Skip to main content

Full text of "A Dictionary of the Bible : comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history"

See other formats














The right of Translatian is reserved. 



Plate 1., Specimens of Greek MSS. from the 1st to the Vlth century, to be 
placed between pages 516 and 517. 

Plate II., Specimens of Greek MSS. from the Xth to the XlVth century, to be 
placed between pages 518 and 510. 




II. A. Very Rev. HENRY ALFOIID, D.D., 

Dean of Canterbury. 


Wai'den of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury ; late Fellow 
of St. John's College, Cambridge. 


Kelso, N. B. ; Author of ' The Land of Promise.' 

[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar: those on other subjects, 
signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.] 


Principal of Cheltenham College ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 

Vicar of Hay, Brecknockshire. 


Canon of Canterbury ; Vicar of Ware ; late Fellow and Tutor 
of Trinity College, Cambridge. 


Vice-Principal of King William's College, Isle of Man ; late 
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 


Archdeacon of Bath ; Canon of Wells ; Eector of Weston- 
super-Mare ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Bath 
and Wells , Chaplain to Her Majesty's Forces. 


Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter. 


Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts. 


Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire. 

F. C. C. Eev. F. C. COOK, M.A., 

Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; one of Her Majesty's 
Inspectors of Schools ; Preacher to the Hon. Society of 
Lincoln's Inn ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of 


Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India. 


Eector of Christ Church, Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 




British Museum. 

G. E. D. Rev. G. E. DAY, D.D., 

Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. 


Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ; 
Rural Dean ; Vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry 


Prebendary of Salisbury ; Principal of the Theological 
College, Salisbury. 

Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 


Assistant Master of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 


late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. 

Lord Bishop of Killaloe. 


Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels Royal. 


late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. 


Crystal Palace, Sydenham. 

II. B. II. Rev. H. B. HACKETT D.D., 

Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts. 

E. II — s. Rev. ERNEST HAWKINS, B.D., 

Prebendary of St. Paul's ; Secretary of the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 


Head Master of the Grammar School, Cheltenham ; late 
Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 

A. C. H. Yen. Lord ARTHUR C. HERVEY, M.A., 

Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Rector of Ickworth. 


Head Master of Merchant Taylors' School ; Preacher to the 
Hon. Society of Gray's Inn; Prebendary of St. Paul's ; 
Bampton Lecturer for 1860. 

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kcw. 




Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ; Principal of 
Cosin's Hall ; Tutor in the University of Durham. 


Rector of Preston on the Weald Moors, Salop. 


Principal of the Collegiate Institution, Liverpool ; Hulsean 
Lecturer for 1863. 


Subdean of Wells. 

Prebendary of York and of St. David's ; late Fellow and 

Tutor of University College, Oxford ; Examining 

Chaplain to the Archbishop of York. 



Hebrew Lecturer in King's College, London. 

Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Fellow dt 
Trinity College, Cambridge; Examining Chaplain to 
the Bishop of London. 

D. W. M. Rev. D. W. MARKS, 

Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. 


One of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools ; late Fellow 
and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. 

Oppert. Professor OPPERT, of Paris. 


Fellow and Tutor of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. 

Archdeacon of Suffolk ; late Fellow of Brasenose College, 


Yice-Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich. 


Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge ; 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich. 


Rector of Staunton-on-Wye, Herefordshire ; VJural Dean; 
late Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 


Professor of Divinity in King's College, London ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 

South Kensington Museum. 



British Museum. 

J. L. P. Rev. J. L. POSTER, M.A., 

Author of ' Handbook of Syria and Palestine,' and « Fivo 
Years in Damascus.' 


Hon. Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society; late 
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 


Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford; Bampton 
Lecturer for 1859. 


Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. 


Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; Lady Margaret's Pro 
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely. 


Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford; Deputy Clerk of the Closet; 
Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales ; 
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 

C. E. S. Rev. CALVIN E. STOWE, D.D., 

Professor of Sacred Literature, Andover, Massachusetts. 

J. P. T. Rev. J. P. THOMPSON, D.D., 
New York. 

Lord Archbishop of York. 


Author of ' An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek 
New Testament.' 

H. B. T. Rev. H. B. TRISTRAM, M.A., F.L.S., 

Master of Greatham Hospital. 

Vicar of Barrington ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Carnb. 

Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. 

Bonchurch, Isle of Wight. 

B. F. W. Rev. BROOKE Foss WESTCOTT, M.A., 

Assistant Muster of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Canon of Westminster. 

Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Hebrew Examiner 
in the University of London. 





Kaj8a<rai7\ ; Alex. Kacr6ffi\ : Cabseel, Capsael), 
one of the " cities " of the tribe of Juclah ; the first 
named in the enumeration of those next Edom, and 
apparently the farthest south (Josh. xv. 21). 
Taken as Hebrew, the word signifies " collected by 
God," and may be compared with JOKTHEEL, the 
name bestowed by the Jews on an Edomite city. 
Kabzeel is memorable as the native place of the 
great hero BENAiAH-ben-Jehoiada, in connexion 
with whom it is twice mentioned (2 Sam. xxiii. 20 ; 
1 Chr. xi. 22). After the captivity it was rein- 
habited by the Jews, and appears as JEKABZEEL. 

It is twice mentioned in the Onomasticon — as 
Ko$<re^\ and Capseel ; the first time by Eusebius 
(inly, and apparently confounded with Carmel, un 
less the conjecture of Le Clerc in his notes on the 
passage be accepted, which would identify it with 
the site of Elijah's sleep and vision, between Beer- 
sheba and Horeb. No trace of it appears to have 
been discovered in modern times. [G.] 


j:> : KdSris, KciSjjs Eapv-f,, Kc£Syjs roS 
). This place, the scene of Miriam's death, was 
the farthest point to which the Israelites reached in 
their direct road to Canaan ; it was also that whence 
the spies were sent, and where, on their return, the 
people broke out into murmuring, upon which their 
strictly penal term of wandering began (Num. xrii. 
3, 26, xiv. 29-33, xx. 1 ; Deut. ii. 14). It is pro 
bable that the term " Kadesh," though applied to 
signify a " city," yet had also a wider application 
to a region, in which Kadesh-Meribah certainly, 
and Kadesh-Barneri probably, indicates a precise 
spot. Thus Kadesh appears as a limit eastward of 
the same tract which was limited westward by 
Shur (Gen. xx. 1). Shur is possibly the same as 
Sihor, "which is before Egypt" (xxv. 18 ; Josh. 
xiii. 3 ; Jer. ii. 18), and was the first portion of the 
wilderness on which the people emerged from the 
passage of the Red Sea. [SHUR.] " Betwewi Ka 
desh and Bered " is another indication of the site of 
Kadesh as an eastern limit (Gen. xvi. 14), for the 
|K>int so fixed is " the fountain on the way to Shur" 
v. 7), and the range of limits is narrowed by se 
lecting the western one not so far to the west, while 
the eastern one, Kadesh, is unchanged. Again, we 
have Kadesh as the point to which the 1'on.y of 


Chedorlaomer " returned " — a word which does nol 
imply that they had previously visited it, but that 
it lay in the direction, as viewed from Mount Seir 
and Paran mentioned next before it, which was 
that of the point from which Chedorlaomer had 
come, viz. the North. Chedorlaomer, it seems, 
coming down by the eastern shore of the Dead Sea 
smote the Zuzims (Ammon, Gen. xiv. 5 ; Deut. ii. 
20), and the Emims (Moab, Deut. ii. 11), and the 
Horitos in Mount Seir, to the south of that SCR, 
unto " El-Paran that is by the wilderness." He 
drove these Horites over the Arabah into the Et- 
Tih region. Then " returned," i. e. went north 
ward to Kadesh and Hazazon Tamar, or Engedi 
(comp. Gen. xiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. xx. 2). In Gen. xiv. 7 
Kadesh is identified with En-Mishpat, the " foun 
tain of judgment," and is connected with Tamar, or 
Hazazon Tamar, just as we find these two in the 
comparatively late book of Ezekiel, as designed to 
mark the southern border of Judah, drawn through 
them and terminating seaward at the " River to,' 
or " toward the Great Sea." Precisely thus siauds 
Kadesh-Barnea in the books of Numbers and Joshua 
(comp. Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28; Num. xxxiv. 4; 
Josh. xv. 3). Unless then we are prepared to make 
a double Kadesh for the book of Genesis, it seems idle 
with Reland (Palestine, p. 114-7) to distinguish 
the "En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh," from that to^ 
which the spies returned. For there is an identity 
about all the connexions of the two, which, if not 
conclusive, will compel us to abandon all possible 
inquiries. This holds especially as regards Paran 
and Tamar, and in respect of its being the eastern 
limit of a region, and also of being the first point of 
importance found by Chedorlaomer on passing round 
the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. In a strik 
ingly similar manner we have the limits of a route, 
apparently a well-known one at the time, indicated 
by three points, Horeb, Mount Seir, Kadesh-Barnea, 
in Deut. i. 2, the distance between the extremes 
being fixed at "11 days' journey," or about 165 
miles, allowing 15 miles to an average day's 
journey. This is one element for determining the 
site of Kadesh, assuming of course the .position ot 
Horeb ascertained. The name of the place to 
which the spies returned is " Kadesh" simply, in 
Num. xiii. 26, and is there closely connected with 
the " wilderness of Paran;" yet the "wilderness 
of Zin " stands in near conjunction, as the point 
whence the " search " of the spies commenced (vcr. 
2 1). Again, in Num. xxxii. 8, we find that it wat 


from K:xlt>.sli-r>;ini<';i that the mission of the spies 
commenced, and in the rehearsed narrative of the 
same event iu Deut. i. 19, and ix. 23, the name 
'' Barnea" is also added. Thus far there seems no 
reasonable doubt of the identity of this Kadesh with 
that of Genesis. Again, in Num. xx., we find the 
people encamped in Kadesh after reaching the wil 
derness of Zin. For the question whether this was 
a second visit (supposing the Kadesh identical with 
that of the spies), or a continued occupancy, see 
the " wilderness of Zin " is in favour of the identity 
of this place with that of Num. ziii. The reasons 
which seem to have fostered a contrary opinion are 
the absence of water (ver. 2) and the position as 
signed — " in the uttermost of" the " border " of 
Edom. Yet the murmuring seems to have arisen, 
or to have been more intense on account of their 
having encamped there in the expectation of finding 
water ; which affords again a presumption of iden 
tity. Further, "the wilderness of Zin along by 
the coast of Edom " (Num. xxxiv. 3 ; Josh, xv.) 
destroys any presumption to the contrary arising 
from that position. Jerome clearly knows of but one 
and the same Kadesh — " where Moses smote the 
rock," where " Miriam's monument," he says, " was 
still shown, and where Chedorlaomer smote the 
rulers of Amalek." It is true Jerome gives a dis 
tinct article on Kuourjs, tvOa f) iHj-yr; rijs Kpi- 
fffus, i.e. En-mishpat, a but only perhaps in order to 
record the fountain as a distinct local fact. The 
apparent ambiguity of the position, first, in the 
wilderness of Paran, or in Paran ; and secondly in 
that of Zin, is no real increase to the difficulty. 
For whether these tracts were contiguous, and Ka 
desh on their common border, or ran into each 
other, and embraced a common territory, to which 
the name " Kadesh," in an extended sense, might 
be given, is comparatively unimportant. It may, 
however, be observed, that the wilderness of Paran 
commences, Num. x. 12, where that of Sinai ends, 
and that it extends to the point, whence in ch. xiii. 
the spies set out, though the only positive identifi 
cation of Kadesh with it is that in xiii. 26, when 
on their return to rejoin Moses they come " to the 
wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh." PARAN then was 
evidently the general name of the great tract south 
of Palestine, commencing soon after Sinai, as the 
people advanced northwards, — that perhaps now 
known as the desert Et-TVi. Hence, when the spies 
are returning southwards they return to Kadesh, 
viewed as in the wilderness of Paran ; though, in 
the same chapter, when stalling northwards on 
their journey, they commence from that of Zin. It 
seems almost to follow that the wilderness of Zin 
must have overlapped that of Paran on the north side; j 
or must, if they were parallel and lay respectively east i 
and west, have had a further extension northwards 
than this latter. In the designation of the southern j 
border of the Israelites also, it is observable that 
the wilderness of Zin is mentioned as a limit, but 
nowhere that of Paran b (Num. xxxiv. 3; Josh. xv. 

* /nother short article of Jerome's, apparently 
referred to by Stanley (S. $ P. 93 note), as relating 
likewiEe to En-mishpat, should seem to mean some 
thing wholly different, viz., the well of Isaac and 
ibirr.elech in Gcrar : <J>peop Kpurecos eij fri vvv «ori 
(Cji/riT BTJP&U' (plUeus judicit) xoAovfic'ci) iv rfj Tepa- 


b There is a remarkable interpolation in the LXX., 
or (as seems less probable) omission in the preneiit 
llcb. text of Num. xxxiii. £6, where, in following the 


1), unless the dwelling of Ishn.aei "in the wi'ulrt 
ness of Paran" (Gen. xxi. 21) indicates that, on 
the western portion of the southern border, which 
the story of Hagar indicates as his dwelling-place, 
the Paran nomenclature prevailed. 

If it be allowed, in the dearth of positive testi 
mony, to follow great natural boundaries in suggest 
ing an answer to the question of the situation of 
these adjacent or perhaps overlapping wildernesses, it 
will be seen, on reference to Kiepert's map (in Robin 
son, vol. i. ; see also Russeger's map of the same 
region), that the Arabah itself and the plateau west- 
ward of it are, when we leave out the commonly 
so-called Sinaitic peninsula (here considered as cor 
responding in its wider or northerly portion to " the 
wilderness of Sinai"), the two parts of the whole 
region most strongly partitioned off from and con 
trasted with one another. On this western plateau 
is indeed superimposed another, no less clearly 
marked out, to judge from the map, as distinct 
from the former as this from the Arabah; but 
this higher ground, it will be further seen, probably 
corresponds with " the mountain of the Amorites." 
The Arabah, and its limiting barrier of high ground* 
on the western side, differ by about 400 or 500 feet 
in elevation at the part where Robinson, advancing 
from Petra towards Hebron, ascended that barrier 
by the pass el Kh&rar. At the N.W. angle of the 
Arabah the regularity of this barrier is much broken 
by the great wadys which converge thither; but 
from its edge at el Kkiirar the great floor stretches 
westward, with no great interruption of elevation, 
if we omit the superimposed plateau, to the Egyp 
tian frontier, and northward to Khinocolura and Gaza. 
Speaking of it apparently from the point of view at 
el Khurar, Robinson (ii. 586-7) says it is " not 
exactly a table-land, but a higher tract of country, 
forming the first of the several steps or offsets into 
which the ascent of the mountains in this pirt is 
divided." It is now known as the wilderness Et- 
Tih. A general description of it occurs in Robinson 
(i. 261-2), together with a mention of the several 
travellers who had then previously visited it : its 
configuration is given, ib. 294. KtiiisEt-Tt/t region 
represent the wilderness of Paran, then the Arabah 
itself, including all the low ground at the southern 
and south-western extremity of the Dead Sea, may 
stand for the wilderness of Zin. The superimposed 
plateau has an eastern border converging, towards 
the north, with that of the general elevated tract 
on which it stands, i. e. with the western barrier 
aforesaid of the Arabah, but losing towards its higher 
or northern extremity its elevation and predseness, 
in proportion as the general tract on which it stands 
appears to rise, till, near the S.W. curve of the 

various stages of the march, we find lespectively as 
follows : — 


urn -oa 



(tai dn-Tjpaj' e»c Tcviloir Taflep «ai irapere/SaAoy in rf 
«PW<C 'StV, (tat amjpai> « rijs «pij/iov 2iV, «al napttrt- 
£aAoi/ cU T7IV ipniiov bdpav avnj (cm. Koto^. 

The LXX. would make them approach the wilderness 
of Sin first, and that of Paran secondly, thus reversing 
the effect of the above observations. 

• Called, at least throughout a portion of its court*. 
Jvbel el Devanfh. 


Dead Sea, the higher platen u and the generd tract 
appear to blond. The convergency in question arises 
from the general tract having, on its eastern side, 
i. c. where it is to the Arabah a western limit, a 
barrier running more nearly N. and S. than that of 
the superimposed plateau, which runs about E.N.E. 
and W.S.W. This highest of the two steps on 
which this terrace stands is described by Williams 
(Holy City., i. 463-4), who approached it from 
Hebron — the opposite direction to that in which 
Hobinson, mounting towards Hebron by the higher 
Bass Es-Sufdh,-* came upon it — as " a gigantic na 
tural rampart of lofty mountains, which we could 
distinctly trace for many miles 6 E. and W. of the 
spot on which we stood, whose precipitous promon 
tories of naked rock, forming as it were bastions of 
Cyclopean architecture, jutted forth in irregular 
masses from the mountain-barrier into the southern 
wilderness, a confused chaos of chalk." ' Below the 
traveller lay the Wady Murreh, running into that 
(tailed El-Fikreh, identifying the spot with that de 
scribed by Robinson (ii. 587) as " a formidable 
barrier supporting a third plateau " (reckoning ap 
parently the Arabah as one), rising on the other, 
i. e. northern side of the Wady el-Fikreh. But 
the southern face of this highest plateau is a still 
more strongly defined wall of mountains. The 
Israelites must probably have faced it, or wandered 
along it, at some period of their advance from the 
wilderness of Sinai to the more northern desert of 
1'aran. There is no such boldly-marked line of clirls 
north of the Et-Tili and El-Odjmek ranges, except 
perhaps Mount Seir, the easterri limit of the Arabah. 
There is a strongly marked expression in Deut. i. 
7, 19, 20, "the mountain of the Amorites," which 
besides those of Seir and Hor, is the only one men 
tioned by name after Sinai, and which is there closely 
connected with Kadesh Bariiea. The wilderness 
(that of Paran) " great and terrible," which they 
passed through after quitting Horeb (vers. 6, 7, 
19), was " by the way of" this " mountain of the 
Amorites." " We came," says Moses, " to Kadesh 
Barnea ; and I said unto you, ye are come unto the 
mountain of the Amorites." Also in ver. 7, the 
adjacent territories of this mountain-region seem 
not obscurely intimated ; we have the Shephelah 
(" plain ") and the Arabah (" vale "), with the 
" hills" (" hill-country of Judah ") between them ; 
and " the South " is added as that debateable out 
lying region, in which the wilderness strives with 
the inroads of life and culture. There is no natural 
feature to correspond so well to this mountain of 
the Amorites as this smaller higher plateau super 
imposed on Et-Tth, forming the watershed of the 
two great systems of wadys, those north-westward 
towards the great Wady-el-Arish, and those north 
eastward towards the Wady Jerafeh and the great 
Wady-el-Je*b. Indeed, in these converging wady- 
systems on either side of the " motintain,"\ve have 
a desert-continuation of the same configuration of 
country, which the Shephelah and Arabah with 
their interposed watershedding highlands present 
further north. And even as the name AKABAII 
is plainly continued from the Jordan valley, so as 
to menu the great arid trough between the Dead 
Sea and Elath ; so perhaps the Shet'elah (" vale ") 


might naturally be viewed as continued to the 
" river of Egypt." And thus the •• mountain of the 
Amorites" would merely continue the mountain- 
mass of Judah and Ephraim, as forming part 
of the land "which the Lord our God doth give 
unto us." The south-western angle of this higher 
plateau is well defined by the bluff peak of 
Jebel 'Ardif, standing in about 30° 22' N., by 
34° 30' E. Assuming the region from Wady 
Feiran to the Jebel Mousa as a general basis 
for the position of Horeb, nothing farther south 
than this Jebel 'Ardif appears to give the neces 
sary distance from it for Kadesh, nor would any 
point on the west side of the western face of this 
mountain region suit, until we get quite high up 
towards Beersheba. Nor, if any site in this direc 
tion is to be chosen, is it easy to account for " the 
way of Mount Seir " being mentioned as it is, Deut. 
i. 2, apparently as the customary route " from 
Horeb" thither. But if, as further reasons will 
suggest, Kadesh lay probably near the S.W. curve 
of the Dead Sea, then " Mount Seir" will be with 
in sight on the E. during all the latter part of the 
journey " from Horeb " thither. This mountain 
region is in Kiepert's map laid down as the territory 
of the AzAzimeh, but is said to be so wild and 
rugged that the Bedouins of all other tribes avoid 
it, nor has any road ever traversed it (Robinson, 
i. 186). Across this then there was no pass ; the 
choice of routes lay between the road which leading 
from Elath to Gaza and the Shephelah, passes to 
the west of it, and that which ascends from the 
northern extremity of the Arabah by the Ma'aleh 
Akrabbim towards Hebron. The reasons for think 
ing that the Israelites took this latter course are, 
that if they had taken the western, Beersheba would 
seem to have been the most natural route of their 
first attempted attack (Robinson, i. 187). It would 
also have brought them too near to the land of the 
Philistines, which it seems to have been the Divine 
purpose that they should avoid. But above all, the 
features of the country, scantily as they are noticed 
in Num., are in favour of the eastern route from 
the Arabah and Dead Sea. 

One site fixed on for Kadesh is the Ain es Shey- 
dbeh on the south side of this " mountain of the 
Amorites," and therefore too near Horeb to fulfil 
the conditions of Deut. i. 2. Messrs. Rowlands and 
Williams (Holy City, i. 463-8) argue strongly in 
favour of a site for Kadesh on the west side of this 
whole mountain region, towards Jebel Helal, where 
they found " a large single mass or small hill of solid 
rock, a spur of the mountain to the north of it, 
immediately rising above it, the only visible naked 
rock in the whole district." They found salient 
water rushing from this rock into a basin, but soon 
losing itself in the sand, and a grand space for the 
encampment of a host on the S.W. side of it. In 
favour of it they allege, 1, the name K&des or 
KMes, pronounced in English K&ddase or KMddse, 
as being exactly the form of the Hebrew name 
Kadesh ; 2, the position, in the line of the southern 
boundary of Judah ; 3, the correspondence with 
the order of the places mentioned, especially the 
places Adar and Azmon, which these travellers re 
cognize in Adeirat and Aseimeh, otherwise (as in 

d There are three nearly parallel passes leading to 
the same level : this is the middle one of the three. 
Schubert (Reise, ii. 441-3) appears to have taken the 
came path ; Bcrtou that on the W. side, El Yemen. 

* This is only the direction, or apparent direction, 

of the range at the spot, its general one being as above 
stated. See the maps. 

* So Robinson, before ascending, remarks (ii. 58ft) 
that the hills consisted of chalky stone and conglo 

B 2 


Kiepert's map) Kadeirat and Kaseimeh ; 4, its po 
sition with regard to Jebel el-ffalal, ovJebal Helal; 
5, its position with regard to the mountain of the 
Amorites (which they seem to identify with the 
western face of the plateau) ; 6, its situation with 
regard to the grand S.W. route to Palestine by 
Beer-lahai-roi from Egypt ; 7, its distance from Sinai, 
and the goodness of the way thither ; 8, the accessi 
bility of Mount Hor from this region. Of these, 
2, 4, 5, and 8, seem of no weight ;S 1 is a good deal 
•weakened by the fact that some such name seems 
to have a wide range h in this region ; 3 is of con 
siderable force, but seems overbalanced by the fact 
that the whole position seems too far west ; argu 
ments 6 and 7 rather tend against than for the view 
iu question, any western route being unlikely (see 
text above), and the " goodness" of the road not 
being discoverable, but rather the reverse, from the 
Mosaic record. But, above all, how would this 
accord with " the way of Mount Seir " being that 
from Sinai to Kadesh Barnea? (Deut. i. 2.) 

In the map to Robinson's last edition, a Jebel el 
Kudcis is given on the authority of Abeken. But 
this spot would be too far to the west for the fixed 
point intended in Dout. i. 2 as Kadesh Barnea. 
Still, taken in connexion with the region endea 
voured to be identified with the " mountain of the 
Amorites," it may be a general testimony to the 

Erevalence of the name Kadesh within certain 
mits ; which is further supported by the names 
given below ( h ). 

The indications of locality strongly point to a site 
near where the mountain of the Amorites descends 
to the low region of the Arabah and Dead Sea. 
Tell Arad is perhaps as clear a local monument of 
the event, of Num. xxi. 1, as we can expect to 
find. [ARAD]. " The Canaanitish king of Arad " 
found that Israel was coming " by the way of the 
spies," and " fought against " and " took some of 
them prisoners." The subsequent defeat of this 
king is clearly connected with the pass Es-S&fa, 
between which and the Tell Arad a line drawn 
ought to give us the direction of route intended 
by "by the way of the spies ;" accordingly, within 
a day's journey on either side of this line pro 
duced towards the Arabah, Kadesh-Bamea should 
be sought for. [HORMA H] . Nearly the same ground 
appears to have been the scene of the previous dis 
comfiture of the Israelites rebelliously attempting 
to force their way by this pass to occupy the 
"mountain" where "the Amalekites and Amo 
rites" were "before them" (Num. xiv. 45; Judg. 
i. 17) ; further, however, this defeat is said to have 
been "in Seir" (Deut. i. 44). Now, whether we 
admit or not with Stanley (8. $ P. 94 note) that 
Edom had at this period no territory west of the 
Arabah, which is perhaps doubtful, yet there can 
be no room for doubt that " the mountain of the 
Amorites" must at any rate be taken as their 

c What is more disputable than the S. boundary 
line 1 Jebel Helal derives its sole significance from 
a passage not specified in Jeremiah. The "mountain 
of the Amorites," as shown above, need not be that 
western face. Mt. Hor is as accessible from elsewhere. 

k Seetzen's last map shows a Wady Kid/cue corre 
sponding in position nearly with Jcbel el Kude'isc 
given in Kiepert's, on the authority of Abeken. 
Zimmermann'- Atl;i-, Kct. N., gives el Cadcssah as 
another name for the well-known hill Madurnh, or 
Moderah, lying within view of the •point described 
above, from Williams's Huh/ t'ity, i. 463-4. This is 
toward" the Katt, a goo;l dcv.l mam- the Dead Sea 


western limit. Hence the overthrow in Sell 
must be east of that mountain, or, at furthest, on 
its eastern edge. The "Seir" alluded to may be 
the western edge of the Arabah below the Es-S&fa 
pass. When thus driven back, they " abode in 
Kadesh many days" (Deut. i.46). The city, whe 
ther we prefer Kadesh simply, or Kadesh-Bamea, 
as its designation, cannot have belonged to the 
Amorites, for these after their victory would pro 
bably have disputed possession of it ; nor could it, 
if plainly Amoritish, have been " in the uttermost 
of the border" of Edom. It may be conjectured 
that it lay in the debateable ground between the 
Amorites and Edom. which the Israelites in a mes 
sage of courtesy to Edom might naturally assign to 
the latter, and that it was possibly then occupied in 
fact by neither, but by a remnant of those Horites 
whom Edom (Deut. ii. 12) dislodged from the 
"mount" Seir, but who remained as refugees in 
that arid and unenviable region, which perhaps 
was the sole remnant of their previous possessions, 
and which they still called by the name of " Seir," 
their patriarch. This would not be inconsistent 
with " the edge of the land of Edom " still being 
at Mount Hor (Num. xxxiii. 37), nor with the 
Israelites regarding this debateable ground, after 
dispossessing the Amorites from " their mountain," 
as pertaining to their own " south quarter." If this 
view be admissible, we might regard " Barnea " as 
a Hebraized remnant of the Horite language, or of 
some Horite name. 

The nearest approximation, then, which can be 
given to a site for the city of Kadesh, may be 
probably attained by drawing a circle, from the pass 
£s-Sufa, at the radius of about a day's journey , 
its south-western quadrant will intersect the " wil 
derness of Paran," or Et-Tik, which is there over 
hung by the superimposed plateau of the mountain 
of the Amorites; while its south-eastern one will 
cross what has been designated as the " -wilderness 
of Ziu." This seems to satisfy all the conditions 
of the passages of Genesis, Numbers, and Deuter 
onomy, which refer to it. The nearest site in har 
mony with this view, which has yet been suggested 
(Robinson, ii. 175), is undoubtedly the Ain cl- 
Wcibe/i. To this, however, is opposed the remark 
of a traveller (Stanley. S. find P. 95) who went 
probably with a deliberate intention of testing the 
local features in reference to this suggestion, that 
it does not afford among its " stony shelves of three 

or four feet high " any proper " cliff" (JPD), such 

as is the word specially describing that " rock " 
(A. V.) from which the water gushed. It is how 
ever nearly opposite the Wady Ghuweir, the great 
opening into the steep eastern wall of the Arabah, 
and therefore the most probable "highway" bj 
which to " piss through the border " of Edom 
But until further examination of local featuies has 

and so far more suitable. Further, Robertson's map 
in Stewart's The Tent and the Khan places an 'Ain 
KJiades near the junction of the iTady Afaad, with 
the Wady r.l Arish ; but in this map arc tokens ol 
some confusion in the drawing. 

' Kiirst has suggested JM3^3, " son of wander 
ing "= Bedouin ; but ^3 does not occur as "son" 
in the writings of Moses. The reading of the I.XX. 
in Num. xxxiv. 4, Ka«7)s TOV Bopri), seems to favour 
the notion that it was regarded by them as a nian'i 
name. The name " Mcribah " is accounted for in 
Num. xx. 13. [MKHIHAII., 


been made, which owing to the frightfully desolate 
character of the region deems very difficult, it would 
be unwise to push identification further. 

Notice is due to the attempt to discovei Kadesh 
in Petra, the metropolis of the Nabathaeans (Stan 
ley, S. and P. 94), embedded in the mountains to 
which the name of Mount Seir is admitted by all 
authorities to apply, and almost overhung by 
Mount Hor. No doubt the word Seld, " cliff,'' i- s 
useJ as a proper name occasionally, and may pio- 
bably in 2 K. xiv. 7; Is. xvi. 1, be identified with 
a city or spot of territory belonging to Edom. But 
the two sites of Petra and Mount Hor are surely far 
too close for each to be a distinct camping station, as 
in Num. xxxiii. 36, 37. The camp of Israel ^ould 
have probably covered the site of the city, the 
mountain, and several adjacent valleys. But, fur 
ther, the site of Petra must have been as thoroughly 
Edomitish territory as was that of BOZKAH, 
the then capital, and could not be described 
as being "in the uttermost" of their border. 
" Mount Seir " was " given to Esau for a posses 
sion," in which he was to be unmolested, and not 
a " foot's breadth " of his land was to be taken. 
This seems irreconcileable with the quiet encamp 
ment of the whole of Israel and permanency there 
tor " many days," as also with their subsequent 
territorial possession of it, for Kadesh is always 
reckoned as a town in the southern border belong 
ing to Israel. Neither does a friendly request to be 
allowed to pass through the land of Edom come 
suitably from an invader who had seized, and was 
occupying one of its most difficult passes ; nor, 
again, is the evident temper of tho Edomites and 
their precautions, if they contemplated, as they 
certainly did, armed resistance to the violation of 
their territory, consistent with that invader being 
allowed to settle himself by anticipation in such a 
position without a stand being made against him. 
But, lastly, the conjunction of the city Kadesh with 
"the mountain of the Amorites," and its connexion 
with the assault repulsed by the Amalekites and 
Canaanites (Deut. i. 44 ; Num. xiv. 43), points to 
a site wholly away from Mount Seir. 

A paper in the Journal of Sacred Literature, 
April, 1860, entitled A Critical Enquiry into the 
Route of the Exodus, discards all the received sites 
for Sinai, even that of Mount Hor, and fixes on Elusa 
(El Kalesali) as that of Kadesh. The arguments of 
this writer will be considered, as a whole, under 

Kadesh appears to have maintained itself, at least 
us a name to the days of the prophet Ezekiel, 
(7. c.) and those of the writer of the apocryphal book 


of Judith (i. 9). The "wilderness of Kad,,sh" 
occurs only in Ps. xxix. 8, and is probably uudis- 
tinguishable from that of Zin. As regards the 
name " Kadesh," there seems some doubt whether 
it be originally Hebrew. k 

Almost any probable situation for Kadesh on the 
grounds of the Scriptural narrative, is equally op 
posed to the impression derived from the aspect of 
the region thereabouts. No spot perhaps, in the 
locality above indicated, could now be an eligible site 
for the host of the Israelites " for many days." Je 
rome speaks of it as a " desert" in his day, and 
makes no allusion to any city there, although the 
tomb of Miriam, of which no modern traveller has 
found any vestige, had there its traditional site. It 
is possible that the great volume of water which in 
the rainy season sweeps by the great El-Jeib and 
other wadys into the S.W. comer of the Ghor, 
might, if duly husbanded, have once created an arti 
ficial oasis, of which, with the neglect of such in 
dustry, every trace has since been lost. But, as 
no attempt is made here to fix on a definite site for 
Kadesh as a city, it is enough to observe that the 
objection applies in nearly equal force to nearly all 
solutions of the question of which the Scriptural 
narrative admits. [H. H.] 

KAJD'MIEL ('pK'Knp : Katfufa: Cedmtiiel), 
one of the Levites who with his family returned 
from Babylon with Zerubbabel, and apparently a 
representative of the descendants ot' Hodaviah, or, 
as he is elsewhere called, Hodaveh or Judah (Ezr. 
ii. 40 ; Neh. vii. 43). In the first attempt which 
was made to rebuild the Temple, Kadmiel and 
Jeshua, probably an elder member of the same 
house, were, together with their families, appointed 
by Zerubbabel to superintend the workmen, and 
officiated in the thanksgiving-service by which the 
laying of the foundation was solemnized (Ezr. iii. 9). 
His house took a prominent part in the confession of 
the people on the day of humiliation (Neh. ix. 4, 5), 
and with the other Levites joined the princes and 
priests in a solemn compact to separate themselves 
to walk in God's law (Neh. x. 9). In the parallel 
lists of 1 Esdr. he is called CADMIEL. 

k It may be perhaps a Horite -word, corrupted so 
M to bear a signification in the Heb. and Arab. ; but, 
assuming it to be from the root meaning " holiness," 
which exists in various forms in the Heb. and Arab., 
there may be some connexion between that name, 
supposed to indicate a shrine, and the En-Mishpat = 
Fountain of Judgment. The connexion of the priestly 
and judicial function, having for its root the regard 
ing us sacred whatever is authoritative, or the de 
ducing all subordinate authority from the Highest, 
would support this view. Compare also the double 
. functions united in Sheikh and Cadi. Further, on this 
supposition, a more forcible sense accrues to the name 
Kadesh Heribah = strife or contention, being as it 
wer« a perversion of Nishpat = judgment — a taking 
it in par/I'm deterwrem. For the Heb. and Arab, de 
rivatives from this same root see Gesen. Lex. s. v. 
JHp, varying in senses of to be holy, or (piel) 10 

KAD'MONITES, THE OAngn, i.e. "the 
Kadmonite ;" rovs KeS/juwaiovs ; Alex, omits: 
Cedmonaeos), a people named in Gen. xv. 19 only; 
one of the nations who at that time occupied the 
land promised to the descendants of Abram. The 
name is from a root Kedem, signifying " eastern," 
and also "ancient" (Ges. Thes. 1195). 

Bochart (Chan. i. 19 ; Phal. iv. 36) derives tho 

sanctify, as a priest, or to keep holy, as the sab- 
bath, and (pual) its passive ; also Golii Lex. Arab. 

Lat. Lugd. Bat. 1553, s. v. iy.^3- The derived 
sense, KHp, a male prostitute, fern. i"|{^*lp, a harlot, 

does not appear to occur in the Arab. : it is to be 
referred to the notion of prostitution in honour of an 
idol, as the Syrians in that of Astarte, the Babylonians 
in that of Mylitta (Herod, i. 199), and is conveyed 
in the Greek Upo&wAos. [IDOLATRY, vol. i. 8586.] This 
repulsive custom seems more suited to those populous 
and luxurious regions than to the hard bare life of the 
desert. As an example of Eastern nomenclature 
travelling far west at an early period, Cadiz may 
perhaps be suggested as based upon Kadesh, and 
carried to Spain by the Phoenicians. 


•\admonite8 from C.admus, and further identifies 
them with the Hivites (whose place they fill in the 
above list of nations), on the ground that the 
Hivites occupied Mount Hermon, " the most easterly 
part of Canaan." But Hermon cannot be said to 
be on the east of Canaan, nor, if it were, did the 
Hivites live there so exclusively as to entitle them 
to an appellation derived from that circumstance (see 
vol. i. 820). It is more probable that the name 
Kadmonite in its one occurrence is a synonym for 
the BENE-KEDEM — the " children of the East," th'e 
general name which in the Bible appears to be given 
to the tribes who roved in the great waste tracts on 
the east and south-east of Palestine. [G.] 

KALLA'I(^>D: KaX/\?f: Celal), a priest in 
the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua. He was 
one of the chiefs of the fathers, and represented the 
family of Sallai CNeh. xii. 20). 

KA'NAH(n3£: Kcwfcij/; Alex.K<m{: Cane), 
one of the places which formed the landmarks of 
the boundary of Asher ; apparently next to Zidon- 
labbah, or "great Zidon" (Josh. xix. 28 only). If 
this inference is correct, then Kanah can hardly be 
identified in the modern village Kana, six miles 
inland, not from Zidon, but from Tyre, nearly 20 
miles south thereof. The identification, first pro 
posed by Robinson (B. R. ii. 456), has been gene 
rally accepted by travellers (Wilson, Lands, ii. 
230 ; Porter, Handbook, 395 ; Schwarz, 192; Van 
de Velde, i. 180). Van de Velde (i. 209) also 
treats it as the native place of the " woman of 
Canaan" (yvrii ~X.ava.vala) who cried after our 
Lord. But the former identification, not to speak 
of the latter — in which a connexion is assumed be 
tween two words radically distinct — seems un 
tenable. An Ain-Kana is marked in the map of 
Van de Velde, about 8 miles S.E. of Saida (Zidon), 
close to the conspicuous village Jurjua, at which 
latter place Zidon lies full in view (Van de Velde, 
ii. 437). This at least answers more nearly the 
requirements of the text. But it is put forward as 
a mere conjecture, and must abide further investi 
gation. [G.] 

KA'NAH, THE EIVEB (H3D ^m = the 

T 'T - - 

torrent or wady K. : Xf \Kavd, q>apay£ ; 
Alex. xcfpaj}/}os Kewet and j>dpay£ Kavd : Valiis 
arundinetf), a stream falling into the Mediterranean, 
which formed the division between the territories 
of Ephraim and Manasseh, the former on the south, 
the latter on the north (Josh. xvi. 8, xvii. 9). No 
light appears to be thrown on its situation by the 
Ancient Versions or the Ouomasticon. Dr. Robin 
son (iii. 135) identifies it " without doubt" with a 
wady, which taking its rise in the central moun 
tains of Ephraim, near Akrabeh, some 7 miles 
S.E. of Nablus, crosses the country and enters the 
sea just above Jaffa as Nahr-el-Aujeh ; bearing 
during part of its course the name of Wady Kanah. 
But this, though perhaps sufficiently important to 
serve as a boundary between two tribes, and though 
the retention of the name is in its favour, is surely 
too far south to have bwn the boundary between 
Ephraim and Manasseh. The conjecture of Schwarz 
(51) is more plausible — that it is a wady which 
commences west of and close to Nablus, at Ain-el- 
Khassab, and falls into the sea as Nahr Falaik, 
and which bears also the name of Wady al-Khassab 
— the reedy stream. This has its more northerly 
position in its favour, and also the agreement in 
•.ignificaliou of the n.-.mes i Ka jali meaning also 


reedy). But it should not be forgotten that thi 
name Khassab is borne by a large tract of the maii 
time plain at this part (Stanley, 8. & P- 260). 
Porter pronounces for N, Akhdar, close below 
Caesarea. [G.] 

KARE'AH (!r)j5 : KcfpTje : Carei), the father 

of Johanan and Jonathan, who supported Gedaliah's 
authority and avenged his murder (Jer. xl. 8, 13, 
15, 16, xli. 11, 13, 14, 16, xlii. 1, 8, xliii. 2, 4, 5). 
He is elsewhere called CARE AH. 

KARKA'A (with the def. article, i'^ipn ; 

Ka§7)s, in both MSS. ; Symm. translating, &a<pas : 
Carcaa), one of the landmarks on the south boun 
dary of the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 3), and there 
fore of the Holy Land itself. It lay between Addar 
and Azmon, Azmon being the next point to the 
Mediterranean ( Wady el-ArisK). Karkaa, however, 
is not found in the specification of the boundary in 
Num. xxxiv., and it is worth notice that while in 
Joshua the line is said to make a detour (23D) to 
Karkaa, in Numbers it runs to Azmoii. Nor does 
the name occur in the subsequent lists of the 
southern cities in Josh. xv. 21-32, or xix. 2-8, or in 
Neh. xi. 25, &c. Eusebius (Onomasticon, "A(capKa?) 
perhaps speaks of it as then existing (/co^tTj ftniv), 
but at any rate no subsequent traveller or geo 
grapher appears to have mentioned it. [G.] 

KAR'KOR (with the def. article, "IJT^n : 

Ka.pKap ; Alex. Kapita. : Vulg. translating, re- 
quiescebanf), the place in which the remnant of the 
host of Zebah and Zalmunna which had escaped the 
rout of the Jordan valley were encamped, when 
Gideon burst upon and again dispersed them 
(Judg. viii. 10). It must have been on the east 
of the Jordan, beyond the district of the towns, in 
the open wastes inhabited by the nomad tribes — 
" them that dwelt in tents on the east of Nobah 
and Jogbehah" (ver. 11). But it is difficult to 
believe that it can have been so far to the south as 
it is placed by Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast. 
KapKO. and "Carcar "), namely one day's journey 
(about 15 miles) north of Petra, where in their 
time stood the fortress of Carcaria, as in ours the 
castle of Kerek el-Shobak (Burckhardt, 19 Aug. 
1812). The name is somewhat similar to that of 
CHAUACA, or Charax, a place on the east of the 
Jordan, mentioned once in the Maccabean history ; 
but there is nothing to be said either for or against 
the identification of the two. 

If Kunawat be KEXATH, on which Nobah be 
stowed his own name (with the usual fate of such 
innovations in Palestine), then we should look for 
Karkor in the desert to the east of that place ; 
which is quite far enough from the Jordan valley, 
the scene of the first encounter, to justify both 
Josephus's expression, irAppoi TTO\V (Ant. vii. 6, 
§5), and the careless " security " of the Midianites. 
But no traces of such a name have yet been disco 
vered in that direction, or any other than that above 
mentioned. [G.] 

KARTAH(nFn£: ^ K<i5^ ; Alex. 
Chartha), a town of Zebulun, which with its 
" suburbs " was allotted to the Merarite Levites 
(Josh. xxi. 34). It is not mentioned either in the 
general list of the towns of this tribe (xix. 10-16), 
or in the parallel catalogue of Levitical cities ill 
1 Clir. vi., nor does it appear to have beeD recog 
nised sinrc. ("G."] 

KAli'TAN (JPnp : &e^cav; Alex. No 

Carthan), a city of Naphtali, allotted with its 
"suburbs" to the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 
32). In the parallel list of 1 Chr. vi. the name 
appears in the more expanded form of KIRJA- 
TIIAIM (ver. 76), of which Kartan may be either 
a provincialism or a con traction. A similar change 
is observable in Dothan and Dothaim. The LXX. 
evidently had a different Hebrew text from the 
present. [G.] 

KATT'ATH (T\®\> : Karavdd ; Alex. Karrde : 
Cateth), one of the cities of the tribe of Zebulun 
(Josh. xix. 15). It is not mentioned in the Ono- 
ma«ticon. Schwarz (172) reports that in the Je 
rusalem Megillah, Kattath " is said to be the mo 
dern Katunith," which he seeks to identify with 
Kana el-Jelil, — most probably the CAN A OF GA 
LILEE of the N. T. — 5 miles north of Seffurieh, 
partly on the ground that Cana is given in the 
Syriac as Katna, and partly for other but not very 
palpable reasons. [G.] 

KE'DAR (Tip, " black skin, black -skinned 
man," Ges. : KijSdp : Cedar), the second in order 
of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13 ; 1 Chr. i. 29), 
and the name of a great tribe of the Arabs, settled 
on the north-west of the peninsula and the confines 
of Palestine. This tribe seems to have been, with 
Tema, the chief representative of Ishmael's sons in 
tne western portion of the land they originally peo 
pled. The "glory of Kedar" is recorded by the 
prophet Isaiah (xxi. 13-17) in the burden upon 
Arabia ; and its importance may also be inferred 
from the " princes of Kedar," mentioned by Ez. 
(xxvii. 21), as well as the pastoral character of the 
tribe : " Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they 
occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats : 
in these [were they] thy merchants." But this 
characteristic is maintained in several other remark 
able passages. In Cant. i. 5, the black tents of 
Kedar, black like the goat's or camel's-hair teuts of 
the modem Bedawee, are forcibly mentioned, " I 
[am] black, but comely, ye daughters of Jeru 
salem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of So 
lomon." In Is. Ix. 7, we rind the " flocks of Kedar," 
together with the rams of Nebaioth ; and in Jer. 
xlix. 28, " concerning Kedar, and concerning the 
kingdoms of HAZOR," it is written, " Arise ye, go 
up to Kedar, and spoil the men of the East [the 
BENE-KEDEM]. Their tents and their flocks shall 
they take away ; they shall take to themselves their 
tent-curtains, and all their vessels, and their camels " 
(28, 29). They appeal- also to have been, like the 
wandering tribes of the present day, " archers " and 
" mighty men" (Is. xxi. 17 ; comp. Ps. cxx. 5). That 
they also settled in villages or towns, we find from 
that magnificent passage of Isaiah (xlii. 11 ), " Let 
the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up [their 
voice], the villages [that] Kedar doth inhabit: let 
the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout 
from th( top of the mountains ;" — unless encamp 
ments are here intended.* But dwelling in more 
permani.-nt habitations than tents is just what 
we should expect from a far-stretching tribe such 
as Kedar certainly was, covering in their pasture- 
lands and watering places the great western desert, 
settling on the borders of Palestine, and penetrating 

" D'H^n. Comp. usage of Arabic, x> O> Karyeh. 

b Hence Tip ]"\&b, Rabbin, use of the Arabic 
language (Ges. Lex. ed. Tregelles). 


into the Arabian peninsula, where they wore to be 
the fathers of a great nation. The archers and 
warriors of this tribe were probably engaged in many 
of the wars which the " men of the East " (of whom 
Kedar most likely formed a part) waged, in alliance 
with Midianites and others of the Bene-Kedem, 
with Israel (see M. Caussin de Perceval's Essai, i. 
180-1, on the war of Gideon, &c.). The tribe 
seems to have been one of the most conspicuous of 
all the Ishmaelite tribes, and hence the Rabbins 
call the Arabians universally by this name. b 

In Is. xxi. 17, the descendants of Kedar a"e 
called the Bene-Kedar. 

As a link between Bible history and Mohammadan 
traditions, the tribe of Kedar is probably found in 
the people called the Cedrei by Pliny, on the con 
fines of Arabia Petraea to the south (N. H. v. 11) ; 
but they have, since classical times, oecome merged 
into the Arab nation, of which so great a part must 
have sprung from them. In the Mohammadau tra 
ditions, Kedar c is the ancestor of Mohammad ; and 
through him, although the genealogy is broken for 
many generations, the ancestry of the latter from 
Ishmael is carried. (See Caussin, Essai, i. 175, 
seqq.} The descent of the bulk of the Arabs from 
Ishmael we have elsewhere shown to rest on in 
disputable grounds. [ISHMAEL.] [E. S. P.] 

KE'DEMAH (n»nj5,t. e. "eastward:" KfSftd: 
Cedma\ the youngest of the sous of Ishmael (Gen. 
xxv. 15 ; 1 Chr. i. 31). 

KE'DEMOTH (in Deut. and Chron. niOlp ; 
in Josh. flblp : KeSa/jiwO, BaKeS/juad, i) AeK.u^j-, 
f] KaSfj.did ; Alex. Kftipovd, KeSrj/tcofl, Ka/j.i)$(a6. 
reSercij/: Cedemoth, Cademotli), one of the towns 
in the district east of the Dead Sea allotted to the 
tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 18) ; given with its 
"suburbs" to the Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi. 37 ; 
1 Chr. vi. 79 ; in the former of these passages the 
name, with the rest of verses 36 and 37, is omitted 
from the Rec. Hebrew Text, and from the Vulg.). 
It possibly conferred its name on the " wilderness, 
or uncultivated pasture land (Midbar}, of Kede- 
moth," in which Israel was encamped when Moses 
asked permission of Sihon to pass through the 
country of the Amorites; although, if Kedcmoth be 
treated as a Hebrew word, and translated " Eastern," 
the same circumstance may have given its name 
both to the city and the district. And this is more 
probably the case, since " Aroer on the brink of 
the torrent Arnon " is mentioned as the extreme 
(south) limit of Sihon's kingdom and of the territory 
of Reuben, and the north limit of Moab, Kede- 
moth, Jahazah, Heshbon, and other towns, being 
apparently north of it (Josh. xiii. 16, &c.), while 
the wilderness of Kedemoth was certainly outside 
the territory of Sihon (Deut. ii. 26, 27, &c.), and 
therefore south of the Aruon. This is supported by 
the terms of Num. xxi. 23, from which it would 
appear as if Sihon had come out of his tcnitory 
into the wilderness ; although on the other hand, 
from the fact of Jahaz (or Jahazah) being said to 
be "in the wilderness" (Num. xxi. 23), it seems 
doubtful whether the towns named in Josh. xiii. 
16-21, were all north of Arnon. As in other cases 
we must await further investigation on the east ol 
the Dead Sea. The place is but casually men 
tioned in the Onomasticon (" Cademoth"), but ye 1 




so as to imply a distinction 'uetween the town and 
the wilderness. No other traveller appears to have 
noticed it. (See Ewald, Gesch. ii. 271.) [JAHAZ.] 
KE'DESH (KHJ5), the name borne by three 
cities in Palestine. 

1. (KttSijs; Alex. BeXe'0: Cedes) in the extreme 
south of Judah (Josh. xv. 23). Whether this is 
identical with Kadesh-Barnea, which was actually 
Jne of the points on the south boundary of the tnbe 
(xv. 3 ; Num. xxxiv. 4), it is impossible to say. 
Against the identification is the difference of the 
name, — hardly likely to be altered if the famous 
Kadesh was intended, and the occurrence of the name 
elsewhere showing that it was of common use. 

2. (Kc'5«; Alex. Ke5e«: Cedes), a city of Issa- 
char, which according to the catalogue of 1 Chr. 
vi. was allotted to the Gershonite Levites (ver. 72). 
In the parallel list (Josh. xxi. 28) the name is 
KISHON, one of the variations met with in these 
lists, for which it is impossible satisfactorily to 
account. The Kedesli mentioned among the cities 
whose kings were slain by Joshua (Josh. xii. 22), 
in company with Megiddo and Jokneam of Carmel, 
would seem to have been this city of Issachar, and 
not, as is commonly accepted, the northern place of 
the same name in Naphtali, the position of which 
in the catalogue would naturally have been with 
Hazor and Shimron-Meron. But this, though pro 
bable, is not conclusive. 

3. KEDESH (K(£5es, KaSys, Ke'5es, a KeWC; 
Alex, also K« f5es ; Cedes) : also KEDESH IN GA 
LILEE (S^JI3 '£, i. e. " K. in the Galil ;" y KdSys tv 
rf; ra\t\al(f, ; Cedes in Galilaea) : and once, Judg. 
iv. 6, KEDESH-NAPHTALI (*7RB3'J5; KrfSijsNecp- 
Oa\i ; Cedes Ncphthalf). One of the fortified cities 
of the tribe of Naphtali, named between Hazor and 
Edrei (Josh six. 37) ; appointed as a city of refuge, 
and allotted with its "suburbs" to the Gershonite 
Levites (xx. 7, xxi. 32 ; 1 Chr. vi. 76). In 
Josephus's account of the northern wars of Joshua 
(Ant. v. 1, §18), he apparently refers to it as 
marking the site of the battle of Merom, if Merom 
be intended under the form Beroth. b It was the 
residence of Barak (Judg. iv. 6), and there he 
and Deborah assembled the tribes of Zebulun and 
Naphtali before the conflict (9, 10). Near it was 
the tree of Zaananim, where was pitched the tent 
of the Kenites Heber and Jael, in which Sisera met 
his death (ver. 11). It was probably, as its name 
implies, a " holy c place" of great antiquity, which 
would explain its seltction as one of the cities of 
refuge, and its being chosen by the prophetess as 
the spot at which to meet the warriors of the tribes 


before the commencement of the straggle ' Cor Je 
hovah against the mighty." It was one of the 
places taken by Tiglath-Pileser in the reign of 
l'ekah(Jos. Ant.'n. 11, §1, KuS«ra; 2 K.xv. 29); 
and here again it is mentioned in immediate con 
nexion with Hazor. Its next and last appearance 
in the Bible is as the scene of a battle between 
Jonathan Maccabaeus and the forces of Demetrius 
(1 Mace. xi. 63, 73, A. V. CADES; Jos. Ant. 
xiii. 5, §6, 7). After this time it is spoken of 
by Josephus (B. J. ii. 18, §1; iv. 2, §3, irpot 
KvSvffffois) as in the possession of the Tyrians — 
" a strong inland" 1 village," well fortified, and with 
a great number of inhabitants ; and he mentions 
that during the siege of Giscala, Titus removed his 
camp thither — a distance of about 7 miles, if the 
two places are correctly identified — a movement 
which allowed John to make his escape. 

By Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast. "Cedes") 
it is described as lying near Paneas, and 20 miles 
( Eusebius says 8 — 4\ — but this must be wrong) from 
Tyre, and as called Kudossos or Cidissus. Brc- 
cardus (Descr. ch. iv.), describes it, evidently from 
personal knowledge, as 4 leagues north of Safet, 
and as abounding in ruins. It was visited by the 
Jewish travellers, Benjamin of Tudela (A.D. 1170), 
and ha-Parchi (A.D. 1315). The former places it 
one day's, and the latter half-a-day's, journey from 
Banias (Benj. of Tudela by Asher, i. 82, ii. 109, 
420). Making allowances for imperfect knowledge 
and errors in transcription, there is a tolerable agree 
ment between the above accounts, recognisable now 
that Dr. Robinson has with great probability iden 
tified the spot. This he has done at Kades, a 
village situated on the western edge of the basin of 
the Ard-el-ffuleh, the great depressed basin or 
tract through which the Jordan makes its way into 
the Sea of Merom. Kades lies 10 English miles 
N. of Safed, 4 to the N.W. of the upper part of the 
Sea of Merom, and 12 or 13 S. of Banias. The 
village itself " is situated on a rather high ridge, 
jutting out from the western hills, and overlooking 
a small green vale or basin. . . Its site is a 
splendid one, well watered and surrounded by fertile 
plains." There are numerous sarcophagi, and other 
ancient remains (Rob. iii. 366-8 ; see also Van de 
Velde, ii. 417 ; Stanley, 365, 390). 

In the Greek (Kj/SIas) and Syriac {Kedesh 
de Naphtali) texts of Tob. i. 2, — though not in the 
Vulgate or A. V. — Kedesh is introduced as the 
birthplace of Tobias. The text is exceedingly cor 
rupt, but some little support is lent to this reading 
by the Vulgate, which, although omitting Kedesh, 
mentions Safed — post viam quae ducit ad Occi- 
dentem, in sinistro habens civitatem Saphet. 

* Some of the variations in the LXX. are remark- 
Able. In Judg. iv. 9, 10, Vat. has KaSijs, and Alex. 
Kei'Ses ; but in ver. 11, they both have Ke'Ses. In 
2 K. xv. 29, both have Kcve'f. in Judg. iv. and else 
where the Peschito Version has Recem-Naphtali for 
Kedesh, Recem being the name which in the Targums 
is commonly used for the Southern Kadesh, K. Bar- 
r.ea. (Sea Stauley, S. $ P. 94 note.) 

*> Ilpbs Bi;pu07j ToXti T7J5 roAiAou'as rrp avia, KeSe'crrj? 
ovr iroppu>. J. D. Micbaelis (Orient, und Exegr.t. 
Bibliothek, 1773, No. 84) argues strenuously for the 
identity of Beroth and Kedes in this passage with 
Berytus (Beirut) and Kedesh, near Emessa (see 
dbove) ; but interesting and ingenious as is the at 
tempt, the conclusion cannot be tenable. (See also a 
iiibpequent paper in 17J4, No. 116.) 

'• From the root fc?"lp, common to the Scmit it- 

languages (Gesenius, Viet. 1195, 8). Whether there 
was any difference of signification between Kadesh 
and Kedesh does not seem at all clear. Gesenius 
places the former in connexion with a similar word 
which would seem to mean a person or thing devoted 
to the infamous rites of ancient heathen worship — 
" Scortum sacrum, idque masculum ;" but he does act 
absolutely say that the bad force resided in the name 
of the place Kadesh. To Kedesh he gives a favour 
able interpretation — " Sacrarium." The older in 
terpreters, as Killer and Simonis, do not recognise 
the distinction. 

d Thomson, The Land and the Book, ch. xix., has 
some strange comments on this passage. He has taken 
Whiston's translation of nt<r6yeios — " mediterranean '• 
— as referring to the Mediterranean Sea ! and ha« 
drawn hi.s inferences accordingly. 


The name Kedesh exists much farther north than 
the possessions of Naphtali would appear to have 
extended, attached to a lake of considerable size on 
the Orontes, a few miles south of Hums, the ancient 
Kmessa (Rob. iii. 549 ; Thomson, in Hitter, Da 
mascus, 1002, 4). The lake was well known under 
that name to the Arabic geographers (see, besides 
the authorities quoted by Robinson, Abulfeda in 
Schultens' Index Geogr. " Fluvius Orontes" and 
"Kudsum"), and they connect it in part with 
Alexander the Great. But this and the origin of 
the name are alike uncertain. At the lower end of 
the lake is an island which, as already remarked, is 
possibly the site of Ketesh, the capture of which by 
.Sethee I. is preserved in the records of that Egyp 
tian king. [JERUSALEM, vol. i. 989 note.] [G.] 

KEHE'LATHAH (iin^np : MaKeAAafl : Ce- 



clatha), a desert encampment of the Israelites (Num. 
xxxiii. 22), of which nothing is known." [H. H.] 

KEI'LAH (nVj, but in 1 Sam. xxiii. 5, 

: KeeiAa/i, y Ket'Aa; Alex. KeeiAa ; Joseph. 

KiAAa, and the people ol KiAAcwof and ol KiAA«rat : 
Ceila : Luth. Kegila), a city of the Shefelah or 
lowland district of Judah, named, in company with 
NEZIB and MARESHAH, in the next group to the 
Philistine cities (Josh. xv. 44). Its main interest 
consists in its connexion with David. He rescued 
it from an attack of the Philistines, who had fallen 
upon the town at the beginning of the harvest 
(Jos. Ant. vi. 13, §1), plundered the corn from its 
threshing-floor, and driven off the cattle (1 Sam. 
yxiii. 1). The prey was recovered by David (2-5), 
who then remained in the city till the comple 
tion of the in-gathering. It was then a fortified 
place, b with walls, gates, and bars (1 Sam. xxiii. 7, 
and Joseph.). During this time the massacre of 
Nob was perpetrated, and Keilah became the re 
pository of the sacred Ephod, which Abiathar the 
priest, the sole survivor, had carried off with him 
(ver. 6). But it was not destined long to enjoy the 
presence of these brave and hallowed inmates, nor 
indeed was it worthy of such good fortune, for the 
inhabitants soon plotted David's betrayal to Saul, 
then on his road to besiege the place. Of this 
intention David was warned by Divine intimation. 
He therefore left (1 Sam. xxiii. 7-13.) 

It will be observed that the word Baali is used by 
David to denote the inhabitants of Keilah, in this 
passage (ver. 11, 12; A. V. "men"); possibly 
pointing to the existence of Canaanites in the place 
[BAAL, p. 1466]. 

We catch only one more glimpse of the town, in 
the times after the Captivity, when Hashabiah, the 
ruler of one half the district of Keilah (or whatever 
the word Pelec, A.V., "part" may mean), and 
Bavai ben-Henadad, ruler of the other half, assisted 
Nehemiah in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh. iii. 17, 18). Keilah appears to have been 
known to Eusebius and Jerome. They describe it in 
the Onomasticon as existing under the name KT/AO, 
or Ceila, on the road from Eleutheropolis to Hebron, 

at 8 C miles distance from the former. In Ihe map of 
Lieut. Van de Veide (1858), the name Kila occurs 
attached to a site with ruins, on the lower road from 
Beit Jibrin to Hebron, at very nearly the right 
distance from B. Jibrin (almost certainly Eleu 
theropolis), and in the neighbourhood of Beit Nusib 
(Nezib) and Maresa (Mareshah). The name was 
only reported to Lieut. V. (see his Memoir, p. 
328), but it has been since visited by the inde 
fatigable Tobler, who completely confirms the iden 
tification, merely remarking that Kila is placed a 
little too far south on the map. Thus another is 
added to the list of places which, though specified 
as in the " lowland," are yet actually found in the 
mountains : a puzzling fact in our present ignorance 
of the principles of the ancient boundaries. [JiPH- 
TAH ; JUDAH, p. 11566.] 

In the 4th century a tradition existed that the 
prophet Habbakuk was buried at Keilah (Onomas 
ticon, " Ceila ;" Nicephorus, If. E. xii. 48 ; Cas- 
siodorus, in Sozomen, H. E. vii. 29) ; but an 
other tradition gives that honour to HUKKOK. 

In 1 Chr. iv. 19, " KEILAH THE GARMITE " is 
mentioned, apparently — though it is impossible to 
say with certainty— as a descendant of the great 
Caleb (ver. 15). But the passage is extremely ob 
scure, and there is no apparent connexion with the 
town Keilah. [G.] 

KELAI'AH (!T6jp: KaAi'o; Alex. Ku\da: 
Cod. Fred. Aug. Ka>Ae£a, and KwAfeu : Celaw) = 
KELITA (Ezr. x. 23). In the parallel list of 1 Esd. 
his name appears as COLIUS. 

KE'LITA (KO^pj KcoAfras; Ka\ndv in 
Neh. x. 10 : Celita ; Calita in Ezr. x. 23), one of 
the Levites who returned from the captivity with 
Ezra, and had intermarried with the people of the 
land (Ezr. x. 23). In company with the other 
Levites he assisted Ezra in expounding the law 
(Neh. viii. 7), and entered into a solemn league and 
covenant to follow the law of God, and separate 
from admixture with foreign nations (Neh. x. 10). 
He is also called KELAIAH, and in the parallel list 
of 1 Esdr. his name appears as CALITAS. 

KEM'UEL (WlEj?: Ko/*oi^A : Camuel}. 
1. The son of Nahor by Milcah, and father of Aram, 
whom Ewald (Gesch. i. 414, note) identifies with 
Ram of Job xxxii. 2, to whose family Elihu belonged 
(Gen. xxii. 21). 

2. The son of Shiphtan, and prince of the tribe 
of Ephraim ; one of the twelve men appointed by 
Moses to divide the land of Canaan among the tribes 
(Num. xxxiv. 24). 

3. A Levite, father of Hashabiah, prince of the 
tribe in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 17). 

KE'NAN (]y\) : KaiVaj/ : Cainan) = CAINAN 

the son of Enos (1 Chr. i. 2), whose name is also 
correctly given in this form hi the margin cl 
Gen. v. 9. 

KEN'ATH (nij? : ft Kad6 , Alex, i) Kaa.vd.6 
in Chron. both MSS. KavdB : Chanath, Canath), one 

• The name may possibly be derived from n?!"lp ; 
a congregation, with the local suffix !"1, which many 
of these names carry. Compare the name of another 
place of encampment, Fl/HpO, which appears to be 
from the same root. 

b This is said by Gesenius and others to be the sig 
nification of the name " Keilah." If this be so, there 
would almost appear to be a reference to this and 

the contemporary circumstances of David's life, in Pa. 
xxxi. ; not only in the expression (ver. 21), "mar 
vellous kindness in a strong city" ("11 VD "VJJ), but 
also in ver. 8, and in the general tenour of the Psalm 

c This IK Jerome's correctior .}f Eusebius, who gives 
17 — manifestly wrong, as theivhole distance between 
Hebron anJ Beit-Jibrin is not more than .5 Komau 



cf the cities on the east of Jordan, with its 
" d.iughter-towns " (A. V. " villages") taken pos 
session of by a certain NOBAH, who then called 
it by his own name (Num. xxxii. 42). At a later 
period these toTns, with those of Jair, were recap 
tured by Geshur and Aram (1 Chr. ii. 23 a ). In 
the days of Eusebius (Onom. " Canath ") it was 
still called Kanatha, and he speaks of it as " a 
village of Arabia .... near Bozra." Its site has 
been recovered with tolerable certainty in our own 
times at Kenawdt, a ruined town at the southern 
extremity of the Lejah, about 20 miles N. of 
B&srah, which was first visited by Burckhardt in 
1810 (Syria, 83-86), and more recently by Porter 
(Damascus, ii. 87-1 15 ; Handbk. 512-14), the latter 
of whom gives a lengthened description and identi 
fication of the place. The suggestion that Kenaudt 
was Kenath seems, however, to have been first made 
by Gesenius in his notes to Burckhardt ( A.D. 1823, 
p. 505). Another Kenawat is marked on Van de 
Velde's map, about 10 miles farther to the west. 

The name furnishes an interesting example of 
the permanence of an original appellation. NOBAH, 
though conferred by the conqueror, and apparently 
at one time the received name of the spot (Judg. 
viii. 11), has long since given way to the older 
title. Compare ACCHO, KIRJATH-ARBA, &c. [G.j 

KE'NAZ (TJp: Kei/e'f: Cenez). 1. Son of 

Kliphaz, the son of Esau. He was one of the dukes 
of Edom, according to both lists, that in Gen. 
xxxvi. 15, 42, and that in 1 Chr. i. 53, and the 
founder of a tribe or family, who were called from 
him Kenezites (Josh. xiv. 14, &c.). Caleb, the son 
of Jephunneh, and Othniel, were the two most re 
markable of his descendants. [CALEB.] 

2. One of the same family, a grandson of Caleb, 
according to 1 Chr. iy. 15, where, however, the 
Hebrew text is corrupt. Another name has possibly 
fallen out before Kenaz. . [A. C. H.] 

Gen. xv. 19 : ^T3j? : Kfi>e£dios : Cenezaeus}, an 
EJomitish tribe (Num. xxxii. 12 ; Josh. xiv. 6, 
14). [KENAZ.] It is difficult to account for the 
Kenezites existing as a tribe so early as before the 
birth of Isaac, as they appear to have done from 
Gen. xv. 19. If this tribe really existed then, and 
the enumeration of tribes in ver. 19-21 formed a 
part of what the Lord said to Abram, it can only 
be said, with Bochart (Phaleg, iv. 36), that these 
Kenezites arc mentioned here only, that they had 
ceased to exist in the time of Moses and Joshua, 
and *hat nothing whatever is known of their origin 
or place of abode. But it is worth consideration 


whether the enumeration may not be a later ei- 
planatory addition by Moses or some later editor, 
and so these Kenezites be descendants of Kenaz , 
whose adoption into Israel took place in the time 
of Caleb, which was the reason of their insertion 
in this place. [A. C. H.] 


Ol'j5n and *3j5i1, i. e. " the Kenite ;" in Chron. 
Q*3'jpn ; but in Num. xxiv. 22, and in Judg. iv. 
116, pp, A'nin : ot Kfvaiot, 6 Kivouos, ol Ktvatot : 

Cinaeus)^ a tribe or nation whose history is 
strangely interwoven with that of the chosen people. 
In the genealogical table of Gen. x. they- do not 
appear. The first mention of them is in company 
with the Kenizzites and Kadmonites, in the list of 
the nations who then occupied the Promised Land 
(Gen. xv. 19). Their origin, therefore, like that 
of the two tribes just named, and of the Awim 
(AviTES) is hidden from us. But we may fairly 
infer that they were a branch of the larger nation 
of MIDIAN — from the fact that Jethro, the father 
of Moses's wife, who in the records of Exodus (see 
ii. 15, 16, iv. 19, &c.) is represented as dwelling 
in the land of Midian, and as priest or prince of 
that nation, is in the narrative of Judges (i. 16, 
iv. 1 1 c ) as distinctly said to have been a Kenite. 
As Midianites they were therefore descended imme 
diately from Abraham by his wife Keturah, and in 
this relationship and their connexion with Moses we 
find the key to their continued alliance with Israel. 
The important services rendered by the sheikh of 
the Kenites to Moses during a time of great pressure 
and difficulty, were rewarded by the latter with ,1 
promise of firm friendship between the two peoples 
— " what goodness Jehovah shall do unto us, the 
same will we do to thee." And this promise was 
gratefully remembered long after to the advantage 
of the Kenites (1 Sam. xv. 6). The connexion 
then commenced lasted as firmly as a connexion 
could last between a settled people like Israel and 
one whose tendencies were so ineradicably nomadic 
as the Kenites. They seem to have accompanied 
the Hebrews during their wanderings. At any rate 
they were with them at the time of their entrance on 
the Promised Land. Then- encampment — separate 
and distinct from the rest of the people — was within 
Balaam's view when he delivered his prophecy d 
(Num. xxiv. 21, 22), and we may infer that they 
assisted in the capture of Jericho,' the " city of palm- 
trees" (Judg. i. 16 ; comp. 2 Chr. xrviii. 15). But 
the wanderings of Israel over, they forsook the neigh 
bourhood of the towns, and betook themselves to 
freer air — to "the wilderness of Judah, which 

* This passage is erroneously translated in the 
A. V. It should be, " And Geshur and Aram took 
the Havvoth-Jair, with Kenath and her daughters, 
sixty cities." See Bertheau, Chronik ; Zunz's version ; 
Targura of Joseph, &c. &c. 

b Josephus gives the name Kei/ertSes (Ant. v. 5, §4) ; 
but in his notice of Saul's expedition (vi. 7, §3) he hag 
TO TMV SucijuuTwi' <f0ro« — the form in which he else 
where gives that of the Shechemites. No explanation 
of this present* itself to the writer. The Targums of 
Onkelos, Jonat an, and Pseudojon. uniformly render 
the Kenite hy HNO/'K' = Salmaite, possibly because 
in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 55) a branch of 
tne Kenites come under Salma, son of Caleb. The 
Kime name is introduced in the Samarit. Vers. before 
"the Kenite" in Gen. xv. 19 only. 

This passage is incorrectly rendered in the A. V. 
U should be, " And Ilelicr the Ketiite hud severed 

himself from Kain of the children of Ilobab, the 
father-in-law of Moses, and pitched," &c. 

d If it be necessary to look for a literal " fulfilment " 
of this sentence of Balaam's, we shall best find it ir. 
the accounts of the latter days of Jerusalem under 
Jehoiakim, when the Kenite Rechabites were so far 
" wasted " by the invading army of Assyria as to be 
driven to take refuge within the walls of the city, a 
step to which we may be sure nothing short of actual 
extremity could have forced these Children of the 
Desert. Whether " Asshur carried them away cap 
tive " with the other inhabitants we are not told, but 
it is at least probable. 

e It has been pointed out under HOBAB that one 
of the wadys opposite Jericho, the same by which, 
according to the local tradition, the Bene-Israol de 
scended to the Jordan, retains the name o r Sho'ril: 
tl.r MuMiUiniiin version of Ilobab 


is to the south of Arad" (Judg. i. 16), where 
" they dwelt among the people " of the district 1 — 
Ihe Amalekites who wandered in that dry region, 
and among whom they were living centuries later 
when Saul made his expedition there (1 Sam. 
xv. 6). Their alliance with Israel at this later 
date is shown no less by Saul's friendly warning 
than by David's feigned attack (xxvii. 10, and see 
xxx. 29). 

But one of the sheikhs of the tribe, Heber by 
name, had wandered north instead of south, and at 
the time of the great struggle between the northern 
tribes and Jabin king of Hazor, his tents were 
pitched under the tree of Zaanaim, near Kedesh 
(Judg. iv. 11). Heber was in alliance with both 
the contending parties, but in the hour of extremity 
the ties of blood-relationship and ancient com 
panionship proved strongest, and Sisera fell a 
victim to the hammer and the nail of Jael. 

The most remarkable development of this people, 
exemplifying most completely their characteristics 
— their Bedouin hatred of the restraints of civiliza 
tion, their fierce determination, their attachment 
to Israel, together with a peculiar semi-monastic 
austerity not observable in their earlier proceedings — 
is to be found in the sect or family of the RECH- 
ABITES, founded by Rechab, or Jonadab his son, 
who come prominently forward on more than one 
occasion in the later history. [JEHONADAB ; 

The founder of the family appears to have been 
a certain Hammath (A. V. HEMATH) and a sin 
gular testimony is furnished to the connexion which 
existed between this tribe of Midianite wanderers 
and the nation of Israel, by the fact that their 
name and descent are actually included in the ge 
nealogies of the great house of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 55). 

No further notices would seem to be extant of this 
:'uteresting people. The name of Ba-Kain (abbre 
viated from Bene el-Kairi) is mentioned by Ewald 
(Gesch. i. 337 note) as borne in comparatively 
modern days by one of the tribes of tne desert ; but 
little or no inference can be drawn from such 
similarity in names. [G.] 

KE'NIZZITE. Gen. xv. 19. [KENEZITE.] 

KE'REN-HAPTUCH 0]-1Srrjl? = >A M«*- 
Baias Kepas : Cornustibii), the youngest of the 
daughters of Job, born to him during- the period of 
his reviving prosperity (Job xlii. 14), and so called 
probably from her great beauty. The Vulgate has 
correctly rendered her name " horn of antimony," 
the pigment used by Eastern kdies to colour their 
eyelashes ; but the LXX., unless they had a different 
reading, adopted a current expression of their own 
age, without regard to strict accuracy, in repre 
senting Keren-happuch by " the horn of Amalthaea," 
or " horn of plenty." 

KE'EIOTH (ni»-)j?, i. e. Kertyoth). 1. (at 
ir6\fis ; Alex. iro\is : Carioth), a name which 
occurs among the lists of the towns in the southern 
district of Judah (Josh. xv. 25). According to 
the A. V. ("Kerioth, b and Hezron") it denotes a 
distinct place from the name which follows it ; but 
this separation is not in accordance with the ac- 



centuation of the Rec. Hebrew text, and is now 
;enerally abandoned (see Keil, Josua, ad loc. and 
Reland, Pal. 700, 708 ; the versions of Zuiiz, Cahen, 
&c.), and the name taken as " Keriyoth-Hezron, 
which is Hazor," i. e. its name before the conquest 
was Hazor, for which was afterwards substituted 
Keriyoth-Hezron — the " cities of H." 

Dr. Robinson (B. E. ii. 101), and Lieut. Van de 
Velde (ii. 82) propose to identify it with Kurye- 
tein ("the two cities"), a ruined site which stands 
about 10 miles S. from Hebron, and 3 from Main 

Kerioth furnishes one, and that perhaps the 
oldest and most usual, of the explanations proposed 
for the title " Iscariot," and which are enumerated 
under JUDAS ISCARIOT, vol. i. 11606. But if 
Kerioth is to be read in conjunction with Hezron, 
as stated above, another difficulty is thrown in the 
way of this explanation. 

2. (KapuaO ; Carioth), a city of Moab, named in 
the denunciations of Jeremiah — and there only — iu 
company with Dibon, Beth-diblathaim, Bethmeon, 
Bozrah, and other places "far and near" (Jer. 
xlviii. 24). None of the ancient interpreters ap 
pear to give any clue to the position of this place. 
By Mr. Porter, however, it is unhesitatingly iden 
tified with Kureiyeh, a ruined town of some extent 
lying between Busrah and Sulkhad, in the southern 
part of the Haurdn (Five Years &c. ii. 191-198; 
Handbook, 523, 4). The chief argument in favour 
of this is the proximity of Kureiyeh to Busrah, 
which Mr. Porter accepts as identical with the 
BOZRAH of the same passage of Jeremiah. But 
there are some considerations which stend very 
much in the way of these identifications. Jere 
miah is speaking (xlviii. 21) expressly of the cities 
of the " Mishor " (A. V. " plain-country "), that is, 
the district of level downs east of the Jordan and the 
Dead Sea, which probably answered in whole or in 
part to the Belka of the modern Arabs. In this 
region were situated Heshbon, Dibon, Elealeh, 
Beth-meon, Kir-heres — the only places named in 
the passage in question, the positions of which are 
known with certainty. The most northern of these 
(Heshbon) is not farther north than the upper end 
of the Dead Sea ; the most southern (Kir) lay near 
its lower extremity. Nor is there anything in the 
parallel denunciation of Moab by Isaiah (ch. xvi.) to 
indicate that the limits of Moab extended farther to 
the north. But Busrah and Kureiyeh are no less 
than 60 miles to the N.N.E. of Heshbon itself, 
beyond the limits even of the modem Belka (see 
Kiepert's map to Wetzstein's Hauran und die Trach- 
onen, 1860), and in a country of an entirely oppo 
site character from the " flat downs, of smooth and 
even turf" which characterise that district — "a 
savage and forbidding aspect . . . nothing but 
stones and jagged black rocks . . . the whole 
country around Kureiyeh covered with heaps of 
loose stones," &c. (Porter, ii. 189, 193). A 
more plausible identification would be Kureiyat, 
at the western foot of Jebel Attarus. and but 
a short distance from either Dibon, Bethmeon, or 

But on the other hand it should not be over 
looked that Jeremiah uses the expression •' far and 

• A plaM named KINAH, possibly derived from the 
same root as the Kenites, is mentioned in the lists of 
the cities of " the south " of Judah. But there is 
nothing to imply any connexion between the two. 


b In tLe A. V. of 1611 the punctuation was still 

more marked — " and Kerioth : and Hezron, which is 
Hazor." This agrees with the version of Junius and 
Tremellius — " et Kcrijothae (Chet/ron ea cst Chat- 
zor)," and with that of Luther. Castcllio, on the 
other hand, has " CariotheBron, quue alias Hasor." 



near" (ver. 24), and also that if liusrah and 
Kureiyah arc not Bozrah and Kerioth, those im 
portant places have apparently flourished without 
any notice from the Sacred writers. This is one 
of the points which further investigation by com 
petent persons, east of the Jordan, may piobabiy 
set at rest. 

Kerioth occurs in the A. V., also in ver. 41. Here 
however it bears the definite article (Di'lipn : Alex. 
'AKKapuaO : Carioth), and would appear to signify not 
anyone definite place, but " the cities" of Moab" — 
as may also be the case with the same word in 
Amos ii. 2. [KiRiOTH.] [G.j 

KE'ROS (D'lj5 : KdSjjs ; Alex. Kfyaos in Ezr. 
ii. 44, DTp : KtpJis; Alex. Kfipds in Neh. vii. 47: 
Gems'), one of the Nethinim, whose descendants 
returned with Zerubbabel. 

KETTLE (1-11 : Xe'07/s : caldaria), a vessel 
for culinary or sacrificial purposes (1 Sam. ii. 14). 
The Hebrew word is also rendered "basket" in 
Jer. xxiv. 2, "caldron" in 2 Chr. xxxv. 13, and 
" pot " in Job xli. 20. [CALDRON.] [H. W. P.] 

KETU'KAH (fniBp, " incense," Ges. : Xer- 
roiipa: Cetura), the ''wife" whom Abraham 
" added and took " (A. V. "again took") besides, 
or after the death of, Sarah (Gen. xxv. 1 ; 1 Chr. 
i. 32). Gesenius and others adopt the theory that 
Abraham took Keturah after Sarah's death; but 
probability seems against it (compare Gen. xvii. 
17, xviii. 11 ; Rom. iv. 19 ; and Heb. xi. 12), and 
we incline to the belief that the passage commencing 
with xxv. 1, and comprising perhaps the whole 
chapter, or at least as far as ver. 10, is placed out 
ot ;ts chronological sequence in order not to break 
the main narrative ; and that Abraham took Keturah 
during Sarah's lifetime. That she was strictly speak 
ing his wife is also very uncertain. The Hebrew 
word so translated in this place in the A. V., and 
by many scholars, is /sAaA, b of which the first 
meaning given by Gesenius is " a woman, of eveiy 
age and condition, whether married or not;" and 
although it is commonly used with the signification 
of "wife," as opposed to husband, in Gen. xxx. 4, 
it occurs with the signification of concubine, " and 
she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife." In 
the record in 1 Chr. i. 32, Keturah is called a 
" concubine," and it is also said, in the two verses 
immediately following the genealogy of Keturah, 
that " Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abra 
ham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away 
from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, 
unto the east country" (Gen. xxv. 5, 6). Except 
Hagar, Ketuiah is the only person mentioned to 
whom this passage can relate; and in confirmation 
of this supposition we find strong evidence of a wide 
spread of the tribes sprung from Keturah, bearing 
the names of her sons, as we have mentioned in 
other articles. These sons were " Zimran, and 
Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and 
Shuah" (ver. 2); besides the sons and gi-andsons 
of Jokshan, and the sons of Midiaii. They evi 
dently crossed the desert to the Persian Gulf and 
occupied the whole intermediate country, where 
traces of their names are frequent, while Midian 
•attended south into the peninsula of Arabia Proper. 

• So Ewald, Prophet m, " Die Stadte Moabs.' 


The elder branch of the " sons of the concubines,* 
however, was that of Ishmael. He has er«;r stood as 
the representative of the bondwoman's sons ; and uc 
such his name has become generally applied by the 
Arabs to all the Abrahamic settlers north of the 
Peninsula — besides the great Ishmaelite element of 
the nation. 

In searching the works of Arab writers for any 
information respecting these tribes, we must be 
contented to find them named as Abrahamic, or 
even Ishmaelite, for under the latter appellation 
almost all the former are confounded by their de 
scendants. Keturah c herself is by them mentioned 
veiy raiely and vaguely, and evidently only in quot 
ing from a rabbinical writer. (In the Kdmoos the 
name is said to be that of the Turks, and that of a 
young girl (or slave) of Abraham ; and, it is added, 
her descendants are the Turks!) M. Caussin cle 
Perceval (Essai, i. 179) has endeavoured to identify 
her with the name of a tribe of the Amalekites (the 
1st Amalek) called Katoora? but his arguments are 
not of any weight. They rest on a weak etymology, 
and are contradicted by the statements of Arab 
authors as well as by the fact that the early tribes 
of Arabia (of which is Katoori) have not, with the 
single exception of Amalek, been identified with any 
historical names ; while the exception of Amalek 
is that of an apparently aboriginal people whose 
name is recorded in the Bible ; and there are 
reasons for supposing that these early tribes were 
aboriginal. [E. S. P.] 

KEY (nna», from rmS, "to open," Ges. p. 
1 138 : K\fls ; clavis). The key of a native Oriental 
lock is a piece of wood, from 7 inches to 2 teet in 
length, fitted with wires or short nails, which, being 
inserted laterally into the hollow bolt which serves 
as a lock, raises other pins within the stapb so as 
to allow the bolt to be drawn back. But it is iiot 
difficult to open a lock of this kind even without 
a key, viz. with the finger dipped in paste or other 
adhesive substance. The passage Cant. v. 4, 5, is 
thus probably explained (Harmer, 06s. iii. 31 ; vol. 
i. 394, ed. Clarke; Kauwollff, ap. Kay, Trav. ii. 
17). [LOCK.] The key, so obvious a svmbol of 
authority, both in ancient and modern times, is 
named more than once in the Bible, especially Is. 
xxii. 22, a passage to which allusion is probably 
made in Rev. iii. 7. The expression " bearing the 
key on the shoulder " is thus a phrase used, some 
times perhaps in the literal sense, to denote pos 
session of office ; but there seems no reason to sup 
pose, with Grotius, any figure of a key embroidered 
on the garment of the office-bearer (see Is. ix. 6). 
In Talmudic phraseology the Almighty was repre 
sented as " holding the keys " of various operations 
of nature, e. g. rain, death, &c., i. e. exercising 
dominion over them. The delivery of the key is 
therefore an act expressive of authority conferrei], 
and the possession of it implies authority of some kind 
held by the receiver. The term " chamberlain," 
an officer whose mark of office is sometimes in modern 
times an actual key, is explained under EUNUCH 
(Grotius, Calmet, Knobel, on Is. xxii. 22; Ham 
mond ; Lightfoot, /Tor. Hebr. ; De Wette on Matt. 
xvi. 19; Carpzov on Goodwin, Moses and Aaron, pp. 
141, «H2 ; Diet, of Antiq. art. " Matrimonium ;"' 
Ovid, Fust. i. 99, 118, 125, 139; Hofmann, Lex. 


••Cair.erarius;" Chambers, Diet. " Chamberlain;" 
E;knd, Ant. Hebr. li. 3, 5.) [H. W. P.] 

Iron Key. (From Tbebe».) 

KEZI'A (nyyp: Kao-i'a; Alex. Kcurffia : 
Cassia), the second of the daughters of Job, born 
to him after his recovery ( Job xlii. 14). 

AueKaffis ; Alex. 'AjueKKOurefs : FaWis Casis), one 
of the "cities" of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 21). That 
it was the eastern border of the tribe, is evident from 
its mention in company with BETH-HOGLAH and 
BETH-HA-ARABAH. The name does not re-apppear 
in the 0. T., but it is possibly intended under the 
corrupted form BETH-BASI, in 1 Mace. ix. 62, 64. 
The name, if Hebrew, is derivable from a root 
meaning to cut off (Ges. Thes. 1229 ; Simonis, 
Onotn. 70). Is it possible that it can have any 
connexion with the general circumcision which took 
place at Gilgal, certainly in the same neighbourhood, 
after the Jordan was crossed (Josh. v. 2-9)? [G.] 


niXnn : p-v^a-ra. TTJS iTuOvnias : sepulchra con- 
cupiscentiae), Num. xi. 34 ; marg. " the graves of 
lust" (comp. xxxiii. 17). From there being no 
change of spot mentioned between it and Taberah 
in xi. 3, it is probably, like the latter, about three 
days' journey from Sinai (x. 33) ; and from the sea 
being twice mentioned in the course of the narrative 
(xi. 22, 31), a maritime proximity may perhaps be 
iiiterred. Here it seems they abode a whole month, 
during which they went on eating quails, and perhaps 
suffering from the plague which followed. If the 
conjecture of Hudherd (Burckhardt, p. 495 ; Robin 
son, i. 151) as a site forHazeroth [see HAZEROTH] 
be adopted, then " the graves of lust " may be 
perhaps within a day's journey thence in the direc 
tion of Sinai, and would lie within 15 miles of the 
Gulf of Akabah ; but no traces of any graves have 
ever been detected in the region." Both Schubert, 
between Sinai and the Wady Hurrah (Reisen, 360), 
and Stanley (8. $ P. 82), just before reaching 
Hudherd, encountered flights of birds — the latter 
says of " red-legged cranes." Ritter b speaks of such 
flights as a constant phenomenon, both in this penin 
sula and in the Euphrates region. Burckhardt, 
Travels in Syria, 406, 8 Aug., quotes Russell's 

• Save one of a Mahommedan saint (Stanley, S. 
$ P. 78), which does not assist the question. 

b He remarks on the continuance of the law of 
nature in animal habits through a course of thousands 
of years (xiv. 261). 

c Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 33, says quails settle on the 
sails of ships by night, so as to sink sometimes the 
ships in the neighbouring sea. So Diod. Sic. i. p. 38: 
T<is Oripas tiav bpTvytav eTroiovi'TO, efyfpovro re OUTOI 
ICU.T a-ye'Aas. ftei^ous eic TOU 7T-\a-yous (Lepsiug, Thelt 
to Sinai, 23). Comp. Joseph. Ant. Hi. 1, £5 ; and Yrr.y- 

Ug, Lex. Arab. s. v. IUV ; also Kalisch on Ex. xvi. 

13, where an incidental mention of the bird occurs. 
The Linnean name appears to be Tetrao Alchata. 

* The name is derived by Gesunius and others from 
VIp, " black ;" either, according to Robinson, from 


Aleppo, ii. 194, and says the bird Katta \t found 
in great numbers in the neighbourhood of T'ufi.leh. 
[ToPHEL.] He calls it a species of partridge, 01 
" not improbably the Selaua or quail. c Boys not 
uncommonly kill three or four of them at one throw 
with a stick." [H.H.] 

KIBZA'IM (D?V^p : Vat. omits ; Alei. i) Ka/3- 
iflfj. : Cebsaim], a city of Mount-Ephraim, not 
named in the meagre, and probably imperfect, lists 
of the towns of that great tribe (see Josh, xvi.), 
but mentioned elsewhere as having been given up 
with its " suburbs" to the Kohathite Levites (xxi. 
22). In the parallel list of 1 Chr. vi. JOKMEAM 
is substituted for Kibzaim (ver. 68), an exchange 
which, as already pointed out under the former 
name, may have aiisen from the similarity between 
the two in the original. Jokmeam would appear 
to have been situated at the eastern quarter of 
Ephraim. But this is merely inference, no trace 
having been hitherto discovered of either name. 

Interpreted as a Hebrew word, Kibzaim signifies 
" two heaps," [G.] 

KID. [GOAT : see Appendix A'.] 

KID'RON, THE BROOK (flTlp bm d : 6 

Xfipa.p'pos K.t$pwv and TOIV KfSpcav ; in Jer. only 
Nd^aA. tifSptav, and Alex, xetfuappos No^oX K. : 
torrens Cedrori), a torrent or valley — not a " brook," 
as in the A. V. — in immediate proximity to Jeru 
salem. It is not named in the earlier 'records of 
the country, or in the specification of the boundaries 
of Benjamin or Judah, but comes forward in con 
nexion with some remarkable events of the history. 
It lay between the city and the Mount of Olives, 
and was crossed by David in his flight (2 Sam. xv. 
23, comp. 30), and by our Lord on His way to 
Gethsemane (John xviii. 1 ; e comp. Mark xiv. 26 ; 
Luke xxii. 39). Its connexion with these two oc 
currences is alone sufficient to leave no doubt that the 
Nachal-Kidron is the deep ravine on the east of 
Jerusalem, now commonly known as the " Valley 
of Jehoshaphat." But it would seem as if the 
name were formerly applied also to the ravines 
surrounding other portions of Jerusalem — the south 
or the west ; since Solomon's prohibition to Shimei 
to " pass over the torrent Kidron " (1 K. ii. 37 ; 
Jos. Ant. viii. 1, §5) is said to have been broken br 
the latter when he went in the direction of Gath 
to seek his fugitive slaves (41, 42). Now a person 
going to Gath would certainly not go by the way 
of the Mount of Olives, or approach the eastern side 
of the city at all. The route — whether Gath were 
at Beit-Jibrtn or at Tell es-Safieh — would be by the 

the turbidness of its stream (comp. Job vi. 16 ; though 
the words of Job imply that this was a condition of all 
brooks when frozen) ; or more appropriately, with 
Stanley, from the depth and obscurity of the ravine 
(S. $ P. 172) ; possibly also — though this is proposed 
with hesitation — from the impurity which seems to 
have attached to it from a very early date. 

We cannot, however, too often insist on the great 
uncertainty which attends ihe derivations of these 
ancient names ; and in treating Kidron as a Hebrew 
word, we may be making a mistake almost as absurd 
as that of the copyists who altered it into r<av ice&ptav, 
believing that it arose from the presence of cedars. 

* Here, and here only, the form used in the A. V. 
is CEDRON. The variations in the Greek text are 
very curious. Codex A has rov Kt&piav ; B, riav xeSptov ; 
D, rov xeSpov, arid in some cursive MSS. quoted by 
Tischendorf we even find ruv SevSpiav 



Bethlehem-gate, and then neai-ly due west. 1'erhups 
the prohibition may have been a more general one 
than is implied in ver. 37 (comp. the king's reitera 
tion of it in ver. 42), the Kidron being in that case 
specially mentioned because it was on the road to 
Bahurim, Shimei's home, and the scene of his crime. 
At any rate, beyond the passige in question, there 
;s no evidence of the name Kidron having been 
applied to the southern or western ravines of the city. 
The distinguishing peculiarity of the Kidron 
valley — that in respect to which it is most fre 
quently mentioned in the 0. T. — is the impurity 
which appears to have been ascribed to it. Ex 
cepting the two casual notices already quoted, we 
firet meet with it as the place in which King Asa 
demolished and burnt the obscene phallic idol (vol. i. 
S49a) of his mother (1 K. xv. 13 ; 2 Chr. xv. 
16) Next we find the "wicked Athaliah hurried 
thither to execution (Jos. Ant. ix. 7, §3; 2 K. xi. 
16). It then becomes the regular receptacle for 
' the impurities and abominations of tha idol-worship, 
when removed from the Temple and destroyed by 
the adherents of Jehovah* (2 Chr. xxix. 16, xxx. 
14; 2 K. xxiii. 4, 6, 12). In the course of these 
narratives the statement of Josephus just quoted 
as to the death of Athaliah is supported by the fact 
that in the time of Josiah it was the common 
cemetery of the city (2 K. xxiii. 6 ; comp. Jer. 
xxvi. 23, " graves of the common people"), perhaps 
the " valley of dead bodies" mentioned by Jeremiah 
(xxxi. 40) in close connexion with the •' fields " of 
Kidron ; and the restoration of which to sanctity 
was to be one of the miracles of future times (»6ic?.). 
How long the valley continued to be used for a 
burying-place it is very hard to ascertain. After 
the capture of Jerusalem in 1 099 the bodies of the 
slain were buried outside the Golden Gateway 
(Mislin, ii. 487; Tobler, Umgebungen, 218) ; but 
what had been the practice in the interval the 
writer has not succeeded in tracing. To the date 
of the monuments at the foot of Olivet we have 
at present no clue ; but even if they are of pre- 
Christian times there is no proof that they are 
tombs. From the date just mentioned, however, 
the burials appear to have been constant, and at 
present it is the favourite resting-place of Moslems 
and Jews, the former on the west, the latter on the 
east of the valley. The Moslems are mostly con 
fined to the narrow level spot between the foot of 
the wall and the commencement of the precipitous 
slope ; while the Jews have possession of the lower 
part of the slopes of Olivet, where their scanty 
tombstones are crowded so thick together as literally 
to cover the surface like a pavement. 

The term Nachal* is in the 0. T., with one 
single exception (2 K. xxiii. 4), attached to the 
name of Kidron, and apparently to that alone of 
the valleys or ravines of Jerusalem. Hinnom is 
always the Ge. This enables us to infer with 
great probability that the Kidron is intended in 
2 Chr. xxxii. 4, by the "brook (Nachal) which 
ran through the midst of the land;" and that 
Hezekiah's preparations for the siege consisted in 
sealing the source of the Kidron — " the upper 


springhead (not ' watercourse,' as A. V.) of Gihon r 
where it burst out in the waily some distar ce north 
of the city, and leading it by a subterranean channe* 
to the interior cf the city. If this is so, there is no 
difficulty in accounting for the fact of the subse 
quent want of water in the ancient bed of the 
Kidron. In accordance with this also is the speci 
fication of Gihon as " Gihon-in-the-Nachal " — that 
is, in the Kidron valley — though this was probably 
the lower of two outlets of the same name. 
[GIHON.] By Jerome, in the Onomasttcon, it is 
mentioned as " close to Jerusalem on the eastern 
side, and spoken of by John the Evangelist." But 
the favourite name of this valley at the time of 
Jerome, and for several centuries after, was "tha 
valley of Jehoshaphat," and the name Kidron, or, 
in accordance with the orthography of the Vulgate, 
Cedron, is not invariably found in the travellers 
(see Arculf, E. Trav. 1 ; Saewulf, 41 ; Benjamin 
of Tudela; Maundeville, E. Trav. 176; Thietmar, 
27 : but not the Bordeaux Pilgrim, the Citcz de 
Jherusalem, Willibald, &c.). 

The following description of the valley of Kidron 
in its modern state — at once the earliest and the 
most accurate which we possess — is taken from 
Dr. Robinson (B. E. i. 269) >— 

" In approaching Jerusalem from the high mosk 
of Neby Samwtt in the N.W. the traveller first 
descends and crosses the bed of the great Wad;,' 
Beit Hantna already described. He then ascends 
again towards the S.E. by a small side wady and 
along a rocky slope for twenty-five minutes, when 
he reaches the Tombs of the Judges, lying in a 
small gap or depression of the ridge, still half an 
hour distant from the northern gate of the city. 
A few steps further he reaches the watershed be 
tween the great wady behind him and the tract 
before him ; and here is the head of the Valley of 
Jehoshaphat. From this point the dome of the 
Holy Sepulchre bears S. by E. The tract arouna 
this spot is very rocky ; and the rocks have been 
much cut away, partly in quarrying building-stone, 
and partly in the formation of sepulchres. The 
region is full of excavated tombs; and these con 
tinue with more or less frequency on both sides of 
the valley, all the way down to Jerusalem. The 
valley runs for 15 minutes directly towards the 
city ; c it is here shallow and broad, and in some 
parts tilled, though very stony. The road follows 
along its bottom to the same point. The valley 
now turns nearly east, almost at a right angle, and 
passes to the northward of the Tombs of the Kings 
and the Muslim Wely before mentioned. Here it 
s about 200 rods distant from the city ; and the 
tract between is tolerably level ground, planted 
with olive-trees. The NdtnUus road crosses it in 
this part, and ascends the hill on the north. The 
valley is here still shallow, and runs in the same 
direction for about 10 minutes. It then bends 
again to the south, and, following this general 
course, passes between the city and the Mount of 

" Betoie reaching the city, and also opposite its 
northern part, the valley spreads out into a basin 

" The Targum appears to understand the obscure 
passage Zeph. i. 11, as referring to the destruction of 
the idolatrous worship in Kidron, for it renders it, 
" Howl all ye that dwell in the Nachal Kidron, for all 
the people are broken whose works were like the works 
t.f the people of the land of Canaan." [MAKTKSH.] 

b jfachal is untrunslatoablc in English unions by 

" Wady," to which it answers exactly, and which liids 
fair to become shortly an English word. It does not 
signify the stream, or the valley which contained the 
bed of the stream, and was its receptacle when swollen 
by winter-rains — but both. [RIVK.R.] 

• Sec u slight correction of this by Tobler, I'm-j-s- 
himgcn, 32. 


of come breadth, which is tilled, and contains 
^lantr.tions of olive and other fruit-trees. In this 
part it is crossed obliquely by a road leading from 
the N.E. corner of Jerusalem across the northern 
part of the Mount of Olives to 'Andta. Its sides 
are still full of excavated tombs. As the valley 
descends, the steep side upon the right becomes 
more and more elevated above it; until, at the 
gate of St. Stephen, the height of this brow is 
about 100 feet. Here a path winds down from 
the gate on a course S.E by E., and crosses the 
valley by a bridge; beyond which are the church 
with the Tomb of the Virgin, Gethsemane, and 
ether plantations of olive-trees, already described. 
The path and bridge are on a causeway, or rather 
terrace, built up across the valley, perpendicular 
on the south side ; the earth being rilled in on the 
northern side up to the level of the bridge. The 
bridge itself consists of an arch, open on the south 
side, and 17 feet high from the bed of the channel 
below ; but the north side is built up, with two 
subterranean drains entering it from above ; one of 
which comes from the sunken court of the Virgin's 
Tomb, and the other from the fields further in the 
north-west. The breadth of the valley at this 
point will appear from the measurements which I 
took from St. Stephen's Gate to Gethsemane, along 
the path, via. — 

Eng. feet. 

1. From St. Stephen's Gate to the brow of the 

descent, level 135 

2. Bottom of the slope, the angle of the descent 

being 16i° 415 

3. Bridge, level 140 

4. N.W. corner of Gethsemane, slight rise . . 145 

5. N.E. corner of do. do 150 

The last three numbers give the breadth of the 
proper bottom of the valley at this spot, viz. 435 
feet, or 145 yards. Further north it is somewhat 

" Below the bridge the valley contracts gradually, 
and sinks more rapidly. The first continuous traces 
of a vrater-course or torrent-bed commence at the 
bridge, though they occur likewise at intervals 
higher up. The western hill becomes steeper and 
more elevated; while on the east the Mount of 
Olives rises much higher, but is not so steep. At 
the distance of 1000 teet from the bridge on a 
course S. 10° W. the bottom of the valley has 
become merely a deep gully, the narrow bed of a 
torrent, from which the hills rise directly on each 
side. Here another bridge d is thrown across it on 
an arch ; and just by on the left are the alleged 
tombs of Jehoshaphat, Absalom, and others ; as 
also the Jewish cemetery. The valley now con 
tinues of the same character, and follows the same 
course (S. 10° W.) for 550 feet further; where it 
makes a sharp turn for a moment towards the 
right. This portion is the narrowest of all ; it is 
here a mere ravine between high mountains. The 
S.E. corner of the area of the mosk overhangs this 
part, the corner of the wall standing upon the very 
brink of the declivity. From it to the bottom, on 
a couree S.E. the angle of depression is 27°, and 
the distance 450 feet, giving an elevation of 128 
feet at that point ; to which may be added 20 feet 
or more for the rise of ground just north along the 
w.11; making in all an elevation of about 150 feet. 
This, however, is the highest point above the val 
ley ; for further south the narrow ridge of Ophel 



slopes down as rapidly as the valley itself. In this 
part of the valley or.s would expect to find, if any 
where, traces of ruins thrown down from above, 
and the ground raised by the rubbish thus accu 
mulated. Occasional blocks of stone are indeed 
seen ; but neither the surface of the ground, nor 
the bed of the torrent, exhibits any special appear 
ance of having been raised or L terrupted by masses 
of ruins. 

" Below the short turn above mentioned, a line 
of 1025 feet on a course S.W. brings us to thi- 
Fountain of the Virgin, lying deep under the 
western hill. The valley has now opened a little ; 
bnt its bottom is still occupied only by the bed 
of the torrent. From here a course S. 20° W. 
carried us along the village of Siloam (Kefr Selwan) 
on the eastern side, and at 1170 feet we were 
opposite the mouth of the Tyropoeon and the Pool 
of Siloam, which lies 255 feet within it. The 
mouth of this valley is still 40 or 50 feet higher 
than the bed of the Kidron. The steep descent 
between the two has been already described as built 
up in terraces, which, as well as the strip of level 
ground below, are occupied with gardens belonging 
to the village of Siloam. These are irrigated by 
the waters of the Pool of Siloam, which at this 
time were lost in them. In these gardens the 
stones have been removed, and the soil is a fine 
mould. They are planted with fig and other fruit- 
trees, and furnish also vegetables for the city. 
Elsewhere the bottom of the valley is thickly 
strewed with small stones. 

" Further down, Jie valley opens more and is 
tilkd. A line of 685 feet on the same course 
(S. 20° W.) brought us to a rocky point of the 
eastern hill, here called the Mount of Offence, over 
against the entrance of the Valley of Hinnom. 
Thence to the well of Job or Nehemiah is 275 feet 
due south. At the junction of the two valleys the 
bottom forms an oblong plat, extending from the 
gardens above mentioned nearly to the well of Job, 
and being 150 yards or more in breadth. The 
western and north-western parts of this plat are in 
like manner occupied by gardens ; many of which 
are also on terraces, and receive a portion of the 
waters of Siloam. 

" Below the well of Nehemiah the Valley of 
Jehoshaphat continues to run S.S.W. between the 
Mount of Offence and the Hill of Evil Counsel, so 
called. At 130 feet is a small cavity or outlet by 
which the water of the well sometimes runs off. 
At about 1200 feet, or 400 yards, from the well 
is a place under the western hill, where in the 
rainy season water flows out as from a fountain. 
At about 1500 feet or 500 yards below the well 
the valley bends off S. 75° E. for half a mile or 
more, and then turns agaiu more to the south, and 
pursues its way to the Dead Sea. At the angle 
where it thus bends eastward a small wady comes 
in from the west, from behind the Hill of Evil 
Counsel. The width of the main valley below the 
well, as far as to the turn, varies from 50 to 100 
yards ; it is full of olive and fig-trees, and is in 
most parts ploughed and sown with grain. Further 
down it takes the name among the Arabs of Wady 
er-Rakib, ' Monks' Val.ey,' from the convent of 
St. Saba situated on it ; And still nearer to the Dead 
Sea it is also called Wady cn-Ndr, ' Fire Valley.' « 

d For a minute account of the two bridges, see 
Tobler, Umgebungcn, 35-39. 

• A lift of some of the plants found in this valley 

is given by Mislin (iii. 209) ; and some scraps of in 
formation about the valley itself at p. 199. 



" The channel of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the 
Brook Kidron of the Scriptures, is nothing more 
than the dry bed of a wintry torrent, bearing marks 
of being occasionally swept over by a large volume 
of water. No stream flows here now except during 
the heavy rains of winter, when the waters descend 
into it from the neighbouring hills. Yet even in 
winter there is no constant flow ; and our friends, 
who had resided several years in the city, had 
never seen a stream running through the valley. 
Nor is there any evidence that there was anciently 
more water in it than at present. Like the wadys 
of the desert, the valley probably served of old, 
as now. only to drain oif the waters of the rainy 

One point is unnoticed in Dr. Robinson's de 
scription, sufficiently curious and well-attested to 
merit further careful investigation — the possibility 
that the Kedron flows below the present surface 
of the ground. Dr. Barclay (City, &c. 302) men 
tions " a fountain that bursts forth during the 
winter in a valley entering the Kedron from the 
north, and flows several hundred yards before it 
sinks ;" and again he testifies that at a point in 
the valley about two miles below the city the 
nurmurings of a stream deep below the ground 
may be distinctly heard, which stream, on excava 
tion, he actually discovered (ibid.~). His inference is 
that between the two points the brook is flowing 
in a subterraneous channel, as is " not at all un- 
frequent in Palestine" (p. 303). Nor is this a 
modern discovery, for it is spoken of by William 
of Tyre ; by Brocardus ( Descr. cap. viii. ) , as audible 
near the " Tomb of the Virgin ;" and also by Fabri 
^i. 370), Marinus Sanutus (3, 14, 9), and others. 

That which Dr. Robinson complains that neither 
he nor his friends were fortunate enough to witness 
lias since taken place. In the winter of 1853-4 so 
heavy were the rains, that not only did the lower 
part of the Kidron, below the so-called well of 
Nehemiah or Joab, run with a considerable stream 
for the whole of the month of March (Barclay, 515), 
but also the upper part, " in the middle section of 
the Valley of Jehoshaphat, flowed for a day or two" 
(Stewart, Tent $ Khan, 316). The Well of Joab 
is probably one of the outlets of the mysterious 
spring which flows below the city of Jerusalem, and 


its overflow is comparatively common ; f but tht 
flowing of a stream in the upper part of the valley 
would seem not to have taken place for many years 
before the occasion in question, although it oc 
curred also in the following winter (Jewish Intelli 
gencer, May 1856, p. 1 37 note), and, as the writer is 
informed, has since become almost periodical. [G.] 

KI'N AH (PI3»J5 : 'IK(£M; Alex. K.wi: Cina), » 
city of Judah, one of those which lay on the ex 
treme south boundary of the tribe, next to Kdom 
(Josh. xv. 22). It is mentioned in the Onomas- 
ticon of Eusebius and Jerome, but not so as to 
imply that they had any actual knowledge of it. 
With the sole exception of Schwarz (99), it appears 
to be unmentioned by any traveller, and the " town 
Cinah situated near the wilderness of Zin " with 
which he would identify it, is not to be found in hi* 
own or any other map. 

Professor Stanley (S, fy P. 160) very ingeniously 
connects Kinah with the Kenites (^J5), who settled 
in this district (Judg. i. 16). But it should not 
be overlooked that the list in Josh. rv. purports to 
record the towns as they were at the conquest, 
while the settlement of the Kenites probably (though 
not certainly) did not take place till after it. [G.] 

KINDRED. 8 I. Of the special names denoting 
relation by consanguinity, the principal will be 
found explained under their proper heads, FATHER, 
BROTHER, &c. It will be there seen that the 
words which denote near relation in the direct line 
are used also for the other superior or inferior 
degrees in that line, as grandfather, grandson, &c. 

On the meaning of the expression Sh'er basar 
(see below 1 and 2) much controversy has arisen. 
Sh'er, as shown below, is in Lev. xviii. 6, in marg. 
of A. V., " remainder." The rendering, however, 
of Sh'er basar in text of A. V., " near of kin," ma} 
be taken as correct, but, as Michaelis shows, with 
out determining the precise extent to which the 
expression itself is applicable (Mich. Laws of Moses, 
ii. 48, ed. Smith; Knobel on Leviticus: see also 
Lev. xxv. 49 ; Num. xxvii. 11). 

II. The words which express collateral consan 
guinity are — 1. uncle ; b 2. aunt; c 3. nephew; 1 
4. niece (not in A. V.) ; 5. cousin.* 

' " During the latter rains of February and March 
the well Ain Ayub is a subject of much speculation 
and interest to all dwellers in the city. If it over 
flows and discharges its waters down the Wady-en- 
Nar, the lower part of the Kidron, then they are 
certain that they will have abundance of water during 
the summer ; if there is no overflow, their minds are 
filled with forebodings." (Stewart, 316.) 

* 1. (a) 1KB*, "flesh;" ouceuw; caro. (b) PIKC^ 
"kinswoman," also "kindred," olictia, corf, from 
"1KK*. " to swell," also " to remain," t. e. " be super 
fluous." Whence comes "IKE*, " remainder," Ges. 
1349-50. Hence, in Lev/iviii. 6, A. V. has in 
margin^ " remainder." 

2. 1^3, " flesh," arapt, caro, from ~lb>3, " be 

joyful," i. e. conveying the notion of beauty, Ges. 
p. 248. 

3. nnSkJTD, " family," <f>vAi), familia, applied both 
to races and single families of mankind, and also to 

4. (a) jn'llD, JHb, and in Keri VTIO, from 
y*1*, " see," " know." (b) Also, from same root, 

kindred ;" and hence " kinsmar," or 

" kinswoman," used, like " acquaintance," in both 
senses, Ges. p. 574. But Buxtorf limits (b) to the 
abstract sense, (a) to the concrete, yvwptfios, pro- 

5. ninX, " brotherhood," Jia&jitT), germanitas, 

T -: - 

Ges. p. 63. 

Nearly allied with the foregoing in sense arc the 
following general terms : — 

6. 31~li5, " near," hence " a relative," o cyyus, 


propinqitiis, Ges. p. 1234. 

7. 7X3, from ?K3, " redeem," Ges. p. 25c, 
o ayxitrrcvtav, "a kinsman," «'. e. the relative to 
whom belonged the right of redemption or of vcn- 

b li'H. a.Sf\<t>o<; rov irarpb?, cUtto9 ; patruus. 

c mi't or m' <! I> ^ "VYY*"*!*! uxor patrui. 

d pj, in connexion with 13 J, " offspring ;" but sc€ 
JOCHEBED. It is rendered "nephew" in A. V., bi:l 
Indicates a descendant in general, and is usually sr 
rcndcied by LXX. and Vulg. See Ges. p. 861. 

e <rvyy(tvrj<;, coynatu.t, Luke i. 3C, 58. 


III. The terms of affinity are— 1. (a) father-in- 
law/ (6) mother-in-law ; e 2. (a) son-in-]aw, h (6) 
daughter-in-law ; ' 3. (a) brother-in-law, 11 (6) sister- 
in-law. 1 " 

The relations of kindred, expressed by few words, 
and imperfectly defined in the earliest ages, ac 
quired in course of time greater significance and 
wider influence. The full list of relatives either 
by consanguinity, ». e. as arising from a common 
ancestor, or by affinity, »'. e. as created by marriage, 
may be seen detailed in the Corpus Juris Civ. Digest. 
lib. xxxviii. tit. 10, de Gradibus ; see also Corp. 
Jur. Canon. Deer. ii. c. xxxv. 9, 5. 

The domestic and economical questions arising 
out of kindred may be classed under the three heads 
VKNGE, and the reader is referred to the articles on 
those subjects for information thereon. It is clear 
that the tendency of the Mosaic Law was to increase 
the restrictions on marriage, by defining more pre 
cisely the relations created by it, as is shown by the 
cases of Abraham and Moses. [IsCAH ; JOCHEBED.] 
For information on the general subject of kindred 
and its obligations, see Selden, de Jure Naturali, 
lib. v.; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, ed. Smith, 
ii. 36 ; Knobel on Lev. xviii. ; Philo, de Spec. Leg. 
iii. 3, 4, 5, vol. ii. 301-304, ed. Mangey ; Burck- 
hardt, Arab Tribes, i. 150 ; Keil, Bibl. Arch. ii. 
p. 50, §106, 107. [H. W. P.] 

KINE. [Cow: See Appendix A.] 

KING ("&£>, melek : /3o<nAet5s : rex), the 
name of the Supreme Ruler of the Hebrews during 
a period of about 500 a years previous to the de 
struction of Jerusalem, B.C. 586. It was borne 
first by the Ruler of the 12 Tribes united, and then 
by the Rulers of Judah and Israel separately. 

The immediate occasion of the substitution of a 
regal form of government for that of the Judges, 
seems to have been the siege of Jabesh-Gilead by 
Nahash, king of the Ammonites (1 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 
12), and the refusal to allow the inhabitants of that 
city to capitulate, except on humiliating and cruel 
conditions (1 Sam. xi. 2, 4-6). The conviction 
seems to have forced itself on the Israelites that 
they could not resist their formidable neighbour 
unless they placed themselves under the sway of a 
' king, like surrounding nations. Concurrently with 
this conviction, disgust had been excited by the 
corrupt administration of justice under the sons of 
.Samuel, and a radical change was desired by them 
iu this respect also (1 Sam. viii. 3-5). Accord 
ingly the original idea of a Hebrew king was two 
fold : first, that he should lead the people to battle 
in time of war ; and, 2ndly, that he should ex- 



ecute judgment and justice tc them in war ana in 
peace (1 Sam. viii. 20). In both respects the 
desired end was attained. The righteous wrath 
and military capacity of Saul were immediately 
triumphant over the Ammonites ; and though ulti 
mately he was defeated and slain in battle with th 
Philistines, he put even them to flight on more 
than one occasion (1 Sam. xiv. 23, xvii. 52), and 
generally waged successful war against th* sur 
rounding nations (1 Sam. xiv. 47). His successor, 
David, entered on a series of brilliant conquests 
over the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites, 
and Ammonites [see DAVID, vol. i. 410] ; and the 
Israelites, no longer confined within the narrow 
bounds of Palestine, had an empire extending from 
the river Euphrates to Gaza, and from the entering 
iu of Hamath to the river of Egypt (1 K. iv. 21). 
In the meanwhile complaints cease of the corrup 
tion of justice ; and Solomon not only consolidated and 
maintained in peace the empire of his father, David, 
but left an enduring reputation for his wisdom as a 
judge. Under this expression, however, we must re 
gard him, not merely as pronouncing decisions, pri 
marily, or in the last resort, in civil and criminal 
cases, but likewise as holding public levees and trans 
acting public business " at the gate," when he would 
receive petitions, hear complaints, and give summary 
decisions on various points, which in a modem 
European kingdom would come under the cogni 
zance of numerous distinct public departments. 

To form a correct idea of a Hebrew king, we 
must abstract ourselves from the notions of modern 
Europe, and realise the position of Oriental sove 
reigns. It would be a mistake to regard the 
Hebrew government as a limited monarchy, in the 
English sense of the expression. It is stated in 
1 Sam. x. 25, that Samuel " told the people the 
manner b of the kingdom, and wrote it in the book 
and laid it before the Lord," and it is barely pos 
sible that this may refer to some statement respect 
ing the boundaries of the kingly power. But no 
such document has come down to us; and if it ever 
existed, and contained restrictions of any moment 
on the kingly power, it was probably disregarded 
in practice. The following passage of Sir John 
Malcolm respecting the Shahs of Persia, may, with 
some slight modifications, be regarded as fairly 
applicable to the Hebrew monarchy under David 
and Solomon: — "The monarch of Persia has been 
pronounced to be one of the most absolute in the 
world. His word has ever been deemed a law : 
and*he has probably never had any further restraint 
upon the free exercise of his vast authority than 
has arisen from his regard for religion, his respect 
for established usages, his desire of reputation, and 

1 DH. fe 

vepa., socrus. 
h jnn, W0po«, socer, from }Hn, "give in mar- 

1 T T - T 

riage," whence come part, in Kal. jnn, m., and 
fibrin, f- father-in-law and mother-in-law, i. e. 
purer, ts who give a daughter in marriage. 

' H?3> vvp't"!, nurtts. 
Q3V &&tfaf>°* TO ^ av&pos, levir. 

m HOIIV yvril TOW dSeA</>oC, uxor fratris. 

m The precise period depends on the length of the 

reign of Saul, for estimating which there are no cer 

tain data. In the O. T. the exact length is nowhere 

•.jieiitionetl. In Acts xiii. 21 forty years are specified ; 


but this is in a speech, and statistical accuracy may 
have been foreign to the speaker's ideas on that occa 
sion. And there are difficulties in admitting that be 
reigned so long as forty years. See Winer sub voc., 
and the article SAUL in this volume. It is only in 
the reign of David that mention is first made of the 
" recorder " or " chronicler " of the king {2 Sam. viii. 
16). Perhaps the contemporary notation of dates may 
have commenced in David's reign. 

b The word tiBtW, translated "manner" in tht 
A. V., is translated in the LXX. SiK<xi'u>/aa, i. e. 
statute or ordinance (see Ecclus. iv. 17, Bar. ii. 12, 
iv. 13). But Josephus seems to have regarded the 
document as a prophetical statement, read before th« 
king, of the calamities which were to arise from tht 
kingly power, as a kind of protest recorded for sue 
ceeding ages (see Ant. vi. 4, §C). 




hi* fear of exciting an opposition that might be 
dangerous to his power, or to his life" (Malcolm's 
Persia, v«l. ii. 303 ; compare Elphinstone's India, 
or the Indian Mahometan Empire, book viii. c. 3). 
It must not, however, be supposed to have been 
either the understanding, or the practice, that the 
novereign might seize at his discretion the private 
property of individuals. Ahab did not venture to 
seize the vineyard of Naboth till, through the testi 
mony of false witnesses, Naboth had been convicted 
of blasphemy ; and possibly his vineyard may have 
be;n seized as a confiscation, without flagrantly 
outraging public sentiment in those who did not 
know the truth (1 K. xi. 6). But no monarchy 
perhaps ever existed in which it would not be i 
regained as an outrage, that the monarch should 
from covetousness seize the private property of an 
innocent subject in no ways dangerous to the state. 
And generally, when Sir John Malcolm proceeds as 
follows, in reference to " one of the most absolute " 
monarchs in the world, it will be understood that 
the Hebrew king, whose power might be described 
in the same way, is not, on account of certain 
restraints which exist in the nature of things, to be 
regarded as " a limited monarch " in the European 
use of the words. " We may assume that the 
power of the king of Persia is by usage absolute 
over the property and lives of his conquered enemies, 
^j's rebellious subjects, his own family , his ministers, 
over public oncers civil and military, and all the 
numerous train of domestics; and that he may 
punish any person of these classes, without exami 
nation or formal procedure of any kind: in all 
other cases that are capital, the forms prescribed 
by law and custom are observed ; the monarch only 
commands, when the evidence has been examined 
and the law declared, that the sentence ^hall be put 
•it execution, or that the condemned culprit shall 
L-e pardoned" (vol. ii. 306). In accordance with 
such usages, David ordered Uriah to be treacher 
ously exposed to death in the forefront of the hottest 
battle (2 Sam. xi. 15); he caused Rechab and 
Baanah to be slain instantly, when they brought 
him the head of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iv. 12) ; and 
he is represented as having on his death-bed recom 
mended Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death 
(IK. ii. 5-9). In like manner, Solomon caused to 
be killed, without trial, not only his elder brother 
Ador.iiah, and Joab, whose execution might be re 
garded as the exceptional acts of a dismal stute- 
policy in the beginning of his reign, but likewise 
Shimei, after having been seated on the throne three 
years. And King Saul, in resentment at their con 
nivance with David's escape, put to death 85 
priests, and caused a massacre of the inhabitants of 
Nob, including women, children, and sucklings 
(1 Sam. xxii. 18, 19;. 

