We find the name of a son of Abner, Jaasiel, sub- sequently appointed phylarch, under Solomon, of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron. xxvii, 21). (On the character of Abner, see Kitto's Baihj Bible Jlhist. in loc. ; Niemeyer, Charakterist. iv, 343 sq. On his death, see C. Simeon, II 'oris, iii, 327 ; H. Lindsay, Lec- tures, ii, 30 ; R. Harris, Works, p. 231.) See David.
Abnet. See Girdle.
Abo, a Lutheran archbishopric in Finland (q. v.'). A bishopric was established in Abo in the thirteenth century, which, in 1817, was elevated by the Russian government to the rank of an archbishopric.
Abodah. See Talmud.
Abomination (^1»B, piggul' , filthy stench, Lev. vii, 18; "abominable," Lev. xix, 7; Isa. lxv, 4; Ezek. iv, 14; "PIplT, shikkuts' ', Deut. xxix, 17; 1 Kings xi, 5, 7; 2 Kings xxiii, 13, 24; 2 Chron. xv, 8 ; Isa. lxvi, 3 ; Jer. iv, 1 ; vii, SO ; xiii, 27 ; xvi, 18 ; xxxii, 34; Ezek. v, 11; vii, 20; xi, 18, 21 ; xx, 7. 8, 30 ; xxxvii, 23 ; Dan. ix, 27 ; xi, 31 ; xii, 11 ; Hos. ix, 10; Nah. iii, C; Zech. ix, 7; or V|?UJ, she'kets, filth, Lev. vii, 21; xi, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41, 42; Isa. lxvi, 17; Ezek.viii, 10; elsewhere FOSitl, toebah' , abhorrence ; Sept. fidiXvyfia, and so N. T., Matt, xxiv, 14; Mark xiii, 14; Luke xvi, 15; Rev. xvii, 4, 5; xxi, 27), any object of detestation or disgust (Lev. xviii, 22 ; Deut. vii, 25) ; and applied to an impure or detestable action (Ezek. xxii, 11; xxx, 26; Mai. ii, 11, etc.); to any thing causing a ceremonial pollution (Gen. xliii, 32 ; xlvi, 34 ; Deut. xiv, 3) ; but more especially to idols (Lev. xviii, 22; xx, 13; Deut. vii, 26; 1 Kings xi, 5, 7 ; 2 Kings xxiii, 13); and also to food offered to idols (Zech. ix, 7) ; and to filth of ev- ery kind (Nah. iii, 6). There are several tests in which the word occurs, to which, on account of their peculiar interest or difficulty, especial attention has been drawn. See Idolatry.
The first is Gen. xliii, 32: "The Egyptians might not eat' bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abom- ination (na"lp) unto the Egyptians." This is best explained by the fact that the Egyptians considered themselves ceremonially defiled if they ate with any strangers. The primary reason appears to have been that the cow was the most sacred animal among tho Egyptians, and the eating of it was abhorrent to them ; whereas it was both eaten and sacrificed by the Jews
ABOMINATION
25
ABOMINATION
and most other nations, who, on that account, were abominable in their eyes. It was for this, as we learn from Herodotus (ii, 41), that no Egyptian man or woman would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or would use the cleaver of a Greek, or his spit, or his dish, or would taste the flesh of even clean beef (that is, of oxen) that had been cut with a Grecian carving-knife. It is true that Wilkinson (Anc. Egyptians, iii, 358) ascribes this to the disgust of the fastidiously-clean Egyptians at the comparatively foul habits of their Asiatic and other neighbors ; but it seems scarcely fair to take the facts of the father of history, and ascribe them to any other than the very satisfactory reasons which he assigns for them. We collect, then, that it was &s foreigners, not pointedly as Hebrews, that it was an abomination for the Egyptians to eat with the breth- ren of Joseph. The Jews themselves subsequently exemplified the same practice ; for in later times they held it unlawful to eat or drink with foreigners in their houses, or even to enter their dwellings (John xviii, 28 ; Acts x, 28 ; xi, 3); for not only were the houses of Gentiles unclean (Mishna, Ohaloth, xviii, 7), but they themselves rendered unclean those in whose house they lodged (Maimonides, Mishcab a Morheb. xii, 12) which was carrying the matter farther than the Egyptians (see also Mitsvoth Torn, 1-18). We do not trace these instances, however, before the Captiv- ity (see J. D. Winkler, Animadvers. I'hilol. ii,, 175 sq.). See Uncleanness.
The second passage is Gen. xlvi, 34. Joseph is tell- ing his brethren how to conduct themselves when in- troduced to the king of Egypt ; and he instructs them that when asked concerning their occupation they should answer, " Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both ice and also ow fathers." This last clause has emphasis, as show- ing that they were hereditary nomade pastors ; and the reason is added, '" That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen,yw every shepherd is an abomination (!"D3;ifi) unto the Egyptians." In the former instance they were "an abomination" as strangers, with whom the Egyptians could not eat ; here they are a further abomination as nomade shepherds, whom it was certain that the Egyptians, for that reason, would locate in the border land of Goshen, and not in the heart of the countnr. That it was nomade shepherds, or Bedou- ins, and not simply shepherds, who were abominable to the Egyptians, is evinced by the fact that the Egyp- tians themselves paid great attention to the rearing of cattle. This is shown by their sculptures and paint- ings, as well as by the offer of this very king of Egypt to make such of Jacob's sons as were men of activity " overseers of his cattle" (xlvii, G). For this aversion to nomade pastors two reasons are given ; and it is not necessary that we should choose between them, for both of them were, it is most likely, concurrently true. One is, that the inhabitants of Lower and Middle Egypt had previously been invaded by, and had re- mained for many j-ears subject to, a tribe of nomade shepherds, who had only of late been expelled, and a native dynast}' restored — the grievous oppression of the Egyptians by these pastoi-al invaders, and the in- sult with which their religion had been treated. See Hyksos, The other reason, not necessarily supersed- ing the former, but rather strengthening it, is that the Egyptians, as a settled and civilized people, detested the lawless and predator}' habits of the wandering shepherd tribes, which then, as now, bounded the val- ley of the Nile and occupied the Arabias — a state of feeling which modern travellers describe as still exist- ing between the Bedouin and fellahs of modern Egypt, and indeed between the same classes everywhere in Turkey, Persia, and the neighboring regions (see Crit- ic* Sac. Thes. Nov. i, 220). See Shepherd.