Encyclopaedia Biblica/Amos-Anthothijah

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


(DV^y. 56, 'borne [by God]'; cp Ama- SiAii. Ar. -OmJis. Phcen. DDyjO'J'X ; amcoC [B.\g]).

1. Prophetic activity.[edit]

Amos is the earliest of the projjhets of whose discourses and predictions we possess written records with an ac- comfianying statement of their authorship. Of the external facts of his life we should know little but for the narrative digression in 7 10-17, which interrupts the series of prophetic visions on the fall of Israel. From a statement there iissigned to Am.aziah, ' the land is not able to bear all his words,' we may reasonably infer that .Anios's ministry in the northern kingdom had lasted for some time, when it w.-is brought to an abrujjt close by an act worthy of the heroic 1-^lijah. Amos, it appears, came forward at length in a place where success was more difficult than anywhere else, and uttered a prophecy to this effect 'Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall tie carried away from its land." It was in Bethel, the seat of the royal temijle corresfxjnding to that of Jerusalem in the south, and probably at some great festival, that Amos said this ; and the priesthood, faithful to its royal head, took the al.arm. S'ot so much because the prophet had threatened the reigning dynasty (for he had not done so in the interests of any upstart noble) as because he h.ad begun to weaken the moral courage of the Israelitish people (Jer. .384). With the half-contemptuous s[)eech, ' Carry thy prophecies to those in the neighlK>uring country who may think them worth paying for,' .\ma/.iah, the head priest of liethel, by the royal authority, bade Amos fly from the land of Israel. Amos would not retire without a parting lestiinony. These are his significant words : ' No prophet, no member of a guild of prophets, am 1 ' ; that is, I am no ecstatic enthusiast, like the prophets of Bethel, whose pro- phesying is a trade, and whose oracles are mere heathenish divinati<jn (cp Mic. :jii). 'But a sheep- breeder am I,'^ he continues, 'and one who lends sycomore figs' (see Shf.kp, Sycomork) : that is, I am above the sordid temptation to take fees. ' Yahwe took me from following the flcx:k ; Yahwe said unto me, (jo, prophesy unto my people Israel.' That is, My prophesying has an immediate practical object which concerns the whole nation, and it is due to a moral impulse which has come straight from Israel's God. Then, in answer to the command. Prophesy not against Israel, .^mos repeats his message with a startling person.al application (cp Is. 22 17 18).

Such was .-Vmos a strange phenomenon to the head priest of Bethel, as representing an entirely new type of 2 Home prophecy. Whence then did this projihet come? Was he a native of Israel or a ' sojourner ' from Judah ? The heading of the book (on the origin of which see below, 4 ) at first sight appears to be decisive in favour of the latter view. Budde has made it probable ^ that we should render ' Amos, who had been among the sheep-breetlers, (a man) of Tekoa.' In any case, Amos is represented asa Tekoite. Now, there is no trace in ancient or in modern nomenclature of more than one Tekoa (iJ.v.). That Amos Ix^longed to the southern kingdom has, nevertheless, been doubted, ^

1 Read ^pi3 with Oort, We. (UAg, aliroAot) ; cp 1 i. Mesha is also called ^p1J (2 K. 3 4). The word refers to a breed of

stunted sheep, valued for their fine wool (see Shkei>\.

2 Kohut, Semitic Stu<iies jo laSJT.

3 According to Oort, Atnos was an Israelite who cultivated sycomores in his own country, but after his expulsion dwelt among the shepherds of Tekoa (Th. T'2b lai, etc ['91]). Gratz (and so formerly Oort), following Kimhi, supposes a second Tekoa in the north.

on the twofold ground ( i ) that the interest of Amos is absorbed by (northern) Israel, and (2) that Tekoa lies too high for sycomores to be grown there. As to the first point, Amos, though deeply interested in Israel, is not, like the native Israelitish prophet Hosea, a sympathetic observer of the life and manners of the north. The inner impulse from above sending him to Israel is psychologically accountetl for by the' vastly greater importance of Israel as compared with Judah in religion, in politics, and, we may add, in literature. As to the second, Amos may very well have possessed a plantation of sycomores in some low-lying district in the Shephelah or in the Jordan valley (see Syco.mokk). We may accept it, then, as a fact, that Amos was a Judahite, and sprang from a place famous in the time of David for the quick wits of its inhabitants (2 S. Ha). 9 'D-anoKofi/.n ^^^ situation, too, of Tekoa, was 6. rreparauon. ^.^,j ^^^^^^ ^^ develop the future pro- phet's cap.-icities. From the extensive view which his own hill commanded, he would gain, at any rate, a sense of natural grandeur, though we must not infer from this that he was capable as a Tekoite of writing Am. 4 13 and the parallel pa.ssages.i Not far off, he would meet with the caravans of the Dedanites (Is. 21 13) and other Arabian peoples, and would imbitxj from them a longing to see other men and maimers. Possibly, too, such an idiom as CTD'Q 'ac* c;? (4 10) may be explained from Arabian influence (so We. ).'^ Whatever the social position of Amos may have been, he was not tied to the soil, and may, before his journey to Samaria, have wandered, either on business or from curiosity, far away from home, and have seen and heard much of which his neighbours were ignorant. To suppose this is not to deny that even the stayer at home had opportunities of hearing news,^ but to try to understand the alertness of Anios's intellect, the width of his knowledge, and the striking culture and refinement of his style. At any rate, it is plain that he studied thoroughly, on the spot, the con- dition of life and thought in the northern kingdom, and we must regret that we have no further contemporary traditions respecting him, than that contained in 710-17. One very singular tradition, indeed, we have, which appears to be a very late distortion of his story. It is the story (i K. 13) of the man of God from Judah, who went to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam I. and threatened the altar there with destruction by an earthquake (cp Am. 3 147991). Though this teaches us much con- cerning a late view of prophecy, however, it affords no fresh glimpse of Amos.

A post-exilic editor says (Am. li) that Amos pro- phesied during the contemporary reigns of Uzziah of

4. Notes of J"'^^^' ^^'^ Jeroboam II. of Israel. Of date Uzziah there is no express mention in

the book ; but the description of the care- less ease of Jerusalem in 6i(Z accords with the circum- stances of his reign ; to Jeroboam II. the prophet refers in 79, and his biographer in 7ioy". The heading also states that the prophecy as a whole was delivered (i.e., in its original form) 'two j'ears before the earthquake." Unfortunately, our only other authority for this earth- quake* in Uzziah's reign is about as late as this note (Zech. 144). It is no doubt plausible to defend its his- torical character by referring to 4 n ( ' I wrought an over- throw among you'), and by our prophet's vivid idea of earthquakes as one of God's means of punishment (88; cp Is. 21921). Am. 88, however, is certainly an interpola- \ion, and it is not impossible that the rather too precise

1 G._ A. Smith {HG 315) has given eloquent expression to this view. In T7ve/ve Prophets, however, he admits the late origin of the passages.

2 On the intellectual opportunities of Tekoa see Stickel {Hiofi 269-276), who makes Job to have been written in this district.

S Robertson, Early Religion 0/ Israel 510.

  • Klo. Sam. u. KSn. J40, and cp Kings, { 8, note.

8 Jos. (Ant. ix. IO4) gives a long fabulous story about it.

statement in 1 1 is merely an exegetical inference from 736 (cp 78 8a). which seemed to the editor to imply that Israel's punishment had been twice postponed, and that each postponement nuant a year's grace (so (i. Hoffmann ; cp Chronolocjv, 3). It is remarkable that the author of the heading, if he had access to tradition, did not rather refer to the solar eclijisc pro- phcsie<l in 89 (in its i)resent form). This seems to be the eclipse which an Assyrian list of eixjnyms assigns to the month Sivan 763 B.C.' It is less important that, according to the same list, i^estilenccs ravaged Assyria in 765 (the year of a campaign in the land of Hadrach, near Damascus and Hamath) and in 759. Pestilence in the land of Israel is indeed mentioned in Am. 4 10 ; but it is described as ' after the manner of Kgypt. ' The Egyptian Delta was of course not the only source of pestilences : the Assyrian plague _. may have germinated elsewhere. Still, it

. ircum- ^^.^.^jp5 tpye t^at the period indicated by these last dates sufficiently accords with hints dropped in the Book of Amos. For e.xample, the Israelites, according to Amos, have no -ipprohensipn of a Sfjeedy attack from .Assyria. The circumstances of the period just mentioned enable us fully to account for this. Shalmaneser III. (783-773) had too nmch trouble with the land of Urartu(see Ararat, 2, As.syria, 32), and his successor Asur-dAn III. (772-755) had too many revolts at home to put down, to tje dangerous to the kingdom of Israel. .Assyria t>eing thus occupied, it was easy for Jerotx)am II. to recover from Damascus (repeatedly humiliated of late by A.ssyria) the districts which Hazael had taken from Israel. Hence, when Amos wrote, the e.\tent of the Israelitish dominion was ' from the point where the Hamathile territory begins (non Ki3^) to the torrent of the Arilbah,' a definition which is presumably equivalent to that in 2 K. 14 25, which gives ' the sea of the Arabah ' i.e. , the Dead Sea. The prophet's hearers delighted to sun themselves in this new prosperity, and boasted of the capture of Lodeb.xr and K.\RN.\IM in Gilead as a great military feat (see LoDEHAR, and We. on Am. 613). True, melancholy thoughts of the past would sometimes intrude thoughts of the recent terrible earthquake, of the famines and {jestilences, of the friends and neighbours lost in battle, and of the revolting cruelties of the Syrians and their Ammonitish allies in Gilead (I31346-11). Nor is it arbitrary to connect the splendour and fulness of Israelitish ritual in the prophet's time with the popular anxiety lest Yahwe should renew the troubles of the past. On the whole, however, the tone of Israelitish society is joyous and optimistic. As in Isaiah's earliest discourses, the upper classes appear as self-indulgent and luxurious, and, as in Isaiah, the women come in for' a share of the blame (4i ; cp Is. 3 16). Not only the king (i K.2239) but also the nobles have houses inlaid with ivory (815 cp 64(2). Feasting is habitual (64-6), and the new custom of half-reclining on tl\e divan* has lieen introduced at Samaria (3i2iJ). The good old sentiment of brotherliness is dying away ; oppression and injustice are rampant (26-8 89 end, 10 4 1 5 11/. 846). This indicates that great economic changes are going on (Isaiah makes the same com- plaint. Is. 5). Side by side with this we notice a keen interest in the ritual side of religion (44/. 521-23 814 9i). Jubilant worshippers sing the praises of the incomparable 'God of Jeshumn' (023 ; cp Deut. 8826), and, as they think of his deliverances in the past, they even 'desire the battle day of Yahw6' (5 18). Amos, a stranger, alone sees below the surface of things. He does not, indeed, once name Assyria,* and seems to have

1 -See Schr. COT 2 193; Sayce, TSBASng; Schr. A'GF 338 yC, and cp Chron(>lo<;v, 24.

  • In 3 12 render ' that sit in Samaria in the corner of a couch,

and on the cushion of a divan ' (for peTJl read arcs, an obvious correction, which We. has somehow not made). See/(7^ 10 572.

According to uaq^ however, there is once an express mention of Assyria (89, -nrK = "lirK, for TlPKi Ashdod).

no clear idea of the geograjjhy of the region ' beyond Damascus ' ; but every one knows what he means when he warns his hearers that Yahw6 ' will raise up against them a nation '(614 ; cp Is. 626, where read 'ijS). and ' will carry them into captivity Ijeyond Damascus ' (52?). On the whole, we may prolxibly date the original pro- phecies of Amos between 765 and 750 n.c. *

'ITiere are only two passages which may Ix; regarded as inconsistent with this date, as referring to later 6 Obi actions '^^'^"'^- (a) In 1 5* it is predicted that i - . ^ 'the iieople of Aram shall go into to 766-760 B.O. eaptivity unto Kir,' which was ful- filled, according to 2 K. IG9, on the capture of Dam.ascus by Tiglath-l'ileser III. in 732. The prediction, how- ever, was not meant to be taken so literally. ' Unto Kir' is evidently suggested by the tradition (97) that the Aramteans came from Kir ; the prophet cannot mean to lay stress upon such points as the locality of a captivity ; * otherwise, why does he describe the scene of Israel's captivity so vaguely? The 'fulfilment' in 2K.I69 is obviously due to interpolation; the later view of prophecy differed from that held by the great prophets themselves. (/>) The other passage is 62, which, as emended by Geiger (to make sense), reads thus, ' Pass ye to Calneh, and look ; and go thence to Great Hamath, and go down to Philistian Gath ; are ye better than these kingdoms, or is your region greater than theirs?" These places, says the writer, have already succumbed to the common enemy : how can Israel ho[3e to escape? Calneh (not the Calneh of Gen. 10 10, but the N. Syrian city Kullani) was conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. in 738, Hamath by Sargon in 720, and Gath by the same king in 711 ;* and the passage breaks the connection Ijctween 6 i and 5, and is not in the rhythm which is so closely adhered to in 61 3-7. The verse must, therefore, be a later insertion, by a scribe or editor who had read Is. IO9 (Calno = Calneh), and is properly a marginal gloss on the words, ' Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ' (^i i ). Observe that Great Hamath (H. Rabba) contr;ibts v.ith the simple Hamath of v. 14.

A strict analysis is indispensable, both for a sound

view of the origin of this book, and for a clue compre-

... hension of the great proi)het himself.

- * ^^^ We nmst, therefore, test the common assertion that the lx)ok possesses such a true literary unity as Amos, when in retirement, might naturally wish to give to his remembered prophecies. 5>o much, at any rate, is clear, that, as it now stands, the book has three well-marked divisions. (1) Chaps. 1 2-2 16 present a series of judgments on the peoples of Syria and Palestine, each framed on the same plan, and coupling the description of an unpardonable moral fault with the declaration of punishment. The most detailed of the accusations is that brought against Israel, which forms a striking culmination of the series. The vaguest and least impressive is Judahs, which comes next before Israel's, and somewhat spoils its effect. ( 2 ) Chaps. 3-6 seem at first sight to contain three discourses, each introduced by ' Hear ye this word ' and closing with a prediction of national ruin. Upon a closer examination, however, none of the ' discourses'

1 The reason offered for a later date (745-744) by Zeydner and Valeton (in Wildebocr, A7/. no) is insufficient. Any observer who was not blinded by a fanatical rcllK'ous belief could see that the inactivity of Assyria was only temporary, not to mention that the year 765 saw the .Assyrians on the northern border of Palestine. Resides, the events which accomp.-\nied the accession of Tifilath-pileser III. in 74s w'ere of too exciting a nature not to have suggested to .Amos a fuller and more precLse threatening than we find in his prophecies.

2 On the former part of this verse see Beth -EDEN and AvEN, 3.

  • On 0's readings see KiR.
  • Urschri/l g6/. Torreys hesitation to remove v. a from

the context which it distorts (J^L, 1894, p. 62 yC) seems very needless.

5 Schr.'s view of Calneh {COT 2143/ ; HIVB I254) seems untenable (see Calnbh).

proves to hiive more than a semblance of unity. The section may be analysed into ten loosely connected passages 3i/ 83-8 89-15 41-344/. 46-13 5i-i7* 518-27 61-768-14. (3) Chaps. 7-9. This is a series of live

visions, interrupted, first by a short biographical elucida- tion of the third vision (7 10-15), and then by a threatening address (84-14), and followed by an evidently composite discourse, closing with most unexpected promises of the regeneration of Judah.

Now, if this summary is correct, it becomes im- possible to maintain the true literary unity of the book. More than one editor must have been concerned in its arrangement, and the latest editor has had considerable difficulty in so disposing his material as to produce three portions, each one of a reason- able length. Considering that the book of the Twelve Minor Prophets comes to us from the post-exilic age (see C.\NON, 39), and that the primary object of the later editors was not critical accuracy but

o Ti J. -T edification, we are bound to look out

8. Is post-exilic[edit]

very sharply for post-exilic msertions. 