Besides being commander-in-chief of the army, 
supreme judge, and absolute master, as it were, of 
the lives of his subjects, the king exercised the 
power of imposing taxes on them, and of exacting 
from them personal service and labour. Both these 
]K>ints seem clear from the account given (1 Sam. 
viii. 11-17) of the evils which would arise from 
the kingly power; and are confii-med in various 
ways. Whatever mention may be made of con- 


suiting " old men," or " elders of Israel," we IIPVCI 
read of their deciding such points as these. When 
Pul, the king of Assyria, imposed a tribute on the 
kingdom of Israel, " Menahem, the king," exacted 
the money of all the mighty men of wealth, of each 
man 50 shekels of silver (2 K. xv. 19). And wheii 
Jehoiakim, king of Judah, gave his tribute of silvei 
and gold to Pharaoh, he taxed the luid to give thf 
money ; he exacted the silver and gold of the people 
of every one according to his taxation (2 K. xxiii. 
35). And the degree to which the exaction of per 
sonal labour might be earned on a special occasion, 
is illustrated by King Solomon's requirements for 
building the temple. He raised a levy of 30,000 
men, and sent them to Lebanon by courses of ten 
thousand a month ; and he had 70,000 that bare 
burdens, and 80,000 hewers in the mountains (1 K. 
v. 13-15). Judged by the Oriental standard, there 
is nothing improbable in these numbers. In oui 
own days, for the purpose of constructing the Mah- 
moodeyeh Canal in Egypt, Mehemet Ali, by orders 
given to the various sheikhs of the provinces of 
Sakarah, Ghizeh, Mensourah, Sharkieh, Menouf, 
Bahyreh, and some others, caused 300,000 men, 
women, and children, to be assembled along the site 
of the intended canal.* This was 120,000 more 
than the levy of Solomon. 

In addition to these earthly powers, the King of 
Israel had a more awful claim to respect and obe 
dience. He was the vicegerent of Jehovah (1 Sam. 
x. 1, xvi. 13), and as it were His son, if just and 
holy (2 Sam. vii. 14; Ps. Ixxxix. 26, 27, ii. 6, 7). 
He had been set apart as a consecrated ruler. Upon 
his head had been poured the holy anointing oil, 
composed of olive-oil, myrrh, cinnamon, swept ca 
lamus, and cassia, which had hitherto been reserved 
exclusively for the priests of Jehovah, espechlly 
the high-priest, or had been solely used to anoint 
the Tabernacle of the Congregation, the Ark of the 
Testimony, and the vessels of the Tabernacle (Ex. 
xxx. 23-33, xl. 9; Lev. xxi. 10; IK. i. 39). He 
had become, in fact, emphatically " the Lord's 
Anointed." At the coronation of sovereigns in 
modern Europe, holy oil has been frequently used, 
as a symbol of divine right ; but this has been 
mainly regarded as a mere form ; and the use of it 
was undoubtedly introduced in imitation of the 
Hebrew custom. But, from the beginning to the 
end of the Hebrew monarchy, a living real signi 
ficance was attached to consecration by this holy 
anointing oil. From well-known anecdotes related 
of David, — and perhaps, from words in his lamen 
tation over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 21) — it 
results that a certain sacredness invested the person 
of Saul, the/rstf king, as the Lord's anointed ; and 
that, on this account, it was deemed sacrilegious to 
kill him, even at his own request (1 Sam. xxiv. 6, 
10, xxvi. 9, 16; 2 Sam. i. 14). And, after the 
destruction of the first Temple, in the Book of La 
mentations over the calamities of the Hebrew 
people, it is by the name of " the Lord's Anointed " 
that Zedekiah, the last king of .Judah, is bewailed 
(Lam. iv. 20). Again, more than 600 years after 
the capture of Zedekiah, the name of the Anointed, 
though never so used in the Old Testament — yet 
suggested probably by Ps. ii. 2, Dan. ix. 26 — had 

e R«e The Englishwoman in Egypt, by Mrs. PooJe, 
vol. ii. p. 219. Owing to insufficient provisions, bad 
treatment, and neglect of proper arrangements, 30,000 
of this number perished in seven months (p. 220). In 
itompulsory levies of labour, it is probably difficult to 

prevent proas instance* of oppression. At the rebel- 
lion of the ten tribes, Adoniram, called also Adorain, 
who was over the levy of 30,000 men for Lebanon, 
was stoned to death (1 K. xii. 18; 1 K. v. It; 2 S:un' 
xx. 24). 


become appropriated to the expected king, who was 
*o restore the kingdom of David, and inaugurate a 
period when Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, and the 
Philistines, would again be incorporated with the 
Hebrew monarchy, which would extend from the 
Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and to the ends 
of the earth (Acts i. 6 ; John i. 41, iv. 25 ; Is. xi. 
12-14; Ps. Ixxii. 8). And thus the identical He 
brew word which signifies anointed, d through its 
Aramaic form adopted into Greek and Latin, is still 
preserved to us in the English word Messiah. (See 
Gesenius's Thesaurus, p. 825.) 

A ruler in whom so much authority, human and 
divine, was embodied, was naturally distinguished 
by outward honours and luxuries. He had a court 
of Oriental magnificence. When the power of the 
kingdom was at its height, he sat on a throne of 
ivory, covered with pure gold, at the feet of which 
were two figures of lions. The throne was ap 
proached by 6 steps, guarded by 12 figures of 
lions, two on each step. The king was dressed in 
royal robes (1 K. xxii. 10; 2 Chr. xviii. 9); his 
insignia were, a crown or diadem of pure gold, or 
jMirhaps radiant with precious gems (2 Sam. i. 
10, xii. 30 ; 2 K. xi. 12 : Ps. xxi. 3), and a royal 
sceptre (Ez. xix. 11 ; Is. xiv. 5 ; Ps. xlv. 6; Am. 
i. 5, 8). Those who approached him did him 
obeisance, bowing down and touching the ground 
with their foreheads (1 Sam. xxiv. 8 ; 2 Sam. xix. 
24) ; and this was done even by a king's wife, the 
mother of Solomon (1 K. i. 16). Their officers aud 
subjects called themselves his servants or slaves, 
though they do not seem habitually to have given 
way to such extravagant salutations as in the Chal- 
daean and Persian courts (1 Sam. xvii. 32, 34, 
30, xx. 8 ; 2 Sam. vi. 20 ; Dan. ii. 4). As in the 
East at present, a kiss was a sign of respect and 
homage (1 Sam. x. 1, perhaps Ps. ii. 12). He 
lived in a splendid palace, with porches and columns 
(1 K. vii. 2-7). All his drinking vessels were of 
gold (1 K. x. 21). He had a large harem, which 
in the time of Solomon must have been the source 
of enormous expense, if we accept as statistically 
accurate the round number of 700 wives and 300 
concubines, in all 1000, attributed to him in the 
Book of Kings (1 K. xi. 3). As is invariably the 
;ase in the great eastern monarchies at present, his 
harem was guarded by eunuchs; translated "officers" 
in the A. V. for the most part (1 Sam. viii. 15 ; 
2 K. xxiv. 12, 15 ; IK. xxii. 9 ; 2 K. viii. 6, ix. 
J2, 33, xx. 18, xxiii. 11 ; Jer. xxxviii. 7). 

The main practical restraints on the kings seem 
to have arisen from the prophets and the pro 
phetical order, though in this respect, as in many 
, others, a distinction must be made between different 
periods and different reigns. Indeed, under all cir 
cumstances, much would depend on the individual 
character of the king or the prophet. No trans 
action of importance, however, was entered on with 
out consulting the will of Jehovah, either by Urim 
and Thurnmirr. 01 by the prophets ; and it was the 
general jjersuasion that the prophet was in an 
tspecial sense the servant and messenger of Jehovah, 
to whom Jehovah had declared his will (Is. xiiv. 26 ; 
Am. iii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, ix. 6 : see PROPHETS). 

d It is supposed both by Jahn (Archtiol. Bib. §222) 
and Bauer (in his Heb. Aiterthtimer, §20) thut a king 
was only anointed when a new family came to the 
throne, or when the right to the crown was disputed. 
It is usually on such occasions only that the anointing 
is specified ; as in 1 Sam. x. 1, 2 Sam. ii. 4, 1 K. i. 39, 
2 K. ix. 3, 2 K. xi. 12 : but this is not inrarially 



The prophets not only rebuked the king with 
boldness for individual acts cf wickedness, as after 
the murders of Uriah and of Naboth ; but also, b\ 
interposing their denunciations or exhortations at 
critical periods of history, they swayed permanently 
the destinies of the state. When, after the> revolt 
of the ten tribes, Rehoboam had under him at Je 
rusalem an army stated to consist of 180,000 men, 
Shemaiah, as interpreter of the divine will, caused 
the army to separate without attempting to put 
down the rebellion (1 K. xii. 21-24). When Judah 
and Jerusalem were in imminent peril from the 
invasion of Sennacherib, the prophetical utterance 
of Isaiah encouraged Hezekiah to a successful re 
sistance (Is. xxxvii. 22-36). On the other hand, 
at the invasion of Judaea by the Chaldees, Jeremiah 
prophetically announced impending woe and cala 
mities in a strain which tended to paralyse patriotic 
resistance to the power of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 
xxxviii. 4, 2). And Jeremi:-»h evidently produced 
an impression on the king's mind contrary to the 
counsels of the princes, or what might be called the 
war-party in Jerusalem (Jer. xxxviii. 14-27). 

The law of succession to the throne is somewhat 
obscure, but it seems most probable that the king 
during his lifetime named his successor. This was 
certainly the case with David, who passed over his 
elder son Adonijah, the son of Haggith, in favour 
of Solomon, the son of Bathsheba (1 K. i. 30, ii. 
22) ; and with Rehoboam, of whom it is said that 
he loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above 
all his wives and concubines, and that he made 
Abijah her son to be ruler among his brethren, to 
make him king (2 Chr. xi. 21, 22). The succession 
of the first-born has been inferred from a passage 
in 2 Chr. xxi. 3, 4, in which Jehoshaphat is said 
to have given the kingdom to Jehoram •' because 
he was the first-born." But this very passage tends 
to show that Jehoshaphat had the power of naming 
his successor ; and it is worthy of note that Jeho 
ram, on his coming to the throne, put to death all 
his brothers, which he would scarcely, perhaps, 
have done if the succession of the first-bcm had 
been the law of the land. From the conciseness of 
the narratives in the books of Kings no inference 
either way can be drawn from the ordinary formula 
in which the death of the father and succession of 
his son is recorded (1 K. xv. 8). At the same 
time, if no partiality for a favourite wife or son 
intervened, there would always be a natural bias 
of affection in favour of the eldest son. There 
appears to have been some prominence given to the 
mother of the king (2 K. xxiv. 12, 15 ; 1 K. ii. 19), 
and it is possible that the mother may have been 
regent during the minority of a son. Indeed some 
such custom best explains the possibility of the 
audacious usurpation of Athaliah on the death of 
her son Ahaziah : an usurpation which lasted six 
years after the destruction of all the seed-royal 
except the young Jehoash (2 K. xi. 1, 3). 

The following is a list of some of the officers of 
the king : — 

1. The Recorder or Chronicler, who was perhaps 
analogous to the Historiographer whom Sir John 
Malcolm mentions as an officer of the Persian court, 

the case (see 2 K. xxiii. 30), and there does not seem 
sufficient reason to doubt that each individual king 
was anointed. There can be little doubt, likewise, 
that the kings of Israel were anointed, though this ia 
not specified by the writers of Kings and Chronicles, 
who would deem such anointing invalid. 

C 2 



whose duty it is to write the annals of the king's 
reign (History of Persia, c. 23). Certain it is 
that there is no regular series of minute dates in 
Hebrew history until we read of this recorder, or 
remembrancer, as the word mazkir is translated in 
a marginal note of the English version. He sig 
nifies one who keeps the memory of events alive, 
in accordance with a motive assigned by Herodotus 
for writing his history, viz. that the acts of men 
might not become extinct by time (Herod, i. 1 : 
2 Sam. viii. 16; IK. iv. 3; 2 K. xviii. 18; Is! 
xxxvi/3, 22). 

2. The Scribe or Secretary, whose duty would 
be to answer letters or petitions in the name of the 
King, to write despatches, and to draw up edicts 
(2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25 ; 2 K. xii. 10, xix. 2, 
xxii. 8). 

3. The officer who was over the house (Is. xxxii. 
15, xxxvi. 3). His duties would be those of chief 
steward of the household, and would embrace all 
the internal economical arrangements of the palace, 
the superintendence of the king's servants, and the 
custody of his costly vessels of gold and silver. He 
seems to have worn a distinctive robe of office and 
girdle. It was against Shebna, who held this office, 
that Isaiah uttered his personal prophecy (xxii. 
15-25), the only instance of the kind in his writings 
(see Ges. Com. on Isaiah, p. 694-). 

4. The king's friend (1 K. iv. 5), called like 
wise the king's companion. It is evident from 
the name that this officer must have stood in 
confidential relation to the king, but his duties are 
nowhere specified. 

5. The keeper of the vestry or wardrobe (2 K. 
x. 22). 

6. The captain of the body-guard (2 Sam. xx. 
23). The importance of this officer requires no 
comment. It. was he who obeyed Solomon in 
putting to death Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei (1 K. 
li. 25, 34, 46). 

7. Distinct officers over the king's treasures — his 
storehouses, labourers, vineyards, olive-trees, and 
sycamore-trees, herds, camels, and flocks (1 Chr. 
xxvii. 25-31). 

8. The officer over all the host or army of Israel, 
the commander-in-chief of the army, who com 
manded it in person during the king's absence 
(2 Sam. xx. 23; 1 Chr. xxvii. 34; 2 Sain. xi. 1). 
As an instance of the formidable power which a 
general might acquire in this office, see the narra 
tive in 2 Sam. iii. 30-37, when David deemed him 
self obliged to tolerate the murder of Abner by 
Joab and Abishai. 

9. The royal counsellors (1 Chr. xxvii. 32 ; Is. 
iii. 3, xix. 11, 13). Ahithophel is a specimen of 
how much such an officer might effect for evil or 
for good ; but whether there existed under Hebrew 
kings any body corresponding, even distantly, to the 
English Privy Council, in former times, doss not 
appear (2 Sam. xvi. 20-23, xvii. 1-14). 

The following is a statement of the sources of 
the royal revenues: — 

1. The royal demesnes, corn-fields, vineyards, and 
olive-gardens. Some at least of these seem to have 
been taken from private individuals, but whether as 
the punishment :f rebellion, or on any other plausible 
pretext, is not specified (1 Sum. viii. 14; 1 Chr. 
xxvii. 26-26). 2. The produce of the royal flocks 
' I Sarn. xxi. 7 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 23 ; 2 Chr. xxvi. 10 ; 
I Chr. xxvii. 25). 3. A nominal tenth of the pro 
duce of coin-land and vineyards and of sheep ( 1 Sam. 
eiii. 15, 17). 4. A tribute from merchant* who 

passed through the Hebrew territory (1 K. x. 14) 
5. Presents made by his subjects (1 Sam. xvi. 2l> 
1 Sam. x. 27 ; 1 K. x. 25 ; Ps. Ixxii. 10). There 
is perhaps no greater distinction in the usages of 
eastern and western nations than on whal relates to 
the giving and receiving of presents. When rnad« 
regularly they do in fact amount to a regular tax. 
Thus, in the passage last referred to in the book of 
Kings, it is stated that they brought to Solomon 
" every man his present, vessels of silver and ves 
sels of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, 
horses and mules, a rate year by year." 6. In the 
time of Solomon, the king had trading vessels of his 
own at sea, which, starting from Eziougeber, brought 
back once in three years gold and silver, ivory, 
apes, and peacocks (1 K. x. 22). It is probable 
that Solomon and some other kings may have 
derived some revenue from commercial ventures 
(1 K. ix. 28). 7. The spoils of war taken from 
conquered nations and the tribute paid by them 
(2 Sam. viii. 2, 7, 8, 10; 1 K. iv. 21 ; 2 Chr. 
xxvii. 5). 8. Lastly, an undefined power of exact 
ing compulsory labour, to which reference has been 
already made (1 Sam. viii. 12, 13, 16). As far as 
this power was exercised it was equivalent to so 
much income. There is nothing in 1 Sam. x. 25, 
or in 2 Sam. v. 3, to justify the statement that 
the Hebrews defined in express terms, or in iny 
terms, by a particular agreement or covenant, for 
that purpose, what services should be rendered 
to the king, or what he could legally require. 
(See Jahn, Archaologia Biblica ; Bauer, Lehr- 
buch der Hebrdischcn Alterthiimer ; Winer, s. v. 

It only remains to add, that in Deuteronomy xrii. 
14-20 there is a document containing some direc 
tions as to what any king who might be appointed 
by the Hebrews was to do and not to Jo. The 
proper appreciation of this document would m..inly 
depend on its date. It is the opinion of many 
modern writers — Gesenius, De Wette, Winer, 
Ewald, and others — that the book which contains 
the document was composed long after the time of 
Moses. See, however, DEUTERONOMY in the 1st 
vol. of this work ; and compare Gesenius, Ges* 
chichte der Hebraischen Sprache und Schrift, 
p. 32 ; De Wette, Einleitung in die Bibel, " Deu- 
teronomium " ; Winer, s. v. Konig ; Ewald, Ge- 
sckichte des Volkes Israel, iii. 381. [E. T.] 


OF, originally only one book in the Hebrew Canon, 
and first edited in Hebrew as two by Bomberg, 
after the model of the LXX. and the Vulgate 
(De Wette and 0. Thenius, Einleitung). They are 
called by the LXX., Origen, &c., Ba<ri\fiiai> rpini 
and Tfrdprti, third and fourth of the Kingdoms 
(the books of Samuel being the first and second), 
but by the Latins, with few exceptions, tertius et 
quartus Regum liber. Jerome, though in the head 
ing of his translation of the Scriptures, he follows 
the Hebrew name, and calls them Liber Malachiro 
Primus and Secundus, yet elsewhere usually follows 
the common usage of the church in his day. In 
his Prologus Galeatus he places them as the fourth 
of the second order of the sacred books, t. e. of the 
Prophets: — " Quartus, Malachim, i. e. Regum, qui 
tertio et quarto Regum volumine continetur. Me- 
liusque multo cst Malachim, i. e. Regum, quaru 
Mamolachoth, i. e. Rcgnorum, dicere. Non enim 
multaruin gentium describit regna ; sed unius Is- 
raelitici populi, qui tribubus duodecim continetur." 
l-i liis epistle to Paulinus he thus describes th* 



contents of these two books: — " Malachim, i.e. 
tertius et quartue Regum liber, a Salomone usque 
id Jechoniam, et a Jeroboam filio Nabat usque ad 
Osee qui ductws est in Assyrios, regiium Juda et 
regnum describit Israel. Si historiam respicias, 
verba simplicia sunt : si in literis sensum lateulem 
jnspexeris, Ecclesiae paucitas, et hereticorum contra 
ecclesiam bella, narrantur." The division into two 
books, being purely artificial and as it were me 
chanical, may be overlooked in speaking of them ; 
and it must also be remembered that the division 
between the books of Kings and Samuel is equally 
Artificial, and that in point of fact the historical 
books commencing with Judges and ending with 
2 Kings present the appearance of one work,* 
giving a continuous history of Israel from the times 
of Joshua to the death of Jehoiachin. It must 
suffice here to mention, in support of this assertion, 
the frequent allusion in the book of Judges to the 
times of the kings of Israel (xvii. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 1, 
xxi. 25) ; the concurrent evidence of ch. ii. that the 
writer lived in an age when he could take a retro 
spect of the whole time during which the judges 
ruled (ver. 16-19), ». e. that he lived after the 
monarchy had been established ; the occurrence in 
the book of Judges, for the first time, of the phrase 
" the Spirit of Jehovah " (iii. 10), which is repeated 
often in the book (vi. 54, xi. 29, xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 
&c.), and is of frequent use in Samuel and Kings, 
(e. g. 1 Sam. x. 6, xvi. 13, 14, xix. 9 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 
2 ; 1 K. xxii. 24 ; 2 K. ii. 1 6, &c.) ; the allusion in 
i. 21 to the capture of Jebus, and the continuance 
of a Jebusite population (see 2 Sam. xxiv, 16) ; the 
reference hi xx. 27 to the removal of the ark of the 
covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem, and the expres 
sion " in those days," pointing, as in xvii. 6, &c., to 
remote times; the distinct reference in xviii. 30 to 
the captivity of Israel by Shalmaneser ; with the 
fact that the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, 
form one unbroken narrative, similar in general 
character, which has no beginning except at Judg. i., 
while, it may be added, the book of Judges is 
not a continuation of Joshua, but opens with a 
repetition of the same events with which Joshua 
closes. In like manner the book of Ruth clearly 
forms part of those of Samuel, supplying as it 
does the essential point of David's genealogy and 
early family history, and is no less clearly connected 
with the book of Judges by its opening verse, and 
the epoch to which the whole book relates. 1 * Other 
links connecting the books of Kings with the pre 
ceding may be found in the comparison, suggested 
by De Wette, of 1 K. ii. 26 with 1 Sam. ii. 35 ; 
li. 11 with 2 Sam. v. 5 ; IK. ii. 3, 4, v. 17, 18, 
viii. 18, 19, 25, with 2 Sam. vii. 12-16; and 1 K. 
fv. 1-6 with 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. Also 2 K. xvii. 
41 may be compared with Judg. ii. 19 ; 1 Sam. ii. 
27 with Judg. xiii. 6 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, xix. 27, 
with Judg. xiii. 6 ; 1 Sam. ix. 21 with Judg. vi. 
15, and xx. ; 1 K. viii. 1 with 2 Sam. vi. 17, and 
r. 7, 9 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 12 with Ruth iv. 17 ; Ruth 
i. 1 with Judg. xvii. 7, 8, 9, xix. 1, 2 (Bethlehem- 
Judah) ; the use in Judg. xiii. 6, 8, of the phrase 
''the maji of God" (in the earlier books applied to 
Moses only, and that only in Deut. xxxiii. 1 and Josh. 
riv. 6), may be compared with the very frequent 

use of it in the books .»f Samuel and Kingc as the 
common designation of a prophet, whereas onlj 
Jeremiah besides (xxxv. 4) so uses it before thf 
captivity. The phrase, " God do so to me, and 
more also," is common to Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, 
and " till they were ashamed " to Judges and Kings 
(iii. 25 ; 2 K. ii. 17, viii. 11). And generally the 
style of the narrative, ordinarily quiet and simple, but 
rising to great vigour and spirit when stirring deeds 
are described (as in Judg. iv., vii., xi., &c. ; 1 Sara. 
iv., xvii., xxxi., &c. ; 1 K. viii., xviii., six., &c.), 
and the introduction of poetry or poetic style in 
the midst of the narrative (as in Judg. v., 1 Sam. 
ii., 2 Sam. i. 17, &c., 1 K. xxii. 17, &c.), consti 
tute such strong features of resemblance as lead to 
the conclusion that these several books form but 
one work. Indeed the very names of the books 
sufficiently indicate that they were all imposed by 
the same authority for the convenience of division, 
and with reference to the subject treated of in each 
division, and not that they were original titles of 
independent works. 

But to confine ourselves to the books of Kings. 
We shall consider — 

I. Their historical and chronological range ; 
II. Their peculiarities of diction, and other 
features in their literary aspect ; 

III. Their authorship, and the sources of the 

author's information ; 

IV. Their relation to the books of Chronicles ; 
V. Their place in the canon, and the references 

to them in the New Testament. 
I. The books of Kings range from David's death 
and Solomon's accession to the throne of Israel, 
commonly reckoned as B.C. 1015, but according to 
Lepsius B.C. 993 (KSnigsb. d. Aegypt. p. 102), to 
the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the 
desolation of Jerusalem, and the burning of the 
Temple, according to the same reckoning B.C. 588, 
(B.C. 586, Lepsius, p. 107) — a period of 427 (or 
405) years: with a supplemental notice of an event 
that occurred after an interval of 26 years, viz. 
the liberation of Jehoiachin from his prison at 
Babylon, and a still further extension to Jehor- 
achin's death, the time of which is not known, but 
which was probably not long after his liberation. 
The history therefore comprehends the whole time 
of the Israelitish monarchy, exclusive of the reigns 
of Saul and David, whether existing as one kingdom 
as under Solomon and the eight last kings, or di 
vided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. 
It exhibits the Israelites in the two extremes of 
power and weakness ; under Solomon extending 
their dominion over tributary kingdoms from the 
Euphrates to the Mediterranean and the border 
of Egypt (1 K. iv. 21) ; under the last kings re- 
ducal to a miserable remnant, subject alternately 
to Egypt and Assyria, till at length they were 
rooted up from their own land. As the cause of 
this decadence it points out the division of Solo 
mon's monarchy into two parts, followed by the 
religious schism and idolatrous worship brought 
about from political motives by Jeroboam. How 
the consequent wars between the two kingdoms 
necessarily weakened both ; how they led to calling 
in the stranger to their aid whenever their power 

• De Wette'g reasons for reckoning Kings as a 
separate work seem to the writer quite inconclusive. 
On the other hand, the book of Joshua seems to be an 
independent book. Ewald classes these books together 
eziotly us is done db^ve (Gesch. i. 175), and calls them 

" the great Book of the Kings." 

6 Eichhorn ittributes Kuth to the author of ths 
books of Samuel (Tli. Parker's De Wette, ii. 320). 

c In Chronicles, Ezra, and Nebcmiah, it rcpeat';fllj 



was equally balanced, of which the result was the 
destruction first of one kingdom and then of the 
other ; how a further evil of these foreign alliances 
was the adoption of the idolatrous superstitions of 
the heathen nations whose friendship and protection 
they sought, by which they forfeited the Divine 
protection — all this is with great clearness and 
simplicity set forth in these books, which treat 
equally of the two kingdoms while they lasted. 
The doctrine of the Theocracy is also clearly 
brought out (see e.g. 1 K. xiv. 7-11, xv. 29, 30, 
xvi. 1-7), and the temporal prosperity of the pious 
kings, as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, 
stands in contrast with the calamitous reigns of 
Rehoboam, Ahaziah, Ahaz, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, 
and Zedekiah. At the same time the continuance 
'of the kingdom of Judah, and the permanence of 
the dynasty of David, are contrasted with the fre 
quent changes of dynasty, and the far shorter dura 
tion of the kingdom of Israel, though the latter was 
the more populous and powerful kingdom of the two 
(2 Sam. xxiv. 9). As regards the affairs of foreign 
nations, and the relation of Israel to them, the his 
torical notices in these books, though in the earlier 
times scanty, are most valuable, and, as has been 
lately fully shown (Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures, 
1859), in striking accordance with the latest addi 
tions to our knowledge of contemporary profane 
history. Thus the patronage extended to Hadad the 
Edomite by Psinaches king of Egypt (1 K. xi. 19, 
20) ; the alliance of Solomon with his successor 
Psusennes, who reigned 35 years ; the accession of 
Shishak, or Sesonchis I., towards the close of Solo 
mon's reign (IK. xi. 40), and his invasion and con 
quest of Judaea in the reign of Rehoboam, of which 
a monument still exists on the walls of Kamac 
'Kdnigsb. p. 114); the time of the Aethiopian 
kings So (Sabak) and Tirhakah, of the 25th dynasty ; 
the rise and speedy fall of the power of Syria ; the 
rapid growth of the Assyrian monarchy which over 
shadowed it ; Assyria's struggles with Egypt, and 
the sudden ascendancy of the Babylonian empire 
under Nebuchadnezzar, to the destruction both of 
Assyria and Egypt, as we find these events in the 
books of Kings, fit in exactly with what we now 
know of Egyptian, Syrian, Assyrian, and Baby 
lonian history. The names of Omri, Jehu, Mena- 
hem, Hoshea, Hezekiah, &c., are believed to have 
been deciphered in the cuneiform inscriptions, which 
also contain pretty full accounts of the campaigns 
of Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar- 
haddon : bhalmaneser's name has not yet been dis 
covered, though two inscriptions in the British 
Museum are thought to refer to his reign. These 
valuable additions to our knowledge of profane his 
tory, which we may hope will shortly be increased 
both in number and in certainty, together with the 
fragments of ancient historians, which are now be 
coming better understood, are of great assistance in 
explaining the brief allusions in these books, while 
they afford an irrefragable testimony to their his 
torical truth. 

Another most important aid to a right under 
standing of the history in these Iwoks, and to the 
filling up of its outline, is to be found in the 
prophets, and especially in Isaiah and Jeremiah. 
In the former the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, and 

of the contemporary Israelitish and foreign poten 
tates, receive especial illustration ; in the latter, anV 
to a still greater extent, the reigns of Jehoiakiic 
and Zedekiah, and those of their heathen contempo 
raries. An intimate acquaintance with these pro 
phets is of the utmost moment for elucidating the 
concise narrative of the books of Kings. The two 
together give us a really full view of the event* 
of the times at home and abroad. 

It must, however, be admitted that the chrono 
logical details expressly given in the books of Kings 
form a remarkable contrast with their striking his 
torical accuracy. These details are inexplicable, 
and frequently entirely contradictory. The very 
first date of a decidedly chronological character 
which is given, that of the foundation of Solomon's 
temple (1 K. vi. 1) is manifestly erroneous, as 
being irreconcileable with any view of the chrono 
logy of the times of the Judges, or with St. Paul's 
calculation, Acts xiii. 20. d It is in fact abandoned 
by almost all chronologists, whatever school they 
belong to, whether ancient or modern, and is utterly 
ignored by Josephus. [CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. 323, 
324 a, 325."] Moreover, when the text is examined, 
it immediately appeai-s that this date of 480 years 
is both unnecessary and quite out of place. The 
reference to the Exodus is gratuitous, and alien to 
all the other notes of time, which refer merely to 
Solomon's accession. If it is left out, the text will 
be quite perfect without it,« and will agree exactly 
with the resume in ver. 37, 38, and also with the 
parallel passage in 2 Chr. iii. 2. The evidence 
therefore of its being an interpolation is wonderfully 
strong. But if so, it must have been inserted by a 
professed chronologist, whose object was to reduce 
the Scripture history to an exact system of chrono 
logy. It is likely therefore that we shall find traces 
of the same hand in other parts of the books. Niw 
De Wette (Einleit. p. 235), among the evidences 
which he puts forward as marking the books of 
Kings as in his opinion a separate work from those 
of Samuel, mentions, though erroneously, as 2 Sam. 
v. 4, 5 shows, the sudden introduction of " a chro 
nological system" (die genauere zeit-rcchnung'). 
When therefore we find that the very first date 
introduced is erroneous, and that numerous other 
dates are also certainly wrong, because contradictory, 
it seems a not unfair conclusion that such dates 
are the work of an interpolator, trying to bring the 
history within his own chronological system: a 
conclusion somewhat confirmed by the alterations 
and omissions of these dates in the LXX. f As 
regards, however, these chronological difficulties, it 
must be observed they are of two essentially different 
kinds. One kind is merely the want of the data 
necessary for chronological exactness. Such is tho 
absence, apparently, of any uniform rule for dealing 
with the fragments of years at the beginning and 
end of the reigns. Such might also be a deficiency 
itf the sum of the regnal years of Israel as com 
pared with the synchronistic years of Judah, caused 
by unnoticed interregna, if any such really oc 
curred. And this class of difficulties may pro 
bably have belonged to these books in their original 
state, in which exact scientific chronology was not 
aimed at. But the other kind of difficulty is of a 
totally different character, and embraces dates which 

d The MSS. A. B. C. have, however, a different 
rending, which is adopted by Lachmann and Words 

• ".And it came to ras» .... in the ("ninth year of 

Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, \»hirh 
is the second month, that he began to build the Louse 
of the Lord." 

' See 1 K. xvi. 8, 15, 29; TJ. 1. 



arc vcrif exact in their mode of expression, but are 
eiToneous and contradictory. Some of these are 
pointed out below ; and it is such which it seems 
reasonable to ascribe to the interpolation of later 
professed chronologists. But it is necessary to give 
specimens of each of these kinds of difficulty, both 
with a view to approximating to a true chronology, 
and also to show the actual condition of the books 
under consideration. 

(1 .) When we sum up the years of all the reigns 
of the kings of Israel as given in the books of Kings, 
and then all the years of the reigns of the kings 
of Judah from the 1st of Rehoboam to the 6th of 
Hezekiah, we find that, instead of the two sums 
agreeing, there is an excess of 19 or 20 years in 
Judah — the reigns of the latter amounting to 261 

The two first of the above periods may then be 
said to agree together, and to give 95+61 = 15b 
years from the accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam 
to the 15th of Amaziah in Judah, and the death 
of Jehoash in Israel, and we observe that the dis 
crepance of 12 years first occurs in the third period, 
in which the breaking up of the kingdom of Israel 
began at the close of Jehu's dynasty. Putting aside 
the synchronistic arrangement of the years as we 
now find them in 2 K. xv. seq., there would be 
no difficulty whatever in supposing that the reigns 
of the kings of Israel at this time were not con 
tinuous, and that for several years after the death 
of Zachariah, or Shallum, or both, the government 
may either have been in the hands of the king of 
Syria, or broken up amongst contending parties, till 

years, while the former make up only 242. But at length Menahem was able to establish himself on 

we are able to get somewhat nearer to the seat of 
this disagreement, because it so happens that the 
parallel histories of Israel and Judah touch in four 
or five points where the synchronisms are precisely 
marked. These points are (1) at the simultaneous 
accessions of Jeroboam and Rehoboam ; (2) at the 
simultaneous deaths of Jehoram and Ahaziah, or, 
which is the same thing, the simultaneous acces 
sions of Jehu and Athaliah ; (3) at the 15th year 
of Amaziah, which was the 1st of Jeroboam II. 
(2 K. xiv. 17) ; (4) in the reign of Ahaz, which 
was contemporary wif.h some part of Pekah's, viz. 
according to the text of 2 K. xvi. 1, the three 
first years of Ahaz with the three last of Pekah ; 
and (5) at the 6th of Hezekiah, which was the 
9th of Hoshea ; the two last points, however, being 
less certain than the others, at least as to the pre 
cision of the synchronisms, depending as this does 
on the correctness of the numerals in the text. 

Hence, instead of lumping the whole periods of 
261 years and 242 years together, and comparing 
their difference, it is clearly expedient to compare 
the different sub-periods, which are defined by com 
mon termini. Beginning therefore with the sub- 
period which commences with the double accession 
of Kehoboam and Jeroboam, and closes with the 
double death of Ahaziah and Jehoram, and summing 
up the number of years assigned to the different 
reigns in each kingdom, we find that the six reigns 
in Judah make up 95 years, and the eight reigns in 
Israel make up 98 years. Here there is an excess 
of 3 years in the kingdom of Israel, which may, 
however, be readily accounted for by the frequent 
changes of dynasty there, and the probability of 
fragments of years being reckoned as whole years, 
thus causing the same year to be reckoned twice 
over. The 95 years of Judah, or even a less num 
ber, will hence appear to be the true number of 
whole years (see too Clinton, F. H. ii. 314, &c.). 

Beginning, again, at the double accession of Atha 
liah and Jehu, we have in Judah 7+40+14 first 
years of Amaziah = 61, to correspond with 28+17 
+ 16 = 61^ ending with the last year of Jehoash in 
Israel. Starting again with the 15th of j\maziah = 
1 Jeroboam II., we have 15+52+16 + 3 = 86 (to 
the 3rd year of Ahaz), to correspond with 41 + 1 + 
10+2+20 = 74 (to the close of Pekah's reign), 
where we at once detect a deficiency on the part of 
Israel of (86-74 = ) 12 years, if at least the 3rd 
of Ahaz really corresponded with the 20th of Pekah. 
And lastly, starting with the year following that 
last named, we have 13 last years of Ahaz+7 first 
of Hezekiah = 20, to correspond with the 9 years 
of Hoshea, where we find another deficiency in Israel 
of II. yearc. 

the throne by the help of Pul, king of Assyria, and 
transmit his tributary throne to his son Pekahiah. 

But there is another mode of bringing this third 
period into harmony, which violates no historical 
probability, and is in fact strongly indicated by the 
fluctuations of the text. We are told in 2 K. xv. 8 
that Zachariah began to reign in the 38th of 
Uzziah, and (xiv. 23) that his father Jeroboam 
began to reign in the 15th of Amaziah. Jeroboam 
must therefore have reigned 52 or 53 years, not 
41 : for the idea of an interregnum of 11 or 12 
years between Jeroboam and his son Zachariah is 
absurd. But the addition of these 12 years to 
Jeroboam's reign exactly equalizes the period in the 
two kingdoms, which would thus contain 86 years, 
and makes up 242 years from the accession of 
Rehoboam and Jeroboam to the 3rd of Ahaz and 
20th of Pekah, supposing always that these last- 
named years really synchronize. 

As regards the discrepance of 11 years in the 
last period, nothing can in itself be more probable 
than that either during some part of Pekah's life 
time, or after his death, a period, not included in 
the regnal years of either Pekah or Hoshea, should 
have elapsed, when there was either a state of 
anarchy, or the government was administered by an 
Assyrian officer. There are also passages 
in the contemporary prophets Isaiah and Hosea, 
which would fall in with this view, as Hos. x. 3. 
7; Is. ix. 9-19. But it is impossible to asseit 
peremptorily that such was the case. The decision 
must await some more accurate knowledge of the 
chronology of the times from heathen sources. The 
addition of these last 20 years makes up for the 
whole duration of the kingdom of Israel, 261 or 
262 years, more or less. Now the interval, ac 
cording to Lepsius's tables, from the accession of 
Sesonchis, or !?hishak, to that of Sabacon, or So 
(2 K. xvii. 4), is 245 years. Allowing Sesonchis 
to have reigned 7 years contemporaneously with 
Solomon, and Sabaco, who reigned 12 years,s to 
have reigned 9 before Shalmaueser came up the 
second time against Samaria (245 + 7 + 9 = 261), 
the chronology of Egypt would exactly tally with 
that here given. It may, however, turn out that 
the time thus allowed for the duration of th« 
Israelitish monarchy is somewhat too long, atd 
that the time indicated by the years of the Israelitish 
kings, without any interregnum, is nearer the truth. 
If so, a ready way of reducing the sum of the 
reigns of the kings of Judah would be to assign 
41 years to that of Uzziah, instead of 52 (as ii 
the numbers of Uzziah and Jeroboam had b>er. 

LepsiUR, Fonigsb. p. 37. 



accidentally inter changed) : an arrangement which 
interferes with no known historical truth, though it 
would disturb the doubtful synchronism of the 3rd 
of Ahaz with the 20th of Pekah, and make the 3rd 
of Ahaz correspond with about the 9th or 10th of 
Pekah. Indeed it is somewhat remarkable that if we 
jieglect this synchronism, and consider as one the 
period from the accession of Athaliah and Jehu to 
the 7th of Hezekiah and 9th of Hoshea, the sums 
of the reigns in the two kingdoms agree exactly, 
when we reckon 41 years for Uzziah, and 52 for 
Jeroboam, viz. 155 years, or 250 for the whole 
time of the Israelitish monarchy. Another advan 
tage of this arrangement would be to reduce the age 
of Uzziah at the birth of his son and heir Jotham 
from the improbable age of 42 or 43 to 31 or 32. 
It may be added that the date in 2 K. xv. 1 , which 
assigns the 1st of Uzziah to the 27th of Jeroboam, 
seems to indicate that the author of it only reckoned 
41 years for Uzziah 's reign, since from the 27th of 
Jeroboam to the 1st of Pekah is just 41 years (see 
Lepsius's table, KSnigsb. p. 103 h ). Also that 2 K. 
xvii. 1. which makes the 12th of Ahaz = 1st of 
Hoshea, implies that the 1st of Ahaz = 9th of 

(2.) Turning next to the other class of difficulties 
mentioned above, the following instances will per 
haps be thought to justify the opinion that the 
dates in these books which are intended to establish 
a precise chronology are the work of a much later 
hand or hands than the books themselves. 

The date in 1 K. vi. 1 is one which is obviously 
intended for strictly chronological purposes. If cor 
rect, it would, taken in conjunction with the sub 
sequent notes of time in the books of Kings, sup 
posing them to be correct also, give to a year the 
length of the time from the Exodus to the Baby 
lonian captivity, and establish a perfect connexion 
between sacred and profane history. But so little 
is this the case, that this date is quite irreconcileable 
with Egyptian history, and is, as stated above, by 
almost universal consent rejected by chronologists, 
even on purely Scriptural grounds. This date is 
followed by precise synchronistic definitions of the 
parallel reigns of Israel and Judah, the effect of 
which would be, and must have been designed to 
be, to supply the want of accuracy in stating the 
length of the reigns without reference to the odd 
months. But these synchronistic definitions are in 
continual discord with the statement of the length 
of reigns. According to 1 K. xxii. 51 Ahaziah suc 
ceeded Ahab in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat. But 
according to the statement of the length of Ahab's 
reign in rvi. 29, Ahab died in the 18th of Jeho 
shaphat; while according to 2 K. i. 17, Jehoram 
the son of Ahaziah succeeded his brother (after his 
2 yeare' reign) in the second year of Jehoram the 
son of Jehoshaphat, though, according to the length 
of the reigns, he must have succeeded in the 18th 
or 19th of Jehoshaphat (see 2 K. iii. 1), who 
reigned in all 25 years (xxii. 42). [JEHORAM.] 
As regards Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, the 
statements are so contradictory that Archbishop 
Usher actually makes three distinct beginnings to 
his regnal aera : the first wheu he was made prorex, 
to meet 2 K. i. 17; the second when lie was asso 
ciated with his father, 5 years later, to meet 2 K. 
'i'm. 16; the third when his sole reign commenced, 

to meet 1 K. xxii. 50, compared with 42. But at 
the only purpose of these synchronisms is to give 
an accurate measure of time, nothing can be more 
absurd than to suppose such variations in the time 
from which the commencement of the regnal year 
is dated. It may also here be remarked that the 
whole notion of these joint reigns has not the 
smallest foundation in fact, and unluckily does not 
come into play in the only cases where there might 
be any historical probability of their having oc 
curred, as in the case of Asa's illness and Uzziah's 
leprosy. From the length of Amaziah's reign, as 
given 2 K. xiv. 2, 17, 23, it is manifest that Jero 
boam II. began to reign in the 15th year of Ama- 
ziah, and that Uzziah began to reign in the 16th 
of Jeroboam. But 2 K. rv. 1 places the com 
mencement of Uzziah's reign in the 27th of Jero 
boam, and the accession of Zachariah = the close of 
Jeroboam's reign, in the 38th of Uzziah — state 
ments utterly contradictory and irrecoucileable. 

Other grave chronological difficulties seem to 
have their source in the same erroneous calculations 
on the part of the Jewish chronologist. For ex 
ample, one of the cuneiform inscriptions tells us 
that Menahem paid tribute to Assyria in the 8th 
year of Tiglath-Pileser (Rawl. Herod, i. 469), and 
the same inscription passes on directly to speak of 
the overthrow of Rezin, who we know was Pekah's 
ally. Now this is scarcely compatible with the 
supposition that the remainder of Menahem 's reign, 
the 2 years of Pekahiah, and 18 or 19 years of 
Pekah's reign intervened, as must have been the 
case according to 2 K. xvi. 1, xv. 32. But if the 
invasion of Judea was one of the early acts ot 
Pekah's reign, and the destruction of Rezin fol 
lowed soon after, then we should have a veiy 
intelligible course of events as follows. Menahem 
paid his last tribute to Assyria in the 8th of 
Tiglath-Pileser, his suzerain (2 K. xv. 19), which, 
as he reigned for some time under Pul, and only 
reigned 10 years in all, we may assume to have 
been his own last year. On the accession of his 
son Pekahiah, Pekah, one of his captains, rebelled 
against him, made an alliance with Rezin king of 
Syria to throw off the yoke of Assyria, in the 
course of a few months dethroned and killed Pe 
kahiah, and reigned in his stead, and rapidly fol 
lowed up his success by a joint expedition against 
Judah, the object of which was to set up a king 
who should strengthen his hands in his rebellion 
against Assyria. The king of Assyria, on learning 
this, and receiving Ahaz's message for help, imme 
diately marches to Syria, takes Damascus, conquers 
and kills Rezin, invades Israel, and carries away a 
large body of captives (2 K. xv. 29), and ^ver 
Pekah to reign as tributary king over the enfeebled 
remnant, till a conspiracy deprived him of his life. 
Such a course of events would be consistent with 
the cuneiform inscription, and with everything in 
the Scripture narrative, except the synchronistic 
arrangement of the reigns. But of course it is 
impossible to affirm that the above was the true 
state of the case. Only at present the text and 
the cuneiform inscription do not agree, and few 
people will be satisfied with the explanation sug 
gested by Mr. Rawlinson, that " the official whc 
composed, or the workman who engraved, the As 
syrian document, made a mistake in the name," 

h Lepsitw suggests that Azariah and Uzziah may beyond the confusion of the names there is nothing 

possibly be different and successive kings, the former 
-jf whom reigned 11 years, and the latter 41. But 

to support such a notion. 


in<i y.ut Menahem when he should have put Pekah 
(Dampt. Lect. pp. 136, 409; Herod, i. 468-471). 
Again : " Scripture places only 8 yeare between 
Ihe fall of Samaria and the first invasion of Judaea 
by Sennacherib " (»'. e. from the 6th to the 14th of 
Hezekiah). " The inscriptions (cuneiform) assign 
ing the fall of Samaria to the first year of Sargon, 
giving Sargon a reign of at least 15 years, and 
assigning the first attack on Hezekiah to Senna 
cherib's third year, put an interval of at least 18 
years between the two events" (Rawl. Herod, i. 
479). This interval is further shown by reference 
to the canon of Ptolemy to have amounted in fact 
to 22 years. Again, Lepsius (KSnigsb. p. 95-97) 
shows with remarkable force of argument that the 
14th of Hezekiah could not by possibility fall 
earlier than B.C. 692, with reference to Tirhakah's 
accession ; but that the additional date of the 3rd 
of Sennacherib furnished by the cuneiform inscrip 
tions, coupled with the fact given by Berosus that 
the year B.C. 693 was the year of Sennacherib's 
accession, fixes the year B.C. 691 as that of Senna 
cherib's invasion, and consequently as the 14th of 
Hezekiah. But from B.C. 691 to B.C. 586, when 
Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, is an 
interval of only 105 years ; whereas the sum of the 
regnal years of Judah for the same interval amounts 
to 125 years.' From which calculations it neces 
sarily follows, both that there is an error in those 
figures in the book of Kings which assign the 
relative positions of the destruction of Samaria and 
Sennacherib's invasion, and also in those which mea 
sure the distance between the invasion of Senna 
cherib and the destruction of Jerusalem. It should 
however be noted that there is nothing to fix the 
fall of Samaria to the reign of Hezekiah but the 
statement of the synchronism; and 2 Chr xxx. 6, 
18, &c., seems rather to indicate that the kingdom 
of Israel had quite ceased in the 1st of Hezekiah. 
Many other numbers have the same stamp of 
incorrectness. Rehoboam's age is given as 41 
at his accession, 1 K. xiv. 21, and yet we read 
at 2 Chr. xiii. 7 that he was " young and tender 
hearted " when he came to the throne. Moreover, 
if 41 when he became king, he must have been 
born before Solomon came to the throne, which 
seems improbable, especially in connexion with 
his Ammonitish mother. In the apocryphal 
passage moreover in the Cod. Vat. of the LXX , 
which follows 2 K. xii. 24, his age is said to 
have been 16 at his accession, which is much 
more probable. According to the statement in 
2 K. xv. 33, compared with ver. 2, Uzziah's 
son and heir Jotham was not bom till his father 
was 42 years old; and according to 2 K. xxi. 1, 
compared with ver. 19, Manasseh's son and heir 
Amon was not born till his father was in his 45th 
year. Still more improbable is the statement in 
2 K. xviii. 2, compared with xvi. 2, which makes 
Hezekiah to h^ve been born when his father was 
11 years old: a statement which Bochart has en 
deavoured to defend with his usual vast erudition, 
but with little success {Opera, i. 921). But not 
only docs the incorrectness of the numbers testify 
against their genuineness, but in fome passages the 
structure of the sentence seems to betray the fact 
of a later insertion of the chronological element. 
We have seen one instance in 1 K. vi. 1. In like 

manner at 1 K. xiv. 31, xv. 1, 2, we car. see (hat 
at some time or other xv. 1 h;is been inserted IIP- 
tween the two other verset So again ver. 9 has 
been inserted between 8 and 10; and xv. 24 must 
have once stood next to xxii. 42, as xxii. 50 did to 
2 K. viii. 17, at which time the corrupt ver. 16 
had no existence. Yet more manifestly viii. 24, 26, 
were once consecutive verses, though they are new 
parted by 25, which is repeated, with a variation 
in the numeral, at ix. 29. So also xvi. 1 has beeu 
interposed between sv. 38 and xvi. 2. xviii. 2 ii 
consecutive with xvi. 20. But the plainest instamj 
of all is 2 K. xi. 21, xii. 1 (xii. 1, seq., Heb.), 
where the words " In the seventh year of Jehu, 
Jehoash began to reign," could not possibly have 
formed part of the original sentence, which may be 
seen in its integrity 2 Chr. xxiv. 1. The disturb 
ance caused in 2 K. xii. by the intrusion of this 
clause is somewhat disguised in the LXX. and the 
A. V. by the division of Heb. xii. 1 into two verses, 
and separate chapters, but is still palpable. A 
similar instance is pointed out by Movers in 2 Sam. 
v., where ver. 3 and 6 are parted by the introduc 
tion of ver. 4, 5 (p. 190). But the difficulty re 
mains of deciding in which of the above cases the 
insertion was by the hand of the original compiler, 
and in which by a later chronologist. 

Now when to all this we add that the pages or 
Josephus are full, in like manner, of a multitude 
of inconsistent chronological schemes, which prevent 
his being of any use, in spite of Hales's praises, in 
clearing up chronological difficulties, the propei 
inference seems to be, that no authoritative, correct, 
systematic chronology was originally contained in 
the books of Kings, and that the attempt to supply 
such afterwards led to the introduction of many 
erroneous dates, and probably to the corruption ot 
some true ones which were originally there. Cer 
tainly the present text contains what are either 
conflicting calculations of antagonistic chronologists, 
or errors of careless copyists, which no learning or 
ingenuity has ever been able to reduce to the con 
sistency of truth. 

II. The peculiarities of diction in them, and other 
features in their literary history, may be briefly dis 
posed of. The words noticed by De Wette, §185, as 
indicating their modern date, are the following : — 
^X for flX, 1 K. xiv. 2. (But this form is also 
found in Judg. xvii. 2, Jer. iv. 30, Ez. xxxvi. 13, and 
not once in the later books.) IH^K for IfiX, 2 K. i. 
15. (But this form of flK is found in Lev. xv. 18, 
24; Josh. xiv. 12 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 24 ; Is. lix. 21 ; 
Jer. x. 5, xii. 1, xix. 10, xx. 11, xxiii. 9, xxxv. 2; 
Ez. xiv. 4, xxvii. 26.) DB» for DB», 1 K. ix. 8. 
(But Jer. xix. 8, xlix. 17, are identical in phrase 
and orthography.) fin for D*V> 2K - xi - 13 - ( But 
everywhere else in Kings, e. g. 2 K. xi. 6, &c., D*^"^ 
which is also universal in Chronicles, an avowedly 
later book; and here, as in fOhX, 1 K. xi. 33, there 
is every appearance of the } being a clerical error 
for the copulative 1 ; see Thenius, /. c.) flfa^p, 
1 K. xx. 14. (But this word occurs Lam. i. 1, and 
there is every appearance of its being a technical 
word in 1 K. xx. 14, and therefore as old as the 
reign of Ahab.) ib for lOPI, 1 K. iv. 22. (Buffij 

1 Lepsius proposes reducing the reign of Manasseh 
to 35 years. He observes with truth the improba 
bility of Amon having been born in the 45th year 

of his father's life. Mr. Bosauquet would lower th« 
date of the destruction of Jerusalem to the year B.O. 


is mod by Ez. xiv. 14, and homer seems to have been 
then already obsolete.) DnH, 1 K. xxi. 8, 11. 
^Occurs in Is. and Jer.) 31, 2 K. xxv. 8. (But 
as the term evidently came in with the Chaldees, 
as seen in Rab-shakeh, Rab-saris, Kab-mag, its ap 
plication to the Chaldee general is no evidence of a 
time later than the person to whom the title is 
given.) D^tP, 1 X. vm. 61, IK. (But there is 
Mt ft shadow of proof that this expression belongs 
to late Hebr. It is found, among other places, in 
Is. xxxviii. 3 ; a passage against the authenticity of 
which there is also not a shadow of proof, except 
upon the presumption that prophetic intimations 
and supernatural interventions on the part of God 
are impossible.) ?*3B>n, 2 K. xviii. 7. (On what 
grounds this word is adduced it is impossible to 
guess, since it occurs in this sense in Josh., Is., 
Sam., and Jer. : vid. Gesen.) jil"lt32, 2 K. xviii. 
19. (Is. xxxvi. 4, Ecoles. ix. 4.) 'fl^H*, 2 K. 
xviii. 26. (But why should not a Jew, in Hezekiah's 
reign, as well as in the time of Nehemiah, have 
called his mother-tongue " the Jews' language," in 
opposition to the Aramean ? There was nothing in 
the Babylonish captivity to give it the name, if 
it had it not before ; nor is there a single earlier 
instance — Is. xix. 18 might have furnished one 
— of any name given to the language spoken by 
all the Israelites, and which in later times was 
called Hebrew : 'Efipaiorrl, Prolog. Ecclus. ; Luke 
xxiii. 38 ; John v. 2, &c.) k J1K BBIptt TjH, 2 K. 
xxv. 6. (Frequent in Jer. iv. 12, xxxix. 5, &c.) 
Theod. Parker adds HHB (see, too, Thenius, Einl. 
§6), 1 K. x. 15, xx. T 24 ; 2 K. xviii. 24, on the 
presumption probably of its being of Persian de 
rivation ; but the etymology and origin of the 
word are quite uncertain, and it is repeatedly used 
in Jer. li., as well as Is. xxxvi. 9. With better 
reason might XT3 have been adduced, 1 K. xii. 
33. The expression "lilS!! "QV, in 1 K. iv. 24 is 

also a difficult one to form an impartial opinion 
about. It is doubtful, as De Wette admits, whether 
the phrase necessarily implies its being used by one 
to the east of the Euphrates, because the use varies 
in Num. xxxii. 19, xxxv. 14; Josh, i, 14 seq., v. 1, 
xii. 1, 7, xxii. 7 ; 1 Chr. xxvi. 30 ; Deut. i. 1, 5, 
&c. It is also conceivable that the phrase might be 
used as a mere geographical designation by those who 
belonged to one of " the provinces beyond the river" 
subject to Babylon : and at the time of the destruc 
tion of Jerusalem, Judaea had been such a province 
for at least 23 years, and probably longer. We may 
safely affirm therefore, that on the whole the pecu 
liarities of diction in these books do not indicate a 
time after the captivity, or towards the close of it, 
tut on the contrary point pretty distinctly to the 
age of Jeremiah. And it may be added, that the 
marked and systematic differences between the lan 
guage of Chronicles and that of Kings, taken with the 
fact that all attempts to prove the Chronicles later 
than Ezra have utterly failed, lead to the same conclu 
sion. (See many examples in Movers, p. 200, seq.) 
Other peculiar or rare expressions in these books are 
the proverbial ones : Tp2 pRK'D, found only in 
them and in 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 34, " slept with his 
fathers," " him that dieth in the city, the dogs 

k Pee Kodigcr's Qeten. Htb. Ovamm. Eng. tr. p. 6 ; 
Keil, Chron. p. 40. 


shall eat," &c. ; "fo nbj£ H3, 1 K. ii. 23, Ac. ; 
also i"P"lj5, 1 K. i. 41, 45; elsewhere only in poetry, 
and in the composition of proper names, except 
Deut iL 36. jY?nT, i. 9. Dn2T2, "fowl," iv. 2f» 
WIN, " stalls," V. 6 ; 2 Chr. ix. 25. DD n^H, T. 
13, ix. 15, 21. VDO, " a stone-quarry," (Gesen.) vi. 

7. <> to ( ?,vi.n. jnr6, 19. D^i?s and niy^s, 

" wild cucumbers," vi. 18, vii. 24, 2 K. iv. 39. 
Hipp, x. 28 ; the names of the months D^riN, 
viii'. 2, IT, ^13, vi. 37, 38. tH2, " to invent," 
xii. 33, Neh. vi. 8, in both cases joined with 
nV^D, "an idol," xv. 13. 1J72 and 
followed by ^PIK, " to destroy," xiv. 10, xvi. 3, 
xxi. 21. D*p3"i, "joints of the armour," xxii. 34. 
rE>, " a pursuit," xviii. 27. TH3, " to bend one- 
self," xviii. 42, 2 K. iv. 34, 35. T D3E>, " to gird 
up," xviii. 46. 1QN, " a head-band," xx. 38, 42. 
pBb, " to suffice," xx. 10. B7PI, incert. signif. 
xx.33. na-lbp Defy " to reign," xxi. 7. HTT^V, 
" a dish," 2 K.'ii. M. D^>3, " to fold up," ib. 8. 
T£3, " a herdsman," iii. 4, Am. i. 1. "ij-IDK, " an 
oil-cup," iv. 2. 7K Tin, " to have a care for," 
13 ; TIT, " to sneeze," 35 ; f6py, " a bag," 42. 
OHPl, " a money-bag," v. 23. iTjnn, " an en 
camping " (?) vi. 8 ; rri3, " a feast," 23 ; Jiri3, 
" descending," 9 ; 2£, " a cab," 25 ; D'JV *nn, 
" dove's dung," ib. TjpO, perhaps " a fly-net," 
viii. 15. D13 (in sense of " self," as in Chald. and 
Samar.), ix. 13. 1-12 V, " a heap," x. 8 ; iTTiri^D, 
" a vestry," 22 ; flXITO, "a draught-house," 27. 
1 T3, " Cherethites," xi. 4, 19, and 2 Sam. xx. 23, 
cethib. riDD, " a keeping off," xi. 6. "13D, " an 
acquaintance," xii. 6. The form "iV, from iTV t 
" to shoot," xiii. 17. niTtyFin \32, " hostages/' 
xiv. 14, 2 Chr. xxv. 24. iWBnn' IV2, " sick- 
house," xv. 5, 2 Chr. xxvi. 21. ?3P, "before," 


xv. 10. pEW-ll, " Damascus," xvi. 10 (perhaje 
only a false reading). nBX'lO, " a pavement." 
xvi. 17. 1JD-1D, or ^JD'D, " a covered way,* xvi. 
18. NBn in Pih. " to do secretly," xvii. 9. 
HTK'N, with i, 16, only besides Deut. vii. 5, Mic. v. 

i4 T . trn, t. q. nnj, xvu. 21 (Cethib). nv'ipb', 

" Samaritans," 29. JPlK'rU, " Nehustan," xviii. 4. 
njO'K, " a pillar," 16.' ^TOIQ ilby, " to make 
peace," 31, Is. xxxvi. 16. B^flD, " that which 
grows up the third year," xix. 29, Is. xxxvii. 30. 
T133 JV3, " treasure-house," xx. 13, Is. xxxix. 2. 
K'p, part of Jerusalem so called, xxi. 14, Zeph. 
i. 10, Neh. xi. 9. ni^O, " signs of the Zodiac," 
xxiii. i TT1B, "a suburb," xxiii. 11. D'23, 
" ploughmen," xxv. 12, cethib. NSC', for HSC?. 
" to change," xxv. 9. To which may be added 
the architectural terms iu 1 K. vi.. vii., and 



the names of ftmwu idols in 2 K. xvii. The 
general chiracter of" the language is, most dis 
tinctly, that of the time Itetbre the Babylonish 
captivity. But it is worth cfldskleration whether 
some traces of dialectic varieties hi Jiulah and 
Israel, and of an earlier admixture of Syri*a»s i« 
the language of Israel, may not be discovered in 
those portions of these books which refer to the 
kingdom of Israel. As regards the text, it 's far 
from being perfect. Besides the errors in numerals, 
some of which are probably to be traced to this 
source, such passages as 1 K. xv. 6 ; v. 10, compared 
with v. 2 ; 2 K. xv. 30, viii. 16, xvii. 34, are mani 
fest coiTuptions of transcribers. In some instances 
the parallel passage in Chronicles corrects the error, 
as 1 K. iv. 26 is corrected by 2 Chr. ix. 25 ; 2 K. 
xiv. 21, &c., by 2 Chr. xxvi. 1, &c. So the pro 
bable misplacement of the section 2 K. xxiii. 4-20 
is corrected by 2 Chr. xxxiv. 3-7. The substitution 
of Azariah for Uzziah in 2 K. xiv. 21, and through 
out 2 K. xv. 1-30, except ver. 1 3, followed by the use 
of the right name, Uzziah, in vers. 30, 32, 34, is a 
very curious circumstance. In Isaiah, in Zechariah 
(xiv. 5), and in the Chronicles (except 1 Chr. iii. 
12), it is uniformly Uzziah. Perhaps no other cause 
is to b* sought than the close resemblance between 
n"TV and nnty, and the fact that the latter 
name, Azariah, might suggest itself more readily 
to a Levitical scribe. There can be little doubt 
that Uzziah was the king's true name, Azariah 
that of the high-priest. (But see Thenius on 1 K. 
xiv. 21.) 

In connexion with these literary peculiarities may 
be mentioned also some remarkable variations in the 
version of the LXX. These consist of transpositions, 
omissions, and some considerable additions, of all 
which Thenius gives some useful notices in his 
Introduction to the book of Kings. 

The most important transpositions are the history 
of Shimei's death, 1 K. ii. 36-46, which in the LXX. 
(Cod. Vat.) comes after iii. 1, and divers scraps from 
chs. iv., Y., and ix., accompanied by one or two 
remarks of the translators. 

The sections 1 K. iv. 20-25, 2-6, 26, 21, 1, are 
strung together and precede 1 K. iii. 2-28, but are 
many of them repeated again in their proper places. 

The sections 1 K. iii. 1, ix. 16,17, are strung 
together, and placed between iv. 34 and v. 1. 

The section 1 K. vii. 1-12 is placed after vii. 51. 

Section viii. 12, 13, is placed after 53. 

Section ix. 15-22 is placed after x. 22. 

Section xi. 43, xii. 1, 2, 3, is much transposed 
and confused in LXX. xi. 43, 44, xii. 1-3. 

Section xiv. 1-21 is placed in the midst of the 
long addition to Chr. xii. mentioned below. 

Section xxii. 42*50 is placed after xvi. 28. 
Chaps, xx. and xxi. are transposed. 

Section 2 K. iii. 1-3 is placed after 2 K. i. 18. 

The omissions are few. 

Section 1 K. vi. 11-14 is entirely omitted, and 
37, 38, are only slightly alluded to at the opening 
of ch. iii. The erroneous clause 1 K. xv. 6 is omitted ; 
and so are the dates of Asa's reign in xvi. 8 and 15 ; 
and there are a few verbal omissions of no con- 

The chief interest lies in the additions, of which 
the principal are the following. The supposed 
mention of a fountaiu as among Solomon's works in 
the Temple in the passage after 1 K. ii. 35 ; of a 
paved causeway on Lebanon, iii. 46 ; of Solomon 
ointing to the sun at the dedication of the Temple, 
efore he uttered fie prayer, "The Lord said he 


would dwell in the thick darkness," &c., viii. 12, 
13 (after, 53 LXX.), with a reference to tli€ 
fil8\tov TTJS <fSijs, a passage on which Thenius 
relies as proving that the Alexandrian had access 
to original documents now lost ; the information 
that " Joram his brother " perished with Tibni, 
xri. 22 ; an additional date " in the 24th year 
of Jeroboam," xv. 8 ; numerous verbal additions. 
as xi. 2D, !*$. 1, &c. ; and lastly, the long 
passage concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 
inserted between xii. 24 and ^S. "Owe «re also 
many glosses of the translator, explanatory, or 
necessary in consequence of transpositions, as c. g. 
1 K. ii. 35, viii. 1, xi. 43, xvii. 20, xix. 2, &c. 6l 
the above, from the recapitulatory character of the 
passage after 1 K. ii. 35, containing in brief the sum 
of the things detailed in ch. vii. 21-23, it seems far 
more probable that KPHNHN TH2 AYAHS is only 
a corruption of KP1SON TOY AIAAM, there men 
tioned. The obscure passage about Lebanon offer 
iii. 46, seems no less certainly to represent what in 
the Heb. is ix. 18, 19, as appears by the triple con 
currence of Tadmor, Lebanon, and Swaff-rfii^a.-ra, 

representing IfDK'foD. The strange mention of the 

sun seems to be introduced by the translator to 
give significance to Solomon's mention of the House 
which he had built for God, who had said He would 
dwell in the thick darkness ; not therefore under 
the unveiled light of the sun ; and the reference to 
" the book of song" can surely mean nothing else 
than to point out that the passage to which Solo 
mon referred was Ps. xcvii. 2. Of the other addi 
tions the mention of Tibni's brother Joram is the 
one which has most the semblance of an historical 
fact, or makes the existence of any other source of 
history probable. See too 1 K. xx. 19, 2 K. xv. 25 
There remains only the long passage about Jero 
boam. That this account is only an apocrypha) 
version made up of the existing materials in the 
Hebrew Scriptures, after the manner of 1 Esdras, 
Bel and the Dragon, the apocryphal Esther, the 
Targums, &c., may be inferred on the following 
grounds. The frame-work of the story is given 
in the very words of the Hebrew narrative, and 
that very copiously, and the new matter is only 
worked in here and there. Demonstrably therefore 
the Hebrew account existed when the Greek one 
was framed, and was the original one. The prin 
cipal new facts introduced, the marriage of Jero 
boam to the sister of Shishak's wife, and his request 
to be permitted to return, is a manifest imitation 
of the story of Hadad. The misplacement of the 
story of Abijah's sickness, and the visit of Jero 
boam's wife to Ahijah the Shilonite, makes the 
whole history out of keeping — the disguise of the 
queen, the rebuke of Jeroboam's idolatry (which is 
accordingly left out from Ahijah's prophecy, as is 
the mention at v. 2 of his having told Jeroboam he 
should be king), and the king's anxiety about the 
recovery of his son and herr. The embellishments 
of the story, Jeroboam's chariots, the amplification 
of Ahijah's address to Ano, the request asked of 
Pharaoh, the new garment not washed in water, 
are precisely such as an embroiderer would add, as 
we may see by the apocryphal books above cited. 
Then the fusing down the three Hebrew names 

, and fi -Hty into one 2opipa, thug 

giving the same name to the mother of Jeroboam, 
and to the city where she dwelt, shows how com 
paratively modern the story is, and how completely 
of Greek growth. A yet plainer indication is tin 



confounding Shemaiah of 1 K. xii. 22, with She- 
maiah the Nehelamite of Jer. xxix. 24, 31, and 
putting Ahijah's prophecy into his mcuth. For 
beyond all question 'Ei/Xa/K/, 1 K. xii., is only an 
other form of A.l\<tfjiirijs (Jer. x*xvi. 24, LXX.). 
Then again the story is self-contradictory. For if 
Jeroboam's child Abijam was not born till a year 
or so after Solomon's death, how could " any good 
thing toward the Lord God of Israel " have been 
found in him before Jeroboam became king ? The 
one thing in the story that is more like truth than 
the Hebrew narrative is the age given to Kehoboam, 
16 years, which may have been preserved in the 
MS. which the writer of this romance had before 
him. The calling Jeroboam's mother yvi^j ir6pvr), 
instead of ywtf x^P a > was probably accidental. 

On the whole then it appears that the great va 
riations in the LXX. contribute little or nothing to 
the elucidation of the history contained in these 
books, nor much even to the text. The Hebrew 
text and arrangement is not in the least shaken in 
its main points, nor is there the slightest cloud cast 
on the accuracy of the history, or the truthfulness 
of the prophecies contained in it. But these varia 
tions illustrate a characteristic tendency of the 
Jewish mind to make interesting portions of the 
Scriptures the groundwork of separate religious 
tales, which they altered or added to according to 
their fancy, without any regard to history or chro 
nology, and in which they exercised a peculiar kind 
of ingenuity in working up the Scripture materials, 
or in inventing circumstances calculated as they 
thought to make the main history more probable. 
The story of Zerubbabel's answer in 1 Esdr. about 
truth, to prepare the way for his mission by Darius ; 
of the discovery of the imposture of Bel's priests by 
Daniel, in Bel and the Dragon ; of Mordecai's dream 
in the Apocr. Esther, and the paragraph in the 
Talmud inserted to connect 1 K. xvi. 34, with 
xvii. 1 (Smith's Sacr. Ann., vol. ii. p. 421), are 
instances of this. And the reign of Solomon,' 
and the remarkable rise of Jeroboam were not un 
likely to exercise this propensity of the Hellenistic 
Jews. It is to the existence of such works that 
the variations iu the LXX. account of Solomon and 
Jeroboam may most probably be attributed. 

Another feature in the literary condition of our 
books must just be noticed, viz. that the compiler, 
in arranging his materials, and adopting the very 
words of the documents used by him, has not always 
been careful to avoid the appearance of contradic 
tion. Thus the mention of the staves of the ark 
remaining in their place " unto this day," 1 K. 
viii. 8, does not accord with the account of the de 
struction of the Temple 2 K. xxv. 9. The mention 
of Elijah as the only prophet of the Lord left, 1 K. 
iviii. 22, xix. 10, has an appearance of disagree 
ment with xx. 13, 28, 35, &c., though xviii. 4, 
xix. 18, supply, it is true, a ready answer. In 
1 K. xxi. 13, 'only Naboth is mentioned, while in 

2 K. ix. 26, his SODS are added. The prediction 
in 1 K. xix. 15-17 has no perfect fulfilment in the 
following chapters. 1 K. xxii. 38, does not seem 
to be a fulfilment of xxi. 19." The declaration in 
1 K. ix. 22 does not seem in harmony with xi. 28. 
Theie are also some singular repetitions, as 1 K. 
riv. 21 compared with 31 ; 2 K. ix. 29 with viii. 
25 ; xiv. 15, 16 with xiii. 12, 13. But it if 
enough just to have pointed these out, as no real 
difficulty can be found in them. 

III. As regards the authorship of tncse books, 
but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish 
tradition which ascribes them to Jeremiah, is borne 
out by the strongest internal evidence, in addition 
to that of the language. The last chapter, espe 
cially as compared with the last chapter of the 
Chronicles, bears distinct traces of having been 
written by one who did not go into captivity, but 
remained in Judea, after the destruction of the 
Temple. This suits Jeremiah. The events singled 
out for mention in the concise narrative, are pre 
cisely those of which he had personal knowledge, 
and in which he took special interest. The famine 
in 2 K. xxv. 3 was one which had nearly cost Jere 
miah his life (Jer. xxxviii. 9). The capture of the 
city, the flight and capture of Zedekiah, the judg 
ment and punishment of Zedekiah and his sons at 
Riblah, are related in 2 K. xxv. 1-7, in almost the 
identical words which we read in Jer. xxxix. 1- 7 . 
So are the breaking down and burning of the Temple, 
the king's palace, and the houses of the great men, 
the deportation to Babylon of the fugitives and the 
surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea. The 
intimate knowledge of what Nebuzar-adan did, both 
in respect to those selected for capital punishment, 
and those carried away captive, and those poor 
whom he left in the land, displayed by the writer 
of 2 K. xxv. 11, 12, 18-21, is fully explained by 
Jer. xxxix. 10-14, xl. 1-5, where we read that Je 
remiah was actually one of the captives who fol 
lowed Nebuzar-adan as far as Ramah, and was very 
kindly treated by him. The careful enumeration 
of the pillars and of the sacred vessels of the Temple 
which were plundered by the Chaldaeans, tallies 
exactly with the prediction of Jeremiah concerning 
them, xxvii. 19-22. The paragraph concerning the 
appointment of Gedaliah as governor of the rem 
nant, and his murder by Ishmael, and the flight of 
the Jews into Egypt, is merely an abridged account 
of what Jeremiah tells us more fully, xl.-xliii. 7, 
and are events in which he was personally deeply 
concerned. The writer in Kings has nothing more 
to tell us concerning the Jews or Chaldees in the 
land of Judah, which exactly agrees with the hypo 
thesis that he is Jeremiah, who we know was carried 
down to Egypt with the fugitives. In fact, the 
date of the writing and the position of the writer, 
seem as clearly marked by the termination of the 
narrative at v. 26, as in the case of the Acts of the 
Apostles.P It may be added, though the argument 

• A later tale of Solomon's wUdom, in imitation of 
ihe judgment of the two women, told in the Talmud, 
may be seen in Curiosities of Literature, i. 226. The 
Talmud contains many more. 

• For a discussion of this difficulty see [NABOTH] 
[JEZBEEL,]. The simplest explanation is that Naboth 
was stoned at Samaria, since we find the elders of 
Jezreel at Samaria, 2 K. x. 1. Thus both the spot 
where Naboth's blood flowed, and his vineyard at 
Jezreel, were the scene of righteous retribution. 

De Wette cites from Havernick and Mover*, 
I K. ix 8, 9, comp. witb 'er. xxii. 8; 2 K. xvii. 13, 

14, comp. with Jer. vii. 13, 24 ; 2 K. xxi. 12, comp. 
with Jer. xix. 3 ; and the identity of Jer. Hi. -with 
2 K. xxiv. 18, seq. xxv., as the strongest passages 
in favour of Jeremiah's authorship, which, however, 
he repudiates, on the ground that 2 K. xxv. 27-30 
could not have been written by him. A weaker ground 
can scarcely be imagined. Jer. xv. 1 may also be cited 
as connecting the compilation of the books of Samuel 
with Jeremiah. Compare further 1 K. viii. 51 with 
Jer. xi. 4. 

t The four last verses, relative to Jehoiachin, arc 
equally a supplement whether added by the author or 



re of less weight, that the ai.nexation of this chapter 
to the writings of Jeremiah so as to form Jer. lii. 
(with the additional clause contained 28-30) is an 
evidence of a very ancient, if not a contemporary 
lolief, that Jeremiah was the author of it. Again, 
the special mention of Seraiah the high-priest, and 
Zephar.iah the second priest, as slain by Nebuzar- 
adan (v. 18), together with three other priests, q is 
very significant when taken in connexion with Jer. 
xxi. 1, xxix. 25-29, passages which show that Ze- 
phaniah belonged to the faction which opposed the 
prophet, a faction which was headed by priests and 
false prophets (Jer. xxvi. 7, 8, 11, 16). Going 
back to the xxivth chapter, we find in ver. 14 an 
enumeration of the captives taken with Jehoiachin 
identical with that in Jer. xxiv. 1; in ver. 13, a 
reference to the vessels of the Temple precisely 
similar to that in Jer. xxvii. 18-20, xxviii. 3', b', 
and in ver. 3, 4, a reference to the idolatries and 
bloodshed of Manasseh very similar to those in Jer. 
ii. 34, xix. 4-8, &c., a reference which also con 
nects ch. xxiv. with xxi. 6, 13-16. In ver. 2 the 
enumeration of the hostile nations, and the re 
ference to the prophets of God, point directly 
to Jer. xxv. 9, 20, 21, and the reference to 
Pharaoh Nocho in ver. 7 points to ver. 19, and to 
xlvi. 1-12. Brief as the narrative is, it brings 
out all the chief points in the political events of 
the time which we know were much in Jeremiah's 
mind ; and yet, which is exceedingly remarkable, 
Jeremiah is never once named (as he is in 2 Chr. 
xxxvi. 12, 21), although the manner of the writer 
is frequently to connect the sufferings of Judah 
with their sins and their neglect of the Word of 
God, 2 K. xvii. 13, seq., xxiv. 2, 3, &c. And this 
leads to another striking coincidence between that 
portion of the history which belongs to Jeremiah's 
times, and the writings of Jeremiah himself. De 
Wette speaks of the superficial character of the 
history of Jeremiah's times as hostile to the theory 
ot Jeremiah's authorship. Now, considering the 
nature of these annals, and their conciseness, this 
criticism seems very unfounded as regards the reigns 
of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. It 
must, however, be acknowledged that as regards 
Jehoiakim's reign, and especially the latter part of 
it, and the way in which he came by his death, the 
narrative is much more meagre than one would 
have expected from a contemporary writer, living 
on the spot. But exactly the same paucity of in 
fo rmation is found in those otherwise copious notices 
of contemporary events with which Jeremiah's pro 
phecies are interspersed. Let any one open, e. g. 
Townshend's " Arrangement" or Geneste's " Pa 
rallel Histories" and he will see at a glance how 
remarkably little light Jeremiah's narrative or pro 
phecies throw upon the latter part of Jehoiakim's 

reign. The cause of this silence may le difficult 
to assign, but whatever it was, whether absence 
from Jerusalem, possibly on the mission described, 
Jer. xiii., r or imprisonment, or any other impedi 
ment, it operated equally on Jeremiah and on thf 
writer of 2 K. xxiv. When it is borne in /lind that 
the writer of 2 K. was a contemporary writer, and, 
if not Jeremiah, must have had independent means 
of information, this coincidence will have grcrt 

Going back to the reign of Josiah, in the xxiii. 
and xxii. chapters, the connexion of the destruction 
of Jerusalem with Manasseh's transgressions, and 
the comparison of it to the destruction of Samaria, 
ver. 26, 27, lead us back to xxi. 10-13, and that 
passage leads us to Jer. vii. 15, xv. 4, xix. 3, 
4, &c. The particular account of Josiah'b pass- 
over, and his other good works, the reference in 
ver. 24, 25 to the law of Moses, and the finding of 
the Book by Hilkiah the priest, with the fullei 
account of that discovery in ch. xxii., exactly suit 
Jeremiah, who began his prophetic office in the 
1 3th of Josiah ; whose xith chap, refers repeatedly 
to the book thus found ; and who showed his attach 
ment to Josiah by writing a lamentation on his 
death (2 Chr. xxxv. 25), and whose writings show 
how much he made use of the copy of Deutero 
nomy so found. [JEREMIAH, HILKIAH.] With Jo- 
siah's reign (although we may even in earlier times 
hit upon occasional resemblances, such for instance 
as the silence concerning Manasseh's repentance in 
both), necessarily cease all strongly marked cha 
racters of Jeremiah's authorship. For though the 
general unity and continuity of plan (which, as 
already observed, pervades not only the books oi 
Kings, but those of Samuel, Ruth, and Judges like 
wise) lead us to assign the whole history in a 
certain sense to one author, and enable us to carry 
to the account of the whole book the proofs derived 
from the closing chapters, yet it must be borne in 
mind that the authorship of those parts of the his 
tory of which Jeremiah was not an eye-witness, 
that is, of all before the reign of Josiah, would 
have consisted merely in selecting, arranging, in 
serting the connecting phrases, and, when necessary, 
slightly modernising (see Thenius, Einleit. § 2) 
the old histories which had been drawn up by con 
temporary prophets through the whole period of 
time. See e. g. 1 K. xiii. 32. For, as regards the 
sources of information, it may truly be said that 
we have the narrative of contemporary writers 
throughout. It has already been observed 
[CHRONICLES] that there was a regular series 
of state-annals both for the kingdom of Judah 
and for that of Israel, which embraced the 
whole time comprehended in the Books of Kings, 
or at least to the end of the reign of Jehoiakim, 

by some later hand. There is nothing impossible in 
the supposition of Jeremiah having survived till the 
37th of Jehoiachin's captivity, though he would have 
been between 80 and 90. There is something touch 
ing in the idea of this gleam of joy having reached 
the prophet in his old age, and of his having added 
these few words to his long-finished history of his 

' These priests, of very high rank, called ^'TOB' 
f|Bn, "keepers of the door," i. e. of the three prin 
cipal entrances to the Temple, are not to he con 
founded with the porters, who were Levites. "We are 
.xpressly told in 2 K. xii. 10 (9, A. V.) that these 
"keepers" were priests. 2 K. xxii. 4, xxiii. 4, witii 
<ii. 10 and xxv. 18, clearly point out the rank of 

these officers as next in dignity to the second priest, or 
sagan. [HIOH-PEIEST, vol. i. p.. 808.] Josephus calls 
them TOIIJ <|>vA<x<r<7oi'Tas TO lepov riyepovas . The ex 
pression PlDH ^QK^ is however also applied to the 
Levites in 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9, 1 Chr. ix. 19. [KORAHITE.] 
* The prophet does not tell us that he returned to 
Jerusalem after hiding his girdle in the Euphrates. 
The " many days " spoken of in ver. 6 may have been 
spent among the captivity at Babylon. [ JKREMIAH, p. 
969 a.] He may have returned just after Jehoiakim't 
death ; and " the king and the queen," in ver, 18, 
may mean Jehoiachin and his mother. Comp. 2 K. 
xxiv. 12, 15, which would be the fulfilment of Jer. 
xiii. 18, i" 



2 K. zxiv. 5. These annals are constantly cited 
by name as " the Book of the Acts of Solomon," 
I K. xi. 41 ; and, after Solomon, " the Book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Juclah, or, Israel," e. g. 
1 K. xiv. 29, xv. 7, xvi. 5, 14, 20 ; 2 K. x. 34, xxiv. 
5, &c., and it is manifest that the author of Kings 
had them both before him, while he drew up his his 
tory, in which the reigns of the two kingdoms are 
harmonised, and these annals constantly appealed 
to. But in addition to these national annals, there 
were also extant, at the time that the Books of 
Kings were compiled, separate works of the several 
prophets who had lived in Judah and Israel, and 
which probably bore the same relation to the annals, 
which the historical parts of Isaiah and Jeremiah 
bear to those portions of the annals preserved in the 
Books of Kings, »'. e. were, in some instances at 
least, fuller and more copious accounts of the cur 
rent events, by the same hands which drew up the 
more concise narrative of the annals, though in 
ethers perhaps mere duplicates. Thus the acts of 
Uzziah, written by Isaiah, were very likely iden 
tical with the history of his reign in the national 
chronicles ; and part of the history of Hezekiah 
we know was identical in the chronicles and in the 
prophet. The chapter in Jeremiah relating to the 
destruction of the Temple (Hi.) is identical with 
that in 2 K. xxiv., xxv. In later times we have 
supposed that a chapter in the prophecies of Daniel 
was used for the national chronicles, and appears as 
Ezr. ch. i. [EZRA, BOOK OF.] Compare also 2 K. 
xvi. 5, with Is. vii. 1 ; 2 K. xviii. 8, with Is. 
xiv. 28-32. As an instance of verbal agreement, 
coupled with greater fullness in the prophetic ac 
count, see 2 K. xx. compared with Is. xxxviii., in 
which latter alone is Hezekiah's writing given. 

These other works, then, as far as the memory of 
them has been preserved to us, were as follows (see 
Keil's Apolog. Vers.). For the time of David, the 
book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the 
prophet, and the book of Gad the seer (2 Sam. 
xxi.-xxiv. with 1 K. 1, being probably extracted 
from Nathan's book), which seem to have been 
collected — at least that portion of them relating 
to David — into one work called "the Acts of 
David the King," 1 Chr. xxix. 29. For the time 
of Solomon, " the Book of the Acts of Solomon," 

1 K. xi. 41, consisting probably of parts of the 
" Book of Nathan- the prophet, the prophecy of 
Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the 
seer," 2 Chr. ix. 29. For the time of Rehoboam, 
" the words of Shemaiah the prophet, and of 
Iddo the seer concerning genealogies," 2 Chr. xii. 

15. For the time of Abijali, " the story (fcn*l») * 

of the prophet Iddo," 2 Chr. xiii. 22. For the 
time of Jehoshaphat, " the words of Jehu the 
son of Hanani," 2 Chr. xx. 34. For the time of 
Uzziah, " the writings of Isaiah the prophet," 

2 Chr. xxvi. 22. For the time of Hezekiah, 
" the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of 
Amoz," 2 Chr. xxxii. 32. For the time of Man- 
asseh, a book called " the sayings of the seers," 
as the A. V., following the LXX., Vulg., Kimchi, 
&c., rightly renders the passage, in accordance 
with ver. 18, 2 Chr. xxxiii. 19, though others, 
following the grammar too servilely, make Cltozaia. 
proper name, because of the absence o f the article. 

[CHRONICLES, vol. i. p. 31 0.*] For the time of Jero 
boam II., a prophecy of " Jonah, the son of Arnittai 
the prophet, of Gath-hepher," is cited, 2 K. xiv. 
25 ; and it seems likely that there were books con 
taining special histories of the acts of Elijah and 
Elisha, seeing that the times of these prophets are 
descriled with such copiousness. Of the latter Gehazi 
might well have been the author, to judge from 2 K. 
viii. 4, 5, as Elisha himself might have been of the 
former. Possibly too the prophecies of Azariah 
the son of Oded, in Asa's reign, 2 Chr. XT. 1, and 
of Hanani (2 Chr. xvi. 7), (unless this latter i» 
the same as Jehu son of Hanani, as Oded is put for 
Azariah in rv. 8), and Micaiah the son of Imlah, 
in Ahab's reign ; and Eliezer the son of Dodavah, 
in Jehoshaphat 's ; and Zechariah the son of Je- 
hoiada, in Jehoash's ; and Oded, in Pekah's ; and 
Zechariah, in Uzziah 's reign ; of the prophetess 
Huldah, in Josiah's, and others, may have been 
preserved in writing, some or all of them. These 
works, or at least many of vheirt, must have been 
extant at the time when the Books of Kings were 
compiled, as they certainly were much later when 
the Books of Chronicles were put together by Ezra. 
But whether the author used them all, or only 
those duplicate portions of them which were em 
bodied >n the national chronicles, it is impossible to 
say, seeing he quotes none of them by name except 
the acts of Solomon, and the prophecy of Jonah. 
On the other hand, we cannot infer from his silence 
that these books were unused by him, seeing that 
neither does he quote by name the Vision of Isaiah 
as the Chronicler does, though he must, from its 
recent date, have been familiar with it, and that so 
many parts of his narrative have every appearance 
of being extracted from these books of the prophets, 
and contain narratives which it is not likely would 
have found a place in the chronicles of the kings. 
(See 1 K. xiv. 4. &c., xvi. 1, &c., xi. ; 2 K. 
xvii., &c.) 

With regard to the work so often cited in the 
Chronicles as " the Book of the Kings of Israel and 
Judah," 1 Chr. ix. 1 ; 2 Chr. xvi. 11, xxvii. 7, 
xxviii. 26, xxxii. 32, xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 8, it has 
been thought by some that it was a separate col 
lection containing the joint histories of the two 
kingdoms ; by others that it is our Books of Kings 
which answer to this description ; but by Eichhorn, 
that it is the same as the Chronicles of the Kings 
of Judah so constantly cited in the Books of Kings , 
and this last opinion seems the best founded. For 
in 2 Chr. xvi. 11, the same book is called " tha 
book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," which in 
the parallel passage, 1 K. xv. 23, is called " the 
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah." So 
again, 2 Chr. xxvii. 7, comp. with 2 K. xv. 36; 
2 Chr. xxviii. 26, comp. with 2 K. xvi. 19; 
2 Chr. xxxii. 32, comp. with 2 K. xx. 20; 
2 Chr. xxxv. 27, with 2 K. xxiii. 28 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 
8, with 2 K. xxiv. 5. Moreover the book so 
quoted refers exclusively to the affairs of Judah ; 
and even in the one passage where reference is made 
to it as "the Book of the Kings of Israel," 2 Chr. 
xx. 34, it is for the reign of Jehoshaphat that it is 
cited. Obviously therefore it is the same work 
which is elsewhere described as the Chr. of Israel 
and Judah, and of Judith and Israel.* Nor 
is this an unreasonable title to give to these chro- 

•~ Movers thinks the term BT1E implies transla 
tion from older works. 

1 Thcniiis comes to the same conclusion (Einlcit. 

§3). It is cited in 2 Chr. xxiv. 27 as " the story 
—the Midrash — {J'TlD, >f the book of the Kii^s 
Comp. 2 K. xii. 19. 



nicies. Saul, David, Solomon, and in some sense 
Hezeki:ih, 2 Chr. xxx. 1 , 5, 6, and all his successors 
77ere kings of Israel as well as of Judah, and there 
fore it is very conceivable that in Ezra's time the 
chronicles of Judah should have acquired the name 
of the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. 
Even with regard to a portion of Israel in the days 
of Rehoboam, the chronicler remarks, apparently as a 
matter of gratulation, that " Rehoboam reigned over 
them," 2 Chr. x. 1 7 ; he notices Abijah's authority 
in portions of the Israelitish territory, 2 Chr. xiii. 
18, 19, xv. 8, 9 ; he not unfrequently speaks of 
Israel, when the kingdom of Judah is the matter 
m hand, as 2 Chr. xii. 1, xxi. 4, xxiii. 2, &c., and 
even calls Jehoshaphat " King of Israel," 2 Chr. 
ssi. 2, and distinguishes " Israel and Judah," from 
" Ephraim and Manasseh," xxx. 1 ; he notices He- 
zekiah's authority from Dan to Beersheba, 2 Chr. 
xxx. 5, and Josiah's destruction of idols through 
out all the land of Israel, xxxiv. 6-9, and his pass- 
over for all Israel, xxxv. 17, 18, and seems to pa 
rade the title " King of Israel " in connexion with 
l>avid and Solomon, xxxv. 3, 4, and the relation of 
the Levites to " all Israel," ver. 3 ; and therefore 
it is only in accordance with the feeling displayed 
in such passages that the name, " the Book of the 
Kings of Israel and Judah " should be given to the 
chronicles of the Jewish kingdom. The use of this 
term in speaking of the " Kings of Israel and Judah 
who were carried away to Babylon for their trans 
gression," 1 Chr. ix. 1 , would be conclusive, if the 
construction of the sentence were certain. But 
though it is absurd to separate the words " and 
Judah " from Israel, as Bertheau does (Kurzgef. 
Exeg. Handb.), following the Masoretic punctua 
tion, seeing that the " Book of the Kings of Israel 
and Judah," is cited in at least six other places in 
Chr., still it is possible that Israel and Judah 
might b.e the antecedent to the pronoun understood 
before -1^3n. It seems, however, much more likely 
that the antecedent to 1K>K is "n C| 1 "K» '3^». 
On the whole therefore there is no evidence of the 
existence in the time of the chronicler of a history, 
since lost, of the two kingdoms, nor are the Books 
of Kings the work so quoted by the chronicler, 
seeing he often refers to it for " the rest of the acts " 
of Kings, when he has already given all that is con 
tained in our Books of Kings. He refers therefore 
to the chronicles of Judah. From the above au 
thentic sources then was compiled the history in the 
books under consideration. Judging from the facts 
that we have in 2 K. xviii. xix., xx., the history of 
Hezekiah in the very words of Isaiah, xxxvi.-xxxix. ; 
that, as stated above, we have several passages from 
Jeremiah in duplicate in 2 K., and the whole of 
Jer. Hi. in 2 K.»xxiv. 18, &c., xxv. ; that so 
large a portion of the Books of Kings is repeated in 
the Books of Chronicles, though the writer of Chro 
nicles had the original Chronicles also before him, 
as well as from the whole internal character of the 
narrative, and even some of the blemishes referred 
to under the 2nd head ; we may conclude with 
certainty that we have in the Books of Kings, not 
only in the main the history faithfully preserved 
to us from the ancient chronicles, but most fre 
quently whole passages transferred verbatim into 
them. Occasionally, no doubt, we have the com 
piler's own comments, or reflexions thrown in, as 
,\t 2 K. xxi. 10-16, xvii. 10-15, xiii. 23,xvii. 7-41, 

• V. 32. The phrase " the cities of Samaria " of 
cc-.irst cannot belong to th» age -jf Jeroboam. 

&c. We connect the insertion af the prophecy in 
1 K. xiii. with the fact that the compiler himself 
was an eye-witness of the fulfilment of it, and can 
even see how the words ascribed to the old prophet 
are of the age of the compiler. 11 We can perhaps 
see his hand in the frequent repetition on the review 
of each reign of the remark, " the high places were 
not taken away, the people still sacrificed and burnt 
incense on the high places," 1 K. xxii. 43 ; 2 K. 
xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35 ; cf. 1 K. iii. 3, and in the 
repeated observation that such and such things, 
as the staves by which the ark was borne, the 
revolt of the 10 tribes, the icbellion of Edom, 
&c., continue " unto this day," though it may 
be perhaps doubted in some cases whether these 
words were not in the old chronicle (2 Chr. v. 9). 
See 1 K. viii. 8, ix. 13, 21, x. 12, xii. 19; 2 K. ii. 
22, viii. 22, x. 27, xiii. 23, xiv. 7, xvi. 6, xvii. 23, 
34, 41, xxiii. 25. It is however remarkable that 
in no instance does the use of this phrase lead us to 
suppose that it was penned after the destruction of 
the Temple : in several of the above instances the 
phrase necessarily supposes that the Temple and 
the kingdom of Judah were still standing. If the 
phrase then is the compiler's, it proves him to have 
written before the Babylonish captivity ; if it was ?. 
part of the chronicle he was quoting, it shows how 
exactly he transferred its contents to his own pages. 

IV. As regards the relation of the Books of Kings 
to those of Chronicles, it is manifest, and is univer 
sally admitted, that the former is by far the older 
work. The language, which is quite free from the 
Persicisms of the Chronicles and their late ortho 
graphy, and is not at all more Aramaic than the 
language of Jeremiah, as has been shown above (II.), 
clearly points out its relative superiority in regard 
to age. Its subject also, embracing the kingdom 
of Israel as well as Judah, is t another indication of 
its composition before the kingdom of Israel was 
forgotten, and before the Jewish enmity to Sa 
maria, which is apparent in such passages as 2 Chr. 
xx. 37, xxv., and in those chapters of Ezra (i.-vi.) 
which belong to Chronicles, was brought to ma 
turity. While the Books of Chronicles therefore 
were written especially for the Jews after their 
return from Babylon, the Book of Kings was 
written for the whole of Israel, before their common 
national existence was hopelessly quenched. 

Another comparison of considerable interest be 
tween the two histories may be drawn in respect 
to the main design, that design having a marked 
relation both to the individual station of the sup 
posed writers, and the peculiar circumstances of 
their country at the times of their writing. 

Jeremiah was himself a prophet. He lived white 
the prophetic office was in full vigour, in his own 
person, in Ezekiel, and Daniel, and many others, 
both true and false. In his eyes, as in truth, the 
main cause of the fearful calamities of his country 
men was their rejection and contempt of the Word 
of God in his mouth and that of the other pro 
phets ; and the one hope of deliverance lay in their 
hearkening to the prophets who still continued to 
speak to them in the name of the Lord. Accord 
ingly, we find in the Books of Kings great promi 
nence given to the prophetic office. Not only are 
some fourteen chapters devoted more or less to the 
history of Elijah and Elisha, the former of whom is 
but once named, and the latter not once in the 
Chronicles ; but besides the many passages in which 
the names and sayings of prophets are recorded 
alike in both histories, the foil >wirg may be cited 



as instances in which the compiler of Kings has no 
tices of the prophets which are peculiar to himself. 
The history of the prophet who went from Judah 
to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam, and of the old 
prophet and his sons who dwelt at Bethel, 1 K. 
xiii. ; the story of Ahijah the prophet and Jero 
boam's wife in 1 K. xiv. ; the prophecy of Jehu the 
son of Hanani concerning the house of Baasha, 1 K. 
xvi. ; the reference to the fulfilment of the Word 
of God in the termination of Jehu's dynasty, in 
2 It, xv. 12 ; the reflexions in 2 K. xvii. 7-23 ; and 
above all, as relating entirely to Judah, the narra 
tive of Hezekiah's sickness and recovery in 2 K. xx. 
as contrasted with that in 2 Chr. xxxii., may be 
( ited as instances of that prominence given to pro 
phecy and prophets by the compiler of the book of 
Kings, which is also especially noticed by De Wette, 
§18:3, and Parker, transl. p. 233. 

This view is further confirmed if we take into ac 
count the lengthened history of Samuel the prophet, 
in 1 Sam. (while he is but barely named two or 
three times in the Chronicles), a circumstance, by 
the way, strongly connecting the books of Samuel 
with those of Kings. 

Ezra, on the contrary, was only a priest. In his 
days the prophetic office had wholly fallen into 
abeyance. That evidence of the Jews being the 
people of God, which consisted in the presence of 
prophets among them, was no more. But to the 
men of his generation, the distinctive mark of the 
continuance of God's favour to their race was the 
rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, the restora 
tion of the daily sacrifice and the Levitical worship, 
and the wonderful and providential renewal of the 
Mosaic institutions. The chief instrument, too, for 
preserving the Jewish remnant from absorption 
into the mass of Heathenism, and for maintaining 
their national life till the coming of Messiah, was 
the maintenance of the Temple, its ministers, and 
its services. Hence we see at once that the chief 
cart of a good and enlightened Jew of the age of 
Ezra, and all the more if he were himself a priest, 
would naturally be to enhance the value of the Le 
vitical ritual, and the dignity of the Levitical caste. 
And in compiling a history of the past glories of his 
race, he would as naturally select such passages 
.s especially bore upon the sanctity of the priestly 
office, and showed the deep concern taken by their 
ancestors in all that related to the honour of God's 
House, and the support of His ministering servants. 
Hence the Levitical character of the Books of Chro 
nicles, and the presence of several detailed narratives 
not found in the Books of Kings, and the more fre 
quent reference to the Mosaic institutions, may 
most naturally and simply be accounted for, without 
resorting to the absurd hypothesis that the cere 
monial law was an invention subsequent to the cap 
tivity. 2 Chr. xxix., xxx., xxxi. compared with 
2 K. xviii. is perhaps as good a specimen as can be 
selected of the distinctive spirit of the Chronicles. 
See also 2 Chr. xxvi. 10-21, comp. with 2 K. xv. 
5; 2 Chr. xi. 13-17, xiii. 9-20, xv. 1-15, xxiii. 
2-8, comp. with 2 K. xi. 5-9, and vers. 18, 19, 
comp. with ver. 18, and many other passages. 
Moreover, upon the principle that the sacred writers 
were influenced by natural feelings in their selec 
tion of their materials, it seems most appropriate while the prophetical writer in Kings deals 
very fully with the kingdom of Israel, in which the 
prophets were much more illustrious than in Judah, 
the Levitical writer, on the contrary, should con 
centrate :ill his thoughts round Jerusalem where 

alone the Levitical caste had all its power and 
tions, and should dwell upon all the instances pre 
served in existing muniments of the deeds and even 
the minutest ministrations of the priests and Levites, 
as well as of their faithfulness and sufferings in th« 
cause of truth. This professional bias is so true to 
nature, that it is surprising that any one should be 
found to raise an objection from it. Its subserviency 
in this instance to the Divine purposes and the in 
struction of the Church, is an interesting example 01 
the providential government of God. It may be 
further mentioned as tending to account simply and 
naturally for the difference in some of the nar 
ratives in the books of Kings and Chronicles re 
spectively, that whereas the compiler of Kings 
usually quotes the Book of the Chronicles of the 
Kings of Judah, the writer of Chronicles very fre 
quently refers to those books of the contemporary 
prophets which we presume to have contained 
more copious accounts of the same reigns. This 
appears remarkably in the parallel passages h 1 K. 
xi. 41 ; 2 Chr. ix. 29, where the writer of jKings 
refers for "the rest of Solomon's acts" to the 
" book of the acts of Solomon," while the writer 
of Chronicles refers to " the book of Nathan the 
prophet " and " the prophecy of Ahijah the Shi- 
lonito," and " the visions of Iddo the seer against 
Jeroboam the sou of Nebat ;" and in 1 K. xiv. 29, 
and 2 Chr. xii. 15, where the writer of Kings sums 
up his history of Rehoboam with the words, " Now 
the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he 
did, are they not written in the Book of the Chro 
nicles of the Kings of JudaJi ¥' whereas the chro 
nicler substitutes " in the Book of Shemaiah the 
prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genea 
logies ;" and in 1 K. xxii. 45, where "the Book of 
the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah " stands instead 
of " the Book of Jehu the son of Hanani," in 2 Chr. 
xx. 34. Besides which, the very formula so fre 
quently used, "the rest of the acts of so and so, 
and all that he did," &c., necessarily supposes that 
there were in the chronicles of each reign, and in 
the other works cited, many things recorded which 
the compiler did not transcribe, and which of course 
it was open to any other compiler to insert in his 
narrative if he pleased. If then the chronicler, 
writing with a different motive and different pre 
dilections, and in a different age, had access to the 
same original documents from which the author of 
Kings drew his materials, it is only what was to 
be expected, that he should omit or abridge some 
things given in detail in the Book of Kings, and 
should insert, or give in detail, some things which the 
author of Kings had omitted, or given very briefly. 
The following passages which are placed side by side 
are examples of these opposite methods of treating 
the same subject on the part of the two writers : — 

Full in Kingt. 

1 K. i. ii. give In detail 
the circumstances of Solo 
mon's accession, the con 
spiracy of Adonijah, Joab, 
Abiathar, &c., and substi 
tution of Zadok in the 
priest's office in room of 
Abiathar, the submission 
of Adonijah and all hi? 
parly, Joab's death, kc. 

Short in Chronidet. 

1 Obr. xxix. 22-24. 
" And they made Solomc n 
the son of David king the 
second time, and anointed 
him unto the Lord to be the 
chief governor, and Zadok 
to be priest. Then Solo, 
mon sat on the throne oi 
the Lord as king instead 
of David bis father, and 
prospered, and all Israel 
obeyed him. And all the 
princes and the might} 
men, and all the sons like 
wise of king David, sub 
mitted themselves cnU 
Solomon the king." 


Full in Kings. 

1 K. ill. 5-14. 

Vtr. C. " And Solomon 
said, Thou hast showed unto 
'x» servant David my father 
groat mercy, according as 
he walked before Thee in 
truth, and in righteousness, 
and in uprightness of heart 
with Thee ; and Thou hast 
kept for him this great 
kindness, that Thou hast 
given him a son to sit on 
his throne, as it is this day." 

7, «, 9, 10 " And the 
speech pleased the Jjord, 
that Solomon had asked 
tbU thing." 

11. " And God said unto 
him," &c. 

13. "... like unto thee 
all thy days." 

14. " And if thou wilt 
nalk in my ways, and keep 
my statutes and my com 
mandments as thy father 
David did walk, then I will 
lengthen thy days." 

15. "And Solomon a woke, 
and behold it was a dream. 
And he came to Jerusalem, 
and stood before the ark of 
the covenant of the Lord, 
and offered up burnt-offer 
ings, and offered peace 
offerings, and made a feast 
to all hia servants." 

16-28. Solomon's judg 

iv. 1. "So king Solomon 
was king over all Israel." 

2-19. Containing a list of 
Solomon's officers. 

xi. 1-40. Containing his 
tory of Solomon's idolatry, 
and the enmity of Hadad, 
and Rezon, and Jeroboam 
against him. 

xii. 2. " Who was yet in 
Kgypl." The omission of 
the word " yet " in Chron. 
is of course accounted for 
by his flight to Egypt not 
having been narrated by the 

1 K. xiv. 22-24. 
A detailed account of the 
idolatries of Judah in the 
reign of Rchoboam. 

1 K. xv. 18. 

" Then Asa took all the 
silver and the gold that 
were left in the treasures 
<if the house of the Lord, 
and the treasures of the 
king's house, and del?" ere 
them into th* hand of his 
servants ; and king Asa sent 
them to Benhadad the sou 
of Tabrimon, the son of 
Hezion, king of Syria, that 
dwelt at Damascus, saying, 
There is a league," &c. 

2 K. xvi. 10-16. 
A detailed account of 
Ahaz's visit to Damascu: 
and setting up an altar iii 
the temple at Jerusalem 
after the pattern of one at 
Damascus. Urijah's sub- 
••fcrvlency, Sec. 

Short in Chronicles. 

Full in Kings. Sliort in Cxroniclea 

2 Chr. i. 7-12. 

xx. 1-19. xxxii. 24-26. 

n Yer. 8. " And Solomon 

Hezekiah's sickness, " In those days Hezekiah 

to said unto God, Thou hast 

prayer, and recovery, with was sick to the death, and 

)T shewed great mercy unto 

Isaiah's prophecy, and the prayed unto the Lord, and 

is David my father, 

sign of the shadow on the He spake unto him and gave 


dial ; the visit of the Baby- him a sign. But Hezekiab 


lonish ambassadors ; Heze- rendered not again accord- 


kiah's pride, Isaiah's re- Ing to the benefit done untc 


buke, and Hezekiah's flub- him ; for his heart was 


mission. Throughout the lifted up: therefore there 


history of Hezekiah the was wrath upon him, and 

n and hast made me to 

narrative in 2 K. and Isaiah upon Judah and Jerusalem 

." reign in his stead." 

is much fuller than in Notwithstanding, Hezekiah 


Chronicles. humbled himself for the 

pride of his heart, both he 


and the inhabitants of Jeru 

salem, so that the wrath 

o 11. " And God said to 

of the Lord came not txpon 

Solomon," &c. 

them in the days of Heze 

e 12. "... any after thee 

kiah." Ver. 31. " Howbeit 

have the like." 

in the business of the am 


bassadors of the princes of 


Babylon, who sent unto him 


to enquire of the wonder 


done In the land, God left 


him to try him, that he 

might know all that was in 


his heart." 

i, 13. "Then Solomon came 

xxl. 10-16. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 10. 

if from his journey to the high 
1, place that was at Gibeon to 
r- Jerusalem, from before the 

Message from God to " And the Lord spake to 
Manasseh by His prophets. Manasseh and his people : 
Manasseh's sin. but they would not hearken. 

;• tabernacle of the congre- 

2 K. xxiii. 4-25. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 32, 33. 

st gation, 

Detailed account of the "And the inhabitants of 

destruction of Baal-worship Jerusalem did according to 


and other idolatrous rites the covenant of God, the 

n and reigned over Israel." 

and places in Judah and God of their fathers. And 
Israel, by Josiah, " that he Josiah took away all the 

>f Omitted in Chronicles. 

s- Wholly omitted in Chro- 
Y, nicies, except the allusion 

might perform the words of abominations out of all the 
the law which were written countries that pertained to 
in the book that Hilkiah the the children of Israel, and 
priest found in the house made all that were present 
of the Lord." in Israel to serve, even to 

i, in 2 Chr. x. 2, " It came to 
m pass, when Jeroboam the 

serve the Lord their God." 

son of Nebat, who was in 
n Egypt, whither he had fled 
of from the presence of Solo- 

In like manner a comparison of the history of the 
reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Ze- 

n. nion the king," &c. 

dekiah, will show, that, except in the matter of 


Jehoiakim's capture in the 4th year of his reign, 


and deportation to (or towards) Babylon, in which 

the author of Chronicles follows Daniel and Ezekiel 

(Dan. i. 1 , 2 ; Ez. xix. 9), the narrative in Chronicles 

2 Chr. xii. 1. 
>e " And it came to pass 

is chiefly an abridgment of that in Kings. Compare 

le when Rehoboam had esta 

2 K. xxiii. 30-37, with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 1-5 ; 2 K. 

blished the kingdom, and 

xxiv. 1-7, with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6-8 ; 2 K. xxiv. 10-17, 

had strengthened himself, 
he forsook the law of the 
Lord, and all Israel with 

with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 10. From 2 Chr. xxxvi. 13, 
however, to the end of the chapter, is rather a com 


ment upon the history in 2 K. xxv. 1-21, than an 

2 Chr. xvi. 2. 

abridgment of it. 

ie " Then Asa brought out 
ixt silver and gold out of the 

Under this head should be noticed also what may 
be called systematic abridgments ; as when the state 

PS treasures of the house of 
d, ihf Lord, and of the king's 
ie house, and 

ments in Kings concerning high-place worship in the 
several reigns (2 K. xii. 2, 3 ; xiv. 3, 4 ; xv. 3, 4, 

35) are either wholly omitted, or more cursorily 


glanced at, as at 2 Chr. xxv. 2, xxvii. 2; or when 

>u sent to Benhadad 

the name of the queen-mother is omitted, as in the 


case of the seven last kings from Manasseh down 

at king of Syria, that dwelt at 

wards, whose mothers are given by the author of 

g, Damascus, saying, There is 
a league," Sic. 

Kings, but struck out by the author of Chronicles/ 

2 Chr. xxviii. 22, 23. 

* The annexed list of kings' mothers shows which art 

of " And in the time of his 

named in Kings and Chronicles, which in Kings alone : — 

s, distress did he trespass yet 

Solomon son of Bathsheba, K. and Chr. (1. iii. 5). 

in more agiiinst the Lord: this 

Rehoboam „ Naumah, K. and Chr. 

m is that king Ahaz. For he 

Abijah „ Maachah or Altchaiah, K. and Chr. 

at sacrificed unto the gods of 

Asa „ Maachah, da of Absalom, K. and Ch/ 

b- Damascus which smote him. 

Jehoshaphat „ Azubab, K. and Chr. 

gods of Syria help them, 

Ahaziah Athallah, K. and Chr. 

therefore will I sacrifice to 

Joash „ Zibiah, K. and Chr. 

them, that they may ln-lp 

Amaziah „ Jehoaddan, K. and Chr. 



1 D 


Short in Kingt. 

I K. viii. 

Ver 10. " And it came to 
pose when the priests were 
como ont of the holy place, 


There is something systematic also in the omitted 
or abbreviated accounts of the idolatries in the reigns 
of Solomon, Kehoboam, and Ahaz. It may not 
always be easy to assign the exact motives which 
influence a writer, who is abbreviating, in his selec 
tion of passages to be shortened or left out ; but an 
obvious motive in the case of these idolatries, as well 
as the high-places, may be found in the circumstance 
that the idolatrous tendencies of the Jews had wholly 
ceased during the captivity, and that the details and 
repetition of the same remark relating to them were 
therefore less suited to the requirements of the age. 
To see a design on the part of the Chronicler to de 
ceive and mislead, is to draw a conclusion not from 
the facts before us, but from one's own prejudices. 
It is not criticism, but invention. 

On the other hand, the subjoined passages present 
some instances in which the Books of Kings give 
the short account, and the Books of Chronicles the 
full one. 

Full in Chronicles. 

2 Chr. v 

Ver. 11. " And it came to 
pass when the priests were 
come out of the holy place : 
(for all the priests that were 
present were sanctified, and 
did not then wait by course : 

12. " Also the Levites 
which were the singers, all 
of them of Asaph, of Heman, 
of Jeduthun, with their 
sons and their brethren, 
being arrayed in white 
linen, having cymbals and 
psalteries and harps, stood 
at the east end of the altar, 
and with them 120 priests, 
sounding with trumpets :) 

13. " It came even to 
pass, as the trumpeters a»d 
singers were as one, to 
make one sound to be heard 
in praising and thanking 
the Lord ; and when they 
lifted up their voice with 
the trumpets and cymbals 
and instruments of musics 
and praised the Lord, say 
ing, For He is good, for His 
mercy endureth for ever , 
that then the house was 
tilled with a cloud, even the 
house of the Lord. 

14. " So that the priests 
could not stand to minister 
by reason of the cloud : for 
the glory of the Lord had 
lilled the house of God. 
Then said Solomon," &c. 

that the cloud filled the 
house of the Lord, 

11. "So that the priests 
could not stand to minister 
because of the cloud : for 
the glory of the Lord had 
rilled the house of the Lord. 

12. " Then said Solomon," 


1 K. viii. 

Ver. 52 corresponds with 
2 Chr. vl. 40. Ver. 53 is 
arnitted in Chr. 

2 Chr. vi., vii. 

Ver. 41. " Now therefore 
arise, Ix>rd God, into thy 
resting place, them, and the 
ark of thy strength : let 
thy priests, Lord God, be 
clothed with salvation, and 
thy saints rejoice in good 

42, " Lord God, turn 

Short in Kings. 

54. " And it was so that 
when Solomon had made an 
end of praying all this 
prayer and supplication 
unto the Lord he arosa 
from before the altar of the 
Lord, from kneeling on his 
knees with his hands spread 
up to heaven." 

55-61. "And he stood 
and blessed all the congre 
gation," &c. 

62. "And the king, and 
all Israel with him, offered 
sacrifices before the Lord." 

Full in Chronicles. 

not away the face of thint 
anointed ; remember the 
mercies of David thy ser 

1. " JVoic when Solomon 
had made an end nf pray 
ing, the fire came down from 
heaven, and consumed ibc 
burnt-offering and the sacri 
fices, and the glory of the 
Lord filled the house, and 
the priests could not enter 
into the boose of the Lord, 
because the glory of the 
Lord had filled the Lord's 
house. 1 An:! when all tne 
children of Israel saw how 
the fire came down, and the 
glory of the Lord upon the 
house, they bowed them 
selves with their faces to 
the ground, upon the pave 
ment, and worshipped and 
praised the Lord, saying, 
For He is good, for Hia 
mercy endureth for ever. 

4. "Then the king and 
all the people offered sacri 
fice before the Lord.' 1 

1 K. xii. 24 corresponds with 2 Chr. xi. 4. 

Wholly omitted in Kings, 
where from xii. 25 to xiv. 
20 is occupied with the 
kingdom of Israel, and 
seems to be not impro 
bably taken from the book 
of Ahijah the Shilonite. 

xiv. 25, 26. 

A very brief mention of 
Shishak's invasion, and 
plunder of the sacred and 
royal treasures. 

1 K. xv. 

Ver. 1. "And there was 
war between Abijam and 
Jeroboam.' 1 

Uzziah son of Jecoliah, K. and Chr. 

Jotbam „ 

Jerusha, K. and Chr. 

Aha/ „ 

Abi, K. and Chr. 

Manasseh „ 

Hepuzi-bah, K. 

Anion , 

Meshullemeth, K. 

Josiah , 

Jedidah, K. 


Hamutal, K. 


Zebudah, K. 


Nelmshta, K. 


Hamtital, K. 

7. " And the rest of the 
acts of Abijam, and all that 
he did, are they not written 
in the book of tl e Chronicles 
of the Kings of Judah," &c. 

8. " And Abijam slept 
with his father*." &c. 

1 K. xv. 

12. (Asa) " took away 
the sodomites out of the 

2 Chr. xi. 5-23. 
Containing particulars of 
the reign of Kehoboam, and 
the gathering of priests and 
Levites to Jerusalem, dur 
ing his three first years, 
very likely from the book 
of Iddo, as this passage has 
a genealogical form. 

xii. 2-9. 

A more detailed account 
of Sbishak's invasion, of the 
number and nature of big 
troops, the capture of the 
fenced cities of Juduli, and 
the propbecying of She- 
maiah on the occasion ; 
evidently extracted from 
the book of Sheuiaiah. 

2 Chron. xiii. 

Ver. 2. " And there was 
war between Abijah and 

3-21 contains a detailed 
account of the war between 
the two kings ; of Abijah'a 
speech to the Israelites-, 
upbraiding them with for 
saking the Levitical wor 
ship, and glorying in the 
retention of the same by 
Judah ; his victories, and 
his family. 

22. " And the rest of the 
acts of Abijah, and his ways 
and his sayings, are written 
in the story (midrasb) of 
the prophet Iddo." 

23. - And Abviah slept 
with his fathers, &c. 
(xiv. 1, A. V.) 

xiv. 3-15, xv. 1-16. 

A detailed account of the 

removal of the idols ; the 

T A curious incidental confirmation of the fact of thii 
copious use of musical instruments in Solomon's time 
may be found in 1 K. x. 11, 12, where we read that Solo 
mon made of the " great plenty of almug-trees " which 
came from Ophir " harps and psalteries for singers.' 1 
Several able critics (as Ewald) have inferred from the 
frequent mention of the Levitical musical services, that 
the author of Chronicles was one of the singers of the tril* 
of I*vi himself. 

« This is obviously repeated here, because at thi< 
moment th>> priests ought to liave entered into t|,. 
but co'.iM not Ix-raux 1 


Short in Kings. 

land, and removed all the 
idols that his fathers had 

Entirely omitted. 

16-23. His war with 

23. " Nevertheless in the 
time of his old age he was 
diseased in his feet" 

Full in Clironiiii.-i. 
fortifying the cities 


Judah; of A sa's army ; the 
invasion of Zerah the Ethio 
pian; Asa's victory; Aza- 
riah the son of Oded's pro 
phecy; Asa's further re 
forms in the 15th year of 
his reign. 

xvi. 7-14. 

Hanani's prophecy against 
Asa. for calling in the aid 
of Tabrimon king of Syria : 
Asa's wrath, disease, death 
embalming, and burial. 

" And Asa slept with his 
fathers, and died In the 41st 
year of his reign." 

2 Chr. xvli. 

1. " And Jehoshaphat his 
son reipied in his stead." 

2-19 describes how the 
King strengthened himself 
against Israel by putting 
garrisons in the fortified 
towns of Judah, and some 
in Ephraim; his wealth; 
his zeal in destroying ido 
latry ; his measures for in 
structing the people in the 
law of the Lord by means 
of priests and Levites; his 
captains, and the numbers 
of his troops. 

1 K. xxii. (from history of Israel) = 2 Chr. xviii. 
2 Chr. xix. 

All omitted in Kings. Jehoshaphat's reproof by 

Jehu the son of Hanani. 
His renewed zeal against 
idolatry. His appointment 
of judges, and his charge to 
them. Priests and Levites 
appointed as judges at Jeru 
salem nnder Amariah the 

2 Chr. xx. 1-30. 
Invasion of Moabites and 
Ammonites. Jehoshaphat's 
fast; his prayer to God for 
aid. The prophecy of Jaha- 
ziel. Ministration of the 
Levites with the army. 
Discomfiture and plunder 
of the enemy. Return to 
Jerusalem. Levitical pro 

1 K. xxii. 48, 49, 50 = 2 Chr. xx. 35, 36, xxi. 1. 

24. " And Asa slept with 
his fathers.'' 

1 K. xxii. 41-50. 
" Jehoshaphat was 35 
years old when he began 
to reign," £c. These few 
versea are all the account 
of Jehosbaphat's reign, ex- 
tept what is contained in 
Uv; history of Israel. 

Alt omitted in Kings. 

All oB.Hte.l in Kings. 

Omitted in Kings. The 
tefusal of JehoBhaphat was 

yfter the prophecy of Eli- 

Omitted in Kings. 

Omitted in Kings. 

2 1C. ix. 27. 

" And when Ahaziah the 
king of Judah saw this, he 
tied by the way of the 
garden-house. And Jehu 
followed after him, and 
said, Smite him also in the 
chariot. And they did so 
at the going up to Gnr, 
which is by Iblcam. And 
ho llfd to Megiddo, and 
died there. And his ser 
vants carried him in a 
chariot to Jerusalem, and 
i.mrk'il him in ':is sepulchre 

2 Chr. xx. 37. 
Prophecy of Eliezer. 

2 Chr. xxi 2-4. 
Additional history of 
Jehoshaphat's family. 
2 Chr. xxi. 11-19, xxii. 1. 
Idolatries of Jehoram. 
Writing of Elijah. Invasion 
of Judah by Philistines and 
Arabians. Slaughter of the 
king's sons. Miserable sick 
ness and death of Jehoram. 

2 Chr. xxii. 7-9. 
" And the destruction of 
Aha/.iah was of God by 
doming to Joram: for when 
he was come, he went out 
with Jehoram against Jehu 
the son of Nimshi, whom 
the Lord had anointed to 
cut off the house of Ahab. 
And it came to pass that 
when Jehu was executing 
judgment upon the house 
of Ahab, and found the 
princes of Judah and the 
sons of the brethren ol 

Short in Kings. 

with his fathers in the city 
of David." 

Full in Chronicles. 

Ahaziah, that ministered 
to Ahaziah, he slew them 
And he sought Ahaziah 
and they caught him (for 
he was hid in Samaria), 
and they brought him U 
Jehu; and when they had 
slain him they buried him, 
because said they he is the 
sun of Jehoshaphat, who 
sought the Lord with all 
his heart. So the house ol 
Ahaziah had no power still 
to keep the kingdom." 

With reference to the above two accounts of the 
death of Ahaziah, which have been thought irre- 
concileable (Ewald, iii. 529; Parker's Be Wette, 
270; Thenius, &c.), it may be here remarked, that 
the order of the events is sufficiently intelligible if 
we take the account in Chronicles, where the king 
dom of Judah is the main subject, as explanatory 
of the brief notice in Kings, where it is only inci 
dentally mentioned in the history of Israel. The 
order is clearly as follows: — Ahaziah was with 
Jehoram at Jezreel when Jehu attacked and killed 
him. Ahaziah escaped and fled by the Beth-gan 
road to Samaria, where the partisans of the 
house of Ahab were strongest, and where his own 
brethren were, and there concealed himself. But 
when the sons of Ahab were all put to death in 
Samaria, and the house of Ahab had hopelessly lost 
the kingdom, he determined to make his submission 
to Jehu, and sent his brethren to salute the children 
of Jehu 8 (-2 K. x. 13), in token of his acknow 
ledgment of him as king of Israel. Jehu, instead 
of accepting this submission, had them all put to 
death, and hastened on to Samaria to take Ahaziah 
also, who he had probably learnt from some of the 
attendants, or as he already knew, was at Samaria. 
Ahaziah again took to flight northwards, towards 
Megiddo, perhaps in hope of reaching the dominions 
of the king of the Sidonians, his kinsman, or mere 
probably to reach the coast where the direct road 
from Tyre to Egypt would bring him to Judah. 
[CAESAKEA.] He was hotly pursued by Jehu and 
his followers, and overtaken near Ibleam, and mor 
tally wounded, but managed to get as far as Me 
giddo, where it should seem Jehu followed in pur 
suit of him, and where he was brought to him as 
his prisoner. There he died of his wounds. In 
consideration of his descent from Jehoshaphat, 
" who sought Jehovah with all his heart," Jehu, 
who was at this time very forward in displaying 
his zeal for Jehovah, handed over the corpse to his 
followers, with permission to carry it to Jerusalem, 
which they did, and buried him in the city of 
David. The whole difficulty arises from the ac 
count in Kings being abridged, and so bringing 
together two incidents which were not consecutive 
in the original account. But if 2 K. ix. 27 had 
been even divided into two verses, the first ending 
at " garden-house," and the next beginning " and 
Jehu followed after him," the difficulty would al 
most disappear. Jehu's pursuit of Ahaziah •vould 
only be interrupted by a day or two, and there 
would be nothing the least unusual in the omission 
to notice this interval of time in the concise abridged 
narrative. We should then understand that the 
word also in the original narrative referred not to 
Jehoram, but to the brethren of Ahaziah, who had 

• Not, as Thenius and others, the children of J« 
horani, ami of Jezebel the queen-mother. 

