Encyclopaedia Biblica/Aramaic Versions-Asara

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


. See Tkxt, 59/., 64.


C?i)"lX), Ut. -265 R\"--, and AramitesB 

(n'f3")N), I Ch. 7i4 EV. See Aram (beginning).


(HSyp DIX), i ( h. 196 RV. Sec Ma.mah, I.


(Dnn? ons). i:v pres.-r^es

the form Aram-naharaim only in Ps. 60 (title : fi^iroTroTofttaK <rvpw IBKT], >x. crvpiai' [R]) and in Dt. 285 [4] RVme- ; else-

where the phr.ise is invariably remlered 1. OT expression. Mksoi-otamia, even in Jucfg. Hio (so

H (rupiat iroTafiCii') where .MT has simply .\ram (C1X ; <rvpi [.\ ; L oiri. altogether]). The other C forms are; Judg. 3h, TrOTOfiuf <rvptas (Bj, <rvpia^ ixf trowoTafiCa^ iroTO/iu)!' [AL] ; 1 Ch. 11*6 avpia<: fjiroiroTaitiat [BkALJ.

Apart from Judg. 38, where its genuineness is more than doubtful (see Clshan-kish.\thaim), and the confused editorial data of i Ch. 196 and Ps.GOa (title in

EV), which are, of course, too latt- to be anytliing but antiquarian lore,' the phrase Arani-nahar(a)im occurs in ^^^ only twice once in J, defining the position of the ' city of N'ahor' (or perhaps rather ' of Harran' ; see Nahok), (Jen. 24 lo, and once in I), defining the position of Pethor on the west bank of the Euphrates (Dt. 23 5 [4]). Whilst the two towns in (|uestion are Aramaean cities known in later "^ as well iis in earlier * periods of history, the stories connected with them in the passages cited are legends of prehistorical times, whose interpre- tation is necessarily more or less conjectural (see Nahok, FiAl.AAM). We have no other evidence for the actual currency of a compound geographical expression Aram- nahar(a)ini. Indeed, Aram is propjerly a race-name rather than the name of a district : apart from the passages cited, there does not appear to be any un- ambiguous case of its use, whether alone or in combina- tion, as a geographical expression. Xaharim, or Naharin (see l>elow, 2), on the other hand, is well known as an ancient name for Northern Syria and the country stretch- ing eastwards from it. Aram-Naharaim, or (better) .\rani-Naharim, might then be, like Aram-Zobah, etc., properly the name of a people rather than of a territory unless, indeed, .\ram tx; perhaps a simple gloss ex- plaining Nahar(a)im (cp the converse case of Yahwe- elohim in Gen. '2). That Nahar(a)ini is a dual ('the two rivers ') is extremely doubtful (cp Moore on Judg. 38) the word, as already hinted, should probably be pro- nounced Naharim (see 2).

The term Mksoi'd 1 ami,\ {q.v., i) is explained by the Greek geographers as me.-iiiing ' between the rivers ' ; but they need not have been right in assuming thit the rivers referred to were two. It seems not improl).ible that the (Ireek name is really connected with the ancient name.-*

The form Xahariii (the spelling varies : on this pro- nunciation see W.\IM, As. u. Eur. 25 i , 252 n. 3[-/ can,

of course, also Ije read -en. WMM]) is |

2. The name Naharin.[edit]

3. Extent.[edit]

attested by the Egyptian records of the j New Empire, when this name seems to take the place of the earlier phrase Up])er Ruterm [ih. 249). W. M. Miiller regards the form as plural ^ i (252) ; but it may also be a locative like ICphraim, etc. ! (see Namf.s, 107). \

In Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions the natne has not yet Ijeen met with (see 3) ; but in the Amarna . letters it occurs repeatedly as nidtu Nahrima or Narima, from which we learn the valuable fact that in I'hojnicia (Gebal) and Palestine (Jerusalem) the form with tn was j usual. j

Naharin (Nahrima) was, as the meaning of the name ('river-land') would suggest, a term of physical rather than of political geography. It need not, therefore, have been used with a very great definiteness (cp the ancient names Wapairoraixia., Polyb. V. 69 ; and the mod. Riviera) ; and the inscrip- tions, in fact, bear this out. j

It seenis to have extended from the valley of the ' Orontes, across the Euphr.ates, somewhat indefinitely eastwards [As. u. Eur. 249). Explanations, based on the view that aim is dual, like those of Dillmann (the territory between the Chaboras and the Euphrates), of .Schrader in h'A 7'^' (between the middle Euphrates and the Halih), and of Hal6vy in Rev. St'm. July 1894 (the neighbourhood of Damascus, w.atered b\- the so-called Abana and the Pharpar) seem less satisfactory. In its widest application, the whole water-system drain-

1 The pa.s.sages in which the phrase has been inserted are obviously borrowed from 2 .S.

2 Pethor mentioned by .Shalmaneser II.

3 Pethor mentioned by Thotmes III.

  • it is at least worth considering whether Mesopotamia may

not be a translation of the Arama;an expression ^JOjJ JNaS

'district of rivers,' a natural rendering (cp the Syriac Heth '.\rbriye for Xenophon's '.Kpafiia) of Naharim ('riverland '), afterwards by an easy misunderstanding (of which there are examples) due to the two like-.sounding words l>eth suppo.sed to mean iei^vetn rivers.'

s If the suggestion made in the preceding footnote be adopted, troTO/xui' implied in Mesopotamia will be plural.

ing into the Persian Gulf could be called ' the waters ' or ' the great water system ' 'of Nah.arin ' {As. u. E.ur. 253- 255). In its stricter (narrower) apjilication it probably, at one time, included or formed part of H.anig.albat (Hani-rabbat). On the history of this whole district see Mksopotamia. h. w. h.


(naiV D1S). .See Aka.m, 6. David, 9, and Zobah.


(n^, perhaps ' mountain goat' cp Ei'HKR but Nold. and Di. question this ; arRAN [HAL]), a 'son' of Dishan the Horite ; Gen. 3t)28 (pK [Sam.]; ARAM [AE])=i Ch. I42 (&PAN [E])- C. Niebuhr (influenced by the preceding name Uz) prefers the reading Aram, which is supported by some Heb. MSS, Targ. Jon., ^ Vg. .and Onk. (cp Cesch. I29). The MT is, however, probably correct (cp Oren,' i Ch. 225), though if Oren is the right pronunciation of jik in i Ch. 225, it is probably correct .also in i Ch. I42, and vice versa (see We. De gent. 39).


(0"inX' ; ararat [BAL]). i. Ararat is mentioned in the C)T .as a country ; 2 K. I937 (arapa9

1. Country biblical[edit]

[H]. apaAaA[A]) = Is. 37 38(ApA\eN[e]iA [BNAO(^)]) ; cp Tob. 1 21 [apa.pa.0 [BJ) AV

aUusions ^^^**^' J"^""- ^1=7 (apate har' eMoy [BN] ; apa.peQ\.\\, apaper (l.^). The first two passages referred to are parallel ; they relate that the two sons of Sennacherib (Sin-ahi-irba), after having slain their father, ' escaped into the land of Ararat' (so RV). A collateral confirmation of this report is given by an inscription of Esar-haddon" (.\sur- ah-iddina) which states that on the news of the murder of his father he quickly collected the forces (with which he was probably carrying on a campaign in Cappadoci.a or Cilicia), marched against Nineveh, and defeated the army of the murderers at Hanirabbat (Hanigalmit? Schrader). This district lies in the neighbourhood of Melitene, just where, at a later time, the Romans entered .Armenia {i.e. , .Arar.at). In Jer. /.c. the prophetic writer summons the kingdoms (or, as (S^X, the kings) of .Ar.arat, Minni, .and Ashkenaz to fight against Babylon. This too agrees with the representations of the inscrip- tions, which constantly distinguish between the land of Mannu and Urartu or Ararat. Mannu (which lay to the .S. or SE. of Lake L'rflmTa) was generally subject to the .Assyrians, but at least once was conquered from them by .Argistis son of Menua.s (see Tiele, //./(/' 208, 215). See further Minni, Ashkenaz.

The name Urarti appears in the A.ssyrian texts from the ninth century onwards. It appears to be interchangeable with N.airi {i.e., the streams),

'^^fsy"^^ the old Semitic name of the country, ' which it bore, for example, under Tiglath- pileser I. {circa 1108 B.C.) and, as appears from the notices in the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth dynasty, at a much earlier date {circa 1400 B.C. ). The kings, who are called by the Assyrians Urartians, never apply this name to themselves. .S.arduris I. , the first king whose inscriptions, written in As.syrian {circa 830 B.C.), have come down to us, calls himself king of Nairi, a title which the .Ass\Ti<ans n.aturally did not grant him, Ixjcause they themselves laid claim to his country. His successors, who use their own language, call their land Biaina, out of which the later name Van has arisen, a name which must at that time have been transferred from the district where the kings resided to the wholjs kingdom.

Next, as to the extent of the kingdom of Urartu or Nairi. The greater p.art of the later .Armenia was, sometimes at any rate, included within its limits ; for Vannic inscriptions have teen found even in Malatlyah, ne.ar Palu on the Upper Euphrates, and as far away as the Russian province Erivan. It would appear that originally Nairi denoted a more southerly region, where 1 On Oman see Araunah. '- 3 R. 15, col. i.17.

the Tigris and the Muphrales rise, wliilst Ararat proper ( Urarti | lay to the X. , in the plain of the Araxes ; but that Ixitween the eleventh century and the ninth, the L'rartians (whom their language shows to have l>een a non-Semitic jx-'oplc) conciuered the more southerly region, and estab- hshed there the thief se^at of their dominion a con(|uest which they were enabled to make by the great decline of Assyria at that time. Afterwards, both names, Nairi and Urartu, were used for the whole country. The Assyrian king S;irgon broke the power of Urartu f<jr a long time ; but his successors did not succeed in their endeavours to destroy it, and so it is not uimatural that Assyriologists have sometimes defended the pre-e.\ilic origin of the long prophecy against Babylon at the end of the liook of Jeremiah, on this ground among others, that the kingdoms of Ararat and Minni are still well known to the Israelites, and considered to Ix; formidable powers.' Kuenen, however {(>//<fJ-' 2 242 = /w/. 2 232/), hiis sufticiently shown that these arguments are not conclusive. l'ro]x.'r names like Ararat and Minni simply prove the literary and anlicjuarian research of the author, and the jihenomena of the prophi cy as a whole ap|x;ar to Ixnh the present writers to presuppo.se a jxjriod later than that of Jeremiah, (.'-^ee Jkkk.miaii, ii. ).

2. Ararat is mentioned also in the post-e.\ilic version of the Deluge-story. The statement runs thus: 'And 3 Deluee- '^*^ ^^^ reste<l . . . upon the mountains of

. "'Ararat' ((Jen. 84 RV ; Samar. text ann.T). ^' This is precisely parallel to the statement of the cognate Babylonian story (see l)Ki,UGi:, 1) : ' The mountain of the land of Ni.sir stopped the ship,' or, as the following lines give it, ' The mountain Nisir stopped the ship." That Nisir (protection? deliverance?) is proijcrly the name of a mountain or mountain range seems to be clear from .Xsur-na.sir-pal's inscription (see A'// 1 77), and Ararat too, in the intention of the Hebrew writer, will l)e the name of a mountain or mountain range. The situation of Nisir is clear from the inscription just referred to. It was in Media, K. of the Lower Zab, and S. of the Caspian Sea. There lies l-'-Iburz, the Hara. berezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares, thus named by the N. Iranians after their mythic sky-mountain. Now, it is remarkable that Nicolaus Dam.iscenus (in Jos. .////. i. 36, cp also OS*'-) 209 48) names the mountain of the ark Iferis, and places it 'above Minyas' i.e., Minni (Mannu). Baris ( fia res = high) appears to Ix; a fragment of the Iranian name of Elburz, which this writer took for the whole name.'^ It may I)e conjectured that this was the mountain which the Hebrew writer, in accord- ance with the Babylonian tradition, had in view. If so, he gave it the name which it bore in his own time, Hara haraiti, shortening it into Ararat, not ix'rha[js without confusing it involuntarily with the land of I'rarti, which latter name may have hatl a ilifferent origin.

It was natural enough that the most widely sjjread tradition accepted the identity of the .\rarat of the Hebrew Deluge-story with the kingdom of Ararat spoken of al)ove. There {i.e., in the plain of the Araxes) a lofty mountain rises, worthy, so it may have appeared, to be the scene of such a great event as the stranding of

1 Sayce, Cri/. ^ron. 485/ Prof. Sayce is uncertain whether leremiah 'has m.-\de use of some earlier pronhecy of which Nineveh was the burden, or whether 'the prophecy belongs to a time when Haliylon had already taken the place of Nineveh, but when in other respects the political condition of W. Asia still remained what it was in the closing days of the Assyrian Kmpire." ' In any case the prophecy must be earlier than the age of the .second Isaiah, to which modern criticism has so often referred it." This was printed in 1894, five years after the appearance of vol. ii. of the most authoritative summary of 'modern criticism,' Kuenen 's OmierzoeM'i), and two years after that of the (lerman translation. Prof. Tielcj who, in i886 {liAii 480), from an incomplete view of the critical arguments, maint.-iined Jer. ,50/ to have been written before Cyrus among the e.xiles in Babylon, now accepts Kuenen's main conclusions as expressed in the work referred to.

2 Whether Lubar, the name of the mountain of the ark in Juhilees, chaps. 5 and 10, has any connection with liaris, it is unimportant to decide.

I the ark. Of its two conical peaks, one is crowned with Perpetual snow, and rises 17,000 ft. alxive the sea level ; the other is 4000 ft. lower. That the Hebrew writer thought of these mountains is in the highest degree improbable (.see Di. Ceitesis, 131). Another tradition identified ararat with the land of Cardu (so I'esh. , Targ. ) i.e. , the ancient Korduene or Karduchia on the left bank of the L'p|x.T Tigris, and the mountain of the ark with the Jelx-l Jfidi, SW. of I.akc \'an, which has Ijccome the traditional site with the .Moslems.

In the Table of .Nations (Gen. 10) the name of Ararat does not occur ; but Ashkenaz, kiphath (or Diphath), and Togarmah (see sixjcial articles) jjrobably denote districts of N and .NW. .Armenia.

For the geography of Urartu cp esjjccially Sayce, j 'Cuneiform Inscr. of \'an,' /A*. /.V xiv. pt. ii. 388/:,

where, however, the .Armenians, who entered the country from the W. , and are related to the .Aryan races tjf Asia Minor, are regarded as Iranians. It is against this view that, shortly after the first mention of the name Urartu by A.sur-niisir-pal, names of an Aryan sound occur in an inscription of his son Shalmaneser II. I (.Artasari and Data). c. i-. r. w. ii. k.


, AV"'*.'- 4 Ksd. 1345; KV Ak/aki:tii.


('"1>N*I1), 2. S. '2333^ kV ; .W H.\k.\k-

ITK, 3.


(apaBhc [VA]). i Mace. ir>2.. kV, .\V

Aki.\k.\tiiks (</.:. ).


(n;)-)N, so Kr. everywhere in 2 S. 24,

but Kt. nniNn V. 16, n':-is r. is, njnx ^r. 22-

24), orORN.\N (|:"1N in Ch.), a Jebusite. whose threshing- floor, consecrated by the presence of the angel of ^'ahuc, David ])urchased as a site for an altar (cp MoKl.Ml). The story is told in two forms, which agree in es.sentials. On I Ch. 21 20 see note to Kittel's translation in SHOT (2 .S. 24 16 f. I Ch. 21 IS f. 2 Ch. 3i, opva [B.\I.] ; cp opova Jos. Atit. vii. 33, opovva ih. I34I. 'The real name, however, was not .Araunah, which is thoroughly un- Hebraic, and presumably un-Canaanitish. 'The critics have in this case not lx;en critical enough. Even Budde {SHOT, Heb. ed. , note on 2 S. 24 16) admits, rather doubtfully, the form .Araimah. Klost. prefers s form Orna, which, however, is no better than the Oman of the Chronicler. One has a right to require a definitely Hebrew name, and such a name for this Jebusite MT actually gives us in 2 S. 24 18 viz. , ,TrK= .T:nN .Adonijah (cp 0^'ia[s] [.AL] = . Adonijah in 2 S. 84, and in ' of I Ch. 32, and in 1 K. 1/.). It is [jroposed, therefore, to correct '.Araunah' into '.Adonijah' throughout, except in V. 23 (on which s(,'e lx.'low) ; cp ' .Adonilx?zek,' mis- written in Judg. 1 for ' .Ado.n'izedkc ' {q.v.).

'The critics have Ix-'en very near making this correction. 'They ha,\e rightly rejected the pretty romance based on the phrase ' .Araunah the king' in 2 S. 2423 (M'T), from which Kwald (///.f/". 3 163) inferred that .Araunah w;is the old dethroned king of Jebus. 'They have also rejected the makeshift rendering of RV, ' .AH this, O king, doth .\raunah give unto the king,' Ijecause a subject sjxiaking to his sovereign was bound to call himself humbly "the king's servant' (cp i S. 2619 i K. 1 26). .As Wellhausen first saw , the sense required is, ' .All this doth the servant of my lord the king give unto the king.' 'This means correcting ,n:i-iN into "jnK. and pre- fixing 135,' a capital correction which only needs to lie supplemented by the emendation of nriK elsewhere into .Tann (see alwve).

An additional argument h;is thus Ix-'en gained for the substitution of ' .Adonijah ' for ' .Araimah. ' 'The cor- rection is certain, and it is of the highest interest. The Israelite king and his Jebusite subject worship the same god the go<i of the land of Canaan. Adonijah too was not an ex-king, but simply a member of the J<-busite comnninity. which continued to exist even after the conquest of Jerusalem. (S'- (2 S. 66 'Opi'd. Heb. |\qj)

1. In Galilee ?

apparently identified the place witii the tlireshing-floor at Perez-Uzzah (see Nacmun). t. k. c.


(ya-lX ; AppoB [B], arBo [A] -Be [10). ' the greatest man among the Anakim ' (Josh. His). See A.NAic, and IIkhkon, i.


(y5")S) Gen. ^o^j AV. See Hebron, i.


Cn^nyn) /.. , a man of Beth-arahah (2 S. '_'3 3i I Ch. 1132)- See Abi-ALBON.


AV, or rather Arbatta RV (cn arBaktoic [AX'^-^]; -Banoic [X*], -Batn. [V*], -TAN. ['^J ; ^ g- '" Aibatis ; the .Syriac gives the strange form .'/n//^rt/, J^?/ ) i ^^^cc. fjzs.f Simon the Maccabee, after his successes in Galilee against the Gentiles, brought Iwck to Judaea ' those [Jews] that were of (reading iK for iv) Galilee and in Arbatta.' A district rather than a town is obviously to be under- stood. Ewald (Hist. 5314) thinks of the plain called el-Batlha on the NE. shore of the Sea of Galilee (cp the Syriac form) ; more probably the Arabah or Arabolh (nmyi of Jordan is intended. See Arabah, i.


