Handbook for Bible Students

“A” Entries

Abraham, Expedition of.—The monumental records of Babylonia bear marks of an interruption in the line of native kings, about the date which from Scripture we should assign to Chedorlaomer, and “point to Elymais (or Elam) as the country from which the interruption came.” We have mention of a king, whose name is on good grounds identified with Chedorlaomer, as paramount in Babylonia at this time,-a king apparently of Elamitic origin; and this monarch bears in the inscriptions the unusual and significant title of Apda Martu, or “Ravager of the West.” Our fragments of Berosus give us no names at this period; but his dynasties exhibit a transition at about the date required, which is in accordance with the break indicated by the monuments. We thus obtain a double witness to the remarkable fact of an interruption of pure Babylonian supremacy at this time; and from the monuments we are able to pronounce that the supremacy was transferred to Elam, and that under a king, the Semitic form of whose name would be Chedorlaomer, a great expedition was organized, which proceeded to the distant and then almost unknown west, and returned after “ravaging” but not conquering those regions.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 73, 74. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 5.1

Abraham, Migration of.—The Elamite invasion of Ur was probably one cause of the migration of Terah and his son Abraham. The words of Joshua seem to indicate that Terah was an idolater: “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods,” and if he were driven out of Ur because of a foreign invasion, and wanted to go to a city where the same god was worshiped as in Ur, he would have chosen Haran, for the moon god was worshiped in both. The fact that he named his son Haran before this, suggests a connection of the sort: “Haran died before his father Terah, in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.”-“The Bible and the British Museum,” Ada R. Habershon, pp. 28, 29. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. HBS 5.2

Abraham, Testimony of the Tablets Concerning.—Abu-ramu, or Abram, “the exalted father,” Abraham’s original name, is a name which also occurs on early Babylonian contract tablets. Sarah, again, is the Assyrian sarrat, “queen,” while Milcah, the daughter of Haran, is the Assyrian milcat, “princess.” The site of Ur of the Chaldees, the birthplace of Abram, has been discovered, and excavations have been made among the ruins of its temples. The site is now called Mugheir, and lies on the western side of the Euphrates, on the border of the desert, immediately to the west of Erech. The chief temple of Ur was dedicated to the moon god, and the Accadian inscriptions on its bricks, which record its foundation, are among the earliest that we possess. It was, in fact, the capital of one of the oldest of the pre-Semitic dynasties, and its very name, Uru or Ur, is only the Semitic form of the Accadian eri, “city.” It is probable that it had passed into the hands of the Semitic “Casdim” before the age of Abraham; at all events, it had long been the resort of Semitic traders, who had ceased to lead the roving life of their ancestors in the Arabian desert. HBS 5.3

From Ur, Abraham’s father had migrated to Haran, in the northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle, and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian one signifying “the road;” and the deity to whom it was dedicated was the moon god of Ur. The symbol of this deity was a conical stone, with a star above it, and gems with this symbol engraved upon them may be seen in the British Museum. [pp. 44, 45] ... HBS 6.1

When Abraham went down into Egypt, the empire was already very old. Its history begins with Menes, who united the independent states of the Nile Valley into a single kingdom, and established his capital at Memphis. The first six dynasties of kings, who reigned 1,478 years, represent what is called the Old Empire. It was under the monarchs of the fourth dynasty that the pyramids of Gizeh were built; and at no time during its later history did the art and culture of Egypt reach again so high a level as it did under the Old Empire.... But the Middle Empire, as it has been termed, did not last long. Semitic invaders from Canaan and Arabia overran the country, and established their seat at Zoan or Tanis. For 511 years they held the Egyptians in bondage, though the native princes, who had taken refuge in the south, gradually acquired more and more power, until at last, under the leadership of Aahmes, or Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, they succeeded in driving the hated foreigners out. These foreigners are known to history as the Hyksos, or Shepherds, Hyksos being the Egyptian hik shasu, “prince of the Shasu,” or “Bedouins.” The name which they bear upon the monuments is Menti. HBS 6.2

It must have been while the Hyksos monarchs were holding their court at Zoan that Abraham entered the land. He found there men of Semitic blood, like himself, and speaking a Semitic language. A welcome was assured him, and he had no need of an interpreter. But the Hyksos kings had already begun to assume Egyptian state and to adopt Egyptian customs. In place of the Semitic shalat, “ruler,” the title by which their first leaders had been known, they had borrowed the Egyptian title of Pharaoh. Pharaoh appears on the monuments as pir-aa, “great house,” the palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king himself, just as in our own time the “porte,” or gate, of the palace has become synonymous with the Turkish sultan.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 44, 45, 48, 49. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 6.3

