ar, mo'-ab (`ar, `ar-mo'abh; Er; Aroer or Seeir): The city of Ar is named in a snatch of ancient song (Nu 21:15), literally "the site of Ar." It is identical with "Ar of Moab" (Nu 21:28; Isa 15:1). This is probably the place called the City of Moab in Nu 22:36, where the Hebrew is `ir mo'abh. It is probably also intended by "the city that is in the middle of the valley" (Dt 2:36; Josh 13:9,16; 2 Sam 24:5). It lay "on the border of the Arnon, which is in the utmost part of the border" (Nu 22:36). A possible identification might be the ruin noted by Burckhardt, in the floor of the valley, on a piece of pasture-land below the confluence of the Lejjun and the Mojib. Buhl however thinks that not a city but a Moabite district somewhere in the region south of the Arnon may be intended (GAP, 269).
W. Ewing
a'-ra ('ara', meaning unknown): A son of Jether of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch 7:38).
a'-rab ('arabh, "ambush"): A city in the hill country of Judah, probably the site of the ruins Er-Rabiyeh South of Hebron (Josh 15:52).
ar'-ab, a-ra'-bi-ans.
See ARABIA .
ar'-a-ba, a-ra'-ba ha-`arabhah, "the Arabah"): This word indicates in general a barren district, but is specifically applied in whole or in part to the depression of the Jordan valley, extending from Mount Hermon to the Gulf of Akabah. In the King James Version it is transliterated only once (Josh 18:18) describing the border of Benjamin. Elsewhere it is rendered "plain." But in the Revised Version (British and American) it is everywhere transliterated. South of the Dead Sea the name is still retained in Wady el-Arabah. In Dt 1:1; 2:8 (the King James Version "plain") the southern portion is referred to; in Dt 3:17; 4:49; Josh 3:16; 11:2; 12:3 and 2 Ki 14:25 the name is closely connected with the Dead Sea and the Sea of Chinnereth (Gennesaret). The allusions to the Arabah in Dt 11:30; Josh 8:14; 12:1; 18:18; 2 Sam 2:29; 4:7; 2 Ki 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7 indicate that the word was generally used in its most extended sense, while in Josh 11:16, and 12:8 it is represented as one of the great natural divisions of the country.
The southern portion, which still retains the name of Arabah, is included in the wilderness of Zin (Nu 34:3). According to the survey of Lord Kitchener and George Armstrong made in 1883, under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund, its length from the head of the Gulf of Akabah to the Dead Sea is 112 miles. The lowest point of the watershed is 45 miles from Akabah, and 660 feet above tide (1,952 above the Dead Sea). The average width of the valley up to this point is about 6 miles, but here a series of low limestone ridges (called Er Risheh) rising 150 feet above the plain runs obliquely across it for a distance of 10 miles, narrowing it up to a breadth of about one-half mile. North of this point, opposite Mount Hor, the valley widens out to 13 miles and then gradually narrows to 6 miles at the south end of the Dead Sea. At Ain Abu Werideh, 29 miles north of the watershed, the valley is at the sea-level--1,292 feet above that of the Dead Sea. North of the watershed, the main line of drainage is the Wady el-Jeib, which everywhere keeps pretty close to the west side of the valley. At Ain Abu Werideh it is joined by numerous wadies descending from the Edomite mountains on the east, which altogether water an oasis of considerable extent, covered with a thicket of young palms, tamarisks, willows and reeds. Twenty-four miles farther north the Arabah breaks down suddenly into the valley of the Dead Sea, or the Ghor, as it is technically called. Lord Kitchener's report is here so vivid as to be worthy of literal reproduction. "The descent to the Ghor was down a sandy slope of 300 feet, and the change of climate was most marked, from the sandy desert to masses of tangled vegetation with streams of water running in all directions, birds fluttering from every tree, the whole country alive with life; nowhere have I seen so great and sudden a contrast" (Mount Seir, 214). The descent here described was on the eastern side of the semicircular line of cliffs formed of sand, gravel, and marl which enclose the Ghor at the south end, and which are probably what are referred to in Josh 15:3 as the "ascent of Akrabbim." The ordinary route, however, leading to the plain of the Arabah from the Dead Sea is up the trough worn by the Wady el-Jeib along the west side of the valley. But this route would be impracticable during the rainy season after the cloudbursts which occasionally visit this region, when torrents of water pour down it, sufficient to roll boulders of considerable size and to transport an immense amount of coarse sediment.
South of the Dead Sea a muddy plain, known as the Sebkah, extends 6 miles, filling about one-half of the width of the Ghor. During most of the year the mud over this area is so thin and deep that it is impossible to cross it near its northern end. This whole area between the "ascent of Akrabbim" and the Dead Sea has evidently been greatly transformed by the sedimentary deposits which have been brought in by the numerous tributary wadies during the last 4,000 years, the coarser material having encroached upon it from either side, and the fine material having been deposited over the middle portion, furnishing the clay which is so embarrassing to travelers. (For further considerations upon this point see DEAD SEA ;CITIES OF THE PLAIN .)
The Arabah in its whole extent occupies a portion of the great geological fault or crevasse in the earth's crust which extends from Antioch near the mouth of the Orontes southward between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon Mountains to the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, and onward to the Gulf of Akabah, whence it can be traced with considerable probability through the Red Sea and the interior lakes of Africa. The most remarkable portion of this phenomenal crevasse is that which extends from the Waters of Merom to the springs of Ain Abu Werideh; for through this entire distance the Arabah is below sea-level, the depression at the Dead Sea being approximately 1,292 feet. See DEAD SEA . Throughout the entire distance from the Waters of Merom to the watershed, 45 miles from Akabah, the western side of the Arabah is bordered by strata of Cretaceous (chalk) limestone rising pretty continuously to a height of from 2,000 to 3,000 feet above sea-level, no older rocks appearing upon that side. But upon the eastern side older sandstones (Nubian and lower Carboniferous) and granitic rocks border the plain, supporting, however, at a height of 2,000 or 3,000 feet Cretaceous limestones corresponding to those which descend to the level of the gorge on the western side. Throughout this entire distance, therefore, the strata have either slipped down upon the western side or risen upon the eastern side, or there has been a movement in both directions. The origin of this crevasse dates from the latter part of the Cretaceous or the early part of the Tertiary period.
But in post-Tertiary times an expanded lake filled the region, extending from the Waters of Merom to Ain Abu Werideh, a distance of about 200 miles, rising to an elevation of about 1,400 feet above the present level of the Dead Sea, but not sufficiently high to secure connection with the ocean either through the Arabah proper or across the valley of Esdraelon. This body of water was, on the average, 30 miles wide and over the northern part of the Dead Sea had an extreme depth of 2,700 feet. The most distinct evidence of the existence of this enlargement of the lake is to be found at Ain Abu Werideh, where Hull reports "banks of horizontally stratified materials .... sometimes of coarse material, such as gravel; at other times consisting of fine sand, loam, or white marl, with very even stratification, and containing blanched semi-fossil shells of at least two kinds of univalves, which Professor Haddon has determined to be Melania tuberculata Mull, and Melanopsis Saulcyi, Bourg" (Mount Seir, 99, 100). These are shells which are now found, according to Tristram, in great numbers in semi-fossil condition in the marl deposits of the Dead Sea, and both of these genera are found in the fluvio-marine beds formed in the brackish or salt water of the Isle of Wight. The existence of the shells indicates the extent to which the saline waters of the Dead Sea were diluted at that time. It should be added, however, that species somewhat similar still exist around the borders of the Dead Sea in lagoons where fresh water is mingled in large quantities with that of the Dead Sea. This is especially true in eddies near the mouth of the Jordan. (See Merrill, East of the Jordan.) Huntington in 1909 confirms the fact that these high-level shore lines are found on both sides of the Dead Sea, though for some reason the have not been traced farther north.
At lower levels, especially at that which is 650 feet above the Dead Sea, there is, however, a very persistent terrace of gravel, sand and clay marking a shore line all the way from the south end of the Dead Sea to Lake Galilee. This can be seen running up into all the wadies on either side, being very prominent opposite their mouths, but much eroded since its deposition. On the shores of the lake between the wadies the line is marked by a slight accumulation of coarse material. Below the 650-foot line there are several other minor strands marking periods when the subsiding waters were for a short time stationary.
This period of enlargement of the waters in the Arabah is now, with abundant reason, correlated with the Glacial epoch whose influence was so generally distributed over the northern hemisphere in early post-Tertiary times. There were, however, no living glaciers within the limits of the Arabah Valley--Mount Hermon not being sufficiently large to support any extensive ice-sheet. The nearest glacier of any extent was on the west side of the Lebanon Mountains, 40 to 50 miles north of Beirut, where according to my own observations one descended from the summit of the mountains (10,000 feet high) 12 miles down the valley of the Kadesha River to a level 5,500 feet above the sea, where it built up an immense terminal moraine several miles across the valley, and 5 miles up it from its front, upon which is now growing the celebrated grove of the Cedars of Lebanon. (See Records of the Past, Am. series, V, 195-204.) The existence of the moraine, however, had been noted by Sir Joseph Hooker forty years before. (See Nat. Hist. Rev., January, 1862.)
But while there were no glaciers in the Arabah Valley itself, there, as elsewhere, semi-glacial conditions extended beyond the glacial limits a considerable distance into the lower latitudes, securing the increased precipitation and the diminished evaporation which would account for the enlargement of the bodies of water occupying enclosed basins within reach of these influences. The basin of Great Salt Lake in Utah presents conditions almost precisely like those of the Arabah, as do the Caspian and Aral seas, and lakes Urumiah, Van, and various others in central Asia. During the Glacial epoch the water level of Great Salt Lake rose more than 1,000 feet higher than now and covered ten times its present area. At the same time the Aral Sea discharged into the Caspian Sea through an outlet as large as Niagara. When the conditions of the Glacial epoch passed away the evaporation again prevailed, until the water areas of these enclosed basins were reduced to the existing dimensions and the present equilibrium was established between the precipitation and the evaporation.
While it is susceptible of proof that the close of this epoch was geologically recent, probably not more than 10,000 years ago (see Wright, Ice Age in North America, 5th edition, chapter xx),the present conditions had become established approximately long before the time of Abraham and the development of civilization in Babylonia and Egypt.
East of the Arabah between the Dead Sea and Akabah numerous mountain peaks rise to the height of more than 4,000 feet above tide level, the highest being Mount Hor, though back of it there is a limestone range reaching 5,000 feet. This mountainous region contains numerous fertile areas and furnishes through its numerous wadies a considerable amount of water to favor vegetation. The limestone floor of the Arabah south of the Dead Sea is deeply covered with sand and gravel, washed in from the granitic areas from the east. This greatly favors the accumulation of sediment at the mouths of the wadies emptying into the south end of the Ghor.
At present the Egyptian government maintains a fort and harbor at Akabah, but its authority does not extend into the interior. The Arabah has, however, from time immemorial furnished a caravan route between northern Arabia and the Sinaitic Peninsula. It was this which supported the great emporium of Petra. The Israelites traversed its southern portion both on their way from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea and on their return, when the king of Edom refused passage through his land (Nu 20:21; Dt 2:3). This opposition compelled them to turn up the forbidding Wady el-Ithem, which opens into the Arabah a few miles north of Akabah and leads to the Pilgrim route between Damascus and Mecca. The terrors of this passage are referred to in Nu 21:4, where it is said "the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way." Around Akabah itself there are still groves of palms, the existence of which, at the time of the Exodus, is indicated by the name Elath (Dt 2:8), "a grove of trees."
LITERATURE.
Burchkhardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 1822; De Laborde, Voyage en Orient, 1828; Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai, and Western Palestine, 1889; "The Physical Geol. and Geog. of Arabia Petrea," etc., in PEF, 1886; Lartet, Voyage d'exploration de la Mer Morte, t. 3me, 1880; Robinson, BR, 1855; Stanley, Sinai and Pal5, 1860; Blankenkorn, "Entstehung u. Gesch. des Todten Meeres," in ZDPV, 1896; Ritter, "Comp. Geog. of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula," 1866, translation by Wm. L. Gage; Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation, 1911.
George Frederick Wright
ar-a-ba-ti'-ne.
See AKRABATTINE (Apocrypha).
a-ra'-bi-a (`arabh, Arabia):
2. Situation and Configuration
2. The Ka`bah, Pilgrimages and Fairs
LITERATURE
The Hebrew word `arabh always denotes, strictly speaking, not the country, but the people of Arabia taken collectively, and especially the nomadic Arabs. The name of the country does not occur in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament it is used to denote the Syrian desert or the peninsula of Sinai.
2. Situation and Configuration:
Surrounded as it is on three sides by the sea--by the Indian Ocean on the south, and its two branches, the Red Sea on the west and the Persian Gulf on the east--and on the fourth side by the desert of Syria, the country of Arabia is to all intents and purposes an island; and it is named by its inhabitants and by those who speak their language "the Island of the Arabs." In configuration the country is roughly of the form of a parallelogram, about 1,000 miles in length by 500 or 600 miles broad. This parallelogram is not of uniform altitude, but the generally even surface is tilted to one corner in such a way that the most southerly point contains mountains rising to 10,000 feet in height, whilst the Northeast corner is almost on a level with the sea. The altitudes of the intervening portions are in proportion to their situation with respect to these extremes. Thus the mountains of the Southeast corner have an altitude of from 5,000 to 6,000 feet, those of the Northwest of 4,000 or 5,000, whereas those which are situated near the middle of the West coast rise to 8,000 feet, and the plateau which forms the northern half of the interior of the peninsula is between 3,000 and 4,000 feet above sea-level. In consequence of this configuration the main watershed of the country runs parallel to the West coast at a distance of between 50 and 100 miles from the sea, with a subsidiary watershed running along the south; and the principal outlets for the drainage run in a Northeast direction. The whole of Arabia stretches from about 13 degrees to about 36 degrees north of the equator, and it lies between 33 degrees and 60 degrees east of Greenwich. Its area is about eight times that of the British Isles, or nearly 1,000,000 square miles.
Although Arabia is considered by geographers as part of the continent of Asia, it belongs in almost every respect to Africa. The great bulk of the country is desert, of fine sand in the southern part, but consisting of coarse sand (the nefud), gravel and flints in the northern. It is in fact an offshoot from the great African Sahara. Of the southern half little is known, and it has never been crossed by the foot of European. The northern has been traversed in many directions; it has numerous caravan routes, and some important towns are situated in the heart of it. Arabian fancy has peopled the desert with strange creatures not of human kind (compare Isa 13:21; 34:14), and fancy has been justified by the common phenomena of the mirage and the Fata Morgana (Isa 35:7; 49:10). To the keen sight of the nomad the glowing desert heat is visible as a fine gossamer (Isa 18:4). Perhaps this is the meaning of sharabh in Isa 35:7; 49:10 also. It is quite certain, however, that the whole of Arabia and especially the northern borders in the neighborhood of the Sinai peninsula and eastward to the south of Palestine and the country of Edom, were at one time very much better watered than they are at the present day. For centuries a constant process of desiccation has been going on. Indeed, persons now living can remember the existence of wells one or two generations ago, where now there are none. It follows that this district must formerly have supported a very much larger population that it does at present.
It will be obvious that the climate of Arabia must vary greatly in its different parts, the temperature and rainfall depending not so much upon latitude as upon latitude, so that within a few miles the greatest extremes co-exist. In the southern angle where the mountains are highest there are two rainy seasons, one in spring the other in autumn, so that this province well deserves its Grecian name of Arabia Felix. In the higher reaches of this province, for example, at its capital San`a, snow falls in December; while on the coast of the Red Sea at Loheia, scarcely 100 miles distant, thermometer rarely falls below 80 degrees. In the Red Sea 93 degrees is a common reading in the shade in summer, while the heat of the Persian Gulf, owing to its steep shores and great evaporation, is hardly endurable by a European. In the Northwest province, in which are situated the two sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, the rainfall is unreliable and takes the form of heavy thunder showers which occasion frequent floods in the former town, and are, owing to the arborial denudation of the country, of little use for the purpose of agriculture or irrigation. These winter rains may commence as early as September, and by December at latest the new pasture will have covered the ground. Hence the true spring in northern Arabia, or in Syria, falls in our autumn, but there is not the distinction of former and latter rain (compare Hos 6:3) which obtains in Palestine. The climate of the northern central plateau is described by Palgrave as one of the most salubrious in the world.
As has been indicated above, the backbone of the peninsula is the mountain range which runs down its western side. In its northern parts this is said to be an extension of the limestone ranges of the Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. In its midmost reaches it attains an elevation of between 8,000 and 9,000 feet, and at its southern extremity it spreads out into the plateau of Arabia Felix, where its highest peaks have an altitude of as much as 11,000 feet. In the Southeast corner of the peninsula the range of Jebel Akhdar runs parallel to that on the West, and is connected with it along the South coast by a range of less elevation. In the interior the northern plateau is intersected by numerous irregular mountain ranges of moderate length, of which the most frequently mentioned are Jebel Aja and Jebel Selma, which face one another in the Shammar country.
The course of the rivers is determined by the direction of the mountain ranges. As has been said the drainage is mainly from West to East, but the fact is that Arabia is a land almost without rivers. The only quarter in which perennial streams are found is Arabia Felix, and to some extent they occur along the South coast. The rest of the peninsula is destitute of rivers and lakes. The scour (seyl) from the winter thunder showers cuts out for itself a torrent bed (wadi), which, however, may be filled only once or twice in a generation, and even so dries up as soon as the rain ceases. The most important of these wadis is the West Sirhan, which runs from the Hauran in a Southeast direction to the Jauf (see DUMAH ), the West el-Kora to the North of Medina, the West el-Hamth between Medina and Mecca, and the West Duweisir to the South of Mecca. Larger than any of these however is the West er-Rumma, which extends from the neighborhood of Medina to the head of the Persian Gulf. It has never been explored, and is filled with water only at long intervals.
In these circumstances the Arabs have to seek their water supply elsewhere than in their rivers. In many places the surface of the country sinks into a depression down to the level of permanent water, thus forming an oasis, which word is probably none other than the Arabic wadi. The best known of these occur at Kheibar and Teima (see TEMA ) to the North of Medina, and also at Tabuk to the Northwest. The West Duweisir is itself practically an oasis of a length of three days' journey. In addition to these natural depressions there are also dotted over all the inhabited parts of Arabia and along the caravan routes numerous wells, these routes following naturally the course of the wadis. These wells are plentiful in the West Sirhan, and a number were sunk by command of Zubeida the wife of Harun al-Rashid, along the Pilgrim way from Persia to Mecca; but the most famous of all is the well of Zemzem in the Holy City itself. It is said that the water in it flows, so that it is probably one of those subterranean rivers which are not uncommon in Arabia. Its water, however, is heavy and brackish and causes indigestion, and the sweetest water obtainable in Mecca for drinking purposes was originally brought by Zubeida from a source some 15 miles distant. The purest water of all is that which collects after rain in the hollows of the numerous outcrops of lava which occur at frequent intervals and in great masses along the western mountain ranges. A spot where lava predominates is called a harrah (from the Arabic verb "to be hot"), and several of these volcanic regions still show signs of activity.
The peninsula of Arabia was divided by the ancient geographers into three parts: Arabia Petrea, Arabia Deserta and Arabia Felix. The first of these names, which is found in Ptolemy, means, not Arabia the Rocky, but that part of Arabia in which is situated the city of Petra (see SELA ), and it also includes the peninsula of Sinai. It is identical with the desert of the Wanderings. Arabia Deserta is a translation from the Greek Arabia eremos of Strabo (circa 24 AD). It denotes the extreme north of the continent of Arabia which is thrust in like a wedge between the fertile lands which drain into the Euphrates on the East and into the Jordan valley on the West. It is thus equivalent to the Syrian Desert. The third term, Arabia Felix, is also a translation from the Greek--Arabia eudaimon--which is again a translation, or rather a mistranslation of the Arabic El-Yemen. This last name denotes the country to the right hand, i.e. the S, just as the Arabic Es-Shem (Syria) means the country to the left hand, or to the North El-Yemen, however, was interpreted as equivalent to El-Eyman, the Fortunate or Happy, a name which the district truly deserves.
Since before the time of Mohammed (6th century) Arabia has been divided into seven or eight tribal or political states, the boundaries of which are for the most part clearly defined by intervening deserts or uninhabited tracts. The most important of these from a religious point of view is the Hijaz, which may be described as the northern half of the western coast, stretching from the Red Sea to a distance of between 100 and 200 miles inland. The whole of the coast line, indeed, where the land is low lying is called the Tihama. This may, however, be considered as belonging to the adjacent high land beneath which it lies. Hijaz means "Barrier," and the district is so called because it consists mainly of the mountain ranges which separate the great northern central plateau from the Tihama. This last name is connected with a root meaning "to be unwholesome." Whether the district gave its origin to the verb, or the verb gave its denomination to the district, the name is equally appropriate. The chief importance of the Hijaz arises from the fact that in it are situated the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina--the cradle and the grave of the Prophet. It is thus the religious center of the Islamic world. The Yemen forms the southern corner of the peninsula. It is identical with Arabia Felix, and its physical characteristics have been described above. The Hijaz often fell to the sovereign of Egypt, but for the last four centuries it has, like Egypt, been subject to the Turk. It is only within the last fifty years, on the other hand, that the sultan has attempted to enforce his sovereign rights in the Yemen. The southern coast of Arabia is generally designated as Hadramaut, although in strictness that appellation is properly applicable to a section of it only. The eastern corner of Arabia is taken up by Oman, a state which has generally claimed and secured a position of independence. Both it and the southern states are now under the protection of the Indian government. The country adjacent to Oman toward the North formed the province of El-Bahrein ("the Two Seas"), but this name is now restricted to a large island at the western end of it and some smaller islands famous for their pearl fishery. The remaining province of El-Hasa is occupied by practically independent tribes. From many points of view the most interesting province of Arabia is the great northern central plateau called Nejd, that is, "high land." From its situation it is least susceptible to foreign influence. It contains some fairly large towns, but the bulk of its population live, as their fathers have done from time immemorial, the life of the Bedawi. Two small provinces remain to be noticed. Between the Yemen and the Hijaz lies the district of `Asir, which largely resembles the first-named province in its physical features. To the East of Nejd lies the district of Yemama, which used to be the territory of an important tribe.
On the whole the political situation in Arabia today bears a considerable resemblance to that which obtained immediately before the mission of Mohammad. At that time (about 600 AD) the Northwest parts of the peninsula were more or less subject to the Byzantine emperor, while the whole East and South coasts were under the sway of Persia. Today the West coast of Arabia is again subject to Constantinople, and the East and South coasts are under the protection of an eastern power--in this case the government of India.
The principal towns of Arabia and the other centers of population owe their existence to the natural features of the country and have probably remained the same in all ages, just as those of Palestine have, and even their population does not seem to have altered much. Thus Mecca owes its existence to the presence of the famous well Zemzem; Teima, Kheibar and Tabuk to their oases; Mascat, the capital of Oman, to its natural harbor; and so on. An exception is the ancient town of Saba (see SHEBA ) or Marib, which probably sprang up as the result of the building in prehistoric times of a gigantic dam for the purposes of irrigation. When the dam burst in the 2nd or 3rd Christian century, the population dispersed. Owing to the absence of a census it is not possible to make accurate statements regarding the population of an eastern town, and estimates by European travelers always vary greatly. Speaking generally, the cities of Arabia of the first magnitude appear to have some 35,000 inhabitants, though Mascat is said to have as many as 60,000.
The peninsula of Arabia belongs, as has been said, in its physical features to Africa, and its flora and fauna are those of that continent. Of all the products of the soil by far the most important is the date palm. It flourishes in every oasis. In the Wadi Duweisir alone it is said one may ride straight on for three days without leaving the shelter of the palm groves. The dates, which are the staff of life of the Arab, differ in quality in each locality, each district producing a variety of its own. In the Yemen, with its varied altitudes, almost every kind of fruit and vegetable known in temperate latitudes is cultivated on the terraced mountain sides. Vines are grown, as Ibn Khaldun remarks, for the sake of the berry, not for the purposes of wine making. The vine is common to Arabia and Palestine, whereas the date palm has almost gone out of cultivation in the latter country. On the other land the olive, which is so important in the northern country is almost unknown in the southern. The olive is constantly referred to in the Bible (Jdg 9:8 and often), the date never. From the South coast especially are exported frankincense, balsam, myrrh and other aromatic plants; and cotton is cultivated in the province of Oman. Cereals flourish in the Yemen and tobacco is grown wherever possible in Arabia The coffee of the Yemen is famous; it is exported to Constantinople and named from the port of export Mokha coffee; but the bulk of it is consumed within Arabia itself. Coffee and tobacco are the only two articles of consumption which are used in Arabia today, and which have not been used from time immemorial. Coffee was probably introduced into Arabia from Gallaland on the African mainland two or three centuries ago. The Arabs are most inveterate coffee drinkers. Tobacco was probably first brought from English ships at Constantinople in the reign of James I. It is cultivated in every oasis, unless in the interior in Nejd, where its use is discouraged on religious grounds. There is only one other point in regard to which the Arabs of today differ from the Arabs of Mohammed's time--the use of gunpowder. Except in respect of the three commodities just mentioned, everyday life in the desert today goes on exactly as it did 1,600 years ago. Forest trees are extremely rare in Arabia, but a species of tamarisk called ghada which grows in the northern nefud is proverbial for the quality of charcoal it affords and is a favorite food of the camel. An acacia called katad is likewise a by-word on account of its long spines. The wood is used for making camels' saddles; it grows in the Tihama. As in Palestine and in most countries which have been inhabited for many thousands of years, the larger trees have long been cut down for fuel or for building purposes.
Among beasts of prey panthers, wolves, hyenas, jackals and (it is said) even lions are found in Arabia Many of the tribes are named after these and other animals. The wild ox or oryx (see UNICORN ) is rarely seen, but gazelles are plentiful. Apes abound in the Yemen, as they do all along the North of Africa, and are kept as pets (compare 1 Ki 10:22). By far the most important domestic animal is the camel. Without it many parts of the country would be uninhabited. It is commonly supposed that the best breed of horses comes from Nejd, but this appears to be an error. In Nejd the camel is the indispensable beast of burden and mount; horses are comparatively useless there. The best Arabian horses are reared in Mesopotamia. Studs are, indeed, kept by the emirs of Nejd, but the horses are small and of little use. The pedigrees of the best horses go back, according to tradition, to the time of Solomon (1 Ki 10:28). Dogs are trained to hunt the wild ox, to tend sheep and to watch the camp. All domestic animals--dogs, horses, mules, asses--receive names as with us. The ostrich is rarely met with, but is found as far north as the Jauf; it no doubt found its way into Arabia from Africa. A common bird is the kata or sand grouse. It is noted for going straight to its watering place. "Better guided than a kata" is a common proverb. Hawks and falcons are found, and falconry among the Arabs was a favorite sport. In Arabia the locust, so far from being a scourge wherever it appears, is a valuable article of food. It is eaten not only by human beings (Mt 3:4), but also by dogs, horses and even beasts of prey. As might be expected in a rocky and sun-scorched land like Arabia, scorpions and various sorts of serpents abound. The chameleon (Lev 11:30) is common here. It is used as a simile for fickle people and those who do not fulfill their promises. It may be regarded as a substitute for thermometer, as on very hot days it ascends trees or any high places. Another sign of extreme heat is that the vipers writhe on the ground.
The Persian Gulf, especially the Bahrein archipelago, is famous for its pearls, while the Red Sea is noted for its coral reefs, which have caused many a shipwreck. It is believed that in the interior of Hadramaut there are many mineral deposits including gold.
The inhabitants of Arabia are divided into three classes. There are in the first place a number of tribes which became extinct, and which are not connected genealogically with those which survived. The latter are divided into two great stems, the south Arabian and indigenous branch descended from Kahtan, and the north Arabian or immigrant tribes descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham. There is naturally a good deal of inconsistency in the various traditions of the origins of these tribes and their subsequent history.
Of the extinct tribes the most familiar name is that of Amlak or Amlik (Amalek). By the Arabian genealogists he is variously described as a grandson of Shem and as a son of Ham. In Gen 36:12 he is a son of Esau's son, Eliphaz, by Timna. They are said to be first met with in Chaldea, from which they were expelled on the rise of the Assyrian power under Nimrod. They migrated into Ar, occupying in turn the Bahrein, Oman, the Yemen, and finally the Hijaz, where they are said to have been the first settlers at Yathrib (Medina) and also to have occupied land round Mecca and Kheibar. In the time of Abraham they were expelled from Mecca on the arrival of two new tribes from the South, those of Jurhum and Katura (Gen 25:1). Later, it is said, David, during the rebellion of Absalom, took up his quarters in Kheibar and ruled over the surrounding districts. According to another tradition Moses sent an expedition against the Amalekites in the Hijaz, on which occasion the Israelites, disobeying his orders, spared their king Arkam (compare Rekem, Nu 31:8; Josh 13:21)--a reminiscence of the incident in the life of Saul (1 Sam 15). In any case the Amalekites were supplanted in the northern Hijaz by Jewish tribes, who continued there until the time of Mohammad. The Amalekites migrated into Egypt and southern Palestine. The Pharaohs of the time of Abraham, Joseph and Moses are represented to have been Amalekites. Finally, broken up by Josh, they fled into northern Africa, where they are said to have grown into the Berber races. The rest of the tribes which became extinct like the Amalekites are of less interest for the present purpose, being unconnected with the Bible narrative. They are mentioned in the Koran, in which book their destruction is attributed to their idolatrous proclivities and to their rejection of the monotheistic prophets. The best known and most important are `Ad and Thamud `Ad is variously named the son of Amalek and the son of Uz (Gen 10:23). The tribe dwelt in the deserts behind the Yemen. They became polytheists; the prophet Hud was sent to them; they rejected him, and were destroyed by a hurricane. The remnant grew into a new tribe, whose chief, Lokman, built the great dam at Marib. In the end they were conquered by a tribe of Kahtan. Thamud was closely related to `Ad, being a son of Aram the father of Uz. They were driven out of the Yemen and settled in the northern Hijaz; they rejected their prophet Salih and were destroyed by an earthquake accompanied by a loud noise. The rock-cut sepulchral monuments of Medain Salih in the Wadi el-Kora are still pointed out as their dwellings. They were, therefore, considered to have been troglodites like the Horites of the Bible. A second pair were the brother tribes of Tasm and Jadis, grandsons of Aramaic Tasm oppressing Jadis, the latter rose and almost exterminated the former, only to be in turn destroyed by a king of the Yemen. Their home was Yemama.
The southern Arabs claim to be descended from an ancestor called Kahtan son of `Abir, son of Shalikh, son of Arfakhshad, son of Shem, son of Noah. Kahtan is undoubtedly the Biblical Joktan (Gen 10:26), and the names of his descendants reappear as Arabic place names. Indeed the tenth chapter of Gen throws much light on the earliest history of Arabia and the movements of the tribes. Thus the fact that Sheba and Dedan appear as grandsons of Cush, that is, as Abyssinian tribes descended from Ham, in Gen 10:7 and again as descendants of Keturah and Abraham in Gen 25:3 points to the fact that parts of these tribes migrated from the one country to the other. Havilah in Gen 10:7 may similarly be connected with Havilah in Gen 10:29, the intercourse between Southwest Arabia and the opposite coast of Africa being always very close. Among the sons of Joktan are mentioned Almodad, Hazarmaveth, Uzal (Izal), Sheba, Ophir, Havilah. In Almodad we have probably the Arabic El-Mudad, a name which occurs among the descendants of Jurhum, son of Yaktan (Joktan). Hazarmaveth is obviously Hadramaut. Uzal is the ancient name of San`a, the capital of the Yemen. Sheba is the Arabic Saba or Marib. Ophir and Havilah were probably in South or East Arabia. In Gen 10:30 it is said that the camping grounds of these tribes stretched from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, the mountain of the East, that is, probably from the North of the Persian Gulf to the center of South Arabia, Sephar being Zafar, the capital of the South Arab kingdom near to the present Mirbat.
Many of the most illustrious tribes are descended from Kahtan, and some of them still survive. A constant stream of migration went on toward the North. Thus the tribe of Jurhum left the Yemen on account of drought and settled in the Hijaz and the Tihama, from which they drove out the Amalekites, and were in turn driven out by Koda`a, another Kahtanite tribe. After that they disappear from history and are reckoned among the extinct tribes. Koda'a was a descendant of Himyar. The Himyarites founded, about the 1st century BC, a kingdom which lasted for five centuries. The king bore the title of Tubba`, and the capital was successively Marib (Saba), Zafar and San`a. One of their monarchs was the queen Bilkis whom the Arabian historians identify with the queen of Sheba who visited Solomon, though she must have lived much later. The story of the meeting is given in the Koran, chapter 38. A chief occasion on which many of the tribes left the district Northeast of the Yemen was the bursting of the great dam, built by Lokman at Marib, about the 2nd century AD. A section of these grew into the Arabian kingdom of Ghassan, whose capital was Damascus and many of whose kings bore the name Al-Harith (Aretas, 2 Cor 11:32). This kingdom lasted till the time of Mohammad (7th century) and was in alliance with the Roman and Greek empires. On the opposite side of the Syrian desert the Lakhmid kingdom of Al-Hira on the Euphrates (also of Kahtanite origin) was allied to Persia. The two Arabian "buffer-states" were almost constantly at war with one another.
Among the Arabs Ishmael holds the place occupied by Isaac in the Hebrew tradition. It was to the valley, afterward the site of the town of Mecca, that Abraham conducted Hagar and her son, and that Ishmael grew up and became the father of a great nation. The locality is full of spots connected by tradition with his life history, the ground where Hagar searched for water, the well Zemzem of which Gabriel showed her the place, the mount Thabir where Abraham would have sacrificed his son (Ishmael), and the graves of Hagar and Ishmael. The Jurhum, among whom Ishmael grew up, gave him seven goats: these were the capital with which he began life. He married a woman of Jurhum. He had twelve sons (Gen 25:16) of whom Kaidar and Nabat are the best known, perhaps the Cedrei and Nabataei of Pliny; other sons were Dumah and Tema (which see). The subsequent history of the Ishmaelites is lost for several generations until we come to `Adnan, who is said to have been defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, when the latter invaded Arabia. All the Ishmaelite tribes are descended from `Adnan. They are the north Arabian tribes, as opposed to the Kahtanite or south Arabian. One of them, Koreish, under their chief, Kosay, became master of Mecca, driving out Koda`a. Later, as the tribe of the Prophet, they became the rulers of Arabia and the aristocracy of the Muslim empire; and the descendants of Mohammad remain to this day the only hierarchy known to Islam.