Such an insertion we find at the very outset. The opening verse (I2) has been often viewed as the te.xt of the following dis- course ; but it seems very ill-adapted for that purpose, for the object of the discourse is not to exhibit the connection between Yahw^ and a privileged sanctuary, but to show that even Israel (which has so many altars of Yahwe, 28) shall be punished like the other nations. Nor is the elegiac tone of 1 2b at all in harmony with the cycle of stern declarations which follows. The truth is that 1 2rt is borrowed from Joel 3 [4] 16a, where alone the words suit the context, and 1 2b has a close phraseological affinity to Joel and other late writings.'* It is no argument to the contrary that in 38 Yahw^ is said to ' roar ' and that the phrase ' the top of Carmel ' is used by Amos in 93 : the editor had naturally made some slight study of the language of Amos. The reason of the insertion will be clear if we compare (a) I9/. with Joel 82-6, {b) In /. with Joel 819, and (c) 9 13 with Joel 3[4]i8. These passages can all be shown to be late insertions, and 1 2 can be understood only in connection with them.

First, as to (a) and {b) it will be noticed that I9/. differs from 16/. only in the substitution of ' Tyre' for - , , , y. 'Gaza,' and in the addition of the ap. 9/. 11/. ^yQ^jjg_ ^x\d remembered not the covenant of brethren.' (Even if, with Winckler, we correct ns in v. 9/ into n;>s i.e., the N. Arabian Musri [see MiZK-MM], part of the following argument is still applicable. ) It seems incredible that Amos should have condescended to repeat himself in this way, and doubtful whether the early Israelitish prophets knew anything about such an act as is imputed to Tyre in 1 9. And what can be the meaning of ' the covenant of brethren' in Amos's mouth? Many critics, indeed, have found in the phrase an allusion to the alliance between Solomon and Hiram (RV mg. refers to i K. 5i 911-14) ; but this was a purely personal connection, and lay far back in the past. We might also think of the covenant between the kings of Israel and Tyre pre- supposed in I K. I631/. ; but would the Elijah-like prophet Amos have been the man to recognise this? Moreover, this was a personal or family covenant, whereas the charge against Edom in In, that he 'pursued his brother with the sword,' presupposes a true national covenant resting on kinship (cp Mai. I2).

1 Observe that between Am. 615 and 16 something analogous to w. 7 10 must have fallen out (jrzi. 8 9 are an interpolation). Vv. 14-17 should correspond to 7iv. 4-7 10-13.

^ Vax metaphorically, as Joel 1 10 ; n'lKJ, as Joel 1 19 / 2 22 ; ITT as Joel 1 12. Cp also 1 2/^ as a whole with Jer. 9 [10] 9 23 10 2537: Is. 339; Nah. 1 4 (all post-exilic passages except the first). See Che. Introd. to WRS's i^n Isr. xv./. [Volz. has lately expressed the same view (/)/> vorexil. Jah7<ef>ro/etie p. i9j/C), which Nowack (A7. Proph., ad loc.) does not refute.]

This view is confirmed by Obad. 12, where ' in the day of thy brother ' implies the same charge that is brought against Edom in the words quoted from Am. In. Thus, the fault imputed to Tyre is that it co-oijerated with Edom in the time of Israel's distress, by making raids into Israelitish territory and selling captive Israelites to their unnatural 'brethren.' Was there ever such a time of distress for Israel between the age of David and that of Amos? It is, of course, the history of Judah, not that of N. Israel, that we have to search, for the claim to the overlordship of Edom was maintained by the Davidic family. The answer depends primarily on the results of our criticism of Chronicles. If we can regard the Chronicler as an only slightly prejudiced recorder of old traditions, we may believe that the Philistines and Arabians broke into and plundered Jerusalem (2 Ch. 21 16/ ), and conjecture that Tyrian slave -merchants drew their profit from the circumstances. F'urther, if, some time before that, the Edomites revolted from Judah and defeated King Joram (this, happily, is a fact attested not only in 2 Ch. but also in 2 K. 820-22), it is easily con- ceivable that Edomitish passion vented itself in a great slaughter of fugitive Israelites. Is it worth while, how- ever, to defend the integrity of Am. 1 and the accuracy of the Chronicler by such a lavish use of conjectures ? A prophet such as Amos was could not have fastened on such an offence of the Edomites to the exclusion of the cruel treatment of I'^domites by Judahites referred to in 2 K. 147 (cp 2Ch. 25i2), and we ought not to imagine a case of special barbarity in the ninth century when there is a well attested one in the sixth. It was, in fact, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 that the P3domites, who had no such stern moralists as Amos and Isaiah to reprove them, filled up the measure of their revenge, to the indignation of Jewish writers, who forgot the cruelties of their own ancestors. Hence, to explain Am. 1 11-12 aright, we must refer to Ezek. 25 12 35 5 Is. 84 Obad. 10-14 Ps. 1377, together with Joel 8[4]i9 ; and, to under- stand I9/. , we must compare (besides the passages just mentioned) the description of the offence of Tj're in Joel 3(4)2-6 (subsidiary evidence for the late date of Am. In/, is given below ).' If it be asked, when these judgments on Tyre and Edom were inserted, the answer is, during (or much more probably after) the Exile, at a time when some fresh insult on the part of the Edomites reminded Jewish writers of earlier and deeper injuries (see Is.MAH, ii. 14).

Next as to (c). Plainly, Joel 3(4)i8rt is the original of Am. 9i3<5. Theopposite view would be inconsistent with K Qfi the fact that Am. 9 13(1 is dependent on 10. Chap. y8-i5. ^j^g j^jg passage Lev. 265 (see Levi- ticus). Am. 9 13, however, is not a later insertion in the section in which it occurs. From 9n (or rather from 98) onwards, we are struck by affinities in expression or idea to works of the Babylonian and Persian periods, and by corresponding divergences from the st)le and thought of Amos. "^ That v. 7 cannot have been the conclusion of the prophecy is certain ; but we have to regard w. 8-15 as a post-exilic substitute for the original close. The editor cannot endure the idea of the final destruction of the whole house of Israel, and so he makes Amos declare in a strangely softened mood that only the 'sinful kingdom' [i.e., that of Ephraim) will be wiped out, whereas the less guilty Judahites will

1 Notice (1) the vague description of the offence of Edom. Does it consist in the purchase of Israelitish slaves from the Tyrian slave-merchants? or in the slaughter of Israelitish fugitives? or, more probably, did Edom prove that 'he kept his wrath for ever' in both these ways? (2) The mention of ' Teman ' and ' Bozrah,' which names seem first to occur in Jer. 487 13. Cp the threat in 1 12 with that in Obad. 9.

2 For the evidence, which is singularly strong, see Cheyne, 'Notes on the Prophets,' Expositor, Jan. 1897, pp. 44-47. On Am. 98-15 see also Preuschen, ZATW\h2^.2^ (95); Torrey, 'Notes on Am. 27 etc.,' JBL 168-172 ('96); T>r'\\er, Joel and Amos 120 jff., who vainly endeavours to diminish the force of the arguments.

suffer the milder doom of dispersion among the nations. Even this will Ix; only for a time. Israel shall return, the old Davidic kingdom shall lie restored, and the sweet commonplaces of prophetic idylls shall be fulfilled.

Now, can we not see the reason of the insertion of the opening verse or prologue? It was to assure the post- e.xilic readers of Amos that the threats of the prophet had long since been fulfilled, and that restored Zion should be safe under the care of its lion-like divine protector. In other words, Amos was to be read in the light of the concluding portion of Joel. The insertion of the epilogue (98-15), in which we ought to note the reference to Kdom (cp Joel 819), has a similar reason.'

Here, then, are already four certain |K)st-exilic inser- tions. The companion passages now to lje enumerated are eciually noteworthy. No .satisfactory ])icture of the prophet Amos is possible till we have recognised them.

Kirst, Am. 2^f> is too deficient in concreteness to be the work of Amos, and is, on phraseological

11. chap. 24/ F""' '^- , ^\^' l^"" '"*"^f [ "^^

^ judgment upon Judah also must be late.

This is e%-ery way a gain. In particular, we can now see lietter how thoroughly Amos was ab.^orlxid in his mi.ssion to N. Israel. He cannot perhaps forget Judah ; but his native country is only a fragment : the national pulse beats most vigorously in Kphraim (cp Is. 98/. [7/.]). The post-e.\ilic editor, however, felt the need of a distinct reference to the sin and punishment of Judah, which he meant to Ije taken in combination with the encouraging statements of 1 2 and 9 11-15. It was a different feeling which prompted the insertion

12. chaps. 4 12^13 '^ ^ '3 ^''^ ^'^ * " '^. connected) rofa f 5 ^f- 9 sf. The conception of God

had become deeper and fuller ; the germs long ago deposited by the preaching of Amos and Isaiah had, through a widened experience, develojjed into the rich theology of II. Isaiah and the Hook of Job. Not only by the wonders of history but also by those of nature was the sole divinity of Yahwe proved, and an ordinary reader of .\mos inserted these doxologies (as we may call them) to relieve the gloom of the pro- phetic pictures. 3 Another such insertion was made (according to the text used by ) in Hos. 184.

We now pass on to .-\m. .'126. The construction and rendering of this passage have been much disputed. 13. chaps. 52662. "" the assumption that Am. 525-27 was all written by .Amos, it is perhaps easiest (see Driver) to render cnurr, ' So ye shall take up . . . (Saccuth' your king and Kaiwan your god, which ye made for yourselves),' 'nS^ni. 'and I will carry (you) into exile.* But how unnatural this is ! Nowhere else does the prophet mention an inclination of the Israelites to the worship of Assyrian gods, and the carrying of .Assyrian gods by Israelites into Assyria is a very strange feature in a threat. Hence the whole verse is more than probably

1 There are similar interpolations in Hosea {e.g., I7 1 io-2 i [2i-3]and the words' D.-ivid their king 'in 3 5). See Hosea, 4.

i' Cp 2 K. IO15, Deiiteronomistic. Critics on the other side quote Is. 624; Hos. 2 2 [4]; Ex. 18 16 ; Deut. 30io; but they do not meet the argument from weakness of style, and produce no parallel for the second part of the description of Judah's sin. Moreover, the two Pentateuch pas.sages are not in point. Nor have critics realised the consequences of admitting the post -exilic origin of the prophetic books in their present form.

3 The style is that of II. Isaiah .and the later poets (cp Stickel, Hiob p. 276), not that of Amos. The strings of participles remind us of Is. 40 22./: ; Job 12 17-24 ; Zech. 12 i ; D.-in. 221/ Notice also ((13 (cp Cheyne, /nt. Isa. xxi. 252), 'nsa^Sj; Tn

pK, no'D, S'Ds, mo'^'i-, j'Saa, mSvo nj3n. In 95 nixasn -

violates the us.ige of Amos (but cp (P). The ideas are equally late, though they are such as .\mos, h.id he met with them, would have owned. Inter alia, comn. the third descrip- tive phr.-ise in 4 13 with Ps. 13!t 2. It is prob.-ible that bif. originally stood after 413. Am. fls/, however, presumably retains its original position.

On the text see, besides the comment.iries, N. Schmidt, JBL, 1894, p. I _/?: ; Torrey. ib. p. 61 ; WRS .-ind Che., Profih. Isr.i'ii y^ff.\ G. Hoffmann, ;?^ /"/r 3 112/ : Tiele, Gesch. van het godsdienst 315. On the construction see Dr. in Smith, /?5(2) 122 (art. Amos).

a later insertion, which took th<; place of a passage that had become illegible. The case of Is. 104rf seems exactly parallel (see SHOT, ad U>c.). Whether or no Succoth-iienoth, the name of a god in 2 K. 17 30, contains the divine name .Saccuth,' we may suppose that the writer of the inserted passage merely antedates a worship introduced into .Samaria by the Babylonian colonists after 722 .< . The awkwardness of the con- nection need not surprise us (this against Konig, Synt. 368 (^) ; the 1 in cnKrji is simply the Waw explica- tivitm so often prefixed to glosses. Render, ' That is, ye carried in procession ' ; cp Is. 45 20. See Chiun A.nd


Am. 62, another insertion, has been treated of already (see 6 \b\f. We pass on to 8811/ Verse 8 . . , o 1 is not at all suitable as a description of

r 'P^' '4 jj^g threatened punishment (see We., Nowack). The comparison with the Nile recurs in an interpolated verse (95). Passing on, we note that v. 13 speaks of literal thirst (suggested by the mention of the festivals in V. 10) ; but in v. 11 the hunger and thirst are meta- phorical. Verses 9/. 13/. announce a sudden cata- strophe; but in V. II f. a lengthened time of misery is descritied. The passage is clearly late, and is parallel to Is. 820/. (partly late). The silence of prophecy is spoken of as a sore trial in Ps. 74 9. Other probable late insertions are 814^513-15 (cp Mic. 76), and the expression Tn^ in 65 (see David, 13) ; and 69/ is at any rate misplaced. To these it is plausible to add the reference to ' those who are at ease in Zion ' in 6 i (but it may he better to correct p's into ,-ii-in ; so Che. /(^A' 10573) I also 87, which, as Duhm points out, may be a gloss on v. Z ; certainly it interrupts a noble passage {v. 8 for K33' read nnn- with We. , or, much better, 3K3'). The last insertion is 98-15 (see 10).

After these insertions have been removed, may we

safely suppose that the rest of the book represents what

IB Pre exilic '^""o^ ^^^' '" P"^ic ? No : the analogy


of the prophecies of Isaiah makes such a supposition highly improbable. Let us be content with knowing that we have a truthful record of the prophetic certainties of .Amos, even though he did not always utter them in public. The manner and the contents of the passages into which the true Book of Amos falls must he our guide in determining the class (whether that of public or of private prophecies) to which they severally belong. It is both inherently difl^cult and contrary to analog)' to suppose that 1 2- 2 16 was ever really uttered ; at any rate, l2-'J6,7 s is more adapted to produce an effect on readers than on hearers. Nor can we possibly imagine that the visions in chaps. 7-9 were used by the prophet as texts of spoken addresses ; passages from discourses are no doubt here and there introduced, but they come from the arranging hand of the editor of this part.

It is a further question whether the arrangement of the different sections may be due to .Amos himself. In answering it we must leave sufficient room for the f^rmvih of the book. It is not unreasonable to suppose that on his expulsion from Bethel the prophet paid a visit (per- haps a second visit; cp6i) to Jerusalem, and there 'noted' his prophecies 'in (on) a book for a later day' (Is. 808), when the judgment upon Israel should have been .accomplished. There, too, he may have committed his record (enriched with some never-spoken prophetic certainties) to the custody of those ' disciples ' of Yahwe and of his prophets (see Is. 816), who l)egan the long succession of students and editors of the re- ligious literature. In their hands we may suppose that the book assumed by degrees its present form. .At any rate, a written record of .Amos must have become quickly known ; for Isaiah, it is clear, steeped himself in the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly

1 So Del. Par. 21s/., but see Succoth-Benoth.

original genius. To Hosea, however, such a record cannot be proved to have Ix-cn known (see We. on Hos. 814 4 IS IO58) : in other words, the circulation of Amos's prophecies was, originally at least, confined to Judah. The latest editor of the book, as we have seen, was post-exilic.

A special interest attaches to the description of the visions, together with the historical interludes in chaps. 7-9, partly because they exhibit the growth of Amos's prophetic certainty resj^ecting the fall of Samaria, and partly because, like Is. 6 7 1-8 18, and 20 (in their original form), they appear to come from a partly biographic, partly prophetic, work, written or dictated by the prophet himself.