(eN ArBhAoic [AXV]), i Mace. 9 2. Bacchides and .Alcimus, in their second expedition into Jud;T?a, ' went forth by the way that leadeth to Galgala (yaXaaS [codd. 64, 93]), and pitched their tents before Masaloth (RV Mesaloth ; fxeaaaXoid [.V], jxaiaa. [XV]), which is in Arljela. ' There are four alternative e.\- planations (but see CHisi.oTH-'rABOR).

J'/rsf : Josephus (A/i/. xii. 11 1) seems to have read for 'Galgala,' 'Galilee,' which Wellhausen (//C; (^> 261, n. 2, where he quotes the parallel case, Jos. xii. 23 " Trjs Va\ei.\aias) adopts, and, without explaining Masaloth, takes Arbela to l)e the well-known spot at the head of the cliffs overhanging the western border of the plain of Hattin, the modern Irbid. The interchangeableness of the two forms Arlx'd and .\rl)el is proved by the Arab geographers. Nasir-i-Khusrau, 1047 A. n. , calls it Irbil ; Yakut in 1235 A. I)., and others, call it Irbid. The limestone caverns near Irbid were the haunts of bandits, who were only with difliculty dispossessed by Herod the Great ; the methods he employed are graphically descrilied by Josephus (Anf. xiv. 15 4 ^^/ ' 16 2 jr.). Robinson, who, with most moderns, accepts this identi- fication, conjectures that Mesaloth ' which is in Arbela' represents the Heb. n^'PDn in the sense of s/ej>s, storeys, terraces, and describes the fortress on the face of the almost perpendicular cliff (3 2S9). \\'ith more reason Tuch [QiicTst. de Flav. Jos. Libh. Hist.), followed by Wellhausen (I.e.), proposes to read ;\Iecra5u)^ (cp HP 93, MacrtraSw^) as if for nniiip 'strongholds.' The objections to this identification are that Josephus is the onlj' authority for the reading raXtXaiac, and that, by all we can learn from him, the task of reducing Arlxila would have cost Bacchides more time than in the circumstances he was likely to be willing to spend. The direction through (ialilee by Arbela would, how- ever, be a natural one for the Syrians to take.

Second : As natural a line of march for the Syrian army lay along the coast down to the mouth of the valley of n xt A" 1 Aijalon, and up that valley or one of the

2. By Aljalon? p_.^rallel defiles farther S. On this hne there was a Va\ya.\a., the present Jiljuliyeh, a little more than 13 m. NE. of Joppa, on a site so important that the main road might well be descril)ed as bhov ttjv els ra\7aXa. There is, however, no trace along it of a UaiffaXdid or an 'Ap^ijXa.

Third: If Bacchides wished to avoid the road by the coast and up Aijalon, which had proved so fatal to Nicanor, he may have taken the road

3. InSamana? ^^^^ Esdraelon S. through Samaria, which Holofemes is represented in Judith as taking the road which this book (4?) expressly calls 'The anabaseis of the hill-country, ' ' the entrance into Judaea. ' Upon it there stand two Gilgals, one near Shechem, and one 5 m. N. of Gophna, which Ewald {Hist. ling, ed. 5 323) takes to l:)e the Galgala of the narrative (but see Gll.G.M.). On this route Masaloth might be Meselleh or Meithalun, respectively 5 and 8 m. S. of Jenin, each of them a natural point at which to resist an invader. A greater difficulty is presented by iv 'Ap^riXoii. The plural form evidently signifies a considerable district. Now, Eusebius {OS^'^> 'Ap^r)\d) notes the name as extant in his day, on ICsdraelon, 9 R. m. from Lejjun, while the entrances from Esdraelon on Meselleh and Meithalun are gh R- ni. from Lejjun. It is therefore possible that the name 'ApjirjXd co\cred in earlier days the whole of this district. The suggestion is, however, far from Ixiing capable of proof. The chief points in its favour are the straight road from the N. , which was regarded as a natural line of invasion, and the existence along the road of a Jiljuliyeh, a Meselleh, and a Meithalun.

Fourth : There is some MS authority ' for reading 7aXaa5 instead of 70X70X0 ; and if the march of J p-i An Bacchides be conceived as having been 4. in Uileaa ? tj^^ough Gilead, the Arl^ela of i Mace. 92 may tx; the 'AplirjXd (mod. Irbid) which Eusebius (O.S' 21473) vaguely defines as a certain village Ix-'vond Jordan on the confines of Pella. This Irbid, however, lies very far E. and not in a direct line from the N. I-A-en from Damascus, it would be a roundabout way for the Syrian troops marching with speed on Jerusalem. (We can hardly compare the advance of Antiochus III. upon Ptolemy IV. [Polyb. 5 6], in the course of which Antiochus, after taking Tabor and Bethshean, crossed Jordan and overran Gilead from Arbela to Rabbath-anunon).

Of these four alternatives the first and third seem the most probable. The difficulties of all, however, are so great that most historians {e.if. Schiirer and Stade) shirk discussion of the line of march, and bring Bacchides without delay to the walls of Jerusalem. G. A. s.

ARBITE, The[edit]

("anxn), 2 S. -2335. probably an error for Archite. See Paarai.


(aBrcona [BA], xeBRcoN [X] ; ji^:^ 'Jabbok' [Syr.]; ma?ntrc). In Juilith 224 it is stated

i that Nebuchadrezzar ' went through Mesopotamia, and destroyed all the high cities that were upon the river (xetM"P/'os) Arbonai till ye come to the sea. ' X'arious commentators, following Grotius, have taken the Cha- boras to be meant. There is much plausibility, however, in the suggestion of Movers that the proper name may have arisen out of a failure to understand the original, which he conjectures to have been ^,^:^ irv^ ' (the cities which were) beyond the river,' i^y having Ijeen taken for a proper name and supplied with a CJreek ending.


(APX<\rreAoc[Ti.WII]), Judeg. See Angel, 4.


(ARxeXAOC [Ti.WH], Mt.222t). son of Herod the (Jreat by Malthake, and elder brother of Herod Antipas. By his father's will he was made ruler over Jnd;ea and Samaria, and his visit to Augustus for the confirmation of this inheritance doubtless suggested a point in the parable Lk. 19 12/: Upon his coins he bears the family name of Herod and is called ' Eth- narch,' for ' king ' he never v.iis, in spite of his assump- tions (cp Jos. ,/;//. xvii. 45)- He may, however, have l>een popularly called 'king.' (Cp Jos. ,-i///. .xviii. 43, and the use of ^affiXevei in Mt. 222. See further Herodian Family, 3. ) ARCHER. See War, Weapons. ARCHES is the rendering in the EV of n'"lS7^N, etc. , in Ez. 4O16/: The word cS'N or cSn occurs in MT only in this chapter ; but (S"'^'- transliterates ai\a/i also where MT has cSiK. cSn. Whatever explanation be adopted of the variation of form, the meaning is

1 HP oSov n Y^v yaXaaS [cod. 64], o. nji' tit yoAooi [cod. 93].

doubtless the same throughout viz. , ' porch. ' ?iee Porch, P.m-ack. Tkmpi.k.

That the priticiple of the arch early became known to Israel is a probable inference from the shape of their To .M lis.


(Kt. "lanN. cp Kau. Gram. d. bihl. Aram. (il6; Kr. NM3->N ; 6 Swetc, ApxHyoi ; ApxoYCl [IVl ; AXYAioi [AJ ; Apx- [LJ), mentioned in Kzra49tasatril)esettle<lin Palestine by AsN.\l'l'KK(^.r'. ). The word is not to lie regarded as meaning inhabitants of Krech (kyssel, Kyle), or as etjuivalent to d/)xocTes (Jen- sen, TLZ, 1895, n. 20), but rather as miswritteii for (>)i, K;(n)53. 'who are Cuthieans ' (see 2 K. 17 24 'from Babylon and from C'uthah,' etc. K So Marc). Fun J. 64/


('3"!N*n), Josh. I62 AV, RV ARCiiiTiiS.


(APXinnoc [Ti. WH]) is included as a ' ffUow-soldier ' of Paul and Timothy iti the address of the epistle to Philemon (Philem. 2), and in that to the C'olossians (417) he received this message : Take heed to the ministry {6iaKoviav) which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Most probably he had recently become the minister (more than 'deacon' in the narrower sense) of the church at Colossa,-, perhaps in succession to Epaphras, who was now with the apostle. In .7/. Const. (746) he is said to have teen apostolically ordained bishop of I.aodicea in Phrygia.


A\- Akchi (-3>Sn ; toy APXI \^'^ 

"'^ combine the word with the following Ataroth, XarapwOei [B], ApxiATdvpooG [AJ), a clan mentioned in the difficult phnise niTjy ^SIXH ^-133 (Josh. 162) in the delimitation of the southern frontier of Joseph. Probably we should reverse the order of the last two words and read ' the border of ,\taroth-of-the-Archites. ' Indeed, we might plausibly go a step further and change 3iKn to mun (or "n-iNn), ' Addarites ' (or 'Arditcs'). See Ataroth, 2. That the name Archi lingers in that of the village 'Atn 'Arik, 5 m. WSW. of Beitln iPEFA/em. 87), is at best a hazardous hypothesis (cp Ottli, and Buhl Pal. 170/.). The home of the clan of Archites to which Hushai and, according to (2 S. 23 n nai, 6 'Apovxatos [BA], 6 Apax<- [L]; and f. 35

  • 3"'Kn, [tov Ovpai] oepxfc [B], 6 Apaxfim [A], 6 Acpapei

[1.]), Shammah ['/.v., 3 and 4] and Paarai, two of David's heroes, belonged, may have been farther S.


See Conduits anu Reservoirs, FoKTKi.ss, House, Palace, Temi'le, Tomb.


See Historical Literature. 5.


AVs rendering of by (Job 99) and C"l? (JobaSi-'i ; K\' Bear. Most probably, however, try in JobQg has arisen from dittography of ncy which precedes, for V'03 follows without 1. The whole verse seems to lie an unmetrical interpolation (see Bickell) ; Duhm. agrees as to e-j,-, and gfx,'s so far as to excise ?'<. 8-10 (so also Beer). Observe that Am. 58, which is certainly (see Amos, 12) an interpolation, and very possibly alludes to JobQg (as Am. 4 13, also interpolated, may allude to Job98), does not include ry among the constellations. We have, therefore, only to explain the r-y (c^'V?) of Job3832. That the Pleiades are meant is not unlikely (see Stars, 3 (a); cp Tg. (8832) Sy Knjt NrtmsK, ' the hen with her chickens ' ). Cheyne, however, prefers ' the Lion with his sons ' (on Job 38 31, etc.' //?/., 1898, 103/:). Epping's list of 'stations' for Venus ami Mars, obtained from Seleucidean tablets, gives as the tenth ' the fourth son behind the king ' (p Leonis). The ' king' is Regulus (o Leonis) ; he is preceded by ris an ' Lion's head' (t Leonis).

(<nrpoi' [BKAl; klynthd [Pesh.]; nrcturum \W%. Op], vts- perum \ib. 38 32). In 59 , Pesh., presuppose the order yo3> rV' nO'>) t:p Mazzaroth, Orion, Pleiades.

C. F. B. T. K. C.


('^'^N, Gen. 4621 Nu. 2640! cp Arik)N. Akod), perhaps a lx;tter form than Addar (tik) of || i Ch. Sjt (Oen. apaA [ADL; B lacking; Jos. c&poAoc] :

Nu. aAap IBJ, AAep [AKL] : i Ch. aAci [B], ApeA [A], aAap [LJ) in genealogy of Benjamin (q.v., 9; ii. /j) ; variously designated son of Benjamin ((ien. .MT), son of Bela ( \u. and i Ch. ), son of (Jera b. Bela (Gen. [ADL ; B lacking]). Gentilic Aruite (-t-k ; "'* om., AJtpt [L,/.r],.


RV: Ardat, the name of a field mentioned only in 4 Esd. 926 as the scene of a vision of Esdras.

The Kth. and Syr. read Arf-had, which Fritzsche and HilKf. follow. 1 he Lat. Vss. var>- -.ardath (Vg.j, adar (.S*l, ardati \.\\, etc. ; cp Bensly ad loc. .Supported by the description in T. i4 ('a field . . . where no house is Imilded '), Volkmar would emend to Arha, 'desert' (more correctly Araha). .Similarly Kendel Harris, who, however, connects Arba with Kirjalh-arba

{Kest 0/ H'oriisof liaruch, Camb. 1889), in which ca.se the 'oak ' in 14 I will be Aljraham's oak of Hebron. On the other hand, we should then expect rather the usual name Hebron, or, at least, the fuller form, Kirjath-.\rba. If .Ardat is indeed lo be sought for in this district (in 3 i Ksdras is in H.ibylon) we minht follow T. Kec. more closely and identify it with the well-known Arad, which also was situated in a de.sert. See Akad, i.


C'nnKn). Nu. 2640. See Ard.


(i'n>S; opNA [BA], aBAcom [L]). b. Azubah, a Calebite (i Ch. 2i8t). See Azubah, i.


(^"pN-IN; Gen. 46.6; apihAic [^]. &pOH- Aeic [A], AnHAeic [L] ; Gen. i.e., also TCO apihA [BFL], om. A; see .Ariel), b. Gad. In Nu. 2(ji7i* the name is u.sed also collectively with the art. (EV 'the Arelitea'; o ApiHA[e]l [BFL]), with con- sciousness that 'son of Gad'. Gadite clan. I)(jubt- less V. iji, should t)e corrected to ' Of .-\riel ('^KnN';:), the family of the Arielites ('S^t^^t,^),' and it is possible th;it the names should rather be Uriel, L'rielites (see N'amks, 35). T. K. c.


(Acts 17. 9 eni ton &p[e]lON nAfON [Ii- WHJ i:V' 'unto [the] .Areopagus' ;

1 The hill '^' '"' '^"^ ' ^^^^^ "'"' ^^' ' ^^'"-'opaR"s ' ;

hence the title .Areopagite, .Actsl7 34t, ApeonAreiTHC [lij. ti- [^^'H])- Dirticulty is caused by the fact that the name signifies Ijolh a hill and a court. The hill is that formless mass of rock which lies towards the NW. below the .Acro- polis, separated from it by a depression now largely filled with earth (Herod. 852; Luc. Pise. 42). 'I'he NE. corner of the hill is a precipice, to the top of which we ascend by means of sixteen ruined steps, cut in the rock at the SF",. angle. At the head of the stair are the remains of an altar. The deep chasm at the foot of the precipice was connected with the worship of the Semnai (Eumenides or Furies). 'The whole place was sacred to the most awful associations. Mythology had here lent to the majesty of the law a

2 The Court "^'^^^ solemn background. ' As a Court,

the .Areopagus was, before the develop- ment of the democratic spirit, the supreme authority in Athens. Its powers were of two kinds, definite and indefinite. ' The definite powers were : ( 1 ) a limited criminal jurisdiction ; (2) the supreme direction of religious worship especially of the cultus of the F^umen- ides. The indefinite powers were : a general sup)er- vision or guardianship (i) of all magistrates and law courts ; (2) of the laws ; (3) of the education of the young ; and (4) of public morals in addition to which there was (5) the competence to assume in political and national emergencies a dictatorial authority."

Diu-ing the earlier history of the city the court held its sittings, for the trial of blood-guiltiness, upon the hill itself. For the hill was the Hill of the Arae, the Curses or Imprecations ' the place for the solenm irrevocable oath, the natural court for the trial of terrible offences of blood-shedding that might not be tried under a roof." Moreover, to the avly city, the Areopagus was the place without the RaU-s, a place Id eoiulciim the rriminal, to erect a inoimineiit for the outcast tyrant, to bury the stranger (Roliert, Aus Kydathen, loi). It was during the earlier and the later periods of Athenian history that the Court of the Areopagus (17 ex tov 'kptlov wdyov (ioi'Xri) enjoyed its powers to the full. In the interval Ephialtes, aided perhaps by Theniistocles (Arist. Const. Ath. 25; 462 H.c. ), abolished most of its indefinite functions, and thus deprived it of its strongest influence ; it lx;canie merely a ' crinjinal court of narrow competence. ' Thenceforth, as in Aristotle's time, it dealt only with cases of wilful homicide, of poisoning, and of arson {Const. .If/i. 57), while the suiJerintendence of religion was in the hands of the King Archon. As indictments for impiety ( ivdei^ei^ dcrfjSfias) came, in their preliminary stages, before the latter, cases which once would have gone before the Areopagus were now tried before the popular jury-courts. It was in this way, therefore, that Socrates, accused like Paul of not worshipping the gods of the city and of introducing new divinities,' was tried. As the regular place of business of the King Archon was the Stoa Hasileios the associations of which were, in later days, exclusively religious it was within that portico that the charge of impiety was brought against the philosopher. It is probable, h(5wever, that the .Areopagus also alwa3'S met within the Stoa (Dem. ?'// _ Iristog. 776) when ritual did not demand a midnight- sitting on the o]jen rock in other words, in all cases other than those of murder. When, with the advent of the Romans, the Areopagus reappeared, after its long eclipse, as once more the supreme authority of the city (cp Cic. /:/>. nd Fam. xiii. 1 5 ; Nat. Dear. 274), and the specific control of religion fell again within its competence, it would naturally continue to meet there.

There it was, therefore, and liefore that body, that P.aul was summoned. To speak of him as ' perhaps 3 Paul '^^"'" " ^^^ ^'^"y stone where had once stood the ugly Greek who was answering the very same charge ' (Farrar, St. Paul. 3qo) is to sacrifice historical truth to sentiment. We must relinquish the fond idea that Athens has the interesting distinction of being the one city of the world where we can tread in the very footsteps of the apostle. The view now generally taken errs in a double manner. It maintains, first, that the proceedings were in no sense legal or magisterial ; and secondly, that they were upon the hill. The marginal rendering (AV v. 22) is no doubt right in representing that it was before the court that Paul was brought. Can we believe that a crowd of idlers, parodying the judicial procedure of the court, could have lx?en allowed to defile the neighbourhood of ' that temple of the awful goddes.ses whose presence was specially supposed to overshadow this solemn spot, and the dread of whose name was sufficient to prevent Nero, stained as he was with the guilt of matricide, from setting foot within the famous city' (Suet. \er. 34; Dio Cas. 4314)? Such a view requires better support than is given by the bare assertion that ' the Athenians were far less in earnest about their religion than in the days of Socrates, and if this was meant for a trial it could only have Ijeen by way of conscious parody' (Farrar, op. cit. 390, n. 3). Xor can an appeal to Acts 9 27 prove that firiXa^d/ievoi (Acts 17 19, A\' 'took') is here not used in the sense of ' arrest. '

The view advocated by Curtius {Stadts^rrsch. von Athen, 262/ ) is correct. Paul wa,s taken not to the Areopagus hill, a place not adapted either for hearing or for speaking, upon an occasion such as this, but to the Stoa Rasileios (iirl tov 'Apeiov iriyov ; cp Acts 9 21 16 19, etc.) for a preliminary examination {a.v6,Kpi<m). There it was to be decided whether the new teaching would justify a prosecution for the introduction of a new religion. Standing in the midst of the assembled

1 Cp Xen. .'item. 1 i with Act.s 17 18. Yet there is probably no consciou.s reference on the part of the Christian writer to the trial of Socrates, though the contrary has been asserted.