There are one or two other branches which are not included in the above classification: such are the Nabateans (see NEBAIOTH ), and the descendants of Esau and Keturah. The Nabateans are not generally reckoned among the Arabian tribes. They were an Aramean stock, the indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and spoke not Arabic but Aramaic. They founded a kingdom in Arabia of which the capital was Petra (see SELA ). This was the most famous of their colonies, and it endured, at first in alliance with the Romans and later in subjection to them, for 500 years--from the 2nd century BC to the 3rd century AD. Petra was an important trading emporium, but, when the trade left the overland routes and was carried by way of the Red Sea, it quickly fell into poverty and oblivion. The descendants of Esau are named in Gen 36:1 ff; they were allied to the Hittites and Ishmaelites. Among the tribes descended from Keturah are Jokshan and Midian, Sheba and Dedan (Gen 25:2 ff).
In Arabia there was and still, in spite of religious disabilities, is a large Jewish population. Before the age of Mohammad they lived chiefly in the Northwest, the two best known tribes--An-Nadir and Koreiza--occupying Yathrib (Medina). After the rise of Islam they were expelled from Arabia; but at the present time there are probably some 60,000 Jews in the Yemen alone. There has always been a close connection between the South and West of Arabia and the opposite African coast. Especially in the 6th century there was a large influx of Abyssinians into the Yemen, as there still is into the western districts. A like intermixture of population went on between Zanzibar and Oman.
The religion of the greater part of the Arabs before the time of Mohammad consisted of a vague deism combined with a primitive form of stone-worship. This is chiefly true of the Ishmaelite tribes descended from Modan, a great-grandson of `Adnan, and among them it is especially true of Koreish. The origin of this stone worship may have been that as each family was forced to hive off from the main stock and quit the sacred territory around Mecca, it carried with it a stone as a monument of the homeland. This stone soon became a fetich. It was worshipped by stroking it with the hand. Before setting out on a journey a man would perform this religious duty, and also immediately on his return, before even visiting his wife and family. The best known idols of the pagan Arabs, from the mention of them in the Koran, are Al-Lat, Al-Ozza and Al-Manat (Kor 53 19.20), worshipped by the Thakif at Taif, by the two tribes of Medina, the Aus and the Khazraj, and by Koreish, in a shrine near Mecca, respectively. Koreish had also a great idol named Hubal in the "house of God" at Mecca, which contained other idols besides. The deity in each case was probably at first a large boulder of stone, then a portable image was made, apparently in human form. They were regarded as feminine and called the daughters of God. Indeed, Al-Lat is apparently merely the feminine of Allah (God). The deities mentioned in the Koran (71 23), Yaghuth, Ya`uk and Nesr, were worshipped in the Yemen. It is certain, however, that the idolatry of the Arabs of "the Ignorance" (Jahiliyah, "roughness," "ignorance"; compare Acts 17:30)--so native writers name the ages before Mohammad (Koran 3 148, etc.)--has been greatly exaggerated by Mohammadan historians. It is remarkable that the words denoting an idol, sanam and wethen, are not Arabic roots, and the practice of idolatry seems also to have been an importation from without. Even the idolatrous Arabs believed in a supreme deity, whose daughters the idol deities were, and with whom they had powers of intercession. They therefore were rather images of saints than of gods. As Renan has said, the desert is monotheistic; it is too empty to give birth to a pantheon, as the fruitful plains of India could do. At the present day the desert Arabs are more strictly monotheistic than the Muslims themselves. Their religion consists in nothing save a vague belief in God.
2. The Ka`ba, Pilgrimages and Fairs:
Though there were many houses of God in the country, the chief religious resort even before the time of Mohammad was Mecca. The House of God (see BETHEL ) here was called the Ka`ba, which is the English word "cube," the building being so called from its shape. It was believed to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael. The honor of acting as guardians of the House was a subject of rivalry among the tribes. The office was held consecutively by the tribes of Jurhum, Koda`a and Koreish, and last by the grandfather and uncles of Mohammad. These, therefore, correspond to the tribe of Levi in Israel. It is said to have contained a large number of images, but it is remarkable that the nearer our authorities get to the time of Mohammad the smaller is the number of images mentioned. The chief of these, Hubal, is not named in the Koran. The worship took the form of circumambulation (tawaf), running or marching round the sanctuary (compare Ps 26:6). An annual visitation was and still is made by those living at a distance, and sacrifices are offered. This is the hajj or pilgrimage; the same name is used for the corresponding rite among the Hebrews (Ex 10:9 and often). These religious assemblies were combined with fairs, at which markets were held and a considerable trade carried on. Before the time of Mohammad the great annual fair was held at Okaz, a place still pointed out about three days' journey East of Mecca and one day West of Taif. Here were not only all kinds of commercial transactions carried on--auctions, sales, settling of accounts and payment of blood-wit, but an academy was held at which poets recited their odes, and received judgment upon their merits. These fairs were generally held in the sacred months, that is, the first, seventh, eleventh and twelfth months, in which fighting was forbidden. They had therefore a great civilizing and pacifying influence.
Before the time of Mohammad Judaism prevailed extensively in Arabia, especially in the Hijaz. It began no doubt with the migration of families due to disturbed political conditions at home. The conquest of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, by the Seleucids, by the Romans under Pompey, Vespasian and finally Hadrian, drove many Jews to seek peace and safety in the deserts out of which their forefathers had come. Thither Paul also withdrew after his conversion (Gal 1:17). Two of these emigrant tribes, the Nadir and Koreiza, settled at Medina, first in independence, then as clients of the Aus and Khazraj. In the end they were harried and destroyed by Mohammad. The Jewish colony at Kheibar met the same fate. Several free Arab tribes also professed the Jewish faith, especially certain branches of Himyar and Kinda, both descendants of Kahtan, the former in southern, the latter in central Arabia. Judaism was introduced into the Yemen by one of the Tubbas, probably in the 3rd century AD, but it was not until the beginning of the 6th century that it made much headway. At that epoch the Tubba Dhu Nuwas became a fierce protagonist of this creed. He seems to have attacked the Aus and Khazraj to whom the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) were subject. He instituted against the Christians of Nejran, a territory lying to the Northeast of the Yemen, a persecution which brought upon him the vengeance of the Byzantine emperor and of the Negus of Abyssinia and involved his kingdom and dynasty in ruin.
Judaism did not hold such a large place in Arabia as did Christianity. The apostle Bartholomew is said to have carried the gospel thither. One of the Jurhum kings who may have lived about the beginning of the 2nd century AD is named Abd el-Masih ("Christ's slave"). There is said to have been a representation of the Virgin Mary and her Son in the Ka`ba. The Christian emperor Constans (337-50) sent the Bishop Theophilus into South Arabia in order to obtain toleration for the Christians. The mission was successful. Churches were built at Zafar, at Aden, and on the shore of the Persian Gulf. The emperor's real object was doubtless political--to counteract the influence of Persia in these regions. Most of the Yemenite tribes were at this time pagan: they worshipped the idols mentioned above (Koran 71 23). Some time after we find the Abyssinian sovereign describing himself in the inscriptions at Axum as king of the Himyarites. This supremacy would be favorable to the spread of Christianity. One of the chief seats, however, of the Christian religion, was at the above-mentioned Nejran, the territory of the tribe Harith ibn Ka`b, whom ecclesiastical writers seem to denote by Arethas son of Caleb. It was this tribe that Dhu Nuwas, Tubba of the Yemen, on his conversion to Judaism, attacked. He threw all the Christians who held by their faith into a trench of fire in which they were burned (Koran 85 4). News of this atrocity was either carried by those who escaped or sent by the Lakhmid, king of Al-Hira, to the emperor Justin I, who, in turn, either directly or through the patriarch of Alexandria, invoked the cooperation of the Axumite king. The result was that the Abyssinians invaded the Yemen and overthrew the Himyarite dynasty. Christianity then became the prevailing religion of South Arabia. The Abyssinians were in their turn, however, expelled by the Persians, under whom all religions--Christianity, Judaism and paganism--were tolerated, until they all disappeared before Islam. Several of the Lakhmid kings of Al-Hira, although they were from circumstances under the influence of the Persian Zoroastrianism, professed Christianity. Nu`man I who reigned at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century, perhaps under the influence of Simon Stylites, retired from the world and became an ascetic. Mundhir II, in the middle of the 6th century, seems to have come temporarily under the influence of the Eutychian heresy. Nu`man V, one of his successors, was also converted to Christianity. But the kingdom in which Christianity flourished most was naturally that in closest contact with the Byzantine empire--the kingdom of the Ghassanids, although it seems not to have been until after the conversion of Constantine that this was the case. From his reign date the monasteries of which the ruins are still visible in the Ghassanid country. The powerful Ishmaelite tribe of Taghlib, whose settlements were in Mesopotamia was also converted to Christianity through similar influences, but not until the end of the 6th century. Some members of the Kahtanite Koda`a professed the same religion, as did the Kelb in the Jauf.
In the Koran a third creed is bracketed with those of the Jews and Christians as entitled to toleration--that of the Sabians. These are monotheists who also worshipped the stars or the angels. The name Sabian has no connection with Sabean which is derived from the name of the town of Saba. An account of their religion, taken from Abu'l Faraj (Bar Hebraeus), the Jacobite bishop, who wrote about the middle of the 13th century, will be found in Sale's Koran, Preliminary Discourse, section I. Sale, however, identified Sabianism with the primitive religion of the Arabs, which Mohammad sought to supplant. This is impossible, however, in view of the fact that Mohammad tolerated the one and proscribed the other. Since the publication of Chwolson's Ssabier und Ssabismus it has been recognized that under the term Sabians are included two very different groups of people. In the first place the devotees of the old Semitic idolatry which flourished at Harran assumed the name Sabian to enable them to claim the protection afforded by the Koran. It is the tenets of these Harranians of which Chwolson's work contains an exposition. The true Sabians, however, were a survival of primitive Christian Gnosticism; whence they were also called Mandeans. From their frequent ablutions they received their name derived from the Aramaic tsebha`, to "baptize," the `ayin being softened to 'aleph, and connected with John the Baptist.
The Jews, Christians and Sabians are called in the Koran "the people of the book," that is, those to whom a revelation had been vouchsafed, and who were in consequence of this tolerated. In one passage of the Koran (22 17) a fourth religion is added to these--the Magian, or Zoroastrian, introduced from Persia.
6. Seekers after Truth: Islam:
Shortly before the appearance of Mohammad a number of thinking persons had become dissatisfied with the old Arabian religion of their ancestors, and yet had not joined the Christian or Jewish faith. They gave up the worship of idols, studied the various sacred books, and sought to find out the true way. They are considered in the Koran as having been of the true faith even before Mohammad had appeared. About a dozen are mentioned by the historians, of whom the most important are four--Waraka the cousin of Mohammad's wife Khadija; Othman who became a Christian; Obeidallah who became a Christian and then a Muslim; Zeid who traveled in pursuit of Truth, but did not attach himself to any one faith. The Hebrew prophets and those who accepted their doctrines are regarded as belonging to the same class. A person who is a monotheist, and who yet does not attach himself to any particular creed is called in the Koran a Hanif. This pure religion is called the religion of Abraham. Mohammad claimed to restore this primeval religion in Islam. By John of Damascus Mohammad was regarded as the founder of a Christian sect. It is probable that but for his appearance Christianity would have spread over the whole of Arabia.
LITERATURE.
Causinn de Perceval, Essai sur l'histoire des Arabes; Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens; Hamdani, ed., Muller, Geographic der arabischen Halbinsel; Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia; Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia; Wellsted, Travels in Arabia; Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah; Palgrave, Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia; Blunt, A Pilgrimage to Nejd; Hurgronje, Mecca; Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta; Harris, A Journey through the Yemen; Brunnow and Domazewski, Die Provincia Arabia; Musil, Arabia Deserta; Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographic Arabiens.
Thomas Hunter Weir
See ARABIA .
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .
ARABIC HISTORY OF JOSEPH THE CARPENTER
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .
ar'-a-bik lan'-gwaj: For the student of the Bible the Arabic language is of interest, first, as one of the members of the Semitic group of languages, to which belong the Hebrew and Aramaic tongues of the Bible; secondly, as one of the languages into which the Bible and other church literature were early translated and in which a Christian literature was produced; and thirdly, as the vernacular of Mohammed and his followers, the classical tongue of that religious system which is the offspring of a degenerate Judaism and Christianity.
1. Philological Characterization:
Scholars are generally agreed in grouping the Arabic and Ethiopic together as a South-Sem branch of the Semitic stock. For the geographical and ethnological background of the Arabic language, see ARABIA . A general characteristic of this tongue of the desert is its remarkable retention into a late historical period, of grammatical features obliterated or in process of obliteration in the other Semitic tongues at their earliest emergence in literature; so that in the period since the golden age of its literature, the Arabic has been undergoing changes in some respects analogous to those which its sister-dialects underwent in their pre-literary or earliest literary stage. Thus, for example, the case-endings of nouns, lost in Aramaic and Canaanitish (including Hebrew), all but lost in the Abyssinian dialects, beginning to be disregarded in even the early (popular) Babylonian, lost also in the dialects of modern Arabic are in full vitality throughout the classical period of Arabic literature.
The Arabic language itself, ancient and modern, divides into a vast number of dialects, many of which have attained the distinction of producing a literature greater or less. But the dialect of the tribe of Koreish, to which Mohammed belonged, is the one that, naturally, by the circumstance of the Koran's composition and diffusion, has become the norm of pure Arabic. Old Arabic poems, some of them produced in "the Ignorance," that is, before the days of Mohammed, are in substantially the same dialect as that of the Koran, for it appears that Bedouin tribes ranging within the limits of the Arabian desert spoke an Arabic little differentiated by tribal or geographical peculiarities. On the other hand the inhabitants of the coast of the Indian Ocean from Yemen to Oman, and of the island of Socotra off that coast, spoke an Arabic differing widely from that of the northern tribes. The various dialects of this "South-Arabic," known partly through their daughter-dialects of today (Mehri, Socotri, etc.), partly from the numerous and important inscriptions ("Minaean" and "Sabaean") found in Yemen by recent travelers, notably Halevy and Glaser, show a closer affinity than do the "North-Arabic" with the Abyssinian dialects (Ge'ez, i.e. "Ethiopic," Tigre, Tigrina, Amharic, etc.), as might indeed be expected from the admitted South Arabian origin of the Habesh-tribes or Abyssinians.
For the interpretation of the Old Testament the Arabic language has been of service in a variety of ways. In the department of lexicography it has thrown light not only on many a word used but once in the Bible or too seldom for usage alone to determine its meaning, but also on words which had seemed clear enough in their Biblical setting, but which have received illustration or correction from their usage in the immense bulk and range of Arabic literature with its enormous vocabulary. For the modern scientific study of Hebrew grammar, with its genetic method, Arabic has been of the greatest value, through the comparison of its cognate forms, where, in the main, the Arabic has the simpler, fuller and more regular morphology, and through the comparison of similar constructions, for which the highly developed Arabic syntax furnishes useful rubrics. In addition to this the Arabic language plays a prominent part, perhaps the foremost part, in the determination of those laws of the mutation of sounds, which once governed the development and now reveal the mutual relationships of the various Semitic languages.
The script which we know as Arabic script, with its numerous varieties, developed out of the vulgar Aramaic alphabet in North Arabia; diacritical points were added to many of those letters, either to distinguish Arabic sounds for which no letter existed, or to differentiate letters the forms of which had become so similar as to create confusion. In Yemen another script arose early, that of the inscriptions above mentioned, admirably clear and adapted to express probably all the chief varieties of consonantal sounds in actual use, though quite without vowels.
2. Christian Arabic Literature:
For Arabic versions of the Bible, see ARABIC VERSIONS . Outside of the Scriptures themselves there was most felt by Christian communities living in the Arabic-speaking world (primarily, though not exclusively, in Egypt and Syria) the need of a Christian literature suited to the tastes of the time and region. Apocryphal and legendary material makes up a large part, therefore, of the list of Christian Arabic literature. See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS . But this material was not original. With the small degree of intellectual activity in those circles it is not surprising that most of such material, and indeed of the entire literary output, consists of translations from Syriac, Greek or Coptic, and that original productions are few in number.
Of these last the most noteworthy are the following: theological and apologetic tracts by Theodore, bishop of Haran, the same who held the famous disputation with Mohammedan scholars at the court of Caliph Al-Mamun early in the 9th century; apologetic and polemic writings of Yahya ibn Adi of Tekrit, and of his pupil Abu All Isa ibn Ishaq, both in the 10th century; the Arabic works of Bar Hebraeus, better known for his numerous Syriac compositions, but productive also of both historical and theological works in Arabic (13th century); in Egypt, but belonging to the same Jacobite or Monophysite communion as the above, the polemic and homiletic productions of Bishop Severus of Eshmunain (10th century), and, a generation earlier than Severus and belonging to the opposing or Melkite Egyptian church, the chronicle of Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, continued a century later by Yahya ibn Said of Antioch; large compilations of church history, church law and theological miscellany by the Coptic Christians Al-Makin, Abu Ishaq ibn Al-Assal, Abu'l-Barakat and others, the leaders in a general revival of Egyptian Christianity in the 13th century; on the soil of Nestorianism, finally, the ecclesiastical, dogmatic and exegetical writings of Abulfaraj Abdallah ibn At-Tayyib, (11 century), the apologetic compositions of his contemporary, Elias ben Shinaya, the historian, and the Nestorian church chronicle begun in the 12th century by Mari ibn Suleiman and continued two centuries later by Amr ibn Mattai and Saliba bar Johannan. After this date there is no original literature produced by Arabic-speaking Christians until the modern intellectual revival brought about by contact with European Christianity.
3. The Literary Vehicle of Islam:
What Aramaic, Greek and Latin have been successively in the history of Christianity, all this, and more, Arabic has been in the history of Islam. The language of its founder and his "helpers," the language of the Koran "sent down" from God to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel, the language therefore in which it has always been preserved by the faithful, untranslated, whithersoever it has spread in the wide world of Islam, Arabic is identified with Islam in its origin, its history, its literature and its propaganda. All the points of contact between the religion of the Bible and the religion of the Koran, literary, historical, apologetic and missionary, are alike in this, that they demand of the intelligent student of Christianity a sympathetic acquaintance with the genius and the masterpieces of the great Arabic tongue.
J. Oscar Boyd
ar'-a-bik vur'-shuns: Arabic translations of the Bible must have been made at a very early date, for Christianity and Judaism had penetrated far into Arabia by the 6th century of our era, but the oldest of which a copy has come down to our time is that of Sasdish the Gaon (942 AD). This version was made directly from the Massoretic Text and is said to have covered the whole of the Old Testament, but much of it is no longer extant. It is characterized by an avoidance of anthropomorphisms (e.g. Gen 6:2, "sons of nobles" and "daughters of common people") and by giving modern equivalents, e.g. Turks, Franks, Chinese, for the Hebrew names. Saadiah's Pentateuch was first printed at Constantinople in 1546 and was incorporated into the Paris (1629-45) and London (1657) Polyglots. When, after the rise of Islam, Arabic became the common language of Syria, Egypt and North Africa, translations were made from the Septuagint, from the Peshitta and from Coptic. In the Polyglots the translation of Joshua is, like the Pentateuch, made from the Massoretic Text, as also portions of Kings and Nehemiah, with interpolations from the Peshitta. Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (in parts), 1 and 2 Chronicles (?), Nehemiah (in parts) and Job have been translated into Arabic from Syriac. The remaining books (Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) are from the Septuagint, and that according to Codex Alexandrinus. In the New Testament the Gospels have been translated from the Vulgate, and the remaining books, although from the Greek, are late. A revised edition of the versions in Walton's Polyglot was published by J. D. Carlyle, professor of Arabic in Cambridge, and printed at Newcastle by Sarah Hodgson in 1811. A very fine translation of the entire Bible in classical Arabic has been issued by the Jesuit Fathers in Beirut, and a simpler version in Arabic which can be understood by the common people, educated and uneducated alike, was made by the late Dr. Cornelius Van Dyck of the Syrian Protestant College and published by the American Press in Beirut. Dr. Van Dyck had the benefit of the help and advice of the Sheikh Nacif al-Yaziji.
A large number of manuscripts of the Bible in Arabic, in whole or in part, are to be found in the British Museum, the Bibliotheque Nationale and the great libraries of the Continent, but none of them are of sufficient age to make them of value for the criticism of the text.
Thomas Hunter Weir
ar'-a-both.
See ARUBBOTH .
a'-rad (`aradh; Arad):
(1) A city mentioned four times in the Old Testament. In the King James Version it is twice mistakenly rendered as the name of a king (Nu 21:1; 33:40). Three times it is spoken of as in the South Country, one mention using the phrase `the wilderness of Judah which is in the South Country of Arad' (Jdg 1:16), that is, the part of the wilderness of Judah which is in the South Country near Arad. It was situated near the frontier of Judah and Simeon, being grouped with Debir, Hormah, Makkedah, etc. (Josh 12:14). Arad and other cities joined in attacking Israel in the fortieth year of the sojourn in the wilderness (Nu 21:1-3), and Israel vowed to "make their cities a devoted thing." In the case of Zephath, one of the cities, this vow was fulfilled after the death of Joshua (Jdg 1:17). The Kenite relatives of Moses had their inheritance near Arad (Jdg 1:16). In the form a-ru-da the city is mentioned by Shishak of Egypt as among the places which he conquered in Palestine. The identification of the site with Tel Arad, about 17 miles South of Hebron, seems to be generally accepted.
(2) One of the descendants of Elpaal the son of Shaharaim, mentioned among the descendants of Benjamin (1 Ch 8:15).
Willis J. Beecher
ar'-a-dus (Arados, 1 Macc 15:23): Greek name of the Old Testament ARVAD (which see), a city on the coast of Phoenicia.
a'-ra ('arach, "traveler"?): (1) The son of Ulla, an Asherite (1 Ch 7:39). (2) The head of a family that returned from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:5; Neh 7:10). He is sometimes identified with Arah of Neh 6:18 whose grand-daughter became the wife of Tobiah, the Ammonite who tried to thwart Nehemiah in rebuilding Jerusalem.
a'-ram ('aram): (1) A son of Shem (Gen 10:22; 1 Ch 1:17). See ARAMEANS ;SYRIA . (2) A grandson of Nahor (Gen 22:21). (3) A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7:34). (4) Aram, King James Version: Greek form of Ram (thus the Revised Version (British and American) Mt 13:4; Arni Lk 3:33), grandson of Perez.
a-ram-dam'-es-ek: Syria of Damascus, conquered by David (2 Sam 8:5,6).
See SYRIA .
a-ram-ma'-a-ka.
See SYRIA .
a-ram-na-ha-ra'-im.
See SYRIA .
a-ram-re'-hob.
See SYRIA .
a-ram-zo'-ba.
See SYRIA .
ar-a-me'-ans: Often in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Syrians.
See SYRIA .
See TARGUM .
ar-a-ma'-ik lan'-gwaj ('aramith; the King James Version Syrian, Syriac; SYRIAN in the Revised Version (British and American)):
1. Early Notices of Aramaic in Scripture
2. Extra-Biblical Evidences of Aramaic
3. The Script of Aramaic Inscriptions
4. Dialects of Aramaic
5. Grammatical Peculiarities
6. Comparison of Aramaic of Sinjirli with That of Bible
7. Comparison of Aramaic of Assouan with That of Daniel
8. Elephantine Papyri
9. Comparison with Aramaic of the Targums
10. Chief Differences in Latter
LITERATURE
The name is given to a form of Semitic speech, most nearly related to Hebrew and Phoenician, but exhibiting marked peculiarities, and subsisting in different dialects. Its original home may have been in Mesopotamia (Aram), but it spread North and West, and, as below shown, became the principal tongue throughout extensive regions. After the return from the Captivity, it displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine. In its eastern form it is known as Syriac. In its occurrence in the Old Testament, it formerly, though incorrectly, generally bore the name Chaldee. The present article deals with it chiefly in its. Old Testament relations.
1. Early Notices of Aramaic in Scripture:
If we neglect two words which occur in Gen 31:47, the earliest notice of the use of this language in Scripture is in the request which the representatives of Hezekiah make to Rabshakeh: "Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syriac language" ('aramith, 2 Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11). The narrative from which we have made this excerpt, even if it stood alone, would prove that Aramaic, "the Syriac language," was so different from Hebrew, "the Jews' language," that it was not understood by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Further, it shows that Aramaic was the ordinary language of Assyrian diplomacy. We next meet with Aramaic in Jer 10:11 which appears to be an answer put into the mouths of the Jews as a reply to any attempt to seduce them to the worship of idols. If we assume the traditional date of Daniel to be correct, the six chapters in that book (Dan 2:4 through 7:28), forming the greater part of the whole, are the next and most important occurrence of Aramaic in Scripture. There are, further, passages in Ezr 4:8 through 6:18; 7:12-26, amounting approximately to three chapters, in which Aramaic is used. In the New Testament several Aramaic words and phrases occur, modified by having passed through Greek
2. Extra-Biblical Evidences of Aramaic:
Formerly our knowledge of Aramaic earlier than the Targums and the Peshitta was restricted to the above-noticed passages of Scripture. Now, however, discoveries, still comparatively recent, have put us in a different position. In the closing decade of last century extensive inscriptions were discovered in Sibbaldia, in the neighborhood of Aleppo, dated in the reigns of Tiglathpileser and the Sargonid monarchs, and one that seems earlier. More recent has been the discovery of the Assouan papyri; these bear dates which synchronize with Ezra and Nehemiah. Earlier than these in discovery, but between them in date of origin, are weights of the reign of Sargon, with two inscriptions, one, official, in cuneiform, which not only gives the designation of the weight, but relates the name and titles of the king; the other, popular, in Aramaic, which only tells the weight. More striking is the fact that frequently, in regard to contract tablets, while the binding document is in cuneiform character and the Assyrian language, the inscription on the clay envelope which served as a docquet is in Aramaic, language and letter. This affords proof that at all events before the reign of Tiglath-pileser Aramaic was the general speech for commerce and diplomacy all over Southwest Asia.
3. The Script of Aramaic Inscriptions:
When we come in contact with it, Aramaic is a fully formed alphabetical language, and has attained a further stage of development than the Assyrian with its cumbrous cuneiform. To the end, Assyrian was largely ideographic and hieroglyphic. The same group of symbols represented very different sounds according to circumstances, and widely differing meanings were connected with the same sound, with the consequent necessity for determinatives. The alphabet employed in Aramaic is practically that found on the Moabite Stone. It evidently stands at the end of a long process of evolution. It is probable that a hieroglyphic stood behind it; whether it is derived from the Hittite (Conder), or from Egyptian (Rouge), or Assyrian (Delitzsch), or is of independent origin (Gesenius), cannot be determined. Aramaic is, like Hebrew and Assyrian, a North Semitic tongue, standing in a manner between them. It is more regular in its formation than either of the others, a character that may to some extent be due to its use as a lingua franca over so wide a territory. Aramaic was the official language of the extensive Persian empire, as it had been to some extent that of its predecessor, the empire of Assyria. It may be regarded as having been generally understood from Asia Minor on the North, to the Cataracts of the Nile on the South, and from the mountains of Media on the East, to the Mediterranean on the West. Its history has been long; spoken, as we learn by inscriptions, from before the days of Tiglath-pileser, it is still spoken on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates.
These extensive limits, geographical and chronological, imply dialectic differences. Means of communication were so ineffective that the distance between the eastern and western limits would require greater time to traverse, than does that which separates America from Europe, or New York from Brazil. The primary dialectic distinction was between eastern Aramaic (Syriac) and western (formerly called Chaldee). The peculiarity which most prominently distinguishes these is the preformative of the imperfect; in the western, as in Hebrew and Arabic, it is yodh (y), while in the eastern it is nun (n) or lamedh (l). Each of these has sub-dialects. In Palestine, besides the Chaldee of the Jewish Targums, there was the Samaritan Pentateuch; in it, besides many foreign elements in the vocabulary, the use of `ayin instead of waw in the preterite of `ayin-waw verbs is the most striking feature. The sub-dialect of eastern Aramaic is Mandean; it is characterized by the use of the matres lectionis instead of vowel signs. From the inscriptions and the papyri it would seem to follow that the eastern peculiarities are the more recent--changes introduced through passage of time. In eastern Aramaic the script became more cursive than in western, which retained the square character we associate with Hebrew: except the Samaritan, which used a still earlier script, less removed from the angular style of the inscriptions. The script of the Assouan papyri indicated a tendency toward the later square character.
Although an article like the present is not the place to give a full grammar of Aramaic, yet we may advert to some of the more prominent peculiarities, common to all branches of the language, which distinguish it from Hebrew, the best-known of north Semitic tongues. The peculiarity that most strikes the beginner in Aramaic is the want of the article, and the presence instead of the status emphaticus, which follows the syntactic rules of the Hebrew article. The next thing likely to attract attention is the use of the relative pronoun zi or di as if it were a preposition meaning "of." While in Hebrew the passive voice is generally indicated in the derived conjugations by internal vocalic changes, as the pu`al from the pi`el; in Aramaic the syllable 'eth (E) or 'ith (W) is prefixed (earlier hith). Instead of the Hebrew causative hiph`il there is the 'aph`el (earlier haph`el with its passive 'ethtaph`al or 'ittaph`al (earlier hoph`al). The causative had also shaph`el and taph`el forms, which occasionally are found. While in the Targums and the Old Testament Peshitta the syllable yath is the sign of the accusative (earlier vath, as in the Sinjirli inscriptions), the letter lamedh serves that purpose in Aramaic which is not a translation from Hebrew. A characteristic of later Aramaic prominent in the Peshitta of the New Testament is the facility with which it adopted words and phrases from Greek which had already largely displaced it as the common language. New Syriac shows a similar facility in regard to Arabic and Persian.
6. Comparison of the Aramaic of Sinjirli with That of the Bible:
A question of very considerable importance to the Biblical student is the relation in which the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra stands to that of the Sinjirli inscriptions and that of the more nearly contemporary Assouan papyri. In making the comparison we must bear in mind that the Hebrew Massoretic Text is the result of transcriptions extending the Bible over 1,500 or 1,200 years, according as we take the traditional or the critical dates for the books in question. This implies probably a score or more of transcriptions each with its quota of variations from the original. While the variations introduced by any one transcription might be few and unimportant, they would all be in the direction of lateness, and cumulatively might easily become very great. The late Hebrew of Ecclesiastes, notwithstanding its ascription to Solomon, shows how little the idea of the chronology of style entered into the thoughts of the scribes of those days, to check this tendency to modernization. It follows that while the presence of late peculiarities proves nothing but the inaccuracy of the copyist, early grammatical forms and modes of spelling are nearly indisputable evidences of antiquity.
The Sinjirli inscriptions, if we neglect the less important, are three, the Panammu inscription, the Hadad inscription and the Barrekab inscription (Bauenschrift, Sachau). The first and last of these are dated in the reign of Tiglath-pileser, the middle one is placed by Sachau in the preceding century. It ought to be noted that, when first discovered, it was a matter of doubt whether the inscriptions should not be reckoned as Hebrew, rather than Aramaic The close affinity between them and Hebrew is shown in various ways. By a relation among the north Semitic tongues similar to that among the Aryan languages expressed by Grimm's law, where letters with the s-sound appear in Hebrew, in later Aramaic we find corresponding letters with the t-sound. But in the Sinjirli inscriptions we do not find this mark of the later language; thus we have sheqel, not theqel, shelathin instead of telathin, zehabh for dhehabh, etc. That this is not due to the proximity of Hebrew is proved by the fact that on the weights in Sargon's palace we find sheqel. Thus, the Sinjirli inscriptions date from a period when Hebrew and Aramaic had not been completely differentiated. There are other points of likeness. Instead of the 'aph`el and 'ethtaph`al or 'ittaph`al of later Aramaic, there is haph`el and hoph`al; instead of the 'eth or 'ith as the sign of the passive, there is hith. The vocabularies also are nearly identical. In both, the syllable yath or wath, sign of the accusative, is present, as if a survival, only as the support of the oblique case of a pronoun (Dan 3:12; Sinjirli, Had 28). The pronouns exhibit a similar resemblance to Hebrew and also to Biblical Aramaic. The 1st person pronoun is 'anokh (once 'anokhi in Pan. 1.19), as in the Phoenician and Moabite dialects of Hebrew; 'anah occurs occasionally as in Daniel. The most marked differences from later Aramaic is "z" instead of "dh" in the demonstrative pronoun; here there is relation to the Hebrew zeh. Another case in frequent evidence is 'arqa' instead of 'ar`a.
7. Comparison of Aramaic of Assouan with That of Daniel:
More nearly contemporary with the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is that of the Assouan papyri. These are carefully dated, and extend from 471 BC to 411 BC; these two dates include the whole reign of Artaxerxes I, the king whose cupbearer Nehemiah was, and who sent him as governor to Jerusalem, and a few years of his predecessor's and successor's reigns. These documents, as written with a reed pen on papyrus, and not cut with a chisel on stone, manifest a very different style of letter; as already said, there is some approximation to the later square character. The resemblance between the grammar and vocabulary of these papyri and those of Biblical Aramaic is closer than that of the latter to the Sinjirli grammar and diction. Where, in the more ancient Aramaic, we have "z," in these papyri we occasionally find the later "dh." It is not improbable that, as in Spain, a lisping pronunciation became prevalent; the "dh" pronounced as "th" in "then" would in that case represent more accurately the sound actually uttered than would "z." The word already noticed, 'arqa' which generally appears in Biblical Aramaic as 'ar`a, is a similar case. In northern Palestine the Arabic qaf is pronounced much as if it were `ain, if not even the related sound hemzeh; instances of this spelling also are found in the Assouan papyri. Both of these differences are due to frequent transcription assimilating the spelling to the pronunciation. Another peculiarity is probably due to a different cause. In Biblical Aramaic the preformative of the 3rd person singular and plural of the imperfect of the substantive verb is lamedh. Of this peculiarity Dr. Bevan gives an ingenious explanation. If the yodh preformative were used, the resulting word would have a resemblance to the sacred name: to avoid this, he thinks, the yodh was changed into a lamedh. Unfortunately this explains too much, therefore explains nothing. Had this been the explanation, the name "Jehu," which consonantally is nearly the same as the 3rd person singular and plural of the substantive verb, would never have been written as it is. Further, if Jewish reverence for the Divine name expressed itself in this way, we should expect to find this preformative in the Targums, which, however, we do not. Hundreds of cases in proof may be found in Onkelos alone. The truth is, it is a Mandean form, which proves that the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is eastern. A further peculiarity is the nun compensative; as tinda` (Dan 4:23), which regularly would be tidda`. This also is found in the Mandean; it is, however, also found in papyri of Assouan, an evidence that the Mandean characteristic was a survival from an earlier time.
