 7 - 15i. I t would' also seem t h a t the appellation n.oa, prop, ' h i g h place,' m a y in some cases oe used to express ' a . , ' a s J e r 731 ( L X X T6V 8 PUFXBV TOV T&$€$)> 2 K 23 (but here t e x t is doubtful), etc. _ Is 658 is wrongly rendered in A V ' a 8 of b r i c k ' ; R V ' u p o n t h e bricks. 5 I n one or two places in t h e OT ns?o of t h e present M T seems a n alteration from an original n ^ s . So clearly Gn 3320, and most probably 2 K 12¡0. On t h e other hand, ruin should perhaps be restored in v. pp. 278, 289 f.). 2 K 1026 (Stade in ZATW. ii. A L T A R S IN P R E H I S T O R I C

TIMES.—According

t o the primitive conceptions of t h e nomad Semites, the presence of a deity was implied in every spot t h a t a t t r a c t e d t h e m b y its w a t e r or shade, and in every imposing l a n d m a r k t h a t guided t h e m in t h e i r wanderings. E v e r y well and grove, every m o u n t a i n and rock, had i t s presiding deity. T h e h u m b l e offering of t h e worshipper could be cast into the well, exposed upon t h e rock, or h u n g upon t h e sacred tree. I t was t h u s b r o u g h t into immediate contact with t h e numen therein residing. A g r e a t step in advance was t a k e n w h e n it was con* Lit.

' p l a c e of «laughter.'

Now t h e r e can be no d o u b t t h a t t h e same primitive ideas were shared b y t h e ancestors of t h e Hebrews. A m o n g t h e m , too, t h e nusb or mazzeba m u s t have been t h e prototype of t h e sacrificial a. 4 T h e r u d e A r a b i a n usage is t h e primitive t y p e out of which all t h e elaborate a. ceremonies of the more cultivated Semites grew ' {Eel. o/Sem. 1st ed. p. 184. See also SACRIFICE). Even in hist, times we find a m o n g t h e Hebrews a survival of t h e primitive ritual above described. In t h e n a r r a t i v e of t h e b a t t l e of Michmash, Saul is shocked a t t h e unseemly haste of his warriors in e a t i n g flesh ' w i t h t h e blood,' and orders a g r e a t stone to be b r o u g h t a t which t h e beasts m i g h t be duly slain a n d t h e i r blood poured o u t a t t h e extemporised altar. T h e n e x t i m p o r t a n t step, t h e advance from t h e a. a s a sacred stone t o receive t h e blood of tiie victim to t h e a. as a heal th on which t h e flesh of t h e victim was burned in whole or in p a r t , belongs to t h e h i s t o r y of SACRIFICE (which see, a n d of. S m i t h , Eel. Sem. p. 358 if.), If t h e above is a correct account of t h e evolution of t h e a. a m o n g t h e western Semites, t h e differentiation of pillar and a. m u s t , as regards t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of P a l . , have t a k e n place in t h e prehistoric period. This seems t h e obvious conclusion f r o m t h e existence, even a t t h e present d a y , of immense numbers of mogalithic monuments, t h e so-called m e n h i r s and dolmens. T h e s e characteristic r e m a i n s of a n t i q u i t y , so n u m e r o u s in Moab and in t h e W . H a u r a n , m u s t undoubtedly have played an i m p o r t a n t p a r t in t h e religious rites of those who reared t h e m , and whom, for the present, we m a y assume to have been of a Sem. stock. The ' c u p - h o l l o w s " on t h e table-stone of t h e dolmens, connected in m a n y cases by a network of channels, m u s t have been destined to receive t h e blood of t h e victim.* iii.

