the church generally during the period through which it extends. As little can we regard this book as designed to record the official history of the apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars concerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2 Cor. xi.; Gal. i. 17; ii. 11; 1 Pet. v. 13. See also Michaelis, Introduction, vol. iii. p. 328. Haenlein's Einleitung, th. iii. s. 150). Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others are of opinion that no particular design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this book beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own personal notice, either immediately through the testimony of his senses or through the medium of the reports of others; but such a view savours too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers, to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the church universal. Much more deserving of notice is the opinion of Haenlein, with which that of Michaelis substantially accords, that the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remark able facts, the dignity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion (Einleitung, th. iii. s. 156. Comp. Michaelis, Introduction, vol. iii. p. 330). Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke xxiv. 47). In this point of view the recitals in this book present a theme that is practically interesting to Christians in all ages of the church and all places of the world; for they exhibit to us what influences guided the actions of those who laid the foundations of the church, and to whose authority all its members must defer-what courses they adopted for the extension of the church,-what ordinances they appointed to be observed by those Christians who, under their auspices, associated together for mutual edification,-and what difficulties, privations, and trials were to be expected by those who should zealously exert themselves for the triumph of Christianity. We are thus taught not by dogmatical statement, but by instructive narrative, under what sanctions Christianity appears in our world, what blessings she offers to men, and by what means her influence is most extensively to be promoted and the blessings she offers to be most widely and most fully enjoyed. Respecting the time when this book was composed it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 63; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the interval between the year 63 and the year 65 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared. The style of Luke in the Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. These speeches are indeed, for the most part, to be regarded rather as summaries than as full reports of what the speaker uttered; but as these summaries are given in the speakers' own words, the appearance of Hebraisms in them is as easily accounted for as if the addresses had been reported in full. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, he has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators' (Introduction, vol. iii. p. 332). Whilst, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown (Lardner's Credibility, Works, vol. i.; Biscoe, On the Acts; Paley's Ilora Pauline; Benson's History of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. ii. &c.), the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great ob scurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Of the many conflicting systems which have been published for the purpose of settling the questions that have arisen on this head, it is impossible within such limits as those to which this article is necessarily confined, to give any minute account. As little do we feel ourselves at liberty to attempt an original investigation of the subject, even did such promise to be productive of any very satisfactory result. The only course that appears open to us is to present, in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writers whose authority is most deserving of consideration in such an inquiry.-(See next page.) The majority of these dates can only be regarded as approximations to the truth, and the diversity which the above table presents shows the uncertainty of the whole matter. The results at which Mr. Greswell and Dr. Anger have arrived are, in many cases, identical, and upon the whole the earlier date which they assign to the ascension of Christ seems worthy of adoption. We cannot help thinking, however, that the interval assigned by these writers to the events which transpired between the ascension of Christ and the stoning of Stephen is much too great. The date which they assign to Paul's first visit to Jerusalem is also plainly too late, for Paul himself tells us that his light from Damascus occurred whilst that town was under the authority