Another interesting point of contact between the Aramaic of this period and that of Daniel is exhibited in the Elephantine papyri published by Sachau. These papyri, discovered in the island of Elephantine (opposite Assouan) in 1907, are three in number, and are dated in the 14th year of Darius II (407 BC). In the first, ll. 2, 27, 28, the second, l. 26, and the third ll. 3, 4, we have God called "the God of heaven," the title given to God throughout Dan 2. This is also the appellation used in the Aramaic of Ezra (5:11,12; 6:9 etc.) From the passages where it occurs it would seem that during the Babylonian and Persian rule this was the recognized governmental title of the God of the Hebrews.
9. Comparison with Aramaic of the Targums:
As it is frequently asserted that the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra is that of the Targums, it is necessary to examine the truth of this statement. In considering this question son with we must have regard to the history of these paraphrases, as only in this way can we estimate truly the chronological value of this "great" resemblance, should it be found to exist. According to Talmudic tradition the Targums were delivered orally, and were not committed to writing till late in the 2nd century of our era. A traditional rendering was handed on from meturgeman (interpreter) to meturgeman. In such circumstances archaic forms, words and idioms, are perpetuated. The sacred always tends to preserve the antique; in illustration we need only refer to the song of the Fratres Arvales, a college of priests dating from primitive Latin times and continuing to the days of the Gordians. This sacred song of theirs preserves to us the most ancient form of the Latin tongue, though the inscriptions, from which we learn of it, date from the classic period. Hence the Aramaic of the Targums may represent the form of the language a couple of centuries before the Christian era.
10. Chief Differences in Latter:
We cannot attempt to give an exhaustive summary of the differences between Biblical and Targumic Aramaic, but indicate only some of the more obvious. Account need not be taken of yath, the sign of the accusative, as it appears only as representing the Hebrew 'eth. In verbs, reference has already been made to the "L" preformative in the substantive verb, a peculiarity which Biblical Aramaic shares with Mandean in distinction from other forms of the language: also to the fact that the hith of the earlier verbal forms is replaced by 'ith in the more recent 'ithpe`el and 'ithpa`al. This also is the case with 'aph`el (in earlier and Biblical Aramaic haph`el), the passive of which is hoph`al, not 'ittaph`al, as in Targumic. The importance of verbal forms in determining age is readily recognized; thus in English, if the 3rd person singular of the verbs in an English writing is in eth we decide that writing to belong, in fact or feigning, to a period not later than the 17th century. In regard to pronouns, while in Biblical Aramaic, as in Sinjirli and Assouan, the 1st person singular is 'an'a, in Targumic it is 'anah: the plural in Biblical Aramaic is 'anachna' akin to 'anachnah in Assouan, whereas in the Targums it is usually 'anan, though sometimes the Biblical form appears. The 2nd person singular in Biblical Aramaic is 'ant as in Assouan, with the plural 'antum (Assouan, 'antem): in Targumic it is 'att and 'attun. To compare our own language, when we find "thou" and "ye" in a writing, we date it as not later than the 17th century. The ordinary vocabulary, though not without value in this respect, is not very important chronologically. Connective particles, however, are. Everyone acquainted with Hebrew knows how frequently yesh, "is" occurs; as frequent is 'ith in Targumic. In the Bible, the papyri, the form found is 'ithi. In the Targums 'i stands for "if"; in the Bible and papyri it is hen. Cognate with this, the Bible and the papyri have lahen, "therefore": this is not found in the Targums, which have instead `al-ken. In our own language the presence of "eke" in serious prose or poetry as a conjunction would prove the antiquity of the composition. The fact that the distinction between "c" and "s" has disappeared in the Targums, but is still preserved in the Bible, is a note of age that cannot be passed over. Other examples might be given, but these will suffice. Professor Bevan lightly dismisses many of these differences as mere matters of orthography; yet in French the presence of "l" for "u" or as strengthening the "u" in such words as alx, eulx, aultres is regarded as a note of old as distinct from modern French; yet probably the pronunciation was not different.
In pursuing this part of the subject the latter portion of Pusey's first Lecture (Daniel the Prophet) is worthy of study. Pusey had not the advantage of contemporary documents with which to compare Biblical Aramaic; he could only emphasize the nature and amount of the differences which separated the language of Daniel from that of the Targums. The argument can now be supplemented by a yet stronger argument from the resemblance between the former and the contemporary papyri of Assouan, and yet the earlier Sinjirli inscriptions.
See further,SYRIAC VERSIONS ;LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ; and compare the article "Aramaic" in Encyclopedia Biblica.
LITERATURE.
Numerous grammars and dictionaries of the two principal dialects of Aramaic, eastern (Syr) and western (Chaldee) may be seen in any catalogues. There is an excellent compendium of the grammar of Biblical Aramaic in Delitzsch's introduction to Baer's Text of Daniel and Ezra. For the Samaritan there is a small grammar by Nicholls, also one in the series "Porta Linguarum Orientalium." Noldeke has published grammars for Mandean and New Syriac
J. E. H. Thomson
ar-am-it'-es, ar'-am-it-es, ar'-am-it-es ('arammiyah): The term applied to the concubine-mother of Machir, the father of Gilead (1 Ch 7:14); the inhabitants of Gilead were thus in part Arameans (Syrians) by descent.
a'-ran ('aran, "wild goat"): A son of Dishan, the Horite (Gen 36:28; 1 Ch 1:42). It may possibly be connected with the Yerahmelite Oren ('-ren) (1 Ch 2:25; compare Curtis, Chron. at the place; Dillmann, Gen at the place; ZDMG, L, 168); Robertson Smith claims that this name is equivalent to the Samaritan ('-r-n), "wild goat" (Jour. Phil., IX, 90). J. Jacobs translates it by "ass" (Stud. Biblical Arch., 71). This is one of the many totem names in the Bible. More than one-third of the Horites, the descendants of Seir, bear animal names, and those clans of the Edomites connected with the Horites also have animal names. The very name "Self" means a "he-goat," and Dishan, "a gazelle" (Stud. Biblical Arch., 70-72). Gray, however, remarks that "the instance (Aran) is most uncertain" (HPN, 108).
Samuel Cohon
Same as ARARAT (Tobit 1:21).
ar'-a-rat ('araraT): A mountainous plateau in western Asia from which flow in different directions the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Aras and the Choruk rivers. Its general elevation is 6,000 feet above the sea. Lake Van, which like the Dead Sea has no outlet, is nearly in its center. The Babylonian name was Urartu, the consonants being the same in both words. In 2 Ki 19:37 and Isa 37:38 the word is translated in the King James Version Armenia, which correctly represents the region designated. It was to Armenia that the sons of Sennacherib fled. In Jer 51:27 Ararat is associated with Minni and Ashkenaz, which according to the Assyrian monuments lay just to the east of Armenia. In Gen 8:4 the ark is said to have rested "upon the mountains of Ararat," i.e. in the mountainous region of Armenia, the plural showing that the mountain peak known as Ararat was not referred to. This peak is of volcanic origin and lies outside the general region, rising from the lowlands of the Araxes (Aras) River to a height of 17,000 feet, supported by another peak seven miles distant, 13,000 feet high. It is only in comparatively modern times that the present name has been given to it. The Armenians still call it Massis, but believe, however, that Noah was buried at Nachitchevan near its base.
The original name of the kingdom occupying Armenia was Bianias, which Ptolemy transliterated Byana. Later the "B" was modified into "V" and we have the modern Van, the present capital of the province. The "mountains of Ararat" on which the ark rested were probably those of the Kurdish range which separates Armenia from Mesopotamia and Kurdistan. In the Babylonian account the place is called "the mountain of Nizir" which is east of Assyria. Likewise Berosus locates the place "in the mountain of the Kordyaeans" or Kurds (Ant., I, iii, 6), while the Syriac version has Hardu in Gen. 8:4 instead of Ararat. The Kurds still regard Jebel Judi, a mountain on the boundary between Armenia and Kurdistan, as the place where the ark rested.
This elevated plateau of Armenia has still many attractions, and is eminently suited to have been the center from which the human race spread in all directions. Notwithstanding its high elevation the region is fertile, furnishing abundant pasture, and producing good crops of wheat and barley, while the vine is indigenous. Moreover there are unmistakable indications that in early historic times there was a much more abundant rainfall in all that region than there is now, so that the climate was then better adapted to the wants of primitive man. This is shown by the elevated beaches surrounding lakes Van, Urumiah, and, indeed, all the lakes of central Asia. Great quantities of mammoth bones have been found in these bordering lacustrine deposits corresponding to those found in the glacial and postglacial deposits of Europe and America. It should, also, be remembered that the drying up of the waters of the flood is represented to have been very gradual--it being 170 days from the time the waters began to subside before Noah could disembark. It may have been many centuries before the present conditions were established, the climate, meanwhile, being modified to a corresponding degree by the proximity of vast surrounding bodies of water.
Armenia abounds in inscriptions carved on the rocks, altar stones and columns, but they have been only imperfectly translated. The script is cuneiform and each letter has only a single phonetic character attached to it. But there are introduced a good many borrowed ideographs which have assisted in the decipherment. According to Sayce this cuneiform syllabary was introduced from Assyria after the conquest of Shalmaneser II in the 9th century BC.
George Frederick Wright
ar'-a-rath: Same as ARARAT (which see).
a-ra'-thez (the King James Version Araiarthes; Arathes; Ariarathes): King of Cappadocia, 163-130 BC. Educated in Rome, he imbibed Roman ideas and became a faithful ally of the Romans, in conformity with whose wishes he declined a proposal of marriage with the sister of Demetrius Soter. The latter declared war, drove Arathes from his kingdom and set up Holophernes in his stead. He fled to Rome about 158, and through the good offices of the Romans succeeded in obtaining for himself a participation in the government of Cappadocia. Later he again became sole king. In 139 BC, as a result of an embassy sent by Simon Maccabeus, the Romans wrote letters to Arathes (1 Macc 15:22) and other eastern kings in behalf of the Jews. (See Diodor. XXXI, 19, 28, 32; Justin, XXXV, 1; Polyb. III, 5; XXXII, 20-30; XXXIII, 12).
J. E. Harry
a-ro'-na ('arawnah, 2 Sam 24:16,20 ff; 'aranyah 2 Sam 24:18, and 'ornan, 1 Ch 21:15 ff; 2 Ch 3:1, all from a Hebrew root meaning "to be strong"): A Jebusite from whom David at the request of the prophet Gad bought a threshing-floor located upon Mt. Moriah, as a site for an altar of the Lord at the time of the great plague (2 Sam 24:15 ff; 1 Ch 21:15 ff), upon which Solomon later erected the temple (2 Ch 3:1).
ar'-ba ('arba`, "four"): Variously described as "the greatest man among the Anakim" (Josh 14:15), "the father of Anak" (Josh 15:13), "the father of Anok" (Josh 21:11 margin). Thus he seems to have been regarded as the ancestor of the Anakim, and as the most famous hero of that race. He was the reputed founder of the city called after him, on the site of which Hebron was built (Josh 21:11).
See KIRIATH-ARBA .
ar'-bath-it (ha-`arbhathi): Perhaps "a native of the Arabah." Klostermann suggests "a native of Beth-arabah." The Arbathite is Abi-albon (2 Sam 23:31), also named Abiel (1 Ch 11:32), one of David's heroes.
ar-bat'-a, ar-bat'-is the King James Version Arbattis, (en Arbattois (plural)): Apparently a district in the neighborhood of Galilee, from which the Jews who were in danger of attack by the heathen were carried by Simon Maccabeus to Jerusalem (1 Macc 5:21 ff). It cannot be identified with certainty. Ewald (Hist, V, 314, English translation) favors el-BaTeicha, the plain through which the Jordan flows into the Lake of Galilee. Encyclopedia Biblica (s.v.) suggests "the Arabah, or Araboth of Jordan." Possibly however we should look for it in the toparchy of Akrabattis, to the Southeast of Shechem (BJ, III, iii, 4 f).
W. Ewing
ar-be'-la (en Arbelois): This place is mentioned in 1 Macc 9:1 ff, and in Ant, XII, xi, 1, describing the march and encampment of Bacchides. The former says that "Demetrius sent Bacchides and Alcimus into the land of Judea .... who went forth by the way that leadeth to Galgala, and pitched their tents before Masaloth, which is in Arbela, and after they had won it they slew much people." Josephus says that Bacchides "marched out of Antioch and came into Judea and pitched his camp at Arbela, a city of Galilee, and having besieged and taken those that were there in caves (for many people fled into such places) he removed and made all the haste he could to Jerusalem." It was from the caves near
the village of Arbela in Galilee that Herod dislodged the robbers (Ant., XIV, xv, 4 f; BJ, I, xvi, 2 ff). Josephus fortified the caves of Arbela in lower Galilee (Vita, 37), "near the lake of Gennesar" (BJ, II, xx, 6).
The references in Josephus point plainly to the caves in the cliff forming the south wall of the tremendous gorge of Wady el-Chamam which opens on the plain of Gennesaret, west of the village el-Mejdel. A series of these caves, skillfully adapted to purposes of refuge and defense, is still known as Qal`at ibn Ma`an, "fortress of the son of Ma`an." On the height above stand the ruins of Irbid or Irbil (both forms are heard today), which unquestionably represent the Arbela of Josephus. The army from Antioch may quite well have come this way. No name however in the least resembling Masaloth has been recovered in this district. We may mention Robinson's suggestion (BR, II, 398, note), that it may stand for the Hebrew mecilloth, "steps, stories, terraces," and may apply to the fortress in the rocks.
On the other hand the writer of 1 Macc is an earlier authority than Josephus. If we accept his guidance, Bacchides must have crossed the plain of Esdraelon and followed the main highway southward through Samaria. Galgala may then be identified with Jiljilia, about 8 miles North of Bethel, and Masaloth with Meselieh, about 3 miles Southeast of Dothan. Onomasticon mentions an Arbela in the great plain, 9 miles from Legio (Lejun), but it is now unknown. The phrase en arbelois might mean that Masaloth was in the district of Arbela; but there is no trace of this name as attaching to any tract in this neighborhood.
One or other of these routes must have been taken. While no certain decision can be reached, special weight attaches to the statement of Josephus, on account of his acquaintance with the localities in the region, and his unquestionable familiarity with the history.
See also BETH-ARBEL .
W. Ewing
ar'-bit (ha-'arbi): The Arbite or perhaps an inhabitant of Arabia in southern Judah (Josh 15:52). The epithet is used in connection with one of David's mighty men in 2 Sam 23:35; where Paarai the Arbite occurs. In the parallel list (1 Ch 11:37) we have Naarai the son of Ezbai.
ar-bo'-nai, ar-bo'na-i (Abrona): A torrent mentioned in Judith 2:24. Beyond what is indicated in this passage, it is not possible to determine the location; but from this it appears to have been near Cilicia. Identification with the modern Nahr Ibrahim is rejected on the ground (1) that the ancient name of this river was Adonis, and (2) that this does not answer to the term "torrent" applied by Judith. A possible misreading of "the high cities that were be`ebher ha-nahar" ("beyond the river"; Encyclopedia Biblica under the word).
arch ('ayil; Septuagint ta ailam, in sense of "posts" or "colonnade"): Referred to repeatedly in Ezek 40:16 ff, but translation is an error for "porch" or "portico." the Revised Version (British and American) gives in marg, "or, colonnade. The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain." The principle of arch construction was known to the Jews and examples of early Jewish rude arches have been found in Palestine. An arched form need not necessarily be constructed with radiating joints; it can be corbelled as at Mycenae (Treasury of Atreus). This type of construction has been found also in Palestine.
See ASIA MINOR ,ARCHAEOLOGY OF .
ARCHAEOLOGY; ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM
ar-ke-ol'-o-ji, krit'-i-siz'-m: Archaeology, the science of antiquities, is in this article limited to the Biblical field, a field which has been variously delimited (De Wette, 1814, Gesenius), but which properly includes not only all ancient facts bearing upon the Bible which had been lost and have been recovered, but all literary remains of antiquity bearing upon the Bible and, also, as of the first importance, the Bible itself (Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, vi).
Scope of Article:
Criticism, the art of scrutiny, is here limited mainly, though not exclusively, to the literary criticism of the Bible, now, following Eichhorn, commonly called the Higher Criticism. Thus "Archaeology and Criticism," the title of this article, is meant to designate the bearing of the archaeology of Bible lands upon the criticism, especially the Higher Criticism, of the Bible. The subject as thus defined calls for the discussion of, I. What archaeology can do in the case--the powers, rights and authority, that is to say, the Function of archaeology in criticism; and II. What archaeology has done in the case, the resulting effects of such archaeological evidence, that is to say, the History of the bearing of archaeology upon the criticism of the Bible.
The function of archaeology in criticism has only recently been given much attention and the opinions thereon have varied greatly.
(a) Ignored by Encyclopaedists:
Biblical encyclopaedists generally, until the most recent, have not given this subject a place at all (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopedia Biblica, Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, Kitto, Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Hamburger, See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Eadie, Biblical Encyclopedia). McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature has an article on "Biblical Archeology" consisting entirely of bibliography , also an article of a general character under "Sac. Ant." The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Encyclopedia has an article, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, has an article under the title "Biblical Antiquities," and the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1902, has an article of five pages on "Biblical Archeology" But on the function of archaeology in criticism there is almost nothing anywhere.
(b) Variously Estimated by Critics:
Critics have varied much in their estimate of the value of archaeology in criticism, according to their individual predilections and their critical theories, but until very recently archaeology has not generally been given a commanding, or even a prominent, place in criticism. Wellhausen seems to declare for the dominance of archaeology in criticism in the beginning of his History of Israel, though he very much ignores it in the pages that follow (History of Israel, 12). Driver (Authority and Archaeology, 143-50), thinks "testimony of archaeology sometimes determines the question decisively," but is "often strangely misunderstood," and the defeats of criticism at the hands of archaeology are often "purely imaginary" (LOT, 1897, 4). Orr thinks "archaeology bids fair before long to control both criticism and history" (POT, 305-435). Eerdmans, successor to Kuenen at Leyden, definitely and absolutely breaks with the Wellhausen school of criticism, chiefly on the ground that archaeology has discredited their viewpoint and the historical atmosphere with which they have surrounded the Old Testament. Wiener, the most prominent of recent Jewish critics, also believes that a proper apprehension of the nature of ancient institutions, customs, documents and codes, i.e. archaeology, and especially the archaeology of the Bible itself, is clearly decisive in its influence on the issue raised by the Wellhausen school (BS, 1908-10).
(c) Urged by Archaeologists:
Archaeologists generally for a long time have been putting forward the superior claims of their science in the critical controversy (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs; Naville, Recueil de Travaux, IV, N.S.; Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, chapters i-iv; Researches in Sinai, 188-223; Spiegelberg, Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten; Steindorf, Explorations in Bible Lands (Hilprecht), 623-90; Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, xi; Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients).
The function of archaeology in criticism, as fully brought to light by recent discussion, is as follows:
Archaeology furnishes the true historical setting of Scripture. In the criticism of a painting, it is of the utmost importance to hang the picture aright before criticism begins. It is not greatly different in the criticism of literature, and especially Biblical literature. The patriarchs and prophets and psalmists are the "old masters" of spirituality and of religious literature; their productions were brought forth under certain social, political, moral and religious conditions, and within certain surroundings of influences, enemies, opportunities, temptations and spiritual privileges. It is only archaeology that can hang their pictures aright, and it is only when thus hung that true criticism is ready to begin. The critic is only then a critic when he has seen how archaeology has hung the picture (BST, 1906, 366).
Archaeology gives guidance to the methods of criticism. This it does;
With regard to presuppositions. Presuppositions are inevitable from our mental constitutions, and necessary to the consideration of any subject, since all subjects cannot be considered at once. But our presuppositions are naturally, to a large extent, those induced by our own experience and environment, until we are otherwise instructed. As it is only archaeology that is able to instruct us concerning the exact circumstances of certain portions of the Bible it is evident that, in those portions, without the instruction which archaeology can give, we cannot be assured of correct presuppositions in the critic.
Archaeology gives guidance concerning the canons of criticism. It is of the utmost importance that a literature should be judged only by the canons followed by its own literati. The innumerable literary remains of Egypt and Babylonia reveal methods and standards very different from each other, and still more different from those of modern western literature, but exhibiting to a marked degree the literary peculiarities of the Old Testament. In Babylonian literature, much attention is paid to epochal chronology. In Egyptian literature, comparatively little attention is given to chronology, and what chronology there is, is seldom epochal, but either synchronistic or merely historianic. In the Old Testament there is a mixture of all these kinds of chronology. Again, in Babylonian literature, there is carefulness and some degree of accuracy; in Egyptian literature, carelessness, slovenliness and inaccuracy are provokingly frequent. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are, in this respect, in striking contrast to these other literatures, ye t nowhere in ancient oriental literature is there the mathematical rigidity of statement demanded in occidental literature today; on the other hand there is frequently a brevity and abruptness of literary method which, to western minds, appears to be fragmentariness of documents. The attempt to elucidate oriental literature in the Bible and out of it by applying thereto the tests and standards of western literature is not less disastrous than would be the attempt to judge western literature by these oriental peculiarities.
Archaeology gives guidance concerning literary form. Much of the definiteness and unity of modern literature is due to the arts of printing and book-binding. All archaeological literature of Bible lands, lacking, as it does, the influence of these arts, is, in form, indefinite, or fragmentary, or both. These peculiarities in form and the causes of the same, archaeology makes very plain by abundant illustration. It makes clear, also, that fragmentariness and indefiniteness in oriental literature, in so far as it arises from the literary form and not from partial destruction of documents, in no wise militates against integrity.
Archaeology gives guidance concerning interpretation. Archaeology admonishes us of the truism, too often overlooked, that a language or literature means only what it is understood to mean by those from whom it comes, so that the etymological, syntactical and speculative methods of interpretation employed in criticism, in order to be reliable, must have the support of the historical method. In the absence of this support, more especially if contemporary history as revealed by archaeology be antagonistic, interpretation, though supported by all the other methods of criticism, is very precarious. The interpretation of a rubric by the etymological and analytical methods may be partly or completely overthrown by a single picture or a brief description of the priest at the altar. For instance, it is very disquieting to compare the remarks of commentators on Bible references to the worship at high places with the facts revealed by the recent discovery of high places and the worship there conducted (Macalister,PEFS , 1903, 23-31; Robinson,BW , January, 1901; January, 1908, 219-25, 317-18; Vincent, Canaan, 144). Archaeology must guide in the interpretation of ancient literature, whether that which has just been dug up, as the recent finds of manuscripts and monuments, or that which has never been lost, as in the Bible itself.
Archaeology supplies facts wherewith to test theories.
Facts and Correct Criticism Agree:
There can be no real antagonism between the facts of archaeology and a correct literary criticism of trustworthy documents. But who or what is to determine when the criticism is correct? If there is conflict between the facts of archaeology and the conclusions of criticism, which must give way? To ask the question is to answer it. Theory must always give way to facts. "Where the testimony of archaeology is direct, it is of the highest possible value, and, as a rule, determines a question decisively; even where it is indirect, if it is sufficiently circumstantial and precise, it may make a settlement highly probable" (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 143).
This prerogative of archaeological facts in the testing of critical theories must, then, of necessity be given wide and positive recognition.
(a) Theories Need Attestation:
No theory is to be finally accepted and made applicable to faith and life until tested and attested by facts; if it be a theory in the field of Nature, by the facts of Nature; if in the field of experience, by facts of experience; if in the field of history, byfacts of history. The Master brings even revelation to this test when He says, "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself" (Jn 7:17). Anything in the Bible may be discredited by theory; as everything in heaven and earth may be--indeed, has been--discredited by theory. One might as safely abandon the beaten track for the most alluring but unconfirmed appearance of an eastern desert, as turn one's life aside to a theory unattested by fact. However perfect the appearance, it may, after all, be only the mirage, and the disappointed pilgrim may never get back to the safe road. Let theory first be confirmed by fact; then it may be received into the life.
Even a theory which meets all the known conditions of the case in hand is not by that fact proved to be true, and therefore to be received into the life. The most alluring danger to which criticism is subject is the contrary assumption that a theory which meets all the known conditions of the case in hand is thereby proved to be true. This is not the case. Such a theory must, in addition, be corroborated by facts independently brought to light, or by mysteries unlocked; and even if mysteries be unlocked, the theory is not necessarily an entirely correct theory--the key that turns the lock must be something like the key that belongs to it, but may after all, be a false key. There must, in any case, whether of mysteries unlocked or of facts otherwise brought to light, be independent, genuine evidence in addition to the adaptability of theory to all the known conditions of the case in hand. And furthermore, a theory must not only be able to meet the test of some additional facts, but the test of all the conditions imposed by any additional facts brought to light, and be able, also, to incorporate these new facts as naturally as those upon which theory was originally constructed.
The problem is not to determine one or several of the ways in which an event might have taken place, but the one way in which it did take place. A theory which meets all the conditions of the case in hand may be one of the several ways in which the event might have taken place, but only by independent, genuine, corroborative evidence is any theory to be attested as the way in which the event actually did take place. That this statement of the case is correct in the experiences of life, we have abundant evidence in the proceedings of courts of law. The most careful procedure does not wholly prevent false convictions. The prosecutor presents a theory of the commission of a crime which meets all the conditions of the case as made out by the evidence, convinces twelve jurymen, and secures a conviction. Yet sometimes afterward it is found out that another person committed the crime in an entirely different way. That the dictum under discussion is inapplicable to literature is equally well established.
Sir Peter LePage Renouf argued with great acuteness and force that it is possible to assign significations to an unknown script, give meanings to the words thus formed, construct a grammar and translate inscriptions as historical statements and make good sense, though not a single sign, or word, or construction, or thought be correct (Life-work, I, 6, 7). He says of such a method: "It is not difficult to make out the Ten Commandments, the Psalms of David, the Homeric Poems, or the Irish Melodies, on any ancient or modern monument whatever, and in any language you please."
Actual examples in fulfillment of Renouf's warning thesis are not wanting. The grotesque, yet confident, efforts at the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone are not forgotten. Dr. Budge says (The Mummy, 124): "In more modern times the first writer at any length on hieroglyphics was Athanasius Kircher, the author of some ponderous works in which he pretended to have found the key to the hieroglyphic inscriptions, and to translate them. Though a man of great learning, it must be plainly said that, judged by scholars of today, he would be considered an impostor." Joseph de Guignes (1770) maintained that China was settled by Egyptians, and the Chinese characters only degenerate Egyptian hieroglyphs. Similar failures in the attempt to decipher the Hittite hieroglyphs and translate the Hittite inscriptions must form painful recollections to distinguished scholars yet living, whose efforts, extending in some cases not only to lists of signs but to syllabaries, vocabularies, grammars and translations, are now, in part, and in some cases, in toto, rejected by the whole learned world. However successful present or future efforts of these scholars may prove to be, they have, in part at least, themselves repudiated their former work. The most plausible theory of a literature, though it seem to embrace every detail, may, after all, be found to be, as in one or two of the instances referred to above, wholly false when tested by the principles of philology and the facts of contemporary history.
The dangers of unconfirmed theory in life and literature are even greater in history, which, in its present-day form, is but life written down, human experiences given over to all the accidents and conventionalities of literature. The warnings here from Egyptian and classical history and literature are not to be disregarded. Menes and other early kings of Egypt were declared by critics to be mere mythological characters; likewise Minos of Crete; and the stories of Troy and her heroes were said to belong to "cloudland." But the spades of Petrie at Abydos (Royal Tombs), of Evans at Knossos (Quarterly Review, October, 1904, 374-95), and of Schliemann at Troy (Ilios: City and Country of the Trojans), have shown the "cloudland" as solid earth, and the ghostly heroes to be substantial men of flesh and blood. If we are to learn anything from experience, certainly no theory of either sacred or profane history is to be accepted as final until tested and attested by facts.
(c) Source of the Needed Facts:
Only archaeology is bringing forth any new facts on the questions raised by criticism. Criticism produces only theories; it combines facts, but produces none. Exegetes and commentators rarely, if ever, now bring to light new facts any more than present-day philosophers give the world new thoughts. A flood of light is, indeed, pouring across the page of the exegete and the commentator in these latter days which makes their work inestimably more helpful for interpretation, but the source of that light is neither criticism nor exegesis, but archaeology. Archaeology it is which sets alongside the Bible history the facts of contemporary life and thus illustrates Biblical literature and literary methods by contemporary literature and the methods of contemporary literati, and which makes the purity, sanctity and divinity of the things of revelation stand out in their own glorious light by setting round about them the shadows of contemporary ritual and morality and superstition.
Hence, no critical theory of the Bible is to be finally accepted and made a part of our faith until tested and attested by archaeological facts. Even Wellhausen, however far he departs from this principle in the course of his criticism, seems to lay it down as fundamental in the beginning of his History of Israel, when he says: "From the place where the conflagration was first kindled the fire men keep away; I mean the domain of religious antiquities and dominant religious ideas--that whole region as Vatke in his Biblical Theology has marked it out. But only here, where the conflict was kindled, can it be brought to a definite conclusion" (History of Israel, 12). G. A. Smith quotes also with approval these words from Napoleon (Campagnes d'Egypte et de Syrie dictees par Napoleon lui-meme, II): "When camping upon the ruins of the ancient cities, someone read the Bible aloud every evening in the tent of the General-in-Chief. The verisimilitude and the truthfulness of the descriptions were striking. Th ey are still suited to the land after all the ages and the vicissitudes." But Dr. Smith adds, "This is not more than true, yet it does not carry us very far. .... All that geography can do is to show whether or not the situations are possible at the time to which they are assigned; even this is a task often beyond our resources" (HGHL, 108). Thus critics, while here and there acknowledging the proper function of archaeology in criticism, have not heretofore allowed it much scope in the exercise of that function.
Limitations of Discussion:
The history of archaeology in criticism to be set forth here has mainly to do with the testing of critical theories by archaeological facts. The contributions of archaeology to the furnishing of the historical setting of the Biblical narratives make up a large part of this and every dictionary of the Bible. The history of the guidance of critical methods by archaeological information is in the making. There can hardly as yet be said to be any to record.
A Wide Field:
The field opened up for the testing of critical theories by the results of archaeological research is so varied and so extended that only an outline can be given here. Extravagant claims concerning the outcome of this testing have been made both by some critics and by some of their opponents; as when Dr. Driver says, after except the points upon which the evidence of archaeology is neutral, "On all other points the facts of archaeology, so far as they are at present known, harmonize entirely with the position generally adopted by the critics" (Authority and Archaeology, 145); or as when the astronomer, C. Piazzi Smyth, thought that the great pyramid proved the "wisdom of the Egyptians" to have included some of the abstruse problems of higher mathematics; and Dr. Seiss, in his Miracle in Stone, was confident that the same colossal monument of Egypt definitely portrayed some of the extreme positions of the premillennial theology.
Some of the instances of the testing of critical theories concerning the Scriptures by the facts of archaeology, for which unquestionable historical proofs can be offered, are here presented.
1. Theories Not Affecting Historicity or Integrity.
Many critical theories, notably those not affecting the historicity or the integrity of the Scriptures, i.e. accordant with the face value of Scripture, have been corroborated and others discredited.
(a) Theories corroborated:
(1) Geography and Topography:
The theory of the geographical and topographical trustworthiness of Scripture, i.e. that the peoples, places and events of Scripture are to be found just where the Bible places them. Attempts to belittle the importance of this geographical and topographical corroboration of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures have been made (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 148; also LOT, xi; Smith, HGHL, 108), but such attempts are not satisfying. The theory of the correctness of the Biblical statements has been of well-nigh universal acceptance; archaeologists have fitted out expensive expeditions in accordance with it, exegesis has allowed it to enter into its conclusions, discussion has proceeded upon the assumption of its correctness, the whole body of identifications which make up Biblical geography and topography attest it, and the whole list of sacred geographies, uniform in every essential particular, are in evidence in support of this theory, even the works of those writers who have spoken disparagingly of it.
(2) Story of the Nations:
The theory of the ethnographical correctness of Scripture. That the relation between peoples as indicated in Scripture is correct, has been a working theory for all general purposes and only departed from for special ends. Kautzsch says (Die bleibende Bedeutung des Alttestaments, 17): "The so-called Table of Nations remains, according to all the results of monumental exploration, an ethnographic original document of the first rank, which nothing can replace." The progress of archaeological research has confirmed this general working theory and every year adds new confirmation with regard to particular items which, for some special end, have been represented as against theory. That the general theory of the correctness of the tribal relationships in Scripture has been, and is being, sustained, is indisputable (Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; Gunkel, Israel und Babylonien, chapter vi; Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, chapter ii; Winckler, OLZ, December 15, 1906; Budge, History of Egypt, I; Orr, POT, 400-401, 529-30).
See TABLE OF NATIONS .
(3) Accuracy of Scripture:
The theory of the accuracy of Scripture in both the originals and the copies. Every theory of inspiration postulates this in greater or less degree, and the most prevalent analytical theory put forth by criticism, with its lists of words indicating, as it is asserted, authorship, demands, for its very life, a degree of accuracy and invariableness in the use of words in both the writing of originals and the transmission of them by copyists greater than that demanded by any the most exacting theory of inspiration. Wherever it has been possible to test the statements of Scripture in its multitudinous historical notices and references, archaeology has found it correct to a remarkable degree, and that in its present form and even in minute peculiarities of statement (Brugsch, Broderick edition, Egypt under the Pharaohs, chapters v-vi; Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine; Naville, Recueil de Travaux, IV, N.S.; Petrie, Tahpanhes; Tompkins, The Age of Abraham; Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel).