P R E - DEUTEROXOMIC

ALTARS. — A

very

m a r k e d distinction, a s is well known, exists between t h e a t t i t u d e t o sacrifice of t h e prophetic and priestly narratives respectively in our present P e n t . T h e l a t t e r (P) limits sacrifice t o t h e great, central a.,f while t h e former ( J E ) relates numerous in-

* See Conder's report on t h e dolmen-flelda of Moab in P.E.F. Qu. St. 1882, p. 75 ff.; aiso in Heth and Moab, chs. vii. and viii.; Syr. Stone Lore, pp. 42, 43, 70. A n o t h e r rich field has been described by Schumacher, The Jaulan, p. 123ff.; Across dam Jordan, p. 62ff. Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, de CArt I'A ntiquiti, iv. p. 375 ff. t The difficult section (Jos seems best explained as an endeavour to reduce a narrative originally written from the standpoint of J E to an apparent h a r m o n y with the fundamental postulate of P

76

ALTAR

ALTAK

stances of sacrifice being offered and a" erected from t h e earliest times, a n d in m a n y dtiferent places. Noah is represented as building a n a. on q u i t t i n g the a r k (Gn 8'-°}; A b r a h a m erected several, viz. a t Shechem (127), Bethel (128), Hebron (1318), and on a special occasion in ' t h e land of M o r i a h ' (229). Isaac 12625) and J a c o b (357) do likewise. Even Moses, according t o this source, erects a n a l t a r a t Rephidim (Ex 1715), a n d another, accompanied by twelve pillars (niaso), a t Horeb (244;. J E therefore clearly knows nothing in its n a r r a t i v e p a r t s of t h e exclusive legitimacy of a central a. W i t h this position t h e law-code which i t contains, the so-called Book of t h e Covenant (see Driver, LOT 28 ff.), is in complete accord. I n t h e locus ciassicus (Ex 2024) a plurality of a 8 is clearly sanctioned : 'in every place (KV; where I record M y name, I will come *nto thee, and I will bless thee.' A n d the same holds good throughout t h e history of t h e Hebrews u n t i l t h e time of Josiah. A g a i n and again do we iind a® built, up a n d down the country, either by t h e recognised religious leaders themselves, or w i t h their express sanction. Thus, t o mention b u t a few, J o s h u a builds a n a. on M t . Ebal (Jos 830) in accordance w i t h t h e injunction of Moses himself (Dt 27a), Gideon a t Ophrah (Jg 624), and Samuel a t K a m a h (1 S 7 i7 ). Saul, we have already seen, extemporised a n a. a t Michmash, which t h e historian informs u s was t h e first t h a t Saul built, implying t h a t this monarch h a d t h e merit of erecting several. David erected an a., b y express divine command, ' in t h e t h r e s h i n g - f l o o r of A r a u n a h t h e J e b u s i t e ' (2 S 2 4 1 8 - E l i j a h , too, complains of t h e destruction of t h e a l t a r s of J " as a n act of sacrilege (1 K 19 10,14 ), and had, b u t a little before, repaired, with his own hand, the a. of the Lord upon M t . Carmel. These examples are sufficient t o show t h a t in pre-Deut. Israel a plurality of a 8 was regarded as a m a t t e r of course, t h e r e being n o t t h e slightest h i n t of disapproval on the p a r t of t h e narrators, or of a n y idea in the minds of the actors in the history t h a t t h e y were guilty of t h e violation of a n y divine command.

T o w h a t e x t e n t t h e still existing dolmens (see above) m a y have been used as a" in this period it is impossible to say. In t h e older narratives, however, there are not a few instances of t h e earlier usage of a single stone (1 S 6 U —v. 1 5 is a later insertion—14 33 ) or of t h e native rock as a n a.. (Jg a n d esp. 13 19,20 where TV? V.19 is identified with CS.sn v. 20 ). T h e site of David's a., we can scarely doubt, was t h e Sakhrah rock, now enclosed in t h e so-called mosque of Omar. T h e ' s t o n e Zoheletli which is by E n - l i o g e l ' was also an ancient altarstone (1 1C l 9 ). Solomon, finally, a t the dedication of the temple, is said t o have converted t h e 'middle of the c o u r t ' into a huge a. (1 K 8 W ). For Solomon's brazen a., see TEMPLE.* This a. was removed by A h a z (2 K 1610"llJ) to m a k e w a y for t h e stone a. (note n^a v.11) which he caused to be built a f t e r t h e model of the g r e a t a. of Damascus ("3j!?n, cf. v. 10 in RV). Ahaz' a., r a t h e r t h a n t h e brazen a. of Solomon, was in i t s t u r n t h e model for t h e a. of Ezekiel (cf. 431""17).

