J. A. Selbie.
AMMISHADDAI ("^P-PS! 'kinsman is Shaddai,' see God). — A Danite, father of Ahiezer (see art.), Nul"2»7*'-" 10" (P).
AMMIZABAD (i?!"?!! 'kinsman for, my people) has made a present'). — Son of Benaiah, for whom he appears at times to have officiated ; but the statement in the only passage (1 Ch 27') where he is mentioned is obscure. G. B. Gray.
AMMON, AMMONITES Cpril, r^r'!? ; in the inscriptions, Htt-Amm.ln). — A people occupj'ing territory east of tlie Jordan, between the Arnon on the south and the Jabbok on the north. The land lying farther to the south, separated from them Dy the Arnon, was the possession of the Moabites. Before the arrival of the Israelites at the plains of Moab, the Ammonites had been driven back from the Jordan banks by an Amorite tribe from the west under Sihon. These Amorites estab- lished a kingdom, carved out of the Ammonite terri- tories, with Heshbon as their capital. In this way
a strip of land along the eastern bank of the nver, varying in breadth from 20 to 30 miles, ceased to be regarded as belonging to the Ammonites, and was assigned to the transjordanic tribes of Reuben and Gad. The original territories of the Ammon- ites, extending from the Arnon to the Jabbok, and reaching to the eastern bank of the Jordan, had in earlier years been held by a giant race called Zamzummim (Dt 2""^'), to whom it seems that Og, king of Bashan, also belonged (Dt 3").
As to the origin of the children of Ammon, an account is given in Gn 19^, which has been inter- preted by some as genuinely historical, and by others as a reminiscence of a certain family rela- tionship, coloured by bitter hostility and national hatred. The latter position is maintained by such distinguished and moderate exegetes as Dillinann and Bertheau ; but by them the myth is regarded as historically justitied, and indeed suggested, by the lustful character and irregular habits of the Ammonites. On the other hand, Delitzsch perti- nently asks how such an origin can he assigned to the narrative, seeing that their supposed descent from Lot is made the one ground for exceptional treatment of the Ammonites and Moabites (Dt •29.19) The story of their origin certainly does not afford occasion for contemptuous or hostile treatment. This can be accounted for only by their unbrotherly conduct towards Israel, which caused such delay and hardship on the eve of the entrance into the promised land (Dt 23''). It appears to Delitzsch that the lewdness and moral corruption which characterized their later history resulted from their tainted origin, rather than suggested the story of that origin as given in our Scriptures. In any case, we must regard this notice as indicating a close relationship between the Ammonites and the Israelites. Tliat such a family connexion really did subsist between the two nations is con- firmed by the fact that almost all the names of Moabite and Ammonite persons and places that have come do\vn to us are easily understood by the use of a Hebrew lexicon. From this circiim- stance Kautzsch quite fairly concludes that these nations caunot be reckoned among the Arab tribes, but must have a place given them among the races allied to the Hebrews.
The name by which they were first known was 'children of Ammon.' Only in the literature of very late ages do we find the name Ammon used as the designation of the people (Ps 83'). In this very late, probably Maccabaean, psalm * (the only place in OT outside the Pent, in which Lot's name is found), a list is given of ten tribes confederated in open and violent opposition to Israel at the re-dedication of the temple, in which the names of Ammon and Moab occur. It is then said of all these confederates that ' they have holpen the children of Lot.' This latter designation is no doubt intended to apply to the Ammonites and Moabites. The meaning of the name BenS-Ammi, literally 'sons of my people,' points to derivation from parents both of whom were of one race.
The statement in Nu 21", that ' the border of the children of Ammon was strong,' t coming aftei a description of the destruction of the Anmntes by the Israelites as reaching to that border, is under- stood by Kautzsch and others as indicating tlie reason why the Israelites did not carry their con- quests farther east, and as therefore opposed to Dt 2", which makes Israel avoid conflict with the Ammonites in consequence of a divine command. The earlier passage, however, may be read as giving the reason wliy Sihon and his
• See Eivald, History of Itrael, i. 812, and Cheyne, Origin ()f the J'mtU^, 1S91, p. 97.
I Dillmann and many otkiTs read here iiv" 'Jazer tot ly 'strong.'
AJIMOX, AMMONITES
AMON
63
Amorites had not jmshed their conquests beyond this strip of land, with the possession of whicli they had rested salished. The Ammonites had retreated before the Amorites \rithin tlio natural fortresses of tJieir inland mountain region. 15ut thoui'h they had tlius under compulsion abandoned the fruitful Jordan Valley, the Ammonites never ceased to look apon the whole sweep of country down to the river banks as rightfully theirs. Some 800 years after the conquest of the land by the Isr., the king of the Ammonites made the unreasonable claim that they should restore to him tlie country that bad been taken so long before, not from his fore- fathers, but from their Amorite conquerors (Jg 11'*). This the Israelites, umler the brave Gilead- ite chief Jephtliah, refused to do, inllicting upon the Animouites and their allies a most huniiliating and crushing defeat.* Previous to this, foreigh teen years, the Ammonites had harassed those who occupied the coveted district ; and so successful had they been in this that they were encouraged to venture across the Jordan, and there held in terror the war- like tribes of Juilah, Heiijamin, and Ephrarm. While this i.s reported primarily and mainly to show the <ler)th to which the Israelites had sunk, it also afVords proof of the prowess and military importance of the Ammonites.