Agnosticism, A Virtual Denial of God.—The agnostic claims neither to assert nor deny the existence of God. Virtually he denies in claiming that we cannot know God. For, as has been well argued, if there be a God, some evidence of him must necessarily exist. God is too all-pervading, things are too dependent upon him, for us to discover no traces of him. It would have been impossible for a God to cover up his tracks so completely that beings possessed of reasoning powers would find none. The stamp of the maker is on all products. The higher the quality of work, the more convincing and distinctive are the marks of the workmanship. God could not conceal himself entirely behind his works. HBS 6.4

Underlying the agnostic theory is the problem of knowledge which the purpose and limits of this work do not admit of our taking up for full discussion. It is assumed here that we live in an honest universe, that our faculties correspond to the world about us. If this is not true, then all reasoning on all subjects is vain. The consistent agnostic does not and never did exist. He could not make any assertion whatever if he were consistent. For if our faculties are unreliable, his dogma of universal doubt is itself much to be doubted.—“Why Is Christianity True?” E. Y. Mullins, D. D., LL. D., pp. 52, 53. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1905. HBS 7.1

Ahasuerus, Hebrew Equivalent of Xerxes.—The name Ahasuerus is undoubtedly the proper Hebrew equivalent for the Persian word which the Greeks represented by Xerxes. ... The Ahasuerus of Esther corresponds in all respects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes, which is not (be it observed) the mere picture of an Oriental despot, but has various peculiarities which distinguish it even from the other Persian kings, and which, I think it may be said, individualize it. Nor is there, as might so easily have been the case, were the book of Esther a romance, any contradiction between its facts and those which the Greeks have recorded of Xerxes. The third year of his reign, when Ahasuerus makes his great feast at Shushan (or Susa), to his nobles, was a year which Xerxes certainly passed at Susa, and one wherein it is likely that he kept open house for “the princes of the provinces,” who would from time to time visit the court in order to report on the state of their preparations for the Greek war. The seventh year, wherein Esther is made queen, is that which follows the return of Xerxes from Greece, where again we know from the best Greek authority that he resumed his residence at Susa.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 150, 151. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 7.2

Ahasuerus, Identified with Xerxes.—There seems to be little reasonable doubt that we should identify the Ahasuerus of Esther with the well-known Xerxes, who reigned over Persia from 485 to 465 b. c., and who made the great expedition against Greece that culminated in the defeat of the Persian forces at Salamis and Plataa. If Esther be taken as equivalent to Ishtar, it may well be the same as the Amestris of Herodotus, which in Babylonian would be Ammi-Ishtar, or Ummi-Ishtar. Amestris is said to have been the daughter of Otanes, a distinguished general of Xerxes, and the granddaughter of Sisamnes, a notorious judge, who was put to death with great cruelty by the king because of malfeasance in office. Sisamnes may be in Babylonian Shamash-ammanu-[shallim]. If he were the brother and Otanes the nephew of Mordecai, we can easily account for the ease with which the latter and his ward Esther were advanced and confirmed in their positions at the court of Xerxes. HBS 7.3

An Ahasuerus is mentioned in Ezra 4:6 as one to whom some persons unnamed wrote an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem. Ewald and others have suggested that this Ahasuerus was Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. It seems to be more probable that Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius Hystaspis, is meant, first, because in the following verse, Artaxerxes, the son and successor of Xerxes, is mentioned; and secondly, because we have no evidence whatever that Cambyses was ever called Ahasuerus, whereas there is absolute certainty that the Persian Khshayarsha, the Hebrew ‘a hashwçrôsh, the Greek Assoueros or Xerxes, and the Latin Ahasuerus, are the exact equivalents of one another. ... An Ahasuerus is said in Daniel 9:1 to have been the father of Darius the Mede, and to have been of the seed of the Medes. It is probable that this Ahasuerus is the same as the Uvakhshatara of the Persian recension of the Behistun inscription, which in the Babylonian is Umaku’ishtar, in the Susian Makishtarra, and in Herodotus Cyaxares. It will be noted that both the Greek Cyaxares and the Hebrew Akhashwerosh omit the preformative uva and the t of the Persian form Uvakhshatara. HBS 7.4

