HJBBBroffillHI^^
11; .: i
GKBS3
v" , / *,\
;v!A> v v-.4V
Kwttt% ^ <.
FROM-THE- LIBRARY-OP
TWNITYCOLLEGE TORONTO
FROM
THE WILLIAM CLARK
MEMORIAL LIBRARY
DONATED 1926 A.D.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BIBLICA
A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
OF THE BIBLE
EDITED BY
THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD
AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER
AND
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.
FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
VOLUME III
L to P
Toronto
GEORGE N. MORANG & COMPANY LIMITED
1902
All rigtits reserved
6s
I \ O
COPYRIGHT, 1902,
Bv THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
First edition, April,
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv 3 i. []) of the Encyclopedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; I Esd., 4 Esd. (i.e., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy (i.e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3 23 ), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor.. Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.].
An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OTJC^ = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions RPW, AOF^ ; see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see
below under D 2 , E 2 , J 2 , P 2 .
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encyclopedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Eticy. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections () ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abulw. . . Abulwalid, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
Roots, etc.
Acad. . . The Academy : A Weekly Review
of Literature, Science, and Art.
London, 69^".
AF . . . See A OF.
AHT . , Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See
Hommel.
Alt\test\. Unt. . See Winckler.
Amer. Journ. of American Journal of Philology,
Phil. So/.
A\ f tner. ]f[ourn. \ American Journal of Semitic Lan-
S\_em.] L\_ang.] guages and Literatures (continu
ing Hebraica [ } 84- 95]), 9$ff.
Am. Tab. . . TheTell-el-AmarnaLetters^AT^)
Ant. . . . Joseph us, Antiquities.
AOF . . Allorientalische Forschungen. See
Winckler.
Apocr. Anecd. . Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title Texts and Studies
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aq. . . . Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp,
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See TEXT.
Ar. . . . Arabic.
Aram. . . Aramaic. See ARAMAIC.
Arch. . . Archeology or Archaologie. See
Benzinger, Nowack.
Ar. Des. . . Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 88.
Ar. Heid., or Reste arabischen Heidentums. See
Heid, Wellhausen.
Arm. . . Armenian.
Ass. . . . Assyrian.
Ass. HWB . Assyrisches Handworterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
As. u. Eur. . W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa
nach aitagyptischen Denkmdlern,
93-
AT, A Tliche . Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
A T Unters. . Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
AV . Authorised Version.
Bab. .
Baed., or
Baed. Pal.
Baethg., or
Bae
BAG
Baraitha .
BDB Lex.
Be. .
Beitr.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Benz. HA
ben, b ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch s critical edition
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin),
(2), 94; (3), 9 8 (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baethgen, Beitr age zur semitischen
Religions-geschichte, 88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., 86; pt. ii., 88.
Earth, Die Nominalbildung in den
semitischen Sprachen, i., 89; ii.,
91; W 94.
See LAW LITERATURE.
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]
A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, 92, and following years.
E. Bertheau (1812-88). InJCGH;
Richter u. Ruth, 45 ; W 83;
Chronik, 54; < 2 >, 73; Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, 62; W, by
Ryssel, 87.
Beitrage, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrage zur Assyriologie u. semi
tischen Sprachwissenschaft ; ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
i., 90; ii., 94; iii., 98; iv. i, 99.
I. Benzinger, Hebraische Archa
ologie, 94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Konige in KHC, 99.
A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is-
raeliten u. der Juden zu den
Fremden, 96.
Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hebraischen
Grammatik, 69 f. ; ET, 77.
Carmina VT metrice etc., 82.
Diehtungen der Hebr der, 82 f.
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Prov., 90.
Bibliotheca Sacra, 43^".
De Bello Judaico. See Josephus.
Schenkel, Bibel - Lexicon ; Real-
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch
fur Geistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., 69- 75-
S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
bus Scriptitra; Sacra;, 1663.
Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Griac.,
4 vols., *28- 77.
Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Kon. .
Bertholet, Std-
lung
Bi. . . .
Biblioth, Sac.
BJ . .
BL . .
Boch.
Boeckh
BOR
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfuhrhches
Lehrbtich der hebraischen Spra-
che, 66- 68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, 79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
1-124), 83.
Ki.Sa. . Die Biichcr Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen undihr Aufbaujcp.
Sam.. . Samuel in SBO7^ (Heb.), 94.
Das Buck Hiob in HK, 96.
Klagelieder and Ilohelied in KHC, 98.
Buhl . . See Pal.
Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga. Judaica, 1603, etc.
Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi-
cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., 69 and 74.
c., dr. . . circa.
Calwer Bib. . Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologi-
Lex. sches Handworterbuch, ed. P.
Zeller, 89~ 93.
c. Ap. . . contra Apionem. See Josephus.
CH . . . Composition des Hexateuchs. See
Wellhausen.
Chald, Gen. . The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. A new edi
tion, thoroughly revised and cor
rected by A. H. Sayce, 80.
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne :
Proph. Is. . The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
( 8o- 8i; revised, < 5 >, 89).
Job and Sol. Job and Solomon, or The IVisdom
of the Old Testament ( 87).
Ps. . . The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ( 88); <- , re
written (forthcoming).
OPs. . . The Origin and Religious Con
tents of the Psalter ( Bampton
Lectures, 89), 91.
Aids . . Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, 92.
Founders . Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, 94.
Intr. Is. . Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ( 95).
Is.SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.],
( 97); [Heb.], ( 99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in Men of the
Bible ( 88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, 98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriplionum Grczcarum
(ed. Dittenberger), 82^". See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, 63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CIS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica-
rum, Paris, 8i/". Pt. i., Phoeni
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
Class. Rev. . The Classical Review,
Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau :
Rec. . . Recueil d Archeologie,
Co. . . . Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buch des Propheten
Ezechiel, 86.
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa
ment, 91; < 3 >, 96.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, 98.
CO T . . The Cuneiform Inscriptions andtlie
Old Testament. See Schrader.
Crit. Man. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu
ments, 94.
Cr. Rev. . . Critical Review of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond],
D Author of Deuteronomy ; also used
of Deuteronomistic passages.
D2 . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
HISTORICAL LITERATURE.
Dalm. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
palastinischen Aramdisch, 94.
Worte Jesu Die IVorte Jesu, i., 98.
Aram. Lex. Aramiiisch - Neuhebr disches
Worterbuch zu Targum,
Talmud, und Midrasch,
Teil i., 97.
Dav. . . A. B. Davidson :
Job . . Book of Job in Camb. Bible, 84.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, 92.
DB . . . W. Smith, A Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Nat
ural History, 3 vols., 63; DB^,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
93-
or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan
guage, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology,
vol. i., 98; vol. ii., 99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, 95 ff.
de C. Orig. . Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivees, 82; < 4 >, 96.
ET in the International Scien
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre
ceding, author of:
Par. . . IVo lag das Parodies? ( ( 8l).
Heb. Lang. The Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES vii
in the light of Assyrian Re
search, 83.
Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr,-
aram. Worterbuchszum A T,
86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Muller, Epigraphische Denk-
mdler aus Arabien, 89.
Die Propheten in ihren urspri mglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tiscken Poesie, 2 Bde., 96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of
Knobel, 75 ; W, 82 ; ( fi >, 92 (ET
by Stevenson, 97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, 97;
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, 86; Isaiah, ^, 90; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, 98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, 31, I.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, "J9ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
H T. . A Treatise on the Use of the
Tenses in Hebrew, 74; W,
81; < 3 >, 92.
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, 90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera
ture of the Old Testament,
W, 91; ( 6 >, 97.
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, 98.
Deut. . Deuteronomy in The Inter
national Critical Commen
tary, 95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, 97.
Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as
sisted by H. A. White, 98.
Hebrew Authority in Authority and Archeology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
99-
Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in
Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die Theologic der Propheten
als Grundlagefiirdie inner e
En tw icklu ngsgesch ichte der
israelitischen Religion, 75.
Is. . . Das Bitch Jesaia in HK, 92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erkldrt, \nKHC,
99-
. Old Hebrew historical document.
2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS
TORICAL LITERATURE.
EB^ . . Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed.,
75 - 88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ( 37- 98), Aegypten u.
die Bilcher Mose s, i., 68.
Einleilung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
The English Historical Review,
Einl.
Eng. Hist. Rev.
Ent\_st~], . . Die Entslehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopic.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Coesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.
EV . .
Ew.
Lehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Proph.
Expos.
Exp\os\. T[imes]
/and/! . .
FFP .
Field, Hex.
F[r.-}HG .
Fl. and Hanb.
Pharm.
Floigl, GA
Founders .
Fr.
HE . . Historia Ecclesiastica.
P\r<zp.~\E\v.~\ Praparatio Evangelica.
Chron. . Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) :
Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache, 44; < 8 >, 70.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
( 3 > i.-vii., 64- 68 ; ET < 2 > 5
vols. (pre-Christian period),
69- 8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes
< 3 >, 66 /
Die Prof he ten, 40/5 ( 2 ), 67
/; ET 7 6/
Expositor, 5th ser., 95 ff.
Expository Times, Sg-
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
fauna and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua
super sun tsive Veterum Interpre-
tum Grczcorum in totum Vetus
Testamenttim Fragmenta ( 75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Gr&co-
rum, ed. Muller, 5 vols., 4i- 72.
F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury,
Pharmacographia.
Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen
Altertums in l^abellen, 82.
Founders of Old Testament Criti
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com
mentaries on books of the Apo
crypha in KHG.
Sigismund Frankel, Die aram di-
schen Fremdivorter im Arabi-
schen, 86.
Frankenb. . W. Frankenberg, Die Spruche in
KH, 98.
Frazer . . J. G. Frazer :
7 otemism ( 87).
Golden Bough ( 90); ( 2 > in prep.
Pausanias s Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., 98).
Fund. . . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. judi seller Geschichte, 96.
(5 Greek Version, see above, p. xv./
and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
GA . . . Geschichte d. Alterthums (see
Meyer, Floigl).
GA . . . Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
GBA . . Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens
(see Winckler, Hommel).
GASm. . . George Adam Smith. See Smith.
GA T . . Reuss, Geschichte des Alten Testa
ments, 81 ; <->, 90.
Gei. Urschr. . A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in Hirer Ab-
hangigkeit von der inneren Ent-
wickiung des Judenthums, 57.
Ges. . . F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):
Thes. . Thesaurus Philologictis Criti-
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testament!, 35~ 42.
Gramm. . Hebrdische Grammatik, 13;
( 2ti >, by E. Kautzsch, 96 ;
ET 98.
Lex. . . Hebrdisches u. chalddisches
Flandworterbuch, 12 ; ("J
(Muhlauu.Volck), 90; ( 12 >
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern), 9S ; < 13 ) (Buhl), 99.
Ges.-Bu. . . Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges.
vi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Konige in KHC, 99.
A. Bertholet, Die Slellung der Is-
raeliten u. der Juden zu </<
Fremden, 96.
Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hebraischen
Grammatik, 6g/. ; ET, 77.
Carminei VT metrice etc., 82.
Dichtungen der Hebraer, 82 f.
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Prov., 90.
Bibliotheca Sacra, 43^".
De Bello Judaico. See Josephus.
Schenkel, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real-
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch
fiir Geistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., 69- 75.
S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
bus Scriptures Sacra:, 1663.
Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Grcec.,
4 vols., 28- 77.
Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Kon. .
Bertholet, Std-
lung
Bi. . . .
Biblioth. Sac.
BJ . .
BL . .
Boch.
Boeckh
BOR
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfithrliches
Lthrbuch der hebraischen Spra-
che, 66- 68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, 79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch, . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
1-124), 83.
Ri.Sa. . Die Bucher Richler und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbaujyo.
Sam. . . Samuel m SBOT (Heb.), 94.
Das Buck I Hob in HK, 96.
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KHC, 98.
Buhl . . See Pal.
Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc.
Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi-
cum et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., 69 and 74.
f., dr. . . circa.
Calwer Bib. . Cahver Kirchelexikon, Theologi-
Lex. sches Handw drterbuch, ed. P.
Zeller, 89- 93.
c. Ap. . . contra Apionem. See Josephus.
CH . . . Composition des Hexaleuchs. See
Wellhausen.
Chald. Gen. . The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. A new edi
tion, thoroughly revised and cor
rected by A. H. Sayce, 80.
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne :
Proph. Is. . The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
( 8o- 8i; revised, < 5 >, 89).
Job and Sol. Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom
of the Old Testament ( 87).
Ps. . . The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ( 88); - 1 , re
written (forthcoming).
OPs. . . The Origin and Religious Con
tents of the Psalter ( Bampton
Lectures, 89), 91.
Aids . . Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, 92.
Founders . Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, 94.
Jntr. Is. . Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ( 95).
Is. SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.] f
( 97); [Heb.], (-99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in Men of the
Bible ( 88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, 98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Grcecarum
(ed. Dittenberger), 82^". See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, 63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CIS . , Corpus Inscriptionum Semitica-
rum, Paris, 81^". Pt. i., Phoeni
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
Class. Rev. . The Classical Review, 87 ff.
Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau:
Rec. . . Recueil d Archeologie, 85^".
Co. . . . Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buck des Propheten
Ezechiel, 86.
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa
ment, 91 ; < 3 >, 96.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, 98.
COT . . The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the
Old Testament. See Schrader.
Crit. Alon. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu
ments, 94.
Cr. Rev. . . Critical Review of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond], 91 ff.
D Author of Deuteronomy; also used
of Deuteronomistic passages.
Do . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
HISTORICAL LITERATURE.
Dalm. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
palastinischen Aramdisch, 94.
Worte Jesu Die Worte Jesu, i., 98.
Aram. Lex. Aramaisch - Neuhebraisches
Worterbuch zu Targum,
Talmud, und Midrasch,
Teil i., 97.
Dav. . . A. B. Davidson :
Job . . Book of Job in Camb. Bible, 84.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, 92.
DB . . . W. Smith, A Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Nat
ural History, 3 vols., 63; DB^,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
93-
or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan
guage, literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theologv,
vol. i., 98; vol. ii., 99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, 95 ^
de C. Orig. . Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivi-es, 82; >, 96.
ET in the International Scien
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre
ceding, author of:
Par. . . IV o lag das Parodies ? (*8l).
Heb. Lang. 77ie Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
in the light of Assyrian Re
search, 83.
Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.-
aram. WorterbuchszumA T,
86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Miiller, Epigraphische Denk-
mdler aus Arabien, 89.
Die Propheten in ihren ursprunglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tischen Poesie, 2 Bde., 96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of
Knobel, 75; <*>, 82 ; < 6 >, 92 (ET
by Stevenson, 97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
80 ; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, 97;
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, 86 ; Isaiah, ( 5 >, 90 ; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, 98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, 31, I.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, 79 ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
HT. . A Treatise on the Use of the
Tenses in Hebrew, 74; W,
81; (3), 92.
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, 90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera
ture of the Old Testament,
(D, 91; (6) ; 97.
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, 98.
Deut. . Deuteronomy in The Inter
national Critical Commen
tary, 95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, 97.
Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as
sisted by H. A. White, 98.
Hebrew Authority v& Authority and Arcfueology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
99-
Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in
Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die Iheologie der Propheten
als Grundlage fiir die inner e
En tw ickln ngsgesch ichte der
israelitischen Religion, 75.
Is. . . Das Buch Jesaia in HK, 92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erkldrt,\^KHC,
99.
E Old Hebrew historical document.
2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS
TORICAL LITERATURE.
EB^ . . Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed.,
75 - 88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ( 37-98), Aegypten u.
die Biicher Mose s, i., 68.
Einleilung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
The English Historical J?eview,
Einl.
Eng. Hist. Rev.
Ent\_sf\. . . Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopia.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Csesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.n.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.
EV
Ew.
HE . .
P\r(Ep.~\E\v.~\
Chron.
Lehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Propk.
fits tori a Ecclesiastica.
Prtzparatio Evangelica.
Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) :
Lehrbuch der hebrdischen
Sprache, 44; ( 8 >, 70.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
W i.-vii., 64- 68 ; ET <*> 5
vols. (pre-Christian period),
69- 8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundes
W, 66 /
Die Propheten, 40/5 < 2 ), 67
Expos.
. T\_imes\
f.^ndf. . .
FFP . .
Field, Hex. .
F[r.~\HG . .
Fl. and Hanb.
Ph arm.
Floigl, GA .
Founders . .
Fr. . . .
Frankenb.
Frazer .
Fund.
GA . .
GA . .
GBA .
GASm. .
GA T .
Gei. Urschr.
Ges. .
Thes.
Gramm.
Lex. .
Ges.-Bu. .
Expositor, 5th ser.,
Expository Times, 8g- g
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
Fauna and flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qu<z
supersuntsive Veterum Interpre-
tum Gracorum in totum Vetus
Testamentum Fragmenta ( 75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Gr&co-
rum, ed. Miiller, 5 vols., 4i- 72.
F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury,
Pha rm acograph ia .
Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen
AUertums in Tabellen, 82.
Founders of Old Testament Criti
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com
mentaries on books of the Apo
crypha in KHG.
Sigismund Frankel, Die aramdi-
schen Fremdworter im Arabi-
schen, 86.
\V. Frankenberg, Die Spruche in
KH, 98.
J. G. Frazer :
Totemism ( 87).
Golden Hough ( 90) ; ( 2 > in prep.
Pausanias s Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., 98).
J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. judischer Geschichte, 96.
Greek Version, see above, p. xv.yC
and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Gesc/iichte d. Altertlnims (see
Meyer, Floigl).
Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assvriem
(see Winckler, Hommel).
George Adam Smith. See Smith.
Reuss, Geschichte des Alien Testa-
inents, 81 ; (->, 90.
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Ab-
hangigkeit von der inneren Ent-
ivicklung des Jtidenthums, 57.
F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti-
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testamenti, 35- 42.
Hebrdische Grammatik, 13 ;
W, by E. Kautzsch, 96 ;
ET 98.
Hebrdisches u. chalddisches
Handworterbuch, 12 ; <">
(Muhlau u.Volck), 90; ( *>
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern), 95 ; < 13 ) (Buhl), 99,
Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Gesch.
GGA
GGN
GI .
Gi[nsb].
GJV
Glaser
Skizze
Gr. .
Gra. .
Gesch.
Ps. .
Gr. Yen. .
GVI
H .
HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hal.
Mil. .
Hamburger
\RE\
Harper, ABL
HC .
Heb.
Hebraic a .
Heid.
Herst.
Herzog, RE
Jlet Herstel
Hex.
Hexap.
HG .
Hierob.
Hilgf. .
Hist.
Hist. Proph.
A/on.
Hi[tzj. .
HK .
Geschichte (History).
Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,
Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten,
45 /
Geschichte Israels. See Winckler.
Ginsburg, Ma ssoretico-critical Edi
tion of the Hebrew Bible, 94, In
troduction, 97.
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes.
See Schiirer.
Eduard Glaser :
Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr.
Arabiens, 90.
K. Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees
( 53) and Wisdom^fx?) in A GV/.
Heinrich Gratz :
Geschichte der Juden, i.-x., 74
ff.; ET i.-v., 9 1 - 92.
Kritischer Commentar zu
Psalmen, 82 f.
Versio Veneta. See TEXT.
Gesch. des Volkes Israel.
Ewald, Stade, etc.
den
See
The Law of Holiness (Lev. 17-
26). See LEVITICUS.
Hebrciische Archao(ogie. See Ben-
zinger, Nowack.
Joseph llalevy. The inscriptions
in Rapport sur une Mission Ar-
cheologique dans le Yemen ( 72)
are cited : Hal. 535, etc.
Mela nges d Ep i graph ie et
d Archeologie Semiliques? ]4 t .
Hamburger, Realencyclopiidie fur
Bibelund Talmud, i. 70, ^ 92;
ii. 83, suppl. 86, 91 /, 97.
R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby
lonian Letters belonging to the
A"[Kuyunjik] collection of the
British Aluseum, <)3ff.
Hand- Com men la r sum Neuen
Testament, bearbeitet von H. J.
Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, Sg- gi.
Hebrew.
Continued as AJSL (q.v.}.
Reste arabischen Heidentums. See
Wellhausen.
Kosters, Ilet Herstel van Israel in
het Perzische Tijdvak, 93; Germ.
transl. Die Wiederherstellung
Israels, 95.
See PRE.
See Herst.
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger,
etc.).
See Field.
Historical Geography of the Holy
Land. See Smith, G. A.
See Bochart.
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (Einl.,
etc.), and ed. since 58 of ZWT.
See Schurer, Ewald, Kittel, etc.
J. F. M Curdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments : i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ( 94) ; ii.
To the Fall of Nineveh ( 96).
F. Hitzig ( 1807-75), in KGH: Pre-
diger ( 47), Hohelied ( 55), Die
kleinen Propheten ( 38; < 3 >, 63),
Jeremias(\\; <V66). Also /to
Psalmen ( 35- 35; < 3 >, 63- 6s).
Handkommentar zum Alien Testa
ment, ed. Nowack, 92 ff.
Holz. Einl.
Hommel .
AHT
GBA
Hor. Hebr.
HP . .
HPN .
HPSm. .
Samuel
HS . .
HWB .
IJG .
Intr[od]. .
Intr. Is. .
It. . .
//. Anton.
J
]i
J[ourn.~\ A{ni^\
0[;-.] S\_oc.~\
Jastrow, Diet.
J{ourn.~\ As.
JBL
JBW
JDT
JE . .
Jensen, Kosm.
Jer.
Jon.
Jos.
J\_ourn.~\ Phil.
JPT
JQR
JRAS
JSBL
KAT
. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den
Hexateuch ( 93), Genesis in the
KHC ( 98).
. Fritz II ommel :
. DiealtisraelitischeUeberliefer-
ung; ET, Ancient Hebrew
I radilion, 97.
. Geschichte Babyloniens u. As
sy rie us, 85^".
. Lightfoot, Horn Hebraicce, 1684.
. Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testa-
mentutn Gr<cum cum variis
lectionibus, 1798-1827.
. G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, 96.
. Henry Preserved Smith.
in International Critical Commentary.
. Die Heilige Schrift. See Kautzsch.
. Riehm s Handworterbuch des bibli-
schen Alterthums, 2 vols., 84;
w > 93-94- See also Delitzsch
(Friedr.).
. Israelilische u.ji tdische Geschichte.
See Wellhausen.
. Introduction.
. Introduction to Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
. Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
. Itinerarium Antonini, Fortia
d Urban, 45.
Old Hebrew historical document.
Later additions to J.
Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 51 ff.
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tar-
gumim, the Talmud Babli, etc.,
and Midrashim, 86 ff.
Journal Asiatique, 53 ff.; 7th
ser., 73; 8thser., 83; 9thser., 93.
Journal of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis, 90 ff.; formerly ( 82-
88) called Journal of the Society
of Biblical Lit. and Exeg.
Jahrbucher der bibl. IVissenschaft
( 497*65).
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie,
5 6- 7 8.
The Prophetical narrative of the
Hexateuch, composed of J and E.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier, 90.
Jerome, or Jeremiah.
Jonathan. See Targum.
Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Anti-
quitates Judaica:, De Bello
Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem
(ed. Niese, 3 vols., 87~ 94).
Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and
2, 68), ii. (\os. 3 and 4, 69), etc.
Jahrbucher fur protestantischeTheo-
logie, 75- 92.
Jewish Quarterly Review, SS- 8g/~.
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society
(vols. 1-20, 34^.; new series,
vols. 1-24, 65~ 92; current series,
Kau.
Gram.
HS .
See/^Z.
Die Keilinschriftenu.d.Alte Testa
ment. See Schrader.
E. Kautzsch :
Grammatik des Biblischen-
Aramaischen, 84.
Die heilige Schrift des Alien
Testaments, 94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Apokr. . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi-
graphen des alien Testa
ments, 98 f.
KB. . . Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,
Sammlungvon ass. u. bab. Texten
in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, 5
vols. (i, 2, 3 a, b, 4, 5), Sq- gb.
Edited by Schrader, in collabora
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold,
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and
H. Winckler.
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. 88).
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Vetus
Testamentum Hebraicum cum
variis lectionibus, 2 vols., 1776-
80.
KG . . . Kirchengeschichte.
KGF . . Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforsch-
ung. See Schrader.
KGH . . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
buck. See Di., Hitz., Knob., Ol.
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den
heiligen Schriften Alien u. Neuen
Testaments sowie zu den Apo
kryphen, ed. H. Strack and
O. Zockler, 87 ff.
KHC . . Kurzer Hand-commentar zurn
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, 97 ff.
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel :
Gesch. . Geschichte der Hebr- der, 2 vols.,
88, 92; Eng. transl., His
tory of the Hebrews, 95-
96.
Ch. SBOT TheBookofChronicles,Cn\.\c3\
Edition of the Hebrew text,
95 (translated by Bacon).
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, circa 1200 A.D.,
the famous Jewish scholar and
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided.
Kinds ], . . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia. See W. R. Smith.
KI. Proph. . Kleine Propheten (Minor Prophets).
See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.
Klo[st], . . Aug. Klostermann, Die Biicher
Samuelisundder Konige ( 87) in
KGK.
G VI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis
zur Kestauration Tinter Esra
und Nehemia, 96.
Kn[ob], . . Aug. Knobel( 1 807-63) in KGH:
Exodus und Leviticus, <-) by Dill-
mann, 80; Der Prophet Jesaia,
43, < 3 >, 61. See Dillmann.
Ko. . . . F. E. Konig, Historisch-Kritisches
Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen
Sprache, 3 vols., 8i- 97.
K6h. . . Aug. Kohler.
Kr. . . . Kre (lit. to be read ), a marginal
reading which the Massoretes
intended to supplant that in the
text (Kethib); see below.
Kt. . . . KethTb (lit. written ), a reading
in the MT; see above.
Kue.. . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) :
Ond. . . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek
naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de Boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols.,
6i- 65; <2), 85- 89; Germ,
transl., Historisch-kritische
Einleitung in die Bucher
des Alten Testaments, 87-
92; vol. i., The Hexateuch,
translated by Philip Wick-
steed, 86.
Godsd. . De Godsdienst van Israel, 69~ 7O;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., 73- 75.
De Profeten en der Profetie onder Israel, 7e-
ET, 77.
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandlungenzur
bibl. Wissenschaft, German
by Budde, 94.
L . . de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris
Testamcnti Canonicorum, Pars
Prior Greece, 83.
Lag. . . Paul de Lagarde ( 27- 9i) :
Hagiographa Chaldaice, 73.
. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
cryphi Syriace, 61.
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandlungenjbf).
Mitt. . Mitteilungen, i.-iv., 84~ 89.
Sym, . Symmicta, ii., 80.
Prov. . Proverbien, 63.
Ubers. Uebersicht iiber die im Ara-
or BN maischen, Arabischen, und
Hebraischen ubliche Bildung
der Nomina, 89.
Beitr. . Beitrage z. baktrischen Lexiko-
grapliie, 68.
Proph. . ProphettE Chaldaice, 72.
Sent. . Semi tic a, ySf.
Arm. St. . Armenische Stttdien.
Or. . . Orientalia, i., 79.
Lane . . E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
Lexicon, 63^".
L [and] B . W. M. Thomson, The Land and
the Book, 59; new ed. 94.
LBR . . Later Biblical Researches. See
Robinson.
Levy, NHWB J. Levy, Neuhebraisches u. chal-
daisches Worterbuch, 76- 89.
Chald. Lex. Chaldiiisches Worterbuch iiber
die Targumim, 67 ff.
Lehrgeb. . . See Konig.
Leps. Denkm. . R. Lepsius, Denkmaler aus Aegyp-
ten u. Aethiopien, 49~ 6o.
Lightf. . . John Lightfoot (1602-75), H r <*
Hebraicce (1684).
Joseph B. Lightfoot ( 28- 89);
commentaries on Galatians
((", 74); Philippians ( > ,
73) 5 Colossians and Phile
mon ( 75).
Lips. if. . . Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostel-
geschichten u. Apostellegenden,
83- 90.
Low . . . J. Low, Aramdische Pftanzenna-
men, 8 1.
Luc. . . See L.
LXX or (5 . Septuagint. See above, p. xv /,
and TEXT ANL> VERSIONS.
Maimonides . Moses Maimonides (1131-1204).
Exegete, author of Afishneh
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc.
Mand. . . Mandsean. See ARAMAIC, 10.
Marq. Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, 96.
Marti . . K. Marti :
Gram. . Kurzgefasste Grammatik d.
biblisch-Aramaischen
Sprache, 96.
Geschichte der Israeli tischen Religion 1 ^, 97 (a
revision of A. Kayser, Die
Theol. des AT).
Jes. . . Das Buch Jesaia, in KHC, "99.
Masp. . . G. Maspero :
Dawn of Civilisation, Egypt
and Chaldea (( 2 >, 96).
Les premieres Melees des
Peuples; ET by McClure.
GA .
Entsi[eli\.
Meyer
MGWJ .
MH .
MI .
Midr.
Mish.
x ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
about the end of the seventh
century A.D. See TEXT.
A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
MBBA . . Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- H. Murray, 88 ff.; also H.
Bradley, 97^.
MDPV . . Mittheilun^en und Nachrichten des Muss-Arn. . W. M\iss-&.rr\Q\\., A Concise Diction
ary of the Assyrian Language,
94-99 (A-MAG).
Merx . . A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft- MVG . . Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat-
ischen Gesellschaft, 97 ff.
Mey.. . . Ed. Meyer: " n. . . . note.
Nabatsean. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Nominalbildung, Earth; see Ba.
Die israelitischen Eigennamen
nach ihrer religionsgeschicht-
lichen Bedeiitung, 76.
Marginalien u. Materialien, 93.
A. Neubauer, Geogr aphie du Tal-
mtid, 68.
Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.
Neu-hebr. u. chaldaisches Wort^er-
buch. See Levy,
number.
Th. Noldeke :
Utitersuchungen z. Kritik d.
Alten Testaments, 69.
Altteslamentliche Litteratur, 68.
W. Nowack :
h.~\ Lehrbuch d. Hebraischen
Archaologie, 94.
Die Kleinen Propheten (in
HKC), 97.
New Testament, Neues Testament.
Justus Olshausen :
Die Psalmen, 53.
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache,
61 [incomplete].
Orientalistische Litteratur-Zei-
tung, ed. Peiser, 98 f.
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek. See
Kuenen.
Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ.
See OS.
Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne.
Onomastica Sacra, containing the
name-lists of Eusebius and
Jerome (Lagarde, < a >, 87; the
pagination of ^) printed on the
margin of W is followed).
Old Testament.
Old Testament in tlie Jewish
Church. See \V. R. Smith.
Priestly Writer. See HIST. LIT.
Secondary Priestly Writers.
F. Buhl, Geogr ap hie des alien Pal-
astina, 96. See also Baedeker
and Reland.
Palmyrene. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Palestinian Syriac or Christian
Palestinian. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Proceedings of American Oriental
Society, 51 ff. (printed annually
at end of JAOS).
Wo lag das Paradies? See
Delitzsch.
Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, 95.
Prieparatio Evangelica. See Euse-
--, . - bius.
MT . - . . Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of PEFAf\emJ\ . Palestine Exploration Fund Me
moirs, 3 vols., 8i- 83-
Palestine Exploration l- nnd
[founded 65] Quarterly State
ment, 69 ff.
The Struggle of the Nations
Egypt, Syria,and Assyria.
Histoire Ancienne des Peuples
Murray
de T Orient ( <)<)/.).
Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka-
demie.
Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des
Muss-Arn.
Deutschen Palastina- Vereins,
95 1-
A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft-
MVG
liche F.rforschung d. AT ( 69).
Ed. Meyer:
n.
Geschichte des Alter thums ;
Nab.
i., Gesch. d. Orients bis zur
NB .
Beeriindung des Perserreichs
( 84) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend-
Nestle, Eig.
Ian des bis auf die Per-
scrkriege ( 93).
Marg. .
Die Entstehung des Juden-
Neub. Geogr. .
thums, 96.
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73),
NHB
founder of the series Kritisch-
exegetischer Kommentar iiber das
NHWB .
Neue Testament.
Monatsschrift fur Gesch. u. Wiss.
no. .
des Judenthums, 5 1 ff.
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
No[ld]. .
Unters. .
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
rashim, and considerable parts of
the Talmud.
Now.
Mesha Inscription, commonly
known as the * Moabite Stone.
See MESHA.
Kl. Proph.
Midrash. SeeCHRONici.ES, 6(2).
Mishna, the standard collection
NT .
(completed, according to tradi
tion, by R. Judah the Holy, about
Ol[sh]. .
75..
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises
r S. .
T 7 t
(representing the Jewish tradi
Lehrb.
tional or unwritten law as devel
oped by the second century
OLZ(orOr.LZ)
A.D.), arranged in six groups or
/~l 7
Seders thus : i. Zeraim ( 1 1
Una.
tractates), ii. Mo ed (12), iii.
Ndshlm (7), iv. Neztktn ( 10), v.
Onk., Onq.
K odd shim ( 1 1 ) , vi. To/wroth (12).
Onom.
OPs.
.Aboda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa oth, vi. 6
Aboth, iv. 9 Mo ed Katan, ii. n
OS .
Arakhin, v. 5 Nazir, iii. 4
Baba Bathra, iv. 3 Nedarim, iii. 3
Baba Kamma. iv. i Ngga im, vi. 3
Baba Mesi a, iv. 2 Nidda, vi. 7
Bekhoroth, v. 4 Ohaloth, vi. a
Bgrakhoth, i. I Orla, i. jo
OT .
Besa, ii. 7 Para, vi. 4
Bikkurim, i. ii Pe a, i. 2
OTJC .
Chagiga, ii. 12 Pesachim, ii. 3
Challa, i. 9 Rosh Ha(sh)shana,
Chullin, v. 3 ii. 8
P .
Hemai, i. 3 Sanhedrin, iv. 4
P 2 .
Eduyoth, iv. 7 Shabbath, ii. i
Pal.
Erubin, ii. 2 Shebu oth, :v. 6.
Gittin, iii. 6 Shebi ith, i. 5
Horayoth, iv. 10 .Shekalim, ii. 4
Kelirn, vi. i Sola, iii. 5.
Palm. . .
KerithSth, v. 7 Sukka, ii. 6
Kethubdth, iii. 2 Ta anith, ii. 9
Pal. Syr. .
Kiddushin, iii. 7 Tamid, v. 9
Kil ayim, i. 4 Tebul Yom, vi. 10
PAOS .
Kinnim, v. ii Temura, v. 6
Ma Sser Sheni, i. 8 Terumoth, i. 6
Ma aseroth, i. 7 Tohoroth, vi. 5
Makhshirin, vi. 8 Uksin, vi. 12
Par.
Makkoth, iv. 5 Yadayim, vi. ii
Mfgilla, ii. 10 Yjbamoth, iii. I
MS ilS, v. 8 Yoma, ii. 5
Pat. Pal. .
Menachoth, v. 2 Znbim, vi. 9
PE .
Middoth, v. 10 Zebachim, v. I
Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
PEFM{_em.~\ .
the OT substantially as it was in
the early part of the second
PEFQ{u.St. \ .
century A.D. (temp. Mishna).
It remained unvocalised until
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xi
Per.-Chip.
Pers.
Pesh.
Ph., Phoen.
PRE .
Preuss. Jahrbb,
Prim. Cult,
Prop h. Is.
Prol. .
Prot. KZ .
PSBA
PS Thes.
Pun.
R
R JE .
R D .
R P .
i~5R
Rab.
Rashi
Rec. Trav.
REJ .
Rel. Pal. .
Rev. .
Rev. Sem.
Ri. Sa. .
Rob.
BR
LBR or BR iv.
or BRW iii.
Perrot and Chipiez :
Histoire de PArt dans
quite. Egyptt Assyrie
Perse Asie Afineuere
Grece Etrurie Rome;
*lff.
ET: Ancient Egypt, 83;
Chaldiza and Assyria, 84;
Phoenicia and Cyprus, 85;
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., 90;
Primitive Greece, 94.
Persian.
Peshltta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd-
3rd cent.). Vetus 1 estamentum
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, 23, O T and
NT, 24.
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri-
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, 97.
Phoenician.
Real-Encyklopadie fur protestan-
tische 1 heologie u. Kirche, ed.
J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., 54- 68;
< 2 >, ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., 77-
88; ( 3 ), ed. Alb. Hauck, vol.
i.-vii. [A-Hau], go- gg.
Preussische Jahrbucher, 72^".
E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture,
71; (3>, 91.
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Prolegomena. See Wellhausen.
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fur
das Evangelische Deutschland
(vols.i.-xliii., 54- g6); continued
as Prot. Monatshefte ( 97jf.).
Proceedings of the Society of Bibli
cal Archeology, 78^.
Payne Smith, 1 hesaurus Syriacus.
Punic.
Redactor or Editor.
Redactor(s) of JE.
Deuteronomistic Editor(s).
Priestly Redactor(s).
H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia,
i.-v. ( 6i- 84; iv. < 2 >, 91).
Rabbinical.
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki
(1040-1105), the celebrated
Jewish commentator.
Recueil de travaux relatifs a la
pliilol. et a I Archeol. egypt. et
assyr. 70 ff.
Revue des Etudes juives, i., 80 ; ii.
and iii., 81 ; and so on.
Reland, Palastina ex Monumentis
veteribus illustrata, z vols., 1714.
Revue.
Revue semitique, 93_$".
Die Bucher Richter u. Samuel.
See Budcle.
Edward Robinson :
Biblical Researches in Pales
tine, Mt. Sinai, and Arabia
Petrcea, a journal of travels
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., 41
= JSA W, i.-ii., 56).
Later Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine and the adjacent Regions, a
journal of travels in the year
1852 ( 56).
Physical Geography of the Holy
Land, 65.
Roscher .
RP . .
RS or Rel. Sent.
RV . . .
RWB . .
Rys. . .
Saad. . .
Sab. . .
Sab. Denkm. .
Sam. . .
SB A W . .
SBE . .
SBOT (Eng.)
Ausfuhrliches Lextkon d. Griech-
ischen u. Romischen Mythologit
SBOT (Heb.)
Schopf. .
Schr. .
KGF
KA T
COT
Schiir. .
GJV
Records of the Past, being English
translations of the Ancient Monu
ments of Egypt and Western
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii.
( 73- 8i). New series [AV J (- )]ed.
A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi., 88- 92.
See ASSYRIA, 35.
Religion of the Semites. See W.
R. Smith.
Revised Version (XT, 80 ; OT,
84; Apocrypha, 95).
G. B.Winer (1789- 1858), Biblisches
Realworterbuch, 20; < 3) , 2 vols.,
47 /
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau.
R. Sa adya (Se adya; Ar. Sa id),
the tenth century Jewish gram
marian and lexicographer (b.
892); Explanationsofthe/w/tfj;-
legomena in the O T, etc.
Salxean, less fittingly called
Himyaritic; the name given to
a class of S. Arabian inscrip
tions.
Sabdische Denkmaler, edd. Miiller
and Mordtmann.
Samaritan.
Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
The Sacred Books of the East,
translated by various scholars
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.
Max Miiller, 50 vols. 1879^".
[Otherwise known as the Poly
chrome Bible ] The Sacred Books
of the Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl., with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial Illustrations ; pre
pared by eminent biblical scholars
of Europe and of America, and
edited, -with the assistance oj
Horace Howard Fur ness, by Paul
Haupt, 97 f.
Haupt, The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament ; a critical edition of
the Hebrew text, printed in
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminentbiblical scholars of Europe
and America, under the editorial
direction of Paul Haupt, 93 ff.
Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in
Urzeit u. Endzeit, 95.
E. Schrader ; editor of KB
Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, 78.
Die Keilinschriften u. d. Alte
Testament, 72; <- >, 83.
Eng. transl. of KATW by
O. C. Whitehouse, The
Cuneiform Inscriptions and
the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
85, 88 (the pagination of
the German is retained in
the margin of the Eng. ed.).
E. Schiirer:
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ;
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge
schichte, 90; ii. Die Inneren
Zustiinde Palastinas u. des
jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter
xii ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Jesu Christi, 86; new ed. vol.
ii. Die Inneren Zustande, 98,
vol. iii. Uas Judenthum in der
Zerstreuung u. die jiidische Lite-
ratur, 98.
Hist. . ET of above ( 90 /.}. Vols. I /
(i.e., Div. i. vols. i f.~) =. vol. I
of German; vols. 3-5 (?.<., Div.
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German
[=vols. ii., iii. of < 3 ].
Selden . . J. Selden, de Jure naturali et
gentium juxta disciplinam Ebrce-
orum, 7 bks., 1665.
de Diis Syris, 1617.
Semitic.
Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, 4.
Smend, Die Listen der Bucher
Esra u. Nehemiah, 8l.
Sem.
Sin.
Smend, Listen
Smith
GASm.
HG
George Adam Smith :
The Historical Geography of
the Holy Land, especially in
relation to the History of
Israel and of the Early
Church, 94 (additions to < 4 >,
96.)
WRS ^ . . "William Robertson Smith ( 46-^4):
O TJC The Old Testament in the Jewish
ChurchS$>\ ; <->, revised and much
enlarged, 92; (Germ, transl. by
Rothstein, 94).
Proph. . The Prophets of Israel and their
place in History, to the close of
the eighth century B.C., 82; w,
with introduction and addi
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
95-
Kin. . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia, 85.
R[el.~\S\_em.~\ Lectures on the Religion of the
Semites: ist ser., The Funda
mental Institutions, 89; new
and revised edition (j?5< 2 ), 94;
Germ, transl. by Stube, 99.
[The MS notes of the later Burnett
Lectures on Priesthood, Divina
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic
Polytheism and Cosmogony
remain unpublished, but are
occasionally cited by the editors
in the Encyclopedia Biblica as
Burnett Lects. MS.]
SP . . A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
in connection with their history,
56, last ed. 96.
Spencer . . De Legibus Hebrccorum Ritualibus
(2 Vols. 1727).
SS . . . Siegfried and Stade, Hebraisches
Worterbuch zum Alten Testa-
mente, 93.
St., Sta. . . B. Stade :
GVI . . Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 8l-
88.
Abh. . . Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re-
den u. Abhandlungen, 99.
St. Kr. . . Studien und Kritiken, 28 ff.
Stad. m. m. . Sladiasmus magni marts (Mar-
cianus).
Stud. Bibl. . Studio Biblica, Essays in Biblical
Archeology and Criticism and
kindred subjects, 4 vols., 8$- gi.
Sw. . . . H. B. Swete, The Old Testament
in Greek according to the Septua-
gint; O, 87- 94; (), 95- 99.
SWAW . . Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Aka-
demie d. Wissenschaften.
Sym[m]. .
Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
(circa 200 A.D.). See TEXT.
Syr. . . .
Syriac. See ARAMAIC, 1 1 /
Tab. Peut.
Tabula Peutingeriana, Desiardins,
68.
Talm. Bab. Jer.
Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
consisting of the text of the
Mishna broken up into small
sections, each followed by the dis
cursive comment called Gemara.
See LAW LITERATURE.
T[ar]g. . .
Targum. See TEXT.
Jer. . .
The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
shalmi.
Jon. .
Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
the Prophets.
Onk. .
Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian
Targum to the Pentateuch
(towards end of second century
A.D.).
ps.-Jon.
The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.
TBS
Der Text der Bucher Samuelis :
see Wellhausen ; or Notes on the
Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel : see Driver.
temp. . .
tempore (in the time [of]).
T[extus] R[e-
The received text of the NT.
ceptus]
See TEXT.
Th[e]. . .
Thenius, die Bucher Samttelis in
A-67/, 42; <-V6 4 ; < 3) , Lohr, 98.
Theod. .
Theodotion (end of second cen
tury), author of a Greek version
of the Old Testament ( rather a
revision of the LXX than a new
translation ). See TEXT.
Theol. Studien .
Studien, published in connection
with Th. T (see DEUTERONOMY,
332).
Thes.
See Gesenius.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria-
cus, 68 ff.
Th.T
Ti. or Tisch.
Theologisch Tijdschrift, 67^!
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
Grace, editio octava critica
maior, 69- 72.
TLZ
Theologische Literaturzeitung,
76 ff.
Tosephta .
See LAW LITERATURE.
Treg.
S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New
Testament; edited from ancient
authorities, 57- 72.
Tristram .
H. B. Tristram :
FFP .
The Fauna and Flora of Palestine,
89.
NHB
The Natural History of the Bible,
(8) So
TSBA .
oy.
Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archaol.,
Tub. Z. f. Theol.
vols. i.-ix., "72^".
Tubingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie,
34/
Untersuch. .
Untersuchungen. See Noldeke,
Winckler.
Urgesch. .
Die biblische Urge^chichte. See
Budde.
v. . .
verse.
Var. Apoc. ,
The Apocrypha (AV) edited with
various renderings, etc., by C. J.
Ball.
Var. Bib.
The OldandNew Testaments(\M)
edited -with various renderings,
ttc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xiii
Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke,
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT)
[otherwise known as the Queen s
printers Bible ].
Vet. Lat. . . VersioVetus Latina; the old-Latin
version (made from the Greek) ;
later superseded by the Vulgate.
See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Vg. . . . Vulgate, Jerome s Latin Bible :
OT from Heb., NT a revision
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be
ginning of 5th cent.). See TEXT.
We., Wellh. . Julius Wellhausen.
De Gent. De Gentibuset Familiisjudceis
qua; in I Chr. 2 4 nume-
rantur Dissertatio ( 70).
TBS . Der Text der Biicher Samuelis
( 70- .
Phar. u. Die Phansderu. d.Sadducder;
Sadd. eine Untersuchung zur in-
neren judischen Geschicht
( 74>
Gesch. . Geschichte Israels, vol. i. ( 78).
Pro/. . 2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled
Prolegomena zur Gesch. Is
raels, 83; ET 85; 4th
Germ. ed. 95.
IJG . . Israelitische u. judische Ge
schichte, 94; ( 3 >, 97; an
amplification of Abriss der
Gesch. Israels u. Judo s in
Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,
84. The Abriss was sub
stantially a reproduction of
Israel in EB^ ( 8i; re-
published in ET of Prol.
[ 85] and separately as
Sketch of Hist, of Israel and
Judah, (3), 91).
\ArJ\Heid. Reste Arabischen Heidentums
(in Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten )
( 87; < 2) , 97)-
Kl. Proph. Die Kleinen Propheten iiber-
setzt, mit Noten ( 92; ( 3 >,
; 9 8).
CH . . Die Composition des Hexa-
teuchs und der historischen
Bucher des Alten Testaments
( 85; Zweiter Druck, mit
Nachtragen, 89; originally
published mJDT2\ 392 ff.,
[ 76], 22 47 [ 77], and in
Bleek, Einl. W, 78).
Weber . . System der Altsynagogalen Palasti-
nischen Theologie ; orDieLehren
des Talmud, 80 (edited by Franz
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder-
mann) ; ( 2 >, Judische Theologie
auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandter Schriften, 97 (ed.
Schnedermann).
Wetstein . . J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen-
tum Grcecum, etc., 2 vols. folio ;
1751-1752.
Wetz. . . Wetzstein, Ausgewahlte griechischc
und lateinische Inschriften, ge-
sammelt auf Reisen in den
Trachonen und um das Hau-
rdngebirgeJbT, ; Reisebericht uber
Hauran und Trachonen, 60.
WF . . . Wellhausen- Furness, The book of
Psalms ( 98) in SBOT (Eng.}.
WH [W & H] . Westcott and Hort, The New Tes
tament in the Original Greek,
Wi. Hugo Winckler :
Unlers. . Untersuchungen z. Altoriental-
ischen Geschichte, 89.
Ali[tesf]. Alttestamentliche Untersuch-
Unt. ungen, 92.
GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens u. As
sy rie its, 92.
AOforAF Altorientalische Forschungen,
1st ser. i.-vi., 93~ 97; 2nd
ser. (AFW)\., 98 /
GI . . Geschichte Israels in einzel-
darstellungen, i. 95.
Sarg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons,
89.
KB*, . . Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-
Amarna (ET Metcalf ).
Wilk. . . J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
37~ 4i ; < 2 > by Birch, 3 vols., 78.
Winer . . G. B. Winer :
RWB . Bibl. Reahvorterbuch ; see
RWB.
Gram. . Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Sprachidioms^, neu
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh.
Schmiedel, 94^; ET of
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, 70.
WMM . . See As. u. Eur.
Wr. . . . W. Wright :
Comp. Lectures on the Comparative
Gram. Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, 90.
Ar. Gram. A Grammar of the Arabic
Language, translated from
the German of Caspan and
edited, with numerous addi
tions and corrections by W.
Wright; < 2 2 vols., 74- 75;
( 3 > revised by W. Robertson
Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
vol. i. 96, vol. ii. 98.
WRS . . William Robertson Smith. See
Smith.
WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde
des Morgenlandes, 87 ff.
Yakut . . The well-known Arabian geo
graphical writer (1179-1229).
Kitab Mo jam el-Bulddn edited
by F. Wustenfeld (Jacut s Geo-
graphisches Worterbuch, 66- 70).
Z . Zeitschrift (Journal).
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie u. ver-
wandte Gebiete, 86 ff.
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde, 63^".
ZATW . . Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 81 ff.
ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
Idndischen Gesellschaft, 46^".
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-
vereins, 78^".
ZKF . . Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforschung
und veriuandte Gebiete, 84 /.,
continued as ZA.
ZKM . . See WZKM.
ZKW . . Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissen
schaft u. kirchliches Leben (ed.
Luthardt), i.-ix., So- Sgfc
ZLT . . Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luther-
ische Theologie und Kirche, 40-
78.
ZTK . . Zeitschrift fur Theologie und
Kirche, 91 ff.
ZWT . . Zeitschrift fur wisstnschaftliche
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), 5
xiv ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS
ACL .
APK .
Crit. Bib. .
GA .
OCL .
Ohnefalsch-Richter
SMA W
Altchristliche Litteratur : e.g.
Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius,
of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. I. Die Ueberlieferung und der
Bestand, and in 1897, Pt. II. Die Chronologie, vol. I. down to
Irenceus (cited also as Chronol., i).
Gustav Kriiger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den
ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1895 (in Grundriss der Theoiogischen
\ \ issenschaften].
F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen h eilinschriften, 1862, ( 2 < 1881.
Cheyne, Critica Biblica (in preparation).
Geschichte Aegyptens.
W. C. van Manen, Handleiding voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde
(1900).
M. H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel, und Homer, 1893.
Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Akademieder Wissenschaften, Munich.
Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the first initial. Joint authorship is where
possible indicated thus ; A. B. 1-5 ; C. D. 6-10
A. B. BERTHOLET, ALFRED, Professor Extra-
ordinarius of Exegesis in the University
of Basel.
A. C. P. PATERSON, A. C., M.A. (Oxon.).
A. E. S. SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow,
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ s College,
Cambridge.
A. J. JULICHER, GUSTAV ADOLF, D. D., Pro
fessor of Church History and New
Testament F.xegesis, Marburg.
A. R. S. K. KENNEDY, Rev. ARCHIBALD R. S.,
M.A. , D.D. , Professor of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.
A. S. SOCIN, The late A., Professor of Oriental
Languages, Leipsic.
B. D. DUHM, BERNHARD, D. D. , Professor
of Old Testament Exegesis in the Uni
versity of Basel.
C. C. CREIGHTON, C. , M.D. , London.
C. C. T. TORREY, CHARLES C., Ph.D., Professor
of Semitic Languages, Yale University.
C. H. T. TOY, C. H., D.D. , Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University.
C. H. W. J. JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Assistant
Chaplain, Queens College, Cam
bridge.
C. P. T. TIELE, The late C. P. , D. D. , Professor of
the Science of Religion, Leyden.
E. A. A. ABBOTT, Rev. E. A., D. D. , London.
E. H. HATCH, The late Rev. EDWIN, D.D.
E. K. KAUTZSCH, E.. D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis, Halle.
E. M. MEYER, EDUARD, Professor of Ancient
History, Halle.
E. N. NESTLE, Eb. ( D.D., Maulbronn, Wiir-
temberg.
F. B. BROWN, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., Daven
port Professor of Hebrew and the
cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
G. A. B. BARTON, G. A., Professor of Biblical
Literature and Semitic Languages,
Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania.
G. A. D. DEISSMANN, G. ADOLF, D.D. , Professorof
New Testament Exegesis, Heidelberg.
G. A. S. SMITH, Rev. GEORGE ADAM, D.D.,
LL. D. , Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, United Free
Church College, Glasgow.
G. B. G. GRAY, Rev. G. BUCHANAN, M.A. ,
Professor of Hebrew in Mansfield
College, Oxford.
G. F. H. HILL, G. F., M.A., British Museum.
G. F. M. MOORE, Rev. GEORGE F., D.D.,
President and Professor of Hebrew in
Andover Theological Seminary, And-
over, Mass.
H. G. GUTHE, HERMANN, Professor Extra-
ordinarius of Old Testament Exegesis,
Leipsic.
H. H. W. P. PEARSON, H. H. W., M.A., Royal Gar
dens, Kew.
H. U. USENER, H., Professor of Classical Phil
ology in the University of Bonn.
H. W. WINCKLER, H., Ph.D., Privat-docent in
Semitic Philology, Berlin.
H. W. H. HOGG, HOPE W. , M.A. , Lecturer in
Hebrew and Arabic in Owens College,
Victoria University, Manchester.
H. Z. ZIMMERN, HEINRICH, Professor of Semitic
Languages and Assyriology, Leipsic.
I. A. ABRAHAMS, ISRAEL, London, Editor of
the Jewish Quarterly Review.
I. B. BENZINGER, Dr. IMMANUEL, Privat-
decent in Old Testament Theology,
Berlin.
KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME III
xv
J. A. R. ROBINSON, Rev. J. ARMITAGE, D.D. ,
Canon of Westminster.
J. D. P. PRINCE, J. D., Ph.D., Professor of
Semitic Languages and Comparative
Philology, New York University.
J. G. F. FRAZER, J. G. , LL.D. , D.C.L., Litt.D. ,
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. L. M. MYRKS, J. L., M.A., Magdalen College,
Oxford.
J. W. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, D.D., Professor
of Semitic Philology, Gbttingen.
K. B. BUDDE, KARL, D.D. , Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew
Language, Marburg.
K. M. MARTI, KARL, D.D., Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew
Language, Berne.
Lu. G. GAUTIKR, LUCIEN, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and History,
Geneva.
M. A. C. CANNEY, MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.),
St. Peter s Rectory, Saffron Hill,
London, E.G.
N. M. M LEAN, NOKMAN, M. A. , Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ s College,
Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Caius
College, Cambridge.
0. C. CONE, Rev. Professor ORELLO, D. D. ,
Professor of Biblical Theology in St.
Lawrence University.
P. V. VOLZ, Herr Repetent PAUL, Tubingen.
P. W. S. SCHMIEDEL, PAUL W. , D. D. , Professor
of New Testament Exegesis, Zurich.
S. A. C. COOK, STANLEY A., M.A. , Fellow of
Caius College, Cambridge.
S. R. D. DRIVER, Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
T. G. P. PINCHES, THEOPHILUS G., M.R.A.S.,
formerly of the Egyptian and Assyrian
Department in the British Museum.
T. K. C. CHEYNE, Rev. T. K. , D. Litt. , D. D. , Oriel
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro
chester.
T. N. NOLDEKE, THEODOR, Professor of
Semitic Languages, Strassburg.
T. W. D. DAVIES, T. W., Ph.D.. Lecturer in
Semitic Languages, University College
of North Wales, Bangor.
W. C. A. ALLEN, Rev. W. C, M.A., Chaplain,
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and
Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.
W. C. V. M. MANEN, W. C. VAN, D.D., Professor of
Old-Christian Literature and New Tes
tament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. E. A. ADDIS, Rev. W. E. , M.A. , Lecturer in
Old Testament Criticism in Manchester
College, Oxford.
W. H. B. BENNETT, Rev. W. H. , Litt.D., D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Languages and
Literature, Hackney College, London,
and Professor of Old Testament
Exegesis, New College, London.
W. H. K. KOSTERS, The late W. H. , D. D. , Professor
of Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. J. W. WOODHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Professor of
Greek, University of Sydney.
W. M. M. MULLER, W. MAX, Professor of Old
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.
W. R. S. SMITH, The late W. ROBERTSON, D.D.,
Adams Professor of Arabic, Cambridge.
W. T. T.-D. THISELTON-DYER, Sir WILLIAM TUR
NER. C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director
Royal Gardens, Kew.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME III
Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames.
ABBOTT, E. A.
ABRAHAMS, I.
ADDIS, W. E.
ALLEN, W. C.
BARTON, G. A.
BENNETT, W. H.
BENZINGER, I.
BERTHOLET, A.
BROWN, F.
BUDDE, K.
CANNEY, M. A.
CHEYNE, T. K.
CONE, O.
COOK, S. A.
CREIGHTON, C.
DAVIES, T. W.
DEISSMANN, G. A.
DRIVER, S. R.
DUHM, B.
FRAZER, J. G.
E. A. A.
I. A.
W. E. A.
W. C. A.
G. A. B.
W. H. B.
I. B.
A. B.
F. B.
K. B.
M. A. C.
T. K. C.
0. C.
S. A. C.
C. C.
T. W. D.
G. A. D.
S. R. D.
B. D.
J. G. F.
GAUTIER, Lu.
GRAY, G. B.
GUTHE, H.
HATCH, E.
HILL, G. F.
HOGG, H. W.
JOHNS, C. H. W.
JULICHER, G. A.
KAUTZSCH, E.
KENNEDY, A. R. S.
KOSTERS, W. H.
M LEAN, N.
MANEN, W. C. V.
MARTI, K.
MEYER, E.
MOORE, G. F.
MULLER, W. M.
MYRES, J. L.
NESTLE, E.
NOLDEKE, T.
Lu. G.
G. B. G.
H. G.
E. H.
G. F. H.
H. W. H.
C. H. W. J.
A. J.
E. K.
A. R. S. K.
W. H. K.
N. M.
W. C. V. M.
K. M.
E. M.
G. F. M.
W. M. M.
J. L. M.
E N.
T. N.
PATERSON, A. C.
PINCHES, T. G.
PRINCE, J. D.
ROBINSON, J. A.
SCHMIEDEL, P. W.
SHIPLEY, A. E.
SMITH, G. A.
SMITH, W. R.
SOCIN, A.
THISELTON-DYER, W.
TIELE, C. P.
TORREY, C. C.
TOY, C. H.
USENER, H.
VOLZ, P.
WELLHAUSEN, J.
WINCKLER, H.
WOODHOUSE, W. J.
ZlMMERN, H.
A. C- P.
T. G. P.
J. D. P.
J. A. R.
P. W. S.
A. E. 8.
G. A. S.
W. R. S.
A. S.
T. W.T.T.-D.
C. P. T.
C. C. T.
C. H. T.
H U.
P. V.
J. W.
H. W.
W. J. W.
H. Z
MAPS IN VOLUME III
MEDITERRANEAN (Eastern) . ...... between cols. 3610 and 3611
MESOPOTAMIA . ..... ,, 3052 ,, 3053
MOAB .......... ,, 3168 ,, 3169
NEGEB ....... . . ,, 3376 ,, 3377
NINEVEH
(1) City ........... col. 3423
(2) District .......... ,, 3422
PHOENICIA and LEBANON ....... between cols. 3734 and 3735
AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SOME OF THE ARTICLES IN
VOL. III., WITH THE AUTHORS NAMES
LADANUM
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
LAMP, LANTERN
LAW AND JUSTICE .
LAW LITERATURE .
LAZARUS .
LEAVEN .
LEBANON.
LEPROSY, LEPER
LEVITES .
LEVITICUS
LINEN
LION
LOCUST .
LOGOS *.
LORD S DAY
LORD S PRAYER
LOVINGKINDNESS
LUKE .
LYCAONIA
LYSANIAS
MACCABEES (FAMILY)
MACCABEES ( BOOKS)
MAGIC .
MALACHI
MAMMON ...
MANASSEH
MANNA .
MANTLE .
MARK .
MARRIAGE
MARY .
MASSAH AND MERIBAH
MASSEBAH
MATTHEW
MATTHIAS
MEALS .
MEDICINE
MELCHIZEDEK .
MEPHIBOSHETH
MERCY SEAT .
MESHA (with Illustration)
MESOPOTAMIA (with Map)
MESSIAH .
MICAH
MIDIAN .
MILK
MILL, MILLSTONES .
MINISTRY
MITRK
MIZRAIM .
MOAB (with Map)
MODIN
MOI.ECH, MOLOCH
MONTH
MOSES
MOURNING CUSTOMS
Music (with Illustrations)
MYSTERY .
N ADAB AND ABIHU .
NAHUM .
NAME
NAMES
NAPHTALI
NATIVITY (-NARRATIVES)
NATURE WORSHIP .
NAZARETH
Sir W. T. Thistleton-Dyer.
The late Prof. W. Robertson
Smith and Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
S. A. Cook.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. G. B. Gray.
Rev. E. A. Abbott.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
The late Prof. A. Socin.
Dr. C. Creighton.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. A. Bertholet.
President G. F. Moore.
Norman M Lean.
A. E. Shipley, S. A. Cook, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
A. E. Shipley, S. A. Cook, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. Eb. Nestle.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey.
Prof. Zimmern and Prof. T. W.
Davies.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. C. C. Torrey.
Prof. Eb. Nestle.
Hope W. Hogg.
Norman M Lean and S. A. Cook.
I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
S. A. Cook.
President G. F. Moore.
Rev. W. C. Allen.
Rev. W. C. Allen.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Dr. C. Creighton.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. S. R. Driver.
The late Prof. A. Socin and Dr.
H. Winckler.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith, Prof.
E. Kautzsch, and Prof. T. K.
Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. Th. Noldeke.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Smith, Prof. J. Well-
hausen, and Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
I. Abrahams.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. Karl Marti.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. J. D. Prince.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Rev. W. E. Addis.
Prof. Karl Budde.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. Th. Noldeke, Prof. G. B.
Gray, Prof. E. Kautzsch, and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Hope W. Hogg.
Prof. H. Usener.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
NAZIRITE
NEBO (MOUNT)
NEBUCHADREZZAR .
NEGEB (with Map) .
NEHEMIAH
NEPHILIM
NETHINIM
NEW MOON
NICODEMUS
NILE (with Illustration)
NIMROD .
NINEVEH (with Plans)
No, NO-AMON .
NOPH
NUMBER .
NUMBERS (BOOK)
OATH
OBADIAH (BOOK)
On
OLD -CHRISTIAN LITERA
TURE
OLIVES, THE MOUNT OF .
