dreading a blood-feud with Joab, for whom he seems to have entertained a sincere respect, entreated Asahel to desist from the pursuit: but finding that he was still followed, and that his life was in danger, he at length ran his pursuer through the body by a back thrust with the pointed heel of his spear (2 Sam. ii. 8-32). This put a strife of blood between the two foremost men in all Israel (after David); for the law of honour which had from times before the law prevailed among the Hebrews, and which still prevails in Arabia, rendered it the conventional duty of Joab to avenge the blood of his brother upon the person by whom he had been slain [BLOOD-REVENGE]. As time went on, Abner had occasion to feel more strongly that he was himself not only the chief, but the only remaining prop of the house of Saul: and this conviction, acting upon a proud and arrogant spirit, led him to more presumptuous conduct than even the mildness of the feeble Ishbosheth could suffer to pass without question. He took to his own harem a woman who had been a concubine-wife of Saul. This act, from the ideas connected with the harem of a deceased king [HAREM], was not only a great impropriety, but was open to the suspicion of a political design, which Abner may very possibly have entertained. A mild rebuke from the nominal king, however, enraged him greatly; and he plainly declared that he would henceforth abandon his cause and devote himself to the interests of David. To excuse this desertion to his own mind, he then and on other occasions avowed his knowledge that the son of Jesse had been appointed by the Lord to reign over all Israel: but he appears to have been unconscious that this avowal exposed his previous conduct to more censure than it offered excuse for his present. He, however, kept his word with Ishbosheth. After a tour, during which he explained his present views to the elders of the tribes which still adhered to the house of Saul, he repaired to Hebron with authority to make certain overtures to David on their behalf. He was received with great attention and respect; and David even thought it prudent to promise that he should still have the chief command of the armies, when the desired union of the two kingdoms took place. The political expediency of this engagement is very clear, and to that expediency the interests and claims of Joab were sacrificed. That distinguished personage happened to be absent from Hebron on service at the time, but he returned just as Abner had left the city. He speedily understood what had passed; and his dread of the superior influence which such a man as Abner might establish with David, quickened his remembrance of the vengeance which his brother's blood required. His purpose was promptly formed. Unknown to the king, but apparently in his name, he sent a message after Abner to call him back; and as he returned, Joab met him at the gate, and, leading him aside, as if to confer peaceably and privately with him, suddenly thrust his sword into his body (B.c. 1048). The lamentations of David, the public mourning which he ordered, and the funeral honours which were paid to the remains of Abner, the king himself following the bier as chief mourner, exonerated him in public opinion from having been privy to this assassination. As for Joab, his privilege as a blood-avenger must to a great extent have justified his treacherous act in the opinion of the people; and that, together with his influence with the army, screened him from punishment (2 Sam. iii. 6-39). For the following interesting elucidation of David's lament over Abner, we are indebted to a learned and highly valued contributor. [David's short but emphatic lament over Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33) may be rendered, with stricter adherence to the form of the original, as follows: 'Should Abner die as a villain dies? Thy hands-not bound, Thy feet-not brought into fetters: fellest thou!' As to the syntactical structure of these lines, it is important to observe that the second and third lines are two propositions of state belonging to the last, which describe the condition in which he was when he was slain. This kind of proposition is marked by the subject being placed first, and by the verb generally becoming a participle. On the right knowledge of this structure the beauty and sense of many passages altogether depend; and the common ignorance of it is to be ascribed to the circumstance, that the study of Hebrew so very seldom reaches beyond the vocabulary into the deeper-seated peculiarities of its construction. (See Ewald's Hebr. Gram. §556.) As to the sense of the words, J. D. Michaelis (in his Uebersetzung des Alten Test. mit Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte) saw that the point of this indignant, more than