Areopagites [ev /u^cri^ tov Wpeiov jrayov, cp Cic. ad .///. i. 145; Foiiillcs d' l-.pidaurL',\t'&, 'Apftos 7r(i7oj Xj70I's iwoi-^aaTo), he made his defence. Much of what fell from his lips may be presumed to have awakened an echo in the breasts of his audience (on the speech see Hi:i,l.KNiSM, g 9) ; but the mention of the resurrection of the body seemed to remove the case altogether out of the domain of the serious and practical. The court refused to continue the examination, and Paul was contemptuously dismissed (^x^f^'afoj' i'. 32/ ). Curtius, Pnulus in Athen, modifies his view. For another view, see Rams. Paul. 243/ See al.so Findlay, Ann. Brit. Srh. 1 78/ w. J. W.


(Apec [HA]), I F.sd. iio=E/ra25, Ar.\h, 2.


(ApeTJkC [Ti- WH]), an ancient name (strictly Harlth.1 ; nn'^^ in inscriptions: i\<f., Euting A'afi. hischr. N'o. 16) of Nabat.tan princes, mentioned in the story of Jason the high priest (in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes), 2 Mace. 08 (A/jfraj [V'A]). The Arfitas of this passage is called ' king of the Arabians'; he was hostile to Jason (^.7-.). Another Aretas was master of Damascus in the time of Paul three years after the apostle's conversion. His ' ethnarch ' sought (see Ijelow) to apprehend Paul, who, however, made good his escape (2 Cor. 11 32/). The story of the Nabataians has lx!en told elsewhere (see D.\MASCU.S, 12, Nabat/KANs). It is certain that about 85 B.C. they had possession of Damascus ; but it should he added that the autonomy of Damascus in 70-69 b. r. is established by numismatic evidence. The first collision \\ ith the Romans was in 64-62 B. c. , when the Xabataian king, Aretas III., intervened in the struggles between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Damascus now came under Roman sovereignty. During the following decennia the Xabattean kingdom became involved in the wars occasioned by the Parthians with varying but for the most part ill success. The king also had various disputes with his neighbour Herod the Great. Aretas IV. (9 B.C.--40 A.ix) had tact and skill enough to keep terms with Augustus ; his daughter Ix-came wife of Herod Antipas (Jos. Ant. xviii. oi), but was set aside in favour of Herodias. Disputes on frontier questions furnished the aggrieved father with pretexts for war. Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to avenge the defeat inflicted by Aretas upon Herod ; but the death of the P2mperor put an end to the scheme (cp Chronology, 78). At this time, according to 2 Cor. 11 32, Damascus must again have fallen into the hands of Aretas ; Damascene coins of Tiberius do not occur later than 33-34 A.n. A tempting con- jecture is that it was Caligula that sought at this price, after his accession,' to buy over Aretas, against whom Tiberius had so recently ordered war ; yet, in our complete ignorance of this chapter of history, we are not precluded from supposing that Tiberius himself in 34 A.n. had already taken occasion to present Aretas with the city as a peace-offering (cp Chronology, 78). A violent capture of the city by Aretas is not to be thought of : such a deed w ould have called for exem- plary punishment at the hands of the Romans. Equally improbable is the view of Marquardt (Rom. Staatsz'er- 7ualtung, 1 405) and Monuusen {Rom. Gesch. ln,^t) that Damascus had remained subject to the king of Arabia continuously from the beginning of the Roman period till 106 .\. o. For ( i ) in Pomjx'v's time Damascus belonged to the Decapolis (Plin. HM v. 18 74; Ptol. V. 1522; cp Dh:c:abolis, 2); (2) in the reign of Tilwrius it was the Roman governor that gave the authoritative decision on a cjuestion of frontier between Damascus and Sidon (Tac. Ann. xvii. 63) ; (3) we have im])erial coins of Damascus with figures of Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero ; (4) in Domitian's time there was a cohort raised in Damascus, the Cohors Flavia {CIL

1 So also Gutschmid (Excursus in Euttng's Nab. Inschr. 85) and Schurer (GJ V \ 618, ET2 357/).

2870 ; 5 194, 652^. ) ; (5) Damascus was not included in the Roman province formed out of the N'abatiean kingdom in 106 A. I).

What it was that induced Aretas's ' ethnarch ' in Damastus to [jersecute i'aul, it is impossible to say. r'erha])s he regarded Faul as a turbulent and dangerous Jew ; |)erhaps he wished to propitiate the other Jews in Danuiscus, who were many and powerful (Jos. lij ii. 2O2; vii. 87) so powerful that the synagogues had been able to hand over to the ' young man ' Saul and his helpers such Jews as acce|)ted the (iosjx;l. The subseciuent years, down to the ab.sorplion of the kingdom by the Romans, offer no incident of s]x;cial interest. It is, however, significant that in 67 A. D. , in the Jewish war, Malchus II. (Malku) contributed auxiliary troops to the army of Vespasian (Jos. /// vii. 42). Shortly lx;fore this, Damascus nmst have been retaken from the Nabatwans by Nero, for imperial coins of Damascus are again met with from 62-63 onwards.

Consult Schiirer, C,JV\ bio/., where further litera- ture is referred to ; and cp Dama.scl's, 12 ; Naba-

T/^:AN.S. H. V. .s.


(&PHC [ANV, but cp Swete ; Jos. apeioc]) I Ma.r. VI 20 AV. See Si'ARTA.


. I., a territory in Rashan, alwavs in the phrase ahN b2n (Dt.34.3/. aJ-1iS.-|), 'district' or circuit' of Argob (nepiXOjpON ApfOB' [BAL] ; once (\pBOK [B*]). It was taken by Israel in the war with Og, and coiUained sixty cities with walls and gates (1)1.84/.). ^\ e are ignorant of its precise situation. In Dt. 84 it seems equivalent to ' the kingdom of Og in Hashan' (cp 1K.413 where is corrupt); but in V. 13 it stands in apposition to 'all Bashan. ' The term 'district,' literally meaning 'line' of Argob, which seems to imply very definite limits, has led many (Targums, Porter, Henderson, and the Pal. Surv. Maps) to identify it with the present Lcja, the low, rough plateau of congealed lava, whose sharp edge dis- tinctly marks it off from the surrounding plain. For this, however, there is no other evidence ; nor does the C) T narrative carry the con(|uest of Israel so far to the N'lC. The one certainty is that Argob lay in Hashan. The addition in Dt. 814 that it ran up to the lx)r<ler of (ieshur and Maachah is indefinite, and the te.xt of the rest of this verse, which identifies Argob with the conc|uest of Jair, is corrupt. The Havvoth-Jair were tent villages and lay in (Jiilead ; the cities of .\rgob were fortified and lay in Bashan. The only places with names (whether in (Jreek or in modern times) of any similarity are the 'Vayafia (so Pa7a/3ai' i K. 4 13 [L]) of Jos. A^it. \m. If) 5, a fortress E. of Jordan, whose site is unknown (cp Reland, Pa/. 201), and the modern Rajib (Rujcb) and W'ady Rajib (Rujeb), which, however, lie in (Jilead. The name Argob may be derived from Heb. regeb, a.c/01/ {see K/.i-A.). Besides authorities named, see Eus. OS ; Wetz. A'fi.sfhfr. iiher Ha u ran, etc. 83; G.\Sm. HG 551 ^. ; Dr. (/(/ Deut. 84-5. On archieological remains, see Bashan, 3. g. a. s.

2. Argob and Arieh (nnKrrnKi aj-iK-riK), two names mentioned in connection with Pekah's conspiracy against Pekahiah (2 K. ir)25), but whether of officers on the side of the king, who shared his fate {his gififion'm , according to Targ. Jon.), or of conspirators along with Pekah. it is difficult to say, owing to the corrupt slate of the text. Argob (opyo^ lli.M,] oo)k^i) is not suitable for a personal name. It is a well-known place-name (see above, i), and Arieh (op[]to I HI,], apt* [A], wh*^ ) has the article prefi,\ed (as if ' the lion'). The Vjj. (' percussit eum . . . juxta Argob etjuxta Arie ') accordingly treats the names we think correctly as names of places 2 (cp Tisch.), in which ca.se they are doubtle.ss glosses. Argob may have easily arisen from the preceding J10'1(BAL cm.)

' In Jos. 14 15 n gives Apyo^ for t;3^K ; see Kirjath-arba. J Not to be connected with apta (Kus. OSt^l '2S8 10), or rather an'tiia (Jer. t/: 14<'>26); see Arlm.\h.

or may be a gloss upon the ' Gileadites (see below). St. (ZA'/'H't) 160) for 'Arieh' would read TK^ riin^ and !iuggeU that ' Argob and Havvoth Jair ' were originally glosses belonging to r. 29. On that theory', the origin of the difficult DK (prefixed to both names) becomes clear.

The MT leaves it obscure whether the ' fifty men of the sons of (Jileadites ' ' were fellow -conspirators with Pekah (so <S"'-, which reads AvSpts) or whether they were slain along with the king (so (5'* AvSpas, V'g. viros). <E5"* (not E) presents a different reading, ' fifty of the four hundred,' which, if correct, must refer to .some IxKly-guard. This may Ix; a trace of the true text, and Klostermann accordingly restores 'he (Pekah) smote him . . . with his (Pekahiah's) 400 warriors, and with him ( Pekah) were fifty men of the Gileadites.' Pkkah [</.] w;is possibly a Gileadite.



[N|l. Kiic of the so\er(Mgns enimicrated in i Mace, iri22. Ariarallii's \'l., Pliilopator, king of Cappadocia (163- 130 H.c. ), is obviously intended. See C.vhpauocia.


(nnX; ApcAloc [BAE] ARCeoc [N] ; but cp .-\KiSAi), son of Haman (Eslh. 99). See Esthkk, 3 (end).


(XnnnX ; c&rBaxa [BNAE], but cp Gr. readings of Pokatha), son of Haman {g.v.), Esth. 98. See i;.STiiKK, 3 (end).


(nnsn), 2 K.]:.25 ; see Argob. 2.


("PNns*, but '?N>N: in .S. ; ^PIhA [BAE]I. I. A personal name. So(i. j Gen. 46 16 Nu.2617, ; MT ?N"1N (see Akei.i [EV], where 's readings are given), the eponym of a family of (j.\u {(/.i'.) in P; (ii. I ICzra 816 ( = iEsd.843, EV Iduki.. mg. Akiki, ; i5oi'7;Xos [BA]), head of family, temp. Ezra (see EZRA, i. {5 2, ii. 15 (i)d); and (iii. ) 2S.-2320 [BE; A omits] = I Ch. 11 22 [BXAE], a Moabite whose two sons-' were slain by David's warrior, Benaiah. So RX','* Kau. //S, l'".w. We. Dr. Some more striking action, however, ia re<|uired in such a context, and it is Ijest to adopt some form of Klostermann's emended reading, which makes Benaiah the slayer of two young lions (so Bu. in S/i( >'/'). Marcjuart, however, suggests that for Ariel in 2 S. we should read Uriel (cp L'RIAII, i [2S. L'825]), and the author of X.AMES ( 35) makes a similar suggestion for Ariel, 2, and for Arei.I {</.::).

2. .\ prophetic name for Jerusalem, Is. 29 1/. 7 (6),* probably to be read Uriel (Sn'In) in vz: i, 2a, 7, and Arial ( "'nhn = S'In ) in v. zb. Uriel (or Uruel?) would be a modification of Urusalem (c'?ri"iN ; Am. Tab. Urusalim ; see Jkrusai.em), and mean originally, God's enclosure or settlement (cp Jkklei.). Arial (cp Ar. irat"", hearth) means altar-hearth," as it prob- ably does in Mesha's inscription Cskix //. 12, 17/.). The prophecy containing it was written during Sennacherib's invasion (see IsAlAH, ii. 20) ; it aimed at dissipating the false confidence of the people in the security of Jerusalem. The pro{)er name of the city was Urusalem (which afterwards became Jerusalem). Isaiah alters this into Uriel (Uruel ?) in order to make a paronomasia. In a year or two the city against which David had encamjied svill be l)esieged by a greater than Da\id, and so great will Iw the slaughter in its streets that its

1 Argob and Gilead lie close together.

^ D'lySj ":ZC.. a fusion of lySj '320 and C"iy^jn"|2(s') "P' ); cp Kau. lis, crit. note.

MT omits ' sons ' in both places, and Raj< in Ch.

  • RV ' the two (sons of) .Ariel ' : AV ' two lion-like men.
  • In V. 7 has a doublet ; itpouaakrfu (BZP both times, and

AQ second time], i^A [KAQ'* first time], tA^Ji ot y' af>i>|A [Q mg. first time), iiAji (K second time).

6 The same word prok-xbly occurs with thus meaning in Kzekiel's planofthetemple;Kz.43i5/(7'. isa'^K'^H; 15^ AV. i6 AV. VkTj V. 1 -a 0a>? fiov e? T|TOt opo Ov iis TO Ov<n.a.<rn\piov ovruf (KoAeire [adnot in Q"'S]).

name will Ixjcome no longer Uriel, hut (by a slight modification) Arial i.e., altar-licartli. The reading Uriel seems to have been known to the author of 3I9: ' 'says Yahwe, who has a fire (tk) in Zion and a furnace in Jerusalem.' The other explanations of this prophetic name are (i) lion, or lioness, of God (ICw., Di.,Che.,/ja. ) ; (2)hearth of God(Del., Konig, Kittcl); (3) altar-hearth (Stade, Duhm, Che., SHOT). Of these, the third is probably the easiest ; but none of theni ([uite accounts for the selection of the new name for David's city, nor for the expression 'and will iK'come to me like (an) Ariel {v. 2b). T. K. C.


(Api/v\<\eAiA [Ti- WH]), Mt.'2757. etc. Sec R.\M.\TI1.\1.\I-Z(J1'111.\I.


(^r-lS ; aricox [BADKL 87, X-^"]. -XHC [87 in Dan. 2 i4/.]). Probably a Hebraised form of an old Babylonian name (see Chkuoklaomer, 3) u.sed, (i) possibly with arcli:vological accuracy, in Gen. 14 19 of an ally of an ancient king of Elam ; (2) by a literary fiction, of Nebuchadrezzar's captain of the guard (Dan. '214/ 24/ ) ; and (3) of a king of Hlam (so the Syriac) in alliance with Nebuchadrezzar (Judith 1 6, a/Jtacre [N*]. Cp Bezold, Babyl. Assyr. Lit. 53.


Cpnii! ; Poi'^aiov [RSL], -^avov [A], milcss we regard this as an intruder and identify Arisai with the succeeding name Ap^atos ; see Arii).\i), son of Hainan (I':s. Og). See EsTiiEK, 3 (end).


(arictapxoc [Ti- WH]), a Thes- salonian (.\cts204.27 2), one of Pauls comi^anions in travel (.Actsl929), was among those who accompanied him from Europe on his last recorded visit to Jerusalem (Acts 2O4), and also on his voyage to Rome, having joined him at Cresarea (.\cts27 2). As the apostle's ' fellow-prisoner' ((nij'atxMa^<"'05) he unites with him in saluting the (Jolossians (Col. 4 10). Cp Colossians, \o f. He joins in the salutation to Philemon (Philcm. 24), but in this passage is designated simply as ' fellow -worker,' Epaphras alone being called ' fellow-prisoner. ' Erom this it has been inferred, with mucli probability, that the companions of Paul relieved one another in voluntarily sharing his captivity.

In the lists of the 'seventy disciples' given by the Pseudo- Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus (not earlier than the fifth cent.), Aristarchus is bishop of .\pamea in Syria. Psendo- 1 )orotheus also has it that along with Pudetis and Trophimus he was beheaded in Rome at the same time as Paul.


(apictoBoy\oc [VA ; Ti. WH], a Greek name adopted by Romans and Jews, and borne by several memlx,TS of the Maccabean and Herodian families).

1. The teacher (5i5c{(r(caXoj) of Ptolemy (no. i), towhom Judas (the Maccabee) sent letters (2 Mace. 1 io|. He is the well-known Jewish- Hellenistic philosopher of that name, who resided at the court of Ptolemy VI. Philo- metor (180-145 n. c. ). He was of priestly descent (dir6 ToO tO}v xP"^**"' 'fp^wv -yivov^, J'. 10 ; cp Lev. 43 |nr,T n'r^n), and was the author of (among other writings) certain works on the Pentateuch, fragments of which are preserved in ("lenient of .Alexandria and in l-Aisebius. See Schiir. 6'//' 2 760^, Ew. (7 TV 4 355, and Kue. Godid. 1 433./

2. ' They of the household of Aristobulus ' are saluted in Rom. 16 10. It is not implied that Aristobulus him- self was a Christian. The name was a common one in the dynasty of Herod. The list of the ' seventy disciples ' given by the Pseudo-Dorotheus names Aris- tobulus as bishop of Britain.


f<\pHC [ANN' ; is not certain, see Swete], 

ARirs), I Mace. ]22o RV; see Si-akta. AEK. See Deluge, 10.

1 Isal.ih's aiithnrship is doubted (Che. Intr. Isa. 204) It is iinlikely that I.saiah e.vilained Uriel 'Cod's fire"; the parono- masia in 7'. ih would then disappear Moreover TN in the sense of fire seems to be late. Cp 30 32/: ; 33 17 (late).


or Sacred Ark (|nN ; 1 KiBcoToc L15ALJ ; .ikc.i).

