International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Almighty — Ananias (2)

Almighty

Almighty - ol-mit'-i: (1) (shaddai (Genesis 17:1)): Found in the Old Testament forty-eight times, most of these in the Book of Job; it occurs either alone or in combination with 'el, "God"). The root meaning is uncertain. (2) (pantokrator), the exclusive translation of this Greek word in the New Testament, found principally in Rev (nine times), once besides (2 Corinthians 6:18). Its occurrence in the Apocrypha is frequent.

See GOD, NAMES OF.

Almodad

Almodad - al-mo'-dad ('almodhadh, "the beloved," or, "God is beloved"): The first mentioned of the thirteen sons of Joktan (Genesis 10:25-29; 1 Chronicles 1:19-23). A south Arabian name, and pointing to a south Arabian tribe.

See ABIMAEL.

Almon

Almon - al'-mon (`almon, "hidden"): A Levitical city in the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 21:18), the same as "Allemeth" the Revised Version (British and American), "Alemeth" the King James Version, of 1 Chronicles 6:60 (which see).

Almond

Almond - a'-mund:

(1) shaqedh, Genesis 43:11; Numbers 17:8, etc. The word shaked comes from a Hebrew root meaning to "watch" or "wait." In Jeremiah 1:11-12 there is a play on the word, "And I said, I see a rod of an almond-tree (shaqedh). Then said Yahweh unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will watch (shoqedh) over my word to perform it."

(2) luz; the King James Version hazel, Genesis 30:37; lauz is the modern Arabic name for "almond"--Luz was the old name of BETHEL (which see).

1. Almond Tree: The almond tree is mentioned in Ecclesiastes 12:5, where in the description of old age it says "the almond-tree shall blossom." The reference is probably to the white hair of age. An almond tree in full bloom upon a distant hillside has a certain likeness to a head of white hair.

2. A Rod of Almond: A rod of almond is referred to Genesis 30:37, where "Jacob took him rods of fresh poplar, and of the almond (luz) and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them" as a means of securing "ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted" lambs and goats--a proceeding founded doubtless upon some ancient folklore. Aaron's rod that budded (Numbers 17:2-3) was an almond rod. Also see Jeremiah 1:11 referred to above.

3. The Blossoms: The blossoms of the almond are mentioned Exodus 25:33 f; Exodus 37:19 f, etc. "Cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop (i.e. knob) and a flower," is the description given of parts of the sacred candlesticks. It is doubtful exactly what was intended--the most probable is, as Dillmann has suggested, that the cup was modeled after the calyx of the almond flower.

See CANDLESTICK.

4. The Fruit: Israel directed his sons (Genesis 43:11) to carry almonds as part of their present to Joseph in Egypt. Palestine is a land where the almond flourishes, whereas in Egypt it would appear to have been uncommon. Almonds are today esteemed a delicacy; they are eaten salted or beaten into a pulp with sugar like the familiar German Marzipan.

The almond is Amygdalus communis (N.O. Rosaceae), a tree very similar to the peach. The common variety grows to the height of 25 feet and produces an abundant blossom which appears before the leaves; In Palestine this is fully out at the end of January or beginning of February; it is the harbinger of spring. This early blossoming is supposed to be the origin of the name shaqedh which contains the idea of "early." The masses of almond trees in full bloom in some parts of Palestine make a very beautiful and striking sight. The bloom of some varieties is almost pure white, from a little distance, in other parts the delicate pink, always present at the inner part of the petals, is diffused enough to give a pink blush to the whole blossom. The fruit is a drupe with a dry fibrous or woody husk which splits into two halves as the fruit ripens. The common wild variety grows a kernel which is bitter from the presence of a substance called amygdalon, which yields in its turn prussic (hydrocyanic) acid. Young trees are grafted with cuttings from the sweet variety or are budded with apricot, peach or plum.

E. W. G. Masterman

Almon-diblathaim

Almon-diblathaim - al'-mon-dib-la-tha'-im (`almon dibhlathayim, "Almon of the double cake of figs"): A station in the wilderness journeyings of the Israelites, located in Moab between Diban-gad and the mountains of Abarim (Numbers 33:46-47). It was near the end of the forty years' wanderings. The name was probably given because the location was like two lumps of pressed figs. In both occurrences the word has the accusative ending of direction, and should properly be read: "Almon toward Diblathaim." It was probably the same place as Beth-diblathaim of Jeremiah 48:22, mentioned in the prophet's oracle against Moab.

Almost

Almost - ol'-most (en oligo): In Acts 26:28 the Greek en oligo does not mean "almost," although scholars have for centuries translated the clause "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian." The revisers saw clearly the errors of their predecessors, so far as the signification of the first two words is concerned; but their explanation of the sentence is also erroneous; for the Greek cannot mean "With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian." Paul's reply proves that en oligo must be taken with the last word poiesai, not with peitheis, since he takes up Agrippa's en oligo, couples it with en megalo and continues with genesthai which is the regular passive of poiesai (compare Lysias xii.71 with 72). And the idea of "Christian" is also taken up and repeated in hopoios kai ego eimi.

An investigation of the usage of en oligo shows that it was never used in the sense of "almost." soil from the peoples, mostly of their own blood, who have given up

The phrase occurs first in the Hymn to Hermes, 240, and here it is evidently an abbreviated expression for the Homeric oligo eni choro (M 423). Compare K 161,P 394. But it was used for both time and place, with the substantive expressed or understood (Thuc. i.93.1; iii.66.3; iv.26.3; iv.55.3; ii.84.3; ii.86.5; iv.96.3; v.112; vii.67.3; vii.87.1; Pind. Pyth. viii.131; Eur. Suppl. 1126; Hel. 771; Isoc. iv.83; Dem. lviii.60; iii.18). These uses persist from Homer far down into the post-classical literature (Plut. Per. 159 F; Coriol. 217 F; Mark 427 A; Crass. 547 C; Polyb. x.18; Appian, Mithrad. 330; Themistius xi.143 C; Eustath. II.B, p.339.18). In the New Testament the phrase occurs also in Ephesians 3:3. Here too the common versions are incorrect. The clause in which the phrase occurs means simply, "as I said a little while ago"--the addition of en oligo merely indicates that the interval indicated by pro is short, an idea which would have been expressed in classical Greek by the simple dative, oligo and the adverb proteron (Ar. Thesm. 578; Aeschin. i. 2, 26, 72, 165; ii. 77, 147). Only a short while before Paul had expressed practically the same thought (Ephesians 3:3) and in almost identical language.

Consequently, en oligo, in the New Testament, means "a little," and is equivalent to oligos which occurs in 2 Peter 2:18. In classical writers the idea would have been expressed by oligon, or kat' oligon. So en oligo, which originally signified "in a little space" (or time), comes to mean simply "a little (bit)," ein bischen, but is never equivalent to oligou ("within a little") in any period of the language. The King James translators disregarded the real significance of poiesai, or adopted the reading of the inferior manuscripts (genesthai), so as to make the rest of the sentence harmonize with their translation of the first two words; and the revisers force the last two words into an impossible service, since the object of poiesai of which Christianon is the lucrative predicate, must be a third person, but certainly not Agrippa. Some scholars are of the opinion that the thought is: "You are trying to persuade me so as to make me a Christian." This is, indeed, the Spanish version; but examples show that the infinitive after peithein was used in a different sense. The best manuscript reads PITHEIS. This might, of course, stand for peitheis. But mepitheis may point to an original mepipotheis. Compare James 4:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:2, Plato Leg. 855 E. If these contentions be correct, the verb means simply "earnestly desire," and not "persuade." Compare Herod. v.93; Plato Protag. 329 D; Aesch. Persian. 542; Soph. Philippians 534; Eur. H.F. 1408; I.T. 542; Cycl. 68; Ion 1432, Ar. Lys. 605, tou dei; ti potheis; Agrippa is asking, "What do you want, Paul? What are you trying to do? Make me a Christian?" The implication in Paul's reply is that he is very desirous indeed of making him a Christian. And this interpretation harmonizes with the scene. The apostle's business at this juncture is not to convert heathen to Christianity; for he is in chains before Agrippa, Berenice, Festus and prominent men of Caesarea, meta polles phantasias (Acts 26:23), to answer the charges brought against him by the Jews. But he holds forth at length and with such ardor that the Roman king says (though not necessarily in irony): "You seem to be anxious to make me a Christian in small measure." And Paul responds: "both small and great." All the manuscripts, except Sinaiticus, have peitheis (Alexandrinus PEITHE). Several read genesthai (instead of poiesai). Wetstenius (Amsterdam 1752) and Knapp (Halle 1829) follow these manuscripts. So most of the old translates: Coverdale (1535), "Thou persuadest me in a parte to become a Christen"; Biblia Sacra (Paris 1745) "In modico suades me C. fieri"; a Latin MS, 14th century, now in Lane Semitic., Cincinnati; Rosenmueller's Scholia (1829), "Parum abest quin mihi persuadeas ut fiam"; Stier und Theile's Polyglotten Bibel (1849), Tregelles (1857-1879, with Jerome's version); Edouard Reuss, Histoire apostolique (Paris 1876), "Tu vas me persuader bientot de devenir Chretien." The translation of Queen Elizabeth's Bible is "Somewhat thou bryngeste me in minde for to become Chryste." Wycliffe renders "In litil thing thou councelist me for to be maad a Christen man." Erasmus takes en oligo in the sense of "a little." Calvin's rendering, "Thou writ make me a Christian in a moment," has been adopted in various countries (Wetstenius, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, Lange, Robinson, Hackett, Conybeare). The older scholars generally hold to "almost" (Valla, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Castalio, Du Veil, Bengel, Stier). Some interpret the phrase "with little labor" (Oecumenius, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Meyer, Lechler). Neander maintains that if we adopt the readings en megalo in Paul's answer, Agrippa's words must be explained "with a few reasons" ("which will not cost you much trouble"). Meyer-Wendt (Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch uber die Apostelgeschichte) translates "mit Weregem imnerredest du mich Christ zu werden." Meyer himself conceives the words to have been spoken sarcastically. Se Classical Review, XXII, 238-41.

J. E. Harry

Alms; Almsgiving

Alms; Almsgiving - ams, ams-giv'-ing: The English word "alms" is an abridged form of the Greek word, eleemosune (compare "eleemosynary"), appearing in gradually reduced forms in German Almosen, Wyclif's Almesse, Scotch Aw'mons, and our alms.

The later Jews often used "righteousness" tsedhaqah as meaning alms, that being in their view the foremost righteousness. (Compare our modern use of "charity" to denote almsgiving.) This use is seen in the Talmud and in the frequent translations of the Hebrew word for "righteousness" (tsedhaqah) by "alms" (eleemosune) in the Septuagint, though nothing warranting this is found in the Hebrew Old Testament, or in the true text of the New Testament. This notion of righteousness as alms being well-nigh universal among Jews in Jesus' day, and spreading even among Christians, accounts for "alms" in Matthew 6:1, where the true text has "righteousness": "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them" (the Revised Version (British and American) with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, the Latin versions, etc.). The oriental versions which generally read "alms" may be accounted for on the supposition that "alms" was first written on the margin as explaining the supposed meaning of "righteousness," and then, as according with this accepted oriental idea, was substituted for it in the text by the copyists.

Dikaiosune and eleemosune are both used in the Septuagint to translate chesedh, "kindness," and are also both used to translate tsedhaqah, "justice." Almsgiving was regarded not merely as a plain evidence of righteousness in general but also as an act of justice, a just debt owing to the needy. "No one refuses directly," Mackie says, hence, possibly, Christ's teaching in Luke 11:41, "Let your righteousness (charity) be from within," "Give your hearts to almsgiving."

In the course of time the impulse and command to give alms in a true human way, out of pity, such as is found expressed in Deuteronomy 15:11 the King James Version, "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land," gave place to a formal, meritorious" practice, possessing, like sacrifice, as men came to think, the power of atoning for man's sins, and redeeming him from calamity and death. For instance, Proverbs 11:4 (compare Proverbs 16:6: Proverbs 21:1-31:Proverbs 3:1-35) was expounded: "Water will quench blazing fire; so doth almsgiving make atonement for sins" (Ecclesiastes 3:22). "Lay up alms in thy storehouse; it shall deliver thee from affliction" (Ecclesiasticus 29:12). The story of Tobit is especially in point: it is simply a lesson on almsgiving and its redeeming powers: "Alms delivers from death and will purge away all sin" (Tobit 1:3, 16; 2:14; Tobit 4:7-11; 8, 9. Compare Sirach 29:11 ff). Kindred teaching abounds in the Talmud: "Alms-giving is more excellent than all offerings," is "equal to the whole law," will "deliver from the condemnation of hell," will "make one perfectly righteous," etc. According to Rabbi Assi, "Almsgiving is a powerful paraclete between the Israelites and their Father in heaven, it brings the time of redemption nigh (Babha' Bathra' Talmud 10a).

The Roman Catholics, holding the books of Tobit and Sirach to be canonical, find in them proof-texts for their doctrine of almsgiving, and likewise attach great value to the gifts to the poor as atoning for sins. Protestants, by a natural reaction, have failed to hold always at its true value what was and is an important Christian duty (see Luke 12:33 the King James Version, and, compare Matthew 6:19-24: "Sell that ye have and give alms," etc.). It seems to have been so regarded and kept up in the Christian communities until the beginning of the 4th century (Apos Const II 36; Cyprian, De Opera and Eleemos. xiv).

The teaching of Jesus on the subject is important, first, as bearing upon Jewish ideas and practices, and second, as bearing upon present-day Christian ideas and practices.

This teaching appears most conspicuously in the Sermon on the Mount. While showing what is required of the subjects of the Messianic reign, He avowedly sets forth a higher and more spiritual morality than that which was taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). There, too, He lays down the general principle embodied in the words of Matthew 6:1: "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them," and illustrates it by applying it to the three exercises most valued among the Jews (commended together in Tobit 12:8), namely, almsgiving (Matthew 6:2, 4), prayer (Matthew 6:5-15), and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). Jewish writers claim that these are "the three cardinal disciplines which the synagogue transmitted to the Christian church and the Mohammedan mosque" (compare Koran, Sura 2 40, 104; 9 54).

Clearly what Jesus here forbids in general is not publicity in performing good deeds, which is often necessary and proper, but ostentatious publicity, for the purpose of attracting attention. (The Greek conveys distinctly this idea of purpose, and the verb for "to be seen" is the one from which comes our word "theater.")

Jewish writers, as also Greek and Roman philosophers, have many notable maxims upon the beauty and importance of being unostentatious in virtue, especially in deeds of benevolence. The Essenes had their treasury in a chamber of their own in the temple that both the giving and the taking should be unobserved (Mishnah, Sheq., v.6). Rabbi Eleazer said, "Alms-giving should be done in secret and not before men, for he who gives before men is a sinner, and God shall bring also the good deed before his judgment" (B.B. 9a; compare Ecclesiastes 12:14).

In applying this principle to almsgiving Jesus teaches His disciple: "When ... thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do" (Matthew 6:2). The conjecture of Calvin, followed by Stier and others, and mentioned as early as Euthymius, that it was a practice among Jews for an ostentatious almsgiver literally to sound a trumpet, or cause a trumpet to be sounded before him, in public places to summon the needy is without foundation (Lightfoot); as is also the notion, made current by the rabbis and accepted by Edersheim (The Temple, etc., 26), that by "sounding a trumpet" Jesus was alluding to the trumpet-like receptacles of brass in the temple treasury. There is no proof that these were found "in the synagogues," or "in the streets." "Sound a trumpet," according to the Greek commentators, and the best modern authorities, is merely a figurative expression common to many languages, for self-parade--efforts to attract notice and win applause (compare our vulgar English saying about "blowing your own horn"). The contrast with the common practice instituted by Jesus is the significant thing: "But when thou doest alms"--"thou" is emphatic by position in the Greek--"let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth," etc., i.e. "So far from trumpeting your almsgiving before the public, do not even let it be known to yourself." Jesus here, Calvin well says, "silently glances at a kind of folly which prevails everywhere among men, that they think they have lost their pares if there have not been many spectators of their virtues." (The traditional saying of Mohammed, "In almsgiving, the left hand should not know what the right has given," is evidently borrowed from this saying of Jesus.) It is worthy of note that, despite popular practice, to give alms with right motives, and only to those who were worthy to receive, was a matter of special solicitude and instruction with the best among Jews as well as among Christians. The words of the Psalmist, "Blessed is he that considereth the poor," are construed to be an admonition to "take personal interest in him and not simply give him alms" (Lev. R. xxxiv). "When thou wilt do good, know to whom thou doest it. Give unto the good and help not the sinner" (Ecclesiastes 12:1-6; compare Didache 1:5,6). "He that gives a free offering should give with a well-meaning eye" (Yer. B.D. 4 11). Jesus' words concerning the "single" and the "evil" eye (compare Luke 11:34-36), and Paul's teaching, "God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7-9) have their counterparts in Jewish teaching. Rabbi Eleazer, referring to Hosea 10:12, taught this high doctrine. "The kindness displayed in the giving of alms decides the final reward" (Suk. 49b). Other kindred teaching in a way anticipated Jesus' supreme lesson, "that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee" (Matthew 6:4).

LITERATURE.

Commentaries at the place Rabbinical literature in point. D. Cassel, Die Armenverwaltung des alten Israel, 1887.

George B. Eager

Almug

Almug - al'-mug.

See ALGUM .

Alnathan

Alnathan - al'-na-than (Alnathan, "God has given," the Revised Version (British and American) ELNATHAN): Apocryphal name of a person (1 Esdras 8:44) corresponding to Elnathan of Ezra 8:16. He was one of the learned men summoned by Ezra, as he was beginning his journey to Jerusalem, and sent to Iddo to ask for ministers for the house of Yahweh.

Aloes; Lignaloes

Aloes; Lignaloes - al'-oz, lin-al'-oz, lig-nal'-oz ('ahalim, Numbers 24:6, translation "lign-aloes" (= lignum aloes, "wood of aloes"), Proverbs 7:17; 'ahaloth, Psalms 45:8; Song of Solomon 4:14; aloe, John 19:39): Mentioned as a substance for perfuming garments (Psalms 45:8) and beds (Proverbs 7:17). In Song of Solomon 4:14, it occurs in a list of the most precious spices. The most memorable use of aloes as a spice is in John 19:39: "There came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him at night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds." This was an immense quantity and if the aloes bore any large proportion to the myrrh the mixture must have been purchased at a very high cost. The most difficult mention of aloes is the earliest where (Numbers 24:5-6) Balaam in his blessing on Israel exclaims--

"How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob,

Thy tabernacles, O Israel!

As valleys are they spread forth,

As gardens by the river-side,

As lign-aloes which Yahweh hath planted,

As cedar-trees beside the waters."

As the aloes in question grow in East Asia it is difficult to see how Balaam could have come to speak of them as living trees. Post (HDB, I, 69) suggests that they may possibly have been growing at that time in the Jordan valley; this is both improbable and unnecessary. Balaam need have had no actual tree in his mind's eye but may have mentioned the aloe as a tree famous over the Orient for its preciousness. That the reference is poetical rather than literal may be supposed by the expression in the next verse "cedar-trees beside the waters"--a situation very unnatural for the high-mountain-loving cedar. Yet another explanation is that the Hebrew has been altered and that 'elim, "terebinths" instead of 'ahalim, "aloes" stood in the original text.

The aloe wood of the Bible is eaglewood--so misnamed by the Portuguese who confused the Malay name for it (agora) with the Latin aquila, "eagle"--a product of certain trees of the Natural Order Aquilariaceae, growing in Southeast Asia The two most valued varieties are Aquilaria malaccensis and Aloes agallocha--both fine spreading trees. The resin, which gives the fragrant quality to the wood, is formed almost entirely in the heart wood; logs are buried, the outer part decays while the inner, saturated with the resin, forms the "eagle wood" or "aloe wood" of commerce; "aloes" being the same wood in a finely powdered condition. To the Arabs this wood is known as `ud. It shows a beautiful graining and takes a high polish.

These aloes must be clearly distinguished from the well-known medicinal aloes, of ancient fame. This is a resin from Aloes socatrina, and allied species, of the Natural Order Liliaceae, originally from the island of Socotra, but now from Barbados, the Cape of Good Hope and other places. The "American aloe" (Agave americana) which today is cultivated in many parts of Palestine, is also quite distinct from the Biblical plant.

E. W. G. Masterman

Aloft

Aloft - a-loft' (epano): Only in 1 Esdras 8:92. Meaning obscure. The statement following a confession of sin means probably that Israel in penitence returning to the Lord, is exultant in the assurance of His forgiveness, and encouraged in efforts at reformation.

Along

Along - a-long': Corresponding to two different Hebrew words, Judges 9:25; 1 Samuel 6:12; Jeremiah 41:6, joined with "come" and "go," vividly describes a course that is taken--it emphasizes its directness and immediateness. In Judges 7:12, "lay along in the valley," probably means "all the length" or "at length."

Aloth

Aloth - a'-loth (`aloth): So found in the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin in 1 Kings 4:16, where the Revised Version (British and American) has BEALOTH (be`aloth). A town, or district in northern Palestine, together with Asher under Baana, one of Solomon's twelve civil officers. Conder identifies with the ruin `Alia, near Achzib. There was another Bealoth in southern Palestine (Joshua 15:24). The difference in the form of the word in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) is due to interpretation of the initial "b" as the preposition "in" in the former, and as part of the word itself in the latter.

Alpha and Omega

Alpha and Omega - al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O): The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8: "We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

J. E. Harry

Alphabet

Alphabet - al'-fa-bet.