sorrowful, lament, lies in the mode in which Abner was slain. Joab professed to kill him for the blood of Asahel his brother,' 2 Sam. iii. 27. But if a man claimed his brother's blood at the hand of his murderer, the latter (even if he fled to the altar for refuge, Exod. xxi. 14) would have been delivered up (bound, hand and foot, it is assumed) to the avenger of blood, who would then possess a legal right to slay him. Now Joab not only had no title to claim the right of the Goel, as Asahel was killed under justifying circumstances (2 Sam. ii. 19); but, while pretending to exercise the avenger's right, he took a lawless and private mode of satisfaction, and committed a murder. Hence David charged him, in allusion to this conduct, with shedding the blood of war in peace' (1 Kings ii. 5); and hence he expresses himself in this lament, as if indignant that the noble Abner, instead of being surrendered with the formalities of the law to meet an authorized penalty, was treacherously stabbed like a worthless fellow by the hands of an assassin.-J. N.] ABNET (DEN). As this word can be traced to no root in the Hebrew language, and as it occurs in the narrative immediately after the departure from Egypt, it is reasonably supposed by Professor Lee to be Egyptian, in opposition however to Hottinger, who refers it to the Persic, and to Gesenius, who finds it in the Sanscrit. It means a band, a bandage; and from the places in which it occurs, it appears to have been made of fine linen variously wrought, and used to bind as a girdle about the body of persons in authority, especially the Jewish priests (Exod. xxix. 9; xxviii. 39; xxxix. 29; Lev. viii. 13; Isa. xxii. 21). These girdles may be considered as fairly represented by those which we observe on such persons in the Egyptian paintings. ABOMINATION (in and p; Sept. and New Test.-e. g. Matt. xxiv. 15-Boéλvyua, for both). These words describe generally any object of detestation or disgust (Lev. xviii. 22; Deut. vii. 25); and are applied to an impure or detestable action (Ezek. xxii. 11; xxx. 26; Mal. ii. 11, &c.); to any thing causing a ceremonial pollution (Gen. xliii. 32; xlvi. 34; Deut. xiv. 3); but more especially to idols (Lev. xviii. 22; xx. 13; Deut. vii. 26; 1 Kings xi. 5, 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 13); and also to food offered to idols (Zech. ix. 7); and to filth of every kind (Nahum iii. 6). There are two or three of the texts in which the word occurs, to which, on account of their peculiar interest or difficulty, especial attention has been drawn. The first is Gen. xliii. 32: The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination (nyn) unto the Egyptians. This is best explained by the fact that the Egyptians considered themselves ceremonially defiled if they ate with any strangers. The primary reason appears to have been that the cow was the most sacred animal among the Egyptians, and the eating of it was abhorrent to them; whereas it was both eaten and sacrificed by the Jews and most other nations, who on that account were abominable in their eyes. It was for this, as we learn from Herodotus (ii. 41), that no Egyptian man or woman would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or would use the cleaver of a Greek, or his spit, or his dish, or would taste the flesh of even clean beef (that is, of oxen) that had been cut with a Grecian carving-knife. It is true that Sir J. G. Wilkinson (Anc. Egyptians, iii. 358) ascribes this to the repugnance of the fastidiously clean Egyptians to the comparatively foul habits of their Asiatic and other neighbours: but it seems scarcely fair to take the facts of the father of history, and ascribe to them any other than the very satisfactory reason which he assigns. We collect then that it was as foreigners, not pointedly as Hebrews, that it was an abomination for the Egyptians to eat with the brethren of Joseph. The Jews themselves subsequently exemplified the same practice; for in later times they held it unlawful to eat or drink with foreigners in their houses, or even to enter their houses. (John xviii. 28; Acts x. 28; xi. 3); for not only were the houses of Gentiles unclean (Mishn. Oholoth. 