for 12 in 2487; for we can hardly suppose that Isaac's mourning for his mother would have lasted for three years. The mention of A.'s marriage with Keturah in the foll. ch. is derived from a different source.

The foll. are the chief difficulties arising from the Abraham narrative:

1. The Home of A.'s People.-From the fact that Terah is said to have lived at Ur-Casdim, and that Ur has been identified by Assyriologists with Uru, the modern Mugheir, in S. Bab., the conclusion has very commonly been drawn that A. migrated first from Chaldæa. This, however, depends upon the correctness of the identification of Ur-Casdim with Uru, which has been much disputed on the grounds, (1) that the genealogy of Gn 1110 brings the Sem. race as far as Mesopotamia, from which the next movement in the direction of Can. would be to Haran; (2) that the name Casdim was applied to an Armenian tribe; and (3) that it does not appear in connexion with S. Bab. until much later (upon the whole controversy see Kittel, Hist. of Hebrews, Eng. tr. i. 180 f.; Dillmann, Genesis, p. 214 f. As to the position of Ur-Casdim, see art. UR OF THE CHALDees). The common early Heb. tradition seems to be expressed in Gn 24, according to which A.'s kindred were the dwellers in N. Mesopotamia; and it is this belief which also is reiterated in the story of Jacob. Cf. A Syrian (i.e. Aramæan) ready to perish was my father' (Dt 265). Whether Ur-Casdim is to be placed in N. Mesopotamia or in Chaldea, the impression remains that 'J' believed A.'s home and kindred to have been in Haran.

2. The Character of the Narrative related in Gn 14.-There appears to be no reason to question the hist. probability of an Elamite campaign such as is here described. There is nothing inherently improbable in the event as has sometimes, in some quarters, been asserted. A. did not defeat the Elamite army in a pitched battle; he made a night attack, fell upon an unsuspecting foe, and recovered prisoners and baggage,-a very different exploit from the conquest of Damascus, which late legend assigned to him. The primitive invasion of ChedorLaomer has been claimed by some Assyriologists for an approximate date of 2150 (so Hommel, Bab.Ass. Gesch. p. 3); and the invasion of W. Asia by an Elamite will naturally be associated with the Elamite empire of that remote time.

But upon

what principle the events of A.'s life can be carried back to the 22nd cent. B.c. has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Biblical chronology does not suggest the interval of nearly a thousand years between A. and the Exodus.

3. The Promises made to A. are found eight times repeated, (i.) Gn 122-8 (ii.) 127 (iii.) 1314 (iv.) 15 (v.) 17 (vi.) 18 (vii.) 2112 (viii.) 2216. The promises fall under three main heads, (a) the land of Can. shall be possessed by the seed of A.; (b) the seed of A. shall become a mighty nation; (c) A. shall have a son born of Sarah, and the son is to be called Isaac. The number of times that the promise appears is due to the compilers having selected this as the most conspicuous feature in the narrative of A. in each of the sources of tradition. The seemingly strange fact, that the narrative in ch. 17 should take no notice of the mention of the same promise in ch. 15, is at once accounted for when it is seen to be an instance of the manner in which the different narratives overlap one another. The promises, contained in the different traditions, seemed to the compiler so important in view of the general purpose of his book, that, at the risk of considerable repetition, he has incorporated them all. These promises ever ranked among the religious privileges of Israel (Ro 94). They proclaimed God's covenant with His people, according to which He required of them simple obedience and

justice (Gn 1819); they also announced that through Israel all nations should be blessed.