From t h e oldest hist, records of t h e Hebrews, therefore, i t is evident t h a t local sanctuaries abounded t h r o u g h o u t t h e country (see HIGH PLACE, and esp. 1 Sam. passim), t h e most essential f e a t u r e of which w a s undoubtedly t h e a. on which sacrifice w a s offered to t h e national God, J". Of t h e form of these pre-Deut. altars we have no precise information. N o doubt, as wealth and culture increased, t h e a®, esp. a t Bethel and t h e other g r e a t sanctuaries, would become more a n d more elabor a t e ; b u t in more primitive times t h e y were simple in t h e extreme. A heap of e a r t h , either by itself (2 K 517) or with a casing of turf (see Dillmann on E x 2024), a few stones piled upon each other, are all t h a t w a s required. Simplicity is t h e dominant note of t h e law in t h e f u n d a m e n t a l passage, Ex 20***. I t is t h e r e enjoined, moreover, t h a t no tool shall be lifted t o hew or dress the stone (cf. D t 27f, J o s 831, 1 Mac 447). I n this m a n y modern investigators have seen a survival of the primitive idea, already explained, of a numen inhabiting the altarstone, who would be driven out or perhaps i n j u r e d b y t h e process of dressing (Nowack, Archaol. ii. 17 ; Benzinger, Archaol. 379). A n o t h e r injunction, t h a t t h e worshipper (for t h e command is not addressed to t h e priests) should not ascend by steps (loc. cit.), is also a plea for simplicity. The a. must n o t be of such a height as t o prevent t h e worshipper standing on t h e ground from manipulating his offering.* T h e evasion of t h e injunction by a eloping ascent was a n a f t e r t h o u g h t . * Cf. t h e early narrative 1 K 2-8ff. where Joab is represented as grasping t h e horns of the a. (see below, v.), and a t the same time standing by the side of the a. Also 2 K 5 " 'two mules' burden.'

Of t h e other a 8 made by A h a z we know nothing, nor of those set u p by later kings (2 K 23 l:! loc. cit.). As t o t h e a. t o Baal which Aliab erected in S a m a r i a (1 K 1632), we m a y assume t h a t it resembled the a 8 erected by his Phcen. neighbours t o t h e same deity {cf. P e r r o t et Chipiez, Hist. de VArt dans VAntiq. iii. fig. 192 a n d passim). iv. POST-DEUTERONOMIC A L T A R S . — T h e s a n c t u -