D U 


just before been smitten, ami the death of Aha/iah 
would fall under 2 K. x. 17. If Beth-gan (A. V. 
" garden-house") be the same as En-gannim, now 
Jeuin, it lay directly on the road from Jezreel to 
Samaria, and is also the place at which the road to 
Megiddo and the coast, where Caesurea afterwards 
stood, turns off from the road between Jezreel and 
Samaria. b In this case the mention of Beth-gan in 
Kings as the direction of Ahaziah's flight is a con 
firmation of the statement in Chronicles that he 
concealed himself in Samaria. This is also sub 
stantially Keil's explanation (p. 288-9). Movers 
proposes an alteration of the text (p. 92, note), 
hut not very successfully QrVMflv N-1H K3*l in- 
•tead o 

The other principal additions in bhe Books of 
Chronicles to the facts stated in Kings are the fol- 
.owing. In 2 Chr. xxiv. 17-24 there is an account 
of Joash's relapse into idolatry after the death of 
Jehoiada, of Zechariah's prophetic rebuke of him, 
and of the stoning of Zechariah by the king's com 
mand in the very court of the Temple ; and the 
Syrian invasion, and the consequent calamities of 
the close of Joash's reign are stated to have been 
the consequence of this iniquity. The Bock of 
Kings gives the history of the Syrian invasion at 
the close of Joash's reign, but omits all mention of 
Zechariah's death. In the account of the Syrian 
invasion also some details are given of a battle in 
which Jehoash was defeated, which are not men 
tioned in Kings, and repeated reference is made to 
the sin of the king and people as having drawn 
down this judgment upon them. But though the 
apostasy of Jehoash is not mentioned in the Book 
of Kings, yet it is clearly implied in the expression 
(2 K. xii. 2), " Jehoash did that which was right 
in the eyes of Jehovah all his days, wherein 
Jehoiada the priest instructed him." The silence 
of Kings is perhaps to be accounted for by the 
author following here the Chronicle of the Kings, 
in which Zechariah's death was not given. And 
the truth of the narrative in the Book of Chronicles 
is confirmed by the distinct reference to the death 
of Zechariah, Luke xi. 49-51. 

2 Chr. xxv. 5-16 contains a statement of a ge 
nealogical character, and in connexion with it an 
account of the hiring of 100,000 mercenaries out 
of Israel, and their dismissal by Amaziah on the 
bidding of a man of God. This is followed by an 


account (in greater detail than that in Kings) of 
Amaziah's victory over the Edomites, the plunder 
of certain cities in Judah by the rejected mer 
cenaries of Israel, the idolatry of Amaziah with the 
idols of Edom, and his rebuke by a prophet. 

2 Chr. xxvi. 5-20 contains particulars of the 
reign of Uzziah, his wars with the Philistines, his 
towers and walls which he built in Jerusalem and 
Judah, and other statistics concerning his kingdom, 
somewhat of a genealogical character; and lastly, 
of his invasion of the priestly office, the resistance 
of Azariah the priest, and the leprosy of the king. 
Of all this nothing is mentioned in Kings except 
Jie fact of Uzziah's leprosy in the latter part of his 
reign ; a fact which connrms the history in Chro 
nicles. The silence of the Book of Kings may most 

b See Van de Velde's map of the Holy Land, and 
Stanley, S. $ P. p. 342. 

• From 1 Chr. ix. 1, it appears that "The Book of 
the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah " contained a 
ccpic as collection of genealogies. 

probably" be explained here on the mere principle ol 

2 Chr. xxvii. 2-6 contains some particulars of the 
reign of Jotham, especially of the building done by 
him, and the tribute paid by the Ammonites, which 
are not contained in Kings. 

2 Chr. xxviii. 17-19 gives details of invasions by 
Edomites and Philistines, and of cities of Judah 
taken by them in the reign of Ahaz, which are not 
recorded in Kings. 2 K. xvi. 5 speaks only of the 
hostile attacks of Rezin and Pekah. But 2 Chr. 
xxix.-xjxi. contains by far the longest and most 
important addition to the narrative in the Book of 
Kings. It is a detailed and circumstantial account 
of the purification of the Temple by Hezekiah's 
orders in the first year of his reign, with the names 
of all the principal Levites who took part in it, and 
the solemn sacrifices and musical services with 
which the Temple was reopened, and the worship 
of God reinstated, after the desuetude and idolatries 
of Ahaz's reign. It then givei a full account of the 
celebration of a great Passover at Jerusalem in the 
second month, kept by all the tribes, telling us that 
" since the time of Solomon the son of David king 
of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem ;" and 
goes on to describe the destruction of idols both in 
Judah and Israel ; the revival of the courses of 
priests and Levites, with the order for their proper 
maintenance, and the due supply of the daily, 
weekly, and monthly sacrifices ; the preparation of 
chambers in the Temple for the reception of the 
tithes and dedicated things, with the names of the 
various Levites appointed to different charges con 
nected with them. Of this there is no mention in 
Kings : only the high religious character and zeal, 
and the attachment to the law of Moses, ascribed 
to him in 2 K. xviii. 4-6, is in exact accordance 
with these details. 

2 Chr. xxxii. 2-8 supplies some interesting facts 
connected with the defence of Jerusalem, and its 
supplies of water, in He7ekiah's reign, which are 
not mentioned in 2 K. xviii. 

2 Chr. xxxiii. 11-19 contains the history of Ma- 
nasseh's captivity, deportation to Babylon, repent 
ance and restoration to his throne, and an account 
of his buildings in Jerusalem after his return. The 
omission of this remarkable passage of history in 
the Book of Kings is perhaps one of the most diffi 
cult to account for. But since the circumstances 
are, in the main, in harmony with the narrative in 
Kings, and with what we know of the profane his 
tory of the times (as Keil has shown, p. 427), and 
since we have seen numerous other omissions of 
important events in the Books of Kings, to distalkve 
or reject it on that account, or to make it a ground 
of discrediting the Book of Chronicles, is entirely 
contrary to the spirit of sound criticism. Indeed 
all the soberer German critics accept it as truth, 
and place Manasseh's captivity under Esarhaddon 
(Bertheau, in foc.). d Bertheau suggests that some 
support to the account may perhaps be found in 
2 K. xx. 17, seq. Movers, while he defends tha 
truth of Manasseh's exile to Babylon, seems to giv;< 
up -the story of his rejientance, and reduces it to 
the level of a moral romance, such as the books of 
Tobit and Judith. But such a mode of explaining 

d In like manner the Book of Kings is silent con- 
corning Jehoiakim's heing carried to Babylon ; and 
yet Dan. i. 2, Kz. xix. 9, hoth expiessly mention it, 
in accordance with 2 Chr. xxxri. 6. 



away plain historical statements of a trustworthy 
historian, who cites contemporary documents ns his 
authority (let alone the peculiar character of the 
Bible histories as " given by inspiration of God "), 
cannot reasonably be accepted. There is doubtless 
.some reason why the repentance of Manasseh for 
his dreadful and heinous wickedness was not re 
corded in the Book of Kings, and why it was 
recorded in Chronicles ; just as there is some reason 
why the repentance of the thief on the cross is only 
recorded by one evangelist, and why the raising of 
Jjazarus is passed over in silence in the three first 
Gospels. It may be a moral reason : it may have 
been that Manasseh's guilt being permanent in its 
fatal effects upon his country, he was to be handed 
down to posterity in the national record as the 
BINFUL KING, though, having obtained mercy as a 
penitent man, his repentance and pardon were to 
have a record in the more piivate chronicle of the 
church of Israel. But, whatever the cause of this 
silence in the Book of Kings may be, there is 
nothing to justify the rejection as non-historical 
of any part of this narrative in the Book of 

Passing over several other minor additions, such 
as 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12-14, xxxv. 25, xxxvi. 6, 7, 13, 
17, it may suffice to notice in the last place the cir 
cumstantial account of JOSIAH'S PASSOVER in 
2 Chr. xxxv. 1-19, as compared with 2 K. xxiii. 
21-23. This addition has the same strong Levi- 
tical character that appears in some of the other 
additions ; contains the names of many Levites, and 
sspecially, as in so many other passages of Chro 
nicles, the names of singers ; but is in every respect, 
except as to the time, 8 confirmatory of the brief 
account in Kings. It refers, curiously enough, to a 
great Passover held in the days of Samuel (thus 
defining the looser expressions in 2 K. xxiii. 22, 
" the days of the judges "), of which the memorial, 
like that of Joab's terrible campaign in Edom (1 K. 
xi. 15, 16), has not been preserved in the books of 
Samuel, and enables us to reconcile one of those 
little verbal apparent discrepancies which are jumped 
at by hostile and unscrupulous criticism. For the 
detailed account of the two Passovers in the reigns 
of Hezekiah and Josiah enables us to see, that, while 
Hezekiah's was most remarkable for the extensive 
feasting and joy with which it was celebrated, Jo- 
siah's was more to be praised for the exact order in 
which everything was done, and the fuller union 
of all the tribes in the celebration of it (2 Chr. xxx. 
26, xxxv. 18 ; 2 K. xxiii. 22). As regards discre 
pancies which have been imagined to exist between 
the narratives in Kings and Chronicles, besides those 
already noticed, and besides those which are too 
trifling to require notice, the account of the repair 
of the Temple by King Joash, and that of the in 
vasion of Judah by Hazael in the same reign may 
be noticed. For the latter, see JOASH. As regards 
the former, the only real difficulty is the position 
of the chest for receiving the contributions. The 
writer of 2 K. xii. 9, seems to place it in the inner 
court, close to the brazen altar, and says that the 
priests who kept the door put therein all the money 
that was brought into the house of Jehovah. The 
Writer of 2 Chr. xxiv. 8, places it apparently in the 

outer court, at the entrance into the inner court, 
and makes the princes and people cast the money 
into it themselves. Bertheau thinks there were two 
chests. Lightfoot, that it was first placed by the 
altar, and afterwards removed outside at the gate 
(ix. 374-5), but whether either of these be the true 
explanation, or whether rather the same spot be 
not intended by the two descriptions, the point is 
too unimportant to require further consideration in 
this place. 

From the above comparison of parallel narratives 
in the two books, which, if given at all, it was neces 
sary to give somewhat fully, in order to give them 
fairly, it appears that the results are precisely what 
would naturally arise from the circumstances of the 
case. The writer of Chronicles, having the books 
of Kings before him, f and to a great extent making 
those books the basis of his own, but also having 
his own personal views, predilections, and motives 
in writing, writing for a different age, and for 
people under very different circumstances; and, 
moreover, having before him the original autho 
rities from which the books of Kings were com 
piled, as well as some others, naturally rearranged 
the older narrative as suited his purpose, and his 
tastes ; gave in full passages which the other had 
abridged, inserted what had been wholly omittal. 
omitted some things which the other had inserted, 
including everything relating to the kingdom of 
Israel, and showed the colour of his own mind, no< 
only in the nature of the passages which he selecte i 
from the ancient documents, but in the reflections 
which he frequently adds upon the events which 
he relates, and possibly also in the turn given to 
some of the speeches which he records. But tc 
say, as has been said or insinuated, that a different 
view of supernatural agency and Divine interposition, 
or of theMosaic institutions and the Levitical worship, 
is given in the two books, or that a less historical cha 
racter belongs to one than to the other, is to say what 
has not the least foundation in fact. Supernatural 
agency, as in the cloud which filled the temple of Solo 
mon, 1 K. viii. 10, 11, the appearance of the Lord 
to Solomon, iii. 5, 11, ix. 2, seq. ; the withering of 
Jeroboam's hand, xiii. 3-6 ; the fire from heaven 
which consumed Elijah's sacrifice, xviii. 38, and 
numerous other incidents in the lives of Elijah and 
Elisha ; the smiting of Sennacherib's army, 2 K. 
xix. 35 ; the going back of the shadow on the dial 
of Ahaz, xx. 11, and in the very frequent prophe 
cies uttered and fulfilled, is really more often ad 
duced in these books than in the Chronicles. The 
selection therefore of one or two instances of mira 
culous agency which happen to be mentioned iu 
Chronicles and not in Kings, as indications of the 
superstitious credulous disposition of the Jews after 
the captivity, can have no effect but to mislead. 
The same may be said of a selection of pa-vages in 
Chronicles in wnich the mention of Jewish iMa',ry 
is omitted. It conveys a false inference, because 
the truth is that the Chronicler does expose the 
idolatry of Judah as severely as the author of 
Kings, and traces the destruction of Judah to such 
idolatry quite as clearly and forcibly (2 Chr. xxxvi. 
14, seq.}. The author of Kings again is quite as 
explicit in his references to the law of Moses, and 

* See above, under II. 

r This appears by comparing the parallel passages, 
and especially noticing how the formula, " Now the 
rest of the acts," &c., comes in in both books. See, 
t.g. 1 K. xv. 23, 24, and 2 Chr. xvi. 11, 12. Of 

this 1 K. xiv. 31, xv. 1, compared with 2 Chr. xii. 16, 
xiii. 1 , 2, is another striking proof. So is the repetition 
of rare words found in K. by the Chronicler. Comp, 
2 xiv. 14 with 2 Chr. xxv. 24, xv. 5, with xxvi. 21. 
1 *-. 6, with 2 ix. 25. 



has many allusions to the Levitical ritual, though 
he does not dwell so copiously upon the details. 
See e.g. 1 K. ii. 3, iii. 14, viii. 2, 4, 9, 53, 56, ix. 
9, 20, x. 12, xi. 2, xii. 31, 32; 2 K. xi. 5-7, 
12, xil. 5, 11, 13, 16, xiv. 6, xvi. 13, 15, xvii. 
7-12, 13-15, 34-39, xviii. 4, 6, xxii. 4, 5, 8, scq.. 
xxiii. 21, &c., besides the constant references to 
the Temple, and to the illegality of high-place wor 
ship. So that remarks on the Levitical tone of 
Chronicles, when made for the purpose of supporting 
the notion that the law of Moses was a late inven 
tion, and that the Levitical worship was of post- 
Babylonian growth, are made in the teeth of the 
testimony of the books of Kings, as well as those of 
Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. The opinion that these 
books were compiled " towards the end of the Baby 
lonian exile," is doubtless also adopted in order to 
weaken as much as possible the force of this testi 
mony (De Wette, ii. p. 248 ; Th. Parker's transl.). 
As regards the weight to be given to the judgment 
of clitics "of the liberal school," on such questions, 
it may be observed by the way that they com 
mence every such investigation with this axiom as 
a starting point, " Nothing supernatural can be 
true." All prophecy is of course comprehended 
under this axiom. Every writing therefore con 
taining any reference to the captivity of the Jews, 
as 1 K. viii. 46, 47, ix. 7, 8, must have been 
written after the events referred to. No events of 
a supernatural kind could be attested in contempo 
rary historical documents. All the narratives there 
fore in which such events are narrated do not belong 
to the ancient annals, but must be of later growth, 
aixl so on. How far the mind of a critic, who has 
such an axiom to start with, is free to appreciate 
the other and more delicate kinds of evidence by 
which the date of documents is decided it is easy to 
perceive. However, these remarks are made here 
solely to assist the reader in coming to a right deci 
sion on questions connected with the criticism of the 
books of Kings. 

V. The last point for our consideration is the 
place of these books in the Canon, and the references 
to them in the N. T. Their canonical authority 
having never been disputed, it is needless to bring 
orward the testimonies to their authenticity which 
may be found in Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, Au 
gustine, &c., or in Bp. Cosin, or any other modern 
work on the Canon of Scripture. [CANON.] They 
are reckoned, as has been already noticed, among the 
Prophets [BIBLE, vol. i. 211a], in the threefold divi 
sion of the Holy Scriptures ; a position in accordance 
with the supposition that they were compiled by 
Jeremiah, and contain the narratives of the different 
prophets in succession. They are frequently cited 
by our Lord and by the Apostles. Thus the allu 
sions to Solomon's glory (Matt. vi. 29) ; to the 
queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon to hear his wis 
dom (xii. 42) ; to the Temple (Acts vii. 47, 48) ; 
to the great drought in the days of Elijah, and 
the widow of Sarepta (Luke iv. 25, 26) ; to the 
cleansing of Naamau the Syrian (ver. 27) ; to the 
charge of Elisha to Gehazi (2 K. iv. 29, comp. 
with Luke x. 4) ; to the dress of Elijah (Mark i. 
ti, comp. with 2 K. i. 8) ; to the complaint of 
Elijah, and God's answer to him (Rom. xi. 3, 
4) ; to the raising of the Shunamite's son from 
the dead (Heb. xi. 35); to the giving and with- 

* The miracle of the loaves and fishex (Luke ix. 13, 
2 K. iv. 42. John vi. 9, 2 K. iv. 43), and the catch 
ing away of Philip, Acts ix. 39, -10, as compared with 

holding the rain in answer to Elijah's prayer ( Jam 
v. 17, 18 ; Kev. xi. 6); to Jezebel (Rev. ii. 20) 
are all derived from the Books of Kings, and, with 
the statement of Elijah's presence at the Transfi 
guration, are a striking testimony to their value 
for the purpose of religious teaching, and to their 
authenticity as a portion of the Woi~d of God.8 

On the whole then, in this portion of the history 
of the Israelitish people to which the name of the 
Books of Kings has been given, we have (if we 
except those errors in numbers, which are either 
later additions to the original work, or accidentil 
corruptions of the text), a most important and ac 
curate account of that people during upwards of 
four hundred years of their national existence, deli 
vered for the most part by contemporary writers, 
and guaranteed by the authority of one of the most 
eminent of the Jewish prophets. Considering the 
conciseness of the narrative, and the simplicity of 
the style, the amount of knowledge which these 
books convey of the characters, conduct, and man 
ners of kings and people during so long a period is 
truly wonderful. The insight they give us into 
the aspect of Judah and Jerusalem, both natural 
and artificial, into the religious, military, and civil 
institutions of the people, their arts and manu 
factures, the state of education and learning among 
them, their resources, commerce, exploits, alliances, 
the causes of their decadence, and finally of their 
ruin, is most clear, interesting, and instructive. In 
a few brief sentences we acquire more accurate 
knowledge of the affairs of Egypt, Tyre, Syria, 
Assyria, Babylon, and other neighbouring nations, 
than had been preserved to us in all the other re 
mains of antiquity up to the recent discoveries in 
hieroglyphical and cuneiform monuments. If we 
seek in them a system of scientific chronology, we 
may indeed be disappointed ; but if we are content 
to read accurate and truthful history, ready to fit 
into its proper place whenever the exact chronology 
of the times shall have been settled from other 
sources, then we shall assuredly find they will 
abundantly repay the most laborious study which 
we can bestow upon them. 

But it is for their deep religious teaching, and for 
the insight which they give us into God's provi 
dential and moiai government of the world, that they 
are above all valuaole. The books which describe 
the wisdom and the glory of Solomon, and yet record 
his fall ; which make us acquainted with the painful 
ministry of Elijah, and his translation into heaven 
and which tell us how the most magnificent temple 
ever built for God's glory, and of which He vouch 
safed to take possession by a visible symbol of His 
presence, was consigned to the flames ;uid to desola 
tion, for the sins of those who worshipped in it, read 
us such lessons concerning both God and man, as are 
the best evidence of their divine origin, and make 
them the richest treasure to every Christian man. 

On the points discussed in the preceding article 
see Ussher's Chronologia Sacra ; Hales' Analysis ; 
Clinton's Hist. Hellen. vol. i. ; Lepsius, KSnigsbuch 
d. JSgypt.; Berth eau's Bitch, d. Chronik. ; Keil, 
Chronik; Movers, Krit. Untersuch. ii. d. Bibl. 
Chronik ; De Wette, Einleitung ; Ewald's GcS' 
chichte des Isr. Volk. ; Bunsen, Egypt's Place i» 
Hist.; Geneste's Parallel Histories; Rawlinson's 
Herodotus, and Bampton Led. ; J. W. Bosan- 

1 K. xviii. 12, 2 K. ii. 16, aro also, in a diflcrint 
way, N. T. references to the Books o! Kint;s. 


quet, Cfa'onology of Times of Ezr., Transact, of 
'Jhronolog. Instit, No. iii. ; Maurice, Kings and 
Propkets. [A. C. H.] 

KIR ("VJ5 : Xapfrdv : Gyrene) is mentioned by 
Amos (is. 7) as the land from which the Syrians 
(Aramaeans) were once "brought up;" i.e. ap 
parently, as the country where they had dwelt 
before migrating to the region north of Palestine. 
It was also, curiously enough, the land to which 
the captive Syrians of Damascus were removed by 
Tiglath-Pileser ou his conquest of that city (2 K. 
xvi. 9 ; comp. Am. i. 5). Isaiah joins it with 
Elam in a passage where Jerusalem is threatened 
with an attack from a foreign army (xxii. 6). 
These notices, and the word itself, are all the data 
we possess for determining the site. A variety of 
conjectures have been offered on this point, grounded 
on some similarity of name. Rennell suggested 
Kurdistan (Geography of Herodotus, p. 391) ; 
Vitringa, Carine, a town of Media ; Bochart 
(Phaleg, iv. 32, p. 293), CW-ena or Curna., like 
wise in Media. But the common opinion among 
recent commentators has been that a tract on the 
river Kur or Cyrus (Kvpos) is intended. This is 
the view of Rosenmuller, Michaelis, and Gesenius. 
Winer sensibly remarks that the tract to which 
these writers refer " never belonged to Assyria," 
and so cannot possibly have been the country 
whei-eto Tiglath-Pileser transported his captives 
(JBealwBrterbuch, i. 658). He might have added, 
that all we know of the Semites and their migra 
tions is repugnant to a theory which would make 
Northern Armenia one of their original settlements. 
The Semites, whether Aramaeans, Assyrians, Phoe 
nicians, or Jews, seem to have come originally from 
lower Mesopotamia — the country about the mouths 
of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Here exactly 
was Elam or Elymais, with which Kir is so closely 
connected by Isaiah. May not Kir then be a 
variant for Kish or Rush (Gush), and represent 
the eastern Ethiopia, the Cissia (Kiffffla) of He 
rodotus? [G. R.] 

KIR-HARA'SETH (Win *Vj3n : rovs \l- 

/ '•' T-: '• - 

Oovs rov Toi\ov KaOijprift.ei'ovs ', Alex. . . . Ko07j- 
atvovs : murus fictilis), 2 K. iii. 25. 

KIR-HA'RESH (CHH 'p, i. e. Kir-hares : 
"ei\os evfKaiviffas ; Alex. T?X.OS & fveKtviffas : 
ad murum cocti lateris), Is. xvi. 11. 

KIR-HARE'SETH (nbnn 'p : TO?S KO.TOI- 
Kovfft tie 2*0 |ueA.e'Hj<reis : murus cocti lateris), 
Is. xvi. 7. 



K.IR-HERES (K^H 'p : xetpdSes avxnov '• 
murus fictilis), Jer. xlviii. 31, 36. This name and 
the three preceding, all slight variations of it, are 
all applied to one place, probably Kiu-MoAB. 
Whether Cheres refers to a worship of the sun 
carried on there is uncertain ; we are without clue 
to the meaning of the name. 

KIB'IAH (HHp), apparently an ancient or 
arehai- word, meaning a city or town. The grounds 
irr considering it a more ancient word than IR ("VJ? ) 
or AR (^JJ) are — (1.) Its more frequent occurrence 
in the names of places existing in the country at the 
time of the conquest. These will be found below. 
(2.) Its rare occurrence as a mere appellative, 
.\\cept in poetry, where old words and forms 
are often preserved after they become obsolete in 

ordinary language. Out of the 36 times that it 
is found in the O. T. (both in its original and its 
Chaldee form) 4 only are in the narrative of the 
earlier books (Deut. ii. 36, iii. 4 , I K. i. 41, 45), 
24 are in poetical passages (Num. xxi. 28 ; Ps, 
xlviii. 2 ; is. i. 26, &c. &c.), and 8 in the book 
of Ezra, either in speaking of Samaria (iv. 10), or 
in the letter of the Samaritans (iv. 12-21), imply 
ing that it had become a provincialism. In this it 
is unlike Ir, which is the ordinary term for a city 
in narrative or chronicle, while it enters into the 
composition of early names in a far smaller propor 
tion of cases. For illustration — though for that 
only — Kiryah may perhaps be compared to the 
word " burg," or " bury," in our own language. 

Closely related to Kiryah is Kereth (fOp), appa 
rently a Phoenician form, \which occurs occasion 
ally (Job xxix. 7 ; Prov. viii. 3). This is familiar 
to us in the Latin garb of CarfAago, and in the 
Parthian and Armenian names Cirta. Tigrano Certa 
(Bochart, Chanaan, ii. cap. x ; Gesenius, Thes. 

As a proper name it appears in the Bible under 
the forms of Kerioth, Kartah, Kartan ; besides tho*e 
immediately following. [G.] 

KIRIATHA'IM (D?nnp, but in the Cethib 
of Ez. xxv. 9, amp: Kap<a0e>, in Vat. of Jer. 
xlviii. 1 ; elsewhere with Alex. Kaptadaifj. : Car- 
iathaim), one of the towns of Moab which were the 
" glory of the country ;" named amongst the de 
nunciations of Jeremiah (xlviii. 1, 23) and Ezekiel 
(xxv. 9). It is the same place as KIRJATHAIM, in 
which form the name elsewhere occurs in the A . V. 
Taken as a Hebrew word this would mean " double 
city ;" but the original reading of the text of Ez. 
xxv. 9, Kiriatham, taken with that of the Vat. 
LXX. at Num. xxxii. 37, prompts the suspicion 
that that may be nearer its original form, and that 
the aim — the Hebrew dual — is a later accommoda 
tion, in obedience to the ever-existing tendency in 
the names of places to adopt an intelligible shape. 
In the original edition (A.D. 1611) of the A. V. the 
name Kirjath, with its compounds, is given as 
Kiriath, the yod being there, as elsewhere in that 
edition, represented by f. Kiriathaim is one of the 
few of these names which in the subsequent editions 
have escaped the alteration of » to j. [G.] 

KIRIATHIA'RIUS (KaptaOipl ; Alex. Ko- 
piaOidpios: Crearpatros) , 1 Esd. v. 19. [KlR- 

KIR'IOTH (JTinpn, with the definite article, 
i. e. hak-Keriyoth : at ir6\eis avrrjs : Carieth), 
a place in Moab the palaces of which were de 
nounced by Amos with destruction by fire (Am. ii 
2) ; unless indeed it be safer to treat the word as 
meaning simply " the cities " — which is prohably 
the case also in Jer. xlviii. 41, where the word is 
in the original exactly similar to the above, thoual 
given in the A. V. " Kerioth." [KERIOTH.] [G". j 

KIR'JATH (Jin? : 'lopf/u; Alex. -K&\I j 'lapip. : 

Cariath), the last of the cities enumerated as be 
longing to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 28). 
one of the group which contains both Gibeon and 
Jerusalem. It is named with Gibeath, but with 
out any copulative — " Gibeath, Kirjath," a circum 
stance which, in the absence of any further men 
tion of the place, has given rise to several explana 
tions. (1.) That of Eusebius in the Onomasttcon 
(KaptdO), that it was under the protection of Gibeeh 


(farb MTjTpoirJA.ij' Ta^ada). This, however, seems 
to be a mere supposition. (2.) That of Schwarz 
and others, that the two names form the title of 
one place, "Gibeath-Kirjath" (the hill-town). 
Against this is the fact that the towns in this 
group are summed up as 14; but the objection has 
not much force, and there are several considerations 
in favour of the view. [See GIBEATH, 6896.] But 
whether there is any connexion between these two 
names or not, there seems a strong probability that 
Kirjath is identical with the better-known place 
KIRJATH-JEARIM, and that the latter part of the 
name has been omitted by copyists at some very 
early period. Such an omission would be very 
likely to arise from the fact that the word for 
" cities," which in Hebrew follows Kirjath, is al 
most identical with Jearim ; a and that it has arisen 
we have the testimony of the LXX. in both MSS. 
(the Alex, most complete), as well as of some Hebrew 
MSS. still existing (Davidson, Jlebr. Text, ad loc.). 
In addition, it may be asked why Kirjath should be 
in the " construct state " if no word follows it to 
be in construction with ? In that case it would be 
Kiriah. True, Kirjath-jearim is enumerated as a 
city of Judah b (Josh. xv. 9, 60, xviii. 14), but so 
are several towns which were Simeon's and Dan's, 
and it is not to be supposed that these places never 
changed hands. [G.] 

KIRJATHA'IM (D^nnp), the name of two 
cities of ancient Palestine. 

1. (Kapia6dfj. c (in Num.), KapiaBatfi: Caria- 
thaim.) On the east of the Jordan, one of the 
places which were taken possession of and rebuilt 
by the Reubenites, and had fresh names conferred on 
them (Num. xxxii. 37, and see 38). Here it is 
mentioned between Elealeh, Nebo, and Baal-meon, 
the first and last of which are known with some 
tolerable degree of certainty. But on its next 
occurrence (Josh. xii. 19) the same order of men 
tion is not maintained, and it appears in company 
with MEPHAATH and SIBMAH, of which at present 
nothing is known. It is possibly the same place 
as that which gave its name to the ancient Shaveh- 
Kiriathaim, though this is mere conjecture. It 
existed in the time of Jeremiah (xlviii. 1, 23) and 
Ezekiel (xxv. 9 — in these three passages the A. V. 
gives the name KIUIATHAIM). Both these prophets 
include it in their denunciations against Moab, in 
whose hands it then was, prominent among the 
cities which were " the glory of the country" 
(Ez. xxv. 9). 

By Eusebius it appears to have been well known. 
He describes it (Onom. Kapiadieifj.) as a village 
entirely of Christians, 10 miles west of Medeba, 
" close to the Baris " (M r'bv Edpiv). Burckhardt 
(p. 367, July 13) when at Madeba (Medeba) was 


told by his guide d of a place, et-Tei/m. about half aa 
hour (1^ mile English, or barely 2 miles Komai.; 
therefrom, which he suggests Aras identical with 
Kirjathaim. This is supported by Gesenius (see 
his notes on Burckhardt in the Germ, transl. 
p. 1063), who passes by the discrepancy in the dis 
tance by saying that Eusebius's measurements are 
seldom accurate. Seetien also names half an hour 
as the distance (Reisen, 1. 408). 

But it must be admitted that the .evidence for 
the identity of the two is not veiy convincing, and 
appeal's to rest entirely on the similarity in sound 
between the termination of Kirjathaim and the 
name of et-Teym. In the time of Eusebius the 
name was Karias — having retained, as would b« 
expected, the first and chief part of the word. 
Porter (Hdbook, 300) pronounces confidently for 
Kureiyat, under the southern side ofJebel Attants, 
as being identical both with Kiijathaim and Kirjath- 
Huzoth ; but he adduces no arguments in support 
of his conclusion, which is entirely at variance 
with Eusebius; while the name, or a similar one 
(see KEKIOTH, KIRIOTH, in addition to those named 
already), having been a common one east of the 
Jordan, as it still is (witness Kureiych, Kureiyetein, 
&c.), Kureiyat may be the representative of some 
other place. 

What was the " Baris " which Eusebius places 
so close to Kirjathaim ? Was it a palace or fortress 
(!"IT2, Bdpis). or is it merely the corruption of a 
name ? If the latter, then it is slightly m accord 
ance with Beresha, the reading of the Targum 
Pseudojon. at Num. xxxii. 37. e But where to find 
Beresha we do not at present know. A village 
named Bitrazin is marked in the maps of Robinson 
(1856) and Van de Velde, but about 9 miles east 
of ffesbdn, and therefore not in a suitable position. 

2. (ri Kaptadaf/i.) A town in Naphtali not 
mentioned in the original lists of the possession 
allotted to the tribe (see Josh. xix. 32-39), but 
inserted in the list of cities given to the Gershoiiite 
Levites, in 1 Chr. (vi. 76), in place of KARTAN in 
the parallel catalogue, Kartan being probably only a 
contraction thereof. [G.J 

KIK'JATH-AB'BA (J/21N 'j?, and once, Neh. 
xi. 25, 'NH 'p : iroA«$ *Ap/3<fo, *. 'Apy60 ; Alex. 

'Ap/3o and 'A/>/3<>o ; T; Ka t *n8ap/36K ; Ka.pta.9up- 
fioKfftfytp, but Mai Kapia£d£ 't^)e'p ; Alex. Kaptap- 
&6it fftfytp : Civitas Arbee, Cariat-Arbe), an early 
name of the city which after the conquest is gene 
rally known as HEBRON (Josh. xiv. 15; Judg. i. 
10). Possibly, however, not Kirjath-arba, but 
MAMRE, was its earliest appellation (Gen. xxxv. 
27), though the latter name may have been that 
of the sacred grove near the town, which would 

• The text now stands D^V JV"lp ; in the 
above view it originally stood D*"iy D'Hi?* J"lHp- 

b It is as well to observe, though we may not be 
able yet to draw any inference from the fact, that on 
both occasions of its being attributed to Judah, it is 
called by another name, — "KIKJATH-BAAI,, which is 

This reading of the LXX. suggests that the dual 
termination "aim" may have been a later accom 
modation of the name to Hebrew forms, as was pos 
sibly the case with Jerushalaim (vol. i. 982n). It is 
supported by the Hebrew text : cf. Ez. xxv. 9, and 
the Vat. LXX. of Jer. xlviii. 1. [KIRIATHAIM.] 

« There is some uncertainty about Burckhardt'6 
KT4t« :*t this part Ir. order to see Madeba, which is 

shewn on the maps as nearly S. of Hetban, he left 
the great road at the latter place, and went through 
Djeboul, es-Sameh, and other places which are shewn 
as on the road eastward, in an entirely different 
direction from Madeba, and then after 8 hours, 
without noting any change of direction, he arrives 
at Madeba, which appears from the maps ta be only 
about Ij hour from Hesbdn. 

* The following is the full synonym of this Targum 
for Kirjathaim : — " And the city of two streets puvo.l 
with marble, the same is Beresha" (NK'H'Q)- This 

T •• : 

is almost identical with the rendering given in the 
same Targuin 011 Num. xxii. 39, for Kirjath-Huzoth. 
Can Beresha contain an allusion to Gerasa, the 
modern Scrash ' 


rxxrationally transfer its title to the whole spot. 



The identity of Kirjath-Arba with Hebron is 
constantly asserted (Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27; Josh. 
xiv. 15, xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. ll), a the only men 
tion of it without that qualification being, as is 
somewhat remarkable, after the return from the 
captivity (Neh. xi. 25), a date so late that we 
might naturally have supposed the aboriginal name 
would have become extinct. But it lasted far 
longer than that, for when Sir John Maundeville 
\isitcd the place (cir. 1322) he found that "the 
Saracens call the place in their language Karicarba, 
but the Jews call it Arbotha" (Early Trav. 161). 
Thus too in Jerome's time would Debir seem to 
have been still called by its original title, Kirjath- 
Sepher. So impossible does it appear to extinguish 
the name originally bestowed on a place ! b 

The signification of Kirjath-Arba is, to say the 
least, doubtful. In favour of its being derived 
from some ancient hero is the statement that " Arba 
was the great man among the Anakim " (Josh. xiv. 
15) — the "father of Anak" (xxi. 11). Against it 
are (a) the peculiarity of the expression in the 
first of these two passages, where the term Adam 
(7*13n D"1N!"I) — usually employed for the species, 
the human race — is used instead of Ish, which 
commonly denotes an individual. (6) The con 
sideration that the term "father" is a metaphor fre 
quently employed in the Bible — as in other Oriental 
writings — for an originator or author, whether of 
a town or a quality, quite as often as of an indi 
vidual. The LXX. certainly so understood both 
the passages in Joshua, since they have in each 
urirpAirQKis, " mother -city." (c) The constant 
tendency to personification so familiar to students 
of the topographical philology of other countries 
than Palestine, and which in the present case must 
have had some centuries in which to exercise its 
influence. In the lists of 1 Chron. Hebron itself is 
personified (ii. 42) as the son of Mareshah, a neigh 
bouring town, and the father of Tappuah and 
other places in the same locality ; and the same 
thing occurs with Beth-zur (ver. 45), Ziph (42), 
Madimannah and Gibea (49), &c. &c. (d) On more 
than one occasion (Gen. xxxv. 27 ; Josh. xv. 13 ; 
Neh. xi. 25) the name Arba has the definite article 
prefixed to it. This is very rarely, if ever, the 
case with the name of a man (see Reland, Pal. 
724). (e) With the exception of the Ir-David— 
the city of David, Zion — the writer does not recal 
any city of Palestine named after a man. Neither 
Joshua, Caleb, Solomon, nor any other of the 
heroes or kings of Israel, conferred their names on 
places; neither did Og, Jabin, or other Canaanite 
leaders. The " city of Sihon," for Heshbon (Num. 
xxi. 27), is hardly an exception, for it occurs in a 
very fervid burst of poetry, differing entirely from 
the matter-of-fact documents we are now considering. 
(/) The general consent of the Jewish writers in a 
different interpretation is itself a strong argument 
against the personality of Arba, however absurd 

* In Gen. xxxv. 27, the A. V. has "the city of 
Arbah;" in Josh. xv. 13, and xxi. 11, "the city of 

b A curious parallel to this tenacity is found in our 
own country, where many a village is still known to 
its rustic inhabitants by the identical name by which 
it is inscribed in Domesday Book, while they are 
actually unaware of the later name by which the 
place has been currently known in maps and docu- 

(according to our ideas) may be their ways of ac 
counting for that interpretation. They take Arba 
to be the Hebrew word for " four," and Kirjath- 
Arba therefore to be the " city of four;" and this 
they explain as referring to four great saints who 
were buried there — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and 
Adam — whose burial there they prove. by the words 
already quoted from Josh. xiv. 15 (Beresh. rabba. 
quoted by Beer, Leben Abrahams, 189, and cy 
Keil, ad loo. ; Bochart, Phaleg, iv. 34, &c.). In 
this explanation Jerome constantly concurs, not 
only in commentaries (as Quaest. in <7enesMn,xxiii. 
2; Comm. in Matt, xjvii. ; JEpit. Paula,?, §11; 
Onomast. " Arboch" and " Cariatharbe," &c.), but 
also in the text of the Vulgate at this passage — 
Adam maximus ibi inter Enacim situs est. With 
this too agrees the Veneto-Greek version, v6\fi rwv 
rerrdpuv (Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27). It is also 
adopted by Bochart (Chanaan, i. 1), in whose 
opinion the " four " are Anak, Ahiman, Sheshai, 
and Talmai. 

The fact at the bottom of the whole matter pro 
bably is, that Arba was neither a man nor a 
numeral, but that (as we have so often had occa 
sion to remark in similar cases) it was an archaic 
Canaanite name, most likely referring to the situa 
tion or nature of the place, which the Hebrews 
adopted, and then explained in their own fashion. 

In Gen. xxiii. 2, the LXX. (both MSS.) insert 
fj kffnv Iv ry Koi\<a^a.n ; and in xxxv. 27 they 
render K. Arba by els ir6\.iv TOV treSiov. In the 
former of these the addition may be an explanation 
of the subsequent words, " in the land of Canaan " 
— the explanation having slipped into the text in 
its wrong place. Its occurrence in both MSS. 
shows its great antiquity. It is found also in the 
Samaritan Codex and Version. In xxxv. 27 irfStov 
may have arisen from the translators reading !"Q"1K 
for JJ3-1K. [G T .]" : 

KIR'JATH-A'RIM (DnST'i?: Kopme.opi>, 
Alex. Kapiadiapti/j. : Cariathiarini), an abbreviated 
form of the name KIRJATH-JEARIM, which occurs 
only in Ezr. ii. 25. In the parallel passage of 
Nehemiah the name is in its usual form, and in 
Esdras it is KIRIATHIARIUS. [G.] 

KIR'JATH-BA'AL 6»-' = town of Baal; 

KapiaO Bda\ : Cariathbaal), an alternative name 
of the place usually called Kirjath-jearim (Josh, xv 
60, xviii. 14), but also BAALAH, and once BAALE- 
OF-JuDAH. These names doubtless point to the 
existence of a sanctuary of Baal at this spot before 
the conquest. They were still attached to it con 
siderably later, for they alone are used, to the 
exclusion of the (probably) newly-bestowed nam« 
of Kirjath-jearim, in the description ;£ the removal 
of the ark thence (2 Sam. vi.). [G.] 

KIR'JATH-HU'ZOTH (JTIXn 'j? : *6\m 
lirav\(uv '. urbs qaae in extremis regni ejus fini- 
bus erat), a place to which Balak accompanied 

ments, and in the general language of all but their 
own class for centuries. If this is the case with Kir- 
jath-Arba and Hebron, the occurrence of the former 
in Nehemiah, noticed above, is easily understood. 
It was simply the effort of the original name to as 
sert its rights and assume its position, as soon as the 
temporary absence of the Israelites at Babylon 
left the Canaanite rustics to themselves. 


Balaam immediately after his arrival in Moab 
v Num. xxii. :>y), and which is nowhere else men 
tioned. It appeai-s to have lain between the ARNON 
^ Wady Mojeb) and BAMOTH-BAAL (comp. ver. 36 
and 41), probably north of the former, since there 
is some, though only slight, ground fot supposing 
that Bamoth-Baal lay between Dibon and Beth- 
baal-meon (see Josh. xiii. 17). The passage (Num. 
xxii. 39) is obscure in every way. It is not obvious 
why sacrifices should have been offered there, or 
how, when Balaam accompanied Balak thither, 
Balak could have " sent" thence to him and to the 
princes who were with him (40). 

No trace of the name has been discovered in later 
times. It is usually interpreted to mean " city of 
streets," from the Hebrew word |*-in, c/iutz, which 
has sometimes this meaning (Gesenius, Thes. 456a ; 
margin of A. V. ; and so Luther, die Gassenstadt ; 
so also the Veneto-Greek) ; but Jerome, in the 
Vulgate, has adopted another signification of the 
root. The LXX. seem to have read JTnvn, " vil 
lages," the word which they usually render by 
£irav\fts, and which is also the reading of the 
I'eschito. The Samaritan Codex and Version, the 
former by its reading JTlPn, " visions," and the 
latter, *|"1, " mysteries," seem to favour the idea — 
which is perhaps the explanation of the sacrifices 
there — that Kirjath-Chutzoth was a place of sacred 
or oracular reputation. The Targum Pseudojon. 
gives it as " the streets of the great city, the city 
of Sihon, the same is Birosa," apparently identifying 
it with Kirjathaim (see note to p. 406). [G.] 

KIR'JATH-JEA'RIM (Dnjf? 'j?: irS^s'lapt/j. 
and 'lapiv, Kapiadiapi/j., and once TTO'AIS Kapia.6- 
tapifi ; Alex, the same, excepting the termination 
fi/j. ; Joseph. Kapiadidpipa : Cariathiarim), a city 
which played a not unimportant part in the history 
of the Chosen People. We first encounter it as one 
of the four cities of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17) : it 
next occurs as one of the landmarks of the northern 
boundary of Judah (xv. 9), and as the point at 
which the western and southern boundaries of Ben 
jamin coincided (xviii. 14, 15); and in the two 
last passages we find that it bore another, perhaps 
earlier, name — that of the great Canaanite deity 
Baal, namely BAALAH* and KIRJATH-BAAL. It is 
included among the towns of Judah (xv. 60), and 
there is some reason for believing that under the 
shortened form of KIRJATH it is also named among 
those of Benjamin, as might almost be expected 
from the position it occupied on the confines of 
each. Some considerations bearing on this will be 
found under KIRJATH and GIBEAH. It is included 
in the genealogies of Judah (I Chr. ii. 50, 52) as 
founded by, or descended from, SHOBAL, the son of 
Ciilebben-Hur, and as having in its turn sent out 
the colonies of the Ithritcs, Puhites, Shumathites, 
and Mishraites, and those of Zorah and Eshtaol. 
" Behind Kii jath-jearim " the band of Danites 
pitched their camp before their expedition to Mount 
Ephraim and Laish, leaving their name attached 
to the spot for long after (Judg. xviii. 12). 
[MAHANEH DAN.] Hitherto, beyond the early 

• In 1 Chr. xiii. 6, the Vulgate has collis Cariath- 
itn-im for the Bnalah of the Hebrew text. 

• Kirjath-jearim is not stated to have been allotted 
to the Levites, but it is difficult to suppose that Abi- 
T.idiih and Klea/ar were not Levitos. This question, 
>uul the force of the word rendered " sanctified " (vii. 
1 \ will be. noticed under I.KVII KS. (in the other hiind 


sanctity implied in its bearing the name of BAAL, 
there is nothing remarkable in Kirjath-jearim. It 
was no doubt this reputation for sanctity which 
made the people of Beth-shemesh appeal to its in 
habitants to relieve them of the Ark of Jehovah, 
which was bringing such calamities on their un 
tutored inexperience. From their place in the 
valley they looked anxiously for some eminence, 
which, according to the belief of those days, should 
be the appropriate seat for so powerful a Deit.v — 
" Who is able to stand before the face of Jehovah, 
this holy God, and to whom shall He (or, LXX., 
the ark of Jehovah) go up from us ? " " And 
they sent to the inhabitant* of Kirjath-jearim, say 
ing, the Philistines have brought back the ark of 
Jehovah, come ye down and fetch it up to you " 
(1 Sam. vi. 20, 21). -n tnis high-place — " the 
hill " (ny33H) — under the charge of Eleazar, son 

of Abinadab, b the ark remained for twenty years 
(vii. 2), during which period the spot became the 
resort of pilgrims from all parts, anxious to offer 
sacrifices and perform vows to Jehovah (Joseph. 
Ant. vi. 2, §1). At the close of that time Kirjat.h- 
Jearim lost its sacred treasure, on its removal by 
David to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite 
(1 Chr. xiii. 5, 6 ; 2 Chr. i. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2, 
&c.). It is very remarkable and suggestive that in 
the account of this transaction ihe ancient and 
heathen name Baal is retained. In fact, in 2 Sam. 
vi. 2 — probably the original statement — the name 
Baale is used without any explanation, and to the 
exclusion of that of Kirjath-jearim. In the allusion 
to this transaction in Ps. cxxxii. 6, the name is 
obscurely indicated as the "wood" — yaar, the 
root of Kiijath-jearim. We are further told that 
its people, with those of Chephirah and Beeroth, 
743 in number, returned from captivity (Neh. vii. 
29 ; and see Ezra ii. 25, where the name is 
K-ARIM, and 1 Esdr. v. 19, KIRIATHIARIUS). 
We also hear of a prophet URiJAH-ben-Shemaiah, 
a native of the place, who enforced the warnings 
of Jeremiah, and was cruelly murdered by Jehoiakitn 
(Jer. xxvi. 20, &c.), but of the place we know nothing 
beyond what has been already said. A tradition is 
mentioned by Adrichomius (Descr. T. S. Dan. 
§17), though without stating his authority, that 
it was the native place of " Zechariah, son of 
Jehoiada, who was slain between the altar and th« 
Temple." c 

To Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. Cariathiarim) 
it appears to have been well known. They describ> 
it as a village at the ninth (or, s. v. "Baal," tenth; 
mile between Jerusalem and Diospolis (LydJa). 
With this description, and the former of these two 
distances agrees Procopius (see Keland, 503). It 
was reserved for Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 11) to 
discover that these requirements are exactly ful 
filled in the modern village of Kuriet-el-Enab — 
now usually known as Abu Gosh, from the robber- 
chief whose head-quarters it was — at the eastern end 
of the Wady Aly, on the road from Jalla to Jeru 
salem. And, indeed, if the statement of Kusebius 
contained the only conditions to be met, the identi 
fication would be certain. It does not, however so 

it is remarkable that Beth-shemesh, from which the 
Ark was sent away, was a city of the priests. 

c The mention of KopiafliajxiV (Alex. Kapiafliapi» 
in the LXX. of Josh. iii. lf>, possibly proceeds from 
a corruption of the Hebrew Kirjath-Adain, "the city 
Adam," as has been pointed out under AI>AM, vol i 


\voll agree with the requirements of 1 S:im. vi. 
The distance from Bethshemesh (Ain S/unns) is con 
siderable — -not less than 10 miles — through a very 
uneven country, wkh no appearance of any road 
ever having existed (Hob. iii. 157). Neither is it 
*.t all in proximity to Bethlehem (Ephratah), which 
would seem to be implied in Ps. cxxxii. 6 ; though 
this latter passage is very obscure. Williams (Holy 
City) endeavours to identify Khjath-jearim with 
Dcir-el-Howa, east of A in Slicms. But this, though 
sufficiently near the latter place, does not answer to 
the other conditions. We may therefore, for the 
present, consider Kuriet-el-Enab as the representa 
tive of Kirjath-jearim. 

The modem name, differing from the ancient only 
in its latter portion, signifies the " city of grapes ;" 
the ancient name, if interpreted as Hebrew, the "city 
of forests." Such interpretations of these very 
antique names must be received with great caution 
on account of the tendency which exists universally 
to alter the names of places and persons so that 
they shall contain a meaning in the language of 
the country. In the present case we have the play 
on the name in Ps. cxxxii. 6, already noticed, the 
authority of Jerome (Comtn. in Is. xxix. 1), who 
renders it villa silvarum, and the testimony of a 
a recent traveller (Tobler, Dritte Wanderuny, 178. 
187), who in the immediate neighbourhood, on the 
ridge probably answering to MOUNT JEARIJI, states 
that, " for real genuine (cchtes) woods, so thick and 
so solitary, he had seen nothing like them since he 
left Germany." 

It remains yet to be seen if any separate or defi 
nite eminence answering to the hill or high-place 
on which the ark was deposited is recognisable at 
Kuriet-el-Enab. [G.] 

KIB'JATH-SAN'NAH (H3D 'p: iroA<s ypap- 

uA-T&v: GariatJisenna), a name which occurs once 
only (Josh. xv. 49), as another, and probably an ear 
lier, appellation for DEBIR, an important place in 
the mountains of Judah, not far from Hebron, and 
which also bore the name of KIRJATH-SEPHER. 
Whence the name is derived we have no clue, and 
its meaning has given rise to a variety of conjec 
tures (see Keil, Josua, on x. 40 ; Ewald, Gesch. i. 
324 note). That of Gesenius (Thes. 962) is, that 
sannah is a contraction of sansannah — a palm- 
branch, and thus that Kirjath-sannah is the "city 
of palms." But this, though adopted by Stanley 
(S. $ P. 161, 524), is open to the objection that 
palms were not trees of the mountain district, where 
Kirjath-sannah was situated, but of the valleys 
(S. $ P. 145). 

It will be observed that the LXX. interpret both 
this name and Kirjath-sepher alike. [G.] 

KIR'JATH-SE'PHER (IBD 'J3 : in Judg. i. 

11, KapiaOffei'ifp Tr6\ts rpafj./jLa.TUV ; in ver. 12, 
and in Josh, the first word is omitted: Cariath- 
wpher), the early name of the city DEBIR, which 
further had the name — doubtless also an early one — 
of KIRJATII-SANNAII. Kiijnth-sepher occurs only 
in the account of the capture of the place by Othniel, 
who gained thereby the hand of his wife Achsah, 
Caleb's daughter (Josh. xv. 15, 16 ; and in the exact 

* Taking Debir to mean an adytum, or innermost 
recess, as it does in 1 K. vi. 5, 19, &c. (A. V. 

b In the Targuin it is rendered by '3~IJ$ 'p, " city 
«r -jrinccs " (<ipx<»). See Buxtorf, Lex. Tnlm. 217. 



re]>otition of the narrative, Judg. i. 11. 12). la 
this narrative, a document of unmistakably early 
character (Ewald, Gesch. ii. 373, 4), it is stated 
that '' the name of Debir before was Kirjath-sepher." 
Ewald conjectures that the new name was given it by 
the conquerors on account of its retired position on 
the back" — the south or south-western slopes — of the 
mountains, possibly at or about the modem el-Burj, 
a few miles W. of ed-Dhoheriyeh (Gesch. ii. 373 
note). But whatever the interpretation of the 
Hebrew name of the place may be, that of the Ca- 
naanite name must certainly be more obscure. It 
is generally assumed to mean " city of book " (from 
the Hebrew word Scpher=\>ook), and it has been 
made the foundation for theories of the amount of 
literary culture possessed by the Canaanites (Keil, 
Josua, x. 39 ; Ewald, i. 324). But such theories 
are, to say the least, premature during the extreme 
uncertainty as to the meaning of these veiy ancient 
names. b 

The old name would appear to have been still iii 
existence in Jerome's time, if we may understand 
his allusion in the epitaph of Paula (§11), where 
he translates it vinculum litterarum. [Comp. KiK- 


KIR OF MOAB (3Kte TJ3 : rb reT^os TTJJ 

Mo>a/3iTi8os : imirus Moab), one of the two chiet 
strongholds of Moab, the other being AR OF MOAB. 
The name occurs only in Is. xv. 1, though the place 
is probably refeired to under the names of KIR- 
HERES, KIK-HARASETH, £c. The clue to its iden 
tification is given us by the Targum on Isaiah and 
Jeremiah, which for the above names has N3"13 

T - : > 

Cracca, "sp3, Crac, almost identical with the 

name Kerak, by which the site of an important 
city in a high and very strong position at the S.E. 
of the Dead Sea is known at this day. The chain 
of evidence for the identification of Kerak with 
Kir-Moab is very satisfactory. Under the name 
of XapaK/xoJjSot it is mentioned in the Acts of the 
Council of Jerusalem, A.D. 536 (Reland, Pal. 533), 
by the geographers Ptolemy and Stephanus of By 
zantium (Reland, 463, 705). In A.D. 1131, under 
King Fulco, a castle was built there whic^h became 
an impoitant station for the Crusaders. Here, in 
A.D, 1183, they sustained a fruitless attack from 
Saladin and his brother (Bohaeddin, Vit. Sal. ch. 
25), the place being as impregnable as it had been 
in the days of Elisha (2 K. iii. 25). It was then 
the chief city cf Arabia Secunda or Fetracensts; it 
is specified as in the Bclka, and is distinguished 
from " Moab" or " Rabbat," the ancient AR-MOAB, 
and from the Mons regalis (Schultens, Indet 
Geogr. "Caracha"; see also the remarks of Ge 
senius, Jesaia, 517, and his notes to the German 
transl. of Burckhardt"). The Crusaders in error 
believed it to be Petra, and that name is frequently 
attached to it in the writings of William of Tyre 
and Jacob de Vitry (see quotations in Rob. Bib. 
lies. ii. 167). This error is perpetuated in the 
Greek Church to the present day; and the bishop 
of Petra, whose office, as representative of the Pa 
triarch, it is to produce the holy fire at Easter in 
the " Church of the Sepulchre" at Jerusalem 

• Gesenius expresses it as follows : " Ar-Moab, 
Stadt Moabs gleichsam a.<m> oder wbs Mcabitarum 
. . . und die Burg dcs Landcs Kir-Moab" ( 
von Gesenius, 1064y. 

14 KISH 

(Stanley, S. $ P. 467), is in reality bishop of Kerak 
(Seetzen, Reisen, ii. 358 ; Burckh. 387). 

The modem Kerak is known to us through the 
descriptions of Burckhardt (379-390), Irby (ch. 
vii.), Seetzen (Reisen, i. 412, 3), and De Saulcy 
(La Mer Morte, i. 355, &c.) ; and these fully bear 
out the interpretation given above to the name — 
the " fortress," as contradistinguished from the 
" metropolis " ( Ar) of the country, i. e. Kabbath- 
Moab, the modern Rabba. It lies about 6 miles 
S. of the last-named place, and some 10 miles 
from the Dead Sea, upon the plateau of highlands 
which forms this part of the country, not far from 
the western edge of th« plateau. Its situation is 
truly remarkable. It is built upon the top of a 
steep hill, surrounded on all sides by a deep and 
narrow valley, which again is completely inclosed 
by mountains rising higher than the town, and 
overlooking it on all sides. It must have been from 
these surrounding heights that the Israelite slingers 
hurled their vollies of stones after the capture of 
the place had proved impossible (2 K. iii. 25). 
The town itself is encompassed by a wall, to which, 
when perfect, there were but two entrances, one to 
the south and the other to the north, cut or tun 
nelled through the ridge of the natural rock below 
the wall for a length of 100 to 120 feet. The 
wall is defended by several large towers, and the 
western extremity of the town is occupied by an 
enormous mass of buildings — on the south the castle 
or keep, on the north the seraglio of El-Melek edh- 
Dhahir. Between these two buildingi is apparently 
a third exit, leading to the Dead Sea. (A map of 
the site and a view of part of the keep will be 
found in the Atlas to De Saulcy, La Mer Morte, 
&c., feuilles 8, 20). The latter shows well the 
way in which the town is inclosed. The walls, the 
keep, and seraglio are mentioned by Lynch (Report, 
May 2, p. 19, 20), whose account, though interest 
ing, contains nothing new. The elevation of the 
town can hardly be less than 3000 feet above the 
sea (Porter, Hdbk. 60). From the heights imme 
diately outside it, near a ruined mosque, a view is 
obtained of the Dead Sea, and in clear weather of 
Bethlehem and Jerusalem (Seetzen, Reisen, i. 413 ; 
Schwarz, 217). [G.] 

KISH (K"p : Kk : Cis, Vulg. and A. V., 
Acts xiii. 21). 1. A man of the tribe of Benjamin 
and the family of Matri, according to 1 Sam. x. 
21, though descended from Becher according to 
I Chr. vii. 8, compared with 1 Sam. ix. 1. [BE 
CKER.] He was son of Ner, brother to Abner, and 
father to King Saul. Gibeah or Gibeon seems to 
have been the seat of the family from the time of 
Jehiel, otherwise called Abiel (I Sam. xiv. 51), 
Kish's grandfather (1 Chr. ix. 35). 

2. Son of Jehiel, and uncle to the preceding 
(1 Chr. ix. 36). 

3. A Benjamite, great grandfather of Mordecai, 
who was taken captive at the time that Jeconiah 
was carried to Babylon (Esth. ii. 5). 

4. A Merarite, of the house of Mahli, of the 
tribe of Levi. His sons married the daughters of 
his brother Eleazar (1 Chr. xxiii. 21, 22, xxiv. 28, 
29), apparently about the time of King Saul, or 

» Kishon is from V?\\), to be bent, or tortuous ; 
Kishion fron 7\&\), to be hard (Thes. 1211, 1243). 

b By some this was— with the usual cravinp to 
make the name of a IM»CC mean something — developed 
into x. ruv Kto-crui'. " the torrent of the ivy bushes " 


early in the reign of David, since Jeduthun tin 
singer was the son of Kish (1 Chr. vi. 44, A. V., 
compared with 2 Chr. xxix. 12). In th<: last cited 
place, " Kish the son of Abdi," in the reign oS 
Hezekiah, must denote the Levitical house or divi 
sion, under its chief, rather than an individual. 
[JE8HUA.] The genealogy in 1 Chr. vi. shows 
that, though Kish is called " the son of Mahli " 
(1 Chr. xxiii. 21), yet eight generations intei ?ened 
between him and Mahli. In the corrupt ttxt of 
1 Chr. xv. the name is written Kushaiah at ver. 17, 
and for Jeduthun is written Ethan. [JEDUTHUN.] 
At 1 Chr. vi. 29 (44, A. V.) it is written Kishi. 
It is not improbable that the name Kish may have 
passed into the tribe of Levi from that of Benjamin, 
owing to the residence of the latter in the immediate 
neighbourhood ot Jerusalem, which might lead to 
intermarriages (1 Chr. viii. 28, 32). [A. C. H.] 

EISH'I (»B»p : Kurd ; Alex. Kturdv : Cusi), 
a Merarite, and father or ancestor of Ethan the 
minstrel (1 Chr. vi. 44). The form in which his 
name appears in the Vulg. is supported by 22 of 
Kennicotfs MSS. In 1 Chr. xv. 17 he is called 
KUSHAIAH, and KISH in 1 Chr. xxiii. 21, xxiv. 29. 

KISH'ION (j'Vlpp: Ktffdiv ; Alex. Kffftd*: 
Ccsiori), one of the towns on the boundary of the 
tribe of Issachar (Josh. xix. 20), which with its 
suburbs was allotted to the Gershonite Levites (xxi. 
28 ; though in this place the name — identical in 
the original — is incorrectly given ir> the A. V. 
KISHON). If the judgment of Gesenius may be 
accepted, there is no connexion between the name 
Kishion and that of the river Kishon, since as He 
brew words they are derivable from distinct roots.". 
But it would seem very questionable how far so 
archaic a name as that of the Kishon, mentioned, as it 
is. in one of the earliest records wo possess ( Judg. v.) 
can be treated as Hebrew. No trac.' of the situation 
of Kishion however exists, nor can it be inferred so as 
to enable us to ascertain whether any connexion was 
likely to have existed between the town and the river. 

KISH'ON (j'Wp : il Kifftay ; Alex. ^ Kiffiiav 
Osibn), an inaccurate mode of representing (Josh. 
xxi. 28) the name which on its other occurrence is 
correctly given as KISHION. In the list of Levi 
tical cities in 1 Chr. vi. its place is occupied by 
KEDESH (ver. 72). 

KISH'ON, THE RIVER (fiE»p h _! I : & 
Xeinafyovs K.UTWV, KiffffStvJ' and Kttff&v ; Alex, 
usually Kfiffuv : torrens Cisori), a torrent or wintei 
stream of central Palestine, the scene of two of th« 
grandest achievements of Israelite history — the de 
feat of Sisera, and th* destruction of the prophet,' 
of Baal by Elijah. 

Unless it be alluded to in Josh. xix. 11, as " tl.e 
torrent facing Jokneam " — and if Kaiman be .Jok- 
neam, the description is very accurate — the Ki^hcn 
is not mentioned in describing the possessions of the 
tribes. Indeed its name occurs onlv in connexion 
with the two great events just referred to (Judg. 
iv. 7, 13, v. 21 ;• Ps. Ixxxiii. 9 — here inaccurately 
"Kison;" and 1 K. xviii. 40). 

The Nahr MukHtta, the modern representative 

(Suidas, ». e. 'laftiv], just as the name of Kidror 
(Kf'£pu)i<) was made ru>v KeSptav, «' of the cedars." 

c The term coupled with the Kist:«i in Judp. v. 21, 
in A. V. " that ancient river," ha* bccD 


jf the Kishon, is the drain by which the waters 
of the plaiu of Esdraelon, and of the mountains 
which enclose that plain, namely, Carmel and the 
Saniaiia range on the south, the mountains of 
Galilee on the north, and Gilboa, " Little Hermon " 
(so called), and Tabor on the east, find their way to 
*he Mediterranean. Its course is in a direction 
uearly due N.W. along the lower part of the plain 
nearest the foot of the Samarian hills, and close 
beneath the very cliffs of Carmel (Thomson, L. fy B. 
2nd ed. 436), breaking through the hills which 
separate the plain of Esdiaelon from the maritime 
plain of Acre, by a very narrow pass, beneath the 
eminence of Harothieh or Harti, which is believed 
still to retain a trace of the name of Harosheth of 
the Gentiles (Thomson, 437). It has two principal 
feeders: the first from Deburieh (Daberath), on 
Mount Tabor, the N.E. angle of the plain ; and 
tecondly, from Jelb&n (Gilboa) and Jenin (En- 
gaunim) on the S.E. The very large perennial 
spring of the last-named place may be said to be the 
origin of the remote pail of the Kishon (Thomson, 
435). It is also fed by the copious spring of 
Lcjjun, the stream from which is probably the 
" waters of Megiddo " (Van de Velde, 353 ; Porter, 
Handbook, 385). During the winter and spring, and 
after sudden storins of rain the upper part of the 
Kishou flows with a very strong torrent; so strong, 
that in the battle of Mount Tabor, April 16, 1799, 
some of the circumstances of the defeat of Sisera 
were reproduced, many of the fugitive Turks being 
drowned in the wady from Deburieh, which then in- 
ur.udted a part of the plain (Burckhardt, 339). At 
the same seasons the grounds about Lejjun (Me 
giddo) where the principal encounter with Sisera 
would seem to have taken place, becomes a morass, 
impassable for even single travellers, and truly de 
structive d for a huge horde like his army (Prokesch, 
in Kob. ii. 364 ; Thomson, 436). 

But like most of the so-called " rivers " of Pales 
tine, the perennial stream forms but a small part of 
the Kishon. During the greater part of the year its 
upper portion is dry, and the stream confined to a 
few miles next the sea. The sources of this perennial 
portion proceed from the roots of Carmel — the 
" vast fountains called Sa'adiyeh, about three miles 
east of Chaifa" (Thomson, 435) and those, ap 
parently still more copious, described by Shaw (Rob. 



>65), e as bursting forth from beneath the oasteru 
brow of Carmel, and discharging of themselves " a 
river half as big as the Isis." It enters the sea at 
the lower part of the bay of Akka, about two miles 
ast of Chaifa " in a deep tortuous bed between 
banks of loamy soil some 15 feet high, and 15 to 20 
yards apart" (Porter, Handbook, 383. 4). Be 
tween the mouth and the town the shore is lined 
by an extensive grove of date-palms, one of the 
finest in Palestine (Van de Velde, 289). 

The part of the Kishon at which the prophets of 
Baal were slaughtered by Elijah was doubtless 
close below the spot on Carmel where the sacrifice 
had taken place. This spot is now fixed with all 
but certainty, as at the extreme east end of the 
mountain, to which the name is still attached of 
El-Maliraka, " the burning." [CAKMEL.] No 
where does the Kishou run so close to the mountain 
as just beneath this spot (Van de Velde, i. 324). 
It is about 1000 feet above the river, and a preci 
pitous ravine leads directly down, by which the 
victims were perhaps hurried from the sacred pirc- 
cincts of the altar of Jehovah to their doom in the tor 
rent bed below, at the foot of the mound, which from 
this circumstance may be called Tell Kusis, the hill 
of the priests. Whether the Kishou contained any 
water at this time we are not told ; that required 
for Elijah's sacrifice was in all probability obtained 
from the spring on the mountain side below the 
plateau of El-Mahrakak. [CAKMEL, vol. i. 2796.] 

Of the identity of the Kishon with the present 
Nahr Mukuttu there can be noquestion. Theexistence 
of the sites of Taanach and Megiddo along its course, 
and the complete agreement of the circumstances 
just named with the requirements of the story of 
Elijah, are sufficient to satisfy us that the two are 
one and the same. But it is very remarkable what 
an absence there is oi any continuous or traditional 
evidence on the point. By Josephus the Kishou is 
never named, neither does the name occur in the 
early Itineraries of Antoninus Augustus, or the 
Bourdeaux Pilgrim. Eusebius and Jerome dismiss 
it in a few words, and note only its origin in Tabir 
(Onom. " Cison "), or such part of it as can be seen 
thence (Ep. ad Eustochium, §13), passing by en 
tirely its connexion with Carmel. Benjamin of 
Tndela visited Akka and Carmel. He mentions the 
river by name as " Nachal Kishon ;"' but only in the 

very variously rendered by the old interpreters. 1. It 
is taken as a proper name, and thus apparently that 
of a distinct stream — in some MSS. of the LXX., 
Ko&j/oiei'iu. (gee Barhdt's Hexapla) ; by Jerome, in the 
Vulgate, torrens Cadumim ; in the Peshito and Arabic 
versions, Carmin. This view is also taken by Ben 
jamin of Tudela, who speaks of the river close to 
Acre (doubtless meaning thereby the Belus) as the 

D^Dnp 7l"13- 2. As an epithet of the Kishon itself : 
LXX., xcinappowi apxauav; Aquila, Kavatavtav , perhaps 
intending to imply a scorching wind or simoom as 
accompanying the rising of the waters ; Symmachus, 
•liyiuiv or alyiav, perhaps alluding to the swift spring 
ing of the torrent (afyes is used for high waves by 
Artemidorus). The Targum, adhering to the signifi 
cation " ancient," expands the sentence — " the tor 
rent in which were shewn signs and wonders to 
Israel of old ;" and this miraculous torrent a later 
Jewish tradition (preserved in the Commentarius in 
Canticum Debborae, ascribed to Jerome) would iden 
tify with the Red Sea, the scene of the greatest mar 
vels in Israel's history. The rendering of the A. V. 
is supported by Mendelssohn, Gesenius, Ewald, and 
other eminent modern scholars. But is it not pos 

sible that the term may refer to an ancient tribe of 
Kedumim — wanderers from the Eastern deserts — 
who had in remote antiquity settled ou the Kishon or 
one of its tributary wadys 1 

d " The Kishon, considered, on account of its 
quicksands, the most dangerous river in the land" 
(Van de Velde, i. 289). 

e The report of Shaw that this spring is called by 
the people of the place Jids el-Kishon, though dis 
missed with contempt by Robinson in his note, on the 
ground that the name K. is not known to the Arabs, 
has been confirmed to the writer by the Rev. W. Lea, 
who recently visited the spot. 

f The English reader should be on his guard not 
to rely on the translation of Benjamin contained in 
the edition of Ashr.r (Berlin, 1840). In the part of 
the work above referred to two serious errors occur. 
(1) D'Wlp ^HJ is rendered "Nahr el Kelb;" meat 
erroneously, fo> '.he JV. el Kelb (Lycus) is more than 80 
miles farther uorth. (2) )itJ"p 7H3 is rendered 
" the river Mukattua." Other renderings re IBM 
inexact occur elsewhere, which need Lot bt noteJ 


most cursoiy manner. Brocardus (cir. 1500) de- 
scribes the western portion of the stream with a little 
more fullness, but enlarges most on its upper or 
eastern part, which, with the victory of Barak, he 
places on the east of Tabor and Hermon, as dis 
charging the water of those mountains into the Sea 
of Galilee (Descr. Terrae S. cap. 6, 7). This has 
been shown by Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 364) to allude 
to the Wady el Bireh, which runs down to the 
Jordan a few miles above Scythopolis. For the 
descriptions of modern travellers, see Maundrell 
(Early Tntv. 430) ; Robinson (ii. 362, &c., iii. 
116, 17); Van de Velde (324, &c.) ; Stanley 
(336, 339, 355), and Thomson (Land and Book, 
chap. xxix.). [G.] 

KJS'ON (PCJ»J? : Ktiff&v ; Alex. Kin S,i> ; Ci- 
>'0»), an inaccurate mode of representing t'.ie name 
elsewhere correctly given in the A. V. KISHON 
(Ps. Ixxxiii. 9 only). An additional inconsistency 
is the expression " the brook of Kison " — the word 
"of" being redundant both here and in Judg. iv. 
13, and v. 21. (G.] 

KISS. 8 Kissing the lips by way of affectionate 
salutation was not only permitted, but customary, 
amongst near relatives of both sexes, both in Patri 
archal and in later times (Gen. xxix. 11; Cant, 
viii. 1). Between individuals of the same sex, and 
in a limited degree between those of different sexes, 
the kiss on the cheek as a mark of respect or an act 
of salutatioa has at all times been customary in the 
East, and can hardly be said to be extinct even in 
Europe. Mention is made of it (1) between parents 
and children (Gen. xxvii. 26, 27, xxxi. 28, 55, 
xlviii. 10, 1. 1 ; Ex. xviii. 7 ; Ruth i. 9, 14; 2 Sam. 
xiv. 33; 1 K. xix. 20; Luke xv. 20; Tob. vii. 6, 
x. 12): (2) between brothers or near male relatives 
or intimate friends (Gen. xxix. 13, xxxiii. 4, xiv. 
15; Ex. iv. 27; 1 Sam. xx. 41): (3) the same 
mode of salutation between persons not related, but 
of equal rank, whether friendly or deceitful, is men 
tioned (2 Sam. xx. 9 ; Ps. Ixxv. 10 ; Prov. xxvii. 
6; Luke vii. 45 (1st clause), xxii. 48; Acts xx. 
37) : (4) as a mark of real or aflected condescension 
(2 Sam. xv. 5, xix. 39) : (5) respect from an in 
ferior (Luke vii. 38, 45, and perhaps viii. 44). 

In the Christian Church the kiss of charity was 
practised not only as a friendly salutation, but as 
an act symbolical of love and Christian brotherhood 
(Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 
1 Thess. v. 26 ; 1 Pet. v. 14). It was embodied 
in the early Christian offices, and has been con 
tinued in some of those now in use < Apost. Constit. 
ii. 57, viii. 11; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65; Palmer, 
On Lit. ii. 102, and note from Du Cange ; Bing- 
ham, Christ. Antiq. b. xii. c. iv. §5, vol. iv. 49, 
b. ii. c. xi. §10, vol. i. 161, b. ii. c. xix. §17, vol. 
». 272, b. iv. c. vi. §14, vol. i. 5'JG, b. xxii. c. iii. 
§6, vol. vii. 316; see also Cod. Jitst. V. Tit. iii. 
16, de Don. ante Nupt.; Brando, Pop. Antiq. ii. 

Between persons of unequal rank, the kiss, as a 
mark either of condescension on the one hand, or 
of respect on the other, can hardly be said to sur 
vive in Europe except in the case of royal per 
sonages. In the East it has been continued with 
little diminution to the present day. The ancient 


Persian custom among relatives is mentioned by 
Xeuophon (Ci/rop. i. 4, §27), and among inferiors 
towards superiors, whose feet and hands they kissed 
(»'&. vii. 5," §32 ; Dion Cass. lix. 27). Among thn 
Arabs the women and children kiss the beards of 
their husbands cr fathers. The superior returns 
the salute by a kiss on the forehead. In Kgypt 
an inferior kisses the hand of a superior, generally 
on the back, but sometimes, as a special favour, on 
the palm also. To testify abject submission, and 
in asking favours, the feet are often kissed instead 
of the hand. " The son kisses the hand of his 
father, the wife that of her husband, the slave, 
and often the free servant, that of the master. 
The slaves and servants of a grandee kiss their 
lord's sleeve or the skirt of his clothing" (Lane, 
Mod. Eg. ii. 9; Arvieux, Tram. p. 151; Burck- 
hardt, Trav. i. 369 ; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 329, ii. 93 ; 
Layard, Nin. i. 174 ; Wellsted, Arabia, i. 341 ; 
Malcolm, Sketctes of Persia, p. 271; see abo\e 


The written decrees of a sovereign are kissed in 
token of respect ; even the ground is sometimes 
kissed by Orientals in the fulness of their sub 
mission (Gen. xli. 40 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 8 ; Ps. Ixxii. 9 ; 
Is. xlix. 23; Mic. vii. 17; Matt, xxviii. 9; Wil 
kinson, Anc. Eg. ii. '203; Layard, Nin. i. 274, 
Harmer, Obs. i. 336). 

Friends saluting each other join the right hand, 
then each kisses his own hand, and puts it to his 
lips and forehead, or breast; after a long absence 
they embrace each other, kissing first on the right 
side of the face or neck, and then on the left, or on 
both sides of the beard (Lane, ii. 9, 10 ; Irby aril 
Mangles, p. 116; Chardin, Voy. iii. 421 ; Arvieux, 
I.e.; Burckhardt, Notes, i. 369 ; Russell, Aleppo, 
i. 240). 

Kissing is spoken of in Scripture as a mark of 
respect or adoration to idols (1 K. xix. 18; Hos. 
xiii. 2 ; comp. Cic. Verr. iv. 43 ; Tacitus, speaking 
of an Eastern custom, Hist. iii. 24, and the Mo 
hammedan custom of kissing the Kaaba at Mecca ; 
Burckhardt, Travels, i. 250, 298, 323 ; Crichton, 
Arabia, ii. 215). [ H - W - P-] 

KITE (H'K, ayy&h: Ixrlvos, 71^: vttlhtr, 
milvus?}. The Hebrew word thus rendered occurs 
in three passages, Lev. xi. 14, Deut. xiv. 13, and 
.lob xxviii. 7 : in the two former it is translated 
" kite" in the A. V., in the latter " vulture." It 
is enumerated among the twenty names of birds 
mentioned in Deut. xiv. b (belonging for the most 
part to the oi-der Raptor es), which were considered 
unclean by the Mosaic Law, and forbidden to be 
used as food by the Israelites. The allusion in .lob 
alone affoids a clue to its identification. The deep 
mines in the recesses of the mountains from which 
the labour of man extracts the treasures of the 
eailh are there described as "a track which the 
bird of prey hath not known, nor hath the eye ol 
the aytjah looked upon it." Among all birds 
of prey, which are proverbially clearsighted, 
the ayyah is thus distinguished as possessed of 
peculiar keenness of vision, and by this attribute 
alone is it marked. Translators have been sin 
gularly at variance with regard to this bird. In 
the LXX. of Lev. and Deut. ayyah is rendered 

» 1. Verb. p£>3 : LXX. and X. T. <f>iAe'o), «<"•<«• 
<t>i\tu> : osculnr, deosculor. 2. Siihs. Hp'CJ'jt the 
notion being of extension, or possibly from the sound, 
(it-hen i. 924 : I. XX. and N. T. </>i'A»);ua : ntcnhtm. 

b In the parallel passage of Lev. xi. the gleil 
is omitted ; but the Hebrew won 1 . h:is in al. 
probability crept into the text by nn error of M.:;I* 
transcriber. (*ee Oesen. s, r., niul (ii > 


•' kite," » while in Job it is " vulture," v-/hich the 
A. V. h;\s followed. The Vulg. give " vulture" in 
all three passages, unless, as Drusius suggests (on 
Lev. xi. 14), the order of the words in Lev. and Deut. 
is changed ; but even in this case there remains 
the rendering " vulture " in Job, and the reason 
advanced by Drusius for the transposition is not 
conclusive. The Targ. Onkelos vaguely renders it 
" bird of prey ;" Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan, " black 
vulture ;" Targ. Jerus. by a word which Buxtorf 
translates " a pie," in which he is supported by the 
authority of Kimchi, but which Bochart considers 
to be identical in meaning with the preceding, and 
v:hich is employed in Targ. Onkelos as the equiva 
lent of the word rendered " heron" in A. V. of Lev. 
xi. 19. It is impossible to say what the rendering 
of the Peshito Syriac in Lev. and Deut. may be, in 
consequence of an evident confusion in the text; 
ia Job ayyah is translated by dattho* " a kite" or 
" vulture " as some have it, which is the repre 
sentative of " vulture" in the A. V. of Is. xxxiv. 
15. The Arabic versions of Saadias and Abulwalid 
give " the night-owl ;" and Aben Ezra, deriving it 
from a root signifying "an island," explains it 
as " the island bird," without however identifying 
it with any individual of the feathered tribes. 
Robertson (Clams Pcntate'.tchf) derives ayyah from 
the Heb. PPK, an obsolete root, which he connects 
*rith an Arabic word, d the primary meaning of 
which, according to Schultens, is " to turn." If 
this derivation be the true one, it is not impro 
bable that " kite " is the correct rendering. The 
nabit which birds of this genus have of " sailing in 
circles, with the rudder-like tail by its inclination 
governing the curve," as Yarrell says, accords with 
the Arabic derivation." 

Bochart, regarding the etymology of the word, 
connected it with the Arabic al yuyu, a kind of 
hawk so called from its cry ydyd, described by 
Damir as a small bird with a short tail, used in 
hunting, and remarkable for its great courage, the 
swiftness of its flight, and the keenness of its vision, 
which is made the subject of praise in an Arabic 
stanza quoted by Damir. From these considerations 
Bochart identities it with the merlin, or Falco 
aesalon of Linnaeus, which is the same as the Greek 
al<Ta\(i>v and Latin aesalo. It must be confessed, 
however, that the grounds for identifying the 
ayyah witli any individual species are too slight to 
enable us to regard with confidence any conclusions 
which may be based upon them ; and from the ex 
pression which follows in Lev. and Deut., "after 
its kind," it is evident that the term is generic. 
The Talmud goes so far as to assert that the four 
Hebrew words rendered in A. V. " vulture," 
•'glede," and "kite," denote one and the same bird 
(Lewysohn, Zoologie dos Talmuds, §196). Seetzen 
(i. 310) mentions a species of falcon used in Syria 
for hunting gazelles and hares, and a smaller kind 
for hunting hares in the desert. Russell (Aleppo, 
ii. 196) enumerates seven different kinds employed 
by the natives for the same purpose. 

• In ornithological language " kite " = " glede " 
(Mllvus vulgaris] ; but " glede " is applied by the 
common people in Ireland to the common buzzard 
(Buteo vulffaris), the " kite" not being indigenous to 
that country. So, too, the translators of the A. V. 
considered the terms " kite " and " glede " as distinct, 
for they render HX"I "glede," and il'K "kite," 
" and <he glcdc and\he kite" (Deut. xiv. 13). 



T-vo pei-sons are mentioned in the 0. T. wno>< 
names are derived from this bird. [A JAM.] Fiirst 
(Handw. s. ».) compares the parallel instances o! 
Shebin, a kind of falcon, used as a proper name uy 
the Persians and Turks, and the Latin Milmus. 
To these we may add Fntfu and Falconia among 
the Romans, and the naof/. of Hawke, Falcon, 
Falconer, Kite, &c. &c., in our own language (see 
Lower's Historical Essays on English Surnames). 

[W. A. W | 

KITH'LISH (K»?n3, f. e. Cithlish : Maa X c6 s i 
Alex. x^^s: Cethlis), one of the towns of Judah, 
in the Shefelah or lowland (Josh. xv. 40), named 
n the same group with Eglon, Gederoth, and Mak- 
kedah. It is not named by Eusebius or Jerome, 
nor does it appear to have been either sought or 
found by any later traveller. [G.] 

KIT'RON (fnpp: Ketipoov: Alex., with un 
usual departure from the Heb. text, Xe/Spwv : Cetron}, 
a town which, though not mentioned in the specifi 
cation of the possessions of Zebulun in Josh, xix., is 
catalogued in Judg. i. 30 as one of the towns from 
which Zebulun did not expel the Canaanites. It is 
here named next to Nahalol, a position occupied in 
Josh. xix. 15, by Kattath. Kitron may be a cor 
ruption of this, or it may be an independent place 
omitted for some reason from the other list. In 
the Talmud (Megillah, as quoted by Schwarz, 
173) it is identified with " Zippori," i.e. Sepphoris, 
now Seffarieh. [G .] 

KIT'TIM (D»n? : K-f,rt 0l , Gen. x. 4 ; Kfnoi. 
1 Chr. i. 7 : Cethim). Twice written in the A. V. 


KNIFE.' 1. The knives of the Egyptians, and 
of other nations in early times, were probably only 
of hard stone, and the use of the flint or sto'# 

* Gesenius traces the word to the unused r«>Dt 
niX — Arab. <^^s.i " to howl like a. dog or wo/'f." 

' 1. 3~in, Gesen. p. 516 : : gladius, ciilttr. 
2. nS3NJD, from 7DK, " eat," Gesen. pp. 80, 92 : 
p6fj.ifta.ia. : gladiut. 


knife was sometimes retailed for sacred purposes 
after the introduction of iron and steel (Plin. 
//. N. xxxv. 12, §165). Herodotus (ii. 86) 
mentions knives both of iron and of stone* in 
different stages of the same process of embalming. 
The same may perhaps be said to .some extent of 
the Hebrews. 1 * 

2. In their meals the Jews, like other Orientals, 
made little use of knives, but they were required 
both for slaughtering animals either for food or 
sacrifice, as well as cutting up tlw carcase (Lev. 
vii. 33, 34, viii. 15, 20, 25, ix. 13; Num. xviii. 
18 ; 1 Sam. ix. 24; Ez. xxiv. 4; Ezr. i. 9; Matt, 
xxvi. 23 ; Russell, Aleppo, i. 172; Wilkinson, i. 
169; Mischn. Tamid. iv. 3). 

3. Smaller knives were in use for paring fruit 
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 7 ; B. J. i. 33, §7) and for 
sharpening pens c (Jer. xxxvi. 23X 

I, 2. Egyptian Flint Knives m Mint-urn at Berlin. 
3. Egyptian Knife represented in Hieroglyphics. 

4. The razor d was often used for Nazaritic pur 
poses, for which a special chamber was reserved in 
the Temple (Num. vi. 5, 9, 19 ; Ez. v. 1 ; Is. vii. 
20 ; Jer. xxxvi. 23 ; Acts xviii. 18, xxi. 24 ; Mischn. 
Midd. ii. 5). 

Eg/py.tin Kiire. (British V Me-n.) 

5 The pruning-hooks of Is. xvli;. 5 « were pro 
bably curved knives. 

11 "|Vf (Ex.iv. 25) is in LXX. <W<J>o«, in which Syr. 
ind otner versions agree ; as also D^V fllTl!^ 

Ges. p. 1160; ^axoipa? irerpiVas « ffeVpa? aicpOTojiOixr, 

josh. v. 2. See Wilkinson, Ar.c. Eg. ii. 164 ; Prescott, 
Mexico, i. 63. 

"iyplt " the knife of a scribe." 


6. The lancets' of the priests of were 
doubt' -^ss pointed knives (1 K. xviii. 2.S). 

Assyrian Knives. (Frum Originals in British Museum.) 

Asiatics usually cany about with them a knifj 
or dagger, ofteu with a highly ornamented handle, 
which may be used when required for eating pur 
poses (Judg. iii. 21 ; Layard, Nin. ii. 342, 299 : 
Wilkinson, i. 358, 360; Chardin, Voy. iv. 18; 
Niebuhr, Voy. i. 340, pi. 71). [H. W. P.] 

KNOP, that is KNOB (A. S. cncep). A word em 
ployed in the A. V. to translate two terms, of the real 
meaning of which all that we can say with certainty 
is that they refer to some architectural or ornamental 
object, and that they have nothing in common. 

1. Caphtor ("YinSG). This occurs in the de 

scription of the candlestick of the sacred tent in 
Ex. xxv. 31-36, and xxxvii. 17-22, the two passages 
being identical. The knops are here distinguished 
from the shaft, branches, bowls, and flowers of the 
candlestick ; but the knop and the flower go together, 
and seem intended to imitate the produce of an 
almond-tree. In another part of the work they 
appear to form a boss, from which the branches are 
to spring out from the main stem. In Am. ix. 1 
the same word is rendered, with doubtful accuracy, 
" lintel." The same rendering is used in Zeph. ii. 
14, where the reference is to some part of the palaces 
of Nineveh, to be exposed when the wooden upper 
story — the " cedar work" — was destroyed. The 
Hebrew word seems to contain the sense of " co 
vering" and "crowning" (Gesenius, Thes. 709). 
Josephus's description (Ant. iii. 6, §7) names both 
balls (crtfuiipia) and pomegranates (fioitffKoi), either 
of which may be the cap/itor. TheTargum* agrees 
with the latter, the LXX. (<r<J>a«po>TTjp«) with the 
former. [LiNTEL.] 

2. The second term, Peka'im (D^ypS), is found 

only in 1 K. vi. 18 and vii 24. It refers in the 
tormer to carvings executed in the cedar wainscot 
of the interior of the Temple, and, as in the pre 
ceding word, is associated with flowers. Jn tht 
latter case it denotes an ornament cast round th* 

jj), Gesen. p. 1D69. 
, Gesen. p. 421 : JpeVava : J a lce>. 
: <r€tpo/xo<rToi : lanetoti.. 
5 "Win, an apple, or other fruit of a ror.nd 
both in Onkclos and Pseudojon. 


great reserve ir v.r " sea" of Solomon's Temple below 
the brim : there was a double row of them, ten to 
a cubit, or about 2 inches from centre to centre. 

The word no doubt signifies some globular thing 
resembling a small gourd,* or an egg, 1 * though as to 
the character of the ornament we are quite in the 
dark. The fol 'owing woodcut of a portion of a 
richly ornamented door-step or slab from Kouyunjik, 
probably represents something approximating to the 
" knop and the flower " of Solomon's Temple. But 
as the building from which this is taken was the 
work of a king at least as late as the son of Esar- 
haddon, contemporary with the latter part of the 
reign of Manasseh, it is only natural to suppose that 
the character of the ornament would have under 
gone considerable modification from what it was in 
the time of Solomon. We must await some future 
happy discovery in Assyrian or Egyptian art, to 
throw clearer light on the meaning of these and a 
hundred other terms of detail in the descriptions of 

the buildings and life of the Israelites. 


i Slab from Kouyunjik. (Fergu 

i Architecture.) 


KOIIATH* (Jin,-; and, Num. in. 1, &c., 
Kd0 and Kadt6 : Cahath: " family "), 
second of the three sons of Levi (Gershon, Kohath. 
Merari), from whom the three principal divisions of 
the Levites derived their origin and their nan.e (Gen. 
xivi. 11 ; Exod. vi. 16, 18 ; Num. iii. 17 ; 2 Chr. 
xxxiv. 12, &c.). Kohath was the father of Am- 
ram, and he of Moses and Aaron. From him, 
therefore, were descended all the priests ; and hence 
those of the Kohathites who were not pritsts weie 
of the highest rank of the Levites, though not the 
sons of Levi's first-born. Korah, the son of Izhar, 
was a Kohathite. and hence, perhaps, his impa 
tience of the superiority of his relatives, Moses and 
Aaron. In the journeyings of the Tabernacle the 
sons of Kohath had charge of the most holv tor- 
tiori of the vessels, to carry them by staves* us 
the vail, the ark, the tables of show-bread, the 
golden-altar, &c. (Num. iv.) ; but they were not 
to touch them or look upon them " lest they die." 

These were all previously covered by the priests, 
the sons of Aaron. In the reign of Hezekiah the 
Kohathites are mentioned first (2 Chr. xxix. 12), 
as they are also 1 Chr. xv. 5-7, 11, when Urie. 
their chief assisted, with 120 of his brethren, in 
bringing up the ark to Jerasalem in the time of 
David. It is also remarkable that in this last list 
of those whom David calls " chief of the fathers of 
the Levites," and couples with " Zadok and Abia- 
thar the priests," of six who are mentioned by 
name four are descendants of Kohath ; viz., besides 
Uriel, Shemaiah the sou of Elzaphan, with 200 of 
KO A (Vlp: Txoue") is a word which occurs only his brethren; Eliel, the son of Hebron, with 80 of 

in Ez. xxiii. 23: — "The Babylonians and all the 
Chaldaeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the 

Assyrians with them." 
is a proper name or no. 

It is uncertain if the word 
It may perhaps designate 

a place otherwise unknown, which we must suppose 
to have been a city or district of Babylonia. Or it 
may be a common noun, signifying " prince" or 
' nobleman," as the Vulgate takes it, and some of 

he Jewish interpreters. 

[G. R.] 

his brethren ; and Amminadab, the son of Uzziel, 
with 112 of his brethren. For it appears from Ex. 
vi. 18-22, compared with 1 Chr. xxiii. 12, xxvi. 
23-32, that there were four families of sons of 
Kohath — Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and 
Uzzielites; and of the above names Elzaphan and 
Amminadab were both Uzaielites (Ex. vi. 22), and 
Eliel a Hebronite. The verses already cited from 
1 Chr. xxvi. ; Num. iii. 19, 27 ; 1 Chr. xxiii. 12, 

• Compare the similar word nyjpS, Pakkuoth, 
•gourds," in 2 K. iv. 39. 
b This is the rendering of the Targum. 
The conjunction being taken as part of the name. 

d It is not apparent why the form Kohath, which 
occurs but occasionally, should have heen chosen in 
the A. V. in preference to the more usual one of Ke- 
hath, sanctioned both by LXX. and Vulg. 






nil. W.) 

in.' 10; 

IT. K» 

Gerehon. KOHATH. Merari. A daughter, J 
Gershunito. Meruriw*. 

Aim-am — Jochebed. lihar. He'irro 
1 1 1 ' 



(1 da. Ml 
AH. Mu 

nxiii. 19 j (i(hr. xi 
S8.J jtxir 

BL. AuMIt 

*». ••) (1 Chr. 

I 1 izrmritM. Hebronitn. 
A.ron = Elisheba. Mo*» = Zipporah. C» Chr. xxiv. is ; (i Chr. xxiii. 19 
| | ' „ xxvi. ja.) xxvi. 23, ao. »•}. 

Gereiom. Eliczi-r. I 

(1 Chr. ix. 19.) 


In time of Davkl, In time of David •• Df the sons of Sons of Hemim (1 Chr. 
••of the «>nsot (1 Chr xxvi. tt, Izhar " (j Chr. (1 Chr. vi. xxw 
Amram" ;l 1»). But " Re- xxiii. 18), in 33). 
Chr. xxiii. 18; habiah " WM» time of David El 
xxif. SO). chii-f of thCBOin (and xxiv. M). , 1 Chr 
of Elicxer in t'.ie 
diiy* of David, nt-cording to 1 Chr. 
xxni. 17; and Sh,-Um.i>th <.H».liirf 
"' """""•"•'"'"" <»»•>*> 



also disclose the wealth and importance of the Ko 
hathites, and the important offices filled by them as 
keepers of the dedicated treasures, as judges, officers, 
and rulers, both secular and sacred. In 2 Chr. xx. 
19, they appear as singers, with the Korhites. 

The number of the sons of Kohath between the 
ages of 30 and . r >0, at the first census in the wilder 
ness, was 2750, and the whole number of malet 
from a month old was 8600 (Num. iii. 28, iv. 36). 
Their number is not given at the second numbering 
(Num. xxvi. 57), but the whole number of Levites 
had increased by 1300, viz. from 22,000 to 23,300 
(Num. iii. 39, xxvi. 62). The place of the sons of 
Kohath in marching and encampment was south of 
the tabernacle (Num. iii. 29), which was also the 
situation of the Keubenites. Samuel was a Ko- 
hathite, and so of course were his descendants, He- 
man the singer and the third division of the singers 
which was uuier him. [HEMAN ; ASAPH ; JE- 
DUTHUN.] The inheritance of those sons of Ko- 
bath who were not priests lay in the half tribe 
of Munasseh, in Kphraim (1 Chr. vi. 61-70\ and 
in Dan (Josh. xxi. 5, 20-26). Of the personal 
history of Kohath we know nothing, except that he 
came down to Egypt with Levi and Jacob (Gen. 
xlvi. 1 1), that his sister was Jochebed (Ex. vi. 20), 
and that he lived to the age of 133 years (Ex. 
vi. 18). He lived about 80 or 90 years in Egypt 
during Joseph's lifetime, and about 30 more after 
his death. He may have been some 20 years 
younger than Joseph his uncle. The table on the 
preceding page shows the principal descents from 
Kohath ; a fuller table may be seen in Burrington's 
0«wafogrtiw,Tab,X.No.l. [LEVITES.] [A.C.H.] 

KOLAT'AH (n^flp : KwXefa ; Cod. Fr. Aug. 
Ko\fia : Colitta). 1. A Benjamite whose de 
scendants settled in Jerusalem after the return from 
the captivity (Neh. xi. 7). 

2. The father of Ahab the false prophet, who 
was burnt by the king of Babylon (Jer. xxix. 21). 

KO'RAH (PHp, "baldness"*: Kop«: Core). 
1. Third son of Esau by Aholibamah (Gen. 
xxxvi. 5, 14, 18; 1 Chr. i. 35). He was born in 
Canaan before Esau migrated to Mount Seir (Gen. 
xxxvi. 5-9), and was one of the " dukes " of Edom. 

2. Another Edom itish duke of this name, sprung 
from Eliphaz, Esau's son by Adah (Gen. xxxvi. 16) ; 
but this is not confirmed by ver. 1 1, nor by the list 
in 1 Chr. i. 36. nor is it probable in itself. 

3. One of the "sons of Hebron" in 1 Chr. ii. 
43 ; but whether, in this obscure passage, Hebron 
is the name of a man or of a city, and whether, in 
the latter case, Korah is the same as the son of 
Izhar (No. 4), whose children may have been located 
»t Hebron among those Kohathites who were 
priest;, is difficult to determine. 

4. Son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of 
Levi. He was leader of the famous rebellion against 
his cousins Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, for 
which he paid the penalty of perishing with his 
followers by an earthquake and rlames of fire (Num. 

1 The moaning of Koran's name (baldness) has 
supplied a ready handle to some members of the 
Church of Rome to banter Calvin (Calvinus, Calvus), 
as being homonymous with his predecessor in schism ; 
and it has been retorted that Konih's baldness has a 
more suitable antitype in the tonsure of the Romish 
priests (Simonis, Otiorit. s. v.). 

k> aiTiAoyta, " contradiction," alluding to his speech 
in Num. xvi. 3, and accompanying rebellion. Compare 
th«* u»e of the mine word in Hcb. xii. 3, Ps. cvi. 32, 


xvi. xxvi. 9-11). The details of this rebellion art 
too well known to need rejietitiou here, but it may 
be well to remark, that the particular grievance 
which rankled in the mind of Korah and his com 
pany was their exclusion from the «*Hce of the 
priesthood, and their being confiued — tnose among 
them who were Levites — to the inferior service of 
the tabernacle, as appears clearly, both from the 
words* of Moses in ver. 9, and from the test resorted 
to with regard to the censers and the offering of 
incense. The same thing also appears from th« 
subsequent confirmation of the priesthood to Aaron 
(ch. xvii.). The appointment of Elizaphan to be 
chief of the Kohathites (Num. iii. 30) may have 
further inflamed his jealousy. Korah's position as 
leader in this rebellion was evidently the result of 
his personal character, which was that of a bold, 
haughty, and ambitious man. This appears from his 
address to Moses in ver. 3, and especially from his 
conduct in ver. 19, where both his daring and his 
influence over the congregation are very apparent. 
Were it not for this, one would have expected the 
Gershonites — as the elder branch of the Levites — to 
have supplied a leader in conjunction with the sons 
of Reuben, rather than the family of Izhar, who was 
Amram's younger brother. From some cause 
which does not clearly appear, the children of Ko 
rah were not involved in the destruction of their 
father, as we are expressly told in Num. xxvi. 11, 
and as appeal's from the continuance of the family 
of the Korahites to the reign, at least of Jeho- 
shaphat (2 Chr. xx. 19), and probably till the return 
from the captivity (1 Chr. ix. 19, 31). fKORA- 
HITES.] Perhaps the fissure of the ground which 
swallowed up the tents of Dathan and Abiram did 
not extend beyond those of the Reubenites. From 
ver. 27 it seems clear that Korah himself was not 
with Dathan and Abiram at the moment. His tent 
may have been one pitched for himself, in contempt 
of the orders of Moses, by the side of his fellow- 
rebels, while his family continued to reside in their 
proper camp nearer the tabernacle ; or it must have 
been separated by a considerable space from those 
of Dathan and Abiram. Or, even if Korah's family 
resided amongst the Reubenites, they may have 
fled, at Moses's warning, to take refuge in the Ko- 
hathite camp, instead of remaining, as the wives 
and children of Dathan and Abiram did (ver. 27). 
Korah himself was doubtless with the 250 men 
who bare censers nearer the tabernacle (ver. 19), 
and perished with them by the " fire from Je 
hovah " which accompanied the earthquake. It is 
nowhere said that he was one of those who " went 
down quick into the pit" (comp. Ps. cvi. 17, 18), 
and it is natural that he should have been with the 
censer-bearers. That he was so is indeed clearly 
implied by Num. xvi. 16-19, 35, 40, compared with 
xxvi. 9, 10. In the N. T. (Jude ver. 11) Korah is 
coupled with Cain and Balaam, and seems to bt 
held out as a warning to those who " despise domi 
nion and speak evil of dignities," of whom it is s:\id 
that they " perished in the gainsaying of Core." b 

and of the verb, John six. 12, and Is. xxii. 22, 
Ixv. 2 (LXX.), in which latter passage, as quoted 
Kom. x. 21, the A. V. has the same expression of 
"gainsaying" as in Jude. The Son of Sirach, follow 
ing P«. cvi. 16, nfc^> -1N3J5V &c. (otherwise rcn- 
dered however by LXX., Ps. cvi. 16, ircuxipyiaoi'}, 
describes Korah and his companions as envious or 
jealous of Moses, where the Knglish " maligned •' li 
hardly an equivalent for e'ojAuxrai'. 


Nothing more is known of Koran's personal cha 
racter or career previous to his rebellion. [A. C. H.J 
KORAHITE (1 Chr. ix. 19, 31), KORHITE, 
or KORATHITE (in Hebrew always *rnj5, or in 



strains to Neman and his choir, and the simpler and 
quieter psalms to tht other choirs. J. van Iperen 
(ap. Kosenm.) assigns these psalms to the times ol 
Jehoshaphat ; others to thost of the Maccabees ; 
Ewald attributes the 42nd Psalm to Jeremiah. 

plur. DVT1J3: never expressed at all by the LXX., , The purpose of manv of the German critics seems 
but paraphrased vloi, STJJUOS, or yevifftis Kopf : to be to reduce the antiquity of the Scriptures as 
Coritae), that portion of the Kohathites who were ', low as possible. 

Others, again, of the sons of Korah were " por- 

descended from Korah, and are frequently styled by 
the synonymous phrase Sons of Korah. [KOHATH.] 
It would appear, at first sight, from Ex. vi. 24, 
that Korah had three sons — Assir, Elkanah, and 
Abiasaph — as Winer, Rosenmiiller, &c., also undcr- 

ters," f. e. doorkeepers, in the temple, an office of 
considerable dignity. In 1 Chr. ix. 17-19, we learn 
that Shallum, a Korahite cf the line of Ebias&ph, 
was chief of the doorkeepers, and that he and his 

stand it,; but as we learn from 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23, I brethren were over the work of the service, keepers 
37, that Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph, were re- j of the gates of the tabernacle (comp. 2 K. xxv. 18} 
spectively the son, grandson, and great-grandson of apparently after the return from the Babylonish 

Korah, it seems obvious that Ex. vi. 24, gives us 
the chief houses sprung from Korah, and not his 
actual sons, and therefore that Elkanah and Abiasaph 
were not the sons, but later descendants of Kornh. 
If, however, Abiasaph was the grandson of Assir 
his name must have been added to this genealogy in 
Exodus later, as he could not have been born at that 
time. Elkanah might, being of the same genera 
tion as Phinehas (Ex. vi. 25). 

The offices filled by the sons of Korah, as far as 
we arc informed, are the following. They were an 
important branch of the singers in the Kohathite 
division, Heman himself being a Korahite (1 Chr. 
vi. 33), and the Korahites being among those who, 
in Jehoshaphat's reign, " stood up to praise the 
Loixl God of Israel with a loud voice on high " 
(2 Chr. xx. 19). [HEMAN.] Hence we find eleven 
Psalms (or twelve, if Ps. 43 is included under the 
same title as Ps. 42) dedicated or assigned to the 
sons of Korah, viz. Ps. 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88. 
Winer describes them as some of the most beautiful 
in the collection, from their high lyric tone. Origen 
says it was a remark of the old interpreters that all 
the Psalms inscribed with the name of the sons of 
Korah are full of pleasant and cheerful subjects, 
and free from anything sad or harsh (/TorntV. on 
1 Kings, i.e. 1 Sam.), and on Matt, xviii. 20, he 
ascribes the authorship of these Psalms to " the 
three sons of Korah," who, " because they agreed 
together had the Word of God in the midst of 
them " (Homil. xiv.).* Of moderns, Rosenmuller 
thinks that the sons of Korah, especially Heman, 
were the authors of these Psalms, which, he says, 
rise to greater sublimity and breathe more vehe 
ment feelings than the Psalms of David, and quotes 
Hensler and Eichhorn as agreeing. De Wette also 
considers the sons of Korah as the authors of them 
(Einl. 335-339), and so does Just. Olshausen on 
the Psalms (Exeg. Handb. Einl. p. 22). As, 
however, the language of several of these Psalms — 
as the 42nd, 84th, &c. — is manifestly meant to 
apply to David, it seems much simpler to explain 
the title " for the sons of Korah," to mean that 
they were given to them to sing in the temple- 
services. If their style of music, vocal and instru 
mental, was of a mure sublime and lyric character 
than that of the sons of Merari or Gershon, and 
Heman had more fire in his execution than Asaph 
and Jeduthun, it is perfectly natural that David 
should have given his more poetic and elevated 

• St. Augustine has a still more fanciful conceit, 
which Ue thinks it necessary to repeat in almost every 
homily on the eleven psalms inscribed to the sons ol 
Kore. Adverting to the interpretation of Korah, 
Cnlvitiet, he finds in it a great mystery. Under 
this term is set forth Christ, who is intitled Calvus, 

captivity. [KINGS.] See also 1 Chr. ix. 22-29 ; 
Jer. xxxv. 4 ; and Ezr. ii. 42. But in 1 Chr. 
xxvi. we find that this official station of the Korah 
ites dated from the time of David, and that their 
chief was then Shelemiah or Meshelemiah, the son 
of (Abi)asaph, to whose custody the east gate fell 
by lot, being the principal entrance. Shelemiah is 
doubtless the same name as Shallum in 1 Chr. ix. 
17, and, perhaps, Meshullam, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12, 
Neh. xii. 25, where, as in so many other places, it 
designates, not the individuals, but the house or 
family. In 2 Chr. xxxi. 14, Kore, the son of Imnah 
the Levite, the doorkeeper towards the east, who was 
over the freewill offerings of God to distribute the 
oblations of the Lord and the most holy things, was 
H'obably a Korahite, as we find the name Kore in 
he family of Korah in 1 Chr. ix. 19. In 1 Chr. 
x. 31, we find that Mattithiah, the first-born of 
Shallum the Korahite, had the set office over the 
.hings that were made in the pans (Burrington's 
•ies ; Patrick, Comment, on Num.; Lyell's 

Princ. of Geol., ch. 23. 24. 25, on Earthquakes; 
iosenmiiller and Olshausen, On Psalms ; De Wette, 
EM.). [A. C. H.] 

KOBATHITES, THE OfTTjpn), Num. xxvi. 

KORHITES, THE (TV^n), Ex. vi. 24, xxvi. 
1 ; 1 Chr. xii. 6 ; 2 Chr. xx.' 19. [KORAHITE.] 

KO'RE (fcO'lp : Kopt ; Alex. Xurf in 1 Chr. 
x. 19; Alex. Koprje, 1 Chr. xxvi. 1: Core). 
1. A Korahite, ancestor of Shallum and Meshele 
miah, chief porters in the reign of David. 

2. (Kop^: Alex. Kwp^.) Son of Imnah, a Levite 
n the reign of Hezekiah, appointed over the free-will 

offerings and most holy things, and a gatekeeper on 
the eastern side of the Temple after the reform of 
worship in Judah (2 Chr. xxxi. 14). 

3. In the A. V. of 1 Chr. xxvi. 19, " the son? 
of KORE" (following the Vulg. Core), should pro 
perly be " the sons of the Korhite." 

KOZ(pp: 'AKKOVS in Ezr. ii.,61; 'A/ows, 
Neh. iii. 4, 21 : Accos in Ezr., Accus in f»en. iii. 4, 
Haccus in Neh iii. 21) = ACCOZ = Coz = HAKKOZ. 

KUSHAI'AH (irW-1p : Kuraias: Casafas), 
The same as KiSH or KISHI, the father of Ethan 
the Merarite (1 Chr. xv. 17). 

because He was crucified on Calvary, and was mocked 
by the bystanders, as Elisha had been by the children 
who cried after him " Calve, calve .'" and who, when 
they said " Go up, thou bald pate," had prefigured the 
crucifixion. The sons of Korah are therefore the 
children of Christ the bridegroom (Homil. on Psalms) 

E 2 


LA 'ADAH (ftty: AooSi: Laadd), the son 
of Shelah, and grandson of Judah. He is described 
as the " father f' or founder, of MARESHAH in the 
lowlands of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 21). 

LA'ADAN (>: AaaSib: Alex. Ta\aaSd 

andAaaSa: Laadari). 1. An Ephraimite, ancestor 
of Joshua the son of Nun (I Chr. vii. 26). 

2. (*E8<fi'; Alex. AtaSdv ; Leedan, 1 Chr. xxiii. 
7, 8, 9: AjSdv; Alex. teSdv and AooSi: Ledan, 
1 Chr. xxvi. 21.) The son of Gershom, elsewhere 
called LlRNi. His descendants in the reign of David 
were among the chief fathers of his tribe, and 
formed part of the Temple-choir. 

LAB'AN (J3 1 ?, AetjSav; Joseph. AajSwos: 
Laban), son of Bethuel, grandson of Nahor and 
Milcah, grand-nephew of Abraham, brother of Re- 
bekah, and father of Leah and Rachel ; by whom 
and their handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah he was the 
natural progenitor of three-fourths of the nation of 
the Jews, and of our Blessed Lord, and the legal 
ancestor of the whole. 

The elder branch of the family remained at Haran 
when Abraham removed to the laud of Canaan, and 
it is there that we first meet with Laban, as taking 
the leading part in the betrothal of his sister Re- 
bekah to her cousin Isaac (Gen. xxiv. 10, 29-60, 
xxvii. 43, xxix. 4). Bethuel, his father, plays so 
insignificant a part in the whole transaction, being 
in fact only mentioned once, and that after his son 
(xxiv. 50), that various conjectures have been formed 
to explain it. Josephus asserts that Bethuel was 
dead, and that Laban was the head of the house and 
his sister's natural guardian (Ant. i. 16, §2); in 
which case " Bethuel " must have crept into the 
text inadvertently, or be supposed, with some (Adam 
Clarke, in loc.), to be the name of another brother of 
Rebekah. Le Clerc (in Pent.) mentions the conjec 
ture that Bethuel was absent at first, but returned in 
time to give his consent to the marriage. The mode 
adopted by Prof. Blunt ( Undesigned Coincidences, 
p. 35) to explain what he terms " the consistent 
insignificance of Bethuel," viz., that he was inca 
pacitated from taking the management of his family 
by age or imbecility, is most ingenious ; but the 
prominence of Laban may be sufficiently explained 
by the custom of the country, which then, as now 
(see Niebuhr, quoted by Rosenmiiller in foe.), gave 
the brothers the main share in the arrangement 
of their sister's marriage, and the defence of her 
honour (comp. Gen. xxxiv. 13; Judg.xxi.22 ; 2Sam. 
xiii. 20-29). [BETHUEL.] 

The next time Laban appears in the sacred nar 
rative it is as the host of his nephew Jacob at Haran 
(Gea. xxix. 13, 14). The subsequent transactions 
by which he secured the valuable sen-ices of his 
nephew for fourteen years in return for his two 
daughters, and for six years as the price of his 
cattle, together with the disgraceful artifice by 
»rhich he palmed off his elder and less attractive 
daughter on the unsuspecting Jacob, are familiar 
to all (Gen. xxix., xxx.). 

Laban was absent shearing his sheep, when Jacob, 
having gathered together all his possessions, started 
with his wives and children for his native land; and 
it was not till the third day that he heard of their 
bt n ;ilthy dcparUiiT, In Lot haste he sets off in 


pursuit of the fugitives, his indignation at the 
prospect of losing a servant, the value of whose 
services he had proved by experience (xxx. 27), and 
a family who he hoped would have increased the 
power of his tribe, being increased by the discovery 
of the loss of his teraphim, or household gods, which 
Rachel had earned off, probably with the view 
of securing a prosperous journey. Jacob and his 
family had crossed the Euphrates, and were already 
some days' march in advance of their pursuers ; 
but so large a caravan, encumbered with women 
and children, and cattle, would travel but sJowly 
(comp. Gen. sxxiii. IS), and Laban and his kinsmen 
came up with the retreating party on the east side 
of the Jordan, among the mountains of Gileod. The 
collision with his irritated father-in-law might have 
proved dangerous for Jacob but for a divine intima 
tion to Laban, who, with characteristic hypocrisy, 
passes over in silence the real ground of his dis 
pleasure at Jacob's departure, urging only its clan • 
destine character, which had prevented his sending 
him away with marks of affection and honour, and 
the theft of his gods. After some sharp mutual re 
crimination, and an unsuccessful search for th« 
teraphim, which Rachel, with the cunning which 
characterized the whole family, knew well how to 
hide, a covenant of peace was entered into between 
the two parties, and a cairn raised about a pillar- 
stone set up by Jacob, both as a memorial of the 
covenant, and a boundary which the contracting 
parties pledged themselves not to pass with hostile 
intentions. After this, in the simple and beautiful 
words of Scripture, " Laban rose up and kissed his 
sons and his daughters, and blessed them, and de 
parted, and returned to his place ;" and he thence* 
forward disappears from the Biblical narrative. 

Kew Scriptural characters appear in more re 
pulsive colours than Laban, who seems to have 
concentrated all the duplicity and acquisitiveness 
which marked the family of Haran. The leading 
principle of his conduct was evidently self-interest, 
and he was little scrupulous as to the means whereby 
his ends were secured. Nothing can excuse the 
abominable trick by Which he deceived Jacob in the 
matter of his wife, and there is much of harshness 
and mean selfishness in his other relations with him. 
At the same time it is impossible, on an unbiassed 
view of the whole transactions, to acquit Jacob of 
blame, or to assign him any very decided superiority 
over his uncle in fair and generous dealing. In the 
matter of the flocks each was evidently seeking to 
outwit the other ; and though the whole was di 
vinely overruled to work out important issues in 
securing Jacob's return to Canaan in wealth and 
dignity, our moral sense revolts from what Chalmers 
(Daily Scr. Readings, i. 60) does not shrink from 
designating the " sneaking artifices for the promo 
tion of his own selfishness," adopted for his own 
enrichment and the impoverishment of his uncle ; 
while we can well excuse Laban's mortification at 
seeing himself outdone by his nephew in cunning, 
and the best of his flocks changing hands. In their 
mistaken zeal to defend Jacob, Christian writers 
have unduly depreciated Laban ; and even the 
ready hospitality shewn by him to Abraham's ser 
vant, and the affectionate reception of his nephew 
(Gen. xxiv. 30, 31, xxix. 13, 14), have been mis 
construed into the acts of a selfish man, eager to 
embrace an opportunity of a lucrative connexion 
No man, however, is wholly selfish ; and even 
Laban was capable of generous impulses, however 
mean and unprincipled his general conduct. [K.V.] 


LA'BAN (J3/ : h.ofi&v : Labari), one of the | Lachish occurs in the same place with regard to the 

Jandmarks named in the obscure and disputed 
passage, Deut. i. 1 : " Paran, and Tophel, and 
Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab." The mention 
of Hazeroth has perhaps led to the only conjecture 
regarding Laban of which the writer is aware, 
namely, that it is identical with LIBNAH (Num. 
xx.xiii. 130), which was the second station from 

The Syriac Peschito understands the name as 
Lebanon. The Targums, from Onkelos downward, 
play upon the five names in this passage, connecting 
them with the main events of the wanderings. 
Laban in this way suggests the manna, because of 
its white colour, that being the force of the word 
in Hebrew. [G.J 

LAB'ANA (A-afavd : Laband), 1 Esd. v. 29. 


LACEDEMO'NIANS (^iraprMTai ; once Ao- 
KeSatjuopioi, 2 Mace. v. 9 : Spartiatae, Spartiani, 
Lacedaemon/te'), the inhabitants of Sparta or Lace- 
daemon, with whom the Jews claimed kindred 
(1 Mace. xii. 2, 5, 6, 20, 21 ; xiv. 20, 23 ; xv. 23 ; 
2 Mace. v. 9). [SPARTA.] 

LA'CHISH (Wlh : Aa X ek ; but in Vat. of 
Josh. xv. MaxTjs ;* Joseph. Adx f lffa '• Lachis), a 
city of the Amorites, the king of which joined with 
four others, at the invitation of Adonizedek king of 
Jerusalem, to chastise the Gibeonites for their league 
with Israel (Josh. x. 3, 5). They were however 
routed by Joshua at Beth-horon, and the king of 
Lachish fell a victim with the others under the 
trees at Makkedah (ver. 26). The destruction of 
the town seems to have shortly followed the death 
of the king : it was attacked in its turn, immediately 
after the fall of Libnah, and notwithstanding an 
effort to relieve it by Horara king of Gezer, was 
taken, and every soul put to the sword (ver. 3 1-33). 
In the special statement that the attack lasted two 
days, in contradistinction to the other cities v/hich 
were taken in one (see ver. 35), we gain our first 
glimpse of that strength of position for which 
Lachish was afterwards remarkable. In the cata 
logue of the kings slain by Joshua (xii. 10-12), 

others as in the narrative just quoted ; but in Josh, 
xv., where the towns are separated into groups, it 
is placed in the Shefelah, or lowland district, and 
in the same group with Eglon and Makkedah (ver 
39), apart from its former companions. It should 
not be overlooked that, though included in the low 
land district, Lachish was a town of the Amorites, 
who appear to have been essentially mountaineers. 
Its king is expressly named as one of the " kings of 
the Amorites who dwell in the mountains" (Josh. 
x. 6). A similar remark lias already been made of 
JARMUTH ; KEILAH, and others ; and see J0DAH, 
vol. i. 1156 6. Its proximity to Libnah is im 
plied many centuries later (2 K. xix. 8). Lachish 
was one of the cities fortified and garrisoned by 
Rehoboam after the revolt of the northern king 
dom (2 Chr. xi. 9). What was its fate duriug the 
invasion of Shishak — who no doubt advanced by the 
usual route through the maritime lowland, which 
would bring him under its very walls — we are not 
told. But it is probable that it did not materially 
suffer, for it was evidently a place of security later, 
when it was chosen as a refuge by Ainaziah king 
of Judah from the conspirators who threatened 
him in Jerusalem, and to whom he at last fell a 
victim at Lachish (2 K. xiv. 19, 2 Chr. xxv. 27). 
Later still, in the reign of Hezekiah, it was one of 
the cities taken by Sennacherib when on his way 
from Phoenicia to Egypt (Rawlinson's Herod, i. 477) . 
It is specially mentioned that he laid siege to it 
" with all his power" (2 Chr. xxxii. 9) ; and here 
" the great King" himself remained, while his officen> 
only were dispatched to Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxxii. 9 ; 
2 K. xviii. 17). 

This siege is considered by Layard and Hincks 
to be depicted on the slabs found by the former in 
one of the chambers of the palace at Kouyunjik, 
which bear the inscription " Sennacherib, the mighty 
king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting oil the 
throne of judgment before (or at the entrance of) 
the city of Lachish fLakhisha). I give permission 
for its slaughter '' ^Layard, N. $ B, 149-52, and 
153, note). These slabs contain a view of a city 
which, if the inscription is correctly interpreted, 
must be Lachish itself. 

Fig 1 The city of Laclnsh repellmu "in 
attack of Sennacherib. From l.aynrd'» Monn 
menu of Nineveh, <nd Series, p if.- il 

• The ordinary editions of the Vatican LXX., Tlschen- 
dorf 's Included, give Aaxi's, and the Alex. Aa^tis ; but 
the edition of the former by Cardinal Mai lias tlie Aaxeic. 

throughout. In Josh. xv. 39, all trace of Lachlsh lias dis 
appeared in the common editions ; but in Mai's, Maxijs u 
Insfi-twi between 'lawapeTjA and KCU IWtjiSwfl. 



Another slab seems to show the ground-plan of j the Bible as to the position cf Lachisli. The elerv 

Ihe same city after its occupation by the con 
querors — the Assyrian tents pitchjd within the 
walls, and the foreign worship going on. The 
features of the town appear to be accurately given. 
At any rate there is considerable agreement be 
tween the two views in the character of the walls 
and towers, and both are unlike those represented on 
other slabs. Both support in a remarkable manner 
the conclusions above drawn from the statement of 

tion of the town, fig. 1, shows that it was on hilly 
ground, one part higher than the other. This i: 
also testified to by the background of the scene in 
fig. 2, which is too remote to be included in the 
limits of the woodcut, but which in the original 
shows a very hilly country covered with vineyard* 
and fig-trees. On the other hand the palms round 
the town in fig. 2 point to the proximity of the 
maritime plain, in which palms flourished — and st'lf 

Pig i. l'ian of Uichiio (?) after its capture. From the tame work, plate &t 

flouiish — more than in any other region of Palestine. 
But though the Assyrian records thus appear b to 
assert the capture of Lachish, no statement is to be 
found either in the Bible or Josephus that it was 
taken. Indeed some expressions in the former would 
almost seem to imply the reverse (see " thought to win 
them," 2 Chr. xxxii. 1 ; " departed from Lachish," 
2 K. xix. 8 ; and especially Jer. xxxiv. 7). 