There is nothing more significant than the changes in the titles of sacred objects. We must, therefore, be -J careful to place these titles in their chrono-

A k^^f " l<'g't"=^l "rder. According to Seyritig(/./ '/'IF ArK o 1^ ,,6 ['91]) the oldest name of the ark (or ixOO, CuC. g.j^.rgj chest) is ' the ark of Yahwe the (Jod of Hosts (SCte'oth) w ho is enthroned upon the cherubim. ' This title is reached by an analysis of the designations of the ark in [a] 28.62 and (b) iS. 44 (both passages belong to early documents). The titles given in {a) are 'ark of G(xl ' (hd-elOhiin), and 'called by the name of Yahwe Seba'oth that is enthroned upon the cherubim.' '^ In {b) the title is ' ark of the b'rilh of Yahwe Seba'oth who is enthroned upon the cherubim.' Recombining the supposed oldest elements in these titles, .Seyring obtains the title mentioned above. This usually careful scholar, however, has overlooked, in dealing with {b), (5's reading in the preceding verse viz., ' the ark of our God" (tt]v Ki^ccrbv ToO dfov rj/jLwv [B], r. k. rris SiaOi^K-ijs tov 6. i]. [A], T. K. T. S. Kvpiov T. 0. i]. [L]), which is self-evidently more correct than the Deuteronomic formula* of MT, and, taken together with i;. 6 (' ark of Yahwe '), justifies us in assuming that the equally simple title ' ark of Yahw6 ' stood originally in v. ^a and v. 5, and ' ark of God' (cp ZT'. II 17 19-22) in v. ^b. Nor has Seyring noticed that after ' ark of God ' in {a) the relative clause which follows is superfluous, and presumably a later insertion. It must Ije added that it remains most improbable that the divine name Yahwe Sgba'oth is older than the .Assyrian period, to which indeed Amos who undoubtedly uses it belongs ; at any rate the theory that this name represents Yahwe as the God of Israel's hosts, and has any special connection with the ark, has insuperable difficulties.* Thus, so far as (a) and (/') are concerned, the popular names for the ark were very short viz. , 'ark of Yahwe,' 'ark of God,' and 'ark of our God,' and from the context of the former passage we find that there was a still shorter name, ' the ark ' (2S. 64), which occurs thrice in old parts of Samuel, and five times (or seven, including Josh. 81417; sec Kau. i/S) in the He.xateuch. The title 'ark of God' (ctiSn.t piK. or twice d'hSk ]Sik) occurs often in old parts of Samuel, and also in Chronicles. In a solemn speech of David in i Ch. If) 12 14 we find the sonorous phrase ' the ark of Yahwe the (iod of Israel,' which re- minds us of the phrase used by the Philistines in i S. 5 7/. II.' Side by side with 'the ark of Elohim' we naturally find the phrase 'the ark of Yahwe.' It occurs first in the composite work JE, and may rea.son- ably tx; ascribed in the first instance to J, though in some passages it may have been inserted by the editor, either as an altogether new addition, or in lieu of the phrase ' the ark of God,' which was probably used in E. Once (Josh. 813) we find this remarkable addition 'the Lord of the whole earth,' which, apart from jj'. h 13, occurs only in late writings, and, as Seyring points out, is

1 Cp Ass. eru, erfnu{erintiu), 'box,' 'receptacle' (Deluge, 10).

2 The same renderings are given for n3n, Noah's ark, but not for nrB, the ' ark ' in the bulrushes.

3 This rendering implies that CC', ' name,' occurs twice in MT by pure accident. Otherwise we should have to suppose that the name by which the ark was called was ' the name of Vahwi Seba'oth," etc.

  • Smenc}'s arguments {Kel.-gesch. 185 ^), weakly met by

Marti (Cesch. dcr Isr. Rel. 140), appear conclusive, only he should have fortified himself by .Assyrian parallels. Thus, Asur is said to rule kis.sat ilani ' the mass, or entire multitude, of the Ciods,' Nebo to be the overseer kiSsat Same u irsitim 'of the m.-uss (multitude) of heaven and earth.' .Amos and his school represent Yahwe as the lord of all supernatural beings in the universe, in opposition to all rival deities. See, however, Names, 8 123.

  • On these points see further, Rudde's crit. note in SBOT;

Conard, X.-iTlf 12 71 ['92], n. i ; We. TBS 167 (especially as to the right rendering of i Ch. 136).

presumalily due to a post-exilic writer whose idea of Yahwi: differetl from that of JM The phrase ' the ark of Yahw^' passed from JIC into the terminology of the historical lxx)ks in general (including Chronicles).

A new title for the ark si-ems to have been coined by the auiiior of the original Deuteronomy (I)eut. 108), and adaiJted from him by writers and editors

2. Ark of b'rith.[edit]

who shared his religious point of view, and even (strange to say) by the Chronicler, who, in general, stands so completely under the influence of the I'riestly Code. This phrase is ' the ark of the b'rith ' (usually rendered 'covenant" ; see below), either simply (Josh. 3-()) or in various combinations, such as 'ark of the d'riiA of Yahwe," 'ark of the />'rif/i of IClohim,' and ' ark of the d'ri/k of Adonai. ' The Deuteronomislic editors have freely introduced the term b'rith into the titles of the ark in the older sources which they edited. The work of the editor clearly betrays itself in such phrases as n'lan |hKn (Josh. 314), .li.n'-nna jmn (Josh. 817), where the editor has forgotten to make the omission of the article, necessitated by the introduction of a de- p)en(lcnt genitive.

And now as to the correct meaning of the phrase nna.T jinx- It is rendered by "-^l ir\ Kifiiorbi rrjs dia- OrjuTji, by Vg. (irta fadtris and area testaiiifnli (Nu. 14 44*. and by EV 'ark of the covenant.' That b'rith cannot, however, in this phrase mean ' covenant ' in our sense of the word is clear from i K. 821 ( =2 Ch.6ii), where we are told that 'the b'rith of Yahwe' was 'in the ark.' The phrase is parallel to that in E.\. '25 16 21, ' intothearkthoushalt putthetestimony'(rny."i nx). which (see below ) is a technical term for the 'two tables' of the Decalogue. Hence Kau. US rightly rejects the obscure if not misleading phra.se ' ark of the covenant,' and substitutes 'ark with the law (of Yahwe),' which is at any rate, by common admission, the best appro.xi- mate rendering (cp CovKN.ANT, i ).

The latest phase in the historical development of the names of the ark is marked by the title which occurs eleven tin\es in the I'riestly Code and also

3. Ark of 'gdflth.[edit]

in Josh. 4 16 (introduced into JE by the editor ?), meaning ' ark of the publicly delivered ordinance' ("'^'- tj Kifiuirbs t^s diaOrjhij^ rod fxaprvpiov, \'g. una testimunii, EV, ark of the testimony). The meaning given above is confirmed l)y \\\. 31 18 (1^ ?) 32 1 5 (H) 3429 (P), where we hear of ' the two tables of the rni;-' Probably this new title appeared to the priestly writer clearer and more definite than that introduced by Deuteronomy. It did not, however, displace the older phrases, which reapjiear not only in Chronicles but also in the Greek Apocrypha, and {k. T% Sta07jKr]i) in the NT (see Ixjlow, 15).

On looking back, we see that the names and titles of the ark fall into three classes. We have, first, the names ' ark of Yahwe,' ' ark of God,' ' ark of our (iod,' which indicate that the ark contained an object which in some way symlxilised and represented Israel's (Jod ; and next, the names, 'ark of the law,' 'ark of the ordinance,' which suggest that the object contained in the ark was inscribed with laws; and lastly, attached to the older names, titles such as those in Josh. 8(11)13 2 S. 62, which indicate a desire to correct the materialistic interpreta- tion which might seem to convert the ark into an idol. A critical study of the texts is the necessary commentary on these deductions from names. The following sections aim at bringing together the chief notices of the ark, indicating the sources from which they are derived, and then, at fitting points, giving the reader some idea of the results which follow from a critical treatment of these notices.

We t\im first of all to the documents called J and E (as far as we can separate the one from the other) in the Hexateuch. It is more than probable ' that both J and

J See the analysis of Ex. 82 / in Exouus, ii. | 3, and cp Bacon, Exodus, 143, 146 ; We. CH 95 ; Di. Kx. u. Lev. 345.

E. in their original form, relatetl how Yahw6 or E16hini, at Sinai or at Horeb, directed an ark to Ijc made as a

4. Traditional ff'^'^}^'[edit]

^is personal presence as 

oricin of '*'"'^'*'-" '^^ ^"^ I^*"P'*-"- ^ ^"=**^ passages

  • _ ..p were omitted by the editor, who pre-

ferred the much more suitable account (so he must have deenied it) given in P (see Ix-low, 13), but has preserved the tradition of J and E that, lioth in the wilderness and on the entrance into Canaan, the ark led the van of the host. In referring to this J ([uotes two poetic fornmhe (Nu. IO3536), which he says were sjjoken by Mo.ses at the lK.ginning and the end of a day's march, but which more probably arose at a later time.' Whether J and V, agreed with Deuteronomy in stating that the ' two tables of stone ' were placed in the ark is a matter which can Ix; only conjecturally decided. There is, however, a very strong probability that they did not. E's story, at any rate, is much more forcible if we sup(K).se no renew al of the shattered tables ( V.\. 32 19), and we cannot believe J to have differed on this im- portant point from V.. Historical considerations (.see below, 10) confirm this conclusion. In particular, the ark was not, in the succeeding narratives of J and \\. a symbol of the revealed law, but the focus of divine powers. Twice, we are told, the Israelites omitted to take the ark with them and were defeated (Nu. I444 Josh. 74), and on the latter occasion Joshua prostrated himself Ixifore the ark,'-^ and remonstrated with Yahwe, the God of Israel. The crowning proof of the potency of the ark was given when the Israelites cros.sed the Jordan (according to one of the traditions, at harvest time), and captured Jericho (Josh. 3/". 6). The Deuter- onomic editor has made the former part of the narrative dirticult to restore to its original form (which was a com- bination of J and E); but it is probable that J and V. already described the priests (not, ' the priests, ti.e Levites ') as bearers of the ark. In the latter part it is not very difticult to recover a simpler, more natural, and presumably earlier account, in which no e.vprtss mention is made of the ark, and nothing is said of tl.e falling down of the walls of Jericho (on the narrative see JosiHA, ii. 7).^ Thus far, then, the most genuine tradition is clear and intelligible.

[' The invention of portable sanctuaries, and esp>ecially of portable idols, may possibly go back to the nomatlic Semites and to a time when the gods were still tribal rather than local ; but the probabilities are all against such a view. There is less trace of such an institution in Arabia than in any other part of the Semitic world, and nowhere else is the principle so strongly marked that a trilx; that changes its seats changes its gods. Even the ark of Yahwe is not carried back by Heljrew tradition to patriarchal times ; the patriarchs do worship only where they have a fi.xed altar. It is, therefore, more likely that portable symbols of the godhead first arose among the settled Semites and in connection with the religion of the army in war. In this connection the idea of a portable god involves no great breach w ith the con- ception that each deity has a local home, for w hen the campaign is over the god returns to his temple. When the notion of portable gods was once established, however, its application could easily \xi extendetl and would serve to smooth away the difficulty of establishing new jierma- nent sanctuaries in conquered regions or colonies over the sea. A Greek colony always carried its gods with it, and it is probable that this w:is often done by the Phoenician colonists also. Even in Israel we find that the sanctuary of Yahw^ at Dan was constituted by setting up the image from Micah's .sanctuary (Judg. 18 30), just as David gave a religious character to his new capital by transferring the ark to it. ']

I Delitzsch, however, defends the Mosaic authorship, ZKW 3 22S-215 ['82].

i So MT and C- ; baf omit 'the ark (oQ."

3 We. CH i2r. Ki. lint. 1 282/

< From WRS, Burnett Lectures, and series. Lect. I. (MS>.

5. (capture g^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ a.hnitted.[edit]

But by what critical process can we bring simplicity into the episode of the capture and restoration of the _ , sacred ark by the Philistines ( i S. 4 i-7 i ) ?

That at the ^^ end of the period of the Judges the ark

^^ ^' rested at the Kphrainiitish sanctuary of Shiloli is a trustworthy statement, guaranteed by i S. 43/. (cha|). .3 we must regretfully pass over, as coming from a different hand and later writer ; sec Samuki,, ii. ). It must, also, Ije a fact that the Philistines had defeated the Israelites near I'Iben-ezer (IsK.\i:i., }; 1 1 ). Tradition doubtless added that the leaders of Israel attributed their misfortune to the absence of the ark from the host, and that they therefore fetched the sacred chest from Shiloh. The immediate conseciuences are graphically described. On the arrival of the ark the Israelites were in a state of wild delight ; and the Philistines who heard the shoutings were proportionately alarmed, for ' who (said they) can deliver us from these great gods?' {(f/Mim). Nevertheless, with the courage of despair, the Philistines renewed the fight with complete success, and were even able to carry off the ark in triumph. Then begins a series of wonderful incidents from which it is difficult to e.xtract a kernel of early tradition. Stade thinks (Gl'I 1 202/ ) that in chaps, f) and 6 he can find the remnants of two distinct accounts ; but the recognition of this would only diminish the number of difficult features in the narrative. It would obviously not provide an intelligible statement of facts. Of the difficult details referred to there is only one which it is necessary to criticise here. It is a statement which the study of the Assyrian monuments seems to make historically impossible. The Philistines, we are told, under the pressure of pestilence, returned the ' gods ' which they had captured from Israel. Ancient nations did not act thus in such circumstances. For example, we know that the image of the goddess Xana (see Xan.i:.\) was taken from Erech by an Elamite king, and detained in Elani for 1635 years. Did an}' calamity ever suggest to the Elamites the idea that Nana was chastising them for the insult to her image? No. Asurbanipal, king of Assyria, had to devote all his energies to the task of crushing the Islamites before he could restore the image to its ancient home (cp .A^IR- RANl-PAL, 8). Similar stories of reconciuered idols are told in connection with the names of Asurbanipals grandfather Sennacherib (cp AssvKi.v, 20) and the old Babylonian king Agu-kak-rime. '

The fragmentary document which we have thus far studied closes with the statement that the ark was placed in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, and that Abinadab's son was consecrated to keep it. It is to an entirely different (and probably earlier) source'-^ that we owe the narrative of the bringing of the ark to Zion. We learn here that at the time when David bethought himself of the ark, it rested at a place called Baal in Judah (2 S. 62 ; see Driver ad loc. ). During the whole of Saul's reign and during David's seven-years' reign in Hebron, it had lain forgotten in a provincial town. Neither Saul nor David had thought of taking it into battle ; nor, so far as our evidence goes, had it been visited by the people. What, then, had been the effect of the repeated attestations which the divine judgments had given to its supernatural power ? Let us see whether the narrative in 2 S. 6 (which appears to be older than that in i S. 4i-7i), when critically treated, suggests any way out of our manifold difficulties. It is permissible, and indeed necessary, to disregard so much of chap. 6 as relates to the death of Uzzah (a passage which in its difficulty resemt)les parts of the story in i S. 5 / , and the growth of which can be accounted for), and to fix our attention on the simpler narrative in vv. 10-15, the kernel of which is that, early in David's reign, the ark

1 Tide, BAG 128/ 305/ 392 if: , referred to by Kostcrs, TliT 27 364 ['93].

2 The reference in 2 S. 6 3 to the house of Abinadab seems to be an editorial insertion (see Kosters, op. cit. 368).

was in the house of one Obed-edom of Gath, and that David fetched it thence with much jubilation to Zion. How came the ark to be there ? That David of his own accord entrusted such a sacred object to a Philistine is highly improbable ; but how if Obed-edom was not a Philistine sojourning in Judah., but a foe residing in his native town of Gath ? How if the ark had never left Philistine territory, though it had been shifted from Dagon's temple to a private house? How if David acted as Assyrian kings acted in similar circumstances, and reconcjuered the precious object which was to him in some sense the dwelling of his God? This is the hypothesis of Kosters, who held not only, with Kittel and Budde, that 2 S. 21 15-22 is properly the con- tinuation of the narrative in 2 S..') 17-25, but also that the secjuel of the story of the battle in Gath (2 S. 21 20) was once the notice that David fetched the ark from the house of Obed-edom in Gath and deposited it for a time at Baal.^ After this, according to Kosters, came originally the story of the capture of Jerusalem (an event which this critic places after the hostilities referred to in 2 S. i)\T ff.), and of the bringing up of the ark to Zion. The editor to whom the present form of 2 S. 61-12 is due apjiears to have had a religious rather than a his- torical motive. The facts as stated in the original narrative might suggest to some readers that Yahwe needed the interference of David to deliver him from captivity : in other words, that David was stronger than his God. The editor shrank from inventing an entirely new narrative, but, to counteract that idea, put the central facts in the traditional story in an entirely new setting.

This hypothesis, the present writer has long felt, is absolutely required to clear up an important historical episode.'^ Without it the central facts of tradition, in- cluding David's almost ecstatic joy (2 S. 614), are hope- lessly obscure. A glance at 2 S. 6 1 / will convince the reader that there is nothing arbitrary in the view pro- posed. That vv. 2-i2 caimot have been the original sequel of v. i must be clear. Unless v. i is simply mis- placed, it must have been followed by a record of some martial exploit of David. To the present writer it seems ])robable (see David, 7) that the exploit consisted in a great victory near Gath (cp 2.S. 2I20/. ), which so weakened the Philistines that they offered to restore the ark on condition of David's making with them a treaty of peace, and that David him.self fetched the ark from Obed-edom's house. It will te remembered that when David defeated the Philistines at Baal-perazim he had 'taken away the images' (2S. .521) which, by their presence, should have ensured a Philistine victory. It seems probable that when the Philistines restored the ark David gave back the captured ' iniages. ' Clever- ness was a characteristic of this king. It was all-im- portant to him not to wage an internecine warfare with the Philistines, and he therefore ' contented himself with a peace honourable for both parties' (Kamphausen). The original story may have referred to this restoration of the images captured at Baal-perazim, and this com- jKJund name may have suggested the mention of ' Baal ' and ' Perez-uzzah ' in 2 S. 6 as it now stands. In a certain sense, indeed, the ark uuis recovered from Baal- perazim.

Our next notice of the ark is in 2 S. 7, a passage full of varied interest, though in its present form not older than the sixth century. It tells us (and no doubt the

1 The rea.*5n why David deposited the ark at Baal was, accord- ing to Kosters, that he had not yet conquered Jehus or Jeru.salem. Those who hold another view as to the time of the conquest of

Jebus will give a different reason. David had indeed conquered ebus, but had not yet adapted it by fresh buildings to ser\e the purpose of a capital. See Daviu, 10.

2 Since the above was written, Winckler has made another attempt to produce an intelligible view of the hi.stor>' of the ark (Gl T^ff.). It is difficult to see that there is any .solid ground for his very revolutionary hypothesis ; but, at any rate, he perceives a problem which escaped the earlier writers before Kosters.

statement is historical) that David wished to huikl a cedar-house for the ark, but was forliiddcn l)y an oracle. We can understand, therefore, that for

6. Permanent abode.[edit]

a time (as 2S. lln suggests) the ark was still carried with the army as an insurance against defeat.* The capture of it by the Philistines, however, had already given a blow to the primitive, fetishistic conception of the ark, and an occasion arose when David, it would seem, was inwardly ^ moved to express a far higher view. It was probably a ! turning-point in Israel's, as well as in David's, religious development. The circumstances were these. David was fleeing froni Jerusalem before Absalom. Zadok wished j to carry the 'ark of God' with David and his body- j guard. The king, however, protested, and commanded 1 Zadok to carry it back, ' that it may Ixj seated in its place' (2S. ]o25, '-). He was conscious (if t'. 26 may be followed) that Yahwe might have cause to be displea.sed with him, and would rather suffer his punish- ment meekly than seem, by having the ark with him, to demand the interposition of Yahwe as a natural right. Henceforth, therefore, the symbol of Yahwe's presence should no more ' leave its place ' : Yahwe would direct Israel's aflairs, both in p)eace and in war, from Zion. ICarly in Solomon's reign the greatest of all Israel's sanctuaries was erected. Much as the original passage of .Solomon's biography has been edited (see Kau. //i' and cp (5), it is beyond ciuestion that this king trans- ported the ark from its temporary abode to the sanctuary j of his temple. There so both he and David hoped it was to serve as a national centre, and complete the unification of Israel. The hope was, however, dis- appointed ; nor do even the writers of Judah spend a word on the ark, or give a hint as to the feelings of the people towards it.

