* Out of my lean and low ability I'W lend you somelhin^.*
—Shakespeare, T. N. UL 4.
This is the meaning also of An 11^ 'Then the disciples, every man according to his a., deter- mined to send relief unto the brethren,' though the original is a verb, naBui evTopurb ns, raeanin" 'ace. as each prospered.' 2. It signilies personal capacity, strength of body or of mind. Thus Dn I'' ' Such as had a. (ps) in them to stand in the king's palace' ; Mt 25" ' He gave talents . . . to every man according to his several a. {dum/us).' Ho Wis 13'", Sir 3'^ AVm. In modern Eng. a. is almost confined to mental capacity, though one hears it locally used of physical strength. In the sense of wealth the latest example found is in Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield.
J. Hastings.
ABIMAEL (Sx^'jtj, perhaps = • father is God,' but the forte of the 0 is uncertain) was one of the Joktaniils or (S. ) Arabians (see art. Joktan), Gn 10^ (J), I Ch l^". Nothing further is known of this tribe, but it is markworthy that another name of the same j)eculiar formation, viz. TnyoDK, has been found on the S. Arabian inscriptions ; see D. H. .Midler in ZVMG 1883, p. 18.
G. B. Gray.
ABIMELECH (l^r;t< 'Melech [Malki or Molech] is father'). — 1, A king of Gerar mentioned in con- nexion with the history of Abraham, Gn 20'"" 21»-'«(both E), and of Isaac, Gn 26'-"-«-*' (both J). With all their i)oints of dilference, it appears im- possible to resist the conclusion that we have in J and E two variants of the same story. In both the patriarch re.sorts to the same method of defence to
rotect himself from the same danger (20'' '20') ; in
th A. is righteously indignant at the deceit practised upon him (2U"''- 26'") ; in both a treaty is entered into with A. (21^'- 2(i-="); in both Phicol (012-^ .2(jai) „nd IJeersheba(21''2 2G'»)are mentioned. In all i)robability J has preserved the earlier form of the tradition, ace. to which Isaac, and not Abraham, was the patriarch concerned. The parallel story in Gn 12"'''^ (where Pharaoh of Egypt takes the place of A. of Gerar) is also from a Jalnvistic source, but scarcely from the saina pen as 2t)'"". If the title .J' be adopted for the latter, we may designate the other J^, whether we accept or not of Kuenen's theory that he edited a Judiean recension of J .
LiTRRATCRK. — Comm. of Dillm. and Del. on Oen. U. eit.; Comill, EinlfU.' 64f. ; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T. 78, 138;
IK)
Kautzsch u. Socin, Genegis ; W. R. Smith, OTJC 410 Kuenen, Uexateuch, 234, 252.
2. A king of Gath ace. to title of Ps 34'. Here A. is possibly a mistake for Achish (cf. 1 S 21""'), a better known Phil, name being substituted for a less familiar one, or it nmy be that Aliimelech is less a personal name than a title of Phil, kings like Egyp. Pharaoh (see Ujf. Heb. Lex. s.v.).
3. This A. IS generally reckoned one of the judges (so in J" W, but probably not by editor of 9 nor in 1 S 12"). Ace. to Jg 8^' (K) he was a son of Gideon by a Shechemite concubine. Upon his father's death he gained over 'his mother's brethren ' in Shechem, and with the aid of a hired troop of 'vain and light fellows' murdered all his 70 brothers exce])t the youngest, Jotham, who con- trived to e.scape. A. then ascended the throne and assumed the kingly title (9''''). Jotham, leav- ing his place of concealiuent, spoke at Mt. Gerizim his well-known parable (vv.'"-'), which was calcu- lated to sow di.ssension amongst the bhechemites, who were partly of Can. and partly of Isr. blood. After three years both sections were weary of the rule of A., who seems to have taken up his residence elsewhere (vv.^^"^). Gaal, the leader of the Israelite faction (see, however, Moore on Jg 9^), made such headway in Shechem that Zebul, the governor, an adherent of A., was obliged to feign compliauce with his designs. All the while, however, he was keeping A. secretly informed of the revolutionary movement, and sug- gesting methods of checking it (vv. *'"'"). At length A. advanced to attack the city, and Gaal was completely routed, and after his defeat expelled by /cbul (vv.*'"'"). In a second day's fight A. captured Shechem and put to the sword all the inhabitants that fell into his hand.s. A number having taken refuge in the temple of El-berith, he burned the building over their heads {vv."-"'}. Sometime afterwards A. met his deatli while besieging Thebez. Being struck down by a millstone which a woman iTun" from the wall, he ordered his armour-bearer to Kill him in order to escape the disgrace of perishing by the hand of a woman (vv.*'""').
The above is a reasonable and in general self- consistent narrative, but there are not a few points of detail where the course of events is involved in considerable obscurity. Zebul upon any theory plays a double part, but it is not quite certain whether there wa-s tio the last a complete under- standing between him and A. Kittel thinks there was, and supposes that Z. was put to death by the Shechemites after they discovered his treachery. Wellhausen, on the contrary, believes that he per- ished along with the Shechemites, A. having come to regard him as the real instigator of the revolt, and refusing to be propitiated by the oU'ering of Gaal as a scape-goat. It is further doubtful whether A. himself acted in the interests of the Can. or of the Isr., but at all events Wellhausen rightly remarks that ' the one permanent fruit of his activity was that Shechem v.as destroyed as a Can. city and rebuilt for Israel' (cf. 1 K I'i'-").