ࡱ> @@i@j@k@l@m@n@o@p@q@r@s@t@u@v@w@x@y@z@{@|@}@~@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@#` .=qbjbj 4Bqd8m | l lq i<k<k<k<k<k<k<$qh4tJ<A4   < p   i< i<  -<-p0q~t~t~t kVm << q      P|T24 Dictionary of the Bible A Dictionary of the Bible DEALING WITH ITS LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND CONTENTS INCLUDING THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY EDITED BY JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D. 1 WITH THE ASSISTANCE OP JOHN A. SELBIE, M.A. AND, CHIEFLY IN THE REVISION OF THE PROOFS, OF A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D. S. E. DEIVEK, D.D., Lmt.D. PBOFE33OB OF HEBREW, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, OXFORD H. B. SWETE, D.D., Litt.D. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE VOLUME 1 AFEASTS NEW YOEK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK 1901 Copyright, 1898, by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are reserved PREFACE 1 Qnne heed to ... teaching.' Perhaps the Church of Christ has never given sufficient heed to teaching since the earliest and happiest days. In 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. It is a Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, together with the Old Testament Apocrypha, according to the Authorized and Eevised 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 it 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 should be dis- viii PKEFACE 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 cross-reference adopted, should enable the reader to find the subject wanted without delay. And bo 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 Eevised 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.E.G.S. The Illustrations (the drawings for which have been chiefly made in Syria by the Eev. 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 Eev. 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 Shearer, 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 Eyle of Cambridge; Professor Salmond of Aberdeen; Principal Stewart of St. Andrews; and Principal Fairbairn and Mr. J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A. of Mansfield College, Oxford. * Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of thie Dictionary of the Bible in the United States and Canada. \ SCHEME OF TEANSLITERATION ARABICHEBEEWbbtgthdjhnhr.u, wikhtz\dhndh3ttarji. yzjks1shinnsndJ*sDthV*Patt%ighkPf-rklJs, shktn1Jmrn&hau, wiii yLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS L General Alex. = Alexandrian. Apoo. = Apocalypse. Apocr. = Apocrypha. Aq. =Aquila. Arab. = Arabic. Aram. = Aramaic. Assyr. = Assyrian. Bab. = Babylonian. c.=circa, about. Can. =Canaanite. ef. = Compare. ct. = Contrast. D=Deuteronomist. E=Elohist. edd. = Editions or Editors. Egyp.= Egyptian. Eng. = English. Eth. =Ethiopic. f. =and following verse or page; as Ac 1084l- ff. =and following verses or pages; as Mt ll28"- Gr.= Greek. H=Law of Holiness. Heb. = Hebrew. Hel. = Hellenistic. Hex.=Hexateuch. Isr. = Israelite. J=Jahwist. J"=Jehovah. Jerus. = Jerusalem. Jos. = Josephus. LXX = Septuagint. MSS=Manuscripts. MT = Massoretic Text n. =note. NT=New Testament. Onk. = Onkelos. OT = Old Testament. P=Priestly Narrative. Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. Pent. = Pentateuch. Pers. = Persian. Phil. = Philistine. Phoen. = Phoenician. Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book. R=Redactor. Rom. = Roman. Sam. = Samaritan. Sem. = Semitic. Sept. =Sept\iagint. Sin. = Sinaitic. Symm. = Symmachus. Syr. =Syriac. Talm. = Talmud. Targ.=Targum. Theod. =Theodotion. TR=Textus Receptus. tr. = translate or translation. VSS=Versions. Vulg. = Vulgate. WH = Westcott and Hort's text. II. Books of the Bible Old Testament. Gn=Genesis. Ex=Exodus. Lv=Leviticus. Nu=Numbers. Dt=Deuteronomy. Jos=Joshua. Jg=Judges. Ru=Ruth. 1 S, 2 S = l and 2 Samuel. 1 K, 2 K= 1 and 2 Kings. 1 Ch, 2 Ch = 1 and 2 Chronicles. Ezr=Ezra. Neh = Nehemiah. Est=Esther. Job. Ps=Psalms. Pr=Proverbs. Ec=Ecclesiastea. Ca = Canticles. Is = Isaiah. Jer=Jeremiah. La=Lamentations. Ezk = Ezekiel. Dn=Daniel. Hos=Hosea. Jl=Joel. Am=Amos. Ob = Obadiah. Jon=Jonah. Mic=Micah. Nah = Nahum. Hab = Habakkuk. Zeph=Zephaniah. Hag=Haggai. Zec=Zechariah. Mal=Malachi. I Es, 2 Es % Esdras. Apocrypha. 1 and 2 To=Tobit. Jth=Judith. Ad. Est = Additions to Sus=Susanna. Esther. 5Vis=Wisdom. Bel = Bel Dragon. and the Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. Man = Prayer of asticus. Manasses. Bar=Baruch. 1 Mac, 2 Mac=l and 2 Three = Song of the Maccabees. Three Children. New Mt=Matthew. Mk=Mark. Lk=Luke. Jn=John. Ac = Acts. Ro=Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and Corinthians. Gal = Galatians. Eph=Ephesians. Ph = Philippians. Col=Colossians. Testament. 1 Th, 2 Th = 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Ti, 2 Ti = 1 and 2 Timothy. Tit=Titus. Philem=Philemon. 2 He=Hebrews. Ja=James. IP, 2 P=land 2 Peter. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn=l, 2 and 3 John. Jude. Re v=Revelation. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IIL English Versions Wye.=Wyclif'8 Bible (NT c. 1380, OT e. 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 (.. prob. Rogers') Bible 1537. 'ran. or Great=Cranmer's 'Great' Bible 1539. Tav.=Taverner's Bible 1539. Gen.=Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560. Bish.= Bishops' Bible 1568. Tom. =Tomson's NT 1576. Rhem.=Rhemish NT 1582. Dou. = Douay OT 1609. AV=Authorized Version 1611. AVm=Authorized Version margin. RV = Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1886. RVm = Revised Version margin. EV=Auth. and Kev. Versions. IV. Fob the Literature AHT=Ancient Hebrew Tradition. AT=A\tes Testament. jBi=Bampton Lecture. BM= British Museum. 2?22P=Biblical Researches in Palestine. (7/(7=Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. CIL=Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. CIS=Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. COT= Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. Z)J3=Dictionary of the Bible. GGA = G8ttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 0F/=Geschichte des Volkes Israel. HCM= Higher Criticism and the Monuments. 272?=Historia Ecclesiastics,. .ff7P=History of the Jewish People. HGHL=Historical Geog. of Holy Land. S7= History of Israel. EPM= History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. JDTh=Jahrbucher far deutsche Theologie. JBAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JQB=Jewish Quarterly Review. KAT=Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. XOTsIntrod. to the Literature of the Old Test. ON= Otium Norvicense. O2\/C=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. PjKJE=Real-Encyclopadie fur protest. Theologie und Kirche. QPB=Queen's Printers' Bible. .Si?Mk 2, Lk 63, and in all these places RV leaves it unchanged). LITKRATUX1B.Besides the necessary edd. of the Engr. Bible, Skeat, Etymol. Diet, of the Kng. Latin.-; Murray and Bradley, Eng. Diet, on llist. Principles (called ihe Oxford Bug. Diet.); Whitney, Century Diet.; Wriirht, Bible Word Boolfl; Michie, Bible Words and 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 Eng. works of the period. J. Hastings. AAEON (%Viqij, LXX 'Aap<bv). 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 Moses' brother, and with the title of the Levile, in Ex 414J, 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 the people (vv.iwl), 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 714lf- 8ltr- 2u'r- 9lff- 13ff- [J mainly]with 103 contrast 106 ' he turned'). Aaron is merely called in four times along with Moses to entreat for their removal (88--"s 9-7 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 name; in 830 'J33 10la his departure alone is mentioned, while in 81- 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 (15-u). With Hur he assists Moses in holding up the rod of God to ensure the defeat of Amalek (17W-12 E), and together with the elders he is called to Jethro's sacrifice (1812 E). At Sinai,while priests and people remain below, Aaron accompanies Moses up the mountain (1924 J), together with Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel (241(- 9~u); and when Moses with Joshua alone is about to approach 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 (32'"5> 21'35). At a later period Aaron with Miriam opposes Moses, on the ground that they also are recipients of divine revelations, Miriam being apparently reganled 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 JE ; namely the intercession offered by Moses on his account after the making of the golden calf (Dt 9*); the choice of Levi as the priestly tribe, probably in consequence of the zeal shown by them against the idolaters (1081-) ; the death of Aaron at Moserah (site unknown), and the succession of his son Eleazar to the priestly office (10c>7, the itinerary probably from E, cf. Nu opal. w. isff.) -j]ie ]as^ 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 24s3 E, where mention is made of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron. 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), and three years older than Moses (ib. V, Nu 33s9). His wife was Elisheba, his sons Nadab, Abihu (cf. Ex 24l-9 E ?), Eleazar (cf. Jos 24s3 E), and Ithamar. See Ex C23 etc. A .slightly different representation of Aaron's first commission is given in Ex Ga-7'3 P, from that in the parallel narrative Ex 4-61 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. lie regularly cooperates with Moses at the tiu:o of the Egyp. plagues, usually bringing these to pass by means of his rod in accordance with Moses' instructions (Ex 71M- 85(> 16'-). Many commands of God are addressed to both leaders alike (Ex 9*-w 121-43, Lv II1 13l 1433 151, Nu 21, cf. !.".). they are consulted by the people (Nu 9s 15s3, cf. 132"), and against both of them the murmurings of the people are directed (Ex 163, Nu 142, cf.28 I63.4i cf is op2). All this, however, does not prevent distinct and characteristic parts being assigned to each of them. Thu3 the first place is given to Moses throughout. He receives the divine revelation on Mount Sinai respecting the appointment of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Ex 281-1 294*1), and upon the completion of the tabernacle solemnly consecrates them, and offers the appointed sacrifices (Ex 29, Lv 8. 9). Aaron, on the other hand, is specially ' the priest' (Ex 31W 351U 3821, Lv 132, Nu IS28), who stays a plague by an offering of incense (Nu 1646"48); to his charge the tabernacle is committed (&. 4s-19- *"" 3S), and to him the Levites are given in exchange for the firstborn (ib. 339ff-). Aaron is distinguished from liia sons, the inferior priests, by the anointing which he receives (Ex 297, Lv 812, cf. Ex 29"!, Lv 43-5-16 6JU-23 1632 2110-12, Nu 35a):  passages which speak of his sons as being also anointed AARONITES ABADIAS probably belong to the later additions to the Priestly Code (Ex 2841 3030 4013, Lv 736, 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' (16-'), i.e. not all Levites (cf. Nu 27"); their complaints are directed against the exclusive claims of the tribe of Levi, and all mur-murings 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 ditl'erent 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 le9-"-1"-"'-38"'1'). See further, Priests ; also Aaronites, Aaron's Rod, Korah. For failing to show due honour to J" at Meribah Kadesh, in the fortieth year of the wanderings, Aaron was forbidden to enter the promised land (Nu 208'13). Shortly afterwards, accompanied by Moses and his own son Eleazar, Aaron ascended Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edoui, and after being solemnly stripped of his priestly garments, which were put on Eleazar, died there at the age of 123 (Nu 2023"29 33*"- 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 2032); the itinerary of P (Nu 3330"88) names six stages between Moseroth {Dt 10" Moserah) and Mt. Hor. In the older literature outside the Pent., the mission of Moses anil Aaron in Egypt is alluded to in Jos 24 E, and 1 S 12"-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 (fViqs '33 '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, at 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 (aws 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 310 j6 181'7). It 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 17* 211-17-21-24 222-4-18 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 latter ; and, probably without good authority, he connects the former with the Zadokite priests of Jerus., and the latter with the family of Eli (1 Ch 24), though the name of one of Eli's sons (cf. also 1 S 227'1) would suggest a connexion between this family and Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Jos 24s3). Throughout his work the priests are frequently termed the Aaronites (sons of Aaron)viz. 1 Ch 6U- 15* 23s8-33 241-31, 2 Ch 13-10 2618 2921 311!) 35", Neh 1038 124'. In 1 Ch 1227 2717 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 class is described as the House of Aaron (Ps 1151U-1S 118* I35l). H. A. White. AARON'S ROD.Aaron's rod is the centre of interest in an important incident of the desert wanderingstime and place are both uncertain as recorded by the priestly narrator (P), Nu 171"11 (Heb. text 171"'28). The passage should be stu.lied 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, eacli with the name of a prince engraved upon it, together with a 13th rod (cf. Vulg. fueruntque virg;e duodecim absque virga Aaron) to represent the tribe of Levi, but bearing the name of Aaron, were deposited by Moses before ' the 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' (178 RV), by which it was miraculously proved that 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 priesthood of the sons of Aaron. ' Aaron's rod that budded' was ordered to be put back to its former place 'before the [ark of the] testimony' (17W) 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 89, is found in He S4, 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. K. S. Kennedy. AB.See Names (Proper), and Time. ABACUC.The form in which the name of the prophet Habakkuk appears in 2 Es I40. 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 that in Sheol at all events moral distinctions were paramount, and that men were treated there according to their deserts. In Job 31la Abaddon (pss) bears the general meaning of ' ruin,'' destruction.' (But see Dillm. and Dav. inloc.) In the other instances of its occurrence, however, it is specialised, and designates the place of the lost in Sheol. Thus in Job 26s, Pr 15" 27*' (TDK, in Kere ["Jn) it occurs in conjunction with 'Sheol' (to), and in Ps 88" with 'grave' (%cp). Again, in Job 28s3 a further development is to be observed. In this passage it is linked with death (nia), and personified in the same way as we find n;d^ in Dn 423 and Hades in Rev 68, and d'Oj? and Dipo in the Talmud. The word is found once more in the Bible in Rev 9J1. In this passage it is used as the proper name of a prince of the infernal regions, and explained by the word 'Aa-oX-\6uv='Destroyer.' In the LXX p-an is always rendered by aw&Xeia, except in Job 3112 where LXX 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 Hammelech, f. 15. 3, Abaddon becomes the lowest place of Gehenna. R. H. Charlks. ABADIAS ('A/J08/01), 1 Es 8s5.Son of Jezelus. of the sons of Joab, returned with Ezra from captivity. Called Obadiah, son of Jehiel, Ezr 8pie, Mt 7s2; ijM, ifKi, 2740); such expressions, therefore, as val, i/efiv, Rev I7 (cf. 2 Co I20); "Amen, So be it'; ' Hallelujah, Praise the Lord,' are closer analogues. Rabbinical examples are not wanting of similar combinations; see Schoettgen, Horie Eebr. on Mark, I.e. J. H. Thayer. ABDA (snay), 'servant, sc. of the Lord'; cf. names Obadiah, Abdeel, Ebed.1. 'E0pd B, 'Apatb A, 'ESpd/i Luc Father of Adoniram, master of Solomon's forced levy (I K 4"). 2. 'A/SSds , "A^Sids Luc. A Levite descended from Jeduthun (Nek 11"). Called Obadiah (1 Ch 918). C. F. BUENEY. ABDEEL ABIASAPH ABDEEL Ootjs), father of Sheleniiah (Jer 3628), one of those ordered by King Jehoiakiiu to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch. Sept. omits. ABDI ("ins, perhaps for n,j?K' servant of Yah,' cf. Palmy*, 'nay).1. Grandfather of . the musician Ethan, 1 Cli 6". 2. Father of Kish, 2 Ch 2912. 3. A Jew; who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 102* =Aedias, 1 Es 9s7. B. A. White. ABDIAS (2 Es I39).Obadiah the prophet. ABDIEL (^!H?K ' servant of God').Son of Guni (1 Ch 510). See Genealogy. ABDON (jtajs 'servile').1. Son of Hillel, of Pirathon in Ephraim, the last of the minor judges, Jg 1213"15. 2. A family of the tribe of Benjamin dwelling in Jems., 1 Ch 8a. 3. A Gibeonite family dwelling in Jerus., 1 Ch 830 9s". 4. A courtier of Josiah, 2 Ch 34B>; in 2 K 2212 his name is Achbor. G. A. CoOKE. ABDON (I'rns).A Levitical city of Asher (Jos 2130,1 Ch 674), now (v. d. Velde) 'Abdeh E. of Achzib on the hills (SIVP, vol. i. sheet iii.). C. R. CONDER. ABEDNEGO (ty i^s,; ty=perh. taj 'servant of Nebo'; so Hitzig, Gratz, Schrader).See Shadrach. ABEL (byi, *A/3e\).The second son (twin ?) of Adam and Eve, by occupation a herdsman (Gn 42), offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain (He II4), and out of jealousy was slain by his elder brother (Gn 48. See Cain). The current etymology (^3? breath, vanity) has been disputed by the Assyriologists, who connect the name with ablu, abal, 'son' (cf. Asurbanipal); but while this may well lie the root, it does not follow that it gives the etymology in the mind of the writer. There would have been no point in naming the younger brother ' son' (Franz Delitzsch), and it is better to suppose that the proper name was here designed to suggest the idea of the short-lived or possibly the shepherd (cf. hs;). The representation of A. as a shepherd coincides with the OT tradition of the superiority of the pastoral life. The ground of the acceptance of A.'s offering (Gn 4*) is not its conformity to a revealed command, noi its character of blood, but the spirit of true piety which was expressed in his giving to God his be3t, viz. the firstlings of the nock, and of these the fattest portions. Cain's knowledge of God's acceptance of A.'s offering implies a visible sign, probably the kindling of the sacriiice by fire from heaven (cf. 1 K 1838). In NT Abel appears as the first martyr (Mt 23s6), and as a hero of faith (He II4), while his death is contrasted with that of Christ as calling, not for forgiveness, but for vengeance (cf. Westcott on He 1224). The character and the fate of A. reflect the Jewish consciousness of the enduring division of mankind into the two classes of the people and the enemies of God, and of the persecutions endured by His chosen people at the hands of their enemies (cf. 1 Jn 312). Literature.Schrader, COT; Dillmann, Generii; Delitzsch, Genesis; and Literature of Sacrifice. W. P. Patekson. ABEL (Sax), 'meadow.'The name of various places in Pal. and Syria, situated by cultivable lands. In one passage (1 S 618) Abel stands apparently for Eben (i?N), 'stone' (see RV, AVm, LXX, arid Tar.), applying to a 'great stone' at Bethshemesh of Judah. 1. Abel-beth-maacah (AY maachah) (tt? Va$ n?J!5), 'Abel of the House of Maaehah' in Upper Galilee (2 S 20-15-18), now 'Abil Kam^, 'Abel of wheat,' on the plateau of the mountains a little \V. of Tell el-Kadi (Dan). It was taken by the Syrians in the 10th cent. B.C. (1 K 152J, 2 Ch lti4), uud by the Assyrians about B.C. 732 (2 K1529) (SWi\ vol. i. sheet ii.). 2. Abel-cheramim (D'pnj ^jjs), 'meadow of vineyards' (Jg II83), on the Moab plateau near Minnith. 3. Abel-maim (n:,p ^k), ' meadow of wafers' (2 Ch 164), the same as No. 1. The mountains in this region are well watered, and the site noted for corn, as its modern name shows. 4. Abel-meholah (n$>irtn ^x), 'meadow of the dance,' or of the 'circle' (Jg" 7s2, 1 K 4la 191S), in the Jordan Valley near Bethshean. In the Onomasticon (s.v. Abel Maula) it is placed 10 Rom. miles from Scythopolis (Bethshean), which points to the present 'Ain Helweh, or ' sweet spring,' near which is a ruined mound. See SWP, vol. ii. sli. ix. 8. Abelmizraim (nnp ^J, 'meadow of Egyptians' (Gn 50"), or (with different points i>3N for *>;$) ' mourning of Egyptians.' There is a play on the word in this passage. It was between Egypt and Hebron, yet is described as ' beyond Jordan. It is difficult to suppose that such a route would be taken to Hebron, nor was the region beyond Jordan in Canaan. The site is unknown (see Atad). [See Delitzsch and Dillm. in loc.% Driver, Deut. p. xliif., and Taylor in Expos. Times (1896), vii. 407*.] 6. Abel-shittim (d-esti ^jn), 'meadow of acacias' (Nu 3349), in other passages Shittim only (which see). The place is described as in the plains of Moab. The Jordan plain E. of the river, opposite Jericho, is the site now called GMr el Seisebdn, or ' valley of acacias.' The plain is well watered, and still dotted with acacias. (See SEP, vol. i.) . ABHORRING.In Is 66M ' abhorring' means a thing that is abhorred, an abhorrence: ' They shall be an a. unto all flesh.' The same Heb. word (pNT3) is tr. ' contempt' in Dn 122 ' Some to shame and everlasting contempt' (RVm 'abhorrence '). J. Hastings. ABI ('?{(, probably = '(my) father' *; LXX 'Apot) is the name of a queen-mother of the 8th cent. (2 K 18a) who is called Abijah in the parallel passage 2 Ch 291. The reading in Kings is the most probable. Abi was daughter of ZechaHnh (? cf. Is 82), wife of Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah. G. B. GitAY. ABIA, ABIAH.See Abijah. ABI-ALBON (pa^sr?*;, A 'Ae^Sul')-A member of ' the Thirty,' or third division of David's heroes (2 S 2331). In the parallel passage (1 Ch II38) we find 'Abiel' (Vsei); this is undoubtedly right, and is supported by B (|Ta5]a/3!i;X) and Luc. ([raX; Heb. text in all passages in Chronicles. Against the middle n of Abiasaph, and therefore in favour of Ebyasaph, are the Syr. (_LCQJ_21. Ex * On the meanings of this name and the following names h ginning with Abi, see further art. Names, Proper. ABIATHAE ABIATHAR M, 1 Ch 6*>; .

3418, Dt 161). See Time. ABIDA (sn'3* 'my father had knowledge').A son of Midia'n (Gn 254 AV Abidah, 1 Ch I33). ABIDAN (H'5K ' father is judge') is a name that occurs only inTP. According to this document, Abidan, son of Gideoni, of the tribe of Benjamin, was one of the twelve 'princes' who represented their respective tribes at the census and on certain other occasions, Nu lu 222 760-05 1024. G. B. Gray. ABIDE. In AV and RV 'abide' is used both transitively and intransitively. 1. As a trans, verb in two senses : (a) to await, be in store for, as Ac 2023 ' Bonds and afflictions abide me'; cf. Ps 379 (Pr. Bk.) 'They that patiently abide the Lord.' (b) To withstand, endure, as Jer 1O10 ' The nations shall not be able to abide His indignation'; Mai 3s ' But who may abide the day of His coming?' Cf. ' They cannot abide to hear of altering,'Pref. to AV 1611 ; ' Nature cannot abide that any place should be empty,' H. Smith (1593), Serm. 97. 2. As an intrans. verb in three senses : () to continue in the place or in the state in which one now is, as Ac 2731 ' Except tliese abide in the ship'; Jn 1224 ' Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground, and die, it abideth alone' ; 1 Co 74U ' She is happier if she so abide'; 2 Mac 7" ' abide a while, and behold his great power.' (b) To dwell, reside, as Lk 8-17 ' And wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs' ; Ps 61" ' I will abide (RV ' dwell') in Thy tabernacle for ever'; Jn 8s* And the bond-servant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever'; Jn 15* 'He that abideth in Me, and I in him.' (c) To last, endure (esn. in the face of trial, cf. 1 (b), above), as 1 Co 314 'If any man's work abide'; Ps 11990 ' Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.' Abiding, as an adj., is used by RV, He 1034 'a better possession and an a. one,' and 1314 'an a. city'; as a noun it is found 1 Es 881 'they liave given us a sure a. in Jewry.' J. Hastings. ABIEL (Snvjb 'father is God'). 1. Son of ieror, of the tribe of Benj., was father of Kish and Ner, and consequently grandfather of Saul and Abner, 1 S 91 145>. According to 1 Ch 833=939 Ner was father of Kish ; in this case Abiel would have been great-grandfather of Saul. But the statement in Ch is an error, very possibly due to transcrip-ional causes; rid. Bertheau on 1 Ch 8s3. 2. The name of one of David's 'thirty men' (2 S 23") = 1 Ch II32. The form (Abi-albon) under which this man's name now appears in the Heb. text of Samuel is due to textual corruption; Wellhausen (on 2 S 2331) supposes the original form to have been Abibaal; but there seems no sufficient reason to doubt the form (Abiel) preserved in Chron.; cf. Driver on 2 S 2331. G. B. Gkay. ABIEZER (-iiji'js 'father is help'). 1. The name of a clan (nri?f ? Jos 172 (P or R); $$ Jg 61S) belonging to the tribe of Manasseh (Jg 615). Consequently, in genealogical descriptions of the tribal relations, Abiezer appears as a son or descendant of Manasseh, Jos 172, 1 Ch 718, Nu 2630 (P; in this last passage the name is written Iezer, "ijjj'n, LXX 'Ax^hp). The most distinguished memberof the clan was Gideon, who describes it (cf., however, Moore [Intern. Critical Commentary] on Jg 615) as 'the poorest in Manasseh,' Jg 61S, cf. 83. In the time of Gideon' the clan was settled at Ophrah of the Abiezrites (Jg 6**, cf. v.11), which perhaps lay near Shechem. In any case it would be unsafe, from P's statement that Abiezer was a son of Gilead (Nu 263a; cf. 1 Ch 718, but cf. Jos 172), to infer that the clan was ever settled on the E. of Jordan; cf. Dillmann on Nu 2630. 2. Abiezer the Anathothite, i.e. man of Anathoth in Benjamin (1 Ch 27"; cf. Jer I1). was one of David's heroes, 2 S 2327=1 Ch 112C. According to 1 Ch 2712 he was the acting military officer of David's army in the 9th month. Abiezrite is the gentilic form. G. B. Gkay. ABIGAIL and (2 S 1725 RV) Abigal (Heb. gener- ___ rejoiced.1 _ _ wife of Nabal the Carmelite. Hearing of her husband's dismissal of David's messengers, and refusal of their request, unknown to her husband she went to meet David with provisions for him and his men, and in this way so gained David's favour that he abandoned his intended raid on Nabal. Some ten days after, Nabal died, and subsequently Abigail became David's wife: this was after David's former wife, Michal, had been given to Palti, but apparently at about the same time that he also married Ahinoam the Jezreelitess. Together with Ahinoam, Abigail shared David's life at Gath, suffered captivity (from Ziklag) by the Amalekites, and was speedily rescued; later she lived with David at Hebron, and there bore a son, Chileab (2 S 32) or Daniel (1 Ch 31) by name, 1 S 25 ; also 273 305-ls 2 S 22 33, 1 Ch 3'. 2. A sister of Zeruiahand according to 1 Ch 216 also of Davidwho through her union with Ithra the Ishmaelite (see art. Ithka) became mother of Amasa. The words in 2 S 1723 (*m m), which assert that she was a daughter of Nahash, are probably an intrusion from v.87 (stij p = the son of Nahash); cf. Wellhausen, i.l. G. B. Gray. ABIHAIL (Heb. S:ir3 'father is might'). According to the Massora the name is read T.T3N (with n, not n) in 1 Ch 2s9 2 Ch II18; but this is probably the result of a pre-Massoretic tran- 8 ABIHU ABILENE scriptional ettor. 1. Mentioned only in Nu 3M (P) in the phrase ' Zuriel, son of Abihail' (see Zueiel). 2. 'Wife' of Abishur, 1 Ch 229. 3. Daughter of Eliab, son of Jesse, and consequently a niece of David's. The only passage (2 Ch II18) where she is mentioned is slightly corrupt; but, according to the most probable emendation, Abihail was the mother of Rehoboam's wife Mahalath. According to another interpretation, Abihail was wife of Behoboam; but this is not the natural sense of the Heb. text, and is out of harmony with the context; vv is. 20 imply that only one wife has been mentioned. 4. In this case the name occurs only in 1 Ch 5M in a Gadite genealogy; this Abihail was apparently a clan resident in Gilead. 3. Father of Esther, and uncle of Mordecai (Est 21B 9119). For the curious variant of LXX, which gives the regular LXX equivalent of Abinadab, it is difficult to account. G. B. Gray. ABIHO (Kin-jK 'he is father'), second son of Aaron by Elisheba (Ex o23, Nu 32 28611, 1 Ch 63 24'): accompanied Moses to the top of Sinai (Ex 241-9): admitted to the priest's office (Ex 281): slain for ottering strange tire (Lv 101-2, Nu 34 2661, 1 Ch 24a). W. C. Allen. ABIHUD (n?,T3N 'my father is majesty').A Benjamite, son of Bela (1 Ch 83). See Genealogy. ABIJAII (.T31S 'Jah is my father').1. King of Judah Onpx, 2Ch 1320-21). He is called Abijam (Vulg. Abiam), 1 K 14'1 151- '-8- Nestle explains this as equivalent to oyax ' father of the people'; but since Abijah is read by thirteen of Kennicott's and de Rossi's MSS, supported by the LXX *A/3ioi5, Abijam is probably a mistake. As being the eldest son of Maacah, the favourite wife of Rehoboam, his father appointed him ' to be chief, even the prince among his brethren; for he was minded to make him king' (2 Ch 1122). His mother's name is variously given as Maacah the daughter of Abishalom (1 K. 152) (Absalom, 2 Ch II20-ai), or Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Ch 132). See Maacah. He reigned about two years, from the eighteenth to the twentieth year of Jeroboam. There is probably no reign the accounts of which in Kings and Chronicles are so discrepant as that of Abijah. In Kings there is nothing related of him except that' he walked in all the sins of his father,' and that 'there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam'; and, in the history of Asa, an incidental allusion to 'things that Abijah had dedicated' for the temple. In fact, as in the case of Jehoram (2 K 819), he was spared by God merely on account of the divine promise to David. But in Chronicles not only is there much additional historical matter, but Abijah seems to be a great and good man, and he is made the utterer of a sort of manifesto of the theocratic principles of Judah. The desultory warfare implied in Kings becomes in Chronicles one decisive pitched battle fought in the territory of Ephraim, in which Abijah's army of 400,000 slay 500,000 out of the 800,000 marshalled by Jeroboam. The battle is preceded by an oration spoken on Mt. Zemaraim by Abijah. After strongly affirming the divine right of the Davidic line, he dwells on the previous impiety of Jeroboam's rebellion against Rehoboam when the latter 'was young and tender-hearted, and could not withstand them ; and now ye think to withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hands of the sons of David.' The gods and priests of Judah and Israel are sharply_ contrasted: 'Whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods.' The ceremonial of the daily worship at Jerusalem is minutely described, and the loyalty of Judah to J* is twice affirmed. The battle which follows reads like an echo of the heroic age of Israel 'Jeroboam caused an ambushment to come about behind them. . . . the priests sounded with the trumpets (of. Nu 10 31* Jos 616), then the men of Judah gave a shout (cf. Jos 620); and as the men of Judah shouted, it came topass that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel.' Three cities of Israel were taken: Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephron. The last two are otherwise unknown, unless Ephron or Ephrain (RVm) be the same as Ephraim (2 S 1323, Jn II54). Bethel must soon have been recovered by Baasha (2 Ch 161). After this we are told that Abijah ' waxed mighty, and took unto himself fourteen wives.' Presumably most of his thirty-eight children were born before he came to the throne. The Chronicler mentions as his authority for this reign the commentary (Midrash) of the prophet Iddo, who was also one of the biographers of Rehoboam. 2. Samuel's second son, who with his brother Joel judged at Beersheba (1 S 82). Their corrupt administration of justice was one of the reasons alleged by the elders of Israel in justification of their demand for a king. The RV retains the spelling Abiah in 1 Ch &. 3. A son of Jeroboam I. who died in childhood. His mother having gone disguised to the prophet Ahijah to inquire if ne should recover, received the heavy tidings of the future annihilation of the house of Jeroboam, and of the immediate death of her child, ' taken away from the evil tp come': ' And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him; for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thin" toward the Lord the God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam'(1 K 1413). 4. 1 Ch 241". One of the 'heads of fathers' houses' of the sons of Eleazar, who gave his name to the 8th of the 24 courses of priests, the arrangement of whom is ascribed to David (1 Ch 243, 2 Ch 814). To this course Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged (Lk I6). It is probable that this clan, and not an individual, is indicated in the lists of priests who ' went up with Zerubbabel' (Neh 124). LXX omits this and other names in Neh 12 (they are supplied by ft "), and in the list of priests who ' sealed unto the covenant' in the time of Nehemiah (10') ('AjSeid, B, ). Of the 21 names, in Neh 10, 13 occur in nearly the same order in a list of 22 in ch. 12, while three others are very similar; and of the names in these two lists 9 are found in the names of David's courses. On the other hand, 'the book of the genealogy of them that came up at the first' (Neh 7, Ezr 2) mentions only four families of priests, nor do there seem to have been more in the time of Ezr (1018"22). 5. A son of Becher, son of Benjamin, 1 Ch 78. 6. RV retains 'Abiah,' 1 Ch 2M. Wife of Hezron, eldest son of Perez, son of Judah. She was probably daughter of Machir (221). 7. Wife of Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah (2 Ch 291), named Abi, 2 K 182. Her father Zechariah is possibly mentioned in Is 83. N. J. D. White. ABIJAM.See Abijah. ABILENE ('A/3iXijn}), Lit 31.A tetrarchy about A.D. 26 in Syria (Jos. Ant, xvm. vi. 10, XIX. v. 1, xx. vii. 1; wars, II. xi. 5), the cap. being at Abila on the N. slope of Hermon. The ruins of Abila surround a small village on the right bank of the river at Stile Wddy Barada, ' the market of the valley of the Abana River.' The name has given rise to a local tradition (based on the Koran) that Cain here buried Abel, whose tomb is shown at a large tank cut in the rock on the top of a cliff to the south. It is also preserved in the Latin text of Lucius Verus, on the N. side of the rock-cut ABILITY ABIMELECH passage of the Rom. road W. of the town. The region of Abilene is also noticed in a Gr. text found in 1873 at Burkush on Hermonj showing that the district included the Antilebanori and Hermon, N.W. of Damascus. There is a cemetery at Abila of Rom. 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 the river and E. of the town are foundations of a small Rom. temple. Literature.Reland, Paldstina, p. 527 ff.; Robinson, Later BR, pp. 479-484; Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, p. 352 f.; Schurer, I1JP I. ii. 335-339; Conder, Tent-Wm-k in Pal. p. 127; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutsehen PtUUstina-Vereins, viii. 40; SWP Special Papers; Waddington, Inscrip. Grec. et Lot. de la Syrw,s.v. Alula.' C. R. CoNDER. ABILITY.Both in OT and NT ability occurs in two senses, which must be distinguished. 1. It signifies material capacity, resources, wealth, as Ezr 268 'They gave after their a. (Hub. 'ace. as his hand may reach') into the treasury'; Lv 27s 'According to the a. of him that vowed shall the priest value him.' Cf. LXX of Lv ao** with Ac 1128 below; and Out of my lean and low ability I'll lend you something.' Shakespeare, T. S. lii. 4. This is the meaning also of Ac II29 'Then the disciples, every man according to his a., determined to send relief unto the brethren,' though the original is a verb, icaSus eviropeird ra, meaning ' ace. as each prospered.' 2. It signiiies personal capacity, strength of body or of mind. Thus Dn I4 ' Sucli as had a:., (si) in them to stand in the king's palace'; Alt 2515 ' He gave talents . . . to every man according to his several a. (Siva/us).' So Wis 1319, Sir 313 AVm. In 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 fouqd is in Goldsmith's Vicar of Walcejield. J. Hastings. ABIMAEL (^?'5N, perhaps = ' father is God,' bat the fun e of the D is uncertain) was one of the Joktanids or (S.) Arabians (see art. Joktan), Gn 1028 (J), 1 Cli I22. Nothing further is known of this tribe, but it is markworthy that another name of the same peculiar formation, viz. "iryraax, has been found on the S. Arabian inscriptions; see D. H. Miiller in ZDMG 1883, p. 18. G. B. Gray. ABIMELECH (^?'3*S 'Melech [Malki or Molech] is father').1. A king of Gerar mentioned in connexion with the history of Abraham, Gn 201"17 2122-82 (both E)> an(J of IgaaCj Gn 267-". 211-S3 (iK.th J). With all their points of difference, it appears impossible to resist the conclusion that we have in J and E two variants of the same story. In both the patriarch resorts to the same method of defence to protect himself from the same danger (20s 267); in both A. is righteously indignant at the deceit practised upon him (20afr> 2610); in both a treaty is entered into with A. (SI2"- 2628<); in both Phicol (212a 2626) and Beersheba (2132 26s3) are mentioned. In all probability J has preserved the earlier form of the tradition, ace. to which Isaac, and not Abraham, was the patriarch concerned. The parallel story in Gn 121"-20 (where Pharaoh of Egypt takes the place of A. of Gerar) is also from a Jahwistic source, but scarcely from the same pen as 267"11. If the title J1 be adopted for the latter, we may designate the other J2, whether we accept or not of Kuenen's theory that he edited a Judman recension of J. Literature.Comm. of Dillm. and Del. on Gen. II. cit.; Cornill, Einleit.* 54f.; Wlldeboer, Lit. d. A.T. 78, 138; Kautzsch u. Sooin, Genesis; W. B. Smith, 0TJC 416; Kuenen, Uexateuch, 234, 252. 2. A king of Gath ace. to title of Ps 341. Here A. is possibly a mistake for Achish (cf. 1 S 21"*-), a, better known Phil, name being sulistitiiteil-for a less familiar one, or it may be that Abimelech is less a personal name than a title of Phil, kings like Egyp. Pharaoh (see Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v.). 3. This A. is generally reckoned one of the judges (so in Jg 101, but probably not by editor of 9 nor in 1 S 1211). Ace. to Jg 831 (R) he was a son of Gideon by a Shechemite concubine. Upon his father's death he gained over 'his mother's brethren' in Shechem, and with the aid of a hired troop of ' vain and light fellows' murdered all his 70 brothers except the youngest, Jotham, who contrived to escape. A. then ascended the throne and assumed the kingly title (91""). Jotham, leaving his place of concealment, spoke at Alt. Gemim his well-known parable (vv.7-2*), which was calculated to sow dissension amongst the Shechemites, who were partly of Can. and partly of Isr. blood. After three years both sections were weary of the rule of A., who seems to have taken up his residence elsewhere (vv.22"25). Gaal, the leader of the Israelite faction (see, however, Moore on Jg 928), made such headway in Shechem that Zebul, the governor, an adherent of A., was obliged to feign compliance with his designs. All the while, however, he was keeping A. secretly informed of the revolutionary movement, and suggesting methods of checking it (vv.26"83). At length A. advanced to attack the city, and Gaal was completely routed, and after his defeat expelled by Zebul (vv.34-41). In a second day's fight A. captured Shechem and put to the sword all the inhabitants that fell into his hands. A number having taken refuge in the temple of El-berith, he burned the building over their heads (vv.42'JS). Sometime afterwards A. met liis death while besieging Thebez. Being struck down by a millstone which a woman nun" from the wall, he ordered his armour-bearer to Kill him in order to escape the disgrace of perishing by the hand of a woman (vv.110-67). The above is a reasonable and in general self-consistent narrative, but there are not a few points of detail where the course of events is involved in considerable obscurity. Zebul upon any theory plays a double part, but it is not quite certain whether there was to the last a complete understanding between him and A. Kittel thinks there was, and supposes that Z. was put to death by the Shechemites after they discovered his treachery. Wellhausen, on the contrary, believes that he perished along with the Shechemites, A. having come to regard him as the real instigator of the revolt, and refusing to be propitiated by the offering of Gaal as a scape-goat. It is further doubtful whether A. himself acted in the interests of the Can. or of the Isr., but at all events Wellhausen rightly remarks that ' the one permanent fruit of his activity was that Shechem was destroyed as a Can. city and rebuilt for Israel' (cf. 1 K 121- "!). The story of A. in Jg 9 is the natural sequel of the version of Gideon's hist, contained in 84''" (note also how the sentiments of Jotham's parable agree with &'& M, unless, indeed, these latter two verses are an 8th cent, interpolation). The narrative is one of the oldest in OT, belonging to the same type as the narratives concerning the minor judges. It is free from Deuter. touches and turns of expression, and may in its present form date from the earliest years of the monarchy. Its purpose is to show now the murder of Gideon's sons was avenged on A. and the Shechemites, who were practically his accomplices (9s7, cf. vv. 7> i-24). Budde attributes the preservation of the story to E, who, however, 10 ABINADAB ABNER himself composed the Jotham parable.; Moore considers that it is possible to disentangle two narratives, (A) vv.22-25-42'*1-50'-, cognate with which are vv.1"21, (B) vv.26"11. The first of 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. Literature.Cornill, Elnleitfi 50; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T. S3, 82, 232; Driver, LOT 157 ; Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hex. 227 ff., 353ff.; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 117ff.; Kittel, Hist, qf Heb. ii. 13 n., 18 n., 82 n., 85ff.; Moore, Judges, 237fl. i. A priest, the son of Abiathar, ace. to 1 Ch 1818, where, however, the reading of MT. ' AMme-lech the son of Abiathar,' is obviously a mistake for ' Abiathar the son of AAimelech' (cf. 2 S 81' and notes on it by Budde in Haupt's Sacred Bks. of OT, and by Kittel in Kautzsch's A. T.). See Abiathar. J. A. Selbie. ABINADAB (^'is 'father is generous'; LXX always'Anavadafi (A 'A/uvaHdf}), except at 1 S 312, where B (but not A) reads 'Iwvad&fi).1. Owner of the house whither the ark was brought by the men of Kirjath-jearim after the catastrophe at Beth-Shemesh (1 S 7')> whence it was subsequently removed by David, 2 S 63\ 1 Ch 137. During its stay here it was kept by Eleazar, son of Abinadab. 