ONIAS ....
OPHIR ....
PALACE (with Illustrations)
PALESTINE
PAPYRI ....
PARABLES
PARADISE
PASSOVER, and FEAST OF
UNLEAVENED BREAD
PAUL (with Map)
PAVEMENT
PENNY (with Illustrations) .
PENTECOST
PERGAMOS
PERSIA ....
PESTILENCE
PETER, THE EPISTLES OF
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO .
PHILIP THE APOSTLE AND
PHILIP THE EVANGELIST
PHILIPPIANS (EPISTLES) .
PHILISTINES
PHINEHAS
PHOENICIA (with Map)
PHRYGIA ....
PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE
PITHOM ....
PLAGUES, THE TEN
POETICAL LITERATURE .
PONTUS ....
POOR ....
POTTERY (with Illustrations)
PRAYER ....
PRESBYTER
PRIEST ....
PROPHETIC LITERATURE,
PROPHET, AND PROPHECY
PROSELYTE
PROVERBS (BOOK)
PSALMS (BOOK) .
PTOLEMAIS
Pui
PURIM
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. H. Kostersand
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Rev. E. A. Abbott.
Prof. W. M. Mullen
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns.
Prof. W. M. Miiller.
Prof. W. M. Mullen
Prof. G. A. Barton.
President G. F. Moore.
M. A. Canney and Prof. T. K.
Cheyne.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
Prof. Lu. Gautier.
Prof. H. Guthe.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne and Dr. I.
Benzinger.
The late Prof. A. Socin, Prof. W.
M. Miiller, H. H. W. Pearson,
and A. E. Shipley.
Prof. G. A. Deissmann.
Prof. A. Jiilicher.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
The late Rev. E. Hatch and Prof.
W. C. v. Manen.
M. A. Canney.
G. F. Hill.
Dr. I. Benzinger.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
The late Prof. C. P. Tiele and
Prof. F. Brown.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. O. Cone.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel.
Prof. W. C. van Manen.
President G. F. Moore.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, Prof. W. M.
Miiller, and S. A. Cook.
Prof. Ed. Meyer.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
Prof. G. B. Gray.
Prof. W. M. Miiller.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. B. Duhm.
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse.
A. C. Paterson.
J. L. Myres.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Rev. Canon J. A. Robinson.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. A. Bertholet.
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, Prof. H.
Guthe, Paul Volz, and Rev.
Canon J. A. Robinson.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. W. H. Bennett.
Prof. C. H. Toy.
The late Prof. W. R. Smith and
Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
Prof. G. A. Smith.
T. G. Pinches.
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. Dr. J. G.
Frazer, and Prof. T. K.Chevne.
CONTRIBUTORS
TO
VOLUME III.
ABBOTT, Rev. E. A.. D.D.,
London
ABRAHAMS, I., M.A. , London .
ADDIS, Rev. W. E.. M.A., Man
chester College, Oxford
ALLEN, Rev. W. C. , M.A. , Exeter
College, Oxford
BARTON, Rev. Prof. G. A., Ph.D.,
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
BENNETT, Rev. Prof. W. H. ,
Litt.D., D. D.. London
BENZINGER, Dr. linmanuel,
Berlin
BF.RTHOLET, Prof. A., Basel
BROWN, Rev. Prof. F., D.D.,
New York
BUDDE, Prof. K. , D.D. , Mar
burg
CANNKY, Maurice A., M.A. ,
London
CHEYNE, Rev. Prof. T. K.,
D.Litt., D.D., Oxford
CONE, Rev. Prof. O., D.D., St.
Lawrence University
COOK, S. A., M. A. , Caius Col
lege, Cambridge
CREIGHTON, C. , M. D. , London
DAVIES, T. W. , Ph.D. , University
College, North Wales
DEISSMANN. Prof. G. A., D.D.,
Heidelberg
DRIVER, Rev. Prof. S. R. , D.D. ,
Oxford
DUHM, Prof. B. , D.D., Basel .
FRAZER, J. G. , LL.D., D.C.L.,
Trinity College, Cambridge
GAUTIER, Prof. Lucien, Geneva
GRAY, Rev. Prof. G. B., M.A.,
Mansfield College, Oxford
GUTHE, Prof. H., D.D. , Leipsic
HATCH, the late Rev. Edwin,
D.D.
HIM., (}. F., M.A.. British
Museum
HOGG, H. W., M.A.. Owens
College, Manchester
JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A.,
Queens College, Cambridge
JULICHKR, Prof. A., D.D.,
Mar bore
Lazarus ; Nicodemus.
Mantle ; Mitre ; Modin.
Nadab and Abihu.
Matthew ; Matthias.
Number.
Nadabath ; Proselyte.
Law and Justice; Marriage;
Mourning Customs ; Ne-
thinim ; New Moon ;
Palace ; Passover ; Pente
cost.
Levites ; Priest.
Persia.
Nahum.
Oath ; Pavement.
Lamentations (Book) ;
Lovingkindness ; Mel-
chizedek; Mephibosheth;
Micali ; Mizraim ; Moses;
Name ; Nazareth ; Nebo
(Mt. ); Negeb ; Nephi-
lim ; Ninirod ; Ophir ;
Paradise ; Plagues, The
Ten ; Prayer ; Prophetic
Literature ; Psalms
(Book).
Peter (Epistles of).
Lamp ; Lion ; Locust ;
Manna ; Mantle; Massah
and Meribah ; Mitre ;
Phinehas.
Leprosy ; Medicine.
Magic.
Lord s Day ; Mercy Seat ;
Papyri.
Mesha.
Poetical Literature.
Purim.
Olives, Mount of.
Law Literature ; Names ;
Pillar of Cloud and Fire.
Onias ; Prophetic Litera
ture.
Paul.
Penny.
Manasseh ; Naphtali.
Nebuchadrezzar ; Nineveh ;
Purim.
Logos; Mystery; Parables.
KAUTZSCH, Prof. E. , D.D., Halle
KENNEDY, Rev. Prof. A. R. S. ,
D.D., Edinburgh
ROSTERS, the late Prof. W. H. ,
D.D., Leyden
M LEAN, N., M.A., Christ s
College, Cambridge
MANEN, Prof. W. C. van, D.D.,
Leyden
MARTI, Prof. K., D.D., Bern .
MEYER. Prof. Ed., Halle .
MOORK, Rev. Pres. G. F.. D.D.,
Andover
MULLER, Prof. W. M., Phila
delphia
MYRK.S, J. L. , M.A. , Magdalen
College, Oxford
NESTLE, Eb. , D.D. , Maulbronn,
Wurtemberg
NOLDEKE, Prof. Theodor, Strass-
burg
PATERSON, A. C. , M.A. .
PEARSON, H. H. \V., M.A.,
Royal Gardens, Kew
PINCHES, T. G. , formerly of
British Museum
PRINCE, Prof. J. D., Ph.D.,
New York
ROBINSON, Rev. J. A., D.D. ,
Canon of Westminster
SCHMIEDEL, Prof. P. W. , D.D.,
Zurich
SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., Christ s
College, Cambridge
SMITH, Rev. Prof. G. A., D.D.,
Glasgow
SMITH, the late Prof. W. Robert
son, D.D.
SociN, the late Prof. A., Leipsic.
THISELTON-DYER, Sir W. T.,
K . C. M. G. , F. R. S. , Director,
Royal Gardens, Kew
TIELE, the late Prof. C. P. , D. D. ,
Leyden
TORREY, Prof. Charles C. , Ph. D. ,
Andover
TOY, Prof. C. H., D.D., Harvard
USENER, Prof. H., Bonn .
VOLZ, Herr Repetent Paul,
Tubingen
WELLHAUSEN, Prof. Julius, D. D. ,
Gottingen
WINCKI.ER, H., Ph.D., Berlin .
Wooimorsi . 1 rof. W. J., M.A. ,
Sydney
ZIMMEKN, Prof. H., Leipsic
Messiah ; Names.
Leaven ; Meals ; Milk ;
Mill ; Oil.
Nehemiah.
Linen ; Manna.
Old - Christian Literature ;
Paul ; Philemon ( Epistle
to) ; Philippians (Ep. ).
Month.
Phoenicia.
Leviticus ; Massebah ; Mo-
lech ; Nature Worship ;
Numbers (Book) ; Philis
tines.
Nile; No; Noph ; Pharaoh;
Phinehas ; Pithom.
Pottery.
Lord s Prayer ; Mammon.
Midian ; Names.
Poor.
Palestine (flora).
Pul.
Music.
Presbyter; Prophet (New
Testament).
Luke ; Lysanias ; Mark ;
Mary ; Ministry ; Philip.
Lion ; Locust ; Palestine
(fauna).
Moab ; Ptolemais.
Lamentations (Book) ; Le
vites ; Malachi ; Messiah ;
Micah ; Nazirite ; Oba-
diah(Book); Priest ; Pro
selyte ; Psalms ( Book I.
Lebanon ; Mesopotamia ;
Palestine.
Ladanum.
Persia.
Maccabees (Family) ; Mac
cabees (Books) ; Malachi.
Proverbs.
Nativity.
Prophetic Literature.
Moab.
Mesopotamia.
Lycaonia ; Pergamos ;
Phrygia ; Pontus.
Magic.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
LAADAH (nil? 1 ?, 35 ; perhaps abbrev. from mjth^i
El passes by ; cp EI.AIJAH), a Judahite ; iCh.42i (JiaSad
[H], aa6a [A], Aa6r)i [LJ). For a probable solution of the. pro
blem of Laadali, see LECAH.
LAADAN (ftl/?), iCh. 726 23 7 ff. 26 2 i AV, RV
LAUAN (q.v. }.
LABAN (\1? ; A&BAN [ADEL]), son of Nahor
(Gen. 295 J ; cp 244?, where Bethuel, son of, should
be omitted as an interpolation). 1 He was also brother
of Rebekah (2429), and became father of Leah and
Rachel (chap. 29), and of several sons (30 35 31 1) ; he
was therefore uncle and father-in-law of Jacob. Accord
ing to P (25 20) he was, like Bethuel, an Aramaean
(anx, EV a Syrian ) ; but P does not mean to deny
that he was a Nahorite ; Milcah and Aram are both
probably corruptions of Jerahmeel, and the northern
Jerahmeelites dwelt at the city of Nahor. It is in
fact here that the tradition given by J places the home
of Laban (24 10 2/43) ; the God of Laban, too, is called
by E the God of Nahor (31 53). Elsewhere (see
NAHOR) it is suggested that Nahor is most probably
miswritten for Hauran ; very possibly J and E had
before them corrupt versions of the traditional narrative.
It would be unfair to criticise the character of Laban
as if he were a historical individual ; we can only ven
ture to infer that the later Israelites criticised the char
acter of the Aramaeans very unfavourably. It is
essential, however, to notice the religious difference
between Laban and Jacob ; note especially the incident
with the teraphim (Gen. 31 30 ; cp 352, and see TEKA-
PHIM). Since Laban i.e. , the Laban-tribe resides
in or near a city of Hauran it is archasologically
important to try to clear up the name. A very similar
name, LIBNI [y.v.], is given in Ex. 617 Nu. 3 18 to a
son of Gershon, son of Levi ; in i Ch. 617, however,
Libni s father is called Gershom. Now, Gershom
(= Gershon) is a Jerahmeelite name. Gershom in
Ex. 222 is the son of Moshe (Moses), who was the son
of Amrani (Ex. 6 20, P) ; Amram, like Abram, contains
in our view an abbreviation of the name Jerahmeel. Levi
too is claimed elsewhere (LEVI, i) as a Jerahmeelite
name ; it corresponds to Leah, which is explained
elsewhere (LEAH) as a fragment of a feminine form of
Jerahmeel. The natural inference, if these data be
granted, is that Laban and Libni are both connected
with Leah and Levi ; p 1 ?, Laban, may be from pi 1 ?, and
Libni may be a further development of pS.
Hence the Levi-tribe was at one time viewed as the equal of
the Jacob-tribe, though afterwards it had to accept an inferior,
dependent position. It thus becomes unnecessary to combine
Laban with an Assyrian god Laban (cp [ihi] libitti, god of
1 Similarly the references to Bethuel in Gen. 24 15 2450 (J) are
to be viewed as interpolations. See Mez, Gescli. d. St. Harran,
iqff. and Dillmann s Genesis. In Gen. 2220-23 (J) tne list should
end with and Laban and Rebekah.
brickwork, KB 82 looyC) mentioned by Delitzsch and Sayce
(Hibb. Led. 249, n. 3), or with the Lapana (probably Helbon)
of Am. Tab. 139 35 37, or to regard the name as originally a
title of the Harranian moon-god (Schr. A A 7~( 2 ) on Gen. 27 43;
Jensen, ZA, 1896, p. 298 ; cp Goldziher, Heb. Myth. 158; Wi.
GI 2 57). Gunkel (Gen. 292) finds the Laban legend free from
mythology ; on the other side, see Winckler, op. cit.
LABAN (\> ; AoBON [BAFL]), an unknown locality
(Dt. li); perhaps the same as LIBNAH (2, q.v. ). Cp
WANDERINGS, 10.
LABANA (ALBANIA [BA]), i Esd. 629 = Neh.748,
LEBANA.
LABOUR (l^a, Gen. 31 42; tatf, Dt. 26 7 ), Labourer
(eprATHC.Mt-937). See SLAVERY. The use of labour
for fruit of labour (e.g. , Hab. 817) is one of the most
questionable Hebraisms of the EV.
LACEDAEMONIANS (AAKeAAlMONioi [AV], Av
K&|. [A]; see Swete, ad loc. and App. ), mentioned
only in 2 Mace. 5 9 ; elsewhere always Spartans
(CTTAPTIATAI) is used. See JASON, 2 (end), SPARTA.
The Jews claimed kinship with the Lacedaemonians (see
SPAKTA for diplomatic relations between the two peoples about
300 B.C. and 145 B.C.). For the presence of Jews in Sparta, we
may compare i Mace. 1523, ar >d in the Peloponnese generally,
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36.
LACHISH (pi? ; A&\eiC [ BAL . etc.]). A city in
the Shephelah (Josh. 1639, A^X 7 ?!? [B*A], Xa. [B ab super-
1 H" torfr scr ^ * ts k n g w ^ ^ our otner Amorite
^ kings, was defeated by Joshua at Gibeon
(Josh. 103-15; cp GIBEON, i, MAKKEDAH) ; on the
fate of the city and its population, see Josh. lOsi/. It
seems to have been a chariot-city (Mic. 1 13 ; cp i K.
9 19 and BETH-MARCABOTH). The Chronicler speaks of
its fortification by Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 9). Amaziah fled
thither from a conspiracy (2 K. 14 19 ; see AMAZIAH,
i). Sennacherib besieged and took the place on his
expedition against Egypt, and sei.t the Rabshakeh
thence to Jerusalem (2 K. 1814, 17, cp 198; Is. 862
Xa[xhs |T], cp 378 [om. NAOQ]). Lachish was one of
the two last fenced cities to be captured by Nebuchad
rezzar s army (Jer. 34?). It is mentioned in a list of
cities in Nehemiah (1130); but on critical grounds we
cannot assume that Jews really dwelt there in the period
referred to (see EZRA ii., 5, n. 3). Prof. Petrie s infer
ences from his excavations entirely bear out this opinion
viz. , that, after the return of the Jews Lachish appears
to have been hardly reoccupied (Tell el-Hesv, 29).
In Mic. 1 13 Lachish is called the beginning of sin for the
daughter (i.e., people) of Zion. Possibly some heathen Philis
tine rites (cp Is. 2&) had been introduced at Lachish, and
spread thence to Jerusalem. The play on the name of Lachish
is obscure. Read perhaps D -^f 1 1 f"l33"iD PT 1 . Make ready
chariot horses ;1 cp Ass. narkabate raklsit, chariot-horses,
87
2689
1 See Ges.-Buhl, s.v. pm ; and, for the rest, Che. JQR
10576./C [!8g8]. MT is rendered in RV, Bind the chariot to the
2690
LACHISH
Del. Ass. HIVB 622 ; rakis and liik ish produce an assonance.
The people of Lachish have good cause to flee, for they are
partners in the sins of Jerusalem.
The antiquity of Lachish is proved by the references
to it in some of the Amarna tablets (i5th cent. B.C.).
Zimrida (cp ZIMKI) was prince of the city under the
Egyptian king Amen-hotep IV. Efforts were made to
shake his allegiance to Egypt ; but he handed over the
man who had tried to seduce him to an Egyptian official.
Soon after, however, Lachish rebelled against him ; the
fate of Zimrida remains uncertain.
See Am. Tab. 217, 219, 181, and Peiser, OLZ, isth Jan. 1899.
Max Miiller, however (OL/., isth March 1899), finds some
difficulties in the situation supposed by Peiser. No. 219 is the
famous tablet found at Tell el-Ht-sy (see below, 2) and included
by Winckler in his edition of the Amarna Tablets.
There is also in the British Museum a bas-relief (found at
Kuyunjik) with this inscription, according to Winckler, Sen
nacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, took his seat on
the throne, and the captives from Lachish marched up before
him ( Textbuch, 37). This confirms the inference from 2 K.
198 that Sennacherib s siege of Lachish was successful.
Eusebius and Jerome place the site of Lachish 7 R.m.
S. of Eleutheropolis, towards the Uarom (OS 274 9
Q.. 13f>22). This does not agree with the
position of Umm Lakis, which most recent
scholars have identified with Lachish, this place being
\V. , not S. , of Eleutheropolis. In fact, its sole re
commendations consist in a very slight resemblance
of its name to that of Lachish (k, not k, is the second
consonant), 2 and in its being only three-quarters of an
hour from Ajlan (Eglon) ; cp Josh. 10 34. It presents,
as Conder states, only a few traces of ruins, two
masonry cisterns, and a small, low mound (PEFQ, 1878,
p. 20). On the ground of this apparent insignificance,
Robinson long ago rejected it (#/?> 389), adding that the
mound of Tell el-Hesy must certainly represent some
important city ; a finer position could hardly be
imagined. It was left for Conder, however, to point
out that Lachish ought to be, and for Petrie virtually
to prove that it was, the city which Tell el-Hesy repre
sents. The work of excavation was begun by Flinders
Petrie in April 1890. A study of the walls and of the
pottery of different levels led him to the conclusion that
the earliest dwellings are not later than the seventeenth
century B. c. , and the latest belong to the fifth century
B.C. The great walls below the level of the ash-bed
belong to the pre-Israelitish or Amorite times. The
stones below the bed of .ashes belong to the rude period
of the Judges. The ashes represent a desolation when
the tell was used by alkali-burners. [Bliss accounts for
the great bed of ashes differently.] The buildings
above the ashes represent the cities of the various Jewish
kings to the time of the Captivity. It was in the third
city, in the stratum overspread by the ash-bed, that the
cuneiform tablet was found ; other tablets must or may
have been carried off by foes.
Petrie identifies the tell with Lachish for three reasons.
1. The position commands the only springs in the district,
except those of Tell en-Nejileh (see EGI.ON ii.).
2. It corresponds sufficiently with the geographical deter
mination in \.\\eOnotasticon, being only three miles farther from
Eleutheropolis than Eusebius and Jerome say that Lachish was.
3. It agrees with the situation represented on Sennacherib s
swift steed ; but the first word (Qrn) is, strictly, untranslatable,
and BOT can hardly be used of a chariot-horse (see HORSE,
i, 4). The order of the words chariot and swift steed
is also scarcely possible ; to alter it in the translation (G. A. Smith)
is arbitrary. If, however, Prof. Smith s rendering might stand,
his explanation would be at least plausible. He sees an allusion
to the Egyptian subsidies of horses and chariots (in which the
politicians put their trust), which would be received at Lachish,
as being the last Judtean outpost towards Egypt.
1 Came forward into his presence (M Curdy, Hist. Profih.
Mon. 2427). Cp Meinhold, fcsaja u. seine Zeit (1898), who
also adopts Wi. s translation of sal/at ntaftarsu etik. Bezold,
however (KB l 115), renders received the spoil of Lachish ; and
Del. brought up before himself (>.f., took a minute survey of) the
spoil of Lachish (Ass. HWB 159(1).
" So Robinson. According to Conder the name is pronounced
Umm Lags. Sayce states that, after repeated inquiries of the
fellahln, he assured himself (in 1881) that the name was Latis;
but Bliss confirms Conder s statement ; Umm Laggis is the
form which he gives.
2691
LADANUM
bas-relief, and the remains in the tell permit a conception of
the fortunes of the site which agrees with the data of history.
F. J. Bliss took up Petrie s work in March 1891. His general
conclusion agrees with that of his predecessor ; the importance
of the site is such that hardly any other identification appears
possible.
Whether Umm Lakis is really the site of a Jewish
settlement which took the place of the old Lachish, is
less certain. G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, 2 80 /.)
has suggested that Umm Lakis may represent the
ancient Elkos, which, according to Epiphanius, was
beyond bet Gabre, of the tribe of Simeon (cp
ELKOSHITE, c). The consonants are suitable ; but
we should not have expected the vocalisation Lakis.
Conder has identified Umm Lakis with the Malagues of
the Crusaders. To the present writer the site of
Lachish appears to be identified with virtual certainty by
Petrie s brilliant investigation. Cp BRONZE, HONEY,
POTTERY ; and, on the strategical importance of Lachish,
see GASm. HCii^f.
See Flinders Petrie, Tell el-Hesy: a Memoir (1891): F. J.
Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities; or Tell el-Hesy excavated
(1898). For a fresh translation of the Lachish tablet see Peiser,
OLZ, isth Jan. 1899, and cp WMM, OLZ, isth March 1899.
W. Max Miiller adheres to Umm LSkis (in spite of the k) as the
site of Lachish. He thinks the letter was addressed, not to the
Egyptian grand vizier, but to a neighbour of Zimrida. The
grounds for the prevalent view are not, however, discussed.
T. K. C.
LACUNUS, KV LACCUNUS (AAKKOYNOC [BA],
f)avaua<; 1 [L]), the name of one of the sons of Addi in the list of
those with foreign wives, i Esd.93i (see EZRA i., 5 end). If
we compare || E/ra 10 30, we shall see that the name has arisen
from the names Chelal, Benaiah (n33 ^r). the final ^ of
Chelal having been taken with the following name, and the 3
read as a 3 i.e., n jsh-
LADAN (n^, 38 ; AA^AN [BL]).
1. An Ephraimite, i Ch. 7 26 RV, AV LAADAN (\aBBav [B],
Ka.8a.av [A]) ; whose name appears in v. 20 as ELADAH (q.v.).
See ERAN. EzKRii., 3 and cp EI-HRAIM i., 12.
2. RV, AV LAADAN, a Gershonite name, i Ch. 23 7-9 (eSav [B].
AeaSai/ [A], Aaa. [L]) 26 21 (\aSav [B once], AeS. twice Aaafid [A],
AaaSai/[L]). See LIBNI, r.
3. i Esd. 637 AV, RV DALAN. See DELAIAH, 4.
LADANUM (D$, lot. CTAKTH [ADEFL], RESINA).
Gen. 3?2st (RV "K- MYRRH) 43nf (EV MYRRH), is the
name of a resin called by the Arabs Iddhan or Iddan l
which was yielded by some species of Cistus. It was
known to the Greeks as early as the times of Herodotus
and Theophrastus by the names \-rjSov, \ddavov, and
\rjdavov, which are very closely allied to the Arabic
name.
Ladanum is described by Herodotus (8112) as particularly
fragrant, though gathered from the beards of goats, on which
it is found sticking; similarly Dioscorides (1 128). Tournefort,
in modern times (I oyage, 1 29), has given a detailed description
of the mode of obtaining ladanum. He relates that it is now
gathered by means of a \aSa.vio7ripiov or kind of flail 2 with
which the plants are threshed. When these thongs are
loaded with the flagrant and sticky resin, they are scraped
with a knife ; the substance is then rolled into a mass,
in which state it is called ladanum or labdanum. Ladanum
consists of resin and volatile oil, and is highly fragrant, and
stimulant as a medicine, but is often adulterated with sand in
commerce. The ladanum which is used in Europe is collected
chiefly in the Greek isles, and also in continental Greece. It
is yielded by species of the genus Cistus (especially by C.
creticus) which are known in this country by the name of Rock
Rose ; they are natives of the S. of Europe, the Mediterranean
islands, and the N. of Africa. According to Tristram (FFP
235) Palestinian ladanum is derived from Cistus z illosus, L.,
which grows in the hill districts E. and W. of Jordan, and is
especially plentiful on Carmel. Cistus creticus, which is only
a variety of this and distinguished by its viscidity, is the
common form on the southern hills. [Fonck thinks of the Cistus
salvifo/ius, which is also plentiful on Carmel, for the ladanum;
but H. Christ (ZDPT d^ff. [1899]) questions this identification.]
Ladanum is said by Pliny, as it was long before said by
Herodotus, to be a product of Arabia, though this has not
been proved to be the case in modern times. Enough,
however, has been adduced to show that ladanum was
known to, and esteemed by, the ancients ; and, as it is
1 According to Moidtmann and Miiller (Sab. Denk. 84) the
Iddhan is the proper Arabic form derived from Persian.
2 Specimens of the implement can be seen in the Museum at
Kew (Crete and Cyprus).
2692
LADDER
stated to have been a product of Syria, it was very
likely to have been sent to Egypt both as a present and
as merchandise. The word Iddan is found in the in
scription on a S. Arabian censer (Sab. Denk. 84), and
in Assyrian in the list of objects received as tribute from
Damascus by Tiglath-Pileser III. (KAT& 151, 18). The
biblical narrative (J) shows that oS was some precious
gum produced in Canaan or at least in Gilead.
See Royle s article Lot in Kitto s Bibl. Cycl., on which this
article is mainly based. N. M. W. T. T.-D.
LADDER (D^D ; KAiM&I) Gen. 28 i 2 f. The render
ing ladder is unfortunate ; a flight of steps is meant accord
ing to most scholars. Cp BETHEL, 2. Probably, however,
nSj/D, ascent is the right reading (adapt suffixes accordingly),
cpNeh.3i 5 12 3 7 (<S K A.i>aKes = ni ?i;o)- So Che. SeeSTAiRS,4.
The classical use of the term ladder in topography (cp
Paus. viii. 64 and see Frazer s note) is exemplified in The
Ladder of Tyrus, RV . . . OF TYRE (KAIMAKOC Typoy
[ANY]), i Mace. 11 59, the northern limit of the region
over which Simon the Maccabee was made commandant
(<TT parr]y 6s) by Antiochus VI., son of Balas. Josephus
(BJn. 102) defines it as a high mountain 100 stadia N.
from Ptolemais. It is the steep and lofty headland now
known as the Ras en-Nakiirah the natural barrier
between Phoenicia and Palestine (Stanley). True, we
should have expected the title to have been rather given
to the fids el-abyad, the Promontorium album of Pliny.
Regarded from the S. , however, the Ras en-Nakurah,
which Neubauer (Gdogr. 39) identifies with the NO^IO
llx hv of the Talmud, may have presented itself as the
end of the Lebanon and the barrier of Tyre.
LAEL pN7, 22, 37, l [belonging] to God ; or,
the form having no sure parallel in Hebrew, read Joel,"
see GENEALOGIES i. , 7, col. 1664, no. 3), a Gershon-
ite, Nu. 824 (A&HA [BAF], AAOyHA [L]).
Gray (fiPJV 207) quotes the parallel of LEMUEL in Prov. 31 i,
and, as more remotely analogous, BESODEIAH and possibly
BEZALEEL. All these names, however, are liable to grave sus
picion. Noldeke, indeed, has shown that there were such
Semitic names as Lael (in later times?), but not that MX is
correct in its reading. X. K. C.
LAHAD ("in?), b. JAHATH (q.v., i), a clan of Judah,
i Ch.4 2 f (AAA9 [B], AA[A]A [AL]), Jerahmeelite, to
judge from the names (Che. ).
LAHAI-ROI ("iO r6 ["IN?]), Gen. 2462 25 xi AV,
RV BEER-LAHAI-ROI (q.v.).
LAHMAS (OVrh; MAXGC [B], AAMAC [A], AAM-
MAC [L]), Josh. 1540 RV n -, or, according to many
MSS, Lahmara (DOP1?), as in EV. A town in the low
land of Judah, perhaps the modern el-Lahm, z\ m. S.
from Eleutheropolis (Bet Jibrin).
LAHMI (>pr6 ; eAe/v\ee [B], Aee/wei [A], AOOMI
[L]), brother of Goliath (i Ch. 20 5 f). See ELHANAN,
2.
LAI8H. i. (BJ?j A<MC<\ [BAL]), the original name
of the northern frontier-city DAN (q.v.), Judg. 18? 14
2 7 29 ([oyA&/v\]&ic [B], &AeiC [A]). Another form
(probably) is Lesham (see LESHEM). In the list of
Thotmes III. it perhaps appears as Liusa (Mariette,
Brugsch, etc. ). On the narrative in Judg. 18 see JUDGES
(BOOK), 12.
Winckler (6V 2 63^) endeavours to show that the foundation
of Dan is related not only in Josh. 1947 and Judg. 18, but also
in Judg. 1 22-26. The city in the land of the Hittites called
Luz ( unto this day ) must have been Dan ; the statement that
it was called Luz involves a confusion between the name of
the sanctuary (properly an appellative meaning asylum see
Luz) and that of the city. Winckler also suggests that Laish
and Leshem really mean there is not and nameless respec
tively, in allusion to the destruction of the old city by the
Danites. It may be more natural to suppose that here, too,
there is an early writer s misunderstanding, and that Laish
1 Cp Nold., Verwandtschaftsnamen als Personennamen in
Kleinigkeiten zur semitischen Onomatologie (WZKM 6314
[1892]).
2693
LAMENTATION
(whence Leshem) is a corruption of Luz, or of a name from which
Luz is corrupted.
2. Is. 1030. See LAISHAH. T. K. c.
LAISH (8*7, as if lion, 68 ; in 2 S. 3 15 K l 1 ? Kt. ).
evidently a short form of Laishah (Shalishah). See
LAISHAH, PALTI. The name occurs in i S. 2644 (some
MSS have Kt. ch 1 ? ; ctyuas [B], Atus [A], iwaj [L]) ; and
in 2 S. 815 (o-eX\7?y [B], Xaets [A], a-eXXe^ [L, for which,
see BAHURIM, n. i]).
LAISHAH (n^; AAic<\[Q mg -]. f which NCA[BA]
is a corruption : Aeic [Theod.], AAIC [Symm. et forte
Aq.]), a place in Benjamin near Gallim (?) and Anathoth
(Is. lOaof RV, AV unto Laish ). According to Conder
(PEFQ, 1875, p. 183) and Van Kasteren (ZDPV
13ioo/". ) it is the modern el-Jsdwiyeh, a small village
on the E. slope of a mountain to the NNE. of the
Mount of Olives, less than an hour s walk from the
neighbouring village of Anata. The site still shows
traces of high antiquity (Guerin, Judte, 38o/ ; Gray
Hill, PEFQ, 1899, pp. 45-47). It is doubtful, however,
whether we can trust the name Laishah any more than
GALLIM [q. v. ]. Both Laishah and Laish are pro
bably distortions of SHALISHAH [q.v.~], the name of
the district in which Gibeah of Sha ul (rather Gibeah
of Shalishah ), mentioned just before (see v. 29), was
situated. For another possible corruption of the
same name see MERAB, MEPHIBOSHETH. Cp further
SHECHEM.
