ABOMINATION (a-bOrn-t-na'sh5n), (I Ieb.
Jig-goot, filth, Lev. vii:18; shik-•oots', un clean, Deut. xxix:17, etc.; sh•h'kets, rejected, Lev. N'11:21, etc.; to-ay-baw' • causing ab horrence, Gen. xliii:32; C:r.1351Xtenia, bdel'onc-mah, Matt. xxiv:15, etc.).
These words describe generally any object of de testation or disgust (Lev. xviii :22 ' Deut. vii :25) ; and are applied to an impure or detestable action (Ezek. xxii ; xxx :26; Mal. ii :1 t, etc.) ; to anything causing a ceremonial pollution (Gen. xliii :32 ; xlvi :34 ; Deut. xiv :3) ; but more espe cially to idols (Lev. xviii :22 ; xx :13 ; Deut. vii :26; Kings xi :5, 7; 2 Kings xxiii :13) ; and also to food offered to idols (Zech. ix :7) ; and to filth of every kind (Nahum iii :6). (See also Deut. xxix :17; I Kings xi :5, 7: 2 Kings xxiii :13, 24 ; 2 Chron. xv :8; Is. lxvi :3; Jer. iv :1; vii :3o: xiii: 27; Xvi:18; xxxii :34 ; Ezck. v :it; vii :20 ; xi:18, n ; xx :7, 8, 3o; xxxvii :23; Dan. ix :27; xi :3t ; xii ; it •, Hos. ix :to; Nall. ii1:6; Zech. ix :7).
(1) Difficulty. There are two or three of the texts in which the word occurs, to which, on ac count of their peculiar interest or difficulty, espe cial attention has been drawn. The first is Gen. xliii :32: 'The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' This is best explained by the fact that the Egyptians considered themselves ceremonially defiled if they ate with any strangers. The pri mary reason appears to have been that the cow was the most sacred animal among the Egyptians, and the eating of it was abhorrent to them ; whereas it was both eaten and sacrificed by the Jews and most other nations, who on that ac count were abominable in their eyes. It was for this, as we learn from Ilerodottis (ii :4i ), 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 Sir J. G. Wilkinson (Ant-. Egyptians, iii :358) ascribes this to the repugnance of the fastidiously clean Egyptians to 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 to them any other than the very satisfactory reason which he assigns. We collect then that it was as foreigners, not pointedly as Hebrews, that it was an abominatio" for the Egyptians to eat with the brethren 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 houses (John xviii : 28; Acts x:28; xi :3) ; for not only were the houses of Gentiles unclean, but they themselves rendered unclean those in whose houses they lodged.
(2) Instructions of Joseph. The second pas sage is Gen. xlvi :34. Joseph is telling his brethren how to conduct themselves when introduced to the king of Egypt, and he instructs them that when asked concerning their occupation they should answer : 'Thy servants' trade bath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers.' This last clause has emphasis, as showing that they were hereditary nomade pastors, and the reason is added: 'That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen—for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' In the former instance they were 'an abomina tion' 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 country. That it was nomade shepherds, or Bedouins, and not simply shepherds, who were abominable to the Egyptians, is evinced by the fact that the Egyptians themselves paid great at tention to the rearing of cattle. This is shown by their sculptures and paintings, as well as by the offer of this very king of Egypt to make such of Jacob's sons as were men of activity 'over seers of his cattle' (xlvii:6). 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 remained for many years subject to, a tribe of nomade shepherds (see EGYPT), who had only of late been expelled, and a native dynasty restored—the grievous oppres sion of the Egyptians by these pastoral invaders and the insult with which their religion had been treated. The other reason, not necessarily super seding the former, but rather strengthening it, is that the Egyptians, as a settled and civilized people, detested the lawless and predatory habits of the wandering shepherd tribes, which then, as now, bounded the valley of the Nile, and occupied the Arabias.