The warning of Micah (i. 13) d was perhaps de 
livered at this time. Obscure as the passage is, it 
plainly implies that from Lachish some form of 
idolatry, possibly belonging to the northern kingdom, 
had been imported into Jerusalem. 

After the return from captivity, Lachish with 
its surrounding " fields " was re-occupied by the 
Jews (Neh. xi. 30). It is not however named in 
the books of the Maccabees, nor indeed does its name 
reappear in the Bible. 

By Eusebius and Jerome, in the Onomasticon, 
Lachish is mentioned as " 7 miles from Eleuthero- 
polis, towards Daroma," ». ?. towards the south. No 
trace of the name has yet been found in any position 
at all corresponding to this. Asitecallel Um-L&kis, 
situated on a " low round swell or knoll," and dis 
playing a few columns and other fragments of ancient 
buildings, is found between Gaza and Beit-Jibrin, 
probably the ancienv Eleutheropolis, at the distance 

» Col. Kawlinson seems to read the name as Lubaua, 
t e. l.ibnali (l-ayard, X. .(• K. 153, note). 

c 'I hk is U!MJ the opinion of lUwlinson (Hood. i. 480 

•I-. Ii 6). 

of 1 1 miles (14 Roman miles), and in a direction not 
S., but about W.S.W. from the latter. Two miles 
east of Um-Lakis is a site of similar character, called 
'Ajl&n (Rob. ii. 46, 7). Among modern travellers, 
these sites appear to have been first discovered by 
Dr. Robinson. While admitting the identity of A j Ian 
with EGLON, he disputes that of Um-Lakis, on the 
ground that it is at variance with the statement of 
Eusebius, as above quoted; and further that the 
remains are not those of a fortified city able to brave 
an Assyrian army (47). On the other hand, in favour 
of the identification are the proximity of Eglon (if 
'Ajldn be it), and the situation of Um-Ldkis in the 
middle of the plain, right in the road from Egypt 
By " Daroma " also Eusebius may have intended, not 
the southern district, but a place of that name, which 
is mentioned in the Talmud, and is placed by the 
accurate old traveller hap-Parchi as two hours south 
of Gaza (Zunz in Bcnj. of Tudela, by Asher, ii. 442). 
With regard to the weakness erf Um-Lakis, Mr. 
Porter has a good comparison between it and Ash- 
dod (Handbk. 261). [G.J 

LACU'NUS (Aaicicovvos : Caleus*), one of the 
sons of Addi, who returned with Ezra, and had 
married a foreign wife (1 Esd. is. 31). The name 
does not occur in this form in the parallel lists of 
Ezr. x., but it apparently occupies the place of 

d Tin- play of the words is between I«u ish mud Reces\ 

A.V "s.wift U-asf"), u:nl 'lie rxlu.rtaliim is tc 



CHELAL (ver. 30), as is indicated by the Calcus \ 
of the Vulg. 

LA'DAN (AaA.t£i>, Tisch., but 'Affav in Mai's j 
fd. : Dalarus], 1 Esd. v. 37. [DELAIAH, 2.] 


Tvpov: a terminis Tyri, possibly reading 
one of the extremities (the northern) of the district 
over which Simon Maccabaeus was made captain 
{ffrpo.Ti}y6s) by Autiochus VI. (or Theos), very 
shortly after his coming to the throne ; the other 
being "the borders of Egypt" (1 Mace. xi. 59). 
The Ladder of Tyre," or of the Tyrians, was the local 
name for a high mountain, the highest in that 
neighbourhood, a hundred stadia north of Ptolemais, 
the modern Akka or Acre (Joseph. B.J. ii. 10, §2). 
The position of the Eos-en- Nakhurah agrees very 
nearly with this, as it lies 10 miles, or about 120 
stadia, from Akka, and is characterised by travellers 
from Parchi downwards as very high and steep. 
Both the Ras-en- Nakhurah, and the Ras-el-Abyad, 
i.e. the White Cape, sometimes called Cape Blanco, a 
headland 6 miles still farther north, are surmounted 
by a path cut in zigzags ; that over the latter is 
attributed to Alexander the Great. It is possibly 
from this circumstance that the Ras-el-Abyad,^ is 
by some travellers (Irby, Van de Velde, &c.) treated 
as the ladder of the Tyrians. But by the early and 
accurate Jewish traveller, hap-Parchi c (Zunz, 402), 
and in our own times by Robinson (iii. 89), Misliii 
(Les Saints Lieux, ii. 9), Porter (Hdbfi. 389), 
Schwarz (76), Stanley (S. & P. 264), the Ras-ei^- 
Nakhurah is identified with the ladder ; the last- 
named traveller pointing out well that the reason 
lor the name is the fact of its " differing from 
Carmel in that it leaves no beach between itself and 
the sea, and thus, by cutting off all communication 
round its base, acts as the natural barrier between 
the Bay of Acre and the maritime plain to the 
north — in other words, between Palestine and Phoe 
nicia" (comp. p. 266). [G.] 

LA'EL (btfV: Aa^\: Lael), the father of 
Eliasaph, prince of the Gershonites at the time of 
the Exodus (Num. iii. 24). 

LA'HAD (ir6: AoctS ; Alex. A<£5: Laad}, 
t>on of Jahath, one of the descendants of Judah, 
from whom sprang the Zorathites, a branch of the 
tribe who settled at Zorah, according to the Targ. 
of R. Joseph (1 Chr. iv. 2). 

LAHA'I-ROI, THE WELL ('NT »l$ liO : 
rb <pptap TTJS 6pAffe<as : puteus, cujus nomen est 
Viventis et Vidcntis). In this form is given in the 
A. V. of Gen. xxiv. 62, and xxv. 11, the name ot 
the famous well of Hagar's relief, in the oasis ot 
verdure round which Isaac afterwards resided. In 
xvi. 14 — the only other occurrence of the name— 
it is represented in the full Hebrew form of BEER- 
LAHAJ-ROI. In the Mussulman traditions the well 
Zcmzem in the Bcit-allah of Mecca is identical with 
it. [LEHI.] [G.] 


LAH'MAM (DEr: Mire's «ol Moa^s; 
Alex. Aa/uas : Leheman, Lcemas), a town in the 
lowland district of Judah (Josh. xy. 40) named 
between CABHON and KITHLISH, and in the same 
group with LACHISH. It is not mentioned in the 
Onomasticon, nor does it appear that any traveller 
has sought for or discovered its site. 

In many MSS. and editions of the Hebrew Bible, 
amongst them the Rec. Text of Van der Hooght, the 
nnme is given with a final s — Lachmas.' Corrupt 
as the LXX. text is here, it will be observed that 
both MSS. exhibit the s. This is the case also in 
the Targum and the other Oriental versions. The 
ordinary copies of the Vulgate have Leheman, but 
the text published in the Benedictine Edition of 
Jerome Leemas. G/ 

LAH'MI OOr : Tbv 'E\f^f ; Alex. rbt> 
fjue?: Eeth-lehem-ites), the brother of Goliath 
the Gittite, slain by Elhanan the son of Jair, or Jaor 
(1 Chr. xx. 5). In the parallel narrative (2 Sam. 
xxi. 19), amongst other differences, Lahmi disappears 
in the word Beth hal-lachmi, i.e. the Bethlehemite. 
This reading is imported into the Vulgate of the 
Chron. (see above). What was the original form 
of the passage has been the subject of much debate ; 
the writer has not however seen cause to alter the 
conclusion to which he came under ELHANAN — that 
the text of Chronicles is the more correct of the two. 
In addition to the LXX., the Peschito and the Tar- 
gum both agree with the Hebrew in reading Lachmi. 
The latter contains a tradition that he was slain on 
the same day with his brother. [G.] 

LA'ISH (V^ ; in Isaiah, r\&h : Aa«ra; Judg. 
xviii. 29, Ov\afj.als ;' Alex. Aaeis: Lais), the city 
which was taken by the Danites, and under its new 
name of DAN became famous as the northern limit 
of the nation, and as the depository, first of the 
graven image of Micah (Judg. xviii. 7, 14, 27, 29), 
and subsequently of one of the calves of Jeroboam. 
In another account of the conquest the name is 
given, with a variation in the form, as LESHEM 
(Josh. xix. 47). It is natural to presume that 
Laish was an ancient sanctuary, before its appio- 
priation for that purpose by the Danites, and we 
should look for soir.e explanation of the mention of 
Dan instead of Laish in Gen. xiv. ; but nothing is as 
yet forthcoming on these points. There is no reason 
to doubt that the situation of the place was at or 
very near that of tin- modem Bunias. [DAN.] 

In the A. V. Laish is again mentioned in the 
graphic account by Isaiah of Sennacherib's march 
on Jerusalem (Is. x. 30) : — " Lift up thy voice, 
daughter of Gallim ! cause it to be heard unto 
Laish, oh poor Anathoth !" — that is, cry so loud 
that your shrieks shall be heard to the very confines 
j of the land. This translation — in which our trans 
lators followed the version of Junius andTremellius, 
and the comment of Grotius — is adopted because 
the ia»t syllable of the name which appears here <u> 
Laishah is taken to be the Hebrew particle of mo- 

a This name is found in the Talmud, -fl %n 
See Zun* (Ben], of Tud. 402). 

b Maundreli, ordinarily so exact (March 17), places " the 
mountain climax " at an hour and a quarter south of the 
Xahr Ibrahim Bafsa (Adonis River), meaning therefore the 
headland which encloses on the north the bay of Junch 
ubove Beirut ' On the other hand, Irby and Mangles 
(Oct. 21) with equally unusual inaccuracy, give the name 
ul Cape Blanco to the Has .VafcuroA— an hour's ride from 
Kx-Zib. the ancient Kcdippa. Wilson also (ii 4 W2) IIHK 

fallen into a curious confusion between the two. 

c He gives the name as Al-Nanakir, probably a mere 
corruption of En-Xakura. 

d DtDH? i° r DDH?. b y interchange of Q and Q. 
e The LXX. have here transferred literally the 
Hebrew words 5^17 D7-1XV " atlli indeed I^aish." 

Exactly the same thing is done in tlin rase of Luz, (Jcu 
xxvlii. 19. 



tion, " to Laish," as is undoubtedly the case in Judg. 
rviii. 7. But such a rendering is found neither in 
any of the ancient versions, nor in those of modern 
scholars, as Gesenius, Ewald, Zunz, &c. ; nor is 
the Hebrew word ' here rendered " cause it to be 
heard," found elsewhere in that voice, but always 
absolute — "hearken," or "attend." There is a 
certain violence in the sudden introduction amongst 
these little Benjamite villages of the frontier town so 
very far remote, and not leas in the use of its ancient 
name, elsewhere so constantly superseded by Dan. 
(See Jer. viii. 16.) On the whole it seems more 
consonant with the tenor of the whole passage to take 
Laishah as the name of a small village lying between 
Gallim and Anathoth, and of which hitherto, as is 
still the case with the former, and until 1831 was 
the case with the latter, no traces have been fonnd. 
In 1 Mace. ix. 5 a village named Alasa (Mai, and 
Alex. 'AAcwra; A. V. Eleasa) is mentioned as the 
scene of the battle in which Judas was killed. In 
the Vulgate it is given as Laisa. If ti^ Berea at 
which Demetrius was encamped o~ the same occasion 
was Beeroth — and from the Peschito reading this 
seems likely — then Alasa or Laisha was somewhere 
on th>? northern road, 10 or 12 miles from Jerusalem, 
about the spot at which a village named Adasa 
existed in the time of Eusebius and Jerome. D (A) 
and L (A) are so often interchanged in Greek manu 
scripts, that the two names may indicate one and 
the same place, and that the Laishah of Isaiah. 
Such an identification would be to a certain extent 
consistent with the requirements of Is. x. 30, while 
it would throw some light on the uncertain topo 
graphy of the last struggle of Judas Maccabaeus. 
But it must be admitted that at present it is but 
conjectural ; and that the neighbourhood of Beeroth 
is at the best somewhat far removed from the narrow 
circle of the villages enumerated by Isaiah. [G.] 

LA'ISH (B>£ ; in 2 Sam. the orig. text, Cethib, 

has Wr? : 'Apels, SfXXTJJ ; Alux. Aofs, Aae/s : 
Lais), father of Phaltiel, to whom Saul had given 
Michal, David's wife (1 Sam. xxv. 44 ; 2 Sam. iii. 
15). He was a native of GALLIM. It is very 
remarkable that the names of Laish (Laishah) and 
Gallim should be found in conjunction at a much 
later date (Is. x. 30). [G.j 


LA'KUM (Qlfb, i.e. Lakkum: AwSe£/i; Alex. 

— unusually wide of the Hebrew — ius 'A/cpou : 
Lemm), one of the places which formed the land 
marks of the boundary of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 33), 
named next to Jabneel, and apparently between it 
and the Jordan : but the whole statement is exceed 
ingly obscure, and few, if any, of the names have 
yet been recognised. Lakkum is but casually named 
in the Onoinasticon, and no one since has discovered 
its situation. The rendering of the Alex. LXX. is 
worth remark. [G.] 

LAMB. 1. "1J2K, immar, is the Chaldee equi 
valent of the Hebrew cebes. See below, No. 3 (Ezr. 
ri. 9, 17; vii. 17). 

2. r6tt, taleh (1 Sam. vii. 9 ; Is. Ixv. 25), a 
young sucking lamb ; originally the young of any 
animal. The noun from the same root in Arabic 
signifies "a fawn," in Ethiopic " a kid," in Sama- 
fitan " a boy ;" while in Syriac it denotes " a 
my," and in the fern. " a girl." Hence " TcAitha 

. hipinl imp., from 


kumi," "Damsel, arise!" (Mark v. 41). Theplnral 
of a cognate form occurs in Is. xl. 11. 

3. KO?> ce bes, 2B-'3, ceseb, and the feminine 

3, cibs&h, or nK>33, cabsdh, and n2B>3, cis- 

: • T : - T : • 

bdh, respectively denote a male and female lamb from 
the first to the third year. The former perhaps 
more nearly coincide with the provincial term hoy 
or hogget, which is applied to a young ram before he 
is shorn. The corresponding word in Arabic, accord 
ing to Gesenius, denotes a ram at that period when 
he has lost his first two teeth and four others make 
their appearance, which happens in the second 01 
third year. Young rams of this age formed an im 
portant part of almost every sacrifice. They we-r 
offered at the daily morning and evening sacrifice 
(Ex. xxix. 38-41), on the sabbath day (Num. xxviii. 
9), at the feasts of the new moon (Num. xxviii. 11), 
of trumpets (Num. xxix. 2), of tabernacles (Num. 
xxix. 13-40), of Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 18-20), and 
of the Passover (Ex. xii. 5). They were brought 
by the princes of the congregation as burnt-offerings 
at the dedication of the tabernacle (Num. vii.), and 
were offered on solemn occasions like the consecra 
tion of Aaron (Lev. ix. 3), the coronation of Solomon 
(1 Chr. xxix. 21), the purification of the temple 
under Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 21), and the great 
passover held in the reign of Josiah (2 Chr. xxxv. 7). 
They formed part of the sacrifice offered at the puri 
fication of women after childbirth (Lev. xii. 6;, and 
at the cleansing of a leper (Lev. xiv. 10-25). They 
accompanied the presentation of first-fruits (Lev. 
xxiii. 12). When the Nazarites commenced their 
period of separation they offered a he-lamb for a 
trespass-offering (Num. vi. 12) ; and at its conclu 
sion a he-lamb was sacrificed as a burnt-offering, 
and an ewe-lamb as a sin-offering (v. 14). An ewe- 
lamb was also the offering for the sin of ignorance 
(Lev. iv. 32). 

4. 13, car, a fat ram, or more probably 
" wether," as the word is generally employed in 
opposition to ayil, which strictly denotes a " ram " 
(Deut. xxxii. 14 ; 2 K. iii. 4 ; Is. xxxiv. 6). Mesha 
king of Moab sent tribute to the king of Israel 
100,000 fat wethers; and this circumstance is made 
use of by R. Joseph Kimchi to explain Is. xvi. 1, 
which he regards as an exhortation to the Moabites 
to renew their tribute. The Tyrians obtained their 
supply from Arabia and Kedar (Ez. xxvii. 21), and 
the pastures of Bashan were famous as grazing 
grounds (Ez. xxxix. 18). 

5. |NV, tson, rendered " lamb" in Ex. xii. 21, 
is properly a collective term denoting a " fioi'k " of 
small cattle, sheep and goats, in distinction irom 
herds of the larger animals (Eccl. ii. 7 ; Ez. xl v. 1 i). 
In opposition to this collective term the word 

6. fit?, seh, is applied to denote the individuals 

of a flock, whether sheep or goats ; and hence, though 
" lamb" is in many passages the rendering of the 
A. V., the marginal reading gives "kid '" (Gen. xxii. 
7, 8 ; Ex. xii. 3, xxii. 1, &c.). [SHEEP.] 

On the Paschal Lamb see PASSOVER. [\V. A. W.] 

LAM'ECH (yck: Ao/i*'*: Lnrnecli), properly 

Lemech, the name of two persons in antediluvian 
history. 1. The fifth lineal descendant from ('ain 
(Gen. iv. 18-24). He is the only one except Enoch, 
of the posterity of Cain, whose history is related 
with some detail. He is the first, poly<;amist on 
record. His two wives, Adah anil /Cillali, and his 
daughter Naamali, are, with Eve, the onlr antedi- 


mvian women whose names are mentioned by Moses. 
His three son? — JAHAL, JOBAL, and TDBAL-CAIN, 
are celebrated in Scripture as authors of useful in 
ventions. The Targuin of Jonathan adds, that his 
daughter was " the mistress of sounds and songs," 
i. e. the first poetess. Josephus (Ant. i. 2, § 2) 
relates that the number of his sons was seventy- 
seven, and Jerome records the same tradition, add 
ing that they were all cut off by the Deluge, and 
that this was the seventy-and-sevenfold vengeance 
which Lamech imprecated. 

The remarkable poem which Lamech uttered has 
not yet been explained quite satisfactorily*. It is the 
subject of a dissertation by Hilliger in Thesaurus 
Theologico-Philol. i. 141, and is discussed at length 
by the various commentators on Genesis. The 
history of the descendants of Cain closes with a 
song, which at least threatens bloodshed. Delitzsch 
observes, that as the arts which were afterwards 
consecrated by pious men to a heavenly use, had 
their origin in the . family of Cain, so this early 
effort of poetry is composed in honour, not of God, 
but of some deadly weapon. It is the only extant 
specimen of antediluvian poetry ; it came down, 
perhaps as a popular song, to the generation for 
whom Moses wrote, and he inserts it in its proper 
place in his history. Delitzsch traces in it all the 
peculiar features of later Semitic poetry ; rhythm, 
assonance, parallelism, strophe, and poetic diction. 
It may be rendered : — 

Adah and Zillah ! hear my voice, 

Ye wives of Lamech ! give ear unto my speech ; 
For a man had 1 slain for smiting me, 

And a youth for wounding me : 
Surely sevenfold shall Cain be avenged. 

But Lamech seventy and seven. 

The A. V. makes Lamech declare himself a mur 
derer, " I have slain a man to my wounding," &c. 
This is the view taken in the LXX. and the Vulgate. 
Chrysostom (Horn. xx. in Gen.) regards Lamech as 
a murderer stung by remorse, driven to make public 
confession of his guilt solely to ease his conscience, 
and afterwards (Horn, in Ps. vi.) obtaining mercy. 
Theodoret (Quaest. in Gen. xliv.) sets him down as 
a murderer. Basil (Ep. 260 [317], §5) interprets 
Lamech 's words to mean that he had committed 
two murders, and that he deserved a much severer 
punishment than Cain, as having sinned after plainer 
warning ; Basil adds, that some persons interpret 
the last lines of the poem, as meaning, that whereas 
Cain's sin increased, and was followed after seven 
generations by the punishment of the Deluge wash 
ing out the foulness of the world, so Lamech 's sin 
shall be followed in the seventy-seventh (see St. 
Luke iii. 23-38) generation by the coming of Him 
svho taketh away the sin of the world. Jerome 
[Ep. xxxvi. ad Damasum, t. i. p. 161) relates as a 
tradition of his predecessors and of the Jews, that 
Cain was accidentally slain by Lamech in the seventh 
generation from Adam. This legend is told with 
fuller details by Jarchi. According to him, the 
occasion of the poem was the refusal of Lamech's 
wives to associate with him in consequence of his 
having killed Cain and Tubal-cain ; Lamech, it is 
said, was blind, and was led about by Tubal-cain : 
when the latter saw in the thicket what he sup 
posed to be a wild-beast, Lamech, by his son's 
direction, shot an arrow at it, and thus slew Cain ; 
in alarm and indignation at the utt'd, he killed his 
son ; hence his wives refused to associate with him ; 
u.d he excuses himself ;it> having acted without 


a vengeful or murderous purpose. Luther con 
siders the occasion of the poem to be tho deliberate 
murder of Cain by Lamech. Lightfoot (Decaa 
Chorogr. Marc, praem. § iv.) considers Lamech as 
expressing remorse for having, as the first poly- 
gamist, introduced more destruction and murder 
than Cain was the author of into the world. Pfeiffer 
(Diff. Scrip. Loc. p. 25) collects different opinions 
with his ufual diligence, and concludes that the 
poem is Lamech's vindication of himself to his 
wives, who were in terror for the possible conse 
quences of his having slain two of the posterity of 
Seth. Lowth (De S. Poesi Heb. iv.) and Michaelis 
think that Lamech is excusing himself for some 
murder which he had committed in self-defence, 
" for a wound inflicted on me." 

A rather milder interpretation has been given to 
the poem by some, whose opinions are perhaps of 
greater weight than the preceding in a question 01' 
Hebrew criticism. Onkelos, followed by Pseudo- 
Jonathan, paraphrases it, " I have not slain a man that 
I should bear sin on his account." The Arab. Ver. 
(Saadia) puts it in an interrogative form, " Have I 
slain a man ?" &c. These two versions, which we 
substantially the same, are adopted by De Dieu and 
Bishop Patrick. Aben-Ezra, Calvin, Drusius, and 
Cartwright, interpret it in the future tense as a 
threat, " 1 will slay any man who wounds me." 
This version is adopted by Herder; whose hypo 
thesis as to the occasion of the poem was partly 
anticipated by Hess, and has been received by Ko- 
senmiiller, Ewald, and Delitzsch. Herder regards it 
as Lamech's song of exultation on the invention of 
the sword by his son Tubal-cain, in the possession 
of which he foresaw a great advantage to himself 
and his family over any enemies. This interpreta 
tion appears, on the whole, to be the best that has 
been suggested. But whatever interpretation be 
preferred, all persons will agree in the remark of 
Bp. Kidder that the occasion of the poem not being 
revealed, no man can be expected to determine the 
full sense of it ; thus much is plain, that they are 
vaunting words in which Lamech seems, from 
Cain's indemnity, to encourage himself in violence 
and wickedness. 

2. The father of Noah (Gen. v. 29). Chrysostom 
(Senn. ix. in Gen. and Horn. xxi. in Gen.}, perhap* 
thinking of the character of the other Lamech. 
speaks of this as an unrighteous man, though moved 
by a divine impulse to give a prophetic name to his 
son. Buttman and others, observing that the names 
of Lamech and Enoch are found in the list of 
Seth's, as well as in the list of Cain's family, infer 
that the two lists are merely different versions or 
recensions of one original list, — traces of two con 
flicting histories of the first human family. This 
theory is deservedly repudiated by Delitzsch on 
Gen. v. [W. T. B.J 

LAMENTATIONS. The Hebrew title of this 
Book, Echah (rO^N), is taken, like those of the five 
Books of Moses, from the Hebrew word with which 
it opens, and which appears to have been almost a 
received formula for the commencement of a song of 
wailing (comp. 2 Sam. i. 19-27). The Septuagint 
translators found themselves obliged, as in the 
other cases referred to, to substitute some title mora 
significant, and adopted Bpfjvot 'Ifpf/tiov as the equi 
valent of Kinoth (fli)*j5, " lamentations"), which 
they found in Jer. vii. 29, ix. 10, 20, 2 Chr. 
xxxv. 25, and which had probably beer, applied 



familiarly, as it was afterwards by Jewish com 
mentators, to the Book itself. The Vulgate gives 
the Greek word and explains it (Threni, id est, 
Lamentationes Jeretniae Prophetae). Luther and 
the A. V. have given the translation only, in Klag- 
lieder and Lamentations respectively. 

The poems included in this collection appear in 
the Hebrew canon with no name attached to them, 
and there is no direct external evidence that they 
were written by the prophet Jeremiah earlier than 
the date given in the prefatory verse which ap 
pears in the Septuagint. 8 This represents, how 
ever, the established belief of the Jews after the 
completion of the canon. Josephus (Ant. x. 5, §1) 
follows, as far as the question of authorship is con 
cerned, in the same track, and the absence of any 
tradition or probable conjecture to the contrary, 
leaves the consensus of critics and commentators 
almost undisturbed. b An agreement so striking 
rests, as might be expected, on strong internal evi 
dence. The poems belong unmistakeably to the 
last days of the kingdom, or the commencement of 
the exile. They are written by one who speaks, 
with the vividness and intensity of an eye-witness, 
of the misery which he bewails. It might almost 
be enough to ask who else then living could have 
written with that union of strong passionate feeling 
and entire submission to Jehovah which charac 
terises both the Lamentations and the Prophecy of 
Jeremiah. The evidences of identity are, however, 
stronger and more minute. In both we meet, once 
and again, with the picture of the " Virgin-daughter 
of- Zion," sitting down in her shame and misery 
(Lam. i. 15, ii. 13 ; Jer. xiv. 17). In both there 
is the same vehement out-pouring of sorrow. The 
prophet's eyes flow down with tears (Lam. i. 16, 
ii. 11, iii. 48, 49; Jer. ix. 1, xiii. 17, xiv. 17). 
There is the same haunting feeling of being sur 
rounded with fears and terrors on every side (Lam. 
ii. 22 ; Jer. vi. 25, xlvi. 5). c In both the worst of 
all the evils is the iniquity of the prophets and the 
priests (Lam. ii. 14,iv. 13 ; Jer. v. 30, 31, xiv. 13, 14). 
The sufferer appeals for vengeance to the righteous 
Judge (Lam. iii. 64-66 ; Jer. xi. 20). He bids the 
rival nation that exulted in the fall of Jerusalem 
prepare for a like desolation (Lam. iv. 21 ; Jer. 
xlix. 12). We can well understand, with all these 
instances before us, how the scribes who compiled 
the Canon after the return from Babylon should 
have been led, even in the absence of external testi 
mony, to assign to Jeremiah the authorship of the 

Assuming this as sufficiently established, there 
come the questions — ( 1 .) When, and on what occa 
sion did he write it? (2.) In what relation did it 
stand to his other writings ? (3.) What light does 
it throw on his personal history, or on that of the 
time in which he lived ? 

I. The earliest statement on this point is that 
of Josephus (Ant. x. 5, §1). He finds among the 
books which were extant in his own time the lamen 
tations on the death of Josiah, whbh are mentioned 
in 2 Chr. xxxv. 25. As there are no traces of any 
other poem of this kind in the later Jewish litera- 

• " And it came to pass that after Israel was led 
captive and Jerusalem was laid waste, Jeremiah sat 
weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over 
Jerusalem, and said." 

b The question whether all tho five poems were by 
the same writer has however been raised by Thonius, 
Die Klageliedur crkliirt : Vorbenicrk. quoted in Da 
vidson's Introd. to 0. T., p. 888. 


ture, it has been inferred naturally enough, that 
he speaks of this. This opinion was maintained 
also by Jerome, and has been defended by soina 
modern writers (Ussher, Dathe, Michaelis, d Notes to 
Lowth, Prael. xxii. ; Calovius, Prolegom. ad Thren. ; 
De Wette, Einl. in das A. T., Klagl.). It does not 
appear, however, to rest on any better grounds 
than a hasty conjecture, arising from the reluc 
tance of men to admit that any work by an inspired 
writer can have perished, or the arbitrary assump 
tion (De Wette, /. c.) that the same man could not, 
twice in his life, have been the spokesman of a 
great national sorrow.* And against it we have to 
set (1) the tradition on the other side embodied in 
the preface of the Septuagint, (2 ) the content* ot 
the book itself. Admitting tliat some of the cala 
mities described in it may have been common to 
the invasions of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, we 
yet look in vain for a single word distinctive of a 
funeral dirge over a devout and zealous reformer 
like Josiah, while we find, step by step, the closest 
possible likeness between the pictures of misery in 
the Lamentations and the events of the closing 
years of the reign of Zedekiah. The long siege had 
brought on the famine in which the young children 
fainted for hunger (Lam. ii. 11, 12, 20, iv. 4, 9; 
2 K. xiv. 3). The city was taken by storm (Lam. 
ii. 7, iv. 12; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 17). The Temple 
itself was polluted with the massacre of the pneste 
who defended it (Lam. ii. 20, 21 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 17), 
and then destroyed (Lam. ii. 6; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 19). 
The fortresses and strongholds of Judah were thrown 
down. The anointed of the Lord, under whose 
shadow the remnant of the people might have hoped 
to live in safety, was taken prisoner (Lam. iv. 20 ; 
Jer. xxxix. 5). The chief of the people were carried 
into exile (Lam. i. 5, ii. 9 ; 2 K. xxv. 11). The 
bitterest grief was found in the malignant exulta 
tion of the Edomites (Lam. iv. 21 ; Ps. cxxxvii.7). 
Under the rule of the stranger the Sabbaths and 
solemn feasts were forgotten (Lam. i. 4, ii. 6), as 
they could hardly have been during the short period 
in which Jerusalem was in the hands of the Egyp 
tians. Unless we adopt the strained hypothesis 
that the whole poem is prophetic in the sense of 
being predictive, the writer seeing the ."uture as i' 
it were actually present, or the still wilder con 
jecture of Jarchi, that this was the roll which Je- 
hoiachin destroyed, and which was re-written by 
Barnch or Jeremiah (Carpzov, Introd. ad lib. V. T. 
iii. c. iv.), we are compelled to come to the con 
clusion that the coincidence is not accidental, and 
to adopt the later, not the earlier of the dates. At 
what period after the capture of the city the pit>- 
phet gave this utterance to his sorrow we can only 
conjecture, and the materials for doing so with any 
probability are but scanty. The local tradition 
which pointed out a cavern in the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem as the refuge to which Jeremiah with 
drew that he might write this book (Del Rio, Pro- 
leg, in Thren., quoted by Carpzov, Introd. I. c.), 
is as trustworthy as most of the other legends ot 
the time of Helena. The ingenuity which aims a: 
attaching each individual poem to some definita 

c More detailed coincidences of words and phrases 
are given by Keil (quoting from Pareau) in his Einl. 
in das A. T. §129. 

d Micbaelis and Dathe, however, afterwards aban 
doned this hypothesis, and adopted that of the latei 

• The argument that iii. 27 implies the youth of tho 
writer hardly needs to be confuted. 


event in the prophet's, lite, is for the most part 
simply wasted.' He may have written it imme 
diately after the attack was over, or when he was 
with Gedaliah at Mizpeh, or when he was with his 
countrymen at Tahpanhes. 

II. It is well, however, to be reminded by 
these conjectures that we have before us, not a 
iook in five chapters, but five separate poems, 
each complete in itself, each having a distinct sub 
ject, yet brought at the same time under a plan 
Trhich includes them all. It is clear, before enter 
ing on any other characteristics, that we find, in 
full predominance, that strong personal emotion 
which mingled itself, in greater or less measure, 
with tlie whole prophetic work of Jeremiah. There 
is here no " word of Jehovah," no direct message 
to a sinful people. The man speaks out of the 
fulness of his heart, and though a higher Spirit 
than his own helps him to give utterance to his 
sorrows, it is yet the language of a sufferer rather 
than of a teacher. There is this measure of truth 
in the technical classification which placed the La 
mentations among the Hagiographa of the Hebrew 
Canon, in the feeling which led the Habbinic writers 
(Kimchi, Pref. in Psalm.) to say that they and the 
other books of that group, were written indeed by 
the help of the Holy Spirit, but not with the special 
gift of prophecy. 

Other differences between the two books that bear 
the prophet's name grew out of this. Here there 
is more attention to form, more elaboration. The 
rhythm is more uniform than in the prophecies. A 
complicated alphabetic structure pervades nearly 
the whole book. It will be remembered that this 
acrostic form of writing was not peculiar to Jeremiah. 
Whatever its origin, whether it had been adopted as 
a help to the memory, and so fitted especially for 
didactic poems, or for such as were to be sung by 
great bodies of people (Lowth, Prael. xxii.), 8 it 
had been a received, and it would seem popular, 
framework for poems of very different characters, 
and extending protably over a considerable period 
»f time. The 119th Psalm is the great monu 
ment which forces itself upon our notice ; but it is 
found also in the 25th, 34th, 37th, lllth, 112th, 
145th — and in the singularly beautiful fragment 
appended to the book of Proverbs (Prov. xxxi. 
10-31). Traces of it, as if the work had been left 
half-finished (De Wette, Psalmen, ad loc.) appear 
in the 9th and 10th. In the Lamentations (con 
fining ourselves for the present to the structure) 
we meet with some remarkable peculiarities. 

(1.) Ch. i., ii., and iv. contain 22 verses each, 
arranged in alphabetic order, each verse falling into 


three nearly balanced clauses (Ewuld, Poet, ti&ch. 
p. 147) ; ii. 19 forms an exception as having a 
fourth clause, the result of an interpolation, as if 
the writer had shaken off for a moment the re 
straint of his self imposed law. Possibly the in 
version of the usual order of J7 and B in ch. ii., iii , 
iv., may have arisen from a like forgetfulness. 
Grotius, ad loc., explains it on the assumption that 
here Jeremiah followed the order of the Chaldaean 
alphabet. 11 

(2.) Ch. iii. contains three short verses under 
each letter of the alphabet, the initial letter being 
'three times repeated. 

(3.) Ch. v. contains the same number of verses 
as ch. i., ii., iv., but without the alphabetic order. 
The thought suggests itself that the earnestness 
of the prayer with which the book closes may have 
carried the writer beyond the limits within which 
he had previously confined himself; but the con 
jecture (of Ewald) that we have here, as in Ps. 
ix. and x., the rough draught of what was intended 
to have been finished afterwards in the same manner 
as the others, is at least a probable one. 

III. The power of entering into the spirit and 
meaning of poems such as these depends on two 
distinct conditions. We must seek to see, as with 
our own eyes, the desolation, misery, confusion, 
which came before those of the prophet. We must 
endeavour also to feel as he felt when he looked on 
them. And the last is the more difficult of the 
two. Jeremiah was not merely a patriot-poet, 
weeping over the ruin of his country. He was a 
prophet who had seen all this coming, and had fore 
told it as inevitable. He had urged submission to 
the Chaldaeans as the only mode of diminishing the 
terrors of that " day of the Lord." And now the 
Chaldaeans were come, irritated by the perfidy and 
rebellion of the king and princes of Judah; and the 
actual horrors that he saw, surpassed, though he 
had predicted them, all that he had been able to 
imagine. All feeling of exultation in which, as 
mere prophet of evil, he might have indulged at the 
fulfilment of his forebodings, was swallowed up in 
deep overwhelming sorrow. Yet sorrow, not less 
than other emotions, works on men according to 
their characters, and a man with Jeremiah's gifts 
of utterance could not sit down in the mere silence 
and stupor of a hopeless grief. He was compelled 
to give expression to that which was devouring 
his heart and the heart of his people. The act 
itself was a relief to him. It led him on (as will 
be seen hereafter) to a calmer and serener state. It 
revived the faith and hope which had been nearly 
crushed out. 

1 Pareau (quoted by De Wette, /. c.) connects the 
poems in the life as follows : — 

C. I. During the siege (Jer. xxxvii. 5). 

C. II. After the destruction of the Temple. 

C. III. At the time of Jeremiah's imprisonment in 
the dungeon (Jer. xxxv:'ii. 6, with Lam. iii. 55). 

C. IV. After the capture of Zedekiah. 

C. V. After the destruction, later than c. ii. 

t De Wette maintains ( Comment, iiber die Psalm. 
p. 56) that this acrostic form of writing was the out 
growth of a feeble and degenerate age dwelling on 
the outer structure of poetry when the scul had de 
parted. His judgment as to the origin and cha 
racter of the alphabetic form is shared by Ewald 
(Poet. Buck. i. p. 140). It is hard, however, to re- 
concilc this estimate with the impression made on us 
by such Psalms as the 25th and J4th ; and Ewald 
nimself, in his translation of the AlphaDelic I'aahns 

and the Lamentations, has shewn how compatible 
such a structure is with the highest energy and beauty. 
With some of these, too, it must be added, the assign 
ment of a later date than the time of David rests on 
the foregone conclusion that the acrostic structure is 
itself a proof of it. (Comp. Delitzsch, Commentar iiber 
den Psalter, on Ps. ix., x.)- De Wette however allows, 
condescendingly, that the Lamentations, in spite c1 
their degenerate taste, " have some merit in tbeii 
way " (" sind twar In ihrer Art von einigen Werthc ") 
k Similar anomalies occur in Ps. xxxvii., and have 
received a like explanation (De Wette, Ps. p. 57). 
It is however a mere hypothesis that the Chaldaean 
alphabet differed in this respect from the Hebrew ; 
nor is it easy to see why Jeremiah should have chosen 
the Hebrew order for one poem, and the Chaldaean foi 
the other three. 



It has to be remembered too, that in thus speak 
ing he was doing that which many must have 
looked for from him, and so meeting at once their 
expectations and their wants. Other prophets and 
poets had made themselves the spokesmen of 
the nation's feelings on the death of kings and 
heroes. The party that continued faithful to the 
policy and principles of Josiah remembered how 
the prophet had lamented over his death. The 
lamentations of that period (though they are lost 
to us) had been accepted as a great national dirge. 
Was he to be silent now that a more terrible cala 
mity had fallen upon the people ? Did not the exiles 
in Babylon need this form of consolation ? Does 
not the appearance of this book in their Canon of 
Sacred writings, after their return from exile, indi 
cate that during their captivity they had found 
that consolation in it ? 

The choice of a structure so artificial as that 
which has been described above, may at first sight 
appear inconsistent with the deep intense sorrow of 
which it claims to be the utterance. Some wilder 
less measured rhythm would seem to us to have 
been a fitter form of expression. It would belong, 
however, to a very shallow and hasty criticism to 
pass this judgment. A man true to the gift he has 
received will welcome the discipline of self-imposed 
rules for deep sorrow as well as for other strong 
emotions. In proportion as he is afraid of being 
carried away by the strong current of feeling, will 
he be anxious to make the laws more difficult, the 
discipline more effectual. Something of this kind 
is traceable in the faot that so many of the master 
minds of European literature have chosen, as the 
fit vehicle for their deepest, tenderest, most im 
passioned thoughts, the complicated structure of the 
sonnet ; in Dante's selection of the terza rima for 
his vision of the unseen world. What the sonnet 
was to Petrarch and to Milton, that the alphabetic 
verse-system was to the writers of Jeremiah's time, 
the most difficult among the recognised forms of 
poetry, and yet one in which (assuming the earlier 
date of some of the Psalms above referred to) some 
of the noblest thoughts of that poetry had been 
uttered. We need not wonder that he should have 
employed it as fitter than any other for the purpose 
for which he used it. If these Lamentations were 
intended to assuage the bitterness of the Babylonian 
exile, there was, besides this, the subsidiary ad 
vantage that it supplied the memory with an arti 
ficial help. Hymns and poems of this kind, once 
learnt, are not easily forgotten, and the circum 
stances of the captives made it then, more than ever, 
necessary that they should have this help atibrded 

An examination of the five poems will enable us 
to judge how far each stands by itself, how far 
they are connected as parts forming a whole. We 
must deal with them as they are, not forcing our 
own meanings into them ; looking on them not as 
prophetic, or didactic, or historical, but simply as 
lamentations, exhibiting, like other elegies, the diffe 
rent phases of a pervading sorrow. 

I. The opening verse strikes the key-note of the 
whole poem. That which haunts the prophet's 
niinil is the solitude in which he finds himself. 


She that waj "princess among the nat.'.ms" (1, 
sits (like the JUDAEA CAPTA of the 1 toman me 
dals), "solitary," "as a widow." Her " lovers " 
(the nrtions with whom she had been allied) hold 
aloof fiom her (2). The heathen are entered into 
the sanctuary, and mock at her Sabbaths (7, 10;. 
After the manner so characteristic of Hebrew poet'-y, 
the personality of the writer now recedes and now 
advances, and blends by hardly perceptible transi 
tions with that of the city which he personifies, 
and with which he, as it were, identifies himself. 
At one time, it is the daughter of Zion that asks 
" Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?" (12). 
At another, it is the prophet who looks on her, and 
portrays her as "spreading forth her hands, and 
there is none to comfort her" (17). Mingling 
with this outburst of sorrow there are two thought* 
characteristic both of the man and the time. The 
calamities which the nation suffers are the conse 
quences of its sins. There must be the confession 
of those sins: "Tha Lord is righteous, for I have 
rebelled against His commandment" (18). There 
is also, at any rate, this gleam of consolation that 
Judah is not alone in her sufferings. Those who 
have exulted in her destruction shall drink of the 
same cup. They shall be like unto her in the day 
that the Lord shall call (21). 

II. As the solitude of the city was the subject of 
the first lamentation, so the destruction that had laid 
it waste is that which is most conspicuous in the 
second. Jehovah had thrown down in his wrath 
the strongholds of the daughter of Judah (2). The 
rampart and the wall lament together (8). The 
walls of the palace are given up into the hand of the 
enemy (7). The breach is great as if made by the 
inrashing of the sea (13). With this there had 
been united all the horrors of the famine and the 
assault : — young children fainting for hunger in the 
top of every street (19) ; women eating their own 
children, and so fulfilling the curse of Deut. xxviii. 
53 (20); the priest and the prophet slain in the 
sanctuary of the Lord (ibid.). Added to all this, 
there was the remembrance of that which had been 
all along the great trial of Jeremiah's life, against 
which he had to wage continual war. The prophets 
of Jerusalem had seen vain and foolish things, t'alse 
burdens, and causes of banishment (14). A right 
eous judgment had fallen on them. The prophets 
found no vision of Jehovah (9). The king and the 
princes who had listened to them were captive 
among the Gentiles. 

III. The difference in the structure of this poem 
which has been already noticed, indicates a corre 
sponding difference in its substance. In the two 
preceding poems, Jeremiah had spoken of the misery 
and destruction of Jerusalem. In the third he speaks 
chiefly, though not exclusively, of his own. He 
himself is the man that has seen affliction (1), 
who has been brought into darkness and not into 
light (2). He looks back upon the long life of 
suffering which he has been called on to endure, the 
scorn and derision of the people, the bitterness as 
of one drunken with wormwood (14, 15). But 
that experience was not one which had ended in 
darkness and despair. Here, as in the prophecies, 
we find a Gospel tor the weaiy and heavy-laden, a 

1 The re-appearance of this structure in tne later 
literature of the East is not without interest. Alpha 
betic poems are found among the hymns of Ephraem 
*yrus (Asscmani, Bibl. Orient, iii. p. 68) and other 

a much more complicated plan than any of the O. T. 
i«jems of this type (ibid. iii. p. 328), and these chiefly 
in hymns to be sung by boys ut solemn festivals, or 
in confessions of faith which were meant for theif 

writers ; sometimes, as in the case of Ebed-jcsus, with ; instruction. 


trust, not to be shaken, in the mercy and righteous 
ness of Jehovah. The mercies of the Lord are new 
every morning (22, 23). He is good to them that 
wait for Him (25). And the retrospect of that 
sharp experience showed him that it all formed part 
of the discipline which was intended to lead him on 
to a higher blessedness. It was good for a man to 
bear the yoke in his youth, good that he should 
both hope and quietly wait (26, 27). With this, 
equally characteristic of the prophet's individuality, 
there is the protest against the wrong which had 
been or might hereafter be committed by rulers 
and princes (34-36), the confession that all that had 
come on him and his people was but a righteous re 
tribution, to be accepted humbly, with searchings 
of heart, and repentance (39-42). The closing verses 
may refer to that special epoch in the prophet's 
life when his own sufferings had been sharpest 
(53-56) and the cruelties of his enemies most tri 
umphant. If so, we can enter more fully, remem 
bering this, into the thanksgiving with which he 
acknowledges the help, deliverance, redemption, 
which he had received from God (57, 58). And 
feeling sure that, at some time or other, there 
would be for him a yet higher lesson, we can enter 
with some measure of sympathy, even into the 
terrible earnestness or" his appeal from the unjust 
judgment of earth to the righteous Judge, into his 
cry for a retribution without which it seemed to him 
that the Eternal Righteousness would fail (64-66). 
IV. It might seem, at first, as if the fourth poem 
lid but reproduce the pictures and the thoughts of 
the first and second. There come before us, once 
again, the famine, the misery, the desolation, 
that had fallen on the holy city, making all faces 
gather blackness. One new element in the picture 
is found in the contrast between the past glory of 
the consecrated families of the kingly and priestly 
stocks (Nazarites in A . V.) and their later misery 
and shame. Some changes there are, however, not 
without interest in their relation to the poet's own 
life and to the history of his time. All the facts 
gain a new significance by being seen in the light 
of the personal experience of the third poem. The 
declaration that all this had come " for the sins of the 
prophets and the iniquities of the priests" is clearer 
and sharper than before (13). There is the giving up 
of the last hope which Jeremiah had cherished, 
when he urged on Zedekiah the wisdom of submis 
sion to the Chaldaeans (20). The closing words 
indicate the strength of that feeling against the 
Edomites which lasted all through the capti 
vity k (21, 22). She, the daughter of Edom, had 
rejoiced in the fall of her rival, and had pressed on 
the work of destruction. But for her too there 
was the doom of being drunken with the cup of 
the Lord's wrath. For the daughter of Zion there 
was hope of pardon, when discipline should have 
done its work and the punishment of her iniquity 
should be accomplished. 

V. One great difference in the fifth and last section 
of the poem has been already pointed out. It ob 
viously indicates either a deliberate abandonment of 
the alphabetic structure, or the unfinished cha 
racter of the concluding elegy. The title prefixed 
in tie Vulgate, " OratioJeremiae Prophetae," points 

k Comp. with this Obad. ver. 10, andPs. cxxxvii. 7. 

m The Vulgate imports into this verse also the 
thought of a shameful infamy. It must be remem 
bered, however, that the literal meaning conveyed to 
the mind of an Israelite one of the lowest offices of 
slave-labour (comp. Jurtg. xvi. 21). 



to one marked characteristic which may have occa 
sioned tnis difference. There are signs also of £ 
later date than that of the preceding poems. Though 
the horrors of the famine are ineffaceable, yet that 
which he has before him is rather the continued 
protracted suffering of the rule of the Chalclaeaus. 
The mountain of Zion is desolate, and the foxes 
walk on it (18). Slaves have ruled over the 
people of Jehovah (8). Women have been sub 
jected to intolerable outrages (11). The young 
men have been taken to grind, 1 " and the children 
have fallen under the wood (13). But in this also, 
deep as might be the humiliation, there was hope, 
even as there had been in the dark hours of the 
prophet's own life. He and his people are sustained 
by the old thought which had been so fruitful of 
comfort to other prophets and psalmists. The 
periods of suffering and struggle which seemed so 
long, were but as moments in the lifetime of the 
Eternal (19) ; and the thought of that eternity 
brought with it the hope that the purposes of love 
which had been declared so clearly should one day 
be fulfilled. The last words of this lamentation 
are those which have risen so often from broken and 
contrite hearts, " Turn thou us, Lord, and we 
shall be turned. Renew our days as of old " (21). 
That which had begun with wailing and weeping 
ends (following Ewald's and Michaelis's translation) 
with the question of hope, " Wilt thou utterly reject 
us ? Wilt thou be very wroth against us ?" 

There are perhaps few portions of the 0. T. 
which appear to have done the work they were 
meant to do more effectually than this. It has pre 
sented but scanty materials for the systems and 
controversies of theology. It has supplied thou 
sands with the fullest utterance for their sorrows in 
the critical periods of national or individual suffer 
ing. We may well believe that it soothed the 
weary years of the Babylonian exile (comp. Zech. i. 
6, with Lam. ii. 17). When they returned to 
their own land, and the desolation of Jerusalem was 
remembered as belonging only to the past, this was 
the book of remembrance. On the ninth day of 
the month of Ab (July), the Lamentations of Jere 
miah were read, year by year, with fasting and 
weeping, to commemorate the misery out of which 
the people had been delivered. It has come to be 
connected with the thoughts of a later devastation, 
and its words enter, sometimes at least, into the 
prayers of the pilgrim Jews who meet at the " place 
of wailing" to mourn over the departed glory of 
their city." It enters largely into the nobly-con 
structed 'order of the Latin Church for the services 
of Passion-week (Breviar. Bom. Feria Quinta. " In 
Coena Domini "). If it has been comparatively in the 
background in times when the study of Scripture 
hail passed into casuistry and speculation, it has 
come forward, once and again, in times of danger 
and suffering, as a messenger of peace, comforting 
men, not alter the fashion of the friends of Job, 
with formal moralizings, but by enabling them to 
express themselves, leading them to feel that they 
might give utterance to the deepest and saddest 
feelings by which they were overwhelmed. It is 
striking, as we cast our eye over the list of writers 
who have treated specir.lly of the book, to notice 

• Is there any uniform practice in these devotions 1. 
The -writer hears from some Jews th&t the only prayers 
said are those that would have been said, is the prayer 
of the day, elsewhere ; from others, that the Lamenta 
tions of Jeremiah ere frequently employed. 



how many must have passed through scenes of trial 
not unlike in kind to that of which the Lamenta 
tions speak. The book remains to do its work for 
any future generation that may be exposed to ana 
logous calamities. 

A few facts connected with the external history 
of the Book remain to be stated. The position 
which it has occupied in the canon of the 0. T. has 
varied from time to time. In the received Hebrew 
arrangement it is placed among the Kethubim or 
Hagiographa, between Ruth and Koheleth (Eccle- 
siastes). In that adopted for synagogue use, and 
reproduced in some editions, as in the Bomberg 
Bible of 1521, it stands among the five Megillotli 
after the books of Moses. The LXX. group the 
writings connected with the name of Jeremiah to 
gether, but the Book of Baruch comes between the 
prophecy and the Lamentation. On the hypothesis 
of some writers that Jer. Hi. was originally the 
introduction to the poem, and not the conclusion of 
the prophecy, and that the preface of the LXX. 
(which is not found either in the Hebrew, or in 
the Targum of Jonathan) was inserted to diminish 
the abruptness occasioned by this separation of the 
book from that with which it, had been originally 
connected, it would follow that the arrangement of 
the Vulg. and the A. V. corresponds more closely 
than any other to that which we must look on as 
tke original one. 

Literature. — Theodoret, Opp. ii. p. 286 ; Je 
rome, Opp. v. 165 ; Special Commentaries by 
Calvin (Prol. in Thren.); Bullinger (Tigur. 
1575); Peter Martyr (Tigur. 1629); Oecolampa- 
dius (Argent. 1558); Zuinglius (Tigur. 1544); 
Maldonatus ; Pareau ( Threni Jeremiae, Lugd. Bat. 
1790); Tarnovius(1624); Kalkar (1836); Neu 
mann (Jeretnias u. Klagelieder, 1858). Translated 
by Ewald, in Poet. Bitch, part i. [E. H. P.] 

LAMP." 1. That part of the golden candle 
stick belonging to the Tabernacle which bore the 
light; also of each of the ten candlesticks placed by 
Solomon in the Temple before the Holy of Holies 
(Ex. xxv. 37 ; 1 K. vii. 49 ; 2 Chr. iv. 20, xiii. 11 ; 
Zech. iv. 2). The lamps were lighted every evening, 
ar.'i cleansed every morning (Ex. xxx. 7, 8 ; Reland, 
Ant. Hebr. i. v. 9, and vii. 8). The primary sense 
of light (Gen. xv. 17) gives rise to frequent meta 
phorical usages, indicating life, welfare, guidance, 
as e. q. 2 Sam. xxi. 17 ; Ps. cxix. 105; Prov. vi. 
23, xiii. 9. 

2. A torch or flambeau, such as was carried by 
"4ie soldiers of Gideon (Judg. vii. 16,20; comp. 
xv. 4). See vol. i. p. 695, note. 

3. In N. T. AdjUTrclSes is in A. V., Acts xx. 8, 
"lights;" in John xviii. 3, "torches;" in Matt. 
xxv. 1, Rev. iv. 5, " lamps." 

Herodotus, speaking of Egyptian lamps used at a 
festival, describes them as vessels rilled with salt 
and olive oil, with 
floating wicks, but 
does not mention the 
material of the ves 
sels (Herod, ii. 62; 
Wilkinson, Anc. Eij. 
The use of lamps 
fed with oil at mar 
riage processions is al 
luded toin the parable of the ten virgins(Matt.xxv. 1). 


a *1 once T3 (2 Sam. xxii. 29), from "VI J, 
ti shine," Ccs. p. 867 : Auxw : litcerna. 


Modern Egyptian lamps consist of sni.ill glass 
vessels with a tube at the bottom rtntnining a 
cotton-wick twisted round a piece of straw. Some 
water is poured in first, and then oil. For night- 
travelling, a lantern composed of waxed cloth 
strained over a sort of cylinder of wire-rings, and a 
top and bottom of perforated copper. This would, 
in form at least, answer to the lamps within 
pitchers of Gideon. On occasions of marriage the 
street or quarter where the bridegroom lives is 
illuminated with lamps suspended from cords 
drawn across. Sometimes the bridegroom is ac 
companied to a mosque by men bearing flambeaux, 
consisting of frames of iron fixed on staves, and filled 
with burning wood; and on his return, by others bear 
ing frames with many lamps suspended from them 
(Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 202 215, 224, 225, 230 ; Mrs. 
Poole, Englisliw. in Eg. iii. 131). [H. W. P.] 

LANCET. This word is found in 1 K. rviii. 
28 only. The Hebrew term is Romach, which is 
elsewhere rendered, and appears to mean a javelin, 
or light spear. [See ARMS, vol. i. p. 110 6.] In 
the original edition of the A. V. (1611) this mean 
ing is preserved, the word being "lancers." 


LANTERN (<j>a.vos) occurs only in John 
xviii. 3. See Diet, of Ant. art. LATEKNA. 

LAODICE'A 'AaoS/KSta). The two passages 
in the N. T. where this city is mentioned define its 
geographical position in harmony with other autho 
rities. In Rev. i. 11, iii. 14, it is spoken of as 
belonging to the general district which contained 
Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Pergamus, Sardis, and 
Philadelphia. In Col. iv. 13, 15, it appears in still 
closer association with Colossae and Hierapolis. And 
this was exactly its position. It was a town of some 
consequence in the Roman province of ASIA; and it 
was situated in the valley of the Maeander, on » 
small river called the Lycus, with COLOSSAE and 
HIERAPOLIS a few miles distant to the west. 

Built, or rather rebuilt, by one of the Seleucid 
monarchs, and named in honour of his wife, Lao- 
Jicea became under the Roman government a place 
of some importance. Its trade was considerable: 
it lay on the line of a great road ; and it was the 
seat of a conventus. From Rev. iii. 17, we should 
gather it was a place of great wealth. The damage 
which was caused by an earthquake in the reign of 
Tiberius (Tac. Ann. xiv. 27) was promptly repaired 
by the energy of the inhabitants. It was soon after 
this occurrence that Christianity was introduced into 
Laodicea, not however, as it would seem, through the 
direct agency of St. Paul. We have good reason 
for believing that when, in writing from Rome 
to the Christians of Colossae, he sent a greeting 
to those of Laodicea, he had not personally visited 
either place. But the preaching of the Gospel at 
Ephesus (Acts xviii. 19-xix. 41) must inevitably 
have resulted in the formation of churches in the 
neighbouring cities, especially where Jews were 
settled : and there were Jews in Laodicea (Joseph. 
Ant. xii. 3, §4; xiv. 10, §20). In subsequent times 
it became a Christian city of eminence, the see of a 
bishop, and a meeting-place of councils. It is often 
mentioned by the Byzantine writers. The Mo 
hammedan invaders destroyed it ; and it is now a 
scene of utter desolation : but the extensive ruins 
near Denislu justify all that we read of Laodicea 
in Greek and Roman writers. Many travellers 


(Pococke, Chandler, Leake, Arundell, Fellows) have 
visited and described the place, but the most elabo 
rate and interesting account is that of Hamilton. 

One Biblical subject of interest is connected with 
Laodicea. From Col. iv. 16 it appears that St. 
Paul wrote a letter to this place (ij tie AooSi/eet'cts) 
when he wrote the letter to Colossae. The question 
arises whether we can give any account of this 
Laodicean epistle. Wieseler's theory (Apost. Zeit- 
alter, p. 4.50) is that the Epistle to Philemon is 
•neant ; and the tradition in the Apostolical Consti 
tutions that he was bishop of this see is adduced 
in confirmation. Another view, maintained by 
Paley and others, and suggested by a manuscript 
variation in Eph. i. 1, is that the Epistle to the 
Ephesians is intended. Ussher's view is that this 
last epistle was a circular letter sent to Laodicea 
tmong other places (see TAfe and Epistles of St. Paul, 
.ti. 488, with Alford's Prolegomena, G. T. v. iii. 
Ill- 18). None of these opinions can be maintained 
with much confidence. It may however be said, 
without hesitation, that the apocryphal Epistola ad 
Laodicenses is a late and clumsy forgery. It exists 
only in Latin MSS., and is evidently a cento from 
*-he Galatians and Ephesians. A full account of it 
is given by Jones (On the Canon ii. 31-49). 

The subscription at the end of the First Epistle 
to Timothy (eypdtpij airb AaoSiKctas, ?}TIS tffrl 
ftijTpJiroA.jy 4>pvyla.s TTJS na/caTiacTjs) is of no 
authority ; but it is worth mentioning, as showing 
the importance of Laodicea. [J. S. H.] 

LAODICE'ANS(Aoo5iKery: Laodicenses),the 
inhabitants of Laodicea (Col. iv. 16 ; Rev. iii. 14). 

LAP'IDOTH (DiT^?, *. e. Lappldoth : Aa- 
(pfi5d>6: Lapidoth), the husband of Deborah the 
prophetess (Judg. iv. 4 only). The word rendered 
" wife" in the expression "wife of Lapidoth" has 
simply the force of " woman ;" and thus lappidoth 
("torches") has been by some understood as de 
scriptive of Deborah's disposition, and even of her 
occupations. [DEBORAH.] But there is no real 
ground for supposing it to mean anything but wife, 
or for doubting the existence of her husband. True, 
the termination of the name is feminine ; but this is 
the case in other names undoubtedly borne by men, 

LAPWING (n&3tt,duttphath: liroi|/: upupa) 
occurs only in Lev. xi. 19, and in the parallel passage 
of Deut. xiv. 18, amongst the list of those birds which 
were forbidden by the law of Moses to be eaten by 
the Israelites. Commentators generally agree with 
the LXX. and Vulg. that the Hoopoe is the bird 
intended, and with this interpretation the Arabic 
versions" coincide: all these three versions ghe 
one word, Hoopoe, as the meaning of dukiphath ; 
but one cannot definitely say whether the Syriac 
reading, b the Targums of Jerusalem, Onkelos, and 



- - t) - 
J, alhudhud, from root 4X^4X^1 " to 

moan as a dove." ffudhud is the modern Arabic 
name for the hoopoe. At Cairo the name of 
this hird is hidhid (vid. Forskal, Deter. Animal, p. 


(Syriac), woodland-cock. 

c fcO-113 "153 (Chaldee), artifex mantis; German, 

tergmtisttr ^then, gallus montanus) : from the Rab 
binical Btor; of the Hoopoe and the Shamir. (Sec 

Jonathan,' and the Jewish doctors, indicate any 
particular bird or not, for they merely appear to 
resolve the Hebrew word into its component parts. 
dukiphath being by them understood as the " nioun • 
tain-cock.'' or " woodland-cock." This translation 
has, as may be supposed, produced considerable dis 
cussion as to the kind of bird represented by these 
teims — expressions which would, before the date 
of acknowledged scientific nomenclature, have a 
very wide meaning. According to Bochart, these 
four different interpretations have been assigned to 
dukiphath: — 1. The Sadducees supposed the bird 
intended to be the common hen, which they there 
fore refused to eat. 2. Another interpretation 
understands the cock of the woods (tetrao uro- 
gallus). 3. Other inteipreters think the attagen 
is meant. 4. The last interpretation is that which 
gives the Hoopoe as the rendering of the Hebiuw 
word. d 

The Hoopoe (Vfitfu Epopil 

As to the value of 1. nothing can be urged in its 
favour except that the first part of the word duk 
or dik does in Arabic mean a cock.* 2. With almost 
as little reason can the cock of the woods, or 
capercailzie, be considered to have any claim to be 
the bird indicated ; for this bird is an inhabitant of 
the northern parts of Europe and Asia, and although 
it has been occasionally found, according to M. 
Temmink, as far south as the Ionian Islands, yet 
such occurrences are rare indeed, and we have no 
record of its ever having been seen in Syria or 
Egypt. The capercailzie is therefore a bird not 
at all likely to come within the sphere of the 
observation of the Jews. 3. As to the third theory, 
it is certainly at least as much a question what is 
signified by attagen, as by dukiphath. 1 

Many, and curious in some instances, are the 
derivations proposed for the Hebrew word, but the 
most probable one is that which was alluded to 
above, viz. the mountain-cock. Aeschylus speaks 
of the Hoopoe by name, and expressly calls it the 

ADAMANT, ia Appendix, and Buxtorf, Lex. ClialA. 
Talm. s. v. 133.) 

' d There can be no doubt that the Hoopoe is the 
hird intendpd by dukiphath ; for the Coptic Kukupha, 
the Syriac Kikupha, which stand for the Upupa Epops, 
are almost certainly allied to the Hebrew flQ'O-'n 

Xj^ : gallina, gallus. 

1 By attagen is here of course meant the arnryat 
of the Greeks, and the attagen of the Romans ; not 
that name as sometimes applied locally to the / (or- 
mif/nn, or white grouse. 


bird of tfo rocks (Fragm. 291, quoted by Arist. 
//. A. ix. 49). Aelian (N. A. iii. 26) says that 
these birds build their nests in lofty rooks. Aris 
totle's words are U the same effect, for he writes, 
" Now some animals are found in the mountains, 
as the hoopoe for instance" (ff. A. i. 1). When 
the two lawsuit-wearied citizens of Athens, Euel- 
pides and Pisthetaerus, in the comedy of the Birds 
of Aristophanes (20, 54), are on their search for 
the home of Epops, king of birds, their ornitholo 
gical conductor lead them through a wild desert tract 
terminated by mountains and rocks, in which is 
situated the royal aviary of Epops. 

It must, however, be remarked that the observa 
tions of the habits of the hoopoe recorded by modern 
zoologists do not appear to warrant the assertion 
that it is so pre-eminently a mountain-bird as has 
been implied above.8 Marshy ground, ploughed land, 
wooded districts, such as are near to water, are 
more especially its favourite haunts ; but perhaps 
more extended observation on its habits may here 
after confirm the accuracy of the statements of the 

Ine noopoe was accounted an unclean bird by 
the Mosaic law, nor is it now eaten h except occa 
sionally in those countries where it is abundantly 
found — Egypt, France, Spain, &c. &c. Many and 
strange are the stories which are told of the hoopoe 
in ancient Oriental fable, and some of these stories 
are by no means to its credit. It seems to have been 
always regarded, both by Arabians and Greeks, with 
a superstitious reverence ' — a circumstance which it 
owes no doubt partly to its crest (Aristoph. Birds, 
94; comp. Ov. Met. vi. 672), which certainly 
gives it a most imposing appearance, partly to the 
length of its beak, and partly also to its habits. 
" If any one anointed himself with its blood, and 
then fell asleep, he would see demons suffocating 
him " — " if its liver were eaten with rue, the 
eater's wits would be .sharpened, and pleasing me 
mories be excited " — are superstitions held respect 
ing this bird. One more fable narrated of the 
hoopoe is given, because its origin can be traced to 
a peculiar habit of the bird. The Arabs say that 
the hoopoe is a betrayer of secrets ; that it is able 
moreover to point out hidden wells and fountains 
under ground. Now the hoopoe, on settling upon 
the ground, has a strange and portentous-looking 
habit of bending the head downwards till the point 
of the beak touches the ground, raising and de 
pressing its crest at the same time. k Hence with 
much probability arose the Arabic fable. 

These stories, absurd as they are, are here men 
tioned because it was perhaps in a great measure 
owing, not only to the uncleanly habits of the bird, 
but also to the superstitious feeling with which the 
hoopoe was regarded by the Egyptians and heathen 
generally, that it was forbidden as food to the 
Israelites, whose affections Jehovah wished to wean 
from the land of their bondage, to which, as we 
know, they fondly clung. 

s See Macgillivray's British Birds, vol. iii. 43 ; 
Tarrell, Brit. B. ii. 178, 2nd edit. ; Lloyd's Scandi 
navian Adventures, ii. 321 ; Tristram in Ibis, vol. i. 
The chief grounds for all the filthy habits which have 
been ascribed to this much-maligned bird are to be 
found in the fact that it resorts to dunghills, &c., in 
tcarch of the worms and insects which it finds there. 

h A writer in Ibi», vol. i. p. 49, says, " We found 
the Jfon/i ie a very good bird to cat." 

' Such i» tli* rase even to this day. The Rev. H. 


The word Hoopoe is evidently ononwtopootic, 
being derived from the voice of the bird, which 
resembles the words " hoop, hoop," softly but 
rapidly uttered. The Germans call the bird Eir. 
ffonp, the French La Huppe, which is particu 
larly appropriate, as it refers both to the crest 
and note of the bird. In Sweden it is known by 
the name of Har-Fogel, the army-bird, because, 
from its ominous cry, frequently heard in the wilds 
of the forest, while the bird itself moves off as 
any one approaches, the common people have sup 
posed that seasons of scarcity and war are impenil- 
ing (Lloyd's Scand. Advent, ii. 321). 

The Hoopoe is an occasional visitor to this coun 
try, arriving for the most part, in the autumn, but 
instances are on record of its having been seen in 
the spring. Col. Hamilton Smith has supposed 
that there are two Egyptian species of the genus 
Upupa, from the fact that some birds remain perma 
nently resident about human habitations in Egypt, 
while others migrate : he says that the migratory 
species is eaten in Egypt, but that the stationary 
species is considered inedible (Kitto's Cycl. ait. 
'Lapwing'). There is, however, but one species 
of Egyptian hoopoe known to ornithologists, viz. 
Upupa Epops. Some of these birds migrate north 
wards from Egypt, but a large number remain all 
the year round ; all, however, belong to the same 
species. The hoopoe is about the size of the 
missel-thrush (Turdus viscivorus). Its crest is very 
elegant, the long feathers forming it are each 01 
'.hem tipped with black. It belongs to the family 
Upupidae, sub-order Tenuirostres, and order Pas- 
seres. [W. H.] 

LASAE'A (Aao-ofa). Four or five years ago 
it would have been impossible to give any informa 
tion regarding this Cretan city, except indeed that 
it might be presumed (Conybeare and Howson, 
St. Paul, ii. 394, 2nd ed.) to be identical with 
the " Lisia" mentioned in the Peutinger Table 
as 16 miles to the east of GORTYNA. This cor 
responds sufficiently with what is said in Acts 
xxvii. 8 of its proximity to FAIR HAVENS. The 
whole matter, however, has been recently cleared up. 
In the month of January, 1856, a yachting party 
made inquiries at Fair Havens, and were told that 
the name Lasaea was still given to some ruins a few 
miles to the eastward. A short search sufficed to 
discover these ruins, and independent testimony 
confirmed the name. A full account of the dis 
covery, with a plan, is given in the 2nd ed. of 
Smith s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, A pp. 
iii. pp. 262, 263. Captain Spratt, R.N., had pre 
viously observed some remains, 'which probably 
represent the harbour of Lasaea (see pp. 80, 82 
245). And it ought to be noticed that in the 
Descrizione dell' Isola di Candia, a Venetian MS. 
of the 16th century, as published by Mr. E. Falkener 
in the Museum of Classical Antiquities, Sept. 1852 
(p. 287), a place called Lapsea, with a " temple in 
ruins," and " other vestiges near the harbour," is 

B. Tristram, who visited Palestine in the spring ol 
1858, says of the Hoopoe (Ibis, i. 27) : " The Arabs 
have a superstitious reverence for this bird, which 
they believe to possess marvellous medicinal qualities, 
and call it ' the Doctor.' Its head is an indispensable 
ingredient in all charms, and in the practice of witch 

k This habit of inspecting probably first suggested 
the Greek word en-o^. 


D.entionfcd as being close to Fair Havens. 'Phis 
also is undoubtedly St. Luke's Lasaea; and we see 
how needless it is (with Cramer, Ancient Greece, 
iii. 374, and the Edinburgh Review, No. civ. 176) 
to resort to Lachmann's reading, " Aliissa," or to the 
"Thalassa" of the Vulgate. [CRETE.] [J.S. H.] 

LA'SHA (W, i. e. Lesha : Acurd : Lsaa\ a 
place noticed in Gen. x. 19 only, as marking the 
limit of the country of the Canaanites. From the 
order in which the names occur, combined with the 
expression " even unto Lasha," we should infer that 
it lay somewhere in the south-east of Palestine. Its 
exact position cannot, in the absence of any subse 
quent notice of it, be satisfactorily ascertained, and 
hence we can neither absolutely accept or reject the 
opinion of Jerome and other writers, who identify 
it with Callirhoe, a spot famous for hot springs 
near the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. It may 
indeed be observed, in corroboration of Jerome's view, 
that the name Lasha, which signifies, according to 
Geseuius ( Thes. p. 764), " a fissure," is strikingly 
appropriate to the deep chasm of the Zerka Main, 
through which the watei-s of Callirhoe find an out 
let. to the sea (Lynch's Exped. p. 370). No town, 
however, is known to have existed in the neighbour 
hood of the springs, unless we place there Machaerus, 
which is described by Josephus (B. J. vii. 6, §3) 
as having hot springs near it. That there was 
some sort of a settlement at Callirhoe may perhaps 
be inferred from the fact that the springs were 
visited by Herod during his last illness (Joseph. 
Ant. xvii. 6, §5) ; and this probability is supported 
by the discovery of tiles, pottery, and coins on the 
spot. But no traces of buildings have as yet been 
discovered ; and the valley is so narrow as not to 
offer a site for any thing like a town (Irby and 
Mangles (ch. viii. June 8). [W. L. B.] 

LASHA'RON (fnB&, t. e. LasshAron : LXX. 
omits : Saron ; but in the Benedictine text Lassarori), 
one of the Canaanite towns whose kings were killed 
by Joshua (Josh. xii. 18). Some difference of opinion 
has been expressed as to whether the first syllable 
is an integral part of the name or the Hebrew pos 
sessive particle. (See Keil, Josua, ad loc.) But 
there seems to be no warrant for supposing the 
existence of a particle before this one name, which 
certainly does not exist before either of the other 
thirty names in the list. Such at least is the con 
clusion of Bochart (Hieroz. i. ch. 31), Reland (Pal. 
871), and others, a conclusion supported by the 
reading of the Targum,* and the Arabic version, 
and also by Jerome, if the Benedictine text can be 
relied on. The opposite conclusion of the Vulgate, 
given above, is adopted by Gesenius (Thes. 642 6), 
but not on very clear grounds, his chief argument 
being apparently that, as the name of a town, 
Sharon would not require the article affixed, which, 
as that of a district, it always bears. But this 
appears to be begging the question. The name has 
vanish'id from both MSS. of the LXX., unless a trace 
exists in the 'OQeKTij-ffapdic of the Vat. [G.] 

LAS'THENES (Ao(r««V7jj ; cf. At£-^axos), an 
officer who stood high in the favour of Demetrius II. 
Nicator. He is described as " cousin " (ffvyytviis, 
1 Mace. xi. 31), and "father" (1 Mace. xi. 32; 
Jos. Ant. xiii. 3, §9) of the king. Both words may 
le taken as titles of high nobility (comp. Grimm on 

= " king of Ussharon. 



1 Mace. x. 89 ; Diod. xvii. 59 ; Ges. Thes. s. v. 3K, 
§4). It appears from Josephus (Ant. xiii. 4, §3) 
that he was a Cretan, to whom Demetrius was 
indebted for a large body of mercenaries (cf. 1 Mace. 
x. 67), when he asserted his claim to the Syrian 
throne. The service which he thus rendered makes 
it likely (Vales, ad loc.) that he was the powerful 
favourite whose evil counsels afterwards issued in 
the ruin of his master (Diod. Exc. xxxii. p. 592). 
But there is not the slightest ground for identifying 
him with the nameless Cnidian to whose charge 
Demetrius I. committed his sons (Just. xxxv. 2). 

[B. F. W.] 

LATCHET, the thong or fastening by which 
the sandal was attached to the foo;. The English 
word is apparently derived from the A. Saxon 
laeccan, " to catch " or " fasten " (Old Eng. " to 
latch"), as "hatchet" from haccan, " to hack ;" 
whence " latch," the fastening of a door, " lock," 
and others. The Fr. lacet approaches most nearly 
in form to the present word. The Hebrew 'ifl'TE', 
seroc, is derived from a root which signifies " to 
twist." It occurs in the proverbial expression in 
Gen. xiv. 23, and is there used to denote some 
thing trivial or worthless. Gesenius (Thes. s. v. 

PI) compares the Lat. hilum =filum, and quotes 
two Arabic proverbs from the Hamasa and the 
Kamus, in which a corresponding word is simi 
larly employed. In the poetical figure in Is. v. 
27 the " latchet " occupies the same position with 
regard to the shoes as the girdle to the long flow 
ing Oriental dress, and was as essential 'to the 
comfort and expedition of the traveller. Another 
semi-proverbial expression in Luke iii. 16 points to 
the fact that the office of bearing and unfastening 
the shoes of great personages fell to the meanest 
slaves. [SHOE.] [W. A. W.] 

•LATIN, the language spoken by the Romans, 
is mentioned only in John xix. 20, and Luke xxiii. 
38 ; the former passage being a translation of 
'Punaiffrl, " in the Roman tongue," i. e. Liaiin ; and 
the latter pf the adjective 'Pcojuoi'/cois 

LATTICE. The rendering in A. V. of three 
Hebrew words. 

1. UJB'K, eshiidb, which occurs but twice, Judg. 
v. 28, and 1'rov. vii. 6, and in the latter passage is 
translated '-casement" in the A. V. In both in 
stances it stands in parallelism with " window." 
Gesenius, following Schultens, connects it with an 
Arab, root, which signifies " to be cool," esp. of the 
day, and thus attaches to eshndb the signification 
of a " latticed window," through which the cool 
breezes enter the house, such as is seen in the illus 
trations to the article HOUSE (vol. i. p. 837). But 
Fuerst and Meier attach to the root the idea of 
twisting, twining, and in this case the word will 
be synonymous with the two following, which are 
rendered by the same English term, " lattice," in 
the A. V. The LXX. in Judg. v. 28 render eshndb 
by To^utAv, which is explained by Jerome (ad Ez. 
xl. 16) to mean a small arrow-shaped aperture, 
narrow on the outside, but widening inwards, by 
which light is admitted. Others conjecture that it 
denoted a narrow window, like those in the castles 
of the Middle Ages, from which the archers could 
discharge their arrows in safety. It would then 
correspond with the " shot-window " of Chaucer 
(" Miller's Tale "), according to the interpretation 
whicli some give to that obscure phrase. 


<)6 LAVKK 

2. D*3"in, kh&raccim (Cant, ii.fl), rw apparently 
synonymous with the preceding, though a won! o 
later date. The Targum gives it, in the Chalde 
form, as the equivalent of eshndb in Prov. vii. 6 
Kucrst (Cone. s. v.), and Michaelis before him 
assign to the root the same notion of twisting o 
weaving, so that khdraccim denotes a network o 
jalousie before a window. 

3. HDIK', sebdcdJi, is simply " a network 
placed before a window or balcony. Perhaps th 
network through which Ahaziah fell and receive* 
his mortal injury was on the parapet of his palac 
(-2 K.i.2). [HousK, vol.i.8386,839«.] The roo 
involves the same idea of weaving or twisting as ii 
the case of the two preceding words. Sebdcdh i 
used for " a net" in Job xviii. 8, as well as for th 
network ornaments on the capitals of the columns 
:n the Temple. [WINDOW.] [W. A. W.] 

LAVER.* ]. In the Tabernacle, a vessel o 
brass containing water for the priests to wash thei 
hands and feet before offering sacrifice. It stooi 
in the court between the altar and the door of th 
Tabernacle, and, according to Jewish tradition, i 
little to the south (Ex. xxx. 19, 21 ; Reland, Ant 
Hebr. pt. i. ch. iv. 9 ; Clemens, de Labro Aeneo, iii 
9 ; ap. Ugolini, Thes. vol. six.). It rested on a 
basis, b t. e. a foot, though by some explained to be a 
cover (Clemens, ibid. c. iii. 5), of copper or brass 
which, as well as the laver itself, was made from the 
mirrors c of the women who assembled a at the doo: 
of the Tabernacle-court (Ex. xxxviii. 8). The notion 
held by some Jewish writer, and reproduced by Fran 
ziu<s, Biihr (Symb. i. 484), and others, founded on thi 
omission of the word " women," that the brazen 
vessel, being polished, served as a mirror to th 
I'vites, is untenable. 9 

The form of the laver is not specified, but may 
be assumed to have been circular. Like the othei 
vessels belonging to the Tabernacle, it was, together 
with its " foot," consecrated with oil (Lev. viii. 10 
1 1"). No mention is found in the Hebrew texl 
of the mode of transporting it, but in Num. iv. 
14 a passage is added in the LXX., agreeing with 
the Samaritan Pent, and the Samaritan version, 
which prescribes the method of packing it, viz. in 
a purple cloth, protected by a skin covering. As 
no mention is made of any vessel for washing the 
flesh of the sacrificial victims, it is possible that the 


I laver may have been us«d for this purpos* also 
(Keland, Ant. Hebr. i. iv. 9). 

2. In Solomon's Temple, besides the great molten 
sea, there were ten lavers f of brass, raised on 
bases « (1 K. vii. 27, 39), five on the N. and S. 
sides respectively of the court of the priests. Each 
laver contained 40 of the measures called " bath " 
(x<f«> LXX. and Josephus). They were used for 
washing the animals to be offered in burntH>fferings 
(2 Chr. iv. 6 ; Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, §6). The bases 
were mutilated by Ahaz, and carried away as plunder, 
or at least what remained of them, by Nebuzar-adan, 
after the capture of Jerusalem (2 K. xvi. 17 ; xxv. 
13). No mention is made in Scripture of the exist 
ence of the lavers in the second Temple, nor by 
Josephus in his account of Herod's restoration 
(Joseph. B. J. v. 5). [MOLTEN SEA.] 

The dimensions of the bases with the lavers, as 
given in the Hebrew text, are 4 cubits in length 
and breadth, and 3 in height. The LXX. gives 

4 X 4 X 6 in height. Josephus, who appears to have 
followed a var. reading of the LXX., makes them 

5 in length, 4 in width, and 6 in height (1 K. vii. 
28; Thenius, ad loc.; Joseph. Ant. viii. 8, §3) 
There were to each 4 wheels of 1^ cubit in diameter, 
with spokes, &c.. all cist in one piece. The prin 
cipal parts requiring explanation may be thus enu 
merated : — (a) " Borders," 11 probably panels. Ge- 
senius ( Thes. 938) supposes these to have been orna 
ments like square shields with engraved work, (b) 
" Ledges," ' joints in comers of bases or fillets cover 
ing joints.* (c) " Additions," » probably festoons ; 
Lightfbot translates, "marginesobliquedescendentes." 
(d) Plates, probably axles, cast in the same piece aa 
the wheels, (e) Undersettei-s, either the naves of 
the wheels, or a sort of handles for moving the whole 
machine ; Lightfoot renders " columnae fulcientes 
lavacrum." (/) Naves.P (g) Spokes. q (A) Felloes.' 
(i) Chapiter,* 1 perhaps the rim of the circular open 
ing (" mouth," ver. 31) in the convex top. (£) A 
round compass,' perhaps the convex roof of the base. 
To these parts Josephus adds chains, which may 
probably be the festoons above mentioned (Ant. 
viii. 3, §6). 

Thenius, with whom Keil in the main agrees, 
both of them differing from Ewald, in a minute 
examination of the whole passage, but not without 
some transposition, chiefly of the greater part of 
ver. 31 to ver. 35, deduces a construction of the 

• "li'3 and "1»3, from 1-13, " to boil," Ges. p. C71 : 
Xovr>7p : labrum. 

b |3, 0a<r«, basis, and so also A. V. 
° rtftOD. KaToirrpa, specula. 
d LXX. riav in)<rrev<rcurS>v. 

• See the parallel passage, 1 Sam. ii. 22, where 
D*E>3> yvvaiituv, is inserted ; Gesenius on the prep. 
3, p. 172 ; Keil, Sibl.Arch. pt. i. c. 1, §19 ; Glassius, 
Phil. Sacr. i. p. 580, ed. Dathe ; Lightfoot, Descr. 
Tempi, c. 37, 1 ; Jennings, Jew. Antiq. p. $02 ; Knobel, 
Kurtzg. Exey. Handb. Exod. xxxviii. Philo, Tit. Mos. 
iii. 15, ii. 156, ed. Mangey. 

' rvn»3. 

* ntabo, pi. of rubp or nitoo, from pa, 

"stand upright," Gen. pp. 665, 670 ; pexiavuO; bases. 

vyifAei'ovuuiTa ; scu>,pturae. 

xoneva, junchirae, from S?^. " out 
in notches," Ges. p. 1411. 

^ Josephus says : KIOCUJXOI rtrpayiavoi, ra ir\evpa 
TTJS 0a<recof «f exarepov juc'povf iv avrots ixovrtt efjjp- 

niv, from HI?, "twine," GCB. p. 746; 

'ora ; whence Thenius suggests AWJXH or Xupa u the 
true reading. 

vpoexovra, axes, Ges. 972 ; Lightfoot, 
massae aereae tetragonae. 

, u^Cai, humeruli, Ges. 724. 
, modioli ; and 
'H, radii; the two words combined it 

XX. i irpaynaTtia, Ges. p. 536; Schleusner, Ley. 
'. T., wpayp. 

' 0*33, vuni, canthi, Ges. p. 256. 

, K«<f>aAis. stimmitas, Ges. p. 725. 
bjy, Ges. 935, 985 : 



bases and layers, v/hich -seems fairly to reconcile 
tho very great difficulties of the subject. Following 
chiefly his description, we may suppose the base to 
have been a quadrangular hollow frame, connected 
at its corners by pilastere (ledges), and moved by 
4 wheels or high castors, one at each comer, with 
handles ('plates) for drawing the machine. The 
sides of this frame were divided into 3 vertical 
panels or compartments (borders), ornamented with 
bas-reliefs of lions, oxen, and cherubim. The top 
of the base was convex, with a circular opening 
of 1| cubit diameter. The top itself was covered 
with engraved cherubim, lions, and palm-trees or 
branches. The height of the convex top from the 
tipper plane of the base was ^ cubit, and the space 
between this top and the lower surface of the laver 
J cubit more. The laver rested on supports (under- 
setters) rising from the 4 corners of the base. Each 
laver contained 40 "baths," or about 300 gallons. Its 
dimensions, therefore, to be in proportion to 7 feet 
(4 cubits, ver. 38) in diameter, must have been 
about 30 inches in depth. The great height of the 
whole machine was doubtless in order to bring it 
near the height of the altar (2 Chr. iv. 1 ; Arias 
Montanus. de Tcmpli Fabrica, Crit. Sacr. viii. 626 ; 
Ughtfoot, Descr. Templi, c. xxxvii. 3, vol. i. 646; 
Thenius, in Kurzg. Exey. Handb. on 1 K. vii., and 
App. p. 41; Ewald, Geschichte, iii. 313; Keil, 
Handb. der Bibl. Arch. §24, p. 128, 129 ; Winer, 
s. v. Hcmdfass). [H. W. P.] 


Conjectural Diagram nf the 1,-ivir. (After Tbcniun.) 

a, bartlera; i, ledge*; r, additions; </, plate* e, undcncttcii 
/, cavM ; .7, ipokc* ; It, Iclloo ; t, chapiter ; k, roun 

LAW (m'lfl : Ncfyios). The word is properly 
used, in Scripture as elsewhere, to express a definite 
commandment laid down by any recognised autho 
rity. The commandment may be general, or (as 


in Lev. vi. 9, 14, &c., "the law jf the burnt- 
ortering," &c.) particular in its bearing; the autho 
rity either human or divine. But when the word 
is used with the article, and without any words of 
limitation, it refrvs to the expressed will of God, 
and, in nine cases out of ten, to the Mosaic Law, 
?r *x> the I'entateuch, of which it forms the chief 

The Hpbiv.v word (derived from the root JIT 
" to point out," and so " to direct and lead ") lays 
more stress on its moral authority, as teaching the 
truth, and guiding in the right way; the Greek 
N<fyios (from vd/mw, "to assign or appoint"), on ite 
constraining power, as imposed and enforced by a 
recognised authority. But in either case it is a 
commandment proceeding from without, and dis 
tinguished from the free action of its subjects, 
although not necessarily opposed thereto. 

The sense of the word, however, extends its scope, 
and assumes a more abstract character in the 
writings of St. Paul. NdVios, when used by him 
with the article, still refers in general to the Law 
of Moses ; but when used without the article, so as 
to embrace any manifestation of "Law," it includes 
all powers which act on the will of man by com 
pulsion, or by the pressure of external motives, 
whether their commands be or be not expressed in 
definite forms. This is seen in the constant oppo 
sition of epya fSftov (" works done under the con 
straint of law ") to faith, or " works of faith," 
that is, works done freely by the internal influence 
of faith. A still more remarkable use of the word 
is found in Rom. vii. 23, where the power of evil 
over the will, arising from the corruption of man, is 
spoken of MS a " law of sin," that is, an unnatural 
tyranny proceeding from an evil power without. 

The occasional use of the word " law " (as in 
Rom. iii. 27, " law of faith ;" in vii. 23, " law of 
my mind," rov vo6s; in viii. 2, " law of the spirit 
of life ;" and in Jam. i. 25, ii. 12, " a perfect law. 
the law of liberty ") to denote an internal principle 
of action, does not really militate against the gene 
ral rule. For in each case it will be seen, that suc'ii 
principle is spoken of in contrast with some formal 
law, and the word "law" is consequently applied 
to it " improperly," in order to mark this oppo 
sition, the qualifying words which follow guarding 
against any danger of misapprehension of its real 

It should also be noticed that the title " the 
Law " is occasionally used loosely to refer to the 
whole of the Old Testament (as in John x. 34, 
referring to Ps. Ixxxii. 6 ; in John xv. 25, referring 
to Ps. xxxv. 19; and in 1 Cor. xiv. 21, referring to 
Is. xxviii. 11, 12). This usage is probably due, not 
only to desire of brevity and to the natural prominence 
of the Pentateuch, but also to the predominance ic 
the older Covenant (when considered separately from 
the New, for which it was the preparation) of <;B 
external and legal character. [A . B. | 

LAW OF MOSES. It will be the object of 
this article, not to enter into the history of the 
giving of the Law (for which see MOSES, THE 
EXODUS, &c.), nor to examine the authorship of 
the books in which it is contained (for which see 
PENTATEUCH, EXODUS, &c.), nor to dwell on par 
ticular ordinances, which are treated cf under their 
respective heads ; but to give a brief analysis of its 
substance, to point out its main principles; and to 
explain the positron which it occupies in the pro 
gress of Divine Revelation. In order to do this 

F 2 


tike more cleai ly, it seems best to speak of the Law, 
1st, in relation to the past; 2ndly, in its own 
intrinsic character ; and, Srdly, in its relation to the 

(I.) (a.) In reference to the past, it is all-import- 
ant, for the proper understanding of the Law, to 
remember its entire dependence on the Abrahamic 
Covenant, and its adaptation thereto (see Gal. iii. 
17-24). That covenant had a twofold character. 
It contained the " spiritual promise " of the Mes 
siah, which was given to the Jews as representa 
tives of the whole human i-ace, and as guardians of 
a treasure in which " all families of the earth 
should be blessed." This would prepare the Jewish 
nation to be the centre of the unity of all mankind. 
But it contained also the temporal promises sub 
sidiary to the former, and needed in order to pre 
serve intact the nation, through which the race of 
man should be educated and prepared for the 
coming of the Redeemer. These promises were 
special, given distinctively to the Jews as a nation, 
and, so far as they were considered in themselves, 
calculated to separate them from other nations of 
the earth. It follows that there should be in the 
Law a corresponding duality of nature. There 
would be much in it of the latter character, much 
(that is) peculiar to the Jews, local, special, and 
transitory ; but the fundamental principles on 
which it was based must be universal, because 
expressing the will of an unchanging God, and 
springing from relations to Him, inherent in 
human nature, and therefore perpetual and uni 
versal in their application. 

(6.) The nature of this relation of the Law to 
the promise is clearly pointed out. The belief in 
God as the Redeemer of man, and the hope of His 
manifestation as such in the person of the Messiah, 
involved the belief that the Spiritual Power must 
be superior to all carnal obstructions, and that 
there was in man a spiritual element which could 
rule his life by communion with a Spirit from 
above. But it involved also the idea of an antago 
nistic Power of Evil, from which man was to be 
redeemed, existing in each individual, and existing 
also in the world at large. The promise was the 
witness of the one truth, the Law was the de 
claration of the other. It was " added because of 
transgressions." In the individual, it stood between 
his better and his worser self; in the world, between 
the Jewish nation, as the witness of the spiritual 
promise, and the heathendom, which groaned under 
the power of the flesh. It was intended, by the 
gift of guidance and the pressure of motives, to 
strengthen the weakness of good, while it curbed 
directly the power of evil. It followed inevitably, 
that, in the individual, it assumed somewhat of a 
coercive, and, as between Israel and the world, 
somewhat of an antagonistic and isolating cha 
racter; and hence that, viewed without reference 
to the promise (as it was viewed by the later 
Jews), it might actually become a hindrance to the 
true revelation of God, and to the mission for 
which the nation had been made a " chosen people." 

(c.) Nor is it less essential to remark the period 
of the history at which it was given. It marked 
and determined the transition of Israel from the 
condition of a tribe to that of a nation, and its 
definite assumption of a distinct position and office 
in the history of the world. It is on no unreal 
metaphor that we base the well-known analogy 
between the stages of individual life and those of 
national or universal existence. la Israel the pa- 


triarchal time was that of childhood, ruled chiefly 
through the affections and the power of natural 
relationship, with rules few, simple, and unsys 
tematic. The national period was that of youth. 
in which this indirect teaching and influence give? 
place to definite assertions of right and responsi 
bility, and to a system of distinct commandments, 
needed to control its vigorous and impulsive action. 
The fifty days of their wandering alone with <io.| 
in the silence of the wilderness represent that 
awakening to the difficulty, the responsibility, and 
the nobleness of life, which marks the "putting 
away of childish things." The Law is the sign and 
the seal of such an awakening. 

(d.) Yet, though new in its general conception, 
it was probably not wholly new in its materials. 
Neither in His material nor His spiritual providence 
does God proceed per saltum. There must neces 
sarily have been, before the Law, commandments 
and revelations of a fragmentary character, under 
which Israel had hitherto grown up. Indications 
of such are easily found, both of a ceremonial and 
moral nature; as, for example, in the penalties 
against murder, adultery, and fornication (Gen. ix. 
6, xxxviii. 24), in the existence of the Levirate law 
(Gen. xxxviii. 8), in the distinction of clean and 
unclean animals (Gen. viii. 20), and probably in 
the observance of the Sabbath (Ex. xvi. 23, 27-29). 
But, even without such indications, our knowledge 
of the existence of Israel as a distinct community 
in Egypt would necessitate the conclusion, that it 
must have been guided by some laws of its own, 
growing out of the old patriarchal customs, which 
would be preserved with Oriental tenacity, and 
gradually becoming methodised by the progress of 
circumstances. Nor would it be possible for th« 
Israelites to be in contact with an elaborate system 
of ritual and law, such as that which existed ii; 
Egypt, without being influenced by its general 
principles, and, in less degree, by its minuter de 
tails. As they approached nearer to the condition 
of a nation they would be more and more likely to 
modify their patriarchal customs by the adoption 
from Egypt of laws which were fittal for national 
existence. This being so, it is hardly conceivable 
that the Mosaic legislation should have embodied 
none of these earlier materials. It is clear, even 
to human wisdom, that the only constitution, which 
can be efficient and permanent, is one which has 
grown up slowly, and so been assimilated to the 
character of a people. It is the peculiar mark of 
legislative genius to mould by fundamental prin 
ciples, and animate by a higher inspiration, ma 
terials previously existing in a cruder state. Th« 
necessity for this lies in the nature, not of the legis 
lator, but of the subjects ; and the argument there 
fore is but strengthened by the acknowledgment in 
the case of Moses of a divine and special inspira 
tion. So far therefore as they were consistent with 
the objects of the Jewish law, the customs of 
Palestine and the laws of Egypt would doubtless be 
traceable in the Mosaic system. 

(e.) In close connexion with and almost in con 
sequence of this reference to antiquity we find an 
accommodation of the Law to the temper and cir 
cumstances of the Israelites, to which our Lord 
refers in the case of divorce (Matt. xix. 7, 8) ae 
necessarily interfering with its absolute perfection. 
In many cases it rather should be said to guide and 
modify existing usages than actually to sanction 
them ; and the ignorance of their existence may 
lead to a conception of its i nlin:inct'S not only 


erroneous, but actually the reverse of the truth. 
Thus the punishment of filial disobedience appears 
severe (Deut. xxi. 18-21); yet when we refer to 
the extent of parental authority in a patriarchal 
system, or (as at Rome) in the earlier periods of 
national existence, it appears more like a limitation 
of absolute parental authority by an appeal to the 
judgment of the community. The Levirate Law 
again appears (see Mich. Mos. Recht, bk. iii. ch. 6, 
art. 98) to have existed in a far more general form 
in the early Asiatic peoples, and to have been rather 
limited than favoured by Moses. The law of the 
Avenger of blood is a similar instance of merciful 
limitation and distinction in the exercise of an 
immemorial usage, probably not without its value 
and meaning, and certainly too deep-seated to admit 
of any but gradual extinction. Nor is it less 
noticeable that the degree of prominence, given to 
each part of the Mosaic system, has a similar re 
ference to the period at which the nation had 
arrived. The ceremonial portion is marked out 
distinctly and with elaboration ; the moral and 
criminal law is clearly and sternly decisive ; even 
the civil law, so far as it relates to individuals, is 
systematic : because all these were called for by the 
past growth of the nation, and needed in order to 
settle and develope its resources. But the political 
and constitutional law is comparatively imperfect ; 
a few leading principles are laid down, to be de 
veloped hereafter; but the law is directed rather 
to sanction the various powers of the state, than to 
define and balance their operations. Thus the ex 
isting authorities of a patriarchal nature in each 
tribe and family are recognised ; while side by side 
with them is established the priestly and Levitical 
power, which was to supersede them entirely in 
sacerdotal, and partly also in judicial functions. 
The supreme civil power of a " Judge," or (here 
after) a King, is recognised distinctly, although 
only in general terms, indicating a sovereign and 
summary jurisdiction (Deut. xvii. 14-20) ; and the 
prophetic office, in its political as well as its moral 
aspect, is spoken of still more vaguely as future 
(Deut. xviii. 15-22). These powers, being recog 
nised, are left, within due limits, to work out the 
political system of Israel, and to ascertain by ex 
perience their proper spheres of exercise. On a 
careful understanding of this adaptation of the Law 
to the national growth and character of the Jews 
(and of a somewhat similar adaptation to their 
climate and physical circumstances) depends the 
correct appreciation of its nature, and the power of 
distinguishing in it what is local and temporary 
from that which is universal. 

(/.) In close connexion with this subject we 
observe also the gradual process by which the Law 
was revealed to the Israelites. In Ex. xx.-xxiii., in 
direct connexion with the revelation from Mount 
Sinai, that which may be called the rough outline 
of the Mosaic Law is given by God, solemnly re 
corded by Moses, and accepted by the people. In 
Ex. xxv.-xxxi. there is a similar outline of the 
Mosaic ceremonial. On the basis of these it m;iy 
be conceived that the fabric of the Mosaic system 
gradually grew up under the requirements of the 
time. In certain cases indeed (as e. g. in Lev. x. 
1, 2, compared with 8-1 1 ; Lev. xxiv. 1 1-16 ; Num. 
ix. 6-12; xv. 32-41; xxvii. 1-11 compared with 
xxxvi. 1-12) we actually see how general rules, 
civil, criminal, and ceremonial, originated in special 
circumstances ; and the unconnected nature of the 
records of laws in the earlier books suggests the 



idea that this method of legislation extended to 
many other cases. 

The first revelation of the Law in anything like 
a perfect form is found in the book of Deuteronomy, 
at a period when the people, educated to freedom 
and national responsibility, were prepared to re 
ceive it, and carry it with them to the land which 
was now prepared for them. It is distinguished 
by its systematic character and its reference to first 
principles ; for probably even by Moses himself, cer 
tainly by the people, the Law had not before this 
been recognised in all its essential characteristics ( 
and to it we naturally refer in attempting to ana 
lyze its various parts. [DEUTERONOMY.] Yet even 
then the revelation was not final ; it was the duty 
of the prophets to amend and explain it in special 
points (as in the well-known example in Ez. xviii.), 
and to bring out more clearly its great principles, 
as distinguished from the external rules in which they 
were embodied ; for in this way, as in others, they 
prepared the way of Him, who "came to fulfil" 
(7r\Tjpc5<rai) the Law of old time. 

The relation, then, of the Law to the Covenant, 
its accommodation to the time and circumstances 
of its promulgation, its adaptation of old materials, 
and its gradual development, are the chief points to 
be noticed under the first head. 

(II.) In examining the nature of the Law >n 
itself, it is customary to divide it into the Moral, 
Political, and Ceremonial. But this division, al 
though valuable, if considered as a distinction merely 
subjective (as enabling us, that is, to conceive the 
objects of Law, dealing as it does with man in his 
social, political, and religious capacity), is wholly 
imaginary, if regarded as an objective separation of 
various classes of- Laws. Any single ordinance 
might have at once a moral, a ceremonial, and a 
political bearing ; and in fact, although in parti 
cular eases one or other of these aspects predomi 
nated, yet the whole principle of the Mosaic insti 
tutions is to obliterate any such supposed separation 
of laws, and refer all to first principles, depending 
on the Will of God and the nature of man. 

In giving an analysis of the substance of the Law. 
it will probably be better to treat it, as any othei 
system of laws is usually treated, by dividing it 
into — (1) Laws Civil; (2) Laws Criminal; (3) 
Laws Judicial and Constitutional ; (4) Laws Eccle 
siastical and Ceremonial. 




The power of a Father to be held sacred ; curs 
ing, or smiting (Ex. xxi. 15, 17 ; Lev. xx. 9), or 
stubborn and wilful disobedience to be considered 
capital crimes. But uncontrolled power of life and 
death was apparently refused to the lather, and vested 
only in the congregation (Deut. xxi. 18-21). 

Right of the first-born to a double portior. of the 
inheritance not to be set aside by partiality (Deut. 
xxi. 15-17)." 

Inheritance by Daughters to be allowed in default 
of sons, provided (Num. xxvii. 6-8, comp. xxxvi.) 
that heiresses married in their own tribe. 

Daughters unmarried to be entirely dependent 
on their father (Num. xxx. 3-5). 

• For an example of the authority of the first-born 
see 1 Sam. xx. 29 ("my brother, he hath commanded 
me to be there"). 




The power of a Husband to be so great that a 
wife could never be sui juris, or enter independently 
into any engagement, even before God (Num. xxx. 
6-15). A widow or divorced wife became inde 
pendent, and did not again fall under her father's 
power (ver. 9). 

Divorce (for uncleannsss) allowed, but to be 
formal and irrevocable (Deut. xxiv. 1-4). 

Marriage within certain degrees forbidden (Lev. 
xviii. &c.). 

A Slave Wife, whether bought or captive, not to 
be actual property, nor to be sold ; if ill-treated, to 
be ipso facto free (Ex. xxi. 7-9; Deut. xxi. 10-14). 

Slander against a wife's virginity, to be punished 
by fine, and by deprival of power of divorce ; on 
the other hand, ante-connubial uncleanuess in her 
to be punished by death (Deut. xxii. 13-21). 

The raising up of seed (Levirate law) a formal 
right to be claimed by the widow, under pain of 
infamy, with a view to preservation of families 
(Deut. xxv. 5-10). 


Power of Master so far limited, that death under 
actual chastisement was punishable (Ex. xxi. 20) ; 
and maiming was to give liberty ipso facto (ver. 
26, 27). 

The Hebrew Slave to be freed at the sabbatical 
7ear, b and provided with necessaries (his wife and 
children to go with him only if they came to his 
master with him), unless by his own formal act 
he consented to be a perpetual slave (Ex. xxi. 1-6 ; 
Deut. xv. 12-18). In any case (it would seem) to 
be freed at the jubilee (Lev. xxv. 10), with his chil 
dren. If sold to a resident alien, to be always re 
deemable, at a price proportional to the distance of 
the jubilee (Lev. xxv. 47-54). 

Foreign Slaves to be held and inherited as pro 
perty for ever (Lev. xxv. 45, 46); and fugitive 
slaves from foreign nations not to be given up 
(Deut. xxiii. 15). 


They seem never to have been sui juris, or able 
to protect themselves, and accordingly protection 
and kindness towards them are enjoined as a sacred 
duty (Ex. xxii. 21 ; Lev. xix. 33, 34). 



(1) All Land to be the property of God alone, 
and its holders to be deemed His tenants (Lev. 
xxv. 23). 

(2) All sold Land therefore to return to its ori 
ginal owners at the jubilee, and the price of sale to 
be calculated accordingly ; and redemption on equit- 
aUe terms to be allowed at all times (xxv. 25-27). 

A House sold to be redeemable within a year ; 
and, if not redeemed, to pass away altogether (szv. 
29, 30). 

But the Houses of the Levites, or those in 1111- 
walled villages to be redeemable at all times, in the 
same way as land ; and the Levitical suburbs to be 
inalienable (xxv. 31-34). 

(3) Land or Houses sanctified, or tithes, or un 
clean firstlings to be capable of being redeemed, <it % 
value (calculated according to the distance from the 
jubilee-year by the priest) ; if devoted by the owner 

* The difficulty of enforcing this law is seen in 
ler. xxxiv. 8-\6. 


and unredeemed, to be hallowed at the jubilee foi 
ever, and given to the priests ; if only by a possessor, 
to return to the owner at the jubilee (Lev. xxvii 

(4) Inheritance. 

(1) Sons. 

(2) Daughters." 
(3) Brot'* 

(4) Uncie* on the Father's lii*. \ 

(5) Next Kinsmen, generally 


(1) All Debts (to an Israelite) to be released at 
the 7th (sabbatical) year ; a blessing promised to 
obedience, and a curse on refusal to lend (Deut. XT. 

(2) Usury (from Israelites) not to be taken (Ex. 
xxii. 25-27 ; Deut. xxiii. 19, 20). 

(3) Pledges net to be insolently or ruinously ex 
acted (Deut. xxiv. 6, 10-13, 17, 18). 


(1) Census-money, a poll-tax (of a half-sheitel), to 

be paid for the service of the tabernacle (Ex. 
xxx. 12-16). 

All spoil in war to be halved; of the com 
batant's half, sfoth, of the people's, ^,th, to b« 
paid for a " heave-oflering" to Jehovah. 

(2) Tithes. 

(a) Titftes of all produce to be given for 
maintenance of the Levites (Num. xviii. 

(Of this ^th to be paid as a heave-ofler- 
mg (for maintenance of the priests) .... 

(/3) Second Tithe to be bestowed in religious 
feasting and charity, either at the Holy 
Place, or every 3rd year at home (?) (Deut. 
xiv. 22-28). 

(7) First-Fruits of corn, wine, and oil (at 
least ^,th, generally ,' B th, for the priests) 
to be offered at Jerusalem, with a solemn 
declaration of dependence on God the King 
of Israel (Deut. xxvi. 1-15: Num. xviii. 
12, 13). 

Firstlings of clean beasts ; the redemp 
tion-money (5 shekels) of man, and (J she 
kel, or 1 shekel) of unclean beasts, to be 
given to the priests after sacrifice (Num. 
xviii. 15-18). 

(3) Poor-Laws. 

(a) Gleanings (in field or vineyard) to be a 
legal right of the poor (Lev. xix. 9, 105 
Deut. xxiv. 19-22). 

(0) Slight Trespass (eating on the spot) to 
be allowed as legal (Deut. xxiii. 24, 25). 

(7) Second Tithe (see 2 ft) to be given in 

(8) Wages to be paid day by day (Deut. 
xxiv. 15). 

(4) Maintenance of Priests (Num. xviii. 8-32). 

(a) Tenth of Levites' Tithe. (See 2 a). 
06) The heave and wave-offerings (breast 

and right shoulder of all i*ace-offerings). 
(7) The meat and sin-offerings, to be eaten 

solemnly, and only in the holy place. 
(5) First-Fruits and redemption money. (Sea 

* Heiresses to marry in their own tribe (Num. 
xxvii. 6-8, xxxvi.). 


(<} Price of all devoted things, unless spc- j 
cially given for a sacral service. A man's 
service, or that cf bis household, to be re 
deemed at 50 shekels for man, 30 for woman, 
20 for boy, and 10 for girl. 



nature of treason). 

1 st Comrn-nd. Acknowledgment of false gods 
(Ex. xxii. 20), as e.g. Moloch (Lev. xx. 1-5), and 
generally all idolatry (Deut. xiii., xvii. 2-5). 

2nd Command. Witchcraft and false prophecy 
(Kx. xxii. 18 ; Deut. xviii. 9-22; Lev. xix. 31). 

3rd Command. Blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 15, 16). 

4th Command. Sabbath-breaking (Num. xv. 

Punishment in all cases, death by stoning. Ido 
latrous cities to be utterly destroyed. 


5th Command. Disobedience to or cursing or 
smiting of parents (Ex. xxi. 15, 17 ; Lev. xx. 9, 
Deut. xxi. 18-21), to be punished by death by 
stoning, publicly adjudged and inflicted ; so also of 
disobedience to the priests (as judges) or Supreme 
Judge. Comp. 1 K. xxi. 10-14 (Naboth) ; 2 Chr. 
xxiv. 21 (Zechariah). 

6th Command. (1) Murder, to be punished by 
ieath without sanctuary or reprieve, or satisfaction 
(Ex. xxi. 12, 14; Deut. xix. 11-13). Death of a 
slave, actually under the rod, to be uunished (Ex. 
xxi. 20, 21). 

(2) Death by negligence, to be punished by 
death (Ex. xxi. 28-30). 

(3) Accidental Homicide ; the avenger of blood 
to be escaped by flight to the cities of refuge till 
the death of the high-priest (Num. xxxv. 9-28; 
Deut. iv. 41-43, xix. 4-10). 

(4) Uncertain Murder, to be expiated by formal 
disavowal and sacrifice by the elders of the nearest 
city (Deut. xxi. 1-9). 

(5) Assault to be punished by lex talionis, or 
damages (Ex. xxi. 18, 19, 22-25; Lev. xxiv. 
19, 20). 

7th Command. (1) Adultery to be punished by 
death of both offenders ; the rape of a married or 
betrothed woman, by death of the offender (Deut. 
xxii. 13-27). 

'2) Rape or Seduction of an unbetrothed virgin, 
to be compensated by marriage, with dowry (50 
shekels), and without power of divorce ; cr, r. sha 
be refused, by payment of full dowry (Ex. xxii. 16, 
17 ; Deut. xxii. 28, 29). 

(3) Unlawful Marriages (incestuous, &c.), to be 
puuished, some by death, some by childlessness 
(Lev. xx.). 

8th Command. (1) Theft to be punished by 
fourfold or double restitution ; a nocturnal robber 
might be slain as an outlaw (Ex. xxii. 1-4). 

(2) Trespass and injury of things lent to be 
compensated (Ex. xxii. 5-15). 

(3) Perversion of Justice (by bribes, threats, 
&c.), and especially oppression of strangers, strictly 
forbidden (Ex. xxiii. 9, &c.). 

(4) Kidnapping to be punished by death (Deut. 
xxiv. 7). 

9th Command. False Witness ; to be punished 
by lex talionis (Ex. xxiii. 1-3; Deut. six. 16-21). 

Slander of a wife's chastity, by fine and loss of 
| owev of divorce (Deut. xxii. 18, 19). 



A fuller consideration of the tables o: tht Pet 
Commandments is given elsewhere. [TEN Coil 




(a) Local Judges (generally Levites, as more 
skilled in the Law) appointed, for ordinary matters, 
probably by the people with approbation of the su 
preme authority (as of Moses in the wilderness) 
(Ex. xviii. 25; Deut, i. 15-18), through all t.'ie 
land (Deut. xvi. 18). 

(ft) Appeal to the Priests (at the holy place), or 
to the judge ; their sentence final, and to be ac 
cepted under pain of death. See Deut. xvii. 8-13 
(comp. appeal to Moses, Ex. xviii. 26.) 

(c) Tiro witnesses (at least) required in capital 
matters (Num. xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6, 7). 

(d) Punishment (except by special command) 
to be personal, and not to extend to the family 
(Deut. xxiv. 16). 

Stripes allowed and limited (Deut. xxv. 1-3), so 
as to avoid outrage on the human frame. 

All this would be to a great extent set aside — 

1st. By tile summary jurisdiction of the king. See 
1 Sam. xxii. 11-19 (Saul); 2 Sam. xii. 1-5, xiv. 
4-11 ; 1 K. iii. 16-28; which extended even to the 
deposition of the high-priest (1 Sam. xxii. 17, 18; 
1 K. ii. 26, 27). 

The practical difficulty of its being carried out is 
seen in 2 Sam. xv. 2-6, and would lead of course 
to a certain delegation of his power. 

2nd. By the appointment of the Seventy (Num. 
xi. 24-30) with a solemn religious sanction. (In 
later times there was a local Sanhedrim of 23 in each 
city, and two such in Jerusalem, as well as the 
Great Sanhedrim, consisting of 70 members, besides 
the president, who was to be the high-priest if duly 
qualified, and controling even the king and high- 
priest. The members were priests, scribes (Levites), 
and elders (of other tribes). A court of exactly 
this nature is noticed, as appointed to supreme 
power by Jehoshaphat. (See 2 Ch. xix. 8-11.; 


The King's Power limited by the Law, as written 
and formally accepted by the king: and directly 
forbidden to bedespotic d (Deut. xvii. 14-20; comp. 
1 Sam. x. 25). Yet he had power of taxation (to 
,gth); and of compulsory service (1 Sam. viii. 10- 
18; the declaration of war (1 Sam. xi.), &c. There 
are distinct traces of a " mutual contract" (2 Sam. 
T. 3 (David); a "league" (Joash), 2 K. xi. 17) ; 
the remonstrance with Rehoboant being clearly not 
extraordinary (1 K. xii. 1-6). 

T/K Princes of the Congregation. The heads of 
the tribes (see Josh. ix. 15) seem to have had au 
thority under Joshua to act for the people ('omp. 
1 Chr. xxvii. 16-22) ; and in the later tim<-s " the 
princes of Judah " seem to have had power to con 
trol both the king and the priests (see Jer. xxvi. 
10-24, xxxviii. 4, 5, &c.). 

(C) ROYAL REVENUE. (See Mich. b. n. 
c. 7, art. 59. 

(1) Tenth of produce. 

(2) Domain land (1 Chr. xxvii. 26-29). Note 
confiscation of criminal's land (1 K. xxi. 15). 

d Military conquest discouraged by the prohibition 
of the use of horses. (See Josh. xi. 6.) For an ex 
ample of obedience to this law see 2 Sain. viii. 4, and 
of disobedience to it in 1 K. x. 20-29. 



(3) Bond service (1 K. v. 17, 18) chiefly on 
foreieuers (1 K. ix. 20-22 ; 2 Chr. ii. 16, 17). 
«4) Flocks and herds (1 Chr. xxvil. 29-31). 

(5) Tributes (gifts) from foreign kings. 

(6) Commerce; especially in Solomon's time 
(1 K. x. 22, 29, &c.). 


(A) LAW OF SACRIFICE (considered as the sign and 
the appointed means of the union with God, 
on which the holiness of the people de 


(a) The whole Burnt-Offering (Lev. i.) of the 
herd or the flock ; to be offered continually 
(Ex. xxix. 58-42); and the fire on the altar 
never to be extinguished (Lev. vi. 8-13). 

(ft) The Meat-Offering (Lev. ii., vi. 14-23) 
of flour, oil, and frankincense, unleavened, 
and seasoned with salt. 

(7) The Peace-Offering (Lev. iii.,vii. 11-21) 
of the herd or the flock ; either a thank- 
offering, or a vow, or freewill offering. 

(8) The Sin-Offering, or Trespass- Offering 
(Lev. iv., v., vi.). 

(a) For sins committed m ignorance (Lev. 

(b) For vows unwittingly made and 
broken, or uncleanness unwittingly 
contracted (Lev. v.). 

(c) For sins wittingly committed (Lev. 
vi. 1-7). 


(a) At the Consecration of Priests (Lev. 

viii., ix.). 
(ft) At the Purification of Women (Lev. xii.). 

(7) At the Cleansing of Lepers (Lev. xiii., 

(8) On the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. 

(«) On the great Festivals (Lev. xxiiil). 

^B) LAW OF HOLINESS (arising from the union 
with God through sacrifice). 


(a) Holiness of the whole people as " children 
of God " (Ex. xix. 5, 6 ; Lev. xi.-xv., xvii., 
xviii. ; Deut. xiv. 1-21) shown in 

(a) The Dedication of the first-born (Ex. 
xiii. 2, 12, 13, xxii. 29, 30, &c.); and 
the offering of all firstlings and first- 
fruits (Deut. xxri., &c.). 
(6) Distinction of clean and unclean food 
(Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv.). 

(c) Provision for purification (Lev. xii., 
xiii., xiv., xv. ; Deut. xxiii. 1-14). 

(d) Laws against disfigurement (Lev. 
xix. 27 ; Deut. xiv. 1 ; comp. Deut. 
xxv. 3, against excessive scourging;. 

(«) Laws against unnatural marriages 

and lusts (Lev. xviii., XT.). 
^8) Holiness of the Priests (and Levites). 

(a) Their consecration (Lev. viii. ix. ; 
Ex. xxix.). 

(6) Their special qualifications and re 
strictions (Lev. xxi., xxii. 1-9). 

(c) Their rights (Deut. xviii. 1-iJ ; Num. 
xviii.) anil authority (Deut. xvii. 8-13). 


fa) The Tabernacle with the ark, the vail, 


the altars, the laver, the priestly vobet , fcc 
(Ex. xxv.-xxviii., xxx). 
(ft) The Holy Place chosen for the peinn- 
nent erection of the tabenuicle (Deut. xii, 
xiv. 22-29), where only all sacrifices were to 
be ottered, and all tithes, first-fruits, vows, 
&c., to be given or eaten. 


(a) The Sabbath (Ex. xx. 9-1 1 , xxiii. 1 2, ic.). 
'JB) The Sirbbatical year (Ex. xxiii. 10, 11 t 
Lev. xxv 1-7, &c.). 

(7) The Year of Jubilee (Lev. xxv. 8-16, &c.). 

(8) The Passover (Ex. xii. 3-27 ; Lev. xxiii. 

(e) The Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) (Ley. 

xxiii. 15, &c.). 
(C) The Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 

(77) The Feast of Trumpets (Lev. xxiii. 

(0) The Day of Atonement (Lev. xxiii. 26- 

32, &c.). 

On this part of the subject, see FESTIVALS, 

Such is the substance of the Mosaic Law ; it* 
details must be studied under their several heads ; 
and their full comprehension requires a constant 
reference to the circumstances, physical and moral, 
of the nation, and a comparison with the correspond 
ing ordinances of other ancient codes. 

The leading principle of the whole is its THEO 
CRATIC CHARACTER, its reference (that is) of all 
action and thoughts of men directly and immediately 
to the will of God. All law, indeed, must ulti 
mately make this reference. If it bases itself on 
the sacredness of human authority, it must finally 
trace that authority to God's appointment ; if on 
the rights of the individual and the need of pro 
tecting them, it must consider these rights as in 
herent and sacred, because implanted by the liand 
of the Creator. But it is characteristic of the 
Mosaic Law, as also of all Biblical history and pro 
phecy, that it passes over all the intermediate steps, 
and refers at once to God's commandment as the 
foundation of all human duty. The key to it is 
found in the ever-recurring formula, " Ye shal» 
observe all these statutes ; I am the LORD." 

It follows from this, that it is to be regarded 
not merely as a law, that is, a rule of conduct, 
based on known truth and acknowledged authority, 
but also as a Revelation of God's nature and His 
dispensations. In this view of it, more particu 
larly, lies its connexion with the rest of the Old 
Testament. As a law, it is definite and (generally 
speaking) final ; as a revelation, it is the beginning 
of the great system of prophecy, and indeed bears 
within itself the marks of gradual development, 
from the first simple declaration (" I am the Lord 
thy God ") in Exodus to the full and solemn decla 
ration of His nature and will in Deuteronomy. 
With this peculiar character of revelation stamped 
upon it, it naturally ascends from rule to principle, 
and regards all goodness in man as the shadow of 
the Divine attributes, " Ye shall be holy : for I the 
Lord your God am holy " (Lev. xix. 2, &c. ; comp, 
Matt. v. 48). 

But this theocratic character of the law dependf 
necessarily on the belief in God, as not only the 
Creator and sustainer . of the world, but as, by 
special covenant, the head of the Jewish nation. It 
is not indeed doubted that lie is the king of all th> 


earth, and that all earthly authority is derived 
from Him ; but here again, in the case of the 
Israelites, the intermediate steps are all but ignored, 
and the people at once brought face to face with 
Him as their ruler. It is to be especially noticed, 
that God's claim (so to speak) on their allegiance 
is based not on His power or wisdom, but on His 
especial mercy in being their Saviour from Egyptian 
bondage. Because they were made free by Him, 
therefore they became His servants (comp. Rom. 
vi. 19-22) ; and the declaration, which stands at 
the opening of the law is, " I am the Lord thy 
God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt." 
(Comp. also the reason given for the observation of 
the sabbath in Deut. v. 15 ; and the historical pre 
faces of the delivery of the second law (Deut. i.-iii.) ; 
of the renewal of the covenant by Joshua (Josh. 
xxiv. 1-13) ; and of the rebuke of Samuel at the 
establishment of the kingdom (1 Sam. xii. 6-15). ) 
This immediate reference to God as their king, 
is clearly seen as the groundwork of their whole 
polity. The foundation of the whole law of land, 
and of its remarkable provisions against alienation, 
lies in the declaration, " The land is mine, and 
ye are strangers and sojourners with me " (Lev. 
xxv. 23). As in ancient Rome, all land belonged 
properly to the state, and under the feudal system 
in mediaeval Europe to the king ; so in the Jewish 
law the true ownership lay in Jehovah alone. 
The very system of tithes embodied only a peculiar 
form of a tribute to their king, such as they were 
familiar with in Egypt (see Gen. xlvii. 23-26); 
and the ottering of the first-fruits, with the remark 
able declaration by which it was accompanied (see 
Deut. xxvi. 5-10), is a direct acknowledgment ol 
God's immediate sovereignty. And, as the land, 
so also the persons of the Israelites are declared to 
be the absolute property of the Lord, by the dedi 
cation and ransom of the first-bom (Ex. xiii. 2- 
13, &c.), by the payment of the half-shekel at the 
numbering of the people, " as a ransom for theii 
souls to the Lord" (Ex. xxx. 11-16); and by the 
limitation of power over Hebrew slaves, as con 
trasted with the absolute mastership permitted ovei 
the heathen and the sojourner (Lev. xxv.. 39-46). 

From this theocratic nature of the law follow 
important deductions with regard to (a) the view 
which it takes of political society ; (6) the extent 
of the scope of the law ; (c) the penalties by which 
it is enforced ; and (d) the character which it seeks 
to impress on the people. 