18, § 7), but they themselves rendered unclean those in whose houses they lodged (Maimon. Mishcab a. Morheb, c. 12, § 12); which was carrying the matter a step further than the Egyptians (see also Mitzvoth Tora, pr. 148). We do not however trace these examples before the Captivity. The second passage is Gen. xlvi. 34. Joseph is telling his brethren how to conduct themselves when introduced to the king of Egypt; and he instructs them that when asked concerning their occupation they should answer: Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers. This last clause has emphasis, as showing that they were hereditary nomade pastors; and the reason is added: "That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen,-for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' In the former instance they were 'an abomination' as strangers, with whom the Egyptians could not eat; here they are a further abomination as nomade shepherds, whom it was certain that the Egyptians, for that reason, would locate in the border land of Goshen, and not in the heart of the country. That it was nomade shepherds, or Bedouins, and not simply shepherds, who were abominable to the Egyptians, is evinced by the fact that the Egyptians themselves paid great attention to the rearing of cattle. This is shown by their sculptures and paintings, as well as by the offer of this very king of Egypt to make such of Jacob's sons as were men of activity overseers of his cattle' (xlvii. 6). For this aversion to nomade pastors two reasons are given; and it is not necessary that we should choose between them, for both of them were, it is most likely, concurrently true. One is, that the inhabitants of Lower and Middle Egypt had previously been invaded by, and had remained for many years subject to, a tribe of nomade shepherds [EGYPT], who had only of late been expelled, and a native dynasty restored--the grievous oppression of the Egyptians by these pastoral invaders, and the insult with which their religion had been treated. The other reason, not necessarily superseding the former, but rather strengthening it, is, that the Egyptians, as a settled and civilized people, detested the lawless and predatory habits of the wandering shepherd tribes, which then, as now, bounded the valley of the Nile, and occupied the Arabias. Their constantly aggressive operations upon the frontiers, and upon all the great lines of communication, must, with respect to them, have given intensity to the odium with which all strangers were regarded. If any proof of this were wanting, it is found in the fact (attested by the Rev. R. M. Macbriar and others) that, sunk as Modern Egypt is, there is still such a marked and irreconcilable difference of ideas and habits between the inhabitants and the Bedouins, whose camps are often in the near neighbourhood of their towns and villages, that the latter are regarded with dislike and fear, and no friendly intercourse exists between them. We know that the same state of feeling prevails between the settled inhabitants and the Bedouins along the Tigris and Euphrates. The third marked use of this word again occurs in Egypt. The king tells the Israelites to offer to their god the sacrifices which they desired, without going to the desert for that purpose. To which Moses objects, that they should have to sacrifice to the Lord the abomination of the Egyptians,' who would thereby be highly exasperated against them (Exod. viii. 25, 26). A reference back to the first explanation shows that this 'abomination' was the cow, the only animal which all the Egyptians agreed in holding sacred; whereas, in the great sacrifice which the Hebrews proposed to hold, not only would heifers be offered, but the people would feast upon their flesh. 6 6 In THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. Dan. ix. 27, Dop; literally, the abomination of the desolater, which, without doubt, means the idol or idolatrous, apparatus which the desolater of Jerusalem should establish in the holy place. This appears to have been a prediction of the pollution of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, who caused an idolatrous altar to be built on the altar of burnt offerings, whereon unclean things were offered to Jupiter Olympius, to whom the temple itself was dedicated. Josephus distinctly refers to this as the accomplishment of Daniel's prophecy; as does the author of the first book of Maccabees, in declaring that they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar'ᾠκοδόμησαν τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (1 Mace. i. 59; vi. 7; 2 Macc. vi. 2-5; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 5, 4; xii. 7, 6). The phrase is quoted by Jesus, in the form of Tò Bôéλvyμa Tŷs pnμwσrews (Matt. xxiv. 15), and is applied by him to what was to take place at the advance of the Romans against Jerusalem. They who saw the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place' were enjoined to flee to the mountains. And this may with probability be referred to the advance of the Roman army against the city with their image-crowned standards, to which idolatrous honours were paid, and which the Jews regarded as idols. The unexpected retreat and discomfiture of the Roman forces afforded such as were mindful of our Saviour's prophecy an opportunity of obeying the injunction which it contained. That the Jews themselves regarded the Roman standards as abominations