of Aretas, whose tenure of it cannot be extended beyond the year 38 of the common æra (2 Cor. xi. 32. See also Neander's remarks on these in Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, Bd. s. 80). Perhaps the following is the true order of the events of the apostle's early career as a Christian. In Gal. ii. 1, he speaks himself of going up to Jerusalem fourteen years, or about fourteen years, after his conversion (for so we understand his words). Now this visit could not have been that recorded in Acts xv., because we cannot conceive that after the events detailed in that chapter Peter would have acted as Paul describes in Gal. ii. 11. We conclude, therefore, that the visit here referred to was one earlier than that mentioned in Acts xv. It must, therefore, have been that mentioned in Acts xi. 12. Now, this being at the time of the famine, its date is pretty well fixed to the year 45, or thereabouts. Subtract 14 from this, then, and we get 31 as the date of Paul's conversion, and adding to this the three years that elapsed between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), we get the year 34 as the date of this latter event. If this arrangement be not adopted, the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. ii. 1, must, for the reason just mentioned, be intercalated between the commencement of Paul's first missionary tour and his visit to Jerusalem at the time of the holding of the socalled council; so that the number of Paul's visits to that city would be six, instead of five. Schrader adopts somewhat of a similar view, only he places this additional visit between the fourth and fifth of those mentioned in the Acts (Der Apostel Paulus, 4 Th. Leipz. 1830-1838). 9. Of separate commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles the most valuable are the following: Limborch, Commentarium in Acta Apostolorum, &c. fol., Roterodami, 1711; J. E. M. Walch, 1 Annales. Folio. Bremae, 1686, p. 641. * Annales Paulini. Opp. Posthuma. 4to. Lond. 1688. • Introduction to the New Testament, vol. iii. p. 336. Einleitung, 3te Auflage, Bd. ii. s. 307. • Dissertations, &c. 5 vols. 8vo. Oxf. 1837. De Temporum in Actis App. Ratione. 8vo. Lips. 1833. Dissertt. in Acta App. 3 tom. 4to. Jena, 1756 1761; Sam. F. N. Morus, Versio et Explicatio Act. App. ed. Dindorf, 2 tom. 8vo. Leips. 1794; Richard Biscoe's History of the Acts, confirmed from other authors, &c. 8vo. Oxford, 1829; Kuinoel, Comment. in Acta App. which forms the fourth vol. of his Comment. in Libros Hist. N. T. Leips. 1818; Heinrichs, Acta App. perpetua Annott. illustrata, being the third vol. of the Nov. Test. Koppianum. The works of Benson on the Planting of the Christian Churches, 3 vols. 4to.; and of Neander, Geschichte der Leitung und Pflanzung der Christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel (recently translated into English as part of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet), may be also viewed in the light of Commentaries on the Acts.-W. L. A. ACTS, SPURIOUS [APOCRYPHA]. This term has been applied to several ancient writings pretended to have been composed by, or to supply historical facts respecting our Blessed Saviour and his disciples, or other individuals whose actions are recorded in the holy Scriptures. Of these spurious or pseudepigraphal writings several are still extant; others are only known to have existed, by the accounts of them which are to be met with in ancient authors. ACTS OF CHRIST, SPURIOUS. Several sayings attributed to our Lord, and alleged to be handed down by tradition, may be included under this head, as they are supposed by some learned men to have been derived from histories which are no longer in existence. As explanatory of our meaning it will suffice to refer to the beautiful sentiment cited by St. Paul (Acts xx. 35), Μακάριόν ἐστι μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν, το which the term apocryphal has been sometimes applied, inasmuch as it is not contained in any of the written biographies of our Lord. This term is so applied by M. Gaussen of Geneva, in his Theopneustia (English translation, Bagster, 1842). The learned Heinsius is of opinion that the passage is taken from some lost apocryphal book, such as that entitled, in the Recognitions of Clement, the Book of the Sayings of Christ,' or the pretended Constitutions of the Aposties. Others, however, conceive that the apostle, in Acts xx. 35, does not refer to any one saying of our Saviour's in particular, but that he deduced Christ's sentiments on this head from several of his savings and parables (see Matt. xix. 21; xxv.; and Luke xvi. 9). But the probability is that St. Paul received this passage by tradition from the other apostles. There is also a saying ascribed to Christ to be found in the Epistle of