1. Definition: An alphabet is a list of the elementary sounds used in any language. More strictly speaking it is that particular series, commonly known as the Phoenician or Canaanite alphabet, which was in use in the region of Palestine about 1000 BC, and which is the ancestor of nearly all modern written alphabets whether Semitic or European. It is the alphabet therefore of Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic and New Testament Greek, of the superscription of Caesar and the Latin inscription on the cross, as well as of English through the Greek and Latin. It is an interesting fact, with many practical bearings on text and exegesis, that three sets of letters so very unlike in appearance as Hebrew, Greek and modern English should be the same in origin and alike in nature. Although the earliest surviving inscriptions must be a good deal later than the separation between the Greek and Hebrew, the records in each are more like one another than either is like its own modern printed form.

The characteristics of an alphabet are (1) the analysis of sounds into single letters rather than syllables or images, (2) the fixed order of succession in the letters, (3) the signs for the sounds, whether names or written symbols.

Of these the analysis into single letters, instead of whole words or syllables, is the characteristic element. The order of the letters may vary, as that of the Sanskrit does from the European, and yet the list remain not only alphabetic but the "same" alphabet, i.e. each sound represented by a similar name or written character. On the face of it, therefore, it might be imagined that the Egyptian and Babylonian, the Cypriote, the Minoan and other forms earlier than the Canaanite which are known or suspected to have had phonetic systems, may have had lists of these forms arranged in a fixed order, but these lists were not alphabetic until the final analysis into individual letters.

2. Name: The name alphabet comes from the fist two letters of the Greek, alpha beta, just as the old English name for the alphabet, abc or abece, is simply the first three letters of the English alphabet, and thus is merely an abbreviation for the whole alphabet. It appears that the Greeks also used the first and last letters of the alphabet (alpha and omega) as the Jews did the first and last, or the first, middle and last letters of their alphabet, as abbreviation for the whole and in the same sense that in English one says "a to izzard." Alpha and beta are themselves derived from the Semitic names for the same letters ('aleph, beth) and have no meaning in the Greek.

3. Invention: The question of the invention of this alphabet differs from the question of the origin of the written forms of the letters with which it is often confused, and relates to the recognition of the individual letters. Alphabetical language whether written or spoken, inward or outward, is distinguished from the pictographic, hieroglyphic, and syllabic stages by this analysis into individual sounds or letters. It begins with the picture, passes to the ideogram and syllable, and from the syllable to the letter. This is best seen in writing, but it is equally true in speech. At the letter stage the alphabet begins. It is alleged by some that another stage, a consonantal writing, between syllabic and alphabetic writing, should be recognized. This would deny to the Phoenician the character of a true alphabet since, as in all Semitic languages, the vowels were in ancient times not written at all. Some go so far as to speak of it as syllabic in character, but on the other hand it may be said with equal pertinence that various syllabaries are nearly alphabetic. When a syllabic writing is reduced, as was the case with the Egyptian, the Cypriote and others, to a point where a character represents uniformly a certain consonant and a certain vowel, the vocal analysis has been made and the essential alphabet begun, although it was only later that men discovered that the consonant common to several syllables might be expressed to advantage in writing by one unvarying sign, and later still that the vowels too might be distinguished to advantage.

4. Origin of the Letters: Few modern questions are changing shape so rapidly as that of the historical predecessor of the Canaanite or Phoenician alphabet. For a long time it was thought that De Rouge had solved the problem by tracing the letters to the Egyptian hieratic. This is the view of most of the popular literature of the present time, but is wholly surrendered by most workers in the field now, in spite of the fact that the latest studies in hieratic show a still greater resemblance in forms (Moller, Hierat. Palaographie, 1909). Winckler and others have claimed derivation from the Cuneiform, Praetorius from the Cypriote, Sayce gets at least three letters from the Hittite, while Evans and others incline to believe that the Minoan was the direct source of the alphabet, introduced from Crete into Palestine by the Philistines who were Cretans, or at least that the two are from a common ancestor, which is also the ancestor of many other of the Mediterranean alphabets.

Some, like Evans and Mosso, even suggest that, perhaps through the Minoan, the letter forms may be traced to the pictographs of the neolithic era in the caves of Europe. There is, in fact, an extraordinary resemblance between some of the letters of the Phoenician alphabet and some of the conventionalized signs of the neolithic age, and it may not be too fantastic to imagine that these early signs are the historic ancestors of the written alphabetical characters, but that they were in any sense alphabetical themselves is impossible if the invention of the alphabet was historical as here supposed, and is unlike from any point of view.

If in fact the Paestos disk dates from before 1600 BC, and if Dr. Hempl's resolution of it into Ionic Greek is sound, we have another possible source or stock of characters from which the inventor of the alphabet may have chosen (Harper's Magazine, January, 1911).

5. Number of Letters: The ideal written alphabet contains a separate character for each sound used in any or every language. Practically in most languages the alphabet falls a good deal short of the number of recognized sounds to be expressed in that language and in pronouncing dictionaries they have to be analyzed into say a broad, a short, a open, etc., by adding diacritical marks. "In educated English without regarding finer distinctions" (Edmonds, Comparative Philology, 45) about 50 sounds are commonly used, but Murray distinguishes at least 96, and the number sometimes used or which maybe used is much greater, the possible number of vowel sounds alone being as many as 72.

Moreover the individual letters differ in sound in different individuals, and even in the same individual in successive utterances of what would be called the same letter or the same sound. It is alleged that the average sound of the a for example, is never the same in any two languages; the a in "father," even, is never the same in any two individuals, and that the same individual, even, never pronounces it twice so exactly in the same fashion that the difference may not be detected by sound photography.

The written alphabet is always thus less than the number of sounds used. The Phoenician and the Semitic alphabets generally had 22 letters, but they omitted the vowels. English has 26, of which many have two or more sounds.

6. Names of the Letters: The names of the Greek alphabet are derived from the Semitic names and are meaningless in the Greek, while in the Semitic it has been pretty clearly shown that they signify for the most part some object or idea of which the earliest form of the written letter was a picture, as e.g. 'aleph, the ox. The forms of the letters are apparently derived from pictures of the ox, house, etc., made linear and finally reduced to a purely conventional sign which was itself reduced to the simplest writing motion. All this has been boldly denied by Mr. Pilcher (PSBA, XXVI (1904), 168-73; XXVII (1905), 65-68), and the original forms declared to be geometric; but he does not seem to have made many converts, although he has started up rival claimants to his invention.

The names of the letters at least seem to indicate the Semitic origin of the alphabet, since the majority of them are the Semitic names for the objects which gave name to the letter, and the picture of which gives form to the written letter.

Following is Sayce's list (PSBA, XXXII (1910), 215-22) with some variants: (1) 'aleph = ox; (2) beth = house (tent); (3) gimel = camel; (4) daleth = door; (5) he = house; (6) waw = nail (Evans, tent peg); (7) zayin = weapon; (8) cheth = fence; (9) Teth = cake of bread (Lidzbarski, a package); (10) yodh = hand; (11) kaph = palm of hand; (12) lamedh = ox-goad; (13) mem = water flowing; (14) nun = fish; (15) camekh = ?; (16) `ayin = eye; (17) pe = mouth; (18) tsadhe = trap (others, hook or nose or steps), (19) qoph = cage (Evans says picture is an outline head and Lidzbarski, a helmet); (20) resh = head; (21) shin = tooth (not teeth); (22) taw = mark. Not all of these meanings are, however, generally accepted (compare also Noldeke, Beitrage Strassb. (1904), 124-36; Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, II, 125-39).

7. Order of Letters: The order of the letters differs more or less in different languages, but it is in the main the same in all the Semitic and Western alphabets derived from the Phoenician alphabet and this is roughly the order of the English alphabet. This order is, however, full of minor variations even among the Western alphabets and in the Indian languages the letters are entirely regrouped on a different principle.

The conventional order of the Semitic alphabet may be traced with some certainty in the Biblical books to as early as the 6th century BC, even accepting the dates of a radical higher criticism, for there are more than a dozen passages in the Old Testament composed on the principle of the alphabetical acrostic (Psalms 111:1-10; Psalms 112:1-10; Psalms 119:1-176; Proverbs 31:10-31; Lamentations 1:1-22; Lamentations 2:1-22; Lamentations 3:1-66; Lamentations 4:1-22, etc.) and the oldest of these are of this period (see ACROSTIC). The Formello abecedarium, if it is in fact from the 7th century BC, carries the known order back a century farther still and shows it prevailing in Italy as well as Palestine. Moreover, there are those who still consider some of the alphabetical psalms older even than this.

It must be noted, however, that while the order is in general fixed, there are local and temporary differences. In several cases e.g. the order of the sixteenth and seventeenth letters of the alphabet is inverted in the alphabetical acrostics, and this would seem to point to a time or place where pe, `ayin, was the accepted order. It happens that the inversion occurs in both the passages which are counted earliest by the modern critics (G. B. Gray in HDB2, 8). Mr. Sayce too has recently altered or restored the order by relegating the original camekh to a place after shin, while Mr. Pilcher has quite reconstructed the original order on a geometrical basis, to his own taste at least, as brd; hvg; mnl; szt.

A certain grouping together of signs according to the relationship of the objects which they represent has often been noticed, and Sayce (PSBA, XXXII (1910), 215-22) thinks that he has (after having put camekh in its right place) reduced the whole matter to a sequence of pairs of things which belong together: ox-house, camel-tent door, house-nail, weapon-fence (city wall), bread-hand, open hand-arm with goad, water-fish, eye-mouth, trap-cage, head-tooth, camekh, taw. This arranging he thinks was done by someone who knew that 'aluph was the West Semitic for "leader" and taw was the Cretan sign for ending--an Amorite therefore in touch with the Philistines. The final word on order seems not yet to have been spoken.

8. The Earliest Texts: The chief North Semitic texts are (1) Moabite stone (circa 850 BC); (2) inscriptions of Zkr, Zenjirli, etc. (circa 800 BC); (3) Baal-Lebanon inscription (circa 750 BC); (4) Siloam inscription (circa 700 BC); (5) Harvard Samaritan ostraca (time of Ahab?); (6) Gezer tablet; (7) various weights and seals before 600 BC. The striking fact about the earliest inscriptions is that however remote geographically, there is on the whole so little difference in the forms of the letters. This is particularly true of the North Semitic inscriptions and tends to the inference that the invention was after all not so long before the surviving inscriptions. While the total amount of the earliest Palestine inscriptions is not even yet very large, the recent discovery of the Samaritan ostraca, the Gezer tablet, and various minor inscriptions, is at least pointing to a general use of Semitic writing in Palestine at least as early as the 9th century BC.

9. Changes in Letter Forms: The tendency of letters to change form in consequence of changed environment is not peculiar to alphabetical writing but is characteristic of the transmission of all sorts of writing. The morphology of alphabetical writing has however its own history. The best source for studying this on the Semitic side is Lidzbarski's Handbuch (see below), and on the Greek side the best first source is E. S. Roberts, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (Cambr.). The best synoptical statement of the Semitic is found in the admirable tables in the Jewish Encyclopedia, V, i, 449-53.

For the later evolution of both Greek and Latin alphabets, E. M. Thompson's Introduction to Greek and Latin Paleography, Oxford, 1912, is far the best Introduction. In this he takes account of the great finds of papyri which have so revolutionized the study of the forms of Greek letters around the beginning of the Christian era, since his first Handbook was published. (See articles on the text of Old Testament and New Testament.)

In the Hebrew, the old Phoenician alphabet of the early inscriptions had in the New Testament times given way to the square Aramaic characters of the modern Hebrew which possibly came into use as early as the time of Ezra.

The most comprehensive modern brief conspectus covering both Hebrew and Greek is that reproduced in this article from the little manual of Specht.

Alphaeus

Alphaeus - al-fe'-us (Alphaios; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Halphaios):

(1) The father of the second James in the list of the apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

(2) The father of Levi, the publican (Mark 2:14). Levi is designated as Matthew in the Gospel of Mt (Mark 9:9). There is no other reference to this Alpheus.

Some writers, notably Weiss, identify the father of Levi with the father of the second James. He says that James and Levi were undoubtedly brothers; but that seems improbable. If they were brothers they would quite likely be associated as are James and John, Andrew and Peter. Chrysostom says James and Levi had both been tax-gatherers before they became followers of Jesus. This tradition would not lend much weight as proof that they were brothers, for it might arise through identifying the two names, and the western manuscripts do identify them and read James instead of Levi in Mark 2:14. This, however, is undoubtedly a corruption of the text. If it had been the original it would be difficult to explain the substitution of an unknown Levi for James who is well known.

Many writers identify Alpheus, the father of the second James, with Clopas of John 19:25. This had early become a tradition, and Chrysostom believed they were the same person. This identity rests on four suppositions, all of which are doubtful:

(a) That the Mary of Clopas was the same as the Mary who was the mother of the second James. There is a difference of opinion as to whether "Mary of Clopas" should be understood to be the wife of Clopas or the daughter of Clopas, but the former is more probable. We know from Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that there was a James who was the son of Mary, and that this Mary belonged to that little group of women that was near Jesus it the time of the crucifixion. It is quite likely that this Mary is the one referred to in John 19:25. That would make James, the son of Mary of Matthew 27:56, the son of Mary of Clopas. But Mary was such a common name In the New Testament that this supposition cannot be proven.

(b) That the James, who was the son of Mary, was the same person as the James, the son of Alpheus. Granting the supposition under (a), this would not prove the identity of Clopas and Alpheus unless this supposition can also be proven, but it seems impossible to either prove it or disprove it.

(c) That Alpheus and Clopas are different variations of a common original, and that the variation has arisen from different pronunciations of the first letter ("ch") of the Aramaic original. There are good scholars who both support and deny this theory.

(d) That Clopas had two names as was common at that time; but there is nothing to either substantiate or disprove this theory.

See CLOPAS.

It seems impossible to determine absolutely whether or not Alpheus, the father of the second James, and Clopas of John 19:25 are the same person, but it is quite probable that they are.

A. W. Fortune

Also

Also - ol'-so: In the Greek kai, when it is equivalent to "also" or "even," is always placed before the word or phrase which it is intended to emphasize (e.g. Acts 12:3; 1 John 4:21). Matthew 6:14 should therefore read, "Your heavenly Father will forgive you also"; Luke 6:13, "Whom also he named apostles"; Hebrews 8:6, "The mediator of a better covenant also"; and 1 Thessalonians 4:14, `If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also (we believe that) those who are fallen asleep in Jesus, God will bring with Him.'

Altaneus

Altaneus - al-ta-ne'-us.

See MALTANNEUS (Apocrypha).

Altar

Altar - ol'-ter (mizbeach, literally, "place of slaughter or sacrifice," from zabhach, which is found in both senses; bomos, (only in Acts 17:23), thusiasterion):

I. CLASSIFICATION OF HEBREW ALTARS

Importance of the Distinction

II. LAY ALTARS

1. Pre-Mosaic

2. In the Mosaic Age

3. Dangers of the Custom

4. The Mosaic Provisions

III. HORNED ALTARS OF BURNT OFFERING

1. The Tabernacle Altar

2. The Altar of Joshua 22

3. The Altar till Solomon

4. The Horned Altar in Use

5. The Temple of Solomon

6. The Altar of Ahaz

7. Ezekiel

8. The Post-exilic Altar

9. Idolatrous and Unlawful Altars

10. The Horns

IV. ALTARS OF INCENSE

V. RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS

1. A Gezer Altar

2. The Taanach Altar of Incense

LITERATURE

A. CRITICAL

I. Classification of Hebrew Altars. Before considering the Biblical texts attention must be drawn to the fact that these texts know of at least two kinds of altars which were so different in appearance that no contemporary could possibly confuse them. The first was an altar consisting of earth or unhewn stones. It had no fixed shape, but varied with the materials. It might consist of a rock (Judges 13:19) or a single large stone (1 Samuel 14:33-35) or again a number of stones (1 Kings 18:31 f). It could have no horns, nor it would be impossible to give the stone horns without hewing it, nor would a heap of earth lend itself to the formation of horns. It could have no regular pattern for the same reason. On the other hand we meet with a group of passages that refer to altars of quite a different type. We read of horns, of fixed measurements, of a particular pattern, of bronze as the material. To bring home the difference more rapidly illustrations of the two types are given side by side. The first figure represents a cairn altar such as was in use in some other ancient religions. The second is a conjectural restoration of Hebrew altars of burnt offering and incense of the second kind.

Importance of the Distinction:

Both these might be and were called altars, but it is so evident that this common designation could not have caused any eye-witness to confuse the two that in reading the Bible we must carefully examine each text in turn and see to which kind the author is referring. Endless confusion has been caused, even in our own time, by the failure to note this distinction, and the reader can hope to make sense of the Biblical laws and narratives only if he be very careful to picture to himself in every case the exact object to which his text refers. For the sake of clearness different terms will be adopted in this article to denote the two kinds of altars. The first will be termed "lay altars" since, as will be seen, the Law permitted any layman to offer certain sacrifices at an altar of earth or unhewn stone without the assistance of a priest, while the second while be styled "horned altars," owing to their possession of horns which, as already pointed out, could not exist in a lay altar that conformed with the provisions of the law.

II. Lay Altars. 1. Pre-Mosaic: In Genesis we often read of the erection of altars, e.g. Genesis 8:20; 12:7; 13:4. Though no details are given we are able to infer their general character with considerable precision. In reading the accounts it is sometimes evident that we are dealing with some rough improvised structure. For example, when Abraham builds the altar for the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:1-24 it cannot be supposed that he used metal or wrought stone. When Jacob makes a covenant with Laban a heap of stones is thrown up "and they did eat there by the heap" (Genesis 31:46). This heap is not expressly termed an altar, but if this covenant be compared with later covenants it will be seen that in these its place is taken by an altar of the lay type (SBL, chapter 2), and it is reasonable to suppose that this heap was in fact used as an altar (compare Genesis 31:54). A further consideration is provided by the fact that the Arabs had a custom of using any stone as an altar for the nonce, and certainly such altars are found in the Mosaic and post-Mosaic history. We may therefore feel sure that the altars of Gen were of the general type represented by Fig. 1 and were totally unlike the altars of Fig. 2.

2. In the Mosaic Age: Thus Moses found a custom by which the Israelite threw up rude altars of the materials most easily obtained in the field and offered sacrificial worship to God on sundry occasions. That the custom was not peculiar to the Israelites is shown by such instances as that of Balaam (Numbers 23:1, etc.). Probably we may take the narrative of Jethro's sacrifice as a fair example of the occasions on which such altars were used, for it cannot be supposed that Aaron and all the elders of Israel were openly committing an unlawful act when they ate bread with Moses' father-in-law before God (Exodus 18:12). Again, the narrative in which we see Moses building an altar for the purposes of a covenant probably exemplifies a custom that was in use for other covenants that did not fall to be narrated (Exodus 24:4 ff).

3. Dangers of the Custom: But a custom of erecting altars might easily lend itself to abuses. Thus archaeology has shown us one altar--though of a much later date--which is adorned with faces, a practice that was quite contrary to the Mosaic ideas of preserving a perfectly imageless worship. Other possible abuses were suggested by the current practices of the Canaanites or are explained by the terms of the laws.

See HIGH PLACE.

4. The Mosaic Provisions: Accordingly Moses regulated these lay altars. Leaving the occasion of their erection and use to be determined by custom he promulgated the following laws: "An altar of earth mayest thou make unto me, and mayest sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in all the place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither mayest thou go up by steps unto mine altar," etc. (Exodus 20:24-26; so correct English Versions of the Bible). Several remarks must be made on this law. It is a law for laymen, not priests. This is proved by the second person singular and also by the reason given for the prohibition of steps--since the priests were differently garbed. It applies "in all the place where I record my name," not, as the ordinary rendering has it, "in every place." This latter is quite unintelligible: it is usually explained as meaning places hallowed by theophanies, but there are plenty of instances in the history of lay sacrifices where no theophany can be postulated; see e.g. Genesis 31:54; 1 Samuel 20:6, 29 (EPC, 185 f). "All the place" refers to the territory of Israel for the time being. When Naaman desired to cease sacrificing to any deity save the God of Israel he was confronted by the problem of deciding how he could sacrifice to Him outside this "place." He solved it by asking for two mules' burden of the earth of the "place" (2 Kings 5:17). Lastly, as already noticed, this law excludes the possibility of giving the altars horns or causing them to conform to any given pattern, since the stone could not be wrought One other law must be noticed in this connection: Deuteronomy 16:21 f: `Thou shalt not plant thee an 'asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee. Neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which the Lord thy God hateth.' Here again the reference is probably to the lay altars, not to the religious capital which was under the control of the priests.

III. Horned Altars of Burnt Offering. 1. The Tabernacle Altar: In Exodus 27:1-8 (compare Exodus 38:1-7) a command is given to construct for the Tabernacle an altar of shittim wood covered with bronze. It was to be five cubits long by five broad and three high. The four corners were to have horns of one piece with it. A network of bronze was to reach halfway up the altar to a ledge. In some way that is defined only by reference to what was shown to Moses in the Mount the altar was to be hollow with planks, and it was to be equipped with rings and staves for facility of transport. The precise construction cannot be determined, and it is useless to speculate where the instructions are so plainly governed by what was seen by Moses in the Mount; but certain features that are important for the elucidation of the Bible texts emerge clearly. The altar is rectangular, presenting at the top a square surface with horns at the four corners. The more important material used is bronze, and the whole construction was as unlike that of the ordinary lay altar as possible. The use of this altar in the ritual of the Tabernacle falls under the heading SACRIFICE. Here we must notice that It was served by priests. Whenever we find references to the horns of an altar or to its pattern we see that the writer is speaking of an altar of this general type. Thus, a criminal seeking asylum fled to an altar of this type, as appears from the horns which are mentioned in the two historical instances and also from such expressions as coming down or going up.

See ASYLUM.