(a.) The basis of human society is ordinarily 
sought, by law or philosophy, either in tike rights 
of the individual, and the partial delegation of them 
to political authorities ; or in the mutual needs o 
men, and the relations which spring from them 
or in the actual existence of power of man ovei 
man, whether arising from natural relationship, 01 
from benefits conferred, or from physical or intel 
lectual ascendancy. The maintenance of society i 
supposed to depend on a " social compact " betwee 
governors and subjects ; a compact, true as an ab 
stract idea, but untrue if supposed to have been a 
historical reality. The Mosaic Law seeks the basis 
of its polity, first, in the absolute sovereignty o 
God, next in the relationship of each individual t< 
God, and through God to his countrymen. It i 
clear that such a doctrine, while it contradicts non 
of the common theories, yet lies beueath them all 
and shows why each of them, being only a stcondar; 
deduction from an ultimate truth, cannot be ii 
itself sufficient ; zui, if it claim to be the whol 



ruth, will become an absurdity. It is the doc- 
rine which is insisted upon and developed in the 
whole series of prophecy ; and which is brought tc 
ts perfection only when applied to that universal 
nd spiritual kingdom for which the Mosaic system 
was a preparation. 

(6.) The law, as proceeding directly from 3od, 
and referring directly to Him, is necessarily a&so- 
ute in its supremacy and unlimited in its scope. 

It is supreme over the governors, as being only 
-he delegates of the Lord, and therefore it is Incom- 
>at ible with any despotic authority in them. This 
s seen in its limitation of the power of the master 
over the slave, in the restrictions laid on the priest- 
icod, and the ordination of the " manner of the 
tingdom " (Deut. xvii. 14-20 ; comp. 1 Sam. x. 25). 
By its establishment of the hereditary priesthood 
side by side with the authority of the heads of 
,ribes ("the princes"), and the subsequent sove 
reignty of the king, it provides a balance of powers, 
all of which are regarded as subordinate. The ab 
solute sovereignty of Jehovah is asserted in the 
earlier times in the dictatorship of the Judge ; but 
much more clearly under the kingdom by the 
spiritual commission of the prophet. By his re 
bukes of priests, princes, and kings, for abuse of 
their power, he was not only defending religion and 
morality, but also maintaining the divinely-ap 
pointed constitution of Israel. On the other hand, 
it is supreme over the governed, recognising no 
inherent rights in the individual, as prevailing 
against, or limiting the law. It is therefore unli 
mited in its scope. There is in it no recognition, 
such as is familiar to us, that there is one class of 
actions directly subject to the coercive power of 
law, while other classes of actions and the whole 
realm of thought are to be indirectly guided by 
moral and spiritual influence. Nor is there any 
distinction of the temporal authority which wields 
the former power, from the spiritual authority to 
which belongs the other. In fact these distinctions 
would have been incompatible with the character 
and objects of the law. They depend partly on 
the want of foresight and power in the lawgiver -. 
they could have no place in a system traced di 
rectly to God: they depend also partly on the 
freedom which belongs to the manhood of our race ; 
they could not therefore be appropriate to the more 
imperfect period of its youth. 

Thus the law regulated the whole life of an 
Israelite. His house, his dress, and his food, his 
domestic arrangements and the distribution of his 
property, all were determined. In the laws ,)f 
the release of debts, and the prohibition of upury, 
the dictates of self-interest and the natural course 
of commercial transactions are sternly checked. His 
actions were rewarded and punished with great mi 
nuteness and strictness ; and that according to the 
standard, not of their consequences, but of their in 
trinsic morality ; so that, for example, fornication 
and adultery were as severely visited as theft or 
murder. His religious worship was defined and 
enforced in an elaborate and unceasing ceremonial. 
In all things it is clear, that, if men submitted to 
it merely as a law, imposed under penalties by an 
irresistible authority, and did not regard it as a 
means to the knowledge and love of God, and a 
preparation for His redemption, it would well de 
serve from Israelites the description given of it by 
St. I'eter (Acts xv. 10), as " a yoke which ueithei 
they nor their fathers were able to bear." 

(c.) The penalties and rewards by which the 



law is enforced are such as depend on the direct 
theocracy. With regard to individual actions, it 
may be noticed that, us generally some penalties 
are inflicted by the subordinate, and some only by 
the supreme authority, so among the Israelites 
some penalties came from the hand of man, some 
directly from the Providence of God. So much 
is this Ihe case, that it often seems doubtful 
whether the threat that a " soul shall be cut off 
from Israel " refers to outlawry and excommunica 
tion, or to such miraculous punishments as those of 
Nadab and Abihu, or Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. 
In dealing with the nation at large, Moses, regu 
larly and as a matter of course, refers for punish 
ments and rewards to the providence of God. This 
is seen, not only in the great blessing and curse 
which enforces the law as a whole, but also in 
special instances, as, for example, in the promise of 
unusual fertility to compensate for the sabbatical 
year, and of safety of the country from attack 
when left undefended at the three great festivals. 
Whether these were to come fiom natural causes, 
t. e. laws of His providence, which we can under 
stand and foresee, or from causes supernatural, »'. e. 
incomprehensible and inscrutable to us, is not in 
any case laid down, nor indeed does it affect this 
principle of the law. 

The bearing of this principle on the inquiry as to 
the revelation of a future life, in the Pentateuch., 
is easily seen. So far as the law deals with the 
nation as a whole, it is obvious that its penalties 
and rewards could only refer to this life, in which 
alone the nation exists. So far as it relates to such 
individual acts as are generally cognizable by 
human law, and capable of temporal punishments, 
no one would expect that its divine origin should 
necessitate any reference to the world to come. 
But the sphere of moral and religious action and 
thought to which it extends is beyond the cognizance 
of human laws, and the scope of their ordinary 
penalties, ami is therefore left by them to the retribu 
tion of God's inscrutable justice, which, being but 
imperfectly seen here, is contemplated especially as 
exercised in a future state. Hence arises the 
expectation of a direct revelation of this future 
state in the Mosaic Law. Such a revelation is 
certainly not given. Warburton (in his Divine 
Legation of Moses) even builds 011 its non-exist 
ence an argument for the supernatural power and 
commission of the law-giver, who could promise 
and threaten retribution from the providence of 
God in this life, and submit his predictions to the 
test of actual experience. The truth seems to be 
that, in a law which appeals directly to God him 
self for its authority and its sanction, there cannot 
be that broad line of demarcation between this life 
and the next, which is drawn for those whose 
power is limited by the grave. Our Lord has 
taught us (Matt. xxii. 31, 32) that in the very 
revelation of God, as the " God of Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob," the promise of immortality and 
future retribution was implicitly contained. We 
may apply this declaration even more strongly to 
a law in which God was revealed, as entering into 
covenant with Israel, and in them drawing man 
kind directly under His immediate government. 
His blessings and curses, by the very fact that they 
came from Him, would be felt to be unlimited by 
time ; and the plain and immediate fulfilment, 
which they found in this life, would be accepted as 
an earnest of a deeper, though more mysterious 
-onipletiou in the world to come. But the time 


for the clear revelation of this truth was not yei 
come, and, therefore, while the future life and its 
retribution is implied, yet the rewards and penalties 
of the present life are those which are plainl j held 
out and practically dwelt upon. 

(d.) But perhaps the most important consequent* 
of the theocratic nature of the law was the 
peculiar character of goodness which it sought to 
impress on the people. Goodness in its relation 
to man takes the forms of righteousness and love ; 
in its independence of all relation, the form of 
purity, and in its relation to God, that of piety. 
Laws, which contemplate men chiefly in their 
mutual relations, endeavour to enforce or protect in 
them the first two qualities; the Mosaic Law, 
beginning with piety, as its first object, enforces 
most emphatically the purity essential to those who, 
by their union with God, have recovered the hope 
of intrinsic goodness, while it views righteousness 
and love rather as deductions from these than as 
independent objects. Not that it neglects these 
qualities ; on the contrary it is full of precepts 
which show a high conception and tender care 
of our relative duties to man ; d but these can hardly 
be called its distinguishing features. It is most 
instructive to refer to the religious preface of the 
law in Deut. vi.-xi. (especially to vi. 4-13), where 
all is based on the first great commandment, and 
to observe the subordinate and dependent character 
of" the second that is like unto it," — " Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself; / am the Lord" 
(Lev. xix. 18). On the contrary, the care for the 
purity of the people stands out remarkably, not 
only in the enforcement of ceremonial " cleanness," 
and the multitude of precautions or remedies against 
any breach of it, but also in the severity of the 
laws against sensuality and self-pollution, a seve 
rity which distinguishes the Mosaic code before all 
others ancient and modern. In punishing these 
sins, as committed against a man's own self, without 
reference to their effect on others, and in recognizing 
purity as having a substantive value and glory, it 
sets up a standard of individual morality, such 
as, even in Greece and Rome, philosophy reserved for 
its most esoteric teaching. 

Now in all this it is to be noticed that the 
appeal is not to any dignity of human nature, but 
to the obligations of communion with a Holy God. 
The subordination, therefore, of this idea alos to 
the religious idea is enforced ; and so long as the 
due supremacy of the latter was preberved, all other 
duties would find their places in proper harmony. 
But the usurpation of that supremacy in practice 
by the idea of personal and national sanctity was 
that which gave its peculiar colour to the Jewish 
character. In that character there was intense 
religious devotion and self-sacrifice ; there was 
a high standard of personal holiness, and connected 
with these an ardent feeling of nationality, based on 
a great idea, and, therefore, finding its vent in 
their proverbial spirit of proselytism. But there 
was also a spirit of contempt for all unbelievers, 
and a forgetfulness of the existence of any duties 
towards them, which gave ev*n to their religion an 
antagonistic spirit, and degraded it in after-times to 
a ground of national selt-glorirication. It is to be 
traced to a natural, though not justifiable perversion 
of the law, by those who made it their ail ; and 
both in its strength and its weaknesses it has reap- 

d Sec, for example, Ex. xxi. 7-11, 28-36; xxllL 
1-9, xxii. 1-4; xxiv. 10-22, &c. &c. 


peaied remarkably among those Christians who 
have dwelt on the 0. T. to the neglect of the New. 


Law, both by its dishonour towards God, and its 
forbidden tyranny over man. Indeed if the Law 

It is evident that this characteristic of the I was looked upon as a collection of abstract rules, 

Israelites would tend to preserve the seclusion 
which, under God's providence, was intended for 
them, and would in its turn be fostered by it. We 
may notice, in connexion with this part of the 
subject, many subordinate provisions tending to the 
same direction. Such are the establishment of an 
agricultural basis of society and property, and the 
provision against its accumulation in a few hands ; 
the discouragement of commerce by the strict 
laws as to usuiy, and of foreign conquest by the 
laws against the maintenance of horses and chariots ; 
as well as the direct prohibition of intermarriage 
with idolaters, and the indirect prevention of all 
familiar intercourse with them by the laws as to 
meats — all these things tended to impress on the 
Israelitish polity a character of permanence, stability, 
and comparative isolation. Like the nature and- 
position of the country to which it was in great 
measure adapted, it was intended to preserve in 
purity the witness borne by Israel for God in the 
darkness of heathenism, until the time should come 
for the gathering in of all nations to enjoy the 
blessing promised to Abraham. 

III. In considering the relation of the Law to 
the future, it is important to be guided by the 
general principle laid down in Heb. vii. 19, " The 
Law made nothing perfect" (Oi»5«c £re\efW«i' 6 
Nif/uo?). This principle will be applied in different 
degrees to its bearing (a) on the after-history of 
the Jewish commonwealth before the coming of 
Christ; (6) on the coming of our Lord Himself; 
and (c) on the dispensation of the Gospel. 

(a.) To that after-history the Law was, to a great 
extent, the key ; for in ceremonial and criminal law 
it was complete and final ; while, even in civil and 
constitutional law, it laid down clearly the general 
principles to be afterwards more fully developed. 
It was indeed often neglected, and even forgotten. 
Its fundamental assertion of the Theccracy was 
violated by the constant lapses into idolatry, and its 
provisions for the good of man overwhelmed by the 

natural course of human sellishness (Jer. xxxiv. 

12-17) ; till at List, in the reign of Josiah, its very 

existence was unknown, and its discovery was to 

the king and the people as a second publication: 

yet still it formed the standard from which they 

knowingly departed, and to which they constantly 

rjtuvnsJ ; and to it therefore all which was pecu 
liar in their national and individual character was 

due. Its direct influence was probably greates 

in the periods before the establishment of the king 
dom, and after the Babylonish captivity. The las 

act of Joshua was to bind the Israelites to it as th 

charter of their occupation of the conquered lam 

(Josh. xxiv. 24-27) ; and, in the semi-anarchica 

period of the Judges, the Law and the Tabernacle 

were the only centres of anything like nationa 

unity. The establishment of the kingdom was du 

to an impatience of this position, and a desire for a 

visible and personal centre of authority, much the 

same in nature as that which plunged them so 

often in idolatry. The people were warned (1 Sam. 

xii. 6-25) that it involved much danger of their 

forgetting and rejecting the main principle of the 

Law — that " Jehovah their God was their King." 

The truth of the prediction was soon shown. Even 

under Solomon, as soon as the monarchy became 

one of great splendour and power, it. assumed a . N ote here the question as to the lawfulness of wai 

heathenish and polytheistic character, bieaking the ou the Sabbath in ihis war (1 Mace. ii. 23-41). 

,nd not as a means of knowledge of a Personal God, 
t was inevitable that it should be overborne by the 
>resence of a visible and personal authority. 

Therefore it was, that from the time of the esta- 
ilishment ot the kingdom began the prophetic office, 
ts object was to enforce and to perfect the Law, by 
)earing witness to the great truths on which it was 
iuilt, viz. the truth of God's government over all, 
dngs, priests, and people alike, and the consequent 
certainty of a righteous retribution. It is plain 
:hat at the same time this witness went far beyond 
,he Law 'as a definite code of institutions. It 
dwelt rather on its great principles, which were to 
transcend the special forms in which they were 
embodied. It frequently contrasted (as in Is. i., &c.) 
;he external observance of form with the spiritua. 
lomage of the heart. It tended therefore, at least 
ndirectly, to the time when, according to the well- 
cnown contrast drawn by Jeremiah, the Law writ 
ten on the tables of stone should give place to a 
new Covenant, depending on a law written 011 the 
:ieart, and therefore coercive no longer (Jer. xxxi. 
31-34). In this they did but carry out the pre 
diction of the Law itself (Deut. xviii. 9-22), and 
prepare the way for " the Prophet " who was to 

Still the Law remained as the distinctive standard 
of the people. In the kingdom of Israel, after the 
separation, the deliberate rejection of its leading 
principles by Jeroboam and his successors was the 
beginning of a gradual declension into idolatry and 
heathenism. But in the kingdom of Judah the 
very division of the monarchy and consequent di 
minution of its splendour, and the need of a prin 
ciple to assert against the superior material power 
of Israel, brought out the Law once more in in 
creased honour and influence. In the days of Jeho- 
shaphat we find, for the first time, that it was taken 
by the Levites in their circuits through the land, 
and the people taught by it (2 Chr. xvii. 9). We 
find it especially spoken of in the oath taken by 
the king " at his pillar " in the temple, and made 
the standard of reference in the reformations of 
Hezekiah and Josiah (2 K. xi. 14, xxiii. 3 ; 2 Chr. 
xxx., xxxiv. 14-31). 

Far more was this the case after the captivity. 
The revival of the existence of Israel was hallowed 
by the new and solemn publication of the Law by 
Ezra, and the institution of the synagogues, through 
which it became deeply and familiarly known. 
[EZRA.] The loss of the independent monarchy, 
and the cessation of prophecy, both combined to 
throw the Jews back upon the Law alone, as then- 
only distinctive pledge of nationality, and sure 
guide to truth. The more they mingled with the 
other subject-nations under the Persian and Grecian 
empires, the more eagerly they clung to it as their 
distinction and safeguard ; and opening the know 
ledge of it to the heathen, by the translation of the 
LXX., based on it their proverbial eagerness to 
proselytize. This love for the Law, rather thati 
any abstract pitriotism, was the strength of the 

and the 

power, deepened the feeling from which it sprang. 

It so entered into the heart of the people that open 

Maccabean struggle against the Syrians,' 
success of that struggle, enthroning a 


Molatrj became impossible. The certainty and au 
thority of the Law's commandments amidst the 
perplexities of paganism, and the spirituality of its 
•.(octriue as contrasted with sensual and carnal 
idolatries, were the favourite boast of the Jew, and 
the secret of his influence among the heathen. The 
Law thus became the moulding influence of the 
Jewish character ; and, instead of being looked upon 
as subsidiary to the promise, and a means to its 
fulfilment, was exalted to supreme importance as 
at once a means and a pledge of national and indi 
vidual sanctity. 

This feeling laid hold of and satisfied the mass 
of the people, harmonising as it did with their 
ever-increasing spirit of an almost fanatic nation 
ality, until the destruction of the city. The Phari 
sees, truly representing the chief strength of the 
people, systematized this feeling ; they gave it fresh 
food, and assumed a predominant leadership over it 
by the floating mass of tradition which they gra 
dually accumulated around the Law as a nucleus. 
The popular use of the word " lawless " (&i>of*.os) 
as a term of contempt (Acts ii. 23 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21) 
for the heathen, and even for the uneducated mass 
of their followers (John vii. 49), marked and stereo 
typed their principle. 

Against this idolatry of the Law (which when 
Imported into the Christian Church is described and 
vehemently denounced by St. Paul), there were two 
reactions. The first was that of the SADDUCEES ; 
one which had its basis, according to common tra 
dition, in the idea of a higher love and service of 
God, independent of the Law and its sanctions ; but 
which degenerated into a speculative infidelity, and 
an anti-national system of politics, and which pro 
bably had but little hold of the people The other, 
that of the ESSENES, was an attempt to burst 
the bonds of the formal law, and assert its ideas in 
all fullness, freedom, and purity. In its practical 
form it assumed the character of high and ascetic 
devotion to God ; its speculative guise is seen in the 
school of Philo, as a tendency not merely to treat 
the commands and history of the Law on a sym 
bolical principle, but actually to allegorise them 
into mere abstractions. In neither form could it 
be permanent, because it had no sufficient rela 
tion to the needs and realities of human nature, 
or to the personal Subject of all the Jewish pro 
mises ; but it was still a declaration of the insuffi 
ciency of the Law in itself, and a preparation for its 
absorption into a higher principle of unity. Such 
was the history of the Law before the coming of 
Christ. It was full of effect and blessing, when 
used as a means ; it became hollow and insufficient, 
when made an end. 

(6.) The relation of the Law to the advent of 
Christ is also laid down clearly by St. Paul. " The 
Law was the JlaiSayoiybs els Xpiffrbv, the servant 
(that is), whose task it was to guide the child to 
the true teacher (Gal. iii. 24) ; and Christ was " the 
end" or object "of the Law" (Horn. x. 4). As 
being subsidiary to the promise, it had accom 
plished its purpose when the promise was fulfilled. 
In its national aspect it had existed to guard the 
. faith in the theocracy. The chief hindrance to that 
faith had been the difficulty of realising the invi 
sible presence of God, and of conceiving a commu 
nion with the infinite Godhead which should not 
crush or absorb the finite creature (comp. Deut. v. 
24-27 ; Num. xvii. 12, 13; Job ix. 32-35, xiii. '.'1, 
2'2; Is. xlv. 15, Ixiv. 1, &c.). From that had 
nome in w» v lier times open idolatry, and a half-idol- 


atrous longing for and trust in the kingdo n ; ir 
after-times the substitution of the law for the pro* 
mise. This difficulty was now to pass away for 
ever, in the Incarnation of the Godhead in One truly 
and visibly man. The guardianship of the Law 
was no longer needed, for the visible and personal 
presence of the Messiah required no further witness. 
Moreover, in the Law itself there had always been a 
tendency of the fundamental idea to burst the formal 
bonds which confined it. In looking to God as 
especially their King, the Israelites were inheriting 
a privilege, belonging originally to all mankind, and 
destined to revert to them. Yet that element of 
the Law which was local and national, now most 
prized of all by the Jews, tended to limit this girl 
to them, and place them in a position antagonistic 
to the rest of the world. It needed therefore to 
pass away, before all men could be brought into a 
kingdom where there was to be " neither Jew nor 
Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." 

In its individual, or what is usually called its 
"moral" aspect, the Law bore equally the stamp 
of transitoriness and insufficiency. It had, as we 
have seen, declared the authority of truth and good 
ness over man's will, and taken for granted in man 
the existence of a spirit which could recognise that 
authority ; but it had done no more. Its presence 
had therefore detected the existence and the sinful- 
ness of sin, as alien alike to God's will and man's 
true nature ; but it had also brought out with more 
vehement and desperate antagonism the power of 
sin dwelling in man as fallen (Rom. vii. 7-25). It 
only showed therefore the need of a Saviour from 
sin, and of an indwelling power which should en 
able the spirit of man to conquer the " law " of 
evil. Hence it bore witness of its own insufficiency, 
and led men to Christ. Already the prophets, 
speaking by a living and indwelling spirit, ever 
fresh and powerful, had been passing beyond the 
dead letter of the law, and indirectly condemning it 
of insufficiency. But there was need of " the Pro 
phet" who should not only have the fullness of the 
spirit dwelling in Himself, but should have the 
power to give it to others, and so open the new 
dispensation already foretold. When He had come, 
and by the gift of the Spirit implanted in man a 
free internal power of action tending to God, the 
restraints of the Law, needful to train the childhood 
of the world, became unnecessary and even injurious 
to the free development of its manhood. 

The relation of the Law to Christ in its sacrificial 
and ceremonial aspect, will be more fully consi 
dered elsewhere. [SACRIFICE.] It is here only ne 
cessary to remark on the evidently typical character 
of the whole system of sacrifices, on which alone 
their virtue depended ; and on the imperfect embo 
diment, in any body of mere men, of the great truth 
which was represented in the priesthood. By the 
former declaring the need of Atonement, by the 
latter the possibility of Mediation, and yet in itself 
doing nothing adequately to realise either, the Law 
again led men to Him, who was at once the only 
Mediator and the true Sacrifice. 

Thus the Law had trained and guided man to the 
acceptance of the Messiah in His threefold cha 
racter of King, Prophet, and Priest ; and then, its 
work being done, it became, in the minds of those 
who trusted in it, not only an encumbrance but a 
snare. To resist its claim to allegiance was there 
fore a matter of life and death in the days of St 
Paul, and, in a less degree, in after-ages of the 


(C.) It remains to consider how far it has any 
obligation or existence under the dispensation of the 
Gospel. As a means of justification or salvation, 
it ought never to have been regarded, even before 
Christ : it needs no proof to show that still less 
can this be so since He has come. But yet the 
question remains whether it is binding on Chris 
tians, even when they do not depend on it for sal 

It seems clear enough, that its formal coercive 
authority as a whole ended with the close of the 
Jewish dispensation. It is impossible to separate, 
though we may distinguish, its various elements : 
it must be regarded as a whole, for he who offended 
" in one point against it was guilty ot all " (James 
ii. 10). Yet it referred throughout to the Jewish 
covenant, and in many points to the constitution, 
the customs, and even the local circumstances of 
the people. That covenant was preparatory to the 
Christian, in which it is now absorbed ; those cus 
toms and observances have passed away. It follows, 
by the very nature of the case, that the formal obli 
gation to the Law must have ceased with the basis 
on which it is grounded. This conclusion is stamped 
most unequivocally with the authority of St. Paul 
through the whole argument of the Epistles to the 
Romans and to the Galatians. That we are " not 
under law " (Horn. vi. 14, 15 ; Gal. v. 18) ; " that 
we are dead to law" (Rom. vii. 4-6 ; Gal. ii. 19), 
"redeemed from under law " (Gal. iv. 5), &c., &c., 
is not only stated without any limitation or excep 
tion, but in many places is made the prominent 
feature of the contrast between the earlier and 
later covenants. It is impossible, therefore, to 
make distinctions in this respect between the various 
parts of the Law, or to avoid the conclusion that 
the formal code, promulgated by Moses, and sealed 
with the prediction of the blessing and the curse, 
cannot, as a law, be binding on the Christian. 

But what then becomes of the declaration of our 
Lord, that He came " not to destroy the Law, but 
to perfect it," and that " not one jot or one tittle 
of it shall pass away?" what of the fact, conse 
quent upon it, that the Law has been reverenced in 
all Christian churches, and had an important in 
fluence on much Christian legislation? The expla 
nation of the apparent contradiction lies in the 
difference between positive and moral obligation. 
The positive obligation of the Law, as such, has 
passed away ; but every revelation of God's Will, 
and of the righteousness and love which are its 
elements, imposes a moral obligation, by the very 
fact of its being known, even on those to whom it is 
not primarily addressed. So far as the Law of 
Moses is such a revelation of the will of God to 
mankind at large, occupying a certain place in the 
education of the world as a whole, so far its decla 
rations remain for our guidance, though their coer 
cion and their penalties may be no longer needed. 
It is in their general principle, of course, that they 
remain, not in their outward form ; and our Lord has 
taught us, in the Sermon on the Mount, that these 
principles should be accepted by us in a more ex 
tended and spiritual development than they could 
receive in the time of Moses. 

To apply this principle practically there is need 
of much study and discretion, in order to distin 
guish what is local and temporary from what is 
universal, and what is mere external foim from what 

* As the " Laying on of hands" vas considered in 
the Ancient Church as the " Supplement of Baptism," 



is the essence of an ordinance. The moral IRW 
undoubtedly must be most permanent in its in 
fluence, because it is based on the nature of man 
generally, although at the same time it is modified 
by the greater prominence of love in the Christian 
system. Yet the political law, in the main prin 
ciples which it lays down as to the sacredness and 
responsibility of all authorities, and the rights 
which belong to each individual, and which neithei 
slavery nor even guilt can quite eradicate, has its 
permanent value. Even the ceremonial law, by its 
enforcement of the purity and perfection needed in 
any service offered, and in its disregard of mere 
costliness on such service, and limitation of it 
strictly to the prescribed will of God, is still iii 
many respects our best guide. In special cases 
(as for example that of the sabbatical law and the 
prohibition of marriage within the degrees) the 
question of its authority must depend on the further 
inquiry, whether the basis of such laws is one 
common to all human nature, or one peculiar to the 
Jewish people. This inquiry will be difficult, 
especially in the distinction of the essence from the 
foi-m ; but by it alone can the original question be 
thoroughly and satisfactorily answered. 

For the chief authorities, see Winer, Realw. 
" Gesetz." Michaelis (Mos. Gerechf) is valuable 
for facts and antiquities, not much so for theory. 
Ewald, Gesch.desVolkes Israel, vol. ii. pp. 124-205. 
is most instructive and suggestive as to the main 
ideas of the Law. But after all the most important 
parts of the subject need little else than a careful 
study of the Law itself, and the references to it con 
tained in the N. T. [A. B.] 

LAWYEK (vo/xiK^s). The title "lawyer" 
is generally supposed to be equivalent to the title 
" scribe," both on account of its etymological 
meaning, and also because the man, who is called a 
" lawyer " in Matt. xxii. 35 and Luke x. 25, is 
called " one of the scribes" in Mark xii. 28. If 
the common reading in Luke ri. 44, 45, 46, be cor 
rect, it will be decisive against this ; for there, 
after our Lord's denunciation of the " scribes and 
Pharisees," we find that a lawyer said, " Master, 
thus saying, thou reproachest us also. And Jesus 
said, Woe unto you also ye lawyers." But it 
is likely that the true reading refers the pas 
sage to the Pharisees alone. By the use of the 
word vofjLtK&s (in Tit. iii. 9) as a simple adjective, 
it seems more probable that the title " scribe" was 
a legal and official designation, but that the name 
vofiti(6s was properly a mere epithet signifying one 
" learned in the law " (somewhat like the ol e« 
vAfiov in Rom. iv. 14), and only used as a title in 
common parlance (comp. the use of it in Tit. iii. 
13, " Zerias the lawyer "). This would account for 
the comparative unfrequency of the word, and the 
fact that it is always used in connexion with 
" Pharisees," never, as the word " scribe " so often 
is, in connexion with " chief priests " and " elders." 
[SCRIBES.] [A. B.] 

pendix B."] 

LAZ'ARUS (Adfrpos : Lazarus'). In this 
name, which meets us as belonging to two cha 
racters in the N. T., we may recognize an abbre 
viated form of the old Hebrew Eleazar (Tertull. 

it is considered better to treat it in connexion with 
the latter subject, which is reserved for the Appendix. 


De Idol ,Grotius et a/.) The corresponding 1TV? 
api>ears in the Talmud (Winer, Jtealwb. a. v.). In 
Josephus, and : .n the historical books of the Apo 
crypha (1 Mace. viii. 17 ; 2 Mace. vi. 18), the more 
frequent form is 'EXcdfapo? ; but \d£opos occurs 
also (B. J. v. 13, §7). 

1. I-azarus of Bethany, the brother of Martha 
and Mary (John xi. 1). All that we know of him 
>s derived from the Gospel of St John, and that 
records little more than the facts of his death and 
resurrection. We are able, however, without doing 
violence to the principles of a true historical cri 
ticism, to arrive at some conclusions helping us, 
with at least some measure of probability, to fill up 
these scanty outlines. In proportion as we bring 
the scattered notices together, we rind them com 
bining to form a picture far more distinct and 
interesting than at first seemed possible; and the 
distinctness in this case, though it is not to be mis 
taken for certainty, is yet less misleading than that 
which, in other cases, seems to arise from the strong 
statements of apocryphal traditions. (1.) The lan 
guage of John, xi. I, implies that the sisters were 
the better known. Lazarus is " of (cwrb) Bethany, 
of the village (tx TTJS Kw/tTjs) of Mary and her 
sister Martha." No stress can be laid on the 
ditierence of the prepositions (Meyer and Lnmpe, 
m loc.}, but it suggests as possible the inference 
that, while Lazarus was, at the time of St. John's 
nan-alive, of Bethany, he was yet described as from 
the fttijUTj TIS of Luke x. 38, already known as the 
dwelling-place of the two sisters (Greswell, On the 
Village of Martha and Mary, Dissert. V. ii. 545). • 
From this, and from the order of the three names 
in John xi. 5, we may reasonably infer that Lazarus 
was the youngest of the family. The absence of 
the name from the narrative of Luke x. 38-42, and 
his subordinate position (fts TU>V bvaKet/ufvuv) in 
the feast of John xii. 2 lead to the same conclusion. 
(2.) The house in which the feast is held appears, 
from John xii. 2, to be that of the sisters. Martha 
•' serves," as in Luke x. 38. Mary takes upon her 
self that which was the special duty of a hostess 
towards an honoured guest (comp. Luke vii. 46). 
The impression left on our minds by this account, 
if it stood alone, would be that they were the givers 
of the feast. In Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3, the 
same fact b appeal's as occurring in " the house of 
Simon the leper :" but a leper, as such, would 
have been compelled to lead a separate life, and 
certainly could not have given a feast and received 
a multitude of guests. Among the conjectural ex 
planations which have been given of this difference, 
the hypothesis that this Simon was the father of 
the two sisters and of Lazarus, that he had been 
smitten with leprosy, and that actual death, or the 
civil death that followed on his disease, had left his 


children free to act for themselves, is at least as 
probable as any other, and has ^ome support in 
early ecclesiastical traditions (Niceph. H. E. i. 27 ; 
Theophyl. in loc. ; comp. Kwald, Gesckichte, v. 
357). Why, if this were so, the house should be 
described by St. Matthew and St. Mark as it is; 
why the name of the sister of Lazarus should bt 
altogether passed over, will be questions that will 
meet us further on. (3.) All the circumstances 
of John xi. and xii., — the feast for so many guests, 
the number of friends who come from Jerusalem 
to condole with the sisters, left with female rela 
tions, but without a brother or near kinsman (John 
xi. 19), the alabaster-box, the ointment of spike 
nard very costly, the funeral vault of their own, — 
point to wealth and social position above the average 
(comp. Trench, Miracles, 29). The peculiar sent* 
which attaches to St. John's use of of 'lovSaiot 
(comp. Meyer on John xi. 19), as the leaders of the 
opposition to the teaching of Christ, in other words 
as equivalent to Scribes and Elders and Pharisees, 
suggests the further inference that these visitors or 
friends belonged to that class, and that previous rela 
tions must have connected them with the family of 
Bethany. (4.) A comparison of Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark 
xiv. 3, with Luke vii. 36, 44, suggests another con 
jecture that harmonises with and in part explains 
the foregoing. To assume the identity of the anoint 
ing of the latter narrative with that of the former .(to 
Grotius), of the woman that was a sinner with Mary 
the sister of Lazarus, and of one or both of these with 
Mary Magdalene (Lightfoot, Harm. §33, vol. iii. 
75), is indeed (in spite of the authorities, critica. 
and patristic, which may be arrayed on either side) 
altogether arbitrary and uncritical. It would be 
hardly less so to infer, from the mere recurrence 
of so common a name as Simon, the identity of the 
leper of the one narrative with the Pharisee of the 
other ; nor would the case be much strengthened 
by an appeal to the intei-preters who have main 
tained that opinion (comp. Chrysost. Horn, in 
Matt. Ixxx. ; Grotius, in Matt. xxvi. 6 ; Lightfoot, 
/. c. ; Winer, Realwb. s. v. Simon). [Comp. MARY 
MAGDALENE and SIMON.] There are however 
some other facts which fall in with this hypothesis, 
and to that extent confirm it. If Simon the leper 
were also the Pharisee, it would explain the lact 
just noticed of the friendship between the sisters 
of Lazarus and the members of that party in Jeru 
salem. It would account also for the ready utter 
ance by Martha of the chief article of the creed ot 
the Pharisees (John xi. 24). Mary's lavish act of 
love would gain a fresh interest for us if we thought 
of it (as this conjecture would lead us to think) as 
growing out of the recollection of that which had 
been offered by the woman that was a sinner. The 
disease which gave occasion to the later name may 

» By most commentators (Trench, Alford, Tholuck, 
Liicke) the distinction which Greswell insists on is re 
jected as utterly untenable. It may be urged, however, 
(1) that it is the distinction drawn by a scholar like 
Hermann (" Ponitur autem diri> nonnisi de origine se- 
curida, cum in origine prinui usurpetur «<c," quoted by 
Wahl, Clavif N. T.) ; (2) that though both might come 
to be need apart with hardly any shade of difference, their 
use in close juxtaposition might still be antithetical, and 
mat this was more likely to be with one who, though 
writing in Greek, was not using it as his native tongue ; 
(3) that John 5. 45 is open to the same doubt as this 
passage ; (4) that our Lord is always said to be anb, 
iever « Nofoper. 

In connexion with this verse may be noticed also the 

Vulg. translation, " de castello Marthae," and the conse 
quent traditions, of a Castle of Lazarus, pointed out to 
mediaeval pilgrims among the ruins of the village 
which had become famous by a church erected in hii 
honour, and had taken its Arab name (Lazarieh, or El- 
azarieh) from him. [BETHANY, vol. i. 195 6.] 

° The identity has been questioned by some harmocictg ; 
but it will be discussed under SIMON. 

« Meyer assumes (on Matt. xxvi. 6) that St. John, a* 
an eye-witness, gives the true account, St. Matthew and 
St Mark an erroneous one. Paulus andiireswell suggest 
that Simon was the husband, living or deceased, o! 
Martha ; Grotius and Kuinbl, that he was a kinsman, 01 
a friend who gave the feast for them. 




have supervened after the incident which St. Luke 
records. The difference between the localities of the 
two histories (that of Luke vii. being apparently in 
Galilee near Nairn, that of Matt. xxvi. and Mark 
xiv. in Bethany) is not greater than that which 
meets us on comparing Luke x. 38 with John xi. 1 
(comp. Greswell, Diss. /. c.). It would follow on 
this assumption that the Pharisee, whom we thus 
fiir identity with the father of Lazarus, was pro 
bably one of the members of that set-t, sent down 
from Jerusalem to watch the new teacher (comp. 
Ellicott's Hulsean Lectures, p. 169) ; that he looked 
on him partly with reverence, partly with suspicion ; 
tliat in his dwelling there was a manifestation of 
the sympathy and love of Christ, which could not 
out leave on those who witnessed or heard of it, 
and had not hardened themselves in formalism, a 
deep and permanent impression. (5.J One other 
conjecture, bolder perhaps than the others, may yet 
be hazarded. Admitting, as must be admitted, the 
absence at once of all direct evidence and of tra 
ditional authority, there are yet some coincidences, 
at least remarkable enough to deserve attention, 
and which suggest the identification of Lazarus 
with the young ruler that had great possessions, 
of Matt, xix., Mark x., Luke xviii. d The age 
(veavias, Matt. xix. 20, 22) agrees with what has 
been before inferred (see above, 1), as does the fact 
of wealth above the average with what we know of 
the condition of the family at Bethany (see 2). 
If the father were an influential Pharisee, if there 
were ties of some kind uniting the family with that 
body, it would be natural enough that the son, 
even ip comparative youth, should occupy the po 
sition of an &p\uv. The character of the young 
ruler, the reverer.ce of his salutation (Si8d.ffKa\e 
&7<>.0«, Mark x. 17) and of iiis attitude (yovvTreT-l)- 
<ras, ibid.) his eager yearning after eternal life, the 
strict training of his youth in the commandments 
of God, the blatr.eless probity of his outward life, 
all these would agree with what we might exppct 
in the son of a Pharisee, in the brother of one who 
had chosen " the good part." It may be noticed 
further, that as his spiritual condition is essentially 
that which we find about the same period in 
Martha, so the answer returned to him, " One thing 
thou lackest," and that given to her, " One thing 
is needful," are substantially identical.' But fur 
ther, it is of this rich young man that St. Mark 
uses the emphatic word (" Jesus, beholding him, 
loved him," rtydv^fffv) which is used of no others 
in the Gospel-history, save of the beloved apostle 
and of Lazarus and his 'sisters (John xi. 5). We 
can hardly dare to believe that that love, with all 
the yearning pity and the fervent prayer which it 
implied, would be altogether fruitless;. There might 
be for a time the hesitation of a divided will, but 
the half-prophetic words " with God all things are 
possible," " there are last that shall be first*,'' for 
bid our hasty condemnation, as they forbade that 
of the disciples, and prepare us to hope that some 
discipline would yet be found to overcome the evil 
which was eating into and would otherwise destroy 

so noble and beautiful a soul. However strongly 
the abrence of the name of Lazarus, or of the locality 
to which he belonged, may seem to militate against 
this hypothesis, it must be remembered that there 
is just the same singular and perplexing omission 
in the narrative of the anointing in Matt. xxvi. and 
Mark xiv. 

Combining these inferences then, we get, with 
some measure of likelihood, an insight into one 
aspect of the life of the Divine Teacher and Friend, 
full of the most living interest. The village of 
Bethany and its neighbourhood were, — probably 
from the first, certainly at a later period of our 
Lord's ministry, —a frequent retreat from the con- 
•^roversies and tumults of Jerusalem (John xviii. 2 ; 
Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39). At some time or othei 
one household, wealthy, honourable, belonging to 
the better or Nicodemus section of the Pharisees (see 
above, 1,2,3) learns to know and reverence him. 
There may have been within their knowledge or in 
their presence, one of the most signal proofs of His 
love and compassion for the outcast (sup. 4). Disease 
or death removes the father from the scene, and the 
two sisters are left with their younger brother to do 
as they think right. They appear at Bethany, or 
in some other village, where also they had a home 
(Luke x. 38, and Greswell, I. c.), as loving and 
reverential disciples, each according to her character. 
In them and in the brother over whom they watch, 
He finds that which is worthy of His love, the 
craving for truth and holiness, the hungering and 
thirsting after righteousness which shall assuredly 
be filled. But two at least need an education in 
the spiritual life. Martha tends to rest in outward 
activity and Pharisaic dogmatism, and does not 
rise to the thought of an eternal lif° as actually 
present. Lazarus (see 5) oscillates between the 
attractions of the higher life and those of the 
wealth and honour which surround the pathway of 
his life, and does not see how deep and wide were 
the commandments which, as he thought, he had 
" kept from his youth up." The searching words, 
the loving look and act,' fail to undo the evil which 
has been corroding his inner life. The discipline 
which could provide a remedy for it was among 
the things that were "impossible with men," and 
" possible with God only." A few weeks pass 
away, and then comes the sickness of John xi. 
One of the sharp malignant fevers of Palestine 6 
cuts off the life that was so precious. The sisters 
know how truly the Divine friend has loved him 
on whom their love and their hopes centered. 
They send to Him in the belief that the tidings of 
the sickness will at once diaw Him to them (John 
xi. 3). Slowly, and in words which (though after 
wards understood otherwise) must at the time have 
seemed to the disciples those of one upon whom the 
truth came not at once but by degrees, he prepares 
them for the worst. " This sickness is not unto 
death " — " Our friend Lazarus sleepeth " — " Laza 
rus is dead." The work which He was doing as a 
teacher or a healer (John x. 41, 42) in Bethabara, 
or the other Bethany (John x. 40, and i. 28), was 

d The arrangement of Greswell, Tischendorf, and other 
harmonists, which places the inquiry of the rich ruler 
r,fter the death and resurrection of Lazarus, is uf course 
destructive of this hypothesis. It should be remembered, 
however, that Greswell assigns the same position to the 
incident of Luke x. 38-12. The order here followed is that 
pven in the present work by Dr. Thomson under GOSPELS 
and JESUS CHRIST, by Lightfoot, and by Altord. 

• The resemblance is drawn out i:i a striking and 

beautiful passage by Clement of Alexandria (Quit Dives 

' By some interpreters the word was taken as = icaTe0i- 
\T)o-ev. It was the received Rabbinic custom for the teacher 
to kiss the brow of the scholar whose answers gave special 
promise of wisdom and holiness. Comp. Grotius, ad lite. 

B The character of the disease is inferred from it: rapid 
progress, and from the fear expressed ty Martha (John 
xi. 39). Comp. I-ampc, ad \oc. 



not inteirupted, and continues for two days aftei 
the message reaches him. Then comes the journey, 
occupying two days more. When He and His dis 
ciples come, three days have passed since the burial. 
The friends from Jerusalem, chiefly of the Pharisee 
and ruler class, are there with their consolations. 
Vhe sisters receive the Prophet, each according to 
«er character, Martha hastening on to meet Him, 
Mary sitting still in the house, both giving utter 
ance to the sorrowful, half-reproachful thought, 
" Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother had 
not died" (John xi. 21-32). His sympathy with 
their sorrow leads Him also to weep as if he felt it 
in all the power of its hopelessness, though He 
came with th? purpose and the power to remove it. 
Men wonder at what they look on as a sign of the 
intensity of His affection for him who had been cut 
off (John xi. 35, 36). They do not perhaps see 
that with this emotion there mingles indignation 
(4vtf}pifi'flffaTO, John xi. 33, 38) at their want of 
faith. Then comes the work of might as the 
answer of the; prayer which the Son offers to the 
Father (John xi. 41, 42). The stone is rolled away 
from the mouth of the rock-chamber in which the 
body had been placed. The Evangelist writes as if 
he were once again living through every sight and 
sound of that hour. He records what could never 
fade from his memory any more than could the 
recollection of his glance into that other sepulchre 
(comp. John xi. 44, with xx. 7). " He that was 
dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave- 
clothes ; and his face was bound about with a 

It is> well not to break in upon the silence which 
hangs over the interval of that " four days' sleep " 
(comp. Trench, Miracles, I. c.). In nothing does 
the Gospel narrative contrast more strongly with 
the mythical histories which men have imagined 
of those who have returned from the unseen world, h 
and with the legends which in a later age have 
gathered round the name of Lazarus (Wright's 
St. Patrick's Purgatory, p. 167), than in this 
absence of all attempt to describe the experiences of 
the human soul that had passed from the life of 
sense to the land of the shadow of death. But 
thus much at least must be borne in mind in order 
that we may understand what has yet to come, 
that the man who was thus recalled as on eagle's 
wings from the kingdom of the grave (comp. the 
language of the complaint of Hades in the Apocry 
phal Gospel of Nicodemus, Tischendorf, Evang. 
Apoc. p. 305) must have learnt " what it is to 
die " (comp. a passage of great beauty in Tennyson's 
In Memoriam, xxxi. xxxii.). The soul that had 
looked with open gaze upon the things behind the 
vail had passed through a discipline sufficient to 
ourn out all selfish love of the accidents of his 
outward life.* There may have been an inward 
resurrection parallel with the outward (comp. Ols- 
hausen, ad loc.). What men had given over as 
impossible had been shown in a twofold sense to be 
possible with God. 


One scene more meets us, and then t IK life of the 
family which has come before us with such day 
light clearness lapses again into obscurity. Tht 
fame of the wonder spreads rapidly, as it was likely 
to do, among the ruling class, some of whom had 
witnessed it. It becomes one of the proximate 
occasions of the plots of the Sanhedrim against oui 
Lord's life (John xi. 47-53). It brings Lazarus no 
less than Jesus within the range of their enmity 
(John xii. 10), and leads perhaps to his withdrawing 
for a time from Betliany (Greswell). They per 
suade themselves apparently that they see in him 
one who has been a sharer in a great imposture, 01 
who has been restored to life through some demoniac 
agency , k But others gather round to wonder and 
congratulate. In the house which, though it still 
bore the father's name (sup. 1 ), was the dwelling of 
the sisters and the brother, there is a ftupjcr, 
and Lazarus is there, and Martha serves, no longei 
jealously, and Mary pours out her love in the 
costly offering of the spikenard ointment, and finds 
herself once again misjudged and hastily condemned. 
The conjecture which has been ventured on above 
connects itself with this fact also. The indignant 
question of Judas and the other disciples implies 
the expectation of a lavish distribution among the 
poor. They leok on the feast as like that which 
they had seen in the house of Matthew the pub 
lican, the farewell banquet given to large numbers 
(comp. John xii. 9, 12) by one who was renouncing 
the habits of his former life. If they had in their 
minds the recollection of the words, " Sell that thou 
hast, and give to the poor," we can understand with 
what a sharpened edge their reproach would com« 
as they contrasted the command which their Lord 
had given with the " waste " which He thus 
approved. After this all direct knowledge cf 
Lazarus ceases. We may think of him, however, 
as sharing in or witnessing the kingly march 
from Bethany to Jerusalem (Mark xi. 1), " en 
during life again that Passover to keep" (Keble, 
Christian Year, Advent Sunday). The sisters and 
the brother must have watched eagerly, during 
those days of rapid change and wonderful expecta 
tion, for the evening's return to Bethany and the 
hours during which " He lodged there " (Matt, 
xxi. 17). It would be as plausible an explanation 
of the strange fact recorded by St. Mark alone 
(xiv. 51) as any other, if we were to suppose that 
Lazarus, whose home was near, who must have 
known the place to which the Lord "oftentimes 
resorted," was drawn to the garden of Gethsemane 
by the approach of the officers " with their torches 
and lanterns and weapons " (John xviii. 3), and in 
the haste of the night-alarm, rushed eagerly " with 
the linen cloth cast about his naked body," to see 
whether he was in time to render any help. Who 
ever it may have been, it was not one of the com 
pany of professed disciples. It was one who was 
drawn by some strong impulse to follow Jesus 
when they, all of them, " forsook him and fled." 
It was one whom the high-priest's servants wore 

> The return of Eros the Armenian (Plato, Rep. x.) 
and Cunningham of Melrose (Bede, Eccl. Hist. v. 12) 
may be taken as two typical instances, appearing under 
circumstances the most contrasted possible, yet having 
not a few features in common. 

' A tradition of more than average interest, bearing on 
this point, is mentioned (though without an authority) 
by Trench (Miraeles, I. c.). The first question asked by 
La/Jirus, on his reluni to life, was whether he should die 
A&iiii. He heard that be was still subject to tin- common 

doom of all men, and was never afterwards seen to smile. 
* The explanation, " He casteth out devils by Beel 
zebub" (Matt. ix. 34, x. 25; Mark iii. 22, fcc). which 
originated with the scribes of Jerusalem, would naturally 
be applied to such a case as this. That it was so appli*! 
we may infer from the statement in the Sr.phtr T.bbu. 
Jeshu (the Rabbinic anticipation of another Lebm Jem, 
that this and other like miracles were wrought ly tn? 
mystic power of the cabbalistic SheiiihamphoraRt, w 
other maKical formula (I^ainpo, Comm. in Joan. xi. 4'j.Y 


eaper to seize, as it' destined for a second victim 
(comp. John xii. 10), when they made no effort 
to detain any other. The linen-cloth (criv^div). 
Conning, as it did, one of the " soft raiment " of 
Matt. xi. 8, used in the dress and in the funerals of 
the rich (Mark xv. 46 ; Matt, xxvii. 59), points to 
a form of life like that which we have seen reason 
to assign to Lazarus (comp. also the use of the word 
in the LXX. of Judg. xiv. 12, and Prov. xxxi. 24). 
Uncertain as all inferences of this kind must be, 
this is perhaps at least as plausible as those which 
identify the form that appeared so startlingly 
with St. John (Ambrose, Chrysost., Greg. Mag.); 
or St. Mark (Olshausen, Lange, Isaac Williams 
(On the Passion, p. 30); or James the brother 
of the Lord (Epiphan. Haer. p. 87, 13; comp. 
Meyer, ad foe.) ; and, on this hypothesis, the omis 
sion of the name is in hannony with the notice 
able reticence of the first three Gospels through 
out as to the members of the family at Bethany. 
We can hardly help believing that to them, as to 
ethers (" the five hundred brethren at once," 1 Cor. 
xv. 6), was manifested the presence of their risen 
Lord ; that they must have been sharers in the 
Pentecostal gifts, and have taken their place among 
the members of the infant Church at Jerusalem in 
the first days of its overflowing love ; that then, 
if not before, the command, " Sell that thou hast 
and give to the poor," was obeyed by the heir of 
Bethany, as it was by other possessors of lands or 
houses (Acts ii. 44, 45). But they had chosen 
now, it would seem, the better part of a humble 
and a holy life, and their names appear no more in 
the history of the N. T. Apocryphal traditions 
even are singularly scanty and jejune, as if the silence 
which "sealed the lips of the Evangelists" had 
restrained others also. We almost wonder, looking 
at the wild luxuriance with which they gather 
round other names, that they have nothing more to 
tell of Lazarus than the meagre tale that follows : 
— He lived for thirty years after his resurrection, 
and died at the age of sixty (Epiphan. Haer. i. 
652). When he came forth from the tomb, it was 
with the bloom and fragrance as of a bridegroom 
('Ai/a^opek HiKdrov, Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N. T. p. 
805). He and his sisters, with Mary thp wife of 
Cleophas, and other disciples, were sent out to sea 
by the Jews in a leaky boat, but miraculously 
escaped destruction, and were brought safely to 
Marseilles. There he preached the Gospel, and 
founded a church, and became its bishcp. After 
many years, he suffered martyrdom, and was buried, 
some said, there ; others, at Citium in Cyprus. 
Finally his bones and those of Mary Magdalene 
were brought from Cyprus to Constantinople by 
the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, and a church 
erected to his honour. Some apocryphal books 
were extant bearing his name (comp. Thilo, Codex 
Apoc. N. T. p. 711; Baronius, ad Martyrol. Horn. 
Dec. xvii. ; and for some wild Provencal legends as 
to the later adventures of Martha, Migne, Diet, de 
la Bible, s. v. " Marthe"). These traditions have no 
personal or historical interest for us. In one instance 
only do they connect themselves with any fact oi 
'mportance in the later history of Christendom. 
The Canons of St. Victor at Paris occupied a Priory 
dedicated (as one of the chief churches at Marseilles 
had been) to St. Lazarus. This was assigned, in 
1633, to the fraternity of the Congregation founded 
by St. Vincent de Paul, and the mission-priests senl 
forth by it consequently became conspicuous as the 
Lozarists (Butler's Lices of the Saints, July xix.X 




The question why the first three Gospels omit 
all mention of so wonderful a fact as the resurrection 
of Lazarus, has fiom a comparatively early period 
forced itself upon interpreters and apologists. Na 
tionalist critics have made it one of their chief points 
of attack, directly on the trustworthiness of St. John, 
indirectly on the credibility of the Gospel history as 
a whole. Spinoza professed to make this the crucial 
instance by which, if he had but proof of it, he 
would be determined to embrace the common faith of 
Christians (Bayle.Z)»'c£. s. v. " Spinoza"). Woolston, 
the maledicentissimns of English Deists, asserts that 
the story is " brimfull of absurdities," " a contexture 
of folly and fraud " (Dis. on Miracles, v. ; comp. 
N. Lardner's Vindications, Works, M. 1-54). Strauss 
(Leben Jesu, pt. ii. ch. ix. §10J) scatters with 
triumphant scorn the subterfuges of Paulus and the 
naturalist-interpreters (such, for example, as the 
hypothesis of suspended animation), and pronounces 
the narrative to have all the characteristics of a 
mythus. Ewald (Gesch. v. p. 404), on the other 
hand, in marked contrast to Strauss, recognises, not 
only the tenderness and beauty of St. John's narra 
tive, and its value as a representation of the quicken 
ing power of Christ, but also its distinct historical 
character. The explanations given of the perplexing 
phenomenon are briefly these: (1) That fear of 
drawing down persecution on one already singled out 
for it, kept the three Evangelists, writing during the 
lifetime of Lazarus, from all mention of him ; and 
that, this reason for silence being removed by his 
death, St. John could write freely. By some (Gro- 
tius, ad foe.) this has perhaps been urged too ex - 
clusively. By others (Alford, ad foe. ; Trench, On 
Miracles, 1. c.) it has perhaps been too hastily re 
jected as extravagant. (2) That the writers of the 
first three Gospels confine themselves, as by a deli 
berate plan, to the miracles wrought in Galilee (that 
of the blind man at Jericho being the only exception), 
and that they therefore abstained from all mention 
of any fact, however interesting, that lay outside that 
limit (Meyer, ad foe.). This too has its weight, as 
showing that, in this omission, the three Evangelists 
are at least consistent with themselves, but it leaves 
the question, " what led to that consistency ?" un 
answered. (3) That the narrative, in its beauty and 
simplicity, its human sympathies and marvellous 
transparency, carries with it the evidence of its own 
truthfulness, and is as far removed as possible from 
the embellishments and rhetoric of a writer of 
myths, bent upon the invention of a miracle which 
should outdo all others (Meyer, I.e.}. In this there 
is no doubt great truth. To invent and tell any 
story as this is told would require a power equal to 
that of the highest artistic skill of our later age, and 
that skill we should hardly expect to find combined 
at once with the deepest yearnings after truth anc' 
a deliberate perversion of it. There would seem, to 
any but a rationalist critic, an improbability quit* 
infinite, in the union, in any single write-, of the 
characteristics of a Goethe, an Ireland, and an 
;i Kempis. (4) Another explanation, suggested by the 
attempt to represent to one's-self what must have 
been the sequel of such a fact as that now in ques 
tion upon the life of him who had been affected by 
it, may perhaps be added. The history of monastic 
orders, of sudden conversion? after great critical de 
liverances from disease or danger, offers an analogy 
which may help to guide us. In such cases it has 
happened, in a thousand instances, that the man 
has felt as if the thread of his life was broken, the 
par-t buried for ever old things vanished away, 




He retires from the world, changes his name, speaks 
to no one, or speaks only in hints, of all that belongs 
to his former life, shrinks above all from making his 
conversion, his resurrection from the death of sin, the 
subject of common talk. The instance already re 
ferred to in Bede offers a very striking illustration 
of this. Cunningham, in that histoiy, gives up all 
to his wife, his children, and the poor, retires to the 
monastery of Melrose, takes the new name of Drith- 
elm, and " would not relate these and other things 
which he had seen to slothful persons and such as 
ived negligently." Assume only that the laws of 
the spiritual life worked in some such way on 
Lazarus ; that the feeling would be strong in pro 
portion to the greatness of the wonder to which it 
owed its birth ; that there was the recollection, 
in him and in others, that, in the nearest parallel 
instance, silence and secrecy had been solemnly en 
joined (Mark v. 43), and it will seem hardly won 
derful that such a man should shrink from publicity, 
and should wish to take his place as the last and lowest 
in the company of beliovers. Is it strange that it 
should come to be tacitly recognised among the 
members of the of Jerusalem that, so long 
as he and those dear to him survived, the great 
wonder of their lives 'vas a thing to be remem 
bered witli awe by those who knew it, not to be 
talked or written about to those who knew it not? 

The facts of the case are, at any rate, singularly 
in harmony with this last explanation. St. Matthew 
and St. Mark, who (the one writing for the He 
brews, the other under the guidance of St. Peter) 
represent what may be described as the feeling of 
the Jerusalem Church, omit equally all mention 
of the three names. They use words which may 
indeed have been dxavavra ff'wsToiffiv, but they 
avoid the names. Mary's cosily offering is that of 
" a woman " (Matt. xxvi. 7 ; Mark xiv. 3). The 
house in which the feast was made is described so 
as to indicate it sufficiently to those who knew the 
place, and yet to keep the name of Lazarus out of 
sight. The hypotheses stated above would add two 
more instances of the same reticence. St. Luke, 
coining later (probably after St. Matthew and St. 
Mark had left the Church of Jerusalem with the 
materials afterwards shaped into their Gospels), 
collecting from all informants all the facts they 
will communicate, comes across one in which the 
two sisters are mentioned by name, and records 
it, suppressing, or not having learnt, that of the 
locality. St. John, writing long afterwards, when 
all three had " fallen asleep," feels that the restraint 
is no longer necessary, and puts on record, as the 
Spirit brings all things to his remembrance, the 
whole of the wonderful history. The circum 
stances of his life, too, his residence in or near Jeru 
salem as the protector of the bereaved mother of his 
Lord (John xix. 27), his retirement from prominent 
activity for so long a period [JOHN THK APOSTLE], 
the insight we find he had into the thoughts and 
feelings of those who would be the natural com 
panions ami friends of the sistens of Lazarus (John 
xx. 1, 11-18) ; all these indicate that he more than 
any other Evangelist was likely to Imve lived in that 
inmost circle of disciples, where these things would 
be most lovingly and reverently remembered. Thus 
much of truth there is, as usual, in the idealism of 
some interpreters, that what to most other disciples 
would seem simply a miracle (Wp«), a work of 
power /, like other works, and therefore 
one which they could witho.nt much reluctance 
omit would be to him a sign ( ffrjfjiflov), manifest- 


ing the glory of (Jcxl, witnessing that Jesus was 
" the resurrection and the lite," which he could in 
no wise pass over, but must wheu the right time 
came record in its fulness. (Comp. for this signifi 
cance of the miracle, and for its probable use in the 
spiritual education of Lazarus, Olshausen, ad loc.) 
It is of course obvious, that if this supposition ac 
counts for the omission in the three Gospels of the 
name and history of Lazarus, it accounts also for the 
chronological dislocation and harmonistic difficulties 
which were its inevitable consequences. 

2. The name Lazarus occurs also in the well- 
known parable of Luke xvi. 19-31. What is there 
chiefly remarkable is, that while in all other cases 
persons are introduced as in certain stations, be 
longing ta certain classes, here, and here only, we 
meet with a proper name. Is this exceptional fact 
to be looked on as simply one of the accessories of 
the parable, giving as it were a dramatic sem 
blance of reality to what was, like other parables, 
only an illustration ? Were the thoughts of men 
called to the etymology of the name, as signifying 
that he who bore it had in his poverty no help but 
God (comp. Germ. "Gotthilf"), or as meaning, in 
the shortened form, one who had become altogether 
" helpless" ? (So Theophyl. ad loc., who explains it 
as = d^o'fidriros, recognising possibly the derivation 
which has been suggested by later critics from 

"Ity N?, " there is no help." Comp. Suicer, s. v. ; 

Lampe, ad loc.) Or was it again not a parable 
but, in its starting-point at least, a history, so that 
Lazarus was some actual beggar, like him who lay 
at the beautiful gate of the Temple, familiar there 
fore both to the disciples and the Pharisees? (So 
Theophyl. ad loc. ; Chrysost., Maldon. ; Suicer, 
s. v. Aafapos.) Whatever the merit of either of 
these suggestions, no one of them can be accepted 
as quite satisfactory, and it add.-, something to the 
force of the hypothesis ventured on above, to find 
that it connects itself with this question also. 
The key which has served to open other doors fits 
into the wards here. If we assume the identity 
suggested in (5), or if, leaving that as unproved, 
we remember only that the historic Lazaras be 
longed by birth to the class of the wealthy and 
influential Pharisees, as in (3), then, though we 
may not think of him as among those who were 
" covetous," and who therefore derided by scornful 
look and gesture (^f/xtwHjojjJoj', Luke xvi. 14) 
Him who taught that they could not serve God 
and Mammon, we may yet look on him as one of 
the same class, known to them, associating with 
them, only too liable, in spite of all the promise of 
his youth, to be drawn away by that which had 
comipted them. Could anything be more signi 
ficant, if this were so, than the introduction of this 
name into such a parable ? Not Kleazar the Pha 
risee, rich, honoured, blameless among men, but 
Eleazar the beggar, full of leprous sores, lying at 
the rich man's gate, was the true heir of blessedness, 
Cor whom was reserved the glory of being in Abra 
ham's bosoni. Very striking too, it must be addcJ, 
s the coincidence between the teaching of the pa 
rable and of the history in another point. The La 
zarus of the one remains in Abraham's bosom 
Because " if men hear not Moses and the prophet*, 
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from 
the dead." The Lazarus of the other returned from 
:t, and yet bears no witness to the unbelieving J-.wa 
of the wonders or the terrors of Hades. 

In this instan tr also the of Lazarus ha* 


IXKSI perpetuated in an institution of the Christiai 
Church. The parable did its work, even in the 
dark days of her life, in leading men to dread simply 
•elfish luxury, and to help even the most loath 
some forms of suttering. The leper of the Middle 
Ages appeare as a Lazzaro. k Among the orders, halt- 
military and half-monastic, of tho 12th century, 
was one which bore the title of the Knights of St. 
Lazarus (A.D. 1119), whose special work it was to 
minister to the lepers, first of Syria, and afterwards of 
Europe. The use of 'lazaretto and lazar-house for the 
leper-hospitals then founded in all parts of Western 
Christendom, no less than that of lazzarone for the 
mendicants of Italian towns, are indications of the 
e/lect of the parable upon the mind of Europe in 
the Middle Ages, and thence upon its later speech. 
In some cases there seems to have been a singular 
transfer of the attributes of the one Lazarus to the 
other. Thus in Paris the prison of St. Lazare (the 
Clos S. Lazare, so famous in 1848) had been ori 
ginally an hospital for lepers. In the 17th century 
it was assigned to the Society of Lazarists, who 
took their name, as has been said, from Lazarus of 
Bethany, and St. Vincent de Paul died there in 
1660. In the immediate neighbourhood of the pri 
son, however, are two streets, the Rue d'Enfer and 
Rue de Paradis, the names of which indicate the 
earlier associations with the Lazarus of the parable. 
It may be mentioned incidentally, as there has 
Deen no article under the head of DIVES, that the 
occurrence of this word, used as a quasi-proper 
name, in our early English literature, is another 
proof of the impression which was made on the 
minds of men, either by the parable itself, or by 
dramatic representations of it in ths mediaeval 
mysteries. The writer does not know where it is 
found for the first time in this sense, but it appears 
as early as Chaucer (" Lazar and Dives," Somp- 
noure's Tale) and Piers Ploughman (" Dives in the 
deyntees lyvede," 1. 9158), and in later theological 
literature its use has been all but universal. In no 
other instance lias a descriptive adjective passed in 
this way into the received name of an individual. 
The name Nimeusis, which Euthymius gives as that 
of the rich man (Trench, Parables, 1. c.), seems 
never to have come into any general use. 

[E. H. P.] 

LEAD (IVIS'iy: /u<to.(/3os,,u<to.j/38os),oneofthe 
most common of metals, found generally in veins 
of rocks, though seldom in a metallic state, and 
most commonly in combination with sulphur. It 
was early known to the ancients, and the allusions 
to it in Scripture indicate that the Hebrews were 
well acquainted with its uses. The rocks in the 
neighbourhood of Sinai yielded it in large quantities, 
and it was found in Egypt. That it was common 
in Palestine is shown by the expression in Ecclus. 
xlvii. 18, where it is said, in apostrophising Solo 
mon, " Thou didst multiply silver as lead ; " the 
writer having in view the hyperbolical description 
of Solomon's wealth in 1 K. x. 27 : " the king 
made the silver to be in Jerusalem as stones." It 
was among the spoils of the Midianites which the 
children ot Israel brought with them to the plains 
of Moab, after their return from the slaughter of 
the tribe (Num. xxxi. 22). The ships of Tarshish 
supplied the market of Tyre with lead, as with 



other metals (Ez. xxvii. 12). Its heaviness, tc 
which ailusion is nr.ade in Ex. xv. 10, and Ecclus. 
xxii. 14, caused it to be used for weights, which 
were either in the form of a round flat cake (Zech. 
v. 7), or a rough unfashioned lump or " stone " 
(ver. 8) ; stones having in ancient times served the 
purpose of weights (comp. Prov. xvi. 11). This 
fact may perhaps explain the substitution of " lead " 
for " stones " in the passage of Ecclesiasticus above 
quoted ; the commonest use of the commonest metal 
being present to the mind of the writer. If Ges* 1 - 
nius is correct in rendering "Jj3N, andc, by " lead," 
in Am. vii. 7, 8, we have another instance of the 
purposes to which this metal was applied in form 
ing the ball or bob of the plumb-line. [PLUME- 
LINE.] Its use for weighting fishing-lines was 
known in the time of Homer (II. xxiv. 80). But 
Bochart and others identify andc with tin, and derive 
from it the etymology of " Britain." 

In modern metallurgy lead is used with tin in 
the composition of solder for fastening metals to 
gether. That the ancient Hebrews were acquainted 
with the use of solder is evident from the descrip- 
tion given by the prophet Isaiah of the processes 
which accompanied the formation of an image for 
idolatrous worship. The method by which two 
pieces of metal were joined together was identical 
with that employed in modern times; the sub 
stances to be united being first clamped before 
being soldered. No hint is given as to the com 
position of the solder, but in all probability lead 
was one of the materials employed, its usage for 
such a purpose being of great antiquity. The an 
cient Egyptians used it for fastening stones together 
in the rough parts of a building, and it was found 
by Mr. Layard among the ruins at Nimroud (Nin. 
and Bab. p. 357). Mr. Napier (Metallurgy of the 
Bible, p. 130) conjectures that " the solder used in 
early times for lead, and termed lead, was the same 
as is now used — a mixture of lead and tin." 

But, in addition to these more obvious uses of 
this metal, the Hebrew.? were acquainted with an 
other method of employing it, which indicates some 
advance in the arts at an early period. Job (six. 
24) utters a wish that his words, " with a pen of 
iron and lead, were graven in the rock for ever." 
The allusion is supposed to be to the practice o: 
carving inscriptions upon stone, and pouring molten 
lead into the cavities of the letters, to render them 
legible, and at the same time preserve them from 
the action of the air. Frequent references to the 
use of leaden tablets for inscriptions are found in 
ancient writers. Pausanias (ix. 31) saw Hesiod's 
Works and Days graven on lead, but almost illegible 
with age. Public proclamations, according to Pliny 
(xiii. 21), were written on lead, and the name of 
Germanicus was carved on leaden tablets (Tac. Ann. 
\\. 69). Eutychius (Ann. Alex. p. 390; relates 
that the history of the Seven Sleepers was eng.Tved 
on lead by the Cadi. 

Oxide of lead is employed largely in modere 
pottery for the formation of glazes, and its presence 
has been discovered in analyzing the articles of 
earthenware found in Egypt and Nineveh, proving 
that the ancients were acquainted with its use for 
the same purpose. The A. V. of Ecclus. xxxviii. 30 
assumes that the usage was known to the Hebiews. 

k It is interesting, as connected with the traditions 
given above under (1), to find that the first occurrence of 
'.he with this generic meaning is in the old IViv 

vencal dialect, under the lorni Ijadre. (Comp. Diez. 
A'oflW'i.H'iw'fr'r/wc/i, s. v. " I.awjiro.") 

a 2 


thou^n the original is not explicit upon the point. 
Speaking of the pottei-'s art in finishing off his work, 
" he applieth himself to lead it over," is the render 
ing of what in the Greek is simply " he giveth his 
heart to complete the smearing, ' the material em 
ployed for the purpose not being indicated. 

In modem metallurgy lead is employed for the 
purpose of purifying silver from other mineral pro 
ducts. The alloy is mixed with lead, exposed to 
fusion npon aij earthen vessel, and submitted to a 
biast of air. By this means the dross is consumed. 
This process is called the cupelling operation, with 
which the description in Ez. xxii. 18-22, in the 
opinion of Mr. Napier (Met. of Bible, pp. 20-24), 
accurately coincides. " The vessel containing the 
j.lloy is surrounded by the fire, or placed in the 
midst of it, and the blowing is not applied to the 
tire, but to the fused metals. . . . And when this is 
done, nothing but the perfect metals, gold and 
silver, can resist the scorifying influence." And in 
support of his conclusion he quotes Jer. vi. 28-30, 
adding, " This description is perfect. If we take 
silver having the impurities in it described in the 
text, namely iron, copper, and tin, and mix it with 
lead, and place it in the fire upon a cupell, it soon 
melts ; the lead will oxidise and form a thick coarse 
crust upon the surface, and thus consume away, 
but effecting no purifying influence. The alloy 
remains, if anything, worse than before. . . . The 
silver is not refined, because ' the bellows were 
burned ' — there existed nothing to blow upon it. 
Lead is the purifier, but only so in connexion with 
a blast blowing upon the precious metals." An 
allusion to this use of lead is to be found in 
Theognis (Gnmn. 1127, 8 ; ed. Welcker), and it is 
mentioned by Pliny (xxxiii. 31) as indispensable to 
the purification of silver from alloy. [W. A. W.] 

LEBA'NA (N33 1 ? : Actfai/d ; Cod. Fr. Aug. 
\af$a.v : Lebana), one of the Nethinim whose de 
scendants retained from Babylon with Zerubbabel 
(Neh. vii. 48). He is called LABANA in the pa 
rallel list of 1 Esdras, and 

LEBA'NAH (iTD 1 ? : A.a0ar6 : Lcbana) in 
Ezr. ii. 45. 

LEAF, LEAVES. The word occurs in the 
A. V. either in the singular or plural number in 
three different senses — (1) Leaf or leaves of trees. 
(2) Leaves of the doors of the Temple. (3) Leaves 
of the roll of a book. 

1 . LEAF (rW," aleh ; epB, h tereph ; »BJJ,' apM : 
<(>v\\oi>, o-T^\'«xos, avdpao-i j : folium, frons, cor 
tex}. The olive-leaf is mentioned in Gen. viii. 11. 
Fig-leaves formed the first covering of our parents 
in Eden. The ban-en fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 19 ; 
Mark xi. 13) on the road between Bethany and 
Jerusalem " had on it nothing but leaves." The 
fig-leaf is alluded to by our Lord (Matt. xxiv. 32 ; 
Mark xiii. 28) : " When his branch is yet tender, and 
putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh." 
The oak-leaf is mentioned in Is. i. 30, and vi. 13. 
The righteous are often compared to green leaves 
(Jer. xvii. 8) : " her leaf shall be green " — to leaver 
that fade not (Vs. i. 3)—" his leaf also shall net 

» Fiom n^y, to ascend or grow up. Precisely 
identical is avo^ao-ts, from a.i>a.Baivea>, to ascend. 

k Strictly, " a green ami tender leaf," " one easily 
plucked off;" from P|TJ, "to tear, or pluck off," 
vhcncc "all tlic leaves of hrv spring" (K.T. xvii. 0). 


wither." The ungodly on the othor Luid ure as 
" an oak whose leaf fadeth '' (Is. i. 30) ; is a trte 
which "shall wither in all the leareu of her spring " 
(Ea. xvii. 9) ; the " sound of a shaken leaf shall 
chase them" (Lev. xxvi. 36). In Ezekiel's vision 
of the holy waters, the blessings of the Messiah's 
kingdom are spoken of under the image of trees 
growing on a river's bank ; there " shall grow all 
trees for food, whose leaf shall not fade" (Ez. 
xlvii. 12). In this passage it is said that " the 
fruit of these trees shall be for food, and the leaf 
thereof for medicine" (margin, for bruises and 
sores). With this compare (Rev. xxii. 1, 2) St. 
John's rision of the heavenly Jerusalem. " In the 
midst of the street of it, and on either side of the 
river, was there the tree of life .... and the leaves 
of the tree were for the healing of the nations." 
There is probably here an allusion to some tree 
whose leaves were used by the Jews as a medicine 
or ointment ; indeed, it is veiy likely that many 
plants and leaves were thus made use of by them, 
as by the old English herbalists. 

2. LEAVES of doors (D^?V, tseldim ; fO"". 

deleth : irrvx'fl, 0t/p«M a : ostium, ostiolurn). The 
Hebrew word, which occurs very many times in th« 
Bible, and which in 1 K. vi. 32 (margin) and 34 
is translated " leaves " in the A. V., signifies beams, 
ribs, sides, &c. In Ez. xli. 24, " And the doors 
had two leaves apiece," the Hebrew word ddcth 
is the representative of both doors and leaves. By 
the expression two-leaved doors, we are no doubt to 
understand what we term folding-doors. 

3. LEAVES of a book or roll (nTH, deleth : 

'•' '• 
fft\ls : pagella) occurs in this sense only in Jer. 

xxxvi. 23. The Hebrew word (literally doors) 
would perhaps be more correctly translated columns. 
The Latin columna, and the English column, as 
applied to a book, are probably derived from re 
semblance to a column of a building. [W. H.] 

LE'AH (ilK^ : Aefo, Am : Lia), the elder 
daughter of Laban (Gen. xxix. 16). The dulness or 
weakness of her eyes was so notable, that it is men* 
tioned as a contrast to the beautiful form and ap 
pearance of her younger sister Rachel. Her father 
took advantage of the opportunity which the local 
marriage-rite afforded to pass her off in her sister's 
stead on the unconscious bridegroom, and excused 
himself to Jacob by alleging that the custom of the 
country forbade the younger sister to be given first 
in marriage. Roseumiiller cites instances of these 
customs prevailing to this day in some parts of the 
East. Jacob's preference of Rachel grew into hatred 
of Leah, after hehad married both sisters. Leah, how 
ever, bore to him in quick succession Reuben, Simeon. 
Levi, Judah, then Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah, 
before Rachel had a child. Leah was conscious 
and resentful (ch. xxx.) of the smaller share she pos 
sessed in her husband's affections ; yet in Jacob's 
differences with his father-in-law, his two wives ap 
pear to be attached to him with equal fidelity. In the 
critical moment when he expected an attack from 
Esau, his discriminate regard for the several mem 
bers of his family was shown by his placing Rachel 

Comp. the Syr. -6, folium, from «^i~, to 

strike off (Castell. Lex. Kept. s. v.). 

c From the unused root HDP, to flower ; Syi. 


»nd her child hindermost, in the least exposed situa 
tion, Leah and her children next, and the two hand 
maids with their children in the front. Leah pro- 
oably lived tc witness the dishonour of her daughter 
(ch. xxxiv.), so cruelly avenged by two of her sons ; 
and the subsequent deaths of Deborah at Bethel, and 
of Rachel near Bethlehem. She died some time after 
Jacob reached the south country in which his father 
Isaac lived. Her name is not mentioned in the list 
of Jacob's family (ch. xlvi. 5) when they went down 
into Egypt. She was buried in the family grave in 
Machpelah (ch. xlix. 31). [W. T. B.] 

LEASING, " falsehood." This word is retained 
In the A. V. of Ps. iv. 2, v. 6, from the older 
English versions ; but the Hebrew word of which 
it is the rendering is elsewhere almost uniformly 
translated " lies" (Ps. xl. 4, Iviii. 3, &c.). It is 
derived from the Anglo-Saxon leas, " false," whence 
leasung, "leasing," " falsehood," and is of frequent 
occurrence in old English writers. So in Piers 
Ploughman's Vision, 2113: 
" Tel me no tales, 

Ne letynge to laughen of." 
And in Wiclif's New Testament, John viii. 44, 
" Whanne he spekith a lesinge, he spekith of his 
owne thingis, for he is a lyiere, and fadir of it." It is 
used both by Spenser and Shakspere. [W. A. W.] 

LEATHER (ity, 'or). The notices of leather 
in the Bible are singularly few ; indeed the word 
occurs but twice in the A. V., and in each instance 
in reference to the same object, a girdle (2 K. i. 8 ; 
Matt. iii. 4). There are, however, other instances 
in which the word " leather" might with propriety 
be substituted for " skin," as in the passages in 
which vessels (Lev. xi. 32 ; Num. xxxi. 20) or rai 
ment (Lev. xiii. 48) are spoken of; for in these 
cases the skins must have been prepared. Though 
the material itself is seldom noticed, yet we cannot 
doubt that it was extensively used by the Jews ; 
shoes, bottles, thongs, garments, kneading-troughs 
ropes, arid other articles, were made of it. For the 
mode of preparing it see TANNER. [W. L. B.] 

LEAVEN (")fcb>, seor: $>w. fermentum). 
The Hebrew word seor has the radical sense oi 
effervescence or fei-mentation, and therefore corre 
sponds in point of etymology to the Greek f 
(from £(oi), the Latin fermentum (from ferveo), 
and the English leaven (from levare). It occurs 
only five times in the Bible (Ex. xii. 15, 19, xiii. 
7 ; Lev. ii. II ; Deut. xvi. 4), and is translated 
" leaven " in the first four of the passages quoted, 
and "leavened bread" in the' last. In connexion 
with it, we must notice the terms khametz * and 
matzzoth, b the former signifying " fermented " or 
" leavened," literally "sharpened," bread; the latter 
" unleavened," the radical force of tbj word being 
variously understood to signify sweetness or purity. 
The three words appear in juxtaposition in Ex. 
xiii. 7 : " Unleavened bread (matzzoth) shall be 
inten seren days ; and there shall no leavened bread 
(khametz) be seen with thee, neither shall there be 
leaven (SCOT] seen with thee in all thy quarters." 
Various substances were known to have fermenting 
qu.'Jities ; but the ordinary leaven consisted of a 
lump of old dough in a high state of fermentation, 
•vhich was inserted into the mass of dough prepared 

*f"OPI. Another form of the same root, khometz 
s applied to sharpened or lour wine 


for baking. [BRKAD.] As the process of producing 
the leaven itself, or even of leavening bread when 
the substance was at hand, required some time, un 
leavened cakes were more usually produced on 
sudden emergencies (Gen. xviii. 6; Judg. vi. 19). 
The use of leaven was strictly forbidden in all 
offerings made to the Lord by fire ; as in the case 
of the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 11), the trespass- 
offering (Lev. vii. 12), the consecration-offerinc; 
(Ex. xxix. 2 ; Lev. viii. 2), the Nazarite-offeriii;; 
(Num. vi. 15), and more particularly in regard to 
the feast of the Passover, when the Israelites 
were not only prohibited on pain of death from 
eating leavened bread, but even from having any 
leaven in their houses (Ex. xii. 15, 19) or in their 
land (Ex. xiii. 7 ; Deut. xvi. 4) during seven days 
commencing with the 14th of N isan. It is in re 
ference to these prohibitions that Amos (iv. 5) 
ironically bids the Jews of his day to " offer a sa 
crifice of thanksgiving with leaven;" and hence 
even honey was prohibited (Lev. ii. 11), on account 
of its occasionally producing fermentation. In other 
instances, where the offering was to be consumed 
by the priests, and not on the altar, leaven might 
be used, as in the case of the peace-offering (Lev. 
vii. 13), and the Pentecostal loaves (Lev. xxiii. 17). 
Various ideas were associated with the prohibition 
of leaven in the instances above quoted ; in the feast 
of the Passover it served to remind the Israelites 
both of the haste with which they fled out of Egyjt 
(Ex. xii. 39), and of the sufferings that they had 
undergone in that land, the insipidity of unleavened 
bread rendering it a not inapt emblem of affliction 
(Deut. xvi. 3). But the most prominent idea, and 
the one which applies equally to all the cases of 
prohibition, is connected with the corruption which 
leaven itself had undergone, and which it commu 
nicated to bread in the process of fermentation. It 
is to this property of leaven that our Saviour points 
when he speaks of the " leaven (i. e. the corrupt doc 
trine) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees " (Matt, 
xvi. 6) ; and St. Paul, when he speaks of the " old 
leaven" (1 Cor. v. 7). This association of ideas 
was not peculiar to the Jews ; it was familiar to 
the Romans, who forbade the priest of Jupiter to 
touch flour mixed with leaven (Gell. x. 15, 19), 
and who occasionally used the word fermentum as 
= " corruption " (Pers. Sat. i. 24). Plutarch's ex 
planation is very much to the point : " The leaven 
itself is born from corruption, and corrupts the 
mass with which it is mixed " (Quaest. Rom. 109). 
Another quality in leaven 's noticed in the Bible, 
vis. its secretly penetrating and diffusive power 
hence the proverbial saying, " a little leaven leav- 
eneth the whole lump" (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). 
In this respect it was emblematic of moral influence 
generally, whether good or bad, and hence our 
Saviour adopts it as illustrating the growth of the 
kingdom of heaven in the individual heart and in 
the world at large (Matt. xiii. 33). [W. L. B.] 

LEB'ANON (in prose with the art. JU^n, 
1 K. v. 20 ; in poetry without the art. fl2 J?, IV. 

zxis. 6 : A/0apor : Libaniis), a mountain range in 
the north of Palestine. The name Lebanon signifies 
" white," and was applied either on account of the 
snow, which, during a great part of the year, covers 

[VINKOAR] : khametz is applied exclusively to 



its whole summit," or on account of tlie white 
colour of its linvi'stone cliff's and peaks. It is the 
" white mountain " — the Mont Blanc of Palestine; 
an appellation which seems to be given, in one form 
or another, to the highest mountains in all the coun 
tries of the old world. Lebanon is represented in 
Scripture as lying upon Ihe northern border of the 
laud of Israel (Deut. i. 7, si. 24 ; Josh. i. 4). Two 
distinct ranges bear this name. They both begin 
in lat. 33° 20', and run in parallel lines from S.W. 
to N.E. for about 90 geog. miles, enclosing between 
them a long fertile valley from 5 to 8 miles wide, 
anciently called Coele-Syria. The modern name is 
el-Bukd'a, b " the valley," corresponding exactly to 
" the valley of Lebanon" in Joshua (si. 17). c It 
is a northern prolongation of the Jordan valley, 
and likewise a southern prolongation of that of the 
Oroutes (Porter's Handbook, p. xvi.). The western 
range is the " Libanus " of the old geographers, and 
the Lebanon of Scripture, where Solomon got timber 
tor the temple (1 K. v. 9, &c.), and where the 
Hivites and Giblites dwelt (Judg. iii. 3 ; Josh, 
xiii. 5). The eastern range was called " Anti- 
Libanus " by geographers, and " Lebanon toward 
the sun-rising" by the sacred writers (Josh. xiii. 5). 
Strabo describes (xvi. p. 754) the two as commenc 
ing near the Mediterranean — the former at Tripolis, 
and the latter at Sidon — and running in parallel 
lines toward Damascus ; and, strange to say, this 
error has, in pail at least, been followed by most 
modern writers, who represent the mountain-range 
between Tyre and the lake of Merom as a branch of 
Anti-Libanus (Winer, Realwb., s. v. " Libanon ;" 
Robinson, 1st ed, iii. 346 ; but see the corrections 
in the new edition). The topography of Anti- 
Libanus was first clearly described in Porter's 
Damascus (i. 297, &c., ii. 309, &c.). A deep 
valley called Wady et-Teim separates the southern 
section of Anti-Libanus from both Lebanon and the 
hills of Galilee.* 

Lebanon — the western range — commences on the 
south at the deep ravine of the Litany, the ancient 
river Leontes, which drains the valley of Coele-Syria, 
and falls into the Mediterranean five miles north 
of Tyre. It runs N.E. in a straight line parallel 
to the coast, to the opening from the Mediterranean 
into the plain of Emesa, called in Scripture the 
" Entrance of Hamath" (Num. xxxiv. 8). Here 
Nahr el-Jfebti — the ancient river Eleutherus — 
sweeps round its northern end, as the Leoutes does 
round its southern. The average elevation of the 
range is from 6000 to 8000 ft. ; but two peaks rise 
considerably higher. One of these it> Sunntn, nearly 
on the parallel of Beyrout, which is more than 9000 
feet ; the other is Jebel Mukhmel, which was mea 
sured in September, 1860, by the hydrographer of 
the Admiralty, and found to be very nearly 10,200 
feet high (Nat. Hist. Rev., No. V. p. 11). It is 
the highest mountain in Syria. On the summits 
of both these peaks the snow remains in patches 
during the whole summer. 

The central ridge or backbone of Tphnnon ha? 
smooth, barren sides, and gray rounded summits. 


It is entirely destitute of verdure, and ia covew! 
with small fragments of limestone, from which 
white crowns and jagged points of miked rock shoot 
up at intervals. Here and there a f<nw stuntnl 
pine-tree? or dwarf oaks are met with. The line of 
cultivation runs along at the height of about 
6000 ft. ; and below this the features of the westei c 
slopes arc entirely different. The descent is gradual ; 
but is everywhere broken by precipices and tower 
ing rocks which time and the elements have chiselled 
into strange, fantastic shapes. Ravines of singulai 
wildness and grandeur furrow the whole mountain 
side, looking in many places like huge rents. Here 
and there, too, bold promontories shoot out, and 
dip perpendicularly into the bosom of the Mediter 
ranean. The rugged limestone banks are scantily 
clothed with the evergreen oak, and the sandstone 
with pines ; while every available spot is carefully 
cultivated. The cultivation is wonderful, and 
shows what all Syria might be if under a good go 
vernment. Miniature fields of grain are often seen 
where one would suppose the eagles alone, which 
hover round them, could have planted the seed. 
Fig-trees cling to the naked rock ; vines are trained 
along narrow ledges ; long ranges of mulberries, on 
terraces like steps of stairs, cover the more gentle 
declivities; and dense groves of olives fill up the 
bottoms of the glens. Hundreds of villages are 
seen — here built amid labyrinths of rocks; there 
clinging like swallows' nests to the sides of cliffs; 
while convents, no less numerous, are perched on 
the top of every peak. When viewed from th« 
sea on a moming in early spring, Lebanon presents 
a picture which once seen is never forgotten ; but 
deeper still is the impression left on the mind when 
one looks down over its terraced slopes clothed in 
; their gorgeous foliage, and through the vistas of its 
magnificent glens, on the broad and bright Medi- 
| terranean. How beautifully do these noble features 
j illustrate the words of the prophet : " Israel shall 
1 grow as the lily, and strike forth his roots as Leba 
non" (Hos. xiv. ft). And the fresh mountain 
breezes, filled in early summer with the fragrance 
of the budding vines, and throughout the year with 
the rich odours of numerous aromatic shrubs, call 
to mind the words of Solomon — " The smell of thy 
garments is like the smell of Lebanon " (Cant. iv. 
11; see also Hos. xiv. 6). When the plains of 
Palestine are burned up with the scorching sun, 
and when the air in them is like the breath of a 
furnace, the snowy tops" and ice-cold streams of 
Lebanon temper the breezes, and make the mountain- 
range a pleasant and luxurious retreat, — " Shall a 
man leave the snow of Lebanon ... or shall the 
cold-flowing waters be forsaken?" (Jer. xviii. 14). 
The vine is still largely cultivated in every part of 
the mountain ; and the wine is excellent, notwith 
standing the clumsy apparatus and unskilful work 
men employed in its manufacture (Hos. xiv. 7). 
Lebanon also abounds in olives, figs, and mulberries ; 
while some remnants exist of the forests of pine, 
oak, and cedar, which formerly covered it ( 1 K. v. 
6; Ps. xxix. 5; Is. xiv. 8; Ezr. iii. 7 ; Diod. Sic. 

• So Tacitus (Hitt. v. 6) : " Praecipnum montium 
I.ibanum erigit, mirum dictu, tantos inter ardores 
:<pacum fldumque nivibus." 

(v. 20) : " A tergo (Sidonis) mons Libanus orsws, 
mille quingentis stadiis Simyram usque porrigitur, 

qua Coele-Syria cognominatnr. Huic par intcrjacente 
valle mons adversus obtcnditur, muro ronjunctus." 
Ptolemy (v. 15) follows Strabo ; but Euscbius (flnom, 
j 8. v. " Antilibanus") says, 'ArriAi^afov, re. Oirfp T<* 
Pliny was more accurate than Strabo. He says ' Ai/Joror npbs araroAa?, wpbs ^0410.0 uriviov x<oi>ov. 

' jij3>>n nyj53 


xix. . r >8). I'oLsiilerable numbers of wild boasts still 
inhabit its retired glens and higher peaks; the 
writer has seen jackals, hyenas, wolves, bears, and 
[•anthers (2 K. xiv. 9 ; Cant. iv. $ ; Hab. ii. 17). 

Some noble streams of classic celebrity have their 
sources high up in Lebanon, and rush down in 
sheets of foam through sublime glens, to stain with 
their ruddy waters the transparent bosom of the 
Mediterranean. The Leontes is on the south. 
Next comes Nahr Auwuly — tho " graceful Ros- 
trenos " of Dionysius Periegetes (905). Then 
follows the Ddmui — the " Tamuras " of Strabo 
(xvi. p. 726), and the " Damuras" of Polybius (v. 
68). Next, just on the north side of Beyrout, 
.Va/if Beyroui, the " M.igoras" of Pliny (v. ?0). 



A lew miles beyond it is Nahr el-Kclb, the " Lycus 
flumen " of the old geographers (Plin. v. 20). At 
its mouth is the celebrated pass where Egyptian, 
Assyrian, and Roman conquerors have left on tablets 
of stone, 'ecords of their routes and their victories 
(Porter's Handbook, p. 407). Nahr Ibrahim, the 
classic river " Adonis," follows, bursting from a 
cave beneath the lofty brow of Sitnnin, beside the 
ruins of Apheca. From its native rock it runs 

" Purple to the sea, supposed with blood 
Of Thammuz, yearly •wounded." 

(Lucian de Syr. Dea, 6-8 ; Strab. xvi. 755 ; Plin. 
v. 17 ; Porter's Damascus, ii. 295.) Lastly, we 
have the " sacred river," Kadisha — descending 

The grand range 

from the side of the loftiest peak m the whole 
range, through a gorge of surpassing grandeur. 
Upon its banks, in a notch of a towering cliff, is 
perched the great convent of Kanobin, the residence 
of the Maronite patriarch. 

The situation of the little group of cedars — the 
last remnant of that noble forest, once the glory of 
Lebanon — is very remarkable. Round the head of 
the sublime valley of the Kadisha sweep the highest 
summits of Lebanon in the form of a semicircle. 
Their sides rise up, bare, smooth, majestic, to the 
rounded snow-capped heads. In the centre of this 
vast recess, far removed from all other foliage and 
verdure, stand, in strange solitude, the cedars of 
Lebanon, as if they scorned to mingle their giant 
arms, and graceful fan-like branches, with the de 
generate trees of a later age." 

Along the ba°e of Lebanon runs the irregular 
plain of Phoenicia; nowhere more than two miles 
wide, and often interrupted by bold rocky spurs, 
that dip into the sea. 

The eastern slopes of Lebanon are much less im-' 
posing and less fertile than the western. In the 
southern half of the range there is an abrupt descen* 
from the summit into the plain of Coele-Syria, 
which has an elevation of about 2500 ft. Along 
the proper base of the northern half runs a low side 
ridge partially covered with dwarf oaks. 

The northern half of the mountain-range is peo 
pled, almost exclusively, by Maronite Christians — a 
brave, industrious, and hardy race ; but sadly op 
pressed by an ignorant set of priests. In the souther* 
half the Druzes predominate, who, though they num 
ber only some 20,000 righting men, form one 01 
the most powerful parties in Syria. 

The main ridge of Lebanon is composed of Jura 
limestone, and abounds in fossils. Long belts of 
more recent sandstone run along the western slopes, 
which is in places largely impregnated with iron. 
Some strata towards the southern end are said to 
yield as much as 90 per cent, of pure iron (Deut. 
viii. 9, xxxiii. 25). Coal is found in the district of 

• The height ot the grove la now ascertained to be 6172 ft. above the Mediterranean (Dr. Hooker, in .\at. Hitt. . 
No. V. p. 11). 



Metn, east of Beyrowt, near the village of Kur- 
idyil. A mine was opened by Ibrahim Pasha, but 
soon abandoned. Cretaceous strata of a very late 
period lie along the whole western base of the moun 

Lebanon was originally inhabited by the Hivites 
and Giblites (Judg. iii. 3 ; Josh. xiii. 5, 6). The 
latter either gave their name to, or took their name 
from, the city of Gebal, called by the Greeks Byblus 
(LXX. of Ez. xxvii. 9 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 755). The 
old city — now almost in ruins, — and a small district 
round it, still bear the ancient name, in the Arabic 
form Jebailf (Porter's Handbook, p. 586). The 
whole mountain range was assigned to the Israelites, 
but was never conquered by them (Josh. liii. 2-6 ; 
Judg. iii. 1-3). During the Jewish monarchy it ap 
pears to have been subject to the Phoenicians (IK. 
v. 2-6 ; Ezr. iii. 7). From the Greek conquest until 
modern times Lebanon had no separate history. 

Anti-Libanus. — The main chain of Anti-Libanus 
:ommences in the plateau of Bashan, near the pa 
rallel of Caesarea-Philippi, runs north to Hermon, 
and then north-east in a straight line till it sinks 
down into the great plain of Emesa, not far from 
the site of Riblah. HERMON is the loftiest peak, 
and has already been described ; the next highest 
is a few miles north of the site of Abila, beside 
the village of Bludan, and has an elevation of 
about 7000 ft. The rest of the ridge averages 
about 5000 ft. ; it is in general bleak and barren, 
with shelving gray declivities, gray cliffs, and gray 
rounded summits. Here and there we meet with 
thin forests of dwarf oak and juniper. The western 
slopes descend abruptly into the Buka'a ; but the 
features of the eastern are entirely different. Three 
side-ridges here radiate from Hermon, like the ribs 
of an open fan, and form the supporting walls of 
three great terraces. The last and lowest of these 
ridges takes a course nearly due east, bounding the 
plain of Damascus, and running out into the desert 
as far as Palmyra. The greater part of the terraces 
thus formed are parched flinty deserts, though here 
and there are sections with a rich soil. Anti-Liba 
nus can only boast of two streams — the Pharpar, 
now Nahr el-'Awaj, which rises high up on the side of 
Hermon ; and the Abana, now called Bar&da. The 
fountain of the latter is in the beautiful little plain 
of Zebdany, on the western side of the main chain, 
' through which it cuts in a sublime gorge, and then 
divides successively each of the side-ridges in its 
course to Damascus. A small streamlet flows down 
the valley of Helbon parallel to the Abana. 

Anti-Libanus is more thinly peopled than its 
nister range ; and it is more abundantly stocked 
with wild beasts. Eagles, vultures, and other 
birds of prey, may be seen day after day sweeping 
m circles round the beetling cliffs. Wild swine are 
numerous ; and vast herds of gazelles roam over the 
bleak eastern steppes. 

Anti-Libanus is only once distinctly mentioned 
in Scripture, where it is accurately described as 
" Lebanon toward the sun-rising " h (Josh. xiii. 5) ; 
out the southern section of the chain is frequently 


1 Amana and Abana seem to be identical, for in 
2 K. v. 12 the Keii reading is flJQK. 

k The Heb. "MD3 is identical with the Aralic 

-^ i. «'a panther." 
' Strabo tavg 'xvi. p. 755), o Matrovat fx 10 " T * 1 "' 


referred to under other names. [See llKKMON. j 
The words of Solomon in Cant. iv. 8 are very 
striking — " Look from the top of Amana, from the 
top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' den, from 
the mountains of the leopards." 1 The reference if 
in all probability, to the two highest peaks of Anti- 
Libanus, — Hermon, and that near the fountain of 
the Abana; and in both places panthers* still exist, 
" The tower of Lebanon which looketh toward 
Damascus" (Cant. vii. 4) is doubtless Hermon, 
which forms the most striking feature in the whole 
panorama round that city. Josephus mentions 
Lebanon as lying near Dan and the fountains of the 
Jordan (Ant. v. 3, §1), and as bounding the pro 
vince of Gaulanitis on the north (£. J. iii. 3, §5) ; 
he of course means Anti-Libanus. 1 The old city of 
Abila stood in one of the wildest glens of Anti- 
Libanus, on the banks of the Abana, and its terri 
tory embraced a large section of the range. [ABI 
LENE.] Damascus owes its existence to a stream 
from these mountains ; so did the once great and 
splendid city of Heliopolis ; and the chief sources of 
both the Leontes and Orontes lie along their western 
base (Porter's Handbook, pp. xviii., xix.). [J. L. P.] 

LEB'AOTH (niK3^> : AcjSciy ; Alex. Aa0o>0 : 
Lebaotli), a town which forms one of the last group 
of the cities of " the South " in the enumeration of 
the possessions of Judah (Josh. rv. 32). It is named 
between Sansannah and Shilhim ; and is very pro 
bably identical with BETH-LEBAOTH, elsewhere 
called BETH-BIREI. No trace of any names an 
swering to these appears to have been yet disco 
vered. If we may adopt the Hebrew signification 
of the name (" lionesses"), it furnishes an indi 
cation of the existence of wild animals in the south 
of Palestine. [G.] 

LEBBAE'US. This name occurs in Matt, 
x. 3, according to Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) 
of the sixth century, and in the received Text. In 
Mark iii. 18, it is substituted in a few unimportant 
MSS. for Thaddeus. The words, " Lebbaeus who 
is called " (Matt. x. 3), are not found in the Va 
tican MS. (B), and Lachmann rejects them as, in 
his opinion, not received by the most ancient Eastern 
churches. The Vulgate omits them ; but Jerome 
(Comm. in Matt.) says that Thaddeus, or Judas 
the brother of James, is elsewhere called Lebbaeus ; 
and he concludes that this apostle had three names. 
It is much easier to suppose that a strange name has 
been omitted than that it has been inserted by later 
transcribers. It is admitted into the ancient versions 
of the N. T., and into all the English versions (except 
the Rhemish) since Tyndale's in 1534. For the 
signification of the name, and for the life of the 
apostle, see JUDE, vol. i. p. 1163. [W. T. B.] 

LEBO'NAH (fUto^ : TTJS A«fl«w»; Alex, rot 

\ifrivov TIJS At£o>j/a : Lebond), a place named in 
Judg. xxi. 19 only ; and there but as a landmark to 
determine the position of Shiloh, which is stated to 
have lain south of it. Lebonah has survived to our 
times under the almost identical form of el-Lttbban. 

xat optiva., iv ois 7; XaAxU, ucnrcp axpoTroAtt TOV 
Meuroiiov. 'Ap^i; &' avrov Aaoiixeia ^ rrpbt Ai/3aiti>. 
From this it appears that the province of Massyas in 
his day embraced the whole of Anti-Libanus ; for 
Laodicca ad Libanum lies at the northern end of the 
range (Porter's Damaiciu, ii. 339), and the site of 
Chalcis is at its western base, twenty miles soutb t! 
Ba'albek (id. i. 11). 


It lies co the west of, and close to, theJfablus road, 
about eight miles north of Beitin (Bethel), and two 
from Seil&n (Shiloh), in relation to which it stands, 
however, nearer W. than N. The village is on the 
northern acclivity of the wady to which it gives 
its name. Its appearance is ancient ; and in the rocks 
above it are excavated sepulchres (Rob. ii. 272). To 
Eusebius and Jerome it does not appear to have been 
Vnown. The earliest mention of it yet met with 
is in the Itinerary of the Jewish traveller hap- 
Parchi (A.D, cir. 1320), who describes it under the 
name oi'Lubin, and refers especially to its correspond 
ence with the passage in Judges (See Asher's Benj. 
of Tudela, ii. 435). It was visited by Maimdrell 
(March 24, 25), who mentions the identification 
with Lebonah, but in such terms as may imply 
that he was only repeating a tradition. Since then 
it has been passed and noticed by most travellers 
to th> Holy Land (Rob. ii. 272 ; Wilson, ii. 292, 3 ; 
Bonar, 363 ; Mislin, iii. 319, &c. &c.). [G.] 

LE'CAH (POJ? : ArjxS ; Alex. Ar;xa5: Lecha), 

a name mentioned in the genealogies of Judah 
(1 Chr. iv. 21 only) as one of the descendants of 
Shelah, the third son of Judah by the Canaanitess 
Bath-shua. The immediate progenitor of Lecah 
was ER. Many of the names in this genealogy, 
especially when the word "father" is attached, 
are towns (comp. Eshtemoa, Keilah, Mareshah, &c.) ; 
but this, though probably the case with Lecah, is 
not certain, because it is not mentioned again, either 
in the Bible or the Onomasticon, nor have any traces 
of it been since discovered. L^*3 

LEECH. [HORSE-LEECH, Appendix A.] 




• herba, porrus, foenum, 
pratum). The word chdtsir, which in Num. xi. 5 
is translated leeks, occurs twenty times in the He 
brew text. In 1 K. xviii. 5; Job xl. 15; Ps. civ. 
14, cxlvii. 8, cxxix. 6, xxxvii. 2, xc. 5, ciii. 15 ; Is. 
xxxvii. 27, xl. 6, 7, 8, xliv. 4, Ii. 12, it is rendered 
grass ; in Job viii. 12, it is rendered herb ; in Prov. 
xxvii. 25, Is. xv. 6, it is erroneously translated 
hay ; in Is. xxxiv. 14, the A. V. has court (see 
note). The word leeks occurs in the A. V. only 
in Num. xi. 5 ; it is there mentioned as one of the 
good things of Egypt for which the Israelites longed 
in their journey through the desert, just before the 
terrible plague at Kibroth-hattaavah, " the cucum 
bers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, 
and the garlic." The Hebrew term, which properly 
denotes grass, is derived from a root signifying " to 
be green,"* and may therefore stand in this passage 
for any green food, lettuce, endive, &c., as Ludolf 
and Maillet have conjectured ; it would thus be 
applied somewhat in the same manner as we use 
the term " greens ;" yet as the chdtsir is mentioned 
together with onions and garlick in the text, and 
as the most ancient versions, Onkelos, the LXX., 
and the Vulgate, together with the Syriac and the 
Arabic of Saadias, b unanimously understand leeks 
by the Hebrew word, we may be satisfied with our 
own translation. Moreover, chdtsir would apply to 
the leek appropriately enough, both from its green 
colour and the grass-like form of the leaves. 

There is, however, another and a very ingenious 
interpretation of chdtsir, first proposed by Heng- 
stenberg, and received by Dr. Kitto (Pictor. Bible, 
Num. xi. 5), which adopts a more literal translation 

Common leek (All 

of the original word, for, says Dr. Kitto, "among 
the wonders in the natural history of Egypt, it is 
mentioned by travellers that the common people 
there eat with special relish a kind of grass similar 
to clover." Mayer (Reise nach Aegyptien, p. 226) 
says of this plant (whose scientific name is Trigo- 
nella foenum Graecum, belonging to the natural 
order Leguminosae), that it is similar to clover, 
but its leaves more pointed, and that great quan 
tities of it are eaten by the people. ForskSl mentions 
the Trigonella as being grown in the gardens at 
Cairo ; its native name is ffalbeh (Flor. Aegypt. 
p. 81). 


Sonnini ( Voyage, i. 379) says, " In this fertile 
country, the Egyptians themselves eat the fenu-grcc 

, viruit, i. q. Arab. 

(hadsir). Gesenius 

cirmimvallit. He compares the Greek x°P TO *> which 
primarily means a court (for cattle) ; hence, a pasture ; 

hence, in an extended sense, grass or herbage. But 
see the different derivation of Fiirst. 

b The word employed here is still the nsxie IB 
Egypt for leek (Hasselquist, 562). 


so largely, that it may be properly called the food 
of man. In the month of November they cry 
' green halbeh for sale ! ' in the streets of the 
town; it is tied up in large bunches, which the 
inhabitants purchase at a low price, and which 
they eat with incredible greediness without any 
kind of seasoning." 

The seeds of this plant, which is also cultivated 
in Greece, are often used ; they are eaten boiled or 
raw, mixed with honey. ForskSl includes it in the 
Materia Medica of Egypt (Mat. Med. Kahir. p. 
155). However plausible may be this theory of 
Hengstenberg, there does not appear sufficient reason 
for ignoring the old versions, which seem all agreed 
tha. the leek is the plant denoted by chdtsir, a 
vegetable from the earliest times a great favourite 
with the Egyptians, as both a nourishing and 
savouiy food. Some have objected that, as the 
Egyptians held the leek, onion, &c., sacred, they 
would abstain from eating these vegetables them 
selves, and would not allow the Israelites to use 
them. c We have, however, the testimony of Hero 
dotus (ii. 125) to show that onions were eaten by 
the Egyptian poor, for he says that on one of the 
pyramids is shown an inscription, which was ex 
plained to him by an interpreter, showing how much 
money was spent in providing radishes, onions, and 
garlic, for the workmen. The priests were not 
al'.owed to eat these things, and Plutarch (De Is. et 
Osir. ii. p. 353) tells us the reasons. The Welshman 
reverences his leek, and wears one on St. David's 
Day — he eats the leek nevertheless ; and doubtless 
the Egyptians were not over-scrupulous (Scrip. 
Herbal, p. 230). The leek d is too well-known to need 
description. Its botanical name is Allium porrum • 
it belongs to the order Liliaceae. [W. H.] 


'o the angels (Matt. xxvi. 53), and in this sense it 
:>nswers to the '« hosts " of the Old Testament (G«u. 
xxxii. 2; Ps. cxlviii. 2).« It is again the name 
which the demoniac assumes, " My name is Legion 
(Afyitav) ; for we are many" (Mark v. 9), imply 
ing the presence of a spirit of superior powir in ad 

[W. L. B.j 

LEES (Dn»E> : rpvyiai : faeces'). The Hebrew 
shemer bears the radical sense of preservation, and 
was applied to " lees" from the custom of allowing 
the wine to stand on the lees in order that its colour 
and body might be better preserved. Hence the 
expression " wine on the lees," as meaning a gener 
ous full-bodied liquor (Is. xxv. 6). The wine in 
this state remained, of course, undisturbed in its 
cask, and became thick and syrupy ; hence the 
proverb, " to settle upon one's lees," to express the 
sloth, indifference, and gross stupidity of the un 
godly (Jer. xlviii. 11; Zeph. i. 12). Before the 
wine was consumed, it was necessary to strain off 
the lees ; such wine was then termed " well refined " 
(Is. xxv. 6). To drink the lees, or " dregs," was an 
expression for the endurance of extreme punishment 
(Ps. Ixxv. 8). [W. L. B.] 

LEGION (Aeyet&v : Legio), the chief sub 
division of the I Ionian army, containing about 6000 
infantry, with a contingent of cavalry. The tenn 
does not occur in the Bible in its primary sense, 
but appears to have been adopted in order to express 
any large number, with the accessory ideas of order 
and subordination. Thus it is applied by our Lord 

c Juvenal's derision of the Egyptians for the re- 
Tcrcnce they paid to the leek may here be quoted : 
" Porrum et coepe ncfas violare ac frangere morsu, 

O sanctas (jentes, quibus hnec nascuntur in hortis 

Numina ! " — Sat. xv. 9. 

Cf. Plin. H. N. xix. 6 ; Celsii Hierob. ii. 263 ; Killer. 
Uierophyt. pt. ii. p. 36 ; Diosc. ii. 4. 

d " Leek " is from the Anglo-Saxon leac, German 
" This applicavion of the term is illustrated by the 

dition to subordinate ones. 

LEHA'BIM (D'an? : Aofre^ : Laabim}, 
occurring only in Gen. X. 13, the name of a Miz- 
raite people or tribe, supposed to be the same as 
the Lubim, mentioned in several places in the Scrip 
tures as mercenaries or allies of the Egyptians. 
There can be no doubt that the Lubim are the same 
as the 1'eBU or LeBU of the Egyptian inscriptions, 
and that from them Libya and the Libyans derived 
their name. These primitive Libyans appear, in the 
period at which they are mentioned in these two his 
torical sources, that is from the time of Menptah, B.C. 
cir. 1250, to that of Jeremiah's notice of them Lite 
in the 6th century B.C., and probably in the case of 
Daniel's, prophetically to the earlier part of the second 
century B.C., to have inhabited the northern part of 
Africa to the west of Egypt, though latterly driven 
from the coast by the Greek colonists of the Cyre- 
naica, as is more fully shown under LUBIM. Philolo- 
gically, the interchange of H as the middle letter of 
a root into 1 quiescent, is frequent, although it is im 
portant to remark that Gesenius considers the form 
with H to be more common in the later dialects, 
as the Semitic languages are now found (Thes. 
art. n). There seems however to be strong reason 
for considering many of these later forms to be re 
currences to primitive forms. Geographically, the 
position of the Lehabim in the enumeration of the 
Mizraites immediately before the Naphtuhim, sug 
gests that they at first settled to the westward of 
Egypt, and nearer to it, or not more distant from 
it than the tribes or peoples mentioned before them. 
[MizRAiM.] Historically and ethnologically, the 
connexion of the ReBU and Libyans with Egypt 
and its people suggests their kindred origin with 
the Egyptians. [LUBIM.] On these grounds there 
can be no reasonable doubt of the identity of the 
Lehabim and Lubim. [K. S. P.] 

LE'HI (with the def. article, Vl|n, except in 
ver. 14: Aeu«', in ver. 9; Alex. Aei/f ; 3ta-)<ai>: 
Lechi, id est maxilla), a place in Judah, probablv 
on the confines of the Philistines' country, between 
t and the cliff Etam ; the scene of Samson's well- 
cnown exploit with the jawbone (Judg. xv. 9, 14, 
19). It contained an "minence— Ramath-lehi, and a 
spring of great md lasting repute— En hak-kore. 

Whether the name existed before the exploit or 
the exploit originated the name cannot now be de 
termined from the narrative." On the one hand, in 
vers. 9 and 19, Lehi is named as if existing before 
this occurrence, while on the other the play of the 
story and the statement of the bestowal of the name 
Ramath-lehi look as if the reverse were intended. 
The analogy of similar names in other countries b is 

Rabbinical usage of fl as = " leader, chief" 
(Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1123). 

8 It Is unusually full of plays and parcnomastic turns. 
Thus »n? signifies a jaw, and ^rh Is the name of the 
place ; "llOn I s both a he-ass and a heap, &c. 

*> Compare the somewhat parallel case of Iiunchnrrl. 
and Iiunsmoor, which, in the local traditions, derive their 
names from an exploit of Guy of \Vaiwick. 


il favour of its having existed previously. Even 
uikeii *> a Hebrew word, " Lechi '" has another 
meaning besides a jawbone ; and after all there is 
throughout a difference between the two words, 
which, though slight to our ears, would be much 
more marked to those of a Hebrew, and which so 
tor betrays the accommodation. 

A similar discrepancy in the case of Beer Lahai-roi, 
and a great similarity between the two names in the 
anginal (Gesen. Tlies. 175 6), has led to the suppo 
sition that that place was the same as Lehi. But the 
situations do not suit. The well Lahai-roi was below 
Kadesh, very far from the locality to which Samson's 
adventures seem to have been confined. The same 
consideration would also appear fatal to the identi 
fication proposed by M. Van de Velde (Meiiwir, 343) 
at Tell el-Lekhiyeh, in the extreme south of Pales- 
fine, only four miles above Beersheba, a distance to 
A-hich we have no authority for believing that 
either Samson's achievements or the possessions of 
the Philistines (at least in those days) extended. 
As far as the name goes, a more feasible suggestion 
would be Beit-Likiueh, a village on the northern 
slopes of the great Wady Suleiinan, about two miles 
below the upper Beth-horon (see Tobler, 'Me Wan- 
i/c'/vt.'i//). Here is a position at once on the borders 
of both Judah and the Philistines, and within rea 
sonable proximity to Zorah, Eshtaol, Timnath, and 
other places familiar to the history of the great 
Danite hero. On this, however, we must await 
further investigation ; and in the meantime it should 
not be overlooked that there are reasons for placing 
the cliff Etam — which seems to have been near Lehi 
— in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. [ETAM, 


The spring of En hak-kore is mentioned by Jerome 
(Epitaph. Paulae, §14) in such terms as to imply 
that it was then known, and that it was near 
Morasthi, the native place of the prophet Micah, 
which he elsewhere (Onom. s. v. ; Pref. ad Mich.] 
mentions as east of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibriri). 

Lehi is possibly mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiii. 11 
the relation of another encounter with the Phi 
listines hardly less disastrous than that of Samson. 
The word d rendered in the A. V. "into a troop," 
by alteration of the vowel-points becomes " to Lehi." 
which gives a new and certainly an appropriate 
sense. This reading first appears in Josephus (Ant. 
vii. 12, §4), who gives it "a place called Siagona'" 
— the jaw — the word which he employs in the story 
of Samson (Ant. v. 8, §9). It is also given in the 
Complutenoian' LXX., and among modern inter 
preters by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 2, ch. 13), Kennicott 
(Dissert. 140), J. D. Michaelis (Bibel fur Un- 
gelekrt.}, Ewald (Gesc/uchte, iii. 180, note). [G.] 

LEM'UEL (^Nlft 1 ? and WllO^ : Lamuel), the 
Dame of an unknown king to whom his mothei 
addressed the prudential maxims contained in Prov. 
itxxi. 1-9. The version of this chapter in the LXX. 
is so obscure that it is difficult to discover what 



text they could have had before them. In the ren 
dering of Lemuel by vvb 6eov, in Prov. xxx i. 1, 
niie traces of the original are discernible, but in 
ver. 4 it is entirely lost. The Rabbinical com 
mentators identify Lemuel with Solomon, and tell 
a strange tale how that when he married the 
daughter of Pharaoh, on the day of the dedication 
of the Temple, he assembled musicians of all kinds, 
and passed the night awake. On the morrow he 
ilept till the fourth hour, with the keys of the 
Temple beneath his pillow, when his mother en 
tered and upbraided him in the words of Prov. 
xxxi. 2-9. Grotius, adopting a fanciful etymology 
from the Arabic, makes Lemuel the same as Heze- 
kiah. Hitzig and others regard him as king or 
chief of an Arab tribe dwelling on the borders of 
Palestine, and elder brother of Agur, whose name 
stands at the head of Prov. xxx. [See JAKEH.] 
According to this view massd (A. V. " the pro 
phecy " ) is Maasa in Arabia ; a region mentioned 
twice in close connexion with Dumah, and peopled 
by the descendants of Ishmael. In the reign of 
Hezekiah a roving baud of Simeonites drove out the 
Amalekites from Mount Seir and settled in their 
stead (1 Chr. iv. 38-43), and from these exiles 01 
Israelitish origin Hitzig conjectures that Lemuel 
and Agur were descended, the former having been 
born in the land of Israel ; and that the name 
Lemuel is an older form of Nemuel, the first-born 
of Simeon (Die Spruche Salomos, p. 310-314). But 
it is more probable, as Eichhorn and Ewald suggest, 
that Lemuel is a poetical appellation, selected by 
the author of these maxims for the guidance of a 
king, for the purpose of putting in a striking form 
the lessons which they conveyed. Signifying as it 
does " to God," »'. c. dedicated or devoted to God, 
like the similar word Lael, it is in keeping with the 
whole sense of the passage, which contains the 
portraiture of a virtuous and righteous king, and 
belongs to the latest period of the proverbial litera 
ture of the Hebrews. " [W. A. W.] 

LENTILESCnWg, &/&«/»: 4>a<cck: lens). 

There cannot be the least doubt that the A. V. is 
correct in its translation of the Hebrew word which 
occurs in the four following passages : — Gen. xxv. 
34, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 2 Sam. xxiii. 11, and Ez. iv. 9 • 
from which last we learn that in times of scarcity 
leutiles were sometimes used in making bread. There 
are three or four kinds of leutiles, all of which are 
still much esteemed in those countries where they 
are grown, viz. the South of Europe, Asia, and 
North Africa: the red lentile is still a favourite 
article of food in the East ; it is a small kind, the 
seeds of which after being decorticated, are com 
monly sold in the bazaars of India. The modern 
Arabic name of this plant is identical with the He 
brew ; it is known in Egypt and Arabia, Syria, &c., 
by the name 'Adas, as we learn from the testimony 
of several travellers.* When Dr. Robinson was 
staying at the castle of 'Akabah, he partook of 

c ^n7 = Leohl, Is the name of the place in vers. 9, 14, 19, in Kauiath-Lehi, ver. 17 : whereas L'chl, ^fl?. is the 
word for jawbone. In ver. 19 the words " in the jaw " 
should be " in Lehi :" the original is >H j>3, exactly as in 
d ; not >rP2> «» In 16. See Milton, Sams. Ag., Hue 082. 

* H'nb. as if i1»n. from the root *n (tiesen. Then. 
|< 470). In this sense the word ver? rarely occurs (see 
A. V. of I's Ixviil. 10, W; Ixx'v. 19). It elsewhere has 

the sense of " living," and thence of wild animals, which 
is adopted by the LXX. in this place, as remarked above. 
In ver. 13 it is again rendered " troop." In the parallel 
narrative of 1 Chronicles (xi. 15), the word njflD. » 
" camp," is substituted. 

" The Vatican and Alex. MSS. read eis S^pia. (>|"0- *• 
if the Philistines had come on a hunting expedition. 

* See also Cataiugo's Arabic Duitionury, " Lentilcs,' 
, adat. 



(entiles, which he says he " found veiy palatable 
and could well conceive that to a weary hunter, 
faint with hunger, they would be quite a dainty " 

Lentile (Krvum lent) 

(Bib. Res. i. 246). Dr. Kitto also says that he has 
often partaken of red pottage, prepared by seething 
the lentiles in water, and then adding a little suet, 
to give them a flavour ; and that he found it better 
food than a stranger would imagine; " the mess," 
he adds, " had the redness which gained for it the 
name of adorn" (Pict. Bib., Gen. xxv. 30,34). From 
Sonnini we learn that lentile bread is still eaten by 
the poor of Egypt, even as it was in the time of 
Ezekiel ; indeed, that towards the cataracts of the 
Nile there is scarce any other bread in use, because 
com is very rare ; the people generally add a little 
barley in making their bread of lentiles. which " is 
by no means bad, though heavy " (Sonnini's Travels, 
Hunter's transl. iii. 288). Shaw and Russell bear 
similar testimony. 

Egyptian* cooking Lcntiloi ( Wilkintcn). 

The Arabs have a tradition that Hebron is the 
spot where Esau sold his birthright, and in memory 
of this event the dervises distribute from the kitchen 

» The word 1103 means "spotted" (see the deri 
vations of FUrst and Gesenius). The same word for 
" leopard " occurs in all the cognate languages. The 

S S(j 

Arabic i* j^j (rmmiV), ^J (nt'mr), with which the 


of a mosque there a daily supply of lectile souy tc 
travellers and poor inhabitants (D'Anrieur, Mem. 
\\. 237). 

The lentile, Ervum lens, is much used with other 
pulse in Roman Catholic countries during Lent ; and 
some say that from hence the season derives its nar:.:. 
It is occasionally cultivated in England, but only as 
fodder for cattle ; it is also imported from Alexandria. 
From the quantity of gluten the ripe seeds contain 
they must be highly nutritious, though they have 
the character of being heating if taken in large 
quantities. In Egypt the haulm is used for packing. 
The lentile belongs to the natural order Legumi- 
nosae. [W. H.] 

LEOPARD ("ID3, ndmer : irdpSa\tj : pardius) 

is invariably given by the A. V. as the translation 
of the Hebrew word,' which occurs in the seven 
following passages, — Is. xi. 6 ; Jer. v. 6, xiii. 23 ; 
Dan. vii. 6 ; Hos. xiii. 7 ; Cant. iv. 8 ; Hab. i. 8. 
Leopard occurs also in Ecclus. xxviii. 23, and in 
Rev. xiii. 2. The swiftness of this animal, to which 
Habakkuk compares the Chaldaean horses, and to 
which Daniel alludes in the winged leopard, the 
emblem in his vision of Alexander's rapid conquests, 
is well known : so great is the flexibility of its body, 
that it is able to take surprising leaps, to climb trees, 
or to crawl snake-like upon the ground. Jeremiah 
and Hosea allude to the insidious habit of this animal, 
which is abundantly confirmed by the observations 

Leopard (Leapardut 

of travellers ; the leopard will take up its position in 
some spot near a village, and watch for some favour 
able opportunity for plunder. From the passage 
of Canticles, quoted above, we learn that the hilly 
ranges of Lebanon were in ancient times frequented 
by these animals, and it is now not uncommonly 
seen in and about Lebanon, and the southern 
maritime mountains of Syria b (Kitto, note on 
Cant. iv. 8). Burckhardt mentions that leopards 
have sometimes been killed in " the low and rocky 
chain of the Richel mountain," but he calls them 
ounces (Burck. Syria, p. 132). In another passage 
(p. 335) he says, " in the wooded parts of Mount 
Tabor are wild boars and ounces." Mariti says that 
the " grottoes at Kedron cannot be entered at all 
seasons without danger, for in the middle of summer 
it is frequented by tigers, who retire hither to shun 
the heat " (Mariti, Truv. (translated), iii. 58). By 
tigers he undoubtedly means leopards, for the tiger 
does not occur in Palestine. Under the name 

modern Arabic is identical, though this name is also 
applied to the tiger; but perhaps "tiger" and 
" leopard " are synonymous in those countries where 
the former animal is not found. 

k Beth-nimrah, Nimrah, the waters of Nimrim, 
;>os.sibly derive their names from ffnmer (Borhart. 
Jiiern;. ii. 107, cd. Roscnmu' 1 .). 


n/.m<?r, c which means " spotted," it is not impro 
bable that another animal, namely the cheetah 
(Giieparda jubata}, maybe included; which is 
tamed by the Mahometans of Syria, who employ 
it in hunting the gazelle. These animals are 
represented on the Egyptian monuments ; they 
were chased as an amusement for the sake of their 
skins, which were worn by the priests during their 
ceremonies, or they were hunted as enemies of the 
farmyard (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, ch. viii. 20). 
Sir G. Wilkinson also draws attention to the fact 
that there is no appearance of the leopard (cheetah), 
having heen employed for the purpose of the chase, 
01. the monuments of Egypt ; d nor is it now used 
by any of the African races for hunting. The 
natives of Africa seem in some way to connect 
the leopard skin with the idea of royalty, and to 
look upon it as part of the insignia of majesty 
(Wood's Nat. Hist. i. 160). The leopard (Leo- 
fturdus varius) belongs to the family Felidae, sub 
order Digitigradae, order Carnicora. The panther 
is now considered to be only a variety of the same 
animal. [W. H.] 