7. Disappear-[edit]

Our ne.xt news of the ark is indirect, and conies from an exilic or post-exilic passage of the I^ook of Jcrcniiaii (3i6). The passage runs thus: 'In those days no more shall one say, ' ' The ""'"' ark of the h' nth of Yahwe," neither shall it come into one's mind, neither shall one think upon it, nor miss it. neither shall it he made again.' The full inqjort of the words may be doubtful ; but at least one thing is clear the ark, on the possession of which the weal or woe of Israel had once seemed to depend, had passed away. This is too patent from later writings to be denied. I'",zra 1 and i Mace. 4 do not mention the ark among the sacred vessels. Josephus (/^v. 05) declares that the Holy of Holies contained nothing at all. Lastly, Tacitus, relating the entrance | of Pompey into the temple, uses the emphatic words, ' Inde vulgatum nuUas inlus deum effigies ; vacuam ' sedem et inania arcana' [Hist. 69). How the ark disappeared will Ije considered presently (see next ). Sufiice it to add here that the sepher tofdh or ' Book of the Law ' succeeded to the undivided reverence of true Israelites, and is still, with its embroidered mantle and ornaments, the most sacred object in every synagogue.

When, then, and how did this holy thing, which, according to Jer. 3 16, was by many so painfully missed, pass

o T4. r_4. out of sight? We have accounted for one 8. Its ia.te. , . . ,

strange gap in our historical notices respect- ing the ark : how shall we explain the still longer and stranger lacuna which extends from (say) 960 to 586 H. < :. ? Why is it that neither the historians nor the prophets of this period (so far as we possess their works) refer to the fortunes of the ark or to the popular rever- ence for it in their own time? Three answers seem possible. ( t ) Soon after 960 the ark may have l)een captured by an enemy a calamity which was deliterately suppressed by the historians, just as they suppressed the

1 We must not refer here to i K. "2 26, which .states, according to MT, that .-Miiathar used to ' bear the ark before David ' i.e., in his campaigns. The right reading is, not jiix. 'ark,' but n^DK. ' ephod ' ; cp i S. 23 6 9. Cp the s.-ime mistake in i S. 14 18, MT. (So first Thenius.)

destruction of the temple of Shiloh. Cliesebrecht and ( 'ouard have j)ointed to the invasion of Judah by Shishak (Se.sonk I.), king of Kgypt, alxiut 928, as the occasion of this (see i K. 14 26). Ihe objection is that Shishak's campaign, as the bas-reliefs at Karnak apjK;ar to pr<ne.' was against Israel as well as Judah, and that, Egypt being too weak at that time to think of jjermanent con- quests, the expedition must have been simply due to vainglory and to greed. If Shishak took away from Palestine anything in the nature of an idol, it must have been the ' golden calves' of Jerolxjam, and not the out- wardly unattractive wooden chest in the sanctuary of the temple of Rehoboam. I^>sides, Reholxjam and his priests would never have allowed the cajjture of the ark to become known : they would ci-rtainly, in the interests of the temple, have substituted a new chest, for which pious fiction the supposed discoveries of Babylonian kings mentioned by Tiele [liAC, 461) may perhaps furnish a parallel. (2) The ark may have been carried away with the temple treasures in 785. by Joash, king of Israel (2 K. 1414), who would hardly have omitted to reclaim the long-lost treasure of the I-:phraimitish sanctuary at Shiloh. The objection to this is that the ark had Ion;; ceased to be the special possession of a trilie, and that events had proved that Joash could well dis|jen.se with the ark, while to have carried it away would have been an offence against the great hero of united Israel David. (3) The ark (which was probably renewed by the priests, when decayed from age) may have retained its place till the great catastrophe in 586, and previously to this may have lost much of its ancient prestige owing to the growing sense of the inconsistency of identifying such an object as the ark with the great God Yahwe, and perhaps also to discourses of the prophets against a superstitious reverence for the ark which have been lost, or even su[)prcssed by editors. This view which is in the main that adopted in 4 Ksd. IO22, and implied by the legend in 2 Mace. 25 (cp below, 15), that Jeremiah '- hid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense in a cave is by no means an improbable one. The only obvious objection to it can easily be met. The assertion in Dent. 10 4/ that the ark was simply the repository of two inscribed tables of stone need not imply that D, like P, is an arch:tologist, and that the object which is thus wrongly descritx^d no longer existed. It is more natural to suppose that, like the other fetishes to which this writer is so vehemently ojjposed, the sacred stones which (as we shall see) were the objects venerated of old in the ark still held their place, concealed from view but secure. The Deuteronomist, speaking in the name of Moses, could not help assuming the sanctity of the ark and its contents. In the interests of piety, however, he transformed (as far as words could do it) the nature of the objects in the ark. That venerable coffer was not, he meant to say, in any sense the dwelling of the deity, whom no temple could hold (i K. 827) : it siinjily contained a perfect written embodiment of the funda- mental demands of Israel's righteous tiod.

This leads us to consider the origin and affinities of the ark. Yor the ark of the Deuteronomist (and of I'l. with its two inscril)ed tables, no parallel has

9. Real nature.[edit]

Ixien found. Prof. Savce indeed refers

Mr. Rassam's discovery of a coffer with two inscribed alabaster tablets in a little temple at Balawat. near Mosul ; ' but the coffer (which was not placed in the sanctuary) also was of alabaster, and with its con- tents corresponds to the chests containing sacred Ixjoks which were among the regular appurtenances of Egj'ptian (anil probably of Syrian ) lemiiles, but were not meant to be carried. For the ark known to the earliest Hel rew traditions, however, there are many monumental

1 .St. GVI 1 -,53/ ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 166-169.

2 In the Ta\m\xd (Hitrajoth, I2(i)it is Fosiah who hides the ark and other sacred objects, including the pot of manna (see below, 15).

Sayce, Hihbert Lectures, 65 ; cp Pinches, TSBA 7 83.

parallels. In Egypt, for instance (from which Reran too hastily derives the Israelite ark), no festal pro- cession could be sculptured or painted without them.^ The arks, with their images, were placed on boats, which were ornamented at the ends with heads of the divinities within ; the king himself, being divine, also had his ark-boat. Such an ark-boat, too, is referred to in the strange story of the daughter of the king of Bahtaii," where an image of the god Honsu is said to have txjen transported to .Syria, to deliver a princess from the spirit that oppressed her. These shrine-boats must originally have had their parallels in Babylonia : the constant expression for the sacred arks in the cuneiform texts is <///'/'/ ' /. e. , ' ships. ' Within the best-known historical periods, however, it was in simple arks or coffers that the images of the gods were borne m procession at the Babylonian (and Assyrian) festivals.

Thus it appears that two things were essential in a sacred ark that it shouUl ixj of a size and a material which would permit it to be carried, and that it should contain a representation or mystic symbol of a deity. The ark known to David and Solomon doubtless com- plied with these conditions. It was a simple wooden box, such as the ancestors of the Israelites had used in their nomadic slate for their few valuables,'* without either the coating of gold or the cherubim with which the reverence of a later writer provided it. As to its p . . contents, the inscribed ' tables of stone,' "^ ^ ^' which we should never have expected to find in the Holy of Holies, were but a substitute of the imagination for some mystic symbol or representation of Yahwe. Of what did that symbol consist ? We are, of course, bound to do what we can to minimise the fiction or error of the Deuteronomist ; but we must not deviate from the paths of historical analogy. These duties are reconciled by the supposition that the ark contained two sacred stones (or one). This view, no doubt, imjilics a survival of fetishism ; but there are traces enough of fetishism (on which see Idolatuy, g 4) elsewhere in Hebrew anticiuity to justify it. The stones (or stone) miist have been ancient in the extreme. They (or it) originally had no association with Yahw^ ; they represented the stage when mysterious personality and power were attached to lifeless matter. Being portable, however, they were different from the sacred stones of Bethel, Bcth-shemesh, .Shechem, and En-rogel, and are most naturally viewed as specimens of those b.netyls, anim.ated stones, which, according to Sancho- niathon, were formed by the heaven-god, and were presumably meteorites. They may have belonged originally to the tribe afterwards called Ephraim; and when the several tribes united in worshipping Yahwe, the Gorl of Moses, the l-^phraimitish ark with its contents may have Ijeen adopted as the chief sacred symbol of Yahwe. Theearliest narrators (see above, 3, end) viewed the ark (which was virtually one with what it contained) as a substitute for the immediate presence of Yahwe, the sin of the 'Golden Calf at Sinai having proved the Israelites to be unripe for such an immense privilege. The primitive Israelites, however, who knew nothing of the story referred to, nuist have regarded it, not as a substitute, but as the reality itself

11. Treatment.[edit]

The portableness of the Israelitish ark did not, it is true, lead to its being carried about in processions. The reason is that, to the Israelite, the object within the ark was much more than an

1 .See the procession of the arks of Amen Re", Mut, and Honsu (the Theban triad) in the second court of the temple of Ram[e)ses III. at Medlnet Hfibfi (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyf>tians, 8289), and Plate V. in Naville's Festival Hall ofOsorkon, i (cp p. 18).

2 Maspero, i?/'(2) 840-45.

3 Del. Ass. HWB s.v. elififnt. On the processional arks in Babylonia, see Tiele, ZA 2 179^; C. J. Ball, PSBA 14 4.

Cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 227.

Cp Vatke, Die Rel. des AT 321; St. GVl ^sif- \ Benzinger, Hehr. Arch. 370. There were and still are two sacred stones, a black and a white, built into the wall of the Ka'ba at Mecca (WRS, KiH. 297/.).

idol. It was not merely one of a class of objects, each of which contained a portion of the magical virtue of the deity whom it represented : ^ it was the only object with which Yahw^ w;is so closely connected that the ark (for reverence forbade mention of the stones) and Yahwe were practically synonymous terms. It was, therefore, too sacred to be moved for a slight reason. Worshippers would rather make a procession round or before the ark (cp 2 S. 6 14) than bear it in procession themselves. The reverence implied in the story in 2 S. 66/ may represent the feeling of an age later than David's ; but circumstances had long been leading up to that extreme exaggeration. The higher the conception of Yahwe became, the greater was the awfulness which encompassed the ark,-^ until (it appears probable) by a natural reaction the nobler Israelites rejected the fetishistic conception of the ark and its contents altogether. Thus we get one great distinction between the ark of the Israelites and other sacred arks : it was not subservient to idolatry. The only occasions on which it left its resting-place were times of war. Then, indeed, it was carried with the host into the fray, just as the Philistine images were carried into battle by the Philistines (2 S. 52i) not to speak of Arabian and Carthaginian parallels. * It was not specially a 'warlike palladium,' however, except for the jjeriods when war rather than peace was the normal state of the people ; * and we have found even David, at a great crisis in his life, deciding to put his trust in his God without the presence of the ark.

The notices of later writers are valuable mainly for the religious history of the period of their authors. They ,n T i show us how, near the close of the pre-exilic . (and afterwards in the post-exilic) age, pious

men imagined to themselves the nature and circumstances of the ark. It is, therefore, unsafe to infer with Bertheau, from 2 Ch. 803, that the ark was re- moved from the sanctuary by Manasseh ; unsafe, also, to infer, with the old C^ambridge scholar Spencer, from P's description of the ark, that it was designedly made like the arks of Egypt, in order that the Israelites might miss no splendour or elegance which had charmed their eyes at Zoan. That Manasseh, with his S3'ncret- istic liberality, would have removed the ark is altogether improbable. Spencer's theory, on the other hand, may contain an element of truth, and is, at any rate, more plausible than the view developed out of P's account by Riehm. It is probable that the priestly legislator (P.i), in his description of the ark, did, unconsciously and in no servile manner, take suggestions from the sacred chests of Babylonia and Egypt, which he had seen or heard of. The simple chest of which J and E had doubtless spoken was unworthy (he thought) to be in any sense the symbol of the ' Lord of the whole earth.' Not such an ark could Moses have ordered to be made, for Yahwe was all -wise and must have ' filled ' the artificers of the ark and the talx^rnacle ' with a divine spirit in wisdom and understanding ' ( Ex. 8031). We must not, however, overlook the references to the ark in writings of the Deuteronomic school. We are told (Dt. 108) that Yahw6 'separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the b'rith of Yahwe,' and in Dt. 3I9 (cp 25/!) we find a special title given to ' the priests the sons of I^vi,' which is derived from this function (cp Josh. 83). For other Deuteronomic references to the ark, see Dt. 8X25/ Josh. 833 i K. 815 619 8921.

1 Cp Maspero, /v/'(2> 843, n. 2.

2 Cp 1 S. 20, ' And the men of Beth-shemesh said. Who is able to stand before Yahwe, this holy God?'

3 .See WRS, Rel. Sem.i^) 37.

  • Kautzfch and Kraetzschmar (see ' Literature ') hardly seem

to hit the mark. We cannot lay any stress on the titles in i S. 4 4 2 S. <> 2, on grounds stated .ilready (above, S ')

B Riehm thinks (//;F/f(2|, art. ' Biindeslade ') that the ark was constructed in such a way as to show the diametrical opposition between the religion of revelation and the religion of nature worship, the presence of Y.ahwe (symbolised by the cherubim on the .irk) being conditional on Israel's performance of its covenant- duties.

W'c now return to the much more important notices ] in the I'riestiy Code and in Chronicles. A full descrip- p, tion of the ark is given in lix. '25 10-22

, . . 37 1-9- It was made of acacia wood.

aescnption. .,.,jj^ statement is jwssibly based on tradi- tion which is particular as to the materials of sacred objects. The shittah-tree grows not only in Arabia, but also in parts of Palestine : the ark, therefore, could be renewed if necessary. It was oblong two cubits and a half in length, one and a half in breadth and u\ height. Ciold was overlaid on it within and without, and on the lid, which had a projecting golden rim (it), was a plate of pure gold (nii;3 ; see Mickcy-.skat), sustaining two golden cherubim (see CHiiKUH, i. ), or winged figures, whose wings extended over the ark. From these cherubim Yahwe promised to comnuniicate w ith Moses, and reveal his will for Israel. According to \i\. 30 26, the ark was to Ije anointed along with the tal)ernacle and the rest of its furniture. When made, it was broiight, we are told, to Moses (3935), and placed by him in the tal)ernacle, screened by the veil ^ (/.'., in the Holy of Holies ; see 2633/). In Lev. Itiz the sanctity of the ark is emphasised by the command that .\aron (/.<., the High Priest) shall enter the Holy of Holies only once a year. In Nu. 831 the charge of the ark is committed to the Kohathites, and in 4 5 it is commantled that when the talK,Tnacle is moved Aaron and his sons (i.e. , the priests) shall carefully cover up the ark with the veil, Ixifore the Kohathites take it up, in order that the latter may neither see (v. 20) nor touch {t. 15) the holy things. In 789 (RV) the Voice {i.e., of Yahwe) speaks to Moses from the 'Mercy-Seat.' The gloss in Judg. '2O27/ a gloss added luider the influence of I'., -states that the ark was at Bethel in the days of Phinehas, and the editors, who follow 1\, doubtless understood that the ark was always in the tabernacle till the battle of Aphek (cp T.\hkrn.\ci.k).

14. Cnronicler[edit]

, , ^ r.i n .1 ! 1 1

The Chronicler adds scarcely any fresh incidents to the accountoftheark, and edits the earlier narratives in Samuel ,- r>v, ;!_ =!' Kings on the assumption that the regulations of the Pncstly Code were observed throughout the history. In I Ch. \r> \f. he makes David say, ' None ought to carry the ark of (jod but the Levites,' and they carry it according!}' ; and at first sight it apix;ars as if the Philistine Obed- edom liecame a Levite (i-<\ 1821 24) ; see however Obkij- E1K)M, 2. A profound sense of the sanctity of the ark is shown in iCh. 282, where the ark or the 'Mercy- seat' is called ' the footstool of Cod,' and in 2 Ch. 811, where Solomon refuses to let Pharaoh's daughter dwell in the palace of David, ' because the places (?) are holy, whereunto the ark of Yahwe hath come.' In 353, Josiah commands the Levites to ' put the holy ark in the Temple ' : 'it shall not t)e a burden on your shoulders. '

The only direct references to the ark in the Psalms are in Ps. 1328 (cp 2Ch. ()4i), where it is styled tlV I"?*' '^^ f ^^y strength'; and in Ps. 786i, where God is said to have delivered his ' strength * {i.e., the ark) into captivity. An indirect reference has often been supposed in Pss. 24 47 and 68 ; but this in- volves the untenable assumption of their pre-e.\ilic origin.

The ark is only twice mentioned in the NT. It and its contents are described in Heb. 94 as in P2, e.xcept IB WT ^^^ ^^^ P' ^^ manna (see above, 8, note) is said to have been in (instead of beside) the ark. In Rev. 11 19, after the seventh angel has sounded, ' the temple of God in heaven ' is opened, and the ' ark of God's covenant ' is seen within. The words ' in heaven' (6 iv t(|5 ovftdvi^) are however probably an editorial insertion (Spitta). It is the earthly (not the heavenly) temple that is referred to, and the meaning of the statement is that the ark which was hidden (so

This seclusion is in harmony with the tran.scentlentalism of the later conception of the divine nature. I

tradition variously said) by Jerenuah or Josiah, shall suddenly reapjjear in the sanctuiiry in the latter days.

Sec, Iwsidc.s Spencer, De Ugihus Jielirtforum (it&<), .Sc)iing

(on the ii.-inies of the ark), /iA //K 11 1 14-124 r9i ] ; Coiiard (011

the religious and national import of the ark),

16. Literature.[edit]

-^.-/ 7 /r 12 ('92); Kaui/wh (on ihc tide

Yahwfc .Seba'oth), /'. <M'861, 17-22; Kostcrs, TA 7", 27 361-378 ['93] ; iJi. on Kx. 2!) ; Nowack's and UenzinKcr* //rfi. An/i.\ VVinclcler, C/ 1 I'gjl, 70-77; Kraetzsthmar, />/> liuniifS7'orstelluMg, 1896, pp. 2o-22o; Hiihr, SymMik, 1 482, etc. (on other sacred arks) ; .Simpson, ' Ark -shrines of Japan,' TUBA 'i 550-554- T. K. C.


('piyn .r., the "Arkite. man of 'Arka ; ApoyKAiOC [ADICL, Jos. Ant. i. 62 ; cp .'-'am. 'pHJ?]*, a ( .inaanite ( Pha-nician ) tribe, (Jen. 10i7= i ( h. 1 15 (om. H. AP&KI [I-]) ; sec- Gi.ocKAl'i.V, 16, 1. Arka (cp apKT\, Jos. I.e.) is mentioned among the cities taken by Tiglath-pileser III. (cp KAT<-'> 104, 254/.), and. at a much earlier period, in the Aniarna tablets (<..;'.. 78, 12, Irkata ; once [126, 22] Irkat; the Arkmilii of Thotmes HI. seems to Ik; a collateral form).' The lofty tell commanding the remains of the ancient city was discovered by .Shaw in 1722. At its S. foot flows the Nahr '.\rka in a deep rocky Ijetl, towards the sea, two hours distant. To the 11 of the tell is the villaf,'i; of 'Arka, about 12 m. N. of Tri]X)li.s. It was an important place in the Roman jjeriod, when, throii^ii being the birthplace of Ale.xander .Severus, it was called C;esarea Libani. It was famous for the worship of .Astarte. See Smiths Did. Class. Ceoi;. s.r. .Ina; Schii. (;/r I498 n.