2. The Altar of Joshua 22: We read in Joshua 22:9 ff that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad built an altar. In 22:28 we find them saying, "Be hold the pattern of the altar," etc. This is decisive as to the meaning, for the lay altar had no pattern. Accordingly in its general shape this altar must have conformed to the type of the Tabernacle altar. It was probably not made of the same materials, for the word "build" is continually used in connection with it, and this word would scarcely be appropriate for working metal: nor again was it necessarily of the same size, but it was of the same pattern: and it was designed to serve as a witness that the descendants of the men who built it had a portion in the Lord. It seems to follow that the pattern of the Tabernacle altar was distinctive and unlike the heathen altars in general use in Palestine and this appears to be confirmed by modern excavations which have revealed high places with altars quite unlike those contemplated by the Pentateuch.

See HIGH PLACE.

3. The Altar till Solomon: In the subsequent history till the erection of Solomon's Temple attention need only be directed to the fact that a horned altar existed while the Ark was still housed in a tent. This is important for two reasons. It shows a historical period in which a horned altar existed at the religious capital side by side with a number of lay altars all over the country, and it negatives the suggestion of G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, II, 64) that the bare rock ec-Cakhra was used by Solomon as the altar, since the unhewn rock obviously could not provide a horned altar such as we find as early as 1 Kings 1:50-53.

4. The Horned Altar in Use: Note too that we read here of bringing down from the altar, and this expression implies elevation. Further in 1 Kings 9:25 we hear that Solomon was in the habit of offering on the altar which he had built, and this again proves that he had built an altar and did not merely use the temple rock. (See also Watson inPEFS (January, 1910), 15 ff, in reply to Smith.)

5. The Temple of Solomon: For the reasons just given it is certain that Solomon used an altar of the horned type, but we have no account of the construction in Kings. According to a note preserved in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, Solomon enlarged the altar erected by David on Araunah's threshing-floor (2 Samuel 24:25), but this notice is of very doubtful historical value and may be merely a glossator's guess. According to 2 Chronicles 4:1 the altar was made of bronze and was twenty cubits by twenty by ten. The Chronicler's dimensions are doubted by many, but the statement of the material is confirmed by 1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:10-15. From the latter passage it appears that an altar of bronze had been in use till the time of Ahaz.

6. The Altar of Ahaz: This king saw an altar in Damascus of a different pattern and had a great altar made for the temple on its model. As the text contrasts the great altar with the altar of bronze, we may refer that the altar of Ahaz was not made of bronze. Whether either or both of these altars had steps (compare Ezekiel 43:17) or were approached by a slope as in Fig. 2 cannot be determined with certainty. It may be noted that in Isaiah 27:9 we read of the stones of the altar in a passage the reference of which is uncertain.

7. Ezekiel: Ezekiel also gives a description of an altar (43:13-17), but there is nothing to show whether it is purely ideal or represents the altar of Solomon or that of Ahaz, and modern writers take different views. In the vision it stood before the house (40:47). In addition he describes an altar or table of wood (41:22). This of course could only be a table, not in any sense an altar.

See TABLE.

8. The Post-exilic Altar: Ezra 3:2 f tells of the setting up of the altar by Zerubbabel and his contemporaries. No information as to its shape, etc., can be extracted from this notice. We read of a defilement of the temple altar in 1 Maccabees 1:54. This was made of stones (Exodus 20:24-26 having at this date been applied to the temple altar contrary to its original intent) and a fresh altar of whole stones was constructed (1 Maccabees 4:44-49). Presumably this altar had no horns.

9. Idolatrous and Unlawful Altars: It is clear from the historical and prophetical books that in both kingdoms a number of unlawful altars were in use. The distinction which has been drawn between lay altars and horned altars helps to make these passages easy to understand. Thus when Amos in speaking of Bethel writes, "The horns of the altar shall be cut off," we see that he is not thinking of lay altars which could have no horns (3:14). Again Hosea's "Because Ephraim hath multiplied altars `to sin,' altars have been to him `for sin'" (8:11, compare 10:1-8; 12:11 (12)), is not in contradiction to Exodus 20:24-26 because the prophet is not speaking of lay altars. The high places of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:28-33) were clearly unlawful and their altars were unlawful altars of the horned type. Such cases must be clearly distinguished from the lay altars of Saul and others.

10. The Horns: The origin of the horns is unknown, though there are many theories. Fugitives caught hold of them (1 Kings 1:50-51), and victims could be tied to them (Psalms 118:27).

IV. Altars of Incense. Exodus 30:1-10 contains the commands for the construction and use of an altar of incense. The material was shittim wood, the dimensions one cubit by one by two, and it also had horns. Its top and sides were overlaid with gold and it was surrounded by a crown or rim of gold. For facility of transport it had golden rings and staves. It stood before the veil in front of the ark.

Solomon also constructed an altar of incense (1 Kings 6:20; 7:48; 1 Chronicles 28:18), cedar replacing shittim wood. The altar of incense reappears in 1 Maccabees 1:21; 4:49.

V. Recent Archaeological Materials. Recently several altars have been revealed by excavations. They throw light on the Bible chiefly by showing what is forbidden.

See especially HIGH PLACE.

1. A Gezer Altar: Fig. 3 represents an altar found at Gezer built into the foundation of a wall dating about 600 BC. Mr. Macalister describes it in the following words: "It is a four-sided block of limestone, 1 ft. 3 inches high. The top and bottom are approximately 10 1/2 and 9 inches square respectively; but these are only the average dimensions of the sides, which are not regularly cut. The angles are prolonged upward for an additional 1 1/2 inches as rounded knobs--no doubt the `horns' of the altar. The top is very slightly concave so as to hold perhaps an eighth of a pint of liquid" (PEFS (July, 1907), 196 f). The size suggests an altar of incense rather than an altar of burnt offering, but in view of the general resemblance between the Tabernacle altars of burnt offering and incense, this is a fact of minor importance. On the other hand, the shape, pattern and material are of great interest. That the altar violates in principle the law of Exodus 20:25 forbidding the dressing of the stones is obvious, though that passage does not apply in terms to altars of incense, but certainly the appearance of the block does recall in a general way the altars of the other type--the horned altars. Like them it is four-sided with a square top, and like them it has knobs or horns at each corner. Possibly it was formed in general imitation of the Temple altars.

Other altars in Canaanite high places exemplify by their appearance the practices prohibited by the Pentateuch. See for illustrations H. Vincent, Canaan d'apres l'exploration recente; R. Kittel, Studien zur hebraischen Archaologie und Religions-Geschichte; S. R. Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible.

2. The Taanach Altar of Incense: Importance attaches to a terra cotta altar of incense found by Sellin at Taanach, because its height and dimensions at the base recall the altar of Ex. "It was just 3 ft. high, and in shape roughly like a truncated pyramid, the four sides at the bottom being each 18 inches long, and the whole ending at the top in a bowl a foot in diameter. .... The altar is hollow. .... Professor Sellin places the date of the altar at about 700 BC. .... An incense-altar of exactly the same shape .... but of much smaller size .... has been found quite recently at Gezer in debris of about 1000-600 BC" (Driver, Modern Research, etc., 85). These discoveries supply a grim comment on theories of those critics who maintain that incense was not used by the Hebrews before the time of Jeremiah. The form of the altar itself is as contrary to the principles of the Pentateuch law as any thing could be.

On altar furniture see POT; SHOVEL; BASIN; FLESH-HOOK; FIREPAN. On the site, TEMPLE, and generally, ARIEL; SACRIFICE; SANCTUARY; TABERNACLE; HIGH PLACE.

LITERATURE.

R. Kittel, Studien zur hebraischen Archaologie und Religions-Geschichte, I and II; Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Murray, Illustrated Bible Dictionary; EB, under the word "Altar"; EPC, chapter 6. The discussions in the ordinary works of reference must be used with caution for the reason given in I above.

Harold M. Wiener

I. IN WORSHIP: TABERNACLE AND TEMPLES

1. Patriarchal Altars

2. Sacred Sites

3. Pre-Tabernacle Altars

II. THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING; BRAZEN ALTAR

1. Altar before the Tabernacle

2. Its History

3. Altar of Solomon's Temple

4. Altar of Ezekiel's Temple

5. Altar of Second Temple

6. Altar of Herod's Temple

III. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE (GOLDEN ALTAR)

1. In the Tabernacle

2. Mode of Burning Incense

3. In Solomon's Temple and Later

4. In Herod's Temple

5. Symbolism of Incense Burning

B. IN WORSHIP

I. In Worship: Tabernacle and Temples. In the literature of the Bible, sacrifices are prior to altars, and altars prior to sacred buildings. Their first mention is in the case of the altar built by Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:20).

1. Patriarchal Altars: The next is the altar built at the place of Shechem, by which Abraham formally took possession, on behalf of his descendants, of the whole land of Canaan (Genesis 12:7). A second altar was built between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:8). To this the patriarch returned on his way from Egypt (Genesis 13:4). His next place of sacrifice was Hebron (Genesis 13:18); and tradition still professes to show the place where his altar stood. A subsequent altar was built on the top of a mountain in the land of Moriah for the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:9).

2. Sacred Sites: Each of these four spots was the scene of some special revelation of Yahweh; possibly to the third of them (Hebron) we may attribute the memorable vision and covenant of Genesis 15:1-21. These sites became, in after years, the most venerated and coveted perquisites of the nation, and fights for their possession largely determined its history. To them Isaac added an altar at Beersheba (Genesis 26:25), probably a re-erection, on the same site, of an altar built by Abraham, whose home for many years was at Beersheba. Jacob built no new altars, but again and again repaired those at Shechem and Bethel. On one occasion he offered a sacrifice on one of the mountains of Gilead, but without mention of an altar (Genesis 31:54). There were thus four or five spots in Canaan associated at once with the worship of Yahweh, and the name of their great ancestor, which to Hebrews did not lose their sanctity by the passage of time, namely, Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, Moriah and Beersheba.

3. Pre-Tabernacle Altars: The earliest provision for an altar as a portion of a fixed establishment of religion is found in Exodus 20:24-26, immediately after the promulgation of the Decalogue. Altars are commanded to be made of earth or of unhewn stone, yet so as to have, not steps, but only slopes for ascent to the same--the injunction implying that they stood on some elevation (see ALTAR, sec A, above). Before the arrival at Sinai, during the war with Amalek, Moses had built an emergency altar, to which he gave the name Yahweh-Nissi (Exodus 17:15). This was probably only a memorial altar (compare the altar `Ed in Joshua 22:21 ff). At Sinai took place the great crisis in Israel's national history. It was required that the covenant about to be made with Yahweh should be ratified with sacrificial blood; but before Moses could sprinkle the Book of the Covenant and the people who covenanted (Exodus 24:6-7; compare Hebrews 9:19), it was necessary that an altar should be built for the sacrificial act. This was done "under the mount," where, beside the altar, were reared twelve pillars, emblematic of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 24:4).

In connection with the tabernacle and the successive temples there were two altars--the Altar of Burnt Offering (the altar by preeminence, Ezekiel 43:13), and the Altar of Incense. Of these it is now necessary to speak more particularly.

II. The Altar of Burnt Offering (The Brazen Altar)

(mizbach ha-`olah), (mizbach ha-nechosheth).--(By "brass" throughout understand "bronze.")

1. Altar before the Tabernacle: The altar which stood before the tabernacle was a portable box constructed of acacia wood and covered on the outside with plates of brass (Exodus 27:1 ff). "Hollow with planks," is its definition (Exodus 27:8). It was five cubits long, five cubits broad, and three cubits high; on the ordinary reckoning, about 7 1/2 ft. on the horizontal square, and 4 1/2 ft. in height (possibly less; see CUBIT). On the "grating of network of brass" described as around and half-way up the altar (verses 4,5), see GRATING . Into the corners of this grating, on two sides, rings were riveted, into which the staves were inserted by which the Ark was borne (see STAVES). For its corner projections, see HORNS OF THE ALTAR. The prohibition of steps in Exodus 20:26 and the analogy of later altars suggest that this small altar before the tabernacle was made to stand on a base or platform, led up to by a slope of earth. The right of sanctuary is mentioned in Exodus 21:14. For the utensils connected with the altar, see PAN; SHOVEL; BASIN; FLESH-HOOK; CENSER. All these utensils were made of brass.

2. Its History: The history of the altar before the tabernacle was that of the tabernacle itself, as the two were not parted during its continuance (see TABERNACLE). Their abolition did not take place till Solomon's temple was ready for use, when the great high place at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4) was dismantled, and the tabernacle and its holy vessels were brought to the new temple (1 Kings 8:4). Another altar had meanwhile been raised by David before the tabernacle he had made on Zion, into which the Ark of the Covenant was moved (1 Chronicles 15:1; 16:1). This would be a duplicate of that at Gibeon, and would share its supersession at the erection of the first temple.

3. Altar of Solomon's Temple: In Solomon's temple the altar was considerably enlarged, as was to be expected from the greater size of the building before which it stood. We are indebted to the Chronicler for its exact dimensions (2 Chronicles 4:1). It formed a square of twenty cubits, with an elevation of ten cubits (30 x 30 x 15 ft.; or somewhat less). It is described as "an altar of brass" (2 Chronicles 4:1), or "brazen altar" (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Chronicles 7:7; compare 2 Kings 16:14), either as being, like its predecessors, encased in brass, or, as others think, made wholly of brass. It was not meant to be portable, but that the altar itself was movable is shown by the fact of Ahaz having it removed (2 Kings 16:14). Further details of its structure are not given. The altar stood in "the middle of the court that was before the house," but proved too small to receive the gifts on the day of the temple's dedication (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Chronicles 7:7). It remained, however, the center of Israelite worship for 2 1/2 centuries, till Ahaz removed it from the forefront of the house, and placed it on the northern side of is Damascene altar (2 Kings 16:14). This indignity was repaired by Hezekiah (compare 2 Kings 18:22), and the altar assumed its old place in the temple service till its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.

4. Altar of Ezekiel's Temple: The altar of Ezekiel's ideal temple was, as planned, a most elaborate structure, the cubit used for this purpose being that of "a cubit and an handbreadth" (Ezekiel 43:13), or the large cubit of history (see CUBIT). The paragraph describing it (Ezekiel 43:13-17) is very specific, though uncertainty rests on the meaning of some of the details. The altar consisted of four stages lying one above another, gradually diminishing in size till the hearth was reached upon which the fire was literal. This was a square of twelve cubits (18 ft.), from the corners of which 4 horns projected upward (Ezekiel 43:15). The base or lowest stage was one cubit in height, and had a border round about, half a cubit high (Ezekiel 43:13); the remaining stages were two, four, and four cubits high respectively (Ezekiel 43:14-15); the horns may have measured another cubit (thus, the Septuagint). Each stage was marked by the inlet of one cubit (Ezekiel 43:13-14). The basement was thus, apparently, a square of eighteen cubits or 27 ft. The word "bottom" (literally, "bosom") in Ezekiel's description is variously interpreted, some regarding it as a "drain" for carrying off the sacrificial blood, others identifying it with the "basement." On its eastern face the altar had steps looking toward the east (Ezekiel 43:17)--a departure from the earlier practice (for the reason of this, compare Perowne's article "Altar" in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible).

5. Altar of Second Temple: Of the altar of the second temple no measurements are given. It is told only that it was built prior to the temple, and was set upon its base (Ezra 3:3), presumably on the Cakhra stone--the ancient site.

6. Altar of Herod's Temple: In Herod's temple a difficulty is found in harmonizing the accounts of the Mishna and Josephus as to the size of the altar. The latter gives it as a square of fifty cubits (BJ, V, v, 6). The key to the solution probably lies in distinguishing between the structure of the altar proper (thirty-two cubits square), and a platform of larger area (fifty cubits square = 75 ft.) on which it stood. When it is remembered that the Cakhra stone is 56 ft in length and 42 ft. in width, it is easy to see that it might form a portion of a platform built up above and around it to a level of this size. The altar, like that of Ezekiel's plan, was built in diminishing stages; in the Mishna, one of one cubit, and three of five cubits in height, the topmost stage measuring twenty-six cubits square, or, with deduction of a cubit for the officiating priests, twenty-four cubits. Josephus, on the other hand, gives the height at fifteen cubits. The altar, as before, had four horns. Both Josephus and the Mishna state that the altar was built of unhewn stones. The ascent, thirty-two cubits long and sixteen broad, likewise of unhewn stone, was on the south side. See further, TEMPLE,HEROD'S . It is of this altar that the words were spoken, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matthew 5:24).

III. The Altar of Incense (Golden Altar)

(mizbach ha-qeToreth), (mizbach ha-zahabh).

1. In the Tabernacle: This was a diminutive table of acacia overlaid with gold, the upper surface of which was a square of one cubit, and its height two cubits, with an elevated cornice or crown around its top (Exodus 30:2 ff). Like the great altar of burnt offering, it was in the category of "most holy" things (Exodus 30:10); a distinction which gave it a right to a place in the inner room of the cella or holy of holies. Hence, in 1 Kings 6:22, it is said to "belong to the oracle," and in Hebrews 9:4 that chamber is said to have the "altar of incense." It did not, however, actually stand there, but in the outer chamber, "before the veil" (Exodus 40:26). The reason for this departure from the strict rule of temple ritual was that sweet incense was to be burnt daily upon it at the offering of every daily sacrifice, the lamps being then lit and extinguished (compare Numbers 28:3 f; Exodus 30:7-8), so that a cloud of smoke might fill the inner chamber at the moment when the sacrificial blood was sprinkled (see MERCY-SEAT). To have burnt this incense within the veil would have required repeated entries into the holy of holies, which entries were forbidden (Leviticus 16:2). The altar thus stood immediately without the veil, and the smoke of the incense burnt upon it entered the inner chamber by the openings above the veil. For the material construction which admitted of this, see HOLY PLACE.

For other uses of the altar of incense see HORNS OF THE ALTAR, where it is shown that at the time of the offerings of special sin offerings and on the day of the annual fast its horns were sprinkled with blood. This, with the offering of incense upon it, were its only uses, as neither meal offerings might be laid upon it, nor libations of drink offerings poured thereon (Exodus 30:9). The Tamiyd, or standing sacrifice for Israel, was a whole burnt offering of a lamb offered twice daily with its meal offering, accompanied with a service of incense.

2. Mode of Burning Incense: It is probable that the censers in use at the time of the construction of this altar and after were in shape like a spoon or ladle (see SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF), which, when filled with live coals from the great altar, were carried within the sanctuary and laid upon the altar of incense (Leviticus 16:12). The incense-sticks, broken small, were then placed upon the coals. The narrative of the deaths of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, is thus made intelligible, the fire in their censers not having been taken from the great altar.

3. In Solomon's Temple and Later: The original small altar made by Moses was superseded by one made by Solomon. This was made of cedar wood, overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20, 22; 7:48; 9:25; 2 Chronicles 4:19); hence, was called the "golden altar." This was among "all the vessels of the house of God, great and small," which Nebuchadnezzar took to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:18). As a consequence, when Ezekiel drew plans for a new temple, he gave it an incense altar made wholly of wood and of larger dimensions than before (Ezekiel 41:22). It had a height of three cubits and a top of two cubits square. There was an incense altar likewise in the second temple. It was this altar, probably plated with gold, which Antiochus Epiphanes removed (1 Maccabees 1:21), and which was restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 4:49). (On critical doubts as to the existence of the golden altar in the first and second temples, compare POT, 323.)

4. In Herod's Temple: That the Herodian temple also had its altar of incense we know from the incident of Zacharias having a vision there of "an angel .... standing on the right side of the altar of incense" when he went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense (Luke 1:11). No representation of such an altar appears on the arch of Titus, though it is mentioned by Josephus (BJ, V, v, 5). It was probably melted down by John during the course of the siege (V, xiii, 6).

5. Symbolism of Incense Burning: In the apocalypse of John, no temple was in the restored heaven and earth (Revelation 21:22), but in the earlier part of the vision was a temple (Revelation 14:17; 15:6) with an altar and a censer (Revelation 8:3). It is described as "the golden altar which was before the throne," and, with the smoke of its incense, there went up before God the prayers of the saints. This imagery is in harmony with the statement of Luke that as the priests burnt incense, "the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the hour of incense" (Luke 1:10). Both history and prophecy thus attest the abiding truth that salvation is by sacrificial blood, and is made available to men through the prayers of saints and sinners offered by a great High Priest.

W. Shaw Caldecott

Al-tashheth; Al-taschith

Al-tashheth; Al-taschith - al-tash'-heth, al-tas'-kith.

See PSALMS; SONG.

Altogether

Altogether - ol-too-geth'-er: Representing five Hebrew and three Greek originals, which variously signify (1) "together"; i.e. all, e.g. `all men, high and low, weighed together in God's balance are lighter than vanity' (Psalms 62:9); so also Psalms 53:3; Jeremiah 10:8. (2) "all": so the Revised Version (British and American), Isaiah 10:8: "Are not my princes all of them kings?" (3) "with one accord have broken the yoke"; so the Revised Version (British and American), Jeremiah 5:5. (4) "completely," "entirely," "fully": "so as not to destroy him altogether" (2 Chronicles 12:12; compare Genesis 18:21; Exodus 11:1; Psalms 39:5; Jeremiah 30:11 the King James Version; compare the Revised Version (British and American)). (5) "wholly": "altogether born in sins," John 9:34. (6) In 1 Corinthians 5:10 the Revised Version (British and American) rendered "at all"; 1 Corinthians 9:10 "assuredly." (7) A passage of classic difficulty to translators is Acts 26:29, where "altogether" in the Revised Version (British and American) is rendered "with much," Greek en megalo (en pollo). See ALMOST. Many of the instances where "altogether" occurs in the King James Version become "together" in the Revised Version (British and American). Used as an adjective in Psalms 39:5 ("altogether vanity").

Dwight M. Pratt

Alush

Alush - a'-lush ('alush): A desert camp of the Israelites between Dophkah and Rephidim (Numbers 33:13-14). The situation is not certainly known.

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

Alvah

Alvah - al'-va (`alwah): A chief (the King James Version duke) of Edom (Genesis 36:40), called "Aliah" in 1 Chronicles 1:51. Probably the same as Alvan, or Ahan, son of Shobal son of Seir (Genesis 36:23; 1 Chronicles 1:40).