2. The second son of Jesse, specially mentioned in the narrative of 1 S 16 as not being the elect of J" for the kingdom. He accompanied his brothers Eliab and Shammah to join Saul's army against the Philistines1 S 168 1713, 1 Ch 213. 3. A son of Saul slain in the battle of Mt. Gilboa, 1 S 312=1 Ch 102. Otherwise men-tioned only in the genealogies of Chronicles, 1 Ch gaa gas But cf. art. Ishvi. 4. On Abinadab in 1 K. 4" (AV, not 11V), see Ben-Abinadab. G. B. Gray. ABINOAM (DjysiS 'father is pleasantness'), the father of Barak, is mentioned both in the song (Jg 512) and the prose narrative (Jg 46-12) of the campaign of Barak and Deborah against the Canaanites. G. B. Gray. ABIRAM (n-ps ' my father is the Exalted One'). 1. The son of Eliab, a Keubenite, who with Dathan (which see) conspired against Moses (Nu 16letc-, Dt II6, Ps 10617). 2. The firstborn son of Hiel the Bethelite, on whom the curse fell for rebuilding Jericho (IK 1684). G. Harford-Batterrhy. ABISHAG (JS^JN, meaning uncertain; possibly ' father has wandered ').A very beautiful young Shunammitess who was brought to comfort David in his extreme old age, according to the advice of his servants, 1 K I2ff-i5. After David's death, Abishag, as his father's widow, was asked in marriage by Adonijah; the request was lufuxed by Solomon, who appears to 'have seen in it a renewal of Adonijah's claim to the throne, 1 K 212"24; cf. W. li. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, p. 89 f. G. B. Gray. ABISHAI Cs^s, but T?s 2 S 10w, 1 Ch 2" II20 181219U-15 ' My father is Jesse').A. appears from 1 Ch 218 to have been the eldest son of Zeruiah, David's sister. More impetuous than the crafty Joab, but equally implacable, ' hard' (2 S 3391922), the first mention of Abishai (1 S 266) 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 the earth at one stroke.' We next find him (2 S 218-24) 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 33o.39). xhe victory in the Valley of Salt ovei Edom (cf. 2 K 147), which is ascribed to David in 2 S 813 (Syrians), and to Joab in Ps 60 title (1 K II15-a6), is attributed to Abishai in 1 Ch 1812. In the war that 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 1010-14). Abishai's character is well brought out in the story of David's ilight, when he retorts the abuse of Shimei in true Oriental style, and is impatient to slay the offender at once (2 S 169"11). Nor could Shimei's subsequent abject submission induce Abishai to forgive the man that had ' cursed the Lord's anointed' (1921). In the battle with Absalom, Abishai shared the command of David's army with Joab and Ittai (182-6-12). In 2 S 206 the name Joab should probably be substituted for that of Abishai (so Jos. Ant. VII. xi. 6, the Syr. vers., Wellhausen, Thenius, and Driver), and v.7 read as in the LXX: ' And there went out after him Abishai and Joab's men,' etc. It is natural to suppose that Abishai connived at the murder of Amasa by Joab, 2 S 2010 (so Josephus). His special exploits were, rescuing David from Ishbi-benob, 2 S 21", and slaying three hundred men, 2318. These feats earned for him the first place 'of the three in the second rank' (1 Ch II21, ltVm), the other two being probably Joab and Benaiah; the first three being Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. Abishai probably died before the rebellion oi Adonijah. If he had been alive, he must have been mentioned among the leaders of either side. N. J. D. White. ABI SHALOM.See art. Absalom. ABISHUA (y!'?s, meaning uncertain; perhaps 'father is wealth.'1. According to the genealogies of Chron., where alone the name occurs, son of Pliinehas and father of Bukki, 1 Ch 6-, Ezr ,7s; cf. 1 Es 8* and art. Abisue. 2. A Ben-jamite ; presumably the name was that of a clan, since other names in the context are certainly clan names, 1 Ch 84; cf. Ku 2Sue: G. B. GRAY. ABISHUR (HP-3K ' father is a wall').A Jerah-meelite described as ' son' of Shammai; Abihail was his wife, and Ah ban and Molid his children (1 Ch 228'-). ABISSEI (AV Abisei).One of the ancestors of Ezra (2 Es I2), called in 1 Ch 64 Abishua, and in 1 Es 82 Abisue. ABISUE (LXX, B 'AjSeuraf, A 'Apuroval) 1 Es 82, AV Abisum, is identical with Abishua. ABITAL (Sa-?* ' father is dew'), wife of David, to whom, during his residence in Hebron, she bore Shephatiah, 2 S 34=1 Ch 3b. ABITUB (aw'38), 1 Ch 8", and ABIUD ('A/Scoi>a), Mt I13. See Genealogy. ABJECT, now only an adj., was formerly also a subst. and a verb. As a subst., meaning the dregs of the people, abject is found in Ps 35" ' The abjects (d'?j, RVm ' smiters') gathered themselves together against me.' Cf. T. Bentley (1582), ' O Almightie God : which raisest up the abjects, and exaltest the miserable from the dunghill,1 Monu. Matr. iii. 328 ; G. Herbert, ' Servants and abjects flout me,' Temple : Sacrifice, 36. J. Hastings. ABNER, -uix (V3l< 1 S 1450), 'my father ia Ner,' or 'is a lamp.' Saul's first cousin, according to 1 S 145Ot 61 (the more probable account), ABNEK ABOMINATION 11 but uncle according to 1 Ch s29"33?"5-39. Jos. follows Chronicles in Ant. VI. iv. 3, but Samuel in VI. vi. 6. The language used of him by David, ' Art not thou a valiant man, and who is like to thee in Israel?' (1 S 2615); 'Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel ?' (2 S 3s8), is not inconsistent with the recorded 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 (1 S 1480 1758), Abner sat next Saul at the banquet (1 S 2025), and lay near him in the camp (265>7). A Jewish tradition (Jerome, Qu. Heb. in loc.) states that the witch of Endor was Abner's mother. On Saul's death Abner secured for Ishbosheth the allegiance of all the tribes except Judah (2 S 28"1.0). He placed the feeble king at Mahanaiin, while he himself conducted the war with David west of Jordan. One of the battlesthat of the pool of Gibeonis detailed on account of its fatal results. Here we have evidence of Abner's comparative mildness of character. It is possible that the preliminary encounter of the champions of the two armies was suggested by him in order to decide the claims of the rival houses witljout unnecessary bloodshed. Then we have his reiterated reluctance to slay Asahel, and, finally, his protest against the unnaturalness of the war: ' Shall the sword devour for ever ? . . . How long shall it be ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren ?' As the war proceeded in David's favour ' Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul' (2 S 3s). This rendering lends some plausibility to Ishboslieth's insinuation that he was aiming at the crown by a liaison with the late king's concubine (cf. 2 S 12s 1621, 1 K 213"25). The indignation, however, with which Abner repelled the charge, and the absence of self-seeking in his subsequent conduct, support the paraphrase of AV and RVm, 'showed himself strong for (a) the house of Saul.' Be that as it may, the accusation alienated Abner, who forthwith declared that 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 at once a link with the house of Saul and a living memorial of David's early prowess. Ishboslieth's shadowy authority was made use of to carry out this condition. Abner was now hospitably entertained by David at Hebron, and haa scarcely departed to fulfil his engagements to David when Joab returned from a foray. AsaheFs death was still unavenged; here was a plausible pretext for ridding himself of a dangerous rival; so Joab 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 3s9) on the perpetrator, and was never forgotten by him (1 K 25-32). 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 he to have died] as Nabal dieth ?') The dismay caused by Abner's death (2 S 41) seems to prove that neither Ishbosheth nor his subjects in general had 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). We learn from the Chronicler that Abner dedicated certain spoil for the repairs of the tabernacle (1 Ch 2628), and that his son .Jaasiel was captain of Benjamin in David's reign (I Ch 27"). N. J. D. White. ABODE.1. The past tense of ABIDE (which e). 2. In Jn 14*> (' We will come unto him, and make our abode with him') a. is tr. of the same word i/iovii) which in Jn 14a is rendered Mansion (which see). J. Hastings. ABOMINATION.Four separate Heb. worda 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 njj'in, which expresses most generally the idea of something loathed (cf. the verb, Mic 39), esp. on religious grounds: thus Gn 43s2 'to eat food with the Hebrews is an abomination to the Egyptians,'a strong expression of the exclnsiveness 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 the flesh of a cow as food (Hat. ii. 41); Gn 4631 'every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians,'shepherds, viz., were ranked, it seems, with the povn&Xoi, 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 (ef. Del. ad loc.; Birch-Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1878, i. 288 f., ii. 444 ; Wiedemann, Herodots zioeites Buck, 1890, p. 371 f. ; Erman, Life in Anc. Eg. p. 439); Ex 822 (S6) the Israelites are represented as unwilling to sacrifice 'the abomination of the Egyptians' in Egypt itself, with allusion, probably, to animals which the Egyptians abstained religiously from sacrificing, though they were sacrificed freely by the Hebrews, as the cow, which was sacred to Isis, the bull, unless it was pronounced by the priests to be Kadapds, 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. ; Wiede-jnann, I.e. pp. 180-1S2, 183, 187 f., 196 f., 218 f.). Two special usages may be noted : (a) the phrase Jehovahs abomination, of idolatry or practices connected with it, or of characters or acts morally displeasing to God, Dt 725 1231 17' 1812 22s 2319 ("> 25" 2716 (cf. 244, Lk 1615), I'r 332 U1-20 1222 15s- 9-M 165 171520w-23 (coinp. in a Phocn. inscription, ap. Driver, Samuel, p. xxvi, the expression ''Ash-toreth's abomination,' oi the violation of a tomb) ; (6) esp. in the plui., of heathen or immoral practices, nrincipally in II arid Ezk, as Lv 1822-26-27-&.3o2o"!, Dt 13lSiu)'l74 189-122018, Jer 710 32:, IK 1424, 2 K 163 212- ", Ezk S9- " 73-4- " 9 86- " " etc. (43 times in Ezk), rarely of an actual idol, 2 K 2313 (of Milcom), Is 4419, and perhaps Dt 321(1. (2) Sus, the technical term for stale sacrificial flesh, which has not been eaten within the prescribed time, only Lv 718 197, Ezk 4" (where the prophet protests that he has never partaken of it), and (plur.) Is 654. For distinction this might be rendered refuse meat; the force of the allusion in Ezk 414, Is 654, in particular, is entirely lost by the rendering ' abominable thing' of AV, RV. (3) fgy, the technical term for the flesh of prohibited* animals (see article Unclean), Lv 721 Uio-13.20.23. ji. 42 (cf. the corresponding verb, v.11-13-43 2025): this sense of the word gives the point to Ezk 810, Is 6617. Yd*? would be best represented by t2 ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION detestation, or detestable thing (cf. detest for the verb, Dt 720). Note that in Dt 14s abomination is njjw, not the technical \\$ used in Lv 11. (4) ppv, allied in etymology to (3), but in usage confined almost exclusively to obj ects connected with idolatry, and chiefly a contemptuous . designation of heathen deities themselves: first in Hos 910' and became detestations like that which they loved' (Baal of Peor, named just before); more frequently in writers of the age of Jer and Ezk, viz. Dt 2918 <"), Jer47* ( = 32") 13" 1618, Ezk 5" 720 II18-21 207-8-30 37-3,1 K11"' Milcom the detestation, of the Ammonites,' v.'-', 2 K 2313-13 {not of Milcom), v.24; also Is 663, Zee 9'. In AV, KV, where this word occurs beside n^yin (No. 1), as Ezk 5U 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. equivalent for it. 8. R. Dkivsr. ABOMINATION OP DESOLATION, THE (rb pSiXvypta ttjs 4PT)fjuiaews), Mt 2415, Mk 1314, ' spoken of by Daniel the projihet,' the appearance of which, 'standing iv rAjry ayltp (Mt), or Sirow oi5 Set (Mk),' is mentioned by Christ as the signal for the flight of Christians from J udijea, at the time of the approaching destruction of Jerus. The Gr. phrase is borrowed from Da 921 LXX pdiXvy/ui ray tb (so Theod.), 11M LXX pdiXvy/ia (Theod. /35. ^rV is the word explained under Abomination (4), as being often the contemptuous designation of a heathen god or idol, Detsto and ncfe> are, however, difficult. DpPD elsewhere (only Ezr 93-4) means horrified^; BDb means usually desolate (as La I4-I6), though it might also (as ptcp. of ocy, Ezk 2(i16 27s6 al.) mean horrified as well; in Dn, however (supposing the text to be sound), the exigencies of the sense have obliged many commentators to suppose that the Pool conjug. has a trans, force; hence KV 9s7< one that maketh desolate'; II31 ' and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate'; 12U 'from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up'; so 813 Dijtr y^n'the transgression thatmalcethdesolate' (the form opf might just be a ptcp. Poel with the d dropped; Ges.-K. 55 R. 1, 52. 2 R. 6). In spite, however, of the uncertainty as regards cot? .(or cds?d), the general sense of II31 and 12" is clear. Dn ll21"45 deals with the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and v.31 refers to the desecration of the temple by the troops of Antiochus, the subsequent suspension of the daily burnt-offering and other religious services (which lasted for three years), and to the erection on 15 Chislev, B.C. 168, of a small idol-altar (/3&vios) upon the Altar of burnt-oflering (1 Mac I33"59). 1211 (like 813) is another reference to the same events. It is remarkable, now, that in 1 Mac I54 the idol-altar is called by exactly the same name that is used in the Bk. of DnipKoSbixriaav fl5t\vyiM (pTj^uitreas ivi rb Swiaarijpiox (cf. C7). Dn 927 is very difficult: but, as the reference in NT is rather to II31 and 1211, it need not here be further considered; LXX, Theod., however, it may be noted, have *al M to Upbv /SdVAwy/ia ruv ipriii&oewv. Of the perplexing expression dob ppB", now, a clever and plausible explanation has been suggested by Nestle (ZATW 1884, p. 248; cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 105; Bevan, Dan. p. 193), viz. that it is a contemptuous allusion to cav Ssa Baal of heaven, a title found often in Phoen. and (with par for o'db1) Aram, inscriptions, and the Sem. equivalent of the Gr. Zei)s: according to 2 Mac 6* Antiochua desired to make the temple a sanctuary of 'ieis 'O\i/j.inos,as his coins show (Nestle, Marginalian, p. 42, who cites Ba.belon, Les Bois de Syrie, pp. xiv, xlviii), his patron deity,who in the Syr. vers. of the same passage is actually called row ?jn Baal of heaven. Upon this view, we are released from the necessity of searching for a meaning of cue in exaet accordance with the context; the /3w/i6s (with, possibly, an image connected with it) erected by the Syrians upon the Altar of burnt-oflering 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 pStXvyiia. 4p-q/j.(itrecas, no doubt understood the idolatrous emblem to involve, by its erection, the desertion of the temple by its usual worshippers, and ultimately its actual 'desolation' (see 1 Mac 4s8). II31 and 813 (the subst. with the art., the ptcp. without it), and still more (if, as is probable, the reference be to the same idolatrous embjem) 927 (the subst. plur., the ptcp. sing.), are grammatically difficult; but the text in these passages is perhaps not in its original form (cf. Bevan). As to the meaning of the expression in the prophecy of Christ, it is very difficult to peak with confidence. It would be most naturally understood (cf. Spitta, Offenb. des Jolt.. 493-496) of some desecrating emblem, similar in general character to the altar or image erected by Antiochus, and of which that might be regarded as the prototype: but nothing exactly corresponding to this is recorded by history; the order which Caligula issued for the erection in the temple of a statue of himself, to which divine honours were to be paid, being not enforced (Jos. Ant. xvin. viii. 8). The three most usual explanations are(1) the Rom. standards, to which sacrifices were offered by th Rom. soldiers in the temple, after it had been entered by Titus (Jos. BJvi. vi. 1); (2) the desecration of the temple by the Zealots, who seized it and made it their stronghold, shortly before the city was invested by Titus (ib. IV. iii. 6-8, cf. vi. 3 end); (3) the desolation of the temple-site by the heathen, at the time of its capture by Titus (so Meyer). The term standing (which points to some concrete object) is a serious objection to the second and third of these explanations; it is some objection, though not perhaps a fatal one, to the lirst, that it places the signal for flight at the very last stage of the enemy's successes, when even the dwellers in Judsea (in view of whom the words are spoken) would seem no longer to need the warning. The erection of the imperial statue in the Temple was, however, only averted in the first instance by the earnest representations of the procurator Petronius and of King Agrippa I., and afterwards by Caligula's own untimely death (Schiiier, HJP I. ii. 99f.): the emperors order caused great alarm among the Jews, who even after his death (A.P. 41) continued to fear lest one of his successors should revive and enforce it (Pfleiderer, Das Vrchrist. pp. 403-407; Mommsen, Provinces, ii. 196 ff., 203 ft.); hence (as even the first explanation mentioned above leaves something to be desired) it may not be an 'onreasonable conjecture* that the language of the original prophecy was more general, and that, during the years of agitation and tension which preceded the final struggle of A.D. 70, it was modified so as to give more definite expression to such apprehensions; the rnasc * The writer is indebted (or this suggestion to his friend, Prot Sanday. ABOUT ABRAHAM 13 4- 2, Ac 2131, Ro 10*, ' assay ' in Ac 24' 2621, and keeps ' go about' in Ac 92'9. i. To cast about=to turn round: Jer41U, ' So all the people . . . cast about and returned.' 5. Thereabout = about that: Lk 24* ' They were much perplexed thereabout.' J. Hastings. ** ABRAHAM.The narrative of the patriarch Abraham is contained in Gn 112J-2518, and, as it stands before us, consists of a series of consecutive stories or scenes' from the patriarch's life. It make no pretence of being a complete biography. It may be doubted whether the compiler of the Hex. had any intention of preserving all the extant traditions respecting A. His purpose seems rather to have been to select from the traditions current among the Hebrews such narratives as would best illustrate the origin of the Isr. nation, and would best set forth how the divine Providence had shielded the infancy of the chosen race, and had predestined it both to inherit the land of Can. and to be a blessing among the nations of the earth. As would be natural under the circumstances, the traditions relating to A. have special reference to sacred localities in Pal. ; but unfortunately they do not afford any very precise data for determining the age in which he lived. The compiler gives us a picture of A. which he derived apparently from three groups of tradition. We will first briefly summarise the narrative, and then indicate the * Those critics who (as Keim, Jesus of Naz. v. 287-239 ; cf. Holtzmann, Handkmn,m. i. 259 f., Elnl. mm JVTS, p. 888f., with the references) regard Mt 24!8, Mk 18"-", as an independent Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) apocalypse originating shortly before A.D. TO, which has been incorporated with our Lord's discourse can, of course, adopt still more readily the same explanation ; but it is difficult to think that even these verses, though particular phrases may have been modified in the course of oral transmission, are without a substantial basis in the Wt Bousset U)er Antichrist, 1893, pp. 14, 98, 10 f.. 141 f.), treating Mt 24">ir-(=Mk IS11"'-) as purely eschatological, sup-noses the reference to be to the future Antichrist, who is frequently described (on the basis of 2 Th 2) as sitting in the Temple, and receiving divine honours (e.g. by Irenasus, v. 25.1, 80 4' see further passages in Bousset. p. 104 f.); but it may be doubted whether the view of Mt 24ir-, upon which this explanation depends, is correct. Copyright, 1898, by portions which belong to the separate sources of tradition, according to the generally accepted results of critical analysis. Abram, Nahor, and Haran are sons of Terah. Their home is in Ur of the Chaldees (Gn ll2^28), where Haran dies. A. marries Sarai, who was his half-sister (Gn 2012). A. and his wife, with their nephew Lot, Haran's son, accompany Terah, who migrates from Ur of the Chaldees, and journeys to Haran, where Terah dies (Gn II31- 82, Jos 242). Terah is'said to have had Canaan in view when he set out upon his journey (On il81). A. in Haran receives the divine command to quit his country and kindred, and accompanied by Lot enters the laud of Can. He traverses the whole country; and we are told in particular of Shechem and Bethel being places at which he halted, and, as his custom was, built an altar to J" (Gn 121"9). Driven by a famine, A. journeys to Egypt, where, in cowardly fear for his own life, he says that Sarai is his sister, and does not acknowledge her as his wife. The princes of Egypt bring the report of Sarai's beauty to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who sends to fetch her, has her placed in his own harem, and loads A. with presents on her account. The intervention of J" alone delivers the mother of the promised race from her peril. Pharaoh learns of the wrong he is doing, through the plagues which befall his house. In great dudgeon he summons A., justly reproaches him for the deception, and dismisses him and his belongings from Egypt (12i'-2). A. and Lot return from Egypt to the district of Bethel; but their possessions in flocks and herds have greatly increased. It proves impossible for two such large droves to keep close together. Constant disputes break out between the retainers of the two chiefs. It is evident that they must separate. A., though the elder, proposes the separation, and offers Lot the choice as to the region to which he shall go. Lot chooses the rich pasture-land of the Jordan valley, and departs. A. remains on the soil which has been promised him, and receives as a reward for his unselfishness a renewal of the divine prediction that his descendants shall inhabit it as their own (13). A. removes to Hebron (13 8), and while he is encamped there war breaks out in the immediate neighbourhood. The kings of the towns in the Jordan valley rebel against Chedor - Laomer (Kudur-Lagamar), the great Elamite king. The king of Elam with his vassals, the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, and Goyyim (?), march against the rebels, defeat them in a great battle, and retire, carrying off many prisoners and rich booty from Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot is one of the captives. A. is no sooner apprised of this than he arms his 318 retainers, and summons to his aid Mamre, Kshcol, and Aner, the three chieftains of the Hebron district, with whom he is confederate. The combined force overtakes the victorious army at Dan, in the N. of Canaan, surprises them by a night attack, routs them, and recovers Lot and tire other prisoners, and all the booty. On the way back A. is met in the plain of Shaveh by the king of Sodom, and Melchizedek king of Salem. Mel-chizedek solemnly blesses A. for his heroic deed ; and the Heb. patriarch, in recognition of Mel-chizedek's priestly office, gives him a tenth of the spoil. On the other hand, he proudly declines the offer which the king of Sodom makes, that A. should receive the spoil for himself ; he asks only for the share that would compensate his confederates, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, and their men (14). A., who by reason of his childlessness cannot entertain hopes of the fulfilment of the divine promise, receives in a special vision assurance of Charles Scribner's Sons 14 ABEAHAM 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 (15eBP-1W7). Sarai, who has no hope of having children, persuades A. to take Hagar, her* Egyp. maidservant, as a concubine. Hagar, 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 long-expected 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 (18*-i6). 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 (18U-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 during his colloquy with J", and sees thence the reek of the smoke rising as from a furnace (1928). 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 Abimeleeh 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 ; Abimeleeh 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 Sarah's demand, and dismiss both Hagar and Ishmael from his tent (218). A.'s prosperity and success induce Abimeleeh to seek alliance with the patriarch. A covenant between them is struck; the well, which Abimelech's servants had taken by force from A., is restored to him, and receives the name of Beer-Sheba. A. dwells for some time in Phil, territory, encamped in the vicinity of the well (212--3*). 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 absolute trust in God, his readiness to sacrifice that which 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 (22l~18). Then Sarah dies; and A., whose seed is to possess the whole land, has to purchase a burial-place. 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 (251-4). But at the age of 175 he dies, and is buried in the cave of Machpelah (267-11). The foregoing outline shows the troth 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 Poverlapped 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.The narrative of J opens with A. being in Haran, and migrating with Lot to Can. at the command of .1". It mentions A.'s nomadic movements in Can., and the altars at Bethel and Shechem. It records the separation of A. and Lot, and A.'s sojourn at Hebron. It describes A.'s journey to Egypt, and his return to the S. of Can. It contains the promises made to A., and the covenant in ch. IB. It records the marriage with Hagar, Hagar's flight, and the birth of Ishmael. It gives the long epic narrative of the visit of the three men 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 J =12"- 6-130- '-i-1- 15.10- 18.19 (exc. v.) 21. (partially) E.The narrative of E opens with A.'s wandering to and fro, with Lot, in Can. It reproduces, perhaps from some separate source, an account of the war between Chedor-Laomer and the rebel ' cities of the plain,' A.'s rescue of his nephew, and Mei-chizedek's blessing. It describes the blessing pronounced upon the patriarch in ch. 15. It records A.'s sojourn at Gerar, and the peril to which Sarah was exposed at the court of Abimeleeh (20). It contains an account of the birth of Isaac; and the mention of the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael implies that it also included an account of Ishmael's birth. It records the alliance of A. with Abimeleeh at Beersheba. And, so far as A. is concerned, concludes with the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. E = 14. (possibly) 15. (partially) 20. 21<"-S2 22. P.The narrative of P isam'ere skeleton outline of facts. A. is Terah's son. Terah, with A. his son and Lot his nephew, leave Ur-Casdim, and set out for Can.; they stav at Haran, where Terah dies, 205 years old. A., 75 years'old, accompanied by Lot, journeys to Can. A. settles near Mamre ; Lot goes E. to the Jordan valley. A. marries Hagar ten years after entering Can.; Ishmael is born in A.'s 86th year. In his (19th year God makes a covenant with him, and ordains the rite of circumcision, changing his name to Abraham, and Sarai's to Sarah. A. laughs at the idea of Sarah having a son ; and the son to be born to him is to be called Isaac. In his 100th year A. has a son Isaac, who is circumcised. Sarah dies at Hebron 127 years old, and A. purchases the cave of Machpelah for a burying-place. He himself dies at the age of 175, and is buried by Isaac and Ishmael in the cave. P=13-llt(.12 161-3'15- le 171"27 1929 21Ib- 2b"s 23. 257-17 The combination of the three strata of tradition has only in a few instances led to apparent inconsistencies. The J narrative, which makes Haran A.'s native country (Gn 12. 24). contains no allusion to Ur-Casdim. J's narrative contains the story of A.'s cowardice in Egypt; it is E's narrative which contains the story of his cowardice at the court of Abimeleeh. The narratives of J and E, which speak of Sarah's beauty attracting the notice of Egyptians and Philistines, do not mention the ages of A. and Sarah. According to J, A. very prob. had died before the return of the servant with Rebekah, since V2N should prob. be read ABEAHAM ABEAHAM 15 for 1DN in 2467; for we can hardly suppose that Isaac's mourning for his mother would have lasted for three years. The mention of A.'s marriage with Keturah in the foil. ch. is derived from a different source. The foil, are the chief difficulties arising from the Abraham narrative: 1. The Home of A.'s People. From the fact that Terah is said to have lived at Ur-Casdim, and that Ur has been identified by Assyriologists with Uru, the modern Mugheir, in S. Bab., the conclusion has very commonly been drawn that A. migrated first from Chaldsea. This, however, depends upon the correctness of the identification of Ur-Casdim with Uru, which has been much disputed on the grounds, (1) that the genealogy of Gn llla brings the Sem. race as far as Mesopotamia, from which the next movement in the direction of Can. would be to Haran; (2) that the name Casdim was applied to an Armenian tribe; and (3) that it does not appear in connexion with S. Bab. until much later (upon the whole controversy see Kittel, Hist, of Hebrews, Eng. tr. i. 180 f.; Dillmann, Genesis, p. 214 f. As to the position of Ur-Casdim, see art. Ur of the Chaldees). The common early Heb. tradition seems to be expressed in Gn 24, according to which A.'s kindred were the dwellers in N. Mesopotamia ; and it is this belief which also is reiterated in the story of Jacob. Cf. ' A Syrian (i.e. Aramsean) ready to perish was my father' (Dt 265). Whether Ur-Casdim is to be placed in N. Mesopotamia or in Chaldea, the impression remains that ' J' believed A.'s home and kindred to have been in Haran. 2. The Character of the Narrative related in Gn 14.There appears to be no reason to question the hist, probability of an Elamite campaign such as is here described. There is nothing inherently improbable in the event as has sometimes, in some quarters, been asserted. A. did not defeat the Elamite army in a pitched battle ; he made a night attack, fell upon an unsuspecting foe, and recovered prisoners and baggage,a very different exploit from the conquest of Damascus, which late legend assigned to him. The primitive invasion of Chedor-Laomer has been claimed by some Assyriologists for an approximate date of 2150 (so Hornmel, Bab.-Ass. Geseh. p. 3); and the invasion of W. Asia by an Elamite will naturally be associated with the Elamite empire of that remote time. But upon what principle the events of A.'s life can be carried back to the 22nd cent. b.c. has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Biblical chronology does not suggest the interval of nearly a thousand years between A. and the Exodus. '3. The Promises made to A. are found eight times repeated, (i.) Gn 12--3 (ii.) 127 (iii.) 1314 (iv.) 15 (v.) 17 (vi.) 18 (vii.) 211'2 (viii.) 2216. The promises fall under three main heads, (o) the land of Can. shall be possessed by the seed of A.; (6) the seed of A. shall become a mighty nation ; (c) A. shall have a son born of Sarah, and the son is to be called Isaac. The number of times that the promise appears is due to the compilers having selected this as the most conspicuous feature in the narrative of A. in each of the sources of tradition. The seemingly strange fact, that the narrative in ch. 17 should take no notice of the mention of the same promise in ch. 15, is at once accounted for when it is seen to be an instance of the manner in which the different narratives overlap one another. The promises, contained in the different traditions, seemed to the compiler so important 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 94). They proclaimed God's covenant with His people, according to which He required of them simple obedience and justice (Gn 1819); they also announced that through Israel all nations should be blessed. i. The Sacrifice of Isaac marks the crowning event in the life of A. Obviously, it must rank as the surpassing act of the patriarch's faith in God. But a difficulty arises in some minds from the wickedness of the act which God at first commands A. to do. Even though He 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 natural demands of love, mercy, and justice? But there are two considerations which cut the ground from beneath this objection. (1) We are tempted to assume that 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 put 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) That the answer to this questioning was . given in the shape of human sacrifice on a mountain top, illustrates the importance of bearing in mind the imperfect development of the moral consciousness in that remote period. Human sacrifice was frequently practised in Sem. races. If the worshippers of other Sem. deities were ready to sacrifice their firstborn to their gods, was A. to be behind Assyria, Ammon, and Moab in devotion ? The moral standard of the age would not be shocked at a deed too fatally common. The ideas of mercy and justice were, in that period, low, and needed to be raised. To propitiate the Deity by child murder 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 further, 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 shrunk in horror from the act. He taught that J" had no pleasure in the infliction of suffering upon the innocent; that the character of J" was raised above that of the heathen gods by higher love and truer justice. ii. A. IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL. The attempt has been made 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 the religious Isr.; but as yet no evidence has been found to connect the name of A. with that 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 make no claim, and to desiderate a literary unity which those materials emphatically contradict. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that recollections of the nomadic age, committed to writing (in the form that has come down to us) in a post-Mosaic era, and evidently strongly coloured by 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 future 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 10'21 1413), who migrated from Mesopotamia into Canaan. TheseHebrews penetrated as far as Egypt (Gn 12), but for the most part established themselves in the 16 ABRAHAM ABRAHAM S. of Canaan, and in Hebron and Beersheba formed friendly relationships with the dwellers of the land (Gn 14. 2122). The story of Lot seems to indicate that the peoples of Ammon 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 Emim, and the Zamzummim (Dt 211-19-2'). Again, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that some of the references to Ishmael and the allusion to Keturah contain an Isr. picture of the relationship of the Arabian tribes and clans to {he Heb. stock rather than the record of personal history. The Kgyp. origin of Hagar (Gn 161) and of Ishmael's wife (Gn 2121) will then indicate that the new settlers received into their community a considerable admixture of an Egyp. element at the time when they dispersed throughout N. Arabia. The fact that ' the sons of Nahor' (Gn 222)-2i),' the sons of Ishmael' (Gn 251*-18), ' the sons of Edom' (Gn 3616-19), form groups of twelve, and that 'the sons of Keturah' 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. IN THE THEOLOGY OF OT.The 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 2412) ; J" is to Isaac the God of A. (Gn 262t); to Jacob He is 'the God of A. and the fear of Isaac' (Gn 3142). 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 'the God of A.' (cf. Ps 479). 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 thus represent the Election (ii<\oyJi) of Israel. A. as the chosen servant is the prophet, the instrument of J'"s purpose (Gn 207). He is the friend of God (Is 418,2Ch207. Cf.Amb.El-Khalil). God's mercies towardshim are appealed to by the prophets of the Captivity (Is 5V2, Ezk 3324) 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 33i4, Mai 2^). In the Bk of Sir, A. is spoken of as ' great father of a multitude of nations ; and there 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 faithful' (4419-20). 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 righteous. iv. A. IN THE THEOLOGY OF NT.In NT, A. is referred to in a variety of ways. The words of John the Baptist in Mt 39, Lk 38, and of St. Paul, Ro 97, 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 (Mt 811) ; and as of one who is both cognisant of things on earth, and is also entrusted with the special charge over the souls of the blest (Lk 1622). Our Lord employs the imagery of current religious belief ; A. is the typical representative of ' the righteous' who have been redeemed ; he is ' the father of the faithful.' Hence He says (Jn 856), 'Your father A. rejoiced to see My 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,Wxmsche), A. saw the whole history of his descendants in the mysterious vision recorded in Gn 15s *-. Thus he is said to have ' rejoiced with the joy of the law' (Westcott on Jn 8M). The subject of the faith of A. seems to have formed a stock subject of discussion in the Jewish synagogue. It is alluded to in 1 Mac 232' Was not A. found faithful in temptation, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness ? ' The ' locus classicus' for the subject was Gn 156; and the question propounded by the Jewish teachers turned upon the nature of the faith which was counted to A. for righteousness. To Philo the whole history of A. was merely an allegory descriptive of the truly wise man whose inner nature is made one with the divine by teaching (SiSair/caXia), as Isaac's by nature (6 etc.). Some of the Jewish books speak of certain receptacles (prumptuaria) into which the souls of the faithful dead were taken (Apoc. of Bar 302, 2 Es 4s6-41 73- etc.). And in the theology of the 3rd cent, and onwards it was taught that the circumcised should not be subject to hell. It was a saying of Rabbi Levi (of the 3rd cent.), that in the world to come Abraham would sit at the entrance to hell, and suffer no circumcised Isr. to pass into it. It has been usually supposed, therefore, that in NT the phrase 'Abraham's bosom' refers to the intermed. state, and designates a division of the underworld, where the good enjoy a preliminary measure^ of blessedness. In this case it is identified with Paradise, the lower Paradise as dist. from the heavenly, or is taken to describe a condition of peculiar honour in the Hades-Paradise. It is uncertain, however, when this idea of two separate localities within the underworld came to prevail. It was the idea of the later and mediaeval Judaism. But whether it was in circulation so early as our Lord's time is doubtful. There seems reason to believe that the older Judaism spoke only of a Garden of Eden for the righteous dead, and a Gehinnom (Gehenna, Hell) for the wicked dead, identifying the latter with Sheol. If so, 'Abraham's bosom in the parable would not be the name for a special compartment of Hades, or for an intermed. condition of blessedness distinct from and preliminary to the final state of perfect felicity. And in the parable itself it is only the rich man that is expressly described as ' in Hades.' Literature.Wetstein on Lk le2!