Some have been surprised to find 'a plain country- man ' like Amos possessed of such a refined and yet . , vigorous style.* They forget that the 16. ^niOS S differences of culture in the East are still ^ sometimes comparatively trifling, and that a man of low rank may express himself with considerable elegance. It is still more in point to remark that the most classic Arabic poems are the work of men who had a calling similar to that of .Amos, while, even under the new Moslem empire, sons of the desert were wont to appear at court and win a rich guerdon by the finished style of their improvisations. Such critics have also forgotten the opportunities of self-culture which, both at Tekoa and elsewhere, Amos must have enjoyed ; and when even G. Baur and Ewald point to certain ' sole- cisms in pronunciation and orthography ' as evidences of provincialism, it may be replied that the errors in ques- tion may reasonably be ascribed to late copyists.- That Amos delights in images drawn from nature is clearly no fault (see, e.g., 2934/812519, and the first, second, and fourth visions). Only one of them is distinctively the comparison of a shepherd (812) ; and Amos is just as willing to speak of wonders of which he knows only by hearsay such as the giant cedar trees (29), and (if the text be correct) the inundation of the Nile (88) or of which he has a true Israelitish dread such as an earthquake or a solar eclipse (88/), or the mysterious sea which yields no harvest (G12; cp arpvyeTos), and which somewhere hides the terrible serpent of primitive mythology (93 ; see Skri'knt, 3/ ). It is a pity that, for reasons already given, we cannot speak of Amos as a sympathetic observer of the sky* fhat is an essential characteristic of a much later poet (see Job). As a literary craftsman he ranks high. In 1 3-2:6 we have a literary prophecy, which, until .\mos forgets his art in his grief at the manifold offences of Israel, is marked by great regularity of structure. .So in 46-ii we have the literary model of an equally symmetrical passage in Isai.ah (Is. 98-21 [7-20] 526-30 10 1-4), and in 62 we have a short but strictly rhythmical elegy. .Altogether, the Book of D crrpft of -^'"^^ forms a literary as well as a pro-

"cinaditv P'^*^'"'^ phenomenon. It is true that orig y. ^^Yx as a writer and as a speaker he

must have had models ; J and E were, of course, not the only writers of the pre-Amosian period, and Elijah and Elisha (of whose doings a faint echo has reached us) were not the only prophetic reformers (.Am. 2 11/ 87). There is no occasion, however, to suppose that there were prophets of precisely .Amos's type before him prophets who had exactly his conception of their duties, and were also, in a qualified sense, writers. It would be a mistake to infer, from Amos's use of formula, that he was acquainted with earlier written prophecies. Pro- phetic formulae could be transmitted by word of mouth

1 Against Jerome's application of Paul's self- depreciating language in a Cor.ll 6 to Amos sec Lowth, Prerlect. 21 (Lectures, ET,2 97/).

2 Take, e.g., pn^*' ("9) for P"^'. The same form occurs in Jer. 3326, Ps. 1059, l)oth post -exilic passages. In 5 11 0P13 is not a ' dialect form ' for doi3 \ the scribe wrote x! by an error, and then corrected it by writing o- Read simply nn with We.

3 GASm. (HG 3.5).

as well as by the pen. That Amos had left Tekoa at intervals before his prophetic call is not only inherently probable, but also follows from such a passage as 87/ (if correct), which .Amos could hardly have written unless he had had the most vivid and direct ocular evidence of the effects of a true prophetic impulse even before his own turn came to receive one. His originality is shown, not only in his prophetic message, but also in his being (probably) the first to conceive the idea of using the \>&\\ in aid of the voice. The /Jra-literature of the priests had already taken a considerable development (Hos. 812); Amos was, it appears, the first prophet who followed the exanipie of the literary priests. The im- portance of this step it was Ijeyond his i)ower to esti- mate. Within a generation h.; expected Israel as a nation to disappear ; but he thought it worth while to gather disciples who, like himself, could praise Yahwe even in the midst of ruin ; and, after all, who could tell but Yahw6 might have some other secret to reveal to one of these to a Hosea or to an Isaiah ? See 18.

That Amos's message is a gloomy one is in accord- ance with his conception of the divine character. In

18. Pessimism.[edit]

" ^f 'I'^'^J^'^' ^^e divine purpose could not be one of peace, though it required an immense devotion to Yahwe to be able to declare, seemingly unmoved, that He purposed the complete destruction of Israel (or, as we should say, of Israel and Judali). In spite of the universal scepticism which meets him (for how, it is said, can Yahwe be con- ceived of apart from his people?), .Amos persists in his message, and even conceives the possibility that legend- ary supernatural agencies may be used to make the destruction more complete (93). It is not, therefore, open to us to account for the confidence of Amos simply by the advance of the Assjxian power. He does, indeed, regard Assyria as the chief destructive agent (614 7 17) ; but Assyria, when Amos spoke and wrote, was passing through a period of decline ; consequently his conviction must have some other ground which naturally sharpens his eyes for the still present danger from Assyria. To this it must be added that, according to Amos, it would be easy for A'^ahwe, if the agency of Assyria were not available, to bring some other hostile nation from some corner of the earth, just as he ' brought up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arama^ns from Kir' (97). The real ground of Amos's prophetic fjessimism is the increasingly unsound religious con- dition of his people. He may very possibly have ad- mitted that there were fifty or at least ten Israelites who lived by the same pure religion as himself ; but he could not conceive of Yahw^'s saying, ' I will not destroy the land for ten's sake. ' The righteous must, according to him, suffer with the wicked (9 10 was in- serted to correct this idea), though he might perhaps have left a door of hop>e open for those who, like him- self and his disciples, had close personal contact with the true God : the nation might perish ; but when this had happened, God nught have some secret purpose for those who ' knew ' him.

Of this vague hope we hear nothing from Amos (cp Isaiah). What the popular religion was, we know but too well. Whatever the nobler minds may. have believed, 'the mass of the people,' as Robertson Smith well says, ' still thought of Him as exclusively concerned with the affairs of Israel,' and the connection between Yahwe and Israel had a non-moral, natur.al, basis. Ritual tended to make morality almost superfluous, and by its increasing costliness actually promoted that injustice and inhumanity which Yahw^ abhorred. There were also immoral superstitions at which Amos glances less (see 27) than Hosea. To this

19 Idea of P^"^'0"s[edit]

system the religion of Amos 

Ood '^ diametrically opposed. Once, at any

rate, he uses the striking title, ' Yahwe, the God of the Hosts' (627 is admittedly a genuine passage) i.e., the God of celestial as well as earthly legions together with ' the Lord Yahwi ' (perhaps nine- teen times), in antithesis to tlic nationalistic expression, ' Yahwir, the God of Israel.' The Vahwe whom he himself worshipped was, in virtue of his perfect moral nature, the Sovereign alike of nature and of nations. Amos had not, indeeil, fathonicd the depths of this conception as had the Second Isaiah and the author of Job (.\m. 4i3 and the parallel passages are later insertions : see alx)ve, 12) ; but he is already to all intents and purposes an ethical monotheist, and his conviction of the impending destruction of Israel does but intensify his sense of the majesty of the one Gotl. He does not, indeed, reject the old belief in the connection lx:t\veen Yihwe and Israel altogether (cp 7 15 "my people Israel'): he moralises it. For some wise object, Yahwe brought Israel out of Egypt (3i S>7), and enteretl into a [XMsonal moral relation to it ; but his will, at any rate, is not unknown to the other nations, and their history is equally uiuler his direction. Once, in- deed, under the stress of moral passion, Amos even places the ' sons of Israel ' on a level w ith the ' sons of the Cushites'- ; this occurs near the end of his prophecy (y?), and is evidently intended as a final wiiiulrawal of a temporary and conditional privilege. It is not, how- ever, on all the nations of the earth, but only on those which are in close pro.ximity to Israel, that judgment is pronounced by Amos, as the spokesman of Yahw6 ; he aims at no theoretic consistency. These nations are to suffer the same doom as Israel at the hand of Assyria, b<_'cause they, like Israel, have violated the unwritten law of justice and humanity. [Thus we can divine Amos's free attitude towards the lately written cthico- religidus priestly laws (see I'2xoi)US, 3). He is prob- ably acquainted with such laws (28 ; cp Ex. 2225/. ) ; but he docs not recognise them as of primary authority, for lie nowhere appeals to them.'] And if by many favours, including the crowning favour of prophecy (2ii), Yahwe has made himself specially known to the Israelites, it follows that he will judge Israel more strictly than he will judge the other nations (3 12). As a faithful friend, Amos assures his people that if they would only ' seek ' the true Yahw^ they would 'live' (5414) :.c., would escape captivity and enjoy prosjx;rity in their own land (cp Hos. 62/). He has no ho|>e, however, that they will do so : the false pojiular religion is loo deeply rooted. Indeed, Am. 5 has been so much interfered with by editors that it is doubtful whether vv. 4 14 can l>e appealed to as authorities on such a point ; ?. 14, at all events, appears to belong to an inserted section (see Nowack).

It is not idolatry that Amos complains of. When he says, ironically, 'Go to Bethel and transgress' (44), he

20. Denunciation[edit]

^"f' ^' ^'^ expressly tells us, ' Carr>' . . out the prescriptions of jour wilfully

devised ritual law. ' Nor can we venture to say that a protest against the ' golden calves ' is im- plied,* for no prophet is more explicit than Amos in mentioning the sins of his people. The two passages in which a reproof of Israelitish idolatry does apjjear to occur are certainly interpolations. In 814, for ' the sin of Samaria"' we should read 'the god of Bethel' (cp Gen. 31 13), in parallelism to 'thy god (t;',^Sn), O Dan,' and ' thy patron (read ;;-it with W'i. and see Uod), O Beersheba,' and the whole of 526 is a later insertion,

1 'Thy Cod (O Israel)' is put into Amos's mouth by a later editor (4 12/' ; see atiove, 12).

'^ Who these Cushites are, is uncertain (see Ci SH i. 8 2 A). Apparently they had recently experienced some calamity.

  • Here he contrasts with Hosea, who clearly invests the

written tlirflth which arose in certain priestly circles with primary authority (Hos. 8 12). Perhaps, as Duhm suggests, Hosea was himself a priest.

.So Davidson {Expositor, 1887 (i), p. 175). To .say that Amos docs not protest against the 'golden calves,' is of course not 10 assert that he thinks them worthy syml>ols of Yahwfe. Cp St. Gl'f 1 579; WRS, /'n>//. 575/

"The text appears to have been altered^ by the same editor who inserted the reference to ' the two iniquities ' in Hos. 10 10.

I and is not true to the facts of the age of Amos (see above, 12). What Amos most vehemently denounces I is sacrifice. One may perhaps be tempted to suppose j that he says more than he means, and that he docs not object to sacrifices altogether, but only to the Ix-'lief that when duly performed they can change the mind of the Deity. His language, however, seems too strong to Xx: I thus explained away, especially when we find him ap-

pealing in support of his statement to the fact that in

the olden time, when Yahwe w;is so near to Israel, no sacrifices were offered (625). Is there, then, no form of worship in which ^'ahwe delights? None, except the practice of righteousness i.e., justice and humanity (see 021 24). liut, alas, the Israelite will not recognise this. Pilgrims who are wholly indifferent to plain moral duties crowd to the sanctuaries of Bethel and Gilgal, and even to the far-off southern shrine of Beer- sheba' (55 814, cp Hosea4i5), and parade their devo- tion to the different local forms of Yahwe in i)ious o;iths, as if the true Yahwe could Ije pleased with the offerings or the oaths of such worshippers. How painful will be the awakening from this moral sleei), when the greatest of all realities makes its existence known, annihilating at one blow the sanctuaries of Israel and their worshippers (9i)! Such was the an- nouncement of the shepherd of Tekoa.

21. Estimate[edit]

Taken in connection with the ideas on

which it is based, it seems to justify us I in calling him a surprising phenomenon. 'Ihat the phenomenon can be partly explained there is no doubt. Neither Amos nor his special follower Isaiah is so entirely abnormal a product as an unthinking study of the works of either might suggest (see rKoi'Hixv). But not the most comprehensive study of the history of Israel will altogether account for their appearance. And if they neither of them saw the whole truth, and lx)th needed the correction of history and of later prophets and sages, we may still pay them the reverence which belongs to those who first uttered great moral and religious truths with the power that lx;longs to God- possessed men.

See references in art. and cp also We. Die kleinen Prophcten

(for a corrected text), 1892, and his Hist. 0/ Isr. and Juii. KT,

. , 1891, pp. 81-E6 ; WR.S Proph. A.(2) 120-143, 194.

22. Special 401; l)r.,art. ' Amos,' /JAV-'i (with full biblio-

helps. graphy) ; also /<)(/ atui Amos (Camhr. I'ible),

1897 ; Duhm, Die Tluol. ti. Pto/>li., 1875, pp.

109-125; Smend, Alt-test. Ki/.-gcsch., 1893, pp. 159-188; \\ i.

C/ <)\ff.\ Oort (on the home of Amos, and on the genuineness of

413589956), Th.T, 1891, pp. 121-126; G. Hoffmann (on the

text of Amos), ZA7II', 1883, pp. 87-126; Schmidt, y/f/,, 1894,

Fp. 1-15; (j.VSm., Tivelve Prophets \(i\--i\o\ Nowack, AV. Pr. 97] (thorough and judicious). T. K. c.

2. .Vmos (.\|xa>f [XBCD]) is the best supported reading in Mt. 1 to, where, however, King Anion (^.T'.) is plainly intended ; so TR and EV. It is a constant variation in ah.

3. An ancestor of Joseph, Mary's husband (Lk. 825 [BKA]). On the two lists see Ge.nealogies ok Ji:sls.


(pDX, 57. ' strong' ; amcoc [BNAOQFL], AMM. [A in 2K. 192 20 1 Is. 372]; amos), father of I.S.\I.\H, I (Is. li A/V\OCrGIN] = AMOC HN [N*"], 2O2 [NAQ om.], 2 Ch. 2622 [BA oin.]).


(AMcjJinoAiN [Ti. WH], ttoAin [N*]). one of the most important }K)sitions in northern Greece ; it stands on a Ijend of the river Strynion, between the lower end of lake Cercinitis and the head of the Strymonic gulf, thus commanding the pass leading from the east into Macedonia ( Li v. 45 30). Consequently it was a station on the ]'ia l-.i^iatia, ' the great military road which ran through Macedonia and connected Rome with the Hellespont' (Cic. De fnn: cons. 2 4). Paul, therefore, ' passed through ' Amphipolis

' Hal. thinks that a northern Beer-sheba (perhaps Beeroth) is intended (A'A/ 11 72-77) ; but if Klijah went on pilgrimage to Horeb, which was not even in Palestine, why should not N. Israelites have gone to a venerated spot in S. Israel? n3^ is precisely the right word to use of a sanctuary across the border (cp 6 2).

on his way from Philippi to Thessalonica (SioSfVffavrfs, Acts 17 it).

The site was intimately connected with some of the most interesting passages in Greek history ; but it would he a mistake to imagine that the apostle or his companions cither knew or caicd for these things. It is now Ntochori. [l.cake, North. 6>. 3i8i/.) w. J. w.


or rather as in RV Ampliatus (AAAnXr- ATOC ["' ^^'H]), saluted as ' my lieloved in the Lord' (Rom. 168t) ; not otherwise known.

The name was not unfrcquently borne by slaves. In the list of the seventy disciples (Pscudo-I)orotheus) Aniplias is represented as having been bishop of Odessus or Odyssus (on the Hlack Sea, near the site of the modern Varna).


(D"ipy, 77, ' in good condition ' ? or, 'the [(li\ ino] kinsman is e.xalted ' ; AMBpAM [BL ; A in Ex. Nu.J, AMp. [.VF; Bin Xu.]).