RV Hak-M.\(;i;i.()N (APMApeA-

^UJN [1 R]. AP MAreAcoN L^'^ lij' ARMAreAcON I 1 '

1 Howunder- ^'^' " ^"'- ^^"'".^^^"' ' ^P

RtnoH hv epMAKCAcoN.vers. Memph. ), theiKune

th "*" ^^^"^ ^^^' ^^'^^^ battlefield ( Rev. IC. I'Sl.

^^ ^" lietween the sixth vial and the seventh is inserted a vision ( Rev. 16 13/. 16) which has no comiection with the context, Ijeing apparently the setjuel of the vision of the three angels in Rev. 146-ii. The three angels proclaim the coming judgment ujion the world-power and the way to escajxi it ; the three demoniacal s|)irits (from the dragon, the beast, and the false proplKt) seek to counteract this by ' gathering the kings of ihe whole world for the war of the great day of (Jod the Almighty.' The junction of forces is made at 'the place which is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon. '

Two c|uestions have to be asked : (i) What did the writer understand by Har-Magedon (if this is the correct reading)? and (2) What was the meaning of the term in the source, whether written or oral, from which he drew? It is in the highest degree probable that the writer himself interpreted the phrase, ' the mountains of Megiddo' (cp Apyapi^iv= Mount Gerizim, Eupolemus ap. Eus. /-"/;' 9 17). Itoth from its natural advantages and from its history the Plain of Megiddo (Zech. I'Jii) would have been the more obvious scene of such a great gathering ; but the writer could plausibly justify the substitution of ' mountains ' for ' plain ' by the much- studied apocalyptic descriptions of Ez. 88821 392417, where the hordes of Gog are said to meet their end 'upon the mountains of Israel.' Megiddo itself is, of course, a hill-town, though close to the great Plain of which it commands the southern entrance : there is nothing incorrect, therefore, in the phrase ' the mountain-district of Megiddo.' Har-Magedon is no doubt half-Hebrew ; but it would Ix; strange if readers of Jewish (Jreek could not interpret it (cp terms like Na7e(3 in 1. See Apoc.M-VI'se, 46.

If, however, we hold it to be probable that the small apocalypse (.see Spitta, Offetib. 568) to which 16 16 Ix-longs j. . . is a translation of a Hebrew original, and ?"^ certain, at any rate, that the writer built meaning. ^^ ^ considerable extent on traditional

1 Cp the ethnic Irkanatai on the monolith of Shalmaneser II. (292; KliXiy^t). So Honiniel, Cesc h. 6o<), Ed. Meyer 'Glos.sen z. d. Thontaf. von el -Am.,' jKgyptiaca ("97), p. 69; cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 247.

semi -mythic stories eschatologically interpreted, it lx;c()ines a question whether his interpretation of the name of the great battletield as meaning ' mountains of Megiddo' is correct. The restoration of the original text offered by a writer in Z.l'J'U' 7 170 ['87], nao \n ("will gather them unto his fruitful mountain ' /.(., the mountain-land of Israel), does not give a delinite locality, which seems to lie required in this context. Nor are the attempted numerical explana- tions cjuoted by Spitta {Offciib. 402) more prol),ible. Ciunkel, therefore, thinks (Scho/>/. 266) that ' Harma- gedon ' mast tx: a name of mythic origin, connected in some way with the fortimes of the dragon who is the lineal heir of the Rabylonian dragon Tiamat, the personification of chaos and all evil (cp Crk.\tion, 1). On p. 389 of the same work Zimmern com- nunucates a conjecture of Jensen that fj.ayeduji' is identical with /xiyadojv in the divine name 'TecrefiiyaSwv , the husband of 'Epecrx^y"-^ ( = Bab. Ereskigal), the Babylonian goddess of the underworld. Sec Khchi. Mils. 4949, where in a magic formula given by Kuhiiort from Greek papyri we read, ^fois xdov'101% 'Tfce/jnyaSuv Kal Kovprj lie per e(f>6vrj 'Hpfcrx'7a\ k.t.X. (see also HAi>.\n-RiMMON). The same two (doubtless Baby- lonian) names occur on a lead tablet from .Alexandria, Rhein. Miis. 18 563, where the former is given as 'Te(rf/i/xt7a5w'. It would be natural that the spot where Tiamat was defeated (and was again to be defeated) by Marduk siiould Ix; called by a name which included that of a god of the underworld. T. K. ('.


Cl^I^^vI, 2 K. U37 Is, 3738t AV, RV Ar.vkat.


(Tp-13, e.wnAoKiON [H.\FL]), so RV for .WT.MU.i.r in i:x. 3;') 22 InepiAeJiON ? [1UFL]K Xu. 31 50. It may be doubted, however, whether the word does not mean an ornament for the neck (so R\'mg. N'eckl.ACK) perhapsa necklace consisting of a number of little spheres, cp Ar. kumzal"" , a little ball. See Okn.vmknts.


("Jb-jN, Talatinus'?; epMWNOCi [H]. "Niei [A], A)(| [I.])' ^ -"n of Saul sacrificed by David to the vengeance of the Gibeonites (2S. 2l8t). .See Rizi'.\n. Neither he nor Mephibosheth [i], the two sons of Rizpah, is mentioned elsewhere.


(D*'?3), i S. 17 54. See Bkea.st- I'l.Aii:, I, 1Ii:lmi:t, (Jki;avks, Shiki.i) ; and cp War, and Wkai'ons.


(c'?? Nb'J, which happens to occur only with a suffix, VP^ 'J, Judg. 954, etc. , or in the consir. St., nXV ^^3 N^'X 2 S. 2337 iCh. II39). Abimelech, Saul,Joab, all had armour-bearers ; Goliath's S(|uire is called a shield-lx;arer (i S. 177). On the age of armour-bearers, cp WRS, OTJO'i 431 ; Che. Aids to Crit. 77 n. Is. 52 11, .nin' -hz "N'r: (KV ' Ve that bear the ves.sels of the Lord') is taken by most com- mentators (.\ben Ezra, Kimchi, Cheyne formerly) to mean ' armour-tearers of N'ahwe ' ; but this is im- probable (see Di. ad loc. ).


In Neh. 3 19 PC'SH, ' weapons, arming,' 1(5, T) (TwaiTTOvaa), and in Jer. ,'(025 "I^IX, 'treasure, store,' are probably contractions for pw'JH IT'S, ' house of weapons,' and "IVINH D"'?, 'house of treasure' respectively. In Cant. 44 ' thy neck is like the tower ot David builded for an armoury ' m'SPH"? is difficult. Vg. renders it cum propugnaciilis. while merely transliterates {daXiriwe [BS], -X0i. [.\]), and O.S'^' 202, 84 has daXwiioO iwdX^t) ^ v\pr)\d. The meaning 'armoury' has no philological basis (see Del. ad loc), and yet it is the only meaning which suits the context. Cheyne {Exp. Times, June '98) supposes corruption of the text and reads d'bW^ ' for the shields. ' The neck of the Shulamite is compared to the tower of David adorned with small metal plates i.e., perhaps to the 'house of the forest of Lebanon' in which were sus- pended the shields and targets of gold. Fancifully the j)oet represents these shields as suspended on the outside (cp Kzek. 27"). Budde and Siegfried agree in placing the 'tower' at Jerusalem.


(Nny. '?'n, nsnyp).

1. General levy.[edit]

The main army of Israel, like that of all primitive nations, and, in the last resort, of all nations, consisted of the whole able-bodied adult male population.

In Nu. li-3(P), twenty is fi.xed as the age at which a man became a soldier ; but it is not probable that any such regulation was rigidly observed in practice. This general levy constituted the fighting force of Israel in the wilderness, at the time of the settlement and under the 'Judges,' and remained its chief military resource throughout its national history. Under the 'Judges,' the armies mentioned are, for the most part, the levy of the tril)es or clans immediately con- cerned. On sjxjcial occasions, however, such as the war against Sisera, and Saul's relief of Jaljesh-gilead, all the fighting men of Israel were summoned, and their olx;dience to the sunmions was represented as a para- mount religious duty.

The armies obtained from such levies varied greatly in number and efficiency ; a clan, or even a trilx;, whose immediate interests were threatened, would readily take the field in its full strength. An appeal for a general levy of Israel would scarcely ever be more than partially responded to; Deborah (Judg. 5) com- plains of the absence of Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher ; the national leaders sought to prevent such dere- lictions from duty by the most solemn appeals to religious sanctions Deborah curses Meroz (Judg. r)23), and Saul, when a spirit (or impulse) from (iod came upon him, threatened to cut in pieces the o.xen of all recreants (i S. 116).

When armies were required these national or tribal levies were called together by messenger (c"DN?n T2 I S. 11 7), sound of trumpet (ntjic* Judg. 634), or erection of standard, or other signal (d: Jer. 46, see Ensig.n') ; when the emergency was over they dispersed to their homes. They were well suited to carry on or repel border forays, but could not maintain prolonged \Nar- fare, esp)ecially at any distance from their own territory, or even oppose adecjuate resistance to any formidable invasion. These levies were composed entirely of infantry ("Sn iS. 4iol54); the Israelite territory, in early times, was chiefly hill -country, where cavalry force could neither Ije formed nor used. The first Israelite who is mentioned as possessing horses is Absalom, 2S. 15i (cp Horse, 3).

Such armies were very loosely organised. As Wellhausen (HI 436 ['8:5]) points out, 'what there was of permanent official authority lav in the

i. uommana. j^^^^^j^ ^^ j,^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^j ^^^^^ of' houses ;

in time of war they commanded each his own household force.' So .Abraham leads the expedition to rescue Lot (Gen. 14), and Jair conquers the ' tent villages of Jair ' (Nu. 3241). Similarly, P descril>es the ' princes ' of the tribes as also their captains in war (Nu. 1/ ). Deborah (Judg. 514/) speaks of the princes and leaders of Is- sachar and other trilies (see Government, 21). In practice, howt;ver, the hereditary heads of tribes and clans were often set aside on account of the ability and self-assertion of other leaders. Indeed, these hereditary heads of houses play a very small part in the actual history, possibly because history emphasises what is exceptional. The 'judges,' whose main function was to head the Israelite armies in special emergencies, were men called by a kind of divine inspiration. Gideon and Saul are not the heads of their trilies or even clans :

Gideon's family was p<ior in Man:isseh and he was the least in his fathers house' (Judg. (Jis). and Sauls family is descriljed in almost identical terms ( i S. 9ji). In the absence of any other widely recognised authority, the priests of the great sanctuaries, and especially of the ark. sometimes assumed the conmiand of armies, when called by anibition or the sense of duty (l)KBOKAH ['/.J'.], the house of KlA [i/.r.]. Samukl [</.i:]). When the trilxis were partly merged in the kingdoms, and the clans and families were in a measure superseded by the t<iwiis and village conmmnities, the levy would naturally follow the new order (Amos 63). Probably under the kings the levies did not always ' assemble by clans, but men were collected by the royal officials from the various districts (cp CJovkknmknt. 20). In any case, the organisation of the levies was ; subordinated to that of the standing army, and they were divided into 'thousands.' 'hundreds,' 'fifties.' and 1 'lens,' institutions which are said by an ancient iradi- | tion, I'.x. 18 25 (JK), to have originated with Moses.

A second important element of the military strength . of Israel, as of all nations at a simil.ar st;.ge of develop)- P , ment, lay in the jjcrsonal following of

3. Bands[edit]

, i^j^.jj ^1^^ mndc war their occupation. I These ' bands ' (inj, also used of a division of an army) '< may be roughly likened to the vassals of feudal \ chiefs, the ' free companies ' of the middle ages, and j even to the banditti in unsettled districts. As in the case of England and Scotland, the ' bands ' flourished sjiecially on the frontiers ; the territory of Israel had | a frontier very long in proportion to its area. Such , ' bands ' could take the field much sooner than a clan- levy, and would be better disciplined and nmch more oxix,Tt in warfare. More than once they rendered | signal .service to the nation. The ' vain fellows ' whom ! that captain of banditti, Jephthah, gathered round him ('P'"! C'C'JN. Judg. II3) were the kernel of the army | which defeated Amnion, and David's following was one 1 chief instrument in the restoration of Israel after (lilboa. ' I S. '2'2-30 gives us a detailed account of the formation, character, and career of such a IkkIv (see U.wii), t; 4). It was a self-constituted frontier-guard, living on the plunder of the neighbouring trilxis and by levying blackmail on their fellow-countrymen, whom they claimed to protect. The warlike services rendered by the 'bands' were accompanied by serious drawbacks. They added to the danger of civil war ; they embittered the relations with neighbouring trilxis ; and they were capable, like David, of taking service with foreigners even against their own countrymen. We do not hear of them after David's time ; they would scarcely be tolerated by powerful kings, but were sure to reappear in unseltletl times.

As the main function of a king was that of permanent commander-in-chief, a monarchy implied some sort of . standing army and permanent military organisation. In time of peace the king kept a l)odyguard as the main support of his authority, and this bodyguard formed the nucleus of the army in war (cp GOVKRNMK.VT, 18). We find Saul ' choosing ' 3000 men (i S. ISa) and sending the rest of the people to their tents. He did not keep these chosen men as a i>ermanent army, for in 1 S. 24 2 he chooses another 3000 when he wishes to pursue David. Probably he did his l)est throughout his reign to keep by him a l)icked force, which was virtually a standing army. He had a permanent commander-in-chief, Abner (iK3S"Tb I S. 1450), and his personal following must have in- cluded other permanent military oflicers (cp Govf.RN- MKNT, 21). David's band of followers during his exile served as the kernel of a much more complete and extensive military organisation. The office of com- mander-in-chief remained a permanent institution, and the captains of the host (h'm nir 2S. '244) also appear as permanent officers. A bodygnard, practically a continu.alion of David's companions in exile, was forme(I, and its captain is mentionetl as one of the great officers of state (2.S. 818 2'J23 2^23. ,ipirn-'^Ki nap: C'5rf,7lo K3->lV). Now, however, the Ixxlyguard had come to consist of foreign mercenaries, ' C'hereihites and Pele- thiles,' probably Philistines (see CllKKKriiiTKS, C.\IMI- TUK). In 2.S. 15 18 we find 600 Philistines from (iath in Davids army ; (P's fjaxvro-^- however (in a doublet), suggests a reading gihbdrhn, or 'mighty men.' for gittim, or '(iittites.' If the latter :s the correct reading, the (iittites njay have l)een either part of the Vxjdyguard, or else an indeixindent band of mercenaries (see David, S i i((i)). I'he Cherethites and Pelethites are not mentioned after the death of David ; but the iKxlyguard of foreign mercenaries nmst have remained a pernwnent institution. 1K.I427 s|X'aks of the captains of the guard, literally 'runners' ('njr C>~in), that kept the pal.ace gates (cp 2 K. 10 25). 2 K.'l 1 4 sjx;aks of ' the centuri'Mis of the Carites and of the guards' (c's-;! ns^ niKSn "li;-), where the Carites are possibly identical with the Cherethite.s. If the reading in 2S. 238 is correct, and if -r^B* in c";'C'n cki (AV ' chief among the captains ' ; RV ' chief of the aptains ' ) is rightly explained as referring to the third occupant of a chariot (Tpio-rdrTjj [HAL], ICx. 14? I.'m. etc.), it may indicate the use of chariots by David, though it is probably u.sed in its later sense of ' captain ' (see Chariot, 10).

With the very doubtful exception of these ' shalishim,' we have no reference to Israelite chariots and cavalry before the end of Da\id's reign.

According to FA' of 2S.S4, he reserved horses for a hundred chariots out of the spoil taken from H.-id.id'ezer lien Rehol), kin>; of Zol)ah; (pliAl. translates 'reserved for himself a hundred chariots.' Reuss and Kantzsch translate 'a hundred cli.iriot horses.' No reference is m.-ide to the use of these ch;iri..ts or horses in war ; moreover, the passage prob.-\bly belongs to the last editor of Samuel.

Solomon, however, established a force of 1400 chariots and 12,000 hor.semen (i K. IO26I, and accord- inglv we find mentioned among his oflicers captains of his chariots and of his horsemen ' (vc^gEi 12:-; -c\ i K.. 922). Occasional references occur in the later history to Israelite chariots and horsemen (2 K. S21 \'-\i)- Prob- ably the armies of Israel and Judah were modelled on the' army of Solomon till the end of these monarchies ; but their main reliance would be on the infantry. To- wards the close of the Jewish monarchy a quasi-religious feeling against the use of chariots and cavalry seems to have arisen, and Dt. 17 16 forbids the king to nniltiply horses (cp. Dt. 20i I.s. 31i). The references to the houghing of horses by Joshua (Josh. 1 1 69) and David (2 S. 84) are probably due to a Deuteronomic redactor.

Nothing is said alxnit paying soldiers. In earlier times the Israelites w ho formed the national levy would . . find their own weapons and pro-

5. Maintenance.[edit]

^^^^^ ^he latter l>eing often obtained from the enemy by jjlunder or from friencls by gift or exaction. Probably throughout the history the general levy was mostly provided for in this way ; though, as the royal government became more jKiwerful and more completely organised, it may have done something towards feeding and arming these levies

(see GOVERNMENT, 20).

The bodyguard and the rest of the standing army, including the charioteers and cavalry, stood on a different footing. They were maintained by the govern- ment (i K. 427), chariot cities being assigned as a pro- vision for the chariots and cavalry. They w ere probably paid ; certainly the foreigners in the Ixxlygu.ard did not serve for nothing. The plunder taken from enemies would be an important part of the renmneration of the soldiers, and a principle of division Rnween the actual combatants and the reserve is laid down in i S. 3024- The rules as to exemption from military service in Dt. 20 are probably an ideal based on traditional public opinion.

No reliance can be placed on the numbers which are given for Israelite armies. At the same time, the two kingdoms seem to have been populous in prosperous times, and a general levy of able-bodied adults may sometimes have attained very large dimensions.

Under powerful kings the Israelite armies were strengthened by the au.\iliary forces of subject allies e.i^., Edoni (2 K. 3). Doubtless such assistance was sometimes purchased, after the manner of the narrative in 2 Ch. 25.

The details as to the Levites in the account of the deposition of Athaliah in 2 Ch. 23 |cp 2K. 11) were

6. Levitical ^'J'^t'^^' "gg[edit]

,'^^^^ ^>- ^^^^ institutions of

  • the Chronicler sown tune (6/r(.(j 300 h.c).

guar . 'ph^se details seem to show that the Levitical guard of the Temple was then in e.xistence. As this guard is not provided for in the Priestly Code, j it was probably formed after the time of Ezra. Possibly the Trpo(XTdTr]s rov iepov [VA] in 2 Mace. 3 4 may have been the captain of this guard. If so, however, it is ] difficult to suppose that the present text is correct in ascribing him to the tribe of Benjamin (see, however, Bknja.min, 7 end). The capt^n of this guard, under the title of arpaTriyJs, is mentioned by Josephus in his account of the time of Claudius Cajsar (y4A x.\. 62), and of the destruction of the Temple (BJ vi. 03), and in Lk. 22452 and Acts 4 i .'12426. Probably the officers, VTT-qpiTai, who assisted in the arrest of Jesus (Jn. I83, cp 73245) l)elonged to this body.