aries a n d a 8 , sanctioned, as we have seen, by t h e oldest law-code, ceased t o be legitimate on the adoption of t h e code of Deut. (Dt 12fF.). The centralisation of t h e cuitus, which was the chief aim of t h e D e u t . legislation, seems t o haves been a t t e m p t e d under Hezekiah (2 K 1822), b u t b m u s t be admitted t h a t t h e complete a b a n d o n m e n t of t h e local bamoth was never un fait accompli u n t i l a f t e r t h e discipline of the Exile (1 K 22«, 2 K 153E). In theory, however, the a", w h e t h e r * upon t h e hills a n d under every green tree,' or a t places which had been seats of worship since t h e conquest, were no longer l e g i t i m a t e ; for sacrifice, as now for t h e first t i m e officially distinguished f r o m slaughter (Dt 1215), could only be offered with acceptance on the a. of t h e central sanctuary a t Jerusalem. It is not impossible t h a t , as Conder h a s suggested (see ref. above), i t is t o t h e reforming zeal of Josiah t hat we owe the fact t h a t not a single dolmen has been m e t with in S. Pal. (cf. Cheyne, Jeremiah, p. 60). The history of t h e a., therefore, from this time forward is merged in t h e history of t h e temple. I t m u s t suffice here to note t h a t , as soon as practicable, the returned exiles built t h e a. on its ::ormer site (Ezr 32), which a. continued in use u n t i l its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 M a c l w i . H a v i n g by this act of sacrilege been rendered unfit for f u r t h e r use, i t was t a k e n down a n d a n o t h e r built in i t s stead (1 Mac 4 J4ff '). T h e a. of Herod's temple was t h e last built on J e w i s h soil. According to Jos. ( W a r s , v. v. 6) it w a s built, in h a r m o n y with t h e ancient prescription, of u n h e w n stones. One other a. meets u s in t h e history of t h e J e w s ; this is the a. erected by Onias IV. in his temple a t Leontopolis in E g y p t (Jos. Wars, vii. x. 3 ; Ant. Xlii. iii. 31), founding on a m i s t a k e n interpretation of Is 1919. T h e a. of burnt-offering a n d t h e a. of incense, which play so important a p a r t in t h e ritual legislation of t h e Priests' Code (P), will be discussed in detail in t h e article TABERNACLE. See also TEMPLE. v. T H E

ALTAR

AS

ASYLUM. — A n

important

function of t h e a. among t h e H e b r e w s ri^nain& t o bo * W . R. Smith's view, t h a t ' it is very doubtful whether there was in the first temple any other brazen a. than t h e two brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz,' is not supported by sufiicientevidence. I t is, besides, difficult to see why only one of the two pillars should have had, on this theory, the functions of an a. assigned to it (Rel. Sem. i. pp. 35S-359, and Note L, 466ff.).

AL-TASHHETH

AMALEK, AMALEKITES

noticed. The earliest legislation presupposes and confirms the sanctity of the a. as an asylum. The ri^ht of asylum, however, is there limited to cases of accidental homicide (Ex 2113-14). This use of the a., which is not confined to the Sem. peoples, is also a survival of the primitive idea of the a. as the temporary abode of a deity. In clasping the a., the fugitive was placing himself under the immediate protection of the deity in question. In this connexion, as well as in regard to an important part of the fully - developed a. ritual ffif. Lv 4™'), the horns of the a. are esteemed the most sacred part of the whole. I t is difficult, however, to see how these could have formed part of the more ancient a. as prescribed in the Book of the Covenant (see above) ; yet their presence is imply attested in later times (cf. Am 314, Jer IT1, and the incidents recorded in 1 K l50'- 228). The origin and primary significance of the horns are still obscure. Most recent writers seek to trace a connexion between them and the worship of J" in the form of a young bull (Iiuenen, Bel. of Isr. i. 326 ; Stade, Benzinger, Nowack). In any case they are not to be regarded as mere appendages, but as an integral part of the a. (see Dillniann on Ex 272). The view t h a t they were originally projections to which the victims were bound, has no better support than the corrupt passage, Ps 11837 (for which see Comm.). The comparison of the 1 horns ' of the Heb. with those of the Greek a. (eù/cépaos /3a>/x6s) seems misleading, mnce the latter rather resembled the volutes of the Ionic capital (of. art. ara in Daremberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire etc., figs. 410, 418, 422). The famous stele of Teima, on the other hand, shows the ' horns '^ rising from the corners of the a., and curved like those of an ox (see Perrot et Chipiez, op. cit. tome iv. p. 392, Eng. tr. [see below] vol. i. ]). 304).

to be dwelling north of the Gulf of Akabah. See Dillm. in. loc. H. E. RYLE.