1. b. Kohath, head of a Levitical subdivision, and father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Ex. G 1820 ; Nu. 3 19 a/x^pa/x [-M"]. -/3pa;'[L]; 2658/ i Ch. 62 [628]) ; from him come the Amramites (dt.cV'^ ^'"- 32?, a/ipafxeis [B], a/xjipaa/x' fis [.\], -pan' j [K], -pav eis [L] ; i Ch. 2623, a/J-pa/j-i [.\J). -See Licvi.

2. One of the b'ne Hani, 2, in list of those with foreign wives (KZRA i. 8 5 end) Ezra 10 34 (fiapleli [H], an^pa/oi [N], aixppaiJi (cat (.\l.l)=iEsd.!>34 Omakkus, RV Ismaickus (jxaripo'; [15], i(r/0L. [.\], aiipafi [L]). See Ezka, ii. g 14 /'.

3. I Ch. 1 41 (["ran), RV Hamkan. See Hemdan.


(^a^PS ; amap^&A [ADEL] ; Jos. 'Afxapa ^I'iSrjs), king of Shinar ((}en. 14 i 9!) = Ham- murabi, king of Babylon, who, according to trustworthy cuneiform data, may have flourished about 2250 n.c. This assumes that iBiZH is corrupted from "msn or ( Lindl, Savce) sk ^-cn ; but sec Ciikdori.aomkk ( 4/), and op Schr. COT 2299/:; Hommel, Ji.4(? 169, .-I'/fT 193; Wi. JOF iJ,3f.\ Bezold, FSBA 1188 ['88]. Targ. Jon. ingeniously, if uncritically, identifies Am- raphel with Nimrod, who 'commanded Abram to be cast into the furnace.' If the identification with Hammurabi be accepted, we may be reminded that Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar delighted to imitate this founder of Babylonian greatness, both in his building plans and in his niclliods of administration (see B.\BVI,0.\'IA, 66, and cp Rogers, Outlines of Early Dab. Hist. 27-30). It m.ay be that some Jewish favourite at the Babylonian court, who had received a Babj'lonian education (Sanabassar or Sheshbazzar for in- stance note the Babylonian name), heard Hammurabi spoken of. and made historical notes from cuneiform tablets on events which had happened ' in the days of Amraphel,' also that one of these was adopted by later writers as the basis of a Midrash on Abraham and Melchizedek. On the other hand, those who identify NiMKOi) (</. J'. ) with Nazi-maraddas (Nazi-maruttas) may incline to think that the setting of contemporary history may be derived from an early pre-exilic traditional source, though the narrative in its present form is un- doubtedly the production of post-exilic writers. The latter view is the more difficult one, but not therefore to be hastily rejected. Cp Lehmann, Z~wci Haupt- probleme der altoricnt. Chronologic (1898) 84, and see Abr.\h.\m, 4, Chkuoki-.xomkr (g 2, 4 end), H.\m (i. ), Mki.cmizeukk ( 2), Sh.weh, i. t. k. c.


is the RV rendering of fiha^im. D^'t^'n'?, Is. 820, a word used elsewhere of any charm (Is. 83, C'n? p33 , RV ' skilful enchanter' not 'eloquent orator ' or ' skilful of sjxiech ' as in ,\V and AV mg. ), or, more specifically, of a charm against serpents (Jer. 8 17 I'ccles. lOii). In Is. 820 some sort of female ornament is meant, most probably earrings (so .\V), which seem to be treated as idolatrous in Gen. 354. Doubtless, as WR.S suggests ( ' Divination and Magic ' in /. Phil. 14 122 ['85]), the amulet is worn in the ear to prevent an incantation from taking effect. Among early peoples amulets and ornaments are closely connected (cp We. Heid.'^^ 165). When the early significance of the protective power of the object is forgotten it serves as a simple adornment.' The Syr. equivalent kfdilM is proix;rly ' a holy thing,' and the same idea is seen in the occurrence of the root in the old Yemenite htdts, 'pearls'; cp WRS Rel. Sem.i^) 453; and see M.\Gic, 3 (3). cp also Ring, 2.


(*VPX, 52, perhaps abbrev. from Amaziah).

1. In the genealogy of Ethan : i Ch. O46 [31] (afie<r(rta [B], fLataaia [.\], atiaaia (L]). See also Lkvi.

2. In genealogy of .\daiah, 3, the priest (see Malchijah, 3); Neh. 11 12 (ajia(r(e]i [H.X], -<riou (Lj, o/xco-art [K]), omitted, how- ever, in the il i Ch. 9 12.


(23J?. ANCOB [AL]). a hill-town of Judah, Josh. 1050 (anoon [B], anaB [L]), one of the seats of the Anakim ; Josh. II21 (anaBcoG [f^D- I' is doubt- less to be connected with Hinianabi (3jj'-['v), mentioned in Am. Tab. 237, 26 with M.ngdali (see Migdai.-G.\d) and other cities of the land of Gar (.SW. Judah). There is still a place of the name ('Andb) on the west side of the Wady el-Khalil, about 14 miles to the SW. of Hebron, and 4 or 5 m. W. from Shuweikeh (Rob. BR 2 159 ; so P E.Mem. 8392/ ). See also Anub.


(anahA [BXA], i.e., ^N33i^, Hananeel). brother of Tobit and father of ACHIACHARUS (Tob. I21). See also Aman.


(njy, meaning uncertain, cp Gray, HPN no ; ANA [B.ADEL]), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36). As the text stands the descent of Anah is represented in three ways. Anah is

1. Daughter of Zibeon(aiva'[L]), \nvv. 214, 'Hivite' in V. 2 being obviously an old error of the text for ' Horite.'

2. .Son of Seir and brother of Zibeon, v. 20 {a.i.vav [L]), I Ch. l38(A'a^[L]).

3. Son of Zibeon, v. 24 bis (ojvav [.AD], atcac [L], uva [E], uvas [AE]), also i Ch. 140/. (^uvav [B], wvafj. [A ; T'. 41 ova], avav [L]), 25 bis 29.

The first of these may, however, safely be disregarded. 'Daughter of Zibeon' is a variant (based on v. 24) of ' daughter of Anah ' (dependent on w. 20 25), which has intruded into the text ( so Di. , Kau. ). As to ( 2 ) and ( 3 1 , the differences of statement need not surprise us, for the genealogy only symbolises tribal relations. Anali was originally a sub-clan of the clan called Zibeon, and both alike were ' sons of Seir ' i.e. , Horites. A twofold tradition, therefore, could easily arise. The ' mules ' which, from v. 24 AV, Anah would appear to have ' found in the wilderness ' are an invention of the Mid- rash, some Rabbis explaining cc" (lafifiv [ADE], eafiiv [L]) by ijfj.lovos, others by tj/ulktv {Her. rabba, par. Ixxxii. ). The ' hot springs ' of Vg. and RV are purely conjectural ; the word cc'.ri is evidently corrupt. As Ball points out (SDOT Gen. crit. notes, 93), it may have come in from v. 22 (cp'rr). In -^v. 2 14 and 18 (where ael omits), Anah is called the father of Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. See Bashemath.

T. K. c.


(JTinJX ; peHpcoG k. ANAxepeG [B], P6NAG K. AppANeG [A], AancrgG [L]), -1 site on the border of IssACiiAR (Josh. 19 19)!. The reading seems corrupt (note the conflate readings of ^"A). Perhaps we should read mrnx and identify with 'Arrdneh, a village on rising ground in the plain of Esdraelon, a little northward of Jenin ( = En-gannim). So Schenkel's Bib.-Lex. and Riehms NIVBC^) (after Knobel).

Knobel's alternative view (adopted from de Saulcy by Conder) identifies Anaharath with en-Na fira, which is not far from Iksal (Chesulloth)and .S,-,l."in\ (Shunem), and is therefore not altogether unsuitable, but somewhat remote from every attested form of the ancient name.

1 For analogies cp Cuttings of the Flesh.


(n;3y, 33. -Yahwi has answered'; ANANia(c> L'*^-^]> *hus identifying the name with Anamaii).

1. In list of Ezra's supporters (sec Ezra, ii. f i^f. ; cp i. | 8) at ihe reading of the law (Neh. 84 = 1 Esti.043 Ananias, 4).

2. Signatory to the covenant ; Neh. 1022 [23J (Ata [B] ; Acaia [An'I). See EZKA, i. 7.


See Anakim.


kV ; W , less correctly, Anakims (D^pjr ; aiul D'pjrn ; in Targg. generally rendered N*^33 ' giants '-.'eNAKLellMCBAFL], but -n [l-'"Dt. 'iio]'; es.icim).

The Anakim are mentioned in Dt. '2ioyC2i Josh. ll2xyC 14 12 15 Jer. 475 ((B"Kaij; Heb. reads 'of their valley'); else- where called 'sons of Anak ' (?:>', ivolk [BAL]) Nu. 1823 {tvax IBFl) ; Dt. 92/* and (MT ' sons of the Anak ') Josh. 15 14a ; Judg.

1 20 ; 'sons of the Anakim,' l)t. 1 28) uioi yfyofTtoi/ (BALJ) 92a (viol 'Y.vaK) ; ' the children CT'?:)of Anak ' (MT ' the Anak ') Nu. 1323a 28 ((va\ (B), ai.v(LK [A]), Josh. 15 14^. The phrases are ex.ictly parallel to ' Rephaim ' and 'children of the Kapha' (see Rki'haim); indeed in Dt. "in a writer of the Deuteronomic school, ' interested in history and archaeology ' (Kue.), makes the .Anakim a branch of the Rephaim.

These and other descriptive terms (which are not to be mistaken for race-names) are given at any rate to some portions of the pre-Israelitish pojjulation of Palestine, whoni, like the Amorites, tradition endowed with colossal height (cp Nu. ]333).^ On the inhabitants of Palestine generally see C.\NAAN.

.According to Josh. 11 21 (D.^), the .Anakim were to Ijc found in the mountains about Hebron, in the fenced cities Debir and .Anab, and, in general, in the mountains of Judah and Israel, whence Joshua and Israel drove them out. Verse 22 also states that a remnant of them survived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (cpjer. 47$ ; oi KaraXonroi fi>aK(ifi[Bi<AQ], where MT has 'the remnant of their valley'). The oldest narrator, however, gives the credit of their expul- sion to Caleb, who drove out from Kirjath-arba the three sons of .Anak : Sheshai, Ahinian, and Talmai i.e. , the three triljes or clans which bore those names (Josh. 1514). The editor of Judg. 1, quoting this passage, refers the deed to the tribe of Judah {v. 10) ; see Hkhkon. In later times, a too literal interpretation of 'sons,' and genealogical interest, led to the transforma- tion of .Anak, and what is still stranger of Arba' ('four') in the place-name Kirjath-arba, into personal names. Thus .Anak (virtually a personal name where it has the article) becomes father of .SuKSH.M, .Ahiman ( I ), and Tai.mai ( i ), and son of Kirjath-arba ; cp Josh. 21 II (MT piji-rt), 1513/ Judg. lio {evafji [A]).

The proof of this is supplied by bal, which in Josh. 15 13 21 II instead of ' father of Anak ' has fxrjTpdiroAii' [Tuif] tuax. This no doubt represents the original text, which stated that Kirjath-.-irba, or Hebron, was .^n important city (a ' mother,' cp

2 S. 2O19) of the Anakim. A later scribe, prepared to find a genealogical notice and therefore surprised to find the word 'mother' in apposition to Arba, altered 'mother' (CN) into 'father' ('an). Thus he obtained the statement that Hebron was the city of one Arba, who was the father of '(the) Anak.' In Josh. 14 15, however, lie took a different course. 'I'he true reading must be that of (EJHal which gives (ne.-irly as in the parallel pass,iges) n-oAtt ap/3 ([L], ap^o [A], opyojS [B]), fiTjrpo- no\i^ TUiv ei'aKle]in auTij. For this the scribe substituted 'the city of .Arba, the greatest man among the An.ikim.' The con- sequence was that Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talm.-ii (the three Anakites mentioned in Josh. 15 14) became, literally, 'sons of (the) Anak,' and grandsonsof Arba no contemptible acquisition for genfcalogists. So virtually Schleusner|(lhes., j.z/. /uujTpo- iroAn); but see especially Moore, Judges 2x /. Cp also Sclnv.illy, Z.l Tir, 1898, p. 139^ T. K. c.


(0*03^), one of the peoples of Mizraim, Gen. 10 13 = I Ch. 1 nf ; unidentified. See GEOGRAPHY, 15(2)-


{r\hjp;]}, anhmcAex [B]. amh- [A] ; om. L ; (.i3*^A.V. ; Auamelech), a Babylonian

J Anak, 'long-necked' (St. and most), or 'those with neck- laces' (KIo.), with which cp Heb. 'dndk, 'a chain for the neck,' Aram, 'unak, Ar. 'unk, ' neck.'

deity, whose worship was carried by the Sepharvites into Samaria when, along with the inhabitants of other Babylonian cities, they were transplanted thither by Sargon. As in the case of the kindred deity Adramnie- lech (see, however, .AUKA.M.MHl.Kcii, i), the worship of Ananmielech was accompanied by the rite of human sacrifice (2 K. I731). The name Anammelech is probably to be explained" as Anu-malik ' Anu is the decider or prince ' 1 (Schr., Del.), although there is no evidence that Anu enjoyed any special veneration in Sippara (see SeI'HARVAIM). a city that was especially devoted to the worship of Samas the Sun-god.

It is very possible, however, that the text is corrupt (Hommcl proposes a rather elaliorate restoration [A>/. T. H \y>/.\). It IS also possible (see Nisroch) that Anammelech is merely a faulty variant of .Adrammelech (rather Adarmelech). I- in 2 K. 17 31 has only aSpaixf^tx-

Anu was the god of Heaven, and with him were identified a number of gods representing personifications of powers or localities of the upper region, such as Ural, Ansargal, Atilar, Etnur, Du'ur, Liihma, Ekiir, A lata, Alala-alam, and Enuriila. He stood at the head of the Babylonian pantheon, forming one of the supreme triad of Babylonian divinities, in which he was associated with licl, the god of Earth and of created things, and Ea, the god of the Abyss and all that is beneath the earth. See B.\hylonia, 26. According to G. Hoffmann {'/.A, 1896, p. 258), however, the name is i'?c[n]3V '<'-. Anath-malk. Cp .Astar[t]- Kemosh and Melk[at]-.Astart. Anath (Anta) was the consort of .Anu (see .An'.\th). l. w. k.


(|3J?, 50; shortened from A.vaniah). I. Signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. 7) ; Neh. 1026[27] {y\va.\x [B], f)va. [k]. -ac [.A], r)i.va.v [Lj).

2. .Anan (a.v\v\av [BAL]) in i Esd. 630 = Hanan, 3 ([jn) Ezra 2 46.


CpiJ?, 50, abbr. from Ananiah, cp -Sab. p:y and Palm, 'jjy ; manci [B], anani [AJ, -iac [L]), descendant of Zkkuhhahki, (i Ch. 824).


(n;^JV, BN*A om., anania [N^-*"'*-"^], AN I A [I']) in Benjamin, mentioned (:. 32t) in the list of villages, Neh. 11 20-36 (see E/.KA, 2, ^b, 15 {i)a), along with Nob and Ramah (Neh. II32), and possibly represented by the modern Beit-Hanina, 3 J ni. NNW. of Jerusalem.


{T\im, 33. 50; anania [BAL]). ancestor of one of Nehemiah's builders (Neh. 823).


(ananiac [BAL]), the Gk. form of Hanamah or Anamaii.