is shown by the fact that, in deference to their known aversion, the Roman soldiers quartered in Jerusalem forbore to introduce their standards into the city and on one occasion, when Pilate gave orders that they should be carried in by night, so much stir was made in the matter by the principal inhabitants, that for the sake of peace the governor was eventually induced to give up the point (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3, 1). Those however who suppose that the holy place' of the text must be the temple itself, may find the accomplishment of the prediction in the fact that, when the city had been taken by the Romans, and the holy house destroyed, the soldiers brought their standards in due form to the temple, set them up over the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 6,1); for (as Havercamp judiciously notes from Tertullian, Apol. c. xvi. 162) almost the entire religion of the Roman camp consisted in worshipping the ensigns, swearing by the ensigns, and in preferring the ensigns before all the other gods.' SPQR SPQR Nor was this the last appearance of the abomination of desolation, in the holy place : for, not only did Hadrian, with studied insult to the Jews, set up the figure of a boar over the Bethlehem gate the site and ruins of Jerusalem (Euseb. Chron. of the city (Ælia Capitolina) which rose upon 1. i. p. 45, ed. 1658), but he erected a temple to Jupiter upon the site of the Jewish temple (Dion Cass. lxix. 12), and caused an image of himself to be set up in the part which answered to the most holy place (Nicephorus Callist., iii. 24). This was a consummation of all the abominations which the iniquities of the Jews brought upon their holy place. ABRAHAM (D, father of a multitude; Sept. 'Aßpaáμ), the founder of the Hebrew nation. Up to Gen. xvii. 4, 5, he is uniformly called ABRAM (DN, father of elevation, or high father; Sept. "Aßpau), and this was his original name; but the extended form, which it always afterwards bears, was given to it to make it significant of the promise of a numerous posterity which was at the same time made to him. Abraham was a native of Chaldea, and descended, through Heber, in the ninth generation, from Shem the son of Noah. His father was Terah, who had two other sons, Nahor and Haran. Haran died prematurely 'before his father,' leaving a son Lot, and two daughters, Milcah and Iscah. Lot attached himself to his uncle Abraham; Milcah became the wife of her uncle Nahor; and Iscah, who was also called Sarai, became the wife of Abraham (Gen. xi. 26-29: comp. Joseph. Antiq. i. 6, 5) [ISCAH]. Abraham was born A.M. 2008, B.C. 1996 (Hales, A.M. 3258, B.C. 2153), in 'Ur of the Chaldees' (Gen. xi. 28). The concise history in Genesis states nothing concerning the portion of in Charran.' This first call is not recorded, but his life prior to the age of 60; and respecting a person living in times so remote no authentic information can be derived from any other source. There are indeed traditions, but they are too manifestly built up on the foundation of a few obscure intimations in Scripture to be entitled to any credit. Thus it is intimated in Josh. xxiv. 2, that Terah and his family 'served other gods' beyond the Euphrates: and on this has been founded the romance that Terah was not only a worshipper, but a maker of idols; that the youthful Abraham, discovering the futility of such gods, destroyed all those his father had made, and justified the act in various conversations and arguments with Terah, which we find repeated at length. Again, Ur of the Chaldees was the name of the place where Abraham was born, and from which he went forth to go, he knew not whither, at the call of God. Now Ur (8) means fire; and we may therefore read that he came forth from the fire of the Chaldees; on which has been built the story that Abraham was, for his disbelief in the established idols, cast by king Nimrod into a burning furnace, from which he was by special miracle delivered. And to this the premature death of Haran has suggested the addition that he, by way of punishment for his disbelief of the truths for which Abraham suffered, was marvellously destroyed by the same fire from which his brother was still more marvellously preserved. Again, the fact that Chaldea was the region in which astronomy was reputed to have been first cultivated, suggested that Abraham brought astronomy westward, and that he even taught that science to the Egyptians (Joseph. Antiq. i. 8). These are goodly specimens of tradi-him and his race, as we perceive that every suction-building; and more of them may be found in the alleged history of Abraham by those who think them worth the trouble of the search. It is just to Josephus to state that most of these stories are rejected by him, although the tone of