-^; Lightfoot, Hor. Beb. p. 851, etc.; Fritzsche u. Grimm, JSxeg. Bandb. zu den Apoarp-phen, on 4 Mac 1S">; Schurer, BJP II. ii. 180; Hamburger, HE; Weber, System der altxyn. paldst. Theol. p. 32S; Meyer-Weiss, Kom.& p. 613, etc ; Salmoud, Christ. Doet. of Immortality, p. 345. S. D. F. SALMOXD. ABRECH (SP.3&).A word called out before J oseph as he passed through the land of Egypt in his oHicial capacity of prime minister to the Pharaoh (Gn 4143). Its exact signification is not a matter of agreement amongst scholars. The LXX (iK-tipv&v (/j.-TrpooSev airov rfpvS) and the Vulg. (clamante prmcone, ut omnes coram eo genu flecterent) are not literal or direct translations. The Targ. of Onk. interprets it as ' father of the king,' on the ground possibly of Gn 458. Jewish scholars who have derived it from Heb. refer it to the root T3? bend the knee, in the Hiph. Imv., where, for the usual n, an has been substituted (cf. Jer 253). Luther regarded the case as hopeless, in saying, ' Was abrech heisse, lassen wir die Zancker suchen bisz an den jiingsten Tag' (Ges. Thes. p. 19). Of the many proposed Egyp. (and Coptic) derivations, we need note only the following:(1) Abrek (airptK) enput inclinare (Rossi, Etymol. (Egypt, p. 1, in Ges. Thes. p. 19); (2) ap-rex-v, head of the wise (Harkavy, Berl. JEgypt. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 132); (3) ab-rek, rejoice them (Cook, Speaker's Com. in loco, p. 482); (4) ab{u)-rek, thy commandment is the object of out desire, i.e. 'we are at thy service' (Renouf, Proceedings Soc. Bib. Arch. Nov. 1888, pp. 5-10). On the other hand, several derivations are suggested from the Asiatic-Sem. side: (1) Sayce compares it with an ' Accadian' abrik, a seer, appearing also in the Sem. form, on an unpublished tablet, of abrikku {Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 183, n. 3); (2) Delitzsch compares the Assyr. abarakku (fern. ab(a)rakkatu), a titled personage, possibly grand vizier {Parodies, p. 225 ; Heb. Lang. p. 26 ; Proleg. p. 145; and Assyr. Worlerbuch, p. 68 f.); (3) Schrader dissents from Delitzsch (COP i. ,139); (4) Halevy derives it from paraku (llev. d. Etudes Jtiives, 1885, p. 304). But of all the suggested sources of this much-abused word, the Heb. and the Assyr. above mentioned seem to carry with them the least number of difficulties. (The text of Gn 4143'- does not indicate that there was anything more than a salute.) It is, in either event, an Egyptianised Sem. word, probably carried down into Egypt during the centuries of Hyksos rule. This opinion receives support, too, from the evidence of the Tel el-Amarna tablets that there had been for many centuries before Joseph's day free international communication between Egypt and Asia. Ira M. Price. ABROAD.In its modern meaning of 'in (or 'to') another country,' a. is not used in AV or RV. The nearest approach is Jn II52 ' The children of God that are scattered a.' On the other hand a. is used in senses now wholly or nearly obsolete. 1. It signifies specially outside one's own dwelling, the opp. of ' at home.' Lv 18" 'Whether she be born at home or born a.'; La V ' A. the sword bereaveth, at home there is as death'; Jg 129 ' Thirty daughters he sent a., and thirty daughters he brought in from a. for his sons' ; Dt 2310 ' Then shall he go a. out of the camp'; Lk 817 'Neither anything hid that shall not be known and come a.' (RV ' to light'); Sir 215" ' A drunken woman and a gadder a.' Cf. ' Where as he lay So ttick alway He might not come abroad.' Sir T. More, A ilerry Jot. 2. On the outside of anything: Lv 13" 'If a leprosy break out a. in the skin.' 3. In the general sense of openly, freely, widely: Mk I44 ' But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze a. the matter'; Ro 1619 ' For your obedience is come a. unto all men'; 55 ' The love of God is shed a. in your hearts.' J. Hastings. ABEONAH (nj'ns).A station in the journeyings, occurs only Kb 3334-", AV Ebronah. ABSALOM (n^nx, in 1 K152-10 ev^>;ij Abishalom, ' father is peace'), the third son of David (2 S 33, 1 Ch 32). He first comes into prominence in connexion with the story of his sister Tamar (2 S 13). After the foul outrage done to the latter by Amnon, David's eldest son, A. determined upon revenge, but concealed his purpose for two years. At the end of this period he gave a feast at the time of sheep-shearing, and invited the king and his sons. David declined for himself, but permitted Amnon and his brothers to go. While the feast was at its height, the servants of A., upon a signal given by their master, fell upon Amnon and slew him. Having thus avenged the affront put upon his sister, A. fled to the court of his maternal grandfather, Talmai, the king of Geshur, where he remained for three years. Then Joab, perceiving that David longed for a reconciliation with his son, contrived, through the medium of 'a wise woman of Tekoah,'to procure a reversal of the virtual sentence of banishment, and A. returned to Jerus., but was not per- ABSALOM ABSALOM mitted to approach the presence of the king. This unnatural <irep/3oAij, RV 'exceeding greatness'). J. Hastings. ABUSE, ABUSER. 1. In NT abuse is used twice (as tr. of Karaxpao/iai) when the meaning is not a, but 'use to the full' regardless of consequences (see Thayer, N.T. Lex.)-. 1 Co 731 ' Those that use the world as not abusing it' (RV m. ' using it to the full'); 918 ' that I a. not my power in the gospel' (RV ' so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel'). 2. In OT a. is found thrice (as tr. of hhl!) with a person as object. In 1 S 314 and 1 Cli 104 the meaning is insult or dishonour, as in Milton, Sam. Ag. i. 36 ' I, dark in light, exposed To daily fraud, contempt, abuse, and wrong.' But in Jg 1925 it is the old sense of defile or ravish : ' They knew her, and abused her all the (1767):' He that abuses you, dishonours his mother.' Hence in 1 Co 69 dpcrei-oKoiTjjs, 'one that lies with a male,' is trd ' abusers of themselves with mankind ' (RV " men'); and RV gives the same tr. at 1 Ti I10. J. Hastings. ABYSS.The translation (in RV, not in AV) of fi/3wo-os, a word compounded from a intensive and /3wr\ Laert. only (iv. 5. 27), on an epitaph, ' the black abyss of Pluto.' (Comp. Job 41va LXX to raprapov Tijs afiiaaov.) Once (perhaps twice) in LXX it is an adj. (Wis 1019 the bottomless deep of the Red Sea : possibly also Job 361B metaph. = boundless) % elsewhere, LXX, NT, and eccl. Gr., a subst. ; in LXX the trans., with few exceptions, of Uh6m, the tumultuous water-deep (some thirty times), and, once each, of mZzulah, sea-deep (Job 4131), of zulah (Is 4427), the 'deep flood (of Euphrates) and of rahabh, spacious place (Job 3616 if subst ) Primarily in LXX it signifies (with tchdm) the waters beneath, by which the earth was at first covered (Gn P, ps 1046"9), but on which it was afterwards made to rest (Jon 26; see Ps 242), and from which its springs and rivers welled up (Gn 711 4925, Dt 87: cf. Rev 91 0/>a) for 1000 years. . J. Massik. ACACIA.See Shittim. ACCABA (B 'A*a/3d, A raj3d, AV Agaba), 1 Es 5s0.His descendants returned among the ' temple servants' under Zerubbabel. Called Hagab (331J), Ezr 2 ; Hagaba, Neh 748. ACCAD, ACCADIANS.Accad (or Akkad), with Babel, Erech, and Calneh, was one of the chief cities in the land of Shinar. These four constituted the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod (GnlO10). The LXX reads 'kpXaS. TheBab.-Assyr. inscriptions are the source of all our information on this name. It was at first supposed that Ak/cadu, occurring so frequently in the inscriptions in connexion with Sumer, referred only to a district or province. But it is now known that there was a city of that name (Hilprecht, Freibrief Neb. i. col. ii. 1. 50). Its form is >*-fJ "fclJT ^L and is read al Akkad (or 'non-Sem.' Aqade), city of Accad, the name under which the city was for long centuries known. It was the residence of the first historical ruler of all Babylonia, Sargon 1., whose activity dates from 3800 B.C., according to the statement of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.), an inscription discovered in 1881 on the site of Sippar. Frequent references to two Sippars, ' Sippar of the Sun-god' and 'Sippar of Anunit,' indicate some strange fortunes in connexion with this site. The worship of Ishtar of Accad was replaced by that of Anunit of Sippar. In very early times Sippar was the chief seat of sun-worship, and Accad of Ishtar worship. Gradually there was a political absorption, and all references seem to justify the assumption that of those two cities lying close together, Sippar with its Sun-god became the more powerful, and practically absorbed Accad. The worship of Ishtar, however, did not lose its | identity, but was continued under the name of Sippar of Anunit (McCurdy, Hist. Prophecy and the Monuments, 94). It is possible, but still unproved, that the city of Accad lay opposite to Sippar on the left bank of the Euphrates. Its exact site is a matter of doubt, but it is thought to have been located near Abu-habba, about fifteen ACCAD, ACCADIANS ACCEPT, ACCEPTABLE 21 piles west of Baghdad. Delitzsch conjectures that i' may have been one of the two cities which bore the name of Seph.arvaim, but McCurdy locates this double city in N. Syria ( 349). The Wolfe expedition to Babylonia in 1884-85 (cf. Report, pp. 24, 25) located it at Anbar, on the Euphrates, N. W. of the ruins of Babylon. It was probably the capital city of mdt Akkadi. (Consult for greater fulness the literature named below.) From ancient times the kings of Babylonia, and the kings of Assyria who ruled over this territory, appended to their names sar Sumeri u Akkadi, kinfj of Sumer and Akkad. Now, what was the origin of this double title? It was probably not indicative of the two regions of Babylonia, S. and N., as kings who ruled only over S. Babylonia claimed it. It was also claimed by conquerors who had not advanced farther S. than Nipjiur (cf. Winckler, Untersuch. z. altorient. Ges. 65 S.). It seems, then, that' Sumer and Accad,' in the titles of kings, may have been no more than a claim to the ancient territory and city of Accad, with additional territory (cf. McCurdy, 110). (For other views of the question, cf. Schrader, Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsf. p. 533 f. ; Delitzsch, Parodies, p. 198; Tiele, Geseh. Baby I.- Assyrians, part i. p. 761.) Upon the identification of these names with specific localities has been built up the theory of the so-called Sumerians and Accadians. To the consideration of this theory we will now tutn our attention. It is maintained by a certain school of Oriental historians and linguists, that the lower Mesopo-tamian valley was at an early day populated by the Accadians, who were originally related to the Sumerians. They spoke, it is said, an agglutinative language. In the midst of these peoples Sem. tribes settled down, and adopted the language and customs of their foresettlers. Step by step the Sem. language gained ascendency, and about 1200 B.C. the native tongue died out, except as a sacred and literary vehicle, in which capacity it served until a late date. It is claimed that those early non-Sem. peoples readied a high degree of civilisation, that they left many traces of their culture in their monuments of art and language, and that we can readily interpret them. This supposed pre,* historic people and their language are termed among Eng. Assyriologists, 'Accadians,' among French and German 'Sumerians,' derived from (lie supposedly most important localities where the most ancient inscriptions are found. On the other hand, there is a growing school which maintains that the Semites, whom we know as possessing the cuneiform characters, were the inventors of these last and the developers of Sem. culture, and that the so-called 'Sumerians' and 'Accadians' are but figments of an over-zealous scientific spirit. A few only of the points can be noticed. We find in the inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia word-lists which give a twofold, and sometimes a threefold, explanation of cuneiform ideograms. These ideograms are found in all stages of the Bab.-Assyr. language. In these lists one column of explanations gives us regular Sem. words, and another, words somewhat unfamiliar in sound, which are supposed to be of non-Sem. crij'iu. But careful scrutiny shows that these strange words yield to Sem. roots, and that even the most unfamiliar are simply made up of possible word-forms of the same idiom, disguised according to regular ascertainable methods. Again, what can be said of so-called bilingual or unilingual texts? In both cases we meet with an abundance of these disguised Sem. words, and of Sem. gram matical constructions and modes of thought. The Bvvtence of the slight remains of prehistoric art in Babylon is not decisive. Again, the Sem. Baby lonians never in any way speak of or allude to any such people as the supposed Sumerians or Accadians. Still, the same language was used in Babylon dowr to the latest period of its history, with no name, nor even a tradition, of that supposed great and influential nation whose heritage fell to the Semites. Other peoples who came into contact with the Babylonians, and who exercised considerable influence on them, e.g. the Elainites, receive frequent mention, but there is not the slightest allusion to an Accadian race. It is hot impossible that new discoveries may remedy this defect, but it is certainly amazing that what is assumed to have been the most influential factor in early Bab. civilisation is entirely unmentioned. When we find that Sem. documents date from as early a period as the earliest so-called 'Accadian,' and that this hypothetical language was used alongside of the regular Sem. for nearly 3000 years, we are inclined to ask, ' What does this mean ?' In an examination of the language, we find many Sem. words and values which at first sight do not admit of such an explanation. But it is a fact that the number which do admit of it is continually increasing. Out of 395 phonetic values, Prof. Delitzsch names 106 which he regards aa demonstrably Sem. (Assyrische Grammatik, 25). Prof. McCurdy adds more than 40 others, running up the list to about 150 values. It is not impossible that further investigation may greatly in-:rease the number. But do not the inscriptions from Telloh, which are dainly ideographic, furnish conclusive proof of the soundness of the Accadian theory ? So one might expect; but we are already finding in them actual Sem. words, disguised under the forms which are found in later bilingual texts. Besides, it is found that the oldest kings of ' Ur of the Chaldees,' the founders of the first Bab. kingdom, knew how to write Sem. as well as 'Accadian' inscriptions. [Note by Editor.Professor Price has been permitted to state his view of this question unreservedly. For he is himself an accomplished student of Assyriology, and he has the support of some eminent scholars (see especially McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, i. 87 tf.). But the Editor thinks it necessary to say that the weight of authority is undoubtedly on the other side, leading Assyriologists everywhere having come to the conclusion that the view which Professor Price combats is substantially true. The reader should, however, consult the literature which Professor Price has given below, representing both sides of the question, and the articles Assyria and Babylonia.] Litkratukk.Schrader, Zwr Frage nach d. CTrspr. d. attbab. Kultur, 1883 ; Ilaupt. Akkadische und Sumerische KeUschrift- texte 18S11 _____lite Sumerisch-Akkadigche Sprache, Verh. him Or. Cong. ii. pp. 249-287; -------- Die Sumerischen Familiengetetzc, 1879; Hommel, Zeitsch./. Keilsehriftfarschung, vol. i. p. 214 f.: Zimmem, Babylonische Busspsalmen, 18S5, p. 71 (.; Hommel, Ges. Bab.-As. 1885, 24011.; Tiele, Bab.-As. Ges. 1880f., 63; Halevy, Apercu grammatical de VAUographU as -tab. 1SS3 ; --------ittlanges de critique et d'histoire relates aux peuples semitiques, 18S3; Delitzsch, An. Grammatik, 1889, 25 McCurdy, Presb. and Re/. Renew, Jan. 1891, pp. 58-81; llist. Proph. and Mm. 1894, i. 8 79-85; Hommel, Sumerinclie Leseslucke, 1894; several articles in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, by Halevy, Guyard, and others. Iha M. Price. ACCEPT, ACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTATION. 1. Besides other meanings, accept is used in the sense of 'receive with favour': Gn 47 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?' Dt 33" ' Bloss, Lord, his substance, and a. the work of his hands.' It is then sometimes followed by 'of: Gn 32* ' I will appease him with the present . . . per-adventure he will a. of me' (RV 'accept me'); 2 Mac 13s1 ' And the king accepted well of Mac-cabieus.' ' Accept' or ' accept the person ' is often the translation of Heb. trj? tfy) 'to lift up the face,' i.e. to look favourably on: Job 42 'The 22 ACCEPTANCE ACCOMPLISH Lord also accepted Job' ; Pr 18s ' It is not good to a. the person of the wicked.' This Heb. idiom has been tr. into Gr., and is found in the NT as vpoffanrov Xa/i^avw, always in a bad sense, ' partiality,' ' respect of persons.' Lk 2021 ' Neither acceptest thou the person of any'; Gal 26 ' God accepteth no man's person.' Then this phrase is turned into irpoirairoXij/iMrTijs (Ac 1034 'respecter of persons'), irparawoXtniirTia) (Ja 2s ' have respect to persons,' KV ' of persons'), and irpoirwTo\r)nil>la. ('respect of persons^ Ro 2", Eph 69, Col 3P, Ja 2'), three words found nowhere but in the NT and (thence) in eccles. writers. The English ' accept the person' is derived from the eecles. Lat. acceptare personam. 2. Acceptable is used in the sense of ' favourable' : Is 49" ' In an a. time have I heard thee'; 612 ' To proclaim the a. year of the Lord ' (i.e. the year of Jehovah's favour). 3. Acceptation = favourable reception, is found in 1 Ti 1" 4s ' worthy of all a.' Literature.Lightfoot on Gal 28; Sanday and Ileadlam on Ro 2". J. Hastings. ACCEPTANCE.Accept and cognate words are used in Scripture to denote the relation of favour and approval in which one man may stand to other men, and especially to God. Of the various phrases employed to convey the idea, those of most frequent occurrence are in OT, nyj ' to raise,' and n>n ' to associate with, have pleasure in,' and in NT, etiapitTTos, ' well pleasing.' The conditions of A. with God appear in OT partly as ceremonial, partly as moral and religious. Purifications and sacrifices (which see) are necessary in view of human ignorance and sin. lint the sacrifices must be offered in a spirit free from greed or deceit. To enforce the moral disposition which must accompany every offering, is one of the great functions of the prophets. When the covenant has been established between God and Israel, entrance into it becomes a condition of receiving, and especially of having a joyful assurance of, the divine grace and favour. Similarly in NT, A. is set forth as only in Jesus Christ and for His sake (Eph I6, 1 P 25); and, as the history of the patriarchs presents us with living pictures of what is acceptable to God nniler the old covenant, so Jesus is Himself the Beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased (Mt 3" 175), and the type of all that God receives and approves. A. Stewart. ACCESS.This word (not found in OT) occurs in NT in Ro 52, Eph 21S 312 as the rendering of irfxxraywyri. The Gr. word may express either an actual ' bringing near,' or ' introduction,' or merely a ' means of access,' or 'a right to approach.' In class. Gr. the idea suggested might be that of ' introduction to the presence - chamber of a monarch.' The OT associations of the kindred verb vpoa&ytiv seem to connect the word rather with the peculiar relation in which Isr. stood to J", and bo give the term a special appropriateness in describing the admission of Gentiles into a new covenant relation with God (tV ydpiv rairtiv, Ro 52, cf. Eph 2"), cf. Ex 19" and 1 P 3"*; and the approach of Christian worshippers to the Father (Eph 218 312), cf. Lv I2 etc., Lv 4>4, Mai 1", Ezk 4413 etc. This last idea is worked out in detail in He 1019"22. Our ' right to approach' or ' our introduction' is uniformly described by St. Paul (cf. Jn 146) as given us by Christ. J. O. F. MURRAY. ACCO, AV Accho (tea). This city, included in the lot of Asher (Jg Is1), was never taken by Israel. Known at diflerent times as I'tolemais (1 Mac and NT), St. Jean d'Acre, Accaron, Aeon, etc., the old Heb. ^^v 'Acco survives in the Arab 'Akka. Josephus calls it 'a maritime city of Galilee' (BJ II. x. 2). It was important as commanding the coast road, and affording easy access to the great routes crossing the plain of Esdraelon. From the promontory of Carmel the shore sweeps northward with a beautiful inward curve, forming the Bay of Acre, on the northern extremity ol which the city stands. From Has en-Naktirah, in the north, the mountains recede some miles from the coast, leaving a fertile plain, which is bounded on the south by the Carmel range. It is watered by the Kishon {el Makatta) and Nahr Na'amdn, the ancientBelus. The plain furnishes Haifa.Nazareth, Tiberias, and Safed with half their supply of fruit and vegetables, sending also much to Beyvout. Of the 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants, two-thirds are Moslems, the remainder being Greek and Catholic Christians, with a few Jews and Persians. It is the seat cf a provincial governor, under whom are the districts of Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberias, and Safed. The chief trade is the export of grain brought by camels from Haurdn. About 1000 tons of oil from the olive groves of Galilee are also annually exported. Entered from the south by 4 single gate, it is defended to landward by a doubk rampart, to seaward by a strong wall. The ancient inner harbour has disappeared, and the outer is used only by smaller vessels, the neighbouring anchorage of Haifa being more safe and convenient for larger ships. Few cities have had a stormier history. Allied with Sidon and Tyre in the days of Eluleus against Shalmaneser IV. (Ant. IX. xiv. 2), it was taken by Sennacherib, and iven by Esarhaddon to the king of Tyre. Held m succession by Babylon and Persia (Strabo, xvi. 2. 25), on the division of Alexander's kingdom it fell to Ptolemy Soter. Its strategic value was proved in the Syro-Egyp. wars. Betrayed to Antiochus the Great (B.C. 218), it was immediately recovered by Egypt. Simon Maccaboeus defeated and drove the forces of Tyre, Sidon, anil Ptolemais into the city (1 Mac 5~; Ant. XII. viii. 2). Alex. Balas took it by treachery, and there married Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor (Ant. XIII. ii. 1, iv. 1, 2). Demetrius Nikator gave it to Jonathan 'for the necessary expenses of the temple' (1 Mac 1039). Here Jonathan was perfidiously taken by Tryphon [Ant. XIII. vi. 2). Besieged by Alexander JanntBus, relieved by Ptolemy Lathyrus(^4n. XIII. xii. 4), it was captured by Cleopatra, who gave it to the Syrian monarcliy [Ant. XIII. xiii. 2). Tigranes the Armenian having taken the city, at once retired (Ant. xm. xvi. 4 ; BJ I. v. 3). Falling to the Partisans (Ant. xtv. xiii. 3; BJ I. xiii. 1), it finally passed under the power of Rome, and was raised to the rank of a colony, with the title, ' Colonia Claudii C.-esaris Ptolemais.' Herod built here a gymnasium (BJ I. xxi. 11). It is last mentioned in Scripture in connexion with St. Paul's visit (Ac 217). W. Ewing. ACCOMPLISH.The primary meaning of a. is to bring to a successful issue. But the only examples of this in the AV are Ps C46, Pr 131", 1 Es 1", Ac 215. Sometimes a. simply means to 'do,' 'perform': 1 K 59, Jth 213, Is 5511 ' it (God's word) shall a. that which I please.' It is occasionally used in the obsolete sense of ' to complete a period of time': Jer. 2512 'when seventy years are accomplished'; Is. 402 ' her warfare is accomplished' ; Job 146 ' till he shall a., as an hireling, his day.' From this arises its most frequent meaning, to bring to an ideal or divine completeness, to fulfil : (a) rophecy (once only), 2 Ch 36s3; (b) God's wrath, a 4U, Ezk 612 78 1315 208-21 ; (c) Christ's work, Lk 931 12M 1831 22", Jn 1928. The RV has sought to reserve this meaning for the word ' fulfil,' but unsuccessfully. J. H ISTINGS. ACCOED, ACCOKDINGLY ACHAN 23 ACCORD, ACCORDINGLY, ACCORDING TO. 1. ' Of its own accord' is used in the special sense of without human agency in Lv 25 ' That which groweth of its (see Its) own a.,' and in Ac 1210 'which opened to them of his own a.' From the Gr. in both passages {aMnaros) we get our word ' automatically.' In 2 Co 8" ' of his own a. he went unto you,' the Gr. {aiOalperos) is lit. 'self-chosen,' of his own free choice. 2. In Is 591S 1 Ace. to their deeds, accordingly he will repay': ace. to ' and ' accordingly ' are translations of the same Heb. word, and have the same meaning. 3. In Ezk 42U> 12' ace. to' means ' corresponding to.' i. As verbal adj. 'according' is found only in Wis 1810' an ill a. cry' (do-ii/i^awos, KV ' in discord'): cf. In Memoriam %That mind and soul, according well, May make one music' J. Hastings. ACCOS ('Aicx&s> 1 Mac 8"). Eupolemus, the son of John, the son of Accos, was one of the envoys sent to Rome by Judas Maccabiens in 161 B.C. Accos represents the Heb. Hakkoz (ftp!}), which was the name of a priestly family (1 Ch 2410, Ezr 261); Eupolemus, therefore, may well have been of priestly descent. H. A. White. ACCOUNT. As a subst. a. is either literally the number counted.as Ec V 'Counting one by one, to find out the a.'; or metaphorically ' reckoning' (Gr. X/ryos, 'word'), as Ko 1412 'Every one of us shall give a. of himself to God.' As a verb a. is used in rare or obs. meanings. 1. To estimate, as Dt 22U ' That also was aed a land of giants'; Ho 8M ' We are a"1 as sheep for the slaughter'; He 11" ' a'" that God was able'; He II26 RV 'a1"* (AV, 'esteeming') the reproach of Christ greater riches.' Cf. 1 Mac 69 ' He made a. (iXoylaaro) that he should die.' Then it is sometimes followed by ' of,' as I K JO21 ' It (silver) was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon'; 1 Co 4" Let a man so a. of us as of the ministers of Christ.' 2. To ' reckon ' or ' impute,' as Gal 38 ' It was a*1 (RV 'reckoned') to him for righteousness.' 3. To 'seem,' or 'be reputed,' as Mk 1042 'they which area1"1 (Gr. oi 8okoDkt) to rule over the Gentiles'; so Lk 2u)J4. Cf. Gal 22-6 'those of repute' (Gr. oi SoKovvres). J. HASTINGS. ACCURSED.In AV onn liirem is tr. ' accursed ' in Jos 6" 712Ms, and 'a. thing' in Jos 618M* 7lMj-u. is. is 2220, 1 Ch 27. In all these places RV gives 'devoted' or 'd. thing.' For the hSrem is not accursed from God so that we may make what secular use of it we please, but devoted to God, and not to be used by us at all. A. is also the tr. of dpdde/ia, anathema, in Ro 9s 1 Co 123 Gal I8- . In these passages RV simply transliterates the Greek. See Curse. J. Hastings. ACHAIA {'Axata), when Greece was free, was the strip of land bordering the Corinthian Gulf on the S. ; but, by the Romans, the name Achaia was applied to the whole country of Greece, because the Achiiean League had headed Greek resistance to Rome. Conquered and united with the province of Macedonia in B.C. 146,* Achaia was in n.c. 27 made a separate province; and Thessaly, Mtolia, Acainania, and some part of Epirus, together with Eubooa and the western, central, and southern Cyclades, were included in it. It was governed by an official with the title Proconsul (Ac 1812), who was appointed by the Senate from among the * This fact, hotly disputed for a time since 1847, is now gjener-ally admitted ; but A. was treated more easily than some provinces : Athens (and Delos, which see), Sicyon (which received part of the territory of Corinth), Sparta (which was free from taxation and head of the Ele,utherolakoues) receiving specially favourable terms: see 1 Mac 1623. ex-pneturs ; and not less than iive years must have elapsed between his proetorship and his oroconsul-ship. Corinth was the capital of the prt .ince, and the proconsul's ordinary residence (Ac 18'2). Aa the severity of taxation was a subject of complaint, Tiberius, in A.D. 15, reunited Achaia with Macedonia and Mcesia under the administration of an imperial legatus ; but in 44, Claudius made it again a senatorial and proconsular province. Either at this or some later time, Thessaly was divided from Achaia and united with Alacedonia, and Epirus with Acarnania was made a separate pro-curatorial province (as Ptolemy ill., 13.44-46, and 14, describes them). On 28th November, A.D. 67, Nero at the Isthmian games declared Greece free; but within a few years Vespasian again made it a senatorial province; and, so long as the empire lasted, it was governed by a proconsul, under whom were a legatus and a qumstor. The proconsul and his legatus were regularly annual officials, and so was the quiestor always, but an imperial legatus governed for a much longer term (two ruled from A.D. 15 to 44). In ordinary Gr. usage, the term 'Hellas' corresponded approximately to the Rom. sense of Achaia; and in that way 'EMds is mentioned in Ac 20s. But there was a wider sense of the epithet ' Greek,' according to which Macedonia could be thereby designated; and thus Achaia and Macedonia together constitute the Gr. lands in Europe, and are sometimes coupled as. a closely connected pair (Ac 1921; cf. Ro 15-8, 2 Co 92, 1 Th Is). The existence of Jewish -settlements and synagogues in Corinth and Athens, the two greatest cities of Achaia, is attested in Ac 17" 184-7; and is suggested elsewhere by the rapid foundation of new cliurches in Achaia (1 Co 21, Ac 1827). The presence of Jews is proved in Sparta and Sicyon as early as B.C. 139-138 through the letters addressed to those States by the Rom. Senate, 1 Mac 1523; and in Bo;otia, jEtolia, Attica, Argos, and Corinth by a letter of Agrippa to Caligula, Philo, leg. ad Gaium, 36 (Mang. li. 587). Jewish inscriptions have been found at Athens, l'atrte, and jEgina. Literature.There is a good article on Achaia in Pauly-Wissowa, RE: see also Harquardt, Ruin. Staatsverw. i. p. 821 f.; Moinmsen, Province* of Rom. Jimp. (Rom. Gesch. v.) ch. vii. W. M. Ramsay. ACHAICUS fAxatVcis).The name is Roman (see Cokinth), and appears to have been perpetuated in the family of L. Mummius, who earned it by his conquest of Corinth and Achaia, B.C. 146. The A. of 1 Co 1617 may have been a freedman or client of the Mummii. In company with Stephanas and Fortunatus he had appeared at Ephesus, and had ' refreshed the spirit * of St. Paul, and, he adds, of the Corinthians also; they thus ' supplied' something which 'was lacking' on the part of the Corinthians. This suggests that they were distinct from (1) the bearers of the Cor. letter (1 Co 7') to St. Paul; and from (2) ol XKiip (1 Co I11), who had more recently brought back to Ephesns the disquieting news, under the fresh impression of which 1 Co was written. (See Stephanas, l'ORTUXATUS, ClILOE ; CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPIS- tle to). A. Robertson. ACHAN (|?v. in 1 Ch 27 -i?y, Sept. 'kxdp, prob. the correct form of the name, cf. ' Valley of Achor').A man of the tribe of Judah, son of Carmi, also called (Jos 2220) son of Zerah, who was his great-grandfather. After the fall of Jericho, he coveted and took a portion of the spoil, which had been devoted to utter destruction. This sin in the devoted thing, involving the breach of a vow made by the nation as one body, brought wrath upon all Israel, and their first attack upor. Ai was repulsed with the loss of thirty-six men. 24 ACHAE ACHOK Investigation was made by lot to discover who had sinned, and Achan was singled out. lie made full confession of his guilt, and the stolen treasure was found hid under his tent. Instant execution followed. Not only Achan himself, but his tent, his goods, his spoil, his cattle, and his children, were taken to the valley, afterwards called the valley of Achor. Tliure they stoned him, and all that belonged to him, afterwards consuming the whole with lire, and raising over the ashes a great heap of stones. This act of vengeance is represented as being in some measure an expiation of the crime. 'The Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger.' The supposition that his family were accessories to his crime linds no support in the narrative. The language of Jos 7* ('all Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them, with lire') has been regarded as implying that Achan alone suffered the death penalty, the plural number referring to the oxen, asses, and sheep, and that his sons and daughters were brought to the valley merely as spectators, that they might have a terrible warning. It is doubtful if the text will bear this construction, and the sweeping nature of the act of judgment recorded is rather to be explained by reference to the stage of moral development which Israel had reached at the time (Jos 7lai). It. M. Bo yd. ACHAR.The form in 1 Ch Z7, 2 Es 7s8 of the name Achan (wh. see). ACHBOR (lia-s? 'mouse' or 'jerboa').1. An Edomite (On Sii33). 2. A courtier under Josiah, mentioned as one of the deputation sent by the king to lluldah the prophetess; son of Micaiah (2 K 221- ), and father of Elnathan (Jer 2622 om. LXX, 3618). Called Abdon (2 Ch 34a). C. F. Burney. ACHIACHARUS ('AxixP<>s B, 'Axeixapos K, vpn Aram, and Heb., irnx Syr.), the nephew of Tobit, was governor under barchedonus = Esarhaddon (To I21 etc.), or, according to the Aramaic text, 'Rab over all that was his (the king's), and Shalit over all the land of Assyria'; cf. Dn 248. The nearest Hebrew name is Ahihud (), l Ch S7. J. x. Marshall. ACHIAS.An ancestor of Ezra (2 Es I2), omitted in Ezr and 1 Es. ACHIM {'Axel/*). Perhaps a shortened form of Jehoinchim, an ancestor of our Lord (Alt I14), See CiENKALOGY. ACHIOR ('Axttift -iWnx 'brother of light').1. In LXX Nu 34-" for Ahihud. 2. In Jth (55 etc.), a general of the Ammonites, spokesman for the Jewish cause, and afterwards convert (ch. 14). 3. In Vulg. To II18 by mistake. F. C. PoKTEE. ACHIPHA (B "Ax/S<*, A *Axe, Hos 215).In the last passage the name may perhaps not be geographical. The valley was near Jericho, but its exact position is not quite certain. It appears, however, from its connexion with the border of Judah, to be probably W&dy Kelt, a deep ravine close to the site of the Jericho of the Christian era. The stream becomes a foaming torrent after rains, and, issuing into the plains, runs between sleep banks south of modern Jericho to the .Ionian SWl vol. iii. ah. xviii.). C. It. CoxuKB. ACHSAH ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 25 ACHSAH(n???'anklet,'lCh2AyAchBa).The daughter of Caieb. She was promised in marriage by her father to the man who should capture Debir or Kiriath-sepher. Othniel, the brother (nephew ?) of Caleb, accomplished the feat, and obtained the promised reward. As the bride was being conducted to her home, she lighted off her ass, and besought her father to add 'springs of water' to the dowry of a south land (Negeb), which he had already given her. In response he granted her ' the upper springs and the nether springs' (Jos IS1*-", Jg I9-'6). K. M. Bom ACHSHAPH (I???). There were perhaps two towns in Galilee of this name. 1. Noticed with places in Upper Galilee, may be the present El-Kesaf S. of the Leontes, on the mountains of Naphtali (Jos II1122'). 2. A city ofAsher (Jos 1925), noticed with other towns near the coast, is more probably the modern M-Yaslf near Acre. This is also noticed by the Mohar, an Egyp. traveller (14th cent. A.D.) on his way down the coast. The loss of the letter caph in this name may be compared with the well-known case of Achzib (2). See 8WP vol. i. sheets ii. iii., and Chabas, Voyage (VunEgyptien. C. R. Condek. ACHZIB (3\?) .1. One of the 22 towns of Asher (Jos 19*> B 'Exo^iS, A 'AXC", in Jg I31 B 'Avxafrl, A 'Ao-xfSei'). It is identified as Ez-Zib on the coast between Acre and Tyre, near where the level line of sand is broken by the promontory of Ras-en-Nakurah. The present village a mere huddle of glaring huts on one of the highest eminences of the sandy sea-wallhas nothing to indicate that it was once a place of some note. It is mentioned in Jg I81 among the towns and districts that Israel failed to conquer. A. was called Aksibi by the Assyr., and Ecdippa by the Greeks and Romans. Josephus and Jerome refer to it. The Rabbin. writers, hedging the Land as they did the Book, marked out three districts, indicated by A., Antioch, and Mesopotamia. They inclined to the view that A. was on the outside of the first boundary line. All within was Holy Land, where bread, wine, and oil could be found ceremonially clean, and where the dates of the months and their fasts could be accurately known in time for observance. 2. Another Achzib (B Ke(e(p, A omits), situated in the Shephelah or ' low-land' of Judah, is mentioned along with Keilah and Mareshah in Jg 15**, and with Mareshah and Adullam in Mic I14. This neighbourhood suggests a possible identification with 'Ain-Kezbeh near Adullam. The name appears as Kezib (a1!?, Xa, B ~S,o>xv9&, A Xafij/W) in 1 Ch 422. Some literary interest attaches to Mic I14, where it is said that ' the houses of Achzib shall be a lie (Achzab) to the kings of Israel.' The resemblance seems to imply a play on the word. Occurring in a passage of vehement reproach, such derision corresponds to the spitting on the ground, which Orientals resort to when greatly excited and provoked as an expression of uttermost nausea and contempt. G. M. Mackie. ACQUAINT, ACQUAINTANCE.Acquaint as a reflexive verb, meaning to make the acquaintance of, is found in Job 2221, Ec 2K Cf. Shak.'s Temp. II. ii. 39: ' Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.' Acquaintance is both sing. and plur., Ps 5513 ' But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine a.' (RV 'my familiar friend') ; Lk 23*9 'And all his a. and the women that followed him from Galilee.' Acquainted, meaning ' to be familiar with,' occurs Ps 13i)3, Is 533 ' a. with grief.' J. HASTINGS. " Copyright, 189S, by ACROSTIC.A poem so composed that the initial letters of certain recurring periods (lines, distichs, etc.) follow some definite arrangement. In the OT all the recognised acrostics are alphabetical, i.e. the initials make up the Heb. alphabet. They are Pss 9-10. 25. 34. 37. 111. 112. 119. 145, Pr 31w-3\ La 1. 2. 3. 4, Sir 5113-3'. See also Hab l*-2'. The periods assigned to each letter may consist of one line (Pss 111. 112), two (Pss 34. 145, etc.), three (La 3, etc.), or even sixteen lines (Ps 119) ; or the lines may vary in number, as esp. in La 1 and 2, and to some extent in the Psalms. Where the period consists of several lines, the initial letter is sometimes repeated with each line (La 8) or distich (Ps 119). In other respects the acrostics vary very much in style and subject, and, thougli usually late, undoubtedly belong to very different dates. Thus Pss 37 and 119 from their didactic style are evidently late, while the Jahwistic Ps 25 is comparatively early. The acrostic character of these poems often throws indirectly an interesting light on their history, showing us unmistakably the hand of the reviser, who sometimes did not scruple to disturb their alphabetical character. The most striking example of this is in Ps 9-10, originally one alphabetical psalm of usually four lines to each letter. This the reviser cut into two, in Ps 9 adding vv.20"21* as an appendix (comp. Ps 2522 3423), and omitting two or three verses after v.5. In Ps 10 the verses represented by d-s were omitted to make room for the insertion of a very curious and ancient fragment in vv.2"11. Somewhat similar, but less violent, alterations occur in Pss 25. 