1. RV -Ann IS, nig. Annias, a family in the great post-exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 9), mentioned only in i Esd. 5 16 (oi'vcit [B], aivvia.% [.A], om. L). The name has probably arisen from a misreading of Hodiah (nnn read n'jn) I cp Neh. 10 17 y?, and see HouiAH, 2. Cp also Meyer, EJ 143, 155.

2. I Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 20 Hanani, 3.

3. I Esd. 9 29 = Ezra 10 28 Hananiah, 7.

4. I Esd. 9 43 = Neh. 8 4 An Ai ah, i.

5. iEsd.9 48(a>'i/ias[B])=Neh.8 7 Hanan, 4.

6. A kinsrn.-in of Tobit. The .irchangel Raphael, while in disguise, cKiimed to be his son (Tob. 5 12). He is designated Ananias ' the great,' son of Semeus or Semelius (see Shemaiah, 23), also called 'the great.'

7. b. Gideon, ancestor of Judith (Judith 8 i, om. B).

8. In Song of Three Children, v. 66 ( Theod. Dan. 3 8k) ; see Hananiah, i.

9. Son of Nedebaios {Ant. x.v. 52, Ne/3e5ai6j in some MSS [AE] ytSe^aioi ; cp Nedabiah), high priest, circa 47-59 A.D. , under Herod Agrippa II., king of Ch.alcis. He is mentioned in Acts 232^ 24 i as the high priest before whom Paul was accused during the procuratorship of Felix. He flourished in the degenerate days of the priesthood, and, though Josephus says {An(. xx. 92) that after his retirement he 'increased in glory every day,' allusion is made to him in the Talnmd (Pesahim) in terms of the greatest contempt. Cp Annas (end).

1 In which case cp Anu(m) Sarru = Anu the king, the usual title of the god Anu (Muss-Arn. Ass. Diet. 65).

10. Husband of Sapphira (f.v.), Acts 5 1. See Community of Goods, 3.

11. A 'disciple' at Damascus, who was the means of introducing l^aul, after his conversion, to the Christian community there (Acts 9 10-19). , ANANIEL (ananihA[BSA]; Heb. [ed. Neubauer] 7NJ:n, Hananccl), Tobit's grandfather (I'ob. li).


(r\2V,; anaG [HAL]), a divine name, mentioned in connection with Shamgar in Judg. 831 (AeiN&x [B]) '"'d 56t (KCNAe [A]). If Shamgar ig.v.) were an Israelite, and b. Anath (' son of Anath') his second name, it would be tempting to take ' Anath ' in ' ben Anath ' as shortened from Ebed Anath ' servant of Anath" (so Baethgen, Ilei/r. 141 ; but see Noldeke, ZZ?.l/(; 42479 ['88]). More probably, however, Ren- anath is a Hebraised form of the name of a foreign oppressor who succeeded Shamgar' (certainly a foreign name), and in this case Anath must designate a foreign deity. Who then was this deity ? Evidently the

well-known goddess worshipped in very early times in Syria and Palestine (as appears, e.g., from the names mentioned below), and adopted, as the growing evidence of early Babylonian influence on Palestine scarcely permits us to doubt, from the Babylonian pantheon. An(a)tu was in fact the daughter of the primitive god .Anu, whose name is mentioned as that of a Syrian deity in 2K. I731 (see Anammei.kch, Seph.^RV.^im). Of her character as a war-deity there can be no doubt. In ancient Egypt, where her cultus was introduced from Syria, she was frequently coupled with the terrible war-goddess Astart, and on an Egyptian stele in the British Museum she ap[5ears with a helmet on the head, with a shield and a javelin in the right hand, and brandishing a battle-axe in the left. She was, therefore, a fit patron-deity for Shamgar or for Sisera. That the fragmentary Israelitish traditions make no direct refer- ence to her cultus, need not be matter for surprise. The names Anathoth, Bi:th-an.\th, Beth-anoth, compensate us for this omission. Wellhausen thinks that we have also one mention of Anath in Hos. 148[9], where he renders an emended te.xt ' I am his Anath and his Asherah' (in clause 2) surely an improbable view. For a less difficult correction see Che. Exp. Times, April 1898.

For ArchsEology see Jensen, Kos)n. 193 211/. \ E. Meyer, ZDMG 31 717 ['77]; Tiele, Gesch. van den Godsdienst in die oudheid, etc. ('93), 224 ; WMM As. u. Eur. 313. t. k. c.


See Ban, 3.


(ninsy, anaGcoG [RAL]), a town of Benjamin (cp below, 2), theoretically included by later writers among the so-called I^vitical cities (see Levites), Josh. 21 18 P; i Ch. 66o[45] (AfX^ox [B], -toe and anaGcoG [A], cnaGcoG [L]. Neh. 727 NAGcoG [A ; om. B]).

The form of the ethnic varies in edd. and versions2(cp also Antothijah). -Abiezek, 2, is called 'nh|yn, 28.2827, AV the Anethothite (awodeiTTjs [B], a.va6uS. [A], -loCi [L]), 'n"in3j;n, iCh. 2712 (AV, Anetothite, 6 ef o^aea>9 [BAL]), and finally 'nhjy^, i Ch. 11 28 (AV Antothite, ofafliodteli [BA], -<oflm7? [L]). The last-mentioned form is used to designate Jehu, 5, in i Ch. Vl 3 (o ameu>e[]i [BAL], -)3u>9ei [] ; 4, ava6<ad. [({] not in Heb. or i'a). RV in each case Anathothite.

The name appears to be the plural of An.\th, and may refer to some images of that goddess which once stood there. Under the form Anath the place seems to be once referred to in the Talmud ( Yoma \oa), where its building is assigned to Ahiman the Anakite. Tradition said that Abiathar, the priest in David's time, had 'fields' at Anathoth (1K.226); and

1 Reading in Judg. 56, 'In the days of Shamgar and Ben Anath.' The notice in 3 31, which is much later than the song (see Moore) is, of course, valueless.

2 Ba. and Ginsb., however, read everywhere 'DIDij; (cp the former's note on i Ch. 11 28). ' Exceptionally in Sam. I.e. Ginsb.

Jeremiah was born of a priestly family which had property there (Jer. 1 1 2927 827-9, o-vavo.Owd [A*t'. 7] 37 12). It is once referred to by Isaiah (Isa. IO30), and is mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. 9), Ezra 223 = Neh. 7 27 = i Esd. 5 18 {ivarov [B]).

The connection of Anathoth with Jeremiah gives a special interest to its identification. A tradition, not older than the 15th century, fixes it at Kariet el-'Enab (Robinson's Kirjaih-jearim) ; but, as Robinson has shown, it can only be the village now called 'Atiata, which is situated NE. of Jerusaleni, just at the distance required by the Onomasticon, and by the reference in Isa. IO30. 'Anata is well-placed, but only froin a strategical point of view. Eastward and south- eastward its inhabitants look down on the Dead Sea and the Lower Jordan ^striking elements in a landscape, no doubt, but depressing. Jerusalem is quickly accessible by the Wady Sulem and Scopus, but is not within sight. Here the saddest of the prophets presumably spent his earlier years.

2. b. Becher (q.v.) in genealogy of Benjamin [ 9, ii. a], iCh.7 8(ai'ae<oi'[BAL]).

3. Signatory to the covenant (Neh. 10 19 [20]). See Ezra, i. 7- I- K. c.


(AfKYPA). Acts2729. See Ship.


(AN^peAC [Ti. WH] 'manly'), one of Chri.st's twelve disciples. Like Philip, he bore a Greek name ; but so did many Jews of his time, and in Dio Cassius (6832) we meet with another instance of a Jew called Andrew.

Besides the account of his call (see Peter), and his inclusion in the lists of the apostles (see Apostle, i), nothing is said of Andrew in the Synoptics, except that, in Mk. 183, he appears as one of the inner circle within the twelve, for he is one of the four who question Christ ' privately ' about the impending ruin of the temple.

In the Fourth Gospel the picture is more fully drawn, and in one respect completes and explains the account of Andrew's call given in the Synoptics. We read that he belonged originally to Bethsaida (Jn. 1 44), that he was a disciple of the Baptist and heard his witness to Christ, that he and a companion (no doubt John) asked the wandering teacher where he dwelt, and went with him to his temporary home. Then, having ' found the Messiah,' Andrew made his brother, Simon Peter, a sharer in his joy. We next meet with Andrew,

on the E. of the lake of Galilee, at the miraculous feeding of the multitude, on which occasion it is he that tells our Lord (68/) of the lad in the crowd who has ' five barley loaves and two fishes. ' Once more, when the end is near, he shows in a memorable scene his special intimacy with the Master. When Greeks approach Philip with the 'desire to see Jesus,' it is to Andrew first that Philip communicates the request which they together lay before Christ (Jn. 12 22).

The rest of the NT, apart from the list of the disciples in Actsl 13, is absolutely silent alx)ut Andrew. Such other tradition as we have is worthless.

Eusebius (^i5'iii.)speaksof him as preaching in Scythia, and we have in Andrew's 'Acts' the story of his martyrdom, at Patrae in Achaia, on a cross shaped like the letter X. Acts

of Andrew the Apostle were in circulation among the Gnostics of the second century, but survived only in various Catholic recensions of much later date. Harnack enumerates (i) Acta AndrtiF et Matthiie (and their mission to the Anthropophagi) in Greek (edited by Tisch. Act. A/>ost. Af>ocrypli.), Syriac (edited by Wright, Apoc. .Acts 0/ the A/>ostlcs), Ethiopic, and Coptic (fragmentary). The Latin version survives only in its influence on the Anglo-Saxon Andreas and Elene by Cyne- wulffand in the Mi> acuta />. Andreir by Gregory of Tours; see Lips. A/>okr. Af: -gesch. 1 543^, cpp. 27. (i) Acta Petri et Andretr, in Greek (fragments edited by Tisch.) as well as in an Ethiopic recension and a Slavonic translation (cp Lips. 1 553^/^). (3) Martyriunt Andreie in various Greek recensions (one edited by Tisch.), and in Latin (Harnack, Altchrist. Lit. 1 t^y /., cp Lips. 1 564 y?;). A 'gospel of Andrew' is mentioned in the Decretum Gelasii.


(anAronikoc [VA ; anAroyion] 2 Mace. 4 38 A*). 1. The Deputy of Antiochus Epiphanes

ill Antioch, who (according to a Mace. 431^), at the instigation of Menelaus, put to death the deposed high priest Onias a deed for which he was himself slain with ignominy on the return of the king. See MACCABEES, Second, 3, end.

2. Deputy of Antiochus at (Jerizim (a Mace. 623). See Maccabees, Second, 3, end.

3. Andronicus and Junias are named in Rom. I67 as kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of I'aul, as of note among the apostles, and as having been ' in Christ ' before him. The expression 'kinsmen,' if taken literally, seems to imply that they were Jesvs by birth ; ' fellow-prisoners,' on the hypothesis that Rom. 16 3-20 Ix^longs really to an Ephesian Epistle, has l)een conjectured by Weiz- siicker to allude to an imprisonrm-nt which they shared with Paul in Ephesus, most likely in connection with the great 'affliction' (2 Cor. 1 8-11), which uhimately led to his leaving that city (.\cts 1923-20 1) ; on the application of the term ' apf)stle ' to them see ApoSTLii, 3. The name Andronicus was not un- common among Greek slaves ; and it has been con- jectured that this Andronicus may ha- e been the Jewish freedman of a Greek master.

In the lists of 'the seventy disciples' which we owe to the Pscudo-Dorotheus and the Pseudo-Hippolytu.s Andronicus is spoken of as bishop of ' Pannonia,' or of 'Spain.' In the frag- ments of the (( Inostic) n-ept'oioi '\utdvt'Ov, he and his wife Drusiana figure prominently as hosts of the apostle John at Kphesus, and he is represented as having been made by that apostle rrpoe&pov, or president, of the church of Smyrna. In the Greek church Andronicus is commemorated, along with Crescens, Silas, and Epsnetus, on 30th July. See Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. (Index, p. i8^).


(D:V)' iCh.673[58]-Josh.l92i En-gannim



(i:^). I- (Sam. Dljy ; avvav [AZ?EL] ; Jos. eNNHpoc. a Hebronite) Gen. 14i324t. Perhaps a local name; cp Nelr, a hill near Hebron {ZDMG l'-i479 L'sSj). The correctness of the name Aner, how- ever, is doubtful. The at'vai' of (S points to jry, Enan (/.(., place of a spring), a name which may refer to one of the si.x springs near Hebron e.g. , the deep spring of Sarah called 'Ain Jedideh (Baed.*^) 137), at the E. foot of the hill on which ancient Hebron lay.

2. (a^ua/) [B], (.vr\p [A], a.v. [L]) a city in Western Manasseh ( i Ch. 670 [55!) perhaps a corruption of T.XANACII (-Ji-n) ; cp Josh. 21 25. t. k. c.




The English word ' angel ' is a transcrip- 

tion of d77fXoy, 's translation of Heb. mal'dkh

1. Names[edit]

nf<?D)- The English word denotes primarily superhuman beings ; but both the Hebrew and the Greek terms are quite general, and, signifying simply messenger, are used indifferently of human or superhuman beings. ^ Other terms, less ambiguous in this particular respect, also occur.

These are : ' gods ' (dmVk. cp Ps. 8 5 [6], and see AV, RV mg. ih. 8'2i6 97 7 138 i), 'sons of [the] god[s]' (o'^Wrtl 'J', cpGen.624 Jobl62i 387, or d'Sk :2, Ps. 20 i 89 6f7], EV text), ' (sons of] the mighty,' ' mighty ones ' (oTax. Ps. "8 25, cp Ih. 103 20, nj "123), ' holy ones ' (c>C*ip. Jb. 5 i Ps. 89 5 [6] Zech. 145 Dan. 4 14 [17] 8 13), 'watchers' (VTy, Dan. 4 14 [17]), 'host of lieaven (<2ci;i x^s, i K. 22 19 Dt. 17 3), ' host of the height ' (cha xas. Is. 2421), or 'host of Y.ihwc'(nirT Ka^i, Josh. 5 14, cp use of Kas in Ps. 1032i 1482 Neh.96, and 'God's camp,' Cm':;N nmr:, Gen. 32 2 [3]). Iti the case of Ps.fi8i7 [18] (<sSk

IKJC*) we owe the AV rendering 'thousands of angels' to old leb. tradition (Targ. S.aad. and Abulw.), which treated the difficult jKjc- as a synonym of -jnSs (cp Del., ad he). RV ' thousands upon thousands ' is equally hazardous ; cp Dan. 7 10. In the NT also we find other terms in use : ' spirits ' (n-i-eu^ara, Heb. 1 14), ' principalities' (apx<, Rom. 838), 'powers' (iufo/ifiS

' Karppe {Joum. As. ser. ix., 9 128) reads -jVo. a derivative of -^Sn, as if ' the walker ' = ' the messenger," or Yahwi marching (Is. 03 1, SBOT) as opposed to Yahwi mounted on the cherub (Ps. 18 10 [I I]). "^^^

ii., i^oytrlax, Eph. O12), 'thrones' (0poi/oi, Col. 1 16X and

'donunions' (icupi6t>)t, i/'.): ip further Cremer, Lex. ATO 20^ 237, and the Heb. and NT Lexicons, i.jv.

