Ah, aha (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. 'Ah' is nsed to express grief (esp. in face of coming doom), except in Ps 3.5^ 'Ah (IIV 'Aha'), so would we have it,' where it e.\pres.ses the exultation of an enemy, and Mk 15-^ 'Ah (KV 'Ha!'), thou that destroycst the temple,' where it expresses mocking. The RV h.as introduced 'Ah!' into Lk 4" for 'Let us alone' of AV (Gr. "Ea, which may be either the imperat. of the verb idw to let alone or an inde- pendent interjection, formeil from the sound). -Aha (a combination of a, the oldest form of 'ah,' and hn) expresses malicious satisfaction, except in Is 44", where it denotes intense satisfaction, but without malice, ' Aha, I am warm ; I feel the lire.' J. Hastings. AHAB [zmif, 'Axorfj9, Assyr. A-hn-abbu) signifies ' father's brother.' (Cf. analogous uses of the same element nn 'brother' in Syr. proper names.) The meaning of the compound is jirobably 'one who closely resembles his father.' The father in this case was Orari, the founder of the dynasty, and from him the son inherited the military traditions and j)ro\vess which characterised his reign. A. married .lezebol ('75!"i<), daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre (the Ithobalos, priest of Astarte mentioned by Menander, quoted by Jos. c. Anion, i. 18). This was part of the policy of close alliance with Phirnicia, begun by Solomon, and cemented by Omri. This bond of union was designated by Amos (1") a 'covenant of brethren.' It was un- doubtedly founded on reciprocal commercial in- terest which subsisted for centuries, tho corn, oil, and other agricultural products of Canaan being exchanged for other commercial products of the grent mercantile ports of I'liamicia (cf. Ac 12). Whatever commercial advantages miglit accrue, Israel's national religion was destined to sull'er. A temj)le and altar to iiaal were erected in Samaria as well as an Asherahpole. To siiyicrsede Israel's national deity, J", by tlie Tyrian liaal, seemed an easy task. I'o a superUcial observer tho dillerence between the worship of Ephraim and that of Samaria might ajipear trilling. Both Baal and J" were worshippeil with similar sacrilicial accompani- ments. Moreover, northern Israel had for <enturie9 been exposed to all the influences which their more highly civilised Can. neighbours had introduced (.Ig 2'^- "), and even the very name Baal, ' Lord,' was current in their speech as an apiiellation of J" 52 AHAB AHAB (IIos2"'"). Yet there was one deep distinction wliich marked off the J" of Mosaisni from tlie Baal of the Caniuanites. The religion of Mosaisni was pure of sensual taint. The conjunction of Asherah with J" in the days of Josiah (2 K 23') was a corrupt practice due to foreign innovation. So also were the debasing accomijaniments of worship referred to in Am 2'. And the licentious cult of Baal and Ashtoreth, established by the influence of A.'s Phcen. wife, would certainly have its temple attendants, probably Tyrian A'jf/tlsAim and Kede- sfu/th. These features of worship, however, had become perilously familiar to N. Israel, owing to their close contact with Can. neighbours. Accord- ingly, as we can readily infer from the language of Elijah in 1 K 19, national feeling was not deeply or permanently roused even by the influence of liis stirring personality and by the occurrence of a prolonged drought of more than two years' dura- tion (1 K 17' 18'), which, according to Menander of Ephesus, extended to Phoenicia.t In all pro- bability, the military despotism wielded by the house of Omri, in alliance with a powerful northern State, was able to subdue any smouldering embers of discontent. But an act of cruel mjustice awakened the dormant spirit of the people. Like many Oriental monarchs, A. displayed a taste for architecture, which Tyrian influence stimulated and fostered. He built a palace for himself, adorned with woodwork (probably cedar) and inlaid ivory, in Jezreel (1 K 21' 22'). To this he desired to attach a suitable domain, and for the purpose endeavoured to acquire, by purchase or exchange, the vineyard of one of the wealthier inhabitants, Naboth. But Naboth was unwilling tr part with an ancestral inheritance. What A. could not accomplish by legal means, he was in- duced by the promptings of Jezebel to compass by fraud and judicial murder. This act aroused popular hatred, and the sense of outraged social order found expression in the denunciation of doom pronounced by Elijah (1 K 21"'"') against the king and his unscrupulous queen (see Naboth and Elijah). The incident is instructive to the student of Heb. religion, as it illustrates the con- trast in the attitude of Phcen. as compared with Heb. religion towards social morality. In the words of W. R. Smith, 'the religion of J" put morality on a far sounder basis than any other religion did, because the righteousness of J" as a God who enforced the known laws of morality was conceived as absolute ' (Prophets of Isr. 73). It is more than doubtful whether A. really com- prehended the religious issues. He