Grove (Smith, DBPl, s.v.} suspects the identity of Laishah
and the Eleasa of i Mace. 9 5 (aA.a<7<x [A], eA. [KV]), where Vg.
gives Laisa, while Halevy (Kofiut Mem. Semitic Studies, 241^)
identifies Laishah with CHEPHIRAH [y.v.], both names, accord
ing to him, meaning lion-town. T. K. c.
LAKUM, RV Lakkum (WJ3& ; AcoA&M [B], AKROY
[A], AAKOYM [L]), an unidentified town in Naphtali
(Josh. 19 33).
LAMB(nb, seh, Gen. 22 7 / etc.; 2B |, ktseb. Lev.
4 35 etc. ; BO3, kebei, Lev. 14 12 etc.). See SHEEP ; and cp
CATTLE, 2.
For Gen. 33 19 (nB B>j3, AVmg. lamb ), see KESITAH.
LAMECH CSJlp^), Gen. 4 18-24. See CAINITES, 8/,
SETHITES.
LAMENTATION. Lamentations for great calamities,
especially for deaths, held an important place among the
1. Character customs of the Israelites. We may
regard these lamentations in different
aspects, according as they are private or public, non-
literary or literary. The origin of lamentation is a
simple cry or wail, and even when art had elaborated
new kinds of lamentation in which musical instruments
played a part, the simple cry was a necessary accom
paniment such a cry as the prolonged well, woe is
me, still customary in Syria, with which <?? //, Adi
dhi, hoi ddon, ah, me, ah, my brother, ah, lord,
in 2 K. 9 37 ( L ), i K. 13 30 Jer. 22 18 34s niay be
compared. This is what is primarily meant by the
nihl ( ru; cp vrjvia, and see BOB) i.e. , wailing
(EV) of Jer. 9 TO [9] 18-20 [17-19] 31 15 Am. 5i6 Mic.
24 : f. The heart-rending -well, however, is not the only
expression of woe ; songs in measured verse and with
musical accompaniment are chanted by the professional
mourning women of Syria, and so it was in Palestine
of old (cp MOURNING CUSTOMS, i). We may pre
sume that public lamentations were on the same model.
Pinches 2 (Smith s DBI^b] has translated a Baby
lonian hymn, probably prehistoric, which, at any rate
in a wide sense, may be called an elegy (like the
Lamentations ). For a dirge in the stricter sense we
can go to the twelfth tablet of the Gilgames epic, where
we find the lament of Gilgames over the dead hero
Eabani (cp CREATION, 20, n. 4 ; JOB, 4).
1 The term is used here rather widely.
2
also
2694
2 Cp BOR, Dec. 1886, pp. 22/1 ; Halevy, RP 11 T6o. It
been compared with Ps. 79 (Che. Ps.W 223).
has
LAMENTATION
Thou takest no part in the noble feast ; to the assembly they
call thee not ; thou lifted not the bow from the ground ; what
is hit by the bow is not for thee ; thy hand grasps not the club
and strikes not the prey, nor stretches thy foeman dead on the
earth. The wife thou lovest thou kisse.st not ; the wife thou
luite^t thou strikest not. The child thou lovest thou kis>cit
n n ; the child thou hatest thou strikest not. The might of the
earth has swallowed thee. O Darkness, Darkness, Mother
Darkness ! thou enfoldest him like a mantle ; like a deep well
thou enclosest him ! 1
The result of the crying and lamenting of Gilgames
was that Ea-bani s spirit, after holding intercourse with
Gilgames, was transferred from the dark world of the
shades to the land of the blessed. Wailing, it would
seem, had an object, apart from that of relieving the
feelings of the mourners, and in this case it was to effect
an improvement in the lot of the dead. Perhaps, how
ever, it may once have been intended as an attempt to
influence the supernatural powers, and to bring back
the departed tenant of the body ; - for this we may
compare the familiar Arabic mourning phrase addressed
to the dead, Depart not. At the same time there is
a considerable mass of evidence that suggests a very
different object viz. , to drive away the spirits of the
dead lest they should harm the living. 3
The most trustworthy specimen of an ancient Hebrew
dirge is David s lament over Abner (28. 833/1 ; see
AHNKK). Whether the reported lamen-
2. or
Specimens.
tation over Saul and Jonathan (2 S. 1 17-
27) can safely be classed with this, or
whether it is not rather a literary product of the post-
exilic age, is becoming somewhat doubtful (see JASHER,
BOOK OF, 2). At any rate, in Am. 5i we have a
beautiful specimen of a new class of elegy the pro
phetic :
Prostrate is fallen to rise no more | the virgin Israel ;
There she lies stretched on the ground ; | no one raises her up.
Jeremiah (8822) represents the women of the house of
the king of Judah (Zedekiah) as singing a dirge contain
ing these words,
Misled thou wast and overpowered | by thy bosom friends ;
Thy feet sank in the mire, | but those remained behind.
Other specimens of prophetic dirge-poetry will be found
in Jer. 9 19 21 22 [18 20 21], The prophet, however, who,
more than any other, delights in elegy, is Ezekiel (see
Ezek. 19 26 17 2?2 3 2 28 12 322 cp also 32 18), and among
the many passages of limping verse in the later por
tions of Isaiah there are some (e.g. , Is. 14 4^-21) that
bear an elegiac character.
The little elegy in Am. 5 1 helps us to understand
the Lamentations wrongly ascribed to Jeremiah. The
death which the singers of these poems lamented was
that of the Jewish nation (cp Jer. 9 19 [18] Ezek. 19), and
as early as the time of Amos this form of speech was in
use. As Robertson Smith has said, the agonies of the
nation s last desperate struggle took a form modelled on
the death-wail sung by "cunning women" (Jer. 917)
and by poets "skilful of lamentation " (Am. 5 16) at the
wake (^N) of the illustrious dead. 4
The researches of Budde leave no doubt that one
of the metres specially used in dirges was that of
the so-called limping verse, in which the
uniformly undulating movement which is
the usual characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is changed to
a peculiar and limping metre. 8
In the Psalter the limping verse is often found;
but there is only a single passage in which, Budde
thinks, it is used for the purpose of lamentation. This
is Ps. 137 4-9 ; but it is questionable whether Budde s
view is correct ; and still more doubtful is it whether the
1 Translated from Haupt s German version by Ragozin,
Chaldea, 313 f. (1891) ; but cp Jeremias, Izdubar-Niinrod,
41 (1891).
2 Cp Frey, Tod, Seelen%laube und Seelenkult, 55.
3 Cp \VRS Rel. Sem.fl), 100, n. 2; Griineisen, Ahnencultus,
100. Cp the strange anecdote given in We. Ar. Held. 161 (the
cattle killed that their lowing might add to the noise of the
lamentations).
4 B(9}, art. Lamentations, Book of.
5 Budde, New World, March 1893.
269.;
3. Metre.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
use of what this able critic calls the elegiac metre can
be taken to prove the early exilic date of this remark
able song (see PSALMS, 28, ix. ).
The term Kinah-metre for the so-called limping verse
is convenient. We cannot, however, regard the theory
that it is primarily elegiac as proved. Budde s attempt
to explain why it is not used in David s famous elegy
(ZATWZ+s) viz., that this elegy had a private
character is far from convincing ; and even apart from
this it is hazardous to assert that because some early
elegiac passages are in the Kinah metre, the metre
must therefore have been reserved originally for elegiac
poetry. See Minocchi, Le Lamentazioni, 36.
Wetzstein s description of the funeral ceremonies in modern
Syria will be found in Bastian s Zt. f. Ethnologic, 1873. See
also Budde s essays Die hebraische Leichenklage, /.Dl [ r
GiSo^C, and The Folk-song of Israel, New World, March
1893 ; Jastrow, Rcl. of Bab. and Ass. 604 f. 658 660. On the
professional mourning women see A* /A 2 ), 2 78 ; Trumbull,
Studies in Oriental Life, 153^ ; Goldziher, Aluhaiittnedanische
Studicn, 1 251. Cp further POETICAL LITERATURE.
T. K. C.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK) 1
External characteristics ( i). Chap. 4 ( 5) ; its date 8).
Chap. 1 ( 2) ; its date ( 10). Chap. . r . (g 6) ; its date ( 7).
Chap. 2 ( 3) ; its date (S 9). Traditional authorship ( 12).
Chap. 3 ( 4) ; its date ( n). Bibliography ( 13).
In Hebrew Bibles the Book of Lamentations bears
the superscription H^N, Ah how! (cp li 2i 4i).
_ , . The Talmud, however, and Jewish
. x erna writers in general call it nirp, Klndth
characteristics. ,
(i.e. , elegies or dirges ), which is
the Hebrew title known to Jerome in his Prologus
Galeatus (leremias cum Cinoth, id est, Lamentationibus
suis). (S s title is Qpijvoi. A fuller title, assigning the
book to Jeremiah, is found in Pesh. and in some MSS
of e.g. , in B X, but not in A and B* and in (5
and Pesh. Lamentations is attached to the Book of
Jeremiah (Baruch intervening in the former version).
At the same time BN have the introductory verse assign
ing at any rate chap. 1 to Jeremiah. It is a mistake
to suppose that this arrangement of Lamentations is
original, the scheme which accommodates the number
of the sacred books to the number of the twenty-two
Hebrew letters being self-evidentlv artificial, and the
evidence that this arrangement (adopted by Jos.) had
an established place among the Jews of Palestine being
scanty and precarious. It is noteworthy, too, that the
translation of Lamentations in <&, which agrees pretty
closely with our Hebrew text, cannot be by the same
hand as the translation of the Book of Jeremiah.
The poems which make up the book are five, and
the first four are alphabetical acrostics - successive
stanzas (each consisting, in chap. 3, of three verses,
elsewhere of one verse) beginning with successive letters
of the alphabet. The last poem (chap. 5) has twenty-
two stanzas, like chaps. 1-4, but is not an acrostic.
In chaps. 2-4, however, by an irregularity, the s-stanza
precedes the y-stanza. The sense shows that this is not due to
a transposition of the original order of the stanzas, whilst the
fact that the same irregularity occurs three times makes it plain
that the deviation from the common order rests on a variation in
the order of the alphabet as used by the author (cp WRITING).
According to Bickell, Cheyne, and Duhin, the same irregularity
occurs in the true text of Ps. 9-10 (an acrostic poem), and not a few
critics (including Bickell, Baethgen, Konig, and Duhm)find it in
that of Ps. 34. It is perhaps better, however, to prefix D p ^S to
v. 1 8 (as Street long ago suggested), and to omit .-nrp (Che.
fs.(-}). Another case of want of uniformity concerns the use of
~\VR and y; relativum. In Lam. 1 only ijj N occurs (vv. 7 12) ; in
1 In 1882, when Robertson Smith printed the article Lamen
tations in EB(9), it was hardly possible to give more than the
vaguest determination of the date of the Lamentations. Budde,
whose commentary (1898) marks our entrance on a fresh critical
stage, is naturally more definite in his conclusions ; the present
writer has retained all that he could of Robertson Smith s work,
in order to recognise the continuity of criticism. Some of the
retained paragraphs, as being specially distinctive, have been
marked with signs of quotation. This does not apply to trans
lations from the Hebrew.
2696
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
Lam. 2 -u; J< " v - I7 > W n m - I S/- > > n Lam. 3 neither -|t?N nor
Iji ; in Lain. 4 and 5 only & (4 9 5 18). The observation is
Konig s ( //. 420).
The metre of the first four poems differs from that of
the fifth. The metre of the fifth poem consists of
ordinary three-toned lines ; the metre of the first four
poems is in the so-called limping verse, which, being
specially, though not exclusively, used for elegies, is
commonly called the Kinah metre (first fully made out
by Budde l ). To speak oifive Lamentations is incorrect.
It is only chaps. 1 2 and 4 that are properly dirges, as
referring to a deatli the death of the Jewish nation
(see LAMENTATION, 2). These are highly elaborate
and artificial poems in which every element of pity and
terror which the subject supplies is brought forward
with conscious art to stir the minds of the hearers. In
their present form they appear to be rather late works ;
but they may perhaps have embedded in them phrases
of earlier elegies - such as were used liturgically in the
fifth month (Ab) in Zechariah s time (Zech. 7s), and of
course earlier, to commemorate the fall of the temple. 3
To suppose that our Kinoth were already composed
when Zechariah gave his decision to the deputation
(Zech. 7s) is hardly consistent with the evidence. Let
us now consider their contents.
1 The first elegy commences with a picture of the
distress of Zion during and after the siege (li-u);
T Jerusalem, or the people of Judah, being
figured as a widowed and dishonoured
princess. Then, in the latter half of the poem she
herself takes up the lamentation, describes her grievous
sorrow, confesses the righteousness of Yahwe s anger,
and invokes retribution on her enemies. In a carefully
restored text, it is seen to be a beautiful, though
monotonous, composition in elegiac metre.
In v. 6 MT is correct. By turning Q V N. harts, into
Q 1 ? !*, rams, spoils the figure. Verse 7 is grievously cor
rupt both in MT and in . Read in the first stichus, IT ;
lynxpa" 1 ?! ; between D and Dlj3 is a collection of variants,
all corruptions of 30"7D. In the last hemistich read, nnNC D,
her desolation. In r>. 10 MT is rough; read Zion (JVS)
spreadeth forth her hands because of her pleasant things
(Bickell). In v. 14, for 1/pb: read tpJM ; in aj8 read fvapn DT2.
On v. 19 see Budde.
In the second chapter the desolation of the city and
the horrors of the- siege are again rehearsed and made
, T _ more bitter by allusion to the joy of the
O. IjclITl. a, f T i r-r-i. r .
enemies of Israel. The cause of the
calamity is national sin, which false prophets failed to
denounce while repentance .was still possible, and now no
hope remains save in tears and supplication to stir the
compassion of Yah we for the terrible fate of his
people. The structure is the same as in chap. 1,
except that a introduces the i6th, y the i/th verse as
in chaps. 3 and 4. There is more vivid presentation,
more dramatic life, more connection and progress of
thought ; but the religious element is less pervasive.
These are among the blemishes which need removal. In the
very first verse covers (imperf.) with a cloud (3 JT) is an im
possible word (note Pasek after 13N2). Probably we should
read t? 3rr, put to shame ; y and W are easily confounded.
In 7 . 2/ both AV and RV overlook the metrical structure. The
rendering of MT should be He hath brought to the ground,
hath profaned the kingdom, and its princes. The first verb,
however, is unsuitable, and the combination kingdom and
princes is unnatural. Read njSpO 1J3, the royal crown (cp
111370 "102, Esth. 1 n, etc.), and all becomes plain. Verses
4678 have given much trouble, but are not incurable. Read
(see Crit. Bib.) :
1 For translated specimens see below. See also LAMENTA
TION, POETICAL LITERATURE.
2 Just so, phrases of earlier psalms may conceivably have
passed into some of the existing late psalms. Proof and dis
proof are alike impossible.
3 On the gth day of Ab this event is still celebrated by the
synagogue. See Mas. Sdpherint, chap. 18, and the notes in
Muller s edition (1878).
2697
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
1 Foe-like, he hath bent his bow, | his arrows he prepareth ;
He slaughtereth and killeth the children, | the delights of the
eye,
In the tent of Zion he hath poured out | his wrath like fire.
And he hath smitten to pieces his dwelling with an axe, | hath
destroyed his sanctuary,
Yahwe hath brought low in Zion | ruler and judge,
And rejected in the fury of his anger | king and priest.
Yahwe hath rejected his altar, | hath cast down his sanctuary,
He hath delivered into the hand of the foe | all her precious
things,
Terrible nations stretch out the line | in Yahwe s house.
Yahwe purposeth to destroy | the precious things of Zion,
He hath not kept his hand from annihilating [all her palaces].
He hath annihilated bulwark and wall, | together they languish.
In v. 12 MT makes the little children call out for corn and
wine (["i pi, a doubly impossible phrase), and, in v. 18
(according to EV), it reads Their heart cried unto the Lord, O
wall of the daughter of Zion. Clearly wrong, and, v. 18
especially, not to be superficially dealt with. Verse 12 can be
restored with certainty ; there is no question asked, and
therefore no answer is returned. Read, They say to their
mothers, Wo unto us ! for our life goes. Verse 18 should
probably be read as follows :
Cry out because of Jerusalem s disgrace, | Zion s insult,
Let tears run down like a torrent | day and night,
Give thyself no pause, | let not the apple of thine eye cease.
The third elegy [if we may call it such] takes a
personal turn, and describes the affliction of the
. - individual Israelite, or of the nation under
the type of a single individual, under the
sense of Yahwe s just but terrible indignation. But
even this affliction is a wholesome discipline. It draws
the heart of the singer nearer to his God in penitent
self-examination, sustained by trust in Yahwe s un
failing mercy, which shows itself in the continued
preservation of his people through all their woes.
From the lowest pit the voice of faith calls to the
Redeemer, and hears a voice that says, "Fear not."
Yahwe will yet plead the cause of his people, and so
in the closing verses the accents of humble entreaty
pass into a tone of confident appeal for just vengeance
against the oppressor. Of the two views (individual or
nation) here indicated respecting the subject of the elegy,
the latter appears to be the one most easily defensible.
As in the case of so many of the psalms and in that of
the Songs of the Servant of Yahwe (see SERVANT OF
THE LORD), the speaker is the company of the humble-
minded righteous who form the kernel of the Jewish com
munity. Hence it is easy for the imagined speaker to
pass from the ist person singular to the ist person plural,
and to say in v. 48 that he weeps unceasingly for the
disaster of his country-people ( ay re)- The vehemence
of the imprecations at the close of the elegy is most easily
intelligible if the offences referred to have been committed
against the Jewish people, not against an individual
(e.g., Jeremiah), imagined by the poet. This is the
view of Hupfeld (on Ps. 38), Reuss, Cheyne, Lohr,
and especially Smend (/.A T\V 8fcf. [1888]). It is
opposed especially by Stade (Gl J 701) and Budde,
mainly (see the latter) on two grounds : (i) the occurrence
of certain expressions in vv. i and 27 (Oettli wrongly
adds v. 14), and (2) the inconsistency of personifying
the community elsewhere as a woman, but here as a
man. Against this we may urge (a) the analogy of so
many other poems, which are marred (as indeed
Lam. 3 appears to some to be marred) by the assumption
of an individualising reference, (f>) the possibility of
interpreting vv. i and 27, as Smend has done, of the
people conscious of its solidarity (nasn) and looking
forward to an extended future (vnyj3?)i and (<:) the
probability, admitted by Budde, that Lam. 3 is the
latest of the five poems it is, in fact, rather a poetic
monologue of Israel than an elegy. On vv. 52-58
Budde remarks, Abruptly the poet turns to his own
sufferings. ... To regard the community as the
subject is possible (cp Ps. 6, etc.), but more probably it
arises from the inconsiderate use of the psalms which
served as models. It is surely not right to assume
inconsiderateness, when such a highly characteristic
2698
6. Lam. 4.
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
idea as the solidarity of all good Israelites is in question ;
the idea was one which had incorporated itself in the
Jewish system of thought.
As to vv. 114 and 27. It is no doubt quite possible to
explain, I am the man, as I am the people ; and the
particular word for man (133) occurs again in irv. 27 35 39.
But the closing words by the rod of his fury (inTDy VZ ^ Zt .,,.-
peculiar, inasmuch as the name of Yahwe has not been mentioned,
nor will it be till v. 18. It is probable that the text is corrupt.
In v. 14 a doubt is hardly possible; 8V, my people, should
be C Sl , peoples. In i>. 27 I"nyj3, in his youth, introduces
a new idea (that a young man has time before him to profit by
chastisement), which is not further utilised. Here, too, the text
seems to be corrupt.
In v. i read perhaps yijrSy IMfl JIN, it is the Lord who
visits mine iniquity, and in v. 27 .11,T fnya D^N KB" 3 310,
it is good that he bear mutely the rebuke of Yahwe.
The variant V1iy:a is thus accounted for. 1^30 in Ps. 88 16
requires a similar correction. A few other blemishes may be
mentioned. Gall and travail (v. 5) should be my head ( t KI)
with travail (Pratorius, ,?/! 7~/K 15 326 [1895]). In v. i6a the
teeth and the gravel-stones are troublesome ; Lohr leaves
the latter, but gives dots, expressive of perplexity, for the
former ; v. i(J> is, on linguistic grounds, hardly less improbable.
The reading we propose is as simple and appropriate as possible.
And I girded sackloth on my flesh ; I rolled myself in ashes (see
Crit. Rib.). In v. 39 a living man cannot be right; >n DIN
should be Q nSjt- Not improbably we should read, Why do we
murmur against God, (against) him who visits our sins? Cp v. i
as above.
In the fourth acrostic the bitter sorrow again bursts
forth in passionate wailing. The images of horror
imprinted on the poet s soul during the last
months of Jerusalem s death-struggle and
in the flight that followed are painted with more ghastly
detail than in the previous chapters, and the climax is
reached when the singer describes the capture of the
king, the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of
Yahwe, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall
live among the nations." The cup of Israel s sorrow
is filled up. The very completeness of the calamity is
a proof that the iniquity of Zion has met with full
recompense. The day of captivity is over, and the
wrath of Yahw& is now ready to pass from his
people to visit the sins of Edom, the most merciless of
its foes. At any rate, even if the fourth acrostic is not
the work of an eye-witness, the poet stands near enough
to the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem to be able to
describe them, and there has been trouble enough
since then to awaken his imaginative faculty. It must
be admitted, however, that through literary remini
scences and an inborn tendency to rhetoric the author
falls short in simplicity and naturalness of description.
It is also certain that corruption of the text has here
and there marred the picture. Happily the faults can
often be cured. Verses if. , for instance, should run
thus,
How is Sheba s gold polluted | the choice gold !
Sacred stones are poured forth | at every street-corner !
The sons of Zion so precious | to be valued with fine gold
How are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, | the handiwork of
the potter !
It is a most beautiful and moving piece of rhetoric. All the
critics misunderstand the first line, and few have done complete
justice to the second. It is not the dimming or the chang
ing of fine gold that is referred to, nor is the first stichus so
overladen as MT represents. It is the desecration of the image
of God in the persons of slaughtered citizens of Zion that calls
forth the ,-|TN ( alas, how ! ) of the elegy. (For at every
street-corner cp 219, and the interpolated passage Is. 51 20.)
Reading NSB for cyi , makes MT s phrase, sacred stones,
secure. 1 In ? . 3 the sea - monsters should probably rather
be jackals."- Verse 5 is in a very bad state ; the beginning of the
cure is due to Budde. Read,
Those that ate the bread of luxury* | perish in the steeets.
1 Budde proposes ) 33K, precious stones ; cp 7 . 2.
2 Budde prefers sea-monsters, but expresses surprise that
the natural phenomenon referred to should have been known to
the writer. Read n<3p ; the Aramaic ending p- may be put
down to the scribe.
C-ny. On 1 ?, Budde. For /. 2, cp Dt. 28 54 56, Jer. 22 14, and
see Crit. Bib.
2699
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
The delicate, the possessors of halls, | embrace ash-mounds.
Verse 7 gains not less by critical treatment. Her Nazirites
(TVI3) should be her dignitaries ( T:n) ; the absurdities of
the second part of the verse in MT are removed elsewhere (see
SAI I HIKK). Verses it,/, in MT (and therefore also in EV) are
a mass of inconsistencies. It can hardly be doubted that the
true text runs nearly as follows
Her princes wander in the countries, | they stumble in the
lands,
And they are not able to find | for themselves a resting-place.
Away men call unto them away, | away, rest not,
For they find no resting-place, | they may not sojourn any more. 1
The mistakes of MT were caused by the reference to bloodshed
in v. 13, from which, however, TV. 14 f. are quite distinct. The
passage is reminiscent of Jer. 22, Dt. 2865.* On v. 21 see 8.
The fifth chapter, which [in vv. i, 20-22] takes the
form of a prayer, [is not an acrostic, and] does not
, T _ follow the scheme common to the three
O. I ifl.TTI. D _ . . .
foregoing sections. The elegy proper must
begin with the utterance of grief for its own sake. Here
on the contrary the first words are a petition, and the
picture of Israel s woes comes in to support the prayer.
The point of view, too, is changed, and the chapter closes
under the sense of continued wrath. The centre of the
singer s feeling lies no longer in the recollection of the
last days of Jerusalem, but in the long continuance of
a divine indignation which seems to lay a measureless
interval between the present afflicted state of Israel and
those happy days of old which are so fresh in the re
collection of the poet in the first four chapters. The
details, too, are drawn less from one crowning mis
fortune than from a continued state of bondage to the
servants of the foreign tyrant (v. 8), and a continued
series of insults and miseries. And with this goes a
change in the consciousness of sin : " Our fathers have
sinned, and are not ; and we have borne their in
iquities " (v. 7; cp Zech. 1 2-6, and similar complaints
in very late psalms).
The contents of chapter 5 are such that we are com
pelled to enter immediately on the question of its date.
_. . - The author of the poem endeavours, it is
. _ true, to express the feelings of an earlier
Lain. 6.
generation ; he indites a complaint of
the sad lot of those who have not only -survived the
great catastrophe, but also remain on the ancestral soil.
He cannot, however, preserve consistency ; he speaks
partly as if he were one of a people of serfs or day-
labourers in the country-districts especially perhaps in
the wilderness of Judah (see Budde on v. 9) partly as
if some of those for whom he speaks were settled in or
near Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (v. n). Moreover,
he says nothing of the sword of the all-powerful enemy,
which had robbed Judah of the flower of her population ;
less eminent foes are referred to under conventional
terms (of which more presently). This is a matter of
great moment for the critic, who by the help of the
Book of Nehemiah can with reasonable probability
determine the author s age. The important distichs
are vv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, of the first four of which we give
a rendering based on a critically emended text. (The
MT of t . 6 has caused hopeless perplexity. )
6 We have surrendered to the Misrites,
We have become subject to the Ishmaelites.
8 Arabians rule over us,
There is none to deliver out of their hand.
9 We bring in our corn (Upn _?) with peril of our lives
Because of the Arabian of the desert.
10 Our young men and our maidens are sold
Because of the terror of famine.
The terms Misrites (see MI/.RAIM, 2 b~] and Ish
maelites are conventional archaisms, many parallels for
which use are probably to be found in the Psalter (see
_ B M nisnto rne- wi
crE: 1 ? yi-na I KSC iS:v uSi
rjy^it I-VID | mo G"? WIJD mo
m 1 ? ifip v S I yi-np me- V 3
2 In v. 16 Lohr partly sees aright, but unfortunately creates a
doublet. Bickell s general view is better than Budde s or Lohr s.
2700
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
PSALMS[BOOK]), and, so far as Misrites is concerned, in
the fourth elegy (Lam. 421 ; see below, 8). Theenemies
intended are the Edomites who had probably joined in
the Babylonian invasion, and had occupied the southern
part of the old territory of Judah, and perhaps, too, the
Nabataan Arabs, one of whom was the Geshem or
Gashmu of whom Nehemiah speaks l (Neh. 2 19 ; cp 4 7,
the Arabians ). The trouble from these foes (at any rate
from the Edomites) no doubt began early ; but it also
continued very long (see EDOM, 9 ; NEHEMIAH, 3).
Their dangerousness was particularly felt at harvest-
time ; this is indicated in v. 9, of which a welcome illus
tration is furnished by Is. 628 (age of Nehemiah), where
we read
By his right hand has Yahwe sworn | and by his strong arm,
Surely I will no more give thy wheat | to be food for thy foes.
The trouble from insufficient agricultural labour and
from the general economic disturbance doubtless
continued, and it is difficult not to illustrate v. 10
(according to the text rendered above) by the thrilling
account which Nehemiah gives (Neh. 5 1-13) of the
sufferings of the poorer Jews, and of the selling of their
children into slavery. Once more, it is not denied
that there are features in the description in Lam. 5
which suggest an earlier period ; but we cannot shut
our eyes to the accordance of other features with
the circumstances of the Nehemian age. Nehemiah
certainly has not yet come ; mount Zion is still
desolate (v. 18 ; cp Neh. 13), and such central authority
as there is does not interest itself greatly in the
welfare of the Jewish subjects. It is still possible to
speak of Yahwe as forgetting his servants for ever,
and to express, in a subdued tone, the reluctant
admission that it might not be God s will to grant the
prayer for the restoration of Israel as of old,
Unless thou hast utterly rejected us,
(And) art exceedingly wroth against us.
(Lam. 5 22 ; cp RV.)
Still, though the situation of affairs is bad, a deliverer
Nehemiah is at hand. The allusion in v. 126 to
Lev. 1932 (in the Holiness-law) suggests that the writer
is a member of that stricter religious party among the
Jews, which presumably kept up relations with men
like Nehemiah and Ezra, and afterwards did their best
to assist those great men. It does not seem necessary
or natural to suppose with Budde that w. nf. are a
later insertion (see his note) ; Budde s mistake is partly
due to his following the corrupt reading of MT in v. na,
which ought almost certainly to be read thus,
Grey-haired men and honourable ones suffer contempt ; 2
The persons of old men are not honoured.
The points of affinity between Lam. 5 and Job, Psalms,
and 2 and 3 Isaiah also deserve attention. 3
(a) Job. Cp T. 15/7, Job 3031; i>. i6a, Job 19 96. (A)
Psaltns. Cp v. i, Ps. 44 13 [14] 89 50^ [51^] 5 v. 8 (pns, to
deliver ), Ps. 18624; I0 n lSySl, Ps. 11 6 119 53!, but note
that in all these passages 71 is miswritten for ni!?S (Ezek. 7 18,
etc.); v. ii ( Zion, cities of Judah ), Ps. 69 35 [36]; v. 15,
Ps. 30 ii [12]; v. 176, Ps. 67 [8] and (for use of ^n) 6924
23]; v. 13 (7]Wt), Ps. 887 81 4, etc.; v. 19, Ps. 45 6 [7] 102 12 ;
v. 20, Ps. 13 i [2] 74 10 89 46 [47] (O p; ^N, Ps. 21 4 [5], etc.) ;
v. 21, Ps. 803 7 [4 K]. (c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. V. 2 (7|Dn:, sense),
Is. CO 5 ; v. 3 (3N i N-D Din;), Is. 63 16, the Jews no longer bne
Israel ; v. 7 (h^.D), Is. 58411; v. ii ( Zion, cities of
Judah ), Is. 40g; v. 18, Is. 54 10 [9] ; v. 226, Is. 57 16 54 13
[ill
1 In z: gi, however, the writer may also be thinking of 31J?3
"13122 in Jer. 82. It is worth noting that in all probability
Hosea (5 13) calls the king of Mtisur an Arabian (see JAREB).
2 ^H D"133J1 D 3B (cp Lev. 1932).
3 (3 Isaiah = Isaiah, chaps. 56-66.) In the selection of phrase
ological parallels Lohr s very full tables (see below, 13) have
been of the greatest service. A little more criticism on his part
would have made his tables even more useful.
2701
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
When we put all these data together, no earlier date
seems plausible than 470-450 B.C. (i.e. pre-Nehemian).
At the same time, a later date is by no means impossible.