LEPER, LEPROSY. The Egyptian and 
Syrian climates, but especially the rainless atmos 
phere of the former, are very prolific in skin-dis 
eases ; including, in an exaggerated form, some 
which are common in the cooler regions of western 
Europe. The heat and drought acting for long 
periods upon the skin, and the exposure of a large 
surface of the latter to their influence, combine to 
predispose it to such affections. Even the modified 
forms known to our western hospitals show a per 
plexing variety, and at times a wide departure from 
the best-known and recorded types ; much more 
then may we expect departure from any routine of 
symptoms amidst the fatal fecundity of the Levant 
in this class of disorders (Good's Study of Medicine, 
vol. iv. p. 445, &c., ed. 4th). It seems likely that 
diseases also tend to exhaust their old types, and to 
reappear under new modifications. [MEDICINE.] 
This special region, however, exhibiting in wide va 
riety that class of maladies which disfigures the 
pei'son and makes the presence horrible to the be 
holder, it is no wonder that notice was early drawn 
to their more popular symptoms. The Greek ima 
gination dwelt on them as the proper scourge of an 
offended deity, and perhaps foreign forms of disease 
may be implied by the expressions used (Aeschyl. 
Cocph. 271, &c.), or such as an intercourse with 
Persia and Egypt would introduce to the Greeks. 
But, whatever the variety of form, there seems 
strong general testimony to the cause of all alike, 
as being to be sought in hard labour in a heated 
atmosphere, amongst dry or powdery substances, 
rendering the proper care of the skin difficult or 
impossible. This would be aggravated by unwhole 
some or innutritions diet, want of personal clean 
liness, of clean garments, &c. Thus a " baker's " 


and a " bricklayer's itch," are recorded by the 
faculty (Bateman, On Skin Diseases, Psoriasis; 
Good's Study of Med., ib. p. 459 and 484).» 

The predominant and characteristic form of leprosy 
in Scripture is a white variety, covering either tli* 
entire body or a large tract of its surface ; which 
has obtained the name of lepra Mosaica. Such 
were the cases of Moses, Miriam, Naaman, and 
Gehazi (Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; 2 K. v. 1, 27; 
comp. Lev. xiii. 13). But, remarkably enough, in 
the Mosaic ritual-diagnosis of the disease (Lev. xiii., 
xiv), this kind, when overspreading the whole sur 
face, appeal's to be regarded as "clean" (xiii. 12, 
13, 16, 17). The first question which occurs as 
we read the entire passage is, have we any right to 
assume one disease as spoken of throughout ? or ra 
ther — for the point of view in the whole passage is 
ceremonial, not medical — is nof a register of certain 
symptoms, marking the afflicted person as und j r a 
Divine judgment, all that is meant, without raising 
the question of a plurality of diseases ? But beyond 
this preliminary question, and supposing the symp 
toms ascertained, there are circumstances which, 
duly weighed, will prevent our expecting the iden 
tity of these with modern symptoms in the same 
class of maladies. The Egyptian bondage, with its 
studied degradations and privations, and especially 
the work of the kiln under an Egyptian sun, must 
have had a frightful tendency to generate this class of 
disorders; hence Manetho (Joseph, cont. Ap. i. 26) 
asserts that the Egyptians drove out the Israelites as 
infected with leprosy — a strange reflex, perhaps, of 
the Mosaic nairative of the " plagues " of Egypt, yet 
probably also containing a germ of truth. The sudden 
and total change of food, air, dwelling, and mode of 
life, caused by the Exodus, to this nation of newly- 
emancipated slaves may possibly have had a further 
tendency to skin-disoiders, and novel and severe re 
pressive measures may have been required in the 
dcsert^moving camp to secure the public health, or 
to allay the panic of infection, hence it is possible 
that many, perhaps most, of this repertory of symp 
toms may have disappeared with the period of the 
Exodus, and the snow-white form, which had pre 
existed, may alone have ordinarily continued in a later 
age. But it is obsei-vable that, amongst these Levitical 
symptoms, the scaling, or peeling off of the surface, 
is nowhere mentioned, nor is there any expression 
in the Hebrew text which points to exfoliation of the 
cuticle. b The principal morbid features are a rising 01 
swelling, a scab or baldness, d and a bright or white e 
spot (xiii. 2). [BALDNESS.] But especially a 
white swelling in the skin, with a change of the hair 
of the part from the natural black to white 01 yellow 
(3, 10, 4, 20, 25, 30), or an appearance of a taint 
going "deeper than the skin," or again, "raw flesh" 
appearing in the swelling (10, 14, 15), were critical 
signs of pollution. The mere swelling, or scab, or 
bright spot, was remanded for a week as doubtful (4, 

e The leopard is called by the natives of India 
lakree-baug, " tree-tiger." In Africa also " tiger " 
is applied to the " leopard," the former animal not 
existing there. 

* The lion was always employed by the Egyptians 
for the purpose of the chase. See Diodor. i. 48 ; and 
Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ch. viii. 17. 

• The use of the word yJ3, in association with tlw 
proper term, nj?^¥, marks the outward appearance 
T.e the chief test of the malady. For y33 means 
"a blow" or "touch," and is etymologically repre 
sented by pf.aga, our " plague." 

b The raw flesh of xiii. 10 miyht be discovered in 

this way, or by the skin merely cracking, an abscess 
forming, or the like. Or — what is more probable — 
" raw flesh " means granulations forming on patches 
where the surface had become excoriated. These 
granulations would form into a fungous flesh which 
might be aptly called "raw flesh." 

d TinSD, nnSpD. Gesenius, s.v., says, "strictly a 
bald place on the head occasioned by the scab or itch." 

e rnn2- The root appears to be "inn, which ru 
Chald. 'and Arab, means "to be white, or shinhn?" 
(Oenen. .s. v.\. 



21 26, 31), and foi a second such period, if it hail 
not yet pronounced (5). If it then spread (7, 22, 
27, 35), it was decided as polluting. But if after 
the second period of quarantine the trace died away 
and showed no symptom of spreading, it was a mere 
tcab, and he was adjudged clean (6, 23, 34). This 
tendency to spread seems especially to have been 
relied on. A spot most innocent in all other re 
spects, if it " spread much abroad," was unclean ; 
whereas, as before remarked, the man so wholly 
overspread with the evil that it could find no 
farther range, was on the contrary "clean" (12, 
13). These two opposite criteria seem to show, 
that whilst the disease manifested activity, the Mosaic 
law imputed pollution to and imposed segregation on 
the sufferer, but that the point at which it might be 
viewed as having run its course was the signal for his 
readmission to communion. The question then arises, 
supposing contagion were dreaded, and the sufferer on 
that account suspended from human society, would 
not one who offered the whole area of his body as a 
means of propagating the pest be more shunned 
than the partially afflicted ? This leads us to regard 
the disease in its sacred character. The Hebrew was 
reminded on every fide, even on that of disease, tliat 
he was of God's peculiar people. His time, his food 
and raiment, his liair and beard, his field and fruit- 
tree, all were touched by the finger of ceremonial ; 
nor was his bodi'y condition exempt. Disease itself 
had its sacred relations arbitrarily imposed. Cer 
tainly contagion need not be the basis of our views 
in tracing these relations. In the contact of a dead 
body there was no notion of contagion, for the body 
the moment life was extinct was as much ceremo 
nially unclean as in a state of decay. Many of 
the unclean of beasts, &c., are as wholesome as the 
clean. Why then in leprosy must we have recourse 
to a theory of contagion ? To cherish an undefined 
horror in the mind was perhaps the primary object ; 
such horror, however, always tends to some definite 
dread, in this case most naturally to the dread of 
contagion. Thus religious awe would ally itself 
with and rest upon a lower motive, and there 
would thus be a motive to weigh with carnal and 
spiritual natures alike. It would perhaps be nearer 
the truth to say, that uncleanncss was imputed, 
rather to inspire the dread of contagion, than in order 
to check contamination as an actual process. Thus 
this disease was a living plague set in the man by the 
finger of Cod whilst it showed its life by activity — 
by "spreading;" but when no more showing signs 
of life, it lost its character as a curse from Him. 
Such as dreaded contagion — and the immense ma- 
joiity in every country have an exaggerated alarm 
of it — would feel on the safe side through the Levi- 
tical ordinance; if any did not fear, the loathsome 
ness of the aspect of the malady would prevent 
th'em from wishing to infringe the ordinance. 

It is not our purpose to enter into the question whe 
ther the contagion existed, nor is there perhaps any 
more vexed question in pathology than how to fix a 
rule of contagiousness ; but whatever was currently 
believed, unless opposed to morals or humanity, would 
have been a sufficient basis for the lawgiver on this 
subject. The panic of infection is often as distress 
ing, or rather far more so, in proportion as it is far 

The word in 'he Hcb. is 

, which means to 

or fade away ; hence the A. V. hardly con- 
»eyo the sense adequately by " be somewhat dark." 
Perhupt the expressions of Hippocrates, who speak 


more \vid«iy diffused, than actual disease. Not 
need we excljde popular notions, so far as they do 
not conflict with higher views of the Mosaic eco 
nomy. A degree of deference to them is pe.rhajis 
apparent in the special reference to the " head " and 
" beard " as the seat of some form of polluting dis 
order. The sanctity and honour attaching to the 
head and beard ( 1 Cor. xi. 3, 4, 5 ; see also BKAKD) 
made a scab thereon seem a heinous disfigurement, 
and even baldness, though not unclean, yet was un 
usual and provoked reproach (2 K. ii. 23), and 
when a diseased appearance arose " out of a bald 
ness " even without " spreading abroad," it was at 
once adjudged " unclean." On the whole, though 
we decline to rest leprous defilement merely on po 
pular notions of abhorrence, dread of contagion, 
snd the like, yet a deference to them may be ad 
mitted to have been shown, especially at the time 
when the people were, from previous habit and 
associations, up to the moment of the actual Exodus, 
most strongly imbued with the scrupulous purity 
and refined ceremonial example of the Egyptians 011 
these subjects. 

To trace the symptoms, so far as they are re 
corded, is a simple task, if we keep merely to the 
text of Leviticus, and do not insist on finding nice 
definitions in the broad and simple language of an 
early period. It appears that not only the before- 
mentioned appearances but any open sore which 
exposed raw flesh was to be judged by its effect 
on the hair, by its being in sight lower than the 
skin, by its tendency to spread ; and that any one of 
these symptoms would argue uncleanness. It seems 
also that from a boil and from the eflects of a burn a 
similar disease might be developed. Nor does mo 
dern pathology lead us to doubt that, given a con 
stitutional tendency, such causes of inflammation 
may result in various disorders of the skin or tissues. 
Cicatrices after burns are known sometimes to assume 
a peculiar tuberculated .appearance, thickened and 
raised above the level of the surrounding skin — the 
keloid tumour — which, however, may also appear in 
dependently of a burn. 

The language into which the LXX. has rendered 
the simple phrases of the Hebrew text shows traces 
of a later school of medicine, and suggests an ac 
quaintance with the terminology of Hippocrates. 
This has given a hint, on which, apparently wishing • 
to reconcile early Biblical notices with the results 
of later observation, Dr. Mason Good and some other 
professional expounders of leprosy have drawn out 
a comparative table of parallel terms.8 

It is clear then that the leprosy of Lev. xiii., xiv. 
means any severe disease spreading on the surface of 
the body in the way described, and so shocking of 
aspect, or so generally suspected of infection, that 
public feeling called for separation. No doubt such 
diseases as syphilis, elephantiasis, cancer, and all 
others which not merely have their seat in the skin, 
but which invade and disorganise the underlying 
uid deeper-seated tissues, would hive been classed 
Levitically as " leprosy," had they been so gene 
rally prevalent as to require notice. 

It is now undoubted that the "leprosy" of 
modem Syria, and which has a wide range in Spaii., 
Greece, and Norway, is the Elephantiasis Grneco- 

tions one umbrae similis, may have led our transistors 
to endeavour to find equivalents for them in the 

Thus -,ve have in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical 

.if a M*A«M form of leprosy, ami of Oelsus, who men- j Litrraturr the following table, baae.1 apparently on » 


rum. The Arabian physicians ]«vh:ips Mused the 
confusion of terms, who, when they translated the 
Greek of Hippocrates, rendered his elephantiasis by 
leprosy, there being another disease to which they 
gave a name derived from the elephant, and which 
is now known as Elephantiasis Arabutn, — the "Bar- 
badoes leg," " Boucnemia Tropica." The Ele 
phantiasis Graecorum is said to have been brought 
home by the crusaders into the various countries of 
Western and Northern Europe. Thus an article 
on " Leprosy, 1 * in the Proceedings of the Royal Me 
dical and Chirurgical Society of London, Jan. 1860, 
vol. iii. 3, p. 164, &c., by Dr. Webster, describes 
what is evidently this disease. Thus Michaelis 
(Smith's translation, vol. iii. p. 283, Art. ccx.) 
speaks of what he calls lepra Arabutn, the symp 
toms of which are plainly elephantisiac. For a dis 
cussion of the question whether this disease was 
known in the early Biblical period, see MEDICINE. 
It certainly was not that distinctive white leprosy of 
which we are now speaking, nor do any of the de 
scribed symptoms in Lev. xiii. point to elephan 
tiasis. " White as snow " (2 K. v. 27) would be 
as inapplicable to elephantiasis as to small-pox. 
Further, the most striking and fearful results of 
this modem so-called " leprosy " are wanting in the 
Mosaic description — the transformation of the fea 
tures to a leonine expression, and the corrosion of 
the joints, so that the fingers drop piecemeal, from 

which the Arabic name, 

Jud/tdm, i. e. 

mutilation, seems derived. 11 Yet before we dismiss 
the question of the affinity of this disease with Mosaic 
leprosy, a description of Kayer's ( Traite Theorique, 
$-c., des Maladies dj la Peau, s. v. Elephantiasis) is 
worth quoting. He mentions two characteristic spe 
cies, the one tuberculated, probably the commoner 
kind at present (to judge t'rom the concurrence of 
modern authorities in describing this type), the other 
" character! see par des plaques fauves, larges, e'tendues, 
fletries, ride'es, insensibles, accompagnees d'une legere 
desquamation et d'une deformation particuliere des 
pieds et des mains," and which he deems identical 
with the " l^pre du moyen age." This certainly 
appears to be at least a link between the tuber- 


ciliated elephantiasis and the Mosaic leprosy. 1 C>}- 
sus, after distinguishing the three Hippoeratic va 
rieties of vitiligo = leprosy, separately describes ele 
phantiasis. Avicenna (Dr. Mead, Medico, Sacra, 
" the Leprosy ") speaks of leprosy as a sort of uni 
versal cancer of the whole body. But amidst the 
evidence of a redundant variety of diseases of the 
skin and adjacent tissues, and of the probable rapid 
production and evanescence of some forms of them 
it would be rash to assert the identity of any from 
such resemblance as this. 

Nor ougnt we in the question of identity of 
symptoms to omit from view, that not only does 
observation become more precise with accumulated 
experience ; but, that diseases also, in proportion as 
they fix their abiding seat in a climate, region, or 
race of men, tend probably to diversity of type, and 
that in the course of centuries, as with the fauna 
and flora, varieties originate in the modifying in 
fluence of circumstances, so that Hippocrates might 
find three kindsof leprosy, where one variety only had 
existed before. Whether, therefore, we regard Lev. 
xiii. as speaking of a group of diseases having mu 
tually a mere superficial resemblance, or a real affi 
nity, it need not perplex us that they do not corre 
spond with the threefold leprosy of Hippocrates (the 
a.\<pos, \fvKri, and ju«, which are said by Bate- 
man (Skin Diseases, Plates vii. and viii.) to prevail 
still respectively as lepra ulphoides, lepra vulgaris, 
and lepra nigricans. The first has more minute and 
whiter scales, and the circular patches in which they 
form are smaller than those of the vulgaris, which 
appears in scaly discs of different sizes, having nearly 
always a circular form, first presenting small distinct 
red shining elevations of the cuticle, then white scales 
which accumulate sometimes into a thick crust ; or. 
as Dr. Mason Good describes its appearance (vol. iv. 
p. 451), as having a spreading scale upon an elevated 
base ; the elevations depressed in the middle, but 
without a change of colour; the black hair on the 
patches, which is the prevailing colour of the hair in 
Palestine, participating in the whiteness, and the 
patches themselves prepetually widening in their 
outline. A phosphate of lime is probably what 
gives their bright glossy colour to the scaly patches, 

more extensive one in Dr. Mason Good (ub. sup. pp. 
448, 452), which is chiefly characterised by an at 
tempt to fix modern specific meanings on the general 

rnn3, Lev. AeVpa, Hipp, 

comprehending comprehending 

(i) pn'3, i (i) f w> } 

(?) n:3^> rnns, I = (2) J \ 6 ^, > 
(3) nrra rnns. | (3) ( M e'\e«. J 

terms of Lev. xiii. 
J?33, ictus, " blow 

e. g- TIXK') herpes, or tetter ; 
or " bruise," &c. 

vitiligo, Ccls. 

(1) ( albida, 

(2) I Candida, 

(3) j nigresccns, or 

[ umbrae similis. 

But the Hebrew of ( 1) is in Lev. xiii. 39 predicated 
of a subject compounded of the phraseology of (2) and 
(3), whereas the (1), (2), and (3) of Hipp, and of 
Cclgus are respectively distinct and mutually exclusive 
of one another. Further, the word HHS appears 
mistranslated by " black " or " dark ;" meaning rather 
" languid," " dim," as an old man's eyes, an expiring 
and feeble flame, &e. Now it is remarkable that the 
Hippoeratic terms aA$6s and Aevmj are found in the 
LXX. The phraseology of the latter is also more 
specific than will adequately j eprcsent the Hebrew, 
•uggesting shades of meaning * \vhera this has a wide 

* Thus the expression "IC?3 liyD pbj?, " deeper 
than the skin of the flesh," is rendered in ver. 3 by 
Tantivy) airb TO-3 Sep/iaros, in 30 by iyKoi\OTfpo rov 
HWOLTO-;. in Zi by Koi'A>) airb TOV 6. j 

general word, or substituting a word denoting onn 
symptom as SpaOcr/ota,-)- " crust," formed probably by 

humour oozing, for pHp, " expilation." 

h This is clearly and forcibly pointed out in ar. 
article by Dr. Robert Sim in the Medical Times, 
April 14, 1800, whose long hospital experience iu 
Jerusalem entitles his remarks to great weight. 

1 On the question how far elephantiasis may pro 
bably have been mixed up wiih the leprosy of the 
Jews, see Paul. Aegin. vol. ii. p. 6 and 32, 33, ed. 
Syd. Soc. 

t So Dr. M. Good, who improves on the flpauo-^o 
by eKjrv'r/ais, " suppuration," wishing to substituts 
moist sciill for the " dry scall " of the A. V., Mhior 
latter is no dot; : t nearer tie mark. 


and this in the kindred disease of iethyosis is depo- 
bited in great abundance on the surface. The third, 
nigricans, or rather subfusca,* is rarer, in form and 
distribution, resembling the second, but differing in 
the dark livid colour of the patches. The scaly in 
crustations of the first species infest the flat of the 
fere-arm, knee, and elbow joints, but on the face 
reidom extend beyond the forehead and temples; 
oomp. 2 Chr. xxvi. 19 : " the leprosy rose up in his 
forehead." The cure of this is not difficult ; the se 
cond scarcely ever heals (Celsus, De Med.v. 28, §1 9). 
The third is always accompanied by a cachetic con 
dition of body . Further, elephantiasis itself has also 
passed current under the nameof the "black leprosy." 
It is possible that the " freckled spot " of the A. V. 
Lev. xiii. 39 m may correspond with the harmless 
1. alphoides, since it is noted as " clean." The ed. 
of Paulus Aegin. by the Sydenham Society (vol. ii. 
p. 17, foil.) gives the following summary of the 
opinions of classical medicine on this subject: — 
" Galen is very deficient on the subject of lepra, 
having nowhere given a complete description of it, 
though he notices it incidentally in many parts of 
his works. In one place he calls elephas, leuce, and 
alphos cognate affections. Alphos, he says, is much 
more superficial than leuce. Psora is said to par 
take more of the nature of ulceration. According 
to Oribasius, lepra affects mostly the deep-seated 
parts, and psora the superficial. Aetius on the 
other hand, copying Archigenes, represents lepra as 
affecting only the skin. Actuarius states that lepra 
is next to elephantia in malignity, and that it is 
distinguished from psora by spreading deeper and 
having scales of a circular shape like those of fishes. 
Leuce holds the same place to alphos that lepra 
does to psora ; that, is to say, leuce is more deep- 
seated and affects the colour of the hair, while 
alphos is more superficial, and the hair in general 
is unchanged. . . . Alexander Aphrodisiensis men 
tions psora among the contagious diseases, but says 
that lepra and leuce are not contagious. Chrysostom 
alludes to the common opinion that psora was 
among the contagious diseases. . . . Celsus describes 
alphos, melas, and leuce, very intelligibly, connecting 
them together by the generic term of vitiligo." 

There is a remarkable concurrence between the 
Aeschylean description of the disease which was to 
produce " lichens coursing over the flesh, eroding 
with fierce voracity the former natural structure, 
and white hairs shooting up over the part diseased," 
and some of the Mosaic symptoms; the spreading 
energy of the evil is dwelt upon both by Moses and 
by Aeschylus, as vindicating its character as a scourge 
of God. But the syinptoms of " white hairs " is a 
curious and exact confirmation of the genuineness of 
the detail in the Mosaic account, especially as the 
poet's language would rather imply that the disease 
spoken of was not then domesticated in Greece, but 


the strange horror of some other land. Still, uothinf? 
very remote from our own experienci! is implied iu 
the mere changed colour of the hair ; it is common to 
see horses with galled backs, &c., in which the hair 
has turned white through the destruction of those 
follicles which secrete the colouring matter. 

There remains a curious question, before we quit 
Leviticus, as regards the leprosy of gamients and 
houses. Some have thought garments worn by 
leprous patients intended. The discharges of the 
diseased skin absorbed into the apparel would, if in 
fection were possible, probably convey disease ; and 
it is known to be highly dangerous in some cases to 
allow clothes which have so imbibed the discharges 
of an ulcer to be worn again. And the words of 
Jude v. 23, may seem to countenance this,* " hating 
even the garment spotted by the flesh." But Istly, 
no mention of infection occurs ; 2ndly, no con 
nexion of the leprous garment with a leprous hu 
man wearer is hinted at; Srdly, this would not 
help us to account for a leprosy of stone-walls and 
plaster. Thus Dr. Mead (ut sup.) speaks at any 
rate plausibly of the leprosy of garments, but be 
comes unreasonable when he extends his explanation 
to that of walls. Michaelis thought that wool from 
sheep which had died of a particular disease might 
fret into holes, and exhibit an appearance like that 
described, Lev. xiii. 47-59 (Michaelis, art. ccxi. 
iii. 290-1). But woollen cloth is far from being 
the only material mentioned ; nay, there is even 
some reason to think that the words rendered in the 
A. V. " warp" and " woof" are not those distinct 
parts of the texture, but distinct materials. Linen, 
however, and leather are distinctly particularised, 
and the latter not only as regards garments, but " any 
thing (lit. vessel) made of skin," for instance, bottles. 
This classing of garments and house-walls with tht 
human epidermis, as leprous, h:is moved the mirth 
of some, and the wonder of others. Yet modern 
science has established what goes far to vindicate 
the Mosaic classification as more philosophical than 
such cavils. It is now known that there are some 
skin-diseases which originate in an acarus, and othei-s 
which proceed from a fungus. In these we may 
probably find the solution of the paradox. The ana 
logy between the insect which frets the human skin 
and that which frets the garment that covers it, le- 
tween the fungous growth that lines. the crevices of 
the epidermis and that which creeps in the interstices 
of masonry, 1 ! is close enough for the purposes of a 
ceremonial law, to which it is essential that there 
should be an arbitrary element intermingled with 
provisions manifestly reasonable. Michaelis (ib. art 
ccxi. iii. 293-9) has suggested a nitrous efflorescence 
on the surface of the stone, produced by saltpetre, 
or rather an acid containing it, and issuing in red 
spots, and cites the example of a house in Lubeck : 
he mentions also exfoliation of the stone from othc: 

k Still it is known that black secretions, sometimes 
carried to the extent of negro blackness, have been 
produced under the skin, as in the rete mucosttm of 
the African. See Medlco-Chirurgical Rev., New Series, 
vol. v. p. 215, Jan. 1847. 

« Ileb. pna ; Arab. iji*,. 

n napKuiv eTrafAjSaTTJpas dypiats yvdOots 

Aixijpas ffe'o'floi'Tas ap^ca'aw if>v<riv 
Aevicas ie Kopcras. TTJ&' eTrat>T(i\Xeiv vo<T<p. 

Choeph. 271-274. 

• So Surcnhusius (Mishna, Ifegnim) says, "M:ioulac 
a'.iquando subviridcs, nliquundo subrubidue, cujua- 
n;udi videri sclent in aegrotorum indusiis, et prw>- 

cipue ea in parte ubi vis morbi medicina sudorifera e 
corpore exterius prodierit." 

f See, however, Lev. xv. 3, 4, which suggests an 
other possible meaning of the words of St. Jude. 

"» The word te<-x*) v (the " lichen " of botany), tht 
Aeschylean word to express the dreaded scourge in 
Choephor. 271-274 (comp. Eumen. 785, see note n\ is 
also the technical term for a disease akin to leprosy. 
The ed. of Paulus Aegin., Sydenh. Soc., vol. ii. p. 19, 
says that the poet here means to describe leprosy. In 
the Isagoge, generally ascribed to Galen (ib. p. 25), 
two varieties are described, the lichen mitis and the 
lichen agrius, in both of which scales are formco 
upon the skin. Galen remarks on the tendency o( 
tiiis disease to pass into lopra and scabies. 


causes ; but probably these appearances would not be 
developed witliont a greater degree of damp than is 
common in Palestine and Arabia. It is manifest also 
that a disease in the human subject caused by an 
acarus or by a fungus would be certainly contagious, 
since the propagative cause could be transferred from 
person to person. Some physicians indeed asseit 
that only such skin-diseases are contagious. Hence 
perhaps arose a further reason for marking, even in 
their analogues among lifeless substances, the strict 
ness with which forms of disease so arising were to 
be shunned. The sacrificial law attending the pur 
gation of the leper will be more conveniently treated 
of under UuCLEANNESS. 

The lepers of the New Testament do not seem to 
offer occasion for special remark, save that by the 
N. T. period the disease, as known in Palestine, pro 
bably did not differ materially from the Hippocratic 
record of it, and that when St. Luke at any rate uses 
the words \firpa, \firpos, he does so with a recog 
nition of their strict medical signification. 

From Surenhusius (Mishna, Negaiin), we find that 
soine Rabbinical commentators enumerate 16, 36, 
or 72 diverse species of leprosy, but they do so by 
including all the phases which each passes through, 
reckoning a red and a green variety in garments, 
the same in a house, &c., and counting calvitium, 
recalvatio, adustio, and even ulcus, as so many dis 
tinct forms of leprosy. 

For further illustrations of this subject see 
Schilling, de Lepra; Reinhard, Bibelkran/theiten; 
Schmidt, Biblischer Medecin ; Rayer, ut sup., who 
refers to Roussille-Chamseru, Recherches sv.r le ve- 
-itable Caractere de la Lepre des Hebreux, and 
Relation Chirurgicale de I'Armee de V Orient, 
Paris, 1804; Cazenave and Schedel, Abrege Pra 
tique des Maladies de la Peau ; Dr. Mead, ut sup., 
who refers to Aretaeus,' Morb. Chron. ii. 13 ; Fra- 
castorius, de Morbis Contagiosis ; Johannes Ma- 
Kid-dus, Epist. Medic, vii. 2, and to iv. 3, 3, §1 ; 
Avicenna, de Medicina, v. 28, §19; also Dr. Sim 
in the North American Chirur. Rev. Sept. 1859, 
p. 876. The ancient authorities are Hippocrates, 
Prorrhetica, lib. xii. ap. Jin. ; Galen, Explicatio 
Linguarum Hippocratis, and de Art. Curat. lib. 
ii. ; Celsus, de Medic, v. 28, §19. [H. H.] 

LE'SHEM (Q&h: Lesem), a variation in the 
form of the name of LAISH, afterwards DAN, 
occurring only in Josh. xix. 47 (twice). The Vat. 
LXX. is very corrupt, having AaxeJ* and Ae<rej/j/- 
Sdic (see Mai's ed.) ; but the Alex., as usual, is in 
the second case much closer to the Hebrew, Ac<re/x 
and AeffffSav. 

The commentators and lexicographers afford no 
clue to the reason of this variation in form. [G.] 

LETT'US (AOTTOUS ; Alex. "ATTOUJ: Acchus), 
the same as HATTUSH (1 Esd. viii. 29). The 
Alex. MS. has evidently the correct reading, of 
which the name as it appears in the Vat. MS. is 
an easy corruption, from the similarity of the uncial 
A and A. 



LETU'SHIM (DBMD^ : AarouoW/i : Latu- 
sim, Latussirn), the name of the second of the 
sons of Dedan, son of Jokshan, Gen. xxv. 3 (and 
1 Chr. i. 32, Vulg.). Fresnel (Journ. Asiat. IIP 
sene, vol. vi. p. 217, 8) identifies it with Tasm* 

' Dr. Mead's reference is de Morbis Contagions, ii. 
cap. 9. There Is no such title extant to any portion 
Aretaeus' -work ; see, however, the Syrtenham So 
ciety's edition of that writer, p. 370. 


one of the ancient and extinct tribes of Arabia, like 
as he compares Leuinmim with Ume»yim. The 
names may perhaps be regarded as commencing 
with the Hebrew article. Nevertheless, the identi 
fication in eaih case seems to be quite untenable. 
(Respecting these tribes, see LKUMMIM and ARABIA.) 
It is noteworthy that the three sons of the Keturahite 
Dedau are named in the plural form, evidently as 
tribes descended from him. [E. S. P.] 


, from 

Loomim, Laomim), the name of the third of the 
descendants of Dedan, son of Jokshan, Gen. xxv. 3 
(1 Chr. i. 32, Vulg.), being in the plural form like 
his brethren, Asshurim and Letushim. It evidently 
refers to a tribe or people sprung from Dedan, and 
indeed in its present form literally signifies " peo 
ples," " nations;" but it has been observed in art. 
LETUSHIM, that these names perhaps commence 
with the Hebrew article. Leummim has been 
identified with the 'AAAou/ucMTtSTai of Ptolemy (vi. 
7. §24 : see Diet, of Geogr.}, and by Fresnel (in the 
Journ. Asiat. Ill" serie, vol. vi. p. 217) with 
an Arab tribe called Umeiyim.* Of the former, 
the writer knows no historical trace: the latter 
was one of the very ancient tribes of Arabia 
of which no genealogy is given by the Arabs, and 
who appear to have been ante-Abiahamic, and 
possibly aboriginal inhabitants of the country. 

[AllABIA.] [E. S. P.] 

LE'VI. 1. (^ : Afvfl: Levi}, the name of the 
third son of Jacob by his wife Leah. This, like 
most other names in the patriarchal history, was 
connected with the thoughts and feelings that ga 
thered round the child's birth. As derived from 

HI?, " to adhere," it gave utterance to the hooe of 

the mother that the affections of her husband, 
which had hitherto rested on the favoured Rachel, 
would at last be drawn to her. "This time will 
my husband bo joined unto me, because I have borne 
him three sons" (Gen. xxix. 34). The new-bora 
child was to be a Kotvtavtas jSejScuwTT;? (Jos. Ant. 
i. 19-, §8), a new link binding the parents to each 
other more closely than before. But one fact is 
recorded in which he appears prominent. The son* 
of Jacob have come from Padan-Aram to Canaan 
with their father, and are with him " at Shalem, a 
city of Shechem." Their sister Dinah goes out 
" to see the daughters of the land " (Gen. xxxiv. 
1), i. e. as the words probably indicate, and as Jo- 
sephus distinctly states (Ant. i. 21), to be present 
at one of their great annual gatherings for some 
festival of nature-worship, analogous to that which 
we meet with afterwards among the Midianites 
(Num. xxv. 2). The license of the time or the 
absence of her natural guardians exposes her, though 
yet in earliest youth, to lust and outrage. A stain 
is left, not only on her, but on the honour of her 
kindred, which, according to the rough justice of 
the time, nothing but blood could wash out. The 
duty of extorting that revenge fell, as in the case of 
Amncn a«d Tamar (2 Sam. xiii. 22), and in most 
other states of society in which polygamy has pre 
vailed (comp. for the customs of modern Arabs, 
J. D. Michael is, quoted by Kurtz, Hist, of Ola 
Covenant, i. §82, p. 340, on the brothers rather 


The same etymology is recognized, dough with a 
her significance, In Num. xviii. 2. 

»8 LEVI 

than the father, just as, in the case of Rebekah, it 
belonged to the brother to conduct the negotiations 
for the marriage. We are left to conjecture why 
lieu ben. as the first-born, was not foremost in the 
work, but the sin 01 which he was afterwards 
guilty, makes it possible that his zeal for his sister's 
purity was not so sensitive as theirs. The same 
explanation may perhaps apply to the non-appear- 
ai ce of Judah in the history. Simeon and Levi, 
at, the next in succession to the first-born, take the 
tisk upon themselves. Though not named in the 
Hebrew text of the 0. T. till xxxiv. 25, there 
can be little doubt that they were " the sons of 
Jacob " who heard from their father the wrong over 
which he had brooded in silence, and who planned 
their revenge accordingly. The LXX. version does 
introduce their names in ver. 14. The history that 
follows is that of a cowardly and repulsive crime. 
The two brothers exhibit, in its broadest contrasts, 
that union of the noble and the base, of charac 
teristics above and below the level of the heathen 
tribes around them, which marks the whole his 
tory of Israel. They have learned to loathe and 
scorn the impurity in the midst of which they 
lived, to regard themselves as a peculiar people, to 
glory in the sign of the covenant. They have 
learnt only too well from Jacob and from Laban, 
the lessons of treachery and falsehood. They lie 
to the men of Shechem as the Druses and the Ma- 
ronites lie to each other in the prosecution of their 
blood-feuds. For the offence of one man, they de 
stroy and plunder a whole city. They cover their 
murderous schemes with fair words and professions 
of friendship. They make the very token of their 
religion the instrument of their perfidy and re 
venge.* Their father, timid and anxious as ever, 
utters a feeble lamentation (Blunt's Script. Coin- 
tidences, Part i. §8), " Ye have made me to stink 
among the inhabitants of the land ... I being 
few in number, they shall gather themselves against 
me." With a zeal that, though mixed with baser 
elements, foreshadows the zeal of Phinehas, they 
glory in their deed, and meet all remonstrance with 
the question, " Should he deal with our sister as 
with a harlot?" Of other facts in the life of Levi, 
there are none in which he takes, as in this, a pro 
minent and distinct part. He shares in the hatred 
which his brothers bear to Joseph, and joins in the 
plots against him (Gen. xxxvii. 4). Reuben and 
Judah interfere severally to prevent the consumma 
tion of the crime (Gen. xxxvii. 21, 26). Simeon 
appears, as being made afterwards the subject of 
a shai-per discipline than the othere, to have been 
foremost — as his position among the sons of Leah 
made it likely that he would be — in this attack on 
the favoured son of Rachel ; and it is at least pro 
bable that in this, as in their former guilt, Simeon 
and Levi were brethren. The rivalry of the mo 
thers was perpetuated in the jealousies of their 
children; and the two who had shown themselves so 
keenly sensitive when their sister had been wronged, 
make themselves the instruments and accomplices 
of the hatred which originated, we are told, with 
the baser-bom sons of the concubines (Gen. xxxvii. 
2). Then comes for him, as for the others, the dis 
cipline of suffering and danger, the special educa 
tion by which the brother whom they had wronged 
leads them back to faithfulness and natural aftec- 

d Josephus (Ant. \. c.) characteristically glosses over 
all that connects the attack with the circumcision of the 
Shechemites, and represents ll as made In a time of feast- 
Ing and roloifing. 


tion. The detention of Simeor in Egypt may 
have been designed at once to be the punishment 
for the large share which he had lakcn in the com 
mon crime, and to separate the two brothers who 
had hitherto been such close companions in evil. 
The discipline does its work. Those who had been 
relentless to Joseph become self-sacrificing for Ben 

After this we trace Levi as joining in the ni g,a- 
tion of the tribe that owned Jacob as its patriarch. 
He, with his three sons, Gershon, Kohath, Merari, 
went down into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 11). As one 
of the four eldest sons we may think of him as 
among the five (Gen. xlvii. 2) that were specially 
presented before Pharaoh". Then comes the last 
scene in which his name appears. When his father's 
death draws near, and the sons are gathered round 
him, he hears the old crime brought up again to 
receive its sentence from the lips that are no longer 
feeble and hesitating. They, no less than the in 
cestuous first-born, had forfeited the privileges of 
their birthright. " In their anger they slew men, 
and in their wantonness they maimed oxen " (marg. 
reading of A. V.; comp. LXX. lvfvpoK&iri\aa» 
ravpov). And therefore the sentence on those who 
had been united for evil was, that they were to be 
" divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel." How that' 
condemnation was at once fulfilled and turned into 
a benediction, how the zeal of the patriarch reap 
peared purified and strengthened in his descendants ; 
how the very name came to have a new significance, 
will be found elsewhere. [LEVITES.] 

The history of Levi has been dealt with here 
in what seems the only true and natural way of 
treating it, as a history of an individual person. 
Of the theory that sees in the sons of Jacob 
the mythical Eponymi of the tribes that claimed 
descent from them — which finds in the crimes and 
chances of their lives the outlines of a national or 
tribal chronicle — which refuses to recognise that 
Jac6b had twelve sons, and insists that the history 
of Dinah records an attempt on the part of the Ca- 
naanites to enslave and degrade a Hebrew tribe 
(Ewald, Geschichte, i. 466-496)— of this one may 
be content to say, as the author says of other hy 
potheses hardly more extravagant, " die Wissen- 
j schaft verscheucht alle solche Gespenster "(Ibid. 
i. 466). The book of Genesis tells us of the lives 
of men and women, not of ethnological phantoms. 

A yet wilder conjecture has been hazarded by 
another German critic. P. Kedslob (Die alttesta- 
mentl. Namen, Hamb. 1846, p. 24, 25), recog 
nizing the meaning of the name of Levi as given 
above, finds in it evidence of the existence of a con 
federacy or synod of the priests that had been con 
nected with the several local worships of Canaan, 
and who, in the time of Samuel and David, were 
gathered together, joined, "round the Central 
Pantheon in Jerusalem." Here also we may borrow 
the terms of our judgment from the language of the 
writer himself. If there are " abgeschmackten ety- 
mologischen Mahrchen " ( Redslob, p. 82) connected 
with the name of Levi, they are hardly those we 
meet with in the narrative of Genesis. [K. H. P.] 
2. (Aeuef; Rec. Text, A«ut; Levi) Son of 
Melchi, one of the near ancestors of our Lord, in 
fact the great-grandfather of Joseph (Luke iii. 24). 
This name is omitted in the list given by Africanus. 

•The Jewish tradition (Targ. Ptetulojon.") state' the 
flve to have been Zebulun. I>an. Naphtali, Gad, and 


3. A moi-fi remote ancestor of Christ, son of 
Simeon (Luke iii. 29). Lord A. Hervey considers 
that the uame of Levi reappears in his descendant 
Lebbaeus (Geneal. of Christ, 132, and see 36, 46). 

4. (AeuWs ; R. T. Aeufs.) Mark ii. 14 ; Luke 
T. 27, 29. [MATTHEW.] 

LEVI'ATHAN (jri^, Hv'ydthdn : rb fitya 

<iJTos, SpoLKcuv; Complut. Job iii. 8, \e&ia6di>, 
leviathan, draco) occurs rive times in the text of the 
A. V., and once in the margin of Job iii. 8, where 
the text has " mourning. " In the Hebrew Bible 
the word liv'yathan,* which is, with the foregoing 
exception, always left untranslated in the A. V., is 
found only iu the following passages: Job iii. 8, xl. 
25 (xli. 1, A. V.); Ps. Ixxiv. 14, civ. 26; Is. 
xxvii. 1. In the margin of Job iii. 8, and text of 
Job xli. l, b the crocodile is most clearly the animal 
denoted by the Hebrew word. Ps. Ixxiv. 14 also 
clearly points to this same saurian. The context of 
Ps. civ. 26, "There go the ships: there is that 
leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein," 
seems to show that in this passage the name repre 
sents some animal of the whale tribe ; but it is 
somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in Is. 
xxvii. 1 . It would be out place here to attempt any 
detailed explanation of the passages quoted above, 
but the following remarks are offered. The pas 
sage in Job iii. 8 is beset with difficulties, and it is 
evident from the two widely different readings of 
the text and margin that our translators were at a 
loss. There can however be little doubt that the 
margin is the coirect rendering, and this is supported 
by the LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, the 
Vulgate and the Syriac. There appears to be some 
reference to those who practised enchantments. 
Job is lamenting the day on which he was born, 
and he says, " Let them curse it that curse the 
(Uy, who are ready to raise up a leviathan :" i. e. 
" Let those be hired to imprecate evil on my natal 
day who say they are able by their incantations to 
render days propitious or unpropitious, yea, let 
such as are skilful enough to raise up even leviathan 
(the crocodile) from his watery bed be summoned 
tc curse that day :" or, as Mason Good has trans 
lated the passage, " Oh ! that night ! let it be a 
barren rock! let no sprightliness enter into it! let 
the sorcerers of the day curse it ! the expertest among 
them that can conjure up leviathan!" 

The detailed description of leviathan given in 
Job xli. indisputably belongs to the crocodile, and 
it is astonishing that it should ever have been un 
derstood to apply to a whale or a dolphin ; but 
Lee (Comm. on Jbixli.), following Hasaeus (Disq. 
de Lev. Jobi et Ceto Jonae," Brem. 1723), has 
laboured hard, though unsuccessfully, to prove that 
the leviathan of this passage is some species of 
whale, probably, he says, the Delphinus orca, or 
common grampus. That it can be said to be the 

' in 11 "!?, from iVp, an. animal wreathed. 

b \Vliirlpool, i. e. some sea-monster : vid. Trench's 
Select Glossary, p. 226. 

c The modern Arabic name of crocodile is Timsdh. 
The word is derived from the Coptic, JEtnsah, Amsah, 
whence with the aspirate x«-^a.i (Herod, ii. 69). 
Wilkins, however (de L. Copt. p. 101), contends 
that the word is of Arabic origin. See Jablonsk. 
Opera i. 387, 287, ed. Te Water, 1804. 

<» "The people inhabiting the wilderness" — a 
poetical expression to denote the wild beasts : comp. 
" the ants are a people not strong," " the conies are 


iride of any cetacean that his " scales shut up to 
gether as with a close seal," is an assertion that no 
one can accept, since every member of this group 
uir a body almost bald and smooth. 

Crocodile of the Nile (C. vuyaru) 

The Egyptian crocodile also is certainly the 
animal denoted by leviathan in Ps. Ixxiv. 14 : c 
*' Thou, God, didst destroy the princes of Pha 
raoh, the great crocodile or ' dragon that lieth in 
the midst of his rivers' (Ez. xxix. 3) in the Red 
Sea, and didst give their bodies to be food for the 
wild beasts of the desert." d The leviathan of Ps. 
civ. 26 seems clearly enough to allude to some great 
cetacean. The " great and wide sea " must surely be 
the Mediterranean, " the great sea," as it is usually 
called in Scripture ; it would ceilainly be stretch 
ing the point too far to understand the expression to 
represent any part of the Nile. The crocodile, as 
is well known, is a fresh-water, not a marine 
animal : e it is very probable therefore that some 
whale is signified by the term leviathan in this 
passage, and it is quite an error to assert, as Dr. 
Harris (Diet. Nat. Hist. Bib.}, Mason Good (Book 
of Job translated), Michaelis (Supp. 1297), and Ko- 
senmuller (quoting Michaelis in not. ad Bochart Hic- 
roz. iii. 738) have done, that the whale is not found 
in the Mediterranean. The Orca gladiator (Gray) — 
the grampus mentioned above by Lee — the Physahis 
antiquorum (Gray), or the Rorqual de la Mediter- 
ranee (Cuvier), are not uncommon in the Medi 
terranean (Fischer, Synops. Mam. 525, and Lace- 
pfede, H. N. des Cetac. 115), and in ancient 
times the species may have been more numerous. 

There is some uncertainty about the leviathan 
of Is. xxvii. 1. Rosenmiiller (Schol. in I. c.) thinks 
that the word nachash, here rendered serpent, is to 
be taken in a wide sense as applicable to any great 
monster ; and that the prophet, under the term 
" leviathan that crooked serpent," is speaking of 
Egypt, typified by the crocodile, the usual emblem 
of the prince of that kingdom. The Chaldee para 
phrase understands the " leviathan that piercing 
serpent" to refer to Pharaoh, and "leviathan that 
crooked serpent" to refer to Sennacherib. 

but a feeble folk" (Prov. xxx. 25, 26). For ofcher 
interpretations of this passage see Roseumiill. Schol., 
and Bochart, Phalep, 318. 

• According to Warburton (Cresc. <f- Cr. 85) the 
crocodile is never now seen below Minyeh, but it 
should be stated that Pliny (N. H. viii. 25), not He 
rodotus, as Mr. Warburton asserts, speaks of croco 
diles being attacked by dolphins at the mouth of the 
Nile. Seneca (Nat. Quaest. iv. 2) gives an account 
of a contest between these animals. Cuvier thinks 
that a species of dog-rish is meant (Acanthias vul- 
yaris}, on account of the dorsal spines of which Plinj 
speaks, and which no species of dolphin possesses. 

H 2 



As *he term leviathan is evidently used in no 
limited sense, it is not improbable that the " levi 
athan the pieicing serpent," or " leviathan the 
crooked serpent," may denote some species of the 
great rock-snakes (Boidae) which are common in 
South and West Africa, perhaps the Hortulia Sebae, 
which Schneider (Amph. ii. 266), under the sy 
nonym Boa hieroglyphica, appears to identify with 
the huge serpent represented on the Egyptian mo- 
.uments. This python, as well as the crocodile, 
•\ras worshipped by the Egyptians, and may well 
therefore be understood in this passage to typify 
the Egyptian power. Perhaps the English word 
monster may be considered to be as good a transla 
tion of liv'i/dthan as any other that can be found ; 
. and though the crocodile seems to be the animal 
more particularly denoted by the Hebrew term, 
yet, as has been shown, the whale, and perhaps the 
rock-snike also, may be signified under this name.' 
[WHALE.] Bochart (iii. 769, ed. Rosenmuller) says 
that the Talmudists use the word liv'ydthdn to 
denote the crocodile; this however is denied by 
Lewysohn (Zool. des Talm. 155, 355), who says 
that in the Talmud it always denotes a whale, and 
never a crocodile. For the Talmudical fables about 
the leviathan, see Lewysohn (Zool. des Talm.), in 
passages refeiTed to above, and Buxtorf, Lex. Chal. 

Talm. s. v. jrv6. [VV. H.] 

LEVIS (Aevfs : Levis), improperly given as a 
proper name in 1 Esd. is. 14. It is simply a coV- 
ruption of" the Levite" in Ezr. x. 15. 


: Aei/?ra« : Levitae : also 

*)? \J3 : viol hevi: filii Leoi). The analogy of 
the names of the other tribes of Israel would 
lead us to include under these titles the whole 
tribe that traced its descent from Levi. The 
existence of another division, however, within the 
tribe itself, in the higher office of the priesthood 
as limited to the " sous of Aaron," gave to the 
common form, in this instance, a peculiar meaning. 
Most frequently the Levites are distinguished, as 
such, from the priests (IK. viii. 4; Ezr. ii. 70; 
John i. 19, &c.), and this is the meaning which 
has perpetuated itself. Sometimes the word extends 
to the whole tribe, the priests included (Num. xxxv. 
'2 ; Josh. xxi. 3, 41 ; Ex. vi. 25; Lev. xxv. 32, &c.). 
Sometimes again it is added as an epithet of the 
smaller portion of the tribe, and we read of "the 
priests the Levites" (Josh. iii. 3; Ez. xliv. 15X 
The history of the tribe, and of the functions at 
tached to its several orders, is obviously essential 
to any right apprehension of the history of Israel 
as a people. They are the representatives of its 
faith, the ministers of its worship. They play at 
least as prominent a part in the growth of its insti 
tutions, in fostering or repressing the higher life of 
the nation, as the clergy of the Christian Church 


have played in the history of any European kiu 
dom. It will be the object of this article to trace 
the outlines of that history, marking out th« ftuic- 
tions which at different periods were assigned to tb.3 
tribe, and the influence which its members exercised. 
This is, it is believed, a truer method than that which 
would attempt to give a more complete picture by 
combining into one whole the fragmentary notices 
which are separated from each other by wide inter 
vals of time, or treating them as if they represented 
the permanent characteristics of the order. In the 
history of all priestly or quasi-priestly bodies, func 
tions vary with the changes of time and circum 
stances, and to ignore those changes is a sufficient 
proof of incompetency for dealing with the history. 
As a matter of convenience, whatever belongs ex 
clusively to the functions and influence of the priest 
hood, will be found under that head [PRIEST] ; but 
it is proposed to treat here of all that is common to 
the priests and Levites, as being together the sacer 
dotal tribe, the clerisy of Israel. The history will 
fall naturally into four great periods.. 

I. The time of the Exodus. 
II. The period of the Judges. 

III. That of the Monarchy. 

IV. That from the Captivity to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. 

I. The absence of all reference to the consecrated 
character of the Levites in the book of Genesis is 
noticeable enough. The prophecy ascribed to Jacob 
(Gen. xlix. 5-7) was indeed fulfilled with singular 
precision ; but the terms of the prophecy are hardly 
such as would have been framed by a later writer,* 
after the tribe had gained its subsequent pre-emi 
nence; and unless we frame some hypothesis to 
account for this omission as deliberate, it takes its 
place, so far as it goes, among th> evidence of the 
antiquity of that section of Genesis in which these 
prophecies are found. The only occasion on which 
the patriarch of the tribe appears — the massacre of 
the Shechemites — may indeed have contributed to 
influence the history of his descendants, by fostering 
in them the same fierce wild zeal against all that 
threatened to violate the purity of their race; but 
generally what strikes us is the absence of all recog 
nition of the later character. In the genealogy of 
Gen. xlvi. 11, in like manner, the list does not go 
lower down than the three sons of Levi, and they 
are given in the order of their birth, not in that 
which would have corresponded to the official su 
periority of the Kohathites. b There are no signs, 
again, that the tribe of Levi had any special pre 
eminence over the others during the Egyptian bond 
age. As tracing its descent from Leah, it would 
take its place among the six chief tribes sprung from 
the wives of Jacob, and share with them a recog 
nised superiority over those that bore the names of 
the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Within "iie tnbe 
itself there are some slight tokens that the Ko- 

1 The Heb. word BT13 occurs about thirty times 
in the O. T., and it seems clear enough that in every 
case its use it limited to the serpent tribe. If the 
I, XX. interpretation of CHS be taken, the fleeing 
and not piercing serpent is the rendering : the Heb. 
{in?pJJ> tortuosits, is more applicable to a serpent 
than to'any other animal. The expression, " He shall 
play the dragon that is in the sea," refers also to the 
Egyptian power, and is merely expletive — the dragon 
being the crocodile, which is in this part of the verse 
*n emblem of Phiruh, as the serpent is in the former 

part of the verse. 

• Ewald (Gesch. ii. 454) refers the language of 
Gen. xlix. 7 not to the distribution of the Levites 
in their 48 cities, but to the time when they had 
fallen into disrepute, and become, as in Judg. xvii., 
a wandering, half-mendicant order. But see Kalisch, 
Genesis, ad loc. 

b The later genealogies, it shcn'.d be noticed. *epro- 
duce the same order. This was natural enougli ; but 
a genealogy originating in a later age, and reflecting 
ts feelings, would probably have changed the order. 
(Comp. I x. vi. 1C, Num. iii. 17, 1 Ch.r vi. 16.) 


hatliites are grilling thi> first place. The classifica 
tion of Ex. vi. 16-2.S, gives to that section of the 
;ribe tour clans or houses, while those of Gershon 
snd Merari have but two each. c To it belonged 
the house cf Amram ; and " Aaron the Levite" (Ex. 
iv. 14) is o-poken of as one tc whom the people will 
be sure to listen. He marries the daughter of the 
chief of the tribe of Judah (Ex. vi. 23). The work 
accomplished by him, and by his yet greater brother, 
would tend naturally to give prominence to the 
family and the tribe to which they belonged ; but 
as yet there are no traces of a caste-character, no 
signs of any intention to establish an hereditary 
priesthood. Up to this time the Israelites had wor 
shipped the God of their fathers after their fathers' 
manner. The first-born of the people were the 
priests of the people. The eldest son of each house 
inherited the priestly office. His youth made him, 
in his father's lifetime, the representative of the 
purity which was connected from the beginning 
with the thought of worship (Ewald, Alterthilm. 
273, and comp. PRIEST). It was apparently 
with this as their ancestral worship *hat the Israel 
ites came »p out of Egypt. The " young men " of 
the sons of Israel otter sacrifices' 1 (Ex. xxiv. 5). 
They, we may infer, are the priests who remain 
with the people while Moses ascends the heights of 
Sinai (xix. 22-24). They represented the truth 
that the whole people were " a kingdom of priests " 
(xix. 6). Neither they, nor the " officers and 
judges " appointed to assist Moses in administering 
justice (xviii. 25) are connected in any special 
manner with the tribe of Levi. The first step to 
wards a change was made in the institution of an 
hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron, during 
the first withdrawal of Moses to the solitude of 
Sinai (xxviii. 1). This, however, was one thing: 
it was quite another to set apart a whole tribe of 
Israel as a priestly caste. The directions given for 
the construction of the tabernacle imply no pre 
eminence of the Levites. The chief workers in it are 
from the tribes of Judah and of Dan (Ex. xxxi. 2-6). 
The next extension of the idea of the priesthood grew 
out of the terrible crisis of Ex. xxxii. If the Levites 
had been sharers in the sin of the golden calf, they 
were at any rate the foremost to rally round their 
leader when he called on them to help him in stem 
ming the progress of the evil. And then came that 
terrible consecration of themselves, when every man 
was against his son and against his brother, and the 

offering with which they filled their hands (-"IXp?? 
D3"V, Ex. xxxii. 29, comp. Ex. xxviii. 41) was the 



As the names of the lesser houses recur, some of 
them frequently, it may he well to give them here 

Gtrshon. { 8hlnle , 

< Moses 

Amram . 1 A „„ j Eleazar 

(Aaron . . | lthamar< 

j Korah 


Kohath . 




Uz>.tel . . / Elzaphan 

( Mahali 

bliXKl of their nearest of kin. The tribe stoo«l 
forth, separate and apart, recognising even in 
this stem work the spiritual as higher than 
the natural, and therefore counted worthy to 
be the representative of the ideal life of tha 
people, "an Israel within an Israel" (Ewald, 
Altertlmm. 279), chosen in its higher represen 
tatives to offer incense and burnt-sacritice before the 
Lord (Deut. xxxiii. 9, 10), not without a share in 
the glory of the Urini and Thummim that were 
worn by the prince and chieftain of the tribe. 
From this time accordingly they occupied a dis 
tinct position. Experience had shown how easily 
the people might fall back into idolatry — how 
necessary it was that there should be a body ot 
men, an order, numerically large, and when the 
people were in their promised home, equally diffused 
throughout the country, as witnesses and guardians 
of the truth. Without this the individualism ot 
the older worship would have been fruitful in an 
ever-multiplying idolatry. The tribe of Levi was 
therefore to take the place of that earlier priesthood 
of the first-born as representatives of the holiness 
of the people. The minds of the people were to be 
drawn to the fact of the substitution by the close 
numerical correspondence of the consecrated tribe 
with that of those whom they replaced. The first 
born males were numbered, and found to be 22,273 ; 
the census of the Levites gave 22,000, reckoning in 
each case from children of one month upwards 6 
(Num. iii.). The fixed price for the redemption of 
a victim vowed in sacrifice (comp. Lev. xxvii. 6 ; 
Num. xviii. 16) was to be paid for each of the 
odd number by which the first-born were in excess 
of the Levites (Num. iii. 47). In this way the 
latter obtained a sacrificial as well as a priestly cha 
racter.' They for the first-bora of men, and their 
cattle for the firstlings of beasts, fulfilled the idea 
that had been asserted at the time of the destruction 
of the first-born of Egypt (Ex. xiii. 12, 13). The 
commencement of the march from &nai gave a 
prominence to their new character. As the Taber 
nacle was the sign of the presence among the people 
of their unseen King, so the Levites were, among 
the other tribes of Israel, as the royal guard that 
waited exclusively on Him. The wailike title of 
" host" is specially applied to them (comp. use of 

KZJV, in Num. iv. 3, 30 ; and of rUHO, in 1 Ohr. 

ix. 19). As such they were not included in the 
number of the armies of Israel (Num. i. 47, ii. •"••'>, 
xxvi. 62), but reckoned separately by themselves. 
When the people we:e at rest they encamped as 

* This is expressly stated in the Targ. Pseudojon. 
on this verse :— " And he sent the first-born of the 
Cli. of Isr., for even to that time the worship was by 
the first-born, because the Tabernacle was not yet 
Dixie, nor the priesthood given to Aaron," &c. 

e The separate numbers in Num. iii. (Gershon, 7500 ; 
Kohath, 8600 ; Merari, G200) give a total of 2»,3()0. 
The received solution of the discrepancy is that 300 
were the first-born of the Levites, who as such worn 
already consecrated, and therefore could not take tlio 
place of others. Talnuulic traditions (Gemnr. Bali, 
tit. Sanhedrim, quoted by Patrick) add that the ques 
tion, which of the Israelites should be redeemed by a 
Levite, or which should pay the five shekels, wa* 
settled by lot. The number of the first-born appears 
disproportionately small, as compared with the popu 
lation. It must be remembered, however, that the 
conditions to be fulfilled were that they should be at 
once (1) the first child of the father, (2) the first child 
of the mother, (3) males. (Comp. on this question, 
and on that of the difference of numbers, Kurtz, 
History of the Old Covenant, iii. 201.) 

* Comp. the recurrence of the same thought IE tbt 
**KA.T)<Tia irpuiroTOKujv -A Heb. xii. 23. 



guardians round the sacred tent; no one else might 
come near it under pain of death (Num. i. 51, 
xviii. 22). They were to occupy a middle position 
in that ascending scale of consecration, which, stall 
ing from the idea of the whole nation as a priestly 
people, reached its culminating point in the high- 
priest who, alone of all the people, might enter 
" within the veil." The Levites might come nearer 
than the other tribes ; but they might not sacrifice, 
nor burn incense, nor see the "holy things" of the 
sanctuary till they were covered (Num. iv. 15). 
When on the march, no hands but theirs might 
strike the tent at the commencement of the day's 
journey, or carry the parts of its structure 
during it, or pitch the tent once again when they 
halted (Num i. 51). It was obviously essential 
for such a work that there should be a fixed assign 
ment of duties : and now accordingly we meet with 
the first outlines of the organisation which after 
wards became permanent. The division of the tribe 
into the three sections that traced their descent 
from the sons of Levi, formed the groundwork of 
it. The work which they all had to do required a 
man's full strength, and therefore, though twenty 
was the starting-point for military service (Num. 
i.) ; they were not to enter on their active service 
till they were thirty s (Num. iv. 23, 30, 35). At 
fifty they were to be free from all duties but those 
of superintendence (Num. viii. 25, 26). The result 
of this limitation gave to the Kohathites 2750 on 
active service out of 8600 ; to the sons of Gershon 
2630 out of 7500 ; to those of Merari 3200 out of 
6200 (Num. iv.). Of these the Kohathites, as 
nearest of kin to the priests, held from the first the 
highest offices. They were to bear all the vessels 
of the sanctuary, the ark itself included h (Num. 
iii. 31, iv. 15; Deut. xxxi. 25), after the priests 
had covered them with the dark-blue cloth which 
was to hide them from all profane gaze ; and thus 
they became also the guardians of all the sacred 
treasures which the people had so freely offered. 
The Gershonites in their turn, had to cairy the 
tent-hangings and curtains (Num. iv. 22-26). The 
heavier burden of the boards, bars, and pillars of 
the tabernacle fell on the sons of Merari. The two 
latter companies were allowed, however, to use the 
oxen and the waggons which were offered by the 
congregation, Merari, in consideration of its heavier 
work, having two-thirds of the number (Num. vii. 
1-9). The more sacred vessels of the Kohathites 
were to be borne by them on their own shoulders 
(Num. vii. 9). The Kohathites in this arrange 
ment were placed under the command of Eleazar, 
Ciershon and Merari under Ithamar (Num. iv. 28, 
.•>:<). Before the march began the whole tribe wns 
once again solemnly set apart. The rites (some of 
them at least) were such as the people might 
have witnessed in Egypt, and all would understand 
their meaning. Their clothes were to be washed. 
They themselves, as if they were, prior to their 
separation, polluted and unclean, like the leper, or 


those that had touched the dead, were to be sprinkled 
with " water of purifying " (Num. viii. 7, comp 
with xix. 13 ; Lev. xiv. 8, 9), and to shave all theii 
flesh.' The people were then to lay their hands 
upon the heads of the consecrated tribe and oft'ei 
them up as their representatives (Num. viii. 10). 
Aaron, as high-priest, was then to present them as 
a wave-offering (turning them, t. e. this way and 
that, while they bowed themselves to the four points 
of the compass ; comp. Abarbanel on Num. viii. 
11, and Kurtz, iii. 208), in token that all their 
powers of mind and body were henceforth to be de 
voted to that service. 1 * They, in their turn, were 
to lay their hands on the two bullocks which were 
to be slaiu as a sin-offering and burnt-offering for 
an atonement OS3» Num. viii. 12). Then they 
entered on their work ; from one point of view given 
by the people to Jehovah, from another given by 
Jehovah to Aaron and his sons (Num. iii. 9, viii. 
19, xviii. 6). Their very name is turned into an 
omen that they will cleave to the service of the 
Lord (comp. the play on -M?* and *1? in Num. 
xviii. 2, 4). 

The new institution was, however, to receive a 
severe shock from those who were most interested 
in it. The section of the Levites whose position 
brought them into contact with the tribe of Reuben * 
conspired with it to reassert the old patriarchal 
system of a household priesthood. The leader of 
that revolt may have been impelled by a desire to 
gain the same height as that which Aaron had 
attained ; but the ostensible pretext, that the " whole 
congregation were holy" (Num. xvi. 3), was one 
which would have cut away all the distinctive pri 
vileges of the tribe of which he was a member. 
When their self-willed ambition had been punished, 
when all danger of the sons of Levi " taking too 
much upon them" was for the time checked, it 
was time also to provide more definitely for them, 
and so to give them more reason to be satisfied witt 
what they actually had ; and this involved a pernia 
nent organisation for the future as well as for tin 
present. If they were to have, like other tribes, a 
distinct territory assigned to them, their influence 
over the people at large would be diminished, 
and they themselves would be likely to forget, in 
labours common to them with others, their own 
peculiar calling. Jehovah therefore was to be theii 
inheritance (Num. xviii. 20 ; Deut. x. 9, xviii. 2). 
They were to have no territorial possessions. In 
place of them they were to receive from the others 
the tithes of the produce of the land, from which 
they, in their turn, offered a tithe to the priests, as 
a recognition of their higher consecration (Num 
xviii. 21, 24, 26 ; Neh. x. 37). As if to provide tbi 
the contingency of failing crops or the like, and the 
consequent inadequacy of the tithes thus assigned 
to them, the Levite not less than the widow and the 
orphan, was commended to the special kindness of 
the people (Deut. xii. 19, xiv. 27, 29). When the 

* The mention of twenty-five in Num. viii. 24, as 
the age of entrance, must be understood either of a 
probationary period during which they were trained 
for their duties, or of the lighter work of keeping 'the 
pates of the tabernacle. 

11 On more solemn occasions tne priests themselves 
appear as the bearers of the ark (Josh, .ii 3, 15, vi. 6 ; 
1 K. viii. 6). 

* Comp. the analogous practice (differing, however, 
in being constantly repeated) of the Egyptian priests 
(Hrrud. ii. 37 ; con p. Spencer, DC Lrg. IM. b H. c. 5). 

k Solemn as this dedication is, it fell short of the 
consecration of the priests, and was expressed by 
a different word. [PRIEST.] The Levites were purified, 
not consecrated (comp. Gesen. s. v. I!1t3 and fTp ? 
and Oehler, ». ». "Levi," in Herzog's Real. E'icycl.). 

1 In the encampment in the wilderness, the sons 
of Aaron occupied the foremost place of honour on the 
east. The Kohathites were at their right, on th« 
south, the Gershonites on the west, the sons of Morari 
on the north of the tabernacle. On the south u ere 
also Reuben, Simeon, and Gad (Num. ii. and iii.)t 


w.'iinleriiigs of the people should be over and the 
tabernacle have a sett led place, great part of the labour 
that had fallen on them would come to an end. and 
they too would need a fixed abode. Concentration 
round the tabernacle would lead to evils nearly as 
great, though of a different kixid, as an assignment 
of special territory. Their ministerial character 
might thus be intensified, but their pervading in 
fluence as witnesses and teachers would be sacrificed 
to it. Distinctness and diffusion were both to be 
secured by the assignment to the whole tribe (the 
priests included) of forty-eight cities, with an 
outlying " suburb " (KHSD, irpoaffrfia. ; Num. 
xxxv. 2) of meadow-land for the pasturage of their 
flocks and herds.™ The reverence of the people for 
them was to be heightened by the selection of six of 
these as cities of refuge, in which the Levites were 
to present themselves as the protectors of the fugi 
tives who, though they had not incurred the guilt, 
were yet liable to the punishment of murder." 
How rapidly the feeling of reverence gained strength, 
we may judge from the share assigned to them out 
of the flocks and herds and women, of the conquered 
Midianites (Num. xxxi. 27, &c.). The same victory 
led to the dedication of gold and silver vessels of 
great value, and thus increased the importance 
of the tribe as guardians of the national treasures 
(Num. xxxi. 50-54). 

The book of Deuteronomy is interesting as in 
dicating more clearly than had been done before 
the other functions, over and above their ministra 
tions in the tabernacle, which were to be allotted 
to the tribe of Levi. Through the whole land they 
were to take the place of the old household priests 
(subject, of course, to the special rights of the 
Aaronic priesthood), sharing in all festivals and re 
joicings (Deut. xii. 19, xiv. 26, 27, xxvi. 11). Every 
third year they were to have an additional share in 
the produce of the land (Deut. xiv. 28, xxvi. 12). 
The people were charged never to forsake them. To 
" the priests the Levites" was to belong the office 
of preserving, transcribing, and interpreting the law 
(Deut. xvii. 9-12; xxxi. 26). They were solemnly 
to read it every seventh year at the Feast of Taber 
nacles (Deut. xxxi. 9-13). They were to pronounce 
the curses from Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii. 14). 

Such, if one may so speak, was the ideal of the 
religious organisation which was present to the 
mind of the lawgiver. Details were left to be de 
veloped as the altered circumstances of the people 
might require.? The great principle was, that the 
warrior-caste who had guarded the tent of the cap 
tain of the hosts of Israel, should be throughout 
the land as witnesses that the people still owed 
allegiance to Him. Jt deserves notice that, as yet, 
with the exception of the few passages that refer to 



m Heliopolis (Strabo, xvii. 1), Thebes and Memphis 
in Egypt, and Benares in Hindostan, have been referred 
to as parallels. The aggregation of priests round a 
great national sanctuary, so as to make it as it were 
the centre of a collegiate life, was however different in 
its object and results from that of the polity of Israel. 
(Comp. Ewald, Gesch. ii. 402.) 

• The importance of giving a sacred character to 
such an asylum is sufficient to account for the assign 
ment of the cities of refuge to the Levites. Philo, 
however, with his characteristic love of an inner 
meaning, sees in it the truth that the Levites them 
selves were, according to the idea of their lives, 
fugitives from the world of sense, who had found 
Iteir place of refuge in God. 

This phraseology, characteristic of Deuteronomy 

the priests, no traces appear of their character as a 
learned caste, and of the work which aftci wards 
belonged to them as hymn-wi iters and musicians. 
The nymns of this period were probably occasional; 
not recurring (comp. Ex. xv. ; Num. xxi. 17 ; Deut. 
xxxii.). Women bore a large share in singing their, 
(Ex. xv. 20 ; Ps. Ixviii. 25). It is not unlikely 
that the wives and daughters of the Levites, who 
must have been with them in all their encampments, 
as afterwards in their cities, took the foremost part 
among the "damsels playing with their timbrels,'" 1 
or among the " wise-hearted," who wove hangings 
for the decoration of the tabernacle. There are at 
any rate signs of their presence there, in the mention 
of the "women that assembled" at its door (Ex. 
xxxviii. 8, and comp. Ewald, Alterthum. p. 297). 

II. The successor of Moses, though belonging (o 
another tribe, did faithfully all that could be done to 
convert this idea into a reality. The submission of 
the Gibeonites, after they had obtained a promise 
that their lives should be spared, enabled him to re 
lieve the tribe-divisions of Gershon and Merari of the 
most burdensome of their duties. The conquered 
Hivites became " hewers of wood and drawers of 
water " for the house of Jehovah and for the con 
gregation (Josh. ix. 27;. r As soon as the con 
querors had advanced far enough to proceed to a 
partition of the country, the forty-eight cities were 
assigned to them. Whether they were to be the 
sole occupiers of the cities thus allotted, or whether 
— as the rule for the redemption of their houses in 
Lev. xxv. 32 might seem to indicate — others were 
allowed to reside when they had been provided for, 
must remain uncertain. The principle of a widely 
diffused influence was maintained by allotting, as a 
rule, four cities from the district of each tribe ; but 
it is interesting to notice how, in the details of the 
distribution, the divisions of the Levites in the order 
of their precedence coincided with the relative im 
portance of the tribes with which they were con 
nected. The following table will help the reader 
to form a judgment on this point, and to trace the 
influence of the tribe in the subsequent events of 
Jewish history. 


A. Priests 

( Judah and Simeon .... 9 
' ' ( Benjamin 4 




B. Not Priests { Dan 

(Half Manasseh (West) . 2 
Half Manasseh (East) . . 2 

Issachar 4 

' Asher 4 

Naphtall 3 

(Zebulun 4 

. < Keuben 4 

(Gad 4 

and Joshua, appears to indicate that the function 
spoken of belonged to them, as the chief members ol 
the sacred tribe, as a clerisy rather than as priests in 
the narrower sense of the word. 

* To this there is one remarkable exception. Deut. 
xviii. 6 provides for a permanent dedication as the 
result of personal zeal going beyond the fixed period 
of service that came in rotation, and entitled accord, 
ingly to its reward. 

i Comp., as indicating their presence and function* 
at a later date, 1 Chr. xxv. 5, 6. 

r The Nethinim (Deo dati) of 1 Chr. ix. 2, Ear, 
ii. 43, were probably sprung from captives taken b) 
David in later wars, who were assigned to the servio* 
of the tabernacle, replacing possibly the Gibeomtct 
who had been slain by Saul (2 Sam xxt. 1) 




The scanty memorials that are left us in the book | The fact that the Levites were thus brought under the 

of Judges fail to show how far, lor any length of 
time, the reality answered to the idea. The ravages 
of invasion, and the pressure of an alien rate, 
marred the working of the organisatiop which 
seemed so perfect. Levitical cities, such as Aijalon 
(Josh. xxi. 24 ; Judg. i. 35) and Gezer (Josh. xxi. 
21; 1 Chr. vi. 67), fall into the hands of their 
enemies. Sometimes, as in the case of Nob, others 
apparently took their place. The wandering un 
settled habits of the Levites who are mentioned in 
the later chapters of Judges are probably to be 
traced to this loss of a fixed abode, and the con 
sequent necessity of taking refuge in other cities, 
even though their tribe as such had no portion in 
them. The tendency of the people to fall into the 
idolatry of the neighbouring nations showed either 
that the Levites failed to bear their witness to the 
truth or had no power to enforce it. Even in the 
lifetime of Phinehas, when the high-priest was still 
consulted as an oracle, the reverence which the 
people felt for the tribe of Levi becomes the occa 
sion of a rival worship (Judg. xvii.). The old 
household priesthood revives," and there is the risk 
of the national worship breaking up into indivi 
dualism. Micah first consecrates one of his own 
sons, and then tempts a homeless Levite to dwell 
with 5>im as " a father and a priest" for little more 
than his food and raiment. The Levite, though pro 
bably the grandson of Moses himself, repeats the 

sin of Korah. [JONATHAN.] First in the house of 

Micah, and then for the emigrants of Dan, he exer 
cises the office of a priest with "an ephod, and a 

teraphim and a graven image." With this excep 
tion the whole tribe appears to have fallen into a 

condition analogous to that of the clergy in the 

darkest period and in the most outlying districts 

of the Mediaeval Church, going through a ritual 

routine, but exercising no influence for good, at once 

corrupted and corrupting. The shameless license 

of the sons of Eli may be looked upon as the result 

of a long period of decay, affecting the whole order. 

When the priests were such as Hophni and Phinehas, 

we may fairly assume that the Levites were not 

doing much to sustain the moral life of the people. 
The work of Samuel was the starting-point of a 

better time. Himself a Levite, and, though not a 

priest, belonging to that section of the Levites which 

was nearest to the priesthood (1 Chr. vi. 28), 

adopted as it were, by a special dedication into thi 

priestly line and trained for its offices (1 Sam. ii. 

18), he appeare as infusing a fresh life, the authoi 

of a new organisation. There is no reason to think, 

indeed, that the companies or schools of the sons o: 

the prophets which ay/pear in his time (1 Sam. x 

5), and are traditionally said to have been foundec 

by him, consisted exclusively of Levites ; but ther 

are many signs that the members of that tribe 

formed a large element in the new order, and re 
ceived new strength from it. It exhibited, indeed 

the ideal of the Levite life as one of praise, devotion 

teaching, standing in the same relation to the priests 

and Levites generally as the monastic institutions o 

the firth century, or the mendicant orders of the thir 
teenth did to the secular clergy of Western Europe. Abel " (lamentation), and the name remains as a me- 

samc conclusion as to Joel, Micah, Habakkuk, Haggai, 
Zechariah, and even Isaiah himself. Jaha/.iel (2 Chr. 
xx. 14) appears as at once a prophet and a Levite. 
There is a balance of probability on the same side hi 
to Jehu, Hanani, the second Oded, and Ahijah 01 

influence of a system which addre>sed itself to the 
mind and heart in a greater degree than the sacri 
ficial functions of the priesthood, may possibly have 
led them on to apprehend the higher truths as to 
the nature of worship which begin to be asserted 
Vom this period, and which are nowhere pro 
claimed more clearly than in tne great hymn 
that bears the name of Asaph (Ps. 1. 7-15). The 
man who raises the name of prophet to a new signi- 
icance is himself a Levite (1 Sam. ix. 9). It is 
among them that we find the first signs rf the mu 
sical skill which is afterwards so conspicuous in the 
Levites (1 Sam. x. 5). The order in which the 
Temple services were arranged is ascribed to two of 
the prophets, Nathan and Gad (2 Chr. xxix. 25), 
who must have grown up under Samuel's super 
intendence, and in part to Samuel himself (1 Chr. 
ix. 22). Asaph and Heman, the Psalmists, bear the 
same title as Samuel the Seer (1 Chr. xxv. 5 ; 2 Chr. 
xxix. 30). The very word " prophesying " is applied 
not only to sudden bursts of song, but to the organ 
ised psalmody of the Temple (1 Chr. xxv. 2, 3). Even 
of those who bore the name of a prophet in a higher 
sense, a large number are traceably of this tribe.' 

III. The capture of the Ark by the Philistines 
did not entirely interrupt the worship of the 
Israelites, and the ministrations of the Levites went 
on, first at Shiloh (1 Sam. xiv. 3), then for a time 
at Nob (1 Sam. xxii. 11), afterwards at Gibeon 
(1 K. iii. 2 ; 1 Chr. xvi. 39). The history of the 
return of the ark to Beth-shemesh after its capture 
by the Philistines, and its subsequent removal to 
Kirjath-jearim, points apparently to some strange 
complications, rising out of the anomalies of this 
period, and affecting, in some measure, the position 
of the tribe of Levi. Beth-shemesh was, by the 
original assignment of the conquered country, one 
of the cities of the priests (Josh. xxi. 16). They, 
however, do not appear in the narrative, unless we 
assume, against all probability, that the men of 
Beth-shemesh who were guilty of the act of pro 
fanation were themselves of the priestly order. 
Levites indeed are mentioned as doing their ap 
pointed work (1 Sam. vi. 15), but the sacrifices 
and burnt-offerings are offered by the men of the 
city, as though the special function of the priest 
hood had been usurped by others ; and on this sup 
position it is easier to understand how those who 
had set aside the Law of Moses by one offence 
should defy it also by another. The singular read 
ing of the LXX. in 1 Sam. vi. 19 (KO) obit iifffie- 
viffav ol viol 'lexovlov Iv rdis &v$paffi 'BatOcrafji.vs 
'6-ri eiSov KiBwrbv Kvpiov) indicates, if we assume 
that it rests upon some corresponding Hebrew text, 
a struggle between two opposed parties, one guilty 
of the profana*ion, the other— possibly the Levites 
who had been before mentioned — zealous in their 
remonstrances against it. Then comes, either ts 
the result of this collision, or by direct supei -natural 
infliction, the great slaughter of the Beth-shemites. 
and they shrink from retaining the ark any longei 
among them. The great Eben (stone) becomes, by a 
slight paronomastic change in its form, the " great 

' Compare, on the extent of this relapse into an 
earlier system, Kalisch, On Genesis xliV. 7. 

* It may he worth while to indicate the extent of 
this connexion. As prophets, who are also priests, 
we have Jeremiah (Jcr. i. 1). Ezekiel 'Ez. i. 3), 
Azariah the son of Oded (2 Chr. xv >V Zechariah 
(2 Chr. xxiv 20). Internal evidence tends to the 


monal of the sin .\nd of its punishment. [BETH8HK- 
MF.SII.] We are left entire. 7 in the dark as to the 
reasons which led them, after this, to send the ark of 
Jehovah, not to Hebron or s)me other priestly city, 
but to Kirjath-jearim, round which, so far as wo know, 
there gathered legitimately no sacred associations. 
It has been commonly assumed indeed that Abina- 
dali, under whose guardianship it remained for 
twenty years, must necessarily have been of the 
tribe of Levi. [ABINADAB.] Of this, however, 
there is not the slightest direct evidence, and against 
it there is the language of David in 1 Chr. xv. 2, 
" None ought to carry the ark of God but the 
Levites, for them hath Jehovah chosen," which 
would lose half its force if it were not meant as a 
protest against a recent innovation, and the ground 
of a return to the more ancient order. So far as 
one can see one's way through these perplexities of 
a dark period, the most probable explanation — al 
ready suggested under KiRJATH-JEARiM — seems 
to be the following. The old names 'of Baaleh 
(Josh. xv. 9) and Kirjath-baal (Josh. xv. 60) 
suggest there had been of old some special sanctity 
attached to the place as the centre of a Canaanite 
local worship. The fact that the ark was taken 
to the house of Abinadab in the hill (1 Sam. 
vii. 1), the Gibeah of 2 Sam. vi. 3, connects it 
self with that old Canaanitish reverence for high 
places, which, through the whole history of the 
Israelites, continued to have such strong attractions 
for them. These may have seemed to the panic- 
stricken inhabitants of that district, mingling old 
things and new, the worship of Jehovah with the 
lingering superstitions of the conquered people, 
sufficient grounds to determine their choice of a 
locality. The consecration (the word used is the 
special sacerdotal term) of Eleazar as the guardian 
or the ark is, on this hypothesis, analogous in its way 
to the other irregular assumptions which characterise 
this period, though here the offence was less flagrant, 
and did not involve apparently the performance of 
any sacrificial acts. While, however, this aspect of 
the religious condition of the people brings the Levi- 
tical and priestly orders before us, as having lost the 
position they had previously occupied, there were 
other influences at work tending to reinstate them. 
The rule of Samuel and his sons, and the prophet 
ical character now connected with the tribe, tended 
to give them the position of a ruling caste. In the 
strong desire of the people for a king, we may per 
haps trace a protest against the assumption by the 
Levites of a higher position than that originally 
assigned. The reign of Saul, in its later period, 
was at any rate the assertion of a self-willed power 
against the priestly order. The assumption of the 
sacrificial office, the massacre of the priests at Nob, 
the slaughter of the Gibeonites who were attached 
to their service, were parts of the same policy, and 
the narrative of the condemnation of Saul for the 
two former sins, no less than of the expiation re 
quired for the latter (2 Sam. xxi.), shows by what 
strong measures the truth, of which that policy was 
a subversion, had to be impressed on the minds ot 
the Israelites. The reign of David, however, brought 
the change from persecution to honour. The Levites 
were ready to welcome a king who, though not ol 
their tribe, had been brought up under their train 
ing, was skilled in their aits, prepared to share 



ven in some }f their ministrations, and to array 
limself in their apparel (2 Sam. vi. 14), and 4600 of 
heir number with 3700 priests waited upon David 
it Hebron — itself, it should be. remembered, one ol 
the priestly cities — to tender their allegiance (1 Chr. 
xii. 26). When his kingdom was established, there 
came a fuller organisation of the whole tribe. Its 
wsition in relation to the priesthood was once again 
lefinitcly recognised. When the ark was carried up 
:o its new resting-place in Jerusalem, their claim 
to be the bearers of it was publicly acknowledged 

1 Chr. xv. 2). When the sin of Uzzah stopped the 
jrocossion, it was placed for a time under the care 
of Obed-Edom of Gath — probably Gath-rimmon — 
as one. of the chiefs of the Kohathites (1 Chr. xiii. 
13 ; Josh. xxi. 24 ; 1 Chr. xv. 1 8). 

In the procession which attended the ultimate 
conveyance of the ark to its new resting-place the 
Levites were conspicuous, wearing their linen ephods, 
and appearing in their new character as minstrels 
(1 Chr. xv. 27, 28). In the worship of the taber 
nacle under David, as afterwards in that of the 
Temple, we may trace a development of the simpler 
arrangements of the wilderness and of Shiloh. The 
Levites were the gatekeepers, vergers, sacristans, 
choristers of the central sanctuary of the nation. 
They were, in the language of 1 Chr. xxiii. 24-32, 
to which we may refer as almost the locus classicus 
on this subject, " to wait on the sons of Aaron 
for the service of the house of Jehovah, in the 
courts, and the chambers, and the purifying of all 
holy things." This included the duty of providing 

for the shew-bread, and the fine flour for meat 
offering, and for the unleavened bread." They 
were, besides this, "to stand every morning to thank 
and praise Jehovah, and likewise at even." They 
were lastly " to offer " — i. e. to assist the priests in 
offering — " all burnt-sacrifices to Jehovah in the sab 
baths and on the set feasts ." They lived for the greater 
part of the year in their own cities, and came up at 
fixed periods to take their turn of work (1 Chr. xxv., 
.\ vi.). How long it lasted we have no sufficient 
data for determining. The predominance of the 
number twelve as the basis of classification " might 
seem to indicate monthly periods, and the festivals 
of the new moon would naturally suggest such an 
arrangement. The analogous order in the civil and 
military administration (1 Chr. xxvii. 1) would tend 
to the same conclusion. It appears, indeed , that there 
was a change of some kind every week (1 Chr. is. 25 ; 

2 Chr. xxiii. 4, 8) ; but this is of course compatible 
with a system of rotation, which would give to each 
a longer period of residence, or with the permanent 
residence of the leader of each division within the 
precincts of the sanctuary. Whatever may have 
been the system, we must bear in mind that the 
duties now imposed upon the Levites were such us 
to require almost continuous practice. They would 
need, when their turn came, to be able to bear their 
parts in the great choral hymns of the Temple, and 
to take each his appointed share in the complex 
structure of a sacrificial liturgy, and for this a 
special study would be required. The education 
which the Levites received for their peculiar duties, 
no less than their connexion, moie or less intimate, 
with the schools of the prophets (see above), would 
tend to make them, so far as there was any educa 
tion at all, the teachers of the others,* the tran- 

• There are 24 coursef of the priests, 24,000 Le- * There is, however, a curious Jewish tradition luat 

vitcs in the general business of the Tcnrx' i'; Chr. the Rch-.-olmastors of Israel were of the tribe o) 

3-xiii. 4). The number of singers is 288 — 12 x 24 Simeon (Solom. Jarchi on Gen. xlix. 7, in Godwyn't 

i Ohr. xxv. 7). Musi:i and Aaron). 



scribers and interpreters of the Law, the chroniclers 
of the tiroes in which they lived. We have some 
striking instances of their appearance in this new 
character. One of them, Ethan the Ezrahite/ tikes 
his place among the old Hebrew sages who were 
worthy to be compared with Solomon, and (1's. 
ixxxix. title) his name appears as the writer of the 
39th Psalm (1 K. iv. 31 ; 1 Chr. xv. 17). One of 
the first to bear the title of " Scribe " is a Lerite 
(1 Chr. xxiv. 6), and this is mentioned as one of 
their special offices under Josiah (2 Chr. xxxiv. 13). 
They are described as " officers and judges" under 
David (1 Chr. xxvi. 29), and as such are employed 
" in all the business of Jehovah, and in the service 
of the king." They are the agents of Jehoshaphat 
and Hezekiah in their work of reformation, and are 
sent forth to proclaim and enforce the law ( 2 Chr. 
xvii. 8, xxx. 22). Under Josiah the function has 
passed into a title, and they are " the Levites that 
taught all Israel" (2 Chr. xxxv. 3). The two 
books of Chronicles bear unmistakeable marks of 
having been written by men whose interests were 
all gathered round the services of the Temple, and 
who were familiar with its records. The materials 
from which they compiled their narratives, and to 
which they refer as the works of seers and prophets, 
were written by men who were probably Levites 
themselves, or, if not, were associated with them. 

The former subdivisions of the tribe were recog 
nised in the assignment of the new duties, and the 
Kohathites retained their old pre-eminence. They 
have four " princes" (1 Chr. xv. 5-10), while 
Merari and Gershon have but one each. They sup 
plied, from the families of the Izharites and Hebron- 
ites, the " officers and judges " of 1 Chr. xxvi. 30. 
To them belonged the sons of Korah, with Heman 
at their head (1 Chr. ix. 19), playing upon psalteries 
and harps. They were " over the work of the ser 
vice, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle" (I. c.). 
It was their work to prepare the shew-bread every 
Sabbath (1 Chr. ix. 32). The Gershonites were 
represented in like manner in the Temple-choir by 
the sons of Asaph (1 Chr. vi. 39, xv. 17) ; Merari 
by the sons of Ethan or Jeduthun (1 Chr. vi. 44, 
xvi. 42, xxv. 1-7). Now that the heavier work of 
conveying the tabernacle and its equipments from 
place to place was no longer required of them, and 
that psalmody had become the most prominent of 
their duties, they were to enter on their work at the 
earlier age of twenty (1 Chr. xxiii. 24-27). 1 

As in the old days of the Exodus, so in the 
organisation under David, the Levites were not 
included in the general census of the people (1 Chr. 
ijci. 8), and formed accordingly no portion of its 
military strength. A separate census, made appa 
rently before the change of age just mentioned 
(1 Chr. xxiii. 3), gives — 

24,000 over the work of the Temple. 
6,000 officers and judges. 
4,000 porters, i. e. gate-keepers,* and, as such, 


bearing arms (1 Chr. ix. 19 ; 2 Chr 

xxxi. 2). 

4,000 praising Jehovah with instruments. 
Tne latter number, however, must have included 
the full choruses of the Temple. The more skilleu 
musicians among the sons of Heman, Asaph, and 
Jeduthun are numbered at 288, in 24 sections of 
12 each. Here again the Kohathites are pi-ominent, 
having 14 out of the 24 sections ; while Gershon 
has 4 and Merari 8 (1 Chr. xxv. 2-4). To these 
288 were assigned apparently a more permanent 
residence in the Temple (1 Chr. ix. 33), and in 
the Tillages of the Netophathites near Bethlehem 
(1 Chr. ix. 16), mentioned long afterwards as in 
habited by the " sons of the singers" (Neh. xii. 28). 
The revolt of the ten tribes, and the policy pur 
sued by Jeroboam, led to a great change in the 
position of the Levites. They were the witnesses 
of an appointed order and of a central worship. 
He wished to make the priests the creatures and 
instruments of the king, and to establish a pro 
vincial and divided worship. The natural result 
was, that they left the cities assigned to them in 
the territory of Israel, and gathered round the me 
tropolis of Judah (2 Chr. xi. 13, 14). Their in 
fluence over the people at large was thus diminished, 
and the design of the Mosaic polity so far frus 
trated ; but their power as a religious order was 
probably increased by this concentration within 
narrower limits. In the kingdom of Judah they 
were, from this time forward, a powerful body, 
politically as well as ecclesiastically. They brought 
with them the prophetic element of influence, in 
the wider as well as in the higher meaning of the 
word. We accordingly find them prominent in 
the war of Abijah against Jeroboam (2 Chr. xiii. 
10-12). They are, as before noticed, sent out by 
Jehoshaphat to instruct and judge the people (2 Chr. 
xix. 8-10). Prophets of their order encourage the 
king in his war against Moab and Ammon, and go 
before his army with their loud Hallelujahs (2 Chr. 
xx. 21), and join afterwards in the triumph of his 
return. The apostasy that followed on the mar 
riage of Jehoram and Athaliah exposed them for a 
time to the dominance of a hostile system ; but the 
services of the Temple appear to have gone on, and 
the Levites were again conspicuous in the counter 
revolution effected by Jehoiada (2 Chr. xxiii.), and 
in restoring the Temple to its former stateliness 
under Joash (2 Chr. xxiv. 5). They shared in the 
disasters of the reign of Amaziah (2 Chr. xxv. 24), 
and in the prosperity of Uzziah, and were ready 
we may believe, to support the priests, who, as 
representing their order, opposed the sacrilegious 
usurpation of the latter king (2 Chr. xxvi. 17). 
The closing of the Temple under Ahaa involved the 
cessation at once of their work and of their privi 
leges (2 Chr. xxviii. 24). Under Hezekiah they 
again became prominent, as consecrating themselves 
to the special work of cleansing and repairing the 

* In 1 Chr. ii. 6 the four names of 1 K. iv. 31 
appear as belonging to the tribe of Judah, and in the 
third generation after Jacob. On the other hand the 
names of Heman and Ethan are prominent among 
the Levites under Solomon (infra) ; and two psalms, 
one of which belongs manifestly to a later date, are 
ascribed to them, with this title of Ezrahite attached 
(Ps. Ixxxviii. and Ixxxix.). The difficulty arises pro 
bably out of some confusion of the later and the earlier 
names. Ewald's conjecture, that conspicuous minstrels 
of other tribes were received into the choir of the 
Temple, and then reckoned as Lcvitrs, would give a 

new aspect to the influence of the tribe. (Comp. 
Poet. Bilch. i. 213 ; De Wette, Psalmen, Einleit. § iii.) 

• The change is indicated in what are described as 
the " last words of David." The king feels, in his 
old age, that a time of rest has come for himself and 
for the people, and that the Levites have a right to 
share in it. They are now the ministers — not, aa 
before, the warrior-host — of the Unseen King. 

• Ps. cxxxiv. acquires a fresh interest when we 
think of it as the song of the night-sentries of tha 


Temple (2 Chr xxix. 12-15); and the hymns of 
David and of Asaph were again renewed. In this 
.nstancc it was thought worthy of special record 
that those who were simply Levites were more 
" upright in heart " and zealous than the priests 
themselves (U Chr. xxix. 34) ; and thus, in that 
great passover, they took the place of the unwilling 
or unprepared members of the priesthood. Their 
old privileges were restored, they were put forward 
as teachers (2 Chr. xxx. 22), and the payment of 
tithes, which had probably been discontinued under 
Ahaz, was renewed (2 Chr. xxxi. 4). The gene 
alogies of the tribe were revised (ver. 17), and the 
old classification kept its ground. The reign of 
Mauasseh was for them, during the greater part of 
it, a period of depression. That of Josiah witnessed 
a fresh revival and reorganisation (2 Chr. xxxiv. 
8-13). In the great passover of his eighteenth 
year they took their place as teachers of the people, 
as well as leaders of their worship (2 Chr. xxxv. 
3, 15). Then came the Egyptian and Chaldacan 
invasions, and the rule of cowardly and apostate 
kings. The sacred tribe itself showed itself un 
faithful. The repeated protests of the priest Ezekiel 
indicate that they had shared in the idolatry of the 
people. The prominence into which they had been 
brought in the reigns of the two reforming kings 
had apparently tempted them to think that they 
might encroach permanently on the special func 
tions of the priesthood, and the sin of Korah was 
renewed (Ez. xliv. 10-14, xlviii. 11). They had, 
as the penalty of their sin, to witness the destruc 
tion of the Temple, and to taste the bitterness of exile. 
IV. After the Captivity. The position taken 
by the Levites in the first movements of the return 
from Babylon indicates that they had cherished the 
traditions and maintained the practices of their 
tribe. They, we may believe, were those who were 
specially called on to sing to their conquerors one 
of the songs of Zion (De Wette on Ps. cxxxvii.). 
Jt is noticeable, however, that in the first body of 
returning exiles they are present in a dispropor 
tionately small number (Ezr. ii. 36-42). Those 
who do come take their old parts at the foundation 
and dedication of the second Temple (Ezr. iii. 10, 
vi. 18). In the next movement under Ezra their 
reluctance (whatever may have been its origin b ) 
was even more strongly marked. None of them 
presented themselves at the first great gathering 
(Ezr. viii. 15). The special efforts of Ezra did not 
succeed in bringing together more than 38, and 
cheir place had to be filled by 220 of the Nethinim 
(ib. 20). c Those who returned with him resumed 
their functions at the Feast of Tabernacles as 
teachers and interpreters (Neh. viii. 7), and those 
who were most active in that work were foremost 
also in chanting the hymn-like prayer which appears 
in Neh. ix. as the last great effort of Jewish psalmody. 
They are recognised in the great national covenant, 
and the offerings and tithes which were their due 
are once more solemnly secured to them (Neh. x. 
37-39 ). They take their old places in the Temple 
and in the villages iioar Jerusalem (Neh. xii. 29), 
and are present in full array at the great feast of 
the Dedication of the Wall. The two prophets who 
were active at the time of the Return, Haggai and 



6 May we conjecture that the language of Kze- 
kiel had led to some jealousy between the two 
orders ? 

c There is a Jewish tradition (Surenhusius, Mi?hn&, 
lota, ix. 10) to the cftVct that, a» a punishment for 

Zechanah, if they did not belong to the tribe, 
helped it forward in the work of restoration. The 
strongest measures are .adopted by Nehemiah, as 
before by Ezra, to guard the purity of their blood 
from the contamination of mixed marriages (Ezr. \. 
23) ; and they are made the special guardians of 
the holiness of the Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 22). The 
last prophet of the 0. T. sees, as part of his vision 
of the latter days, the time when the Lord " shall 
purify the sons of Levi " (Mai. iii. 3). 

The guidance of the 0. T. fails us at this point, 
and the history of the Levites in relation to the 
national life becomes consequently a matter of in 
ference and conjecture. The synagogue worship, 
then originated, or receiving a new development, 
was organised irrespectively of them [SYNAGOGUE], 
and thus throughout the whole of Palestine there 
were means of instruction in the Law with which 
they were not connected. This would tend na 
turally to diminish their peculiar claim on the 
reverence of the people ; but where a priest or 
Levite was present in the synagogue they were 
still entitled to some kind of precedence, and special 
sections in the leseons for the day were assigned 
to them (Lightfoot, Hor. Hcb. on Matt. iv. 23). 
During the period that followed the Captivity they 
contributed to the formation of the so-called Great 
Synagogue. They, with the priests, theoretically 
constituted and practically formed the majority of 
the permanent Sanhedrim (Maimonides in Lightfoot, 
Hor. Heb. on Matt. xxvi. 3), and as such had a large 
share in the administration of justice even in capital 
cases. In the characteristic feature of this period, 
as an age of scribes succeeding to an age of prophets, 
they too were likely to be sharers. The training 
and previous history of the tribe would predispose 
them to attach themselves to the new system as 
they had done to the old. They accordingly may 
have been among the scribes and elders who accu 
mulated traditions. They may have attached them 
selves to the sects of Pharisees and Sadducees. 1 ' 
But in proportion as they thus acquired fame and 
reputation individually, their functions as Levites 
became subordinate, and they were known simply 
as the inferior ministers of the Temple. They take 
no prominent part in the Maccabaean struggles, 
though they must have been present at the great 
purification of the Temple. 

They appear but seldom in the history of the N. T. 
Where we meet with their names it is as the type of 
a formal heartless worship, without sympathy and 
without love (Luke x. 32). The same parable in 
dicates Jericho as having become — what it had not 
been originally (see Josh, xxi., 1 Chr. vi.) — one of the 
great stations at which they and the priests resided 
(Lightfoot, Cent. Chorograph. c. 47) In John i. 
19 they appear as delegates of the Jews, that is of 
the Sanhedrim, coming to inquire into the cre 
dentials of the Baptist, and giving utterance to 
their own Messianic expectations. The mention of 
a Levite of Cyprus in Acts iv. 36 shows that the 
changes of the previous century had carried that 
tribe also into " the dispe/sed among the Gentiles." 
The conversion of Barnabas and Mark was probably 
no solitary instance of the reception by them of the 
new faith, which was the fulfilment of the old. 

this backwardness, Ezra deprived them of their tithes, 
and transferred the right to the priests. 

d The life of Josephus may be taken as an example 
of the education of the higher members of the order 
(Jos. Vita, c. i.). 



If " a great company of the priests were obedient 
to the faith" (Acts vi. 7), it is not too bold 
to believe that their influence may have led Levites 
to follow their example ; and thus the old psalms, 
and possibly also the old chants of the Temple- 
service, might be transmitted through the agency 
of those who had been specially trained in them, 
to be the inheritance of the Christian Church. 
Later on in the history of the first century, when 
the Temple had received its final completion under 
the younger Agrippa, we find one section of the tribe 
engaged in a new movement. With that strange 
unconsciousness of a coming doom which so often 
marks the last stage of a decaying system, the singers 
of th<> Temple thought it a fitting time to apply 
tor the right of wearing the same linen garment as 
the priests, and persuaded the king that the con 
cession of this privilege would be the glory of his 
reign (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, §6). The other Levites 
at the same time asked for and obtained the privi 
lege of joining in the Temple choruses, from which 
hitherto they had been excluded." The destruction 
of the Temple so soon after they had attained the 
object of their desires came as with a grim irony 
to sweep away their occupation, and so to deprive 
them of every vestige of that which had distin 
guished them from other Israelites. They were 
merged in the crowd of captives that were scattered 
over the Roman world, and disappear from the 
stage of history. The Rabbinic schools, that rose 
out of the ruins of the Jewish polity, fostered a 
studied and habitual depreciation of the Levite 
order as compared with their own teachers (M'Caul, 
Old Paths, p. 435). Individual families, it may 
be, cherished the tradition that their fathers, as 
priests or Levites, had taken part in the services 
of the Temple.' If their claims were recognised, 
they received the old marks of reverence in the 
worship of the synagogue (comp. the Regulations 
of the Great Synagogue of London, in Margoliouth's 
History of Jews in Great Britain, iii. 270), took 
precedence in reading the lessons of the day (Light- 
foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. iv. 23), and pronounced 
the blessing at the close (Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, 
vi. 790). Their existence was acknowledged in 
some of the laws of the Christian emperors (Basnage, 
/. c.). The tenacity with which the exiled race 
clung to these recollections is shown in the pre 
valence of the names (Cohen, and Levita or Levy) 
which imply that those who bear them are of the sons 
of Aaron or the tribe of Levi \ and in the custom 
which exempts the first-bora cf priestly or Levite 
families from the payments which are still offered, 
in the case of others, as the redemption of the 
first-bora (Leo of Modena, in Picart's Ceremonies 
Religieuses, i. 26 ; Allen's Modern Judaism, p. 297). 
In the meantime the old name had acquired a new 
signification. The early writers of the Christian 
Church applied to the later hierarchy the language 
of the earlier, and gave to the bishops and pres 
byters the title (icpe?r) that had belonged to the 
sons of Aaron ; while the deacons were habitually 
spoken of as Levites (Suicer, Thes. s. v. Aeuir»js).f 
The extinction or absorption of a tribe which had 

• The tone of Josephus is noticeable as being that 
01 .1 man who looked on the change as a dangerous 
innovation. As a priest, he saw in this movement of 
the Levites an intrusion on the privileges of his 
order ; and this was, in his judgment, one of the sins 
which brought on the destruction of the city and ttte 

' Dr. Joseph Wolff, in his recent Trnrcli and 


home so prominent a part in the history of Israel, 
was, like other such changes, an instance of the 
order in which the shadow is succeeded by the 
substance — that which is decayed, is waxing old 
and ready to vanish away, by a new and more 
living organisation. It had done its work, and it 
had lost its life. It was bound up with a localised 
and exclusive worship, and had no place to occupy 
in that which was universal. In the Christian- 
Church — supposing, by any effort of imagination, 
that it had had a recognised existence in it — it would 
have been simply an impediment. Looking at the 
long history of which the outline has been here 
traced, we find in it the light and darkness, the 
good and evil, which mingle in the character of 
most corporate or caste societies. On the one hand, 
the Levites, as a tribe, tended to fall into a formal 
worship, a narrow and exclusive exaltation of them 
selves and of their country. On the other hand, 
we must not forget that they were chosen, together 
with the priesthood, to bear witness of great truths 
which might otherwise have perished from remem 
brance, and that they bore it well through a long 
succession of centuries. To members of this tribe 
we owe many separate books of the 0. T., and pro 
bably also in great measure the preservation of the 
whole. The hymns which they sung, in part pro 
bably the music of which they were the originators, 
have been pei-petuated in the worship of the Christian 
Church. In the company of prophets who have 
left behind them no written records they appear 
conspicuous, united by common work and common 
interests with the prophetic order. They did their 
work as a national clerisy, instruments in raising 
the people to a higher life, educating them in the 
knowledge on which all order and civilization 
rest. It is not often, in the history of the world, 
that a religious caste or order has passed away 
with more claims to the respect and gratitude of 
mankind than the tribe of Levi. 

(On the subject generally may be consulted, in 
addition to the authorities already quoted, Carpzov, 
Appar. Grit. b. i. c. 5, and Annotat. ; Saalschiitz, 
Archdol. der Hebr. c. 78; Michaelis, Comm. on 
Laws of Moses, i. art. 52.) [E. H. P.] 

LEVITICUS (JOj??l), the first word in the 
book giving it its name : AtviriK6v : Leviticus • 
called also by the later Jews D'OH'S ITl'lP), " Law 
of the priests ;" and lYUS^ f\~f\P\, " Law of 

CONTENTS. — The Book consists of the following 
principal sections: — 

I. The laws touching sacrifices (chap, i.-rii.). 

II. An historical section containing, first, tnc 
consecration of Aaron and his sons (chap, yiii.), 
next, his first offering for himself and the peopltj 
(chap, ix.) ; and lastly, the destruction of Nadao 
and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, for their presump 
tuous offence (chap. x.). 

III. The laws concerning purity and impurity, 
and the appropriate sacrifices and ordinances ibr 
putting away impurity (chap, xi.-xvi.). 

Adventures (p. 2), claims his descent from thii 

* In the literature of a later period the same name 
meets us applied to the same or nearly the same order, 
no langor, however, as the language of reverence, but 
as that of a cynical contempt for the less worthy per- 
tion of the ciergy of the English Church (Macaulay. 
Hist, of England, iii. 327). 


IV. Laws chiefly intended to mark the separation 
between Israel and the heathen nations (chap. 

V. Laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii.) ; and 
certain holy days and festivals (xxiii., xxv.), to 
gether with an episode (xxiv.). The section extends 
from chap. xxi. 1 to xxvi. 2. 

VI. Promises and threats (xxvi. 2-46). 

VII. An appendix containing the laws concerning 
rows (xxvii.). 

I. The book of Exodus concludes with the account 
of the completion of the tabernacle. " So Moses 
finished the work," we read (xl. 33) : and imme 
diately there rests upon it a cloud, and it is filled 
with the glory of Jehovah. From the tabernacle, 
thus rendered glorious by the Divine Presence, 
issues the legislation contained in the book of Levi 
ticus. At first God spake to the people out of the 
thunder and lightning of Sinai, and gave them His 
holy commandments by the hand of a mediator. 
But henceforth His Presence is to dwell not on the 
secret top of Sinai, but in the midst of His people, 
both in their wanderings through the wilderness, 
and afterwards in the Land of Promise. Hence 
tha first directions which Moses receives after the 
work is finished have reference to the offerings 
which were to be brought to the door of the taber 
nacle. As Jehovah draws near to the people in 
the tabernacle, so the people draw near to Jehovah 
in the offering. Without offerings none may ap 
proach Him. The regulations respecting the sacri 
fices fall into three groups, and each of these groups 
again consists of a decalogue of instructions. Ber 
theau has observed that this principle runs through 
ail the laws of Moses. They are all modelled after 
the pattern of the ten commandments, so that each 
distinct subject of legislation is always treated of 
under ten several enactments or provisions. 

Bhumgarten in his Commentary on the Penta 
teuch, has adopted the arrangement of Bertheau, 
as set forth in his Sicbcn Gruppen des Mos. Redds. 
On the whole, his principle seems sound. We find 
Bunsen acknowledging it in part, in his division of 
the 19th chanter (see below). And though we 
cannot always agree with Bertheau, we have thought 
it worth while to give his arrangement as sug 
gestive at least of the main structure of the Book. 

1. The first group of regulations (chap, i.-iii.) 
deals with three kinds of offerings: the burnt-offer 
ing (i17'iy), the meat-offering* (Hnj»), and the 
thank-offering (D'O^B* POT). 

i. The burnt-offering (chap, i.) in three sections. It 
might be either ( I.) a male without blemish from the 
herd* ("l£2n JO), ver. 3-9 ; or (2) a male without 
blemish from tiieflocki, or lesser cattle ( J'S-SH), ver. 
10-13; or (9) it might be fowls, an offering of 
turtle-doves or young pigeons, ver. 14-17. The 
subdivisions are here marked clearly enough, not 
only by the the three hinds of sacrifice, but also by 
the form in which the enactment is put. Each 
begins with IJlIp ---- DN, " If his offering," &<:., 
and each ends with Hirpb Him 



" an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto 

The next group (chap, ii.) presents many more 
difficulties. Its parts are not so clearly marked 
either by prominent features in the subject-matter, 

» " Meat " is used by our translators in the sense of food 
of any kind, whether flesh o farinaceous. 

or by the more technical boundaries ot certain initial 
and final phrases. We have here — 

ii. The meat-offering, or bloodless offering in four 
sections: (1) in its uncooked form, consisting of 
fine flour with oil and frankincense, ver. 1-3 ; 
(2) in its cooked form, of which three different 
kinds are specified — baked in the oven, fried, or 
boiled, ver. 4-10 ; (3) the prohibition of leaven, 
and the direction to use salt in all the meat-offer 
ings, 11-13 ; (4) the obktion of first-fruits, 14-16. 
This at least seems on the whole to be the best 
arrangement of the group, though we offer it with 
some hesitation. 

(a.) Bertheau's arrangement is different. He 
divides (1) ver. 1-4 (thus including the meat 
offering baked in the oven with the uncooked offer- 
in g > C 2 ) ver - 5 a 11 ' 1 c > the meat-offering when tried 
in the pan ; (3) ver. 7-13, the meat-offering when 
boiled ; (4) ver. 14-16, the offering of the first- 
fruits. But this is obviously open to many objec 
tions. For, first, it is exceedingly arbitrary to con 
nect ver. 4 with ver. 1-3, rather than with the 
verses which follow. Why should the meat-offering 
baked in the oven be classed with the uncooked 
meat-offering rather than with the other two which 
were in different ways supposed to be dressed with 
fire? Next, two of the divisions of the chapter are 
clearly marked by the recurrence of the formula, 
" It is a thing most holy of the offerings of Jehovah 
made by fire," ver. 3 and 10. Lastly, the direc 
tions in ver. 11-13, apply to every form of meat 
offering, not only to that immediately preceding. 
The Masoretic arrangement is in five sections : vers. 
1-3; 4; 5, 6 ; 7-13; 14-16. 

iii. The Shelamim — " peace-offering " (A. V.), or 
" thank-offering " (Ewald), (chap, iii.) in three sec 
tions. Strictly speaking this falls under two heads : 
first, when it is of the herd; and secondly, when it is 
of the flock. But this last has again its subdivision ; 
for the offering when of the flock may be either a lamb 
or a goat. Accordingly the three sections are, vers. 
1-5; 7-11; 12-16. Ver. 6 is merely introduc 
tory to the second class of sacrifices, and ver. 
17 a general conclusion, as in the case of other 
laws. This concludes the first Decalogue of the 

2. Chap, jv., v. The laws concerning the sin- 
offering and the trepass- (or guilt-) offering. 

The sin-offering (chap, iv.) is treated of under four 
specified cases, after a short introduction to the 
whole in ver. 1, 2: (1) the sin-offering for the 
priest, 3-12 ; (2) for the whole congregation, 13- 
21 ; (3) for a ruler, 22-26 ; (4) for one of the 
common people, 27-35. 

After these four cases in which the offering is to 
be made for four different classes, there follow pro 
visions respecting three several kinds of transgres 
sion for which atonement must be made. It is not 
quite clear whether these should be ranked under 
the head of the sin-offering or of the trespass-offer 
ing (see Winer, Ewb.). We may however follow 
Bertheau, Baumgarten, and Knobel, in regarding 
them as special instances in which a sm-offering 
was to be brought. The three cases are: first, 
when any one hears a curse and conceals what h- 
hears (v. 1) ; secondly, when any one touches with 
out knowing or intending it, any unclean thing 
(vers. 2, 3) ; lastly, when any one takes an oath 
inconsiderately (ver. 4). For each of these cases 
the same trespass-offering, " a female from the flock, 
a lamb or kid of the goats," is appointed ; but with 
that mercifulness which characterises the Mosaic lav/ 



sxpress provision is made for a less costly offering 
where the offerer is poor. 

The Decalogue is then completed by the three 
regulations respecting the guilt-offering (or trespass- 
oflering) : first, when any one sins " through igno 
rance in the holy things of Jehovah" (ver. 14, 
16) ; next, when a person without knowing it 
" commits any of these things which are forbidden 
to be done by the commandments of Jehovah " 
(17-19) ; lastly, when a man lies and swears falsely 
concerning that which was entrusted to him, &c. 
(ver. 20-26).* This Decalogue, like the preceding 
one, has its characteristic words and expressions. 
The prominent word which introduces so many of 
the enactments, is fc?E>3, " soul " (see iv. 2, 27, v. 
1, 2, 4, 15, 17, vi. 2) ; and the phrase, "if a soul 
shall sin " (iv. 2) is, with occasional variations 
having an equivalent meaning, the distinctive phrase 
of the section. 

As in the former Decalogue, the nature of the offer 
ings, so in this the person and the nature of the 
ofi'ence are the chief features in the several statutes. 

3. Chap, vi., vii. Naturally upon the law of 
sacrifices follows the law of the priests' duties when 
they offer the sacrifices. Hence we find Moses di 
rected to address himself immediately to Aaron and 
his sons (vi. 2, 18, = vi. 9, 25, A. V.). 

In this group the different kinds of offerings are 
named in nearly the same order as in the two pre 
ceding Decalogues, except that the offering at the 
consecration of a priest follows, instead of the thank- 
offering, immediately after the meat-offering, which 
it resembles ; and the thank-offering now appears 
after the trespass-offering. There are therefore, in 
all, six kinds of offering, and in the case of each of 
these the priest has his distinct duties. Bertheau 
has very ingeniously so distributed the enactments 
in which these duties are prescribed as to arrange 
them all in five Decalogues. We will briefly indi 
cate his arrangement. 

3. (a.) " This is the law of the burnt>offering " 
(vi. 9 ; A. V.) in five enactments, each verse (ver. 
9-13) containing a separate enactment. 

(6.) " And this is the law of the meat-offering" 
(ver. 14), again in five enactments, each of which is, 
as before, contained in a single verse (ver. 14-18). 

4. The next Decalogue is contained in ver. 19-30. 
(a.) Verse 19 is merely introductory ; then follow, 

in five verses, five distinct directions with regard 
to the offering at the time of the consecration of 
the priests, the first in ver. 20, the next two in 
ver. 21, the fourth in the former part of ver. 22, 
and the last in the latter pail of ver. 22 and ver. 23. 
(6.) " This is the law of the sin-offering " (ver. 
25). Then the five enactments, each in one verse, ex 
cept that two verses (27, 28) are given to the third. 

5. The third Decalogue is contained in chap. vii. 
1-10, the laws of the trespass-offering. But it is 
impossible to avoid a misgiving as to the soundness 
of Bertheau's system when we find him making the 
words " It is most holy," in ver. 1 , the first of the 
ten enactments. This he is obliged to do, as ver. 
3 and 4 evidently form but one. 

6. The fourth Decalogue, after an introductory 
verse (ver. 11), is contained in ten verses (12-21). 

7. The last Decalogue consists of cei-tain general 
laws about the fat, the blood, the wave-breast, &c., 
diid is comprised again in ten verses (23-33), the 
verses as before marking the divisions. 

• In the English Version this is chap. vi. 1-7. 
This U only one of those ins'lances in which the 


The chapter doses with a brief /nsUrical notice 
of the fact that these several commands were given 
to Moses on Mount Sinai (ver. 35-38). 

II. Chap, viii., ix., x. Thif section is entirely 
historical. In chapter viii. we have the account 
of the consecration of Aaron and his sons by Moses 
before the whole congregation. They are washed ; 
he is arrayed in the priestly vestments and anointed 
with the holy oil ; his sons also are arrayed in their 
garments, and the various offerings appointed are 
offered. In chap. ix. Aaron offers, eight days after his 
consecration, his first offering for himself and the 
people: this comprises for himself a sin- and burnt- 
offering (1-14), for the people a sin-offering, a 
burnt^offering, and a peace- (or thank-) offering. He 
blesses the people, and fire comes down from heaven 
and consumes the burnt-offering. Chap. x. tells 
how Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, eager to 
enjoy the privileges of their new office, and perhaps 
too much elated by its dignity, forgot or despised 
the restrictions by which it was fenced round (Ex. 
xxx. 7, &c.), and daring to " offer strange fire before 
Jehovah," perished because of their presumption. 

With the house of Aaron began this wickedness 
in the sanctuary ; with them therefore began also 
the divine punishment. Veiy touching is the story 
which follows. Aaron, though forbidden to mourn 
his loss (ver. 6, 7), will not eat the sin-offering 
in the holy place; and when rebuked by Moses, 
pleads in his defence, " Such things have befallen 
me: and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, 
should it have been accepted in the sight of Je 
hovah ?" And Moses, the lawgiver and the judg?, 
admits the plea, and honours the natural feeling it 
the father's heart, even when it leads to a violation 
of the letter of the divine commandment. 

III. Chap, xi.-xvi. The first seven Decalogues 
had reference to the putting away of guilt. By the 
appointed sacrifices the separation between man and 
God was healed. The next seven concern them 
selves with the putting away of impurity. That 
chapter xi.-xv. hang together so as to form one 
series of laws there can be no doubt. Besides that 
they treat of kindred subjects, they have their cha 
racteristic words, NOB. i"IKDt3> " unclean," 
" uncleanness," "Tli"lt3. ">i"lt3> " clean," which 
occur in almost every verse. The only ques 
tion is about chap, xvi., which by its opening is 
connected immediately with the occurrence related 
in chap. x. Historically it would seem therefore 
that chap. xvi. ought to have followed chap. x. 
And as this order is neglected, it would lead us to 
suspect that some other principle of arrangement 
than that of historical sequence has been adopted. 
This we find in the solemn significance of the Great 
Day of Atonement. The high-priest on that day 
made atonement, " because of the uncleanness of 
the children of Israel, and because of then ur.ns- 
gressions in all their sins" (xvi. 16), and he " re 
conciled the holy place and the tabernacle of the 
congregation, and the altar " (ver. 20). Delivered 
from their guilt and cleansed from their pollutions, 
from that day forward the children of Israel entered 
upon a new and holy life. This was typified both 
by the ordinance that the bullock and the goat for 
the sin-oHering were burnt without the camp (ver. 
27), and also by the sending away of the goat, laden 
with the iniquities of the people into the wilderness. 
Hence chap. xvi. seems to stand most fitly at tlit 
end of this second group of seven Decalogues. 

reader marvels at the perversity ilispbyed iu thf 
divisicn ol chapters. 


It has reference, we believe, rot only (as Ber 
theau supposes) to tlie putting away, as by one 
Mleimi r.ct, of all those unclean nesses mentioned in 
chap, xi.-xv., and for which the various expiations 
and cleansings there appointed were temporary and 
insufficient; but also to tne making atonement, in 
the sense of hiding sin or putting away its guilt. 
For not only do we find the idea of cleansing as 
from defilement, but far more prominently the idea 
of reconciliation. The often-repeated word ^Q3, " to 
cover, to atone," is the great word of the section. 

1. The first Decalogue in this group refers to 
clean and unclean flesh. Five classes of animals 
arc pronounced unclean. The first four enactments 
declare what animals may and may not be eaten, 
whether ( 1 ) beasts of the earth (2-8), or (2) fishes 
(9-12), or (3) birds (13-20), or (4) creeping 
things with wings. The next four are intended to 
guard against pollution by contact with the carcase 
of any of these animals : (5) ver. 24-26 ; (6) ver. 
27, 28 ; ( 7) ver. 29-38 ; (8) ver. 39, 40. The ninth 
and tenth specify the last class of animals which are 
unclean for food, (9) 41, 42, and forbid any other 
kind of pollution by means of them, (10) 43-45. 
Ver. 46 and 47 are merely a concluding summary. 

2. Chap. xii. Women's purification in childbed. 
The whole of this chapter, according to Bertheau, 
constitutes the first law of this Decalogue. The 
remaining nine are to be found in the next chapter, 
which treats of the signs of leprosy in man and in 
garments. (2) ver. 1-8 ; (3) ver. 9-17 ; (4) ver. 
18-23 ; (5) ver. 24-28 ; (6) ver. 29-37 ; (7) ver. 
38, 39 ; (8) ver. 40, 41 ; (9) ver. 42-46 ; (10) 
ver. 47-59. This arrangement of the several sec 
tions is not altogether free from objection ; but it is 
certainly supported by the characteristic mode in 
which each section opens. Thus for instance, chap.- 

xii. 2, begins with V'HTn ^3 ilB>N ; chap. xiii. 2, 
with rV.T »3 D*JK, ver. 9, (TnTl *3 Hjm yjU, 
and so on, the same order being always observed, 
the subst. being placed first, then *3, and then the 
verb, except only in ver. 42, where the subst. is 
placed after the verb. 

