Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopaedia Biblica Vol I to IV"

See other formats



m TimiinniiM S3:iipmiiii 












The Rev, T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D. 







L to P 



Ali righti reservtd 


Copyright, 1902, 

First edition, Aprii, 1902. 

NortaoD» 33rfH« 

J. 8. CuBhing & Co. — Berwick & Smith 

Norwood Ma». U.S. A. 



The foUowing pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see 
above, p. xiv 3 i. [a]) of the Encyclop<Edia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the 
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as bave seemed to be fairly 
obvious. The biblìographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student. 

The Canonical and Apocryphal books of tlìe Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex-, Lev., 
Nu., Dt-, Josh-, Judg-, Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps-, Pr., Eccles-, 
C(an)t., Is-, Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., 
Zech., Mal. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. (/>., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd-, Ecclus-, Baruch, Epistle of 
Jeremy (/.^., Bar. eh. 6). Song of the Three Children (Dan. B^j), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 
Frayer of Manasses, 1-4 Macc. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph-, Phil., Col., Thess., 
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb-, Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude. Rev. [or Apoc]. 

An explanation of some of the symbols (A, S, B, etc), now generally used to denote certaìn 
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p, xvi. It may be added that 
the bracketed index numerals denote the edìtion of the work to which they are attached : thus 
0TJO-> = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions RP'-^^t AOF^^^ \ see 
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see 
below under D^, Es, Ji;, Pa- 

When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation. 

It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encychpadia Biblica, and that the 
name may be abbreviated thus: Ency. Bib. or EBi. U will be observed that ali the larger 
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections (§§) ; or any passage can readily be cited 
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end 
of the work. 


AF . 

Abulw. . . Abulwalul, the Jewish grammarian 
(b. circa 990J, author of Bookof 
Koots, etc. 
The Academy ." A Weekly Revie-w 
of Lileraiure, Science, and Ari. 
London, '69 _^ 
See AOF. 

Ancient Hehreu) Tradition. See 
AU[^test]. Uiit. . See Winckler. 
Ainer. Journ. of American Journal of Philology, 

l'hil. 'So/; 

A\^'ner.~\J\ourn.'\ American Journal of Semilic Lan- 
S[em.'\ L[_ang.~\ guagei and Literatures (continu- 
ing llebraica ['84-95]), '95.^- 
. Joseplius, Aniiquities, 
. Aitorientaliscke Furschungen. See 

. Apocrypha Anecdota, ist and 2nd 
scries, published under the 
general ti ti e ' Texts and Studies' 
at the Cambridge University 
. Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp. 
revolt against Hadrian), author 
of a Greek translation of the Old 
Testament. See Text. 
. Arabie. 

Aramaic, See Aramaic. 
Arck(£ology or Arch'àologie. See 
Bcn^inger, Nowack. 
. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88. 
Reste arabiseken Heidentums. See 


Assyrisches Handw'òrterbuck. See 
, W. M. Mailer, Asien «. F.wopa 
nac/i aiiàgyptiscken Denkmàkrn, 

Ani. Tab. . 
A7U. . 

Apocr. Anecd. 


Ar. . 

Ar. Des. . 
Ar. IJeid., or 

Ass. . 
Ass. II WB 

As. u. Eur. 

AT, ATliche , Das Alte Testament, Alttestament- 
liche. Old Testament. 

AT Unters. . Alltestamentliche Untersuckungen. 
See Winckler. 

AV . , . Authorised Version. 

b. . , . ben, b^ne (son, sons, Hebrew). 

Ba. . . . Eaer and DelitzscVs criticai edition 
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic, 
'69, and foUowing years. 

Bah. . . . Babylonian. 

Baed., or Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin), 

Baed. Fai. <2), '94; I3I, '98 (Benzinger) based 

on 4th German ed. 

lìaethg., or Baethgen, Beitràge zur semitiscken 

Ba^lhg.Seilr. Feligions-gesckicìUe, '88. 

BAG . , CP.'ì'KÌ&jBabylonisc/ìe-assyriscke 

Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '8ìS, 

Ba.A^. , . 'QzxMn, Die Nominalbildung in den 
semitiscken Sprachen, \., '89; ii., 
'91; (2) '94. 

Baraitha . . See Law LrfERATURE. 

BOB Lex. . [Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon^ 

A Hcfirettr and English Lexicon 
of the Old Testament, based on 
the I^exicon of Gesenius, hy F. 
Brown, with the co-operation of 
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, 
Oxford, '92, and foUowing vears, 

Be. . . . E. Bertheau (1812-88), Inl^GII; 

Fichter u. l\uth, '45 ; (^' '83; 
Clironik, '54; '-', '73; F.sra, 
Nehemia n. Ester, '62; '-', by 
Ryssel, '87. 

Beitr. . . Beitràge, especially Baethgen (as 

Beitr. z. Ass. , Beitr'à^e zur Assyriologìe 11. semi- 
tischen Sprachwissenscliaft : ed. 
Frietl. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt, 
i., '90; ii.,'94; iii,, '98; iv. i,'99. 

Benz. HA . I. Benzinger, Ilebràische Archà- 

ologie, '94. 




Biblioth. Sac. 
BJ . . 
BL . 


K'òn. . Koitige in KHC, '9,9. 

Bertholet, Siel- A. Bertholet, Die Siellung der !s- 
lung raeliten u. der /uden zu den 

Freni de n, '96. 
Gustav Bickell : 

Grundrhs der hebràhchen 
Grammatik, '69 /I ; ET, '77. 
Carmina VT metrice etc.,''%2. 
Dicktungen der Hebràer, '82/. 
Kritisthe Bearbeitung der 
Prciv., '90. 
Bibliotheca Sacra, '43_^ 
De Bello Judaico. ISee Josephus, 
Schenkel, Bihel- Lexicon ; Rea!- 
wòrterbuch zum Handgebrauch 
fiir Geistliche u. Gemeinde- 
glieder, 5 vols., '69-'75. 
S. Bochart (i599-i66'7) : 

Geographia Sacra, 1646 ; 
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali- 
bus ScripturcB Sacra, 1663. 
Aug. Boeclih, Corpus Inscr. Grcsc., 

4 vols-, '28-77, 
Babylonian and Orientai Record, 

Friedrich Bóttcher, Ausfukrliches 
Lehrbuch der kebràischen Spra- 
che, '66-'68. 
Bòttger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des 
FI. Josephus, '79. 
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson. 
Bu. . . . Kad Budde : 

Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 

1-120, '83. 
Ri. Sa. . Die Buchcr Rickter und Samuel, 

ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau,'go. 
Sam. . . Samuel in SBOT (Heb.), '94. 
Das Buch Iliob in HK, '96. 
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KHC, '98. 



Bottg. Lex. 


Buxt. Syn.Jud. 

Buxt. Lex. 

e, cir. 
Calwer Bib. 

e. Ap. 
CH . 

Chald. Gen. 


Proph. Is. 
Job and Sol. 
Ps. . 

OPs. . 

Aids . 
Intr. Is. 

See Pai. 

Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629), 

Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc, 
Johann Buxlorf, son (1599-1644), 

Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- 

cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio. 

Reprint with additions by B. 

Fischer, 2 vols., '69 and '74- 


Calwer Kirckelexikon, Tkeologi- 
sches Handv/òrterbuck, ed. P. 
Zeller, '89-'93. 
cantra Apionem. See Josephus. 
Composition des Hexateuchs. See 

The Chaldean Account of Genesis, 
by George Smith. A new edi- 
tion, thoToughly revised andcor- 
rected by A. H. Sayce, '80. 
T. K. Cheyne: 

J'-ie Propkecies ef Isaiah, 2 vois. 
('8o-'8l ; revised, «^1, '89). 
Job and Salomon, ox The IVisdom 
of the Old Testameiit ('87). 
The Book of Psalms, tran si. 
with comm. {'88); (2), re- 
written (forthcoming) . 
The Origin and Religious Con- 
tents of the Psalter (' Bampton 
Lectures,' '89), '91. 
Aids to the Devoul Study of 

Cr itici sm, '92. 
Founders of Old Testament 

Criticism, '94. 
Introduction to the Book of 
Isaiah ('95). 

Is.SBOT. Isaiah in. SBOT [Eng.], 

('97); [Heb.], ('99). 
Jeremtak, kis Ltfe and Times in ' Men of the 

Bible' ('88). 
Jew. Rei. Life Jewish Religious Life after the 
Exile, '98. 
CIG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Gracarum 

(ed. Dittenberger), '82 _^. See 
also Boeckh. 
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 

Berlin, '63, and following years, 
14 vols., with supplements. 
CIS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica- 

rum, Paris, '81^. Pt. i., Phceni- 
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt. 
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv., 
S. Arabian inscriptions. 
Class. Rev. . The Classical Review, '&"] ff- 

Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau : 

Ree. . . Recueil d'Archeologie,'?,^ ff. 

Co. . . . Cornili : 

Ezek. , Das Buch des Propheten 

Fzechiel, '86. 
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa- 

ment, '91; <^', '96. 
Ilist. , Ilistory of the People of Israel 

from the earliest iimes, '98. 
COT . . The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the 

Old Testament. See Schrader. 
Crit. Mon. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Cfiticism 
and the Verdict of the Monu- 
tnents, '94. 
Cr. Rev. . , Criticai Revie^D of Theological ahd 
Philosophical Literature [ed. 
Salinond], '^iff- 

D . . . 

Da . - . 

Dalm. Gram, . 

Worte Jesu 
Aram. Lex. 


Job . 

DB -. 

de C. Orig. 

De Geni. . 

Par. . 
Heb. Lang. 

Author of Deuteronomy ; also use d 

of Deuteronomistic passages, 
LaterDeuteronomisticeditors. See 

HisTORicAL Literature. 
Dalman, Grammatik des Jùdisch- 
palastinischen Aramàisch, '94. 
Die Worte Jesu, i., '98. 
Aramàisch - Neuhebraisches 
Wòrierbuch zu Targum, 
Talmud, und Midrasch, 
Teil i., '97. 
A. B. Davidson : 

Book ofjob in Camb. Bible, '84. 

Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge 

Bible, '92. 

W. Smith, A Didionary of the 

Bible, compr ising its Antiquities, 

Biography, Geography,and IVat- 

ural History, ;^\o\^.,'(>y, DB^'^^, 

2nd ed. of voi. i., in two parts, 

or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of 

the Bible, dealing wilh its Lan- 

guage, Literature, and Contents, 

incìuding ike Biblical Theology, 

voi. i-, '98; voi. ii., '99. 
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de 

la Bible, '9Sff- 
Alph. de Candolle, Origine des 

Plantes Cullivées, '82; <*', '96. 

ET in the International Scien- 

tijic Series. 
De Gentibus. See Wellhausen. 
Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author 

of many commentaries on books 

of the OT, etc. 
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre- 

ceding, author of: 

Wo lag das Paradies? ('81). 
The Hebrew Language viewed 



Ass. HWB 

in the Ughi of Assyrian Re- 
search, '83. 
Prolsgomena eìnes neuen hebr.- 
aram.W'òrterbuchszum ATy 



Dozy, Suppl. 


Assyrìsehes Handworterbuch, 
EHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Miiller, Epigrapkùche Denk- 
m'àler aus Araòien, '89. 
Die Propheten in ihren ursprùnglicken Form. 
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi- 
tiscken Poesie^ 2 Bde., '96. 
Dillmann, August (1823-94), 
in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of 
Knobd,'75; W,'83; lfi>,'92(ET 
by Stevenson, '97) ; Exodusund 
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel, 
'80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, '97; 
NuTHÒ., Deui., Josh., and ed. of 
Knobel, '?>6; Isaiah, (^', '90; (edd. 
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die- 
sici; 6th ed. by Kittel, '98). 
Didache. See Atocryì'HA, § 31, i, 
Supplèmeni aux Diclionnaires 

Arabes, 'T)ff- 
Driver, S. R. : 

A Treatise on the Use of the 
7'enses in Hebrezu, '74; (^', 
'81 ; (3', '92. 
Notes on the Hebrew Text of 

the Books of Samuel, '90. 
A?i Introduction io the lAtera- 
ture of the Old Testament, 
11), '91; («1, '97. 
Paralkl Psalter, '98. 
Deiiteronoiny in The Inter- 
national Criticai Commen- 
tary, '95. 
in the Cambridge Bible, '97. 
SBOT (Eiig.), Leviticus, as- 
sisted by H. A. White, '98. 
' Hebrew Authority' \a. Authority and Archaology, 
Sacred and Profane, ed, 
David G. Hogarth, London, 
Isaiah, Ilts Life and Times, in 
' Men of the Bible,' <^>, 'g^. 
Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici 

Bernhard Duhm: 

Die 7 /teologie der Propheten 

ah Grundlage fùr die innere 

Entwickhingsgeschichte der 

israelitischen Religion, '75. 

Das Bttch /esaia in IIK, '92. 

Die Psalmeii erklàrt, in KHC, 


Old Hebrew historical document. 

Later additions to E. See His- 
torical LlTERATURE. 

Encyclopisdia Britannica, gth ed., 

Georg hbers ('37-98), Aegypten u. 
die Bilcher Mose's, i., 'Ó8. 

Einleitung (Introduction). See 
Cornili, etc. 

The English Historical Review, 




Par. Ps. 

Joel and Amos 
Lev. SBOT 






E . 

Ea . 

Ebers, Aeg. 

Eng. Hist. 



Entl^st"]. . . Die Enlstehung des Judenthutns. 

See Ed. Meyer. 
ET . . . English translation, 
Eth. . . Ethiopic. 

Eus. . . Eusebius of Caesarea (2nd half of 

3rd to ist half of 4th cent, a.d.) : 

Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; ' On the Names 

of Places in Holy Scripture.' 




HE , , Jlisloria Ecclesiastica. 

P\r(Sp^É\y^ PrtEparatio Evangelica, 
Chron. . Chronicon. 

English version (where authorised 

and revised agree). 
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) '■ 

Lehrbuch der hebràischen 

Sprache, '44; t8)^ '-q. 
Ceschichte des Volkes Israel; 
(3> i.-vii., '64-'68 ; ET (^> 5 
vols, {pre-Christian period), 
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes 

'.^>, '66/ 
Die Propheten, '40/!; (^', '67 
/; ET '76/ 
Expositor, 5th ser., '9$ff. 



Exp[^os'\, T\^imes'\ Expository Times, '89-90^. 

/ and/: 

Field, Hex. 

F\r.-\HG . 

FI. and Hanb, 

Floigl, GA 

Founders . 

Fr. . 






GA . 


Gei. Urschr. 






following (verse, or verses, etc). 
Fauna and Flora of Palestine. 

See Tristrarn. 
F. P'ield, Origenis Hexaplorum qua 
supersunt sive Veterum Interpre- 
tuìn GriEcoru??i in totum Vetus 
Testamentuin Fragtne?ila ('75). 
Erag menta Historicorum Ora co- 
rum, ed, MùUer, 5 vols., '4i-'72. 
F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury, 

Fha rin acograph ia . 
Floigl, Ceschichte des semitischen 

Altertums in Tabellen, '82, 
Founders of Old Testament Criti- 

cism. See Cheyne. 
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com- 
mentaries on books of the Apo- 
crypha in KHG. 
Sigismund Friinkel, Die aramdi- 
schen Frerfidtv'órter im Arabi- 
schei!, '86. 
\V. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche in 

KM, '98. 
J. G. Frazer : 

Totemism ('87). 

Golden Bough ('90);'^* in prep. 

Pausanias's Descripiion of 

Greece (translation and 

notes, 6 vols., 'y8). 

J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti- 

seller u. Jiidischer Ceschichte, '96. 

Greek Version, see above, p. y.\.f. 

and Tkxt and Veksions. 
Geschiihte d. Alterthums (see 

Meyer, Floigl). 
Ceschichte Agyptens (see Meyer). 
Gesch. Bahyloniens u. Assyriens 

(see Winckler, Homtnel). 
George Adam Smith. See Smith, 
Reuss, Ceschichte des Alten Tesla- 

fuents, '81; <-', '90. 
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber- 
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Ab- 
hciHgigkeit von der inneren Ent- 
wicklung des fudenthums, '57. 
F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842); 
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti- 
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald. 
Veleris Testamenti, *35-'42. 
Hebr'àische Grammatik, '13; 
<2«>, by E. Kautzsch, '96; 
ET '98. 
Hebriiisches u. chaldàìsches 
Handworterbuch, '12 ; '"' 
(Muhlauu.Volck), '90; 1"^ 
(BuhI, with Socin and Zim- 
niern),'95 ; t'S) (Buhl), '99. 
Gesenìus-Buhl. See above, Ges. 




Gì . 




Gr. . 

Gra. . 



Gr. Ven. 

H . 

HA or Hebr. 


Mèi. . 

Harper, ABL 

HC . 


Ilebraica . 


Herzog, RE 
Het Herstel 

HG . 

Hilgf. . 


Hist. Proph. 


HK . 

Geschichte (History). 

C'olii ftgiscke Gelehrte Anzeigen, 

G'òtCingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, 

'45 # 
Geschichte Israels. See Winckler. 
Ginsburg, Massoretico-critical Edi- 

iion of the Hebrew Bihle, '94, In- 

troduction, '97, 
Geschichte des jùdischen Volkes. 

See Sch licer. 
Eduard Glaser: 

Skizze der Gesck. u. Geogr. 
Arabiens, '90. 
K. Grinim (1807-91). Maccabees 

('53) and Wisdom{;b6) \nKGH. 
Heinrich Gràtz: 

Gesclnchte der Juden, i.-x., '74 
ff.\ ET i.-v., '9i-'92. 
Kritiscker Commentar zu den 

Psalmen, '82/: 
Versio Veneta, See Text. 
Gesch. des Volkes Israel. See 

Ewald, Stade, etc. 

'The Law of Holiness' (Lev. 17- 

26). See Leviticus. 
Hebràische Archaologie. See Ben- 
zi nger, Nowack. 
Joseph Halévy. The inscriptions 

in Kapport sur une Mission Ar- 

chéologique daiis le Yétnen ('72) 

are cited : Hai. 535, etc. 

Mi'langes d' Epigrapkie et 

d' Archeologie Sémiiiquesì'^^. 

Hamburger, Kealencyclopadie fiir 

Bibel uttd Talmud, i. '70, (^' '92; 

ii. '83, supp!. '86, '91/, '97. 
R. F. Harper, Assyriitft and Baby- 

lonian Letters belonging to the 

^[Kuyunjik] collection of the 

British Museum, '93^ 
Hand- Commentar zum Neuen 

Testamenti bearbeitet von H. J. 

Holtzmann, R. A. Lìpsius, P. W. 

Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, '89-'9i. 

Continued as AJSL (q.v.). 
Reste arabischen Heidentums, See 

Kosters, Het Herstel van Israel in 

het Perei scile Tijdvak, '93; Germ. 

transl. Die iViederherstellung 

Israels, '95. 
See PRE. 
See Herst. 
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger, 

See Field. 
Historical Geography of the Holy 

Land. See Smith, G. A. 
See Bochart. 
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar {Einl., 

etc), and ed. since '58 of Z W7'. 
See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc. 
J. F. M'Curdy, History, Prophecy, 

and the Monumenis : \. To the 

Dowìifall of Samaria ('94) ; ii, 

To the Fall of Nineveh ('96). 

diger ('47), Hohelied C^t,'), Vie 

kleinen Propheten ('38; *^', '63), 
JereiitiasC^i; C'^', '66). M%oDie 

Psalmen ('35-'36; '■^\ '63-'65). 
Handkommentar zum Alien Testa- 

meni, ed. Nowack, '92 ff. 

Holz, Einl. 

Hommel . 



Hor. Hebr. 
HP . 


HPSm. . 

US . 
HWB . 

IJG . . 

Intr[od]. . 
Inir. fs. , 

It. . 

//. Anton. 

, H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den 
Hexateuch {'9S), Genesis in the 
HIIC ('98), 
. Fritz Hommel : 

ung; ET, Ancient Hebrew 
'I radition, '97. 
Geschichte Babyloniens u. As- 
syriens, '8^^. 
. Lightfoot, Hora liebraica, 1684. 
. Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testa- 
menium Griecum cum variis 
leciionibus, 1798-1827. 
. G. 13. Cray, Sludies iti Hebrew 

Proper Names, '9Ó. 
. Henry Preserved Smith. 
in International Criticai Commeniary. 
. Die Ileilige Schrift. See Kautzsch. 
Riehm's Ilandworierbuch des bibli- 
sclien Atterihums, 2 vuls., '84; 
*^', '93-'94. See also Delitzsch 

. Israelitische u. jùdische Geschichte. 

See Wellhausen. 
. Introduction. 
. Introduction io Isaiah. See 

. Itala. See Text AND Versions. 
. Itinerarium Antonini, Fortia 

d'Urban, '45. 

J ■ ■ • 
h ■ ■ ■ 

f{ourn.'\ A\nt^ 
0{_r.-\ Sloc.-] 
Jastrow, Dici. 

/[ourn.'] As. 



JE . . 

Jensen, Kosm. 


J\ourn.'\ Phil. 






HS . 

Old Hebrew historical document. 

Later additions to J, 

Journal of the American Orientai 
Society, '5 1 ff. 

M. Jastrow, Dictionary ofthe Tnr- 
guiiiim, the Talmud Babli, eie, 
and Midrashim, '86^ 

Journal Asialique, '53 ff.; 7th 
ser,,'73; 8thser.,'83; 9thser,,'93, 

Journal of Biblical Literature and 
Exegesis, '90 ff.; formerly ('82- 
'88) QzS^&A Journal of the Society 
of Biblical Ut. and Exeg. 

JahrbUeher der bibl. Wissensckaft 
( '49-65 )■ 

Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, 

The ' Prophetical ' narrative of the 
Hexateuch, composed of Jand E. 

P. Jensen, Die Cosmologie der 
Babylonier, '90. 

Jerome, or Jeremiah. 

Jonathan, See Targum. 

Flaviusjosephus {h.-y; h.X)^, Anti- 
qui tate s JudaiccE, De Bello 
Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem 
(ed. Niese, 3 vols,, '87-'94), 

Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and 
2, '68) , ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, '69) , etc 
Jahi'bùcher fùr proiesiantische 'J heo- 
iogie, '75-'92. 

Jewish Quarterly Review, '&8~'8gff. 

Journal of Rcyal Asiatic Society 
(vols. 1-20, '34^; new series, 
vols. 1-24, '65-'92; current series, 


Die Keilinschriften u.d.Alte Tesia- 

nient. See Schrader. 
E. Kautzsch: 

Grammatik des Biblischsn- 

Aram'àischen, '84. 
Die heilige Schrift des Alien 
Testaìnenis, '94. 


Apokr. . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi- 

graphen des alien Testa- 
rne nts, '98/! 
KB. . . Kdlinschriftliche Biblìothek, 

Sammhmgvon ass.u.bab. Texlen 
iti Uvischrift u. Ueberseizung, 5 
vols. (i, 2, 3 a, b, 4, 5), '89-96. 
Edited by Schrader, in collabora- 
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold, 
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and 
H. Wiiickler. 
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. '%%). 
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-S3), Vetus 

Teslaitientum Hebraicum cum 
variis lectionibus, 2 vols., 177Ó- 
KG . . . Kirchengeschichie. 
KGF . . Keilinschrijìen u. Geschichtsforsch- 

ung, See Schrader. 
KGH . . Kurege/assles exegelisches Iland- 

buca. See Di., Hitz., Knob., 01. 
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommeniar zu den 

heiligen Schrìften Alien u. Neuen 
Testa?>ients sowie zu den Apo- 
kryphen, ed. H. Strack and 
O. Zòckler, '"èTff. 
KHC • . Kurzer Iland-coìnvienlar zum 

Alien Testament, ed. Marti, '97_^. 
Kì. . . . Rudolf Kittel : 

Gesch, . Geschiekle der Hebr'àer, 2 vols., 

'88, '92; Eng. transl-, Hi$- 
tory of Ihe Hebrews, '95- 
Ch. SBOT The BookofChronides,Qx\'azzS. 

Edition of the Hebrew text, 
'95 (translated by Bacon). 
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, circa 1200 a.d., 

the famous Jewish scholar and 
lexicographer, by whose exegesis 
the AV is mainly guided. 
Kin\s\. . . Kinship and Alarriage in Early 

Arabia. See W. R, Smith, 
Kl. Proph. . KleinePropheleniWmorVropheis). 

See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc. 
Klo[st]. , . Aug. Klostermann, Die Bùcher 
SaTnuelisundder Koiiige ('87) in 
GVI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis 

zur A'eslaMralionunler Esra 
und Nehemia., '96- 
Kn[ob]. . . Aug. Knobel (1807-63) in A'G//.- 
Exodus und Levilicus, 1^' by Dill- 
mann, '80; Der Propilei Jesaia, 
'43, 1^', '61. See Dillmann. 
Kò. . . . F. E. Konig, Historisch-Krilisches 
Lehrgebaude der Hebr'àischen 
Sprache, 3 vols., '81-97. 
Kob. . . Aug. Kóhler. 

Kr. . , . Krè (lit. ' to he read '), a marginai 

reading which the Massoretes 

intended to supplant that in the 

text (KèthTb); see below. 

Kt. , . . Kéchib (iit. 'written'), a reading 

in the MT; see ahove, 
Kue.. . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91): 

Ond. . . Historisdi-crilisch Onderzoek 

naar bel ontstaan eti de 
verzameting van de Boeken 
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols., 
'6i-'65; (-"^'85-'89; Germ. 
transl., Historìsck-krilische 
Einleitung in die Bùcher 
des Alien Testamenls, '87- 
'92; voi. i,, 7 he Ifexaleuch, 
translated by Philip Wick- 
steed, '86. 

Godsd. . De Godsdiensl van Israel, '6g~'-]0-, 

Eng. transl., 3 vols., '73-'75. 
De Profelen en der Profetie otider Israel, '75; 

El-, '77. 
Ges. Abh. . Gesaìiimelte Abkandlungenzur 

bibl. Wissenschaft, German 

by Budde, '94. 

L . . .de Lagarde, lAbrorum Veteris 
Teslamcnli Canonicorum, Pars 
Prior GriEce, '83, 
Lag. . . Paul de Lagarde ('27-'9i) : 

Ilag. , Uagiograp/ia Chaldaice, '73. 

Syr. . . Libri Veteris TestamenliApo- 

cryphi Syriace, '6r, 
Ges. Abk. . Gesar/imeàe.lbka?idlungen,''66. 

Min. . Milteilungen, i.-iv., '84-'89. 

Sym, . Symmicta, ii., '80. 

Prov. . Proverbien, '63. 

Ùbers. Uebersichl uber die ini Ara- 

or BN màischen, Arabischen, und 

Hebr'àischen ubliche Bildung 
der Nomina, '89. 
Beitr. . Beilrage z. baklrischen Lexiko- 

gr a pili e, '68. 
Proph. . ProphetcE Chaldaice, '"jZ. 

Sem. . Semilica, '"jSf. 

Arrn. Si, . Armenische Sludien. 

Or. . . Orienlalia, i-, '79. 

Lane . . E. W. Lane, An Arabie- Englisk 

Lexicon, '^Zff- 
L {and'\ B . \V. M. Thomson, The Land and 

the Book, '59; new ed. '94. 
LBR . . Later Biblical Pesearches. See 

Levy, NHWB J. Levy, Neuhebràisches u. chal- 
dàisches Worterbuch, 'yt-Sg. 
Chald. Lex. Chaldàisches Worterbuch Uber 

die Targumim, '(>T ff. 
Lehrgsb. . . See Kònig. 
Leps. Denkm. . R, Lepsius, Denktnaler aus Aegyp- 

len u. Aethiopien, '49- '60. 
Lightf. . . John Lightfoot (1602-75), ^or,e 

Hebraiccs (1684). 
Joseph B, Lightfoot ('28-'89); 
commentaries on Galalians 
((^*, '74); Pkilippians (ta>, 
'73) ; Colossians and Phile- 
mon ('75). 
Lips. \ f. • • Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostel- 

geschichten u, Apostellegenden, 
Lów . , • J- Low, Araniàische Pflanzenna- 

?nen, 'Si. 
Lue. . . See L. 

LXX or (S . Septuagint. See above, p. xv yC, 

and Text and Veksions. 

Maimonides . Moses Maimonides (1 131-1204). 
Exegete, author of Mishneh 
Torah, Mòre Nebòkhim, etc. 
Mand. . . Manda;an. See Aramaic, § io. 
Marq, Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamenle israelili- 
scher u. judiscker Geschichte, '96. 
Marti . . K. Marti : 

Grani. . Kurzgefassie Grammatik d. 

Sprache, '96. 
Geschichte der Israelilischen lieligion'-^^ , '97 (a 
revision of A. Kayser, Die 
Theol. desAT). 
Jet. . . DasPuch/esaia, in KHCf'gg. 

Masp. . , G. Maspero : 

Dawn of Civilisalion, Egypt 

and Chaldea (l^', '96). 
Les prefnières Mélées des 
Peuples; ET by McClure 




Mey. , 

GA . 


MGIV/ . 
MH . 

MI . 


TAe S/ruggle of the Nations 

— ^SyP^f Sy ria, and Assyr ia . 

Hhtoire Ancienne des Peuples 

de rOrieni ('99 ^.)' 

Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- 

MiUheilun^en und Nachrichten des 
Deuischen Palàstina- Vereins, 

A. Merx, Archiv f. •wissenschaft- 

liche Erforschung d. AT ('69). 
Ed. Meyer : 

Gesckichie des Alierthums ; 
i., Gesch. d. Orients bis zur 
Be^undungdes Perserreichs 
('84) ; ii-, Cesch. des Abend- 
landes bis auf die Per- 
serkriege ('93). 
Die Enistekung des Juden- 
thums, '96. 
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73), 
founder of the series Krilisch- 
exegedscher Kommenlar uber das 
Ne uè Teslament. 
Monatssckrift fur Gesch. u. Wiss, 

des Judenthums, '^iff. 
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of 
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid- 
rashìm, and considerable parta of 
the Talmud. 
Mesha Inscription, commonly 
known as the ' Moabite ytone.' 
See Mesha. 
Midrash. See ChroniCles, § 6 (2). 
Mishna, the standard collection 
(completed, according to tradi- 
tion, by R. Judah the Holy, about 
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises 
(representiiig the Jewish tradi- 
tional or unwritteii law as devel- 
oped by the second century 
A.D,), arranged in six groups or 
Séders thus: — i. Zerd'im (11 
tractates), ii. Mò'ed (13), iii. 
Nàshtm (•}'),\v.Neziktn (lo),-v. 
Kodàshim ( 1 1 ), vi. Tohordik( 1 2). 

'Alioda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa'óih, vi. 6 

Abóth, iv. 9 Mó'éd Kàt.àn, ii. 11 

'Àralthin, v, 5 Nazir, iii, 4 

15àbà Bavhià, iv. 3 tlÉdàiim, iii, 3 

Babà Kainmà. iv. i NÈgà'im, vi. 3 

Babà Mèsi'a, iv. 2 Niddà, vi. ^ 

MT . 

Bèkhoròih, v. 4 
Bérakhoih, i. i 
Bésà, ii. 7 
Bikliiirim, i. 11 
ChSgìga, ii. 12 
Chalià, i. 9 
Chuliin, V. 3 
Dèmai, i. 3 
'Edùyólh, iv. 7 
"ErQbin, \\. 1 
Giitin, iiL 6 
Horàyòth, iv. io 
Kélim, vi. I 
Kerithóth, v. 7 
Kèlhùbotti, iii. 2 
Kiddùshin, iii. 7 
Kil'àyiin, i. 4 
Kinnim, v. 11 
Ma'5sér Shèni, ì. 8 
Ma'3séròth, ì. 7 
Makfishirin, vi. 8 
Makkoth, iv. 5 
Mfgillà, ii. IO 
Mé'ilà, v. 8 
Mènachóth, v, 3 
Middoth, V. IO 

Obàlòth, VI. 3 
'Orla, i. IO 
Para, vi. 4 
Pè'a, i. 2 
PÈsàchim, ii. 3 
Eósb Ha(sh)shàna, 

ii. 8 
Sanhedrin, iv. 4 
Shabbàih, ii. i 
ShÉbu'oth, :v. 6. 
ShÉbi'ith, i. ^ 
Sb^kàlìm, ii. 4 
Sòia, iii. 5, 
Stikkà, ii. 6 
Ta'Snith, ii. 9 
Tamid, v. g 
TébaI Yóm, vi. io 
Témura, v. 6 
Térùmóth, i. 6 
Toh6róth, vi. s 
'Ul:sin, vi. 12 
YàdSyim, vi, 11 
Yébamòth, iii. i 
Yòma, ii. s 
Zabim, vi. 9 
Zèbàchim, v. i 

about the end of the seventh 

century a.d. See Text. 

A New En^lish Dictionary on 

Historical Principles, ed. J. A. 

H. Murray, '88 ff.; also H. 

Bradley, '97/ 
W. Muss-Arnolt. A Concise Diciion- 

ary of the Assyrian Language, 

'94-'99 (a-mAG). 
Mitikeilungen der Vorderasiat- 

ischen Gesellschaft, '97_^. 

Nabat^an. See Aramaic, § 4. 
NominaÌòildung,'&ì; see Ba. 
Die israeliiiscken Eigennamen 

nach ihrer religionsgeschicht- 

lichen Bedeutung, '76. 
Marginalien u. Materialien, '93. 
A.Neubauer, G'eographie du Tal- 
mud, '68. 
Naturai History of the Bible. See 

Neu-hebr. u. chaldaisches W'òrt^r- 

buck. See Levy, 
Th. Noldeke : 

Untersuchungen z. Kritik d. 
Alien Testanients, '69. 

AlUestameniliche Litteratur, '68. 
W. Nowack : 
H[eòr.^ A[rck.'\ Lehrbuch d. Hebr'àiscken 

Archeologie,^ g^. 
Kl. Propk. Die Kleinen Propheten (in 

HKC), '97. 
NT . . . New Testamenti Neues Testament. 



MVG . 


NB . 
Nestle, £ig. 

Nenb. Géogr. 



no. . 
No[ld]. . 


Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of 
the OT substantially as it was in 
the early part of the second 
century a.d. (temp. Mishna) . 
It remained unvocahsed until 

01[sh]. . 

PS. . 




Onk., Onq. 
OS . 

OT . 

P . 

P2 - 

Pai. Syt. 



Pai. Pai. . 

PE . 



Justus OIshausen; 

Die Psaìmen, '53. 
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, 
'61 [incomplete]. 

Orienialistische Litteratur- Zei- 
tung, ed. Peiser, '98/ 

Hisiorisch-critisch Ondersoek. See 

Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ. 

See' OS. 

Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne. 

Onomastica Sacra, containing the 
'name-lists' of Eusebius and 
Jerome (Lagarde, ^'■'>, 'iiy; the 
pagination of '" printed on the 
margin of <2) is foUowed), 

Old Testament. 

Old Testament in the fewish 
Church. See W. R. Smith. 

Priestly Writer. See HlST. Lit. 

Secondary Priestly Writers. 

F. BuhI, Geographie des alien Pal- 
àstina, '96. See also Baedeker 
and Reland. 

Palmyrene. See Aramaic, § 4. 

Palestinian Syriac or Christian 

Palestinian. See Aramaic, § 4. 

Proceedings of American Orientai 

Society, '$iff- (printed annually 


Wo lag das Paradies ? See 

Sayce, Palriarchal Palestine, '95. 

Prdparatio Evangelica. See Euse- 

Palestine Exploration Fund Me- 
moirs, 3 vols., '81— '83. 

Palestine Exploration Fund 
[founded '65] Quarterly State- 
ment, '69^. 





Ph., Phcen. 

Preuss, Jahrbb. 
Fri in. Culi. 

Propk. h. 

ProL KZ . 


PS Thes. 

R . 

KjE ■ 

Ku . 
Rp . 


Ree. Trav. 


Rei. Pai. . 


liev. Sem, 
Ri. Sa. 



LBR or BR iv. 
ot AA(2) iu. 

Perrot and Chipiez : 

Histoire de l'Ari dans Vanti- 
quité. Ègypt! — Assyne — 
Perse — Aste Alitieuere — 
Grece — Étrurie — Rome ; 

ET : Ancient Egvpi, '83; 
Chaldira and Assyria, '84; 
Phanicia and Cyprus, 'S5; 
Sardinia, Judaa, etc, '90; 
Primitive Creece, '94. 
Peshìtta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd- 

3rdcent.)- Veius '1 estamentum 

Syriace, ed. S. Lee, '23, OT and 

NT, '24. 
W, E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri- 

ticus lo Chronicles in the Peshilla 
Version, '97. 
Phcen ician. 
Real- Kncyklopàdie fììr protestan- 

lische '1 /teologie u. Kirche, ed. 

J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., '54-68; 

'21, ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L. 

Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., '77- 

'88; (3), ed. Alb. Ilauck, voi. 

i.-vii. [A-Hau], '96-'99. 
Preussiscke Jahrbùcher, 'T2ff. 
E. B. Tylor, Primitive Cullure, 

'71; (3), '91. 
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See 

Prolegomena. See Wellhausen. 
Protesta n lische Kirch enzeilun^ fùr 

das Evangelische Deulschland 

(vols.i.-xliii.,' 54-96); continued 

as Prol. Monalshefle {'91 ff-). 
Proceedings of the Society of Bibli- 

cai ArchcEolo^y, '78^. 
Payne Smith, 'I hesaurus Syriacus. 

Redactor or Editor. 

Redactor(s) of JE. 

Deuterone mistic Editor(s). 

Priestly K(;dactor(s). 

H. C. Rawlinson, J'ke Cuneiform 

hiscriptions of Western Asia, 

i.-v. ('6i-'S4; iv. (2), '91). 
i.e. Kabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki 

{1040-1105), the celebrated 

Jewish commentator. 
Recueil de Iravaux relatifs à la 

philol. et à VArchéol. egypt. et 

assyr. '70 _^ 
Revue des Etudes juives, i., '80; ii. 

and ili-, '81 ; and so on. 
Reland, Palestina ex AJonumentis 

veteriòus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714. 

Revue sémitique, '93_^. 
Die Bucher Richter u. Samuel. 

See Budde. 
Edward Robinson : 

Biblical Researches in Pales- 
tine, Mi. Sinai, and Arabia 
Pelrisa, a journal of Iravels 
in the year 1838 (i.-iii,, '41 
^^A'<2), i.-ii., '56). 
Later Biblical Researches in Pales- 
tine and the adjacent Regions, a 

journal of Iravels in the year 

1S52 ('56). 
Physical Geograpky of the Holy 

Land, '65. 

Roscher . ■ AusfUhrliches Lexikon d. Griech- 

ischen u. Romischen Mythoìogie 

RP , . . Recoras of the Past, being English 

translalions of the Ancient Mon u- 

ments of Egypt and Western 

Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii. 

('73-'8i). Newseries[A'/'l21]ed. 

A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi,, '88-'92. 

See AssYKiA, § 35. 
RS ox Rei. Sem, Religion of the Semites. See W. 

R. Smith. 
RV . . . Revised Version (NT, 'So; OT, 

'84; Apocrypha, '95). 
RWB . . G.B. Winer(i789-i858),^iMW;^^ 

Reahvorierbuch, '20; <^', 2 vols., 

Rys. . . Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau. 

Saad. . . R. Sa'adya (Sè'adya; Ar. Sa'id), 

the tenth century Jewish gram- 
marian and lexicographer (b. 
892); Explanationsofthe/itf/flj:- 
legomena in the 01', etc. 
Sab. . . SabKan, less fittingly called 

Himyaritic; the name given to 
a class of S. Arabian inscrip- 
Sabàisc/te Denkm'àter, edd. Miìller 

and Mordtmann. 
Samati tan. 
Sitzungsòerichle der Berlinischen 

Akadeinie der Wissenschaften. 
The Sacred Books of the East, 
translated by various scholars 
and edited by the Rc. Hon. F. 
Max Miìller, 50 vols. 1879^ 
[Otherwise known as the Poly- 
chrome Bible"] The Sacred Books 
ofthe Old Testament, a netu Eng. 
transL, tvith Exphnatory Notes 
aftd Ficlorial lllustrations ; pre- 
pared by cinitienl biblical scholars 
of Europe and of America, and 
edited, with the assistance oj 
Ilorace Howard Furness, by Paul 
llaupt, '97# 
SBOT (fjeb.) . Haupt. The Sacred Books ofthe Old 
Testament ; a criticai edition of 
the Ile br eia text, printed in 
colours, with notes, prepared by 
emine nlbiblicalsrhola rs ofE urope 
and America, under the editorial 
direction of Paul I/atipt, '^ìff. 
Schopf. . . Gunkel, Sch'òpfung und Chaos in 

Urzeil u. Endzeit, '95. 
Schr. . . E. Schrader ; editor of KB 

lq.v.-\ : 
KGF . Keilinsckriften u. Geschichts- 

forschung, '78. 
KA T . Die Keilinschriften u. d. Alte 

Testament, '72; <2J, '83. 
cor . Eng. transl. of KAT<^^ by 

O. C. Whitehouse, The 
Cuneiform Inscriplions and 
the Old Testament, 2 vols., 
'85, 'SS (the pagination of 
the German is retained in 
the margin of the Eng. ed.). 
Schur. . . E. Schiirer : 

CyV , Geschichte des judischen Volkes 

im Zeitaller Jesu Christi ; 
i. Einleitung u. Politìsche Ge- 
Bchichte, '90; ii. Die Jnneren 
Zustande Palastinas u. des 
jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter 

Sab. Denkm. 



SBOT (Eng.) 





Smend, Lisien 



Jesu Christi, '86; new ed. voi. 
ìi. Die Inneren Zustande, '98, 
voi. iii. Das Judenthum in der 
Zerstreuung u. die jùdische Lite- 
ratur, '98. 
Hht. . ET of above Cgoj^). Vols. i / 

(i.c., Div. i. vols. I /.') = voì. I 
of Gernian; vols, 3-5 (i.e., Div. 
il. vols. 1-3) = voi. 2 of German 
[ = vols. ii., iii.of (^']. 

J. Selden, de Jure naturali et 
geiitiumjuxta disciplinam Ebra- 
orum, 7 bks., 1665. 
de Diis Syris, 1617. 


Sinaitic; see Aramaic, § 4. 

Smend, Die Lisien der Bucher 
Esra u. Nehemiak, '8r. 

George Adam Smith: 

The Historical Geography of 

the Holy Land, especially in 

relation io the LJistory of 

Israel and of the Éariy 

Church, '94 (additions to ^*\ 


WRS . . Witliam Robertson Smith ( '46~'943 : 

O TfC The Old Testament in the fewish 

Church,'2>i; (^>,revisedandmuch 

enlarged, '92; (Germ. transl. by 

Rothstein, '94). 

Proph. . The Prophets of Israel and tkeir 

place in Ilistory, to the dose of 

the eighth century b.c., '82; <^', 

with introduction and addi- 

tional notes by T. K. Cheyne, 

ICin. . Kinship and Marriage in Early 

Arabia, '85. 
P\_el.']S[em.'] Lectures on the Religion of the 
Semites: ist ser., The Funda- 
menta! Institutions, '89; new 
and revised edition (PS'-'^^'), '94; 
Germ. transl. by Stube, '99. 
[The MS notes of the later Burnett 
Lectures — onPriesthood,Divina- 
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic 
Poly theism and Cosmogony — 
remai n unpublished, but are 
occasionally cited by the editors 
in the Rncyclopadia Biblica as 
'Burnett Lects. MS.] ' 

SP . . . A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine 
in connection with their history, 
'56, last ed. '96. 

Spencer . . De Legiòus LLebraorum Ritualibus 
(2 vols. 1727). 

SS . , . Siegfried and Stade, ILebràisches 
W'òrterbuch zum Alien Testa- 
mente, '93. 

St., Sta. . . B. Stade ; 

GVI . . Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, '81- 

Abh. . . Ausgewahlte Akademische Re- 

den u. Abhandlungen, '99. 

St. Kr. . , Studien und Kritiken, '2Zff. 

Stad, m, m, . Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar- 

Stud. Bibl. . Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical 
Archisology and Criticism and 
kindred subjects, 4 vols., '85-'9l. 

Sw. . . . H. B, Swete, The Old Testament 

in Greek according to the Septua- 
gint; (1), '87-'94; <2', '95-'99. 

SÌVAiV . . Sitzungsbertchte d. Wiener Aka- 
demie d. Wissenschaften. 

Sym[m], . . Symmachus, author of a Greek 
version of the Old Testament 
(jiirca 200 A.D.). See Text. 

Syr. . . . Syriac. See Aramaic, § ir/ 

Tab. Peut. . Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins, 

Talm. Bab. Jer. Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem, 
consistìng of the text of the 
Mishna broken up into small 
sections, each followed by the dis- 
cursive comment called Gèmara. 
See Law Literature. 

T[ar]g. . . Targum. SeeTExr. 

Jer- ■ • The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru- 

fon. . . Targum Jonathan, the name borne 
by the Babylonian Targum to 
the Prophets. 
Onk. . . Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian 
Targum to the Pentateuch 
(towards end of second century 


ps.-Jon. . The Targ. to the Pentateuch, 
known by the name of Jonathan. 

TBS . . Der Text der Biicher Samuelis : 

see Wellhausen; or Notes on the 
Ilebrew Text of the Books of 
Sa?nuel : see Driver. 

temp. . . tempore (in the time [of]). 

T[extus] R[e- The 'received text' of the NT. 
ceptus] See Text. 

Th[e]. . . Thenius, die Biicher Samuelis in 
Ji-GH, '42; (2), 'Ó4; (3), Lohr, '98. 

Theod. . . Theodotion (end of second cen- 
tury), author of a Greek version 
of the Old Testament (' rather a 
revision of the LXX than a new 
translation '), See Text. 

Theol. Studien . Siudi'èn, published in connection 
with Th. T (see Deuteronomy, 

§ 33.). 
Thes. . . See Gesenius. 

R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria- 
cus, '(>?iff. 
Th.T . . Theologisch Tijdschrift,''ÒT ff. 
Ti. or Tisch. . T\^€a^.xià.mi, Novum Testamentum 
GrcBce, editio o età va critica 
mai or, '69-' 72. 
TLZ , , Theologische Literaturzeitung, 

'76 # 
Tosephta . . See Law Literature. 
Treg. . . S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New 

Testament; edited from ancieni 
authorities, '57- '72. 
Tristr^m . . H. B. Tristram: 

EFP . . The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 

NHB . The Naturai Hislory of the Bible, 

(«>, '89. 
TSBA . . Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archmol., 

vols. i.-ix., 'T2ff. 
Tub. Z. f. Theol. Tiibingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie, 

Urgesch. . 

V. . . 
Var. Apoc. 

Var. Bib. 

Untersuch u ngen . 

Die biblische Urge^chichte. 


See Noldeke, 


The Apocrypha (AV) edited with 
various renderings, etc, by C. T. 

The OldandNew Testamenfs(AN) 
edited with various renderings, 
eie, by T. K. Cheyne, S. K, 


Vet. Lat. . 

Vk. . 

We., Wellh. 
De Geni. 


Phar. u. 


IJG . 

Kl. Proph. 
CH . 


Wetstein . 


WF . 

WH [W & H] 

Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke, 
A. Goodwill, \V. Sanday (NT) 
[otherwiseknown asthe Queen's 
printers' Siòie]. 

VersioVctus Latina; the old -Latin 
version (raade fromthe Greek); 
later superseded by the Vulgate. 
See Text and Versions. 

Vulgate, Jerome's Latin Bible: 
OT from Heb., NT a revision 
ofVet. Lat. (end of 4th and be- 
ginningof 5th cent.). See Text. 

Julius Wellhausen. 

De Gentibui et Familih Judais 
quiE in r Chr. 2 4 nume- 
rantur Dissertano ('70), 
Der Text der Biicher Sani uelis 

Die Pha risaer u . d. Sadduc'àer; 
etile Unlersuchung zur i)i~ 
neren jùdischen Geschicht 

Geschichte Israels, voi. i. C'78), 

2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled 
Prolegomena zur Gesck. h- 
raels, '83; ET '85; 4th 
Germ. ed. '95. 

Israelitiscke u. jùdische Ge- 

schickte, '94; 


■97; an 

amplilìcation of Abriss der 
Gesch. Israeh u. Juda's in 
'Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,' 
'84. The Abriss was sub- 
stantially a reproduction of 
'Israel' in EB'-'^^ ('81; re- 
published in ET of Prol. 
['85] and separately as 
Sketch of HisC. of Israel and 
Judah, (3', '91). 
Reste Arabischen Heidentums 
(in ' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten ') 

(■87; <", '97)- 
Die Kleinen Propheten uber- 
setzt, mit Noten ('92; (3)^ 


Die Composition des Hexa- 

tettchs und der kistprischen 

Biicher des Alten Teslamenis 

('85; Zweiter Druck, mit 

Nachtragen, '89; originally 

published in JDTTi 39= ff., 

['76], 22 4°7 ['77], and in 

Bleek, Einl. W, '78). 

System der Altsynagogalen Palasti- 

nischen Theologie ; or Die Lehren 

des Talmud, '80 (edited by Franz 

Delitzsch and Georg Schneder- 

mann); '^'\ /iidische Theologie 

auf Grund des Talmud und 

verwandter Schrifien, '97 (ed. 


J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen- 

lum Gracum, etc, 2 vols. folio ; 


Wetzstein, Ausgew'àhlte griechische 

und lateinische Inschriften, ge- 

sammelt auf Keisen in den 

Trachonen und um das IJau- 

ràngebirge^bi, ; Reisebericht ìiber 

Hauràn und Trachonen, '60. 

Wellhausen- Furness, The book of 

Psalms ('98) in SPOT {Eng.). 

Westcott and Hort, The New Tes- 

tainent in the Originai Greek, 













WMM . 
Wr. . 


Ar. Gram. 



Z . 
ZA . 

ZA . 








Hugo Winckler : 

Untersuchungen z. AUoriental- 

ìschen Geschichte, '89. 
Altteslamentliche Untersuch- 
ungen, '92. 
Geschichte Babyloniens u. As- 

syriens, '92. 
Altorientalische Forschungen, 
ist ser. i.-vi., '93-'97; 2nd 
ser. {AF^-^^)\., '98/ 
Geschichte Israels in einzel- 

darstellungen, i, '95. 
Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 

Die Thontafeln -voti Tell-el- 
Amarna (ET Metcalf). 
J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and 
Customs ofthe Ancient Egyptians, 
'37-41 ; i^' by Birch, 3 vols., '78. 
G.B. Winer: 

Bibl. Realworlerbuch ; see 

Crammaiik des neutestament- 
lichen Sprachidioms^^\ neu 
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh, 
Schmiedel, '94^; ET of 
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, '70. 
See As. u. Eur. 
W. Wright ; 

Lectures on the Comparative 
Grammar of the Semitic 
Languages, '90. 
A Grammar of the Arabie 
Language, translated from 
the German of Caspari and 
edited, wiih numerous addi- 
tions and corrections by W, 
Wright; <^' 2 vols,, '74-'75 ; 
*"l revised by W. Robertson 
Smith and M. J. de Goeje, 
voi. i. 'g6, voi. ii. '98. 
William Robertson Smith. See 

Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde 

des Morgenlandes, %"] ff. 
The well-known Arabian geo- 
graphical writer (1179-1229). 
Kitab Mojam el-Buldàn edited 
by F. WUstenfeld (Jacui's Geo- 
graphisches Worterbuch, '66-' 70). 

Zeitschrift (Journal). 

Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie u. ver- 

wandte Gebiete, '86_^. 
Zeitschrift fùr Agyptische Sprache 

u. Alterthumskunde, '63^ 
Zeitschrift fùr die Altteslamentliche 

Wissenschaft, '?>l ff. 
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- 

làndischen Geselhchafty '46^. 
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- 

vereins, 'j^ff- 
Zeitsch riftfur Keilsch riftforsch ung 

und ver-wandte Gebiete, '84 f, 

continued as ZA. 
See WZKM. 

Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissen- 
schaft u. kirchliches Leben (ed. 

Luthardt), i.-ix., '8o-'89^. 
Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luiher- 

ische Theologie und Kirche, '40- 

Zeitschrift fUr Theologie und 

Kirche, '91 ff- 
Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche 

Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), '58^?". 



ACL . 

APK . 
Crii. Bib. . 
GÀ . 
OCL . 


AUckristlicke Lifteratur : e.g. — 

Adolf Harnack, Qeschichte der altchristlichen Liiteratur bis Busehìus , 

of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. I. Die Ueberlieferung und der 

Besiand. and in 1897, Pt. II. Die Chronologie, voi. I. down to 

Irenjeus (cited also as ChronoL, i). 
Gustav Krùger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litieratur in den 

ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1895 (ili Grundriss der Theoiogischen 

Wissensch aften ) . 
F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen Keilinschriflen, 1862, <^1 1881. 
Cheyne, Critica Biblica (in preparation). 
Geschichte Aegyptens^ 
W. C. van Manen, HandlHding voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde 

M, H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel, vnd Nomer, 1893. 
Sitzungsberichte der Koniglicken Akademie der lVisse»scàa/ten, Munìch. 


Arran^ed according to the alfhabetical arder of the first initial. Joint authorship is where 
possible indicaied thus : A. B. ^ 1-5 ; C. D. §§ 6-10 

A. B. 

A. C. P. 
,A. E. S. 

A. J. 


S. E. 













W. J. 

C. P. T. 

E. A. A. 

E. H. 
E. E. 

E. M. 

E. N. 

F. B. 

Bertholet, Alfred, Professor Extra- 
ordinafius of Exegesis in the University 
of Basel, 

Patf,r.son, a. C, M,A. (Oxon,). 

Shiplky, a, e., M.A., F.Z.S,, Fellow, 
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ's College, 

JiJLicuF.R, GusT.^v Adolk, D. D. , Pro- 
fessor of Church History and New 
Testament Exegesis, Marburg. 

Kennedy, Rev. Akchibald R. S. ,• 
M.A., D,D., Professor of Hebrew and 
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh. 

Soci.v , The late A. , Professor of Orientai 
Languages, Leipsic 

Dl'hm, Bernhard, D. D. , Professor 
of Old Testament Exegesis in the Uni- 
versity of Basel. 

Creighton, C, M.D., London. 

TOKKEY, Charles C, Ph.D., Professor 
of Semitic Languages, Yale University. 

TOY, C. H. , D. rx . Professor of Hebrew, 
Harvard University, 

JOHNS, Rev. C, H. W., M.A., Assistant 
Chaplain, Queens' College, Cam- 

TiELE, The late C. P.. D.D. , Professor of 
the Science of Religìon, Leyden. 

Abbott, Rev. E. A., D. D., London, 

Hatch, The late Rev. Edwin, D.D. 

Kautzsch, e., D.D., Professor of Old 
Testament Exegesis, Halle. 

Meyer, Eduakd, Professor of Ancient 
History, Halle. 

Nestle, Eb., D.D., Maulbronn, Wilr- 

Brown, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., Daven- 
port Professor of Hebrew and the 

G. A. B. 

G. A. D. 
G. A. S. 

G. B. G. 

G. F. H. 
G. F. M. 

H. G. 














I. A. 



cognate Languages in the Union 

Theoiogical Seininary, New York. 
Bakton, G, a,, Professor of Biblical 

Literature and Semitic Languages, 

Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. 
Deissmaxn, G. Adolf, D. D. , Professorof 

New Testament Exegesis. Heidelberg. 
Smith, Rev. George Adam, D. D. , 

LL. D. , Professor of Hebrew and Old 

Testament Exegesis, United Free 

Church College, Glasgow. 
Okay, Rev. G. Buchanan, M. A. , 

Professor of Hebrew in Mansfield 

College, Oxford. 
Hill, G. F., M.A., British Museum. 
MoOKE, Rev. George F. , D. D. , 

President and Professor of Hebrew in 

Andover Theoiogical Seminary, And- 

over, Mass. 
GuTHE, Hermann, Professor Extra- 

ordinarius of Old Testament Exegesis, 

Pearson, H. H. W., M.A., Royal Gar- 

dcns, Kew. 
UsENER, H., Professor of Classical Phil- 

ology in the University of Bonn. 
WinCkler, H., Ph.D., Privat-docent in 

Semitic Philology, Berlin, 
HOGG, HOPE W., M.A., Lecturer in 

Hebrew and Arabie in Owens College, 

Victoria University, Manchester. 
ZiMMERN, Heinrich, Professorof Semitic 

Languages and ^Vsyriology, Leipsic. 
Abrahams, Israel, London, Editor of 

the Jewish Quarterly Revicw. 
BenZInger, Dr. Immanuel, Privat- 
docent in Old Testament Theology, 




J. A. B. Robinson, Rev. J. Armitage, D. D. , 

Canon of Westminster. 
J. D. P. Pkinck, J. D., Ph.D., Professor of 

Semitii; Languages and Comparative 

Philology. New York University. 
J. a. F. Frazkr. J, G.. LL.D., D.C.L., IJtt.D., 

Fellow of iVinity College, Cambridge. 
J. L. M. MVREH, J, L., M.--\., Magdalcn College, 

J. W, Weì,i.hal.'SKN'. Jui-ius, D, D. , Professor 

of Seniitic l'hilology, Gòningeii. 
K. B. BUDDE, Kaki,, D.D., Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew 

Language, Marburg. 
K. M. Makti, Kakl, D.D., Professor of Old 

Testament Kxegesis and the Hebrew 

Language, Berne. 
Lu. Q. Gautikr, Lucien-, Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis and History, 

M. A. C. Caksey, Maurice A., M.A. (Oxon.}, 

St. Peter'5 Rectory, Saffron Hill, 

London, E.C. 
N. M. M'Lean, Noi-;man, M,A., Lecturer in 

Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ's College, 

Lecturer in Semitie Languages at Caius 

College, Cambridge. 
O.C CONK, Rev. Professor Okeleo, D.D. , 

Professor of Hiblical Theology in St, 

Lawrence University, 
P, V. VOLZ, Iferr Repetent Paul, Tiibingon. 

P. W. S. SCH,v!!EDE[„ Paul W,, D.D., Professor 

of New Testament Exegesis, Ziirich. 
S. A. G. CoOK, Stanley A.. M.A., Fellow of 

Caius College, Cambridge. 
S. B. D. Driver, Rev. Samuel Rolles, D.D.. 

Regins Professor of Hebrew, Canon 

of Christ Church, Oxford. 
















C. V. M 







W. H. K. 
W. J. W. 
W. M. M. 

W. B. S. 
W. T. T.-D. 

PiNcni.;s, Theoe'hilus G.. M.R..'\.S.. 
fornierly of the Egyptian and Assvriao 
Department in the British Museum. 

Cheyne, Rev. T. K. , D. Litt. , D. D, , Oriel 
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy 
Scriptiire al Oxford, Canon of Ro- 


Semitie Languages, Strassbnrg. 

Davies, T. W'., Ph.D.. Lecturer in 
Semitie Languages, University College 
of North Wales, Bangor. 

Allen, Rev." W. C. M.A., Chaplain, 
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and 
Hebrew, E.veter College, Oxford, 

Man>~N, W. C. VAX, D.D., Professor of 
Old-Christìan Literatiire and New Tes- 
tament Exegesis, Leyden. 

Addis, Rev. \\'. E., M..-\., Lecturer in 
Old Testament Criiicism in Manchester 
College, Oxford, 

Benne-IT, Rev. W, H., Litt.D., D.D., 
Professor of Hiblical Languages and 
Literature, Haekney College, London, 
and Professor of Old Testament 
Exegesis, New College, London. 

KO.STEKS, The late W. H, , D. D, , Professor 
of Old Testament F.xej^esis, Leyden. 

WooiiiiousE, W. J.. M.A,, Profes.sor of 
Greek, University of Sydney. 

Mi^i.J.ER, W. M..\'x, Professor of Old 
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis- 
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia. 

Smith. The late \V. Rokertson, D. D.. 
Adams Professor of Arabie, Cambridge. 

Thisei.ton-Dyer, Sir William Tur- 
ner, C,M.G.,LL.D., F.R.S., Director 
Royal Gardens, Kew. 


Arranged according to alphabetical arder of surnames. 

Arbott, e. A. 
Akkahams, L 
Addis, W. E. 
Allen, W. C. 
Bakton. G. A. 
Be.nnett, W. H. 
Bknzingek, I. 
Bertholet, a. 
Brown, F. 


Canney, M. A, 
Cheynh, T. K. 


CooK, S. A. 
Creighton, C. 
Davies, T. W. 
Deissmann, G. A. 
Driver, S. R. 
Fr.\zer, J, G, 

E, A. A. 
I. A. 

W. E. A. 
W. C. A. 
G. A. B. 
W, H. B. 
I. B. 

A. E. 

F, B. 
K. B. 
M. A. C. 
T. K. C. 

S, A. C. 


T. W. D. 

G, A. D. 
S. R. D. 

B. D. 

J. G. F. 

Gautier, Lu. 
Gray. G. B. 
Guthe, H. 
Hatch, e. 
Hill, G. F. 
Rogo, H. W. 
joHNs, e. H, W. 


Kai;tzsch, e. 
Kennedy, A. R. S. 
Kosters. W. H. 
M'Lean. N. 
Manen, W. C. V. 
Marti, K. 
Meyer, e, 
Moore, G. F, 
MiJl.LER, W. M, 
Mykes, J. L. 
Nestle. e. 
Noldeke, T. 

Lu. G. 

G. B. G, 
H, G. 
E, H. 
G. r. H. 
H. W. H. 
C H. W. J. 
A. J. 
E. K. 

A. R. S. K. 
W. H. K. 
N. M. 
W. C, V. M. 
K. M. 
E. U. 
G. F. M. 
W. M. M. 
J. L. M. 
E. N. 
T. N. 

Paterson, A. C. 


Prjnce, J. D. 
Robinson, J. A. 


Shipley, A. E. 
Smith, G. A, 
Smith. W. R. 
SociN, A, 

TlEI.E, e. P. 
TORREY, e. e. 

TOY, e. H. 


Voi.z, P. 
Wellhausen, J. 


Woodhouse, W. J. 


A. C P. 
T. G. P. 
J. D. P. 
J. A. R. 
P. W. S. 
A. E. S. 
G. A. S. 
W. R. S. 
A. S. 
T. W.T.T.-D. 
C P. T. 
C C. T. 
C. H. T. 
H. U. 
P. V. 
J. W. 
H. W. 
W. J. W, 
H. Z 




MOAB .... 

NEGEB .... 


{I) City . 
(2) Districi 


between cols. 3610^^^3611 

3052 .. 3053 
3168 ., 3169 

3376 " 3377 

coL 3423 

,, 3422 

between cols. 3734 and 3735 



Sir W. T. Thistleton-Dyer. 



The late Prof. W. Robertson 

Smith and Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

Nebo (Mount) 

Lamp, Lantf.rn 

S. A. Cook. 

Nebuchaurezzar . 


I>r. l. Bciizinger. 

Negeb (with Map) . 


Prof. G. B. Gray. 



Re\-. E. A. Abbott. 

Li;av[;n . 

Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 


Lkuanon , 

The late Prof. A. Socin. 


Lkpkosy, Leper 

Dr, C. Creighton. 

New MaJN 

Levitiìs . 

The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 


l'rof. .A. Bcrtholet. 

Nii.E (with Illustration) 


Presirìent G. F. Moore. 

NlMROD . . . . 


Norman M'Lean. 

NiNEVEH {with Plans) 


A. K. Shlpley, S. A. Cook, and 

No, No-Amon . 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

NOPH . . . . 


A. E. Shipliiv, S. A. Cook, and 

NUMBER . . , . 

Prof. T. k' Cheyne. 


Logos '. 

Prof. A. Jiilicher. 

Oatii . . . . 

LoKD'fi Day 

Prof. G. A. Deissmann. 


Prof. F.b. Nestle. 

Obauiah (Hook) 


Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 


Prof. P. W. Schmiedeh 



Prof. W. J. Woodhouse, 

Old -Christian Litera- 


Prof. F. W. Schmiedeh 


Maccabkes (Family) 

Prof, Charles C. Torrey, 

Oi.iVKS, The Mount of , 

Maccabees jBOOKS) 

Prof. Charles C. Torrey. 

Onias . . . . 


Prof. Zinimern and Prof. T. W. 

Ophìk . . . . 


Palace (with Illustrations) 


The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. C. C. Torrey. 


Mammon . 

Prof. Kb. Nestle. 


Hope W. Hogg. 

Manna . 

Norman M ' I ,e.-in aiid S. A. Cook. 

Papyki . . . . 

MANTi.n: . 

I. Abraham? and S. A. Cook. 



Prof. I', W. Schmiedeh 



IJr. I, Benilnger. 

P.^.ssovEK, and Feast of 


l'rof. P. W. Schmiedeh 

Unleavenkd Bkead 

^L•\ssAII and Meribaii 

S. A. Cook. 

Paul (with Map) 


l'resident G. F. Moore. 


Rev. W. C. Alien. 



Rev. W. C, Alien. 

Pennv (with Illustrations) . 


Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 



Dr. C. Creighton. 


Meìxhi^ckdek: . 

Prof. T. K. Cht^yne. 

Persia . . . . 


Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

Mkkcy Skat . 

Prof. G. A. Deis.smann. 


Mestia (with Illustration) 

Prof. S. R. Driver. 

Peter, The Epistles of 

MkSO POTAMI A (with Map) 

The late Prof. A. Socin and Dr. 

Philemon, Epistlk to . 

U. Winekler. 

Philip the Ae'Ostle and 

Mkssiaii , 

Tlie late Prof. W. R. Smith, Prof. 

Philip the Evancelist 

E. Kautisch, and Prof. T. K. 

PhH.H'I'IANS (Epistles) . 




The la'le Prof. W. R. Smith and 
Prof. r. K. Cheyne. 


Midian . 

Prof. Th. Nóldeke. 

Ph(enicl\ (with Map) 


Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 

Phpygia .... 

Mii.i,, Mii.lstones . 

Prof. A. R. S- Kennedy. 



Prof. P. W. Schmiedeh 

PiTHO.M .... 


I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook. 

PiAGUES, The Ten 

Ml^KAlM . 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne- 


MOAU (wLlh Map) 

Prof. G. A. Smith, Prof. J. Well- 

Pontus .... 

hausen, and Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

F'OOR .... 


I. Abrahams. 

PoTTE:(Y(with Illustrations) 

Mot.KCH, Moi.oci! 

President G. F. Moore. 

Prayek .... 


Prof. Karl Marti. 



Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

Priest .... 


Dr. I. Oenzinger. 

Music (with Illustrations) 

Prof. J. D. Prince. 

Prophetic Litekature, 

Mystery . 

Prof. A. Jiilicher. 


Naoah anu Abiuu . 

Rev. W. E. Addis. 

Naui.m . 

Prof. Karl Budde. 



Prof. T. K. Chevne. 


Prof. Th. Nbldeke, Prof. G. B. 

pROVERBS (Book) 

Gray, Prof. E. Kautzsch, and 

Psalms (Book) 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 


Hope W. Hogg. 


Natlvety (-N'ahratives) 

Prof. H. Usener. 



President G. F. Moore. 

PURIM .... 


Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
RcY C. H. W. Johns. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
The late Prof. W. H. Kostersand 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Rev. E. A. Abbott. 
Prof. W. M. Mùller. 
F'rof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 
Prof. W. M. Miiller. 
Prof. W. M. Miiller. 
Prof. G. -A. Barlon. 
President G. F. Moore. 
M. A. Canney and Prof. T. K. 

The late Pi'of. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 
Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

Prof. Lu. Gautier. 

Prof. H. Gulhe. 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne and Dr. I. 

The late Prof. A. Socin, Prof. W. 

M. Moller, H. H. W. Pearson, 

and A. E. Shipley. 
Prof. G. A. Deissmann. 
Prof. A. Jiilicher. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 

The late Rev. E. Halch and Prof. 

W. C. V. Manen. 
M. A. Canney. 
(;. F. Hill. 
Dr. [. Benzinger. 
Prof. W. }. Woodhouse. 
The late Prof. C. P. Tìele and 

Prof. F. Brown. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. O. Cone. 
Prof. \\'. C. van Manen. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedeh 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

President G. F. Moore. 

Prof. T. K . Cheyne, Prof. W. M. 

Miiller, and S. A. Cook. 
Prof. Ed. Meyer. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 
Prof. W. M. Miiller. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. B. Duhm. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
A. C. Paterson. 
J. L. Myres. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Rev. Canon J, A. Robinson. 
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. .A. Berthold. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. Prof. II. 

Guthe, Paul Volz, and Rev. 

Canon J. A. Robinson. 
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. W. H. Bennett. 
Prof. C. H. Tov. 
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. G. A, Smith. 
T. G. Pinches. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. Dr. J. G. 

Frazer, and Prof, T. K, Chevne. 




Abbott. Rev. E. A. , D. D. , 

Abkahams, I., M.A. , London . 

Addis, Rev. W. E., M.A., Man- 
chester College, Oxford 

Allen, Rev. W. C. , M.A. , Exeter 
College, Oxford 

B.\RTON, Rev. Prof. G. A. , Ph. D. . 
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 

Bknnett. Rev. Prof. 'w. H., 
Litt.D.. D. D., London 

Benzinger, Dr. Immanuel, 

Bertholet, Prof. A. , Basel 
Bkovvn, Rev. Prof. F., D.D.. 

New York 
BUDDE, Prof. K-, D.D., Mar- 

Cannky, Maurice A., M.A. , 

Ckeyne, Rev. Prof. T. K., 

D.Litt., D.D.. Oxford 

CONK. Rev. Prof. O., D.D.. St. 
Lawrence University 

CooK, S. A., M.A., Caius Col- 
lege, Cambridge 

Creighton, C. , M. D. , London 
Davies, T. W. , Ph. D. , University 

College. North Wales 
Deissm.vnn, Prof. G. A., D.D., 

Driver, Rev. Prof, S. R. , D,D.. 

DuHM. Prof. B.. D.D., Basel . 
Frazer, J. G.. LL.D., D.C.I-.. 

Trinity College, Cambridge 
GauTier. Prof. Lucien, Geneva 
Gray. Rev. Prof. G. B. , M.A.. 

Mansfield College, Oxford 
GUTHE, Prof. H. , D. D. , Leipsic 

Hatch, the late Rev. Edwin, 

Hill, G, F., M.A., British 

HoGG, H. W.. M.A., Owens 

College, Manchester 
JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A.. 

Queens' College, Cambridge 
JiJLiCHER, Prof. A., D.D., 


Lazarus ; Nicodemus. 

Mantle ; Mitre ; Modin. 
Nadab and Abihu. 

Matthew ; Matthias. 


Nadabath ; Proselyte. 

Lawandjustice; Marriage; 

MourningCustoms ; Ne- 

thinim ; New Moon ; 

Palace ; Passover ; Pente- 

Levites ; Priest. 


Oath ; Pavement. 

Lamentations (Book) ; 

Lovingkindness ; Mel- 
chizedek; Mephibosheth; 
Micah ; Mizraim ; Moses; 
Name ; Nazareth ; Nebo 
(Mt. ); Negeb ; Nephi- 
ìim ; Nimrod ; Ophir ; 
Paradise ; Piagues, The 
Ten ; Prayer ; Prophelic 
Literature ; Psalms 


Peter ( Epistles of). 

Lamp ; Lion ; Locnst ; 
Manna; Mantle; Massah 
and Meribah ; Mitre ; 

Leprosy ; Medicine. 


Lord's Day; Mercy Seat; 

Mesh a. 

Poe ti cai Literature, 

Olives, Mount of. 

Law Literature ; Names ; 
Pillar of Cloud and Fire. 

Onias ; Prophetic Litera- 



Manasseh ; Naphtali. 

Nebuchadrezzar ; Nineveh ; 

Logos ; Mystery ; Parables. 

Kautzscìi, Prof. E., D.D., Halle 
Kennedy, Rev, Prof. A. R. S., 

D.D., Edinburgh 
Kosters, the late Prof. W. H., 

D.D., Leyden 

M'Lean, N. , M. A. , Christ's 

College, Cambridge 
Manen-, Prof. W. C. van, D.D., 


Marti, Prof. K. , D.D., Bern , 
Meyer. Prof. Ed., Halle . 
MOORE, Rev. Pres. G. F.. D.D., 

MOLLER, Prof. W. M.. Phila- 

Myres, J, L., M.A., Magdaien 

College, Oxford 

Nestle, Eb. , D.D. , Maulbronn. 

NÒLDEKK, Prof. Theodor, Strass- 


Paterson, A. C, M.A. . 
Pearson, H. H. \V., M.A., 

Royal Gardens, Kew 
PlNCm-.s, T. G. , formerly of 

British Museum 
Prince, Prof. J. D., Ph.D.. 

New York 

Robinson. Rev. J. A. , D.D. , 
Canon of Westminster 

SCHMIEDEI., Prof P. W.. D.D., 

Shipley, A. E., M.A., Christ's 
College, Cambridge 

Smith, Rev. Prof. G, A,, D.D.. 

Smith, the late Prof. W. Robert- 
son, D.D. 

SociN, the late Prof A., Leipsic. 

Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W. T., 

K. C, M. G. , F. R. S. , Director, 

Royal Gardens. Kew 
Tiele, the late Prof. C. P.. D.D., 

Torrey, Prof. Charles C, , Ph, D. , 

TOY, Prof. C. H. , D. D. , Harvard 
Usener, Prof. H,, Bonn , 
VoLZ. Herr Repetent Paul, 

Wellhausen. Prof. Julius, D. D. , 

Gòtti ngen 
Winckler, H., Ph.D., Berlin . 
WoonHousE, Prof. W. J.. M.A., 

Zimmern, Prof H. . Leipsic 

Messiah ; Names. 

Leaven ; Meals ; Milk ; 

Mill ; Oil- 

Linen ; Manna. 

Old - Christian Literature ; 

Paul ; Philemon ( Epistle 

to) ; Philippians (Ep.). 
Leviticus ; Massebah ; Mo- 

lech ; Nature Worship ; 

Nunibers (Book) ; Philis- 

Nile ; No; Noph ; Pharaoh ; 

Phinehas ; Pithom. 

Lord's Prayer ; Mammon. 
Midian ; Names. 


Palestine (flora). 



Presbyter; Prophet (New 

Luke ; Lysanias ; Mark ; 

Mary ; Ministry ; PhiHp. 
Lion ; Locust ; Palestine 

Moab ; Ptolemais. 

Lamentations (Book) ; Le- 
vites ; Malachi ; Messiah ; 
Micah ; Nazirite ; Oba- 
diah(Eook); Priest; Pro- 
selyte ; Psalms (Book). 

Lebanon ; Mesopotamia ; 



Maccabees (Family) ; Mac- 
cabees (Books) ; Malachi, 
Prophetic Literature. 



Lycaonia ; Pergamos ; 

Phrygia ; Pontus, 





LAADAH (Hirb. § 35 ; perhaps abbrev. from iTTr^ì* 
' El passes by'; cp Eladah), a Judahite ; iCh.42i (jiaSaB _ 
{B], aaSa [A], À(i3iji (LJ). Kor a probabie solution of the prò- 
blem of ' Laadab,' see Lecah. 

LAADAN {\1V% I Ch. 7=6 23? ^. 2621 AV, RV 
Ladan (?.!'•). 

LABAN (15^; A&Ban [ADEL]), son of Nahor 
(Gcn. 295 J ; cp 2447. where • Bethuel, son of,' should 
be omitted as an interpolation).^ He was also brother 
of Rebekah (2429), and becaine falher of Leah and 
Rachel (chap. 29), and of several sons (3O3S 31 1 ) ; he 
was iherefore uncle and father-in-law of Jacob. Accord- 
ing to r (2520) he was, like Bethuel. ' an AramEean ' 
("SIN. liV 'a Syrian') ; but P does noi niean to deny 
thal he was a Nahorite ; ' Milcah ' and ' Aram ' are both 
probably corriiptions of ' Jerahmeel, ' and the northern 
Jerahmeelites dwelt at 'the cily of Nahor.' It ia in 
fact here that the tradition given by J places the horne 
of Laban (24io 2743) ; the Godof Laban, too, is called 
by E the ' God of Nahor' (31 53). Elsewhere (see 
Nahor) it ìs suggested that ' Nahor ' is most probably 
niiswritten for ' Hauran ' ; very possibly J and E had 
before Iheni corrupt versions of the traditionaì narrative. 

It would be unfair to criticise the character of Laban 
as if he were a historical individuai ; we can only ven- 
ture to infer that the later Israelites criticised the char- 
acter of the Araraseans very unfavourably. It is 
essential, hoivever, to notice the religious difference 
between Laban and Jacob ; note especiaily the incident 
with the teraphim (Gen. 31 30 ; cp 352, and see Teka- 
phim). Since Laban — i.e. , the Laban-tribe — resides 
in or near a city of Hauran it is archa;oIogically 
important to try to clear up the nanie. A very similar 
name, LiBNI [?.''.], is given in Ex. 6 17 Nu. 3 18 lo a 
son of Gershon, son of Levi; in i Ch. 617, however, 
Libni's father is called Gershom. Now, Gershom 
(=Gershon) is a ' Jerahmeel ite ' name. Gershom in 
E.\. 222 is the son of Moshe (Moses), who was the son 
of Amrani (Ex. 6 20, P) ; Amram, like Abram, contains 
in our view an abbreviation of the name Jerahmeel. Levi 
too is claimed elsewhere (Levi, i) as a Jerahmeelite 
name ; it corresponds to Leah, which is e.xplaiiied 
elsewhere (Lkah) as a fragment of a femmine form of 
Jerahmeel. The naturai inference, if these da{a be 
grantcd, is that Laban and Libni are both connected 
with Leah and Levi ; p^, Laban, may be from l'i^, and 
Libni may be a further development of pS. 

Hence the Levi-tribe was at one time viewed as the equal of 
the Jacob-trìhe, though afterwards ìt had to accept an inferior, 
depenUent posìcion. le thus becomes utinecessary to combine 
Lalian with an Assyrian god Laban (cp [l'Iu] libìiti., 'god of 

1 Similarly the refetences to Bethuel inGen. 24 15 2450 (J) are 
to he viewed as interpolacions. See Mez, Gesck. d, St. Marran, 
i^ff. and D ili mann's Cene»!]. In Gen. 22 30-23 (J) the list should 
end with ' and Laban and Rebekah,' 



b-rickwork,' KB 3s 100^) mentìoned by Delitzsch and Sayce 
(Hibb. Lecl. 249, n. 3), or with the Lapana (probablj; Helfaon) 
of Atn. Tab. 139 35 371 or to regard the name as originally a 
title of Ihe Harranian moon-god (Schr. KAT'?') ov^ Gen.2743; 
Jensen, Z-^/iSgS, p. 298 ; cp Goldziher, Heb. Myth. 158 ; Wi. 
Gì 2 57). Gunkel (_Gen. 2ga) finds the Laban legend free from 
mythology ; on the other side, see Winckler, 17^. cii. 

, T. K. C. 

LABAN (15? ; AoBON [BAFL]), an unknown locality 
(Dt. li) ; perhaps the same as Libnah (2, s-v.). Cp 


LABANA (A&B&Nà [BA]), i Esd. Sag^ Neh.74B, 

LABOUB (r''J^ Gen. 3I42 ; ^O^. Dt. 267), Labourer 
(epr^THC, Mt. 937). See Slavery. The use of ' labour ' 
for ' fruit of iabour ' [e.g. , Hab. 3 17} is one of the most 
questionable Hebraisms of the EV. 

K&l- [A]; see Swete. ad loc. and App. ), mentioned 
only in 2 Macc. 59; elsewhere always 'Spartans' 
(cTT&pTiftT&i) is used. See Jason, z (end). Sparta. 

The Jews claimed kinship with the Lacedsmonians (see 
Spabta for diplomatic relations between the two peoples abouc 
300 B.c. and 145 B.c.). For the presence of Jews in Sparta, we 
may compare 1 Macc. 15 23, and in the Peloponnese genetally, 
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36. 

LACHISH (K'pS ; A&yeiC [BAL, etc,]). A city in 
the Shéphelah (Josh. I539, ^a^s EB*A], Aa. [B^bs^per- 
scr. X]). Its king, with four other Amorite 
kings, was defeated by Joshua at Gibeon 
(Josh. IO3-15 ; cp Gibeon, § i. Makkedah) ; on the 
fate of the city and ils population, see Josh. lOsi/l It 
seenis to bave been a ' chariot-city ' (Mie. 1 13 ; cp i K. 
9 19 and Beth-marcaboth). The Chronicler speaks of 
its fortifìcation by Rehoboam (2 Ch. II9). Amaziah fìed 
thither from a conspiracy (2 K. 14 19 ; see Am.'^Ziah, 
i). Sennacherib besieged and took the place on bis 
expedi tion against Egypt, and ser.t the Rabshakeh 
thence to Jerusalem (2 K. I814. "7, cp 198; Is. 862 
\a.\x\nì [F], cp 37 8 [om. XAOQ]). Lachish was one of 
the two last ' fenced cities' to be captuied by Nebuchad- 
rezzar's army (Jer. 347). It is mentioned in a list of 
cities in Nehemiah (II30) ; but on criticai grounds we 
cannot assume that Jews really dwelt there in the period 
referred to(see EZRA ii., § 5, n. 3). Prof. Petrie's infer- 
ences from his excavations entirely bear out this opinion 
■ — -viz. , that, ' after ihc return of the Jews Lachish appears 
to have been hardly reoccupied ' (Teli el-Hesy, 29). 

In Mie. Z 13 Lachish is called ' ihe beginning of .sin for the 
daughter {i.e., people) of Zion.' Possibly some heathen Philis- 
tine rites (cp Is. ^ft) had been introduced at Lachish, and 
spread thence to Jerusalem. The play on the name of Lachish 
is obscure. Read perhaps D'D^m '^??'^9 'PO''' ' Make ready 
chariot horses ' ;1 cp Ass. narkabàte rakliu, ' chariot-horses,' 
1 See Ges.-Buhl, s.v. pmTand, for the rest, Che. /QJ? 
10576^ [1898]. MTisrendered in RV, ' Bindthechariot to th? 


1. Hìfltory. 


Dei. Ass. HlVB(i22\ ràk'is and lakìsh produce ati assonancfl- 
The people of Lachisli hpve good cause io dee, for ihey afe 
partners in the sins of Jerusalem. 

The antiquity of Lachish is proved by the references 
to it in some of the Aniarna tablets (i5th cent. B.C. ). 
Zimrida (cp Zimri) was prince of the city under the 
Egyptian king Anien-h<5tep IV. Efforts were made to 
shake his allegiance to Egypt ; but he handed over the 
man who had tried to seduce hini to an FZgyptian officiai. 
Soon after, however. I.achish rebelled against him ; the 
fate of Zimrida remains uncertain. 

See Am. Tab. 217, 219, i3i, and Peìser, OLZ, isth Jan. 1899- 
Max Miiller, however (OL^., isth March 1899), finds some 
difficullies in the situatbn supposed by Peiser. No. 219 U the 
famous tablet found at Teli below, g 2) and included 
by WiiiL:kler in his edition of the Amarna Tablets. 

There is also in the Btltish Museum a bas-relief (found aC 
Kuyunjik) wilh this inscriplion, according to Winckler, ' Sen- 
nacherib, king of the worid, kìng of Assyiia, took his seat oi> 
che throne, and the captives fram Lachish marched up before 
him ' 1 ( Textìiuch, 37). This contìrms the inference frolli 2 K. 
19b that Sennaeherib's siege of Lachish was successful. 

Eusebius and Jerome place the site of Lachish 7 R.m. 
S. of Eleutheropolis, towards the Dàròni {OS '^Ti^ 9 

„ js-i.- 135 22). This does not agree with the 
posilion of Umm Lakis, which most recent 
scholars have identifìed with Lachish, this place being 
W. , not S. , of Eleutheropolis. In fact, its sole re- 
commendations consist in a very slight resemblance 
of its i\ame lo ihat of Lachish (k. noi k, is the second 
consonant),^ and in its being only three-quartets of ati 
hour from 'Ajlàn (Eglon) ; cp Josh. IO3+. It presents, 
as Conder states, 'only a few traces of ruins, two 
masonrycisterns, andasmall, lowmound' {PEFQ. 1878, 
p. 20). On the ground of this apparent insignificance, 
Robinson long ago rejected it {5^2389), adding that the 
mound of Teli el-Hesy must certainly represent some 
important city ; ' a finer position could hardly be 
imagined. ' It was left for Conder, however, to point 
out that Lachish ought to be, and for Petrie virtually 
to prove that it was, the city which Teli el-Hesy repre- 
sents. The work of escavati on was begun by Flinders 
Petrie in Aprii 1S90. A study of the walls and of the 
pottery of different levels led him to the conclusion that 
' the earliest dwellings are not later thaii the seventeenth 
century b.c., and the latest belong to the fifth century 
B.c.' 'Thegreat walls below the level of the ash-bed 
belong to the pre- Israel itish or Amorite tìmes. The 
stones below the bed of ashes belong to the rude period 
of the Judges. The ashes represent a desolation when 
the teli was used by aJkali-burners. [Bliss accounts for 
the great bed of ashes differently. ] The buildings 
above the ashes represent the cities of the various Jewish 
kings to the lime of the Captivìty. ' It was in the third 
city, in the stratum overspread by the ash-bed, that the 
cuneiform tablet was found ; other tablets must or raay 
have been carrìed off by foes. 

Petiie identifies the tellvi'vh LachLsh for three rea^ons. 

1. The position commands the only springs in the distrìct, 
except those of Teli en-Nejileh (see Eolon li.). 

2. It cotresponds sufFiciently with the geogtaphical deter- 
mination in the Onotnasiico", being only three miles farther from 
Eleutheropolis than Eusebius and Jerome say that Lachish was. 

3. It agrees with the situation represented on Sennacherib's 

swift steed ' ; but the first word (QÌTl) is, slrictly, untranslatable, 

and ^y\ can hardly be used of a cbariot-horse (see HoRSE, 
SS ■> 4)- The order of the words 'chariot' and 'swift steed ' 
is also scarcely possible ; to alter it in the translation (G. A. Smith) 
is arbitiaty. If, however, Prof. Smith's rendering might stand, 
his explanation would be at least plausible. He sees an allusion 
to the Egyptian subsidies of horses and chariots (in which the 
politicians put their trust), which would be received at Lachish, 
as being the last Judican outpost towards Egypt. 

t ' Carne forward into his presence ' (M'Curdy, Htst. Propk. 
Mon.1^1^). Cp Meinhold, Jesaja. u. seiHe Zeit (189S), who 
also adopts Wi.'s translation of Sallat niaharSu etik. Bezold, 
however (KB1 115), rendei.s ' received the spoil of Lachish ' ; and 
Del. 'brought up before himself(i>., took a minute sutvey of) the 
spoil of lachish ' {Ass. HiVB 159 a). 

2 So Robinson. According to Conder the name is pronounced 
Umm Lags. Sayce states that, after repeated inquiries of the 
fellaijTn, he assured himself (in i88t) that the name was Latis ; 
but Bliss confirms Conder's statement; Umm Laggis i.s the 
form which he gives. 



bas.relief, and the remains in the teli permit a conceptinn of 
the fortunes of the site which agrees with the data of history. 
F. J. Bliss took up Petrie's work in March 1891. His general 
conclusion agrees with that of his predecessor ; the importance 
of the site is such that hardly any other Identification appears 

Whether Umm Làkis is really the site of a Jewish 
settlement which took the place of the old Lachish, is 
less certain. G. A. Smith {Twelve Propkets, IZo f.) 
has suggested that Umm Làkis may represent the 
ancien! Elkos, which, according to Epiphanius, was 
' beyond Bet Gabre, of the tribe of Simeon ' (cp 
Elkoshite, c). The consonants are suitabie ; but 
we should not have expected the vocalisation Làkis. 
Conder has identifìed Umm Lakis with the Malagues of 
the Crusaders. To the present writer the site of 
Lachish appears lo be ìdentified with virtual certainty by 
Petrie's btilliant investigation. Cp I3RON2E, Honey, 
Pottery ; and, on the strategical importance of Lachish, 
see GASm. HG2-ì,i,f. 

See Flinders Petiie, Teli el-Hesy: a Memoir (1891) ; F. J. 
Bliss, A Mound 0/ Many Cilies ; or Teli el-Hesy excavated 
(1898). For a fresh tran.slation of the Lachish tablet see Peiser, 
OLZ, I5th lan. 1899, and cp WMM, OLZ^ ijth March 1899. 
W. Max Mvìller adberes to Umm Lakis (in spile of the k) as the 
site of Lachish. He tbinks thi" letter was addressed, not to the 
Egyptian giand vizier, but to a iieighbour of Zimrida. The 
grounds for the prevalent view are not, however, discussed. 

pacaias ? [L]), the name of one of the sons of Addi in the list of 
those with foreign wive.s, i Esd.931 (see EzRA i,, § 5 end). If 
we compare II E?ial03o, we shall see that the name has ariseu 
from the names ' Chelal, Benaiah ' di']] 7"}"^)^ the final *? of 
Chelal having been taken with the following name, and the 3 
read as a j—'.e., n'JsV 

LADAN (J-iyS, § 38 ; A&À&N [BL]). 

i. An Ephraimite, i Ch.726 RV, AV Laadan (XaSSav [B], 
Kaflaac [A]); whose name appears in i'. 20 as Eladah (f-v-). 
See Eban, Ezerìì., 3 and cp Ei'hraim i., g 12. 

2. RV, AV Laauan, aGershonite name, i Ch. 287-9 (eSoLf [B]. 
AettSai- [A], Aoa. [L]) 2621 (xaSav [B once}, XeS. twice kaaSà [A], 
XaaSa.i' [L]). See Libni, 1, 

3. I Esd. 5 37 AV, RV Dalan. See Delaiah, 4. 

LADANUM (Q^. lòt. ct&KTH [ADEFL], resina). 
Gen. 3725t (RV"'«- Mykrh) iSnf (EV Myrrh), is the 
name of a resin called by the Arabs Iddhan or Iddan ^ 
which was yielded by some species of Cistus. It was 
known to the Gteeks as early as the times of Herodotus 
and Theophrastus by the names \71hov. XàSavof, and 
X^Sai'o:', which are very closely allied to the Arabie 

Ladanuiii is described by Herodotus (Sua) as partìcularly 
fragrant, though gathered front the beards of goats, on which 
it is found sticking ; similady Dioscorides (1 12B). Toutnefott, 
in modem times (yoyage, 1 29), has given a detailed description 
of the mode of obtaining ladanum. He relates that it is now 
gathered by means of a Aofiac'-oiijpioi' or kind of flaÌ12 with 
which the plants are threshed. When the se ihongs are 
Ioaded wilh the fragrant and sticky resin, they are scraped 
with a knife ; the substance is then rolled into a mass, 
in which state it is called ladanum or labdanum. Ladanum 
consisis of resin and volatile oil, and is highly fragtant, and 
stimulant as a medicine, but is often adulterated wilh sand in 
commerce. The ladanum which is used in Europe is collecied 
chiefly in the Greek isles, and also in contìnental Gteece. It 
is yielded by species of the genus Cistus (especially by C. 
crehcus) which are known in this country by the name of Rock 
Rose : they are natives of the S, of Europe, the Mediterranean 
islands, and the N. of Africa, According to Ttistram (,FFF 
235) Palestinian ladanum is derived from Cistus villosus, L., 
which grows ' in the bill districts E. and W. of Jordan,' and is 
' especially plentiful on Carmel.' Cistus creiicus, which is only 
a variety of this and distingui shed by its viscidity, is 'the 
common form on the .'ioulhein hills.' JFonck thlnks of the Cisliis 
salvifolius, which is also plentiful on Carmel, for the ladanum ; 
but H. Christ (ZDPV t=,ff. [1899]) questions this Identification.] 

Ladanum is said by Pliny, as it was long before said by 
Herodotus, to be a produci of Arabia, though this has not 
been proved to be the case in modem times. Enotigh, 
however, has been adduced to show that ladanum was 
known to, and esteemed by, the ancients ; and, as it ìs 

1 According to Moidtmann and Miiller {Sah. Denk. 84) the 
ISdkan is the proper Arabie form derived from Persian, 

2 Specimens of the implemeot can be seen in the Museum at 
Kew (Crete and Cyptus). 



stated to bave been a produci of Syria, it was very 
likely to bave been sent to Egypl both as a present and 
as nierchandise. The ■word Iddan is found in the in- 
scription on a S. Arabian censer {Sab. Denk. 84), and 
in Assyrian in the list of objects received as Iribute from 
DamascusbyTiglath-PileserllI. (A'.-ÌT'l^tiSi, 18). The 
biblica! narrative (J) shows that ■cS was some precious 
gum produced in Canaan or at least in Gilead. 

See Koyle's article ' Lot ' in Kitto's BìbL Cycl-, on which this 
ailicle is mainly based. N. M. — -W. T. T.-D. 

LADDER(D^D; kAima5) Gen.28i2t The render- 
ing ' ladder ' is [infortunate ; a * flight of sceps ' is meant accord- 
ing to niost scholars. Cp Bethel, § 2. Probably, however, 
717!;n, ' ascent ' ìs the right reading (adapt suffixes accordingly), 
cpNeh.3 15 1237 (® «Ai'na«5 = niS't'i;)- SoChe. SeeSTAiKs,^. 

The classica! use of the term ' ladder' in topography(cp 
Paus. viii. 6 4 and see Frazer's note) is cxemplifìed in The 
Ladder of Tyrus, RV . . . of Tyhe ( kAimakoc tyroy 
[ANV]), I Macc. II59, the northern limit of the region 
over which Simon the Macuabee was made commandant 
((TTp(iTj)7Ós) by Antiochus VI., son of Balas. Josephus 
{BJn. lOa) defines it as a high mountain 100 stadia N. 
from Ptolemais. It is the steep and !o(ty headiand noiv 
known as the Ras en-Nàkurah— ' the naturai barrier 
between Phcenicia and Palestine ' (Stanley). True, we 
should bave expected the title to bave been rather given 
to the Ras el-abyad, the Promontoriurn album of Pliny. 
Regarded from the S. , however, the Ras en-Nàkùrah, 
which Neubaiier (Géogr. 39) idenlifies with the kd^id 
Ila Se of the Talmud, may have presented itself as the 
end of the Lebanon and the barrier of Tyre. 

LAEL ('?n'?, g§ 22. 37,^ '[belonging] to God ' ; or, 
the forni bavìng no sure parallel in Hebrew, read ' Joel,' 
see Genealogies i. , § 7, col. 1664, no. 3), a Gershon- 
ite, Nu.324(ì&hMBAF], à&0YH\[L]). 

Gray {Hl'N 207) qiiotes the parallel of Lemuri, in Prov, 3! i, 
and, as more remntely analogous, Besodiìiah and possibly 
BtzALEEL. AH tliese names, however, are liable to grave sus- 
piiiion. Niildeke, indeed, has shown that the re were such 
Semitic names as Lael (in later times!), but not that MT is 
correct in its reading. t. K. C. 

LAHAD (in?), b. JAHATH [q.v., i), aclan of Judah, 
iCh.42| (Aa&9 [B], A&[&U [AL]), Jerahmeelite, to 
judge from the names (Che.). 

LAHAI-EOI (*«T ^n^ [IK?]), Gen.246j 25 ii AV. 

RV Bkkk-LAhai-roi [q.v.). 

LAHMAS (DDH^; M&xec [B], A&m&c [A], A&w- 
M&C [L]), Josh. 1540 RV"'£-, or, according to many 
MSS, Lahmam (DDH?), as in EV. A town in the low- 
land of Judah, perhaps the modem el-Lakm, z^ m. S. 
from Eieutheropolis (Bèt Jibrin). 

LAHMI Cpn^ ; eAcMee [B], AeeMei [A], Aoomi 
[L]), ' brother of Goliath ' (iCh.SOst)- See Elhanan. 

LAISH. I. (B*;?; A&iC&CBAL]), the originai name 
of the northern frontìer-city Dan (q.^.), Judg. I87 14 
27 29 ([oyA&m]ì,iC [B], àAeiC [A]). Another form 
(probably) is Lesham (see Leshem). In the list of 
Thotmes III. it perhaps appears as Liusa (Manette, 
Brugsch, etc. ). On the narrative in Judg. 18 see JuDGES 
(Book), § 12, 

Winciilcr ((7/2fi3^) endeavours to show that the foundalion 
of Dan is related not only in Josh. X9 47 and Judg. 18, but also 
in Judg. 1 22-26. The city ' in the land of the Hittites ' called 
1.U7. (' unto this day ') must have been Dan ; the statement that 
it was called Luz ìnvolveii a confusion between the name of 
the sancluary (properly an appellative meaning 'asylum' — see 
Lu?,) and that of the city. Winci<Ier also suggests ihat Laish 
and Le.shem really mean ' there ìs not ' and ' nameless ' respec- 
lively, in allusion lo the destruction of the old city by the 
Danites. Il may be more naturai to suppose that nere, too, 
Ihete is an early writer's misunderstandmg, and that Laish 

1 Cp NcSld., ' Verwandtschaftsnamen als Personennamen ' in 
' Kleinigkeiten zur semitischen Onomatologie ' (ffZATAT 6314 



(whence Lesbem)Ì5acorruptian of Luz, orof a name from which 
Luz is corrupted. 

2. Is. IO30. See Laiehah. t. K. C. 

LAISH {^"h. as if ' lion,' § 68 ; in 2 S. 3 15 CTl'? Kt. ), 
evidently a short form of Laisbah (Shalishah). See 
Laishah, Palii. The name occurs in i S. 2644 (some 
MSS have Kt. ^iV ; a^etj [B], Xais [A], twoj [L]) ; and 
in 2 S. 3 15 [creWTjì [B], Aaets [A], ffeXXei/t [L, for which, 
see Bahukim, n. i]). 

LAISHAH (ne^^^; AMC&[Q"'Ho'"which€NCà[BA] 
is a corruption : \eic [Thcod.], A&ic [Symm. et forte 
Aq. ]), a piace in Benjamin near Gallim (?) and Anathotli 
(Is. lOaof RV, AV ' unto Laish'). According to Conder 
[PEFQ, 1875. p. 183) and Van Kasteren {ZDFV 
\'òioof.') it is the modem el-hàwiyeh, a small village 
on the E. slope of a mountain to the NNE. of the 
Mount of Olives, less than an hour's walk from the 
neighbouring village of 'Anàtà. The site stili shows 
traces of high antiquity (Guérin, Jvdée. 3Bo/. ; Gray 
Hill, PEFQ. 1899. pp. 45-47). It isdoubtful, however. 
whether we can trust the name Laishah any more than 
Gai.Lim {q. V. ]. Both ' Laishah ' and ' Laish ' are pro- 
bably distortions of Shai,ish.\ii [^.w.]. the name of 
the districi in which ' Gibeah of .Shà'ùl ' (rather ' Gibeah 
of Shalishah'), mentioned just before (see z'. 29), was 
situated. For another possible corruption of the 
same name see Merab, Mephibosheth. Cp further 

Grove (Smith, DBfl), s.v.) suspects the identity of Laishah 
and the Eleasa of i Macc 9 5 (oAao-a [A], eA. [NV]), «bere Vg. 
g^ives Z-aiiu, while Halévy(AVÀ«i Meni. SemiticStudies, 241./) 
identifies Laishah with Chephirah [?.ì/.], both names, accord- 
ing to him, meaning 'lion-town.' t. k. c. 

LAKUM, RV Lakkum (Dlp^ ; iwA&M [B], &kpoy 
[A], AàKOYM [L]), an unidentified town in Naphtali 
(Josh. 1933). 

LAME (nb, ieh. Gen. 227/ etc; ab'S, késeb. Lev. 
4 35 etc. ; i?3|, ké&el. Lev, 14 12 etc). See Sheep ; and cp 
Cattle, g 2. 

For Gen. 33 19 (HH'É'p, AVmg. ' Umb '), see Kesitah. 

LAMECH Cn»^}, Gen. 4.8-34. SeeCAiNiTES, § 8/, 

LAMENTATIO^f. Lamentationsforgreatcalamities, 
especially for deaths, held an important place among the 

1 Character '^'^^^*^'"^ *'f ^^e Israelites. We may 
regard these lamentations in ditferent 
aspects, according as they are privale or public, non- 
literary or literary. The origin of lamentalion is a 
simple cry or wail, and even when art had elaborated 
new kinds of lamentation in which musical instruments 
played a part, the simple cry was a necessary accom- 
paniment — such a cry as the prolonged zvèlt, ' woe is 
me,' stili customary in Syria, with which 'òi li, hai 
dM, hot ddón, 'ab, me," 'ah, my brother,' 'ah, lord,* 
in 2 K, 937 (®'-), I K. 1330 Jer, 22i8 345 may be 
compared. This is wbat is primarily meant by the 
nèht (-n) ; cp y-rìvia.. and see BDB)— -j.e., 'wailing' 
(EV)— of Jer. 9to [9] 18-20 [17-19] 31 15 Am. 5i6 Mie. 
24^t. The heart-rending inèli, however, is not the only 
espression of woc ; songs in nieasured verse and with 
musical accompaniment are chanted by the professional 
mourning women of Syria, and so it was in Palestine 
of old (cp Mourning Customs, § i). We may pre- 
sume that public lamentations were on the same model. 
Pinches^ (Smitb's DB2g8ob) has translated a Baby- 
lonian bymn. ' probably prehistoric,' which, at any rate 
in a wide sense, may be called an elegy (like the 
' 1-amentations ' ). For a dirge in the stricter sense we 
can go to the twelfth tablet of the Gilgames epic, where 
we tìnd the lament of Gilgames over the dead bero 
Eabani (cp Creation, § 20, n. 4 ; Job, § 4). 

1 The term is uscd here rather widely. 

2 Cp £OR, Dee. 1886, pp. is/-. ; Halévy, JtP 11 160. It has 
also been compared with Ps. 7S (Che. /*j.W 223). 



Thou takest no part in the noble feast ; to the assembly they 
caU thee not ", thou lìftest not the bow from the ground ; what 
is hit by the bow is not for ihee ; thy band grasps not the club 
and strikes not the prey, nor stretches thy foeman dead on the 
earth. The wife thi>u lovest thou kissest not ; the wife thou 
hatest thou strikest not. The child thou lovest thou kissest 
not ; the child thou batest thou strikest not. The might of the 
earlb bas swallowed thee. O Darkness, Darkness, Mother 
Datkness ! thou enfoldest him like a mantle ; like a deep well 
thou enclosest hin\ ! ' ^ 

The result of the crying and lamenting of Gilgames 
was that Ea-bani's spirit, after holding interconrse with 
Gilgames, was transferred from the dark world of the 
shades to the land of the blessed. Wailing, it would 
seem, had an object, aparC from that of relieving the 
feelings of the mourners, and in this case it was to effect 
an improvemeiit in the lot of the dead. Perhaps, how- 
ever, it may once have been intended as an attempi to 
influence the supernatural powers, and to bring back 
the departed tenant of the body ; ^ for this we may 
compare the familiar Arabie mourning phrase addressed 
to the dead, ' Depart noi.' At the same time there is 
a consideratale mass of evidence Ihat suggests a very 
different object^viz. , to drive away the spirita of the 
dead lest they should harm the living,^ 

The most trustworthy specimen of an ancient Hebrew 

dirge is David's lament over Abner (2 8.833/; see 

2 or Abner). Whether the reportedlamen- 

Spedmena. 'T"" ''''^' fauljiad Jonathan (a S. 1 ,,- 
•^ 37) can sately be classed with this, or 

whether it is noi rather a lilerary produci of ihe post- 
exilic age, is becoming somewhal doublful (see Jasher, 
BOOK OF, § 2). Al any rate, in Am. 5i we have a 
beautiful specimen of a new class of elegy-— the pro- 
phetic ;— 

Piostrate ìs fallen to rise no more | the vit^in Israel ; 
There she lies stietched on the ground ; ] no one raises ber up. 
Jeremiah (8822) represents the women of the house of 
the king of Judah (Zedekiah) as singing a dirge contain- 
ing these words, 

Misied thou wast atld overpowered | by thy bosom frlends ; 

Thy feet sank in the mire, ] but those remained behìnd. 

Other specimens of prophetic dirge-poetry will be found 

in Jer. 919 zi 23 [18 20 ai]. The prophet, however, who, 

more than any other, delights in elegy, is Ezekiel {see 

Eiek. 19 2617 272 32 28 12 322 cp also 32 13), and among 

the many passages of ' limping verse' in the later por- 

tions of Isaiah there are some {^.ff., Is. 144^-21) that 

bear an elegiac character. 

The little elegy in Am. 5 1 helps us to understand 

the Lamentations wrongly ascribed lo Jeremiah. The 

death which the singers of these poems lainented was 

that of the Jewish nailon (cp Jer. 9 19 [18] Ezek. 19), and 

as early as the time of Amos this form of speech was in 

use. As Robertson Smith has said, ' the agonies of the 

nation's last desperate struggle look a form modelled on 

the death-wail sung by "cunning women" (Jer.917) 

and by poets "skilful of lamentalion " (Am. 5 "6) at the 

wake (SaN) of the iLluslrious dead. ' * 

The researches of Budde leave no doubt that one 

of the metres specially used in dirges was that of 

n -M- 4. the so-called ' limping verse,' in which ' the 
3. Uetire. ,- , ... .... 

unitormly unduiating movement which is 

the usuai characleristic of Hebrew poetry, is changed lo 

a peculiar and limping metre.' " 

In the Psalter the 'limping verse' ìs often found; 

but there is only a single passage in which, Budde 

Ihinks, it is used for the purpose of lamentalion. This 

is Ps. 1374-9; bui it is questionatale whether Budde's 

vìew is correct ; and stili more doubtful is it whether the 

1 Translated from Haupt's German versìon by Ragozin, 
Chaldea, 313 _/C (iSgi) ; but cp Jeremias, Izdubar-Nhnroa, 
41 (189.). 

3 Cp Frey, Tod, Setlengìaube und Seeìenkuli^ 55. 

3 Cp WRS Rei. SemM, 100, n. 2 ; Grfineisen, Aknenculius, 
100. Cp the stranie arjecdote glven in We. Ar. Heid. 161 (the 
calile kilied that their lowing might add to the noise of the 

* EB'^^'), art. 'Lamentations, Book of.' 

6 Budde, Ntiu World, March 1893. 



use of what this able critic calls the elegiac metre can 
be taken to prove the early exilic date of this remark- 
able song (see Psalms, § 28, ix. ). 

The term Kinah-metre for the so-called ' limping verse' 
is convenient. We cannot, however, regard the theory 
that it is primarily elegiac as proved. Budde's attempi 
to explain why it is noi used in David's famous elegy 
\ZATW2i5) — viz., that this elegy had a private 
character — is far from convincing ; and even apart from 
this it is hazardous to asserì that because some early 
elegiac passages are in the * Kinah metre,' the mette 
must therefore have taeen reserved originally for elegiac 
poetry. See Minocchi, Le Lameniazionit 36. 

Weizstein's description of the funeral ceremonies in mcdern 
Syria wìll be found in iJastian's Zt. /. Etknoiogie, 1873. See 
also Budde's essays 'Die hebràische Leichenklage,' ZDFV 
6180^, and 'The Folk-song of Israel,' Nevi Worid, March 
1893 ; Jastrow, Rei. 0/ Bab. and Ass. 604 yC 058 660. On the 
professional 'mouming women' see ^/"l^), 2 78 ; Trumbull, 
Sludies in OrientalLife, 153^ ; Goldziher, Muhammedanhche 
Studien, I 231. Cp furtber Poetical Literature. 

T. K. C. 


Esternai characteristics (g i). Chap. 4 (S 5) ; its date S 8). 

Chap. 1 (S 2> ; its date (S io). Chap. 5 (g 6) ; its date (g 7). 

Chap. 2 (g 3) ; its date (§ 9). Traditional authorsbip (g 12). 

Chap. 3 (g 4) ; its date (g 1 1). Bibliograpby <§ 13). 

In Hebrew Bibles the Book of Lamentations bears 

the superscription HD**?. 'Ah how ! ' (cp li 2i 4i). 

1 Extemal '^^^ Talmud, however, and Jewish 

cha^cteriatios. 7.'"'*^''^ '" S^"^'^' ^" '' "^^'P' ^''«^^^ 
{i.e.. 'elegies' or 'dirges'), which is 

the Hebrew title known to Jerome in his Prologus 
Galeatus [leremias cum Cinofh, id est, Lameniationibus 
suis). @'s title is Gp^coi. A fuller title, assigning the 
book to Jeremiah, is found in Pesh. and in some MSS 
of @—e.g., in B^N, but not in A and B*— and in @ 
and Pesh. Lamentations is attached to the Book of 
Jeremiah (Baruch intervening in the fonner version). 
Al the same lime BK have the introdu*;tory verse assign- 
ing at any rate chap. 1 to Jeremiah. It is a mistake 
to suppose that this arrangement of Lamentations is 
originai, the scheme which accommodates the number 
of the sacred books to the number of the twenly-two 
Hebrew letters b«ing seif-evidently artificial, and the 
evidence that this arrangement (adopted by Jos. ) had 
an established place among the Jews of Palestine being 
scanty and precarious. Il is noteworthy, too, that the 
translation of Lamentations in *§, which agrees pretty 
closely with our Hebrew lext, cannot be by the same 
hand as the translation of the Book of Jeremiah. 

The poems which make up the book are live, and 
the first four are a\phabetical acrostics — successive 
stanzas (each consisting, in chap. 3, of ihree verses, 
elsewhere of one verse) beginning with successive letters 
of the alphabet. The last poem (chap. 6) has twenty- 
Iwo stanzas, like chaps. 1-4, but ìs noi an acrostic. 

In chaps. 2-4, however, by an ìrreguiarity, the g-stanra. 
precedes the y-stanza. The sense shows that this is not due to 
a transposition of the originai order of the stanza.^, whilst the 
fact that the same Ìrreguiarity occurs three times makes it plain 
that the deviation from the common order rests on a variation in 
the order of the alphabet as used by the author (cp Writing). 
According to Bickell, Cheyne, and Dubm, the same ìrreguiarity 
occur.s in the true text of Ps. 9-10 (an acrostic poem), and not a few 
critics (including Bickell, Baethgen, Konig, and Duhm) find it in 
thatofPs. 34. It is perhaps better, however, toprefix 0'p''^S to 

■u. iB (as Street long ago -suggested), and to omìt nirt' (Che. 
PsS^'i). Another case of want of uniformily concerns the tise of 
nCK snd V felaiivuin. In Lam. 1 only ipK occurs (w. 7 12) ; in 

1 In 1882, wben Robertson Smith prìnted the art icle ' Lamen- 
tations ■ in EBIfì, it was hardly possible to give more than the 
vaguest determination of the date of the Lamentations. Budde, 
whose comm«n.taty (1898) marks oiir entrance on a fresh criticai 
stage, is naiurally more definite in his conclusions ; the present 
writer has retained ali that he couid of Robertson Smith 's work, 
in order to recognise the continuity of criticism. Some of the 
retained paragraphs, as being specially dislinctive, bave been 
marked with signs of quotation. This does not apply to trans- 
lations from the Hebrew. 



ham.2-]a-n in 71. 17, e in w. 157^; in Lam.3 neither iipK "or 
p ; in Lam. 4 and y only gì (4 9 & 18). The observation is 
Kiinig's i^Eiitl. 420). 

The metre of the first four poems differs from that of 
the fifth. The metre of th« fifth poem cotisists of 
ordinary three-toned lines ; the metre of the first four 
poems is in the so-called ' limping verse,' which, being 
specia]ly, though not exclusively, nsed for elegies, is 
commonly called the Kliiàh metre (first fully uiade dut 
by Budde ^). To speak oljive Lamentations is incorrect. 
It is only chaps. 1 2 and 4 that are properly dirges, as 
referring to a deatli — the death of the Jewish nation 
(see Lamentation, § a). These are highly elaborate 
and artificial poems in which every element of pity and 
terror which the siibject supplies is brought forward 
wilh conscious art to stir the minds of the hearers. In 
their present form they appear to be rather late works ; 
but they iiiay perhaps have embedded in theni phrases 
of earlier elegies- such as were used liturgically in the 
fifth month (Ab) in Zechariah's time (Zech. 75), and of 
course earlier, to commemorate the fall of the tempie.^ 
To suppose that our KinUth were already composed 
when Zechariah gave his decision to the deputation 
(Zech. 73) is hardly consistent with the evidente. Let 
US now consider their contents. 

' The first elegy commences with a picture of the 
distress of Zion during and after the siege (li-ii); 
Tatti 1 Jerusalem, or the people of Judah, being 
figared as a widowed and dishonoured 
princess. Then, in the latter haif of the poem she 
herself lakes up the lamentation, describes her grievous 
sorrow, confesses the righteousness of Yahwè's anger, 
and invokes retribation on her enemies. ' In a carefuUy 
restored text, it is seen to be a beautiful, though 
monotonous, composition in elegiac metre. 

In 7', 6 MT is correcl. By turning Q'S'K. ' harts,' into 
D'TK, 'rams,' ISS spoils the figure. Verse 7 is grievously cor- 
Tupt both in MT and in ©. Read in the first stichus, 'it 'j 
n'3KDp-^3 ; between 'O^ and Oip is a collection of varinnts, 

ali corruptions of '3D"73. In the last hemistich read, TiViVC&ù^ 
' her desolation.' In v. io MT Ì5 rough ; read ' Zion (p'S) 
.sprcadeth forlh her hands because of her pleasant things ' 
(Hickell). In v. 14, for npe-l read Tj^W. ; in ap read "ITÌipn Dn;?. 
On V. ig see Budde. 

' In the second chapter the desolation of the city and 
the horrors of thi' siege are again rehearsed and made 

- j more bitter by allusion to the Joy of the 

enemies of Israel. The cause of the 
calamity is national sin, which false prophets failed to 
denounce while repentance was stili possible, and now no 
hope remains save in tears and suppHcation to stir the 
compassion of Yahwè for the terrible fate of his 
people.' The structure is the same as in chap. 1, 
except that d introduces the i6th, y the i7th verse as 
in chaps. 3 and 4. There is more vivid presentation, 
more dramatic life, more connection and progress of 
thoughl ; but the religious eìement is less pervasive. 

These are among the blemishes which need remova!. In the 
very first verse ' covers (imperf.) with a cloud ' (^'V') is an im- 
possible word (note Paselj after '9(<3). Probably we should 
read l^"31, 'put to shame ' ; J? and Care easily confounded. 
In V. ìb both AV and RV overlook the metrical .struclure. The 
rendering of MT should be ' He hath brought to the ground, 
hath profaned the kingdom, and its princes.' The first verb, 
however, is unsuitable, and the combination ' kingdom and 
princes ' is unnatural. Read rtSTpD 113, ' the roya! crown ' (cp 

PIsSq nns, Esth. in, etc), and al! becomes plain. Verses 
4678 have given much trouble, but are not incurable. Read 
(see Crit. Biò.) : 

3 For translated specimens see below. See also Lamenta- 

2 Just SO, phrases of earlier psalms may conceìvably have 
passed into some of the existing late psalms. Proof and dis- 
proof are alike impossible. 

3 On the gth day of Ab this event is stili celebrated by the 
synagogue. See Mas, Sopkerìttt, chap. 18, and the notes in 
MuUer's edition (1378). 



' Foe-like, he hath bent his bow, | his arrows he prepareth ; 
He slaughterelh and killeth the tihildren, | the dehghts of the 

In the tent of Zion he hath poured out | his wrath like fire." 
' And he hath smitten Io pieces his dwelling with an axe, | halh 

destroyed his s^nctuary, 
Vahwè hath brought low in Zion | ruler and judge, 
And rejected in the fury of his anger | king and priest.' 
' Yahwè hath rejected his aitar, | hath cast down his sanctuary, 
He hath delivered into the hand of the foe | ali her precious 

Terrible naiions stretch out the line | in Yahwè's house.' 
' Vahwè purposeth lo destroy | the precious things of Zion, 
He hath not kept his hand from annihilating [ali her palaces]. 
He hath annihilated bulwark and walI, | together they languish.' 
In V. 12 MT makes the little children cali out for 'cotn and 
wine' (]"i MI, a doubly impossible phrase), and, in v. 18 
(accordijig to EV), it reads ' Their heart cried unto the Lord, O 
Wall of the daughler of Zion.' Clearly wrong, and, v. i3 
especially, not to be superficially dealt with. Verse 12 can be 
restored with certainty ; there is no question asked, and 
therefore no answer is retutned. Read, 'They say to their 
raothers, Wo unto us ! for our life goes.' Verse 18 should 
probably be read as follows ; 

Cry out because of Jerusalem's disgrace, | Zion's insult, 

Let tears run down like a torrent | day and night, 

Give thyself no pause, | lei not the appiè of thine eye cease, 

' The third elegy [if we may cali it such] takes a 
personal turn, and describes the affliction of the 
4 lam 1 individuai Israelite, or of the nation under 
the type of a single individuai, under the 
sanse of Yahwè's just but terrible indignation. But 
eveii this affliction is a wholesome discipline. It draws 
the heart of the singer nearer to his God in penitent 
self-examination, sustained by trust in Yahwè's un- 
failing mercy, which shows itself in the continued 
prese r vati on of his people through ali their woes. 
From the lowest pit the voice of faith calls to the 
Redeemer, and hears a voice that says, "Fear not." 
Yahwè will yet plead the cause of his people, and so 
in the closing verses the accents of humble entreaty 
pass into a tone of confident appeal for just vengeance 
against the oppressor. ' Of the twoviews (individuai or 
nation) here indicated respecting the subject of the elegy, 
the latter appears to be the one most easily defensible. 
As in the case of so many of the psalms and in that of 
the Songs of the Servant of Yahwè (see SeKvant of 
THE Lokd), the speaker is the company of the hunible- 
minded righteous who form the kernel of the Jewish com- 
munity. Hence it is easy for the imagined speaker to 
pass from the ist person singular to the ist person plorai, 
and to say in ;'. 48 that he weeps unceasingly for the 
disaster of his country-people (-ey na}. The veheinence 
of the imprecations at the dose of the elegy is most easily 
intelligible if the offences referred to have been committed 
against the Jewish people, not against an individuai 
{e.g., Jeremiah), imagined by the poet. This is the 
view of Hupfeld (on Ps. 38), Reuss, Cheyne, Lòhr, 
and especially Smend (Z^l T'H' 86=/ [1888]). It is 
opposed especially by Stade ((7F/ 701) and Budde, 
niainly (see the latter) ontwogrounds: (i) the occurrenee 
of certain expressions in vv. i and 27 (Oettli wrotigly 
adds V. 14), and (2) the incortsìstency of personìfying 
the community elsewhere as a woman, but here as a 
man. Against this we may urge (a) the anaiogy of so 
many othcr poems, which are marred (as indeed 
Lam. 3 appears to some to be marred) by the assumption 
of an individuahsing refereiice, (è) the possibilily of 
interpreting vv. i and 27, as Smend has done, of the 
people conscious of its solidarity (^3ì,^) and looking 
forward to an extended future (miyjn?}, and (f) the 
probability, admitted by Budde, that Lam.3 is the 
latest of the five poems — it is. in fact, rather a poetic 
monologue of Israel than an elegy. On w. 52-58 
Budde remarks, • Abruptly the poet turns to his own 
sufferings. . . . To regard the community as the 
subject is possible (cp Ps. 6, etc. ), but more probably il 
arises from the inconsiderate use of the psalms which 
served as models.' It is surely not right to assume 
inconsiderateness, when such a highly characteristic 


o. . e . i.. 


idea as the solidarity of ali good Israelites is in questìon ; 
the idea was one which had incarporated itself in the 
Jewish system of thought. 

As to l'Z'. I 14 and 27. le is no doubt quite possible lo 
explain, 'I am the man,' as 'I am the people ' ; and the 
particular word for 'man' (13ì) occurs again in V7/. 27 35 39. 
Bvitthe closingwords'hytherod ofhisfury' <in'i:;j; 03^3) are 
peculiar, inasmuch as the name of Vahwèhas not been menlioned, 
nor will ic be till ■n. t8. ic is probable that the text is cotrupt. 
Ini». 14 a doabt is hardly possible; 'BV, 'my people,' should 
be Q"SV, 'peoples.' In v. 27 1"^1J;J3, 'in his youth,' introduces 
a new idea (that a young man has lime before hjm to ptofil by 
chastiseinent), whìch is not fiirlher tililised. Here, too, the texc 
seems to be cotrupt. 

In V. I read perhaps 'jiy-^y ^!?P0 'j^*?. ' 't is the Lord who 
visits mine iniquity,' and in z: 27 nirt' niyì D^K KB" '3 3Ìa, 
'itisgood that he bear mulely the rebnke ofYahwè.' 

The varia nt imyjD is thus actounted for. IVÌD ÌnPs.88i6 
requires a similar correction. A few other blemishes may be 
mentioned. 'Gali and travair(e>. 5) should he ' my head ('l^Mn) 
with travail' (Pratorius, ZATIVlò^^e {1B95]). In v. i6a the 
'teelh' and the ' gravel-stones ' are Iroublesome ; Lòhr leaves 
the latler, but gives dots, espressive of perplexity, for the 
former ; v. jeó is, on lin^ulstic groimds, hardly less improbable. 
The reading we propose is as siinple and appropriate as possible. 
'And I girded sackloth on my tiesh ; I rolled myselfin ashes'(see 
Crr't. Bib). In !■. 35 ' a living man ' cannot be right ; 'n ^^N 
should be D'n W Not improbably we should read, ' Why do we 
murmur against God, (against)him who visits 011 r sins?' Cp -a, i 
as above. 

' In the fourth acrostic the bitter sorrow again bursts 
forth in passionate wailing. The images of horror 
S Lam 4 ''"P'"'"^®'^ °i t*!^ poet's soul duritig the last 
months of Jenisalem's death-struggle and 
in the flight that followed are painted with more ghastly 
detail than in the previous chapters, and the climax is 
reached when the singer describes the capture of the 
king, "the breath of our nosCrils, the anoinled of 
Yahwè, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall 
live among the nations. "' The cup of Israel's sorrow 
is filled up. The very complcteness of the calamity is 
a proof that the iniquily of Zion has met with fuU 
recompense. The day of captivity is over, and the 
wralh of Yahwè ìs now ready to pass from his 
people to visit the sins of Edom, the most merciless of 
its foes.' Al any rate, even if the fourth acrostic is not 
the work of an eye-witness, the poetstands near enough 
to the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem to be able to 
describe them, and there has been trouble enough 
since then to awaken his imaginative faculty. It must 
be admitted, however, that through literary remini- 
scences and an inborn tendency to rhetoric the aiilhor 
falls short in simplicity and naturalness of description. 
It is also cerlain that corruption of the text has here 
and there marred the picture. Happily the faults can 
often be cured. Verses i/,, for instaiice, should run 
thus, — 

How is Sheha's gold polluted— | the choice gold ! 
Sacred stones are poured forth | at every Street-corner ! 
The sons of Zion — so precious — | lo he valued with fine gold — 
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, | Ihe handiwork of 
the Potter ! 
It is a most beautiful and moving piece of rhetoric. Ali the 
crilics misunderstand the first line, and few bave done complete 
Justice to the second. It is not the 'dimming' or the 'chang- 
ing ' of fine gold that Ìs referred to, nor is the first slichus so 
overladen as MT represents. it is the desecration of the image 
of God in the persons of slaughtered citizens of Zion that calls 
forth the n3>[( ('alas, how ! ') of the elegy. (For 'at every 
Street-corner ' cp 2 19, and the interpolated passage Is. 51 20.) 
Reading XOB' for DVl', makes MT's pbrase, 'sacred stones,' 

secure.l In 7'. 3 the 'sea-monsters' should probahly rather 
be 'jackals.'S Verse 5 is in a very bad slate; the beginning of the 
cure is due lo Budde. Read, 

Those that ate the bread of luxury* | perish in the steeels. 

1 Budde proposes np^ 'il?N, ' precious stones ' ; cp v. 2. 

^ Budde prefers ' sea-monsters,' but expresses surprise that 
the naturai phenomenon referred to should baie been known to 
the wriler. Read Q'JFi ; the Aramaic ending ]'- may be put 
down to the sctibe. 

3 D-JT]/. i3nV, Budde. For /. 3, cp Dt. 28 54 56, Jer. 22 14, and 
see Crit. Bib. 



The delicate, the possessors of halls, i embrace ash-mounds. 

Verse 7 gains not less by criticai treatment. ' Her Nazirites' 
(n'TIJ) should be 'her dignitaries' (rt'Jl'l) ; the absurdities of 
the second part of the verse in MT are removed elsewhere (see 
Sapphike). Verses nf. in MT (and therefore also in EV) are 
a mass of inconsistencies. It can hardly be doubted that the 
Ime text runs nearly as foUows — 
Her princes wander in the countries, | they stumble in the 

And they are not able to find | for themselves a resting-piace. 
' Away ' — men cali unto them — 'away, | away, rest not, 
For they find no resti ng- place, | they may not .sojourn any more.I 

The mistakes of MT were caused by the reference to bloodshed 
in ?'. 13, ftom which, however, ■ini. i4_/I are quite distinct. The 
passage is reminiscent of Jer. 622, Dt. 2865.^ On i/. 21 see g 8. 

' The fifth chapter, which [in w. i, 20-23] takes the 
form of a prayer, [is not an acrostic, and] does not 
6 Lajn fi fol'ow the scheme common to the three 
■ foregoing sections. The elegy proper must 
begin with the utterance of grief for its own sake. Here 
on the contrary the first words are a petition, and the 
picture of Israel's woes comes in to support the prayer. 
Thepoint of view, too, ischanged, and the chapter closes 
under the sense of continued wrath. The centre of the 
singer's feeling lies no longer in the recollection of the 
last days of Jerusalem, but in the long continuance of 
a divine indignalion which seetns to lay a measureless 
interval between the present afflicted state of Israel and 
those happy days of old which are so fresh in the re- 
collection of the poet in the first four chapters. The 
details, too, are drawn less from one crowning mis- 
fortune than from a continued state of bondage to the 
servants of the foreign tyrant {v. 8), and a continued 
series of insults and miseries. And with this goes a 
change in the consciousness of sin : "Our fathers bave 
sinned, and are noi ; and we have borne their in- 
iqui! ies " (i/, 7; cp Zech. I2-6, and similar complaints 
in very late psalms).' 

The contents of chapter 5 are such that we are com- 
pelled to enter immediately on the question of its date. 
7 Date of '^^^ author of the poem endeavours, it is 
"t flìM R true, lo express the feelings of an earlìer 
generation ; he indiles a complaint of 
the sad lot of those who have not only survived the 
great catastrophe, but also remain on the ancestral soil. 
He cannot, however, preserve consistency ; he speaks 
partly as if he were one of a people of serfs or day- 
labourers in the country-d istrici s — especially perhaps in 
the wilderness of Judah (see Budde on v. 9) — -partly as 
if some of those for whom he speaks were setlled in or 
near Jerusalem and the citiesof Judah {v. n). Moreover, 
he says nothing of the sword of the all-powerful enemy, 
which had robbed Judah of the flower of her population ; 
less eniinent foes are referred to under conventional 
lerms (of which more presently). This is a matter of 
great moment for the critic, who by the help of the 
Book of Nehemiah can with reasonable probability 
determine the author's age. The important dislichs 
are vv. 6, 8, 9. io, i3, of the first four of which we give 
a rendering based on a critically emendcd text. (The 
MT of V. 6 has caused hopeless perplexity. ) 
6 We have surrendered to the Misrites, 

We have become snbject to the Ishmaelites. 

8 Arabians rule over us, 

There is none to deliver out of their hand. 

9 We bring in our corn (wpn?) with perii of our lives 

Eecause of the Arabian of the desert. 

10 Our young men and ourmaidens are sold 
Because of the terror of famine. 

The terms ' Misrites' {see Mizraim, %7.b) and ' Ish- 
maelites' are conventional arch ai sms, many parallels for 
which use are probably lo be foimd in the Psaher (see 

xsù^h yiais I ■ksa 'hyc «Si 
-i^h ìspi' ■ih I yij'ip wsp^ mV t 

^ In E". 16 Liihr partly sees aright, but unforlunately creates a 
doublet. Bickeli's general view is better than Budde's or Lòhr's. 



Psalms[Book]). and, so far as 'Misrites' isconcerned.iii 
thefourlhelegy (Lam. 4 si ; see below, § 8). Theeiiemies 
intended are the Edomites who had probably joined in 
the Babylonian invasion, and had occupied the southern 
part <jf the old territory of Judah, and perhaps, too, the 
NabatEean Arabs, one of whoni was the Geshem or 
Gashmu of whom Nehemiah speaks ' ( Neh. 2 19 ; cp 4 7. 
' the Arabians ' ). The trouble fiom these foes (at any rate 
from the Edomites) no doubt began early ; bct il also 
continued very long (see Edom, § 9 ; Nkhkmiah, § 3). 
Their dangeroiisness was partLi:ularly felt at harvest- 
time ; this is indicated in t. 9, of which a welcome illus- 
tration is furnished by Is. 628 (age of Nehemiah), where 
we read — ■ 

By his right hand has Yahwè sworn | and hy his slrong arni, 
Surely I will no more give thy wheat | to he food for thy foes. 

The trouble from insuffìcient agricuUural labour and 
from the general economie disturbance doubt less 
continued, and it is difficult not to illustrate v. 10 
(according to the text rendered above) by the thrilling 
account which Nehemiah gives (Neh, 51-13) of the 
sufferings of the poorer Jews, and of the selling of their 
children into slavery. Once more, it ìs not denied 
that there are features in the description in Lam. 5 
which suggest an earlier period ; but we cannot shut 
our eyes to the accordance of other features with 
the circumstances of the Nehemian age. Nehemiah 
certainly has not yet come ; mount Zion is stili 
desolate {v. 18 ; cp Neh, I3), and such centrai authority 
as there is does not interest itself greally in the 
welfare of the Jewish subjecis. It is stili possible to 
speak of Yahwè as ' forgetting ' his servants ■ for ever,' 
and to express, in a subdued tone, the reluctant 
admission that it might not be God's will to grant the 
prayer for the restoration of Israel as of old, — 

Unless ihou hast utlerly rejecled us, 
(And) ari exceedingly wrolh againsl us. 

(Lam. 5 22 ; cp RV.) 

Stili, though thesituation of affairs is bad, a deliverer — - 
Nehemiah — is at hand. The allusion in v. iih \o 
Lev. 1933 {in the Holiness-law) suggests that the writer 
is a member of that stricter religious party among the 
Jews, which presumably kept up relations with men 
like Nehemiah and Ezra, and afterwards did their best 
to assist those great men. It does not seem necessary 
or natura! to suppose with Budde that w. zif. are a 
later insertion (see his note) ; Budde's mistake is partly 
due to his following the corrupt reading of MT in v. 1211, 
which ought almost certainly to be read thus, 

Grey-haired men and honouiable ones suffer contempi ; ^ 
The persons of old men are not honoured. 

The points of affinity between Lam. 5 and Job, Psalms, 
and 2 and 3 Isaiah also deserve atlention.^ 

(a) Joò. Cp V. 15^, Job 3031; V. i6a, Job 199*. {b) 
Fsalms. Cp v. i, Pa. 44i3 [14] 8950/: [51/]; ti. b (pnE, ' to 
deliver'), Ps. 13624; ^- i" niSu'"- Ps. lltì 119 53t, but note 
ibal in ali these passages 7t is miswiitten for nla?S (Ezek. 7 ta, 
etc.) ; V. ri (' Zion,' ' cities of Judah '), Ps. 69 35 [36] ; v. 15, 
Ps. 30 li [12]; V. iy6, Ps. 67 [8] and (for use of Tll^n) 09 24 
23I; V. 13 (TjVri), Ps.387 8I4, eie; V. 19, Ps. 456[7] 102 12 : 
■V, 20, Ps. 13 I [2] 74 10 89 46 (47] (n'9^ ÌJIN, Ps. 21 4 [5], etc.) ; 
V. ■21, Ps. 80371481. (f) -2 a.itd -^ Isaiah. C^ 2 (ìlS^l, sense), 
Is. 60s ; !^. 3 (3N "«■D'Oin;), Is, 63 16, the Jews no longer 'bnè 
Israel'; v. 7 <C^'>^\ Is, 53411; v. 11 ('Zion,' 'cities of 
Jiulah'), Is, 40 9; v. iS, Is. 54io[o]; v. 22Ì, Is. 57 iS 54 12 

' In -v. 9^, however, the wiiter may also be thinking of "^l^ys 
■13"1^3 in Jer. 32. Il is woilh noting that in ali piobabilily 
Hosea (5 13) calls the king of Miisur an Aiabian (see Jafeb). 