But

4. The Sacrifice of Isaac marks the crowning event in the life of A. Obviously, it must rank as the surpassing act of the patriarch's faith in God. But a difficulty arises in some minds from the wickedness of the act which God at first commands A. to do. Even though He never intended A. eventually to execute the terrible command, still is it consistent with divine goodness and justice to issue an order, to obey which seemed to have the result of placing blind trust in a positive command above the reasonable recognition of the natural demands of love, mercy, and justice? But there are two considerations which cut the ground from beneath this objection. (1) We are tempted to assume that in the patriarchal narrative the voice of God is an audible external communication. then, as now, God speaks in different ways, and by conscience most directly. The question put by A.'s conscience was whether his complete trust in God extended even to the readiness to surrender his only son; it was in the truest sense a word of God to A. (2) That the answer to this questioning was given in the shape of human sacrifice on a mountain top, illustrates the importance of bearing in mind the imperfect development of the moral consciousness in that remote period. Human sacrifice was frequently practised in Sem. races. If the worshippers of other Sem. deities were ready to sacrifice their firstborn to their gods, was A. to be behind Assyria, Ammon, and Moab in devotion? The moral standard of the age would not be shocked at a deed too fatally common. The ideas of mercy and justice were, in that period, low, and needed to be raised. To propitiate the Deity by child murder was regarded as the height of religious devotion. The narrative, therefore, fulfils the twofold object of giving the crowning proof of A.'s absolute faith in J"; and further, of demonstrating the moral superiority of faith in J" over the religious customs of other Sem. races. J" forbade the sacrifice of the firstborn: J" upheld the instinct implanted in human nature which shrunk in horror from the act. He taught that J" had no pleasure in the infliction of suffering upon the innocent; that the character of J" was raised above that of the heathen gods by higher love and truer justice.

ii. A. IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL. The attempt has been made to deprive the story of A. of all hist. value, and to represent the patriarch either as a mythical personage or as the typical impersonation of the virtues of the religious Isr.; but as yet no evidence has been found to connect the name of A. with that of a tribal deity, while the endeavour to find in his story a philosophical description of abstract qualities seems to presuppose a stage of literary development to which the materials of the Hex. can make no claim, and to desiderate a literary unity which those materials emphatically contradict.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that recollections of the nomadic age, committed to writing (in the form that has come down to us) in a post-Mosaic era, and evidently strongly coloured by the teaching of the prophets of J", are likely to have preserved the hist. facts of the remote past in a form in which personal details are inextricably intertwined with racial movements, and, for simplicity's sake, the destinies of a future nation are anticipated in the features of family experience.

According to this view, A. was the leader of a great nomadic movement of the Hebrews (Gn 1021 1418), who migrated from Mesopotamia into Canaan. These Hebrews penetrated as far as Egypt (Gn 12), but for the most part established themselves in the

S. of Canaan, and in Hebron and Beersheba formed friendly relationships with the dwellers of the land (Gn 14. 2122). The story of Lot seems to indicate that the peoples of Ammon and Moab had originally belonged to the Heb. migration which was led by A., and, having separated themselves from their comrades, occupied the territory of the Rephaim, the Emim, and the Zamzummim (Dt 211-19-21).

Again, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that some of the references to Ishmael and the allusion to Keturah contain an Isr. picture of the relationship of the Arabian tribes and clans to the Heb. stock rather than the record of personal history. The Egyp. origin of Hagar (Gn 161) and of Ishmael's wife (Gn 2121) will then indicate that the new settlers received into their community a considerable admixture of an Egyp. element at the time when they dispersed throughout N. Arabia. The fact that the sons of Nahor' (Gn 2220-24), 'the sons of Ishmael' (Gn 2512-18), the sons of Edom' (Gn 3615-19), form groups of twelve, and that 'the sons of Keturah' thus form a half-group of six, is an additional sign of the probability that the record is not only that of the domestic life of a family, but also that of the political distribution of

a race.

While this consideration must modify the acceptance of a uniform literal historicity for the narrative of A., it is not incompatible with the view that in A. we have the great leader of a racial movement, and one who left his mark upon his fellow-tribesmen, not only by the eminence of his superior gifts, but by the distinctive features of his religious life, the traditional features of which were the devotion to one God, the abandonment of the polytheism of his ancestors, and the adoption of circumcision as the symbol of a purer cult.

. A. IN THE THEOLOGY OF OT.-The scattered reminiscences of the patriarchs were collected and compiled, even more for the purpose of illustrating the fundamental principles of the Isr. revelation than with the object of retailing any exhaustive biography.

The religion of Israel dates, according to OT, from A., not from Moses. A.'s servant addresses J" as the God of his master A. (Gn 2412); J" is to Isaac the God of A. (Gn 2624); to Jacob He is 'the God of A. and the fear of Isaac' (Gn 3142). A. never speaks of J" as the God of his fathers. A. is the founder of the religion; he is the head of the family which had J" for its God. There is no designation of the God of Israel which can go farther back to the origin of the Heb. faith than the often-repeated title the God of A.' (cf. Ps 479).