That this Median king had sons living in the time of Cyrus is shown by the fact that two rebel aspirants to the throne in the time of Darius Hystaspis claimed to be his sons, to wit: Fravartish, a Median, who lied, saying, “I am Khshathrita of the family of Uvakhshatara” (Behistun Inscription, col. 2, v); and Citrantakhma, who said, “I am king in Sagartia of the family of Uvakhshatara” (id., II, xiv). If we accept the identification of Gubaru with Darius the Mede, then the latter may well have been another of his sons, at first a subking to Astyages the Scythian, as he was later to Cyrus the Persian.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Ahasuerus,” pp. 80, 81. HBS 8.1

Amraphel, Hammurabi.—Khammu-rabi, like others of his dynasty, claimed divine honors, and was addressed by his subjects as a god. In Babylonian, ilu is “god,” the Hebrew el, and Ammu-rapi ilu would be “Khammu-rabi, the god.” Now Ammu-rapi ilu is letter for letter the Amraphel of Genesis. HBS 8.2

Thus the difficulty presented by the variant forms of the name of the king of Shinar, or Babylon, has disappeared with the progress of archeological knowledge. It is one more illustration of the fact that “critical” difficulties and objections commonly turn out to be the result of the imperfection of our own knowledge. Archeological research is constantly demonstrating how dangerous it is to question or deny the veracity of tradition or of an ancient record until we know all the facts.—“Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,” A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., p. 60. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 8.3

Amraphel, Expedition of.—We read in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis that “in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tid’al king of nations (Goyyim); that these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. ... Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.” And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote “the Amorites of Canaan as far south as the later Kadesh-barnea.” HBS 8.4

There are several points worthy of notice in this narrative. Though it is dated in the reign of a king of Babylonia, the leader of the forces, and the suzerain to whom the Canaanitish princes were subject, was a king of Elam. Elam, therefore, must have been the predominant power at the time, and the Babylonian king must have been its vassal. The narrative nevertheless is dated in the reign of the Babylonian king, and not in that of the king of Elam, and it is to the reign of the Babylonian king that the events described in it are attached. Babylonia, however, was not a united country; there was another king, Arioch of Ellasar, who divided with Amraphel of Shinar the government of it, and like Amraphel acknowledged the supremacy of Elam. Finally the “nations,” whoever they were, were also subject to Elam, as well as the distant province of Canaan. HBS 8.5

Now let us turn to the contemporaneous monuments of Babylonia, and see what they have to tell us in regard to the very period to which the book of Genesis refers. Elam, we find, had conquered Babylonia, and the sovereigns of Babylonia, accordingly, had become the vassals of the Elamite king. Along with the conquest has gone the division of Babylonia into two kingdoms; while Khammu-rabi, or Ammu-rapi, was reigning at Babylon,-the Biblical Shinar in the north,-Eri-Aku, the son of an Elamite prince, was ruling at Larsa-the Biblical Ellasar-in the south. HBS 9.1

Eastward, in the Kurdish mountains, were the Umman Manda, or “barbarian nations,” of whom Tudghula appears to have been the chief. Canaan had long been, in name, if not always in reality, a Babylonian province; and when Babylonia passed under Elamite domination, the Elamite king naturally claimed all the provinces that had been included in the Babylonian Empire. Indeed, Eri-Aku of Larsa gives his father Kudur-Nankhundi the title of “Father” or “Governor” of the land of the Amorites, the name under which Canaan was known at the time in Babylonia. HBS 9.2

Could there be closer agreement between the fragment of Old World history preserved in the book of Genesis and the revelations of the native monuments? Even the proper names have been handed down in the Scriptural narrative with but little alteration.—“Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies,” A. H. Sayce, LL. D., D. D., pp. 56-58. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 9.3

Antichrist, Vice-Christ.—It was not pseudo-Christ, as of those false self-styled Christs (in professed exclusion and denial of Jesus Christ), that the Lord declared would appear in Judea before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who did in fact appear there and then; but was a name of new formation, expressly compounded, it might seem, by the divine Spirit for the occasion, and as if to express some idea through its etymological force which no older word could so well express, Antichrist; even as if he would appear some way as a vice-Christ; ¹ in the mystic temple, or professing church; and in that character act the usurper and adversary against Christ’s true church and Christ himself. Nor did it fail to strengthen this anticipation, that the Gnostic heresiarchs and others did in a subordinate sense act that very part already, by setting Christ practically aside, while in mouth confessing him, and professing themselves in his place to be the power, wisdom, and salvation of God.—“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. I, pp. 67, 68, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. HBS 9.4

Antichrist, Early Catholic Fathers on (Its Rise to Follow the Division of the Roman Empire).— HBS 9.5