Barnabas, a work at least of the second century: Let us resist all iquity, and hate it; and again, 'So they who would see me, and lay hold on my kingdom, must receive me through much suffering and tribulation:' but it is not improbable that these passages contain merely an allusion to some of our Lord's discourses. Clemens Romanus, the third bishop of Rome after St. Peter (or the writer who passes under the name of Clement), in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ascribes the following saying to Christ: Though ye should be united to me in my bosom, and yet do not keep my com. mandments, I will reject you, and say, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity. This passage seems evidently to be taken from St. Luke's gospel, xiii. 25, 26, 27. There are many similar passages, which several eminent writers, such as Grabe, Mill, and Fabricius, have considered as derived from apocryphal gospels, but which seem with greater probability to be nothing more than loose quotations from the Scriptures, which were very common among the apostolical Fathers. There is a saying of Christ's, cited by Clement in the same epistle, which is found in the apocryphal gospel of the Egyptians :-The Lord, being asked when his kingdom should come, replied, When two shall be one, and that which is with out as that which is within, and the male with the female neither male nor female' [GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL]. We may here mention that the genuineness of the Second Epistle of Clement is itself disputed, and is rejected by Eusebius, Jerome, and others; at least Eusebius says of it, 'We know not that this is as highly approved of as the former, or that it has been in use with the ancients' (Hist. Eccles. iii. 38, Cruse's translation, 1842). Eusebius, in the last chapter of the same book, states that Papias, a companion of the apostles, 'gives another history of a woman who had been accused of many sins before the Lord, which is also contained in the Gospel according to the Nazarenes. As this latter work is lost, it is doubtful to what woman the history refers. Some suppose it alludes to the history of the woman taken in adultery; others, to the woman of Samaria. There are two discourses ascribed to Christ by Papias, preserved in Irenæus (Adversus Hæres. v. 33), relating to the doctrine of the Millennium, of which Papias appears to have been the first propagator. Dr. Grabe has defended the truth of these traditions, but the discourses themselves are unworthy of our blessed Lord. There is a saying ascribed to Christ by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, which has been supposed by Dr. Cave to have been taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. Mr. Jones conceives it to have been an allusion to a passage in the prophet Ezekiel. The same Father fur nishes us with an apocryphal history of Christ's baptism, in which it is asserted that a fine was kindled in Jordan.' He also acquaints us that Christ worked, when he was on earth, at the trade of a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes for oxen. There are some apocryphal sayings of Christ preserved by Irenæus, but his most remarkable observation is, that Christ lived and taught be yond his fortieth, or even fiftieth year. This he founds partly on absurd inferences drawn from the character of his mission, partly on John vii 57, and also on what he alleges to have beer Jolin's own testimony, delivered to the presbyter of Asia. It is scarcely necessary to refute the absurd idea, which is in contradiction with all the statements in the genuine gospels. There is also an absurd saying attribut Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ to Christ by is, cap. 28. bed to our Lord several of the arkable is, 'Be ye Tas is supposed to Gospel of the Nazabeen an early inscripture. Origen of Christ's. In Origen, Contra Celsun lib. i., is an apocryphal history of our Saviou nd his parents, in which it is reproached to Ch t that he was born in a mean village, of a poor woman who gained her livelihood by spinning, and was turned off by her husband, a carpenter. Celsus adds that Jesus was obliged by poverty to work as a servant in Egypt, where he learned many powerful arts, and thought that on this account he ought to be esteemed as a god. There was a similar account contained in some apocryphal books extant in the time of St. Augustine. It was probably a Jewish forgery. Augustine, Epiphanius, and others of the Fathers equally cite sayings and acts of Christ, which they probably met with in the early apocryphal gospels. There are various sayings as by Clemens Alexandrinus Fathers. One of the most rer skilful money-changers. have been contained in the renes. Others think it to har terpolation into the text of and Jerome