The story of A. reflects the belief in the free grace of God which chose the patriarch and brought him from a distant land, and in spite of his failures loved him and made His covenant with him. The call of A. and the promises made him thus represent the Election (ekλoy) of Israel. A. as the chosen servant is the prophet, the instrument of J'''s purpose (Gn 207). He is the friend of God (Is 418, 2 Ch 207. Cf. Arab. El-Khalil). God's mercies towards him are appealed to by the prophets of the Captivity (Is 512, Ezk 3324) as the ground of confidence that J" would not forsake the heirs of the promises made to A.

The unique relation in which A., in Isr. theology, stood to the God of revelation is indicated by the ref. of the prophets to A. as 'the one' (see Is 511. 2, Ezk 3324, Mal 2). In the Bk of Sir, A. is spoken of as 'great father of a multitude of nations; and there was none found like him in glory; who kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with Him: in his flesh he established the covenant; and when he was proved he was found

faithful' (4419. 20). In these words are summarised the chief points upon which the later Jewish literature esp. insisted in any reference to the life and character of A. He was the founder of the race; he was credited with a perfect knowledge of the Torah; he was the institutor of circumcision; he was tried, and in virtue of his faith was declared righteous.

iv. A. IN THE THEOLOGY OF NT.-In NT, A. is referred to in a variety of ways. The words of John the Baptist in Mt 39, Lk 38, and of St. Paul, Ro 97, rebuke the popular Jewish supposition that descent from A. carried with it any special claim upon divine favour. Our Lord speaks of A. as one with whom all the partakers of divine redemption shall be privileged to dwell (Mt 811); and as of one who is both cognisant of things on earth, and is also entrusted with the special charge over the souls of the blest (Lk 1622). Our Lord employs the imagery of current religious belief; A. is the typical representative of the righteous' who have been redeemed; he is the father of the faithful.' Hence He says (Jn 856), 'Your father A. rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad.' He obtained a vision of the meaning of the promises, and rejoiced in the hope of their future fulfilment. Christ was the consummation of all the aspirations of A., the father of the race. According to the Jewish tradition (Bereshith Rabba 44, Wünsche), A. saw the whole history of his descendants in the mysterious vision recorded in Gn 158 ff.. Thus he is said to have 'rejoiced with the joy of the law' (Westcott on Jn 856).

The subject of the faith of A. seems to have formed a stock subject of discussion in the Jewish synagogue. It is alluded to in 1 Mac 252 Was not A. found faithful in temptation, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness?' The 'locus classicus' for the subject was Gn 156; and the question propounded by the Jewish teachers turned upon the nature of the faith which was counted to A. for righteousness. To Philo the whole history of A. was merely an allegory descriptive of the truly wise man whose inner nature is made one with the divine by teaching (didaσkaλía), as Isaac's by nature (púσis), and Jacob's by discipline (άσκησις). In Philo's treatment of the subject, 'faith,' which frees the soul from the dominion of the senses, was the queen of virtues' (de Abrah. ii. p. 39); and Philo refers to Gn 156 at least 10 times (see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 158, and Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, p. 55) for the purpose of indicating the supreme excellence of A.'s faith.

Rabbinical Judaism did not adopt the symbolical and abstract explanation which satisfied the Alex. philosopher. It regarded A. as inseparable from A.'s seed, and the faith of A. as consisting in the fulfilment of the law.

Against this Rabbinic interpretation St. Paul directs his argument in Ro 41-8 and Gal 3. Faith with the apostle is the motive power of the whole spiritual life, and he lays stress on the fact that the mention of A.'s faith precedes the institution of circumcision. The faith of the patriarch was not due to the rite; it was only ratified and confirmed by it (cf. Ro 49-12 and the notes of Sanday and Headlam). The same subject comes under discussion in the Ep. of St. James; and there the apostle of the circumcision safeguards, as it were, the Christian position from a perversion of the Pauline teaching. With St. James the faith' of A. is not so much the motive power of spiritual life as the settled belief, the genuineness of which can only be tested by action (Ja 219, see Mayor, in loc.).

Yet another reference to A.'s faith is found in He 118-11, where the patriarch is described as having been enabled to work towards the fulfilment of

God's counsel by his trust in the unseen' (Westcott, in loc.). The three features of the patriarch's life which the writer of the Ep. selects for the illustration of this faith,' are (1) self-surrender, in the departure from his home (v.); (2) patience, in the pilgrim's expectation of a future abiding place (vv.9.1); (3) influence, since his faith, affecting Sarah's faith, led to the fulfilment of the promise (vv. 11. 12).