LITERATURE.—Of the earlier literature the standard work ia John Spencer's De legibus Heb. ritualibus, etc. 1685. Of the modem works the most important are the works on Hebrew a ntiquities by De Wette, Ewald (Eng. tr. 1876), Nowack (Hebrâische Archâologie, 1894, Band ii. Sacralalterthumer, § 73 ff.), a nd Benzinger (Heb. Archâologie, 1894, § 52, Die altisrael. Heiligthiimer, etc.), and the more general treatises of Wellhausen (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, iii., Reste arab. Ileidenthums, 1887), and, in particular, W. R. Smith's Religion of the Semites, 1889 (2nd ed. 1895). The student should also consult the standard f o r k of Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de VArt dam VAntiquité, tome iii. Phénieie, iv. Judée, etc. (Eng. tr. Hist. of Art in l'hœnicia, 2 vols. 1885, Hist, of A. inJudea etc., 2 vols. 1890). A . R . S. KENNEDY.

AL-TASHHETH (nnç'rrtif, AV Al-taschith), Pss E'7. 58. 59. 65 (titles). See PSALMS.

ALTOGETHER is now only an adv., but was a t first an adj., being simply a stronger 'all.' As an adj. it is found in Ps 395 ' Verily every man a t his best state is a. vanity ' ; Is 108 ' Are not my princes a. (RV ' a l l of them') kings,' and perhaps Nu 16,s. Of its use as an adv. noticeable examples iire Jer 30", where ' I will not leave thee a. unpunished ' is given in RV ' I will in no wise leave thee unpunished ' ; Ac 26™, where ' both almost and ' is in RV ' whether with little or with much ' after the Gr. ; and 1 Co 510, where ' not a.' (Gr. o i H&VTWI) is taken by commentators in two directly opp. senses, either ' n o t wholly,' or ' n o t at a l l ' ; RV gives the first in text, the second in marg. J . HASTINGS.

ALOSH (wix).—A station in the journeyings, ciccurs only Nu 3313-14. (See SINAI.) ÂLYAN ï), one of the ' dukes ' of Edom. Knobol compares the name with that of a Bedawin clan Alawîn, said by Burckhardt

ALWAY, ALWAYS.—Alway (i.e. ' a l l the way') is originally the accus. of duration, ' a l l the t i m e ' ; while always is the gcnit. of occurrence, ' a t all times.' And although by 1611 this distinction was vanishing, there are some undoubted instances in AV. Cf. Mt 2820 ' Lo, I am with you alway,' with lio 1® ' I make mention of yo;: always in my prayers.' RV gives alway for always at Ac 24'«, 2 Th l 3 ; and always for alway at Col 4« apparently capriciously, for these changes obliterate the distinction noticed above. When the distinction was lost, always drove alway out of use. J'. HASTINGS.

AMAD (^91'), Jos 19-" only.—A city of Asher. The site is doubtful; there are several ruins called 'Amud in this region. AMADATHUS, Est 12« 1610-1'.

DATHA.

See HAMME-

AMAIN only in 2 Mac 12'!1 ' t h e enemies . . . fled a.' (so RV, Gr. th ) the

Besides the strictly historical details which he borrows from 2 Kings, the Chronicler adds certain particulars, the purpose of whose insertion is evident (2 Ch 25™- "- 16 ). (On these additions see Graf Die geschichtlichen Biicher des A.T. p. 157 ff., and Driver, LOT, p. 494.) 2. The priest of Jeroboam II. who opposed and attempted to silence the prophet Amos when the latter delivered his message a t the sanctuary of Bethel (Am 7 I M ' . See AMOS). 3. A man of the tribe of Simeon (1 Ch 434). 4. A descendant of Merari (1 Ch 6 4s ). J . A . SELBIE.