In the post-exilic period, under the suzerainty of the Persians, and of the Greek kings of l"'gypt and Syria,

p . ... the Jews could scarcely be said to have

7. Post-Exilic.[edit]

^^ ,^j.|^^y .pj^g ^^^^^ Qf. >,rehemiah ,

clearly shows that they had to trust to their own energy | and courage for protection against hostile neighbours ; j but they fought as a city militia rather than as a peasant levy.

The revolt of the Maccabees made Judrea a military power. The long wars not only habituated the bulk of the people to arms, but also produced a standing army, which soon included many foreign mercen- aries. Jewish soldiers also received pay ( i Mace. 1 4-32), probably, however, only picked bands that formed the standing army and ranked with the other mercenaries. Josephus (/?/i. 25) tells us that Hyrcanus I. (135-107 B.C. ) was the first Jew who maintained foreign mercen- aries {^evorporpeif). .Alexander Jannasus (106-79 B-C. ) employed Pisidian and Cilician mercenaries, and at one time was at the head of a mercenary army of 1000 horse and 8000 foot, in addition to 10,000 Jews. These mercenaries are styled 'Greeks' (i?/i. 435, cp 04). As the Jews had long been suVjjects of the (jreek kings of Egypt and .Syria, their armies would be equipped and disciplined after the Greek fashion.

When the l-^ast fell under the supremacy of Rome, the Herods, as clients of Rome, formed their armies on the Roman model. Indeed, Herod the Great was at times in command of Roman forces, and Jewish and mercenary ' cohorts ' (aireipai) are spoken of as fighting side by side with the Romans (/:?/i. 156 IO2). Herod's army consisted largely of mercenaries drawn chiefly from the Teutonic subjects and neighbours of the empire Thracians, Germans, and Ciauls i/J/ i. 389).

The insurgent armies in the Jewish war were very heterogeneous. The national government appointed militiiry commanders for the various districts, among whom was Josephus. He tells us that he organised an army of 100,000 on the Roman model, including 4500 mercenaries, a bodyguard of 600, but only 250 horse- men : a typical Hebrew army in its constitution. The garrison of Jerusalem is said to have consisted of 23,400 men, including Idumrt-ans and bands of Zealots. They seem to have possessed some organisation and discipline, but were divided into adverse factions (11/ V.61).

9. Foreign[edit]

The armies of the other states of Syria did not differ essentially from those of Israel. From the first, however, they made use of chariots and cavalry, and throughout the history, e.xcept during the reign of Solomon, the Syrians were superior to the Israelites in these arms (Josh. 11 4 17i6 Judg. I1947 iS. l;J5 2S. 84 iK. 2O125 2231. etc.). On the other h.ind, the great military empires of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon possessed a much more extensive and effective military organisation. They had corps of chariots, light-armed and heavy-armed cavalry and infantry, together with archers and slingers and engineers. Their armies included large forces of mercenaries and tributaries. P'or military purposes these great empires stood to the Syrian kingdoms in about the same relation as that of a first-class European power to the smaller Asiatic states.

It is not necessary to notice the Persian army, and of the armies of the Ptolemies and Seleucides we need say only that they were modelled on the Macedonian armies of Philip and Alexander, with some modifica- tions due to Oriental influences. For example, they employed elephants (i Mace. I17, etc.).

Ihe Roman army is incidentally alluded to in the NT. The legion (Mt. 2653 Mk. 5915 Lu. 830) varied P considerably at different times in numbers

and in constitution ; during the early ^' empire it was a composite force, consisting of about 6000 legionary infantry, together with cavalry, light-armed auxiliaries, and military engines. The legionary infantry, or legion proper, were divided into ten cohorts. The ' band ' (crTret/ja) which took Jesus (Mt.2727 Mk. 15i6 Jn. I8312) was probably a cohort (so RV'"S) forming the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. The same cohort is mentioned in Acts 21 31. In Acts 10 1 we read of the Italian band, and in 27 1 of the Augustan ' band.' The It.ilian ' band ' may have been an independent cohort of Italian volunteers (.Schiir. (/"//' 1 386). The ' Augustan band ' (airdp-qs "^e^aarris) may have been part of the Sebastene i.e., .Samaritan auxiliaries, who, according to Jo.sephus [A>if. xx. 87), formed a large part of the Roman garrison of Palestine. The name might be, and doubtless was, understood as ' Augustan ' as well as ' .SeVmstene ' (the title ' Augustan ' was borne by some of the Roman legions). See further, Cornelius, i. The officers of the legion were the tribunes and centurions. Six tribunes were attached to a legion and were associated in command. We fre- quently find a tribune holding independent command of a cohort or larger force : the ' chief captain ' (Jn. I812 Acts 21-25), x^'apX05' commanding the cohort at Jeru- salem was a tribune. Each cohort contained ten centuries or bodies nominally consisting of a hundred men ; these were commanded by centurions. As the independent cohorts were organised on the model of the legions, it is probable that the cohorts, tribunes, and centurions of the NT belonged to the auxiliary forces. Mommsen says of the Roman garrison in Palestine that it consisted, as elsewhere in provinces of the second rank, of a moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions, in this case of Samaritans and Syrian Greeks subsequently one ala and five cohorts or about 3000 men. The province, therefore, did not receive a legionary garrison. A small force under a Roman commandant occupied the citadel at Jerusalem. During the time of "the Passover this was reinforced by stationing a stronger division of Roman soldiers in one of the temple buildings (Prov. Rom. Emp., ET, 2 186).

W. H. B.


[arxa) b. Ozias, in the genealogy of Ezra (4 V.I.A. I2), apparently = Zerahiah in ;i Ezra 74-


(|:iN ; orna [BA], apncon [L]). Accord- ing to MT of I Ch. 321, the ' sons of Arnan ' occur in the genealogy of Zerubbabcl. <P. V'g. and Syr., however, make Arnaii the son of Kephaiah. The name might nieaM ' noisy ' ; but ptx elsewhere, as a jiersonal name, tx:ing corrupt |see Akalnah), and the names of the other descendants of Han.aniah (see K\) lx;ing com- pounded with -iah, it seems plausible to correct to .Tnx (Adonijah), which m.ay have been abbreviated '"nK (whence, by corruption, uttt or pnK)- T. K. C.


(&pNei [Ti.WH after NBLXF]). Lk.333 RV. is the reading to be pr<;fcrred to A\' ARAM. See Ram, !.


(panS). Nu. 21 u ; see Moab.


(nnx, ApoAei [B*], &poAA[e]i [B'bAF], AopAA [i-J(. Nu. -JGiz^tien. 46i6, Arodi (""mt*. APOH^IC [A], &YAPIC [^l OppoAeiC |l'|i. for which gentilic form 1-V in Nui /.c. has Arodite. A name in genealogy of Gad {t/.v. ), Cp Akkli.


("lynu. nyij^; in judg. 11=6 niinr ; ;.<.,

' bushes of dwarf juniper " ' [I>aj^. Semi/. 1 30] ; ApoHp [BAL] ; gentilic Aroerite, ^"lyiy. see Hotiiam, 2).

1. A city ' on the edge of the torreiit-valiey of Arnon,' see Moab. (Dt. 236 etc.; cp rW-'> 21231 8G?S, iv' 6<ppvo% rod 6povs, in vcrticf moiitis) ; the descriptions agree with the position of the ruins of 'Ard'ir, on the edge of the precipitous N. bank of the ravine of the .Arnon (Burckhardt, Syria, 372 ; Tristram, iMoab, 129-131). The spot is about 11 m. from the mouth of that river, .\roer marked the S. limit of the Reuljenite territory and of the Israelitish possessions eastward of the Jordan, Nu. 3234 t)t- -36 812 448 Josh. 122 {apvijjv [B]) 13916 2 S. 245 {ap07)\ [B]) 2 K. IO33; cp Judg. 11 26 iM-np [A], om. L); i Ch. 58. In Jer. 48 19 (post-exilic) and in the inscription of Mcsha (1. 26, ijnj') it appears as Moabitish. The Moabites had in fact pos.sessed it before the Israelites, in successicjii to the .\morites (cp Nu. 21 26). That Aroer on the Arnon is meant in 2 S. 24 5 is now generally admitted (see Ur. TBS 285 f. ). The expression ' the cities of Arocr ' in Is. 172 is geographically difficult ; there is no doubt a corruption of the text (see (5 and cp SBOT).

2. A place K. of Kabbath-Ammon, Josh. 1825 [apajia [B], -/jwTj/) [.-\]) Jud. ll.ist; not idenlitied. Jer. (rW'i 965) says it was on a mountain 20 R. m. N. from Jerusalem.

3. A place in the far south of Judah, i S. 30 28 (mentioned after Jattir), and probably Josh. 15 22 (mentioned after Dimonah). Identified by Rob. with the ruins of '.Ir'ara, 3 hrs. I'^SK. from Beersheba. (The payovr]\ of '-in i S. is perhaps from apovrjX : see AoADAil. ) T. K. c.


(ApoM [BA]), I Esd. 5 16. See Hashum.


(TJ'^SIX), Gen. 10 22 RV ; see below, .Arphaxad, i.


AV twice (in Is.) Arphad (nSIN, d.p<t>d.\ [B.\L]. ARPiiAD, .\ss. Arpaddu). 2 K. 1 S 3V( a/)<?ia\ [li], -<^r [.\], 19.3 {-<^a.d [B]), Is. IO9 (not in 6), StJig and

!7 13 {-^aB [BSAD (Q)]), jer. 4923 (-<^afl[A], o^iaS [*]).

Of these pas.s.ages Is. IO9 is the most important, because we can unhesitatingly fix its date and authorship. Isaiah, writing in 711 B.C., makes the Assyrian king refer to the recent capture of Hamath and Arpad (reckoned by the -Assyrians to Hatti-land) as a warning to Jerusalem. Arpad had been frequently captured by the early .\ssyrian kings, but was finally subjugated and .Assyrianised by Tiglath-pileser III. in 740. From this time it takes its place among the Eponym cities. Its importance prob- ably lay in its command of a Euphrates ford, though it was not on that river. We find that a city Xibiru ( the ford ' ) was reckoned to belong to the governor of Arpad. Arpad is now Tell-Erfad, 13 m. from Aleppo to NW.

C. H. W. J.

1 'Aroer' Ls an Arabising 'broken plural' oK'ar'Hr, 'dwarf juniper," a plant which abounds in rocky localities (see Heath).


RV better Arpachahad (IBbSTK ; Ap(t)A5AA (I'.ALJ; -Ahc U"^J). 'Ill-- third '.son- of Shem.Gen. 102224; cpGen. 11 10-13 (all 1'), i Ch. 1 17/. ( omits these two) 24. The name has Ijecn much discussed.

Bochart and many after him (e.g. Franz Del., Kautzsch in HWli, and N.lld. ZDMC, 36, 1S2 I'82), ^eutyr. Cr. 20) identify it with the Arrapachitis of Ptol. (vi. 1 2), a region on the Upper Zab, NK. from Nineveh. On this iheoiy, however, -s/mii (iC'Vemains un.iccounted for, as we can hardly, with 1 .ag. (Symm. 1 54), have recourse to the Armenian f<i/. Jos., on the other hand, long ajjo identified Arph.Tx.id with the Chaldxans {.Inf. i. *54), and (los., l-,w., Schr. ((V'/loy), Sayce (Crir. Mnn. 147), adopting this view, reg.ird the ICOSTK as compounded of an assumed noun r-ijj, ' boundary ' (Ar. 'ur/at), and 1^3 = C"lL"2, 'Chalda;a.'

Two things at least are certain ; we cannot dispense with Babylonia in this context, and in (jen. llio^ .Arpachshad is represented as the source of the Terahite family to which .Abraham lx.-longed. The latter part of the name nr22-K must, therefore, Ix; ~fzie. , Chalda,-a. It is eciually clear, however, that the .Assyrian province of Arbaha (which may, or may not, lie the Arrapachitis of Ptol. ) would tx; very appropriately introduced after Asshur, and that, apart from the last syllable (-shad), .Arpachshad has received from the earlier critics no ex- planation that is even plausible, except that of Bochart and Noldeke.

Butting these facts together, the present writer suggested [Expos. Feb. 1897, pp. 145^) the following theory. .Arp.ichshad, or at least \czz~k, is really not one word but two words .Arpach ("riN) and Chesed (ibr). The former is the Heb. name of the Assyrian province of .Arbaha or [KB 2 88/.) .Arabha, which, according toWinckler, isnot.\rrapachitis, butadistrict N. of the Tigris, S. of the Median Mountains, and W. of Elam.' The latter is Chaldaja (see Cuksko). (Jen. IO22, therefore, upon this theory, originally ran, ' 'I'he sons of Shem ; Elam and Asshur and Arpach (.'hesed and Lud and Aram. ' \'erse 24, as E. Meyer and Dillmann agree, is an eilitorial interpolation (cp 11 10^). 'l"he form Arpachshad in 11 \off. will be due to the editor, who misunderstood ir233iNi in 10 22, and it will not Ije too bold to restore ira if-, Chesed. The alternative* is to suppose the original reading to have lx.-en riEiK 1^3 <'. .Arp;ih Chesfxl, which the scril^e, through an error of the ear, changed into .Arpach Chesed {ztr\V.

Hommel, however [Acad. 17th Oct. 1896; .AHT 212, 294-298), prefers to ex])lain the word as I'r-pa- keshad, an ' Egyptian v;xriant ' for the Heb. Ur-kasilim, pa being taken as the F!gyptian article ; he compares the old (?) Egyptian-Hebrew name Putiel, and the Semitic-Egyptian pa-bd-ra ha-haal (W.MM, As. n. Eur. 309). If only we had sure evidence that there was an Egyptian mania in early Palestine similar to the Semitic mania of the I'gyptians of the Middle Ijnpire, and could also think that P had access to records of ex- treme antiquity, fairly accurately preserved, this e.xplana- tion would at once liecome plausible. A comprehensive study of the names in P, however, does not compel us. indeed it scarcely permits us, to make the second of these assumptions. Putiel (</"') is distinctly an artificial name, and if Arpachshad should really l>e read Ur-pa-keshad we should on this analogy be inclined to regard it as artificial too. In it.self a reference to Ur-kasdim would no doubt be admissible, since this place or district is referred to by P (11 31) as well as by Jj. It is chiefly the presence of 3 (p) in il"3:-;n th.at

Prof Jensen informs the writer that he ha* independently formed the same opinion as to the orijjin of Arpiich'^had, but that he prefers to identify Arpach with Arrapachitis = mod. AlbaU. This view has occurred to the writer also.

2 The transition from h (in Arlxiha) to 3 in -p-K has not then to be accounted for. On the former theory, the Priestly Writer, who was not indebted either to a cuneiform record or to a Babylonian informant, received the name in a slightly incorrect form, the final h having been softened in pronunciation to ch.

prevents us from reading Ur-Casdim (written 'irz ix) in (ien. 10 22 between Asshur and Lud.

2. The name given in Judith i. to the king of Media who \vas formerly identified with Deioces the founder of Kcbatana, or with Phraortes his son. The name, however, has been borrowed to };ive an air of antiquity to the narrative, and, as in the cases of Hoi.oKKKNKS, and others in this book, stands for some more modern personage, probably Mithridates. See Judith, ii.

T. K. C.


see Weapons, Divination, 2 (i).


in (Jen. 49.7 .\V"=;b*DC^. cerastes,' erKAGHMeNOC [6'^"'--] (see Skri'ENT, i. no. 10), and in Is. 34 15 RV = nS-l (exiNOC ["w*^""]). AV Gkkat Owl ((/.v., 2) ; see Serpent, i, no. 8.


(APCAKHC[AX, -(tik. (Xonce) V]). 'king of Persia and Media,' by whom Demetrius Nieator (Di.Mi.rKius [2]) was defeated and made a prisoner (I .Mace. 14-'/". 1522). See Persia.


RV Arzareth (so Lat. arzareth, also iu-zaren,arzar; AV'^e- Ararath) i.e. JTinX "^X (cp Dt.2927 [28] Jer. 2226) ' the other land,' 1 the region, a journey of one year and a half lieyond the Euphrates, where the exiled tribes were supposed to be settled (4 l".sd. 1345 ; cp 7'. 40). This belief in the 'Lost rril)es ' is found already in Jos. {Ant. .\i. i^-z).



RV ; see joKAH.


(Xn*^'L*'nJi)-!X, Ezra47, or Xri*;;*C'", Ezra 4 7-^, or wXnL*';;-, Ezra4S 7 17" 81 Neh. 2i 5 14 136, Baer's text ; Ac^peABA [15] ; ApeACACGA [A] ; Ap- CApCAeA[wS*'--(/^/-///.')]; ApxASep^HcLX'-"]; Arta.v- erxes). The following variants occur :

Ezra47(r/'8 {aaacpQa. [B], apTOLtTatrQa |.\]), k {apcrapOa [I!], a.p I 9a \\\), t> 14 (aa-Tap9a [H]), 7 i {a.p9acre(rea | F.l), 7 t i (atro-ap- ea9a [I!]), 12 {a(rapea$a [B\]), 21 (ap(rap9a9a [I!]), Si (ap9acT9a. [H]), Xeli. 2 1 {ap(Ta9ep9a [B|, ap(Tapa-a9a [N'cl)]^ aprafepfr)? [Nc.a]), 5 14 {apa-evaOa [HJ, aapiraSa [Xj, ap9aaacr9aL [A]), 136 (ap<Toa-a9a [BN]).

Artaxerxes is the name given to the king of Persia, who, we are told (Neh. 2i 014 1.J6), gave per- mission to Nehemiah his cuptearer to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and to this end made him governor {peha ; cp Assyr. bel-pahati, town governor, and pihatu, province, satrapy). The same name is borne by the king who permitted Ezra and his band to return to Palestine, and, along with his ministers and princes, lavished tokens of favour on the returning exiles (Ezra 7/1 ). The statement in Ezra 47-23 that earlier efforts of the Jews to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem ceased at this king's conmiand is unhistorical (see Ezra, ii. lo), and the account in Ezra 7 11-26 of the favour shown by him to the temple and its ministers is probably e.xaggerated (see Ezra, i. 2). It is certainly in- correct to name him along with Cyrus and Darius as having promoted the building of the temple (Ezra6 14), for this had already been completed in the reign of Darius.

The name, which is certainly identical with the Persian Artakhshatra ( ' the true, or legitimate, kingdom,' an expression taken from the teaching of the Avesta ; Assyr. Artaksatsu, Susian Irtakshazsa, forms more closely approximating the Hebrew), was pronounced by the (Jreeks .\rta.verxes (so in i Esd. B ; but Aprap^ep^-qs A*B^" sometimes). The king intended is beyond doubt one or another of the three Persian rulers who bore that name. The attempts to identify him with Cambyscs, or with Pseudo-Smerdis, or with Xer.xes, on the false assumption that .\rtakhshatra was not a name but a title, were abandoned long ago. The only question is, Which of the three?