regarded Elijah as a mischievous fanatic, 'a troubler of Israel ' bent on wrecking the imperial schemes of aggrandisement based on alliance with Phoenicia at tlio expense of Syria. Elijah, like many another since nis day, earned the title of unpatriotic, because he placed righteousness and religion before the exigencies of political statecraft. The military career of A. exhibits him as a warrior of considerable prowess. Respecting his wars with Syria we have only the brief record in I K 20-22. In 1 K 20 we are plunged in medias res. Samaria has been for some time closely in- vested by the Syrian army under Benhadad, or more probably Hadadezer {Dadidri), if we follow I he Assyr. annals (Stade). Of the defeats sustained by Israel prior to this siege we have no informa- tion. Benh.idad (Hadadezer) made an insolent demand of the Isr. king, in the desperate extremity of the latter, that Syrian envoys should search the royal palace and the houses of A.'s servants. This • Wellhausen's rejection of Hoa 28 (13 Heb.) is characteristic of his high <i priori nu-thod. t This took plaoe durinur the reijni of Ethbaal (Ithobalos). and lasted, according Co Uen&nder, ons year. Of Phaenicia this may have been true. was refused by A. with the unanimous approval of his people and their elders. To the arrogant menace of the Syrian, the king of Isr. replied in the proverbial phrase, 'Let not him who girds on the armour boast as he who puts it ott'.' Btnhadad at once ordered the engines of war (LXX ' lines of circumvallation ') to be placed against the city. But beyond this he took no further precaution, and resigned himself \vith careless ease to voluptuous carousal \vith his nobility and feudatory Kings. Meanwhile A. mustered his army of 7000 men, officered by 232 territorial commanders, and attacked the SjTians with crushing eti'ect (1 K 20'°''), inflicting a total overthrow. In the following spring the Syrian monarch again took the field with a well-appointed array of overwhelming superiority. The Syrians attributed their previous defeat to the fact that the God of Isr. was a God of the hills (where cavalry and chariots could not so well operate ). If they could draw the forces of A. into the valley near Aphek, all would be well. But the battle that followed utterly falsified their expectations. The Syrians were put to utter rout, and saved themselves by precipitate flight to Aphek. Benhadad and his followers went as suppliants to A., who judged it politic to receive them with friendliness. A treaty was concluded, in which the Syrian king conceded to Isr. special quarters(streets) in Damascus,! a privilege which corresponded with a similar right which Omri was compelled to con- cede to Syria in his own capital, Samaria. With the defective Biblical records before us, it is not easy to explain the complaisant attitude of A. in the hour of his victory. But the key to the solution of the mystery is given to us in the Assyr. annals. From these we learn that about this time a new disturbing factor was beginning to appear in W. Asian politics. Ever since the time of baul the arena of Pal. foreign politics had been circum- scribed within the region of the Hittite, Syrian, and Can. borders, and the interference of Egypt had only been occasional. Since the days of Tiglath- pUeser I. (c. B.C. 1 100) the military power of Ass3-ria had been dormant. But during the time of Omri there were vivid signs that Assyria was at length awakening from its century long slumber, under the energetic rule of As4ur-nazir-pal. During the reign of his successor Shalmaneser (Sulmftnu- a.5aridu) II., who reigned from 860-825, it began to press more heavily on the lands near the Mediter. border, and to extend its boundaries towards the Hittite States. About the year 857 the power of this monarch threatened seriously the Pal. region. The king of Syria would be among the first to feel apprehension. The immediate ettect of Shalmaneser's advance was to put an end, at least for a time, to the wars between Syria and Ahab. And in the negotiations described in 1 K 20'- " it is pretty certain that the advance of the Assyr. power from the N.E. formed a subject of conversa- tion between the two kings, and that Benhadad was glad, even upon disadvantageous terms, to get rid of a burdensome and exhausting war, in order that all his forces might be reserv'ed to confront the formidable Assyr. foe. The attack was de- livered in the year B.C. 854, when the battle of ^Carkar was fought. A considerable number of States, including Israel, but not including Judah, Edom, or Moab,t had united with Hadadezer • We know that the Israelites also possessed chariotA In con- siderable nunil)er, from the express statement of the monoUth inscription of Shalmaneser II. lines 91, 92. Cf. 1 K 22. ♦ Ewald {r;M. d. V. Itr. iii. 488 n.) translates the Heb. by places of aliode' (comparing the Arab, mahattah), i.e. perma- nent ambasa.'ulorial residence. But this explanation is ver>' far- fetched. LX.X renders i£o9ow , ' street.' For other interpreta- tions