The shadows of evening darkened again, till night fell
amidst the horrors occasioned by the barbarity of
Artaxerxes Ochus (359-338 B.C.). Then, we may be
sure, the fasting for the old calamities assumed a fresh
vitality and intensity. It is at any rate difficult to place
a long interval between Lam. 5 and Lam. 1-4, and
Lam. 2-4 contain some elements which at least permit
a date considerably after Nehemiah.
As it is the poorest of these plaintive compositions, we
may conjecture Lam. 5 to be also the earliest. There
is only one point of contact between Lam. 5 and Lam.
1-4 viz. mv. 3, cp 1 1 and this is of no real significance.
In Lam. 63, the mothers, if the text is right, are the
cities of Judah (Ew. , Lohr) ; more probably, however,
we should read irnJCTN, 1 our citadels. Those high,
strong buildings, where formerly the warriors had held
out so long against the foe, are now, complains the
poet, untenanted and in ruins (cp Lam. 2s), as helpless
and incapable of helping as widows. In Lam. 1 1
Jerusalem itself is compared to a widow.
We next turn to Lam. 4, which, like Lam. 5, seems
to contain an archaising reference to Musri (cp Miz-
RAIM, 2 b), by which the writer means the
8. Date of
Lam. 4.
land adjoining the S. of Palestine occupied
by the Edomites after their displacement
by the Nabataeans. Verse 21 should probably run
1 Rejoice and be glad, O people of Edom, that dwellest
in Missur a ("nsca). Were it not for the archaistic
Missur (Musur), which may point to a later age when
archaisms were fashionable, we might assign v. 21 to
some eye-witness of the great catastrophe ; words quite
as bitter are spoken against Edom by the prophet
Ezekiel (chap. 35).
Another suspicious passage is v. 20 :
The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahwe, | was taken
in their pit, 3
Of whom we said, Under his shadow | we shall live among the
nations.
That the king intended is, not Josiah (so Targ. ), but
Zedekiah, is certain. But a writer so fully in accord
with Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see w. 6 13) as the author
of Lam. 4 would never have written thus, unless he
had been separated from the historical Zedekiah by a
considerable interval of time. Zedekiah, to this writer,
is but a symbol of the Davidic dynasty ; the manifold
sufferings consequent on subjection to foreigners made
even Zedekiah to be regretted. 4 Budde s view of this
passage is hardly correct. The words Under his
shadow we shall live, etc., surely cannot refer to the
hope of a feeble but still respected (?) native royalty
in the mountains of Moab and Ammon. It is in fact
strictly David, not Zedekiah, that the poet means. At
the accession of each Davidic king each restored
David loyal subjects exclaimed, Under his shadow
we shall live among the nations. The strong rhetoric
and the developed art of the poem are equally adverse
to the view that it is the work of one of the Jews left by
Nebuchadrezzar in Jerusalem. How long after Lam. 5
it was written, is uncertain ; see below, 9.
Points of contact between Lam. 4 and other late works, (a)
Job. Terms for gold and precious stones in im. 127; cp Job
28; v. 3 D 35T(Kr.), Job 39 13 (crit. emend.; see OSTRICH) \v. 5.
1 2 S. 20 19 hardly justifies the equation, mother = city.
Zion alone, in the poet s time, could be called mother (cp Ps.
87 5, ). The play on armanoth and almanoth is a very
natural one. Budde would take father and mothers liter
ally ; but father should be fathers and as widows should be
widows to justify this view.
2 PV n?3 not on y ma ces the second part of the limping
verse too long, but also makes the poet guilty of an inaccuracy
(see Uz).
3 Seinecke gives the right explanation (GVI 230). SS,
however, explains anointed of Yahwe as a phrase for the pious
kernel of the Jewish people.
< Read cnwa (see Budde).
2702
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
( embrace ash-mounds ), Job 248; v. 8a, Job SOjcxz; v. 8&,
|..t, I .iao (crit. emend.). (<*) Psalms. V. -,/>, Ps. IIS;*; v. ia
( the kings of the earth ), Ps. 2 3 76 12 [13], etc.; the inhabitants
of the world, 24 i 338 98;; v. 20 (fTPO), Ps. 1851 288 84ioJ
r. 21 (entr with no:?), Ps. 40 16(17] "04(5]; w. ai/ (Edom),
17 ?/ (Che. / i.l 2 )). (c) 2 /rarYtA. I . 2, Is. 51 20 (?). The
phrase in Is. is an interpolation (Bu., Che.), (if) Deuteronomy
(late parts). I . 8 (133), Dt. 32 27 ; v. 9 ("if ni3B), Dt. 82 13 ;
v. 16 (Jjn and C 33 N^ 3), Dt. 2850; r. 17 ( our eyes failed . . . ),
Dt. 28 32 ; v. 19 (eagles), Dt. 28 49. (e) Ezekicl. V. 8 (dry tree),
Ezek. 1724 2047; v. ii (nan rta), Ezek. 5 13 6 12 13 15;
f . 18 ([*> N2), Ezek. 726.
Lam. 2 and 4 are rightly regarded by Noldeke and
Budde as twin poems. They agree in poetical structure ;
_. . both too are highly dramatic. Both
9. Date Of S p ea k O f tne strange reverses suffered by
Lam. 2. {he j eac j ers O f tne s tate ; both, with much
pathos, of the fate of young children. The reference
to the law (tirdh) in v. 9 stamps the writer as a
legalist ; the idealisation of Jerusalem in v. \$b would
incline us to make the poem nearly contemporary with
Ps. 48, or even later than that poem, if Ps. 483, pre
supposed in Lam. 2, is corrupt. The reference to
solemn feasts and sabbaths in 26 is as imaginary as
the supposed reference to the resounding cries of the
worshippers in the temple in 2?. The same date must
of course be given to both the twin poems. They
probably belong to the same age as the many per
secution psalms in Ps. 1-72 * .*., to the latter part of
the Persian period (see, however, PSALMS [BOOK]).
Phraseological parallels. 1 (a) Psalms. I , i God s footstool
in Zion), Ps. 99 5 132 7 ; v. 2 (apy niK:), Ps. 232 65 13,
etc.; (j -iK 1 ? SVn). Ps. 89 4 of (cp above, 3); v. 3 (pp y-|j),
Ps. 75 10 [ i i];z. 6 (corrected), Ps. 74 6 (corrected); . 7(rut), Ps.
432 449(10], etc.; w. ii 1219 (t]ay), Ps. 61 2 [3] 773(4] etc.;
v. 16 (\V J3TJ), Ps. 35 16 37 12 112 10 ; . 19 (]3 Kt), Ps. 63 4 [5] ;
119 48 (.TV017N), Ps. 63 6 [7] 00 4 119 148 ; Ps. 62 gt (3 1 ? TJSr).
(6) 2 Isaiah. V. 13 (TO? and iTO>n), Is. 46 5.
(c) Deuteronomy (late T parts). V. 3 (] THS), Dt. 29 23 ;
i . 4 ( n ?"5 ^i of God), Dt. 32 23 ; v. 6 ({ , of God), Dt. 32 19.
(a) Ezekiel. I v. 2 17 21 (S?n K 1 ?), Ezek.5n 7 4 9 8189510;
7/. 2 (D^ri and J^K 1 ? JT3H), Ezek. 13 14 ; 7 . 8 ( s 3N,Hiphil),Ezek.
31 5 I V^K li however, is not strong enough ; read yS3 l ( se e
above, 3); v. 10 (IBV flty.l), Ezek. 27 30; (C pC i:n), Ezek.
7 18 2731; r. 14 (N]C* nm), Ezek. 186923 21 34 (with ij?, as
here) 2228; 7 . 14 (^.rj 1 ). Ezek. 13 10 n 14 15, and especially
2228 ; 7 . 15 ( B n? ??) Ezek. 16 14 28 12, and often ; w. is/-
(p?r), Ezek. 27 36.
Lam. 1, Budde fully admits, can hardly be the work
of an eye-witness of the fall of Jerusalem. That it is
much later in origin than Lam. 2 and
4 seems an unnecessary inference. 2 Here,
again, the parallels are very important.
Parallels, (a) Job. V. 20, Job 30 27 (sense).
(b) Psalms. I . 3 (0"1S?), Ps. 118 5 (sing.) 116 3 (plur.) ; v. 6,
Ps. 42 i [2], cp Job 19 22 and (crit. emend.) 28. The pursued
hart is a favourite image for the pious community or individual
in time of trouble ; v. 7 (^ "lliy pK), Ps. 30 io[n] 54 4 [6] 72 12 ;
r. g(Sy S^::T) (but read J ySri), Ps. 35 2688 i6[i7]55 12(13]; t>. 10
(Snp), Ps. 22 25 [26] 35 18 40 10 896 107 32 149 i (used in the post-
exilic religious sense; see ASSEMBLY); 7>7 . n f. (C3J with
HK1), Ps. 22 17(18] 80 14 [15] 1424(5]; w. 12 18 (3iK3D), Ps. 32 10
88^7(18] 69 26(27]; v. 13 (D nsS), Ps.l8i 7l etc.
(c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I v. 4512 (.IJin), Is. 51 23 ; cp Job 19 2 ;
w. 7 10 ii (D TOTO), Is. 64 n [io];V 9 (fnnrw npt), Is. 47? ;
v. 10 (acnpa *D2, so read for 1N3 [Gra.]), cp Is. 64 ii [to] ; v. 15
Gl3 Till), Is.63i^;cpjoel 3[4]i 3 ; w. 1017(1; CH9), Is. 662;
Cp 25 i\ (very late) Ps. 1436.
1 Let another expression of thanks here be given to Lcihr for
hi- useful labours.
2 Robertson Smith inclined to Ewald s view that the y stanza
originally preceded the j stanza ; Budde is of an opposite
opinion.
2703
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
10. Date of
Lam. 1.
(if) Deuteronomy (late parts). V. 5 (rXI 1 ? ;vn), Dt. 28 1344;
v. 20 (jraa-pnp), 01.3225.
(e) Ezekiel. Vv. 2 19 (3HK, in figurative sense), Ezek. 16
3336/ 285922; v. 6 (ny-)C), Ezek. 34 14 (fa s) 18 (6is); w.
8 17 (.-TO, .TT3), Ezek. 7 ig/
The date of Lam. 3, relatively to Lam. 1 2 and 4, is
very easily fixed. It shows a further development of
f l le art f acrostic poetry which reminds
11. Date 01 us of j, g 119 and its superabundant
Lam. 3. i, terar y reminiscences place it on a level
with the poorest of the canonical psalms. That, like
some at least of those psalms, it is pervaded by a deep
and tender religious feeling, may be most heartily ad
mitted. Budde (p. 77) is probably right in assigning
Lam. 3 to the pre-Maccabitan portion of the Greek
age.
Parallels, (a) Job. Vv. 79, Job 19s; n. 8, Job 19 7; vi>.
I2/:, Job 7 20 (for Kb-D read mac) 16 is/; v. 14, Job 30g (cp
Ps.69i2[i3]; but in all three passages nrjp, stringed music, and
in Lam. 863 -"" J3C 1 should be ?l3 3t>, a mock ); v. 15 (cp v.
19). 2 Job 9 18 ; v. 176, Job 7 7* : w. 3046, Job 16 10.
(6) Psalms. V. 46, Ps.8420 [21] 51 8 [10] ; v. 6 (D 3riD),
Ps. 74 20 8S6[ 7 ] 143 3 ; (cViy TO) Ps. 143 3;v.8 (y\V), Ps. 88 14
/; 7 . 17 (), Ps.88i 4 Iis]; v. 20 (rw>, p s . 4425 (26]; cp
4257; t . 22 ( non), Ps. 89 i [2] 10743; vv- 23 (after D*1B3^
insert vpni) 3 3*? < Ps. 51 ^ 13^1 P- s - * 5 (26] ; 7 . 24, Ps. 165
7326 119 57 142 5 [6]; v. 25, Ps. 37 ?a 119 71; v. 31, Ps. 94 14 ; r.
33 (!TK ), Ps. 4 2 (3] 492(3] 62 9(10]; v. 37, Ps.33 9 ; v. 41
C]3 Kt 3), Ps. 63 4 [5] 119 48 ; v. 46 (ns nsB), Ps. 22 13 [14] 35 21 ;
7 . 48a, T Ps. 119 136 ; v. 49 O.a?), Ps. 77 2 [3] ; v. 50, Ps. 14 2, etc. ;
v. 52 ( like a bird ), Ps. 11 1 [2], if the text is sound ; (C3H 3 k)
Ps. 35 19 09 4 [5] ( n Nib) ; v. 53, Ps. 103 4 (inss, so point) Ps.
88 16 [17] 119 139; v. 54, Ps. 427(8] 69 */.; 7^.55, Ps. 886(7]; v.
57 (-mpK DV), Ps. 56 9 [10], etc. ; v. 58, Ps. 119 154 ; v . 62 Qvari),
Ps. 19 14 [15] ; v. 64 (SlC? 3 n), Ps- 28 4.
(c) 2 and 3 Isaiah. I . 21 (3*7 W 3 !?K), Is. 44 19 468 (Dt.
*39)t I 7 . 26 (DCH), Is. 47 5 ; T/. 30*1, Is. 50 6 ; v. 32 (vnon 3^3),
Is. 03 7 (Ps. 106 T 45 ).
It is true that, according to a tradition only recently
called in question, the author of Lamentations is the
. prophet Jeremiah (cp Bdbd bathrd,
12. Traditional ^ A picturesque notice prefixed
autnorsnip. to @ , s version says that> . after Israel
was taken captive and Jerusalem laid waste, Jeremiah
sat down and wept, and sang this elegy over Jerusalem,
and the introduction of the Book in the Targum runs,
1 Jeremiah the prophet and chief priest said thus.
There is also a passage in the Hebrew canon itself
which was anciently interpre ed as connecting the name
of Jeremiah with our book. In 2(Jh. 8625 we read,
And Jeremiah composed an elegy upon Josiah, and
all the singing men and singing women uttered a
lamentation over Josiah unto this day ; and they made
it (i.e., the singing of such elegies) a stated usage in
Israel ; behold it is written in the Lamentations ; see
JEREMIAH ii. , 3(1). Josephus says 4 that the dirge
of Jeremiah on this occasion was extant in his days
(Ant. x. 5i), and no doubt means by this the canonical
Lamentations. Jerome on Zech. 12 n understands the
passage in Chronicles in the same sense ; but modern
writers have generally assumed that, as our book was
certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem, the dirges
referred to in Chronicles must be a separate collection.
This, however, is far from clear. The rnj p of the
Chronicler had, according to his statement, acquired a
fixed and statutory place in Israel, and were connected
with the name of a prophet. In other words, they
were canonical as far as any book outside the Penta-
1 nrjJS implies no affectation of originality (Bu.); D =< J
(dittography).
2 Read "WO (note the parallelism).
3 vom. if written cm, would easily fall out after mp. Omit
VCrp i 1 " 22. (So partly Bu.)
* This passage of his article in Ency. Brit, is quoted and
endorsed by Robertson Smith in CT/CP) 181, n. 2 ; he refers
to Noldeke, Alttest. Lit. (1868), 144.
2704
LAMENTATIONS (BOOK)
teuch could be so called in that age. It thus seems
highly probable that in the third century B.C. (see
CHRONICLES, 3) the Book of Lamentations was used
liturgically by a guild of singers, and that a portion of
it was ascribed to Jeremiah as its author. Even this
evidence, however, is some three centuries later than
the events referred to in Lamentations. It is also
discredited by its connection with an undoubted error
of interpretation. The reference in Lam. 4 20 to the
last representative of the much-regretted Davidic family
is couched in terms which the Chronicler felt unable to
apply to any king later than Josiah ; Lam. 4 therefore
had to be a dirge on Josiah, and who could have written
such a dirge but Jeremiah ?
Though there is a considerable element in the
vocabulary of Lamentations which can be paralleled
in Jeremiah, there are also many important character
istic words not used by the prophet, and some dis
tinctive Jeremianic ideas are wanting in those poems.
And in spite of a certain psychological plausibility in
the traditional theory (cp Jer. 823 [9i] 13 17 14 17) it
must be admitted that the circumstances and the
general attitude of the prophet make it extremely diffi
cult to conceive his having written these poems. From
Jer. 8828 39 14 it is plain that during the capture of the
city he was not a free man, and could not go about
observing the sad condition of the citizens. Nor was
his attitude towards the Chaldoeans the same as that
implied in the poems, for the poems are the expression
of unavailing but ardent patriotism, whereas Jeremiah
persistently counselled patient submission to the foreign
rule. The sense of guilt, as Budde remarks, is very
imperfectly developed in Lamentations. Here the
blame of the national calamities is thrown on the
prophets and priests ; but Jeremiah s prophecies are
full of stern appeals to the conscience. There are
some passages, too, which in the mouth of Jeremiah
would go directly against facts e.g., 2g and 41720 (see
Lohr, 16). It is at best a very incomplete answer
that in chap. 3, where the singer s complaint may be
thought to take a more personal turn, Jeremiah himself
may be pictured in his isolation from Israel at large.
Indeed, upon a close examination it turns out that
this interpretation rests on a single word in 814 viz.,
By, my people, which, as we have seen, should rather
be D EJf. peoples, so that the singer of chap. 3, as the
general argument of the poem requires, is a representa
tive of Israel among the heathen, not an isolated figure
among unsympathetic countrymen.
It is unnecessary to adduce seriatim the similarities of ex
pression and imagery in Lamentations and the Book of Jeremiah
respectively. It is admitted that the Hook of Jeremiah had an
enormous influence on the subsequent literature, and it would
constitute a perplexing problem if in poems dealing with the
religious aspects of the national troubles there were not numerous
reminiscences of Jeremiah. Driver (fntr.P), 462) has made a
judicious selection of some of the more striking similarities. On
the vocabulary see Lohr, ZA TW\T,T,ff.
The most urgent question is that relating to the text. Here,
as elsewhere, a very natural but no longer justifiable conser
vatism has hindered an adequate treatment
13. Literature, of critical questions. It must also be remem
bered that the date of Lamentations can
be satisfactorily discussed only in connection with the date of
Psalms and Job. The older literature is fully given by Niigels-
bach (p. 17); but recent commentaries, from Ewald s onwards
(if we put aside those in which JEREMIAH \q.v.\ and Lamenta
tions are treated together), are much more important. Ewald
treats the five Lamentations among the Psalms of the Exile
(Dichter, vol. i, pt. 2, ( 2 ) 1866). See also Thenius in KGH , 1855,
who ascribes chaps. 2 and 4 to Jeremiah ; Vaihinger, 1857; Reuss,
La Bible: Poesic Lyriyue, 1879; S. Oettli, in KGH, 1889; M.
Lcihr, 1891, and again in HK, 1893 ; S. Minochi (Rome, 1897) ;
K. Budde, in KHC (Fiinf Megillot), 1898. Recensions of the
text have been given by G. Bickell, Carmina VT metrice,
112-120(1882): andin fKZAW8[i89 4 ] loi^; C. J. Ball, PSBA
9 [1887] \yijf. (metrical; cp Budde, Filvf Meg. , 71, n. i) ; a
translation of a revised text by J. Dyserinck, 7/I.T26 [1892]
339 ; emendations by Houbigant, Notce^ criticte (1777), -477-
483. On the metre see especially Budde, in ZA TW1 [1882] -iff,
12 [1892] 264^ ; cp Preuss. Jahrbb. 1893, 460^ On the literary
criticism see also Th. Noldeke, Die alttest. Liieralur (1868),
142-148; F. Montet, Etude sur le livre de Lam. (1875); Seinecke,
2705
LAMP, LANTERN
GVll (1884) 29 ff.; Stade, GVI (1887) 701, n. i; Steinthal,
Die Klagelieder Jer., in liibel u. Rel.-pliilosophie, 16-33 (1890
Jewish); S. A. Fries, in ZATIVVA (1893) no^T (Lam. 4 5,
Maccabaean works ; Lam. 1-3 probably by Jeremiah) ; M. Lohr,
in ZA TH/ 14 (1894), 51 _^ (an answer to Fries) ; and ib. 31 ff.
(full statistical tables on the vocabulary of Lamentations).
Winckler (A O FP), 8445) refers Lamentations to a partial de-
sttuction of Jerusalem in the time of Sheshbazzar, in which, he
thinks, the temple was not destroyed. See, however, OBAIJIAH.
Among the Introductions Konig s gives perhaps the most dis
tinctive treatment to the critical questions ; but Driver s is fuller.
T. K. c. (with some passages by w. R. s. ).
LAMP, LANTERN. Before we proceed to a con
sideration of the use of artificial light among the early
Hebrews there are eight Hebrew (including Aramaic)
and Greek terms which have to be mentioned.
Passing over such terms as TIN, TINO, ,TYINC, $o>s, tj>ta<j-r^p,
and the like, we have :
1. TJ, tier, sometimes rendered candle in AV (e.g., Job 18 6
21 17 29 3, etc.), and even in RV also (Jer. 25 10,
1. Terms. Zeph. 1 12), for which, as the Amer. Revisers
recognise, lamp is everywhere to be preferred :
so in RV of Job, I.e., and in AV also of Ex. 27 20. Cognate with
tier is :
2. Y3, nir, used only in a figurative sense, AV light in i K.
11 36, 2 K. 8 19, 2 Ch. 21 7 (mg. candle ), but RV lamp (so also
in Prov. 21 4 where AV plowing, mg. light, RVii tf- tillage ;
see the Comm.), and AV also in i K. 15 4. From the same
common root is derived JTTUO, mcndriih^ which, with the single
exception of 2 K. 4 10, is always used of the temple candelabrum
(see CANDLESTICK).
3. TS7, lappld (deriv. uncertain), though rendered lamp in
AV Gen. 15 17 J_obl2 5 (RV also in Dan. 10 6 Is. 62 i), should
rather be torch (as in RV, so already AV in Nah. 2 4 [5], Zech.
12 &) .; it is rendered lightning in Ex. 20 18 EV. On the
apparently cognate nnSs (Nah. 23 [4] AV torches ) see IKON,
2, col. 2174.
4. WJBhaji nebrasta, in Bibl. Aram. Dan. 5 5, EV candle
stick. 2
5. AU^I/OS (in (5 for no. i), candle in AV of Mt. 615 Mk. 4 21
Lk. 8 16, etc., but lights (in pi.) Lk. 12 35 ; RV lamp(s).
6. Au^i/ia (in for menorah, see 2 above), candlestick AV
Mt.5is Mk. 42i Lk. 8 16 11 33 (RV stand ), and EV Heb. 9 2
Rev. 1 12 2 i 5 etc. (in Rev., RVie-, Or. lamp-stands ).
7. Aa^in-as, lamp AV Rev. 4 5 8 10, etc., and EV Mt. 25i-8,
properly torch (so EV in Jn. 18 3, RV in Rev. I.e., and RVmg.
in Mt. I.e.). The word was transferred from the torch to the
later invented lamp. In Judith 1022 mention is made of silver
lamps (A<x)A7ra6es apyupcu).
8. (jta.vo !, Jn. 18 3 1, EV lantern (properly a torch).
The oldest form of artificial light was supplied by
torches of rush, pine, or any other inflammable wood.
_ , . j ,. The origin of the lamp is quite un-
2. Introduction known Classka , trac f ition \ scribed
o amps. j tg mvent j on to trie j j nt e ff or t s O f
Vulcan, Minerva, and Prometheus, whilst Egypt, on the
other hand, claimed the credit for herself. At all events,
according to Schliemann, lamps were unknown in the
Homeric age, and, on the authority of Athenyeus
(15700) were not in common use (in Greece) until the
fourth century B.C. With the Romans, too, the candela
is earlier than the lucerna and the candelabrum, and
was used, even in later times, by the poorer classes
rather than the more expensive lights requiring oil.
The oldest kind of lamp is the shell-shaped clay
vessel consisting of an open circular body with a pro-
_ ,. jecting rim to prevent the oil from
a- being spilled. This variety is found in
Cyprus from the eighth to the fourth century B. c. , s and
many Egyptian specimens, ascribed to the middle of the
second millennium, were found at Tell el-Hesy. 4 These
rude clay vessels have survived in the E. to the present
day. The earliest Greek and Roman lamps (lychni,
lucernes) are almost always of terra-cotta, bronze is
rarer. 8 In Egypt and Palestine, on the other hand,
1 According to Hommel, SiiJ-arab. Chrcst. 128, the related
mrtJD n Hal. 353 = torch.
2 Deriv. quite obscure ; see the Lexx. According to Barth
(ZA 2 117) the n is a nominal prefix.
3 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, 368, fig. 2532, 411 n. ; tab.
210 16.
4 Bliss, Mound of Many Cities (1898), 136, fig. on p. 87.
8 Cesnola, Salaminia (1884), 250^
2706
LAMP, LANTERN
terra-cotta or even porcelain lamps do not seem to occur
before the Roman and Byzantine periods respectively. 1
Another popular variety is the shoe-shaped lamp, sc\. r.il
specimens of which were found by Peters at Nippur,- sometimes
plain, sometimes blue enamelled, and a few in copper. They
appear to be all post-Babylonian. (The older lamps were of a
squarish shape ; the most elaborate specimen was evidently
Seleucidan.) Lamps of this description were used by the early
Christians (cp Diet. Christ. Ant. s. Lamps, gig). 3
Generally speaking, therefore, the lamps of the
Semites and Egyptians contrasted unfavourably with
4 Earlv Jewish tnose ^ ^ rec ^n or Roman manufac-
Lainrjs lure, and we may further conclude
that the Hebrew lamp underwent little
improvement and elaboration previous, at all events, to
the time of the Seleucidre. We may also infer, in
cidentally, that there are no grounds at present (at least)
for supposing that P s temple-candelabrum was marked
by any exceptional beauty even in Samuel s time the
sanctuary was lit only by a tier ( 1, i above).
In spite of the numerous references to the ner in the
OT we have really no indications to guide us to its
shape, and in the light of the evidence above ( 3) we
can only surmise that it approximated to if it was not
identical with the plain shell-shaped clay utensil already
described. As the interesting passage in 2 K. 4 10
proves, a lamp of some kind formed a part of the
furniture of every room, and the exceptional use of
mlnordh suggests that already it was customary to set
the lamp upon an elevated stand. This we know was
done in NT times. At all events we must not suppose
that a candelabrum of the typical classical shape is
intended in this pre-exilic reference. The more usual
practice was to set the lamp upon a niche in the wall.
As the term ///MA, njJC 3, shows, the wick was commonly of
FLAX [g.v.]. Whether, as in Egypt (cp Herod. 262), the oil
was mixed with salt (to purify the flame) is unknown ; see OIL.
The Oriental prefers to keep a light burning through
out the night * a custom not wholly due to fear of
5. Beliefs and darkness -d Kitto (Bibl. CycL.s.v.}
metaphors su SS ests that thls Practice gives point
to the familiar w/fcr-darkness of the
NT. The contrast implied in the term outer refers to
1 the effect produced by sudden expulsion into the
darkness of night from a chamber highly illuminated
for an entertainment. Probably the custom originated
in the widespread belief which associates and sometimes
even identifies light and life.
So, the extinguishing of light is the cessation of life, Prov.
SOzo, cp Prov. 13g 2420 Job 18 6 21 17 29 3. Similar is the use
of nir ( 1, 2 above), and the metaphor quench the coal in 2 S.
14 7 (CoAL, 4). The light may typify the life of the individual,
of the clan, or of the nation. In 2 S. 21 17 where David is the
lamp of Israel, we may perhaps see in the people s anxiety to
safeguard his person a trace of the primitive taboo of kings. 5
Again we find the widespread custom of the ever-burning sacred
hearth or lamp (cp CANDLESTICK), on which see N APHTHAK and
cp Paus. i. 2b6f., viii. 589, and Class. Diet., s.v. Prytaneum.
On the association of the deity with flame, see FIRE.
Finally may be mentioned the Lydian custom (Paus. vii. 22 2) of
lighting the sacred lamp before the image of Hermes in the
market-place of Phara; before approaching it for oracular
purposes. This may, conceivably, illustrate i S. 83 where the
point is emphasised that the lamp has not gone out. Did the
writer believe that there would have been no oracle had the
light been extinguished? 7
From primitive cult to established custom is an
1 Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii^; Clermont-Ganneau, Archaro-
logical Researches, 1 it>jf., 486 f.
I Nippur,1-$&f., cp pi. v., no. 10.
3 Whether glass lamps were used in Egypt must be considered
problematical, see Wilk. Anc. Kg. 8424 (fig. 620).
4 Doughty found paper-lanterns thus used among the Bedouins
(A r. Des. 1 8 72).
6 Cp the care taken of the sacred torch-bearer among the
Greeks (see Kawlinson on Herod. 85).
So the Yezidis light lamps at sacred springs (Parry, Six
ntttnt/is in a Syrian monastery, 363).
7 As it stands the passage is difficult. It is ordinarily sup
posed to indicate that it was still night-time (in v. 15 read: he
rose u/> early in the morning ). Are we to suppose, therefore,
that the ner only burned for a few hours (note that ^33 is
intransitive)? This would be opposed not only to P, but also to
universal custom.
2707
LAODICEA
easy step. On the lighting of torches and lamps on
c T am no in t le occas on of marriage festivities see
FeSSs MARRIAGK.I Whether, as Bliss has
conjectured, 2 lamps ever played a part
in foundation-ceremonies, cannot at present be proved.
The burning of lamps before the dead is too widely
known to need more than a passing mention ; see,
further, MOURNING CUSTOMS. On lamps in Jewish
festivals see DEDICATION, FEAST OF, col. 1054, and
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. s. A. c.
LAMPS ACUS, i Mace. 15 23 EV m e- (after Vg. LAMP-
SACUS) ; EV SAMPSAMES (y.v.).
LANCE. For }VT3, kldon, Jer. 5042 AV, RV spear,
see JAVELIN, 5, WEAPONS. For npn, rdmah, i K. 1828 RV, AV
lancet, see SPEAR, WEAPONS.
LAND -CROCODILE (PI3), Lev. 1130, RV, AV
CHAMELEON, (q.v. , i).
LANDMARK (^3|), Dt. 19 14, etc. See AGRICUL
TURE, 5.
LAND TENURE. See LAW AND JUSTICE ( 15,
18).
LANTERN (d>A.NOc). Jn.l8 3 f. See LAMP.
LAODICEA (AAoAlKlA [Ti.WH] from N every
where; in TR everywhere A&oAiKeiA.. which is cer
tainly the correct Gk. form [Authors and inscrr. ]. B
has AAOAlKlA in Col. 2i Rev. 1 n 814 ; but AAOAiKeiA
in Col. 4131516. Latin, Laodicea ; but also Laodicia
and other wrong forms are found. The ethnic is A&O-
AiKeyc [Lat. Laodicensis], Laodicean, Col. 4i6 [cp
Coins]). The NT passages indicate the position of
Laodiceia 3 as ( i ) in the Roman province of Asia, and
(2) in close proximity to Colossce and Hierapolis. A
coin represents the city as a woman wearing a turreted
crown, sitting between (ppYriA and KARIA. which are
figured as standing females. This agrees with the
ancient authorities, who are at variance whether Lao
diceia belongs to Caria or to Phrygia. 4 It was in fact
close to the frontier, on the S. bank of the Lycus, 6 m.
S. of Hierapolis and about 10 m. W. of Colossas (Col. 4
1316). In order to distinguish it from other towns of
the same name, it was called AaodiKfia i] 7r/>6s (or twi)
T$ Ai /cp (Laodicea ad Lycum, Strabo, 578).