Alvan

Alvan - al'-van (`alwan, "tall"?): A son of Shobal, the Horite (Genesis 36:23). In 1 Chronicles 1:40 the name is written Alian, Septuagint Olam. It is probably the same as Alvah of Genesis 36:23, which appears in 1 Chronicles 1:51 as Aliah.

Alway; Always

Alway; Always - ol'-way, ol'-waz (archaic and poetic): Properly applied to acts or states perpetually occurring, but not necessarily continuous. In Hebrew, most frequently, tamiydh. In Greek dia pantos, ordinarily expresses continuity. In Matthew 28:20 "alway" the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "always," translation Greek pasas tas hemeras, "all the days," corresponding to the Hebrew idiom similarly rendered in Deuteronomy 5:29; 6:24; 11:1; 28:33; 1 Kings 11:36, etc. Greek aei in Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Peter 3:15, means "at every and any time."

Amad

Amad - a'-mad (`am`adh): A town in northern Palestine, which fell to the tribe of Asher in the division of the land (Joshua 19:26). The modern ruin `Amud near Accho may be the site.

Amadatha; Amadathus

Amadatha; Amadathus - a-mad'-a-tha, a-mad'-a-thus (Additions to Esther 12:6).

See AMAN; HAMMEDATHA.

Amain

Amain - a-man' (translated from the Greek eis phugen hormesan, "they rushed to flight"): The word is composed of the prefix "a" and the word "main," meaning "force." The expression is used by Milton, Parker, et al., but in Biblical literature found only in 2 Maccabees 12:22 where used to describe the flight of Timotheus and his army after he suffered defeat at the hands of Judas Maccabee ("They fled amain," i.e. violently and suddenly).

Amal

Amal - a'-mal (`amal, "toiler"): A son of Helem of the tribe of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:35).

Amalek

Amalek - am'-a-lek (`amaleq): The son, by his concubine Timna, of Eliphaz, the eldest son of Esau. He was one of the chiefs (the King James Version dukes) of Edom (Genesis 36:12, 16).

See AMALEKITE .

Amalek; Amalekite

Amalek; Amalekite - am'-a-lek, a-mal'-e-kit, am'-a-lek-it (`amaleq, `amaleqi): A tribe dwelling originally in the region south of Judah, the wilderness of et-Tih where the Israelites came into conflict with them. They were nomads as a people dwelling in that tract would naturally be. When they joined the Midianites to invade Israel they came "with their cattle and their tents" (Judges 6:3-5). They are not to be identified with the descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:12, 16) because they are mentioned earlier, in the account of the invasion of Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14:7) and in Balaam's prophecy (Numbers 24:20) Amalek is called "the first of the nations," which seems to refer to an early existence. We are uncertain of their origin, for they do not appear in the list of nations found in Genesis 10:1-32. They do not seem to have had any relationship with the tribes of Israel, save as, we may surmise, some of the descendants of Esau were incorporated into the tribe. It is probable that they were of Semitic stock though we have no proof of it.

The first contact with Israel was at Rephidim, in the wilderness of Sinai, where they made an unprovoked attack and were defeated after a desperate conflict (Exodus 17:8-13; Deuteronomy 25:17-18). On account of this they were placed under the ban and Israel was commanded to exterminate them (Deuteronomy 25:19; 1 Samuel 15:2-3). The next encounter of the two peoples was when the Israelites attempted to enter Canaan from the west of the Dead Sea. The spies had reported that the Amalekites were to be found in the south, in connection with the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites (Numbers 13:29). The Israelites at first refused to advance, but later determined to do so contrary to the will of God and the command of Moses. They were met by Amalek and the Canaanites and completely defeated (Numbers 14:39-45). Amalek is next found among the allies of Moab in their attack upon Israel in the days of Eglon (Judges 3:13). They were also associated with the Midianites in their raids upon Israel (Judges 6:3), and they seemed to have gained a foothold in Ephraim, or at least a branch of them, in the hill country (Judges 5:14; 12:15), but it is evident that the great body of them still remained in their old habitat, for when Saul made war upon them he drove them toward Shur in the wilderness toward Egypt (1 Samuel 15:1-9). David also found them in the same region (1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1). After this they seem to have declined, and we find, in the days of Hezekiah, only a remnant of them who were smitten by the Simeonites at Mount Seir (1 Chronicles 4:41-43). They are once mentioned in Psalms in connection with other inveterate enemies of Israel (Psalms 83:7). The hatred Inspired by the Amalekites is reflected in the passages already mentioned which required their utter destruction. Their attack upon them when they were just escaped from Egypt and while they were struggling through the wilderness made a deep impression upon the Israelites which they never forgot, and the wrath of David upon the messenger who brought him news of the death of Saul and Jonathan, declaring himself to be the slayer of Saul, was no doubt accentuated by his being an Amalekite (2 Samuel 1:1-16).

H. Porter

Amam

Amam - a'-mam ('amam): An unidentified town in southern Palestine, which fell to Judah In the allotment of the land; occurs only in Joshua 15:26.

Aman

Aman - a'-man (Aman; Codex Vaticanus reads Adam): Tobit 14:10; Additions to Esther 12:6; 10, 17, probably in each case for Haman, the arch-enemy of the Jews in the canonical Book of Esther (compare Esther 3:1 with Additions to Esther 12:6). In Additions to Esther (16:10) Aman is represented as a Macedonian, in all other points corresponding to the Haman of the Book of Esther.

Amana

Amana - a-ma'-na, ('amanah): A mountain mentioned in Song of Solomon 4:8 along with Lebanon, Senir and Hermon. The name probably means the "firm," or "constant." "From the top of Amana" is mistranslated by the Septuagint apo arches pisteos. The Amana is most naturally sought in the Anti-Lebanon, near the course of the river Abana, or Amana (see ABANAH). Another possible identification is with Mt. Amanus in the extreme north of Syria.

Amariah

Amariah - am-a-ri'-a ('amaryah and 'amaryahu, "the Lord has said"; compare HPN , 180, 285). (1) A Levite in the line of Aaron-Eleazar; a son of Meraioth and grandfather of Zadok (1 Chronicles 6:7, 52) who lived in David's time. Compare Zadok (2 Samuel 15:27, etc.) also Ant, VIII, i, 3 and X, viii, 6. (2) A Levite in the line of Kohath-Hebron referred to in 1 Chronicles 23:19 and 1 Chronicles 24:23 at the time when David divided the Levites into courses. (3) A Levite in the line of Aaron-Eleazar; a son of Azariah who "executed the priest's office in the house that Solomon built" (1 Chronicles 6:10 f). Compare Ezra 7:3 where in the abbreviated list this Amariah is mentioned as an ancestor of Ezra. See AMARIAS (1 Esdras 8:2; 2 Esdras 1:2) and number (4) of this article (4) Chief priest and judge "in all matters of Yahweh" appointed by Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:11). Possibly identical with Amariah, number (3). (5) A descendant of Judah in the line of Perez and an ancestor of Ataiah who lived in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile (Nehemiah 11:4). Compare Imri (1 Chronicles 9:4) and number (7) of this article, which Amariah seems to be of the same family, (6) A Levite and an assistant of Kore who was appointed by Hezekiah to distributed the "oblations of Yahweh" to their brethren (2 Chronicles 31:15). (7) A son of Bani who had married a foreign woman (Ezra 10:42). See number (5) of this article (8)A priest who with Nehemiah sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:3); he had returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:2) and was the father of Jehohanan (compare Hanani, Ezra 10:20), priest at the time of Joiakim (Nehemiah 12:13). Compare Immer (Ezra 2:37; 10:20; Nehemiah 7:40) and also Emmeruth (the King James Version "Meruth," 1 Esdras 5:24). (9) An ancestor of Zephaniah, the prophet (Zephaniah 1:1).

A. L. Breslich

Amarias

Amarias - am-a-ri'-as (A, Amarias; B, Amartheias) = Amariah number 3: An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2; 2 Esdras 1:2).

Amarna, Tell El-

Amarna, Tell El- - tel-el-a-mar'-na.

See TELL EL-AMARNA.

Amasa

Amasa - a-ma'-sa (`amasa', or read `ammishai, i.e. `am yishai, "people of Jesse"): The form `amasa', is based upon a mistaken etymology (from = `amac "to burden").

(1) According to 2 Samuel 17:25, Amasa is the son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David, and Ithra, an Israelite; but another source, 1 Chronicles 2:17, calls his father Jether the Ishmaelite. He was a nephew of David and a cousin of Absalom, who made him commander of the army of rebellion. When the uprising had been quelled, David, in order to conciliate Amasa, promised him the position held by Joab; the latter had fallen from favor (2 Samuel 19:13 ff). When a new revolt broke out under Sheba, the son of Bichri (2 Samuel 20:1-26), Amasa was entrusted with the task of assembling the men of Judah. But Joab was eager for revenge upon the man who had obtained the office of command that he coveted. When Amasa met Joab at Gibeon, the latter murdered him while pretending to salute (2 Samuel 20:8-10; 1 Kings 2:5).

(2) Son of Hadlai, of the Bene 'Ephrayim ("Children of Ephraim"), who, obeying the words of the prophet Oded, refused to consider as captives the Judeans who had been taken from Ahaz, king of Judah, by the victorious Israelites under the leadership of Pekah (2 Chronicles 28:12).

H. J. Wolf

Amasai

Amasai - a-ma'-si (`amasay, perhaps rather to be read `ammishay; so Wellhausen, IJG, II, 24, n.2):

(1) A name in the genealogy of Kohath, son of Elkanah, a Levite of the Kohathite family (compare 1 Chronicles 6:25; 2 Chronicles 29:12).

(2) Chief of the captains who met David at Ziklag and tendered him their allegiance. Some have identified him with Amasa and others with Abishai, who is called Abshai in 1 Chronicles 11:20 m (compare 1 Chronicles 18:12). The difficulty is that neither Amasa nor Abishai occupied the rank of the chief of thirty according to the lists in 2 Samuel 23:1-39 and 1 Chronicles 11:1-47, the rank to which David is supposed to have appointed into (compare 1 Chronicles 12:18).

(3) One of the trumpet-blowing priests who greeted David when he brought back the Ark of the Covenant (compare 1 Chronicles 15:24).

Amashsai

Amashsai - a-mash'-si `amashcay, probably a textual error for `amashay; the ("s") implies a reading `-M-C-Y, based on a mistaken derivation from `-M-C. The original reading may have been `ammishay; compare AMASAI): Amashsai is a priestly name in the post-exilic list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11:13; Maasai, 1 Chronicles 9:12); the reading in Chronicles is ma`asay, the King James Version "Maasiai," the Revised Version (British and American) "Maasai."

Amasiah

Amasiah - am-a-si'-a (`amacyah, "Yah bears"): One of the captains of Jehoshaphat (compare 2 Chronicles 17:16).

Amath; Amathis

Amath; Amathis - a'-math, am'-a-this (1 Maccabees 12:25).

See HAMATH.

Amatheis

Amatheis - am-a-the'-is.

See EMATHEIS.

Amazed

Amazed - a-mazd': A term which illustrates the difficulty of expressing in one English word the wide range of startled emotion, wonder, astonishment, awe, covered, in the Old Testament, by four Hebrew words and in the New Testament by as many Greek words. Its Scripture originals range in meaning from amazement accompanied with terror and trembling to an astonishment full of perplexity, wonder, awe and joyous surprise. It is the word especially used to show the effect of Christ's miracles, teaching, character and Divine personality on those who saw and heard Him, and were made conscious of His supernatural power (Matthew 12:23: "All the multitudes were amazed"). The miracles of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit's bestowal of the gift of tongues produced the same universal wonder (Acts 2:7: "They were all amazed and marveled").

Dwight M. Pratt

Amaziah

Amaziah - am-a-zi'-a ('amatsyah, 'amatsyahu, "Yahweh is mighty"; 2 Kings 14:1-20; 2 Chronicles 25:1-28). Son of Jehoash, and tenth king of Judah. Amaziah had a peaceable accession at the age of 25. A depleted treasury, a despoiled palace and temple, and a discouraged people were among the consequences of his father's war with Hazael, king of Syria. When settled on the throne, Amaziah brought to justice the men who had assassinated his father. Amaziah verbal citation of Deuteronomy 24:16 in 2 Kings 14:6, forbidding the punishment of children for a father's offense, shows that the laws of this book were then known, and were recognized as authoritative, and, in theory, as governing the nation. His accession may be dated circa 812 (some put later).

1. The Edomite War: The young king's plan for the rehabilitation of his people was the restoration of the kingdom's military prestige, so severely lowered in his father's reign. A militia army, composed of all the young men above 20 years of age, was first organized and placed upon a war footing (2 Chronicles 25:5; the number given, 300,000, is not a reliable one). Even this not being considered a large enough force to effect the project, 100 talents of silver were sent to engage mercenary troops for the expedition from Israel. When these came, a man of God strongly dissuaded the king from relying on them (2 Chronicles 25:7 ff). When this was communicated to the soldiers, and they were sent back unemployed, it roused them to "fierce anger" (2 Chronicles 25:10).

2. Its Occasion: Amaziah's purpose in making these extensive preparations for war, in a time of profound peace, is clear to the Southeast of Judah lay the Edomite state, with its capital at Petra. For many years Edom had been subject to Jehoshaphat, and a Hebrew "deputy" had governed it (1 Kings 22:47). In the reign of his son and successor, Jehoram, a confederacy of Philistines, Arabians and Edomites took Libnah and made a raid on Jerusalem. A band of these penetrated the palace, which they plundered, abducted some women, and murdered all the young princes but the youngest (2 Chronicles 21:17; 22:1). The public commotion and distress caused by such an event may be seen reflected in the short oracle of the prophet Obadiah, uttered against Edom, if, with some, Obadiah's date is put thus early

3. The Victory in the Valley of Salt: From that time "Edom .... made a king over themselves" (2 Chronicles 21:8), and for fifty years following were practically independent. It was this blot on Jerusalem and the good name of Judah that Amaziah determined to wipe out. The army of retaliation went forward, and after a battle in the Valley of Salt, south of the Dead Sea, in which they were the victors, moved on to Petra. This city lies in a hollow, shut in by mountains, and approached only by a narrow ravine, through which a stream of water flows. Amaziah took it "by storm" (such is Ewald's rendering of "by war," in 2 Kings 14:7). Great execution was done, many of the captives being thrown from the rock, the face of which is now covered with rock-cut tombs of the Greek-Roman age.

4. Apostasy and Its Punishment: The campaign was thus entirely successful, but had evil results. Flushed with victory, Amaziah brought back the gods of Edom, and paid them worship. For this act of apostasy, he was warned of approaching destruction (2 Chronicles 25:14-17). Disquieting news soon came relating to the conduct of the troops sent back to Samaria. From Beth-horon in the south to the border of the northern state they had looted the villages and killed some of the country people who had attempted to defend their property (2 Chronicles 25:13). To Amaziah's demand for reparation, Jehoash's answer was the contemptuous one of the well-known parable of the Thistle and the Cedar.

5. Battle of Beth-shemesh: War was now inevitable. The kings "looked one another in the face," in the valley of Beth-shemesh, where there is a level space, suitable to the movements of infantry. Judah was utterly routed, and the king himself taken prisoner. There being no treasures in the lately despoiled capital, Jehoash contented himself with taking hostages for future good behavior, and with breaking down 400 cubits of the wall of Jerusalem at the Northwest corner of the defense (2 Kings 14:13-14; 2 Chronicles 25:22-24).

6. Closing Years and Tragical End: Amaziah's career as a soldier was now closed. He outlived Jehoash of Israel "fifteen years" (2 Kings 14:17). His later years were spent in seclusion and dread, and had a tragical ending. The reason for his unpopularity is not far to seek. The responsibility for the war with Jehoash is by the inspired writer placed upon the shoulders of Amaziah (2 Kings 14:9-11). It was he who "would not hear." The quarrel between the kings was one which it was not beyond the power of diplomacy to remedy, but no brotherly attempt to heal the breach was made by either king. When the results of the war appeared, it could not be but that the author of the war should be called upon to answer for them. So deep was his disgrace and so profound the sense of national humiliation, that a party in the state determined on Amaziah's removal, so soon as there was another to take his place. The age of majority among the Hebrew kings was 16, and when Amaziah's son was of this age, the conspiracy against his life grew so strong and open that he fled to Lachish. Here he was followed and killed; his body being insultingly carried to Jerusalem on horses, and not conveyed in a litter or coffin (2 Kings 14:19-20; 2 Chronicles 25:27-28). He was 54 years old and had reigned for 29 years. The Chronicler (2 Chronicles 26:1) hardly conceals the popular rejoicings at the exchange of sovereigns, when Uzziah became king.

In 2 Chronicles 25:28 is a copyist's error by which we read "in the city of Judah," instead of "in the city of David," as in the corresponding passage in Kings. The singular postscript to the record of Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:22 is intended to mark the fact that while the port of Elath on the Red Sea fell before the arms, in turn, of Amaziah and of his son Uzziah, it was the latter who restored it to Judah, as a part of its territory. Amaziah is mentioned in the royal genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:12, but not in that of Matthew 1:1-25. There is a leap here from Jehoram to Uzziah, Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah being omitted.

W. Shaw Caldecott

Ambassador

Ambassador - am-bas'-a-dor (mal'akh, "messenger"; 'luts, "interpreter"; tsir, "to go"; hence a messenger; presbeuo, "to act as an ambassador," literally, to be older): An ambassador is an official representative of a king or government, as of Pharaoh (Isaiah 30:4); of the princes of Babylon (2 Chronicles 32:31); of Neco, king of Egypt (2 Chronicles 35:21); of the messengers of peace sent by Hezekiah, king of Judah, to Sennacherib, king of Assyria (Isaiah 33:7). The same Hebrew term is used of the messengers sent by Jacob to Esau (Genesis 32:3); by Moses to the king of Edom (Numbers 20:14). For abundant illustration consult "Messenger" (mal'akh) in any concordance. See CONCORDANCE. The inhabitants of Gibeon made themselves pretended ambassadors to Joshua in order to secure by deceit the protection of a treaty ("covenant") (Joshua 9:4).

In the New Testament the term is used in a figurative sense. As the imprisoned representative of Christ at Rome Paul calls himself "an ambassador in chains" (Ephesians 6:20); and in 2 Corinthians 5:20 includes, with himself, all ministers of the gospel, as "ambassadors .... on behalf of Christ," commissioned by Him as their sovereign Lord, with the ministry of reconciling the world to God. The Bible contains no finer characterization of the exalted and spiritual nature of the minister's vocation as the representative of Jesus Christ, the King of kings, and Saviour of the world.

Dwight M. Pratt

Ambassage

Ambassage - am'-ba-saj (presbeia, "an embassy," a body of ambassadors on the message entrusted to them): Twice used by Christ (1) in the parable of the Pounds, of the citizens who hated the nobleman and sent an ambassage, refusing to have him reign over them, thus illustrating those who willfully rejected His own spiritual sovereignty and kingdom (Luke 19:14); (2) of a weak king who sends to a stronger an ambassage to ask conditions of peace (Luke 14:32). Not used elsewhere in the Bible.

Amber

Amber - am'-ber.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Ambitious

Ambitious - am-bish'-us (philotimeomai, "to be strongly desirous," "strive earnestly," "make it one's aim"): Given as a marginal reading in Romans 15:20 ("being ambitious to bring good tidings"), 2 Corinthians 5:9 ("We are ambitious, whether at home or absent, to be well-pleasing unto him"), and 1 Thessalonians 4:11 ("that ye be ambitious to be quiet").

Ambush

Ambush - am'-boosh ('arabh, "to set an ambush"; ma'arabh, "an ambush"): A military stratagem in which a body of men are placed in concealment to surprise an enemy unawares, or to attack a point when temporarily undefended. This stratagem was employed successfully by Joshua at Ai (Joshua 8:1-35). Jeremiah calls upon the Medes to "set up a standard against the walls of Babylon, make the watch strong, set the watchmen, prepare the ambushes" (Jeremiah 51:12).

Ambushment

Ambushment - am'-boosh-ment (as above) has now disappeared in 2 Chronicles 20:22, where the Revised Version (British and American) gives for "ambushment" "liers-in-wait." It still remains in 2 Chronicles 13:13 where both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render the Hebrew noun "ambushment."

Amen

Amen - a-men' (in ritual speech and in singing a-men', a'men) ('amen; amen, = "truly," "verily"): Is derived from the reflexive form of a verb meaning "to be firm," or "to prop." It occurs twice as a noun in Isaiah 65:16, where we have (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American)) "God of truth." This rendering implies the pointing 'omen or 'emun i.e. "truth," or "faithfulness," a reading actually suggested by Cheyne and adopted by others. "Amen" is generally used as an adverb of assent or confirmation--fiat, "so let it be." In Jeremiah 28:6 the prophet endorses with it the words of Hananiah. Amen is employed when an individual or the whole nation confirms a covenant or oath recited in their presence (Numbers 5:22; Deuteronomy 27:15 ff; Nehemiah 5:13, etc.). It also occurs at the close of a psalm or book of psalms, or of a prayer.

That "Amen" was appended to the doxology in the early church is evident both from Paul and Rev, and here again it took the form of a response by the hearers. The ritual of the installation of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6-14) concludes with the Amen of the four beasts, and the four and twenty elders. It is also spoken after "Yea: I come quickly" (Revelation 22:20). And that Revelation reflects the practice of the church on earth, and not merely of an ideal, ascended community in heaven, may be concluded from 1 Corinthians 14:16, whence we gather that the lay brethren were expected to say "Amen" to the address. (See Weizsacker's The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, English translation,II , 289.)

James Millar

Amerce

Amerce - a-murs': Found in the King James Version only in Deuteronomy 22:19, "And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver." Amerce is a legal term derived from the French (a = "at"; merci = "mercy," i.e. literally, "at the mercy" (of the court)). Here it is used of the imposing of a fine, according to the Law of Moses, upon the man who has been proven by the Elders to have brought a false charge against the virginity of the maid he has married by saying to the father, "I found not thy daughter a maid."