some of his remarks is in agreement with them. Although Abraham is, by way of eminence, named first, it appears probable that he was the youngest of Terah's sons, and born by a second wife, when his father was 130 years old. Terah was seventy years old when the eldest son was born (Gen. xi. 32; xii. 4; xx. 12: comp. Hales, ii. 107); and that eldest son appears to have been Haran, from the fact that his brothers married his daughters, and that his daughter Sarai was only ten years younger than his brother Abraham (Gen. xvii. 17). It is shown by Hales (ii. 107), that Abraham was 60 years old when the family quitted their native city of Ur, and went and abode in Charran. The reason for this movement does not appear in the Old Testament. Josephus alleges that Terah could not bear to remain in the place where Haran had died (Antiq. i. 6. 5); while the apocryphal book of Judith, in conformity with the traditions still current among the Jews and Moslems, affirms that they were cast forth because they would no longer worship the gods of the land (Judith v. 6-8). The real cause transpires in Acts vii. 2-4: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was (at Ur of the Chaldees) in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Depart from thy land, and from thy kindred, and come hither to a land (y) which I will shew thee. Then departing from the land of the Chaldees, he dwelt cessive communication with which he was favoured rendered more sure and definite to him the objects for which he had been called from the land of his birth. No particulars of the journey are given. Abraham arrived in the land of Canaan, which he found occupied by the Canaanites in a large number of small independent communities, which cultivated the districts around their several towns. The country was however but thinly peopled; and, as in the more recent times of its depopulation, it afforded ample pasture-grounds for the wandering pastors. One of that class Abraham must have appeared in their eyes. In Mesopotamia the family had been pastoral, but dwelling in towns and houses, and sending out the flocks and herds under the care of shepherds. But the migratory life to which Abraham had now been called, compelled him to take to the tent-dwelling as well as the pastoral life: and the usages which his subsequent history indicates are therefore found to present a condition of manners and habits analogous to that which still exists among the nomade pastoral, or Bedouin tribes of south-western Asia. The rich pastures in that part of the country tempted Abraham to form his first encampment in the vale of Moreh, which lies between the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim. Here the strong faith which had brought the childless man thus far from his home was rewarded by the grand promise:-'I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse been previously made to him, of the occupation of the land in which he lived by a posterity numerous as the dust. Not long after, he removed to the pleasant valley of Mamre, in the neighbourhood of Hebron (then called Arba), and pitched his tent under a terebinth tree (Gen. xiii.). thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed' (Gen. xii. 2, 3). It was further promised that to his posterity should be given the rich heritage of that beautiful country into which he had come (v. 7). It will be seen that this important promise consisted of two parts, the one temporal, the other spiritual. The temporal It appears that fourteen years before this time was the promise of posterity, that he should the south and east of Palestine had been invaded be blessed himself, and be the founder of a by a king called Chedorlaomer, from beyond the great nation; the spiritual, that he should be Euphrates, who brought several of the small disthe chosen ancestor of the Redeemer, who had united states of those quarters under tribute. been of old obscurely predicted (Gen. iii. 15), Among them were the five cities of the Plain of and thereby become the means of blessing all Sodom, to which Lot had withdrawn. This burden the families of the earth. The implied con- was borne impatiently by these states, and they dition on his part was, that he should publicly at length withheld their tribute. This brought profess the worship of the true God in this more upon them a ravaging visitation from Chedorlatolerant land; and accordingly he built there omer and four other (perhaps tributary) kings, who an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.' scoured the whole country east of the Jordan, and He soon after removed to the district between ended by defeating the kings of the plain, plunBethel and Ai, where he also built an altar to that dering their towns, and carrying the people away 'JEHOVAH' whom the world was then