34 and 37. Thus in Ps 25 the insertion of mSx by the Elohistic reviser (see Hexateuch) in v.2 gives n instead of 3 as the initial letter. It would seem also that v.18 lias been substituted for a p verse, or else that the latter has been omitted. The omission of the i verse in Ps 145 appears to be accidental. It is interesting to notice that' when the psalms are, from their style and position in the Psalter, likely to be of late date, there is little or no interference with their alphabetical arrangement. The transposition of the letters 3 and a in La 2 and 3 cannot easily be accounted for. Bickell, Zeitsch.fiir Kathol. Theol. (Innsbruck) ] 882, p. 326 ff., has shown that the conclusion of Sir, of which the original Heb. is now lost, was alphabetical, the letters D-r, vv.21"29, being evident at once from the Syr. version. It has also been maintained that Nah 12-2L 3 was originally alphabetical; but if so, the text has been so altered by revision or corruption that very few traces of this remain. Some critics claim to have discovered a name acrostic in Ps 110, the initials of 1-4, after omitting the introductory words, spelling ficv; but this coincidence can hardly be considered conclusive. * F. H. Woods. **ACTS OP THE APOSTLES. i. Introduction. ii. Text and Transmission. iii. Literary History. iv. Modern Criticism. v. Purpose and Contents. vi. Analysis. vii. Authorship and Date, viii. The Acts and Josephus. ix. The Historical Value of the Acts. (1) A Priori Objections. (2) The Acts and'St. Paul's Epistles. (3) The Archaeological Evidence. (4) The Period of Transition. (5) The Early Community in Jerusalem. (6) The Speeches. x. Sources of the Acts. xi. Conclusion, xii. Literature. i. The Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book in the English Canon, is unique in its character. * The verses are numbered in this article according to the Heb. Bible. Charles Scribner's Sons 26 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES While we have four separate narratives of the life of our Lord, and a very considerable number of letters by different apostles, it is the only history of the early Church that can make any claim to be authentic. Some writers indeed, such as Holtzmann (Handkommentar, p. 307), suggest that it is to be put on the level of other works written in the second century recording the deeds of the apostles; but such a position is quite untenable. Even i some of them, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, may rest on an historical basis, that is the most which can be admitted. The greater number of them, most notably the Clementine Romances, for which there was once claimed almost an equality with the Acts, are now decisively thrown to a later date. The Acts is the sole remaining historical work which deals with the beginnings of Church history; and this amongst other causes has made it a favourite mark of modern criticism. ii. Text and Transmission.Although our authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in the main similar to those for the Gospels, they are feweT in number. Like the Gospels, it is contained in the five leading Uncials (a A B C D), in the Vulg., in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, in the two chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, defective. We have nothing corresponding to the Cnretonian and Sinaitic Syriac, nor do we even know whether such a text existed ; and the Old Latin is very inadequately represented. On the other hand, we possess one other Uncial of considerable importance, namely, the Codex Laudianus (E) of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS. of the Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally found forming one volume with the Catholic Epistles. The inadequate representation of the Old Latin and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be regretted, owing to the fact that the particular textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in some authorities of the Acts in a very conspicuous form, namely, what is called the Western text (by Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. lxxi, the 5 text; by Blass, Ada Apostolorum, p. 24, the /3 text). This is represented more or less definitely by the two bilingual MSS. D E, by the marginal readings of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, edited by M. Berger), and by Western Fathers, esp. Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer, Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed text). The characteristics of this text are well known ; it adds passages of considerable length, it paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the shorter text; and all these characteristics appear, but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts ; it sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage by the variations from the shorter text, sometimes its variations give additional and apparently authentic information. The problem of the origin of this text has caused in recent years a considerable amount of discussion. Some few critics, such as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to consider it the original text; but that opinion has found few followers. Rendel Harris, in 1891, started a series of modern discussions by suggesting that the variations of Codex Bezse were due to Latinisation, and implied the existence of a bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 x.r>. He also found signs of Montanist influence. His main theory was adequately refuted by Sanday in the Guardian (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed the recension suggested by the Western text to Antioch. Ramsay, in 1892 ( Church in Mom. Emp. p. 161, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser who lived in Asia before the year 150, a locality which had already been suggested by Lightfoot (Smith's DB* i. p. 42), while WH suggest N.W. Syria or Asia Minor (Gr. Test. ii. p. 108). Dr. Chase, in 1893, attacked the problem from another side, accepting Antioch as the locality, and finding the principal cause of the variations in retranslation from the Syriae, a position he failed to make good. Lastly, Dr. Blass has suggested that the author issued two editions, and that both forms of the text are due to himself personally, the one representing a rough draft, the other a revision: again, a theory which is hardly satisfactory (see Chase, Crit. Rev. 1894, p. 300 ff.; Blass' reply begins in Herrnathena, No. xxi. p. 122). A definite solution of the problem has not been attained, nor has it yet been attacked in a really scientific manner. A careful study of the MSS. D and E, and their relations, is necessary in order to eliminate their individual peculiarities. But in all probability the solution lies in the direction suggested by WH (p. 122 f.). If we compare the phenomena presented by the text of apocr. writings we find just the same tendency to variation, but in an even more exaggerated form. Popular literature was treated with great freedom by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or convenience was the one thing considered. During the first seventy years of their existence, i.e. up to the year a.d. 150, the books of NT were hardly treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interpretation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. These could be exhibited most easily in early and popular translations into other languages. It was a process which would have a tendency to continue until the book was treated as canonical, and its text looked on as something sacred. Although some whole classes of readings may be due to one definite place or time, yet for the most part they represent rather a continuous process, and it is not probable that any theory which attempts to tie all variations down to a special locality or a definite revision will now be made good. In one point, however, WH's conclusions will require modification. It must not be forgotten that Western authorities represent ultimately an independent tradition from the Archetype. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single reading, which is clearly not Western in its character, they may preserve a better tradition than the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We must, in other words, distinguish Western readings from readings in Western authorities. For example, E\A.jvas read by AD in II23 may be correct. iii. The Literary History of the Acts is similar to that of the great number of books of NT. In the last quarter of the second century, when we begin to have any great extent of Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. Luke. This is the case esp. with Irenseus, who cites passages so continuous as to make it certain that he had the book before him substantially as we have it, but with many of the readings we call Western. He lays stress on the fact that there is internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and is followed in this by the Muratorian Fragment (Iren. Adv. H>er. i. 23.1; iii. 12.12, 13. 3,14.1, 15.1; iv. 15. 1). The book is also ascribed to St. Luke by Tertullian (De Ieiunio, 10) and Clement of Alex. (Strom, v. 12. 83, p. 696, cf. Sanday, BL, p. 66 f.) ; while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), in the letter concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (ib. v. 1), and a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth (ib. iv. 23). By this date the work is an ACTS OP THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 27 integral portion of the Canon in all Churches, and there are no signs of any difference of opinion. Nor is there any reason for arguing that because our knowledge of it begins suddenly, therefore the book suddenly appeared in the Canon. We have no decisive evidence earlier, because we have no books to contain that evidence. Moreover, the wide area over which our evidence extends seems to imply that the ascription to St. Luke is a genuine tradition, and not a mere critical deduction. For an earlier period the industry of critics has collected a number of parallels, on which indeed, for the most part, no great stress can be laid; but two lines of argument enable us to take the book farther back. The unity of authorship of the Acts and St. Luke's Gospel must be admitted as axiomatic, and it is quite clear that Tatian, Justin, and Marcion were acquainted with St. Luke's Gospel. Now, the existence of St. Luke's Gospel implies the existence of the Acts, and this conclusion is supported by a number of parallels between the Acts and Justin, which would not perhaps be by themselves of great weight (Ac Is = Ap. i. 50, 2< = Dial. 68, 762 = Dial. 16,172 = Ap. ii. 10, 2623 = Dial. 36, 76). The use of St. Luke by Marcion clearly carries the Acts back to the early part of the second century; but we can go still earlier. Among the apostolic Fathers there are suggestions of contact with Barnabas, Hennas, and Clement on which little stress can be laid, while Papias shows himself acquainted with the persons mentioned by St. Luke; but in Ignatius and Polyearp (Ac 24 = Pol. 1, 10*2 = Pol. 2, 203i = Pol. 2, 752 = Pol. 6, 831 = Pol, 12, 125 = ign. Mag. 5, 6M = Ign. Phil. 11, 1041 = Ign. Smyn. 3) there are resemblances which, although slight, are so exact as to make the hypothesis of literary obligation almost necessary, as Holtzmann even seems to think (Einleitung,3 1892, p. 406,' there are still more noteworthy resemblances with Justin, Folycarp, and Ignatius'). This last evidence is of increasing importance, as not only the genuineness but also the early date of the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius is becoming daily better established, and these quotations almost compel us to throw back the writing of the Acts into the 1st cent. this is, of course, provided we accept the literary unity. If we accept the elaborate distinction of sources (see x.) which has become fashionable lately, no evidence at an early date is valuable except for the words quoted. The history subsequent to the second century need not detain us. Some few heretics appear to have left the work out of the Canon, and Chrysostom complains that it was not much read in his time; but it is always with him as with all other Church writers, one of the accepted books. Its place in the Canon varies. The ordinary position is immediately after the Gospels (Evv. Act. Cath. Paul, or Evv. Act. Paul. Cath.), and this is the place it occupies in almost all Gr. MSS. from the Vatican onwards, in the Muratorian Fragment and later lists, in Syr. and Lat. MSS. The order, Evv. Paul. Act. Cath., is that of the Sin., some Minuscules, MSS. of the Peshitta of the 5th and 6th cent, the Codex Fuldensis and Vulg. MSS. from the 13th cent. A third order is Evv. Paul. Cath. Act., which is found in the Apostolic Canons, 85, the Bohairic and perhaps the Sahidic MSS., in Jerome's Bible and Spanish Vulg. MSS. The only point of importance in the order would be whether there was an early tradition grouping the writings of St. Luke together. There is very little evidence of this. In some cases St. Luke's was placed fourth among the Gospels, but this happened, as a rule, in authorities which do not put the Acts next; for example, the Codex Claromon-tanus and some Coptic authorities. There seems, however, some evidence for thinking that in Origen's time the order of the Gospels was Jn Mt Mk Lk, and that these were followed by the Acts. In the case of Irenseus, however, our oldest evidence for Asia and the West, we find the Gospel already separated from the Acts and definitely grouped with the other Gospels (Zahn, Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, ii. 343-383). iv. Modern Criticism.1. By far the most prevalent opinion concerning the Acts has always been, and still is, that which ascribes it to St. Luke the companion of St. Paul. This is the opinion, not only of those critics who are classed as orthodox, but of Renan, whilst it has recently been maintained with great vigour by Ramsay and Blass. It is, of course, compatible with very varying estimates of its historical authority. While Renan considers it valuable mainly as a witness to the opinions and ideas of the author's own time, Ramsay, on the other hand, claims for St. Luke a place in the very first rank of historians i.e. amongst those who have good material, who use it well, and who write their history with a very clear insight into the true course of events. Kven he, however, admits that for the earlier portion its value is dependent on the value of the sources used. 2. As soon as Baur began to develop his theory of Church history, it became apparent that it was inconsistent with the Acts; and partly arising from a comparison with the history recorded in the Galatians and for other critical reasons, but partly owing to a different a priori conception of what was the nature of the development of the early Church, an opinion has widely prevailed that the Acts presents us with a fancy picture written in the second century in the interests of the growing Catholicism of the day. This has been the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller (to whom we owe by far the fullest investigation on this side), Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Hausrath, Holsten, Lipsius, Davidson, van Manen, and others. But in the extreme form in which it was held it is gradually being given up. Neither the late date nor the exaggerated view of the differences of parties in the early Church is really tenable. The unhistorical character comes, it is now said, rather from defective knowledge and insight, not from deliberate purpose, and the writer wrote as he could rather than as he would. He represents, in fact, the opinions of his day, those of ' Heathen Christianity developing into Catholicity' (Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, Eng. tr. i. 56). Moreover, few would care lor a much later date than 100 A.D. 'The authorship by St. Luke would be just conceivable if some time about the year 80 were taken as the terminus ad quern' (Holtzmann, Handkomrn. p. 312). 3. The school of Baur had the great merit of establishing the fact that the Acts is an artistic whole, that the writer had a clear conception of the manner in which the Church developed, and wrote with that idea always before him. In the last ten years a series of writers have attacked the question of the sources of the book (see x.) in a manner quite inconsistent with this. They have imagined a number of writers who have gradually compiled the book by collecting and piecing together scraps of other books, and by altering or cutting out such passages in the same as seemed inconsistent with their particular opinions. This view, in anything like an extreme form, is absolutely inconsistent with the whole character of the work. A sufficient amount has been said about the various opinions which have been held, and it will be most convenient to pursue our subsequent investigations from the point of view which we consider most probable. v. Purpose and Contents.The purpose which the writer of the Acts had before him 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 tfbok in the words tou iiiv %npiirov \6yoy, and very clearly suras up the contents of the work as being irepl ird'Toiy uv hptaTo 6 'irjoovs iroiiiv t koL SiSitTKtiv; but he never gives the second part of the sentence. Its purport, however, may be gathered from the following verses. The apostles were to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and of power, and were to be witnesses of the Lord in Jerusalem and in all Judsea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. In other words, the subject of the book is (1) the divine credentials of the apostles as exhibited in their power, and (2) the extension of the gospel in the stages marked by the words Jerusalem, Judeea, and Samaria, the uttermost parts of the earth. When we examine the structure of the book, we find that it almost exactly corresponds with these words. There is clear evidence of method. The writer begins with the enumeration of the names of the apostles and the members of the community. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the immediate outburst of power. Then the preaching in Jerusalem. In this we noiice that all signs of the apostolic power and all points which lead to the spread of the gospel are specially noted. An instance of the first is the story of Ananias and Sapphira; of the last, the way in which the different stages in the growth of the Church are continually emphasised (a41-*7 44). In ch. 6 there is clearly a new start. The appointment of the seven is dwelt on, both because of the immediate exhibition of power (6!), and because of the immense results which followed from the preaching of Stephen and the persecution which followed his death. In 84 the second stage of progress is entered upon. The word spreads to Samaria (84-'26). The extension of the gospel is suggested by the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (826-40). In 91-30 comes Saul's conversion, an event of extreme importance for the writer's purpose. In 931 is given another summary of the progress of the Church  by this time throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria. A series of incidents relating to the missionary work of St. Peter now follows (982-lli8), selected as containing the first definite signs of the extension of the gospel to the Gentile3, "Apx /ml toTs (dfernv 6 9ebs t$]V y.sr(LvoLa.v ils <ai)jv 5ajK *\ In II19 we reach a further stage. The word is preached in Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, and the Church of Antioch is founded the word being preached there to those who are not Jews. In 122* again the spread of the word is dwelt on. Another stage in the narrative is ended. We get in 131 or 1225 what is clearly intended to be a new departure. The amount of preparation shows us the importance that the author attaches to the first setting out of Paul and Barnabas together, and from this time onwards the narrative proceeds very definitely forward until the time when St. Paul reaches Rome. We may again mark stages in the narrative 13*-1426commonly called the first missionary journey of St. Paul; in which we notice the emphasis laid on the exhibition of Siva/us on the part of the apostle. In 151"'29 comes the apostolic council; then 153i-2116 the further missionary enterprise of St. Paul. Here we notice how it is always the points of departure which are dwelt on, as, for example, the first preaching in Europe and in great and important towns. Then 2117-2816 the series of events which ultimately lead St. Paul to Rome Here the great fulness of detail arises partly from the better knowledge of the author, partly from the important character of the events, St. Paul preaches before rulers and kings, Lk 211'2, partly because they are all events which help in taking the gospel to Rome. There the author leaves St. Paul preaching, because he has then accomplished the purpose of his narrative. Rome is typical of the ends of the earth. A definite point is reached, and the narrative is definitely concluded. (For arguments in favour of the definite conclusion of the work, see Lightfoot in Smith's DBX i. 27, as against Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 23.) The above sketch of the plan of the work has, at any rate, the merit of being an attempt to discover the author's purpose by an examination of his own language. The fault of other views is that they exaggerate points of minor importance. A series of writers from Schneckenburger (1841) onwards have seen in the work a book of conciliating tendency, based on the parallelism between St. Peter and St. Paul; and this view in a more or less modified form has been the prevailing one. It has, as will be suggested, this much truth, that the writer would pass over for the most part incidents of a less creditable character; he did not, however, do so, as this theory implies, because he wished to conceal anything (he gives us quite sufficient hints of the existence of difference of opinion, 157-47 f-212:if), but because they did not help in the aim of his work. He looks upon Christianity as a polity or society, and it is the growth of this society he depicts. The internal history is looked at in so far as it leads to external growth. The view of Pfleiderer and some others is that the book was written from an apologetic point of view to defend Christianity against Judaism and paganism. With this object, like the later Christian apologists, the writer depicts the Roman authorities as, on the whole, favourable to Christianity, while he represents the attacks as coming from the Jews. There is no doubt that he does so; but the obvious reason for doing so was the fact that the author was narrating things as they happened, while he gives no hint that his work is intended to be apologetic. It is addressed to a believing Christian, not to any outsider. vi. Analysis. A certain amount of discussion has taken place as to whether the Acts should be divided into two or three main parts. All such discussions are thoroughly fruitless. There are quite clearly definite stages in the narrative, and the writer is systematic. We must observe the structure, but we are at liberty to make such divisions as seem convenient remembering that the divisions are not the writer's, but our own. The following is suggested as a convenient analysis on the lines of the previous summary. The speeches are italicised: Introduction. I1-11. The Apostolic Commission. The Church in Jerusalem. H2-26. The names of the apostles and the completion of their number. 15-.22. Speech of Peter. 2>-ls. The gift of the Holy Spirit. l4-42. Speech of Peter. 42-47. Increase of the disciples. 8-20. Healing of the impotent man. Speech of Peter. 41-22. Imprisonment of l'eterand John. Speech of Peter before the Sanhedrin. 23_3i Prayer of the Church on their release. 33-516. Communism of the early Church Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira. l7-42. Second imprisonment of Peter and John. Speech of Gamaliel. 61-7. The appointment of the Seven. 8-15. The preaching of Stephen. 71-53. The speech of Stephen. "-S3. Death of Stephen and persecution of the Church. Tiik Church in Jud.ba and Samaria. S4-25. Philip in Samaria. Simon Magus. 2ii-4o, philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. 91-30. Conversion of Saul. 31. Extension of the Church. 32.13 peter at Lydda and Joppa. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 29 101-48. Conversion of Cornelius. Speech of Peter. II1-18. Discussion on the subject at Jerusalem. Speech of Peter. The Church in Antioch. 1119-29. Foundation of the Church In Antioch. *7-so. Collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Mission of Paul and Barnabas. 121-19, Persecution of Herod. Peter thrown into prison. 2-. Death of Herod. 24. Progress of the Church. 1S8 Barnabas and Saul sent forth from Antioch. Fikst Missionary Journey of Paul and Barnabas. 134-42. Cyprus. Elymas and Sergius Paulus. 13-ra, Antioch in Pisidia. Speech of Paul to the Jews. 141-'. Iconium. "*>. Lystra. Speech of Paul to the Gentiles. si-28. Visit to Derbe and return journey to Antioch on the Orontes. 161-36. The apostolic council in Jerusalem. Speeches of Peter and James. Letter to the Churches. Second Missionary Journey of St. Paul. l^o-ie0. The Churches revisited "-">. Journey into Europe. Philippi. 171-15, Thessaionica and Berosa. i-3*. Athens. Speech of Paul in the Areopagus. 18i-i. Corinth. -. Keturn to Antioch in Syria. ". Visit to Jerusalem. Thikd Missionary Journey. IS23. Visit to Galatia. M-28. Apollos at Ephesus. I91-U. Paul at Ephesus. Disturbance in the theatre. 2O1-0. Journey in Macedonia and Greece. '-. Troas. is_2ii6, journey to Jerusalem. Speech to elders of Ephesus at Miletus. Paul in Jerusalem. 2117-40, % Disturbances arise. 221-21. Paul's speech to the people. 22_23ii, Paul before the Sanhedrin. 12-35, Paul sent to Caisarea. 241-37, Paul and Felix. SpeeehexofTertullus and Paul. 25-26. Paul and Festus. Speech before Agrippa. 27-2816. Journey to Borne. Paul in Rome. 2817-31. Interview with the Jews. Paul begins to preach. vii. Authorship and Date. The following arguments enable us to lix with a considerable approach to certainty the authorship of the Acts. (1) It is quite certain that it is written by the author of the third Gospel. This is shown by the preface, which, like that of the Gospel, is addressed to Theophilus, and shows that the author claims to have written such a Gospel, and by the identity of style between the two books (the best and most recent demonstration is that of Friedrich). This fapt may be taken as admitted on all sides. (2) The presence of certain portions written in the first person, seems to imply that the writer was an eye-witness of some of the events he describes, and a companion of St. Paul. In the Acts there are certain passages which are technically known as the 'we' sections, viz. 1610"17 205-16 211-18 271-28I6-1 Here the writer speaks in the first person. Moreover, these sections and also the accompanying incidents, in which the writer does not take part, but at which he was probably present, are presented with great fulness and exactness of detail, and seem to imply that the writer was an eye-witness. So far there is general agreement. But two explanations then become possible. Either the author of these sections was the author of the Acts, who changes the person when he becomes himself one of the companions of St. Paul, or these passages are one of the sources which the compiler of the work makes use of. All probability is in favour of the first view. The style of the 'we' sections is that of the author. It is perfectly true, indeed, that the author works up his sources in his own phraseology, as may be seen by a study of the third Gospel; but it is hardly possible to believe that a writer so artistic as the author of the Acts certainly is should have left these exceedingly incongruous first persons. So keenly has this been felt, that it has been suggested that the author introduced these sections in the first person to give an appearance of genuineness to his narrative a suggestion which refutes both itself and some other theories. An examination of the scope of these sections lends itself to the same view. The first section begins at Troas (16<>) and continues to Philippi (1616); the second begins at Philippi (205) and continues over the whole period to the end of the book, the third person being occasionally adopted, as in 1617, when the event recorded concerns only St. Paul and some of his companions, and not the whole party, nor the author personally. The most reasonable explanation of that fact is that the writer of these sections joined the party at Troas and went to Philippi; that after an interval of some years he again joined St. Paul at Philippi, perhaps his native place, and accompanied him first to Jerusalem and then to Rome. If any other hypothe'sis be adopted! it is difficult to account for the exceedingly fragmentary character of the sections. On the other side, it is argued that the 'we' sections are so much more historical in their character than some of the other sections, and so much fuller in detail, that they clearly betray a different hand. But the difference is never greater than would be found in passing from the work of an eye-witness to the work of one who, although a contemporary, is not an eye-witness. It is urged, again, that the work cannot be from the hand of a contemporary because of the inexactness and incorrectness of the knowledge of apostolic times which it exhibits. But this is really begging the whole question. We have no right to argue that a book is late because it is unhistorical, unless we have objective reasons for stating that it is so, which overpower the positive evidence for the early date. The balance of probability is in favour of the author of the Acts being identical with the author of the ' we' sections, and therefore of being a companion of St. Paul, but a companion who joined the apostle somewhat late in his career, and who therefore could only have a second-hand acquaintance with earlier events. (3) The tradition of the Church from the end of the second century is that the author was Luke, a companion of St. Paul; and this exactly corresponds with the circumstances already described. St. Luke is the only companion of St. Paul, so far as our knowledge goes, who fulfils the conditions. The Acts could not have been written by Timothy, for Timothy was a companion during an interval when the 'we' sections cease (Ac 1714); nor by Titus, for we know from Gal 23 that he was with St. Paul earlier; nor by Silas, who was at the council (Ac 1522). St. Luke is never mentioned in any of the earlier Epistles, but he is in the later. Corroborative evidence of the Lucan authorship has been found in the medical terms used (Col 4", Lk 8, Ac 28s etc.). (4) The argument in favour of the Lucan authorship of both the Gospel and Acts, based on a chain of coincidences, has been put very strongly by Bp. Lightfoot. (a) Tradition gives to the Gospel the name of St. Luke, a companion of St. Paul. (V) Internal but unobtrusive evidence shows its Pauline character. It dwells particularly on the universality and freedom of the gospel; and it refers to less obvious incidents in our Lord's life mentioned by St. Paul (1 Co ll* = Lk 22", 1 Co 15 = Lk 24s*). (c) The Acts of the Apostles was certainly written by the same person as the Gospel, (d) An independent line of argument shows that it was written by a companion of St. Paul, (e) It, too, is Pauline in its character (so far as we are at liberty to use that word). It represents the same universality and freedom of the gospel, and the 30 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES same idea of the Christian Church, but more in the concrete (see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 124-128). (5) The balance of argument is clearly, then, in favour of St. Luke as author of the Acts. There is, however, still room for doubt as to the time when it was written, (a) One theory places it almost immediately after the close of the narrative, and just before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. The book, it is urged, comes to an abrupt conclusion, and the only explanation is that it is unfinished. As has been pointed out above, there is no real reason for saying the book is unfinished. The arrival of St. Paul in Rome formed a suitable conclusion, and the ending is similar in character to the ending of the Gospel. In the extreme form this argument is untenable, but it is still quite possible to hold that the narrative concluded here, because not many more events had occurred. Moreover, it might be held that the tone in relation to the empire represented the period before rather than after the Neronian persecution. The early date is still held by Blass, and the arguments against it are not very strong. (5) The argument for a later date is generally based on Lk 2120 as compared with Mt 2416, Mk 1314. It is stated that the form of the prophecy there recorded has been modified by the knowledge of what happened at the siege of Jerusalem. The Gospel therefore was written after that event, and the Acts somewhat, later, under the Flavians.. The criticism of Blass, however, has very considerable weight, that there is little in the prophecies recorded by St. Luke which goes much beyond the language of Dn 9M ; and the reason given for a late date can hardly be considered demonstrative. Neither can that of Ramsay, who thinks that the Gospel must have been written just after Titus was associated in the empire with his father, so as to explain the incorrect date of Tiberius (Lk 31). No arguments are certain, and the language of Lk 212) would in any case be quite compatible with a date some time before A.D. 70 ; but perhaps on the whole the amount of perspective contained in the book is hardly compatible with the earlier date, just as the relation of the third Gospel to the other two suggests the later date, and a period shortly after 70 is the most probable. Whether we can, as Ramsay suggests, press the irpiro./ of I1, and argue that a third treatise was in contemplation, is very doubtful. The following are dates suggested by various writers, and are for the most part taken from Holtzmann : 64-70 (Hug, A. Maier, Schneckenburger, Hitzig, Grau, Niisgen, Blass), c. 80 (Ewald, Lechler, Bleek, Renan, Meyer, Weiss, Ramsay), 75-100 (Wendt Spitta), 90 (Kiistlin, Mangold), 95 (Hilgenfeld), c. 100 (Volktnar), 110-120 (Plieiderer), Trajan and Hadrian (Schwegler, Zeller, Overbeok, Davidson, Keim, Hauarath), 125-150 (Straatman, Meijbooin, van Manen). The arguments for a later date are given most fully among recent writers by Holtzmann (ffinleitung,* 1892, p. 405) as follows: (1) Acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles (Rom, Gai, Cor, Eph, Thess, and Heb), also with Josephus. (2} Deliberate correction of the narrative of Gal l"- in Ac 9=-30 of Qa] 21-10 in lbt-zz, of Gal 2" in Ac lo3"'. (3) Unhistorical account of speaking with tongues (Ac 24-"), of St. Paul's relations with the law, and legendary narratives such aB that of the death of Agrippa, 12M. (4) The writer is contemporary in time with the literary activity of Plutarch as shown by the parallel lives; and of Arrian and Pausanias (narratives of Journey), also of the irepioSoi of different apostles. (5) Atmosphere of the Catholic Church ; parallelism of St. Peter and St. Paul; traces of the hierarchical view of the Church and esp the sacramental theory of laying on of hands. (f>) Resemblances with the Pastoral Epistles. (7) Importance assigned to the political side of Christianity; the Roman Empire always represented as favourable to Christianity. It is very difficult to deal with some of these objections quite seriously. Even if the use of the Pauline Epistles were proved, it is difficult to see what that has to do with the late date of the Acts. The contradictions with the Pauline Epistles are largely dependent on a priori views of Church history. Some points, as the resemblance to Plutarch, are purely fanciful. The political point of view is exactly that of St. Paul's Epistles. One point requires perhaps slightly fuller investigation"; and the remaining points, so far as they are serious, will be best dealt with in an independent survey of the historical character of the woi-k. viii. The Relation of the Acts to Josephus presents to us, under the auspices of modern criticism, a curious double problem. While- older critics, like Zeller, contented themselves with pointing out historical discrepancies, later critics since Keim (Gesch. Jesit, iii. 1872, 134, and Aus dem Urchristenthtim, 1878, 18) have attempted to show that St. Luke made use of Josephus. The crucial passage is that concerning Theudas (Ac 530). In his speech Gamaliel is made to refer to a rebellion under a leader of that name ; but according to Jos. this took place at least ten years later, under Cuspius Fadus, and long after that of Judas the Galilsean. So far the problem was simple, but it is now maintained that the mistake arose from the misapprehension of a passage of Josephus. In one paragraph he speaks about Theudas, in the next of the Sons oj Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the origin of the mistake. The two passages are quoted thus Jos. Ant. xx. v. 1 f. eu5as . . . TeiOn t nzirtwv . . . i? avTovs, . . . ttoWovs . . . Acts 633 f' avtart} QevSas Aeywv tivai' Tiva^eavrov . . . %s afappiBri koX wtii/Tfj So-oi oav, k.t.K. Herk TOt/Toi" (Witt?) 'IouSas b TaXiXaios tv Tot's tiptptus TTjs airoypa 2i 427t 80), 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 Xpurr6s is not a personal name, rbv TpoKexe'Plfrti*vov vpiv X/>. 'lrfcr. (32J), tttipLov avrby teal Xpurriv 6 6eis tiroi-qirev (2*). One more phrase we may notice, apxr\yiv (316 531), which occurs elsewhere in Hebrews twice (2W 122), and nowhere else in NT. We find nowhere the expression vihs Seov. Whereas St. Paul 'placarded' Christ crucified (Gal 3'), we find here, as we might expect, that St. Peter has to take towards the death of Christ a purely defensive attitude (318). We have no reference to Christ's pre-existence. We have, in fact, a representation of what must have been, and what we have independent evidence to show was the earliest Christian teaching about Christ: the 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 the universal character of the Gospel. We are told that the Acts was written from a universalist point of view, and the statement is quite true in a sense ; but we find that St. Peter's speeches are not affected by it. God raised up Jesus to give repentance to Israel (531) ; Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant (325). There are elements of universalism, but they are incidental. The promise is to Israel first (S26) ; so (2^) ' to you is the promise and to your children, and to all those that are afar off'; 32b ' 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 eschatology. It is thoroughly Jewish and primitive, 'that He may send the Christ, who hath been appointed for you, _ even Jesus: whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restoration of all things,' 3"!-"!; the Messianic kingdom is called the mupol a.va-if/itears. There 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 understand 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. It 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 the synagogues. They are regular in their worship in the temple (Ac 2, Lk 2468). They take part in the morning and evening sacrifices. _ They observe the Jewish hours of prayer. They join in . the synagogue worship (69 92). They are not only conforming Jews, they are devout (Ac 21s" 2212). They do not yet realise that they are separate from Judaism. They are but a sect, the sect o* vol. i.3 ________ the Nafypaiot (Ac 246). 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 has been suggested to explain why it should have so much imphasis laid on it, or why it should have been nvented if it were not historical. It has been said that we have little evidence for correcting this. The archaeological evidence which we found in ch. 13 f. here fails us. But we have a few indirect hints. The position of the Twelve we may gather from 1 Co 95 155; of St. Peter from 1 Co 15s, Gal 2*>; of St. John from al 29; of the brethren of the Lord from 1 Co 06. A certain amount of incidental evidence is given by the Ebionite traditions concerning the position of St. James; 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 the day ? 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. But 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 15lf- 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 I10 41*). Now, if we turn to St. Paul's speech at Pisidian Antioch addressed to the Jews (1316-"), 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.39). 