American Revised Version

American Revised Version - a-mer'-i-kan re-vizd' vur'-shun.

1. History: On July 7, 1870, it was moved in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury that in the work of revision the cooperation of American divines be invited. This resolution was assented to, and on December 7, 1871, the arrangements were completed. Under the general presidency of Dr. Philip Schaff, an Old Testament Company of fifteen scholars was formed, with Dr. W. H. Green as chairman, and a New Testament Company of sixteen members (including Dr. Schaff), with Dr. T. D. Woolsey as chairman. Work was begun on October 4, 1872, and took the form of offering criticisms on the successive portions of the English revision as they were received. These criticisms of the American Companies were duly considered by the English Companies during the second revision and the decisions were again sent to America for criticism. The replies received were once more given consideration and, finally, the unadopted readings for which the American Companies professed deliberate preference were printed as appendices to the two Testaments as published in 1881 and 1885. These lists, however, were not regarded by the American Companies as satisfactory. In the first place, it became evident that the English Companies, on account of their instructions and for other reasons, were not willing to make changes of a certain class. Consequently the American Companies insisted on only such readings as seemed to have a real chance of being accepted. And, in the second place, the English presses hurried the last part of the work and were unwilling to allow enough time for adequate thoroughness in the preparation of the lists. But it was hoped that the first published edition of the English Revised Version would not be considered definitive and that in the future such American proposals as had stood the test of public discussion might be incorporated into the text. This hope was disappointed--the English Companies disbanded as soon as their revision was finished and their work stood as final. As a result the American Companies resolved to continue their organization. They were pledged not to issue or endorse any new revision within fourteen years after the publication of the English Revised Version, and so it was not until 1900 that the American Standard Revised Version New Testament was published. The whole Bible was issued in the following year.

2. Differences from English Revised Version: As the complete editions of the American Standard Revised Version give a full list of the changes made, only the more prominent need be mentioned here. A few of the readings printed in the appendices to the English Revised Version were abandoned, but many new ones were introduced, including some that had been adopted while the English work was in progress but which had not been pressed. (See above.) Still, in general appearance, the American Standard Revised Version differs but slightly from the English. The most important addition is found in the page-headings. Some changes have been made in shortening the titles of the New Testament books. The printing of poetical passages in poetical form has been carried through more consistently. The paragraphs have been altered in some cases and (especially in the Old Testament) shortened. The punctuation has been simplified, especially by the more frequent use of the semi-colon. The removal of obsolete words ("magnifical," "neesings," etc.) has been effected fairly thoroughly, obsolete constructions ("jealous over," etc.) have been modernized, particularly by the use of "who" or "that" (instead of "which") for persons and "its" (instead of "his") for things. In the Old Testament "Yahweh" has been introduced systematically for the proper Hebrew word, as has "Sheol" ("Hades" in the New Testament). Certain passages too literally rendered in the English Revised Version ("reins," "by the hand of," etc.) are given in modern terms. In the New Testament, the substitution of "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" was completed throughout (in the English Revised Version it is made in some twenty places), "demons" substituted for "devils," "Teacher" for "Master," and "try" for "tempt" when there is no direct reference to wrongdoing. And so on.

3. Criticism: It may be questioned whether the differences between the two Revisions are great enough to counterbalance the annoyance and confusion resulting from the existence of two standard versions in the same language. But, accepting the American Standard Revised Version as an accomplished fact, and acknowledging a few demerits that it has or may be thought to have in comparison with the English Revised Version (a bit of pedantry in Psalms 148:12 or renderings of disputed passages such as Psalms 24:6), these demerits are altogether outweighed by the superiorities--with one exception. In the Psalter, when used liturgically, the repetition of the word "Yahweh" becomes wearisome and the English Revised Version which retains "The Lord" is much preferable. Most to be regretted in the American Standard Revised Version is its extreme conservatism in the readings of the original texts. In the Old Testament the number of marginal variants was actually reduced. In the New Testament, only trivial changes are made from the so-called Revisers' Greek Text, although this text did not represent the best scholarly opinion even in 1881, while in 1900 it was almost universally abandoned (Today--in 1914--it is obsolete.) It is very unfortunate that the American Revisers did not improve on the example of their English brethren and continue their sessions after the publication of their version, for it is only by the successive revisions of published work that a really satisfactory result can be attained.

4. Apocrypha: No American Standard Revised Version Apocrypha was attempted, a particularly unfortunate fact, as the necessity for the study of the Apocrypha has become imperative and the English Revised Version Apocrypha is not a particularly good piece of work. However, copies of the American Standard Revised Version can now be obtained with the English Revised Version Apocrypha included.

See ENGLISH VERSIONS.

Burton Scott Easton

Amethyst

Amethyst - am'-e-thist.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Ami

Ami - a'-mi, a'-me ('ami): Ancestor of a family among "Solomon's servants" in the Return (Ezra 2:57); the same as Amon in Nehemiah 7:59.

Amiable

Amiable - a'-mi-a-b'-l (yedhidh, "beloved"): Applied to the tabernacle or tent of meeting "How amiable ("lovely" the Revised Version, margin) are thy tabernacles" (Psalms 84:1), the plural having reference to the subdivisions and appurtenances of the sanctuary (compare Psalms 68:35). The adjective is rendered "amiable" in the sense of the French amiable, lovely; but the usage of the Hebrew word requires it to be understood as meaning "dear," "beloved." Compare "so amiable a prospect" (Sir T. Herbert), "They keep their churches so cleanly and amiable" (Howell, 1644). "What made the tabernacle of Moses lovely was not the outside, which was very mean, but what was within" (John Gill).

See TABERNACLE.

M. O. Evans

Aminadab

Aminadab - a-min'-a-dab (Aminadab): the King James Version: Greek form of Amminadab (which see). Thus the Revised Version (British and American) (Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:33).

Amiss

Amiss - a-mis': There are two words translated "amiss" in the New Testament, atopos, referring to that which is improper or harmful (Luke 23:41; Acts 28:6), while kakos, refers to that which is evil in the sense of a disaster, then to that which is wicked, morally wrong. This latter is the use of it in James 4:3. The purpose of the prayer is evil, it is therefore amiss and cannot be granted (compare 2 Chronicles 6:37 ff).

Amittai

Amittai - a-mit'-i ('amittay, "faithful"): The father of the prophet Jonah. He was from Gath-hepher in Zebulun (2 Kings 14:25; Jonah 1:1).

Ammah

Ammah - am'-a ('ammah, "mother" or "beginning"): A hill in the territory of Benjamin (2 Samuel 2:24), where Joab and Abishai halted at nightfall in their pursuit of Abner and his forces after their victory over him in the battle of Gibeon. It "lieth before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon"; but the exact location has not been identified. The same Hebrew word appears as the second part of Metheg-ammah in 2 Samuel 8:1 the King James Version, but rendered "mother city" in the Revised Version (British and American), probably however not the same place as in 2 Samuel 2:24.

Ammi

Ammi - am'-i (`ammi, "my people"): A symbolic name given to Israel by Hosea (2:1; 2:3 in Hebrew text), descriptive of Israel in the state of restoration, and in contrast to sinful and rejected Israel, represented by Hosea's son, who was called Lo-ammi, "not my people," when born to the prophet (Hosea 1:9-10). This restoration to the Divine favor is more fully described in Hosea 2:21, 23 in words quoted by Paul (Romans 9:25-26). The use of such figurative and descriptive names is frequent in the Old Testament; compare Isaiah 62:4, 12.

Ammidioi; Ammidoi

Ammidioi; Ammidoi - a-mid'-i-oi, am'-i-doi (the King James Version Ammidioi, (also with aspirate); occurring only in 1 Esdras 5:20): One of the families returning from the Babylonian Captivity in the First Return, under Zerubbabel, in 537 BC. This name is not found in the corresponding lists of the canonical books, Ezra 2:1-70 and Nehemiah 7:1-73. Their identity is uncertain.

Ammiel

Ammiel - am'-i-el (`ammi'el, "my kinsman is God"; Ameiel)): A name borne by four men in the Old Testament.

(1) One of the twelve spies sent into Canaan by Moses; son of Gemalli, of the tribe of Dan (Numbers 13:12).

(2) A Benjamite, the father of Machir, a friend of David, living at Lodebar in Gilead (2 Samuel 9:4-5; 17:27).

(3) Father of Bathshua (or Bathsheba), one of David's wives, who was mother of Solomon (1 Chronicles 3:5). In the parallel passage, 2 Samuel 11:3, by transposition of the two parts of the name, he is called Eliam, meaning "my God is a kinsman."

(4) The sixth son of Obed-edom, a Levite, one of the doorkeepers of the tabernacle of God in David's life-time (1 Chronicles 26:5).

Edward Mack

Ammihud

Ammihud - a-mi'-hud (`ammihudh, "my kinsman is glorious"; variously in the Septuagint, Emioud or Semioud or Amioud): The name of several Old Testament persons.

(1) Father of Elishama, who in the wilderness was head of the tribe of Ephraim (Numbers 1:10; 2:18; 48, 53; 10:22; 1 Chronicles 7:26).

(2) Father of Shemuel, who was appointed by Moses from the tribe of Simeon to divide the land among the tribes after they should have entered Canaan (Numbers 34:20).

(3) Father of Pedahel, who was appointed from the tribe of Naphtali for the same purpose as the Ammihud of (2) (Numbers 34:28).

(4) In the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin for the Ammihur (`ammichur,"my kinsman is noble"), who was father of Talmai of Geshur, a little Aramaic kingdom East of the Lebanon mountains, to whom Absalom fled after the murder of his brother Amnon. The weight of evidence seems to favor the reading Ammichur (2 Samuel 13:37).

(5) A descendant of Judah through the line of Perez (1 Chronicles 9:4).

Edward Mack

Ammihur

Ammihur - a-mi'-hur (the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin; `ammichur, "my kinsman is noble"; Emioud).

See AMMIHUD (4).

Amminadab

Amminadab - a-min'-a-dab (`amminadhabh = "my people (or my kinsman) is generous or noble"): Three persons bearing this name are mentioned in the Old Testament.

(1) In Ruth 4:19-20 and 1 Chronicles 2:10 Amminadab is referred to as one of David's ancestors. He was the great-grandson of Perez, a son of Judah (Genesis 38:29; 46:12) and the great-grandfather of Boaz, who again was the great-grandfather of David. Aaron's wife, Elisheba, was a daughter of Amminadab (Exodus 6:23), while one of the sons, namely, Nahshon, occupied an important position in the Judah-clan (Numbers 1:7; 2:3; 7:12; 10:14).

(2) In the first Book of Chronicles (1 Chronicles 6:22) Amminadab is mentioned as a son of Kohath (and therefore a grandson of Levi) and the father of Korah. But in other genealogical passages (Exodus 6:18; Numbers 3:19; 1 Chronicles 6:2) the sons of Kohath are Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel, and in two places (Exodus 6:21; 1 Chronicles 6:38) Izhar is mentioned as the father of Korah.

(3) According to 1 Ch (15:10,11) Amminadab was the name of a priest who took part in the removal of the ark to Jerusalem. He was the son of Uzziel, and therefore a nephew of Amminadab, son of Kohath (= Izhar).

Thomas Lewis

Amminadib

Amminadib - a-min'-a-dib (`amminadhibh): The name occurs in the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin only in one passage (Song of Solomon 6:12, "the chariots of Amminadib"). In King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) text, however, it is not regarded as a proper name, and the clause is rendered, "among the chariots of my princely people." Interpretations widely vary (see COMMENTARIES).

Ammishaddai

Ammishaddai - am-i-shad'-i, am-i-shad-a'-i (`ammishadday, "Shaddai is my kinsman"): The father of Ahiezer, a Danite captain or "head of his fathers' house," during the wilderness journey (Numbers 1:12; 2:25, etc.).

Ammizabad

Ammizabad - a-miz'-a-bad (`ammizabhadh, "my kinsman has made a present"): The son of Benaiah, one of David's captains for the third month (1 Chronicles 27:6).

Ammon; Ammonites

Ammon; Ammonites - am'-on, am'-on-its (`ammon; `ammonim): The Hebrew tradition makes this tribe descendants of Lot and hence related to the Israelites (Genesis 19:38). This is reflected in the name usually employed in Old Testament to designate them, Ben `Ammi, Bene `Ammon, "son of my people," "children of my people," i.e. relatives. Hence we find that the Israelites are commanded to avoid conflict with them on their march to the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 2:19). Their dwelling-place was on the east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, between the Arnon and the Jabbok, but, before the advance of the Hebrews, they had been dispossessed of a portion of their land by the Amorites, who founded, along the east side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, the kingdom of Sihon (Numbers 21:21-31). We know from the records of Egypt, especially Tell el-Amarna Letters, the approximate date of the Amorite invasion (14th and 13th centuries, BC). They were pressed on the north by the Hittites who forced them upon the tribes of the south, and some of them settled east of the Jordan. Thus, Israel helped Ammonites by destroying their old enemies, and this makes their conduct at a later period the more reprehensible. In the days of Jephthah they oppressed the Israelites east of the Jordan, claiming that the latter had deprived them of their territory when they came from Egypt, whereas it was the possessions of the Amorites they took (Judges 11:1-28). They were defeated, but their hostility did not cease, and their conduct toward the Israelites was particularly shameful, as in the days of Saul (1 Samuel 11:1-15) and of David (2 Samuel 10:1-19). This may account for the cruel treatment meted out to them in the war that followed (2 Samuel 12:26-31). They seem to have been completely subdued by David and their capital was taken, and we find a better spirit manifested afterward, for Nahash of Rabbah showed kindness to him when a fugitive (2 Samuel 17:27-29). Their country came into the possession of Jeroboam, on the division of the kingdom, and when the Syrians of Damascus deprived the kingdom of Israel of their possessions east of the Jordan, the Ammonites became subjects of Benhadad, and we find a contingent of 1,000 of them serving as allies of that king in the great battle of the Syrians with the Assyrians at Qarqar (854 BC) in the reign of Shalmaneser II. They may have regained their old territory when Tiglath-pileser carried off the Israelites East of the Jordan into captivity (2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chronicles 5:26). Their hostility to both kingdoms, Judah and Israel, was often manifested. In the days of Jehoshaphat they joined with the Moabites in an attack upon him, but met with disaster (2 Chronicles 20:1-37). They paid tribute to Jotham (2 Chronicles 27:5). After submitting to Tiglath-pileser they were generally tributary to Assyria, but we have mention of their joining In the general uprising that took place under Sennacherib; but they submitted and we find them tributary in the reign of Esarhaddon. Their hostility to Judah is shown in their joining the Chaldeans to destroy it (2 Kings 24:2). Their cruelty is denounced by the prophet Amos (2 Kings 1:13), and their destruction by Jer (49:1-6), Ezek (2 Kings 21:26), Zeph (2 Kings 2:8-9). Their murder of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:22-26; Jeremiah 40:14) was a dastardly act. Tobiah the Ammonites united with Sanballat to oppose Neh (Nehemiah 4:1-23), and their opposition to the Jews did not cease with the establishment of the latter in Judea.

They joined the Syrians in their wars with the Maccabees and were defeated by Judas (1 Mac 5:6).

Their religion was a degrading and cruel superstition. Their chief god was Molech, or Moloch, to whom they offered human sacrifices (1 Kings 11:7) against which Israel was especially warned (Leviticus 20:2-5). This worship was common to other tribes for we find it mentioned among the Phoenicians.

H. Porter

Ammonitess

Ammonitess - am-on-i'-tes, a-mon'-i-tes (`ammonith): A woman of the Ammonites, Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:21, 31; 2 Chronicles 12:13; 24:26).

Amnon

Amnon - am'-non ('amnon, "faithful"; compare 'aminon, 2 Samuel 13:20, which is probably a diminutive. Wellhausen (IJG, II, 24, note 2) resolves 'amiynown into 'immi, and nun, "my mother is the serpent"; compare NUN):

(1) The eldest son of David and Ahinoam, the Jezreelites (compare 2 Samuel 3:2). As the crown prince and heir presumptive to the throne, he was intensely hated by Absalom, who was, therefore, doubly eager to revenge the outrage committed by Amnon upon his sister Tamar (2 Samuel 3:2; 13:1 ff, 1 Chronicles 3:1).

(2) A name in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:20).

Amok

Amok - a'-mok (`amoq, "deep"): A chief priest who came to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:7) and the forefather of Eber, who was priest in the days of Joiakim (Nehemiah 12:20).

Amon

Amon - a'-mon ('amon): A name identical with that of the Egyptian local deity of Thebes (No); compare Jeremiah 46:25. The foreign name given to a Hebrew prince is remarkable, as is also the fact that it is one of the two or three royal names of Judah not compounded with the name of Yahweh. See MANASSEH. It seems to reflect the sentiment which his fanatical father sought to make prevail that Yahweh had no longer any more claim to identification with the realm than had other deities.

(1) A king of Judah, son and successor of Manasseh; reigned two years and was assassinated in his own palace by the officials of his household. The story of his reign is told briefly in 2 Kings 21:19-26, and still more briefly, though in identical terms, so far as they go, in 2 Chronicles 33:21-25. His short reign was merely incidental in the history of Judah; just long enough to reveal the traits and tendencies which directly or indirectly led to his death. It was merely a weaker continuation of the regime of his idolatrous father, though without the fanaticism which gave the father positive character, and without the touch of piety which, if the Chronicler's account is correct, tempered the father's later years.

If the assassination was the initial act of a revolution the latter was immediately suppressed by "the people of the land," who put to death the conspirators and placed Amon's eight-year-old son Josiah on the throne. In the view of the present writer the motive of the affair was probably connected with the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty, which, having survived so long according to prophetic prediction (compare 2 Samuel 7:16; Psalms 89:36-37), was an essential guarantee of Yahweh's favor. Manasseh's foreign sympathies, however, had loosened the hold of Yahweh on the officials of his court; so that, instead of being the loyal center of devotion to Israel's religious and national idea, the royal household was but a hotbed of worldly ambitions, and all the more for Manasseh's prosperous reign, so long immune from any stroke of Divine judgment. It is natural that, seeing the insignificance of Amon's administration, some ambitious clique, imitating the policy that had frequently succeeded in the Northern Kingdom, should strike for the throne. They had reckoned, however, without estimating the inbred Davidic loyalty of the body of the people. It was a blow at one of their most cherished tenets, committing the nation both politically and religiously to utter uncertainty. That this impulsive act of the people was in the line of the purer religious movement which was ripening in Israel does not prove that the spiritually-minded "remnant" was minded to violence and conspiracy, it merely shows what a stern and sterling fiber of loyalty still existed, seasoned and confirmed by trial below the corrupting cults and fashions of the ruling classes. In the tragedy of Amon's reign, in short, we get a glimpse of the basis of sound principle that lay at the common heart of Israel.

(2) A governor of Samaria (1 Kings 22:26); the one to whom the prophet Micaiah was committed as a prisoner by King Ahab, after the prophet had disputed the predictions of the court prophets and foretold the king's death in battle.

(3) The head of the "children of Solomon's servants" (Nehemiah 7:59) who returned from captivity; reckoned along with the Nethinim, or temple slaves. Called also Ami (Ezra 2:57).

John Franklin Genung

Amorites

Amorites - am'-o-rits; Amorites ('emori, always in the singular like the Babylonian Amurru from which it is taken; Amorraioi):

1. Varying Use of the Name Explained

2. The Amorite Kingdom

3. Sihon's Conquest

4. Disappearance of the Amorite Kingdom

5. Physical Characteristics of the Amorites

The name Amorite is used in the Old Testament to denote (1) the inhabitants of Palestine generally, (2) the population of the hills as opposed to the plain, and (3) a specific people under a king of their own. Thus (1) we hear of them on the west shore of the Dead Sea (Genesis 14:7), at Hebron (Genesis 14:13), and Shechem (Genesis 48:22), in Gilead and Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:10) and under Hermon (Deuteronomy 3:8; 4:48). They are named instead of the Canaanites as the inhabitants of Palestine whom the Israelites were required to exterminate (Genesis 15:16; Deuteronomy 20:17; Judges 6:10; 1 Samuel 7:14; 1 Kings 21:26; 2 Kings 21:11); the older population of Judah is called Amorite in Joshua 10:5-6, in conformity with which Ezek (Joshua 16:3) states that Jerusalem had an Amorite father; and the Gibeonites are said to have been "of the remnant of the Amorites" (2 Samuel 21:2). On the other hand (2), in Numbers 13:29 the Amorites are described as dwelling in the mountains like the Hittites and Jebusites of Jerusalem, while the Amalekites or Bedouins lived in the south and the Canaanites on the seacoast and in the valley of the Jordan. Lastly (3) we hear of Sihon, "king of the Amorites," who had conquered the northern half of Moab (Numbers 21:21-31; Deuteronomy 2:26-35).

1. Varying Use of the Name Explained: Assyriological discovery has explained the varying use of the name. The Hebrew form of it is a transliteration of the Babylonian Amurru, which was both sing. and plural. In the age of Abraham the Amurru were the dominant people in western Asia; hence Syria and Palestine were called by the Babylonians "the land of the Amorites." In the Assyrian period this was replaced by "land of the Hittites," the Hittites in the Mosaic age having made themselves masters of Syria and Canaan. The use of the name "Amorite" in its general sense belongs to the Babylonian period of oriental history.

