corroborate this identity, as, e.g., the feast in the king’s third year (cf. Esther i. 3 with Herod. vii. 8), the return of Xerxes to Susa in the seventh year of his reign and the marriage of Ahasuerus at Shushan in the same year of his. To this it may be added that the interval of four years between the divorce of Vashti and the marriage of Esther is well accounted for by the intervention of an important series of events fully occupying the monarch’s thoughts, such as the invasion of Greece.
See articles “Ahasuerus” in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, Hastings’ Dictionary, the Jewish Encyclopaedia; S. R. Driver, Introd. to the Lit. of the Old Test.; Friedrich Delitzsch in the Calwer Bibellexikon (1893).
AHAZ (Heb. for “[Yahweh] holds”), son of Jotham, grandson of Uzziah or Azariah and king of Judah. After the death of Menahem, Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin (rather Rasun), king of Syria, allied against Assyria, invaded Judah, and laid siege to Jerusalem in the hope of setting up one of their puppets upon the throne. At the same time the Edomites recovered Elath on the Gulf of Akabah (so read in 2 Kings xvi. 6; cp. also 2 Chron. xxviii. 16 sqq.) and Judah was isolated. Notwithstanding the counsel of Isaiah (Is. vii. 1-17), Ahaz lost heart and used the temple funds to call in the aid of Tiglath-pileser IV., who after attacking the Philistines destroyed the power of Syria, taking care to exact heavy tribute from Judah, which led to further despoliation of the temple. It was as a vassal that Ahaz presented himself to the Assyrian king at Damascus, and he brought back religious innovations (2 Kings xvi. 10 sqq.; for the priest Urijah see Is. viii. 2) and new ideas to which he proceeded to give effect. His buildings are referred to in 2 Kings xx. 11, xxiii. 12; cf. perhaps Jer. xxii. 15: “art thou a true king because thou viest with Ahaz” (see the LXX.). Ahaz was succeeded by his son Hezekiah.
On the ritual changes which he introduced see W. R. Smith, Relig. of Semites (2), pp. 485 sqq.; and on his reign, idem, Prophets of Israel (2), pp. 415 sqq. On 2 Kings xvi. 3 (cf. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3) see Moloch. See further Isaiah and Jews.
AHAZIAH (“he whom Yahweh sustains”), the name of two kings in the Bible, one of Israel, the other of Judah. (1) Ahaziah, 8th king of Israel, was the son and successor of Ahab, and reigned for less than two years. On his accession the Moabites refused any longer to pay tribute. Ahaziah lost his life through a fall from the lattice of an upper room in his palace, and it is stated that in his illness he sent to consult the oracle of Baal-zebub at Ekron; his messengers, however, were met by Elijah, who bade them return and tell the king he must die (2 Kings i. 2-17; cf. Luke ix. 54-56). (2) Ahaziah, 6th king of Judah, was the son of Jehoram and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah, and reigned one year. He is described as a wicked and idolatrous king, and was slain by Jehu, son of Nimshi. He is variously called Jehoahaz and Azariah.
AHENOBARBUS (“brazen-bearded”), the name of a plebeian Roman family of the gens Domitia. The name was derived from the red beard and hair by which many of the family were distinguished. Amongst its members the following may be mentioned:—
Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, tribune of the people 104 B.C., brought forward a law (lex Domitia de Sacerdotiis) by which the priests of the superior colleges were to be elected by the people in the comitia tributa (seventeen of the tribes voting) instead of by co-optation; the law was repealed by Sulla, revived by Julius Caesar and (perhaps) again repealed by Marcus Antonius, the triumvir (Cicero, De Lege Agraria, ii. 7; Suetonius, Nero, 2). Ahenobarbus was elected pontifex maximus in 103, consul in 96 and censor in 92 with Lucius Licinius Crassus the orator, with whom he was frequently at variance. They took joint action, however, in suppressing the recently established Latin rhetorical schools, which they regarded as injurious to public morality (Aulus Gellius xv. 11).