The earhest OT writings contain no definite or systematic angelology, but indicate a prevalent Ijclief

2 Pre-exilic '" ^^^'^^ superhtiman beings Ix^sides Yaliwe. These were (i) the 'other gods' or ' gods of the nations,' who were credited with real existence and activity ; cp, e.g., Nu. 21 29 Judg. 1 1 24 and V. Baudissin, Slud. 155-79- (2) Closely connc-cied with these were the 'sons of God' j.<r. , memlx-rs of the divine guild. There is but one pre-exilic reference to these (Gen. 62 4), whence it api)ears that they were not subject to Yahw^, but might break through the natural order of his world with impunity. (3) Attendants on Yahw6 in Is. 6 some of these attendants are termed Seraphim (see Serai'HIM), but others distinct from these seem to be implied ; cp v. 8. In a similar scene (i K. '2219-22), those who attend Yahwe and form his council are termed collectively ' the host of heaven.' Such divine councils are also implied in Gen. 322 11 7 (both J ) ; cp the plurals in these passages with that in Is. 68, and the question in i K. 222o. In another passage (Jos. 5 14^) the pre-exilic origin of which, however, has Ijeen questioned (Kue. Hex. 248 ET)^ the host of Yahwe appears as disciplined and under a captain. According to some, the ' hosts ' in the phrase ' Yahw^ (God of) hosts ' a phrase current in early times were angels (Che. Frofh. /s.*^' \\\ff.\ see further Names, 123). The original text of Deut. 33 2/. contained no reference to angels (see Dillm. Comrn.; cp also Driver). Another element in early Hebrew folklore worthy of notice in the present connection is the belief in the horsemen of the air (2 K. 2 12 617). For a parallel in modern Bedouin folklore cp Doughty, Ar. De. 1 449. ' The melaika are seen in the air like horsemen, tilting to and fro.' Angelic horsemen play a considerable part in later literature e.g., in Zech. , Apoc.

The most noteworthy features, then, of the pre-exilic angelology are the following ; (i) except in Gen. 28 32, these beings are never termed ' angels.' ' Angel ' occurs frequently in the singular, but only in the jihrase 'angel of Yahwe' (more rarely, 'of God'), which denotes, not a messenger of, and distinct from, Yahwe, but a manifestation of Yahwe himself in human form (see TiiKOPiiANiES, 4). Kostcrs treats even Cien. 2810-1217 32i[2] I81/. 19i/. as statements of the manifestation of the one God in many forms (cp W'KS Rel. Sem. 426/., 2nd ed. 445/), and concludes that, before the Exile, -jh^d was used exclusivel}- of appear- ences of Yahwe. Against this, Schultz's reference {OT TheoL2^ig) to i S. 299 2 S.14 17 1927[28] is not quite conclusive. (2) These attendants on Yahwe are not also messengers to men. Even if the angels of Gen. 28 32 be distinct from God, they bring no message. For such a function there was no need so long as Yahw6 himself appeared to men. (3) Beside these .sulxjrdinate divine beings that attend Yahwe, but have no relations with men, there are other beings ('other gods,' 'sons of the gotls') which are not subject to Yahw^, and do enter into relations with men.

Comparatively few as are the early references to angels or kindred beliefs (cp Demons, 1), they are ... 3'et such as to justify us in attributing a

comparatively rich folk-lore on these matters to the early Hebrews ; but it is not until the exilic and post-exilic periods that angels come into prominence theologically. They do so then in consequence of the maturing belief, on the one hand, in the transcendence of Yahw^, on the other, in his supremacy. The develop- ment of angelology at this time must also have been favoured by the contact of the Jews with the Persians ; and some details of the later doctrine may be due to the same influence e.g. , the naming of angels, although the great majority of the names themselves (as in Enoch 6 69) are quite clearly Hebraic, though of a late type (cp JIPN, p. 2IO).

With the growing sense of Yahw^'s transcendence, belief in his self-manifestation in human form ceased ; and thus the phrase 'angel of Yahwe,' set free from its old meaning, now came to denote one of the lieings intermediate between Yahw6 and men. At first it was apparently the title of a particular angel (Zech. 1 ii/. ), but subsequently it Ijccame a quite general term (note the pi. Ps. 10320, cp 347[8] and NT passim). It is now by angels, and no longer directly, that Yahwe communicates with men even prophets. The e.xperience of Ezekiel marks the transition Yahwe speaks to him, sometimes directly (44 2), sometimes through another (40 3). With Zechariah the change is complete. He never sees Yahw6 ; he receives all divine instructions through angels (contrast Am. 7/. ). Daniel receives the explanation of his visions in the same way ; and in NT, warnings or other conmiunications of the divine will are given by angels (Mt. 1 20 '2 13, Lk. 1 19, ActslOsso). The angels thus become the intermediaries of Yahwe's revelation ; but they are also the instruments of his aid (Ps. 91ii Dan. 828, and frequently ; cp later, 2 Mace. 1] 6 3 Mace. 61S, Susan. 42^ [in LXX, but not in Theod.], Bel and Drag. 34-39 ; cp Acts 82639/ Tobit, passim. Acts \llff., and especially Heb. 1 14), or punishment (Ps. 7849355/ Enoch 533 6Ti62ii 63i Apoc. Bar. 21 23 Rev. 6/, also in Job20is 8823 40ii \z<. 6 in Heb. and EV] and see further below, 5). Especially prominent in the apocaly[)tic literature is the cognate t)>lief in the intercession of angels with God, in behalf of the righteous, or against the unrighteous : see, e.g. , Enoch 9 10 152 406 (where the function is specially referred to Gabriel, 4O69 ; yet cp also Tob. 12 12 15 where Raphael intercedes) 99316 104 i Rev. 83/ Cp also in or, Zech. 1 12 Job 5 I 8823 Eccles. 56[5], and perhaps in N'T, Mt. I810, unless this be a case of angelic i^uardianship.

In other respects also, the later angelologv shows the influence of the growing sense of Yahwe's transcendence ; the angels, exalted far above men by

4. Supremacy of Yahwe[edit]

the functions just mentioned, are them- selves aba.sed before God (Job 4 18). The awful exaltation of even angels above men, is prominent in Daniel (Dan. 816-18 IO16/). The count- less number of the angels is emphasised (Job 8823, Dan. 7 10, and later, Enoch 40 1 718 Mt. 2653 Heb. 12 22 Apoc. Bar. 48io 51 n 59ii), and they are divided into ranks. Even in Zech. the angel of Yahw6 is a ' kind of grand vizier receiving the report of (less exalted) angels' (Smend). This conception of ranks becomes, later, more detailed' (see Dan. 10 13 12 1 Tob. 12 15, and Enoch e.g., chap. 40), and creates in Gk. the term d/)xa77fXos (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 67 ; i Thcs. 4 16 Judeg); it may be traced farther, in NT, in the

J [The influence of non-Jewish upon Jewish beliefs can here scarcely be denied. These are the facts of the case : In Daniel (1013) we hear of a class of 'chief princes,' two of whom (Gabriel and Michael, 11) are named (chaps. 10-12 ; cp also Raphael and Ukiel). In Tob. (12 15) the number of the 'holy angels who present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One,' is given as seven (if the text is correct). In Enoch the number of the chief angels varies between, three, four, .six, and seven (see chaps. 20 40 z 78 i 89 i 90 21 31, and other passages). Manifestly this highest class of angels was suggested by the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas or Amsha.spands (' immortal holy ones '), who (like the counsel- lors of the king of Persia, Ezra 7 14) are seven ; and this seems to be confirmed by the reference to the archangels in the Book of Tobit, which also mentions the Zend name of the chief demon (see AsMODEUs). In referring to this Iranian belief, however, we must not forget the possibility that it is to some extent historically connected with Babylonian .spirit-lore. The cultus of the seven planets is no doubt primeval in Babylonia, and may have spread thence to the Iranian peoples. To explain the belief in the archangels soleljj from Babylonian sources would be plausible only if the Zoroastrian Gathas, which are pervaded by the belief in the Amshaspands, were not earlier than the time of Philo. For this bold theory see Darmesteter, Le ZendaveUa 3 56 ('93), etc. ; but contrast the same writer's earlier theory in SBE (ZcnJavcsta, i. Introd.). t.k.c]

references to the 'seven spirits of God' (Rev. 4s cp 82), and to Michael (Judeg Rev. \1^) and Gabriel (Lk. 1 19) ; probably also in the use of several terms together, in certain passages [e.g. , thrones, dominions, principali- ties, [jowers, C'ol. 1 16), and perhaps in the term ' elect angels' (i Tim. hi\).

The doctrine of Yahwe's supremacy involved either an absolute denial of the existence of other super- human Ixiings or their subordination to him. To the latter method of acconmiodation post-exilic angelology owes some striking features. Thus, the patron angels of nations (clearly referred to in Dan. IO1320 12i, probably also in Is. 24 21/: Joel 3 [4] 11 Pss. 82 58 10 ; see Che. Book of Fsahns^^'i 229^ and comm.) are merely the ancient 'gods of the nations' for which, in this connection, cp especially Dt. 419 292$ f 338 trans- formed to suit the new doctrine. Again, the 'sons of the lilohim '- formerly independent of Yahwe, whose laws they broke with impunity now become identified with the angels (cp Ps. 29 1 with 1032o, and @'s transla- tion of Gen. 62 [not L] Job 16 etc., cp also Lk. 20 36) ; as such they constitute his council and do his bidding (Jobl6 2i; cp Zech. In/). Similarly, the host of heaven, which in the later years of the monarchy had been favourite objects of worship (cp, e.g., Zeph. I5 Jer. 82 Dt. 4 19), and therefore rivals of Yahwe, now again become subject to him and do him homage ( Neh. 9 6) ; he is as supreme over them as over men (Is. 45 12, cp 40 26) ; he is equally supreme over all gods (e.g. , cp Ps. 964).

On the other hand, the difficulty with which Yahwe's claim to universal w^orship against all others was B Suuremacv "^^^^^^I'^hed is also reflected in the new

"incomDlete ^"g^'lology. Yahwe's supremacy over ^ ' the 'gods,' or the 'host of heaven," was won and maintained only by force (Job 252 cp 2I22 Is. 2421 3445; cp 27 1 for the passages in Job see Davidson's, for those in Isaiah, Cheyne's Comm.). This incomplete assimilation of the ' other gods ' etc. to beings wholly subservient to Yahw^, combined with a growing dislike to attribute evil or disorder directly to him, led to the differentiation of angels as beneficent or maleficent (see Demons, 5, Satan, 3) ; but the or nowhere lays stress on the moral character of angels, or knows anything of their 'fall.' Conse- quently, angels were divided not into good and bad, but into those who worked wholly, and those who worked only partly, in obedience to God. This latter division still seems to hold its own in NT alongside of the former ; and, for this reason, in passages such as Rom. 838 I Cor. 1024/, the question 'Are the angels referred to good or bad?' is probably out of place (cp Everling).

For several centuries after the Exile the lx;lief in angels did not gain equal prevalence in all circles : thus G Schools "*^^^ mentions them (on Gen. 1 26 2r see

of belief.


) ; the Priestly Chronicler does so but rarely save when quoting directly from hi sources and Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees, are marked more by the absence than by the presence of such references ; ' Angel ' does not occur in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 4821. Still later the differences become conspicuous ; the Sadducees were credited with complete scepticism (Acts238); the EssENES {t/.v. , 3) attached an exaggerated importance to the doctrine ; the popular Pharisaic party and all the NT writers share, in general, the popular beliefs. Yet in John angels are alluded to only in 20 12 I51 (a pa.ssage based on an OT narrative), I229 (a saying of the populace), and the intrusive verse 54; the epistles contain no mention of them (cp the comparative infrequency of references in John to demons {i^.v. , 6). Several features of NT angelology have been already incidentally discussed ; they are common to both Jewish 7 Annr>a1vnaaa '"^"^ Christian Writings. Scarcely less S NT influential over the writers of the NT than the OT were the apocalypses then already extant especially Enoch. It is in Enoch we

8. Jesus.[edit]

first see elaborated a doctrine of the ' fall ' of angels. The fall is regarded as the punishment for the intercourse mentioned in (ien. 62-4. !i"d for an improper revelation of 'the secret things of the world' (cp in NT Jude 6 2lVt. 24). Through their fall they Ijecome inferior to men, who therefore judge them (En. I44-7 102; cp I Cor. 63 Heb. 2). Enoch .should be especially com- pared with Revelation.

The influence of the OT may be clearly seen in the NT angelophanies, which seem moflelled on those of the early OT narratives, only that now, under the influence of the later development, the angel is quite distinct from God (ActslOs/ is not an exception). These angelophanies abound in the nativity and re- surrection narratives and in Acts (519826-40 10 3-7 30-32 127-11 2723), but are conspicuous by their absence from the narratives of the life of Christ the badly attested passage Lk. 2243 being unitiuc, except so far as Mt. 4ii = Mk. I13 (contrast Lk.iijf.) may be considered parallel.

Jesus accepts the popular belief in the existence of angels, but never (even in Mt. I810 or 2653) counte- nances the l>elief that they influence life in j the present perhaps in the parable of the i wheat and the tares (,Mt. 1824-30 37-40) he directly discountenances it. All he says of them has reference to themselves alone, or to their relations to men after life. Thus, at the second coming they will accompany the Son of Man (Mt. I627 and parallels ; Jn. I51), and will then separate the good from the evil {e.^. , Mt. 1841 ; I cp Lk. I622). They do not marry (Mt. 2230, and | parallels); their knowledge is limited (Mt. 24 36 = Mk. I032) ; and they rejoice over repentant sinners (Lk. 1 .') 10 ; cp Lk. 1 2 8/ , with w hich contrast Mt. 1 32/ , and cp earlier, Job 8823). In particular, Jesus breaks away from the prevailing tendency to make angels the inter- mediaries of revelation : he himself liecomes the sole revealer (Mt. 11 27 Jn. 176 ; cp 146^), he will himself always be with his disciples (Mt. 2820), and will instruct [ them directly (Lk. 2I15), or through the Spirit whom ' he sends (Jn. 1326 I41726). Thus this part of the doctrine of angels was doomed to give way to the Christian doctrines of the abiding presence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. It still survives, however, in Revelation (li 17i2l9; cp also in the contemporary Jewish .'Ipoc. Bar. 55 3, 'The angel Ramid who pre- sides over true visions'); also in Acts (103^ 2723?) yet here alongside of the new belief (10 13-16). Paul p . already shows the influence of the teaching of i Jesus he claims to receive his gospel direct from him (Gal. I1215/: cp Acts93-6) but still shares ((jal.819) the common belief (Acts 753 Heb. 22 Jos. .I///. XV. 03 ; cp Dt. 882 ) in the past instrumentality of angels in revelation, perhaps also in the present possibility ofthe same (Gal. 18; cp?4i4). With him, too, angels still play a large part in human life ; his own practice and practical exhortations are governed by this l)elief (i Cor. 49 63 11 10). An emphatic warning, however, is uttered against a practice (which was springing up in some quarters) of worshipping angels (Col. 2 18 cp Rev. 19 10). In the same epistle the creation of angels is asserted (I16) a point to which, as might be expected, no reference had been made in OT, where they are once mentioned as being present at the creation of the world. Job 887 (in Jewish literature, cp Jub. 2 2 Apoc. Bar. 216). The question whether Paul associated angels with cosmical forces turns on the interpretation of ra <TT0ix^7a rod Kde/xov, Gal. 4 3 Col. 2820 (see, on the one hand, Lightfoot, in loc, on the other, Everling, as cited Iielow, and cp lu.KMENT.s). Such an association would, at least, have accorded with the tendency of the time : note the angels of winds, sun, fire, and water, etc. (Rev. 7i 19i7 14i8 16 cp Heb. 1 7 and Jn. 54, and, somewhat earlier, Enoch 60 11/; 61 10). The tendency began much earlier; in j the or angels and stars are closely associated (cp Job !

387 Is. 344, and, in general, the double meaning attaching to the phrase 'host of heaven'); and the transition from Ps. IO44 to a fixed belief in elemental angels is easy. See Persia.