(4) Bible Imagery:
The theory of the correctness of the imagery of the Bible. This is another of the fundamental and universal working theories of criticism which is, however, sometimes forgotten. Whatever theory of the authorship and the origin of the various books of the Bible, there is always, with only a few special exceptions, the underlying assumption on the part of the critics of the correctness of the imagery reflecting the topography, the flora and the fauna, the seasons and the customs. Indeed, upon the trustworthiness of the imagery, as upon the exactness in the use of words, criticism depends. And this underlying assumption of criticism of every hue has been confirmed indisputably in its general features, and is being corroborated year by year in its minutest details, and even in those very special instances where it has been disputed. To this end testify the whole company of oriental residents, intelligent travelers and scientific investigators (Thomson; Van Lennap; Robinson; Stanley; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus; Trumbull, Kadesh Barnea; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeological Researches; Van Dyke, Out of Doors in the Holy Land).
Besides these theories of a general character, some concerning particulars may be noticed:
(5) Garden of Eden:
The theory of the location of the Garden of Eden somewhere in the Euphrates Valley. This theory has been all but universally held and, while it is not yet definitely of substantiated, is receiving cumulative corroboration along ethnological lines. Wherever it is possible to trace back the lines of emigration of the early nations mentioned in the Bible, it is always found that the ultimate direction is toward a certain comparatively small area in western Asia.
(6) The Flood:
The geological theory concerning the flood of Noah as the last great change in land levels is being most exactly confirmed, not only by investigations into glacial history, but by examination of the records of the cataclysm left upon the mountains and valleys of central and western Asia (Wright, The Ice Age in North America; and Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, chapters vii-xi).
See DELUGE OF NOAH .
(7) Sodom and Gomorrah:
The geological theory of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain has been exactly confirmed by the examination of the strata; a bituminous region, a great stratum of rock-salt capped by sulphur-bearing marls and conglomerates cemented by bitumen, an explosion of pent-up gases, which collect in such geological formations, blowing the burning brimstone high in the air, and the waters of the Jordan coming down to dissolve the salt of the ruptured rock-salt stratum--all this provides for exactly what the Bible describes and for the conditions found there today; the pillar of smoke rising up to heaven, the rain of fire and brimstone falling back from the blowing-off crater, the catching of Lot's wife in the edge of the cataclysm and her encrustation with salt (Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 144; Blankenkorn, ZDPV, XIX, 1).
(8) Hyksos and Patriarchs:
It has long been thought that there might be some relationship between the mysterious Hyksos kings of Egypt and the Patriarchs to account for the favorable reception, even royal distinction, given the latter. This theory of relationship has been very fully established by the discoveries of Petrie at Tell el-Yehudiyeh (Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 1-16). He has not shown to what race the Hyksos belonged, but he has shown their tribal character, that they were, as their name indicates, "Bedouin princes," leaders of the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes of Upper and Lower Ruthen, i.e. Syria and Palestine, and northern and western Arabia, as were the Patriarchs, so that the latter were shown by the former the consideration of one "Bedouin prince" for another.
(b) Theories Discredited:
(1) Uncivilized Canaan:
The interesting picture which was wont to be drawn of Abraham leaving all his friends and civilization behind him to become a pioneer in a barbarous land has become dim and dimmer and at last faded out completely in the ever-increasing light of contemporary history revealed by Babylonian and Palestinian discoveries (Vincent, Canaan, chapters i-ii).
(2) Concerning Melchizedek:
Concerning Melchizedek, "without father and without mother" (Heb 7:3), Tell el-Amarna Letters, while not wholly affording the needed information, have put to flight a host of imaginings of old commentators, and pointed toward Melchizedek's place in a line of kings at Jerusalem of unique title disclaiming any hereditary rights in the crown. "It was not my father and it was not my mother who established me in this position, but it was the mighty arm of the king himself who made me master of the lands and possessions of my father." This title, over the correct translation of which there has been much controversy, occurs not once only, but seems to have been required at every formal mention of the sovereignty of the king (Budge, History of Egypt, IV, 231-35).
(3) Oriental Chronology:
The theory of the chronology of the early portions of the Old Testament, which made it to be so exactly on the principle of the system of chronology in vogue in our western world today, which, indeed, assumed that there could be no other system of chronology, and which was universally held as a working hypothesis by all classes of critics and commentators until very recently, has been greatly modified, if not utterly discredited, by both archaeological and ethnological research. Whatever may have been the system and method of chronology in use in early Biblical history, it certainly was not the same as our epochal chronology based upon exact astronomical time. The early chronologies of the Orient were usually historianic, oftentimes synchronistic, but very seldom epochal. The first, and usually the only, intent of present-day chronology is to chronicle the flight of time; the ancient systems of the East often introduced a moral element; events, rather than time, were chronicled, and the time in which nothing took place and the man who accomplished nothing were apt to be passed over in silence. Sometimes chronicles were arranged symmetrically, and again the visional conception of time found in all prophecy seems sometimes to have prevailed in the writing of history. Certain it is that ancient oriental thought regarded man's relation to life as of far greater importance than his relation to time--a more deeply moral conception of chronology than our own (Green, BS, April, 1890, 285-303).
2. Theories Affecting the Integrity or Historicity of Scripture.
Many critical theories attacking the integrity or historicity of Scripture, i.e. reconstructive theories, have been utterly discredited by archaeological evidence, and, in some cases, abandoned by those who held them (compare Driver, Genesis, addenda, 7th edition, xx).
(a) Ignorance of Patriarchal Age:
The ignorance of the patriarchal age was once a frontier fortress which threatened away all literary pretensions beyond that limit. This ignorance, though never held by all advocates of a reconstructing criticism, was held by some. Von Bohlen scoffed at the idea of the "undisciplined horde" possessing knowledge of laws (Gen, 29-41; compare Reuss, Gesch des Altes Testament, 96; Dillmann, Nu and Josh, 594). Dr. Driver says, indeed, "It is not denied that the patriarchs possessed the art of writing," but thinks the possession of a literature by them a mere hypothesis, for the truth of which no positive ground can be alleged (Gen, xlii-xliii; also Orr, POT, 375). That this theory is absolutely abandoned by everyone hardly needs to be stated. The discovery of evidence of a postal system in Canaan in the days of Naram Sin (Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, 143; Heuzey, Revue d'Assyriologie, 1897, 1-12), the strict conformity of many of the patriarchal customs and events to written law, as revealed by DeMorgan's discovery of the Code of Hammurabi, Dr. Murch's discovery of the Tell el-Amarna Letters, revealing as they do the wide diffusion of the art of writing about one hundred and thirty years before the Exodus, together with the gradual pushing back by epigraphic evidence of the date of the origin of the Hebrew script (Clay, Amurru, 30-32), and the overwhelming evidence, from recent excavations, of the general culture and refinement of patriarchal Palestine, while not yet making known fully the exac t state of the patriarchal civilization, has made any theory of the ignorance of that age impossible.
(b) Religious Ideas in Canaan:
The theory of the nomadic, semi-barbarous condition of Palestine and of the impossibility of high religious ideas among the patriarchs before the Exodus (Kuenen, Rel of Ideas Israel, I, 108-109), though most closely connected with the preceding, demands separate notice. This theory is essential to the current evolutionary view of Israel's history and has been definitely espoused by nearly all holding that view (G. A. Smith, The Expositor, 1908, 254-72; compare POT , 60). This theory, though less important to ot her schools of critics, has in fact been held by nearly all commentators. But the discovery of the earliest wall- and cistern-work at Taanach (Sellin), and the engineering feats on the defenses and the water-works at Gezer (Macalister and Vincent, PEFS), and the 40-ft. city wall pictured in Egyptian illustration of Canaanite war (Petrie, Deshasha, plural IV), as well as the list of richest booty taken by Thothmes III (Sayce, Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, 156-57; Birch, RP, 1st ser, II, 35-52; Leps ius, Denkmaler, Abth. III, bl. 32, 32A, 30A, 30B; Auswahl, III, L. 42-45), which could scarcely be duplicated by all the museums of the world today, testify equally to the luxurious culture and refinement of the times. All this, in addition to the mass of evidence against the ignorance of the patriarchal age (see (a) above), overwhelmingly sustains the opinion of W. Max Muller that "the civilization of Palestine in the patriarchal age was fully equal to that of Egypt."
(c) Evolutionary History:
The theory of the evolution of Israel's history chiefly from a Palestinian origin and environment (Budde, Hist of Israel before the Exile, especially 77; Kuenen, Hist of Israel, 225; Wellhausen, Hist of Israel, 462). Palestine estinian discoveries show a contrast between the unique religion of the Hebrews and the religion of the surrounding peoples of Canaan as marked as it may well be. The evidence is not at all of a purer religion growing up out of the vile culture of Palestine, but of a purer re ligion coming down and overwhelming it (PEFS, 1902-9; G. A. Smith, Mod. Crit. and the Preaching of the Old Testament, chapter iv, especially 142; PEFS, 1905, 287-88).
Descending now to a few of the great mass of particulars, we may mention:
(d) Mythology and Bible:
The theory of the legendary character of the four kings of Gen 14, and of the Hittites; and theory of the generally mythological character of the early portions of the Bible. The four kings have been called "petty sheiks of the desert," and their names "etymological inventions." The historical character of the account of these kings has been utterly discredited by many. Noldeke in his Untersuchungen arrives at the result that the history (Gen 14) is throughout a "free creation," and the person of Melchizedek a "poetical figure." And Wellhausen thinks Noldeke gave the "death-blow" to the historicity of the story (Wellhausen, Comp. of the Hexateuch, 311-12). Ed. Meyer is of the same opinion as Noldeke, but expresses himself in a still more unfavorable manner (Gesch, 136). Hitzig, however, goes to the extreme of depreciation when he sees in the expedition of Chedorlaomer only an adumbration of the invasion by Sennacherib (2 Ki 19:13). Delitzsch gives a very comprehensive review of those critics who have regarded this narrative of the kings as legend of small or no historical basis (Gen, I, 396-99; compare Dillmann, Gen,II , 32-33). In addition, the mythological character of the early portions of the Bible generally has had ardent advocates (Stade, Gesch, 129-30; Schultz, Old Testament Theology, I, 31; Wellhausen, Gesch Israels, 317-20).
(1) Chedorlaomer and Allies:
But the four kings have appeared in archaeological discoveries. While there is still some dispute about the identification of certain of them, the confederacy has appeared in Babylonia and also the Babylonian suzerainty over Palestine in the age called for by the narrative, and, indeed, the whole historical setting into which the narrative fits with perfect naturalness (Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; Hommel, Hebrew Tradition, chapter v; Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, chapter vi). But myths do not receive archaeological confirmation such as has not only been given to the narrative of the confederacy of the four kings, but which is rapidly bringing out the features of the whole early Old Testament history (Gunkel, Gen, 263; Ladd, Doct of Sac Scrip, I, 737).
(2) The Hittites:
Then grave doubts in the past have been raised concerning the Hittites. Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt,IV , 136). But in addition to the treaty of Rameses II with the "Kheta," long generally believed to have been the Hittites (RP, 2nd series, IV, 25-32), and the references to the "Hatti" in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, also thought to be the same people, we now have Winckler's great discovery of the Hittite capital at Boghaz-Koi, and the Hittite copy of the treaty with Rameses II in the cuneiform script. The Hittites are seen to be a great nation, a third with Egypt and Babylonia (OLZ, December 15, 1906).
See HITTITES .
(e) The Theory of Anachronisms.
Aside from the general application of this theory by many critics to the traditional view of Scripture and the assertion of the systematic representation of earlier events in the light of much later times (Robertson, Early Religion, 30; Frip, Comp. of Gen), many special instances of anachronisms have been alleged. Edom has been said to be mentioned too early in the narrative (De Wette, Int, II, 71, Parker's note; also Gunkel, Gen, 61). But an officer of Seti Meremptah II, about the time of the Exodus, in an official report, mentions the people of Edom as desiring to pasture their flocks in Goshen. They had thus early found their way clear across the Sinai peninsula (Muller, Asien und Europa, 135; compare Papyrus Anastasia). Then Moab, long unidentified, has had doubt cast on its existence at so early a time as its first mention; but it also occurs in an inscription of Rameses II near the time of the Exodus, and the land of Moab is placed in "Ruthen," the Egyptian name for Syria and Palestine and northern and western Arabia (Kyle, "Geographical and Ethnic Lists of Rameses II," Recueil de Travaux, XXX).
Several critical theories are just now challenged in the name of archaeological discovery; whether or not the challenges will ultimately be sustained remains to be determined. A few only are mentioned here, but they are of such a character as, if ultimately sustained, will have a far-reaching effect upon criticism.
The theory, long established and almost universally held, of the Babylonian origin and westward course of early Semitic culture, especially of religious traditions (Barton, Semitic Origins, chapter i; also "Tiamat," JAOS, XVI, 1-27; Paton, Early Hist of Palestine and Syria, chapters iii-viii; Driver, Gen, 30-31; Orr, POT, 397). This theory has been mildly questioned for some time and is now boldly challenged. A complete "right-about-face" is proposed by reason of many archaeological considerations, which, it is claimed, make Amurru, Syria and Palestine, the home of the northern Semite, to be, if not the original source of Semitic culture, at least an earlier source than Babylonia, and the course of religious culture among Semites in that early age to be not westward but eastward, as apparently in Gen 11:2 the Revised Version (British and American) (Clay, Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites).
The theory of the gradual invasion of Palestine instead of the conquest is now for the first time challenged by evidence other than the record in Joshua. Such Palestinian researches and the collection of such evidence have but begun within a few years, and from the very breadth of the question the process is necessarily slow. So far, however, as the excavations have gone, the evidence is of a decided change in the culture even at such towns as Gezer, without, however, the Canaanite culture coming fully under Israelite influence and succumbing to it; exactly, in fact, as is represented in the Biblical narrative (PEFS, 1903, 49, Macalister; ib, 1908, Macalister, 17; Vincent, 228).
(c) AD Date of Hermetic Writings:
The post-Christian view of the Hermetic Writings. These Egyptian documents in the Greek tongue have been thought to reflect early Christian thought in Egypt, chiefly because of a certain "unholy resemblance" to gospel language found in them. A recent critical examination of these writings has established, it is claimed, by archaeological evidence gathered from the writings themselves, that the "unholy resemblance" to gospel expressions arose not from the reflection of Christian teaching, but from the appropriation by the evangelists of current expressions of Alexandrian Greek in use in pre-Christian theological language. This view of the Hermetic Writings, if finally established, cannot but have a far-reaching effect upon New Testament study (Petrie, Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity).
4. Reconstructive Criticism Not Confirmed.
(a) The Claims of Some Critics:
Not a single critical theory still maintained, either generally or by prominent individual critics, which proposes to take Scripture at other than its face value, has been sustained by archaeology. The assertion that is otherwise, that "on all other (controverted) points, the facts of archaeology, so far as they are at present known, harmonize entirely with the positions generally advocated by the critics" (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 145; LOT (1897), Pref, xviii; Gen, addenda to 7th edition, XXXIV-XXXVI), means either that such unsustained theories are not advocated by the person making the assertion and not by him regarded as generally advocated by critics, or, more commonly, that theori es in question have not been positively and definitely contradicted by archaeological evidence. But it is not enough that theories are not definitely contradicted by archaeological evidence; we have seen (compare above) that they must be definitely corroborated before being accepted and allowed to affect one's faith. An instance of the claims of criticism concerning the harmony between its theories and the facts of archaeology, a claim whose importance merits presentation at length, is found in the Addenda to t he 7th edition of Driver's Introduction to Gen, the latest and most positive utterance of criticism on this subject. Driver says (xxxiv):
It is stated by Professor Sayce expressly, and by Dr. Orr and Professor A. T. Clay, by implication, that Noldeke's arguments against the historical character of the narrative of Gen 14 have been refuted by archaeology. The statement supplies such an object-lesson of the methods on which the opponents of criticism not infrequently rely, that it may be worth while to explain here the grounds upon which it rests. Here are Professor Sayce's words (Monumental Facts, 1904, 54; cf, though without Noldeke's name, Monuments, 161 f): "In 1869 the great Semitic scholar, Professor Noldeke, published a treatise on the Unhistorical Character of Gen 14. He declared that `criticism' had forever disproved its claim to be historical. The political situation presupposed by it was incredible and impossible; at so distant a date Babylonian armies could not have marched to Canaan, much less could Canaan have been a subject province of Babylonia. The whole story, in fact, was a fiction based upon the Assyrian conquest of Palestine in later days. The names of the princes commemorated in it were etymological inventions: eminent Semitic scholars had already explained those of Chedorlaomer and his allies from Sanskrit, and those of the Canaanite princes were derived from the events in which they were supposed to have borne a part." And then he goes on to declare triumphantly (55) how the progress of archaeology has refuted aH these statements. ....
It will probably surprise the reader to be told that, of the series of arguments thus attributed to Professor Noldeke, while the one about the names is attributed to him with partial correctness (though in so far as it is stated correctly, it has not been refuted by archaeology), the other arguments were never used by him at all .... (xxxv). The one grain of truth in Professor Sayce's long indictment is that of the names of the five Canaanite kings, which are given, Bera and Birsha (suggesting the idea o f "evil" and "wickedness"), and perhaps Shinab and Shemeber as well, are formed artificially; but this (NB) is not asserted of the name of any of the four kings from the East. .... The fact is, Noldeke's arguments on Gen 14 have not been refuted, or even touched, by archaeology. .... Professor Sayce has simply not mentioned Noldeke's real arguments at all. Nor are they mentioned by Dr. Orr or Professor Clay. .... Archaeology has met the arguments which Noldeke did not use; it has not met the arguments which he did use. Noldeke never questioned, as Professor Sayce declares that he did, the general possibility at this time of an expedition being sent from the far East into Palestine: his argument consisted in pointing out various historical improbabilities attaching to the details of a particular expedition; and archaeology can overthrow this argument only by producing evidence that this expedition, with the details as stated in Gen 14, actually took place. And this up to the present time (June, 1909) archaeology has not done.
Compare with these declarations of Driver, one by one, though in somewhat different order, Noldeke's own words. He says (Untersuchungen, 157-60):
"The chapter begins with an imposing enumeration of kings, in whose time the narrated event is alleged to have occurred. .... Of what use is the dating according to kings, the time of whose reign is perfectly unknown to us? .... so that the dating is wholly superfluous and tells us nothing."
Bern and Birsha are said to be "quite decidedly unhistorical. .... The alliterative pairing also of these names speaks more for their fictitious than for their historical origin. It is striking that for the single historical city of Zoar, no name of the king is given. .... Besides, we are bound to no time, for the event recounted could quite as well have taken place in the year 4000 as 2000; the artificial chronology of Gen is for us no rule. .... Whence the narrator got the names of the hostile kings we cannot say. They may really have been handed down to him, perhaps quite in another connection. However that may be, the utmost we can admit is that he has employed a few correct names intermingled with false or invented ones, and the appearance of historicity thus produced can as little permanently deceive us as the proper names and dates in the book of Esther. .... Concede provisionally the correctness of the names of the kings and test the narrative further."
Here in a long paragraph, Noldeke follows the reductio ad absurdum arguing that, from a historical standpoint, the provisional supposition is incredible and impossible, and concludes (163), "Now this whole expedition is historically improbable to the same extent that it is adapted to the production of a striking effect; the usual sign that it is fictitious. .... Does not the manifest improbability of the narrative lie precisely in the details which give it the appearance of historicity?"
Concerning the story of Abram's pursuit of the kings and the rescue of Lot, he says (165): "If that is possible, then is nothing impossible. It may be replied that the number of Abram's servants was in reality much greater; but everything depends upon it, and the number belongs again to the very things which spread over the narrative the deceptive shimmer of historicity."
Of Melchizedek and the Amorite allies of Abram, he says (168): "So do the proofs pile up, that our narrative has no historical worth. .... Even if the rest of the chapter were historical we would still hold Melchizedek a poetical figure." He sums up the argument in the following words (170-71): "In accordance with what has been said, it is very improbable that the composer in the chief matters rested upon a real tradition of the people, but we must accept as a fact that it is a free creation throughout."
On the same subject, in reply to some of his critics (Zeitschrift fur W. Theol, 1870, 218-19), he says:
"I sum up once more the general points: (1) Of the names mentioned in Gen 14, several are unhistorical (the name of Sodom and Gomorrah, the three Amorites, Melchizedek; in my view, also, Abram and Lot, and probably the four overwhelmed cities). (2) The expedition of the kings cannot have taken place as narrated .... even through the very clearness of the narrative are we made to know that we have here to do with a romantic expedition, the course of which is determined by aim at sharper effect, and which has for itself no historical probability. (3) The small number of the host, in whose complete victory over the army of the four kings the story at last comes to a climax, is contrary to sense, while yet it designates about the utmost number which, as his own fighting men, a private citizen could put in the field.
"Whoever now throughout all of this will hold to an historical kernel may do so; he must then admit that at some perfectly uncertain time in great antiquity a king of Elam ruled over the Jordan land and made a warlike expedition thither. But that would be the utmost concession I could make. Everything more precise, as numbers, names, etc., and also exactly that which produces the appearance of careful tradition and trustworthiness is partly false, partly quite unreliable .... more especially, beyond the conquest itself nothing whatever could be known. But to me it still seems much more probable, in view of the consistent, and for the aim of the narrator, exceedingly well ordered, but still, in reality, impossible course of the narrative, out from which there cannot be separated any single things as bare exaggeration of the tradition, that we have here a conscious fiction in which only a few historical names have been used."
Now, recalling to mind the facts of archaeology in this case (compare above) it becomes evident that they are very far from "harmonizing entirely" with the opinion advanced by Noldeke and reiterated by Driver, and the method of advocating such "harmonizing" appears very clearly. Moreover, what is true of this particular theory of Noldeke and Driver is equally true of other radical critical theories at present held. Of the current reconstructive theories of criticism--the patriarchs not individuals but personifications; the rude, nomadic, semi-barbarous condition of Palestine in the patriarchal age; the desert; Egypt; the comparative unimportance of Moses as a lawgiver; the gradual invasion of Palestine; the naturalistic origin of Israel's religion from astral myths; and the late authorship of the Pentateuch--not one is being sustained. In fact, however much archaeological evidence there may be that is negative in character or that is not definitely against the reconstructive theories of criticism, no one can point to a single definite particular of archaeological evidence whereby any one of these theories is positively sustained and corroborated.
5. The Present State of the Discussion.
The present stage of progress of the testing of critical theories by archaeological evidence may briefly be stated. The Bible at its face value is being corroborated wherever archaeology immediately and definitely touches it. To illustrate this statement fully would be to cite every definite piece of archaeological evidence in the Biblical field of scientific research during the last one hundred years.
But views of Scripture must finally square with the results of archaeology, i.e. with contemporaneous history, and, just as archaeological research makes that contemporaneous history to appear, critical theories at variance therewith are of necessity giving way; so that, as far as the process has been carried to the present time, archaeology is bringing criticism into harmony with the face value of Scripture, and is not definitely and unequivocally encouraging attempts at literary reconstruction of any portion of the Bible, although sometimes asked to render such service.
LITERATURE.
The bibliography of the discussion has appeared in the references fully given throughout this article. The bibliography on the subject of this article, "Archaeology and Criticism," is, as indicated above, exceedingly meager, since the importance of the subject has but recently come to the front and been generally recognized. The following may be cited: Driver, in Authority and Archaeology (Hogarth), chapter i; Eerdmans, Hibbert Journal, July, 1909; also Alttestamentliche Studien; Orr, T he Problem of the Old Testament, chapter xi; Bennett, Contemporary Review, 1906, 518.
M. G. Kyle
ark-an'-jel.
See ANGEL .
ar-ke-la'-us (Archelaos, Mt 2:22): Son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace. He succeeded on his father's death to the government of Judea, Samaria and Idumaea, but was deposed by the Romans for misgovernment in 6 AD.
See HEROD .
ar'-cher-i:
(1) The art of using the arcus, or bow and arrow for hunting and in battle is of great antiquity. It is mentioned in Gen 21:20, as well as in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and depicted on Egyptian monuments and in Assyrian sculptures. The Philistines excelled in the art, which led David to order that special training in it be given to the Hebrews (2 Sam 1:18). It was an important art throughout the world in Biblical times (see Gen 27:3; Isa 22:6; 49:2; Ps 127:4). The Benjamites among the Hebrews were noted as archers (Jdg 20), and archers constituted much of the fighting strength, and played no mean part in the victories, of the world-famed Greek and Roman armies.
(2) The bow was common to civil (Gen 21:20) and military life (Zec 9:10), and vies with the spear in importance and antiquity. It was usually made of tough, elastic, seasoned wood, and often mounted with bronze (see Ps 18:34 Revised Version (British and American); compare Job 20:24). But horn, too, was used for bows by the ancients, some with double curves being evidently modeled after the horns of oxen. The bow-string was commonly ox-gut and the arrows were of reed, or light wood tipped with flint, bronze, or iron.
(3) The battle bows, such as are mentioned in Zec 9:10; 10:4, must have been of great size, since they required to be strung by pressing the foot on the lower end, while the upper end was bent down to receive the string into a notch; hence the expression "to tread (= string) the bow," and "bowtreaders," for archers (Jer 50:14,29 Hebrew). The arrows, "the sons of his quiver" (Lam 3:13 margin, the Revised Version (British and American) "shafts"), were ordinarily, of course, carried in the quiver, which was either placed on the back or slung on the left side, secured by a belt over the right shoulder (HDB). The day of gunpowder and firearms, of course, was not yet.
George B. Eager
ar'-ke-vit (Kethibh, 'arkawey; Qere, 'arkewaye'): One of the tribes which Osnappar transplanted to swell the mixed multitudes in the cities of Samaria (Ezr 4:9). The Archevites were the inhabitants of Erech, one of the four cities originally founded by Nimrod in Babylonia. (For its modern site compare Loftus, Travels in Chaldea and Susiana, 162 ff). Marquardt (Fund, 64 ff) emends the text to read di kuthaye', "who are Cuthaeans" (2 Ki 17:24).
ar'-ki.
See ARCHITES .
ar-kip'-us (Archippos): Addressed by Paul in his letter to Philem, as "our fellow-soldier"; probably a member of Philem's family circle, holding some official position in the church (Col 4:17; Philem 1:2). See APPHIA . The tradition that he was one of the seventy disciples, became bishop of Laodicea and later became a martyr, seems to have little historical foundation.
ar'-ki-tek-tur:
1. Plans, Estimates and Measuring
II. TEMPLE AND PALACE OF SOLOMON
III. CONCLUSIONS FROM ACTUAL REMAINS
3. Absence of the "Grand Manner"
6. Comparison with Maccabean Work
LITERATURE
The words "architect" and "architecture" do not occur in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
As the greatness of a nation and its social elevation are reflected in the course of architectural development, so is a nation's failure to rise to firm establishment, after victory in war, reflected in the absence of such development. The latter condition was that of the Jews in Palestine; they failed so to establish themselves that their character and aims could find true expression in architecture. The country by reason of its geographical position and its broken territorial character, which exaggerat edition the tribal nature of its inhabitants, did not favor political empire (see HGHL , 10). The great difficulty of the Jews was the preservation of their own integrity. There could be no victorious expeditions to foreign lands to inspire monumental evidence of achievement in arms, nor had they the inspiration. of various gods or saints, to whose glory great and separate buildings might be raised. Their dwellings were, by force of circumstances, unpretentious, and their tombs were of the same character.
1. Plans, Estimates and Measuring:
Although in the smaller buildings there is very little evidence of the builder having been governed by a previously drawn plan, there seems no doubt that in larger works a plan was prepared. The Tabernacle was made according to a "pattern" (Ex 25:9) and Solomon's Temple was also designed and submitted for approval (1 Ch 28:11). Estimated cost was also considered (Lk 14:28). The equivalents to a tape line and foot rule can be identified (Ezek 40:3,5; 47:3; Rev 11:1; 21:15).
The Israelites arrived in tents, and the walled cities, "great and walled up to heaven" (Dt 1:28 the King James Version) which they took and occupied were well fortified, unlovely shelters, covering areas of anything from 12 acres, as at Taanach and Megiddo, to about 23 acres as at Gezer (Canaan d'apres l'exploration recente). The habitations within the walls were poor structures of mud bricks or rude stone; in many cases they were rock-cut caves. True, the Jews attempted, at the outset of their full pos session, to build in beauty, and made efforts toward greater substantiality, using the best available help; the attempt, however, was doomed to failure. Their most important buildings were their fortifications. The engineering skill displayed in the construction of aqueducts and other water systems was forced out of them by sheer necessity, and proved the existence of a latent constructive power, which they never had sustained opportunity to apply to architecture. In striking contrast is the architecture of the Crusaders. In a comparatively short time of less than 200 years, during the half of which practice in the arts of peace was well-nigh impossible, they stamped their occupation by the erection of an enormous number of great and beautiful buildings, the ruins of which are among the most imposing landmarks in the country.
The often-repeated references to building greatness in the Old Testament, indicate a pride out of all scale with actuality. They tell the story of a long desert pilgrimage during which the Jews, as dwellers in tents, were impressed with the walled cities which, with extraordinary fortitude, they stormed and occupied, and which, with pardonable enthusiasm, they consequently exaggerated, to the glory of God. Although references to buildings in the Old Testament are frequent, they are seldom sufficiently de tailed to convey an idea of their character.
Cain built a city and named it Enoch (Gen 4:17); his descendant Tubal Cain was "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" (Gen 4:22 the Revised Version, margin). The description of the plan of the ark (Gen 6:14 ff) is the first detailed architectural description in the Old Testament. Asshur, a descendant of Ham, built Nineveh and other cities (Gen 10:11). The tower of Babel was built of "brick for stone and slime for mortar" (Gen 11:3). In Ex 27:9-21 plan, dimensions and construction of the Tabernacle are given.
II. Temple and Palace of Solomon.
The most complete architectural reference is the description of the Temple and Palace of Solomon (1 Ki 6; 7) and (Ezek 40; 41). These buildings are fully dealt with under TEMPLE, but a brief note is here necessary, as they are by far the greatest buildings of which there is mention in the Old Testament. It is clear that Solomon had ambition for architectural greatness, and, following the example of David (2 Sam 5:11) he employed Phoenician designers and craftsmen to carry out the work.
1. Construction and Materials:
It is known that the buildings were of stone, that the chambers surrounding the Temple were three stories high, that the Temple was roofed (presumably flat) with cedar. Fergusson's restoration shows a sloping roof, following the precedent of the sloping roof of the Tabernacle (Temples of the Jews, 26). The walls and ceilings were lined with cedar, so that "there was no stone seen" (1 Ki 6:18) within the house. The interior was enriched with carved foliage and cherubim, and in the decorative scheme, gold was freely applied. The description of the exterior is less minutely detailed. Stones were large and, as in the buildings of Egypt, were "sawed with saws" "from foundation to coping" (1 Ki 7:9), "foundation to the top of walls" (3 Ki 7:9, the Douay Version). The inference therefore is that the masonry was smooth-faced: "no sign of any hammer" (Ant., VIII, iii, 2). Windows were "narrow" (1 Ki 6:4 the King James Version), repeatedly referred to (Ezek 40:16,26). In the interior of the palace, cedar beams were carried on rows of cedar columns, and there were three rows of windows, one row to each story, directly opposite each other. Doors and posts were "square in prospect" (1 Ki 7:5 the English Revised Version), i.e. square-headed. In Ezek 40:21 ff English Versions of the Bible arches are repeatedly mentioned but this is an error of translation.
See ARCH .
In the description, there is very little indication of the style of architecture. The rich nature of the pillars of brass and their "chapiters" (1 Ki 7:15 ff English Versions) point to some hankering after an ornate trabeated style. There is no indication, however, of such a style in constructive stone. No mention is made of a crowning feature of a distinctive kind, not even an eave, simply a "coping." The use of a coping suggests that the walls were topped by parapets, "battlement" (Dt 22:8 English Versions), accord ing to the law. Fergusson's restoration shows both cornice and battlements (Temples of the Jews, Frontispiece).
One can only vaguely conjecture the sources of influence which guided the builders. The description clearly shows that the great columnar architecture of Egypt was not taken as a model, although certain Egyptian characteristics in detail are evident in contemporary work. Probably Phoenician intercourse with the Mediterranean, generally, showed its influence, in which case a comparatively poor result might be inferred.
There remain these facts, namely, that here is described a group of buildings, of comparatively great scale; internally, at least, richly detailed and disposed in a way which shows considerable appreciation of architectural fitness, inspired by ambition for monumental greatness and dedicated, as was all that is great and spontaneous in architecture, to the glory of God. The one great flaw lay in the complete lack of a national constructive ability to respond to the call.
The Phoenicians who were employed seem to have been indifferent builders. They took 13 years to build Solomon's house (1 Ki 7:1) and 7 1/2 years to build the Temple (1 Ki 6:38), and they, in all probability, found such a great work beyond their powers of adequate conception, more especially as the housement of a strange God was uninspiring. "Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?" (2 Sam 7:5 English Versions) was a command which they were only hired to fulfill.
III. Conclusions from Actual Remains.
There are only a very few known examples from which a knowledge of Jewish architecture can be obtained. There are none now standing, and what the spade has uncovered proves little more than a mere building craft of an inferior order. Remains of the period of the monarchy have been uncovered on several sites, notably Jerusalem, Lachish, Tel es Safi (Gath?), Gezer, Taanach, Tel es Mutesellim (Megiddo), Jericho, and these give a general idea of the building craft of the period, but give no evidence of an architectural style. It may, with good reason, be argued that there was no style, but it is too much to conclude that the Jews had no architectural instinct. Ideals were not lacking: "Behold, I will set thy stones in fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy pinnacles of rubies, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy border of precious stones" (Isa 54:11,12). Had history been different, Solomon's great example might have laid a foundation from which a national style would have been developed. The arts of peace, however, did not even bud, and the bane of internal and external conflict forced building energy to concentrate itself on fortifications.
Indeed in the great defense walls lies the building history of the Jews. They were hurriedly built and frequently destroyed. Destruction and reparation alternated so consistently, that each successive city within was little more than a temporary housement, at all times subservient to the more important work of defense. Under such conditions nothing flourished, least of all architecture. Building art became a thing of bare temporary utility.
Streets were laid out without method; narrow, tortuous alleys broken into by projections, founded at the will of each individual builder, served as main thoroughfares (Bible Sidelights, 95; Excavation of Gezer, Vol I, p. 167 ff); compare similarity of conditions with streets of Mediterranean city of Philakopi (JournalRIBA ,XI , 531). See CITY . Masonry was usually of rough unhewn stones, unskillfully laid without mortar, and buildings were rarely on the square. Under these conditions the enthusiasm displayed in the description of Solomon's work can be understood.