cite it as a say There is a spurious hymn of Christ's extant, ascribed to the Priscillianists by St. Augustine. There are also many such acts and sayings to be found in the Koran of Mahomet, and others in the writings of the Mohammedan doctors (see Toland's Nazarenus). There is a prayer ascribed to our Saviour by the same persons, which is printed in Latin and Arabic in the learned Selden's Commentary on Eutychius's Annals of Alexandria, published at Oxford, in 1650, by Dr. Pococke. It contains a petition for pardon of sin, which is sufficient to stamp it as a forgery. We must not omit to mention here the two curious acts of Christ recorded, the one by Eusebius, and the other by Evagrius. The first of these included a letter said to have been written to our Saviour by Agbarus (or Abgarus), king of Edessa, requesting him to come and heal a disease under which he laboured. The letter, together with the supposed reply of Christ, are preserved by Eusebius. This learned historian asserts that he obtained the documents, together with the history, from the public registers of the city of Edessa, where they existed in his time in the Syriac language, from which he translated them into Greek. These letters are also mentioned by Ephraim Syrus, deacon of Edessa, at the close of the fourth century. Jerome refers to them in his comment on Matt. x.,and they are mentioned by Pope Gelasius, who rejects them as spurious and apocryphal. They are, however, referred to as genuine by Evagrius and later historians. Among modern writers the genuineness of these letters has been maintained by Dr. Parker, in the preface to his Demonstration of the Law of Nature, and the Christian Religion, part ii. § 16, p. 235; by Dr. Cave, in his Historia Literaria, vol. i. p. 23; and by Grote, in his Spicilegium Patrum, particularly p. 319. On the other hand, most writers, including the great majority of Roman Catholic divines, reject them as spurious. Mr. Jones, in nis valuable work on the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, although he does not venture to deny that the Acts were contained in the public registers of the city of Edessa, yet gives it, as a probable conjecture, in favour of which he adduces some strong reasons, drawn from internal evidence, that this whole chapter (viz. the 13th of the first book) in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius is itself an interpolation. But the letters will speak for themselves: Copy of a Letter written by King Agbarus to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem, by Ananias, the courier. 'Agbarus, prince of Edessa, sends greeting, to Jesus, the excellent Saviour, who has appeared in the borders of Jerusalem. I have heard the reports respecting thee and thy cures, as performed by thee without medicines and without the use of herbs. For, as it is said, thou causest the blind to see again, the lame to walk, and thou cleansest the lepers, and thou castest out impure spirits and demons, and thou healest those who are tormented by long disease, and thou raisest the dead. And hearing all these things of thee, I concluded in my mind one of two things: either, that thou art God, and having descended from heaven, doest these things; or else, doing them, thou art the Son of God. Therefore, now I have written, and besought thee to visit me, and to heal the disease with which I am afflicted. I have also heard that the Jews murmur against thee, and are plotting to injure thee; I have, however, a very small but noble estate, which is sufficient for us both.' The Answer of Jesus to King Agbarus, by the courier Ananias. 'Blessed art thou, O Agbarus, who, without seeing, hast believed in me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen will not believe, that they who have not seen may believe, and live. But in regard to what thou hast written, that I should come to thee, it is necessary that I should fulfil all things here, for which I am sent, and after their fulfilment, then to be received again by him that sent me; and after I have been received up, I will send to thee a certain one of my disciples, that he may heal thy affliction, and give life to thee and those who are with thee [EPISTLES, SPURIOUS]. The other apocryphal history related by Evagrius, out of Procopius, states that Agbarus sent a limner to draw the picture of our Saviour, but that not being able to do it by reason of the brightness of Christ's countenance, our Saviour 'took a cloth, and laying it upon his divine and lifegiving face, he impressed his likeness on it.' This story of Christ's picture is related by several, in the Second Council of Nice, and by other ancient writers, one of whom (Leo) asserts that he went to Edessa, and saw 'the image of Christ, not made with hands, worshipped by the people.' This is the first of the four likenesses of Christ mentioned by ancient writers. The second is that said to have been stamped on a handkerchief by Christ, and given to Veronica, who had followed him to his crucifixion. The third is the statue of Christ, stated by Eusebius to have been erected by the woman whom he had cured of an issue of blood, and which the learned historian acquaints us he saw at Cæsarea Philippi (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. 