2 hpl C'ISDll D'DE'(cpLev. 19 32.2). 

^ (3 Isaiah = Isaiah, chaps. 56-615.) In the selection of phrase- 
ologital paiallels Lohr's veiy full tables (see below, § 13) have 
been of the greatest service. A lidie more criticism on his part 
■would have made his tables even mote useful. 


8. Date of 
Lam. 4. 


When we pul ali these data together, no earlier date 
seems plausible than 470-450 B.C. {i.e. pre- Nehemian). 
At the same lime, a later date is by no means ìmpossible. 
The shadows of evening darkened again, till night fell 
a mi d si the horrors occasioned by the barba rity of 
Artaxerxes Ochus (359-338 B.c.), Then, we may be 
sure, the fasting for the old calamilies assumed a fresh 
vLtality and intensity. It is at any rate difficult to place 
a long interrai between Lam. 5 and Lam, 1-4, and 
Lam, 2-4 contain some elements which at leasl permit 
a date considerably after Nehemiah. 

As it is the poorest of these plaintive compositions, we 
may conjecture Lam. 5 to be also the eailiest. There 
is only one point of contact between Lam, 5 and Lam. 
1-4 — viz. mv. 3, cp 1 1 — and this isof noreal significance. 
In Lam. 63, the ' mothers,' if the text is right, are the 
cities of Judah (Ew., Lohr) ; more probably, however, 
we should read )j'rijC-iN,* ' our citadels.' Those high, 
strong buildings, where formerly the warriors had held 
out so long against the foe, are now, complains the 
poet, untenanted and in ruins (cp Lam. 25). as helpless 
and incapable of helping as widows. In Lam. 1 1 
Jerusalem itself is compared to a widow. 

We next turn to Lam. 4, which, like Lam. 5, seems 
to contain an archaising reference to Musri (cp Miz- 
BAiM, § 2 b], by which the writer means the 
land adjoining the S. of Palestine occupied 
by the Edomites after their displacement 
by the Nabataeans, Verse 21 should probably run — 
' Rejoice and be glad, O people of Edom, that dwellest 
in Missur'^ (lisca). Were it not for the archaistic 
Missur (Musur), which may point to a laler age when 
archaisms were fashionable, we might assign v. 21 to 
some eye-witness of the great catastrophe ; words quite 
as bitter are spoken against Edom by the prophet 
Ezekiel {chap, 35). 

Another suspicious passage is v. so : 
The breath of our nosirlls, the anointed of Yahwè, | was taken 

in their pit,^ 
Of whom we said, Under his shadow | we sball live among the 

That the king intended is, not Josiah (so Targ. ), but 
Zedekiah, is certain, But a writer so fully in accord 
with Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see vv. 6 13) as the aulhor 
of Lam. 4 would never have written thus, unless he 
had been separated from the historical Zedekiah by a 
considerable interval of time, Zedekiah, to this writer, 
is but a symbol of the Davidic dynasty ; the manifold 
sufferings consequent on subjeclion to foreigners made 
even Zedekiah to be regretted.* Budde's view of this 
passage is hardly correct. The words ' Under his 
shadow we shall live,' etc, surely cannot refer to the 
hope of a feeble but stili ' respected ' (?) native royalty 
in the mountains of Moab and Ammon. It is in fact 
strictly ' David,' not Zedekiah, that the poet means. At 
the accession of each Davidic king— each restored 
' David ' — loyal subjects exclaimed, ' Under his shadow 
we shall live among the nations.' The strong rhetoric 
and the developed art of the poem are equally adverse 
to the view that it is the work of one of the Jews left by 
Nebuc had rezzar in Jerusalem. How long after Lam, 5 
it was written, is uncertain ; see below, § 9. 

Points of coniaci between Lam. 4 and other late woiks. (a) 
Jcb. Terms for gold and precious stones in i^'. 1 2 7 ; cp Job 
28; 7'. 3 □•]!j;<Kr.), Job3fli3(crit.emend.; seeOsTKicH);!'. 5. 

1 2 S, 20 rg hardly justifies the equation, ' moCher ' = 'city, ' 
Zion alone, in the poet's time, could be called ' mother ' (cp Ps. 
87 s, ®). The play on aniianoth and almanolk is a very 
naturai one. Budde would take 'falher'and 'mothers' liter- 
sWy ; but ' father ' should be ' fathers ' and ' as widows ' should be 
'widows' to justify this view, 

^ PV n^3 not only makes the second part of the 'lìmping 
verse ' too long, but also makes the poet guilly of an inactuiacy 
(see U7-). 

3 Seinecke gives the right explanation (pVI 230). SS, 
however, explains ' anointed of Yahwè ' as a phrase for the pious 
kernel of the Jewish people, 

* Read onilM (see Budde). 



e etubrace ash-mounds '), Job 248; v. sa, Job SOjoa; v. 83, 
JoblSzo (crit, emend.)- W Psalms. V. ^ò, Ps. 113 7Ì; v. 12 
('cbekingsof theearth'), Ps. 23 76i2[i3], etc; 'theinhabitants 
of the world," 24 i 333 987; v. 20 (n"^n), Ps. 1851 288 84 io; 
z: ar (jflif with flOb), Ps.40i6[i7] 704[s); jw. 21^ (Edom), 

Ps. 137 77; (Che. Fj.P)). {f) 2 Isaiah. 1^, 2, Is. 51 =0 (?). The 
phrase in Is. is an interpolation (Bu., Che.), {lì) Deuteronomy 
(late parts). V. 8 (133), Dt. 3227 ; y. 9 CIB- nnìW), Dt. 32 13 ; 
71. i6(J3riand □'39 NB'j), Dt. 28 50 ; v. i7(' our eyes f^led . . .'), 
Dt. 2S 32 ; V. 19 (èagiés), Dt. 28 49. (f) Ezekid. V. 8 (dry tree), 
Ezek. 17z4 2O47; v. 11 (non n^3), Ezek. 5 13 6 iz 13 15 ; 
». is{j'fl Na), Ezek. 72tì. 

Lam. 2 and 4 are rightly regarded by Noldeke and 
Budde as twin poems. They agree in poetical structure ; 

9. Date of 

both too are highly dramatic. Both 

Lam. 2. 

speak of the strange reverses sufFered by 
the leaders of the state ; both, with much 
pathos, of the fate of youiig children. The reference 
to 'the law ' (iòrdk) in v. 9 stampa the writer as a 
legahst ; the idealìsation of Jerusalem in v. 151* would 
incline us to rnake the poem nearly contemporary with 
Ps.48, or even later than that poem, ìf Ps. 483, pre- 
supposed in Lam. 2, is corrupt. The reference to 
' solemn feasts and sabbaths ' in 26 is as imaginary as 
the stipposed reference to the resounding cries of the 
worshippers in the tempie in 27. The sanie date must 
of course he given to both the twin poems, They 
probably belong to the same age as the many ' per- 
secution psalms' in Ps. 1-72 — i.^. , to the latter part of 
the Persian period (see, however, PSALMS [Book]). 

Phraseologìcal parallels.l (d) Psalnts. V. 1 God's footstool 
in Zion), Ps. 99 5 132 7 ; v. 2 (^pyi K\ttì>, Ps. 23 z 65 13, 
etc. ; (puS S^n)i Ps. 894ot (cp above, §3); w. 3 {pp yij), 
Ps. 75 IO [11}; IV. 6(corrected), Ps. 74 6 (corrected) ; i'-7(njll), Ps. 
432 44 9 [io], etc; w. 11 12 19 (^Qj;), Ps. 61 2 [3] 77 3 [4] etc; 
I'. 16 (]B? i^ll), Ps. 35 16 87 12 112 10; v. 19 C]? KC-J), Ps.6S4[5]; 
119 48 (nilDEÌK), Ps. 63 6 [7] 90 4 119 148 ; Ps. 62 gt (n^ %SV). 

(è) 2 Isaiah. V. 13 (nSrt and ìllpn), Is. 46g. 

{e) Deuteronomy (late 'parts). V. 3 OS "ina), Dt.2923; 
&. 4 (n^g Ti>-7, of God), Dt. 32 33 ; V.6 (J'NJ, of God), Dt. 32 19. 

{d) Ezekiel. Fw. 2 17 21 (Scn ti'?), Ezek. 5 11 749 8189510; 
■V. 2 (py\ and n»^ y'3n), Ezek. 13 14 ; i^. 3 (''3K,HiphÌ1),Ezek. 
31 15 ; S^K'l, however, is IJOC strong enough ; read p^3'l (see 
above, §3); -v. 10 (IBV n^Vn), Ezek. 27 30; (D'i^È- 13 ri), Ezek. 
7i8 2731; %: 14 (NI» nilT), Ezek.136923 2I34 (with 71^, as 
here) Tlii; v. 14 ('DB), Ezek. 13 io 11 14 15, and especìally 
2228; V. 13 ('B' rh'h'S), Ezek. 16 14 28 12, and often ; w. is/l 
(piB'), Ezek. 27 36. 

Lam. 1, Budde fully admits, can hardly be the work 
of an eye-witness of the fall of Jerusalem. That it is 
much later in origin than Lam. 2 and 

10. Date of 
Lam. 1- 

4 seems an unnecessary inference.^ Here, 
again, the parallels are very important. 

Paraltels. {a) Job. V. 20, Job 30 27 (sense). 

(ì>) Psalms. V. 3(Dnsn), Ps. 118 5 (sing.) II63 (plur.) ; i.. 6, 
Ps. 42 1 [2], cp Job 19 22 and (crit. emend.) 28. The pursiied 
hart is a favourite image for the pious community or individuai 
in lime of trouble ; v. 7 (h T.iJ' I'^). Ps- 80 ■olii] 544 [6] 72 iz ; 
V. 9 ('?V '?"^3'7) (but read J'^^ri), Ps. 35 26 38 16 [17] 55 12 [13] ;' w. io 
(Snp), Ps. 22 25 [26] 35 18 40 10 89 6 107 32 149 i (used in the post- 
exilic religious sense; see Assembly); zt. ii yi (^3J with 
nHn), Ps. 22 17 [18] 80 14 [15] 142 4 [5] ; -nv. 12 18 (3ÌN3p), Ps. 32 ro 
38'i'7[i8] 69 26[27]; V. 13 (D^SC), Ps. 18. 7, etc. 

ic) 2 and 3 Isaiah. Vv. 4Si2(n^Ìn), Is. 51 23 ; cp Job 19 2 ; 

■uv. 7 IO II (□'■^pìlp), Is. 64 li [io] ; V 9 (iinnnN l?]), Is. 477 ; 
V. IO (nanpo 'D3, so read for ÌN3 [Gra.]), cp Is. 64 11 [io] ; z». 13 
(ni ì]!^), Is.63ijK; cpJoel3[4]i3; w. ioi7(T ÉHS), Is. 65z ; 
cp 25 II (very late) Ps. 143 6. 

1 Let another expression of thanks here he given to Lòhr for 
bis useful labours. 

2 Robertson Smith inclined to Ewald's vìew that the j; stanza 
originally preccded the B stanza ; Budde is of an opposite 



(rf) Deuteronomy (S.^te.-^ri.^. V. 5 (^«"l^ rr.T), Dt. 281344; 

w. 20 (n^aa-j'ìnp), Dt. 32 25. 

(e) Ezekiel. Vv. 3 19 (lllK, in figurative sense), Ezek. 18 
3336/ 235922; V. 6 (fiyic), Ezek. 34 14 (iw) 18 (,iis); w. 
817 (™, n-Vì), Ezek. 7 ig^' ' 

The date of Lam. 3, relatively to Lam, 1 2 and 4, is 

very easily fixed. It shows a further development of 

1 1 Ti t f ^^^ ^^^ °^ acrostic poetry which reminds 

"'r^g°^us of l's. 119, and its superabundant 

' ' literary reminiscences place it on a level 

with the poorest of the caiionical psalms. That, like 

some at ieast of those psalms, it is pervaded by a deep 

and tender religions feeling, may be most heartily ad- 

mitted. Budde (p. 77) is probably right in assigning 

Lara. 3 to the pre-Maccabsean portion of the Greek 


Parallels. ifl) Job. Vv. 79, Job 19 8; v. 8, Job 19 7 ; ini. 
I2y^, Job 7 20 (for {(ji'O read ,nBD) IG 12^^; v. 14, Job 80 9 (cp 
Ps.69i2[i3]; but in ali three passages n]'3], 'strìnged music,' and 
in Lam. 3 63 HÌ'iJCl shouid be nriE", 'a mock'); v. 15 (cp v. 
'9)t^ Jol" 9 la ; ^'- 17^^. Job 7 ^l ; vti. 3046, Job 10 io. 

(li) Psalms. V. ^ò, Ps.342o[2i] 51 8 [io] ; r,. 6 (D'3^ri°). 
Ps. 74 20886 [7] 1433; (dViv 'fip) Ps. 1433; V. 8 (in»), Ps. 88 14 
/■; E-. 17 (n.^I), PS.8814I1S]; V. 20 (ri'Ei), Ps. 4425 [26]; cp 
42s7: V. 22 (■'•-lon), Ps.89t[2] 10743; ^- 23 (after o-ip3^ 
insert vpn"l)^32*. Ps. 51 i^ [3Ì] Ps. 8915 [26]; v. 24, Ps. I65 
73 26 119 57 142 5 Ì6]; 71. 25, Ps. 37 70 119 71; z/. 31, Ps. 94 14 ; v. 
33 (l^'K 'J3), Ps.42[3] 492[3] 62g[io]; z: 37, Ps.339; v. 41 

(Il KK'J), Ps. 63 4[5] 11948; z-. 4'5(n3nsB), Ps. 22i3[i4]352i: 
V. 4Sa' Ps. 119 136 ; V. 49 ("133), Ps. 77 2 [3] ; -v. 50, Ps. 14 2, etc. ; 
7'. 52 e like a bird '), Ps. 11 1 [z], if the test is sound; (Cjn '3;i{) 
Ps.SSig G94[s]('r 'Njb); 71. 53, Ps. IO34 (ìnas, so pJint)P3. 
88 16 [17] 119 139; j'. 54, Ps. 42 7 [8] 69271; i'- 55, Ps. 88 6[7l; v. 
57 (1(*npN DI'), Ps. 569 [io], etc. ; V. 58, Ps. Ilo 154; t/. 62 (l'i'll), 
Ps.l9i4[i5]; V. 64('75Ca 3'BÌn), Ps. 28 4. 

(e) 2 and 3 IsaiaJi. V. 21 (3^ *?« 3'^K), Is. 44 19 468 (Dt. 
4 39)t ; V. z6 (QCn), Is. 47 5 ; i'. 3oa, Is. 50*^6 ; v. 32 (l'TDH 313), 
Is. 637(P.s. IO645). " ' 

It is true that, according to a tradition only recently 
called in question, the aulhor of Lamentations is the 
12 Traditional ^^°'^'^^^ Jereniiah (cp Babà batkrd, 

authorship. '5«^- A picturesque notice prefixed 
*^ to @ s versioii says that, ' after Israel 
was taken captive and Jerusalem laid waste, Jeremiah 
sat down and wept, and sang this elegy over Jerusalem,' 
and the introduction of the Book in the Targum runs, 
'Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest said thus.' 
There is also a passage in the Hebrew canon itself 
which was ancìently interpre ed as connecting the name 
of Jeremiah with our book. In 2 Ch. 3525 we read, 
'And Jeremiah composed an elegy upon Josiah, and 
ali the singing men and singing womeii uttered a 
lamentation over Josiah unto this day ; and they made 
ìt («.£., the singing of such elegies) a stated usage in 
Israel ; behold it is written in the Lamentations ' ; see 
Jeremiah ii. , §3(1)- 'Josephus says* that the dirge 
of Jeremiah on this occasion was extant in his days 
(Ant.v..^i), and no doubt means by this the canonica] 
Lamentations. Jerome on Zech. 12ii understands the 
passage in Chronìcles in the same sense ; but modem 
writers bave generally assunied that, as our book was 
certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem, the dirges 
referred to in Chronicles must be a separate coliection. 
This, however, is far from clear. The m]"p of the 
Chronicler had, according to his statement, acquired a 
fixed and statutory place in Israel, and were connected 
with the name of a prophet. In other words, they 
were canonica! as far as any book outsìde the Penta- 

^ 13'J30 implies no atìectation of originality (Bu.) ; D— '3 

a Read "lini? (note tbe parallelism). 

3 vDm, if written 'orn, would easily fall out after mp. Omit 
l'Dri"" i" ^' 22. (So part ly Bu.) 

4 This passage of his artìcle in Ency. Brit. is quoted and 
endorsed by Robertson Smith in OTJCO i3i, n. a ; he refers 
to Noldeke, Aliteli. Lii. (1868), 144. 



teuch couid he so called in that age." Il thus seenis 
highly probable that in the third century u.c. (see 
Chho.nicles, § 3) the Book of Lanieiitations was used 
liturgically by a guild of singers, and that a portion of 
it was ascribed to Jeremiah as its author. Even this 
evìdence, however, is some three centuries later than 
the events referred to iti Lametitations, It is also 
discredited by its connection with an undoubted error 
of interpretation. The reference in Lani. 4zo to the 
last representati ve of the miich-regretted Davidic family 
is couched in terms which the Chronicler felt unable to 
apply to any king later than Josiah ; Lani. 4 therefore 
had to be a dirge on Josiah, and who could have written 
such a dirge biit Jeremiah? 

Though there is a considerable element in the 
vocabulary of Lamentations which can be paralleled 
in Jeremiah, there are also many important character- 
istic words not used by the prophet, and some dis- 
tinctive Jereniianic ideas are wanting in those poems. 
And in spite of a certain psychological plausibiJity in 
the traditional theory (cp Jer.823 [9i] ISi? I417) it 
must be admitted that the circumstances and the 
general attitude of the prophet make it extremely diffi- 
cult to conceive his having written these poems. From 
Jer. 3828 39 14 it is plain that during the capture of the 
city he was not a free man, and could not go about 
observing the sad condition of the cìtizens. Nor was 
his attitude towards the Chaldasans the sanie as that 
iniplied in the poems, for the poems are the expression 
of unavailing but ardent patriotism, whereas Jeremiah 
persistently counselled patient submissìon to the foreign 
rule. The sense of guilt, as Budde remarks, is very 
imperfectly developed in Lamentations. Here the 
blame of the national calamities is thrown on, the 
prophets and priests ; but Jeremiah's prophecies are 
full of stern appeals to the conscience. There are 
some passages, too, which in the mouth of Jeremiah 
would go directly against facts— e.^., 2g and 41720 (see 
Lòhr, 16). It is at best a very incomplete answer 
that in chap. 3, where the singer's conipkint may be 
thought to take a more personal turn, Jeremiah himself 
may be pictured in his isolation from Israel at large. 
Indeed, upon a dose examination it turns out that 
this interpretation rests on a single word in 814 — -viz. , 
«D^, ' my people,' which, as we have seen, should rather 
be n'Slfi 'peoples,' so that the singer of chap. 3, as the 
general argument of the poem requires, is a representa- 
tive of Israel among the heathen, not an isolated figure 
among unsympathetic country men. 

It is unnecessary to adduce seriathtt the similarities of ex- 
pressioa and imagery in Lamentations and the Bookof Jeremiah 
respectively. It is admitted that the Book of Jeremiah had an 
enormous influente on the subsequent literature, and it would 
constitute a perplexing problem if in poems aealing with the 
religiousaspectsof the national troubles there were not numerous 
reminiscences of Jeremiah. Driver (/hMW, 462) has made a 
judicious selection of some of the more slriking similarities. On 
the vocabulary see Lóhr, ZA 'J'IVli^^^. 

The most urgent question is that relating to the text. Here, 
as elsewhere, a very naturai but no longer justifiable conser- 
vatism has hindered an adequate treatment 
13. Literature. of criticai questions. It must also be reroera- 
bered that the date of Lamentations can 
be satisfactorily discussed onìy in connection with the date of 
Psalms and Job. The older literature is fully given by Nagels- 
tach (p. 17); but recent commentaries, from Ewaid's onwards 
(if we put aside those in which Jeremiah [?.;■.] and Lamenta- 
tions are treated together), are much more important. Ewald 
Ireats the five Lamentations among the Psalms of the Exìle 
(.Dichfer-. voi. I, pt. 2, (2; 1866). See also Thenius in KGH, 1855, 
who ascribeschaps. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah ; Vaihinger, 1857 ; Reuss, 
LaBible: Poesie Lyii^i4e, 1879; S. Oettli, in KGH, 1889; M. 
Lohr, i8gi, and again in HK, 1893 ; S. Minochi (Rome, 1897) ; 
K. Budde, in KHC {Fan/ Meeillot), 1898, Recensions of the 
text have been given by G. Bickeìl, Connina VT ineince, 
112-120(1883): anA\nlVZKMS[ìlQ^\iaiff.; C.].Bs.\\,PSBA 
9 I1S87] 131 ^. (metrical ; cp Budcie, FUnf Meg., 71, n. 1) ; a 
tianslation of a revised Icxt by J. Dyserinck, Th. T 26 [1892] 
339; emendations by Houbigant, Notte ctìiìcte (1777), 2477- 
4B3. Onthemetre see especial ly Budde, in ZATIV2[i8S2] i ff. 
12 [181)3] 264^ ; cpPreuss. Jahrbb. 1893, 460,^ On theUleiary 
crilicism see also Th^ Noldeke, Die alUest. Lileraiur (1868), 
J4Z-148; F. Montet, Elude sur le livre de La>n. (1875); Seinecke, 


GVn (1884) 29Ì?: ; Siade, GVI (1887) 701, n. i ; Sieinthal, 
•Die Klagelieder Jer.,' in Bibel u. ReL-philosophie-, 16-33(1890 ; 
Jewish); S. A. Fiies, in ZATWVi (1893) 110 # (Lam. 4 5, 
Maccabaian Works ; Lam. 1-S probahly by Teremiah) ; M. Lohr, 
in ZA TW 14 (1894), ^\ff. (an answer to Kries) ; and ib. 31 jf. 
(full slatistical lables on the vocabulary of Lamentations). 
Winclder (,AOF'^),'6^^^ refers Lamentations to a partiiil de- 
stiuction of Jerusalem in the lime of Sheshba^zar, in which, he 
thinks, the tempie was not destroyed. See, however, Ohadcah. 
Among the Introdiicrions Konig's gives perbaps the most dis- 
tinctive treatment to the ctilical questions ; but Driver's is fuller. 
T, K. C. (with some passages by w. r. s. ). 

LAMP, LANTERN. Before we proceed to a con- 
sideration of the use of artificiai light among the early 
Hebrews there are eight Hebrew (including Aramaic) 
and Greek terms which have lo be mentioned. 

Passing over such terms as ^'ìK, lÌKO, minp, ^s, ^luCT^p, 
and the like, we have ; — 

1. 13, nèr, sometimes rendered 'candle ' in AV {e-g.. Job 18 6 

21 17 29 3, etc), and even in RV also (Jer. 25 10, 
1. Terms. Zeph. Ili), for which, as the Amer. Revisers 

recognise, ' lamp ' is everywhere to be prefetred ; 
so in RV of Job, l.c., and in AV also of Ex. 27 20. Cognate with 

2. T], tàr, used only in a figurative sense, AV ' ligbt ' in 1 K. 
11 36, 2k. 819, 2 Ch. 21 7 (mg. 'candle'), but RV ' lamp' (so also 
in Prov. 21 4 where AV ' plowing,' mg. ' ligbt,' RV"iB- ' tillage ' ; 
see the Coram,), and AV also in 1K.I54. From the same 
common root is derived iTl'ljp, mèndrah^ w}iich, with the single 
exceplion of 2 K. 4io, is always used of the tempie candelabrum 
(see Candle.stick). 

3. TS?, lappìd(Aexiv. uncertain), though rendered 'lamp' in 
AV Gen. 15 17 Job 12 5 (RV also in Dan. 106 Is. 62 i), should 
rather be ' torch ' (as in RV, so already AV in Nah. 24 (5], Zech. 
126).; it is rendered ' lightning ' in Ex. 20 r8 EV. On the 
apparently cognate rin^B (Nah. 23 (4] AV ' torch es ') see 1jìo,v, 
% 2, col. 2174. 

4. »m-\Zhttibrasla,m Bibl. Aram. Dan. 5 5, EV 'candle- 

5. Aiixi'os(in ® for no. 1), 'candle' in AV of Mt. 5 15 Mk. 4 zi 
Lk. 816, etc, but 'lights'(inpl.)Lk. 1235; RV 'lamp(s).' 

6. kvxvCit (in l5 for jnenoràh, see z above), ' candlestick ' AV 
Mt.SisMk. 4 21 Lk. 8 16 11 33 (RV 'stand'), and EV Heb. 9a 
Kev, 1 12 2 1 5 etc. (in Rev., RVmg.. ' Gr. lamp-atands '). 

7. Aaniró^, ' lamp ' AV Rev. 4 5 8 ro, etc. , and EV Mt. 25 1-3, 
properly ' torch ' (so EV in Jn. 18 3, RV in Rev. Le, and RV"ig- 
in Mt. /.t.). The word was transferred from the torch to the 
later invented ' lamp-' In Judith 10 z2 mention is made of sii ver 
' iamps ' (Aa/uróiei apyupaì). 

8. ^avói, J n. 18 3 1, EV ' laniern ' (properly a torch). 

The oldest form of artificiai light was supplied by 
torches of njsh, pine, or any other inflammable wood. 

2. latroduction '^^^ °"S'" ""^ ^'^^ ^^"'P '" "^"'^^ """ 

of Lampa. 

known. Classical tradition ascribed 

its invention to the joint efforts of 
Vulcan, Minerva, and I-Yometheus, whilst Egypt, on the 
other hand, claimed the credit for herself. At ali events, 
according to Schliemann, Iamps were unknown in the 
Honieric age, and, on the authority of Athenceus 
(15700) were not in common use (in Greece) until the 
fourth century u.c. With the Romans, too, the candela 
is earlier than the lucerna and the candelabrum, and 
was used, even in later fìmes, by the poorer classes 
rather than the more expensivt; lights requiring oil. 

The oldest kind of lamp is the shell-shaped day 
vessel consisting of an open cìrcular body with a pro- 

3 DescrÌDtìoa J"'^''"S ""itn to prevent the oil from 
" ' being spilled. This variety is found in 
Cyprus from the cighth to the fourth century b.c. ,■* and 
iTiany Egyptian specimens, ascribed to the middle of the 
second millennium, were found at Teli el-Hesy.* These 
rude day vessels have survived in the E. to the present 
day. The earliest Greek and Roman Iamps {lychni, 
lucermi) are almost always of terra-cotta, bronze is 
rarer."* In Egypt and Palestine, on the other hand, 

' According to Hommel, Siid-arab. Chresf. 138, the related 
m:i3DÌn Hai. 353= 'torch.' 

2 Deriv. quite obscure ; see the Lexx. According to Batth 
iZA 2 117) the « is a nominai prefix. 

* Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, 368, %. 263a, 411 n. ; tab. 
210 16, 

* Bliss, Mound o/Many Cities {1898), 136, fig. on p. E7. 
Cesnola, Salaminìa {1884), 250 ff. 



terra-cotta or even porcelain lamps do not seem to occur 
before the Roman and Byzantine periods respectively. ^ 

AnoCher popular variety is the shoe-shaped lamp, severa! 
specimen? of which were found by Pelers at NÌppur,2 sometimes 
plain, 'sometimes blue enamelled, and a few in copper.' They 
appear to be ali post- Baby lonian, (The older latnps were of a 
squarish shape ; the most elaborate specimen was evidently 
Seleuddan.) Lamps of this description were used by the early 
Christians (cp Dict. Christ. Ant. s. ' Lamps,' 919). S 

Generally speaking, therefore, the lamps of the 
Semites and Egyptians contrasted unfavourably with 
4 Earlv Jewiah *^°^^ ^^ Grecian or Roman manufac- 


ture, and we may further conclude 

that the Hebrew lamp underwent little 
improvement and elaboration previous, at ali events, to 
the time of the SeleucidEe. We niay also infef, in- 
cidentaìly, that there are no grounds at present (at least) 
for supposing that P's temple-candelabrum was marked 
by any exceplional beatity — even in Samuel's time the 
sanctuary was lit only by a nèr {§ 1. 1 above). 

In spire of the numerous references to the nèr in the 
OT we have really no indications to guide us to its 
shape, and in the light of the evidencè above (§ 3) we 
can only surmise that it approximated to — if it was not 
identical with — the plain shell-shaped day utensil already 
described. As the interesling passage in 2 K. 4io 
proves, a lamp of some kind formed a pari of the 
furniture of every room, and the exceptional use of 
tnènSràh suggests that already it was customary to set 
the larap upon an elevated stand. This we know was 
done in NT times. At ali events we must not suppose 
that a candelabruni of the typical classical shape is 
intended in this pre-exilic reference. The more usuai 
practice was to set the lamp upon a niche in the wall. 

As the X^Tia pistàh, nniPS, shows, the wick was commonly of 
Flax \g,v.\. Whelher, as in Egypt (cp Herod. 262), the oil 
was mixed with salt (to purify the flame) is unlcnown ; see Oil. 

The Orientai prefers to keep a light burning through- 

out the night* — a custom not wholly due to fear of 

S Belìefs and darkness— and Kìito [Bibl. CycL, s.v.) 

"metaohors ^"SS^sts that this practice gives point 
'^ ' to the familiar ' oiiter-darknesa ' of the 
NT. The contrast impliod in the term 'outer' refers to 
' the effect produced by sudden expulsion into the 
darkness of night from a chamber, hìghly illuminated 
for an entertainment. ' Probabiy the custom originated 
in the widespread belief which associates and sometimes 
even identifies light and life. 

So, the extinguishing of light is the cessation of life, Prov. 
20 2O, cp Prov. 139 2420 JoblSs 21 17 293. 
of air (^ 1, 2 above), and the melaphor ' q uè neh the coal ' in 2 S, 
14 7 (Goal, § 4). The light may typify Ihe life of the individuai, 
of the clan, or of the nation. In 2 S. 21 17 where David is the 
' lamp of Israel,' we may perhaps see in the people's anxiety to 
safeguard his person a trace of the primitive taboo of kings.^ 
Again we find the widespread custom of the ever-burning sacred 
hearth or lamp (cp Candlestick), on which see Naphthar and 
cp Pau.s. i. 266/'., vii). 53g, and Class. Dict., s.v. ' Prytaneum.' 

On the association of the deity with flame, see Fire.8 
Finally roay be mentioned the Lydian custom (Paus. vii. 22 z) of 
lighting the sacred larap before ihe iraage of Hermes in the 
market-place of Phara; before approaching ic for oracular 
purposes. This raay, conceivably, illustrate i S. 83 where the 
point is emphasised that the lamp has not gone out. Did the 
wriler believe_ that there would have been no oracle had the 
light been exiinguished ?^ 

From primitive cult to established custom is an 

I Wilkinson, Anc. Eg:2i^y; Clermont ■ Ganneau, Arck^o- 
logìca.1 Researckes, 1 167 y^, 486^? 

^ N!^pur,2T,ìs/., cp pi. V., no. io. 

3 Whether glass lamps were used in Egypt must be considered 
problematical, see Wilt. Arte. Eg. 3 424 (fig. 6zo). 

* Doughty fonnd paper-lanterns thus used among the Bedouins 
(,A r. Des. 1 E 72). 

5 Cp the care takeii of the sacred torch-bearer among the 
Greeks (see Rawlinson on Herod. 8 6). 

8 So the Vezidis light lamps at sacred springs (Parry, Six 
tiiontks in a Syrian nionastery, 363). 

T As it stands the piassage is difficult. It is ordJnarily sup- 
posed to indicate that it was stili night-time (in l". 15 read : 'he 
rose ufi early in the morning '). Are we to suppose, therefore, 
that the nir only burned for a few hours (note that n33' is 
intransiiiue)? This would be opposed not only to P, but also to 
uni versai custom. 



easy step. On the lighting of torches and lamps on 
R Tninnnin '^^ occasion of marriage festivities see 
Pg^^jg"^MARRiAGE,i Whether, as Bliss has 
conjectured,^ lamps ever played a part 
in foundation-ceremonìes, cannot at present be proved. 
The burning of lamps before the dead is too widely 
known to need more than a passing mention ; see, 
further, Mourning Customs. On lamps in Jewish 
festivals see Dedication, Feast of, col. 1054, and 
Tabernacles, Feast of. s. a. c. 

LAMPSACUS, r Macc. 1523 EVng- (after Vg. lamp- 
SACUs) ; EV Sampsames {q.v.). 

LANCE. For pT3, kiddn, Jer. 5042 AV, RV ' spear,' 

seejAVELiN, 5, Weapons. For noi, rdtnafi, i K. I823RV, AV 
'lancet,' see Spear, Weapons. 

Chameleon, {^.v., 1). 

LANDMAEK {^-131), Dt. 19r4. etc. See Agricul- 

ture, § 5. 

LAND TENUEE. See Law and Justice {§§ 15, 

LANTERN (4)&Noc}, Jn.lSaf. See Lamp. 

LAODICEA (\&0ÀiKi& [Ti.WH] from X every- 
where ; in TR everywhere A&oÀlKei&. which is cer- 
tainly the correct Gk. form [Authors and ìnscrr.]. B 
has A&oAlKlà inCol. 2i Rev. In 314; but AàoiiKeiA 
in Col. 4 13 15 16. Latin, Laodicea ; but also Laodicia 
and other wrong forms are found. The ethnic is AàO- 
iiKeyc [Lat. Laodicensis], Laodicean, Col. 4 16 [cp 
Coins]). The NT passages indicate the position of 
Laodiceia^ as (i) in the Roman province of Asia, and 
{2) in dose proximity to Colossse and Hierapolis. A 
coin represents the city as a woman wearing a turreted 
crown, sitting between 4)pYri& ^^"^ K&plA. which are 
figured as standing females. This agrees with the 
ancient authorities, who are at variance whether Lao- 
diceia belongs to Caria or to Phrygìa.^ It was in fact 
dose to the frontier, on the S. bank of the Lycus, 6 m. 
S, of Hierapolis and about io m. W, of ColossEe {Col, 4 
13 16). In order to distinguish it from other towns of 
the same name, it was called AttoSiseta i] irpòi (or éTrl) 
ri^ AvKtp {Laodicea ad Lycunt, Strabo, 578). 

Laodiceia probabiy owed its foundation to Antiochus 
li. (261-246 B.C.), and its name to his wife Laodice. 
The foundations of the Greek kings in Asia Minor were 
intended as centres of Hellenic civilisation and of 
foreign domination. Ease of access and commercial 
convenience were sought, rather than merely military 
sirength. Hence they were generally placed on rising 
ground at the edge of the plains (Ramsay. Hist. Geogr. 
of AM, 85). Such is the situation of Laodiceia, 
backed by the range of Mt. Salbacus (Babà Dagh) and, 
to the SE., Mt. Cadmus {Khonas Dagh). Being a 
Seleucid foundation, Laodiceia contained a Jewish 
element in its population, either due to the foimder or 
imported by Antiochus the Great about 200 b.c. (Jos. 
Ant.-ax.ZA)-^ In 62 B.C. Flaccus, the governor of 
Asia, seized twenty pounds of gold which had been 
collected at Laodiceia, as the centre of a district,^ by 
the Jews for transmission to Jerusalem (Cic. Pro Fiacco, 
68; cp Jos. ^«/. xiv. lOzo, a letter addressed by the 
Laodicean raagistrates to Gaius Rabirius in 48 or 45 B.C. , 
guaranteeing religìous freedom for the Jewish colony). 

1 Also a classical custom. Probabiy the flame was originally 
regarded as a vivifying and fertiiising agent ; cp especially 
Frazer, Golden BougU^), 3 305. One remerabers that Hymen is 
figured with a torch. 

2 Op. cit. 84. 

3 [At least six cities of this name were founded ot renovated in 
the later Hellenic period. Cp LvcAONlA.] 

* Carìan, Plol. and Steph. Byz. s.v. Aniiocheia ; Phrygian, 
Polyb. 557, Strabo, 576. 

5 [Cp Willrich, Jaden w. GriecAen, 41 /. , who denies the 
genuineness of the document.] 

*■ Cp Ramsay, Cities and Biskoprics of Phrygia, 2 667. 



The prosperity of Laodiceia began only with the Roman 
period (tìcr. 578, litKpà, irfiÓTfpov oJcra a5|if(rii' f^afifv éifi' vilìiv 
«ai Twf ìiii-frépuiv jrare'puv, which suiiis up the first ceiitury u.c.). 
Slialit) itaceE the growtb. of ttie city to its excellent territory and 
its fine breed of sheep ; but ihe real secret lay in its silualion a£ 
a kiiot in tbe imperiai toad - system (cp Poi. 5 57). At 
Laodiceia the great eastern highway met three olher roads : 
(i) from tbe SE., from Atlaleia and Perga ; (2) from ihe NW., 
ihe important road from Sardis and Phiiadelpheia ; (3) from the 
NE-, from Dorylaium and northern Phrygìa. The city was thns 
marked out as a commercial and administrative centre. It was the 
meeting-place of the Cibyratic convent-as, and a banking-ccntre 
(Cicero proposes lo cash therehis treasury bìlls of exchange — Ad 
Fa>n- 3 5, pecunia guie ex ptiblica fiertnutatìone debetur. Cp 
id. Ad Att.hi'^. To this financial side of the city's repute 
lefers Rev, 3 i3 (' I counsel ihee lo buy of me gold tried in the 
(ire'). Laodiceia also became great as a manufacturing town. 
The fine glos-sy black native wool <of tbe colour called «opnf^s, 
Str. 578) was made Ìnto garments of various .shapes and name.s, 
and into carpets.' A refcrence to this trade is found in Rev. 3 is 
(' 1 counsel thee to buy of me . , . whìte raiment ' [ifiÓTia Aevuó 
—noi the dark garments of native manufacttire]). The town 
thus lapidly giew lich. Akhough it wasi passed over m 36 A.u. 
as not sufficienlly iniportant to be selected as the site of a 
tempie to Tiberius (Tac. Ann.iss), it needed no help from 
the imperiai excbequer in order to repair the havoc wrought by 
the great earthquake^ of 60 A.u. (Tac. ^««.1427, proprìis 
opibiis revaluit). Hence the boast in Kev. 3iy ('I am rich, 
and increased with goods, and bave need of nothing '). 

Asklepios (-^.sculapius) etijoyed great honour at 
Laodiceia, He is ihere the Grecìsed forni of the native 
deiiy, Mén Karos, whose tempie was at Attouda, some 
12 m. to the West (cp Neocoros). It %vas connected 
with a great school of medicine. That Laodiceia 
identifìed itself with this worship is clear from its coins, 
which under Augustus have the staff of Asklepios en- 
circled by serpents, with the legend ZeCfis or ZeOfis 
^L\a.\Tì0T)S : Zeuxis and Alexander Philalethes were two 
directovs of the school. The espression in Rev. 3i3 
('eye-salve to anoint thine eyes with, that thou mayest 
see' RV) refers to the ■ Phrygìan powder' {rétppa ^pvyla) 
used to cure weak eyes. We may ìnfer that this was made 
at Laodiceia, and that the Laodìcean piiysicians were 
skilful oculists. Thus the three epithets ' poor and blind 
and naked ' in Rev. 3 17, are carefuUy selected with refer- 
ence to three conspicuous features in the life of the city. 

Of the history of Christianity in Laodiceia little is 
known. From Col. 2i { '/or them at Laodicea, a.nd/or 
as niany as have not seen my face in the flesh'), it is 
clear that at the time of writing Paul was not personally 
known to the bulk of the converta at Laodiceia. This 
inference is by no means irreco ncilable with Acts]9i 
[on the e.vpression rà àfurreptKà /J-épr}. ' the upper coasts ' 
AV, 'the upper country' RV, see Galatia, § 7, col. 
1596, and Phrvgia, §4]. The found ation of the Laodì- 
cean church must be traced to Paul's activity in Ephesus 
{Actsl8i9 ]9io, 'so that ali they which dwelt in Asia 
heard the word '). The actual founder of the church 
would appear to have been Epaphras (Col. I7 412^".). 
Front Col. 4 16 we gather that Paul wrote also to 
Laodiceia when he wrote to Colossae ; but the Laodicean 
epistle is lost — unless we accept the vieW that it is the 
extanl Epistle to the Ephesians (cp C^Olossians, § 14), 
The epistle, extaiit in Latin, entitled Epistola ad 
I.aodicenses, is a forgery,^ The subscription to i Tim. 
— 'The first to TLniothy was written from Laodicea' 
AV — is also false. 

The site of Laodiceia (mod. Eski-Hisiar. the ' Old 
Caslle') is now quìte deserted ; the ruins are many 
but noi striking. The old city has served as a quarry 
for Denizli, a large Turkish town at the foot of the 
Babà Dagh, aboui 6 m. to the southward, 

Rainsay, in his Cities and Bishoprics 0/ Fhryg;ia,\-iiff. 

34i_/C ^512 542_#, etc, gives nearly ali tbat is known of 

Laodiceia and tbe Lycus valley geiierally, 

Iiit6ra.tur0- with map of Laodiceia. Map of Ihe I.ycus 

valley in bis Church in the Rom. Eiiip.i^), 472. 

See also Anderson, ìn/tnim. n/fìellenicStudies, '897, pp. io^_ff'., 

and Weher, /ahró. des arch. /nstituts, 189B. W. J. W. 

1 Cp Edici ofDiocl. 16, 52 \lpia.v TepfT]Teivi|i' ì AafinTji^i'. 

2 This regìon was notonously liable lo such visìlalions ; cp 
Slrabo, 578, et yp-ft Tt^ aXAi^, ko-Ì t^ AaoSL<£ta fU(r^L0"T05, 

3 See P. W. Schmiedel in Ersch and Gruber(iB8E), and Paul, 



' torches ' or [cp □"'T'E?, Ex. 20 18] ' lightning flashes ' ; 
>\&<J)[eliiu»e [BAT^}), husbantl of Deborah Uudg. 4 4). 
There isreason, however, to suspect that both 'Deborah' 
and ' Lappidoth ' may be corruptions, the former of 
the name of the centre of the clan of Saul ( Ephrath^i. e. , 
Jerahmeel ; see SAUL, §1), the latter of PaltiEL, the 
origin of which was of course unknown when the 
Deborah legend was elaborated. The narrati ves in 
Judg. 4 and Josh. 11, and the song in Judg. 5, have in 
fact most probably undergone considerabJe transforma- 
tion. See Shimron-meron, Sisera. t. k, c. 

LAPIS LAZULI (Rev. 21 19 RV"ig.), the name by 
which a well-known blue minerai (mainly silicate of 
aluminiimi, calcìum, and sodium), the source of ultra- 
marine, has since the Arabian period been designated ; ^ 
it is now brought chìefly front SW. Siberia, through 
Persia and Ttirkestan. To the Greeks it was kiiown as 
cràTT^eipof, to the Hebrews as tbo, sappìr (see Sap- 
Phire), to the Assyrians and Babylonians (most prob- 
ably) as the i{ktiii-s\oT\e, to the Egyptians as the hspd. 
It was prized alike for personal ornaments and for archi- 
tectural decoration. A large number of Egyptian objects 
of luxury made from it have been preserved ; various 
Assyrian seal-cylinders, inscribed tablets, and the like, 
in lapis lazuli, are also known (1450 B.C. onwards). 
Burnaburias of Babylonia sends to Naphuria of Egypt 
{i.e., Amenhotep IV.) two minas of uknù-s,\one and a 
necklace of 1048 gems and uknù-%\.oi\e%. There is 
frequent mention of ukna in the ' Statistica] ' Table 
of Thotmes III, {JiP2igff.). and Rameses III. is so 
rich in uknu that he can offer pyramids of it in his 
tempie at Medinet Habij, It was one of the severi 
stones placed as amulets and ornaments on the breast 
of the Babylonian kings, and was used to overlay the 
highest parts of buildings. It is sometimes called 
nkne-sadè (uknù of the mountains), and Esarhaddon 
specially mentions the inountains of Media and the 
neighbouring regions as sources of the uknù. The 
inscriptions at ed-Deir el-Bahri speak of ìt as brought 
from the land of Paiit. 

See Am. Tab. 84042 15 11 ; KBZb-2o\ Del. Ass. HWB, 
S.11. 'uknù'; Wi. AOEI 150 160 271 ; WMM, Ai. u. Eur. 278; 
OLZ, f'eb. 1899, p. 39 ; Pelers, I^ippur, 2 132 143 195 210 240. 

LAPWING (nB'3-ll), Lev.1119 Dt. 14i8 AV, RV 
HoOPOE [q.v.]. 

LASEA (Acts 273, ttoAic \&c&i& [A&C€& WH. 
after B]; ttoAiC A,AaccA [A], Aacc&IA [N*]. A&icCA 
[6*'^]. A&CI& [minusc. ap. Ti.]; Vg, thalas^a [tol 
THALASsiA ! codd. ap. Lachm. thaslassa. or thas- 
sala"^. From Acts we learn that it was ' near' («771/1) 
Fair Havens, and the contìguration of the coast there- 
abouts restricts us to the N. or the E. There was prob- 
ably frecjuent comniunication between the town and 
Paul's ship, which lay for ' much time ' at Fair Havens 
{q-v. ). The ruins of Lasca were discovered, apparently, 
by Captain Spratt, in 1853. They were first examined 
and described by the Rev. G. Brown in 1856. The site 
lies about a mile NE. of Cape I.eon[d)a { — K-éovro.), a 
promonlory resembling a lion couchant, 4 or 5 m. E. 
of Fair Havens. According to Mr, Brown, the peas- 
ants stili cali the place Lasen. This position agrees 
with that given to a place called Lisia, which in the 
Peutinger Tables is slated to be 16 m. from Gortyna 
(see Hoeck, A>e/i7l44i, but cp Winen^', g 5, n. 55). 
Th& true name, according to Bursian (00^^.2567), is 
Alassa, and the place is identical with the 'AXai of the 
Stadiasm-us Med. 322, and the Alos or Lasos of Pliny 
(//iV4i2) ; but Bursian is in error in identifyìng the 
remains near Cape Leonda as those of Leben, one of 
the ports of Gortyna (Strabo 478), and in pulting Lasca 
on the islet now called Traphos which lies dose to the 
coast a litde to the NE. of Fair Havens. 

J Làziiwafd, of Pers. orÌgÌn, wbence also our ' azure ' 


See James Smith, Voyage and Shìpvjrech of Si. Paul,^x\i ed., 
82, ^i&/. wilh map ; Falkener in Mus. of Class. Ani. 1852, Sept. 
p. 287. For coins with legend ^akanatiuv, cp Head, Hisi. 
Nufti. 3B6, w. j. W. 

LASHA {Xlé^. pausai ibrm ; A^cA [EL] ; A^ca. 
[A]), or rather Lesha, a frontier city of Canaan (i.e., oh 
the W. sideof the Jordan), Gen. lOigf- Jerome {Quasf. 
in He. Gen. ) and the T'argum identify it with Callirrhoe, 
a place famous for ìts hot springs. near the Wàdy Zerkd 
Mdin, on the E. side of the Dead Sea (see Seetzen's 
account in Ritter. Erdkunde, 15575^)- The situation 
of Callirrhoe. however, is unsuitable. Halévy proposes 
to read [iip'?, IdUn, which is used in Josh. ISa of the 
southern end of the Dead Sea [Recherches bibliques. 8 164) ; 
but the article would in this case be indispensable. Sey- 
ho\d{ZATlV, 1896, p. 318^) actuallyidentifies Lesha 
with Zoar (also called Bela), which, as the southern point 
of the Pentapolis, seems to him to be naturally e^ipected 
in such a context. Wellhausen {CH 15) maintains that 
we should read ojòh, Leshara ■ the letters y and d have 
a dose reseniblance in their Palmyrene form. In this 
case, the ' border of the Canaanites ' is given thus — from 
Sidon to Gaza, from Gaza to the Dead Sea, and from 
the Dead Sea to Lesham — i.e., Dan (cp Leshem). 
Most probably, however, the originai text referred to 
the Kenites or Kennizzites {not to the Canaanites), and 
the ' border ' was drawn from Missur (not ' Zidon ') to 
Gerar and Gaza (?), and in the direction of Sodom and 
Gomorrah as far as Eshcol (?)— i.e. , perhaps HalQsah, 

LASHARON, RYLaasharon {filS^h; thc àpcoK (?) 
[B], om. A, Aec&ptoN [L]), a royal city of Canaan, 
mentioned with Aphek, Josh. 12iS (EV). TJpD, ' king 
(of),' before l'iT^p is, however, probably an interpola- 
tion ; it is not represented in (©. Thus the true sense 
will be, ' the king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon ' 
(see Aphek). Those who retain the MT suggest that 
Lasharon may be the modem Sàrónà [SW. of Tiberias. 
Kautzsch, //S, renders MT 'the king of Sharon.' 
Observe, however (i) that mi^^ ^'7p should mean gram- 
matically ' one of the kings of Sharon' (see Ges.-Kau. 
§ 129 e), and (2} that Sàrònà, as a place-name, is 
probably a /aie echo of the older name of a districi 
(see Sharon. 2). ® in Josh. 129-24. gives twenty-nine 
kings, MT thirty-one. It is more like!y that the 
originai writer made thirty.] w. r. s. 

LASTHENE3 (A&ceeN[e]i dat. [ANV], -hc [Jos.]), 
the minister of Demetrius II. Nicator (see Demetkius, 
2), who was ordered to lighten the fiscal burdens of the 
Jews. A copy of the order was also forwarded to 
Jonathan the Maccabee (see Maccabees i. , § 5), and 
appears in i Macc. 1 1 30^ in a forni closely akin to that 
in Josephus^a^. xiii. 4g [§§ 126-130]).' From Josephus 
{Ani. xiii. 43) it would seem that Lasthenes was a Cretan 
who had raised a number of mercenaries (cp Crete, col. 
955) with which Demetrius had been able to commsnce 
his conquest of Syria. The honorific titles bestowed 
upon him in iMacc. lisi/". (ffuTytTTj!. var^p ; see 
CousiN, Father) testify to his high position, which 
(compare 10 69 7411) may have been that of governor of 
Ccelesyria, or grand vizier of the kingdom (cp Camb. 
Bib. ad loc). Later. when quietness had been gained. 
the whole of the army of Demetrius was disbanded 
(probably at the instigaiion of Lasthenes) with the 
exception of the ' foreign forces from the isles of the 
gentiles ' (11 38),* a circumstance which gave rise to 
widespread dissatisfaction ; see, further, Antiochus 4 ; 

t The most noteworthy dìfferences are {d) v. 37, tv Óp« tu 
àyiiji as compared with the piefeiahle toù nyìou ì«poS [Jos. § ia8] 
— Òpet apparenlly a cortuplion of Up^ and (i) v. 38, al hwansis 
aX a.irò Ttui' Tta.rrpa>v as against aTpa.Ttiin«iv [Jos. % 130] — the 
rcading of Macc. being apparently a. doublet with l'ni3({ read 
for l'mtKlas (as in 107» f*^* Maccabees, First, % 3 end]), 

^ Jos. § 119, no doubt correctiy, oi . , <k Kp^riK* 



LATCHET (^n^, Is.5z7; im&c, Mk. l7etc.). See 

LATIN (ptùA\AiCTl) Jn. 1920. See Roman Empire, 

LATTICE. Although the manufacture and use of 
glass (more particularly for ornamentai purposes) was 
1 Ubs known to the civilisations of the East from 
and form *^^ earliest times (see Glass. § i), we are 
without evidence of the employment of 
glass-panes in the consttuction of Windows. Indeed, no 
openings such as Windows were at any time common — 
a fact which iìnds snfficient explanatìon in climatic con- 
siderations. In Assyria and Babylonia, to avoid open- 
ings of any kind in the outer walls, the ancient archìiects 
used doorways reaching to ten or more feet in heighl, 
which were intended to light and vendiate the rooms as 
well as to faciHtate the movements of their inhabitants 
(Piace, Ninive, I313, see Per.-Chip., Art in Chald. 
\i%fiff.). In Egypt. again, the openings were small 
but admitled of being ' closed with folding valves, 
secured . . . with a bolt or bar, and ornamented with 
carved panels or coloured devices ' ( Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1 363, 
cp illustr. p. 362, fìg. 132). Of the conslruction of the 
house among the ancient Hebrews we know but little 
(see House) ; the etymology, however, of some of the 
terms employed for certain parts * suggests conslructions 
of lattice work, such as have happily not yetdisappeared.- 
At the present day the Windows looking out towards 
the Street are small, closely barted, and at a consider- 
abie height from the ground. In the olden times 
these Windows seeni to have looked over the Street, 
and in the case of hoiises built upon the cily-wall 
offered an easy escape into the surrounding country (cp 
Josh. 2is 2 Macc. Sig). Cp House, § 2. 

The OT words correctly rendered in EV ' lattice' or ' window' 

are four, to which ntno, ìnekézah (EV 'light' 

—i.e., light -open in e, window) in 1 K. "4^ 

USJIISS. may he attded. Of ihrce other words (nos. 5-7) 

AV mistakes the meaning. 

(i) nanR, 'órwitóA (cp Ar. 'araba., 'to tie [a knot]'), EV 

' window,' used of the lattìced openings of a dove-cote (Is.60a 

i^e]o(i[cr]os [BNA. etc.]), of the sluices of the sky (Gen. 7 11, etc. 

KaTappoiiTijs [in Is. 24 iB flupiVl), and melaphorically of the eyes 

(Eccl. 123 Èjiij). On Hos. 133 (Kojri'oiox') [AQ"] ; haKpwav [B] 

Comes from (urpiSùii" [Compi.] — i.e., nBlK; EV 'chimney'), see 

CoAL, S 3. 

(2) Ji^n, kalión, 9vpit, EV 'window,' Gen. 20 8 Josh. 2 15 
Judg.5z8 Jer.22i4 (where read VJlSn with Mich., Hi., etc), 
not necessaiily a mere opening (^^n. to bore, perforate), since 
z K. 13 17 shows that it could be opened and ^ut, bufprobably 
an opening provided with a movable covering of latlice-work 
(cp 3WK^3 'lattice,' Judg. 5 28ÌPr. Te [where AV ' casement ']). 

'JlW. n'3 I K. 6^ is very probably the bèi hiHani, 'place of 
openings' 01 fortified poitico, an architectural expression used 
by Sargon {Khors. idi/., cp KB2^z) as a W. Paie^tinian term. 
for bel appdii (see Fortrkss, col. 1557, and references in Muss- 
Arn-, Ass. HiVB s. 11. jtiiani). In i K. l.c, 'n 'a seems to be 
identical with or possibly a portion of the 071N in t. 3. 

(3) O'Sirt (pi.), Mrakkim, Ct. 2 9, cp (tS^n in Tgg. for Jl^n. 

(4) ]')3 (pi.), kavnum, Dan. 6 io [11], Aramaic. 
To these AV adds 

(5) nit'DE' (pb), s^màsiith, Is.54i8; but see Battlememt, 

FOKTKESS, col. 1557 «. I. 

(6) r^ìà, sikeph, 1 K.7s (cp D'Bp» 6475), a difficulc word 

which .seems rather to denote a cross-beam (RV'hìT- 'with 
beams ') ; and 

(7) ^^3£, sèhar, Gen. 6 iS (in P's descriplion of the ark). A V 
may be nearly right though, in spite of the support given to the 
rendeiing ' opening for light ' by Tg-, Pesh., Vulg., etc, many 
scholars now render ^xooV—e.g., RVmg-, Budde, and Ball; 
Ges.-BuhI and others who compare Ar. zahr, Ass. slru (in Am. 

1 nDDi?, 'lattice,' a K. 1 z, iutruùHÓs [BLI, Uktvov [A], see 
Net, 5 ; and raiK (only in plur., except in Hos. 13 3), see 
above (i). 

2 See Baed.W xH. One must go to the more remote part.'; of 
Arabia to escape from glass window-panes altogclher (Doughty, 
Ar. Des. 1 aE6). 

* On etymology, cp Mooit Judg. ad loc. In Judg. toÌikìv{W\, 
SiKTvuiró [AL], 



Tab. su'ru), 'back,' It is doubtfu!, however, whether this 
comparison is legilimate. (a) The meanìng of the Heb. root 
^na -ini, ' to shine,' is well-established. {&) Jensen more safely 
coiiiiects Ass. seru with HKÌS, 'neck' Ì,Koimol. 2tì, n. i); and 

{fi) [bere Ì5 no support for a word like iriSi ' roof,' m the 
iiabylonian Deluge-sloiy. © has i-ntijTivà.-^ii>v, whith is not a 
rendering of "I3S (Schleusner, Ball, and others)bul acorruplion 
•3Ì Ko.'nvoho^v. Josephus {Ant. i. 82) mentions a roof (ópo^oì), 
l)ut is silenc about the window, whìch in fact seenis to he 
usiially passed over in the accounts of the ark contaìned in the 
vajious deluge-legends (see Deluge, § 20, n. 5), though, to be 
sure, J incidentally refers to a ' window.' ^ For RV's rend. 
'iight,' i.e., a great hght-opening, cp Synim., Siaifmi-fV- [On 
the whole it may be best to read ■1311< (cp ®, reading as above), 
Pasek in MT warns us to criticise the text. Cp PSBA 23 141. 


LAVER.^ Solomon's tempie (see Temple), besides 
its sea of bronze (see SeA, Molten), had also ten 
_ _. bronze lavers (ihl's ; see Por, and cp 

CoALS, § 3, FURNACE, § I [2] ; \omi\p 
@, bui in Kings x^jt(i(ìko.v\os [AL-07] ; Vg. labrum.^ 
but four times luter, once lebes, and twice concha). The 
passage in i K. (7 27-39)* is evidently in greal confiision ; 
and bui little help in the elucidation of the whoUy inade- 
quate details in MT's description can be obtained either 
from @ (7i3^) or from Josephus {Ant. vili. 36). The 
figures in Slade (G K/I333 340/). Nowack (/M 2*3/). 
and Ben7.ìnger {HA 252 ff. ; Kon. 49) may assist vagiae 
conjecture as to what may bave been the appearance of 
structures which obviously none of the describers had 
ever seen. 

Fresh Iight, however, has been thrown on the whole passage 
(i Ki. 727-39) by Stade's new discussion in ZATWiX (1901), 
pp. I45-I92, mainly through discoveries of bronze cbariots in 
Cypius. The 'undersetters' (RV for riBTia) !"id the 'stays' 
(m") are now Intelligible, and so too is the construclion of the 
' mouths ' of the ' lavers." Klo.stermann's excision of vv. 34-36 
is faund to be inadequate to the explanatìon of the present state 
of the text, which has arisen by the inteiweaving of two parallel 

1. Of the lavers themselves ali we are toM is that they wereof 
bronp.e, four cubils (six feet) in diameter, and that they had a 
cubie capacity of forty baths (90,000 cubie in., 52 cubie fi.). 
Thus they must bave been about 2 ft. in depth and when filled 
with water their contenls alone (325 gallons) must bave weighed 
about ij tons.* 

K. Each laver with its foot rested on a 'base.' Of tbese 
'bases' (mibO. inèkonBth; jie^uii'iuS; bases) also we bave no 
satisfactoty descrìplion. Each of them was four (®, Jos-, live) 
cubits long, four (Jos-, five)cubits broad, and three (®, Jos., six) 
cubitshigh. Each consisted o^ T\y~iìUCì(T>'ìsgéroih ; av^xX^Luióv, 
truyicAÈiViUaTB) and D':]^[y (je/iiiii^l»/; «feyónti'ri); but how these 
woids should be rendered is quite uncertain.6 Benzinger argues 
with some plausibìlity that the s'Iabbìni were the ptimaiy 
elements in the quadrilateral structure, and the triisgérdtk only 
secondary. The niisgcrSth were decorated with lions, oxen, 
and cherubim. 

3. Each base rested on solid brazen wheels li cubits in 
diameter ; the axles of these wheels moved Kiyàdóth — 'hands' or 
' siays '^which projected from the iower pare of the base and 
were of the same piece with it. 

4, The ten lavers as described in Kings were ranged 
live on the right side and live on the left side of the house 
facing eastward. According to 2 K. I617 king Ahaz 
{see Benzinger) cut up the 7nèkdr!5tk and removed the 
miiglrSlh. Presumably if the lavers themselves re- 
niained they stood at a Iower elevation than formerly. 
Perhaps, however, the bases were renewed, since they 
are said to have been broken iti pieces by the army 

^ In J the words for 'window' and 'roof'are n^n (Gen.Sé) 

and nOpD ('covering' 813) respectively. Air. S. A. Cook sug, 
gests that 6 16 may contain the statement that openings were to 
be made upon (he first, second, and third stoiies — e.g-, iTn/lM 
'tjl □"irn Pnaa n3. For the anticipatory pronominai suffix in 
33, cp Josb. 1 2* Jer. 51 ;5 Ezek. 41 35, etc. 

2 Fr. lavoir, Lat. lavaiorium. 

3 /.<r., lavaòrttìH. 

* Contiast the bare notice in 1 Ch. 4 14. 

* Josephus, however (^Ani. viii. 3 6, g 85), makes them 4 cubits 
(6 ft,) in depth, and thus of much laiger capacity. 

ti See for example Vg. of v. -zZ f.: 'et ipsum opus basium 
Inlcrjasile erat et sLulptuitC inter juncluras, et iiiter cotonulas 
et pleclas leones,' etc 



of Nebuchadr ezzar (2 K. 25i3i6 = Jer. 521720;' cp Jer. 
2719). What their function was is not siated in MT. 
Josephus, who must at least have known the arrange- 
ments of the temple of his own day, says that the lavers 
were ' for cleaiising the entraìls of the animals sacriiìced, 
and also their feet (?). ' 

On the probable mvthological significance of the 
lavers, see Sea [Molten]. 

The laver {Jos. Ant. iii. 63 irfpippavTTìptov) of Ex. 
30ia 28 35 16 388 3939 40? n. Lev. 811 (ali P) stood on 

^ y p its 'foot'{;3, @ ^dait, Jos. Kp-qiriì; basis) 
betweeti the door of the tabernacle and the 
aliar. The laver belongs whoUy to one of the later 
strata of P. {See Dr. IntrodA^K 38 ; Addis, Doc. Hex. 
2276, etc, and the Oxf. Hex.) Its dimensions or shape 
are nowliere stated ; it is said (Ex. 388) to have been 
made out of the mirrors of the women (a very late 
Haggadic addition, thinks Wellhausen), and its use was 
for Aaron and his sons to wash their hands and feet 
Iherein when they entered the tabernacle. 

When we compare the account of the tabernacle In P with the 
(vety late) desciiption of Solomon's temple in 1 K. it seems 
cuiious that the laver and its should ne left undesctibed in 
P ; the case is reversed with the golden candlestick ; perhaps we 
may conclude that the laver and the candlestick were one. 
Moreover, it may be worth noting that the use of only otte laver 
in P when contrasted with the ten in i K. finds an analogy in the 
Candlkktick [q.v., § i]. See further Sc.'.ffold. 

(See Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Taf. 134 ; also his notes ou 
p. 449.) 


Law and custom (g i). 
Effeet of selllement (S ■ìf.')- 
Written laws (§§ 4.6). 
Orai law (g 7). 

Administration (g@ 8-10). 
Punishment (§g 11-13). 
Private law [property, etc] (SS14- 
Bibliography (g 19). [18). 

Law is, originally, custom. As has been already 
shown under Government (esp. § 9), the old tribal 
1 T j system knew no legislative authority, no 

. perso ns holding superior power whose 

will and command were looked upon as 
law or as constìtuting right. This does not, however, 
imply a condition of arbitrary lawlessness ; on the 
contrary, tribat custom fornied a law and a right of 
the most binding character. Its authority was much 
rnore powerful ihan that established by any mere 
popular custom in modem society. To break loose 
from tribal custom was, practically, to renounce the 
family and tribal connection altogether ; any gross 
infraction of that cuslom was necessarily followed by 
expulsion from the tribe and deprivation of ali legai 
right and prolection. Further, it is to be remembered 
that in virtue of the intimate relation belween the tribe 
and its god, every tribal custom is at the same lime a 
religious custom — i.e. , compliance with it is looked 
upon as a duty to the divinity by whom the custom is 
upheld. This was felt perhaps more keenly in Israel, 
than amongst other peoples ; law and righteous- 
ness were the special concern of Yahwè ; in his name 
jListice was dispensed and to him were ali legai orditi- 
ances referred. To a certain extent also Yahwè was the 
creator of the law. Through his servants the priests, 
he gave his 'decisions' (n'n'iR^ lòrótk), which were to a 
large degree instruccions on points of right. Such a 
divine utterance naturally becomes a law, in accord- 
ance with which other cases of the same kind are 
afterwards decided. When viewed in this Iight the 
fact^to our modem ide;ì5 so surprising— ihal ali 
violations of religious observance are looked upon 
as crimes against the law and as ranking in the same 
category with civil offences, becomes intelligible. The 
worship of the triba! god forms a part, by no means 
the ieast important part, of the tribal custom ; no dis- 
tinction belween worship and other integrai parts of tribal 
custom is perceived. 

In this connection we must bear in mind that even befnre 
the monarchy Isiael had altained a ceitain degree of unity 

I The reference in Jer. 52 20 to the twelve biasen bulls under 
the bases is apparently due to aconfusion with the ' sea.' 



ia matters of law ; not in the sense that ic possessed a writteti 

law common to ali the tribes, or a uniform organisation for Ihe 

pronouncing of legai judgments, but in the sense that along 

with a common god it had a community of custom and of feelmg 

in matters of law. This community of feeling can be traced back 

very far ; ' it is not so done in Israel," and ' folly m Israel, which 

oueht not to be done,' are proverbiai expressions reaching back to 

quite early cimes (Gen. 34 7 Josh. 7 15 Judg. 19 23 20 io a S. 13 iz). 

The settlement in Western Palestine, so important in 

ali respects, was peculiarly important in its effect 011 the 

development of law. From the 

2. Change nature of the case the law had to 

from nomad Ho ^^ greatly extended. The new cir- 

aettled lite. cumstancesraisednewlegalproblems. 

For one thing, the conception of private property has 

for peasants settled on the land a signìficance quite 

different from that which it possesses for nomads. 

Property with the Bedouin is uncertaìn ; it may be gained 

and lost in a night ; for peasants a certain securìty of 

ownership is indispensable. Again, with the settlement 

on the land a certain dìfferentiation of ranks and classes 

became inevitable. 

To the Bedouin social distinctiotis in our sense of the word 
are unknown ; within the tribe al! are ' brothers ' ; no one is 
master and no one is servant. Life in village and town soon 
hrings with it great distinctions. ' Rich ' and ' poor ' become 
'high' and Mow,' and the proteclion of the poor and of the alien 
becomes a pressing task for the new system of law. 

To these considerations it has to be added that, by 
the settlement, the bonds of clanship carne to be 
gradually loosened, and theìr place taken, so far, by 
locai unions (see Govkknment, § 15) ; upon this there 
naturally foUowed a weakening of the power which triba! 
custom had exercised through the faraily. The individuai 
was not so dependent on the community ; he could with 
greater ease break loose from the restraints of custom. 
A certain relaxation of discipline began to malte itself 
felt. The later view, therefore, which characterised the 
period of the judges as one of lawlessness (Judg. 176 etc. ) 
is partly correct. Custom had lost its old power and 
required the support of some external authority. 

The first step towards meeting this requirement was 
when, by the settlement, the heads of clans and com- 
, raunities (see Government, § 16), gradu- 
ar "*™ ally acquired the character of a superior 
tribunals. ^^hority which could be regarded as having 
been appointed by Vahwè and could thus come forward 
with a claim to legai powers. Their judicial utterances 
had no longer merely a moral authority ; they had 
behind them the weight of the whole community, which 
was interested in giving them effect. The development 
of a kind of public law was thus possible. In one 
instance at ali events this is plainly seen — viz. , in the 
case of the penalty for manslaughter. Under the tribal 
system vengeance upon the manslayer is purely the 
affair of the avenger of blood— i.^. , the family : the 
support of the tribe at large is involved only in cases 
where the slayer belongs to another tribe. In settled 
communities, however, the supreme authority itiust, 
from a very early date, have begun to recognise it as 
fa]ling within its domain on the one hand to guarantee 
security of life, and, on the other, gradually to displace 
the perilous custom of blood revenge by itself takmg 
in hand the punishment of the slayer. 

This advance towards the formation of an outside authority 
was at first by no means an adequate substitute for the un- 
cualified power of custom which it sought to dispiace, and 
this in=ufficiency showed the need of fuUer politicai organisation. 
There must be an organlsation that would render possible or 
guarantee the development and consistent administration of a 
uniform system of law. 

The raonarchy provided a system of uniform common 
law by furnishing a regular tribunal and by supporting 
with its authority the ancien! customs and legai praclices. 
The king and liis ofììcials were no legislalors ; in fact 
for a considerable time after the establishment of the 
monarchy there was no rea! law at ali in the modem 
sense. The judicial decisions of the king and his 
officials were determined simply by the ancient cus- 
tomary practice, and some time, it would seem, passed 



before even this law was codified, although doubtless 
it may have been common from an early date for single 
legai decrees to be publicly posted up, for example, at 
the sanctuaries. The first attempt at a comprehensive 
coUeclion of legai precepts and a hook of laws is prob- 
ably to be found in what is known as the Book of the 
Covenant, dating probably from the ninth century 
(Ex. 2O24-2319 ; cp Hexateuch, § 14, Law Litera- 
TURE, §§ 6-9). 

A single glance shows that the appearance of the 
Book of the Covenant was not the introduction of a new 
law ; the book was a setling down in 
4. Book Of tue .^vriting of long-current legai practices. 
Covenant. j^ nowhere enunciates great legai prin- 
ciples, or attempts to exhibit an abstract system of 
law, with a view to its application to concrete cases ; 
it is merely a coUection of individuai legai decisions. 
Its origin is clear. Either the frequent repetition 
of similar decisions had given rìse to an established 
precedent. or a single decision had been given by a 
divine Tòràh — in either case with the same result, that 
a fixed rule was established. Hence is explained the 
nature and scope of the contents of the collection. 
It deals exclusively with the circumstances and in- 
cidents of every-day life ; such matters as the legai 
position of slaves, injuries to life or limb resulting 
from hostility or carelessness, damage to property, 
whether daughter or slave, cattle or crop. The ruling 
principle is stili that of the jus talionis. Trade or 
commerce as yet there is none— at least no laws are 
required for its regulation. That ordinances for the 
divine worship and general ethical precepts for the 
humane treatment of widows and strangers should 
also be included and placed on the same level will be 
readily understood after what has been said above (§ i). 
Stili, a distinction is made between jui and fas at 
least in so far as the forra of decree in the mispdjim 
(ethical and legai) differs from that in the dèòarim 
(relating to religion and worship). 

The object of this codification probably was to 
secure a greater degree of uniformity in adjudication 
and punishment. It is matter for surprise that we are 
nowhere informed by whom this collection was intro- 
duced as an officiai law-book or whether it was ever so 
introduced at ali. If what we are told regarding 
Jehoshaphat's legai reforms {2 Ch. I79) comes from a 
good source, it would be naturai to think of him in this 
connection (see Benzinger, Comm. on 2 Ch. llgff.). 
On the other hand, it is also equally possible that 
the Book of the Covenant was never an officiai law- 
book (like Dt. ) at ali, that it was simply a collection 
undertaken privately (perhaps in priestly circles). As 
containing only ancient law and no new enactments, 
such a collection would need no kind of officiai intro- 
duction but gradually come to be tacitly and universally 

With the law of D the case is different ; it was 

brought in as the law of the state by a solemn act in 

mt. 1 t-n ^^^ ^^^^ y^^ °^ josiah (621 B.C.), 

6. The law Ol a. ^^^^ j^^j^g ^^^ people made a solemn 

'covenant' pledging themselves to its failhful observ- 
ance (see 2 K. 2U 1 J^ ). This accords well with the fact 
that Dt, claims to be more than a mere compilation of 
the ancient laws ; it comes before us as a new system. 
Though in form and in contents alike it connects itself 
very closely with the Book of the Covenant, its literary 
dependence on it being unmistakable, it nevertheless, 
as a law-book, marks a great advance in companson 
with the other, inasmuch as it embodies an attempt to 
systematise both the civil and the ecclesiastical law 
under a single point of view, that of the unique relation- 
ship of God to his people. The norm for determmmg 
what is right and what is wrong is no longer merely 
ancient law and custom : the supreme principle is now 
the demand for holiness. As a consequence, much of 
what has long been established law must disappear ; in 



the sphere of worship. indeed, the law-book has ex- 
pre5SÌy in vìew nothing less than a thorough - going 
reforin. In spirit the legislation is characterìsed by its 
humanity ; bum ani tari an ordinances of ali sorts, pro- 
visions for the poor and for servants, for widows and 
orphans. for levites and strangers, bave a larga place. 

The priestly law in like manner, after the exile, was 
introduced mucb as D had becQ (Neh. 8-10). Tbis 
6. The PrieBtly '^^ aims only at the regulation of 
j. •* worship ; law and ethics in the broader 

sense are purposely left alone ; the 
constitution now given to the community everywhere 
presupposes a state organisation and civil rigbts. It is 
only exceptionally that matters belonging to the domain 
of law properly so called are dealt with, and even in 
these instances that is done only in so far as the 
questions are connected wìtb the hierocratic system of P. 
Wilhin P, the law of holiness (H) forms a separate cul- 
lection (Lev. 17-26 and some other isolated precepts ; 
cp Hexateuch, §§ xd ff., Law Literature, § 15, 
Leviticus, §§ 13-23), thougb it does not seem ever to 
havereceived separate recognition, but only to bave come 
into currency in conjunction with the Priestly Law as 
a whole. As distinguished from P, H includes ethìcal 
and legai enactments (especially Lev. 19), whicb are 
made from the poìnt of view of the holiness of the 
people, as in Dt. (the mild humanity of whicb it also 

The tòràh, however, the written and officiai law, 
related only to a small part of civil life. Alongside of 

7 Orai Law '^ ^^ ^^''^ ^^^^ ampie room for the play 
of ancient consuetudinary law. It is 
much to be regretted that in the iiterature whicb has 
come down to us we bave no codification of tbis con- 
suetudinary law in the forni into whicb it had developed 
at the time of the introductìon of the Priestly Law, and 
in whicb it is presupposed by that law. For long 
afterwards it continued to be handed down only by orai 
tradition, and even amongst the scribes of a later epocb 
there was stili strong reluctance to commit the Hàlàckàk 
to writing. 

The further development of law was the main business of the 
scribes. The lòrdk continued to be the immovable found- 
ation ; the task ihat remained was, either by casuislical inter- 
prelation of the written law or by de termi natio n of the con- 
suetudinary law, to fili up the blanks of the tòràh and bring 
into existeiice new precepts. The law thus arrived at — which 
in authority soon carne to rank alongside of !he written toràh — - 
was coraprehensively termed k&làchàh (consuetudinary law). 
As it gained in authority the scribes, ihough not formally recog- 
nised as lawgivers, gradually carne to be siich in point of fact. 
The resuits of their legislative aclivily are embodied in the 
Mishna. This rests, however, on an older work of the period of 
R. 'Àifiba b. Joseph {circa ito-135 A.D.), under whose mfluence 
il probably was that ihe kàlàclidh hitherto only orally handed 
down first carne to be codified. From what has been said it will 
he evident that the Mishna may very well contain many frag- 
ments of ancient legai custom, but that it wouid he hopeless lo 
attempi with its help to reconstruct the old consuetudinary 
Hebrew law as this existed (say) in the Persian or in the Grecian 
period. 1 (Cp Law Literature, § 22/.) 

AH jurisdiction was originally vested in the family. 
The father of a family had unlimited powers of punish- 

* avatem • '^'^ coalescence of families into clans 
Eldprs * ^^^ tribes (see Government, § 4) a 
portion of the family jurisdiction neces- 
sarily also passed over to the larger group, and was 
thencefortb exercised by the heads of the clan or 
tribe. The old tradition in Israel was that the elders 
acted also as judges. AH three variants of the story 
of the appointment of 'elders' as judges (Ex. 1813^ 
Nu. lliftj?: Dt. I13/) bave tbis feature in common 
that they place the eiders alongside of Moses as his 
belpers in the government of the people — i.e.., in prò- 
nouncing jndgments (in the gloss Dt. 1 15 the word is 
quite correctly given as ' heads of tribes ' ). The lighter 
cases come up before the elders, whìlst Moses reserves 
the graver ones for himself. Tbis judicial activity of 

1 On the Rabbis and the Mishna see SchQr. GVI ii., g 25. 


the heads of tribes and clans we must, of course, regard, 
not as an innovation, but as an ancient usage. The 
tradition, however, is once more in accordance with the 
facts of the case wben,as alongside of and ovemilingevery 
human decision, the deity is regarded as the supreme 
king-judge. The weightiest matters, tbose namely 
with whicb human wisdom is unable to cope, come 
before God ; for Moses dispenses law as the servant and 
the mouth of God — as a priest — upon the basis of divine 
decisions (see above, §1}. The people come to bim 
to inquire of God and be is their re presentati ve before 
God, to whose judgment he submits the case (Ex. 
I8J519). The same conditions continued tbrough 
the later period ; alongside of the jurisdiction of the 
tribal heads and of the judiciary officers that of God as 
exercised tbrough the priests was stili mai mai ned. 

The enlire position otberwise accorded to the elders 
sbows that their judicial activity was not the consequence 
merely of an office with whicb they had been ìnvested. 
Their authority as a whole, and in particular their 
judicial influence, was purely moral. In the main 
therefore we find the same conditions as are even now 
found to prevali among the Bedouins, and so far as the 
present subject is concerned we may safely venture to 
avail ourselves of what we know of these last to supple- 
ment the deficiencies of our informai Ìon regard in g 
ancient Israel. 

Amongst the Bedouins, also, then, it ìs within the competency 
of the sheikh to settle differences ; but his judgment has no 
corapelling power ; he cannol enforce it against the wil] of the 
parties and cannot order the sllghtest punìshment upon any 
members of the tribe. The family alone can bring pressure to 
bear on the members. Further, many tribes have, in additìon, 
a kSdl, as a sorc of judge of higher instance for graver cases ; 
for this office men distinguished by their keenness of judgment, 
love of juslice, and experìence in the affairs and customs of the 
tribe, are chosen. As a rule Ihe office of kàdt continues within 
the same faraily; but even his judgment is not compulsory, 
There is no executive authority provided for carrying it out. If 
in the last resort a problem proves so involved that not even the 
kàdl is ahle to solve it, nothing remains but to resort to the 
judgment of God (cp Burckhardt, Bem. 93^) 

As already remarked (§ 2), after the settlenient these 
elders in their character as heads of the locai conimun- 
ities {ziknè ha ir, T^n 'jpi) gradually acquired the powers 
of a governing body {cp GoVERNMENT, § 16). So far 
as their jurisdiction was concerned, this meant that as 
judges they acquired a certain executive power for 
carrying out their judgments. How soon this develop- 
ment took place, and with what modifications in detail, 
we do not know. Stories like tbose of the wise woman 
of Tekoa (2 S. I44/:) and of the trial of Nabotb (i K. 
21 a_^) prove the fact, at least for the period of the 
earlier monarchy. Dt. knows of the ' elders ' as an 
organised judicial institution. From the manner in 
which the funclion of judging is assigned to them in 
certain cases, it is clearly evident that the elders also had 
executive powers (cp esp. Dt. 19 12 21 2^ 22 15^). In 
this executive capacity they act as representing the 
eiuire body of the citizens ; this finds expression, m the 
case of death- penalty, in the faci ibat it is for the entire 
community to carry out the sentence (Dt. l?;)- A 
solilary exception is made in the punishment of murder ; 
even long after the unrestricted right of private revenge 
had been aboUshed, and trial of crimes against life had 
been brought within the competency of the regular 
courls, ibere survived a relic of the ancient deeply- 
rooted custom which gave the avenger of blood the 
right of personally carrying out the death sentence on 
the murderer (Di. 19i2). 

(a) Elders. — By inference from these facts we may 
safeiy conclude that the judges presupposed by the 
q T,j_ Book of the Covenanl were in the first 
° ' inslance the elders of the different localities 
— ali the more so as the judicial competency of these 
elders must in the earlier times have been stili more 
extensive than when the Book of the Covenanl was 
written. Singularly enough, the Book gives no sort of 
indication of the composition of the tribunal, the forms 




of process, and so forth — in this case also merely taking 
for graiited the continuance of long- estabi i shed custom. 
It may be permissible to hazard the conjecture that in con- 
neclion wìth thal dependenl telalion in which sometimes the 
ruial districts stood to the larger or meiropolitan cìties, th-e 
jurisdictLon of Lhe city would exleiid also over its ' daughters ' 
<EV 'suburbs' ; cp Nu. 21 25 32 42 Josh, 1823 28 17 n Judg. 11 ztì). 

As the passages cited above (§ 8) show, the juris- 
diction of the elders continued to subsist under the 

(/3) The King. — Alongside of the jurisdiction of the 
elders, however, and to some extent limiting it, there 
arose the jurisdiction of the king. 'l'he king was judge 
par excellence (cp Government, § 19). He constituted 
a kind of supreme tribunal to which appeal could be 
made where the jndgment of the elders seemed faulty 
(2 S. 144^ ). Moreover, it was also open to the litigant 
to resort to the king as first and only judge (2 S. \b2ff., 
2 K. 155), especially in difficult cases (i K. 3i6^ 
Dt. 179, see below [7]). Of this privilege of the king 
some portion passed over to his officers also, who 
administered the law in his name. Unfortunately we 
have nothing to show how the jurisdiction of these 
officers slood related to that of the elders in its detaìls, 
and whether (or how far) its range was limited. The 
same has to be said of the judicial activity of the priests. 
That they continued to possess judicial attributes is 
implied both by the Book of the Covenant and by 
Deuteronomy. Stili, on this point an impottant differ- 
ence between the two books is unmistakable. In 
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 228 [7]), as in theancient 
consuetudinary law, what is contemplated in cases of 
special perplexity is a divine decision, a torah of God 
to be obtained at the sanctuary ; God was the judge. 

(7) The Priests, — In Dt. on the other hand {\7gf. 
19 15^) ' the priests, thelevites," as judicial officers con- 
stitute a sort of spiritual college of justice : the cause is 
not decided by means of an oracle or divine judgment ; 
the priests carefuìly investigate the case ' just like 
other judges. The studious care with which the 
sanctity of Iheir judicial decisions is emphasised ( 17 10^. ) 
warrants the conjecture that the change is to be at- 
tributed to D, especially as, throughout, we are left with 
the impression that D has it in view to enlarge the juris- 
diction of the priests as wideiy as possible, at the 
expense of that of the elders. The elders retain 
within their competency only a limited class of offences. 

The offences in quescion are merely such matterà as affect in 
the first instance only the family — ason's disohedience (21 i&ff.\ 
slander spoken against a wife (22 13^), declinature of a levirate 
marriage (257j?C), manslaughter, and blood-revenge (19ii_^, 
21 !_#;). Into the last-cited passale (21 5) a later hand has 
introdiiced the priests as also takmg part in the proceed- 
ings ; ' for Ihem Yahwè thy God has chosen to minister unto 
hira, and to bless in lhe name of Vabwè ; and according to Iheir 
wo>d shall every controversy and every slroke be' — an interpo- 
lation which clearly shows in what direction lay the tendency 
of tbis legislation and its siibseqnenc development. That this 
studious effoit on the one side was viewed on the other with 
little favour is shown by the fact that iti the centrai ordinance 
relating to the judicial function of priests (178^) ' the judge' 
is by an intetpolatìon placed on a level wilh the piicsts. The 
simplest explanation is that it is the king who is ìntended bere 
and that the object was to save his supreme judicial authorily 
as against the pretensions of the Jerusalem piiesthood (cp the 
quite analogous interpolation of the judges in 19 1 ?_/;). 

The Chronicler carries back to Jehoshaphat the 
establishment of a supreme court of justice in Jenisalem 
and the appointment of professional judges in ali the 
cities (2 Ch. 194-11). 

Though not absolulely incredible, the statement is rendered 
(to say the least) somewhat improbable by the fact that in 
this supreme court the high priest is represented as hav- 
ing the presidency in ali spiritual, and the ' prince of the house 
of Judah ' in ali secular, causes (see Benzinger, Cotnm. on 2 Ch. 
19 ^ff-). Apart from this, however, Dt. certainly seems to know 
of the existence of the professional judges in the various cities 

Ezekiel and P continue to advance logically along the 
line laid down in D. In Ezekiel's ideal future state, in 
which the king is but a shadowy figure almost entirely 
divested of royal functions, judicial attributes arewholly 
assigned to the priests (Ezek. 4424). That P also 

assigns the administration of the law, not to the secular 

authority but to the piiests. is clear from the re presenta- 
tion of Chronicles according to which even David had 
appointed 6000 lévites as judges (i Ch. 284, 2629), 
This theory, however, was never fully carried out. 

In Ezra's time we meet, in the pcovincìal towns, with pro- 
fessional judges who are drawn not from the priestbood but from 
the ranks of the city elders (Ezra 725, 10 14). There were 
similar locai couits throughout the country during the Greek 
and Roman periods (Judith 6 16 etc. ; Jos. BJ ii. 24 i ; Shlbl- 
'uh. 10 4, Sdtà I3, Sanh. II4; in Mt.522 10 17 Mk. 189, it is to 
these loca! synedria that refetence is made). In localilìes of 
minor importance it was certainly by the councii of the elders 
(cp Lk. 73), the ^ouAq, that judicial functions were exercised (cp 

Ìos., /.<;.); in the large lowns no doubt there may also have 
een, over and above, special courts. In later times the rule 
was that the smallest locai tribunal had .seven members (cp 
Government, § 3r ; also Schurer, G[^/2ij-jy.). In large 
cenlres there were courts with as many as twenty-thiee members ; 
but in these, in Certain cases (such as actions for debt, theft, 
bodily injuiy, etc.) th ree judges foimed zi quoium (San ^. 1 1, 2, 3, 
2i). In certain cases priests had to be called in as judges 
(.S'ahA. I3). On the great Sanhedrìn and its jurisdiction see 
Government, § 31. 

Judicial procedure was at ali times exceedingly simple. 
In an open place (Judg. 4s i S. 226), or under the 
_ .- . , shadow of the city gate, the judges took 
10. JUmCiai j^gjj. ggg^ (Dt. 2119 22is 257 Am. 61215 
proceauxe. ^y 4, g^c.). In Jerusalem SolomOQ 
erected a "porch," or hall, of judgment, for his own 
royal court of justice (kb3.t dVik. i K. 7 7). PlaintifF 
and defendant appeared personally, each for his own 
case (Dt. 175 2I20 25i); on a charge being made 
the judge could cali for the appearance of the accused 
(Dt. 258). Such an institution as that of a public 
prosecutor was unknown ; the state or the community 
in no case overstepped its judicial functions. In every 
case it was for the aggrieved or injured person to bring 
forward his complaint if he desired satisfaction. He 
also had it in his choice, however, to resort to the 
method of private arrangement, and refrain from coming 
before the court ; in this event, the matter was at an 
end, for no one else had an interest in bringing it into 
court. When there is no complainant there is no judge. 
The 'daysman' is mentioned only in Job 9 33 (n'3'iD}. 

The proceedings were as a rule by word of mouth, 
though in later times vvritten accusations also seem to 
have been known (Job 31 35/. ). The chief method of 
proof was by the testimony of witnesses. The father, 
indeed, who brought a stubborn and rebellious son 
before the judge needed no such support (L>i.21i8jf.) ; 
but in ali other cases the law invariably demanded the 
concurrent testimony of at least two persons ; on the 
word of only one witness a crime could in no circum- 
stances be held as proven, stili less any death-sentence 
pronounced (Dt. 17 6 19 15 Nu. 8630 Mk. 14 56^ 
Mt. 2660). According to Talmudic law (Sh/èuòtk 30^ ; 
Bdlid Kammà SSu ; cp Jos. Ant. iv. 815) only free 
men of full age were capable of bearing witness ; women 
and slaves were incapacitated — a rule, doubtless, in ac- 
cordance with ancient custom, although the OT is silent 
on the subject. Whether the adjuration of witnesses 
which is alluded to in general terms in P (Lev. 5i) was 
an ancient practice, we cannot say. A false witness was 
punished, according to the jus talìonis, by the infliction 
of the precise kind of evil he had intended to bring 
upon his victim by his falsehood (Dt. 19i8_^). The 
warnings so frequently repeated {as in Ex. 23i 20i6), 
such stories as that of Naboth (i K.. 21). and the 
remonstrances of the prophets, show that the evil of false 
testimony was by no means rare. 

Where, from the nature of the case, witnesses were not to be 
had, the accused was put upon his oath (Ex. 22 6-11 17-12]). In 
specially obscure cases God was looUed to for the discovery of 
the guilty party (Ex.228[7] iS.144oy; Josh.ri4). The only 
trace remaining in the later law of a divine ordeal (see 
Jealousy, Thiat, of)ìs in the case of a wife accused of adujtery 
(Nu.5ir^). Torture, as a means of oblaining confessions, 
was not employed ; the Herodian dynasty — by whom it was 
. empioyed freely— seem to have been the first to biing it into 
use (Jos. BJ i. 30 2-5). 

Judgment, in the earlier times pronounced orally, but 



Inter occasioiially given in writing (Job 13z6}, wcis as a 
rulli carricd oui forthwith in prcsence of the judge 
(Dt. 22iS 202); in case of a capital sentence the 
witnesses were required to be the first to set about ils 
execution, and the wliole coniinunity was expected to 
take an active part (Dt. l/?). 

Tbough in the paragraphs that follow. the various 
laws are airanged according to their subslance, it must 
frorn the omset be clearly borne in mind that the 
ancient law of the Hebrews does not admit of dose 
correlation with the Roman or with. the modem systems 
based on the Roman, and in particular ihat the sharp 
distJnction between penai and private law by which 
these last were characterised does not admit of being 
Iransferred to the former. One of the most strikiiig 
iUustrations of this is to be found in the manner in 
which theft is regarded by Hebrew law. 

\\\ tiebrew law the dominant principle is the j:is 
lalionis^' an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ' 

n Penai law '^''' ^^ ^**' '^° ""<^^'"^*^"<i ^'^'^ 
, T . ,. . properly, it has to be borne in mind 
and Jus talioms. f, 5 - ., i- , . e a 

that, in the earhest stage of de- 

velopment which has been described above, a principle 

of this kind had its applicabiiity not as a norm for 

penaUies to be judicially inflicted, but only as regulative 

of private vengeance. Il is for the individuai himself 

to pursue his rights ; by universal ciistom he is entitled 

to do to the aggressor exactly what the aggressor has 

done to him. In particular. in the most serious case of 

al!, that of murder, the blood- relation not only has the 

right, but is under the sacred duty. to avenge the deed. 

In s:i-vage stages of society the demand for vengeance 

ìs held to be the most righteous and sacred of ali 

feelitigs ; the man who does noi exact vengeance is 

devoid of honour. 

An uiiqua])fied_?W talionìs makes endless every affair 
where it has once been introduced. This appears most 
clearly in biood-revenge. Naturally, therefore. ìn the 
early stage of legai development now under considera- 
tion, when the affair is held to concern private in- 
dividuals only, the injured party has also the righi lo 
come lo some other arrangement with the aggressor 
and accept compensalion in the shape of money or ils 
equivalent (cp the law of the Twelve Tables : si tnem- 
bruirt- ruit, ni cutn eo paicit ialio esto). It was a great 
forward step which the Israehtes made — doubtless 
before they look possession of western Palestine — when 
compensalion of this kind was allowed to take the 
place of revenge pure and simple. In doing so 
they took the most essenlial first step towards the 
substitution of public criminal law for private revenge. 
Compensation cannot for long wilhdraw itself from the 
control of general custom, and then Ihere gradually 
Comes ìnlo existence a cerlain definite scale in accord- 
ance with which such matters are adjusted (cp E.';. 21 sa). 
At an early period Hebrcw custom seems to have 
demanded such a mode of settlement for every kind of 
bodily injury (Ex. 21 18) ; but the eadier usage did not 
sanclion the acceptance of blood-wit. except in the one 
case of accidental homicide (Ex. 21 30). 

Pena! !aw, in the strici sense of the expression, 
constitutes a third stage, its distiiìctive featuT-e being 
that the duty of revenge is taken over from the in- 
dividuai by society at large. Revenge now hecomes 
punishnient, that which regulates it is the general interest 
of the community at large. Custom, and afterwards 
statute, determine the kind and measure of the penalty ; 
the leaders of the society, the conslituted authorilies, 
take in hand the duty of seeing it carried out. 

In the ancient Hebrew view of the matter, however, 
the object of punishnient is not completely altained, 
even when the ideas of retribution and of compensation 
have found expression. Grave crimes, and specially 
murder, defde the land ; the guilt lies upon the entire 
people (cp 2 S. 21 24). The blood of the slayer alone 
can appease the divine wrath and cleanse the land 

88 2721 


(Xu. 3533 ; cp 2 S. 21). Evil has to be removed from 
the midst of the people by means of punishment (Dt. 

In tilose connection with Ihe thought of the Iransmissibility of 
guilt, is the idea which makes children, m particular, specially 
liable foi ihe crimes uf their fathers. Even the regularly con- 
stituted courts of justìce, in specially grave cases, punish 
ca.pitally the children along with their fatliers (z K. 9 26 Josh. 
7 24). In a special degree is blood-guÌltine5S hereditary ; if the 
avenger of blood cannot lay hold on the murderer liimself, he 
cali lay hold on his famlly- The custom is the same among ihe 
Bedouins lo ihìs day. In legai practice ic is not abolished dil 
Dt. (24,6). 

In the law the only recognised form of capital 
punishment is by stoning. In such instances as we 

12. MethodB Of ^^^ *" '^-^'^ 2K.107^5 Jer.26.3. 

p utii g h-m PTif. 

etc. , we are not dealing with punish- 

ments awarded by a court of law. In 
the priestly law, and doubtless also by ancient custom, 
the death-penally was enhanced. in cerlain cases by the 
burning or 'hangìng' (more correctly, impalement) of 
the body, by which the criminal was deprived of the 
privileges of burial (Lev. 20 14 21 9 Dt. 21 22 ; cp Josh. 
725). Dt. bere again has a miiigating lendency, en- 
joining, as it does, the burial of the body that has been 
'hanged,' before sundown. 

As to the manner in which sloning was carried out we have 
no details ; it occurred wiihonc the city (Lev. 34i4 Nn. 1636 

1 K. 21 toff., etc.) ; it fell to the witnesses to cast the first sCone 
(1)1. 177). According to Gen. 38 24, execution of the death- 
penalty by burning seems also to have been customary in Israel. 
Crucifixion — ' crudelissìmum teterriniumque supplicium' (Cic. 
Verr. 5 64)— was first introduced into Palestine by the Roinans ; 
see, further, Cross, and cp, generally, Hangìng. 

The first express mentioii of beatJng with rods or 
scourging as a punishnient occurs in Di. (25 1-3) ; but 
unfortunately we are not told what were the cases m 
which the judge was permitled or required to award il, 
except in the single instante described in Dt. 22i3_^ 
(unjust charge against a newly-married bride). The 
manner of carrying il out Ìs also described, ' the judge 
shall cause [the culprit] to lie down, and to be beaten 
before his face' (Dt. 252); noi more than forty stripes 
may be given. The later interpreters of the law limited 
the number to ' forty save one' (2 Cor. 11 24, Jos. Ant. 
iv. 821 23), doubtless so as to avoid a breach of the law 
by an accidental error in reckoning, but perhaps also 
because in the late period there was substituted for the 
rod a three-thonged scourge, with which thirleen strokes 
were given. 

The money penakies known to the law are veally of 
the nature of compensations, not strictly punishments 
{cp Confiscation). On the other hand, in 2 K. 12 16 
[17], we read of trespass money and sin money which 
belonged to the priests ; but for what offences these 
moneys were to be paid we do not know ; probably they 
were fines for breaches of ritual. 

Of penai restraints upon freedom neither ancient 
consuetudinary law iior written statute knows anything. 
On the other hand, however, we have in the historical 
books frequent mention of imprisonment, stocks and 
' shackles,' or ' collars ' (cp Com.ab, 3), as tnethods by 
which kings sought lo discipline disobedient servanls or 
dangerous persons like the prophets (Jer. 20 2 29 26 

2 Ch. 111101825/^) ; and imprisonment certainly appears 
in post-exilic tìmes as a legai form of punishment lo be 
awarded by the judge (Ezra726). See Prison. 

From the modem point of view it is a strikmg fact that the 
Hebrew legislation regards no punishments as involving dis- 
grace. In Dt. 25 3 the punishment by beating is expressly 
restrained within certain limits lest ' thy brother shouid seem 
vile unto thee.' The ancient Israelite, like the modem Orienta!, 
dìffered eniirely from us modem.'; in his conceplion of personal 
honour ; murder and homicide, adultery and unchastity, false- 
tiood and treachery are in his view matters which do not greatly 
aflect a man's honour, even when they have been detected and 

In details the penai enactments which have been pre- 

served are very meagre and defective. 

In cases of manslaughler, as we have 

13. Degrees of 


seen, blood revenge was a sacred duty 

in the olden lime. 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, 


by man shall his blood tw shed ' (Gen. 95/. ) was at ali 
times regarded as a divine principle ; the duty of 
blood revenge belongs to the nearesl relation, the Goel 
(^.v.). In principle the right to such revenge is every- 
where recognised also by the law (Dt. 19i-i3 Nu. 
35i6-at). Stili, the transition to a more settied and 
orderly condition of society entaiied the result (among 
others), that the superior authorily. as soon as there 
began to be such an authority, took blood vcngeance also 
into its own hand. and thus converted it into a death 
penalty {2 S. 144^). It would appear, however, that 
in pre-ejci!ic times it never sueceeded in wholly sup- 
pressing private vengeance. The most important re- 
striction of it lay in the distinction now made between 
murder and manslaughter. Even the Book of the 
Covenant distingnished the case in which a man ' carne 
presi! mptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with 
guile,' and that in whìch he * lay not in wait but God 
did deliver him (his adversary) into his hand ' (Ex. 
21 12^). It also recognised within certain limits the 
rights of an owner in defending his property {Ex. 22z/'. 
[i/]). Similarly. in Dt. (I911-13), in a case of violent 
death a man's known hatred of his adversary is taken 
as evidente of murderous intention, P gives the dis- 
tinctive features of murder with more precision and 
Eomewhat differently ; murder is presumed not only 
where hatred and enmity, or lying in wait, can be 
proved, but also where a lethal weapon has been used 
with fatai cffect, From the dangerous character of the 
weapon, murderous intention is inferred (Nu. 35i6^). 
In the case of murder ali forms of the law allow free 
course to blood- revenge, that is to say, the death- 
penalty is ordercd, and that with the express injunction 
that a composition by payment of blood-wit is not to be 
permitted (Nu. 353i). The manslayer, on the other. 
hand, enjoys the right of asylnm ; see Asylum. 

In ancienc times the right of asylum prevailed at everysancluary 
(Ex. 21 14). Theabolitlon by D of the sanctuaries scaLtered over 
the country made necessary the setting apart of special cilies 
of refuge, of which D names thrce for Judah, P three for E. 
Palestine and W. Palestine respectively (Nu. 35 11 ji^ Dt. 441^). 
In the earlier period the right of asylum belonging to the sanc- 
tuaries had doubtless been unlimited. Stili, even the Book of the 
Covenant, and afterwards D, assume, what P expressly ordains 
(Ex. 31 14), that inquiry is to be made whether the case is one of 
murder or of manslaughter. If it ìs found to be murder, 
the city of refuge must relentlessly give up the murderer to the 
avenger(Ex. 21»4 Dt.Wicjf. Nu. 35 11^). For manslaughter 
an amnesty ac the death of tbe high was introduced in 
post-exilic times (Nu. 3525). Formerly, according to P, there 
was no such relief; if evcr the manslayer left the tertitory 
of the city of refuge, he waa at the mercy of the avenger (Nu. 

In the case of bodily injuries, also, the law permits 
the application of ialio only where intention is to be 
presumed. In injuries inflicted in course of a quarre!, 
for example, the Book of the Covenant provides that 
the aggressor shall only defray the expenses incurred 
and compensate the injured person for his loss of time 
{Ex. 21i3^). For another particular case of injury 
which may be met by a fine, see F.x, 21 az. 

The enactments relati ng to certain gross offences 
against moralityare charactetistic (cp Marriage, § ^), 
The penalty is death (Lev. 20ioj^ Ex. 22i8[2o]) in each 
case, as also for the offence specified in Lev. 20 18. In 
cases of adultery the injured husband had at ali times 
the right to slay the unfaìthful spouse and take venge- 
ance on her seducer. Dt. catcgorically demands on 
religious grounds the death of both. Only where 
violence can be presumed is the woman exempted {Dt. 


On the other hand the seduction of an unbetroched maid was 
regarded as a damage to property, affecting her family, and as 
sucb was dealt with on the principles of private law (Ex. 22 15 [16] 
Dt. 22 26 y^). That the father in such a case was at liberty to 
exercise very .slringent legai rights is shown by Gen. 38. 
According to P (Lev. 21 9) only priesls' daughters were liable to 
punishment — that of death — in these cases. (Cp MAKKrAGE, 
§§ 4, 6). 

That offences against religion carne in the fullest sense 
under the cognisance of the law has been mentioncd 



above (§ i), also the reasons for that being so. Idolalry 
and witchcraft are already made punishable with death 
in the Book of the Covenant (Ex.22i82o [1719]). In 
this respect Dt. is exceptìonally strict ; even solicitation 
to the worship of strange gods is a capital offence 
(137-16). Finally, P places every deliberate transgression 
of any religious ordinance, such as breach of the sabbath, 
or the like, on a level with the crime of blasphemy, 
which carries with it the penalty of being ' cut off ' from 
one's people (Lev.24i5). 

To private law belong personal rights and the laws 
affecting property, bonds and obligations, inheritance 
14 PerBona.1 '^""^ marriage. Inheritance and marriage 
are dealt with elsewhere (see Marriage, 


§§x, 7, andcpbelow, § 18). In harmony 

with the unanimous view of the ancien! world, only 
the adult free male member of the community^ capable 
therefore of hearing arms and of carrying out blood 
revenge — -was regarded as invested with full legai rights. 

{a) Sons and daughters. — The son noi yet grown up 
and the unmarried daughter are completely under the 
power of the father, as also are the married woman and 
the slave. Lists of fully qualified citizens appear to 
have been drawn up from a tolerably early date ; the 
image of the ' book of life,' already employed by J (Ex. 
3232 ; cp Is. 43), would seem to be derived from this 
practice. though express evidence regarding it is not 
forthcoming tiU later (Jer. 2230 Ezek. I39 Neh. 7564 
1222 f.\ The fact that at a later period the twentieth 
year was taken as the age of majority and fitness to 
bear arms (Nu. I3 Lev. 273^), affords some ground 
for inferring that a similar mie held good for the 
earlier times also ; but it must not be forgotten that 
under the patriarchal tribal constitution the indepen- 
dence even of grown-up sons is only relative. The 
originai significance of circumcision as an act denoting 
the attainment of the privileges of full age is treated of 
elsewhere (see Circumcision, § 5). Women appear 
to have been universally and in every respect regarded 
as minors so far as rights of property went ; at least, 
apart from female slaves, they hold no property that 
they can deal with as they please. They are incapable 
of hearing testimony before a court of justice (see above, 
§ io). See further F.\Mii-Y, Marriage, Si.avery. 

{b) Strangers and foreigners. — -In the case of aìiens 
distinction must be made between the gir (13) and the 
tiQkrì (j''\-jÌ). (See Stkanger and Sojoukner.) The 
word «OiÉrf denotes the alien Who stands in no relationship 
of protection towards any Israelite tribe. A person in 
this category would as a rule make but a brief sojourn 
in the land ; in cases when a longer residence was con- 
templated application would naturally be made for 
tribal protection. The nokri in any case of course 
enjoyed the ordinary rights of hospitality, which means 
a great deal, great sanctity attaching to the rights of 
guests. Apart from this, however, he simply has no 
rights at ali (cp Gen. 31 15 JoblOis) ; the very laws in 
the humane legi.slaìion of D which contemplate the case 
of the poor and the depresscd in the social scale — the 
law of remission in the seventh year, the law against 
usury, and the like — never once have any application to 
him (Dt. 153 23 2o[2i]). It is quite otherwise, however, 
with the^^^ — i.e., the alien to the people or to the tribe 
{for the older period what applies to the people applies 
to the tribe ^) who has been received within the territory 
of one of the tribes or of the nation as a whole, has 
efiected a settlement there, and acquired the status of a 
protected person. Such a^^/"stood under the protection 
of the tribal god, and enjoyed, among the Hebrews, not 
indeed the full privileges of a citizen, yet, in comparìson 
with what was obtainable among other peoples, a high 
degree of immunity and protection. In particular his 
position had this advantage, that it greatly prepared 

1 A non-Judahite Levile is within the tribe of Judah as niuch 
a^^^as is the Canaanite ; cp Judg. 17 7. 




the way for complete incorporation with the tribe. In 
the older tìnie he had the rìght of connubium ; it was 
in this way that the Canaanites were gradually absorbed 
{see Marriage, § 2). 

The cliildren of a marriage between a gèr and an Israelitess 
were regarded as entitled to full l^raelils privileges (cp i Ch. 
217); in ihe case of the children of an Israelite by a foreign 
wife this was, as mighc be expei;ted, a tiiatter of course (cp for 
example Boaz and Ruth). It was otherwise, indeed, when the 
case was not that of an alien settling as gir in the country or 
Diarryìng info it, bui of a foreìgner who stili maintained the tie 
with his own people and who was foUowed by his wife to his 
home ; Hiram the artificer was regarded as a Tyrian although 
his motber was a Naphtalìte ; she had foUowed her hiisband to 
bis native land and thereby had come under the proteccion of 
the Tyrian5(i K. 7 13^^)- The converse case is that of Samson's 
marriage, which, however, has an exceptional character (see 
KiNsifU', 8 B) ; here the Philistine woman remains in her 
own home and is only visited from lime to time by ber busband ; 
in such circumstances the children of the union wouid not bave 
been regarded as Israelites (Judg. 14 IS i/.). 

From what has been said as to the meaning of cir- 
cumcision (see Circumcision, § 5} it seems doubtful 
whether tmcircutncised gerirn also had the right of 
connubium. In general, the Book of the Covenant 
enjoined that \ht gcr was not to be treated with violence 
(Ex, 2221 [20] 239), and, as we gather from the context, 
was above ali to be secured. without any partiality, in 
his full rights as a protected stranger before the courts 
of law. On the other hand the ger — apart from the 
Canaanites, who naturally formed an exceplion here — ■ 
was manifestly excluded from the rìght of acquiring 
herilable property withìn the territory of the tribes of 
Israel (cp Mic.2s Is.22i5 Ezek.4722, where the per- 
mission to do so is brought in as an innovation). 

D renews in a great variety of forms the injunction 
to treat the stranger (who is placed upon a level with 
Ihe Levile, the widow, and the orphan) humanely and 
kindly (10 18 14 29 24t4 ig^), to admit him to participa- 
tion in the general gladness at festal times (614 16 n^}, 
nnd not to pervert his right (24 17 27 19). Just because 
the stranger, as such, occupies an inferior posidon he 
haS a doublé necd for love (10 19 26i-ii). On the Other 
hand his position in D is altered for the worse in this 
respect that the right of connubium is taken away (Dt. 
7i^ 233 Ulf- Kx. 34is/), and undcniably forD the 
gèr and stili more the ngkrl ocoupy a lower position 
in the scale of huraanity (cp Dt. I421). In ali this il is 
regarded as a matter of course that the gir shall in a 
certain sense at least accommodate himself to the religion 
of his protectors (Ex. 23i2 20io Dt. 5i4 16i!_^ 26ii 
31 12). Stili, even in this respect the older times 
demanded but little ; he might even keep up his own 
sacra (cp i K. W-j f. 1631); moreover, he need not 
obscrve the rule with regard to clean and unclean meats 

P carries its demands upon the gèr much farther ; he 
is required to shun idolatry, the eating of blood or that 
which is torn, and in general everything that as an 
'abomination' could defile the Israelite (Lev. 178 io_^ 15 
I8262O2 Nu. I910-12; cpDt. 1421). 

Not only is he obliged to observe the sabbath and permitled 
IO share in the feast of the ingathering, he is also under oblìga- 
t[on to fast with the Israelites on the day of atonemenc (Lev. 
16 2g), may not eat any leaven in the passover week (Ex. 12 io ; 
the feast itself be is precluded from jolning in, unless he be 
circumcised), must tnake atonement for ali transgressions of the 
law exactly as Israelites do (Nu. 15 r4 26 29), and in general keep 
holy the name of Yahwè (Lev. 94 le) — ali this in the interests of 
Israel, that there be no sin among ibe people. 

On the other hand the gér enjoys the fullest protection 
in the eye of the !aw ; not only are the protective in- 
junctions of D renewed [Lev. lég/. cp 2322 256), but 
also equal rights before the jurfgment seat are expressly 
secured to him (Lev, 24 22 Nu. 35 15), an essential 
advance on the mere appeal to humanity contained in 
the older laws. The points in which his privileges stili 
fall short of those of the full citizen are mainly two : he 
is excliided from the worship properly so-called — e.g. , 
from the Passover (Ex. I247/.}, perhaps also from the 


Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 2842)— and is denied the 
right of connubium (Ezra9 t/^ ii ff. 102^). 

Botti privileges are obtaìnable only on condition that he re- 
ceives circumcision, that ìs to say, becomes fully incorporated with 
the commonwealth of Israel (Ex. 1247^^ Nu. 9 14 Gen.S4i4). 
Further, the acquisition of landed property is rendered impo.ssible 
lo him by the operation of the law of the year of jubilee (see 
below, § 15). Finally, no^frcan own an Israelite slave. Should 
it ever come about that an Israelite comes under the power of a 
gir on account of debt, the latter is bound to treat him not as a 
slave, but as a free labourer, and the relations of the debtcr 
retain at ali times the right to redeem him (Lev. 25 47 j?^). 

Thus the^er Ìs by no means treated as on a complete 
equality with the Israelite. 

The laws concerning property, so far as they bave 
come down to us, relate to the disposai of real and 
movable estate, borrowing and lending, bonds and 

Buying and sellivg\n ancient Israel were transacted 

in very simple fashion, and the various questions arising 

„ . out of error, fraud, or over-reaching 

' 11' seldom if ever arose. Israel was not at 

°' this period a commercial people. 

Ceriain formalities in the more important transactions 
of buying and seJling, especially in the transfer of land, 
became customary and obligatory from an early period. 
The simplest and most ancient of ali, doubtless, was 
that which required that the purchase should take place 
in the presence of witnesses (cp Gen. 237-20}. Trans- 
actions of this kind (as of every other kind) might be 
further ratified by oath and gift. 

The first mention of a formai deed of .sale occurs in the time 
of Jeremiah (Jer. 326^) ; according to the sinjplest interpreta- 
tion of the passage it was executed in duplicate, one copy being 
sealed and the other open, both copies being handed over for 
preservation to the custody of a third party (otherwise Slade in 
ZA 7'M^5i76[iS85]). In the case of such a document witnesses 
and signatures would of course not be lacking. From jer. 3244 
we can see that in the time of Jeremiah ihe execution of a 
written deed was usuai where transfer of land was concerncd. 

Another ancient custom is met with in the Book of 
Ruth (47); the seller gave his shoe to the buyer in 
token of his divcsting himself of his tight of ownership 
over the object sold. In connection with this is to be 
interpreted the expression in Ps. 608 [10] (cp IO89 [io]), 
where 'casting one's shoe' over a thing signifìes the 
act of taking possession (see Shoes, § 4). 

The same symbolical action carne imo use (Dt. 25 9) in cases 
where a levirate marriage was <3e<:lined^ — a declinalure practically 
equivalent to renunciation of right of inheritance. Tbe originai 
meaning of tbe ceremony is no longer clear to us ", nor (io we 
know whether it was regularly observed, orforbow long a period; 
the wriler of Ruth knows it only as an archéeo logicai fact. 

A limit was set to the free disposai of property by 
the dmies of piety which a person owed to his ancestors. 
To ancestral land the Israelite — like any other peasant 
proprietor — ■ felt himself bound by the closest ties. 
The paternal property was sacred ; there, often, the 
father was buried, and children and children's children 
were expected also to be laid there (i K.2I3). It 
:s in this fact that we are to seek the explanation of 
the provislons regarding the right of redemption that 
acted as a check upon the right of free sale, Ancient 
elisioni from an early date had given the kinsmaii 
(lawful heir?) a right of pre-emption and also of buy- 
ing back (Jer. 32 dff. ). A legai enactment on this 
subject, it is true, does not occur earlier than in P 
(Lev. 2525/^ ). It is open lo question whether the right 
of repurchase there conferred upon the proprietor himself 
rests upon ancient legai ctislom ; the enaciment in P 
stands most intimatcly connected with the year of jubilee. 
The right is unlimited as regards holdings or houses in 
the country; but in the case of houses in walled towns 
it lapses in the course of a year (Lev, 25=9^. ). This 
also may wcll have been in accordance with the ancient 
practice. On the other hand, the regulation according 
lo which ali rea! property which has been sold (houses 
in towns alone excepted) shall revert again to the old 
proprietor at the year of jubilee cccurrìng every fiftieth 
year (see Jubilee), and without compensation (Lev. 
25i3^), belongs to the theory peculiar to P. The 



effect of course is lo convert evety purchase into a lease 
nicrely, of fifty years at tlie longesl. 

Borrowing and knding.—ìl^Te also down to the 
posc-exilic period the provisions of the law indicate 
16 Borrowine ^""^^^ simplicity in the relations of 

and lendina- debtors and creditors. Even D con- 
^' tenipiatcs only ihose cases in which 
indebtedness of one Israelite to another is the result of 
individuai poverty ; it knows noihing of any l^ind of 
credit system such as necessarily springs up with the 
development of commerce. Thìs fact must never be 
lost sight of, if we are to nnderstand the old laws, 
which do not admìt of application to the circumstanccs 
of commerce and of which the manifest object is simply 
to protect the poor debtor against the oppression of a 
tyrannical creditor (cp Pleuge). 

The old consuetudinary law took for granted that the 
creditor wouid seek sccurity by exacting a pledge. 
In this case he was prohibited by ancient custom from 
detaining the outer garment of the nee<Jy debtor after 
sundown. thìs garment being practically his only 
covering (Ex. 3225 [25]). Moreover, propriety forbade 
the exaction of usury from a fellow Israelite (nothing, 
however, is said as to any distinction between legitimate 
and usurious interest [Ex. 22 35 {34}] ; the clause, ' ye 
shall exact no usury of him ' is a later gloss in the sense 
of D ; cp We. CH gz). The debtor who was unable 
to meet his oblìgations was liable not only to the 
utmost limit of his property, but also in his own person 
and in the persons of his famìly ; the creditor could seìl 
themasslaves (2 K. 4i Neh. 556 Is. 50 1). In the Book 
of the Covenant, however, it is already provided that 
an enslaved debtor and his belongings shail be released 
in the seventh year of his enslavement — a provision that 
amounts to a remission of the remaining debt (Ex. 21 27). 
That these humane regulations were unsuccessful in 
the attainment of their object is shown by the Constant 
complaint of the prophels who, with one voice, reproach 
the rich for their hardness in dealing wilh their debtors. 
In f«\l sympalhy with the prophelic spirit, D accordingly 
made the regulations more stringent. 

The prohibitiort against taking the mantle ìn pledge was ex- 
tended with great practtcal judgnient so as to inclufle ali indis- 
pensable neces.saries (24613 17). In no case is the creditor to 
make selectioii of the pledge that suits him in the house of the 
debtor ; he must take the pledge the latter chooses (24 io/.). 
The prohibition of usury is .so extended as to forbid interest 
of any kind. So far as fellow-lsraelites are concerned there is 
no distinction between u.sury and interest (Dt. 23 19 [aojy:, cp 
Ezek. 18 15^). In the case of the foreigner, on the other haud, 
the taking of usury is allowed. 

The law rclating to re\easing enslaved debtors was 
extended by D so as to enjoin the remission of every 
debt in the seventh year (Di. 15i_^; cp especially 
■V. 9 which niakes it impossible to interpret the law [with 
Ui.] as meaning merely that repayment ot the debt is 
postponed for a year). That the law was thoroughly 
unpraclical indeed, and that, striclly carried out, it 
wouid put a speedy end to ali lending whatever, the 
framer himself shows that he is more or less aware ; 
hence his urgent appeal to the benevolence of his com- 
patriots : Beware that there be not a base thought ia 
thine heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, 
is at hand ; and thine eye be evil against thy poor 
brother, and thou give him nought ' {v. 9, cp the cold 
comfort of v. n). With ihese exhortations Ezek. 18s/ 
may be compared. It is not to be wondered at that 
preccpts so impracticable in many parts should bave 
had no very great result (cp Jer. 348^). The Jews 
of later times understood very well how to evade them; 
the famous Hillel is credited wilh the invention of the 
frosbul — -viz. , a proviso set forth in presence of the 
judge whereby the creditor secured the righi of demand- 
ing repayment at any lime irrespective of the occurrence 
of the year of remission. 

The regulations of the Prlestly code were, broadly 
speaking, as unpractical as ihose we bave been con- 
sid ering. 



The proliibhion of usury remains in force {Lev. 2635^). 
The selling uf the debtor into slavety is [.•ermiited, but mitigated 
by the injunclion that his master must treat him as if he were a 
free labourer for wages. The emancipation is no longer fixed 
for the seventh year of slaveiy, but, in cor respond enee with the 
wholescheme of P, is postponed to the yf:ar of jubilee, recurring 
every fifty years. In this year also ali real property that has 
been sold reveits lo the family to whose jnheritance it originally 
belonged. This on the one hand guards against ihe unfortunate 
possibility of the libeiated slave finding himself in a state of 
destitution ; but on the other hand the postponement to (he 
iiftieth yiar inakes the whole provision illusory so far as many 
of the enMaved are concetned. Another law, this, which never 
gai ned a petmanent footing. 

Of siJretyship the law has nothing lo say. That 
such a thing was known and that it had Icd to some 
disaslrous experiences, is shown by certain of the pro- 
verbs, which are so pointedly directed against it (Prov. 
6./: 22^6/). 

Compensation for damage to property. — In the Book 
of the Covenant the ruling principle for this is that 
17 Dajnaeea lì^ilit^yaUachesontyto the party whose 
° ' culpability (whelher intentional or un- 
inlentioiial) can be proved, or legally presumed. Such 
culpability attaches, to begìn wilh. very clcarly in 'cases 
of deliberate injury, especially in that of theft. If it is 
sought to apply to Hebrew law the distinction made in 
the Civil Law between private law and penai law, theft 
falls tinder the fornier category ; this appears from ihe 
faci that it eslablishes a claim to compensation only, 
and is not liable lo punishmeni as a crime. Al most. 
the compensation exacted assutned a penai character 
only in so far as by ancient consuetudinary law its 
amounl had to exceed the vaine of what had been stolen 
(doublé, for money ; fourfold for sheep, fìvefold for 
cattle ; see Ex. 21 37 [22 1] 22 3 [2] 6 [5]). 

If the thief cannot be detected with certainty the party 
found guilty (in cases where two I.sraelites are concerned) after 
appeal lo God (èlohlni) by the lot must pay doublé to the other 
(Ex. 228 [7]^). In cases of unintentional damage, however, 
compensation was also exigible wherever gross carelessness 
could be proved, as, for example, where a water-pit had been 
left open and a neìghbour's beast had faMen into it (Ex. 21 33), 
or where cattle left at large had wrought havoc in a cullivated 
field (Ex. 22 s [4]), or where a goring ox had done any mischief 
(Ex. 21 33 36), or when cattle had been stolen from a careless 
herdsman (Ex. 22 11 Ilo]); cp on the other hand 71. 12 [11] ; see 
Deposit. Olher inslances are ^iven in Ex. 226[5l I4[i3]. On 
the olher hand where no culpability can be made out, there is no 
obligalion to compensate, as for example where moneys etitrusted 
have been stolen from the costodtan (Ex. 22 ^\(!\y.\ where a 
domestic animai has been torn by wild beasi 5 (22io|9ly; i3[iz]); 
cp also 22 14 [13] with 22 15 [14] 21 35 with 21 36- On these poi nis 
D has not any more definite enaclmenls. 

The occasionai references in P are in agreement with 
the mildness of the ancient law. Whoever has em- 
bezz\ed, or stoìen, or appropriated lost property is 
mildly dealt with if he voluntarily confesses his fault ; 
he must restore what he has unlawfuUy appropriated 
and pay a fìflh of the vaine, over and above, as a fine 
(Lev. 24(8 21 520-24 [61-5]}. 

The righi of inheritance among the Israelites belonged 
only to agnates- — the only relations in the strici sense 
IS Tnherit '^^ *''^ word^the wife's relations belong 
' lo a different family or evcn to a different 

tribe. Only sons, not daughters, stili 
less wive5, can inherit. There are tvaces to show that in 
the earliest times the wives, as the property of the man, 
fell to his heir along with the rest of his estate — a custom 
which among the Arabs continued to hold even to 
Mohammcd's lime (cp 2 S. I621/. i K. 2i3i?! 2 S. Sy/^; 
alsoGen. 493_/ cpSSaa; the whole institution of levirato 
marriages probably finds its explanalion bere) ; cp 
MarriaGK, § 7, KiNSHiP, § IO. The law of inherit- 
ance, as just stated, appears to have been common lo 
ali the Semites (WRS, Kin. 54, 264I, in this respect 
differing in an inipoitanl point from that of Rome, 
which otherwise was also one of agnates ; in Roman 
law al least daughters stili remaining under the paternal 
roof could inherit. Stade (GVI \y^ff.) deduces the 
custom, so far as Israel is concerned, from the anceslor- 
worship which anciently prevailed there ; he alone could 
inherit who was capable of carrying on the cult of the 




person from whoni he inherited. It seenis preferable, 
however, with Robertson Smith (/.<:.} io seek the ex- 
plann.tion in the i;onnection betweeii inheritance and 
the duty of blood revenge. Among other Semiiic 
peoples ali on whom this duty lay had also, originally. 
the righi of inheriiance. In OH Gerinan law likewise 
the two were intiinalely connected. 

Among the soiis, ancien! cuslom gave to the firstborn 
{i.e., to the eldt-st son of the father) a doublé portion 
(Dt. 21 i; ; cp Fjrstborn), It was indeed always 
possible fur the father to deprive the eldest son of this 
birthright and bestow it upon a younger son {cp Gen. 
49321i_^ iK.In-ig), and the favourite wife {as 
might be expected) seems frequently to have contrived 
this for the benefit of h<;r own eldest son. Custom. how- 
ever, did not approve of this passing by of the eldest 
son, and D, in agreement with the ancient usage, posi- 
tively forbade it (^115-17). 

Whether the landed property also was divìded we do not know ; 
the more probable view is that il fell undivided to the firstborn, 
who had IO make some kind of j)ro vision for the others. The 
piivilege of the firstborn must have carrìed with ic one obligalion 
at least — ihat of mainlaining the female members of the family 
who remained uniiiarried ; by the dealh of the falher the first- 
born became at any rate head of the family. 

The sons of conctibines had also a right of inheritance 
(Gen. 21 so/, ), btit whether on an eqtiality with the other 
sons we do not know. It must be remembered that 
Hebrew antiquily did not recognise a dislinclion between 
legitimate and illegitimate unions in the sense of the 
GrEeco- Roman jurisptudence (see Family, § 8). 
Much, however. depended, it would seeni, on the 
goodwill of the father and of the broiher, and no fixed 
legai custom established itself. By adoption of course 
fui! right of inheritance was conferred, 

When a man died wiihout leavtng sons, the nearest 
agnate inherited ; but along with the inheritance he look 
over the duty of marrying the widow of the deceased 
(see MakkiaGE, § 7/-}- If this was not done, the 
chìldless widow returned to her own father's house, 
wheiici! she wns free to marry a second lime (Gen. 38 11 
Lev, 22 13 Ruth 18/.). 

The later law exhibils a change only with respect to 
the inheritance of daughters, conferring upon these 
the righi to inherit, in the absence of sons. It is 
stili only by exceptional favour that the daughters in- 
herit along with the sons (Job 42ts). The express 
object of the alteration of the law is statcd to be to 
prcvent a man's name being lost to his family (Nu. 274). 
At the same lime, however, the inheriling daughters are 
enjoined lo niarry only wìlhin Iheir father's tribe, so that 
the family estate may not pass to an outside family (Nu, 
361-12). As has teen pointed out by Stade (GK/ 1 391), 
it is not improbable that in this we have a compromise 
wilh the older view according to which, slrictly, the 
nearest agnate ought to inherit, undertaking at the same 
tinte the duty of levirale marriage (see Family, § 8), 
just as was the case in old Athens, where the inheriting 
agnate had the duty either of marrying the daughler, 
or of making a provision for her suitable to her station. 
The later law made provision also for the case of there 
being no marriageable daughler, enacling Ihal in that 
evenl the relations of the husband and not those of 
the wife were to inherit (Nti. 27 s-"}. 

J. Li. Michaelis, Mosaisches RecktPi (177^) ; J. I.. Saalschùtz, 
Dos jyiosaiicke Rechi nebst den ver^iollstàndie-entien Tal- 
1 Q T ; +01-0 4-11 i-o "mdiick - rabbinìscken. BesthiiiniingeM (2) 
1». Ijiceraiiure. {iZs^)-,SchT,^\\, DasisraeiU. Rec/itinseint-rt 
Grundziigeudnrgestelltii.?,^-^); the Hebrew Archffiologies of De 
WeUe, Kwald, Keil, Schegg, Benzinger, Nowack ; articles in the 
Diclionaries of Herzog, Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm ; Kuenen, 
'Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin' in P'erslagen en 
RIedsdeeti'ipen der R. Acid, iiart Wettnsckafien \^\ff. (1866); 
Schiirer, GJV 'l'i\'ìff-\ Klein, Das Ccsetz iibi-r dai gcricktlichc 
Be^veisvtr/ahren nack mosaisck-ialmudisckes Rechi (18S5); 
Frenkel, Der- f^^rUktìicbe Be7veis (1846); Duschak, Das 
Mosaische S/ra/rechl (iZbq); Goilein, ' Vergei! ungsprin cip im 
bilil. \i. talmud. Slraftechl' in Magazìn. /. d. Wissenschaft d. 
Judetìthums (iSqj) ; Diesici, 'Die religiijsen Del lete im i.sraelit. 
Sliafiecht' in//'y.'Ì397j?:: A. P. fisseli, The Laivof Asyluta 
in Israel (1884); Wildeboer, 'De Peiilateuchkiilik en bet 


Mozaische Slrafrechl ' in 7'ìjii. v. Stra/rcckt, 4 2o5_^, !i -itxff., 
aftXò*^^^ De Successionibus ad ieges Heòrteoruni hi bona de' 
functoruni, 1631 ; A, Betlholet, Die Sletlung der Israc/ile» u. 
Juden ZH den Fremden (1896}. 1. e. 


Jcwish theory (g i). Historical peiiods (% 5) : — 

Written Uws (§ 2). i, Before Josiah (Sg 6-9). 

Why wtitten? (§ 3). 2. Age of Josiah (S§ 10-13). 

Circulation (§ 4). 3. Exiiìc perìod (BS 14-16), 

4. Karlypost-eKÌlic(§S 17-19). 

5. Late post-exilic<S 2oy^). 
ó. Rabbmic (§ ■^2/.). 

In the present article we have to consider ihe 
origin, the hislory, and the general characlerislics of 
those parts of the OT which are ìmmedialely con- 
nected with Hebrew law. In the main these are lo 
be iound in the Pentateuch ; oulsìde the Pentateuch 
the most imporlant piece of Law Literature is the 
closing section of Ezekiel (40-48), The main 
elenients in this literature consist of (a) actual laws or 
decisions in written form, (*) legai theory, including 
casuistical discussions which !>ecotne prominent in posl- 
biblical literature {e.g. the Mishna), idea! systems (see 
e.g. , Ezek, 40-48 : see below, § 14) and theories of the 
origin of institutions {these especially in P : see below, 
&'7/-)' ('^) exhortations to obey the laws (very character- 
istic of H and D : see §§ 33-15). 

According to Hebrew or Jewish theory, Yahwè is 
the source of ali law (Law and Justice, § i), Moses ^ 

1 Jewish Thaorv "'^ medium through whom it was 
1. jewisn ineory. ^^^,^^1^^ ^^ j^^^^, ^^^^ ;„ connec- 
tion with the various orders of law we find such formula 
as "And Yahwè said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say 
unto the children of Israel ' (Ex. 20 22, cp 20 21, and also 
3427, conckiding laws of 3414-26 [cp k. io] J) ; 'and 
Vahwè spakeunto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children 
of Israel' (Ex. 25 1, and so, or similarly, repeatedly in 
P) ; cp further Dt. 4i/. s 384. At a later period the 
Jews formulated the theory that the ora! law or tradilion 
(subsequently written down in the Mishna and other 
halachic coUections), as well as the written law or scrip- 
ture, was in the first ìnstance communicated to Moses — 
' Moses received the toràh from Sinai, and he delivered 
it* to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders 
to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the 
great synagogue ' {Pirkè Abhòtk, li). 

From ibe Jewish point of view therefore Law Literature (both 
biblical and post-biblical) consisls of laws originally communi- 
cated to Mose.'i orally, and committed, gradually, and at various 
periods, to wriling ; for even the orai law— the n-apdSocris tiuk 
jrpicr^UTf'phiv of the NT— was subsequently written down. It 
is always the origin of law, however, rather than of the ivriting 
down of the iaw that was of primary interest and importance 
to the Jews. Moses stands pre-emiiient as the human medium 
through wbich the Law carne to Israel; thougb in the wiiting 
down of the Law Ezra's pan is, according to Jewfsh tiadition, 
at least as imporlant as that of Moses (Canon, S 17), 

For present purposes it ìs unnecessary lo discuss at 
further iength the precìse sense^ in which the Jews iraced 
their law and consequently, at least indirectly, their 
3aw-!iterature lo Moses, We need only refer to {a) an 
exception and {b") a consequence. 

[a) The prophets also w-ere regarded as media of 
tòrdth — /. e. , instructions, laws — -and the priests at 
various periods delivered ' instructions.' * The pro- 
phetic instructions, however, scarcely correspond to 
what we generally understand by law, and the prìestly 
instructions are explanations of the law or laws of 
Yahwè with which the priests were entrusted (Hos. 46, 
Jer. 2S 18 18) in reference to specific circumsiances (f.^. , 
Hag. 2 II).'' 

1 Occasionally (Nu. IS 13 Lev. 10 s) Aaron is the medium. 
There is a tendency, especially among copvists, lo associate 
Aaron wilb Moses in the reception of instructions. 

2 /.£,, bolh written and orai law ; tbe verb ' receive ' (?3p) is 
specially used of the orai law. 

■* The Rabbisdiffered on the point ; for tbeir views see Taylor, 
Sayings of Ike Je^tnsh Fath^-fs-, Excursus I., and in p) ajdit, 
note I. 

■1 See BDB, s.v. n-in, i e, d, e. 