3. Absence of the "Grand Manner":
In Jerusalem the Temple area was the center of architectural grandeur, and it is possible that it may have inspired building endeavor of another nature in other cities. Palestine has as yet yielded no such parallel. Free areas, where they are found to have existed, seem to have happened so, and do not always coincide in position in successive superincumbent cities. They lay claim to no particular "lay out" and, in all probability, they served as space for the dump heaps of the town refuse or for the pen ning-up of cattle and sheep (Isa 58:12, "waste places"). Compare the modern city of Es Salt; it gives a fairly good idea of the general appearance of an ancient Jewish city. The use of wooden shafts for porticos and roofs of large covered areas appears to have been prevalent, and these were frequently set in stone sockets which served as bases. Stone columns seem to have been sparingly used; in fact, there is no evidence whatever that a stone columnar style of architecture prevailed in the more important buildings.
At Lachish (Lachish, 23 ff) a number of voluted low-relief slabs were discovered which were originally built into the left reveals of the doorways of a building of considerable importance. These slabs were found in conjunction with a molded lintel of Egyptian character. The discovery disclosed the only authentic examples of the architectural detail of the Solomonic period, and is particularly interesting as furnishing, perhaps, the earliest prototype of the Ionic volute. At its best it is a shoddy uncon structive adaptation of exotic features, and if it is to be taken as a key to the work of the period throughout Palestine, there can be nothing great to record.
When Onias fled to Egypt from the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 154 BC, he gained permission from Ptolemy and Cleopatra to build a temple at Leontopolis like to that at Jerusalem (Ant., XIII, iii, 3). The temple was built in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa and modeled after the temple of Zerubbabel, but "smaller and poorer" and "resembled a tower." Petrie recovered this temple (Hyksos, 19 ff) on an artificial mound resembling the Temple hill at Jerusalem, raised alongside the Hyksos camp, w here an influential Jewish community had established itself. It is the most complete plan of a Jewish building of monumental character yet discovered. A sort of rude Corinthian detail was used, and certain fragments point to a battlemented treatment, suggestive of Babylonian origin, and to some extent confirming the inference drawn from the description of Solomon's Temple.
6. Comparison with Maccabean Work:
Fragments of contemporary architecture of the Maccabean dynasty throughout Palestine show a Greco-Syrian style of considerable dignity and interest, illustrating a readiness to respond to the Hellenizing influence in the arts, which at that time was characterized, in architecture, by a decadent Greek provincialism. The battlemented details, found at Hyksos, seem to indicate the use of a style antedating the Maccabean work, preserving, to some extent, Babylonian traditions.
From the 3rd century BC up to the Christian era architecture shows a consistent Greek origin with local character in detail (see Expl. in Palestine, 18, 19) at Tel Sandahannah and Mareshah (Painted Tombs of Marissa). These Marissa tombs show most interesting decorated elevations, with painted architectural detail. The work is Phoenician (93) and the date probably 194 to 119 BC (79). Greek Ionic capitals are used, with wreath enrichments painted on the architrave over the capital, and a deep frieze of painted animals, surmounted by a representation of a "battlement" "coping" (Dt 22:8; 1 Ki 7:9) remarkably like the details found by Petrie at Hyksos. An interesting detail is the pointed head to the intercolumnar opening, a form which seems to have suggested itself universally to the primitive builder, where the handling of large lintel stones presented a difficulty. They call to mind the heads of Anglo-Saxon openings.
A liking for mural decoration existed throughout the whole Jewish period, as is seen from the small fragments of painted plaster discovered in the various excavated cities, but the decoration on the Marissa tombs is the most complete example, and resembles in many ways the mural decoration at Knossos and Phylakopi.
The tomb of Zechariah in the Kedron valley probably belongs to the same date as its neighbor, the tomb of James, which De Vogue, from the inscription upon it, ascribes to the time of Herod (Le Temple de Jerusalem, 46). The detail of the crowning part of the entablature is an often-recurring feature in Palestine architecture, appearing as early as the Solomonic era at Lachish. It is characteristically Egyptian, and is also seen at Persepolis (Gwilt's Encyclopedia, 22), and although neither might have been bor rowed from the other, they are not many removes from the common parent. (A curious eastern tradition mentioned (BD, "Cities," 610) ascribes the building of Persepolis to Solomon.) It was a feature commonly used by the Phoenicians (Rawlinson, Hist. of Phoenician, 142), and was probably introduced by them from Egypt. It seems to have been in favor up to the time of Herod and was abandoned after the wholesale introduction of the classic entablature which in Hellenistic times was only partially incorporated into the prevailing style. The successive variations of the crowning feature of their design is an important factor in tracing the development of Jewish architecture.
The Temple of Siah (described by De Vogue in Recovery of Jerusalem, 419 ff, and Temples of the Jews, 140 ff) is an interesting example of the work of the Herodian period and is more Greek in character than one would expect. Here, local character in carving is strongly marked, foliage and figures being freely used with a certain Assyrian manner which, in spite of loose handling, betrays its origin. In fact this chord of architectural enrichment can be traced through the work of In dia, Assyria, Persia and Syria on to the Byzantine period, when the great cathedral church of Sophia in Constantinople displayed it in the most perfect harmony of all time.
The great building period of Herod need not be detailed. Herod was an Edomite and his architecture partook of the more robust Roman style which dominated Jewish art at a time when the opportunity of national incorporation had passed.
This Roman influence, however, remained in Palestine as can be seen by the important remains of synagogues in Galilee of the 3rd century AD (see Fig. 8 from Kerr Berim; Studies in Galilee, chapter vi; Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine, special papers, 294 ff). The many remains investigated shed light upon the plan of these post-exilic places of worship, of which there is little or no mention in the Old Testament. See SYNAGOGUE . The plans vary considerably in proportion. The example at Meiron measures 90 ft. x 44 ft. 8 inches, while that at Irbid measures 57 ft. 3 inches x 53 ft. (SWP, special papers, 299). In general arrangement the plans vary very little, consisting usually of five aisles with a triple entrance, most often facing south. The details are richly carved and "a surprising feature common to all is the use of animal figures, especially lions, or lambs and eagles. .... In some examples human figures, usually intentionally mutilated, are found" (Studies in Galilee, 110).
It is probable that future researches may add to our knowledge of early Jewish architecture, but it is doubtful whether there is more to discover than is constituted in the crude and unskilled use of building materials, influenced by limited knowledge of exotic features, which the Jews had neither the time nor the knowledge properly to apply.
See CITY ;BUILDING ;FORTIFICATION ;HOUSE ;TEMPLE .
LITERATURE.
Conder, Survey of Western Palestine; Warren, Recovery of Jerusalem; Bliss and Dickie, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1894-97; Fergusson, Temple of Jerusalem; Masterman, Studies in Galilee; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine; Macalister, Excavations at Gezer; Petrie, Excavations at Hyksos; Rawlinson, History of Phoen; Petrie, Lachish; Sellin, Excavations at Taanach; Schumacher, Excavations at Tell Mutesellim; Macalister, Bible Sidelights; Peters and Thierch, Painted Tombs of Marissa.
Arch. C. Dickie
ar'-kits (ha-'arki; the King James Version Archi): A clan mentioned in connection with the marking of the southern boundary of Joseph (Josh 16:2). The phrase (gebhul ha-'arki `aTaroth) offers difficulties, and it has been suggested that the order of the last two words be changed to read "the border of Ataroth-of-the-Archites." See ATAROTH . G. A. Smith identifies Ataroth with the present Atara on the high road from Jerusalem to Bethel, three and one-half miles South of Bethel and six East of th e upper Beth-horon. Hushai, the "friend" of David, was an Arcbite (2 Sam 16:16).
H. J. Wolf
ar'-kivs (the more correct the Revised Version (British and American) rendition of beth ciphrayya', in Ezr 6:1, "house of the archives" instead of "house of rolls" as in the King James Version): A part of the royal treasure-house (5:17), in which important state documents were kept.
ark-tu'-rus: The "Plough" or "Charles's Wain" is intended.
See ASTRONOMY , sec. II, 13.
ard ('ard, meaning unknown): Either directly or more remotely a son of Benjamin. Nu 26:38-40 mentions five sons of Benjamin, together with Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela, Benjamin's oldest son, counting all seven as ancestors of Benjamite families. In 1 Ch 8:1-3 Addar and Naaman are mentioned, with others, as sons of Bela, Addar and Ard being apparently the same name with the consonants transposed. In Gen 46:21 ten sons of Benjamin are counted, including at least the three grandsons, Ard and Naaman and Gera.
ard'-at (the King James Version Ardath; Syriac and Ethiopic have Arphad): A certain field where Ezr communed with God (2 Esdras 9:26).
ar'-dits: Patronymic of ARD, which see.
ar'-don ('ardon, meaning unknown): One of the three sons of Caleb and Azubah, of the tribe of Judah (1 Ch 2:18).
a-re'-li ('ar'eli, apparently the gentilic form of a compound that would mean "God's lioness," or "God's hearth"): One of the sons of Gad the son of Jacob (Gen 46:16; Nu 26:17). "Arelites" (which see) is exactly the same word.
a-re'-lits: In Nu 26:17.
See ARELI .
ar-e-op'-a-jit.
See DIONYSIUS .
ar-e-op'-a-gus (Areios pagos; Acts 17:19,22. Mars' Hill, 17:22 the King James Version): A sort of spur jutting out from the western end of the Acropolis and separated from it by a very short saddle. Traces of old steps cut in the rock are still to be seen. Underneath are deep grottoes, once the home of the Eumenides (Furies). On the flat surface of the summit are signs still visible of a smoothing of the stone for seats. Directly below to the North was the old Athenian agora, or market-place. To the East, on the descent from the Acropolis, could be seen in antiquity a small semicircular platform--the orchestra--from which rose the precipitous rock of the citadel. Here the booksellers kept their stalls; here the work of Anaxagoras could be bought for a drachma; from here his physical philosophy was disseminated, then, through Euripides, the poetic associate of Socrates and the sophists, leavened the drama, and finally reached the people of Athens. Then came the Stoics and Epicureans who taught philosophy and religion as a system, not as a faith, and spent their time in searching out some new thing in creed and dogma and opinion. Five centuries earlier Socrates was brought to this very Areopagus to face the charges of his accusers. To this same spot the apostle Paul came almost five hundred years after 399 BC, when the Attic martyr was executed, with the same earnestness, the same deep-rooted convictions, and with even greater ardor, to meet the philosophers of fashion. The Athenian guides will show you the exact place where the apostle stood, and in what direction he faced when he addressed his audience. No city has ever seen such a forest of statues as studded the market-place, the streets and the sides and summit of the Acropolis of Athens. A large part of this wealth of art was in full view of the speaker, and the apostle naturally made this extraordinary display of votive statues and offerings the starting-point of his address. He finds the Athenians extremely religious. He had found an altar to a god unknown. Then he develops theme of the great and only God, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek, the Stoic point of view. His audiences consisted, on the one hand, of the advocates of prudence as the means, and pleasure as the end (the Epicureans); on the other, of the advocates of duty, of living in harmony with the intelligence which rules the world for good. He frankly expresses his sympathy with the nobler principles of the Stoic doctrine. But neither Stoic nor Epicurean could believe the declarations of the apostle: the latter believed death to be the end of all things, the former thought that the soul at death was absorbed again into that from which it sprang. Both understood Paul as proclaiming to them in Jesus and Anastasis ("resurrection") some new deities. When they finally ascertained that Jesus was ordained by God to judge the world, and that Anastasis was merely the resurrection of the dead, they were disappointed. Some scoffed, others departed, doubtless with the feeling that they had already given audience too long to such a fanatic.
The Areopagus, or Hill of Ares, was the ancient seat of the court of the same name, the establishment of which leads us far back into the mythical period long before the dawn of history. This court exercised the right of capital punishment. In 594 BC the jurisdiction in criminal cases was given to the archons who had discharged the duties of their office well and honorably, consequently to the noblest, richest and most distinguished citizens of Athens. The Areopagus saw that the laws in force were observed and executed by the properly constituted authorities; it could bring officials to trial for their acts while in office, even raise objections to all resolutions of the Council and of the General Assembly, if the court perceived a danger to the state, or subversion of the constitution. The Areopagus also protected the worship of the gods, the sanctuaries and sacred festivals, and the olive trees of Athens; and it supervised the religious sentiments of the people, the moral conduct of the citizens, as well as the education of the youth. Without waiting for a formal accusation the Areopagus could summon any citizen to court, examine, convict and punish him. Under unusual circumstances full powers could be granted by the people to this body for the conduct of various affairs of state; when the safety of the city was menaced, the court acted even without waiting for full power to be conferred upon it. The tenure of office was for life, and the number of members without restriction. The court sat at night at the end of each month and for three nights in succession. The place of meeting was a simple house, built of clay, which was still to be seen in the time of Vitruvius. The Areopagus, hallowed by the sacred traditions of the past, a dignified and august body, was independent of and uninfluenced by the wavering discordant multitude, and was not affected by the ever-changing public opinion. Conservative almost to a fault, it did the state good service by holding in check the too rash and radical younger spirits. When the democratic party came to power, after Cimon's banishment, one of its first acts was to limit the powers of the Areopagus. By the law of Ephialtes in 460 the court lost practically all jurisdiction. The supervision of the government was transferred to the nomophulakes (law-guardians). At the end of the Peloponnesian war, however, in 403 its old rights were restored. The court remained in existence down to the time of the emperors. From Acts 17:19,22 we learn that it existed in the time of Claudius. One of its members was converted to the Christian faith (17:34). It was probably abolished by Vespasian.
As to whether Paul was "forcibly apprehended and formally tried," see Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of Paul, chapter x, and The Expositor, 5th series,II , 209 f, 261 f (Ramsay).
LITERATURE.
P. W. Forchhammer, De Areopago (Kiel, 1828); Philippi, Der A. und die Epheten (Leipzig, 1874); Lange, Die Epheten und der A. vor Solon (Leipzig, 1874).
J. E. Harry
ar-e-op'-o-lis. The Greek name of AR (which see).
a'-res, ar'-es (Ares = Arah (Ezr 2:5; Neh 7:10)): 756 of the sons of Ares returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:10).
ar'-e-tas (Aretas): The name is a common one among Arabian princes and signifies "virtuous or pleasing."
It is mentioned several times in Biblical literature and in Josephus. Here it refers to an Arabian king, who was a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 170 BC), before whom Jason the high priest was accused.
Another Arabian prince of this name, surnamed Obodas (Ant., XIII, xv, 2; xvi, 2; XVI, ix, 4) defeated Antiochus Dionysius and reigned over Coele-Syria and Damascus. He participated with Hyrcanus in the war for the Jewish throne against his brother Aristobulus, but the allies were completely defeated at Papyron, by Aristobulus and Scaurus, the Roman general. The latter carried the war into Arabia and forced Aretas to make an ignominious peace, at the price of three hundred talents of silver. Of that event a memorial denarius still exists, with a Roman chariot in full charge on the one side and a camel on the other, by the side of which an Arab is kneeling, who holds out a branch of frankincense.
The successor of Obodas was apparently surnamed Aeneas and this is the Arabian king who figures in the New Testament (2 Cor 11:32; compare Acts 9:24). The Aretas, here mentioned, is the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, who divorced his wife to marry Herodins, the wife of his brother Philip (Mt 14:3; Mk 6:17; Lk 3:19). Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 1,3) gives us a circumstantial narration of the events leading up to and following the conduct of Antipas. Coupled with a boundary dispute, it occasioned a bitter w ar between the two princes, in which Antipas was completely overwhelmed, who thereupon invoked the aid of the Romans. Tiberius ordered Vitellius, proconsul of Syria, to make war on Aretas and to deliver him dead or alive into the hands of the emperor. On the way, at Jerusalem, Vitellius received intelligence of the death of Tiberius, March 16, 37 AD, and stopped all warlike proceedings (Ant., XVIII, v, 1,3). According to 2 Cor 11:32, Damascus, which had formerly belonged to the Arabian princes, was again in the hands of Are tas, when Paul escaped from it, not immediately after his conversion, but on a subsequent visit, after his Arabian exile (Gal 1:16,17). It is inconceivable that Aretas should have taken Damascus by force, in the face of the almost omnipotent power of Rome. The picture moreover, which Josephus draws of the Herodian events, points to a passive rather than an active attitude on the part of Aretas. The probability is that Cajus Caligula, the new emperor, wishing to settle the affairs of Syria, freely gave Damascu s to Aretas, inasmuch as it had formerly belonged to his territory. As Tiberius died in 37 AD, and as the Arabian affair was completely settled in 39 AD, it is evident that the date of Paul's conversion must lie somewhere between 34 and 36 AD. This date is further fixed by a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date points to the Pompeian era, it equals 37 AD, making the date of Paul's conversion 34 AD (Mionnet, Descript. des medailles antiques, V, 284-85).
Henry E. Dosker
ar'-gob ('argobh, "story"): A locality or a person mentioned in the obscure passage 2 Ki 15:25. The context deals with Pekah's conspiracy against Pekahiah; but it is not clear, owing to the state of the text, whether Argob and his associate Arieh (if these are the names of men) were officers of Pekahiah who were slain with him, or fellow-conspirators with Pekah. The vulg takes them as names of places; they may then be considered glosses that have crept into the text. Rashi holds that Argob was the royal palace. Argob is more likely the name of a place than a person.
See ARIEH .
H. J. Wolf
ar'-gob (ha-'argobh; ha-argobh or Argob): A region East of the Jordan which in Dt 3:4,5 is equivalent to the kingdom of Og in Bashan, and in 3:13 is referred to as "all the region of Argob, even all Bashan." Dt 3:14 is evidently corrupt. Havvoth-jair lay not in Bashan but in Gilead (Jdg 10:4; Nu 32:40 f; 1 Ki 4:13). It contained threescore cities. "All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars; besides the unwalled towns a great many." Dt 3:14 seems to say that it marched with Geshur and Maacah; but we cannot lay stress on this. We may take it that Argob lay in the land of Bashan; beyond this, on available data, we cannot certainly go.
The word chebhel, translated "region," means primarily a line or cord, then "a measuring line," then "the portion measured," e.g. "the part of the children of Judah" (Josh 19:9), the "lot" or "portion" of an inheritance (Dt 32:9; Josh 17:14, etc.). Chebhel precedes Argob in each of the four cases where it is named. This has led many to think that a district with very clearly marked borders is intended. No region so well meets this condition as el-Leja', a volcanic tract lying about 20 miles South of Damascus, and 30 miles East of the Sea of Galilee. It is roughly triangular in form, with the apex to the North, and is about 25 miles long, with a base of some 20 miles. The lava which has hardened into this confused wilderness of black rock, rent and torn by countless fissures, flowed from the craters whose dark forms are seen on the East. It rises to an average height of about 20 ft. above the plain, on which it lies like an island on a sea of emerald, the edges being sharply defined. At all points it is difficult of entrance, and might be defended by a few resolute men against an army. To this fact doubtless it owes its name el-Leja', "the refuge." There are many traces of considerable cities in the interior. The present writer collected there the names of no fewer than seventy-one ruined sites. See furtherTRACHONITIS . This identification is supported by taking 'argobh as the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek trachon, "stony." This is possible only if, as Gesenius assumes, the root raghabh is cognate with ragham, an extremely precarious assumption. "Clod" is the translation of the word reghebh in Job 21:33; 38:38; probably therefore 'argobh should be tendered "a region of clods," i.e. "arable land." This practically rules out el-Leja'. We have seen above that the term chebhel need have no reference to the clearly marked rocky boundaries. As regards the great cities, all Bashan is studded with the ruins of such. The splendid remains that everywhere meet the traveler's eye were thought by Porter (Giant Cities of Bashan) and others, to be the wreck of the great cities that struck the invading Israelites with wonder. It is now clear that the ruins above ground are not older than the beginning of our era. The Greek and Roman architecture is easily recognized. Probably, however, excavation will prove that in very many cases the sites have been occupied from very ancient times. Cave dwellings, chambers cut in the rock and covered with stone vaults, and what may be described as subterranean cities, have been found in different parts, the antiquity of which it is impossible to estimate. There is nothing which enables us to identify the region of Argob. The whole country of Bashan., with the exception of el-Leja', is "arable land." The soil is very fertile, composed of lava detritus. In almost every district might have been found the threescore cities. Guthe suggests the western part of el-Chauran, stretching from Edrei (Der`ah) to Nawa. Buhl would locate it in the district of ec-Cuweit, to the Southeast of the low range of ez-Zumleh. This however seems too far to the South. The Southwest slopes of Jebel ed-Druze seem to meet the conditions as well as any. They form quite a wellmarked district; they are very fertile, and the strong cities in the region must have been numerous.
W. Ewing
ar'-gu: Only in the Revised Version (British and American) in Job 40:2. yakhach, which it translates, literally means "to be right," and in the causative form "reason with," "answer back," and is found in the King James Version rendered "reproach."
a-ri-a-ra'-thez.
See ARATHES .
ar'-i-di, a-rid'-a-i ('aridhay: a son of Haman (Est 9:9)): The name may be related to the Persian Hari-dayas, "delight of Hari"; the text is very uncertain.
ar-i-da'-tha, a-rid'-a-tha ('aridhatha'): A son of Haman (Est 9:8). It may be related to the Persian Hari-data, "given by Hari." The Septuagint reads Pharadatha.
a'-ri-e: "(the) Lion."
See ARGOB .
a'-ri-el ('ariy'el or 'ari'el, "lioness of God"): But the word occurs in Ezek 43:15,16, and is there translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "ALTAR HEARTH."
(1) According to the Revised Version (British and American) a man of Moab whose two sons were slain by David's warrior Benaiah the son of Jehoiada (2 Sam 23:20; 1 Ch 11:22). Here the King James Version translates "two lionlike men of Moab."
(2) A name applied to Jerusalem (Isa 29:1,2,7). The many explanations of the name are interesting, but mainly conjectural.
(3) One of the members of the delegation sent by Ezra to the place Casiphia, to secure temple ministers for his expedition to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:16).
Willis J. Beecher
a-rit': "In a right way," "correctly," "going straight to the point," without error or deviation. "Set aright" (Job 11:13; Wiener, Pentateuchal Studies 78 8). Its use in Ps 50:23 is without authority in the Hebrew text; hence in italics.
ar-i-ma-the'-a (Arimathaia): "A city of the Jews," the home of Joseph in whose sepulchre the body of Jesus was laid. Its identity is the subject of much conjecture. The Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome identifies it with Ramathaim-Zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim (1 Sam 11), which is Ramah the birthplace and burial-place of Samuel (1 Sam 1:19; 25:1), and places it near Timnah on the borders of Judah and Dan. G. A. Smith thinks it may be the modern Beit Rima, a village on an eminence 2 miles North of Timnah. Others incline to Ramallah, 8 miles North of Jerusalem and 3 miles from Bethel (Mt 27:57; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:51; Jn 19:38).
S. F. Hunter
ar'-i-ok: ('aryokh):
(1) The name of the vassal king of Ellasar, under Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Amraphel, king of Shinar (Babylonia), who took part in the expedition against Sodom, Gomorrah and other states (Gen 14:1,9). Assyriologists generally, and probably rightly, identify Arioch with Eri-Aku (which see), king of Larsa, Ellasar being for Al-Larsa (now Sinqara in central Babylonia).
Texts Referring to the Reign of Arioch:
For an account of the expedition see AMRAPHEL , and for the Babylonian texts bearing upon the reign, seeERI-AKU . In Gen 14:1,9, where the names of the allied kings who marched against the Cities of the Plain are given, that of Arioch follows his more immediate suzerain, Amraphel, and not Chedorlaomer, who, however, appears to have been the real overlord (verse 4), which agrees with the indications of the Bah records. No details of the expedition are available from Babylonian sources. Besides Larsa, Eri-Aku's inscriptions inform us that Ur (Muqayyar, Mugheir) was in the principality of which Larsa was the capital.
(2) The Arioch of Dan 2:14,25 was captain of the bodyguard of King Nebuchadnezzar. Nothing else is known about him except that it was he who was commanded to slay the "wise men" who failed to repeat to the king his dream and its interpretation; and who communicated to his royal master that Daniel had undertaken the task.
T. G. Pinches
ar'-i-sai, a-ris'-a-i ('aricai): Probably a Persian word of unknown meaning. One of Haman's sons, slain by the Jews (Est 9:9).
ar-is-tar'-kus (Aristarchos, "best ruler"): He was one of those faithful companions of the apostle Paul who shared with him his labors and sufferings. He is suddenly mentioned along with Gaius as having been seized by the excited Ephesians during the riot stirred up by the silversmiths (Acts 19:29). They are designated "men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel." We learn later that he was a native of Thessalonica (Acts 20:4; 27:2). They were probably seized to extract from them information about their leader Paul, but when they could tell nothing, and since they were Greeks, nothing further was done to them.
When Aristarchus attached himself to Paul we do not know, but he seems ever after the Ephesian uproar to have remained in Paul's company. He was one of those who accompanied Paul from Greece via Macedonia (Acts 20:4). Having preceded Paul to Troas, where they waited for him, they traveled with him to Palestine. He is next mentioned as accompanying Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2). There he attended Paul and shared his imprisonment. He is mentioned in two of the letters of the Roman captivity, in the Epistle to the church at Col (4:10), and in the Epistle to Philem (1:24), in both of which he sends greetings. In the former Paul calls him "my fellow-prisoner." According to tradition he was martyred during the persecution of Nero.
S. F. Hunter
ar-is-to-bu'-lus (Aristoboulos, "best counselor"):
(1) Son of the Maccabean, John Hyrcanus, who assumed the power and also the title of king after his father's death (105 BC) and associated with him, as co-regent, his brother Antigonus (Ant., XIII, xi), though by the will of his father the government was entrusted to his mother. Three other brothers and his mother he cast into prison, where they died of starvation. He murdered Antigonus, and died conscience-stricken himself in 104 BC.
See MACCABEES .
(2) Aristobulus, nephew of the former, dethroned his mother, Alexandra (69 BC), and forced his brother Hyrcanus to renounce the crown and mitre in his favor. In 64 Pompey came to Palestine and supported the cause of Hyrcanus. See HYRCANUS . Aristobulus was defeated and taken prisoner, and Hyrcanus was appointed ethnarch in 63 BC. Aristobulus and his two daughters were taken to Rome, where he graced the triumph of Pompey. The father escaped later (56 BC) and appeared in Palestine again as a claimant to the throne. Many followers flocked to his standard, but he was finally defeated, severely wounded and taken prisoner a second time and with his son, Antigonus, again taken to Rome. Julius Caesar not only restored him to freedom (49 BC), but also gave him two legions to recover Judea, and to work in his interest against Pompey. But Quintus Metellus Scipio, who had just received Syria as a province, had Aristobulus poisoned as he was on his way to Palestine.CR #(3) Grandson of the preceding, and the last of the Maccabean family.
See ASMONEANS .
(4) The Jewish teacher of Ptol. VII (2 Macc 1:10).
(5) An inhabitant of Rome, certain of whose household are saluted by Paul (Rom 16:10). He was probably a grandson of Herod and brother of Herod Agrippa, a man of great wealth, and intimate with the emperor Claudius. Lightfoot (Philippians, 172) suggests that "the household of Aristobulus" were his slaves, and that upon his death they had kept together and had become the property of the emperor either by purchase or as a legacy, in which event, however, they might, still retain the name of their former master. Among these were Christians to whom Paul sends greeting.
M. O. Evans
a-rith'-me-tik.
See NUMBER .
a-ri'-us, a'-ri-us (Ares): The reading of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) adopted in the Revised Version (British and American) for the former reading Areus and Areios of Josephus. A king of Sparta (309-265 BC) who wrote the letter to Onias, the high priest, given in 1 Macc 12:7,20-23. There were two Spartan kings named Arius, and three high priests named Onias. Chronology requires the letter mentioned to have been written by Arius I to Onias I, most probably in the interval between 309 and 300 BC.
See LACEDAEMONIANS .
see ARK OF BULRUSHES ;ARK OF THE COVENANT ;ARK OF NOAH
ark, bool'-rush-iz (tebhah; Egyptian tebt; Septuagint thibis, "a chest," "a vessel to float").
The Hebrew word here translated "ark" is used in the Old Testament only of the ark of Noah (Gen 6:14 ff) and of the ark of bulrushes (Ex 2:3), and always in the secondary meaning, a vessel to float. The Septuagint translates it of Noah's ark by kibotos, "a casket," and of the ark of bulrushes by thibis, a little basket made of osiers or flags. For the Ark of the Covenant, the Hebrew employed a different word ('aron, "a chest"). Bulrushes (gome', "papyrus"): This species of reed was used by the Egyptians for many different vessels, some of which were intended to float or even to be used as a skiff. Slime (chemar, "bitumen"), pitch (zepheth, "pitch") was probably the sticky mud of the Nile with which to this day so many things in Egypt are plastered. In this case it was mixed with bitumen. Flags (cuph, "sedge") were reeds of every kind and tall grass growing in the shallow water at the edge of the river.
Thus the ark of bulrushes was a vessel made of papyrus stalks and rendered fit to float by being covered with a mixture of bitumen and mud. Into this floating vessel the mother of Moses placed the boy when he was three months old, and put the vessel in the water among the sedge along the banks of the Nile at the place where the ladies from the palace were likely to come to bathe. The act was a pathetic imitation of obedience to the king's command to throw boy babies into the river, a command which she had for three months braved and which now she so obeyed as probably to bring the cruelty of the king to the notice of the royal ladies in such way as to arouse a womanly sympathy,
A similar story is related of Sargon I of Babylonia (Records of the Past, 1st series, V, 1-4; Rogers, Hist. Babylonian and Assyrian, I, 362).
The one story in no wise discredits the other. That method of abandoning children, either willingly or by necessity, is as natural along the Nile and the Euphrates, where the river is the great artery of the land and where the floating basket had been used from time immemorial, as is the custom in our modern cities of placing abandoned infants in the streets or on door-steps where they are likely to be found, and such events probably occurred then as often as now.
M. G. Kyle
ark, no'-a: A structure built by Noah at the command of God to preserve from the Flood a remnant of the human race and of the animals associated with man. It was constructed of "gopher wood" (Gen 6:14)--very likely the cypress used extensively by the Phoenicians for ship-building. It was divided into rooms or nests, and was three stories high, pitched within and without with bitumen or "asphalt," of which there are extensive deposits at Hit, in the Euphrates valley, a little above Babylon. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad, 30 cubits high, which according to Petrie's estimate of a cubit as 22.5 inches would make it to be 562 1/2 ft. long, 93 2/3 ft. wide, 56 1/4 ft. deep, which are natural proportions of a ship of that size. The dimensions of the "Great Eastern," built in 1858, were 692 ft. long, 83 ft. broad, 58 ft. deep; those of the "Celtic" built in 1901 are 700 ft. long, 75 ft. wide, 49 1/3 ft. deep. It is extremely improbable that such reasonable dimensions should have been assigned to the Ark except they were based on fact. Unrestrained tradition would have been sure to distort the proportions, as is shown by what actually occurred in other accounts of the Ark. The cuneiform tablets represent it as six stories high, with the length, width, and depth, each as 140 cubits (262 ft.), and having a mast on top of all, and a pilot to guide the impossible craft (see Deluge Tablet, ll.22, 23, 38-41). Berosus, the Greek historian, represents it to have been five stadia (3,000 ft.) long and two stadia (1,200 ft.) broad, while Origen, in order to confound Celsus (Against Celsus 4.41) gave the figures an interpretation which made the Ark 25 miles long and 3/4 of a mile wide.
It is needless to speculate upon the capacity of the Ark for holding absolutely all the species of animals found in the world, together with the food necessary for them, since we are only required to provide for such animals as were native to the area to which the remnants of the human race living at that time were limited, and which (see DELUGE OF NOAH ) may not have been large. But calculations show that the structure described contained a space of about 3,500,000 cubic feet, and that after storing food enough to support several thousand pairs of animals, of the average size, on an ocean voyage of a year, there would remain more than 50 cubic feet of space for each pair.
No mention is made in the Bible of a pilot for the Ark, but it seems to have been left to float as a derelict upon the waters. For that purpose its form and dimensions were perfect, as was long ago demonstrated by the celebrated navigator, Sir Walter Raleigh, who notes it had "a flat bottom, and was not raised in form of a ship, with a sharpness forward, to cut the waves for the better speed"--a construction which secured the maximum of storage capacity and made a vessel which would ride steadily upon the water. Numerous vessels after the pattern of the Ark, but of smaller dimensions, have been made in Holland and Denmark and proved admirably adapted for freightage where speed was not of the first importance. They would hold one-third more lading than other vessels, and would require no more hands to work them. The gradual rise and subsidence of the water, each continuing for six months, and their movement inland, render the survival of such a structure by no means unreasonable. According to Gen 6:3; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5, warning of the Flood was given 120 years beforehand, and during that time Noah, while preparing the Ark, became a preacher of righteousness. For evidence that there was a gradual destruction of the race previous to the Flood, see DELUGE OF NOAH .
George Frederick Wright
test'-i-mo-ni.
See ARK OF THE COVENANT .
kuv'-e-nant ('aron ha-berith):
I. The Statements of the Old Testament Concerning the Ark of the Covenant.
In Ex 25:10 ff, Moses receives the command to build an ark of acacia wood. Within this ark were to be placed the tables of the law which God was about to give to Moses. Upon the top of the ark, probably not as a lid but above the lid, the kapporeth, in the New Testament to hilasterion (Heb 9:5), is to be placed, which was a golden plate upon which two cherubim, with raised wings and facing each other, covered the ark. From the place between the two cherubim God promises to speak to Moses, as often as He shall give him commands in reference to the Israelites.