Later Jewish teaching, dwelling on the same theme, says, 'In like manner thou findest that A. our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed on the Lord' (Mechilta on Ex 1481).

V. JEWISH TRADITION.-It was natural that Jewish tradition should be busy with regard to the great founder of the people of Israel. From the fact that A. received the divine call in Ur of the Chaldees, and ur in Heb. meant flame,' the strange story was invented of his having been cast into a fiery furnace by Nimrod. This legend appears in various forms. One of the best known is that which is recorded in the Targ. of Jonathan on Gn 1128 And it was when Nimrod had cast A. into the furnace of fire because he would not worship his idol, and the fire had no power to burn him, that Haran's heart became doubtful, saying, If Nimrod overcome, I will be on his side; but if A. overcome, I will be on his side. And when all the people who were there saw that the fire had no power over A., they said in their hearts, Is not

Haran the brother of A. full of divinations and charms, and has he not uttered spells over the fire that it should not burn his brother? Immediately there fell fire from the high heavens and consumed him; and Haran died in sight of Terah his father, where he was burned in the land of his nativity, in

the furnace of fire which the Chaldæans had made for A. his brother' (Etheridge's tr.).

Another version of the story appears in Bereshith Rabba, where A. refuses to obey Nimrod's command that he should worship fire; and suggests that it would be more reasonable to worship water that quenches fire, or the clouds that give the rain, or the wind that drives the clouds; finally, he exhorts Nimrod to worship the one God. Nimrod causes A. to be thrown into a fiery furnace; but God delivers him from its flames. For other instances of the Rabbinic treatment of A.'s life, see Weber, System der Altsynagog. Palästin. Theologie, Leipzig, 1880. In Pirke Abhoth (v.4) it is said,With ten temptations was A. our father tempted, and he withstood them all; to show how great was the love of A. our father.' For the ways in which the Rabbins reckoned up these ten temptations, see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 94.

The facts that A. came from Haran, that he won his victory at Hobah, near Damascus (Gn 1415), and that his servant was a native of Damascus (Gn 152), seem to have given rise to the legend that A. conquered Damascus. So Josephus relates that 'Nicolaus of Damascus,' in the 4th book of his history, says thus: A. reigned at Damascus, being a foreigner, who came with an army out of the land of Babylon.... Now the name of A. is even still famous in the country of Damascus ; and they show a village named after him, The habitation of A.' (Ant. 1. vii. 2). A.'s native country having been Chaldæa, he was credited by the Jews with a knowledge of secret arts and magic (cf. Philo, de præm. et pæn.; Jos. Ant. 1. vii.); and Josephus records the tradition that A. first introduced into Egypt the knowledge of arithmetic and astrology which he had brought with him from Chaldæa (Ant. 1. viii.).

For the preservation of these and other legends, see Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test., J. A. Fabric., tom. 1 (1722), and Beer, Leben Ab. (1859). The Testament of A. (first ed. by James, 'Texts and Studies,' Camb. 1892) deserves especial mention as an apocr.

VOL. I.-2

(apparently of Egyp. origin) of apocalyptic character, first mentioned by Origen, Legimus... justitiae et iniquitatis angelos super Abrahami salute et interitu disceptantes, etc. (In Le. Hom. 35), and recently brought before the notice of students in a most interesting form by the learned editor.