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, and reproducing accurately a speech which he finds in 34 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES that source, or with his being a companion of the apostle, who knows the apostle's preaching well, and gives a typical speech showing the general character of his argument. It is very difficult to conceive of it as a tour de force of historical imagination. And this argument becomes stronger when it is found that it is applicable to all the speeches in the book. We have already touched on those of St. Peter, and have seen how clearly they reproduce an early stage of doctrinal development. Whatever difficulties there may be in the speech of Stephen, it certainly does not bear the marks of being a rhetorical composition. The speeches of St. Paul from first to last are singularly harmonious with the situation. The transition in tone from that we have already examined to that addressed to the heathen at Iconium or to that at Athens, is most marked. When we come to the later speeches addressed to the Jews, to Felix, and to Agrippa, what we notice at once as very extraordinary is the repetition of the narrative of the conversion. Now that is comprehensible on the supposition that the narrative was repeated on two occasions, but is not so if we are dealing with rhetorical exercises. But St. Luke was, on our supposition, with St. Paul during all these events, and would therefore have accurate knowledge. These speeches then, although written in the author's style, are clearly authentic ; and we may argue in the same way about the other speeches, all of which are, in different ways, suitable to the occasion on which they claim to have been delivered. The presence of the author's hand in the speeches cannot be denied. Their literary form is due to him. He may possibly have summed up in a typical speech the characteristics of St. Paul's preaching before certain classes of hearers. Some details or illustrations may be due to him, such as the mention of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech, or that of Judas in Peter's first speech. But no theory which does not admit the possession of good evidence, and the acquaintance of the author with the events and persons that he is describing, is consistent with the phenomena of the speeches. They are too lifelike, real, varied, and adapted to their circumstances to be mere unsubstantial rhetorical exercises. x. SOURCES OF THE AC rs.Until recently, critics seem to have contented themselves with either vague indications of the sources of the Acts, or a complete denial of the possibility of discovering them, at any rate in the earlier portions (Weiz-sacker, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, Baur, Schwegler). Recently, however, the problem has been attacked by a number of scholars, mostly of inferior rank, who do not seem to have attained any success, and whose method is not likely to lead to any substantial results. Of these, Sorof considers that Timothy, the writer of the ' we' sections, has combined a genuine writing by St. Luke and a St. Peter source. According to Feine there was an original Jerusalem Christian source, which was used in the Gospels and extended to ch. 12 of the Acts, but which knew nothing of the missionary journeys of St. Paul. The latter portion is partly due to the Redactor (R), partly to other sources. Spitta distinguishes an A source, the work of Luke, which contains about two-thirds of the Acts, and is also used in the Gospel, and a B source of Jewish-Christian origin, which runs parallel with the first through the whole of the Acts. Van Manen distinguishes a third document, which contained, however, only the ' we' sections, and these very much edited, a Paul biography, and a Peter biography. The most elaborate theory is that of C. Clemen. He distinguishes an ' Urchristliche Predigt,' an ' Erste Gemeindegeschichte,' and ' Zweite Gemeindegeschichte,' and Historia Helleni- starum, which has been worked into an Historia Petri; this was combined with an Historia Pauli which included the ' we' sections (Itinerarium Pauli) by a R who was free from party bias, then came a Judaising R, and then an anti-Judaising R. Jiingst distinguishes an A source, apparently the work of St. Luke; a B source, the work of an anti-Judaiser and a R. It may be added, that both Clemen and Jiingst consider that the original sources have been very much rearranged by the different redactors, and the true sequence of events destroyed. A very few words are necessary concerning these theories. The statement of them is really a sufficient condemnation. There is no harmony in the results obtained; and the method is so a priori and unscientific that no result could be obtained. The unity of style of the book and its artistic completeness make any theory impossible which considers that it arose from piecing together bits of earlier writings. Somewhat more on right lines are the attempts of B. Weiss and Hilgenfeld, in the fact that they do not consider that more than one source is used in any separate passage. Weiss thinks there was one early history which contained an account of the early community, of Stephen, of Philip, of the journeys of Peter, of the council. Hilgenfeld has three sources, A Ac H5-512 S)31-^ 12i-*i, B Ac 6-8*, C 91-30 ll->; and both profess to be able to distinguish what is due to the source and what to the author, the method being for the most part absolutely arbitrary. A study of St. Luke's Gospel shows us that the work is quite certainly a literary whole proceeding from one author, that this author made use of materials partly written, partly probably oral, and that he reproduced them probably largely in his own style. If we compare a section from this Gospel with the parallel one from St. Mark, which clearly represents very nearly the original source, we shall find that the difference, although one not affecting the main sense, is of a character which would make it quite impossible to arrive at one document from the other. We may notice, again, that although there is a certain uniformity of style running through the whole Gospel, yet the character of the source used seems to a certain, although undefined, extent to have modified it. Now, in the Acts there is admittedly a certain difference in style between the earlier chapters and the later. The later, like the prologue to the Gospel and Acts and the ' we' sections, being written in a purer Greek style, the earlier being more Aramaic in character. Stated vaguely and generally, this is true, although no investigations have yet made it definite. The utmost it is at present safe to assert, is that there appears to be a difference in style in the earlier chapters, which suggests a written source. Starting from the conclusion that the author was St. Luke, we must ascribe to him the conception of the history as a whole, and presumably, therefore, all the framework which is part of that conception, the object of the author being to mark the stages in the progress of Christianity. For the whole of the last section, from 205 onwards, the author was either an eye-witness or in close contact with those who were such ; as also in the section 1610-40, and here we have the fullest and most detailed account. For all the remaining portions of St. Paul's journeys he could clearly have access to the very best information ; and it is to be noticed here that generally, although not invariably, the information is perfectly accurate, so far as it can be tested, but not so full as in the later sections. For the stories concerning Philip in the first part of the book it is not necessary to go beyond ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ADAH 35 personal information; there is no sign of great exactness of knowledge, and the incident recorded 218 will explain how that information was acquired. For the earlier history of St. Paul a source is not required; St. Luke had heard the story told at least twice, probably much oftener, and there is just that vagueness concerning chronology which is almost invariably the characteristic of information dependent upon oral tradition. Of some other sections it is difficult to speak definitely. For the council the author would be able to supplement information gained from St. Paul by information gained in Jeras. It has been hinted that there is probably a written source behind portions of the first five chapters; we cannot define its limits in these chapters, nor say whether or no, as is possible, it included some later narratives, such as those of St. Peter (93M118 and 121-23); it probably did not include chs. 6-7. No investigations have been made which authorise us to speak more certainly than this; but it has been suggested (see Blass on 1212-17) that these chapters had some connexion with St. Mark. It is doubtful whether any certain conclusions are possible, although a more scientific and more comprehensive study of the style of the Gospel and Acts may perhaps lead to some result. xi. CONCLUSION.It now only remains to sum up the conclusion of what, owing to the variations of opinion, has necessarily been a somewhat controversial article. 1. The Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are the work of the same person; and all tradition and argument suggest that the author was St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul. 2. He wrote the Gospel to describe as accurately as he could the life and preaching of Jesus; he wrote the Acts to describe the growth and spread of the Christian Church. 3. He had formed a clear idea in his mmd of the steps and course of this growth, and arranged his work so as to bring out these points. The object he had in view would influence him in the selection of his materials and the proportional importance he would ascribe to events; but it would be taking far too artificial a view of his work not to allow some influence to various less prominent ideas, and even to the accidental cause of the existence or non-existence of information on different points. The extent to which he carried out his purpose would be in some measure dependent on his opportunities. , 4 Although he had a definite aim, and constructed a history with an artistic unity, there is no reason for thinking that the history is therefore untrustworthy. He narrated events as he believed they happened, and he gives a thoroughly consistent history of the period over which it extends. 5. The exact degree of credibility and accuracy we can ascribe to him is dependent on his sources of information. From ch. 12 onwards his source was excellent; from ch. 20 onwards he was an eyewitness. For the previous period he could not in all cases attain the same degree of accuracy, yet he was personally acquainted with eye-witnesses throughout, and may very probably have had one or more written documents. In any case, his history from the very beginning shows a clear idea of historical perspective, and of the stages in the o-rowth of the community, even if certain characteristics of the primitive Church in Jerusalem have been exaggerated. Liteeatuke. - (1) The Text. - Besides the general works o Tischendorf, Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, the foUowing among other, special works may be mentioned :^J. D. Michae Us (furae in ier. Syr. Actorum Apost. 17o5; F. A. Borne mkrm.Aeta Apost. ad Cod, CantabAgiensisfidemrecmsmt 1848; Belsheim, Die Apostelgeschichte und. die Ofenbarun, Johannisln einer alien lateiniechen Vebersetzung, 18i9; S serger. La Palimpseste de Fleury, 1889; esrtr. de la Revue de heol. etphilos.; J. fiendel Harris, Study of Cod. Bezae Texts md Studies, II. i. 1891; P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der icta Apost. program of the Gymnasium of Schoenberg at irlin, 1892; W. Sanday, Guardian, 18th and 25th May 1892; H. Chase, Old Syr. Element in the Text of Cod. Bezae, 1898; <%. Blass, SK, 1894, p. 86, llermathena, xxi. p. 121, 1895; S. 3erger, Un Ancien lexte Latin des Actes des apdtres retrour^ lans un Manuscrit provenant de Perpignan; Tire des notices ' extraits, 1895. (2) Commentaries.  Chrysostom (ob. 407), Beda (fib. 785), Uvin (ob. 1564), Grotius (1644), Bengel (1742), Olshausen (1882, d. iv. by Ebrard, 1862), Meyer (1S85, ed. vii. by Wendt, 1888, Eng. tr. by Gloag and Dickson), de Wette (1888, ed. iv. by Overbeck, 1870), Alford (1849, ed. vl. 1668), Wordsworth (1857, ed. iv. 1887), Ewald, Die 8 ersten Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte 1871) Cookin the Speaker's Com. (1881), Nosgen (1882), Lnthardt and Ziickler in Strack and Zflckler's Kom. (1886, ed. ii. 1894), T. E. Page (1886), Holtzmann in Hand-kominentar eum. Neuen Testament(lS92); Blass, Ada Apost. sine Lucae ad TheoplMum liber alter (1895); Kendall. Acts of Apostles (1897). (8) General Introductions.-S. Davidson (1848-51, and again, from a different point of view, 1868, ed. iii. 1894), Reuss (1860), F Bleek (1864. Eng. tr. 1869), Ad. Hilgenfeld (1875), H. J. Boltzmann (1885, ed. iii. 1892), G. Salmon (1885, ed. vii. 1894), B. Weiss (1886, Eng. tr. 1888). (4) Special Treatises on the Acts.John Lightfoot, Hebrew md Talmudical Exer citations on the Acts of the Apostles (1678)- Paley, Horae Paulinae (1770, ed. by Birks 1850); Zeller, Die Aposte'lgescliichte (1854, Eng. tr. 1875); J. B. Lightfoot, Galatfans 1866, pp. 81 f., 88 f., 109 f., 276 f.; Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. (1877); J. B. Lightfoot in Smith's DB* i. 25. (5) Works on Early Church History.Neander, Pflanzung und Leilung (1882, ed. v. 1862, Eng. tr. 1842, 1846); Baur, Paulus (1845); Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, ed. ii. (1866); Eltschl, Die Entstehung der Altlcatholischen Kirche (ed. ii. 1857)- Lechler. Das Apostolische und'NachapostolUche Zeit-alter (1857, ed. ii. 1885, Eng. tr. 1886); Ewald, Gesch. des Apost. Zeitallers (Eng. tr. History of Israel, vol. vi.); Kenan, Les 1882): ljewln. j,ire ana -nptsue*iy ,ot. x uuv\lv\i.), i v^w^r.^, Das Apostolisch'e Zeitalter (1886, 2nd ed. 1892, Eng. tr. 1894); Pflelderer Urchristentliwn- (1887); Ramsay, The Church wi the Mom. Empire (1898); Hort, Judaistic Christianity (1894); Ramsay St Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895). (6) Monographs on Special Points. James Smith, Voyage amI Shipwreck of St. Paul (1848, ed. iv. 1880); JB Lightfoot, Essays fm 'Supernatural Religion,' pp. 291-802, Discoveries illustrating the Acts of the Apostles (1889); J. Fried"!*, Das Lukas-Evan gelium und dieApostelgeschich te Werke desselbm rerfassers (1890); Th. Mommsen nnd Ad. Harnack, ZurApos-telmschichte,xxviii.l6;SitimngsbericMederkmiffhchPreu8-sischen Akademie der Wissenschaft su Berlin, p. 491 (1895). (7) The Acts and Jos. (see Carl Clemen, Die Chronologie der PauUnisehen Briefe, p. 66, n. 58); Keim, Geschichte Jem von Wazara iii pp. 184, 480 (1872), and 'Jos. im Neuen Testament 'in Ausdem Urchristenthum, i. p. 1 (1878); Holtzmann, Z fur W. Th. 1878, p. 85,1877, p. 685; Krenkel, ib. 1878, p. 441; Schiirer, ib. 1876, p. 574; The author of' Supernatural Religion, Fortnightly Review, xxii. p. 496, 1877; Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, Leipzig, 1894; Bousset in Theol. LiUg. 1896, col. 891. (8) Sourees^-Sorof, Die Entstehung der Apostelgeseh. 1890 \ Feine Einevorkanon. UberlieferungdesLukasinEvang.und Aoosleluesch. 1891; Spitta, Die Apostelgesch. ihre Quellen PI derm geschichtlicher Wert (Ml); van Manen, Paulus I., uie Ilandelinrier der Aposteln (1890); C. Clemen, LHe Chronologie der PauUnisehen Briefe (1898), and SK (1895, p.,297); Johann Jungst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte (1896); Ad. Hilgenfeld, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellensehnflen untersuehl, Z.fur W. Th. 1895, pp. 66 186 884^481. A. C. rLEADLAM. ACUB (B 'Akov^, A 'AKoCfj.), 1 Es 531.His sons were among the 'temple servants' who returned with Zerub. Called Bakbuk, Ezr 2, Neh 763. ACUD CAKoiS, AV Acna), 1 Es 58".His sons were among the 'temple servants' who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub (J-V1= ' cunning'), Ezr 245; omitted in Neh 7. AD AD AH (n7F."-), Jos 1522A city of Judah in the Negeb. The site may be at the ruin 'Ad'adah in the desert south-east of Beersheba. ADAH (n""')'! One of the two wives of Lamech, and mother'of Jabal and Jubal (Gn 4^-^). The name possibly denoted ' brightness' (of. Arab. ghadat), Cain's other wife being named 'Zillah,' or ' Shadow,' ' Darkness.' These names have been cited to support the view of the mythological basis of the Genesis narrative. But the name may simply denote ' adornment' (Lenormant, Les Origines, p. 18.3 f.). According to Jos. {Ant. i. ii. 2) Lamech 36 ADAIAH ADAM had 77 sons born to him of Adah and Zillah. 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives of Esau (Gn 36J) ; mother of Eliphaz, and ancestress of Edomite tribes, Teman, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Amalek. In Gn 26s4 (P) the daughter of Elon the Hittite, whom Esau takes to wife, is named Basemath. The names in Gn 36 have suffered in the process of redaction, and this may account for the confusion. Jos. {Ant. II. i. 2), though mentioning Esau's age, and therefore referring to Gn 2634, gives Adah and Oholibamah ('AXtjSdfM)) as the names of Esau's wives. For a discussion on the name, see Baethgen's Beitrage, p. 149. H. E. RYLE. ADAIAH (n^s; 'Jehovah has adorned').1. A man of Boscath, the maternal grandfather of king Josiah, 2 K. 221. 2. A Levite descended from Gershom, 1 Ch 641, called Iddo in v.21. 3. A son of Shimei (in v.13 Shema) the Benjamite, 1 Ch 821. i. The son of Jeroham, a priest, and head of a family in Jerusalem, 1 Ch 9la. 5. The father of Maaseiah, a captain who helped Jehoiada to overthrow the usurpation of Athaliah, and set Joash on the throne, 2 Ch 231. 6. One of the family of Bani, who took a strange wife during the Exile, Ezr 102*. 7. Another of a different family of Bani, who had committed the same offence, Ezr 1039. 8. A descendant of Judah by Pharez, Neh II6. 9. A Levite of the family of Aaron; probably the same as (4), Neh II12. R. M. Boyd. ADALIA (k;?"!, Est 9s), the fifth of the sons of Haman, put to death by the Jews. In the LXX the name is different, and the MSS vary between B, BaptX K A, Ba/>ed. H. A. WHITE. ADAM. i. Name. The word dii< is originally a common noun, denoting either a human being, Gn 25; or (rarely) a man as opposed to a woman, Gn 222; or mankind collectively, Gn I28. The root dim is variously explained as (a) make, produce, by analogy with the Assyr. addmu (Delitzsch, Assyr. Wbrterbuch; Oxf. Heb. Lex.). Man, therefore, as adam, is one made ox produced, a creature, or possibly a maker or producer; (j) to be red, a sense in which the root frequently occurs in Heb., e.g. the account of Edom in Gn 2530, and is also found in Arab, and Eth. and (?) in Assyr. This etymology would point to the term having originated among men of a red or ruddy race. Gesenius notes in support of this view that the men on Egyp. monuments are constantly represented as red. Dillmann on Gn 1. 2 also suggests a connexion with (c) an Eth. root = pleasant, well-formed, or (rf) an Arab. root = o attach oneself, and so gregarious, sociable. It has also been suggested that adam is a derivative from adamah, ground, and describes man as earth-born, ynyev/is. The statement of Gn 27, that man was formed from the dust of the adamah, indicates that this connexion was in the mind of the writer, but it can hardly be the original etymology. It is significant that A., as a term for man or mankind, is by no means universal in Sem. languages. It occurs in Phoenician and Sabseari, possibly in Assyr. (so Sayce, Gram. p. 2, and according to HCM, p. 104, is the common Bab. word for man; cf. Del. Assyr. Worterbuch). Of course the name A. has been adopted by all Sem. translations. It is possible that Edom is a dialectic variety of A. li. Adam as Common and Proper Noun.The first man is necessarily the man, and in his case the generic term is equivalent to a proper name. In use, adam naturally fluctuates between a common and proper noun. Thus in P's account of the Creation, Gn lMJ4", he describes the creation of t"!, mankind, ii both sexes; but in his first genealogy, Gn 51"4, cn is used as a proper name. J gives an account of the Creation, Fall, etc., of nn^ri ' the man' (in 3S1 qik^ ' to the man,' should be read instead of dis^ 'to Adam'), and in 4s5 uses tp* without the article as a proper name. iii. The Narratives concerning Adam. P, in Gn I1"24a by itself, simply describes the creation of the human species, as of the other species of living creatures, and says nothing of any particular individuals. But it is only in the case of man that the two sexes are specified, and Dillmann maintains that napji 121 is not to be taken collectively, 'male and female,' but as 'a male and a female, i.e. the first pair.' Gn 5l"s, which is possibly from a different stratum of P, shows that the individual Adam, the ancestor of the nations mentioned in OT, and especially of Israel, is in some way identified with the human species, whose creation is described in Gn 1. This identification seems to imply that the human species originally consisted of a single pair; but P does not definitely commit himself to this position. Man is created last of all things on the same (sixth) day as the beasts, but by a separate act of creation and in the image of God; he receives a special blessing, according to which he is given dominion over the earth and its inhabitants, and the vegetable creation is assigned to him, to provide him with food. While it is expressly said of the light, the heavens, earth, and seas, the vegetable world, the heavenly bodies, the birds, fish, and other animals, that God saw that they were good, this is not separately stated concerning man, but is left to be inferred from the general statement that God saw that everything He had made was very good. In J, Gn 24b-4M, while the earth is still a lifeless waste, the man is created out of the dust, and Jehovah animates him by breathing into his nostrils. He is set to take care of the garden of Eden, and is allowed to eat freely of its fruit, except the fruit of ' the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' The animals are created as his companions and assistants; but these proving inadequate, the woman Eve is fashioned from his rib as he lies in a deep sleep. They live in childlike innocence till Eve is tempted by the Serpent, and Adam by Eve, to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whereupon they become conscious of sin. Yet they have become like the Elohim, and might eat of the tree of life and become immortal. Hence they are cursed, and driven out of Eden. Man, henceforth, is to win his sustenance with grievous toil from soil which, for his sake, has been cursed with barrenness. The only later OT reference to Adam is at the head of the genealogies in 1 Ch; in Dt 328 and Job 3133 adam is a common noun. iv. Significance of the Narratives. In both narratives man is sharply marked off as a created being from God the Creator ; and is not connected with Him by a chain of inferior gods, demigods, and heroes, as in the Egyp., Assyr., and Cliald. dynasties, and in other mythologies. Yet man has a certain community of nature with God; he is made in II is image (P), and receives his life from the breath of Jehovah (J). Similarly, man's connexion with the animals is implied by his creation on the same day, his separate status by a distinct act of creation. He is lord of all things, animate and inanimate, the crown of creation (P). So, in J, the animals are made for his benefit; and the garden, with certain limitations, is at his disposal. Woman is also secondary and subordinate to man, and the cause of his ruin, but of identical nature. The formation of a single woman for the man implies monogamy. Man is capable of immediate fellowship with God. Sin is not inherent in man, but suggested from without; it is at once followed by stern punishment, which extends not only to ADAM ADAM, BOOKS OF the human race, but to animate and inanimate nature. Compare Eve ; and, specially for the Babylonian and other parallels to the Biblical narrative, Cosmogony, Eden. W. H. Bennett. ADAH IN THE NT.Adam is twice mentioned in the NT in a merely historical fashion ; in Jude v.14, where we read of 'Enoch the seventh from A.,' and in Lk 3m, where the genealogy of Jesus is traced up to him, and A. himself is ' the son of God.' The extension of the genealogy beyond David or Abraham (as in Mt) is no doubt due to the univer-salist sympathy of the Pauline evangelist. There are two other passages in which reference is made to the OT story of the first man, with a view to regulating certain questions about the relations of men and women, esp. in public worship. The first is 1 Co 11'-, the other 1 Ti 2at: The use made of A. in these passages may strike a modern reader as not very conclusive; it has the form rather than the power of what may have suggested itthe similar use of part of the OT story by Jesus to establish the true law of marriage (Mt 19-"-, comp. Gn 2a). Much more significant than these almost incidental references is the place occupied by A. in the theology of St. Paul (Ro 512'21, 1 Co 1522- 45-49). The apostle institutes a formal comparison and contrast between A. and Christ. 'As in A. all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' ' As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned ' : so, though the sentence is not formally completed (Ro 512), righteousness entered into the world by one man, and life by righteousness. ' The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second man is of heaven. . . . And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' In some sense A. and Christ answer to each other; each is the head of humanity, the one to its condemnation and death, the other to its justification and life. Yet it would be a mistake to put what St. Paul says about A. on a footing with what he says about Christ. He has experience to go upon m the case of Christ; his gospel concerning Him has a certainty and scope of its own quite independent of the harmony he finds in some points between the mode of man's redemption and that of his ruin. Of the two passages referred to above, it may be said that the one in Ro deals directly with the work of A. and of Christ, and its effects upon men; the one in 1 Co, with the nature of A. and of Christ, as related respectively to the actual and the ideal condition of man. All we are told of A. is that he sinned (irapdirru/ia, Ro 515, implies the fall), and that his sin involved the world in death. In such a statement there is obviously a link wanting to an ethical interpretation : is it supplied in the difficult words l 2 Mac 1536, Est 10131361620).The 12th month in the later Jewish Calendar. See Time. ADASA {'ASao-d).~A town near Bethhoron (1 Mac 740-48, Jos. Ant. xil. x. 5), now the ruin 'Adaseh near Gibeon. SPW vol. iii. sh. xvii. "ADBEEL (Hqrjs), the third son of Ishmael, Gn 2513, 1 Ch I29, eponym of the N. Arab, tribe, which appears in cuneiform inscrip. as Idiba'il or Idibi'al, and which had its settlements S.W. of the Dead Sea (Sayce, HCM 202; Schrader, RAT* 148 ; Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v.). J. A. Selbie. ADDAN (RB, 'KBaXap A, [Xapa]a0aXa B, 1 Es &"_).Certain of the inhabitants of this place joined the body of the returning exiles in the time of Zerubbabel, but they were unable to prove their true Tsr. descent by showing to what great clan or family they belonged (Ezr 259). Probably they were not admitted to the privileges of full citizenship. The name does not appear in the later lists in Ezr 10, Neh 10. Some regard Cherub Addan as one name; v.60 suggests that Cherub, Addan, and Immer were three villages in one district in Babylon, from which the family of Nekoda same. In Neh 761 the name appears as Addon. H. A. White. ADDAS, 1 Ch 83.See Ard. ADDAR, AV Adar (-nx), Jos 15s.A town on the border of Judah south of Beersheba. There is a ruin east of Gaza which bears the name 'Adar, but this seems perhaps too far west. C. R. CONDER, ADDER.See Serpent. ADDI ('ASSeJ).An ancestor of Jesus Christ, Lk Zw. See Genealogy. ADDICT.' To a. oneself to,' now used only in a bad sense, was formerly neutral, and is found in a good sense in 1 Co 1616 ' they have a. themselves to the ministry of the saints' (RV ' 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. ADDO {A'ASS i 'Ao-wvaos).__ The Ker& is clearly an attempt tp introduce some sense into the meaningless Kethibh. The present Heb. text of 2 S 23" must be corrupt, the true reading being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Ch II11 ' Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, he lifted up his spear.' The last clause (imn nn vny Kin) was corrupted into i:syn lrip tan, and then taken erroneously as a proper name, being treated as an alternative to the preceding ' Josheb-basshebeth, a Tahchemonite' (see Jashobeam). B has the addition ofiros io~ir4.o-a.TO rty pofupatav atfroO ; but this is not found in A, and is, as Wellhausen has pointed out, derived from the LXX tr. of Ch (cf. 2 S 2318, where B renders the same words by ^ij-yeipe t6 86pu outoO). J. F. Stenning. ADINU (A 'A6r>s, B 'ASefXios, AV Adin), 1 Es 5", called Adin (A 'ASlv, B 'ASelv), 1 Es 8s2.His descendants returned with Zerubbabel to the number of 454 (1 Es 514, Ezr 215) or 655 (Neh 720). A second party of 51 (Ezr 8) or 251 (1 Es 8sa) accompanied Ezra. They are mentioned among ' the chiefs of the people who joined Neh. in a covenant to separate themselves from the heathen (Neh 1018). H. St. J. Thackeray. ADITHAIM (b:o-W.), Jos 1536.A town of Judah in the Shephelah. The site is unknown. C. R. CONDEB. ADJUKh ADONIJAH ADJURE.The primitive meaning of a. (from late Lat. adjurare) is to put under oath. This is its meaning in Jos 626' And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man' (KV ' charged them with an oath'), and 1 S 1424 ' Saul had a" the people, saying, Cursed be the man.' Cf. v.28 'thy father straitly charged the people with an oath.' But the word is also used in early writers in the sense of to charge solemnly, without the actual administration of an oath. Thus Caxton (1483):' Raguel desired and adjured Thobie that he shold abyde with hym.' This is the meaning of a. in the other places of the Bible where it is found (1 K 22", 2 Ch 1815, Mt 26s1, Mk 57, Ac 19IS). RV gives 'a.' (for AV 'charge,' Heb. jw) at Ca 27 358- 84, and at 1 Th 5" (Gr. evopdta). Adjuration (not in AV) is found in RV at Lv 51 (n^t AV 'swearing') and Pr 29* (n?*, AV cursing'). See Oath. J. Hastings. ADLAI ('^jb, 'ASai), the father of Shaphat, one of David's herdsmen, 1 Ch 27a>. ADMAH (n=-i8t), 'red lands,' Gn 101B 142-8, Dt 2933, Hos 11s.One of the cities of the Cieear or ' Round.' It is not noticed as overthrown in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19), but is included in their catastrophe in the two later passages. The site is unknown. It might be the same as the city Adam, which see. C. R. Condek. ADMATHA (Nfis-itf, Est 1M), one of the wise men or counsellors of Ahasuerus. These seven royal advisers (cf. Ezr 714), who were granted admission to the king's presence, and saw his face (cf. 2 K 2518), are perhaps to be compared rather with the supreme Persian judges (Herod, iii. 31) than with the representatives of the six families which took part with Darius against the pseudo - Smerdis (Herod, iii. 84). The name is possibly Persian, adm&ta=' unrestrained.' In the LXX only three names are given. H. A. White. ADMINISTRATION in the general sense of service is now obsolete. But it is found 1 Co 125' there are differences of administrations' (i.e. different kinds- of Christian service, RV ' ministrations,' the Bheims NT word). In 2 Co 912, though the Gr. is the same (dmicovla, sing.), the meaning is not service generally, but the performance of service (RVagain 'ministration' from Geneva Bible). J. Hastings. ADMIRE, ADMIRATION.These words occur in AV as the expression of simple wonder, without including approbation. 2 Th I10 'When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired (RV 'marvelled at') in all them that believe'; Jude v.16 ' having men's persons in admiration' (Gr. Sav/M^ovres wpoauva, RV ' showing respect of persons'); Rev 17 'When I saw her, I wondered with great a.' (RV ' with a great wonder'). Compare the version in metre of Ps 105* ' Remember his marvellous works that he hath done,' is rendered Think on the works that he hath done, Which admiration breed.' J. Hastings. ADNA (trfis 'pleasure').1. A contemporary of Ezra, who married a foreign wife (Ezr 1CP). 2. The head of the priestly house of Harim in the time of the high priest Joiakim, the son of Jeshua (Neh 1215). H. A. White. ADNAH.i. (nj-is) A Manassite officer of Saul who deseroed to David at Ziklag (1 CJi 1220). 2. (npu) An officer in Jehoshaphat's army (2 Ch 1714). J. A. Selbie. ADO.Mk 539 'Why mako ye this ado?' (RV ' Why make ye a tumult ?'). The older form is at do, where ' at' is the prep, before the infin., found chiefly in northern Eng. and supposed to come from the Scandinavian. ' We have other things at do,' Tovmeley Mysteries, p. 181. ' At do' was contracted into ' ado,' and then looked upon as a subst. Cf. Shaks. Tarn. ofShr. V. 1 ' Let's follow, to see the end of this ado.' Wliile throwing it out of Mk 5s9, the RV introduces ' ado' into Ac 201* ' Make ye no ado (AV ' Trouble not yourselves'), for his life is in him,' though the Gr. (8opvfleur$e) is the same in both places. J. Hastings. ADONIBEZEK (p# tin).The name as it stands in Jg I6"7 must mean, Bezek (an otherwise unknown deity) is my lord. Tiie town of Bezek (which see) will then also have taken its name from that of the god. The chief of a Can. kingdom in S. Pal., he was defeated by the tribe of Judah, taken prisoner, and mutilated by having his thumbs and great toes cut oft*. His boast was that he had similarly treated seventy kings. The mutilation was intended, wliile preserving the captive as a trophy, to render him incapable of mischief. According to Plutarch (Life of Lys.), the Athenians decreed that every prisoner of war should lose his thumbs, so that while fit to row he should be unfit to handle spear. Hannibal is accused (Valer. Max. ix. 2, ext. 2) of mutilating prisoners, 'primapedum parte succisa.' These may be slanders, but they prove how conceivable such mutilation was even then, and what was its object at all times. A. C. Welch. ADONIJAH (fisjig).1. The name of the fourth son of David (2'S:3J, 1 Ch 32). After the death of Absalom, Adonijah, who was next in order of birth, naturally regarded himself as the heir to the throne. His expectation was doubtless shared by the nation, and seems to have been for a time encouraged by his father. The situation had been altered, however, by the introduction of Bath-sheba into the royal harem, and by the birth of Solomon. The influence and the ambition of this latest of David's queens rendered it certain that Adonijah would encounter a dangerous rival in his younger brother. It was probably his knowledge that intrigues against his interests were being carried on in the harem that led to the premature and ill-starred attempt of Adonijah to seize the crown before his father's death. The narrative (1 K 1 and 2) is from the same pen as the section in 2 S which contains the story of Absalom's rebellion, and is evidently the work of one who had access to trustworthy sources of information. There are several features of resemblance between the two narratives; and the two chief actors therein, Absalom and Adonijah, seem to have resembled one another in disposition and even in bodily characteristics (cf. 1 K I5*6 with 2 S 1425 151). At first Adonijah s enterprise seemed likely to be crowned with success. He attached to his cause such important and influential supporters as Joab the commander-in-chief, and Abiathar the priest. In company with these and many members of the royal family and the king's house, Adonijah held a great feast at En-Rogel, where the final arrangements were to be made for his coronation. But he had reckoned without his host. One whom he had not invited to the banquet was destined to checkmate the conspirators ere their plans were matured. Nathan the prophet seems to have occupied much the same position at the court of David as Isaiah afterwards held at that of Hezekiah. Seeing that not a moment was to be lost, Nathan hastened to Bath- 40 ADONIKAM ADOPTION sheba, whose fears he easily awakened by pointing out the danger to which her own life and that of Solomon would be exposed if the attempt of Adonijah should succeed. Bathsheba, who seems to have already obtained from David a promise that Solomon should succeed him on the throne, immediately sought an interview with the aged king, and informed him of what was transpiring at En-Rogel; while Nathan, in accordance with a prearranged plan, came in opportunely to confirm her story. The prophet-counsellor played his part with consummate skill, notably when (1 K la7) he expressed surprise that the king, if he had sanctioned the action of Adonijah, had not taken his old friends and counsellors into his conlidence. Yielding to the representations of the queen and the prophet, David renewed his oath to Bathsheba in favour of her son, and took prompt measures to secure the accession of the latter. At such a juncture the support of the royal bodyguard was all-important, and fortunately their ioyalty was beyond suspicion. Their commander was ordered by David to escort the youthful Solomon, mounted upon his father's mule, to Gihon, and to have him anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the_ prophet. This commission was executed amidst the enthusiasm of the people, who rent the air with shouts of ' God save King Solomon !' The unwonted noise reached the ears of Adonijah's guests at En-Rogel, causing astonishment, which passed into consternation when Jonathan the son of Abiathar hurried in with the news that David had chosen Solomon to succeed him. The company broke up in confusion, and Adonijah himself was so much alarmed that he fled for protection to the altar. Solomon, however, agreed to spare his life on condition of future loyalty. If Adonijah displayed no conspicuous wisdom in his attempt to seize the crown, his next act, which cost him his life, is hard to explain, except on the principle, Quern Dcus milt perdere prius dementat. After the death of his father he actually requested Solomon to bestow upon him in marriage Abishag the Shunammite, the maiden who had attended upon David during his declining years. And as advocate for him in this delicate matter he chose Bathsheba! No one who is acquainted with the notions of Eastern courts can wonder at the resentment of Solomon, or that he construed this request as an act of treason. Considering the relation in which Abishag had stood to David, the people would certainly infer that Adonijah in taking her for his wife still asserted his right to the crown. (Compare the story of Abner and Ishbosheth in 2 S 3', and of Absalom in 2 S 1621.) Speedily was sentence pronounced, ' Adonijah hath spoken this word against his own life; surely he shall be put to death this day'; and the sentence was immediately executed by the captain of the guard. 2. One of the Levites who, according to the Chronicler, was sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 178). 3. One of the 'chiefs of the people' who sealed the covenant (Nell 1016). Same as Adonikam (Ezr 213 813, Neh 718). J. A. Sklme. ADONIKAM (np-iis 'my Lord has arisen') Ezr 213 813, Neh 718, 1 Es 514 8s9. The head of a Jewish family after the Exile ; in Neh 1016 Adonijah. H. A. White. ADONIRAM, ADORAM (0-vjhs, dti)._The latter name occurs 2 S 2024, 1 K 12", and is probably a corruption of Adoniram. The LXX supports this view, reading ' ASuveipa/i, 2 S 2024,1 K 4* 5IJ (Heb otiik), 1 K 12"! (15 'Ape,*, A 'ASwrnparf, and in the parallel 2 Ch 1018 'ASwj-etpa^ (Heb. D-riq, Hadoram). A. was 'over the levy,' that is, he superintended the levies employed in the public works during the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. He waa stoned to death by the rebellious Isr. when sent to them by Rehoboam (1 K 121S). J. F. Stenning. ADONIS.Strictly not a name but a title, [iiy 'Ad6n, ' Lord,' of the god Tammuz (which see). Is 1710 RVra ' plantings of Adonis' (d'J^^j i/ai nit'S ndumnntm, text 'pleasant plants') and the setting of ' vine slips of a stranger' (strange god), is mentioned as the result of having 'forgotten the God of thy salvation.' So Ewald, Lagarde, Cheyne. With ' plantings of Adonis,' cf. the Gr. 'A8tbi>t.8os KTJirot, quick-growing plants reared in pots or baskets (Plato, Phcedr. 276 B), and offered to Aphrodite as emblems of her lover's beauty and early death (Theocr. 15. 