AMBASSADOR.—Three Heb. words are sometimes tr. ' ambassador' in R V of OT : 1. T ^ J , a general term for messenger, used for (a) messengers of private men (2 K 5 10 ); (b) messengers of God = angels (see ANGEL) ; (c) messengers of kings or rulers = ambassadors (2 K 19s, 2 Ch 35"), though sometimes tr. 'messengers' in R V ( D t 2 2 6 , Nu20 14 ). 2. TS, apparently a synonym of 1 (Pr 13" ; cf. 2513), hence = herald or messenger from court (Is 182 57s), and metaphorically an ' a m b a s s a d o r ' of J " (Jer 4 9 " ; cf. Ob v.1). In Jos 94 the reading of RVm is to be preferred. 3. properly an interpreter, and so used in Gn 42 23 ; cf. J o b 3323 (?); hence tr d in Is 43" (in theocratic sense) ' i n t e r preters' R V text, 'ambassadors' marg.; in 2 Ch 32" ' a m b a s s a d o r s ' text, 'interpreters' marg. Ambassadors were not permanent officials, but were chosen from attendants at court for special occasions (see 2 K 19s). Their evil t r e a t m e n t was regarded then as now as a grave insult to king and people (2 S 101"6). In the Apocr. the general term i-yyeXos, 'messenger,' is often used even in dealings with courts ( J t h l n 3 1 ,1 Mac l 44 710), b u t during the

u s e is m e t a p h o r i c a l .

G. \V. THATCHER.

AMBASSAGE, mod. embassy; in A V only Lk 1432, but R V adds Lk 1914 (AV ' m e s s a g e ' ) where the same Gr. word (irpeapda) is used. The meaning is not a message sent by ambassadors, but the ambassadors themselves. In 1 Mac 1423 t h e moaning is ' message' (Gr. \6yot, R V ' words'). J . HASTINGS. AMBER

S e e MINERALS.

AMBUSH, from in (which becomes im before b, whence am) and boscus, a bush, wood, thicket, is used in various shades of meaning. 1. The abst ract state of lying in wait in order to attack an enemy secretly. J o s 8 13 ' (Joshua) set them to lie in a. between Bethel and Ai.' 2. The place where the a. is set, or the position thus assumed. Jos H" ' Ye shall rise up from the a . ' ; 1 Mae 94" R V ' And they rose up against them from their a.' 3. The men t h a t form the a. J o s 819 ' the a. arose quickly out of their p l a c e ' ; J e r 51 1 2 ' prepare the a m b u s h e s ' ( m . ' l i e r s i n wait'). The mod. military term is ambuscade. Ambushment, meaning a body of troops disposed in ambush, is used in 2 Ch 13136k; also ambwshments in 2 Ch 2022 (RV ' liers in w a i t ' ; but R V gives ambushment in J o s 89 for ' lis in ambush,' and in J g g35 for ' l y i n g in wait'). J . HASTINGS.

AMEN.—This word found its way bodily from the Heb. (JDN) into the Hellenistic idiom through the LXX, and strengthened its hold later on by its more copious use in t h e version of Symmachus. I t is derived from JSN he propped, in Niphal (reflexive) he was firm. So the adverb ¡EN, firmly, came to be used, like our surely, for confirmation, in various ways. (1) I t is used for the purpose of adopting as one'» own what has just been said (this answering sense being apparently the orig. one, Nu 522) = ' s o is it,' or ' s o shall it be,' rather t h a n t h e less comprehensive ' so be it,' though ' so be i t ' is occasionally the prominent meaning (Jer 286). The word is limited to the religious atmosphere, being, on human lips, an expression of faith t h a t God holds the thing true, or will or can m i k e it true. Thus after the ' o a t h of cursing,' recited in N u 521, there is added, both in the orig. Hebrew and in the Greek of Sym., ' T h e woman shall say, Amen, Amen,' the word being doubled for emphasis; where t h e LXX, however, has the inadequate yivoiro, yivotro, so be it, as is the case in nineteen out of the twenty-three passages where the Heb. word occurs in this connexion: of the rest, three have afi-fjv, and the fourth oXrjO^s. I t is put also into the mouth of the people at t h e end of each curse uttered on Mount Ebal (Dt 27). A t the close, likewise, of public prayers, tlmnJcsgivings, benedictions, or doxologies t h e people used to say Amen (Neh 86, Amen, A m e n ) ; not, apparently, however in the services of the temple, where the response was different (Edersheim, Temple Service, p. 127), b u t certainly in the services of the synagogue (Ps 4113, e.g., and Schiirer, HJPII. ii. 78, 82). T h a t this custom passed over from the synagogue to t h e Christian assemblies we gather from 1 Co 1416, where St. Paul speaks of T6 d/xi)», the (customary) amen uttered by t h e listeners a t t h e close of the extempore thanksgiving. (2) It is used in confirmation of one's own, prayers, thanksgivings, benedictions, doxologies. Before