2. The Amorite Kingdom: The Amorite kingdom was of great antiquity. About 2500 BC it embraced the larger part of Mesopotamia and Syria, with its capital probably at Harran, and a few centuries later northern Babylonia was occupied by an "Amorite" dynasty of kings who traced theft descent from Samu or Sumu (the Biblical Shem), and made Babylon their capital. To this dynasty belonged Khammu-rabi, the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1. In the astrological documents of the period frequent reference is made to "the king of the Amorites." This king of the Amorites was subject to Babylonia in the age of the dynasty of Ur, two or three centuries before the birth of Abraham He claimed suzerainty over a number of "Amorite" kinglets, among whom those of Khana on the Euphrates, near the mouth of the Khabur, may be named, since in the Abrahamic age one of them was called Khammu-rapikh and another Isarlim or Israel. A payment of a cadastral survey made at this time by a Babylonian governor with the Canaanite name of Urimelech is now in the Louvre. Numerous Amorites were settled in Ur and other Babylonian cities, chiefly for the purpose of trade. They seem to have enjoyed the same rights and privileges as the native Babylonians. Some of them were commercial travelers, but we hear also of the heads of the great firms making journeys to the Mediterranean coast.

In an inscription found near Diarbekir and dedicated to Khammu-rabi by Ibirum (= Eber), the governor of the district, the only title given to the Babylonian monarch is "king of the Amorites," where instead of Amurru the Sumerian Martu (Hebrew moreh) is used. The great-grandson of Khammu-rabi still calls himself "king of the widespread land of the Amorites," but two generations later Babylonia was invaded by the Hittites, the Amorite dynasty came to an end, and there was once more a "king of the Amorites" who was not also king of Babylonia.

The Amorite kingdom continued to exist down to the time of the Israelite invasion of Palestine, and mention is made of it in the Egyptian records as well as in the cuneiform Tell el-Amarna Letters, and the Hittite archives recently discovered at Boghaz-keui, the site of the Hittite capital in Cappadocia. The Egyptian conquest of Canaan by the kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty had put an end to the effective government of that country by the Amorite princes, but their rule still extended eastward to the borders of Babylonia, while its southern limits coincided approximately with what was afterward the northern frontier of Naphtali. The Amorite kings, however, became, at all events in name, the vassals of the Egyptian Pharaoh. When the Egyptian empire began to break up, under the "heretic king" Amenhotep IV, at the end of the XVIIIth Dynasty (1400 BC), the Amorite princes naturally turned to their more powerful neighbors in the north. One of the letters in the Tell el-Amarna correspondence is from the Pharaoh to his Amorite vassal Aziru the son of Ebed-Asherah, accusing him of rebellion and threatening him with punishment. Eventually Aziru found it advisable to go over openly to the Hittites, and pay the Hittite government an annual tribute of 300 shekels of gold. From that time forward the Amorite kingdom was a dependency of the Hittite empire, which, on the strength of this, claimed dominion over Palestine as far as the Egyptian frontier.

The second successor of Aziru was Abi-Amurru (or Abi-Hadad), whose successor bore, in addition to a Semitic name, the Mitannian name of Bentesinas. Bente-sinas was dethroned by the Hittite King Muttallis and imprisoned in Cappadocia, where he seems to have met the Hittite prince Khattu-sil, who on the death of his brother Muttallis seized the crown and restored Bente-sinas to his kingdom. Bente-sinas married the daughter of Khattu-sil, while his own daughter was wedded to the son of his Hittite suzerain, and an agreement was made that the succession to the Amorite throne should be confined to her descendants. Two or three generations later the Hittite empire was destroyed by an invasion of "northern barbarians," the Phrygians, probably, of Greek history, who marched southward, through Palestine, against Egypt, carrying with them "the king of the Amorites." The invaders, however, were defeated and practically exterminated by Ramses III of the XXth Egyptian Dynasty (1200 BC). The Amorite king, captured on this occasion by the Egyptians, was probably the immediate predecessor of the Sihon of the Old Testament.

3. Sihon's Conquest: Egyptian influence in Canaan had finally ceased with the invasion of Egypt by the Libyans and peoples of the Aegean in the fifth year of Meneptah, the successor of Ramses II, at the time of the Israelite Exodus. Though the invaders were repulsed, the Egyptian garrisons had to be withdrawn from the cities of southern Palestine, where their place was taken by the Philistines who thus blocked the way from Egypt to the north. The Amorites, in the name of their distant Hittite suzerains, were accordingly able to overrun the old Egyptian provinces on the east side of the Jordan; the Amorite chieftain Og possessed himself of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:8), and Sihon, "king of the Amorites," conquered the northern part of Moab.

The conquest must have been recent at the time of the Israelite invasion, as the Amorite song of triumph is quoted in Numbers 21:27-29, and adapted to the overthrow of Sihon himself by the Israelites. `Woe unto thee,' it reads, `O Moab; thou art undone, O people of Chemosh! (Chemosh) hath given thy sons who escaped (the battle) and thy daughters into captivity to Sihon king of the Amorites.' The flame that had thus consumed Heshbon, it is further declared, shall spread southward through Moab, while Heshbon itself is rebuilt and made the capital of the conqueror: "Come to Heshbon, that the city of Sihon (like the city of David, 2 Samuel 5:9) may be rebuilt and restored. For the fire has spread from Heshbon, the flame from the capital of Sihon, devouring as far as Moab (reading `adh with the Septuagint instead of `ar), and swallowing up (reading bale`ah with the Septuagint) the high places of Arnon." The Israelite invasion, however, prevented the expected conquest of southern Moab from taking place.

4. Disappearance of the Amorite Kingdom: After the fall of Sihon the Amorite kingdom disappears. The Syrians of Zobah, of Hamath and of Damascus take its place, while with the rise of Assyria the "Amorites" cease to be the representatives in contemporary literature of the inhabitants of western Asia. At one time their power had extended to the Babylonian frontier, and Bente-sinas was summoned to Cappadocia by his Hittite overlord to answer a charge made by the Babylonian ambassadors of his having raided northern Babylonia. The Amorite king urged, however, that the raid was merely an attempt to recover a debt of 30 talents of silver.

5. Physical Characteristics of the Amorites: In Numbers 13:29 the Amorites are described as mountaineers, and in harmony with thins, according to Professor Petrie's notes, the Egyptian artists represent them with fair complexions, blue eyes and light hair. It would, therefore, seem that they belonged to the Libyan race of northern Africa rather than to the Semitic stock. In western Asia, however, they were mixed with other racial elements derived from the subject populations, and as they spoke a Semitic language one of the most important of these elements would have been the Semites. In its general sense, moreover, the name "Amorite" included in the Babylonian period all the settled and civilized peoples west of the Euphrates to whatever race they might belong.

LITERATURE.

Hugo Winckler, Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (1907), No. 35, Berlin; Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, Religious Tract Soc., 1890.

A. H. Sayce

Amos (1)

Amos (1) - a'-mos (`amoc, "burdensome" or "burden-bearer"; Amos):

I. THE PROPHET

1. Name

2. Native Place

3. Personal History

4. His Preparation

(1) Knowledge of God

(2) Acquaintance with History of His People

(3) Personal Travel

(4) Scenery of His Home

5. His Mission

6. Date

II. THE BOOK

1. Its Divisions

2. Its Outlook

3. Value of the Book

(1) As a Picture of the Social Condition

(2) As Picture of the Religious Condition

(3) Testimony to History

(4) Testimony to the Law

(a) The Ritual

(b) Ethical Teaching

(5) The Prophetic Order

(6) The Prophetic Religion

LITERATURE

I. The Prophet. 1. Name: Amos is the prophet whose book stands third among the "Twelve" in the Hebrew canon. No other person bearing the same name is mentioned in the Old Testament, the name of the father of the prophet Isaiah being written differently ('amots). There is an Amos mentioned in the genealogical series Luke 3:25, but he is otherwise unknown, and we do not know how his name would have been written in Hebrew. Of the signification of the prophet's name all that can be said is that a verb with the same root letters, in the sense of to load or to carry a load, is not uncommon in the language.

2. Native Place: Tekoa, the native place of Amos, was situated at a distance of 5 miles South from Bethlehem, from which it is visible, and 10 miles from Jerusalem, on a hill 2,700 ft. high, overlooking the wilderness of Judah. It was made a "city for defense" by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:6), and may have in fact received its name from its remote and exposed position, for the stem of which the word is a derivative is of frequent occurrence in the sense of sounding an alarm with the trumpet: e.g. "Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in Beth-haccerem" (Jeremiah 6:1 the King James Version). The same word is also used to signify the setting up of a tent by striking in the tent-pegs; and Jerome states that there was no village beyond Tekoa in his time. The name has survived, and the neighborhood is at the present day the pasture-ground for large flocks of sheep and goats. From the high ground on which the modern village stands one looks down on the bare undulating hills of one of the bleakest districts of Palestine, "the waste howling wilderness," which must have suggested some of the startling imagery of the prophet's addresses. The place may have had--as is not seldom the case with towns or villages--a reputation for a special quality of its inhabitants; for it was from Tekoa that Joab fetched the "wise woman" who by a feigned story effected the reconciliation of David with his banished son Absalom (2 Samuel 14:1-33). There are traces in the Book of Am of a shrewdness and mother-wit which are not so conspicuous in other prophetical books.

3. Personal History: The particulars of a personal kind which are noted in the book are few but suggestive. Amos was not a prophet or the son of a prophet, he tells us (Amos 7:14), i.e. he did not belong to the professional class which frequented the so-called schools of the prophets. He was "among the herdsmen of Tekoa" (Amos 1:1), the word here used being found only once in another place (2 Kings 3:4) and applied to Mesha, king of Moab. It seems to refer to a special breed of sheep, somewhat ungainly in appearance but producing, an abundant fleece. In Amos 7:14 the word rendered "herdman" is different, and denotes an owner of cattle, though some, from the Septuagint rendering, think that the word should be the same as in Amos 1:1. He was also "a dresser of sycomore-trees" (Amos 7:14). The word rendered "dresser" (Revised Version) or "gatherer" (the King James Version) occurs only here, and from the rendering of the Septuagint (knizon) it is conjectured that there is reference to a squeezing or nipping of the sycamore fig to make it more palatable or to accelerate its ripening, though such a usage is not known in Palestine at the present day.

4. His Preparation: Nothing is said as to any special preparation of the prophet for his work: The Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos 7:15, the English Revised Version). In these words he puts himself in line with all the prophets who, in various modes of expression, claim a direct revelation from God. But the mention of the prophetic call in association with the mention of his worldly calling is significant. There was no period interposed between the one and the other, no cessation of husbandry to prepare for the work of prophesying. The husbandman was prepared for this task, and when God's time came he took it up. What was that preparation? Even if we suppose that the call was a momentary event, the man must have been ready to receive it, equipped for its performance. And, looking at the way in which he accomplished it, as exhibited in his book, we can see that there was a preparation, both internal and external, of a very thorough and effective character.

(1) Knowledge of God. First of all, he has no doubt or uncertainty as to the character of the God in whose name he is called to speak. The God of Amos is one whose sway is boundless (Amos 9:2 ff), whose power is infinite (Amos 8:9 f), not only controlling the forces of Nature (Amos 4:1-13; 5:8 f) but guiding the movements and destinies of nations (Amos 6:1 ff,14; Amos 9:7 ff). Moreover, He is righteous in all His ways, dealing with nations on moral principles (Amos 1:3 ff; Amos 2:1 ff); and, though particularly favorable to Israel, yet making that very choice of them as a people a ground for visiting them with sterner retribution for their sins (Amos 3:2). In common with all the prophets, Amos gives no explanation of how he came to know God and to form this conception of His character. It was not by searching that they found out God. It is assumed that God is and that He is such a Being; and this knowledge, as it could come only from God, is regarded as undisputed and undisputable. The call to speak in God's name may have come suddenly, but the prophet's conception of the character of the God who called him is no new or sudden revelation but a firm and well-established conviction.

(2) Acquaintance with History of His People. Then his book shows not only that he was well acquainted with the history and traditions of his nation, which he takes for granted as well known to his hearers, but that he had reflected upon these things and realized their significance. We infer that he had breathed an atmosphere of religion, as there is nothing to indicate that, in his acquaintance with the religious facts of his nation, he differed from those among whom he dwelt, although the call to go forth and enforce them came to him in a special way.

(3) Personal Travel. It has been conjectured that Amos had acquired by personal travel the accurate acquaintance which he shows in his graphic delineations of contemporary life and conditions; and it may have been the case that, as a wool-merchant or flock-master, he had visited the towns mentioned and frequented the various markets to which the people were attracted.

(4) Scenery of His Home. Nor must we overlook another factor in his preparation: the scenery in which he had his home and the occupations of his daily life. The landscape was one to make a solemn impression on a reflective mind: the extensive desert, the shimmering waters of the Dead Sea, the high wall of the distant hills of Moab, over all which were thrown the varying light and shade. The silent life of the desert, as with such scenes ever before him, he tended his flock or defended them from the ravages of wild beasts, would to one whose thoughts were full of God nourish that exalted view of the Divine Majesty which we find in his book, and furnish the imagery in which his thoughts are set (Amos 1:2; 3:4 f; Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:5 f). As he is taken from following the flock, he comes before us using the language and figures of his daily life (Amos 3:12), but there runs through all the note of one who has seen God's working in all Nature and His presence in every phenomenon. Rustic he may be, but there is no rudeness or rusticity in his style, which is one of natural and impassioned eloquence, ordered and regular as coming from a mind which was responsive to the orderly working of God in Nature around him. There is an aroma of the free air of the desert about his words; but the prophet lives in an ampler ether and breathes a purer air; all things in Nature and on the field of history are seen in a Divine light and measured by a Divine standard.

5. His Mission: Thus, prepared in the solitudes of the extreme south of Judah, he was called to go and prophesy unto the people of Israel, and appears at Bethel the capital of the Northern Kingdom. It may be that, in the prosecution of his worldly calling, he had seen and been impressed by the conditions of life and religion in those parts. No reason is given for his mission to the northern capital, but the reason is not far to seek. It is the manner of the prophets to appear where they are most needed; and the Northern Kingdom about that time had come victorious out of war, and had reached its culmination of wealth and power, with the attendant results of luxury and excess, while the Southern Kingdom had been enjoying a period of outward tranquillity and domestic content.

6. Date: The date of the prophet Amos can approximately be fixed from the statement in the first verse that his activity fell "in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake." Both these monarchs had long reigns, that of Uzziah extending from 779 to 740 BC and that of Jeroboam II from 783 to 743 BC. If we look at the years when they were concurrently reigning, and bear in mind that, toward the end of Uzziah's reign, Jotham acted as co-regent, we may safely place the date of Amos at about the year 760 BC. In a country in which earthquakes are not uncommon the one here mentioned must have been of unusual severity, for the memory of it was long preserved (Zechariah 14:5). How long he exercised his ministry we are not told. In all probability the book is the deposit of a series of addresses delivered from time to time till his plain speaking drew upon him the resentment of the authorities, and he was ordered to leave the country (Amos 7:10 ff). We can only conjecture that, some time afterward, he withdrew to his native place and put down in writing a condensed record of the discourses he had delivered.

II. The Book. We can distinguish with more than ordinary certainty the outlines of the individual addresses, and the arrangement of the book is clear and simple. The text, also, has been on the whole faithfully preserved; and though in a few places critics profess to find the traces of later editorial hands, these conclusions rest mainly on subjective grounds, and will be estimated differently by different minds.

1. Its Divisions: The book falls naturally into three parts, recognizable by certain recurring formulas and general literary features.

(1) The first section, which is clearly recognizable, embraces Amos 1:1-15 and Amos 2:1-16. Here, after the title and designation of the prophet in Amos 1:1, there is a solemn proclamation of Divine authority for the prophet's words. "Yahweh will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem" (verse 2). This is notable in one who throughout the book recognizes God's power as world-wide and His operation as extensive as creation; and it should be a caution in view, on the one hand, of the assertion that the temple at Jerusalem was not more sacred than any of the numerous "high places" throughout the land, and, on the other hand, the superficial manner in which some writers speak of the Hebrew notion of a Deity whose dwelling-place was restricted to one locality beyond which His influence was not felt. For this God, who has His dwelling-place in Zion, now through the mouth of the prophet denounces in succession the surrounding nations, and this mainly not for offenses committed against the chosen people but for moral offenses against one another and for breaches of a law binding on humanity. It will be observed that the nations denounced are not named in geographical order, and the prophet exhibits remarkable rhetorical skill in the order of selection. The interest and sympathy of the hearers is secured by the fixing of the attention on the enormities of guilt in their neighbors, and curiosity is kept awake by the uncertainty as to where the next stroke of the prophetic whip will fall. Beginning with the more distant and alien peoples of Damascus, Gaza and Tyre, he wheels round to the nearer and kindred peoples of Edom, Ammon and Moab, till he rests for a moment on the brother tribe of Judah, and thus, having relentlessly drawn the net around Israel by the enumeration of seven peoples, he swoops down upon the Northern Kingdom to which his message is to be particularly addressed.

(2) The second section embraces Amos 3:1-15 to Amos 6:1-14, and consists apparently of a series of discourses, each introduced by the formula: "Hear this word" (Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1), and another introduced by a comprehensive: "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria" (Amos 6:1). The divisions here are not so clearly marked. It will be observed e.g. that there is another "Woe" at Amos 5:18; and in chapter Amos 4:1-13, though the address at the outset is directed to the luxurious women of Samaria, from Amos 4:4 onward the words have a wider reference. Accordingly some would divide this section into a larger number of subsections; and some, indeed, have described the whole book as a collection of ill-arranged fragments. But, while it is not necessary to suppose that the written book is an exact reproduction of the spoken addresses, and while the division into chapters has no authority, yet we must allow for some latitude in the details which an impassioned speaker would introduce into his discourses, and for transitions and connections of thought which may not be apparent on the surface.

(3) The third section has some well-marked characteristics, although it is even less uniform than the preceding. The outstanding feature is the phrase, "Thus the Lord Yahweh showed me" (Amos 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1) varied at Amos 9:1 by the words, "I saw the Lord standing beside the altar." We have thus a series of "visions" bearing upon, and interpreted as applying to, the condition of Israel. It is in the course of one of these, when the prophet comes to the words, "I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword" (Amos 7:9) that the interposition of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, is recorded, with the prophet's noble reply as to his Divine call, and his rebuke and denunciation of the priest, ending with a prophetic announcement of the downfall and captivity of Israel (Amos 7:14-17).

2. Its Outlook: If the discourses are put down in chronological order of their delivery, it would appear that Amos did not immediately take his departure, since more visions follow this episode, and there is a special appropriateness in the intervention of Amaziah just at the point where it is recorded. As to the closing passage of this section (Amos 9:11-15) which gives a bright prospect of the future, there is a class of critics who are inclined to reject it just on this account as inconsistent with the severe denunciatory tone of the rest of the book. It is quite possible, however, that the prophet himself (and no succeeding later editor) may have added the passage when he came to write down his addresses. There is no reason to believe that any of the prophets--harsh though their words were--believed that the God of Israel would make a full end of His people in captivity: on the contrary, their assurance of God's faithfulness to His promise, and the deep-seated conviction that right would ultimately prevail, lead us to expect even in the sternest or earliest of the prophets the hope of a future glory--that hope which grew brighter and brighter as the nation's outlook grew darker, and attained intensity and clearness in the Messianic hope which sustained them in the darkest days of exile. It is difficult to believe that any of the prophets were prophets of despair, or to conceive how they could have prophesied at all unless they had a firm faith in the ultimate triumph of the good.

3. Value of the Book: The Book of Amos is particularly valuable from the fact that he is certainly one of the earliest prophets whose writings have come down to us. It is, like the Book of Hosea which belongs to about the same time, a contemporaneous document of a period of great significance in the history of Israel, and not only gives graphic sketches or illuminating hints of the life and religious condition of the people, but furnishes a trustworthy standard for estimating the value of some other books whose dates are not so precisely determined, a definite starting-point for tracing the course of Israel's history.

(1) As a Picture of the Social Condition. The book is valuable as embodying a contemporary picture of society and the condition of religion. From the abuses which the prophet denounces and the lifelike sketches he draws of the scenes amid which he moved, taken along with what we know otherwise of the historical movements of the period, we are able to form a fairly adequate estimate of the condition of the age and the country. During the reign of Jeroboam II the kingdom of Israel, after having been greatly reduced during preceding reigns, rose to a degree of extent and influence unexampled since the days of Solomon (2 Kings 14:25); and we are not astonished to read in the Book of Am the haughty words which he puts into the mouth of the people of his time when they spoke of Israel as the "chief of the nations" a first-class power in modern language, and boasted of the "horns" by which they had attained that eminence (Amos 6:1, 13). But success in war, if it encouraged this boastful spirit, brought also inevitable evils in its train. Victory, as we know from the Assyrian monuments, meant plunder; for king after king recounts how much spoil he had taken, how many prisoners he had carried away; and we must assume that wars among smaller states would be conducted on the same methods. In such wars, success meant an extension of territory and increase of wealth, while defeat entailed the reverse. But it is to be remembered that, in an agricultural country and in a society constituted as that of Israel was, the result of war to one class of the population was to a great extent disastrous, whatever was the issue, and success, when it was achieved, brought evils in its train which even aggravated their condition. The peasant, required to take up arms for offense or defense, was taken away from the labors of the field which, in the best event, were for a time neglected, and, in the worst, were wasted and rendered unproductive. And then, when victory was secured, the spoils were liable to fall into the hands of the nobles and leaders, those "called with a name" (Amos 6:1), while the peasant returned to his wasted or neglected fields without much substantial resource with which to begin life again. The wealth secured by the men of strong hand led to the increase of luxury in its possessors, and became actually the means of still further adding to the embarrassment of the poor, who were dependent on the rich for the means of earning their livelihood. The situation would be aggravated under a feeble or corrupt government, such as was certainly that of Jeroboam's successors. The condition prevails in modern eastern countries, even under comparatively wise and just administration; and that it was the state of matters prevailing in the time of Amos is abundantly clear from his book. The opening denunciation of Israel for oppression of the poor and for earth-hunger (Amos 2:6-7) is re-echoed and amplified in the succeeding chapters (Amos 3:9-10; 4:1; Amos 5:11-12; Amos 8:4-6); and the luxury of the rich, who battened on the misfortune of their poorer brethren, is castigated in biting irony in such passages as Amos 6:3-6. Specially noticeable in this connection is the contemptuous reference to the luxurious women, the "kine of Bashan" (Amos 4:1), whose extravagances are maintained by the oppression of the poor. The situation, in short, was one that has found striking parallels in modern despotic countries in the East, where the people are divided into two classes, the powerful rich, rich because powerful and powerful because rich, and, the poor oppressed, men who have no helper, no "back" in the common eastern phrase, dependent on the rich and influential and tending to greater poverty under greedy patrons.