5 Much of tbe 'Boùkof the Covenant,' Ex. 21-23, may beso 



{i) The conseqiience of this theory of the origin of 
law is that the Hebrew historians never directly and ex- 
plicitiy record the introduction of a new law. We are 
thus deprived of what might otherwise furnish us with 
simple and strai ght fot ward evidence with regard io the 
date of the various bodies of law preserved in the OT. 
The nearest approach that we possess to such direct 
evidence of the change of law at a definite date is 
furnished by Ezekiel in bis ideal sketch of a future 
Jewish constitiition (Ezek. 40-48} ; in this, old customs 
which had the sanction of earlier law are condemned 
and discarded, and new laws are enunciated, some of 
which subsequently gained validìty. These changes 
are directly revealed by Yahwè to the prophet. In D 
also, the date of which has been determined by criticism 
within sufficiently narrow limits, older laws are abrogated 
in favour of new ones ; but bere the laws are traced to 
Moses, and are not, therefore, as in Ezekiel, directly 
represented as new, though indirectly the sense of 
novelty is bere also clearly felt (cp below, § 13). 

Before proceeding to a synthetic history of Hebrew 
Law Literature based on the criticism of the severa] 

2 Written ^"^'^^ "*^ '*^'^' ^^^ ""^y noùce the external 
T evidence — unfortunately for the earlier 

period very scanty — of the existence 
and diffusion of such a literature among the Hebrews. 
Law, but not necessarily the individuai written laws or 
the entire literature of law, was, as we bave seen. 
attributed to Moses. In the main the first four books of 
the Pentateuch merely relate orai Communications which 
were to be orally communicated to.the f>eople. Ex, 
34277; (J), however, records that Moses wrote the short 
body of laws {w. ji-26) which constituted the terms of 
the covenant between Yahwè and Israel ; a similar 
statement is found in 244, but the precise limits of the 
' words of Yahwè ' there said to bave been written down 
and the source of the statement {whether J or E) are 
uncertain. ^ Traditions were also current among the 
Hebrews that the decalogue was wrìtten by the finger 
of God on stóne tables (Ex.31i9 S2i6 E. Dt.9io). 
Again Hos. 813 implies the existence in the N. kingdom 
of written laws, which Ryle (Canoa, 33). however, 
inclines to regard as prophetic teachìng ; if the text be 
sound (which is doubtful), the number of these written 
laws must bave been large. We bave, thus, altogether. 
sufficientiy good and complete evidence that written 
laws existed at least as early as the eighth or ninth 
centuries B.c. in both kingdoms.^ The context of the 
passage in Hosea (cp Jer. Tsi/.) implies that these laws 
had regard rathet to social and moral Ufe than to 
cultus.^ Such is the character of the major part of the 
laws in Ex. 21-23- On the other band the laws of Ex. 
34ii-z6, said by J to have been written by Moses, are 
for the most part concerned with the cultus. 

For whom, then, we may ask, were these laws 
written ? W^ho were to read them ? In what sense 

3 Whv written 9 "'^'■^ ^^^^ Cerature? These ques- 
•' ' tions cannot be answered with cer- 

tainty ; but it seems likely that such coUections of 
written laws were in the first instance intended for 
the priests whose duty it was to give decisions (cp Law 
AND JusTiCE, § 3, end). When (some of) the laws 
of Ex. 21-23 became incorporated (probably about 
the middle of the eighth century) in E. and those of 
Ex. 34 11-26 (somewhat earlier) in J (see Exodus. 
§g 3VÌ.-ÌX. 4), they became the possession of a larger 
circle. To ali appearance both these sets of laws 
codify existing practices, and do not introduce changes. 

regarded. The code may not in its originai forni have been 
attribvited to Moses (cp Nowack, HA 1 319) ; it ratber appears 
to have been a colleclion of rules resling on long existing 
practice. See below, § y^. 

1 On [he relation of these codes to the sources J and E, see 
Exodus ii., §S 3 vi.y;, 4. 

a See furlher Kne. //ex. ET 175 ;?: 

3 Cp 4 6 in the light of the context and see We. Pr-olA*) pp. 
58^, 403, 



There was 110 need, therefore, for their publication 
merely as laws. Their appearance in Hebrew literature 
is rather due to the growth of an historical literature 
(yet see Kue. J/ex. § 15, ET 272}. 

The publication of Dt, ' in the seventh century 
marks an important stage in tlie history of Law 
A ni-.«i»«ì-_ Literature. Dt. was the literary em- 
bodiment of a religious reformation, 
the priticiples of which affcctcd many established 
customs. Its publication therefore was necessary : it 
was essential that the people at large should know what 
was reqiiired of them by the new law. There are in the 
book passages which clearly imply that such publica^ 
tion was contemplated by its authors, and we learn from 
2 K. 22/^ that they saw their designs carried out. Even 
so, however, we must not think of the book as having a 
large circulation among many classes of readers. Most 
of the people were to become acquainted with it by hear- 
ing it read to them periodically by the priests and elders ^ 
(Dt. 31 9-13' cp z K.232), just asaccording to the theory 
of the book it was in the first instance read to them by 
Moses (285861; cp I5 3I24 29zo 30io) ; the only 
copies of which we actually bear, in addition to the 
originai which was to be kept in the tempie (31 26}, are 
the copy which was to be made for the king (17 i8) and 
the copy engraved on stones, referred to in Dt. 27 z/ 8 
(on which see Driver, and, on the lext and tradilion 

It is rejsonable, however, to suppose that other copies were 
in ihe hands of instructors of the people, It has been ìnferred 
from Jer. 11 i-a that Jeremiah ivent about explaining Deuter- 
onomy (see, e.g:. Che. Jer.: his li/e and timei, Siff-\- Stili, 
the very limited clrcuiation even of Di. is a fact to be borne in 
mind when we consider the likelihood of the originai code having 
been modified or expanded. 

In the early years of the exile (592-570) Ezekiel wrote his 
sketch of ihe future consti tu tion. The same period and the 
later years of exile were probably marked hy much legai study 
and literary production. This, however, resls on indirect and 
internai evidente which is discus,sed elsewhere (see also below, 
g lùyT), The same may be said of the early post-exilic period. 

Certainly, from the time of Dt. onwards, refferences 
to written law become frequent. Life is no longer 
ordered merely or even mainly by long-established and 
recognised custom, and in cases of doubt by the orai 
decisions of priests, but 'according to what is written 
in the (book of the) law of Moses'* (EzraSa 6i3 
Neh.l3iiK. Josh.831 D [cp IsD] 236 2 K. 146 
D, 2 Ch.23i8 254 3512). Other references from 
this period to written law are Ezra76 Neh. 81. 
Most significant also is the graduai omission of the 
words ' book of ' before ' the law ' when written law is 
ìmplied. Tòrdh, originally denoting a decision orally 
delivered, becomes a term for a body of -writlen- law 
(Law and JusTiCE, §1). 

Of course long after written law had become a well- 
recognised instilutìon, many stili depended for their 
knowledge of it on hearing it read to them (see Neh. 
8 13 1-3). The circulation of copies, however, must have 
become increasiugly large ; this is in part indicated by 
the existence of the class of scrìbes. The number of 
people who possessed and read the law was certainly 
considerable in the second cetitury B. C. ( i Macc. 1 ^bf. '). 
Later the reading of the law was widely practìsed ; 
it formed the sta pie of EducatioN {q.v. % ■^ f.\ cp 
Schurer, GJV<^\ II354, ET ii. 2so). 

It is triie that the term ' law ' was extended so as lo cover ali 
sacred literature (see Canon, S 26) ; but this is only a further 
proof of the influence gained by the specifically legai literature. 
It is unnecessary to dwell on a fact so well recognised as that 
the Jews in (he first cenlury were (what they certainly were 
not, if we are to be guided by our records, down to (he time of 

1 For the extent of the hook as first pub\ished and the date 
of its origin, see Deuterovomv (gg 4^). 

2 In Dt.Slii read iKipn with ® (ofthe priests and elders) 
instead of Nipn (MT) of Israel ; cp Di. and Dr. ad loc. 

* In this connection the absence of any referencein Hag. 2 10-12 
to a written law (such as Nu, 19) on defilement by the dead, and 
the implication that orai instruction on the subject stili rteeded 
to be oblained, is significant. 



Josbh) ihe people of ihe law, the people of the book' (cp e,g. 
Jn. 639). 

The history of Hebrew and Jewish Law Lilerature 
may be dìvided into six periods— viz. (ij the pre-Josianic 
B SixPerinHa f^§ ^^9) ; ( = ) the Josianic (§§10-13); 

post-exihc (§§ 17-19) ; (5) the later post-exilic (% 20/ ) ; 
a.nd (6) the Rabbinic (§§ 22/. ). From what has been 
said already (§§ 2-4), it will Ije easy to understaiid that 
^ litf.ralure of Law in any very precise sense of the 
term begins only with the secorid (Josianic) of these 
periods ; in the first we have to do with the formulation 
and conimitlal to writing of exjsling laws, but searcely 
wilh the pubheation, for general perusal or recitation, 
of any legai work. 

I. Pre-Josianic Period. — Written laws were, as we 
have seen (§ 2), known ia Israel at least as early as 
j. , the eighthcentury B. C. Some of these laws 
■ . , have survived, editorially modified indeed 
■ yet not in such a way as to render their 
essential features unrecognisable, in the Pentateuch — 
in particular in Ex. 20-24 34; see also Ex. I33-16. 
Others are probably incorporated wilhout much greater 
editorial modifications in other masses of law, especi- 
a!ly D and H ; but the consideration of these latter 
can be left to later seeCions. We will confine oiar 
attention for the present to the laws which are closely 
connected with the prophctic narralives of the Hexa- 
teuch, and (on this ground and on others) may be re- 
garded with greatest probabìlity as representing early 
Hebrew collections of wrilten law. 

There can be no question that hoth Ex. 34 16 (i2)-26, and 
chaps. 20 1-23 19 stand at present suirounded hy prophetic 
nariatives ; but whecher their ijresent is the same as was their 
otieiiial position in the sources is very much open to question ; 
and this is particularly the case with Ex. 21 i-23 19 (cp Kue. 
He^. 13, n. 32). If this be the case, can we be sure that the 
laws in question ever stood in the sources? In other words, 
can we safely argue merely from their position in the Hexateuch 
that the codes had been coliected in -written farin as early as 

Certainty does not seem to te justifiable, and Baentsch 
{Bundesbuck. 122)2 as a mailer of fact is inclined to atlribute the 
embodiment of Ex. 21 i-23 19 in the prophetic hì to 
the compiler of JE — lo the compiei prophetic source the com- 
pilation of which must be placed at the dose of the seventh 
century B.c. Vel two or ihree consideratìons render ìt probable 
that these laws occupied a place in one of the two main sources 
J or E. (i) If the compiler of JE had not been led by the 
previous esislence of the code in one of his sources to retain it 
m his compilation, would he iiot rathcr have adopied the 
Deiiteronomic code or some laws more in accordance wilh that 
code? (2) The code, whether incorporated in the earlier sources 
or not, is certainly much earlier in origìn than JE. 

On the whole then, we may conclude that we approximate 
to the written laws of Yahwè to which Hosea makes reference 
in the decalogue of Ex. '20, the older decalogue of Ex. 34 and 
the code of Ex. 2024-23. At the same time a comparison of 
Ex. 20 and Dt. 5 warns us that otder laws were sometimes 
suhject to much editorial expansion (see Decalogue), and this 
must be home in mind in atlempting to gain a mote definite 
idea of the law literature of the earliest period ; the presence of 
siich expansions can for the most part merely be referred to 
bere : details must be sought elsewhere. [The upward limit of 
date is determined by the one fact that the laws presuppose a 
seltled agricultural society. See ExoDUS ii.] 

1 'The Introduction of the law, first of Deutero no my, then 
of the entire Pentateuch, was in fact the decisive step by which 
the written word (^die Sckrìft) look the place of the spoken word 
{die Redé) and the people of the word became a people of the 
hook ' (We. Frol.i*), 415). ' As the historical and prophetical 
books existed in part a long time before they became 
canonical, so, Ìt is ihought, was it the case also with the 
law {das Geselz). Nevertheless, in the case of the law, there 
is an essential difference. The iaw is nteani to have binding 
force, is meant to be the hook of the community. A dif- 
ference between Law and Canon there never was. It is 
therefore easy to understand that the TOrah, although as a 
literary produci youngcr than the historical and the pro- 
phetical booli.s, is yet as law {Gesetz) older than those writings, 
which otiginally and essentially bore no legai character, but 
oblaiiied the same accidentally in consequence of being atlached 
to an aiready exislhig T,aw ' (ìb. 416). 

2 See now (1900) also hìs Comm. on Ex. Lev, in IffC; he 
there adniits (p. 188) that some laws stood at this point in E 
(cp 20 18-21 M-ì-^) to be found in 2022-26 2227-29 23io-j6, and 
that the judgments (see § 7) stood elsewhere in E at a point not 
to be defined. 



These remnants of pre-Josianic Hebrew law fall into 

different classes when regarded in respect of their form. 

n iTTr j ■ j We find (i) absolute conimands in 
7. Words and i,- nr. /.u ni 1 t- 

'iudements' ^'^■^Os-t? (the Decalogue), Ex. 
juagmenw. 34 ,^.^^1 (the so-cal!ed 'older deca- 
logue '}, and Ex. 2023-26^ (21 15-17) 22iE-22 2E-31 23i-3 
6-19 ; deuteronomio expansions often accompany these 
ancien! commandments in their present setting — see 
especialjy Ex. 20 4-6 lè 9/ i-ib 17 22 22-24 27 23 io i2# ; 
(2) hypothetical instructions based presuinably on 
preeedent— a codification of consuetudinary law — in 
Ex. 21 2-14 18-36 221-1725/ 234/ 

Laws of the former (absolute) type seem tohave gone by the 
name of Words (D'ini) ; so al least the commandments of the 
Decalogue (Ex. 20) were termed (Dt. 5 22 413 IO4), as also 
those of ' the older Decalogue ' (Ex. 34 27) ; and some have sup- 
jjosed that the ahsohne commands of Ex. 21-23 are referred lo 
by the same term in Ex. 24 3 4 e. On the other band the hypo- 
thetical provisions of Ex. 21 2-24, etc, appear lo have been 
specifically teimed judgments (c'IìSB'd) — ^^^ ^"^ ^1 • ^""^ P^r- 
ha.ps243; and cp Nu. 35 34 (referting lo iw. 1Ó-23). 

Ultimalely, it need not be doubted. these two distinct 

types of laws had different origins. The main religious 

- iTn,-j_ duties may at a comparatively early date 

have been ihrown into a scheme of ten 


commands ; later, under the infiuence of 

tFie prophetic teaching, and perhaps as a set-off (cp the 
contras! between Mie. &àf. and v. S) lo stili earlier 
ritual decalogues, other sehemes of ten words mainly 
inculcating moral duties may have been framed. An 
ancient ritual decalogue seems to underlie Ex. 34 12-26 
(DecAloGUK, §5); individuai commands of this kind 
appear elsewhere — e.g. , in Ex. 23 18 ( — 34 25). A moral 
decalogue, searcely earlier in origin than the prophets 
of the eighth century, clearly survìves in Ex. 20. 

The 'judgments,' on the other hand, will have 
originated in decisions given on partieular cases by 
priest or other judicial authority (cp Law anu Justice, 
§ 4). These judgments, again, need not ali have 
originated at the same time or place; Ihey may very 
well as they stand represent a selection from the 
established precedents at different sanctuaries ; and to 
this may be due the differences of form noticeable 
among them. 

Wiiiist, however, such differences are certainly re- 
markable, and seem best accounted for by difference 
of origin. we have noi sufficient data to enable us to 
determine in more than a quite general way what those 
differences of origin — whelher of time or place — actuaily 
were. In particular it seems a fruitless task to attempi 
to reach an actual earlier form of the ' Hook of the 
Covenant ' by a series of transf ormai Ìons, such as Roth- 
stein [Bundesbuch. 1887) has proposed. 

So again we must be content wìth alternative possi- 
biiities when we come to consider the later literary 
hislory of both the ' words ' and the 
'judgments.' The decalogue of Ex. 34 
certainly seems to have formed pari of 
the main prophetic source J (ExoDUS, § 3, vii.) ; the 
Decalogue, generally so-called (Ex. 20), pari of the 
prophetic source E, though whether in an earlier (Ej) 
or a later (Eg) fornr is disputed. The ' Book of ihe 
Covenant,' again (Ex. 20z2-23 19). is also by most re- 
garded as having formed part of E, ihough, as we have 
seen (§ 6), Baentsch thìnks ihat il was first incorporated 
by JE, However ihat may be, further alternaiives 
arise. Had the Book of the Covenant an independent 
existence in writing before it carne to form part of E or 
JE, or was il the compiler of one of those works who 
first brought together from different writlen or ora! 
sources the 'words' and the 'judgments'? These 
questions also musi be lefl undecided.^ 

One point further only needs to be emphasised here. 
Neither J nor E nor jE carne, by the incorporation of 

t Vel note the conditional case in 342o. 
^ Yet note v. 25. 

3 For a fuUer discussion of these and refetences to literature 
see ExoDUS ii., § -if. 


9. Literary , 

10. Time of 


these collections of law to be a law-book. The laws 
lorm but a small part of the whole and are incorporateci 
not with a view to gain recognition for theni ; for they 
were based on long- està bli shed precedents, or (as in 
the case of the Decalogue of Ex, 20) they embodied 
some of the moral dulies on which prophetic teaching 
naluraJly laid stress i they owe their place to a histori- 
cal motive — they are specimens of those customs, enjoy- 
ing the sanction of Yahwè's fauour, which were observed 
in Israel. 

2. The Josianic Period. — The second period brings 
US to the first specimen of Law Literature proper — - 
i.e.. of Works intended for publicity 
and having a legai as the ir leading 

The historical cause of this new departure was the 
rei 1 gì o US reformat io n carried out under J osi ah, and 
the leading doctrinal motive of the reformation was 
the unity of Yahwè ; the main reforra aimed at in 
practice, the abolì tion of locai sanctuaries and the 
centrali sation of worship at Jerusalem. This one niaia 
reform, however, involved many important changes, 
especially in the sacrificial customs, the status of the 
priests, the rìght of asylum {see Sacrifice ; Priest, 
§ 6 ; Asylum, § 3). 

In Deuteronoray we find the programme of this 
reformation (see Deuteroncmy). Not to repeat a 
11 Deuteronoinv '^'^'^"ssion of the exact limita of the 

* j„„ n ^ originai hook of Deuteronomy which 

an mnovation. ^-^ ^ ^^^^^ elsewhere (Deuter- 
onomy, §§ i, ff.) it wilL suffice to notice bere, that, 
regarded froni a literary point of view, the book con- 
sists of three elemeiits : [a] previously existing laws, 
in some cases much, in others probably but little, if at 
ali, modifìed (§ 12) ; {b) regulations for carrying into 
effect the contemplated reforms (§ 13) ; {e) exhortations, 
accompanied by threats and promises and illustrated by 
historical retrospects, to carry out the injunctions of the 
book (§ 13). The first element is common to Deuter- 
onomy ai\d the historical ^«ol"ks of the preceding period 
which embody laws (§ 6). The second and third ele- 
ments entirely differentiate the new from the older hterary 
forra. The purpose of the earlier historical works was 
to record and glorify the existing order of things : the 
purpose of Deuteronomy was to condemn and displace 
that order. In the earlier period iaws owed their 
position in literature to an historical interest ; hence- 
forward hlstory becomes an exponent of legai theory — 
at first (especially in the Books of Kings in their final 
form) of the deuteronomic theory, and later (as in 
Chronicles} of the priestly theory (§ 17), 

We turn now to a fuller survey of the various ele- 
ments, and of the history (so far as it can be discovered 
or surmised) of the fusìon of them as seeu in the existing 
book of Deuteronomy. 

(17) Previously existing laws. — It has long been 
recognised that Deuteronomy is in large part based on 
12 Law3 '^^ '^^^^ "^'^ found embodied in the 
not new ' P''°P'^^^''^ ' narratives of our Hesateuch. 
The extent of this common matter may be 
seen at a glance by consuIting the comparative table in 
Driver's Deut. (iv.-vii. ) ; see also Peuteronomv, § 9 ; 
EXODUS ii. , § 4. The dose relation between the two 
bodies of legislation, often extending to ■ verbal coincid- 
ences,' is thus summed up by Driver (8) : ' Nearly the 
whole ground covered by Ex, 20=2-2333 is included in it 
[the deuteronomic legislation], almost the only exception 
being the special compensations to be paid for various 
ìnjuries (Ex, 21 i8-22i6), which would be less necessary 
in a manual intended for the people. In a few cases 
the law is repeated verbatim, or nearly so ; elsewhere 
only particular clauses ; in other cases the oldei law is 
expanded, fresh defìnitions being added, or its principle 
extended, or parenthetic comments attached, or the 
law is virtually recast in the deuteronomic phraseology. ' 
(Yet see Deuteronomy, § 9.} 



In addition to this legai matter fouud in the extant 
earlier codes, we have much similar matter not found 
there. It is reasonabie to suppose that this also was 
derived, though by no means always without editorial 
modification, from sources similar lo those noticed above 
(§ 7), whether orai or written. Down to a period 
much later than that now under consideration the 
priests gave orai decìsions, to which on many ritual 
points those in need of instruction were referred. 
Prora established and traditional decisions of this kind, 
as well as from written sources, the deuteronomic 
writers flike the compiier of H ; below, § 15) may weli 
have drawn, Particularly noticeable araong this legai 
matter peculiar lo Deuteronomy are the laws relative 
to unclean aninials in chap. 14 (cp Deuteroncmy, 
§ io) and the laws of chaps. 21io-25i6 (of which only 
seven out of a total of thirty-five are found in the 
legislation of JE ; Deuteronomy, § 9) which in their 
greater terseness contras! with the generally diffuse 
style of even the dislinctly legai parts of Dt. and are on 
this account with probability regarded as drawn more 
directly and with less modification from existing collec- 
tions of laws, ^ 

The attempts to determine more precisely the exact literarj 
characler, ìf the source.s were written, and the previous inter- 
relations of thi.s older matter not found in the legislation of JE 
have led to no convincing conclusions, Both Slaerk and 
Steueinagel have attempted a resolution of the strictly legislative 
parts of D inlo sources, on the ground of the changing usage of 
the sing. and pi. for the persons addressed. Steuernagel (Deut. 
vi. _ff.). also constitutes into sources various other groups of 
pa.ssages such as (I621-I71) 18 lo-is^ 225 2;j 19 25 ij-ióa, on 
the ground of the common clatise ' For any one who does such 
thingsisahominahletoVahwè'CiSKriB'ìf Sz '' njyn '3). Even, 
however, if we shoiild grant that the criteria suffice to estahlish 
ultìraate dìvetsity of Otigin, they ceitaiiily do noi estabVish any 
separate literary existence for such 'sources.' Steuernagel him- 
self expre^sly discards the idea that such sources need ever have 
obtained public currency {ib. xiìi.). We can scarcely assert wilh 
safety more than this— that these laws, so sharply distìnguished 
in style from the more distinctively novel elements in Dt. (such 
for example as chaps. 12y; 17 i^ff. 18 i^ff. 20 1-9), must have 
had previously some ^J'^a' form. The arguments adduced by 
Dillmann {NDJ 292/ 340 6o^/ 606 ; cp Kue- Hex. ET, 256; 
Graf, Ges<:h. Èùcker, 25-27) to show that they must have been 
written really prove no more than such previous fixity of fori» 
whether orai or written. 

Bui whatever conclusions we may draw in detail, there 
seems ampie reason for the general conclusion that, 
with the single exception, to be noticed imraediately, 
the legai material, even when it cannol be traced to stili 
extant earlier codes, is not the novel element in Deuter- 

(^) and {e). — This single exception, this new legai 

element in Deuteronomy, is the law of the centrai isat io 11 

13 Nev °^ worship with its various coroUaries. 

■ ' . . Hut the influence of this one new legai 

jj. element is powerfiil, clearly felt, and far- 

reaching, Take, for example, the law 

of sacrifice (chap. 12). Much is assumed as known, 

for instance the mode of sacrifice ; but in respect to 

the place of sacrifice we find whai was absenl from the 

earlier legislation (cp § 9 end) is bere present — a sense 

of change ; imraemorial practice no longec supporta 

itself by the mere faci of being such : no longer ' as 

at this day' (123) is sacrifice to be offered wherever 

one pleases, but at one definite place only (I213/.). 

Worship must be centralised ; the unity of Yahwè vin- 

dicated and outwardly symbol ised. What has been 

legitimate ceases to be so, while some things that had 

been illegitìmate now become legitimate (12is), 

If the law-book, instead of merely glorìfying the 
existing order of things, aimed at changing it and thus 
seriously affecting the life of the people, it needed a 
means of commending the changes to the people and 
arousing enthusiasm to carry them into effect. Hence 
the change is represented as long ovetdue ; it shouid 
have been made when Yahwè look up his abode in 
Jerusalem. Hence also the promises and threats with 
Iheir appeal to the hopes and fears of the people ; the 

1 See more fully Graf, Gesck. Biicker, 1^/. 



insislence on prophetic principles ; the didactic historical 

Thal the main elements just noted characterised * the 
book found in the tempie ' (2 K. 2tiS) is plainly indicated 
by the narrative of 2 K. 22/1 The legai element is 
clear from the title — ' the book of the torah ' — by which 
it is ihere referred to, and from the correspondence of 
the actions of Josiah to the demands of the law ; the 
sense of change, the newness of the demands, is seen in 
the confession that immemorial custonis did not conform 
to the demands of the law (2 K, 2213) ; and the hortatory 
element must be presupposed to account for the alarm 
produced in the king on hearing the book read. 

Wheti this is said it stili rcmains uncertain precisely 
how miich of the present book constituted the book 
found in the tempie. The criticai study of Deuteronomy 
leads to the conclusion that the originai book was 
amplified both in its legai and in its hortatory parts, and 
that the present work has resulted from the fusion of 
two different editions, so to speak, of the work dis- 
tinguished from one another more particularly by different 
historical introductions (Deutekonomy, §§ 4-7) : the 
limited circulation of books (above, § 4) rendered such 
growth of a book easy. 

These processes of expansion in large part are to be 
placed in the period between the Reformation(62i b.c.) 
and the fall of Jerusalem (586 b.c.) and represent the 
continuous literary aclivity of the reforming party. 

Two characteristics of this great product of the 
Josianic period must be referred to before we pass to the 
next period. ( i ) Deuteronomy is thoroughly practical ; 
it is the work of men living amid the actual circumstances 
of the life which they wish to reform. The authors 
appreciate the effect of the contemplated changes ; if 
their principle ìnvolved the centralisation of worship, 
they see the necessity and make provision for the de- 
sanctification of ordinary flesh meals ; if they rob the 
locai priests of their custom at the locai shrines, they 
give thera their share in the custom of the tempie at 
Jerusalem ; if they abolish with the locai sanctuaries 
the numerous asyia offered by the altars there, they 
institute 'cities of refuge' — civìlasyla. (2} This practical 
character of the vvork defines its limitations. It is an 
appeal to the people : prophetic principles are enforced 
and illustrated in detail by the recital of moral and civil 
jaws and of ritual law so far as it affected the people. 
On the other hand, the details of ritual, the functions 
of the priests, receive no attention ; these were suffì- 
ciently determined by the existing practice at Jerusalem. 

3. T&e Exilic Period. — The literature of the exile 
bears the marks of the profound change in the external 
14. P airi T circumstances of the people. The natio n al 
life has ceased ; it is now merely the 
subject of memory, the subject of hope. Hence the 
literary activity of the period shows itself mainly in the 
production of theoretical works, the framing of a con- 
stilution for the restored nation ; and in the preservation 
of the regulations of the life that has ceased to be. 

The theoretical element is mosl markedly present in 
Ezekiel. In his sketch of the ideal constitution ^ of the 
new state he borrovt's, needless to say, largely from 
ancient practice ; as a priest, he was familiar with the 
duties of the priest and the priestly ritual. and he draws 
on this knowledge. As contrasted with the Isaianic it is 
a priestly conception of holiness that dominates him, 
Jeading him to give the centrai signifìcance which he 
does to the holy city and especially to the tempie (Ezek. 
40-43 17). This accounts for the almost exclusively 
ritual and priestly character of the laws which the 
prophel incorporates in his sketch. 

Note the ritual for the consecration of the aitar {i5 ia-27), the 
regulations regarding the perso ns who may approach the 
sanctuary(4't6-i5>, the diilies of the priests (44 ili-sf), the priestly 
dues (44j8-3i), the materials anci fixed seasons of sacrifices 
(45 i3-4ti 15), the treatment of the sacrificial fle'ih (46 19-24). As 
compared with the actiial monarchs of pre-exilic times, E^ekiel's 

' Cp Ezekiel ÌÌ., §§ 13, ^-^Jl 


' princc ' is an insignificant person, and he comes hefore us 
mainly in connection with the sacrifices (4ó 12-17 4G 1-15) ^n'I 
the distribution of ihe land (45 7^^, 46i6-iS). Beyond some 
general exhortations to the princes not to oppress {e.g^., 45s), 
almosl the only references to other than priestly and rimai 
matters are in the short section comraending just weights and 
measures (459.11). 

Doublless it was not Ezekiel's purpose to set forth a 
full constitution for the new siate. Il is equally clear. 
however, that his ideal differs from the real state which 
had passed away in the position given to the priests, 
and in particular the Jerusalem priests. As com- 
pared with Deuteronomy, Ezekiel ìncreases the priestly 
dues and by depriving the locai priests — priests who 
were not descended from Zadok — of their priestly 
position. makes of the priests of his ideal constitution a 
compact and corporate body. In his priestly constitu- 
tion Ezekiel, moreover, most clearly appears as an 
iiinovator. He is well aware that the priests of the 
future will not be as those of the past with which he had 
been familiar. In the past, which was the present of 
Dt. , ali Levites had e.xercised priestly functions ; in the 
future ali Levites not descended from Zadok, in other 
words ali Levites who had not been connecled with 
the Jerusalem tempie, will be degraded into an inferior 
order -. the Zadokites alone will remain genuine priests. 

Ezekiel's remoteness from the actualities of life 
(contrast Deuteronomy) comes out particularly in his 
division of the country, which he regards as an cxact 
parai lelogram. 

A particular value, historically and critically, attaches 
to the legai section of the book of Ezekiel. It shows 
tis, on indisputable chronological evidence, how at least 
one mind in exile was working on Jewish law at a tinie 
when circumslances prevented its being put into force, 
and how the exile marks the transilion from the literary 
activity, which had been mainly prophetic, to the literary 
activity of the post-exilic period, which became increas- 
ingly priestly and legai. 

Criticism has shown that Ezekiel's was not the only 
mind working in the way just described, and that not to 
him alone do we owe legai literature of the exilic age. 

The most important of the remaining legai works the 

exilic origin of which has been generally admitted (yet 

,j - seeLEViTicus, §28_/^)istheLawof Hoh- 

Holta^Ia ■ ""' (LEViTicus, §§ 13-30). Though in 
• its present form incomplete and frequently 
modified by the editor who incorporated it with the 
larger post-exilic priestly work, it is not difficult to see 
the general character and motive of ihe work of the 
exilic cornpiler or editor. Like Deuteronomy it is based 
on earlier legislation,' is parEenetic in character (this 
feature being specially prominent in the closing section ; 
Lev. 26), and is characterised by ils humanity (cp. e.g.. 
Lev. 193/.). Like Ezekiel (40-48) it hasas its dominant 
note ' holiness,' and appears to bave had as its aim the 
reguiation of the restored community. 

H has in addition to these general characteri.'ilics so much in 
common wilh Ezekiel that Graf, as ìs well known, concluded 
that Ezekiel must have been ihe author of H {Gesch, Biii:hey, 
81-83). As has frequently been pointcd out, however {f.g., We. 
l'rai.m, 386: Dt. JntrpdM, 148^?), whilst in .some important 
respecls H agrees wilh Ezekiel against D (e-g-, the loth of the 
seventh month is the feast of the New Year in H [Lev. 2593] 
and E2ek.40i, not as in P [Lev.l()29] the Day of Atonement) 
in others H agrees with P against Ezekiel ; thus (he priests are 
.sons of Aaron, not of Zadok (as in Ezek. 44 isff-t ^^ ")■ 'àfx, 
further, Levites. 

If we may trust the present arrangement, this law- 
book (H) began. like the legislation in JE (Ex. SOaz- 
23 16), with the reguiation of sacrifice (Lev. 17) ; it as- 
sumes (Lev. 174 26ii 193o 2O3 21 i^-zo 262 31) rather 
than demands (Hke Dt. ) that ihere must be tiut one place 
of sacrifice. Like Ezekiel, the Law of HoHness givcs 
inuch attention to the priests and the ritual (chaps. 17 

1 Cp, e.g.. Lev. IS15 with Ex 233, Lev. 2227-29 with Ex. 
2229 23isy:, Lev, 25 1-7 with Ex. 23 loy; See further We. 
Prol.^'^), 3B4. It wouid be unreasonahle, however, to limil ihe 
earlier legislation preserved in H to what is found in our extant 
earlier codes ; see above, § 12. 




20-24) ; but it regulaies also with considerable fulness 
faniily and social life (esp. chaps. 18-20 25).^ 

For proof of the date and extent of H, and for various views 
as lo details, reference must be made to Leviticus, § 13^, and 
the literalure there cited, but see, especially, Baentsch, Heilig- 
keitsgesetz. liaentsch's conchisions fon which Cp Dr. Introd.'^) 
p. 149 n.) may be sutnmarised as follows ; — " Becween the year-> 
621 and 591, and probably within a year or two of the latter 
terni, a writer (H) made a colleclion of previously existing laws, 
giving thein a par(Enetic framewoik and the kistt» ical back- 
ground of the wandering in the wilderness. This colleclion 
siirvives in Lev. 18 20 23 9-12 15-17 laa 19^ 20 22 24 15-22 25 1-7 
14 17 18-22 23 24 35-3)1 9tì I 2. Some years later — later also than 
Ezeliiel— another writer (Hj) also made a colleclion of previously 
existing laws. These are mainly concernei! wìtli tlie priests and 
the olTerings, and are provided by tlieir editor with a dogmatic 
framework. This colleclion survives in Lev. IX/. Qiiite at the 
dose of the captivity an exile, anxious that the restored com- 
munity should be regulated aright, united Hi and H2, prefixed 
chap. 17 (H3), and conclucjed the whole with a previously exisc- 
ing prophetic discourse (Lev. 'iXì-^ff.\ to which he made various 
additions (ot'. io 17 [?], 34 35 39-43) appropriate to his immedij.te 
purpoEie." The details ^ of the foregoing theory and the analysis 
underlying it bave varying degrees of probability ; but the cont- 
phxity of the code seenis cerlaìn (ìf only on the ground of the 
pre.sence of both chap, 18 and chap. 20). and that more than one 
exilic process is bere represenied is highly probable. 

Possibly we should refer to the exile also the writing down 

and collection of much of the priestly teaching that lies at the 

basis of a large part of Leviticus and is 

16. Obller indicated in Carpenter and Kattersby's Ilexa.- 

COllectioaS. teuch as Pt. For arguments as to the date of 

this Pt, see ib. I. pp. 152 /., and Harford- 

Battersby in arts. 'Leviticus' and Numbers' in Hastìngs' 


We find then that in the exile legai study and especi- 
ally the study of the tempie ritual and priestly duties 
was zealously pursued though (or perhaps we should 
rather say, because), the tempie being destroyed, both 
ritual and priestly duties were for the time being in 
suspense : just as after the second destruction of the 
tempie and the permanent cessation of sacrifice in 70 
A. D. the rabbinic study of matters connected with the 
tempie continued with great if not increased ardour 
(see § 23). 

4. Early Post-Exilic Pertod. — -The activity of this 

period resulted in [a] the legai and quasi-historical 

17 P- ita workknown as the Priestly Code (P), and 

.' ' . {ò) the fusion with that work of older 

cnaracter. ^istories (JE) and of the law-book D. 
producing a work substantially the same as our Penta- 
teuch (on b see § 20 f. ). 

Towards the end of the sixth or at the beginning 
of the fifth century b.c., probably in Babylon,^ a 
great work, historical in forni, legai or institutional in 
motive, saw the hght,* Its evident purpose is the vindi- 
cation of the divine origin of Jewish institutions and 
ritual law. Terse to a degree in its treatment of history 
generally, reducing the biographies of the heroes of the 
past to little more than a genealogy and a table of ages, 
it expands into fulness where the origin or purpose of 
an institution can be illustrated, as for example in the 
history of creation leading up to the Sabbath, that of 
the Deluge closing with the command not to eat blood, 
the birth of Isaac and the institution of circumcision. 
What is chiefly dwelt on in connection with the Exodus 
is the institution of the Passover ; the history of the 
transition front Egypt to Canaan deals fully only with 
the establishment of the centrai place of worship — the 
tabernacle — and of the sacred classes (the priests and 
Levites) to whose care and service it was confided. 
Ezekiel in the exile with prophetic freedom legislates 
afresh ; and, with a full sense of the novelty of some 

1 Exclu,';ive of those parts of the chapters in qiiestion which 
are from the band of later priestly writers. See Leviticus, 

"^'J-^- .. . 

<> For a criticism of one or two of these see a review by the 
present wriler in JQR 6 (1S93), pp. 179-182, whence the above 
summary is cited. 

3 Cp Ezra76^, and Kue. Hex. 15, n. 27. 

* This can most convenieiifly be read in Addis's Docuinents 
of the Hexateuck, voi. il. See also Carpenter and Harford- 
Battersby. On the origin of P see Hf-xateu-h, §S 13-30; an 
its relation to Hebrew historical literature, see Historical 



features in the constilution which he draws up, presents 
it under the fonn of the ideal state of the future. The 
author of the great priestly history casts his ideal back 
into the past ; what ought to be, was ; what ought to 
be done now, was done by the true Jew of the past ; 
earlier histories represented the patriarchs sacrifìcing in 
various spots ; to F sacrilice apart from the tabernacle 
was profanity ; hence in his history the patriarchs never 
sacrifice. P's tabernacle itself is anterior to the tempie 
only in the imagination not in history. The entire work 
is legai or ritual fact and theory presented under the 
form of history. 

Now, what is the literary in ter -relation between the 

various parts of the work ? P consista of two main 

1 « P' t elements ; the history of Jewish instìtu- 

.' ._fa tions already described, and masses of 

' laws mainly concerned with ritual matters. 

Were these two elements combined from the first ? If 

not, when was the combination made ? Are even 

the two main elements quite simple or to be resolved 

into yet further elements? Complete and conclusive 

answers to these questions are not obtainable, Certain 

points, however, are clear, and the complexity of P is 


{a) The masses of laws in P are in part earlier (for 
an example see § 15 — the Law of Holiness), in part 
later (see below, § 21) than the priestly history. In 
large part, however, it is diflìcult to decìde with cer- 
tainty whether the laws had or had not a separate 
literary, as distinct from a fixed orai, existence before 
they were united with this history. 

Two things, however, must be observed ; (1) For the most 
part the masses of law bave no organic connection wilh the 
prie.'itly history. This is ti uè, for example, of the great mass 
contained in Lev. 1-7 (Leviticus, g 7), and again such laws as 
tbose of the Nazirite (Nu. tì), of the ordeal of Jealousy (Nu. 
5 ti-31), and those contained in Nu. 15 19. (2) The laws are not 
homogeneous. Taking again as an example Lev. 1-7, we find the 
same subjects tieated more than once and in a different manner ; 
thus 6a-7 38 covers the same ground as chaps. 1-5 — viz, the rimai 
of the various forms of offerings— and the subscription in 7 2h/- 
refers only to fi 8-7 34 ;1 in.stance^ of actually divergent laws on 
the same subject within the priestly code will be referred to in 
§ 21. 

(b) The several laws are worked inorganically into 
the historical framework though often in the vaguest 

The laws are delivered to Moses or to Moses and Aaron (cp 
% 1). Sometimes the place of delivery {e.g.. Lev. 1 i 738) or 
time iib^ is defined. At times(«.^., Lev. 8) a law is castentiiely 
in the form of a histoiy of its first appearance ; and generally 
what Aaron Is bidden to do may be taken as a standing law — ■ 
actual or ideal — for the priests of the writer 's own day. Very 
frequently, however, the law is quite general in its terms and is 
only loosely connected with the history by the introductory 
formulse (see, e.g.. Lev. 1-7 23— exclusive of the parts belonging 

(e) Whether or not the history and the various 
bodies of law in P had a separate literary career of 
their own before they became united, history and laws 
belong to the same general period. The force of 
criticai tradition in favour of the early date of the 
priestly history led Graf, it is true, in the first ìnstance 
to place the laws, the date of the origin of which was too 
obvious to be ignored, remote in time from the history. 
The impossibility of this, however, was quickly seen, not 
only by Graf s critics, but also by himself. The funda- 
niental characteristics of the laws which point to the 
period in which they originated are in the history merely 
a little less explicit. They are there. Laws and history 
alike presuppose, for e.xample, the single place of 
sacrifice, the distinction between priests and Levites. 
In subsidiary matters too, the tie is equally dose ; 
both aUke, for example, use a number to define the 
month, and both are generally marked by the same 
striking linguistic peculiarities. 

The production then of this complex work was one 
of the chief results of literary activity in the earlier post- 
exilic period. We may consider the possibilities and 

1 See further Driver, IntrodSt), pp, 44/! 



probabilities with regard to the stages in its growth in 
connection with ihe other achievement of the period— 
the union of this complex whole or of its various parts 
wilh JED. 

Here we must consider the external evidence, Un- 

fortiinately that evidence is ambiguous ; and scholars 

__ ™- g^ are much divided in their interpretation 

f N h 8 10 °*' ''' '^^^ evidence consists of the 
■ ■ account of the acceptance of ' Ihe law 

of God which was given by Moses the servaiit of God ' 
(Neh. 10 29) contained in Neh. 8-10 — chapters derived 
froin the memoirs of Ezra bui worked over to some 
degree by the excerptor (see Ezra ìi., § 5). Now the 
law to which the people bound themselves on the 24th 
day of the 7th month of the year 444 was, at leasl pre- 
eminently, the law of P. 

le is quite clearly P's law of the feast of booths that is found 
wriuen in the law (Neh, 8 14/i) ; for the fef^tival lasts eight days 
(Neh. 8 is) in accordance with Lev. 23 36 (cp 2 Ch. 7 9^^), not 
severi as commanded in Dt.)6i3(cp i K. 8 66 Ezek.4f>25 Lev. 
aSii, H). Then compare furllier in delail the ordinances de- 
scribed in Neh. 10 32-39 with the relevant lawsin P — for detaiied 
references see the commentators : note especially the agree- 
ment, as to the dues demanded, of Neh.lO36.40 with Nu. 18 ; 
on ihe relation of 10 32 to Ex. 30 \2/- cp below, § 21 (a). 

Was, then, the ' law of God,' read by Ezra and inter- 
preted by the priests and Levites to the people, sim])!y 
the historico-legal work contained in P, or was it this 
work alrcady combined with JED and therefore sub- 
slantially the Pentateuch in its present forni ? The 
former alternative certainly seems more probable on the 
face of it. Would a self-contradictory work like the 
Pentateuch in its present form have produced the desired 
effect ? 

The view that Ezra's law consisted of P alone has been held 
and defended, inter alias, by Kayser (Das vorcxilìsche Buch, 
pp. 195 _/!), Reuss (Gesch. d. heilìgen Schrìften des A T(^, 
SÌ ^17 ff-\ Kuenen (Hex. 303), Holzinger (Jiinl. 438/). In 
addilion to the argument already Suggested, it is urged that the 
lime allowed in Neh. 8 for reading and inlerpreting would not 
have permitted of Lev. 23 being reached by the second day if 
the whole Pentateuch, not simply P, was the hook read. 
The opposite view—that Ezra read P combined with JED^is 
adopted, aimost of necessity, by adherents of the older criticai 
school ie.g.. Di. NJD (372/. \ Kit. 93^^), but aUsoby others(<f.^., 
We. ProlA*), 415). Among the grounds adduced for this view 
is the fact thal marriage with aliens (Neh. 103o[3i])isexpress]y 
forbidden noi in P but only in other parts of the Pentateuch 
(Ex. 34 12 Di. 7 2^?;). 

5. Laier Post- Exilic (post-Ezran) Period. — On the 
answer to the ijuestions raised at the end of the last section 

ia ì t must largely turn ourview of post-Ezran 

hi tòrv^ftfP 'iterary activity. Most of what will be 
■' ' here discnssed must be thrown back 

before the period of Ezra, if the view that the law read 
by him was (substantially) the whole Pentateuch be 
adopted ; and some of the processes may in any case 
have fallen rather in the previous period ; a further 
preliminary remark needing to be made is this, that 
any strict chronological sequence of the processes now 
to be mentioned cannot be established. \'arious hypo- 
theses may be made which nothing yet known serves 
either to invalidate or confirm. With ihese precautions 
we proceed to enumerate various editorial and supple- 
mentary labours to which criticism has drawn attention. 
In some cases it is tolerably certain that those who 
undcrtook theni were successors of Ezra. 

(a) The union of P with JED. This must have 
occurred, if not before (see preceding section), within 
a generation or two after, Ezra ; otherwise it would be 
difiìcult to account for the practical identity of the Jewish 
and Samaritan Pentateuchs (see Canon, § 24/".). The 
result of the union was important ; the pre-eminently 
historico-prophetic character of JED liecomes in the 
whole complex work entirely subordinate to the legai 
and priestly character of the later work with which 
it is incorporated which now gives its dominant note 
to the whole. 

The eadier fortunes of JE fall for consideratìon aimost 
entiiely under histoiical literature ; later they are lost in those 
of llie great legai work which henceforward is the norniadve 
influence alike over literature (cp Chronici-Bs) and over life. 


21. Addi- 
tìons to F. 

[b) Removal of Joshua. — The process just rnentioned 
was doubtless associated with another. The history of 
P extended to the conquesl of Canaan (cp JosnuA ii. , 
§§ 5, 12). This last pari of the work, dealing with 
events subsequent to the death of Moses, no longer 
forms part of ' the law.' Whether this truncalion of P 
look place at the actual time of the union with JED 
or subsequenlly may be left undecided ; but the date 
of the process, like that of the union of P and JED, 
hangs on the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which 
does not contain the hook of Joshua. 

(e) ENpansions of P {or of JEDP). The complexity 
of P has been briefiy discussed already (§ j8). We 
must here draw more special attention 
to scctions. related in style and spirit to 
P, which do not appear to have formed 
part of it originalìy and certainly may be of post- 
Ezran origin. The determination of the secondary 
or primary character of many particular sections 
of priestly character must often remain inconclusive, 
for ìt frequently turiis on genera! considerations which 
will weigh differently with different minds.^ If it is 
unlikely that the law Ezra read was encumbered with 
the irreievant histories of J E and the irreconcilable 
laws of the earlier legislation and Dt. , it is scarcely less 
unlikely that it contained the self-contradictory laws to 
be found within P or the different representations of the 
tabernacle and ils appurlenances that underlie Ex. 25-31 
as well as many of the laws. On the other band some 
laws not immediately and conspicuously connected with 
the history [e.g., those of I^v. 23) must already have 
been iinited with the priestly history (§ 18/). Stili, the 
account in Neh. 8-10 fails to carry us far in actually 
determining the extent of legai matter contained in 
Ezra's law-book. As illustrations of the type of expan- 
sions to which P was subject the following may be cited. 

(a) Laws representing and enforcing actual moditica- 
tions of praxis. In one or two cases it is tolerably 
certain that these are not only secondary but also 

For example, the tempie tax in the time of Ezra was one- 
third of a shekel (Neh. 1032), and, apparently, a noveliy ; the 
law of Ex, aO jr-i6 (cp 2Ch. 246-io)demands bah a shekel; ihìs 
latteramounr was actually paid inlalertin)es(Mt, 17z4;cp Schiir. 
Gjvm, 2206). The most naturai conclusion is that the law 
of Ex. 30 II -16 is an espansion of P (which is fuilher indicated 
by its presupposing Nu. 1) subsequent to the time of Ezra. 
Again, the tithe on eattle payable to the Levites accotding io 
Lev. 27 30-33 and referred to in 2Ch. 316 seems to be as little 
recognised in Nu.1821 Neh. 10 36-38 I3S-37I as in Dl.1422-29 
2*i 12-15. Once again, the law in Lev. 2730-33 seems to beloog to 
the post-Ezran period ; but in this case ic must be piaceri earlier 
than the date of Chronicles. Many other similar cases of modifi- 
cations within P give iess due to the date of their incorpotalion 
in the priestly work or the Pentateuch. 

()3) Another type of expansions is perhaps to be found 
in laws embodying practice sufficiently ancient and even 
primitive, but sanctioncd only as a concession to pop- 
ular feeling by the scribal class. 

For example, the ordeal of Jealousv (Nu. 5 11-31) and the 
cleansing by the ashes of the red beifer (Nu. 19) are certainly in 
some respecls primitive. In their present forra they betiay the 
general slylistic characteristics of the priestly school ; but they 
stand isolated and unrelated (so far as can be seen) to the main 
scheme of the priestly work. Cheyne accounts in a similar 
manner for the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 10) ; see 
AzAZEL, S 4; /w«A Eel. Li/e, 75/ 

(7) A third type of expansions consists of additions 
to the more historica! or quasi - historical inater ial. 
Most notable is the repetition (Ex. 35-40)^in the form 
of a detailed account of carrying thcse into effect — of the 
directions to build the tabernacle. 

Here the relation of MT and ffl renders it probable that we 
have to do with tolerably late expansions. Whether or not 
many other sections {e.g., Nu. 7) are primary or secondary 
depends largely on the assurance with which we are prepared 
to judge the possibihties of the originai writer's piolixity. 
For delails see Exodus, § s, Leviticus, S§ -iff-, Nlimbebs, 

(3) Another set of expansions of the primary work 

1 For a discussion of many derails see ExoDus, §5, Leviticcs, 

§S Z^; NUMBERS, gg lO^ 21. 



is indicateci by references to the ' aitar of iticense ' or 
the ' golden aitar.' This is unknown to E\. 25-29, and 
first appears in the supplemental section Ex. 30i-io. 
The originai ptieslly narrative knows only a single aitar, 
termed simply 'the aitar,' and distinguished by the 
later writers from ' the aitar of incense ' as the aitar of 
burnt-offering. Cp further Wellhausen, CH'^\ ^39^ 

Such are some of the leading instances of the expan- 
sion of the Jaw after it had beconie fixed as to its maìn 
form. By degrees the reverence for the letter, which a 
few centufies later we know to have been intense, mits-t 
have rendered it difììcult to incorporate ncw mailer, and 
especiaHy new matter dififering essentially from the 
written law. Glosses may have been made even later ; 
such is the conclusion suggested by a comparison of 
MT with the versions, especially @. 

6. liabbinic Period. ^As there had been laws before 
there was any legai li terature (§ 7 ), so there was much legai 

22 Post- ^'^^'^''y ^^^^^ ^^^ '®g^' literature collected 

bi'blical '"^ ^^^ '^''^ Testament was complete. To 
. , some extent this later activity found a 

^ ' literary outìet in some of the Apocalyptic 

Literature (Apocalyptic Literai-ure, §§ a, 58). 
To a much larger extent it spent itself in the pro- 
duction of an orai tradition which had grown to great 
proportions by the first century a, D. But whereas the 
orai tradition that apparently lies behind the earliest 
collections of written law in the OT was a record based 
on actual practice and precedent, the later orai tradition 
(in its turn the source and indeed the contents of another 
great literature — the Rabbinic) was largely casuìstical ; 
it concerned cases that might arise at least as much as 
cases that had arisen. The law of God was no longer 
established custom ; its principles were contained in the 
written law and were capable of being applied lo the 
minutest circumstances of life. It is with this minute 
application, with this working out of the older law, that 
the ' traditions . of the fathers ' which constìtute the 
Mishna are concerned. 

As the first fall of Jenisalem (586 b.c.) gave a 
stimulus to the fixing of much of previously existing law 

23 Miahna. ^^^ ^'^ ^^ consideration of the law of 

Talmud ebc '*^^ ^""^"""^ (§§t4-i6), so the second fall 
' ■ of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), and the final 
dispersion of the Jews from their religìous centre, added 
zest to the pursiiit of the law and to the systematisation 
of the legai discussions of the Rabbis. It is the dis- 
cussions of the Rabbis who lived between 70 A. D. and 
about 200 A.D. that chiefìy constìtute the Mishna. 
Eailier Rabbis are mentioned comparalively speaking 
with extreme rarity. But when was this traditional 

discussion written down? It is generally assumed 
that it was about 200 A.D. Stili, it is not certain, 
either that none of it had been written earlier, or that 
ali of it was written then ; by that date it had in any 
case assumed a fixed shape or arrangement whether 
as orai tradition or in writing ; and thenceforward it 
became the subject of further discussion both in 
the Palestinian and the Babylonian schools, This 
discussion is known as the Gémara. ' Mishna and 
GSmàrà together constìtute the Talmud or rather the 
Talmuds. The result of the Palestinian discu.ssions on 
the Mishna was the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud, 
completed towards the end of the fourth century or 
during the fifth century a.d. ; the result of similar dis- 
cussions in Babylon was the Babylonian Talmud com- 
pleted about 500 A. D. 

The Talmud is the chief literary produci of late 
Jewish legai discussion ; but it is by no means our only 
one. For example, under the title of Tòsepktà we stili 

1 In addilion to the discussions of the AmOràìnx or post- 
Mlshnic doctors which constìtute the main body of the 
Gemala and are writlen in Aramaic, the Gètnàra contains also 
sayincs of older dorCors not contained in the Mishna, but wiitten 
like the Mishna in Hebrew. These are named BjiLìitna 
( Nnna). 



possess a collection of discussions of Ihe Mishnic age 
which resembles the Mishna in being arranged accord- 
ing to lopics, but nevei- gained the same anthoritative 
posilion. Another branch of this literature consists of 
commentaries {Midrdskim) on the sacred text. Here 
of course the arrangement is not according to subject ; 
from the nature of the case it follows the arrange- 
ment of the biblical lext. The earliest works of 
this kind, belonging in their originai form to the second 
century a.d. and thus closely related in lime as well as 
in contents with the Mishna, are Mlchiltà (on pari of 
Exodus), Siphrà (on Leviticus), and Siphrè (on 
Numbers and Deut. ). Any discussion of the 

Talmud and the Mishnic literature falls outside the limits 
of this article and must be sought for elsewhere.^ It has 
been necessary, however, to refer to it. The movement 
begun by Deuteronomy does not close within the period 
of the OT ; its goal is the Talmud ; its course covers 
more than a thousand years. Deuteronomy does much 
to crystallise principles into rules and thereby partly 
strangles the free prophetic fife, lo which Ìl so largely 
owed its exislence. Stili the principles survive in 
it ; the appeal to motive is Constant. ■ The subsequenl 
history of law - literature, however, is the history of 
the increasing supremacy of rules based on the pasl 
over the living spirit of the present. Ezekiel indeed 
questiona and displaces deuteronomic laws ; the Priestly 
Code amends Ezekiel ; but thenceforward law always 
professedly adheres to the norm of scripture, the 
written word ; the Mishna is the interpretation of the 
written law : the Gemara the interpretation of the 
Mishna. G. B. G. 

LAWyER(NOAMKOc). Mt. 2235, eie, Tit. 813. See 
Law and Justice, and cp Scribes. 

' Lawyer ' is also given in RVmg- as a rendering of the obscure 
word K'JlBn in Dan. 3 2, See Sheriff. 

LAZAR HOUSE (H'K'pnin n'3), 2 K. ISs RV™e-, 
EV 'several house.' See Lefrosy. col. 2767, n. i. 

LAZARUS (A&Z&poc [Ti. WH]}. The name, which 

is a contraction of Eleazaro (?■"■} — i-^- 'God has 

_ „ helped' — was specially appropriate for the 

' centra] figure in any story illustrating the 

help of God. 

For OT examples see Ex. 18 4 2 S. 239/? In the period of 
Judaism we may expect to find the divine help more distinctly 
recognised. Cp Ps. 46 i (3] 'a very present help in trouble ' ; 
ÌOe [5I ' I am poor and needy ; make baste unto me, O God : 
thou art my kelp and my dellverer.' When po\-eily and piety 
were synonymous it was naluial to favour such names as Eleazar 
and Eliezer, Eleazar is the name given to (a Macc. 6 1S-31) tbe 
scribe called by Chrysostom (1258) ' the foundation of marcyr- 
dom," a type of those who (4 Macc. 7 ig) ' bclieve that, to God, 
ihey do not die' (and .see 3 Macc. dy^). 

In Lk. I619-31 Lazarus ìs inlroduced thus : * . . . and 

be that marries one that is put away . . commits 

_ TTni^n- adultery. Now ' there was a certain 

.*./*-. rich man . . . and a certain beggar 

•' ' named Lasarus was laid ai his gaie 

full of sores.'^ It is not surprising that the context, 

and the giving of a name to the centrai figure of the 

story, induced early commentators to suppose that this 

was a narrative of facts.^ Certainly if the story is one 

1 Strack, Einl. in den Taimudl?), 1894; Schùr. G/FW I 87-115, 
where further reference to the exiensive literature will be foiind. 

3 Hor. He6r. on Lk. 16 zo (and cp ii. on Jn. 11 1) quotes 
Juckasin : ' Every R. Eleazar is written without an k' — i.e,, R. 

3 T> and Syr. Sin. om. ' now." 

* The Arabie Diaiess. (ed. Hogg) alters ordcr and text 
thus (Lk. l'i), '(15) Ye are they that iustify yourselves . . . 
the thiiig that is lofly before men is base before God. (19) 
And he began to say, A [certain] man was rich . . ,' This, 
beside.'i indicating that a parable oc discourse is commencing, 
gives it a logica] connection with the charges just brouglit 
against the * money-lovìng ' Pharisees. 

3 Iren. iv. 24 (see Grabe's note on ' Grtecorum et Latinorum 
Patrum miiluus consensiis *). * Non autem fabulam ' miglit pos- 
sibly mean ' not a mere tale but a tale with a lessoii ' ; but see 
also the inferences deduced from the .story in Iren. ii. 34 i, and 
Teitull. De AnÌM.7. Tettullian, however, guards himself 
against the Conclusion that nothing can be infeired from the 
story if it is imaginary. 




of Jesus' parables, Jt is difiicult to see why, contrary to 
usage, the principal character in it receives a name, 
Taking this metition of a name together wilh other 
unique features of the story (the elaborale details about 
Ilades, and the lechnical use of the phrase 'Abraham's 
bosom'}, may we not conjecture that we bave in Lk. 
16 19-31, not the exact words of Jesus, but an evangelio 
discourse upon hìs words (placed just before it by 
the Arabie Diatcssaron) — ' that which is exalted among 
men is an abomination in the sight of God ' ? If so, 
the insertion of the name Lazarus ( = EÌie3er) will be 
parallel to the insertions of nanies {e.g., Longinus) in 
the Ada Filati ; the typical character of the name has 
been indicated already (see above, §1). The final 
words of the story ( ' neìthcr will ihey be persuaded ' 
ecc. ) seem more like an evangelio comment after Christ's 
resurrection than like a prediction of Christ before it. 

The narrative in Jn, 11 opens thus, ' Now (5^) there 
was a certain man sick, Lazarus of {àirò) Bethany from 

3. Unique nar- 1^'^' '?^^ "^"^^ °SSV"^ ^^''^ 
rativflin Jn ■" ^'^'«'■- ^^^ (^^) Mary was she 
" that anointed the Lord with ointment 
and wiped his feet with her hair : and it was her brolher 
that (t}s ó d5eX0ós) was sick. The sisters, therefore, 
sent lo him, saying, Lord, he whom ihou lovest is sick. ' ^ 
Lazarus is here referred to as one who required an 
introduction. Tliis vìew is confirmed by the faci that 
his name is mentioned only in the unique narrative in 
Lk. I619-31, the historical character of which is very 
justly disputed. The sisters of Lazarus loo are not 
named at ali by the first two evangelists. Yet the 
name of this Lazarus, about whom the Synoptists are 
sileni, is connected by Jn. with the greatest of the 
miracles ; for it appears from Jn. II3C» that Lazarus, 
when Jesus arrived, had been four days dead, a cir- 
cumslance that differenliates this mi rad e from the 
parallel miracle al Nain^ (?'^-)' ^"*^ makes il the 
climax of Christ's wonderful works. The synoplic 
silence has never been explained. 

To remarle that for (he Jews and for the evangelists alìke 'it 
was one of " many sìgns " (II47), and not essentinlly dis- 
tinguished from them,'* m to ignore Jn.'s drajnalic power in 
delineating character. For the blind Pharisees no doubt this 
stupendous woniier was but one of ' many signs ' ; but only in 
Jn. And this was because Jn. wishes to represent the Pharisees 
as being sCupetidously blind. It was plainly roC one of ' many 
signs' for the muUitudes in Jerusalem who flocked to meet 
Jesus (Jn. 12 18) 'because they heard that he had done this 
sigi.' In ihe same way ihe Pharisees think nolhing of the 
healing of a man bom blind. The blind man, however, reminds 
them that such asign was neverivorktd ' since the ivorld began.' 
The Acta Pitali represetiis the Roman Governor as unmoved 
by ali the other evidence of Jesus' miracles ; but when he hears 
of the climax, the raising of Lazarus after he had been four days 
dead, he 'tremhles.'S 

The distinction drawn above between the Fourth 
Evangelisl and the Kynoptists unfairly discredi ts the 
iatter. We must noi maintain, without any evidence 
but their silence, that the Synoptists were as stupid or 
as perverse as Chrisfs niosl bigoted and vindictive 
ad versa ri es. 

The common-sense view of the Synoptic omission of 

1 Cp the prepositions in Jn. 1 44_/^ 46 7 43 s^- 

2 *Hi/ 5è M. has an exact parallel in Jn. 18 [4. Such 'clauses 
of characteiisation ' are frequent in Jn. {e.g., 7 50, and cp 19 39 
' he that carne to him before, or, by night '). They keep before 
the reader the personality of the person described and prepare 
him for a new manìfestation of the personality. 

S See Acta Fil.S and cp Hor. Hebr. on Jn. 11 39. 'For 
throe days the spìrìt wanders about the sepulchre expecting if 
it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or 
aspecl of the face is changed then it hovers no more but leaves 
the body to itself.' Cp John, § 20. 

^ Weslcott on Jn. 11 i. On the argument from the silence of 
the Synoptists see further GospEl.S, Sg 'j^f- 

s Acta FU. 8. ' And others said, " He raised Lazarus . . ."' 
Why does not Lazarus himself testify before Filate, like the 
man who (Jn. 5 i) had been diseased thiily-eight years, and 
BartimEeus (noi mentioned by name, though) and the woman 
wilh the issue, and others, 'a multìlude both of men and 
women'? Was he snpposed to be in hiding, or dead? A 
Lazarus is mentioned {jh. 2) as one of twelve Jews who testify 
that Jesus was ' not bom of foriiication.' 


this miracle is like the common-sense view of the 

omission in the book of Kings of the statement made in 

the parallel passages of Chronicles — that God answered 

David and Solomon by lire from heaven. The earlier 

author omitted the tradilion because he did not accept 

it and probably had never heard it. Il was a later 


Is then the record of the Raising of Lazarus a fiction ? 

Not a fiction, for it is a development. But it is non- 

fw, ™>, t historical. like the History of the ("rea- 

. ■ ,... . tion in Genesis, and like the rccords of 
traaitions la ,, ,. 1 ■ .1. i- .u ,- 1 

., . Ihe other miracles m the tourth Gospel; 

tne axscount ....... ... e > 

hflHpd? which are poelic developnients 

(attempts to summarise and symbolise 
the many ' mighty works ' of Jesus recorded b)' the 
Synoptists in seven typical ' signs ' expressing his work 
before the Resurrection). The words of Jesus the 
Fourth Evangelisl has obviously noi attempled to pre- 
seni in the fortn and style assigned to Ihem by his 
predecessors, and the same statement applies to the 
Johannine account of the acts of Jesus. This, however, 
does not prevent us from discerning in many cases one 
originai beneath the two differing repre sentati ons. For 
example, we can see a connection belween the healing 
of the man born blind and the Synoptic accounls 
of Ihe healing of blindness ; and in Jn.'s account of the 
miraculous draught of fishes after the Resurrection we 
perceive clear traces of Lk. 's account of a sìmilar event 
placed at an early period. So in the presenl case, if we 
are lo study the Raising of Lazarus, in which a very 
large part is assigned to the intercession of Martha and 
Mary, the first step must be to go back to traditions 
about the sisters, and lo attempi to explain the origin 
of the belief that they had a brother called Lazarus 
and that he was raised from the dead. 

Before we proceed lo this, however, it may be well to 
remind the reader of the influence exerted by names and 
sometimes by corruptions of names on 

the development of traditions.^ The 

&. Anoittting 

'■ student of the evangelic traditions is 
repeatedly called upon lo apply this key, and we shall 
have lo do so in studyìng the parallel narraiives of the 
anointing of Jesus in Bethany given by Mk. , Mt. , and 
Jn. resjiectively. Mk. 's preface is (Mk. I43) 'And 
while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the 
leper, while he was sitting down to meat ' (^c t% oIkì^ 
Si/itui-os ToO XeTTpov KO-TO-KUiiivov ainov). Mt. 26 6 has 
simply Tov Sé 'lifffo!) yevofiévov iv B. iv olKÌ<f. 2. rad 
Xejrpoil. Now, iv Trj oÌkI^ in Mk.933, ]0io means 'in 
the house,' — i.e., 'indoors,' no name of owner being 
added. Hence Mk. is capable of being rendered, 
'While he was in Bethany in the house, Simon the leper 
himself [alsó] sitting down.' The parallel in Jn. is (Jn, 
121-2) 'Jesus therefore . . . came to Bethany where 
was (Siroiy ^f) Lazarus ... So they made him a 
supper there, and Martha was serving, but Lazarus 7vas 
o?ie of thcm tkat sai at meat -with him. (ó 5^ A. cIt %v ìk 
TÙv àvaKeifiéviav aiiv aìrr^),' which ceriainly suggests, 
though noi definitely stating, that the house belonged lo 
Lazarus. It has been pointed oiit elsewhere, however, 
(GoSPKLS, § io), thai ' belonging lo the leper' mighl 
easily have been confused with ' Lazarus,' so that the 
name may have sprung from a corruption of the phrase. 
As regards the dropping of the name ' Simon,' an 
analogy is afforded by Ecclus. SOzja, where, according 
lo the editors of the recovered Hebrew text,^ it is prob- 

1 See the wiiter's Diatessarica (287-9) f""" ^n explanation of 
the possible confusion between 'answeiingasacrifice-by-fiie ' and 
'answeiing a sacrifìce by-fire.' The Hebrew 'sacrificc-by-fiie' 
is almost identica! in form with the word meaning ' fire.' 

2 For OT instances see the author's ZJw/cjs-iWca (46-54). 

3 See their note ad toc. It seems worth while, however, to 
add that fS, while dropping 'for Simon' (pycB'^X adds 
'l*poiToÀufjfir))i (((' has i»peùs ó SoAu/ieinis). May not the 
latler be a confused represe n tal io n of the former ? Owing to iis 
similarity to other common words and phrases, "Simon," 
in Hebrew, might easily be inserted or omiUed in translating 
from Hebrew. See note on Lk. 736 belo*. 



able that the ' son of Sirach ' was originally called 
•Simon son of Jesus.' but that 'Simon son of was 

Bm at this point, if we are to understand the steps 
by which Jn. was led to his conclusions concerning 
Lazarus, it is necessary to reaiise the obscurity that he 
must bave found hanging over the story of the anointing 
of Jesus in the house of 'Simon the Leper,' where 
Lazarus seemed to him to bave beeQ present. 

Such a surname as ' the leper ' is antecedently im- 
probable,' and it is omitted by Jn. ; but its difficulty 
6 'The leoer' '"'^''^^'^^ '^at it was not an ìnterpola- 
an error ' '''"^ ^'^* ^ corruption, possibly a con- 
fi a tion of the nanie of the place 
commonly called Bethany. Jn. alone appcars to cali 
this (Jn. Hi) 'a village'; and he places it {ib. iZ) 
15 furlongs, which is exactly two Talmudic miies ^ — . 
i.e., a Sabbath day's journey with return — -from 
Jerusalem. This fixed the position, of course, for the 
first Christian pilgrims, and subsequently for the Church. 
But it did not succeed in itnposing the name on the 
natives, who cali the spot defined by Jn. , not Bethany, 
but el- Azariyeh. This fact, and Lk. 's comparative 
silence,' and the total silence of Josephus feven in the 
details of the siege), and the Talmudic variatioiis of 
spelling and of statement (connecting it with ' unripe 
figs' and 'shops'), and Mk.'s description of Bethany 
as apparently nearer to Jerusalem than Bethphage 
(Mk.lli, ' to Bethphage and Bethany ')— ali indicate 
that Bethany was not really a village, but simply 
(Hke Bethphage) a precinct of the city, a part of 
the great northern suburb minutely described by 

This suburb is casually mentioned as (Jos. BJ\\. I94) 
■ what is familiarly-called both Bezetha and The-Neio- 
7. 'Bethaiv' ^^'y ^'^'^'' re Be^edàn vpoaayopevofiéi'Tji' 

DerhaDS '^'^ '''''' KntPOTroXti'). '* Then. describing 
'Bezetha' '*^ gi^dual growth. and its subsequent 
enclosure in a Wall by Agrippa, the 
historian speaks of {iù.vAs) 'the bill {Xó/pov) that is 
called ((taXeirai) Bezethana (so Big. and Voss. , but 
Ruf. Zebethana. Huds. Bezetha)'; and he goes on to 
say {ib.) • But by the people of the place the new-built 
portion was called Bezetha {éKX-^&i) S' éirix^P^<^^ Be^e&à 
TÒ veoKTKJTOv jjÀpos),' pcrhaps meaning that the citizens 
contracted 'Bezethana' to 'Bezetha,' but more prob- 
ably that the name, in both forms, was vernacular and 
difficult to represent exactly in Greek. He does not 
directly and strai ghtforwardly say that ' Bezetha ' means 
'new city,' but that (ià.) ' being ìnterpreted, it would 
he called in the Greek tongue new city ('EWdSt yXwirffrj 
Kaifi) XéyoiT' àv ttÓXis).' This may well niean that 
' new city ' would be the way to express in Greek a. 
Jewish name not capatale of being at once hterally and 

1 In I K. 11 26, Jeroboam's mother ìs certainl^ called ' Zeruah,' 
but this is either a deliberate insult or a corruption (see col. 2404, 
n. 2). ^ Cp Levy, JiTHIVB (Din), on 'he recognised impropiiety 
ofgiving people nick-names from personal blemishes (a custom 
common among the Romans, but not among the Jews). 

2 fior. Hebr. 1 z62. 

3 Lk. only mentions the exact Synoplic name once (Lk. 24 50) 
' as far as to(wards) (eu)5 Trpós) Bsihany,' in connection with the 
Ascension, the return from which is desciibed as (Acts 1 12) 
'from the mountain called the Place-of'Olivss CEXoióùi'oì), 
which is near Jerusalem, a. sabbath dicy's journey.' Lk. 19 29 
has Bjjflatió, not Bi)9a ' 

* The article before KoicdTroXti' may be explained as a. 
lending of the notions 'New Town' and ^ the new town.' 
Strictly speaking, it ought to be TÌ71' B. re, not rriv re B. EuC 
the irregularity mighc easily be paralleled from Thucydides. 
Moreover the text may be a conden^ation of tìji' t^v re B. «al 
Tfiv K.n-poiray. 'which is Called the Bezetha and ;';4£ Kainopolis." 
It seems clear from the next exlract chat Rezetha, or Bezethana, 
was the Jewish name for Kainopolis or New-town, and that the 
two names did noe denote different places. If Josephus wrote 
in every case Be^eBac, it might easily be cortupted into Be^ffó, 
being written Bt^eflà. There is one previous mencion, also 
casual, describing Roman soldiers forcing their way up to the 
tempie (^/ii. ISj) ' ihrough what is called Bezetha' Sii t^s 
Be^fflffl KoAoufitVijs. As variants Niese's Index cites Be^afló, 
Bi^eS., Bfflofó, Bttfcf., 'ApKTffaflTJ. 



briefly translated : ^ and this view is confirnied by the 
fact that he never introduces the name without a sort of 
apology ( ■ the people cali it,' etc. ). 

That there was such a vernacular name appears from 
foiir parallel versions of a Jewish tradition given by 
Grata [Gesch. 774^). to the effect that Jerusalem had 
as a suburb 'two Slices,'^ a lower (no doubt corre- 
sponding to the 'lower Kainopolis' of Josephus) and 
a higher. The higher was considered by common 
people, the lower even by strici Pharisees, as part of 
the Holy City, for the purpose of eating the meat of 
sacrifices. and so forth. The word for * Slice ' is 
' Betze ' or ' Beze, ' which. with the addition of the word 
'lower,' might easily correspond to Josephus' 'Beze- 
thana.'^ And having regard to the many variations 
and abbrevialions probable in a vernacular name. and 
to those actually exìslent in Josephus, we can well 
understand how such a name may bave been confused 
by some with the Mt. of Olives, and by others called 
'Bethany.'* It is also similar to the Hebrew for 
'leper,'* Lastly, it may throw light on the parallel 
tradition in Lk. (730) about a Pharisee asking Jesus to 
eat (bread)." 

1 That Josephus never dreamed of identifying Bezetha with 
the Har-hazaithim— 7.?., (Zech. I44) Mt. of Olives— is clear 
from many passages and especially from BJ v. 12 a, ' He (Titus) 
built the Wall to tke Isnver Nevi-City (^r\v Kiniaripai Kaii'ójroAii') 
. . . and thence passing through Kedron. to the Mount of 
Olives.' Ij^vy (Chalii. Lex.) does not mention ' Beth-zailhim, 
House of Olives,' as one of the naines by which the Mt. of 
Olives was called. It seems to bave been regularly called the 
Mt., or Hill, of Olives, or the Mt. of Oil. 

3 'Slice' is intended to express the vernacular use of the 
word, and also the fact that the word is especially applied, in 
New Heb., to the ' breaking of bread' ; cp Levy (Chtld. Lcx. 
1 108 b) ]'yia"3i ' Brotstiìcke.' Gratz renders it bere ' Parcellen.' 

* That Josephus should transliterate the Heb. ;; (s) by the 
Gk. ^(3) can excite no surprìse : He regularly does this in the 
name 'Zoar,' for example. Also the incerchange of i and a 
(as in TVs) "s frequent (Buhl, 209^). 'Lower' is, in Gratz 's 
extracts, .ijmnn, taktdnah. Levy (NHIVB) gives it!(3 aS 
synonymous with J113, and with -1x3. ' Be(t)zertha ' (((nTS3i 
Levy, Chald. Lex.l roga) Ss the late Heb. for 'the separate 
place' (Ezek. 41 12-15) in 'he tempie; but as regards KnKT3 
(suggested in Hastìngs, 2 594) the forms of the root given by 
Levy {Ckald. Lex.) are said by bim to mean only ' division of 
boocy,' 'plunder.' It is perhaps worth adding that (he only 
place-name in OT beginning with ')3t Josh. 15 28, ' Bìziothiah 
(.TnV!3),' isread by © ;ini]3. lit; ' herdaughters '—/.?., J»i«?-^j, 
and is conflated accordingly, oi «<u/*tti ainùv koX ai in-auAets 


* Cp Mk. 11 19, ' And when it was evenJng they used to go 
forth outside tke city,' Mt. 21 17 'he came forth outside the city 
to Bethany,' Lk. 21 37 ' coming forth he used to lodge in the 
mount that is called [the mount] of Olives.' The dìvergences 
can perhaps be best explained as springing from an originai 
' to Bezetha(na),' paraphrased by Mk., conflated by Mt. with 
Bethany, and laken by Lk. as ' Place of Olives.' It should be 
noted that two of the versions of Gràtz's above-quoted tradition 
begin 'Two Slices were on the Mount of Oli,' the third has 
''« (3) Jerusalem,' and the fourth 'there.' The third seems 
likely to bave preseived the originai, which perhaps meant 
' connected ivith. Jerusalem.' As the suburbs were outside 
Jerusalem proper, ' in ' was naturally altered. 

6 Reading J'^sa as l'jjaD (^ corruption very frequent in ©) 
we bave a word very similar to tJ-|SD, ' leper. ' 

8 Not oniy Is ya3, 'slice,' or ' fragment,' the regular N. Heb. 
word for ' breaking bread,' but also J'yias was a name given 
(Levy4 1,53 a-b) (o a class of hypOcrites that aped the practices 
of the stricter Pharisees. Space favls to indicate ali the traces 
of Hebrew influence on the narratives of the Anointing of Jesus. 
But one may be given. Lk., without introducing the host by 
name, represents Jesus as addre.ssing bim by name, thus (Lk. 
'40) 'Simon, I bave somewhat to say unto thee.' This is 
unexampied in the gospels. Yet it is most improbable that Lk. 
inseited— in this exttaordinary place instead of at the com- 
mencement — what was noi in his originai, merely because a 
Simon the Leper had been mentioned in (he Synoptic narrative. 
More probably the originai had ' Hearken («j-ycc') or hearken- 
to J«^(']j)oc),'a'"i Lk. mistook this for njinu, ' Simon.' It may 
also be of use to point out that in Jn. 12 i ' vjkere vias Lazattis, 
whom Jesus raìsed from the dead,' Delitzsch expresses ' where 
was ' by the Heb. 'place 'or 'home.'mpQ. But this differs so 
little from Q'pn. 'raise up,' that the two are repeatedly confused 
by theLXX, Nah.lB ' the/Zac^thereof,'® 'they that are ra/s^.^ 
«A" Jer. IO20 'and to set up,' ® 'place' (and see 2 S. 2249, 




It is essential for the reader to keep steadily in view 
the traces of obscurity in the earliest Christian iraditions 
in order that he may understand Jn.'s 

8. First 

attitude towards them. Jn. is to be re- 
garded neither as a fallacious historian nor 
as a poet putting aside history, but as a behever, so 
penetrated with the sense of the power of Christ's 
spiri t, and at the same lime so consci ous of the 
obscurity, uncertainty, and inadequacy of the extanl 
historical records of Christ, that he felt impelled towards 
a new representation both of his words and of his 
deeds. To describe the lai ter, he remouMed the 
gospel, fusing old tradiiions and new, written and orai, 
inferring, ampHfying, spiritiialising, but net ìnventing. 

if, therefore, Jn. was led to belìeve that a man named 
Lazarus owned the house in which the anointing 
occLirred, what ìnferences wouid he naturally make in 
accordance with his principie of blending scattered tradi- 
tioiis? He found in Lk. (IO40) an account of a supper 
made for Jesus where Martha * was cumbered about 
much serving,' while Mary sat at his feet and heard his 
discourse ; and this he might identify with the meal al 
which the anointing look place. Martha, however 
{without name of husband or father of the house), was 
mentioned by Lk. as the hostess.^ Il follo wed that the 
house must have belonged in some sense to her as well 
as to Lazarus, and consequently that Lazarus must have 
been a younger brother. Hence would arise Jn.'s de- 
scription of Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha ; 
for indeed il was in this inferenlial way that Jn. had 
reasoned out the exislence of a Lazarus. 

The next step was to connect the name with Lk. 's 
Lazarus who was raised from the dead. The last words 
a n lftT\ "^^ Lk. 's Lazarus- narrative are, 'Neither 
' mAtitR ^'^^ ^^^^ òelieve though one -went to tkem 
from the dead,' which might become the 
basis of a iradition thal ' the Lord saìd concerning a man 
named Lazarus, who died and was buried, thal the Jews 
would not òelieve (i.e. , refused to belìeve) though one went 
to them from the dead.' But if this Lazarus who sat at 
meat when Martha served and Mary anointed Jesus' feet, 
had been raised from the dead by Jesus.— and thal, too, 
after he had been buried — it foliovved that such a sign 
was the climax of ali the ' signs ' and would naturally 
come last of ali. It must have been wrought at 
Bethany, since Lazarus's house was there. Yet Jesus 
couid noi have been al Bethany when Lazarus died— so 
the Evangelist would argue — for how could he remain 
and look on, and permil the death and burlai ? Jesus 
must therefore have been at a distance. In that case, 
Martha and Mary must surely have seni to him. Yet 
he must have known even al a distance what was 
happening ; and if he knew, why did he noi come? 
And how would the sisters endure his not coming? 
Upon the hasis of ali these inferences and queslions the 
Evangelist proceeds to describe how the iwo sisters seni, 
and what they saìd when Jesus came, and how he 
answered their intercession — the resuìt being the raising 
of Lazarus, the climax of Jesus' 'signs.' 

Some commentators mainlain thal the graphìc style 
of the evangelist proves thal he had seen or heard 
the scenes or discourses he describes. 
Among his mosl graphic passages, 
however, are the dialogues with Nicodemus and with the 
Samaritan woman, at neither of which was he present. 

' rise up against me,' ® [L] ' my place"). By themselves, ihese 
facts would have no weight ; but laken in conjunction with the 
instances of apparent Hebrew influence (see Diatessarica, 
ìi. 334, containing Index co passages from Jn.) they suggest 
the ]!05sibili[y of a. conflation in Jn. ; and they are worth 
mentioning bere in order to help the reader to realise that 
Jn., as wcll as Lk. (ihougb in a manner different from Lk.'s), 
may have attempted to correct existmg hisloiies, not by 
Ìnventing, but by giving shape and order to vague and floating 

1 ' Martha ' in New Heb. means sometiraes ' mistress ' (Levy, 
NHIVB 3 234 b), ' iìte mistress (nmo) "f the house who received 


10. The motiva. 

The fact is, that Jn. writes as a-mystical poet, im- 
bued with Jewish tradiiions from Egypt as well as from 
Palestine, with a keen eye for human characteristics, 
bui with a stili deeper ìnsight into the unfathomable 
love and spiritual power of Jesus, and with a desire to 
subordinate every word of his Gospel to the purpose of 
manifesting thal love and that power to mankind.' 

(i.) The hook called Sohar, iJoAc-jSchottgen on Mt. 
2 18), represents the Messiah as weeping when Rachel 

11. Svmbolical "^^^^ ^°'' ^'^^ children. By Justin 
AlliisionB '^sirtyr {Tryph. 134} and Irenieus 

(4 zi) Rachel was recognised as the type 
of the Christian Church, and Justin saw in Leah the 
type of the Synagogue. (ii. ) The Aposlolic Constitutions 
(7 S) mertlion Lazarus with Job, apparentJy recognising 
in the raising of Lazarus a fulfìlment of the famous 
prediction found in the received lext of Job ISeò."*^ Tradi- 
tiuns about Rachel and Job, as well as the Philonian 
explanation of Eliezer,^ may very well have been in the 
evangelist's mind when he described the intercession of 
the two sisters and put into the mouth of Martha the 
words ' by this lime he stinketh. ' Nor is it farfetched 
to see a contrast between Lazarus— leaving the lomb 
stili bound with grave-clothes and wilh the napkin round 
his head^and Jesus who, when he rose, left ' the liuen 
cloths lying ' and ' the napkin . , . rolled up in a place 
by itself ' 

The Greek allusions are of a different kind. 

(i.) Il 33, ' He rebvked'x^ his spirit ' (ivf^p^}ki\t^a.^o^^■avtv\l.o.^C)^, 

cp H38, 'again rebuking in himself.' In Mk. I43 Mt, 930 the 

word (ii.Pptii.aoiiui is appiìed ro Jesus addressìng, 

12. GreflK seveially, a leper and two blind men. Probably 
allUBÌons. J"- wLshes (o dispel the imprcssion that the half- 

suppressed exclarnalìon of anger ihat soniefimes 
accotnpanied Jesus' acts of healin^ was directed against the 
sufferer, whereas it was directed against the suffeiing regarded 
as Evil.* 

(ii.) 11 33, ' he troubled himself.' This is probably an allusion 
both to (a) the refrain in Ps. 42 (41) and 43 (42) (©) ' Why art 
thou exceeditig-sorro-wful, my soul (ir*piAvjroi, RV ' cast down '), 
and why dost thou trouble-me-'wiih' [! myself] (<rui-TapaiT(r«ì, 
RV ' disquieted wilhiti me '), and (h) to the synoplic use of the 
passage. The Greek ' exceeding-sorrowful ' (nfpi'Avnot) is rare 
in the LXX (see Ccncord.). In NT the word occurs in four 
passages, ìncludìng Mk. I434 Mt. 2639, 'Myjox/is ejrceeding- 
sorrmv/ul even unto death.' These words are not in Lk. But 
an early interpolation in Lk., or edìtion of Lk., subslituted (Lk, 
2244) an account of Christ 'engaged in a conflici (or, agony)' 
The problem of avoiding a word that might be a stumbling 
block, because it signified ' grief to excess^' and yet of inseiting 
a fulfilment of scriplure, corresponding to that in Mk. , is soived 
here by Jn.'s using the other balf of the Psalmist's sentence, 
namely, Irouble me with myself in the form ' he Iroubied him- 
self By this extraoidinary expression he indìrectly meels an 
ohjection that must have occurred to the many thousands of 
Greeks and Romans who were familiar with the fundamental 
docttine of Epictetus, ' Be free from trouble.' Jn. teaches that 
the Father himself wills that his children, including the eternai 
Son, shouid be ' troubled '—for one another. But what he wills, 
he does ; and what he does, the Logos does. Therefore the 
Logos, bere, 'troubled himself Later the Logos will be 
(12 27) 'troubled in soul,' and List of ali, by the treachery of 
Judas (1321), ' troubled in spirit.' 

1 Regarded as a narrative of fact this story, like others in jn., 
is defective. Even such commentalors as Lightfoot and West- 
cott have severaliy inferred that the journey from beyond Jordan 
to Bethany occupied ' Ihree days ' {Bibl. Rssays), ' about a day ' 
(Westc. adloc). 

^ Orig. Comm. on Jn. 1 5 (ed. Huet, voi. ii., p. 4 E) òfiiuSóra 
v^Kpov à.viaTi\<rfv, Anaphor. Pilat. 'he raised up one that had 
been dead four days. . . . when the dead man had his blood cor- 
rupted and when hìs body wasdestroyed by the woims produced 
in it and when it had the stink of a dog.' 

3 'Being interpreted, Eliezer is God my Help. For the 
mass [of fiesh] imbued wìth blood is by itself iiable to speedy 
dissolulion, being indeed a corpse ; but it is kept compact and 
quickened with a vital spark by the providence of God ' (O/. 

* In a passale quoted by Eusebins (/f£v.l6o) from a letter 
from the cburches of Lyons, f>i)3p. seems to mean ' loudly ciirsing' 
(not ' miitrering- curses '). Lucian uses it to express the deep 
angry ' bellowmg ' of Hecate (voi. i., p. 484, Necyoiii. 20, ìye- 
PpiH-jfTBTo il Bpincu). Cp Ecclus. 13 3, ' l'he rich man wrongs you 
and iellinvs at you hesìdes (wpo(r*i'f^pi;u^(ra.To).' Celsus (Orig. 
C</j, 276) complains that Jesus ' threatens and revìles ' on light 
occasions, and complains of Jesus' saying ' woe unto you.' Jn. 
neveruses the word ' woe.' It is hardly likely that the difficulty 
of Mk. I43 Mt.930 would have escaped educated assailants of 
the Gospels at the beginning of the second century. 



To enter fully ìnto the allusions with which thìs 
narrative teems would be to write a comnientary on it. 
Wiihout some insìght into a few of them, however. no 
reacìer can dispassionately judge what is meant by the 
Johannine name ' Lazarus ' or the poeni of which it is 
the centre, e. a. a. 

LEACH- See Horseleech, Lilith. 

LEAD (ri")?V, 'óphéreth [see note below] ; moAiBoc, 

moAyBoc [moAiBàoc, moAyBAoc] ; plumbum). 
Thoiigh lead was doubtless well-known to the Hebrews 
from an early period, ìts apphcations were coniparatively 
uni m portanti and the OT references lo it are not many. 

(a) Its weight is alluded to in Ex. 15 io (cp ActsZTaS), and (he 
masoii's and carpenter's plummeC was no doubc as often niade of 
lead as of tin, though the latter happens to be the materia! men- 
tioned in Zech.4io. Indeed, the distinction between lead and 
tin (see Tin) was ìn early days but iraperfectly reaUsed. 

iff) Before the use of quicksilver became known. lead was 
employec! for the purposc of purifying silver, and separating it 
from other minerai subslances (Flin. HN^'I-jì), To this 
Jeremiah alludes where he figaratively describes the corrupt 
condition of the people : ' In their tire the lead is consumed (m 
the crucible) ; the smelting is in vain, for the evil is rat 
separated ' (Jer. 629). Ezekieì (22 18-22) refers to the same fat:!, 
and for [he same purpose, but amplilies it with greater minute- 
ness of detail. Compare also Mal.3z_/C 

(e) On Job 10237^ see Wkitinc. For the use of leaden 
tablets as writing material cp Paus. ix. 31 4 (leaden tablet, very 
time-worn, wilh the ÌVorks of Hesiod engraved on il) and Plin. 
H.N. 13 II. 

ijj) Although the Hebrew weights were usually of stone, and 
are indeed called 'stones,' a leaden weight denominated ànak^ 
("px ; cp the Arabie word for lead) occurs in Amos T/^/T 
See Plumbline. 

(«) The employment of lead for the conveyance of water — 
known to the Greeks (Paus. iv. 35 12) and very familiar to the 
Romans — may perhaps bave been resorted to by the Israelites, 
but does not seem to be alluded to in OT. 

LEAH (HN^ ; A[e]i& [BADEFL]) ; some scholars 
compare Ar. la'y, ' wild cow ' ; so Del. Pro/. 80, WRS 
A'in. igs, 219, and doubtfully No. ZZ>j1/G40i67[i886]; 
P. Haupt corapares Ass. Wai, 'mistress' ; but on the 
possible analogy of Rachel [see Jacob, § 3] we may stili 
more plausibly suspect Leah [Leah ?] to be a fragmeilt 
of Jerahme'el [Che.]). The mother of the non-Josephite 
tribes of Israel. It was in the house of Joseph that 
the truest stock of Israel historically lay; in fact it 
was. according to E, only by underhand dealings on 
the part of the Aramsean I.^ban that the Leah tribes 
ever really became Israelite. Stili, even the Ephraimite 
traditioiis made the Leah tribe of Reuben Israel's 
fìrstborii, and did not even deny him a place in its 
account of the origin of Joseph {Gen. 3O14), See also 
Rachel. Tribe. 

LEANNOTH {n)ìÒ : toy &noKpieHN&i [BNA]) 
Ps. 88 lille, RV"e- ' for singiiig " (so Baelhgen). Haupt 
{/BL, igoo, p. 70) explains, * to cause to respond' — - 
i.e., to cause God to grani the prayer— which is at any 
rate not unsuìtable to the contenls. The analogy of 
the cornipt Tìiirr^ and ^a^V, however (38 70 60, in 
titles), sugge.sts a different solution. filJi)^ ìs an easy 
corruption of ns^n. which the scribe wrote as a correc- 
tion of the corrupt n'jriD- On ' Alamoth ' see Psalms, 
§ 26 [i]. 

LEATHER. Although the word ' leather ' (or 
'leathern') occurs only three times in EV. once of the 
girdle of Elijah (2 K. 18 niy ìvh, ^óvt) Sep^rfcij) and 
twice of that of John the Baptist (Mk. 16 RV, AV ' a 
girdle of a skin ' ; Mt. 84), on both which see GiKDLE, 
I, and the word ' tanner' is mct with only in Acts 943 
10632. there can be no doubt that the Hebrews were 
familiar with the use of leather and tho art of preparing 
it from the earliest times, Cp Skin, Parchment- 

1 The Heh. words dndi and 'ofkéreth find their analogies in 
the Ass. a-nakii and ahàru, both of which are variously rendered 
' lead ' or ' tin ' (see Muss-Arnolt who cites also ' antimony ' for 
aòàrii). Both words are not unfrequently mentioned on Ass. 
inscriptions among articles of tribute, abàru in particular being 
sent from such districts as Commagene, Kue, Byblos, Melitene 
and Tabal ; cp Del. Ass. HlVB'^òa.nd reff. 



The 'leathern vessels ' (liyn '^?iV frequently rcferred to 
in Leviticus. may be supposed to have includcd shields 
and the like as well as belts and straps, ' boltles.' 
quivers and chariot-fittings, sandals and shoes (cp 
Shoes). The Egyptian monuments illustrate very 
gniphically various stages in the working of leather 
(see, e.g., Wilk. Anc. Eg. I232 2187 /), though it 
would be hazardous lo use this as an argument for the 
acquaintance of the Israelites with the higher branches 
of the art in the ' Mosaic age' (Ex. 265, P), of which 
we have no contemporary records. 

LEAVEH is a general term for whatever is capable 
of generating the process of fermeniation in a mass of 
1 Leaven '^^"gh(panaryfermentation). Various sub- 
ATrilfLÌTiArl stances were known in ancienl times to 
^ ' possess this property.^ The locus classicus 

for the leavens of NT times is PJiny, HN I826, accord- 
ing to which the most highiy prized leaven was made 
in the vintage season by kneading millel or fine bran of 
wheat with must. In most cases, however, according 
to the same authority, the leaven employed was the 
same as that which alone is mentioned in QT or NT 
(see Bread, § i), namely a piece of fully fermented 
dough retai ned for the purpose from the previ ous 
day's baking ('tantum pridie adservata materie utun- 
tur'). Such a piece might eilher be broken down in 
water in a basin before the fresh flour was added 
{Mèndhóth?tt end) or it might be ' hid ' in the fiour 
(Mt. 1833), and kneaded along with it. The Hebrews 
named this piece of fermented dough iké". i''ór — so 
always in MT, in the Mishna iìk'ì?. lixp. "iìkè» and -litco 
— LXXand NT fti/xT? (Ex. 12.519 ISy Lev. 2 11 Dt. I64 
Mt. 1333, etc). 

ISi? is derived from an unused root HNÌ? akìn (according to 

Ges. Thes, 1318 ^) to •y^, znA Arah. tkdra (_efferbuif) ; cp fiì/iii 
from feiii, and yérjHoi/am {jota ferreo ; also leaven (mia. Lat. 
ievamen) from levare. In RV i' 5r is now consistently rendered 
throughout by leaven, AV havìng in Dt. 16 4 ' leavened bread' 
(see below). 

The mass of flour, water, and salt, in the kneading- 
tTOu^h,miS'érelh[m»WD)^ — with or without leaven — after 
beingkneaded was termedi(Wf^(p]i3}, dough or 'sponge' 
(Ex. 1234 39 2 S. 138 Hos. 74 Jer. 7 ,3); @ iftoI^. ttìo.^, or 
ffréap, NT,a ; in the Mishna most frequently .^D'If 
(from ODJ? lo squeeze, knead [noi as Levy from nonvì)- 
If the dough contained no leaven and was baked before 
spontaneous fermentation had set in. the result was 
.nitD. massdA (for elymoìogy seeGes.-Bu.f^^K s.v. rso), — 
more fully nìlD DnV. unleavened bread (fifu/tos [^/jt-os]), 
but most frequently in OT in the plur. riiaD, massótk, 
unleavened cakes. Dough that had thoroughly risen 
under ihe action of leaven or by spontaneous fermenta- 
tion [Mèndkdikfn) was termed ran, kdmès, 'leavened' 
(from jTjn, Arab. hamuda, to be sharp or sour ; cp Ger. 
'Sauerteig.' Eng. 'sour dough'), and bread made 
therefrom, j-pn DnS, leavened bread (Lev. 713). Inali 
other passages, however, j-pn is tised substantively, as 
synonymous with nMno^ (Ex. 1219/), that which is 
leavened.^ For the two words '^'or and hàmès are 
not synonymous, as has been asserted, but related as 

1 See Blumner, Technologìe, etc., der Ceiverie bei Grìcchen 
und Romeni, 1 58^: 

3 This word shouid probably be pointed miséreiA(rntib'C), from 
the same root ikÈ' (see above), to ' rise,' that ìn which the dough 
rises. In Ex. 7 28 12 34 ®, foilowed hyVg. {conspersamXarivanì), 
has laken the word in an active sense, ' ihat which cises,' viz. 
dough (((lupov^a). 

3 Mr. James Death has devoted a hook, The Beer 0/ the 
Bible, one 0/ ike unknmun leavens of Exodus (1887), to an 
abortive attempt to prove that riiIDnD is to be identified with an 
ancient Egyptian beer, sìmilar to the modem buza. 

* In balf the passages hatnes Ìs correctly rendered hy ® aS 
^ujxùjtÓi' (Ex. 13? Lev.2ii), (apTOiJ ^ufi^rai (Lev.7i3 [3]), a. 
f^v/xuiweWi (Lev. 23 17), in the resi (Ex. 12 15 [cod. 72, fufiiuTÓi'] 
13 3 23 18 34 23 Dt. 16 3) incorrectly by fiifiij. 




cnvisc ftnil oflect (cp the \'g. rendnTmgsfi:>-fie/ituTn and 
fermenialum). lei th« OT al least j'Vr b alwaj'S 
leaven ; the verb ''^•y». lo eat, is never applied to it, but 
lo hàmès (hence we read, Talm, PSsdhltn 5a, ij-keì "nKC 
pI^^n^ ">N"i- leaven which is not fit for eating). 

In the laler Hehrew of the Mishna, however, this distinction 
is not always obseived ; hence we find J'"of-applied not aviXy to 
leaveti prciper, l)ut also to the doiigh in the process of leaveniiig 
(usiially nsjf). Thiis, in the interesting passage, l'csàh. 85, in 
answer to the question how the beginning of the process of 
fermcnlalion Ì5 to be recognìsed in ihe dough (liK'LV), iworeplies 

are given : ' When the surface of the dough sho"^^ small cracks, 
like the antenna of lociisCs, running in dìfTerent direi.lions,' and 
ngain : ' Whcn the surfaoe has become pale, like (the face of) 
one whose hair stands on end (through fear)' ! 

The ieaveii of OT and NT, then, is exclusively a piece 
of EOur dough. In the warm climate of Palestine, 
fermeiitaùoti is more rapid than with us, and it is said 
that if fioui: is mix<;d wilh walev, spontaneous fermenCa- 
(ion will set in and be completed in twenty-four hours. 
It is often slatfjd, and is not improbable, that the Jews 
also tised the lees of wine as ycast ; but the passages 
cited by Hamburger (viz. , Plsdhìm. 3i and Hallah\-j) 
do not bear this out. 

The use of leaven being a later refinenient in the 
prepiiration of bread (see Bread, § 1), it may be re- 
garded as certain that offerings of bread 

2. Leaven in 
the cultus. 

to the deity were from the first un- 
leavened. The cakes of the shew- 
bread, according to the unanimous testimony of Philo, 
Josephns, Talmud, and Midrash (see reff. under 
Shkvvbkead), remained unleavened to the end. In 
ali cerea! oft'erings, any portion of which was de- 
st'med to be burnt on the aitar, the use of leaven, 
as of honey, was excludcd (I-ev. 2411 7 12 82 Nu. 
615) ; ^ though where the offering was not to be 
placed upon the aitar, but to be eaten by the priests, 
it might contain bread that was leavened (Lev. 7 13 23 17 
[Pentecostal loaves]; cp Ani. 45 [cakes of thank-offer- 
ing],^ also Mènàhóth ìii ff.). The antiquity of this 
cxclusion of ferment from the cultus of Yahwè is vouched 
for by theearlyenactment Ex. 34 25<? f Trom J's decalogue), 
and its parallel 23 18 (Book of the Covenant). It is 
possible, however, that the former passage may refer 
only to the Passover, for which, as for the accompany- 
ing festival of Ma.}solk, unleavened cakes (as the name 
denotes), elsewhere named the ' bread of affliction ' 
(Dt. I63J, were alone permilted. According to later 
enactmerit, stili scrupulously and joyfully observed in 
Jewish households, search had to be made in every nook 
and cranny of the house with a lighted candle on the ève 
of the Passover for leaven, which when found was de- 
stroyedbyburning(/'^j(f^. li; for details see Passover). 
It is important to note the precise ritual definition of 
the leaven (J'Vr) to be destroyed. Under s'^ór, for the 
purpose of this enactment, were included ( i } pieces of 
leavened or sour dough of the meal of any one of the 
five cereals, wheat, barley, and the less common speli, 
'fox-ear' and skipkòn fsee Food, § 3) which hnd Ijeen 
kneaded with cold water, and (2) certain artìcles of 
commerce, composed, in part at least, of the fermented 
grain of the above cereals. Such were Median spirits, 
Egypi.ian beei, Roman honey, paste, eie. Noi in- 
cluded, on the other hand, were (i) the same cereals 
when mixed with any other liquid than cold water, as, 
e.g. , the juice of the grape or other fruit (nÌT5 'O ; cp 
the passage from Ceop. 233 quoted by Bliimner, Texhng- 
logie, etc. , Isg, n. 5, on the use of grape Juice as a 

1 The forms which siich gifts of unleavened dough {mossali) 
might take were various. Bemde.s the ordinary massgih or 
unleavened cakes kneaded with water, we find cakes of fine 
flour kneaded with oil, and wafers spread with oli, for which 
see FAK-EMtATS, % -i/. 

2 Some recenC scholars of note have maintained, chiefly on 
the slrength of this passage of Amos, which shows that leaven 
was admitted in the cnllus of the Northern Kingdom, that the 
exclusion of leaven from the aitar is not of great antiquity (see 
Now. HA 220J/'.): but the view taken above certainly repre- 
sents the better tiadition of the cultus of the South. 

89 2753 

leaven), milk, wine, and even hot water, since these 
liquids were not held capable of setting up the prohibited 
fermentation. and (z) the meal of other plants, such as 
beans, lentils, milìet, even when kneaded with cold 
water (see Fèsàhtm 3i^, with the commentaries ; 
Maimonides, nici r»n mjSiT). 

The raiwn d' ciré of this cxclusion of leaven from the 
cultus is not far to seek. In the view of ali antiquity, 
Semitic and non-Scmitic, panary fermentation repre- 
sented a process of corruption and putrefaction in the 
mass of the dough. The fact that Ezekieì makes no 
provision for wine in hìs programme of the restored 
cultus (40^) is probably due to his extending this 
conceptioii to alcoholic fermentation as well. Plutarch's 
•^<ì\ù.=, [QucEst. Rom, 109) show very clearly this associa- 
tion of ideas : ' Now leaven is itsclf the offspring of 
corruption and corrupts the mass of dough with which it 
hiis been mixed ' (j; 5è Xò}i.t] Kttl '^'^oviv ìk 0Sopas cvtt) 
Kai tpOelpfi TÒ <fiùpa/j.a iJ.fyyv/j.év7ì). Further, as has >>een 
pointedout by Robertson Smith {/?ei. SemA^ho^. P'eao,), 
the prohibition of leaven is closely assoeiated with the rule 
thatthefatand the flesh must not remain over tillthemorn- 
ing ( Ex. 23 13 34 25). He points also 10 certain Saracenic 
sacrifices, akin to the Passover, that had to be entirely 
consumed before the suri rose. The idea was that the 
effìcacy lay in the living flesh and blood of the victim ; 
everything of the nature of putrefaction was therefore 
to be avoided. The ' fiamen dialis,' or chief priest of 
Jupiter at Rome, was forbidden the use of leaven 
{fermentata farina, Aul. Geli., lOis) on the grounds 
suggcsted, no doubt rightly, by Plutarch {l.c). At 
certain religious ceremonies of the phratria of the 
Lalyada;, according to an inscription recently unearthed 
at Delphi, Sapdrai (unleavened cakes, according to 
Athenaeus and Hesychìus) played an important part.' 
The Roman satirist Persius, fìnally, employs the word 
fermetttum (leaven) in the sense of moral corruption 

In the NT leaven supplies two sets of figures, one 
taken from the mode, the other from the result, of 
the process of fermentation. Thus 

3, Figurative 
use of Iflaven. 

Jesus likened the silent btit effectìve 
growth of the ■ kingdom ' in the mass of 
humanity to the hidden but p>ervasive action of leaven 
in the midst of the dough (Mt. I333). The second 
figure, however, is the more frequent, and is based on 
the association, above elucidated, of panary fermenta- 
tion with material and moral corruption (cp Bahr, 
SymboUk d. -mos. Kultus. 2323). Thus the disciples 
are warned against the leaven of the Pharisees (Mt. 
166^ Mk.Sis Lk.l2i^), of the Sadducees (Mt. ib.), 
and of Herod (Mk. ib.). See Herodians. Paul, 
again, twice quotes the popular saying, 'a little leaven 
leavens the whole lump ' (i .Cor. 56 Gal. 69), as a warn- 
ing against moral corruption. The true followers of 
Christ are al ready 'unleavened' (fifij/ioi i Cor. 57). and 
must therefore ' keep the feast,' that is, must live the 
Christian life ' in the unleavened bread of sincerity and 
truth' (58). 

In late Jewish literature, finally, we also meet with the 
figurative design ation of ihe inherent corruption of human 
nature as leaven. Thus in Talm. Bér&khdlh lya it is said ". 
' Rabbi Alexander, when he had finished his prayeis, said : 
Lord of the universe, it is clearly manifest before thee that ìt 
is our will to do thy will ; what hinders that we do not thy will ? 
The leaven which Is in the dough" (nBy3& IÌNÈ', cp Ce». 
Rabba-, % 34, cited by Levy, s.v. "liKb'), explained by a gloss as 
'the evil impulse (llnn "iS") which is in the heart.' (For this 

Talmudic docfrine of ' originai sin ' see Hamburger, Realincycl. 
2 1230^ ; and in general the works of Lightfoot [on Mt. Itla], 
Schoettgen [on i Cor. 5 6] and Meuschen.) A. K. S. K. 

LEBANA (W5^, §69; AàBàNA [BNA], \oBn& 
[L]), a family of Nethinim {q.-u.) in the great post- 
esilic list (see Ezra Ìì., § 9), Neh. 748= Ezra245 

1 MS note by Dr. J. G. Fiaier. 

Lebanah (n317, 
529, Labana. 


[Di. 325] p5^, 

11 34 Jos. I4 9i 

1. Name and 


'white'? A&B&NW [BA]) = i Esd. 

The name (JUl?, AiB&NOC ; once 

ANTiAiBanOC [also in Deut. I7 3z5 

cp Judith 1 7]; Phcen. p3^ ; Ass. 

labnàna. In prose the article is pre- 

fixed. except in 2 Ch. 2 nb [8i] ; in 

poetry the usage varies), which comes 

from the Semitic root laban, ' to be white, or whitish,' 
probably refers, not to the perpetuai snow, but to the bare 
white walis of chalk or limestone which forni the charae- 
teristic feature of the whole range. Syria is traversed 
by a branch thrown off aìmost at right angles from Mt. 
Taurus in Asia Minor, and Lebanon is the name of the 
centrai mountain mass of Syria, extending for about 
100 m. from NNE. to SSW. It is bounded W^. by 
the sca, N. by the plain Jun 'Akkar, bcyond which rise 
the mountains of the Nusairiyeh, and E. by the inland 
plateau of Syria, mainly steppe-land. To the S. 
Lebanon ends about the point where the river Litàni 
bends westward. and at Banias. A vaìley narrowing 
towards its southern end, now called el-Buka', 
divides the mountainous mass into two great parts, 
That lying to the W. is stili called Jebel Libnàn ; the 
greaier pari of the eastern mass now bears the name of 
the Eastern Mountain (el-Jebel esh-Sharki). In Greek 
the western range was called Libanos, the eastern 
Antilibanos. The southern extension of Antilibanus, 
Mt. Hermon, may be treated as a separate mountain 
(see Hermon, Senir). For map see Fhoenicia. 

Lebanon and Antilibanus have many features in 
common ; in both the southern portion is less arid and 
2 DftBcritifn barren than the uorthern, the western 
■ ^ ■ valleys better wooded and more fertile 

than the eastern. In general the main elevations of the 
two ranges forni pairs lying opposite one another ; the 
forms of both ranges are moiiotonons, but the colouring 
splendid, especìally when viewed from a distance ; when 
seen dose at band, indeed, only a few valleys with 
perennial streams offer pictures of landscape beauty, 
their rich green contrasting pleasantly with the bare 
brown and yellow mountain sides. 

The Lebanon strata are generally inclined, bent, and 
twisted, often vertical, seldom quite horizontal. Like 
ali the rest of Syria, the Lebanon region 
also is traversed by faults, at which the 
different tracts of country have pressed against and 
crumpled one another. The buka between Lebanon 
and Antilibanus came into existence in the place of a 
former trough or synclinal between two anticlinals, by 
a tearing up of the earth's crust and a stairlike sub- 
sidence of a succession of layers. The principal rangea 
of the Lebanon and Antilibanus along with the valley of 
the Buka' have the same trend as the faults, folds, and 
strata— vÌ2., from SSW. to NNE. * 

The range is made up of upper oolite, upper creta- 
ceous, eocene, miocene, and diluvium. 

The oldest strafa in Lebanon itself, forming the deepest part 
of some of the valleys (Sallma, Salib), are of Glandaiìa lime- 
stone, 600 ft. in thickness, containing sponges, corals, echino- 
derms, etc. (the best-known fos.'iils being Cidaris glandaria 
and Terebratula [diverse speciesj, found in the Salima \alley near 
Beyrout). By its fossils this limestone belongs to the Oxford 
group. Under this limestone stili older strata of the Kelloway 
are found only in the Antilibanus, on Mt. Hermon. 

Above the upper oolite follow, in concordant order, strata of 
upper cretaceous. First, there is the Niibian sandstone of Ceno- 
manian age, a yellow or brown sandstone distinguished by the 
presence of coal, dysodile, amljerlike resin, and samoit (?),with im- 
pressiona of plant leaves. To the period of the formation of this 
member of the system belong vokanic eruptions of basaltic rock 
and also copious eruptions of ashes, whieh are now mec with as 
tufa in the neighbourhood of the igneous rocks. These eruptive 
rocks are everywhere again overlaid by the thick sandstone. 
The sandstone stratum (1300 to 1600 ft. thick) has a great influ- 
enee upon the sviperficial aspect of the country, having become 
the centte of its life and fertility, inasmuch as here alone water 
can gather. In its upper beds the sandstone alternates with 

^ So with fj- in Neh. acc. to Baer, GL 


3. Geology. 


layers of limestone and contains (at the village of 'Abéh) many 
shells of gasteropodi and bivalves and especially of Trigonia. 
syriacasis typical fossils. Thesecond subdivision ofthe 

cretaceous foimation consists of beds of mari and limestone with 
uumerous eehinoderms, oysters, and atnmonites {BucJiiceras 
syr!acu>n,voiì Buch), whichshow that thesestrata belong to the 
chalk mari (Cenomanian). The third subdi^'ision ìs the ' Lebanon 
limestone'' — a gray or white limestone, marble, or dolomite, about 
3oeK> ft. in thickness, of which the great mass of the mountains 
of Lebanon is composed, Here is the zone of the Rudistes 
(Kadiolites,Spha;iulites). Alseveral localitiesarealso found thin 
limestone beds wìth fine fish remains. The last member 

of thecretaceousformation isthe chalk, awhiteoryellowish-white 
soft chalky day, which in its lower half shows the famous fish- 
beci of Sahel 'Alma, and in its upper half alternates wìth beds of 
flint. These most recent strata of ali are met with only at the 
western and eastern, foot of Lebanon (baths in the western half 
of the town of Beyrout) and in Antilibanus. On the Jebel 
ed-Pahr between the Litiinl and Jordan valleys they contain 
many bitumen beds, and also aspbalt. 

The eocene (numrauEitic formation) occurs only very sporadi- 
cally in Lebanon, especially in the Buka', but predomìnates in 
the eastern offshoots of AntiUbanus. It consists of nummulitic 
limestones and unstratified coral limestones. The miocene is 
represented in the foim of marine limestone of upper miocene 
age, which is the material of which two mountains on the coast 
line are composed— the St. Dmitri hìll at Ueyrout, and the 
Jebel Terbol near farilbulus. 

Of pliocene formation there are a few comparatively unim- 
portant patches (near Zahleh) of fresh-water limestone, deposited 
from small lake basins and contaìning fresh-water snails (Hy- 
drobia, Bithynia). To this pliocene period belong also 
considerable eruptions of basalt in the N. of Lebanon, near 
Homs. Not till after these terrestiial pliocenes had been 
d'eposited did the great movements to which the country owes 
its present configuralìon occur. The diluviai perìod was marked 
by no very notewotthy occurrences. On an old moraìne slands 
the well-known cedar grove of pahr el-Kadib. 

The western versant has the common characteristics 
of the flora of the Mediterranean coast ; but the eastern 

4. Vegetation. 

portion belongs to the poorer region of 

the steppes, and the Mediterranean 
species are met with only sporadically along the water- 
courses. Foresi and pasture-land in our sense of the 
word are not found : the place of the forest is for the most 
part taken by a low brushwood ; grass is not plentiful, 
and the higher ridges maintain a growth of alpine plants 
only so long as patches of snow continue to lie. The 
rock walls harbour some rock plants ; but there are 
many absolutely barren wildernesses of stone. 

(i) On the western versant, as we ascend, we have 
first, to a height of 1600 ft. , the coast region, simijar 
to that of Syria in general and of the south of Asia 

Characterìstic trees are the locust tree and the stone pine ; in 
Melia Aztdarack and Ficus Sycotnorus (Beyrout) we have an 
admixture of foreign and partially subtropical elements. The 
great mass of the vegetation, however, is of the low-growìng 
type {maquis or garrigue of the western Mediterranean), with 
small and Stiff leaves, frequently thomy and aromatic, as for 
example Ùi^'^à'i'x.iQuercus cocci/era), Smilax, Cisius, Lentiscus, 
Calycototue, etc. 

(2) Next Comes, from 1600 to 6500 ft., the moun- 
tain region, which may also be called the forest region, 
stili exhibiting sparse woods and isolated trees wherever 
shelter, moìsture. and the bad husbandry of the inhabi- 
tants have permitted their growth. 

From 1600 to 3200 ft. is a zone of dwarf hard-leaved oaks, 
amongsc which occur the Orientai forms Pontanesìa, philly- 
moidss, AcersyrincKTti, atui the beautiful red-stemmed Arbutus 
Afidrachne. Higher up,'T)etween 3700 ft. and 4200 fc, a tali 
pine, Pinus Brutia, Ten., is cbaracteristic. Between 4200 and 
6200 ft. is the region of the tv. o most interesting forest trees of 
Lebanon, the cypress and the cedar. The cypress stili grows 
tbiokly, especially in the valley of the Kadlsha ; the horizontal 
is the prevailing variety. In the upper Kadisha valley there is 
a cedar grove of about three hundred trees, amongst which live 
are of gigantic size ; it is- alleged that other specimens occur 
elsewhere in lebanon. The Cedrus Libarti is intermediate 
between the Cedrus Deodara and the C. atlantica (see CEriAK). 
'The cypress and cedar zone exhibits a variety of other leaf- 
bearing and coniferous trees ; of the first may be mentioned 
several oaV^^Quercus Mellul^ Q. s-abalpina (Kotschy), Q. 
CeT^is, and the hop-hornbeam {Òstryd) ; of the second class 
the rare Cilician Silver fir (/ltòj«V;Wc«)may be nodced. Next 
come the junipers, sometimes attainìng the size of trees (,J-uni- 
fertis excelsa, J. rufescens, and, with fruit as large as plums, 
/. drupacea). The chief ornament of Lebanon, however, is the 
Rhodgdendron iicniicuìn, with its brilliant purple flower clusters ; 
a peculiar evergreen, Kji/ca //ia«(i/;ca, also adds beauty to this 




(3) Into the alpine region (6200 to 10,400 ft, ) pene- 
trate a few very stunted oaks {Quercus subalpina, 
Kotschy), the junipers already metitioned, and a bar- 
berry (Berberis eretica), which somelimes spreads into 
dose thickets. Then follow the low, dense, prone, 
pillow-like dwarf bushes, Ihorny and gray, common to 
the Orientai highlands — Astragalus and the peculiar 
Acantholimon. They are found up to within 300 ft. of 
the highest summits. Upon the exposed mountain 
slopes rhubarb (Rheum Siòes) is noticeable, and also a 
yetch ( Vida eanescens. Lab, ) exceilent for sheep. The 
spring vegetation, which lasts until July, appears lo be 
rich, especially as regards corolla-bearing plants, such 
as Corydalis, Gagea, Bulbillaria, Colchicum, Pusch- 
kinia, Geranium, Ornithagalunt, etc. 

The alpine fiora of Lebanon connects itself directly 
with the Orientai flora of lower altitudes, and is unre- 
lated to the glacial flora of Europe and northern Asia. 

The flora of the highest ridges, along the edges of the sdow 
potches, exhibits no forms related to oiir northern alpine flora ; biit 
suggestionsofsuch a flora are found 'ms.Draba, 3.\\Androsace,3x\ 
Alsìne, and a vìolet, occuirìng, however, only in locai species. 
Upon (he highest summits are found Saponaria Pumìlio 
(resembliiig olir Silene acaulis) and varieties of Gitlium, 
Eupliorbìa, Astragalus, Veronica, Jurinea, festuca, Scrophu- 
larìa, Geraniutn, Aspkodelint, Alliuìn, Aspervla; and, on 
tlie margins of the snow-tieids, a Taraxacuìii and Ranunculus 

There is nothing of special interest about the fauna 

of Lebanon, Rears are no longer abundant ; the 

_ _ . panther and the ounce are met with ; 

■ °** °^' the wild hog, hyasna, wolf. and fox are 
by no means rare ; jackals and gazelles are very common. 
The polecat and the hedgehog also occur. As a rule there 
are not many birds ; but the eagle and the vulture may 
occasionally be seen ; of eatable kinds partridges and 
wild pigeons are the most abundant. In some places 
the bat occasionally multiplies so as actually to become 
a piagne. 

The districi to the W. of Lebanon, averagjng about 

six hours in breadth, slopes in an intricate series of 

« , plateaus and terraces to the Mediter- 

'fT*°h^*^ ^ ranean. The coast is for the most 
part abrupt and rocky, often leaving 
room for only a narrow path along the shore, and 
when vicwed froni the sea it does not lead one to have 
the least suspicion of the e.xtent of country lying t)etween 
its cliffs and the lofty summits behind. Most of the 
mountain spurs nin from E. to W. ; but in northern 
Lebanon the prevaihng direction of the valleys is north- 
westerly, and in the S. some ridges also run parallel 
with the principal chain. The valleys have for the 
most part been deeply excavated by the rapid mountain 
streams which traverse them ; the apparently inaccessìble 
heights are crowned by villages, casties, or cloisters 
embosomed among Irees. 

Of ihe streams whìch are perenrilal, the most worlhy of note, 
beginning from the N., are the Nahr 'Akkar, N. 'Arka, N. el- 
Barid, N. Kadisha, ' the holy river ' (the valley of whìch hegins 
far up in the immediate neighbourhood of the highest summits, 
and rapidly descends in a series of great bends till the river 
reaches the sea at Tripoli), Wàdy el-JOz (falling into the sea at 
Batrun), Wàdy Fidar, Nahr Ibrabiin (the ancient Adonis, having 
its sourt-e in a tecess of the great mountain amphitheatre where 
the famous sanctuary Apheca, the modern Afka, lay), Nahr el- 
Kelb (the ancient Lycus), Nahr Beirut (the ancient Magoras, 
entering the sea at Beyrout), Nahr DdmQr (ancient Tamyras), 
Nahr el-'Auwa!y (the ancient Bostrenus, which in the upper 
part of its oourse is joined by the Nahr ei-Bàrùk). The 'Auwaly 
and (he Nahr cz-Zaherilni, the only other streams that fall to 
be mentioned before we reach the I.Itàni, fiow NK. to SW-, in 
consequence of the interposition of a ridge subordinate and 
parallel to the centrai chain. 

On the N., where the mountain bears the special 
name of Jebcl 'Akkàr. the main ridge of Lebanon rises 
gradually from the plain. Valleys run to the N. 
and NE., among which must be mentioned that of 
the Nahr el- Kebir, the Eleutherus of the ancients, 
which takes its rise in the Jebel el-Abyad on the 
eastern slope of Lebanon, and afterwards, skirting 
the districi, flows westward to the sea. To the S. of 
Jebel el-Abyad, beneath the main ridge, which as a 


rule falls away suddenly lowards the E. , occur several 
small elevated terraces having a south\^'ard slope ; 
among these the Wàdi en-Nusur ('vale of eagles'), 
and the basin of the lake Yammiina, with ils intermittent 
spring Neb' el-Arba'in, deserve special mention. Of 
the streams which descend into the Bukà', only the 
Bcrdòiii need be named ; il rises in Jebel Sunnin, and 
enters the plain by a deep and picturesque mountain 
cleft at Zahleh. 

The most elevated summits occur in the N. ; but even 
these are of very gentle gradienl, and are ascended 
quite easily. The names and the elevations of the several 
peaks, which even in summer are covered with snow. have 
been very variously given by different explorers ; accord- 
ing to the most accurate accounts the ■ Cedar block' 
consists of a doublé line of four and three summits respiec- 
lively, ranged from N. to S. , with a deviation of about 
35". Those to the E. are 'Uyùn Urghush, Makmal, 
MuskTyà (or Neb' esh-Shemaila), and Ras pahr el- 
Kadib ; fronting the sea are Karn Sauda, Fumm el- 
Mìzab, and Dahr el-Kandil. The height of Makmal by 
the most recent baromelric mcasurement is io, so/ft. ; 
that of the others is somewhat less. S. from them is 
the pass (8831 ft. ) which leads from Ba'albek to 
Trìpoli ; the great mountain amphitheatre on the W. 
side of ils summit is remarkable. Farther to the S. 
is a second group of lofty summits. 

Chief among them is the snow-capped Sannin, visible from 
Beyrout ; its height is 8554 ft., or, according to other accounts, 
8895 ft. Between this group and the more southerly Jebel 
Kuneiseh (about 6700 ft.) lies the pass (4700 ft.) now traversed 
by the F re neh post road between Beyrout and Damascus. 
Among the other bare summits stili fartber S. are the long 
ridge of Jebel eI-B5ruk (about 7000 ft.), the Jebel Nrha, with 
the Tomài Nihà (about 6100 ft.), near which is a pass (o Sidon, 
atid the Jebel Rihàn (about 5400 ft.). 

The Buka, the broad valley which separates I-ebanon 
from Antilibanus, is walered by two rivers having their 
walershed near Ba'albek (al an elevation of about 3600 
fi. ) and their sources separated only by a short mile. 
The river flowing northwards, El-'Asy, is the ancient 
Orontes ; the other is the Litànì. In the lower part 
of its course the Litani has scooped out for itself a deep 
attd narrow rocky bed ; al Eurghuz it is spanned by a 
great naturai bridge. Not far from the poìnt where it 
suddenly trends lo the W. lie, immediatejy above the 
romantic valley. at an elevation of 1500 ft. , the im- 
posing ruins of the old castle Kal'at esh-Shakif, near 
one of the passes to Sidon. In its Jower part the Litanl 
bears the name of Nahr el-Kasimìyeh. Neilher the 
Orontes nor the Litani has any importanl affiuent. 

The Buka used to be known as C(Elesyria {y.v.) ; 
but that word as employed by the ancients had a much 
more estensive application. 

At present the full name is Buka' e!-*Aziz (the dear Buka'), 
and its northern portion is known as Sahlet Ba'albek (the plain 
of Eaalbek)! The valley is from 4 to 6 m. broad, wìth an 
undulating surface. It is said to contain a hundred and tbirty- 
seven bamlets or settlements, the larger of which skirt the bills, 
whiist the smaller, consisting of mud hovels, stand upon dwarf 
mounds, the debris of ages. The whole valley could be much 
more ricbly cultivated ihan it is at present ; but fever is frequent. 

Antilibanus is mentioned only once, in Judith 1? 
{avriki^avoi), where ' Lìbanus and Antilibanus' means 
the land between the parallel ranges — i.e., Ccelesyria. 
The Antilibanus chain has in many respects been 
much less fully explored Ihan that of Lebanon. Apart 

_ , from its southern offshoots il is 67 m. 

f th^ ''^"^' ^'"^''^^ ''^ ™''^^^ ^'^'"''^^ ^^°^^ ^^ ^° 

, i-i-i^ 134 "1- It rises from the plain of IJoms, 

^ ' and in ils northern portion is very arid 

and barren. The range has not so many olfshoots as 

occur on the W. side of Lebanon ; under its precipitous 

slopes stretch table-lands and broad plateaus, which, 

especialiy on the E. side looking towards the steppe. 

Sleadily increase in widlh. Along the western side of 

northern Antilibanus stretches the Khashà'a, a rough 

red region lined with juniper trees — a succession of the 

hardest limestone crests and ridges, bristling with bare 




rock and crag that shelter tufts of vegetation, and are 
divided by a succession of grassy ravines. On the 
eastern side the parallel valley of 'Asal el-Ward deserves 
special mention ; the descent towards the plain east- 
wards, as seen for example at Ma'lQlà, ìs sìngular, — 
first a spacious amphitheatre and then two deep very 
narrow gorges. The oerennial streams that take their 
rise in Antilibanus are not many. 

One of the finest and hest u-atered valleys is that of Helbun 
(see Helbon). The highesc points of the range, reckoned 
from the N., are Halimat el-Kabù (S247 ft.), which has a 
splenditi view ; the Fatly block, inchiding Tal'at Musa (3755 
ft.) and the adjomìng Jebel Nebi Baruh (7900 ft. [?|); and a 
third group near Blùdàn, in which the most prominent names 
are Shukrf Akhyàr, and Abu'l-HIn (8330 ft. [?]). 

Of the valleys descending westward the first to claim 
mention is the Wàdy YahfQfa ; a little farther to the S. , 
lying N. and S. , is the rich upland valley of Zebedani, 
where the Barada has its highest sources. Pursuing an 
easterly course of several hours, this stream receives 
the waters of the roniantic 'Ain Fijeh (which doubles its 
volume), and bursts out by a rocky gateway upon the 
pìainof Damascas. It is the Amanah (RV^e-) of 2K. Sia; 
the portion of Antilibanus traversed by it was also called 
by the same name (Cant. 48). See Amana. The 
French post road after leaving the Buka first enters 
a little valley riinning N. and S. , where a projecting 
ridge of Antilibanus bears the ruins of the ancient cities 
Chalcis and Gerrha. It next traverses the gorge of 
Wàdy el-Harir, the level upland Sahlet Judeideh, the 
ravine of Wàdy el-Katn, the ridge of 'Akabat et-Tin, 
the descent Daurat el-Billàn, and finally the unpeopled. 
plain of Dimàs, from which it enters the valley of 
Barada. This route marks the southern boundary of 
Antilibanus proper, where the Hermon group begins. 
From the point where this continuation of Antilibanus 
begins to take a more westerly direction, a low ridge 
shoots out towards the SW. , trending farther and 
farther away from the eastern chain and narrowing the 
Buka ; upon the eastern side of this ridge lies the 
elevated valley or hilly stretch known as Wady et-Teint. 
In the N. , beside 'Ain Fàlùj, it is conneeted by a ìow 
watershed with the Buka ; from the gorge of the Lìtàni 
it is separated by the ridge of Jebel ed-Dahr. At its 
southern end it contracts and merges into the plain of 
Bàniàs, thus enclosing Mount Hermon on its NW. and 
W. sides ; eastward from the Hàsbàny branch of the 
Jordan lies the meadow-land Merj 'Ayìin {see IjON'). 

The inhabitancs of Lebanon bave at no time played 

a conspiciious part in history. There are remains of 

a T» i-i- 1 prehistoric occupatìon ; but we do not 
8. Politicai '^ , , , j u .u ■ .u 

t . . , even know what races dwelt there m the 

macory ana historical period of antiquity, Probably 
" ^ ' they belonged partly to the Canaanite but 

Chiefly to the Aramsean group of nationalities ; editorial 
notices in the narrative books of the OT mention 
Hivites (Judg, 33, where. however, we should probably 
read ' Hittites') and Giblites (Josh. 13 5 ; see, however, 
GebAL, 1}. A portion of the western coast land was 
always, it niay be assumed, in the hands of the Phce- 
nician states, and it ìs possible that once and again 
their sovereignty may have extended even into the 
Buka. Lebanon was also included within the ideal 
boundarìes of the land of Israel (Josh. ISs [D.J), and 
the whole region was well known to the Hebrews, by 
whose poets its many e.vcellencies are often praised — 
see, e.g. . Is. 37 24 60 13 Hos. 14 5-7 Ps. 72 16 Canr. 4 n ; 
but note that the phrase ' the wine of Lebanon ' (Hos. 
14 8) is doubtful : see Wine. Jeremiah finds no better 
image for the honour put by Vahwà on the house of 
David than ' the top of Lebanon ' (Jer. 226). The 
cedars of Lebanon supplied tiniber for Solomon's 
tempie and palace (iK. 56 2Ch. 28), and at the re- 
building of the tempie cedar timber was again brought 
from the Lebanon (Ezra37 ; cp Joppa). These noble 
trees were not less valued by the Assyrians ; the in- 
scriptions of the Assyrian kings repeatedly mention 


the felling of trees in Lebanon and Amanus. Cp 
Cedar ; also Egypt, § 33. 

In the Roman period the distiict of Phcenìce extended mio 
Lebanon ; in the second century Phcenice, along with the inland 
districts pertaining to it, constìtuted a subdivision of the pro- 
vince of Syria, having Emesa (Homs) for its capital ; from the 
time of Diocletian there was a Phicnice ad Libanum, with 
Emesa as capital, as well as a Phosnice Maritima of which 
Tyre was the chief city. Remaìns of the Roman period occur 
throughout Lebanon, and more especially in Hermon, in the 
shape of Sinai! temples in more or less perfcct preservation ; the 
splendid ruins of Baalbec are world-famous. Although Christi- 
anity early obtained a footing in Lebanon, the pagan worship, 
and even human sacritìce, sviivived for a long time, especially m 
remote valleys such as Afka. The present inhabitants are for 
the most part of Syrian (Aramsan) descent ; Islam and the 
Arabs have at no time penetiated very deep into the mountain 

Ritter, Die Eriiktitide von Asien; Die Sinai -Halbìnsel, 

Palàstina, u. Syrieni'^) (1848-1855); Robinson, Later Biblicai. 

Researches in Palestine and tke adjitcent 

9. Literature. Regions (1856), and Physical Ceography 
of tke Holy Land (London, 1865) ; R. P. 
Burton and C. F. Tyrwhitt Drake, Unexplored Syria. (1872) ; 
O. Fraas, Drei Manate im Lebanon (1876) ; Porter, Handbook 
/or Travellers in Syria and Palestine (1858,1^) 1S75); Soein- 
Benzinger, Palestine and Syria'^) in Baedeker's series of hand- 
books for travellers (ET, 1898); GASm. HG 45 ff. (1894; 
additions, 1896). Formaps see Burton and Socin- Baedeker, also 
Nanà.f^^e\At'f.Mapof the Holy Land ìì:ìoX\\3., 1858; Germ. ed., 
1866), and the Carte du Liban daprès les reconnaissances de la 
brig:ade tofiographique du coròs expéditionnaire de Syrie en 
1860-Ó1, prepared at the French War Office (1862). A. S. 

LEBAOTH (niNn"?), Josh. 153=- See Beth-leba- 
OTH, and note that ' Lebaoth ' and ' Bealoth ' (Josh. 
1524) are probably the same name. Cp Baalath- 


LEBB.ffiUS (AeBB&ioc or AeB&ioc [ftL]) occurs in 
AV (cp TR) of Mt. IO3 as the name of the apostle who 
was 'surnamed' (o eniKAH9eic) Thadd.^us \q.v.\ 
The confiate reading of TR is from the ' Syrian ' text ; 
XeSjS. is a stronglybut insufficiently supported W^estern 
reading, adopted by Tischendorf in Mt. IO3, but not 
in IVlk. 3i8. If Xe^/5aios = -aS, we may with Uaiman 
[Pai. Gram. 142, n. i ; cp IVor/e Jesu, 40) compare 
the Phcen. un'? and Sin. 'xa'?- It is possible, however. 
according to WH, that the reading \e^§. is due to an 
early attempt to bring Levi (\ev«s) the publican (Lk. 
527) within the number of the Twelve. Cp Levi. 
Older views (see Keim, Jes^l von Nazara, 2310 ; ET 
8380) are very improbable. 