113). The meaning of na'amdnim is, however, doubtful Na'aman is probably the name ofa god; cf. the name of the Syrian general (2 K 51), and Ar. Nu'man, a king's name (Tebrizt's scholia to Ham&sa). The river Belus is now called Nahr Na'am&n. Lagarde (Sem. i. 32) quotes Arab, name of the red anemone, Shaka'iku-n-Nu'm&n, explaining as 'the wound of Adonis'; but see Wellhausen, Skizzcn, iii. p. 7. C. F. Burner. ADONI-ZEDEK (pnx 'fig ' Lord of righteousness,' AV Adoni-zedec), king of Jerusalem at the time of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. After the Gibeonites had succeeded in making a league with Israel, he induced four other kings, those of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, to unite with him against the invaders. First they attacked, as traitors to the common cause, the Gibeonites, who appealed to Joshua for help. By a rapid night march from Gilgal, Joshua came unexpectedly upon the allied kings, and utterly routed them [Joshua, Beth-moron]. Adoni-zedek and his associates sought refuge in a cave at Makkedah, but were taken and brought before Joshua. The Heb. chiefs set their feet upon their necks in token of triumph. They were then slain, and their bodies hung up until the evening, when they were taken down and flung into the cave where they had hid themselves, the mouth of which was filled up with great stones (Jos 101"-7). In Jos 103'- LXX reads 'A6uvtp4fcK, and some have identified the latter with Adonibezek of Jg I5. (See Kittel, Hist, of Heb. i. 307 ; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 63 f.; Wellh. Einleit* [Bleek] 182.) R. M. Boyd. ADOPTION (vloBeala) is a word used by St. Paul to designate the privilege of sonship bestowed by God on His people. While Jesus Himself and the New Testament writers all speak frequently and emphatically of our blessings and duties as sons or children of God, no other of them employs this special term, which occurs in five places in the Epistles of St. Paul (Gal 45, Ro 815- ffl 94, Eph I5). It seems to express a distinct and definite idea in that apostle s mind; and since adoption was, in Roman law, a technical term for an act that had specific legal and social effects, there is much probability that he had some reference to that in his use of the word. The Romans maintained in a very extreme way the rights of fathers over their children as practically despotic; and these did not cease when the sons came of age, or had families of their own, but while the father lived could only be terminated by certain legal proceedings, analogous to those by which slaves were sold or redeemed. The same term {mnnri-patio) was applied to a process of this kind, whether a man parted with his son, or his slave, or his goods. Hence a man could not be transferred from one family to another, or put into the position of a son to any Roman citizen, without a formal legal act, which was a quasi sale by his natural father, and buying out by the person who adopted ADOPTION ADOPTION him. If he was not in the power of a natural father, but independent (sui juris), as, e.g., if his father were dead, then he could only be put in the place of son to another by a solemn act of the sovereign people assembled in their religious capacity (comitia euriala). For each family had its own religious rites, and he must be freed by public authority from the obligation to fulfil those of one, and taken bound to observe those of another. That transaction was, however, properly called arrogatio, while adoptio strictly denoted the taking, by one man, of a son of another to be his son. This, though not requiring an act of legislation, had to be regularly attested by witnesses ; and in old form one struck a pair of scales with a piece of copper as an emblem of the primitive process of sale. Adoption, when thus legally performed, put a man in every respect in the position of a son by birth of him who had adopted him, so that he possessed the same rights and owed the same obligations. No such legal and complete transference of filial rights and duties seems to have existed in the law of Israel; though there may have been many cases of the informal adoption known among us, as when Mordecai took the orphan Esther, his uncle's daughter, to be his (Est 27). The failure of heirs was provided for by the levirate law. Now, since St. Paul represents the Christian's adoption as carrying with it certain definite privileges which would not be involved in such an act as Mordecai's, and since he may well have been acquainted with the Roman practice in this matter, it seems probable that he may have had it in view. (See Dr. W. E. Ball'in Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1891). The earliest instance of his use of the word is in his Epistle to the Galatians, in a passage in which several names of human relations are used to illustrate those between God and man, and where the apostle expressly says, ' I speak after the manner of men' (3"), i.e. I use a human analogy to make my argument plain. The term that he first employs after this remark is that rendered covenant, or testament {SiaB^Kii), here probably in the general sense of disposition, without emphasis on the peculiarities either of a covenant or of a testament. In virtue of this disposition, which was one of promise, given to Abraham and his seed, the blessing comes to all who are united to Christ by faith; for the promise, St. Paul argues, was not to the physical descendants of the patriarch as a multitude, but to a unity, the one Messiah, who was to gather all nations to Himself. According to this disposition of God, believers are sons and heirs (3**). But before their faith in Christ they were kept in ward under the law, which was not intended to add a condition to the covenant of promise, but to bring their latent sin to a head in transgressions (319), so that they might not seek to be justified by works, but might accept the blessing as of God's free grace through Christ, who became a curse for us that He might redeem us from the curse of the law (31S- 23'24). This seems to be clearly the general line of the argument. But the position of men under the law appears to be represented by St. Paul in two different ways, sometimes as bond-servants under the curse (31U-13 47-8), and sometimes as children under ago (41'3). The explanation of this may be found in the consideration that St. Paul never ineant to deny that Abraham, David, and other believers in OT times were really justified (see Ko 41"8); while as many as were of the works of the law were under the curse. The former were like children under age, not yet enjoying the full privileges of sonship ; the latter were like bond-servants. To both alike the blessing brought by Christ in the fulness of the time is called adoption (Gal 45), and this seems to indicate that St. Paul holds the sonship, of which he is speaking, to be founded on the covenant promise of God, and not on the natural relation to God of all men as such. We must not therefore lower the meaning of adoption, in his mind, to the conferring of the full privileges of sons on those who are children by birth. It is, as the whole context shows, a position bestowed by a disposition or covenant of God, and through a redemption by Christ. This probably led St. Paul to the use of the word ; for the Roman adoption was effected by a legal act, which involved a quasi buying-out. He also plainly regards it as like the adoption of Roman law in this, that it gives not merely paternal care, but the complete rignts of sonsliip, the gift of the Spirit of Gods Son, and the inheritance. No doubt this legal analogy may be pressed too far ; and St. Paul plainly indicates that what he means is really something far deeper; for it is founded upon a spiritual union to God's Son, which is described as 'putting on Christ' (327); so that our adoption is not a mere formal or legal act, though it may be compared to such in respect of its authoritative and abiding nature. Some theologians of different schools {e.g. Turretin, Schleiermacher) have inferred from the connexion between redemption and adoption, in Gal 45, that adoption is the positive part of the complete blessing of justification, of which redemption or forgiveness is the negative part. But this is a very precarious inference; and the two terms are so different in their meaning, that it is far more probable that St. Paul meant by adoption a blessing distinct from our having peace with God and access into His favour, which he describes in Ro 51 as the positive fruits of our justification. These blessings, indeed, cannot be separated in reality; they are only different aspects of the one great gift of life in Christ ; but in order to understand clearly the evangelical doctrine of the NT, it is necessary to look at them separately. The next place where St. Paul speaks about adoption is in Ro 815-23. Here he is speaking of the believer's new walk of holiness, and he has said, ' If by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live' (813). In proof of this he asserts that ' as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God' (814); and then he proves this in turn by saying, ' Ye received not the (or, a) spirit of bondage again unto fear, but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.' The line of reasoning is the same as in Galatians, but put in the inverse order. The promise of life is proved by the fact of our being sons of God j and that, again,because the spirit that He has given us is that of adoption, enabling us to address God as our Father, and so (818) witnessing with our spirit that we are children of God. In this possibly there may be some allusion to the witnesses which were necessary to the solemn act of adoption according to Koman law and custom. Then, as in the earlier Epistle, it is stated that this adoption carries with it all the rights of true son-ship, ' If children, then heirs,' etc. (817). St. I'aul next proceeds to contrast this glorious prospect with the present sufferings of the people of Clod. These sufferings are shared by all creation; and the deliverance is to Jbe at the revealing of the sons of God (81"), when creation itself shall share the liberty of the glory of the sons of God (831). So in 8s3 he says, ' we wait for our adoption, the redemption of our body.' It is the resurrection of life at the coming of the Lord that is undoubtedly meant; and that is called here the adoption, because it will lie the full revelation of our sonship. Now are we sons of God, as St. John puts it; but the world knmveth us not, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but when it shall 42 ADORA ADORATION appear, we shall be like Him (1 Jn 3l"s). Another staking parallel is to be found in our Lord's words, as recorded by St. Luke (20s5-S6), of those that are accounted worthy to attain to the resurrection from the dead, ' Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' As salvation is sometimes spoken of as a thing perfect here and now, and sometimes as only to be completed at the last, so St. Paul speaks of adoption. It belongs to the believer really and certainly now, but perfectly only at the resurrection. In Bo 94 St. Paul mentions 'the adoption' first among the privileges of Israel, which he there enumerates. This is in accordance with the fact that the nation as a whole is called in the OT God's son, and individual members of it His children, sons and daughters. The term implies further, what is also taught in OT, that they had this relation, not through physical descent or creation, but by an act of gracious love- on God's part. And in 97-8, St. P,aul teaches that not all the children of Abraham and Jacob are children of God, but they who are of the promise, i.e., as he put it before, they who accept the promise by faith. It is not necessary to suppose that St. Paul speaks here of another adoption, quite distinct from the Christian one; it is, indeed, an earlier and less perfect phase of it, but he regards it as essentially the same ; since the gospel was preached before to Abraham, and justihcation, though founded on the actual redemption of Christ, was by anticipation applied to him and many others before Christ came. The last place where St. Paul uses the term adoption is Eph I5, where he says that God eternally foreordained believers unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself. This refers to the eternal purpose, in accordance with which God does all His works in time, and corresponds to what he had said in Ro 8P>, that ' whom He foreknew He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.' The conformity here mentioned probably includes moral likeness; but the ultimate end is stated to be that there might be many brethren of Christ, among whom He is the firstborn. Our Lord, according to St. Paul, is, in a peculiar sense, God's Son, His own proper Son, begotten before all creation (Col 1IS), and the grace of adoption makes believers truly His brethren and joint-heirs with Him, though He has ever and in all things the pre-eminence as Son of God from eternity, by nature and not merely by grace. For a fuller account of the Biblical doctrine of Divine Sonship, see God, Sons of ; Children op. I.rriniATrRK.Comm. on the Pauline Epp. by Calvin, Meyer, Alfoni, Ellieott, Lightfoot, Sanday-Headlam; works on NT Theology hy Schmid, Weiss, Beyschlag, Bovon; studies in Pauline Theology by Pfleiderer, Sabatier, Bruce. (See Lit under God, Sons of ; Children of.) J. S. CANDLISH. ADORA {'ASupi.) in Idumaea (Ant. XIII. ix. 1), noticed in 1 Mac 1320. The same as Adoraim. ADORAIM (onViB), 2 Ch 11".A city of Judah fortified by Rehoboam on the S. W. of his mountain kingdom, now Dura, at the edge of the mountains W. of Hebrona small village. SWP vol. iii. sheet xxi. C. li. Cokdkb. ADORAM.See Adoniram. ADORATION.Under this term may be conveniently considered certain phases of worship. The word itself does not occur either in AV or Rv, >jut loth the disposition of mind and heart, and I the outward expressions of that disposition, which are alike denoted by it, receive abundant illustration. From one of the actions expressive of A., namely, lifting the hand to the mouth, either in order to indicate that the worshipper was dumb in the sacred presence, or, more commonly, to kiss it and then wave it towards the statue of the god, the term itself is often supposed to be derived (admoventes oribus suis dexteram, Apul. Met. iv. 28; cf. Pliny, NH xxviii. 5; Min. Felix, Oct. ii.). This practice of kissing the hand, accompanied by certain other gestures, was, among the Romans, the special meaning of adoratio as distinguished from oratio or prayer. It was, in antiquity, expressive of the deepest respect, and is alluded to in Job 3127, possibly also in 1 K 1918, Ps 212, Hos 132. Adorare is however a compound verb, meaning, first, ' to address,' then, to entreat, to supplicate,' and, finally,' to worship.' That A. should embrace at once a range of feelings and a series of acts is explained by a very simple consideration. The most profound and most intense feelings are just those which act or gesture expresses better than words. It is only, therefore, to a limited extent that A. finds expression in language, and then only in language of the most general and least objective kind. A. is, in the first place, the attitude of the soul which is called forth by the loftiest thoughts and realisations of God. Before His perfections the soul abases itself; it seeks to get beyond earth and earthly things and to enter into His nearer presence. A. belongs thus to the mystical side of religion ; it includes the awe and reverence with which the soul feels itself on holy ground. Its appropriate expressions are therefore those which convey the feeling most adequately, even though when tried by any objective standard they might be pronounced meaningless. We distinguish generally between A. and those parts of Prayer and Worship which are directed towards a special end,from confession, supplication, thanksgiving. Hymns and Prayers of A. set forth the majesty, purity, and holiness of God, His ineffable perfections, and the soul's loving contemplation of them. The adoring heart is ' lost in wonder, love, and praise.' _ In the Psalms, nature in all its departments is repeatedly called upon to praise and glorify God. St. Paul, caught up even to the third heaven, knowing not whether he was in the body or apart from the body, and hearing unspeakable words, is an example of that self-abandonment of devotion which is implied in the highest fonn of A. Possibly a similar meaning attaches to the statement of St. John, that he was ' in the spirit' on the Lord's day. Not only are angels called upon to bless the Lord, but A. is represented as the essence of the heavenly life. In Is 6 a scene of heavenly A. is depicted; and similar scenes are set forth in the Bk of Rev (48-ii 58-u 7u-is)_ A is here distinguished from service, as something even more truly fundamental, even that from which the only acceptable service springs. God is the only legitimate object of A., since in Him only perfection dwells, and He only must be the supreme object of love and reverence. His worship must be spiritual (Jn 4s3), and such worship accorded to any other is uniformly branded as idolatry. Christ is adored because 'God was in Him' (2 Co 519), and because God 'hath highly exalted Him, and is Himself glorified when the confession is made that 'Christ is Lord' (Ph As regards the attitudes and acts expressive of A., these, as already stated, symbolised the feeling experienced, and varied therefore with the kinds and degrees of emotion indicated. Humility was naturally expressed by prostration, kneel- ADOKNING ADEIA 43 ing, or simply bending head or body; submission and reverence, by the folded hands and downcast eyes; wonder and awe, by the uplifted hands with palms turned outwards; invocation and supplication, by hands and arms outstretched; dependence and entreaty, by clasped hands _ or meeting palms. Among the Hebrews, standing was the more usual attitude in public prayer, as it is among the Jews to this day; it indicates, perhaps, more a consciousness of the presence of other men and less self-abandonment than kneeling (cf. the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican), which therefore was more appropriate to private devotion. Solomon, it is true, knelt at the dedication of the temple (1 K 8M, 2 Ch 613). Ezra (Ezr 9s) and Daniel (Dn G10) likewise fell upon their knees; and St. Paul knelt in prayer with the elders of Ephesus. In all these instances, however, the idea conveyed is rather that the spectators were overlooking or assisting at an act of private devotion, than that they were taking part in public or common prayer. In one instance (2 S 71S= 1 Cb 17') we read of sitting as an attitude of prayer; but this probably is a form of kneeling, the body being thrown back so as to rest upon the heels, as in other cases (1 K 1842) it was thrown forward until the head was placed between the knees. To fall at the feet of a person {irpoaicivnins) was an act of extreme reverence, generally accompanying supplication (1 S 2524, 2 K 437, Est 8s, Mt 289, Mk 522, Lk 841, Jn II32). Prostration before a human patron or benefactor was an Oriental, not a Roman, custom, and hence St. Peter declined to receive it from Cornelius, in whom it indicated a misapprehension as to the quality of the apostle. Of hands lifted to heaven we read in Is I", 1 Ti 28. The consecration of love was denoted, as we have seen, by the kiss. Moses and Joshua were commanded to remove their sandals (Ex 36, Jos 515), because the presence of God made holy the ground on which they stood. In all these instances it is easy to discern how the outward act expressed, and, in expressing, tended to intensify in the heart of the worshipper the feeling with which it was associated. A. Stewart. ABORNING (mod. adornment) occurs in 1 P 33 1 Whose a. let it not be that outward a. of plaiting the hair.' The latest use of a. as a subst. is in H. More's Seven Ch. (1669): ' Her prankings and adornings' (Oxf. Diet.). J. Hastings. ADBAMMEtECH (t^-i-in). 1. A. and Anamme-lech, the gods of Sepharvaim to whom the colonists, brought to Samaria from Sepharvaim, burnt their children in the fire (2 K 1731). Adrammelech has been identified with a deity frequently mentioned in Assyrian records whose name is written ideographi-cally an. BAR. and an. nin. IB. This name lias been conjecturally read 'Adar1; and if this conjecture be right, 'Adar' may be identified with 'Adrammelech' {i.e. 'Adar-prince' or 'Adar-Molech'). ' Adar' is a name of Accadian origin, signifying ' Father of decision' (or judgment). 'Adar' was active in sending the waters of the Deluge. (Cf. Schrader, KAT\ on 2 K 17S1). 2. (2K1937, Is 37s8) mentioned withSharezer as one of the murderers of Sennacherib. In Is {I.e.) and in all the versions of Kings (I.e.) the two murderers are described as the sons of Sennacherib, but the Kethlbh of Kings omits 'his sons.' A Babylonian chronicle, referring to the murder, says simply, ' On the twentieth of the month Tebet, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son {sing.) in an insurrection.' (See E. Schrader, Keilin-schriftliche Bibliotliek, vol. ii. p. 281, and C. H. W. Johns in Expository Times, vol. vii.p. 238 f., and p. 360. W. E. Baenes. ADRAMYTTIUM {'ASpafuSmov) was an ancient city of the country Mysia, in the Kom. province Asia, with a harbour, at the top of the gulf Sinus Adramyttemis. The population and the name were moved some distance inland during the Middle Ages to a site which is now called Edremid. It must have been a city of great importance when Pergamos was the capital of the kings of Asia; and hence, when Asia became a Rom. province, Adramyttium was selected as the metropolis of the N.W. district of Asia, where the assizes (conventus) of that whole district were held. Its ships made trading voyages along the coasts of Asia and as far as Syria (Ac 27s); and a kind of ointment exported from the city was highly esteemed (Pliny, NH xiii. 2. 5). Its importance as a trading centre is shown by its being one of the cities where cistophori, the great commercial coinage of the east, were struck between 133 and 67 B.C. It suffered greatly during the Mithridatic wars, and rather declined in importance ; but, even as late as the 3rd cent., under Caracalla, it still ranked sufficiently high to strike alliance coins with Ephesus (implying certain reciprocal rights in respect of religious festivals and games). W. M. RAMSAY. ADRIA (Ac 272r, RV Sea of Adria).The sea Jamidst' which the ship carrying St. Paul was driven during fourteen days, before it stranded on Melita. After passing Crete, the voyagers encountered a violent 'north-easter' (RV Eura-quilo), before which they drifted, and running under the island of Clauda (RV Cauda, now Gozo), they were afraid of being carried towards the quicksands (RV Syrtis) dreaded by the mariner on the African coast; but eventually, on the fourteenth day, descried land, where they ran the ship aground on an island called Melita. The sea which they traversed is termed 6 'ASplas. Three questions arise(1) as to the form, (2) as to the origin, and (3) as to the range or connotation, of the word. 1. WH prefer the aspirated form 'Afyias; but while both forms occur in ancient writers (see the variations in Pauly-Wiss. RE s.v.), our choice must depend on the probable derivation of the name. 2. There were two towns of similar nameAtria or Hadria, in Picenum (now Atri), an inland town having no relation to the Adriatic (except indirectly through its port of Matrinum), and Atria, a town of early commercial importance near the mouth of the Po, with which the name is associated by such authorities as Livy (v. 33), Strabo (v. 1), and Pliny (ffN iii. 120). This town, still called Adria, is described by Livy and others as a Tuscan settlement, but by Justin (xx. 1. 9) as of Gr. origin; and its early relations with Greece are (as Mommsen.in CIL v. 1. p. 220, pointsout)yet more certainly attested by painted vases of Gr. style found in no small number there, but not elsewhere in that district of Italy. The Picentine town was in imperial times called Hadria, and earlier coins belonging to it are inscribed HAT., while in inscriptions from the town on the Po the first letter is represented by A, not by H, and Mommsen, for that reason, has latterly preferred the form Atria. 3. As Adrias was early used in the sense, to which Adriatic has again been confined, of the branch of the sea between Italy and Illyria, it was not unnatural so to understand it in Ac 27, esp. as an island oft' its Illyrian shore, Melita (now Meleda), might have been the scene of the shipwreck. Bryant {Diss. on the wind Euroelydon), Macknight, and others adopted this view, which some, on their authority, have accepted, although Scaliger had pronounced it ridiculous and hardly worth refuting. Its chief champion is W. .Falconer, ADE1EL ADVENTURE whose Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, published in 1817, was reissued in 1870 by the writer's nephew, Judge Falconer, with copious additional notes controverting (though with little real success) the arguments of Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, in support of the tradition which regards Malta as the scene of shipwreck, and takes Adrias in the wider sense of the waters between Crete and Sicily {Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848). The history of the strangely varying usage is well indicated by Partsch in rauly-Wiss. s.v., and by Miiller in his ed. of Strabo, pp. 328, 335, 338. At first the name strictly belonged to the inner portion adjoining the mouths of the Po and the coast of the Veneti, while the lower or south portion was known as the Ionian Sea. But these names soon became interchangeable, or, if a distinction was drawn, it was that of two basinsthe inner as far as Mount Garganus being more strictly 'the Adrias,' the outer the Ionian Sea. Strabo expressly recognises this distinction, but indicates that Adrias had now become the name for the whole (ii. 123, vii. 187). But while Adrias comes thus to include the Ionian Sea, the latter term in its turn obtained an extension to the sea lying between the west coasts of Greece and Sicily, which is called by Strabo the Sicilian, and was also termed the Ausonian Sea (ii. 123), and the name Adrias now received a corresponding, but even greater, extension. A very clear light is thrown on the range or connotation of ' the Adrias,' as used in Acts, by the statements of Ptolemy, who nourished (not ' immediately,' as Smith lias said (p. 127), but) sixty or seventy years after St. Lvike (he was alive 160 A.D.), and who presents an usage which must be presumed to have been not only existent, but current and generally accepted for some considerable t ime, in order to find a place in such a work. Ptolemy places the Adriatic to the east of Sicily (iii. 4), to the south of Achaia (iii. 14), to the west and south of the Peloponnesus (iii. 16), and to the west of Crete (iii. 15), thus giving to it precisely the extent which Strabo assigns to the Sicilian Sea. We meet the same wider range in earlier as well as later writers. The only argument of weight adduced by Judge Falconer in opposition to the case thus established, is that elsewhere (iv. 3) Ptolemy places Melita (Malta) in the African Sea, which bounds Sicily on the south. But it is too much to construe this as though Ptolemy 'distinctly and unequivocally excluded the island from all seas but that of Africa.' The alleged ' exclusion' is a mere inference by Falconer from the ' inclusion'; not at all necessary where Melita, lying between the two seas called African and Sicilian, might easily be associated with either. At any rate, the main question concerns not the mere geographical assignation of Melita as such, but the meaning to be attached to ' the Adrias' as the sea which the vessel traversed on its voyage. And here most commentators agree in holding that, in accordance with the current usage of the time when St. Luke wrote, the word is applied to the whole expanse of waters between Crete and Sicily. William P. Dickson. ADRIEL (Vtis).Son of Barzillai, a native of h Jd V (Vts), ate of Abel-meholah in the Jordan Valley, about 10 miles S. of Bethshean. He married Merab, the eldest daughter of Saul, who should have been given to David as the slayer of Goliath (1 S 1819). Michal (2 S 218) is a mistake for Merab. .1. F. Stf.NNING. ADUEL ('ASouijX, Heb. Vn-im, Svr. Swish), one of the ancestors of Tobit, To I1. A variant form of ^4, 1 Ch 4s6. J. T. Marshall. Feast of hundred ' ADULLAM (oh;;), now 'fd-'d-ma' ' ater,' or 'Id-'el-miyeh ' Feast of the water (see Clirmont-Ganneau and Conder in PEF Men. iii. 361-67; Conder, Tent Work, p. 276 f.; Smith, Geogr. p. 229), in the valley of Elah, is frequently referred to in the OT. It was a city of the Canaanites (Gn 381), in the district allotted to the tribe of Judah after the conquest (Jos 1216). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch II7), and ia mentioned later on by Micah (I16). After the Captivity it was re-peopled by the Jews (Neh II30), and continued to be a place of importance under the Maccabees (2 Mac 1238). The Cave of Adullam, famous through its association with the early history of David, has usually been supposed to have had no connexion with the city of that name, and has been located by tradition, as well as by many travellers, in the Wady Khareitun, about six miles south-east of Bethlehem. The most recent authorities, however, are strongly of opinion that an entirely suitable site for it can be found in the vicinity of the city, and that there is no reason for separating the two. Halfway between Shochoh and Keilah, and 10 miles north-west of Hebron, some caves have been found, the position of which suits all we are told about David's stronghold, and which are at once central and defensible. It may be regarded as practically settled that the Cave of Adullam was not far from where David had his encounter with Goliath. Adullamite ('o^jy, 'native of Adullam') is applied to Hirah, the friend of Judah (Gn 381). At the time of the conquest Adullam was a royal city, and if it was so in Hirah's time, he was probably king. W. Mum. ADULTERY.See Crimes, and Marriage. ADUMMIM, The Ascent of (rsnx nbsa), Jos 157 1817, forming part of the eastern boundary between Judah and Benjamin, is the steep pass in which the road ascends from Jericho to Jerusalem. Its name, Tal'at ed-Dumm, is still the same' the ascent of blood' or ' red,' and is most probably due to the red marl which is so distinctive a feature of the pass. In this pass, notorious for robberies and ipurders, is the traditional 'inn' of Lk 1034, and near by the Chastel Rouge or Citerne Rouge, built by the crusaders for protection of pilgrims from Jerusalem to the Jordan. A. Henderson. ADVANTAGE.This is one of our numerous misspelt Eng. words. It comes from avant,' before,' with the suffix age. Hence it has no connexion with Lat. prep, ad (though the misspelling is found as early as 1523), and the meaning is not simple profit, but superiority. In this sense it is found in Ro 31 'What a. then hath the Jew?' and 2 Co 2", to which RV adds 2 Co 72 1217-18. In Job 35:i, Jude v.llf 'a.'should be 'profit.' And so the verb ' to advantage,' now obsolete, which is found in Lk 9, 1 Co 1532 ' what advantageth it me ?' is rightly turned into ' profit' in RV. J. Hastings. ADYENT.See Parousia. ADVENTURE, now obs. as a verb, is found Dt 28" ' The tender and delicate woman among you which would not a. (intrans. = venture) to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness'; Jg 9" 'For my father fought for you, and aa (transit. = risked) hie life'; Ac 1031 'desiring him that he would not a. himself (dovvcu iavrbv, 'give himself) into the theatre.' Cf. Shaks. Two G. of Ver. III. i. 120 'Leander would adventure it1; and for the intrans. use Rom. and Jul. V. iii. 11 ' I am almost afraid to stand alone Here in the churchyard; yet 1 will adveutur j." ADVEESAEY AFFLICTION At nil adventure' occurs Wis 2s ' we are born at all a.' (aiiroax^Slus, RV 'by mere chance') and 'at all adventures,' Lv 2621 m ('if, in the usual phrase oy 1t> tin). Cf. T. Wilson (1553): 'which showte (shoot) ... at all aventures hittie missie.' J. Hastings. ADVERSARY. Besides the general sense of opponent, a. occurs with the special meaning of an opponent at law (durlducos), Lk 1258 'When thou coest with thine adversary to the magistrate'; Mt 521 Lk 18s. In the foil, passages it is used as the tr. of Heb. \W Sdtdn, Nu 2222, 1 S 29", 2 S 1922, 1 K 541114- ". Cf. 1 P 58' your a. (Gr. dm-Hucos) ' the devil.' See Satan. J. Hastings. ADYERTISE, ' to give notice,' ' inform,' Nu 24" ' I will a. thee what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days'; and Ru 44 ' I thought to a. thee' (RV ' disclose it unto thee'). In the last passage the Heb. is 'uncover the ear' ([jit nj>a). See Ear. Advertisement, in the sense of precept, admonition, occurs in the heading of Sir 20. J. Hastings. ADVICE, ADVISE, ADVISEMENT.' To take advice' in mod. Eng. is to consult with another and receive his opinion. But in Jg 1930 and 2 Ch 25" 'to take a.' means to consult with oneself and give an opinion; Jg 19* 'consider of it, take a. (KV 'take counsel') and speak.' So Shaks. 2 Henry VI. II. ii. 67 And that's not suddenly to be perform'd; But wii.i advice, and silent secrecy.' Advise in the sense, not of giving advice to another, but of deliberating with oneself, is found twice, 2 S 2413 'now a. (RV 'advise thee') and pee what answer I shall return to him that sent me,' and 1 Ch 2112 (RV 'consider'). 'Well advised' in Pr 1310, 'but with the well advised is wisdom,' means not those who have accepted good advice, but those who are cautious or deliberate. Cf. Bacon, Essays, ' Let him be ... advised in his answers.' Advisement, noAV obs., occurs 1 Ch 1219 'the lords of the Philistines, upon a. (i.e. after deliberation) sent him away'; 2 Mac 1420 ' When they had taken long a. thereupon' (RV 'when these proposals luul been long considered'). J. Hastings. ADVOCATE (jrapd/fX^ros), only 1 Jn 21. See Spirit, Holy. AEDIAS (B 'AySelas, A -it-), 1 Es 9s7. One of those who agreed to put away their 'strange' wives. The corresponding name in Ezr 1026 is Elijah (rt'hx, 'H,\k). Tlie form in 1 Es is a corruption of the Gr. (ILYI& read as as near to Salem (which see). As the name 'springs' is common, its locality must be fixed by that of Salem. Eusebius and Jerome place /tenon 8 miles south of Scythopolis, now Beisnn ; and the name Siilim is said to attach to a mound some 6 or 7 miles south of Beisan, while thive-'i uarters of a mile south of it are seven springs. 'Rhulils also wind about in all directions. . . . I h.-ne found few places in Palestine of which one conld so truly say, " Here is much water"' (Van de Velde, ii. p. 345, etc.). The chief difficulty in the acceptance of this identification is the naming of Salem (Jn :i23) as a well-known town, suggesting tlie well-known Salim, east of Shechem. Conder has pointed out 'Ainun, bearing the name, situated in the Wady Far'ah. 'Here was once a large village, now completely overthrown. A great number of rock-cut cisterns are observed on the site' (Survey Memoirs, ii. p. 234). A little to the south of 'Ainto is a succession of springs with flat meadows on either side, where great crowds might gather by the bank of the copious perennial stream shaded by oleanders. Here were '.many waters' (Jn 323 EVm). It is accessible by roads from all quarters, and is situated by one of the main roads from Jerus. to Galilee, the road passing Jacob's Well (Jn 46) which our Lord may have taken to meet the Baptist in view of threatened misunderstandings and jealousies of his disciples. For a full description, see Conder's Tent Work, ii. p. 57, 58. The distance is about 7 miles from .alim, which has been made an objection to this identification; but there is no nearer town of importance by which to describe its situation. A. Henderson. iESORA (Afoapd), Jth 44 (AV Esora). A Samaritan town noticed with Bethhoron, Jericho, and Salem (Sdlim). Possibly Asireh, N.E. of Shechem (SWP vol. ii. sh. xi.). C'. R. Conder. AFFECT, AFFECTION.In its literal sense of to act upon,' affect occurs once, La 351 'mine eye affecteth mine heart.' In Sir 13U the meaning is to aspire, 'Affect not to be made equal unto him in talk.' Besides these, observe Gal 417) ; 2Mae421 'not well a*1' (dXUrpios), RV 'ill &<*.'); 1326 'well a"1' (et/urfa). Affection in old Eng. is any bent or disposition of the mind, good or bail, as Col 32 'set your a. (Gr. tppoveire, RV ' set your mind') on things above.' Hence, to tr. vdffos and the like, some adj. is added, as Col 3"' 'inordinate a.' (Gr. irdffos, RV 'passion'); Ro I31 'without natural a.' (Gr. da-ropyos). But in the plu. affections means passions, as Gal 524 ' the flesh with the a. (Gr. rdOri/ia, RV ' passions') and lusts'; Ro Is6 'God gave them up unto vile a.' (Gr. wdff-rj dnfilat, RV 'vile passions'). Cf. the difference between 'passion' and 'passions.' RV gives 'affections' in a good (i.e. the mod.) sense at 2 Co 612 (AV ' bowels,' which see). Affectioned is found in the neutral sense of ' disposed' in Ro 1210 ' kindly a. (Gr. w 'To him they a.' (irdaO-naav aim}. In Mk 14"! it is used in the obsolete sense of ' agree with' or ' correspond with,' 'Thou art a Galihp.in, and thy speech agruelh thereto' (6/uudf, Til; RV following edd. omits the clause). J. Hastings. AGRICULTURE. Agriculture, which in its wider sense embraces horticulture, forestry, and the pastoral industry, is here restricted to the art of arable farming including not only ploughing, hoeing, etc., but reaping and threshing. As the savage phase has been followed by the pastoral, so the pastoral has been followed by the AaI, in the history of the progressive peoples. The first important advance upon the primitive stage took 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 domestication 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 pastoral stage, the A" art was being actively developed 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 early traditions of the Hebrews, on the other hand, were essentially nomadic. The association of Cain with A. (Gn 4) implies a disparagement of the calling. Abraham is represented as a pure nomad. And although, as is indicated in the histories of Isaac (Gn 2612) and Jacob, the beginnings of A. would naturally have a place in the primitive period, it is only after the conquest of Can. that the Jews take rank as an Aal people ; and even then the tribes of the trans-Jordanic plateau, whose territory was unsuitable for tillage, continued to depend on cattle-rearing. The agrarian legislation of the Pent, in reference to the settlement of Can. doubtless embodies some ancient laws and customs regulating the tenure of the soil, although other enactments must be regarded as of later origin, or even as the unfulfilled aspirations of the exilic age. To the last class probably belong the institution of the sabbatical year (Ex 23U, Lv 254), the produce of which, or its ' volunteer' crop, was reserved for the poor, the stranger, and cattle ; and that of the year of jubilee (Lv 2528), in which the dispossessed heir resumed possession of his ancestral acres. Among the enactments of a greater antiquity and validity may be mentioned the law against the removal of landmarks (Dt 1914), which was made urgent by the fact that the arable lands, unlike the vineyards, were not divided by hedges (Is 5s). The climate of Pal., owing to the removal of forests, must now be much less humid than in early times. The summer is rainless and warm, the winter and early spring are rainy and colder. During the dry season the heat, esp. in the low country, is excessive, and rapidly burns up all minor vegetation; while any surface-water, as from springs, is evident in the spots of unwonted verdure which it induces on the parched landscape. In autumn the cisterns are nearly empty, and the ground has become very hard. The husbandman must consequently wait for the rains before he can start ploughing. The rainy season begins about the end of Oct., and is divided into three periods-early rains (%i-jto), which prepare the land for the reception of the seed, heavy winter rains (oj1;), saturating the ground and filling the cisterns, and late rains (Pip^c), falling in spring and giving the crops the necessary moisture. Snow is often seen on the higher lands in winter, and hail .is not infrequent. The coldest month is February, the warmest August. The soil of Pal. varies widely in texture and appearance. In the higher regions it is. formed mostly from cretaceous limestone or decomposing basalt rocks; in the maritime plain and the Jordan Valley there are more recent formations. Like the sedentary soils, where of sufficient depth, the alluvial deposits are naturally fertile ; and under the intensive and careful cultivation of ancient times the fertility was proverbial (cf. Ex 38> 17, AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE 49 Jer 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 hill-slopes to prevent ' soil-washing,' gave rise to flat terraces. Various methods of irrigation were practised (Gn 21I>> Pr 211, Is 3025 322- *>). Canals conveyed the water from the natural sources to the fields, or water-wheels might be used. Other A"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 25W), was also in common use (2 K 9s7). 