The literature of the subject is large ; all the Old and New Testament Theologies contain discussions ; on the OT, Fie|)en- bring's Thiol, de Cancien Test. 1888 (KT, 10. Literature. New York, 93) and Smend's A T KeL-geuh. (<V3) are soecially helpful. The chief mono- graphs for the OT are by Kosters (' De Mal'ach Yahwe ' and ' Het ontstaan en de onlwikkeling dtr Angelologie onder Israel ' rZ/.Tit 367-415 ['75], 10 34-69 113-141 ['76]; for the Pauline Doctrine, by Everling (Pie Paulinische Angelologie und Daiitonologie ['881). On the vocabulary of the subject see M. Schwab, / 'ocahu/aire de C angelologie (tapris maniiscrits hel>reu.r (Paris, '97). The question of foreign influence is dis- cus.sed by Kohut (Ueher d. jiid. Angelologie u. I>,'monologie in ihrer Abluingigkeit voin I'arsismus); for further literature on this point see Che. OI's 282. See further the valuable discus- sions of Montefiore (///^(i. Led. viii., esp. p. 429^), and Clicyne ipPs 322-327, 334-337)1 and cp Lueken, Michael <^()9i).

G. c. G.


(Is. 198Hab. I15). See Hook, 3, Fisii. 3.


(DJ/^3N, surely not ' mourning of the people ' [Ges.], but miswritten [see "] for c^-Vk. see Eliam ; differently Gray, ///*.V 44 n. i, who would omit ., and derive from cy: ; aAiaAeim [H]. aniaaa [A], eN. [L]), in genealogy of Manasskh (i Ch. 7i9t). T. K. c.


(D'JV' AiCAM [B], <^NelA^ [A], -iB [L]). Josh, losof, a hill town of Judah, mentioned after Eshtemoa (a name etjually distorted in "). I'erhaps the modern el-Ghuwein, which lies to the south of el-Khalil (Hebron) between es-Semu" and Tell 'Arad.


(anhBon [Ti. WH], Mt. 2323t)or Diu.(RV mg. ) is the plant Ancthuvi ^raveolens.^ The correct rendering is 'dill,'^ and the plant is distinct from Pimpinella Anisum, which is the modern ' anise.' The biblical plant is described (Fluckiger and H anbury's Pharmacop-aphia '-' 327 /. ), as ' an erect, glaucous annual plant, with finely striated stems, usually one foot to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers. It is indigenous to the Mediterranean region. Southern Russia, and the Caucasian provinces, but is found as a corn- field weed in many other countries, and is frequently cultivated in gardens. ' ^

It is mentioned in Mt. 2823, along with mint and cunmiin,^ as being subjected by the scribes and Pharisees to tithe. This practice accords with the general principle stated at the commencement of the Mishnic tract on 'tithes' ('Whatsoever is food, and is private possession, and has its increase out of the earth, is subject to tithe ' a rule based on the precept of Deut. 1422, 'Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by year'), and the liability of dill in particular to tithe is, in the Talmud, specially mentioned (see the references in Celsius, Hierobot. 1 497). N. -M. W. T. T.-D.


These have ever been favourite ornaments among Orientals.' Prob- ably the oldest specimens are some in gold and silver which have been found in Egypt, where they appear to have been worn by men as well as women. The chains obliged the wearers to take short and tripping steps. To enhance the effect, bells were (at

1 The Syriac and the Ar.abic versions correctly render by the word sitehhetid, shihitta name for this plant which is probably derived from Persian (see Liiw, 373). t^ r l

2 This, though supplanted by 'anise' in all the English versions from Wyclif onwards, is the word used in the A.S. version, ' myntan and dile and cymmyn."

3 Virgil gives it a place in the flower-garden (h.cl. 2 48), and Pliny in the veget.ible-garden (//A' xix. 8 52). Cp the Creek reff. in Liddell and Scott. . . ,

In the parallel passage in Lk. (11 42) dill is not mentioned 'mint and rue and every herb (jrofAoxai'Oi').' >. .

Cp Ar. halhal, and Ok. ntpic^vfu.ov and irfM(TitAi, the latter of which is 0s rendering of the Heb. DjaO (in the plur. or dual) ' breeches.'

any rate, in later times) attached to the chain a practice which is alluded to in terms of disapproval in the Koran (5r. 2431). Ornaments of this nature are referred to in Is. 3 18.

They are here called C'03}/|,1 RV ' anklets,' AV ' tinkling orna- ments ' ( e/xn-Xdicia), a word from which comes the denominative verb in 7'. 16 (r!:D3yn rf'i'Jin ' they make a tinkling with their feet,' irai^ovcrai). Similar is ^^{?"i Is. 3 2ot, RV ' ankle chains,' AV ' ornaments of the legs,' uncertain (cp Targ. K'SjT 'Tc) ; cp mi'SK. ^Jn- 31 5. RV as above, AV ' chains,' ^KiSuyy. In spite of its apparently obvious connection with ty^ 'to walk,' rnys 's applied also to ornaments worn on the arms : see Bkacelet, 5.


(anna [BNA]), the Greek form of the name Hannah.

1. Wife of Tobit (Tob. Igf.).

2. Daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Lk. 236-38). Like Simeon, she represents the class of those who ' waited for the consolation of Israel,' and, like him, she is said to have had the gift of prophecy. Being constantly in the temple, and prepared for the honour by fastings and prayers, she was enabled to meet the child Jesus and his parents, when, like Simeon, she burst into a prophetic song of praise. She is also, it would seem, a prototype of the ' widows indeed ' (see Widow) of the early Christian community (i Tim. 659): hence the particularity with which the circumstances of her widowhood are described.

The name Anna or Anne became common among Christians from the tradition that the mother of the Virgin Mary was so called.


(c&NAAC [A]), lEsd. 523 AV = Ezra235 Sen A AH.


(ANN AC [A]). lEsd. 932 RV [Heb. J^H, 5o] = Ez. 10 31 Harim.


(annac [Ti. WH] ; kai- A4)Ac[li- ^^IIJ)- ln6.\.i). Quirinius, who on the de- position of Archelaus became governor of Syria, followed the custom of the Herodian family and appointed a new high priest. His choice fell on a certain Ananos (so in Josephus) or Annas (so in NT), son of Sethi (Jos. Ze^i) who continued to hold the office until the change of government in 15 .\. I). Valerius Gratus, who succeeded Quirinius, gave the post in succession to three men, none of whom, however, held it for more than a year. The second of the three was a son of Annas, called Eleazar by Josephus {An/, .xviii. 22). Atlast, in 18 A.D., Valerius found in Joseph, called Caiaphas, one who was strong enough to hold the office till 36 A. U. Then Vitellius (35-39 .A.D. ) once more, in 36 and 37, appointed, one after the other, two sons of Annas named Jonathan and Theophilus (^/. xviii. 4353). Jonathan still held a prominent position in 50-52 {/i/ ii. 12 sy.), a point of which we have good proof in the fact that Peli.x caused him to be assassinated (B/h. IS3 Anf. -xx. 8s). As in Acts 46, Annas, Caiaphas, Jonathas (so D ; the other MSS have Joannes, EV John), and Alexander are assigned high-priestly rank, and the first three can be identified from Josephus, Jonathan being a son, andC.MAPHAS, according to Jn. 18 13, a son-in-law, of Annas, we seem to have good reason for conjecturing Alexander to be the Graecised name of Eleazar the son of Annas. .

Cai.M'H.as, then, was the acting high priest at the time of the trial of Jesus. His long term of office shows that in his relations with the Romans he nmst have been oljsequious and adroit. Mk. and Lk. do not mention him in their account of the passion ; but in Jn. II49I813/ 2428 and Mt. 26357, we read that he presided over the proceedings of the Synedrium ; he therefore it was who rent his clothes. According to

1 Cp 03? a fetter (?) in Pr. 7 22, the pr. name HMV (see AcHsAii) and the Ar. 'ikds, a chain connecting the head and forefoot of a camel the usual method of hobbling the animal.

Jn. 11 49-52, he became also an involuntary prophet as to what the death of Jesus meant.' With regard to his character in general, the accounts accessible to us give no details.

The most important personality in the group would appear to have been old Annas. This seems to be sufficiently implied in the fact that four of his sons' and a son-in-law successively held the high - priestly office^whether we assume that Annas expressly wrought for this end, or whether it was simply because those in power sought by this means to win him over to them- selves. Only on the assumption that he was, in truth, the real manager of affairs, can we account for it that, according to Jn. I813-24, he gave a private hearing in the case of Jesus, as also that Lk. (Lk. 82) names him as colleague with Caiaphas, and (.'\cts46) enumerates him in the first place, along with Caiaphas and two of his high-priestly sons, as holding high-priestly rank. Other instances, however, of a similar co-ordination of past high priests are not unknown ; for example, in the case of Jonathan, son of Annas (/?/ ii. I25/. ), of Ananias son of Nedebaios (Ant. xx. 92-9; see AnaniA-S, 9), and of the younger Ananos and Jesus son of Gamaliel, both of whom were high priests for some time during the years 62-65, and had the conduct of affairs in their hands during the first period of the Jewish wars.

The Annas (Ananos) just mentioned, son of Annas, appointed in 62 A.D. by Agrippa II., availed himself of the confusion following on the death of Festus to procure the death of his enemies by tumultuary sentence. Among the victims of his tyranny was, it would seem, James, the brother of the Lord. The passage relating to it in Josephus (20 91), however, may perhaps be a Christian interpolation (see James, 3, end). In any case, the king himself, even before the arrival of the new pro- curator, put an end to Annas's reign of terror by deposing him from the high-priesthood after a tenure of three months. H. v. s.


(anngic [B]). I Esd. 5 16 RV, RVmg. Annias, AV Ananias [q.v., i).


(annoynon [A], om. BL), i Esd. 848, a name not in Ezra 8 19 in Ezra's caravan (see Ezra, i. 2, ii. 15 (i) d) supposed by some to be a corruption of ' with him ' (IDX) in Ezra, which may itself be a mis- read sign of the accusative (so "*'-).


In the OT two distinct Hebrew terms, j frequently occurring, are translated in EV by 'anoint,'

1. Terms.[edit]

,hile a third (-;o:) is mcorrectly so under- stood in Ps. 2 6 by Targ. and Sym. and also by Ewald (cp We. Heid.K^^ 118). [a) tjio {siik) is always (Dt. 2840 Ruth 83 2S.I220I42 2Ch.28i5 Ezek. I69 Dan. IO3 Mic. 615) used of the application of unguents to the human body as a matter of toilet, and hence Ex. 30 32 means that the holy anointing oil shall not be used for ordinary toilet purposes, (b) nc'D (vidshah) and its derivatives.^ In this case we have to distinguish between the primary physical, and a secondary and metaphorical use. In its physical sense nao is used (1) rarely, probably with the retention of the original meaning of the root, of rubbing an unguent or other substance on an object,*.^'., oil on shields (Is. 21 5

t It has been suggested that the reference to his prophesying may have arisen out of a popular etymology of Caiaphas, cp Ar.

  • '//= soothsayer ('qui movit vestigia et indicia rerum, physio-

gnomus,' Freyt.) ; cp Nestle, /?/7"/r. 40 149, and see Palm. Gram. 127, n. 4. Blass thinks that Nestle has upset the etymology from KS'3 'stone' and KB'3 'oppression,' by showing that the name in .\r.-imaic is written with p, not 3.

2 The fourth, .Matthias, was appointed to the oflfice for a short time, between 41 and 44, by Agrippa ; perhaps .\nnas did not live to .see this, and certainly he did not survive to see the priesthood held by his fifth son, .Ananos II. (in 62 a.d.).

' On the.se, as well as on several matters referred to in the course of this article, Weinel's study ' nrO und seine Derivate ' (/.ATli^ 18 1-82 ['98]) should be consulted. Unfortunately, it appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the present article.

aS. l2i), paint on a ceiling, Jer. 22i4 (here translated in EV by ' painted '), and probably we should interpret the word similarly in the recurring phrase {e.g. , in Ex. 292) 'wafers unleavened anointed with oil' ; (2) of the application of unguents to persons or things as a religious rite ; for details see below ( iff.), but observe that, with the possible' exception of Am. 66, npo 's never used in the sense of :jic- In its metaphorical sense na'O is used of the divine appointment or selection of a man for a particular purjKDse viz. , for the kingship (iS. lOi 15i7 2S. 127 2 K. 93612 Fs. 457[8] 892o[2i] 2 ('h. 227 ; cp below, 5). For the relation of the term n'ro to the usages under discussion see Messiah, i. 'Anoint' in Ps. 92io[ii] corresponds to Heb. SSj,'^ in Ps. 235 it corresponds to jb*! ; ' anointing" in the prob- ably corrupt passage Is. 10 27 corresponds to ice* ("*'^Q oni. ) and ' anointed ones ' in Zech. 4 14 (AV ; but RV ' sons of oil ' ; "K-^O viol r^j TrtirTjros) to \r\-i'r\ "33.

In NT the EV also confuses two sharply distinguished terms. XP"^' which in the LXX, as in classical Greek, may be used in a physical sense, is in the NT used ex- clusively (Lk. 4 iS [cp Is. 61 1] Acts 427 IO38 2 Cor. 1 21) of (jod in a metaphorical sense ; for we can hardly regard the quotation from Ps. 457[8] in Heb. I9 as an e.xception. The derivatives xpiatx-o. (ijn. 22027) and XptcT^s are used similarly ; but the compounds fjxploj (Rev. 3 18 also Tob. 68 [9] 11 8) and fVtxpiw (Jn. 96ii) retain the original physical sense.

Thus the NT use of XP"^ resembles the meta- phorical use of nro- The other NT term, d\ei(po}, is ahc'iiys used of the application of unguents to the body, whether (like the Heb. rj^o which it frequently represents, e.g., Ruth 3 3 Micah6i5, cp also 2 K. 4 2 0"'^'-) for toilet purposes (Mt. 617 Lk. 73846 Jn. 11 2), or medicin- ally (.VIk. 613 Ja. 514), or as a tribute of respect to the dead (Mk. 16 1 cp Jn. 1237).^

From the foregoing analysis of the terms, it will be clear that ' anointing ' was practised by the Hebrews both for secular and for sacred purposes. The unguent used was olive oil, with or without the addition of aromatic spices ; for details see On.. Anointing formed among the Hebrews, as among many other peoples (cp, d'._o'., PI. NN xVd. 1-6), a regular part of a full toilet, being in particular associated with washing (Ruth 83 Ezek. I69 Sus. 17) ; the omission of it was a sign of mourning, the resumption of the practice a sign that mourning was over (2 S. 142 Dan. 10 3 [cp Mt. 617] 2 S. 1220 Judith IO3 cp Is. 61 3 Eccl. 98) ; and hence ' to anoint ' is a suitable figure for 'to make glad' (Ps. 23$ cp 457 [8]). The head and face appear to have been most usually anointed (Ps. 104i5 Judith 16io Mt.617 Lk. 738 cp Ps.235 I4I5 Eccles. 98), and the anointing of the feet to have been a special luxury (Lk. 746 Jn. 12 3). The medicinal use of unguents is referred to not only in Ja. 5 14 Mk. 613, but also in Is. 16 Lk. IO34. On anointing the dead see Embalming.

Leaving the significance of anointing as a religious rite to a final section, we will here simply classify the

-i Rplie-iniK? persons or objects which were so

H+ a-nnlnH^o. anointed ; and first the persons, (a)

"'0" p^ri"^ l'^ ^'>^- '" '^ OT,%eciallySr!

'^ the earlier wntmgs, there are numerous

references to the anointing of kings (cp, e.g., 1 S. 1631a

1 Possible, but hardly probable (cp Gcs.-Ru., J.7'. riUS)- The feast described in the context is sacrificial: see i'. 4"and cp WRS AV/. Sem.^'i) 241, 258, 430 n. 4, and note that the word used in 7/. 6 for bowl (pnta) is elsewhere exclusively used in connection with .sacrifice ; cp Driver (ad loc.\ who, however, takes the passage as a description of effeminate luxury.