LEB-KAMAI C^ì^'a!?. 'the heart {i.e.. centre] of 
my adversaries' ; cp Aq. AV), usually taken to be a 
cypher-form of KasdÌm(a'T;'3), 'Chaldìea'; ©««-^Q, 
however, has x&AA&ioyc. or "Àeoyc (Jer.Sli), and 
(Jiesebrecht and Cornili place □■lU'a in the text. Cer- 
tainly, I^eb-kamaì might be the trifling of a very late 
scribe, a specimen of the so-called Athbash-writing (on 
which see Sheshach). It is possible, however, that 
it is a corruption of '^KDm' (Jerahmeel), and that Jer. 
5O51 is directed against the much-hated Edomites or 
Jerahmeelites, as well as against the Chald^ans. So 
Cheyne in Crit. Bib. See Mekatìiaim, Pekod. 

Other cyphers were known as na'oK and 03'':'Ki o" which see 
Buxt. de Abbmr. Heb. and Lexic. Chald. s.v. ; (for an alleged 
example of the oa'^N species, see Tabeel). 

LEBONAH (np^; thc AeBa)N& [B]. Toy Ai- 
B&NOy THC AeB. [AL]), or (since libdnah, ' frankin- 
cense,' was not a Jewish produci) Lebanah or Libnah, 
a place to the N. of Shiloh (Judg. 21 19), identified by 
Maundrell (1697) with the modem el~Lubban, a poor 
village on the slope of a bill 3 m. WNW. from SeilùK 
(Shiloh), with many old rock tombs ìn the neigh- 
bourhood. The story in Judges mentions Lebonah in 
connection with a vintage - festival at Shiloh. This 
suggests to Neubauer [Géogr. 83) that ' Beth-laban in the 
mountains ' (cp Nazareth) from which wine of the 
second quality was brought for the drink offerings 
in the tempie [Mlndkòlh 9 7) may be our Lebanah 



LECAH (HsS ; Ahx& [B]. -&A [A], A&ix* [L]), 
apparently the nanie of a place in Ihe lerritory of 
Judah, descended from Er b. Shelali, iCh. 421. If 
so, it is perhaps an error for Lachish (Meyer, Entst. 
1Ó4). More probably, however, mjj'?i rrsV '3K is a cor- 
ruption (with some dittography) of Vrcht, and the 
meaning is that Mareshah {q.u.) wasof mixed Judahite 
and Jerahmeelite origin. T, K. C, 

LEDG^S. For n'3^^, sglahbim (from aSf ; cp Syr. , 
oftherungsofa ladder ; tÓìv f^cx°l^^'""^) ' K. 7 z8y:(;see Laveb. 

Fot ^^'\^•^, ydddU iipxn xs'pii'CBAl, RV 'stays'), r K, 7 337:, 
see Laveb. For ^blS, karkób (éo-;^apa. bis [BAF] in Ex. 97 5), 
aruia. Ex. 275 38 4t, RV (AV 'compass'), see Ai.tar, § 911. 

For mit,', 'ìizardh, Ezek. 43 14 17 20 (ìAoiTT^pioi') 45 19 (lepó»'), 
RVnig- ' ledge,' EV ' .settte,' cp Altab, g 4 ; also Mekcv Seat. 

LEEKS. The word "I^^Tl. hdsìr. which usually 
means ■ grass' (see Grass), is in Nu. 11 5 rendered 
* leeks ' by ali the ancient versions. Although the 
correctness of this interpretation cannot be exactly 
proved, it has ali tradition in its favour and harmonises 
well with the context. The leeks of ancient Egypt were 
renowned (Plin. HN, xix. 33 no) ; and l'an is used 
in this sense at least once in the Talmud (LÒw, 
228). The garden leek {Allium Porrum) is only a 
cultivated form oi Allium Ampelopramm. L. , which is 
a native of Syria and Egypt. N. m. — W. T. T.-D. 

LEGION (\eri£ON [Ti.WH]ì, Mk.59'5 Lk.Sso. 
See Army, § IO ; Gospels, § 16. 

LEHABIM (D'ari^), one of the ' sons ' of Mizraim, 

Gen. 10i3 (A&BieiM [AEL]) - i Ch. 1 ut (\&Bgin 
[A], A&BierA^ [L]). either a by-form or a corruption of 
LUBiM [q.v.). 

Another possible view is that D'^.l? comes from D'[ri]7j?3 = 
D'[ri] J?3. Baalah was in the S. of Judah towards Edom ( Josh. 
ISjg). This stands in connection wilh a hypothesìs respecting 
the name commonly read Mizraìm which explains a group of 
difficulc prohlems, but deaU freely with MT. See MiZKAiM ; 
Crii. Bib. 

LEHI ('n?. ì.e,, 'jawbone' ; in Judg. I59 AeyCe]! 
[BA], Aeyer [I-], and in Judg. ISig €N TH Cl&rONr 
[B], THC Cl&rONOC [AL], in Judg. 15i4. Cl&rONOC 
[BAL]) or, more fully {v. 17), Ramath-lehi (TI? T\t2r\, 
i.e., ' the hill of the jawbone,' @"'^'-, &N&rpeCIC 
CI*rONOC; non is surely not an e^planatory gloss 
[Doorninck]), the scene of one of Sanison's exploits 
(Judg. 159 14 17 19). According to most schoiars the 
place derived its name from something in its shape 
■which resenibled a jawbone (cp the peninsula Onu- 
gnatiius iu Laconia), upoii which resemblance the popiilar 
wit based a legend. The explanation of Beer-lahai-roi 
proposed elscwhere (Jerahmeel, § 4 [e]), however, sug- 
gesis the conjecture that Lehi and Ramath-lehi are 
early corruptions of Jerahmeel. There were probably 
many places of this name. If so, the place derived its 
name from some ancient written source, the text of 
which had become corrupted. 

Most schoiars since Cochart (lo Driver's list add now Bu. and 
H. P. Smith) have found a reference lo the same place in z S. 23 1 1 
(reading 'were gathered together lo Lehi,' ^'n7 [twì triayàva, 
I, ; cit TÓrrof tnayóiia, Jos. Ani. vii, 12 3] instead of TITI? Jsif 
flijpi'a, B.\]). The omission, however, in 1 Ch. 11 13 shows 
that the same words ' and ihe l'hilistines were gathered together 
to badie ' occurred in ihe Chronicler's te.\l of the narrative of 
aSam., both in 7/. 9 and in v. 11. riTl?- Iherefore, must be a 
fragment of TOn^S^ ' to batlle ' (Kb.). The scene of the exploit 
was probably the valley of Rephaim (tead with Chr. DB" 13pK3, 
'were gathered together there,' refertiiig back to ;<. 9 [see Pas- 
DA.MM I M ]). 

As to the site of the Lehi of Judges, we know from 
Judg. 158-13, that it lay above Etam (^.i'.), and Schick * 
identifies it with a hill (wilh ruins) called es-SiyydgJi 

1 Zr>PyiOi^2^, The name Siàghah is altached to the 
shoulder of the mountain above "Ayrm Musa, called Jebel Neba 
Ì.PEFQ, Oct. iSSe, p. 184). Cp PisoAH. 



(from o-fa-ywf?), at the moulh of the Wddy en-Najil, 
and mentions a fountain called 'Ain Nakùra to the east 
Conder [TenUvork, 1 276), has a stili more far-fetched 
identification. See En-HAKKOKE, and, on the legend 
and its explanation, see, further, Jawbone, Ass's. 

T. K. C. 

LEMECH C^O^}, Gen. 4t8 5 35 AV^e-, EV Lamec?" 

LEMUEL ("^N-ID^, SnID^, '[belonging] to God ' ? 
see NameS, §§ 22, 37) the name of a youlhful king, 
mentioned, if the text is correct, in Prov. 31 14.^ The 
form, however, though possible, is improbable (see 
Laei,) ; if a name is intended, the present wriier thinks 
it is probably Jerahmeel ; we might with niuch prob- 
ability read niélek ygrahml'él, 'a king of Jerahmeel.' 
The following word -maisa can mean neilher ' poem ' 
nor a supposed Arahian kingdom ; it should rather be 
màsàl (Gratz, Bickell). Bickell, however, thinks that 
hvsh, iu V. 4, has arisen out of ';d'? in d's'^c'? (written 
D'SxSdSi as in 2 S. 11 1).^ Vnid*? was then supposed to be 
a personal name, hence the repetition of □■s^c"'?;* after 
it. From V. 4 'S was copied Ìnto v. i. This would 
require the rendering, ' The words of a [nameless] king, 
a wise pooiii which his mother taught him. ' The former 
view seems preferable. Cp AguH, ProVerbs, also 
Bickell ( ZA",!-/ 6 297 ) ; Del. and Toy, ad loc.\ Cheyne, 
Job and Solotnon, 154, 171. T. K. e. 

LEND (ni'?n. Ex. 2224[25]; AàNizeiN Lk. 634). 

and BORROW (?N^, Ex. 822; A&Nic&c8a.i, Mt.542}. 
See Lavv and JusTice, § 16 ; Trade and Com- 

LENTILES, RV 'leutils'— /.e., Ervutn kns. L. 
['Up~\V. 'àdaìim; <J)&k0C; Gen. 2034 2 S. 17=8 23ii 
Kzek. 49t; cp also Mish, Skabb. 7 a often), rightly so 
rendered by ali the ancient versions, as is shown by the 
use of the Ar. 'adas for the same plant lo this day 
(BR\2^fì). The potlage [tu] which Esaù obtained 

from Jacob he called 'dm (dik|- As lentil-poltage, 
which is one of the commouest among simple people 
at the present day, is of a peculiar green, ^ 
MT must be wrong in vocalising 'd^n in v. 30, àdóm, 
'red.' Read A/tm — Arab. idàm, 'a by-dish' (cp col. 
1333, n. 2): ' Feed me with some of the &^Jw, Xhzlidoìn..' 
The nutritive properties of lentils are well known. 
According to De Candolle {Origine, 257^^) W. Asia 
was probably the earliest home of the lentil, and it 
has been cultivated in that region since the dawn of 
history. Cp Foou, § 4, i, col. 1541, and for another 
conjectured reference to lentils (2 S-619 i Ch. 16 3) see 
Kruit, §5, 2. 

LEOPARD (")03. Aram. 103; nàpA&Aic ; Is. 116 
Hos, 13? Jer. 66 13*23 Hah. 18 Cant. 4 8 Dan, 76 Ecclus. 
2823 Rev. 132+). A wild beast, noted for its tìerceness, 
its swiftness (Hab, 18), and its spotted skin (Jer. I323). 
Its name (ndmer) also occurs in place-names (Beth- 
NtMR.AH. N'iMRiM [yy. !'.]), which suggests an interesting 
enquiry (see below). Oti the expression ' the monntains 
of the leopards' (Cant. 48 || ' the lions' deus') see C^lAN- 
TICLES, § 15, col. 693, lop. Apart from the textual 
phenomena, it is true, we should not be suspicious at 
the mention of leopards in Lebanon and Hermon. 

Felìs furdtis may be less common now than it probably was 
in OT times ; but it is stili found, according to Tnstram, round 
the Dead Sea, in Gilead and Bashan, and in the wooded 
dislricts of the West. Bloodthirsty and ferocious in the 

1 ©BXA has in ■!!. I for 1]{?D '^X'D^ n31, ol t^ol Aóyoi erpiji-rai 
virò Stoi) PaiTiAecui' ; and in 71. 4 for 7KÌ1S? D'37fi7 7N, fisri 
^ouA^? ■nó.vTo. iroiFi. 

2 The scribe began to write d-3kSdS, hut wrote by accideiit 
SkC?- A,s usuai, he left the error uncancelled and wrole 
straight on correclly. This is no doubt the meaning of Bickell's 
condensed statement. 

3 This green colour ìs the colour of the poltage. The raw 
husks are brown and the raw grain, sttìpped of its coveiing, red. 



extreme, ic will even kill more victims Ihan it requìres, simply 
to salisfy ils eraving for blood. Il is in the habit oÌ concealing 
itself at wells and at the entrances of villages (Jer. 56), lying iit 
■wait for its prey, upon which it will spring from a great 
distance ; it has an appetite for dogs, but men are seldom. 
attacked. F. pardus has a wide disttibation, extending almosc 
throughoul Africa, and from Palestine to China in S. Asia ; 
it is also found Ìii many of [he larger East Indiati islands. F. 
jubatus (the Cheeta) is scarcer ; it can be found in the wooded 
hills of Galilee, and in the neighbouihood of Tabor. In dìs- 
position it is much less fierce than F. pardus and is com- 
paralively easily tamed ; in India it is trained for hanting 
antelopes, etc. (cp Thomson's statement respecting the panther 
in Palestine, LB [l36o], p. 444). It has almost as wide a 
distribntion as its congener ; l)ut does not reach so far E. 

The Sinaitic Arabs relate that the leopard vvas once 
a man, but that afterwards he washed in milk and 
becanie a panther and an enemy of iriankìnd (WRS. 
Kin. 204), The occtirrence in Arabie of the tribal 
names namir, diinin. nomair, pi. anmar, and also the 
Sab. Diom. faken in connection with the above story, 
seetiis to point to a primitive belief in a supposed 
kinship with the panther, and it is probable that 
the cb.n whicli fitst called itself after the ' \eopaid ' 
believed itself to be of one kin with it (cp also the 
leopard-skin worn, as is well known, by a certain class 
of priesis in their officiai duties).* We may further 
compare the occurrence of the place-names Beth- 
NiMKAii, NiMKiM {qq.v.), and the fact that four 
similarly formed names are said to be found in the 
Hauràn fcp ZZJJ/(7 29437). A place-name |ia] also 
occurs in Sabaian inscriptions. Finally, Jacob of SerQgh 
mentions bar nemt'è, ' son of panthers,' as the name of 
a false deity of Haran (ZZ>;l/G 29iio ; cp WRS. /. 
Pkil. 993 ; Kin. 201).* A. E. S. — s. A. C. 

LEPKOSY, LEFER. The word t\T%, sàrd'alh. 
otcurs some twenty-eight times in Lev. \3/'., also in Dt. 248 
2 K. 5 3 bj", 27 2 Ch. 2li 19, and is invariably translated Xtjipa. in 
®, Upy- in Vg, The root is j;-ij[, meaning originally (probably) 
'to smite'; the participle JH11!, sdHl''', is met with in Lev. 
13 44^: 143 224 Nu.52 (Atirpris; !e/rosiis), and ynto, Vi^P, 
mesSrà', in Ex. 4 6 Lev. 14 2 Nu.l2io 28.829 2K.5iir27 
7 38 15 5 2 Ch. Mao/ 2j. NT has Appaiti Mfc. 1 42 I.k. 5 12/., 
Ain-pósin Mt,8 2 lOa 11 5 266 Mk. I40 14 3 Lk. 4 2? 722 17 t2. 
In Is. 534 Vg. has 'et nos putavimtis eum quasi leprosum,' 
where AV has 'stricken.' 

The word Xéirpa, m Hippocrates and others, meant 
somescalydiseaseof theskin, quite different from A^^as 

1 ]!aea.ii'nf * *"" ^^*^''^'''<'''* '• of the two ^epra 
GreekandlltìiL «"^^7?°^ - «" the whole wkh ;»..r.- 
asis (scahness), elepha\ntiast)s with 
common or tubercular leprosy. It is probable that in @ the 
word lepra was meant to be generic, or to include more 
than the Xéxpa of medicai Greek ; if so. it would have 
been a corruct rendering of the generic Heb.^(— ' stroke,' 
plaga, piagne). The lepra ofthe Vg.. however, became 
specially joined in mediteval medicai writings to what is 
technically known as, so that /epra ArabuM 
meant exactly the sanie as elephantiasis GrcBcorum. 
Thenceforward, consequently, ali Ihat was said in the 
OT of sdrd'alh was taken as said of leprosy, which 
thus derived its qualities, and more especially its con- 
tagìou5nes3. not so much from dinical observation as 
from verbal interpretation. This confusion belongs not 
to the Hebrew text, but to translations and to mediasval 
and modem glosses. 

So generically is the Hebrew word used, that two of the 
2 Leorosv of ^^'''^*'**^ °^ sdrà'aik are in inanimate 

ifi^houseB. things— viz.. clothcs or leather work 

(Il Irantie^a f^'^'^" 1^47-59). and the walls of houses 

^'° ' (1433-53)- The conjectureof some, that 

the leprosy of the garment was a defilement of garments 

1 See _Wilk. Anc. E^.Its^, fig. 12, and cp Drew, S s; 
Esaù. The origin of the hansing of the leopard's skin in the 
house of Antenor (PaMS. x. 27 3) is obscore. 

2 Amons the Ldolatrous oiijects destioyed by Heiekiah 
(2 Ch. 31 i) and Josiah (?'/'., 3434), the Pesh. enumerates nentrè 
(MT, Q'"1E'N, D'VdS). To the Iranslators of (he Pesh., at any 
rate, images of leopards were apparently not unknown. 

3 In Ar. (he cognate word is used especially of epileptic fits 
or the falling sickness. 



worn by the leproiis, is against the sense of the text, to 
say nothing of the silence of the context on so essential 
a point. Again. the suggestion of Michaeìis that the 
leprosy of the wails of a house was the peculiar nitrous 
exudation or crust that sometimes appears, like a scabby 
state of the skin, on newly plastered walls. would imply 
that means of a very drastic kind were used againa 
walls merely because they looked leprous. just as if one 
were to root out trees because of bolls and leprous- 
looking excrescences on their bark. The ■ leprosies ' of 
walls and garments were rea! troubles in those things, 
which required skill and energy to srtrmount ; and the 
obvious meaning is that they were parasitic invasions of 
vegelable moulds or of the eggs of ìnsects. 

(d) The description of the house-leprosy (greenish or 
reddish patches, lower than, or penetrating beneath the 
surface of, the inner wall, Lev. I437) does not exactly 
identify the condition ; but the steps taken to get rid of 
it — the removal of a part of the wall, the scraping of 
adjoining parts, the carrying of the dust so scraped off 
to an unclean place, the rebuilding, the replastering, and 
the resort to stili more thorough demolition if the first 
means had not beeii radicai enough and the piagne 
had come again ■ — are very much in the manner of 
dealing with dry rot ; whoever has had occasion to 
eradicate that spreading fungus from some wall or 
paitition, will see the general fitness of the steps to be 
taken, particularly of the precautions against leaving 
any spores lurking in the dust of neighbouring parts. 

The tnyceliutH of the dry-rol fungus {Pofyporus desiructor, ai 
Merulius vastator, or M. lachrymans) not only eats into wood- 
work, but may form between the lath and plaster and the stone or 
brick, large sheets of felt-like texture, half an i neh or more thick, 
the fresh broken surface of which will look greenish yallow or 
red. _ It is mosc apt to come in damp .structures shui out from 
the circulation of air. Without contending that the plague, or 
the fretling leprosy (13 51, nnUDD n^lS, perhaps rather a malig- 
nant leprosy) of the walls of a house was preciscly the dry-rot 
of northern countrìes, one must conclude that it was a paraàtic 
mould of the same kind. 

{b) The leprosy of the garment {Lev. 1847-59) ^^^ m 
woollen, or linen, or in any work that is made of skin. 
This excludes the suggestion of Michaeìis that it may 
have been a contagion of the sheep cUnging to irs wool. 
A greenish or reddish colour. and a tendency to spread, 
are the chief indications given as to ils nature. If it 
changed colour with washing, it might be cnred by 
rending oul the affected piece ; olherwise the garment 
or article made of skin was to be burned, Such marks 
are perhaps too general for scientific identification ; but 
there are various moulds and mildews (such as Mucor 
and Penicillium). as well as deposita of the eggs of 
moths, which would produce the appearances and effects, 
and would cali for the remediai measures of the test. 

Such bcing the probable nature of two of the varieties 
of sàraatk — naiiicly, parasitic spreading moulds or 
LpTiroRv f''^'^'"S insects upon inanimate substances 
i 'itXi'Kf — we shall probaldy not err in discovering 
•'' the same parasitic character in some, if 
not in the whole, of the human maladies in the same 
context. The most clearly identified of the parasitic 
skin-diseases are the plague upon the head or the beard, 
or the scali ' (pn). Lev. 1329-37), and the leprosy causing 
baldness (v. 42). These are almost certainly the con- 
tagious and often inveterate ringworm, or scaid-head, 
mentagra, or sycosis, ofthe hairy scalp and beard. To 
thera also the name of ' leprosy ' is given ; and indeed 
the most strikìng part in the ritual of the leper, the 
rending of the clothes. the covering the lip. and the 
crying out 'unclean, unclean,' foHows in the text im- 
mediately upon the description of an affection of the 
head which was probably tinea decalvans (ringworm), 
or favus. tinea favosa (scald-head), which are stili com- 
paratively common among poor Jews as well as Mosiems 
(this, says Hirsch, is perhaps to be explained by their 

1 Aneruption ofthe skin. The word is con nected with 'scale'; 
cp Chaucer, ' under thy locks ihou mayst have the scali ' [so Mr. 
Seri veneri. 



religious practice of always keeping the head covered). 
Pityrlasis l'ersicolor, which affects the trunk especially, 
and produces spots of brownish or reddish discolora- 
tion, is another parasitic skin disease common amotig 
the same classes [cp Schaml^rg ^ (commenting medically 
on Lev. 13)]- The white spots often referred to probably 
included leucoderma or vitiligo. 

Vitiligo is a disease not uncommon in the darker-skinned races, 
being characterised by white spois, bounded by dusky red, 
especially tin the face, neck, and hands, and on hairy parts sucli 
as the scalp, armpits, and pubes. The disease begins as white 
dots, which spread siowly and may become large patches. In 
the negro ihey produce a piebald elfect ; they occnr also in the 
horse and [he elephant. The cbief rcason for discovering vitiligo 
among ihe varieties of sSri'ath is that the reiterated symptom of 
patchy whiteniivg of the hair in Lev. 13 is more distinctìve of that 
disease than of any other. On the other hand, vitiligo is noe 
conlagioiis, is not attended by rawness of the flesh, and admits 
of no cure, If it he the disease in which patches of hair 
turned white (as Kapori and other dermatologisls suppose), the 
prominence given to it must have been superstitious (elephants 
with vitiligo are sacred). As a matter of practical concerà, 
scabies or itch oiight to have found a place ; its best sign is the 
sinuous white line marking the track of the female acat-us 
through the epidermis, but none of the references to a white 
spot is precise enough for that ; however, scabies may have been 
diagnosed by its attendant eruptions (varìous) which wouid be 
included under ' rising ' or 'eruption.' 

Thediseaseof 13 12-17, which wasplaced in the ' clean ' 
cla-ss becaiise it concerned ali the body, may have been 
psoriasis (' English leprosy'), a scaly disease in which. 
the characters of ' brightness ' and ' whitenesi ' of the 
spots are most marked ; when complicated with eczema, 
as it often is, the element of ' raw flesh ' would come in, 
and therewith perhaps the priestly diagnosis of unclean- 
ness, On the other hand, the dull white 'tetter' of 
vv. 33 and 39 is ' clean.' For none of these diseases are 
the writtcn diagnostics at ali clear ; but withìn the meagre 
outline there may well have been a more minute know- 
Icdge preserved by tradition in the priesthood. It is 
only in P ihal the subject is handied at ali ; JE make 
no provisìon whatever for the diagnosis, isoiation, etc. . 
of diseases. 

The chief question reniains. whether true leprosy is 
atiywhere pointed at by the diagnostics. 

It may be doubted if any one would ever have dis- 
covered irue leprosy in these chapters but for the trans- 
lation of sdrd'ath in @ and Vg. Even those {Hensler 
and others) who identify white or ansesthetic leprosy 
with the white spots, brighi spots, white risings, or the 
like, do not profess to find any traces of tubercular 
leprosy. which is the kind ihat lends ilself most obviously 
to popular superfìcial description, and is the most likely 
form of the disease to have receiued notice. The strongest 
argiiment of those who discover true leprosy in Lev. 13 
is that it would have been important to detect the disease 
in its earlicst stage, and that the beginnings of ali cases 
of leprosy are dusky spots of the skin, or eryihematous 
patches. whiuh come and go at first, and then remain 
perinanentiy, becoming the white aneesthetic spots of 
one form of the developed disease, and the seats of 
nodules (of the face, hands, and feet) in the olher. This 
line of argument assumes, however, a scientifìc analysis 
of the stages of leprosy such as has been attained only 
in recenC times (r9th cent.). 

It will be convenient to set forth briefly some characters 
of leprosy, as ihcy are uniformly found at the presene tirne in 
many parts of the globe. A case of leprosy that 
4. True wcvild be obvious to a passer-by is marked by a 
leprosy. thickened or nodulated .'^late of the features, especi- 
ally of the eyebrows, the wings of the nose, the 
choeks, the chin, and the lobes of the e.irs, giving the face some- 
tiinesa leonine look (/l'on/iasis), or a hldeousappearance {satyri- 
«j-j). The same nodules occiir, also, on the hands and the feet, 
or other exposed parts of the limbs, making a thickened, lumpy 
state of the skin, whence ibe name elephantiash.'^ In some 
cases the nodules on the fitigers or toes eat Ìnto the joints, so 
that portions of the digits fall off, the stump healing readily as 


^ Jay F. Schamberg, M.D., 'The nature of the Leprosy of 
.e Bible,' reprinied froni y^c i'hUadelphìa Polyckrome, voi. vii., 
)s. i,Tf. (iqlh and 26th Nov., 1898). 

Especiallj'associaled by the ancients with Egypt ; cp Pliny, 
■i. 1 5, Lucret. li 11147^ 



in an amputation {lefra muHlans).^ Nodules in exposed situa- 
tions, or subject to friction and hurts, are very apt to become 
sores, yielding a foni sanies which may make a soidid crust. 
Eesides the skin, certain mucous membranes become the seat of 
nodules or thickenings — the front of the eyeball (éannus 
ieprostis), the longue and mouth, and the larynx, the thickened 
and roughened state of which reduces the voice to a hoarse ione 
or husky whisper. These are the most superficially obvious of 
ali the signs of leprosy, forming together an unmistakable 
pie tu re. 

A large part of ali leprosy, however, perhaps the half, wants 
these more obvious characters. A peison may be truly leprous, 
and have nothing to show for it in the face, or on the hands and 
feet— perhaps only a nodule bere and ihere along the course of 
the necves of the arms or other part. Many cases, agnin, have 
orily a number of blanched or discoloured patches of ihe skin. in 
the same situations where other lepers have nodules or lubercles ; 
these correspond to the variely of white, or macular 
leprosy (lepra albicans, niaculosa, etc). The macular and 
nodular characters may concur in the same person. 

Underlying ali these esternai marks, whether nodules or spots, 
is the most significant of ali ihe morbid cbanges of^the 
loss of function in the nerves of the skin. Based upon that was 
one of the mediéeval tests — to prick the skin along the course of the 
posterior tibial nerve beblnd the ankle on the inner side. In ihe 
modem palhology of the disease, the disorganisation or degenera- 
tion of the nerves is recognised as fundamental ; it leads lo loss 
of sensibility, to loss of structural integrity or of tissue-iiulrilion, 
and to a profound lowering of the whole vitality and efìiciency 
of the organism, whereby leprosy becomes a much more scrious 
affection than a mere cbronic skin-disease. These more profound 
characters of the disease, it need hardly be said, are nowherc 
reflected in the bibiical references. 

The causes of this greac and ìncurable consfitulional disorder 
are believed by many lo be something corrupt in the slaple food. 
One of the most probable dietetlc errors, known to prevail in 
many, if noe in ali, parts of the world where leprosy is now met 
with, is the eating of (ish in a se mi-putrid state — very often the 
more insipid and worthless kinds of fresb-water or salt- water fish 
which are preferred in a half-corrupt state of cure on account of 
the grealer relish. The dietetic iheory of the cause of leprosy 
does not exclude, of course, other corrupt arlicles of food besides 
fish, the media;val writcrs enumeraling several such. Also it is 
probable that various unwholesome condilions of living must 
work together with corrupt diet, and that there must be a certain 
susceptibility in the individuai constitution or tempeiament, 
which would be handed down and intensified by descent and 
intermarriage. It shouid be said that the dietetic theory is not 
received by ali, and is apt to be resisted by those bacteriologisis 
who make the hacillus leprie the sufficìent cause. A primary 
dietetic cause does not conflict wjih a certain possibility of 
transmitting leprosy by infeclion. An acquired or inherited 
constitutional malady may develop an infective pioperty ; the 
one character does not necessarily exclude the other ; but in 
exfierience it appears that leprosy is seldom produced by any 
other means (han habitual errors of nutritlon (or other endemie 
conditions) in the individua! or bis ancestry. 

i. In antiquity this disease was specially, and indeed 

exctusLvely, associated with Egypt — ^ ' circum fiumina 

_. . Nili . . . neqiie prìEterea usquam,' says 

of^raroav I-^^cetius (61.13/). Perhaps the limita- 
^ ^' tion was only because other countries were 
less familiar ground. Herodotus does not mention 
leprosy in Egypt ; but he says enough (277) on the use 
of uncooked fish and on the ways of curing fish, fowl, 
and other animai food, to make leprosy probable accord- 
ing to the etiological theory. On the other hand, he 
mentions (1 138) a certain skin-disease of ihe Persians, 
\euicT7. suffcrers from which were obliged to live outside 
the towns. In a passage of Hippocrates {Progn. 114) 
this white malady is one of a group of three skin-diseases 
—\^vxi)v(.% KtxX Xéwpai Kal XfÙKai. A high antiquity is 
assigncd to leprosy in Egypt by certain ìegends of the 
Exodus, which are preserved by late Greek wrìters 
(especially the Egyptìan priest Manetho} known to us 
from Josephus's elaborate reply to them in his apology 
for Judaism [Contr. ^^.'12634; cp .^m^. iii, II4}. Cp 
EXODUS, § 7. 

One form of the legend is that leprous and olher impure 
persons, to the number of 80,000, were separated ouc and sent lo 
work in the mines or quarries K. of the Nile, thal ihey were 
afterwards assigned a city, and ihat Moses became (heir leader. 
Another form of it is that the Jews in Egypt were ' leprous and 
scabby and subject to certain olber kinds of dislempers,' that 
they begged at the lemples in such numbers as to become a 
nuisance, and ibat they were eventually got rid of— the lepious 
by drowning, the others by being driven mto the desert. 

Behind these Ìegends there is the probability that the 

1 This appears to be aliuded to in Dt. 28 35 where the smiling 
in the knees and iegs is specifically mentioned, 



enslaved population of Egypi, occupied with forced 
labour in the Delta., wonld have beeii specialiy subjecl 
to those endemie ìnfluences {including the dietetic) which 
gave the country an ancìent repute for leprosy. Stili, if 
one person in a hundred, whether of the enslaved foreign, 
or the free native, labourers, was leprous. it would have 
been a rather larger ratio than ìs found anywhere at 
present in the most wretched circunistances. Whilst it 
is thus probable that there were cases of trite leprosy in 
the early history of Israel, no extra-biblical reference to 
it in. Palesane occurs wW\\ the fivst century B.c. The 
army of Pompey was said to have brought leprosy to 
Italy, for the first time, on retiirning from the Syrian 
campaign of 63 b.c. (cp Plut. Sym/: 79) ; which should 
mean, at least, that the disease was then prevalent in 
Syria, as it has probably so remained continuously to the 
present time (communities of lepers at Jerusalem, Nàblus, 
and other places). 

ii. The individuai cases of ' leprosy ' in the OT, how- 
evev, are noi ali clearly the true disease. Miriam's 
leprosy, Nu. 12 io_/l , appears to have been, in the mind 
of the narrator, a transient thing. The four leprous 
men outside the gate of Samaria during the siege by 
Benhadad {2K. 73) are sufficiently like the groups of 
lepers under a ban in media;val and modem times. On 
the other band, the leprosy ascribed to Naaman (2 K. 5), 
who had perfect freedoni of intercourse with his people, 
looks like some more tractable skin-disease. Nor is it 
perhaps unlikely thal the curative direction of the prophet, 
if we assume a generic truth in it, was dictated, not 
merely by a belief in the sanctity of the river Jordan, but 
also by an acquaintance with the medicina! properties 
of some spring in the Jordan valley. At any rate, the 
prophet's niethod of healing has strong pagan affinities. 
Thus PausanLas(v. 5it, Frazer) tellsusthat 'inSamicum, 
not far from the river, there is a cave called the cave of the 
Anigrian nymphs. When a leper enters the cave he 
first prays to the nymphs and promìses them a sacrifice, 
whatever it may be. Then he wipes the diseased parts 
of his body, and swimming through the river leaves his 
old uncleanness ìn the water and comes out whole and 
of one colour.' The other OT case \s that of king 
Uzziah (or Azariah), who was a leper unto the day of 
his death, dwelling in a ' several house ' ^ (2 K. 15g/! } ; 
he was stricken because he encroached upon the pre- 
rogative of the priesthood (2 Ch. 2616-23). As regards 
Job's disease, the allusions to the symptoms may be 
illuslrated by the authentic statements of careful Arabian 
physicians translated by Stickel in bis BiicA Nioi ( 1842), 
p. 169/ One of these may help to justify the references 
to bad dreams and (perhaps^ suffocation in Job 7 14/. 
'Diiring sleep," says Ibn Sina (Avicenna), 'frequent atra- 
bilious dreams appear. Breathing becomes so difficult 
that asthma sets in, and the highest degree of hoarseness 
is reached. It ìs often necessary to open the jugular veìn, 
if the hoarseness and the dread of suffocation increases." 

ili. In the NT there are only a few notices of 
leprosy; but from Mt. 108 it would seem ihat the cleans- 
ing of lepers was regarded as specialiy a work of Jesus' 
disciples. There is a strikìng desCTÌplion of the cleans- 
ing of a leper by Jesus himself in Mk. 140-44 (cp Mt. 
82-4 Lk. 512-14). There he is said to have touched 
the leper, and to have spoken a word of power. The 
cleansed man is then told to fulfil the Levitical law of 
the leper (Lev, I44-10). There is no touch recorded in 
Lk. 17 12-19, however, where the ten lepers are told to show 
themselves to the priests, and are cleansed on the way. 
The Lazarus of Lk. 16 20 is only called tiKKa/j-évos — i.e., 
' ulcerated." ÌX became usuai, however, lo regard him as 
the re presentati ve of lepers ; and in the medÌEevat chitrch 
the ' parabolic ' Lazarus of Lk. and the * real ' Lazarus of 
Jn. 11 were both alike (or perhaps conjointly) associated 
with leprosy. Hence lepers were called lazars, and the 

t So AV and RV (with marg., 'or lazar-house "). The mean- 
ing of the Heb. n'B'Bnn n'3 (in Chr. Ktb. tVWBTìTì 'l) is un- 
certain, and the correctness of the text disputed. Sce Uzziah. 



Lazarus of Jn. became a patron saint of leper-houses (as 
in the dedication of the great leper hospital at Sherburn, 
near Durham, in which Lazarus is joined with his sisters 
Mary and Martha). It was perhaps with reference to 
the Lazarus whom Jesus loved that lazares or leprosi 
were otherwise called fauferes Christi {lath and i3th 
cent.). e. e. 

LESHEM (DK^; AeceM and AeceN (Aan) [A], 

AàXeicand A&ceNN (à&k) [B], Acccn (ìan) [L]). the 
name of the northern city Dan, accordìng to Josh. I947. 
Probably it shojild rather be Leshàm, another form of Lacsh 
{q-v.); for the forniation cp DQ'i; from ».'?. So Wellh. dt 
Gentìbus, 37 ; CH 1 5. 

LESSAU (Aecc&OY [■'^IK a Macc,14i6 RV, AV 
Dessau {q.v.). 

LETHECH (^n^), Hos.32 EV^is-, EV Half 
HoMER. See Weights and MeasuREs. 

LETTER n^p, 2 5.1114, etc. ; emCTOAH. Acts 
2825). See Epistolary Litekatube, Writing. 

LETTUS (&TTOYC [A]), i Esd. 829, RV Attos = 
EzraSa, Hattush (1). 

LETUSHIM (DE^IdS ; A&TOYCieiM [AEL], -pieiw 
\p\ and Leummìm (D'ON? ; AowA\eiM [A], -MeiN 
[DE], -MiePAit [I^]). sons of Dedan (Gen. 25 3), the third 
in MT being Asshurem. In ® fìve sons are assigned 
to Dedan : pa^oi^X ([AEL] — i.e., h^\^_, see Reuei, ; 
pao-ou [^jX] [D]). va^SeijX ([ADEL], ùe., ^K^-ìk—Ad- 
BEEL), atrovpt/i.. Xarovineifi, Xoiifietfi. In i Ch. 1 32 the 
sons of Dedan are omitted in MT and ®, e\cept by ©* 
which enumerates five, as above. Criticism has not 
yet led to definite results as to any one of the three 
sons of Dedan. If, however, we are right in restoring 
the doubtful text of Gen. 106 thus : ' — 'And the sons of 
Jerahmeel; Cush, and Mizrim, and Zarephath, and 
Kain,' and if J»p', ' Jokshan ' in Gen. 252/! is mis- 
written for ^ms, ' Cushan ' = eì?3. Cush ' (the N. Arabian 
Kus), we may conjecture that q-iic'K 's an expansion 
of cmE- {bùram or Surlm) — i.e., anici (Gesuram or 
Gesijrlm) — ^that □anaf' comes from CTìS'hs, and ultimately 
from DriBSs^cnsis: (Sarephàtham or Sàrephathlm), and 
that Dl'btt'? comes from o'jNDm' (Jerahme elam or Jerah- 
me'èlTm). Thus the maindiffìcultiesof the twoDedanite 
genealogies are removed. For another possible occur- 
rence of the (corrupt) ethnic ['];:'oS>, see Tubal-CAin. 

The Tgg. and Ter. {Qttiesi. and Onam.) assume the three 
names to be appeìlatives, indicating the occupations or modes 
of life of dlffer^nt bvanches of the Dedanites (similarly Hit;^. and 
Steiner, see articles in BL, and. cp Margoliouth, in Hastings, 
J)S 399/'). For other guesses see Dillniann on Gen. '2^3, and 


LEVI (n^; AeY[e]i. also AeY[e]rc [AE], accus. 
ACY^lN. 4 Macc. 219). i. Jacob's third son by Leah, 
Gen. 2934 fj). The story in Genesis (''.■?-) records a 
popular etymology connecting Levi with ni'?, Idvdh, 
' to be joined' (cp Eccles. 815) ; see also Nu. 18=4 (P), 
where it is said that the tribe of Levi will ' join itself' 
to Aaron. Some modem critics too support this con- 
nexion. ThusLagarde(Or. 220; Aliilh. \ s^ J"-) ^xpXams, 
' Levi ' as ' one that attaches himself.' If so, the Levites 
were either ' those who attached then\selves to the 
Semites who migrated back from the Delta, therefore 
Egyptians,' or perhaps 'those who escorted the ark ' ; 
the latter meaning is virtually adopted by Baudissin^ 
{Priesterthutn, 72, n. i). Land, however (De Gids, 
Nov. 1871, p. 244, n.), explains bine Levi as 'sons of 
conversion' — i.e., the party of a reaction to primitive 
nomad religion. But il appears impossible to treat "iV 
( Levi ) as an adjective, against the analogy of ali the other 
names of Israelitish tribes, and especiaUy against that 

1 See Cush, Pur, and Crii. Sii. 

' I7, a servant of the sanctuary, from 'i7 = np, with abstract 
or collective signìficatìon, ' Begleitung, Tolge, Gefolgschaft.' 


of Simeon and Reuben, and Gesenius's old-fashìoned 
rendering of 'Levi' (' associai io ') can hardly now be 
quoted in supporl of Land's theory, If 'Levi' is 
originai it mav be best regarded as fhe genlilic of L^ah 
(so Wl-./^(i/.'(3), 146; St. Z^jri^ I116 [1881]) ; Naph- 
TALl (cp Crii. Biè.). if an ethnic, may be adduced as 
a parallel. 

The present wriler, however, thinks that ' Levi ' is a cotrup- 
tion, and conjectures that Leah [j.w.] and some at least of her 
sons, derived their names, noi irom animai totems, bue from 
their elhnic affinities ^ 2>., ihal Levi conies from JerahmeeI 
(pl'?=p3'' = J^C':" = ''(*d='7N];nT'). SeeCr-ù.Bri. Forother 
viewìseeWe. HeiW.W, 114,11. (_<.2)ora.) ; Hommeì, Af/TijS/.; 
Au/satze, l 3o_/. On ihe Levi-tradilions see also Moses, 

2. A name occurring twice in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 
3 24 29t)- S«c generally Genealocies ii., § 3./. 

3. A cJisciple of [esus, 'called' when at the toll-offìce 
[reXóvLOy). son of Alpliasus [Mk.], Mk. 214 Lk. Sajt 
{\evei.u, accus. [Ti.WH] ; cp Mt.Og [cali of Matthew]). 
Three courses are open lo us. 

(i) We may suppose that this disciple had two names, 
one of v^hich (Matthew) was given him by Jesus after 
he entered the apostolic circle, and consequently dis- 
placed the earlier name, as Peter superseded Simon. 
The supposition that he had two names might pass; 
but the view that one of them was bestowed by Jesus 
appears hazardous, There is no evidence that Ihe name 
Matthew, the meaning of which is siili dispuied, was 
regarded in the evangeiìc tradidons as having any special 
appropriateness to ils bearer, It might be better to 
conjeclure with Dehtzsch {Riéhm. HWBi'i),gi!) b) Ihat 
the full naine of the disciple who was called from the 
toll-office was Matthew, son of Alphseus, Ihe Levite 
(^l'^Ti) ; cp Acts 4 36, 'Joses who was surnamed Barnabas, 
a Levite.' It is al any rate in favour of the identification 
of Levi and Matthew that fhe circumstances of the cali 
of Levi agree exactly with fhose of fhe cali of Matthew; 
' Levi ■ and ' Matthew ' are both in the Capernaum loll- 
office when the thrilling speech * FoUow me ' is addressed 
to them. Must not the same person be intended ? May 
not ' Levi ' be an earlier name of ' Matthew ' ? So, among 
moderns. Meyer, Olshausen, Holtzmann. 

(2) We may suppose that whilsl the same fact is 
relaled both by Mk. and Lk,, and by Mt., the name of 
the man who was called by Jesus was given by Mt. as 
Matthew by mislake, the author or redactor of our 
first goEpel having idenlified the little-known Levi with 
the well-known aposlle Matthew, who may very possibly 
bave been a rekibvqs (EV 'publican'), and was at any 
rate regarded by the evangelist as such (so Sieffert, 
Ew., Keim \yesu von Naziira,2 ^i-j]). We khow how 
much the Tf\G)vai were allracted to Jesus (note Mt, 
9ioMk,2i5 Lk.l5i \^)i/.)\ it is very possible that 
more than one may have been found wortliy to be ad- 
mitted into his inner circle. 

It has been pointed out by Lipsius {Apokr. Aposfel- 
gesckichten) that the fusion of Levi and Matthew is 
characteristic of laler writers. In the Menologia 
Matthew is called a son of Alpheeus and a brother of 
James, and in the Breviariutn Apostolorum it is said 
of Matthew, 'Hic etiam ex tribù sua Levi sumpsit cog- 
nomenlum.' On the other band, Lipsius (1 24) menlions 
a Paris MS of the gospels (Cotelier, Patres Apost. 1 271) 
which idendfies the Levi of Mk, with Thaddseus and 
LebbrEus, and Lk.'s Judas of James. In the Syriac Book 
of the Bee {^Anecdota Oxon., Sem. ser., i.. pari ii., ed. and 
transl. by Budge) it is said (chap, 48, p. 112) that Levi 
was slain by Charmus while teaching in Paneas. 

(3) It would be difficult to form a decided opinion 
if we could not regard the subject from another and a 
somewhat neglected point of view. It will be admitted 
that transcribers and translators of Hebrew or Aramaic 
names were liable to many mistakes, Now A\ipa.ìoì 
(cp Alph-EUS and Helefh) represents most probably 
'bS'»( (a derivative of ndS>N, ' ship '?), Stirely it is very 
possible that the initial letters >l« may have become illeg- 
ible in the document upon which Mt. 99 ^. is based. 

89 a 2769 


There remains ''th, which in Aramaic Hebrew characters 
might easily be mistaken for 'iT — i.e.. Levi, The originai 
narrative very possibly had 'Ilphai the son of Ilphai' 
by a scribe's error for ' Mattai the son of Ilphai'; and 
il is open to us to hold that Xe(3/3aìos = Sin, '(*3"7 
(Dalman) has also arisen by corruption oul of '0^'N. 
Cp LkiìH/EUS. 

That ' Levi ' appears in the Talmud as a name of Rabbis does 
noi make ' I^vi ' a probable name for a common man of Capei- 
naum. The occvirrences in Lk ;i 24 29 are also precarious 
supports for the ' Levi ' in our texl of Mk. and Lk. 

T. K. C. 

LEVIATHAN. Leviathan (see Behemoth and 
Leviathan; Crocodile) isdescribed in Job 41 [40 25- 
41]. The last two verses of the descripdon (41 33 [25]) 
have been misread (cp LiON) and therefore misunder- 
slood.' ■ Who is made without fear ' is a very question- 
able rendering ; read ' . . . to be lord of die beasls,' 
changing nn-'"?]"? into r'-n Vj^'-. There is an exact 
parallel to this in Job 40 19. where Behemoth, if we 
adopt a necessary criticai emendation, is described as 
'he that was made to be a ruler of his fellows' (■lii'.-n 
riin fu*^). Among the other passRges which refer to 
Levìathaii is Ps. 10*26, where 'there go the ships' is 
unsuitable to the context. rrjN, 'ships' should cer- 
tainly be D'i-jr, 'dragons' (Ps. 74 13 I487; n and n con- 
founded; cp Judg. il 31), and at the dose of the verse 
la'pnU''' should probably be o'ri'jS The psalmist found 
this reading in his copy of Job (at 40 19), unless indeed 
we suppose that he read there iD'pri;'-', and copied the 
phrase which the Hebrew text (MT and tS) now gives 
in Ps. 104 26. The verse becomes ' There dragons move 
along; (yea), Leviathan whom thou didst appoint ruler 
therein'; ■'3 refers to D;n (v. 25), T. K. C, 

LEVIEATE. See Marriace, § 8. 

LEVIS. (XeyiC [A]),iEsd.9i4 = EzralOi5,'Levite.' 


LEVITES. The Levites {W'h; AeY[€]iTài) are 

deflned according to the usuai methods of Hebrew genea- 

logical history as the descendants of Levi 

1. Secular (Gen. 2(134); hence their other name 'b'ne 
tribe. Levi' ('1? '33). In Hebrew genealogies, 
however, we are not necessarily entitled to look 
upon the eponym of a tribe as more than an ideal 
personality. Indeed, the only narrative in which, on 
a liferal ìnlerpretalion, Levi appears as a person 
(Gen. 34), bears internai evidence of the inlention of 
the author to delineate under the form of personification 
events in the history of the tribes of Levi and Simeon 
which must have occurred after the arrivai of Israel 
in Canaan.2 The same events are alluded to in Gen. 
495-7, where Simeon and Levi are plainly spoken of as 
communilies with a communal assembly {Kàkàl, '?ri,T) ; 
see Assembly, col, 345. 

Simeon and Levi were allied tribes or ' brothers ' ; their 
onslaught on the Shechemites was condemned by ihe rest of 
Israel; and ils resulls were disastrous to the actors, when their 
cause was disavowed by their brethren. The b'ne Haroor re- 
gained possession of Shechem, as we know from Judg. 9, and 
both the assailìng tribes were scattered throiigh Israel, and 
failed losecure an independent territorial posilion. Cp Shechem. 

The delails of this curious portion of the earliest 
Hebrew history must remain obscure (cp DlNAH, 
Simeon) ; Gen, 34 does not really place them in so clear 
a light as the briefer reference in Gen. 4il ; for Ihe former 
chapler has been recast and largely added lo by a lale 
writer, who looks upon the action of the brethren in the 
light of the priestly legislation, and judges i( much more 
favourably than is done in Gen. 49. In post-canonical 
Judaism the favourable view of the zeal of Levi and 

1 The criticai cmendations are due to Gunkel, Giesebrecht, 
and Cheyne. 

• Jacob in 84 30 is not a personal. buE a colleclivc idea, for he 
says, ' I am a few men.'and the e ap tu re and total destruction of 
a considerable city is in the nature of things the work of two 
tribes rather than of iwo individuals. 


2. Prieatly 


Simeon becomes stili more dominant (Judith, a / ; Bk. 
of Jubilees.chap, 30, and especially Theodolus, ap. Poiy- 
histor, in Miiller's Fragin..2i ii-j f.), and the curse of 
Jacob c>n tlie ferocity of his sons is quite forgotlen.l In 
the oldest history. however, the treauhery of 1-evi and 
Simeon towards a community which had received the 
right of connubium with Israel is represented as a crime, 
which imperilled the position of the HebrewS and was 
fatai to the future of the tribes dìrectly involved. 

Whilst, however, the I^viles were scattered through- 
out Israel, their name does not disappfiar ivom the 
roU of the tribes (cp Dt. 27 la). In 
the blessing of Moses {Dt. 33), where 
Simeon is passed over. Levi stili appears, 
not as a terrìforial iribe, but as the coUectìve name for 
the priesthood. The priesthood meant is that of the 
norlhern kingdom under the dynastyofjehu (on the date 
of the chapler, see Deuteronomy, § 26) ; and in fact we 
know that the priests of the imporlant northern sanctuary 
of Dan traced their origin to a Levite ( Jiidg. 17 9) , Jona- 
than the son of Gershom, the son of Moses (Judg. 18 30) .^ 
That the Judgean priesthood were also known as Levites 
in the ialer limes of the kingdom appears from the book 
of Deuteronomy, especially from 10 8/ 18 i/; and we 
learn from Ezek, 44 10/ thal the Judasan Levites were 
not confine^ to the setvice of the temp\e, but included 
the priesis of the locai high places abolished by Josiah. 

It may even be conjectured, with some probabìlity, that the 
Leviles (like the remnants of the closely-related tribe of Simeon) 
had originally seltled in Judali and only gradually afterwards 
spre;id themselves northwards. Micah's Levite, as we know, 
was from Bethlehem-Judah (Judg. IT ^)? But cp Micah i., 2. 

Alike in Judah and in the N. the priestly prerogative 
of Levi was traced back to the days of Moses (Dt. 10 8 
33a) ;* but in lafer times at leasl the Jud^an priesthood 
did not acknowledge the Levitical status of their northern 
coileagues (i K. 1231). It must, however, be ob serve d 
that the prophels Amos and Hosea never speak of the 
norlhern priesthood as illegitimate, and Hos. 4 cerfainly 
implies the opposite, l'resumably it was only after the 
fell of Samaria, and the ìnlroduction of large ìoreìgn 
eiements info the population of the N., Ihat the southern 
priests began to disavow the ministers of the sanctuarles 
of Samaria, most of whom can no longer have been 
representatives of the old priesthood as it was before 
the northern captivity (2 K, 17 28 Judg. 18 30 3 K. 23 20, 
in conlrast with v. 8/.}. 

In the most develofjed-form-of Ihe hierarchical system 
the minisfefs of the sanctuary are divided into two 

„ - .. grades. Ali are regarded as Levites by 

d. l^evilies jjj.g^j.jj( (j.p^ ^_^^ Ex. 625) ; but the mass 
and pneats. ^^ ^^^^ Levites are mere subordinate 
ministers not enlilled to approach the aitar or perform 
any slrictjy priestly funclion, and the true priesthood is 
confined Io the descendants of Aaron. In the docu- 
ments which reveal to us the actual state of the priest- 
hood in the norlhern and southern I;i igdoms before the 
exile. there is no trace of this dislinction. 

Perhaps, indeed, itmust be conced' d to Van Hoonacker 
(195/) and Baudissin (TLZ, 18' j, p. 362; cp also his 
GescA. d. Alt. Priestertums, 113) that Ezekiel has taken 
over from the phraseology of the tempie of Jerusalem 
the dislinction between ' the priests, the keepers of the 
charge of ihe house.' and 'the priests, the keepers of 
the charge of the aitar,' which he refers to as already 

1 According to Wellhausen's analysis {JDTIX 435/) , the old 
narrative consisted of Gen. ^U 3 7* jz /. 19 25_/* ìo /■_■ th-e 
asterisk denoring tha! only parts of the verses marked by it are 
ancient. The most satisfactory discussion is that of Ruenen 
{Th. T 14 7.iTff. = AbkandlHnsen [translatedby Budde], a^s/"-), 
in which the opposite vie w of Diiltnann iGetteszs,ad h'c.} isiuUy 
refuted, Cp also Cornili, Z^ TtF, 1891, pp. 1-15, and Holzinger s 
and Gunkel's commentaries, ad loc. 

= Read not ' Manasseh ' but ' Moses ' ; see Jonathan, 2. 

3 Cp Bndde, Comm. zh Ri. 113 118. See also Genealogies 
'., §7 [v.]. 

• [For the difficult ^T^D «ad '*'"h Ball, PSBA, 1896, p, 
i23i -l'^^iTi thy lovingkindnesses.] 



exisling; but as against Van Hoonacker, Baudissin 
observes with justice thal we are not eniitled to infer 
from Ihis that Ezekiel is aware of a distinciion be- 
tween priesis (sons of Zadok, or of Aaron) and Levites ; 
on the contrary, in 40 45 he uses the designaiion ' priests ' 
for ihose whom he elsewhere calis 'Levites' (44 lo/i 14 
455). Il is better io say thal every Levile is a priest, 
or ^1 least is qualified lo become such (Dt. lOs I87). 

The subordinate and menial offices of the tabernacle are not 
assigned to members of a holy guild; in Jerusalem, at least, 
they were mainly discharged by members of the royal body- 
guard {theCarians and footmen, 2 K. 11 4 RV; see Carites, but 
also Pelethites), ot by bond slaves, the ancestors of the later 
Nethinim~in either case by men who raight even be uncircum- 
cised foreigners (Ezek. 44 j/.). A Levitical priest was a legiti- 
mate priest. When the author of 1 K. Vi 31 wishes to represent 
Jeroboam's priests as illegai he contents himself with saying that 
they were not taken from the sons of Levi. The first histotical 
trace of a modìfication of ihis state of things is found in connec- 
tion with the suppression of the locai high places by Josiah, when 
theit priests -were brought to JcTusaiem and received their suppott 
from the tempie offerings, but were noi permitted to minister at 
thealtarfzK. ySgì.i 

The priests of the tempie, the sons of Zadok, were 
noi prepared to concede to iheir provincìal brethren ali 
4 Countrv ''^^ pnvileges which Di. 18 had proposed 
. . ^ in compensation for the loss of iheir iocal 
pnesM. niinistry. Ezekiel, after the fall of the; 
tempie, in planning a scheme of ritual for the new 
tempie, raises the practical exclusion from the aitar lo 
the rank of a principle. In the new tempie the Levites 
who had ministered before the locai aitars shall be 
punished by exclusion from proper priestly work, and 
shall fili the subordinate ofiices of the sanctuary, in place 
of the foreigners who had hilherto occupied them, but 
shall not be permitted to poUuie Yahwè's house in 
future by their presence ( Ezek. 44 7 _^.) - It the posl- 
exilic period this principle was actually carried oul; 
priests and Levites are distinguished in the list in 
Ezra2, Neh. 7, i lisd.o; but the priests, that is, Ihe 
descendants of the pre-exilic priesis of the royal 
tempie, greatly outnumber the Levites or descendants 
of the priests of the high places (cp Ezra 8 is/".). Nor 
is this al ali surprìsìng, ìf il be remembered (hai ihe 
duties falling to Levites in the tempie had little thal 
was attraclive about them, whilst as long as ihey re- 
mained in exile the inferiorily of their position would be 
much less apparent. 

Al this lime olher classes of tempie servanls, the 
singers, the porters, the Nethinim and olher slaves of 
the sanctuary (but cp Solomon's Ser- 
5. smgera, etc. ^^,^1-3, Children of), whose heredi- 
tary service would, on Eastern principles, give them a 
pre-eminence over other slaves of the sanctuary, are also 
stili distinguished from the Levites ; bui these distinctions 
lost their significance when the word Invite iiself carne to 
mean a subordinate minister. In the lime of Nehemiah, 
Levites and singers, Levites and porters, are very much 
run into one (Neh, IJ^-, see PoRTERS),and the absorp- 
tion of the olher classes of subordinate ministers imo the 
hercditary guild of Levites is al lasl expressed in the 
shape of genealogies. deriving the singers, and even 
families whose healhenish and foreìgn names show 
them 10 have originally belonged fo the Nethinim, from 
the ancient stock of Levi. Cp Genealogies i., § 7 (ji.). 

The new hierarchical system foutvd its legai basis in 

the priestly legislalion, first publicly accepled as an 

^ . ., integrai pari of the Torah under Ezra 

6. Pneatly ^^^ Nehemiah (Israel, § 59). Here 

legislation. ^^^ exclusion of the Levites from ali 

share in the proper priesthood of the sons of Aaron 

is precisely formulated (Nu. 3/) ; their service is regu- 

lated from the point of view that they are essentially 

the servanls and hereditary serfs of the priests (39), 

whilst, on the other band, as has already foimd 

vivid expression in the arrangement of the camp in 

Nu. 2, they are recognised as possessing a hìgher 

J Baudissin's essentially dìfferent view of this verse (223-6) 
has been successfully disposed of by Kucneii {Aòh. 487/.). 




grade of holiness than the mass of the people. This 
supmorily of position finds its justification in the 
ariificial iheory tha( they are a surrogate for the male 
first-born of Israel, who, belonging of right to Yahwè, 
are handed over by the nation to the priests (cp FlRST- 
BORN, col. 1526). 

The Levites are endowed with the tithes, of which in 
turn Ihey paya tithe lo the priests (Nu. 18 ■uff.). These 
regulations as to lilhes were enforeed by Nehemiah; 
but the subordinate position of the Levites was hardly 
consistent wilh their permanent enjoyment of revenues 
of such importance, and we leam from the Talmud Ihat 
these were fìnally transferred to the priests. Cp TAXA- 


Another provision of the ìaw^t.e., the assignment to 
the levites of certain citics with a definite measure of 
inalienable pasture-ground (Nu. 35 Lev. 25 34) — was ap- 
parenlly never put in force after the exiie. It cannot be 
reconciled with the prohibition against the holding of 
property in viriue of which the Levites in common with 
the other needy classes are commended to the com- 
passion of the charitable. 

This prohibition is clearly expressed in the same priestly 
legislalion (Nu. Iti 20 2062), and particularly in D. See e.ff., 
Dt. lU 9, ■ Levi halh no pari nor inhetitance with his brethren '; 
Ih 1. From Dt. IS 6 we gather that the Levites were dispersed 
as sojourners in various Israelilish cities — l'.e.. they had no ter- 
rìtorirfl possession (cp Gen. 4» 7). In accordance with this 
Ezekiel propoiinJs a.n icIeaJistic reform accordìng to which the 
Levites were lo have a domain apportioned to them, where they 
were to live together. Josh. 21 (P), i Ch. l:j 2 cannot of con rse 
be qiioted in support of the prohibition. It should l>e observed 
(00 thal many of the so-calÌed Levilical cities did not become 
Israelilish till qnilc late, and thai some of them were so near 
each other that the pasture-land assigned to one city would 
have overlapped that assigned to its neighbour (e.g-., Hebron 
and Holon, Anathoth and Almoni, whìlst the pasture-land of 
Hammoth-dor would have included part of the Sea of Galilee. 
See Di. Num.-Deut.\ Now. HA 2 129; Addis, Hej;. i 448/. 

As the priestly legislalion carried iis ordinances back 
inlo the lime of Moses, so the later developments of 
the Levilical Service as known in the lime of the 
Chronicler (on the date, see HlSTORlCAL Literature, 
f 157) are referred by that author to David (i Ch, Jii 16 
23) or to Hezekiah (2 Ch. 2i») and Josiah (2 Ch. ;(5) ; and 
by a similar projection of posl-exilic conditions into pre- 
exilic times, we fìnd, among olher modifìcalions of the 
originai text {such as i S. (> 15 2 S. 15 24 i K. 8 4), various 
individuais who had been prominent in connection with 
matters of worship invested wilh the characler of 
Levites; this has been done not only in the case of 
Samuel (comp. i S. 1 i with i Ch. 6 12/ \%ff.), but even 
in that of a foreigner like Obed-edom of Gath.2 The 
chief point is the development of the musical service of 
the tempie, which has no place in the Penlaleuch, but 
afterwards carne to be of the first imporlance (as we see 
from the Psalter) and attracted the special atlention of 
Greek observers (Theophrastus, af. Porph. De Abstin. 
ii. 26). 

For the reconstruclion of the post-exilic history of the 

relation of Levites to priests, we are ihrown for the 

7 Post exilic '"°^* P.^''' °" P^""^ conjecture, which, 


accordingly, Vogelstein has used with 

conspicuous acuteness. He supposes 
that the period of prosperity enjoyed by the Levites 
under Ezra and Nehemiah was followed by one of 
threatening coUapse against which they so tight— and with 
success— to defend Ihemselves byaliiance wilh the singers 
and doorkeepers. The excessive prefensions of the 
party thus reinforced, however, led lo renewed adversity 
(Nu. l(i), after which they were ullimately able, by 
peaceful means (cp the wot-k of the Chronicler), lo 

1 See Mishna, Mdàsser Skénì, S 15, and (he Jerusalem 
Centara (:i 259 of Schwab's trì^nslalìon) ; YibamSth /. 86a, 
Kèihùbotli,/. 2f>a: Sfià,'^ io, Carpzov, A^fiarahis kist.-crii., 
1748, p. 624; and Hottinger, Z>f /JfCi-»(/s y^i^., i7i3^68t)i7; 
cp V. Hoonacker, 60/. 400/., who, on the aulhority of some 
passages in the Talmud, consìders the Levites" tithe to have 
been exacted as early as in E/ra's time. 

- [Tf the texi is correcf. on this, see Obed-edom: cp also 
Genealogies i., 5 7 [v.] end.j 


Secular and 

establish a tolerable modus vivendi. Vogelstein 's atfempt 
is lo be accepted at leasl io this exlenl : it has con- 
clusively shown thal the post-exilic history of the Levites 
did not proceed in a slraight line, either upwards or — 
as Van Hoonacker has tried to make out— downwards. 

The Levites appear. it is true, to have sunk to a position of 
complete in sign ili canee al the dose of the history, that is to say 
ac the dose of the OT period; to this Van Hoonacker has very 
approprialely called altenlion. In the NT they are mentioned 
oiily in Lk. ì'\ 32 Jn. 1 19 and Acls i 36. If, on the other hand, 
their position in Kzra-Nehemiah is only relatively a favourable 
one, ihat is far from juslifying Hoonacker's conclusion that 
Chronicles, in which they are reprcsented as enjoying a 
more favourable position (for the most part comparable to 
thal of the priests), must be taken as representing the con- 
ditionsof pre-exilic times. Baudissin {Rei.-gesch. 45) has shown 
that even ivilhin the priestly Jegislation it is possibJe to trace 
a growing respect for the Levites. In his judgment, accord- 
ingly, we cannot say that in the posl-exiìic lime any con- 
siderable vicissiludes in the condition of the I^eviles are to 
be observed, and he adds the suggestion, well worthy of 
atlention, that this fact, coupied wilh the ultimate subordina- 
lion of the Levites io the singers and porlers, poinls to the 
conclusion thal the Levites striclly so-calIed were merely an 
artificial crealion— a crealion of the prophet Ezekiel.i 

Whilst it is not difficult io trace the history of the 

rn_„3-..'__„i Levites from the time of the blessing 
8. Iraditional , ,, j t^ , j 

of Moses and Deuteronomy down- 

wards, the links connecting the 
. ., . ., priestly tribe wilh the earlier fortunes 
pnestiy enne. ^^ ^^^ ^^-^^^^ ^^^ j^evi are hardly to be 

delermined wilh any cerlainty. 

According to the tradilional view, the scheme of the 
Levilical legislalion, wilh its doublé hierarchy of priests 
and Leviics, was of Mosaic ordinance. There is loo 
much evidence. however, Ihat in the Pentateuch. as we 
posse ss it. divergent ordinances, dating from very 
different ages, are ali carried back by means of a 
legai convention lo the time of the wilderness journey 
(cp HexaTEUCH). If, too, the complete hierarchical 
theory as held in posl-exilic times was really ancient, 
it is inexplicable that ali trace ol it was so com- 
plelely lost in the time of the monarchy, that 
Ezekiel speaks of the degradation of the non-Zadokite 
levites as a new thing and as a punìshment for 
their share in the sin of the high places, and that no 
clear evidence of the existence of a distinclion between 
priests and Leviles has been found in any of the 
Hebrew writings Ihat are demonstrably earlier than the 
exile.*-^ It has indeed been argned ihal (i) Ihe list of 
Levilical cities in (osh. 21, and (2) the narrative of the 
rebellion of Korah imply thal ihe precepis of the post- 
exilic law were praclically already recognized; bui (i) 
il is certain thal there was no such distrtbution as that 
spoken of in Josh. 21 at the time of the setdemenl, 
because many of the cities named - were either not 
occupied by Israelites till long afterwards, or, if occu- 
pied, were noi held by Leviles. 

The Levitical cities of Joshua are indeed largely ìdenlical wilh 
ancient holy cities (Hebron, Shecbem, Mahanaim, eie.) ; bui in 
ancient Israel a hof^'-'city was one which possessed a noled 
sanctuary (oflen of C^naanite origin), not one the inhabilanls 
of which belon^ed to ttie holy tribe. These sancluaries had, of 
course, their locai pries'hoods, which in the lime of the mon- 
archy were al] called Le* Seal; and it is only in this sense, not 
in that of the priestly legislalion, that a town like Shecbem can 
ever bave been Levilical. 

(2) So again, the narrative of Korah has proved on 
criticai examination lo be of composite origin ; the parIs 
of il which represent Korah as a common Levile in 
rebellion against the priesfhood of Aaron belong to a 
late date, and Ihe originai form of the hislory knows 
nolhing of the later hierarchical system (see Korah ii). 

1 TLZ, 1899, p. 361. 

^ Defenders of ihe traditional view, tbe latest being Van 
Hoonacker, 93 y., have sought such evidence in i K. ^ 4. 
There are many indicalions, however. that ihe texl of this 

f>art of Kings has undergone considerable editing at a pretly 
ate date. The I.XX translators, ©Rt-, did not read the dause 
which speaks of ' priests and Levites," and the Chronicler read 
' ihe I-evi te priests ' (but i@ oi iepti^ «ai oi Acucìtoi) — the phrase 
characteristic of the deuteronomio identification of priestly and 
Levilical ministry. 



It has thus become impossible to eniertain tfie idea of 
carrying back the dislinction of Levitcs and Aaronites 

9. Alternative '" ^^^ '^*^'' ^^"^^ ^° ^" ''^"'^ ^*'^- 
theorv cannot use the priestly parls of 

the Pentateuch and Joshua as a source 
for the earhesf history. It is probable, however {note 
the case of Micah's Levile in Judg. 17/^), ^ that the kin 
of Moses had a certain hereditary prerogative in connec- 
tion with the worship of Yahwè (cp Di. 10 8). In the 
earlìest times the ritual of Yahwè's sanctuary had not 
attained such a development as lo occupy a whoie tribe ; 
but if, as appears probable, the mass of the tribe of 
Levi was alniost annihilated at an early date, the 
name of Levite niight very well conUnue to be known 
only in connection with Ihose of the tribe who traced 
kin with Moses or remaìned by the sanctuary. Cp 
Moses, ^ 5. The multiplication of Hebrew holy 
places was effected partly by syncretìsm with the 
Canaanites, partly in other ways that had nolhing to 
do wilh a centrai sanctuary, and so arose a variety of 
priestly guilds which certainly cannot have been ali of 
Levitical descent. 

It is possible, perhaps, that in some cases where Canaan- 
ile sanctuaries were taken over by the Israelites certain 
Canaanite priestly families may have contrived to retain 
possession of the priestly office. Whether even Zadok himself, 
theancestor of the Jerusaiem priesthood, was of Le viti cai orìgiii 
must remaiii an open questioii, the answer of Chronicles not 
being trustworthy enough to be decisive {see Zadok, i). 

As the nation was Consolidated and a uniform system 
of sacred law (relerred to Moses as ils originator) carne 
to be administered al) over the land, in the hands 
of the ministers of the greater sanctuaries, the various 
guilds may have been drawn togelher and have aimed 
at forming such a united body as we find described in 
Di. aa.'-^ This unitywould find a naturai expression in 
the extension of the nanie of Levites to ali prieslhoods 
recognized by the State — in Ex, 414 'Levite' is simply 
equivalent to a professional designation, If this was 
the course of things we can hardiy suppose that the 
term carne info large use till the Israelites were Con- 
solidated under the monarchy, and in fact the integrity 
of (he text in i S. (i 15, 2 S. 15 24, as well as in i K, 8 4, is 
open to question (cp Ark). Down to the time of 
David and Jeroboam, as appears front the cases ot 
Samuel, Zadok, Eleazer (i S. 7 i), as well as from i K. 
1231, the priesthood was not essentially heredilary; 
but, like ali occupations that required traditional 
knowledge, it must have tended to become so more and 
more, and thus ali priests would appear as Levites by 
adoption if not by descent. 

Thus al so, doubtless, the great number of the priests at Nob, 
who are reckoned as of ihe family of Ahimelech, but can hardiy 
al! of them have been personally related to him, is to be laken 
as evidence of the effort to maintain the fiction of a priestly 
family as deriving its coherence from common descent.' The 
ìnterestìng parallel case of the Rechabites shows us how easy 
to the thinking of those early times was the transition from the 
idea of officiai relationship to that of relationship by blood. 

Wellhausen (Proi. (5), 139 /;) has argued from Dt. 
33 9 that the northern priesthood was not an hereditary 
guild, but involved the surrender of ali family con- 
nection ; the words, however, are more nalurally 
understood as praise of the judicial impartiality which 
refused to be influenced by family ties. Our data 
are loo scanty to clear up the details of this Ìnterestìng 
piece of history; but it can hardiy be doubted that the 
development of a Consolidated and hereditary priestly 
corporation in ali the sanctuaries was closely bound up 
with the unification of the state and the absorption of 
tribal organisation in the monarchy. The reaction of 

1 See MiCAH, 3. Add also that of the family of Eli, i S. 
227/; cp Eli, Jerahmeel, 5 3 (end). 

2 Cp Ex, 3335-29,3 related passage, doubtiess secondary, 
which reads like a commentary to Dt. «3 g. In it the choice of 
Levi to the priesthood is carrìed back to a reminiscence of a. 
(possibly hìstorical) action of vigorous faith on the patt of the 
fellow-tribesmen of Moses [cp Massah and Meribah]. 

* Cp Benzinger, //A 409. 



tribal feeling against the centrai Government, of which 
there are many traces in the history of Ephraim, has 
perhaps its counterpart in the opposition to the unilied 
priesthood which is alluded to in Dt. 33 n.i 

There have been many attempts on the part of recent 
wrìters from the time of Vatke downwards to deny that 
Levi was one of the originai tribes of Israel; but they 
ali break down before the testìmony of Gen, 4!l. And 
wilh them break down the atlempts at an appellative 
interpretation of the name Levi. See Levi, and cp 
Kuenen's refutation of the theory of Land, Theol. 
Tijdschr. .'), 1872, pp. 628-670: De Slam Levi, and 
Kautzsch, Theol. titud. u. Krit. i8go, p, 771 f. 

Graf, ' Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi,' in '^le.TX's Arckìv, 
I (1869} 68-106; 208-236: Stade, Ci-'/ 1 152 7?^ See fnrther the 
literature cited under Pkiests. Av. R, S. — A, B. 

LEVITICAL CITIES. See Levites, \\ 6, 8. 


Name and contents (§ i). Other remains of H (§ 24). 

Sources (g§ 2, 25). Sources of H (§ 25). 

P in Lev. e-l(l (I 3). Characteristics of H (§ 26). 

Chaps. 1-T (§§ 4-6). Unity of redaction (§ 27). 

Chaps. ll-h> (§§ 7-11). H's relation to Di. Ezek. P 

Chap. 16; Day of Atonement (§§28-30). 

(§ 12). Chap. 37 (§ 31). 

Chaps, lT-26: Contents; H (f§ Compositionof l,eviticus(§ 32). 

13-23). Bibliography {§ 33). 

The name comes through the I^^atin Leviticus (se. 

Uber) from the title in the Greek Bible, (to) AevCeli' 

1 Name and """"^"^ <^''- BiBAion),^ 'the Levitical 

contenta book' — i.e., the part of llie Pentateuch 

treating of the functions of the Levites. 

'Levìtical' is bere equivalent to 'sacerdotal,'— of the 

levites in the narrower sense the book has nothing io 

say — and the name thus corresponds to the Hebrew 

tòrath kòhànìm (O'J^':; r^i'n), 'the priests' law,' in the 

Talmud and Massorah.s In Jewish writings the book 

is more frequently cited by its first word, Wayyikrà 

The contents of the book are almost exclusively 
legislative; 8, 9, 10 in part, and 24 10^., though narrative 
in form, are to be regarded as precedents to which the 
ritual practice is to conform or on which the rule is 
founded. In the chronology of the Pentateuch the laws 
were revealed to Moses and the events narrated occurred 
at Sinai in the first month of the second year of the 
exodus (between the first of the first month, Ex. 40 2 17, 
and the first of the second month, Nu. li); in Lev. 
itself there are no dates. 

The book begins with the titual for the several species of 
sacrifice, and defines cases in which certain sacriiìces are 
prescribed (l-T); then foUow; the consecralion of Aaron and 
his sons; the punishraent of Nadab and Abihu for a violatìon 
of ritual, with some consequent regulations (tì-lll) ; definitìon of 
various kinds and causes of uncleanness ( 1 1 -15) ; ritual for the 
Day of Alonement (Iti); a collection of laws of more varied 
character, religious, moral, and ceremonial, closing with a 
hortatory address (I7-Ii(>: see § 14) ; provisions for the comniu- 
tation of vows and tìthes (^'i). For more detaiied analysis, see 
Driver, Itttrod.i^'j, \-i ff.', Kalisch, Levìiicus, li2_^. 

The immediate continualion of JE in Ex. 32-34 is 
found in Nu. 10 29-12,5 nor are any displaced fragmenls 

2. Sources. ?\^^ ^"''"'^ in Leviticus. The book 

belongs as a whole to the priestly stratum 

of the Hexateuch. It is not, however, a unit. Chaps, 

17-2(i come from an originally independent body of 

laws having a very distinct character of ils own ; they 

' The attempt which has repeatedly been made to attach this 
verse to the hlessing of Judah may safely be regarded as un- 
juslìfied (cp Bertholet ad he). 

^ Philo, Leg^. AUeg. 2, § 26; Quis rer. div. hrres, §51; cp 
iv AtuiTiK^ Pi'PAm, De plani. Not, § 6. See Ryle, Philo and 
Holy Scritture, -1% /. 

^ M. Mlnàchàtk, A 3, Kìddùshin, 330; Massorah Magna, 
I K. n i.etc. 

* Origen in Euseb. HE 625; Jerome, Prol, Gal. See 
Genesis, § I. 

' See Exodus, % 3, vii., Numbers, % 3. 


have becn redacted — probably by more than one band 
— in xhii spirit of the priestly scribes, biit noi wholly 
conformed to P, much less made an integrai part of it.l 
Nor is the remainder homogeneous : S-10 belong io 
the history of the sacred instilulions ; ^ 8 is the 
fulfilment of the command to Moses in Ex. 40 11-14, and 
should immedialely follow Ex, 40 17-38, from which it is 
now separaied by the cotlection of sacrificial laws in 
Lev. 1-7; Iti is in lilce manner separated from ils 
antecedents in 10 by the laws on uncleanness and 
puriflcation in 11-15. Neiiher of these groups of laws 
is — ovcn artificially — connected with the narrative; 
both give internai evidence of compilation from in- 
dependent collections of toroth and of estensive and 
repealed suppleraentation and redaclion. The criticai 
problems in Leviticus are, Iherefore, not less difficult 
nor less important than those presented by other boolis 
of the Hexateuch, 

We may best begin our investigalion with 8-10. In 
Ex. 40 Moses is bidden to set up and dedicate the 
- _, _ Tabernacle (i-ii) and to consecrate Aaron 
Sin * ^""^ ^'^ ^oxiz lo the prteslhood (12-15). 
The execulion of the former part of ihis 
command is relaled in Ex. 40 17-38: of the latler in 
Lev. 8. It can scarcely be doubled thaf tjie aulhor 
of Ex. 40 \T ff. meant Lev. 8 to follow immediately, 
and, consequenlly, ihat Lev. 1-7, which now interrupt 
this connection, were inserled here by a subsequent 
redaclor. Lev, 8 describes the performance of the riles 
for the consecralion and inslallation of priests prescribed 
in Ex. 2!) 1-35, and is related to thaf chapter exactly as 
Ex, :ì5/'. to 25 j?'. Ex. 35/". have been found, how- 
ever, lo be a later expansion of the — probably very 
brief— account of the execution of the directions given 
to Moses in "2& ff? It follows that Lev. S.also. belongs 
(o the secondar/ stratum, and this inference is con- 
firmed by internai evidence ;^ but, since Lev. 8 knows 
only one aitar, it seems to represeni one of the earlier 
stages in the formation of this stratum.6 Vv. 10^ n and 
30 are perhaps later glosses. 

Chap, ì). the inaugurai Sacrifices, is the originai 
seqiiel of Ex. 2,')-29 in the history of Israel's sacred 
inslitulions. It was probably separated from those 
chapters only by a short statement ihat, after receivìng 
these instructions (and the tables of the teBlimony), 
Moses descended from the mount and did as Yahwè 
had bidden him ; this was superseded by the elaborate 
secondary narrative in Ex. 3J-40 Lev, 8.^ The band 
of a redaclor may be recognised in v. 1 ('the eighth 
day,' 'the eldersof Israel'} and in the last verses (23/) ; 
some minor glosses may also be suspecled. 

The dealh of Nadab and Abihu, 10 1-5. is the con- 
tìnuation of 9 and from the same source. The in- 
junclfon forbidding Aaron and his surviving sons to 
defile themselves by mourning (6 /) is approprialely 
introduced in this place, and such a prohibition may 
have originally stood here; but the present form of the 
verses is late (cp 21 10-12), Verses %f. (cp Ezek. 44 21) 
and 10/ (cp 11 47 120 23 Ezek. 4423/) have no con- 
nection with thdr present surroundìngs; the former 
would properly have ils place in 21; the latter is a 
fragmenl, the beginnìng of which has been lost, Verses 
12-15 ^re a supplemenl to '■^^i^a zi, and would naturally 
sland after H 22 ; 16-20 is a very late passage of midrashic 
characler," suggested by the conflict between the pro- 
cedure in '.) IS and the rule in 6 24-30. 

The chapters which precede the above (1-7) conlain a 
collection of laws on the subject of sacrifice. 

1 On 17-26 (H) sce below, f § 13^ ; on the relation of H to 

P, 5 3"- 

- See HiSTORiCAL Literature, § 9. 

" See ExoDus lì., 5 5. ìì- 

* Popper, SufishuUe,^^ff. 

6 We, Cm:'-) 144^.; Kue, HfX. § 6, n. 15, 16, 18. 

e We. CUm 146; Kue. Hex. § 6, n, 15. 20. 

' Wc. C//(')i49; Yi\ì(:. Hix.%(>,-a.'i\\\i\\\m.. Exod. LevìtA^f 
518; Driver, Introd.i'-) 4S- 



These comprise: burnì offering (1); raeal offóring (2) ; peace 

offering {■;): sin offering (+) ; sin (treapass) offeniig (51-13); 

trespass offering (."> 14-67 [■) 14-26]). Tbrak 

4. CliapB. 1-7 : of burnì offering (I>8-13 U-6)? • ™^^' off«"ng 

Sacnficial (ti 14-18 [j-njl; priests' meal offering (ti ig-23 

laws 1 [12-16JK sin offering 1,624-31^ Li7-^3ll; ^''^^- 

pass offering lTi-7i; certain perqmsites of 

the priests (89/): peace offering (7 11-15) ; prohibilion of eal- 

ìng lat or blood (T 22-27) : 'l"^ priests' pordon of peace offering 

(7 28-34) ; subscripiions, 35/ 37/. 

In this collecdon of laws it will be obscrvcd that 1-6 7 
[I-ri] are addressed to the people; G8 [i]-7 2i Io the 
priests. To tHis difference in the tilles corresponds in 
general the character of the laws: \~V\-] [1-5] prescribe 
what sacrifices and offerings the Israelite may bring, or 
under cerlain circumstanccs must bring; (i8^. [i#.] 
deal with the same classes of sacrifice, but with more 
reference to thC priests' funclions and perquisiles. Chaps. 
1-7 are not, however, a unitary code of sacrificial laws 
in two parts <.:onlaining directions for the worshippers 
and the prieslS respectively. The differenl order of the 
laws (the peace offering in the first part precedes, in 
the second fol'ovvs, the sin and trespass offering), con- 
sistent differeiices in formulation (note in (he second 
'This is ihe law of,' etc), and, finally, the subscriplion, 
7 37, which belongs to Ihe second part only, show that 
C 8 [i]-7 21 forined a collection by themselves, 

Furlher exaniinalion shows that neilher part of 1-7 is 

entirely homogeneous, Chaps, 1 (burnt offerings) and 

3 (peace offerings) are substanlially 

5. Cnap, 1-6;. inoct, and are good examples of 

velatively old sacrificial toroth. 

Sliglit changes have been made to adjust the laws to the 
historical theory of P: for 'the priest,' which seems to have been 
oiiginally used throughout (cp 1 g 12/. 15 17 a 11 16), the redaclor 
has sometimes subslituted ' Ine sons of Aaron ' {}'< 5 8) , more fre- 
quently ' Aaton's sons, ihe priests' (I5811 82: cp 1 7) ; the 
reference lo the ' tent of meeting' (l 3532813) is also edhorial, 
1 14-17 is a supplemenl (cp 2). 

Chap. 21-3 (meal offering) has some resemblance to 
1 3, but is al least out of place where it slands — ;i should 
immediately follow 1 (cp 1 2/ 3i); the resi of the 
chapter is difìerently formulated (2nd sing. ; noie also 
'Aaron and' his sons') and must be ascribed to a 
diiTerent band. 

Chap. 4 (sin offering),^ with ils scale of victims and 
riles graduated according to the rank of the offerer, 
belongs to a class of laws which seems to be the produci 
of artificial elaboration in priestly schools rather than 
to represent the naturai development of the ceremonial. 
The aitar of incense (7, cp 18) is a late addition lo 
the furnifure of the tabernacle ;S the ritual of the high 
priests' sin offering (3-12) is much more solemn than thaf 
of Ex. 29 10-14 ^^^- *■• 8" (■=? ^'so 8 14-17) ; Ihe sin 
offering of the congregation, which is elsewhere a goal 
(9 15 Nu. 1024, and even Lev. If»), is here a builock;* 
the same heighlening of the propiliatory riles is noticed 
here as in the offering of the high priest. 

Allhough 5 (-13 has no lille, it is not the conlinualion 
of 4; it knows nothing of the dislinction of persons 
which is characteristic of 4, and differs both in formula- 
tion and in terminology — the very precise author of 4 
would not have spoken of the viclim as an 'àsàm (Ut/.; 
cp nf.). The same reasons prevent us from regarding 
5 1-13 as an appendi.^ to 4 by a stili later hand,6 In 
5 1-6 much difficulty is created by the apparent con- 
fusion of katlath and 'aJàm. (' sin offering ' and ' trespass 
offering'), two species of sacrifice which are elsewhere 
quile dislinct,^ The verses seem also not to be a unii ; 
2/ is not an analogous case to i 4. wiih which 5/ are 

' See Bcrlheau, Sieben Gruppen, etc, 145^: Merji, ZWT 
(141-84164-181(18631; Kuenen, 7'A.7'44g2_/?',(i87o); Hoffmann, 
Ahhandlungen, 1 84^. (from MJGL. 1874). 

2 See We. CH\}) 138/; Kue. Hex. % 6, n. 17; Dr. 
liitr-od.m 43. 

' See Exnnus, § 5. i.. Law Literature, § 21 ^. 

' On the relation of Lev. 4 to Nu. ì'> ■i'iff., see NuMRERS, § to. 

5 Kue, Hex. % 6, n. 17^, We. now {CHi^) 335/-) regards 
4.') 1-1} njr as independent products of the sanie school. 

I! See Sacriflce, § 277", 



connected, Verses 145/ are in' niatter and form cog- 
nate to 13/ 6 2-7 [5 21-26]. 

The most probable explanation is that in 5 i_^, a law pr«- 
scribìng a ' trespass offering ' has been altcred so as to require a 
'sin offering' (51^). The insenion of 2/. is more difficvilt ta 
account for; for ihese defilements no sacrifice is elsewhere pre- 
Bcnbed (see \\-2^ff,V.ì%ff. etc. Nu. 19ii_i?:). If 2/ are 
derived from an old toràh, it must be supposed thal a specific 
case, likc ihat in Nu. 6 la or in Lev. T 20/,, was originally con- 
te mplated.' 

The miligations in 5 7-10, ii-r3 are later, and perhaps 
successive, addilions (cp 1 14-17). The laws in 5 1$/. 
63-7 [3 22-25] are from a group defining the cases in. 
which a ' trespass offering' is required (cp 5i 4-6), and 
malte clear the true character of this sacrifice; if i-j-iq 
is of the same origin, the general pVirases of 170 (cp 
42 13 22 27) have probably siipplanted a more specific 
' trespass,' 

Tliese laws, though probably introduced bere at a 
comparatively late stage in liie redaction and not with- 
out some alteratìon, are substanlially genuine priestly 
tòròth; certain resemblances. especially in 63-7 [522-26], 
to H in Lev, 17-2G point to proximity, if not to idenlity 
of origin (see below, § 35), 

Chaps. ti a [i]-7 2t contain a serìes of rules, chiefiy for 
the guidance of the priesis, and, in the introductìons 
6. Chapfl. 6 8-7 2 Prefixed by tlie redactor (6 8/ [1/] 24/. 
[17/]), addressed to 'Aaron and his 
sons.' Each paragraph begins, 'This is the tòràh of 
[the burnt offering, eie.) ; and the resumptive sub- 
scriplion, 7 37, is in corresponding form. 

Here, as in I .1, 'Aaron and his sons' or ' the sons of Aaron' 
has sometiraes been substilnted in the text for the originai ' ihc 
pr'iest'; ' the court of the lent of meeting' (fi 16 s6 [9 19]) 15 
editorial, as in 1 3 s etc, and othet glosses may be noted, 
especìally in G 17^^ [loy!]. 

The rule for the priests' meal offering, 620-23 [13-16], 
has a different superscription, and is cleariy secondary; 
the exegetical difììculties are due to subsequent glosses; 
6 30 [23] depends upon 4 (cp 10 16-20) ; 7 8-10, perquìsites 
of the ofììciating priest (cp 29-34), ^""^ introduced here 
in connection wilh 7; io is perhaps later than 9, as the 
offering oi uncooked flour is later than that oÌ bread and 

The priestly tòròth iti these chapters, also, are rela- 
tively old,3 and there is no reason lo doubt that they 
represent actual practice ; they have been preserved with 
little material change,* 

Chap, 7 22-27, prohibition to the Israelites (and pi.) to 
eat the fat of sacrifices and the blood of animals (cp 3 16^ 

17 17 10-14), slands not in appropriate ly after 11-21, 
but is not from the same source, Substantially the 
same thing may be said of 28-34, which, again, are 
formulaled differently from 22-27. A later band may 
be recognised in 32 (and pi.), which is a doublet to 33; 
34 (ist sing.) is added by the redactor; 35/ (cp Nu. 

18 8) is the subscription lo an enumeration of the priests' 
dues (35Ì doublet to 36*) , and undoubfedly late ; observe 
the anointing of ali the priests, 36^ (see Exodus ii., 
§ 5' '-) '< yi is *'"^ originai subscription to the tòròth in 
6 a [i]-7 2i (the ' installalion ■ is a gloss referrìng to 
6 19-23 [i2-i6]) ; 38 is added by a redactor. 

Chaps. 11 - 15 are naturally connected by their 
dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness 
(a), and by certain phraseological 
7.Chap8.11-15; characteristics (*). 

Cleanand (^) The chapters dea! with: dean and 

UUClOan,^ undean animals — i.e., liinds allowed or for- 

bidden for food (11 1-23) ; defilement by con- 
tact with -undeaTi animals, alive or dead, and the necessary 
purilications (24-38) ; defilement by contact with ihe carcasses of 

' The latter is ihe Jewish explanation ; Skìbuòth. r4 a h. 

2 On the relation of these chapters to t-fiy fi -ri] see above, § 4. 

' Chap. ''912] has been understood to speak 01 the daily even- 
ing burnt oflering. and it is hence inferred that the rule is very 
late (after Ezra) ; but the text — which is manifestly corrupt — 
does not warrant so large a conclusion. 

* In addìtion to the verses mentioned above, 1 12 may reason- 
ably be suspected. 

^ Berlheau, Sieben Gruppen, etc, 169^ 



clean animals (jg/'.) ; unclean reptiles and vermin (41-44) ; sub- 
sctiptions (44/. 46/^). Uncleanness and pur ification after child- 
birtn (Vi). Skin diseases; discrimination of ' unclean ' kindsfrom 
innocent eruptions; precautions to be taken in suspecled cases; 
theisolationof the' leper ' (13 1-46); similarappearances in cloth 
and leather (47-59) ; piirifìcation of the leper, offerings (14 1-32) ; 
' leprous' spotson the wallsofliouses and their treatment (33-53); 
general subscription (54-57). Uncleanness from sexual secretions 
and discharges in beai th and disease, in man 1,15 1-1 8j and woraan 
(ig-31) ; general subscription t.j2y.). 

(i) A unity of redaction is indicaled also by the recurrence of 
the phrase, ' This is the I5rah of,' etc, in the subscriptions (li 46 
l'i 7 lif 59 14 J2 54 57 1532/!; cp Nu. fi 29); in 14 2 the words 
appear in a tille, as they do repealedly in ti 8 [iJ-T 21 (see above, 

The distinctions embodied in these laws originate in 
a low stage of culture and are there of fundamental 
importance.i A high degree of elaboration, even of a 
kind which appears to us artificìal, is not of ilself proof 
of late development ; savage laboos frequentiy form a 
most complicated system. We have no reason to doubt 
that the tòròth in Lev. 11-15 are based upon ancient 
Israelite, and even prehistoric, custom. As they lie 
before us, however, the chapters give evidence of having 
been formulated in different schools, and of repeated 
literary supplementatìon and redaction. 

The dose of chap, 11 (45, cp 4411) exhibits the 
eh aracle risile phraseology and motive of H ('1 am 
5) rhan 11 Yahwè,' ' ye shall be holy for I am 

Unclean "^^'^ '*' '^ "^^ loròth, especially in 2^8 

animala. S""* v.^"-^* t' ^- T ^Ì^f^' *" T"^ 
which are embodied m H (see, c.^.. Lev. 

18). It is inferred with much probabihty that the food 

laws in Lev, 11 were included in the ' holiness ' code ; s 

Lev. •2i^1■i impUes that H contained such rules. Laws 

on the same subject in closely similar form are tound in 

Di. 14,* probably taken from the same priestly coUection 

from which H derived Ihem.^ The food laws of H have 

been preserved, however, only wilh many additions and 

alterations; 11 1 211 8 ioa$i n (except iSoNn n^), 12 13-19 

in their present form, and much in 20-23 41-42 and 46/;, 

are to be ascribed to successive, and in pan very late, 

redactors. Laws on a dilìerent subject — viz,, defilement 

by contact with unclean animals (24-38) or the carcasses 

of clean animals dg/^) — have also been introduced,^ 

and these again are apparently not ali of the same age ; 

32-38, in particular, seems io be more recent than the 


The rules defining uncleanness after the bìrfh of a 
male (12ai-4) orfemale (5) child, and the requisite purifi- 
fl rhftTi 1 2 ■ *^^^'*'"^ '" *he two cases respectively (6-8) , 
ChUAhìrth T ^^^ formulaled in the same way as the 
"^ rules in chap. 15 (cp ISa^ 16 19 ss), with 

which chapter they are closely connected by their subject ; 
12 2 fixes the duration of uncleanness by a reference to 
ISig. There can be little doubt that 12 r-7 originally 
stood after 15 30 ; what led the redactor to transpose the 
chapter il is diIRcult to imagine. The tille (i ^a) 
is editorial; 'the door of the leni of meeting' (6, 
contrast ' the sancluary,' 4) is also secondary ; 8, 
which follows the subscription, like the corresponding 
mitigalions in other cases, is a later modìfication of 
the law. 

The marks by which the priest is lo disdnguish the 
skin diseases which render the subject unclean, from 
in p>inTi ^•^f innocent eruptions (1^2-44) are care- 
iU.l-nap. 10/. . j^ljj, defined, and are manifestly the 
Leprosy. j.^^^,^ ^^ ^^^^^ observalion.s The sub- 
ject was an important pari of the tdràk of the priesis 
(Dt. 248), and one which from its nature is likely lo 

1 See Clean and Unclean. 

2 See below, § 26. 

' Horst, Lev, xvii.-xx'zn. u. ffezekùl, 34; Wursler, ZA TW 
4123/ (1884); Kue, //*'j:. § [s,n. 5; Dr./w^forf.Wsg; cpalso 

' See the comparative table in Dr, Deut. i^l ff- 

'• See Deuteronomv, § 10. 

Kayser, Vorexilisches Buch, iSo_f.; Kalisch, 2 124^ 

' CpTAMlLY, §§ 9_^. 

X Some scholais bave thought that ISy. aie in gieat part fioni 
H; see below, g 24. 



bave been relatively early fixed in wriling; the minute 
disurimination of symptoms is not lo he taken as evi- 
dente of recent origin, whiist the rites of purilìcation in 
lÌ2-Sa are of a strikingly primitive characier.i^ The 
chaplers are noi, however, entirely of the same age. 
The originai law contained only 13 2-461 14 a-S^a, with 
the subscription 14 SJ»^. The rilual of purification in 
14 10-20 is obviousjy a later substitute for 2-811. 

In Sa the !eper is already clean, in io he is stili la be cleansed 
(cp 20^J ; the connection in 81^ (9) is manifestly artificial. Tlie 
ceremonies in io J^. are patterned after the consecration of 
prieats in Lev. S (cp H 14-18 with 8 -j-jy. 30 Ex. '.ii) 20^^) ; the 
extravagant number of sacrifices, the exact prescription of the 
quantity of flour, etc.are othet marks of late date and prohably 
of the factitious character of the whole law (see above, on chap. 
■1 [§ 5]). 

The reduction of the number and costliness of the 
viclims in the case of the poor (14 21-31), with ils inde- 
pendenl subscription {32), is presumably stiil more 
recent. The purification of the leper (14 2-8) ìs separaled 
from the law for bis seclusion (K5 45/) by a passage of 
some lenglh on spots of mould in sluffs and leather 
(13 47-58) having ils own subscription (59), which would 
Sland more properly in connection with the ruJes con- 
cerning patches of iiiouid on the wal!s of houses 
(1433-53). '^'^^ association of these fungus growths 
with eruptive skin diseases ('leprosy'} is not unnatural, 
and would iead to similar reguiations for inspeclion by 
a priest, and for the destruction or purification of the 
materials affected. Chap, 1^47-59 cJosely follows the 
formulalion of 13 2^., and may be a comparatively 
early supplement to the law on ' leprosy,' if noi of 
approsimately the same age, Chap. 14 33-53 is not im- 
probably yo unger. 

The introduction (34), wìlh its reference to the future settie- 
menl in Canaan, is unlike that of any other of the laws in this 
group;^ and the adaplalion of the ritual for the purification of 
the leper to the cleansing of the house (49-33) seems artificial; 
these verses may, however, be a stili later addìtion, since in 48 
the house is already pronounced clean (cp ]-( 58, where no 
furlher ceremony is prescribed). The subscription, 54-57, has 
been expanded in successive stages. 

In chap. 13 a basis of old ióràà in characleristic 
formulalion is recognisable, most readily al the begin- 

11 Chan 15 ■ "'"^^ ^""^ ^''*^ ^""^ '^^ ^^^ several para- 
*lSBUe8 " Sraphs; Ibis basis seems to bave been 

er.larged, especially by the multiplica- 

tion of cases of derivalive pollulion, and some of these 

additions seem to be very late. Il is not possible, 

however, lo discriminale sharply between the originai 

ruies and the subsequent accretions. Verse 31, seem- 

ingly addressed to the priests (read'warn' [amntni] 

for 'separate'), is an appropriate dose to a colleclion 

of laws on various forms of uncleanness, and does not 

suggesl the prieslly editor ; the subscription, 32-34, has 

grown by repeafed glosses, 32^ only is by the first hand. 

The beginning of chap. Ifi is connected with 10 1-5 

not only by v. i (Rp) but also by its coDtents. Nadab 

12 Ghaii 16 ■ "rid Abihu lost their lives by presumptu- 
Dav ot ' '^^^^y infuding into the presence of 

Atonement.a Yahwè carrying unhallowed fire (cp 
l(>i2/i) in their censers; the fate of 
these priests is the occasion of a revelalion setting forth 
the rites with which Aaron may enter the sanctuary 
wilhout incurring the like destruction.* In the history 
of the satred instilulions, Ifi 2^, must, iherefore, have 
immedialely followed the death of Nadab and Abihu in 
10 1^. Noi ali of 16, however, is from this source ; in 
2-28 a singular piacular ritual, including the bringing 
o( the blood of the viclim into the inner sancluary and 

■ SeeWRS/?e/.5ew.(») 447, cp 422,428 n.; Wellh. i¥«"rf,(i) 

' Frequent in H: see § 26. 

' See Reu-^s, Gesch. d. A T's, § 387; Kue. Hex. % 15, n. 32; 
Dillm. A-j-orf. UvitS^),ziiff.; Chc.ZATW\f>i5ìJ'. (1895}; 
Now. HeÒr. Arch. 2 187 j^ On the analysis: Oori. Th.T 
10142^ (1877); Stade,CF/-i 258 n.; Benzinger.Z^rH'9 6s^ 
(1889); Addis, Hex, 1 -j-y); Carpenler and Harford-Battersby, 
Hex -l i6ìJ. See also Atonement, Day of. 

* Note the absence of the incense aitar, 



the sending away irlo the wilderness of a scape-goal 
laden with the sinsof the people (see AZAZEL),has been 
united wilh the prescriptions for Aaron's enlering the 
holy place; in 29-34it is ordained an annual general 
fast day (cp 'Zi 26-32), on which the priest performs 
rites— noi furlher specified — for the purification of the 
people and the sanctuary (cp Ezek. 4.5 18 20). Ben- 
zinger, in his analysis of the chapter,i ascribes the lasl- 
named law to the aulhor of 2-4 6 xx/.; il siood in 
dose connection with 9. The elaborate expiatory 
ceremonies in 1)157-1014-28 represenl a much later 
development (Atonement, Day ov, § 2) ; ihe fusion 
of the iwo elements had ils basis in the praxis itself ; the 
younger rilual probably never had an independenl 
literary exislence {ZATW M^?./.). 

Asregards the last point, vatious indications in the text (,eff., 
the repetition of 6 in 11) seem lo point to the union of two 
w ritte n source s by a redactor, whiist the complex ritual itself, 
with its repeaied cntrances and exits,^ is explained more easily 
as the result of such a combinalion ihan as an evolution in 
praxis. Il is comparatively easy to separate the expjaloty cere- 
monies of the Day of Atonement (disregarding some minor 
glosses— 5ap 7-10 150^^ i6fl i8-22rt ^è-zi^a*). 

The introduclìon, which doubtiess directed ihat these 
rites should be performed annually on a certain day, is 
missing; remnants of il may perhaps be preserved in 
2Q^-34ix, which verses are not an old law of P (Ben- 
zinger), but give evidence of coniamination from Lev. 
2326-32. and of various glosses. Il is more difficull lo 
determine just what was contained in the originai direc- 
lions for Aaron's entrance info the holy place; for in 
converting this act inlo a periodical ceremony and incor- 
porating il in the rilual of the Day of Atonement the 
redactor has made much grealer changes in this pari of 
his material. The cssenlial features appear to be: the 
ablmion, the vestmenls (4), the sacrifice of a young 
bullock as a sin offering (ó), ihe incense burnì in a 
censer on coals taken from the aitar (12-14) ; a more 
detaiied restoralìon cannol be attempted bere. 

Chap, 2(>3-45 is a solemn address of Vahwè (i pers.) 
to the Israeliles (pi.), setting before them the blessings 
13 Chan 17-26' ^e will bestow upon them if ihey walk 

The Hoiìness ' '" ^'^ slalutes and observe his com- 

T w -Rn Ir 3 mandments, and the caiamiues with 

lAW-JJOOK. ^[jj^^ j^g ^,.|, ^jgjj ^^^^ .^ ^j^^^ ^.jj 

noi hearken unto him and keep these commandments. 
Even apart from the subscription (46) — 'these are the 
slalutes and the judgmenls and the laws {hukktm, mis- 
pàfim, tòròtk) which Yahwè made between him and the 
Israeliles al Mi. Sinai through Moses ' — the character of 
the discourse and its resemblance to Di. 28 conclusively 
prove ihat Lev. 2f> originally slood al the end of a body 
of legislation. The disdnclive motives and phraseology 
of 2fi recur in the preceding chaplers in numcrous 
exhortations to observe the statutes and judgmenls 
therein contained (cp 18 1-5 24-30 19 2 361* 37 20 7/ 22-26 
22 31-33) ; briefer words of similar tenor are inlerspersed 
in other places ; note also the occurrence of the char- 
aclerislic phrase, ' I am Yahwè ' (with various comple- 
menls) , throughout these chapters from 18 2 lo 26 45. 

It is plain, therefore, that 18-25, or al least consider- 
able parts of these chapters, come from the law-book of 
which 2(i is the conclusion. From the prominence 
given in it to the motive of holiness, ibis book has been 
called the Holiness Law;* il is usually designated by 
the symbol H.^ The characterislic formulas of H 
appear first in the introduction lo 18 (ai^-s). and earlier 
critìcs regarded Ibis as the beginning of the exlracts 
from that book. •> More recent schoiars are generally of 
the opinion that 17 is derived from the same source. -" 

"^ ZATW^k'iff. (1889!; see Atonement, Day OF, § I. 
' See Atonement, Dav of, § 7. 
^ For literature see below, § 33. 

* See 111 2 '2(1 726 '21 8 etc. The name was given by Klost. 
ZZr!(84i6 ^l^^^')=Peniaieuch. 385. 

* K-uenen employs Pi, others Ph- 

^ So Ewald, Noldeke, Schrader, Graf, Colenso, Kloslermann. 

' So Knobel; Kayser. Vorexilisckes Bach, iikff., cp 64/ ; 

Kue. Hex. % 6, n. 27; Wcllh. CHW i%tff.: Hotst, Lev. xvii. 



A reading of Lev. 17-25 discloses a twofold aspect : 
on the one band unmistakable affinify, in parls, to the 
priestly legislation ; on the other band, much that is 
at variance with the usuai manner of tbat legislation, or 
lies outside tbe circle of its predominant inlerests. Both 
in contenis and in forra 19, for example, resembles Ex. 
20-23 and Dt. (cp especially Di. ^ò ff.) much more 
closely than P ; the hortatory setting of the laws and the 
emphasis on the molives to obedience, not only in 26 
but also in the preceding chapters, has no parallel in 
P, in. which the divine imperative is its own all-sufficient 
molive; Ihe phraseology of H is peculìar, and strikìngly 
different from that of P; ^ fìnally, there are aclual con- 
flicts betwcen ihe laws in H and those of P, particuiarly 
in regard to the feasts,^ The piiestly element appears 
in many cases to be superimposed, or lo supplement the 
other. The hypolhesis which first suggesied itself was, 
therefore, that older laws were revised and incorporaled 
by P,3 somelimes, as in 18-20, in large masses having 
a coherence of their own ; the hypothesis was subse- 
quently extended to 17-26 {or lS-26) as a whole {see 
below § 30) . 

The parsenetic framework in which the laws are set 
(see, e g., 18) is of the sarae character throughoul, and 
is somewhat sharpjy distinguished in style from the laws 
themselves, as the example just cited shows. Hence 
it seems, further, that the author of the colleclion H, 
wliom we may designate as Rh, embodied in his work, 
without radicai change, older titles of fòràh which had 
a 1 ready acqui re d a fìxed formulatìon. A comparison of 
18 20, on ihe same subject, is peculiarly instruclive in 
this regard. The result of this preliminary examination 
is, therefore, that in Lev. 17-26 we have a collection of 
laws, not ali of the same origin, which have been sub- 
jectcd to at least two successive redactìons, first by Rh, 
and second by Rf.* 

The subjects dealt with in Lev. 17-20 are the following: — ■ 

domestic animais slaughtered to be offered to Yahwè ; blood 

noi to be ealen(lT}; incest defined and 

14. ContentB 01 prohìbUed (IW); various short command- 

Chapa. 17-26. ments,chieflymoral and social (IH); Molech 

worship; anolhér law agaiiist incest (iO) ; 

tules forpriesls; restriclionsonmourningandinarriage; priests 

to be physicaliy perfect; regulations concerning the ealing of 

consecrated food ; victims to be without bleraish ; other rules 

aboiit victims (^lyl) ; calendar of sacred seasons (il) ; the oil 

for the lampsin the labe ma de, and the shew-bread; blasphemy; 

manslaiighter and torcs ("24) ; Sabbatical ycar and Jubilee (25) ; 

hortatory discoutse (2li). 

The order of these chapters is in general a naturai 
one -,5 difficulty is made only by the position of 19, by 
the repetition of the same subject in 18 and 20, and by 
24, which in both its parls seems to be foreign to its 
present surroundings, It is clear that Lev. 17-25 do 
not contain a complete law-book, sitch as H presumably 
was ; many topics which would have a necessary place 
in such a code are lacking. These subjects may have 
been omitted by the redactor because they were suffi- 
ciently treated elsewhere, or may have been transposed 
to other conneclions; some such dispiaceri fragments 
may be recognised in Ex.-Num. (see beìow, § 24). 

Chap. 17 contains a nucleus of old tòrbth in brief and 
consistent formulation, which has been much expanded 

xxvi. ». Hezekiel; Baentsch, Heili^keitsgcseiz ; Holz. ; Dr,, 
etc. See below, § 15. 

1 On the vocabulary of H see Dilhn. Num. Deut. Jos. 637/;; 
Dr. Inirod.W 49y-; Holz. Mex. 411 /.: Carpenter and 
Harford-Badersby, Hex. 1 220^ See also Baentsch, Heili'^- 
keitsgesetz, and the works cited in § 29, n. 9. 

2 Chap. 23. The conflìct was noticed by George, Fesle, 
\-iaff. {1835) andHupfeld (iSgi,^.). 

* ' Book of Origini' ; Ewald. 

* In the following sections Rp will be iised to designate simply 
the priestly editor or edilors of Lev. IT-'ifì, without anticipating 
the question of the relation of ihis redaction to the composìtion 
of P or of the Hexateuch, on which see below, § 32. 

* On the arrangement see Horst, VJ.ff- The attempi has 
been made in H also (see ExoDusii., §4, lii. end) to show thal the 
laws were originally grouped in decads. So Bertheati, Sieben 
Grufipen, etc. ; and Paton in a series of articles in yBL (see 
§ 33. 2}- 



and altered by laler hands. A considerable part of 
I - p, .„ this expansion is plainly the work of 

SlauSr Of **" <'^- "^ '*' '' ''"* '"'■"^ '" ^ ■°*"' 

Ard 1 1 ^"^^'""^ °f editor's work which is re- 

^^' cognised as Rh {e.g., ^aa.b jo. 106). 

The most interesling case of this doublé redaction is 

found in 3-7. 

The originai law seems to have run ; ' Any Israelite who 
slaughters a bullock or a sheep oc a goal and does not bring 
it imo ihe presence of Yahwè, blood shall be imputed to that 
person ' {i.e., he shall be regarded as having eaten flesh wilh 
the blood ; cp i S. 14 32-34} ; a redactor inttoduced ihe words 
' the dwelhng of {miikan) before ' Yahwè' ; ^ the references 
to the camp and ' the doot of the tenl of meeting ' are additìons 
of Rp, adapting the situation to P's tabernacle ; similar addi- 
tions are ' to offer it as an offering lo Yahwè.' and ' he has 
shed blood : that person shall be cut off from hìs people ' I4); 
cp the variatìons of Sam. and ffi, as indications of continued ami 
late manipulation of ihe text. Verse ?,/. may be a fragment 
ofa law, corresponding toEx. -^2 20 [19], sacrificeshall be ofiered 
to Yahwè only; 9 is Rp. With \^/. cp 11 40 and 'It 8 (Ezek. 
44 31) ; for a slricter mie see Ex. 'ùl 31 Ul. 14 21. 

Chap. 18 conlains laws on incest and some kìndred 

subjects (6-23), preceded byan introduclion (21^-5), and 

1 (ì rhnn 1 S concluding wilh admonitions and warn- 

' , \ ' ings (24-30). This setiing is in the 

^^^^^' main the work of Rh. 

Verse 5 is a doublet to 4; 29 is from Rp: 24-28 30, are probably 
amplifiedby later scribes imilating Rh, or by contamination from 
20 22-2i(. Verse 6 is the general rulelperhaps editorial), ihe cases 
follow in a stereotyped scheme (7-170) ; 17^-24 are diflerently for- 
mulated, probably a supplement from anothet collection oìldrdth 
on the same subject; 21 (Molech) is tntroduced ihrough a 
merely verhal associalion by Rh who wrole aii. A few glosses 
mar the symmetry of Tff. 

Chap. 19 contains a brief manual of moral instruc- 

tion, perhaps the best re presentati ve of the ethics of 

17 Chao ancien! Israel, openìng and closing with ihe 

19 ■" Moral f'^'"'""'^^ of Rh {^b ihb 37) ; observe also the 

frequent recurrence of the phrase ' I ara 


Yahwè, ' or ' I am Yahwè your God, ' after 

groups of commandments (3 4 io iz 14 16, etc.). Two 
passages are obvìously ou( of place in this chapter; 5-8, 
by its subject and formulation is plainly connected 
with 22 29/ ; 20, also, is foreign to the context ; 
ìf has been thought that its appropriate place would be 
after 20 io (Dillm.), but the case is cleariy one of tort, 
and Ihe formulation corresponds ralher to 24 15-21 — 
another misplaced fragment; 21^ is a late addilion to 
20 (cpGóyC). The rest of the chapter is made up of 
old tòròtk, probably compiled, or at least supplemented, 
from more than one source, with occasionai clauses 
inlroduced by Rp, (goa io5 iib x%b t-^aa. 29 30 [=26 2] 
31Ì 32^ 33/-)> ^nd probably the repeaied ' I am Yahwè ' 
— though in this Rh may have been anticipated by the 
tóròth themselves. 

The first group of commandments (3/) is in some sort 
a counterpart to the first table of the decalogue; n-iS 
similarly remind us of the second table.3 In general 
the chapter is to be compared wilh Ex. 20 -ìff. 22 18-22 28/'. 
23 1-19, and parts of Dt, 22-25, in which many parallela 
will be found. These do not jnstify us, however, in 
regarding Lev. 19 as based upon the Decalogue, the 
Covenant Book, and Deuferonomy ; * actuai coincidences 
in formulation or in order are singularly few, and ap- 
pear to be sometimes the result of textual contamina- 
tion, Ralher Lev. 19 is anolher of the epitomes of 
good morals, of which there were doubtiess many in 
ancien l Israel, 

The originai law against the sacrifìce of children in 
18 Chan 20- ""^ Molech cult (20 2») 5 has received 

Incest etc ' ^^P^^'^*^ addilions, 3 disclosing Ihe hand 

' ' of Rh (addilions of Rp in 3Ì), ib a 

gloss, and ^f. a variation on ■ìb 3 intended to supplant 3, 

1 Kayser. Vorexilisches Buch,(>^ff.; yPTI-ni-ff. (1881); 
Wellh. C//('l 152J?".: Horsi. i4if-,cp42>.: Dillm. (=) 584^?: ; 
Kue. Hex. § 15, n. g; Baentsch, i3_^ See below, § 28. 

^ On the queslion whelher this redaclor was Rh, see § 28. 

5 Berlheau, Sieben Gruppen, 205; We. CHW 155/; 
Baentsch, 81, 

* So Kayser, Baentsch, and oihers. 

" See MOLKCH. 



The law against witchcraft (&) secms lo bave displaced 
the more originai tòrah wliich is preservcd in 27. 

Verses 7/; bt;ioiig lo the par^netie framework of Rh. 
perhaps only accidentally brought together in subsequent 
redacfion; the corresponding dose is 22-24. 

Verse 9 ha? nothing to do with the snbjecl of the following 
laws; !t seems rather to be connected with 24 15-22 (cp 2U 9 
with "24 15) ; it is not irnprobable that "J4 15-22, which are 
altogelher out of place where they stand, wilh -h) 9 ( ? io) 27, and 
perhaps 2, are scattered fragmenls of a chapter on capital 
offences the greater part of which was omilted by the final 

In II - 21 foilow laws against incest, sodomy, and 
commerce with a woman during menstruation, against 
ali of which the death penalty is denounced, These 
laws are front a collection independent of IS (Graf, 
Wellh., Dillm. etc.).i There has been some confamina- 
lion from 18 (sec, e.g.. 20 19) , and the clauses prescribing 
the penalty have becn glossed and recast. 

22-24 's the work of Rh, Verses i^f. deal not with the sub- 
ject of 2(1 biit with clean and imclean animals (! I ), and 25^» z6a 
are aclually found in 11 433» 45Ì. It is possible that fragments 
of the missing introduction to 11 are al so preserved xn'lKi'z^f., 
and thai the latter verses mark the place where II once stood in 
H (see § 24)- 

Chaps. 21 f. present the same phenomena which 
we have observed in 17 ff, ; old tòròth concerning the 
19 Chans P''''^^l'io'"^ have been glossed, rcvised, 
21 f ■ BiUes ^"'^ siipplemented by successive editors. 
for nriesta ^'^'^^ ^^ ^^ glosses were probably made 
" ' upon the toroth themseives before they 

were ìncorporated in H ; many additions were made by 
Rh or by later editors ir imitatìon of him ; others, 
finally, by Rp and scribes of that school. It i» not 
possible in ali cases exactly to distinguish these various 
hands; but in considerable pari it can be done. 

In -IX 1-9 the originai rules are found in \b& (beginning lost), 
3<i (2Ì 3 have mote exact definition}, 5 7(1 ; ^ Rt[ in 6 7Ì 8; Rp 
' the fire-offerings of Vahwè,' in 6 ; 9 is noi strictly in place. In 
10-15 the old law is laaa ('the priest who is greater than hìs 
brethren '), b ii 13 14*; Rh >2 15; Rp \a^. In 16-24 P^""' "f 
the tdr&h is repeated in slightiy varìant forras {17 21) with 
glosses by Kp; to the old mie belong, further, 220230 ialso 
glossed by Rp) ; 18^-20 is an ( ? old) specifìcatlon of blemishes 
(cp 'j-j 22-24) ; RninaB^: 34 (Rp) i» a fragmcnt. 

The beginning of Ti 1-16 ìs in disorder; -ia&b is Rh, but 
tacking its aniecedents, showing traces of more chan one band, 
and separating the first words of 1 { Rpl from theìr sequel (3) ; 
4a is the old rule (' of the seed of Aaron,' Rp) , and fragments of 
a following rule may be recognised in parts of 6/!, the resi 
being supplanted by Rp, to whom most of 4Ì-7 are to be 
asciibed; g may have been inchided in H, though it is not in a 
very appropriate place; 9 ìs Rh, perhaps more than one band 
(cp ly 30 and ".il 8) ; 10-13 ^rc substantially rAAtoròtk with some 
glosses: 14 (cp.">i5) may be a later additìon; is_/ Rh. In 
17-25 the old rules in i8i 19 21 have received many glosses 
(Rp), as also the following caialogue of defects (22-24, cp 
al 17-20) ; 25 is Rh C bccause their corruption is in them,' Rp). 
Verses 27-30, again, are old laws, followed by the closing ex- 
hortations of Rh (3'-33), i" which 32 seems to intrude between 
3t and 33. 

Chap. 23 contains the annual round of sacred seasons, 

derived in part from a priestly calendar, in part from 

20 Chan 23 ■ ^* ^^^ former element is easily 


recognised by its rigid scheme (see, 

'•ff-< 5-8 34*-36). the exact regulation 
of the date and duration of the festival, the days of 
' holy convocation" (Nu.28/t) observed as the striciest 
of sabbaths, and (he ' fire-offerings ' to Yahwè. The 
characteristics of H are equally unmistakable in other 
parIs of the chapter, though, as elsewhere, the originai 
text of H has been heavily glossed by priestly editors 
and scribes. To the calendar of P belong 4-3 (Passover 
and Unleavened Bread; 2/, Rp), 21 (fragment of the 
law for Pentecost), 34 / (Feast of Truinpels), 27-32 
(Day ofAlonement), 34^-36 (Tabernacles) ; 37/, is the 
subscription, which 44 was tneant to foilow. The law 
for the Day of Atonement shows some repetitions. and 
has perhaps been amplifìed by later editors ; cp 16 29-34. 

' Not from the same source, affixing the penalty to the 
ofTences defined in is (Keil, Knobel, etc.) ; nor an editorìa! 
commentary (Rh), Paton, Hebraica, IO 11 1-121. 

' Verse 4 is a corrupt fragment, 

' George, A«i^, 120^. ; Kayser, Vorexilisches Buch,Tiff.; 
We. C//|5) 161^.; Horst. 24>". ; Baentsch, a,\ff. 




P's law for Pentecost has been supplanted by a long 
passage from H (9-20), in which the old toràk, the 
setling of Rh, and the additions of Rp, may be dis- 
linguished. It begins wilh the waving of the first sheaf 
of bariey from the new harvesl. The introduction is 
by Rh (ioa) ; the law probably begari, ' When ye reap 
your harvesl." To the originai law belong io(5 iia* 
1412*; the various offerings come from R? (not ali from 
one hand), This is followed by the prescriplion of 
two wave loaves at Pentecost (!5.2o), is«, 'fifiydays'in 
idb, in 17 ' Ye shall bring as wave loaves two cakes ; ye 
shall bake it Jeavened as first fruils for Vahwè,' zo* ; the 
rest is Rp. V. 22 is out of place bere ; cp l',ì 9/ 

The laws from H for the observance of l'abernacles 
stand in 39-43, as a supplement lo those of P in 34^-36, 
with a brief introduction by Rp (iqua.) ; 3911,3 and 420 
unqueslionably belong to the origmal tòrak ; perhaps 
4ofl* also (cp Neh. 8 14,^-) ; the rest must be atiribuled 
to various slages of the redaclion (42^ 43 ?4o^, Rh). 

Chap. 24, w. 1.4, on the iamps in the tabernacle, and 
5-9, on the shew-bread, are supplements respectively to 

21 Chan 241 Ex. 25 31-40 (cp 2720/ Nu. 81-4), and 

''' ■ Ex. 25 30, and belong to the secondary 
stratum of P; how they gol imo this place it is not 
easy to guess.^ The rest of the chapter deals with the 
punishment of blasphemy, and with mansiaughier, 
mayhem, and killing or maìming calile. The nucleus 
is a group of old tòròth, wilh a closing formula of Rh 
(15^-22), and glosses by Rp, especially in 16; on the 
originai posilion of these laws see above, § 17 (on 20 9). 
The punishment of blasphemy is illusfrated by an 
exampie, 10-14 ^Sp tiy a late priestly band ; cp, Nu. 
15 32-36. 

In chap. 25 the Jaw of the sabbatical year (1-7) is 
from H, 3-511 is the old tòràh (with glosses emphasising 

22 Chan 25 ■ "'^ sabbatical character of the year) ; 
Sabbatical ' ''P ^''- ^^^"/^ *^^ introduction (2) 

^L ... sequel to this appears to be 18 f. 20-22, 

JubUee. ^,g^ ^^ Verses S..7 23-34 have to do 
with the reversion of alienated land to its owners in the 
fiftielh year and wilh the righi of redemption in land 
and houses.3 The greater part of 3-17 is from H ; 
11-13 '3 ^" additìon of Rp conforming the jubilee year 
to the septennial land sabbai h ; 9 also seems to be 
late ; clauses from an older law are Ìncorporated in jou 
e ye shall proclaim an emancipation ' ; cp Ezek, 46 16 f.) 
and b ('and shall return, every man to bis estate'): 
ì^a 15 are of the same origìn; ihf., of which 23 is the 
sequel, together with the introduction (8 loao) and 
several clauses in the intervening verses, are by Rp. 
The following 24-34 ^^ ^'^ from the school of P, but 
probably not ali of the same age ; 24-28 is an additìon 
of Rp to the preceding law; 29-31 apparently a novel 
to 24-28 ; the exceplion in favour of the Levites (32.34) * 
depends on Nu, 35 1-8, itself among the youngest 
additions to P; the language of 24.34 '^ ^sXe- 

The prohibition of usury (35-38) is from H ; cp Ezek, 
IS 8 13 17 22 12. In the following iaws on the treatment 
of slaves (39-46) the charitabie motives of H have prob- 
ably been amplified by imitative hands, and there are 
extensive ìnterpolations by Rp, especially in 44-46 (per- 
haps ali Rp) and in 49-52. 

Chap. 2ti I f., laws forbidding various species of 
idolalry and commanding the observance of the sabbath, 
set in phrases of Rh, are strangely out of place bere; 
I is parallel lo 19 4, 2 ìdenlical with 19 30 (cp 193), 
and the verses are fragments from a collection similar 
lo 19. 

Chap. 26 contains promises of prosperity to obedience 

' Popper, Sti/tsk'ùite, ^a^f. 

I See We. (?//■(=) 166; Baentsch, 51. 

" On the law of the Jubilee Year see We. CH^ 167/:, (2)164 
ff.: ììoffmann, AbbanaluHgen, 1 l^ff.; Horst, 27^ ; ILwc.Hex. 
5 15, n. 4.5-, 18; Baentsch. 53 #".; Vix. hitrod.W ^df,; Dillm. 
Ex. Lev.W, 658^ See also^tiBtLEE, Ybah of. 

* Levites are nowhere mentioned in H. 



(3-13) and threatened Judgments on disobedience (14-45), 
23 Cha» ™'*^ ^ subscriplion to the Holiness 
„., ' p_-„i_. Law-Book {46). The whole ìs spoken 
ZO3-46 . rronuBO j^ ^^^ persoti of Yahwè to the Israeiites 
°' (plural, throughout), and corresponds 
in cha rader and in ils relation to ihe preceding laws lo Ex. 
23zojf. and Dt. 2S. To the last meniioned chapter Lev. 
26 has much vesembiance, not only in ils general tenor 
but also in particular turns of thought and expression ; 
but Ihese coincidences are not of such a nature as to 
imply literary dependence ; the total impression, on the 
contrary, is distinclly of originai ity on boih sides. 

The disposition is different: Dt. ^o has an anlithetic serìes of 
blessingsand curses (2-14 I5j?^) to which there is no counte rpart 
in Lev. iti; Lev. Htì is climaclic (14-17 18-2021^^ 23-26 27 _j^.) ; 
noie also that in Lev. Yahwè himself speaks (I), in Di. ihe 
divine ptomises and warnings are in the ihird person (Yahwè) ; 
in Lev. the address to the Israeiites is plural (ye, yoii), in De. 
singular (thou, thte). 

Innumerable fhreads connect Lev. 26 wilh ihose parts 
of the foregoing chapfers which are ascribed to Rh; ^ 
there is every reason to believe that it is by the same 
author who compiied the law-book H and attached to 
the tórbth which he incorporated bis characteristlc 
motives,2 The difference in situation, which Baentsch 
urges as the strongest argument for attributing 2() to a 
different author, is easily exaggerated (in 18-25 the 
entrance into Canaan is siili future — 18 3 34 19 23 20 22-24, 
cp 23 IO 25 2 — whiist in 26 jt is an accomplished fact) ; it 
would be more just to say that the situation is not con- 
sistenlly maintained (see on the one band 18 25 27, on 
tlie other 26 n). The relation is in Ibis respect the 
same as that of Di. 28 to DI. 12-26; in the prophetic 
peroration the author's rea! present almost inevilably 
shows through, 

Dillmann and Baentsch have rightly observed that Lev. 26, 
like Ex. ^òioff. and Di. 28, has not escaped additions anii 
glosses by later hands, which the resemblance of some parts to 
Ezekiel pecuLìarly invited; 8 is a later doublet to 7; io is per- 
haps a gloss to \f. ; 17 would be in place rathet with 23-26; 30 
is probably a gloss to 31 derived ftom Ezek. 6 3-5 ; 34 /^ a late 
interpolalion (Rp) cognaie to 2 Ch. ;j(J2i; 37 is also questioned; 
30-43 is a late addicion, 39 sets in at the same point as 36, the 
phMseology reminds us of Ezek. (cp 4 17 'i4 33 33 io) ; Ihe fol- 
lowing verses (40-43, jrd pers. throughout) are very clumsily 
wtilten: 44^, also, are secondary. 

It has been observed above (§ 14) that Lev. 17-26 is 
not a complete law-book; some laws may have been 
94 Oth omiited by the redactor becaiise the 

f W 8 subject was treated elsewhere ; others 
remams ol il. ^^^ -^^^^ j^^^^ removed io a new con- 
nection. The qiiestion thus arises whether any portions 
of H can be recognised in other parts of the Penlateuch, 
One such has been noticed above (§ 8), the food laws 
in Lev. 11, with the characterislic colophon of Rh (45) ; 
cp 20 25 (§ 17 end). A consideratale number of oiher 
passages in Ex., Lev,, Nu, have been thought by dif- 
ferent critics to be derived from H — some in their 
present form, others much altered by later redaction.* 
Il is obvious that the characleristic expressions and 
motìves of Rh are the only criterion by which we can 
recognise fragmenis of H ; resemblance in the subject 
or formulalion of laws to tòróth incorporated in H may 
point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not 
evidence that these laws were ever included in that 
collection.s Further, the test of diction must not be 
applied mechanically; not ali the sections in which the 
words ' I am Yahwè' occur are, on that ground alone, 
to be ascribed to H : familìarity with H and Ezekiel 

' See Baentsch, 44^^ 

' Not an independent prophetic sermon (Ew., Nold. ; cp 
Baentsch), nor the dose of a different collection of laws (May- 
baum, Pfiestefìku^n, 74 ff".). 

» See Klostermann, ZirJW 409/ {'77)^Peniafeuck, 377/; 
Del. ZÌCIV 1622; Kayser, yPT Téso ('81); Horst, 35/; 
Kue. Hex. 5 15, n. 5; Dillm. Nuftt. Deut. Jcs. 640; Wurster, 
ZATlViii-ìff. ('84): Holzinger, ^,-j:. 410 ; Baentsch, 6 j?: ; 
Carpenter and Harford-Baltersby, 2 145. 

* The list includes Ex. C 6-8 12 jzf. 29 38-46 31 13/. Lev. 5 1-6 
21-2411 [62-5^] Wiof. n (In part), 12 13 1-46 14 i-8<i 15 Nu. 
3ii-r3 511.31 62-3109/ 1538-41 19 11/ 

" Siee below, § 25. 



may have suggested the formula to later authors or 
editors ; or, on the other band, ìt may have been used 
by olhers before Rh, In the greater part of the passages 
which have been claimed for H, the evidence is for 
one or the other of the reasons indicated insufficient; 
Nu. 15 37-4( is perhaps the only one about which there 
is no dispute, Ihough in some other cases a probability 
may be admitled. 

The analysis of Lev. 17-26 shows that the laws in H 
were not conceived and expressed by the author of that 
25 Sources ^°°^- ^"' ^'^'"^ taken by him from pre- 

*of H ceding collections in a form aiready fixed ; 

even where the share of Rh is largest, as 
in the provisions for the jubìlee year (25 8 ff.) , there is a 
basis of older law. It would be too much to afhrm 
that Rh made no material changes in these laws; but 
in general bis work was selection and redaclion, putting 
the existing laws under his own point of view and 
attaching to them cerlain dìstinchve motives. The 
difFerences of formulalion in ihe laws themselves, 
especially in the laws on the same or kindred subjecis 
(as in 18 and 20), prove that they are not ali of the 
same origin; the presumption is that they were taken 
from more than one collection. made at different limes 
or places, or in different priestly families or guìids. In 
other parts of Lev. and Num, we find groups of laws, 
not belonging to the main slem of P, which are cognate 
in subject and formulalion lo those in H, but show no 
traces of the band of Rh ; it is probable that these are 
derived from the same collections on which Rh drew.i 
The laws in these coilections, like Ihose in H, bear, in 
general, ali the marks of genuine torolh, representing 
and regulating the actual practice of the period of the 
kingdom,2 They know nothing of a centrai sanciuary 
or of a sacerdotal caste ; the priest is simply ' the 
priest,' Leviles are not mentioned, 'the priest who is 
greater than his brethren,' upon whom greater restric- 
tions are laid (21 to), is a very different thing from the 
Aaronite high priest of P (see § 30) ; the occasionai 
references to Aaron and his sons, the tabernacle, and 
the camp are demonstrabiy interpolations by a redactor 
(Rp), who thus superficially accommodated the old laws 
to the Hìsiory of the Sacred Instìtutions (Historical 


The representai ion of the author (Rh) of the hislory 
agrees wilh that of the older historians and the prophets : 

26. Character S^ ^'T?'ì ■^'"'t *" IF^' ^^^^\' 
of H 3 Ihence Yahwè has brought ihem out to 

give them the land of Canaan (25 38) ; 
he is going to expel the peoples of the land belore 
Israel (18 24 20 22/) ; * the laws are given to the Israei- 
ites before their entrance into the land ; ^ they are to go 
into operation after the setllement (1832419232022-24 
23 IO 25 2). There is no archaistic attempi to simulale 
the situation in the desert (the camp, etc.) ; the place 
of worship is not the Tent of Meeting, but simply the 
Sanciuary {mikdài, ' holy place,' 20 3 21 12) ^ or the 
abode of Yahwè {miikàn, ' dwelling-place," 17 4 — if the 
word is really from Rh — 2<i n, cp Ezek, 37 27).^ 

The readers are repeatedly exhorted to observe 
{ìàmar, 18 4 5 26 30 19 tg 37 20 8 22 22 3. 25 18 26 3, eie,) 
the laws of Yahwè {^huk^dtk ùmiìpatim, ' statules and 
judgments," 18 5 26 19 37 20 22 25 18 ; vtiswdth, ' com- 
mandments,' 22 31 26 3 14 15, etc; never tòràh) ; they 
shall not conform to the cusioms or rites of the 
Egyptians or Canaaniles (18 3 20 23) ; Yahwè has sepa- 

' See 5 24, and below, § 31. 

^ 5ìee further below, § 30. 

3 See Baentsch, 131^ 

* The verses in which it appears that ihis has aiready been 
accomplished ( 1 8 25 27/.) , if not simply a lapse of the writcr, 
may be seconda ry. 

' The subscriplion, 2fi 46, according to which the laws were 
revealed on Mt. Sinai, Ìs probably not by Rh; 25 1 cerrainly is 

' In 19 30 2fi 2 read ' my hoUness.' 

' In the tòròth neither word occurs; the rites takc place ' in 
the presence of Yahwè.' 



rated Israel from the nations (20 24 26^) . Many oftences 
are condemned as defilemenl (piarne, tom'àk, 182023^ 
1931 22821 1, etc; cp 18 25 2; 20 3) ; 1 the synonymous 
expressions in IS 20 are in part, at least, from later 

Israelites arewarned not to profane {killél) holy things, such 
as the name of Cod (1821 1!> 12 iil 6 :il>3 li^a 32), sacrifices (19 8 
'2'J ay. 15), thesanctuary (21 12 23), priesthood (22 9 li) 29 21 15). 
The people of Vahwé must hallow themselves, and be holy, 
because he is holy ( 19 a 2ll 7 26, cp 11 44 y^) ; his holiness is to 
be revered (19 30 "iti 2) ; Vahwè hallows his people (2U 8 22 32) ; 

friesls, parlìcularly, are holy (21 6, cp 8) ; the sacrifices of the 
sraeliles are thcìr ' holy things' (22 2 15, cp 19 8). 