The portion of the Pentateuch in which this is recorded is taken from the so-called Priest Codex (P). The reports of the Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist) on this subject are wanting; but both of these sources report concerning the important role which the ark played in the entrance of Israel into Canaan, and these documents too must have contained the information that the people had received this ark. It can further with certainty be stated concerning the Elohist, and with some probability concerning the Jahwist, in what part of these documents these accounts were to be found. For Elohist reports in Ex 33:6 that the Israelites, in order to demonstrate their repentance on account of the golden calf, had at God's command laid aside their ornaments. In 33:7-10 there follows a statement concerning the erection of the sacred tent; but this is explained only by the fact that between 33:6 and 7 a report concerning the erection of the ark of the covenant must have been found, which the R of the Pentateuch (since before this he had already made use of the much more exhaustive account of the Priest Codex) was compelled to omit. But that at this place the Elohist must have reported not only concerning the erection of the sacred tent but also of the construction of the ark of the covenant, is in itself probable, and can too be concluded from this, that according to the Deuteronomist, the composition of which is also conditioned upon that of the Elohist and the Jahwist, the ark was built on this occasion. We further conclude that it was not so much the tabernacle which could serve as a consolation to the people, something that at that time they needed, but rather the ark, which was to symbolize to them that God was on the march with them. In the Jahwist we do not indeed find at this place any statement concerning this sacred structure, but we do find the statement that the Israelites, out of sorrow because of the bad news brought by Moses, discarded their ornaments. For Ex 33:4 is taken from the Jahwist, since the Elohist contains the command to discard the ornaments later on, and hence could not have written 33:4. Now it is a justifiable surmise that the Jahwist has also reported what use was made of the ornaments that had been discarded; and as this author, just as is the case with the Elohist, must have at some place contained a report concerning the construction of the ark, he certainly must have given this just at this place. The corresponding account in the Deuteronomist is found in Dt 10:1-5. Accordingly, then, all the four Pentateuch documents reported that Moses had built the ark at Sinai. The Deuteronomist, like the Priestly Code (P), says, that it was built of acacia wood. In the Elohistic narrative the subject is mentioned again in Nu 10:33 ff, where we read that the ark had preceded the people as they broke camp and marched from Sinai. At this place too the words are found which Moses was accustomed to speak when the ark began to move out and when it arrived at a halting-place.
According to the narrative in Josh 3 the ark cooperated at the crossing of the Jordan in such a way that the waters of the river ceased to continue flowing as soon as the feet of the priests who were carrying the ark entered the water, and that it stood still above until these priests, after the people had crossed over, again left the bed of the river with the ark. In the account of the solemn march around Jericho, which according to Josh 6 caused the walls of the city to fall, the carrying of the ark around the city is regarded as an essential feature in 6:4,7,11. In chapter 7 it is narrated that Joshua, after the defeat of the army before Ai, lamented and prayed before the ark. In chapter 8 this is mentioned in connection with Mount Ebal.
At the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam 3:3). From this place it was taken after Israel had been defeated by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in order to assure the help of Yahweh to the people; but, instead of this, the ark fell into the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 4). But the various misfortunes that now afflicted the Philistines induced these to regard the possession of the ark as a calamity (1 Sam 5) and they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam 6). It was brought first to Bethshemesh in the tribe of Judah, near the borders of the Philistines, and soon after to Kiriath-jearim, about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for years in the house of a man by the name of Abinadab, whose son was its guardian (1 Sam 7:1), until David brought it to Mount Zion, after he had established his camp and court there. He there placed it in a tent prepared for it (2 Sam 6; 1 Ch 13; 15). In David's time again the ark was taken along into battle (2 Sam 11:11). When David fled from the presence of Absalom, the priests wanted to accompany him with the ark, but he sent it back (2 Sam 15:24 f). David had also intended to build a temple, in which the ark was to find its place, since before this it had always found its resting-place in a tent. But God forbade this through Nathan, because He was willing to build a house for David, but was not willing that David should build one for Him (2 Sam 7). Solomon then built the temple and placed the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies of this temple, where it was placed under the wings of two mighty cherubim images (1 Ki 8; 2 Ch 5).
4. Prophetical and Poetical Books:
Jeremiah in the passage 3:16, which certainly was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, states that in the future new Jerusalem nobody will any more concern himself about the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and no one will again build such a one. In the post-exilic Ps 132 (verse 8), Yahweh is petitioned to occupy together with the ark, the symbol of His omnipotent presence, also the sanctuary that has been erected for Him, the poet describing himself and those who sing this psalm as participants in the home-bringing of the ark by David. No further mention is made of the ark of the covenant in the Psalter or the prophetical books.
In the New Testament the ark of the covenant is mentioned only in Heb 9:4 in the description of the Solomonic temple.
II. The Form of the Ark of the Covenant.
According to the statements in the Priestly Code (P), the ark of the covenant was a chest made out of acacia wood, 2 1/2 cubits (about equal to 4 ft.) long, 1 1/2 cubits wide and 1 1/2 high. That it was made out of acacia wood is also stated by the Deuteronomist in Dt 10:3. According to P it was covered with gold within and without, and was ornamented with a moulding of gold running all around it. At its four feet rings were added, through which the gold-covere d carrying-staves were put. These staves are also mentioned in 1 Ki 8:7,8; 2 Ch 5:8,9, and mention is often made of those who carried the ark (2 Sam 6:13; 15:24). The correctness of these statements cannot be proved, but yet there is no reason to doubt them. Rather we might have reason to hesitate in clinging to the view that on the old ark there was really a golden kapporeth, but only because in olden times the possession of such valuables and their use for such a purpose would be doubtful. But on the basis of such reasons we could at most doubt whether the lid with its cherubim consisted of solid gold. That the cherubim were attached to or above the ark is not at all improbable. That Solomon placed the ark in the Holy of Holies between two massive cherubim figures (1 Ki 6:19,23 ff; 8:6) does not prove that there were no cherubim figures on the ark itself, or even that those cherubim figures, which according to Ex 25:19 were found on the ark, were nothing else than those of Solomon's days in imagination transferred back to an earlier period (Vatke, Biblische Theologie, 1835, 333; Popper, Der biblische Bericht uber die Stiftshutte, 1862). In recent times the view has been maintained that the ark in reality was no ark at all but an empty throne. It was Reichel, in his work Vorhellenische Gotterkulte, who first expressed this view, and then Meinhold, Die Lade Jahwes, Tubingen, 1910, and Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1901, 593-617, who developed this view in the following manner. It is claimed that in the days of Moses a throne-like rock at Mount Sinai was regarded as the seat of Yahweh, and when the Israelites departed from Sinai they made for themselves a portable throne, and Yahweh was regarded as sitting visibly enthroned upon this and accompanying His people. In the main the same view was maintained by Martin Dibellius (Die Lade Jahwes, Gottingen, 1906; Hermann Gunkel, Die Lade Jahwes ein Thronsitz, reprinted from the Zeitschrift fur Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, Heidelberg, 1906). The occasion for this view was given by the fact that among the Persians and other people there were empty thrones of the gods, which were carried or hauled around in processions. The reasons for finding in the ark of the covenant such an empty throne are found chiefly in this, that the passages in the Old Testament, in which it seems that the presence of God is made conditional on the presence of the ark (compare Nu 14:42-44), can be explained if the ark is regarded as a throne of Yahweh. However, empty thrones of the gods are found only among the Aryan people, and all of the passages of the Old Testament which refer to the ark can be easily explained without such a supposition. This view is to be rejected particularly for this reason, that in the Old Testament the ark is always described as an ark, and never as a throne or a seat; and because it is absolutely impossible to see what reason would have existed at a later period to state that it was an ark if it had originally been a throne. Dibelius and Gunkel appeal also particularly to this, that in several passages, of which 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2 are the oldest, Yahweh is declared to be enthroned on the cherubim. But this proves nothing, because He is not called "He who is enthroned on the ark," and the cherubim and the ark are two different things, even if there were cherubim on the lid of the ark. Compare the refutation of Meinhold and Dibelius by Budde (ZATW , 1901, 193-200, and Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1906, 489-507).
III. The Contents of the Ark of the Covenant.
According to the Priestly Code the two tables of the law constituted the contents of the ark. In Ex 25:16; 40:20, as also Dt 10:5, and, too, in 1 Ki 8:9, we have the same testimony. The majority of the modern critics regard this as an unhistorical statement first concocted by.the so-called "Deuteronomistic school." Their reasons for this are the following: (1) The critics deny that the existence of the Mosaic tables of the law is a historical fact; (2) The critics declare that if these tables had really been in possession of the Israelites, they would not have been so foolish as to put them into a box which it was forbidden to open; (3) The critics declare that the views entertained in olden times on the importance of the ark cannot be reconciled with the presence of the tables in the ark. But we reply: (1) that the actual existence of the two tables of the law is denied without sufficient reasons; that the ten principal formulas of the Decalogue, as these are given in Ex 20 and Dt 5, come from Moses, must be insisted upon, and that according to Ex 34 other ten commandments had been written on these tables is incorrect. The laws in Ex 34:17-26 are not at all declared there to be the ten words which God intended to write upon the tables. But if Moses had prepared the tables for the commandments, then it is (2) only probable that he caused to be made a suitable chest for their preservation and their transportation through the desert. Now it might be thought that the view that the ark was so holy that it dared not be opened had originated only after the time of Moses. However, it is just as easily possible, that that importance had already been assigned by Moses to the tables in the ark which the sealed and carefully preserved copy of a business agreement would have and which is to be opened only in case of necessity (Jer 32:11-14). Such a case of necessity never afterward materialized, because the Israelites were never in doubt as to what was written on these tables. On a verbatim reading no stress was laid in olden times. (3) With regard to the importance of the ark according to the estimate placed upon it in the earlier period of Israel, we shall see later that the traditions in reference to the tables harmonize fully with this importance.
Of the modern critics who have rejected this tradition, some have thought that the ark was empty, and that the Israelites thought that Yahweh dwelt in it (Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 39), or that the empty chest was a kind of fetish (Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertumer, 1901, I, 10). As a rule they believe that a stone image of Yahweh or two stones had been placed in the ark, these being possibly meteor stones, in which it was thought that some divine power was dwelling (Stade, Geschichte Israels, I, 458); or possibly stones that in some battle or other had been hurled and through which a victory had been won (Couard, ZATW, XII, 76); or possibly they were the stones which at the alliance of the tribes that dwelt about Mount Sinai were first set up as testimonials of this covenant (Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament, 216). Of these views only the one which declares that the ark contained meteor stones deserves any notice, because it could indeed be thought possible that Israel would have taken with them on their journey through the desert such stones which they could have regarded as pledges of the Divine Presence fallen from heaven and could have preserved these in a sacred ark. But it is impossible to show that this view is probable, not to speak of proving it to be correct. The only extant tradition says that the ark contained the tables of the law, and this is the only view that is in harmony with what we must think of the whole work of Moses. Finally we must again remember that it is probable that Elohist and Jahwist, who speak both of the ark and also of the tables of the law, in the portions of these documents which have not been preserved, reported also that the tables were placed in the ark.
IV. The Names of the Ark of the Covenant.
The name "ark of the covenant of Yahweh" was not originally found everywhere where it now stands, but in many places the words "of the covenant" were added later. However, the expression "ark of the covenant" is found in the oldest source of the Book of Sam (2 Sam 15:24), and in 1 Ki 3:15 in the old source for the history of Solomon, of which the Deuteronomistic author of the Book of Kings made use; in 1 Ki 8:1, a very old account of the building of the temple; and the genuineness of the expression "ark of the covenant" in these passages is not with any good reasons to be called into question. Further the expression is found in the books of Numbers and Joshua, in a number of passages (Nu 10:33; 14:44; Josh 3:3,6,8; 4:9,18; 6:6,8), which in all probability belong to the document of Elohist. It appears that the Elohist designates the ark as the "ark of the covenant of God," or more briefly; as the "ark of the covenant," unless in a connected narrative he writes only " the ark," while in the Jahwist the principal appellation was "ark of Yahweh, the Lord of the whole earth" (compare Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 1901, 30-36). From this we must conclude that the appellation "ark of the covenant of Yahweh" must go back to very ancient times, and we must reject the view that this term took the place of the term "ark of Yahweh" in consequence of a change of views with reference to the ark, brought about through Deuteronomy. Indeed, since the name "ark of the covenant," as is proved by the Elohist, was nowhere mor e in use than in Ephraim, where they did not possess the ark and accordingly would have had the least occasion to introduce a new name for it, it can be accepted that the name originated in the oldest times, namely those of Moses. The other expression "ark of Yahweh" may be just as old and need not be an abbreviation of the other. It was possible to designate the ark as "ark of Yahweh" because it was a sanctuary belonging to Yahweh; and it was possible to call it also "the ark of the covenant of Yahweh," because it was a monument and evidence of the covenant which Yahweh had made with Israel. It is for this reason not correct to translate the expression 'aron berith Yahweh by "the ark of the law of Yahweh," as equivalent to "the ark which served as a place for preserving the law of the covenant." For berith does not signify "law," even if it was possible under certain circumstances to call a covenant "law" figuratively and synecdochically the "covenant"; and when 1 Ki 8:21 speaks of "the ark wherein is the covenant of Yahweh," the next words, "which he made with our fathers," show that covenant does not here mean "law," but rather the covenant relationship which in a certain sense is embodied in the tables.
In P the ark is also called "the ark of the testimony," and this too does not signify "ark of the law." For not already in P but only in later documents did the word `edhuth receive the meaning of "law" (Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 40). P means by "testimony" the Ten Words, through the proclamation of which the true God has given evidence of His real essence. But where this testimony is found engraved in the handwriting of God on the tables of stone, just there also is the place where He too is to be regarded as locally present.
V. The History of the Ark of the Covenant.
According to the tradition contained in the Pentateuch the sacred ark was built at Mount Sinai and was taken by the Israelites along with them to Canaan. This must be accepted as absolutely correct. The supposition is groundless, that it was a shrine that the Israelites had taken over from the Canaanites. This view is refuted by the high estimate in which in Eli's time the ark was held by all Israel (1 Sam 1 ff; 2:22); and especially by the fact that the ark was at that time regarded as the property of that God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and accordingly had through this ark caused the Canaanites to be conquered (1 Sam 4:8; 6:6; 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Ki 12:28). The opinion also that the ark was an ancient palladium of the tribe of Ephraim or of the descendants of Joseph and was only at a later period recognized by all Israel (Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 458) is not tenable, for we hear nothing to the effect that the descendants of Joseph concerned themselves more for the ark than the other tribes did. In the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh. When Israel had been conquered by the Philistines, the ark was taken from Shiloh in order that Yahweh should aid His people. But notwithstanding this the Philistines yet conquered and captured the ark (1 Sam 5). But the many misfortunes that overtook them made them think that the possession of the ark was destructive to them and they sent it back (1 Sam 6). The ark first came to Bethshemesh, in the tribe of Judah, and then to Kiriath-jearim (or Baale-judah, 2 Sam 6:2), about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for many years until David, after he had taken possession of Mount Zion, took it there (2 Sam 6) and deposited it in a tent. Solomon brought it into the Holy of Holies in the temple (1 Ki 8:3-8), where in all probability it remained until the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; for Jer 3:16 proves that the Israelites felt that they were in possession of the ark up to this time.
VI. The Significance of the Ark.
According to many investigators the ark was originally a war sanctuary. In favor of this it can be urged that Israel took it into their camp, in order that they might receive the help of Yahweh in the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam 4); and further that also in the time of David the ark was again taken along into battle (2 Sam 11:11; compare Ps 24); note also the word of Moses, which he spoke when the ark was taken up to be carried: "Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered" (Nu 10:35). However, nothing of what we know or presuppose concerning the form and the contents of the ark points to an original military purpose of the same; and in the other statements that are found elsewhere concerning the ark, a much more general significance is assigned to it. The significance which the ark had for the Israelites in connection with their wars is only the outcome of its signification as the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, who was not at all a God of war, but when His people were compelled to fight was their helper in the struggle.
A Symbol of the Divine Presence:
That the ark was designed to be a symbol of the presence of God in the midst of His people is the common teaching of the Old Testament. According to the Elohist the ark was made to serve as a comfort to the people for this, that they were to leave the mountain where God had caused them to realize His presence (Ex 30:6). According to the Priestly Code (P), God purposed to speak with Moses from the place between the cherubim upon the ark. According to Jdg 2:1 ff, the angel of Yahweh spoke in Bethel (Bochim) in reproof and exhortation to the people, after the ark of the covenant had been brought to that place; for the comparison of Nu 10:33 ff and Ex 23:20 ff shows that Jdg 2:1 is to be understood as speaking of the transfer of the ark to Bethel. When Israel in the time of Eli was overpowered by the Philistines, the Israelites sent for the ark, in order that Yahweh should come into the camp of Israel, and this was also believed to be the case by the Philistines (1 Sam 4:3 ff). After the ark had come to Bethshemesh and a pestilence had broken out there, the people did not want to keep the ark, because no one could live in the presence of Yahweh, this holy God (1 Sam 6:20); and Jeremiah says (3:16,17) that an ark of the covenant would not be again made after the restoration of Israel, but then Jerusalem would be called the "throne of Yahweh," i.e. it would so manifestly be the city of God that it would guarantee the presence of God at least just as much as the ark formerly did.
In olden times these things appeared more realistic to the people than they do to us; and when the ark was considered the visible representation of the presence of Yahweh, and as guaranteeing His presence, a close material connection was thought to exist between the ark and Yahweh, by virtue of which Divine powers were also thought to be present in the ark. The people at Bethshemesh were not willing to keep the ark any longer in their midst, because they could not live in its near presence. David's dancing before the ark is regarded by him and by the narrator of the event as a dancing before the Lord (2 Sam 6:5,14,21), and in 2 Sam 7:5 ff God says, through Nathan, that He had wandered around in a tent since He had led the Israelites out of Egypt.
But the view advocated by some of the modern critics, that the Israelites had thought that the ark was the dwelling-place or the throne-seat of Yahweh, is nevertheless not correct. This opinion cannot be harmonized with this fact, that in the sources, dating from the same olden times, mention is made of His dwelling in many places in Canaan and outside of Canaan, so that the idea that His presence or even He Himself is confined to the ark is impossible. The statement of Moses, "Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered" (Nu 10:35), is not the command addressed to those who carry the ark to lift it up and thereby to lift Yahweh up for the journey, but is a demand made upon Yahweh, in accordance with His promise, to go ahead of Israel as the ark does. According to 1 Sam 4:3 the Israelites did not say "We want to go and get Yahweh," but "We want to go and get the ark of Yahweh, so that He may come into our midst." They accordingly only wanted to induce Him to come by getting the ark. This, too, the priests and the soothsayers of the Philistines say: "Do not permit the ark of the God of the Israelites to depart without sending a gift along," but they do not speak thus of Yahweh. That Samuel, who slept near the ark, when he was addressed by Yahweh, did not at all at first think that Yahweh was addressing him, proves that at that time the view did not prevail that He was in the ark or had His seat upon it. Ancient Israel was accordingly evidently of the conviction that the ark was closely connected with Yahweh, that something of His power was inherent in the ark; consequently the feeling prevailed that when near the ark they were in a special way in the presence of and near to the Lord. But this is something altogether different from the opinion that the ark was the seat or the dwelling-place of Yahweh. Even if the old Israelites, on account of the crudeness of antique methods of thought, were not conscious of the greatness of this difference, the fact that this difference was felt is not a matter of doubt. That the ark was built to embody the presence of God among His people is just as clear from the statements of the Elohist, and probably also of the Jahwist, as it is from those of the Priestly Code (P); and if these have accordingly regarded the tables of the law as constituting the contents of the ark, then this is in perfect harmony with their views of this purpose, and we too must cling to these same views. For what would have been better adapted to make the instrument which represents the presence of God more suitable for this than the stone tables with the Ten Words, through which Yahweh had made known to His people His ethical character? For this very purpose it had to be an ark. The words on these tables were a kind of a spiritual portrait of the God of Israel, who could not be pictured in a bodily form. In this shape nobody in ancient Israel has formulated this thought, but that this thought was present is certain.
Wilhelm Lotz
ark'-it (`arqi): An inhabitant of the town of Arka, situated some ten or twelve miles Northeast of Tripoils, Syria, and about four miles from the shore of the sea. The Arkites are mentioned in Gen 10:17 and 1 Ch 1:15 as being the descendants of Canaan, and they were undoubtedly of Phoenician stock. The place was not of much importance, but it is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, under the name Irkatah and taken by Tiglathpileser III in 738 BC. Not being on the sea its trade was small and it probably belonged to Tripoli or Botrys originally. It was the birthplace of Alexander Severus, hence its Roman name, Caesarea Libani. Its site is marked by a high mound near the foothills of Lebanon.
H. Porter
arm (zeroa`, 'ezroa`, dera`; brachion; chotsen, katheph): The usual form is zeroa` from the root zara`, "to spread." The arm may be "stretched out." 'Ezroa` is this form with prosthetic 'aleph (Job 31:22; Jer 32:21), and dera` is the Aramaic form. Chotsen is really "bosom," thus the Revised Version (British and American) (Isa 49:22); and katheph is "shoulder," thus the Revised Version (British and American) (Job 31:22). Compare cheir, also, in Acts 11:21.
Figurative: The arm denotes influence, power, means of support or conquest. The arms of Moab (Jer 48:25) and of Pharaoh (Ezek 30:21 ff) are broken. The arm of Eli and the arm of his father's house are to be cut off (1 Sam 2:31). Because the arm wielded the sword it signified "oppression" (Job 35:9). The arms are the means of support, therefore to refuse to aid the fatherless is to break their arms (Job 22:9).
Applied anthropomorphically to God, the arm denotes also His power, power to deliver, support, conquer. His "outstretched arm" delivered Israel from Egypt (Ex 6:6; Dt 4:34, etc.). They support: "Underneath are the everlasting arms" (Dt 33:27). His arm protects (Isa 40:11). Yahweh is sometimes likened to a warrior and smites with His arm (Ps 89:10; Isa 63:5; Jer 21:5). The arm of Yahweh is holy (Ps 98:1; Isa 52:10). Many other passages of Scripture might be quoted showing how the power of God to redeem, judge, protect, punish is expressed by the idea of "the arm of Yahweh."
S. F. Hunter
ar-ma-ged'-on Armageddon: Rev 16:16; the Revised Version (British and American) "HAR-MAGEDON") (which see).
ar-me'-ni-a:
Their Religion
2. Aryan Armenians: History to 114 AD
LITERATURE
'araraT (Sumerian Ar, "region," plus ar "high," plus Tu, "mountain," plus "high mountainous region"): in Assyrian, UrTu, UrarTu, UrasTu: in AEgyp, Ermenen (= "Region of the Minni") Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch, Armina, Armaniyqa (Armenia): in Hecataeus of Miletus, circa 520 BC, the people are Armenioi (Gen 8:4; 2 Ki 19:37; Isa 37:38; Jer 51:27). Throughout the Bible, this is a country, not a mountain. Armenia Major was bounded on the North by the River Cyrus (Kour), Iberia, Colchis, and the Moschici Mts.; on the West by Asia Minor and the Euphrates; on the South by Mesopotamia and Assyria; on the East by the Caspian and Media. (Armenia Minor lay between the Euphrates and the Halys.) Ararat was originally the name of the central district. Most of Armenia is between 8,000 and 3,000 feet above sea-level, and slopes toward Euphrates, Cyrus, and the Gaspian. Mt. Massis (generally called Greater Ararat) is 16,969 ft. and Lesser Ararat, 12,840 ft. Both are of igneous origin, as is Aragds (A`la Goz), 13,436 ft. Sulphur springs and earthquakes still attest volcanic activity. The largest rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris and Araxes. The latter, swift and famed for violent floods, joins the Cyrus, which falls into the Caspian. The lakes Van, Urmi and Sevan are veritable inland seas. The many mountain chains, impassable torrents and large streams divide the country into districts far less accessible from one another than from foreign lands. Hence, invasions are easy and national union difficult. This has sadly affected the history of Armenia. Xenophon (Anab. iv.5) describes the people as living in houses partly underground, such as are still found. Each village was ruled by its chief according to ancient customary laws. He well describes the severity of the winters. In summer the climate in some places is like that of Italy or Spain. Much of Armenia is extremely fertile, producing large herds of horses and cattle, abundant crops of cereals, olives and fruit. It is rich in minerals, and is probably the home of the rose and the vine.
LITERATURE.
Minas Gaphamatzean; Garagashean; Palasanean; Entir Chatouadsner, I; Rawlinson, Seven Anc. Monarchies; Strabo; Xenophon; Petermann, Mittheilungen for 1871; Bryce, Transcaucasia and Ararat.
The country is first mentioned in Gen 8:4 as the land upon (some one of) the mountains of which Noah's Ark rested. (According to Jewish tradition this was one of the Kurdish mountains.) It is next spoken of by Sargon I of Agade, circa 3800 BC, as among his conquests. In early Babylonian legends Armenia figures as an almost unknown land far to the North, full of high mountains and dense forests, containing the entrance to the Lower World (Mad Nu-ga, "Land of No Return"). On its borders stood Mt. Nisir where the gods dwelt and Cit-napistim's "ship" stopped. This "Mountain of the World" was the present Jabal Judi, South of Lake Van. Next came Egyptian influence. Thothmes III, in his twenty-third year (circa 1458 BC), after a great victory over the Rutennu or Ludennu (Mesopotamians and Lydians), received the submission of the "chiefs of Ermenen" and others. It is remarkable that the name by which the land is still known to foreigners (Armenians call it Chaiastan) should occur so early. In his thirty-third year, Thothmes III mentions the people of Ermenen as paying tribute when he held his court at Nineveh, and says that in their land "heaven rests upon its four pillars." In Seti I's Hall of Columns at Karnak we see the people of Ermenen felling trees in order to open a way through their forests for that king's armies. Rameses II in his twenty-first year, in war with Kheta-sira, king of the Hittites, probably subdued Armenia (compare Tacitus Ann. ii.60). Many places conquered by Rameses III, and mentioned in the Medinet Habu lists, were probably in Armenia. The Assyrian king Uras-Pal-acur (circa 1190-1170 BC) made a raid into Armenia, and mentions the central district (UrarTu proper, near Lake Van), the land of the Manna (Minni, Jer 51:27), Nahri ("the Rivers"), Ashguza (Ashkenaz, ib), etc. Another invader was Tiglath-pileser I (circa 1110-1090 BC). Asshut-nacir-pal in 883 BC advanced to UrarTu. A little later he mentions as articles of Armenian tribute chariots, horses, mules, silver, gold, plates of copper, oxen, sheep, wine, variegated cloths, linen garments. Again and again he carried fire and sword through the country, but it constantly revolted. Under Shalmaneser II (860-825 BC) and afterward for centuries wars continued. By uniting and forming powerful kingdoms (of which the principal was Biainash around Lake Van) the Armenians resisted. Finally in 606 BC they took part in the destruction of Nineveh, and in that of Babylon later. Shalmaneser II tells of the wickerwork coracles on Lake Van. The Balawat bronzes depict Armenians dressed like the Hittites (to whom they were sometimes subject) in tunics and snow-shoes with turned-up and pointed ends, wearing helmets, swords, spears and small round shields. Sayce compares their faces in form to the Negro type. Possibly they were Mongolians.
The founder of the kingdom of Biainash was Sardurish I, about 840 BC, who built as his capital Tushpash, now Van. He ruled most of Armenia, defending it against the Assyrians, and apparently, inflicting a check on Shalmaneser II in 833 BC. He introduced the cuneiform characters, and his inscriptions are in Assyrian. His son Ishpuinish adapted the Assyrian syllabary to his own tongue, which bears a slight resemblance to Georgian in some points. The next king, Menuash, has left inscriptions almost all over Armenia, telling of his victories over the Hittites, etc. The kingdom of Biainash reached its acme under the great monarch Argishtish I, who succeeded in defending his country against Shalmaneser III (783-772 BC). But in his son's reign Tiglath-pileser IV (748-727 BC: Pul) crushed the Armenians to the dust in a great battle near Commagene in 743. Pul failed to capture Van in 737, but he ravaged the country far and wide. Rusash I, at the head of an Armenian confederacy, began a great struggle in 716 with Sargon (722-705), who in 714 captured Van with Rusash's family. After 5 months' wandering Rusash committed suicide. His brother Argishtish II to some degree recovered independence. His successor Erimenash gave an asylum to Adrammelech and Sharezer (Assur-sar-ucur) in 680 (2 Ki 19:37; Isa 37:38) after the murder of their father Sennacherib. Invading Assyria in the same year, they were defeated by Esar-haddon I. Armenia from the Cyrus River to the South of Lake Van was ravaged by the Kimmerians (679-677). Rusash II (circa 660-645) and his son Sandurish III (the latter circa 640 or soon after) submitted to Ashurbanipal (668-626). Nebuchadnezzar (604-561) boasts of reaching Van in his conquests, though the Armenians had probably their share in the destruction of Nineveh in 606. Jer (51:27) mentioned the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz about 595, and said they would help in the overthrow of Babylon (in 538). Cyrus had therefore probably subdued or won them over after capturing Ekbatana (549). After this the Turanians gradually gave place in Armenia to the Aryan Armenians of later times.
Their Religion.
The supreme god of the Turanian Armenians was Chaldish, who was father of all the rest. They were styled "children of mighty Chaldish." He, with Teishbash, god of the atmosphere, and Ardinish, the Sun-god, formed "the company of the mighty gods." Auish, god of water; Ayash, god of the earth; Shelardish, the Moon-god; Sardish, the Year-god; and 42 other gods are mentioned. Sari was a goddess, probably corresponding to Ishtar. Adoration was offered to the spirits of the dead also. Somewhat strangely, some of the divine names we have mentioned remind one of certain Aryan (Greek and Old Pers) words, however this may be accounted for.
LITERATURE.
Valdemar Schmidt, Assyriens og AEgyptens Gamle Historie; Maspero, Dawn of Civilization; Rawlinson, West. Asiat. Inscrs; Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Schrader, editor); Airarat, 1883; Sayce in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, XIV; Records of the Past; Hastings, End of Religion and Ethics, I.
2. Aryan Armenians: History to 114 AD:
The ancestors of the present Armenians (who call themselves Chaik'h, i.e. Pati-s, "Lords") may have settled in the country in the 8th century BC, when Sargon mentions a king of part of Armenia who bore the Aryan name Bagadatti (= Theodore). They came from Phrygia (Herod. vii.73), used the Phrygian dress and armor (Dion. of Halicarnassus; Eudoxius; Herod.) and spoke the same language (Herod. i.171). In the Bible they are called the "House of Togarmah" (Gen 10:3; 1 Ch 1:6; Ezek 27:14; 38:6) and "Ashkenaz" (Gen 10:3; 1 Ch 1:6; Jer 51:27; the Assyrian Ashguza), as by their own writers of later times. Xenophon in the Cyropedia mentions a Median conquest of Armenia, Strabo their Median attire; yet Armenian girls could not understand Xenophon's Persian interpreter (Anab. iv.5). Three of the four Armenians mentioned by Darius have Aryan names. The Armenians joined the Median noble Fravartish in his revolt against Darius I (519 BC). Much of the consequent fighting took place in Armenia, which was with difficulty subdued (517). It formed part of Darius' thirteenth Nome, and afterward two satrapies (apparently Armenia Major and Minor). The government (of Armenia Major) was made hereditary in the family of Vidarna (Hydarnes) for helping to put down Fravartish. Xenophon's interesting description of the country and people and the severity of its winters is well known. Herodotus tells of Armenians in skin and wicker-work coracles bringing wine, etc., to Babylon. Xenophon says they and the Chaldeans traded with India. Strabo mentions their caravan trade across central Asia. The satrap of Armenia had to present 20,000 young horses annually to the king of Persia at the great annual festival of Mithra. A large body of Armenian soldiers served in Xerxes' invasion of Greece. At the battle of Arbela (331 BC), 40,000 of their infantry and 7,000 cavalry took part. Armenia then became a portion of Alexander's empire, and later of that of Seleucus (301 BC), under a native satrap, Artavasdes. Armenia revolted after Antiochus' defeat at Magnesia (190 BC), and the Romans encouraged the two satraps to declare themselves kings. Artaxias, king of Armenia Major, used Hannibal's aid in fortifying his capital Artaxata (189 BC). Artaxias was overthrown by Antiochus Epiphanes in 165, but was restored on swearing allegiance. Civil confusion ensued. The nobles called in the Parthians under Mithridates I (150 BC), who became master of the whole Persian empire. He made his brother Valarsaces king of Armenia. Thus the Arsacide dynasty was established in that country and lasted till the fall of the Parthian empire (226 AD), the Armenian kings very generally recognizing the Parthian monarchs as their suzerains. The greatest Armenian king was Tigranes I. (96-55 BC), a warrior who raised Armenia for a time to the foremost position in Asia. He humbled the Parthians, joined Mithridates VI in war with Rome, ruled Syria for over 14 years, built near Mardin as his capital Tigranocerta, and assumed the Assyrio-Persian title of "King of Kings." Lucullus defeated Tigranes and destroyed Tigranocerta in 69 BC. Tigranes surrendered to Pompey near Artaxata (66 BC), paid 6,000 talents, and retained only Armenia. Under him Greek art and literature flourished in the country. Armenia as a subjectally of Rome became a "buffer state" between the Roman and Parthian empires. Tigranes' son and successor Artevasdes joined in the Parthian invasion of Syria after Crassus' overthrow at Sinnaca 53 BC. He treacherously caused great loss to Antony's army in 36 BC. Antony carried him in chains to Egypt, where Cleopatra put him to death in 32 BC. After this, Armenia long remained subject to the Romans whenever not strong enough to join the Parthians, suffering much from intrigues and the jealousy of both powers. There is no proof of the later Armenian story that Armenia was subject to Abgarus, king of Edessa, in our Lord's time, and that the gospel was preached there by Thaddaeus, though the latter point is possible. In 66 AD, Tiridates, elder brother of the Parthian king Vologeses, having defeated the Romans under Paetus and established himself on the throne of Armenia, went by land to Rome and received investiture from Nero. Peace between Rome and Parthia ensued, and Armenia remained closely united to Parthia till Trajan's expedition in 114 AD.
LITERATURE.
Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschriften; Herodotus; Xenophon; Arrian; Tacitus; Velleius Patroculus; Livy; Polybius; Ammianus Marcellinus.
W. St. Clair Tisdall
ARMENIAN VERSIONS, OF THE BIBLE
ar-me'-ni-an vur'-shuns, bi'-bl.