Laodiceia probably owed its foundation to Antiochus
II. (261-246 B.C.), and its name to his wife Laodice.
The foundations of the Greek kings in Asia Minor were
intended as centres of Hellenic civilisation and of
foreign domination. Ease of access and commercial
convenience were sought, rather than merely military
strength. Hence they were generally placed on rising
ground at the edge of the plains (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr.
of AM, 85). Such is the situation of Laodiceia,
backed by the range of Mt. Salbacus (Baba Dagk) and,
to the SE. , Mt. Cadmus (Khonas Dagh}. Being a
Seleucid foundation, Laodiceia contained a Jewish
element in its population, either due to the founder or
imported by Antiochus the Great about 200 B.C. (Jos.
Ant. xii. 34>. 5 In 62 B.C. Flaccus. the governor of
Asia, seized twenty pounds of gold which had been
collected at Laodiceia, as the centre of a district, 6 by
the Jews for transmission to Jerusalem (Cic. Pro Flacco,
68 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 20, a letter addressed by the
Laodicean magistrates to Gaius Rabirius in 48 or 45 B.C. ,
guaranteeing religious freedom for the Jewish colony).
1 Also a classical custom. Probably the flame was originally
regarded as a vivifying and fertilising agent ; cp especially
Frazer, C.olden Bought, 8303. One remembers that Hymen is
figured with a torch.
2 Op. cit. 84.
1 fAt least six cities of this name were founded or renovated in
the later Hellenic period. Cp LYCAONIA.]
* Carian, Ptol. and Steph. Byz. s.r: Antiocheia ; Phrygian,
Polyb. 5 57, Strabo, 576.
8 [Cp Willrich, Juden u. Griechtn, 41 f. , who denies the
genuineness of the document.]
8 Cp Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 2667.
2708
LAODICEA
The prosperity of Laodiceia began _only with the^ Roman
period (Str. 578, /uuicpa Trporepoi/ overa avfqo-ii^cAa/Sci/ e<f> T>UUII>
Kai Ta)f rjfj.fTfpu)! varfpiav, which sums up the first century B.C.).
Strabo traces the growth of the city to its excellent territory and
its fine breed of sheep ; but the real secret lay in its situation at
a knot in the imperial road -system (cp Pol. 657). At
Laodiceia the great eastern highway met three other roads :
(i) from the SE., from Attnleia and Perga ; (2) from the NW.,
the important road from Sardis and Philadelpheia ; (3) from the
NE., from Dorylaeum and northern Phrygia. The city was thus
marked out as a commercial and administrative centre. It was the
meeting-place of the Cibyratic conventus, and a banking-centre
(Cicero proposes to cash there his treasury bills of exchange Ad
Ji ai. 3 5, pecunia quie ex publica permutatione debetur. Cp
id. Ad Att.5is). To this financial side of the city s repute
refers Rev. 3 18 ( I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the
fire ). Laodiceia also became great as a manufacturing town.
The fine glossy black native wool (of the colour called <copafrjs,
Str. 578) was made into garments of various shapes and names,
and into carpets. 1 A reference to this trade is found in Rev. 3 18
( I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white raiment [i/uana Aeuica
not the dark garments of native manufacture]). The town
thus rapidly grew rich. Although it was passed over in 26 A.D.
as not sufficiently important to be selected as the site of a
temple to Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 455), it needed no help from
the imperial exchequer in order to repair the havoc wrought by
the great earthquake 2 of 60 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 1^27, propriis
opibus rmaluit). Hence the boast in Rev. 3 17 ( I am rich,
and increased with goods, and have need of nothing ).
Asklepios (/Esculapius) enjoyed great honour at
Laodiceia. He is there the Grecised form of the native
deity, Men Karos, whose temple was at Attouda, some
12 m. to the West (cp NEOCOROS). It was connected
with a great school of medicine. That Laodiceia
identified itself with this worship is clear from its coins,
which under Augustus have the staff of Asklepios en
circled by serpents, with the legend ZeDts or ZeDiS
4>iAa\i;0T7S : Zeuxis and Alexander Philalethes were two
directors of the school. The expression in Rev. 3i8
( eye-salve to anoint thine eyes with, that thou mayest
see 1 RV) refers to the Phrygian powder (retftpa. <bpvyia)
used to cure weak eyes. We may infer that this was made
at Laodiceia, and that the Laodicean physicians were
skilful oculists. Thus the three epithets poor and blind
and naked in Rev. 3 17, are carefully selected with refer
ence to three conspicuous features in the life of the city.
Of the history of Christianity in Laodiceia little is
known. From Col. 2i ( /or them at Laodicea, and for
as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ), it is
clear that at the time of writing Paul was not personally
known to the bulk of the converts at Laodiceia. This
inference is by no means irreconcilable with Acts 19 1
[on the expression TO. dvurepiKo. fJ-fpT], the upper coasts
AV, the upper country RV, see GALATIA, 7, col.
1596, and PHRYGIA, 4]. The foundation of the Laodi
cean church must be traced to Paul s activity in Ephesus
(Acts 18 19 19 10, so that all they which dwelt in Asia
heard the word ). The actual founder of the church
would appear to have been Epaphras (Col. 17 4i2/. ).
From Col. 4 16 we gather that Paul wrote also to
Laodiceia when he wrote to Colossoe ; but the Laodicean
epistle is lost unless we accept the view that it is the
extant Epistle to the Ephesians (cp COLOSSI ANS, 14).
The epistle, extant in Latin, entitled Epistola ad
Laodicenses, is a forgery. 3 The subscription to i Tim.
The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea
AV is also false.
The site of Laodiceia (mod. Eski-Hissar, the Old
Castle ) is now quite deserted; the ruins are many
but not striking. The old city has served as a quarry
for Denizli, a large Turkish town at the foot of the
Baba Dagh, about 6 m. to the southward.
Ramsay, in his Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, \ 32 jff.
34I./I 2512 542^, etc., gives nearly all that is known of
Laodiceia and the Lycus valley generally,
Literature, with map of Laodiceia. Map of the Lycus
valley in his Church in the Rom. Einp.ip), 472.
See also Anderson, in/aurn. of Hellenic Studies, 1897, pp. 404^,
and Weber, Jahrb. des arch. Instituts, 1898. w. J. W.
2709
LASEA
LAPIDOTH, RV LAPPIDOTH (niTS 1 ?, as if
i
torches or [cp D^TS?, Ex. 20 18] lightning flashes ;
AA(J>[e]iAo>6 [BAL]), husband of DEBORAH (Judg. 44).
There is reason, however, to suspect that both Deborah
and Lappidoth may be corruptions, the former of
the name of the centre of the clan of Saul ( Ephrath i. e. ,
Jerahmeel ; see SAUL, i), the latter of PALTIEL, the
origin of which was of course unknown when the
Deborah legend was elaborated. The narratives in
Judg. 4 and Josh. 11, and the song in Judg. 5, have in
fact most probably undergone considerable transforma
tion. See SHIMRON-MERON, SISERA. T. K. c.
LAPIS LAZULI (Rev. 21 19 RV m e-), the name by
which a well-known blue mineral (mainly silicate of
aluminium, calcium, and sodium), the source of ultra
marine, has since the Arabian period been designated ; 1
it is now brought chiefly from SW. Siberia, through
Persia and Turkestan. To the Greeks it was known as
ffdirfaipos, to the Hebrews as vsp, sappir (see SAP
PHIRE), to the Assyrians and Babylonians (most prob
ably) as the ukmi-slor\e, to the Egyptians as the hspd.
It was prized alike for personal ornaments and for archi
tectural decoration. A large number of Egyptian objects
of luxury made from it have been preserved ; various
Assyrian seal-cylinders, inscribed tablets, and the like,
in lapis lazuli, are also known (1450 B.C. onwards).
Rurnaburias of Babylonia sends to Naphuria of Egypt
(i.e., Amenhotep IV.) two minas of ?//?7-stone and a
necklace of 1048 gems and uknu-siones. There is
frequent mention of uknii in the Statistical Table
of Thotmes III. (KPI^ff.}, and Rameses III. is so
rich in uknu that he can offer pyramids of it in his
temple at Medinet Habu. It was one of the seven
stones placed as amulets and ornaments on the breast
of the Babylonian kings, and was used to overlay the
highest parts of buildings. It is sometimes called
ukne-sade (uknu of the mountains), and Esarhaddon
specially mentions the mountains of Media and the
neighbouring regions as sources of the ~uknii. The
inscriptions at ed-Deir el-Bahri speak of it as brought
from the land of Punt.
See Am. Tab. 84042 15 n ; KBZbvo; Del. Ass. HWB,
s.v. uknii ; Wi. AOF\ 150160 271 ; \VMM, As. u. Eur. 278;
OLZ, Feb. 1899. p. 39 ; Peters, Nippur, 2 132 143 195 210 240.
LAPWING (nQ 3-n), Lev. 11 19 Dt. 14i8 AV, RV
HOOPOE (q.v. ).
LASEA (Acts 278, rroAic AAC<MA [AACEA WH,
after B]: noAlC &A&CC& [A], AACC<M& [N*]. A&ICC<\
[N c ], A<\CIA [minusc. ap. Ti.] ; Vg. THALASSA [tol
TH A LA ssi A ; codd. ap. Lachm. THASLASSA, or THAS-
SALA~\}. From Acts we learn that it was near (tyyvs)
Fair Havens, and the configuration of the coast there
abouts restricts us to the N. or the E. There was prob
ably frequent communication between the town and
Paul s ship, which lay for much time at FAIR HAVENS
(q. v. }. The ruins of Lasea were discovered, apparently,
by Captain Spratt, in 1853. They were first examined
and described by the Rev. G. Brown in 1856. The site
lies about a mile NE. of Cape Leoit(d}a (=A^ovra), a
promontory resembling a lion couchant, 4 or 5 m. E.
of Fair Havens. According to Mr. Brown, the peas
ants still call the place Lasea. This position agrees
with that given to a place called Lisia, which in the
Peuti tiger Tables is stated to be 16 m. from Gortyna
(see Hoeck, Kreta\t,\i, but cp Winer 81 , 5, n. 55).
The- true name, according to Bursian (GVftor. 2567), is
Alassa, and the place is identical with the AXai of the
Stadiasmus AJed. 322, and the Alos or Lasos of Pliny
(//AM 12) ; but Bursian is in error in identifying the
remains near Cape Leonda as those of Leben, one of
the ports of Gortyna (Strabo 478), and in putting Lasea
on the islet now called Traphos which lies close to the
coast a little to the NE. of Fair Havens.
1 Laziward,o{PeTS. origin, whence also our azure
2710
LASHA
See James Smith, Voyage and SkifWKk of St. Paul, 4th ed.,
83, 268 f. with map ; Falkener in Jlfus. of Class. Ant. 1852, Sept.
p. 287. For coins with legend WaAao-aewv, cp Head, Hist.
Mum. 386. W. J. W.
LASHA (I -y, pausal form ; AACA [EL] ; AACA
[A ), or rather Lesha, a frontier city of Canaan (i.e., on
the W. side of the Jordan), Gen. 10 igf. Jerome (Qucest.
in lib. Gen. ) and the Targum identify it with Callirrhoe,
a. place famous for its hot springs, near the W&dy Zerka
Main, on the E. side of the Dead Sea (see Seetzen s
account in Ritter, Erdkunde, 15 575^)- The situation
of Callirrhoe, however, is unsuitable. Halevy proposes
to read jit? 1 ?, lASon, which is used in Josh. 152 of the
southern end of the Dead Sea (Recherches bibliques, 8 164) ;
but the article would in this case be indispensable. Sey-
bold ( ZA T \\ , 1896, p. 3 18/:) actually identifies Lesha
with Zoar (also called Bela), which, as the southern point
of the Fentapolis, seems to him to be naturally expected
in such a context. Wellhausen (CH 15) maintains that
we should read cc>S, Lesham the letters j; and D have
a close resemblance in their Palmyrene form. In this
case, the border of the Canaanites is given thus from
Sidon to Gaza, from Gaza to the Dead Sea, and from
the Dead Sea to Lesham i.e., Dan (cp LESHEM).
Most probably, however, the original text referred to
the Kenites or Kennizzites (not to the Canaanites), and
the border was drawn from Missur (not Zidon ) to
Gerar and Gaza (?), and in the direction of Sodom and
Gomorrah as far as Eshcol (?) i.e., perhaps Halusah.
. T. K. C.
LASHARON, RV Lassharon (|iTJ ; 7; THC Apu>K (?)
[B], om. A, AeCApUJN [L]), a royal city of Canaan,
mentioned with Aphek, Josh. 12 18 (EV). ^?D, king
(of), before p"VJv is, however, probably an interpola
tion ; it is not represented in (55. Thus the true sense
will be, the king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon
(see APHEK). Those who retain the MT suggest that
Lasharon may be the modern Sarona [SW. of Tiberias.
Kautzsch, HS, renders MT the king of Sharon.
Observe, however (i) that jntrS iVa should mean gram
matically one of the kings of Sharon (see Ges. -Kau.
129 c}, and (2) that Sarona, as a place-name, is
probably a late echo of the older name of a district
(see SHARON, 2). <S in Josh. 129-24, gives twenty-nine
kings, MT thirty -one. It is more likely that the
original writer made thirty.] w. R. s.
LASTHENES (AAc6eN[e]i dat. [ANY], - H c [Jos.]),
the minister of Demetrius II. Nicator (see DEMETRIUS,
2), who was ordered to lighten the fiscal burdens of the
Jews. A copy of the order was also forwarded to
Jonathan the Maccabee (see MACCABEES i., 5), and
appears in i Mace. 1130^ in a form closely akin to that
in Josephus Ant. xiii. 4g[ I26-I3O]). 1 From Josephus
(Ant. xiii. 4s) it would seem that Lasthenes was a Cretan
who had raised a number of mercenaries (cp CRETE, col.
955) w tn which Demetrius had been able to commence
his conquest of Syria. The honorific titles bestowed
upon him in i Mace. 11 31 f. (a\.<yyfvris, irar-^p ; see
CoirsiN, FATHER) testify to his high position, which
(compare 10 69 74*2) may have been that of governor of
Coelesyria, or grand vizier of the kingdom (cp Camb.
Bib. ad loc. ). Later, when quietness had been gained,
the whole of the army of Demetrius was disbanded
(probably at the instigation of Lasthenes) with the
exception of the foreign forces from the isles of the
gentiles (11 38),* a circumstance which gave rise to
widespread dissatisfaction ; see, further, ANTIOCHUS 4 ;
TRYPHON.
1 The most noteworthy differences are (a) v. 37, tv opti r<3
oyi u) as compared with the pieferable TOV ayiov ifpoO [Jos. 128]
opft apparently a cortuplion of tcpu, and (6) v. 38, at 5vya /uei?
ai oirb rStv iraripiav as against aTpaTio>Tu)f [Jos. 8 130] the
reading of Mace, being apparently a doublet with vn!3N read
for vmMax ( as m 10 7 J t see MACCABEES^ FIRST, 3 end]).
2 Jos. 129, no doubt correctly, oi . . ix Kprjnjs.
2711
LATTICE
LATCHET HIT , Is. 5 27 ; IMAC, Mk. 1 7 etc. ). See
SHOES.
LATIN (POOMAICTI) Jn. 19 ^o. See ROMAN EMPIRE.
LATTICE. Although the manufacture and use of
glass (more particularly for ornamental purposes) was
,
,
2. Hebrew
known to the civilisations of the East from
S6
, the earliest times (see GLASS, i), we are
without evidence of the employment of
glass-panes in the construction of windows. Indeed, no
openings such as windows were at any time common
a fact which finds sufficient explanation in climatic con
siderations. In Assyria and Babylonia, to avoid open
ings of any kind in the outer walls, the ancient architects
used doorways reaching to ten or more feet in height,
which were intended to light and ventilate the rooms as
well as to facilitate the movements of their inhabitants
(Place, Ninive, 1313, see Per. -Chip. , Art in Chald.
\i&f>ff.}. In Egypt, again, the openings were small
but admitted of being closed with folding valves,
secured . . . with a bolt or bar, and ornamented with
carved panels or coloured devices ( Wilk. Anc. Eg. \ 363,
cp illustr. p. 362, fig. 132). Of the construction of the
house among the ancient Hebrews we know but little
(see HOUSE) ; the etymology, however, of some of the
terms employed for certain parts l suggests constructions
of lattice work, such as have happily not yet disappeared. 2
At the present day the windows looking out tosvards
the street are small, closely barred, and at a consider
able height from the ground. In the olden times
these windows seem to have looked over the street,
and in the case of houses built upon the city- wall
offered an easy escape into the surrounding country (cp
Josh. 2 15 2 Mace. 819). Cp HOUSE, 2.
The OT words correctly rendered in EV lattice or window*
are four, to which TTTiS, mehcziih (EV light
i.e., light-openine, window) in i K. ~ i, f.
names. lnav be added. Of three other words (nos. 5-7)
AY mistakes the meaning.
(1) TV2.^X t ariMdh (cp Ar. arata, to tie [a knot] ), EV
windowj used of the latticed openings of a dove-cote (Is. 60s
r[e]oo[<r]os [BHA. etc.]), of the sluices of the sky (Gen. 7 n, etc.
Ka.TappaK.Tris [in Is. 24 18 Svpi s]), and metaphorically of the eyes
(Eccl. 12 3 OTTJJ). On Hos. 13 3 (ica7ri<o6ox>) [AO.*] ; Saxpvuf [B]
comes from axptSuv [Compl.] i.e., n3"]K ; EV chimney ), see
COAL, S 3.
(2) jiWl, hallon, Ovpi s, EV window, Gen. 26 8 Josh. 2 15
Judg. 528 Jer. 22 14 (where read vjiSn with Mich., Hi., etc.),
not necessarily a mete opening (SSrii to bore, perforate), since
2 K. 13 17 shows that it could be opened and shut, but probably
an opening provided with a movable covering of lattice-work
(cp 3:c i X ) 3 lattice, Judg. 5 28* Pr. V 6 [where AV casement ]).
3lSn m i K. 64 is very probably the bet hilltini, place of
openings 01 fortified poitico, an architectural expression used
by Sargon (Khars, idif., cp A j9248) as a W. Palestinian term
for tit tifpilti (see FORTKF.SS, col. 1557, and references in Muss-
Am., Ass. HWB s. v. xilant). In i K. I.e., n 3 seems to be
identical with or possibly a portion of the D/1N in v. 3.
(3) D inn (pi.), hdrakkim, Ct. 2 9, cp N3in in Tgg. for pWl.
(4) J ?3 (pi.), kawwln, Dan. 6 10 [u], Aramaic.
To these AV adds
(s) Dfe CC* (pi-), s f Miisi>tA, Is. 54 is; but see BATTLEMENT,
FORTRESS, col. 1557 . i.
(6) rjgs?, sekeph, i K. V 5 (cp C EpS 64*5), a. difficult word
which seems rather to denote a cross-beam (RVnijr. with
beams ) ; and
(7) -Hi, sohar, Gen. 6 t6 (in P s description of the ark). AV
may be nearly right though, in spite of the support given to the
rendering opening for light by Tg., Pesh., Vulg., etc., many
scholars now render roof e.g., RVnig., Budde, and Ball;
Ges.-Buhl and others who compare Ar. zahr. Ass. seru (in Am.
1 "IJ3i; , lattice, i K. 1 2, IICTV<OIO [15L], SLKTVOV [A], see
NET, 5; and H31K (only in plur., except in Hos. 183), see
above (i).
2 See Baed.Pl xli. One must po to the more remote parts of
Arabia to escape from glass window-panes altogether (Doughty,
Ar. Des. 1 286).
a On etymology, cp Moore Judg. ad loc. In Judg. TofncoK[B],
fillCTUUJTTJ [AL].
2712
LAYER
Tab. su ru), back. It is doubtful, however, whether this
comparison is legitimate, (a) The meaning of the Heb. root
~\7TX "inl, to shine, is well-established. (/<) Jensen more safely
connects Ass. sei u with ~)W1>, neck (Kosmol. 28, n. i) ; and
(c) there is no support for a word like -|rtx> roof, in the
Babylonian Deluge-story. has eviyvvayuiv, which is not a
rendering of "13S (Schleusner, Ball, and others) but a corrupt ion
of KOLitvo&o\riv. Josephus (Ant. \. 82) mentions a roof (opo<j>o<;),
but is silent about the window, which in fact seems to be
usually passed over in the accounts of the ark contained in the
various deluge-legends (see DELUGE, 20, . 5), though, to be
sure, J incidentally refers to a window. 1 For RV s rend.
Might, i.e., a great light-opening, cp Symm., Sia<j>a.vf<;. [On
the whole it may be best to read H3"IX (cp <5, reading as above).
Pasek in MT warns us to criticise the text. Cp PSBA 23 141.
T. K. C.J
LAYER. 2 Solomon s temple (see TEMPLE), besides
its sea of bronze (see SEA, MOLTEN), had also ten
. _ _. bronze lavers Mil s ; see POT, and cp
1. In Kings.
COALS, 3, FURNACE, i [2] ; Xoimfc
(55, but in Kings xirr/36/cai Xos [AL-07] ^S- lab rum?
but four times Inter, once lebes, and twice concha ). The
passage in i K. (Tzy-sg) 4 is evidently in great confusion ;
and but little help in the elucidation of the wholly inade
quate details in MT s description can be obtained either
from @ (7 i-zff-} or from Josephus (Ant. viii. 36). The
figures in Stade (GF71 33 8 34o/.), Nowack (HA l^f.},
and Ben/.inger (HA 2 52 ff. ; Kon. 49) may assist vague
conjecture as to what may have been the appearance of
structures which obviously none of the describers had
ever seen.
Fresh light, however, has been thrown on the whole passage
(i Ki. 7 27-39) by Stade s new discussion in ZA TIV 21 (1901),
pp. 145-192, mainly through discoveries of bronze chariots in
Cyprus. The undersetters (RV for nsns) and the stays
(nT) are now intelligible, and so too is the construction of the
mouths of the lavers. Klostermann s excision of vv. 34-36
is found to be inadequate to the explanation of the present state
of the text, which has arisen by the interweaving of two parallel
accounts.
1. Of the lavers themselves all we are told is that they were of
bronze, four cubits (six feet) in diameter, and that they had a
cubic capacity of forty baths (90,000 cubic in., 52 cubic ft.).
Thus they must have been about 2 ft. in depth and when filled
with water their contents alone (325 gallons) must have weighed
about r \ tons. 5
2. Each laver with its foot rested on a base. Of these
bases (nij DC, mckSnoth ; jnex a>1 " ^ > bases) also we have no
satisfactory description. Each of them was four (, Jos., five)
cubits long, four (Jos., five)cubits broad, and three (, Jos., six)
cubits high. Each consisted of n\-\}j,(misg-erotli ; ovyK\ei<nov,
<TvyK\eio-/j.a.Ta) and n<y?p (Jtflaiilm ; ef e^ofitva) ; but how these
words should be rendered is quite uncertain. 6 Ben/inger argues
with some plausibility that the s labbim were the primary
elements in the quadrilateral structure, and the misgeroth only
secondary. The misgerotli were decorated with lions, oxen,
and cherubim.
3. Each base rested on solid brazen wheels ij cubits in
diameter; the axles of these wheels moved myddoth hands or
stays which projected from the lower part of the base and
were of the same piece with it.
4. The ten lavers as described in Kings were ranged
five on the right side and five on the left side of the house
facing eastward. According to 2 K. 1617 king Ahaz
(see Benzinger) cut up the mlkonoth and removed the
misgSroth. Presumably if the lavers themselves re
mained they stood at a lower elevation than formerly.
Perhaps, however, the bases were renewed, since they
are said to have been broken in pieces by the army
1 In J the words for window and roof are p^n (Gen. 86)
and nppn ( covering 8 13) respectively. Mr. S. A. Cook sug.
gests that 6 16 may contain the statement that openings were to
be made upon the first, second, and third stories e.g., iTnnEI
131 D t Pj ?ns3 ^3. For the anticipatory pronominal suffix in
n3, cp Josh. 1 26 Jer. 51 56 Ezek. 41 25, etc.
2 Fr. lavoir, I, at. laziatoriunt.
3 i.e., iavabrutit.
* Contrast the bare notice in 2 Ch. 4 14.
5 Josephus, however (Ant. viii. 36, 85), makes them 4 cubits
(6 ft.) in depth, and thus of much larger capacity.
6 See for example Vg. of v. 28 f. : et ipsum opus basium
intenasile erat et scttlptuiae inter junctures, et inter coronulas
et plectas leones, etc
2713
LAW AND JUSTICE
of Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 25i3i6 = Jer. 52i72o; J cp Jer.
27 19). What their function was is not stated in MT.
Josephus, who must at least have known the arrange
ments of the temple of his own day, says that the lavers
were for cleansing the entrails of the animals sacrificed,
and also their feet (?).
On the probable mythological significance of the
lavers, see SEA [MOLTEN].
The laver (Jos. Ant. iii. 63 irepippavT-ripiov) of Ex.
30i8 28 35 16 388 39 39 40? n, Lev. 8n (all P) stood on
_ - p its foot (js, (5 /Mcrts, Jos. icpijTris ; basis)
between the door of the tabernacle and the
altar. The laver belongs wholly to one of the later
strata of P. (See Dr. Introd.(^, 38 ; Addis, Doc. Hex.
2276, etc., and the Oxf. Hex.) Its dimensions or shape
are nowhere stated; it is said (Ex. 388) to have been
made out of the mirrors of the women (a very late
Haggadic addition, thinks Wellhausen), and its use was
for Aaron and his sons to wash their hands and feet
therein when they entered the tabernacle.
When we compare the account of the tabernacle in P with the
(very late) description of Solomon s temple in i K. it seems
cuiious that the laver and its bases should be left undescribed in
P ; the case is reversed with the golden candlestick : perhaps we
may conclude that the laver and the candlestick were one.
Moreover, it may be worth noting that the use of only one laver
in P when contrasted with the ten in i K. finds an analogy in the
CANDLESTICK [y.v., i]. See further SCAFFOLD.
(See Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Taf. 134 ; also his notes on
p. 449.)
LAW AND JUSTICE
Law and custom ( i). Administration ( 8-10).
Effect of settlement ( 2_/.). Punishment ( 11-13).
Written laws ( 4-6). Private law [property, etc.] (T4-
Oral law ( 7). Bibliography ( 19). [18).
Law is, originally, custom. As has been already
shown under GOVERNMENT (esp. 9), the old tribal
, , system knew no legislative authority, no
. persons holding superior power whose
will and command were looked upon as
law or as constituting right. This does not, however,
imply a condition of arbitrary lawlessness ; on the
contrary, tribal custom formed a law and a right of
the most binding character. Its authority was much
more powerful than that established by any mere
popular custom in modern society. To break loose
from tribal custom was, practically, to renounce the
family and tribal connection altogether ; any gross
infraction of that custom was necessarily followed by
expulsion from the tribe and deprivation of all legal
right and protection. Further, it is to be remembered
that in virtue of the intimate relation between the tribe
and its god, every tribal custom is at the same time a
religious custom i.e. , compliance with it is looked
upon as a duty to the divinity by whom the custom is
upheld. This was felt perhaps more keenly in Israel,
than amongst other peoples ; law and righteous
ness were the special concern of Yahwe ; in his name
justice was dispensed and to him were all legal ordin
ances referred. To a certain extent also Yahwe was the
creator of the law. Through his servants the priests,
he gave his decisions (n nin, toroth), which were to a
large degree instructions on points of right. Such a
divine utterance naturally becomes a law, in accord
ance with which other cases of the same kind are
afterwards decided. When viewed in this light the
fact to our modern ideas so surprising- that all
violations of religious observance are looked upon
as crimes against the law and as ranking in the same
category with civil offences, becomes intelligible. The
worship of the tribal god forms a part, by no means
the least important part, of the tribal custom ; no dis
tinction between worship and other integral parts of tribal
custom is perceived.
In this connection we must bear in mind that even before
the monarchy Israel had attained a certain degree of unity
1 The reference in Jer. 52 20 to the twelve brasen bulls under
the bases is apparently due to a confusion with the sea.
2714
_,
ang
LAW AND JUSTICE
in matters of law ; not in the sense that it possessed a written
law common to all the tribes, or a uniform organisation for the
pronouncing of legal judgments, but in the sense that along
with a common god it had a community of custom and of feeling
in matters of law. This community of feeling can be traced back
very far ; it is not so done in Israel, and folly in Israel, which
ought not to be done, are proverbial expressions reaching back to
quite early times (Gen. 34 7 Josh. 7 15 Judg. 19 23 20 10 2 S. 13 12).
The settlement in Western Palestine, so important in
all respects, was peculiarly important in its effect on the
development of law. From the
nature of the case the law had to
te greatly extended - The new cir -
cumstances raised new legal problems.
For one thing, the conception of private property has
for peasants settled on the land a significance quite
different from that which it possesses for nomads.
Property with the Bedouin is uncertain ; it may be gained
and lost in a night ; for peasants a certain security of
ownership is indispensable. Again, with the settlement
on the land a certain differentiation of ranks and classes
became inevitable.
To the Bedouin social distinctions in our sense of the word
are unknown ; within the tribe all are brothers ; no one is
master and no one is servant. Life in village and town soon
brings with it great distinctions. Rich and poor become
high and low, and the protection of the poor and of the alien
becomes a pressing task for the new system of law.
To these considerations it has to be added that, by
the settlement, the bonds of clanship came to be
gradually loosened, and their place taken, so far, by
local unions (see GOVERNMENT, 15) ; upon this there
naturally followed a weakening of the power which tribal
custom had exercised through the family. The individual
was not so dependent on the community ; he could with
greater ease break loose from the restraints of custom.
A certain relaxation of discipline began to make itself
felt. The later view, therefore, which characterised the
period of the judges as one of lawlessness (Judg. 176 etc.)
is partly correct. Custom had lost its old power and
required the support of some external authority.
The first step towards meeting this requirement was
when, by the settlement, the heads of clans and com-
3 Fixed mumt es ( see GOVERNMENT, 16), gradu-
. . , . ally acquired the character of a superior
authority which could be regarded as having
been appointed by Yahwe and could thus come forward
with a claim to legal powers. Their judicial utterances
had no longer merely a moral authority ; they had
behind them the weight of the whole community, which
was interested in giving them effect. The development
of a kind of public law was thus possible. In one
instance at all events this is plainly seen viz. , in the
case of the penalty for manslaughter. Under the tribal
system vengeance upon the manslayer is purely the
affair of the avenger of blood -i.e., the family: the
support of the tribe at large is involved only in cases
where the slayer belongs to another tribe. In settled
communities, however, the supreme authority must,
from a very early date, have begun to recognise it as
falling within its domain on the one hand to guarantee
security of life, and, on the other, gradually to displace
the perilous custom of blood revenge by itself taking
in hand the punishment of the slayer.
This advance towards the formation of an outside authority
was at first by no means an adequate substitute for the un
qualified power of custom which it sought to displace, and
this insufficiency showed the need of fuller political organisation.
There must be an organisation that would render possible or
guarantee the development and consistent administration of a
uniform system of law.
The monarchy provided a system of uniform common
law by furnishing a regular tribunal and by supporting
with its authority the ancient customs and legal practices.