18). Sozomen and Cassiodorus assert that the emperor Julian took down this statue and erected his own in its place. It is, however, stated by Asterius, a writer of the fourth century, that it was taken away by Maximinus, the predecessor of Constantine. The fourth picture is one which Nicodemus presented to Gamaliel, which was preserved at Berytus, and which having been crucified and pierced with a spear by the Jews, there issued out from the side blood and water. This is stated in a spurious treatise concerning the passion and image of Christ, falsely ascribed to Athanasius. Eusebius the historian asserts (loc. cit.) that he had here seen the pictures of Peter, Paul, and of Christ himself, in his time (see also Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. v. 21). ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, SPURIOUS. Of these several are extant, others are lost, or only fragments of them are come down to us. Of the following we know little more than that they once existed. They are here arranged chronologically:-The Preaching of l'eter, referred to by Origen, in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel, lib. xiv.; also referred to by Clemens Alexandrinus.-The Acts of Peter, supposed by Dr. Cave to be cited by Serapion.-The Acts of Paul and Thecla, mentioned by Tertullian, Lib. de Baptismo, cap. xvii.: this is, however, supposed by some to be the same which is found in a Greek MS. in the Bodleian Library, and has been published by Dr. Grabe, in his Spicil. Petrum Secul. I.-The Doctrine of Peter, cited by Origen, 'Procem,' in Lib. de Princip.-The Acts of Paul, ib. de Princip. i. 2.-The Preaching of Paul, referred to by St. Cyprian, Tract. de non iterando Baptismo.-The Preaching of Paul and Peter at Rome, cited by Lactantius, De rera Sap. iv. 21.-The Acts of Peter, thrice mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 3: as to that work, however, which is ascribed to him, called "The Acts" and the "Gospel according to Peter," we know nothing of their being handed down as Catholic writings, since neither among the ancient nor the ecclesiastical writers of our own day has there been one that has appealed to testimony taken from them.'-The Acts of Paul, ib.The Revelation of Peter, ib.-The Acts of Andrew and John, ib. cap. 25. Thus,' he says, we have it in our power to know those books that are adduced by the heretics, under the name of the apostles, such, viz. as compose the gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, 6 and such as contain the Acts of the Apostles by Andrew and John, and others of which no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescended to make any mention in his works; and, indeed, the character of the style it self is very different from that of the apostles, and the sentiments and the purport of those things that are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men; whence they are to be ranked not only among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious.-The Acts of Peter, John, and Thomas. Athanasius, Synops. § 76.—The Writings of Bartholomew the Apostle, mentioned by the pseudoDionysius.-The Acts, Preaching, and Revelation of Peter, cited by Jerome, in his Catal. Script. Eccles. The Acts of the Apostles by Seleucus, ib. Epist. ad Chrom., &c.-The Acts of Paul and Thecla, ib. Catalog. Script. Eccles.-The Acts of the Apostles, used by the Ebionites, cited by Epiphanius, Adversus Hæres. § 16. The Acts of Leucius, Lentius, or Lenticius, called the Acts of the Apostles, Augustin. Lib. de Fid. c. 39.The Acts of the Apostles, used by the Manichees. -The Revelations of Thomas, Paul, Stephen, &c. Gelasius, de Lib. Apoc. apud Gratian. Distinct. 15. c. 3. To these may be added the genuine Acts of Pilate, appealed to by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, in their Apologies, as being then extant. Tertullian describes them as 'the records which were transmitted from Jerusalem to Tiberius concerning Christ.' He refers to the same for the proof of our Saviour's miracles. The following is a catalogue of the principal spurious Acts still extant :-The Creed of the Apostles.-The Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.-The Recognitions of Clement, or the Travels of Peter.-The Shepherd of Hermas.-The Acts of Pilate (spurious), or the Gospel of Nicodemus. - The Acts of Paul, or the Martyrdom of Thecla.