hastening as slaves. Lot was among the sufferers. When to forget. His farther removals tended southward, this came to the ears of Abraham, he immediately until at length a famine in Palestine compelled armed such of his slaves as were fit for war, in him to withdraw into Egypt, where corn abounded. number 318, and being joined by the friendly Here his apprehension that the beauty of his wife Amoritish chiefs, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, purSarai might bring him into danger with the dusky sued the retiring invaders. They were overtaken Egyptians, overcame his faith and rectitude, and near the springs of the Jordan; and their camp gave out that she was his sister. As he had being attacked on opposite sides by night, they feared, the beauty of the fair stranger excited the were thrown into disorder, and fled. Abraham admiration of the Egyptians, and at length and his men pursued them as far as the neighreached the ears of the king, who forthwith ex-bourhood of Damascus, and then returned with all ercised his regal right of calling her to his harem, and to this Abraham, appearing as only her brother, was obliged to submit. As, however, the king had no intention to act harshly in the exercise of his privilege, he loaded Abraham with valuable gifts, suited to his condition, being chiefly in slaves and cattle. These presents could not have been refused by him without an insult which, under all the circumstances, the king did not deserve. A grievous disease inflicted on Pharaoh and his household relieved Sarai from her danger, by revealing to the king that she was a married woman; on which he sent for Abraham, and, after rebuking him for his conduct, restored his wife to him, and recommended him to withdraw from the country. He accordingly returned to the land of Canaan, much richer than when he left it in cattle, in silver, and in gold' (Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 2). be Lot also had much increased his possessions: and soon after their return to their previous station near Bethel, the disputes between their respective shepherds about water and pasturage soon taught them that they had better separate. The recent promise of posterity to Abraham himself, although his wife had been accounted barren, probably tended also in some degree to weaken the tie by which the uncle and nephew had hitherto been united. The subject was broached by Abraham, who generously conceded to Lot the choice of pasture-grounds. Lot chose the well-watered plain in which Sodom and other towns were situated, and removed thither [Lor]. Thus was accomplished the dissolution of a connection which had been formed before the promise of children was given, and the disruption of which appears to have been necessary for that complete isolation of the coming race which the Divine purpose required. Immediately afterwards the patriarch was cheered and encouraged by a more distinct and formal reiteration of the promises which had the men and goods which had been taken away. Although Abraham had no doubt been chiefly induced to undertake this exploit by his regard for Lot, it involved so large a benefit, that, as the act of a sojourner, it must have tended greatly to enhance the character and power of the patriarch in the view of the inhabitants at large. In fact, we afterwards find him treated by them with high respect and consideration. When they had arrived as far as Salem on their return, the king of that place, Melchizedek, who was one of the few native princes, if not the only one, who retained the knowledge and worship of the Most High God,' whom Abraham served, came forth to meet them with refreshments, in acknowledgment for which, and in recognition of his character, Abraham presented him with a tenth of the spoils. By strict right, founded on the war usages which still subsist in Arabia (Burckhardt's Notes, p. 97), the recovered goods became the property of Abraham, and not of those to whom they originally belonged. This was acknowledged by the king of Sodom, who met the victors in the valley near Salem. He said, 'Give me the persons, and keep the goods to thyself. But with becoming pride, and with a disinterestedness which in that country would now be most unusual in similar circumstances, he answered, I have lifted up mine hand [i.e. I have sworn] unto Jehovah, the most high God, that I will not take from a thread even to a sandal-thong, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich' (Gen. xiv.). Soon after his return to Mamre the faith of Abraham was rewarded and encouraged, not only by a more distinct and detailed repetition of the promises formerly made to him, but by the confirmation of a solemn covenant contracted, as nearly as might be, after the manner of men [COVENANT] between him and God. It was now |