3. Chap. xiv. 1-32. " The law of the leper in 
the day of his cleansing," i. e. the law which the 
priest is to observe in purifying the leper. The 
priest is mentioned in ten verses, each of which 
begins one of the ten sections of this law : ver. 3, 
4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20. In each instance 
the word jnbn is preceded by 1 consecut. with the 
perfect. It is true that in ver. 3, and also in ver. 
14, the word JHSn occurs twice ; but in both 

verses there is MS. authority, as well as that of 
the Vulg. and Arab, versions for the absence of the 
second. Verses 21-32 may be regarded as a sup 
plemental provision in cases where the leper is too 
poor to bring the required offering. 

4. Chap. xiv. 33-57. The leprosy in a house. 
It is not so easy here to trace the arrangement no 
ticed in so many other laws. There are no charac- 

eristic words or phrases to guide us. Bertheau's 
division is as follows: ( I ) ver. 34, 35 ; (2) ver. 
36, 37 ; (3) ver. 38 ; (4) ver. 39 ; (5) ver. 40 ; 
(6) ver. 41, 42 ; (7) ver. 43-45. Then as usual 
follows a short summary which closes the statute 
roncerning leprosy, ver. 54-57. 

5. Chap. xv. 1-15. 6. Chap. xv. 16-31. The 
law of uneleanness by issue, &c., in two decalogues. 
The division is clearly marked, as Bertheau ob- 



serves, by the form of cleansing, which is so exactly 
similar in the two principal cases, and which closes 
each series, (1) ver. 13-15; (2) ver. 28-30. W t 
again give his arrangement, though we do not profess 
to regard it as in all respects satisfactory. 

6. (1) ver. 2, 3 ; (2) ver. 4 ; (3) ver. 5 ; (4} 
ver. 6; (5) ver. 7; (6) ver. 8 ; (7) ver. 9 ; (8) 
ver. 10 ; (9) ver. 11,12 ; — these Bertheau considers 
as one enactment, because it is another way of say 
ing that either the man or thing which the unclean 
pei-son touches is unclean ; but on the same prin 
ciple ver. 4 and 5 might just as well form one 
enactment— (10) v. 13-15. 

6. (1) ver. 16; (2) -er. 17 ; (3) ver. 18 ; (4) 
ver. 19 ; (5) ver. 20 ; (6) ver. 21 ; (7) ver. 22 ; 
(8) ver. 23; (9) ver. 24: (10) ver. 28-30. In 
order to complete this arrangement, he considers 
verses 25-27 as a kind of supplementary enactment 
provided for an irregular uneleanness, leaving it as 
quite uncertain however whether this was a later 
addition or not. Verses 32 and 33 form merely 
the same general conclusion which we have had 
before in xiv. 54-57. 

The last Decalogue of the second group of seven 
Decalogues is to be found in chap, xvi., which treats 
of the great Day of Atonement. The Law itself is 
contained in ver. 1-28. The remaining verses. 
29-34, consist of an exhortation to its careful ob 
servance. In the act of atonement three persons 
are concerned. The high-priest, — in this instance 
Aaron ; the man who leads away the goat for Azazel 
into the wilderness ; and he who burns the skin, 
flesh, and dung of the bullock and goat of the sin- 
offering without the camp. The two last have 
special purifications assigned them ; the first because 
he has touched the goat laden with the guilt of 
Israel ; the last because he has come in contact 
with the sin-offering. The 9th and 10th enactments 
prescribe what these purifications are, each of them 
concluding with the same formula : N13* }3 '111^. 
nJHftn ?R, and hence distinguished from each 

other. The duties of Aaron consequently ought, if 
the division into decads is correct, to be com 
prised in eight enactments. Now the name of 
Aaron is repeated eight times, and in six of these 
it is preceded by the Perfect with 1 consecut. as 
we observed was the case before when " the priest " 
was the prominent figure. According to this then 
the Decalogue will stand thus: — (1) ver. 2, Aaron 
not to enter the Holy Place at all times ; (2) ver. 
3-5, With what sacrifices and in what dress Aaron 
is to enter the Holy Place; (3) ver. 6, 7, Aaron 
to offer the bullock tor himself, and to set the two 
goats before Jehovah ; (4) Aaron to cast lots on 
the two goats ; (5) ver. 9,10, Aaron to offer the 
goat on which the lot falls for Jehovah, and to 
send away the goat for Azazel into the wilderness , 
(6) ver. 11-19, Aaron to sprinkle the blood both 
of the bullock and of the goat to make atonement 
for himself, for his house, and for the whole congre 
gation, as also to purify the altar of incense with 
the blood ; (7) ver. 20-22, Aaron to lay his hands 
on the living goat, and confess over it all the sins of 
the children of Israel; (8) ver. 23-25, Aaron aftei 
this to take off his linen garments, bathe himself 
and put on his priestly garments, and then offer nis 
burnt-offering and that of the congregation ; (9) ver. 
26, The man by whom the goat is sent into the 
wilderness to purify himself; (10) ver. 27, 28, 
What is to be done by him who burns the sin- 
offering without the camp. 



We have now reached the great central point of 
the book. All going before was but a preparation 
for this. Two great truths have been established ; 
first, that God cm only be approached by means of 
\ppointed sacrifices ; next, that mail in nature and 
life is full of pollution, which must be cleansed. 
And now a third is taught, viz. that not by several 
cleansings for several sins and pollutions can guilt 
be put away. The several acts of sin are but so 
many manifestations of the sinful nature. For this, 
therefore, also must atonement be made; one solemn 
act, which shall cover all transgressions, and turn 
away God's righteous displeasure from Israel. 

IV. Chap, xvii.-xx. And now Israel is reminded 
that it is the holy nation. The great atonement 
offered, it is to enter upon a new life. It is a 
separate nation, sanctified and set apart for the ser 
vice of God. It may not therefore do after the 
abominations of the heathen by whom it is sur 
rounded. Here consequently we find those laws 
and ordinances which especially distinguish the 
nation of Israel from all other nations of the earth. 

Here again we may trace, as before, a group of 
seven decalogues. But the several decalogues are 
not so clearly marked ; nor are the characteristic 
phrases and the introductions and conclusions so 
common. In chap, xviii. there are twenty enact 
ments, and in chap. xix. thirty. In chap, xvii., on 
the other hand, there are only six, and in chap. xx. 
there are fourteen. As it is quite manifest that the 
enactments in chap, xviii. are entirely separated by 
a fresh introduction from those in chap., xvii., Ber- 
Iheau, in order to preserve the usual arrangement 
of the laws in decalogues, would transpose this 
chapter, and place it after chapter xix. He observes, 
that the Jaws in chap, xvii., and those in chap. xx. 
1-9, are akin to one another, and may very well 
constitute a single decalogue ; and, what is of more 
importance, that the words in xviii. 1-5 form the 
natural introduction to this whole group of laws : 
" And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak 
unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I 
am Jehovah your God. After the doings of the 
land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do : 
and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither 
I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk 
in their ordinances," &c. 

There is, however, a point of connexion between 
chaps, xvii. and xviii. which must not be over 
looked, anil which seems to indicate that their posi 
tion in our present text is the right one. All the 
six enactments in chap. xvii. (ver. 3-5, ver. 6, 7, 
ver. 8, 9, ver. 10-12, ver. 13, 14, ver. 15) bear 
upon the nature and meaning of the sacrifice to Je 
hovah as compared with the sacrifices offered to false 
gods. It would seem too that it was necessary to 
guard against any license to idolatrous practices, 


which might possibly be drawn from the sending ol 
the goat for Axaxel into the wilderness [ATONK 
MENT, DAV OF], especially perhaps against the 
Egyptian custom of appeasing the Evil Spirit of the 
wilderness and averting his malice (Hengstenberg, 
Mose «. Acgi/pten, 178; Movers, Pkonizier, i. 
369). To this there may be an allusion in ver. 7. 
Perhaps however it is better and more simple to 
regard the enactments in these two chapters (with 
Bunsen, Sibelwerk, 2te abth., Ite th. p. 245) as 
directed against two prevalent heathen practices, 
the eating of blood and fornication. It is remark 
able, as showing how intimately moral and ritual 
observances were blended together in the Jewish 
mind, that abstinence " from blood and- things 
strangled, and fornication," was laid down by the 
Apostles as the only condition of communion to be 
required of Gentile converts to Christianity. Before 
we quit this chapter one observation may be made. 
The rendering of the A. V. in ver. 11, "for it is 
the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul " 
should be " for it is the blood that maketh an atone 
ment by means of the life." This is important. It 
is not blood merely as such, but blood as having in it 
the principle of life that God accepts in sacrifice. For 
by thus giving vicariously the life of thedumb animal, 
the sinner confesses that his own life is forfeit. 

In chap, xviii., after the introduction to which we 
have already alluded, ver. 1-5, — and in which God 
claims obedience on the double ground that He is Is 
rael's God, and that to keep His commandments is life 
(ver. 5), — there follow twenty enactments concern 
ing unlawful marriages and unnatural lusts. The 
first ten are contained one in each verse, vers. 6-15. 
The next ten range themselves in like manner with 
the verses, except that ver. 17 and 23 contain each 
two. b Of the twenty the first fourteen are alike 

in form, as well as in the repeated n?3n ' 

Chap. xix. Three Decalogues, introduced by the 
words, " Ye shall be holy, for I Jehovah your God 
am holy," and ending with, " Ye shall observe all 
my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them. 
I am Jehovah." The laws here are of a very mixed 
character, and many of them a repetition merely of 
previous laws. Of the three Decalogues, the first 
is comprised in ver. 3-13, and may be thus distri 
buted: — (1) ver. 3, to honour father and mother; 
(2) ver. 3, to keep the sabbath ; (3) ver. 4, not to 
turn to idols ; (4) ver. 4, not to make molten gods 
(these two enactments being separated on the same 
principle as the first and second commandments of 
the Great Decalogue or Two Tables) ; (5) ver. 5-8, 
of thank-offerings ; (6) ver. 9, 10, of gleaning; (7) 
ver. 11, not to steal or lie ; (8) ver. 12, not to swear 
falsely ; (9) ver. 13, not to defraud one's neighbour • 
(10) ver. 13, the wages of him that is hired, &c. e 

b The interpretation of ver. 18 has of late been the 
subject of so much discussion, that we may perhaps 
be permitted to say a word upon it, even in a work 
which excludes all dogmatic controversy. The ren 
dering of the English Version is supported by a whole 
catena of authorities of the first rank, as may be 
seen by reference to Dr. M 'Caul's pamphlet, The An 
cient Interpretation of Leviticus X.VIII. 18, &c. Wt 
maj further remark, that the whole controversy, so 
far as the Scriptural question is concerned, might 
have been avoided if the Church had but acted in the 
gpirit of Luther's golden words : — " Ad rem veniamus 
et dionmus Moscm esre mortuum, vixisse autem po- 
pulo Judaico, nee obligari nos legibus illius. Ideo 
ex Mo«e ut legislatore nisi idem ex legibu* 

nostris, e. g. naturalibus et politicis probetur, non ad- 
mittamns nee confundamus totius orbis politias." — 
Sriefe, De Wette's edit. iv. 305. 

* It is not a little remarkable that six of these 
enactments should only be repetitions, for the most 
part in a shorter form, of Commandments contained 
in the Two Tables. This can only be accounted for 
by remembering the great object of this section, 
which is to remind Israel that it is a separate nation, 
its ' iws being expressly framed to be a fence and a 
hedge about it, keeping it from profane contact with 
the heathen. Bunsen divides chapter xix. into two 
tables of ten commandments each, and one of flvo. 
(See his Bibelu'ftk.) 


The next Decalogue, ver. 14-25, Berth<>au ar 
ranges <tiu.* • "?v 14, ver. 15, ver. 16a, ver. 166, 
ver. 17, ver. 18, vet. 19a, ver. 196, ver. 20-22, 
ver 23-25. We object, however, to making the 
words iu 19a, " Ye shall keep my statutes," a se 
parate enactment. There is no reason for this. A much 
better plan would be to consider ver. 17 as consist 
ing of two enactments, which is manifestly the case. 

The third decalogue may be thus distributed : — 
ver. 26a, ver. 266, ver. 27, ver. 28, ver. 29, ver. 
'.50, ver. 31, ver. 32, ver. 33, 34, ver. 35, 36. 

We have thus found five decalogues in this group. 
Bertheau completes the number seven by transpos 
ing, as we have seen, chap, xvii., and placing it 
immediately before chap. xx. He also transfers 
ver. 27 of chapter xx. to what he considers its 
proper place, viz. after ver. 6. It must be con 
fessed that the enactment in ver. 27 stands very 
awkwardly at the end of the chapter, completely 
isolated as it is from all other enactments ; for ver. 
'22-26 are the natural conclusion to this whole 
section. But admitting this, another difficulty re 
mains, that according to him the 7th decalogue be 
gins at ver. 10, and another transposition is neces 
sary, so that ver. 7, 8, may stand after ver. 9, and 
so conclude the preceding series of ten enactments. 
It is better perhaps to abandon the search for com 
plete symmetry than to adopt a method so violent 
in order to obtain it. 

It should be observed that chap, xviii. 6-23 and 
chap. xx. 10-21 stand in this relation to one an 
other ; that the latter declares the penalties attached 
to the transgression of many of the commandments 
given in the former. But though we may not be 
able to trace seven decalogues, in accordance with 
the theory of which we have been speaking, in 
chap, xvii.-xx., there can be no doubt that they 
form a distinct section of themselves, of which 
xx. 22-26 is the proper conclusion. 

Like the other sections it has some characteristic 
expressions : — (a) " Ye shall keep my judgments 

and my statutes" (TIpPI, l| t3BB'D) occurs xviii. 4, 

5, 26, xix. 37, xx. 8, 22, but is not met with either 
in the preceding or the following chapters. (6) Th< 
constantly recurring phrases, " I am Jehovah ;' 
" I am Jehovah your God ;" " Be ye holy, for ] 
am holy ;" " I am Jehovah which hallow you.' 
In the earlier sections this phraseology is only 
found in Lev. xi. 44, 45, and Ex. xxxi. 13. In the 
section which follows (xxi.-xxv.) it is much mon 
common, this section being in a great measure a 
continuation of the preceding. 

V. We come now to the last group of decalogues 
— that contained in ch. xxi.-xxvi. 2. The subjects 
comprised in these enactments are — First, the per 
sonal purity of the priests. They may not defile 
themselves for the dead ; their wives and daughter 
must be pure, and they themselves must be fre 
from all personal blemish (ch. xxi.). Next, th 
eating of the holy things is permitted only t< 
priests who are free from all uncleanness : they an 
the.r household only may eat them (xxii. 1-16) 
Thirdly, the offerings of Israel are to be pure anc 
without blemish (xxii. 17-33). The fourth serie 
provides for the due celebration of the great festi 
vals when priests and people were to be gathere 
together before Jehovah in holy convocation. 

Up to this point we trace system and purpose i 
the order of the legislation. Thus, for instance 
chap, xi.-xvi. treats of external purity ; ch. xvii.-xx 
>f moral purity; chap, xxi.-xxiii. of the holiness o 



ie pnests, and their duties with regard to holy 
lings ; th? whole concluding witli provisions foi 
ic solemn feasts on which all Israel appeared 
efbre Jehovah. We will again briefly indicate 
ertheau's groups, and then append some general 
aservations on the section. 

1. Chap. xxi. Ten laws, as follows: — (1) ver. 
-3; (2) ver. 4; (3) ver. 5, 6; (4) vei. 7, &. 
5) ver. 9 ; (6) ver. 10, 11 ; (7) ver. 12 ; (8) ver 
3, 14; (9) ver. 17-21; (10) ver. 22, 23. The 
ret five laws concern all the priests ; the sixth to 
le eighth the high-priest ; the ninth and tenth the 
lects of bodily blemish in particular cases. 

2. Chap. xxii. 1-16. (1) ver. 2; (2) ver. 3; 
3) ver. 4 ; (4) ver. 4-7 ; (5) ver. 8, 9 ; (6) ver. 
0; (7) ver. 11; (8) ver. 12; (9) ver. 13; (10) 
er. 14-16. 

3. Chap. xxii. 17-33. (1) ver. 18-20 ; (2) ver. 
1 ; (3) ver. 22 ; (4) ver. 23 ; (5) ver. 24 ; (6) ver. 
5; (7) ver. 27; (8) ver. 28; (9) ver. 29; (10) 
er. 30 ; and a general conclusion in ver. 31-33. 

4. Chap, xxiii. (1) ver. 3; (2) ver. 5-7; (3) 
•er. 8; (4) ver. 9-14; (5) ver. 15-21 ; (6) ver. 
>2 ; (7) ver. 24, 25 ; (8) ver. 27-32 ; (9) ver. 34. 
15; (10) ver. 36: ver. 37, 38 contain the con- 
lusion or general summing up of the Decalogue. 
)n the remainder of the chapter, as well as chap. 

xxiv., see below. 

5. Chap. xxv. 1-22. (1) ver. 2 ; (2) ver. 3, 4 ; 
3) ver. 5 ; (4) ver. 6 ; (5) ver. 8-10 ; (6) ver. 

11, 12; (7) ver. 13; (8) ver. 14; (9) ver. 15; 
10) ver. 16: with a concluding formula in ver. 

6. Chap. xxv. 23-38. (1) ver. 23, 24; (2) ver. 
25 ; (3) ver. 26, 27 ; (4) ver. 28; (5) ver. 29 ; 
(6) ver. 30; (7) ver. 31; (8) ver. 32, 33; (9) 
ver. 34 ; (10) ver. 35-37 : the conclusion to the 
whole in ver. 38. 

7. Chap. xxv. 39-xxvi. 2. (1) ver. 39; (2~) 
ver. 40-42 ; (3) ver. 43 ; (4) ver. 44, 45 ; (5^ 
far. 46 ; (6) ver. 47-49 ; (7) ver. 50 ; (8) ver. 
51, 52 ; (9) ver. 53; (10) ver. 54. 

It will be observed that the above arrangement 
s only completed by omitting the latter part of 
chap, xxiii. and the whole of chap. xxiv. But it is 
clear that chap, xxiii. 39-44 is a later addition, 
containing further instructions respecting the Feast 
of Tabernacles. Ver. 39, as compared with ver. 34, 
shows that the same feast is referred to; whils: 
ver. 37, 38, are no less manifestly the original con 
clusion of the laws respecting the feasts which are 
enumerated in the previous part of the chapter. 
Chap, xxiv., again, has a peculiar character of its 
own. First we have a command concerning the oi. 
to be used in the lamps belonging to the Tabernacle, 
which is only a repetition of an enactment already 
given in Ex. xxvii. 20, 21, which seems to be its 
natural place. Then follow directions about the 
shew-bread. These do not occur previously. In 
Ex. the shew-bread is spoken of always as a matter 
of course, concerning which no regulations are ne 
cessary (comp. Ex. xxv. 30, xxxv. 13, xxxix. 36). 
Lastly come certain enactments arising out of an 
historical occurrence. The son of an Egyptian 
father by an Israelitish wom;in blasphemes the 
name of Jehovah, and Moses is commanded to stone 
him in consequence: and this circumstance is the 
occasion of the following laws being given : — ( 1) 
That a blasphemer, whether Israelite or stranger, 
is to be stoned (comp. Ex. xxii. 28). (2) That he thai 
kills any man shall surely be put to death (comp. 
Ex. xxi. 12-27). (3) that he that kills a beasa 



shall make it good (not found where we might 
have expected it, in the series of laws Ex. xxi. 28- 
ixii. 16). (4) That if a man cause a blemish in 
his neighbour he shall be requited in like manner 
(comp. Kx. xxi. 22-25). (5) We have then a repe 
tition in an inverse order of ver. 17, 18; and (6) 
the injunction that there shall be one law for the 
s'.ranger and the Israelite. Finally, a brief notice 
of the infliction of the punishment in the case of 
th* son of Shelomith, who blasphemed. Not an 
other instance is to be found in the whole collection 
in which any historical circumstance is made the 
occasion of enacting a law. Then again the laws 
(2), (3), (4), (5), are mostly repetitions of existing 
laws, and seem here to have no connexion with the 
event to which they are referred. Either therefore 
some other circumstances took place at the same 
time with which we are not acquainted, or these 
isolated laws, detached from their proper connexion, 
were grouped together here, in obedience perhaps to 
«ome traditional association. 

VI. The seven decalogues are now fitly closed 
by words of promise and threat — promise of largest, 
richest, blessing to those that hearken unto and do 
these commandments ; threats of utter destruction 
to those that break th^ covenant of their God. 
Thus the second great division of the Law closes 
like the first, except that the first part, or Book of 
the Covenant, ends (Ex. xxiii. 20-33) with pro 
mises of blessing only. There nothing is said of 
the judgments which are to follow transgression, 
because as yet the Covenant had not been made. 
Hut when once the nation had freely entered into 
that Covenant, they bound themselves to accept its 
sanctions, its penalties, as well as its rewards. And 
we cannot wonder if in these sanctions the punish 
ment of transgression holds a larger place than the 
rewards of obedience. For already was it but too 
plain thr.t " Israel would not obey." From the 
first they were a stiffnecked and rebellious race, 
and from the first the doom of disobedience hung 
like some fiery sword above their heads. 

VII. The legislation is evidently completed in 
the last words of the preceding chapter : — " These 
are the statutes and judgments and laws which Je 
hovah made between Him and the children of Israel 
in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." Chap. 
xxvii. is a later appendix, again however closed by 
a similar formula, which at least shows that the 
transcriber considered it to be an integral part of 
the original Mosaic legislation, though he might be 
at a loss to assign it its place. Bertheau classes 
it with the other less regularly grouped laws at the 
beginning of the book of Numbers. He treats the 
section Lev. xxvii.-Num. x. 10 as a series of sup 
plements to the Siuaitic legislation. 

Integrity. — This is very generally admitted. 
Those critics even who are in favour of different 
documents in the Pentateuch assign nearly the 
whole of this book to one writer, the Elohist, or 
author of the original document. According to 
Knobel the only portions which are not to be 
referred to the Elohist are — Moses' rebuke of Aaron 
because the goat of the sin-offering had been burnt 
(x. 16-20); the group of laws in chap, xvii.-xx. ; 
certain additional enactments respecting the Sabbath 
and the Feasts of Weeks and of Tabernacles (xxiii., 
« ver. 3, ver. 18, 


and the promises and warnings contained iu chap. 


With regard to the section chap, rvii.-ix., h« 
does not consider the whole of it to have been bor 
rowed from the same sources. Chap, xvii, he 
believes was introduced here by the Jehovist from 
some ancient document, whilst he Admits neverthe 
less that it contains certain Elohistic forms of ex 
pression, as -|B>3 ^>3, "all flesh," ver. 14; B>B3, 

T T 

"soul," (in the sense of " person"), ver. 10-12 
15; irn, "beast," ver. 13; \3.~$>, "offering," 
ver. 4 ; nifVJ n^, " a sweet savour," ver. 6 ; " a 
statute for ever," and " after your generations," 
ver. 7. But it cannot be from the Elohist, he 
argues, because (a) he would have placed it after 
chap, vii., or at least after chap. xv. ; (6) he would 
not have repeated the prohibition of blood, &c., 
which he had already given; (c) he would have 
taken a more favourable view of his nation than 
that implied in ver. 7 ; and lastly (d) the phrase 
ology has something of the colouring of chap, xviii.- 
xx. and xxvi., which are certainly not Elohistic. 
Such reasons are too transparently unsatisfactory 
to need serious discussion. He observes further 
that the chapter is not altogether Mosaic. The 
first enactment (ver. 1-7) does indeed apply only 
to Israelites, and holds good therefore for the time 
of Moses. But the remaining three contemplate 
the case of strangers living amongst the people, and 
have a reference to all time. 

Chap, xviii.-xx., though it has a Jehovistic colour 
ing, cannot have been originally from the Jehovist. 
The following peculiarities of language, which 
are worthy of notice, according to Knobel (Exod. 
und Leviticus erklart, in Kurzg. Exeg. Hdbuch, 
1857) forbid such a supposition, the more so as 
they occur nowhere else in the 0. T. : — JD^, " I»* 
down to " and " gender," xviii. 23, xix. 19, xx. 16 : 
VlF), " confusion," xviii. 23, xx. 12; BjT?, " ga 
ther," xix. 9, xxiii. 22; 1313, "grape" »*• l <>; 
"near kinswomen," xviii. 17; rnJ53, 

part of ver. 2, from 
19, 22, 39-44); the punishments ordained for 
blasphemy, murder, &c. (xxiv. 10-23"); the direc 
tions respecting the Sal batical year (xxv. 18-'J'J), 

" scourged," xix. 20 ; n^SH, " free," ibid. ; 
nibs, " print marks," T xix" 28 ; N'pn, " vomit," 
in the metaphorical sense, xviii. 25, 28, xx. 22 ; 
rbl]}, " uncircumcised," as applied to fruit-trees, 
xix. 23 ; and ITI^D, " born," xviii. 9, 11 ; as well 
as the Egyptian word (for such it probably is) 
TJOySJ', " garment of divers sorts," which, how 
ever, does occur once beside in Deut. xxii. 11. 

According to Bunsen, chap. xix. is a genuine part 
of the Mosaic legislation, given however in its 
ori<"inal form not on Sinai, but on the east side 
of the Jordan ; whilst the general arrangement of 
the Mosaic laws may perhaps be as late as the time 
of the Judges. He regards it as a very ancient 
document, based on the Two Tables, of which, and 
especially of the first, it is in fact an extension, 
and consisting of two decalogues and one pentad 
of laws. Certain expressions in it he considers 
imply that the people were already settled in the 
land (ver. 9, 10, 13, 15), while on the other hand 
ver. 23 supposes a future occupation of the lana. 
Hence he concludes that the revision of this docu 
ment by the transcribers was incomplete: whereas 
all the passives may fairly be interpreted as 
looking forward to a future settlement in Canaan. 


Tee great simplicity and lofty moral character of 
ihis section compel us, says Bunsen, to refer it at 
least to the earlier time of the Judges, if not to that 
of Joshua himself. 

We must not quit this book without a word on 
what may be called its spiritual meaning. That 
so elaborate a ritual looked beyond itself we cannot 
doubt. It was a prophecy of things to come ; a 
shadow whin-oof the substance was Christ and His 
kingdom. We may not always be able to say what 
tiie exact relation is between the type and the 
antitype. Of many things we may be sure that 
they belonged only to the nation to whom they 
were given, containing no prophetic significance, 
but serving as witnesses and signs to them of God's 
covenant of grace. We may hesitate to pronounce 
with Jerome that •' every sacrifice, nay almost 
every syllable — the garments of Aaron and the 
whole Levitical system — breathe of heavenly mys 
teries." d But we cannot read the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and not acknowledge that the Levitical 
p'riests " served the pattern and type of heavenly 
things " — that the sacrifices of the Law pointed to 
and found their interpretation in the Lamb of God 
— that the ordinances of outward purification signi 
fied the true inner cleansing of the heart and con 
science from dead works to serve the living God. 
One idea moreover penetrates the whole of this 
vast and burdensome ceremonial, and gives it a 
real glory even apart from any prophetic signifi 
cance. Holiness is its end. Holiness is its character. 
The tabernacle is holy — the vessels are holy — the 
offerings* are most holy unto Jehovah — the gar 
ments of the priests are holy.' All who approach 
Him whose name is " Holy," whether priestss who 
minister unto Him, or people who worship Him, 
must themselves be holy. h It would seem as if, 
amid the camp and dwellings of Israel, was ever 
to be heard an echo of that solemn strain which 
fills the courts above, where the seraphim cry one 
unto another, Holy, Holy, Holy.' 

Other questions connected with this book, such 
as its authorship, its probable age in its present 
foitn, and the relation of the laws contained in it 
to those, either supplementary or apparently con 
tradictory, found in other parts of the Pentateuch, 
will best be discussed in another article, where op 
portunity will be given for a comprehensive view 
of the Mosaic legislation as a whole. [PENTA 
TEUCH.] [J. J. S. P.] 

LIB'ANUS (6 A/flaws), the Greek form of the 
name LEBANON ( 1 Esd. iv. 48; v. 55 ; 2 Esd. xv. 20 ; 
Jud. i. 7; Ecclus. xxiv. 13; 1. 12). ANTI-LIBANUS 
('fivri\t(la.vos) occurs only in Jud. i. 7. [G.] 

LIBERTINES (Aifcp-nvoi : Libertini). This 
word occurs once only in the N. T. In Acts vi. 9, 
we find the opponents of Stephen's preaching d< 
scribed as lives rcicv £K rrjs ffvvayoiyris rrjs \eyo- 
Hfvrjs Aifieprivcav, Kal KvpTji/aitav Kal 'AA.efaj'- 
8f>tW Kal riav airb KiXi/cms Kal 'Affias. The 
question is, who were these " Libertines," and in 
what relation did they stand to the others who are 

" In promptu est Leviticus liber in quo singula 
^acriflcia, immo singulae pene syllabae et vestes 
Aaron ct totus ordo Leviticus spirant caelestia sacra- 
menta" (llieron. JEp. ad Paulin.). 

• ii. 3, 10; vi. 17, 25, 29; vii. 1, 6; x. 12, 17; 



mentioned with them ? The structure of th« passage 
leaves it doubtful how many synagogues are implied 
in it. Some (Calvin, Beza, Bengel) have taken it 
as if there were but one synagogue, including men 
from all the different cities that are named. Winei 
(N. T. Gramm. p. 179), on grammatical grounds, 
takes the repetition of the article as indicating a 
fresh group, and finds accordingly two synagogues, 
one including Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians; 
the other those of Cilicia and Asia. Meyer (ad 
loc.) thinks it unlikely that out of the 480 syna 
gogues at Jerusalem (the number given by Rabbinic 
writers, Megill. §73, 4; Kctub. t. 105, 1), there 
should have been one, or even two only, for natives 
of cities and districts in which the Jewish popu 
lation was so numerous,* and on that ground assigns 
a separate synagogue to each of the proper names. 

Of the name itself there have been several expla 
nations. (1.) The other name being local, this also has 
been referred to a town of Libertum in the pro 
consular province of Africa. This, it is said, would 
explain the close juxta-position with Gyrene. Suidas 
recognises Ajj8epT?j/oi as opo/xa tOvovs, and in the 
Council of Carthage in 411 (Mansi. vol. iv. p. 2t>5- 
274, quoted in Wiltsch, Handbuch dcr Kirchlich. 
Geogr. §96), we find an Episcopus Libertinensis 
(Simon. Onomast. N. T. p. 99 ; and Gerdes. de 
Synag. Libert. Groning. 1736, in Winer, Rwb.*). 
Against this hypothesis it has been urged, (1) that 
the existence of a town Libertum, in the first cen 
tury, is not established ; and (2) that if it existed, 
it can hardly have been important enough either to 
have a synagogue at Jerusalem for the Jews be 
longing to it, or to take precedence of Cyrene and 
Alexandria in a synagogue common to the three. b 

(2.) Conjectural readings have been proposed. 
Aij8o<TT Ivaav (Oecumen., Beza,Clericus, Valckenaer) 
\LJAvtav TU>V Kara Kvp'ftvijy (Schultness, de Char. 
Sp. S. p. 162, in Meyer, ad loc.}. The difficulty 
is thus removed ; but every rule of textual criticism 
is against the reception of a reading unsupported by 
a single MS. or version. 

(3.) Taking the word in its received meaning as 
= freedmen, Lightfoot finds in it a description of 
natives of Palestine, who having fallen into slavery, 
had been manumitted by Jewish masters (Exc. on 
Acts vi. 9). In this case, however, it, is hardly 
likely that a body of men so circumstanced would 
have received a Roman nan,«. 

(4.) Grotius and Vitringa explain the word as 
describing Italian freedmen who had become con 
verts to Judaism. In this case, however, the word 
" proselytes" would most probably have been used ; 
and it is at least unlikely that a body of converts 
would have had a synagogue to themselves, or that 
proselytes from Italy would have been united with 
Jews from Cyrene and Alexandria. 

(5.) The earliest explanation of the word (Chry- 
sost.) is also that which has been adopted by the 
most recent authorities (Winer, Rwb. s. v. ; Meyer, 
Comm. ad foe.). The Libertini are Jews who, 
having been taken prisoners by Pompey and other 
Roman generals in the Syrian wars, had been re- 

riv. 13. 

' xvi. 4. 

* xxi. 6-8, 15. 

11 vi. 18, 27 ; vii. 21 ; x. 3, 10 ; xi. 43, 45 ; xv. 31 
'xviii. 21) ; xix. 2 ; xx. 7, 20. 

1 In chaps, xviii.-xxv. observe the phrase, " J am I mentioned 

Jehovah," " I am Jehovah your God." Latter part 
of xxv. and xxvi. somewhat changed, but recurring 
in xxvi. The reason given for this holiness, " I am 
holy," xi. 44, &c., xix. 2, xx. 7, 26. 

* In Cyrene one-fourth, in Alexandria two-fifths of 
the whole (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7, §2, xiv. 10, §1, xix. 5, §2 ; 
B.J. ii. 13, §7 ; c. Ap. 2, §4). 

b Wiltsch gives no information beyoua the fact Just 

I 2 



lured to slavery, and h;id afterwards been enianci- 
i«t 3(1. and relumed, j>ei manently or for a time, to 
Jhe country of their fathers. Of the existence of a 
large body of Jews in this position at Rome we 
have abundant evidence. Under Tiberius, the Se- 
Katus-Consultum for the suppression of Egyptian 
and Jewish mysteries led to the banishment of 
4000 " libertini generis " to Sardinia, under the 
pretence of military or police duty, but really in 
the hope that the malaria of the island might be 
fatal to them. Others were to leave Italy unless 
they abandoned their religion (Tacit. Annal. ii. 85 ; 
comp. Suet. Tiber, c. 36). Josephus (Ant. xviii. 
3, §5), narrating the same feet, speaks of the 4000 
who were sent to Sardinia as Jews, and thus iden 
tifies them with the " libertinum genus " of Tacitus. 
Philo (Legat. ad Caium, p. 1014, C.) in like 
manner says, that the greater part of the Jews of 
Home were in the position of freedmen (o7re\ei»- 
OfpeaOevrei), and had been allowed by Augustus 
to settle in the Trans-Tiberine part of the city, and 
ta follow their own religious customs unmolested 
(comp. Horace, Sat. i. 4, 143, i. 9, 70). The ex 
pulsion from Rome took place A.u. 19 ; and it is 
<m ingenious conjecture of Mr. Humphrey's (Comm. 
on Acts, ad loc.) that those who were thus banished 
from Italy may have found their way to Jerusalem, 
and that, as having suffered for the sake of their 
religion, they were likely to be foremost in the oppo 
sition to a teacher like Stephen, whom they looked 
on as impugning the sacredness of all that they 
most revered. [E. H. P.] 

LIB'NAH (nia*? : Af/SrS, also Ae/tw, Arf.u^a, 

\, 'Stvva; Alex. Ae^/uva, Ao/Be^a: Libna, 
Labana, Lebna, Lobna), a city which lay in the 
south-west part of the Holy Land. It was taken 
by Joshua immediately after the rout of Beth-horon. 
That eventful day was ended by the capture and de 
struction of MAKKEDAH (Josh. x. 28) ; and then the 
host — " Joshua, and all Israel with him " — moved 
on to Libnah, which was also totally destroyed, its 
king and all its inhabitants (Josh. x. 29, 30, 32, 
39, xii. 15). The next place taken was Lachish. 

Libnah belonged to the district of the Shefelah, 
the maritime lowland of Judah, among the cities of 
which district it is enumerated (Josh. xv. 42), not 
in close connexion with either Makkedah or Lachish, 
but in an independent group of nine towns, among 
which are Keilah, Mareshah, and Nezib." Libnah 
was appropriated with its " suburbs" to the priests 
(Josh. xxi. 13; 1 Chr. vi. 57). In the reign of 
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat it " revolted " from 
Judah at the same time with Edom (2 K. viii. 22 ; 
2 Chr. xxi. 10) ; but, beyond the fact of their simul 
taneous occurrence, there is no apparent connexion 
between the two events. On completing or relin 
quishing the siege of Lachish — which of the two 
is not quite certain — Sennacherib laid siege to 
Libnah (2 K. xix. 8; Is. xxxvii. 8). While there 
he was joined by Rabshakeh and the part of the 
army which had visited Jerusalem (2 K. xix. 8 ; Is. 
xxxvii. 8), and received the intelligence of Tirhakah's 
Spproach ; and it would appear that at Libnah the 
.lestruction of the Assyrian army took place, though 

• The sites of these have all been discovered, not in the 
lowland, as they are specified, but In the mountains Imme 
diately to the sou tli and cost of Beit-jibrin. 

>> The account of Berosus, quoted by Joseplms (Ant. x. 
, {5), la that the destruction took place when Sonnacberib 
on- 1 , reached Jerusalem, after his Egyptian expedition, on 
UiC Urst flight of the siege. His words are, 'Yn- 


the statements of Herodotus (ii 141) and of Jo 
sephus (Ant. x. 1, §4) place it at Pelusium. k (See 
Rawlinson, Herod, i. 480.) 

It was the native place of Hamntal, or Hamital, 
the queen of Josiah, and mother of Jehoahaz (2 K. 
xxiii. 31) and Zedekiah (xxiv. 18; Jer. lii. 1). It 
is in this connexion that its name appears for the 
last time in the Bible. 

Libnah is described by Eusebius and Jerome in 
the Onomasticon (s. v. \4tva and " Lebna") merely 
as a village of the district of Eleutheropolis. Its 
site has hitherto escaped not only discovery, but, 
until lately, even conjecture. Professor Stanley 
(S. $ P. 207 note, 258 note), on the ground of the 
accordance of the name Libnah (white) with the 
" Blanchegarde " of the Crusaders, and of both with 
the appearance of the place, would locate it at 
Tell es-Safieh, " a white-faced hill . . . which forms 
a conspicuous object in the eastern part of the 
plain," and is situated 5 miles N.W. of Beit- 
jibrin. But Tell es-Safieh has claims to be iden 
tified with GATH, which are considered under 
that head in this work. Van de Velde places it 
with confidence at Ardk el-Menshlyeh, a hill about 
4 miles W. of Boit-jibrin, on the ground of its being 
" the only site between Sumeil (Makkedah) and 
Urn Lakhis (Lachish) shewing an ancient fortified 
position " (Memoir, 330 ; in his Syria and Palestine 
it is not named). But as neither Um Lakhis nor 
Sumeil, especially the latter, are identified with 
certainty, the conjecture must be left for further 
exploration. One thing must not be overlooked, 
that although Libnah is in the lists of Josh. xv. 
specified as being in the lowland, yet 3 of the 
8 towns which form its group have been actually 
identified as situated among the mountains to the 
immediate S. and E. of Beit-jibrin. — The name is 
also found in SmiiOR-LiBNATH. [G.] 

LIB'NAH (rm^> ; Sam. ,1313^ ; and so the 

LXX. Aeyuoira; Alex. Ac/Suva: Lebna), one of the 
stations at which the Israelites encamped, on their 
journey between the wilderness of Sinai and Kadesh. 
It was the fifth in the series, and lay between 
Rimmon-parez and Rissah (Num. xxxiii. 20, 21). 
If el-ffudherah be Hazeroth, then Libnah would be 
situated somewhere on the western border of the 
Aelanitic arm of the Red Sea. But no trace of the 
name has yet been discovered ; and the only con 
jecture which appears to have been made concerning 
it is that it was identical with Laban, mentioned in 
Deut. i. 1. The word in Hebrew signifies " white," 
and in that case may point either to the colour of 
the spot or to the presence of white poplar (Stanley, 
S. $ P. App. §77). Count, Bertou in his recent 
Etude, le Mont Hor, &c. 1860, endeavours to iden 
tify Libnah with the city of Judah noticed in the 
foregoing article. But there is little in his argu 
ments to support this theory, while the position 
assigned to Libnah of Judah — in the Shefelah or 
maritime district, not amongst the towns of " the 
South," which latter form a distinct division of the 
territory of the tribe, in proximity to Edom — seems 
of itself to be fatal to it. 

The reading of the Samaritan Codex and Version 

eis TO 'lepoo-oAv/ua Kara rijv irpta-rriv Trjf 

TT-oAtop/ci'a? VVKTO. &ia<f>9tipovrcn, &c. Professor Stanley 
on the other band, Inclines to agree with the Jewish tnv 
dltlon which places the event tn the pass of Bethhoron, 
and therefore on the road between Liboah <uul Jerusalem 
(S. Jr 1'. 207 note}. 


, is supported by the LXX., but not apparently 
by any other authority. The Targum Pseudojonathan 
.in the passage, plays with the name, according to the 
custom of the later Jewish writings : " Libnah, a place; 
the boundary of which is a building of brickwork," 
as if the name were i"l32?, Lebenah, a brick. [G.] 

LIB'NI 033? : Ao&tvi : Lobni, and once, Num. 
iii. 18, Lebni). 1. The eldest son of Gershom, the 
son of Levi (Ex. vi. 17 ; Num. iii. 18 ; 1 Chr. vi. 
17, 20), and ancestor of the family of the LIBNITES. 

2. The son of Mahli, or Mahali, son of Merari 
(1 Chr. vi. 29), as the Text at present stands. It 
is probable, however, that he is the same with the 
preceding, and that something has been omitted 
(comp. ver. 29 with 20, 42). [MAHLI, 1.] 

LIBNITES, THE ('n^n: dAofcvt: Lobni, 
Lcbnitica, sc. familia), the descendants of Libni, 
eldest son of Gershom, who formed one of me ,ji«a~ 
branches of the great Levitical family of Gershouites 
(Num. iii. 21, xxvi. 58). 

LIB'YA (AijSihj, AijSuct) occurs only in Acts 
li. 10, in the periphrasis " the parts of Libya about 
Cyrene" (TCI /ue'pij TT}? AtjSurjs TTJS Kara Kvp^j/r/j/), 
which obviously means the Cyrenaica. Similar 
expressions are used by Dion Cassius (Ai^vrj fi irepl 
Kup7)»"?< / , Hii. 12) and Josephus (fi trpbs Kvp-fiVTiv 
AiJ3vi), Ant. xvi. 6, §1), as noticed in the article 
CYRENE. The name Libya is applied by the Greek 
and Roman writers to the African continent, gene 
rally however excluding Egypt. The consideration 
of this and its more restricted uses has no place in 
this work. The Hebrews, whose geography deals 
with nations rather than countries, and, in accord 
ance with the genius of Shemites, never generalizes, 
had no names for continents or other large tracts 
comprising several countries ethnologically or other 
wise distinct: the single mention is therefore of 
Greek origin. Some account of the Lubim, or 
primitive Libyans, as well as of the Jews in the 
Cyrenaica, is given in other articles. [LUBIM; 

"JYRENE.] [R. S. P.] 

LU.CE (D33, D»33. D33 ; chinnim, chinndm : 
ffKvityes, ffKviires : sciniphes, cinifes). This word 
occurs in the A. V. only in Ex. viii. 16, 17, 18, 
and in Ps. cv. 31 ; both of which passages have 
reference to the third great plague of Egypt. In 
Exodus the miracle is recorded, while in the Psalm 
grateful remembrance of it is made. The Hebrew 
word," — which, with some slight variation, occurs 
only in Ex. viii. 16, 17, 18, andinPs. cv. 31— has 
given occasion to whole pages of discussion ; some 
commentators, amongst whom may be cited Mi- 
chaelis (Suppl. s. v.), Oedmann (in Vermisch. 
Samm. i. vi. p. 80), Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Ex. viii. 
12), Harenberg (Obs. Grit, de D'33, in Miscell. 

• Considerable doubt has been entertained by some 
scholars as to the origin of the word. See the re- 
vrarks of Gesenius and Fiirst. 

" J-13. But see Gesen. Thes. s. v. }3. 
« De Sabb. cap. 14, fol. 107, 6. 

* aKvfy. ftaov xkiapov re xa.1 TerpaTrrfpov and 
Ki/if (Kvi'i//). ^umv TTTrjvov, OJUOIOP Kiaviairi. 

(Hesych. Lex. s. v ) 
Kvl\l/, £<ati(f>i.ov t ri yeviicri TOV Kviirbf 

ei/o, «ai Stavfyia ru>v 



Lips. Nov. vol. ii. p. lv. p. 617;, Dr. Geddcs (Crit. 
Rem. Ex. viii. 17), i)r. Harris (Diet. Nat. H. oj 
Bible), to which is to be added the authority 
of Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii. 97, ed. Mangcy) and 
Origen (Horn. Tert. in Exod.), and indeed mo 
dern writers generally — suppose that gnats are the 
animals intended by the original word ; while, 
on the other hand, the Jewish Rabbis, Josephus 
(Ant. ii. 14, §3), Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 457, ed, 
Roseum.), Montanns, Munster (Crit. Sac. in Ex. 
viii. 12), Bryant (Plagues of Egypt, p. 56), and 
Dr. Adam Clarke are in favour of the translation 
of the A. V. The old versions, the Chaldee para 
phrase, the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, the 
Syriac, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Arabic, arc 
claimed by Bochart as supporting the opinion that 
lice are here intended. Another writer believes 
he can identify the chinnim with some worm-like 
creatures (perhaps some kind of Scolopendridae) 
called tarrentes, mentioned in Vinisauf's account 
of the expedition of Richard I. into the Holy Land, 
and which by their bites during the night-time occa 
sioned extreme pain (Harmer's Observat. Clarke's 
ed. iii. 549). With regard to this last theory 
it may fairly be said that, as it has not a word of 
proof or authority to support it, it may at once 
be rejected as fanciful. Those who believe that 
the plague was one of gnats or mosquitoes appear 
to ground their opinion solely on the authority 
of the LXX., or rather on the interpretation of 
the Greek word ffnvityes, as given by Philo (De 
Vit. Mos. ii. 97), and Origen (Horn. III. in 
Exodum). The advocates of the other theory, that 
lice are the animals meant by chinnim, and not 
gnats, base their arguments upon these facts: — (1) 
because the chinnim sprang from the dust, whereas 
gnats come from the waters ; (2) because gnats, 
though they may greatly irritate men and beasts, 
cannot properly be said to be " in " them ; (3) be 
cause their name is derived from a root b which 
signifies " to establish," or " to fix," which cannot 
be said of gnats ; (4) because if gnats are in 
tended, then the fourth plngue of flies would be 
unduly anticipated ; (5) because the Talmudists use 
the word chinnah in the singular number to mean a 
louse; as it is said in the Treatise on the Sabbath 
" As is the man who slays a camel on the Sabbath, 
so is he who slays a louse on the Sabbath." c 

Let us examine these arguments as briefly as pos 
sible. First, the LXX. has been quoted as a direct 
proof that chinnim means gnats ; and certainly in 
such a matter as the one before us it is almost 
impossible to exaggerate the authority of the trans 
lators, who dwelt in Egypt, and therefore must be 
considered good authorities on this subject. But is 
it quite clear that the Greek word they made use 
of has so limited a signification ? Does the Greek 

vty or Kvty mean a gnat1 A Let the reader, 

(TTCvii//, £toov x^iapov Tf KOU Terpawrepov. $mov Ktavia 

Geov U.IK.PQV fuAo^ayov. (Phavorili i. c 1 

Phryn. (Lob.) 400. Prut. ii. 636, D. 
Theophrastus (Hist. Plant, ii. cap. ult.) speaks oi 
o-KviVes, and calls them worms. Dioscorides (iii. 
de Ulmo) speaks of the well-known viscid secretion 
on the leaves of plants and trees, and says that when 
this moisture is dried up, animalcules like gnats appear 
(flijpiSia KiaviainaeiSri). In another place (v. 181) he 
calls them oxaiAj)<c«. No doubt plant-lice are meant. 
Ae'tius (ii. 9) speaks of Jtyf^ss, by which word he 
clearly means plant-lice, or aphides. Aristophanes 
associates the (cviVes (aphides) with il/ijw (gall-flies), 
and speaks of them as injuring the young shoots oi 
the vines (Aves, 427). Aristotle (Hist. An. viii. 3. 
§9) speaks of a bird, woodpecker, which he t* uu 



however, read carefully the passages quoted in the 
foot-notes, and he will see at once that at any rate 
there is very considerable doubt whether any one 
particular animal is denoted by the Greek word. 
la the few passages where it occurs in Greek 
authors the word seems to point in some instances 
clearly enough to the well-known pests of field and 
garden, the plant-lice or aphides. By the fficvty Iv 
Xupa, the proverb referred to in the note, is very 
likely meant one of those small active jumping 
insects, common under leaves and under the bark 
of trees, known to entomologists by the name of 
spring-tails (Podaridae). The Greek lexicographers, 
having the derivation of the word in view, gene 
rally define it to be some small worm-like creature 
that eats away wood ; if they used the term winged, 
the winged aphis is most likely intended, and 
perhaps vermicuhis may sometimes refer to the 
wingless individual. Because, however, the lexicons 
occasionally say that the ffxvty is like a gnat (the 
" green and four-winged insect" of Hesychius), 
many commentators have come to the hasty 
conclusion that some species of gnat is denoted by 
the Greek term ; but resemblance by no means 
constitutes identity, and it will be seen that this 
insect, the aphis, even though it be winged, is far 
more closely allied to the wingless louse (pediculus) 
than it is to the gnat, or to any species of the fa 
mily Culicidae ; for the term lice, as applied to the 
various kinds of aphides (Phytophthiria, as is their 
appropriate scientific name), is by no means merely 
one of analogy. The wingless aphis is in appear 
ance somewhat similar to the pediculus ; and indeed 
n great authority, Burmeister, arranges the Ano- 
plura, the order to which the pediculus belongs, 
with the Rhyncota, which contains the sub-order 
Homoptcra, to which the aphides belong. Hence, 
by an appropriate transfer, the same word which in 
Arabic means pediculus is applied in one of its 
significations to the " thistle black with plant-lice." 
Every one who has observed the thistles of this 
country black with the peculiar species that infests 
them can see the force of the meaning assigned to 
it in the Arabic language.' 

Again, almost all the passages where the Greek 
word occurs speak of the animal, be it what it 
may, as being injurious to plants or trees ; it can 
not therefore be applied in a restricted sense to any 
gnat (culex or simuliuni), for the Culicidae are 
eminently blood-suckers, not vegetable-feeders.* 

Oedman (Vermisch. Sammlung. i. ch. vi.) is 
of opinion that the species of mosquito denoted by 
the chinnim is probably some minute kind allied 
to the Culex reptans, s. pulicaris of Linnaeus. 
That such an insect might have been the instru 
ment God made use of in the third plague with 

Gnats are for the most part taken on the 
wing ; but the man-is here alluded to are doubtless 
the various kinds of ants, larvae, aphides, lepismidae, 
eoccinae, oniscidae, &c. Sec., which are found on the 
leaves and under the bark of trees. 

• V^y. " Nigricans et quasi pediculis obsitus 

apparuit carduus" (Gol. Arab. Lex. s. v.). 

' The mosquito and gnat belong to the family of 
Culicidae. The Simttlium, to which genus the Oulcr 
reptans (Lin.) belongs, is comprised under the family 
Tipulidae. This is a northern species, and probably 
not found in Kgypt. The Simttlia, or sand-flies, are 
most inveterate blood-suckers, whose bites often give 
rise to very painful swellings. 


which He visited the Egyptians is readily granted, 
so far as the irritating powers of the creature are 
concerned, for the members of the gcnur> Simuliwn 
(sand-fly) are a terrible pest in those localities where 
they abound. But no proof at all can be brought 
forward in support of this theory. 

Bryant, in illustrating the propriety of the 
plague being one of lice, has the following very just 
remarks : — " The Egyptians affected git-nt external 
purity, and were very nice both in their persons 
and clothing. . . . Uncommon care was taken not 
to harbour any vermin. They were particularly 
solicitous on this head; thinking it would be a 
great profanation of the temple which they entered 
if any animalcule of this sort were concealed in 
their garments." And we learn from Herodotus 
that so scrupulous were the priests on this point 
that they used to shave the hair off their heads and 
bodies every third day for fear of harbouring any 
louse while occupied in their sacred duties (Herod, 
ii. 37). "We may hence see what an abhorrence 
the Egyptians showed towards this sort of vermin, 
and that the judgments inflicted by the hand of 
Moses were adapted to their prejudices " (Bryant's 
Observations, &c., p. 5G). 

The evidence of the old versions, adduced by 
Bochart in support of his opinion, has been called in 
question by Rosenmiiller and Geddes, who will not 
allow that the words used by the Syriac, theChaldee, 
and the Arabic versions, as the representatives of the 
Hebrew word chinnim, can properly be translated 
lice ; but the interpretations which they themselves 
allow to these words apply better to lice than tognats; 
and it is almost certain that the normal meaning of 
the words in all these three versions, and indis 
putably in the Arabic, applies to lice. It is readily 
granted that some of the arguments brought forward 
by Bochart (ffieroz. iii. 457, ed. Rosenm.) and his 
consentients are unsatisfactory. As the plague was 
certainly miraculous, nothing can be deduced from 
the assertion made that the chinnim sprang from 
the dust ; neither is Bochart's derivation of the 
Hebrew word accepted by scholars generally. Much 
force however is contained in the Talmudical use 
of the word chinnah, to express a louse, though 
Gesenius asserts that nothing can be adduced 

On the whole, therefore, this much appears cer 
tain, that those commentators who assert that 
chinnim means gnats have arrived at this conclu 
sion without sufficient authority ; they have based 
their arguments solely on the evidence of the LXX., 
though it is by no means proved that the Greek 
word used by these translators has any reference to 
gnats ;f the Greek word, which probably originally 
denoted any small irritating creature, being derived 

Although Origen and Philo both understand by 
the Greek tTKvfy some minute winged insect that 
stings, yet their testimony by no means proves that 
a similar use of the term -was restricted to it by the 
LXX. translators. It has been shown, from the quo 
tations given above, that the Greek word has a wide 
signification : it is an aphis, a worm, a flea, or a 
spring-tail—in fact any small insect-like animal that 
bites; and all therefore that should legitimately be 
deduced from the words of these two writers is that 
they applied in this instance to some irritating- w mired 
insect a term which, from its derivation, so appro 
priately describes its irritating properties. Their 
insect seems to refer to some species of midge (Ce r ato- 

• If the LXX. understood gnats by the Hebrew 




from a root which means to bite, to gnaw, was | neralogists. b With this supposifion Hill (Note* 

used in this general sense, and selected by the 
LXX. translitors to express the original word, 
which has an origin kindred to that of the Greek 
word, but the precise meaning of which they did 
Hot know. They had in view the derivation of the 
Hebrew term chinndh, from chdndh, "to gnaw," 
and most appropriately rendered it by the Greek 
word Kvfy, from Kvdia, " to gnaw." It appears 
therefore that there is not sufficient authority for 
leparting from the translation of the A. V., which 
renders the Hebrew word by lice; and as it is sup 
ported by the evidence of many of the old versions, 
it is best to rest contented with it. At any rate the 
point is still open, and no hasty conclusion can be 

adopted concerning it. 

[W. H.] 
The He- 

brew achashdrapan was the official title of the 
satraps" or viceroys who governed the provinces of 
the Persian empire ; it is rendered " lieutenant " in 
Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3 ; Ezr. viii. 36, and 

"prince" in Dan. iii. 2, vi. 1, &c. 

[W. L. B.] 

LIGURE (DB, leshem : Kiyvpiov ; Aid. dpyt- 

piov ; Alex, vdicivdos '. Ugurius). A precious stone 
mentioned in Ex. xxviii. 19, xxxix. 12, as the first 
in the third row of the high-priest's breastplate. 
"And the third row, a ligure, an agate, and an 
amethyst." It is impossible to say, with any cer 
tainty, what stone is denoted by the Hebrew term. 
The LXX. version generally, the Vulgate and Jo- 
sephus (B. J. v. 5, §7), understand the lyncurium or 
ligurium ; but it is a matter of considerable difficulty 
to identify the ligurium of the ancients with any 
known precious stone. Dr. Woodward and some old 
commentators have supposed that it was some kind 
of belemnite, because, as these fossils contain bitu 
minous particles, they have thought that they have 
been able to detect, upon heating or rubbing pieces 
of them, the absurd origin which Theophrastus 
{Frag. ii. 28, 31, xv. 2, ed. Schneider) and Pliny 
(H. N. xxxvii. iii.) ascribe to the lyncurium. Others 
have imagined that amber is denoted by this word ; 
but Theophrastus, in the passage cited above, has 
given a detailed description of the stone, and clearly 
distinguishes it from electron, or amber. Amber, 
moreover, is too soft for engraving upon ; while the 
lyncurium was a hard stone, out of which seals were 
made. Another interpretation seeks the origin of the 
word in the country of Liguria (Genoa), where the 
stone was found, but makes no attempt at identifi 
cation. Others again, without reason, suppose the 
opal to be meant (Kosenmiill. Sch. in Ex. xxviii. 1 9). 
Dr. Watson (Phil. Trans, vol. li. p. 394) identifies 
it with the tourmaline. Beckmann (Hist. Invent, i. 
87, Bohn) believes, with Braun, Epiphanius, and 
J. de Laet, that the description of the lyncurium 
agrees well with the hyacinth stone of modern mi- 

on Theophrastus on Stones, §50, p. 166) and Ro- 
senmiiller (Mineral, of Bible, p. 36, Bib. Cab.) 
agres. It must be confessed, however, that this 
)pinion is far from satisfactory., for there is the 
iblbwing difficulty in the identification of the lyn 
curium with the hyacinth. Theophrastus, speaking 
of the properties of the lyncurium, says that it 
attracts not only light particles of wood, but frag 
ments of iron and brass. Now there is no peculiar 
attractive power in the hyacinth; nor is Beck- 
mann's explanation of this point sufficient. He 
says : " If we consider its (the lyncurium' 's) attract- 
ing of small bodies in the same light which our 
hyacinth has in common with all stones of the 
glassy species, I cannot see anything to controvert 
this opinion, and to induce us to believe the lyn 
curium and the tourmaline to be the same." But 
surely the lyncurium, whatever it be, had in a 
marked manner magnetic properties ; indeed the term 
was applied to the stone on this very account, for the 
Greek name ligurion appeal's to be derived froia 
" to lick," " to attract ;" and doubtless- 
was selected by the LXX. translators for this reason 
to express the Hebrew word, which has a similar 
derivation." More probable, though still incon 
clusive, appears the opinion of those who identify 
the lyncurium with the tourmaline, or more defi 
nitely with the red variety known as rubellite, which 
is a hard stone and used as a gem, and some 
times sold for red sapphire. Tourmaline become?, 
as is well known, electrically polar when heated. 
Beckmann's objection, that " had Theophrastus been 
acquainted with the tourmaline, he would have 
remarked that it did not acquire its attractive t 
power till it was heated," is answered by his own 
admission on the passage, quoted from the Ilistoire 
de ? Academic for 1717, p. 7 (see Beckmann, i. 91). 

Tourmaline is a mineral found in many parts of 
the world. The Duke de Noya purchased two of 
these stones in Holland, which are there called 
aschentrikker. Linnaeus, in his preface to the Flora 
Zeylandica, mentions the stone under the name of 
lapis electricus from Ceylon. The natives call it 
tournamal (vid. Phil. Trans, in loc. cit.). Many 
of the precious stones which were in the possession 
of the Israelites during their wanderings were no 
doubt obtained from the Egyptians, who might 
have procured from the Tyrian merchants specimens 
from even India and Ceylon, &c. The fine specimen 
of rubellite now in the British Museum belonged 
formerly to the King of Ava. 

The word ligure is unknown in modern mine 
ralogy. Phillips (Mineral. 87) mentions ligurite, 
the fragments of which are uneven and transparent, 
with a vitreous lustre. It occurs in a sort of talcose 
rock in the banks of a river in the Apennines. 

The claim of rubellite to be the leshem of Scrip 
ture is very uncertain, but it is perhaps better than 
that of the other minerals which writers have from 
time to time endeavoured to identify with it. [W. H.J 

term, why did not these translators use some well- 
known Greek name for gnat, as Kiavia^i or HAITI'S? 

• The LXX. gives o-arpdm)?, trrpanjyos, and virai 
the Vulgate satrapes and princeps. Both the Hebrew 
and the Greek words are modifications of the same 
Sanscrit root : but philologists are not agreed as to 
the form or meaning of the word. Gesenius (Thes. 
t>. 74) adopts the opinion of Von Bohlen that it comes 
from kshatriya-pati, inclining " warrior of the host." 
Pitt (£tym. Forsch. Pref. p. 68) suggests other de 

rivations more in consonance with the position of the 
satraps as civil rather than military rulers. 

b Busching. p. 342, from Dutens DCS Pierres pr* 
clauses, p. 61, says "the hyacinth is not found ir 
the East." This is incorrect, for it occurs in Egypt, 
Ceylon, and the East Indies (v. Mineral, and Crystall. 
Orr's Circle of Sciences, 515). 

« Thes. 8. v. DKv. Fiirst gays o f DJJJ"), cujus no; 
fuglt orifio. Tarjj. vcrtit, »"V33p, h. e. Gr. K 
i quo Smiris (Shamir) gcnero r. Plln. xxxiv. 4. 



LIK'HI (.'npS : Aa/ci'/x; Alex. AaKti'o: Led), 
a ilanassite, sou of Shemida, the son of Manasseh 
.1 Chr. vii. 19). 

LILY (|K«IK>, sh&shdn, 7\WhV, shoshannah: 
Kpivov, Matt! vi. 28, 29). The Hebrew word is 
rendered "rose" in the Chaldee Targum, and by 
Maimonides and other rabbinical writers, with the 
exception of Kimchi and Ben Melech, who in 1 K. vii. 
19, translated it by " violet." In the Judaeo- 
Spanish version of the Canticles, sh&sh&n and sho 
shanndh are always translated by rosa ; but in 
Hos. xiv. 5 the latter is rendered lirio. But Kpivov, 
or " lily," is the uniform rendering of the LXX., 
and is in all probability the true one, as it is sup 
ported by the analogy of the Arabic and Persian 
siisan, which has the same meaning to this day, and 
by the existence of the same word in Syriac and 
Coptic. The Spanish azufena, " a white lily," is 
merely a modification of the Arabic. 

But although there is little doubt that the word 
denotes some plant of the lily species, it is by no 
means certain what individual of this class it espe 
cially designates. Father Souciet (Recueil de diss. 
Grit. 1715) laboured to prove that the lily of 
Scripture is the " crown-imperial," the Persian 
tiiKid, the Kpivov fiacriXinAv of the Greeks, and the 
Fritillaria imperialis of Linnaeus. So common was 
this plant in Persia, that it is supposed to have 
given its name to Susa, the capital (Athen. xii. 1 ; 
Bochart, Phaleg. ii. 14). But there is no proof 
that it was at any time common in Palestine, and 
" the lily " par excellence of Persia would not of 
necessity be " the lily" of the Holy Land. Dios- 
coridcs (i. 62) bears witness to the beauty of the 
' lilies of Syria and Pisidia, from whicli the best per 
fume was made. He says (iii. 106 [116] ) of the 
Kpivov &cuTt\ut6v that the Syrians call it ffcura 
( = shushari), and the Africans d/3i/3Aa/3oj>, which 
Bochart renders in Hebrew characters J3? S'ON. 
" white shoot." Kiihn, in his note on the passage, 
identifies the plant in question with the Lilium 
candidum of Linnaeus. It is probably the same as 
that called in the Mishna " king's lily " (Kilaim, 
v. 8). Pliny (xxi. 5) defines Kpivov as " rubens 
lilium ;" and Dioscorides, in another passage, men 
tions the fact that there are lilies with purple 
flowers ; but whether by this he intended the 
Lilium Martagon or Chalcedmicum, Kiihn leaves 
undecided. Now in the passage of Athenaens above 
quoted it is said, SoGow yctp tlvcu rp 'E\\-fivwv 
(puvfj ri> Kpivov. 'BiitintheEtymologicumMojjnum 
(s. v. 2ov<ro) we find ra 70^ \tipia. inrb ruv <t>oi- 
v'iK<or ffovffa \tyerat. As the shushan is thus 
identified both with Kpivov, the red or purple lily, 
and with \dptov, the white lily, it is evidently 
impossible from the word itself to ascertain exactly 
the kind of lily which is referred to. If the shushan 
or shoshannah of the 0. T. and the Kpivov of the 
Sermon on the Mount be identical, which there 
seems no reason to doubt, the plant designated by 
these terms must have been a conspicuous object on 
the shores of the Lake of Gennesaret (Matt. vi. 28 ; 
Luke xii. 27) ; it must have flourished in the deep 

» According to another opinion, the allusion in this 
verse ie to the fragrance and not the colour of the Illy, 
anil, if BO, the passage is favourable to the claims of the 
I,, candidum, which is highly fragrant, while the /,. 
Cbalcedanicum is almost destitute of odour. The lily of 
the N. T. may still be the latter. 

•> IlKiStraml (f'lor. I'aiaest.) mentions it aa s?rowlnp 
aear Joppa. ami Kltto (Pky<;. Hist, of ral. 219) make; 


broad valleys of Palestine (Cant. ii. 1^, amo:ig thi 
thorny shrubs (ib. ii. 2) and pastures of the desert 
(16. ii. 16, iv. 5, vi. 3), and must have been re 
markable for its rapid and luxuriant growth (Hos. 
xiv. 5; Ecclus. xxxix. 14). That its flowers were 
brilliant in colour would seem to be indicated in 
Matt. vi. 28, where it is compared with the goi-gecus 
robes of Solomon ; and that this colour was scarlet 
or purple is implied in Cant. v. 13.* There appears 
to be no species of lily which so completely answeis 
all these requirements as the Lilium Chalcedonicttm, 
or Scarlet Martagon, which grows in profusion In 
the Levant. But direct evidence on the point is 
still to be desired from the observation of travellers. 
We have, however, a letter from Dr. Bowring, re 
ferred to (Gard. Chron. ii. 854), in which, under 
the name of LUia Syriaca, Lindley identifies with 
the L. Chalcedonicum a flower which is '• abundant 
in the district of Galilee " in the months of April 
and May. Sprengel (Ant. Bot. Spen. i. p. 9) 
identifies the Greek Kpivov with the /.. ULtrtagon. 

Ulimn Chnlcfd 

With regard to the other plants which nave been 
identified witn the shushan, the difficulties are many 
and great. Gesenms derives the word fix>m a root 
signifying " to be white," and it has hence been 
inferred that the shushan is the white lily. But 
it is by no means certain that the Lilium cai*- 
didum grows wild in Palestine, though a specimen 
was found by Forsk&l at Zambak in Arabia Felix. k 
Dr. Koyle (Kitto's Cyclop, art. "Shushan") iden 
tified the "lily" of the Canticles with the lotus of 
Egypt, in spite of the many allusions to " feeding 
among the lilies." The purple flowers of the khob, 
or wild artichoke, which abounds in the plain north 
of Tabor and in the valley of Esdraelon, have been 
thought by some to be the " lilies of the field " 
alluded to in Matt. vi. 28 (Wilson, Lands of the 
Bible, ii. 1 10). A recent traveller mentions a plant, 
with lilac flowers like the hyacinth, and called by 
the Arabs usweih, which he considei-ed to be of the 

especial mention of the L. candidum growing in I'ales' 
tine; and in connexion with the hahltat given by Strand 
it is worth observing that the lily is mentioned (Cant. Ii. 
1) with the rose of Sharon. Now let this DP compaiol 
with Jerome's Comment, ad Is. xxxiii. 9 : " Saron omnU 
Juxta Joppen Lyddamquo appcllatur rcgio io qua Inti* 
simi cumpl fertilesque tenduntur." [W. HI 


species denominated lily in Scripture (Bonar, Desert 
cf Sinai, p. 329). Lynch enumerates the " lily " 
as among the plants seen by him on the shores of 
the Itead Sea, but gives no details which could lead 
to its identification (Exped. to Jordan, p. 286). 
lie had previously observed the water-lily on the 
,'ordan (p. 173), but omits to mention whether it 
was the yellow (Nuphar lutea) or the white 



fi/iaca alba]. " The only ' lilies ' which I saw in 

the titles of Ps. xlv., lx., Lxix., and hxx. were musical 
instruments in the form of lilies, or whether the 
word denote a musical air, will be discussed undei 

[W. A. W.] 

This substance ia 

the article SHOSHANNIM. 


Kovla : calx). 

noticed only three- times in the Bible, viz., in Deut. 
xxvii. 2, 4, where it is ordered to be laid on the 
great stones whereon the law was to be written 

LlUum candldum. 

Palestine," says Prof. Stanley. " 111 the months of 
March and April, were large yellow water-lilies, in 
the clear spring of 'Ain Mellahah, near the Lake of 
Merom " (S. $ P. p. 429). He suggests that the 
name "lily" "may include the numerous flowers 
of the tulip or amaryllis kind, which appear in the 
early summer, or the autumn of Palestine." The 
following description of the Huleh-lily by Dr. Thom 
son (The Land and the Book, i. 394), were it more 
precise, would perhaps have enabled botanists to 
identify it : " This Huleh-lily is very large, and the 
three inner petals meet above and form a gorgeous 

(A. V. "thou shalt plaister them with plaister") ; 
in Is. xxxiii. 12, where the "burnings of lime" 
are figuratively used to express complete destruc 
tion; and in Am. ii. 1, where the prophet describes 
the outrage committed on the memory of the king 
of Edom by the Moabites, when they took his bones 
and burned them into lime, i. e. calcined them — 
an indignity of which we have another instance in 
2 K. xxiii. 16. That the Jews were acquainted 
with the use of the lime-kiln, has been already no 
ticed. [FURNACE.] [W. L. B.] 

LINEN. Five different Hebrew words are thus 

j rendered, and it is difficult to assign to each its 

j precise significance. With regard to the Greek 

i words so translated in the N. T. there is less 


1. As "Egypt was the great centre of the linen 
manufacture of antiquity, it is in connexion with 
that country that we find the first allusion to it in 
the Bible. Joseph, when promoted to the dignity 
of ruler of the land of Egypt, was arrayed " in 
vestures of fine linen" (shesh,* marg. "silk," Gen. 
xli. 42), and among the offerings for the tabernacle 
of the things which the Israelites had brought out 
I of Egypt were " blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 
fine linen" (Ex. xxv. 4, xxxv. 6). Of twisted 

threads of this material were composed the ten 
embroidered hangings of the tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 
1), the vail which separated the holy place from 
the holy of holies (Ex. xxvi. 31), and the cur 
tain for the entrance (ver. 36), wrought with needle 
work. The ephod of the high-priest, with its 
"curious," or embroidered girdle, and the breast 
plate of judgment, were of "fine twined linen" 
(Ex. xxviii. 6, 8, 15). Of fine linen woven in 
checker-work were made the high-priest's tunic anc 
mitre (Ex. xxviii. 39). The tunics, turbans, and 

canopy, such as art never approached, and king I drawers of the inferior priests (Ex. xxxix. 27, 28) 

are simply described as of woven work of fine linen. 
2. But in Ex. xxviii. 42, and Lev. vi. 10, the 
drawers of the priests and their flowing robes are 
said to be of linen (bad*}, and the tunic of the 
high-priest, his girdle, and mitre, which he wore on 
the day of atonement, were made of the same ma 
terial (Lev. xvi. 4). Cunaeus (De Rep. ffebr. ii. 
c. i.) maintained that the robes worn by the high- 
priest throughout the year, which are called by the 
Talmudists "the golden vestments," were thus 
named because they were made of a more valuable 
kind of linen (shesh) than that of which " the 
white vestments," worn only on the day of atone 
ment, were composed (bad). But in the Mishna 
(Cod. Joma, iii. 7) it is said that the dress worn 
by the high-priest on the morning of the day of 
atonement was of linen of Pelusium, that is, of the 
finest description. In the evening of the same day 
he wore garments of Indian linen, which was less 
costly than the Egyptian. From a comparison oi 
Ex. xxviii. 42 with xxxix. 28 it seems clear that 
bad and shesh were synonymous, or, if there be any 
difference between them, the latter probably de- 

never sat under, even in his utmost glory 

We call it Huleh-lily, because it was here that it 

was first discove.-ed. Its botanical name, if it have 

one, I am unacquainted with Our flower 

delights most in the valleys, but is also found on 
the mountains. It grows among thorns, and I have 
sadly lacerated my hands in extricating it from 
them. Nothing can be in higher contrast than the 
luxuriant velvety softness of this lily, and the 
crabbed tangled hedge of thorns about it. Gazelles 
still delight to feed among them ; and you can 
scarcely ride through the woods north of Tabor, 
where these lilies abound, without frightening them 
from their flowery pasture." If some future traveller 
would give a description of the Hfileh-lily somewhat 
less vague than the above, the question might be at 
once resolved. [FLOWERS, Appendix A.] 

The Phoenician architects of Solomon's temple 
decorated the capitals of the columns with " lily- 
work," that is, with leaves and flowers of the lily 
(I K. vii.), corresponding to the lotus-headed ca 
pitals cf Egyptian architecture. The rim of the 
'' brazen sea " was possibly wrought in the form of 
the recurved margin of a lily flower (1 K. vii. 26). 
Whether the yhfahannbn and shvuhan mciitione 1 iu 

as in Kz. xvi. 13. 



njtes the q ;un threads, while the foitner is the 
linen woven from them. Maimonides (Cele ham- 
miMash, c. 8) considered them as identical with 
regard to the material of which they were com 
posed, for he says, " wherever in the Law bad or 
shesh are mentioned, they signify flax, that is, 
byssm." And Abarbanel (on Kx. xxv.) defines shesh 
to be Egyptian flax, and distinguishes it as com 
posed of six (Heb. shfsh, " six ") threads twisted 
together, from bad, which was single. But in op 
position to this may be quoted Ex. xxxix. 28, where 
the drawers of the priests are said to be linen (hid) 
of fine twined linen (shesh). The wise-hearted 
among the women of the congregation spun the flax 
which was used by Bezaleel and Aholiab for the 
hangings of the tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 25), and the 
making of linen was one of the occupations of 
women, of whose dress it formed a conspicuous part 
(Prov. xxxi. 22, A. V. " silk;" Ez. xvi. 10, 13; 
comp. Rev. xviii. 16). In Ez. xxvii. 7 shesh is 
enumerated among the products of Egypt, which 
the Tyrians imported and used for the sails of their 
ships ; and the vessel constructed for Ptolemy Philo- 
pator is said by Athenaeus to have had a sail of 
byssiis (ftvffffivov %x o)V l<rrlov, Deipn. i. 27 F). 
Hermippus (quoted by Athenaeus) describes Egypt 
as the great emporium for sails : — 


torta Kai )3u/3\ous . 

Cleopatra's galley at the battle of Actium had a 
sail of purple canvas (Plin. xix. 5). The ephods 
worn by the priests (1 Sam. xxii. 18), by Samuel, 
though he was a Levite (1 Sam. ii. 18), and by 
David when he danced before the ark (2 Sam. vi. 
14; 1 Chr. xv. 27), were all of linen (bad). The 
man whom Daniel saw in vision by the river Hid- 
dekel was clothed in linen (bad, Dan. x. 5, xii. 
6, 7; comp. Matt, xxviii. 3). In no case is bad 
used for other than a dress worn in religious cere 
monies, though the other terms rendered " linen " 
are applied to the ordinary dress of women and per 
sons in high rank. 

3. £uts, c always translated " fine linen," except 
2 Chr. v. 12, is apparently a late word, and pro 
bably the same with the Greek j8i5o-<ros, by which 
it is represented by the LXX. It was used for the 
dresses of the Levite choir in the temple (2 Chr. v. 
12), for the loose upper garment worn by kings 
over the close-fitting tunic (1 Chr. xv. 27), and for 
the vail of the temple, embroidered by the skill of 
the Tyrian artificers (2 Chr. iii. 14). Mordecai 
was arrayed in robes of fine linen (btits) and purple 
(Esth. viii. 15) when honoured by the Persian king, 
and the dress of the rich man in the parable was 
purple and fine linen (j8u<r<ros, Luke xvi. 19). The 
Tyrians were celebrated for their skill in linen- 
embroidery (2 Chr. ii. 14), and the house of Ash bea, 
a family of the descendants of Shelah the son of 
Judah, were workers in fine linen, probably in the 
lowland country (1 Chr. iv. 21). Tradition adds 
that they wove the robes of the kings and priests 
(Targ. Joseph), and, according to Jarchi, the hang 
ings of the sanctuary. The cords of the canopy 
over the garden-court of the palace at Shushan 
were of fine linen (buts, Esth. i. 6). " Purple and 
broidered work and fine linen" were brought by 


. the Syrians to the market of Tyre (Ez. xxrli. 16 ,, 
the Wits of Syria being distinguished from the shes.* 
of Egypt, mentioned in ver. 7, as being in all pro 
bability an Aramaic word, while shesh is referred 
to an Egyptian original." 1 " Fine linen " (j8<Wos). 
with purple and silk are enumerated in Rev. xviii. 12 
as among the merchandise of the mystical Baly- 
lon ; and to the Lamb's wife (xix. 8) it " was 
granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen 
(frvaaivov) clean and white:" the symbolical sig 
nificance of this vesture being immediately ex 
plained, " for the fine linen is the righteousness of 
saints." And probably with the same intent the 
armies in heaven, who rode upon white horses and 
followed the " Faithful and True,'' were clad in 
" fine linen, white and clean," as they went forth 
to battle with the beast and his army (Rev. 
xix. 14). 

4. Etun e occurs but once (Prov. vii. 16), and there 
in connexion with Egypt. Schultens connects it 
with the Greek o96vr\, oOSviov, which he supposes- 
were derived from it. The Talmudists translate it 
by 73H, chebel, a cord or rope, in consequence of 

its identity in form with atunf which occurs in the 
Targ. on Josh. ii. 15, and Esth. i. 6. R. Parchon 
interprets it " a girdle of Egyptian work." But in 
what way these cords were applied to the decora 
tion of beds is not clear. Probably etun was a 
kind of thread made of fine Egyptian flax, aud 
used for ornamenting the coverings of beds with 
tapestry-work. In support of this may be quoted 
the afjuptrdtroi of the LXX., and the pictae tapetes 
of the Vulgate, which represent the j-IDN RHpf"! 
of the Hebrew. But Celsius renders the word 
" linen," and appeals to the Greek oBovri, o66vtov, 
as decisive upon the point. See Jablonski, Opusc. 
i. 72, 73. 

Schultens (Prov. vii. 16) suggests that the Greek 
ffivScev is derived from the Hebrew sadtnf which is 
used of the thirty linen garments which Samson 
promised to his companions (Judg. xiv. 12, 13) at 
his wedding, and which he stripped from the bodies 
of the Philistines whom he slew at Ashkelon (ver. 
19). It was made by women (Prov. xxxi. 24), and 
used for girdles and under-garments (Is. iii. 23 ; 
comp. Mark xiv. 51). The LXX. in Judg. and 
Prov. render it ffivSwv, but in Judg. xiv. 13 
oQ&via. is used synonymously; just as crivStav in 
Matt, xxvii. 59, Mark xv. 46, and Luke xxiii. 53. 
is the same as o66via in Luke xxiv. 12 : John xx. 5, 
6, xix. 40. In these passages it is seen that linen 
was used for the winding-sheets of the dead by the 
Hebrews as well as by the Greeks (Horn. 77. xviii. 
353, xxiii. 254; comp. Eur. Bacch. 819). Towels 
were made of it (\4vnov, John xiii. 4, 5), and 
napkins (ffovSdpta, John xi. 44), like the coai-se 
linen of the Egyptians. The dress of the poor 
(Eccius. xl. 4) was probably unbleached flax (w/j.6- 
\ivov), such as was used for barbers' towels (Pint 
De Garrul.). 

The general term which included all those already 
mentioned was pishteh,* corresponding to the Greek 
\ivov, which was employed — like our " cotton " — tj 
denote not only the flax (Judg. xv. 14) or raw ma 
terial from which the linen was made, but also the 

- Jablonskl (Opusc. i. 297, &c.) claimg for tli« 

T*-13. /3v<r<ro«, byssus. 

* In Gen. xli. 42, the Targum of Onkelos gives j»!|3 as i wor( j an Egyptian origin. The Coptic thento is the repre- 
the equivalent of {J>{J*. See also Ex. xxv. 4, xxxv. 35. j sentative of atvSiav in the N. T 
' t-IDN' Veneto-Gr. <r x oivof. 


plant itself (JosK. ii. 6), ami tlic inanufact ire from it. 
It is generally opposed to wool, as a vegetable pro 
duct to an animal (Lev. xiii. 47, 48, 52, 59; Deut. 
xxii. 11; Prov. xxxi. 13; Hos. ii. 5, 9), and was 
used for nets (Is. xix. 9), girdles (Jer. xiii. 1), and 
mensuring-lines (Ez. xl. 3), as well as for the dress 
of the priests (Ez. xliv. 17, 18). From a com 
parison of the last-quoted passages with Ex. xxviii. 
4'2, and Lev. vi. 10 (3), xvi. 4, 23, it is evident 
that bad and pislitch denote the same material, the 
latter being the more general term. It is equally 
apparent, from a comparison of Rev. xv. 6 with 
xix. 8, 14, that \lvov and frvaaivov are essentially 
the same. Mr. Yates (Textrinum Antiquorum, 
p. 276) contends that \ivov denotes the common 
Hax, and fivffcros the finer variety, and that in this 
sense the terms are used by Pausanias (vi. 26, §4). 
Till the time of Dr. Forster it was never doubted 
that byssus was a kind of flax, but it was main 
tained by him to be cotton. That the mummy- 
cloths used by the Egyptians were cotton and not 
linen was first asserted by Rouelle (Mem. da 
I'Acad. Eoy. des Scien. 1750), and he was sup 
ported in his opinion by Dr. Forster and Dr. 
Icelander, after an examination of the mummies in 
the British Museum. But a more careful scrutiny 
by Mr. Bauer of about 400 specimens of mummy- 
cloth has shown that they were universally linen. 
Dr. Ore arrived independently at the same conclu 
sion (Yates, Textr. Ant. b. ii.). 

One word remains to be noticed, which our A. V. 
has translated " linen yam" (1 K. x. 28; 2 Chr. i. 
16), brought out of Egypt by Solomon's merchants. 
The Hebrew mikveh, 1 or mikve^ is variously ex 
plained. In the LXX. of 1 Kings it appears as a 
proper name, Qtitovt, and in the Vulgate Coa, a 
place in Arabia Felix. By the Syriac (2 Chr.) and 
Arabic translators it was also regarded as the name of 
a place. Bochart once referred it to Troglodyte Egypt, 
anciently called Michoe, according to Pliny (vi. 34), 
but afterwards decided that it signified "a tax" 
(Hieroz. pt. 1, b. 2, c. 9). To these Michaelis adds 
a conjecture of his own, that Ku in the interior of 
Africa, S.W. of Egypt, might be the place referred 
to, as the country whence Egypt procured its horses 
(Laws of Moses, trans. Smith, ii. 493). In trans 
lating the word " linen yarn " the A. V. followed 
.Tunius and Tremellius, who are supported by 
Sebastian Schmid, De Dieu, and Clericus. Gesenius 
has recourse to a very unnatural construction, and, 
rendering the word " troop," refers it in the first 
clause to the king's merchants, and in the second 
to the horses which they brought. 

From time immemorial Egypt was celebrated for 
its linen (Ez. xxvii. 7). It was the dress of the 
Egyptian priests (Her. ii. 37, 81), and was worn 
by them, according to Plutarch (Is. et Osir. 4), 
because the colour of the flax-blossom resembled 
that of the circumambient ether (comp. Juv. vi. 
533, of the priests of Isis). Panopolis or Chemmis 
(the modem Akhmiiri) was anciently inhabited by 
linen- weavers (Strabo, xvii. 41, p. 813). According 
to Herodotus (ii. 86) the mummy-cloths were of 
byssus; and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6, §1) mentions 
among the contributions of the Israelites for the 
tabernacle, " byssus of flax ;" the hangings of the 
tabernacle were " sindon of byssus " (§2), of which 
material the tunics of the priests were also made 
'Ant. iii. 7, §2), the drawers being of byssus (§1). 



£, 1 Kings. 

, 2 Chron. 

Philo also says that the high-prii-st wore a gannen 
of the finest byssus. Combining the testimony oi 
Herodotus as to the mummy-cloths with the results 
of microscopic examination, it seems clear that 
byssus was linen, and not cotton ; and moreover, that 
the dresses of the Jewish priests were made of the 
same, the purest of all materials. For further in 
formation see Dr. Kalisdi's Comm. on Exodus, pp. 
487-489 ; also article WOOLLEN. [W. A. W.| 

LINTEL. The beam which forms the upper 
part of the framework of a door. In tho A. V. 
" lintel " is the rendering of three Hebrew words. 

1. S*N, ayil (1 K. vi. 31); translated "post" 
throughout Ez. xl., xli. The true meaning of this 
word is extremely doubtful. In the LXX. it is 
left untranslated (aX\, al\ev, al\dp) ; and in the 
Chaldee version it is represented by a modifica 
tion of itself. Throughout the passages of Ezekiel 
in which it occurs the Vulg. uniformly renders it 
by frons ; which Gesenius quotes as favourable to 
his own view, provided that by frons be understood 
the projections in front of the building. The A. V. 
of 1 K. vi. 31, "lintel," is supported by the ver 
sions of-Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion of 
Ez. xl. 21 ; while Kimchi explains it generally by 
" post." The Peshito-Syriac uniformly renders the 
word. by a modification of the Greek irapaffTdSts, 
" pillars." Jarchi understands by ayil a round co 
lumn like a large tree ; Aquila (Ez. xl. 14), having 
in view the meaning " ram," which the word else 
where bears, renders it /cpicojuo, apparently intend 
ing thereby to denote the volutes of columns, 
curved like rams' horns. J. D. Michaelis (Supp. 
ad Lex. s. v.) considers it to be the tympanum or 
triangular area of the pediment above a gate, 
supported by columns. Gesenius himself, after re 
viewing the passages in which the word occurs, 
arrives at the conclusion that in the singular it 
denotes the whole projecting framewoi'k of a door 
or gateway, including the jambs on either side, the 
threshold, and the lintel or architrave, with frieze 
and cornice. In the plural it is applied to denote 
the projections along the front of an edifice orna 
mented with columns or palm-teees, and with re 
cesses or intercolumniations between them some 
times filled up by windows. Under the former 
head he places 1 K. vi. 31 ; Ez. xl. 9, 21, 24, 26, 
29, 31, 33, 34, 36-38, 48, 49, xli. 3; while ;o 
the latter he refers xl. 10, 14, 16, xli. 1. Anotht-r 
explanation still is that of Boettcher (quoted by 
Winer, Realw. ii. 575), who says that ayil is the 
projecting entrance- and passage-wall — which miglu 
appropriately be divided into compartments by pa 
nelling ; and this view is adopted by Fiirst (Handw. 
s. v.). 

2. "WB3, caphtar (Amos ix. 1 ; Zeph. ii. 14). 
The marginal rendering, " chapiter or kuop," of bot'i 
these passages is undoubtedly the more correct, 
and in all other cases where the word occurs it is 
translated " knop." [KNOP.] 

3. S^pEfo, mashkdph (Ex. xii. 22, 23) ; also ren 
dered " upper door-post " in Ex. xii. 7. That this 
is the true rendering is admitted by all modern 
philologists, who connect it with a root which in 
Arabic and the cognate dialects signifies " to over 
lay with beams." The LXX. and Vulgate coincide 
in assigning to it the same meaning. Rabbi Sol. 
Jarchi derives it from a Chaldee root signifying 
" to beat," because the door in being shut beats 

1 24 


against it. The signification " to look " or " peep," 
"vhich W.TS acquired by the Hebrew root, induced 
A beii Ezra to translate mashkoph by " window," 
such as the Arabs have over the doors of their 
houses ; and in assenting to this rendering, Bochart 
observes " that it was so called on account of the 
grates and railings over the tops of the doors, 
through which those who desire entrance into 
the house could be seen before they were ad 
mitted" (Kalisch, Exodus). An illustration of 
one of these windows is given in the art. HOUSE, 
vol. i. p. 837 a. [W. A.W.] 

LI'NUS (ATvos), a Christian at Rome, known 
to St. Paul and to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 21 ). That 
the first bishop of Rome after the apostles was 
named Linus is a statement in which all ancient 
writers agree (e. g. Jerome, De Viris IHustr. 1 f> ; 
August. Ep. liii. 2). The early and unequivocal 
assertion of Irenaeus (iii. 3, §3), corroborated by 
Eusebius (H. E. iii. 2) and Theodoret, (fn 2 Tim. 
iv. 21), is sufficient to prove the identity of the 
bishop with St. Paul's friend. 

The date of his appointment, the duration of his 
episcopate, and the limits to which his episcopal 
authority extended, are points which cannot be 
regarded as absolutely settled, although they have 
been discussed at great length. Eusebius and 
Theodoret, followed by Baronius and Tillemont 
(Hist. Eccl. ii. 165 and 591), state that he became 
bishop of Rome after the death of St. Peter. On 
the other hand, the words of Irenaeus — " [Peter 
and Paul] when they founded and built up the 
church [of Rome] committed the office of its 
episcopate to Linus " — certainly admit, or rather 
imply the meaning, that he held that office before 
the death of St. Peter : as if the two great apostles, 
having, in the discharge of their own peculiar office, 
completed the organisation of the church at Rome, 
left it under the government of Linus, and passed 
on to preach and teach in some new region. This 
proceeding would be in accordance with the prac 
tice of the apostles in other places. And the earlier 
appointment of Linus is asserted as a fact by 
Ruffinus (Praef. in Clem. Recogn.*), and by the 
author of ch. xlvi. bk. vii. of the Apostolic Con 
stitutions. It is accepted as the true statement of 
the case by Bishop Pearson {De Serie et Successione 
Priorum Komae Episcoporum, ii. 5, §1) and by 
Fleury (Hist. Eccl. ii. 26). Some persons have 
objected that the undistinguished mention of the 
name of Linus between the names of two other 
Roman Christians in 2 Tim. iv. 21, is a proof that 
he was not at that time bishop of Rome. But even 
Tillemont admits that such a way of introducing 
the bishop's name is in accordance with the sim 
plicity of that early age. No lofty pre-eminence 
was attributed to the episcopal office in the apostolic 

The arguments by which the exact years of his 
episcopate are laid down are too long and minute 
to be recited here. Its duration is given by Euse 
bius (whose //. E. iii. 16 and Chronicon give in- 

• Ruffinus' statement ought, doubtless, to be inter 
preted in accordance with that of his contemporary Epi- 
phanius (Adv. Haer. xxvii. 6, p. 107), to the effect that 
LitMis and Cletus were bishops of Rome in succession, not 
contemporaneously. The facts were, however, differently 
viewed: (1) by an interpolator of the Gctta Ponlificum 
liamasi, quoted I>y J. Vo»s in his second epistle to A. 
Aivet(App.'to Pearson's Yindiciat Ignatianae) ; (2) by 
BeJe ( Vita S. Benedicti $7, p. 1 16, ffl Steven-smi) wheti 


consistent evidence) as A.D. 68-80 ; by Tillemont 
who however reproaches Pearson with depart iir_ 
from the chronology of Eusebius, as 66-78; by 
Baronius as 67-78; and by Pearson as 55-67. 
Pearson, in the treatise already quoted (i. 10), 
gives weighty reasons for distrusting the chronology 
of Eusebius as regards the years of the early bishops 
of Rome ; and he derives his own opinion from 
certain very ancient (but interpolated) lists of those 
bishops (see i. 13 and ii. 5). This po:r>* ha« been 
[subsequently considered by Baraterius (De Suc 
cessione Antiquissima Episc. Rom. 1740), who gives 
A.D. 56-67 as the date of the episcopate of Linus. 

The statement of Ruffinus, that Linus and Cletue 
were bishops in Rome whilst St. Peter was alive,* 
has been quoted in support of a theory which 
sprang up in the 17th centuiy, received the sanc 
tion even of Hammond in his controversy with 
Blondel ( Works, ed. 1684, iv. 825; Episcopates 
Jura, v. 1, §1 1), was held with some slight modi 
fication by Baraterius, and has been recently revived. 
It is supposed that Linus was bishop in Rome only 
of the Christians of Gentile origin, while at the same 
time another bishop exercised the same authority 
over the Jewish Christians there. Tertullian's 
assertion (De Praescr. Haeret. §32) that Clement 
[the third bishop] of Rome was consecrated by 
St. Peter, has been quoted also as corroborating 
this theory. But it does not follow from the words 
of Tertullian that Clement's consecration took place 
immediately before he became bishop of Rome : and 
the statement of Ruffinuu, so far as it lends any 
support to the above-named theory, is shown to be 
without foundation by Pearson (ii. 3, 4). Til- 
lemont's observations (p. 590) in reply to Pear 
son only show that the establishment of two con 
temporary bishops in one city was contemplated in 
ancient times as a possible provisional arrangement 
to meet certain temporary difficulties. The actual 
limitation of the authority of Linus to a section of 
the church in Rome remains to be proved. 

Linus is reckoned by Pseudo-Hippolytus, and in 
the Greek Menaea, among the seventy disciples. 
Various days are stated by different authorities in 
the Western Church, and by the Eastern Church, 
as the day of his death. A narrative of the mar 
tyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, printed in the 
Bibliotheca Patrum, and certain pontifical decrees, 
are incorrectly ascribed to Linus. He is said to 
have written an account of the dispute between 
St. Peter and Simon Magus. [W. T. B.] 

LION. Rabbinical writers discover in the 0. T 
seven names of the lion, which they assign to the 
animal at seven periods of its life. 1. 1-13, yur, or 
113, gor, a cub (Gen. xlix. 9; Deut. xxxiii. 22- 
Jer. Ii. 38 ; Nab. ii. 12). 2. "VB3, cephir, a young 
lion ( Judg. xiv. 5 ; Job iv. 10 ; Ez. xix. 2, &c.). 
3. ^*1N, Art, or HHX, aryeh, a full-grown lion 

(Gen. xlix. 9 ; Judg. xiv. 5, 8, &c.). 4. ^HP, 
shakhal, a lion more advanced in age and strength 

he was seeking a precedent for two contemporaneous 
abbots presiding in one monastery; and (3) by Kahanus 
Maurus (De Chorepitcopis : Opp. ed. Migne, torn. iv. p. 
1197), who ingeniously claims primitive authority for the 
institution of chorepiscooi on the supi>osition that Limit! 
and Cletus were never wishops with full powers, but were 
contemporaneous chorcpi»i:o|ii employed by St. IVler in 
his absence from Rome, and at his request, to oriiaL: 
clertymrti for the church ;it K"iiie. 


(Job iv. 10 ; \\. zci. i:'>, &<V). 5. pnK>, stiakhats, 
a lion in full vigor..- ' fob xxviii. 8j. 6. JOT?, Idbi, 
or N'l^, lebiyya, an old lion (Gen. xlix. 9 ; Job 
;-v. 11, £c.). 7. K>)^, laish, a lion decrepit with 

age (Job iv. 11; Is. xxx. 6, &c.) Well might 
Bochart (Hieroz. pt. i. b. iii. 1) say, "Hie gram- 
matic: videntur mire sibi indulgere." He differs 
from this arrangement in every point but the 
second. In the first place, gur is applied to the 
young of other animals besides the lion ; for in 
stance, the sea monsters in Lam. iv. 3. Secondly, 
cephir differs from gur, as juvencus from vitulus. 
Ari or aryth is a generic term, applied to all lions 
without regard to age. In Judg. xiv. the " young 
lion " (cephir ardyoth*) of ver. 5 is in ver. 8 called 
the "lion" (art/eh). Bochart is palpably wrong 
in rendering shakhal "a black lion" of the kind 
which, according to Pliny (viii. 17), was found in 
Syria. The word is only used in the poetical books, 
and most probably expresses some attribute of the 
lion. It is connected with an Arabic root, which 
signifies " to bray " like an ass, and is therefore 
simply " the brayer." Shakhats does not denote a 
lion at all. Labi is properly a " lioness," and is 
connected with the Coptic labai, which has the 
same signification. Laish (comp. \1s, Horn. //. 
xv. 275) is another poetic name. So far from being 
applied to a lion weak with age, it denotes one in 
full vigour (Job iv. 11; Prov. xxx. 30). It has 
been derived from an Arabic root, which signifies 
" to be strong," and, if this etymology be true, 
the word would be an epithet of the lion, "the 
strong one." 

At present lions do not exist in Palestine, though 
they are said to be found in the desert on the 
road to Egypt (Schwarz, Desc. of Pal.: see Is. 
xxx. 6). They abound on the banks of the Eu 
phrates between Bussorah and Bagdad (Russell, 
Aleppo, p. 61), and in the marshes and jungles 
near the rivers of Babylonia (Layard, Nin. $ Bab. 
p. 566). This specie's, according to Layard, is 
without the dark and shaggy mane of the African 
lion (id. 487), though he adds in a note that he 
had seen lions on the river Karoon with a long 
black mane. 

But, though lions liave now disappeared from 
Palestine, they must in ancient times have been 
numerous. The names Lebaoth (Josh. xv. 32';, 



Beth-Lebaoth (Josh. xix. 6), Arieh (2 K. xv. 25), 
incl Laish (Judg. xviii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 44) were 
•obabi y derived from the presence of or connexion 
with lions, and point to the fact that they were at one 
ime common. They had their laivs ic the forests 
which have vanished with them (Jer. v. 6, xii. 
iS ; Am. iii. 4), in the tangled brushwood (Jer. 
v. 7, xxv. 38 ; Job xxxviii. 40), and in the caves 
of the mountains (Cant. iv. 8 ; Ez. xix. 9 ; Nah. 
i. 12). The cane-brake on the banks of the Jordan, 
the " pride " of the river,, was their favourite 
launt (Jer. xlix. 19, 1. 44; Zech. xi. 3), and 
in this reedy covert (Lam. iii. 10) they were to be 
found at a comparatively recent period ; as we 
learn from a passage of Johannes Phocas, who 
travelled in Palestine towards the end of the 12th 
century (Reland, Pal. i. 274). They abounded in 
the jungles which skirt the rivers of Mesopotamia 
(Ammian. Marc, xviii. 7, §5), and in the time ot 
Xenophon (de Venat. xi.) were found in Nysa. 

turbary l.ion. (F 

Persian Lion. (From specimen in the Zoological G 

The lion of Palestine was in all probability the 
Asiatic variety, described by Aristotle (H. A. 
ix. 44) and Pliny (viii. 18), as distinguished by its 
short curly mane, and by being shorter and rounder 
in shape, like the sculptured lion found at Arban 
(Layard, Nin. $• Bab. p. 278). It was less daring 
than the longer maned species, but when driven by 
hunger it not only ventured to attack the flocks in 
the desert in presence of the shepherd (Is. xxxi. 4 ; 
1 Sam. xvii. 34), but laid waste towns and villages 
(2 K. xvii. 25, 26 ; Prov. xxii. 13, xxvi. 13), and 
devoured men (1 K. xiii. 24, xx. 36; 2 K. xvii. 
25 ; Ex. xix. 3, 6). The shepherds sometimes 
ventured to encounter the lion single handed 
(1 Sam. xvii. 34), and the vivid figure employed 
by Amos (iii. 12], the herdsman of Tekoa, was but 
the transcript of a scene which he must have often 
witnessed. At other times they pursued the 
animal in large bands, raising loud shouts to in 
timidate him (Is. xxxi. 4), and drive him into the 
net or pit they had prepared to catch him (Ez. 
xix. 4, 8). This method of capturing wild beasts 
is described by Xenophon (de Yen. xi. 4) and by 
Shaw, who says, "The Arabs dig a pit where they 
are observed to enter ; and, covering it over lightly 
with reeds or small branches of trees, they fre 
quently decoy and catch them " ( Travels, 2nd ed. 
p. 172). Benaiah, one of David's heroic body 
guard, had distinguished himself by slaying a lion 
in his deu (2 Sam. xxiii. 20). The kings of Persia 
had a menagerie of lions (33, (job, I)an. vi. 7, &c.). 
When captured alive they were put in a cage 
; K.z. xix. 9), but it does not appear that they were 
tamed. Iiv the bunting scenes ;it Beui-Hassan tain* 
lio;is are represented as used in hunting Wilkinson, 

126 LION 

Aiic. Egypt, iii. 17). On the bas-reliefs at Kou- 
yunjik a lion led by a chain is among the presents 
brought by the conquered to their victors (I.avard, 
Nm. & Bab. p. 138\ 

Hunting w.Ui a lion, which na» seized an ibex. (From Wilkina 
Egyptians, vol. 1. p £gl.) 

The strength (Judg. xiv. 18 ; Prov. xxx. 30 ; 2 
.<am. i. 23), courage (2 Sam. xvii. 10 ; Prov. xxviii. 
I ; Is. xxxi. 4 ; Nah. ii. 11), and ferocity (Gen. xlix. 
9 ; Num. xxiv. 9), of the lion were proverbial. The 
" liou-faced " warriors of Gad were among David's 
most valiant troops (1 Chr. xii. 8); and the hero 
Judas Maccabeus is described as " like a lion, and 
like a lion's whelp roaring for his prey" (1 Mace, 
iii. 4). The terrible roar of the lion is expressed in 
Hebrew by four different words, between which the 
following distinction appears to be maintained : — 
3NC?, shdag (Judg. xiv. 5 ; Ps. xxii. 13, civ. 21 ; 
Am. iii. 4), also used of the thunder (Job xxxvii. 4), 
denotes the roar of the lion while seeking his prey ; 
Drj3, naham (Is. v. 29), expresses the cry which 
he utters when he seizes his victim ; nJH, hdgah 

(Is. xxxi. 4), the growl with which he defies any 
attempt to snatch the prey from his teeth ; while 
"$3, nd'ar (Jer. li. 38), which in Syriac is applied 

to the braying of the ass and camel, is descriptive of 
the cry of the young lions. If this distinction be 
correct the meaning attached to naham will give 
force to Prov. xix. 12. The terms which describe 
the movements of the animal are equally distinct : — 
¥3~l, rabats (Gen. xlix. 9 ; Ez. xix. 2), is applied 
to the crouching of the lion, as well as of any wild 
beast, in his lair ; nntJ>, shdchdh, 3K", ydshab 
(Job xxxviii. 40), and 3^$, drab (Ps. x. 9), to his 
lying in wait in his den, the two former denoting the 
position of the animal, and the latter the secrecy of the 
act; BW, ramas (Ps. civ. 20), is used of the 
stealthy creeping of the lion after his prey; and 
p3T, zinnek (Deut. xxxiii. 22) of the leap with 
which he hurls himself upon it. 

The lion was the symbol of strength and sove 
reignty, as in the human-headed figures of the 
Nimroud gateway, the symbols of Nergal, the 
Assyrian Mars, and tutelary god of Babylon. In 
Egypt it was worshipped at the city of Leontopolis, 
as typical of Dom, the Egyptian Hercules (Wil 
kinson, Anc. Egypt, v. 169). Plutarch (de hid. 
§38) says that the Egyptians ornamented their 
temples with gaping lions' mouths, because the Nile 
began to rise when the sun was in the constellation 


I Leo. Among the Hebrews, and throughout the 
O. T., the lion was the achievement of the princely 
tribe of Judah, while in the closing book of th« 
canon it received a deeper significance as the emblem 
of him who " prevailed to open the book and loose 
the seven seals thereof" (Rev. v. 5). On the 

i other hand its fierceness and cruelty rendered it aa 
appropriate metaphor for a fierce and malignant 
enemy (Ps. vii. 2, xxii. 21, Ivii. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 17), 
and hence for the arch-fiend himself (1 Pet. v. 8). 
The figure of the lion was employed as an orna 
ment both in architecture and sculpture. On each 
of the six steps leading up to the great ivory 
throne of Solomon stood tv o lions on either side, 
carved by the workmen of Hiram, and two others 
were beside the arms of the throne (1 K. x. 19,20). 
The great brazen laver was in like manner adorned 
with cherubim, lions, and palm-trees in graven 
work (1 K. vii. 29, 36). [W. A. W.] 


, letaah : Vat. and Alex. 

a>T7js ; Compl. itrxoAaflciTT/s ; Aid. <taAo- 
: stellio). The Hebrew word, which with 
its English rendering occurs only in Lev. xi. 30, 
appears to be correctly translated by the A. V. Some 
species of lizard is mentioned amongst those " creep 
ing things that creep upon the earth " which were to 
be considered unclean by the Israelites. 

Lizards of various kinds abound in Egypt, Pales 
tine, and Arabia ; some of these are mentioned in 
the Bible under various Hebrew names, notices ol 
which will be found under other articles. [FER 
RET ; SNAIL.] All the old versions agree in iden 
tifying the letaah with some saurian, and some 
concur as to the particular genus indicated. The 
LXX., the Vulg., the Targ. of Jonathan,* with the 
Arabic versions, understand a lizard by the Hebrew 
word. The Syriac has a word which is generally 
translated salamander, but probably this name was 
applied also to the lizard. The Greek word, with 
its slight variations, which the LXX. use to express 
the letaah, appears from what may be gathered from 
Aristotle, b and perhaps also from its derivation, 8 
to point to some lizard belonging to the Geckotidae. 

Many members of this family of Saura are cha- 
•acterised by a peculiar lamcllated structure on the 
under surface of the toes, by means of which they 
are enabled to run over the smoothest surfaces, and 

* NTVIDDK* ; " stellio, reptile immundum." 

k The following are the references to the Greek word 
u(T(caAa(SuJn)? In Aristot. de Anim. Hist, (ed Schneider), 
iv. .11, $2; vtll. 17, $1; vlll. 19, $2; vlll. 28, $2; Ix. 2, }5 ; 
ix. 10, $2. That Aristotle understands some species of 
lircko by the Greek word Is clear; for he says of the 
woodpecker, irofxverai eirt TO<S StvSpttn ra^fois KO.L 
3»rrtot, xatla-afo ol ao-K<zAa/3u>Tai (ix. 10. $2). He alludes 

also to a sprcles In Italy, perhaps the Hemidactylut ixr- 
•ucatus, whose bite, he says, is fatal (?). 
e 'AoxaAa/Sum)!, ^av<f>iov eoticbs <7a.vpif iv rots TOI'\OI< 
vfpirov Taif ouajfiarui'. This seems to Identify It witi< 
me of the Geckotidae: perhaps the Tarentola was b«sl 
mown to the Greeks. The noiseless rt<nix<»?) an; '-. *1 
times, fixed habits of this llsui are referred to oelow 
;See Galsf. £tym. Mag.) 


even in an inverted jiosition, like house-flies on a 
ieling. Mr. liroderip observes that they can remain 
suspended beneath the large leaves of the tropical 
vegetation, and remain for hours in positions as 
"r.traordinary as the insects for which they watch ; 
the wonderful apparatus with which their feet are 
furnished enabling them to overcome gravity. Now 
the Hebrew letddh appears to be derived from a 
root w'.uch, though not extant in that language, 
is found in its sister-tongue the Arabic : this root 
means to adhere to the tjround,* an expression 
which well agrees with the peculiar sucker-like 
properties of the feet of the Geckos. Bochart has 
uiccessfully argued that the lizard denoted by the 
Hebrew word is that kind which the Arabs call 
oachara, the translation of which term is thus given 
ov Golius : " An animal like a lizard, of a red colour, 
and adhering to the ground, cibo potuive venenum 
inspirat quemeunque contigerit." This description 
will be found to agree with the character of the 
Kan-Foot Lizard (Ptyodactylitsi Gecko], which is 



The Fan-Foot. (I'lyixlactylui Gecko.) 

common in Egypt and in parts of Arabia, and 
perhaps is also found in Palestine. It is reddish 
brown, spotted with white. 6 Hasselquist thus 
•speaks of it : " The poison of this animal is very 
singular, as it exhales from the lobidi of the toes. 
At Cairo I had an opportunity of observing how 
acrid the exhalations of the toes of this animal ai e. 
As it ran over the hand of a man who was endea 
vouring to catch it, there immediately rose little 
red pustules over all those parts which the animal 
had touched" ( Voyages, p. 220). Forskal (Descr. 
Anitn. 13) says that the Egyptians call this lizard 
Abu burs, " father of leprosy," in allusion to the 
leprous sores which contact with it produces ; and 
to this day the same term is used by the Arabs 
to denote a lizard, probably of this same species.' 
The Geckos live on insects and worms, which they 
swallow whole. They derive their name from the 
peculiar sound which some of the species utter. 
This sound has been described as being similar to 
the double click often used in riding; they make it 
by some movement of the tongue against the palate. 
The Geckotidae are nocturnal in their habits, and 
frequent houses, cracks in rocks, &c. They move 
very rapidly, and without making the slightest 
sound ; heuce probably the derivation of the Greek 

d Sec Gesen. (Tltes. s. v.). A similar root has the force 
of "hiding;" in which case the word will refer to the 
Gecko's habit of frequenting holes in walls, &c. 

8 The Gr. ao-/caAa/3uJTr)s, and perhaps Lat. stellio, 
indicate the K<>.nus,.thc red colour the species. 

(j^jjj ~j\, <*ni Ifurays, Lizard. (Catafago, Arab. 

word for this lizard. They are found in all part; 
of the world ; in the greatest abundance in warm 
climates. It is no doubt owing to their repulsive 
appearance that they have the character of being 
highly venomous, just as the unscientific in England 
attach similar properties to toads, newts, olind 
worms, &c. &c., although these creatures are per 
fectly harmless. At the same time it must be ad 
mitted that there may be species of lizards which 
do secrete a venomous fluid, the effects of which nre 
no doubt aggravated by the heat of the climate, the 
unhealthy condition of the subject, or other causes. 
The Geckos belong to the sub-order Pachyglcssae, 
order Saura. They are oviparous, producing a round 

egg, with a hard calcareous shell. fw. H."| 

LO-AM'MI ('''Gy K? : ov Ka6s ftov : non po- 

pnlus meus), i. e. " not my people," the figurative 
name given by the prophet Hosea to his second son 
by Corner, the daughter of Diblaim (Hos. i. 9), to 
denote the rejection of the kingdom of Israel by 
Jehovah. Its significance is explained in ver. 9, 10. 

LOAN. The law of Moses did not contemplate 
any raising of loans for the purpose of obtaining 
capital, a condition perhaps alluded to in the pa 
rables of the " pearl " and " hidden treasure " 
(Matt. xiii. 44, 45 ; Michaehs, Cornm. on Laws 
of Moses, art. 147, ii. 297, ed. Smith). [CoM- 
MERCK.] Such persons as bankers and sureties, ic 
the commercial sense (Prov. xxii. 26; Neh. v. 3) 
were unknown to the earlier ages of the Hebrew 
commonwealth. The Law strictly forbade any in 
terest to be taken for a loan to any poor person, 
either in the shape of money or of produce, and at 
first, as it seems, even In the case of a foreigner ; 
but this prohibition was afterwards limited to 
Hebrews only, from whom, of whatever rank, not 
only was no usury on any pretence to be exacted, 
but relief to the poor by way of loan was enjoined, 
and excuses for evading this duty were forbidden 
(Ex. xxii. 25; Lev. xxv. 35, 37 ; Deut. xv. 3, 7-10, 
xxiii. 19, 20). The instances of extortionate con 
duct mentioned with disapprobation in the book of 
Job probably represent a state of things previous to 
the Law, and such as the Law was intended to remedy 
(Job xxii. 6, xxiv. 3, 7). As commerce increased, the 
practice of usury, and so also of suretiship, grew up ; 
but the exaction of it from a Hebrew appears to have 
been regarded to a late period as discreditable (Prov. 
vi. 1, 4, si. 15, xvii. 18, xx. 16, xxii. 26 ; Ps. xv. 5, 
xxvii. 13 ; Jer. xv. 10 ; Ez. xviii. 13, xxii. 12). Sys 
tematic breach of the law in this respect was corrected 
by Nehemiah after the return from captivity (see No. 
6) (Neh. v. 1, 13; Michaelis, »&., arts. 148, 151). 
In later times the practice of borrowing money appears 
to have prevailed without limitation of race, and to 
have been carried on on systematic principles, though 
the original spirit of the Law was approved by our 
Lord (Matt. v. 42, xxv. 27 ; Luke vi. 35, six. 23). 
The money-changers {KeppMTiarai, and KO\\V- 
j8«rTo(), who had seats and tables in the Temple, 
were traders whose profits arose chiefly from the 
exchange of money with those who came to pay 
their annual half-shekel (Pollux, iii. 84, vii. 170; 
Schleusner, Lex. N. T. s. v. ; Lightfoot, ffor. ITebr. ; 
Matt. xxi. 12). The documents relating to loans of 
money appear to have been deposited in public offices 
in Jerusalem (Joseph. B. J, ii. 17, §6). 

In making loans no prohibition is pronounced in 
the Law against taking a pledge of the borrower, 
but certain limitations are prescribed in favour o/ 
the poor. 


1. The outer garment, which formed the poor 
man's principal covering by night as well as by .lay, 
if taken in pledge, was to be returned before sunset. 
A bedstead, however, might be taken (Ex. xxii. 26, 
27 ; Deut. xxiv. 12, 13: comp. Job xxii. 6 ; Prov. 
txii. 27 ; Shaw, Trav. 224 ; Burckhardt, Notes on 
Bed. i.47, 231 ; Niebuhr, Descr. del'Ar. 56; Lane, 
ifotl. E<f. i. 57, 58 ; Ges. Thes. 403 ; Michaelis, 
Laws of Moses, arts. 143 and 150). 

2. The prohibition was absolute in the case of 
(a) the widow's garment (Deut. xxiv. 17), and 
(6) a millstone of either kind (Deut. xxiv. 6). 
Michaelis (art. 150, ii. 321) supposes also all indis 
pensable animals and utensils of agriculture ; see also 
Mishua, Mauser Sheni, i. 

3. A creditor was forbidden to enter a house to 
reclaim a pledge, but was to stand outside till the 
borrower should come forth to return it (Deut. 
xxiv. 10, 11). 

4. The original Roman law of debt permitted the 
debtor to be enslaved by his creditor until the debt 
was discharged ; and he might even be put to death 
ry him, though this extremity does not appear to 
have been ever practised (Cell. xx. 1, 45, 52 ; Diet, 
of Antiq. " Bonorum Cessio," "Nexum"). The 
Jewish law, as it did not forbid temporary bondage 
in the case of debtors, so it forbade a Hebrew debtor 
to be detained as a bondsman longer than the 7th 
year, or at farthest the year of Jubilee (Ex. xxi. 2 ; 
Lev. xxv. 39, 42 ; Deut. xv. 9). If a Hebrew was 
sold in this way to a foreign sojourner, he might 
l« redeemed at a valuation at any time previous to 
the Jubilee year, and in that year was, under any 
circumstances, to be released. Foreign sojourners, 
however, were not entitled to release at that time 
[Lev. xxv. 44, 46, 47, 54; 2 K. iv. 2 ; Is. 1. 1, 
Iii. 3). Land gold on account of debt was redeem 
able either by the seller himself, or by a kinsman in 
case of his inability to repurchase. Houses in walled 
towns, except such as belonged to Levites, if not 
redeemed within one year after sale, were alienated 
for ever. Michaelis doubts whether all debt was 
'extinguished by the Jubilee ; but Josephus' account 
is very precise (Ant. iii. 12, §3 ; Lev. xxv. 23, 34 ; 
Ruth iv. 4, 10 ; Michaelis, §158, ii. 360). In 
later times the sabbatical or jubilee release was 
superseded by a law, probably introduced by the 
Romans, by which the debtor was liable to be de 
tained in prison until the full discharge of his debt 
(Matt. v. 26). Michaelis thinks this doubtful. 
The case imagined in the parable of the Unmerciful 
Servant belongs rather to despotic Oriental than 
Jewish manners (Matt, xviii. 34; Michaelis, ibid, 
art. 149 ; Trench, Parables, p. 141). Subsequent 
Jewish opinions on loans and usuiy may be seen in 
the Mishna, Baba Metziah, c. iii. x. [JUBILEE.] 

[H. W. P.] 


LOCK." Where European leeks have not been 
introduced, the locks of Eastern houses are usually 


ot wood, and consist of a partly hollow bolt fron. 
14 inches to 2 feet long for external doors or gates, 
or from 7 to 9 inches for interior doors. The bolt 
passes through a groove in a piece attached to the 
door into a socket in the door-post. In the groove- 
piece are from 4 to 9 small iron or wooden sliding- 
pins or wires, which drop into corresponding holes 
in the bolt, and fix it in its place. The key is a 
piece of wood furnished with a like number of pins, 
which, when the key is introduced sideways, raise 
the sliding-pins in the lock, and allow the bolt to 
be drawn back. Ancient Egyptian doors were fas 
tened with central bolts, and sometimes with bars 
passing from one door-post to the other. They were 
also sometimes sealed with clay. [CLAY.] Keys 
were made of bronze or iron, of a simple construc 
tion. The gates of Jerusalem set up under Nehe- 
miah's direction had both bolts and locks. (Judg. 
iii. 23, 25; Cant. v. 5; Neh. iii. 3, &c. ; Rau- 
wollff, Trav. in Ray, ii. 17 ; Russell, Aleppo, i. 22 ; 
Volney, Travels, ii. 438 ; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 42 ; 
Chardin, Voy. iv. 123 ; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg., 
abridgm. i. 15, 16). [H. W. P.] 

LOCUST, b a well-known insect, which cotimits 
terrible devastation to vegetation in the countries 
which it visits. In the Bible there are frequent 
allusions to locusts ; and there are nine or ten 
Hebrew words which are supposed to denote dif 
ferent varieties or species of this destructive family. 
They belong to that order of insects known by the 
term Ortfioptera. e This order is divided into two 
large groups or divisions, viz. Cursoria and Sal- 
tatoria. The first, as the name imports, includes 
only those families of Orthoptera which have leg* 
formed for creeping, and which were considered 
unclean by the Jewish law. Under the second are 
comprised those whose two posterior legs, by their 
peculiar structure, enable them to move on the 
ground by leaps. This group contains, according to 
Serville's arrangement, three families, the Gryllides, 
Locustariae, and the Acridites, distinguished one 
from the other by some peculiar modifications of 
structure. The common house-cricket (Gryllus do- 
mesticus, Oliv.) may be taken as an illustration of 
the Gryllides ; the green grasshopper (.Locusta viri- 
dissima, Fabr.), which the French call Sauterelle 
verte, will represent the family Locustariae; 
and the Acridites may be typified by the common 
migratory locust ( Ocdipoda migratoria, Aud. Serv.), 

Oedlpoda migratuna. 

which is an occasional visitor to this country * Of 
the Gryllides, G. cerisyi has been found in Egypt, 

* 7-1V3D. xXelOpov, sera ; Ges. Thes. 892. 

b From the Latin locusta, derived by the old etymolo 
gists from locus and tistits, " quod tactu multa urit, niorsu 
VCTO omnia erodat.'' 

c From opOov and wrtpov '. an order of insects charac 
terized )>y their anterior wings being semi-coriaceous 
»nd overtopping at the. tips. The posterior wings are 
hrRe and memi-ranous, and longitudinally folded whei 
at rest. 

'i In the year 1748 locusts (the dedipoda migratmta, 
j.jubtlcas) Invaded Kurope in immense nuiliitii 

Charles XII. and his army, then in Bessarabia, were 
stopped in their course. It is said that the swarms wers 
four hours passing over Breslau. Nor did England escape 
for a swarm fell near Pristol, and ravaged the country in 
the month of July of the same year. They did great 
damage in Shropshire and Staffordshire, by ef.!.'e.g the 
blossoms of the apple-trees, and especially the icaveg of 
Daks, which looked as bare as at Christmas. The rooks 
did a good service in this case at least. See Gentleman's 
Magazine, July 1748, pp. 331 and 414 ; also T'te Times 
Oct. 4, 1845. 


and G. domestims, on the authority of Dr. Kitto, 
nt Palestine ; but doubtless other species also 
occur in these countries. Of the Locustariae, 
Phaneroptera falcata, Serv. (G. falc. Scopoli), has 
•Uso. according to Kitto, been found in Palestine, 
Bradyporus dasypus in Asia Minor, Turkey, &c., 
Saga Natoliae near Smyrna. Of the locusts proper, 
or Acridites, four species of the genus Truxalis are 
recorded as having been seen in Egypt, Syria, or 
Arabia : viz. T. nasitta, T. variabilis, T. procera, 
and T. miniata. The following kinds also occur : 
Opsomala pisciformis, in Egypt and the oasis of 
Harrat ; Foekiloceros hieroglyphicus, P. bufonius, 
P. punctiventris, P. vulcanus, in the deserts of 
Cairo ; Dericorys albidula in Egypt and Mount Le 
banon. Of the genus Acridium, A. maestum, the 
most formidable perhaps of all the Acridites, 
A. lineola (=G. Acgypt. Linn.), which is a species 
commonly sold for food in the markets of Bagdad 



Acridium Llneola. 