-Abdias's History of the Twelve Apostles.-The Constitutions of the Apostles.-The Canons of the Apostles.-The Liturgies of the Apostles.-St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans.-St. Paul's Letters to Seneca. Together with some others, for which see Cotelerius's Ecclesiæ Græca Monumenta, Paris, 1677-92; Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus, N. T.; Du Pin, History of the Canon of the New Testament, London, 1699; Grabe's Spicilegium Patrum, Oxford, 1714; Lardner's Credibility, &c.; Jones's New and Just Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament; Birell's Tuctarium, Hafnia, 1804; Thilo's Acta St. Thoma, Lips. 1823, and Codex Apocryphus N. T., Lips. 1832.-W. W. ADAD is the name of the chief deity of the Syrians, the sun, according to Macrobius, whose words are (Saturnal. i. 23): 'Accipe quid Assyrii de Solis potentia opinentur; deo enim, quem summum maximumque venerantur, Adad nomen dederunt. Ejus nominis interpretatio significat unus. . . . Simulacrum, Adad insigne cernitur radiis inclinatis, quibus monstratur vim cœli in radiis esse Solis, qui demittuntur in terram. Moreover, Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 11, 71), speaking of remarkable stones named after parts of the body, mentions some called Adadunephros, ejusdem oculus ac digitus dei;' and adds, et hic colitur a Syris.' He is also called "Adwdos Bariλeus dewy by Philo Byblius (in Eusebii Præpar. Evan. i. 10), where the occurrence of the long o for a is to be ascribed to the characteristic pronunciation of the Western Ara mæan dialect. The passage of Hesychius which Harduin adduces in his note to Pliny, concerning the worship of this god by the Phrygians, only contains the name "Adwoos by an emendation of Salmasius, which Jablonski declares to be inadmissible (De Ling. Lycaonica, p. 64). This Syrian deity claims some notice here, because his name is most probably an element in the names of the Syrian kings Benhadad and Hadadezer. Moreover, several of the older commentators have endeavoured to find this deity in Isaiah lxvi. 17; either by altering the text there to suit the name given by Macrobius; or by adapting the name he gives to his interpretation and to the reading of the Hebrew, so as to make that extract bear testimony to a god Achad. Michaelis has argued at some length against both these views: and the modern commentators, such as Gesenius, Hitzig, Böttcher (in Proben Altest. Schrifterklär.), and Ewald, do not admit the name of any deity in that passage.—J. N. ADAD-RIMMON, properly HADAD-RIMMON (777; Sept. pov, a garden of pomegra nates), a city in the valley of Jezreel, where was fought the famous battle between King Josiah and Pharaoh-Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 29; Zech. xii. 11). Adad-rimmon was afterwards called Maximianopolis, in honour of the emperor Maximian (Jerome, Comment. in Zach. xii.). ten miles from Jezreel (Itin. Hieros.). It was seventeen Roman miles from Cæsarea, and ADAH (7, adornment, comeliness; Sept. 'Ada): 1. one of the wives of Lamech (Gen. iv. 19). 2. one of the wives of Esau, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen. xxxvi. 4). She is called Judith in Gen. xxvi. 34. ADAM (DIN), the word by which the Bible designates the first human being. It is evident that, in the earliest use of language, the vocal sound employed to designate the first perceived object, of any kind, would be an appellative, and would be formed from something known or apprehended to be a characteristic property of that object. The word would, therefore, be at once the appellative and the proper name. But when other objects of the same kind were discovered, or subsequently came into existence, difficulty would be felt; it would become necessary to guard against confusion, and the inventive faculty would be called upon to obtain a discriminative term for each and singular individual, while some equally appropriate term would be fixed upon for the whole kind. Different methods of effecting these two purposes might be resorted to, but the most natural would be to retain the original term in its simple state, for the first individual: and to make some modification of it by prefixing another sound, or by subjoining one, or by altering the vowel or vowels in the body of the word, in order to have a term for the kind, and for the separate individuals of the kind. This reasoning is exemplified in the first applications of the word before us: (Gen. i. 26), 'Let us make man [Adam] in our image;' (i. 27), And God created the man [the Adam] in his own image.' The next instance (ii. 7) expresses the source of derivation, a character or property, namely, the material of which the human body was formed: And the Lord God [Jehovah |