AMEN N T t h e word occurs only a t t h e end of a private p r a t e r in To 8 8 , a n d a t t h e end of a personal ascription in tlie last verses of 3 a n d 4 Mac. T h e personal doxologieal or ascriptional usage is much more f r e q u e n t in N T (e.g. l i o I*5 U3}, and, outside S* P a u l and t h e Apoc., i t is t h e only N T usage. I n St. P a u l ' s Epistles t h e word sometimes concludes a p r a y e r for, or a benediction upon, his r e a d e r s ; b u t , except in R o 1533 and Gal 618, i t is a l a t e r addition. Sometimes, a s in Rev 7 12 , i t is a p p a r e n t l y introductory to a doxology, b u t is, in reality, confirmatory of a previous doxology. So also in Rev 22-" i t is a believing acceptance of t h e previous divine allii m a t i o n . (3«) I t is used once at the close of an affirmation of one's own, to confirm it solemnly in f a i t h : Rev v, where i t is t h e t r u s t f u l climax of t h e more limited vai, yea (the bare personal confirmation): ' Yea, verily [ H e shall so come].' (36) T h e use of Amen to introduce one's own words and clothe t h e m with solemn affirmation m a y be called an idiom of C h r i s t : i t is a use confined e n t i r e l y t o Him in sacred literature. B u t t h e practice of t h e evangelists in t h i s m a t t e r is n o t uniform. T h e Synoptists give i n v a r i a b l y i/ity Xfyw, the F o u r t h Gospel as invariably a/*V d/^e \4yia. A g a i n , M a t t h e w is richest in t h e phrase, using i t t h i r t y t i m e s ; M a r k less rich, using i t t h i r t e e n t i m e s ; L u k e least so, using i t only six t i m e s ; elsewhere h e gives narrower s u b s t i t u t e s (dXTjdCit thrice, ¿IT' a\rficia assigns 2. Contents. this earthquake to the reign of Uzziah of Judith ; H. T h e o l o g y . and Jerome, on A m l 1 , makes b o l d to i d e n t i f y it with the one which Josephus (Ant. IX. x . 4 ) asserts I. T H E PUOPTIET. — This is the name of the to have occurred as a punishment of t ' z z i a h ' s sacrilege : 1 quando irara D o m i n i non solum pcena prophet whose b o o k in our B i b l e s * occupies the T h e ejus, qui sacrilegus f u i t , sed et terra* mot us ostendit, third place amongst the M i n o r Prophets, t 1 GR. and L a t . Fathers, being f o r the most part que in Iiebrtei tunc accidisse 00111111011101^1111.' A m l unacquainted w i t h Heb., f r e q u e n t l y confounded fixes the prophet's activity in the period when his name with the quite different one of Isaiah's Jeroboam 11. of Israel was contemporaneous with Uzziah. T h i s period extended f r o m 775 to 7 5 0 father, Amoz. Our prophet has no namesake in l>x\ T h e tone of the prophecy leaves little doubt * T h e same or/f-/>