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, son of the above, husband of Porcia the sister of Cato Uticensis, friend of Cicero and enemy of Caesar, and a strong supporter of the aristocratical party. At first strongly opposed to Pompey, he afterwards sided with him against Caesar. He was consul in 54 B.C., and in 49 he was appointed by the senate to succeed Caesar as governor of Gaul. After the outbreak of the civil war he commanded the Pompeian troops at Corfinium, but was obliged to surrender. Although treated with great generosity by Caesar, he stirred up Massilia (Marseilles) to an unsuccessful resistance against him. After its surrender, he joined Pompey in Greece and was slain in the flight after the battle of Pharsalus, in which he commanded the right wing against Antony (Caesar, Bellum Civile, i., ii., iii.; Dio Cassius xxxix., xli.; Appian, B.C. ii. 82).
Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, son of the above, accompanied his father at Corfinium and Pharsalus, and, having been pardoned by Caesar, returned to Rome in 46. After Caesar’s assassination he attached himself to Brutus and Cassius, and in 43 was condemned by the lex Pedia as having been implicated in the plot. He obtained considerable naval successes in the Ionian Sea against the triumvirate, but finally, through the mediation of Asinius Pollio, became reconciled to Antony, who made him governor of Bithynia. He took part in Antony’s Parthian campaigns, and was consul in 32. When war broke out between Antony and Octavian, he at first supported Antony, but, disgusted with his intrigue with Cleopatra, went over to Octavian shortly before the battle of Actium (31). He died soon afterwards (Dio Cassius xlviii.-l; Appian, Bell. Civ. iv., v.). His son was married to Antonia, daughter of Antony, and became the grandfather of the emperor Nero.
See Drumann, Geschichte Rom., 2nd ed. by Groebe, vol. iii. pp. 14 ff.
AHITHOPHEL (Heb. for “brother of foolishness,” i.e. foolish!), a man of Judah whose son was a member of David’s bodyguard. He was possibly the grandfather of Bathsheba (see 2 Sam. xi. 3, xxiii. 34), a view which has been thought to have some bearing on his policy. He was one of David’s most trusted advisers, and his counsel was “as though one inquired of the word of God.” He took a leading part in Absalom’s revolt, and his defection was a severe blow to the king, who prayed that God would bring his counsel to “foolishness.”
The subsequent events are rather obscure. At Ahithophel’s advice Absalom first took the precaution of asserting his claim to the throne by seizing his father’s concubines (cf. Abner.) The immediate pursuit of David was then suggested; the advice was accepted, and the sequence of events shows that the king, being warned of this, fled across the Jordan (2 Sam. xvi. 20-23, xvii. 1-4, 22). Inconsistent with this is the account of the intervention of Hushai, whose counsel of delay (in order to gather all Israel “from Dan to Beersheba”), in spite of popular approbation, was not adopted, and with this episode is connected the tradition that the sagacious counsellor returned to his home and, having disposed of his estate, hanged himself. Instances of suicide are rare in the Old Testament (cf. Saul), and it is noteworthy that in this case, at least, a burial was not refused. (See further Absalom; David; Samuel, Books of.)
AḤMAD IBN ḤANBAL (780–855), the founder, involuntarily and after his death, of the Ḥanbalite school of canon law, was born at Bagdad in A.H. 164 (A.D. 780) of parents from Merv but of Arab stock. He studied the Koran and its traditions (hadīth, sunna) there and on a student journey through Mesopotamia, Arabia and Syria. After his return to Bagdad he studied under ash-Shāfī‛ī between 195 and 198, and became, for his life, a devoted Shāfi-‛ite. But his position in both theology and law was more narrowly traditional than that of ash-Shāfī‛ī; he rejected all reasoning, whether orthodox or heretical in its conclusions, and stood for acceptance on tradition (naql) only from the Fathers. (See further on this, Mahommedan Religion and Mahommedan Law.) In consequence, when al-Ma’mūn and, after him, al-Mo‛tasim and al-Wāthiq tried to force upon the people the rationalistic Mo‛tazilite doctrine that the Koran was created, Ibn Ḥanbal, the most prominent and popular theologian who stood for the old view, suffered with others grievous imprisonment and scourging. In 234, under al-Motawakkil, the Koran was finally decreed uncreated, and Ibn Ḥanbal, who had come through this trial better than any of the other theologians, enjoyed an immense popularity with the mass of the people as a saint, confessor and ascetic. He died at Bagdad in 241 (A.D. 855) and was buried there. There was