(Strv. Ortkop. 657), A. semifasciatum, A. pere- 
yrmttm, one of the most destructive of the species, 
and A. morbosum, occur either in Egypt or Arabia. 
Calliptamus serapis and Chrotogomts lugubris are 
found in Egypt, and in the cultivated lands about 
Cairo ; Eremobia carinata, in the rocky places 
about Sinai. E. cisti, E. pulchripennis, Ocdipoda 
octofasciata, and Oe. migratoria ( = (?. migrat. 
Linn.), complete the list of the Saltatorial Orthop- 
tera of the Bible-lands. From the above catalogue 
it will be seen how perfectly unavailing, for the 
most part, must be any attempt to identify the 
Hebrew names with ascertained species, especially 
when it is remembered that some of these names 
occur but seldom, others (Lev. xi. 21) only once in 
the Bible — that the only clue is in many instances 
the mere etymology of the Hebrew word — that 
such etymology has of necessity, from the fact of 
there being but a single word, a very wide meaning 
— and that the etymology is frequently very un 

certain. The LXX. ami Vulg. do not conHbutc 
much help, for the words used there are themselves 
of a very uncertain signification, and moreover em 
ployed in a most promiscuous manner. Still, 
though the possibility of identifying with certainty 
any one of the Hebrew names is a hopeless task, 
yet in one or two instances a fair approximation to 
identification may be arrived at. 

From Lev. xi. 21, 22, we learn the Hebrew 
names of four different kinds of Saltatorial Ortho- 
ptcra. " These may ye eat of every flying creeping 
thing that goeth upon all four, d which have legs 
above their feet « to leap withal upon the earth ; 
even those of them ye may eat, the arbeh after his 
kind, and the salam after his kind, and the chargol 
(wrongly translated beetle by the A. V., an insect 
which would be included amongst the flying creep 
ing things forbidden as food in vers. 23 and 42) 
after his kind, and the chdgab after his kind." 
Besides the names mentioned in this passage, there 
occur five others in the Bible, all of which Bochart 
(iii. 251, &c.) considers to represent so many 
distinct species of locusts, viz. gob, gazam, chdsil, 
yelck, and tseldtsdl. 

(1.) Arbeh (!"I2"]N : aicpls, fipovxos, OTre- 

AejSos, a.TTt\a&os ; in Joel ii. 25, ipvfflfti\ : 
lucusta, bruchus : " locust,' 1 " grasshopper") is 
the most common name for locust, the word 
occurring about twenty times in the Hebrew 
Bible, viz., in Ex. x. 4, 12, 13, 14, 19; Judg. 
vi. 5, vii. 12 ; Lev. xi. 22 ; Deut. xxviii. 38 ; IK. 
viii. 37; 2 28; Job xxxix. 20; Ps. cv. 34, 
cix. 23, Ixxviii. 46 ; Prov. xxx. 27 ; Jer. xlvi. 23 ; 
Joel i. 4, ii. 25; Nah. iii. 15, 17. The LXX. ge 
nerally render arbeh by aicpis, the general Greek 
name for locust : in two passages, however, viz., 
Lev. xi. 22, and 1 K. viii. 37, they use Ppovxo* 
as the representative of the original word. In Nah. 
iii. 17, arbeh is rendered by ai-reAe/Sos ; while the 
Aldine version, in Joel ii. 25, has ipixrifiT], mildew. 
The Vulg. has locusta in every instance except in 
Lev. xi. 22, where it has bruchus. The A. V. in 
the four following passages has grasshopper, Judg. 
vi. 5, vii. 12; Job xxxix. 20; and Jer. xivi. 23: 
in all the other places it has locust. The word 
arbeh, 1 which is derived from a root signifying " to 
be numerous," is probably sometimes used in a 
wide sense to express any of the larger devastating 
species. It is the locust of the Egyptian plague. 
In almost every passage where arbeh occurs re 
ference is made to its terribly destructive powers 
It is one of the flying creeping creatures that were 
allowed as food by the law of Moses (Lev. xi. 21). 
In this passage it is clearly the representative of 
some species of winged saltatorial orthoptera, which 
must have possessed indications of form sufficient to 
distinguish the insect from the three other names 
which belong to the same division of orthoptera, and 
are mentioned in the same context. The opinion 

d It is well known that all insects, properly so called, 
have six feet. But the Jews considered the two anterior 
pair only as true legs in the locust family, regarding them 
as additional instruments for leaping. 

• V^V by»O D^STO I 1 ? "iBJtf. The rendering 
cf the A. V., " which have legs above their feet," is cer 
tainly awkward. D^V"O> which occurs only in the dual 

number, properly denotes " that part of the leg between 
the knee and ankle" which is bent in bowing down, i. e. 
Ihe titriat. The passage may be thus translated, " whlcti 
hsve Oieir tibiae so placed above their feet [Ursi] as to 

vo:,. ii. 

enable them to leap upon the earth." Dr. Harris, adept- 
ing the explanation of the author 'of Scripture Ittwtrattd, 
understands D>JH3 to mean "joints," and Q^JT "hind 

legs;" which rendering Niebuhr (Quaett. xxx) gives. 
But there is no reason for a departure from the literal 
and general significations of the Hebrew terms. 

- locust, so called from its multitude, H2"^ 

See Gesen. Thes. s. v., who adopts the explanation 01 
Michaelis that the four names in Lev. xi. 22 are not 
tne representatives of four distinct genera or species, but 
denote the different stages of growth. „ 




of Michaelis (Suppl. 667, 910), that the fou 
words mentioned in Lev. xi. 22 denote the sam 
insect in four different ages or stages of its growth 
if. quite untenable, for, whatever particular s]>ecie 
are intended bf these words, it is quite clear from 
ver. 21 that ,ney must all be winged orthoptera 
From the fact that almost in every instance wher 
the woi d arbeh occurs, reference is made either 
the dev ouring and devastating nature of this insecl 
or else to its multiplying powers ( Judg. vi. 5, vii. 1 
wrongly translated "grasshopper" by the A. V. 
Nah. iii. 15, Jer. xlvi. 23), it is probable that eithe 
the Acridium peregrinum,s or the Oedipoda migra 
toria is the insect denoted by the Hebrew woi 
arbeh, for these two species are the most destructiv 
)f the family. Of the foiTner species M. Olivie 

( Voyage dans F Empire Othoman, ii. 424) thu 
writes : " With the burning south winds (o 
Syria) there come from the interior of Arabia an 
from the most southern parts of Persia clouds o 
locusts (Acridium peregrinum), whose ravages to 
these countries are as grievous and nearly as sudde; 
xs those of the heaviest hail in Europe. We wit 
nessed them twice. It is difficult to express th 
effect produced on us by the sight of the whol 
atmosphere filled on all sides and to a great heigh 
by an innumerable quantity of these insects, whose 
flight was slow and uniform, and whose noise re 
sembled that of rain : the sky was darkened, anc 
the light of the sun considerably weakened. In a 
moment the ten-aces of the houses, the streets, anc 
all the fields were covered by these insects, and in 
two days they had nearly devoured all the leaves 
of the plants. Happily they lived but a short time, 
and seemed to have migrated only to reproduce 
themselves and die ; in fact, nearly all those we 
saw the next day had paired, and the day follow 
ing the fields were covered with their dead bodies." 
This species is found in Arabia, Egypt, Meso 
potamia, and Persia. Or perhaps arbeh may de 
note the Oedipoda migratoria, the Sauterelle do 
passage, concerning which Michaelis inquired of 
Carsten Niebuhr, and received the following reply : 
" Sauterelle de passage est la rr/Sme que les Arabes 
mangent et la m&ne qu'on a vd en Allemagne " 
(Jiecueil, quest. 32 in Niebuhr's Desc. de FArabie}. 
This species appeai-s to be as destructive as the 
Acridium peregrinum. 

(2.) Chdgdb (3371 : iitpls : locusta : " grass 
hopper," "locust"), occurs in Lev. xi. 22, Num. 
xiii. 33, 2 Chr. vii. 13, Eccl. xii. 5, Is.xl. 22 ; in all 
of which passages it is rendered dxpis by the LXX., 
and locusta by the Vulg. In 2 Chr. vii. 13 the 

» The Gryttut gregarius of Forskal (Detc. Anim. 81) is 
perhaps identical with the Acrid pereg. Forskal says, 

" Arabes ubique vocaat Djerad ( v \l t^**^ et J n d ae ' in 
Yemen habltantes ilium ease PQTX asseverabant," 

, (hadjab), qui velum obtendit, from 

, intern- suit, fecliitit.. ' 


A. V. reads " locust," in the other pn£S,« 
" grasshopper." From the use of the word hi 
Chron., " If I command the locusts to devour th* 
land," compared with Lev. xi. 22, it would appeal 
that some species of devastating locust is intended. 
In the passage of Numbers, " There we saw the 
giants the sons of Anak .... and we were in our 
own sight as grasshoppers " (chdgdb), as well as in 
Eoclesiastes and Isaiah, reference seems to be made 
to some small species of locust ; and with this view 
Oedman ( Verm. Samm. ii. 90) agrees. Tychsen 
( Comment, de Locust, p. 76) supposes that chdgdb 
denotes the Gryllus coronatus, Linn. ; but this is 
the Acanthodis coron. of Aud. Serv., a S. American 
species, and probably confined to that continent. 
Michaelis (Supp. 668), who derives the word from 
an Arabic root signifying "to veil," h conceives that' 
chdgdb represents either a locust at the fourth 
stage of its growth, " ante quartas exuvias quod 
adhuc velata est," or else at the last stage of its 
growth, " post quartas exuvias, quod jam volans 
solem ccelumque obvelat." To the first theory the 
passage in Lev. xi. is opposed. The second theory 
is more reasonable, but chdgdb is probably derived 
not from the Arabic but the Hebrew. From what 
has been stated above it will appear better to own 
our complete inability to say what species of locust 
chdgdb denotes, than to hazard conjectures which 
must be grounded on no solid foundation. In the 
Talmud ! chdgdb is a collective name for many of 
the locust tribe, no less than eight hundred kinds 
of chagdbim being supposed by the Talmud to exist ! 
(Lewysohn, Zoolog. des Talm. §384). Some kinds, 
of locusts arc beautifully marked, and were sought 
after by young Jewish children as playthings, just 
as butterflies and cockchafers are now-a-days. M. 
Lowysohn says (§384) that a regular traffic used to 
be carried on with the chagdbim, which were caught 
in great numbers, and sold after wine had been |j 
sprinkled over them ; he adds that the Israelites 
were only allowed to buy them before the dealer 
had thus prepared them. k 

(3.) Chargol (?i~in : oQtofidxils '• ophiomachus . 
"beetle"). The A. V. is clearly in error ir. 
translating this word " beetle ;" it occurs only in 
Lev. xi. 22, but it is clear from the context that it 
denotes some species of winged Saltatorial orthopte~ 
rous insect which the Israelites were allowed to use 
as food. The Greek word used by the LXX. is one 
of most uncertain meaning, and the story about any 
kind of locust attacking a serpent is an absurdity 
which requires no Cuvier to refute it. m As to this 
word see Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 264 ; Rosenm. notes ; 
the Lexicons of Suidas, Hesychius, &c., Pliny xi. 29 • 
Adnotat. ad Arist. H. A. torn. iv. 47, ed. Schneider. 
Some attempts have been made to identify the 
'hdrgol, " meree conjecture: ! " as Rosenmiiller 
ruly remarks. The Rev. J. F. Denham, in Cyclop. 
Sib. Lit. (arts. Chargol and Locust), endeavours to 
hew that the Greek word ophiomachus denotes 
ome species of Tnucalis, perhaps T. Nasutus. ' • The 

Fiirst derives 3Jn from v - imls - 331 

T T ™ T 

xire a radice, poi>. 3 J, to which root he refers 


- 31J 

The Talmudists have the following law : " fle that 
oweth to abstain from flesh OK>3 H JO) is forbidden 
he flesh of fish and of locusts " (D^ltl D*3T "K?3) 
fieros. Nedar. fol. 40, 2. 
m SeePliny. Paris, 1828, pd.Grandsagne, p. 451, noU>. 


^ord instantly suggests a reference to the ichneu 
mon, the celebrated destroyer of serpents . . . i: 
then any species of locust can be adduced whose 
habits resemble those of the ichneumon, may not 
this resemblance account for the name, quasi the 
ichneumon (locust), just as the whole genus (T 
(family) of insects called fchneumonidae were so 
denominated because of the supposed analogy be 
tween their services and those of the Egyptian 
ichneumon ? and might not this name given to 
that secies (?) of locust at a very early period have 
afterwards originated the erroneous notion referred 
to by Aristotle and Pliny?" But is it a fact that 
the genus Truxnlis is an exception to the rest of the 
Acridites, and is pre-eminently insectivorous. Ser- 
ville (Orthopt. 579) believes that in their manner 
of living the Truxalides resemble the rest of the 
Acridites, but seems to allow that further investiga 
tion is necessary. Fischer (Orthop. Europ. p. 292) 
says that the nutriment of this family is plants of 
various kinds. Mr. F. Smith, in a letter to the 
writer of this article, says he has no doubt that the 
Truxalides feed on plants. What is Mr. Denham's 
authority for asserting that they are insectivorous ? 
It is granted that there is a quasi resemblance in 
external form between the Truxalides and some of 
the larger Ichneumonidae, but the likeness is far 
from striking. Four species of the genus Truxalis 
are inhabitants of the Bible lands (see above). 



Truxaha Nasuta. 

The Jews, however, interpret chdrgSl to mean a 
species of grasshopper, German, heuschrecke, which 
M. Lewysohn identifies with Locusta viridissima, 
adopting the etymology of Bochart and Gesenius, 
who refer the name to an Arabic origin." The 
Jewish women used to carry the eggs of the chargol 
in their ears to preserve them from the ear-ache, 
^Buxtorf, Lex. Cliald. et Rabbin, s. v. chargol). 

(4.) Salam (DJPD : OTTOKJJS, Compl. arrants : 

attacus: "bald locust") occurs only in Lev. xi. 22, 
as one of the four edible kinds of leaping insects. 
All that can possibly be known of it is that it is 
some kind of Saltatorial orthopterous insect, winged, 
and good for food. Tychseu, however, arguing from 
what is said of the salam in the Talmud (Tract, 
Choliri), viz. that " this insect has a smooth head, 
and that the female is without the sword-shaped 
tail," conjectures that the species here intended is 
Gry Hits eversor (Asso), a synonym that it is difficult 
to identify with any recorded species. 
(5.) Gazam (DT3). See PALMER-WORM. 

I, locustae species alata, a saltando. Gesenius 

o - 

refers the word to the Arabic Y^.-^.. (hardjal), saliit, 
comparing the Germ. HeuscArecfce from shrecken. satire. 

Hence perhaps the epithet bald, applied to salam in 
Ibe text of the A. V. 
p S13. aoconttug to Qesenius (Thes a. v.), is from an 

(6.) Gob (313:1" dicpis, (irtyov^ ci/f^owr : Aq, 
in Am. vii. 1 , BapdStav : locusta ; locustae locus- 
tarum = »313 313 in Nah. iii. 17:" great grass 
hoppers;" " grasshoppers ;" marg n "green worms," 
in Amos). This word is found only in Is. 
xxxiii . 4, and in the two places cited above. 
There is nothing in any of these passages that 
will help to point out the species denoted. 
That some kind of locust is intended seems pro 
bable from the passage in Nahum, " thy captains 
are as the great gobai which camp in the hedges 
in the cool of the day, but when the sun ariseth 
they flee away, and their place is not known where 
they are." Some writers led by this passage, 
have believed that the gobai represent the larva 
state of some of the large locusts ; the habit of halting 
at night, however, and encamping under the hedges, 
as described by the prophet, in all probability belongs 
to the winged locust as well as to the larvae, see 
Ex. x. 13, " the Lord brought an east wind upon the 
land all that day, and all that night ; and when it 
was morning, the east wind brought the locusts." 
Mr. Barrow (i. 257-8), speaking of some species 
of S. African locusts, says, that when the larvae, 
which are still mere voracious than the parent 
insect, are on the march, it is impossible to make 
them turn out of the way, which is usually that of 
the wind. At sunset the troop halts and divides 
into separate groups, each occupying in bee-like 
clusters the neighbouring eminences for the night. 
It is quite possible that the yob may represent tht 
larva or nympha state of the insect ; nor is the 
passage from Nahum, " when the sun ariseth they 
Hee away," any objection to this supposition, for the 
last stages of the larva differ but slightly from the 
nympha, both which states may therefore be compre 
hended under one name; the<7$>a»of Nah. iii. 17, may 

Locufct flying. 

easily have been the nymphae (which in all the Amt- 
'abola continue to feed as in their larva condition) en 
camping at night under the hedges, and, obtaining 
.heir wings as the sun arose, are then represented as 
lying away. q It certainly is improbable that thi 
fews should have had no name fur the locust in its 

mused root, !"1I13> the Arab. 

to emerge from tb* 

;round. Fiirst refers the word to a Hebrew origin. Set 
iote, ARBEH. 

Siuee the above was wntten it has been discovered 
hat Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bible, n-.te on Nah. iii 17) is ol » 
imilar opinion, that the y6b pr i\ ;.bly denotes the nymfha, 

K 2 



larva or nympha state, for they must have been 
^uite familiar with the sight of such devourers of 
every green thing, the larvae being even more 
destructive than the imago; perhaps some of 
the other nine names, all of which Bochart con 
siders to be the names of so many species, denote 
',he insect in one or other of these conditions. 
The A. V. were evidently at a loss, for the trans 
lators read " green worms," in Am. vii. 1. Tychsen 
(p. 93) identifies the gob with the Gryllus migra- 
lorius, Linn., "qua vero ratione motus," observes 
Kfwenmiiller, " non exponit." 

(7.) Chanamal (^^H : iv rp TOX^TJ ; Aq. iv 

xpvti: in pruind ; "frost"). Some writers have 
supposed that this word, which occurs only in Ps. 
Ixxviii. 47, denotes some kind of locust (see Bochart, 
Hieroz. iii. 255, oi, Rosenm.). Mr. J. F. Denham 
(in Kitto, s. v. Locust) is of a similar opinion ; but 
surely the concurrn ; testimony of the old veisions, 
which interpret the word chan&rndl to signify hail 
or frost , ought to forbid the conjecture. We have 
already more locusts than it is possible to identify ; 
t et c/iandmal, therefore, be understood to denote hail 
or frost, as it is rendered by the A. V., and all the 
important old versions. 

(8.) Yelek (pj?'_ »: dicpis, fyovxos : bnichus : 

bruchus aculeatus, in Jer. li. 27 : " cankerworm," 
" caterpillar") occurs in Ps. cv. 34; Nah. iii. 15, 16 ; 
Joel i. 4, ii. 25; Jer. li. 14, 27 ; it is rendered by 
the A. V. cankerworm in four of these places, and 
caterpillar in the two remaining. From the epithet 
of " rough," which is applied to the word in Jere 
miah, some have supposed the yelek to be the larva 
of some of the destructive Lepidoptera : the epithet 
samar, however (Jer. li. 27), more properly means 
having spines, which agrees with the Vulgate, acu 
leatus. Michaelis (Suppl. p. 1080) believes the 
yelek to be the cockchafer (Maykafer,. Oed- 
man (ii. vi. 126) having in view this spiny cha 
racter, identifies the word with the Gryllus cristatus, 
Linn., a species, however, which is found only in 
S. America, though Linnaeus has erroneously given 
Arabia as a locality. Tychsen arguing from the 
epithet rough, believes that the yelek is represented 
by the G. haematopus, Linn. (Calliptamus hae- 
mat. Aud. Serv.) a species found in S. Africa. 

How purely conjectural are all these attempts at 
identification ! for the term spined may refer not to 
any particular species, but to the veiy spinous 
nature of the tibiae in all the locust tribe, and 
yelek, the cropping, licking off insect (Num. xxii. 4), 
may be a synonym of some of the names already 
mentioned, or the word may denote the larvae or 
pupae of the locust, which from Joel i. 4, seems not 
improbable, " that which the locust (arbeh) hath 
left, hath the cankerworm (yelek) eaten," after the 
winged arbeh had departed, the young larvae of the 
same appeared and consumed the residue. The 
passage in Nah. iii. 16, " the yelek spreadeth himself 
(margin) and fleeth away," is no objection to the 
opinion that the yilek may represent the larva or 
nympha for the &>.ine reason as was given in a 
former part of this article ((?<J6). 

(».) Ch&stl (^pH). See CATERPILLAR. 
(10.) Tsel&tsdlfryh?: ipurvfa: rubigo: "lo 
cust "). The derivation of this word seems to imply 

' p*. «• v. inus. p\ i q. 
dff>avit (Q«sen. Thes. s. \.). 

>, linxit, Inde lambendo 


that some kind of locust is indicated by it. It 
occurs only in this sense in Deut. xxviii. 42, " All 
thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust con 
sume." In the other passages where the Hebrew 
word occurs, it represents some kind of tinkling 
musical instrument, and is generally translated 
cymbals by the A. Vi The word is evidently ono- 
matopoietic, and is here perhaps a synonym for 
some one of the other names for locust. Michaelis 
(Suppl. p. 2094) believes the word is identical 
with chasil, which he says denotes perhaps the 
mole-cricket, Gryllus talpiformis, from the stri- 
dulous sound it produces. Tychsen (p. 79, 80) 
identifies it with the Gryllut stridulus. Linn. 
( = Oedipoda stridula, Aud. Serv.). The notion 
conveyed by the Hebrew word will however apply 
to almost any kind of locust, and indeed to many 
kinds of insects ; a similar word tsalsalza, was ap 
plied by the Ethiopians to a fly which the Arabs 
called zimb. which appears to be identical with the 
tsetse fly of Dr. Livingstone and other African tra 
vellers. All that can be positively known respect 
ing the tselatsdl is, that it is some kind of insect 
injurious to trees and crops. The LXX. and Vulg. 
understand blight or mildew by the word. 

The most destructive of the locust tribe that 
occur in the Bible lands are the Oedipoda migra- 
toria and the Acridium peregrinum, and as both 
these species occur in Syria and Arabia, &c., it is 
most probable that one or other is denoted in those 
passages which speak of the dreadful devastations 
committed by these insects ; nor is there any occasion 
to believe with Bochart, Tychsen, and others, that 
nine or ten distinct species are mentioned in th« 
Bible. Some of the names may be synonyms; 
others may indicate the larva or nympha con- 
ditions of the two pre-eminent devourers alreadj 

Locusts occur in great numbers, and sometimes 
obscure the sun — Ex. x. 15 ; Jer. xlvi. 23 ; Judg. 
vi. 5, vii. 12 ; Joel ii. 10 ; Nah. iii. 15 ; Livy, ilii. 
2; Aelian, N. A. iii. 12; Pliny, N. H. xi. 29 ; 
Shaw's Travels, p. 187 (fol. 2nd ed.) ; Lu.W, Hist. 
Aethiop. i. 13 ; and de Locustis, i. 4 ; Volney's 
Trav. in Syria, i. 236. 

Their voracity is alluded to in Ex. x. 12, 15, 
Joel i. 4, 7, 12, and ii. 3 ; Deut. xxviii. 38 ; Ps. 
Ixxviii. 46, cv. 34; Is. xxxiii. 4; Shaw's Trav. 
187 ; and travellers in the East, passim. 

They are compared to horses — Joel ii. 4 ; Kev. 
ix. 7. The Italians call the locust " Cavaletta ;" 
and Ray says, " Caput oblongum, equi instiu- prona 
spectans." Comp. also the Arab's description to 
Niebuhr, Descr. de f Arabic. 

They make a fearful noise in their flight — Joel 
ii. 5 ; Rev. ix. 9. 

Forsk&l, Descr. 81, " transeuntes grylli super 
verticem nostrum sono magnae cataractae ferve- 
bant." Volney, Trav. i. 235. 

They have no king — Prov. xxx. 27 ; Kirby and 
Sp. Int. ii. 17. 

Their irresistible progress is referred to in Joel 
ii. 8, 9 ; Shaw, Trav. 187. 

They enter dwellings, and devour even the wood 
work of houses — Ex. x. 6 ; Joel ii. 9, 10 ; Pliny, 
N. H. xi. 29.' 

They do not fly in the night — Nah. iii. 17; 
Niebuhr, Descr. de f Arabic, 173. 

Birds devour them — Russel, N. Hist, of Aleppo t 

• " Omiiln vero morsn erodentes et fora 


127 ; Volney, Trav. i. 237 : Kitto's Phys. Hist. \ 
Pal. (p. 410).' 



The sea destroys the greater number — Ex. x. 19 ; 
Joel ii. 20 ; Pliny, xi. 35 ; Hasselq. Trav. 445 
[Engl. transl. 1766) ; cf. also Iliad, xxi. 12. 

Their dead bodies taint the air — Joel ii. 20 ; 
Hasselq. Trav. 445. 

They are used as food— Lev. xi. 21, 22 ; Matt. 
iii. 4 ; Mark i. 6 ; Plin. N. H. vi. 35, xi. 35 ; 
Died. Sic. iii. 29 (the Acridophagf) ; Aristoph. 
Achar. 1116; Ludolf, H. Aethiop. 67 (Gent's 
transl.) ; Jackson's Morocco, 52 ; Niebuhr, Descr. 
de f Arabic, 150 ; Sparman's Trav. i. 367, who says 
the Hottentots are glad when the locusts come, for 
they fatten upon them; Hasselq. Trav. 232, 419 ; 
Kirby and Spence, Entom. i. 305. 

There are different -ways of preparing locusts for 
food : sometimes they are ground and pounded, and 
then mixed with flour and water and made into 
cakes, or they are salted and then eaten ; sometimes 
smoked ; boiled or roasted ; stewed, or fried in 
butter. Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bib. not. on Lev. xi. 
21), who tasted locusts, says they are more like 
shrimps than anything else ; and an English clergy 
man, some years ago, cooked some of the green grass- 
hopuers, Locusta viridissima, boiling them in water 
half an hour, throwing away the head, wings, and 
legs, and then sprinkling them with pepper and salt, 
and adding butter ; he found them excellent. How 
strange then, nay, " how idle," to quote the words of 
Kirby and Spence (Entom. i. 305), " was the contro 
versy concerning the locusts which formed part of the 
sustenance of John the Baptist, .... and how apt 
even learned men are to perplex a plain question from 
ignorance of the customs of othar countries • !" 

The following are some of tl •? works which treat 
of locusts : — Ludolf, Dissertatio de Locustis, Francof. 

ad lloen. 1694. This author believes that the quails 
which fed the Israelites in the wilderness were 
locusts (vid. his Diatriba qua sententia nova de 
Salavis, sive Locustis defcnditor). A more absurd 
opinion was that held by Norrelius, who main 
tained that the four names of L-'.v. xi. 22 were 
birds (see his Schediasma de Avibus sac-is, Arbch, 
Chagab, Solam, et Chargol, in Bib. Brem Cl. iii. 
>. 36). Faber, De Locustis Biblicii, et siijillatim 
de Avibus Quadrupedibus, ex Lev. xi. 20, Wittenb. 
1710-11. Asso's Abh< mdlung von den Heuschrecken, 
Uostock, 1787 ; and Tychsen's Comment, de Locustis. 
Oedman's Vermischte Sammlung, ii. c. vii. Kirby 
Spence's Introd. to Entomology, i. 305, &c. 
Bochart's Hierozoicon, iii. 251, &c., ed. Eosenmull. 
Kitto's Phys. History of Palestine, 419, 420. 
Kitto's Pictorial Bible, see Index, " Locust." 
Dr. Harris's Natural History of the Bible, art. 
' Locust," 1833. Kitto's Cyclopaedia, arts. " Lo 
cust," " Chesil," &c. Banner's Observations, Lon 
don, 1797. The travels of Shaw, Kussel, Hassel- 
quist, Volney, &c. &c. For a systematic description 
of the Orthoptera, see Serville's Monograph in the 
Suites a Buffon, and Fischer's Orihoptera Europaea ; 
and for an excellent summary, see Winer's RealwSr- 
terbuch, vol. i. p. 574. art. " Heuschrecken." For 
the locusts of St. John, Mr. Dcnham refers to Suicer's 
Thesaurus, i. 169, 179, and Gutherr, De Victu 
Johannis, Franc. 1785 ; and for the symbolical 
locusts of Rev. ix., to Newton On Prophecies, and 
Woodhouse On the Apocalypse.* [W. H.] 

LOD ("ff : $ A.6S ; 'AoSapd>6, AoSaSia, both by 
inclusion of the following name ; Alex, in Ezra, 
AvSSiav AoSaStS : Lod), a town of Benjamin, stated 
to have been founded by Shamed or Shamer (1 Chr. 
viii. 12). It is always mentioned in connexion with 
ONO, and, with the exception of the passage just 
quoted, in the post-captivity records only. It would 
appear that after the boundaries of Benjamin, as given 
in the book of Joshua, were settled, that enterprising 
tribe extended itself further westward, into the rich 
plain of Sharon, between the central hills and the 
sea, and occupied or founded the towns of Lod, Ono, 
Hadid, and others named only in the later lists. 
The people belonging to the three places just men 
tioned returned from Babylon to the number of 725 
(Ezr. ii. 33 ; Neh. vii. 37), and again took possession 
of their former habitations (Neh. xi. 35). 

Lod has retained its name almost unaltered to 
the present day ; it is now called Ludd ; but is most 
familiar to us from its occurrence in its Greek 
garb, as LYDDA, in the Acts of the Apostles. [G.] 

• * The iocust-bird (see woodcut) referred to by tra 
vellers, and which the Arabs call smurmur, is no doubt, 
from Dr. Kitto's description, the " rose-coloured starling," 
I'astor roseus. The Rev. H. B. Tristram saw one spe 
cimen in the orange groves at Jaffa in the spring of 1858 
but makes no allusion to its devouring locusts. Dr. Kitto 
In one place (p. 410) says the locust-bird is about the size 
of a starling ; in another place (p. 420) he compares it in 
fine to a swallow. The bird is about eight inches and a hal; 
In length. Yarretl (Brit. Birds, ii. 61, 2nd ed.) says " it is 
held sacred at Aleppo because it feeds on the locust;" anc 
Col. Sykes bears testimony to the immense flocks in which 
they fly. He says ( Catalogue of Birds of Daklian) " they 

iarken the air by their numbers forty or fifty have 

been killed at a shot." But he says " they prove a cala 
mity to the husbandman, as they are as destructive as 
locusts, and not much less numerous." 

u There are people at this day who gravely assert tha 
the locusts which formed part of the food of the Baptis 
were not the insect of that name, but the long sweet pods 
af the locustrtree (Oeratonia siliqua), J^hannit brodt 

" St. John's bread," as the monks of Palestine call it. 
For other equally erroneous explanations, or unauthorised 
alterations, of iiepiSes, see Celsii Hierob. i. 74. 

1 For the judgment of locusts referred to in the prophet 
Joel, see Dr. Pusey's " Introduction " to that book. Thia 
writer maintains that the prophet, under the figure of the 
locust, foretold " a judgment far greater, an enemy far 
mightier than the locust" (p. 99), namely, the Assyrian 
invasion of Palestine, because Joel calls the scourge the 
" northern army," which Dr. Pusey says cannot be said of 
the locusts, because almost always by a sort of law cf 
their being they make their Inroads from their birth 
place in the south. This one point, however, may be 
fairly questioned. The usual direction of the flight of 
this insect is from East to West, or from South to 
North; but the Oedipoda migratoria is believed to 
have its birthplace in Tartary (Serv. Orthop. 738), from 
whence it visits Africa, the Mauritius, and part of the 
South of Europe. If this species be considered to be 
the locust of Joel, the expression northern army it :sost 
applicable to it. 


LO-DE'BAROin ft; l>ut in xvii. 27 "1 16 : 
'i\ AaSaficip, Aw5a$ap : Lodabar), a, place named 
with Mahanaim, Hogelim, and other trans-Jordanic 
towns (2 Sam. xvii. 27), and therefore no doubt on 
the eastern side of the Jordan. It was the native 
place of Machir ben-Ammiel, in whose house Mephi- 
bosheth found a home after the death of his father 
and the ruin of his grandfather's house (is. 4, 5). 
Lo-debar receives a bare mention in the Onomasticon, 
nor has any trace of the name been encountered by 
any later traveller. Indeed it has probably never 
teen sought for. Reland (Pal. 734) conjectures 
that it is intended in Josh. xiii. 26, where the word 
rendered in the A. V. " of Debir " 

same in its consonants a? Lodebar, though with 
different vowel-points. In favour of this con 
jecture, which is adopted by J. D. Michaelis (Bib. 
fiir UnffcL), is the fact that such a use of the 

preposition 7 is exceedingly rare (see Keil, Josuct, 
ad loc.). 

If taken as a Hebrew word, the root of the name is 
possibly " pasture," *he driving out of flocks (Gesen. 
Thes. 7356 ; Stanley, S. $ P. App. §9) ; but this 
must be very uncertain. [G.] 

LODGE, TO. This word in the A. V.— with 
one exception only, to be noticed below — is used to 
translate the Hebrew verb }-1? or }v, which has, 
at least in the narrative portions of the Bible, 
almost invariably the force of " passing the night." 
This is worthy of remark, because the word lodge 
• — probably only another form of the Saxon liggan, 
" to lie" — does not appear to have had exclusively 
that force in other English literature at the time the 
Authorised Version was made. A few examples of 
its occurrence, where the meaning of passing the 
night would not at first sight suggest itself to an 
English reader, may be of service : — 1 K. xix. 9 ; 
1 Chr. is. 27 ; Is. x. 29 (where it marks the halt 
of the Assyrian army for bivouac); Neh. iv. 22, 
xiii. 20, 21 ; Cant. vii. 11 ; Job xxiv. 7, xxxi. 32, 
&c. &c. The same Hebrew word is otherwise trans 
lated in the A. V. by " lie all night" (2 Sam. xii. 
1(3 ; Cant. i. 13 ; Job xxix. 19) ; " tarry the night " 
(Gen. xix. 2; Judg. xix. 10; Jer.xiv. 8); "remain," 
i. e. until the morning (Ex. xxiii. 18). 

The force of passing the night is also present in 
the words J-17D, " a sleeping-place," hence an INN 
[vol. i. 8676], and it3-ft», "a hut," erected in 
vineyards or fruit-gardens for the shelter of a man 
who watched all night to protect the fruit. This 
is rendered "lodge" in Is. i. 8, and "cottage" in 
xxiv. 20, the only two passages* in which it is found. 

2. The one exception above-named occurs in Josh. 
ii. 1 , where the word in the original is 23t?, a word 

elsewhere rendered " to lie," generally in allusion to 
sexual intercourse. [G.] 

LOFT. [HOUSE, vol. i. 8386.] 
LO'IS (Aa>fs), the grandmother (/ud/u^Tj) of 
TIMOTHY, and doubtless the mother of his mother 
EUNICE (2 Tim. i. 5). From the Greek form of 
these three names we should naturally infer that 
the family had been Hellenistic for three generations 
at least. It seems likely also that Lois had resided 
long at Lystra; and almost certain that from her, 


as well as from Eunice, Timothy obtained his inti 
mate knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures (2 Tim. 
iii. 15). Whether she was surviving at either oi 
St. Paul's visits to Lystra, we cannot say : she is not 
alluded to in the Acts : nor is it absolutely certain, 
though St. Paul speaks of her " faith," that she 
became a Christian. The phrase might be used of a 
pious Jcwess,who was ready to believe in the Messiah. 
Calvin has a good note on this subject. [J. S. H.j 

LORD, as applied to the Deity, is the almost 
uniform rendering in the A. V. of the 0. T. of 
the Heb. HIH*, Jehovah, which would be more 
properly represented as a proper name. Tha re 
verence which the Jews entertained for the sacred 
name of God forbade them to pronounce it, and in 
reading they substituted for it either Adonai, 
" Lord," or Elohim, " God," according to the vowel- 
points by which it was accompanied. [JEHOVAH, 
vol. i. p. 9526], This custom is observed in the ver 
sion of the LXX., where Jehovah is most commonly 
translated by Kvpios, as in the N. T. (Heb. i. 10, 
&c.), and in the Vulgate, where Do/minus is the 
usual equivalent. The title Adon&i is also rendered 
" Lord" in the A. V., though this, as applied to God, 
is of infrequent occurrence in the historical books. 
For instance, it is found in Genesis only in xv. 2, 8, 
xviii. 3 (where " my Lord " should be " Lord "), 
27, 30, 31, 32, xx. 4; once in Num. xiv. 17; 
twice in Deut. iii. 24, ix. 26 ; twice in Josh. vii. 
7, 8 ; four times in Judges ; and so on. In other 
passages of these books " Lord " is the translation 
of "Jehovah;" except Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; 
Deut. x. 17; Josh. iii. 11, 13, where adon is so 
rendered. But in the poetical and historical books 
it is more frequent, excepting Job, where ft occurs 
only in xxviii. 28, and the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
and Song of Songs, where it is not once found. 

The difference between Jehovah and Adonai (or 
Adon) is generally marked in the A. V. by printing 
the word in small capitals (LORD) when it repre 
sents the former (Gen. xv. 4, &c.), and with an 
initial capital only when it is the translation of the 
latter (Ps. xcvii. 5 ; Is. i. 24, x. 16) ; except in Ex. 
xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23, where " the LORD God" should 
be more consistently " the Lord Jehovah." A similar 

distinction prevails between PI 5 !!!* (the letters of 
. .*. \ 

Jehovah with the vowel-points of Elohim) and 
D'i"PK> elohim • the former being represented in 
the A. V. by " GOD" in small capitals (Gen. xv. 
2, &c.), while Elohim is "God " with an initial 
capital only. And, generally, when the name of the 
Deity is printed in capitals, it indicates that th« 
corresponding Hebrew is !Yli"P, which is translated 
LOKD or GOD according to the vowel-points by 
which it is accompanied. 

In some instances it is difficult, on account of 
the pause accent, to say whether Adonai is the 
title of the Deity, or merely one of respect addressed 
to men. These have been noticed by the Masoi ites, 
who distinguish the former in their notes as " holy," 
and the latter as "profane." (See Gen. xviii. :>, 
xix. 2, 18 ; and compare the Masoretic notes ou 
Gen. xx. 13, Is. xix. 4.) [W. A. W.] 

LORD'S DAY, THE ('H /tup.a/cJ? 'Hjit'pa; 
7j (ila ffafifl<iTcoi>}. It has been questioned, though 
not seriously until of late years, what is the mean- 

/What can have led the LXX. to translate the word they employ for ^3^7)3 in the above two 
JMM •• heaps," in PH. Ixxix. 1, bv oniaoo6v\a.Kiov, which writer io unable to ccnjectun;. 


ing of the phrase i) Kupia/o; 'Hjus'pa, which occurs 
in one passage only of' the Holy Scripture, Rev. i. 
10, and is, in our English version, translated " the 
Lord's Day." The general consent both of Christian 
antiquity and of modern divines has referred it to 
the weekly festival of our Lord's resurrection, and 
identified it with " the first day of the week," on 
which He rose, with the patristical " eighth day," 
or " day which is both the first and the eighth," in 
fact with the i) TOV 'H\iov 'H/if'pa," " Soils Dies," 
or " Sunday," of every age of the Church. 

But the views antagonistic to this general consent 
deserve at least a passing notice. 1. Some have 
supposed St. John to be speaking, in the passage 
above referred to, of the Sabbath, because that 
institution is called in Isaiah Iviii. 13, by the 
Almighty Himself, " My holy day."' To this it 
is replied — If St. John had intended to specify the 
sabbath, he would surely have used that word 
which was by no means obsolete, or even obso 
lescent, at the time of his composing the book of the 
Revelation. And it is added, that if an apostle 
had set the example of confounding the seventh and 
the first days of the week, it would have been 
strange indeed that every ecclesiastical writer for 
the first five centuries should have avoided any 
approach to such confusion. They do avoid it — 
for as ~S,a,$$a.TOv is never used by them for the 
first day, so Kvpiaicfi is never used by them for 
the seventh day. 2. Another theory is, that by 
" the Lord's Day," St. John intended " the day of 
judmgent," to which a large portion of the book 
of Revelations may be conceived to refer. Thus 
" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day " (3yev6- 
V*iv *" irvevfj.a.Ti ev rfj KupiaK*? 'H/uepa) would 
imply that he was rapt, in spiritual vision, to the 
date of that " great and terrible day," just as St. 
Paul represents himself as caught up locally into 
Paradise. Now, not to dispute the interpretation 
of the passage from which the illustration is drawn 
(2 Cor. xii. 4), the abettors of this view seem to 
have put out of sight the following considerations. 
In the preceding sentence, St. John had mentioned 
the place in which he was writing, Patmos, and the 
causes which had brought him thither. It is but 
natural that he should further particularise the 
circumstances under which his mysterious work 
was composed, by stating the exact day on which 
the Revelations were communicated to him, and 
the employment, spiritual musing, in which he was 
then engaged. To suppose a mixture of the metapho 
rical and the literal would be strangely out of keep 
ing. And though it be conceded that the day of 
judgment is in the New Testament spoken of as 
'H rov Kvpiou 'HjUf'pa, the employment of the ad 
jectival form constitutes a remarkable difference, 
which was observed and maintained ever after 
wards. 1 " There is also a critical objection to this 
interpretation. This second theory then, which is 
sanctioned by the name of Augusti, must be aban 
doned. 3. A third opinion is, that St. John in 
tended by the " LorcKs Day," that on which the 
Lord's resurrjction was annually celebrated, or, as 


we now term it, Easter-day. On this it need only 
be observed, that though it was never questionec! 
that the weekly celebration of that event should 
take place on the first day of the hebdomadal cycle, 
t was for a long time doubted on what day in the 
annual cycle it should be celebrated. Two schools 
at least existed on this point until considerably after 
the death of St. John. It therefore seems unlikely 
that, in a book intended for the whole Church, he 
would have employed a method of dating which was 
far from generally agreed upon. And it is to be 
added that no patristical authority can be quoted, 
either for the interpretation contended for in this 
opinion, or for the employment of TJ KvpiaK^i Hptpa 
to denote Easter-day. 

All other conjectures upon this point may be 
permitted to confute themselves; but the following 
cavil is too curious to be omitted. In Scripture 
the first day of the week is called fj jufa ffapfid- 
TCDV, in post-Scriptural writers it is called T\ Kv- 

Kri 'Hjiie'pa as well ; therefore, the book of Reve 
lations is not to be ascribed to an apostle ; or in 
oth^r ^vords, is not part of Scripture. The logic 
of this argument is only to be surpassed by its 
boldness. It says, in effect, because post-Scriptural 
writers have these two designations for the first 
day of the week ; therefore, Scriptural writers must 
be confined to one of them. It were surely more 
reasonable to suppose that the adoption by post- 
Scriptural writers of a phrase so pre-eminently 
Christian as rj KvpiaK^i 'H/xe'pa to denote the first 
day of the week, and a day so especially marked, 
can be traceable to nothing else than an apostle's 
use of that phrase in the same meaning. 

Supposing then that fi KvpiaK^i 'H/ue'po of St. 
John is the Lord's Day, — What do we gather from 
Holy Scripture concerning that institution ? How 
is it spoken of by early writers up to the time of 
Constantine? What change, if any, was brought 
upon it by the celebrated edict of that emperor, 
whom some have declared to have been its ori 
ginator ? 

1. Scripture says very little concerning it. But 
that little seems to indicate that the divinely in 
spired apostles, by their practice and by their pre 
cepts, marked the first day of the week as a day 
for meeting together to break bread, for communi 
cating and receiving instruction, for laying up offer 
ings in store for charitable purposes, for occupation 
in holy thought and prayer. The first day of the 
week so devoted seems also to have been the day 
of the Lord's Resurrection, and therefore, to have 
been especially likely to be chosen for such purposes 
by those who " preached Jesus and the Resur 

The Lord rose on the first day of the week (T$ 
/j.i§ ffaj3/3d.T<at>), and appeared, on the very day of 
His rising, to His followers on five distinct occa 
sions — to Mary Magdalene, to the other women, to 
the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to St. 
Peter separately, to ten Apostles collected together. 
After eight days (/uefl' r;/xepay OKTO/), that is. ac 
cording to the ordinary reckoning, on the first ciay 

ni 11 ). 

b 17 'Hjtte'pa TOV Kvpiou occurs In 1 Cor. i. 8, and 
2 Thcss. il. 2, with the words ^/ixwi/ 'Irjcrov Xpiorov 
attached ; in l Cor. v. 5, and 2 Cor. i. 14. with the word 
\r\aov only attached ; and in I Thess. v. 2, and 2 Pet. iii. 10, 
with the article TOV omitted. In one place, where both 
the day of judgment, and, as a foreshadowing of It, the 
lay of vengeance upon Jerusalem, seem to be alluded to 

the Lord himself says, OVTWS eorai <cac 6 iitbs TOV av 
&p<airov ev Ty T]i>.epi avrov, Luke xvii. 24. 

c 'Eyevoftrjv would necessarily have to be constructed 
with iv rifiepa., " I was in the day of judgment, i. e. 1 was 
passing the day of judgment spiritually." Now yiVeo-0<u 
iv rinepq is never used for diem agere. But, on the other 
hand, the construction of eyevonyv with ev irvevfian \» 
justified by a parallel passage in Kev. iv. a, <ai tCC«u»i 
iytvonnv ev nvevuMTi. 



of the next week, He appeared to the eleven. He 
does not seem to have appeared in the interval — it 
may be to render that day especially noticeable by the 
apostles, or, it may be for other reasons. But, how 
ever this question be settled, on the day of Pentecost, 
which in that year fell on the first day of the week 
(see Bramhall, Disc, of the Sabbath and Lord's 
Day, in Works, vol. v. p. 51, Oxford edition), 
" they were all with one accord in one place," 
had spiritual gifts conferred on them, and in 
their turn began to communicate those gifts, 
as accompaniments of instruction, to others. At 
Troas (Acts xx. 7), many years after the occurrence 
at Pentecost, when Christianity had begun to as 
sume something like a settled form, St. Luke records 
the following circumstances. St. Paul and his 
companions arrived there, and " abode seven days, 
and upon the first day of the week when the dis 
ciples came together to break bread, Paul preached 
unto them." In 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, that same St. 
Paul writes thus : " Now concerning the collection 
for the saints, as I have given order to the churches 
m Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day oi 
the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, 
as God hath prospered him, that there be no ga 
therings when I come." In Heb. x. 25, the cor 
respondents of the writer are desired " not to forsake 
the assembling of themselves together, as the mannei 
of some is, but to exhort one another," an injunc 
tion which seems to imply that a regular day fo 
such assembling existed, and was well known ; for 
otherwise no rebuke would lie. And lastly, in the 
passage given above, St. John describes himself as 
being in the Spirit " on the Lord's Day." 

Taken separately, perhaps, and even all to 
gether, these passages seem scarcely adequate to 
prove that the dedication of the first day of the 
week to the purposes above mentioned was a matter 
of apostolic institution, or even of apostolic prac 
tice. But, it may be observed, that it is at any 
rate an extraordinary coincidence, that almost im 
mediately we emerge from Scripture, we find the 
same day mentioned in a similar manner, and di 
rectly associated with the Lord's Resurrection ; that 
it is an extraordinary fact that we never find its 
dedication questioned or argued about, but accepted 
as something equally apostolic with Confirmation, 
with Infant Baptism, with Ordination, or at least 
spoken of in the same way. And as to direct sup 
port from Holy Scripture, it is noticeable that those 
other ordinances which are usually considered Scrip 
tural, and in support of which Scripture is usually 
cited, are dependent, so 'far as mere quotation is 
concerned, upon fewer texts than the Lord's Day is. 
Stating the case at the very lowest, the Lord's Day 
has at least " probable insinuations in Scripture,"* 1 
and so is superior to any othor holy day, whether 
of hebdomadal celebration, as Friday in memory of 
the Crucifixion, or of annual celebration, as Easter- 
day in memory of the Resurrection itself. These 
other days may be, and are, defensible on other 
grounds ; but they do not possess anything like a 
Scriptural authority for their observance. And if 
we are inclined still to press for more pertinent 
Scriptural proof, and more frequent mention of the 
institution, for such we suppose it to be, in the 
writings of the apostles, we must .recollect how 
little is said of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and 
how vast a difference is naturally to be expected to 
Uxist between a sketch of the manners and habits 

This plirasr is employed by Bishop Sanderson. 


of their age, which the authors of the Holy Scriptiu M 
did not write, and hints as to life and conduct, and 
regulation of known practices, which they did write. 

2. On quitting the canonical writings, we turn 
naturally to Clement of Rome. He does not, how 
ever, directly mention " the Lord's Day," but in 1 
Cor. i. 40, he says, tedvra rd£fi iroitiv 6<pd\o/j.(v, 
and he speaks ot dipirr/ifVoi Kaipol KCU Sipat, at which 
the Christian irpofftyopal Kal \tirovpylat should be 

Ignatius, the disciple of St. John (ad Magn. c. 
9), contrasts Judaism and Christianity, and as an 
exemplification of the contrast, opposes ffaft^art- 
((iv to living according to the Lord's life (nark 
rr)v KvpiaKTiv Zwr/v (uvrts). 

The Epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which, 
though certainly not written by that apostle, was 
in existence in the earlier pail of the 2nd century, 
has (c. 15) the following words, " We celebrate the 
eighth day with joy, on which too Jesus rose from 
the dead."* 

A pagan document now comes into view. It is 
the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan, written 
while he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. " The 
Christians (says he), affirm the whole of their guilt 
or error to be, that they were accustomed to meet to 
gether on a stated day (stato die), before it was light, 
and to sing hymns to Christ as a God, and to bind 
themselves by a Sacramentum, not for any wicked 
purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adul 
tery ; never to break their word, or to refuse, when 
called upon to deliver up any trust ; after which it 
was their custom to separate, and to assemble again 
to take a meal, but a general one, and without 
guilty purpose." 

A thoroughly Christian authority, Justin Mailyr, 
who flourished A.D. 140, stands next on the list. 
He writes thus : " On the day called Sunday (ry 
rov r]\iov \fyofitmy rmtpq.), is an assembly of ail 
who live either in the cities or in the ruial districts, 
and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of 
the prophets are read." Then he goes on to de 
scribe the particulars of the religious acts which are 
entered upon at this assembly. They consist of 
prayer, of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and 
of collection of alms. He afterwards assigns the rea 
sons which Christians had for meeting on Sunday. 
These are, •' because it is the First Day, on which 
God dispelled the darkness (rb tricoros) and the 
original state of things (rfyy SATjf), and formed the 
world, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour ros« 
from the dead upon it" (Apol. Prim.). In an 
other work (Dial. c. Tryph.\ he makes circum 
cision furnish a type of Sunday. " The command 
to circumcise infants on the eighth day was a type 
of the true circumcision by which we are circum 
cised from error and wickedness through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first 
day of the week (rjj ^19 ffafr&tirwv} ; therefore it 
remains the chief and first of days." As for <ro3- 

rl&tv, he uses that with exclusive reference to 
the Jewish law. He carefully distinguishes Satur 
ay (ft KpovtK^i), the day after which our Lord 
was crucified, from Sunday (ij pera rfy Kpovix^r 

s iffriv rj rov 'HA/ou Jiptpa], upon which He 
rose from the dead. (If any surprise is felt at 
Justin's employment of the heathen designations 
for the seventh and first days of the week, it may 
be accounted for thus. Before the death of Ha- 

/j icai 6 'I»)<rous 


drian, A.D. 138, the hebdomadal division (which 
Dion Cassius, writing in the 3rd century, derives, 
together with its nomenclature, from Egypt), had 
in matters of common life, almost universally su 
perseded in Greece, and even in Italy, the national 
divisions of the lunar month. Justin Martyr, 
•writing to and for heathen, as well as to and for 
Jews, employs it, therefore, with a certainty of 
being understood.) 

The strange heretic, Bardesanes, who however 
delighted to consider himself a sort of Christian, has 
the following words in his book on " Fate," or on 
" the Laws of the Countries," which he addressed to 
the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus: " What then 
shall we say respecting the new race of ourselves 
who are Christians, whom in every country and in 
every region the Messiah established at His coining ; 
for, lo ! wherever we be, all of us are called by the 
one name of the Messiah, Christians; and upon one 
day, which is the first of the week, we assemble 
ourselves together, and on the appointed days we 
abstain from food" (Cureton's Translation). 

Two very short notices stand next on our list, 
but they are important from their casual and un 
studied character. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, 
A.D. 170, in a letter to the Church of Rome, a frag 
ment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says, rfyv 
trflpepov o^v KvpicMj]v ayiav T]fj.tpav Siriydyoft.ei', 
tv 17 aveyv&fjiev v^iav TT)V firiffro\T]V. And Me- 
lito, bishop of Sardis, his contemporary, is stated 
to have composed, among other works, a treatise on 
th« Lord's Day (6 irtpl rrjs KvptaKris \6yos). 

The next writer who may be quoted is Irenaeus, 
bishop of Lyons, A.D. 178. He asserts that the 
Sabbath is abolished ; but his evidence to the ex 
istence of the Lord's Day is clear and distinct. It 
is spoken of in one of the best known of his Frag 
ments (see Heaven's frenaeus, p. 202). But a 
record in Kuseb. (v. 23, 2) of the part which he 
took in the Quarta-Deciman controversy, shows that 
in his time it was an institution beyond dispute. 
The point in question was this: Should Easter be 
celebrated in connexion with the Jewish Passover, 
on whatever day of the week that might happen to 
tail, with the Churches of Asia Minor, Syria, and 
Mesopotamia; or on the Lord's Day, with the rest 
of the Christian world? The Churches of Gaul, 
then under the superintendence of Irenaeus, agreed 
upon a synodical epistle to Victor, bishop of Rome, 
in which occurred words somewhat to this eflect, 
" The mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not 
be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, 
and on this alone should we observe the breaking off 
of the Paschal Fast." f This confirms what was 
said above, that while, even towards the end of the 
2nd century, tradition varied as to the yearly cele 
bration of Christ's Resurrection, the weekly celebra 
tion of it was one upon which no diversity existed, 
or was even hinted at. 

Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, comes next. 
One does not expect anything very definite from a 
writer of so mystical a tendency, but he has some 
things quite to our purpose. In his Strom, (iv. §3), 
.ie speaks of T^V apxiyovov rjfj.tpav, rr)v TO? bv-ri 
nvdiraufftv TJ/J.WV, rr]V $T) Kal vpiaTrjv ry Svrt 
' yeveffiv, K.T.\., words which Bishop Kaye 



interprets as contrasting the seventh day of the 
Law, witti the eighth day of the Gospel. And, as 
the same learned prelate observes, " When Clement 
says that the gnostic, or transcendental Christian, 
does not pray in any fixed place, or on any stated 
days, but throughout his whole life, he gives us to 
understand that Christians in general did meet to 
gether in fixed places and at appointed times for the 
purposes of prayer." But we are noc left to mere 
inference on this important point, for Clement 
speaks of the Lord's Day as a well-known and cus 
tomary festival, and in one place gives a mysticai 
interpretation of the name.* 

Tertullian, whose date is assignable to the close 
of the 2nd century, may, in spite of his conver 
sion to Montanism, be quoted as a witness to facts. 
He terms the first day of the week sometimes 
Sunday (Dies Solis), sometimes Dies Dominicus. 
He speaks of it as a day of joy (Diem Solis laetitiae 
indulgemus, Apol. c. 16), and asserts that it is 
wrong to fast upon it, or to pray kneeling during 
its continuance (Die Dominico jejunium nefas du- 
cimus, vel de geniculis adorare, De Cor. c. 3). 
" Even business is to be put off, lest we give place 
to the devil" (Diff'erentes etiam negotia, ne quem 
Diabolo locum demus, De Orat. c. 13). 

Origen contends that the Lord's Day had its su 
periority to the Sabbath indicated by manna having 
been given on it to the Israelites, while it was with 
held on the Sabbath. It is one of the marks of the 
perfect Christian to keep the Lord's Day. 

Minucius Felix, A.D. 210, makes the heathen 
interlocutor, in his dialogue called Octavius, assert 
that the Christians come together to a repast " on 
a solemn day " (solenni die). 

Cyprian and his colleagues, in a synodical letter, 
A.D. 253, make the Jewish circumcision on the 
eighth lay pretigure the newness of life of the 
Christian, to which Christ's resurrection introduces 
him, and point to the Lord's Day, which is at once 
the eighth and the first. 

Commodian, circ. A.D. 270, mentions the Lord's 

Victorinus, A.D. 290, contrasts it, in a very 
remarkable passage, with the Parasceve and the 
Sabbath ; 

And Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 300, says 
of it, " We keep the Lord's Day as a day of joy, 
because of Him who rose thereon."* 

The results of our examination of the principal 
writers of the two centuries after the death of St. 
John are as follows. The Lord's Day (a name 
which has now come out more prominently, and is 
connected more explicitly with our Lord's resur 
rection than before) existed during these two cen 
turies as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of 
Scriptural Christianity. It was never defended, for 
it was never impugned, or at least only impugned 
as other things received from the apostles were. 
It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but 
carefully distinguished from it, (though we have 
not quoted nearly all the passages by which this 
point might be proved). It was not an institution 
of severe Sabbatical character, but a day of joy 
(xa-ppoavvi}) and cheerfulness (fv<ppoffwr)) , rather 
encouraging than forbidding relaxation. Religiously 

' "O« iv /u.r)5' iv oAAjj irore TT)<r Kvpuucijt li/^tp? TO T»)S 
tK vfxpiav ava.<TT<i<reios envreAoiTO TOU Kupi'ov lUWT^ptW, 
«ai oTraj? iv ravrr) f-ovrf riav Kara TO 7id(T\a vrjtrrtitav 

Otros ivro\r)t' ri\v 
K, Kipiaxrji T7)i> >;;iepai' 

i, or' iv airo/SoAAj; 

<f>av\ov vorii^a Kal yvtacrrtKov n-poo-Aa/Sr;, TT\V iv avna roi 
Kupi'ov avao-rao-iv SofdftO', (.S'irom. V.). 

h Tt)!/ -yap Kvpteueriv \apiJLOtruinit rifJ-epav ayo/itv, iio 
rov avaardi-ra iv avrjj, iv y oi/Se ydvira xAueii- irap«i- 



regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the 
Holy Eucharist, for united prayer, for instruction, 
for almsgiving; and though, being an institution 
under the law of liberty, work does not appear to 
have been formally interdicted, or rest formally 
enjoined, Tertullian seems to indicate that the cha 
racter of the day was opposed to worldly business. 
Finally, whatever analogy may be supposed to exist 
between the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, in no 
passage that has come down to us is the Fourth 
Commandment appealed to as the ground of the 
obligation to observe the Lord's Day. Ecclesiastical 
writers reiterate again and again, in the strictest sense 
of the words, " Let no man therefore judge you in 
respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of 
the sabbath days" (MWj TIS upas Kpii>(T<o $v /ue'pei 
ioprris, t) vovfirjvias, 1) <ra/3/3dTiav, Col. ii. 16). 
Nor, again, is it referred to any Sabbatical foundation 
Anterior to the promulgation of the Mosaic economy. 
On the contrary, those before the Mosaic era are 
constantly assumed to have had neither knowledge 
nor observance of the Sabbath. And as little is it 
anywhere asseited that the Lord's Day is merely an 
ecclesiastical institution, dependent on the post- 
apostolic Church for its origin, and by consequence 
capable of being done away, should a time ever 
airive when it appeal's to be no longer needed. 

Our design does not necessarily lead us to do 
more than state facts ; but if the facts be allowed 
to apeak for themselves, they indicate that the 
Lord's Day is a purely Christian institution, sanc 
tioned by apostolic practice, mentioned in apostolic 
writings, and so possessed of whatever divine au 
thority all apostolic ordinances and doctrines (which 
were not obviously temporary, or were not abro 
gated by the apostles themselves) can be supposed 

3. Bat on whatever grounds "the Lord's Day" 
may be supposed to rest, it is a great and indis 
putable fact that four years before the Oecumenical 
Council of Nicaea, it was recognised by Constan 
tine in his celebrated edict, as " the venerable Day 
of the Sun." The terms of the document are 
these : — 

" Imperator Constantinus Aug. Ifelpidio. 
" Omnes judlces urbanaeque plebes et cunctarum artium 
officla vcnerabili Die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi 
agrorum culturae llbere Ilcenterque inserviant, quoniam 
frequenter evenit ut non aptius allo die frumenta sulcis 
But vineae scroblbus mandentur, ne occasione moment! 
pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa." — Dot. 
Non, Mart. Crispo If. et Constantino II. Cost. 

Some have endeavoured to explain away this 
document by alleging — 1 st, that " Solis Dies " is 
not the Christian name of the Lord's Day, and that 
Constantine did not therefore intend to acknowledge 
it as a Christian institution. 

2nd. That, before his conversion, Constantine had 
professed himself to be especially under the guardian 
ship of the sun, and that, at the very best, he in 
tended to make a religious compromise between 
sun-worshippers, properly so called, and the wor- 

r)/Jiepav, rji> 'E/3paioi T-pw- 
', "EAArji'e? St Tip HAiu 

' Trjc it 

Trfv Tr/s ef$&on<iSos ovo^a.^o 
avaTiStaTiv, Ka.1 -^r\v jrpb T>j$ e/366/X 
ffrrjpuav *cat TWI' aAAwi' Trpayfiarajr (r^oATjr ayeif Tra^Ta?, 
• ai iv eu\ait icai. Atrouj TO ®flov Bepaireveiv erifia. Se 
rr)i> Kvpicmriv, ax; iv ravrr) ToO Xpiarou ai'aardiTOS e<c 
vtKputv- TTJV Se tre'par, tos tv avrrj <na.vpia9evT<K (So/.. 
Kxl. llitt. 1. c. 8). But on this p.iss.iK' 1 .-MIH <T observes 
rerv truly, "Non dlcit a Constantino appellatam Kvp<.aKi\v, 


shippers of the " Sun of lii^hteousuess," i. e. 

3rdly. That Constantine's edict \v:is puiely a 
kalemlarial one. and intended to reduce the number 
of public holic »ys, " Dies Nefasti," or " Feriati," 
which had, so h/ng ago as the date of the " Actiones 
Verrinae," become a serious impediment to the 
transaction of business. And that this was to be 
effected by choosing a day which, while it woul.: 
be accepted by the Paganism then in fashion, would 
of course be agreeable to the Christians. 

4thly. That Constantine then instituted Sunday 
for the first time as a religious day for Christians. 

The fourth of these statements is absolutely re 
futed, both by the quotations made above from 
writers of the second and third centuries, and by 
the terms of the edict itself. It is evident that 
Constantine, accepting as facts the existence of the 
" Soils Dies," and the reverence paid to it by some 
one or other, does nothing more than make that 
reverence practically universal. It is " venerabilis " 
already. And it is probable that this most natural 
interpretation would never have been disturbed, had 
not Sozomen asserted, without wan-ant from either 
the Justinian or the Theodosian Code, that Con 
stantine did for the sixth day of the week what the 
codes assert he did for the first. 1 

The three other statements concern themselves 
rather with what Constantine meant than with 
what he did. But with such considerations we 
have little or nothing to do. He may have pur 
posely selected an ambiguous appellation. He may 
have been only half a Christian, wavering between 
allegiance to Christ and allegiance to Mithras. He 
may have affected a religious syncretism. He may 
have wished his people to adopt such syncretism. 
He may have feared to offend the Pagans. He may 
have hesitated to avow too openly his inward lean 
ings to Christianity. He may have considered that 
community of religious days might lead bye and bye 
to community of religious thought and feeling. 
And he may have had in view the rectification of 
the kalendar. But all this is nothing to the pur 
pose. It is a fact, that in the year A.D. 321, in a 
public edict, which was to apply to Christians MS 
well as to Pagans, he put especial honour upon a 
day already honoured by the former — judiciously 
calling it by a name which Christians had long 
employed without scruple, and to which, as it was 
in ordinary use, the Pagans could scarcely object. 
What he did for it was to insist that worldly 
business, whether by the functionaries of the law 
or by private citizens, should be intermitted during 
its continuance. An exception indeed was made 
in favour of the rural districts, avowedly from the 
necessity of the case, covertly perhaps to prevent 
those districts, where Paganism (as the word Pagus 
would intimate) still prevailed extensively, from 
feeling aggrieved by a sudden and stringent change. 
It need only be added here, that the readiness with 
which Christians acquiesced in the interdiction of 
business on the Lord's Day affords no small pre 
sumption that they had long considered it to be a 

sed 'jam ante sic vocatnm feriatam osse decrevit.' '' There 
is a passage also in Kusebius ( \'it. Const, iv. ]X> which 
appears to assert the same thing of Saturday. It is, how 
ever, manifestly corrupt, and can scarcely be translated at 
all except by the employment of an emendation ; while 
if we do thus emend it, it will speak of Kriday, as Suzompn 
does, and not of Saturday ; and, what. Is more t<, our pur 
pose, to whichever of those d.ivs it does refer, what ib said 
in it concerning 'H nvfuani) win fall under Suicrr's rci'iark 


day of rest, and that, so far as circumstances ad 
mitted, they had made it so long before. 

Were any other testimony wanting to the exist 
ence of Sunday as a day of Christian worship at 
this period, it might be supplied by the Council of 
tficaea, A.D. 325. The Fathers there and then as 
sembled make no doubt of the obligation of that 
day — do not ordain it — do not defend it. They 
assume it as an existing fact, and only notice it 
incidentally in order to regulate an indifferent mat 
ter, the posture of Christian worshippers upon it. k 

Richard Baxter has well summed up the history 
of the Lord's Day at this point, and his words may 
not unaptly be inserted here : — " That the first 
Cnristian emperor, finding all Christians unanimous 
in the possession of the day, should make a law 
(as our kings do) for the due observing of it, and 
that the first Christian council should establish 
uniformity in the very gesture of worship on that 
day, are strong confirmations of the matter of fact, 
that the churches unanimously agreed in the holy 
use of it as a separated day even from and in the 
Apostles' days" (Richard Baxter, On the Divine 
Appointment of the Lord's Day, p. 41. 1671). 

Here we conclude our inquiry. If patristical or 
ecclesiastical ground has been touched upon, it has 
been only so far as appeared necessary for the 
elucidation of the Scripture phrase, T) Kvpiax^i 
'H/ue'pa. ' What became of the Sabbath after Chris 
tianity was fairly planted; what Christ said of it 
in the Gospels, and how His words are to be inter 
preted ; what the apostles said of that day, and 
how they treated it ; what the early ecclesiastical 
writers held respecting it; and in what sense 
"There remaineth a sabbatismus (iraj8j8aTt07i£>r, 
A. V. " rest") to the people of God" (Heb. 
iv. 9) : these are questions, which fall rather 
under the head of SABBATH than under that 
of " Lord's Day." And as no debate arose in apos 
tolic or in primitive times respecting the relation, 
by descent, of the Lord's Day to the Mosaic Sabbath, 
>r to any Sabbatical institution of assumed higher 
antiquity, none need be raised here. [See SAB- 

The whole subject of the Lord's Day, including 
its " origin, history, and present obligation," is 
treated of by the writer of this article in the Bamp- 
ton Lecture for 1860. • [J. A. H.] 

LORD'S SUPPER (Kvpiaicbv Stwoit: Coena 
Dominica). The words which thus describe the 
great central act of the worship of the Christian 
Church occur but in one single passage of 
the N. T. (1 Cor. xi. 20). a Of the fact which 
lies under the name we have several notices, 
and from these, incidental and fragmentary as they 
are, it is possible to form a tolerably distinct picture. 
To examine these notices in their relation to the life 



k 'ETretfiTJ Tii/e's flinv tv TJJ (tvpiaicjj yow KAcVoi/rej Kal 
iv rai? T>)9 IlenTjKoerrijs ^e'pats, vjrep TOV Trdi/ra tv 
7ra<T7j Trapoixtqi 6/j.ouus <£vAaTT€<7$ai, e0ra>Ta9 eSofe TT) 
ayio <rvv6&<a ras eux«S airoSi&ovai. rip ©ecu (Cone. JVic. 
Can. 20). 

" Maldonatus (Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 26) is bold enough 
to deny that the " Lord's Supper " of 1 Cor. xi. 20 is the 
same as the " Eucharistia" of the later Church, and iden 
tities H with the meal that followed. The phraseology to 
which we arc accustomed is to him only an example of 
the " ridicula Calviritstarum et Lutheranorum Inscitin," 
Innovating on the received language of the Church. The 
keen detector of heresy, however, is in this Instance at 
variance not only with the consensus of the chief fathers 
tf the ancient Church (comp. Suicrr. Thes, a. v. Stiirvov), 

of the Christian society in the first stages of it* 
growth, and so to learn what " the Supper of 
the Lord " actually was, will be the object of this 
article. It would be foreign to its purpose to trace 
the history of the stately liturgies which grew up 
out of it in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, except so far 
as they supply or suggest evidence as to the customs 
of the earlier period, or to touch upon the many 
controversies which then, or at a later age, have 
clustered round the original institution. 

I. The starting point of this inquiry is found iu 
the history of that night when Jesus and His dis 
ciples met together to eat the Passover (Matt. xxvi. 
19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 13). The manner 
in which ,the Paschal feast was kept by the Jews 
of that period differed in many details from that 
originally prescribed by the rules of Ex. xii. The 
multitudes that came up to Jerusalem, met, as they 
could find accommodation, family by family, or in 
groups of friends, with one of their number as the 
celebrant, or " proclaimer " of the feast. The cere 
monies of the feast took place in the following order 
(Lightfoot, Temple Service, xiii. ; Meyer, Co/mm, in 
Matt. xxvi. 26). (1) The members of the company 
that were joined for this purpose met in the evening 
and reclined on couches, this position being now as 
much a matter of rule as standing had been originally 
(comp. Matt. xxvi. 20, avtKftro ; Luke xxii. 14 ; 
j and John xiii. 23, 25). The head of the house 
hold, or celebrant, began by a form of blessing 
" for the day and for the wine," pronounced over a 
cup, of which he and the others then drank. The 
wine was, according to Rabbinic traditions, to be 
mixed with water ; not for any mysterious reason, 
but because that was regarded as the best way of 
using the best wine (comp. 2 Mace. xv. 39). 
(2) All who were present then washed their hands ; 
this also having a special benediction. (3) The 
table was then set out with tlie paschal lamb, un 
leavened bread, bitter herbs, and the dish known 
asChai'oseth (DDTin), a sauce made of dates, figs, 
raisins, and vinegar, and designed to commemorate 
the mortar of their bondage in Egypt (Buxtorff, 
Lex. Rabb. 831). (4) The celebrant first, and 
then the others, dipped a portion of the bitter herbs 
into the Charoseth and ate them. (5) The dishes 
were then removed, and a cup of wine again 
brought. Then followed an interval which was 
allowed theoretically for the questions that might 
be asked by children or proselytes, who were asto 
nished at such a strange beginning of a feast, and 
the cup was passed round and drunk at the close 
of it. (6) The dishes being brought on again, the 
celebrant repeated the commemorative words which 
opened what was strictly the paschal supper, and 
pronounced a solemn thanksgiving, followed by Ps. 
cxiii. and cxiv. b (7) Then came a second washing 

but with the authoritative teaching of his own (Catechism. 
Trident, c.-lv. qu. 5). 

b It may be Interesting to give the words, as shewing 
what kind of forms may have served as types for the first 
worship of the Christian Church. 

1. This is the passover, which we eat because the ].*>rd 
passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt 

2. These are the bitter herbs, which we eat in romem- 
brance that the Egyptians made the lives of our lather* 
bitter In Egypt. 

3. This is the unleavened bread, which we eat, because 
the dough of our fathers had not time to be leavened 
before the Lord revealed himself and redeemed them out 
of hand. 

4. Therefore arc we bound to give thanks, to praise, tc 



»f the hands, with a short form of blessing as 
betbre, and the celebrant broke one of the two 
loaves or cakes of unleavened bread, and gave thanks 
over it. All then took portions of the bread and 
dipped them, together with the bitter herbs, into 
tbe Charoseth, and so ate them. (8) After this 
they ate the flesh of the paschal lamb, with bread, 
&c., as they liked; and after another blessing, a 
third cup, known especially as the " cup of bless 
ing," was handed round. (9) This -was succeeded 
by a fourth cup, and the recital of Ps. cxv.-cxviii. 
followed by a prayer, and this was accordingly 
known as the cup of the Hallel, or of the Song. 
(10) There might be, in conclusion, a fifth cup, 
provided that the " great Hallel " (possibly Psalms 
cxx.-cxxxvii.) wassuug over it. 

Comparing the ritual thus gathered from Rab 
binic writers with the N. T., and assuming (1) 
that it represents substantially the common practice 
of our Lord's time ; and (2) that the meal of which 
He and His disciples partook, was either the pass- 
over itself, or an anticipation of it, c conducted 
according to the same rules, we are able to point, 
though not with absolute certainty, to the points 
of departure which the old practice presented for 
the institution of the new. To (1) or (3), or even 
to (8), we may refer the first words and the first 
distribution of the cup (Luke xxii. 17, 18) ; to (2) 
or (7), the dipping of the sop (tj/w/*(ov) of John 
xiii. 26 ; to (7), or to an interval during or after 
(8), the distribution of the bread (Matt. xxvi. 26 ; 
Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24); 
to (9) or (10) ("after supper," Luke xxii. 20) the 
thanksgiving, and distribution of the cup, and 
the hymn with which the whole was ended. It 
will be noticed that, according to this order of suc 
cession, the question whether Judas partook of 
what, in the language of a later age, would be 
called the consecrated elements, is most probably to 
be answered in the negative. 

The narratives of the Gospels show how strongly 
the disciples were impressed with the words which 
had given a new meaning to the old familiar acts. 
They leave unnoticed all the ceremonies of the Pass 
over, except those which had thus been transferred to 
the Christian Church and perpetuated in it. Old 
things were passing away, and all things becoming 
new. They had looked on the bread and the wine 
as memorials of the deliverance from Egypt. They 
were now told to partake of them " in remem 
brance" of their Master and Lord. The festival 
had been annual. No rule was given as to the time 
and frequency of the new feast that thus supervened 
on the old, but the command " Do this as oft as 
ye drink it" (1 Cor. xi. 25), suggested the more 
continual recurrence of that which was to be their 
memorial of one whom they would wish never to 
forget. The words, " This is my body," gave to 
the unleavened bread a new character. They had 
been prepared for language that would otherwise 

land, to glorify, to extol, to honour, to praise, to magnify 
him that hath done for our fathers, and for us, all these 
wonders; who hath brought us from bondage to free 
dom, from sorrow to rejoicing, from mourning to a good 
day, from darkness to a great light, from affliction to 
redemption ; therefore must we say before him. Hallelu 
iah, praise ye the Lord .... followed by Ps. cxlll. (Light- 
foot, I. c.). 

c This reservation is made as being a possible alterna 
tive for explaining the differences between the three 
Qrei jospels and St. John. 


have been so startling, by the teaching of John (»i. 
32-58), and they were thus taught to see in the 
bread that was broken the witness of the closest 
possible union and incorporation with their Lord. 
The cup which was "the new testament" (5ia- 
6-fiKri) "in His blood," would remind them, in like 
manner, of the wonderful prophecy in which that 
new covenant had been foretold (Jer. xxxi. 31-34) 
of which the crowning glory was in the promise, 
" I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember 
their sin no more." His blood shed, as He told them, 
" for them and for many," for that remission of 
sins which He had been proclaiming throughout his 
whole ministry, was to be to the new covenant 
what the blood of sprinkling had been to that of 
Moses (Ex. xxiv. 8). It is possible that there may 
have been yet another thought connected with these 
symbolic acts. The funeral customs of the Jews 
involved, at or after the burial, the administration 
to the mourners of bread (comp. Jer. xvi. 7, 
" neither shall they break bread for them in mourn 
ing," in marginal reading of A. V. ; Ewald and 
Hitzig, ad loc. ; Ez. xxiv. 17 ; Hos. ix. 4 ; Tob. iv. 
17), and of wine, known, when thus given, as 
" the cup of consolation." May not the bread and 
the wine of the Last Supper have had something ot 
that character, preparing the minds of Christ's dis 
ciples for His departure by treating it as already 
accomplished? They were to think of his body as 
already anointed for the burial (Matt. xxvi. 12 , 
Mark xiv. 8 ; John xii. 7), of his body as already 
given up to death, of his blood as already shed. 
The passover-meal was also, little as they might 
dream of it, a funeral-feast. The bread and the 
wine were to be pledges of consolation for their 
sorrow, analogous to the verbal promises of John 
xiv. 1, 27, xvi. 20. • The word 5«x0VJKT; might even 
have the twofold meaning which is connected with 
it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

May we not conjecture, without leaving the 
region of history for that of controversy, that the 
thoughts, desires, emotions, of that hour of divine 
sorrow and communion would be such as to lead 
the disciples to crave earnestly to renew them? 
Would it not be natural that they should seek that 
renewal in the way which their Master had pointed 
out to them ? From this time, accordingly, the 
words "to break bread." appeal' to have had for 
the disciples a new significance. It may not have 
assumed indeed, as yet, the character of a distinct 
liturgical act ; but when they met to break bread, 
it was with new thoughts and hopes, and with 
the memories of that evening fresh on them. It 
would be natural that the Twelve should transmit 
the command to others who had not been present, 
and seek to lead them to the same obedience and 
the same blessings. The narrative of the two dis 
ciples to whom their Lord made himself known " in 
breaking of bread " at Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 30-35) 
would strengthen the belief that this was the way 
to an abiding fellowship with Him. d 

d The general consensus of patristic and Roman Catholic 
Interpreters finds in this also a solemn celebration of tbe 
Eucharist. Here, they say, are the solemn benediction 
and the technical words for the distribution of the elements 
as in the original institution, and as In the later notices 
of the Acts. It should be remembered, however, that the 
phrase " to break bread " bid been a synonym for the act 
of any one presiding at » meal (comp. Jer. xvi. 7, Unm 
iv. 4), and that tbe Rabbinic -ule required a blessing 
whenever throe persons sat down together at it. (Comp 
Maldonatus and Meyer, <ui loc.). 


II. In the account given by the writer of the 
Acts of the life of the first disciples at Jerusalem, a 
prominent place is given to this act, and to the 
phrase which indicated it. Writing, we must re 
member, with the definite associations that had 
gathered round the words during the thirty years that 
followed the events he records, he describes the 
baptized members of the Church as continuing 
steadfast in or to the teaching of the apostles, in 
fellowship with them and with each other, 6 and in 
breaking of bread and in prayers (Acts ii. 42). 'A 
few verses further on, their daily life is described 
as ranging itself under two heads: (1) that of 
public devotion, which still belonged to them as Jews 
("continuing daily with one accord in the Temple") ; 
(2) that of their distinctive acts of fellowship 
"breaking bread from house to house (or "pri 
vately," Meyer), they did eat their meat in gladness 
and singleness of heart, praising God, and having 
favour with all the people." Taken in connexion 
with the account given in the preceding verses of 
the love which made them live as having all things 
common, we can scarcely doubt that this implies 
that the chief actual meal of each day was one in 
which they met as brothers, and which was either 
preceded or followed by the more solemn comme 
morative acts of the breaking of the bread and the 
drinking of the cup. It will be convenient to anti 
cipate the language and the thoughts of a some 
what later date, and to say that, apparently, they 
thus united every day the Agapfc l or feast of Love 
with the celebration of the Eucharist. So far as the 
former was concerned, they were reproducing in 
the streets of Jerusalem the simple and brotherly 
life which the Essenes were leading in their seclu 
sion on the shores of the Dead Sea. K It would be 
natural that in a society consisting of many thou 
sand members there should be many places of 
meeting. These might be rooms hired for the pur 
pose, or freely given by those members of the 
Church who had them to dispose of. The congre 
gation assembling in each place would come to be 
known as "the Church" in this or that man's house 
(Rom. xvi. 5, 23; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; 
Philem. ver. 2). When they met, the place of honour 
would naturally be taken by one of the apostles, or 
some elder representing him. It would belong to 
him to pronounce the blessing (ev\oyla) and thanks 
giving (evxapiffrta), with which the meals of de 
vout Jews always began and ended. The materials 
for the meal would be provided out of the common 
funds of the Church, or the liberality of individual 
members. The bread (unless the converted Jews 
were to think of themselves as keeping a perpetual 
passover) would be such as they habitually used. 

• The meaning of noivtovia. in this passage is probably 
explained by the flxov airavra. KOIVO. that follows (comp. 
Meyer, ad toe.). The Vulg. rendering, " et communica- 
tione fractionis panis," originated probably in a wish to 
give to the word its later liturgical sense. 

* The/act is traceable to the earliest days of the Church. 
The origin of the name is obscure. It occurs in this sense 
only in two passages of the N. T., 2 Pet. ii. 13, Jude v. 
12 ; and there the reading (though supported by B and 
other great MSS.) Is not undisputed. The absence of any 
reference to it in St. Paul's memorable chapter on 'Ayairi) 
(1 Cor. xiii.) makes it improbable that it was then and 
there in use. In the age after the apostles, however, it 
is a currently accepted word for the meal here described 
Ugnat. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. 8 ; Tertull. Apol. c. 39, ad Marc. 
:. 2 ; Cyprian, Testin. ad Quirin. iii. 3). 

t The account given by Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 8) de 
serves to be studied, both as coming from an eye-witness 



The wine (probably the common red w.'ne of Pales- 
tine, Prov. xxiii. 31) would, according to their 
usual practice, be mixed with water. Special stress 
would probably be laid at first on the office of 
breaking and distributing the bread, as that which 
represented the fatherly relation of the pastor to his 
flock, and his work as ministering to men the word 
of life. But if this was to be more than a common 
meal after the pattern of the Essenes, it would be 
necessary to introduce words that would show that 
what was done was in remembrance of their Master. 
At some time, before or after h the meal of which 
they partook as such, the bread and the wine would 
be given with some special form of words or acts, 
to indicate its character. New converts would 
need some explanation of the meaning and origin of 
the observance. What would be so fitting and so 
much in harmony with the precedents of the Paschal 
feast as the narrative of what had passed on the night 
of its institution (1 Cor. xi. 23-27) ? With this 
there would naturally be associated (as in Acts ii. 42) 
prayers for themselves and others. Their gladness 
would show itself in the psalms and hymns with 
which they praised God (Heb. ii. 46, 47 ; James 
v. 13). The analogy of the Passover, the general 
feeling of the Jews, and the practice of the Essenes 
may possibly have suggested ablutions, partial or 
entire, as a preparation for the feast (Heb. x. 22 ; 
John xiii. 1-15 ; comp. Tertull. de Oral. c. xi. ; and 
for the later practice of the Church, August. Serm. 
ccxliv.). At some point in the feast those who were 
present, men and women sitting apart, would rise 
to salute each other with the " holy kiss " (1 Cor. 
xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; Clem. Alex. Pacdagog. iii. 
c. 11 ; Tertull. de Orat. c. 14 ; Just. M. Apol. ii.). 
Of the stages in the growth of the new worship we 
have, it is true, no direct evidence, but these con 
jectures from antecedent likelihood are confirmei 
by the fact that this order appeal's as the common 
element of all later liturgies. 

The next traces that meet us are in 1 Cor., and 
the fact that we find them is in itself significant. 
The commemorative feast has not been confined to 
the personal disciples of Christ, or the Jewish con 
verts whom they gathered round them at Jeru 
salem. It has been the law of the Church's expan 
sion that this should form part of its life every 
where. Wherever the apostles or their delegates 
have gone, they have taken this with them. The 
language of St. Paul, we must remember, is not 
that of a man who is setting forth a new truth, 
but of one who appeals to thoughts, words, phrases 
that are familiar to his readers, and we find accord 
ingly evidence of a received liturgical terminology 
The title of the "cup of blessing" (1 Cor. x. 16), 

(Vita, c. 2), and as shewing a type of holiness which 
could hardly have been unknown to the first Christian 
disciples. The description of the meals of the Essenes 
might almost pass for that of an Agape. " They wash 
themselves with pure water, and go to their refectory as 
to a holy place (re>e«>s), and sit down calmly .... The 
priest begins with a prayer over the food, and It is unlaw 
ful for any one to taste of it before the prayer." This is 
the early meal. The Stiirvov is In the same order (comp 
Pliny, Ep. ad Traj.). 

h Examples of both are found in the history of the 
early Church : 1 Cor. xi. is an example of the Agape 
coming before the Eucharist. The order of the two words 
In Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 4 implies priority. The 
practice continued in some parts of Egypt even to the 
time of Sozomcn (Hist. Eccl. vli. c. 19), and the rule ot 

_ the Council of Cartnage (can. xli.) forbidding it, inr piles 

i that it had been customary. 



Hebrew in its origin and form (see above), has bee 
imported into the Greek Church. The synonyn 
of " the cup of the Lord" (1 Cor. x. 21) distin 
guishes it from the other cups that belonged to th 
Agai>&. The word "fellowship" (Koivcavia.) is pass 
ing by degrees into the special signification of " Com 
m union." The apostle refers to his own office a. 
breaking the bread and blessing the cup (1 Co: 
x. 16).' The table on which the bread was place 
was the Lord's Table, and that title was to th 
Jew not, as later controversies have made it, th 
antithesis of altar (®vffiaffT'f)piov), but as nearl 
as possible a synonym (Mai. i. 7, 12 ; Ez. xli. 22' 
But the practice of the Agapfc, as well as the ob 
servance of the commemorative feast, had bee 
transferred to Corinth, and this called for a specia 
notice. Evils had sprung up which had to b 
checked at once. The meeting of friends for 
social meal, to which all contributed, was a suffi 
ciently familiar practice in the common life o 
Greeks of this period; and these club-feasts wer 
associated with plans of mutual relief or charity 
the poor (comp. Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities 
s. v. "Eoavoi). The Agapfc of the new societ 
would seem to them to be such a feast, and henc 
came a disorder that altogether frustrated the objec 
of the Church in instituting it. Richer members 
came, bringing their supper with them, or appro 
priating what belonged to the common stock, and sa 
down to consume it without waiting till others wer 
assembled and the presiding elder had taken hi 
place. The poor were put to shame, and defraudec 
of their share in the feast. Each was thinking o 
his own supper, not of that to which we now fin< 
attached the distinguishing title of "the Lord' 
Supper . k And when the time for that came, one wa 
hungry enough to be looking to it with physical no 
spiritual craving, another so overpowered with win< 
as to be incapable of receiving it with any reverence 
It is quite conceivable that a life of excess and ex 
citement, of overwrought emotion and unrestrainec 
indulgence, such as this epistle brings before us, may 
have proved destructive to the physical as well as 
the moral health of those who were affected by it, 
and so the sicknesses and the deaths of which St. 
Paul speaks (1 Cor. xi. 30), as the consequences ol 
this disorder may have been so, not by supernatural 
infliction, but by the working of those general laws oi 
the divine government, which make the punishment 
the traceable consequence of the sin. In any case, 
what the Corinthians needed was, to be taught to 
come to the Lord's table with greater reverence, to 
distinguish (JSictKplvftv*) the Lord's body from their 


common food. Unless they did so, they would 
bring upon themselves condemnation. What was 
to be the remedy for this terrible and growing evil 
he does not state explicitly. He reserves formal 
regulations for a later personal visit. In the mean- 
time he gives a rule which would make the union 
of the Agapfe and the Lord's Supper possible with 
out the risk cf profanation. They were not to come 
even to the former with the keen edge of appetite 
They were to wait till all were met, instead of 
scrambling tumultuously to help themselves ( 1 Cor. 
xi. 33, 34). In one point, however, the custom of 
the Church of Corintli differed apparently from that 
of Jerusalem. The meeting for the Lord's Supper 
was no longer daily (1 Cor. xi. 20, 33). The direc 
tions given in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, suggest the constitution 
cf a celebration on the first day of the week (comp. 
Just. Mart. Apol. i. 67 ; Pliny, Ep. ad Traj.}. The 
meeting at Troas is on the same day (Acts xx. 7). 

The tendency of this language, and therefore pro 
bably of the order subsequently established, was to 
separate what had hitherto been united.™ We stand 
as it were at the dividing point of the history of 
the two institutions, and henceforth each takes its 
own course. One, as belonging to a transient phase 
of the Christian life, and varying in its effects with 
changes in national character or forms of civilisation, 
passes through many stages — becomes more and 
more a merely local custom — is found to be pro 
ductive of evil rather than of good — is discouraged 
by bishops and forbidden by councils — and finally dies 
out. Traces of it linger in some of the traditional 
practices of the Western Church.P There have been 
attempts to revive it among the Moravians and 
other religious communities. The other also has 
its changes. The morning celebration takes the 
place of the evening. New names — Eucharist, 
Sacrifice, Altar, Mass, Holy Mysteries — gather 
round it. New epithets and new ceremonies 
express the growing reverence of the people. The 
mode of celebration at the high altar of a basilica 
in the 4th century differs so widely from the cir 
cumstances of the original institution, that a care 
less eye would have found it hard to recognise their 
identity. Speculations, controversies, superstitions 
crystallise round this as their nucleus. Great dis 
ruptions and changes threaten to destroy the life 
and unity of the Church. Still, through all tho 
changes, the Supper of the Lord vindicates its claim 
to universality, and bears a permanent witness of 
the truths with which it was associated. 

In Acts xx. 11 we have an example of the way 
in which the transition may have been effected. 

' The plural Kb.ioiJ.fv has been understood as implying 
that the congregation took part in the act of breaking 
(Stanley, Corinthians ; and Estius, ad toe.). It may be 
questioned, however, whether this is sufficient ground for 
an interpretation for which there is no support either in 
the analogous custom of the Jews or in the traditions of 
the Church. The «vAoyov/uev, which stands parallel to 
icAui/iei/, can bardly be referred to the whole tody of 
partakers. When the act is described historically, the sin 
gular is always used (Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 35). Tertullian, in 
Vhe passage to which Prof. Stanley refers, speaks of the 
otlwr practice ("necde aliorum quam praesidentium ma- 
nibus," deCor.Mil.c.^as&n old tradition, notasachangc. 
k The word xvpiaxb? appears to have been coined for 
the purpose of expressing the new thought. 

m It has been ingeniously contended that the change 

Ironi evening to morning was the direct result of St. Paul's 

interposition (Christian Remembrancer, art. on " Evening 

I'xinui i unions " July, 1860). 

• That presented by the Council of Gangrn (can. xl.) is 

noticeable as an attempt to preserve the primitive custom 
of an Agape In church against the assaults of a false 

The history of the Agapae, in their connexion with 
the life of the Church, is full of interest, but would be om 
of place here. An outline of it may be found in Augusti, 
'hristl. Arcliaeol. iii. 704-711. 

P The practice of distributing bread, which has been 

>lessed but not consecrated, to the congregation generally 

children included), at the greater festivals of the Church, 

resents a vestige, or at least an analogue, of the old 

Agape. Liturgical writers refer it to the period (A.I>. 

58-385) when the earlier practice wa:, Killing into disuse, 

and this taking its place as the expression of the same 

eeling. The bread thus distributed is known in the 

Eastern Church as euAoyi'a, in the Western as the panit 

">enedicttLS, the " pain b6nl " of the modern French Church 

'he practice is still common in France and other parts at 

urope. (Comp. Moroni, Ditumar. Kccles., Pascal, f.itvrg 

Cathol., in Migne's Kncyc. Thed.. s v. " Isulogle." 


The disciples at TYoas meet together to I reak bread. 
The hour is not definitely stated, but the fact that 
St. Paul's discourse was protracted till past mid 
night, and the mention of the many lamps, indicate 
a later time than that commonly fixed for the Greek | 
?f7-nvov. If we are not to suppose a scene at 
variance with St. Paul's rule in 1 Cor. xi. 34, they 
must have had each his own supper before they 
assembled. Then came the teaching and the prayers, 
and then, towards early dawn, the breaking of bread, 
which constituted the Lord's Supper, and for which 
they were gathered together. If this midnight 
meeting may be taken as indicating a common prac 
tice, originating in reverence for an ordinance which 
Christ had enjoined, we can easily understand how 
the next step would be (as circumstances rendered 
the midnight gatherings unnecessary or inexpedient) 
to transfer the celebration of the Eucharist perma 
nently to the morning hour, to which it had gra 
dually been approximating. 11 Here also in later 
times there were traces of the original custom. 
Even when a later celebration was looked on as at 
variance with the general custom of the Church 
(Sozomen, supra) it was recognised as legitimate 
to hold an evening communion, as a special com 
memoration of the original institution, on the 
Thursday before Easter (August. Ep. 118 ; ad Jan. 
e. 5-7) ; and again on Easter-eve, the celebration 
in the latter case probably taking place " very early 
iu the morning while it was yet dark " (Tertull. 
ad Vxor. ii. c. 4). 

The recurrence of the same liturgical words in 
Acts xxvii. 35 makes it probable, though not cer 
tain, that the food of which St. Paul thus partook 
was intended to have, for himself and his Christian 
companions, the character at once of the Agape and 
the Eucharist. The heathen soldiers and sailors, it 
may be noticed, are said to have followed his ex 
ample, not to have partaken of the bread which he 
had broken. If we adopt this explanation, we have 
in this narrative another example of a celebration 
in the early houi-s between midnight and dawn 
(comp. v. 27, 39), at the same time, »'. e., as we, 
have met with in the meeting at Troas. 




Ail ti.c distinct references to *Ke Lord's Supper 
which occnr within the limits of t'ie N. T. have, 
it is believed, been noticed. • Tc find, as a recent 
writer has done (Christian RemerrJir oncer for April, 
1860), quotations from the Liturgy of the Eastern 
Church in the Pauline Epistles, involves (ingeni 
ously as the hypothesis is supported) assumptions 
too many and too bold to justify our acceptance cf 
it. r Extending the inquiry, however, to the times 
as well as the writings of the N. T., we find reason 
to believe that we can trace in tl e later worship 
of the Church some fragments of that which be 
longed to it from the beginning. The agreement 
of the four great families of liturgies implies the 
substratum of a common order. To that order may 
well have belonged the Hebrew words Hallelujah, 
Amen, Hosanna, Lord of Sabaoth ; the salutations 
" Peace to all," " Peace to thee;" the Sursum 
Corda (avu ffx<a/J-(v ras KapStas), the Trisagion, 
the Kyrie Eleison. We are justified in looking at 
these as having been portions of a liturgy that was 
really primitive; guarded from change with the 
tenacity with which the Christians of the second 
century clung to the traditions (the TropoSdVeis of 
2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6) of the first, forming part of 
the great deposit (irapaKOTofl^Krj) of faith and 
worship which they had received from the apostles 
and have transmitted to later ages (comp. Bingham, 
Eccles. Antiq. b. xv. c. 7 ; Augusti, Christl. Archdol. 
b. viii. ; Stanley on 1 Cor. x. and xi.). [E. H. P.] 

LO-RUH'AMAH (HOrn &6 : OVK Ti\erinevr, ; 

absque misericordia), i. e. " the uncompassionated,' / 
the name of the daughter of Hosea the prophet, 
given to denote the utterly ruined and hopeless 
condition of the kingdom of Israel, on whom 
Jehovah would no more have mercy (Hos. i. 6). 

LOT (121? : Ac6r ; Joseph. AWTOS, and so 
Veneto-Greek Vers. : Lot), the son of Haran, and 
therefore the nephew of Abraham (Gen. xi. 27, 
31). His sisters were MiLCAH the wife of Nahor, 
and ISCAH, by some identified with Sarah. The 
following genealogy exhibits the family relations : — 

Hagar = Abram = Sarai 


Nahor = Milcah 


Haran • 

Lot =•: wife Milcah = Nahor 


I I 

Esau Jacob 

llebekah Laban 

I I 

Leah llachel. 





Haran died before the emigration of Terah and his i with Abram and Sarai to Canaan (xii. 4, 5;. With 

iam..y rrorn Ur of the Chaldees (ver. 28), and Lot 
was tuerefore born there. He removed with the 
rest of his kindred to Charan, and again subsequently 

them he took refuge iu Egypt from a famine, and 
with them returned, first to the "South" (xiii. 1), 
and then to their original settlement between Bethel 

* Comp. the " antelucanls coetibus " of Tertull (de Cor. 
Mil. c. 3). The amalgamation in the ritual of the mo 
nastic orders, of the Nocturns, and Matin-Lauds, into the 
single office of Matins, presents an instance of an ana 
logous transition (Palmer, Orig. Liturg. i. 202), 

' 1 Cor. ii. 9, compared with the recurrence of the same 
words in the Liturgy with an antecedent to the relative 
which appears in the Kpistle without one, is the passage 
on which most stress is laid. 1 Pet. ii. 16, and Kph. v. 14, 
are adduced as further instants. 

* Tenth's sons are given above in the order in which 
they occur in the record (Gen. xi. 27-32). But the facts 
that Nahor and Isaac (and if Iscah be Sarai, Abram also) 
married wives not of their own generation, but of the next 
below them, and that Abrarn and Lot travel together and 
behave as if exactly on equal terms, seem to show that 
Haran wag the eldest of Terah's three deacon .lants, anil 
Abram the youngest. It would be a parallel to the cost 
of Shem, Ham, and Japhet, where Japhet was really tk«- 
eldest, though enumerated last. 



and Ai (ver. 3, 4), where Abram had built his first 
altar (xiii. 4; comp. xii. 7), and invoked on it the 
namo of Jehovah. But the pastures of the hills 
of Bethel, which had with ease contained the two 
strangers en their first arrival, were not able any 
longer to bear them, so much had their possessions 
of sheep, goats, and cattle increased since that time. 
It was not any disagreement between Abram and 
Lot — their relations continued good to the last ; 
but between the slaves who tended their countless 
herds disputes arose, and a parting was necessary. 
The exact equality with which Abram treats Lot is 
very remarkable. It is as if they were really, 
according to the very ancient idiom of these records 
(Ewald on Gen. xxxi.), " brethren," instead of uncle 
and nephew. From some one of the round swelling 
nills which surround Bethel — from none more likely 
than that which stands immediately on its east 
[BETHEL, vol. i. 199]— the two Hebrews looked 
over the comparatively empty land, in the direction 
of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Zoar (xiii. 10). " The oc 
casion was to the two lords of Palestine — then almost 
' free before them where to choose' — what in Grecian 
legends is represented under the figure of the Choice 
of Hercules ; in the fables of Islam under the story 
of the Prophet turning back from Damascus." 
And Lot lifted up his eyes towards the left, and 
beheld all the precinct of the Jordan that it was 
well watered eveiy where ; like a garden of Jehovah ; 
like that unutterably green and fertile land of 
Egypt he had only lately quitted. Even from that 
distance, through the clear air of Palestine, can be 
distinctly discovered the long and thick masses of 
vegetation which fringe the numerous streams that 
descend from the hills on either side, to meet 
the central stream in its tropical depths. And what 
it now is immediately opposite Bethel, such it seems 
then to have been " even to Zoar," to the farthest 
extremity of the sea which now covers the " valley 
of the fields' 1 " — the fields of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
" No crust of salt, no volcanic convulsions, had as 
yet blasted its verdure, or alarmed the secure civi 
lisation of the early Phoenician settlements which 
had struck root in its fertile depths." It was 
exactly the prospect to tempt a man who had no 
fixed purpose of his own, who had not like Abram 
obeyed a stern inward call of duty. So Lot left his 
uncle on the barren hills of Bethel, and he " chose 
all the precinct of the Jordan, and journeyed east," 
down the ravines which give access to the Jordan 
valley ; and then when he reached it turned again 
southward and advanced as far as Sodom (11, 12). 
Here he " pitched his tent," for he was still a 
nomad. But his nomad life was virtually al 
an end. He was now to relinquish the freedom 


t, there is no doubt that, as far as the hi story t( 
Lot is concerned, it is in its right position in the 
narrative. The events which it narrates must have 
occurred after those of ch. xiii., and before those of 
xviii. and xix. Abram has moved further south, 
and is living under the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, 
where he remained tillthedestruction of Sodom. Th*re 
is little in it which calls for remark here. The te. m 
" brother" is once used (ver. 16) for Lot's relation 
to Abram (but comp. ver. 12, " brother's son") ; 
and a word is employed for the possessions of Lot 
(ver. 1 1 , A. V. " goods "), which from its being else 
where in these early records (xlvi. 6 ; Num. xxxv. 
3) distinguished from "cattle," and employed spe- 
:ially for the spoil of Sodom and Gomorrah, may 
perhaps denote that Lot had exchanged the wealth 
of his pastoral condition for other possessions 
more peculiar to his new abode. Women are also 
named (ver. 16), though these may belong to the 
people of Sodom. 

3. The last scene preserved to us in the Ibtory 
of Lot is too well known to need repetition. He is 
still living in Sodom (Gen. xix.). Some years have 
passed, for he is a well-known resident in the town, 
with wife, sons, and daughters, married and mar 
riageable. But in the midst of the licentious cor 
ruption of Sodom — the eating and drinking, the 
buying and selling, the planting and building (Luke 
xvii. 28), and of the darker evils exposed in the 
ancient narrative — he still preserves some of the 
delightful characteristics of his wandering life, his 
fervent and chivalrous hospitality (xix. 2, 8), the 
unleavened bread of the tent of the wilderness (ver. 
3), the water for the feet of the wayfarers (ver. 2), 
affording his guests a reception identical with that 
which they had experienced that very morning in 
Abraham's tent on the heights of Hebron (comp. rviii. 
3, 6). It is this hospitality which receives the com 
mendation of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
in words which have passed into a familiar proverb, 
" be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby 
some have entertained angels unawares" (Heb. xiii. 
2). On the other hand, it is his deliverance from the 
guilty and condemned city — the one just d man in that 
mob of sensual lawless wretches — which points the 
allusion of St. Peter, to " the godly delivered out 
of temptations, the unjust reserved unto the day 
of judgment to be punished, an ensample to those 
that after should live ungodly" (2 Pet. ii. 6-9). 
Where Zoar was situated, in which he found a tem 
porary refuge during the destruction of the other 
cities of the plain, we do not know with absolute 
certainty. If, as is most probable, it was at the 
mouth of Wady Kerak (Rob. ii. 188, 517), then 
by " the mountain " is meant the very elevated 
ground east of the Dead Sea. If with De Saulcy 

of Judah. 

the mountain ' 
Either would afford caves for his sub- 

and independence of the simple life of the tent — a 

mode of life destined to be one of the great methods of i we place it in es-Zouara, on the precipitous descent 

educating the descendants of Abram — and encounter : from Hebron, " the mountain " was the high ground 

the corruptions which seem always to have attended 

the life of cities in the East — "the men of Sodom were 

wicked, and sinners before Jehovah exceedingly." 

2. The next occurrence in the life of Lot is his 
capture by the four kings of the East, and his rescue 
by Abram (Gen. xiv.). Whatever may be the age 
of this chapter in relation to those before and after 

sequent dwelling. The former situation — on the 
eastern side of the Dead Sea, has in its favour the 
fact that it is in accordance with the position sub 
sequently occupied by the Ammonites and Moabites. 
But this will be best examined under ZOAR. 

The end of Lot's wife • is commonly ti-oated as 

k - Valley of Siddim "— Siddim = fields. 

c The story of Baucis and Philemon, who unwittingly 
entertained Jupiter and Mercury (see Diet, of Biography, 
lie.), has been often compared with this. 

<» Aucoio?, possibly referring to Gen. xviii. 23-33, where 
ti« LXX. employ this word throughout. The rabbinical 

tradition is that he was actually "judge" of Sodom, and 
sate in the gate in that capacity. (See quotations in 
Otho, Lea. Raub. " Loth," and " Sodomah.") 

• In the Jewish traditions her name is Edith— JWJ? 
One of the daughters was called Plutith— JVB17B. Se« 
Fabricios. Cod. Psevdep. V. T. 431. 


OTC of the " diflksuitias " of the Bible. But it surely 
need unt be so. It csainot be necessary, as some have 
lone to create the details of the story where none 
tire given — to describe "the unhappy woman struck 
rf,. a ,l " — " a blackened corpse — smothered and stif 
fened as she stood, and fixed for the time to the soil 
by saline or bituminous incrustations — like a pillar 
of salt." On these points the record is silent. Its 
words are simply these: " His wife looked back from 
behind him/ and became a pillar of salt ;" — words 
which neither in themselves nor in their position 
in the narrative afford any warrant for such 
speculations. In fact, when taken with what has 
gone before, they contradict them, for it seems 
plain, from vers. 22, 23, that the work of destruc 
tion by fire did not commence till after Lot had 
entered Zoar. But this, like the rest of her fate, 
is left in mystery. 

The value and the significance of the story to 
us are contained in the allusion of Christ (Luke 
xvii. 32) :— " In that day he that is in the field 
let him not return back : remember Lot's wife," 
who did. " Whosoever shall seek to save his life 
shall lose it." It will be observed that there is 
no attempt in the narrrative to invest the circum 
stance with permanence; no statement — as in the 
case of the pillar erected over Rachel's grave 
(xxxv. 20) — that it was to be seen at the time of 
the compilation of the history. And in this we 
surely have a remarkable instance of that sobriety 
which characterises the statements of Scripture, 
even where the events narrated are most out of 
the ordinary course. 

Later ages have not been satisfied so to leave 
the matter, but have insisted on identifying the 
"pillar" with some one of the fleeting forms 
which the perishable rock of the south end of the 
Dead Sea is constantly assuming in its process of 
decomposition and liquefaction (Anderson's Off. 
Narr. 180, 1). The first allusion of this kind is 
perhaps that in Wisd. x. 7, where " a standing 
pillar of salt, the monument ((tvi}fjit1ov) of an un 
believing soul," is mentioned with the " waste 
land that smoketh," and the "plants bearine fruit 
that never come to ripeness," as remaining to that 
lay, a testimony to the wickedness of Sodom. 
Josephus also (Ant. i. 11, §4) says that he had 
seen it, and that it was then remaining. So too 
do Clemens Komanus and Irenaeus (quoted by 
Kitto, Cycl. "Lot"). s So does Benjamin of 
Tudela, whose account is more than usually cir 
cumstantial (ed. Asher, i. 72)> And so doubtless 
have travellers in every age — they certainly have in 
our own times. See Maundrell, March 30 ; Lynch, 
Report, p. 15; and Anderson's Off. Narrative, 181, 
TV here an account is given of a pillar or spur stand 
ing out detached from the general mass of the Jebel 
Usd&tn, about 40 feet in height, and which was 
recognized by the sailors of the expedition as " Lot's 

The story of the origin of the nations of Moab 
and Ammon from the incestuous intercourse be 
tween Lot and his two daughters, with which his 
history abruptly concludes, has been often treated 

' LXX., els TO. on-iVo) ; comp. Luke ix. 62, Phil. iii. 13. 

« See the quotations from ihe Fathers and others in 
Hofmann's Lexiam (s v. "Ix>t"), and in Mislin, Lieux 
Saints (iii. 221). 

h Rabbi Petachiu, on the other hand, looked for it 
»ut " dirt not see it ; it no longer exists " (KJ. Benisch, 


LOT 14-b 

as it it were a Hebrew legend which owed its origin 
to the bitter hatred existing from the earliest to the 
latest times between the " Children of Lc t " and the 
Children of Israel. 1 The horrible nature of the 
transaction — not the result of impulse or passion, 
but a plan calculated and carried out, and tliat not 
once but twice, would prompt the wish that the 
legendary theory were true. k But even the most 
destructive critics (as, for instance, Tuch) allow that 
the narrative is a continuation without a break of that 
which precedes it, while they fail to point out any 
marks of later date in the language of this portion ; 
and it cannot be questioned that the writer records 
it as an historical fact. 

Even if the legendary theory were admissible, 
there is no doubt of the fact that Ammon and Moab 
sprang from Lot. It is affirmed in the statement? 
of Deut. ii. 9 and 19, as well as in the later docu 
ment of Ps. xxxiii. 8, which Ewald ascribes to the 
time when Nehemiah and his newly-returned 
colony were suffering from the attacks and obstruc 
tions of Tobiah the Ammonite and Sanballat the 
Horonite (Ewald, Dichter, Ps. 83). 

The Mohammedan traditions of Lot are contained 
in the Koran, chiefly in chaps, vii. and xi. : others 
are given by D'Herbelot (s. v. " Loth"). According 
to these statements he was sent to the inhabitants 
of the five cities as a preacher, to warn them against 
the unnatural and horrible sins which they prac 
tised — sins which Mohammed is continually de 
nouncing, but with less success than that of 
drunkenness, since the former is perhaps the most 
common, the latter the rarest vice, of Eastern 
cities. From Lot's connexion with the inhabitants 
of Sodom, his name is now given not only to the 
vice in question (Freytag, Lexicon, iv. 136 a), but 
also to the people of the five cities themselves — the 
Lothi, or Kattm Loth. The local name of the Dead 
Sea is Bahr Lut — Sea of Lot. [G.] 

LOT. The custom of deciding doubtful ques 
tions by lot is one of great extent and high antiquity, 
recommending itself as a sort of appeal to the Al 
mighty, secure from all influence of passion or bias, 
and is a sort of divination employed even by the gods 
themselves (Horn. //. xxii. 209 ; Cic. de Div. i. 34, 
ii. 41). The word sors is thus used for an oracular 
response (Cic. de Div. ii. 56). [DIVINATION.] 
Among heathen instances the following may be 
cited: — 1. Choice of a champion or of priority in 
combat (//. iii. 316, vii. 171; Her. iii. 108). 
2. Decision of fate in battle (//. xx. 209). 3. Ap 
pointment of magistrates, jurymen, or other func 
tionaries (Arist. Pol. iv. 16; Schol. On Aristoph. 
Plut. 277; Her. vi, 109; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5, 55; 
Demosth. c. Aristog. i. p. 778, 1 ; Diet, of Antiq. 
" Dicastes"). 4. Priests (Aesch. in Tim. p. 188, 
Bekk.). 5. A German practice of deciding by 
marks on twigs, mentioned by Tacitus (Germ. 10), 
6. Division of conquered cr colonized land (Thuc 
iii. 50 ; Plut. Pericl. 84 ; Boeckh, Public Econ. of 
Ath. ii. 170). 

Among the Jews also the use of lots, with a 
religious intention, direct or indirect, pievailed ex 
tensively. The religious estimate of them may 

i See Tuch, aenesis, 369. Von Bohlen ascribes the 
legend to the latter part of the reign of Josian. 

k For the pretty legend of the repentance of Ix>t, and 
of the tree which he planted, which, being cut down for 
use In the building of the Temple, was afterward, 
employed for the Cross, see Fabricius, Cod. 
V. T., 42H-31 




be gathered from Prov. xvi. 33. The following 
historical or ritual instances correspond in most 
respects to those of a heathen kind mentioned 
above : — 

1. Choice of men for an invading foroe (Judg 
i, l,xx. 10). 

2. Partition, (a) of the soil of Palestine among 
the tribes (Num. xxvi. 55 ; Josh, xviii. 10 ; Acts 
xiii. 19). (6) of Jerusalem ; f. e. probably its spoil 
or captives among captors (Obad. 11); of the 
land itself in a similar way (1 Mace. iii. 36). 

(c) After the return from cap'tivity, Jerusalem was 
populated by inhabitants drawn by lot in the pro 
portion of -fa of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin 
(Neb. xi. 1, 2 ; see Ps. xvi. !5, 6, Ez. xxiv. 6). 

(d) Apportionment of possessions, or spoil, or of pri 
soners, to foreigners or captors (Joel iii. 3 ; Nah. iii. 
10 ; Matt, xxvii. 35). 

3. (a) Settlement of doubtful questions (Prov. 
xvi. 33, where " lap" is perhaps = urn ; xviii. 18). 
f 6) A mode of divination among heathens by means 
of arrows, two inscribed, and one without mark, 
jStAojuarrtfa (Hos. iv. 12 ; Ez. xxi. 21 ; Mauritius, 
de Sortitione, c. 14, §4: see also Esth. iii. 7, ix. 
24-32 ; Mishna, Taanith, ii. 10. [DIVINATION ; 
PURIM.] (c) Detection of a criminal, as in the case 
of Achan (Josh. vii. 14, 18). A notion prevailed 
among the Jews that this detection was performed 
by observing the shining of the stones in the high- 
priest's breastplate (Mauritius, c. 21, §4). Jo 
nathan was discovered by lot (1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42). 
(d) Appointment of persons to offices or duties 
Saul (1 Sam. x. 20, 21), said to have been chosen 
as above in Achan's case. St. Matthias, to replace 
Judas among the Twelve (Acts i. 24-26). Distri 
bution of priestly offices in the Temple-service 
among the sixteen of the family of Eleazar, and th 
eight of that of Ithamar (1 Chr. xxiv. 3, 5, 19 
Luke i. 9). Also of the Levites for similar purposes 
(1 Chr. xxiii. 28, xxiv. 20-31, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13; 
Mishna, Tamid, i. 2, iii. 1, v. 2 ; Joma, ii. 2, 3, 4 
Shabb. xxiii. 2 ; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Luke i 
8, 9, vol. ii. p. 489). 

Election by lot appears to have prevailed in the 
Christian Church as late as the 7th century (Bing 
ham, Ecclcs. Antiq. iv. 1, 1, vol. i. p. 426 ; Bruns 
Cone. ii. 66). 

(e) Selection of the scape-goat on the Day o 
Atonement (Lev. xvi. 8, 10). The two inscribec 
tablets of boxwood, afterwards of gold, were pu 
into an urn, which was shaken, and the lot 
drawn out (Joma, iii. 9, iv. 1). [ATONEMENT 

4. The use of words heard or passages chosen at 
random from Scripture. Sortes Biblicae, like the 
Sortes Virgilianae, prevailed among Jews, as they 
have also among Christians, though denounced by 
several Councils (Diet. ofAntiq. " Sortes ;" Johnson 
" Life of Cowley," Works, ix. 8 ; Bingham, Eccl 
Ant. xvi. 5, 3, id. vi. 53, &c. ; Bruns, Cone, ii 
145-154, 166; Mauritius, c. 15; Hofmann, Lex 
"Sortes"). [H.W.P.] 

LO'TAN(|O'^: AWTC^: Lotari), the eldes 
•on of Seir the Horite, and a " duke" or chief o 
his tribe in the land of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 20, 22 
29 ; 1 Chr. i. 38, 39). 

LOTHASU'BUS (Ao>0c(<rou0oy : Abusthas 
Sabiis), a corruption of HASIIUM in Neh. viii. 4 
for which it is not easy to account (1 Esd. ix. 44) 
lh« Vijltr. is a further corruption of the LXX. 



LOVE-FEASTS (iydvai: epulnc, c«>nnr:Vi , 
n this sense used only twice, Jude 12, and 2 I'et. 
i. 13, in which latter place, however, Jhrdrai is 
also read), an entertainment in which the poorer 
members of the Church partook, furnished from the 
contributions of Christians reselling to the Eucha- 
ristic celebration, but whether before or after it 
may be doubted. The true account of the matter 
is probably that given by Chrysostom, who says 
that after the early community of goods had ceased, 
the richer members brought to the Church con 
tributions of food and drink, of which, after the 
conclusion of the services and the celebration of the 
Eucharist, all partook together, by this means help 
ing to promote the principle of love among Christians 
(Horn, in 1 Cor. xi. 19, vol. Hi. p. 293, and Horn. 
xxvii. in 1 Cor. xi. vol. x. p. 281, ed. Gaume) 
The intimate connexion, especially in early times, 
between the Eucharist itself and the love-feast, hrw 
led several writers to speak of them almost as 
identical. Of those who either tike this view, or 
regard the feast as subsequent to the Euchnrist, 
may be mentioned Pliny, who says the Christian? 
met and exchanged sacramental pledges against nil 
sorts of immorality ; after which they separated, 
and met again to partake in an entertainment.' 
The same view is taken by Ignatius, ad Smym. 
c. 8 ; Tertull. Apol. 39 ; Clein. Alex. Strom, vii. 
322 (vol. ii. p. 892). lii. 185 (vol. i. 514), but in 
Paed. ii. 61 (vol. i. p. 165) he seems to regard 
them as distinct ; Apost. Const, ii. 28, 1 : and 
besides these, Jerome on 1 Cor. xi. ; Theodoret and 
Oecumenius, quoted by Bingham, who considers 
that the Agape was subsequent ( Orig. Eccl. xv. 
6, 7 ; vol. v. p. 284) ; Hofmann, Lex. " Agapae." 
On the other side may be mentioned Grotius (on 
2 Pet. ii. 13, in Grit. Sacr.), Suicer ( Thes. Eccl. 
vol. i. s. v.), Hammond, Whitby, Corn, i Lapidc, 
and authorities quoted by Bingham, /. c. b The 
almost universal custom to receive the Eucharist 
fasting proves that in later times the love-feasts 
must have followed, not preceded, the Eucharist 
(Sozomen, H. E. vii. 19; Aug. c. Faiist. xx. L'U ; 
Ep. liv. (alias cxviii.) ; ad Januar. c. 6, vol. ii. 
p. 203, ed. Migne ; Cone. Carth. iii. A.D. 397. 
c. 29 ; Bruns, Cone. i. p. 127): but the exception 
of one day from the general rule (the day called 
Coena Domini, or Maunday Thursday) seems to argue 
a previously different practice. The love-feasts were 
forbidden to be held in churches by the Council of 
Laodicea, A.D. 320, Cone. Quinisext., A.D. 692, 
c. 74, Aix-la-Chapelle, A.D. 816; but in some foim 
or other they continued to a much later period. 
Entertainments at births, deaths, and marriages 
were also in use under the names of agapae nata- 
litiae, nuptialcs, and funeralcs. (Bede, Hist. Eccl. 
Gent. Angl. i. 30 ; Ap. Const, viii. 44, 1 ; Theo 
doret, Evany. Vcrit. viii. p. 923, 924, ed. Schulz; 
Gree Naz Ep. i. 14, and Carm. x. ; Hofmann. 
Lex r.'l. c.) [H. W. P.] 

LOZ'ON (A.o£d>v : Dedori), one of the sons of 
" Solomon's servants " who returned with Zoi obabel 
(1 Esd. v. 33). The name corresponds with DAK- 
KON in the parallel lists of Ezr. ii. 56 and N»h. 
vii. 58, and the variation may be an error of the 

» " Promiscnum et innoxiutn, quod ipsuni '* (i. f. the 
entertainment, surely not the sacrammtum) " faciro d*- 
stsse post edictum nieum" (Kp. x. 97). 

t This su):|oct is also dlttcussed tiudi-r I»i-!'V Si 


transcriber, which is easily traceable when the word 
is written in the uncial character. 

LU'BIM (D»3-lb, 2 Chr. xii. 3, xvi. 8; Nah. iii. 
0, 0*2?, Dan. xi. 43 : Aiflvts : Libyes ; except 
Daniel, Libyi), a nation mentioned as contributing, 
together wilh Cushites and Sukkiim, to Shishak's 
army (2 Chr. xii. 3) ; and apparently as forming 
with Cushites the bulk of Zerah's army (xvi. 8), 
spoken of by Nahum (iii. 9) with Put or Phut, 
as helping Mo-Amon (Thebes), of which Cush and 
Egypt were the strength ; and by Daniel (xi. 43) 
as paying court with the Cushites to a conqueror 
of Egypt or the Egyptians. These particulars 
indicate an African nation under tribute to Egypt, 
if not under Egyptian rule, contributing, in the 
10th century B.C., valuable aid in mercenaries 
or auxiliaries to the Egyptian armies, and down to 
Nahum's time, and a period prophesied of by 
Daniel, probably the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes 
JAHTIOCHUS IV".], assisting, either politically or 
tommercially, to sustain the Egyptian power, or, 
in the last case, dependent on it. These indi 
cations do not fix the geographical position of the 
Lubim, but they favour the supposition that their 
territory was near Egypt, either to the west or south. 
For more precise information we look to the 
Egyptian monuments, upon which we find repre 
sentations of a people called ReBU, or LebU (R 
and L having no distinction in hieroglyphics), who 
cannot be doubted to correspond to the Lubim. 
These Rebu were a warlike people, with whom 
Monptah (the son and successor of Rameses II.) 
and Rameses III., who both ruled in the 13th 
century B.C., waged successful ware. The latter 
king routed them with much slaughter. The sculp 
tures of the great temple he raised at Thebes, 
now called that of Medeenet Haboo, give us repre 
sentations of the Rebu, showing that they were fair, 
and of what is called a Semitic type, like the 
Berbers and Kabyles. They are distinguished as 
northern, that is, as parallel to, or north of, Lower 
Egypt. Of their being African there can be no 
reasonable doubt, and we may assign them to the 
coast of the Mediterranean, commencing not fiir to 
the westward of Egypt. We do not find them to have 
been mercenaries of Egypt from the monuments, 
but we know that the kindred Mashawasha-u were 
so employed by the Bubastitc family, to which 
Shislmk and probably Zerah also belonged ; and it 
is not unlikely that the latter are intended by the 
Lubim, used in a more generic sense than Rebu, in 
the Biblical mention of the armies of these kings 
(Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. ii. 79, seq.~). We have 
already shown that the Lubim are probably the 
Mizraite LEHABIM: if so, their so-called Semitic 
physical characteristics, as represented on the 
Egyptian monuments, afford evidence of great im 
portance for the inquirer into primeval history. 
The mention in Manetho's Dynasties that, unde 
Nccherophes, or Necheroehis, the first Memphite 
king, and head of the third dynasty (B.C. cir