HoJiness is Ihus the dominant element in the author's 
idea of religion ; sin is profanalion and pollution, loath- 
some and abominable; and he uses these conceptions 
as rciigious motives. 

Besides the explicif appeals fo this motive, we find 
an implicil appeal in the recitrring ' I am Yahwè,' or 
' I am Yahwè your God," often strengthened hy a re- 
minder of the great deliverance, ' who broughl you 
forth out of the land of Egypt' (I936, cp 25384255 
2<)i3). 'to be a God to you' (2233 2045, cp 2.538). 
The Israelites shall fear Yahwè their God (19 32 2517), 
orhisholiness— ;.e„his Godhead {19 30 215 2^ re ad so!). 

Motives of humanify and charity are represented not 
oiily by particular injunctions such as 19 16/ 19 io ( = 
23 22),25 6, but also bysuch institutions as the sabbati cai 
and jubilee years, and the miligation of sJavery, on 
which the auihor lays especial emphasis, These pre- 
cepts of humanity include the foreign resident {gir), 
who is not to be oppressed (I933), but lo share the 
charity shown the Israelite poor (19 io = 23 22 25 6), and 
to be treated like a native — ' thou shalt love him as 
thyself (1934); he is subject to the same civil law 
(24 22), and worships at the same altars (1781013).^ 
Part of these commandmenls come from the old laws; 
but Rh has emphasised Ihem strongly. 

In some placcs the admonitory motives of Rh seem 
to be overloaded (see 20 7 / 22 31 33) ; in a few 
27 TTnitTOf ^^^^ '^ ^" apparent conflict (esp, 18 24 

redactìon ^'"^ 25-28). It wouid bestrange if these 
exhortations had not, like those of the 
deuteronomistic wrilers, been expanded and heightened 
by succeeding editors ; in other cases contamination of 
parallel passages is probable, These phenomena do 
noi overcome the impression of uniiy which the redac- 
tion of (he whole produces,3 nor suslain the hypothesis 
of Baentsch that fhe chapters come from three or more 
different hands.^ 

The question has to do, not wilh the age of the 
tòròtkfi bu( wilh the dafe of the redactìon of the Holi- 
28 AeeofH' "^^^ Law-Book. The whole character 

H and Dt ^^ "^^^ work discloses affinity to tfae 
literature of the dose of the sevenlh 
and the sixlb century^Deuteronomy,*' Jeremiah, and 
especially Ezekiel. The first question tlìat is likely fo 
be asked about a wriling of this period is its relation 
lo the deuteronomio reform suppressing sacrifice at ali 
altars save that in Jerusalem (621 b.c.).' The only 
passage in H which appears lo restrict sacrifice to a 
single sanctuary is 174;^ any Israelite who slaughters 
a buUock, sheep, or goat, and does noi bring it before 
the abode {niiikàii) of Yahwè. shall be regarded as hav- 
ing eaten blood. It is generally agreed fhat the word 

' The terni was probably used in the laws Ihemselves. 

' See Bettholet, Stellung der Israeliten und der jnden zu 
den Fremden, no/ 152/". (1896), 

^ On Dillmann's hypothesis of old ' Sinai ' laws in two recen- 
sions hy P and J respeclively {Exod. LevS^) 583/.; cp NOy 
637^). see Horsl, ^tj'.-, Kayser,^%jff. (1881); Kue. 
tìex. § ig, n. 6; Holzinger, Hex. 408. 

* Heiligkeìts^esetz, 34 jf.". cp f^ff. 

^ See above, | 25. 

' With Dt. compare the emphasis on love to the fellow- 
Israelite and the stranger {X'è \t f. yif.; cp Deuteronomv, 
§ 32), and the laws — in part Utopian^ — in the interest of the 
poor (25, cp Dt. l.'i). 

'Dt. 12 2K.'22/ 

■ If we eliminate additions of Rp. See % 15. 



mtSkàa was inserted by a redaclor ; the old law said 
merely 'before Yahwè ' ^i>., to a locai aitar or stand- 
ing Sion e. 

If this redactor was Rh, then H wouId appear to tepresent 
the extreme consequence of the deuteronomic reform," leaving 
no place for the slaughter ot animals for food without sacrificai 
riles, for which Dt. makes express provision (12 i%f. 20-25),^ It 
is possibie, however, that the word was introduced by a prieslly 
editor later than Rh (of course not the same as the editor who 
brought in the ' tent of meeting');^ cp Nu. 838. Il may 
reasonably be urged that if Rh adopted ihe principle of cen- 
tralisalion here so imcompromisingly, he would hardly have 
failed to show elsewhere some symptom of zeal for the reform 
or hostility (o the locai e u Its— contras l Dt., Jer., Ezek.' 

It is unsafe, therefore, to use 17 4 to fix the date 
of H. 

It has been argued that H is younger than Dt. because 
some of its laws indicate a more advanced development, 
especially those relating to the priesthood (Lev. 21). the 
feasts (239-20 39-43)1 and the sabbatical year (25i-7i3- 
22; cp Dt, 15 1-6), also Lev. IS16 20 21 as compared 
with Dt, 255-10 (levirale marriage) ;5 but the argument 
is noi conclusive. Even less convincing is Haentsch's 
effort to prove that H abounds in reminiscences and 
even direct borrowings from Di. 6 

In H and Dt,, both of which drew their material largely 
from older collections of toroth, there are many laws on the 
same subject, in which the same terms naturally occur; but 
SLich coincidences cannot prove the dependence of H on Dt. 
The mutuai independence of the two is rather to be argued from 
the absence of laws identically formulated. the lack of agree- 
ment in order eìther in the whole or in smaller portions, and the 
fact ihat of the peculiar molives and phrases of Rd there is no 
trace in H (Lev, 2H40 is almost solitary).' Jt isan unwarranled 
assumption ihat ali the fragments of Israelite legislation which 
have been preserved He in one seria! development, 

If a literary connection between H and Dt. is not 

demonstrable, the case is otherwise with Ezekiel. The 

-_ _ . coincidences are here so many and so 
29. H and ' 


striking as to have led some critics to 

regard the prophet as the author of H ; ^ 
and although even more decisive diflferences make Ihis 
hypothesis untenable.^* a direct connection between the 
two is indubitable. In the chapters in which Ezekiel 
wriles the indictment of his people, reciting the sins 
which brought calamity upon it, he judges it by the 
standard of a law similar in contents to H and having 
in common with H many pecuhar words and phrases. i' 
Of greater weìght ihan these coincidences with the laws 
in H — which mighl of themselves prove only that Ezekiel 
was familiar with some of the older collections from 
which H was compiled^is the agreement in the dis- 
tinctive poìnt of view: ' holiness ' is in Ezek. as in H 
fhe signature of religion; 'defilement' and 'profana- 
lion' is the prevaiiing ihoughl of sin; 12 characleristic 
phrases such as ' I am Yahwè that sanctìfy them 
(you),' also link them together (Lev. '20 8 21 8 15 23 22 9 
1632 Ezek. 20 12 37 28) .13 

' SeeDr. /iitrod.W 51, wherethe different view s are recorded. 

' These provìsions in Dt. are regarded by some critics as an 
after thou ght. , 

= It may be observed that the phrases J2^Dn iJD7 (Nu, T 3) 
and p'"cn n."iQ iJD^ (Ex. 8515 40 6) occuronly in later st rata cf 
P, and that Tv^' fJ^lJ is also fate, 

' Baentsch, indeed, argues from this that the conflict was long 
since over; H assumes the unity of sanctuary as uncontested 
(76 103 116/.). 

6 See Kue. Hej:. % 14, n. 6, § 15, n. 8; Baenlsch 78 j?: 103 

'■ L.C. nbff. Kayser {y PT ' (,'ip ff.) sets out the parai lei 5 lo 
H in the Covenant Eoofc and Dt. in tabular form ; he thinks no 
other sources need be assumed (660) ; cp Horst 53. 

^ See Deutekonomy, § <)/. 

* For ' literature,' see § 33, 2, and the next note below. 

8 SoGtaf. Cfsch.Bucker, Sij?! ; Bertheau.^ZJr 1 1 155(1866) : 
Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, iid ff. (1874); J PT 't. %>,% ff. 
(1881) ; Horst. Lev. xvii.-xxiji. 11. Ilesekìel, 69 j?". (1881). eie. 
1" Noldeke, UnUrsuch. 67^ ; Kuenen, Gedsdienst, 2 95^ ; 
Hex. § 15, n. 10; Klost. Ptntateuch, 379^., esp, 404^.; 
Smend, Ezech,, p. xxvii. 

■> Cp especially Ezek, 18 20 22 83 with Lev. 18-20. 

" See above, § 26. 

" See Smend, S'imita, xxvy? ; Horst, 72^.; Kue. ff?J", § 15, 
r. io; Dr. /iitrodÀ'^^ 49/. 145 # ; Baentsch, 81 #.; Paton, 
Pres. Re/. Rev. 7 g8 _^ {1896); Carpenter and Harford-Bat- 
tetsby, Hex. 1 147X '^fpf- 



The quesfion thus arises : \Vas Ezekiel acquainted 
with H,i or did the author of H (Rh) write under the 
influente of the thought and language of Ezekiel ? 
The grounds oii which the acquaintance of Rh with 
Ezekiel has been held by matiy crilics^ are not con- 
clusive. The sltongest argumcn^ is the fact thaS Lev. 2(5 
Eupposes full experience of exile and dispersìon, and 
tioses with promises of restoration, We have seen 
above (J 23), howevcr, tliat, like Dt, 28, Lev. 2(> has 
been interpolated, espccially towards fhe end; and ali 
the passages which assume the situation in the exile 
are on olher grounds ascribed to laler hands (30 34 f. 


In the remainder of Lev. 2fi there is nothing which goes 
bcyond the piopheia of the lasl geneiaiioii before iVie [a\l of 
Judah. 'l'he striking patallels to Ezek.' in ihis prophetic dis- 
course are, as usuai in such cases, susceplible of two interpreta- 
lions; but on the whole Lev. 'li\ by ils terseness and vigour 
makes an impression of originality which a cento of reminis- 
cences picked up from ali parts of Ezek, couid hardly produce," 

The parallels in Ezek. lo Lev. 17-25 are found in 
masses in certain chapters (above. col. 2790, n. 11), and 
include not only the laws in H, but also fheir para:;netic 
setting; the mosf naturai hypothesis is that Ezek. derived 
both from the same source. 

This presumprìon is confirmed by the fact that the common 
hortatory molives sometimes appear in Ezek, with a rhetorical 
amplification. The alternative, ihac Rh selecccd from the 
greater variety in Ezek, precisely these motives with which to 
enforce the laws, is extremely improbable,<i 

For the posteriority of H to Ezek. it has been 
thought decisive that H prescribes certain strider rules 
for the ' priest who is greater than his brethren ' (21 io) , 
whilst in Ezekiel's restoration programme (40 ff.') no 
such distinction is made. But as there was a chief 
priest under the kings {2 K. Wi^ ff. l(ì io f- '23.iaff. 
25 18; cp Atti. 7 IO ff.). to whose station stricter taboos 
would almost necessarily attach, it cannot reasonably 
be inferred that H here represents a stage of develop- 
ment beyond Ezek. On the other band, the distinction 
between priesls and Leviles in Ezek. (44 g ^.) is an 
avowed innovation unknown (o H ; we may note also 
in Esek. 40 jf. ttie fixed date of the feasts and their less 
dose connection with agriculture, and the minuter 
classiiìcatìon of sacriiices, in which, as in many other 
points, Ezekiel sfands nearer to the later priestly law." 

We may, therefore, with some confidence ascribe H 
to the half-century before Ezekiel. Many other ques- 
tions which suggest fhemselves, as to the more ex- 
act time, the place, and the circumstances, in which the 
Holiness Law-Book was written, we have no means of 
ausw ering. 

It is commonly said that H belongs to the priestly 
stratum of the Hexateuch, representing an earlier stage 
HO TI d T> '" ^^^ labours of the priestly schoois from 
■ which P as a whole proceeded ; 8 and it 
is, accordingly, sometimes designated by the symbol 
Pj. in distinction from P2 (the main stem of P), and 
later additions (P3, etc). But when those passages, 
especially in 23 and 24, which manifestly belong to late 
strafa of P, together with the many inlerpolations and 
glosses of Rp, have been set aside, neìther the laws in 
H nor their setting (Rh) disclose any tnarked re- 
semblance to the priestly history and legislation; their 

' NÒldeke, Untersuch. (>■] ff.: Klost. ZLT 3S 444 (1877)= 
Fe»taUuch,Ai(</.; Del. Zifffi 619(1880) ; DÌUmann, A'7<, /)/, 

^M. 644J?:; Vr. /ntrodA") nsff'- Paton, i.c. loqff.; so, for 
ev. Ifi-:i0, Baentsch, 84. 

5 Kuenen, G<ii!sdienst^2')(> (.^Z^o)=Relig!on 0/ Israel,'! igi ; 
m^. 5 15, n. 10; We. CW) ijoff.,^ lÈSff.; Smend. Eze^/t . 
XXV. y. 314; Addis, I/eji:. 3 iSoff. 367; Carpente! and Harford- 
Baltersby, Hex. 1 152. 

^ The phrases also which We. ((=) 172, (') 169/) signalises as 
evidence of dependence on Jer. and Ezek. are confined to the 
same passages. 

* See Baenlsch, 121 ff., where they are set out verse by verse, 

" Dr. Intr/jd.C) 150. 

^ See on these points Baentsch, 85 _^. ; Paton, Pfes. Ref. 
Re-v. 'i\aff. (1896), 

^ See Kue Hex. § 15, n. IO4: Baentsch, Sgj?: 

« We. C//{!) 152; Kue, Htx. % 6, and n. 25-28; Holz. Hex. 
407 413- 



affìnitìes are altogether with JE and Dt, The parEenefic 
character of H is foreign to ali ages and stages of P; 
the language is quite distinct, as the facility with which 
the additions of Rf can be stripped off shows; the 
fictitious elements in P's representation of the Mosaic 
age — the camp, Ihe tabernacle of the wiiderness, Aaron 
and his sons, the Levite ministers — are conspicuonsiy 
absent; the caiendar conflìcts with P's; the refined 
distinction between ■ holy ' and ' most holy' things is 

Doubtiess the laws in H tepresent and regniate priestly 
praxis, and were formulaled and codified by locai prìesthoods 
or priestly guilda; the priests were the custodians and expositors 
of the tdràh. The patts of H which have been preserved,' 
moreover, deal largely with subjects in which the priesthood 
had a peculiar interest, — the physical qualifications of priests, 
restriclions on mourning and on marriage, condilions which 
preveot their eating sacrificial food, the csamination of animals 
for sacrifice, the celebration of the feasts, — bui it was not first 
in the priestly schoois of Babylonia that these things became of 
ìraportance and were regvilaled by fixed rules, or even by 
written tòròik (Hos. S12 Jer. a 8). 

Chaps. 17-26 are followed by a chapter on the 
commutalion of vows and tilhes; a late chapier of 
11 fTia 27 priestly law, inlroduced here. perhaps, 
Ij P- ^7- ()|j.Qygh assocìation wilh the laws on the 
jubilee year and rights of redemption in 20?, ff. The 
tithe of cattle is not elsewhere mentioned in the 

In cijnclusion, the Book of Leviticus is the work not 

of the author of the History of the Sacred Institutions, 

32 Comoosi "^''^"y regarded as the main stem of 

tion of ^' '"^' "^^ ^ \^sX&\ redactor Rp. In par- 

Levìticua 'ì^ular, H was not incorporated in that 
History, as was formerly maintained.'' 
The redactor's sources were the history above-named, 
from which he look 9 10 i-g 16 2-4 6 12 / ; H (in 
11 17-26) ; and collections of laws on sacrifices (in 1-7), 
and on clean and unciean (in 12-15) ; ^ a priestly 
caiendar of feasts (in 23) ; an account of the conse- 
cration of Aaron and his sons (8) ; and some other 
materials of less obvious provenience, such as the 
fragmeuts in 24. The sacrificia\ rules are iritroduced, 
not inappropriately, before the description of the first 
sacrifices at the tabernacle (8_/C), though they interrupt 
the immediate connection of 8 with Ex, 29 (40) ; the 
laws of clean and unclean (including 11) stand before 
H, which deals in part with similar subjects; the 
caiendar of feasts from P is combined with that of H in 
23, both being mulilaled; a motive for the position of 
27 has been suggested above (J31). Of theposition of24 
no satì s factory e xplanatìon has been given. Theanaiysis 
has shown that many changes in the text of the sources. 
and many more or less considerable additions and 
inlerpolations, were made by the editor, or by subse- 
quent redactors and scribes, before the book attained 
its present form ; perhaps the scape-goat ritual in 16 is 
one of these later additions. 

That the constructive redactor of Leviticus was the 
same who ediied Ex, and Nu. there is no reason to 

1. Coinmentafies. — J, S. Valer, Petit. 2, 1802: M. Baum- 
garten, 1844; C. F. Keil, 1862; 1^), 1870; ET, 1866; A. Knobel, 

1857; (2)byE, Dillmann, 1880; (3)editedby 
33. Literature. Ryssel, 1807; M, M, Kalisch. 2 vols. J867, 

1872; S.Clark, 1871 (Speaker's Bible) ;' E. 
Reuss, La Bibh, P. 3, 2 vols-, 1879; Das AT3, 1893; H. L. 
Slrack. 1894; Driver and While, 1894 {SBOT, Heb,), igoo 
(SBOT, Eng.) ; B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leiiìticus, 1900 (,HK)', 
A. Bertholei, 1901 {KHC). 

2. CritUism.^{^ ofCnt history ot cri liclsm, see Hexateuch.) 
E, Bertheau, Die siebett Grjifipen tiiosaischen Gesetse in den 
drei tnitileren Biic&er» des Peittateuchs, 1840; Graf, Die 
geschichtlichen Bacher des Alten Testantents,i%(it: Th, Ndl- 
à.^k^tUntersuchungenzurKrilikiiesAÌIeti TesiatneiiSiiSàg; 

1 II is not safe to assume that there was the same preponder- 
ance in the unmutilated work, 

2 We. Kue,, etc. See against this view Kayser, JPT 1 $^aff., 
esp. 552 y 

* How much more was comprised in these sources than Rp 
has preserved we cannol know; H, at least, he seriously cur- 



J. W. Colenso, The Pcntateuch and Book ofjoshua, 6, i8;3; 

A. Kayser, Das vorfXilisckes Biick der Urg,'schichU Israels 
und scine Erineiterungen, 1874; JPT T (,i88i) 336^., esp. 
SVìff-'' J- Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und 
def histoHschen Biicher des A T, 1889 *^' 'Sgg {^yPT, 1876, 
1S77) ; P. Wursler, ' Zur CharaklerÌ5tilc und Geschichle des 
Priestercodex und HeìHgkeils-Gesetzes,' ZW TlV\ii-iff. U884); 

B. W. Bacon, The Triple Traditiou a/ the Exodits, r8y4: 
W. E. Addis, The Documeuts of the ilexaieuch, 2, 1898: J. E. 
Carpenter and (j. Harford-Ballersby, The Hexatetich, -2 vols. 
19D0 (see col. 2057, n. 1). 

On Lev, 1-7: A. Metx, ZWTe.iz-ZA, 164-181 (1863). On Ifi, 
see above § 12, n. i. On 17 (Is-)-Jii: A. Klostermann, ZLT 
3S 40! i?. {,\.%^^'ì=Pentateuch, 368^. (1893); F. Delitzsch, 
ZfClVÌ (i\T ff. (18S0); L. Horsl, Leviticns xvii.-xxiii. und 
Hezekie!,iZis. ; Mnyhaum, E itt'w/cke/7ing-des altisraeìitiscken 
FriestertkHms,T^ff. (1880); B, Baenlsch, Das Heiligkeits- 
gsseis. Lev, 17--JG, 18Q3: L. B. Paton, 'The Relation of Lev, 
ali to Lev. 17-111," Hebraiea, Il 111.121 (1894); ' The Originai 
Formof Leviticus, 17-111,' JBL \'ò-}i.ff. (1897); 'The Originai 
Formof Leviticus, yi21ì,' JBL 17 i49_#: (189B); " The Holiness 
Gilde and Ezekiel,' Pres. Ref. Rev. i 98-115 (1896). 

(In the Feast Laws see alst> J. F. L. George, Die alteren 
judischen Feste , iZ^Z: Hupfeld, Cotnmentatio de . . . tetnpo- 
ruìi! festoriim . . . apud Heb^-mos ratione, 1851, 1853, 1858; 
W. H, Green. The Hebre'm Feasts, 1885, 

See aist) the wotks on Introduclion to the Old Testaraent, 
especially those of Kiienen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornili, Konig; 
on the HÌ5tory of Israel, especially Ewald, Stade, Wellhausen, 
and Kiltel (1 98-100 113-116); and on Hebrevif Archseology — 
No«fack, Benzinger, Tilles of most of ihese work^ in Deuteh- 

ONOMV, § 33, G. F. M, 

LEVY (Da), I K. 5 13/ 9 15 2,. See Taxation. 
LIBANUS (AiB&NOC [B«A]), i Esd. 448 Judith I7. 

See Lebanon. 

LIBATION (cTTONA[e]iON}. Ecclus. 50is RV^s-. 
See Sackifice. 

LIBERTINES. ' Certain of the synagogue, which 
is called (the synagogue) of the Libertines (AlBepTINùjN 
[Ti.WH], AeiBepxeiNCON [D]), and Cyrenians, and 
Alexandrians' (so AV), are menlioned in Acts 69. 
There has been much diversily in the inlerpretation of 
this word. If ' Liberiincs ' is the right reading, it can. 
only niean 'freedmen.' The Jewish populalion in 
Rome consisteil largely of the descendants of freedmen 
(cp. Tac. Ann. 285. ' qualuor millia libertini generis ea 
superstilione infecla'; Phiio, Leg. ad Caiuin, 1014, ol 
irXelovsàtre'KevGeptadéi'Tfì). It isplain, however, that the 
synagogue referred to belonged equally to the Libertini, 
the Cyrenians, and the Alexandrians, It is difficuil, 
therefore, lo avoid siipposing thal the first of the three 
nanies, as well as the other two, denotes the inhabitants 
of some city or district, 

Hence 'Libertini' has been connected with Libertum, the 
narne of a toivn whose existence is inferred from the title 
' EpiscopUB Libettinensis ' which occurs in connection with the 
Synod of Carthage, a.d, 411. There is no reason, however, to 
suppose tbat this obsciire town wouid bave sent up to Jerusalem 
Jews enoughtoju-stify the prorainert place given to the Libertini 
m Acl.';. Blaas in 1895 {Aeta ap., ed. philologica) tried toju.'itify 
disjoining the words kox Kupiji'aioji' noi ' We^a.vhpiiav from 
Aifieprii'iui', and bringing thein into connection with koX tùii' 
Ójtò KiAiKiaì «al 'Ao-iai. There is no probability, however, in 
this solution. 

if is best, therefore, (o follow cerlain Armenian 
Tersions and Syriac commenlaries recently brought lo 
light, which presuppose either At/SiSwi' or Xi^vittìvuu. 
Several scholars, not knowing of these autborifies, had 
already tried conjeclural emendation. Schulthess pro- 
posed \i0vicv Twv (farà Kd/j^ptjc (cp Acis 2 io) ; Beza, 
Clericus, and Valckenar Xi^varlvcav. Ai^\iaTlvf)v in- 
volves the least amount of change, and was adopted, 
with cognizancc of the new authorities, in 189S by Blass 
{Pàilology of the Oospe/s, 6g /.) , who is of opinion that 
the Grecie lowns lying westward of Cyrene would quite 
appropriately be designated Libyan (cp Libya). 

That A 1(9 ""■Ti' l'Ai was a current form of (he adjeclive from 
Alzili is plain from the moutibus Libystinis of Catiillus (tlO 1), 
and from the geographical lexicon of Stephaniis Byzantinu?. 
Josephus (<-. Ap. •> 4) tells us that many Jews were removed by 
Ptolemy Lagi andplaccdin the cities of Libya. This statement, 
hoivever, Is of doubtfiil anthority (see Willrich, yaden u. 
Griechen, 31). 

Among the otder literatiire cp Gerdes, De Synag. Libertin- 
orum, 1736: Scherer, De Synag. Lib., 1754. 



LIBNAH. I. (nnb, 'pavemenf [Ex. 24 io]. 
■ foundalion,' cp Ass. libittu, hbnatu. ' a compact 
foundaiion of blocks of stone, etc' [Del. Ass. HWii 
s.v.'\, uniess connecled with Laban [j'.!'.].) 

As,eca [BALI; but XoRva [L] in a K. Sai 19 8 2 Oh. 21 io; 
kffitLva [Al in Josh, 10 ag 39 l'i 15; Ae^im in Josh. lo 42 '^1 13 [B] 
and III 39 [FJ; Aon i- a in 2 K. ft 23 [A], 19 g [BI, 24 18 [A], a Ch. 
21 IO (Bj, Is. ;i7 8 ['"*OQ]; vevva. in 2 K. b22 [B], note tliat crei- 
preceJes. Add Ao^ii-o also in 2 K, lì* 8 [■*■]' '^ '-''■ ''57 [42] [RA], 
2 Ch.-.;l 10 [Al, Is. 37 3[ABr]: A7,Mcoìn2K.y8 3i [BJ ; Ao^Ei-a 
in 3 K, 2^31 [A], Jer. ,Tii [B.-^AQ]; Aopstva [L] in a K. -.^a 31 
24 t8; Ka^wa [Aj injosh, 10 31/ 1 

A town in the lowland of Judah (Josh. 15 43), origin- 
al!y Canaanite (Josh. 10 29/ l'2 15) , afterwards a prieslly 
ciiy (Josh. 21 13 [P] ; i Ch. (i 57 [42] must be incorrecl], 
]t joined the Edomites in a revolt against Joram (2 K. 
8z2 2 Ch, 21 10; cp 2 Ch, '21 16), and was besieged by 
Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah (2 K. IHg Is. 
37 g). Josiah's wife carne from Libnah (2 K. 2331 
24 18). Sayce finds it menlioned in Ihe list of Rameses 
ni. before Aphekah {RPi^) (5 39; Pat. Pai. 239); but 
this is disputable (see WMM, As. u. Eur. 160). 
Eusebius and Jerome (0^274 13 135 28) describe il as 
a village in ihe region of Eleulheropolis, called in their 
day Lobana or Tobna. Hence Stanley identified it with 
l'eli es-Sàfiyeh, which is only Iwo hours from Eleulhero- 
polis; but see Mizpeh (in Judah). Libnah musi, at 
any rate, have lain not very far from Lachish, on the 
SW. border of Judah, andon the edge of the Philistian 

Conder's identification of Libnah with el-BeitSioy (' a possible 
corruption of Libnah ') — a riiin about 10 m, SE. of Teli el-Hesy 
or Lachish— {/'£'j^£'«. St., 1897, p. 69} wijl hardly stand. 

2. ('^JS^, but Sam. ^Jl^*?, with which agree XenuiKa [E], 

At^. [AFL]) , Num. .33 20 (KE^B>t/tt [AF]) 21. The Lauan (?.!',) 
of Dt. I 1 is pechaps the same name. See Wanderlngs, 


LIBNI ("JS^, perhaps a gentilic from Libnah 2, 
cp Genf.alogies i., § 7, V., col. 1665 ; see also Laban, 

\oBeN[e]i [BAL]). 

1. AGershonite Levitical name; Nu. 3 18 i Ch. 6 1720 [25] 
(Ao,8ej'.'i[L]); gentilic LÌbnÌte,Nu.3 2t 26 sgCnS:!; Aojgei-tejt 

[BAL]). The naroe occurs elsewhere as Ladan [g.v. z]. 

2. A Meratile name; i Ch. ti ag [14]. On the relation between 
(1) and (2) cp Genealogies i., S 7, col. 1663. Cp C. Niebuht, 
Oesc/i, d. £br. Zeit, 1 24Ó [combines Leah, Levi, Libni, and 

LIBBAST, A library (BiBAioBhkh) founded by 
Nehemiah is referred lo in 2 Macc. 2 13. Onthe supposed 
' book-lown ' in the hill-country of Judah, see KlRJATH- 

SKPHKR (col, 2681). 

The word 3i^A. also oci:urs in Ezra 61, © (tf pijBAioe^Kni.! 
[BL], ivTa:<.<i&. [A] =«'-100 nU), and in Esth. 223, ® {ÌlV 
TÓ ^aoiAiKÀ Pi|3AiotìiÌK)i = D^D^1 '13 T "1£3P3). 

USTA (h AiByh. Acts 2 io. AiBygc in (5 [cp Vg. 
Libyes\ ; AV LìbyailB, as Iranslation of Lubim in 2 Ch. 
1^3 llisNah.yg Dan, 11 43), the name applied by ihe 
Greeks lo Africa generally, (he portion first known and 
most familiar to them being ihat on which Dorian 
colonisis settled and founded Cyrene. 

OniheuniqueNTreference to'Libya'(Acts2io)seeCvRENE, 
and on the doubtful ' Libertines ' of Acts ti 9 see Lirertines- 
The name ' Libya ' also occurs in AV of Ezek. 81)5 and :^'^ s 
(mg. ' Phut') and' Libyans ' in Jer. itìg (rag.' Put'). See KV. 

The ancients undereslimated the size of Libya : Slrabo 
(p. 824) surmised that it was less than Europe, and thal 
Europe and Libya logether would not be equal to Asia. 
Libya did not properly include Egypi — /.*•., the Nile 
valley (Herod, 2i5 /) : ^ Ptolemy (ii, 16 iv. 6 1} first 
assigned Egvpt to Africa, making the Red Sea and 
Ihe Isthmus of Suez the boundary between Africa and 
Asia. Only the norlhern litloral of the continent enters 
into view during Greek and Roman times. Under the 
Empire, Norlh ."africa fell inlo three sectìons. 

(i) The Originai Province of Africa, consfituted by 
(he remnant of the possossions of Carihage after the 
deslruclion of Ihat city in 146 B.C. (Sallust, BJ 19) : 
to this, in 25 B.C., Augustus added Numidia. which first 

1 See A. Wiedemann, Herod. Zweites Buck, ad loc. 



became a province, under the name Africa Nova, in 
46 B.c. (Pliny, UN 5=5 Dio Cass. 439). This centrai 
portion conslituted the senatorial Province of Africa, 
which, Ilice the Province of Asia, was governed by a pro- 
coiisul of consular rank. 

(2) The westeiTi portion of Norlii Africa, Mauretania, 
was niade a province by Claudius in 40 A.D. 

(3) The eastern section, the Cyrenaica, was combined 
with Crete in 27 b.c. (o forni a single province. The 
old name Libya was officialjy revivedby Diocletian, who 
separated Crete from Cyrene, and divided the latter 
imo an eastern pari {Libya Inferior), and a western 
pari including the old Cyrenaic Pentapolis {Libya 
Superior), w. J, W. 

LICE (ff33 and D33;i CKNl(t>€C. CKNinecf- 
Menlioned in EV in connection with the plagues of 
Egypt (Ex. 816-18 [la/".], Ps. lOjjit). where RV"'«- 
suggesls the altemalives of Fi,EA {Fulex) or sand-fiy 
{Simulium). If we lay stress on the usage of the 
Mishna (si]3, Ni'3, 'louse,' but also 'vermin'; cp Tg. 
Pesh,, and see below, n. 2). we inay be inclined to de- 
fend the explanation of Josephus {Ani. ii, 14 13). Bochart, 
and EV 'lice.' 2 On a point like Ihis, however, the 
Egypt ian-Greek version (<©) hasaciaìm to be deferred 
lo. Iis rendering is (rKp/0es (cp Wisd. l^Jio), and this 
is in truth a very appropriate rendering (see Gnats). 
Lice are no doubt common in E^ypt, though there are 
but Iwo or possibly three species of louse which attack 
man. Mosquitoes (Egypt, httms ; cp Heb. kinnim?) 
and other worse kinds of flies, however, are stili more to 
be dreaded there. Besides, the enormous quantities of 
lice of which EV speaks must soon bave perished when 
exposed to the dry beat of Egypt. 

The singular t; has been thought to occur in Is. 51 g, where 

'in like manner' can hardly be correct. It is less improbable 
to suppose that the plural ending dropped out (ihe next word 
begins with 0', which would facilitate this; so first Weir). This 
gives the sense ' shall die like gnats.' As Muhammad says, God 
may 'set forth a parabìe (even) ofagnal' (Koraii, Ì'«j-. Vi 24), 
and in the Babylonian Dehige-Story the gods * gather like flies 
abo ut the sacrili cer ' {c^DeX. Ass. HWB.s.v.' Zumbu'). This, 
however, is not a fui! solution. Nor is the conjecture ofiered in 
Che. Propk. Is. (on Is. .^l 6), thal a\.i shouid be read in Nu. 
lit 33 more tban plausible. On both passages see Locust, 
% 2U>- T. K, C. — A. E. S. 

LICTOES (p&BiOYXOI [Ti. WH]), Ryns-, Acts 
16 35 38. + EV Serjeants, the officiai designalion of the 
atiendants assigned to certain Roman magislrates. Cp 
Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.'A) s.v. ' Lictor.' 

LIDEBDt ("lanb). Josh. 1326 RV'"^^-, AV Debir, a 
place in Gad, probably the same as Lo-DEBar [y.w.] 
(i&iBojN [B], ÀABeip [A], AeBHp[L]). 

IIETJTENANTS. 1. RV Satraps (&'3S1'T^nK) , 
Ezra H 36 ctc. See Satraps, Persia. 

2- (nri2),ìer. Si 23 RV""8- EV Governor (y.7>., 1). 

LIOHT. The true God says, according to the great 
prophetic feacher of the Esile, ' I am Yahwè — and 
there is none else— who formed lighf, and 

created dark ne ss ' (Is. 456/:). So the 

1. Early 
COnceptions. ^^^^ of God, in the Fourth Gospel, says. 
' I am the lighl of the world; he that follows me shall 
not walk in darkness, but shall bave the iight of !ife ' 
(Jn, 8 12). Between these two sayings lies the develop- 
ment of a new concepfion of life, the germs of which, 
however, are partly to be found in the work of the 
exilic teacher. The statement that Yahwù produced 
ìight is no pari of the tradilional Hebrew cosmogony. 

' The iheory that DJ^ is a coUective is needless; we shouid 
doubtiess read 0J7 (^'tb Sam.). 

- Sir S. Baker {Nile Tfibuiaries of Abyssinìa, 1868) sup- 
posed a reference to the ticks ormiles {A carina) which abound 
in the sand and dust, and fix themselves on the host, whose 
blood they suck by means of powerful mouth organs. It is a 
most improbable vìew ', but the Talmudic use of NJ J for ' ver- 
min ' may perhaps justify it. 



Indeed, it was too much a matler of course lo need express 
statement that Iight wasofpriorexistenceto the creative works; 
for how sbould life come into beìng without Iight, and how 
could God l>e conceived except as an intensely iuminous forni 
(see Ex. ;j a ISai IDig^Jii?; i K. li» 12; Ezek, I27K2; atid cp 
Fire) ? Hcnce in Is. 1(1 17 (in a probably late passagc) Yahwè 
IS calledthe ' Lfght of Israel' {|| 'his Holy One'J, When be 

night, during which he appeats before God. 

To the Babylonians, loo, the divine Creator (Marduk) 
was the god of Iight; creation indeed is mythically 
represented as a baltle between the Light Beìng and 
the Dark (Tiàmat). See Creation, § 3. It is the 
Priestly Writer's reflective tnrn of mind that leads him 
to prefìx to his adaplation of the old cosmogony the 
statement, ' God said, Lei there be lighl ' (Gen. 1 3) , To 
the not less reflective minds of Egypiian prieslsadifferent 
idea presented itself. Hidden in the dark bosom of 
Chaos the eternai lighf was impelled by longing to give 
ilself existence; manifold and somelìmes grotesque 
imagery was employed to describe the process of 
emergence. Creation itself is described thus,— ' He 
halh made ali that the world contains and hath given it 
Ughi, when ali was darkness, and (bere was as yet no 
sun." 1 So too a hymn in the Rig Veda represenls 
creation as a ray enlering the realm of darkness from 
the realm of light,2 and similar ideas are presupposed 
in the Iheological statemenls of the Avesla. In the 
Bookofjob, which preserves so many mythical forms 
of expression, we fìnd light described as a mysterious 
physical essence, dwelling in a secret place (Job 3819/.). 
That God is robed in light, is said in Ps. 104 a (cp 
Ex. Sa eie, ciled above), and just as in the Avesta the 
heaven where Ahura Mazda dwells is called ' Endless 
Lights,' so God in James 1 17 is called ' the father of the 
lighls '—/>., the father who dwells in perfect and never 
darkened light (though the view that tò. ^wra = ' the 
stars ' is also possible ; cp Ps. I367, Jer. 423). Hence 
the ' light ■ of God's ' countenance ' is a symbol of God's 
favour (Nu. 625/:). 

Those who are in troiible feci themselves to be in darkness. 
The return of prosperity is the return of the divine light (cp 
Is, 8 22 11 2 (io 1-3) . The Psalms are full of this idea (Ps. 4 f, \t\ 
37i3tiior9] 97 II 11-24). In Ps. 4;i3we fìnd the furlherdevel- 
opment that God's * light ' is the companion of his ' faitbful- 
ness,' and ihat these two, like guardian angels, Icad the truc 
Israelite (or ralher the true Israel). God's revelalion is, like 
himself, essential light (Ps. liti 105, 130), and in Is, 4'J6the 
Israel within Israel (the servant of Yahwè) is said to be ' a light 
to ihe naiions,' as being the hearer to them of God's law. In 
Enoch 484 the same phrase is applied to the Messiah. 

It was naturai that the vague expressions of the 
Psalter relative to ' light ' shouid be interpreled by 

2 later ^^'^^^ ^^^^^ under the influence of the 
development. PT^""* «^hatology. -Lighf and 
»* 'hfe were virtually synonymous, and 

these profound expressions received a fuller content 
through the developed belief in a kingdom of light 
and life lo be supernalurally set up on the earth. The 
Fourth Gospel, however, and kindred NT writings 
(with which we may lo some extenf group the Wisdom 
of Solomon ; cp § 3) fili Ihe word ' light ' with a larger 
meaning tban any of the Jewish writings, and give a 
more special prominence to the antithesis between the 
kingdoms of light and of darkness, not perhaps unìn- 
fluenced by Orientai and espccially Zoroasfrian dualism 
(as the great Herder long ago pointed out), and not 
wilhoul a connection with Gnosiicism, The aim of 
Christian disciples is ' to become sons of light ' (Jn. 12 3Ó ; 
cp Eph. 5g I Thess. 55)^ 'to become sons of God 
(Jn. 1 12), through 'failh' in Christ (cp Faith), who is 
the ■ light of the world ' (Jn. 812 !> 5. cp 1 4 12 46) , and 
to be ever 'coming lo the light' (Jn. Sai) to expose 
themselves to ibis beneficiai test of their inward ' trulh ' 
or realily (see TrUTH), The expression 'the genera- 
tion of light' (Enoch lOSii) gives nierely an extemal 
point of contact; the fourlh evangelist himself is, we 

1 Cp Brugsch. Rei. II. !\fylk. de-r alten Aegypter, \fx>ff. 
' Max Miiller, Ancieiii Sanskr. Lit. 562. 




may presume, the virlual originafor of those beautiful 
synibolic plirases, relative to Jight, into which he con- 
denses the essence of the mind of Jesus as known io 

Next to the Fourth Gospel the Epistle lo the Ephesians 
is a siorehouse of references lo the symbolic )ighl. The 

3. References ^^"^"j^f °V''^r'■"'^ "^^^'^ T'^'^^ 

inCol. Eph. ete '■'"■ ^~^' ^^^° ^''"^ '^'" ^^^ '""'^'' °^ 

the power of the air' (Eph, 23) are 

called' the worJd-rulersof (hisdarkness'{Eph. tiiì, RV).l 
Those who ' walk in the light' (Eph. 58; op Jn. 1235) 
are under a moral obligation to bring to light the works 
of darkness, and to ' conviet ' those who do them (Eph. 
5ii 13;^ t;p jn, Sso /.). In Colossians we have the 
classical passage, Col, 1 12 ^ (' the inherilance of the 
saints in light,' and 'the power of darkness'), with 
which a stiiking passage in i Peter (2g/.) may be 
compared. The designation of Christ in Heb. I3 as 
'the effulgence o( his (God's) glory' is a developmeni 
of Ihe more elaborale description in Wisd. 7 26, 'an 
effulgence from everiasiing light, and an unspotted 
mirror of the working ot God ' (cp MIRRor). The 
symbolism of i Thess. 04/, Rev, 21 ii 23 is too simple 
to need any subtie explanalion, 

A hard passage in Is. "26 19 may be here referred to. ' Dew of 
lighcs' (few no* defend ' dew of hetbs ') is evidently wrong; the 
truc reading is preserved by ©, ' thy dew is a hcaling io them' 
{on3"iN, for n'iiN) : cp Ecclus, 43 22, ' a mist (|{ dew) coming 
speedily is the healing of ali things.' See Herbs. 

LIGHTHIHG. See Thund^r. 

LIGN-ALOES (D'^HH). Nu. 246.t See Aloes. 

LIGUBE (nt^). Ex. 2819, RVmK- 'araber'; 39ii,t 


LIEHZ Cnp^), a Manassite, descendant of Shemida 
{q.v.) : iCh. 7i9t(As,Kei*[A]. -KeeiM[B], Aok.[L]}. 

Possibly anoiher form of 'pbn ; see Helek. 

LILITH (RV"'e-), or Night-monster (RV ; AV^e-), 
or (AV \vrongly) Screech-owl [Tì'h'h: onokcn- 
T&YPOI [BNAQr]; AiAiO [Aq. in Q™e-] ; AiAit[A(].]: 
A&MI& [Symm.]; ]&i* V^ [Pesh.]; lamia); and 
Vampire (RVn>K), or Horseleach (so EV) (Hpl'^r; 
see HORSELEECH). Apparenlly two demons of similar 
characteristics, both mentioned in post-exilic passages 
(cp Isaiah ii., \ 14; Proverbs, ^ 8). 

Desolated Edom, according to Is, 34 14, will be 

1 Lilith ^'^""^^'^ ^y ^'^^ Satyrs {q.v.) and by 

The name, as Schrader long ago pointed out, is connected with 
the Bab.-Ass, lilu, fem. liìiiu, the designation of two demons, 
who, togelher with ardat lile ('the handmaid oiii'iu'), form a 
triad of demons often mentioned in Babylonian speils (Del,, 
Ass. HWByìT. Caliver s^^; Sayce, Hiéi. LecU. 
502; Hommel, Die sem. Vólkef, 1 367). 

Lilu, Liiìm, and ardat Lile were not specially demons 
of the night — a view which is peculiar to the related 
Jewish superstition. The darkness which (hey loved 
was thal of the storms which raged in the wilderness. 
Potent charms were used to keep them from (he haunfs 
of men, wliere they would otherwise enler, bringing fell 
disease into the human organism, A corrupfed form 
of the mylh of Lilith, slrengthened by Persian elements. 
spread widcly among the Tews in posf-exi!ic times as a 
part of the popuiar demonology. 

The details of this myth can only be glanced at here. 
Lilith was a hairy night-monster (the name being per- 
haps popularly derived from layil, 'night'), and speci- 
ally dangerous to ìnfanfs (cp the Greek Lamia). Under 
her was a large class of similar monsters called Lilin 
(plur. of Lilith; cp Apoc, Bar. 10 S), ot whom net oniy 
children but also men had to beware. Hence, in Talm. 
Bah, [Shabbafh, 151^), a man is wamed not lo sJeep 

' C^'^iMTOìWm.Kritik dir Ephrser-u. Colpsserhn'efit'zja. 
° Accordine lo ìrena:us (i, 2S2), Eph. 513 ivas a passage to 
which the Valentinian Gnostics were wont to appeal. 


alone in a house, and in Targ. Jer., Nu. 6=5. a passage 
in the priestly blessing becomes ' The L-ord bless thee 
in ali ihy business, and guard thee from the Lilin.' 

See the Walpurgis- night scene in Faust (a proof of Goethe's 
learning), and cp Bacher in MGW7, 1870, p. 188; F. Weber, 
yUd. T/ieol. 2^s; Griinbaum, ZZJil/c; SI 250^/^; Eisenmenger, 
Entdecktes yadentkum, 2413^ 

The vampire is, according to some, another of the 
mazzìkln, or harmful beings, of which the world is full 

2 Th« '^"^^ Demons, and cp Rìrki Abòth, 59), 
y ' - The 'Àlukàk {mentioned in Pro v, 3O15) is 
■ properly 'the horseleech ' (see HORSE- 
LEECH), bui surely noi the ordinary horseleech, if it 
was the moiher of Shédl and the womb. 

The most s3lisfying view of Prov,, l.c, is perhaps ihat 
given at the eod of this article ; but a less bold explana- 
tion is Ihat of Bickell, who arranges thus (^,> being 
omitted as a gloss) : — 

The ' Alukàh's two daughters, 
Give, Give — Shèòl and the Womb, 
and the passage, which is an expression of wonder at 
tJie mysteries of death and birth, means that the under- 
world and the maternal womb (cp the commentators on 
Ps. 1391315) are as insaliabie ('Give, Give' expresses 
their characler) as the ' Aiiikah — a mythological demon, 
which the peopie and its poets imagined as resembling 
a leech, and which is possibly referred to in the 
Targum of Ps- 123[9] ; see Horseleech. The Arabie 
' aluk is explained in the Kamus hy gùl, ' a female blood- 
sucking monster' (Ges, TAes. 1038), the ghoul of the 
Arabian Nights. and Sayce finds ' the vampire ' in 
Babylonian speils (see \ i). 

In faci, according to Babylonian animism, wasting discase 
couid noi but be accounted for by Icrrible spiritual agencies such 
as ' vampites ' (cp Tylor, Prim. Culi. 1 173). For an Iranian 
parallel, cp the sleep-demon called Bushyansta (Spiegel, Eran. 
Alt. 2 137; cp Kohut, yud. Angelologie, 86). 

Most probably, however, nplVjlS is miswritlcn for n^npS^ 
which is a lille ascribiog the foliowing saying to Hakkòhéleth 
(see K0H6LETH). The words rendcred ' two daughters, Give, 
give," have sprung out of T%ìn njfattT, which were written in the 
■wrong place. See Che. PSBA, june 1901. 

LILT ([2?11^, I K. 7 ly, T^itW, 2 Ch. 45 Cam. 2 1 / 1 
Hos,145[6]; pi. 0\iE'iE',Cant.''2 164551362/ T2[3] Ecclus. 
3!) 14 50 8 Mt. G«8 Lk. 1227; ®bsa_ xpli/ov anàipifa). 

The Hebrew word ìusan, like its Greek " and EngHsh 
equivalents, seems to have appiied lo a large number of 
dìlferent specìes, Its origin is most probably Egyptian, 
from a word whose consonants were s-sA-n, denofing 
the lolus flower, Nympheea Lotus, L,, blue or white (see 
Lagarde, Miltk. 2 15 ff., who quotes a description of the 
flowei from Burckhardt's Arabie Proverbs, S67 /) ; and 
as Lagarde points out, it is not improbably the lotus 
flower that was present lo the mind of the writer of 
I K. 7192226, as this was frequently used in Egyptian 
decoration and would best provide forms for the capilals 
of the pillars and for the rim of the sea in Solomon's 
tempie. The references in Canticles and Hosea, how- 
ever, show that the name must have been used for 
flowers quite different from the lotus. From Cani. 5 13 
it is usually inferred that the ' lilies ' mentioned were not 
white, but red or purple; and this view is supporled by 
the implied comparison with royai robes in Mt, (ì 28 
I-k. 1237. These and the other references suggest a 
fragrant flower of brighi hue which gave colour to the 
fieids of Palestine. According to Boissier. the only lilium 
occurring in Palestine is L. album ; so thal Meh.suian 
has almost certainly a wider applicaiion. Trislram 
(NHB 462 f.) discusses the different possibilities. The 
most plausible claimant for the name is the scarlet 
anemone, Anemone coronaria, L, Wefzstein again (in 
Zt. f. allgem. Erdk. [1859] 7148) speaks of a dusky 
violet plant somewhaf like a crocus as exceedingly 

^ According 10 a recent emendation, 'lilies' (n'JE''B') and 
' apples ■ are parallel in the well-known passage, Cani 2 5. See 
Fruit. § 5 [z]. 

' The Kptvof [>r the Greeks was probably both Lilium ckal' 
cedonicum and L. òiilbiferutn. 



plentiful in the fields of Hauràii—most probably Gladi- 
olus airovioiaceus. Boiss. If, as Tristram reports, the 
Arab peasantry now apply the nanie susan ' to any 
brilliantly coloured flower at ali resernbling a lily, as to 
the tulìp, anemone, ranunculus,' it seems reasonable lo 
conclude that the bibiical name had an equally wide 
application. See also SllOSHANNiM. 

[See H. Christ, ' Nochmals d, Lilie d. Bibel' in ZDFV 
2553-80(1899), whoremarks that there isnot suffìcient evidence 
to decide what kind of IHy is meant, and ihat ihe fiower intended 
in Mi. 62S Lk, l^ajismost probably the iris; see also L. Fonck, 
' Streifziige diirch die Biblische Flora ' in Btbliscke Studien, 
Ed. V, Hfi. i. 53-76 (Freiburg i. B,, 1900). Post (in Hastings, 
DB 8 i23«) reraarks that the ìrises are planis of pasture-grounds 
and swaraps, scldom found in grain-tìeids. But the poìnt of ihis 
is noi clcar. ' Lilics of the field ' simply means ' wild lilies.'] 

IS. M. — W. T, T.-D. 

LIUE. Assyrians and Babylonians alike were 
familiar with ihe use of lime (carbonate of lime) and 
gypsum (sulphaie of lime), whelher as a plaster or a 
wash. alike for preservative and for decorative purposes ; 
and the same remark applies to the Egyptians, by whom 
this form of murai decoration was carrìed to a high 
pitch of excellence, and from whom it was taken by the 
Etruscans. the Greeks, and oiher ancient peoples. See 
Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1 362, cp pi. viii. ; also £BW, s.v. 
'Murai Decoration"; and, lor bibiical references, see 
PlaISter, and cp MoRTAR. According to Rev. W. 
Carslaw of Beirut, movtar nivtde wilh lime is used noiv 
more often than formerly (Hastings, DB 8438 a). 

The phenomena of lime-pounding and of calcinalion 
seem to be referred to (a) in Is. 27 y and al&o {(/) in Am. 
2i Is. 33 13; and in the last two instances it is the 
burning of bones (phosphale of lime) that Js spoken of. 
But ali ihese passages may be greatly impvoved by 
melhodical emendalion. 

The words are (o) "IJ ^,> (i/->-j, to boil, boli up?" cp Aram. 
TU, ' wave.'NH "i'J>'foam,' Arab, J-a>'>arwn,'qukklime'), used 
in the obscure passage (see Crii. Bib.). nZìV UlN'^^ IDia'Ji 
ri3DjO "H~''J3N3, Is. "il CI, OTiif flùo-ci' (fliù. A) n-airo! toÙ! Aiffoi'*- 
TÒiv ^loji.iii' icOTaKeKo^iiuéfouy 1J5 Koviav AETTriji- [B.'^AQT], CUtIt 
posuerit otnnes lapides altaris sicnt lapide! ci'nerts allhos; 
EV ' whcn he makelh ali the slones of the aitar as chalkstones- 
that are beaien ìn sunder'; Fesh, renders IJ by kelsa—j.e., 
XÓ*.if , calx. (S) ■'""v, sìd, in the expressions -i^'if'7 t^-\t', Kini' 
Ko.\ii7av fi.^ Koviav, ad ci'ierem (Am, 2 i),and tB" plflliJ'C «rara' 
K^xaviièvo. is àKoa-Sa. {'.e-, ■""'',l;')i if^ incendio cinis (Is. 33 iz), 

UME. (i) Ti;t^, sét-eil, Is. 44i3t AV, wrongly, 
See Fencil. (a) ip, ka7v, Is. 44 13 RV (AV ' rule,' itérpoi'). 
Cp nip.i, tikwàh, }t)sh, a 18 ZI. The wood-carverstretched a line 
or cord over ihe block of wood lo lay oul the course which his. 
work would bave to take. The builder used ìt loo fot bis iìrjit: 
measutemenis (Job 8^5 Zech. J 16 [Kre]). In Ps. 11*4(5) read 
d'jip, kolà»!^ with OIs-, Ges-, We- SBOT, eie. 

For{3), ^«^iK. 715; (4) '?3n,-5^*f/, Is. 33 zo;(5) S'Pì;, 
pàthil, Ezek. 4il 3, see Cord. 

(6) KcLi'ùi', 3 Cor. Illi5 AV, AVnig. 'rule,' RV 'province,' 
RVmg. 'limii.' Cp Canon, § i. 


Dccur as renderings of ihe following words : — 

1. 'étùn, fvjx, Prov. T j6f (defining "^33-, dark-hued sluifs) 
— takcn for a verb in IS and slrangely rendered ^loypai^ia by 
Theod, — occurs in Tgg in the sense of ' rope,' K MT is cortect 
(seebelowl itis probably the same as Gr. òflófi), 'fine linencloth,' 
and may denote either linen 'yarn' (as RV) or ' woven linen 
cloth.' No salisfactory etymology of the word has becn found 
in the Semilic languages (against Del, ad he). [Frankenb, 
and Che,, however, think the texl very doubtful. The latter 
reads thus; '1 have strelched cords on my bedstead; I bave 
spread carpets on my coach.']^ 

2. èad. 15 (Ex. 2842 39j8 [not in @] Lev. fi, ^,[3] Ifi^ 
23 32 I S. 2 18 22 18 2 S. fi ,4 I Ch. 1 -) Z7 ; plur. Ezek. 9i/. 
II lOa 6/. Dan. 10 5 126/.t).is rendered by ® ìn the 
Pentateuch \lveos, but elsewhere variously.^ 

' Cp "l?ri, from IDn, to ferment, boil, or foam up (see BDB)- 
* See Crii. Bib. (ni3i< Pi3ì3n, acorrupfion of [3]\-i3;j3 Tiion; 
DnSO,read'Ì? :;!?). 

*iS, 2i8 3apLom. ; 22i8BLom,,and AhasAil■0l'{whichelse- 


The etymology of the word bad is unknowu ; but 
tliere is no reason for rejecting the unanimous tradition 
which declares it to mean "linen.' 

Whiisl on the one hand we learn from Ex- 39 aS that tt*!^ (/>., 
byssus, see below, 3) is either the same as bxd, or a parlicular 
species of Ìl, on the other hand it is pretly cerlain from Ezek. 
4i i-T J- that linen would be the clolbing prcscribed for the priests 
in the Levitical iaw. Stili, it is just possible, as Dillmann sug- 
gests (on Ex. 1!S42), that bad in itsel) meani only ' white stuff/ 
wheiher linen or collon. 

3. bus, fi3 ((Siiffffos or ffóiraivoi, EV ' fine linen,' i Ch. 
4 21 [a^aK. B; a^^ovs. A; afiov!. L] 15 27 2 Ch. 2 14 
[13] 3i4 5i2 Esth, 16 Sijlizek. 27i6t)> is a late word 
in Hebrew, as, apart from the highly doubtful mention 
in Ezekiel.i it is found only in Ch. and Esth. Bùi 
is almost cerlainly equivalent to the older term ses 
(K'C', cp I Ch. 1527 with Gen. 41 42; and especiallya Ch. 
2i4 [13] 3i4 5i2 with Ex. 284S etc.), and both denote 
the substance which the Greeks called fjiitrffos, as to the 
exact nature of which there has been enormous contro- 
versy, As sèi is probably an Egypiian word, being 
mentioned in connection with Egypt (Gen, 41 42 and 
esp. Ezek, 277), and as according to Ex. 39 28 it is either 
ìdentical with or a species of bad (see above), the evi- 
dence favours the view that (iijfffTos was a sort oJ linen, 
that being a particularly Egypiian product. 

The eiyniology of ihe word biis is quite uiiknown; a possible 
connection with byr. èusìiia (the plant * verbascura '), which may 
bc an Indo-European word iLag. Se»i. 1 52 ff.) ihrows no light 
upon its meaning; nor is anything gaincd by comparing Ar. 
bas = /9i}<riT09. 

Phìlology being of no assistance, we are thrown back 
npon the statements of Greek and Latin writers about 
byssus; and from a careful examination of these, Braun 
t_De vestitu sacerdotum tìebr. I., chap, 6), Celsius 
(Hierob. Il-, 169 ff.), and more recenlly Yaies {Tex- 
trinum antiquorum, Lond., 1843, I., 252 ff.), have de- 
duced with fair certainty the conclusion that byssus 
was * fine linen.' On the other hand, Forster {De bysso 
anttquorum (Lond., 1776) argned that byssus was cotton, 
and has been followed by many modem scholars. On 
the one main poinl, however, his argument is now entirely 
overlhrown. The statement of Herodotus (2 86) that 
the embalmed bodies of the dead were swalhed in cloths 
of byssus {aivhbvo^ fivafflvr]^ reXa/iiòffi) was taken to 
prove that byssus meant cotton. because itwas long held 
that collon was the material of the mummy clolhs. How- 
ever. the microscopìe examination by Thomson (whose 
resuhswere first published in the fàU. Mag., Nov. 1834) 
and later investigaiions have clearly shown that these 
■wr-iippings aie linen, at least in the vasi majority of 
cases.2 Indeed, linen is often spoken of by ancient 
writers as a characleristic product of Egypt, and their 
staWmenls are confirmeó by such monuments as Ihe 
pictures of the flax-workers in the grotto of el-Kàb (cp 
also Budge, Mummy, 189 y.). 

It is true that st least two laie Greek writers, Philostratus (71) 
and Pollux (776) appear to have exlended the term Bvaao^ to 
cotton; bui such con fusi ons are naturai with unscientilic aiithors, 
and a far larger number of qnotations can be given where a 
flaxen pvoducV is plainly meant (see Vates, op. cii. 267-273). 

There is reason for distinguishing 0óff<ros as a finer 
sort of linen from Xl^ov ; thus Pausanias and others 
speak of them as distinct; and Pliny (xix, I 4, of the 
byssus of Elis, quaterms denariis scripula eius per- 
m-utata quondam ut auri reperio) and many others refer 
to byssus as among the most coslly of materials. We 
may iherefore be satisfied with the EV rendering of 

where reprcsents ""t"',? Sflaxl, KcebelovjV, iS. fii4, ;|aJi)vos; iCh, 
L'i 27, &vaaivi\. The plural is rendered in Ezek, fl, iroSvioiìi: in 
Ezek. Il) o-ToAn and d-toAìi nyia; in Dan. &-ù<Tutvo. (Aq, c'f ^^peTa., 
Symm. Atro. Th. »aU\i'\-.v). The usuai rendering of Tg, and 
Pe^li. is •'13, ' byssus.' 

' See Cornili, adloc. The word is absenl in ®. uniess Sapo-tts 
renre.senlB il; it may have been dragged inlo MT on account 
of its associalion with f^,;'^!*, 

^ Of the remains of ancient Egyptian linen and the repre- 
sentalionsof linen maiiufacture on the nionuments, an interesting 
account is given by Wilkinson (Anc. Eg. chap, 9; cp Schegg, 
Bibl. Arck. l 163 jf.). 



■ fine linen. ' The mention of ' the families of the house 
of those that wroughl fine linen' (pn) in iCh. 43i (if 
correct) reraiiids us of olher references to the growlh 
and spinning of tìax in Palestine (Josh. 26 Frov. 3I13 
Ho3. 259 [7 II]). See also Flax. 

4. inikivèh, nipo, in i K. IO23 and NlpD twice in 2 Ch. 1 iS 

(' linen yarn ' AV), i.s considered under Chariot and Mizbacm. 

5. sddln, ['IO, 'fine linen' (Prov, 3I24 AV, Is. 823 

EV), ' linen garments ' (Judg. 14 12 RV ; ^ AV ■ sheets,' 
mg. 'shins'), an article of domestic manufacture (l'r. 
Le. ). which was considered a luxury (Is. Le. ). Accord- 
ing to Jer. KiL 24 13 ihere were three varieties (a sleeping- 
clolh, a garden-dress, and a sampler), and in Minàch. 
37 b it is spoken of as a sumnier garment as opposed to 
the «Saio for winter use. In Ydmd 'ò^ it is used of a 
curtain, and in A"ì7. ISszi of a shroud. From these 
passages it niay be concluded that sàdin denotes either 
in general a piece of hnen cloth, such as a sheet, or 
more specifically a linen shirt worn next the skin (cp 
Moore, Judg. , ad loc. ). 

The identification of sniiin with Syr. seddSjia and Gr. aiv&aiv 
(by which it is rendered in ffi — save in Zs. 3 23, where the rendering 
is loose) has been doubted (cp Frankel, 48) ; it may, however, be 
connected with the Ass. siidìnnu (Am. Tab. satinnit), ' garment ' 
(cp Del. Ass. HWB; Wi. Am. Thontaf. 'Glossar'). 

6. fiislìnt, O'niPS, is rendered 'linen' in Lev, 13 47^^ 52 59 
Dt. 22ii Ezek. 4*177: Jer. 13 1 ; see Flax. 

7. Sès. E'iy{Gen.4l42 Ex.254 26131 36 279[®som.] 
16 18 285/ 81539 356232535 368 35 37 389161823 392/ 
58 27-39 Prov. 3122 Ezek. I610 27?; once ^ìàé [Kt.. 
1 follows]. Ezek. 16 ist), rendered /3<5(Tiros or ^ivcivo^ in@, 
is, as we have seen above (3), the older equivalent of bù^. 
òis is not improbably of Egyptian origin, being idenlical 
with Coptic sAens — iyyssus. and so apparently connected 
with Coptic sAenf, ' to weave. ' Like the ^óaaivoi. iréirXoL 
of Greek writers, robes of iii formed an honourable 
dress (Gen. 4I42). It was a chief conslituent in the 
more ornamentai of the tabernacle hangings and of the 
priestly robes, along with dyed stuffs"'' — blue, piirple, 
and scarlet. The * fine twined linen ' (ii^o éià) of Ex. 
26-28 36-39 was probably woven of threads spun from 
a stili finer flax than that which produced the ordinary 
sei; we may compare what Pliny (19i, § 2) says of the 
specially fine Cuman flax : nec id maxime Tnirum, 
singula earum slainina cenieno quinquagenofilo constare, 
adding that in the stili more wonderful case of the famous 
linen cuirass of Amasis each thread was made up of 365 
minute threads. We know from existing remains to 
what perfection the arts of spinning and weaving were 
carried in ancient Egypt. 

8. kdrài, 'nin (Is. 199,t iS ^uVtros, AV Net-works, mg, 
Whitb Works, RV White Cloth, mg. cotton), which is a 
peculiar form3 from nin, Esth. 1 6 815, and is most naturaily 
referred to the byssus or ' fine linen ' for which Egypt was famous. 
We need not emend ihe word to nin or 'lln' (Koppe, etc). 

g. puo-iroì, Lk. 16 19 Rev. 18 i2t, cp ^vaai.vo'ì, Rev. 18 12 16 
19si4t. See (3). 10. AiVor, used for ' flax ' in Mt.l22o,and, 
accordi ng to some MSS, for 'linen clothiiig ' in Rev. 156 — where, 
however, WH followed by RV read At'floi'. For the ' linen frock ' 
in Ecclus.404 (® (Ufi Al VOI') see Frock. 11. òtìócta, 'linen 
clothes' (l^k. 24i2 Jn. IO40 20 5 ^t), plur. dimin. of oBdvi\ 
(rendered 'sheei,' AcLs IO 11 11 sOi on which see (i). .So far as 
we can galher from cia^sical references 9-11 refer to the finer 
sort of linen cloth, as <ipposcd lo the coarser ^ujo'ut' or ' canvas ' 
(see Yales, ii/. cit. 265). 

12. (r(p6uii.(Mt.27s9 Mk.l45iy: 1546Lk.2353t; RV 'linen 

1 So, too, RV in Prov. 31 24. 

^ Ac-cording to Jewish tradition (Mishna, Kil. 9 1) the gar- 
ments of the priesls were wooilen. — being an exceptìon to 
the law against Sa'ainez, n'^V'Ò, Lev. 19 ig ('garment of linen 
and woollen,' AV), Dt. 32 II (. . . ' woollen and linen togelher,' 
AV). Dillmann (on Ex. 2.^4), however, thinks they may have 
been cotton. '-^ isexplained from the Coptic to mean 'false cloth,' 
saht, 'woven.' and nudj, 'false' (cp Kn. ad iac.'). iS's word 
ti^StjXn'i occurs again in Wisd. 2 16 (AV 'counterfeit,' RV ' base 
meta!') and 159 (' counterfei([sl,' EV). Cp Dress, § 7, col. 

3 Cp "5'u in Am. " i Nah. 3 17 (Stade, Gr., § 301 a). 



cloth' consistently) ; cp Egypt. sAent(see 7) is synonymous with 
heóftoy. cp Mt, 27 55 Mk. 1546 Lk. 24 12 Jn. 2O5/, and, in ©, 
Judg. 14 13, heóvta IBL], (TlcSÓvas [A]. ].j, m. 

LINTEL. On the sacredness of the lintel see 
Threshulu. The only true Hebrew word for ' lintel ' 
is 'ì^pèD- maSkoph (cp Ass. aikuppu]. Ex, I2722/. 

For Vn. 'dyil (i K. 631) RVn'B- gives 'posts'; and for 
linpr, kapktSr (Am. 9 0, AV"iE. and RV give ' chapiter(s).' 
See CHAi'rrER(4). 

LINUS (AiNOC [Ti. WH]) unites with Eubulus and 
others in a greeting to Timothy (2 Tim. 421). Accord- 
ìng to Irena;us {Adv. Aae/-. , iiì. 83) Linus received the 
liishofirie of Rome, not from Peter as first bishop, but 
from ' the apostles ' (cp Eus. HEZ^ ; and the lists of the 
seventy disciples compiied by Pseudo - Dorotheus and 

In the Syriac feaching of Simon. Cepkas, where Iie is called 
Ansus or Isus (che / of hìs nanie having been taken as llie .sign 
of the accusative, which miglit be omitted), he is a disciple of 
Peter, a deacon, whom the apostle makes bishop in bis stead, 
with ihe injunclion that nothing else besides (he NT and ihe OT 
be read bef ore the people ; he is also reprcsented as taking up 
the bodics of Peter and Paul by night and burying them. One 
of the three recensions of the Acts of Peter and l'aul is tra- 
ditionally attrìbuted to Linus. He is commemorated in the 
Roman Church on 23rd Sept. Accordiiig to the Roman Breviary 
he was an Elrurian, native of Volaterras, and was bishop of 
Rome in succession to Peter for eleven years, two months, 
twenty-lhree days, and is bnried in the Vatican. Scbuitze 
{,Arch. Stiid. 228), however, has shown that there was no 
Christian burying-place in the Valican before tlie reign of 
Constantine. Harnack dates the episcopale of Linus a. u. 64-76. 
See bis Chronologie der alt-christi. Lil., and cp Lightfoot, Si. 
Ciement o/Rome, Zahn, Einleìi. 223. 

LION. Few animais are mentioned more frequently 

in the OT than the lion [Felis led), and faniiliar 

1 TemiB ^*^^I'J^'"'^"^^ ^'^h i's habits is shown by 

the many similes employed. There are 

five Hebrew words for lion, which, it so happens, are 

collected togelher in a single passage (Job 4 lo/^ ). 

1. 'ari, 'aryéh, "IN, rinw, the common word for a fiill-grown 
Jion. The cognate word in Eth. is applied to any wild beast, 
and in Arab. oraiiT denotes mountain-goacs. 

2. labi, K'D? (v''toeat,' cp Ar. labiya, but see Hommel, 
S&ugeth. 288_/C), used especially of the lioness, Gen. 49 9 Nu. 
23 24 Joel 1 tì (I! n(t, nnN), and lèbiyyà, KO^, Ezek. 19 2, and 
cp also the place-name Beth-lebaoth (nÌK37 [n"3]). [In Ps. 
22ija [tf-d] 2zb [20^] the IdÒT or 'greedy lion takes the place 
of the dog in Che.'s lexi ; cp Dog, § 3, begin.] 

3. képklr, TB3 (' covered ' — i.e., with hair?), a young and 
strong lion ; cp E^ek. 19 ■2/. 5 Ps. 17 la (Il ,T1N), Ezek. 38 13 etc. 
The place-name m'SÌ) may have the same meaning ; see 

4. Idyis, l?"^{v"lo be strong'), Job4ii Is. 306 (IIK'3^), 
Prov. 30 30; cp perhaps the place-name Laish. 

5. Idhal, ^^(^/'to cry out '), Job 4 10 10 16 ([in») 288i 
Hos. 5 14 and Ps. 91 13 ( Il TS^). Identified by Boch, with the 
black Syrian lion (cp Pliny 8 17). On Ps. 91 13 see Serpent. 

AV in Job288 renders ynp 'ZZ, ' lion's wheips,' RV, how- 
ever, 'the proud beasts' (cp Talm. ["TO, ' pride ') ; cp RV's 
rendering of 41 34 [26]; V g. filiì sttfierbìs ; Ges.-Buhl, ' nohie 
beasts of prey ' — e.g.., ' the iion.' Sdhas, however, seems to be 
insufficiently attested. In Job 28 the context .sbows that some 
definite animai is meant. See Ossifraoe. In Job 41 34 vn» 
should probably be yw (© v. 25 [26] tÙiv èv Tois SSaaiv, so 
Pesh., Michaehs, etc.).'" 

A study of the parallelìsm in the different passages 
will show that the above words for lion were more or 
less ìnlerchangeable. The Rabbinica! writers did not 
see this ; they sought to assign each name to a particular 
part of the lion's life. For instance, most unreasonably, 
E'*'? (no. 4) was said to mean an old. decrepit lion. In 
reality e'"'? means the precise opposìte — a lion ' which 
turneth not away for any' (Prov. 303o)^j.e., one in its 
full strength. 

It is plain enough that lions were a source of danger 

in ancient Palestine. The reedv swamps of the Jordan 

2.Haimtfl. ii^'-^^'9 5O44 Zech.ll3. cp Rei. Pai 

274), the recesses of Mts. Hermon and 

Senir (Cant.48), and the desert S. of Judah (Is. 306), 



were thdr favourite haunts. They are no longer found 
in Palestine, though they are mentioned as late as the 
twelfth century (Reland), but are stili met with in the 
jungles of the Euphrates and the Tigris. They have 
probably disappeared from Arabia,^ but abound, accord- 
ìng to Layard,^ in Khuzistan. In a few parts of India 
they are not unknown ; ■' but everywhere, even in Africa, 
they show a tendency to disappear before the encroach- 
ments of man. In historical times the !ion ranged over 
Syiia, Arabia, Asia Minor, and the country S. of the 
Balkans, besides the whole of Africa and the greater 
part of northerti and centrai Hindustan. 

In its habits the lion is inonogamous. The number 
of young produced at a birth varies froni two to four, 
„ Habits ^^* '^ cominonly three ; the male helps to 
rear the whelps by providing food for them, 
and he also takes part in teaching them to provide for 
themselves (cp Ezek. 1&2^. Nah. 2ih[i3]), lÀons do 
not entirely depend on the food they kill, but will eat 
dead bodies even in an advanced state of decomposi lion. 
As a rule they are nocturnal in their habits, though 
occasionally seen bydaylight, and their habit of lurking 
in secret places is often referred to by tlie OT writers 
(Ps. IO9 17 12 Job 3839/ Lam. 3io Jer. 4/ and Dt. 
33z2). The lion was the shepherd's terror (cp Mie. 
5 8 [7]); more than once, as David told Saul, he had 
to rescue a lamb from a lion's jaws* (i S. I73* RV ; cp 
Am. 3 12). Ordinary shepherds had to band themselves 
together to drive off the enemy (Is. 3I4, and see Am. 
Sia)- Not unfrequently men were attacked (i K. 
1324^ 2O36}. 

It seems as if the dimìnished populatìon of Samaria after the 
captivity were much plagued by lions (i K. 17 24 j?^). This is 
represented as a judgment ; a similar story is told of Uecius (see 
Rei. PaL 96/T). Generally ' man-eaters ' are the old lions who, 
wilh diminished activity and brokea leeth, find it diflicult to 
capture big game. On Benaiah's exploit (a S. 23 20) see 

The lion's roar is a favourite figure applied to enemies 
(Ps. 22i3[i4] Prov. 28is Zeph. 83), to false prophets 
. p .. , (Ezek. 2225). to the wrath of an earthly 
o]l,,oi««r "lonarch (Prov. 19 iz 20=}, to the wrath of 
auuBionB. Qod^jgr. 2530 Joel3[4]i6), and to thefury 
of the devi! (i Pet.58). Other references are made to 
his open mouth ready to rend the helpless (Ps. 222i [22] 
2Tim.4i7), lo his chasing his viciims (Ps.72[3] Job 
10 16), and to his powerful teeth, symbols of strength 
IJoelle Ecclus,2l2 Kev, 98), Jn Gen. 489 the tribe of 
judah is compared to a lion ; hence the Messianic lille 
in Rev. 53. The same title is given to Dan in Dt. 
3322, and to ali Israel in Nu, 2324249; also to Saul 
and Jonathan in 2 S. I23, and to Judas the Maccabee in 
1 Macc. 84 2 Macc, 11 11. David's Cadile guard are 
called ' lion-faced ' {1 Ch, 128) ; see also Ariel. 

To hunt lions was the sport of kings.^ Amenhotep 
III. boasts of having slain 102 lions during the first leti 
fi Lion y^*^^ °^ ^^^ reign ; 'two sóss of lions {i.e.. 


120) I slew,' says Tiglalh - pileser. Asur- 

bàni-pal claims to have attacked a lion single- 
banried, and this exploit was noi uncommon among his 
predecessors. Under the later kings lions were soughi 
out in jungles, caught in snares, and preserved for the 
royal sport. Bow and arrows, or a sword, daggers, 
and spears were the weapons of the hunters.^ In Pales- 
tine, as we gather from Ezek. 1848, a pit would be dug, 
or a net prepared, by which the lion might be caught 
and then confined in a cage (nM, v. ^f, AV 'ward,' 


1 Doughly, Ar. Des. 1 459. 

^ Ninevek and its KemaJns, 248. 

3 Rousselet, L'Inde lies Rajah, 202, 464, 46B. 

* In the ideal future, however, the lion would He down with 
the calf ; cp Is. lley: 6625. 

S For the lion as represented upon Egyplian and Assyrian 
monuments, see Perrot and Chipiez, Ari in AMcient Egypt, 
2 2St 323 ; Art in Chald. and Ass. 2 154^ ; Houghton, TSBA 

^ Houghton, i.c. 



The great brazen laver of Solomon's tempie was 

adorned with lions {1 K. 729), as well as with oxen ani 

fi In mvthfl '^^^'"'^b'f"- -^^1 ihese fìgures were of 

', ri Babylonian and Phcenician orìgin, and 

° ' represented the strength of the victorious 

and terrible God of heaven. In Babylonian mylhology 
the lion is the symbol of summer-heat. N ergal [^. v. ], 
the god of summer-heat, is represented as a lion-god. 
Il is not, however, a probable view that the opening 
exploit in the career of Samson (Jndg. 14s) is to be 
directly explaìned by ibis symbolism (Steinthal). More 
probably, like Gilgames ^ and the Phcenician god Mei- 
kart, ^ the hero Samson was represented as freeing his 
land from dangerous animals, which in turn may have 
been suggested by the conflict of the solar god Marduk 
with the dragon Tiamat. In Egypt the lion-headed 
goddess (Sekhet) was the patron of Bubastis, Leonto- 
pc>]is, and olher citìes ; and at BaaJbek, accoTÙ'mg to 
Damascius [Vii. Isid. 203), the profecting deity was 
worshipped under the form of a lion. 

More famous, however, is the great Arabian lion-god Ya- 
ghflth, i.e., ' proteclor ' (cp Kor. Ji'wj-. 71 23). Such names as 
'Abd- and 'Obaid.VaghQth among the Koreish suggest ihat he 
was worshipped by Mohammed's own tiibe. Yaghfllh ^ is of 
Yemenite origin, and the name has been identified byRobenson 
Smith {Rei. .iV»i.|2) 43 ; cp Wellhausen, Heid.Ci) :iJ) with the 
Edomite Jeush {g.v.'). Labwan (cp ({'3^) and Lalth (cp c'f?) 
occur as tribal names, and asad, the common word for a lion in 
Arabie, is frequently found not only in Arabia but also in the 
Sinaitic insciiptions. For evidence of an apparent connection 
between a lion-god and lion-clans, cp Kin. 192-194 ; Kel. SetnA"^! 
43 ; We. Heid.[^ ig^. a. E. S. — S. A. C.^ — T. K. C. 

LITTER. That lilters were in use in Palestine before 
the Greek period is cJear, not only from the palhetic 
allusion in Di. 2856, but also front Gen. 31 34 (E}, where 
Rachel is said to have hidden her teraphim in the 
'camel's furniture,' which shouid probably rather be 
' camel's litter.' 

In the phrase 7D3n nS (B rà irayii,WTa t^S icafi^Aov) 13 
ìs so called from the round shape of the litter. In Is. 6620 ® 
renders nilDID by iritióSia, thinkìng of 13 (see, however, 
Dkomedarv). The camel-Uiters are, in fact, ' shaded ' by an 
awning siretched on the wooden framework. 

Usually, one may suppose, Ihelitterswerenot borneby 
men, but were of a size to swing on the back of a mule. 
'The Damascus litter,' says Doughty (Ar. Des. l6i), 
' is commonly a cradle-like frame with ils tilt for one 
person, two such being laid in balance upon a mule's 
back ; others are pairs housed in together like a bed- 
stead under one gay canvass awning.' The Arabian 
lilters, which were ' charged as a houdah on a camel's 
back,' seemed to this traveller (2484) more comfortable. 
Burckhardt describes these as sometimes five feet long 
(see Knobel-Dillm. , on Gen. 31 34). A representation 
of an old Egyplian litter is given by Wilkinson [Anc. 
£g. I421. no, 199}; on the Greek tpopeiov and the 
Roman lectica, Smith's ZJjV^, Class. Ani. \s.v. 'Leclica') 
may be consulted. 

The word ^opeiov has been supposed by many to 
occur in a Hebraised form in Cant, 87. If Irue, this 
has an obvious hearing on the important question 
whether there are any books in the OT belonging to 
the Greek period, and directly influenced by the Greek 
language and even Greek ideas. No word for ' litter ' 
occurs in Ecclesiasles. but in Cant. 3/ RV rightly renders 
,1BD [mittah : see Bed, § 2) ' litter,' — ' Behold it is the 
litter of Solomon' [kXIvt], lectulus). The bridegroom 
(honouredbytheextravagant tide 'Solomon ')is supposed 
to be borne in the centre of a procession, sitling in a 
litter or palanquin (cp 2 S. 331, where the same word 
means ' bier ' — kKIvt), ferelrum). According to the 
generally received view, this ' litter ' or ' palanquin ' is 

1 See Smith - Say ce, Chaldaan Genesis, illuslralion opp. 
p. 175- 

2 See Peters, Nìppur, 2 303 (with illuslralion). 

3 The proper name Kyoutìos has been found on an inscription 
from Memphis (We.), 



called in v. 9 by another terni ^ ( fi'iBK ; © <pop[(Jìov}, 
which Robertson Smith inclined to explain from Sansktit 
{see Pai.Anqliin), but most scholars (so <?.^. , Bu. and 
Siegfr. , but not liei. ) regard as a Greek loan-word — 
ipopeiov. (In the Midrash on Cant. inflx is explained by 
KOV-}S= ipopTìfiO-). The Greek derivation is supported by 
a partial parallelism between the account of Solomon's 
litter in Cant. Sio and that of the <popeìa in a festal 
procession of Antiocbus Epiphanes (Athen. 55. ; cp Can- 
Tlcr.KS, § 15). To this view three objections may be 
raised. (i) The ipopeìov v,ns borrowed by the Greek s 
from Asia. {2) If a Greek (or Sanskrit) loan-word were 
rised at ali, it would be in v. 7, not in v. 9. The 
native word mif/aA would be appropriately used to 
explain the foreign word ; but after the litter has been 
brought before us as a mittah. we do not expect to be 
told that ' king Solonion inade himself a <{>opeìov. ' 

The sutrounding coment is full of dilhculties which suggest 
coriuption of the text. We cannor, iherefore, consider appirydn 
apart from the rest of the pasaage. Wemay suppose that [inBN 
is a dittogram of jua"?, a.nd as Ihe tesult of a series of criticai 
emendations (nolab)y that of nrx'^Dn fot -)':ort, D'JdW for JDJIK 
[see Purple], and c'33rt for nn^N [see Euonv]), the descriptìon 
of the bridegroom's litter in Cant. 36-ii assumes this form (see 
Che. JQR n 562^ 1 1899)),— 

What is it that comes up from the wìlderness 

Like pillars of stnoke ; 
Perfumed ivith myrrh and frankincense, 

With ali spices of the merchaJit? 

See, it is Solomon's litter, 

Surrounded by watriors ; 
They are ali wearers of swords, 

Expert in war. 
Every one has bis sword on his ihigh 

For fear of lions. 

Solomon made himself this artful work 

Of timber of Lebanon ; 
Its pillars he made of silver, 

Its back of gold, 
Its Seat — almug-wood in the centre, 

Inlaid wilh ebony. 

Come forth, ye maidens of Zion, 

And hehold the king, 
In the crown wilh which his mother crowned hiui 

On the day of his marriage. 
And in the day of the Joy of his heart, 

Thits, besides 703rr lì), {a) ilBD, mittah, but not appirydn 
(which is really noii-exÌstent, except in MH), means litter. So 
also ib) does 3S, sàb, in Is. 6620, unless 'cars (for mules)' be 
prefeired as a rendering. See Wagon, (c) ^p*ìoi' (see above) 
occurs in 3 Macc. 827 (Heliodoius ; seìla gestatoria), and Sa 
(Antiochus ; ^f j(a^of!"«n;) ; RV 'litter,' AV 'horselitter.' {fi) 
Jiifpnf [AJ, or Sicfipos [V], 2 Macc. 14si ; RV 'and a litter was 
brought forward from each army' (irpoiìÀSti- irap ÌKaorov 
ii'i^paf ). Heuce the denom. Si^pfvu, properly ' to drive a 
chariol ' ; Bar. 6 31 [30] ol ieprt^ SiApivov<ri ([B] ; but oi ì. fiio- 
^SeipoviTiv [A], KoBLioviTiv ai l. [Ù]), RVnig. by a doubtful 
exlension of the sensBj ' the priests bear the litter ' (RV ' sit on 
seais ' ; AV ' sit in their temples '). The Greek text seems to bc 
corrupt. T. K, C. 

LITTLE ONES (Jer. I43). See Nobles. 

LITTLE OWL (D13). Lev. II17. See Owu 

LITUEGY. See Psalms, Hymns, Sacrifice. 

LIVEB (133: 'heavy,' with reference to the weight 
of the liver ; HTTAp)- It is important to begin by 
noticing the sacredness of the liver. Repeatedly in P 
' lYiQ ydtkéretk of (or, upon) the liver ' is direoted to be 
biirned upon the sacrificial aitar. 

The Heb. phrases are 133n irm\^ Ei. 29 22 Lev. 8 16 25 9 19 ; 
n^Sn-^V 'n'n, Lev. 3 + 10 i5'49 74; and n^STI? '"'?, Lev. 9 io. 
®BArLalsoreads one of these phrases in Lev. 7 30. Accordingto 
Driver-White (-S"S(;7"on Lev.3 4), .j'ói'^yi-fM denotes probably the 
fattymassat the openingof the liver which reaches thekidneysand 

1 Cp Mishna, Sótà 94 (493), for the late use of jnBK for the 
bridal palanquiii. 

2 Pesh, hcsàr kabdà, lit. ' (he court (?) of the liver," cp Levy, 
Targ. HIVB, s.v Vr^n. Thesame terminMH,^.^., Yòjtta%i, 
where it is prohibited on the day of Atonement to give to a man 
who has been bitten by a mad dog the animal's 133 "isn. This 
homceopathic mode of treatment was evidently customary. 



becomes visible upon theremovalof the'Iesser omentum.' This 
lai ter isonlyathin transparentsheetand cannot well be recl<oned 
among the fat parts of the animai. Ac ali events the old inler- 
pretation ' lobe of the liver' (©, Jos. Ant-w-^n, etc.) ha.s 
nothing in iisfavour. 

In Tob. 64-16 82, there is a reference to the use of 
the liver of a fish in exorcisms ; its employment in 
divination has been already referred to in connection 
with Kzek. 2I21 [26]. See Djvination, § 2 (3),! and 
cp Oefele, Z^r(F20 [1900], 3ii# 

But why was this part of the viscera so especially 
sacred ? Because the liver contested wilh the heart the 
honour of being the centrai organ of life. Wounds in 
the liver were therefore thought to be niortaP ; e.g., 
Prov. 733, 'a dart through his liver,' and Lam. 2ii. 
* my liver' (H'niy bowels,' but @ and Pesh. nas) is 
poured out upon the earth,' are each of them a peri- 
phrasis for dealh, Being therefore so sacred, the liver 
was not to be eaten, but to be returned to the giver of 
life {see Reins). 

We can now understand the Assyrian usage by which 
kabittu ( = -135^ became equivalent to lihbu, 'heart,'* 
and are not surprised to fìnd a group of passages in OT, 
in which 133 has to be reslored for the faulty 133 (nns) 
of MT. In Ps. 76 [5] the keen-witted Oratorian Houbi- 
gant long ago read ' and pour out my liver on the dust ' 
(tiseì' IS^I? ■^npl ; cp Lam. 2ii), and in Ps. I69 [8], 
' Therefore my heart is glad, my mind exults ' ('133 Sjo), 
remarking that ' in the Scriplures the liver is the seat of 
Joy and sorrow ' ; and in Gen. 496 he follows @ (rà 
flirord ii.f>v) in reading nas ' my liver' for nbs ' my 
glory.' In Ps. 3O13 [12] 579 [8] IO82 [■] similar cor- 
rectìons are necessary ; perhaps also in Is. I611 (naa 
for '3ip ; cp Lam. 2ii},^ T. K. C. — S, A. C. 

LIVING CEEATURES. See Chebub i., § i. 

LIZÀBD. Tristrani has described forty-four specìes 
and twenty-eight genera of the group Lacertilia found 
at the present day in Palestine. They live in great 
numbers in the sandy desert and generally in the 
wilderness, and are among the commonest animais the 
traveller meets with. Amongst those most frequently 
found he mentions the Lacerta viridìs and L. Im-uis 
and the wall lizards belonging to the genus Zootoca. 
Another not unimportant specJes, called the Monitor 
niloticus, was held in high esteem by the ancient 
Egyptians as destroying the eggs and the young of the 
crocodile. Although the Uzard is mentioned only once 
in AV, there can be but little doubt that this is the 
animai referred to in the following Heb. words :— 

t, 3S, s«i(Lev. 11 29,5 AV ToRTOisE, RV Great Lizard). 
Its Ar. equivalent dabb denotes a non-poisonous li?ard which is 
eateu by some Arabian Bedouins.^ It is identified with the 
Uromastìx spinifies—^ lizard with a powerful tail covered with 
strong spines. It is mentioned among the undean creeping 
things (Lev. l.c.\ and since it is followed by ''IJ'D? ('after its 
kind ') is probably a generic term, in which case the following 
names in v. 30 are, as RV"iK- suggests, those of ditferetit kinds 
of liiards. 

2. ^^^-ì 'ànSkàh (Lev. 11 30, RV Gecko), AV Ferret \q.v.\. 

1 Cp Fra^er, Pans.^y, Weilh. HeidM ^^l,f■^, WRS Rei. 
Setri.i^} 379, n. 4. 

2 Cp (Ésch. Agam. 432, 6i.yye.vfL irpòf ^-nap, of a heart-wound. 

3 For the parallelism of these words see Del. Ass. HWB 317, 
Del. renders kabittu only ' Gemiith.' But Jensen {Kasmoi. 11 
n.) gives (i) liver (2) inward part = centte; and lìluss-Arnolt 
(i) liver, (z) disposition. 

* One may hope that, as Schleusner suggests {Lex., s.v.) 
the iSn-ap of © in i S. 19 13 i6a is a corruplion of a Greek tians- 
literation of T33. Theod. has X"^^? 1 f'ut Aq. tÒ t;Ò,v ttA-^Aos ; 
cp 2 K. 8 rs ® (Klo.). See Bed, g§ 3, 4 (d). 

•* HitzigonNah.2 7reads2!f.-t, 'the Wzsrà' {U., Nineveh) for 
-'?r' 1 against this cp Hi.-Steineil*l, ad loc. 

6 According to Doughty i.Ar. Des. 1 70) ihe iMb [i.e., dabb] 
is an edible sprawling hzard, fuliest length a yard wilh tail, 
and is consideted a deiicacy. The colour is blackish and green- 
specked above the pale yellowish and dtill belly, and its skin is 
used for the nomad's milk-botlles. 



3- nb, kóàh (li., RV Land-crocodile), AV Chameleon 

4- '^ì??''' iH^'àh (ìb.^ EV LizARD ; KoAn^iónj? ; sielliò), in 
the Talmud is the general terni for a lizard ; cp Lewysohn, 

ZOOL 221. 

5. ispn, homct (io., AV Snail; a-avpa, laceria ; cp Sam. 
Rashi, Kim.), RV Sand-lizard, so Boch., who ideniifies it with 
the Ar. kulasa. Probably a sand-lizard of whlch theieare many 
species tq be found in the Sinaitic peninsiila, and which, from 
the fact that its feet are almost invisìble, is often called by the 
Aiabs the ' Saiid-fish.' 

6. nOEijn, tinsémetk (ib., from D&J, 'to brealhe, blow," AV 
Mole; [ajCTJraAaf; talpa), explained as the 'mole '(which ili 
accords wìth the desciiptioti iti 11, 29, see Di.), or as the ' centi- 
pede ' (cp Pesb.)- It is very commonly taJfcn to be the Chame- 
LKON(y.7'.); bui thegenuinenessof che word is open to question ; 
see Mole 2, Owl. 

7. n'poe',1 èèmdmtth, reckoned among the 'little things 
which are e le ver ' (Prov. 3O28, AV Spider; KiiXa-^-rta-, 
siellio; lli^JiaOf [Pesh.]),3 is rather the lizard (so RV), the 
reference being to the fact that a harmiess lizard may be held 
in rhe hands with impunity. Tì'ìSÌ'S! Ìs the rendering of the 
Targ. Jer., for riND^ (above), and that of the Sam. for H^JN. 

The mod. Gr. iraii,iafi.iy9<K is probably derived from ìt (cp Del, 
Prov., ad locJ). 

The lizard. though eaten sometimes by Arabian 
Iribes, was forbidden among the Jews ; and a curious 
old tradition relates that Mohammed forbade it as food, 
because he thought the IJzard was the ofTapring of an 
Israelite clan which had been transformed into reptiles 
(^5 88 ; Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 326). This has a sugges- 
tion of totemism, and that (he lizard was a sacred animai 
seems to be borne out by the occurrence of the Ar. dabb 
(3:1) as the eponym of a widespread tribe [Kin. 198), 
and also by the recoUection of the imfxirtant part the 
flesh, bones. and skin of the lizard have played in 
magical and medicinal preparations." 

A. E. S. — s. A. e. 

LOAF (-133, Ex. 29=3 etc; DH^. iK. I43 etc. ; 
àpTOC, Mk. 8 14}. See Bread, 

LO-AMMI Cer ih). Hos. I9. See Lo-RUHAMAH. 

LOAK {Xh^p), iS.22o. The sense is unique ; see 
1=3. Cp Saul^ § I. 

LOOK (i'W?©), RV Cant. 55 etc. See DooR. 

LOCKS. Five Hebrew words correspond to * lock ' 
(once) or Mocks' (of hair) in AV ; bui one of these 
(sammàh, ,^Es) is more correctly rendered ' veil ' in RV ; 
see Veil. 

1. V)^. fièra', the full hair of the head = Ass. plrtif, Nu. 6 5 
Ezelt. 44 20. On a supposed case of the fem. plur. in Judg. 5 2, 
see Hair, g 3 (with note 3), and cpWellh- Ar. Ileid.^) 123. 

2. ns's, sìsìik, a forelock, Ezek. 83+. Aq, Theod. itpntr- 
ireSoj'Cfringe,' cp Fkinges, n. 2). The mention of the forelock 
in connection with ecstatic experi e n ces is unique. Cp Hair, §2, 

3. niSlp, kèwussoth (common in MH and Syr.), Cant. 62 ut- 
Cp Canticles, % 15 («■), and on the form see Ko. 2 i, p. 199. 

4. JlisVnO, mahlépkdlh, properly ' plaits," in connection with 
the long hait of Samson, Judg. 16 13 19. Cp Hair, g t. 

LOCUST. The biblical references to the locust are 

of tnuch interest, though the Hebrew text niay perhaps 

1 Snecies ^"'"^^''"^ invite criticism. The species 

aùd habits '^^^ '^ inlended is usually supposed 

to be the Schistocerca peregrina, formerly 

known as Acrìdium peregrinum. This species, like 

ali the locusts of ordinary language. belongs to the 

Orthoplera and to the family Acridiida, not to the 

Locustida, a name which has produced much con- 

fusion. The species at the presene day extends from 

North-West India to the west coast of Northern Africa ; 

it is the only OId-"World species of the genus, ali other 

forms being American. 

1 With Éi cp Del. ad Inc., and see Lag. Synt. 1 156. 

2 The Pesh. reading is another form of ^JJN ; see Ferret, 

3 Cp the Witches scene in Macbeth, Act iv. Se. i. 



To illustrate the great distances that can be traversed by 
these in sects it may be mentioned that in 1865 a vciisel bound 
from Bordeaux to Boston was invaded by S . peregrina when 
1200 miles from the neateit \and, after which (or two days the 
air was full of loi:usts which setlled ali over the ship. In 18S9 
there passed over the Red Sea a swarra which was estimated to 
entend over 2000 square miles, and, each locust being assumed 
to weigh Vj 02., (he weight of the swarm was calculated lo be 
42,850 itiillions of tons; a secotid and even larger swarm pa.ssed 
on the following day. That these numbers are no exaggeratìon 
is shown by the Government Keports on the destruction of 
locusts in Cypius. In 18S1 over 1300 tons of locust eggs had 
been Uestroyed, but in spite of this it was calculated that over 
SODO egg cases. each conlaining many eggs, were deposiied in 
the island in 1883. 

The eggs are laid in the ground by means of the 
powerful ovipositor of the female, the deposition usually 
being in remote and uncultivated lands. On leaving 
the egg the young ìmmediately cast their skin, an 
operation repeated abont the 6th, i3th, 2ist, 3ist 
and 5oth day. AHhough the wings attain their perfect 
development and the locust becomes capable of fliglit 
and of forming swarms only at the 6th ànd last moult, 
much harm may be done by the young, which hop ' over 
the land in great armies devoiiring every biade of grass 
and every leaf of plants and shrubs (cp Joel 1 4 7). The 
most striking effecis, however, are caused by the swarms 
of migratory locusts (see above) ; these, coming out of 
a clear sky, darken the sun (Ex. IO15) and in a short 
time devour every green thing, the coming together of 
their mouth appendages even producing a perceptible 
noise as they eat their way through the country (cp Joel 
2s). They are therefore an apt figure for swarniing 
hordes (Judg. 65 7 12 Jer. 4623 Judith 22o, and cp Jerome 
on Joel 16; gfdd enim locustis innumerabilius et 
fortius ; quibus humana industria resistere non potest). 
Their habit of banding together led a proverb-writer to 
class them among the little things of this earlh which 
are wise (Pr. 30 27), The likeness they bear to horses 
was also noticed (Joel 24 Rev. 9?, and cp the Italian 
name cavalettd), also the suddenness of their disappear- 
ance. When the hot sun beats powerfully upon them, 
they literally ' flee away, and the place is not known 
where they are' ^ (Nah. 817). Fortunately the visits of 
the swarms are, as a rule, not annual, but recur only 
after a lapse of some years, though the period is 
uncertain ; the cause of the immense destruction of 
locust life which this indicates, and stili more the cause 
of the sudden rectiidescence of activily, are at present 

Locusts are frequently mentioned by the ancients as an arlicle 
of food. They are much eaten in the East, and, when the legs 
and wings are lemoved and the body fried in butter or oìl, are 
said to be not unpalatable. On Mt. 3 4 see at end of article. 

There are nine words in the OT taken to mean the 
locusf, and although, according to the Talmud, there 
„ WamBii ^'^""^ some 800^ species in Palestine (cp 
^. names. i_e^^,ysohn, Zool. d. Talm. 286^), we 
cannot, with any degree of certainty, apportion a distinct 
species to each Hebrew word. 

1. na^it, arbek (prop. ' multiplier' ; àupts, /3poOxos [Lev. 11 22 

I K. 837], àTTÌ\fPoi [Nah. 3i^]), is the usuai word for locust, 
and appears to be the generic term. It is the locust of the 
Egyptian piagne (Ex. 10 1-19, see ExoDus ii., g 3 ; ii,, col. 1442). 
In Judg. fig 7i2 Jer. 4623 Job 39 20 AV renders Grasshoppei!. 
[In Ps. 109 23, ' I am tossed up and down as the locust ' (EV) is 
hardly correct ; Kau. //.S gives ' I am shaken out.' 'nlJ'JJ '^ 
corrupt ; read 'nllK), ' 1 ^ni gathered (for removal) like locusts, 
cp Is. 33 4. So Che.} ; cp § 3.] 

2. oy^D, soFàm ifmàicq^ [BAFL]), In EV the Bald-i.ocust 
(Lev. 11 22), cp Aram. □JJ^B, '*" consume,' whìch in the Targ. 
represents jy*?:]. Perhaps a Tryjcalìs with its long smooth head 
and projecling antennée is meant. 

3. 73"in, hargòl (Lev. 11 22) ; see BeeTle. 

4. 3]n, hàgàb (\/'to hide, orconceal'?ffiKp[V, but in Lev. 1122 

1 Cp Job Sii 2o RV : ' Hast thou made him to leap as the 
locust?'; and Is.334. [In Ecclus. 43 17 [19] the fall of snow is 
likened to the flying down of birds and to the lighling of the 
locust— iÌ! ÓKpls (faro Àu'ou era (marg. inn) imi JUC n3nK3-l 

2 Thomson, LB 419- ' 
S Eight of these at most could be locusts. 




nijiLOiidxrj^) iisiially rendered Gka.sshopi'er (cp Lev. /.e, Nu. 
IH33 Is. 41)22 Kcclcs. 1-2 5) bm in s Ch. 7 13, ' locust.' It is 
referred lo ìli Nu. 1:1 33 (set n. i), Is. 40 22 [iilso in Is. 51 6,' see 
Che' U.' SBOJ\Heh.) ; .tnd in Ps. 37 20 yOg.^see Che. /VP)] as 
nn eniblem of feebkness and ìnsignificance. In Talm. 3jn is 
the generic terni for locusta (cp I.ewysohn, l.c), Cp the proper 
names Haoah, Hagahah. 

5. D^3, ^/istìpp! ; see Palaieh-worm. 

6. p V, yéìek (' licker ' ; 3po5j;os ; ÓKpis in Jer. 51 14 27), usually 
Cankkkworm (so RV regularly) or Catekpiller.3 Some kind 
of locust is meanl, or passibly a. young locu-st. In Jer. 51 27 
yélek saiiidr ("ico pi")' ' roigh caterpilier ' (or ' cankerworm '), 
denotes some special kind. The Vg. has bnichunt aculeatumA 

7. 7S7S, sSlàsal (probably 'tinkler,' (puo-i^ij), may be some 
species of insect noted for its strident noise, such as, in Dt. 
2842 (see also Hoiì.vkt), the cicada, or, in Is. 18 t, according to 
some (see Che. Proph. Js,, ad loc), the formidalile tselse-fly, 
the ' tsallsalya ' of the GaUas.^ But olher views of o'fjja 'yih'i 
in Is. Le. are pos.sible. See below g 3 and cp e.g., òBOT, 
' Isaiah,' Heb. pp, Bo (lines 36-46), to8 (lines 40-46) ; note, also, 
AV's rendeiing ' shadowing with wings,' and RV's ' the rustling 
of wing.s.' 

8. □'33, '3ia, £^i;JH(plur.),^Jiaj'(collectÌve) — i.e., 'swarin'7 
— (ÒKpii), usually rendered Gkasshopper (cp Nah. 3 17,^ il 
-13"IJ() ; but in Am. 7 i, in AVinK-, ' green worms.' 

9. 7'on, A<is;7('consumer,' cptheverb 7DnDi.283B; ipvai^ii', 
and ^poO^os 2 Ch. fi 2s), in i K. 8 37 2 Ch. 6 28 Ps. 78 46 11 nan» ; 
some kind of locust must be meant. 

Of the ahove, nos. 1-4 were classed among clean 
winged things aiifi were allowed to be eaten (Lev. 
llii/l, F; cp Clean, § ii); they are described as 
having ' legs above their feet ' (rSi^^ Wco D'tni). whcnce 
it would appear that a distinction was made between 
leaping locusts, saltatoria, and those which run, cur- 
soria. A similar distinction is made by the Arabs 
between Xh&fdris (riding) and the rdjil (going) ; cp also 
2 Ch. 628. l'esh. karnsà parèhà ■wè-zdhlld. In the vivid 
account of the locust plague in Joel \ f. (see JOEI, ii. , 
§ 5, and cp Driver's Comm. ) four of the above are 
mentioned in the oider 5169 (Joel I4). The fact that 
the order in 225 is different (i 69 5) niakes it ìmprob- 
able that Ihese words can be taken to refer to locusts 
in different stages of growth. 

'Ih ere are a few passages which ha ve not yet 
been discussed. In Is. 18r the land 'that sends am- 
bassadors by the sea ' is neither ' the land 
of the rnstlings of wings ' nor ' the land 
of strident creatures with wings ' (see 
above, § 2 [8]). The most probable reading is 'Ha 
Cush ! land of the streams of Gihon ' ; Gihon is the 
name of the upper, or Ethiopian, course of the Nile (see 
Haupt, SBOT, 'Isaiah' [Heb.] 109); the right words 
have a twofold representation in the Heb. te.\t, though 
both times in a corrupt forni. The difficult clause at the 
end of Am. 7i, following the reference to the ' forma- 
tion ' of certain locusts, evidenti/ needs criticism. EV 
gives, ' and lo, it was the latter growth after the king's 
mowings,' a somewhat obscure e.xplanation (see Mow- 
INGS). But 'latter growth' (e'P^) surely required no 
explanation, On the other hand, something more 
might well have been expiected about the locusts, © 
gives Kai lòoò ^povxos efs 7W7 ó ^airtAeiJi. The true 
reading probably is '7'oni 0T31 n3"iKi p^; nS/ti, 'andbehold 
the cankerworm, and the locust, and the palmerworm, 

' [iriDS should be D'ajn?- Cp Nu. 13 33 where J51 shouid be 
D'3Jni ; the clause is a correction of the preceding one which 
contains the wrong reading ' in />ur eyes ' ; Che.] 

2 (0"13 "ip'3 and njrriDÌI should both be D'Djns, Che.] 

^ 'Caterpillar" in English is usually restricted to the larvai 
stage of the Lepidoptera, Butterflies and Moths, 

* In England palmer-worms from their 'roughness and rugged- 
ness' used to becalled 'beare-worms' (Topsell, Hist. o/Serpe-nts, 
105 [1608]). 

* Cp also Ass. sarsaru, a creature like a locust (Del. Ass. 
HWB 57+). 

fl AV 'the great grasshoppers' ; RV 'the swarms of grass- 

hoppers.' This represents '3U 313 of MT. Bui, as We. points 

out, Z^ì is probably an error which '?Ì3 (a colleclive form) is 

intended to correct. Render simply, ' the grasshoppers.' 


3. Difficult 

and the caterpilier' (cp Joel 1 4). The sense gains 
greatly ; we also obtain a fresh point of contact between 
the Hooks of Amos iuul Joel. 

lidsìl. — -In two passages hdsil seems to have been 
corrupted \i\\o sèi. • shadow. ' One of these (Ps. 10923), 
in an cmended text, gives a siriking parallel to Nah. 
317; the other (Job lij28= H2), to joell7i2. The 
renderings respectively are^ 

1. ' Like caterpillers C^'onj) on the fences I am taken away, 

I am galhered (for removal) like locusts.' 

2. ' Like a blossom which appeareth ami fatleth, 

Like a palm-tree (13 28, like a vine) which caterpillers have 
Two kinds of locusls (TOH and na'lX) are apparently referred 
to in Ps. 4011 and (naiN and '?3"in) in Ecclus. 14is; in both 
cases according to criticai emendalion. Ben Sira's fondness for 
interweaving biblical expressions with bis proverbs has heljjed 
in this case to the restoration of the text. 

The NT references to locusts (dKptSes) occur in Mt. 
34 (Mk.l6} Rev.93-ri. The Mt.-Mk. passage states 
that locusts formed the chief food of John the Baptist ; 
it is pointed out, however, eisewhere that there may 
bere be an early misunderstanding {see Husks, 4, 
John the Baptist, § 2). The locusts of the Rev. 
passage belong to the supernatural imagery of the 
Apocalypse. Contrary to what is said in Prov. 3O27 
the locusts are said to have had a king. There may, 
however, be a confusion between t]^, ' king,' and tjkSd, 
' angel," Abaddon [•^■■v.'] (note 'H^pàiaTl, Rev. 9ii) 
being variously represented as the ' king ' and the 
' angel ' of the abyss. 

See Driver's Excursus in /oe/ it«rf^w/iis(Camb. Bible, 1897); 
iEneas Munro, M.D., 'JAe I.ectist P lagtte and its Suppresiion 
(1900), and, on the text of Job 13 28 Ps. 49 13 lOfl 23 and Ecclus. 
14 15, Che. ' Biblical Difficulties, Jixpos. 14 |i9ot], tT-^ff. 

A. E. S. , § I ; S. A, C. , § 2 ; T. K. C. , § 3. 

LOD (n?) I Ch. 812. See Lydda. 

LODDEUS (AoAàioc [B in v. 46]), i Esd. 845/. RV 
= Ezra8i7, Iddo [1]. 

LO-DEBAR (-ia"7 i"? ; 2 S. 94/ . AaìaBar [BAL] ; 

A&B&A&pltAin^'. 4]: I^TN?; I727 AcoÀ&B&p[BA] ; 
\&À. [L])i a place in Gilead in which Mephibosheth, 
Jonalhan's son, lay for a time, with Machir son of 
Ammiel, who also befriended David on bis flight to the 
E. of Jordan. Probably the same place is meant by 
the Lidebir which Josh. 1826 places in the territory of 
Gad. Gratz has discovered the name in Am. 6 13, as, 
along with Karnaim, captured by Israel from Aram. 
Here MT (nan «'?) and ali the Versions take it as a 
common noun, 'nothing' ; and probably Amos, out of 
ali the conquests of Israel E. of Jordan, chose these 
two for the possible play upon their names (see Amos, 
§ 5). Lo-debar has not been identìfied ; but 7 m. E. 
of M'kes or Gadara, near the great road eastward, 
and on a southern branch of the W. Samar, is a viliage 
Ibdar, which must have been an important site on the 
back of the most northerly ridge of Gilead. There are 
a good spring and ancient remains with caves (Schu- 
macher, N. Ajiun loi). The houses cluster on the 
s'teep edge of a plateau which commands a view across 
Hauràn as far N. as Hermon. Strategically it is 
suitable ; no other OT name has been identifìed 
along this ridge, which must ceriainly have been con- 
tested by Israel and Aram ; and it is apparently on 
this N. border of Gilead that Lidebir is placed by 
Josh. 1826 (cp review of Buhl, Pai. in Expositor, Dee, 
1896, p. 411). (The reading 'Lo-debar' in 2 S.94/; 
has been doubted : see SAUL, § 6, and cp Mephibo- 
SHETH. Wellhausen and Nowack adopt the above 
emendalion of Am. 613; Driver, however (Joel and 
Amos, 199), iìnds a difficulty in it. Cp Mahanaim. ] 
, G. A, S. 

LODGE. For (i) na-l7P, mglùnàh. Is. 1 Sf, see 
Hut; and for (3) Nfl, tà, Ezek. 40 7j?:, RV, see Chamber, 9. 

For p7D, mdlàn, 'lodging place' (Gen.42 27, etc. RV), see 



LOFT {n>bv). I K. 1719. See Chamber, 6. 

LOG- (J? ; kotyAh ; sexiarium]. Lev. 14 io. See 

Weights and Measures. 

LOGOS. Except in the prologue to the Fourth 

Gospel (Jn. I1-18) the biblical usage of AorOC shows 

RihTcal "'^ pecuHarity ; it means a complex of 

ràferencPR ^wds (pHMàT&)> presented in the unity 

rererenoes. ^^ ^ sentcnce or thought. The entire 

gospel can be called ' the logos of God,' or even, siinply 

the logos [Kar é^oxfl") — see, e.g., Mt. 1819-23 Gal. 6é 

2 Cor. 217 Rev. I2-9 — as being a declaration of the 

divine pian of salvation. 

Sudi pasEages as Jn. 8 31 37 Acts67 i Cor. 14 36 border upon 
poetica! perso ni lìcation, but Aa not cross the line ; neìlher also 
does Ps. 33 132] ^^., nor yet Wisd. 16 12 18 15/. 

In Jn. 1 1 the Logos comes before us as a person, who. 
was 'in the beginning'— -z.e. , before the creaiion — in 
communion wìth God, and himself was God. The 
descripiion proceeds in w. sff. ; but the name Logos is 
used only once again — -in v. 14, 'the Logos became 
flesh ' ; frorn this point onward its place is taken by 
such names as 'Jesus Christ,' 'the Only-begotten, ' 
' the Son, ' ' the Christ. ' 1 14 makes it clear ihat for the 
writer the identity of the Logos with the bearer of the 
gospel, Jesus Christ, is a fact as important as it is 
indubitable ; for him the redeemer is in his heavenly 
pre-existence the Logos, after his incarnation Jesus 
Christ. In l4j^ it is a very difficult matter to dis- 
linguish clearly which predicates refer to the pre-existent 
' Son,' and which to the Son in his earthiy nianifestation ; 
probably the writer did not intend ihat a dìstinctiori 
should be made, but wishes from the outset to habituate 
his readers to thinking of the man Jesus who died 
on the cross as l«ing one with the eternai Logos 
and so denying none of the qualities of the one to the 
other ; the full Godhead of the Saviour is a pledge of 
the absolute divineness of the salvation he brìngs. Iri 
any case so much is certainly claimed for the Logos in 
I4-14: — (i)An e\istence that transcends humanity (it 
is as incarnate that he ' took up his abode among 
men'}, and indeed creation itseìf — the highest conceiv- 
able glory (that of the Father being excepted) ; (2) an 
infinite fulness of grace and truth ; and (3) the most 
intimate possible relation to God, even the title of 
God not being withheld (the article, it is true, is not 
prefised). Moreover, according to !>. 3 it is through 
the Logos that the universe is created ; nothing has 
come into being without his intervention, and mankind 
owe also to him the highest good they know — light 
and life. Thus from Jn. 1 1 _^ we may define the 
Logos as a divine being, yet stili sharply dlstinguished 
from God, so that monotheism is not directly denied— 
not equal to the Father (cp Jn. I428), yet endowed 
with ali divine powers whereby to bring to pass the 
will of God concerning the universe. 

Apart front the prologue the Logos as thus defined is not 
again named io the Fourth Gospel; in i Jn. 67 he has been 
introduced only by a late interpolation, and in i Jn. 1 1 ' the 
Logos of Life' admits of another interpretation than that 
demanded by the prologue. So also does the logos of God ' in 
Heb. 4 12, and in the mysterious announcement in Rev. 19 13 
that the name of the conquering Mes-siah, unknown to ali save 
to himself alone, is ' the Logos of God,' it ìs only the prologue 
to the gospel that renders it probable that by the expression a 
heavenly person of the highest rank is intended. 

There remains the question : From what source did 

. . the conception of the Logos come into 

2. Origin of the Johannine sphere of thought ? 

Johannme jt cannot _ bave been the creation of the 

COnCBption. Evangelist himself, for the very order of the 

words in 1 me shows that he has no need to 

teach thal there is a Logos, but only to declare what ought to 

be believed concerning the Lo^os. Neithercan hehavedenved it 

from the OT, thougb the divine ' words' are conceìved of in the 

Hebrew Scriptures as objectively existing, and as having a 

creative power' (Jn. 1 2 is evidently related to Gen. I36, etc-), 

for the Logos is nowbere a fìxed member of the supernatural 

world. Nor would it at ali help us to understand the genesis 

1 Che. OPs. it\/. 
281 1 


of the Johannine Logos to adduce the phrase '^he Memra' 
("T ((nD"o) by which the Targums denote the Divine Being in 
self-manifestation, tbough the same hypostatising tendency 
which produced this Jewish phtase also found expression in the 
like-sounding phrase of the Fourth Gospel. 

It was from Greek philosophy that the Evatigelist 
derived the expression through the medium of Philo of 
Alexandria ; but this need not be equivalent to saying 
that he was the first to pul forward the connection 
between the Philonian Logos and the Jesus Christ of 
NT believers. Nor yet has he slavishly transcribed 
Philo ; rather with a free band and with great skili has 
he borrowed and adapted from the Philonian account 
of the Logos those features which seemed serviceable 
towards the great end he had in view — the Christianising 
of the Logos conception. In spile, however, of the 
majestic originality of the verses in question {I1-5 9ff-), 
suggestions of Philo bave been traced in almost every 

Among Greek philosophers it was Heraclitus who first put 
forward the Logos — Le., Reasoti — as the principle underlying 
the universe ; with the Stoics the Logos became the world-soul 
which shapes the world in conformity with a purpose, and is the 
uniting principle of ali tbe rational forces which are at work in 
the world. TThis conception was combined by Philo with the 
Platonic doctrine of Logoi as supersensual primal images or 
palterns of visible things, and, this done, he read into the OT^ 
and so also into Jewish theology — a Logos which was the 
inlermediary being between the universe in its overwhelming 
manifoldness and Him who is (ò itv) God, who was ever being' 
presenied in a more and more abstract way, and being relegated 
to a sphere where religion could find no stay. 

As the Wisdom of Solomon (cp also Ecclesiasticus) 
introduces wisdom as God's Apresentative in his relations 
with the world, and, if a few passages be left out of 
account, almost compels a personal separation of this 
wisdom from God, so does Philo, approaching the vìew 
of Hellenism, with the Logos, which he already in so 
many words designates as 'Son' and 'Only-begotten.' 
The theological position which had gai ned parti al 
acceptance in Palestinian Judaism also, had manifestly 
found its advocates from an early period in Christian 
circles as well ; but it was the author of the Fourth 
Gospel who first had the skill to take it up and to give 
it unambiguous e.\pression in the formulee of the then 
current metaphysic in such a way as to make it sub- 
servient to the deepest interests of Christianity. His 
representation of Christ is not, however, to be taken as 
a mere produci of his study of Philo, whether we take 
it that in his prologue he was minded merely to give by 
means of his Logos-speculation an introduclion that 
should suitably appeal to his educated Gentile Christian 
readers, or whelher we assume that his design was to 
set forth the ultimate conclusions he had reached as a 
construclive religious philosopher. The church, un- 
fortunately, even so early as in the second century, 
began to give greater attention to this philosophical 
element in the gospel of 'the divine' (toD ffeoXóyou) 
than lo the hislorical features of the narrative, and the 
employment of the idea of the Logos in this manner, 
occasioned by this author, though he is not to be held 
responsible for it, became a source of danger to 

See J. M. Heinze, Die Lehre ■vota Logos in der griech. 
Pkilosofikie, 1872 ; J. Réville, La. doctrine da Logos dans U 

fuatriètne evangih et dans les ceuvres de Phìlon, i88r ; Ad. 
[arnack, ' Ueber das Verhaltniss des Prologs des vierlen Evgl. 
zumganzen'Werk'inZ7'Ar2, 1892, pp. 189-231 ; Hiit.of Dogma, 
ET vols. i.-iv. ; H. J. Holtzmann, HC?) 4, 1893, especially pp, 
7-ro, 40-46 ; Aal, Gesck. d. Lagos-Idee, 1899 ; W. Baldensperger, 
Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliunts, 1898 ; Jannaris, ' St. 
John's Gospel and the Logos," ZNTW, Feb. 1901, pp. 13 J'I ; cp 
also John, Son of Zebedee, § 31. a. J. 

LOIS (AtOic [Ti. WH]), Timothy's (maternal) 
grandmother (2 Tim. Is). See Timothy. 

LOOKINO-GLASS. AV's rendering of DINID Ex. 
388 (mg. 'biazen glasses'), and of 'k-i, JobST 18, RV Mirror 
ig.vS)' In Is.3z3 |v'?j is rendered 'glass' in AV, but 'band 
mirror' in RV. The meaning, however, Ìs doubtful; see 
MiRROBS. In 1 Cor. 13 12 itronrpov Ìs rendered ' glass ' by AV, 
RV Mirror. 



LOOM {n^l}, Is. 38 12 RV. See Weaving. 

LORD. On LoKD as representing niiT' (Yahwè) and 
on ' Lord' as representing ""J^N (Adonai) see Names, 

§§ 109, 119. 

' Lord ' in OT stands for one Aramaic and eight Hebrew 

(1) jinK, 'àdon, 'master.' Geii. 458 lord = m!er ; Gen. 24 14 27 
of the master (so EV) of a slave. ' My lord,' of a father, Gen. 
31 35 ; of a hiisband, Gen. 18 12 ; of a governor, Gen. 42 io ; of 
Moses, Nu. 11 28 ; of Elijah, i K. 18 7. 

(2) ':JJ3, bd'al, 'owner.'cp EV Ex. 21 2B, 'the owner ("^UD) of 

the ox ' ; Job 31 39, 'the ownersthereof '(;'.?., of a piece of land) ; 
cp WRS, Rei. Setn.m, 94. Cp Iìaal, § j. 

(3) y^, rab. See Rab, Kabiu. 

(4) "liy, sar, Ezra 8 25. See King, Pbince, 3. 

(-) ei'^E', sàlìs, 2 K. " 2 17 ] either^rpio-TÓTTii (®), see ArmY, 

S 4 ; Chariot, g 10, or a moiiification of Q'ID 'i'i Ass. sa-ris, 
'high officer, captain.' See EuNUCH. 

(6) Q'3"ip (croTprijrai, oUTpairiai, àpxoi'Tei), only in plur., of ihe 
fiue ' lords of the Philisline.s,' Josh. 183 Judg. 33 i S. 5 8 11, etc. 
According to Hoflhiann, a dialectic plur. of IB'. More probably 
a corruption of D'?p, a word which has elsewhere, too, under- 
gone corruption. The harmonising band of an early editor may 
be assumed (Che.). 

(7) -V^ì, gèl'ii-, Gen. 272937, ofEsau. 

(8) K"ID, iiìiTre, Aram, in Dan. 247 4 19 24 623 ; cp the Syrìac 
màr'yiì, ' Lord,' and iridr, 'lord.' 

(9) jtvptos, Mt.938 IO24 1327, etc. (Seinrónjs is rendered 
'master,' ejfcept where it is used of God or of Chtìst). 

(io) pappoivi. See Rabbi. 

(11) p-tv'CTÓi', in pi. Mk. C 21, kingly associates. In Rev. 615 
18 23 RV, AV, 'great men.' EV ' great man' in Ecclus.47, 
Heh. pa'?B' (cp Eccles. 848), 329 Heb. Q-jpi, 883 Heb. n"3'i] 

(mg. D'sSd)- 

LOKD'S DAY (^ KvpiaK^ ijfiépa ; dies domìnica). We 
cannot say with certainty how far back the practice of 
marking the first day of the week by acts of worship is 
traceable. This al least is probable : ' that in the 
post- a postoli e ordinance we have a continuation of 
apostolic custom ; ' ^ but the time when the Christian 
Sunday began to be observed in Palestine, where the 
observance of the Sabbath does not seem to have been 
at first superseded by it, remains utterly obscure.^ 

I Cor, 16 3 bids each person, sarà fi.iav cra^^drov 
{EV ' on the first [day] of the week'), lay by him in 
store as he may prosper (for the 
'saints' in Jerusalem), that no col- 
lections be made when the writer comes (i Cor. I62). 
!t is often possible and sometimes inevitable to infer from 
the practice of a later time that of an earJier. This has 
been done in the present case by Zahn,^ who finds clear 
though faint Iraces of Sunday observance. It must noi 
be overlooked. however, that the contribntion of each 
one is to be laid up ' by him ' {irap iavr^), i.e. , in his 
own home — not in an assembly for worship. 

This suggests an alternative explanation to that of Zahn. 
The church of Corinth consisted for the rnost part of poor, 
obscure people (i Cor. 1 26 _#^) ; possibly for many of them the 
last or the first day of the week was pay-day, ihe first day 
therefore, was the day on which they could mosc easily lay 
aside something.* i Cor. 16 therefore does not supply us with 
any assured facts as to an observance of Sunday in the Pauline 

On the oiher hand, the * we-sections ' in Acts contaln 
a valuable indication. On his way to Jerusalem, Paul 
stayed at Troas sevcn days (Acts2Ó6), the last of which 
is called «fa tùv ffa^^droìp (EV 'the first [day] of the 
week '}, the following day — Monday of onr reckoning — 
being fixed for his departure (v. 7). On this last day there 

1 Weizsacker, A/. ZeitaU.9^ 549. 

S Cp Zahn, Cssck. des Srtnntags, 179, who supposes that at 
least as early as the third decade of the second century the 
Sunday was marked by public worship at Jerusalem. 

3 Zahn, ofi. cit. 177. 

* Ecfore finally accepling or rejecting this conjecture, it wìll 
have to be considered whelher weekiy payments of wages wcre 
usuai, and also which day of ihe week was reckoned as its first 
in the civil life of Corinth. Plainly Paul is reckoning by the 

^ewish week— from Sunday to Saturday ; but Gentile aslrologers 
egan the week with Saturday (Zahn, 182, 358). 


1. NT referencea. , 


was a ' breaking of bread ' and Paul prolonged his dis- 
course with the congregalion tiU midnight (v. j). Even 
here. however, we must be carcful noi to infer too niuch. 
The passage furnishes no conclusive proof that the first 
day of the week was the regular day for celebrating the 
Lord's Supper, or that a universal Christian custom is 
here referred to, We may venture to conclude, however, 
with a fair measure of probability, that the first day of 
the week was at the time the day on which the Lord's 
Supper was observed in Troas, 

If, on the other hand, the narrator had wished it to be under- 
Etood that ihe ' breaking of bread ' which he is mentioning was 
merely ad hoc, and in connection wìlh the apostle's approaching 
departure, he wouid hardly have expressed himself as he does, 
It is much more likely that Paul fised Monday for his depailure 
iti order that he might observe the Sunday communion once 
more with his beloved brethren of Troas. This passage being 
from che pen of an eye-witness, we are juscified in regarding it 
as afFording the first faint yet unniistakable trace of a setting 
apart of the first day of the week for purposes of public woi.ship 
by Christians. 

Whether Rev. 1 io ought also to be cited in this 
connection depends on our exegesis of the passage, 0!i 
which see below. § 2. 

The younger Pliny's well-known letter to Trajan (about 

112 A.D.) does not state directly that the 'fixed day' 

_ . . . . among the Bithynian Christians for 

1, * religious worship was Sunday, though 

Otner aources. ,jjjg j^ certainly probable (cp Acts 20 7), 
Its indistinctness is compensated for by the fulness of 
the Information in Juslin Martyr's First Afology (chap. 
67), written about 150 A.d,^ 

The evidence given before PHny was to the effe et 'quod 
essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Chiisto 
quasi deo dicete secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus 
aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulcetia 
committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne deposilum appellati abne- 
garent ; quibus peraclis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque 
[coeundi] ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxìum' 
(Plin. Epp. 1096 [97], ed. Keil, 307 y:). 

Justin Martyr's words are as follows ;— ' And on the day called 
Sunday (rp toO T\hiov Atyo/it'iTi Jiitépif) there is an assembly 
(aufi^evirii) in one place of ali who live in cilies or in the 
country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the wiitings of the 
prophets (cp Canov, 9 69) are read as long as time petmits 
(jxéxp^^ *yj(*>P*') ; then, when the reader has ceased, the 
presidenC (ò npofinm) gives his exhortation to the imitalion of 
ihese good things (ttpÓkAtjitìij tjj« tcÙv KaXi>v toiÌtiuc ^ti/j^trews). 
Then we ali stand up togelher and offer prayers (_fvxà% vrfi.TToii.iv) 
and, as we before said [chap. 66), when our prayer is ended 
{navtTajifvutv tì/iùiv rijì «vvijs), bread is brought (irpocn^eptrai) 
and wine and water, and the president in likc manner sends up 
(àpaiffiiirei) prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability 
(otnj fiui'a/n! aiiTùi) and the Congregation assents (ò Aaòs 
<ir«i«^>)(iie() saying the Amen. And the participalion of the 
things over which thanks have been given is to each one (^ 
fitTaAij^iI Òtto Tcùr» tùx'V"'"'^^"^'"'' itainif, yive-Tat), and to 
those who are absent a portion is sent by the hands of the 
deacons («ni rolì oìi napovaiv Sia ru/y SiaKÓvbiv irtunerat). And 
they who are well-to-do and willing give each one as he wills, 
according to his discretion («ora npoaifHiriv è'icawTos lìjj' éavToù 
6 PoiiAerai SCBuitri), and what is collecied is deposìled with the 
president, and he himself succours (iiriKovpti) the orphans and 
widows and those who are in want (AeiTront'i-ois) Ihiough sick- 
ness or other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the 
sCrangers who are sojouining (toÌs jrap*irié^/iois (rSo-i ^tVois) ; 
and in a word he takes care of ali who are in need. And we 
ali have our common meeting (koiitj wàvre^ t»ii' aviiéXtv<riv 
Tr<itovfi.f6a.) on the Sunday because it is the First Day, on which 
God, having changed darkness and matter (tò itkÓtos «ai. tìji' 
uAi|v Tpéil/ai) made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on 
the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified him on 
the day before Saturday (t^ Tpò tjjs xpoviiiris) and on the day 
after Saturday, which is Sunday (ìJti? iiniv -^Aiov riitipa). havìng 
appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught [them] those 
things which we have submitted to you also for your considera- 
ti on.' 

Besides this passage, we have those cited in § 2, 
which are some of them oider than Justin's date. 

In the Gr^co-Roman world of the Empire, the day 
which was reckoned the first in the Jewish week was 
„g j „ called Sunday, just as the other days 
'■ of the week were named after the other 
planets ; the nomenclature is of Babylonian origìn (see 
Week). Sunday, too, is the name employed by two 
ancien! Christian writers — in works, it is true, addressed 

1 Cp Harnack, TLi: 22 [1897] 77. 


to non-Christians 1— viz. by Justin {ut supr.), twice, and 
by Tertuilian [Apol. i6, Ad nat. 1 13]. Its naturalisa- 
tion was macie easier by the consideratiou that the first 
day of the week was the day on which hght was creatyd ; 
and, moreover, the comparison of Christ to the sua was 
felt lo be apposite.'^ 

In the early church the namc ' First day ' (of Jewisli 
origin, as we have seen) and also — since the day 

A ■p;™* A ■ followed the Sabbath, or seventh day 

4. First day, . .1. 1 . t- u.u 1 . ■ ^ 

'Eighthday.' f ^^'^ week --Kighth day is of 

° ■' frequent occurreiice. Ihe two names 

are often combìned : ' The eighth day which is also the 

first. '3 

Most characteristicofall, however, is thename 'Lord's 
day' [tì Kvpi.aKÌ} -r/fiépa; also simply, jj KiipioKf}* or ij 

5 'Lord'a ''"P^"^''^ ^^(^°^)- Usually^Rev.lro(e7«i'ó/i?7i' 
dav' ^'' ^''*''/"^''' ^'' ^n KvpiaK^ Tj/xépt/.) is cited as 

"' the eariiest instance ; but the presence of 
the article before KvpiaK^ and the connection in which 
the phrase occurs both favour the other interpretation 
(supported by a weighty minority of scholars), accord- 
ing to whiuh ' the day of the Lord ' here stands for ' the 
day of Vahwè,' the day of judgmerit — in LXX rj i}/i.épa 
Tou Kupiou {as also in Paul, and elsewhere), called else- 
where in Rev. ' the great day' (fj i)p.épa i} ixeyàXti : 617 

The following early passages, however, are undisputed ; 
Diiiache 14, «ora Kvptojcrtv 5È Kupiov uvvaxSévTti «Ado-are apTOV ; 
Ev, Fet. 35, ì-ai^uiiTKtv t) itwpiajtij, and ii, 50, ópflpou Sé i-jjs 
Kupiaitqs ; Igti. ad. Magnes., 9 1, \i.-i\KÌ-ri. a-afiffaTi^ovTf^ àAkà 
(cara Kvptaji'riii ^cóifTes, èf fl "oì V f*"*! ^fi'^i' àyéreiAd' ; and the 
title of the writing of Melito of Sardis (irepi «ufuojcjjO mentioned 
by Eusebius (JYE iv. 2t5 2). Here ' Lord's Day ' has become a 
technical name for Sunday. The word Kupioitój, however, is 
not a new coìnage of tbe Chrktians (more particularly of Paul), 
as u^ed formerly to be supposed. It comes from the officiai 
language of che imperiai period ; frequent examples of iCs 
occurreiice in the sense of ' imperiai ' are to be found in 
E^yptian inscriptions and papyri, and in inscriptions of Asia 

The question as to the reason why Christiana called 
the first day of the week the Lord's day ìs not adequately 
answered by the remark of Holtzmann ' that ' the 
expression is framed after the analogy of Setirvop 
KvpiaKÒv. ' The old Christian answer was that it was 
the Lord's Day as being the day of his resurrection ; 
cp Ign. ad Magn. 9i, as above. Justin, Apol. 167, as 
above. and Baruabas 169: ' Wherefore also we keep 
the eighth day with joyfulness, on which also Jesus rose 
from the dead, and, having been manifested, ascended 
into the heavens.' ^ This answer has much to be said 
for it. The Lord's day is the weekiy recurring coni- 
memoration of the Lord's resurrection. 

How it was that Christians carne to celebrate this 
day weekiy, not only yearly, has stili to be explained. 
B n • • f Apart from the established habit of 

'weekl cele °'^s^''^'"g ^^^ weekiy Sabbath festival. 
, .: , the ancient practice of honouring 
^ '*'°* particular days by feasts of monthly 
recurrence may very probably have contributed to this 
result. In Egypt, under Ptolemy Euergetes, accordine 
to an inscription coming from the Egyptian Ptolemais,^ 
the twenty-fifth day of each month was called ' the king's 
day' {il ToO ^atriXéins 7}tJ.épa) because the twenty-fifth of 
Dios was the day ' on which he succeeded his father on 
the throne ' (év 5 irapiXa^ei' ttji' ^acriXflav irapò. tqD 

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonniags, 357. To make a distinction as 
Zahn does in the use of the name Sunday before and after 
Conslantine is to go too far. The Christian inscriptions show 
that the ' pagan ' names for the days of the week were already 
current among Christians before Constantine, Cp for example 
De Rossi, I615 (twice), and V. Schultze, Die Kaiakomben, 
34S, 1882. 