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 (nap). The supply exceeded the requirements of the country, and it was possible to export it in considerable quantities (Ezk 27"). Second in importance was barley (.Tjjty), which was extensively used as food (Ru 3:"), esp. by the poorer classes. Spelt (n?gs) was frequently grown on the borders of fields. Millet (;tn), beans (Vis), and lentils (oVjiO were cultivated and used as food (Ezk 49, 2 S 172*)'. Flax (n^9) was grown (Ex 9S1), and probably also cotton (oj-p). Among the statutory regulations relating to the crops, the most noteworthy are :the prohibition against sowing a field with mixed seed (Lv 1919), a regulation implying considerable botanical knowledge ; the provision for damages in case of pasturing a beast in a neighbour's field (Ex 225); permission to the wayfarer to pluck from the standing corn enough to satisfy hunger (Dt 23s); reservation for the stranger and the poor of the corners of the field (Lv 199), and other provisions dictated by humanity (Dt 2419). The A. of Pal. has not advanced or changed in any important particular since OT times. In consequence we can, apart from Biblical notices, largely reconstruct the Aal picture of the past from the Syrian conditions of to-day. An additional source of information has of recent years been opened up in the Egyp. hieroglyphics, and esp. in the representations of AaI operations found in the Egyp. tombs; and in order the better to bind together this material, we shall now follow the process of cultivation of one of the common cereal crops from seed-time to harvest, giving some account of the implements employed and of the dangers incident to the growing crops. The year of the agriculturist was well filled upfrom the middle of Oct. to the middle of Apr. with ploughing, sowing, harrowing, weeding; from the middle of Apr. onward with reaping, carrying, threshing, and storing the grain. The interval between threshing and sowing was occupied with the vineyard produce. It appears that the seed was sometimes sown without any previous cultivation, and afterwards ploughed in or otherwise covered, while at other times the seed was scattered on ploughed land, and covered by a rude harrow or by cross-ploughing. The former method was common in Egypt, where the grain, deposited on moist ground, might be covered by dragging bushes over it, and afterwards trodden down by domestic animals (cf. Is 3230). Where cultivation preceded sowing, various implements were used. From the Egyp. monuments it is possible to trace the evolution of the Ploughthe starting-point being a forked branch used as a hoe, which was afterwards improved into a kind of mattock, and finally was enlarged and modil ed so as to be drawn by oxen. The plough was urawn by two oxen, and the draught was sometimes from the shoulders, some-vol. i.4 times from the forehead, or even from the horns. In some cases men with hoes may have pulverised HODERX SYRIAN PLOUGH. (1) El-Kahusah, grasped in working by the left hand; (2) cl-akar, the handle or stilt; (3) el-buruk, the beam; (4) el-nateh, a support, secured by a wedge ; (5) el-sawajir, the couplings; (6) el-wuslah, the pole ; (7) el-sikkah, the ploughshare. the surface after the plough, as in Egypt. (See Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, 2nd series, vol. i. woodcut 422.) The old Heb. plough was of very simple construction, consisting of a wooden groundwork (1 K 1921) with iron wearing parts (Is 24, cf. 1S132"). It had one stilt to guide it (Lk 962), leaving the other hand free to use the ox-goad (107?). The plough was drawn by oxen, i.e. the ox-kind, for the Jews did not mutilate their animals (Am 612), or by asses (Is 3024), but not by an ox and ass together (Dt 221U). On thin soil a mattock was sometimes necessary (1 S 1320). The unit of square measure was the area ploughed in a day by a yoke of oxen ("!??) The season of Sowing was not one of joy (Ps 1265), owing to the uncertainty of the weather (Mic 616, Pr 204), and the toilsomeness of the work in a hard and rocky soil. A start was made with the pulse crops, barley followed a fortnight later, and wheat after another month. Usually the sower scattered the seed broadcast out of a basket, but by careful farmers the wheat was placed in the furrows in rows (Is 2825). The summer or spring grain was sown between the end of Jan. and the end of Feb. In a season of excessive drought the late-sown seed rotted under the clods (Jl 11?) ; in a wet season the early-sown grain grew rank and lodged, and the husbandman was accordingly counselled to make sure of a crop by attending to both (Ec II6). Between sowing and reaping, the crops were exposed to several dangers. Of these the chief were the easterly winds prevalent in Mar. and Apr. (Gn 415), hailstorms (Hag 2"), the irruption of weeds esp. mustard, thistles, tares, and thorns (Jer 121*), the depredations of crows and sparrows (Mt 134), of fungoid diseases, esp. mildew (Dt 2822), and of injurious insects, esp. the palmer-worm, the canker-worm, the caterpillar, and the locust. These names do not, as has been suggested, refer to the different stages in the life history of the locust (Pachytylus migratorius), but the first three are probably specific names for groups of pests. The crops were also in danger from the inroads of cattle (Ex 225), and as harvest approached, from fire (Jg 15"). The commencement of HarYest naturally varied, not only with the season, but according to elevation, exposure, etc. On the average it began with barley (2 S 219)-in the neighbourhood of Jericho about the middle of Apr., in the coast plains ten days later, and in the high-lying districts as much as a mouth later. Wheat was a fortnight later in ripening, and the barley and 50 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE wheat harvest lasted about seven weeks (Dt 169). The harvest was the occasion of festivities which in the later legislation were brought into close connexion with the religious history of the people. The crops were cut, as in Egypt, with the sickle. (See Wilkinson, op. (At. woodcuts 426 and 436.) Little value was put upon the Straw, which was cut about a foot below the ears (Job 2424). The reaper left the grain in handfuls behind him (Jer 922), and the binder tied it into sheaves (Gn 37'), which, however, were not set up as shocks. The Egyptians usually cut the straw quite close under the ears, while some crops, such as dhurah, were simply plucked up by the roots. The method of MODERN SICKLE. pulling the corn was probably also practised in Pal. when the crops were light (Is 17). In OT there are apparently two kinds of Sickle referred to?15 and V?. The wooden sickle, toothed with floor, and, according to one system, cattlefour or five harnessed togetherwere driven round and round, until a more or less complete detachment of the grain was effected (Hos 10u). To facilitate the process, the straw was repeatedly turned over by a fork with two or more prongs. A well-known picture gives a representation of this system as anciently practised in Egypt, noteworthy being the fact that the oxen are unmuzzled (cf. Dt 254). The group further shows how the oxen were yoked together that they might walk round more regularly. (See Wilkinson, op. dt.) Of the threshing-machine two kinds were, and still are, employed in Palestine. THRESIIIKG-MACIIINE. One (rfo or pin) consisted of an oblong board, whose under side was rough with notches, nails, and sharp stone chips, and which, being weighted down * * THRESHING-FLOOR. flints, supposed by Prof. Flinders Petrie to be an imitation of the jawbone of an ox, was used in Syria as well as in Egypt. The reapers were the owners and their families, along with hired labourers (Mt 9s8), the latter of whom probably followed the harvest from the plains to the mountains. The workers quenched their thirst from vessels taken to the harvest-field (Ku 29), and ate bread steeped in vinegar (214), and parched corn (Lv 2314), the latter prepared by being roasted and then rubbed in the hand. The Threshing usually took place in the fields, a custom made possible by the rainless weather of harvest. The Threshing-floor (]y) consisted of a round open space, probably of a permanent character, and preferably on an eminence where it was exposed to the free sweep of air currents. For bringing in the sheaves, carts were employed in old times (Am 213). Threshing was performed in various ways. Small quantities of produce, also pulse-crops and cummin, were beaten out with a stick (Ru 217). In dealing with large quantities of grain, the sheaves were spread out over the by stones and oy the driver, not only shelled out the corn, but lacerated the straw (Is 4115, Job 41S0). THRESHING-WAGGON. The other kind of machine was the threshing-waggon, n?3a, (Is 2827-28), now seldom seen in Pal., but AGEIPPA AHAR 51 still common in Egypt. It consisted of a low-built, four-cornered waggon frame, inside which were attached two or three parallel revolving cylinders or rollers. Each of the rollers was armed with three or four sharpened iron discs. There was a seat for the driver, and it was drawn by oxen yoked to a pole. After the threshing came the work of Winnowing (Job 2118, Ps 355). The mixture left by the previous operation, consisting of corn, chaff, and broken straw, was turned about and shaken with a wooden fork (Is 3034), and advantage was taken of the winds to separate the grain from the lighter material. This often necessitated night work, as the winds usually blew from late in the afternoon till before sunrise. FORK, FAN, AND VOKB. At the later stage of the winnowing process the fork was less needed than the fan (.Tip), a kind of shovel; or the grain might be scooped up, as shown in some Egyp. representations, by two pieces of wood. The chaff, after being separated, was burned (Mt 312), or left to be scattered by the winds (Ps I4). From the heavier impurities the corn was cleansed by sieves (>tj?3)an operation specially necessary in view of the mode of threshing, after which it was collected into large heaps. To prevent thieving, the owner might sleep by the threshing-floor (Eu 37) until the removal of the grain, on waggons or otherwise, to the barns or granaries (Lk 1218). It was often stored in pits (Jer 418), the openings of which were carefully covered up to protect them from robbers and vermin. The straw remaining from the threshing was used for cattle fodder I *) Literaturb.On the general subject: Benzinger, ffetrttische Archceologie; Stade, Gesch. d. Volks Isr. Bd. i. Buch vii.; handwirthsch. Jahrbticher; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Archceologie; Thomson, Land and Book; Fellows, Asia Minor; Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- Vereins, Bd. ix., Ackerbau und Thierzucht'; Indexed Quart. Statements and other pubb. of the Pal. Explor. Soc On Egjj). Agriculture: Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (2nd Series). On the Plough: Schumacher, ' Der arabische Pflug:,* in Bd. xii. of above-named Zeitschrift. On the Threshing-machine: Wetzstein, 1 Die syr. Dreschtafel,' in Bastian's Zeitsch. f. Ethnologic (1878), 272 ft. J. W. PATEESOU. AGRIPPA.See Herod. AGUE.See Medicine. AGUR ("MX; LXX paraphrases arbitrarily; Vulg. congregans). Mentioned only in Pr 301. The name of an otherwise unknown Heb. sage, son of Jakeh. The word has been understood from very early times as a pseudonym, used symbolically. So Jerome, following the Eabbis of his time. In this case it might be interpreted as akin to the Syriac agHr6='hireling' (of wisdom), or derived from Heb. -uk, and understood as 'col- lector' (of proverbs). Cf. form wp; in Ps 913, Pr 6". The description of Agur in Pr 301 is not easy to understand. With the Massoretic pointing, the verse may be literally rendered, 'The words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the prophecy: the oracle of the man to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ucal.' This sounds impossible. The conjunction of the words massa (= prophecy) and ne"um ( = oracle) is unprecedented j the use of the article with tnassa is inexplicable; and the words which follow have no prophetic character. Consequently Massa has been understood as the name of a country (so Del.; and see EVm Jakeh of Massa); cf. Gn 2514. Similarly, Lemuel would be understood to be king of Massa, Pr 311. Cheyne {Job and Solomon) and Strack (Kurzgef. Komm.) render massa as 'prophecy.' Both the country and the age of this unknown philosopher are purely conjectural. He may have been one of the 'men of Hezekiah,' Pr 25*. His name is probably to be associated, as compiler rather than author, with the gnomic utterances in Pr 302-318; 311"-31 forming a separate section. The chief monograph on the subject is Miihlau, De Prov. Aguri et Lem. origine (1869), and a full discussion of the subject is to be found in Delitzsch's Comm. in loco. W. T. Davison. AH, AHA.1. 'Ah' is used to express grief (esp. in face of coming doom), except in Ps 35a5 'All (RV 'Aha'), so would we have it,' where it expresses the exultation of an enemy, and Mk 15* 'Ah (RV 'Ha!'), thou that destroyest the temple,' where it expresses mocking. The RV has introduced ' Ah !' into Lk 4s4 for ' Let us alone' of AV (Gr. "Eo, which may be either the imperat. of the verb (da to let alone or an independent interjection, formed from the sound). sAha (a combination of a, the oldest form of ' ah,' and ha) expresses malicious satisfaction, except in Is 4418, where it denotes intense satisfaction, but without malice, ' Aha, I am warm; I feel the fire.' J. Hastings. AHAB (axiro, 'Axadft, Assyr. A-ha-ab-bu) signifies 'father's brother.' (Cf. analogous uses of the same element nn 'brother' in Syr. proper names.) The meaning of the compound is probably 'one who closely resembles his father.' The father in this case was Omri, the founder of the dynasty, and from him the son inherited the military traditions and prowess which characterised his reign. A. married Jezebel (^!'!<), daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre (the Ithobalos, priest of Astarte mentioned by Menander, quoted by Joa. c. Apion, i. 18). This was part of the policy of close alliance with Phoenicia, begun by Solomon, and cemented by Omri. This Dond of union was designated by Amos (I9) a 'covenant of brethren.' It was undoubtedly founded on reciprocal commercial interest which subsisted for centuries, the corn, oil, and other agricultural products of Canaan being exchanged for other commercial products of the great mercantile ports of Phoenicia (cf. Ac 1220). Whatever commercial advantages might accrue, Israel's national religion was destined to suffer. A temple and altar to Baal were erected in Samaria as well as an Asherah-pole. To supersede Israel's national deity, J", by the Tyrian Baal, seemed an easy task. To a superficial observer the difference between the worship of Ephraim and that of Samaria might appear trifling. Both Baal and J" were worshipped with similar sacrificial accompaniments. Moreover, northern Israel had for centuries been exposed to all the influences which their more highly civilised Can. neighbours had introduced (Jg 212-13), and even the very name Baal, 'Lord,' was current in their speech as an appellation of J* (Hos 216- " *). Yet there was one deep distinction which marked off the J" of Mosaism from the Baal of the Canaanites. The religion of Mosaism was pure of sensual taint. The conjunction of Asherah with J" in the days of Josiah (2 It 23') was a corrupt practice due to foreign innovation. So also were the debasing accompaniments of worship referred to in Am 27. And the licentious cult of Baal and Ashtoreth, established by the influence of A.'a Phoen. wife, would certainly have its temple attendants, probably Tyrian Kedeshim and Kede-sMth. These features of worship, however, had become perilously familiar to K. Israel, owing to their close contact with Can. neighbours. Accordingly, as we can readily infer from the language of Elijah in 1 K 19, national feeling was not deeply or permanently roused even by the influence of Ins stirring personality and by the occurrence of a prolonged drought of more than two years' duration (1 K 171 18l), which, according to Menander of Ephesus, extended to Phoenicia-^ In all probability, the military despotism wielded by the house of Omri, in alliance with a powerful northern State, was able to subdue any smouldering embers of discontent. But an act of cruel injustice awakened the dormant spirit of the people. Like many Oriental monarchs, A. displayed a taste for architecture, which Tyrian influence stimulated and fostered. He built a palace for himself, adorned with woodwork (probably cedar) and inlaid ivory, in Jezreel (1 K 211 223i)). To this he desired to attach a suitable domain, and for the purpose endeavoured to acquire, by purchase or exchange, the vineyard of one of the wealthier inhabitants, Naboth. But Naboth was unwilling to part with an ancestral inheritance. What A. could not accomplish by legal means, he was induced by the promptings of Jezebel to compass by fraud and judicial murder. This act aroused popular hatred, and the sense of outraged social order found expression in the denunciation of doom pronounced by Elijah (1 K 2112"34) against tlie king and his unscrupulous queen (see Naboth and Elijah). The incident is instructive to the student of Heb. religion, as it illustrates the contrast in the attitude of Phoen. as compared with Heb. religion towards social morality. In the words of W. R. Smith, 'the religion of J" put morality on a far sounder basis than any other religion did, because the righteousness of J" as a God who enforced the known laws of morality was conceived as absolute' {Prophets of Isr. 73). It is more than doubtful whether A. really comprehended the religious issues. He regarded Elijah as a mischievous fanatic, 'a trouUer of Israel' bent on wrecking the imperial schemes of aggrandisement based on alliance with Phoenicia at the expense of Syria. Elijah, like many another since his day, earned the title of unpatriotic, because he placed righteousness and religion before the exigencies of political statecraft. The military career of A. exhibits him as a warrior of considerable prowess. Respecting his wars with Syria we have only the brief record in 1 K 20-22. In 1 K 20 we are plunged in medias res. Samaria has been for some time closely invested by the Syrian army under Benhadad, or more probably Hadadezer (Dadidri), if we follow the Assyr. annals (Stade). Of the defeats sustained by Israel prior to this siege we have no information. Benhadad (Hadadezer) made an insolent demand of the Isr. king, in the desperate extremity of the latter, that Ss'rian envoys should search the royal palace and the houses of A.'s servants. This * Wellhausen's rejection of Hos 216 (18 Heb.) is characteristic of his high & priori method. t This took plaje during the re\gn of Ethbaul (Ithobalos), and tasted, according to Menander, one year. Of Phoenicia this may have been true. was refused by A. with the unanimous approval of his people and their elders. To the arrogant menace of the Syrian, the king of Isr. replied in the proverbial phrase, ' Let not him who girds on the armour boast as he who puts it ott'.' IJtnhadad at once ordered the engines of war (LXX 'lines of circumvallation') to be placed against the city. But beyond this he took no further precaution, and resigned himself with careless ease to voluptuous carousal with his nobility and feudatory kings. Meanwhile A. mustered his army of 7000 men, officered by 232 territorial commanders, and attacked the Syrians with crushing effect (1 K 2015"21), inflicting a total overthrow. In the following spring the Syrian monarch again took the field with a well-appointed army of overwhelming superiority. The Syrians attributed their previous defeat to the fact that the God of Isr. was a God of the hills (where cavalry and chariots could not so well operate*). If they could draw the forces of A. into the valley near Aphek, all wonld be well. But the battle that followed utterly falsified their expectations. The Syrians were put to utter rout, and saved themselves by precipitate flight to Aphek. Benhadad and his followers went as suppliants to A., who judged it politic to receive them with friendliness. A treaty was concluded, in which the Syrian king conceded tolsr. special quarters(streets) in Damascus, t a privilege which corresponded with a similar right which Omri was compelled to concede to Syria in his own capital, Samaria. With the defective Biblical records before us, it is not easy to explain the complaisant attitude of A. in the hour of his victory. But the key to the solution of the mystery is given to us in the Assyr. annals. From these we learn that about this time a new disturbing factor was beginning to appear in W. Asian politics. Ever since the time of Saul the arena of Pal. foreign politics had been circumscribed within the region of the Hittite, Syrian, and Can. borders, and the interference of Egypt had only been occasional. Since the days of Tiglath-pileser I. (c. B.C. 1100) the military power of Assyria had been dormant. But during the time of Omri there were vivid signs that Assyria was at length awakening from its century long slumber, under the energetic rule of Assur-nazir-pal. During the reign of his successor Shalmaneser (Sulmanu-asaridu) II., who reigned from 860-825, it began to press more heavily on the lands near the Mediter. border, and to extend its boundaries towards the Hittite States. About the year 857 the power of this monarch threatened seriously the Pal. region. The king of Syria would be among the first to feel apprehension. The immediate effect of Shalmaneser's advance was to put an end, at least for a time, to the wars between Syria and Ahab. And in the negotiations described in 1 K 2030-m it is pretty certain that the advance of the Assyr. power from the N.E. formed a subject of conversation between the two kings, and that Benhadad was glad, even upon disadvantageous terms, to get rid of a burdensome and exhausting war, in order that all his forces might be reserved to confront the formidable Assyr. foe. The attack was delivered in the year B.C. 854, when the battle of Karkar was fought. A considerable number of States, including Israel, but not including Judah, Edom, or Moab,J had united with Hadadezer * We know that the Israelites also possessed chariots in considerable number, from the express statement of the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser n. lines 91, 92. Cf. 1 K a2. t Evvald (Get. d. V. Isr. Hi. 488 n.) translates the Iteb. by 1 places of abode' (comparing the Arab, nuthattah), i.e. permanent ambassadorial residence. But this explanation is very farfetched. LXX renders eJoSawf,' streets.1 For other interpretations see Thenius, ad loc. t In the case of Moab, the reason adduced by Prof. Sayce if probably the right one. Moab sent no contingent, because that State was then in revolt against Israel (HCM p. 393). ( = Dadidri=Benhadad) to resist the Assyrians. The account of the whole campaign may be read in the monolith inscription quoted in Schrader's COP i. 183 ff. In lines 91, 92 we read that A., king of Israel, sent a contingent of 2000 chariots and 10,000 men. The total defeat of the allied kings, though probably obtained with heavy loss to the Assyrians, sufficed to break up the alliance. A. now followed the short-sighted policy of isolation in presence of the formidable Assyr. powera policy which in the following century Ephraim and Judah in turn pursued with baleful results. The consequence was a renewal of the wars between Syria and Israel, which had been for some years suspended. We may infer from the scriptural account that A. took the initiative by endeavouring to recover Kamoth-gilead from Syria. Probably the allied kings of Isr. and Jud. endeavoured to profit by the weakness of Syria after the overwhelming defeat sustained by the latter in the battle of Karkar. In 1 K 22 we have a vivid portrayal of the dramatic scene between Micaiah, son of Imlah, and the prophets who prophesied in favour of immediate war with Syria (see Micaiah). For Micaiah the result was imprisonment as the penalty for his outspoken deliverance of the divine message. Undeterred by the gravity of his prophecy, A. and Jehoshaphat went forth at the head of their respective forces to battle. But A. resolved to secure his person against the Syrian archers by appearing in liis chariot divested of the ordinary insignia of royalty. This precaution, however, did not avail him against the chance arrow of a bowman, which penetrated between the joints of his breastplate. The king of Isr. slowly bled to death, and died about sunset. His body was conveyed to Samaria, where he was buried. In the foregoing account of the Syrian wars of A. we have adopted the sequence of events recommended by Schroder (COT* i. 1899., who gives the Assyr. text and tr.), Ed. Meyer (Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 393), and recently by Sayce (HCM 320, 392), which places the battle of Karkar near the close of A.'s life. On the other hand, Wellhau'sen (art. ' Israel' in Encycl. Brit.) places the battle of Karkar and the alliance with (or, as he deems it, vassalage * to)'Syria in the times that precede the Syrian wars of A.'s reign. But this view imposes great difficulties on the chronology of the period. From the Assyr. Canon of Rulers, compiled with great care and precision, and also from the Assyr. Annals, we obtain the following fixed dates: Battle of Karkar (in which A.'s contingent takes part)" .'.......854B.C. Tribute of Jehu, ' son of Omri' . . . . 842 Now, if we place the battle of Karkar before the Syrian wars of A.'s reign, his death cannot be placed earlier than B.c. 847. Accordingly, in place of the 14 years assigned by Scripture to the reigns of Abaziah and Jehoram we can only allow a maximum of five years 1 On the other hand, by adopting the sequence which we have advocated, the difficulties are considerably reduced. A.'s death may then be placed in the year B.o. 863. Kamphausen, in his valuable treatise on the Chronology of the Heb. Kings (p. 80), suggests that A.'s name has been confused with that of his successor Jehoram in the Assyr. Annals ; and Kittel, in his Hist, of the Hebrews (Germ. ed. ii. 233), seems disposed to accept this view. But against this proceeding we must emphatically, protest. Biblical science will never make sure progress if we reject or modify archaiological evidence in the interests of a chronological theory. The theory must be conformed to the evidence, not vice versd. (On the subject of Heb. chronology see the writer's remarks in Schrader's COT* ii. 320-324, and also in 0. H. H. Wright's Bible Readers' Manual.) That A.'s rule was firm though despotic, and maintained the military traditions inaugurated by Omri, is indicated by the Moabite Stone, which informs us (lines 7, 8) that Omri and his son ruled over the land of Mehdeba (conquered by the former) for 40 years. It was not till the concluding part of A.'s reign, when he was occupied with his Syrian wars, that Moab rose in insurrection. The historian must not fail to take due note of the * The large contingent (2000 chariots and 10,000 men) furnished by A., according to the Assyr. records, renders the theory of * vassalage' extremely improbable. Judaic tendency of the narrative in 1 K 18-22, which paints the life of A. in sombre hues. When more than a century had passed after the destruction of his posterity, it is worthy of remark that the Ephraimite prophet Hosea (I4) expresses a strong condemnation of Jehu's deeds of blood. In Mic 6*6, on the other hand, we see clearly reflected the Judaic estimate of Omri's dynasty, which dominates the account in 1 K 18-22. Owen C. Whitehousk. AHAB (3$iw, 3rjx).Son of Kolaiah, a false prophet contemp. with Jer. He is said to have been ' roasted in the fire' by the king of Bab. (Jer 292"-). AHARAH (mqs).A son of Benj. (1 Ch 81); perhaps a corruption of dtoj; (Nu 26s8). See Ahiram. AHARHEL (^nnng).A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 48). LXX doVA^oO 'Vtixo-P implies a reading 3ij-i 'rt% = brother of Iiechab. AHASBAI C3P0S). Father of Eliphelet (2 S 2334), and a member of the family of Maacah, settled at Beth-Maacah (2014), or a native of the Syrian kingdom of Maacah (10s-8). In the parallel passage (1 Ch 1135- s6) we find two names, isn iin, Ur, Hepher; both passages probably represent corruptions of the real name. J. F. Stenning. AHASUERUS (pi-iists).A name which appears on Pers. inscriptions as KhsnjArsd, and in Aram, without N prosthetic, as bhh'eti (Schrader, COT1 ii. 63). The monarch who bears this name in Ezr 4s was formerly reckoned by Ewald and others to be the Catnliyses of profane history who succeeded Cyrus. It is generally recognised, however, by modern critics that he must be identified with Xerxes (485-465), who is beyond all question the Ahasuerus of the Bk of Est. See Xerxes. The A. of Dn 91, the father of Darius the Mede, is a personage whose identity is as difficult to establish as the existence of ' Darius the Mede' is problematical. (Cf. Driver LOT 515 n. ; Sayce HCM 543.) J. A. Selbie. AHAYA (njdn).The name of a town or district in Babylonia (Ezr 815-of> 31), and of a stream in the neighbourhood (v.21-c'-31). On the banks of this stream Ezra encamped for three days at the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem. He was thus able to review his large company, and to make good the tibsence of Levites by sending a deputation to the chief of the settlement at Casiphia. Before commencing the march, Ezra instituted a solemn fast, and then took measures for the safe custody of the treasures and rich gifts which were in his possession. Ewald conjectured that the river Ahava or Peleg-Ahava was the same as the Pallacopas, a stream to the S. of Babylon. Rawlinson identifies it with the Is (see Herod, i. 179), a river flowing by a town of the same name, now called Hit, which is about eight days' journey from Babylon. It seems, however, more prob. that Ezra made his rendezvous near to Babylon itself; in that case we may suppose that the Ahava was one of the numerous canals of the Euphrates in the neighbourhood of the city (cf. Ryle, and Berth.-Rys. ad he). In 1 Es 841-61 the river is called Theras (Qepds). H. A. White. AHAZ (trm 'he hath grasped,' LXX 'Ax) or 12th (2 K 8i5) year of Joram of Israel, being then 22 years old, and reigned one year (2 K S28). The reading 'forty and two' in 2 Ch 222 is absurd, since his father was 40 years old at his death. Pesh. here has '22' and LXX '20.' The evil influence which Athaliah, the 19). This temerity seems to be afterwards tacitly reproved by Ahijah (v.S6): ' Let us draw near hither unto God.' The LXX reading in v.18 ' Bring hither the ephod,' etc., is followed by Jos. (Ant. VI. vi. 3 : 'He bade the high priest Xa/36>ra t^v ipxiepamdiv otoMiv irpo lead W. R. Smith to conclude that ' both parts of the story of Ahijah cie a fluctuating uncertain element in the text' (OTJC2 119). Ewald also says that 149- "%18 are later additions {Hist, of Isr. iv. p. 29, n 3). Jos. (Ant. VIII. xi. 1) gives the verses in a different order. Ahijah was one of the historians of Solomon's reign according to 2 Ch 9s9. 3. 1 K 43, one of two brothers, Solomon's scribes or secretaries. Their father Shisha (Seraiah, 2 S 8"; Sheva, 2 S 2025; Shavsha, 1 Ch 1816) held the same post under David. 4. Father of kinc Baasha, 1 K 1527-83 2122, 2 K 9". 5. 1 Ch 225 (LXX &Se\(pis airov), youngest son of Jerahmeel, or his ltrst wife, if we read with Bertheau, ' of or from Ahijah,' D having dropped out. See next verse. 6. 1 Ch 87, one of the ' heads of fathers' houses' of Geba, a son of Ehud, for which read ' Abihud,' v.s (Pesh., Gratz), or ' Ahoah' (v.4). In the beginning of the verse read'namely' for 'and.' The text is very obscure. See Q.P.B. 7. 1 Ch IF8, the Pelonite, one of David's mighty men; but Kennicott, etc., read instead 'EliamGilonite,' from 2 S 23s4. 8. 1 Ch 2620. (In David's time) ' of the Levites, Ahijah was over the treasuries.' LXX, followed by Bertheau, etc., reads, 'the Levites, their brethren {i.e. the sons of Lad an, v.21), were over,' etc. 9. Neh 1028 (RV Ahiah), one of 'the chiefs of the people' who sealed to the covenant under Nehemiah. N. J. D. White. AHIKAM (op'riK 'my brother has arisen').Son of Shaphan, a courtier under Josiah, mentioned as one of the deputation sent by the king to Huldah the prophetess (2 K 2212-14, 2 Ch 34a)), and later as using his influence to protect Jeremiah from the violence of the populace during the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 2621). He was father of Gedaliah, the governor of the land of Judah appointed by Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 2522 al.). C. F. BURNEY. AHILUD (niVriN, perhaps a contraction of 'ito %n1?' 'child's brother'). 1. (2 S 816 2024, 1 K 43, 1 Ch 181B). Father of Jehoshaphat, the chronicler under David and Solomon. 2. (1 K 412) Father of Baana, one of Solomon's twelve commissariat officers. C. F. BURNEY. AHIMAAZ (CHP'iix 'my brother is wrath').1. Son of Zadok. He was a remarkably swift runner, whose style was well known (2 S 1827), and as such he played an important part on the occasion of4 Absalom's rebellion. As had been arranged by David (2 S 1527.28.35.86^ he and jonathan, son of Abiathar, ' stayed by En-rogel, and a maidservant used to go and tell them,' from the priests, the plans of Absalom which had been divulged by Hushai, ' and they went and told King David.' This must have occurred more than once (2 S 17"). Details of their last and most critical adventure are given (1718'21), when, aided by a woman's craft, they succeeded in conveying the news that saved David's life. After the battle, Ahimaaz offered his services as messenger of victory; but Joab, fearing that the odium of being the first to tell of Absalom's death might injure the young man's prospects, refused, out of kindness, to allow him to run, and entrusted the duty to the Cushite courier. Ahimaaz, however, saw a way out of the difficulty; Joab yielded reluctantly to his importunity, and Ahimaaz ' ran by the way of the Plain' (the floor of the Jordan valley, Gn 1310 etc.); and by superior swiftness, and also, as is implied, by taking an easier route, ' overran the Cushite.' He did not belie David's description: ' He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings,' for by an adroit suppressio veri he achieved his purpose, and left to the Cushite the ungrateful office of Dreaking the king's heart. We read nothing more of Ahimaaz after this. It does not appear that he was ever high priest, since Azariah his son (1 Ch 68-9) seems to have succeeded Zadok (1 K 42). 2. (1 S 1450) Father of Ahinoam, Saul's wife. 3. (1 K 415) One of Solomon's twelve commissariat officers. He had the district of Naphtali as the field of his operations. Since he alone of the twelve has no father mentioned, it has been conjectured that he may possibly be the son of Zadok; but he surely would have succeeded his father in the high priesthood. Ahimaaz married Basemath, one of Solomon's daughters. Another of these officers made a similar alliance, which indicates that they held a high rank. N. J. D. White. AHIMAN ("O'cra: on the.form, see Moore as cited below).1. The sons of Anak or Anakites (see Anak) are frequently mentioned, chiefly in D ; but the special names Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai occur only in JE (Nu 1322, Jos 1514) and Jg I10, cf. v.20. According to these passages, Ahiman, AHIMELECH AHITOB 57 Sheshai, and Talmai were 'sons' or 'children of Anak' (piya 'ja or 'yn *rS* : for the latter, cf. n1!?1 rnnn 2 S 21w> M), whose father was Arba (Jos 1513, perhaps P). But, as a matter of fact, neither Anak {=long-necked) nor Arba (=four: with Kiriath-aria cf. Beer-sheba) are personal names (see Moore, Judges I20). There is therefore no reason to doubt what the context of the above-cited passages suggests, viz. that Ahinian, Sheshai, and Talmai are the names, not of individuals, but of clans. A., then, was a clan resident in Hebron (the more familiar name of Kiriath-arba) at the time of the Heb. conquest, and driven thence by Caleb. The clan may have been of Aramaic origin, since the names of Sheshai and Talmai are of an Aram, type, and the name Ahiman has analogy in Aram, as well as Heb. See further, Driver, Deut. p. 23 f.; Moore, Judges, p. 24 f. 2. The name of a family or division of doorkeepers, 1 Ch 9". This name is absent, not only from the briefer list in Neh II19, but also from the-longer list in Ezr 1024 ( = 1 Es 5s8). It is possible, therefore, that the name (jo'iw) in Chron. is simply due to dittography from the following word a.Tiw (= their brethren); if this be so, it may have been facilitated by association with the Anakites (see No. 1), the preceding name in Chron. Talmon-^-closely resembling in sound the Anakite Talmai. But the genuineness of the name is defended by Bertheau; cf. the four names in v.17 and the four divisions suggested by vv.2*-2". G. B. Gkay. AHIMELECH (Harris' brotherof Melek (Molech)'). 1. The son of Alutub, and grandson of Phinehas. lie either succeeded his brother Aliiiah in the priesthood, or was the same person under another name (1 S 148-18). On the supposition that they are identical, the main facts regarding him (1S 211"9 229"19) are given under Ahijah ; see also Doeg. In 2 S 8" and 1 Ch 246 it is generally supposed that the names of Abiathar and Ahimelech have been transposed by a copyist, so that we need not reckon another Ahimelech, grandson of the first. 2. A Hittite, who joined David when a fugitive, and became one of his captains (1 S 266). K. M. Boyd. AHIMOTH (rto'P!?, apparently ' brother is death'). Mentioned only'in the genealogy of 1 Ch 6* (Heb. v10), where he appears as son of Elkanah and brother of Amasai. For a discussion of the text and purpose of the genealogy, see Bertheau; cf. also Mahath (v.35). G. B. Gray. AHINADAB (37JW 'brother is generous').Son of Iddo, one of the 12 officers appointed by Solomon for the victualling of the royal household. He was stationed at Mahanaim (1 K 414). G. B. Gray. AHINOAM (cyi-nx 'brother is pleasantness'). 1. Daughter of Ahima'az and the wife of Saul (1S 1450). 2. Ahinoam the Jezreelitess was one of the two womenAbigail being the otherwhom David married after Michal had been taken from him. A. and Abigail were both with David while he sojourned with Achish at Gath, and were subsequently at Ziklag; from the latter city they were carried off by the Amalekites, but rescued by Davu and his men (1 S 3018). After Saul's death A. and Abigail went up to Hebron with David, and there A. gave birth to David's firstborn, Amnon (-1 S 25"" 27s 305, 2 S 22 32, 1 Ch 31). G. B. Gray. AHIO (Vn*)1. Appears to be the name of a son of Abinadai) (No. 1), and brother of Uzzah who drove the cart on which the ark was placed when removed from Abinadab's house (2 S 63-4, 1 Ch 137). In all three cases the LXX renders the word 0 iSeXipol aCrrov, which merely involves a different pronunciation of the same consonantsvijx ; this may be right, but on the whole a proper name seems more probable in the context. 2. (LXX &5e\&s [A &Se\6s (A &5e\ds (A &8e\ol) airoO, and in this case is probably right. Cf. Bertheau, in loco. G. l?. Gray. AHIRA (jrvns)-Son of Enan, one of the 12 tribal irinces who represented Naphtali at the census ,nd on certain other occasions (Nu I16 220 7?8>83 AHIRAM, AHIRAMITES (cn-nx, 'PTWC 'brother is exalted').The eponym of a Benj. familythe -Ahiramites, Nu 26*1 (P). The name A. occurs in the corrupt forms TS (see Em) in Gn 4621 (P), and rriDN (see Aharah) in 1 Ch 81; in defence of the originality of the form Ahiram, see Gray, Stud, in Heb. Proper Names, p. 35. AHISAMACH (Jis^'rtK ' brother has supported'). A Danite, father of Oholiab (AV Ahohab), Ex 316 35W 3S23 (P). G. B. Gkay. AHISHAHAR (Tf'TO (pansal form) 'brother is dawn') is described in the Benjamite genealogies as one of the 'sons of Bilhan,' 1 Ch 7W. See under BlLHAN. AHISHAR (n?*Tss 'my brother has sung').Super-ntendent of Solomon s household (1 K 46). AHITHOPHEL (bsn-nx 'my brother is folly' Oxf. Heb. Lex.), was a native of Giloh, a town in the south-western part of the highlands of Judiea, identified uncertainly with a village three miles north-west of Halhul. He was a very influential counsellor of David, his reputation for political sagacity being unrivalled ; but he was destitute of principle, a man of craft rather than of character 2 S lS^-H33, 1 Ch 2733). He joined the rebellion of Absalom, possibly through ambition, possibly out of sympathy with the resentment of his tribe of Judah at the decline of its tribal pre-eminence. It is supposed by some that he was also the grandfather of Bathsheba (cf. 2 S 23W with II3); but the identification of her father wrth the son of A. is open to question, though certainly possible. The policy he advised was that Absalom should take possession of his father's harem, thus showing that no pardon could be expected from David, and that he should proceed at once in pursuit of his father. When Hushai's counsel of delay prevailed, A. recognised the necessary failure of the enterprise, withdrew to Giloh, and hanged himself (2 S 1723). There is no other case of deliberate suicide, except in war, mentioned in the OT, and the parallel in the NT is the case of Judas. Allusions to A. have been found in Ps 419 5512"14 59U and elsewhere; but these must not be treated as designed, and no inference can be drawn from them as to the authorship of the psalms. The Talmud and Midrashim occasionally refer to him. In the latter he is classed with Balaam as an instance of the ruin which overtakes wisdom that is not the gift of Heaven; and in the former (Baba bathra 1. 7) the great lesson of his life is said to be, Be not in strife with the house of David, and break off from none of its rule.' R. W. Moss. AHITOB (B 'AXe'T, d-*Jp, oipavbt) is the first of the three divisions' the heaven above,' ' the earth beneath,' and ' the water under the earth.' Its usual sense is the atmosphere resting upon the earth, with special terms for the highest heavens and for air in motion, as wind, breath, etc. As the locality oi air is above the earth, so its language is that of the supernatural. As the emblem of the insubstantial, and the antithesis of 'flesh and blood' (Eph 612), it is regarded as the dwelling - place of powers which, though under God, are over man. Satan is described as ' the prince of the power of the air' (Eph 2-), and the war of the Lord is there lifted out of all tribal provincialism, and declared to be a world-wide conflict between elemental good and evil. For safety and success in this battle ' the whole armour of God' is needed. In Dt 32" the heathen gods are called Shedhim, the term by which modern Jews denote the malignant spirits that are considered to infest the air. The fear of offending them makes the uneducated Jewish woman say, AKAN ALCIMUS 59 'By your leave'! when throwing out water from her door-step; and the dread of their congregated power makes the Jews walk quickly in the funeral procession. The same superstition passed into the Christian Church with regard to the efficacy of the passing bell. The Jews in the synagogue-worship, when repeating the solemn watchword of Israel, 'Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord,' prolong the pronunciation of the word -lnjj 'one,' as a protection against the hostility of the air-powers. See Demon. G. M. Mackie. AKAN (JPB,).A descendant of Esau (Gn 3627). The name appears in 1 Ch I42 as Jakan. AKATAN {'A-nardv, AVAeatan), 1 Es 8s8.Father of Joannes, who returned with Ezra, called Hak-katan, Ezr 812. AKELDAMA (Ac I19 WH 'AKeXda/juix, TR 'AiteX-Sa/id, AV Aceldama).The popular name of ' the field of blood,' bought with the money paid to and returned by the traitor, Mt 273"w. The language of Ac I18 seems also to imply that it was so named as the scene of his suicide. It is not impossible that a spot so denied would be eagerly sold and bought in the circumstances described. Such a place must have always been needed (Jer 2623), and at the time this ' field' was purchased, owing to the multitude of 'strangers' dwelling in and visiting Jerusalem, there may have been urgent need for a larger place of burial, and a difficulty of procuring land for such a purpose. The place had been previously known as ' the potter's field,' and seems to be identified with ' the potter's house' of Jer 182 192, which was in the valley of the son of Hinnom, the scene in earlier times of Molech-worship, and subsequently defiled as a place of buria' (Jer 730"33, 2 K 23W). The traditional site is still known as Hakk-ed-Dumm (in the 12th cent, called Chaudemar, a manifest corruption of the original). It is situated half-way up the hill, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, on a level spot. ' It is now a partly ruined building, 78 ft. long outside and 57 ft. wide, erected over rock-cut caves and a deep trench.' Originally there had been tombs cut in a natural cave, which forms the inner or southern part; and though these have been broken up to enlarge the space, six 'loculi' remain on the western side and two on the eastern. A deep trench has been cut in front of the original roek-tombs, 30 ft. deep, 21 ft. wide, and 03 ft. 