1. Circumstances under Which Made
Apocrypha Omitted
2. Constantinopolitan-Armenian
LITERATURE
1. Circumstances under Which Made:
Armenia was in large measure Christianized by Gregory Lousavorich ("the Illuminator": consecrated 302 AD; died 332), but, as Armenian had not been reduced to writing, the Scriptures used to be read in some places in Greek, in others in Syriac, and translated orally to the people. A knowledge of these tongues and the training of teachers were kept up by the schools which Gregory and King Tiridates had established at the capital Vagharshapat and elsewhere. As far as there was any Christianity in Armenia before Gregory's time, it had been almost exclusively under Syrian influence, from Edessa and Samosata. Gregory introduced Greek influence and culture, though maintaining bonds of union with Syria also. When King Sapor of Persia became master of Armenia (378 AD), he not only persecuted the Christians most cruelly, but also, for political reasons, endeavored to prevent Armenia from all contact with the Byzantine world. Hence his viceroy, the renegade Armenian Merouzhan, closed the schools, proscribed Greek learning, and burnt all Greek books, especially the Scriptures. Syriac books were spared, just as in Persia itself; but in many cases the clergy were unable to interpret them to their people. Persecution had not crushed out Christianity, but there was danger lest it should perish through want of the Word of God. Hence several attempts were made to translate the Bible into Armenian. It is said that Chrysostom, during his exile at Cucusus (404-407 AD), invented an Armenian alphabet and translated the Psalter, but this is doubtful. But when Arcadius ceded almost all Armenia to Sapor about 396 AD, something had to be done. Hence in 397 the celebrated Mesrob Mashtots and Isaac (Sachak) the Catholicos resolved to translate the Bible. Mesrob had been a court secretary, and as such was well acquainted with Pahlavi, Syriac and Greek, in which three languages the royal edicts were then published. Isaac had been born at Constantinople and educated there and at Caesarea. Hence he too was a good Greek scholar, besides being versed in Syriac and Pahlavi, which latter was then the court language in Armenia. But none of these three alphabets was suited to express the sounds of the Armenian tongue, and hence, an alphabet had to be devised for it.
A council of the nobility, bishops and leading clergy was held at Vagharshapat in 402, King Vramshapouch being present, and this council requested Isaac to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. By 406, Mesrob had succeeded in inventing an alphabet--practically the one still in use--principally by modifying the Greek and the Pahlavi characters, though some think the Palmyrene alphabet had influence. He and two of his pupils at Samosata began by translating the Book of Proverbs, and then the New Testament, from the Greek Meanwhile, being unable to find a single Greek manuscript in the country, Isaac translated the church lessons from the Peshitta Syriac, and published this version in 411. He sent two of his pupils to Constantinople for copies of the Greek Bible. These men were present at the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD. Probably Theodoret (De Cura Graec. Affect., I, 5) learned from them what he says about the existence of the Bible in Armenian. Isaac's messengers brought him copies of the Greek Bible from the Imperial Library at Constantinople--doubtless some of those prepared by Eusebius at Constantine's command. Mesrob Mashtots and Isaac, with their assistants, finished and published the Armenian (ancient) version of the whole Bible in 436. La Croze is justified in styling it Queen of versions Unfortunately the Old Testament was rendered (as we have said) from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew. But the Apocrypha was not translated, only "the 22 Books" of the Old Testament, as Moses of Khorene informs us. This was due to the influence of the Peshitta Old Testament.
Apocrypha Omitted.
Not till the 8th century was the Apocrypha rendered into Armenian: it was not read in Armenian churches until the 12th. Theodotion's version of Daniel was translated, instead of the very inaccurate Septuagint. The Alexandrine text was generally followed but not always.
In the 6th century the Armenian version is said to have been revised so as to agree with the Peshitta. Hence, probably in Mt 28:18 the King James Version, the passage, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," is inserted as in the Peshitta, though it occurs also in its proper place (Jn 20:21). It reads "Jesus Barabbas" in Mt 27:16,17--a reading which Origen found "in very ancient manuscripts." It contains Lk 22:43,44. As is well known, in the Etschmiadzin manuscript of 986 AD, over Mk 16:9-20, are inserted the words, "of Ariston the presbyter"; but Nestle (Text. Criticism of the Greek New Testament, Plate IX, etc.) and others omit to notice that these words are by a different and a later hand, and are merely an unauthorized remark of no great value.
Mesrob's version was soon widely circulated and became the one great national book. Lazarus Pharpetsi, a contemporary Armenian historian, says he is justified in describing the spiritual results by quoting Isaiah and saying that the whole land of Armenia was thereby "filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." But for it, both church and nation would have perished in the terrible persecutions which have now lasted, with intervals, for more than a millennium and a half.
This version was first printed somewhat late: the Psalter at Rome in 1565, the Bible by Bishop Oskan of Erivan at Amsterdam in 1666, from a very defective MS; other editions at Constantinople in 1705, Venice in 1733. Dr. Zohrab's edition of the New Testament in 1789 was far better. A critical edition was printed at Venice in 1805, another at Serampore in 1817. The Old Testament (with the readings of the Hebrew text at the foot of the page) appeared at Constantinople in 1892 ff.
There are two great literary dialects of modern Armenian, in which it was necessary to publish the Bible, since the ancient Armenian (called Grapar, or "written") is no longer generally understood. The American missionaries have taken the lead in translating Holy Scripture into both.
The first version of the New Testament into Ararat Armenian, by Dittrich, was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society at Moscow in 1835; the Psalter in 1844; the rest of the Old Testament much later. There is an excellent edition, published at Constantinople in 1896.
2. Constantinopolitan-Armenian:
A version of the New Testament into Constantinopolitan Armenian, by Dr. Zohrab, was published at Paris in 1825 by the British and Foreign Bible Society. This version was made from the Ancient Armenian. A revised edition, by Adger, appeared at Smyrna in 1842. In 1846 the American missionaries there published a version of the Old Testament. The American Bible Society have since published revised editions of this version.
The Armenian language is now recognized by philologists to be, not a dialect or subdivision of ancient Persian or Iranian, but a distinct branch of the Aryan or Indo-European family, standing almost midway between the Iranian and the European groups. In some respects, especially in weakening and ultimately dropping "t" and "d" between vowels, it resembles the Keltic tongues (compare GaelicA (th)air, Arm. Chair = Pater, Father). As early as the 5th century it had lost gender in nouns, though retaining inflections (compare Brugmann, Elements of Comp. Greek of Indo-German Languages).
LITERATURE.
Koriun; Agathangelos; Lazarus Pharpetsi; Moses Khorenatsi (= of Chorene); Faustus Byzantinus; Chhamchheants; Chaikakan Hin Dprouthian Patm; Chaikakan Thargmanouthiunk'h Nak'hneants; The Bible of Every Land; Tisdall, Conversion of Armenia; Nestle, Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); N.Y. Cyclopaedia of Biblical. and Theol. Lit.; Hauck, Real-encyklopadie fur protest. Theol. und Kirche.
W. St. Clair Tisdall
ar-me'-ni-an, ar'-i-an. This greatly resembled that of Persia, though Zoroastrianism and its dualistic system were not professed. We are thus enabled to judge how far the religion of the Avesta is due to Zoroaster's reformation. Aramazd (Ahura Mazda), creator of heaven and earth, was father of all the chief deities. His spouse was probably Spandaramet (Spenta Armaiti), goddess of the earth, who was later held to preside over the underworld (compare Persephone; Hellenistic). Among her assistants as genii of fertility were Horot and Morot (HaurvataT and AmeretaT), tutelary deities of Mt. Massis (now styled Ararat). Aramazd's worship seems to have fallen very much into the background in favor of that of inferior deities, among the chief of whom was his daughter Anahit (Anahita), who had temples in many places. Her statues were often of the precious metals, and among her many names were "Golden Mother" and "Goddess of the Golden Image." Hence to the present day the word "Golden" enters into many Armenian names. White heifers and green boughs were offered her as goddess of fruitfulness, nor was religious prostitution in her honor uncommon. Next in popularity came her sister Astghik ("the little star"), i.e. the planet Venus, goddess of beauty, wife of the deified hero Vahagn (Verethraghna). He sprang from heaven, earth, and sea, and overthrew dragons and other evil beings. Another of Anahit's sisters was Nane (compare Assyrian Nana, Nannaea), afterward identified with Athene. Her brother Mihr (Mithra) had the sun as his symbol in the sky and the sacred fire on earth, both being objects of worship. In his temples a sacred fire was rekindled once a year. Aramazd's messenger and scribe was Tiur or Tir, who entered men's deeds in the "Book of Life." He led men after death to Aramazd for judgment. Before birth he wrote men's fates on their foreheads. The place of punishment was Dzhokhk'h (= Persian Duzakh). To the sun and moon sacrifices were offered on the mountain-tops. Rivers and sacred springs and other natural objects were also adored. Prayer was offered facing eastward. Omens were taken from the rustling of the leaves of the sacred Sonean forest. Armavir was the religious capital.
Among inferior spiritual existences were the Arlezk'h, who licked the wounds of those slain in battle and restored them to life. The Parikk'h were evidently the Pairakas (Peris) of Persia. The Armenian mythology told of huge dragons which sometimes appeared as men, sometimes as worms, or basilisks, elves, sea-bulls, dragon-lions, etc. As in Persia, the demons made darts out of the parings of a man's nails to injure him with. Therefore these parings, together with teeth and trimmings of hair, must be hidden in some sacred place.
LITERATURE.
Eznik Goghbatzi; Agathangelos; Moses of Khorene; Eghishe; Palasanean; Faustus Byzantinus; Chhamchheantz; Plutarch; Strabo; Tacitus. See my "Conversion of Armenia," R.T.S.; The Expositor T, II, 202 ff.
W. St. Clair Tisdall
arm'-hol: The Hebrew word 'atstsil, is used in Jer 38:12 in the sense of armpits. When the prophet was pulled up out of the pit by ropes, the armpits were protected with rags and old garments. The meaning in Ezek 13:18 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "elbows," the Revised Version, margin "joints of the hands") is far from clear. The phrase is used, without doubt, of some ornament or article of dress worn by the false prophetesses and priestesses of Ashtaroth in order to allure the unwary and tempt the simple. The "pillows" were probably "amulets" supposed to have magical virtues, and worn on the arms or wrists.
W. W. Davies
arm'-let: The word translated "bracelet" in 2 Sam 1:10 the King James Version, probably denotes an "armlet," or "arm-band," worn on the upper arm. But it is the same word which with a different context is rendered "ankle-chains" (in Nu 31:50 the Revised Version (British and American)). The "bracelet" of Sirach 21:21 the King James Version, worn upon the right arm, was an "armlet," as is seen from the list given of Judith's ornaments: who "decked herself bravely with her armlets (the Revised Version (British and American) `chains') and her bracelets, and her rings, and her ear-rings, and all her ornaments" (Judith 10:4). The nature of the ornaments given in the Revised Version (British and American) as "armlets," Ex 35:22; Nu 31:50, and in the King James Version as "tablets," is uncertain. For full and distinguishing, descriptions of "arm-lets," "anklets," "bracelets," etc., found in ancient graves, see PEFS , 1905, 318 ff.
See also ORNAMENT .
George B. Eager
ar-mo'-ni ('armoni, "belonging to the palace"): One of the two sons of Saul by Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah (2 Sam 21:8). David delivered them over to the blood vengeance of the Gibeonites.
ar'-mer-bar'-er (nose' keli; Greek uses a phrase, ho airon ta skeue, literally "the one carrying the armor"): One who carried the large shield and perhaps other weapons for a king (1 Sam 31:4), commander-in-chief (2 Sam 23:37), captain (1 Sam 14:7) or champion (1 Sam 17:7). All warriors of distinction had such an attendant. Rather than perish by the hand of a woman, Abimelech called upon his armor-bearer to give him the finishing stroke (Jdg 9:54), and when King Saul's armor-bearer refused to do this office for him that he might not become the prisoner of the Philistines, he took a sword himself and fell upon it (1 Sam 31:4). David became Saul's armor-bearer for a time, and Jonathan's armor-bearer was a man of resource and courage (1 Sam 14:7). The shield-bearer was a figure well known in the chariots of Egypt and Assyria and the Hittites, his business being to protect his fighting companion during the engagement.
T. Nicol.
ar'-mer, arms.
I. ARMOR IN GENERAL--OLD TESTAMENT
II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT; POLYBIUS
LITERATURE
I. Armor in General--Old Testament.
(maddim; 1 Sam 17:38; 1 Sam 14:1 the Revised Version (British and American) APPAREL; nesheq, 1 Ki 10:25; Job 39:21; kelim; ta hopla): Under this head it may be convenient to notice the weapons of attack and defense in use among the Hebrews, mentioned in Scripture. There are no such descriptions given by the sacred writers as are to be found in Homer, who sets forth in detail the various pieces of armor worn by an Achilles or a Patroclus, and the order of putting them on. There is an account of the armor offensive and defensive of the Philistine Goliath (1 Sam 17:5-7); and from a much later time we read of shields and spears and helmets and habergeons, or coats of mail, and bows and slings with which Uzziah provided his soldiers (2 Ch 26:14). In Jeremiah's ode of triumph over the defeat of Pharaoh-neco, there is mention of the arms of the Egyptians: "Prepare ye the buckler and shield, and draw near to battle. Harness the horses, and get up, ye horsemen, and stand forth with your helmets; furbish the spears, put on the coats of mail" (Jer 46:3,4). Of the arms of Assyrian, Chaldean, Egyptian and Hittite soldiery there have come down to us sculptured representations from their ancient monuments, which throw light upon the battlepieces of the Hebrew historians and prophets.
II. In the New Testament; Polybius.
In the New Testament, Paul describes the panoply of the Christian soldier, naming the essential pieces of the Roman soldier's armor--the girdle, the breastplate, the footgear, the shield, the helmet, the sword--although it is to be noticed that his most characteristic weapon, the pilum or spear, is omitted (Eph 6:10-17). In a similar context the same apostle speaks of "the armor" of light (Rom 13:12), "of righteousness on the right hand and on the left" (2 Cor 6:7). Of the equipment of the Roman soldier in detail, the most useful illustration is the account given by Polybius (vi.23): "The Roman panoply consists in the first place of a shield (thureos). .... Along with the shield is a sword (machaira). .... Next come two javelins (hussoi) and a helmet (perikephalaia), and a greave (knemis). ..... Now the majority, when they have further put on a bronze plate, measuring a span every way, which they wear on their breasts and call a heart-guard (kardiophulax), are completely armed, but those citizens who are assessed at more than 10,000 drachmae wear instead, together with the other arms, cuirasses made of chain mail (halusidotous thorakas)."
The commonest weapon in the hands of the shepherd youth of Palestine today is the rod (shebheT; rhabdos), a stick loaded at one end, which he carries in his hand, or wears attached to his wrist by a loop of string, ready for use. It is of considerable weight and is a formidable weapon whether used in self-defense or in attacking a foe. With such a weapon David may well have overcome the lion and the bear that invaded the fold. This shepherd's rod, while used for guidance, or comfort, or for numbering the flock (Ps 23:4; Lev 27:32), was also a weapon with which to strike and punish (Ps 2:9; Isa 10:5,15). In this sense it has for a synonym maTTeh (Isa 9:4; Ezek 7:11), and both came to have the derived meaning of spearheads (shebheT, 2 Sam 18:14; maTTeh, 1 Sam 14:27). They may have been the original of the maul or hammer (mephits, Prov 25:18; Jer 51:20, where Cyrus, as God's battle-axe, is to shatter Babylon and its inhabitants for the wrongs they have done to His people Israel).
Scarcely less common and equally homely is the sling (qela`; sphendone) (1 Sam 17:40). It consists of plaited thongs, or of one strip of leather, made broad at the middle to form a hollow or pocket for the stone or other contents, the ends being held firmly in the hand as it is whirled loaded round the head, and one of them being at length let go, so that the stone may take its flight. It is used by the shepherd still to turn the straying sheep, and it can also be used with deadly effect as a weapon of war. The slingers (ha-qalla`im, 2 Ki 3:25) belonged to the light infantry, like the archers. The Benjamites were specially skilled in the use of the sling, which they could use as well with their left hand as the right (Jdg 20:16). The sling was a weapon in use in the armies of Egypt and Babylonia, and Jeremiah in a powerful figure makes the Lord say to Jerusalem in a time of impending calamity: "Behold, I will sling out the inhabitants of the land at this time" (Jer 10:18; compare 1 Sam 25:29).
A very important offensive weapon in the wars of Israel was the bow (qesheth) and arrows (chitstsim), and the archers whether mounted or on foot formed a powerful element of the fighting forces of the Philistines, Egyptians and Assyrians (s.v. ARCHERY; BOW).
The spear has various words to represent it. (1) The chanith had a wooden staff or shaft of varying size and length with a head, or blade, of bronze, or, at a later time, of iron (1 Sam 17:7). In the King James Version it is sometimes translated "javelin," but in the Revised Version (British and American) "spear" (see 1 Sam 13:22; 18:11). Saul's spear, stuck in the ground, betokened the abode of the king for the time, just as today the spear in front of his tent marks the halting-place of the Bedouin Sheikh (1 Sam 22:6; 26:7). Nahum, describing the arms of the Assyrians, joins together the flashing sword and the glittering spear (Nah 3:3). The bearers of the chanith belonged to the heavy-armed troops. (2) The romach, also translated in the King James Version "javelin," was of the character of a lance. It does not appear to have differed much from the chanith--they appear as synonyms in Joel 3:10, where romach is used, and in Isa 2,4 where chanith is used, of spears beaten into pruning hooks. It describes the Egyptian spear in Jer 46:4. The bearers of the romach also belonged to the heavy-armed troops. (3) The kidhon was lighter than either of the preceding and more of the nature of a javelin (gaison in the Septuagint, Josh 8:18 and Polybius vi.39, 3; Job 41:29; Jer 6:23). (4) In the New Testament the word "spear" occurs only once and is represented by the Greek logche, the equivalent no doubt of chanith as above (Jn 19:34).
The sword (cherebh) is by far the most frequently mentioned weapon in Scripture, whether offensive or defensive. The blade was of iron (1 Sam 13:19; Joel 3:10). It was hung from the girdle on the left side, and was used both to cut and to thrust. Ehud's sword (Jdg 3:16) was double-edged and a cubit in length, and, as he was left-handed, was worn on his right thigh under his clothes. The sword was kept in a sheath (1 Sam 17:51); to draw the sword was the signal for war (Ezek 21:3). Soldiers are "men who draw the sword." It is the flashing sword (Nah 3:3); the oppressing sword (Jer 46:16); the devouring sword (2 Sam 18:8; Jer 12:12); the sword which drinks its fill of blood (Isa 34:5,6). The sword of the Lord executes God's judgments (Jer 47:6; Ezek 21:9,10 ff).
Figurative: In the highly metaphorical language of the prophets it stands for war and its attendant calamities (Jer 50:35-37; Ezek 21:28).
In the New Testament machaira is employed for sword in its natural meaning (Mt 26:47,51; Acts 12:2; Heb 11:34,37). Paul calls the Word of God the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17); and in the Epistle to Hebrews the Word of God is said to be sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12). As a synonym the word rhomphaia is used in the Apocrypha alone of the New Testament books, save for Lk 2:35. It was the Thracian sword with large blade, and is classed by the ancients rather as a spear. The word is used frequently in the Septuagint like machaira to translate cherebh. In Rev 1:16 the sharp two-edged sword of judgment, rhomphaia is seen in vision proceeding out of the mouth of the glorified Lord (compare Rev 19:15). Xiphos is still another word for sword, but it is found only in the Septuagint, and not in the New Testament.
The most ancient and universal weapon of defense is the shield. The two chief varieties are (1) the tsinnah, Latin scutum, the large shield, worn by heavy-armed infantry, adapted to the form of the human body, being made oval or in the shape of a door; hence, its Greek name, thureos, from thura, a door; and (2) the maghen, Latin clypeus, the light, round hand-buckler, to which pelte is the Greek equivalent. The two are often mentioned together (Ezek 23:24; 38:4; Ps 35:2).
The tsinnah was the shield of the heavy-armed (1 Ch 12:24); and of Goliath we read that his shield was borne by a man who went before him (1 Sam 17:7,41) The maghen could be borne by bowmen, for we read of men of Benjamin in Asa's army that bare shields and drew bows (2 Ch 14:8). The ordinary material of which shields were made was wood, or wicker-work overlaid with leather. The wood-work of the shields and other weapons of Gog's army were to serve Israel for fuel for seven years (Ezek 39:9). The anointing of the shield (2 Sam 1:21; Isa 21:5) was either to protect it from the weather, or, more probably, was part of the consecration of the warrior and his weapons for the campaign. Solomon in his pride of wealth had 200 shields (tsinnoth) of beaten gold, and 300 targets (maghinnim) of beaten gold made for himself, and hung in the house of the forest of Lebanon (1 Ki 10:16,17). They were only for show, and when Shishak of Egypt came up against Rehoboam and carried them off, Rehoboam replaced them with others of bronze (1 Ki 14:27). On the march, the shield was strapped over the shoulder and kept in a cover, which was removed before the battle (Isa 22:6). Both words are used of the mechanical device known to the Romans as the testudo employed by the besiegers of a city against the darts and stones and blazing torches thrown out by the besieged (Isa 37:33; Ezek 26:8).
Figurative: Yahweh is spoken of as the Shield and Protector of His people--of Abraham (Gen 15:1); of Israel (Dt 33:29); of the Psalmist (Ps 18:30; 35:2, and many other passages). In his description of the panoply of the Christian soldier, Paul introduces faith as the thureos, the large Greek-Roman shield, a defense by which he may quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.
The helmet, qobha` or kobha`, seems to have been originally in the form of a skull-cap, and it is thus figured in representations of Hittites on the walls of Karnak in Egypt. In the earliest times it is found worn only by outstanding personages like kings and commanders. When King Saul armed David with his own armor he put a helmet of brass upon his head (1 Sam 17:38). Uzziah at a later time provided his soldiers with helmets, as part of their equipment (2 Ch 26:14). The men of Pharaoh-neco's army also wore helmets (Jer 46:4), and the mercenaries in the armies of Tyre had both shield and helmet to hang up within her (Ezek 27:10). The materials of the helmet were at first of wood, linen, felt, or even of rushes; leather was in use until the Seleucid period when it was supplanted by bronze (1 Macc 6:35); the Greek and Roman helmets both of leather and brass were well known in the Herodian period.
Figurative: Paul has the helmet, perikephalaia, for his Christian soldier (Eph 6:17; 1 Thess 5:8). In the Septuagint perikephalaia occurs eleven times as the equivalent of the Hebrew term.
Body armor for the protection of the person in battle is mentioned in the Old Testament and is well known in representations of Egyptian, Persian and Parthian warriors. The shiryon, translated "habergeon" in the King James Version, rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "coat of mail," is part of the armor of Nehemiah's workers (Neh 4:16), and one of the pieces of armor supplied by King Uzziah to his soldiers. (2 Ch 26:14). Goliath was armed with a shiryon, and when Saul clad David in his own armor to meet the Philistine champion he put on him a coat of mail, his shiryon (1 Sam 17:5,38). Such a piece of body armor Ahab wore in the fatal battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Ki 22:34). In the battle of Bethsura in the Maccabean struggle the Syrian war-elephants were protected with breastplates, the word for which, thorax, represents the shiryon in the Septuagint (1 Macc 6:43).
Figurative: Isaiah in a striking figure describes Yahweh as putting on righteousness for a coat of mail and salvation as a helmet, where thorax and perikephalaia are the Greek words of the Septuagint to render shiryon and kobha`. It is from this passage (Isa 59:17) that Paul obtains his "breastplate of righteousness" (Eph 6:14).
Greaves (mitschah; knemides) are mentioned once in Scripture as part of the armor of Goliath (1 Sam 17:6). They were of brass or leather, fastened by thongs round the leg and above the ankles.
The girdle (chaghorah; Greek zone) was of leather studded with nails, and was used for supporting the sword (1 Sam 18:4; 2 Sam 20:8).
See GIRDLE .
Figurative: For figurative uses see under the separate weapons.
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebraische Archaeologie, I, 359-67; Benzinger, Herzog, RE, article "Kriegswesen bei den Hebraern"; McCurdy, HPM, I, II; Woods and Powell, The Hebrew Prophets for English Readers, I, II; G. M. Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs; Browne, Hebrew Antiquities, 40-46; corresponding articles in Kitto, Hastings, and other Bible dictionaries.
T. Nicol.
ar'-mer-i: (1) ('otsar; thesauros): A storehouse (1 Ki 7:51; Neh 10:38), but employed figuratively of the stored-up anger of Yahweh which breaks forth in judgments (Jer 50:25). (2) (nesheq): Identical with Solomon's "house of the forest of Lebanon," the arsenal close to the temple (1 Ki 10:17; Neh 3:19; Isa 22:8), in which were stored the shields and targets of beaten gold. (3) (talpiyoth): A puzzling word rendered "armory" in our versions (Song 4:4)--"the tower of David builded for an armory, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men." the Revised Version margin renders "builded with turrets."
T. Nicol.
ar'-mi (chayil, "army," tsabha', "host," ma`arakhah, "army in battle array" gedhudh, "troop"):
1. The First Campaign of History
2. In the Wilderness
3. The Times after the Conquest
4. In the Early Monarchy
5. From the Time of Solomon Onward
6. Organization of the Hebrew Army
7. The Army in the Field
8. The Supplies of the Army
9. In the New Testament
The Israelites were not a distinctively warlike people and their glory has been won on other fields than those of war. But Canaan, between the Mediterranean and the desert, was the highway of the East and the battle-ground of nations. The Israelites were, by the necessity of their geographical position, often involved in wars not of their own seeking, and their bravery and endurance even when worsted in their conflicts won for them the admiration and respect of their conquerors.
1. The First Campaign of History:
The first conflict of armed forces recorded in Holy Scripture is that in Gen 14. The kings of the Jordan valley had rebelled against Chedorlaomer, king of Elam--not the first of the kings of the East to reach the Mediterranean with his armies--and joined battle with him and other kings in the Vale of Siddim. In this campaign Abraham distinguished himself by the rescue of his nephew Lot, who had fallen with all that he possessed into the hands of the Elamite king. The force with which Abraham effected the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him was his own retainers, 318 in number, whom he had armed and led forth in person in his successful pursuit.
When we first make the acquaintance of the Israelites as a nation, they are a horde of fugitives who have escaped from the bitter oppression and hard bondage of Pharaoh. Although there could have been but little of the martial spirit in a people so long and grievously oppressed, their journeyings through the wilderness toward Canaan are from the first described as the marching of a great host. It was according to their "armies" ("hosts" the Revised Version (British and American)) that Aaron and Moses were to bring the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt (Ex 6:26). When they had entered upon the wilderness they went up "harnessed" ("armed" the Revised Version (British and American)) for the journeyings that lay before them--where "harnessed" or "armed" may point not to the weapons they bore but to the order and arrangements of a body of troops marching five deep (hamushshim) or divided into five army corps (Ex 13:18). On the way through the wilderness they encamped (Ex 13:20; and passim) at their successive halting-places, and the whole army of 600,000 was, after Sinai, marked off into divisions or army corps, each with its own camp and the ensigns of their fathers' houses (Nu 2:2). "From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel," the males of the tribes were numbered and assigned to their place in the camp (Nu 1:3). Naturally, in the wilderness they are footmen (Nu 11:21), and it was not till the period of the monarchy that other arms were added. Bow and sling and spear and sword for attack, and shield and helmet for defense, would be the full equipment of the men called upon to fight in the desert. Although we hear little of gradations of military rank, we do read of captains of thousands and captains of hundreds in the wilderness (Nu 31:14), and Joshua commands the fighting men in the battle against the Amalekites at Rephidim (Ex 17:9 ff). That the Israelites acquired in their journeyings in the wilderness the discipline and martial spirit which would make them a warlike people, may be gathered from their successes against the Midianites, against Og, king of Bashan, toward the close of the forty years, and from the military organization with which they proceeded to the conquest of Canaan.
3. The Times after the Conquest:
In more than one campaign the Israelites under Joshua's leadership established themselves in Canaan. But it was largely through the enterprise of the several tribes after that the conquest was achieved. The progress of the invaders was stubbornly contested, but Joshua encouraged his kinsmen of Ephraim and Manasseh to press on the conquest even against the invincible war-chariots of the Canaanites--"for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they are strong" (Josh 17:18). As it was in the early history of Rome, where the defense of the state was an obligation resting upon every individual according to his stake in the public welfare, so it was at first in Israel. Tribal jealousies, however, impaired the sentiment of nationality and hindered united action when once the people had been settled in Canaan. The tribes had to defend their own, and it was only a great emergency that united them in common action. The first notable approach to national unity was seen in the army which Barak assembled to meet the host of Jabin, king of Hazor, under the command of Sisera (Jdg 4:5). In Deborah's war-song in commemoration of the notable victory achieved by Barak and herself, the men of the northern tribes, Zebulun, Naphtali, Issachar, along with warriors of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin, are praised for the valor with which they withstood and routed the host--foot, horse and chariots--of Sisera. Once again the tribes of Israel assembled in force from "Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead" (Jdg 20:1) to punish the tribe of Benjamin for condoning a gross outrage. The single tribe was defeated in the battle that ensued, but they were able to put into the field "26,000 men that drew sword," and they had also "700 chosen men left-handed; every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss" (Jdg 20:15,16).
Up to this time the fighting forces of the Israelites were more of the character of a militia. The men of the tribes more immediately harassed by enemies were summoned for action by the leader raised up by God, and disbanded when the emergency was past. The monarchy brought changes in military affairs. It was the plea of the leaders of Israel, when they desired to have a king, that he would go out before them and fight their battles (1 Sam 8:20). Samuel had warned them that with a monarchy a professional soldiery would be required. "He will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he Will set some to plow his ground, and reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots" (1 Sam 8:11,12). That this was the course which military reform took in the period following the establishment of the monarchy may well be. It fell to Saul when he ascended the throne to withstand the invading Philistines and to relieve his people from the yoke which they had already laid heavily upon some parts of the country. The Philistines were a military people, well disciplined and armed, with 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen at their service when they came up to Michmash (1 Sam 13:5). What chance had raw levies of vinedressers and herdsmen from Judah and Benjamin against such a foe? No wonder that the Israelites hid themselves in caves and thickets, and in rocks, and in holes, and in pits (1 Sam 13:6). And it is quoted by the historian as the lowest depth of national degradation that the Israelites had to go down to the Philistines "to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock" (1 Sam 13:20) because the Philistines had carried off their smiths to prevent them from making swords or spears.
It was in this desperate condition that King Saul was called to begin the struggle for freedom and national unity in Israel. The victories at Michmash and Elah and the hotly contested but unsuccessful and fatal struggle at Gilboa evince the growth of the martial spirit and advance alike in discipline and in strategy. After the relief of Jabesh-gilead, instead of disbanding the whole of his levies, Saul retained 3,000 men under arms, and this in all probability became the nucleus of the standing army of Israel (1 Sam 13:2). From this time onward "when Saul saw any mighty man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1 Sam 14:52). Of the valiant men whom Saul kept round his person, the most notable were Jonathan and David. Jonathan had command of one division of 1,000 men at Gibeah (1 Sam 13:2), and David was captain of the king's bodyguard (1 Sam 18:5; compare 18:13). When David fell under Saul's jealousy and betook himself to an outlaw life in the mountain fastnesses of Judah, he gathered round him in the cave of Adullam 400 men (1 Sam 22:1,2) who were ere long increased to 600 (1 Sam 23:1,3). From the story of Nabal (1 Sam 25) we learn how a band like that of David could be maintained in service, and we gather that landholders who benefited by the presence of an armed force were expected to provide the necessary supplies. On David's accession to the throne this band of warriors remained attached to his person and became the backbone of his army. We can identify them with the gibborim--the mighty men of whom Benaiah at a later time became captain (2 Sam 23:22,23; 1 Ki 1:8) and who are also known by the name of Cherethites and Pelethites (2 Sam 8:18). These may have received their name from their foreign origin, the former, in Hebrew kerethi being originally from Crete but akin to the Philistines; and the latter, in Hebrew pelethi being Philistines by birth. That there were foreign soldiers in David's service we know from the examples of Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath. David's gibborim have been compared to the Praetorian Cohort of the Roman emperors, the Janissaries of the sultans, and the Swiss Guards of the French kings. Of David's army Joab was the commander-in-chief, and to the military' genius of this rough and unscrupulous warrior, the king's near kinsman, the dynasty of David was deeply indebted.
5. From the Time of Solomon Onward:
In the reign of Solomon, although peace was its prevailing characteristic, there can have been no diminution of the armed forces of the kingdom, for we read of military expeditions against Edom and Syria and Hamath, and also of fortresses built in every part of the land, which would require troops to garrison them. Hazor, the old Canaanite capital, at the foot of Lebanon; Megiddo commanding the rich plain of Jezreel; Gezer overlooking the Philistine plain; the Bethhorons (Upper and Nether); and Tadmor in the wilderness; not to speak of Jerusalem with Millo and the fortified wall, were fortresses requiring strong garrisons (1 Ki 9:15). It is probable that "the levy," which was such a burden upon the people at large, included forced military service as well as forced labor, and helped to create the dissatisfaction which culminated in the revolt of Jeroboam, and eventually in the disruption of the kingdom. Although David had reserved from the spoils of war in his victorious campaign against Hadadezer, king of Zobah, horses for 100 chariots (2 Sam 8:4), cavalry and chariots were not an effective branch of the service in his reign. Solomon, however, disregarding the scruples of the stricter Israelites, and the ordinances of the ancient law (Dt 17:16), added horses and chariots on a large scale to the military equipment of the nation (1 Ki 10:26-29). It is believed that it was from Musri, a country of northern Syria occupied by the Hittites, and Kue in Cilicia, that Solomon obtained horses for his cavalry and chariotry (1 Ki 10:29; 2 Ch 1:16, where the best text gives Mutsri, and not the Hebrew word for Egypt). This branch of the service was not only looked upon with distrust by the stricter Israelites, but was expressly denounced in later times by the prophets (Isa 2:7; Hos 1:7; Mic 5:10). In the prophets, too, more than in the historical books, we are made acquainted with the cavalry and chariotry of Assyria and Babylon which in the days of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar had become so formidable. Their lancers and mounted archers, together with their chariots, gave them a sure ascendancy in the field of war (Nah 3:2,3; Hab 1:8; Jer 46:4). In comparison with these, the cavalry of the kings of Israel and Judah was insignificant, and to this Rabshakeh contemptuously referred (2 Ki 18:23) when he promised to the chiefs of Judah from the king of Assyria 2,000 horses if Hezekiah could put riders upon them.