^ Cp Justin, above ; further dtations in Zaiin, 337^ 
•J Zahn, 356yr ' Eighth day' first in Barnabas, 15 a_^ 
* Cp ^ Kpov\.KÌj = dies Saturni in Justin, above, 
ti As, for example, by Harnack, Texte u. UrttersuchungeM, 
9 2 67, and Zahn, 178. 

6 See Deissmann, Neui Bi&elsiudien, 1897, p. 44./C 
' HC Ì2, 1893, p. 318. 

8 Further evidence in Zahn, 35Q,/r 

" Bull, de corresp. hcllénique, 21, 1897, pp. 1S7, 193. 



irarpòt: Decree of Canopus, I5). The Christians might 
have held the same language in speakitig of the first day 
of the week with reference to Christ. 

Of like nature is the custoni, wìdely diffused throughout the 
kingdonis of the successors of Alexander, of celebratine 'he 
birchday of the sovereìgn, not year by year only, but also month 
by month ; the existence of the custora can be clearly made out 
from recent discoveries in epigraphy, and it is implied in the 
t rad it io n— often assailed, but manifestly quite trustworthy — of 
2 MaCC. 6 7. Cp BlRTHUAV.l 

Like so many other features in the kingdoms of the 
Diadochi, these birthday customs seem to have had an 
abiding infiuence within the imperiai period. ^ The word 
' Augustan ' (Se/Sa^nJ) as a name of a day in Asia Minor 
and Egypt is at least a rerainiscence of the custom in 
question ; the name, which first became known through 
inscriptions, has been discussed by H. Usener,^ and 
after him by J. B. Lightfoot* and Th. Mommsen.* 
According to these scholars, in Asia Minor and Egypt 
the first day of each month was called Se/Sao-r^. Light- 
foot regards this as at least ' probable in itself," but 
finds that ' some of the facts are stili unexplained. ' 
Recently K. Buresch,*" without reference to the scholars 
already mentioned, has revived an old conjecture of 
Waddington, that ^.e^aiTT-j is a day of the week, not a 
day of the month. 

For this Buresch adduces two inscriptions from Ephesus and 
Kabala, and makes reference (in tbe opposite method to that 
of the present article) to the analogy of the Christian Kvptoji^. 
To his two inscriptions we may here add the Oxyrhynchus 
papyrus, 46, datingfrom 100 A. d. (stou i) y WTOKpÓTOpoi itoio-apos 
Nepoua Tpaiai'où Se^ittoÙ Tfpfi.aiHKOÌ} t/lf^dp £ Xf^airr^ : ' on 
the day of Sebaste, 4th Mechit of tbe third year of the . . , 
emperor Trajan.' 

Without venturing on a confident judgment on a very 
difficult question, we might, on the evidence before us 
conjecture that SejSaiTT^ in some cases denotes a definite 
day of the month (the first ?)., and in others, as for 
example in the inscrìpdons from Ephesus and Kabala 
as also in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus,'' a week-day — viz. 
Thursday {dies Jovis), 

If this conjecture is correct, then in the dies Jovis 
metamorphosed into a ' day of Augustus ' we should 
have an analogy to the change of the dtes Solis into 
the ' Lord's day.' As a name for a day of the month 
also Se/SaiTT^ would have a value not to be overlooked 
as an analogy for K\>pta.KÌ\.^ 

At what date the name ' Lord's day ' arose we ào 
not know. Even if we assume Rev. 1 10 to refer to the 
Sunday, it would be rash to conclude^ that Kvpu>.KÌi was 
not used before the time of Domitian. 

A. Barry in Smith and Cbeetbam's Dici. Chr. Antìq., s.v. 
'Lord's Day'; Zockler, Ji E i^) li ^^8 _^., s.rr. ' Sonntag ' ; J, B. 
de Rossi, /user, Christ. Vrbis Romce, ì. 
7. Lìterature. 1857-1861 (irpoA«vó/i«™) ; Th. Zahn, Skizzen 
a. d.' Leben d. alien Kirche, 1898, pp. i(i\ff, 
35' ff- I Geschichte des Sonntags vornehmlick in der alien 
Kiic/ie, a learned and luminous essay, in which, as in the other 
Works cited, references are given to the older lìterature of the 
subject. G. A. D. 

LORD'S PRATER. The Lord's Prayer is a signifi- 

cant example of the scantiness and incompleteness of 

1 -ni - Christian tradì tion. It is not to be found 
1. Place in 


in the second gospel- — i.e., in the oldest, 

as most scholars are agreed — {unless there 
is a trace of it in Mk. 11 25) nor in the fourth ; and the 
two gospels which contain it, refer it to difFerent occa- 
sions, and give it in varying forms. In Mt. it stands 

1 On this custom of a monthly celebration of the bìrtbday see 
also now E. Schiirer, zu 2 Macc. 6 7 (monatliche Geburtstags- 
feier), Zeìischrifi /ìir die neutest. Wissenschaft u. die Kunde 
des Urckrisientunis, 2 (1901) 48^ 

2 The Pergamtim inscription, 374 B (temp. Hadrian)expressly 
mentìons a monthly birthday festival of Augustus. 

3 Bull. delC Inst. di Corrtsp. Archealogica, 1874, pp. 73^ 
* Thè Apostolic Fathers, Part ii.ffl, 1889, ltì73_^ esp. 7147^ 
Ap. Max Frankel, Die Inschri/ten -oon Ptrgamon, '95, 

2 265 ; cp Frankel himself, ib. 512. 

8 Atts Lydien, 183B, 49^! 

' The Editors think of the day of the Empcror's accession. 
Their reference however to the Berlin papyrus 252 ts incon- 
clusive; see voi. 2 of the Berlin Papyri, 354. 

8 So Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 45^, with concurrence 
of A. Hilgenfeld, Beri. Pkilol. IVochenschri/i, xviii,, 1898, 1542. 

B Harnack, Texte u. Uniersuchungeti, 9 2, p. 67. 




{69-13) as p;irt of the ' Sermon on the Mount ' ; accord- 
ino; lo Lk. ( 1 1 2-+) it was given by Jesus at the requesl of 
a disciple, ' as he was praying in a certain place.' From 
the context in Lk. (IO38) it lias been concluded that the 
locallty was near or at Bethany or near Jeriisalern, more 
precisely the garden of Gcthst^mane. ^ (Not far from the 
traditional site of Gethsemane on the slope of the Mount 
of Olives stands to-day the church of the Pater-nosler, 
showing in the quadrangle the Lord's Prayer engraved 
on marble tablets in thirty-two languages. ) Older har- 
monists used to combine the two reports by the suggestion 
that the disciple, who, if he was one of the twelve. must 
bave been acquainted with the prayer as taught on the 
former occasion, exjjected some fuUer or more particular 
forni of prayer ; or supposed that he was not of the 
Twelve, but one of the Sevsnly {tis tì^v /xaOr/Twi'). Before 
this, Origen had explained the faci that in Lk, a shorter 
form is given than on the Mount by the remark eliiòs ye 
TTpòs fièv ròv fia$7}TT}f, are Si} ùipeKT^névoi', elprjKévai tòv 
KvpLov tÒ iiriTOfuijirfpoi'j Trpòs de roùs vXeloiras, deofxévovs 
TpavOTtpas SiSaaKoKias, rà tra-tpéarepov {De Orai. 30 1 ; 
ed. Koetschau. 2393). Modern e.tegesis finds in this 
difference a proof of twofold tradition, and is on the 
whole inclined to see in the place to which Lk. refers 
the prayer. the better tradition, the 'Sermon on the 
Mount' having received a later insertion. So. e.g., 
Arthur Wright {Some NT Problems, 26 ; The Composi- 
tion of the Four Gospels, 75), who insìsts that in Mt. it 
breaks the parallelism of the context ; and Geo. Hein- 
rici.^ Accordìng to Baljon [Comm. on Mt., Utrecht, 
1900), Mt. seized the opportunity to bring the Lord's 
Prayer ' which he found in the Logia ' into the ' Sermon 
on Ihe Mount,' because Jesus was speaking there of 
praying. But it is quite impossible to say anything 
definite on the source or sources from which Lk. and 
Mt, took the piece. Even the hapax legomenon éirioó- 
(n.07, which is common to both texts, does not prove 
unity of source, or that Greek was the language of that 
source. It is just as possible that Mt. had the Lord's 
Prayer l>efore him ( written or orai) in Aramaic or Hebrew, 
and gave it himself in one of these Semitic dialects, and 
that only the Greek wording of the First Gosjiel was in- 
fluenced by the language of the Third Gospel.' 

According to Lk. , the disciple asked 'Lord, teach 
US to pray, as John also taught his disciples.' That 
the disciples of John were addicted not only to much 
fasting (Mt. 9i4 Mk. 2iS), but to much praying,* Lk. 
alone tells us (533). To add fresh petitions on particu- 
lar subjects to received forms of prayer, is but naturai 
in ali times ; certain rabbis (R, Eliezer and R. Johanan) 
are specially mentioned as having done this.'' In this 
way the Baptist may have added to the prayers then in 
use among the Jews some special prayer. and may have 
taught it his disciploe. Such an apocryphal prayer is 
found in Syriac MSS, whether also in Greek and Latin 
the present writer does not know.^ 

' M. Margolinuth, The Lords Prayer, pp. 7, 10, and, with 
better reasons, J. A. Robinson, ' On the localily in which the 
Lord's Prayer was given,' in F. H. Chase, ' The Lord's Prayer 
in the early Church,' TST 3, i8pi, pp. 323-5. 

^ Die Bcrgpfedìgt ( Re formai 101 la- Program m), Leipsic, iBgg, 
pp. 24, 34, 70, 75. 

3 For this view cp especially Zabn, Einl. 2312; for the 
oppo^itP view, that én-itnìo-ioi was coined by Mt. or one of his 
felinw-workers, see A. Wright, The Gospel according io Si. J.uke, 
rgoo, p. 102. 

* The latter statement is apparently questioned by Julicher, 
Gleichnisreden Jesu, 23. 

S Ligbtf., Hor. Hebf. on Mt. 6; art. 'Schemone Esre' in 
Hamburger, RE 2 [1883], 1098. 

* The prayer 'which John taught his disciples' redds thus 
in the Syriac Bodleian MS, Pococke, io : 

' God malte us (or me) worthy of thy kingdom and to rejoicc 
God show me the baptism of thy Son.' 
Zotenberg's ratalogues of the Syriac MSS in Paris mentìon 
a prayer of John (whelher identica! with the preceding or not) 
in MS 13 [20] (after the canticle of Zacharias, Lk. 2 19-32) and 
ili. [3I, among some prayers for the canonica! hours (332 [sii] in 
Syriac or Carshuni). 

Not only as to the occasion but also as to the text of 
the Lord's Prayer, there is a twofold tradition. That of 
Mt. became the form which passed into 

2. Wording. 

general use ; that of Lk. sufFered altera- 


28 17 

tion even in the MSS of this Gospel, 

(ti) In Mt. the modern criticai editions offer hardly 
any variatìon. The form éXBéru) of TR instead of 
è\QàTu> is reiained by Alford and Weìss, by Weiss also 
the article t^s before -y^s ; but dtpU/j,ev of the TR is 
generally given up for àtp-qKap-iv. On the doxology, 
see the revisers' marginai note, and the notes of WH, 
pp, 8-10. WH gave it a place among the ' Noteworthy 
Rejected Readings,' Weiss at the foot of his page. 

The criticai apparalus may he supplemented by Ihe following 
lemarks r^ 

(i) In the AposioUc Constìtations the Bodl. MS mise, grfcc. 
204 ( = Au(:t.T. 24 — on Its recovery see TLZ, 1899, col. 207) has 
3 iBj TTttpaTTTttf/AaTa, jca^uj^, omits cu^C^t^ePt and cioses : otl trou 
itrTiv TI pacriAeia toÙ Trarpòs ti' ToC vioO Kaì toìì àyiov jri'fVfioiTOS 
vìff KoX àgi Koi eÌ^ tovs aìcLi'a^ tuv alun'ùiv' àfi.^ì'. See on this 
form of the doxology the embolism of the extant Greek liturgica 
(Briglitman, 60, 446, 460). 

(2) For èiri y^s or ini TÌJ5 yiìs, cp E. Miller's Texttial Com- 
mentar^ on the Gosfeìs, I.. for Clemenl, Barnard (JTS 5 5) ; the 
new edition of Origen is divided : t^ is found ii. 340 16, where 
the Lord's Prayer isquoted in fu!!, 3(i0 18 363 S; in other passages 
It is omitted. The Curetonian Syriac has the plural for 'thy 

(3) The Sinai codìces o^'i^^Evangcliarium Hierosoly-mitanutn 
(ed. Lewis-Gibson) wilness to «oì tAtì.; so does the Lewis- 
Paiimp.sest of syr"^!, which breaks off afler this word. Cp the 
additional note of Burkitt in WH (impression of 1896), who 
refers to the Syriac Acts of Thomas (ed. W. Wright, 313), 
where the Lord's Prayer is given in full from syr'f without 
doxology. That the copyist m k (Codex Bobiensis) was so little 
acquainted with Chrìstianity that he was ab!e to write ■oeni ad 
regn-um (uum is justly pointed out by Burkitt (Cambridge Uni- 
V£rsity Reporter, 5th March, 1900). 

(4) In the Syriac MS Pococke, io (see above [§ i n. 64J), 
on the margin is written ^OmmwO 'and our sins,' as to be in- 

serted afler 'our debt.s.' This is also the reading in the Acts of 
Thomas, 313, 

(s) Special mention has to be made of the Didachè, which 
offers at the opening i.v tw <yvpa.v^ iè\&éTio\ ttjv o^etÀì^v ^/ii^^, 
(àtjtif/i.ti'), oTt iToi) iiTTtv -Il iuitijutì KoX ij Só^a flt Toùs oicùi'ai. On 
the word òi/jetA^, cp G. A. Deissmann, Neve Bibelstudien, 48 
(= Bible Studies, 1901), and compare with this singular, 
the similar singular 'unsere Schuid ' for 'tinsere Schulden' in 
certain recensions of Luther 's Catechism, and in Dutch, where 
' Schulden ' are money-debts (Baijon, Com?n. 94). 

{ò) In Lk, the text suffered much in MSS and 
editions by assimilation to that of Mt. In TR it differed 
from Mt. only by èiSov iifiiv tò Ka&' ■rjij.ipav, ràr àfio-p- 
Ttas, (cai yàp aùroi àipUp-ev iravrl òipelXovTC ijfuv, and 
the omission of the doxologj-. The criticai editions 
have shown that the ìnvocation in Lk. is only irà-Tep, 
and that the third and seventh petitions are tolally 
absent. In the rest, there is full agreement, though 
Weiss again writes è\6ÌTu> with TR. Ali prefer à^iofiev 
to the à<f)t(fiev of the TR. 

There is one very tnteresting variant treated at length in 
the apparatus of WH : éASeViu rò iiyioi' irpeufià <rov t^' ijiiat Koi 
Ka9apii7a.Tiii lijiàs- To supplement the remark of WH (repeated 
in 1896) that no other record of this singular reading is extant 
(besides the explicit testi mon y of Greg. Nyss-, Maximus Con- 
fessor, and Tertullian), it shouid be noted that cod. evang, min. 
604 ( = 700 in the list of Gregory=^Egerton 2610, in the British 
Museum) has this vtry reading in the text of Lk. (see H. A. C. 
Hoskier, A full account and coHatìon of the Greek Cursive 
Codex Èvangeliuiii, 604 I1890], who gives a photographic re- 
production of the passage, and Chase, 24). Whether in the 
reading è^' ijnà? which is added in cod. D and various forms of 
the second pelition,! a trace of this Marcìonitic reading is 
extant. may he doubled. Marcion wrote further tòi' aproi' trov 
Tov èTTiotimoi', perhaps tòì à/mprioì instead of rà o^tiK-fiinnii 
(on the second clatise there is no testimony extant), and pur fiìj 
a"i>es -^fiàs eiiTeve)(6Tjva.L, a dogmatic alteralion, whìch (inde, 
pendently, it would seem) appears also in Latin in Cyprian {De 
Or. e. 25). in Latin MSS of the Go!^pe!s (see Chase, p. 62 j?!), 
and in several settings of the Liturgy, as 'suffer us noi lo be led ' 
or ' let US not be led into teraptalion. ' ^ 

1 In German, 'za uns komme dein Reich,' or 'zukomme uns 
dein Reich.' In the so-called Bishops' Eook, 'thy kingdom 
come unto US.' 

2 See Chase, who quotes (he so-ca!led King's Eook of 1593, 
and W. H. Frere, 'Edwardine Vernacular Services,' in Jotim. 
l'h. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 242. 


4. Meaning. 


In a passage like the Lord's Prayer, every minute 
_ w -mtt ' detail such as numbering and arrange- 

■ 'tnd*'"'^ ment and even orthography deserves 
. careful attention. 
arrangement. Augustine {Enchirid. nò) remarks 
' Lucas in oratione doniinica petitiones non septem sed 
quinque complexus est,' The number seven became 
thenceforth traditional in the Roman Catholic and the 
Lutheran Church. But the same Augustine argued : 
' quod ille { Mt. ) in ultima posuit : libera nos a malo, iste 
(Lk. ) non posuit, ut intelligeremus ad illud superius 
quod de tentatione dictuni est pertinere.' In accordance 
with this view, Origen and Chrysostom counted six 
petitions ; they are followed by the reformed churches. 
WH prìnt the Lord's Prayer in Mt. in 2 x 3 stichi, in 
Lk. without strophic arrangement. Wordsworth-White 
make, in their Latin NT, of Pater-nomen iuum one 
stichus, of et ne inducas and sed libera two. Hetze- 
nauer's reprint of the Vulgate puts a full stop after every 
petition, therefore also : ' ientaiionem. Sed.' In the 
Greek text Weiss places a colon only after 7^1, WH 
after 7^5, a^ixepov, and ij/j-dv, while Brightman (Liiur^ 
gies) omits ali punctuations in the second half, and 
separates the first half by commas. AV, RV, and 
Prayerbook need hardly be quoted. The divisìon and 
arrangement of WH prove the best. 

No attempt can be made here to give an exhaustive 
explanation of this ' Breviarium totins evangeli! ' as 
TertuUian styled it, or ' Ccelestìs doc- 
trinas compendium,' as Cyprian called ìt. 
' Oratio htec,' said TertuUian, 'quantum substringitur 
verbis, tantum diffunditur sensibus, ' Some philological 
remarks, however, are necessary. 

(i) The exordium. — 'The abrupt -Tràrep,' says A. 
Wright [Gospel of Luke [igoo], 103), ' is softened down 
in St. Matthew by an editorial addilion which in identical 
or equivalent terms occurs in Mt. 5 1645 etc. (19 times) ; 
only once in St. Mark (Ilas) ; not at ali in St. Luke' ; 
but see Lk. 11 13. ' In the West there is evidence that 
the abruptness was eased by prefixing the originai Ara- 
TOsXc abba{TioXabbun, ' our father '). So Rom. 815 Gal. 
46 (Mk.1436).' It is better to say that the Aramaic 
originai ' Abba ' was preserved even in Greek surround- 
ings, but explained by the addition of the translation ó 
Trar^/) (as in Mk. 541, roXttftt through tò Kopdaiov). 

That not only the isolated irarep of Lk., but also irartp 
ijfiùi' of Me. can cortespond to K3N is sufficiently shown by 
Dalman, IVarie Jesu, 157, though foc a prayer the more 
solemn «'3N (in Hebrew), K313(( (Aramaic), \ro.V (Galilean), 
seems to Dalman more probable. For the ìsolated warep or 
òiranipcp Mt. 11 26 Mk.Ujs Lk. 22 42 with Mt. 263942 Lk. 
(15 12 18 21) 233446 Jn. 11 41 1227/ 17 15 21 24 (with 10 25) or 
Cle^- L ad Cor. 8 3 : iàv èTriirrpa'^TjTe irpÒ9 fii r^ oA^9 Trjt 
«apStos jcaì tlirqTe Tldrep, firaKov(rofi,a,i ifiiiv, the Syriac trans- 
lation has here p3({ (our father). 

That the imperative forms àyiatrO-^o) and •yeyt}$-/ìrii} 
may be used for the optative, eÙKTiKÙs not strictly 
TpooTo/cTiKÓlr, is shown by Origen {De Or. 24 s, ed. 
Koetschau, 2353/!) with reference to some remarks of 
Tatian on ■yeKì]0-^Tu in Gen. 1 3. 

On the use of the passive aorist of this verb instead of the 
middle see Blass, Granttnatik des neutestafittntlicktn Grie- 
chisck, % 20, i). (In Gen. 1 3 yei^flqT» of LXX gives place in 
Aquila and Longinus {de Sublimi) to yti-»(rflio, in Symmachus 
to ttrrn, in the Oracula. Sibyllina, 1, 9, to yeivarfu.) On the 
Semitic originai presupposed by ^«lOjS^no, see below, % 5 [4]. 

(2) iiriaùffioì. The remark of Origen,^ that the word 
is not found elsewhere in Greek, is stili true despite the 
recent increase of Greek literature through the newly 
discovered papyri ; on its meaning, therefore, tradition 
must be heard, and the question settled, if possible, by 
philological reasons. 

[a] The oldest tradition seems to be that represented 
in syr"(cur. , sin. andActs of Thomas) by «an'j (or pnb) 
Ill'DN, {o\xv) Constant, continuai bread. 

1 The passage is important, and deserves study {JJe Orat. 27 7 
= KoetscIiau, 2366^). 



This l'on is, in the Pesh. of the OT, the regular rendering for 
Heb. TOR; see especially Nu. 4?, "l'CJjri Qnh ('continuai 
bread ' EV), and it is a strange coincidence, that not only the 
Armenian version of 2 Macc. translated 1 8 (jrpoeftjica/iei' toùs 
àprous) by the same word as in NT tòv uotov ijiiiòi' tòv 
sjrioucrtoi' 1 but also the mediasval Jew, Shemtob ben Shaphrut, 
to whom is due the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew, 
published in the i6th century by Miinster and Mercier, and re- 
publìshed in 1879 by Ad. Herbst,^ hit upon the corresponding 
Hebrew word TDO. translating Qrn M^ jn 'Tcn UCnS nn- He 
even formed from tcd sn adjective 'TGn, which in biblical 
Hebrew is as unheard of as {7riovo-n>s in Greek from «itioOo-a. 
T. R. Crowfoot, Observations on . . . Cureton Syriac Frag- 
tnents (1872, p. ro), and C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jeiaish 
Fathers (1877, p. 141), seem to bave had no knowledge of this 
medieval predecessor when they proposed Trn as originai for 

(b) The same tradition seems represented in the West 
by the old Latin * cotidianus ' and the Gothic ' hlaif un- 
saranathana jjwi'^iwaw' (cp the same word in 2 Cor. 11 23 
= K'kS' T]niépci.v and the adv. , sinteino for Sia. vavròì, 
TràvTore, ad) and the Old German etnissigaz (Vaterunser 
of Weissenburg). 

(e) With the ' venientem ' of the Sahidic version is to 
be compared Cyril (Lue. 265), ai fikv fli/al <pa<Tt tòv 
ij^ovrà Tf Kal SoOriaònevov KaràTÒv a-lùva tÒv /xéWovra, 
while he himself explained : 8rt t^s étp-rj/xépov rpo4>riì 

TÒy aiiràpKt} diavoeiadai xpi}. The Coptic has crastinum. 

(d) The Peshitta has ' the bread of our need,' and is 
followed by the later Syriac translation of Polycarp and 
Thomas of Heraclea, who formed the rare adjective 
|jiiaJttflO 'our needy bread.' The Palestinian, trans- 
lating "our bread of richness,' took èTTtoiJfftoi in the 
sense of irfi/iioiJtrios. 

{e") Jerome tried the word snpersuòstaniialis, ' sub- 
stantivus ' or ' superventurus ' ; Vìctorinus, * consubstan- 
tialis. ' [Hence J. B. Jona in his Hebrew version of the 
Gospels (Romae, MDCLXViii) even gives cvpn-Vjf Hpn^-] 

{/) It would be of the highest importance to be 
assured of the accuracy of Jerome's repeated statement 
that the 'Gospel of the Hebrews,' which he identified 
at times with the Semitic originai of Matthew, had 
tndhdr (ino). Two vìews are possible. The one is 
that this màhdr is a translation from the Greek, resting 
on etymology ; if this be so, the explanation has no 
more value than any other. The other is that this 
màhdr represents the Jew ish- Christian form of prayer of 
400 A. D. (or thereabouts), which was also known about 
60-65 A.D. in Jerusalem, Kokaba, Bercea. 

For the latter view strong reasons are given, especially by 
TV.ZsHa.TijGeschichtedes Kanons,'ìm-^-]oii', Ein/.^^ii; for the 
former see R. H. Kennett in A. Wright's Gospel of S. Lake, 
102. It is true, nriD( 7) IJpn? sounds a little strange in Hebrew, 
and so indeed does the Aramaic ino '"I XJDri?; but it is so 
in other languages also, and there are philological reasons which 
strengthen this tradition. 3 

On this side of the question see Wjner-Schmiedel, Grantm. 
% 16 n. 23, and the literature there mentioned. Origen '5 view 
thac the word comes from ini and oÙ<tui, or from *irt and «Ivai, 
is less likely than the other, thaC it is derived from hn-Uvai, more 
especially from 57 ittiovan, se. ìifiipa, the following day. If we 
compare James 2 15, rijì ii^/iepou Tpo^^s, the way of the RV 
seems the best, — to leave ' our daily bread ' in the text and to re- 
mark that literally it means ' our bread for the coming day.' 

Comparing Prov. 308 'pn DnS (AV * food convenient 
for me. ' mg. ' of my allowance ' ; RV ■ food that is need- 
ful for me,' mg. 'Heb, the bread of my portion'). 
Del. , Salk. -Gi. , Resch translate ì:pn DnS ; Ronsch (like 
the Palestinian version), ìinVjp cnh; Taylor (like the old 

1 This is the origin of the statement in H-P, on 7 Macc. 1 a, 
' tres codices Sergi! ' aproi/s ìiriouirious. to which Deissmann (Neve 
Bibehtuditn, 41) and Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 'gg, p. 157) called 

2 On this edition see the presene writer's review, Lit. Ceniral- 
blatt, i83o, no. 11. 

3 See also Jerome's Comm. on Mt.6 (Vallarsi, 7 34), the Anec- 
dota Maredsolana, ed. Morin, III. 2 (1896) 262, where the most 
definite statement occurs r — ' In Hebraico evangelio secundum 
Matthaum ita habet : Fanem nostrum crasttnutn da nohis 
hodie. ' 


IjORD'S peayee 

Syriac and Shemtob), Ki'in KDnS or Ton cnS. Arnold 
Meyer {Muttersprache Jesu, 1896) thinks of Aramaic 
riBc, 'suffìcient. ' Chase's conclusion is that the originai 
may simply have been ' Give us our (or ' the ') bread of 
the day.' M. Schultze {Gramm. der aram. Mutter- 
sprache Jesu, 1899, § 113) gives lafima di sork-àna and 
'ISIS is given by ' the last reviser of the last versìon of 
the Hebrew NT' quoted by M. Margoliouth, who finds 
Ihis ' utterly inconceivable.' proceeding 'front a sheer 
mania for alteration.' That it refers to the needs of 
common life and must not be taken allegorically (as 
Marcion and many since his time have taken it) is now 
almost universally admitted. 

(3) ■>rovr}pov ; maio. Whether this be masculine or 
neuter, cannot in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac be decided 
from the form alone. For the Greek NT see the ex- 
haustive investigalion of Chase. Shemtob translated 
in ^jo (changed in the edition of S. Miinster). There 
is an early allusion to this meaning in the Didaché 
(10 5), /Àv^ffdrjTt, KÌpi€,rTJs éKK\7]ffiaì (7ov, p'óaa.ada.i. avTÌ]v 
OTTO jrai-TÒs TTovyipou. The Ethiopic, Coo (see Bright- 
man. Liturgie^, 234), has ' Deli ver ns and rescue us 
from ali evil.' The same combination of the two verbs 
by which in the Peshitta pZatLL is rendered (Mt. ) ,0^ 

and (Lk. ) )-3, is found in the Nestorian Liturgy 

(Brightman, ago), ' Save and deliver us from tke 
evil ofie and his hosts.' Taylor {Sayings, 142 ff.) 
writes • The originai form of the petition can scarcely 
have been jrin p 13'7'srii ' ; but may it not have been 
ynn ns"D uS'sm ? On the ;n is" or jj-i.t '>, see Taylor's 
note. It seems on the whole the most probable view 
to take ìt as masculine. The Arabie text published by 
Mrs. M. D. Gibson {Studia Sinaitica, 7 14, has 
' from the Satan ' and adds Ktipte after ' temptation ' ; cp 
on the latter addition, Brightman, Liturgie:. 469, l. 54. 

(4) For the doxology, cp not only i Ch. 29 n, but 
also Dan. 237 i Esd. 43840 and the Prayer of Mansis- 
seh (end). The earliest quotations are in Polycarp, ad 
Philipp. 6 and 7. 

In former times Grotius (especially), and, later, 

Wetstein expressed the view that the Lord's Prayer was 

_ _ ..a combination of lewish prayers 'ex 

6. Connection ^ i- ti , '^ ' . 

.,. - , , formuhs Hebraeorum concmnata. 
■»mn Jewisn Q,fjerg ^^^^ further, and maintained 

±Tayers. ^^^ ^^^ Lord's Prayer consisted of the 
èeginnings of prayers, singled out by Jesus as suitable 
for his foUowers. Stili more extravagant statements, as 
that Jesus had gathered the Lord's Prayer out of the 
Zendavesta, need not detain us (see PRE'^'^'> 476B). On 
the other band, Dr. M. Margoliouth in 1876 endeavoured 
to show that the Jewish Liturgy never contained any- 
thing so glorious, so august, and so comprehensive, 
His work, entitled The Lord's Prayer no Adaptaiion 
of existing Jewish Prayers, is, however, rather rhetorical 
than historical and criticai in character. The truth is 
that we may say of the Lord's Prayer — ^applying what 
Theodore Zahn lately wrote (i^DriirA««^««, 6 [1900] 153) 
of the teaching of Jesus as a whole^that Jesus uttered 
things which were said almost literatly by Jewish teachers 
before and after him. On the other hand, 'duo si 
faciunt idem, non est idem '; and even if for the separate 
parts, words, thoughts of the Lord's Prayer parallels 
can be adduced from Jewish sources, as a whole this 
prayer reraaìns unique. Moreover, it is difficult to be 
certain of the exact age of the parallels adduced. The 
Jewish Liturgy has had a complicated history, if we 
mention only the most famous pieces of it,' the Shimd, 
the Shimonéh ' Esrèh, the Kaddfsh, the Abinii Malkènù, 

I On the Skètna and ShèmStiih 'Esrih see Schiirer, GVI 
8 s 459.^ ; Dalmati, Worie Jesu, 290 (for literature, see p. joi) ; 
Hamburger (^ea/ /JHcfc/. 2 n ; ' Abendgebet,' 11 ; ' Kaddisch," 
603^: ' Morgengebec,' 8o2^: 'Mussafgebet,' 815^!; 'Schema,' 
ìo^lff.; 'Schemone-Esre,' 1092^; 'Abinu Malkenu,'in Sappi. 
II. ['gì, pp. i^f^I); Schechter, "Some Rabbinic Paraìlels to the 
NT,' '\TiJQR, Apr. 1900, p. 429. 



and since Christian scholars are (apart from Dalmati) 
behindhand in thorough and criticai study of docu- 
ments (cp Prayer), it seems best to restrict ourselves to 
some of the most remarkable and indisputable Jewish 

For OT parallels see the Bible (RV) with marginai references, 
Dittmar, Vetus Tesiameniutn in Novo (1899), and Hiihn, Die 
alttestatnentlichen Citate und R enziniscensen ini Neuen Tes- 
(amen/e [i5™I (Part II. of ' Die Messianischen Weissagnngen '), 

(i) Exordiumi irÀrcp, orirÀTcp'^iJ.ùvò évovpavoìS- It 

is the Jewish custom to add 0"pB'3(E*), Ht'nv/T!. ' (who) is 
in heaven ' to 3K where it is used of God ; but in prayer, 
even among Jews the isolated tj-^K is noi unusual. The 
fundamental passage for the designatìon of God as 
Father is Ex. 4 22. (Cp Father. ) 

For ShémOnèh 'Esreh, cp 4 and 6 in both recensions (the 
Palestinian detected by Schechter among the MSS from the 
Genizah of Cairo and published in JQK 10 [1898], pp. 654-9 ! re- 
printed at the end of Dalman's Die ÌVerte Jesu, I., 299, and, in 
the Babylonian, Dalman, 301 ff.), rtjitfD n;»! ìrpK Wjn and 
V)"2N 5J^ nSp, ani3 in the Babylonian form 5iniin^ »'3K 1J3"»;7. 
where the Palestinian has T]'^k ''• m'C-X On the IJsSa '1"3N 
(the prayer for New Vear and Day of Atonement) see Ham. 
burger, l.c. Suppl. II.i; on D'cn'irt DK, 'Father of mercies" 
(2 Cor. 1 3 ; Berakhoth 8) and D'pn-|T 3N H'2K '(in the prayer 
before ihe Shema), Hamburger, I. S. In ihe Kaddìsb Dlp 
K;P^3T K]13t(, for which the Kaddish de Rabbanan has NHO'D 'p 
**y^5f1 N^SE''"!. 'before the word of heaven and earth,' and 
another recension, NI 2» «"IO, ' the Lord of heaven and earth,' 
Dalman, 305. In Aramaic, K'n^3'1 J313N occursasintroducdon 
to the recital of Ex. 15 ; see /ì>ìI/G: 54 ii'e, 

(2) ó.'yuio-O-^u, comp, in Shémònéh 'Esreh, 3, &inp 
ip^ Kgi]l «DM, in the Babyl. recension with transposi ti on 
E^ig ^pEJi cng nntt and the sequel ^ìSSn- nv-Sja D'Phpi 
rh^ for fi'ipSap aiSx pNi ; further Bab. 18, tìOptin iS'jci' 

The divine name occurs further in Bab. i (lop lyD^i 'for his 
narae's sake') 13 ^cp^ D'nBl2n, 'that trust in thy name"; in 
thy name we trust. The Kaddish begins : ira» Bnpri'l S^|n' 
^^E'/^t' H^^' 'magnified and hallowed be his great name in the 
worid ' ; afterwards, eight more such verbs are placed together 
referring to ' the name of holiness, blessed be be (or it) ' : -["i^n* 
Tia KìTipn n'DB; }K<oit>-\ ^r\x\') nSyn'i oonn'i nKBn'i nsriB" 
(^l,^, ' blessed, praised, and beautified, and extolled, and elevated, 
and glorified, and lifled up, be the name of holiness, blessed bc 
he.' ' Any benediction which is withouc mention of hajsetn 
it-e., niri'') is no benediction at ali ' ; b. Beriikhoth, 40^, 

(3) ÌXAÌt». Any benediction (cp the preceding) 
which is without Malkutk is no benediction at ali : 
b. Béràkhòth, 40 J. 

ShemOneh 11 [Bab. adds nirip] ri^af» NBH 13'Sy 'il^^pl, 'and 
be king over us (quickly) — thou alone' (opposed to [12] fil37D 
P"il. 'the kingdom of pride'); cp no. 14, n-PO 111 n'3 niD^ 
ipis, I7(variant «nn p'DDl al» W l^D '3)- 

Kaddish, rt'mj^D ';ì5'p', 'may his kingdom reìgn'; but read 

with Dalman T7P', ' may he make ìt rcign ' ; the Kaddfsh de- 
Rabbanan adds (in one recension, rt'np's), ' in his glory,' and 
connects it with the kingdom of bis Messiah. 

(4) 7€VT]fl^M. Whether in Hebrew r\wT or --rx- be 
the better translation, can be doubted. Shemtob, 
Del., Salk.-Gi. , and Resch adopted nii'i'; ; M, Mar- 
goliouth preferred ',t, the readingof the previous Hebrew 
version which comes to us from Dr. M, S. Alexander 
(the first Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem), Dr. S. M 'Caul, 
and Stanislaus Hoga ; the Ss^rian versions have ttirt, with 
the exception of the Evangeliarìum Hierosolymitanum, 
which, in accordance with its usuai dìction, has 'viyTC- 

In Jewish prayers there seems to be no exact parallel ; but cp 
BèrakhOtli, 29/', where Rabbi Eliezer answers the request for a 
short prayer by saying 'ji ^Jfoo D'.'DB'a ^JlST naT» ' Do thy will 
in heaven above ' (Taylor, Sayings, 139. Hamburger, 1098 
n. 6), and Bèr3khoth, if>b, m^B- D'cn» l3'n->ri '" t^sSd pn "n'i 
' May it be iby will, O Lordj our God, to make peace in the 
famìly above and in the family below.' In ShémiJnèh 'Ksréb, 


cp '3i "]ll!iT 'CIJ? Dy? ' with those who do thy will' and i6, 
ìyrÒK '• ns"l, ' be pleased O Lord our God ' ; in the Babyl. re- 
cension i6 H'aini loy ^N-tB" mjj Ton lls^^ rr-nm psna ^2pn- 
In the Kaddish p3niJ73 THVnnl p^nlSs ^3pnn. 'may your 
prayer be accepted and m&y your petition be dune.' 

{5) tÌv dpTov. Noexact parallel in Jewish prayers. 
There is a petition for t>lessing of the year in Shènionéh 
'Esreh 9, in Hàblnenù flnd elsewhere, and the saying of 
R. Eliezer haggàdòt (<;znrii 40-120 A. D.). * Whosoever has 
a bit of bread in bis basliet and says, What shall I eat to- 
morrow ? must be reckoned among thoso of little faith ' 
{Sòtd. 48à). 

On the different translations of firtov<rioì, see above, § 4 (z). 

(6) Koi\ &^. SMrAoneh 6, t;'? iJKcn '3 ìr^N ijS n'7p 
V'VjàB [^^y^tl] nnp, in ihe Babyl. recens. 16 ^y^y orni [o^n] ; 
also in Hàblnenù. rò. òipeiK-^/Aara (expression from 
business- life) is more ^wriuin (Del. , Marg. ; alsoShem- 
tob, who renders òipecXérai^ riixQ>v, ij-main "hiszh) than = 
«riD'i'N (Salkinson-Ginsburg, Resch). 

(7) A% vt\.p<ury.6v- Shemtob, Del-, |VS] 't^ ; Salk.- 
Gi. , Resch, nOD "t^ ; the reviser, rightly chailenged by 
M. Margoliouth (p. 95), iiDpS ; Munstcr, fi'D]3 for 

Shemtob's '3 n'']'- 

The expression jTp] «i>^ , , . i)j{'2fl 7(t1 occurs in ihe 
morning prayer (cp Rècàkhtlth, 60^. Margoliouth, gS, Taylor, 
142 /.) ; biit this prayer seems lo heCray a later origin than 

Ihe Lord's Prayer: -]-^ »S_l]K"3n ^«1 • ■ ■ Y^B^D Jl<iT '^'l 

1J3 T^ihe/n "jKi |Ti3 n'^ n'71 p'DJ 't'? kSi m^y n''? kSi non 

(8| airi» Tov irov))pOv. In the prayer which Rabbi 
used lo say after the usuai prayer according to Bérak- 
hòth. i6i, he mentions, among the evils from which he 
desires to be delivered. after yi -ih"D V pJDDi VI D"'** 
Ifi pB'D VT lano. also n-n^aT jatrai, ' and from Satan the 
Destroyer' (Taylor, 142/). 

(9} Ali the expressions of the Doxology occtir in 
Jewish prayers in, ip-, jbW. TJf. rrniì- 

Among early commentaries, see those of Origen (voi. il., ed. 
by Koetschau) and Cyprìan ; among modero treatise» that 
of Kamphausen (1866), F. H. Chase's Tke 
6. Literature. LonCs Prayer in tke Earty Church(Texts 
and Siadìe\; 3 [1891]), where too the litera- 
ture is duly noted, C. W. Stubbs, The Social Teaching 0/ ihe 
Lord's Prayer {ii^od). 

A portxon of the Lord's Prayer, from a day tablet of about the 
fourth century, a.d, found at Megara and now in the National 
Museum at Athens, has been published lately by R. Knopf 
{Miltheil. des Kais. Deuisck. Arck. Instituts: Aikeniscke 
Abtheilung, xxv. 4 [1900] 313-324). The tablet is broken, but 
ends dirò toO iroi-ijpoù. Then foUows Kvpit and the monogram of 

Christ ^ . Eb. N. 


LO-BUHAMAH (HOnT nS, § 23, 'unpitied' ; 0Y»< 

HAeHMeNH [BAQ], cp nipna ì6, Is. 54ii), and Lo- 

AMMI (^Slf N7, 'not my pcople' ; oy A&OC MOY 
[BAQ]), symholical names given to Hosea's daughter 
and son, to signify that Yahwè would cease to bave 
mercy upon the house of Israel, and that they were no 
more hìs people, nor he their God (Hos. I6-9; see 
Rom. 925 I Pet.2io). Cp Hosea, § 6, Jezreel, § i, 
col. 2459. 

The antilhesis comes at the dose of (he prophecy in chap. 
2zi^[23^](to whichprobably 1 io-2 i [2 1-3] isto beappended), 
'In that day ... 1 will pity ('ripni) Lo-ruhamah, and to Lo- 
ammi I will say "Thou art my people" ' (223(25]) . . . 'Say 

uhere the true test, the present writer thinks, spoke of Jebusites 
and Jerahmeelites as the inhabitants of old Jeru.salem), we get a 
close parallel to Hosea; for -a. 2/13 shouid in this case rim, 'and 
it shall hecome Lo-jerahmeel — i.e., 'on whomGod hathnopity.' 
See Crii. Bìb, -p. K. C. 

LOT (^"113), Josh. 186. See Divination. § 2 (iv.). 
Ei'HOD, Urim and Tmummim. 


LOT (Oi?, AijJt)' a righteous man, who by the divine 
favour escaped from the catastrophe which befel the 
1 n hi '^i*^'^^'^ '^'^y ^^ Sodom (Gen. 191-29) ; he is 

■ ... also said to bave been brother's son lo 

■ Abraham, whom he accompanìed from his 
fatherland (124/^), but from whom he parted at length 
owing to disputes between theìr shepherds, and to bave 
been allowed by his generous uncle to choose the Jordan 
valley for himself and his flocks (13 5-12) ; a later 
tradition says that Abraham made a successful expedi- 
tion to resene Lot who had been taken captive by 
Chedorlaomer and the aUied kings (14 1214 16). It 
shouid be noticed bere that the story in 12 10-20 is 
probably one of the later insertions in J ; hence the 
otherwise surprising circumstance that no nnention is 
made in it of Lot. The words * and Lot with him ' are 
an editorial correction (cp Oxf. Hex. ). The Moabites 
and Ammonites are cailed by two writers the b'ne Lot 
(EV 'children of Lot'), Dt. 2919 Ps. 83 9 [8] ; a 
legendary account of their origin is given in Gen. I930-38 
(cp Ammon, Moab). 

In the latter story the progenitorof Ammon and Moab appears 
as dwelling ' in the cave ; or, more precisely, two parallel slate 
menls are made in w. 30*1 and 301^, ' he dwelt in the mountain 
(Tria) and 'he dwelt in the cave ' (iny83). Hence thequestion 
arises whether ' in the cave ' may not be a gloss on ' in the moun- 
tain ■ (so Di.), or rather perhaps on ^^^, ' in a cave," in being 
aitered into in to suìt a change in the context. 

It would be somewhat hard to deny that the story in 
Gen. 1930-38 was interwoven with the story of the de- 
struction of Sodom by a later band. It was not one of 
the really popular Hebrew legends, and contrasts as 
strongly with the previous honourable mention of Lot 
as the story of Noah's drunkenness (Gen. 821 j?;) con- 
trasts with that of the reward of his righteousness. 

The primary Lot (Gen. I930-38} was presuniably re- 

presentcd as a Horite ; he is identical with Lotan, who 

« Tj x-x: i- was the eldest of the sons of Seir the 
2. Identification. ^^^^^^ ^^-^^^ 3^^^,^ ^^^ ^^^ ^j^^^,j 

the father of a son cailed Hori [v. 22). The secondary 
Lot (the kinsman of Abraham) may, or rather must, 
once bave had another name, and very possibly (cp the 
probable supersession of Enoch \q.v.'\ in the Hebrew 
Deluge-story by Noah) an error of a very early scribe 
lies at the foundation of the change. In Gen. 11 27 (P) 
the father of Lot is said to have been Haran (jnn). Now 
Haran [q.v.'\ can only be explained as a variation of 
Haran (jTn), or rather Hauran (pin). See Jacob, § 3, 
The narrative of J in its originai form possibly spoke of 
Hauran as accompanying Abraham from their common 
fatherland ; pin would easily be miswritten nin. Hori, 
and nin be considered a synonym for Lotan, or Lot, 
the Horite. It would then become naturai to attacb 
the story of the origin of Moab and Ammon to the 
person of the righteous survivor of Sodom and kinsman 
of Abraham. But the real ancestor, according to 
Icgend. of Moab and Ammon was, not Hauran the 
Hebrew, but Lot the Horite. (Of course, the story in 
Gen. 1930-33 is neither of Moabitish and Ammonitish 
nor of primitive Hebrew origin ; it is an artificial 
product, except in the one point of the tracing of the 
Moabites and Ammonites to Lot the Horite, which is 
due to misunderstanding. ) 

The secondary Lot is but a doublé of Abraham. 
Doubtless he shows differences from Abraham, which 
. „ . . - mar the portrait ; but these are due to 

■ _„^. the unfavourable circumstanccs in which 

the biographer places Lot, and only prove» 
that the narrator could not triuniph over such great 
obstacles. Lot has therefore made but a slight mark 
on Hebrew literature (Dt. 2919 and Ps. 839[8] are both 
late). A reference is made in Lk. 172932 both to Lot 
and to his wife, which remains niorally effective even if 
the 'pillar of salt ' (Gen. 19 26) is an accretion on the 
originai story (see Sodom). His function is to confimi 
the belief that the ancestors of the Hebrews were not 



wild, self-seeking warriors, but men of piety and 
righieousness (cp 2Pet. 27^^). Of the characler of 
the primary Lol, who alone has a right to the name, 
we bave no trustworthy information. His name, how- 
erer, is significant ; it conies froni ' to take a stranger 
into the family' (Ar. lata in viii. ). 

Wiiickler supports this by a quotation from Ibn HiSam (63^^) 
relative to a man wlio was belated on a certain occasion, pro- 
•iUed with a wife by hìs friend, and adopted into the friend's 
family {iltàfa-ku) ; in this ivay he became his friend's brother. 
Applying this key to the Lot of Gen. 19 30-38, and the Lotan of 
Gcn. 362029, *^ may suppose that a pre-Edomitish tribe was 
admitted into union with the Edomites. The name of Lotan's 
siste r is Timna \q.ii.\, and in 36 12 Timna is the name of the 
concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esaù or Edom. The cases appear 
to he analogous. On Gen. 14 12 cp Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and on 13 10^^ Paradise, § 6, end, 

Cp Wi. AOF 'ìvj /.\ Stucken, Astrahnythen, 81-125; 
Stade, (ri'ji:/;. 1 119 ; Kwald, Cei-cA. 1 448 ; Holzinger and Gunkel 
on Genesis. For Jewish legends see the Midrash Ber. Rabha ; 
for Mohammedan, Keràn, 1058-75, etc. t. K. C 

LOTAN (\nh ; Acotan [BADEL]), one of the sons 
of Seir, i.e.. a Horite clan, Gen. 86202229 ; r Ch, 1 3&^. 
See Edom, § 3, col. 1183 ; LOT, 

LOTHASUBUS {AMe&coyBoc [BA], etc), 1 Esd. 
944t — Neh. 84, Hashbadana. 

LOTS, rEAST OF. See Purim. 

LOTUS TREES (D'^^jiV), mentioned inJobéOz./, 
RV, as a favourite covert of the Behemoth or Hippo- 
POTAMUS {AV 'shady trees' ; cp Ges. TAes.; n&NTO- 
AATT& ieNÌp& and ÀeNAp& Mer&A& [BWA]). RVs 
rendering is doubtiess correct. The cognate Arabie 
ddl^ is the (ftiw-tree, a thorny shrub, sometimes attaining 
considerable heìght, a wild species of the sidr {Rhamnus 
spina Chrisii [Linn. ], cp Lane, s.v. dal, sidr). This 
prickly lotus {according to Voick, the L. silvestrìs) is the 
L. Zizyphus, a native of N. Africa and S. Europe, and 
is lo be kept distinct from the water-Hlies, L. Nymphara 
(of Egypt) and L. Nelumbo (of India and China), which 
repealedly occur as a tnotif in Egj'ptian and orientai 
mythology and art.^ See Wetz. ap. Del, ad loc. 

N. M. 

LOVE-APPLE (n-ll), Gen. 3O14 RV-^ff-, EV Man- 

DRAKES \i].-!!.\ Cp ISSACHAR, § 2. 

LOVE FEASTS {&r*TT&i), Jude v. .2 RV ; AV 
•feasts of charity.' See El'CIIAKIST, § 3, 

LOVINGKINDNESS (npn, hésed). a characteristic 
term of OT rcligion, applieable both to Yahwè and to 

1. Rendering. 

man. This rendering of hésed may be 

inadequate, but is certainly preferable 
to 'mercy' (or 'mercies,' which alternates with it in 
EV). 'Mercy' is an inherilance from the Wycliftìle 
Bibie ; Vg. gives misericordia, and ® ?\eos, éXerìfioaùvr)., 
iXe-flIÀ-wv (but also nine times òiko.ioitijvti. and once 
fiiKOtos). It might bave been betler to limit the use of 
'mercy' to the phxase 'bave mercy' {'yìn). Ps. 4 i [2J 
62[3] 9i3[i4], etc. Other renderings of hésed in EV 
are 'favour' (Esth. 217 Job IO12), 'goodness' (Hos, 64). 
The root meaning may be ' mildness ' (so Ges.(^^l). but, 
in aciual use, hésed is not mere ' mildness ' or ' gentlc- 
ness.' A few classical passages from the OT will prove 
this statement. 

I. I .S. 156, ' For ye showed hrotherly kindness to the chil- 

dren of Israel.' 
2. References. 2. i S. 2O8, 'Mayest thou show Imiìng- 

kìndness to thy servant, because into a bond 
sanctioned by Vahwè lliou hast brought thy servant.' 

3. I S. 20 14, ' .\iid -shoii'd 1 be yel alive, mayest thou shnw 
me the ìovingkimincss of Vahwè <cp 2 S. 9 3). Butshould I die, 
mayesC thou Hot withdraw thy compassion from my house for 

4. 2 S. 16 20, ' Return and (ake Ihy Iirethren with ihee, and 
may Yahwè .show thee 2o7'ingkindness and faithfiilness.' 

' On the Syr. equìv. jljji,, (3aro«, cp Low, PJfam. ■2-]%/. 

^ Found also upon a Jewish intaglio, €.g., Perrot-Cbipiez, 
Ari in Phienicia, 2246, fig. 175. 
3 We follow H. P. Smith. 



5. I K. 2O31, 'The kìngs of the house of Israel are kindly 

6. Hos. 4 I, ' Hear the word of Vahwè, ye sons of Israel, for 
Yahwè has a quarrel with the inhabitants of the land, because 
there is no trustworthiness, no brvtherly kindness, no know- 
ledge of God in the land.' 

7. Hos. 646, ' What shall I do to thee, O Ephraim? what 
shali I do to thee, O Israel?! Your loyal aff^ctioK was like 
inorning clouds, and like the night-mist which early disappears. 
. . . For loyal affection do I desire, not sacrifice ; and the 
knowledge of God more than bunit offerings,' 

8. Hos. 11 1-4», ' When Israel was young I began io love 
him ; from (the tiine that he was in) Egypi, I called him my 
son. As soon as I called theni, they went from me ; they sacri- 
fice to the Baais, they cause smoke to rise to the images. It 
was I that guided Ephraim, I took him on mine arms ; but 
they — they discerned not that I had redeemed them. The 
lovingkindness of (jod 1 extended to them ; 1 gave much love, ' 2 

q. Mìe. 6 8, ' God has told thee what is good ; and what does 
Vahwè require of ihee except to do justly, to love brotherly 
kindness, and to celebrale the Works of Yahwè? ' ■* 

IO. Jer. 2 3, ' I remember in thy behalf the Icyal affection of 
thy youth, the love of thy bridal state.' 

ir. Dt. 7i2, 'Because ye ohe y the se judgments . . . Yahwè 
thy God will carry out for thee ihe covenant and the loTiing- 
kindtuss which he swore to thy fathers.' 

12. Is. 54 IO, ' My lovingkindness shall not depart from thee, 
tior shall my covenant of peace remove.' 

13. Ps. 25 10, ' Ali the paths of Yahwè are lovìngkindness (so 
RV) and faithfulness to that observe his covenant and his 

14. Job 10 II, 'Favour* and lovìtigkindness thou hast prac- 
tised towards me, and thy tare has watched over my breath.' 

In ali these passages it is not mere * mildness ' that 
is meant, but active kindness, and not necessarily that 

, 1- 4- forni of active kindness which Portia 
a. AppUCaUOns. ^^^^ 'mercy,' but. when men solely 
are coiicerned, any forni of helpfulness. It is in fact 
the ^i\aSe\<pla of the NT, which means a helpfulness 
born of sympathy,* Sympathy in the ancìent world 
was narrow in its range. It existed, properly speaking, 
only among those who were naturai or reputed kinsnien. 
Israelitish prophets and legislators sought to wìderi it ; 
but the task was hard. Certainly it was a bold act on 
the part of the servants of Benhadad (see 5) lo appeal 
to the hésed of an Israehtish king. The earlier Israelitish 
kings, however, were, by comparison with other kings, 
distinguished by their hésed ; it is a gratifyìng proof of 
the reality of the higher religion in Israel. Ahab 
responds to the appeal, and recognises Benhadad as a 
■brother." Perhaps, however, he would not bave re- 
sponded thus to the appeal of a Hitlile ; the Ara- 
ma;ans and the Israelites had, after ali, some degree 
of kinship. In this case the ' merciful ' of EV is noi 
misleading ; but even EV does not say that the Kenites 
'showed mercy' to the children of Israel; it was a 
senso of kinship that animated them, and their ser- 
vices were not such as could be called deeds of mercy. 
In (2) and (3) Jonathan appeals to the real though 
adoptive brotherhood which united him to David. In 
(4), if historieal, David shows his generosity of feeling ; 
Ittai, whom he addresses, is ' a foreigner and an exile ' ; 
but he has fought by David's side and eaten his bread ; 
he is a brother, and receives an Israelite's blessing. 
(6} and (9) shouid be grouped. Hosea complaiiis that 
the social feeling [hésed) which once distinguished Israel 
has disappeared ; a nameless prophet of a later day 
makes the cultivation of this feeling one of the three 
duties of an Israelite. (7} and {8} must also be takcn 
together. From the latter we see what the ' ioving- 
kindness of God' is ; it is neither more nor less than 
pafernal affecHon. Hosea has nothing to say of a 

! So Wellhausen, Nowack. The text has 'Judah.' See 
Hosea (IJook), g 4. 

3 Readings adopted : 7W. 1-3 'J3 '1'?, Pesh., Theod. ; '«"ip?, 
(B ; ';SD, cp © ; Ori^N, © ; "nj^inT. So Ruben, and partly 
Wi. (AT Untcrs. 182), Wellhausen. ■ri'?.!], Pesh., Grà. ; 
D-n"-lS, Gra. Verse 4 U-rh» IDn ; 'n'a-in, Che. 

S Readings adopted: D'nSx ; ^'li^K nÌJK^O f'DE^m (cp Ps. 

* Read iri (Beer). 

S Cp tnifinriefi;, ^tXé.lfK^ai, i Pet. 3 3. 


formai ' covenant ' between Yahwè and his people ; 

the only bértth he knows of is the naturai one between 

a father and his son. In return Yahwè looks iox filial 

affection : loyal himself, he expects loyalty from Israel. 

Jeremiah (see io) has a similar conception ; ìt is, how- 

ever, out of the marriage relation, religiously, accord- 

ing to him, that Ms^d grows ; he calls the forgiving 

husband of Israel Ton. ' loyally affectionate ' (EV 

' merciful'), Jer. Sia. 

In (il), however, a remarkable modification of késed 

appears. That Yahwè from the first loved Israel D 

4 Later '^°^^ "°' doubt ; but in order that his 

modifications. '°''^ '"^J' '^''^ ^**"^"' ^^"^^^ """^^ ^i^e 
punctual obedience to the prescribed 

laws. As D puts it, Yahwè will ' keep his covenant 
and his loving-kindness ' for Israel — i.e.. wiil show love 
to Israel — upon a certain legai condìtion. Henceforth 
the same idea of the divine A^sed as limited by the 
covenant dominates religious writers, and even human 
Aésed ceases to be purely spontaneous : it is stili ' active 
love' ; but it is dìctated, and its channels are prescribed, 
by a written code.^ 

The adjective on'pn, hàsldim ( — non -v'm, Is. 57i 
Ecclus. 44i ; see Assideans), late in use, means not 
simply ' men of filial devotion to God and brotherly 
kindness towards their fellows,' but ■ men who perform 
the pious deeds (onon) required by the law,' and it ìs 
nearly='righteous' (cp Is. 57i (5, ai-fi/jes Uko-wi.); see 
Ci-EAN. Pure, etc. (for ® and Pesh. , whose rendering^ 
are historically significant). Stili, though this sense 
predominates, we find ron used once (Ps. 43i, but the 
text is donbtful) in the sense of 'gentle,' without any 
reference to the law, or at most, with an underlying 
reference to the 'covenant with Noah,' which the 
heathen were held responsible for neglecting* (ji'7 'iaD 
Tpn. EV 'against an ungodly nation'). In the last 
passage on our list (14) we find Job, in a sad re- 
trospect, referring to the elaborate provisions made 
for his creamres by the Creator as hhed, ' loyal affec- 
tion.' It is a sign of the strong universali stic tendency 
of the movement known as Hokmàh or Wisdom {q.v. ). 
This lendency never ceased. Mt. 545 implies that the 
divine love is universa!. Whilst some Rabbis explained lon 
flNan tJ'DlnS (Prov. 1434)3 in the sense of Augustine's saying 
that the virlues of the heathen are only sple-mlida vitia, the 
famous R. Johanan b. Zakkai gave che charicable interprela- 
tion, The beneficence of the heathen is (as) a sin-offering (for 
ihem) (Babà bathrà, io*).* R. Johanan flourished about 70 
A.O.; under the forms of legaUsm he axpresses the spirit of the 
gospel ; but the true spiritual kinsman of Jesus is Hosea. 

T K C 


LOZON (AozoiN [BA]), i Esd. 533 = Ezra 256, 

LUBIM (DUl^ ; D''5^ in Dan. [so Baer, Ginsb.] ; 
ArBrec [BNAQL] ; Nah' Sg 2 Ch. I23 16S, and Dan. 

1 1 43 (EV ■ Lybians ') t ; the singular 31? probabìy occurs 
in Ezek. SOs ; see Chub). Everywhere, except Nah. 89 
(where read probabìy LUDiM, with Wi. AOF 1 513), 
•Lubìm' probabìy represents ' Libyans' (Egypt. Labu, 
Lebu) ; in Dan., l.c. EV actually gives 'Libyans.' 
On the three Libyan invasions of Egypt see Maspero, 
Struggle of the Nations, 434, 461, 471 /. After the 
third invasion Egypt became ' slowly flooded by Lib- 
yans. ' They supplied the Pharaohs with a highly paid 
militia, and at iength a Libyan by descent (èosenk) 
actually ascended the throne. See EGYPT, § 63. 

Stade, Cornili, and Ginshurg would read ' Lubim ' for ' Ludim ' 
in Jer, 469 (cp Lud, S 2). It sbould be noied, however, that 

1 Kraelzschmar, Die Bundcsvorstellung, 127 : co 14^. 

3 See Weber, Jiid. Tkeel. 263. 

^ ^V.'.*^'" .'s a reproach to any people,' taking lon {with 
most critics) in the Aramaising sense of disgrace.' So Symm. 
(ófdfioi). But (S, Pesh. suggest "ipn, 'diminution,' which is 
vcry plausible (so Gra,). 

* See Edersheini, Hist. o/thejewish Nation, 149-154. 



the Assyrian inscriptions expreisly refer to Lydian troops io 
the service of Egypc. Cp furcher, Chub, Lehabim. 

LUCAS{AoYK&c[Ti. WH]), Philem. v. 24, RVLuke. 

LUCIFER. AV'ng- and RV Day star {^^'H), the 
epithet applied to the king of Babylon who in his pride 
boasts that he will ascend to the heavens and make 
himself God's equal ; his fate is to be cast down to 
Shéòl to the mterniost recesses of the pit (Is. 14 12-15). 
By Jerome and other Fathers the passage was applied 
to Satan (cp Lk. 10 18). 

'T\^^ Héìél, accordine to the vowel-points (but cp Kdnig, 
Lekrgeb. 2a 106) is an imperative (' howl '), so Pesh. Aq. Ter. ; 
but tne above rendering, which follows iS (ó «ucri^iipos ;1 cp 
2 Pet. 1 19, ^(oo-^ó/jos), Targ. Vg. Rabb. is ihe only naturai one ; 
it requires us to point Hélal— i".*., ' brilliant ' (so Hi. Ew. Kn, 
Di.; cp -n".T). 

The description of the doings and of the fate of 
Hèlàl is so peculiar (note the expressions * son of the 
dawn,' 'stars of God,' ' mount of assembly ' [see Con- 
Gregation, Mount of], ' recesses of the north *), 
that Gunkel {Schopf. ». Chaos, 132 _^) recognises an 
allusion to a Hebrew nature-myth, analogous to the 
Greek legend of Phaethòn. The overpowering of the 
temporary brilliance of the morning-slar by the rays of 
the san is compared to a struggle between Elyon and 
the giant Hèlàl. References to a mythic tradition of 
■ warfare in heaven ' are abundant (see Dragon, 
Leviathan, Stars, Orion). But if so, why is there 
no Babylonian equivalent of Hèlàl ? It seems better lo 
read either HSna, ' thou famous one ' (o fell out after 
the preceding o), or, with a reference to a theory for 
which much evidence is acciimulating through textual 
criticìsm, ^KpriT. 'Jerahmeel,' i.e., ' Jerahmeelite op- 
pressor of Israel,' See 'Isaiah,' SBOT, Heb., 199, 
Paradise, § 4, Obadiah (Book), §§ sff. and cp Crii. 

According to Winckler (G/224), however, Helàl is the 
Arabian Hilal, 'the new moon," and ini?> 'dawn,' in Is. 14 iz 
is a dislortion of -invi (cp inne*, Obnaments), ' moon.' He 
refers to a S. Arabian deity Sahar (inif), of whom a certain 
priest describes himself as the Uegeman. Whelher Sahar is a 
deity ofthe moon orof the dawn is undecided. But are- we just i- 
fied in isolating Is. 14 12 from other passages in which ^^E' is, 
from the point of view of textual criticism, doubtful? The key 
which lìts one lock will probabìy fit another of the same char- 
acter. Read, not 'son of the raorning,' but 'child ofthe sun' 
(D'in). T. K. C. 

LUCIUS (AOYKIOC [Ti.WH]). i. Roman consul. 
contemporary with Simon the Maccabeo, Antiochus 
VII. Sidetes, and Ptolemy li. Physcon, i Macc.l5r6 
(AeYKlOC [ASV]). He is mentioned in connection 
with the embassy of NUMENiuS (?■».) to Rome, Prob- 
abìy Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was consul with M. 
Popilius Lasnas in 139 b.c. is meant. That Lucius, 
not Cneius, was the true surname of Piso has been 
shown by Ritschl. See Schur., Hisl. i. I267/, and 
cp Maccabees, First, § 9 {e). 

2. A certain Lucius joins Paul, who is writing from 
Corinth, in saluting the Christians of Rome, to whom 
therefore he seems to bave been known (Rom. I621) ; 
cp ROMANS, §§ 4, IO. Along with Jason and Sosipater 
Lucius is there alluded to by Paul as his ' kinsman ' ; 
evidently he was a Jew. 

The Pseudo-HIppolytus makes him bishop of Laodicea in 
Syria, as also does che Pseudo-Dorotheus, giving his name, 
however, as Aoviràs. In the Apostolical Constituiions (7 46) he 
is said to bave been ordained bishop of Cenchreaa by Paul. 
He is possibiy the same as 

3. Lucius of C)Tene, one of the ' prophets and 
teachers ' of the church in Antioch ( Acts 13 1) who set 
apart Barnabas and Paul for the mission to the Gen- 
tiles ; cp MiNiSTRY. He was doubtless one of those 
' men of Cyprus and Cyrene ' who, upon the dispersion 
from Jerusalem consequent on the martjTdom of 
Stephen, had come lo Antioch, and there ' spake unto 
the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. ' 

1 Cp Ps. 110 3 where for ^ritPD we bave irpò «wo^ópou ©, 
anti luci/erum, Vg. 



LTJD, LTTDIM (~l>h). i. (AoyA [AEL]}, Gen. lOaa 

(Sam. ^7) = I Ch. 1 17 (B om. ). Lud was the fourth son 
of Sheni, according to P. Most scholars since Bochart 
have followed Josephus {Ani. i. 64). who makes Lud the 
founder [^ktktf) of the Lydians. A sudden spring to Asia 
Minor, however, does not seem very probable ; or was P 
really enti rei y ignorant of thesituation of Lydia? Histori- 
cally, too, there are grave objections to makìng Lud 
the brother of Asshur. Lydia was never conquered 
by the Assyrians in spite of the boastfui assertion of 
Asur-bani-pal (Smith, Assurò. 65 15) that Gugu, king 
of Lud (Lud-di), ' took the yoke of his kingdom.' Did 
P really transfer the circumstances of the Persian age 
{for Cyrus did conquer and annex Lydia) to the 
Assyrian period (cp GeographY, § 21)? 

It would teally be less bold, when we remember the enormous 
amounl of corruption among the OT proper names, to infer the 
need of textual emendation. It is probable that Dyjj (Elam) in 
Gen. 14 i (see Sodom) and also dik (Aram) in Gen. 22 21 (see 
Kemuel) have arisen out of '^tfcm* (Jerahmeel), and perhaps 
siili more probable that in Ps. 889 [8] ^^Bl(t (Asshur) should be 
IICJ (Geshut). May not these emendations be applicable in 
Gen. lOaa? In this case we shall do best to suppose that in 
the originai text of P's list neither •\^'^} nor dir appeared, but 
7KDm' (li? may have come from 7^(^, and be, eqtially with 
0"l(*i a fragment of ^(Jcni'). Verse 22 will then run, ' The 
sons of Shem : Geshur, and Arpachshad, and Jerahmeel,' and 
"IC^Sni* (KV Arpachshad) will be best explained as P^p 311/ 
(Ar3b-Kade5h = thcN. Arabian Kadesh). But cp Arpachshad, 

The view of Lud bere proposed accords with the explanation 
given elsewhere (Nimrod) of Gen.lOio,^ It will then be 
naturai to emend ihe traditional lext of i^. 13 y^ as proposed 
under Mizraim, changing 'Ludim' into D■7p^^, Carméhm — 
i.e., the people of Carme! (cp Maon). 

2. Elsewhere, where the name appears, Lud is taken 
by some to refer to the Lydians (see Put) ; but perhaps 
it rather means a N. African people. 

The passages are Is. 66ig (Aov<5 [BAQ], \ov6 In], ArSous 
[Symm. in Q'"e]) Ezek. 27 io 30 5 ([but bere AV Lydia], Avfiot 
[BAQ]), see Geographv, § 22. D'71'?, Lodim, the plur. forni, is 
the narae of a son of Mizraim (Eovrx) in Gen. 10 13 (J)= i Ch. 
1 li [Kr.], D-n'? [Kt.] (AouiH.fl [AL], -iv [E], Aùiìi«k [A in 
I Ch. In, B om.]), and tecurs in Jer. 469 (AvSot [B«AQ], AV 
LvDiANs). The singular form (Lud) occurs in Ezek. 27 io 30 5 
Is. fitì ig. 

In Jeremiah the Ludim appear with Egypt, Cush, and 
Put (Libya) ; so also in Ezek. 30s ; and in Isaiah with 
Tarshish, Put (by a probable text emendation; Che., 
Di., Du. , etc. , after ®), Tubai, and Javan. We know 
nothing more. Hence the hypothesis of Stade (De 
Pop. Javan, ^ff.^Akad. Reden [1899], 139^) that we 
have in Gen. IO13 (so also Del. Par. 310) and in Jer. 
469 {so also Co. and Gies. ) a textual error for d"31^, 
LuBiM \_q.v.\ whilst Lud in Ezek. and Is. is the same 
as Lud in Gen. IO22, and is used loosely as a distant 
people, on account of the assonance with Phut (dis) 
has some plausibility (see also WMM, As. u. F.ur. 115). 
See, however, above (i, end) and Put, § 2, and note 
Diltmann's adverse judgment on these alterations. It 
is at any ratedifficult to explain Ezek. 30s in this way, 
and the motive, and also indeed the possibility, of the 
corruption of Lubim into Ludim in at least two of the 
passages are by no means clear. 

T. K. e. (i) ; F. B, (a). 

LTJHITH. ASCENT OF (H^nén H^I/D ; in Jer. 
Kt. nin?n), a localìty in Moab menlioned between 
ZoarandHoronaim. Is. 155 (àNABàCiC [thc] Aoyeie 
[BtiAQr]) ; Jer. 485 (eTlAHceH [as if from k^o ' to fili '] 
AAtoe [BSf^-^m] àAee [X*], AAAoie [AQ]). Some 
have identified it with Sarfa, N, of the Wady Kerak, 
where there are ruins described by de Saulcy. 
This, however, is premature. The most probable read- 
ing of the text, the present writer thinks, is □"'^jy nl^^D, 
' the ascent of Eglaim' \q.v.\ the same place as that 
referred to in Is. 158 ; it lay near the S. border of Moab. 
What authority (if any) Eiisebius had for his statement that 
the city Lueitba was sitoated between Arcopolis and Soar (C.S'I^l 
276, 43), we know not. Nor can we listen to the editors of the 


1. ùiNT. 


CIS (2196; cp/. As. mai-juin, 1891, p. 538; ZA Saagj^ 6149^) 
when they point out the n'n'Tiril of Is. in a Nabatean insciiption 
found in Moab. 

The words of the insci, are ln'n'?3 'T «finco m V^'H'H- 
Lagrangeand NS. , however, read, not in'nS3i Ì"it lOTTH' Right 
melhod, raoreover, requires us to begìn by examining the text of 
Is. 155. Such an cxamination discloses to us a doublé reading, 
n'cS» nSlV (transposition has taken place) and n'nl'?rt riSjJD- 
nSjJD i^ of course preferable to rcthvi, but ^j^j is more correct 
than ni^rr [Jer. n^nl 1 fi. or ratber ri", should no doubt be q'. 
Thus we get D'^Jl» n^yO' See Eglath-shelishivah. 

T, K. C. 

LTTEE * is named only three times in NT. According 
to Philem. 24 he was a ' fellow-labourer ' with Paul ; 
according to Col. 4 14, a physician who was 
specially dear (ó d7air7jTÓs) to the apostle.^ 
Both letters, which according to Philem. in/ Col. 
4 3 7-9 18 were despatched simultaneously by Paul in 
his captivity, contain a salutation from Luke to the 
recipients. Luke, however, is in neither case named 
as a fello w-prisoner with Paul ; in the one case ( Philem. 
23) it is Epaphras, in the other (Coi. 4 10) it is Aris- 
TARCHUS who is so designated. In 2 Tim. 4 n it is said 
that * only Luke is with ' the apostle ; whether as a 
fello w-prisoner is not stated. In any case the situation, 
is quite different from that disclosed in the other two 
epistles in so far as we are here in the present ìnstance 
informed that ali the apostle's other companions have 
foTsaken him. According to 1 8 16 29, 2 Tim. also was 
written from a captivity. Even where the Epistle is not 
heid to be genuine, it is often supposed that 49-18 along 
with 4 19-2211 are a genuine note (or two notes) written by 
the apostle, and from captivity. From what captivity — 
whether or not the same as that referred to in Col. 
and Philem. — cannot be discussed here (cp Paul, § 30). 

In Col. 4 10-14, 3- classification is made of the com- 
panions of Paul. Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus 
_ _ are grouped together as being ' of the cir- 

L ... cumcision ' (oì fivret ìk irepiTo^^j) ; then 
* Comes Epaphras with the words added, 
•who is one of you ' (ó 1% ìifiQiv), in other words a 
Gentile Christian ; finally are named Luke and Demas. 
The inference is that these two also are Gentile Christians. 
This holds good also if Aristarchus proves to be a 
Gentile Christian, According to Acts204 he belongs 
to Thessalonica, and according to a very probable con- 
jecture (Galatia, § 22) he is selected to be representa- 
ti ve of the essentially Gentile Christian community there 
in conveying to Jerusalem their contribution on behalf 
of the poor there. 

To the words ' who are of the circumctsion ' (ol Óvrer 
4k 7r«/jtro;x^s) in Col. 4ii is added the expression 'these 
only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God' 
(oCtoi fj-Avoi omepyol ds ttjc ^airiXelav rov 6tov). It 
this be taken literaìly Epaphras Luke, and Demas were 
nò fellow-workers of Paul — ^as in Col. 4i2/. (Epaphras), 
Philem. 24 (Luke and Demas), they are said to have 
been. To obviale this contradiction it has been proposed 
lo delete the mark of punctuation after ' circumcision,' 
with the supposed result of making the persons named 
(with or without Aristarchus) to be the sole fellow- 
workers of Paul who were of Jewish birth, though besides 
these there were others of Gentile origin. To delete 
the mark of punctuation, however,- — whether period or 
comma, — is impossible, unless 'these' (oSrot) also be 
deleted, and this no one has ventured to do, If ' these ' 
is left, we have a manner of expression which must, to 
say the least, be described as exceedingly careless. If 
it be borne in mind that the genuineness of the Epistle to 
the Colossians is by no means free from doubt, the ex- 
pression can even rouse a suspicion that w. 10-14 were 
not written by a single author at one writing, but that 
either nv. 12-14 are an addition, or that v. n (with or 
without ol òvres ex ireptro/t^s) is an interpolation. At 
the same time, even where the Epistle to the Colossians 

' On the name see % 6. 

^ In Marcion's NT (Zahn, Eial. 1^47 2538) the words ó ùirpìc 
o àyainytòi were wanling } cp } 3. 



is not regarded as genuine as a whole, there is a disposi- 
tion for the most part lo regard the personal notices in 
4;-i5 as a genuine fragment ; and finally it is not too 
difficult to suppose that i". n is to be supplemented thus : 
' these alone — that is to say among those of Jewish birth 
— are fellow-workers.' In any case thìs course is an 
easier one than that of bracketing ' of the circumcision 
these only' {éK Trepiroft'^^ ovtoì fióvot) so as to niake 
' fellow-workers ' {tTvvepyoi} the immediate continuation 
of ' who are' {ol ÓvTfs). 

Luke thus remains in any case a Gentile Christian 
unless we regard the whole passage as too insecure lo 
allow of Olir founding anything upon it. 

The interest which Luke has for students of the NT 
turns almost entirely on the belief that he was the author 
of the Third Gospel and of Acts. 
This 'tradition,' however, cannot be 

3. Antborship , 
of Third Gospel 
and Acta. 

traced farther back than towards the 
end of the second century (Irenaeus, 
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian 
fragment) ; ^ there is no sound basis for the contention 
of Zahn (2i7s) that the existence of the tradition can 
a\so be found as early as in Marcìon because that writer, 
from his aversion to the Third Gospel (which neverthe- 
less was the only one he admitted ìnto his collection — ■ 
with alterations it is true) omitted the expression of 
honour applied to Luke in Col. 414. In AcTS, §§ i, 9, 
15/. and GosPELS. § 153, it has been shown that it is 
impossible to regard Luke with any cerlainty as the writer 
even of the * we ' sections of Acts. not to speak of the 
whole book of Acts, or of the Third Gospel. 

The assumption. however. that as an evangelist Luke 

must have been an eye-witness of the events of the 

4 Inferences ^^^'lily ''^^ °' Jesus, and as the author 

the authoTsliiT) °^ Acts, a companion of Paul, led 

beine asBumed. '° ^^^tain inferences. (a) From the 

^^ fourth century onwards'^ he was held to 

have been one of the 'seventy' {Lk. lOi), although 
this is excluded not only by the fact of the gentile 
origli! of the historical Luke but also by whal the Third 
Evangelist says of himself (I2). (6) It can proceed 
only from a misunderstanding of the words {TraprjKoXovffrì- 
K&rt wàaiì/) of Lk. 1 3 (cp col. 1790}, as if ' ali ' {iràffiv) 
were masculine, whcn Irenasus (iii. 11 1 [lOi] I42) with 
express citation of this text mentions Luke as having been 
a disciple of several apostles, not only of Paul, (e) 
In like manner, from the fourth century onwards 
(Lipsius, 360, 362, 367) Luke was identified with the un- 
named disciple at Emmaus (Lk. 24 18) ; being assumed 
to be the author of the gospel, he was believed to have 
withheld his name out of modesty. (d) The assumption 
that he was the author of Acts led to the further belief 
that he was the companion of Paul not only in his 
captivity, but also during his journeys, either during 
those portions only which are spoken of in the first 
person, or throughout the whole of them. In the nine- 
teenlh century this also led lo his being identified with 
Silas — Silvanus, because it was thought easier to attribute 
the 'we' portions to Silas (see Acts, § 9). So, for 
example, van Vloten, ZlVT, 1867, p. 223/, 1871, pp, 
431-434. The identifìcation was thought permissibJe 
on the ground that lucus and si/va are synonymous. 
(e) On the assumption that Luke was author of the Acts 
Clement of Alexandria^ held him to be also the trans- 
lator of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, written in 
Hebrew, the linguistic charactcr of the Greek text being 
similar to that of Acts. (/") ' A medicai language ' was 
discovered in the Third Gospel and in Acts (so Hobart, 
1882), and also in Hebrews (so Franz Delitzsch in his 
Coinmentary. 1857 [ET, 1868-70], condensed in the 
introduction to the 2nd ed. of the commentary of Meyer- 

1 For ali that follows, cp especially Lipsius, Apokrypk. 
AfiosU/geschickten. ii. 2 354.-371, and Zahn, Eittl., g 58. 

^ Eariiest of ali in Adamantius, Dial. de rectajidl (scontra 
Marcionistas) in Orig. ed. de la Rue, 1 806 D. 

3 In the Hypotyposes, according to Eus. HE vi, 142 ; in the to i Pet. ad fin., 1007 ed. Potter. 



Ltìnemann). {g) According to Zahn (§ 58, 6) it -s 
possible that even the legend which represeiits Luke 
as a painter and attributes to htm varìous pictures of 
the mother of Jesus (the legend is first met with in 
Theodorus Lector, Hist. EccL li, dating from tfte first 
half of the 6th cent. ) may rest upon misunderstanding 
of the word {Ki3.d-)laT0(>eiv, which in the Byzanline period 
meant ' to paint ' and which is used in the passage of 
Theod. Lector just ciled. {h) Apart from the same 
presupposition which regarded Luke as an author, 
Origen [Hom. 1 in Lucam, 39331^ F, ed. de la Rue), or 
rather his unnamed predecessors, would not have identi- 
fied Luke with the anonymous ' brother ' of z Cor. 8 18 
' whose praise in thA Gospel {i.e. , in the orai preaching 
of the gospel) was spread through ali the churches. ' 
{i) Ramsay, we may presume, apart from this presup- 
position, would hardly have extended this last theory 
stili farther, so as to hold that this Luke was the full 
brother of Titus who is mentioned immediately before, 
and that he was a native of Philipp! {Si. Paul. 203, 213, 
219, 2487^, 286, 389/"., etc). There twe, for instance, 
some smal! touches in Acts which Ramsay thinks he is 
able to explain by taking iheir author to be a native of 
Philipp!, {k) On the olher band, from the uncanonical 
text of Acts 1 1 28 where ' we ' is used, others have sought 
to make out that Antioch in Syria is indicated as the 
home of Luke. The form of the text, however, may, on 
the contrary, rest on a previously existing tradition re- 
garding Antioch (ACTS, § 17, m) ; it has no attestation 
earlier than the time of Augustine. ^ 

In substance the Antioch tradition is met vjith at a 
considerably earlier date. 

Ramsay (see above, g 4, t) \ayA stress {ofi. cif. 389) upon the 
fact that Eusebius {Hl£n\. 4 &), whom he regatds as the eariiest 
authority for ic ' does not say that Luke was 
6. Birtbplace. an Antiochian ; he merely speaks of him as 
" being according to birth of those from 
Antioch " (tò fLÌv yiviK S>v ™t' air' 'Anio^eiai). This curious 
and awkward expression is ohviously chosen in order to avoid 
the statement that Luke was an Antiochian.' Eusebìus was 
aware, according to Ramsay, that Luke ' belonged to a family 
that had a connection wiih Antioch,' namely, to a farnily that 
had emigrated from Philìppi to Antioch. Eveti should this in- 
terprelation be correct it would be deprived of ali its value by 
the circumslance that Eusebius himself in the Qu^stiones 
Ez'angelicie ad Stefikanuin (of which Mai, as early as 1847, 
published fragments from a Catena of Nicetas in Nova patrunt 
Bibliotheca. [4i]) writes : o hi AouicSì tò fiAv veVos Òtto tijs ^010- 
p.ivTK 'AiTio^eias V (p. ^7o ; ' Luke was by birth a native of the 
renowned Antioch'). Shouid it be held rfoubtful whether the 
words just quoted actually come from Eusebius inasmuch as 
cerlain stalements in their vicidity are irreconcilable with the 
views oT Eusehius kaown to iis from other sources. Spitta (Der- 
Brie/ des Julius A/ricanus alt Aristides, 1877, p. 70-73, 111) 
has rendered it probabie that they were writlen by Julius 
Africaiius and ihusas early as in the first half of the third centtu^y. 
Of equal antiquity is the Latin prologue to the Thìrd Gospel (in 
Wordsworlh, NT latine, 1 269) which has been thorotighly dis- 
cussed by Corssen {Mcnarchiattische Prolcge za den 4 Eva>t~ 

felìen'xtt Tejcteu. UniersucA. 1^ i, i5g6) ', itswordsare; ' Lucas 
yrus natione Antiochensis." 
This does not, however, prove that Antioch was really 
the home of Luke. It is very questionable whether 
those of the third century were in possession of a correct 
tradition on the subject. and on the other hand it is very 
conceivable that a mere conjecture may bave been 
adopted. Many critics think that there has been a 
confusion of Ltike with Lucius who is mentioned in Acts 
13i as present in Antioch. He belonged, however, to 

We need not, however. question the possibility of the 
name Lucas having given rise to confusion with this 
6 Nume l'^c'iJs- The termination -às was employed 
as an abbrevialion for a great variety of 
longer terminations (see NaMES, § 86) and in Patrobas 
(Rom. I614) we have a name which in ali probabiliiy 
arose out of Patrobius. Besides Lucius, such various 
names as Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, Lucianus, 
I^ucanus, could ali produce the abbreviation LucaS. In 
any case the name is of Latin origin. 

1 Since the art. Acts was printed, Hamack aho has elabor- 
ately controverted the genuinencss of the reading in question 
(SBAIV, 1E99. pp. 316-327). 




Lucami? is given for Lucas as the name of the Evangelist in 
sevetal MSS. of the Vetus Itala {e.g.. Old Latin Biblical Texts, 
285, eie). Cp 'AttoAAcui'ioì in D for 'AttoA^Ì! (supr. coi. 262, n.)- 
In C/G, apart frotn Christian inscriptions, the name Aomcà! 
occurs only twice— in both caaes in EgypC (84759, and Add, 
4700 k). The identification of Luke with the Lucius mentioned 
by Paul in Kom. Ifi 21 — an identitication that is mentiimed even 
by Origen (4 686;' DE, ed. de la Rue) — cannot he maintained, 
Lucius havingbeen a jew. In the form of the Prologue ai- 

ready mentioned, which is to be found in the Opera Hieronymi, 
ed. Vallarsi, xi. 3, 42, ihere is added immediiitely after the nameof 
Luke the expression ' ipse consurgens.' In the Liber inUt-fire- 
tationis hebr. noininutn (Vallarsi, 3 113 116 ; see also 0S11\\ 
71) [6) Jerome explains the name as meaning 'ipse consurgens 
aut [sive] ipse elevans.' In a Greek codex of similar contents 
(see OS 174bo) we read AouirSs aùiòs àviatàv ; in a Vatican col- 
lection printed in Wiener Studien, 1895, p. 157, we find 'iste 
consurgens.' Professor Nestle in a privale letter to the presene 
writer explains that here as in Ntw Greek and in the Romance 
languages the accusative (Lucam) is taken as the basis and ex- 
plained as equivalent to Cp I7- Thus it witl he only by a mis- 

understanding that in the Sermo in natali S. Luca attrìbuted 
to Abbot Bertharius of Monte Cassino (856-884) the originai 
language of the name in called jEolic- In fact in the Hsmilieg 
Ar/esiantissiì»oru}>t eccles. cathol. doctorum ab A Icuino colleeta 
(Cologne, 1576, p. 953^, middle), cited by Lipsius (p. 366^, the 
passage runs : ' Luca^ siquidem jEolice ; in nostra autem lingua 
interpretatur consurgens sìve elevans.' 

The oldest of the traditions regardine Luke that do not depend 
on the assumption of his authorship of the Third Gospel and of 
Acts is met with in the Prologue already 
7. OtllSr I&tiOr referred to ; 'serviensdeosine ciimine ; nam 
tra.dÌtÌOIlB.^ ncque uxorem umquam habens ncque tìlios 
74 annorum obiit in Bithynia plcnus spiritu 
sancto.' The years of his life are somelimes also given as 
73, 78, 80, 83 or 84 (Lipsius, 359, 365, 367). The last-named 
figure coincides with the age of Anna (Lk. 3 37), As fields of his 
activity Achaia and Bceotia are sonietimes mentioned instead 
of Biihynia ; also Alexandria or Dalmatia, Gaul, Ilaly, and 
Macedonia or the region of the Danube. Down to the (ifth 
century tradition was unanimous in attributing to hìm a naturai 
death ; the place generally named being Thebes in Bceotia, but 
occasionally Thebes in Egypt, or Ephesus. It was only at a 
later date that the opinion arose that he had suffered roarlyrdom 
— by crucifixion on an olive tree like Andrew, and, according to 
one account, even along with that apostle at Patras in Achaia. 
This plainly rests upon the fact that in 357 his relics were 
transporled along with those of Andrew to Conslantinople. 
According to other accounts he was beheaded, — either in Rome, 
or in Alexandria. 

For the Goapel according to Luke, see Gospei-s, §§ 
10-12, 21, 24-33, 37"43i 64, 66 yl, 76, 3o, 82, 98, loi, 107-111, 116, 
120-127, 132-140, 142, 144^1, 147, 153, etc, also the index col. 
1897/ p. w. S. 

LUNATIC (ceAHNi&zOAACNOi [Ti. WH]). This 
terni occurs only twice in the NT, viz. , Mt. 4 24 and 
17 15- The revisers deliberately rendered ' epileptic," on 
the ground that a Greek medicai authority of the seventh 
century expressly states that èTrtXija-TdcÓ! was the 
scientific terin, and that Sat^ovtfó^ewot and irik-qvia.- 
lòiifvoi were popular terms for the same disease. See 
passage quoted froni Leo in Ermerin's Anecdota medica 

1 [Subjoined is what may be called the authorised ecclesiastical 
Iradition as contained in the BreTiìariutn Romanum (r8th Oct.). 

' Lucas medicus Antiochensis, ut ejus scripla indicant, Gricci 
sermonis non ignarus, fuit sectator Apostoli Pauli, et omnfs 
peregrinationis ejus comes. Scripsit Evangelium, de quo idem 
Paulus : Misimus, inquit, cum lUo fratrem, cujus laus est in 
Evangelio per omnes ecclesias. Et ad Colossenses : Salutai vos 
Luca.s, medicus carissìmus. Et ad Timotheum ; Lucas est 
mecum solus. Alìud quoque edidit volumen egre^iom, quod 
titulo, Acta Apostoloium, prsenolatur : cujus histona tisque ad 
bìennium Romie commorantis Pauli pervenit, id est, usque ad 
quartum Neronis annum. Ex quo intelligimus, in eadem urbe 
librum esse compositum.' 

' Igitur periodos Pauli et Theclas, et totam baptìzati Leonis 
fabulam, inter apocryphas scripturas computamus. Quale enim 
est, ut individuus comes Apostoli inter ceteras ejus res hoc 
solum ii^noiaveril ? Sed et Tertullianus vicinus eorum temporum 
referC Presbyterum quemdam in Asia amatorem Apostoli Pauli, 
convictum a Joanne, quod auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc 
Pauli amore fecisse, et ob id loco excidisse. Quidam suspicantur, 
quotiescumque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit, Juxta Evangelium 
meum, de Lucse significare volumine.' 

' Lucam autem non solum ab Apostolo Paulo didicisse Evan- 
gelium, qui cum Domino in carne non fuerat, sed a ceteris 
Apostolis : quod ipse quoque in principio sui voluminis declarat, 
dicens : Sicul tradiderunt nobis, qui a principio ipsi viderunt 
et ministri fuerunt sermonis. Igitur Evangelium, sicut audierat, 
scripsit : Ada vero Apostolorum, sicut viderat ipse, composuit. 
Vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens : sepultus 
est Constantinopoli : ad qiiam urbem vigesimo Constantini anno 
ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andrese Apostoli translata su nt de Achaia.'] 


by G. Marshall in Guardian, March 9, 1892. It is a 
mistake to suppose that in Mt. 424 the ireXiji'taf'ó^iecoi 
are distinguished from the fiai/ioi'ifÓMej'oi ; it is plain 
from a comparison of passages that ' lunatics ' are 
mentioned as examples of the class of demoniacs, and 
'paralytics' of those tormented with pain. As the 
periodicity of the attacks of epilepsy was supposed to be 
determined by the changes of the inoon (see Wetsteiii 
in ìoc). those thus afflicted were called ireXjjpjafó^ei'ot, 
lunatic or moonstruck. Cp MadneSS. 

LtTTE ('?33, Is.5i2, RV [AV 'viol']; and kinyp& 
I Macc. 454 RV [AV ' harp ']). See Music, §§ t ff. 

LUZ i^h, AoYZA [BADEI,]). i. Another name of 
Bethel [^.w.], Gen. 2819^ 356 483 Josh. I62 (see 
below}, I813 Judg. I23. Of these passages the oldest 
come from P ; but the Identification of Bethel and Luz 
must be much older than P ; it is implied, indeed, in Judg. 
1 22-26 [v. 2^f> is a late gloss). Whcnce did Luz derive 
its name ? The lexicons say, from nVi ' an almond tree' ; 
but Lagarde is probably right in rejecting this view. 
The almond scarcely grows at Bethel. The rugged 
hills on the side of which Bethel stands may, thinks 
Lagarde [Uebers. 157^., n.**), have been likened to 
an OS sacrum (nh). Winckler {Gì 265), however, 
more plausibiy explains it by Ar. laud as an appellative 
— ' asylum,' a suitable name for a sanctuary. Accord- 
ing to hitn, the two oldest and niost important temples 
of the land of Israel — that at Bethel and that at Dan — 
were both called Luz {see Laish) in the sense of 
' asylum.'^ Stili more probably may we take [n]n^ {cp 
@) to be shortened and corrupted from ns'jri' ' strong 
(city).' Whether the story has a historical basis. we 
know not. The Josephites may perhaps originally have 
been specified as the conquerors of Lua(?) in the land 
of the Hittites(?). See 2. 

In Josh.162 RV gives, 'and it went out from Bethel to Luz,' 
which seeras to distìnguish Bethel from Luz. Dillmann, Bennett, 
and others omit nil7 (' Luzah ') as a gloss. Gràtz, however, 
thinks, comparing 1 S. 12/, that, for S«"n'3 at the end of w. i we 
shouid probably read ]lK"n'3, and for ?K"n'30 we should read 
IJS*"'^"?^ rendering ' . . . to Beth-aven, and ìt went out from 
Beth-aven to Luz.' T. K. C. 

2. A city said to have been founded ' in the land of 
the Hittites' by a family which had had lo migrale 
from Bethel or Luz, Judg. 1 26. Some suppose that 
' Hittites ' in this phrase is used vaguely (like ' Canaan- 
ites ' ). or that we have here a redactional insertion re- 
ferring to a NE. Syrian empire. See Hittites {§ 4). 
But should not ' Hittites ' be ' Rehobolhites ' and ' Lua ' 
be Halusah (see ReHOBOTH, Shechem, ZiKLAG)? 
There is a strong plausibìlity in the emendations else- 
where which supporl this view. There was probably a 
southern Beth-el containing the sanctuary of Halijsah, 
otherwise called Dan (where Jeroboam placed his 'golden 
calf). Another tradition (Judg. 18)assignedtheconquest 
of Laish { = Luz = Halusah) to the Danites(cpMicAH, 2). 

LTCAOHIA (AYKàONl&[Ti. WH]), twice mentioned 
in Acts 14. In ij. 6 Lystra and Derbe are * cities of 
p ... Lycaonia" (7ró\«s r^t AfKaoyfat} ; \n v. 

' II the people speak ' in the speech of 
Lycaonia' (AuKaoKio-Ti). In its originai extent, Ly- 
caonia, the country of the Lycaones, was the vast, 
treeless region which like a broad band runs athwart 
the plateau constituting the interior of Asia Minor, from 
Galatia proper, the zone of undulating country on the 
northern edge of the plateau, to the offshoots of Mt. 
Taurus and the confines of Pisidia and Isauria (Cilicia 
Tracheia).^ The boundaries varied at differenl times. 

1 Gen.2819 ouAafifious [A], -aov5 tDE*L], -n^avov-i [E«'] ; 
dSik precedes, cp Judg. I829 ffiBA, 

2 W. M. Mùller (j4j. u. Eur. 165) finds the name Luz rcpro- 
duced as Ru-da in the IJsts of Rameses IL and III. It may be 
so ; but Gaza appears to be the next place (cp RPi^) 6 27). 

3 Isauria (Isaorica ; Slrabo, 'lo-auput^) is the hill-counlry ex- 
tending from Lystra to the town Isaura, in Strabo and Ptoleray, 


2. Hiatory. 


The fact that Iconiuni was the last city of Phrygia (Xen- 
Anaè.ì.2ig) gives US a tìxed point on the originai 
boundary, which must fiave fallen between Iconium and 
Lystra ; consequently, the apostles, being driven out 
of Iconium, crossed the frontier from Phrygia into 
Lycaonia (Acts 146). Nevertheless, Iconium was 
generally reckoned a t.ycaonian town, in defiance oÌ 
history and locai feeling- N. of Iconium, Laodiceia 
Combusta ( Katakekaurtiene) was on the frontier, being 
reckoned to Lycaonia (Strabo, 663), so that the line 
must have run between that town and Tyriaeum. On 
the east Lake Tatta divided Lycaonia from Cappadocia ; 
and, farther south, the range called Karadja-Dagh 
and the lake Ak Geul were on the line. The frontier 
on the north and south Is indeterminate. Lycaonia 
was thus largely co -estensive with the plain called 
Axylon ('Treeless,' see above) by the Greeks, which is 
thus described by Hogarth [A Wandering Scholar in 
the Levant, 85) : — 

' Cartographers wrice this tract a Desert, and therefore that 
term must include an undulating treeless plain which sends up 
corn hreast-high for the scratching of a Homeric plough. Presti 
water is found everywhere at less than twcnty feet, and deep 
grass grows in the marshy hollows through which streams creep 
to che centrai lake.' 1 

Nor is it very level, being broken by the Boz-Dagh 
and other hills. The wells which supply the drinking 
water must be very ancient (Strabo, 568), The plain 
afforded excellent pasturage for sheep, and gave op- 
portunity for making large fortunes by the trade in 
wool. It was on the Lycaonian downs that Amyntas 
grazed his 300 flocks (Strabo, l.c.\ 

Lycaonia had no history as a separate independent 
country. Until 190 B.C. it was included within the 
Syrian (Seleucid) Empire. At some time 
between 189 and 133 b.c., probably 
about 160 B.C., the entire tract W. of Lake Tatta, 
southwards as far as Iconium and Lystra inclusive, was 
added as a tetrarchy to Galatia proper, making one of 
the twelve tetrarchies into which Galatia was divided 
(Plin. //A'Sgsj. This Lyca/anian tetrarchy iticluded 
fourteen cities, of which Iconium was the chief. The 
rest of Lycaonia from Derbe eastwards to Castabala on 
Mt. Amanus, was given, in 129 b.c., to the sons oI" 
Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, in reward for their 
father's loyalty (Justin, 37 1, Strabo, 534/). This 
was called the Eleventh Strategia of Cappadocia 
(rìjc éTrlKTì]TOP, se. <rTpa.Tì!}yiav , Strabo, 537), Thus 
Lycaonia fell into two parts, the ' added tetrarchy," and 
the 'Eleventh Strategia.' In 64 b.c. Pompeius re- 
organised the country after the defeat of Mithradates. 

The northern part of the tetrarchj; was permanently atlached 
to Galatia proper and it retained its name of 'Added Land' 
{7rpocreiAtjfinEi/i|, Ptol. v. 4io); the southern and most valuable 
part of the old tetrarchy was detached.^ Similady, it was only 
the eastern part of the old Eleventh Strategia that was allowed 
to continue to belong to Cappadocia ; the frontier was drawn 
W. of Cybistra. The southern part of the tetrarchy, and th« 
western part of the Strategia — r'.e., the entire south-western 
section of Lycaonia — was actached as the Lycaonian Dicecesis 
to the Province of Ciljcia. The districi of Derbe and Laranda 
was administered by Antipater of Derbe under the supervision 
of the Roman governor of Cilicia, who also retained the 
right of way through eastern Lycaonia (;.*■., the Cappadocian 
part of the Strategia: cp Cic. Aii J-'am. 1373; i^i, '^"f 
exetcituHt in Ciliciain dttcerent, in Jinibus Lycaoniie et 
Cappaddciie. Id. Ad Att.v.'i\<j; Plin. //N^bxs). 

In 40 B.C., when Antonhis regulated Asia Minor, 
the south-western portion of I.,ycaonia was formed into 
a kingdom for Polemon, son of Zeno, a rttetorician of 
Laodiceia on the Lycus, along with Isauria (Appiaii, 
BCÒys: cp Strabo, 569, S77). Iconium was his capital 
(Strabo, 568). In 36 b.c. the kingdom of Polemon 
was given to Amyntas, who ruled over Pisidic Phrygia 

and was part of Cilicia Tracheia. Subsequently, the name Isauria 
was excended to include ali the districts of Cilicia Tracheia (see 
Rams. Hill. Geogr. o/AM^so). 

1 See Murray's Handb. to AM i6r. Ramsay, on the other 
band, describes it less favourably. 

3 The line of demarcation passed, probably, just N. of Savalra 
or Soatra on the eastern highway. 



and Pisidia proper : at the timè Galatia proper (including, 
of course, the Added Land) was given to him. Antìpater 
of Derbe had taken advantage of the Civil Wars to make 
himself completely independent ; consequently Amyntas, 
who was a loyal agent of Rome, was allowed to destroy 
him, and to annex his territory. Lycaonia was thus, 
with the exception of the eastern part of the old Strategia, 
wholly within the realm of Amyntas ; and when Amyntas 
was slain in 25 b.c. it became part and parcel of the 
vast Province of Galatia. ^ Subsequently, in 37 a. D., 
eastern Lycaonia {i.e., the Cappadocian part of the old 
Eleventh Strategia), having been placed under Antiochus 
IV. , king of Commagene, became known as Lycaonia 
Antiochiana ('Ai'Ttoxtac)], se. xtipa- — Ptol, v, fi 17 ; CIL 
10 8660), In 41 A. D. this arrangement was confìrmed 
by Claudius, who also detached from Galatia the 
extreme south-eastern corner of Lycaonia— viz. , Laranda 
and its territory — and transferred it to Antiochus. 

The reason for this lay in the fact that Antiochus was king of 
Cilicia Tracheiotis, and Laranda was the centre from which radi- 
ated the roads running through Tracheiotis to the coast (Rams. 
Hisi. Geogr. 0/AM361). Coins with the legend AYKAONON 
were struck by Antiochus, probably at Laranda. 

This State of things lasted untìl 72 A. d. , when Ves- 
ptisian considered the Romanisation of the Tracheiotis 
_ p -, complete, and incorporated the kingdom 
' ij * ^ of Antiochus in the provincial system 
(Suet. Vesp. 8). From this it is clear 
that at the time of Paul's visit (about 50 A.D. ) Derbe 
was the frontier city of Galatia Provincia in this quarter, 
and therefore he went no farther eastwards (Acts 1421). 
It is also clear that the bulk of the Lycaonians were, 
from the Roman point of view, ' Galatians,' men of the 
Province Galatia (Gal. 3i iCor. I61}; for in Paul's 
time Lycaonia, always fated to be divided, fell into 
two parts — Galatic Territory {TaXariK-^ X'^P°-' Acts 
1823) or Lycaonia Galatica,^ and Antiochian Territory 
or Lycaonia Antiochiana. The former, or the Roman 
part of Lycaonia, the only part in which Paul worked, 
is mentioned three times in Acts — Actslió (where it is 
defined by vhe enumeraUon of its cilies, aa Paul entered 
from Phrygia Galatica), Acts 16 1 (defined again by the 
enumeration of the cities, as Paul entered from Lycaonia 
Antiochiana), and Acts 1823 {defined by reference to the 
Province, as Paul entered from the non-Roman part).^ 
The Lycaonians were probably the aboriginal race 
conquered by the immigrant Phrygians about the tenth 
century B.c. For their religion and char- 
acter see Ramsay 's Hist. Comm. on 
Galatians, s.^ ff- The cities were prob- 
ably mostly the foundations of Greek kings (especially 
ofthe Seleucids), which accounts, among other things, 
for the influence and numbers of the Jews therein (Acts 
liig). Lycaoniaor South Galatia possessed, longbefore 
the advent of the Romans, some Hellenised cities on 
the great commercial route. Greek was the language 
of commerce, and these cities were/di^i of Grteco- Roman 
influence. The viUages and rustie districts were the last 
to be Hellenised ; but those of southern Lycaonia felt the 
movement a full century before those of Galatia proper. 
The governing (Latin) race was confined to the garrison towns 
or colonies ; and lo the towns in genera! the commercial elernent, 
Hellenic or Jewish, would also be confined in the main. In the 
country and the remoter towns the native elernent survived (see 
Lystra). Of the Lycaonian language nothing is known (for 
three ìnscrìptions in this obscure dialect, cp Journ. of Hell. 
Studiti, 11 157). 

There was thus an essential contrast between the 
society and civilisation of Lycaonia, or South Galatia, 
and the northern part of the province {i.e.. Galatia 
proper}. Greek civilisation did not establish itself in 
North Galatia until very late ; not earlier than 150 A, D. 

^ Dio Cass. 53 26 : toù 'k^-ivrov TeAeurqo'ai'Tos, ^ TnAaTt'a /ieri 
TT7S Avicaoi-ias 'Puifiaìoi' apvon-a «<rx«- 

2 This litle is not indeed actually found as yet, but is proved 
by the analogy of Pontus Galaticus as distinguished from 
Pontus Polemon iacus, and Phrygia Galatica ( = tìic *puyjov itoì 
roAaTiicìiv x"P'"' °f Actsl6e) as distinguished from Phrygia 

3 [See, however, Galatia, SS 9-14.] 


4. Culture, 



was it dominant even in the cities (Ramsay develops 
and proves this at great length in Hist. Comtn. on 
Galatians, I341; cp Monims. Prov. of R. Emp. 128/). 
This phenomenon resulted from the faet that ihe Lycaonian 
plain wa^ traversed by two main arteries of communication — (1) 
the trade-route from the Euphrates to Ephesus, e rossi ng 
Lycaonia from E. to W. by Laodiceia Combusta (Strabo, 663) ; 
(a) from ihe Cilician Gates and Laranda, through Derbe, 
Iconium, and Antioch, uniting with the tìrst-named road at 
Metropoli» in Phrygia.l 

Hence the diffusion of Christianìty, being strictiy 
conditioned by the geographical and historìcal relations 
of the various districts, started from Iconium as centre 
for the whole of Lycaonia, and the ecclesiastical system 
of Lycaonia was highly developed at an early period. 
In northern Galatia the centre was Ancyra. and the line 
along which the movement travelled was that leading 
from Bithynia through Juliopolis (Rams. Hiil. Geogr. of 
AM 197 240)- — ^a route which came largely into 
use only when the centre of the Roman world was 
moved to the shores of the Bosphorus. See further, 

Ramsay in Hist. Grogr. cf AM, pass. ; later, and with 
great er accuracy, in Hist. Comm, on Galatians, pass. 

See for inscript ions, S terrei t in Woìfe Ex- 
LiteTAture. pedition io Asia Minor. These supersede, as 

regards history, the older travellers — to whom 
reference shouid he made for descripiion. Vicws in Davis, 
Asiatic Turkey^pass.'). Coins, Brìi. Mas. Cai. o/Gretk Coins 
— Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria, 1900. w. J. W. 

LYCIA (Aykia. Acts 275), the SW. part of Asia 
Minor between Caria and Pamphylia, where the Taurus 
range descends in niasses to the sea, forming a rugged 
coast with several good harbours (Strabo, 664). The 
inhabitants, who called themselves Traniele (Tep^iXat), 
were apparently the descendants of a conquering tribe 
allied to the Greeks, which crossed the Hellespont from 
Europe and eslablished itself among the originai Semitic 

[The LycianSj though not mentioned in Gen. 10, were well 
known as a maritirae people, noC only to the Greeks, bue also to 
the Egyptians, who called them Rulcu or Liìk(WMM As. u. 
Eur. 354 362). They are also mentioned in one of the Amarna 
Letters (28 lo-ia) sis plunderìng AlaSiya (Cyprus? Crete ?).] 

In course of lime the conquerors were themsel«es 
absorbed into the body of the conquered race, Through- 
out western Asia Minor from the very dawn of history 
development turns upon this conflict between European 
and Orientai elements (see Rams. Hist. Phryg.\T f.). 
A relic of the latter was the Lycian custom of tracing 
descent through the mother (Herod.1173; cp Sayce, 
Emp. of the East, 99); cp KlNSHlP, § 4, The Lycians 
were absorbed into the Persian empire after a brave 
defence. After their vìctory over Antiochus at Magnesia 
(igo B.C. ) the Romana handed over Lycìa and (he 
greater part of Caria to the Rhodians ; but twenty-three 
years later independence was restored to the Lycian 
cities (Poi. 3O5}- Then foUowed the golden period of 
Lycian history. 

The country formed a league (tò AukiokÒi' o-utmi/ni) of twenty- 
three cilies,2 organised on a federai basis (Strabo, 664) ; this was 
only a development of an earlier Kon'òc Tàv AuKiuif (cp CIG 
4677), At any rale, the Lycian League has been justly called 
the ' fairest product of that Hellenism, that mastery of the bar- 
barian mind by Greek politicai thought, which took such strong 
root in A.sia Minor ' (Greenidge, Handbk. of Grk. Const. Hist. 
241, where see details). The cities were arratiged in three 
classes, with three, two, or one vote at the annual assemhly of 
the nation (tò Koaiòv Krové&fii.ov), at which the head of the league 
(I.yciarch) was elected. In the same proporlion the public 
hurdens were asiiigned to the cities. To the first group belonged 
Patara and Myra, both mentioned in the NT, Acts 21 i 
(IltiTopa «al Mùpa|D]), 27$ (cp Strabo, 665> There was no 
federai capital. 

During this period, Lycia is heard of, in i Macc. 
1523. as one of the states to whìch the consul L. Cai- 

^ An alternative route ran from the Cilician Gates, through 
Cybistra, and north-westwards aerosa the plain through Iconium, 
and then hit the trade route at Laodiceia Combusta (Rams. 
Hist. Cotntn. on Gal. 184). 

2 These twenty.three cities were not the sum total of Lycian 
cities, for more than a hundred plaoes are known to bave struck 
coins, and Pliny^iVSaa says that Lycia formerly possessed 
seventy cities, though in his own time there were oniy thirty-sìx, 



purnius Fiso sent letters in favour of the Jewlsh settlers 
(139 B.c.); Phaselis {q.v.). a Lycian town, is men- 
tioned separately in the list. For loyalty to the 
Romans, the freedom of the Lycians was confirmed, 
first by Sulla, and afterwards by Antonius. In 43 a.D. 
internai dissensions afforded the Emperor Claudius a 
pretext for taking the territory of the Federation into 
the Empire (Suet. Claud. 25, Lyciis ob exitiabiks inter 
se discordias libertatem ademit). As a province, Lycia 
seems to have been combined at first with Pamphylia 
(Dio Cass. eOi?)- Two prsetorian governors of this 
period are known— Eprius Marcellus (Tac. Ann. I333 
'" 54-56 A. D. ), and Licinius Mutianus {Lyci<e legatus, 
Plin. //iVlSg). As, however, under Galba, and per- 
haps under Nero, Pamphylia was united with the 
Province Galatia (cp Tac. Hist.2g), it has been con- 
jectured that freedom was restored to the Lycians by 
Nero or Galba ; at ali events. information fails as 
regards Lycia during the reigns of Nero and his suc- 

_ In 74 A.D, Vespasian took Lycia once more within the provìn- 
cìal system, and united it wilh Pamphylia to form the doublé 
province Lycia- Pamphylia, precisely like Ponlus-Bithvnia (Suet. 
Vesfi.^. See Momms. in CIL\u., SuPpl. no. 67^7). As an 
imperiai province, it was governed by a prastorian Legatus 
Augusti propretore ; but in ijs a.D. Hadrian handed it over 
to the Senate in exchange for Bithynia (Dio Cass. 6H 14). When 
absorbed by the Empire the old Federai union stili persisted 
as the Koii'òi' Aukiui' for the imperiai cultus, under the presidency 
of the Lyciarch. 

Lycia has no imporiance in the early history of 
Christianity ; in this respect it is like Pamphylia {q-v.). 
Its name does not occur in i Pet. li (cp Hort, First 
Ep. of Peter, 163/^ ). For its later conection with 
Christianity see Mommsen in Arch. epigr. Mittheil. 
aus Oestr., 1893, P- 93/- 

The Austrians have done much for Lycia. See Benndorf 
■T -i. „i u. Niemann, Lycia, a vols. E. Kalinka, ' Zur 

historisehen Topographie Lykiens ' in Kiepert's 
Festschrift, 1898, p, ibi/. w. J. W. 

LYDDA, or Lod ("il? ; \o\ [BNA] ; but AyA^à '"» 

Neh.1135 [N'^-^ i"f' "-e. L, BN*A om.] Macc. and NT; 
AyiiON [gen. plur.] in Ezra233 Neh.737 lEsd.Saa 
[L]' AtoA ■" iCh.8i2 [L, Bom]; AyiAtoN AoA in 
Ezra233[A]), a town of the Shéphèlah, in (?) the 
Gè ha-haràshim or ' Valley of the Craftsmen (?),' corre- 
sponding to the mod. Ludd, ii| m. by rail SE, from 
Jaffa. Mariette, Brugsch, and others find it mentioned 
(as Lu-t-n) immediately before Ono in the Karnak list of 
Thotmes HI. ; but AV. M. Miiller (As. u. Eur. 140) 
wil! not admit this. Cp Hadid and Benjamin, § 8, ^, 3 ; 
but see Ono, where the doubtfulness of this identifica- 
tion is pointed out (see also Crii. Bib.). Confusions 
of names are not unfrequent in lists. There is at any 
rate no doubt about Lydda. 

In 1 Macc. 11 34 Lydda is named as one of the three 
' governments" [vofwl] that were added to Judasa from 
Samaria, in the reign of Jonathan the high priest, by 
King Demetrius IL, Ephraim and Ramathaim being 
the other two. It is mentioned by Josephus and PHny 
as giving its name to one of the ten or eleven loparchies 
(«Xtjpoux^'^' roirapxio-') into which Judaea was in their 
time divided (Jos. B/m. 3s ; Plin. HN v. I470). Shortly 
after the death of Julius Caesar in 44 b.c. the inhabi- 
tants of Lydda and certain other towns were sold into 
slavery by Cassius owing to the failure of these places to 
pay the heavy contributions he had demanded ; they 
were afterwards set free by Antony. Lydda is mentioned 
in Acts 932^ in connection with a visit of the apostle 
Peter. It was burned by Cestius Gallus in Nero's 
reign, was taken by Vespasian in 68 a. d. , and, after 
the fall of Jerusalem, for some time shared with Jabneh 
the honour of being one of the chief seats of rabbinical 

In a Totius Orbls Dtscriptio of the fourth century Lydda is 
mentioned with Sarepta, Cassarea, and Neapolis as a centre of the 
purple trade. Itsclassical name was Diospelis (when first given 
is not known) ; but it continued also to he known, especially in 
Christian circles, as Lydda, as appears from episeopal lists in 



whicb its name occurs. Pelagius was condemned here at a 
synod held in 415. After vaiying fortunes ihe city wasdestroyed 
by Saladin in 1191 ; but it was rebuilt, only, however, to be 
sacked by the Mongols in 1271. From this last blow it never 
recovered, antl it is now- an uniniportant village, the only feature 
of interest which it possesses bemg the Church of St. George, 
partly dating from the twelfth cenlury, which remincis us that 
LydJa was in Christian times the centre of a cultus closely con- 
nected with the dragon-myths of Egypt and Babylon. It would 
even seem to bave obtaìned a place in some forms of the anti- 
christ legend, for a hadith, ascribed (o _Mohamme(i by ancient 
tommentators on the Koran, says that 'Isa (Jesus) wiil slay ed- 
dajjdl ('the impostor ' = Anticbrist) at Lydda, or even at the 
gate of the churtli of Lydda (Clermont-Ganneau, Horusei Saint 
Georges, 1877, p. io). Antichrist is, in fact, a descendant of Ihe 
mythic dragon. See Antcchrist. 

LYDIA, RV Luu (Ti*?; Ezek. 3O5) and Lydians, 
RV LuniM {U'-iip ; Jer. 46g). See LUD, 2. 

LYDIA (AyÀiA, i Macc. 88 Ezek. 3O5 AV, RV LUD 
[y.i'.], cp id. 27 to), the centrai member of the triad 

Rituftfiì '^^ districts fringing on the W. the great 
^ interior plateau of Asia Minor. On the 
N. carne Mysia, on the S. Caria, on the E. Phrygia. 
Lydia thus included the basJns of the Hermus and its 
tributaries, and that of the Cayster, and extended 
southwards over the range of Messogis as far as the 
Mieander* (Strabo, 577). Eastwards, in the direction 
of Phrygia, the boundary was uncertain, even to the 
ancients, and it was disputed whether the Katakekau- 
mene, the inland volcanic regìon on the upper Hermus, 
was lo be reckoned as Lydian or Mysian (Strabo, 628). 
This confusion was due partly to the presence of both 
Lydian states and Mysian states in the sanie districi 
(Strabo, 579) ; partly also it was the result of disregard 
of ethnical facts by the Romans in their organisation of 
the provincial divisions, as Strabo himself says (629). 

Whether the Lydians are referred to in the OT is 
considered elsewhere (see Lud, Ludim. Put) ; our 
chief obj'ect here is to illustrate the history of NT times. 
Lydia had long been a great trading state, owing to its 
naturai wealth (cp Herod. 1 93 549; Tac. Ann. 455), 
though its trade was inland. not maritime. It was in 
fact the policy of the MermnadEe (who, about 585 b.c., 
extended their rule over Phrygia to the confines of the 
Medìan empire) to make their state an industriai centre. 
Sardis, the capital, was a meeting-place of the caravan 
trade across Asia Minor by the old north, or royal road, 
and that which ran through Lycaonia. 

The Lydians were the first to coin money, and were the 
earliest traders (Herod. l 94). This statement of Hetodotus has 
been eitplained by Radet by pointing out that the old Phceniciaci 
trade was conducted by barter, and that the Lydians first put 
this traffic on a new basis by stamping pieces of electrum of 
giiaranteed weight and fineness wjth a symbol. The story of 
Pythios (Herod. 7 27 y^) shows that commerce on a great scale 
was thus rendered possible in Lydia. The coast had early been 
occupied by Hellenic colonies (Strabo, 647), and their subju^aiion 
gave Lydia also the <^gean trade : her history became inter- 
woven with that of Greece, and Lydia became ' the link that 
binds together the geography and history of Asia and Europe " 
(Sayce, Etnpires of tke East, 423). 

The victory of the Romans at Magnesia, in the valley 
of the Hermus (190 b.c. ), resulted in the transference of 
Lydia from Antiochus of Syria to Eumenes 
n. of Pergamus P0I.2I45; Livy, 37s6). 
To this change reference is made in i Macc. 88. In 
133 B.C., by the will of Attalus ITI., the Pergamene 
kingdom passed to the Romans, and Lydia henceforth 
formed part of the Roman province of Asia. After this 
date, the name Lydia possessed no politicai signifìcance, 
though stili valid in the domain of ethnology or geo- 
graphy. For Romans, or for those who adopted the 
Roman and imperiai point of view, ' Asia ' was the sole 
[jermissible term. Hence, in the NT the name Lydia 
doea not occur, in spite of the fact that so much is said, 
for example, of Ephesus. Paul names only ' Asia' and 
'Galatia' [cp Galatia, §§ 5, 15/]: the writer of the 
Apocaiypse sums \y^ Jive LydJan cities, together with 

1 On the Masanderas the boundary between Lydiaand Caria, 
see Raras. Cities and Bìsk. 0/ Pkiy^ice, 1 183, n. 


2. History. 

the Mysian Pergamus and the Phrygian Laodicea, as 
'the seven churches which are in Asia' (Kev. I4). 

Here must be noticed the view maintained by Blass 
i^Act. Apost. 176) and Zahn {Einl. 1 T-yif.) as to the 
a RI A practice of Lk. in using non -provincial 

' „ . terms (Lycaonia, Pisidìa, Mysìa, etc. ), 

,^ ,, , j and giving to the term Asia a more 
' . . , restricted application than it had in officiai 
usage [cp Galatia, § 15], According 
to Zahn, 'Asia,' as used by Lk., means simply Lydia: 
Blass incliides also Mysia and Caria, and excludes only 
Phrygia — this being, in fact, the extent of the Roman 
province of Asia from 133 to 84 B.C. The enumeration 
in Acts29 seems to give colour to this view, and in this 
passage Ramsay {Church in R. EmpS^) 150) admits 
that ' Asia' is ' poinledly used in the popular sense, ex- 
cluding Phrygia ' (see AsiA ; butcp Phrygia for another 
explanation). No support for Zahn's view can hs 
derived from Strabo (627, tAxo. yàp ^ 'M.'^oi'ia 'Aala. 
éXéyero], for he is quoting a mere theory. In fact, ali 
attempts to prove a use of the term Asia in a narrower 
sense than the Roman province at its greatest extent 
fail : it was not until the end of the third cent. A. D. that 
Asia was restricted as Zahn suggesis (cp Ramsay, Stud, 
Bibl. 430/.). 

The Lydia (see LYDIA, ìi, ) who befriended Paul at 
Philippi, carne from Thyatira (Acts 16 14). Trade 
guilds, united in the worship of some deity, were char- 
acteristic of Lydia (cp Rams. , Cities and Bish. of 
Phrygia. 2417). and the woman may have acted as 
agent for a guild of dyers. Possibly ' Lydia ' was not 
her true name, but a popular designation (cp Zahn, 

The fact that five of the seven churches of Asia lay in 
Lydia makes that country important in the history of 
Christianity. See the special artìcles Ephesus, Phila- 
DELPHiA, Sardis, Smykna, Thyatira. 

Literature. — Radet, La Lydie et le -monde grec aie Temps 
des Mermnades, 1B93; Sayce, Ancient Empires o^ the Kast, 
423/^ W. J. W, 

LYDIA {Ayil* [TÌ.WH]), a woman of Thyatira, 
dealer in purple stuffs (TTOp<t>YPOTTtoAlc). and a ' wor- 
shipper of God ' (ceBOMGNH yoN Sgon ; see Prose- 
LYTE, § 5) ; Paul's first convert, and his hostess, at 
Philippi (Actsl6i4/ 40). See Lydia Ì., § 3. 

LYE occurs once in RV (Jer. 22z), where it represents 
Heb. -|ri3, néther, AV Nitre, and twice in RV^e- 
(Is. I25 : ' I wiil purge as with lye thy dross ' ; JobSjo 
' if . . . I cleanse my hands with lye '), where it repre- 
sents Heb. 113 "13,^ iòr. Cp SOAP. 

The English word lye is now used for Solutions of the hy- 
droxides of potassium or sodium in water, which, when added 
to certain oils or fats, produce soap, but was formerly applied 
to a mixture of water and the ashes of wood and plants gener- 
ally, the water dissolving the alkalìne salcs of the ash. 

A. E. S. 

LYSANIAS (AyCANioy. Ti.WH) is mentioned in 
the NT only in Lk. 3", where he appears as letrarch of 
Abii.ENE [?.v.] at the beginning of the Baptist's 
ministry. Outside of the NT we know of only one 
man of this name who ruied over this region ; his rule 
commenced about 40 B.C., and in 36 B.c. he was exe- 
cuted by the triumvir Mark Antony at the instigation of 
Cleopatra (Jos. Ani. xv. 4i, § 92; B/ì. 223, § 440 1 
Schijrer, G/fl^' 1 296, ET I402) — thus a difference of 
more than sixty years. The question arises, accord- 
ingly. whether perhaps Lk. may not intend a younger 
Lysanias with regard to whom we possess no direct 
information, and whether it is possible to suppose that 
what is said in Lk. may be applicable to hira though 
jnapplicable to the older Lysanias. 

The Lysanias of whom we know from secular history 

I [In Is. 125, "133, 'in the fumace," ought perhaps to be 
read for 133; so Lowth and others. See Furnace, 2.] 



succeeded bis father Plolemy, who was the son of a 
_ . , , ceriain Menneeus ; this Plolemy, accord- 

tPrHtorv nf '«^S ^° ^^'""^^ f"^'" ^"'' P" ^53). was lord 
cerriLory oi ^^ ^^^ . j^^^ ^-ountry of the Itursea 


which we are to understand probably the 
southern Antilibanus (se:? ISHMAEL, § 4 [7]) along 
with Abila (west froni Damascus) — and also of the plain 
of Massyas or Marsyas, which stretched belwecn the 
Lebanon and Antilibanus ranges from Laodicea in the 
N. to Chalcis (Ptolemy's capital) in the S. ; and ìndeed 
it is probable thaC his territory carne farther S. stili, 
to the region of Paneas N. of Lake Merom or Seme- 

[a] The apologists are not alone in maintaining the 
impossibility of this kingdom being designated as the 
letrarchyof Abilene. Schùrer (596^^, 602 ; ETi. 2326^) 
takes the same view, and assumus therefore a younger 
Lysanias, who in the Baptist's time was tetrarch of 
Abilene only. Schiircr himsclf aftirms that ' Pompey 
destroyed the fortified places in Lebanon (Strabo xvi. 
2i8, p. 755) and undoubtedly also curtailed the terri- 
tory of Ptolemy in a way sìmilar to that in which he 
dealt with the Jewish territory.' That the kingdom of 
Plolemy was thereby reduced to the lirnits of Abilene 
alone must not, however, be assumed, for Ptolemy 
purchased immunity for his incursions from Pompey by 
the paymenl of a thousand talenls (Jos. Ant xiv. 82, 

§ 39)- 

In particular it is not probable that precisely Ptoleray's capital 
(Chalds) was taketi from him. Josephus, however (S/ li. 128, 
S 247), expressly distinguishes this Chalcis from the ' kingdom of 
Lysanias ' when he says tbat in 53 A.D. Chalcis was laken from 
Agrippa II., in compensai ion for which he received a grealer 
kingdom which included the kingdom of Lysanias. 

A notice in Josephus (Atii, kvAOiì, gg 343-:ì45i 360; £/ 
i. 2O4, S§ 398-400) leads to the same result. Zenodorus had 
received, on payment of tribute, the former domain of Lysanias 
(èfiefiitrflujTcì TÒi' oikov toìì Ava-aviov) ; after Zenodorus' death 
(20 H.C.) Augustus bestowed his territory upon Herod the Great 
— Ulatha and Paneas to the N. of Lake Merom. These dis- 
tricts, therefore, would seem to bave prevìously belonged to the 
domiiiion of Lysanias (Schiirer, 1 599). 

(è) If accordingly it is impossible to assìgn Abilene 
alone to the Lysanias vouched for by profane history 
we musi put some other meaning upon the expression 
of Lk. unless we are to postulate a younger Lysanias. 
Krenkel {Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, p. 96 _/! ) seeks to 
explain the expression from Josephus. 

It is stated by Josephus f^Ani. xv. 10 1, %% 343'34S ; S/ '■ 2O4, 
% jgSy^) that Augustus ga ve to Herod, while Zenodorus was stili 
alive, 'Trachon, Batana;a, and Auranitis. After the dcath of 
Herod in 4 b.c. these three territories along with a portion of 
the domain of Zenodorus feil to Herod's son Philip {Ant. 
■xv'à. 11 4, g 319; BJn. 63, S 95)- This teirarchy of Philip was, 
after his death in 34 A.l>., incorporated with the province ol" 
Syria ; but in 37 il was given to Agrippa I. along with the 
' tetrarchy of Lysanias' (Jos. Ant. xviii.610, § 537)- In BJ 
(il. 11 5, B 215) Josephus makes the same statement, only with the 
expression 'the so-ealled kitigdotn of Lysanias' (/3a<T<A*iai' tìji' 
Avo-on'ou KttAou/ifj^i'). After the death of Agrippa I. in 44 A.D. 
his territory passed under Roman conlrol. But in 53 a.d., 
according to Josephus (5/ii. 128, § 247), bis son Agrippa II. 
obtained the former tetrarchy of Philip — i.e., Batan^ea, Tracho- 
niti.s, and Gaulanitis — with, in addition, the 'kingdom of 
Lysanias ' along wilh whal had formerly been the domain of a 
certairi Varus. In Ani. xx. 7 i, S j;5a, Josephus states it thus ; 
he received the tetrarchy of Philip and Batansa, and also 
Trachonitis with Abila. At this point Josephus adds that this 
last had formerly been the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Autrai'tov <5' 
avTij è^tyóvti. TfTpap\ia). That this holds good of Abila only, 
not also of Trac homi is, follo ws from xix. 5 i, § 275 ('A^iAav ttiv 

Upon ihese data Krenkel bases the conjecture that 
Josephus does noi mean to speak of Abila as the only 
possession of Lysanias, thal he cails il the teirarchy 
or kingdom of Lysanias simply and solely because it 
was the only pari of the former dominions of Lysanias. 
which, instead of being assigned to another lord such as 
Herod the Great, Philip, or Agrippa I. and receiving 
a name from the new master, had since the death of 
Lysanias continued to be directly under Roman mie. 
This interpretation fìts best the 'Abila of Lysanias' 
('A^iXav TJjy Avtraviov) ; in the other passages it is not 
the most obvious one. It would be more naturai to 


interpret in another sense^that Abila alone had con- 
stituted the territory of Lysanias, — in that case, then, 
of a younger Lysanias. But Josephus never gives any 
indicalion of a younger Lysanias being known to him. 
His rcaders were bound to suppose him to mean the 
Lysanias who was executed in 36 B.c. When we look 
at the question from this point of view, accordingly, the 
simplest course would seem to be to conclude that 
Josephus intends this same Lysanias througlioul, and 
that there was no younger Lysanias ; therefore, that 
KrenkeVs interpretation is noi to be set asidc as inad- 

{e) Corning now to Lk. , Krenkel supposes him to 
have borrowed his expression from Josephus, but on 
the erroneous impression that Lysanias had survived 
and ruled lo a period shortly before the granting of his 
tetrarchy to Agrippa I. and thus to the Baptist's time. 
As to Lk.'s acquainlance with the writings of Josephus, 
see AcTS, § 16, and Theudas. Even if Lk. was not 
acquainted wilh Josephus, however, it is stili possible 
that he may be in error ; he may have found and 
niisunderstood the expression ' tetrarchy of Lysanias,' 
meaning the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, in some other 
so uree. 

[d) In any case we need some explanation of Lk.'s 
mentioning Lysanias at ali. Clearly his wish is to be 
as complete as possible at this imporlant point of his 
narrative ; but Abilene was a very unimportant territory 
and Lysanias was not a Jewish ruler al ali ; if Lysanias 
was to be mentioned other neighbouring princes deserved 
equally well to be so also. The most likely suggestion 
is that Lk. starts from the condilion of matters which 
subsisted down to the year 100 A,D. , and thus approxi- 
mately to the time when he was composing his book ; 
Agrippa IL, the last of the Jewish princes, possessed 
in addition to other territories Abilene also, and Lk. 
thus found himself called upon to say who it was that 
held it in the Baptist's lime.^ Whelher he is indeed 
correct in giving a tetrarch Lysanias for this period 
must remain an open question. That he was mislaken 
cannot possibly be shown or even assumed wilhout 
difficulty ; but neìther can it be disproved. In no case 
can il be held to be impossible, on the alleged ground 
that such a mistake on his pari were inconceivable. 
Not to speak of the mistake regardìng Philip in this 
very verse {cp Iturea), the undeniable error in v. 2 — 
that there were two high priests at the same time — is 
so serious that, in comparison with it, that regarding 
Lysanias would seem quite naturai, especially if Lk. 
was depending on the unprecise mode of expression he 
found in Josephus or some other aulhorily. 

Dio Cassius cails the pre-Christian I^ysanias ' king of 
the Iturseans,' as also does Porphyry (ap. Eus. Chron. 
_... ed. Schone, I170}, if we assume that here 
■ ' Lysanias ' (Aiicaviou) oughl lo be read for 
' Lysimachus' {K.V(Tip.à.x°^]- ^^ '^ illegijimate to infer 
from this, however, that the coins with the legend 
'Lysanias, tetrarch and chief priest' \Kv<}a.viov rerpàpxsn) 
KoX àpx^epibJì : Schiirer. I59B, n. 23) relate noi lo him 
but to a younger Lysanias. The coins hearing the 
legend ' Ptolemy tetrarch and eh ie[f priest] ' (IlrcXt/Miio» 
Terp&pxov àpx[iepéù}7^ì are wilhout hesitalion attributed 
to his father. In that case, however, it is very probable 
that the son also bore the same lille. True, Plolemy 
is nowhere designated 'king' as his son is. The cx- 
pressions of Josephus are quite general — that he ' was 
ruler ' (dwaffn^caf, Ant. xiv. 74. § 325), or ' bore sway ' 
{ÌKpdT€i, B/i. 92, § 185). But the titles ' tetrarch' and 
' king ' are not sharply distinguishcd. ' Tetrarch ' at 
that lime and for many a day had lost its originai 

1 Holtzmann (most recently in IfC ad locJ) adds the con- 
jecture that Lk, look literally the tìtle 'tetrarch' which be 
mentions in 3 i as belonging to two Sons of Herod the Great, 
and accordingly believed that out of the kingdom of Herod 
there must have been forraed a fourlh teirarchy besides the two 
he had named, and Judsea^viz., the 'tetrarchy of Lysanias,' 
le is not necessary, however, to go so far as this ; sce § z. 



meaning of ruler of a foucth pavt of a kingàom and 
bad come to be applied qiiite generally lo any ruler 
over a tenitory not too great, dependent on Rome 
(Schiirer, i. , § i6, n. 12, 350-352; ET ii. I7, n. 12). 
The writers of that period, however, often subsùtute for 
jt the lille of ' king ' a.lso, which strktly denotes a 
higher dìgnily. Even Josephus designales the territory. 
of one and the same Lysanias partly as a tetrarchy 
(rerpapxioi) and partly as a kingdom (jStttrtXeta, § lé). 
In most quarters, iherefore, no difficulty is found in 
identifying the pre-Christian Lysanias with the tetrarch 
of the inscription to be treated of in next section. 