The king and his officials were no legislators ; in fact
for a considerable time after the establishment of the
monarchy there was no real law at all in the modern
sense. The judicial decisions of the king and his
officials were determined simply by the ancient cus
tomary practice, and some time, it would seem, passed
2715
LAW AND JUSTICE
before even this law was codified, although doubtless
it may have been common from an early date for single
legal decrees to be publicly posted up, for example, at
the sanctuaries. The first attempt at a comprehensive
collection of legal precepts and a book of laws is prob
ably to be found in what is known as the Book of the
Covenant, dating probably from the ninth century
(Ex. 2024-2819 ; cp HEXATEUCH, 14, LAW LITERA
TURE, 6-9).
A single glance shows that the appearance of the
Book of the Covenant was not the introduction of a new
4 Book of the aw t * ie kk was a sett i n g down in
Covenant wr l n g f long-current legal practices.
It nowhere enunciates great legal prin
ciples, or attempts to exhibit an abstract system of
law, with a view to its application to concrete cases ;
it is merely a collection of individual legal decisions.
Its origin is clear. Either the frequent repetition
of similar decisions had given rise to an established
precedent, or a single decision had been given by a
divine Torah in either case with the same result, that
a fixed rule was established. Hence is explained the
nature and scope of the contents of the collection.
It deals exclusively with the circumstances and in
cidents of every-day life ; such matters as the legal
position of slaves, injuries to life or limb resulting
from hostility or carelessness, damage to property,
whether daughter or slave, cattle or crop. The ruling
principle is still that of the jus talionis. Trade or
commerce as yet there is none at least no laws are
required for its regulation. That ordinances for the
divine worship and general ethical precepts for the
humane treatment of widows and strangers should
also be included and placed on the same level will be
readily understood after what has been said above ( i).
Still, a distinction is made between jus and fas at
least in so far as the form of decree in the mispdtim
(ethical and legal) differs from that in the dlbdrim
(relating to religion and worship).
The object of this codification probably was to
secure a greater degree of uniformity in adjudication
and punishment. It is matter for surprise that we are
nowhere informed by whom this collection was intro
duced as an official law-book or whether it was ever so
introduced at all. If what we are told regarding
Jehoshaphat s legal reforms (2 Ch. 1?9> comes from a
good source, it would be natural to think of him in this
connection (see Benzinger, Comm. on 2 Ch. 179^).
On the other hand, it is also equally possible that
the Book of the Covenant was never an official law-
book (like Dt. ) at all, that it was simply a collection
undertaken privately (perhaps in priestly circles). As
containing only ancient law and no new enactments,
such a collection would need no kind of official intro
duction but gradually come to be tacitly and universally
accepted.
With the law of D the case is different ; it was
brought in as the law of the state by a solemn act in
6. Thelawof D. th h e l8 . th > ear , of J siah < 621 B : c ->
when king and people made a solemn
covenant pledging themselves to its faithful observ
ance (see 2 K. 23 1 ff. ). This accords well with the fact
that Dt. claims to be more than a mere compilation of
the ancient laws ; it comes before us as a new system.
Though in form and in contents alike it connects itself
very closely with the Book of the Covenant, its literary
dependence on it being unmistakable, it nevertheless,
as a law-book, marks a great advance in comparison
with the other, inasmuch as it embodies an attempt to
systematise both the civil and the ecclesiastical law
under a single point of view, that of the unique relation
ship of God to his people. The norm for determining
what is right and what is wrong is no longer merely
ancient law and custom : the supreme principle is now
the demand for holiness. As a consequence, much of
what has long been established law must disappear ; in
2716
6. The Priestly
Law.
LAW AND JUSTICE
the sphere of worship, indeed, the law-book has ex
pressly in view nothing less than a thorough -going
reform. In spirit the legislation is characterised by its
humanity ; humanitarian ordinances of all sorts, pro
visions for the poor and for servants, for widows and
orphans, for levites and strangers, have a large place.
The priestly law in like manner, after the exile, was
introduced much as D had been (Neh. 8-10). This
law aims only at the regulation of
worship ; law and ethics in the broader
sense are purposely left alone ; the
constitution now given to the community everywhere
presupposes a state organisation and civil rights. It is
only exceptionally that matters belonging to the domain
of law properly so called are dealt with, and even in
these instances that is done only in so far as the
questions are connected with the hierocratic system of P.
Within P, the law of holiness (H) forms a separate col
lection (Lev. 17-26 and some other isolated precepts ;
cp HEXATEUCH, ibfr, LAW LITERATURE, 15,
LEVITICUS, 13-23), though it does not seem ever to
have received separate recognition, but only to have come
into currency in conjunction with the Priestly Law as
a whole. As distinguished from P, H includes ethical
and legal enactments (especially Lev. 19 ), which are
made from the point of view of the holiness of the
people, as in Dt. (the mild humanity of which it also
shares).
The tordh, however, the written and official law,
related only to a small part of civil life. Alongside of
if fi 1 T it was still l 6 ^ ample room for the play
of ancient consuetudinary law. It is
much to be regretted that in the literature which has
come down to us we have no codification of this con
suetudinary law in the form into which it had developed
at the time of the introduction of the Priestly Law, and
in which it is presupposed by that law. For long
afterwards it continued to be handed down only by oral
tradition, and even amongst the scribes of a later epoch
there was still strong reluctance to commit the Haldchdh
to writing.
The further development of law was the main business of the
scribes. The tordh continued to be the immovable found
ation ; the task that remained was, either by casuistical inter
pretation of the written law or by determination of the con
suetudinary law, to fill up the blanks of the tordh and bring
into existence new precepts. The law thus arrived at which
in authority soon came to rank alongside of the written tordh
was comprehensively termed hiildchdh (consuetudinary law).
As it gained in authority the scribes, though not formally recog
nised as lawgivers, gradually came to be such in point of fact.
The results of their legislative activity are embodied in the
Mishna. This rests, however, on an older work of the period of
R. Akiba b. Joseph (circa 110-135 A.D.), under whose influence
it probably was that the hdldchdh hitherto only orally handed
down first came to be codified. From what has been said it will
be evident that the Mishna may very well contain many frag
ments of ancient legal custom, but that it would he hopeless to
attempt with its help to reconstruct the old consuetudinary
Hebrew law as this existed (say) in the Persian or in the Grecian
period. 1 (Cp LAW LITERATURE, 22./C)
All jurisdiction was originally vested in the family.
The father of a family had unlimited powers of punish-
8. Judiciary , n , ient < G f n 382 < C P ?< ?1 < W ith
, _ the coalescence of families into clans
S ^f, em and tribes (see GOVERNMENT, 4) a
portion of the family jurisdiction neces
sarily also passed over to the larger group, and was
thenceforth exercised by the heads of the clan or
tribe. The old tradition in Israel was that the elders
acted also as judges. All three variants of the story
of the appointment of elders as judges (Ex. 1813^
Nu. 11 16^! Dt. 1 13 f. ) have this feature in common
that they place the elders alongside of Moses as his
helpers in the government of the people i.e. , in pro
nouncing judgments (in the gloss Dt. 1 15 the word is
quite correctly given as heads of tribes ). The lighter
cases come up before the elders, whilst Moses reserves
the graver ones for himself. This judicial activity of
1 On the Rabbis and the Mishna see Schiir. GVI H., 25.
2717
LAW AND JUSTICE
the heads of tribes and clans we must, of course, regard,
not as an innovation, but as an ancient usage. The
tradition, however, is once more in accordance with the
facts of the case when, as alongside of and overruling every
human decision, the deity is regarded as the supreme
king -judge. The weightiest matters, those namely
with which human wisdom is unable to cope, come
before God ; for Moses dispenses law as the servant and
the mouth of God as a priest upon the basis of divine
decisions (see above, i). The people come to him
to inquire of God and he is their representative before
God, to whose judgment he submits the case (Ex.
18 15 19). The same conditions continued through
the later period ; alongside of the jurisdiction of the
tribal heads and of the judiciary officers that of God as
exercised through the priests was still maintained.
The entire position otherwise accorded to the elders
shows that their judicial activity was not the consequence
merely of an office with which they had been invested.
Their authority as a whole, and in particular their
judicial influence, was purely moral. In the main
therefore we find the same conditions as are even now
found to prevail among the Bedouins, and so far as the
present subject is concerned we may safely venture to
avail ourselves of what we know of these last to supple
ment the deficiencies of our information regarding
ancient Israel.
Amongst the Bedouins, also, then, it is within the competency
of the sheikh to settle differences ; but his judgment has no
compelling power : he cannot enforce it against the will of the
parties and cannot order the slightest punishment upon any
members of the tribe. The family alone can bring pressure to
bear on the members. Further, many tribes have, in addition,
a kadi, as a sort of judge of higher instance for graver cases ;
for this office men distinguished by their keenness of judgment,
love of justice, and experience in the affairs and customs of the
tribe, are chosen. As a rule the office of kadi continues within
the same family ; but even his judgment is not compulsory.
There is no executive authority provided for carrying it out. If
in the last resort a problem proves so involved that not even the
kadi is able to solve it, nothing remains but to resort to the
judgment of God (cp Burckhardt, Bern. 93 Jjf.)
As already remarked ( 2), after the settlement these
elders in their character as heads of the local commun
ities (zikne hair, Tj;n jpi) gradually acquired the powers
of a governing body (cp GOVERNMENT, 16). So far
as their jurisdiction was concerned, this meant that as
judges they acquired a certain executive power for
carrying out their judgments. How soon this develop
ment took place, and with what modifications in detail,
we do not know. Stories like those of the wise woman
of Tekoa (2 S. \*/.} and of the trial of Naboth (i K.
218^) prove the lact, at least for the period of the
earlier monarchy. Dt. knows of the elders as an
organised judicial institution. From the manner in
which the function of judging is assigned to them in
certain cases, it is clearly evident that the elders also had
executive powers (cp esp. Dt. 19 12 21 iff. 22 is./-)- l n
this executive capacity they act as representing the
entire body of the citizens ; this finds expression, in the
case of death-penalty, in the fact that it is for the entire
community to carry out the sentence (Dt. 17 7). A
solitary exception is made in the punishment of murder ;
even long after the unrestricted right of private revenge
had been abolished, and trial of crimes against life had
been brought within the competency of the regular
courts, there survived a relic of the ancient deeply-
rooted custom which gave the avenger of blood the
right of personally carrying out the death sentence on
the murderer (Dt. 19 12).
(a) Elders. By inference from these facts we may
safely conclude that the judges presupposed by the
Book of the Covenant were in the first
9. Judges. instance the elders of the different localities
all the more so as the judicial competency of these
elders must in the earlier times have been still more
extensive than when the Book of the Covenant was
written. Singularly enough, the Book gives no sort of
indication of the composition of the tribunal, the forms
2718
LAW AND JUSTICE
of process, and so forth in this case also merely taking
for granted the continuance of long-established custom.
It may be permissible to hazard the conjecture that in con
nection with that dependent relation in which sometimes the
mral districts stood to the larger or metropolitan cities, the
jurisdiction of the city would extend also over its daughters
(EV suburbs ; cpNu. 21 25 3242 Josh. 1823 2817 n Judg. 1126).
As the passages cited alx>ve ( 8) show, the juris
diction of the elders continued to subsist under the
monarchy.
()3) The King. Alongside of the jurisdiction of the
elders, however, and to some extent limiting it, there
arose the jurisdiction of the king. The king was judge
par excellence (cp GOVERNMENT. 19). He constituted
a kind of supreme tribunal to which appeal could be
made where the judgment of the elders seemed faulty
(2 S. 144_^i ). Moreover, it was also open to the litigant
to resort to the king as first and only judge (2 S. 152^,
2 K. 15s), especially in difficult cases (i K. 3i6^
Dt. 179, see below [7]). Of this privilege of the king
some portion passed over to his officers also, who
administered the law in his name. Unfortunately we
have nothing to show how the jurisdiction of these
officers stood related to that of the elders in its details,
and whether (or how far) its range was limited. The
same has to be said of the judicial activity of the priests.
That they continued to possess judicial attributes is
implied both by the Book of the Covenant and by
Deuteronomy. Still, on this point an important differ
ence between the two books is unmistakable. In
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 228 [7]), as in the ancient
consuetudinary law, what is contemplated in cases of
special perplexity is a divine decision, a torah of God
to be obtained at the sanctuary ; God was the judge.
(y) The Priests. In Ut. on the other hand (17g/.
19 15 ft) the priests, thelevites, as judicial officers con
stitute a sort of spiritual college of justice : the cause is
not decided by means of an oracle or divine judgment ;
the priests carefully investigate the case just like
other judges. The studious care with which the
sanctity of their judicial decisions is emphasised (17 10^! )
warrants the conjecture that the change is to be at
tributed to D, especially as, throughout, we are left with
the impression that D has it in view to enlarge the juris
diction of the priests as widely as possible, at the
expense of that of the elders. The elders retain
within their competency only a limited class of offences.
The offences in question are merely such matters as affect in
the first instance only the family a son s disobedience (21 i9_ff.),
slander spoken against a wife (22 13^), declinature of a levirate
marriage (25 1 ff.), manslaughter, and blood-revenge (19n^C,
21 1 jf.). Into the last-cited passage (21 5) a later hand has
introduced the priests as also taking part in the proceed
ings : for them Yah we thy God has chosen to minister unto
him, and to bless in the name of Yahwe ; and according to their
word shall every controversy and every stroke be an interpo
lation which clearly shows in what direction lay the tendency
of this legislation and its subsequent development. That this
studious effort on the one side was viewed on the other with
little favour is shown by the fact that in the central ordinance
relating to the judicial function of priests (1"8_^) the judge
is by an intetpolation placed on a level with the priests. The
simplest explanation is that it is the king who is intended here
and that the object was to save his supreme judicial authority
as against the pretensions of the Jerusalem priesthood (cp the
quite analogous interpolation of the judges in 19 17^).
The Chronicler carries back to Jehoshaphat the
establishment of a supreme court of justice in Jerusalem
and the appointment of professional judges in all the
cities (2 Ch. 19 4-11).
Though not absolutely incredible, the statement is rendered
(to say the least) somewhat improbable by the fact that in
this supreme court the high priest is represented as hav
ing the presidency in all spiritual, and the prince of the house
of Judah in all secular, causes (see Benzinger, Catm. on 2 Ch.
194 ff.). Apart from this, however, Dt. certainly seems to know
of the existence of the professional judges in the various cities
(16 18^.).
Ezekiel and P continue to advance logically along the
line laid down in D. In Ezekiel s ideal future state, in
which the king is but a shadowy figure almost entirely
divested of royal functions, judicial attributes are wholly
assigned to the priests (Ezek. 4424). That P also
2719
LAW AND JUSTICE
assigns the administration of the law, not to the secular
authority but to the piiests, is clear from the representa
tion of Chronicles according to which even David had
appointed 6000 levites as judges ( i Ch. 23 4, 26 29).
This theory, however, was never fully carried out.
In E/ra s time we meet, in the provincial towns, with pro
fessional judges who are drawn not from the priesthood but from
the ranks of the city elders (Ezra 725, 1014). There were
similar local courts throughout the country during the Greek
and Roman periods (Judith Ci6 etc. ; Jos. BJ ii. 24 i ; Shtbl*
ttk 104, SMA 13, Sank. 114 ; in Mt. 622 lOi? Mk. 189, it is to
these local synedria that reference is made). In localities of
minor importance it was certainly by the council of the elders
(cp Lk.73), the 0ovA?j, that judicial functions were exercised (cp
Jos., I.e.); in the large towns no doubt there may also have
been, over and above, special courts. In later times the rule
was that the smallest local tribunal had seven members (cp
GOVERNMENT, 31 ; also Schurer, Gl I 2\^/.). In large
centres there were courts with as many as twenty-three members ;
but in these, in certain cases (such as actions for debt, theft,
bodily injury, etc.) three judges formed a quorum (SanA. 1 i, 2, 3,
2 1). In certain cases priests had to be called in as judges
(.Sank. 1 3). On the great Sanhedrin and its jurisdiction see
GOVERNMENT, 31.
Judicial procedure was at all times exceedingly simple.
In an open place (Judg. 4s i S. 226), or under the
,. . . shadow of the city gate, the judges took
11 their seat (Dt. 21 19 22i 5 25 7 Am. 61215
pro ire. Ru 4l etc ) In Jerusalem Solomon
erected a porch, or hall, of judgment, for his own
royal court of justice (NES.I cSix, i K. 7 7). Plaintiff
and defendant appeared personally, each for his own
case (Dt. 17s 21 20 25 1); on a charge being made
the judge could call for the appearance of the accused
(Dt. 258). Such an institution as that of a public
prosecutor was unknown ; the state or the community
in no case overstepped its judicial functions. In every
case it was for the aggrieved or injured person to bring
forward his complaint if he desired satisfaction. He
also had it in his choice, however, to resort to the
method of private arrangement, and refrain from coming
before the court ; in this event, the matter was at an
end, for no one else had an interest in bringing it into
court. When there is no complainant there is no judge.
The daysman is mentioned only in Job 9 33 (rrrV2).
The proceedings were as a rule by word of mouth,
though in later times written accusations also seem to
have been known (JobSlss/). The chief method of
proof was by the testimony of witnesses. The father,
indeed, who brought a stubborn and rebellious son
before the judge needed no such support (Dt. 21 &ff. ) ;
but in all other cases the law invariably demanded the
concurrent testimony of at least two persons ; on the
word of only one witness a crime could in no circum
stances be held as proven, still less any death-sentence
pronounced (Dt. 176 19 15 Nu. 35 3 Mk. 14s6^
Mt. 266o). According to Talmudic law (Shfbu oth 30^ ;
Bdbd Kammd 88a ; cp Jos. Ant. iv. 815) only free
men of full age were capable of bearing witness ; women
and slaves were incapacitated a rule, doubtless, in ac
cordance with ancient custom, although the OT is silent
on the subject. Whether the adjuration of witnesses
which is alluded to in general terms in P (Lev. 5i) was
an ancient practice, we cannot say. A false witness was
punished, according to the jus talionis, by the infliction
of the precise kind of evil he had intended to bring
upon his victim by his falsehood (Dt. 19i8^T). The
warnings so frequently repeated (as in Ex. 23 1 20 16),
such stories as that of Naboth (i K. 21), and the
remonstrances of the prophets, show that the evil of false
testimony was by no means rare.
Where, from the nature of the case, witnesses were not to be
had, the accused was put upon his oath (Ex. 226-ri [7-12]). In
specially obscure cases God was looked to for the discovery of
the guilty party (Ex. 228(7] S. 14 40.7: Josh. 7 14). The only
trace remaining in the later law of a divine ordeal (see
JKAI.OUSV, TKIAI. op)is in the case of a wife accused of adultery
(Nu. ;> n ff.). Torture, as a means of obtaining confessions,
was not employed ; the Herodian dynasty by whom it was
employed freely seem to have been "the first to bring it into
ue(J<* ^/i- 30 2-5).
Judgment, in the earlier times pronounced orally, but
2720
LAW AND JUSTICE
later occasionally given in writing (Job 1326), was as a
rule carried out forthwith in presence of the judge
(\)i. JiiiH J. i. ); in case of a capital sentence the
witnesses wen- required to be the first to set about its
execution, and the whole community was expected to
take :m active p;nt I I >t. 17?)-
I liiu;li iii tin- paragraph! that follow, the various
l.iu . axe arranged according to their substance, it must
(miii the outset be clearly borne in mind that the
.mi ietit law of the Hebrews does not admit of close
. onelation with the Roman or with the modern systems
based on the Roman, and in particular that the sharp
distmt -tinii between penal and private law by which
these last were characterised does not admit of being
transferred to the former. One of the most striking
illustrations of this is to be found in the manner in
which theft is regarded by Hebrew law.
In Hebrew law the dominant principle is the jus
talionis an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth
11 Penal law (Kx 21 2 )- To urulerstand this
, _ ... properly, it has to be borne in mind
and Jus taltoniB. > . of d<J .
velopment which has been descritxid above, a principle
of this kind had its applicability not as a norm for
penalties to be judicially indicted, but only as regulative
of private vengeance. It is for the individual himself
to pursue his rights ; by universal custom he is entitled
to do to the aggressor exactly what the aggressor has
done to him. In particular, in the most serious case of
all, that of murder, the blood-relation not only has the
right, but is under the sacred duty, to avenge the tleed.
In savage stages of society the demand for vengeance
is held to lie the most righteous and sacred of all
feelings ; the man who does not exact vengeance is
devoid of honour.
An unqualified /KJ talionis makes endless every affair
where it has once been introduced. This appears most
clearly in blood-revenge. Naturally, therefore, in the
early stage of legal development now under considera
tion, when the affair is held to concern private in
dividuals only, the injured party has also the right to
come to some other arrangement with the aggressor
ami accept compensation in the shape of money or its
equivalent (ep the law of the Twelve Tables : si mem-
bnnn ruit, ni cum eo paicit talio esfo}. It was a great
forward step which the Israelites made doubtless
before they took possession of western Palestine when
compensation of this kind was allowed to take the
place of revenge pure and simple. In doing so
they took the most essential first step towards the
substitution of public criminal law for private revenge.
Compensation cannot for long withdraw itself from the
control of general custom, and then there gradually
comes into existence a certain definite scale in accord
ance with which such matters are adjusted (cp Kx. 21 22).
At an early period Hebrew custom seems to have
demanded such a mode of settlement for every kind of
bodily injury (Ex. 21 18) ; but the earlier usage did not
sanction the acceptance of blood-wit, except in the one
case of accidental homicide (Kx. 21 30).
I enal law, in the strict sense of the expression,
constitutes a third stage, its distinctive feature being
that the duty of revenge is taken over from the in
dividual by society at large. Revenge now becomes
punishment, that which regulates it is the general interest
of the community at large. Custom, and afterwards
statute, determine the kind and measure of the penalty ;
tin- leaders of the society, the constituted authorities,
take iii hand the duty of seeing it carried out.
In the ancient Hebrew view of the matter, however,
the object of punishment is not completely attained,
e\en when tin- ideas of retribution and of compensation
have found expression. Grave crimes, and specially
iniiiiler, ,1, hi,- the land; the guilt lies upon the entire
people (cp 3 S. 21 24). The blood of the slayer alone
can appeas.- the divine wrath and cleanse the land
LAW AND JUSTICE
(Nu. 3533 ; cp 2 S. 21). Kvil has to be removed from
the midst of the people by means of punishment (Dt.
19 19).
In close connection with the thought of the transmissibility of
guilt, is the idea which makes children, in particular, specially
liable for the crimes of their fathers. Kven the regularly con
stituted courts of justice, in specially grave cases, punish
capitally the children along with their fathers (2 K. J26 Josh.
724). In a special degree is blood-guiltiness hereditary ; if the
avenger of blood cannot lay hold on the murderer himself, he
can lay hold on his family. The custom is the same among the
I .cdouins to this day. In legal practice it is not abolished till
Dt. ( 24 6).
In the law the only recognised form of capital
punishment is by stoning. In such instances as we
find in a S.I 15 2 K. 10725 )er. 2623,
12. Methods of
punishment.
etc., we are not dealing with punish-
88
2721
nicnts awarded by a court of law. In
the priestly law, and doubtless also by ancient custom,
the death-penalty was enhanced in certain cases by the
burning or hanging (more correctly, impalement) of
the body, by which the criminal was deprived of the
privileges of burial (Lev. 20 14 21 9 Dt. 21 22 ; cp Josh.
725). Dt. here again has a mitigating tendency, en
joining, as it does, the burial of the body that has been
hanged, before sundown.
As to the manner in which stoning was carried out we have
no details; it occurred without the city (Lev. 24 14 Nu. 1636
i K. 21 \ojf., etc.) ; it fell to the witnesses to cast the first stone
(Dt. 177). According to (Jen. 88 24, execution of the death-
penalty by burning seems also to have been customary in Israel.
Crucifixion crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium (Cic.
I err. 664) was first introduced into Palestine by the Romans;
see, further, CROSS, and cp, generally, HANGING.
The first express mention of beating with rods or
scourging as a punishment occurs in Dt. (25 1-3); but
unfortunately we are not told what were the cases in
which the judge was permitted or required to award it,
except in the single instance described in Dt. 22 13^
(unjust charge against a newly-married bride). The
manner of carrying it out is also described, the judge
shall cause [the culprit] to lie down, and to be l>caten
lie fore his face (Dt. 252); not more than forty stripes
may lie given. The later interpreters of the law limited
the number to forty save one (2 Cor. 11 24, Jos. Ant.
iv. 821 23), doubtless so as to avoid a breach of the law
by an accidental error in reckoning, but perhaps also
because in the late period there was substituted for the
rod a three-thonged scourge, with which thirteen strokes
were given.
The money penalties known to the law are really of
the nature of compensations, not strictly punishments
(cp CONFISCATION). On the other hand, in 2 K. 12i6
[17], we read of trespass money and sin money which
belonged to the priests ; but for what offences these
moneys were to be paid we do not know ; probably they
were fines for breaches of ritual.
Of penal restraints upon freedom neither ancient
consuetudinary law nor written statute knows anything.
On the other hand, however, we have in the historical
books frequent mention of imprisonment, stocks and
shackles, or collars (cp COM.AK, 3), as methods by
which kings sought to discipline disobedient servants or
dangerous persons like the prophets (Jer. 20 2 29 26
zCh. 16iol8z5/) ; and imprisonment certainly appears
in post-exilic times as a legal form of punishment to l>e
awarded by the judge ( Kzra "26). See PRISON.
From the modern point of view it is a striking fact that the
Hebrew legislation regards no punishments as involving dis
grace. In Dt. 25 3 the punishment by beating is expressly
restrained within certain limits lest thy brother should seem
vile unto thee. The ancient Israelite, like the modern Oriental,
differed entirely from us moderns in his conception of personal
honour; murder and homicide, adultery and unchastity, false
hood and treachery are in his view matters which do not greatly
affect a man s honour, even when they have been detected and
punished.
In details the penal enactments which have been pre-
_ . served are very meagre and defective.
8 . 01 In cases of manslaughter, as we have
punisl lent. seen b , ood revenge was a sacred duty
in the olden time. Whoso shcddeth man s blood,
2722
LAW AND JUSTICE
by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9s/ ) was at all
times regarded as a divine principle ; the duty of
blood revenge belongs to the nearest relation, the GoEL,
(q.v. ). In principle the right to such revenge is every
where recognised also by the law (Ut. 19 1-13 Nu.
35i6-2i). Still, the transition to a more settled and
orderly condition of society entailed the result (among
others), that the superior authority, as soon as there
began to be such an authority, took blood vengeance also
into its own hand, and thus converted it into a death
penalty (2 S. 144^:). It would appear, however, that
in pre-exilic times it never succeeded in wholly sup
pressing private vengeance. The most important re
striction of it lay in the distinction now made between
murder and manslaughter. Even the Book of the
Covenant distinguished the case in which a man came
presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with
guile, and that in which he lay not in wait but God
did deliver him (his adversary) into his hand (Ex.
21 tiff.}. It also recognised within certain limits the
rights of an owner in defending his property (Ex. 22 2/.
[i/]). Similarly, in Dt. (19n-i3), in a case of violent
death a man s known hatred of his adversary is taken
as evidence of murderous intention. P gives the dis
tinctive features of murder with more precision and
somewhat differently ; murder is presumed not only
where hatred and enmity, or lying in wait, can be
proved, but also where a lethal weapon has been used
with fatal effect. From the dangerous character of the
weapon, murderous intention is inferred (Nu. 35 16^).
In the case of murder all forms of the law allow free
course to blood-revenge, that is to say, the death-
penalty is ordered, and that with the express injunction
that a composition by payment of blood-wit is not to be
permitted (Nu. 353i). The manslayer, on the other
hand, enjoys the right of asylum ; see ASYLUM.
In ancient times the right of asylum prevailed at every sanctuary
(Ex. 21 n). The abolition by D of the sanctuaries scattered over
the country made necessary the setting apart of special cities
of refuge, of which D names three for Judah, P three for E.
Palestine and W. Palestine respectively (Nu. 35 iiff. Dt. 441^.).
In the earlier period the right of asylum belonging to the sanc
tuaries had doubtless been unlimited. Still, even the Book of the
Covenant, and afterwards D, assume, what P expressly ordains
(Ex. 21 14), that inquiry is to be made whether the case is one of
murder or of manslaughter. If it is found to be murder,
the city of refuge must relentlessly give up the murderer to the
avenger(Ex. 21 14 Dt. 19 ujff. Nu. 35 it ft). For manslaughter
an amnesty at the death of the high priest was introduced in
post-exilic times (Nu. 35 25). Formerly, according to P, there
was no such relief; if ever the manslayer left the territory
of the city of refuge, he was at the mercy of the avenger (Nu.
35 3 2/).
In the case of bodily injuries, also, the law permits
the application of talio only where intention is to be
presumed. In injuries inflicted in course of a quarrel,
for example, the Book of the Covenant provides that
the aggressor shall only defray the expenses incurred
and compensate the injured person for his loss of time
(Ex. 21 18^). For another particular case of injury
which may be met by a fine, see Ex. 21 22.
The enactments relating to certain gross offences
against morality are characteristic (cp MARRIAGE, a).
The penalty is death ( Lev. 20 10 ff. Ex. 22 18 [20]) in each
case, as also for the offence specified in Lev. 20 18. In
cases of adultery the injured husband had at all times
the right to slay the unfaithful spouse and take venge
ance on her seducer. Dt. categorically demands on
religious grounds the death of both. Only where
violence can be presumed is the woman exempted (Dt.
222 5 /).
On the other hand the seduction of an tinbetrothed maid was
regarded as a damage to property, affecting her family, and as
such was dealt with on the principles of private law (Ex. 2 2 15 [16]
Dt. 22 26_/). That the father in such a case was at liberty to
exercise very stringent legal rights is shown by (len. SS.
According to P (Lev. 21 9) only priests daughters were liable to
punishment that of death in these cases. (Cp MAKKIAGE
4, 6).
That offences against religion came in the fullest sense
under the cognisance of the law has been mentioned
2723
LAW AND JUSTICE
above ( i), also the reasons for that being so. Idolatry
and witchcraft are already made punishable with death
in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 22 1820 [1719]). In
thfe respect Dt. is exceptionally strict ; even solicitation
to the worship of strange gods is a capital offence
(187-16). Finally, P places every deliberate transgression
of any religious ordinance, such as breach of the sabbath,
or the like, on a level with the crime of blasphemy,
which carries with it the penalty of being cut off from
one s people (Lev. 24 15).
To private law belong personal rights and the laws
affecting property, bonds and obligations, inheritance
14 Personal a " cl marr age Inner tance and marriage
rights.
are dealt with elsewhere (see MAKRIAOB,
i, 7, andcp below, 18). In harmony
with the unanimous view of the ancient world, only
the adult free male member of the community capable
therefore of bearing arms and of carrying out blood
revenge was regarded as invested with full legal rights.
(a) Sons ami daughters. The son not yet grown up
and the unmarried daughter are completely under the
power of the father, as also are the married woman and
the slave. Lists of fully qualified citizens appear to
have been drawn up from a tolerably early date ; the
image of the book of life, already employed by J (Ex.