6. Organization of the Hebrew Army:
As we have seen, every male in Israel at the age of twenty, according to the ancient law, became liable for military service (Nu 1:3; 26:2; 2 Ch 25:5), just as at a later time every male of that age became liable for the half-shekel of Temple dues. Josephus is our authority for believing that no one was called upon to serve after the age of fifty (Ant., III, xii, 4). From military service the Levites were exempt (Nu 2:33). In Deuteronomic law exemption was allowed to persons betrothed but not married, to persons who had built a house but had not dedicated it, or who had planted a vineyard but had not eaten of the fruit of it, and to persons faint-hearted and fearful whose timidity might spread throughout the ranks (Dt 20:1-9). These exemptions no doubt reach back to a high antiquity and in the Maccabean period they still held good (1 Macc 3:56). The army was divided into bodies of 1,000, 100, 50, and in Maccabean times, 10, each under its own captain (Sar) (Nu 31:14; 1 Sam 8:12; 2 Ki 1:9; 2 Ch 25:5; 1 Macc 3:55). In the army of Uzziah we read of "heads of fathers' houses," mighty men of valor who numbered 2,600 and had under their hand a trained army of 307,500 men (2 Ch 26:12,13), where, however, the figures have an appearance of exaggeration.
Over the whole host of Israel, according to the fundamental principle of theocracy, was Yahweh Himself, the Supreme Leader of her armies (1 Sam 8:7 ff); it was "the Captain of the Lord's host," to whom Joshua and all serving under him owned allegiance, that appeared before the walls of Jericho to help the gallant leader in his enterprise. In the times of the Judges the chiefs themselves, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, led their forces in person to battle. Under the monarchy the captain of the host was an office distinct from that of the king, and we have Joab, Abner, Benaiah, named as commanders-in-chief. An armor-bearer attended the captain of the host as well as the king (1 Sam 14:6; 31:4,5; 2 Sam 23:37). Mention is made of officers who had to do the numbering of the people, the copher, scribe, attached to the captain of the host (2 Ki 25:19; compare 2 Sam 24:2; 1 Macc 5:42), and the shoTer, muster-master, who kept the register of those who were in military service and knew the men who had received authorized leave of absence (Dt 20:5, Driver's note).
Before the army set forth, religious services were held (Joel 3:9), and sacrifices were offered at the opening of a campaign to consecrate the war (Mic 3:5; Jer 6:4; 22:7). Recourse was had in earlier times to the oracle (Jdg 1:1; 20:27; 1 Sam 14:37; 23:2; 28:6; 30:8), in later times to a prophet (1 Ki 22:5 ff; 2 Ki 3:13; 19:2; Jer 38:14). Cases are mentioned in which the Ark accompanied the army to the field (1 Sam 4:4; 14:18), and before the engagement sacrifices also were offered (1 Sam 7:9; 13:9), ordinarily necessitating the presence of a priest (Dt 20:2). Councils of war were held to settle questions of policy in the course of siege or a campaign (Jer 38:7; 39:3). The signal for the charge or retreat was given by sound of a trumpet (Nu 10:9; 2 Sam 2:28; 18:16; 1 Macc 16:8). The order of battle was simple, the heavy-armed spearmen forming the van, slingers and archers bringing up the rear, supported by horses and chariots, which moved to the front as need required (1 Sam 31:3; 1 Ki 22:31; 2 Ch 14:9). Strategy was called into play according to the disposition of the opposing forces or the nature of the ground (Josh 8:3; 11:7; Jdg 7:16; 1 Sam 15:5; 2 Sam 5:23; 2 Ki 3:11 ff).
Although David had in his service foreign soldiers like Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath, and although later kings hired aliens for their campaigns, it was not till the Maccabean struggle for independence that mercenaries came to be largely employed in the Jewish army. Mercenaries are spoken of in the prophets as a source of weakness to the nation that employs them (to Egypt, Jer 46:16,21; to Babylon, Jer 50:16). From the Maccabean time onward the princes of the Hasmonean family employed them, sometimes to hold the troublesome Jews in check, and sometimes to support the arms of Rome. Herod the Great had in his army mercenaries of various nations. When Jewish soldiers, however, took service with Rome, they were prohibited by their law from performing duty on the Sabbath. Early in the Maccabean fight for freedom, a band of Hasideans or Jewish Puritans, allowed themselves to be cut down to the last man rather than take up the sword on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:34 ff). Cases are even on record where their Gentileadversaries took advantage of their scruples to inflict upon them loss and defeat (Ant., XIII, xii, 4; XIV, iv, 2).
Before the army had become a profession in Israel, and while the levies were still volunteers like the sons of Jesse, the soldiers not only received no pay, but had to provide their own supplies, or depend upon rich landholders like Nabal and Barzillai (1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 19:31). In that period and still later, the chief reward of the soldier was his share of the booty gotten in war (Jdg 5:30 f; 1 Sam 30:22 ff). By the Maccabean period we learn that an army like that of Simon, consisting of professional soldiers, could only be maintained at great expense (1 Macc 14:32).
Although the first soldiers that we read of in the New Testament were Jewish and not Roman (Lk 3:14; Mk 6:27), and although we read that Herod with his "men of war" joined in mocking Jesus (Lk 23:11), it is for the most part the Roman army that comes before us. The Roman legion, consisting roughly of 6,000 men, was familiar to the Jewish people, and the word had become a term to express a large number (Mt 26:53; Mk 5:9). Centurions figure most honorably alike in the Gospels and the Acts (kenturion, Mk 15:39; hekatontarches, hekatontarchos, Mt 8:5; Lk 23:47; Acts 10:1; 22:25,27). "The Pretorium" is the residence of the Roman procurator at Jerusalem, and in Caesarea (Mt 27:27; Acts 23:35), or the praetorian guard at Rome (Phil 1:13). The Augustan band and the Italian band (Acts 10:1; Acts 27:1) are cohorts of Roman soldiers engaged on military duty at Caesarea. In Jerusalem there was one cohort stationed in the time of Paul under the command of a chiliarchos, or military tribune (Acts 22:24). It was out of this regiment that the dexiolaboi (Acts 23:23) were selected, who formed a guard for Paul to Caesarea, spearmen, or rather javelin-throwers.
Figurative: Among the military metaphors employed by Paul, who spent so much of his time in the later years of his life among Roman soldiers, some are taken from the weapons of the Roman soldier (see ARMS ), and some also from the discipline and the marching and fighting of an army. Thus, "campaigning" is referred to (2 Tim 2:3,4; 2 Cor 10:3-6); the "order and solid formation of soldiers" drawn up in battle array or on the march (Col 2:5); the "triumphal procession" to the capitol with its train of captives and the smoke of incense (2 Cor 2:14-16); and "the sounding of the trumpet," when the faithful Christian warriors shall take their place every man in his own order or "division" of the resurrection army of the Lord of Hosts (1 Cor 15:52,53). (See Dean Howson, Metaphors of Paul--"Roman Soldiers.")
The armies which are in heaven (Rev 19:14,19) are the angelic hosts who were at the service of their Incarnate Lord in the days of His flesh and in His exaltation follow Him upon white horses clothed in fine linen white and pure (see Swete's note).
T. Nicol.
ar'-mi, ro'-man; The treatment of this subject will be confined to (I) a brief description of the organization of the army, and (II) a consideration of the allusions to the Roman military establishment in the New Testament.
There were originally no standing forces, but the citizens performed military service like any other civic duty when summoned by the magistrates. The gradual development of a military profession and standing army culminated in the admission of the poorest class to the ranks by Marius (about 107 BC). Henceforth the Roman army was made up of a body of men whose character was essentially that of mercenaries, and whose term of continuous service varied in different divisions from 16 to 26 years.
The forces which composed the Roman army under the Empire may be divided into the following five groups: (1) the imperial guard and garrison of the capital, (2) the legions, (3) the auxilia, (4) the numeri, (5) the fleet. We shall discuss their organization in the order mentioned.
The imperial guard consisted of the cohortes praetoriae, which together with the cohortes urbanae and vigiles made up the garrison of Rome. In the military system as established by Augustus there were nine cohorts of the praetorian guard, three of the urban troops, and seven of the vigiles. Each cohort numbered 1,000 men, and was commanded by a tribune of equestrian rank. The praetorian prefects (praefecti praetorii), of whom there were usually two, were commanders of the entire garrison of the capital, and stood at the highest point of distinction and authority in the equestrian career.
There were 25 legions in 23 AD (Tacitus Annals 4, 5), which had been increased to 30 at the time of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 160-180 AD (CIL, VI, 3492 a-b) and to 33 under Septimius Severus (Dio Cassius, iv. 23-24). Each legion was made up, ordinarily, of 6,000 men, who were divided into 10 cohorts, each cohort containing 3 maniples, and each maniple in turn 2 centuries.
The legatus Augustus pro praetore, or governor of each imperial province, was chief commander of all the troops within the province. An officer of senatorial rank known as legatus Augusti legionis was entrusted with the command of each legion, together with the bodies of auxilia which were associated with it. Besides, there were six tribuni militum, officers of equestrian rank (usually sons of senators who had not yet held the quaestorship) in each legion. The centurions who commanded the centuries belonged to the plebeian class. Between the rank of common soldier and centurion there were a large number of subalterns, called principales, who correspond roughly to the non-commissioned officers and men detailed from the ranks for special duties in modern armies.
The auxilia were organized as infantry in cohortes, as cavalry in alae, or as mixed bodies, cohortes equitatae. Some of these divisions contained approximately 1,000 men (cohortes or alae miliariae), but the greater number about 500 (cohortes or alae quingenariae). They were commanded by tribuni and praefecti of equestrian rank. The importance of the auxilia consisted originally in the diversity of their equipment and manner of fighting, since each group adhered to the customs of the nation in whose midst it had been recruited. But with the gradual Romanization of the Empire they were assimilated more and more to the character of the legionaries.
The numeri developed out of the provincial militia and began to appear in the 2nd century AD. They maintained their local manner of warfare. Some were bodies of infantry, others of cavalry, and they varied in strength from 300 to 90 (Mommsen, Hermes, XIX, 219 f, and XXII, 547 f). Their commanders were praepositi, praefecti or tribuni, all men of equestrian rank.
The fleet was under the command of prefects (praefecti classis), who took rank among the highest officials of the equestrian class. The principal naval stations were at Misenum and Ravenna.
Augustus established the northern boundary of the Empire at the Rhine and at the Danube, throughout the greater part of its course, and bequeathed to his successors the advice that they should not extend their sovereignty beyond the limits which he had set (Tacitus Annals i.11; Agricola 13); and although this policy was departed from in many instances, such as the annexation of Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, Britain, and Dacia, not to mention the more ephemeral acquisitions of Trajan, yet the military system of the Empire was arranged primarily with the view of providing for the defense of the provinces and not for carrying on aggressive warfare on a large scale. Nearly all the forces, with the exception of the imperial guard, were distributed among the provinces on the border of the Empire, and the essential feature of the disposition of the troops in these provinces was the permanent fortress in which each unit was stationed. The combination of large camps for the legions with a series of smaller forts for the alae, cohorts, and numeri is the characteristic arrangement on all the frontiers. The immediate protection of the frontier was regularly entrusted to the auxiliary troops, while the legions were usually stationed some distance to the rear of the actual boundary. Thus the army as a whole was so scattered that it was a difficult undertaking to assemble sufficient forces for carrying out any considerable project of foreign conquest, or even to cope at once with a serious invasion, yet the system was generally satisfactory in view of the conditions which prevailed, and secured for the millions of subjects of the Roman Empire the longest period of undisturbed tranquillity known to European history.
In accordance with the arrangements of Augustus, the cohortes praetoriae and cohortes urbanae were recruited from Latium, Etruria, Umbria, and the older Roman colonies (Tacitus Annals 4, 5), the legions from the remaining portions of Italy, and the auxilia from the subject communities of the Empire (Seeck, Rheinisches Museum, XLVIII, 616).
But in course of time the natives of Italy disappeared, first from the legions, and later from the garrison of the capital. Antoninus Plus established the rule that each body of troops should draw its recruits from the district where it was stationed. Henceforth the previous possession of Roman citizenship was no longer required for enlistment in the legions. The legionary was granted the privilege of citizenship upon entering the service, the auxiliary soldier upon being discharged (Seeck, Untergang der antiken Welt, I, 250).
II. Allusions in the New Testament to the Roman Military Establishment.
Such references relate chiefly to the bodies of troops which were stationed in Judea. Agrippa I left a military establishment of one ala and five cohorts at his death in 44 AD (Josephus, Ant, XIX, ix, 2; BJ, III, iv, 2), which he had doubtless received from the earlier Roman administration. These divisions were composed of local recruits, chiefly Samaritans (Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamte, 395; Mommsen, Hermes, XIX, 217, note 1).
The Ala I gemina Sebastenorum was stationed at Caesarea (Josephus, Ant, XX, 122; BJ, II, xii, 5; CIL, VIII, 9359).
Julius, the centurion to whom Paul and other prisoners were delivered to be escorted to Rome (Acts 27:1), belonged to one of the five cohorts which was stationed at or near Caesarea. This Speira Sebaste (Westcott-Hort), "Augustus' Band" (the Revised Version (British and American) "Augustan band"; the Revised Version, margin "cohort"), was probably the same body of troops which is mentioned in inscriptions as Cohors I Augusta (CIL, Supp, 6687) and Speira Augouste (Lebas-Waddington 2112). Its official title may have been Cohors Augusta Sebastenorum (GVN). It will be observed that all divisions of the Roman army were divided into companies of about 100 men, each of which, in the infantry, was commanded by a centurion, in the cavalry, by a decurion.
There was another cohort in Caesarea, the "Italian band" (Cohors Italica, Vulgate) of which Cornelius was centurion (Acts 10:1: ek speires tes kaloumenes Italikes). The cohortes Italicae (civium Romanorum) were made up of Roman citizens (Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, II, 467).
One of the five cohorts was stationed in Jerusalem (Mt 27:27; Mk 15:16), the "chief captain" of which was Claudius Lysias. His title, chiliarchos in the Greek (Acts 23:10,15,17,19,22,26; 24:7 the King James Version), meaning "leader of a thousand men" (tribunus, Vulgate), indicates that this body of soldiers was a cohors miliaria. Claudius Lysias sent Paul to Felix at Caesarea under escort of 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen (Acts 23:23). The latter (dexiolaboi, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek) are thought to have been a party of provincial militia. Several centurions of the cohort at Jerusalem appear during the riot and subsequent rescue and arrest of Paul (Acts 21:32; 22:25,26; 23:17,23). The cohortes miliariae (of 1,000 men) contained ten centurions. A centurion, doubtless of the same cohort, was in charge of the execution of the Saviour (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39,44,45; Lk 23:47). It was customary for centurions to be entrusted with the execution of capital penalties (Tacitus Ann. i.6; xvi.9; xvi.15; Hist. ii.85).
The the King James Version contains the passage in Acts 28:16: "The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard" (stratopedarches), which the Revised Version (British and American) omits. It has commonly been held that the expression stratopedarches was equivalent to praetorian prefect (praefectus praetorius), and that the employment of the word in the singular was proof that Paul arrived in Rome within the period 51-62 AD when Sex. Afranius Burrus was sole praetorian prefect. Mommsen (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie (1895), 491-503) believes that the sentence in question embodies an ancient tradition, but that the term stratopedarches could not mean praefectus praetorius, which is never rendered in this way in Greek. He suggests that it stands for princeps castrorum peregrinorum, who was a centurion in command of the frumentarii at Rome. These were detachments of legionary soldiers who took rank as principales. They served as military couriers between the capital and provinces, political spies, and an imperial police. It was probably customary, at least when the tradition under discussion arose, for the frumentarii to take charge of persons who were sent to Rome for trial (Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, II, 491-94).
LITERATURE.
Comprehensive discussions of the Roman military system will be found in Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, II, 319-612, and in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie, article "Exercitus."
George H. Allen
ar'-na (Latin Arna): One of the ancestors of Ezra given in 2 Esdras 1:2, evidently identical with Zerahiah of Ezr 7:4 and Zaraias of 1 Esdras 8:2.
ar'-nan (`arnan, "joyous"): A descendant of David and founder of a family (1 Ch 3:21). The Septuagint has Orna.
ar'-ni (Arnei, found only in Lk 3:33 the Revised Version (British and American), following Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek): The name of an ancestor of Jesus Christ. But in the King James Version, following Textus Receptus of the New Testament, and in the genealogical list of Mt 13:4 the same person is called Aram (Greek: Aram) in both the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin. In Mt the Revised Version (British and American), however, the form is Ram, which is nearest to the Old Testament name Ram (ram, "high"). Ram was great-grandson of Judah and ancestor of David (Ruth 4:19; 1 Ch 2:9,10).
ar'-non ('arnon; Arnon): Is first mentioned in Nu 21:24 as the border between Moab and the Amorites. "The valleys of Arnon" in the next verse undoubtedly indicate the numerous wadies contributary to the main stream. It formed the southern boundary of the land assigned to Reuben (Dt 3:12). The city of Aroer stood on the northern edge of the valley (Dt 2:36; Jdg 12:2, etc.). Arnon was claimed by the Ammonites as having marked the southern limit of their territory when Israel invaded the land (Jdg 11:13). They, however, had already been driven out by the Amorites, and the region north of Arnon was held by Sihon. From the inscription of Mesha on the Moabite Stone we gather that Moab had established herself on the north of the Arnon before the time of Omri. Under Omri and Ahab she was confined to the south of the river. A rebellion under Mesha was put down by Jehoram son of Ahab (2 Ki 3), and the expedition of Hazael against Israel reached the valley of the Arnon (2 Ki 10:33). But according to Mesha he regained for Moab the lost land; and this agrees with Isa 15; 16, where cities north of Arnon are located in Moab, e.g. Heshbon.
The modern name of Arnon is Wady el-Mojib, which enters the Dead Sea from the East about 11 miles North of el-Lisan. Some 13 miles East of the Dead Sea two streams, Seil es-Sa`ideh from the South, and Wady Enkeileh from the East, unite their waters and flow westward in the bottom of an enormous trench. The waters of Wady Welch come in from the Northeast. A wide stretch of country thus drains into the valley by means of a great network of smaller wadies--the "valleys of Arnon." The "fords of the Arnon" (Isa 16:2) were doubtless crossed by Mesha's highway which he claims to have built in Arnon; and may be marked by the traces of the old Roman road and bridge immediately to the West of where, on the northern edge of the Wady, stands `Ara`ir, the ancient Aroer.
W. Ewing
a'-rod, ar'-od ('arodh): The sixth son of Gad (Nu 26:17). His descendants are called Arodi or Arodites (Gen 46:16; Nu 26:17).
ar'-o-di.
See AROD .
a'-rod-its.
See AROD .
a-ro'-er (`aro'er; Aroer):
(1) A city of the Amorites which stood on the northern edge of the Arnon (Dt 2:36, etc.). Taken by Israel, it shared the vicissitudes of the country north of the river, and when last named (Jer 48:19) is again in the hands of Moab. It is one of the cities which Mesha claims to have built, i.e. fortified. It was within the territory allotted to Reuben, yet its building (fortification) is attributed to Gad (Nu 32:34). Thus far came the Syrian, Hazael, in his raid upon Israel (2 Ki 10:33). The Roman road across the valley lay about an hour to the West of Khirbet `Ara`ir.
(2) A city in Gilead described as "before Rabbah," on the boundary between Gad and the Ammonites (Josh 13:25). No name resembling this has yet been recovered in the district indicated.
(3) A city in the territory of Judah named only in 1 Sam 30:28. Probably however in Josh 15:22 we should read `ar`arah instead of `adh`adhah, which may be the same city, and may be identical with `Ar`ara, a site with cisterns and some remains of ancient buildings about 14 miles Southeast of Beersheba.
W. Ewing
a-ro'-er-it (ha-`aro`eri): A native of Aroer. The Aroerite was Hotham, father of two of David's heroes (1 Ch 11:44).
a'-rom (Arom): The sons of Arom returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:16). Omitted in Ezra and Nehemiah. Hashum is found in place of Arom in Ezr 2:19.
ar-pak'-shad.
See ARPHAXAD .
ar'-pad; ar'-fad ('arpadh, "support"): A city of Syria, captured frequently by the Assyrians, and finally subjugated by Tiglath-pileser III in 740 BC, after a siege of two years. It is now the ruin Tell Erfad, 13 miles Northwest of Aleppo. Arpad is one of the conquered cities mentioned by Rabshakeh, the officer of Sennacherib, in his boast before Jerusalem (2 Ki 18:34; 19:13; Isa 36:19; 37:13; the King James Version Arphad). Isaiah puts a boast about its capture in the mouth of the Assyrian king (Isa 10:9), and Jeremiah mentions it as "confounded" because of evil tidings, in the oracle concerning Damascus (Jer 49:23). On every occasion Arpad is mentioned with Hamath.
S. F. Hunter
ar-fak'-sad: (1) the King James Version form (Gen 10:22,24; 11:12,13; 1 Ch 1:17) of the Revised Version (British and American) ARPACHSHAD, which see. See also TABLE OF NATIONS . (2) In Apocrypha (Judith 1) a king of the Medes, who reigned in Ecbatana. He was defeated and slain by Nebuchadrezzar.
a-ra' ((1) labhesh, `aTah; periballo, enduomai, himatismos. (2) `arakh, shith): "Array," composed of prefix "ar-" and "rai," "order," is used in two senses, (1) in reference to clothing and (2) in reference to the disposition of an army.
(1) (a) Labhesh is the most common Hebrew word meaning "to clothe," and is used in all cases but one in the Old Testament for "array" (compare Gen 41:42: Pharaoh "arrayed him (Joseph) in vestures of fine linen"; see also 2 Ch 28:15; Est 6:9,11; Job 40:10; 2 Ch 5:12). (b) `ATah, meaning "to veil," "to cover," is once used. Nebuchadrezzar "shall array himself with the land of Egypt" (Jer 43:12). (c) Periballo, "to throw around," is used 6 times in the New Testament. It is the word used of Herod's "arraying" Jesus "in gorgeous apparel" (Lk 23:11; the other references are Mt 6:29; Lk 12:27; Rev 7:13; 17:4; 19:8). (d) Enduomai, middle or passive of enduo, "to enter," means, therefore, "to be entered into" clothing. Once it is used in reference to Herod (Acts 12:21). (e) Himatismos, "clothing," is translated once "array" = raiment (from same root). This is the only occurrence of "array" in this sense (1 Tim 2:9).
(2) (a) `Arakh is the common word in the Old Testament, used in reference to the disposition of an army, and is translated "to put in array," "to set in array," the object being "the battle" or the army. The root meaning is that of orderly arrangement, and the verb is used in other senses than the military, e.g. arranging the table of shewbread. In 1 Ch 12:33 the Revised Version (British and American) has "order the battle array" for the King James Version "keep rank," translation of Hebrew `adhar. (b) Shith, "to set, to place," used once for battle array: "and the horsemen set themselves in array at the gate" (Isa 22:7).
S. F. Hunter
a-rest', see JESUS CHRIST ,THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF .
a-riv': Originally a nautical term (Latin: ad ripam) for reaching shore, is used in the literal sense in Lk 8:26, and, in the figurative sense for Greek phthano, instead of "attain to," the Revised Version (British and American) in Rom 9:31.
ar'-o-gan-si: Excessive pride, leading to boastfulness and insolence (1 Sam 2:3; Prov 8:13; Isa 13:11; Jer 48:29).
ar'-o.
See AUGURY ,IV , 1.
ar'-o-snak: In Isa 34:15 the Hebrew word kippoz, which in the King James Version is rendered "great owl," is in the English Revised Version rendered "arrowsnake," and in the American Standard Revised Version "dart-snake." Gesenius, who translates "arrowsnake," says "so called from the spring with which it propels itself." Others, from the mention of "make her nest, lay, and hatch," think some kind of bird is meant.
ar-sa'-sez ar'-sa-sez (Arsakes): The common name assumed by all the Parthian kings, is mentioned in 1 Macc 14:1-3, and in 15:22 in connection with the history of Demetrius, one of the Greek, or Seleucid, kings of Syria, and successor to Antiochus Epiphanes, the oppressor of the Jews, who caused the uprising against the Syrian domination under the leadership of the Maccabees. This particular Arsaces was the sixth of the line of independent Parthian rulers which had been founded in 250 BC by Arsaces I, who revolted from Antiochus Theos, killed the Syrian satraps, and with his successor Tiridates I firmly established the independence of the Parthian kingdom. About 243 BC, Tiridates added Hyrcania to his dominions; but it was not till the reign of Arsaces VI, whose pre-regnal name was Mithridates, that Parthia through the conquest of Bactria, Media, Persia, Armenia, Elymais and Babylonia, threatened the very existence of the kingdom of the Seleucids and became a dangerous competitor of Rome itself. It was this king who about 141 BC was attacked by Demetrius Nicator, king of Syria. According to the account preserved in 1 Macc 14:1-3, Arsaces sent one of his captains, who went and smote the host of Demetrius, and took him alive, and brought him to Arsaces, by whom he was put in ward. At first, the captive king was treated with great severity, being carried in triumph from city to city and exhibited to his enemies. Later, however, Arsaces gave him his daughter in marriage and assigned him a residence in Hyrcania. Some time after the death of Arsaces, Demetrius was sent back to Syria by Phraates, the son of Mithridates, and reigned from 128 to 125 BC. Arsaces VI is mentioned, also, in 1 Macc 15:22, as one of the kings whom the Romans forbade to make war on their Jewish allies.
LITERATURE.
See 1 Macc 14:1-3, and 15:22; Ant,XIII , v, 11;XIV , viii, 5; Appian, Syria, 67; Strabo,XI , 515;XV , 702; Justin,XLI , 5, 6;XXXVI , 1; Orosius, V, 4; Rawlinson's Parthia, in the Story of the Nations series and Die Herrschaft der Parther in Justi's Geschichte des alten Persiens in Oncken's Allgemeine Geschichte, I, 4.
R. Dick Wilson
ar'-sa-reth.
See ARZARETH .
ar-si-fu'-rith (Arsiphourith; the King James Version Azephurith): 112 of the sons of Arsiphurith returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:16). The name is omitted in Ezra and Nehemiah, but the number corresponds to those mentioned with Jorah (Ezr 2:18) and Hariph (Neh 7:24).
ar-taks-urk'-sez (Artaxerxes): Is the Greek and Latin form of one, and perhaps of two or three kings of Persia mentioned in the Old Testament.
(1) All are agreed that the Artaxerxes at whose court Ezra and Nehemiah were officials is Artaxerxes I, the son of Xerxes, commonly called Longimanus, who reigned from 465 to 424 BC. This Artaxerxes was the third son of Xerxes and was raised to the throne by Artabanus, the murderer of Xerxes. Shortly after his accession, Artaxerxes put his older brother Darius to death; and a little later, Artabanus, who perhaps aimed to make himself king, was killed. Hystaspes, the second brother, who seems to have been satrap of Bactria at the time of his father's death, rebelled, and after two battles was deprived of his power and probably of his life. The reign of Artaxerxes was further disturbed by the revolt of Egypt in 460 BC, and by that of Syria about 448 BC. The Egyptians were assisted by the Athenians, and their rebellion, led by Inarus and Amyrtaeus, was suppressed only after five years of strenuous exertions on the part of the Persians under the command of the great general Megabyzus. After the re-conquest of Egypt, Artaxerxes, fearing that the Athenians would make a permanent subjugation of Cyprus, concluded with them the peace of Callias, by which he retained the island of Cyprus; but agreed to grant freedom to all Greek cities of Asia Minor. Shortly after this Megabyzus led a revolt in Syria and compelled his sovereign to make peace with him on his own terms, and afterward lived and died in high favor with his humiliated king. Zopyrus, the son of Megabyzus at a later time, while satrap of Lycia and Caria, led a rebellion in which he was assisted by the Greeks. It is thought by some that the destruction of Jerusalem which is lamented by Nehemiah occurred during the rebellion of Syria under Megabyzus. Artaxerxes I died in 424 BC, and was succeeded by his son Xerxes II, and later by two other sons, Sogdianus and Ochus, the last of whom assumed the regnal name of Darius, whom the Greeks surnamed Nothus.
(2) Ewald and others have thought that the Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7 was the pseudo-Smerdis. The principal objection against this view is that we have no evidence that either the pseudo-Smerdis, or the real Smerdis, was ever called Artaxerxes. The real Smerdis is said to have been called Tanyoxares, or according to others Oropastes. Ewald would change the latter to Ortosastes, which closely resembles Artaxerxes, and it must be admitted that many of the Persian kings had two or more names. It seems more probable, however, that Artaxerxes I is the king referred to; and there is little doubt that the identification of the Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7 with the pseudo-Smerdis would never have been thought of had it not been for the difficulty of explaining the reference to him in this place.
(3) The Greek translation of the Septuagint renders the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther by Artaxerxes, and is followed in this rendering by Josephus. There is no doubt that by this Artaxerxes Josephus meant the first of that name; for in the Antiquities, XI, vi, 1 he says that "after the death of Xerxes, the kingdom came to be transferred to his son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes." He then proceeds to show how he married a Jewish wife, who was herself of the royal family and who is related to have saved the nation of the Jews. In a long chapter, he then gives his account of the story of Vashti, Esther and Mordecai. In spite of this rendering of the Septuagint and Josephus, there is no doubt that the Hebrew achashwerosh is the same as the Greek Xerxes; and there is no evidence that Artaxerxes I was ever called Xerxes by any of his contemporaries. The reason of the confusion of the names by the Septuagint and Josephus will probably remain forever a mystery.
R. Dick Wilson
ar'-te-mas (Artemas): One of the seventy disciples and bishop of Lystra, according to Dorotheus (Bibl. Maxima (Lugd. 1677), III, 429). He is mentioned in Titus 3:12 as one of the faithful companions of Paul. The name is probably Greek, a masculine form of Artemis, or, as has been suggested, a short form of Artemidorus, a common name in Asia Minor. These contracted forms were by no means rare in the Greek world. The Athenian orator, Lysias, was doubtless named after his grandfather, Lysanias, and at first may even have been called Lysanias himself.
ar'-te-mis.
See DIANA .
ar-tif'-i-ser.
See CRAFTS .
ar-til'-er-i (keli): In 1 Sam 20:40 (the King James Version) of Jonathan's bow and arrows, replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by WEAPONS; and in 1 Macc 6:51 (the King James Version) where the Greek words are translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "instruments for casting fire and stones."
ar'-ti-zan.
See CRAFTS .
See CRAFTS .
a-rub'-oth, ar'-u-both (ha-'arubboth; the King James Version Aruboth): One of the 12 districts from which victuals for Solomon's household were obtained (1 Ki 4:10). With Arubboth are mentioned "Socoh, and all the land of Hepher," and as Socoh lay in the Shephelah (Josh 15:35), Arubboth probably lay in the southern part of the Shephelah.
a-roo'-ma (arumah, "lofty"): The town in which Abimelech, the son of Jerubbaal (Gideon), dwelt when driven from Shechem (Jdg 9:41). The ruins El-Ormeh, 6 miles Southeast of Shechem, may be on the site, though its position is not known with certainty.
ar'-vad, ar'-vad-its ('arwadh; Arados; modern Ruad): An island city off the coast of Syria some 30 miles North of Tripolis, and the race inhabiting it. It was a barren rock covered with fortifications and houses several stories in height. The island was about 800 ft. long by 500 wide, surrounded by a massive wall, and an artificial harbor was constructed on the East toward the main land. It developed into a trading city in early times, as did most of the Phoenician cities on this coast. It had a powerful navy, and its ships are mentioned in the monuments of Egypt and Assyria. It seems to have had a sort of hegemony over the northern Phoenician cities, from Mt. Cassius to the northern limits of Lebanon, something like that of Sidon in the South. It had its own local dynasty and coinage, and some of the names of its kings have been recovered. Its inhabitants are mentioned in the early lists of Gen (10:18), and Ezek (27:8,11) refers to its seamen and soldiers in the service of Tyre. It brought under its authority some of the neighboring cities on the main land, such as Marathus and Simyra, the former nearly opposite the island and the latter some miles to the South. Thothmes III, of Egypt, took it in his campaign in north Syria (1472 BC) and it is noticed in the campaigns of Rameses II in the early part of the 13th century BC (Breasted, Ancient Records). It is also mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Lettersas being in league with the Amorites in their attacks upon the Egyptian possessions in Syria (44 and 28, B.M. Tell el-Amarna Letters). About the year 1200, or later, it was sacked by invaders from Asia Minor or the islands, as were most of the cities on the coast (Paton, Syria and Palestine, 145) but it recovered when they were driven back. Its maritime importance is indicated by the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings. Tiglath-pileser I (circa 1020) boasts that he sailed in the ships of Arvad. Asshur-nazir-pal (circa 876) made it tributary, but it revolted and we find 200 men of Arvad mentioned among the allies of Benhadad, of Damascus, at the great battle of Quarqar, when all Syria seems to have been in league against Shalmaneser II (circa 854). At this time the king of Arvad was Mattan Baal. It was afterward tributary to Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib, the king who paid it to the latter being Abd-ilihit (circa 701). Ashurbanipal (circa 664) compelled its king Yakinlu to submit and send one of his daughters to become a member of the royal harem (Rawlinson, Phoenicia, 456-57). Under the Persians Arvad was allowed to unite in a confederation with Sidon and Tyre, with a common council at Tripolis(ib 484). When Alexander the Great invaded Syria in 332 BC Arvad submitted without a struggle under her king Strato, who sent his navy to aid Alexander in the reduction of Tyre. It seems to have received the favor of the Seleucid kings of Syria and enjoyed the right of asylum for political refugees. It is mentioned in a rescript from Rome about 138 BC, in connection with other cities and rulers of the East, to show favor to the Jews. It was after Rome had begun to interfere in the affairs of Judea and Syria, and indicates that Arvad was of considerable importance at that time (see 1 Macc 15:16-23). The town is not mentioned in the New Testament, and in modern times has sunk to a small village, chiefly inhabited by fishermen.
See ARADUS .
H. Porter
ar'-za ('artsa'): A steward of King Elah, in whose house at Tirzah Zimri murdered the king at a drinking debauch. The text is not quite clear, and Arza might have been a servant of Zimri (1 Ki 16:9).
ar'-za-reth, ar'-sareth (the King James Version, Arsareth): This is the land to which the ten tribes were deported (2 Esdras 13:45). It is described as "another land" lying a year and a half's journey beyond the river, i.e. the Euphrates. It probably answers to the Hebrew 'erets 'achereth (Dt 29:28). In Josephus' time the people were still believed to be there in countless numbers (Ant., XI, v, 2).