The third in the list, Artaxerxes Ochus, is excluded, both by chronology and by the known character of that energetic despot and zealot for the Mazdean

1 Less probably niN ['"IK. land of Arat i.e., Ararat (Volkmar).

creed, which alike prohibit the supposition that he can have been the lx;nevolent patron of Nehemiah and Ezra, Which of the remaining two is meant is still disputed among scholars.

As in Kzra 4 6_/C the name follows immediately on that of Ahasuerus, and no more precise designation is added, it is natural enough to think of Artaxerxes I. If, however, as seems proljable (see Ezra, ii. 10), Kzra did not come to Palestine till after Nehemiah, and if it be true, as we read in Ezra"?, that the date of Ezra's arrival was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, while the established date of Nehemiah's arrival is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, then Ezra's expedition must have been under Artaxerxes Mnemon, and so more than half a century after Nehemiah's mission. This, however, is not at all probable, and it seems preferable to assume that the date assigned to Ezra's arrival (in the seventh year of Artaxerxes) is an invention that had been suggested by the transposition of the two expeditions.

We have thus good reason for assuming, with Kuenen, Ryssel, Ryle, and others, that by Arta.xer.xes we ought throughout to understand Artaxerxes I., Longimanus, a surname which is doubtless to be taken in the same sense as the expression in the inscription of Darius (Naks i Rustem, inscr. a, 4, /. 43/.) to the effect that the spear of the Persian reaches far. He is descrited as having been a good -hearted but weak sovereign, ruled by his wives and favourites, an account which harmonises with what we learn from Nehemiah.

c. P. T. w. H. K.

==ARTEMAS== (ApreMAC [Ti. WH], most probably a contraction from ApreMlAcopOC ' see Varro, De Ling. Lat. 89 ( 21), and cp .ApoLLo.s, i n. ), a com- panion or messenger of Paul, mentioned once in the Pastoral Epistles (Tit. 3 12 : ' When I shall send Artemas unto thee . . . give diligence to come unto me ').

In the lists of the '.seventy disciples' which we owe to Pseudo- Dorotheus and Pseudo- Hippolytus he appears as bi.shop of Lystra.


(ApreMic [Ti. WH]), .VctslQz+z?/ 34/ RV'";.'-; EV Diana.


(^^?), 1S.2O40AV; AV'e- 'instru- ments,' R\' We.\pons (q.V.).


See Trade and Commerce, and Handicrafts.


(m2-|N' /.f. as in RV Arubboth ; n ApABcoe [A], . . .' Bhp BhO [L] ; . 6. Bhp . . [B]), I K. 4 lot, the seat of the third of Solomon's twelve prefects (see Bi;n-I Ii'.-Sed). The third is one of the districts omitted by Jos. {.{iit. viii. 23, ed Niese). See Ben-Hesed. Cp Schick, ' Wady "Arrub, the Aruboth of Scripture,' FRF Qii. St. Oct. 1898, pp. 238/:


(np-1-|X3, Kr. HD-m, with prep. 3; &PH/V\a[B], ApiAi\A[ALand as't-i 225, 2], kum.i [Vg.]), the place where Abimelech dwelt before his capture of Shechem obviously not very far from that town (Judg. 941). Perhaps it is represented by the modern el- 'Ormah, 6 m. SSE. from Shechem, where there are ruins still (Van de Velde, Rcisen, 2 268). Otherwise the place is quite unknown.

For ,ia7r.a (f. 31 ; eJ'/i/)i'</)3[B];ierd 5a>pwj'[AL]), .W 'privily,' RV 'craftily,'^ RV'"i.'- -in Tormah ' (so Jos. Kimhi, who took it to be the name of a town), it is best to read ,iD"iN3, ' in -A.rumah. ' Eus. WTongly identifies it with pov/xd. near Diospolis = Lydda (cp Rumah).


("I1")X[Ba.],Tl"IN* [Gi.]), whence the gentilic Arvadite (HnX), CJen. 10i8= i Ch. 1 i6t (so (Sbaql everywhere Ap&AlOC but Apovadei i Ch. I16 [L]; Egypt. 'Araiut[u], etc.; Assyr. usually ArM[u]at/a; APAAoc.'for ApfAAoC. I Mace. I.'j23; Targ. Jer. ^N3"jnp3N ?.^. , of Antaradus ; Jos. Ant. i. 62 Apoy Amoc. etc.; mod. Ruwdd, etc.), a town referred to by Ezekiel (27 8 11) in his elegy on Tyre as one of some thirty cities and countries that had contributed to its

' ncina would mean rather ' deceitfully ' ; but the form is anomalous it would be easier to read nC'1^'3.

splendour and diRiuty men of Arvad, he says, rowid its ships (?. 8) and manned its walls {v. 1 1 ) and likcwi:,*.- mentioned ('Apados, the only Syrian place named) in the list of nineteen places in i Mace. ISaj (see Maccabkks, KiKs T. 9|. Arvad was the most northerly of the great Phoenician cities, ancestress, with Sidon and Tyre, of Tripoli, which lies some thirty miles farther south.

HuilC on an islam! (la kahal titlmli, Kli 1 io8, /. 86/), about half a mile ionn from N. to S., and a liltic over a quarter of a mile hroail, lyinj; slinlitly less than two miles from the mainland, it dared to resist Thotmes III. when ap|>areiitly most of the other Phoenician cities yielded without force (see his .\nnals in UniKsch, Hist, o/ Kgy/>t ^-^VVV 1 376/.); and Tislath-pileser I. tells how he embarked in ships of Arvad and sailed on tne Cireat Sea. It was still inde|x:iident in the ninth century k.c, :iiid in the time of Sarijon it and Tyre and (lebal were the really im|)<>rtant Phivnician centres. Cp also A^L'K-ua.m-i'AI., f 4, end.

In the days of Kzekicl it was sulxDrdinate to TyTe ; but in the Persian age it regained its ancient iniixjrtance, and in the time of .Mexaiuler exercised control ovor quite an extensive tlistrict on the mainland.

In the first half of the second millennium ii.c. there must have l)cen more equality l>etween the Arvadites of the mainland and those on the island, if W. Max Miillcr is ri).;ht in lielieving that the Kgyptiaii name corresponds to a plural form fl'ni'lK. 'J"he ruins of the gigantic wall that once surrounded the island on three sides (see Pietschin., as below, and esp. Kenan, I'l. ii.y.) prove that the Arvadites knew other things besides rowing. Kus. (Chron. Armen. ed. Aucher, 1! 172/;) records that AKa)<liis was rounded in 761 11. c, and Strabo(xvi. 2 13/) states, althininh only with a ois <^a<rii',l that it was founded by fugitives (inni Sidon. We cannot, of course, assign to the eighth century the real founding ofAradus or even what 1 lillinann (on (ien. 10 18) seems to suggest the founding of the insular town asdistinguislied from a settlement on the mainland (cp the later Antaradus, mod. TarjOs [see Targ. above)). The words of .\5ur-nasir-pal quoted above (cp A'/'(-t 2172) preclude this. The Kgyptian inscrip- tions show that in the second millennium it.c. Aradus was one of the most important PhuL-nician cities (see Pikhnicia).

/.//(;vi//r<-;Strabo (/.(.); Pietschmann, OVjf A. li. PhBn. 36- 40; W.M.M, As. u. Eur. iZ6 /., COT 1 87^; Renan, Miss, lit- riu'n. 19-42; i;. J. Chester, Suti'. West. Pal., .Sftrial I',ipi-rs, j'^--j'i ; see further relT. in Vigouroux : a map of island in .\dmiralty Charts No. 2765, or \V. Allen, The Dead Sea, '. t^'id. ]1. VV. H.


(Xy-lX ; coca [B]. arca [A], aca [K]). King Haa.sha's prefect of the palace at 'i'irzah, and doubtless Ziniri's accomplice in the assassination of the king ( i K. High, see /iMKi. The form of llie name appears to Ixj somewhat uncertain


(./A'z.-//jy;r//), 4]:.sd. 1845. RV ; AV

.\k-. \i;i.i 11.


(SDN. 51 ACA [ I5.\L].2 perhaps short for n;pN i.e., 'Yahw6 healeth'; cp .Aram, aiul .\r. ',i.ui. 'to heal,' .\ss. ,iju, 'a physician,' a title applied to the god ICa f Del. .Iss. H WH\ ; the name may express a pious wish tiiat Vahwe would heal i.e., restore prosjxjrily to his pfo|)le ; cp Hos. 7i 113)-

I. Son of Abijah and third king of Judah (first half of 9th cent. n.c:. ; see CHKOSOi.txjY, 32). Of .\sas long reign but one event is handed down to us on the l)est authority (i K. ].'> 16-22), and it si)e.aks in favour of the royal annals that they have not buried such an action of the reigning king in oblivion. T'he subject of the narrative is nothing less than the purchase by Asa of help from the king of Damascus against Judah's northern brethren. All the silver and gold that was still to l)e found in the royal treasury, Asa, we are told, sent to Ik-nhiidad, king of .Aram, to brilje him to transfer his covenant of friendship from Israel to Judah. Thus it was to Jiuiah that the first Aramnean invasion of Israel was due, and we can believe the statement of the Chronicler that .Asa s conduct did not pass without prophetic rebuke (2 Ch. l()7-io; on the details no stress can be laid). The situation of Asa was, it is true, difficult. \\y pushing his frontier to Ramah, Baasha threatened to

1 It has been .supposed (e.g. Ges. Thes.) that the name Ar%'ad means ' Kefujje.'

- Mr. Hurkttt argues that \.<rw^. .Asaph, ' was once the render- Wg of the I. XX ' for Asa, as <rip"x '" for kto S'ra (Camhritt^e Unri'ersity i.e^rter, March 1897, p. 699/). Cp. Asahh, .,.

reduce the kingdom of Judah to vassalage, for Ramah was only 4 m. from Jerusalem. The diversion caiLsed by the Arama-an inviusion removed this danger. Asa I summoned ' all Judah ' to the ta.sk of pulling down the fortifications executed by Baasha at Ramah, and I with the material fortified (Jeba and Mizpah, the one a i little to the NK. , the other to the S\V. . of Ramah. It j is t|uite another writer who tells us that Asa 'did that I which was right in the eyes of Vahwe, like David his I father' (i K. l.'ii|. To the Deuteronomistic compiler matters affecting the ciiltus were more imjiortant than was [Kjlitical morality ; a later writer, the Chronicler, has a much more complete justification (if it were but trust- worthy) for his religious eulogy of .Asa. The details of I K. ir> 12-24 are dealt with elsewhere (see Baasha, j Bi;nhadai), 2(1), etc.).

( Three other points alone, in the compiler's own state- ments, need to Ix; referred to. The name of Asa's mother is given {v. 10) as ' Maai-Rh ('"- ava), and she is called the daughter of Abishalom,' whilst in i'. a Maacah is l)ie name of the mother of Abijah. Most probably .\bishaloni ' in -. 10 is a mistake for ' Uriel ' , (see 2 Ch. 132) ; but it is not altogether impossible to I hold with \\'ellhau.sen that .Abijah and Asa were brothers (cp Maa<aii, ii. 4I.

The second ijoint is that in his old age, according to the compiler, Asa had a disease in his feel (i K. I523). The ( hronicler accepts this (doubtless traditional) state- ment, but gives it a new colour, partly by changing the date of the war lietween .A.sa and Baasha (on which see ' CllKOMCl.KS, 8. and WRS, OZ'/CW 197), partly by the remark (cp Mkdic.i.nk) that 'he sought not to Yahwe, but to the phy.sicians ' (2 Ch. 16 12). Whether the assumption that there was a class of ])hysicians who treated disca.ses from a non-religious ixjint of view is justifiable may Ix: c|uestioned.

The third point is a tantalising mention (i K. ir>23) of 'all Asa's warlike deeds CinT^r^r)-' Is this, as Klosterniann supix).ses, an allusion to the victory over that (.'tishile king, who, according to 2 Ch. 14 9- 15, invaded Judah with a huge force, and came as far as Marcshah (see Zkkaii, 5)? Or does not the compiler make the most of the achievements to which .Asa, it is jjrobable, could legitimately lay claim (cp i K. 15231, not always w ith much Ix^nefit to his reputation ?

2. I'ather of Hkkkcuiaii, 2 ; i Ch. 9 16 (()cr(ra[B]) ; omitted in '} Xeh. 11 17. T. K. C.


(acaAioy fB] caAaioy \-^l ^dei), an ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 1) ; cp. Hasadiaii.


(Tob. li, acihA [BN.A] ; Itala, Asihel . Eth. Wzhil ; Heb. versions 7Nb'y, 7'L*'{<), a name occurring in the genealogy in Tob. ] i. The genealogy is omitted by the .Aram, version, but given in a very regular form in the Heb. (ed. Xeubauer), Itala, and N. The (ireek texts, however, mark oft" Asiel {sic) from the other names by saying Ik toO awipnaroi ' .\ffir]\, a dis- tinction preserved in \'g. ' ex tribu et ci\ itate Ne|)hthali," though the word 'AffujX is omitted. They are, therelore, probably right also in their orthography, since, according to (Jen. 1(524 Nu. _'<;4S ( \1- ], etc.. Aair]\ is a .\aphtalite clan (see Jahzki.i,). If this is so the name is '"Ksn".


{biir^b'y. 3. ; acahA[HNA]: acc [I^. but I Ch. 1 1 26 as in B] ; atraT/Xoy Jos. ), youngest (? 2 .S. 2 18) son of Zeruiah David's sister, and brother of Joab and .Abishai. He was renow iie<l for his lightness of foot {ifi. ). .As in the case of his unfortunate cousin, almost all we know of him is the story (2 S. 219-25) of his death at the reluctant hands of Abnkr (t/.v. ). ' There lacked of David's servants but nineteen men and Asahel ' (t. 30): such is the statement of David's loss in the lttle of Gibeon. With this special mention agrees the fact that his name stands first in the list of the ' thirty ' henxs in 2 S. '2S and i Ch. 11 (but cp Amasai). It is true, another account is given in the new version of the list of heroes in i Ch. 27 {v. 7), where we find Asahel commander of a division of David's army. The incompatibility of this statement with his death before David became king of Israel was obvious. The present text, accordingly, adds ' and Zebadiah his son after him,' for which "^ has ' .son Kal oi d5e\<l>oL,' to which (S"- adds diriffw avTOV.

2. An itineratiiiK Levitical teacher temp. Jehoshaphat, 2 Ch. 178 (la,r[(]ir,\ [H.V], Ao-t.jA [L]).

3. An overseer of chambers in the temple temp. Hezekiah (2 Ch. ;n i3t).

4. 'l-'atlier' or ancestor of Jonathan [13], temp. Ezra; EzralOi5(acn)A.[l!], <rar,. [N*], N'Aasini)=i Esd. <.i 14+, AzAEL (aiarjAof).


(r^lC'V.). 2 K. 22.2 14, RV A.saiah, 2. ASAIAH (IT'b'y, 31, ' Yahwe hath made' ; ac<MA [BAI,]).

1. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed the Meunim [see RV], i Ch. 434-41 (.\cria [1!]).

2. ' K.in;i's servant ' to 'osiah, 2 K. '22 12, AV Asahiah (lacrai [A], A^apias [L]), 14 (ao-aias [BA] a^apia? [LJ) = 2 Ch. 34 20 (Icraia [I')], IcDtrias [1>]).

3. A .Merarile family, i Ch. 630 [15] (.\<j-a^a [h]), 156 (.Vaai [B], a<ra,a^ [A^)), .1 (atrata? [A]).

4. A Shilonite fimily, i Ch.9s (A^<ra [B]), probably same as (3), but cp Maaskiah, ii. i8(Neh. II5).


(<\cc<\NA [B]), I l':sd. .'131 = Ezra 250, Asnah.


(^DX an abbreviated name, 50, ACAct) 


1. The father of Joali, the recorder, 2 K. 18 18 (liiiaacpar [BA], Lwax vlos aa<pav [L]), 37 ((ra<pav [B]) = Is. :3()3 22; but (3 suggests the reading ' Shaphan ' or .Shaphat. ' 1

2. The keeper of th(; royal ' paradise ' or forest (probably in Palestme), Xeh. 28 (affacpaT [L], aSoatos [Jos.]).

3. The eponym of the Asaphite guild of singers, E/.ra24i 3 10 Xeh. 744 Hi? (only N^^- L in 0) 22 [aaa^ [BX]) I Ch. 2i>i/., and elsewhere, who is represented by the (.Chronicler as a seer (2 Ch. 2930) and as a contem- porary of David and Solomon, and chief of the singers of his time, Xeh. I246 i Ch. I51719 (Aa-a/3 [N]) ItJs (A(ro-a(^[N]) 2Ch. 12, etc.- On the later equation of .A.saph with the .\r. Lokmiln and Gk. /Esop, cp S^orjr of A/tikar, Ix.wii. /. Complicated as the history of these guilds is, we are able to see from Ezra 241 that at one time the terms ' b'ne Asaph ' and ' singers ' were identical, and that the singers were kept distinct from the Levites. The guilds of the b'ne Asaph and b'ne Korah were the two hereditary choirs that superintended the musical services of the temple. They do not seem to have been very prominent before the Exile. More important, however, was the triple division. This comprised the three great names of Asaph, Heman, and Ethan (or Jeduthun), which were reckoned to the three Levitical houses of Cjershom, Kohath, and Merari (i Ch. 6 ; see P.s.\lm.s). A still older attempt to incor- porate the name among the Levites may, according to WRS, O/yC'-' 204, n. I, be seen perhaps in the occurrence of the name Abi ASAPH {q.v.), the eponym of the Asaphite guild, as a Korahite. Of the threefold division of singers a clear example may be seen in Xeh. 1224 where Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua, the chiefs of the Levites, are appointed to praise. Similarly, in Neh. 11 17 three singers are mentioned Mattiiniah, Abda, and Bakbukiah. Mattaniah and Abda are descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun. ' Bakbukiah ' we should correct to ' Bukkiah,' a son of Heman. Thus, e.ach of the three great guilds finds its repre- sentative. See Ethan, 2, Hkman, Jp:duthun.

The name Asaph occurs in the titles of certain Psalms (see Psai.ms).

4. The best supported reading in Mt. I7 {aaatj} [Ti. WH], cpRV"'*-'-; on this reading see Asa, footnote)

1 In 2 Ch. 34 15 A ),3s a<Taj> for sc*.

2 In 1 Ch. '-'lii (P'i reads .\j3iafa</)ap, which corresponds very nearly to i Ch. 9 19 (0 Xfiia<ra4). In 2 Ch. 2i> 13 H reads Ao-a. where TR and EV have Asa. See Genealogies of Jesus, J? 2 (^.


(ac&p&[BA]), I Esd. 531 RV ; AV Azara.