The foUowing inscription upon a tomb at Ba'albek 
( = Hehopolis) to the N. of Abila {C/G 4523) is of 
- j ... importance if the lacunae bave been 

3. inscnpwons. ^j^j^^iy f^^g^j ^p ^y Renan {Mission de 

Phénicie, 1864, p. 317-319, and more exhaustively in 
Mim. de fAcad. dei Inscr. et Belle! Lettres. voi. 26^5 
[1870], pp. 70-79) : ' ■ ■ . daughter to Zenodorus [son 
of] Lys[anias tjetrarch and [toj Lys[anias . . . and 
t]he sons [and to Ly]san[ias . . . and th]e sons 
in me[mor]y [piously] erected (. . . $vydT7}p ZrjpoSiipif 
Aua-laPÌQv rlerpàpxou Kal Avalavii^ . . . koI rjoif vlots 
[koX] {\v)(ja.v\lif. . . . Kal roìjs vloU /i»'['7^]iji X^P'-^ 
[ei5(re/3ù;!] àvédr^Kev). Schurer and others deduce from 
ihis noi only that the Zenodorus named above (§ ra 
and è) was a son of the pre-Christian Lysanias, but also 
that younger members of his faraily also bore the name 
Lysanias. Krenkel considers this to have no point 
inasmuch as the inscription bestows the lille of tetrarch 
only on the father of Zenodorus, but designales the 
other persons by their mere names without any addition, 
It remains a possibility, however, that one or more of 
thera may have received the title of tetrarch only after 
the erection of this monument, which perhaps may have 
been set up soon after the death of Zenodorus (20 B. C. ). 
Moreover Krenkel has confined himself, as he ought 
not to have done, to Schiiter's reproductìon of the 
inscription, Schurer himself says that he is giving only 
the legible portions of it and takes no account of the 
lacuniE assumed by Renan. Just as the first-named 
Lysanias is raore precisely designated as tetrarch, so 
Renan desiderales some more definite title for the 
second and for the third. Krenkel is righi, however, 
in so far as he contends that neilher the second nor the 
third can have been designated tetrarch, otherwise the 
first Lysanias would have required some further addition 
— for example the name of his father — for distinction's 
sake. In point of faci Renan conjectures only so much 
as this — that the second and the third Lysanias were 
distinguished by addition of the names of their fathers. 
The most important consideration, however, is that for 
bolh of them the name Lysanias itself rests upon pure 
conjecture. Renan himself says that in the second 
place, for example, the reading might quite as easily be 
Lysimachus or Lysias ; and, in the third place, Brocchi, 
the only person who had seen this fragment of the 
inscription which has since disappeared, did not read 
' Lysan ' (ATSAN) at ali, but ■ Dasan ' (AASAN). 

{i) Another inscription {CIG 4521, cp Addenda in 
voi. iii. ) relates that a freedman of the tetrarch Lysanias 
has constructed a road and buiìt a tempie ' for the 
weal of the lords Augusti ' {òirkp ttjI tÙìv KUpidif 
Sef^aoTÓic] tTbirrjplas). There was no pluralìty of 
Augusti ( — 2,e^aa-Tol) until the lime of Tiberius, along- 
side of whom his raolher Livia, after the death of the 
Emperor Octavianus Augustus {14 A. D. ), bore the title 
of Augusta (Tac. Ann. 18; SchUrer, 1 603, n. 37). 
Now it is by no means impossible that a freedman of 
the Lysanias who died in 36 B.C. should, fifty years 
afterwards, or more have made a road and biiìU a 
tempie, particularly if, as often enough happened, he 
had been emancipated as a child along with his parents. 
Thus neither does this inscription supply any decisive 
evidence ìn favour of the existence of a younger tetrarch 



Wieseler, Chronoì. Syn-sp. d. vier Evangelìen, 1S43, pp. 174- 

183, and Biitr, t. Wiirdieuit^ der Evangelien, 1869, pp. 196- 

204; Renan, in Mém. Acad, Inscr. ^db, 

4. Literaturd. 1870, pp. 49-84, and especially Schurer, GJV\, 

Beilage i, 600.603 (ET i. 2335,^) for the 

ossumption of a younget Lysanias. On the othei side, see 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, l,S4o, 1835, pp. 310-313 ; Keira, G«cA./frK 

von JVazara, l6ia_/; (ET ii. ^84/^) and Aus detti Urchristeit- 

thuttt, 1 (1878) 9'i3, and especially Krenkel, Josephus w. Litcas, 

1894, pp. 95-98. p. W. S. 

LYSIAS ÌAyci&c[AKV]). I. A general of Anliochus 
Epiphanes (see Antiochus, 2) and one of the seed 
royal. Anliochus, smarting under the recent defeat of 
his captains Apollonius (z) and Seron {qq. v. ), placed 
Lysias in charge of the W. portion of his empire with 
orders to ' root onl and destroy the strength of Israel 
and the remnant of Jerusalem. ' He himself with half 
the army removed from Antioch to proceed with the 
invasion of Persia, entrusting his young son — afterwards 
Antiochus V. Eupalor — to the care of Lysias (1 Macc. 
332#). An army of 47,000 men under ihree leaders 
was seni against Judsea, bui mei with no success 
(i Macc.ltjfl, see GORGiAs, Nicanor}, and Lysias, 
vexed and discouraged, started out the following year 
with a force 65,000 strong (165-164 B.C.). He was 
badly defeated al Beth-znr by Judas (l Macc. 4a8^), 
and the tidings of this disaster completed the discoivititure 
of Antiochus, who, on his dealhbed, entrusted the 
guardianship of his son to Philip, S^ (i Macc. 65.^). 
Lysias, however, set up Anliochus Eupator as king, 
and set out upon a fresh invasion of Judaaa (SaS,^ j. 
Belh-zur was besieged, and at the neighbouring locality 
of Bethzacharìas the Maccabsean party was defeated 
(see Eleazar). Leaving behind a portion of his army 
to continue the siege of Belh-zur, Lysias marched upon 
Jerusalem ; but hearing that Philip had returned to 
assert his newly gained authority, Lysias concluded a 
treaty with Jerusalem, which, however, he immediately 
violaled (651,^). He hastily marched to Antìoch, 
which Philip had already occupied, and ultimalely over- 
came him (see PhiLip, 5).^ He was put to death at 
the commencement of the reign of Demetrius I. [q. v. ]. 
His history as recounted ìn 2 Macc. lOn^ ll-12i 
13i-142 differs in several essential particulars from the 
above; see Maccabees, Second, § 2/, col. 2869^ 

2. See Claudius Lysias. 

LYSIfltACHUS (Aycim&xoc [BXAV]}. 

1. Son of Ptolemy, who is saìd to have translated 
ìnto Greek the book of Esther ; see apocryphal Esther 
Ut (@ lOii). On this and on the statement that the 
translalion was made at Jerusalem (rùiv [if toc] èv 
'\epovaa\rili) see ESTHER, § 9, col. 1405, Willrich, 
Judaica, 'Isf- 

2. A high priest (aboul 171 b.c.), temporarily ap- 
pointed by his brother Menelaus f^, v. ]. His many acls 
of sacrilege roused the indignation of the common people, 
who rose against him and killed him (2 Macc. 4 29 39.^ )■ 

On che statement in v. 29 (tijs àpxKptotn/vis finiSoxoc) see 
WiUrich, Judaica, 165 ; the Vg. seems to have supposed that 
Lysimachus was his brother's successo»' (see RVmg.), leading : 
' Menelaus amottis est 3 sacerdotio succedente L. fratre suo.' 

In view of the fact that his brother Menelaus bears a Hellenised 
form of a Hebrew name, Mr. S. A. Cook conjectures that Lysi- 
machus itself is a Hellenising of the Hebrew -po'^K * (cp 
IsMACHiAK, Semachiah). See generally Onias. 

LySTRA(AYCTpàN. Actsl46 2i 16 1; gn Aycrpoic. 
Actsl4 8 16 2 sTim. 3ii}.^ The site of Lyslra 
was guessed by Leake in 1820, and his con- 
jecture was confirmed by Sterrett's discovery of a large 

1 Probably this was due to the ili-success of Lysias. 

3 Another tradition in 2 Macc. 13 23 would seem to show that 
Philip had been appoìnted chancellor. 

3 The same variation in gender and declensìon as is found in 
the case of Myra \q.v.'\ \ but whilfi the mod. name of Mj^ra is 
proof of the existence of the locai form Miipaf, there is no 
evidence, other than the passage in Acts, available in the case of 
Lystra. See on this pomt, Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 
128. The name Lystra, as Ramsay remarks {Hùi. Comf. on 
Gaùifians, «23), is probably Lycaoivian, as the similar names 
Ilistra and Kilistra occur to the SE. and NW. of the town 
respectively (cp Rams. //ist. Geogr. o/AM ^51). 


1. Site. 


pedestal, standing perhaps in its originai posìtion, having 
an inscription in hoiiour of Augustus {Wo/fe Exped. 
142 : Divum. Aug'ìjtsium\ Col\pnid\ /u^ia] Felix 
Gemina Lustra consecravit d\ecreto^ d^ecuriomiml). 
This proves that the colony occupied the hill about 
one mile NW. of the modem village Khatyn-Serai 
(— ' The Lady's Mansion '), some eighteen mìles SSW. 
of Iconium. A considerable stream, flowing eastwards 
out inlo the Lycaonian plain, runs between the ancient 
site and the modem village. Few remains of the old 
city are vìsible above ground ; but a sniall church stands 
near an Ayasma \i.e., 'Ayiaa/ia) or spring reputed holy 
by the Christiana of Iconium and the Turks of the 
neighbourhood. This tradition of sanctity probably 
goes back to pagan times. There ìs no trace of the 
tempie of Zeus {Act 14 13) ; but its site is perhaps in- 
dicatedby the pedestal already mentioned (see Jupiter). 

When on the death of Amyntas in 25 B. C. his kingdom 
was formed into a province (Galatia), Lystra, Isaura, 

„. , and Derbe were ali included within it : for 

^' Lystra had belonged to the Lycaonian te- 
trarchy transferred to Amyntas in 36 B.C. (see Lyca- 
onia), and Derbe had been taken by him from 
Antipater with the connivance of the Romans (see 
Derbe). The importance of the town was ephemeral, 
and dated only from 6 b.c., when Augustus made an 
effort to regniate and civìHse the mountaineers on the 
southern frontier of Galatia. To this end there was 
created a system of military roadsradiatingfrora Antioch 
to the garrison cities or colonies. The military colonies 
founded in this region were Olbasa. Comama, Cremna, 
Pariais, Lystra, and Antioch {cp C/L 3, suppl. 6974) 
[see Pisidia]. I.,ystra was the most easterly of these 
colonies. and the bulwark of southern Galatia ; for 
Derbe, which lay farther E. . did not become important 
until 41 A. D. , and was never a colony ; nor was 
Iconium, the nearest important town to the N. , a 
colony (unti! the time of Hadrian). Lystra thus stood 
in proud ìsolation in this nook of Galatia as the repre- 
Sentative of Romati civilisation, and the Latin-speaking 
Coloni formed a military aristocracy amid the incolte or 
Lycaonian natives of the town. The nearest Roman 
city was Antioch, the military centre. 

The sympathy between the two colonies ìs illustrated hy the 
inscription discovered at Antioch on the base of a statue pre- 
sented by Lystra (Sterrett, Wolfe Exped. 352 : rr[V Xa)i.-n(toTa.Tiìv 
'KvTi.o\i>av KoKiovia.v ij AafurpoTttTij Airtrrpewv KoKaivia. tìjj' ó<S«X- 
(frìji' . . . «TeiiiJjirei'). The Latin feeling in Lystra is shown by 
the fact that the name of the city is written Lustra on coins and 
in inscriptions, under the inlìuenee of a false analogy between 
the Lycaonian word and the Latin word lustrutn (cp CIL 
S6596, Col- Lustrensium, and 6786. Coins bave colonia . 
JULIA . FELIX . GEMINA . LUSTRA). Ncverthelcss, it was only 



special circumstances that for a time impressed this foreigii 
characler upon the town. 

Lying as it did in a secluded glen ten miles S. of 
the great trade route, which naturally ran by way of 

3. NT «ferences. I^o"*"^"» ^"d Derbe Lystra retained 
more tenaciously than those towns 
the native stamp. When the hill-country was pacitìed, 
Lystra ceased to be of importance ; and its situation 
was not such as to make it a great town by reason of its 
trade, Hence it was neither Romanised nor Hellenised ; 
of ali the places visited by Paul, Lystra was the only one 
the native character of which was sufficiently prominent 
to receive notice in Acts. The belief in the epiphany 
of the gods, and the use of the ' speech of Lycaonia ' 
(Acts 14 II) in a moment of excitement testify to the 
permanence of the native character in the bulk of the 

Athough on the ground of their constitution as 
Roman colonies, Lystra and Antioch go logether, from 
the point of view of the organisation of the Roman 
provìnce, Lystra goes with Derbe, these two together 
being the cities of the Lycaonian region of the province 
of Galatia. Hence, Lystra is grouped with Derbe in 
Acts 146 (where rV "■ep/x*"/""'. ''he region that lieth 
round about ' AV = the x^P"-/ ^egio. of Lycaonia, 
Galatica. See Lycaonia, | 3. and GALATIA, § 7). 
From the point of view of its commercial relations, the 
connection of Lystra was closest with Iconium. and 
next to that with Antioch, for the trade flowed west- 
wards. Hence, in Acts liig, it is Jewish traders from 
Iconium and Antioch that come to Lystra ; and in Acts 
I62 Lystra and Iconium are grouped together as the 
district in which Timothy was weli known {Rams. St. 
Paul the Tra-veller, 179). Lystra was the birthplace 
and home of Timothy, whose parentagc illustrates the 
composite character of the population. 2 Tim. %\af. 
clearly implies that Timothy was a spectator of the brutal 
assault made upon Paul by the Lyslran rabbie. Lystra 
was revisited by Paul on the way home on the comple- 
tion of the first joumey (Acts leu), and again on the 
second journey (Acts I61) : theorderof the names corre- 
sponds to the geographical order, for on the second 
journey Paul travelled westwards by way of the Cilician 
Gates. A visit to Lystra, on the third journey, is implied 
in Acts I823 {on the South Gaiatian theory only [cp 
Galatia, §§ 7 and 9-14, 24]). 

In later Christian history Lystra is rarely mentioned. Artemas 
or Artemius, one of the Seventy, is said to bave been ils bishop. 
£xcavation will doubtless reveal much on this interesttng and 
promisi ng site. 

Literature. — ChieflyRamsay in hisCAarcA intheR. Emfi.^ 
Vfff; and HisU Comtn. on Gal. 323, et pass. 

W. J. W. 





MAACAH (so 2 S. 106 8) or Maachah (ilDlfO ; 
MàX*Tei [B], Mft,X&0i [■^^l' M&XàSei [L] ; other 
readings M&xei, <\X&9ei, OM&X&6ei [-0 MàX-t '^P ^ì' 
Ntoxò.eei, Mox&rei, M&xàXft&xei [B] i MOx&xei [K], 
M&x*Ti, M&xAT&i, Mà.x*6eei, Md.X*9à, McoSàTei, 
Mi\àX*9 t-'^] i MiS.&X*6l [Q]; MAKàOl, MàKàpei, 
M&X*9iTOY [L]}. if the name is, as the present wriler 
holds, probably a popular corruption of Jerahmeel (see 
Maacah ii,), we need not wonder to find il both in 
the N. and in the S. of Palestine. The final editors 
of our narratives certainly took Maacah to be an 
Araniasan country. It is nientioned in connection with 
Rehob, Zobah, and Ish-tob (Toh?) as furnishing 
Aramcean mercenaries to the Ammonites, 2 S. 106 8 
(fiaaxa [AL], auaX^K^ [B]) ; in the parallel, i Ch. 196, 
it is even called Aram-maacah [RV], SVRiA-MAACAH 
[AV](n3VD a'\it,(Tvpto.ìfiooxa-[Bìi],cr. ^ax» [A], tr. /iaax'* 
[L]). In 2S/2O1S (AV) we read of a city called Abel 
of Beth-maacah (see Adel-beth-maacah), which is 
commonly supposed to bave derived its name frorti the 
northern Maacah. It should be noted, however, that 
Abel -beth-maacah (so RV) is called {v. 19) 'a mother 
in Israel ' whereas Maacah only became Israelitish after 
the defeat of Hadad-ezer;^ the reading Abel-beth- 
maacah must be corrupt (see Sheba, b. Bicri), The 
gentilic noun Maachathitea (AV). Maacathitea 
(RV), ■ny;o, occurs with 'Geshurites' in Josh. 1813(2 
[JEj (in è, KVO, whence RV Slaacath) and in Dt. 814 
(AV ' Geshnri and Maachathi,' ó laeip [AF]) ; here a 
northern people and land is evidently meant. In 2 S. 
2334. however, 'the Maacathite' as clearly indicates a 
southern districi (see Eliphelet, 2). 

A CQrrupt form pf ' Maacath' is nan (EV Hamath). Wi.3 
thinks that there were two Hamaths, one in Sytia, the other on 
the S. of Mt. Hermon ; the second jicn however is surely a 
conuption of nsi'n (Maacah). We know as a fact that there 
was a southern Geshur (if that be the right vocalisation) ; il is 
hardly !ess certain that there was a southern Maacah, and the 
true text of that much-disputed passage, 2 S, 8 ló, mosl prob- 
ably stated that ' David (not Solomon) took the Maacathite 
(districi) out of the band of the Sarephathites ' (see Methsg- 
ammah). The popular corruption non may underlie the strange 
place-name noDn (Humtah), and the odd personal names Smnn 
and the more corrupt alternative forni (©bal 2 Ch. 36 2) StJ"3N ; 
n^ya. '-^-7 tbe southern Maacah, may also occur in Ps. tìOtì [8], 
emended text (see Psalms [Book], g 28 [iv.]) and elsewhere. 

T, K. C. 

MAACAH RV, so also in 2S.33 AV, which has 
elsewhere Maachah (HDl^P, A\&6.Xà [BAL]). Like 
MicAH and Micaiah [qq.v.), the name seems lo the 
present wriler to be a popular corruption of Jerahme'el 
or Jerahme'elith (' a Jerahmeelite'). Talmai, the father 
of Maacah 2, was also probably designaled ' a Jerah- 
meelite ' (b. Amtnihur?). See Talmai 2, and MAA- 
CAH 2. 

1. A 'son' (or ' daughter ' ?) of Nahor (i'.i?., Hauran) 
by Reumah (Gen. 2224. /iwxa [ADL]). The name (see 
above) corresponds lo ' Kemuel-abi-aram ' {anolher 
disguise of Jerahme'el), in the list of Nahor's sons by 
Milcah. See Kemuel, Nahok. 

2. Daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, and mother 
of Absalom (2S. 83, ^aa^a^ [A], iCh. Sz, p-i^xa. [BA]). 
See Geshur 2, Talmai. 

3. Mother of Abijah (iK,15a 2 Ch. llao-az), also 
called MicAiAH (2 Ch. ISa ; AV Michaiah). In 

1 K. 15 ber father's name is given as Abisalom, in 

2 Ch. 11 as Absalom, bui in 2 Ch. 13 as Uriel of Gibeah 
(©'i*, however, for 'Gibeah' has 70^0(111', Vg. Gabaa, 

1 This may perhaps record an early and correct explanalion. 
But cp Aram, g 5, n. i. 

2 Cp Wi. G/2241. 3 Ibid. 210/ 


Pesh. ràmithà, 'Ramah'). It has been thought that 
the name Uriel may have been derived from i K. 15 io 
(where it may originally have stood, see ASA, i), the 
motive of the change being a desire to provide some 
other parentage for Abijah's mother (cp Tamar 3). 

A more sacisfactory theory can be offered. The reading in 
I K. 15 2 is more nearly correct ; d'?B"3(( may be a corruption of 
^ND'IN, and both '^nD'IN and "^KnK corruplions of ^soni'- 
Maacah, as we have seen, is probably a corruption of n"'?NDn"lV 
and the origina] statement was that Abijah's mother was named 
Maacah [a Jerahmeelite], of Gibeah. The Gibeah meant ìs 
that of Josh. 16 57. 

4, Mother ofAsa(i K.15io. amCBL]; 2Ch.l5i6). 
See AsA, i. Most probably i K. 15 io should run thus : 
' His molher's name was Maacah [a Jerahmeelite],' on 
the analogy of i K. 15= (see 3). She was deposed 
from her position as queen-mother on account of some 
religious symbol (ns'?SD, RV ' an abominable image') 
which she had made for Asherah \q.v.\ i K. 15i3. 

In Pesh. of i K. 15 io Maacah's father's name is given as Ebed- 
salom, a mistaken emendation of Abishalom (cp 3). 

5. Falher of Achish \g.v.\ (1 K. 239, onijo-a [B]), called also 
Maoch (Tiiyn, I S. 27 2, [B], ^(un^ [A], a^ilioav IL]) ; so 
Targ. in both passages. The reading of ©l- and Tg. is im- 
portant. See 'Talmai {aii^n.). 

6. A concubine of Caleb (i Ch. 2 48, /lux" IBA]), personifying 
the Jerahmeelites. 

7. Wife (or 'mother,' Pesh.) of Machir (aIso = Jerahme'el?), 
the Manassite(iCh. 7 15/;, fioù>xn[B], fioo^alA]); cp Maacah 
I ; Saul i. 

8. Wife of Jehiel, 'father' of Gibeon (i Ch. 829, jioA^o IBJ, 
HiÀva [Ra'bt], no.;^a [L] ; 935 ^uoojva [B«A]). B's reading 
confirms the detivation from Jerahme'el. 

9. Father of Hanan [2] (i Ch. 11 43, moux* IB»], Maxa[A]). 

10. Father of Shephatiah, a Simeonite (1 Ch. 27 16, /in^a [B], 
li.aaxa [A], jiavaTi [L]). Note that the next name is that of a 
son of Kemuel, anothet distortion of Jerahme'el. 

For another inslance of ihe d i storti on of 'Jerahme'el' into 
' Maacah ' see Saul, g i (on 2 S. 20 14, Abel- beth-maacah). Cp 
also Meholathith ; Maacah and Meholah are both probable 
corruplions of 'Jerahme'el.' f. K. C. 

MAASAI C'IlfD. abbrev. from some elhnic, but see 
Maadiah and cp ®), b. Bani, in the list of those with 
foreign wives (see Ezra i., § 5 end); EzralO-34 
(A\oieA[G]i& [BNj, MOOieii. [A], «oyoYil [L]) 
= iEsd. 934 MoMDis (MOMAeioc [B], -Aeic [A], 
mooyAeia [L]). 

MAADIAH (nnrp. see § 33, but also cp Maadai), 

a priest in Zerubbabel's band (see EURA ii. , § 6 3) ; Neh. 

12s (BNAom.. A^à&Àl&c[N'^-^"'e- ="!■■]■ /W&&ÌI&C [L]). 
Cp Maaziah, Moadiah. 

MAAI C^O), a priestly musician in the procession at 
the dedicaiion of the wall (see Ezra ii. , § 6*), Neh. 
1236t (BXA om., A\à&l [N=-^ >"£:■ i»f-], MÒ.1& [L]). 

MAALEH-ACRABBIM(D'3-lj5Vn^rp), Josh.l53t, 
AV, RV Ascent of Akrabbjm {q.v.). 

MAANI. I. (AAàNei [B], M0.&NI [A], MOON€i/v\ 

[L]), I Esd.531 RV^Ezra2soMEUKi.M (g-). 

2. RV Baani (goai'lelt [BA], janrac [LJ), 1 Esd.9 34 = Ezra 
10 34, Bani 2. 

MAAEATH (niTO ; M&r&Ptoe [B], M&pcoe [A], 
A^&l^pal6 [L]). a city in the bill country of Judah 
(Josh. 1659), mentioned next to Gedor, which is 6^ m. 
N. from Hebron. Near the ruins of Jedijr (Gedor) is 
the village of Bel Ummar, which may be a distanl echo 
of Ma'arath (?). Not far away are handsome rock 
tombs and a number of small caverns (Baed.l^' i35)' 


MAASAI, AV Maasiai ('b'VO), iCh.9i= = Neh. 
II13, AmASHAI iq.v,). 

MAASEAS (Bar. 1 1 RV). See Maaseiah i. 


MAASEIAH, RV Mahseiah ( n^pnp, § 28 ; [Ginsb. ; 
but see Raer's note on Jer. 32 12]), an ancestor of Baruch, 
Jer. ;ì2i2 (Mà&C&iOY [^Q]. mn&c. [B"»], m&cc. [A], 
M&ceOY [N]) ■ 51 59 fMAàCàroY [BN'^-*Q], -ce [A], 
M&X*lOY [***])■ l'I Bar. li the name appears as 
Maasias, RV Maaseas. 

MAASEIAH (H^bl^p, [and ■infB'rO in Jer. 354 and 
nos. 4-9], for the corruption H^tJ'J'Q see no. 22 ; acc. 
to Che. from some ethnic (see 12), but pointed as if— 
'work of God ' cp J.Aa.siel and see Names. § 31; 
/W&&CAt&[c], M&6,Clà[c] [BNQ], M&&CI&[c] [L]. A\&- 
ceoY [t*]). 

1. Father of Zephaniah the pnest, temp. Zedekiali, Jer. 21 1 
(jjjivaaaawv [B), ^va. [B^^], ^i.a<r<r. [A], liana. [Q]), cp 29 [36] 
25 (/ivairaiov [B^° '>], naaa. [A]), 37 [44] 3 (jiva-tro-iov [B^bJ^ y,a, 
[A]). He is possibìy the same as 

2. b. Shallum, a door-keeper, Jer. 35 [42] 4 (/Aoiatreou [n<^-3], 

3. Faiherof the 'false 'prophet Zedekiah, Jer. 29 3i(om. BKA, 
^MiTcriov [Theod. in Q'XK-]). 

4. b, Adaiah, a captain of Judah, who allìed himself with 
Jehoiada, 2 Ch. 23 i (fiao-tai- [A]). 

5. An officiai (laiOT, see Scribe) under Uzziah, 2 Ch. 26 11 
(fHiairaiov [B], (j.aaira'tov [L]). 

6. A 'king's son,' if this is right (-]'fcn"T3 ; see Hammeleck), 
slain by the Ephraimite Zichri when Pekah invaded Judah, 
zCh. 287 {naaiav [A]>. [Accordili^ to Che, 'Airikam,' which 
follows, Comes from ' Jerahmeel,' originally a gloss oii ' hamme- 
lech.' Thu.s Maaseiah was the 'ruler of the house.'] 

7. Governor of Jerusalem, temp. Josiah, sent with Shaphan to 
sucerinteiid the restoration of the tempie, 2 Ch. 34 8 {p-atiaa [B]). 

8. and 9. Two Levites of the second rank, temp. David, 
1 Ch. 15 IS (^Q.a<r<raia [B], afiaaio. [A''id.]), 30 (jLiurunia^ [B], 
tiaaaiiK [nD- 

10. A priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra i., 
! 5 end), EzralO 18 (nÈ*(r<niÀ [B], /taamia [((], -lia [A)) = i Esd. 
9 19,, HV Mathelas ((iaeijAas [B], fi.a&r). [A]). 

ji. One of the b'ne Harem, a priest in list of those with 

foreign wives (see EzRA i., S 5 end). EzralO 21 f/iacrai7A [BNJ, 
/laireias [A])=i Esd. il 21 (Eanes, RV Manes, nanji [BA]), 
where ' of the sons of Harim' is omitted except in ©■•. 

11. One of the b'ne Pashhuk, a priest in list of those with 
foreign wives (see Ezra Ì-, § 5 end), Ezral022=i Esd. 9 2z, 
Massias (tuTo-fin-s [B], (jacrcrias [A], naaeraiiK [L])-' 

n. One of the b'ne_ Pahath-moab, in list of those wìth 

foreign wives (see Ezra i., § S end), Eira 10 30 (finiTTja [B], 
[A], itaa-q [k])=i 9 31 Moosias, RV MonssiAS (fiooo-o-eias 
(Bj, jioocTffta! [A]; no trace is found in ®l- save o-tStn, or 
perhaps ^afitia? ?) 

14. Father ofAzAKiAH (4) ; Neh. 323(u.afiaoTjX[Bf'], iioatrcrtov 


15. In list of Ezra's supporters (see Ezra ii., § 13 [_/C] ; cp i., 

S 8 ; ii., S 16 [5] ; ii., § 15 [i]c)Neh. 84 (/looffffaia [E], -o-ios [L]) 
= 1 Esd. 943 Balahamus, RV Baalsamus (J.e., ^aAa<™fi = 
BlLSHAN ; paaAtrtt)ios [BA], it-aatriat [I,]>. 

16. Expounder of law (see Ezra ii., § 13 [yT] ; cp i., § 8 ; ii., 

» 16 [5], S 15 [i]cì, Neh.8 7(om. B(«A)= i Esd. 94S, Maianeas, 
RV Maiannas (fintavi'oì [BA], (lacrtnas [L]). 

17. Signalory to the covenanl (see Ezraì., §7), Neh. 10 25 [26] 
(/laaÀo-ia, [A]). 

18. b. Baruch descended from Shtloni [q.Tj.]. in list of 
Judahìte inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra ii., § ^iò], § 15 [i]a). 
Neh. 11 5 (^oao-eia [B], ,j.o.\ai.a [A], /leo-fia [«'], afi.(tTtia [[(Ca], 
/AOCTiits I L]) ; he represents the Shelanite branch of Judah, just 
as Athaiah represents the Perezite (see Perez), cp i Cn. 9 5 where 
the name Asajah (.Tbl') is probably nothing more than another 
fùrm of Maaseiah. 

ig. h. IlhìeI in list of Benjamite inhabilants of Jerusalem 
(see EzKAÌi-, § 5 [li], g 15 [i]a); Neh. 11 7 (uoya.nX[E], iiaratiA 


20. and 21. Two priesls in procession at the dedication of 
the Wall (see Ezra ii., S i^g), Neh. 12 41 42 (om. BN*A). 

23. A Gershonitc I.evite, i Ch. C40 [28], whose name has 
been corrupted inlo B.^aseiah. 

MAASIAI, I Ch.9i2. RV Maasai. 

MAASIAS, RV Maaeeas (Bar. li); in Jer.32i2 
Maaseiah i. 

MAASMAS (Màd,CA\&N [HA]), lEsd. S43 RV^ 
Ezra8i6, Shemaiah, 17. 

MAATH (Mà&9 [Ti. WH]), a name in the genealogy 
of Jesus (Lk. 326). See Genealogies ii. , § 3. 

1 [The name occurs between Elioenai (= Elishama = Ishraael) 
and Ishmael. Perhaps (he same man is meant, and his name 
was Ishmael ; Nethaneel = Elhani, foliows (so Che.).} 

92 2849 


MAAZ (J'1?P, cp Ahimaaz ; mA&C [BAL]), one of 
the sons of Riim b. Jerahmeel b. Hezron ; 1 Ch. 227t. 

MAAZIAH (■innrD, ' Yahwè is a refuge ' ? the name 
may, however, be a corruption of n'OIlD ; see Maa- 
seiah i. ), the name of a fpost-exilic) priestly family, 
to which was assigned one of the twenty-four ' courses,' 
iCh.24i8 (a\&&CAI [B], mOOZ&A [A], flAOOZIà [L]). 
Represenled amongst the signatories to the covenant 
(see EzKAÌ,,§7); Neh.lOS[9] (.riyn, i-aSeia [B], 
afeia [N], fiaa^eia [A], /laaftas [L]) ; cp MaAdiAH. 

MABDAI (A^&Mi&l [B], m&nìAI [A]), 1 Esd. 934 = 
Ezral035. Benaiah, 9. 

MACALON ([eK]A\&K&Xto n [BA]), i EsJ. 62. = Ezra 
227, MlCHMAS. See MlCHMASH. 


Name Maccabee (g i). Judas (g 4). 

,, Hasmontean (§ 2). Jonathan (g 5). 

TJprising (g 3). Simon (S 6). 

Genealogy (§ 3). John Hyrcanus (S 7), 

Bihliography (g 8). 

The name ' Maccabasus ' (m&KKìBaioc : La'- 

Machahaus ; Syr. ^--^ay* ) was originally a name of 

1 The name ^h^'^hirdsonofMattathias{see§3), com- 

('iw«,.»»k.. • nionly called Judas, and in the books 
Inaccabee. e-./ , ^ ,. . , 

01 Maccabees is applied only to him. 

('lovSns ò KdAovVepos MtocuriPoìos iMacc. 24 3i; \av&. [ò] 
Mqkk. y 66 ; lovS. ò MojtK. 5 24 2 Macc. 2 19 8 i ; ó Mokk. i Macc 
S 34 [A], 2 Macc. 8516 10 19 j?: ; or simply Mojt*. i Macc. 5 34 
[KV] 2 Macc. 10 i.)l It thus makes the impression of heing a 
surname ; see, however, below. 

As Maccaba;us was the centrai figure in the struggle 
for Jewish independence, it was naturai that his name 
should be used at a later day (so, e.g., in Origen) to 
designate the other members of the family to which he 
belonged (also called ' Hasmonasans ' ; see below, § 2), 
or even in a wider sense, to appiy to ali those who were 
in any way associated with him or his brethren. 
Similarly, certain writings which are concerned directly 
or indirectly with the deeds or the times of these leaders 
bave been entitled Books of Maccabees (MaKKo/Satwi', 
or 'ì&aKKa^aÌKà ; properly, the Maccabsean history or 
times ; cp BatrtXetwy, etc. ). See below on the titles of 
'3 Macc' (col. 2879) and '4 Macc.,' especially (col. 

The form and the meaning of the Hebrew (or 
Aramaic) originai of the name Maccab^us are alike 
iincertain. The Greek transcriplion points to a forni 
with k (p). Against this, the Latin machabaus (cA~^ 
[^]) has been urged, but without sufficient reason. 

The argument in favour of the form 'JJC has been presented 
with great thoroughness and ingenuily by S. I. Curtiss (T/ie 
Name Machaòee, Leipsic, 1876), who attempts to give the 
Latin form ' Machaba;us' direct connection with the Hebrew, 
through Jerome. The argument breaks down completely at 
that point, however, even if we let Jerome's indefinite ' Macha- 
bajorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi ' (in Frol. Gal.) mean 
ali it can, and believe that he had actually .=een a Hebrew 
I Macc. 3 There is not the slightest probability that the old 
Latin translation of 1 Macc. was revised by Jerome ; on the 
contrary, ali the evideiice is slrongly opposed to this view. 

So far, therefore, as the testimony of the old versions 
is concerned, we have to guide us only the undoubted 
fact that the Greek form of the name is derived from a 
translation of the hook made with painstaking accuracy 
directly from the Hebrew (see below, Maccahees.Figst, 
§ 3 [col. 3858]), whilst the Latin form of the name is 
found in a version mzàe/rom the Greek.'^ 

The favourite interpretation of the name has con- 
nected it with the Hebrew makkébeth (see Hammer, i) ; 

1 [The spelling of ihe name occa.sjonally varies in ANV.] 

2 There is justilìcation for the suspìcion that this statement 
of Jerome's was based simply on Origen's testimony to the 
ejiistence of a Semilic i Macc. See col. 2857, § i ; and co!. 
2B66, g II. 

3 Ali other forms of the name, even those which appear in 
(late) Jewish writings ('ape, '33D, 'K330), are derived either 
from the Greek or from the Latin. 



Aram. m.akkàhd. Judas wouid thus have been called 
'The Haramerer,' presumably because of hìs prowess 
in battle. To this, however, there are objections : 

1. The form of the word — apparently an adjective ending in 
ai or i — which the Greek naturally suggests. We should 
hardiy expect an adjective to be used in such a case. 

2. The kind of hammer designated by the Hebrew rtapD 
(see Curtiss, i-z/.). Both Hebrew and Aramaic have words in 
common use for ' heavy hammer,' ' sledge -hammer,' whilst 'q 
is the smaller workman's tool. Especia!lv in vìew of the famihar 
passages Jer. 5O23 (cp Bèrakkóth, 28*) 51 20, the 'hammer' 
theory of Judas' name seems hardly credible. 

3. It is by no means certain that the name Maccabee was 
given to Judas because of his valour. There is no hint of such 
an origin of the name in our oldest sources,! and it is evident 
that the interpretations of this nature found in later wrilings 
(e.g,, in Gorionides) are mere guesses. 

It is to be observed that not only Judas, but also 
each of his brothers, has a doublé name. In the 
passage iMacc. 22-5, John is said to have been called 
Gaddi (see col. 2853, n. i) ; Simon, Thassi ; Judas. Mac- 
cab^us ; ^ Eleazar, Avaran ; Jonathan, Apphus. It has 
commonly been supposed that these ' surnames ' are ali 
descriptive of the character or exploits of those to whom 
they are applied {thus Eleazar's name, Avaran, has been 
explained from the incident of his boring a hole (root nin) 
in the elephant) ; but the fact that not one of the names 
lends itself to any such interpretation should be con- 
clusive agaitist this theory. 

On the contrary, the ' surnames ' have rather the appearance 
of names given at birth (Gaddi is a famìliar Jewish name ; see 
below, S 3 i) ; and when the list ' Simeon, Judah, Eleazar, etc. ' 
is puc over against the corresponding list 'Thassi, Maccabi, 
Avaran, etc.,' the probability at once suggests itself that the 
latter were the names originally given by Mattathias to his five 
sons, whilst the former were the names which they received 
later as the princes 0/ the Jewish gufile (in the way that has 
been so generally customaty, with kmgs, popes, caliphs, etc). 

It is aprecisely similar case when Josephus (,Ant. xiii. 43) 
writes : 'AAtfai'Spos ó BóAat Aeyófiti'os, although ' Balas ' was 
the originai name of this king, and 'Alexander' the latet 
officiai name which came to him with his elevation in rank (see 
Schur. GJV 1 178 ; ET 1 1, p. 240). Cp also the names of the 
jiueen^ Alexandra, whose Hebrew name had been Salome : 
'AAefói'Spa^ «ol jaAiVa (Eusebius) ; AUxandra qì4^ et Salina 
vocaòalur (Jerome, Comnt. on Dan. 9 24 j^); by Josephus 
called only Alexandra. 

It is doubtful, therefore, whether much help is to be 
gained from the side of etymology in determining the 
Hebrew form and meaning of ' Maccaba^us. ' 

For the various conjectures that have been made, see Curtiss, 
12.24 ; Wace's Apocrypha, 1 247^,^ ; Schùrer, G/V^) 1 158 ; ET 
1 I, p. 212 f. 

As for the form, the evidence decidedly favours >3po 
{with single p?) ;^ the possibility of a for m with 3 must, 
however, be admitted. 

The Jews do not seem to have applied the name 
' Maccabee ' either to the members of the dynasty or to 

2. The name ^^ books dealing with the events of 

' Hasmonaan.' '^^'"^ ^'"'^' ^"^^•^a'^' ^^ey used for both 

the adjective ' Hasmonsean ' (Asmo- 

nasan, •jiocn, 'Atra/iw^'oìo!), which seems to have been 

the family name of the house of Mattathias. 

' Hasmoniean ' does not occur in the books of Maccabees, but is 
frequently used by Josephus (see the references, below), and 
appears once in the Mishni {Middàth le),* where Judas and 

' If the author of i Macc. had thus understood the name, how 
couid he have failed to make some use of the figure in 3 3-5 ? 
, '^^*- Judas' name is written with the Greek adjective end- 
mg -Biot, and not siraply tran sii lerated, like TafiSt (see % 3, i), 
etc, is of course due to the fact that it had already become a 
household word among the Greek-speaking Jews. 

3 In favour of the single rather than the doublé p, the follow- 
ing considerations may be urged :— (i) The possibility that 
Josephus wrote the name with a single k (so generally in Niese's 
ed.). (2) The occasionai employment of kk to represent a single 
p. Thus, AKKopu.. for p-ipi; ; NowJtopti^ for OHp] (Am. 1 1 
[unless we should point nakkàdim% etc. (3) The Latin form, 
which may well have become fixed in use before the translation 
from our Greek version was made. 

* In this passage, certain chambers (nlacS) Tielonging to the 
tempie are described. Of one of them it is said : n'IlBM n'niTD 
DISPB'B' T\1\aT\ 'l^K nN (var. 'jiorn) 'WIDB'n '33 llli n3 
p' "370 ; ' In the NE. chamber the Hastnonfeans laid away the 
stones of the aitar which the Grecian kines bad defiled.' Co 
j Macc 4 46. ^ 



his brethren are called 'NJlDE'n '33- Similarly Targ. i S. 2 4 
Cn n"a), and many passages in the Gemàrà and later Jewish 
literature. For the complete list of references, see Gaster, 
'The Scroll of the Hasmonieans' (Transs. gth Orient. Con- 
gressi Lond., 1892), p. 7 ; Levy, Neuhcbr. -uad ckald. Wdrter- 
buch, S.V.). The Hebrew form o'JlCE'n also occurs. 

The origin of the name is wholly obscure. It was 
probably borne originally either by Mattathias himself, 
or by one of his ancestors ; but we are quite destitute 
of information on this point. In i Macc. 2 1. Mattathias 
is called 'the sonofjohn, son of Simeon ' (Marrafliai 
'\ué.vvQv Tod Svfi.f(i>v) ;^ Josephus, Ant. xii. 61, carries 
the line one step farther back, adding tov ' Aaafiiai'aiov 
(cpxiv.l64xvi.71); but it is not likely that he had 
any authority for this.^ The adjective may have 
originated in the name of a man, Hasmon (cp the 
Chronicler's oE^n ; see Hasiium) ; or, more probably, 
in the name of a place (cp P's pccn, Josh. I527 and 
miDt?n, Nu. 3329/ ; see Heshmon, Hashmonah); or 
even in an appellative, though the absence of a root 
Dipn in the Hebrew-Aramaic literature known to us 
makes this very unlikely. 

The fanciful elymologyconnectlng the name with the air. A*y. 
D'JCBTI, Ps- 6832 (the result of a scribe's blunder), which is then 
explained by the Arabie Aai?«(!), 'fatness,' should be putaside 
once for ali. 

While Palestine was under the Egyptian rule, the 

Jews were not directly interfered with in the exercise of 

3 UDriBÌne ^^^''' fsl'g'on and customs. Even then. 

under however, Greek cities were springing up 

Mattathias. '" ^" P^"^ °^ "'^ ^^"*^' ^""^ ^ ^*™"e 
pressure was gradually being brought to 

bear on Judaism by the rapid encroachment of Greek 
thought and culture. After the beginning of the 
Seleucid rule {igS B.C., under Antiochus III., the 
Great) this pressure was vastly increased, both from 
without and from withìn. The Syrian kings did not 
find it easy to hold together the heterogeneous elements 
of their domain, and it was to their interest to dis- 
courage the esclusive Jewish religion. To the Jews 
themselves, the stniggle against Hellenism might well 
have seemed a losing one. There was a strong party 
in JudEea that openly favoured union with the Gentiles 
and the adoption of the new culture. See, e.^, , i Macc. 
I11141S sMacc. 47-is; etc. On the other hand, as 
was naturai, those who held to the national religion 
redoubled their zeal. At the head of these was the 
well-defined extreme legalistic party of ' the Pious ' ' 
(D'TDn, 'Affidaìoi, see Lovingkindness). Soon after 
the beginning of the reign of Antiochus (IV.) Epiphanes 
(175-164 B.C.) matters came to a crisis (see Israel, 
§ yoj^. ; Abomination of Desolatiom). It was not, 
however, at Jerusalem, but in one of the smaller towns 
of Judasa that the revolt broke out. When the kìng's 
officer, who compelled the people to sacrifice to the 
heathen gods, came to Modein (MwSeiV; see Modin), 
a village in the mountains near Lydda, a man of that 
place named Mattathias (rt-nno, ' Gìfl of Yahwè ' ; see 
Mattithiah), son of John, a priest of the order of 
Joarib (iMacc. 2i), offered resistance to the king's 
command ; he slew the officer and a Jew who was 
offering the sacrifice, puUed down the aitar, and fied, 
with his five sons and many others who joined them, 
into the mountains. Multitudes foUowed, and the 
revolt very soon assumed formidable proportions. Mat- 
tathias and his companions also went through the land, 
puliing down the heathen altars, pulting to death the 
apostates, and stirring up the remainder of the pjeople 
to insurrection. In this same year, however (Sei. 146 ; 

I Wellh.,_ Ph. u. Sadd. 94 n., wished to read ' Hasmon ' in 
place of ' Simeon.' 

3 Similarly Josephus speaks of the members of this family in 
a few places as oi ' Kaa\i.iavoiov jroìfiei {Vit. 1 ; Ant. xx. 8 11 
20 io), as well as oì 'Atro/iwmìoi and tò 'A<roLfi,ii)>'oiùti' yivo%, 
See Schiirer, 1 193 ; ET 1 i, p. aM. 

3 [See Che. OPs. 56 n., and Assideans ; and on the further 
development of the two opposing parties, see Fharisees and 



107, 166 B.c. }, Mattathias died ; first having committed 
the leadership of the insurgent people to his son Judas. 
Thus began the supreniacy of the ' Hasmonaean,' 
or ' Maccabsean,' house which was to play such 
an important part in Jewish history. Cp HiSTORICAL 
LiTERATURE, § 17. Two of the five sons, John and 
Eleazar, did not long survive their father. 

1. John, the eldest, origÌnally('?5ee § i)called Gaddi, "13,1 was 
captured and slain by a marauding Arab trìbe, in 161, while he 
■wasengaged in carrying the propertyof the Maccab<ean party into 
the country of the Nabatsans forsafe keeping(i Maoc. 935-42).^ 
As Ihis was after Jonathan bad succeeded Judas in the leader- 
ship, and no other mention is made of him, we may conclude 
tbat he was recognised as inferior Co his brethren. 

2, Eleazar, the fourlh son, who also bore the name Avaran^ 
(see § i), is the hero of the battle (lost by the Jews) against the 
forces of Lysias at Beth-Zechariah, in 162. Seeìn^ that one of 
the elephants of the enemy's host was furnisbed with the royal 
trappings, and believing tberefore that the king rode upon ir, he 
crept under the animai and stabbed it, and was crushed by its 
weigbt (1 Macc. 643-46), He receives no further mention in the 
books of Maccabees. 

The following table exhibìts the genealogy of the 
Hasmonasans, with the date at which each died (as 
giveii in Schùrer) : — ■ 

Mattathias (167-166). 


John (161) Simon (135) Judas (161) Eleazar (162) Jonathan 

John Hyrcanus I. (105) 

Aristobulus I. (104) 

Alexander Jann^us (78) — Salome Alex- 

^__________ i [andrà (69) 

Hyrcanus II. (40) 

Aristobulus II. (63) 


Antigonus (37) 

Alexandra = Alexander [did not reign] (49) 

Aristobulus [high-priest] (35) farìamme [wife of Herod] (29) 

Judas {n-nri'}, the third son of Mattathias, and the 

leader of the Jewish people in their stmggle for religious 

4. Judas 

(reedom, is one of the most heroic 
fìgures in ali the history of the nation. 
On his name Makkabi, Maccabseus, 
see § I. If the view there advocated, that this was his 
originai name, and that he and his brethren were given 
special names as the princes of Israel, is correct, it is 
noi unlikely that he received the name Judah because of 
his military prowess (cpGen. 499, etc. ). According lo 
the account given in i Macc. 2 66, Mattathias at the 
lime of his death appointed Judas captain of the hosts 
of Israel, because he had been ' strong and mighty from 
his youth. ■ The army which he commanded al first 
was not made up chiefly of the adherents of a single 
party, as seems lo be asserled in 2 Macc. 146. bui was 
recruiled from ali classes and parties in JudsKa. Il is 
true, the 'Atri 5o tot (see the preceding§) were foremost 
in the movemenl which Judas led ; bui neither he nor 
his brethren were ever idenlified with that sect. 

Marvellous success atlended Judas from the first. 
After gaining a series of brillìant vìctories over the Syrian 
hosls seni against him, he was enabled in 165 lo purify 
the tempie and restore its worship. His armies, no 
longer made up merely of religious enthusiasts, were now 
employed for campaigns against the Edomites and the 

1 The name ''^], which has a distinctly heathen sound (see 
Names, g 57, and Kerber, Hebràiscke Eigennamen, 1897, p. 67 ; 
cp Gad, % 1) was not uncommon among the Jews. The Greek 
forni VaSSis given by many MSS in i Macc. 22 received its 
last letter from the following word. 

^ [In 2 Macc. 822 IO19, by an ancient false reading (?) he is 
cai led Joseph.] 

S The originai forra and meaning of the name, which occurs 
in two places, 1 Macc.25 and 643, are quite uncertain. Many 
Greek MSS give the form 'S.avapav (,i.e., Ektaiap ò Xavapav side 
by side wiih EAta^afios A.vapaf), which is also possible. The 
Syriac, indeed, writes the word with initial n ; but it may be 
questioned whether this fact should be allowed any weight. As 
in the case of the name Makkabi, it seems probable that the 
Syrian translator can have had nothing but the Greek co guide 



Ammoniles ; also in Galilee, Gilead, and the Philistinc 
lerritory. Judas thus made himself the champion, in the 
wider sense, of the Jewish nailon, not merely of its 
religious righls. In 163, the object soughl by the Jews 
in the beginning of the struggle was actually attained. 
They were given fui! religious liberty, in return for their 
submission to the king, now Antiochus (V.) Eupator. 
(For the circumslances, see i Macc. 6 48-63, and the 
summary of the history given below under Maccabees, 
First, § 2 [col. 2858].) 

Judas' career as a military leader was by no means 
ended. From this lime on, the Jews were engaged in a 
faleful struggle among themseJves ; the Helienising party 
conlending for supremacy with the national party, of 
which Judas and his brethren were the leaders. Certain 
adherenls of the king , notably one Alcimus, who became 
high priest (see Ai.ciMus), succeeded through mis- 
representations in calling in the help of a Syrian army, 
Judas' valour as a military captain, however, was again 
displayed, and the Jewish arms triumphed. After the 
decisive battle near Beth-horon, in 161, Judas was 
again virtually the politicai head of the Jewish people, 
with more power thanever before. It does noi appear, 
however, thal he exercised the office of high priest, as 
his successors did. Probably il did noi occur lo him to 
do so. 

Il was at this tinie that Judas took at last the 
momentous step of asserting the politicai independence 
of the Jewish nation. Two ambassadors were sent to 
Rome ( I Macc. 8 1 jf. \t ff. ), in the not unreasonable hope 
of gaining the support of the Romans against the Syrians, 
and thus securing the permanent triumph of the Jewish 
national party. The Romans did in fact return a 
favourable answer (i Macc. Sai j^.), bui it came loo 
late lo be of any assistance to the Jews. Only about 
two months after the viclory which Judas had gained 
over the Syrian captain Nicanor near Beth-horon, the 
king (Demetrius I.) sent against him an army in com- 
parison with which the Jewish forces were but a handftd. 
Judas refused to retire from the field without a battle, 
and foughl desperately ; but his army was ulterly routed, 
and he himself was slain (i Macc. fli-ig). The cause of 
the loj'al Jews seemed lo have fallen with him. 

There is bui one estimale of the character of Judas. 
He was a true patriot and a born caplaìn. The enthusi- 
asra of the writer of i Macc. (33-9) is shared by the 
wriler of 2 Macc. , who had otherwise no interest in the 
Hasmonaean house. Devout and zealous for the law, 
as his father had been, prompt of action and brave to 
rashness, Judas was able lo inspìre confidence in ihose 
whom he led, and to gain surprising results with small 
means. Il was as the fruit of his example and achieve- 
nients, made possible by a peculiar combination of cir- 
cumslances, thal the Jewish nation under the Hasmon- 
teans achieved such successes in the decades following ; 
ihough these laler gains also were due chiefly lo the 
politicai situalion in the Syrian kingdom (see below, 
§ 5), and were necessarily only temporary. 

Jonathan ('Itovaffav, jnJin'), the fifth son of Mattathias, 
bore also the name Apphus,'A«"0ous, 1 Macc, 25 (see§ i). 

&. Jonatliaii. 

The originai form and meaning of the 

latler name are quite tinknown. 
We bave no means of knowing with what eultural leller (he 
word began, or what Semillc consonant the Greek s represents. 
On the Syriac transcription OlBn no reliance whatever can be 
placed ; see preceding col., n. 3. 

Jonathan is mentìoned occasionally in i Macc. 
(5 17 24 55} in connection with Judas and Simon as taking 
a prominent part in the earlier Maccabsean campaigns ; 
and upon the death of Judas. he was unanimously chosen 
to succeed him as leader of the national party (i Macc. 

His opponenis had at tliat time decidedly the upper band. 
The Helienising party was triumphantl (.see the preceding 8), 

1 In I Macc. 924 read : 'in those days their ìniquity {Dyi in- 
sCead of 3J/1, ' famine ') waxed exceedingly great,' etc. 


and, aided by the Syrìans, used every means to secure iCs advao- 
la^e (i Macc. !) ■zj--zi). Many former adherents abandoned the 
Maccab^an cause (;'. 2\//), and those who remained faithful 
were subjected to intimidation and even violence (,v. 26). Jona- 
than, with bis comparalively few followers, was compelled for 
some years to keep in the background ; at first, as a freebooter, 
making raids in various parca of [he land, and at one lime (158 
B.c.) unsuccessfully pursued by a Syrian army (t Macc. 9 58-72) ; 
then, at the head of a sort of rivai government at Michmash, a 
short distance N. of Jerusalem, where his party seems to bave 
steadily gained in numbers and in power (ibid. v. 73). This 
wa5 undoubtedly due largely to his own ability, as well as to 
the truly popular cause which he represented, and to the fact 
that the Helienising party sin73 the death of Alcimus (159 b.c.) 
was wìthout a leader. 

At length the scales were turned completely in 
Jonathan's favour in an unexpected way. Demetrius 
was compelled to contest the possession of the Syrian 
throne with a powerful rivai, Alexander Balas. Both 
saw the necessity of making overtures lo Jonathan, who 
finaliy espoused the cause of Balas, in return for which 
Service he was made the head of the Jewish people, with 
considerarle power, and was also appointed high priest 
of the nation. This (153 b.c.) was the real beginning 
of the Hasmonasan rule in Jerusalem. Jonathan con- 
tinued to hold the office of high priest (vacant, ap- 
parently. siitce the death of Alcimus), and to increase, 
little by little, the advantage already gained. He was 
confirmed in his authority by Balas, when the latter 
became king (i Macc. IO65); was received with high 
honours at Ptolcmais by Balas and Ptolemy Philometor, 
king of Egypt (ibid. v. 59^); and finaliy, when Deme- 
trius IL became king of Syria, succeeded by a daring 
stroke in obtaining a series of most important con- 
ce ssions to Judtea. See the interest ing account in 
I Macc. II20-37; and cp Schurer, G/KI^' 1 i8z_^ ; 

During ali this time Jonathan showed himself a wise 
and bold leader, both in peace and in war. The Syrian 
power continued to be divided among rivai aspirants to 
the throne, so that not only Jonathan, but also his 
successors, were enabled to raaintain their power by 
making shrewd use of the situation. The purpose of 
completely throwing off the Syrian yoke — a purpose 
already cherished by Judas — -was not lost sight of by 
Jonathan. He sent ambassadors with letters of friend- 
ship to Rome, Sparta, and other places (144 B.C.?), at 
the same time working diligently to strengthen Judasa 
in every possible way (see esp. i Macc. II35/; I232-38). 
Soon after this, however, Jonathan fell a victim to 
Syrian treachery. Trypho, the chief captain of the 
young Antiochus VI. who was now contending with 
Demetrius II. for the supremacy, became himself an 
aspirant to the throne. Fearing Jonathan for some 
reason. and wishing to put him out of the way, Trypho 
enticed him into Ptolemais and there put him to death 
(i Macc. 12 39-53)- This was at the dose of 143. 

Simon (S(^wy,^ puD») was the second son of 
Mattathias ; according to i Macc. 23 called also Thassi 

6 Simon (®'^''''''*) • ^^^ § ^- T*^^ Semitic forni and 
originai meaning of the name Thassi can 
no longer be determined. In i Macc. he is frequently 
mentioned with honour in the account of the times of 
Judas and Jonathan, as an able military leader. Thus 
5>7 2i/^ 967/ ll6s/ 1233/ 38/ During the reign 
of Jonathan, Antiochus VI. appointed Simon general 
{ffTpaTTjyb^) over an important district (1159). In 265 
Mattathias is represented as singling him out as the 
wisest of the brethren, and appointing him their 
counsellor.^ Simon seems to have been in ali respects 
a worthy successor of Judas and Jonathan. 

Upon the death of Jonathan, Simon promptly took 
his place at the head of the nation, both as captain and 
as high priest, being confirmed in this by ali the people. 
He continued to carry out with energy the policy pursued 
by Jonathan, building up and fortifying Jerusalem and 

1 In the OT ® Sufieiuv, Eng. ' Simeon,' 

3 For a possible explanation of this, see co!. 2860, par. (3). 



the other strongholds of Judi3sa( 13 io 33 43-4S 52 1 4 7 32-34), 
extending the territory of the Jews, taking every ad- 
vantage of the Syrian dissensions, and sending embassies 
abroad. In ali these things he was enabled by the 
circumstances to attain much more than had been 
possible for his predecessors, so that his reign was a 
glorious one for the Jewish people. 

In 142, soon after the accession of Simon, the Syriaa 
yoke was at last removed from Israel. Demetrius IL, 
yielding to Simon's dcmand, formally recognised the 
indepeiidence of Jiidasa (see the tritimphant vvords of 
the historian, i Macc. I341/. ). Soon after this, Simon 
succeeded in gaining possession of the Aera, or citadel 
of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by a Syrian 
garrison for twenty-six years, ever since the beginning 
of the Maccabeean struggle^ (1849-53). In the brief 
season of peace and prosperity which followed (i Macc. 
144-is).^ Simon's services to his people were given im- 
portant recognition. A solemn assembly held at 
Jerusalem in 141 confirmed him in the offices of governor 
and high priest,^ and made both these offices hereditary. 
Thus, a Hasmonsean dynasty was formally estabhshed. 
An inscription in Simon's honour (col. 2864 [b"]) was 
composed and put in a conspicuous place.* At about 
this time, also, embassies were sent to Rome (coL 
2863 [rt]) and to the Spartans {ib.), which resulted suc- 
cessfully (col. 2864[<-]), i Macc. lii6-24 15is-z4. Soon, 
however, Simon became ìnvolved in other wars, as the 
Syrian throne changed hands and his help was needed. 
Moreover, Antiochus (VII.) Sidetes sent an army against 
Judasa, in the hope of recovering some of the posses- 
sions which the Jews had gained ; but his captain was 
defeated and driven from the country by two of Simon's 
sons, Judas and John. Near the beginning of 135, 
Simon fell a victim to the plot of his own son-in-taw, 
Ptolemy, 'captain of the plain of Jericho," who wished 
to obtain the power for himself. With two of his 
sons, Mattathias and Judas, Simon was received by 
Ptolemy into the fortress DoK (q.v.), near Jericho, and 
there ireacherously murdered.* 

John, son of Simon, generally called Hyrcanus, 

'tpKa.viiì,^ is said in i Macc. 1853 to have been put in 

7 Tofan charge of the fortress Gazara by his father 


in 142. John also took a prominent part in 

the defeat of the Syrian general Cendebeeus 
(162^ ^f.). Immediately after the murder of Simon, 
Ptolemy sent men to Gazara to kill John, who was noir 
the legitimate successor to the leadership of Israel. John 
was informed of the plot, however, and with trae 
Maccabasan promptness slew the messengers and made 
ali speed to Jerusalem, where he arrived in advance of 
his rivai, and made his position secure. His reign 
of thirty years. though by no means peaceful, wa» 
decidedly successful politically. In the first year after 
his accession, he was temporarily humbled by Antiochus 
Sidetes, who besieged Jerusalem with success, obtaining 
important concessions from the Jews, besides breaking 
down the city wall. These losses were soon repaired, 
however, as the Syrian government was again involved 
in sore difficulties. Hyrcanus rebuilt the city walI 
(i Macc. I623), and began in 128, immediately upon 
the death of Antiochus, a series of important campaigns, 
one fruit of which was the humbling of the Samaritana 
and the destruction of their tempie. The territory of 
the Jews was very considerably extended (reaching such 
an extent as it had not had for many centuries), and 
their independence completely restored. 

1 [On I Macc. 13 47-50 14 14 36, see Che. C/'j- 68 80, n . i' ; atri 
on 13 SI, see OFs. 11, and references in p. 40, n.u. — Ed.]. 

2 [See Che. OPs. 23.— Ed.] 

3 It must bc remembered that Jonathan received the office of 
high priest, not from the people, but from the Syrian king. 

* [See Stade-Holtzmann, Gr/23B2; but cp Wellh. //GW, 

2227:; (*), 273.— Ed.] 
B [On Simon, cp Che. OPs. 11, 24^, 68.— Ed.) 
S For attempts to explain this name, which had already been 

in use for some time among the Jews, see Schùrer, 1 204 (ET i. 1, 

p. =73/)- 



In several respects the reign of HjTcanus marks a 
departure from the simpler ways (and perhaps the ìdeals) 
of his predecessors. Hyrcanus waged war with the aid 
of foreign mercenaries, for example, and had his own 
name engraved on the coins of his reign. It is an 
especially interesting and significant fact that he cui 
loose from the Fharisees, and identified himselfwilh the 
Sadducees {see Scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees, 
and Che. OFs. 24/^ 39). Concerning the events of the 
latter part of his reign we have little information. He 
died in 105 B.c. 


Many of the works dealing with ihe history of this period are 

refetred to below (Maccabees [Uooks]). Here niay he men- 

(ioned ; — Clinton, Fasti H ellenici, voi. iii. (2f, 

8. Literature. 1851, pp. 310-350; Flathe, Cesch. Maee- 

doniens, iì. (1834); J. Derenbourg, Essai 

sur thisi. et la géogr. de la. Fai., 1867; MaiJden, Coiìis a/ the 

Jeais, 1881 ; De Saulcy, Hist. des Machabées eu princes de la 

dyn. asnionéenne, 1B80 ; Pauly's Real-enc. der (lass. Alter- 

ihumsviiss.i^), s.!'. ' Antiochus IV.' ; Schurer, GJVi^ì 1 127-241 ; 

ET t. 1 169-290 (in the introductory part of the voi. there is an 

excelleni account of the sources) ; Ewald, GF7l3)4 287-543 ; ET, 

1867-1886, 6 286-394 ; Gratz, Cesch. der Juden, vols. y a 3 ; Stade- 

Holtzmann, GVI l'zmff. ; Wellh. IJCM 256 ìK See also the 

Works referred to in Schurer, 1 4-9 ì.'T]/. ', ET 1 6-12, 170. 

C. C. T. 



First Maccabees. 
Tiile, Contents (g i /, col. 

Language (g 3, col. 1%$%/.). 
Author,Date(g4y:, col. 3859/). 
Literary chatacter (§ 6, col. 

Beligious standpoint (B 7, col. 

Sources <g 8, co!. 2862/). 
Integrity <g 9, col. 2B63-5). 
H istori city (§ IO, col. 286 5,/:). 
Text(§ II, co!. 2866-8). 
Eibliography (g 12, col, 38687:). 

Second Maccabees. 

Contents (§ i, col. 2869). 
Sources (g 2, col. 28697:). 
Historicity (g 3, col. 2370-2). 
Literary character (g 4, col. 

Religìous character (g 5, col- 

Author, Date (g 6, col. 2874^:). 
Prefixed letlers (g§ 711 ib, col. 

Attestalion, Text (g 8, col. 

Bibliography (g 9, col. 2879). 

By far the most important of the severa! writings 
known as the ' Books of the Maccabees' {MaKKa^aluv 

1 T'tl ^'/3^^tt, or HaKKa^aixà) is the history 

■ commonly entilled ' Maccabees.' The tìtle 
borne by the book in its originai Hebrew form (see 
below, § 3) is not known. 

Many scholars have tried to recognise it in a weli-fcnoivn 
passage quoted by Eusebius {//£62^) from Origen. Origen 
enumerates the (twenty-two) books of the Hebrew canon, 
giving ihe Hebrew names in Greek transliteration, and then 
adds : ' Bcsidcs these there is" the Maccabaica," which is entilled 

Sarbeih Sabanaiel.'^ Il is beyond doubi ihat the reference ìs lo 
a Hebrew or Aramaic 1 Macc, whose title is transliterated. AH 
attempls to explain this title from the Hebrew, however, have 
hitherto been futile (see the comms. , and especially Curtiss, T&e 
Natne Mnchabee, 1876, p. 30).'^ On the other band, the solution 
proposed by Dalman (Gratnin. 6), according tO which the 
tvro slrange words in their originai forra slood for the AramaÌL- 
'((JO!?n n"D lEDi seems very plausible. The title ' Book of the 
Hasmon<eans ' wouid be eminently suitable for i Macc. (cp 562, 
and the actual supei.scriptìon of the later Aramaic composition 
dealing with the hÌ,-ilory of this time : see below, gii); and it is 
easy to see how, by the aid of common scribal blunders,* the 
form in Eusebius couid have been reached. It may be doubted, 
however, whether even this tan give us any sure ciue to the 
rrigÌTial title of 1 Macc. This plainly Aramaic forra of words 
is not likely to have been the supersccìption of a work written in 
Hebrew ; it is much more probable that the work known (by 
hearsay only?) to Origen was an Aramaic translation, sudi as 
must have been made very early. As will appear in che sequel 
(i 1 1), ali the evidence goes Io show that the Hebrew i Macc. was 
currenl only for a very brief period. If we suppose, then, that 
the above cxplanation of the name recorded by Origen iscorrect, 
there wouId stili remain the possibility that (as frequently 
happened) the lille borne by the translation was quite inde- 
pendent of that borne by the originai. 

The book is a history of the Jewish struggle for 
religious freedom and for independence under the 
a r< 4. f Maccabees. It covers the period of forty 
■ years beginning with the accession of 
Antiochus (IV. } Epiphanes, 175 B.C., and ending with 
the death of Simon, the Ihird of the Maccabiean leaders, 
135 ^•'•^- I' 's for the most part a narrative of events 
in their chronologìcal order, attention being given chiefly 
to military and politicai affair.s, and, in fact, to ali that 
conccrned the relation of the Jews to other natìons. 

^ *fco hf TOUTUi/ etrrì to. Max/ca^aLVa, aTrfp eircyeypaTrrat 
Sap^rjfl ^a^avaieX. See also the su perse ri pi ion of the Syriac 
1 Macc. (Lagarde's Apocryfikrt Syriace), which was evidently 
derived frora these words of Origen. 

2 Of ali these attempts it may be sald, that they have an ex- 
ceedingly improbable sound. Most of them rest on the reading 
S' 'S.ap^avfiÀ, whÌL-h has been in vogue since the sixteenth 
Ccntury, but without any good auchority. 

3 The correct transliteration would be ui^ap ^1)6 a<raiimvatt. 


Third Maccabees. 

Title (|i, col. 2879). 
Contents (g a, col. 2879). 
Beginning lost (g 3, col. 

Language, Style (g 4, col. 

Historicity (g s- col. 28807:). 
Author, Date (§ 6, col. 2881). 
Attestation (g 7, col. 2881). 
Bibliography (g 8, col, 288i)- 

FouRTH Maccabees. 

Title (g 1, col. 2882). 
Contents (g a, coi. 2882). 
Integrity (g 3, col. 28827:). 
Author, Date (g 4, col. 

Literary character (g 5, coU 

Languagc, Style (g 6, col. 

Thought(g7, col. 28837:). 
Attestation, Text (g 8, coL 

Bibliography (g g, col. 2886). 

The narrative is continuous, and the treatment 
uniform throughout the book. The material may be 
divided convenientJy as follo ws :— 

I. (I i-g) The briefest possible introduction, beginning with 
the conquest of Alexander, and describing in genera! terms the 
origin of the Seleucid empire. 2. (1 10-64) Desperate condition 
of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. His attempts to abolish 
the Jewish religion. 3. (21-70) The uprising at Modeia 
(167 B.c.) and the growth of the rebellion led by Mattathias. 
4- (31-435) The first victories gained by the Jews under the 
leadership of Judas Maccabaius. 5. (435-61) Purification of the 
tempie and dedication of the new aitar (165 b.c.). 6. (5 1-68) 
Campaigns conducted by Judas agaitist the surrounding nations. 
7. (61-17) Death of Epiphanes, in Persia, and accession of 
Eupator {'164 B.c.). 3. (6 18-63) Further wars with ihe Syrians. 
Concession of religious freedom to the Jews, in return for their 
submission. 9. (7 1-50) Demetrius gains possession of the thronc 
(162 B.c.). Dealh of Nicanor. io. (81-922) Treaty with the 
Romans. Death of Judas (161 b.c.). 11. (9 23-1066) Jonathan 
succeeds Judas as mihtary leader of the Jews. Supported by 
the pretender Alexander Balas, he becomes the high priest of 
the ration (153 b.c.). He is received in state by Alexander and 
Ptolemy (Philonietor), King of Egypt, at Ptolemais. 12. 
(IO67-II74) Purtherbatllesfoughtby Jonathan ; and his rei a t ion s 
with the Syfian kings. 13. (12 1.53) Embassies to Rome and 
Sparta. Death of Jonathan (end of 143 b.c.). 14. (13 i-14 15) 
Fortunes of the Jews under Simon. They secure their poUtical 
independence (142 B.c.). The Syrians are driven from the castle 
in Jerusalem. Peace in the land. 15. (14 16-49) Renewal of 
friendly relations with the Spartans and with Rome. A formai 
record is drawn up by the people and pul in a conspicuous 
place in honour of Simon, who is thus publiciy declared ruler 
of the Jews (141 B.c.). 16. (151.1624) Relations of Simon with 
Antiochus Sidetes. His two sons defeat the Syrian generai. 
Murder of Simon (135 u.c.). 

As to the language ìn which i Macc. was written, 

there is no room for doubt. Mention has been made 

3 Oriemal °^ '^^ testimony of Origen (§ i) and 

Laneuae'e 1^'"''"'^ (™'- 2850, towards end), which 

°^ * ' testimony, though less valuable than it at 

first appears to be, shows at least that each of those 

great scholars regarded it as an undisputed fact that the 

book was written in Hebrew. Internai evidence proves 

beyond question that this opinion {or church tradition) 

was correct. 

That the language was Semitic is evident. Semìtic ìdioms 
follow one another in such number and variety as wouid be in- 
explicnble in a Greek composition; see, for example, 1 29 (cp 
Gen. 41 I, etc), 36 58, 'IffpaijA tols «upicrico(teVoii = ';ikiE''> 
□"KSCJn (incorrectly punctuated by Swete, and frequently mis- 
understood), 240 42 530-33 621 <é| aurùy [KV] as subject of 
the vcrb ; so also 733), Si 944 etc.; and such passages as 
815-26 51-328-34. The form of many of the proper names 
shows that they are transliterated from a Semitic text ; thus 
(JvALo-Tiei.fl.,- the names in II34 (Schiir. C/i'! 183 ; ETl245_^); 
Ifj.aJ.Koat [MVl for Is'^D', li 39(seeSchtir. le; We. //«■*), 270), 


etc. In 14 Z7, tvaopanek [A, iwKrajMifteA (KV)] (cp now Ejrp. T 
11 5^3^) is plainly the transliteiation of some word or words 
which the translator did not undersland. Cp also X'W'*>'"*«» 
1237. The weighty evidence affbrded by occasionai inis- 
translation, or by renderings which can only be explained as 
the result of misunderstanding or accidental corruplion of Ihe 
originai Semitic text, is not wanting. Thus 829, éimjcrai' (mis- 
translalingtheHebrewpetfecttense: ' the Romaas Aereòy Majie 
agreemefit': see the following verses, and cp thesimilar mistake 
in 14 ae, iymapiaev ^fiìc for ijjnin ; ' ive make praclamaiion ') ; 
934, A[^ós{3j;i for Dp); 10 1, 6 "Eiri^fijs instead of toS 'Eirt- 
^avovtj^a mislranslation made very easy by the Semitic usage 
in regard to such adjectives ; 10 72, oì waTép^f aov (.ym^K instead 

o*'Tn''3s['°'' jniKaa]i 'thinearmies'); lig, oroXùs jroAe/iou ( !) 
(reading xas instead of «a;;, ' gay apparel ').l 

That the Semitic language was Hebrew, not Aramaic, 
is everywhere manifest. 

See [he evidence furnished by many of the passages cited 
above ; and add further, 2 39 3 19 (qx .3 ; also 9 6), 5 40 7 35, and 
the remarkable siiccession of Hebrew idioms in 5 1-8. 

Nothing is known concerning the author of i Macc. , 
beyond the facts that can be gathered by inference from 

4. Author ^'^ *''*°''' ^^ ""^ certainlya devout and 
patriotic Jew. 

It can hardly be doubted, moreover, that the author 
lived and wrote in Palestine. It is plain ftoni every 
part of the hook that his personal interests were ali in 
that land. 

His acguaintance with the geography and topography of the 
country is sttikingly minute ; when, on the contrary, he has 
occasion to mention foreign lands, he shows himself much less 
accurately informed. In his narrative he frequentìy introducea 
such details as would bave no importance for one living at a 
distajice from the scenes and event.s described. See, for example. 

The writer of this history. furthermore, must bave 
stood near to the centre of Jewish politicai affairs. 

There is, to be sure, nothing to require us to suppose that he 
himself look an active part in the evenis he records ; but he is 
most plainly in his element when he is dealing with affairs of 
state, military movements, and court intrigues. He must bave 
be:n a man of rank, and personally acquainted with the leaders 
of bis people. 

The author shows himself a loyal adherent of the 
Hasmon^an house ; it was to this family that Israel 
owed its rescue and Jts glory ; see especially 662, and 
cp 133 14i8 26 I62. That he should extol the char- 
acter and deeds of Judas was of course to be expected, 
but his admiration of the other Hasmon^an leaders is 
hardly less emphatically expressed. 

See what he says of Jonathan, 9 73 10 15-21 59-66 11 20-27 7^ 
12 35 52_/:(noticealso 10 61 1125); of Simon, I3>'3 k 47 /: Ua-k: 
16 14; and of John, 135316237: 

When in addition to these facts it is observed in what 
a favourable light the Jewish priesthood is exhibited 
throughout the hook — the renegade high priests Jason 
and Menelaus, for example, are not mentioned at ali 
{contrast 2 Macc. 47-5 23)^the conjecture of Geiger 
\Ursckrift. 206^) that the author of i Macc. was a 
Sadducee seems not improbable (see Sadducees).^ 

i. The date of the composition of i Macc. can be deter- 
mined approximately. If we assume the hook to be the 

6 Date ^'-"''^ "^^ ^ single writer, as seems necessary 
■ (see below, § 9). it is plain from I611-24. 
that it must have been finished after the beginniiig of 
the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-106 B.c.), It is also 
evidenl from the way in which the writer speaks of the 
Romans that the days of Pompey and the Roman rule 
were not yet dreamed of : he emphasises chiefìy the 
Romans' fideiity as allies {8r 12 12 1 I440), and iniplies 
everywhere that they are friends to be proud of, although 
outside the horizon of ordinary Jewish affairs (8 1 ff. 19). 
The book must, therefore, have been completed before 
the year 63 B.c. 

ii. There are grounds for bringing the date of com- 
position within narrower limits. 

(i) The passage I623/, in particular, has afforded 
a basis for argument. It reads as follows : — 

' The same confusion of these two words more than once in 
Daniel ; see Moore in JBL, 1896, pp. 195, 197. 

^ Geiger was certainly wrong, however, in regardlng the book 
as a ' party document." 


Now therest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and of his 
valiant deeds which he did, and of the building of the wa!!s 
which he built, and of his doings, behold they are written in 
the chronicles of his high -priesthood, from the time that he was 
made high priest after his father.' 

It has been custoniary to conclude from this mention 
of the ' rest of the deeds ' of John, and especially from 
the reference to the ■ chronlcle of his high-priesthood,' 
that his reign must have been far advanced,^ or even 
ended (so most scholars since Eichhorn), at the time 
when these words were written. The cogency of this 
reasoning niay be doubted, however ; the more so, as 
every particle of the remaining evidence points to a 
different conclusion, 

It is evident that the writer wished to bring his history to an 
end with the dose of Simon's reign. If this had been his only 
purpose, however, he would hardly have foUowed 16 17 with 
just these concluding verses ie-22, which teli only half of what 
was necessary to be told, if the escape of John was to be narrated 
at ali, and leave the history of the Hasmonaean house and of 
Jerusalem (see v. 20) in suspense. To suppose that these verses 
were intended merely to serve as the necessary bridge from the 
reign of Simon to that of John, does not explain them satis- 
factorily ; and the greater the ìnterval of time supposed to have 
elapsed between these events and the ivriting of the history, the 
greater the difficulty becomes. 

On the supposition that the historian finished his 
work soon after the beginning of the reign of Hyrcanus, 
and wished to conclude it with complimentary mention 
of his sovereign, every part of the closing passage 
16 18-24 is at once satisfactorily explained. 

It is ali precisely what we should expect. The events follow- 
ing Simon s death were then familiar to every one ; it was only 
necessary to lead up to the statement of John's prompt action 
(j;. 22), and then to add the customary formula ; ' the rest of 
his great deeds,' etc. For the only deeds that are specially 
mentioned— the carrying on of war, and the building ofwalls — 
we have no need to look further than the earlier years of his 
reign ; the wars that brought hini his chief glory, and the re- 
building of the Wall that had been razed by Antiochus Sidétes, 
were both begun, it would seem, during or immediately after 
the ^■ear 128 (see col. 2856, fi 7). As for the ' eh tonici e of 
his high-priesthood ' (if we suppose the words to be more than 
a mere complimenl),^ the historian couid have referred to it 
equally well at any time after the beginning of the reign. If 
there really was such a chronicle, it was probably the continua- 
tion of the record of the preceding reigns ; see the latter part of 
V. 24 (see also below, g 8). 

(2} The impression thus gained from the closing verses 
of the book, that it was completed during the reign of 
John Hyrcanus, is confirmed by the tone of security 
and politicai self-respect that is so evident in ali parts 
of the history. With the beginning of the last century 
B.C. came a marked decline. 

(3) On the other band, there are indications that the 
historian began his work during the reign of Simon. 
_ The striking passage I44-15, in particular, points dis(Ìnctly 
in tbis direction. So, too, does the much discussed verse 13 42. 
Even if documents and coins (?) were dated in this way (see 
Schur. GJV 1 192 j?: ; ET 1 257 J?:), the custom can have con- 
tmued onl:^ for a very short time. The only hìslorians who 
would he iikely to write such a verse as this would be those of 
Simon's own day. Cp on the other band 14 27, which is equally 
significant whelher written by the author of i Macc. or by some 
one else- The compliment paid to Simon in 26g may also be 
taken as evidence ; there is nowhere in the sequel anydiing that 
could be re^arded as especially illuslraling the quality bere 
ascribed to him, or as implying that he was looked upon as the 
counsellor of his brethren. 

iii. The theory best accounting for ali the facts (see 
also beìow) — and no really plausible argument can be 
urged against it — ^would seem to be, that the greater 
part of this history was composed and written under the 
inspiration of Simon's glorious reign, and that it was 
finished in the early part of the reign of John Hyrcanus. 
That is, the book was probably written between 140 
and 125 B.C. 

The passage 13 30 can give us no addillonal help. The words 
' unto this day ' are the indispensable (OT) formula added to the 
account of such monuments, and would have been used in any 
case, wbether the time that had elapsed were two years or 
twenty. This is simply one of the raany illustrations of the way 
in which the writer models his history after the pattern of the 
older Hebrew sctiptures ; the use of the formula bere serving 

1 See the advocates of this view cited in Grimm, Comm. 24. 
3 It is not probable, however, that they are anything more 
than this. See below, g 8- J & 



to show his scuse of the importance of the monument (cp 9 aa 

Vewed from the iiterary point of view, i Macc. 

makes a most favourable impression. Its author was 

_ _ , . evidently a wriler of unusual talents as 

' . ' well as of considerable experience. His 


narrative is constructed with a Irue sense 

of projjorlion and with skill in the arrange- 
ment of the material. The siyle, which is stroiigly 
marked, is plainly his own, though formed on the 
classical Hebrew niodels. Reminiscences of OT phrase- 
plogy are of course frequent, and cerlaiii familiar formulas 
from the older Hebrew hìstory are occasionally intro- 
duced {e.g., 26g/. 920-22 ISaó I623/); but there is no 
further evidence of any imitation, conscious or uncon- 
scious, of the older writers. The chief characteristìcs 
of the style are terseness at\d simplicity. At the same 
time, the narrative is full of lively details, and is never 
suffered to lag. 

The reserve of the writer is worthy of especial notice. 
Though it is evident that he is intensely Jnterested in 
ali the history he is recording, he generally contents 
himself with giving a purely objective view of the course 
of events, keeping his refìections to himself. He writes 
as a loyal and devout Jew, yet without indulging in 
such abuse of his enemies as is so common, for example, 
in 2 Macc.^ It cannot be said, however, that he does 
not display enthiisiasra, It breaks out into momentary 
expression agaJn and agair, ali through the book, 

See, for example, 248 33-9 424 58 hb-}/. 11 51 W'uff., etc. 
On such occasions as these, and in fact wherever the writer, 
for one reason or ;iiiother, wishes to make his story espetiaily 
impressive, or is carried away hy his feeling, he rises to poetry 
in the true Semitic manner, Examples are 1 25-28 37-40 33-045 
9418 144-rs. Similarly.theimpassioned utterancesof Maltathìas 
in 27-13 49-68, of the people in 350^, and of Antiochus in 

6 ioJ?I, are expanded in poetic form ; cp also ihe two addresses 
of Judas to his army 3 18-22 4b-ii. 

In ali parts of the book we meet the same striking 
combinalion of dignity and naiveté, the same excellences 
of style. We may well believe that in its originai form 
it was a fine specimen of Hebrew prose. 

Regarding the reljgious standpoint of the author, it is 
to l>e said that in this respect also the book deserves to 
hold a high place in Jewish lìterature. 
There is nowhere any room for doiibt as 
to his patriotism, in the best sense of the 
word. Hebelieves in Israel as the people chosen of God. 
The author is zealous for ali the time-honoured institulions ; 
for the lawatid theordinances(l 11 15 4J 49 54^?^ 62 ff',* 2 20^ 27 
42 48 821 14 14/: etc), for the holy scnptures (1 56 348 129), for 
Jerusalemand the .sanctuary(l 11 yj/. ^l/- 3 43 45 51 43859 73742 
!>54yr). He refers repeatedly lo God's deliverance of Israel in 
the past (2 59y^ 4 <)ff. 30 7 41), and expresses his firm faith that 
he is ready to hear and help now also, as of old (3 \%/. 4 ìo/. 
9 46 Iti 3) ; ' none that put their trust in him shall want for 
strength' (26i).5 In 4 55 (cp v. 24^ 844 eie.) 12 15 the successes 
achieved by tlie Jeivs under the hi accabfean leaders are ascribed 
to che divine heìp ; as in 1 64 (cp 38) the evils that had come 
upon the nation are said to be God's punishment for its sin. 
Help through miraculous intervention, indeed, is neither asked 
nor expected — the day of wonders, and of prophets with super- 
human power and wisdom, ìs past (827 ; cp 4 46 14 41 Ps. 749 
Dan.333 ISoiig of che Three Children, v. 14], Ezra 2é3 [Neh. 

7 65]) ; ® but God now works deliverance for his people through 

7. Beligious 

1 Even if this were not ihe case, the attempi to determine the 
time that ' must have elapsed ' before a writer couid use the 
phrase 'unto this day' {i.e., 'where it stili stando') must be 
wholly fruitless. To many writers, ten years, or even fi ve, would 
seem a long interval. Especially in those eventful times, when 
nothiiig was long secvire, and hostile armies were inarching 
through the land, a historian might well bave expressed his 
gratitude ihat the conspicuoiis monument at Modein had been 
allowed to sland for even a very brief period. 

^ The descriplion of Antiochus Epiphanes as ò'fa òfinpTiuXós 
(I io), and of Alcimus by the adjective ào-e;8iJs (7 9), are certainly 
examples of moderation. 

_ ^ The grim humour of the passage 9 37-42 is not to be lost 
sight of. 

■* Cp Dan. 1 8. 

^ The fact that the writer puts these utterances into the mouth 
of his heroes, Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, renders 
them no iess hi^ own, of course. 

6 It is doubtful how much significance shouid be attached to 
this phrase in its vacious forms. See Jerus. Kiddiisklm , 4 [near 
the beginning]. 


ihe -Strength he gives to those who cali upon him (433). In 
11 70-72 Jonathan's desperate valour, which wins the day, is the 
result of superhuman strength given him in answer to prayer. 

It is remarkable, in vìew of such genuine faith and 
religious devotion as the writer everywhere manifests, 
that the book from beginning to end shouid avoid ali 
direct designations of God. 

Neither ' God ' (Seós, o'"^»()i nor 'Lord' (irupios, 'jnx), nor 
any of the titles occasionally employed in the OT are to be 
found here.i Instead, the writer makes use of the term ' heaven ' 
(oùpapó^, D'Oc), which is so employed as to be the full equivalent 
of ihe name ' God ' ; thus, 3 i^X- 5° 4 1040 55 946 12 15 16 3 ; cp 
also 3 60. In some of these passages, this use of the word 
' heaven ' is followed by the personal pronoon in a most sìgnifi- 
cant manner ; see 3 22 51^ 4 10 55. In Iwo pas.sages (7 37 ^ì/.) 
where God is dìtectly addressed, the pronoun ' ihou ' i.s used 
wilhout being preceded by any noun. Similarly, in 2 61 the 
pronoun of the third person is employed, with only the conlexl 
to show that God is nieant ; in 1113, 'byMe mercy,' tiot even a 
pronoun is used. 

As the tendency thus illtistrated begins to appear 
among the Jews before the time of the Maccabees, and 
plays an important part in the later literature, it is hardly 
safe to draw conclusions from these facts as to the 
personal charac terìstics of this writer. 

The use of the OT in the book may be noticed, finally. 
The repetition of certain formulas from the historìcal 
books has already receìved menti on. Apart from 
these, there are allusions in 252-60 to Genesis, Numbers, 
Joshua. Samuel, Kings, Daniel ; in 14i2 the words of 
Mie, 44 are repeated ; 424 contains a familiar verse from 
the Psalms, cp i Ch. I634 41 Ezra 3 11 ; in 7 17 Hs. TSi/. 
is formaily cited. Other quotations or allusions are 
found in Saó 4g 30,^ 737. 

Those who suppose that the author of this history 
wrote in the early decades of the last century b.c., find 
8 SnuTCRfi. '* necessary lo assume that he made con- 
siderable use of written sotirces.^ It is 
indeed quite out of the question to suppose that an 
accouttt so vivid and accurate, and of such uniform 
fulness of detail, even in the narrative of the first years 
of the uprising, could have been written merely on the 
basis of orai tradition and personal recoUection, after 
such a lapse of time. Nor would the hypothesis that 
the written sources used by the author were nterely 
Ecatlered officiai and private documents, of no great 
extent, be at ali adequate to account for the work before 
US. It ìs very difificuit to suppose the existence of such 
documents as this theory calls for, or to believe that a 
Jewish historian of that day could have combined them 
vwith such marvellous skilì. Nor would any such pro- 
cess have produced this book. If. however, as has been 
argued above, the book was written soon after the middle 
of the second century, the necessity of postulating ex- 
tensive documentary sources is removed. Moreover, 
both the lack of evidence of any such sources in the 
book itself, and the character and manner of the whole 
narrative, make it by far the most probable theory that 
what we have here ìs the account of one who had wit- 
nessed the whole Maccabasan struggle from its beginning, 
and had had exceptional opportunilies of Information. 

The only passages in i Macc. in which there might 
appear to be reference to written sources known to the 
author are 922 and 1624. In both cases the writer is 
niaking use of the familiar OT formula used in closing 
the history of a king : ' The resi of his acts, and his 
mighty deeds. behold, theyare written,' etc. Thereason 
for his eroploying it in only these two places is obvious. 

The compliment is paid to Judas, as the great hero of the^e 
times ; to John, because of the time and manner in which the 
book was finished (see above, § s)- Accordingly, when il is said 
of Judas, that 'the rest of his acts were noi written down,' ihe 
naturai inference Ìs thìs, that the writer knew of no record other 
than his own of the events of Judas' time ; this was, therefore, 
the only way in which he could conclude the formula. Again, 
when he has occasion to apply the formula to the reign of John, 

t The words ' God " and ' Lord ' have frequenlly been inserted, 
however, both in many of the Greek texts and in ihe versions. 
Thus, e.g;., in the English AV, 221 26 3 185360 455 9 io. 

2 See, £.s- < Schiirer, CJV 2 579 (ET 5 6). 



which had only recently begun, it is hard to see what forni o( 
words he could have employed othcr thati that which he actually 
used. That such a ' hook of the records ' of John's reign had 
already been written, is therefore neither said not implied ; 
only this, that he was one whose deeds would certainly he 

As for the question whether we raay not find in these 
words at least a hint as to one of the sources at the 
comtnand of the writer, namely, a chronicle of the reign 
of Simon (and possibly also of the reign of Jonathan), 
the answer must be : ( i ) We are not warranted in draw- 
ìng any such conclusion from the words of this stock 
phrase. {2) There is not a grain of evidence, nor any 
great intrinsic probability, that the record of any of the 
Hasmonsean reigns was officially kept.^ {3) There is 
nothing whatever to indicate that the sources used by 
the wriler for his account of the reign of Simon were in 
any way different from the sources at his disposai for 
the history of Judas. It may be added, though the fact 
has httle significance, that the only Jewish source for 
the history of these Hasmonsean rulers known to Josephus 
was our i Macc. Moreover, regarding the history of 
the period 175-161 B.C., there is no evidence that 
I Macc. and 2 Macc, (Jason of CjTene) made use of any 
common source, or that the latter had any exlensive 
documents at his disposai {see Maccabees, Second, 
§ 2. col. 2869/}. 

In connection with this tack of evidence for the exist- 
ence of other important records of the Maccabeean 
period, it should be observed further, that i Macc. 
shows no sign of being a compilation ; it is, on the 
contrary, remarkably homogeneous in ali its parts. It 
would be difficult to imagine greater uniformity of style 
and method, from beginning to end, in a work of this 

As for the many officiai documents which are embodied 
in the history, it is not likely that the author of i Macc. 
took thera from a collection already made. It seems 
much more probable, from their character, and the way 
in which they are used, that they were partly collected 
by him, but chiefly composed or freely reproduced by 
him in accordante with his own taste aided by memory. 
On these documenls, see also § g/. 

By the earlier investigators of i Macc. , the integrity 
of the book was generally unquestioned. In recent 
9 Inte^ritv *''"^' however, the attempt has been 
6" y- made by some scholars to show that the 
history as we bave it is not in its originai form. The 
question has been raised whether certain of the letters, 
edicts, and other documents contained in the book can 
bave originally formed a part of it. 

(a) Some have gone so far as to claim that the whole 
concluding portion, from near the beginning of the 
fourteenth chapler to the end of the book, is a later 
addition by another band. 

Destinoli, £>!e Quelleit des /osepkus, 1882, pp. Bo^, argued 
that the form of i Macc. known to Josephus did not contain 
chaps. H-16. He also advocated the cheory, formerly held by 
J. D. Michaelis, that Josephus used a Hebrew i Macc. (the 
originai form) differinR in other important particulars from our 
Greek version {l.c, pp. 61-80). 

As for the form of i Macc. which is reproduced in the 
Antiquities, it may be regarded as certain, in spiteof the 
arguments of Destinon and others, that it was identical 
with our Greek version. 

See, for example, the weighty evidence incidentally noted in § 
li, below. The reason urged by Destinon for regarding the last 
three chapters as secondary is the baste with which Josephus 
passes over this portion of the history, giving it hardly any space 
at ali, although these chapters contain abundant material of 
the sort that would seem to serve his purposes especially well, 
inasmiich as it is bis manifest aim to magnify the politicai im- 
portance of the Jews, and to make as much as possible of their 
friendly relations wìth the Ronians. The argument certainly 
deserves notice ; but it raay be doubted whether it sbouid be 

1 See Schurer, G/f2 584X 

2 The greater frequency of poetical passages in the first half 
of the book, noticed by Westcott (Smith's DB), is simply due to 
the difference ìn characler of the subject matter and the narrative 
(see above, § 6), and cannot be used as an argument for diversity 
of authorship. 


given any great weight (see Schùr. TLZ-, 1882, p. 390). It is 
hardly saJe to rely on the niethods of such a writer as Josepbiis, 
even iti a matter of this nature ; it must be remembered, (00, 
that one chief consideration in the composition of his worÌ was 
the striving after brevìty and condensation. A Gentile hiitorian 
would have found little or nothing of importance in these 
chapters of i Macc, and it is not difficult to bel.^ve that 

Josephus couid bave made up his mind to omit tbem.l Nor 
as the theory that the hook originally ended near the beginning 
of chap.14 ('al about the islh verse' ; We. IJG^), 22-if., n.; 
(2), 257 n. ; (3), 368 n. a ; sentence omitted in i^), 373 n.) any 
further argument in its favour ; while on the other band there 
are many and weighty considerai ions against it. 

In style and manner. as in contents, chaps. 14-16 are 
in perfect harmony with the rest of the book. I617, to 
take a single instance, cannot fai! lo remind the reader 
of the author of the earlier chapters. See also what 
has been said above {§§ 5, 8) r^arding the dose of the 

(b) The question of the document 14 27-47. ^^ inscrip- 
tion in honour of Simon, is more difficult. The manner 
in which its represenlation of the course of events seems 
to run,counter to that contained in the preceding and 
the foUowing portions of the history has long attracted 
attention.'' It is urged that there is a serìoos contra- 
diction here in regard to the order of events, the chief 
point of difference being the account of Simon's enibassy 
to Rome. 

According to the document (z". 40), this would seem to have 
occurced before the time when Demetrius lecognised ihe 
authority of Simon, and to have been one of the things that led 
him to take that step. In the earlier part of this same chapter, 
on the other band, the beginning of Demetrius' long captivity 
among the Parthians is narrated (J 4 1-3) before the account of 
the embassy is given ip. 24) ; and in chap. 15, the return of 
Numenius with the answer of the Romans (7'. 15) would seem, 
from the connection in which it stands, to have occurred in the 
year i3g,at the beginningof the reign ofAntìochus(VIl.)SÌdétes. 

It is by no means certain, however, that the anthor 
of I Macc. shouid be cited eis dating the events of 14i-j 
earlier than those of vv. ib^. 24 _^ Nor are we justifìed 
in any case in giving stich weight to a verse of the nature 
of 1440, belonging to a document whose chief aim was 
by no means to record history exactly, but rather to 
glorify Simon ìn every possible way. The whole question 
of the dates and order of events of these few years, more- 
over, is one of exceeding difficulty ; ' and even on the 
supposition that we have here a true copy of the procla- 
mation that was put in the court of the tempie, the 
difficulty might stili be adjusted by supposing the author 
of I Macc. to have been mistaken in regard to the date 
in 14 1.* It is far more likely, however, that what wc 
have here {i». 27-49) is a free reproduction of the substance 
of the proclamation, after the manner customary through- 
out this book in incorporating officiai documents (see 
nextseclion). The difficulty with the statement in I440 
is thus most probably to be charged to the author's 
own inaccuracy, which is of a kind that is very easy of 
explanation, under the circumstances. There is, there- 
fore, no sufficient reason for regarding 1425-49 as a 
later interpolation." Notice also the fact that this pass- 
age formed a part of the Hebrew i Macc. ; see especially 
V. -zjf. (above, § 3). 

(i) The section 15 15-24. wbich narrates the return of 
the above- ment io ned embassy, and contains the letter 
sentby the Romans in the year 139 b.c., to Ptolemy 
Physkon and Simon, has also been suspected of being 
an iiiterpolation (see Wellh. , ibid. ; Willrich, Juden u. 
Griechen, 69 j^). 

1 It was the easier for him to omìt ihe account of the Roman 
embassy here, inasmuch as he manages to introduce the most 
imposing features of it later, on a similar occasìon (see below, e). 

^ See the note in Grimm, Comm., at the end of chap. 14 ; 
Destinon, 86^ ; Wellh. op. cit. 222/., n. ; Willrich, /«afe» «. 
Griecheit, 70. 

3 See, e.g:, Schùrer, 1 132^ ; ET I 176^ 

* Another alternative would be to regard v. 40 as the ìnterpol- 
ation of some scribe, 

s The difficulties which some have found in the form of the 
document (e.g-., Wellh. i-c), are due in part to the translation 
and transcFiption, as well as lo the fact that the whole ìs freely 
reproduced. In v. 28 the originai reading was ' We hereby pro- 
claim ' (see § 3). In v. 41 the word ìIti. is certainly secondary, 
and the result of scribal carelessness. 



li is generally assumed that this alleged Roman edict is 
iflentical with thac given iiijos. Ani. xiv. 85 (in ihe time of Hyr- 
caiiu5 II,), the resemblances being too slrikiiig to be atcidental. 
See the very extensive literatiite of ihe siibject, in Schiirer, 
1 iggyi, 279_;C ; ET li, pp. 267^. ^jSy. It has been proved 
by Mommsen (' Der Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus Ant. xìv, 8 5 ' 
Hermes, 9 [1875] pp. 281-291) that the document in Jos. really 
belongs, at least in pari, to the time of Hyrcanus li.l But 
Mommsen also argiied at len^th (/.e.) and for weighty reasons, 
that the edict in i Mati;. 15 is not identical wilh that in Jos. 
His argiiinenis bave failed to convince most scholars, because 
of the siili unexplained fact that ' Kumenius, son of Antiocbus ' 
and the ' golden sbield of a thousand pounds weight ' appear in 
both documents. The explanation of this latter fact, however, is 
certainly this : Josephus, for the reasons given already (above, a) 
omitted the portion of i Macc. containing the mention of 
Numenius and the golden sbield, but look occasion lo introduce 
this important name, and the most inleresting detaiW, at the 
next opportunity. The two documenls werethus originally quite 
distiiict. The fact must also lie emphasised that the passage 
15 15-24 bears striliing evidence of having been written very soon 
after the time when these events occurred. The ' consul Lucius' 
(AeÙKtos uiraros) of v. |6 can be no other (Ritschl, Rkein- 
Miiseum, voi. 28, 1873; Mommsen, /.c.)than L, Calpurnius Fiso, 
who was Roman consul in 139. The edict was sent tu Demetrius 
(_^TÌ)i.TITpL<a Tcù SncriXet), which shows that the Romans wrote— as 
must in fact bave been the case — before hearing of the captivity 
of Demetrius and the accession of Antiochus Sidétes. This 
again is striking evidence that we have bere the account of a 
contemporary (so Grimm, Ci?in>n.); so also is the manner in 
which tbis narrative is inserted in the midst of events of the 
reign of Sidétes, in spite of w. 22, and the way in which the 
story of the military operations at Dor is interrupted. An 
interpolator could not possibly have introduced ithere(a5 argued 
by Wellhausen, /.e.) ; on the contrary, the author of i Macc. 
must have written from his own recoUection of the actual order 
of events. 

The historical acctiracy of the whole account, as well 
as the fact that it formed a pnrt of the originai i Macc. , 
would therefore seem to be beyond qnestion. That we 
have in this document the actual words of a Ronnan 
edict, however, niay be strongly doubted. The only 
concliision that can cerlainly be drawn is that the 
Romans, under I,. C. Fiso, accepted the present of 
the Jewish ambassadors, and returned an answer that 
was at least polite and was addressed to King 

(1^) Siili Other of the incorporated documents have 
occasLonàlly been suspected of being interpolalions, the 
suspicion being probably due in ali cases to a mistaken 
idea of the pur pose and method of a historian 
of that day in reproducJng lelters, speeches of military 
leaders, and the like (see next section). 

In the case of the document 1025-45, for example, it has justly 
been observed (Wellh. o/, c/V. 2iB, n. ; cp Willrich, 70) that 
it cannot be regarded as a genuine letter of Demetrius. But 
we are certainly not therefore justified in coiicluding that it was 
not put in its present place by the careful and conscientious 
aiithiir of I Macc. On the contrary, it was probably composed 
by hiin on the basis of hisknowledge of the attitudeof Demetrius, 
of which It undoubtedly gives a fair idea, in the main. Whether 
sny considerable portion of its contents may be regarded as 
reproducing actual utterances of the king, is quite another 

The great importance of i Macc. as a source for the 

history of the Jews is now generally acknowledged. ^ 

_. . . , Besides being the only detailed account 

V lu "^'^ '^^'"^'^ ^'^ ^^"^ *^^ ^^^ ^''^'"^ "^ '^® 
greater part of this most important 

period, the hook has proved itself worthy to hold the 

highest rank as trustworthy history. In the first place, 

ali of the most important events are dated accord- 

ing to the Seleucid era (reckoned from the sprhig of 

312 B.c. ; see Schùrer, I33. ETI44), the accuracy of 

the dates given being in Ihe main beyond aSl question. 

We thus have here for the first time a Jewish history 

with a satisfaclory chronology. The sanie verdict of 

trustworthiness must be accorded to the hook as a 

whole. Both in the account which it gives of the 

general course of events, and in its narrative of details, 

it bears the unmistakable stamp of truth. In the pre- 

ceding pavagraphs {§§ 4, 5, 8) we have maintained 

the view that the author of i Macc. records in this 

' See his concluding words, agi ; and the comments in Will- 
rich, 71. 

2 For the earlicr discussions of tbis ([uestion, especìally in the 
«ghteenth century, see Grimm, Comm. p. xxxiv^ 


hook events of his own lifetime, which he had had ex- 
ceptional opporlunities of observing. There are, in fact, 
many indications of this apart from those already 
mentioned.^ Kor example, the details given in 639^"., 
733 eie, and especially in 819 (the 'long jotirney' of 
the ambassadors to Rome). 934 43 (where ' on the 
Sabbath day' has no significance at al! for the nar- 
rative), were plainly recorded by a contemporary of 
these events. In ali parts of the book, the narrative 
has this same vivid and circumslantial character, the 
details being frequently such as one who had not 
witnessed the events. or who wrote a considerable time 
after their occurrence. could have had no reason for 
adding. It is plain that the author was excellently well 
informed as to the progress of affairs in general, the 
character and movements of the chief actors in these 
scenes (see above, § 4), and cven as to minor circum- 
stances of time, place, and manner. It is to be added 
that he shows himsclf a true historian both in the choice 
of his material and in the manner of using it. In the 
choice of material, especially, his pre-eminence appears. 
It cannot be said of him that he purposely distorts 
facts, or ìnvents Iheni. It is true that he was a warm 
adherent of the Hasmonasan house, and probably a 
personal friend of i(s leaders, as well as a sincere 
patriot ; but his history is not written in a partisan 
spirit.^ No one wil! blame him for passing over in 
silence the shameful conduct of the high priests Jason 
and Menelaus, or for making only brief mention of the 
defeats suffered by the Jews. To turn stich defeats into 
victories, as is doiie, for example, in 2 Macc. 189-24 (con- 
trast I Macc. 628-63), would never have occurred to him. 
His statements cannot always be believed, it is true ; 
they must occasionally be pronounced mistaken, or 
inaccurate. Especially when he has occasion to touch 
upon the geography or politicai conditions of foreign 
countries [e.g., li 81-16 14i6, etc,), he exhibits a naive 
ignorance which is ali the more noticeable because 01 
the very exact knowledge of Palestine which he every- 
uhere displays. That his numerical estimates (size of 
armies, number of the slain, etc.) are often exaggerated. 
is a matter of course. Such statements wcre generally 
the merest guesses, in the early histories. Regarding 
the incorporated documenls the case is soniewhat 
similar. They are not to be taken too seriously. There 
was no thought of ' authenticity ' here, any more than 
in the matter of recording the speeches made by 
Mattathias to his sons. or by Judas on the field of battle. 
The composition, or at least the free reproduclion, of 
such speeches and documents belonged to the task of the 
historian. In general it may be said of those in i Macc. 
that they may be used only with the greatest catition ; 
though it is probable that in the most of them veritable 
documents are reproduced, in substance if not in foim. 
On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work cf 
the highest value. comparing favourably, in point of 
trustworthiness, with the best Greek and Roman 

i. Hebre-w iext of i Macc. — The originai Hebrew tcxt 
of I Macc. seems to have disappeared at a very early 
date. There is no evidence of its use by any early 
writer, not even by Josephus. Nor is there any 
sure testimony to its existence after the time when 
1 1 Tbi+ nnrt ^^ Greek transìation was made {re- 

1, . garding the equivocai words of Origen 

and Jerome, see above, g§ 1, 3). What 
is more important, there is no evidence of correction from 
the Hebrew, either in the Greek or in any other of the 
versions (ali of which were made from the Greek). On 
the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be 
the result of a single translation from a Hebrew MS 
which was not free from faulls. It hardly seems pro- 
bable that the Hebrew i Macc. can have been widely 

1 See above, esp. §5 4_/I, col. 2859^. 

2 .See the exceUent character isation of his work in ihis respect, 
in Schlatter, Jason vort Kyrene, 55. 



cìrculaled at any time ; there was certainly never any 
tendency among the Paiestinian Jews to include it in 
the collection of 'sacred writings.' [See further, iv. 
beiow, on laler Hebrew writings.] 

ii. Trans lations of i Macc. {a) Greek.-~Foit\inaie\y. 
the Greek translation is an exceltent piece of work of its 
kind. It aiinsfìrst of allat givinga closely hteral render- 
ing of the Hebrew ; but the translator has chosen his 
words so well, and interpreted so clearly, that the result 
makes very pleasant reading. Most manuscripts of the 
LXX, including the three uncials N, A. and V, contain 
the book. B, on the other band, contains none of the 
books of Maccabees. The MSS show no greal variation 
among themselves ; in general, the text represented by K 
and V (which resemble one another closely) seems to 
be the oldest and best.^ Many passages furnish 
evidence of the faci that ali our texts and versions of 
the book come from a single Greek MS whose text had 
siiffered corruption. 

Thus, in 3 9 khì avvjiya.yev ànoKXviiévav^, which makes no good 
sense bere, is pbìnly a doublet of the followìng koX iruv^ya-y^v 
'AttoAXcuvìos ; the blunder being found in ali MSS and versions. 
In 9s EAaira or AAau-a should probably be 'ASotra (A for 
A); cp 740. Similarly in 92 Maio-aAiuS or Me(r<raA,u9 diould 
be M*<roSMS (Wellb. IJGi*) 266, n.). In ali these cases, our 
witne^ses agree in giving the corrupt forni. In like manner, ali 
show the same evidence of a confused text, with some words 
accidentally omitted, or repeated, in 814 33-35 43. There are 
many olher examples. 

It is especially to be noticed that in the most of these 
cases Josephus aho contains the corrupt reading. 

[b) Latin. — There are two Latin versions of i Macc. ; 
the one represented by the Vulgate, and the other (ex- 
tending as far as the end of chap. 13) contained in a 
single MS {Sangermanensis).'^ 

The Vulgate version is in the main a faithful render- 
ing of the Greek ; the Sangermanensis version is the 
result of a recension designed to conform to the Greek 
as closely as possible (cp the two Latin versions of 
2 Macc. ). 

{e) Syriac. — There are likewise two Syriac recensions 
of the book. 

The common version printed in the Paris PolygM,\<A. hi.., 
the London Polyglot voi. iv. (variant readings in voi. vi.), and 
L,agarde's JlfiocryfiAa Sj/riace {iZ6i) ; and another (ex tendine as 
far as 14zs)3 found in the tW. Ambrosianvs of the Peshitta 
(pubi, by Ceriani, i876-i883). Trendelenburg (in Eichhorn's Re- 
/ff/oj-/HW(,15[i784]pp.58j?;)provedconclusively that the common 
version is a translation from the Greek. It is careful, and very 
old. Ils readings correspond in general with those of codd. 
19. 64, 93 (H and P), generally reco^nised as ' Lucian ' MSS ; 
and it must be regarded as forming with these a separate recen- 
sion. See especially G, Schmidt, Die èeid. syr. Uebers. des 
ersten Maccabàerbuches, in ZA TW 17 1-47, 233-263 (1897 J. 
Schmidt concludes (2^4^?) that the version of the cod. Antbros. 
is the result of a revision of the older Syriac accordìng to the 
common Greek text. 

These are the only important versions of the book. 
According to Dillmann,^ the Ethiopic version of i and 
2 Macc. (not yet published) was made from the L^tin 
Vulgate in the sixteenth or the seventeenth century. 

iii. Translation! of 2 Macc. — What is said of the 
Greek MSS and the versions of i Macc. applies in 
genera! to 2 Macc. also ; for the two are usually found 
together, and the history of their transmission seems 
to bave been nearly always tbe same. Cod. N, how- 
ever, contains i Macc. , but not 2 Macc. 

iv. Later -Works based on Macc. — Meiition may also 
be made bere of certain later versions of the Maccabsean 
history, for the most part based on tbe books of the 
Maccabees, but having little or no independent value, 

I. The Aramaic 0DTB3K nSao. Megitlath Antiochus ; 
or "siiaBTT '33 n^io. Scroll of the Hasmonsans. 

See especially Gaster, The Scroll of the Has-monaan-s 
(Transs. gth Internat. Congr. of Oiientalists, London, 2 1-32), 
where the (Aramaic) text is printed, wìth a translation, and 
veiy full references to the literature are given.6 The Hebrew 

1 See also on the Syriac versions, and their affini tìes, below(c). 

2 Published in Sabatier, Bibliotum sacrorum Laiinceversiones 
antiqua!, voi. ii., 1743. 

■* The text of the remainder, 1426-1624, 's the common version. 
* Libri VT Apocrypki yEthio^ice, 1894, preface. 
5 See Schurer, 1 123 (ET, i. 1 165). 


text (trans, from the Aramaic) is printed, e.g., in Jellinek, Set 
ha-Midraih, X (1853), where also another form of the Aramais 
text is given (voi. vi., 1877), 

The book is a very brief Mìdrashic composition, not 
based directly on iMacc. , nor (apparently) ou any 
other written source. It is evident from its internai 
characler that it was written long after the Maccabasan 

2. The Jewish history of ' Joseph ben Gorion ' 
(Josippus), This work (of about tbe lolh cent. ?) con- 
tains a history of the Jews from Adam down to the time 
of the destruction of the Tempie by Titus. 

Wellbausen (^Der arabisckc Josippus, Kerl., 1897) concludes 
that its originai extent was the same as that of the ' Arabie 
Book of Maccabees' (see next paragraph), and that the name 
Joseph ben Gorion (by mistake for Klavius Josephus) was attached 
later, after the additions from the Jeiuish War had been made. 
The chief sources of the book in its originai form were a Macc. 
and a secondary (Latin) recension of the Jevnsh IVar of 
Josephus. The author, who seems to bave written in llaly, 
sadly misuses his material, and adds a good deal of legendary 
matter of his own. As hÌ5iory, the book is absolutely worthless. 
See, further, Wellh., i.c. ; and the literature in Schiirer, 1 nif. 
(ETli, p. 165/:). 

3. Tbe so-called Arabie Maccabees, or Arabie 2 Macc. , 
printed in the Paris Polyglot, voi. ix. , and in the London 
Polyglot, voi. iv. , with a Latin translation made by 
Gabriel Sìonita. This work, which very closely re- 
sembles the preceding, contains a history of the Jews 
beginning with the story of Heliodorus (2 Macc.3). and 
continuing down to the end of the Hasmonaean house, 
in the time of Herod. According to Wellhausen 
(op. cit.. 1^6 f), this book, the Arabie Josippus, and 
the Hebrew Gorìonides, are to be regarded as three 
separate recensions of the same work ; the ' .Arabie 
Macc' representing its originai extent, in which form it 
was truly a 'Book of the Maccabees,' though of no 
historical value. 

An English translation of the wotk as ' 5 Macc.,'2 was given 
by Cotton in his Pive Books of Maccabees, 1832 ; and a descrip- 
tion of it under this same tltle is given in Bissell, 638^ In 
the Arabie text, from which alone the book is known to us, it 
bears the title 'aMacc' A note at the end of chap.l6, mis- 
underslood hy Sionita, who repeats his mialake in the preface 
to the book, says : 'Thus far the 2 Macc. of the Heorews ' 
(which, in fact, does end at that point). After chap. 19, with 
which the end of i Macc. is reached, the remaining chaps., 
20-09, follow Josephus very closely. See the lable in Bissell, 
Wellhausen, op. cit. ; and Ginsburg's article in Kitto's Bibl. 
Cyclopiedia. The book deserves more attention than it has 

[Among these later works we must probably include the in- 
complete fragments of a Hebrew version of i Macc. published 
by Chwolson, and more recently by Schweizer, from a Paris 
manuscript of the second half of the twelfth century. The 
fragments in question cover chaps. 1-4 T 27-822 3073 and 6 i-i5. 
Schweizer, in a criticai discussion of the text (see below, end of 
§ 12) Comes to the conclusìon that it is based upon the originai 
Hebrew from which ali other versions bave sprung. His view 
is probably too oplimisttc- The text may certainly prove to be 
bere and there of some value for a crìticism of the readings of 
the versions, but its general importance is only secondary. The 
style is too simple and the vocabulary too easy to be ancient, 
and tbe work as a whole resembles che paraphrastìc compositions 
above mentioned.] 

i. Comntentaries. — J. D. MÌchaelÌs, Uebersets. der i Macc. 
■mit Anmerkn., 1778 ; Grimm, Das erste Btick der Macc. 
(,Knrzgefasstes exegetisches Handb. zu dett 
12. Literature. Apokr., 3te Lieferung), J853; Kcil, Com- 
mentar aberdie [f. -und ii.] Bach. d. Makk., 
1S7S ; Rawlinson (i and 2 Macc.) in Wace, Apocr., ii. (1888) ; 
Fairweather and Black, Pirst Bk. of Macc. (Carahr. Bible for 
Schoois), 1897. Bissell's Apocr., i83o, contains a translation of 
1-3 Macc. with comm. ; ZSckler's 'Die Apokryphen des AT' 
i^KGK), 1891, the same, with the addition of a portion of 4 Macc. 
(see below, col. 2886, % a). The comm. of Grimm, though 
partly out of date, is by far the best work of the kind that we 
bave. Bissell'.s work is largely a translation of this. Tbe 
comms. of Rawlinson and Ziìckler are veiy unsatì sfactory. In 
Kaut2Sch, Apokr. u. Pseudepigr., i and 3 Macc. are treated hy 
the general editor. 

ii. Criticai In7iestìgaiions. — Ewald, Gesch.<^) iv., 1864, pp. 
6oìf\ ; Rosenthal, Dos erste Makkabaerback, 1867 ; Noldeke, 
Die A T Lit., 1868 : Schnedermann, ' Ueber das Judenthum der 
beiden ersten MakkabaerbiJcher ' (ZKÌV, 1B84, pp. 88-100); 
Niese, Kritik d. beiden Makkabaerbùcher, 1900 ; and the text- 

1 Gaster tries to make a very early date seem probable. 

2 This title, '5 Macc.,' is also botne by a Syriac version of 
Josephus, Bell. Jud., vi., found in the cod. Ambrosianus of the 
Peshitta (ed. Ceriani). See Schurer, 1 75. 



booksof OT Introduction which contain the Apocrypha (most 
recently, Slrack, Konig, Cornili). See aìso Geiger, Ursckrift, 
1857, pp. 200-230 (1 and 2 Macc); Ctiriis^, Tht Natne 
Machabee, 1876; Schiirer, G/FlzÈ-si (ETI36 ff.) 2570-584 
(ET 53-13); Wellhausen, //&*) 256 ifi ; Willrich, /«rtlf» w. 
Griecken, 1895 ; Bloch, Die QuelUtt des Josephus, 1879 ; Des- 
tinon. Die Quelltn des Josepkus, 1882 ; '■N\\\x\c\\, jtidaica, 1900. 
A. Schweizer, U-ntersackungen iiber d. Reste e. helr. Textes 
■tìoni I. Makkabàerb-uch (Berlin, 1901). 

iii. Modern Translations. — Hebrew translation in Fraenkel, 
Kethabitn acharonim, sive Hagiograpka posteriora^ Leipsic, 
1830. EnglLsh iranslations of 1-4 Macc. in Cotton, Five Books 
0/ the Maccabees, 1832; Ilagster's Apocrypha, Greek and 
Englisk, 1882 ; Churton's Uncanon. and Apocr- Scriptures, 
1884 ; Dyserinck, De apocrie/e boeken des ouden verbonds, 1874, 
conlain^ 1-3 Macc. ; so also Reuss, I^a Bible, voi. vii., 1879, and 
Das alte Testainenl, voi. vii., 1894. The best German Irans. 
is that of Kautzsch in his Apoc. k. Pseudepigr., 1898. 

Other lilerature, especially the older criticai and exegetical 
Works, in Grimm, p. xxx!v_/^ ; Schiirer, 2584 (ET li. 3 izy^). 

C. C. T. 
The hook known as ' 2 Maccabees ' ^ Ss a history of 
the Hasmonsan uprising, differing widely from 1 Macc. 

1 GnntAntti ^^^ ^" ''^ general character and in its 
^ ' contents. The events with which it deals 

are ali included in a period of hardly more than fifteen 
yoars, from a time shortly before the accession of 
Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.c.) down to the year 161. 
It is thus in the main parallel to i Macc. 1-7. Preiìxed 
to the history is an interesting supplement (li-2i8), 
consisting of two letters purporting to have been sent by 
the Jews of Palestine to the Jews of Egypt. As these 
letters are quite distinct from the main body of the 
hook, and are plainly not the work of its author, they 
will be discussed separately (§ 7). 

The contents of the history proper, which begins at 
2 19, are as follows :— 

Author's preface, announcing the subject of his work, the 
soutce from which he obtained his material, and the character 
and aim of his own labours (2 19-33). Story of Heliodorus, 
whose attempi to plunder the tempie at Jerusalem was miracu- 
lously thwarted (chap. 3). Account of the intrigues by which 
the high-priesthood changed hands, e^^pecially the misdeeds of 
Simon, overseer of the tempie, and the renegade high-priests 
Jason and Menelaus (chap. 4). The calamities that carne tipoti 
Jetusalem in 170. Jason captures the city and butchers many 
of the inhabitants. Antiochus, returning from Egypt, makes a 
great slaughter in Jerusalera, and plunders the tempie (chap. 5). 
Judas and his brethren flee to the mountains (5 27). The perse- 
cution of the Jews begun in 168. Story of the martyrdom of 
Eleazar, and of the seven youths with their mother (chaps. fi/.)- 

The remainder of the hook (chaps. 8-15) is taken up with the 
history of the wars waged by Judas Maccahaus. The corre- 
spondences with i Macc. (often of only a very general character) 
are the following : — chap. 8 = 1 Macc. 3 1-427 ; 9 = ' Macc. 6 
i-is; 10i.8=i Macc. 43S-59; 1014-38=1 Macc, 5; ll = iMacc.4 
2i^-3S;^ 1210-45 = 1 Macc. 624-68; 13 = 1 Macc.617-63 ; 14/1 = 

1 Macc. 7. The book closes with the death of the hated Syrian 
leader, Nicanor, in the batile of Beth-horon, 161 b.c. Epilogue 
of the author (15 37-39)- 

According to the author's own statement (223^), 

2 Macc. is merely an epitome of a larger work, consist- 

2 SourcaB '"^ ^^ '^^^ books," composed by one 
■ Jason of Cyrene. Beyond this statement 
nothing is known concerning this Jason or his work. 
His name is not mentioned elsewhere, and we possess 
no further evidence of the tise of his history by other 
writers. The words of the epitomisi plainly imply that 
his own labours con si st ed solely in abridging and 
popularising the work of Jason, upon which he relied 
for ali the facts narrated. As the book itself contains 
no evidence to the contrary, it is only necessary to ask 
what were the sources used by the older writer in com- 
piling his history. 

It is evident, first, that 'Jason' was not acquainted 
with I Macc.3 This fact appears both from the frequent 

1 II is first cited under this name hy Eus., Pr/ep. evang., 8 o. 
The title ' 2 Macc.' appeaJS also in some of the oldest lists of OT 
books (sec Apocrypha ; also col. 2881, g 7 ; col. 

2 The account of this expedition is confused in 2 Macc. with 
that of the similar expedition described in chap. 13. Cp especi- 
ally 11 31 wilh I Macc. G 59, and see below, § 2. 

* .Some, indeed, have even found in the book a concealed 
polemic against i Macc, So especially Geiger, Ursckr. 228 ; 
Kosters, 7^. 7'12 401-558. The evidence of this, however, is 
quite insufficient. See also below, § 6, first note. 


and very noticeable disagreement with that book, in 
order of events, chronology, and statements of fact ; 
and also from the absence of considerable interesting 
and important material contained in i Macc. , which 
could hardly have been thus omitted aliogether in a 
work of this character, if it had been known to its 
author. For the same reasons, the supposition of a 
common written source (or sources) is to be rejected. 
There is, in fact, no passage common to the two books 
where the hypothesis of a single document underlying 
both accounts seems probable. Moreover, from the 
character of ihe narrative of 2 Macc. , most modem 
scholars have concluded that the sources at Jason's dis- 
posai were mainly oral.^ The account he gives is fre- 
quently confused and even self- con tradì e tory, though 
often beariiig the marks that point to an eye-witness. 

The first expedition of Lysias into ludsa, 165 b.c., is repre- 
senled in 2 Macc. as having occurred after the death of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. The substantial identity of the account in chap. 11 
with that given in 1 Macc. 4 26-35 's beyond question ; yet 
there is introduced into it an important feature belonging lo the 
Jater expedition of Lysias in 163 b.c. — vi/., the concession of 
i^ligious freedom to the Jews. The story of this .wcond expedi- 
tion (cp I Macc. 617-63) is then told in chap. 13, where the 
incident of the royal concessions is again narrated, with a refer- 
ence {v. 22) to the former account. There can be no question 
that I Macc. gives the irue history and chronology of these 
expeditions ; the way in which they are confused m 2 Macc. 
is then best explained by supposing that Jason relied for his 
facts on the imperfect recollecticin of a number of men, not 
having written records at bis disposai. 

There are many other indications pointing in the 
same direction. 

The important campaigns conducted by Judas in the years 
164 and 163, described in i Macc. 5, are introduced in 2 Macc. 
in two places, 10 14-38 and 12 10-45. In both places the account 
is confused and fragmentary, in marked contrast to the narra- 
tive of 1 Macc, which connects ali the successive events of these 
campaigns in an orderly scheme whose general accuracy cannot 
be doubted. As in the case of the two campaigns of Lysias, 
so also bere, events are narrated out of their proper place and 
order in Jason's work. The most striking example of this is 
found in the statements regarding the Syrian leader Timotheus. 
In 10 37, at the dose of the former of the two passages mentioned, 
his death is narrated ; yet he appears again repeatedly in the 
similar campaigns described in chap, 12. It is to be observed, 
on the other hand, that the narrative in bolh passages contains 
such vivid touches— especially in the narration of unimportant 
incidents — as suggest the recollection of eye-witnesses. See for 
example IO 37 12 35. Neither bere nor elsewhere in the book 
does it seem likely that the author is reproducing various wiiiten 

In short, the character of the history of which 2 Macc. 
is the abrìdgment can best be explained by supposing 
that its author was a contemporary of men who had 
taken part in the Maccabsean struggle ; that he was 
obliged to depend mainly on orai accounts ; that he did 
not receive his Information directly from those who had 
themselves taken part in these events, but only after it 
had passed through other hands ; and that he was 
often unequal to the task of criticising and arranging 
the material thus obtained. As for the ' letters ' tran- 
scribed in 919-27 II16-38, it is plain that they were 
marni fact ured entire. 

The question to what extent the work before us is to 
be regarded as that of the epitomìst is one of consider- 
able difficulty. It seems probable, on the whole, that the 
method generally pursued by him in abridging the work 
of Jason was to omit large portions entire, and to write 
out others with little or no alteration. (See especially 
Grimm, 16 _^ ; Willrich, Juden u. Griecken. 66, ) 

The narratives actually preserved seem to be given in their 
originai wording, rather than in a free abbreviation ; not even 
in 1822-26 is it necessary to see an exception to this rule. it is 
not unlikely that even such passages as 612-17 1244^, which 
might seem to belong to the writer of the preface 2 19^., are to 
be regarded as the words of the older writer. 

From what has just been said concerning the sources 

at Jason's disposai, and the way in which he used theni, 

« TT- i _! 1 it is plain that 2 Macc. cannot lake a high 
3. Histoncal i . , .1. i,- . ,, 

, rank as trustworthy history. Moreover, 

any careful e\amination of the book leads 

to a decidedly unfavourable estimate of it in this 

^ So Giimm, Schiirer, Zockler, Willrich, Cornili, and others. 


regard. In the Urge part that runs parallel to 

1 Macc. , comparison affbrds an excellent basis for 
judgment as to the relative value of the two accounts. 

In the cases where they disagree in staternents of fact, 
it is generally beyond question that the representation 
in 2 Macc, is in correo t. The order of events in 

2 Macc. , also, even in places where it might seem 
quite plausible if we had no nieans of testing it froni 
wilhout, is often shown by the clear and consistent 
account of i Macc. to be in reahty sadly confused. ^ 
The careful chronology of the first book, moreover, 
has no parallel in the second. Events are indeed 
occasionally dated according to the Seleucid era, and on 
the whole correctly ; but the distorted order of events 
in the narrative has made even the correct dates mis- 
leading (see Comms. on II33 and I414), so that many 
have been led to assume a peculiar way of reckoning 
the Seleucid era for the chronology of this book.^ In 
13i (i Macc. 620) the date given is certainly incorrect. 

The contrast in selection and treatment of material 
caused by the difference of aìm in the two books is also 
slrongly marked. The aim of the wrlter of i Macc. is 
simply that of a historian ; the epitomist of Jason, on 
the other band, had in view primarily the edification and 
entertainment of bis fellow-countrymen. So he himself 
informs us (225-29; cp Qi-iff., etc), and the fact is 
abundantly illustrated in the book. It may be partly 
due to this parenetic aim of the epitomist that certain 
incidents of minor importance receive so much space, 
and are so overdrawn ; the fact must be emphasised, 
however, that mosl of the exaggeration of statement 
and description which is so prominent a feature of 
2 Macc. was probably due to the older work. It is 
plain that Jason was a zealous Jew, and that his book 
was intended chiefly for his Jewish brelhren. It would 
seem that to him, as to the epitomist, the probabìlily of 
a story was a matter of little importance, provided it 
were interesting and patriotic (see Willrich. 64 _^). 
Examples are pi enti fui. 

Thus, the long description of the torlures and death of the 
martyrs, chap. 6yf, is quile incredìble frotn beginning to end. 
The account of the death of the patriot Razis (14 J7-46) \% in the 
same vein ; so, too, is the story of the end of King Anliochus 
(chap. 9), who, before his death, offers to become a Jew {v. 17), 
See also such exaggeration s as 12 16 13 12. That the many 
numerical estimates contained in the book should show the same 
tendency to overstatement is certainly not surprising. For ex- 
amples, see especially 82430 10 23 31 13232628. [See also 
Onias, %% t/. .0 12.] 

As has already been shown, it is not only in such minoT 
matters that the book is untrustworthy. See the incorrect 
staternents (already referred to in g 2) regarding Lysias and his 
expeditions ; the misleading accounts of the campaigns of Judas 
in chaps. 10 and 12 ; the narration of the death of Timotheus in 
the year 164 (chap. 10), although he is made to play an important 

San in subsequent events (chap. 12), The statement regarding 
hilip in 9 29 is flatly conlradicted in IH 23, the matter in ques- 
tion being one of consicterable importance, such as only a his- 
torian who was neither well-ìnformed nor caiefiil could thus deal 
with. In 1X22^ we have a (spurious) letter written by 
Antiochus Eupalor, the successor of Epiphanes, giving the ofììcer 
Lysiasinstructionsconcerning his first carnpaign inJud6ea(cpalso 
10 II). We Icnow from i Macc. (4 28^), howevet, ihat ibis 
same expedition of Lysias was ended the year before the deatb 
of Epiphanes. In IO3 it is staied that the rededication of the 
tempie took place two years after ils profanation ; it is plaiii, on 
the contrary, frcm i Macc. 4 52-34 (cp 1 54) that the length of the 
interval was three years (1Ó8-165 b.c.). In 15 31 35 it is plainly 
assumed that the Aera was in the possession of ihe Jews at the 
tìme of the death of Nicanor. In reality, it was occupied by 
the Syrians until the lime of Simon. 

The passage 13 15-23 affords a striking example of perversion 
of the truth for the sake of glorifying the Jews. The successive 
defeats experienced by Judas and his aflies in 163, as a result 
of which they were reduced to dire extremities (i Macc. S 47-54), 
appear in 2 Macc. as a succession of brilliant and decisive 
victories for the Jews. 

Stili another feature of the book, not calculated to increase 
confidence in its trust worth in ess, is the prominent place given to 
miracles. See e 24,^ 33/: 51-4 IO29/: llB I222 (cp 1527), 
15i2-[6. How far ibis feature may be due to the epitomist, 
rather than to Jason, is a legitimate question. It seems most 
probable, however, from what we know both of the taste and 
of the aim of Jason, and of the melhod of the epitomist, that ali 

^ See the examples given above, § 2. 
3 See Schurer, GJV\ 32/ ; ET 145^: 


these miracles and 'apparitions ' formed a part of the older 

When ali has been said regarding the unhistorical and 
untrustworthy character of the book, the fact remains that 
its value as history is by no means inconsiderable. From 
the character of the sources used by Jason (§ 2 ) it is evident 
that he must have preserved some valuable material. 
The fact that the book. although written quite inde- 
pendently of i Macc. , agrees with it in a great many 
points is to be mentioned in its favour. In stili other 
points its staternents are confirmed by those of Josephus 
(Grimm, 13},^ and from other sources (Rawlinson, 
541 n. ). In many parts of the history concerning 
which we are already well infoimed, 2 Macc. adds 
interesting details, the correctness of which there is no 
reason to doiibt. If used with great caution, it thus 
furnishes a welcome supplement to our other sources of 
in forni ation. There is hardly a chaptcr in the book 
that does not yield something that can be utilised. It 
is probable that too much confidence has been placed 
in chaps. 3^ by commentators and historians. The 
temptation to this is very strong, inasmuch as our 
Information regarding the period just preceding the 
Maccab^an wars is almost entirely hmited to the 
staternents of this book. There is really no ground 
whatever (apart from this very lack of the means of 
correcting the statements of the writer) for supposing 
that the book is more trustworthy bere than elsewhere.' 
It is, on the contrary, only with the greatest reserve 
that this portion may be used at ali. 