(2) As a Picture of the Religious Condition. In such a social atmosphere, which poisoned the elementary virtues, religion of a vital kind could not flourish; and there are plain indications in the words of Amos of the low condition to which it had sunk. There was, indeed, as we gather from ins addresses, no lack of outward attention to the forms of worship; but these forms were of so corrupted a character and associated with so much practical godlessness and even immorality, that instead of raising the national character it tended to its greater degradation. The people prided themselves in what they regarded the worship of the national God, thinking that so long as they honored Him with costly offerings and a gorgeous ritual, they were pleasing Him and secure in His protection. Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, Beersheba, and we know not how many other places were resorted to in pilgrimage by crowds of worshippers. With all the accompaniments of ceremonious ritual which the newly found wealth put in their power, with offerings more than the legally prescribed or customary (Amos 4:4-5) the service of these sanctuaries was maintained; but even these offerings were made at the expense of the poor (Amos 5:11), the prevailing luxury forced its way even to the precincts of the altars (Amos 2:8), and justice and mercy were conspicuously absent from the religious life. The people seemed to have settled down to a complacent optimism, nourished no doubt by national prosperity, and, though there had not been wanting reminders of the sovereignty of a righteous God, in convulsions of Nature--drought, famine, pestilence and earthquake (Amos 4:6-11)--these had been of no avail to awaken the sleeping conscience. They put the evil day far from them (Amos 6:3), for Yahweh was their national God and "the day of the Lord," the good time coming (Amos 5:18), when God would come to their help, was more in their mind than the imperative duty of returning to Him (Amos 4:6, 8, etc.).

(3) Testimony to History. The book is valuable for the confirmation it gives of the historical statements of other books, particularly for the references it contains to the earlier history contained in the Pentateuch. And here we must distinguish between references to, or quotations from, books, and statements or hints or indications of historical events which may or may not have been written in books or accessible to the prophet and his hearers. Opinions differ as to the date of composition of the books which record the earlier history, and the oldest Biblical writers are not in the habit of saying from what sources they drew their information or whether they are quoting from books. We can hardly believe that in the time of Amos copies of existing books or writings would be in the hands of the mass of the people, even if the power to read them was general. In such circumstances, if we find a prophet like Amos in the compass of a small book referring to outstanding events and stages of the past history as matters known to all his hearers and unquestionable, our confidence in the veracity of the books in which these facts are recorded is greatly increased, and it becomes a matter of comparatively less importance at what date these books were composed. Now it is remarkable how many allusions, more or less precise, to antecedent history are found in the compass of this small book; and the significance of them lies not in the actual number of references, but in the kind of reference and the implications involved in the individual references. That is to say, each reference is not to be taken as an isolated testimony to some single event in question, but involves a great deal more than is expressed, and is intelligible only when other facts or incidents are taken into consideration. Thus e.g. the reference to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Amos 4:11) is only intelligible on the supposition that the story of that catastrophe was a matter of common knowledge; and it would be a carping criticism to argue that the destruction of other cities of the plain at the same time and the whole story of Lot were unknown in the days of Amos because they are not mentioned here in detail. So, when we have in one passage a reference to the house of Isaac (Amos 7:16), in another to the house of Jacob (Amos 3:13), in another to the house of Joseph (Amos 5:6) and in another to the enmity between Jacob and Esau (Amos 1:11), we cannot take these as detached notices, but must supply the links which the prophet's words would suggest to his hearers. In other words, such slight notices, just because they are incidental and brief, imply a familiarity with a connected patriarchal history such as is found in the Book of Gen. Again, the prophet's references to the "whole family" of the "children of Israel" whom the Lord "brought up out of the land of Egypt" (Amos 3:1), to the Divine leading of the people "forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite" (Amos 2:10) are not odds and ends of popular story but links in a chain of national history. It seems to be on the strength of these and similar references in the books of Am and Hos, whose dates are known, that critics have agreed to fix the date of the earliest historical portions of the Pentateuch as they understand them, namely, the parts designated as Jahwist and Elohist, in the 8th and 9th centuries BC, i.e. at or shortly before the time of these prophets. It may be left to the unbiased judgment of the reader to say whether the references look like references to a newly composed document, or whether it is not more probable that, in an age when written documents were necessarily few and not accessible to the multitude, these references are appeals to things well fixed in the national memory, a memory extending back to the things themselves. Or, if the prophet's words are to be taken as sufficient proof of the existence of written sources, the fact that the matters are assumed as well known would rather encourage the conclusion that the written sources in question go back to a much earlier period, since the matters contained in them had by this time become matters of universal knowledge.

(4) Testimony to the Law. (a) The Ritual. And what about those other elements of the Pentateuch of a legal and ritual character which bulk so prominently in those books? The question whether the Book of Amos indicates an acquaintance with these or not is important because it is to a great extent on the silence of prophetical and historical writers that critics of a certain school relegate these legalistic portions of the Pentateuch to a late date. Now at the outset it is obvious to ask what we have a reasonable right to expect. We have to bear in mind what was the condition of the people whom Amos addressed, and the purpose and aim of his mission to the Northern Kingdom. It is to be remembered that, as we are told in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 12:25 ff), Jeroboam I deliberately sought to make a breach between the worship of Jerusalem and that of his own kingdom, while persuading his people that the worship of Yahweh was being maintained. The schism occurred some 170 years before the time of Amos and it is not probable that the worship and ritual of the Northern Kingdom tended in that interval to greater purity or greater conformity to what had been the authoritative practice of the undivided kingdom at the temple of Jerusalem. When, therefore, Amos, in face of the corrupt worship combined with elaborate ritual which prevailed around him, declares that God hates and despises their feasts and takes no delight in their solemn assemblies (Amos 5:21), we are not justified in pressing his words, as is sometimes done, into a sweeping condemnation of all ritual. On the contrary, seeing that, in the very same connection (Amos 5:22), he specifies burnt offerings and meal offerings and peace offerings, and, in another passage (Amos 4:4-5), daily sacrifices and tithes, sacrifices of thanksgiving and free-will offerings, it is natural to infer that by these terms which are familiar in the Pentateuch he is referring to those statutory observances which were part of the national worship of united Israel, but had been overlaid with corruption and become destitute of spiritual value as practiced in the Northern Kingdom. So we may take his allusions to the new moon and the Sabbath (Amos 8:5) as seasons of special sacredness and universally sanctioned. Having condemned in such scornful and sweeping terms the worship that he saw going on around him, what was Amos to gum by entering into minute ritual prescriptions or defining the precise duties and perquisites of priests and Levites; and having condemned the pilgrimages to the shrines of Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba, Samaria and Dan (Amos 4:4; 5:5; 8:14), what was he to gain by quoting the law of Deut as to a central sanctuary? And had one of his hearers, like the woman of Samaria of a later day, attempted to draw him into a discussion of the relative merits of the two temples, we can conceive him answering in the spirit of the great Teacher: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship" (John 4:22 the King James Version). A regulation of the form was of no avail while the whole spirit of the observance was corrupt; the soul of religion was dead, and the prophet had a higher duty than to dress out the carcass.

At the root of the corruption of the religion lay a rottenness of moral sense; and from beginning to end Amos insists on the necessity of a pure and righteous life. In this connection his appeals are in striking agreement with the specially ethical demands of the law books, and in phraseology so much resemble them as to warrant the conclusion that the requirements of the law on these subjects were known and acknowledged. Thus his denunciations of those who oppress the poor (Amos 2:7; 4:1; 8:4) are quite in the spirit and style of Exodus 22:21-22; 23:9; his references to the perversion of justice and taking bribes (Amos 2:6; 7, 10 ff, Amos 6:12) are rhetorical enforcements of the prohibitions of the law in Exodus 23:6-8; when he reproves those that "lay themselves down beside every altar upon clothes taken in pledge" (Amos 2:8) we hear an echo of the command: "If thou at all take thy neighbor's garment to pledge, thou shalt restore it unto him before the sun goeth down" (Exodus 22:26); and when he denounces those making "the ephah small, and the shekel great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit" (Amos 8:5) his words are in close agreement with the law, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weights, or in measure. Just balances, just weight, a just ephah, and a just hin shall ye have" (Leviticus 19:35-36, the King James Version).

(b) Ethical Teaching. As a preacher of righteousness, Amos affirms and resists upon those ethical parts of the law which are its vital elements, and which lie at the foundation of all prophecy; and it is remarkable how even in phraseology he agrees with the most ethical book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy. He does not, indeed, like his contemporary Hosea, dwell on the love of God as Dt does; but, of sterner mould, in almost the very words of Deuteronomy, emphasizes the keeping of God's commandments, and denounces those who despise the law (compare Amos 2:4 with Deuteronomy 17:19). Among verbal coincidences have been noticed the combinations "oppress" "crush" (Amos 4:1; Deuteronomy 28:33), "blasting" and "mildew" (Amos 4:9; Deuteronomy 28:22), and "gall" and "wormwood" (Amos 6:12; Deuteronomy 29:18). Compare also Amos 9:8 with Deuteronomy 6:15, and note the predilection for the same word to "destroy" common to both books (compare Amos 2:9 with Deuteronomy 2:22). In view of all of which it seems an extraordinary statement to make that "the silence of Amos with reference to the centralization of worship, on which Dt is so explicit, alone seems sufficient to outweigh any linguistic similarity that can be discovered" (H. G. Mitchell, Amos, an Essay in Exegesis, 185).

(5) The Prophetic Order. As Amos is without doubt one of the earliest writing prophets, his book is invaluable as an example of what prophecy was in ancient Israel. And one thing cannot fail to impress the reader at the very outset: namely, that he makes no claim to be the first or among the first of the line, or that he is exercising some new and hitherto unheard-of function. He begins by boldly speaking in God's name, assuming that even the people of the Northern Kingdom were familiar with that kind of address. Nay, he goes farther and states in unequivocal terms that "the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7, the King James Version). We need not search farther for a definition of the prophet as understood by him and other Old Testament writers: the prophet is one to whom God reveals His will, and who comes forward to declare that will and purpose to man. A great deal has been made of the words of Amaziah the priest of Bethel (Amos 7:12), as if they proved that the prophet in those times was regarded as a wandering rhetorician, earning his bread by reciting his speeches; and it has been inferred from the words of Amos himself that the prophets of his day were so disreputable a class that he disdained to be named along with them (Amos 7:14). But all this is fanciful. Even if we admit that there were men calling themselves prophets who prophesied for hire (Micah 3:5, 11), it cannot be assumed that the expression here to "eat bread" has that meaning; for in other passages it seems simply to signify to lead a quiet or ordinary life, to go about one's daily business (see Exodus 24:11; Jeremiah 22:15). In any case we are not to take the estimate of a man like Amaziah or a godless populace in preference to the conception of Amos himself and his account of his call. It was not by man or by any college of prophets but by Yahweh Himself that he was appointed, and by whatever name he might be called, the summons was "Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos 7:15). There is no trace here of the "prophets becoming conscious of a distinction between themselves and the professional nebhi'im, who were apt simply to echo the patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of the people, and in reality differed but little from the soothsayers and diviners of Semitic heathenism" (Ottley, The Religion of Israel, 90). Whoever the "professional nebhi'im" may have been in his day, or whatever he thought of them if they existed, Amos tells us nothing; but he ranges himself with men to whom Yahweh has spoken in truth (Amos 3:7-8), and indicates that there had been a succession of such men (Amos 2:11), faithful amid the prevailing corruption though tempted to be unfaithful (Amos 2:12); in short he gives us to understand that the "prophetic order" goes back to a period long before his day and has its roots in the true and original religion of Israel.

(6) The Prophetic Religion. Finally, from the Book of Am we may learn what the prophetic religion was. Here again there is no indication of rudimentary crudeness of conception, or of painful struggling upward from the plane of naturalism or belief in a merely tribal God. The God in whose name Amos speaks has control over all the forces of Nature (Amos 4:6 ff; Amos 5:8-9), rules the destinies of nations (Amos 6:2, 14; Amos 9:2-6), searches the thoughts of the heart (Amos 4:13), is inflexible in righteousness and deals with nations and with men on equal justice (Amos 1:1-15 and Amos 2:1-16; 9:7), and is most severe to the people who have received the highest privileges (Amos 3:2). And this is the God by whose name his hearers call themselves, whose claims they cannot deny, whose dealings with them from old time are well known and acknowledged (Amos 2:11), whose laws they have broken (Amos 2:4; 3:10) and for whose just judgment they are warned to prepare (Amos 4:12). All this the prophet enforces faithfully and sternly; not a voice is raised in the circle of his hearers to dispute his words; all that Amaziah the priest can do is to urge the prophet to abstain from unwelcome words in Bethel, because it is the king's sanctuary and a royal house; the only inference is that the people felt the truth and justice of the prophet's words. The "prophetic religion" does not begin with Amos.

LITERATURE.

W. R. Harper, "Amos and Hosea," in the ICC; S. R. Driver, "Joel and Amos" in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; H. G. Mitchell, Amos, an Essay in Exegesis (Boston); A. B. Davidson, two articles in The Expositor, 3rd ser, V, VI (1887); W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel; G. A. Smith, "The Book of the Twelve Prophets," in Expositor's Bible; J. J. P. Valeton, Amos und Hosea (1894); C. von Orelli, Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, 3. Aufl. (1908) and ET; Nowack, "Die kleinen Propheten," in Hand-commentar zum Altes Testament; Marti, "Das Dodekapropheton erklart," in Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Altes Testament.

James Robertson

Amos (2)

Amos (2) - a'-mos (Amos): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, the eighth before Joseph, the husband of Mary (Luke 3:25).

Amoz

Amoz - a'-moz (amots, "strong"): The father of Isaiah the prophet (2 Kings 19:2, 20; 20:1; 2 Chronicles 26:22; 20, 32; Isaiah 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 2, 21; 38:1).

Amphipolis

Amphipolis - am-fip'-o-lis (Amphipolis): A town in Macedonia, situated on the eastern bank of the Strymon (modern Struma or Karasu) some three miles from its mouth, near the point where it flows out of Lake Prasias or Cercinitis. It lay on a terraced hill, protected on the North, West and South by the river, on the East by a wall (Thuc. iv.102), while its harbor-town of Eion lay on the coast close to the river's mouth. The name is derived either from its being nearly surrounded by the stream or from its being conspicuous on every side, a fact to which Thucydides draws attention (in the place cited). It was at first called Ennea Hodoi, Nine Ways, a name which suggests its importance both strategically and commercially. It guarded the main route from Thrace into Macedonia and later became an important station on the Via Egnatia, the great Roman road from Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic to the Hebrus (Maritza), and it was the center of a fertile district producing wine, oil, figs and timber in abundance and enriched by gold and silver mines and considerable manufactures, especially of woolen stuffs. In 497 BC Aristagoras, ex-despot of Miletus, tried to settle there, and a second vain attempt was made in 465-464 by the Athenians, who succeeded in founding a colony there in 437 under the leadership of Hagnon. The population, however, was too mixed to allow of strong Athenian sympathies, and in 424 the town fell away to the Spartan leader Brasidas and defied all the subsequent attempts of the Athenians to recover it. It passed under the protectorate of Perdiccas and Philip of Macedon, and the latter finally made himself master of it in 358. On the Roman partition of Macedonia after the battle of Pydna (168 BC) Amphipolis was made a free city and capital of Macedonia Prima. Paul and Silas passed through it on their way from Philippi to Thessalonica, but the narrative seems to preclude a long stay (Acts 17:1). The place was called Popolia in the Middle Ages, while in modern times the village of Neochori (Turkish, Yenikeui) marks the site (Leake, Northern Greece, III, 181 ff, Cousinery, Macedoine, I, 100 ff, 122 ff; Heuzey et Daumet, Mission archeol. de Macedoine, 165 ff).

Marcus N. Tod

Amplias

Amplias - am'-pli-as (Textus Receptus Amplias), the King James Version form: a contraction of AMPLIATUS (thus, the Revised Version (British and American); which see).

Ampliatus

Ampliatus - am-pli-a'-tus (Ampliatos, Codex Sinaiticus, A,B,F, Ampliatus; Amplias, D,E,L,P, the Revised Version (British and American) form; the King James Version Amplias): The name of a member of the Christian community at Rome, to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:8). He is designated "my beloved in the Lord." It is a common name and is found in inscriptions connected with the imperial household. The name is found twice in the cemetery of Domitilla. The earlier inscription is over a cell which belongs to the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century. The bearer of this name was probably a member of her household and conspicuous in the early Christian church in Rome.

Amram

Amram - am'-ram (`amram, "people exalted"):

(1) Father of Aaron, Moses and Miriam (Exodus 6:20; Numbers 26:59; 1 Chronicles 6:3; 23:13); and a son of Kohath, the son of Levi (Exodus 6:18; Numbers 3:19, etc.). It is not certain that he was literally the son of Kohath, but rather his descendant, since there were ten generations from Joseph to Joshua

(1 Chronicles 7:20-27), while only four are actually mentioned from Levi to Moses for the corresponding period. Moreover the Kohathites at the time of the Exodus numbered 8,600 (Numbers 3:28), which would therefore have been an impossibility if only two generations had lived. It seems best to regard Amram as a descendant of Kohath, and his wife Jochebed as a "daughter of Levi" in a general sense.

(2) One of the Bani, who in the days of Ezra had taken a foreign wife (Ezra 10:34).

(3) In 1 Chronicles 1:41 (the King James Version) for the properly read HAMRAN of the Revised Version (British and American) (chamran), a Horite, who in Genesis 36:26 is called HEMDAN (which see).

Edward Mack

Amramites

Amramites - am'-ram-its (`amrami): The descendants of Amram, one of the Levitical families mentioned in Numbers 3:27 and 1 Chronicles 26:23, who had the charge of the tabernacle proper, guarding the ark, table, candlestick, etc., called in 1 Chronicles 26:22 "the treasures of the house of Yahweh."

Amraphel

Amraphel - am'-ra-fel, am-ra'-fel ('amraphel, or, perhaps better, 'ameraphel).

1. The Expedition Against Sodom and Gomorrah: This name, which is identified with that of the renowned Babylonian king Hammurabi (which see), is only found in Genesis 14:1, 9, where he is mentioned as the king of Shinar (Babylonia), who fought against the cities of the plain, in alliance with Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Nations (the Revised Version (British and American) GOIIM). The narrative which follows is very circumstantial. From it we learn, that Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela or Zoar, had served Chedorlaomer for 12 years, rebelled in the 13th, and in the 14th year Chedorlaomer, with the kings enumerated, fought with and defeated them in the vale of Siddim, which is described as being the Salt Sea. Previous to this engagement, however, the Elamites and their allies had attacked the Rephaim (Onkelos: "giants") in Ashtaroth-karnaim, the Zuzim (O: "mighty ones," "heroes") in Ham (O: Chamta'), the Emim (O: "terrible ones") in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in their Mount Seir, by the Desert. These having been rendered powerless to aid the revolted vassals, they returned and came to Enmishpat, or Kadesh, attacked the country of the Amalekites, and the Amorites dwelling in Hazazontamar (Genesis 14:2-7).

2. The Preparation and the Attack: At this juncture the kings of the cities of the plain came out against them, and opposed them with their battle-array in the vale of Siddim. The result of the fight was, that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their allies, fled, and fell among the bitumen-pits of which the place was full, whilst those who got away took refuge in the mountain. All the goods and food (the camp-equipment and supplies) of the kings of the plain were captured by Chedorlaomer and his allies, who then continued their march (to their own lands) (Genesis 14:8-11).

3. Abraham's Rescue of Lot: Among the captives, however, was Lot, Abram's nephew, who dwelt in Sodom. A fugitive, having escaped, went and announced the result of the engagement to Abram, who was at that time living by Mamre's oak plantation. The patriarch immediately marched forth with his trained men, and pursued them to Dan, where he divided his forces, attacked the Elamite-Babylonian army by night, and having put them to flight, pursued them again to Hobah, on the left (or North) of Damascus. The result of this sudden onslaught was that he rescued Lot, with the women and people, and recaptured Lot's goods, which the allies of Amraphel had carried off (Genesis 14:12-16).

4. Difficulties of the Identification of Amraphel:

There is no doubt that the identification of Amraphel with the Hammurabi of the Babylonian inscriptions is the best that has yet been proposed, and though there are certain difficulties therein, these may turn out to be apparent rather than real, when we know more of Babylonian history. The "l" at the end of Amraphel (which has also "ph" instead of "p" or "b") as well as the fact that the expedition itself has not yet been recognized among the campaigns of Hammurabi, must be acknowledged as two points hard to explain, though they may ultimately be solved by further research.

5. Historical Agreements: It is noteworthy, however, that in the first verse of Genesis 14:1-24 Amraphel is mentioned first, which, if he be really the Babylonian Hammurabi, is easily comprehensible, for his renown to all appearance exceeded that of Chedorlaomer, his suzerain. In 14:4 and 5, however, it is Chedorlaomer alone who is referred to, and he heads the list of eastern kings in verse 9, where Tidal comes next (a quite natural order, if Goiim be the Babylonian Gute, i.e. the Medes). Next in order comes Amraphel, king of Babylonia and suzerain of Arioch of Ellasar (Eri-Aku of Larsa), whose name closes the list. It may also be suggested, that Amraphel led a Babylonian force against Sodom, as the ally of Chedorlaomer, before he became king, and was simply crown prince. In that case, like Belshazzar, he was called "king" by anticipation. For further details see ARIOCH and CHEDORLAOMER, and compareERI-AKU and HAMMURABI; for the history of Babylonia during Hammurabi's period, see that article.