'ong. The wall built on the outer edge of the trench is about 30 ft. high. A stone roof thrown over the trench joins the hill face (PEFSt, 1892, p. 283 ff.). Apparently there was a cliff here with a natural cave in the face of ]'o. This may have been used, as caves frequenUy are, as a potter's workshop. But the name of the gate, ' Marsith,' Jer 192 ' the gate of potsherds,' would rather indicate that the site of the potter's workshop was close by the gate, and not across a valley from it; his work would also require a supply of water to be at hand ; nor can the Valley of Hinnom be said to be conclusively identilied. According to Eusebius, Akeldama was on the north of the city ; Jerome (by a slip or of dssign) places it on the south. From the seventh century (Arculpli) it has been pointed out on the presently accepted site. KrafFt (Top. Jer. p. 193) says he saw clay dug at Hakk-ed-Dumm; but Schick denies that potter's clay is found there, and says that only a kind of chalk used to mix with clay is got higher up the hill; but even if it were, clay is not used where it is found, but where facilities for its use are greatest. The ownership of the spot has been more valued in later times than when purchased by the chief priests. In the 12th cent, the Latins got it from the Syrians, in the 16th cent, it was in the possession of the Armenians, in the 17th cen$. of the Greeks, and it passed again to the Armenians, who at the close of that century paid a rent for it to the Turks. More strange is the virtue attached to its soil of quickly consuming dead bodies, because of which, notwithstanding its history, 270 shiploads are said to have been taken to form the Campo Santo at Home, and seven shiploads to Pisa for a like purpose. Schick cal. culates the accumulation in it of bones and small stones at 10 to 15 ft. deep. A. Henderson. AKK0S ('AkkiUs, A ; *AK/3ressly mentioned >nly in 1 Mac I1"7 62, though several passages in Dan. are frequently interpreted as alluding to him. LiTBEATmm.The sources of A.'s history are examined in 'reeman, Hist. Essays, 2nd ser. Ess. 5, to which add Pauly, tE, art. ' Alexander," and Mahaffy, Ptolemies, where in 66 ?vidence is adduced in favour of the novel suggestion, that A.'s friendship to the Jews was due to his desire to use them as a kind of intelligence department to hw army. For the rabbinical R. W. Moss. ALEXANDER BALAS was either a natural son if Antiochns Epiphanes (Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 1; Liv. Spit. 50; Strabo, xiii.), or a lad of Smyrna who Jaimed such descent (Justin, xxxv. 1; Appian, Hyr. 67). In the latter (more likely) case, Balas was ns proper name, and its etymology is unknown; in the former case the name may be connected with the Aram. n^v.3 ' lord.' He also assumed his reputed father's title of Epiphanes (1 Mac 101). He was set up as a pretender to the throne of Demetrius Soter, whose despotism had alienated his subjects and offended his neighbours, by the three allied kings, Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, Attalus II. of Pergamum, and Ariarathes V. of Cappadocia. The Romans also supported his claims (Polybius, xxxiii. 14. 16), in accordance, with their policy of promoting civil strife within kingdoms that might become formidable. He secured the help of Jonathan (B.C. 153) by nominating him high priest, and after some reveisex defeated Demetrius, who fell in the battle. Balas thereupon married Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor (for a fuller account of whose relations with Balas see Mahaffy, Emp. of Ptolemies, 208-212), and appointed (B.C. 150) Jonathan with special honours (Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 2) arparriyit anil leptd&pxvs, military and civil governor of the province, although Syrian commandants were retained in several of the principal fortresses. His kingdom now established, Balas proved himself an incapable ruler, negligent of State affairs, and given up to self-indulgence (Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Graic. n. praf. xvi, n. 19; Liv. Epit. 50; Justin, xxxv. 2). Demetrius Nicator, son of Dem. Soter, invaded the country in B.C. 147, and was supported by A pollonius, governor of Coele-Syria. But J onathan defeated and slew Apollonius, and was rewarded on the part of Balas by the gift of Ekron. Balas, however, was deserted by his own soldiers and by the people of Antioch. Ptolemy, his father-in-law, entered Syria on the plea that Balas was plotting a"ainst him, and took nn the cause of Demetrius, to whom he transferred bis daughter Cleopatra in marriage. Balas hastened from Cilicia, where he iiad been trying to ijhbJI a revolt, but was defeated by Ptolemy. He was either slain (R.C. 1461 in the battle (Euseb. Chron. Arm. i. 349), or he Hed to Abie, in Arabia, where he was assassinated (Miiller, I.e. ;'l Mac 11"). The relation of the Jews to Balas, and the consistency of their alliance, appear in 1 Mac 1047, KV 'They were well pleased with Alexander, because he was the lirst that spake words of peace unto them, and they were confederate with him always.' His necessities and his unconcern made Judaea almost autonomous. Alexander Epiphanes, 1 Mac 101 = A. Balas. ALEXANDRIA (h 'AXf<*p)> the Hellenic capital of Egypt, was founded by Alexander the Great, B.C. 332. Under the early Ptolemies ii 62 ALEXANDRIA ALEXANDRIA rose to importance, and became the emporium of the commerce of the East and of the West. Oblong in shape and rounded at the extremities, Strabo compared it to the chlamys or cloak of the Macedonian cavalry,it occupied the narrow strip of land which lay between the sea and the Lake Mareotis. An artificial mole connected it with the island of Pharos, and on either side of the mole were commodious harbours which received the ships of Europe and Asia. The Lake Mareotis, which was joined by a canal to the Canopic mouth of the Nile, brought to it the commerce of the East. The beauty of the city was proverbial. One-third of its extent was occupied with royal palaces and open public grounds ; and it had a system of wide regular streets with noble colonnades. Its population, which amounted to about 800,000 souls in its flourishing period, consisted chiefly of Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews, who occupied separate quarters. The RegioJudajorum, which lay in the north-eastern portion of the city, was surrounded by walls. A special governor, called the Alabarch, presided over it, and the Jews were permitted to live according to their own laws. The Jewsthe mercenary race as they were calledwere not popular with their fellow-citizens, but they were protected by the rulers, Greek and Roman, who recognised the value of their services to the commercial prosperity of the city. When A. became part of the Roman Empire, B.C. 30, and a granary of Rome, the important corn trade with Italy fell into the hands of Jewish merchants. The Lagidau were munificent patrons of learning, and it was their ambition to make their capital a place of intellectual renown. They collected within its walls the largest library of antiquity, part of which was housed in the temple of Serapis in the Egyptian quarter, and another part in the museum which was situated in the Bruchium or Greek quarter. To the museum was attached a staff' of professors, who were salaried by the State. It had a bariqueting-hall in which the professors dined, corridors for peripatetic lectures, and a theatre for public disputations. The chief subjects of study were grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and geography. The school of philosophical thought which ultimately arose was eclectic, a patchwork of earlier systems, and it closed its career by dethroning philosophy in favour of religious tradition. For the student of Christian theology, A. occupies an important place in the history of religious development as the cradle of a school of thought in which the earliest attempt was made to bring the teaching of the OT into relation with Hellenic ideas. It was in A. that the Heb. Scriptures were first translated into Greek. This translation, although it afterwards became ' the first apostle to the nations,' was not made with a missionary purpose, being intended to afford a knowledge of the law to the numerous Jews who had grown up in ignorance of the Heb. language. But having opened up their treasures to the curious Greeks, it became necessary for the Jews to explain andto defend them. It was the claim of the Jew thatthe Scriptures are the sole source of a true knowledge of God and of human duty; but when he became familiar with Greek literature, it was impossible to deny that there also were found noble doctrines and excellent counsels. The Alexandrian Jew offered an Apologia for his exclusive claim, which was repeated by the Christian Fathers, lived through the entire Middle Ages, and almost to our own time. Plato and Pythagoras, he said, and even Homer, borrowed all their wisdom from the OT Scriptures. Aristobulus, a Jewish courtier, who lived about the middle of the second century B.C., writes: 'Plato took our legislation as his model, and it is certain that he knew the whole of it; the same is true of Pythagoras.' In order to gain venerated authority for this assertion, the Jews composed verses in the name of the mystic poets of antiquity, in praise of Moses and of Judaism. In his commentary on the Pentateuch, Aristobulus introduces Orpheus, and makes him say that he cannot reveal the God whom clouds conceal; that the water-born Moses alone of mortals received knowledj/e from on high on two tables. Another writer of Egypt who was a contemporary of Aristobulus, the author of the third of the Sibylline Books, introduces the Sibyl of Cumse, who speaks of the Jews as a nation appointed by God to be the guide of all mortals; and she offers the coming Messianic salvation tc all nations if they will turn from their idols to serve the living God. Having thus established to their own satisfaction that Gentile wisdom comes from the Scriptures, the Jews next proceeded to place it there by the help of the magic wand of allegorical interpretation. Thus interpreted, the narratives of Scripture easily yielded up Platonic and Stoic dogmas. The Jewish Alexandrian philosophy, which began with Aristobulus and culminated in Philo, was an elaborate attempt to clothe Greek philosophical ideas in Scripture language, and thus to confer upon them the authority of divine revelation. It was to Platonism and Stoicism that the Jewish scholars most naturally turned; for in the lofty monotheism of the former, and in the moral earnestness of the latter, they seemed to hear echoes of Isaiah and Solomon. It was through the influence of Platonic and Stoic conceptions that the Sophia and the Logos assumed such importance in the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy. In the Heb. Scriptures they had been personified, but they were now hypostatized, and became intermediaries between the creature and the Most High God. The Jewish philosophy of A., which was not confined to A., but spread through the whole of the Greek-speaking Diaspora, exercised a certain influence upon the Greeks, who were drawn towards Judaism by its accent of certainty about God, which was always wanting even in the loftiest theology of their own philosophers. Its main influence, however, lay in its Hellenizing of the Jews, who were enabled to appropriate Hellenic views of life without conscious apostasy from Judaism. The extent of the influence of Jewish Alexandrian philosophy on the writers of the NT has been variously estimated. There are striking similarities between the terminology and sometimes between the thoughts of St. Paul and of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and those of Philo. But the similarities are probably due to their common knowledge of the current teaching of the Greek-speaking synagogue. On tiie other hand, the direct practical spirit of the NT writers offers a strong contrast to the dreamy intel-lectualism of Philo's allegories. The name of the city of Alexandria does not occur in the NT. Mention is made of a synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem (Ac 69). Apollos is described as an 'Alexandrian by race' (Ac 1824). St. Paul sailed on two occasions in Alexandrian ships, which probably belonged to the corn trade (Ac 27" 2811). It is remarkable that neither St. Paul nor his companions visited A., in some respects the most promising missionary field in the world. As regards St. Paul, to hazard a conjecture, he may have been deterred by what occurred in Corinth (1 Co I12), where Apollos followed him, and by his preach, ing produced an unhappy division without intending it. St. Paul may have felt that his simple presentation of Christ crucified would be unwelcome ALGUM TBEES ALL 63 among hearers accustomed to the word of wisdom in trope and allegory. If we were to accept the view of those critics who hold that Apollos wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews to the Jewish Christians of A., it would be easy to explain St. Paul's conduct, as it would have been contrary to his custom to visit a Church which a fellow-labourer had already made his own (2 Co 1016). According to Eusebius (H.E. ii. 16), St. Mark was the first who was sent to Egypt, where he preached the gospel which he had written, and established churches in A. 'The multitude of believers,' he adds, ' both men and women, lived lives of the most extreme and philosophical asceticism.' The statement of Eusebius about St. Mark, which he introduces with the formula 'they say,' and connects with fanciful legends, has clearly no authority. His description, however, of the character of the early Alexandrian Church is probably correct. During the second and third centuries of our era Alexandria was the intellectual capital of Christendom. In the Alexandrian heretics Basi-lides and Valentinus, and in the Church Fathers Clement and Origen, we observe how the spirit of Jewish Alexandrian philosophy passed into Christianity. See Philosophy, Religion. Literature.Strabo, Geog. xvii.; Eusenius, Prcepar, Evang. 13 ; Patr. Or. xxi. ; Or. Spb. Hi.; Dahne, Ges. Darstell. d. Jud.-Alex. Rel.-Ph.ilo8.; Pauly-Wissowa, HE; Druinmond, Philo-Judceus; Hausrath, Times of Apostles. J. GlBB. ALGUM TREES, ALMUG TREES (d'su^k 'algum-%mim, 2 Ch 2s 91"- u; D'jc^ 'almuggim, 1 K 10n-12, LXX. |i/Xa ireiiava.; Vulg. ligna thyina, ligna pinea). Celsius (Hierobot. i. 173) states that some doubted the identity of the algum and the almug. This doubt, however, is not justified by the transposition of the letters in the two names. Such transposition is extremely common in Heb. proper names (e.g. Rehum, Drn, "Neb 123, is called in v.15 of the same chapter Harim, D-irj). We are told that algum trees were brought from Ophir (2 Ch 910). Almug trees were also brought from Ophir (1 K 1011). These passages are perfectly parallel, and plainly refer to the same tree. But, in 2 Ch 21, Solomon instructs Hiram to send ' cedar trees, rir trees, and algum trees (AVm almuggim) out of Lebanon.' Did the term algum in Lebanon signify one tree and in Ophir another ? This is possible. Cedar, in Eng., is applied to various species of Cupressus, Abies, Juniperus, and Larix, as well as to Cednis Libani. Fir, in Eng., is applied to several species of Abies, and the Scotch lir is Pinus sylvestris, L. Spruce is used in Europe for Abies excelsa, L., and in the United States for three species of Abies: A. Cana-densis, Mich., A. alba, Mich., and A. nigra, Poir. Instances of this might easily be multiplied. If we accept this supposition, the passage is amply explained. But it affords no clue to the name of the tree growing in Lebanon. If, on the other hand, the tree which Solomon requested Hiram to send was the same as that brought from Ophir, was Lebanon a station for it ? This is also possible. We do not know where Ophir was, nor what the tree was. It would be quite rash to say that it could not grow in both localities. The cedar, mentioned in the same clause, grows in Lebanon, Amanus, Taurus, the Himalayas, and the Atlas. It is also uncertain what fir is alluded to in the passage. There are firs in Lebanon, and also in some, at least, of the localities proposed for Ophir. It is possible that the unknown tree had a range which included Lebanon and Ophir. The conditions for any candidate for the algum or almug tree, imported from Ophir, are(1) that it should be a wood of sufficient value to make its importation from so distant a country as Ouhir, be it Arabia, India, or the East Coast of Africa, profitable; (2) that it should be suitable for nftpj terraces (m. highways or stairs, more properly a staircase, 2 Ch 9U), and ijjpo pillars (m. a prop or rails, more properly balustrade, 1 K 1012), and for harps and psalteries. Fifteen different candidates have been proposed, among them thyine wood, deodar, fir, bukm (Ccesalpina Sappan). The majority of scholars, following the opinion of certain Rabbis, incline to the red sandal wood (Pterocarpus Santalina, L.), a native of Coroman-del and Ceylon. There is not, however, a particle of direct evidence in its favour. Against it is the fact that it occurs now in commerce only in small billets, unsuitable for staircases, balustrades, or even the construction of harps and psalteries. It is, however, possible that larger sticks might have been cut in ancient times. In the uncertainty which must ever remain as to the identity of the tree intended, and with the probability that a considerable number of trees which grew in Lebanon are now extinct there owing to denudation of forests, and the possibility that the Lebanon algum may have been a different tree with the same name, it is needless to suggest an interpolation of the passage ' out of Lebanon " (2 Ch 2s). G. E. Post. ALIAH (rr-^H).A 'duke' of Edom, 1 Ch 151 = Alvah, Gn 3d4". ALIAN (i;fe).A descendant of Esau, 1 Ch 1= Alvan, Gn 3Q2*. ALIEN.See Foreigner. ALL.There are few words in the Eng. Bible the precise meaning of which is so often missed aa the word 'all.' The foil, examples need special attention. 1. When joined to a pers. pron. all usually follows the pron. in mod. usage, in early Eng. it often precedes it. Is 53s' All we like sheep have gone astray'; but Is 646 ' We all do fade as a leaf.' 2. All stands for 'all people' in 1 Ti 415 ' that thy profiting may appear to all.' 3. Following the Gr. (iras\, all is used with a freedom which is denied to it in mod. Eng. In He 77, 'without all contradiction,' all=any whatever. Cf. Shaks. Macbeth, III. ii. 11 * Things without all remedy Should be without regard.' In Col I10 'unto all pleasing' is a literal tr. of the Gr., and means 'in order to please (God) in every way.' Similarly all is used for 'every' in Dt 223 ' In like manner shalt thou do ... with all (RV ' every') lost tiling of thy brother's'; Rev 1812 ' all manner of vessels of ivory,' and even without the word ' manner' in the same verse, ' all thyine wood.' i. All means 'altogether' in 1 K 141U 'till it be all gone'; Nah 31 ' Woe to the bloody city ! it is all full of lies.' Cf. Caxton (1483) 'The lady wente oute of her wytte and was al demonyak.' This is the meaning of ' all' in ' All hail,' Mt 289, literally, ' be altogether whole, or in health.' 5. All appears in some interesting phrases. All along: 1 S 2830 'Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth' (RV 'his full length upon the earth'); Jer 41" 'weeping all along as he went,' i.e. throughout the whole way he went; cf. ' I knew that all along,' i.e. throughout the whole time. All in all: 1 Co 1528 'that God may be all in all' (Gr. tt&vto. iv Traffic, all things in all [persons and} things). Cf. Sir 4327 ' He (God) is all' (to irav io-nv niiro's). Different is Shaks. (Ham. I. ii. 198) ' Take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again/ where all in all is ' altogether.' All one: 1 Co 11" 'that is even all one (RV 'one and the same 64 ALLAMMELECH ALLEGORY thing') as if she were shaven'; Job 9s3 RV.'It is all one' (Heb. K'ii-nnsj), i.e. it ia a matter of indifference. All the whole occurs in Ps 961 Pr. Bk. ' Sing unto the Lokd* all the -whole earth' (AV and RV 'all the earth'). This redundancy is found in various forms in old Eng., as 'the whole all,' 'the all whole,' 'all and whole.' For all: Jn 21" 'for all ( = notwithstanding) there were so many.' Cf. Tindale's tr. of Ac 1637 ' for all that we are Romans.' Once fop all: He 10lu (Gr. iipdraj;); this is the only occurrence in AV, and it gives for all in ital.; but RV, which omits the italics here, gives the same tr. of this adv. in He 727 912, Jude y, and in marg. of Ro 610. In 1 Co 15" it is tr. ' at once' in both v SS. All to brake: Jg 9s3 'And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake (RV 'and brake') his skull.' This is the most interesting of those phrases in which the word ' all' is found. The meaning is not, ' and all in order to break his skull'; the verb is in the past tense. The 'to' is not the sign of the infin., it goes with the verb, like the Ger. zer, to signify asunder, or in pieces. So we find to-burst, to-cut, to-rend, to-rive, etc. ' All' was prefixed to this emphatic verb to give it greater emphasis. Hence ' all to-brake' means 'altogether broke in pieces.' Cf. Tindale's tr. of Mt 76 ' lest they tread them under their feet, and the other turn again, and all to rent you.' Sir T. More says (Works, 1557, p. 1224) ' She fel in hand with hym . . . and all to rated him.* J. Hastings. ALLAMMELECH (^d1?*). Perhaps ' King's oak,' a town of Asher probably near Acco (Jos 192(i). The site is not known. ALLAR (B 'AXXip, A 'AXrfp, AV Aalar), 1 Es 5s8. One of the leaders of those Jews who could not show their pedigree as Isr. at the return from captivity under Zerubbabel. The name seems to correspond to Immer in Ezr 269, Neh 761, one of the places from which these Jews returned. In 1 Es Cherub, Addan, and Immer appear as ' Charaatha-lan leading them and Allar.' H. St. J. Thackeray. ALLAY, not found in AV, is introduced by RV into Ec 104 'yielding allayeth (AV 'pacifieth') great offences.' The meaning seems to be that a spirit of conciliation puts an end to offences more completely than a strong arm. Cf. Shaks. 2 Henry VI. IV. i. 60, 'allay this thy abortive pride.' J. Hastings. ALLEGE occurs but twice, Wis 1822 'aln (inro/i>"ij(ras, RV' bringing to remembrance') the oaths and covenants made with the fathers'; and Ac 173 'Opening and alns that Christ must needs have suffered,' where it has the old meaning of adducing proofs (irapa.Ti${fi.ei>os), like Lat. allegare, not the mod. sense of asserting. Allegiance, not in AV, is given in RV at 1 Ch 1229 as tr. of rnry? ' Kept their a. to (AV ' Kept the ward of') the house of Saul.' J. Hastings. ALLEGORY. i. History of the Word. The substantive AWriyopia, with its verb a\\r)yopei5a>, is derived from dXXo, aoTnetJiivt] else, and dyopetioi, I speak ; and is denned by Heniclitus (Heraclides ?) probably of the first century A.n.as follows: fiXXa (itn ayopeiuv Tptnros Irepa Si Siv X^yei aruwXvwv tirojevfjAijs aWriyopla KaXeirat : ' The mode of speech which says other things (than the mere letter) and hints at different things from what it expresses, is called appropriately allegory' (c. 5). Neither substantive nor verb is found in the LXX; and the verb alone, and that only once (Gal 4s4), occurs in the NT. The word, whether substantive or verb, appears to be altogether late Greek. Plutarch (nourished 80-120 A.D.) tells us (De And. Poet. 19 E) that it was the equivalent in his day for the more old-fashioned ivlrma, the deeper sense (or the figure expressing it), which was a special feature in the Stoic philosophy, with its Sepawela {treatment, manipulation); and Cicero had not long before introduced dWiryopla, in its Greek form, in two or three passages in his works (e.g. Orator 27; Ad Attic, ii. 20); while Philo had freely used substantive and verb early in the first century; and the verb is used in Josephus {Ant. Procem. 4) of some of the writings of Moses. ii. Distinctive Meaning.The provinces of allegory, type, symbol, parable, fable, metaphor, analogy, mystery, may all trench upon one another; but each has its speciality, and the same thing can only receive the different names as it is viewed from the different points. Allegory differs essentially from type in that it is not a premonition of future development, and that there is no necessary historical and real correspondence in the main idea of the original to the new application of it: from symbol, in that it is not a lower grade naturally shadowing forth a higher; from parable, in that it is not a picture of a single compact truth, but a transparency through which the different details are seen as different truths, and in that it is not necessarily ethical in its aim; from fable, in that its lessons are not confined to the sphere of practical worldly prudence; from metaphor, in that its interpretation is not immediate and obvious, but has to be sought out through the medium of verbal or phenomenal parallels; from analogy, because it is not addressed to the reason so much as to the imagination ; and from mystery, in that it does not await a new order of things to be specially manifested and truly discernedi All these tropes may indeed be classed under the allegorical or the figurative, so far as they all point to a sense different from that contained in the mere letter. But, conventionally and in practice, allegory has a sphere of its own. In the non-specific sense, it has to do with the general relations of life in its external resemblances, one thing being mirrored in another according to outward appearance, so that the appearance of the one can serve as the figure of the other. In other words, the thing put before the eye or ear represents, not itself, but something else in some way Wee it.^ Thus the fish was early used as an allegory of Christ; it was not, strictly speaking, a symbol, or a type, or a parable, or any of the figures above compared. The resemblance was both far-fetched and outward, being evolved from the several letters of the word l%6bs as the initials of 'lijaoOs, Xpivros, 6eoD, Ti6s, Swr^p. Of allegory proper, more or less elaborated, we have within the bounds of the sacred books very little. In the OT may be instanced the allegory of the Vine in the 80th Psalm, and in the NT those of the Door, the Shepherd (Jn 10), and the Vine (Jn 15). In the more confined, the technical and historical sense, it denoted, especially for Alexandrian Greeks and Jews, the system of interpretation by which the most ancient Greek literature, in the one case, and the OT writings (and subsequently the NT), in the other, were assigned their value in proportion as they meant, not what they said, but something else, and could be made the clothing of cosmo-logical, philosophical, moral, or religious ideas. This leads us to the third and linal division. iii. Allegorical Interpretation.The tendency to allegorize has its foundations in human nature. Constantly and unconsciously we read into the creations of other men, as, for example, into a painting or a poem, our own thoughts, conceptions, .and emotions, and are scarcely to be persuaded that they were not the original thoughts, conceptions, and emotions of the creator. Or* ALLEGORY ALLEGORY 65 again, when any literature has so deeply inwrought, itself into the hearts and lives of a people as to have become a sacred and inseparable constituent of their nature, and when time has nevertheless so far changed the current of thought as to make that literature apparently inconsistent with the new idea, or inadequate to express it,then the choice for the people lies between a ruinous breach with what is, by this time, part and parcel of themselves, and, on the other hand, forcing the om language to be a vehicle for the ne\v thought. Hence the tendency to allegory, which is indigenous to human nature, becomes, in the absence of historical criticism, also inevitable, except to the indifferent iconoclast, if such there be. Allegory proved the safety-valve for Greek, Jew, and Christian. During and, perhaps, owing to the intellectual movement of the fifth century B.C.,in spite of the severe critical deprecation of Plato, whose mind was set on higher things,Homer, the 'Bible of the Greeks,' was saved for the educated by allegory; with the stories he told of the gods, if he was not allegorical, he was impious, or they were immoral. Hence, from Anaxagoras onwards, the actions of the Homeric gods and heroes are allegories of the forces of nature ; and, in Heraclitus (hrst century A.D.), the ' story of Ares and Aphrodite and Hephaestus is a picture of iron subdued by fire, and restored to its original hardness by Poseidon, that is, by water.' Or else they are the movements of mental powers and moral virtues; and so, in Cornutus (also first cent. A.D.), when Odysseus filled his ears that he might be deaf to the song of the Sirens, it is an allegory of the righteous filling their senses and powers of mind with divine words and actions that the passions and pleasures which tempt all men on the sea of life might knock at their doors in vain (Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 1888, pp. 62, 64). But allegorizing was Jewish as well as Greek, and Palestinian as well as Hellenistic. Both sections of Jews used allegory for apologetic purposes, but not with identical aims. The Pal. Jews allegorized the OT, finding a hidden sense in sentences, words, letters, and (in the centuries after Christ) even vowel-points, in order to satisfy their consciences for the non-observance of laws that had become impracticable, or to justify traditional and often trivial increment, or to defend God against apparent inconsistency, or the writers or historical characters against impiety o-r immorality; or, generally, for homiletical purposes. Thus Akiba (first and second centuries A.D.) claimed to have saved by allegory the Song of Songs from rejection. Allegory was a considerable element in the Pal. Haggada (or interpretation), and there were definite canons regulating its use. The Hellenistic Jews, whose metropolis of culture was Alexandria, and who, in the neighbourhood of NT times, constituted the majority of Jews, directed their apologetic towards educated Greeks, for philosophical purposes, and allegorized the OT to prove that their sacred books were neither barbarous nor immoral nor impious, that their religion had the same rationale as Greek philosophy, and that Moses had been the teacher, or, at all events, the anticipator, of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. The Helltiiistic thinkers desired to be Greek philosophers without ceasing to be Jewish religionists. Thus the Alexandrian Aristobulus (second cent. B.C.), reputed to be the earliest known Hellenistic allegorizer, in his commentary on the Pent, addressed to Ptolemy Philometor, sought (as Clement of Alexandria says) to 'bring Peripatetic philosophy out of Moses and the Prophets.' But the representative Alexandrian allegorizer was Philo (early in first century a.d.) : he reduced allegory to vol. i.s a system of his own, with canons similar to those of the Pal. Haggadists, but freely used, and adapted to philosophical ends by means of the Platonic doctrine of ideas. Professing to retain the literal sense as carrying in itself moral teaching, he nevertheless made the allegorical so tran-scendently significant (as the soul in the body) that both literal an4 moral were continually overwhelmed : before the writer's determination to extract the allegorical at all costs and in any sense that at the time suited his mood, the facts often disappeared, the narrative was turned upside down, and, in the handling of the characters of OT story, the unities were entirely ignored. So, when it is said that Jacob took a stone for his pillow, what he did, as the archetype of a self-disciplining soul, was to put one of the incorporeal intelhg'encea of that holy ground close to his mind; and, under the pretext of going to sleep, he, in reality, found repose in the intelligence which he had chosen that on it he might lay the burden of his life. Again, Joseph is made, in one aspect, the type of the sensual mind, and, in another, of a conqueror victorious over pleasure. We find the Alexandrian method employed upon the OT as early as the Book of Wisdom and its allegorical interpretation of the manna in the Pent. {1G*>S-), and of the high priest's robe as the image of the whole world (1824). The early Christians therefore found this current and acknowledged method of interpretation to their hand in the arguments they drew from the OT against the unbelieving Jews; and, in particular, St. Paul and the Paulinists, in their efforts to turn the law itself against the law-worshipping Judaisers. But not till post-apostolic times, culminating in the times of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, does the allegorical method show itself in any luxuriance. The method of Jesus and the speakers and writers in NT is typical rather than allegorical, and Palestinian rather than Alexandrian ; and, in any case, is self-restrained and free from the characteristic extravagance of rabbi and philosopher. St. Paul, in his application of the method to the command as to oxen threshing (1 Co 9s*-), to the rock (1 Co 104), and to the veil of Moses (2 Co 313ff-), is both Palestinian and Alexandrian in disregarding the original drift of the passages and incidents, treating is as cotnirg (1 Co 910) in comparison with the typico-allegor^cil interpretation ; but he is Pal. in being homfletical in his aim and not philosophical, and in having persons and events in his perspective rather than abstract truth. In Gal 421*- he openly affirms that Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, iarlv^ d?.\ij-yopoifieva, i.e. are (1) spoken or written of in the Scriptures allegorically, or (2) interpreted allegori-cally (with his approval) in his own day; and, in treating them (somewhat after Philo's manner upon the same subject) as representing two different covenants, one of the present and the other of the future Jerusalem, he approximates to the Alexandrian philosophical practice of allegorizing concrete things, persons, and events into abstract ideas: but only approximates; for not only is he clearly historical and typical in his basis, and homiletical in his aim, but, if v) to the heavenly substance (rb. ivovpdvia) (85101); and the allegory of Melchizedek, based not on the historical personage so much as on the nature of the two passing allusions to him, combined with the significance of the great silence elsewhere in the OT as to his birth and descent, as well as of the two names Melchizedek and Salem,all these together being made the foundation of a logical construction of the person and work of Christ as an emlnxliinent of the preconceived idea,can hardly be considered without regard to l'hilo's treatment of Melchizedek as an allegory of his apparently impersonal Logos. And yet, with the expression in the 110th Psalm before us, ' Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,' we must allow Dr. Westcott a certain margin of justification when he maintains that the treatment of Melchizedek is typical rather than allegorical; though he appears to be too sweeping when he affirms, ' There is no allegory in this epistle.' J. Massie. ALLEMETH (ns^1), AV Alemeth, 1 Ch 6"; Almon (jto^y), Jos 2118.A Levitical city of Benjamin. It is noticed with Anathoth, and is the present 'Almit on the hills N. of Anathoth. SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. C. It. Conder. ALLIANCE__The attitude of the Israelites to foreign nations varied greatly at different periods in their history. In early times alliances were entered into and treaties concluded without the slightest scruple. Even intermixture with alien races was so far from being tabooed, that it was one of the principal means by which the land west of the Jordan was secured. Thus we are told that Judah married and had children by the daughter of a Canaanite (Gn 382), the tradition embodying the history of the clan in a personal narrative. Again, the condemnation of Simeon and Levi (Gn 34*1) is evidently due to the violation of a treaty previously entered into with Shechem (cf. the story of the Gibeonites, Jos 9s, 2 S 211). For the earliest period, then, it may be held that treaties with Canaanitish clans were frequent and general. On the other hand, they played an important part in the internal history of the Hebrews. Israel was by no means at first so liomogeneous as is often supposed: the tribes, practically independent of each other, were gradually knit together by circumstances. Common dangers led to common action on the part of two or more of them: the leaders conferred together, or the chief of the strongest clan, or of the one most immediately threatened, assumed the headship, and the way was prepared for a close confederation. The times of the Judges furnish ample evidence of nis, and the monarchy had no other foundation. A very curious alliance, and one that proves both the looseness of the Heb. confederacy and the readiness with which relations were entered into with foreigners, is that between David and Achish, king of Gath (1 S 272). Under it, David was prepared to fight, on behalf of the traditional enemies of his race, against the Benjamite kingdom of Saul. That he did not, was apparently due solely to the suspicions of his fidelity entertained by the lords of the Philistines. When the monarchy became settled and comparatively powerful under Solomon, treaties with foreigners, in the stricter sense, became frequent. Solomon himself formed an alliance with Hiram, king of Tyre (1 K 5), and it is most probable that some of his marriages, and especially that with the daughter of Pharaoh, cemented a political union. The frequency with which rebels and outlaws sought a refuge in Egypt made such a union desirable. On the other Tiand, the memorials of the capture of Jerus. by Shishak of Egypt disprove the conjecture that his attack on Kehoboam was made in support of Jeroboam. After the secession of the ten tribes, Israel and Judah both sought foreign assistance against each other. Asa, on being attacked by Baasha, bribed Benhadad of Syria tn dissolve the alliance he had previously formed witL Israel, and to join him in his war with that country. It was not until the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Ahab that the two countries found themselves in accord, and fought side by side against the heathen. Their union was, of course, purely political: it hud nothing to do with religious or sentimental considerations. Ahab could also form, or maintain, an alliance with the king of Phoenicia, and build an altar to Baal as the guardian and avenger of the treaty (1 K 1631). With the entrance of the Assyrians on the scene, a new series of alliances is begun. Jehu's tribute to Shalmaneser was that of a vassal rather than an ally, and Menahem seems to have bribed Tiglath-pileser to aid hinv against his own subjects (2 K 1519). At this point, however, the prophets begin to inveigh against these alliances (cf. especially Hos 89, Is 30ls), and the national exclnsivenoss is linally perfected by Ezra and his school. J. MlLLAK. ALLIED (Neh 134 only) has the special meaning of connected by marriage. So liob. of Glouc. And saide, that it was'to hvtn great prow and honour To be in such manage alied to the emperour.' J. Hastings. ALLON. 1. (B 'AXK (RV 'approveth'); 1 Th 21; and Lk II48 'Ye a. the deeds (RV 'consent unto the works') of your fathers.' Cf. Ts 11" Pr. Bk. 'The Lord aetu (AV and RV 'trieth') the righteous.' 2. To place before one so as to see and admit it, to acknowledge, accept: Ac 2415 ' Which they themselves also a.' (Gr. vpoo-SixWh RV 'look for,' m. ' accept'). Allowable (not in AV or RV) is found in Pref. of AV=' worthy of approval.' Allowance is also in Pref. AV=approval, and has been introduced by RV at Jer 5231 in the mod. sense of ' portion' (AV ' diet'). Cf. 1 Es I7. J. Hastings. ALMIGHTY is used in OT as tr. of Ttf 48 times (all the occurrences of that word) of wh. 31 are AL MODAD ALMSGIVING 67 n Job. In NT it is used as tr. of TavroKpdrotp 10 times (all the occurrences of that word), of wh. 9 are in Rev. It is also freq. in Apoer. See- Goo. J. Hastings. AL MODAD {ntytf),