  • The text, however, is very questionable. Many (r^. Cheyne,

Psalms (1, Baethgen), following ujiart Sym. Jer., point 'n^3 instead of 'n?3, and translate ' my old age ' or ' my wasting strength' instead ot 'I am anointed.' In Psalmsi") Che. reads n'?0 = nxS3.

3 In Mk. 14 8t ' anoint ' is iivpi^ut (see Myrrh, a). 173

2. Toilet.[edit]

9 16 2 K. 23 30 Ecclus. 4613), and so fre()uently of the Hebrew kings to whom the term 'Messiah of Yahwe' belonged pre-eminently, if not exclusively, in the days of the monarchy and even later (Lam. 4 20) ; for the anointing of a Syrian king (by a Hebrew prophet) see

1 K.19i5. and cp the general reference in Judg. 9815, and ^w. 7V/I*. 376 ' Manahbi(r)ia, king of Egypt, . . . established my father . . . over the kingdom, and poured oil on his head.' {b) The prophet. How far it was usual to anoint a prophet we cannot say ; but we have one allusion (in a narrative of the 9ih or 8th cent. ) to such an anointing which camiot be reasonably explained away ; if ' anoint ' in i K. 19 15^ i6</ Ix; literal, it would be unnatural to consider it in i'. 16^ (as in Is. 61 1 ) metaphorical ; cp Ecclus. 488. (c) The priest. References to the anointing of priests, as part of the rite of consecration, are numerous in P. We have to distinguish, however, Ijetween those passages which refer to the anointing of the high priest (Aaron) alone, and those which refer to the anointing of the priests in general (for the former cp Ex. 29? Lev. 812 6 2o[i3], and, outside P, Ps. 1332 Ecclus. 4015; for the latter, E.x. 3O30 40:3-15). It seems proliable that passages of the latter class are secondary (cp We. CH 141/. ; Di. on Lev. 8to-i2; Nowack, Arch. 2 124). In this case the anointing of the high priest may be inferred to have been an earlier custom than that of anointing all priests. This would account for the origin of the term n'tiicn pan, 'the anointed priest' a|)plied to the high priest (Lev. 43516 622[i5]; cp Nu. 3^25 Lev. 21 1012

2 Mace. 1 10, and perhaps Uan. 925/ ), and for its subse- quent disappearance when all priests were anointed (cp D'na'Dn C':rT2.T Nu. 33). We may infer from Zech. 4 14 that the custom of anointing the high priest was at least as ancient as the close of the sixth century ; but we have no earlier evidence. On the other hand, the contrast between a priest and ' Yahwe's anointed (iS. 235 a Deuteronomic passage), and the different terms in which the Chronicler (iCh. 2922) and the earlier historian (iK. 235) refer to Zadok's appointment, are worthy of attention. Cp further (for some differences of view) Haudissin, Die Gesch. des AT Priesterthums 25/. 48/ 140 253.

Lifeless objects also were anointed, [a) Gen. 28 18 31 13 35x4 are, as far as OT is concerned, isolated references to the anointing o{ sacred pillars

4. Lifeless objects.[edit]

(see Massebah) ; but the custom was well- known in antiquity (cp Di. on Gen. 28 18; WRS Rel. Sem.i'^^ 232). {f>) The tabernacle and its appurtenances. P contains directions or statements about anointing ' the tent of meeting ' and all its furniture (which is mentioned in detail, Ex. 30 26), or 'the tabernacle and all that is therein' (Ex. 4O9 Lev. 8 10 Nu. 7i), as part of the rite of consecration. Special reference 'is made to the anointing of the altar (Nu. 7108488). In Dan. 924 we find an allusion to the anointing of 'the most holy' (probably = the altar) in the reconsecration after the pollution of the temple by Antiochus h^piphanes.

NT contains no reference to anointing as a religious rite, unless, indeed, we ought to infer from Mk. 613 Ja. 5 14 that magical and so far religious pro- perties were attributed to the oil used in anointing the sick (as distinct from the wounded, Lk. IO34) ; but before the close of the second century A. u. it had come to form part of the ceremony of baptism. See Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Antiq., j.tt'. 'Chrism,' 'Unction'; Mayor's Comni. on James (on 514).

Anointing occurs repeatedly as a metaphorical term to express a religious idea. As we have seen (1) the

K Twr 1, Heb. term (nrc) is sometimes ani the

0. metapnors. ^.p ^^^^ ^^^,^^ ^,^.3^.^ ^^^ j^^,^.

phorically with God as subject. The metaphor may have originated in, as it was certainly subsequently used to express, the idea of God pouring out his spirit

on a man (or people) for a particular purpose e.g. , on Saul to smite the Amalekitts (iS. 15i7), on Jehu to smite the house of Ahab (2 K. 96/ ), on ' the Servant ' ' to preach good tidings ' (Is. (il i). Thus, after Yahw6 has anointed Saul (i S. lOi), the spirit of Yahwe comes mightily upon him {v. 6), cp i S. I613; and the con- nection lx;t\veen the outpouring of the spirit and anointing is clear in Is. 61 1 (Lk. 4 18) 2 Cor. 1 21. and especially in Acts 10 38. Similarly, ' the anointing from the holy one' (ijn. 22027) is the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which teaches those that receive it con- cerning all things. Hence, the term ' anointed ' could suitably Ix; applied to Israel as a people e._i,^. , Hab. 3 13 ; see further Messiah, 3. In Ps. tf)? 892o, the whole phrase ' to anoint with oil ' is used with CJod as subject ; in these cases either the whole phrase is a metaphor, or mdla/i has accjuired a quasi-causative sense.

On the relation of the various terms and customs to one another there have been different views, some

fi Primiti a ^ which must te briefly referred to. ._ Some {f.: , Kamjihausen in the article

sigmncance. . ,.^^. j,^ // , , -/j ,2, , j,^.,i,.(. ,he religious

from the toilet use, seeing in the rite of anointing both the means of setting apart to (Jod some person or thing as clean and sweet-smelling, and also the symbol of such a condition. But (i) it may Ix: questioned whether the sharp distinction of terms relative to the two uses (cp i) lie not against this view; (2) there is no positive evidence that the Hebrews in- terpreted the rite in this way, unless we so regard the custom of mi.xing sweet -smelling substances in the anointing oil a custom which cannot be traced liefore P ; and (3) the metaphorical use cannot be satisfactorily explained in this way. Reasons have l>een given in the preceding section for thinking that the religious rile of anointing men was at any rate understood at an early period to symboJi.se the outpouring of the divine spirit ; but it is possible that this symbolism is not original, even in the case of persons. It certainly does not e.\plain the anointing of things particularly the pillar at Bethel. This custom Roliertson Smith {ke/. Sem.(^> 233 379#. especially 313 ^, cp S.\ckikick) seeks to explain as a sacrifice, the oil being a substitute for the animal fat which was smeared (smearing, it is to be remembered, being the original sense of ne'e) by the Arabs on similar pillars, and played a consider- able part in many other forms of sacrifice. Fat being, according to ancient thought, one of the great seats of life, was peculiarly fitted for the food of the gods (hence the anointing of the pillar), and also for imparting living virtue to the persons to whom it might be applied (hence the anointing of things or other persons). In this case the view that anointing symbolised the impart- ing of the divine spirit, is a refinement of the idea in which the custom may l)e presumed to have originated (cp CovKN.VNT, 5 end). The anointing of the temple and sacred furniture will then l>e a survival similar to that of sprinkling them with blood. G. n. o.


(ancoc [B.\ ; om. L]), i Esd. 934. apparently V.AM.Mi of l';zral036.


(n^p?,'MYpMH?[B*<A];>r;;/?Vrt,Pr.663025t). Classical writers often refer to the industry, forethought, and ingenuity of the ant, and especially to its habit

1. Name and allusions.[edit]

1 The etymoloRy of this word is very doubtful. It has been proposed to derive it (i) from a doubtfid Heb. verb ^j^^ (cp Sio) ' to cut,' referring tither to the shape of the ant's body ( = ' in- sect '), or to its habit of cutting seeds from the corn-ears, or to the incision it is supposed to make in the seeds themselves to prevent their .sproutine (though this la.st was hardly known to the ancient Hebrews); (2) from .\r. namala 'to creep' or 'to ascend by creeping ' ; (3) from asuppo.sed root akin to Heb. ck:. ' to make a slight sound '. The connection with Ar. namaltt is certain ; but pos.sibly the meaning of the verb may be derived from the noun. A kindred word is Ar. anmul, ' fingertip ' (Lag. Uebers. 21). The Syr. equivalent is JfKjaa(' keen-scented "?) ; Ar. has the same word as Wch.nanila.

2. Species.[edit]

of storing grain -seixls beneath the ground in time of harvest. '

Thus ifllian tells us that so great is the industry of ants that, when there is moonlight, they work by night as well as by day. It was noticed how carefully their work was organised; they were descrilied as marching like an army, the oldest acting as generals ; when they reached the cornfield, the older ants ascended the stalks and threw down the grains to the others, who stood around the fix)t. Each took its part in carrying away the food to their .subterranean homes, which were care- fully constructed with several chamliers, and protected above by walls of earth to keep out the rain. The seeds were divided into two, .sometimes uito four, segments, and in other cases

Ceeled, to prevent their sprouting ; if wetted by rain, they were rought out and carefully dried in the sun. The ant showed a weather-knowledge far surpas.sing man's. It was in all respects a TToAiTiKov ^(^v, and is so classed by Aristotle along with the cmne and the bee.

The same observations are repeated in later times by Arabic and Jewish writers.

The Mohammed.ins .seem to have a.ssociated the ant with .Solomon: the 27th chapter of the Koran is styled 'the ant," becau.se it mentions that Solomon, on his march, once entered 'the valley of ants,' whereupon an ant said, 'O ants, enter into your habitations, lest Solomon and his army tread you underfoot and perceive it not.' It was a custom with the Arabs, .says lioL-hart, to place an ant in the hand of a new-born child, with a prayer that he might grow up wise ami .sagaciou.s.

The only two passages in the OT which mention the ant obviously refer to some species of Harvesting Ant probably either to Aphanogaster (for- merly called Attn) barhara, or to A. stnictor, or to Pheidole 7negacephala, which are to this d.ay found in Syria, and, indeed, all round the Mediter- ranean basin.

Numerous other species of ant have been descril)ed in Palestine ; but, as far as is known, they resemble in their habits the ants of temperate and colder climates, and do not lay up any store of provi.sions against the winter : it is po.ssible that, like the latter, they pa.ss the cold season in a torpor or winter sleep.

The harvesting ants all belong to the genus Aphnenogaster, or are closely allied to it. Their habits _ .. were well known to the ancients and

arves mg ^^ niedineval writers. These observers, generalising on insufficient data, as- sumed that all ants stored up food for winter con- sumption. When, however, the centre of learning shifting farther N. from the shores of the Mediterranean, the leaders of science were found in central and northern Europe, the position of things was reversed.

Naturalists, noticing that the ants whose habits they observed did not store grain and seeds, arrived at the conclusion that no ants did, and attem]5ted to explain the accounts of the earlier writers by pointing out that they had probably mistaken for seeds the pupre which, when anything disturbs the ants' nest, are at once seized and Iwrne to a place of safety. The consensus of opinion, accordingly, until about a quarter of a century ago, was that ants never lay up stores of food.

The investigations of Moggridge and Lespes, how- ever, showed that, although this opinion is probably correct as far as ants in more northern climates are concerned, many of the ants in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean store up seeds collected from different plants. Not only do they collect seeds that have fallen, but they also frecjuently tear the fruit or seed-pod off the plants and bear them to the formicarium or nest. They will, moreover, travel considerable distances to obtain their food, marching in two nearly continuous parallel lines, the length of the column sometimes measuring 24 yards or more. The two lines are moving in contrary directions the one toiling laden with spoils towards the nest, the other hurrying back with empty mouths to the harvest ground.

Thenests both of .4. harbara and of A. structor are simply excavations in the ground long cylindrical pas- 4 N tu sages or rounded hollows, the floors of which

storintr ^'^ ' some extent smoothed and cemented. ' In these hollows, about the size of a billiard

J Seethe list ofpa-ssaees quoted in Bochart, Hier. among them Hor. Sat. i. 1 3j ; Virg. Ain. 4 402 ; Plin. NH 11 30 ; itiian, 2 25 4 43 6 43. A brief account of the Jewish notices by Rev. A. Lowy in PSBA 868 [1880-81].

ball, the seeds are stored. In one nest Moggridge counted seeds from twelve different species of plant, and he enumerates eighteen distinct tx}tanical families con- taining plants which furnish ants with seeds. . /. structor is frequently found in the neighl)ourhood of towns or villages, and even in the streets ; A. barbara, usually in the country.

The ants" nests are entered by one or two holes, whose presence is usually indicated by small heaps of refuse, partly composed of the earth excavated from the nest, and |Kirtly built up of the husks and other useless matter, w hich is carefully removeil from the seeds Ixifore the latter are stored up. All this refuse is scrupulously removed from the nest, which is kept very clean. The ants do not allow the seeds to sprout ; possibly by making an incision in them.

The amount of seed collected and stored in the granaries is very considerable and may cause serious loss to the agriculturist ; from one nest an amount of seed estimated at i lb. in weight was taken, and there nmst be many hundreds of nests to the acre. The seed stores of the ants of Palestine are sufficie'itly important to l)e mentioned in the Mishna, which records the rules adopted as to their ownershij).

The industry of the harvesting ants, and the amount of work they .accomplish, justify their being held up as e.xamples of untiring energy. They begin work early in the morning and keep at it far into the night, working as hard in the dark as in the sunlight. Meer Hasan .\li in his History of the Mussulmans describes how- eight or twelve very small harvesting ants will find it difticult to nune a grain of wheat, and yet they manage to transport such grains over a distance of looo yards to their nest. Their great sagacity is shown in numerous ways the complexity of the organisation of their colonies (involving the differentiation of individuals to jjcrform different duties), their powers of communicating one with another, and their slave- making pro|x;nsities. Their habit of laying-up food for the future, and even (in some South -American species) of actually cultivating certain fuTigi for food, places them with the Ijees and wasps, as regards intelli- gence, second only to man in the animal kingdom.

The ants belong to the order Hymenoptera (which includes l)ees, wasps, and saw-flies), and to the family Forniicida-. N. m. a. IC. S.


(ixri t'o, Dt. Hs; Nin /J', Is. 51 20 ; Opyi L"-^'- J^>t. ; and Aq. Syni. Theod. in Is.]; ceyTAlON [O'*'*'^- in Is.]), an unclean animal mentioned along w ith the pygarg and chamois. The above is the rendering of R\' and is much preferable to .W Wild O.X, \\'ii.i) Bui-i. (which is based upon Targ. Gr. Ven., and is accepted by Kim. ), although wild o.xen and wild bulls were common enough throughout Palestine and Mesopotamia (see Catti.k, 4). The allusion in Is. {I.e.) to the capture of the animal by nieans of a net wholly agrees with what is known of the manner in which antelojxis, gazelles, etc. were usually captured.

The species here intended may be the Antilope leucoryx (or ory.x, cp (S), or the A. huhalis. Against the former proposal the objection has been raised that the ory.x is called in the modern vernacular of N. Africa yuhmur, which = Heb. Tcn' 'fallow-deer' (see Rok) ; but it is not uncommon for the same name to be given to memlx-TS of different species by different peoples. ^ On Ox-.\n iKi.oi'K see U.NicoRN (beg.). S. A. C.


(n^nh3y) I Ch. 824t RV, AV Antothijah (./.T. ).