T. G. Pinches

Amulet

Amulet - am'-u-let (qemia, lechashim, mezuzah, tephillin, tsitsith; phulakterion): Modern scholars are of opinion that our English word amulet comes from the Latin amuletum, used by Pliny (Naturalis Historia, xxviii, 28; xxx, 2, etc.), and other Latin writers; but no etymology for the Latin word has been discovered. The present writer thinks the root exists in the Arabic himlat, "something carried" (see Dozy, Supplement aux Dictionnaires Arabes, I, 327), though there is no known example of the use of the Arabic word in a magical sense. Originally "amulet" denoted any object supposed to have the power of removing or warding noxious influences believed to be due to evil spirits, etc., such as the evil eye, etc. But in the common usage it stands for an object worn on the body, generally hung from the neck, as a remedy or preservative against evil influences of a mystic kind. The word "amulet" occurs once in the Revised Version (British and American) (Isaiah 3:20) but not at all in the King James Version.

1. Classes of Amulets: The substances out of which amulets have been made and the forms which they have taken have been various.

(1) The commonest have consisted of Amulets of pieces of stone or metal, strips of parchment with or without inscriptions from sacred writings (Bible, Koran, etc.). The earliest Egyptian amulets known are pieces of green schist of various shapes--animal, etc. These were placed on the breast of a deceased person in order to secure a safe passage to the under-world. When a piece of stone is selected as an amulet it is always portable and generally of some striking figure or shape (the human face, etc.). The use of such a stone for this purpose is really a survival of animism.

(2) Gems, rings, etc. It has been largely held that all ornaments worn on the person were originally amulets. (3) Certain herbs and animal preparations; the roots of certain plants have been considered very potent as remedies and preservatives.

The practice of wearing amulets existed in the ancient world among all peoples, but especially among Orientals; and it can be traced among most modern nations, especially among peoples of backward civilization. Nor is it wholly absent from peoples of the most advanced civilization of today, the English, Americans, etc. Though the word charm (see CHARM) has a distinct meaning, it is often inseparably connected with amulets, for it is in many cases the incantation or charm inscribed on the amulet that gives the latter its significance. As distinguished from talisman (see TALISMAN ) an amulet is believed to have negative results, as a means of protection: a talisman is thought to be the means of securing for the wearer some positive boon.

2. Amulets in the Bible: Though there is no word in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures denoting "amulet," the thing itself is manifestly implied in many parts of the Bible. But it is remarkable that the general teaching of the Bible and especially that of the Old Testament prophets and of the New Testament writers is wholly and strongly opposed to such things.

(1) The Old Testament. The golden ear-rings, worn by the wives and sons and daughters of the Israelites, out of which the molten calf was made (Exodus 32:2 f), were undoubtedly amulets. What other function could they be made to serve in the simple life of the desert? That the women's ornaments condemned in Isaiah 3:16-26 were of the same character is made exceedingly likely by an examination of some of the terms employed. We read of moonlets and sunlets (verse 18), i.e. moon and sun-shaped amulets. The former in the shape of crescents are worn by Arab girls of our own time. The "ear-drops," "nose-rings," "arm chains" and "foot chains" were all used as a protection to the part of the body implied, and the strong words with which their employment is condemned are only intelligible if their function as counter charms is borne in mind. In Isaiah 3:20 we read of lechashim rendered "ear-rings" (the King James Version) and "amulets" (Revised Version (British and American)). The Hebrew word seems to be cognate with the word for "serpent" (nechashim; "l" and "r" often interchange), and meant probably in the first instance an amulet against a serpent bite (see Magic, Divination, and Demonology among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, by the present writer, 50 f, 81; compare Jeremiah 8:7; Ecclesiastes 10:11; Psalms 58:5). Crescent-shaped amulets were worn by animals as well as human beings, as Judges 8:21, 26 shows.

At Bethel, Jacob burned not only the idols ("strange gods") but also the ear-rings, the latter being as much opposed to Yahwism as the former, on account of their heathen origin and import.

In Proverbs 17:8 the Hebrew words rendered "a precious stone" (Hebrew "a stone conferring favor") mean without question a stone amulet treasured on account of its supposed magical efficacy. It is said in Proverbs 1:9 that wisdom will be such a defense to the one who has it as the head amulet is to the head and that of the neck to the neck. The words rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "a chaplet of grace unto thy head" mean literally, "something bound to the head conferring favor," the one word for the latter clause being identical with that so rendered above (chen). The Talmudic word for an amulet (qemia`) denotes something tied or bound (to the person).

We have reference to the custom of wearing amulets in Proverbs 6:21 where the reader is urged to "bind them (i.e. the admonitions of father and mother) .... upon thy heart" and to "tie them about thy neck"--words implying a condemnation of the practice of trusting to the defense of mere material objects.

Underneath the garments of warriors slain in the Maccabean wars amulets were found in the shape apparently of idols worshipped by their neighbors (2 Maccabees 12:40). It is strange but true that like other nations of antiquity the Jews attached more importance to amulets obtained from other nations than to those of native growth. It is probable that the signet ring referred to in Song of Solomon 8:6; Jeremiah 22:24; Haggai 2:23 was an amulet. It was worn on the heart or on the arm.

(2) The Phylacteries and the Mezuzah. There is no distract reference to these in the Old Testament. The Hebrew technical term for the former (tephillin) does not occur in Biblical. Hebrew, and although the Hebrew word mezuzah does occur over a dozen times its sense is invariably "door-(or "gate-") post" and not the amulet put on the door-post which in later Hebrew the word denotes.

It is quite certain that the practice of wearing phylacteries has no Biblical support, for a correct exegesis and a proper understanding of the context put it beyond dispute that the words in Exodus 13:9, 16, Deuteronomy 6:8 f; Deuteronomy 11:18-20 have reference to the exhortations in the foregoing verses: "Thou shalt bind them (the commands previously mentioned) for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontiers between thy eyes. And thou shalt write them upon, the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates" (Deuteronomy 6:8 f). The only possible sense of these words is that they were to hold the precepts referred to before their minds constantly as if they were inscribed on their arms, held in front of their eyes, and written on the door-posts or gate-posts which they daily passed. That the language in Exodus 13:9, 16 does not command the use of phylacteries is obvious, and that the same is true of Proverbs 3:3; 6:21; 7:3 where similar words are used is still more certain. Yet, though none of the passages enjoin the use of phylacteries or of the mezuzah, they may all contain allusions to both practices as if the sense were, "Thou shalt keep constantly before thee my words and look to them for safety and not to the phylacteries worn on head and arm by the heathen." If, however, phylacteries were in use among the Jews thus early, it is strange that there is not in the Old Testament a single instance in which the practice of wearing phylacteries is mentioned. Josephus, however, seems to refer to this practice (Ant., IV, viii, 13), and it is frequently spoken of in the Mishna (Berakhoth, i, etc.). It is a striking and significant fact that the Apocrypha is wholly silent as to the three signs of Judaism, phylacteries, the mezuzah and the tsitsith (or tassel attached to the corner of the prayer garment called Tallith; compare Matthew 9:20; 14:36 the King James Version where "hem of the garment" is inaccurate and misleading).

It is quite evident that phylacteries have a magical origin. This is suggested by the Greek name phulakterion (whence the English name) which in the 1st century of our era denoted a counter charm or defense (phulasso, "to protect") against evil influences. No scholar now explains the Greek word as denoting a means of leading people to keep (phulasso) the law. The Hebrew name tephillin (= "prayers") meets us first in post-Bib. Hebrew, and carries with it the later view that phylacteries are used during prayer in harmony with the prayers or other formulas over the amulet to make it effective (see Budge, Egyptian Magic, 27).

See more fully under CHARM.

LITERATURE.

In addition to the literature given in the course of the foregoing article, the following may be mentioned. On the general subject see the great works of Tyler (Early History of Mankind, Primitive Culture) and Frazer, Golden Bough; also the series of articles under "Charms and Amulets" in Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics and the excellent article "Amulet" in the corresponding German work, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. See further the article "Amulet" in Jewish Encyclopedia, and on Egyptian amulets, Budge, Egyptian Magic, 25 ff.

T. Witton Davies

Amzi

Amzi - am'-zi (`amtsi, "my strength"): (1) A Levite of the family of Merari (1 Chronicles 6:46). (2) A priest of the family of Adaiah in the second temple. His father's name was Zechariah (Nehemiah 11:12).

Anab

Anab - a'-nab (`anabh, "grapes"; Codex Vaticanus, Anon or Anob): Mentioned in the list of cities which fell to Judah (Joshua 15:50). In the list it follows Debir, from which it was a short distance to the Southwest. It lay about twelve males to the Southwest of Hebron. It was a city of the Anakim, from whom Joshua took it (Joshua 11:21). Its site is now known as the rum `Anab.

Anael

Anael - an'-a-el (Anael): A brother of Tobit mentioned once only (Tobit 1:21) as the father of Achiacharus, who was an official in Nineveh under Esar-haddon.

Anah

Anah - a'-na (`anah, meaning uncertain; a Horite clan-name (Genesis 36:1-43)):

(1) Mother of Aholibamah, one of the wives of Esau and daughter of Zibeon (compare Genesis 36:2, 14, 18, 25). The Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Peshitta read "son," identifying this Anah with number 3 (see below); Genesis 36:2, read (ha-chori), for (ha-chiwwi).

(2) Son of Seir, the Horite, and brother of Zibeon; one of the chiefs of the land of Edom (compare Genesis 36:20-21 = 1 Chronicles 1:38). Seir is elsewhere the name of the land (compare Genesis 14:6; Isaiah 21:11); but here the country is personified and becomes the mythical ancestor of the tribes inhabiting it.

(3) Son of Zibeon, "This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness" (compare Genesis 36:24 = 1 Chronicles 1:40-41) The word ha-yemim, occurs only in this passage and is probably corrupt. Ball (Sacred Books of the Old Testament, Genesis, critical note 93) suggests that it is a corruption of we-hemam (compare Genesis 36:22) in an earlier verse. Jerome, in his commentary on Genesis 36:24, assembles the following definitions of the word gathered from Jewish sources. (1) "seas" as though yammim; (2) "hot springs" as though hammim; (3) a species of ass, yemim; (4) "mules." This last explanation was the one most frequently met with in Jewish lit; the tradition ran that Anah was the first to breed the mule, thus bringing into existence an unnatural species. As a punishment, God created the deadly water-snake, through the union of the common viper with the Libyan lizard (compare Gen Rabbah 82 15, Yer. Ber 1 12b; Babylonian Pes 54a, Ginzberg, Monatschrift, XLII, 538-39).

The descent of Anah is thus represented in the three ways pointed out above as the text stands. If, however, we accept the reading ben, for bath, in the first case, Aholibamah will then be an unnamed daughter of the Anah of Genesis 36:24, not the Aholibamah, daughter of Anah of Genesis 36:25 (for the Anah of this verse is evidently the one of Genesis 36:20, not the Anah of Genesis 36:24). Another view is that the words, "the daughter of Zibeon," are a gloss, inserted by one who mistakenly identified the Anah of Genesis 36:25 with the Anah of Genesis 36:24; in this event, Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, will be the one mentioned in Genesis 36:25.

The difference between (2) and (3) is to be explained on the basis of a twofold tradition. Anah was originally a sub-clan of the clan known as Zibeon, and both were "sons of Seir"--i.e. Horites.

H. J. Wolf

Anaharath

Anaharath - a-na'-ha-rath ('ana-charath, meaning unknown): A place which fell to the tribe of Issachar in the division of the land (Joshua 19:19). Located in the valley of Jezreel toward the East, the name and site being preserved as the modern en-Na`-ura. BDB is wrong in assigning it to the tribe of Naphtali.

Anaiah

Anaiah - an-a-i'-a, a-ni'-a (`anayah, "Yah has answered"): (1) a Levite who assisted Ezr in reading the law to the people (Nehemiah 8:4), perhaps the person called Ananias in Esdras 9:43. (2) One of those who sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:22). He may have been the same as Anaiah (1).

Anak

Anak - an'-nak.

See ANAKIM.

Anakim

Anakim - an'-a-kim (`anaqim; Enakim, or Enakeim; also called "sons of Anak" (Numbers 13:33), and "sons of the Anakim" (Deuteronomy 1:28)): The spies (Numbers 13:33) compared them to the Nephilim or "giants" of Genesis 6:4, and according to Deuteronomy 2:11 they were reckoned among the REPHAIM (which see). In Numbers 13:22 the chiefs of Hebron are said to be descendants of Anak, while "the father of Anak" is stated in Josh (Numbers 15:13; 21:11) to be Arba after whom Hebron was called "the city of Arba." Josh "cut off the Anakim .... from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, .... and from all the hill-country of Israel," remnants of them being left in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath and Ashdod (Joshua 11:21-22). As compared with the Israelites, they were tall like giants (Numbers 13:33), and it would therefore seem that the "giant" Goliath and his family were of their race. At Hebron, at the time of the Israelite conquest, we may gather that they formed the body-guard of the Amorite king (see Joshua 10:5) under their three leaders Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai (Numbers 13:22; Joshua 15:14; Judges 1:20). Tell el-Amarna Letters show that the Canaanite princes were accustomed to surround themselves with bodyguards of foreign mercenaries. It appears probable that the Anakim came from the Aegean like the Philistines, to whom they may have been related. The name Anak is a masculine corresponding with a feminine which we meet with in the name of the goddess Onka, who according to the Greek writers, Stephanus of Byzantium and Hesychius, was the "Phoen," i.e. Syrian equivalent of Athena. Anket or Anukit was also the name of the goddess worshipped by the Egyptians at the First Cataract. In the name Ahi-man it is possible that "-man" denotes a non-Semitic deity.

A. H. Sayce

Anamim

Anamim - an'-a-mim (`anamim): Descendants of Mizraim (Genesis 10:13; 1 Chronicles 1:11).

See TABLE OF NATIONS.

Anammelech

Anammelech - a-nam'-e-lek (`anammelekh = Assyrian Anu-malik, "Anu is the prince"): A Babylonian (?) deity worshipped by the Sepharvites in Samaria, after being transported there by Sargon. The worship of Adrammelech (who is mentioned with Anammelech) and Anammelech is accompanied by the sacrifice of children by fire: "The Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim" (2 Kings 17:31). This passage presents two grave difficulties. First, there is no evidence in cuneiform literature that would point to the presence of human sacrifice, by fire or otherwise, as part of the ritual; nor has it been shown that the sculptures or bas-reliefs deny this thesis. Much depends upon the identification of "Sepharvaim"; if, as some scholars hold, Sepharvaim and Sippar are one and the same cities, the two deities referred to are Babylonian. But there are several strong objections to this theory. It has been suggested that Sepharvaim (Septuagint, seppharin, sepphareimi) is rather identical with "Shabara'in," a city mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle as having been destroyed by Shalmaneser IV. As Sepharvaim and Arpad and Hamath are grouped together (2 Kings 17:24; 18:34) in two passages, it is probable that Sepharvaim is a Syriac city. Sepharvaim may then be another form of "Shabara'in," which, in turn, is the Assyrian form of Sibraim (Ezekiel 47:16), a city in the neighborhood of Damascus (of Halevy, ZA, II, 401 ff). One objection to this last is the necessity for representing "c" by "sh"; this is not necessarily insurmountable, however. Then, the attempt to find an Assyrian etymology for the two god-names falls to the ground. Besides, the custom of sacrifice by fire was prevalent in Syria. Secondly, the god that was worshipped at Sippar was neither Adrammelech nor Anammelech but Samas. It is improbable, as some would urge, that Adrammelech is a secondary title of the tutelary god of Sippar; then it would have to be shown that Anu enjoyed special reverence in this city which was especially consecrated to the worship of the Sun-god. (For "Anu" see ASSYRIA.) It may be that the text is corrupt.

Anan

Anan - a'-nan (`anan, "cloud"): (1) One of those who, with Nehemiah, sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:26). (2) A returned exile (1 Esdras 5:30). He is called Hanan in Ezra 2:46 and Nehemiah 7:49.

Anani

Anani - a-na'-ni `anani, perhaps a shortened form of Ananiah, "Yah has covered"): A son of Elioenai of the house of David, who lived after the captivity (1 Chronicles 3:24).

Ananiah

Ananiah - an-a-ni'-a `ananyah, "Yah has covered"): (1) Grandfather of Azariah. He assisted in repairing the walls of Jerusalem after his return from the exile (Nehemiah 3:23). (2) A town of Benjamin mentioned in connection with Nob and Hazor (Nehemiah 11:32). It is commonly identified with Beit Hanina, between three and four miles North-Northwest from Jerusalem.

Ananias (1)

Ananias (1) - an-a-ni'-as (Ananias; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Hananias; chananyah, "Yah has been gracious"): The name was common among the Jews. In its Hebrew form it is frequently found in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 28:1; Daniel 1:6).

See HANANIAH.

1. A Disciple at Jerusalem: Husband of Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10). He and his wife sold their property, and gave to the common fund of the church part of the purchase money, pretending it was the whole. When his hypocrisy was denounced by Peter, Ananias fell down dead; and three hours later his wife met the same doom. The following points are of interest. (1) The narrative immediately follows the account of the intense brotherliness of the believers resulting in a common fund, to which Barnabas had made a generous contribution (Acts 4:32-37). The sincerity and spontaneity of the gifts of Barnabas and the others set forth in dark relief the calculated deceit of Ananias. The brighter the light, the darker the shadow. (2) The crime of Ananias consisted, not in his retaining a part, but in his pretending to give the whole. He was under no compulsion to give all, for the communism of the early church was not absolute, but purely voluntary (see especially Acts 5:4) Falsehood and hypocrisy ("lie to the Holy Spirit" Acts 5:3), rather than greed, were the sins for which he was so severely punished. (3) The severity of the Judgment can be justified by the consideration that the act was "the first open venture of deliberate wickedness" (Meyer) within the church. The punishment was an "awe-inspiring act of Divine church-discipline." The narrative does not, however, imply that Peter consciously willed their death. His words were the occasion of it, but he was not the deliberate agent. Even the words in Acts 5:1-42:Acts 9:11-43b are a prediction rather than a judicial sentence.

2. A Disciple at Damascus: A disciple in Damascus, to whom the conversion of Saul of Tarsus was made known in a vision, and who was the instrument of his physical and spiritual restoration, and the means of introducing him to the other Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:10-19). Paul makes honorable mention of him in his account of his conversion spoken at Jerusalem (Acts 22:12-16), where we are told that Ananias was held in high respect by all the Jews in Damascus, on account of his strict legal piety. No mention is made of him in Paul's address before Agrippa in Caesarea (Acts 26:1-32). In late tradition, he is placed in the list of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and represented as bishop of Damascus, and as having died a martyr's death.

3. A High Priest at Jerusalem: A high priest in Jerusalem from 47-59 AD. From Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 2; vi, 2; ix, 2; BJ, II, xvii, 9) we glean the following facts: He was the son of Nedebaeus (or Nebedaeus) and was nominated to the high-priestly office by Herod of Chalcis. In 52 AD he was sent to Rome by Quadratus, legate of Syria, to answer a charge of oppression brought by the Samaritans, but the emperor Claudius acquitted him. On his return to Jerusalem, he resumed the office of high priest. He was deposed shortly before Felix left the province, but continued to wield great influence, which he used in a lawless and violent way. He was a typical Sadducee, wealthy, haughty, unscrupulous, filling his sacred office for purely selfish and political ends, anti-nationalist in his relation to the Jews, friendly to the Romans. He died an ignominious death, being assassinated by the popular zealots (sicarii) at the beginning of the last Jewish war. In the New Testament he figures in two passages. (1) Acts 23:1-5, where Paul defends himself before the Sanhedrin. The overbearing conduct of Ananias in commanding Paul to be struck on the mouth was characteristic of the man. Paul's ire was for the moment aroused, and he hurled back the scornful epithet of "whited wall." On being called to account for "reviling God's high priest," he quickly recovered the control of his feelings, and said "I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people." This remark has greatly puzzled the commentators. The high priest could have been easily identified by his position and official seat as president of the Sanhedrin. Some have wrongly supposed that Ananias had lost his office during his trial at Rome, but had afterward usurped it during a vacancy (John Lightfoot, Michaelis, etc.). Others take the words as ironical, "How could I know as high priest one who acts so unworthily of his sacred office?" (so Calvin). Others (e.g. Alford, Plumptre) take it that owing to defective eyesight Paul knew not from whom the insolent words had come. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Paul meant, "I did not for the moment bear in mind that I was addressing the high priest" (so Bengel, Neander, etc.). (2) In Acts 24:1 we find Ananias coming down to Caesarea in person, with a deputation from the Sanhedrin, to accuse Paul before Felix.

D. Miall Edwards

Ananias (2)

Ananias (2) - (Apocrypha), an-a-ni'-as: (1) Ananias, the Revised Version (British and American) Annis, the Revised Version, margin, Annias (1 Esdras 5:16). See ANNIS. (2) A son of Emmer (1 Esdras 9:21) = Hanani, son of Immer in Ezra 10:20. (3) A son of Bebai (1 Esdras 9:29) = Hananiah in Ezra 10:28. The two last are mentioned in the list of priests who were found to have strange wives. (4) One of those who stood by Esdras while he read the law to the people (1 Esdras 9:43) = Anaiah in Nehemiah 8:4. (5) One of the Levites who explained the law to the people (1 Esdras 9:48) = Hanan in Nehemiah 8:7. (6) Ananias the Great, son of Shemaiah the Great; a kinsman of Tobit, whom Raphael the angel, disguised as a man, gave out to be his father (Tobit 5:12 f). (7) Son of Gideon, mentioned as an ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1). (8) Another Ananias is mentioned in The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) (verse 66).

D. Miall Edwards