vi. THE NAME ABRAHAM.'-The attempts to discover the etymology of this name can hardly as yet be said to have been successful. According to one very prob. explanation, Abram represents a contracted form of Abiram or Aburam, just as 'Abner' probably stands for Abiner' or 'Abuner'; while Abraham may have been a local, or an Aramaic, dialectical variety of pronunciation. Abiram was a fairly common name (cf. Nu 161-12 269, 1 K 1684) in Heb.; and it is said to be a recognised form of Abu-ramu (so Schrader and Sayce). The proper name in the Assyr. Inscriptions, under the analogy of other proper names, like Abi-melek, Abiel, Abi-jah, makes it exceedingly doubtfu! whether the name Abram can rightly bear the meanings traditionally assigned to it, 'Lofty father, or the father of the lofty one.' For (1) it stands to reason that no child, however lofty its descent, would have been called 'father,' or 'the father of' a god, whether Melech, or Jah, or Ram; (2) the feminine names Abi-gail, Abi-tal, show the impossibility of this explanation. Probably, therefore, the right meaning of the name is Ram (the lofty one) is father,' as Hiram would mean Ram is brother,' of the owner of the name. the origin of the longer name Abraham remains still unexplained. The derivation of the name in termination -raham with the Heb. multitude.' Gn 175 is only a popular word-play, connecting the Halévy (Rev. Et. Juiv. 1887, p. 177) ventured to chief of a multitude,' the first part of the name propose that Abraham represents being derived, not from ab, father,' but from abir, 'chief,' and the second part from ham (root hamah), 'multitude.' For this theory there does not appear to be much probability. The deriv. of the longer likely explanation of it is to be found in the variant name must be left uncertain, although the most pron. of proper names in different localities or in different clans of the same people. Thus may be a dialectical form of ; and Abraham the same in meaning as Abram (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex. p. 4, and in meaning as Abram, just as Abiram is the same Baethgen, Beiträge zur Sem. Rel. Gesch.).

Even so,

the

LITERATURE.-Besides the works mentioned above, the reader is referred to the Comm. on Genesis by Delitzsch, and Dillmann; to the Histories of Israel by Ewald, Reuss, and Kittel; to the works on OT Theology by Oehler, Schultz, and Dillmann. For illustration from Assyr. sources, see Sayce, Patriarchal Pal. (1895); Tomkins, Times of Abraham (1878); Schrader, COT (1885). H. E. RYLE.

ABRAHAM, BOOK OF.-A work, consisting of 300 orixo, bearing this name, is found in a list of Jewish apocryphal writings, preserved from a much earlier period, in an appendix to the Chronographia Compendiaria of Nicephorus (c. 800 A.D.). This list is printed in Credner's Gesch. des Kanons, 1847, as well as in Schürer's HJP II. iii. 126. The socalled Synopsis Athanasii presents the same list, omitting, however, the number of orixo, which is attached to each book in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. It is likely that this is the book from which Origen quotes as to a contest between the angels of righteousness and iniquity with regard to the salvation of Abraham (In Luc. Hom. 35); and James is prob. correct in identifying this Book with the Testament of A. (Texts and Studies, ii. 2, p. 27 ff.). An Apoc. of A. is mentioned by Epiphanius as used by the Ophites.

J. T. MARSHALL. ABRAHAM'S BOSOM.-A term used of the abode of the righteous dead, defining it as a position of blessedness in intimate association with the father of the faithful, the friend of God.' In Scripture

mitted to approach the presence of the king. This unnatural condition of things continued for two years, when A. applied to Joab to use his interest at court to procure a full reconciliation. David's general had, however, for some reason become less hearty in the matter, and declined even to meet A., until the latter resorted to the expedient of ordering his servants to set fire to Joab's barley field. When the owner of the field came in person to demand an explanation of this injury, he was at length persuaded to intercede with the king on behalf of his son, and his mediation proved successful. It is easy to conceive that David, by his injudicious mingling of leniency and severity, had completely forfeited the confidence of his son, and it was doubtless from this occasion onwards that A. began to hatch the plot that proved fatal to him, and which has gained for his name an unenviable immortality. He took advantage of a misunderstanding that seems to have existed between David and the men of Judah, and set himself sedulously to gain the confidence and affection of all visitors to the court. In particular, those who came to have matters of law decided were flattered by the attentions of the heir-apparent, who also was careful to drop hints that the king might do far more to expedite the administration of justice, and that if he (Absalom) were only judge, a very different state of things would be inaugur ated. Thus he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.' He was greatly helped in the accomplishment of his scheme by the extraordinary personal charms he possessed (2 S 1425-27).