see Thenius, ad loc. J In the case of Moab, the reason adduced by Prof. Sayc« Is probably the ri^'ht one. Moab sent no contingent, because ChAt State was then in revolt against Israel {HCM p. a93). AFTAK AHAZ 53 ( = Da<iidri = Benhadad) to resist the Assyrians. The account of the whole campaign may be read in the monolith in8cri|)tion quoted in Schrader's COT' i. 183 ff. In lines 91, 92 we read that A., king of Israel, sent a contingent of 2U()0 chariots and 10,000 men. The total defeat of the allied kings, though probably obtained with heavy loss to the Assyrians, sufliced to break up the alliance. A. now followed the short-sighted policy of isolation in presence of the formidable Assyr. power — a policy which in the following century Ephraim and Judali in turn pursued with baleful results. The consequence was a renewal of the wars between Syria and Israel, which had been for some years suspended. We may infer from the scriptural account that A. took the initiative by endeavour- ing to recover Ranioth-gilead from Syria. Pro- biibly the allied kings of Isr. and Jud. endeavoured to profit by the weakness of Syria after the over- whelming defeat sustained by the latter in the battle of Karkar. In 1 K 22 we have a vivid por- trayal of the dramatic scene between Micaiah, son of Imlah, and the prophets who prophesied in favour of immediate war with Syria (see Micaiah). For Micaiah the result was imprisonment as the penalty for his outspoken deliverance of the divine message. Undeterred by the gravity of his prophecy, A. and Jehoshaphat went forth at the head of their respective forces to battle. But A. resolved to secure his person against the Syrian archers by appearing in liis chariot divested of the ordinary insignia of royalty. This precaution, however, did not avail him against the chance arrow of a bowman, which penetrated between the joints of his breastplate. The king of Isr. slowly Died to death, and died about sunset. His body was conveyed to Samaria, where he was buried. In the foregoing account of the Syrian wars of A. we have a^iopted the sequence of events recoinmcnded by Schnuler {COV i. 189 ff., whopvcs the Assvr. text and tr.), Ed. Jlcyer (OmcA. de» Alterthuim, i. 39,1), and recently bySayce (UCM 320, 392), which places the battle of Karljar near the close of A. 'a life. On the other hand, Wellhaiisen (art. Israel ' in EjicycL Brit.) places the battle of Karkar and the alliance with (or, as be deems it, va88alaj,'e • to) Syria in the times that precede the Syrian wars of A.'s rei(rn- But this view imposes great diffi- culties on the chroiKilo^'y of the period. From the Asayr. Canon of Rulers, compilt-d with great care and precision, and also from the Assyr. Annals, we obtain the following fixed dates :— Battle of Karf^ar (in which A.'b oontingeDt takes part) 854 B.o. Tribute of Jehu, ' son of Omri ' .... 842 ,, Now, if we place the battle o( Karlfar h«Jort the Syrian wars of A.'8 reign, his death cannot be placed earlier than B.C. 847. Accordingly, in place of the 14 years assigned by Scripture to the reigns of Aha/.iat) and Jehorain we can only allow a maximum of fix>e yean I On the other hand, by aioj)ting the •equence which we have wivocated, the difficulties are con. •iderably reduced. A.8 death may then be placed in the year B.C. 863. Kamphausen, in his valuable treatise on the Chrono- logy of the Ileb. Kings (p. 80), suggests that A.'s name has been confused with that of his successor Jehoram in the Assyr. Annals ; and Kittel, in his HUt. of the Ufbrewe ^Germ. ed. ii. 133), seems disposeii to accept this view. But agauist this pro. eeeding we must enijihali^-AlIy protest. Bibli(uil science will never make sure progress if we reject or modify archajological evidence in the interests of a chronological theory. The theory must be conformed to the evidence, not pice vemH. (On the lubject of Ileh. chronology see the writer's remarks in Scbrarlcr's CO'f ii. 8'a)-324, and also in C. H. H. Wright's liihle lUoiLrif Manual.) That A.'s rule was firm though despotic, and maintained the military traditions inaugurated by Omri, is in(liiate<l by the Moabite Stone, wliicli informs us (lines 7, 8) that (Jmri and his son nilc'd over the land of Mehdeba (conqucied by the former) for 40 years. It was not till the con- cluding part of A.'s reign, when he was occupied with his Syrian wars, that ^Ioal) rose in insurrection. The historian must not fail to take due note of the • Tlio large contingent (2000 chariot and 10.000 men) furnished by A., according to the Assyr. records, reoden Uiu theory of vassalage ' extremely improbable. .Judaic tendency of the narrative in 1 K 18-22, which paints the life of A. in sombre hues. When more than a century had pa.ssed after the destruc- tion of his posterity, it is worthy of remark that the Epliraimite prophet Hosea (1*) expresses a strong condemnation of Jehu's deeds of blood. In Mie 6", on the other hand, we see clearly refiected the Judaic estimate of Omri's dynasty, which dominates the account in 1 K 18-22. Owen C. Whitehouse.