That our 2 Macc, was written in Greek is beyond 

question. The words of Jerome, ' The second book of 

4 LiÈerarv •^^'^'^^^^^s is Greek, which can be shown 

■. . t/ even linguistically, ' ■* must be echoed by 

ali who read the book. Hebraisms are 
almost entirely wanting,* and there is no other sign 
that the book is a translation, but every kind of evìdence 
to the contrary. It follows, in view of what has been 
said regarding the method of the epitomist (§ 2), that 
the work of Jaaon of Cyrene must also have been written 
in Greek. as would, indeed, have seemed probable on 
other grounds. The language of 2 Macc. is, in general, 
similar to that found in the best Greek writers of the 
last centuries B.c., and the beginning of the Christian 
era, this remark applying as well to the passages cer- 
tainly composed by the epitomisi (219-32 I537-39) as lo 
the main body of the book. The vocabulary is exten- 
sive ; itiro,^ \f.yf>ìiivix and words or phrases employed in 
an unusual way are frequently met with ; see Grimm, 
7, and the list (compiled by Westcott) in Rawlinson, 
540. The style is generally easy and flowing, idio- 
malic, and well -bai anced. Both in the construction 
of periods and in the use of the favourite rhetorica! 
devices of the Alexandrine writers, a considerable degree 
of skill is shown. On the other band, the mosl common 
faults of this schoo! of writers, an overloadcd and arti- 
ficial style, and an ill-judged slriving after rhetorical 
effect, are noi absent. On the whole, the book occupies, 
in point of language and style, a posilion between 
3 Macc. and 4 Macc. ; noi attaining the high level of 
the latter, though far superior to the former,* An un- 
pleasant peculiarity. which appears in ali parts of the 
history, is the use of abusive epithets or phrases when 
enemies of the Jews, or oihers of whom the writer dis- 
approves, are menlioned. See 834 153. -As a narrator, 

1 It is hardiy permissìble, however, to draw this conclusion 
from the words TÒs . . . ÉTrciiiai'eias in 2 ai. 

3 Yet the disagreement of Jos. with 2 Macc. is even more 
noticeable than the agreement. See Willrich, 83^ 

3 Grimm's statement (16) is quite unjustified : 'Dochscheint 
die fiir den Abschnitt Cap. 3 1-6 11 beniitzte Quelle viel lauterer 
getiossen zu sein als diejenigen, die fùt die spàteren Abschnitte 
iu Gebote standen.' 

* [Machab^orum liber] secundus Greecus est, quod ex ipsa 
quoque c^pao-et probari potest {Prologus Ga/eatus). 

* Most of the examples cited by Grimm, 6, can hardly be 
called true Hebraisms. 

8 The harsh estimate of the style of 2 Macc. in Rawlinson, 
540, Ì5 much exaggerated, 



the writer displays no remarkable gifts. Ile is fond of 
exaggerating deCails, of painting scenes at undue length 
(see, e.g. . 3 15-22), and of ìntroducing his own refiections, 
not conlent with siniple statements of fact. The way 
in which the tortures of the niartyrs are depìcted at 
length, in chaps. tì/., ìs an especially unpleasant feature 
of the book to modem readers. There is oct^asionally 
a lack of connection between the parts of the narrative, 
and an appearance of awkwardness of coniposition, due 
in part no donbt to the omission of considerable portions 
of the originai work. The arrangement of the material 
is purely chronojogical (the passage IO1-8 seems, it Ìs 
true, to havel>cen intentionally removed from its proper 
place ; cp v. g/. ), and in our epitome, at least, there is no 
formai indication of successive divisions, except at 10 9/.^ 

The aini of the book to edify and instruct the Greek- 
speaking Jews — an aim which seems to have characterjsed 

_ .. . Jason's work as well as this epitome — has 

■ , °. received mention already (§ 3). The 

' C OTacter ^j-j^g^ wished to strengthen the faith of 
and aim. ^^^ fellows ; to glorify the Jews, as the 
chosen pcople under God's cspecial protection, and the 
tempie at Jerusalem, as the hohest of ali places ; to show 
how unfaithfulness to the national religion brought sure 
destruction (413-17 I239-42), and how through Judas 
Maccabreus, the leader of the faithful of the peopie and 
the instrument of God's providence, the deliverance of 
the nation was wrought. In ali parts of the book this 
didactic purpose appears prominently in one form or 
another. The attitude of the writer is, in general, not 
that of a historian, but rather (and professedly) that of 
a religious teacher ; see especially 81^ 415-17 517-20 
612-17 95/. 1243-45 137/ 157-10. The most interest- 
ing feature of the religious teaching of the book is its 
cKpression of faith in the resurrection of the dead (cp 
EscHATOLOGY, § 69) ; See especially 12 43-45, and cp 
79 II 14 36 1446. In no other of the few passages in 
pre- Christian Jewish Uterature in which this belief 
appears is it so clearly and einphatically expressed. 
Some have thought to find in 2 Macc. a Pharisee party 
document (Bertholdt, FAnl. 1813, p. 1069 ; Geiger,, 219 ff.)} arguing especially from 146, 
where Judas is represented as the leader of the 
Assicieans, but also from the religious tone of the book, 
and from the ungentie way in which the priests are 
handled (contrast i Macc.). It is beyond question that 
ali the sympathies of the writer, both in religious and 
in politicai matters, must have been with the Pharisees ; 
but we are hardly justifìed in going beyond this general 
conclusion. There is no evidence of any polemic 
against the Sadditcees (such as Bertholdt saw in I243/ ); 
and the book, whatever else may be said of it, is cer- 
tainly not a party document. 

One chief aim of the writer, beyond doubt, was to 
bring about a more perfect unity of the Jews by 
strengthening, especially among the Jews of Egypt, the 
feeling of national prìde and of enthusiasm for the 
orthodox religion and worship ; in this way and in other 
ways he sought to keep them in close connection with 
their brethrei! of Palestine.' This purpose explaìns in 
the most satisfactory way the prefixing of the two letters 
to the book (see below, § 7). It also accounts for 
another external pecuiiarity of 2 Macc. Many scholars 
since Ewald [GVI 4 606, n. ) have remarked the promin- 
ence given in the pian of the book not only to the feast 
celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of 
which the whole history comes to an end, but also to 
the feast of the rededication of the tempie, the descrip- 

^ Any separation of the book into five divisions ' correspond- 
ing to the five books of Jason of Cyrene ' (Ziickler, 90) must 
be purely arbitrary. 

2 Cp also Wellh., Pk. «. Sadd., 82. 

^ It may be remarked that there is no conclusive evidence that 
this aim was shared by Jason. It is perhapsmost likely that in 
ali the manifestations of it which are so noticeable in 2 Macc, 
the band of the epitomisi is to be recognised ; and that this is to 
be regarded as bis one importane contribution to the book. 


tion of which closes the first half of the book, the 
passage 10 i-3 apparently being removed for this purpose 
from its proper place. The account of the institution 
of the Nicanor feast would have been a most naturai 
poinl for Jason to bring his book to a close at, in any case. 
This would have been just the kind of ending best suited 
to his general purpose ; cp the ending of 3 Macc. (7 19/), 
of Esther, andofJudith(Lat. Vulg. ). Theauthor'saimnot 
being that of a historian, there was no need for him to go 
Oli and narrale the death of J udas ; his purpose was fully 
accomplished without that. The transposition of 10 1-8, 
however, is probably to be attributed to theepitomist, who 
saw how the pian of the book could thus he made sub- 
servient to his more definite aim, increased significance 
being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast and to 
the feast of the Dedication. These were the tvio Mac- 
cabieiin fensls. by the observance of which the Jews of 
the Diaspora could share, as in no other outward way, 
in the national glory of that struggle,^ Further evidence 
of this same purpose may \(ixy likely be found in the 
manner in which Ihe writer takes every opportunity to 
magnify the tempie at Jerusalem ; see, for example, 219 
3i2 5i5 14i3 31 15i8, also 82/ 5i7-=o 1823 1532. etc. 
Thus to dwell upon the indispulable fact that the true 
centre of Judaìsm was at Jerusalem, was to emphasize 
the national unity, and the ground of it. That the 
purpose of the writer was to impress upon the Egyptian 
Jews the duty of worshipping at Jerusalem, or to dis- 
parage the worship at the tempie of Leontopolis (Raw- 
iinson, 544 ; Willrich, 66), there seems to be no 
sufficient reason to suppose. 

There is good ground for believing that the epitomisi 
lived and wrote in Alexandria. His mastery of the best 

6. AutbOT 

Greek language and style of the time, and 

and Date. 

the evidence he gives of a thorough 
familiarity with the Greek rhetorical 
schools, would not, indeed, of them sei ves be sufficient to 
establish the conclusion. Such training, more or less 
thorough, was to be had in ali parts of the ' Hellen- 
istic ' world. The presence of the Jetters addressed to the 
Jews of Egypt at the beginning of this book, however, 
combined with the fact that al! the earliest allusions to 
2 Macc. (see § 8) come directly or indirectly from 
Alexandria, must be regarded as very slrong evidence. 

Regarding the date of the epitome, no very definite 
conclusion can be reached. It is, of course, not legiti- 
mate to argue from 153?, ' the city from that time on- 
wardsbeingin thehandsoftheHebrews,' that ihe abridg- 
ment was completed before 133 (when Jerusalem was 
taken by Antiochus Sidetes) ; for these words are a mere 
flourish, designed to give the book a proper close. It 
is to be observed that in 15 36 there is a reference to the 
book of Esther, whìch was written probably not earlier 
than 130 B.C. (so Cornili, Kautzsch, Wellh. //G<*>, 
302_/^). It follows that even the work of Jason (to 
which this verse certainly belonged) must have been 
wrilten later than this. This conclusion, it may be 
added, is eonfirmed by the internai evidence of the 
book ; the author appearing everywhere as one who 
was at some distance. both in place and time, from 
the evcnts he describes. On the other band, our 
2 Macc. was known both to Philo and to the writer 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see § 8). though unknown 
to Josephus. It seems therefore most probable, on 
the whole, that the epitomist put forth his work near 
the close of the last century b.c. The date of Jason's 
history, which seems to have been completely superseded 
by the epitome, may be conjecturally placed about a 
century earlier. 

^ The feast of the Dedication was the more important of tbe 
two, and we have in the lelters prefixed to 2 Macc. direct 
evidence that it was at least thought of as a bond of unily be- 
tween the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt. The emphas- 
ising of this feast, however, was only a single feature (though a 
very prominent one) of the writer's general pian, and it is a dis- 
lorted view of 2 Macc. that pronounces it ' ein Chanakabrief * 
(Willrich, 67). 



It is due to the fact of Jason's distance from the scene 
of the events he describes, as well as to his parenetic 
aim, that he shows so little interest in the family to 
which Judas belonged, and in its subsequent history. 
In 527. which contains apparently his whole account of 
the uprising at Modein, nothing is said of the brothers 
of Judas, and they are nowhere given any special 
prominence ; though there is no evidence of a wish to 
disparage them.^ Mattathias is nowhere mentioned. 
The fact is, the fortunes of the Hasmonsean house were 
not in any way connected with the purpose of Jason's 
hook, or with his owa interests. The case of the writer 
of 1 Macc. affords a striking contras! in this respect, 
for he not only lived in Palestine, but also seems to 
have been a personal friend of the Hasmonasan ieaders. 

It has already {§ r) been noticed that there stands 
at the beginning of the book of 2 Macc. (Ii-2i8) what 
_ mj^g purports to be the copy of certain officiai 

fixed lettere." '^''^'' f "J by the Jews of Palestine to 
those of Egypt. The professed arni of 
these letters, as appears from lgi8 2i6 (cp 108}, is to 
slir up the Egyptian Jews to observe the feast of the 
Dedication. The character of the Greek in which the 
letters are written shows that they can not be attributed 
either to Jason of Cyrene or to the epitomist ; on the 
Other hand, they are joined as closely as possible to the 
epitomist's prologue, 219 beginning with 'Nowas con- 
cerning Judas,' eCc. (Tà Sé Karàriiv 'loùSav, k.t.X.), and 
making mention immediately of the ' purification of the 
great tempie, and the dedication of the aitar.' 

i. The Jìrsi letter, Ir-g (regarding the precise point 
at which it ends, see next par. ), contains little more than 
the request that the feast be kept.^ It is plain that the 
writer did not have in mind the_;frj^ institulion. of this 
feast in Egypt. On the contrary, as is evident from v. 
9, and from the fact that not a word is said about the 
observance of the feast in Palestine, those to whom the 
letter was addressed were supposed to be already 
familiar with the custom, and to have themselves 
observed it : the letter is merely a reminder. The real 
difficulty is with the interpretation of v. yf., especially 
the words ' We have written to you in the extremity, 
etc' {ysypàt(>auev vfiìv év r^ dXiipet, k.t.\.). The 
' extremity of tribulation ' that carne upon the Jews of 
Jerusalem in consequence of the misdeeds of Jason and 
his party could hardly refer to anything else than the 
terrible distress under Antiochus Epiphanes ; and this 
probability is confirmed by v. 8, which evidently refers 
to the restoration of the worsliip of the tempie in 
165 B.C. 'In the i-eign of Demetrius (II.), in the 
(Seleucid) year 169' ( = 144-143 b.c.), these times were 
long past. Moreover, nothing is said about the contents 
of that former letter (on the supposition that yeypàtpafiev 
is to be translated by a past tense, as is generally done). 
The reader wbo supposes that he is hearing about events 
of 143 B.C., suddenly finds himself back in the year 
165, without knowing where the transition occurred. 

These difiìculties have been vastly increased by the 
custom now in vogue of joining the date at the end of 
V. 9 (otherwise the beginning ofv. io) to this first letter (so 
Grimm; Fritzsche, Apocr. Gr.; Reuss, Das AT.-'Englìsh 
RV; Swete, OT in Greek; and most recent comms. ). 
In this way the Seleucid year 188 ( = 124 B.C. ) ismadethe 
date of the letter 1 1-9 ; that is to say, the writer reminds 
his readers of a letter sent to them nineteen years before, 
without characterising it, or showing that it stood in any 
connection with the present letter or with the institution 
of the Dedication feast ! The date must, however, on 
the contrary, be joined to the second letter, as is done by 
the well-nigh universal tradition of the early church. 
represented by the best Greek MSS, and the Syriac and 

1 The concili Sion of Kosters, 7";4. 7" 12 491-558, that 2 Macc. is 
a polemic against the Hasmon^ans and against i Macc., does 
not seem to be justìfied. 

2 Biuston, ZAT!V lOiio^ {1S90), attempts to divide this 
letter at v. 7, making tbree letters ìn ali. 


Latin versions. (See further below. ) As for v. 7, the 
obvious solution of ali the diffìculties nientioned is to 
put a period after 'you' [viùv]. The verb [ye-ypà.<p- 
afiev) is to be translated in the only naturai way, as 
epistolary perfect,' and the whole verse as far as ' you ' 
{^ao'iXiùoi'To? . . . v/Mv) is to be regarded as the date 
of the letter 1 r-9. With 'in the extremity' {év ry 
$\lfei] begins the real business of the letter ; the writer 
reminding his readers, in a few well-chosen words, of 
the circumstances under which this important feast was 
instituted. The whole document is thus perfectly com- 
prehensible, and in every way well suited to its pui-pose. 

ii. The second letter. lio-2i8, has generally seemed 
even more troublesome than the first. According to the 
accepted view, it purports to have been sent to the Jews 
of Egypt by Judas Maccabasus and others in authority 
at Jerusalem, soon after the death of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, its purpose being to announce the institution of 
the Dedication feast. It thus becomes necessary at once 
to brand it as a shameless forgery, because of the many 
things il contains which are incongruous with the 
supposition of such an origin, and especially, because of 
the strange story of the death of Antiochus (1 13-16), 
which flatly contradicts ali the other accounts of that 

It may be doubted, however, whether the current 
view of this letter is correct. It is hardly less evident 
here than in the case of the first letter that the writer 
could not have had in mind the institution of the 
Hànukka in Egypt. There is no account given of the 
purification of the tempie and the restoration of the wor- 
ship by Judas ; there is nothing to indicate that a new 
feast is being instituted ; nothing definite is said about 
the particular manner of observing it. On the contrary, 
it is taken for granted (just as in the former letter) that 
the feast, and the mode of celebrating it, have long been 
known. Only on this supposition can we account for 
the fact that ali mention of the celebratìon is confined 
to the two verses Ii3 2i6, both of which have plainly 
the air of dealing with matters of course. The im- 
pression naturally made by 2 14, besìdes, is that the war 
mentioned is a thing of the past ; Judas Maccabasus is 
thought of as one who has already passed off the stage. 
As for the ' Antiochus ' of 1 13-16, it is quite incredìble 
that Epiphanes should have been intended by the writer 
It is not likely that any story of the Maccabsean struggle 
was more widely familiar than that of the manner of 
Epiphanes' death. It is a most significant fact, more- 
over, that shortly before the date prefixed to this letter, 

124 B.C., Antiochus VII. Sidètes, who had been a bitter 
enemy of the Jews (see Schiirer, 1 200-208), had perished 
in an expedition against the Parthians.' Nor is this the 
only coincidence to be noted. At the end of the year 

125 B.C. (three years after the death of Antiochus 
Sidetes), the allies of Ptolemy Physkon triumphed at 
last in Palestine. Alexander Zabinas, who came to the 
throne at that time, had been introduced into the struggle 
by Ptolemy, and was himself an Egyptian. He at once 
made friends with John Hyrcanus and the Jews (Jos. 
Ant. xiii. 93). So the year 124 B.C. was a singularly 
appropriate one for the sending (or forging) of such a 
letter as this from the Jews of Palestine to those of Egypt. 
It would seem to be the reasonable hypothesis, therefore, 
that the writer (or forger) of this letter intended it as a 
reminder to the Egyptian Jews of the same kind as the 
preceding one ; and that he gave it the date (124 B.C. ) 
which corresponds exactly with its contents. It may be 
added as further proof, that the person who put these 
two letters together in their present order certainly re- 
garded the second as belonging to a later date than the 
first. As for the names mentioned in 1 io, ' Aristobulus ' 
is probably the well-known Jewish sage, who flourished 

I The necessityof this hasoften been felt andexpressed, See 

S. Ewald, Gesck.'^) 4 610 n. 
For the litetature beaiing on this event, see Schurei, 1 208, 



in the second century B.C.^ We do not know, however, 
Ihat he was in any sense the ' preceptor ' either of 
Ptolemy Philomelor (181-146) or of Ptolemy J'hyskon 
(146-117). The 'Judas' in this verse is probably due 
to the blunder of a translator or scribe. What is re- 
quired al this point is ' the coiincil of the Jews ' {■}} 
y€po\i(TÌa Tuv 'lovòaiuv), as the Syriac actually reads 
(probably a fortunate conjecture). If our Greek ietter 
is a translation from the Hebrew or the Aramaic, as 
seems not unlikely (see next col., begin. ), the niistake 
would be very easy. 

This second Ietter is, moreover, from beginning to 
end a document of very considerable interest. Its 
several parts,^ which seem at first sight to bave little to 
do with one another or with the avowed purpose of the 
whole, are ali foiind on closer exami natio 11 to be written 
with the aim of showing the true importance of the 
Maccabfean feast of the Dedication. The writer sets 
himself the task of de mon strati ng at length iis hhtorical 
signijìcance ; iridìcating at the same time in olher ways 
the analogy between the Maccabìean period and the other 
principal epochs of the nation's life. In faci, the whole 
Ietter might well be entitled : — The Antecedents of the 
Hànukka in Jewish Sacred History. 

One feature of the writer's demonstration deserves 
especial nofice : nameiy, the extenl to which it is based 
on the conception of the Dedication {iyKatvta fibì) as a 
restoration of the sacred Ire to the aitar and the tempie.^ 
Evidently at that time this idea had a most promìnent 
place (perhaps the centrai place) in current Jewish 
thought regarding the origin and meaning of this feast. 
Apparently, also, the writer could take it for granted 
that his readers were perfectly familiar with this feattire 
of the restoration of the worship by Judas, as well as 
with the manner of observing the feast. In the passage 
23-14 the nature of the writer's argument can best be 
seen as he attempts to establìsh the series : Moses, 
Solomon, Nehemiah, Judas Maccabéeus: each of whom 
was connected with the miraculous appearance or re- 
newal of the sacred lire. See also 2 1, cp 1 19 (Jeremìah. 
Nehemiah, Judas). Another point in which Judas is 
the legitimate successor of Jeremiah and Nehemiah, 
nameiy, the preserving and handing down of the sacred 
writings, is emphasised in Ixff. lìf. 

The question of the authenticity of the two letters is 
not easily answered. It has been shown in § 70 that 

7b Thair ^^^ contents of each correspond perfectly 
-«*!.'. j.-.t4.» w'th their respective dates (143 b.c. for 
authenticity. ^^^ ^^^^, ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ,^^ \^Ld), and 

with their avowed purpose. It can hardly be doubted, 
moreover, that the moti ve which produced these 
writings was felt as strongly in Jerusalem as in 
Egypt. There is nothing improbable in the suppositìon 
that many such letters were actually sent. Regarding 
the first Ietter, it must be said that its very common- 
place character argues in its favour. It can best be 
understood on the supposition that it is in fact just 
what it professes to be. The second Ietter is for the 
most part a coUection of incredible stories ; and this 
fact makes it less likely that it was officiai in any true 
sense. Stili, it could hardly be claimed that ali officiai 
writings of the Jerusalem Jews were worthy of credence ; 
or that a scribe with a thesis in religious history to 
prove, and a vivid imagination, always expressed the 
soberest views of those whom he represented. Perhaps 
the most that can be said of this Ietter is that it may 
well l>e genuine, in spite of the appearances against it ; 
and that it undoubtedly had been influenzai among 
the Jews of Egypt. 

Scholars have generally agreed that the two letters 

1 See GfrSrer, PhilD u. die jOdisch-alexandriniscke Theo- 
loikie^), 'ÌTi.ff.; Dah-ne, Jiidisch • alexandrinische Religians- 
pkilosophit, %Tiff-\ Schùrer, 3760^ 

* That is to say, those comprised in 1 i8-2 18 ; 1 10-17 is 
merely introductory. 

3_Cp also the 'Arabie a Macc' 9; Wellh. xa Der arabiickt 
Jetìppus, 14. 


are of diverse auihorship (see Grtmm, 24 ; Kosters, 
Th.T, 1898, p. 76); regarding the language in which 
each was written, on the olher band, there has been 
greal difference of opinion. See Grimm, 23/. ; Ewald, 
Ciesck. , 4 610. Whilsl it has not been shown in the case 
of either Ietter that the character of the Greek necessi- 
tales the conclusion that it is a translation, yet in vìew 
of the iarge number of Semitic idioms, and the fre- 
quency of such obscure expressions as seem to suggest 
a careless translation, it is on the whole most probable 
that both were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. In 1 io 
' and Judas ' for ' of the Jews ' has already been men- 
tioned as possibly due to careless transcription of a 
Semitic text. In I69 koX vvv was pronounced by Ewald 
{l.c, ) ' absìchtliche Nachbildung der hebràischen Farbe. ' 
In I16 ' hewed in pieces' (^Atj woirìaavm) reminds us 
of the Aramaic phrase (j'Din -\3]]) in Dan. 25 829. The 
difficulties in I18 are probably to be solved by making 
the verse end with the word ' feast of tabernacles ' 
(*rKT)i'07rij7Ìai), and taking the remaining words {koÌ 
Tov TTvpòs . ■ ■ Svalas) as the suferscription of the 
long discussion which occupies the remainder of the 
Ietter (so the Syr., quite correctly).^ This and the 
foUowing sentences have then a distinctly Semitic sound, 
See also the (doublful) evidence of such passages as 
171923 26 (connection of clauses) 17 _/^ Ewald {l-c.) 
regarded it as certain that the translator of the second 
Ietter was the epitomisi himself. For a fuller discussion 
of this whole question, see 7. A T IV 20 236-339. 

There seems to be no good reason for doubting that 
it was the epitomisi himself that prefixed these two 
letters to the book. It is of course possible to suppose 
that it was a later editor who at the same time inserted 
the conjunction (5^, EV 'now') in 219. Bui the rest 
of V. 19 cerlainly belongs to the writer of what follows ; 
and its fitness lo establìsh a connection between the 
letters and the history is very evident. When we take 
imo account the tastes of the epitomisi, his definite 
aim in ali this work (§ 5), the date and address of these 
letters compared with the probable date and place of com- 
position of his book, and the fact that ali copies and re- 
censions of the work contain the letters in this position 
and order. it must be pronounced extremely probable 
that the epitomisi himself prefixed them to 2 Macc. 

The earliesl altestation of 2 Macc. is in Philo's work 
entitled Quod omnis frobus liber, in which undoubted 
S Atteatatìon. ^ependence on it may be recognised, 

BISS and 

as has been fully demonstrated by 

Lucius [Essenismws, zi ffA- Evidence 
'"■""""' of its ìnfluence next appears in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, 11 35/, where the writer has 
in mind, beyond question, the narrative of 2 Macc. 6 18- 
74^- The word 'tortured' (ÌTvii.iff3.vlaQi)(Ta,v), v. 35, is 
derived from 2 Macc. 6 1928 ; * obtain a better resurrec- 
tion ' ('Iva KpelTTovoi dna/TTàireus tiìxw'"') strongly re- 
minds US of 2 Macc. 79 ; and the word 'mockings' 
{é/Àiraiyfiùv), v. 36, was very likely suggesled by 2 Macc. 
7710, where it slands in dose proximity to the phrase 
just referred to. (See Bleek, Si. u. Kr., 1853, p. 339.) 
Again, the aulhor of 3 Macc. shows himself acquainted 
with the book (see col. 2881, § 6) ; whilst 4 Macc. 
is wholly based upon it (see col. 2882, § 2). It is 
cited further by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. I497), 
Hippolytus [De Christo et Antickristo, chap. 49), 
Origen (see reff. in Schurer, 741/ ), and very frequently 
by later writers. The stories of the martyrs, especially, 
exercised an important influence among both Jews and 
Christians. For references to Jewish literature see Zunz, 
Goitesdienstliche Vortràge, 123; and for the later Chris- 
tian literature see Grimm, Contm. 133 f., and the refer- 
ences in Schiirer, 742 (ET ii. 8214/ ). Josephus appears 
to have been unacquainted with the book. 

For the Greek MSS containing 2 Macc. , and for 
the Syriac translation, see above, col. 2867, § 11, iii. 

1 The Greek text of this verse in Frìtische is an arbitrary 



2. Contente. 

Apart frora the Old Latin version of the hook, repre- 
setited by the Vulgate, another Latin version is pre- 
served ìn a single codex in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana 
at Milan. Thìs has been edited by A. Peyron 
(Ciceronis orationum. prò Scauro, prò Tullio, . . . 
fragmenta, Stuttgart, 1824, pp. 71-125). It appears 
on closer examination to be merely a painfully literal 
rendering of the standard Greek test. 

See Afocrvpha, % 32, and above, col. 2363, 8 la. The follow- 
ìng also are to be mentioned : C, Bertheau, De sec. lib. Macc, 

Giittingen, 1829 (cited frequently by Grimm) ; 
9. Literatura. W. H. Kosters, ' De polemiek van het tweede 

boek der Makkabeén ' (,Th. 7" 12 +91 -553 
[187S]); S chi alter, /ayii» von Cyrene, 1891 (see TLZ, 1893, p. 
322) ; and on the lettere : Gratz, ' Das Sendschreiben der Palàs- 
tinenser an die agyptisch-judaischen Gemeinden ' I^MGWf, 
1877, pp, 1-16, 49-60J ; Bruston, ' Trois lettre? des Juifs de 
Pale5tme'(;?.4r;fl0iitij?: [1890D; Kosters, ' Slrekking der 
brieven in a Makk.' iTh. T, Jan. 1898, pp. 68-76) ; C. C, Torrey, 
' Die Briefe i Makk. 1 1-2 iS,' ZA TW 20 225^?: [1900] ; B. Niese, 
KritikderbeidenMakkabàerbilcher, 1900. Jn Kau., Die Apokr. 
u. Pseude^igr., 1898, a Macc. is translated, etc, by Kamphausen. 
On the historical contents cp A. Biichler, Die i'obiaden a. dit 
Oniaden im II. Makkaider buche, etc, rSgg. e. C. T. 


The title ' 3 Maccabees ' is unfortunate, for the book 
professes to record events whìch occurred during the 

1 Titla '■^'^'^ °f Ptolemy {IV.) Philopator (222-204 
B.c.). That ìt should have been classed 
as ■ Maccabeean ' is due to its being a narrative of per- 
secution of the Jews by a foreìgn king.^ 

The book is a religious novel havìng for its subject 
the triumph of the Jews over their enemies through 
divine intervention. Their persecntor is 
the Egyptian king, out of whose hands 
they are delivered by a series of marvellous occurrences. 
The narrative runs as follows : — 

After bis victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphìa (217 
B.c.), Ptolemy visits Jerusalem, and tries to enter the tempie, in 
spite of the frantic opposition of priests and people. Just as 
he is on the point of executing bis purpose, he is stricken from 
heaven, and falls to the ground (1 1-224). Returning to Alex- 
andria, bent on revenge, he assemblea ali the Jews of Egypt 
and shuts them up ìn the great hippodrome, where they are tt> 
be butchered together. It is necessary, however, first to write 
down their names. This proves an endless task because of 
their immense number ; before it can be finished the supply of 
writing materials in Egypt is exhausted, and the Jews are 
saved for the present (2 35-4 21). The king then devises a new 

Elan. P'ive hundred elephants, made franile with wìne, are to 
e lei loose upon the Jews in the hippodrome. The execution. 
of this order is hindered in various ways. On the first day, the 
king oversleeps. On the second day, being caused by God to 
forget ali that had happened, he suddenly calls the Jews bis 
best friands, and reproves those who remind him of his decree. 
Finally, on the third day, as the sentence is about to be exe- 
cuted, two angels appear, terrifying the king and his officers, 
and causing the elephants to turn upon the men of his army 
and trample them to death (5 1-621). The scale is now com- 
pletely turned in favour of the Jews. They are set free at once ; 
the king provides for them a great banquet lasting seven days ; 
and a solemn jjroclamaiion in their favour is sent out. With 
the royal permìssion, they kilt more than three hundred rene- 
gades of their nation, then return to their homes with great Joy, 
after erecling a monument in memory of their deliverance, and 
setting apart the days on which it was effected to be celebrated 
henceforth (6 22-7 23). 

It is plain from this synopsis that the book contains 
little more than a coUection of the most incredible 
fables. Moreover, the details of the narrative are for 
the most part so absiird and so self- con tradic tory as to 
be merely grotesque. The story is not told with the 
skill that might give it, at least in part, the air of 
plausibility ; the author only heaps one exaggeration 
upon another. 

The book as we have it is evidently not complete ; 

the beginning is missing. This appears not only from 

mi, the opening words ' Now when Phìlo- 

beeinnin^lost P''^^"'"' *'^ ^^ *'AoT<ÌTwp), but also from 
* ° ' distinct allusions to a preceding portion 

of narrative which the book no longer contains. The 
most striking examples are li, 'from ihose who re- 
turn ed ' ; I2, 'the [above mentioned] plot'; 225, 'the 

1 Some have thought to find another title in the problematic 
JlToXejLaiKa., which appears in connection with MoKKo^aiKÌi 
gi^kia in the ' Synopsis of Athanasius.' See below, § 7, 


boon companions already mentioned.' The character 
and extent of the missing portion can be inferred with 
probability from the indications afforded by the book 
in its present form. The story is concerncd mainly 
with the triumph of the Jews over their persecutors. 
This part of the narrative seems to be complete ; there 
is nothing to indicate that any other tale of persecution 
had preceded, whilst the contrary impression is plainly 
given by 18 ^ 2z5 ^., etc. The missing portion was 
probably of the sanie general character as li-7^t.e. , 
it formed with it the introduction to the story of the 
Jews. It must have included some mention of the 
following items : — (i) Character of Ptolemy and his 
companions. (2) Condìtion of the Jews in Egypt (prob- 
ably). {3) Antecedents of the war with Antiochus. 
(4) The plot against Ptolemy's life. AH this might 
have been contained in a single short chapter ; and it 
is probable that this imich, and no more, has been 
accidentally lost. On this supposìtion, the book, with 
its elaborate historical introduction, uniform contents, 
and impressive dose, is seen to have been a well- 
rounded composition, complete in itself; not a frag- 
ment of a larger work.^ 

The originai language of 3 Macc. was Greek, beyond 
question. Its author had at his command an unusually 
4 I a.n7ua.o-fl ^^^S^ vocabulary (see the introduction in 
"and^vlB tìrinim) and considerable resources of 
■' ' rheloric. Stili, the result of his labours 
is far from pleasing. The style is bombastic and in- 
fiated to the last degree ; everything is embellìshed "and 
exaggerated. The impression made by the literary 
form of the book is thus sìmilar to that gained from its 
contents ; it ìs an insipid and wearìsome production, 
with hardly any redeeming features. 

The question whether the narrative of 3 Macc. is to 
any considerable extent to be taken seriously can hardly 
_ H}n*(,-jnni arise. The beginning of the book sounds 
Tino* ^''^^ h i Story ; but the providing of some 

such introduction, or background, is a 
necessary feature of the construction of any historical 
romance. It is quite another question whether the 
principal narrative, dealing with the fortunes of the 
Jews, has any basis of fact. There is to be noticed 
especially the striking resemblance between the story 
of the Jews' deliverance from the intoxicated elephants 
and the account gìvcn by Josephus {e. Ap. 2 %), of 
certain events of the reign of Ptoletny (VII.) Physcon. 
According to Josephus's account, which is very brief, 
the king assembied and boiind ali the Jews of Alex- 
andria, and exposed them to be trampied upon by his 
elephants, which he had made drunk. The elephants, 
however, turned upon his own men and killed many of 
them. Moreover, the king saw a ' fearful apparition " 
which caused him to cease from his purpose. It js 
added that the Jews of Alexandria have been accus- 
tomed to celebrate this day of their deliverance. 0\^\- 
ously, we have here the same story, only reduced to 
its simplest form, and told of a different king. It must 
be remarked, also, that the fabulous character of the 
story is not done away with even in the form given by 
Josephus ; ^ and further, that it does not fìt well into 
the setting he has given it. There is certainly a literary 
relationship of some kind between the two versìons 
(no ti ce especially the mention of the apparition in 
Josephus, corresponding to the angels of 3 Macc); 
and as Josephus was evidently unacquainted with 
3 Macc. , the explauation of the correspondence would 
seera to be this, that a current popular tale, already 
fixed in form, was used by both writers. Whether 
this tale had any basis of fact, it is useless to inquire. 
We cannot even be confident that such a day of deliver- 
ance was actually observed in Egypt ; for this feature 
1 Ewald's theory (,GVI 4 611-614), that 3 Macc. is a fragment 
of a historical worlc of considerable extent, is quite destitute of 

'^ See, in defence of the version given by Josephus, Whiston, 
Autheniick Records, Pt. i., ■iooff. 



7. Attestation. 

of both versions may well bave been due to a mere 
fiction of the older tale. Cp Judith I631 (Lat. Vulg.). 
There is thus no evidence that the statements of this 
book regarding the Jews and their history rest on a 
foundalion of fact.^ 

That the author of 3 Macc. was an Alexandrine Jew 
is niade exceedingly probable both by the contents 
... and by the evidence of language and style. 
■ , . The knowledge of Egyplian affaìrs displayed 

* is also worthy of notice. (See Abrahams 
in JQR, Oct. 1896. 39jK) Regarding the date of 
composition, no very definite conclusion is possible. 
To look for a ' hislorical occasion ' for the writing of an 
edifying story such as this is quìte useless.^ It is not 
at al! necessary to suppose ihal the Jews of Egypt were 
in any especial need of comfort or encouragement at the 
lime when 3 Macc. was composed. The author gives 
evidence of acquaintance with 2 Macc. {see the proof in 
Grinim, 214, 220), and once (66) cites the Book of 
Daniel in its later form, with the apocryphal additions. 
It is therefore quite unlikely that the book was written 
earlier than the last centurys. e. ; on the other hand, 
i can hardly bave been written later than the first 
century A. D. 

The book ' 3 Macc. ' is found in most MSS of the 
LXX, including the two uncials A and V. It was also 
included in the Syriac translation of 
the Scriptures. On the other hand, it 
seems Io have been for a long time unknown in the 
Western church. There are no traces of any Latin 
version earlier than the one niade for the Complutensian 
Polyglot (1517). 

No early Jewish writershows any sìgn of acquaintance 
with 3 Macc. The earliest wìtness to it in Christian 
literature is the catalogue of biblical books in the Codex 
Claromontanus (probabjy third cent. ).^ 

In the fourth centuty 3 Macc. is attested (here also ìndirectly) 
by Cod. [(, v/hich contains ' i Macc' and ' 4 Macc.,' but neiiher 
of the two intermediate books. It is next mentioned 'by Philo- 
storgius (Photius' Epitome, 1 1) and Theodoret (('oint/t. in X>ait, 
11 7) ; the former pronouncing ic unworthy of credence, the 
latter appealing to it as trustworthy hi.story. The other in- 
stances of ìts early attestation are in Eastern lists of the OT 
books (but never in any list originatlng in the Latin church). 
Thus it appears in canon 85 (or 76) of the Apostolic Canons 
{sth cent.) ;* in the Stichoinetry of Nicephorus ; in the list of 
the sixty canonìcal books; and in the so-called Synopsis of 

The Greek text of 3 Macc. has been printed re- 

In Holmes and Parsons, VT Grscvtn, voi. 5 ; Bagster's 
Afiocrypha, Greek and Englhk ; Tischendcjrf s LXX, voi. 2 ; 
Fritische, Libri apocr. VT ; Swete's LXX, voi. 3 (text of A, 
collated with V) ; and in most of the other editions of LXX or 

The Syriac translation, which is quite free, seems to 
have been the only old version of the book made front 
the Greek. Printed in the London Polyglot, voi. 4, 
and in Lagarde's Apocr. Syrìace. 

Grimm, Driltes Buch der Maccabder, 1857 (the one tJiorough 

commentary) ; the works on the Apocrypha (trans, and comm.) 

by Bissell, i38o, and Zòckler, 1891 ; trans- 

8. Literature. lations in Cotton, Bagster, Churt<in, Dyse- 

rinck, Reiiss, and Kautzsch (see above, col. 

2868, S i3>. See also Ewald, GK/W 4611-614 ; Schiirer, GJV 

^1^1 J^- (ETii., 3 216^); Aìirahams, 'The Third Book of the 

Maccabees,'y^/?, Oct. i8g6, pp. 39-58, 1897, pp. z^^ff. ', WiUrich, 

1 See, for an attempi to fmd some historical value in the 
book, Abrahams in th^/QR, Oct. i8g6, pp. 39,^ Cp also Ueiss- 
mann, Biietstìidicn, 189^, pp. ■i'^Zff. 

* Regarding the attempt.s (espedally that of EwakI) to find 
such an occasion, see Grimm, zibff ; Schurer (2', ;; 744 7C 

3 Through some accident the ' liher tertius ' has fallen out 
before the lìber qiiartus ' ; but it is none the less attested. See 
Zahn, Cesck, des NT Kanons, 2 157 jK 

* Zahn, o/. eie, 192; Funk, Apostol. KoHstìtutionett, 204/? 
It has been customary to cile thìs as the earliest attestation of 
3 Macc. 

* The text of this last passage is troublesome. See Credner, 
Z-ur Cfsck. des Kanons (1S47), p. r44, and Zahn, op. eli., 317. 
'Ihe reading is Maicica^oijfà piphia S' nroAefiaiKÓ. Credner 
ivished to read Kol in place of S', and to rcgard ITtoA. as refetring 
to 3 Macc. Zahn, on the contrary, would retain the S' and read 
woAefiixa (!), 

93 2881 

1. Title. 

Juden B. Griecken, 143^ ; Deissmann, BiheUiudien, 1895, pp, 
253 ff. ; and the text-books of IntroUuction which include the 
OT Apocrypha. e. C. T. 


The so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees is a com- 
position of homiletical character, receiving its title from 
the fact that the principal part of its material 
Js based on the story of the ' Maccabasan ' 
martyrs told in 2 Macc. 618-742. By many early 
Christian writers (see § 4) the work was attribtited to 
the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in the manu- 
scripts and editions of whose writings it is commonly 
included. It therefore frequently receives a correspond- 
ing title, even in many manuscripls of LXX.^ Fìnally, 
as it partakes of the nature of a Irealise, and has a 
definitely stated subject {an unusual circumstance), it 
appears at an early date with the appropriate super- 
scription irepi txinoKp&.Topo'i \oyuTfiov,^ ' On the Supreme 
Power of Reason ' (see § 2). The oldest form of 
the title, however, seems to have been simply Moffxa- 
(ìaiuv 5' ; the form found in the oldest MSS of LXX 
(including the three uncials which contain the book), 
and attested by the list of the Cod, Claromont. , 
Kusebius (ìndirectly),' and Philostorgius, 

The atithor states his subject, or ' thesis,' plainly at 
the start. He wishes to show that * the pious reason is 

n 1-1 j. j. absolute master of the passions' (li, cp 
2. Contenta, ^^^jg^^j^j P" ^ P 

In a brief introductory passage, he indicates the scope of the 
question, and the nature of the chìef illustration which he 
iiitends to use for his argument (1 7-11). He further states, in a 
-single sentence (1 12), the general pian of his discourse ; first, a 
philosophical discussion of the main proposilion (ipjrótìeo-it) ; 
then, the illustration afforded by the history of the martyrs. 

The remainder of the book thus falls into two parts. 
(i, ) The philosophical discussion (1 13-318). The various 
terms are defined, and one after anolher the passions 
are considered, with the attempi lo show that ali are 
under the control of the reason. (ii. ) The story of the 
martyrs, with the lessons to he learned from it (3 19-end). 

This part of the book is based on 2 Macc. chaps. 3-T. After 
a brief introduction (3 19-21), the narrative of 2 Macc. is re- 
produced, in much abridged form, as follows : — ì 1-14 = 2 M. 3,* 
4 15-2! = 2 M. 4 1-17, 4 22-25 = 2 M. 5 1-6 II. 

The discourse on the sufferings and triumph of the 
Jewish martyrs, constituting three-fourths of the whole 
book, to which the preceding is merely introductory, 
begins with chap. 5. Its frame-work is an expanded 
version of 2 Macc. 6 r8-7 42. 

The following divisions are more or less dìstincdy marked ; — 

1. Narrative of the trial and torture of the aged priest Eleazar 
(5 1-6 30). 

2. Lessons drawn by the author from this narrative(6 31-7 23). 

3. Dcscription of the torture of the seven youtlis (S i-12 20). 

4. Author 's comments on their fonitude (13 i-14 io). 

5. Refiections on the sufferings and constancy of the mother 

6. Conclusion (IT 7-18 24). 

The integrity of the last chapter has generally been 
called in question by scholars of the present century, 
_ T_(.-,__jj.„ f'3'' reasons which appear at first sight to 
6^ y- ]jg strong. The mother's exhortation, 
I86-19, seems to be a disconnected piece, joined neither 
to the preceding nor to what follows. It is, moreover, 
in some respects a repetition of the similar exhortation 
contained in 16 16-23. Accordingly, W. Lowth (see 
Hudson's Josephui ii. 14 n [1720]) and Dahue (see 
below, § 9) concluded that the book originally ended 
with I85 [6«]. Others went farther. The contrasts 
and correspondences between 1120-24 and I83-5 at- 
tracted attention. It was argued that the latter passage, 
so far as it is parallel in contents with the former, is 
superfluous, whilst the statement regarding Antiochus 
in I85 is not in keeping with that found in 17=3/. 
It was further observed that in MSS and editions of 

1 On these various titles, see Grimm, Comm. 2gi_/r ; Freu- 
denthal (see § 9), 117-120. 

2 So in both Euseb. and Jerome (see g 6). 

3 See the quotalion in g 8, 

^ In the story of Heliodorus, the name 'ApoUonìus' is 



Josephus the last chapter begins with I83, and that in 
faci with I82 a stoppìng-place seems to be reached- 
Accordingly, Hudson {/osepàus il li ji), Gfrórer (see 
below, § 9), and Grimm,^ followed in recent times hy 
most of those who have discussed 4 Macc. ,^ regarded 
I83 as the originai close of the hook, and ali that 
follo WS as a later addition. 

Ttie evidence is far Erom conclusive, 18 2 woiiM 
make a weak and un sa tis factory ending for such a 
honiily as this ; on the other hand, the passage 1820-24, 
which is exactly in the style of our author, and against 
which no one has been able to raise any objection, is in 
every way suited lo the place where ìt stands.^ The 
incongruity bctween I720-24 and I83-5 is only apparent ; 
both statements regarding Antiochus were useful for the 
author's argument, each in its place ; the one by no 
means e.\cluding the other. The way in which the 
mention of the king's fate is terminated at 185 sounds 
abrupt ; but it must be borne in mind that the writer 
was addressing those who were perfectly familiar with 
the story of Antiochus's death in Persia ; the baresi 
allusion to it would be sufficient. As for the mother's 
exhortation, I86-19, the lack of any connection on 
either hand must be admitted. It seems at first sight 
to be decidedly out of place, the more so in vìew of 
16 16-23.* When the nature of the compositìon is borne 
in mind, however, it may appear that the very abtupt- 
ness of transition in these closiiig paragraphs had its 
purpose. Having finished his argument, the author 
wished to construct a peroration that should be as 
impressive as possìble. This he accomplished with 
skill, by causing to pass before the mind of his hearers, 
in the passage 186-19, a rapid panorama of the national 
heroes, combined with an ideal picture of their own 
family life. Having thus brought the lesson of his 
discourse home to them in a way that could hardly fail 
to stir them profoundly, he had prepared the way for 
the short but most effective paragraph with which the 
book ends. 

That the author of 4 Macc. was a Jew, who is bere 
addressing his countrymen, is everywhere manifest (see, 

4. Author ^■^■'. ISr, cp 1,. 1719-23, etc). The 

and date opinion of many early writers.^ that he 
was no other than Flavius Josephus, is 
certainly erroneous ; as appears not only from the lack 
of any resemblance to Josephus' style, but also from 
the faci that 2 Macc. , which is here so extensively 
used, was plainly unknown to Josephus. The reason 
why the ascription was made can only be conjectured.^ 
From the character of the language of 4 Macc. (see § 6), 
the thorough acquaintance with the Greek rlietorical 
schools shown by its author, the emphasis laid by hira 
(al \east in appearance) on the study of philosophy {li; 
cp 56-11, etc), and the training which he evidently 
presupposes in his hearers, it is possible to draw at 
least the conclusion, that it was written in some city 
where the Jews were for the most pari compi e te ly 
Hellenised. It is most naturai to think of Alexandria, 
especially in view of the importance given in the book 
to 2 Macc. , nearly or quite ali of the earliest references 
to which come, directly or indtrectly, from that city 
(Philo, 3 Macc, Hebrews, Clem. Alex., Origen ; see 

1 See his argunients in the excursus at the end of his Comm., 

2 Freudenthal (u^. cit., 155-159), arguing in Ingenious but 
arbitrary fashion, concludes that 18 6-19 and 1722-2^ are inWY- 
polations, and that in these places considerable passages of the 
originai have been lost. 

3 So also Freudenthal. 

* It cannot be said, however, that the one passage makes 
the other superfluous. They differ from each other almost as 
widely as possìble. It should also be observed (wbat some have 
overlooked) that neither is properly the fulfilment of the promise 
in 12 ;. 

5 Euseb'ms, Jerome, Phìiostorgius, and others ; besides the 
titles of a good many MSS. See below, g 3 ; also Gcimm, 
29i_/C ; Freiidenthal, 117^- 

6 Some if.g,, Ewald) have .^upposed the ascription to be 
a mìstake due to the fact that the name of the author of 4 Macc. 
was Joseph, 


above, col. 2874, § 6)- There is nothing in the book, 
however, that could be called specifically Alexandrine, 
and it is quite possible that ìts author lived and wrote 
in some other city. 

As for the date of 4 Macc, the grounds for reaching 
a conclusion aru the same as in the case of 3 Macc. 
{q-v.). It was prò bably written either shortiy before, 
or shortiy after, the beginning of the Christian era. 

In form, as in contents, 4 Macc. is a sermon, or 
homily. The attilude of its author is everywhere that 

B I itprftrr ^'^ ^^^ '^^'^ '^ delivering a formai address 

-'i.„ - t to an audience. In the opening words, 
he speaks of himself m the first person 
and of his hearers in the second person, and cotitinues 
to do this in the sequel. In 18 1 he addresses his 
hearers, * men of Israel,' in the vocative. Rhetorical 
devices and turns of expression such as belong properly 
to an oration are frequent — e.g.. 819 Idff. 15r4i3 
Vi'ìff., etc Moreover, ìt is plain from the words of 
1j2, ' I will now speak . . . as I have been wont to do.' 
thal the author at least wishes lo represent himself as 
before those whom he is accustomed to address in this 
same formai way, It is quite evident from the manner 
and tone of the whole composition that the object aimed 
at was less to gain intellectual assent to a proposition 
than to give a religious impulse. In short, we have 
before us thediscourse of a Jev.ish preacher, who was a 
man of culture, and (apparently) one accustomed to 
speak with authority, It is noi, however, a 'homily' 
of the kind made familiar lo us by Philo and the early 
Christian fathers, consisting chìefly of a running com- 
meiilary on some portion of Scrlpture. It differs, in 
fact, from ali such compositions, Jewish or Christian, 
that have come down to us, in the manner in which it 
combines Greek and Jewish literary forms.^ Il is indeed 
based on Scripture (2 Macc. was certainly regarded by 
the author as belonging to the national sacred literature), 
as its true foundation ; but al the same lime, the formai 
subject is a philosophìcal proposirìon, laid down at the 
beginning and Jcepl in view throughout, after the 
manner of a Greek rhetorical exercise. As both the 
Jewish and the Greek elements appear at their best, 
and are handled in a masterly manner, we may regard 
the book as a characteristic produci of Hellenistic 
culture of the best type. Whether it may be taken 
as a specimen of sermons actually delivered in the 
synagogue is a question that cannot be answered with 
certainly, because of our very meagre knowledge of 
Greek-Jewish customs in this regard, We know of 
nothing lo forbid the supposition, however ; and the 
writing before us must be regarded as furnishing very 
strong evidence for the affirmative. 

The pian of the dìscourse is carefully thoughl out, 
and follows in general the rules of the Greek rhetori- 
cians.^ The literary skill and taste shown by the writer 
deserve in the main high praise. He writes with 
dignity, and an evident conscìousness of mastcry. The 
rhetorical power which he exhibits is very considerable. 
The otte great blemish in the book, frora the modem 
point of view, is its detaìled description (exaggerated 
far beyond the bounds of reason ) of the horribie tortures 
to which the martyrs were subjected. Though such 
descriptions were doubtless in accordance with the taste 
of thal day (cp especially the abundant examples of the 
kind in the early Christian literature). they are quite 
intolerable now ; and as a considerable part of the 
book is thus occupied, the defect is fatai. 

In literary style and use of language, the writer of 
. 4 Macc, shows himself a master. Of 

e. UingTiage ^,[ the'specimens of Hellenistic Greek 

and Style. 

that have been preserved, ibis stands 

among the very foremost in point of excelience. The 

1 The nearesc parallel — in many respects a striking one — is the' 
'Epistle ' to the Hebrews. 

2 See especially Freudenthal, i8_^, and the iìt. refeired to in 
Kautzsch, Apocr. u. Pseudep. 2 156. Cp also von Soden on the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (Holtzmann's Hand-kotnmentaf?) , (>M-Ì- 



siyle is vvell suited to the matter, simple in the narrative 
portions, and rhetorical where this quality is in place. 
It is smooth, flowing, and vigorous, ahvays highly 
finished, ' and rarely overloaded. Well constructed 
periods abound. In the use of classical constructìons 
{e.g. , the optative mood),' the writer stands almost 
alone aniong Jewish Greck authors. His style and 
diction do not seem to have been influenced by the LXX, 
though he occasionally quotes from it (2519 iTig) ; 
Hcbraisms are almost totally wanting ; &wa^ Xeyó/xfi'a 
are unusually abundant (see the list in Grimm, 287 ; 
supplemented by Freudenthal, 28, n.). 

It has already been observed that 4 Macc. paitakes 
of the nature of a philosophical treatise. It has for ìts 

7 Philo starti ng-point a formai thesis, stated and 
defined in more or less technical language 
' at the outset. and kept in view throughout 
Both in its 

Bophical and , 

chzmcter ^^^ whole composition. 

general pian and in its phraseology it 
shows plainly the ìnfluence of the Greek schools. 
Moreovcr, its author consciously assumes the attitude 
of a charnpìon of the study of ' phìlosophy ' (li), and 
il is plain that he wishes to make prominent the philo- 
sophical side of his discourse, though aiming primarily 
at gìving religious instruction. See, for example, 1 r 
56-11 7i8, etc. The decidedly Stoic colouring of his 
philosophy is worthy of nolice, moreover. See especially 
the ' four cardinal virtues' {ippòviìo-ts, òiKaioaiivq, àfòpda, 
(Tc-iippoijóvrj. Ii3; cpla-a 223 5^2/. IS?), and for 
further evidence, the thorough discussion in Freudenthal, 
37 Jf. On the other band, it is plain that 4 Maec. is 
far from representing any particular school ; nor does 
its author appear as the advocate of any ' system ' 
made up from combined Greek and Jewish elements. 
His philosophy is nierely a part of his general culture ; 
his faith is not essentially modified by it. The religion 
which he preaches here is Judaism of the most thorough- 
going type, somewhat enrìched from Greek thought, 
but none the less loyal. His chief aim in this discourse 
is to inspirc his hearers by the example of the constancy 
and devotion of the Maccabrean martyrs. In drawing 
the lesson he displays the most ardent patriotism, and 
a zeal for the ceremonial law worthy of any Pharisee. 
The motive that actuated these heroes was not so much 
the hope of gaining eternai life as the purpose to 
perform their duty (12i?; cp 5i6^ 614^ 7? 9i5 
13 16). They died in behalf of a cause, in support of 
the law, in obedìence to God ; by their death, more- 
over, they WTought deliverance for their nation (In 
1719-23 184). In this connection the writer gìves 
expression to a doctrine which is one of the most 
interesting features in the book on the side of its 
theology : namely the belief that the death of a martyr 
is in some way an expiatory offering for his people 
(629 17zi ; cp 2 Macc. 737/ ). 

The eschat ology of the book is alsoof especial interest. 
As was of course to be expected, the doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul is given a prominent place. 
What is emphasised by the writer, however, is not the 
belief in the resurrection from the dead, as in 2 Macc, 
but rather the doctrine that ali souls, whether righteous 
or wicked, c.tist for ever after death. The good shall 
be in eternai happiness togcther (17i8), with the fathers 
of Israel (537), and with God (98 17 18). The wicked 
shall be in eternai torment (89 lOii 12i2 1815), burning 
in eternai lire (99 12iz). Cp Eschatoi.ogy, § 77. 

The personal earnestness and enthusiasni of the 
writer are manifest at every point. He is a true 
preacher. not a mere rhetorician, and the present dis- 
course is something very different from a formai 
e.tercise. He shows himself thoroughly acquaintcd 
with the Hebrew scriptures, and assumes that his 
hearers are. The reference in 188 to the serpent, the 
evil spiri/ (cp Wisd. 224) of Gen. 3, is worthy of notice ; 
so also is the expression ' the rib that was built up ' 

J See Grimm, 287/ 

(referring to the story of Ève), in I87. The whoie 
passage 18 6_^ gives us very interesting glimpses of 
Jewish family life of the wrìter's own day. 

The verdict of Freudenthal, who thought to find in 
4 Macc. a good many 'Christian inlerpolalions,' has 
creatcd a somewhat erroneous imprcssion of it in this 
respect. As a matter of fact, the only apparent 
instances of the kind worthy of notice are 7i9 I625 (cp, 
however, I53) and 1817 (ihree words). These seem to 
be mere expansions of the text by Christian scribes, 
without importance of their own and adding nothing 
to the teaching of the book. 

Eusebius, in speaking of the works of the Jewish historian 
Flavius Josephiis, mentions 4 Macc, in the following worUs: — 
a Atl-A + +"n ■nfiroùiTai Sé Kaì àit\o oiiK àyei/pit tTirovSaaiia 
», JlClieSTìaTilOIl. TU ivSpì Ivi?. Josephus] irepi avTaKpàropot 
Tezt and Xofio-fiou, il Tii't? MoKKaPaÌKÒv ìniypa'pav 
VersionS. ''V '■"^^ àyùpas ™i' iv Toìì oiiiu) KoiAounei'ois 

MaicKo^aiKoiì. avyypanfi.aai v-aip t^s et! tò 
Beìov finTipiat ài'SpuTa/ieViui' 'SPpaCviv ■ntpicxf^i' {Hist. eccUs, 
ili. 10 tì). Jerome, De iiiris illustr., ::hap. 13 (Josephus), speaks 
of it in very similar terms : ' Alius quoque liber ejus, qui 
itiscribitur irepl ainoicpóropoì valde elegans habeliir, 
in quo et Machabrcorutn sunt digesta martyria.' Again, cantra 
Pelagianos, 2 6, lie quotes 4 Macc. 3 5 ; this lime also naming 
Josephus as the author of the book. Gregory Nas;. , tlofiiil. in 
Aiace, cites the hook as i\ ;8i|3Aos jrepì Toii aiiTOxpÓTOpa. Uva.!. 
TÒiv iraftùp Tov Koyiuii.ov tjnAoa-oifiovaa. In Photiua' Epitome of 
Philoslorgius, chap. 1, occur the words; -rò nèv TSTapToc toiv 
MoKKafiaÌKÙii' fiifiAiov virò 'Iiuarjirmi ydypa^ai. koX avrò? 
[Philostorgius] avvop-okaySìv oiix itrTOpiav /j.SAÀoj' r) tyKióiii.01/ 
(ifaC r^ijoi TÒ irep't tòv 'EÀeófapoj/ «ai TOÙs inrà iralÈa^ Toit 
MaKKa0aiov^ StJTyoiifie^oi'. 

The hook appeats as ' 4 Macc' (see S i) in the list of the Cod. 
Claromontanus (originai of the third centuryV), the ' Calalogue 
of the sisty Canonical Books,' and the so-cailed 'Synopsis of 
Athanasius' (see above, col. 2881, § 7), and is contained in the 
Greek uncials **, A, and V. 

For inforination regarding the MSS containing the hook — 
MSS both of the LXX and of Josephus' works — see Gtimm, 
394^, and especially Freudenthal, 120-127. 

The first pnnted test of the book, that of the Strasburg LXX 
of 1526, was based on a .single very poor MS (Freudenthal, 
127 y-)- It became neverlheless the basis of the ' vulgar text,' 
pnnted in many Greek Bìbles of the sixteenth and scventeenlh 
centuties, and in many editions of Josephus; e.g., that of 
Basel, 1544; those of Lloyd (Luidu.s), Oxford, 1550; Hudson, 
1720; and the latet editions based on the Hudson text (Din- 
dorf [1S4S-47], and especially Bekker [1855-56], improved it cou- 
siderahly). A rccension differing from ibis, based on the Alex- 
andrine Cod., was represented by the LXX editions of Gtabe, 
1719, and Grabe- Urei tinger, 1731 ; and by Apel, Afiocr. VT, 
1837. More recenlly, the hook has been printed in Bagster's 
ApocrypkaGreek and EnglishiifA-ì) ; in \'z\X7.^Khe'^ Libri apocr, 
VT, 1871 (a decided improvement on ali preceding edilions of 
4 Macc.) ; and in Swete's LXX (Cod. A, with variants of k and 
V). The text of the book is stili in a very unsatisfactory con- 
dìtion, however. Much remains to be done, by collating new 
MSS (only a comparatively small number of those available 
having thus far been used), by making use of the Syriac version 
(see below), and hy conjectural emendation. 

Nothing is known of any old Latin version of 4 Macc, or 
eveii of the sources used by Erasmus in making his Latin 
'paraphrase,' which differs so widely from our Greek text. See 
Grimm, 296 ; Freudenthal, 133 ; Churton, 564. The old Syriac 
tranalation is contained in the Peshitla, Cod. Ambrosianus 
(published by Ceriani, 1876-83), and has recently been edited 
from nine MSS in Bensly's The Fourth Book 0/ Maccabees and 
Kindred Documents in Syriac, 1895. Thi.s translation, which is 
generally faithful and well executed, ìs seen to agree with t{ 
rather tfian with A (Ren.=ly, 14); but its more exact relation 
to the Greek texts has yec to be delermined. 

The only commentary on the whole hook is that of Grimm, 

1857 ; an excellent piece of work. ZSckler's Apokrj/phen, 39Ó- 

402, gives a translation, with commentary, of 

9, Lìterature. the introductory part of the book, 1 i-3 la 

Bissell (637yi) fiirnishes only a brìef intro- 

duction. English translations in Cotton, liagster, and Churton 

(see above, col. 2868, S 12). German translations in the Biblio- 

thek der griechischen m. romisc/ien Schri/tstelier ùber Juden- 

ihum u. Jtiden, voi. ii. (1867), and (by Deissmann, witli many 

useful notes) in Kautzsch's Apocr. ». Pseudepig. A very 

thorough monograph by Freudenthal, Die FI. Josephus bei- 

geUgie Sckri/t iiòer die Herrscha/t der Vernun/i {iZ6t)). 

See also Gfrorer, Pki/o und die alejcandrinische TkeoiOphie, 
2173.200 (1831); Dahne, Die jiidisch-alexandrinische Re- 
ligions-phììosophie, 2190-199, (1834); Ewald, GV![^, \fi-iff-', 
Gratz, MGIVJ (1S77), pp. 454^ ; Zdler, Die Pitilosophie der 
Griecheni?), 32(1831), pp. 275-277 ; Bensly, The Fourth Book 
o/Macc. in Syrinc, 1895 ; and the text-books of Inlroduclion. 

B MACCABEES. See i Maccabees, §11. 



MACEDONIA (M&KeAoNi&. Acts I610 n etc. Com- 
bìaed with mention of Achaia — Acts 19 21 Rom. 15 26 2 Cor. 82 
iThess.l7y: The ethnic is MaKeficic — Acrsltìg 1929 27 = 
3 Cor. d 4 I Macc. 1 1 62 zMacc. S20; applied Co Haman m 
Estk. 9 24 16 IO ®). 

The Macedonians were of Greek stock, as their 

traditions and remains of their language prove. In its 

1 Parliar '"''S'ial sense, Macedonia was simply the 


plains of the lower HaHacmon {KaraSu) 

and Axius ( Vardar), on the N. and NW. 
of the Thermaìc Gulf (Gulf of Salonica). The old 
capital was Edessa, or -Egge, on a terrace above the river 
Lydias, overlooking the sea. Gradually the Macedonians 
extended their power westward and northward over the 
hill-tribes of niyrian race, the Orestians, Lyncestians, 
etc. The key to early Macedonian history lies in this 
absence of community of tradition and race between the 
highlanders and the lowlanders (see brilliant sketch by 
Hogarlh, Philip and Alexander, 8/). Not until the 
accession of Philip II. (359 B.C.) was the unification of 
Macedonia effected ; the conquest of the Greek cities of 
the Chalcidic peninsula opened the door of the .Egean 
and made her a factor in Greek politics. The supremacy 
of Macedonia over Greece was realised during Philip' s 
lifetime ; whilst that of his son saw the Macedonian 
kingdom converted into a world-wide empire (cp the 
sketch of the achievements of Alexander the Great with 
which the history of the years 175-135 opens, i Macc. 
li). Macedonia carne at last into conilict with Rome. 
The battle of Cynoscephala; (197 b.c.) broke the power 
of Philip V., and that of Pydna (i68 B.C.), in which his 
son Ferseus was defeated, broiight the Macedonian 
kingdom to an end {ref. in i Macc. 85). 

The ' Macedonians ' of a Macc. 8 20 are probably the Mace- 
donians tn the service of the Seleucìd kings. Perhaps the word 
carne to be applied to the soldiers of the phalanx, with which the 
Macedonia!! conquests were so closely associateli. 

The ' Macedonia ' of the NT is the Roman province 
of that name. This was not constituled imniediately 

_ j-m ♦;___ after the victory at Pydna ; the country 
was for a time allowed to retain a certain 
degree of independence. It was broken up into four 
divisions : (i) Macedonia Prima: between the Nestus 
and the Strymon — capital, Amphipolis. (2) M. Secunda: 
between the Strymon and the Axius — capital, Thessa- 
lonica. (3) M. Tertia : between the Axius and the 
Peneins in Thessaly — capital, Fella. (4) M. Quarta : 
the mountain lands on the W. — capital, Pelagonia (cp 
Livy, A^sgf. ; for details, see Mommsen, Hist. Jiotn. 
ET2302/; Silver and bronze coins MARBAONON 
IIPfiTHS, etc. Head, Hist. Ntim. 208/.). In 146 b.c. 
Macedonia received a provincia! organisation. It is not 
clear that the fourfold division was entìrely abolìshed ; ^ 
but the country was henceforth under the control of a 
resident officiai, whose headquarters were in Thessa- 
lonica. The province included Thessaly, and in the 
other direction extended to Thrace and the river Nestus. 
East and west it ran from sea to sea, for that part of 
lUyria which lay between the Drilo (Drin) and the Aous 
fell to it, so that the ports of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia 
were Macedonian. The province also contained the 
most important artery of coramunication in the empire 
— the Via Egnatia, which connected those ports with 
Thessalonica and Amphipolis. 

In the partition of the provinces (37 B.c.) Macedonia fell to the 
Senate (Str. 840, Dìo Cass. 53 12) ; but in 15 a.d. it was handed 
over to the emperor (Tac. Ann. 1 76), and so continued until in 
44 A.D. Claudius restored it to the Senate (Suet, Claud. 35, Dio 
Cass. 6024). As a senatorial province it was governed by a prò- 
consul of prastorian rank. buch was Macedonia when Paul 
entered it (in 50 a.d.?; cp Chronoi.ogv, g 71). 

The entrance into Macedonia and the visit to Rome 
are the two most important stages in Paul's missionary 
- p , career; hence, looking back in the ' afternoon ' 
of his life, he can speak of his work in Mace- 
donia as llie ' be.ginning of the gospel ' (Phil. 4 15). The 

1 See Leake, Northern Greece, 3 4S7X 3,nd cp the expression 
used in Acts 16 12. See Philippi. 


account of this breaking of new ground on the second 
journey is given in great detail in Acts \^<ìf. A new 
meaning is given to the phrase ' a man of Macedonia ' 
(dyTjp MoKeStic) which had sounded like a knell in the 
ears of the greatest Greek orator (cp Deraosth. Phil. 
I43). If we accept Kamsay's conjecture that Luke 
himself was the man seen in his vision by Paul [^St. Paul 
the Traveller, zoaf.), this explains also the ' emphasis 
laid on the passage to Macedonia,' for which Ramsay 
thinks ' it is not easy to account on strictly historical 
grounds' (op. cit. 198/.). It is hardly true to asserì 
that ■ a broad distinction between the two opposite sides 
of the Hellespont as belonging to two different continents 
had no existence in the thought of those who lived in 
the jEgean lands. ' In the second place, it was the after 
events that unfolded the importance of the step now 
taken ; and Lk. writes with these results in his mind. 
Lastly, if Luke himself was the instrument used to direct 
Paul upon his new path, we can see how even at the 
moment the incident at Troas might seem the climax of 
the whole journey and the entry into Macedonia bulk 
largely in the writer's mind. 

Paul visited Macedonia many times. Five or six years 
after the foundation of the chiirches he revisits them 
twice, as he goes and as he returns, on his third mission- 
ary tour (Acts 1921 2O1-3 I Cor. I65 z Cor. Ii6 213 75 
81 934). Perhaps he saw them Immediately after his 
first Roman imprisonment (cp Philem. 22 Phil. 224), 
and yet again, before he carne to Nicopolis (i Tim. 1 3). 
He was surrouiided by representati ves sent by the three 
Macedonian churches — -Aristarchus and Secundus front 
Thessalonica, Gaius (ActslSig 2O4 273), Sopater from 
Bercea (Acts 2O4), Epaphroditus from Philippi (Phil. 225). 
The distinguishing mark of the Macedonians is their 
loyalty to Paul's teaching, and their intense affectìon 
for himself (i Thess. 138 36 49 aCor.llg 
Phil. 4 1 rs/). A characteristic of Macedonia, as of 
Asia Minor, is the prominence of women (cp the story 
of Lydia, Acts I613/, at Philippi ; also at Bercea and 
Thessalonica women are specially mentioned amnng the 
converts, Acts 174 12 Phil. 42/. , 'those women which 
laboured with me in the gospel.') w. j. w. 

MACHJERUS (M&XAIpoyc. in Talm. -|1130, 
or, according to the 'Aruck, nssD ; but Jastrow [Dìct. 
of Targ. etc. 781] disputes the Identification),^ the most 
southern point of the dominions of Antipas the Tetrarch, 
on the E. of the Dead Sea ; according to Pliny 
{//Nv. 1672), the strongest Jewish castle next to Jeru- 
salem. It had been fortified by Alexander Jannseus 
(106-79 B.c.), and afterwards by Herod the Great, who 
there built a city. There the suspicious Antipas con- 
fined John the Baptist [?.v.], and there the great 
prophet was executed. 

In the year 70 A.D. the town seems to bave harboured, 
irrespective of the Jewish garrison, a population of at least 
2000 meli, besides women and children (see Jos. B/vii. &4_f. ; 
cp ii. 18 6 'louSaiuie tò irAijeos). 1 1 is the nìodern Mliaur (3675 
ft. above the level of the Dead Sea, and 3382 ft. above that 
of the Mediterranean), «bere extensive ruins are stili to be seen. 
See Zereth-shahar, and cp Keim, Jesus of Nazara, 2 yì^ff. \ 
Schiir. Hist. i. 2 329^ ; GAS HG^èi)/.; also Gautier, Autourde 
la Mer Morte, 1901, 

MACHBANAI, RV Machbamiaì {*3??0). one of 
David's warriors ; i Ch. 12i3t (meAxaB&NN&I [B], 
-NNGA.^ [N], m&XaB&NAI [A], -Nei [L]. Pesh. reads 
' Shephatiah'). See David, § 11, 11. e 

MACHBENAH, RV Maclibena (N:33p), i Ch. 
249t- See Cabbon, and cp Mekonah. 

MAGHI ('30; m&k[x]i [B*bAL]. M6K0CI [B^'']. 

1 We. GGA, 1889, no. 8, p. 6o6yt, suggests the Identification 
of the name with the Moabite mno (MI, /. 14). 

2 ©UN niay derive from iSn and r\yi (cp Benaiah [lln'J^X or 
is it a corrupt repetition of Mishmannah (in v. io)? These two 
could be easily confused in the older script (S. A. Cook). 


A\i.xeip [F]). father of Geuel; Nu.lSist- Readprob- 
ably Machir— (,e., Jerahmeel (Che.). 

BLACHIR (I^DO ; M&x[e]tp [BADFL]}. i. Son of 
Manasseh, son of Joseph (Gerì. 5023, E). The name, 
however, is properly elhnographic. Either the gens 
which bore Ihis name was the most important of the 
genies of Manasseh^this is expressed by representìng 
Machir as Manasseh's firstborii (Josh. 17i i Ch. 714); 
or else the whole of Manasseh was one great gens of 
Machir — this is symbolised by the statement that Machir 
was the only son of Manasseh (Nu. 26=9^ ; cp Gen. 
5O23). The latter view is extremely plausibie. In Gen. 
5O23 E tells US that 'Joseph saw Ephraim's children of 
the third generation : the children also of Machir, the 
son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph's knees,'^ 
Clearly Ephraim and Machir are put upon the same 
footing. Similarly in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 614) 
we fìnd Ephraim and Machir mentioned instead of 
Ephraim and Manasseh. The tradition is thac Machir 
{i.e. the gens of Machir) went from the W. to the E. 
side of Jordan and conquered Gilead (Nn. 3239 JE) ; 
this is even placed in the time of Moses (cp Nu. 3240 
Dt. 3 15, late passages). Other writers add Bashan 
(Josh. 1831. P ; 17i^, R ; a gloss in the former passage 
carefully says, 'half Gilead'). It is also stated that 
Gilead was the son of Machir (Nu.27i. P; i Ch.Szi; 
cp Josh. 17 1^, R, where Machir is ly^a.T "3k, 'fatherof 
ike Gilead," i.e., Ihe land of Gilead). This of course 
simply means that Gilead was occupied by Machirite 
(Manassite) clans. Cp Kuenen, 7"A, J'll(i877) pp. 
ti^iff., and notes in Oxf. Hex. voi. ii. 

Was the conquest of Gilead really so ancient as to 
be loosely referred to the time of Moses ? Judg. 5 14 is 
opposed to this ; ' Machir ' is there equivalent to 
(western) Manasseh. It is possible that we may assign 
the conquest of N. Gilead to the clan of Abiezer, whose 
re presentati ve in legend is Gideon [?.j'.]. 

This hero is represented in Judg. 8 5-16 as the conqueror of 
Succoth ; now Succoth is explained elsewhere (Succoth) as a 
coriupiion of Salecah or Salhad, the frontiec-ciiy of Bashan 
towards the E. Salecah occurs, the present writer believes, 
under various disguises in the genealogies of Chronicles (which 
contain valuable early material, though often in a cocrupCed 
form). Two of its most noteworthy corruptions are Hammo- 
LECHETH \q.v.\ and Zelophehad \q.v.y, now Hammolecheth 
(Salecah) is given in i Ch. 7 18 as the sister of Gilead, and 
Zelophehad in -o. 15 as the second son of Manasseh. Abiezer 
(the eponym of Gideon's clan) is in the same context (t'. 18) 
called a son of Hammolecheth. U ts possible thac the conquest 
of N. Gilead by the Machirites was marked by a desperale 
fighi for Salecah, and in ihis connection ic may be reniarked 
that in I Ch. 7 14 ' Machir the father of Gilead ' is said to have 
been the son of Manasseh by 'his concubine the Aramitess' 
(RV). 'Gilead' should bere, as in some other passages, be 
' Salhad' ( = Salecah) : the reference to the concubine is a sym- 
holic indicalion of the subordination oì the Aramasan element 
in the population of NE. Gilead to the Israelitish. In Nu. 2625 
(P) we read of the family of the UacMrites (n'3D; nox<'P')- 
See further Gilead, Manasseh. 

As to the name Machir. Has it some connection, as 
has been suggested (Ephraim, § i). with the story of 
Joseph ? Rather it is one of the niany corruptions and 
abbreviations of ' Jerahmeel ' ; the Machirites may have 
been partly of Jerahmeelite origin. Now perhaps we 
can understand why the hero who conquered Succoth 
(Judg. 8) is called not only Gideon, but also Jerubbaal ; 
for Jerubbaal too is very possibly an ancient corruption 
of Jerahmeel. ' Manasseh ' may perhaps be a title of 
the god once worshipped in the Machirite terrìtory W. 
of Jordan. Cp Gad, and see Manasseh, § 4. 

2. Son of Ammiel, residing at Lo-debar, commonly 
supposed to be a place on the E. of the Jordan (see 
Lo-debar), 2 S. 94/ iTs?- It has been inferred 
from these two passages that Machir was a wealthy 
landowner, who remained faithful to the house of Saul, 
and gave a refuge to Meribbaal or Mephibosheth, though 
at a later time he was ostentatiously loyal to David, 
whose army he supplied with ampie supplies al Maha- 
nainl, during the rebellion of Absalom. There is 

1 On the idiom, see Stade, ZA TIV6 (1886) 146/. 


reason, however, to suspect that the text of both 
passages has been so seriously corrupted that no reliance 
can be placed on these inferences. See SAUL, § 6, and 
cp Mahanaim, Mephibosheth. t. k. c. 

MACHMAS (i Macc. 873), RV Michmash. ^.v. 

MACHNADEBAI (Un33D? a corruption either of 
m3 'JBp (Che. } or of liuSào, ■ possession of Nebo ' 
[Ass. namkur— ' possession '] ; see G. B. Gray, Exp. T, 
Feb. 1899, p. 232/ ; but cp Nebo), one of the b'ne 
Bani in list of those with foreign wives (see EzRA i., 
§ S end), Ezral04ot- MT is practicaìly supported by 
/taXaSva/Soiy ^ [B], ax- [X], /ta^i-aScta. [A]; bui a read - 
ing 'Nadab' (z-ìì) is suggested by ©^ {xai yaSa^ov 
[Lag.], cp K. padafiov [19], k. vaBa^ov [93, 108]).^ 
Il I Esd. 934 reads Kal éK róif vlQv e^upo. (OZORA, RV 
Ezora) attyeiì k. t. X. [BA]^with which cp the Com- 
plut. in Ezra l.c. Kal /ia^i'aSa koX aapova Kai iXffffi 
whence it appears lo be not improbable that ©"* read 
■ce' ne (for -mj^D) 'WD ; see Sharai. ['Barnabas' 
may ultimately come from Bar-nadabu (Che. ).] 

UACHFELAH (n^S^sn, ' the Machpelah '), a piece 
of land (mCT) and a cave near Hebron (Gen. 2391719 
259 4930 5O13, ali P). 

© (tò SiitX.o{iv), Vg. ifiupUx), Tg. Onk., and ps.-Jon. derive 
from Vb3 'doublé,' the suggestion being that this, like other 
sepulchral caverns, had two chambers. This is plausibie ; hut 
in 23 17 (cp 15) the field of Ephron is ' in Machpelah.' ' Mach- 

rlah ' is nowhere else referred to, and P's date is late. Stili, 
had access to older writings, and we have no reason at ali to 
doubt that the name ' the Machpelah ' (putting aside ihe ques- 
tion as to the reading) belongcd properly to the whole districi in 
which the properly including the cave lay. 

Few points of biblical geography are more interesting 
and more difficull ihan that connected wilh Machpelah. 
The statements in Genesis — i.e., those of P — can only 
be eslimated in connection vrith the statements of J 
and E respecting the death and burlai of the three 

I. We have first to assume the general correctness of 
the geography of the lives of the patriarchs as given in 
the traditional text. According to P (Gen. 23 19 ^69 
50 13) Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob were burìed 'in the cave 
of the field of Machpelah,' and il is implied in 35 29 
that Isaac also was buried there. Turning to JE, we 
notice that the account of the death and burial of 
Abraham and Isaac has been lost. Bui we may assume 
that J placed Abraham's tomb at Hebron, where he 
considered the palriarch lo have resided ; Isaac's grave, 
however, may possibly have been put farther soulh, 
viz., at Beek-lahai-koi \_q.v.\ On the death of 
Jacob J appears at first sight to be inconsistent. In 
4730 Jacob directs Joseph lo bury him where his fathers 
were buried, bui 5O5 (J) points lo a tomb specially his 
own, for Jacob says that he had digged. or iess prob- 
ably bonghi,* one for himself in Canaan. It must be 
admitted, however,' that 473» (J) has been manipulated 
by R lo make it accord with P (see We. CH 62 ; 
Oxf. Hex,2T^). In Gen. 50 11 J places the burial of 
Jacob al Abel-Mizraim or rather AbeNmlzrim, a place in 
the far SW. of Canaan (see AbeL-mizraim). Whether 
E's account agreed wilh that of J must be left uncer- 
tain. This narralor (unless, indeed, we suppose the 
originai document to have had a S. Palestìnian geo- 
graphical setting) must be held to have placed Rachel's 
death and burial near Beeroth (35i6i9? crii, emend. ; 
see Rachel), and Dinah's death and burial near Belhel. 

J Cp Machba(jai, or Nebo in v. 43. 

^ 19, 93, and 108 in Holmes and Parsons exhibit Lucian ; cp 
Cerianì, Lag., and see Field, HeJt. 87. 

'^ ®i- retains kbì Nofio^ov as in Ezra. 

* 'JT"l3 adraits of either rendering (Staerk) ; but ni3, ' to pur- 
cliase,' is rare, and if Jacob had referred to the leealiiy of his 
acquisilion of a torab, he wouid have said from wnom he had 
purchased it (cp 50 13 P). See Is. 22 16. 

6 Driver's analysis of Gen. 4? 17-31 does not recognise this. 
Consequently he can represent Gen. 47 29-31 as parallel in JE to 
43 29-32 in P (Hastings, DB 2 532 à). 



He also mentions (33 19/) Jacob's purchase of a piece 
of ground from the Shechemites. Ail this seems adverse 
to the choice of such a remote spot for Jacob's burial as 
Abel-miznm. On the other band, the burial of Rachel 
had probably the same location in J as in E, yet J places 
the funeral of Jacob in that very remote spot. Possibly 
more than one place boasted of being the guardian of 
the lomb of Jacob, ' and from the title of the aitar (or 
rather massèba) at Shechem in Gen. 33 20 (see El- 
ELOhe-israel) we may perhaps assume that the tomb 
at Shechem fwhieh must surely bave existed, perhaps 
near the sacred tree, Gen. 354 Josh. 2426, both E) was 
known orìginally as ' Israei's grave,' and that at Abel- 
mizrim as ' Jacob's grave. ' A confusion of names 
woiild, of course, arise very early. • Jacob's well ' (near 
Shechem) is no doubt late in its attestation ; but the 
name in the Karnak list of Thotmes III., usually inter- 
preted 'Jacob-el,' may conceivably (thoiigh not at ali 
probably) beexplained ' Jacob-beer' — i.e. ' Jacob-well ? ' 
(so apparenlly C. Niebuhr). We bave now done our best 
to make the traditional geography intelligible, but must 
confess that ali is not as satisfactory as we could wish. 

z. At this point it is needful to examine the accuracy of the 
test. It is mainlained elsewhere (see Rehoboth, and cp Crìi. 
Bib.) that 'Hebron' and ' Kirjath-arba ' are probably in some 
passages corruptions of ' Rehoboth ' and ' Kìrjath-'arbiin ' (city 
of the Arabians) tcspectively, and that ' Rehoboth ' has a daini 
to some pan of the fame appropriated by Hebron. Also (see 
Isaac) that Beer-lahai-roi is a corruption of Beer-jerahmeel, 
and (see Shechem) that ' Hamor, Shechem's falher ' (Gen. 33 ig> 
is a corruption of ' Cushan-jerahmeel.' Dìnah's burial-place too 
was very possibly near ' the southern Bethel,'^ dose to Halfi^h 
or Ziklag (see Shkchem). The iraditions of the sepulture of the 
parriarchs in the oiigìnaE tradition were, therefore, probably not 
so very different from that given by P, except Ihat P does not 
place the tombs of the ancestors sufficientiy far south. It was 
in Jerahmeelite land that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as dis- 
tinguished from Israel ?) both lived and died. 

We now come back to (he name ' ham-machpelah ' {nf)B3ort). 
It is itself a dtstortion of Jerahmeei (^«nm')- The place near 
which the cave lay was Cushan-jerahmee!— ;.e., one of the chief 
cities of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see Neceb), most probably 
Halusah (Ziklag). 'Mamre,' to the E. of which (^jr,!?) lay the 
field and the cave,' is nothing less than this same Cushan- 
je(ahmeel(K-pc='7NDnT). If we tate this view in connection 
with other similar reclifications of ancient but not primitive 
tradition, it will readily be seen how plausible, nay, how salis- 
faclory it is. If Hebron loses some of Ì(s delightful associations, 
the Jerahmeehte cities of Rehoboth and Halusah are the gainers, 
and readers of the lamentej E. H. P'almer's Deseri 0/ tke 
Exodus will q^uickly adapt themselves to the truer theory. 

3. The traditional ' Machpelah ' has a claim to be considered 
which 13 somewhat in excess of our space. 

' The cave of Machpelah is concealed, beyond ali reasonable 
doubt, by the mosque at Hebron," are the words of Dean 
Stanley. The same opinion has t>een often expressed, and in 
deference to the aiitiquity of the tradition, we are bound to give 
some details from the accounts of early pilgrims, beginning with 
J^ephus, who says (^/iv. 97, g 531) that the monuments of 
Abram and his sons are stili shown at Hebron in the fairest 

The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 a.d.) tells of a square memoria of 
marvellously beautiful masonry, in which were placed the three 
patnarchs antl their wives. Arculf (700 a.d.) says that each of 
the tombs is covered with a single stone worked somewhat in 
the forra of a church, and of a light colour for those of three 
patnarchs which are logether.' 

The most circum sta miai account of the cave, however, is that 
of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (1163 A.D.). He says that for a 
fee a Jewish visitor is allowed by the Gentiles to enier the cave. 
_ He descend^ into a first cave which is empty, tiaverses a second 
in the same slate, and at last reaches a third which contains sÌx 
^pulchres— those of Abraham, I.saac, and Jacob, and of Sarah, 
Rebekah, Leah, one opposite the other. Ali these sepulchres 
bear inscnptions.' It is probable enough that R. Benjamin was 
one of the last who, in the period of the Christian rule, obtained 
admission into the interior. For a full account of this gieat 
mosque (the HarSrn) and of everything about the caves except 
the caves themselves, see PEFMem.Z-yti, etc, and for the 
statements of the various travelìers and olher authoiities, the 
Pai. Pilgnm Text Society's publicadons, and Palestine under 
the Moslenis. See also Sir C. Warren's article, ' Machpelah," in 
Hastings Z>S 2 197-202. 

Cp W. Staerk, Studien sur Relisions- und Sprachgesch. des 
-, ,Vìì:l'i'-' ^- B'uston. 'La mo" et la sepulture de Jacob' 
ZA TIV, ^02 ff. T. K C 

1 Cp e. Niebuhr, Gesck. 1 .61. 

2 For IV"]"'?)' nrrnp the originai docunient used by E may 
bave had nian"13- 



MACRON (MàKptON [^V]), surname of one of the 
Ptolemies, 2 Macc. 10 12. See Ptolemy. 

MADAI (HD), the third son of Japheth (Gen. lOa, 
M&i&i [ADL], M&A&i [EJ^, M&iàiM [B], 
M&À.M [AL]). See Geography, § 19 ; Elam ; Persia. 

The same Hebrew word is rendered by EV (a) 'Medes' 
(M^oi) in 2 K.176 I811 Is.l3i7 Jer.SSas (niptrwe (BKAQ], 
M^Ì<oi.[QniEr.])Ezra62 and elsewhere, (i) 'the Mede ' ("isn) in 
Dan. II I, and (e) 'Media' in Is.21z (oi Wépaaì) Daiì 830 
(MijfioO Esth. I3 10 2 (MijioO. In Is. 21 a and Jer. 2625, how- 
eyer, there is reason to think that the originai reading was 
ditferent. In the case of Jer. Le. this is virtually certain. See 
Sheshach, Crit. Bib. 

MADIABUH (RV Emadabun, hmaA&Boyn [BA]), 
and Eliadun (RV Ii,iadun ; [e]lAlAÌOYN [HA], eA. 
[L]), two names of Levites, i Esd. 658 (|| EzraSg). 

Probably 'Jesus' (in the same verse) and 'Madiabun' are 
doubleisto 'Joda'and 'Eliadun.' 'Eliadun' (BAL) seems to 
represent Henadad (read ENADouN = p]n?), and i\ii.aZa^auv 
perhaps from the form t^vaZa^ (see Hbnadad). ffiL'« 
Kdt ijM^aS (contrast ©i. in ]| Ezra) must be a later correctioa 
derived from the MT, S A. C 

MADIAN (Acts729). RV MiDIAN {q.v.). 
MADMANNAH (naDfp). 1. A remote city of 
Judah towards Edom, mentioned with Ziklag and 
Sansannah Josh.1531, P (M&x&peiM [B], BeUBHNà 
L'^]! A\Ap(\p6IM [L]). The name, however, is corrupt 
(cp Madmen). In Josh. 195 its place is taken by 
Beth-marcaboth ; Madmannah (from nn^io) must be a 
corruption of Marcaboth, which is itself certainly a 
distortion of Rehoboth. See Marcaboth. That 
Eusebius and Jerome connect the name Medebena or 
Medemana with a viljage near Gaza called Menoeis 
{O5P) 27824 139io) is no objection to this view. Cp 

2. The «)onym of the city Madmannah, i Oh. 2 49, see RV 
(/topftjji'n [B], /inV- [A], fieSfi- [LI)- T. K. C. 

MADMEN (IP'112), a supposed Moabite city, Jer. 48a 
(ttaycin [BSAQ]; cpPesh. Vg. ). Thename ('dung- 
heap ' ; cp Del. lob 62/ ) is most improbable, and since 
(i) the context is suggested by Is. 15., and (2) there is 
a very similar corruption ìn Is. 169 (see Dimon), we 
can safely for Madmen read o'td], Nimrim {q.v.), 
which in Is. I55/. occurs just after Horonaim. 

T K C 

MADMENAH (nJpnp; M&AeBHN& [BNAQ]),' a 
supposed vìllage of Benjamin, mentioned with Gebim, 
Is. 10 31. ' No trace of the locality is left ' (Di.-Kìttel). 
Probably the name is corrupt (cp Madmen), and we 
should read ,^]s^, Rimmonah ; for a parallel see Dim- 
NAH. This Rimmonah was not 'the rock Rimmon' 
of Judg. 2O45, but nearer to Jerusalem. See Che. 
' Geographical Gaiiis, etc.,' Expos., Sept. 1899, and cp 
Gebim. t. k. c. 

MADNESS (imp), MADMAN (^Vnnip). 

The Hebrew root ^VÙ, saga', which the 'mad' of the RV 

most commonly represents is in use almost a synonym of HDllliT 

. m '^° prophesy' (Jer. 29 26) and denotes either the 

1. lerms. ravingof the madman(iS.2Ii4y: [i5^)=„-]j;,, 

_ 18 io) or the prophetic ecstasy (Hos.97). The 

toot-meaning is clear from Ass. sig-u ' to be in vehement inward 

excitemcnt," Del. HWB 639. Arabie sajua means to be 

strong, vigorous ; either the root is the same as iijc"- tut has 

developed a secondary meaning on Arabie soil (cp Del. Prol. % 9), 

or it has nothìng to do with y^gf— in which case 'alja'", 'mad," 

ntusja"", ' utterly mad,' will be loan-words from the Hebrew. 

This wouid account for the anomaloiis correspondenee of w 

and Arab. s. Cp Barth, Eiym. Stud. 47. 

Another root also rendered by 'mad* in RV (Is, 44 25 
Jer. 25 16) is ^Sn, kà/al, the root meaning of which fcp Ar., 
Ass.) is 'to cry aloud.' The nouns nftin, or ni'?^in are 
synonyms of nr7^0, folly (see Fool). The root-meaning of 
^J^Pr"? (Pro^- 26 18) is not clear. [The final Ti isdittc^raphed ; 
read ^'imra [Frankenb., Toy], '(As)a madman.'J 

Greek words rendered ' madness * in the RV are imvia. (Acts 
2624), irapa-lipoi'ia (aPet.2i6), òroiit {Lk. 6 11 : mg. 'fooiish- 



In spile of the f.ict that inadness {^iggd'dn) is one of 
the plagues with which Israel is threatened in the event 

_„ of disobedience to the law (Dt. 2828), 
_j- ■ actual cases of insanìly are rare in the 

* OT. One might be inclined to regard 
the case of Saul as the most historical, otcurring as it 
does in the course of a narrative which no one can deny 
to contain a kernel of fact ; yet even here we cannot 
be sure, without strict investigation, that the notices of 
Saul's frenzy do not belong to the less historical stralum 
(see Saul, § 4). This does not, however, involve our 
rejection of these notices as material for an article on 
Madness in OT and NT. As the narrator represents, 
the succosses of Davidawakened Saul's jealousy, and ' at 
last the turbulent ferment of passion broke forth info 
wild frenzy . . . With the lenacity peculiar to one 
haunted by an illusion, he devotes himseif hence'forth 
almost exclusively to his purpose of avenging himseif on 
bis supposed mortai enemy and persecutor' (Kittel, 
Hist. 2 121). Saul's reported breach with Samuel also. 
according to the narrator, contributed to unhinge the 
mind of Saul ; ' he feels himselt forsaken by God . . . 
sees spectres everywhere which are hatching mischief 
against him' [Geich. 2,-io$). Looking at the notices of 
his state from a non-critìcal point of view, we may 
perhaps say that the malady of Saul was an idiopathic 
insaniiy, exhibiting the usuai mental symptoms of 
melancholia ( i S. 28 20) and delusion ( 20 30), with honii- 
cidal and suicidai mania (I811 2O33 3I5). 

A second instance of insanity in the OT, the ' lycan- 

_ - thropy'^ (or 'boanthropy') of Nebu- 

NehuchSezzar <=l^=^drezzar (Dan. 4 cp Verg. Ed. 
Heuucnaarezzar. g^^^j j^_ .^^ ^^j^^ ^^ ^^^ testimony 

of Abydenus (ap. Eus. Prcep. Ev. 941), most probably 

The passage is translated in full by Bevan {Diiniel, Syyl) ; the 
pare which bears most dosely on the question of Nebu chad rezza e 's 
madness is as foUows : — ■ 

' or else, wouid that he might hetake himseif to some other 
place, and might be driven through the desert, where is no city 
nor Irack ofinen, where wild beasts seek their food and birds 

fly hither and thither, would that among tocks and mountain 
cliffs he might wander alone ! ' 

With this we bave to compare Dan. 4 33. 

' The same hour was the ihing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar : 
and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his 
body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown 
like eagles' (feathers), and his nails like birds' (claws).' 

Prince {Daniel, 1899, pp. 32-35) is of opinion that 
the great king may have been ' afflicted by a form of 
insanity which incapacitated him from governing, and 
necessitated the succession of his son. ' 

Bevan [Daniel, 1892, p. 89) can only say that prob- 
ably ' some Babylonian legend on the subjcct of 
Nebuchadnezzar had, perhaps in a very distorted forni, 
reachcd the ears of the author of Daniel.' With this, 
Driver [Daniel, 1900, pp. 59/^) appears to agree. See 
aìso Schrader, ' Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebukad- 
nezars,//^? [1881], pp. 6i8jJ^2 

Madness is conceived of in the OT as a kindred 

phenonienon to the prophotic ' furor ' ; see Profhecy. 

_ ,. , A spirit from Yahwè is in both cases 

4. .Beiieis re- ^^^ .^gencv at work (cp I S. I6.4 with 

OT fn Jl-fl TI flH H ^ J! I • 

■ contemptuous pity which the lunatìc 
could not biit evoke attaches at times to the prophet 
(2 K. 9ii), the su per s ti t ioli s awe with which the prophet 
was regarded serves to clothe the other also and renders 
his person sacrosanct. In the East the madman is stili 
regarded as somcthing sacred. It is possibly the sacred 
character of the madman which accounls for the refusai 
of ACHiSH [q-'v. ) to interfere with David when he 

t A form of disease in which the sufFerer, imagining himseif to 
be a wild beasi, roamed aboiit ihe forest'i. A somewhat milder 
form of the dìsease is not unknown lo aiienists. 

2 [Nebuchadreizar's madness, however, issimply the produci of 
misunderstanding, if ihe words of Dan. 4 25 are borrowed from 3 
Babylonian song in which ' eating grass ' was a syrabolic expres- 
sion for 'living in misery' (so Winckler, OLZ, 1898, p. 71; 
AOF 2 214, n. 2 ; cp Gunkel, Gen. 17).] 



feigned madness (iS. 2I12 [13]^; cp Ewald, GVt 
3ii6). It would seem too that, according to the 
narratives, Saul forfeited the allegiance of neither court 
{16is^) nor people (26r 284 ; but cp 2217). 

The madmen of the NT are not kings but common 
folk, and their malady is attributed not to a spirit sent 
from God (cpSAUL), butto inferior deitiesor ' demons ' 
entering inlo them— a conception of madness, as of 
disease generally, which the jews brought back with 
them from Babylon (see Demons, §11). The infiuence 
of music is no longer invoked to cairn and soolhe (i S. 
16 16), nor is the lunatic's person sacred; he wanders 
about al large, or, if dangerous, is bound in chains 
(T-k. 829). It is hard to say how many of the Saifiovi- 
^ò/ievoi healed by Jesus may be reckoned as insane ; 
see further Demons, §8/, Lunatic. In Jn. IO20 we 
ha ve madness expressly connected with demoniacal 
possession. A. C. P, 

MADON (P"Ip), a royal city of the Canaanites, 
perhaps on the W. of the Waters of Merom. Josh. Ili 
(fiappaiv [BF], fiaBuf L-^L.]) ; I219 [l\d]fi.opuP [L] ; for 
BF see Shimron). 

But is the lext righi? Following ® (cp Eus. (7^(2) 273 7, 
/lopu/i) we might read di"iO or ino (see Merom). This seems 
better than identifying with Madìn near Hattln, W. of Tiberias 
{PEFMI 365). Further study is needed. See Shimron. 

MAELUS (m&hAoc [A]), i Esd. 9^6 = Ezral0 25, 


MAGADAN (A(\àr&AAN} is the reading in Mi. I539 
ofttBDTi. WH, RV, etc. , for the M&fi*^*' Magdala 
[y.iv.], of TR and AV, Accepted by the most author- 
ities, the names cannot either of them be identifìed with 
any site (but see Galilee [Sea of], § 5). The corre- 
sponding passage Mk. 810 has Dalmanutha [y.!».], 
which is equally uncerlain. Eusebius [Onom. ed. Lag.) 
spells it 'UlayeÒav and identifìes it with the '^a.yeSavf) 
of his lime 'in the neighbourhood of Gerasa,' that 
is, on the E. shore of the lake (cp Lightfoot, Op. Post. 
70 b, on the site of Magdala). But Jesus is said to 
bave embarked from il for 'the other' [i.e., eastern) 
■side' [ehTbiripav, Mk.813). Ewald (//m/. ET6348) 
suggests Megiddo (May^Sw in ]os. Ani.\ìn. Gì); so 
too Volkmar ; Henderson (Pai,, § 114) says there is 
' nothing unlikely in the identifìcalion, as our Lord may 
have passed into the plain of Beisan.' But whilst 
Ibis in itself is improbable, on Conder's theory that 
Megiddo was near Beisan, it becomes almost im- 
possible if we adopt the usuai and best supported theory 
which places Megiddo [^.l'.^at Lejjùn in the plain of 
Esdraelon. G. A. S. 

MAGBISH (^''3^0; A^AKBeiC [L]), a name in one 
of the post-exilic lists ; the b'ne Magbish returned with 
Zerubbabel to the number of 156 ; Ezra23o (A\àr^B'»Jt; 
[B], -Bic [A]) = i Esd. 521, Nephis, RV NiPHiS 
(cei^ets [B], <fiiv(L% [A]). The name is absent from || 
Neh. 7. Cp Magpiash, which, as Meyer (Eni, 156) 
sees, represetits the same name. Almost certainly that 
name is d-d'Sj [□■e'"!jj?], Nkphisim [q.v,). The next 
name in Ezra (/.e. } is inK ch'i!, which is a corruption of 
^KOni". See also Meshullam. t. k, C. 

MAGDALA (a^AC^'^^*')' ^^^ reading of TR in 
Mt. 1539 where NBD Ti. WH have M&r*>iàN. Maga- 
DAN [?.!'.]. Whilst ' Magadan ' is the best supported 
reading and Magdala is supposed to be a substitulion 
due to the ignorance of later scribes with regard to 
Magadan, it ought to be pointed oul that Ma7a5ai' is 
a possible corruption of an originai Magdala. However 
ihat may l>e, the existence of a Galilean Magdala is 
rendered certain both by the name of Mary Magdalene 
(cp Mary, § 26), and by the tesfimony of Jewish writers. 
The Talm. Jerus. places a Magdala. k^ijd. within a 
sabbath day's journey of Tiberias {'ÈrvbtitZt), and 
itideed within the same distance of the hot baths of 
Hamata, to the S. of Tiberias (Id. 234) ; and the same 



things which some Talmudic writers assign to Magdala 
others assign to a Mìgdal Sebo'ayya, «"ym ^ijo. ' Dyers- 
Tower,' (cp Midrash, Sàir ka-shfrlm 1 18 with Taltn. 
Jerus. Pgsahtm 4 i ; and Midrash ' Èkhàh 3 3 with 
Taira. Jerus. Ma'àser Shinìbi) which accordingly 
Neubauer ìdentifies as a part of Magdala {Géogr. Talm. 
218). The Babylonian Talmud speaks of a k'ji] hun, 
Migdal Nunya or ' Fish-Tower,' one mìle frora Tiberias 
{Pisakim 46 b). [Cp Galilee (Sf.a), § 5, where it is 
suggested that Magadan, Magdala, and Dalmanutha 
are ali corruptions of this compound name Migdal 
Nunya. — Ed.] 

Magdala was a place of some wealth (Talm. Jer. 
Ta'ànith 48) and is said to have been destroyed 'jbd 
nwt^, ' because of licentiousness ' (Midrash '.£AAaA22). 
The name does not occur in other early writers, nor in 
Josephus (for the reading MiX75a\o in Vita 24 on which 
some older scholars depend for their location of 
Magdala on the E. of the Lake should be Pa/iaXa) ; 
nor even in Eusebius and Jerome. 

Willibald (about 722) passed from Tiberias 'round the sea, 
and by the village of Magdalum to the village of Capemaum.' 
Whether this was the Magdalum Castrum of Brocardus is less 
certain though most probable. It is doubtless that of a writer 
of the same century who after speaking of the Mensa Domini 
goes on to say ; ' Ibi prope juxta mare Tibcriadis versus 
Tabariam est locus quse dicitur Magdalon ' (Rob. BR S 279 n. 3, 
who refers for the citation to Steph. Baluzii, Miscellanea, tom, 
6369, Paris, 1713). Quaresmius (2866) mentions a Mejdel on 
Gennesaret in his lime and Ìdentifies it with Magdala, The 
name stili lives, on a site which is suitable to the media:val 
data, but too far N. to suit the Talmudic statement that 
Magdala was within a Sabbath day's journey of Tibetìas. 

On the Lake, in the SE. corner of the plain of 
Gennesaret, 3 m. NW. of Tiberias, near a stream which 
Comes down from the Wady el-Hamam, el-Mejdel is a 
miserable little village, with ' some indications of ancien! 
ruins both of walls and foundations ' {Wilson, Lands 
of the Bible, 213(1), probably a watch-tower guarding 
the entrance to the plain (Stanley, Sin. and Pai. 382). 
The country imniediately around is called the Ard et- 
Mejdel (Wilson), and is cultivated by the villagers 
and Bedouins. Some have taken it to represent the 

MlGDAL-EL [?.f.] of Josh. 1933. 

Besides the authorities quoted, see Llghlfoot, Oé. Post, yoi l 
PEFQ, t%Tj, p. .21^ ; Buhl, Pai. ^2$/. ; Schur. G/Vi?) 1 515 
= ET2 224 (on a proposed Identification with Tarichea:). 

G. A. S. 
MAGDALENE. See col. 2894, end ; alsa Mary, 

MAGDIEL {'!'NI*'n3D, § 38; 'God is ray costly 
possession ' ? cp perhaps the Palmyrene njo '33, the 
Sab. fem. name ^yi:D. and ijoDl. 33i3; M&reilH\ 
[AL]) a 'duke' of Edom 'in regione Gebalena' {OS 
13713). Gen.36„3 {m^TOÌihA [AD-'l-], m&AeAihX 
[E]; iCh.154. MeAmA [B], M&rAeHA [L]). ©«'s 
reading (cp Mahalaleel) suggests an originai Jerah- 
me'el (Che.). 

MAGED (i Macc. 536), RV Makeh. 

MAGI, MAGUS (M&roi, M&roc [Ti. WH]), Mt. 
2i ActslSót, RV-nS' (EV 'wise men," 'sorcerer'). Cp 
Magic, Stars. See also Zoroastrianism, Simon 
Magus, Jannes and Jambres. 

In ® fiayoi^Aram. '\l^t>, 'enchanter, magician,' Dan.lao 
(Theod, but © ^iXotró^ous), 2227 (Theod., ® ^apnoKStv), 5/ 
(Theod., ifiS tn-oitEoùiitiù^ap/iiotoi's). Cp /iaytuti»', ' lo practice 
sorcery,' etc, ActsSg. 


Definition (g i). OT terms (g 3). 

Factor in Hebrew life (S 2 a). In NT (g 4). 

In Babylonian religìon (§ 2 è). Bibliogtaphy (| 5). 
Magic may be brìefly described as the attempt on 
man's part to influence, persuade, or compel spiritual 
1 Definitian. '^'"S^ '° comply with certain requests 
or demands. It rests upon the belief 
that the powers in the world are controlied by spirits, 
and that therefore to be able to overrule these spirits is 



lo have the mastery of nature. In a narrow bnt later 
sense, magic has to do with feats of power, not of know- 
ledge, the relation between it and divination being com- 
parable to that between rairacìes and prophecy. At 
the beginning, and at the present time among savage 
people, this distinction is not drawn. Similarly, at the 
first, good spirits and bad spirits were not distinguished.^ 
There are, no doubt, many cases in which spirits are 
httle, if at ali, thought of. The means employed to ob- 
tain good or to obviate evil seem to have no connection 
with belief in spirits ; just as ritual acts are performed 
by some people with little or no thought of the deity or 
deìties they were originally believed to conciliate. Never- 
theless, however much the invocation or other charm 
may appear as cosmic means of influencing the forces 
of the universe as such, there was originally, as there 
stili is at bottom implied, an acknowledgment of spiritual 
beings who are influenced in these ways,"^ 

Such an acknowledgment is certainly made by the 
ancient narrative (JE) of the story of Balaam (see 
2a A factor ^^^^^"^^s)- That Balaam is a magician, 

in Hebrew '^ '^' ^" '^^ ''?^' °^ ancient Arabian 
j.- customs, impossìble to deny ; and it is 

equally clear that the reality of the power 
claimed by Balaam is acknowledged in the biblical 
account. Else why should Yahwè be represented as 
transferring Balaam's service to the cause of Israel?' 
Nor can we overlook the same acknowledgment in P's 
account of the Egyptian plagues* (Ex. 7-11). Moses 
throws down his rod and it becomes a serpent ; the 
magicians do the same (Ex.7ii/.). The reality of the 
transfer ma tion accomplished is not so much as doubted 
(see Serpent, § 3). Moses, by his rod, turns the water 
of Egypt into blood ; the magicians ' by their enchant- 
ments' do the same (Ex. 720-22). The case is similar 
with the piagne of frogs. The power of the magicians 
fails indeed when it is a question of producing gnats 
(Ex. 8i7[i3]/ ; EV Lice [f.».]). Even here, however, 
there is no scepticism as to the reality of magic. 

The word rendered magicians (□'SB'irr, /laWawrwiw)» is found 
in one of the older sources (Gen, 41 8 24 [E]), where it denotes 
the dream interpreters of Egypt— rhose whom the Pharaoh 
summoned to interpret his dream. In Exodus, on the other 
band, it stands for magicians in the narrower and stricter sense. 
The only other passages in which the word is used are in Dan., 
where the men so described are represented as living in Bahylon ; 
but_ as the hook was written in Palestine, and Gen. and Ex. in 
their present forni stood before the author, there is good ground 
for believing that the writer borrowed the word from 3ie old 

A trace of a belief in the efficacy of a plant is clearly 
seeninGen. 30 14 [J] where Reubenbrings L,ea.h. dùdà' im 
or Mandrakes (?.i'.). This plant was known among 
the northern Semites as Baaras (cp Jos. 5/ vii. 63), and 
was supposed by the Arabs and by the ancient Germans 

t Divination is hut a species of magic in the wider sense im- 
pjied in the first definition given aliove ; it is magic used in 
discovering the will of spiritual beings. See the present writer's 
Magic, etc.,^. i/. Divination has to do, however, usually with 
omens, and it is more convenient, as it is more usuai, to dis- 
tinguish magic and divination as is done above. 

2 Frazer (Golden Bough (2), 1 6i) takes magic proper to be a 
kind of savage logie, a crude species of reasoning based on 
similarity and contiguity. Where the operation of spirits is 
assumed (and ' these cases are exceplìonal '), magic is, according 
to him, 'tinged and alloyed with religion.' He admits, how- 
ever (pp. 67^), that in actual fact, such an assumption is often 
made, but he concludes from various considerations that 
'though_ magic is . , . found 10 fuse and amalgamate with 
religion in many ages, and in many lands, there are some grotlnds 
for thinking that this fusion is not primitive.' 

3 See Blessings and Cursings, and for Arabian illustrations 
see Goldziher (Abk. s. Arab. Philol. \r2f,ff. [1896]), who has 
shown that among the anci:m Arabs, as among the Jews, the 
magical words of biessing and of cursing played a prominent 
part. In war, the poet by cursing the eneray rendered service 
not second to that of the warrior himself; the uttered word 
was, in fact, a most potent ' fetish ' (Goldziher, 28). The Jews 
of Medina brought into their synagogues images of their arch foe 
Malik b. al-Aglara, and at these they huried curses every time 
they carne together. 

* In JE no such reference tò the magicians occurs. 

* For a Babylonian connection (Kaidamu) see Hommel, 
Exp. T, Feb. igoo, p, 234, 



lo be inhabited by a spirit which gave it extraordinary 
powers (see WRS Rei. SemA'^' 442, and cp Lang, Custom 
and Myth, 143^). The biblica! narrative ascribes to 
this plant effects which could not be supposed to follow 
from its naturai properties ; bui no disapprovai of its 
magical use is expressed either by the author or by the 
redactor. [Whitehouse, in Hastings' DB 3 210 A, 
connects dudd'fm with the nm of Mesha's inscription, 

l. 12, cp alSO ISSACHAR, § 2.] 

There is another incident recorded in the sanie chapter 
which belongs to the category of magic, though it is 
magic of the sympathetic or symbolic kind. (For a 
description of this see Jevons, Irtlr. to Hist. of Religion. 
28^, Yxz.z^\, Golden Bough.'?''^\s,<)ff.). The peeled rods 
which Jacob put in front of the sheep and goats as they 
carne to drink water, caused those that were pregnant to 
bring forth young that were spotted and striped (Gen. 
3037/". [J]) ; the naturai ex pian ation may be adequate, 
but it is probabie that more than this was in the mind 
of the writer. 

There is a good deal of uncerlainty as to the teraphim 
which Rachel stole when she and Jacob left her father's 
house, Gen. 31 19^ [E] (see Teraphim). They 
were of human form(iS. 19 13), and were looked upon as 
gods(Gen. 31 30 and Judg. 18 24}, though their possession 
is regarded as iilegitimate. (Josiah put them away with 
the wizards, etc, zK.23z4; cp Zech.lOa where they 
are associated with diviners. ) 

Among the Assyrians images of gods were kept in the 
house because they were believed to have the power of 
warding off evil spirits. A cerfain exorcist is said to 
have had statues of the gods Lugalgira and Alamu put 
one on each side of the niain entrance to his house, and 
in consequence, he felt perfectly impregnable against ali 
evil spirits (see Tallqvist, Assyr. Beschio. 23). 

It is probabie that in Gen. and elsewhere we should 
construe teraphim as a plural of ' excellence ' or of 
'majesty,' answeringto D"n'S(t (ElQhim), d'JI» (Adonlm). 
The teraphim were kept in the house as a guaranlee of 
good luck ; though orìginally perhaps idols, they were 
afterwards, and in biblica! times aimost exclusively, a 
kind of charm. That they had a magical import is 
suggested by Zech. lOz, where teraphim, diviners, and 
tellers of false dreams are put in the same category. The 
Genesis narrative, and also Hos. 34, show that teraphim 
were not always condemned. 

In the prohibition ' Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its 
mother's milk' (Ex. 23 19 SiaS Dt. 14 ai), many scholars, 
from Spencer (/>^. Heb. Hit. 1335^ [i732])downwards, 
have seen an allusion to a magical broth, prepared in 
order to give fertility to the fields ; ^ more prolàbly the 
reference is to an ancient form of sacrifice — similar to 
the^acrifice of blood (WRS A'e/. i'^w.'*' 221, n.). 

In Is. 32 the Kòsém (magician or diviner) is named 
along with the knight and the warrior, the judge, the 
prophet, and the elder, among the stays and supports of 
the nation ; of none of them is any disapprovai impUed. 

One great fact which induced the Hebrews to con- 
demn magic and the like was that it was so closely 
connected with idolatry ; in 2 K. 92z it seems identified 
with it. T. w. D. 

I. Place of -magic in Babylonian religion. — In the 
religion of the Babylonians magic always had a pro- 
2h In Bahv i"'rient place. Every misfortune, and 
lonitui religion. «^P^i^j^y ^1' ^ickness, was regarded 
° as arismg from some malign speli, 

a ban (mamttu), under which the sufferer had come. 
A ban of this kind could be incurred in ali possible 
ways— not only by the commission of positive acts of 
sin such as murder, adultery, theft, fraud, but also 
by neglect of ritual and ceremonial precepts, or by 
casual contact with persons or things which themselves 
lay under some ban. 

1 S'>-ncer adduces (340), as supporting his view, Maimonides, 
Abarbnnel, Nic. de Lyta, and an anonymous Kaiaite com- 



Ali the contlngencies in which the„ban can be incurred are 
exhaustively set forth in the second, third, and eighlh tablets* 
of the Surpu series of exorcism tablets. Thas, for example, we 
read in the second tablet : ' Has he [the bewitched person] Kiiined his god, been guilty towards his . . . Has he 
dishonoured his faiher and mother? . , . Has he used false 
weighis, circulated faUe money? . . . Has he approached his 
neighbour's wife, shed his neighbour's blood, slolen his neigh- 
bour's gatment ? ' The siime tablet, however, contains also the 
question whether the svifferer has slept on the bed of a bewitthed 
person, sat on his seat, eaten from bis dish, drunk from his cup. 

Alongside of this conception of a more or less im- 
personal visitation we find that other — doubtiess more 
primitive — in which malevolent divine beings, demons, 
or else human beings, wizards and witches, in leagne 
with these evil demons, are regarded as the producers 
of disease and disaster. The malign activily of these 
wicked spirits — in connection with whom the number 
seven is prominent (cp Lk.82 Mk. I69 Mt. I245)— is 
vividly depicted in the Babylonian exorcism texis. 

They are regarded as the spawn of hell. The wilderness is 
their favourite dwe 1 1 in g- place, whence they make their inroads 
tipon the abodes of men. Krom hou^e to house they make their 
haleful way, no bar or bolt bejng able to esclude them ; snake- 
like ihey steal througb doorways, windlìke through crevices. 
Their hostility to men is unsparing ; their influence is specially 
seen in the havoc they work on family life. They alienate 
husband and wife, farher and son, partners and friends, Of 
these Babylonian demons we meet with two representaCives in 
the OT; Lilitu (see Lilith) and the gedu (Heb. SedFm, see 

The activity of wizards and witches is in like manner 
fully and vividly set forth in the exorcism texts, especialiy 
in the exorcism tablets of Maklù.* Day and night the 
witches— for in this fìeld the female plays a much more 
conspicuous pari than the male — dog the steps of their 
vieti ms. 

The witches haunt the streets and public places, beset the 
vvayfarer, force their way iato houses. Their tongue hrings 
bewitchment, their lips breathe poison, death attends their foot- 
steps. A very favourite method of working their enchantments 
was, in popular belief, by means of figures of day, wood, dough, 
or the like. The tying of wìtch-knots was also largely resorted 
to. The most usuai Babylonian word for witch is kassaplu ; 
cp Heb. nswja (below, | 3 [2]). 

a. Methods of counteracting the evil power. — In corre- 
spondence with this deep and widespread belief in the 
power for evil wielded by demons and witches was the 
belief in the possibility of counteracting it ; and the 
methods by which this could be accomplished constituted 
an essential part of the religion of Baby!onia. The speli, 
the ban, to which a man was constantly liable demanded 
a counterspell, an exorcism. This was soughl in agreat 
variety of ways ; and the main part of the business of 
the exorciser lay in fìnding out which particular charm 
could be used against each particular speli. 

Here, water was regarded, above ali olher media, as of great 
efficacy. Sprinklings and washings with pure water, taken if 
possible from the sacred rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, 
accordingly have a large and ìmporlanl place in the Babylonian 
ceremonies of exorcism. Similarly, the power of breaking hostile 
spells was ascribed to tire. Hence the practice freely re.sorted 
to of placing a brazier aC the hedside of the sick and burning on 
it a great variety of substances so as to represeut symbolically 
the breaking of the speli. Besides water and fire, many plants 
and minerals of real or supposed healing virtue were brought 
into requisition, and thus the practice of magic constitutes the 
primitive stage in the practice of medicine. 

The evil demons who had laid their victim under a 
ban and taken possession of him were expelled by 
exorcism and driven back into the wilderness whence they 
had come. For the witches death by fire was regarded 
as the only appropriate punishment. 

Whether ,as matter of fact witch -burning was actiially 
practised by the Baliylonians cannot indeed, as yet, be quile 
clearly made out. At ali events the witches were burned in 
the effìgy which their victim kindled before the image of the 
divinity^ whose help he wished to invoke. The form taken by 
these witch -ad jurations is in many respects quhe similar to that 
of a legai process in which the bewitched person is the accuser, 
the witch the accused, and the divinity the judge. 

1 Translated by H. Zìmmern in Beitr. zur KeHttinh der 
Bob. Rei. i., 1396. 

2 Translated, with a useful introduction on Babylonian magic 
iti general, in K. Tallqvisc's Die Assyrische Besckivàrungssrrie 
Mayliì (iS^s). 



A ynatter of prime importance — and in this, relatively, 
Babylonian magic presents a good side — always was to 
secure the assistance of one or more of the good greater 
deitics in counleracting these assaults of demons and 
witches ; hence the frequent and fervent prayers stili 
preserved to us in the magica! lilcrature of Babylon. 

No notices of the practice of necromancy in the 
manner of i S. 28 have as yet been met with. Stili 
something quite siniilar can be read at the end of the 
Gilgames-Niinrod epic in the summoning of the spirit 
of Eabani by Gilgames with the assistance of Nergal 
(godof the under world).' Al ali events the Babylonians 
had quile the same ideas as the Israelites afxjut the 
spirit of the departed [ekimmu) and the possibility of 
causi ng it to appear. 

This is plainly shown by the repeated mention of the necro- 
mancer {ìttusèlu sa ekhnmu, literally, ' he who causes the spirit 
to come np ') in Babylonian lista of officiai names. Of special 
interest in connection with the Babylonian notìons regarding 
the diserabodied spirit is a text^ containing the prayer of one 
possessed by a ghost along with the petìtion for deliverance 
frum it. 

3. Soothsaying. — Alongside of magic, soothsaying 
also had an important place in the Babylon ian-Assyrian 
religion. Through the agency of the seer (bàrù) — a 
class of priest held in special esteeni — the effort was 
raade to obtain information as to the future from ali 
sorts of occurrences. The day tablets recovered at 
Nineveh from the library of Asur-bani-pal, the last of 
the great Assyrian kings, are full of texts 'containing 
omens of this description — whìch were taken from the 
flight of birds, from anomalous birth of man and beast, 
from the behaviour of certain animals, such as the pig, 
ass, horse, dog, serpent, scorpion, and locust. The in- 
terpretation of dreams, and especially the hepatoscopy, 
are important departments of soothsaying, and these 
two can be most clearly shown to have existed from 
the earliest times. Lastly, the cuneiform literature 
shows that astrology, the observing of the positions and 
combinations of the stars — a pursuit which has ever 
been, justly, regarded as having taken its rise in Baby- 
Ionia— influenced the entire life of the Babylonians in the 
highest degree. The Assyrian kings made estensive use 
of ali the methods of divination mentioned above, in de- 
termining their policy (cp Ezek. 2I21 [26]).^ H. Z. 

For the many terms used in the OT, several of which 
include both magic and divination, cp DiviNATiOM, 

3 OTTerma ^'^^' ^'^^ '^'""'^^ appear never to 

have had any exclusive reference to 

one or the other. These are hàkàmim foTion ; ao^ol, 

(ro<l>i(TTal) 'wise men ' and hartummim (o'Stnn; EV 

' magicians ' ). 

Hàkainlm is used of the counsellors of the Pharaoh (Is. 19 ii_^), 
and of the King of Persia (Esth. 1 13/^); hartummim, which 
may be rendered ' sacred scribes ' * (Gen. 41 B, RVnig-), is applied 
to the dream -interpreters of the Pharaoh (Gen. 41 8 24 E), and in 
post-exilic writings to the magicians at the Egyptian court 
(Ex.Tii 87(3] 9ii [P]), and to the dream-interpreters of 
Nebnchadrezzar (Dan. 2 2 27 4 7 [4] 5 11). 

The specific terms, of which the commonest is késem, 
are in some cases obscure. They are the following :— 

I. Késem (oDp). This word probably had originally 
a magical reference (Fleischer), though the secondary 
sense (see Divination. § 2 [i]) has almost driven out 
the primary. 

Cp Ar. kasanta, which (in 2 and 4), as well as the noun 
kisàma (' oath '), has a distinctive magical meaning ; also the 
Syriac aivmì, ' toexorcise/slrictly* to makeswear,' and likewise 
the Gr. opwia TffiptwSai^'to mate an oath,' and then ' to make 
a covenant with," W. R. Smith, however (/. Phil. 13273), and 

1 See Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod (1394), p. 42; Jensen in 
Schrader's KB, vi. 1 263. 

2 L. W. ^\\\z, HabyìOKia». Magic and Sar-cery iiSg6), no. $3 ; 
cp also H. Meissner in ZDMG 50, 750 (1B96). 

3 See Zimmern, Beitr. z. Kenntn. d. Bah. Rei., p. 82^ (1901). 
* DDin is derived by _G. Hoffmann (Z^ TW'Sag) from Arab. 

(hafm) ' nose,' and expiained as meaning ' one who speaks in a 
low nasal Ione' (cp /3ÌVp. Divination, % 2, and yóijTrs, below, 
S 4)- ® gives variously i%-n-piTa.Ì (expounders), èirooiSot 
(chanters, those who say incantations), and ^apfiajtot (those who 
use drugs for magical ends). 



Wellhausen {Heid.i\), 128, Heid_.<^), 133, n. 5), both take the con- 
trary view ; Smith making ' decision ' (cp Prov. Itì io and Targ.), 
Wellhausen 'allotment or distribution,' the fund amen tal meaning. 
The present writer difFers wich reluctance from such eniitienl 
authorities. It is true that there are cases in which the Ar. word 
has ihe sense of divination (e.g., Kuran5 4), ' obtaininga divine 
decreeby hcadless arrows, etc.,' and thac in Aram., the same 
slgniiìcation is most common ; buC we must remember that in 
early times magic and divination came under one category. 

The primary sense may be one which includes both 
the special ones. Of the two senses that of magic 
secms much more likely to be the originai. 

2. From sJ^^P' fj^^ (2 Ch. 336 ' to use wìtchcraft,' 
RV ' practice sorcery ') are derived kassdph (rt^s ; 
Jer. 279) and m'kasUph (fjtf'Dp, Ex. 7ii Dan. 22 Mal. 85) 
rendered byEV'sorcerer' {inDt. 18 io, and Ex. 22i3[i7]: 
fem. naB-^o, AV 'witch,' RV 'sorceress'). 

W. R. Smith derives from Ar. kasa/a, ' to cut,' the Hebrew 
word having in it the idea of cutting oneself in coming to the 
deity (see i K. 18 28 and Jer. 41 5). He points ouc that it is stili 
common in Arabia for a person guilty of some wrong to cut 
himself in the presence of the wronged person as a sign of re- 
pentance. The noun késhàpktm (□"SK'a) he takes to mean 
'herbs or drugs shredded imo a magic brew.' (Cp Ar. kis/a, 
' bils of things.') The meaning of verb and noun, however, are 
unconnected, and though in Mie. 5 ji (12] CBc^ may «^H bave 
the meaning of material drugs, in z K. 9 22 and Nah. 3 4 (EV 
' witchcraft '), it cannot have that meaning, nocwithstanding ffi 
i^óp/iaKa. Nor is this sense suitable in Is. 47 12, nor in Nu. 233 
(where we shouid perhaps read with Kue. vaiy^? iS'l)' 

The present writer foUows Fleischer, who argues for 
its derivation from Ar. {kasafa) ■ to obscure,' of the sun 
and moon ■ to ecUpse.' If the derivation just suggested 
were adopted, the Hebrew might denoie first of ali ' to 
have dark appearance," then 'to be gloomy,' 'distressed,' 
and finally ' to be a suppliant,' ■ to seek something from 
the deity ' ; cp the Syriac ethkesheph to entreat. ' 

The Syriac word, in ali tbe twelve instances in OT where 
kaskaph (ws), in one or other of its forms occurs, is heresk. 
Nowin the simpleform this verb means 'to be sileni — Le., to re ' 
strainone's voice. In the Fa. and Aph. it means topractise magical 
arts. To dislinguish two separate roois (wìch the Lexx.) would 
seem to be unnecessary. Suppose the primary sense lo be ' to 
restrain,' then ' to keep one's voice under,' ' to speak in a low 
mumbling tone'; we have in that case a link of connection 
with themeaning in the derived form, for themagician utters bis 
incantatìons in such a suppressed tone. Smith, however, con- 
nects the Syriac word with the rare Arabie term kurs and hursa 
= a kind of food given to women in child-bearing, which was a 
drug, thus agreòng emaci ly with ^apfimca. ■ 

3. Ldkas{àTh), 'enchantment' (cp Is. 83, i^n^ pai, RV 
' a skilfiil enchanter ' ) is used more specifìcally of serpent- 
charming (Jer. 817 Eccles. 10 11 ; cp tirha Ps- 58 5 [6] 
'charmer'}. and hence of any charm which could be 
worn, cp Is. Szo (n'tPnS, RV ' amulets ').^ 

The primary meaning of the word may perhaps be seen in 
zS. 12ig Ps.4l7£3], noe however in Is. 26 is (see SBOT). It 
has been thought that lahas (cn'?) 3-"d nahas (kTu) may have a 
kindred orÌgÌn, and it is at any rate singular that Ihe Arabie 
equìvalents of both^ are used in the sense of uniucky. 

4. Héber (Ijn), found only in pi. (Is. 479 '^ ' enchantments ) 
or in connection with hSbér, "I3n (Dt. I811 Ps. 685 [5], 
' chatmer'), is expiained by Ges. (Tkes. 1 441) to mean binding 
or tying — i.e., of magical knots.* Similarly Smith, who says it 
Ì5 used to denote the tying togetber of words in order to con- 
stitute an incantation. He (followed by Ges.|lS|-Euhl[2), and 
Sieg.-St., also by Stade^ CVl\ 505, and Dr. Beut., ad /oi:.) goes 
back to tbe Jeivish tradition which sees in the word some kind 
of snake-charming. Note the parallelism in Ps. 58 5 [6]. 

Here we may refer to the Rabbinical pernia' (JJ'Dp), 'amulet,' 
from j;oa, ' to bind.' Most likely it sign iti es something bonnd to 
a person, with no reference therefore to magical tying. It is the 

1 Cp also Ar. kàsif, ' unIucky ' (of days). Noie that Fleischer 
(Levy, JVHlVÌ4.s<)a) takes Ar. kasafa in the derived sense of 
speaking in a low, murmuring tone. 

3 Similarly t^SJ 'M (/i^.), AV 'tablets,' RV ' perfume boxes,' 
is taken by Smith to be a kind of amulet. 

3 Lahasa ijislàhfis, 'uniucky ')and nahasa^nahs, 'uniucky'), 
Cp Serpent, S i [3]- 

* Cp Ar. kabar, a narrative — (.«., a series of words bound to- 
gether. Or we may argue for a derivation from ha&ara, to be 
beautiful, from an (assumed) eariier, but lost meaning ' to 
weave, bind.' So ini? hdblr, a companion, one that is bound 
(to an individuai or society), cp T. W, Davies, Magic etc, ss/- 


Rabbinical term for phylacteries ; see Frontlf.ts. It is not at 
ali impossible that Jesus' words in Mt. Hi ly 18 iB weie suggested 
by this magica! pracdtie, known in his time and in bis country as 
in ali times and lands. See BiNUiNc; and Loosing, 

j. Ai,4(/^)^'^■(^^B•) in Is- 47 ii, jsesplained by the great majority 
of critics (Hi. Ew. DÌ. etc.) 'to charm (away),' or the like (so 
RVitie). This fan he well defended (see the Comm.) ; but the 
abaence of any analogy in Heb. and Aram, favours the view 
ihat the lext is corrupt.* 

Among the ancients theemployment of certaitiformulas 
was considered efficacious in proportion to the rnimber 
^ ^„ of repetitions. In India to-day if an ascetic 
* says in one month the name of Radha, 
Krishna, or Roni 100,000 times, he cannot fail to 
obtain what he wants ; and ìt is in the same spirit that 
Moslem dervishes renew their shrieks or whirlings. 
Similarly. the propheis of Baal called upon their god 
from morning until night, saying ' Baal, hear us,' 
I K. 18=6. 

The words of Jesus * say not the same thing over and 
over again ' (Mt. 67 ^^ ^arToKoyiaijre^) have reference 
to the same superstìtion. 

In 2 Tim. 813 7ÓijTes (from 70£Ìa», 'tosigh,' ' to utter 
low moaning tones ' ) ìs used of a class of magicians who 
uttered certain magical formulse in a low deep voice. 
They were to be found, according to Herodotus, in 
Egypt (233) and elsewhere (4io5 7i9i) ; they are 
mentioned also by Euripides and Plato. 

Paul, in addressing the Galatians (620), names among 
the Works of the fiesh ^pfiaKfla [EV ' sorcery '] ; Syr. 
harràihùtha ; Heb. versions of Salk. and Del. a'BiP3 
\kishdphlm\, which is closely connected wìth idolatry 
by being placed next after it. It is not possible here to 
do more than mention Simon Magus (ActsSg/^) and 
Bar-jesus, the sorcerer whom Lk. calls also Elymas 
(Acls 138). This name the writer explains by /tÓTOS ; 
it is really the Arabie ('Àlim), 'learned,' which is much 
the same in sense as jiàyo'i (cp Simon Magus, Elvmas). 


F. B. l^\(m^, Introd. fa Hist. 0/ Rei., 1896; A. C. Lyall, 
Asiaiic Studies, chap. 4; E. B. Tylor, art. 'Magic," EB[^\ 

Frazer, Golden Bcmg-Ai'iì 1 7-128 ; W. R. 
B. SìbliOgrapby. Smith's artides in /. /'A//. (13 27 3; 288 

i4 113-128) treat ably on the principal 
biblical terms. Cp also Rei. Sem. 2+6 427, et passim ; Driver 
on Deut. 18 io f. EV ; T. Witton DavLes, Magic, Dì-aina- 
iion, and Deinonology atnong the Hebrevjs and related 
feoples (1898) ; Scholz, GStzendiensi ttnd Zatibenx'esen bei den 
Hehrdern, 1877 (uncritical) ; D, Joel, Der Aberglaabe und aie 
Stellung des /udtnthunis za demselbcn (1S81-83). 

On the Bab. Magic, cp the work of Lenormant — now of course 
somewhat antiquated \La magìe c/iez les Ckaldéens et les origines 
Accadiennes, 1874 ; Ckaldcan Magic, its origin and dcvelop- 
ment, rrans. with add. by the author, 1877; Die Magie -und 
ÌVahrsage-Kunst dcrCkaldder, 1B78). Lenormant is tobesup- 
plemented by reference to the various Works ctied in g 2 i ; see 
alsotherelativeseclionsin Tiele's/(^(7, 1886 ; and Gesc A. der Nel. 
ÌM Alterthtini, 1893 ; in A. H. Sayce's ' Origin and Growth of 
Rei.' illibheri Leclures), 1888 ; in Hommers Die Sem. Vglker- 
». Sprachen, 1888 ; (by F. Jeremias) in Chantepie de la Saus- 
saye's I.fh-rb. der Rel.-geschj^i, 1897 ; and in Jastrow, Rei. 0/ 
Bob. and Ass., 1898; L, W. King, Babylonian Magic and 
Sotcery (1896) ; Zimraern, ' Beitrage zur Kenntnis der bab. Re- 
ligion in Assyriolog. Biblioihek., Bd. xii., with L. W. Kìng's 
review in AJSL 13 142 j?! H. Z. , § 2 1* ; T. W. D. 

MAGISTRATE. See generally Government, Law 
AND Jl-stice. 

The terms to be enumerated are tìve — 

1. OSiP j^/Af((Dt. IGiaetc). SeeJuDGE, 1. 

2. "l-^J" B'Tij'óreJ"Af?'(Judg. 187+) RV 'possessingauthority' 
(mg. 'power of restraint'), an impossible rendering (Moore). 
The text is very corrupt. In connection with other eroendations, 
and parallel cases of misunderstood references to the N. Arabian 
Musri (see MI^BAl^[, § 2I/), it may be best to regard both iff-y 

1 Ges.(l31-Bi..(2) (followed by Che. 'Isaiah,' SBOT, Heb.) 
most felicitously leads for TCiTW i" mntj- Render: ' There 
shall come upon thee an evil which ihou art not able lo prevent 
by payment.' Note the use of the verb in Job622, and the 
parallelism of 153 and infe'