How long this preparatory stage lasted is uncertain. The forty years of 2 S 157 manifestly cannot be correct, and should perhaps be read four years. When at length he judged that the time was ripe for the execution of his rebellious enterprise, A. obtained leave of absence from his father, on pretence of having to go to Hebron to pay a vow he had made during his sojourn in Geshur. His emissaries were at work throughout the whole land, preparing for a general rising, and his adherents became daily more numerous. At the very outset he gained over David's famous counsellor Ahithophel the Gilonite, who may have had reasons of his own for deserting the king (see BATHSHEBA). So alarming were the reports which reached David, that he resolved to abandon the capital and save himself and his household by flight to the eastern Jordanic territory. He was accompanied by the faithful Cherethites and Pelethites, to whom were added on this occasion a body of Gittites who had probably formed part of David's followers in the old days at Ziklag. The offer of Zadok and Abiathar to accompany him with the ark was declined, and Hushai the Archite was also directed to remain at Jerusalem and do his utmost to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel. Upon Absalom's arrival in Jerusalem, Hushai played the part of rebel so skilfully that he gained the complete confidence of the aspirant to the throne. Ahithophel first of all counselled A. to take a step which would make the breach between him and his father irreparable (2 S 1621-23), and then advised that prompt measures should be taken to pursue and destroy David before he could rally around him any considerable number of troops. Hushai counselled delay and cautious measures, and his advice was followed, to the chagrin of Ahithophel, who, seeing that all was lost, went and set his house in order and hanged himself. The two sons of Zadok and Abiathar were despatched by Hushai with intelligence to David of what had transpired at Jerusalem. The young men were hotly pursued, and narrowly escaped capture, but evading their pursuers by stratagem reached David, who the same night with his whole company passed over

Jordan. At Mahanaim, Barzillai the Gileadite and others supplied him liberally with provisions. Ere long a sufficient number of troops was assembled to justify the king in joining battle with the forces of A., which by this time had also passed the Jordan. The decisive battle was fought in the wood of Ephraim.' David, yielding to the wish of his supporters that he should not expose his life by taking the field in person, arranged his army in three divisions, commanded respectively by Joab, Abishai, and Ittai the Gittite. To each of these three generals he gave the charge, ' Deal gently, for my sake, with the young man, even with Absalom.' From the very first the tide of battle set strongly against the rebel army, which lost heavily in the engagement, and still more heavily in its retreat through the forest. Absalom himself was hurried by his mule under an oak, and becoming entangled by the head in the fork of a branch, hung defenceless. In this situation he was discovered by a soldier, who at once informed Joab. The royal general, who appreciated the situation more justly than his master, unhesitatingly pierced the hapless youth to the heart. Having thus disposed of the rebel leader, Joab recalled his troops from the pursuit of the vanquished army. When news of the issue of the battle was brought to David, he forgot everything else in grief at his son's death, and exclaimed again and again, ‘O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!' This conduct, natural enough from one point of view, might have had serious results but for the sturdy common-sense of Joab, who pointed out that the king had to think of his soldiers as well as his son. The remonstrance was sufficiently rough in its expression, yet David recognised its wisdom, and, stifling his emotion for the time, came out and thanked his troops for their gallant service in the field. A. was buried near the scene of his death, and the spot was marked by a great heap of stones. According to 2 S 142 he had three sons, and a daughter named Tamar. The latter is with much probability identified with Maacah of 1 K 152, the wife of Rehoboam (cf. 2 S 33, 2 Ch 11201.). The sons must have predeceased their father, or else a different tradition is followed in 2 S 1818, where we are told that A. had no son.

The story of Absalom forms part of the section 2 S 9-20 and 1 K 1-2, which, with the exception of a few passages, comes from a single pen. Its dominating aim is to trace the progress of Solomon to the throne. Hence it has to explain how the three sons of David who seemed to have superior claims, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, failed to secure the succession. The style is bright and flowing, the descriptions are graphic, and, with all the writer's evident partiality for David and Solomon, the historical character of these chapters, down even to the minutest details, is established by proofs that are amongst the strongest in the O.T.

LITERATURE.-Driver, Introduction, p. 172f.; Budde, Richter u. Samuel, pp. 247-255; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, etc., pp. 258-263, also Hist. of Isr. and Jud. 501.

J. A. SELBIE. ABSALOM IN APOCR. ('Αβεσσάλωμος, ̓Αγάλωμος A).-1. A. was the father of Mattathias, one of the captains who stood by Jonathan the Maccabee when the main part of his army fled at the beginning of a battle against the Syrians at Hazor in Northern Galilee (1 Mac 1170=Jos. Ant. XIII. v. 7). It is perhaps the same Absalom whose son Jonathan was sent by Simon the Maccabee to secure Joppa after his brother Jonathan had been imprisoned by Tryphon (1 Mac 13-Jos. Ant. XIII. vi. 4). 2. According to 2 Mac 11, one of two envoys sent by the Jews to Lysias when he began to treat with them for peace after his defeat at Bethsuror