3232; cp Is. 43), would seem to be derived from this
practice, though express evidence regarding it is not
forthcoming till later (Jer. 2230 Ezek. 13g Xeh. 7 5 64
1222 /.). The fact that at a later period the twentieth
year was taken as the age of majority and fitness to
bear arms (Nu. 13 Lev. 27 3 ff.) , affords some ground
for inferring that a similar rule held good for the
earlier times also ; but it must not be forgotten that
under the patriarchal tribal constitution the indepen
dence even of grown-up sons is only relative. The
original significance of circumcision as an act denoting
the attainment of the privileges of full age is treated of
elsewhere (see CIRCUMCISION, 5). Women appear
to have been universally and in every respect regarded
as minors so far as rights of property went ; at least,
apart from female slaves, they hold no property that
they can deal with as they please. They are incapable
of bearing testimony before a court of justice (see above,
10). See further FAMILY, MARRIAGE, SLAVERY.
(6) Strangers and foreigners. In the case of aliens
distinction must be made between the ger (nj) and the
nokri ("*) (See STRANGER AND SOJOURNER.) The
word nokri denotes the alien who stands in no relationship
of protection towards any Israelite trilie. A person in
this category would as a rule make but a brief sojourn
in the land ; in cases when a longer residence was con
templated application would naturally be made for
tribal protection. The nokri in any case of course
enjoyed the ordinary rights of hospitality, which means
a great deal, great sanctity attaching to the rights of
guests. Apart from this, however, he simply has no
rights at all (cp Gen. 31 15 Job 19 15) ; the very laws in
the humane legislation of D which contemplate the case
of the poor and the depressed in the social scale the
law of remission in the seventh year, the law against
usury, and the like never once have any application to
him (Dt. 163 232o[2i]). It is quite otherwise, however,
with the ger i.e., the alien to the people or to the tribe
(for the older period what applies to the people applies
to the tribe 1 ) who has been received within the territory
of one of the tribes or of the nation as a whole, has
effected a settlement there, and acquired the status of a
protected person. Such a. ger stood under the protection
of the tribal god, and enjoyed, among the Hebrews, not
indeed the full privileges of a citizen, yet, in comparison
with what was obtainable among other peoples, a high
degree of immunity and protection. In particular his
position had this advantage, that it greatly prepared
1 A non-Judahite Levite is within the tribe of Judah as much
a ger as is the Canaanite ; cp Judg. 17 7.
2724
LAW AND JUSTICE
LAW AND JUSTICE
the way for complete incorporation with the tribe. In
the older time he had the right of connubium ; it was
in this way that the Canaanites were gradually absorbed
(see MARRIAGE, 2).
The children of a marriage between a ger and an Israelitess
were regarded as entitled to full Israelite privileges (cp i Ch.
217); in the case of the children of an Israelite by a foreign
wife this was, as might be expected, a matter of course (cp for
example Boaz and Ruth). It was otherwise, indeed, when the
case was not that of an alien settling as ger in the country or
marrying into it, but of a foreigner who still maintained the tie
with his own people and who was followed by his wife to his
home ; Hiram the artificer was regarded as a Tyrian although
his mother was a Naphtalite ; she had followed her husband to
his native land and thereby had come under the protection of
the Tyrians (i K. 7 13 f.). The converse case is that of Samson s
marriage, which, however, has an exceptional character (see
KINSHIP, 8); here the Philistine woman remains in her
own home and is only visited from time to time by her husband ;
in such circumstances the children of the union would not have
been regarded as Israelites (Judg. 14 15 if.).
From what has been said as to the meaning of cir
cumcision (see CIRCUMCISION, 5) it seems doubtful
whether uncircumcised gerfm also had the right of
connubium. In general, the Book of the Covenant
enjoined that \\\e ger was not to be treated with violence
(Ex. 222i [20] 289), and, as we gather from the context,
was above all to be secured, without any partiality, in
his full rights as a protected stranger before the courts
of law. On the other hand the ger apart from the
Canaanites, who naturally formed an exception here
was manifestly excluded from the right of acquiring
heritable property within the territory of the tribes of
Israel (cp Mic. 2s Is. 22 16 Ezek. 47 22, where the per
mission to do so is brought in as an innovation).
D renews in a great variety of forms the injunction
to treat the stranger (who is placed upon a level with
the Levite, the widow, and the orphan) humanely and
kindly (10 18 1429 24 14 19 ff.}, to admit him to participa
tion in the general gladness at festal times (614 16 mff. ),
and not to pervert his right (24 17 27 19). Just because
the stranger, as such, occupies an inferior position he
has a double need for love (lOig 26i-n). On the other
hand his position in D is altered for the worse in this
respect that the right of connubium is taken away (Dt.
7 T./. 233 \4\ff- Ex. 34 is/), and undeniably for D the
ger and still more the nokrl occupy a lower position
in the scale of humanity (cp Dt. 14 21). In all this it is
regarded as a matter of course that the ger shall in a
certain sense at least accommodate himself to the religion
of his protectors (Ex. 23 12 20 10 Dt. 5 14 16 u ff. 26 n
31 12). Still, even in this respect the older times
demanded but little ; he might even keep up his own
sacra (cp i K. lljf. 1631); moreover, he need not
observe the rule with regard to clean and unclean meats
(Dt. 14 2 i).
P carries its demands upon the ger much farther ; he
is required to shun idolatry, the eating of blood or that
which is torn, and in general everything that as an
abomination could defile the Israelite (Lev. 178 \off. 15
1826 202 Nu. 19 10-12 ; cp Dt. 142i).
Not only is he obliged to observe the sabbath and permitted
to share in the feast of the ingathering, he is also under obliga
tion to fast with the Israelites on the day of atonement (Lev.
1629), may not eat any leaven in the passover week (Ex. 12 19 ;
the feast itself he is precluded from joining in, unless he be
circumcised), must make atonement for all transgressions of the
law exactly as Israelites do (Nu. 15 14 26 29), and in general keep
holy the name of Yahwe (Lev. 24 16) all this in the interests of
Israel, that there be no sin among the people.
On the other hand the ger enjoys the fullest protection
in the eye of the law ; not only are the protective in
junctions of D renewed (Lev. 19g/ cp 2822 256), but
also equal rights before the judgment seat are expressly
secured to him (Lev. 2422 Nu. 35 15), an essential
advance on the mere appeal to humanity contained in
the older laws. The points in which his privileges still
fall short of those of the full citizen are mainly two : he
is excluded from the worship properly so-called e.g. ,
from the Passover (Ex. 1247/. ), perhaps also from the
2725
Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 2842) and is denied the
right of connubium (Ezra 9 if. u ff. \?ff.].
Both privileges are obtainable only on condition that he re
ceives circumcision, that is to say, becomes fully incorporated with
the commonwealth of Israel (Ex. IZ^jf. Nu. 9 14 Gen. 3414).
Further, the acquisition of landed property is rendered impossible
to him by the operation of the law of the year of jubilee (see
below, 15). Finally, no ger can own an Israelite slave. Should
it ever come about that an Israelite comes under the power of a
ger on account of debt, the latter is bound to treat him not as a
slave, but as a free labourer, and the relations of the debtcr
retain at all times the right to redeem him (Lev. 25 47^).
Thus the ger is by no means treated as on a complete
equality with the Israelite.
The laws concerning property, so far as they have
come clown to us, relate to the disposal of real and
movable estate, borrowing and lending, bonds and
obligations.
Buying and selling in ancient Israel were transacted
in very simple fashion, and the various questions arising
_ _ . out of error, fraud, or over-reaching
15. Buying u *
, ,v seldom if ever arose. Israel was not at
and selling. , . , . ,
3 this period a commercial people.
Certain formalities in the more important transactions
of buying and selling, especially in the transfer of land,
became customary and obligatory from an early period.
The simplest and most ancient of all, doubtless, was
that which required that the purchase should take place
in the presence of witnesses (cp Gen. 287-20). Trans
actions of this kind (as of ever} other kind) might be
further ratified by oath and gift.
The first mention of a formal deed of sale occurs in the time
of Jeremiah (Jer. 326_^); according to the simplest interpreta
tion of the passage it was executed in duplicate, one copy being
sealed and the other open, both copies being handed over for
preservation to the custody of a third party (otherwise Stade in
ZA TIV 5 176 [1885]). In the case of such a document witnesses
and signatures would of course not be lacking. From Jer. 3244
we can see that in the time of Jeremiah the execution of a
written deed was usual where transfer of land was concerned.
Another ancient custom is met with in the Book of
Ruth (47); the seller gave his shoe to the buyer in
token of his divesting himself of his right of ownership
over the object sold. In connection with this is to be
interpreted the expression in Ps. 608 [10] (cp 1089 [10]),
where casting one s shoe over a thing signifies the
act of taking possession (see SHOES, 4).
The same symbolical action came into use (Dt. 25 9) in cases
where a levirate marriage was declined a declinature practically
equivalent to renunciation of right of inheritance. The original
meaning of the ceremony is no longer clear to us ; nor do we
know whether it was regularly observed, or for how long a period ;
the writer of Ruth knows it only as an archaeological fact.
A limit was set to the free disposal of property by
the duties of piety which a person owed to his ancestors.
To ancestral land the Israelite like any other peasant
proprietor felt himself bound by the closest ties.
The paternal property was sacred ; there, often, the
father w r as buried, and children and children s children
were expected also to be laid there (r K.213). It
is in this fact that we are to seek the explanation of
the provisions regarding the right of redemption that
acted as a check upon the right of free sale. Ancient
custom from an early date had given the kinsman
(lawful heir ?) a right of pre-emption and also of buy
ing back (Jer. 32 bff. ). A legal enactment on this
subject, it is true, does not occur earlier than in P
(Lev. 2525/1 ). It is open to question whether the right
of repurchase there conferred upon the proprietor himself
rests upon ancient legal custom ; the enactment in P
stands most intimately connected with the year of jubilee.
The right is unlimited as regards holdings or houses in
the country ; but in the case of houses in walled towns
it lapses in the course of a year (Lev. 25 29^. ). This
also may well have been in accordance with the ancient
practice. On the other hand, the regulation according
to which all real property which has been sold (houses
in towns alone excepted) shall revert again to the old
proprietor at the year of jubilee occurring every fiftieth
year (see JUBILEE), and without compensation (Lev.
25i3j^), belongs to the theory peculiar to P. The
2726
LAW AND JUSTICE
LAW AND JUSTICE
effect of course is to convert every purchase into a lease
merely, of fifty years at the longest.
Harrowing and lending. Here also down to the
post-exilic period the provisions of the law indicate
i Rnri 10- B reat simplicity in the relations of
did lebtors and creditors. Even D con-
n templates only those cases in which
indebtedness of one Israelite to another is the result of
individual poverty ; it knows nothing of any kind of
credit system such as necessarily springs up with the
development of commerce. This fact must never be
lost sight of, if we are to understand the old laws,
which do not admit of application to the circumstances
of commerce and of which the manifest object is simply
to protect the poor debtor against the oppression of a
tyrannical creditor (cp PLKDGE).
The old consuetudinary law took for granted that the
creditor would seek security by exacting a pledge.
In this case he was prohibited by ancient custom from
detaining the outer garment of the needy debtor after
sundown, this garment being practically his only
covering (Ex. 2226 [25]). Moreover, propriety forbade
the exaction of usury from a fellow Israelite (nothing,
however, is said as to any distinction between legitimate
and usurious interest [Ex. 22 25 (24)] ; the clause, ye
shall exact no usury of him is a later gloss in the sense
of D ; cp We. CH 92). The debtor who was unable
to meet his obligations was liable not only to the
utmost limit of his property, but also in his own person
and in the persons of his family ; the creditor could sell
them as slaves (2 K. 4 i Neh. 5 5 6 Is. 50 i ). In the Book
of the Covenant, however, it is already provided that
an enslaved debtor and his belongings shall be released
in the seventh year of his enslavement a provision that
amounts to a remission of the remaining debt (Ex. 21 27).
That these humane regulations were unsuccessful in
the attainment of their object is shown by the constant
complaint of the prophets who, with one voice, reproach
the rich for their hardness in dealing with their debtors.
In full sympathy with the prophetic spirit, D accordingly
made the regulations more stringent.
The prohibition against taking the mantle in pledge was ex
tended with great practical judgment so as to include all indis
pensable necessaries (246 13 17). In no case is the creditor to
make selection of the pledge that suits him in the house of the
debtor ; he must take the pledge the latter chooses (24 io_/l).
The prohibition of usury is so extended as to forbid interest
of any kind. So far as fellow-Israelites are concerned there is
no distinction between usury and interest (L)t. 23 19 \-2a\f., cp
Ezek. 18 15^). In the case of the foreigner, on the other hand,
the taking of usury is allowed.
The law relating to releasing enslaved debtors was
extended by D so as to enjoin the remission of every
debt in the seventh year (Dt. 15 1^; cp especially
v. 9 which makes it impossible to interpret the law [with
Di.] as meaning merely that repayment of the debt is
postponed for a year). That the law was thoroughly
unpractical indeed, and that, strictly carried out, it
would put a speedy end to all lending whatever, the
framer himself shows that he is more or less aware ;
hence his urgent appeal to the benevolence of his com
patriots : Beware that there be not a base thought in
thine heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release,
is at hand ; and thine eye be evil against thy poor
brother, and thou give him nought (v. 9, cp the cold
comfort of v. n). With these exhortations Ezek. 18s/
may be compared. It is not to be wondered at that
precepts so impracticable in many parts should have
had no very great result (cp Jer. 348^:). The Jews
of later times understood very well how to evade them;
the famous Hillel is credited with the invention of the
frosbul viz. , a proviso set forth in presence of the
judge whereby the creditor secured the right of demand
ing repayment at any time irrespective of the occurrence
of the year of remission.
The regulations of the Priestly code were, broadly
speaking, as unpractical as those we have been con
sidering.
2727
The prohibition of usury remains in force (Lev.
The selling of the debtor into slavery is permitted, but mitigated
by the injunction that his master must treat him as if he were a
free labourer for wages. The emancipation is no longer fixed
for the seventh year of slaver j, but, in correspondence with the
whole scheme of I , is postponed to the year of jubilee, recurring
every fifty years. In this year also all real property that has
been sold reverts to the family to whose inheritance it originally
belonged. This on the one hand guards against the unfortunate
possibility of the liberated slave finding himself in a state of
destitution ; but on the other hand the postponement to the
fiftieth year makes the whole provision illusory so far as many
of the enslaved are concerned. Another law, this, which never
gained a permanent footing.
Of suretyship the law has nothing to say. That
such a thing was known and that it had led to some
disastrous experiences, is shown by certain of the pro
verbs, which are so pointedly directed against it ( Prov.
Q*/. 22 2 6/).
Compensation for damage to property. In the Book
of the Covenant the ruling principle for this is that
17 Damages liabilit y attaches only to the party whose
culpability (whether intentional or un
intentional) can be proved, or legally presumed. Such
culpability attaches, to begin with, very clearly in cases
of deliberate injury, especially in that of theft. If it is
sought to apply to Hebrew law the distinction made in
the Civil Law between private law and penal law, theft
falls under the former category ; this appears from the
fact that it establishes a claim to compensation only,
and is not liable to punishment as a crime. At most,
the compensation exacted assumed a penal character
only in so far as by ancient consuetudinary law its
amount had to exceed the value of what had been stolen
(double, for money ; fourfold for sheep, fivefold for
cattle ; see Ex. 21 37 [22 1] 22 3 [2] 6 [5]).
If the thief cannot be detected with certainty the party
found guilty (in cases where two Israelites are concerned) after
appeal to God (efohiin) by the lot must pay double to the other
(Ex. 22s [7]^). In cases of unintentional damage, however,
compensation was also exigible wherever gross carelessness
could be proved, as, for example, where a water-pit had been
left open and a neighbour s beast had fallen into it (Ex. 21 33),
or where cattle left at large had wrought havoc in a cultivated
field (Ex. 22 5 [4]), or where a goring ox had done any mischief
(Ex. 21 32 36), or when cattle had been stolen from a careless
herdsman (Ex. 22 ii [10]) ; cp on the other hand r 1 . 12(11]; see
DEPOSIT. Other instances are given in Ex. 226(5) I 4t I 3l- O
the other hand where no culpability can be made out, there is no
obligation to compensate, as for example where moneys entrusted
have been stolen from the custodian (Ex. 22 7[f>}/.), where a
domestic animal has been torn by wild beasts (22 io[g]f. 13(12]);
cp also 22 14(13] with 22 15(14] 21 35 with 21 36. On these points
D has not any more definite enactments.
The occasional references in P are in agreement with
the mildness of the ancient law. Whoever has em
bezzled, or stolen, or appropriated lost property is
mildly dealt with if he voluntarily confesses his fault ;
he must restore what he has unlawfully appropriated
and pay a fifth of the value, over and above, as a fine
(Lev.24i82i 520-24 [61-5]).
The right of inheritance among the Israelites belonged
only to agnates the only relations in the strict sense
f th e word the wife s relations belong
c jjff erent f arn j] v or e \-en to a different
tribe. Only sons, not daughters, still
less wives, can inherit. There are traces to show that in
the earliest times the wives, as the property of the man,
fell to his heir along with the rest of his estate a custom
which among the Arabs continued to hold even to
Mohammed s time (cp 2 S. 162i/. i K. 2 13^ 2 S. 87 f. ;
also Gen. 49s/! cp 3522 ; the whole institution of levirate
marriages probably finds its explanation here) ; cp
MARRIAGE, 7, KINSHIP, 10. The law of inherit
ance, as just stated, appears to have been common to
all the Semites (WHS, Kin. 54, 264), in this respect
differing in an impoitant point from that of Rome,
which otherwise was also one of agnates ; in Roman
law at least daughters still remaining under the paternal
roof could inherit. Stade (Gl I \yyoff.} deduces the
custom, so far as Israel is concerned, from the ancestor-
worship which anciently prevailed there ; he alone could
inherit who was capable of carrying on the cult of the
2728
i T Vi -j.
. n erit-
ance.
LAW AND JUSTICE
person from whom he inherited. It seems preferable,
however, with Robertson Smith (I.e.) to seek the ex
planation in the connection between inheritance and
the duty of blood revenge. Among other Semitic
peoples all on whom this duty lay had also, originally,
the right of inheritance. In Old German law likewise
the two were intimately connected.
Among the sons, ancient custom gave to the firstborn
(i.e., to the eldest son of the father) a double portion
(Dt. 21 17 ; cp FIRSTBORN). It was indeed always
possible for the father to deprive the eldest son of this
birthright and bestow it upon a younger son (cp Gen.
49321i_^i i K. 111-13), and the favourite wife (as
might be expected) seems frequently to have contrived
this for the benefit of her own eldest son. Custom, how
ever, did not approve of this passing by of the eldest
son, and D, in agreement with the ancient usage, posi
tively forbade it (2115-17).
Whether the landed property also was divided we do not know ;
the more probable view is that it fell undivided to the firstborn,
who had to make some kind of provision for the others. The
privilege of the firstborn must have carried with it one obligation
at least that of maintaining the female members of the family
who remained unmarried ; by the death of the father the first
born became at any rate head of the family.
The sons of concubines had also a right of inheritance
(Gen. 21 iof. ), but whether on an equality with the other
sons we do not know. It must be remembered that
Hebrew antiquity did not recognise a distinction between
legitimate and illegitimate unions in the sense of the
Grasco- Roman jurisprudence (see FAMILY, 8).
Much, however, depended, it would seem, on the
goodwill of the father and of the brother, and no fixed
legal custom established itself. By adoption of course
full right of inheritance was conferred.
When a man died without leaving sons, the nearest
agnate inherited ; but along with the inheritance he took
over the duty of marrying the widow of the deceased
(see MARRIAGE, -j f. }. If this was not done, the
childless widow returned to her own father s house,
whence she was free to marry a second time (Gen. 38 n
Lev. 22 13 RuthlS/).
The later law exhibits a change only with respect to
the inheritance of daughters, conferring upon these
the right to inherit, in the absence of sons. It is
still only by exceptional favour that the daughters in
herit along with the sons (Job 42 15). The express
object of the alteration of the law is stated to be to
prevent a man s name being lost to his family (Nu. 27 4).
At the same time, however, the inheriting daughters are
enjoined to marry only within their father s tribe, so that
the family estate may not pass to an outside family (Nu.
861-12). As has been pointed out by Stade (GVI 1 391),
it is not improbable that in this we have a compromise
with the older view according to which, strictly, the
nearest agnate ought to inherit, undertaking at the same
time the duty of levirate marriage (see FAMILY, 8),
just as was the case in old Athens, where the inheriting
agnate had the duty either of marrying the daughter,
or of making a provision for her suitable to her station.
The later law made provision also for the case of there
being no marriageable daughter, enacting that in that
event the relations of the husband and not those of
the wife were to inherit (Nu. 27s-n).
J- D. Michaelis, Mosaisches RechtV) (1775) ; J. L. Saalschiitz,
Das Alosaische Recht ncbst den vtrvotistanditvitdtn Tal-
1Q T itoi-atiir-o " Mdisch - rablnnischen Bestimtmtngen ( z )
J.3. Ijlt/eratiure. (,853); Schnell,X>Mw/. Recht in seinen
Grundziizendrtrgestelltdl:^; the Hebrew Archaeologies of De
Wette, Ewald, Keil, Schegg, Benzinger, Nowack ; articles in the
Dictionaries of Herzog, Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm ; Kuenen,
Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin in I erslagen en
Mededeelingen der R . Acad. van Wettnschapen \t,\ff. (1866);
Schiirer, Gil 2 143^; Klein, Das Gesetz fiber das gerichtliche
Beiueisverfahren nach viosaisch-talmudisches Recht (1885);
Frenkel, Der gerichtlictte Beiveis (1846); Duschak, Das
Mosaische St>-afrrcht (1869); Goitein, Vergeltungsprincip im
bibl. u. talmud. Strafrecht in Magazinf.d. Wissenschaft d.
Judenthums (1802); Diestel, Die religiosen Delicte im israelit.
Strafrecht in .// / . r )2Q7/?:; A. P. Bissell, The Law of Asylum
in Israel (1884); Wildeboer, De Pentateuchkiitik en het
2729
LAW LITERATURE
Mozaische Strafrecht in Tijd. v. Strafrecht, 4205^, ^>^\ff.,
Selden, De Succcssionibus ad leges llebritornin in bona de-
functorum, 1631 ; A. Bertholet, Die Stetlung der Israiliten u.
Judcnzu den J remden (1896). j B
LAW LITERATURE
Jewish theory ( i). Historical periods ( 5) :
Written laws ( 2). i. Before Josiah ( 6-9).
Why written ! ( 3). 2. Age of Josiah ( 10-13).
Circulation ( 4). 3. Exilic period (jj 14-16).
4. Early post-exilic (g 17-19).
5. Late post-exilic ( 20 f.).
6. Rabbinic ( 22^).
In the present article we have to consider the
origin, the history, and the general characteristics of
those parts of the OT which are immediately con
nected with Hebrew law. In the main these are to
be found in the Pentateuch ; outside the Pentateuch
the most important piece of Law Literature is the
closing section of Ezekiel (40-48). The main
elements in this literature consist of (a) actual laws or
decisions in written form, (6) legal theory, including
casuistical discussions which become prominent in post-
biblical literature (e.g. the Mishna), ideal systems (see
e.g., Ezek. 40-48: see below, 14) and theories of the
origin of institutions (these especially in P : see below,
i7/.), (c) exhortations to obey the laws (very character
istic of H and D : see 13-15).
According to Hebrew or Jewish theory, Yahw6 is
the source of all law (LAW AND JUSTICE, i), Moses 1
1. Jewish Theory. the 1 ? t ? iun ? ^rough whom it was
revealed to Israel. Thus in connec
tion with the various orders of law we find such formulas
as And Yahwe said unto Moses, Thus shah thou say
unto the children of Israel (Ex. 2022, cp 20 21, and also
3427, concluding laws of 3414-26 [cp v. io]J); and
Yahwe spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children
of Israel (Ex. 25 i, and so, or similarly, repeatedly in
P) ; cp further Dt. 4i/. 5 384. At a later period the
Jews formulated the theory that the oral law or tradition
(subsequently written down in the Mishna and other
halachic collections), as well as the written law or scrip
ture, was in the first instance communicated to Moses
Moses received the torah from Sinai, and he delivered
it 2 to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders
to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the
great synagogue (Pirke Abhoth, li).
From the Jewish point of view therefore Law Literature (both
biblical and post-biblical) consists of laws originally communi
cated to Moses orally, and committed, gradually, and at various
periods, to writing; for even the oral law the irapaSotriy -riav
rrpeo-fivTfpiav of the NT was subsequently written down. It
is always the origin of law, however, rather than of the -writing
down of the law that was of primary interest and importance
to the Jews. Moses stands pre-eminent as the human medium
through which the Law came to Israel ; though in the writing
down of the Law Ezra s part is, according to Jewish tradition,
at least as important as that of Moses (CANON, 17).
For present purposes it is unnecessary to discuss at
further length the precise sense 3 in which the Jews traced
their law and consequently, at least indirectly, their
law-literature to Moses. We need only refer to (a) an
exception and (l>) a consequence.
(a) The prophets also were regarded as media of
toroth i.e. , instructions, laws and the priests at
various periods delivered instructions. 4 The pro
phetic instructions, however, scarcely correspond to
what we generally understand by law, and the priestly
instructions are explanations of the law or laws of
Yahwe with which the priests were entrusted (Hos. 46,
Jer. 28 18 18) in reference to specific circumstances (e.g.,
Hag. 2n). 5
1 Occasionally (Nu. 18 18 Lev. 10 8) Aaron is the medium.
There is a tendency, especially among copyists, to associate
Aaron with Moses in the reception of instructions.
- I.e., both written and oral law ; the verb receive (?2p) is
specially used of the oral law.
3 The Rabbis differed on the point ; for their views see Taylor,
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Excursus I., and in ( 2 ) addiu
note i.
4 See BDB, s.v. rrin, i <~, d, e.
5 Much of the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 21-23, may be so
2730
LAW LITERATURE
(6) The consequence of this theory of the origin of
law is that the Hebrew historians never directly and ex
plicitly record the introduction of a new law. We are
thus deprived of what might otherwise furnish us with
simple and straightforward evidence with regard to the
date of the various bodies of law preserved in the OT.
The nearest approach that we possess to such direct
evidence of the change of law at a definite date is
furnished by Ezekiel in his ideal sketch of a future
Jesvish constitution (Ezek. 40-48) ; in this, old customs
which had the sanction of earlier law are condemned
and discarded, and new laws are enunciated, some of
which subsequently gained validity. These changes
are directly revealed by Yah we to the prophet. In D
also, the date of which has l>een determined by criticism
within sufficiently narrow limits, older laws are abrogated
in favour of new ones ; but here the laws are traced to
Moses, and are not, therefore, as in Ezekiel, directly
represented as new, though indirectly the sense of
novelty is here also clearly felt (cp below, 13).
Before proceeding to a synthetic history of Hebrew
Law Literature based on the criticism of the several
n TT -ii. bodies of law, we may notice the external
2. Written
Laws.
evidence unfortunately for the earlier
period very scanty of the existence
and diffusion of such a literature among the Hebrews.
Law, but not necessarily the individual written laws or
the entire literature of law, was, as we have seen,
attributed to Moses. In the main the first four books of
the Pentateuch merely relate oral communications which
were to be orally communicated to the people. Ex.
3427/1 (J), however, records that Moses wrote the short
body of laws (in>. 11-26) which constituted the terms of
the covenant between Yah we and Israel ; a similar
statement is found in 244, but the precise limits of the
words of Yahwe there said to have been written down
and the source of the statement (whether J or E) are
uncertain. 1 Traditions were also current among the
Hebrews that the decalogue was written by the finger
of God on stone tables (Ex. 31 18 32 16 E, Dt. 9io).
Again Hos. 812 implies the existence in the N. kingdom
of written laws, which Ryle (Canon, 33), however,
inclines to regard as prophetic teaching ; if the text be
sound (which is doubtful), the number of these written
laws must have been large. We have, thus, altogether,
sufficiently good and complete evidence that written
laws existed at least as early as the eighth or ninth
centuries B.C. in both kingdoms. 2 The context of the
passage in Hosea (cp Jer. ?22/~.) implies that these laws
had regard rather to social and moral life than to
cultus. 3 Such is the character of the major part of the
laws in Ex. 21-23. On the other hand the laws of Ex.
34 11-26, said by J to have been written by Moses, are
for the most part concerned with the cultus.
For whom, then, we may ask, were these laws
written? Who were to read them? In what sense
__. ... were they literature? These ques-
3. WHy written? tions cannot l>e answer ed with cer
tainty ; but it seems likely that such collections of
written laws were in the first instance intended for
the priests whose duty it was to give decisions (cp LAW
AND JUSTICE, 3, end). When (some of) the laws
of Ex. 21-23 l>ecame incorporated (probably about
the middle of the eighth century) in E, and those of
Ex. 34 11-26 (somewhat earlier) in J (see Exonus,
3 vi.-ix. 4), they became the possession of a larger
circle. To all appearance both these sets of laws
codify existing practices, and do not introduce changes.
regarded. The code may not in its original form have been
attributed to Moses (cp Nowack, }[A 1 310) ; it rather appears
to have been a collection of rules resting on long existing
practice. See l>elow, 7 f.
1 On the relation of these codes to the sources J and E, see
EXMIIUS ii., 8 3 Vl -/-i 4-
2 See further Kue. Hex. ET 175 ff.
* Cp 46 in the light of the context and see We. I rol.(*) pp.
S*S; 43-
2731
4. Circulation.
LAW LITERATURE
There was no need, therefore, for their publicatiorx
merely as laws. Their appearance in Hebrew literature
is rather due to the growth of an historical literature
(yet see Kue. Hex. 15, ET 272).
The publication of Dt. 1 in the seventh century
marks an important stage in the history of Law
Literature. Dt. was the literary em
bodiment of a religious reformation,
the principles of which affected many established
customs. Its publication therefore was necessary : it
was essential that the people at large should know what
was required of them by the new law. There are in the
book passages which clearly imply that such publica
tion was contemplated by its authors, and we learn from
2 K. 2 2f. that they saw their designs carried out. Even
so, however, we must not think of the book as having a
large circulation among many classes of readers. Most
of the people were to become acquainted with it by hear
ing it read to them periodically by the priests and elders 2
(Dt. 319-13, cp 2 K. 282), just as according to the theory
of the book it was in the first instance read to them by
Moses (285861; cp l s 3l2 4 2920 30io) ; the only
copies of which we actually hear, in addition to the
original which was to be kept in the temple (31 26), are
the copy which was to be made for the king (17 iB) and
the copy engraved on stones, referred to in Dt. 27 2 f. 8
(on which see Driver, and, on the text and tradition
PLAISTER).
It is reasonable, however, to suppose that other copies were
in the hands of instructors of the people. It has been inferred
from Jer. 11 1-8 that Jeremiah went about explaining Deuter
onomy (see, e.g., Che. Jer. : his li/e and times, 55 Jf.). Still,
the very limited circulation even of Dt. is a fact to be borne in
mind when we consider the likelihood of the original code having
been modified or expanded.
In the early years of the exile (592-570) Ezekiel wrote his
sketch of the future constitution. The same period and the
later years of exile were probably marked by much legal study
and literary production. This, however, rests on indirect and
internal evidence which is discussed elsewhere (see also below,
i6_/). The same may be said of the early post -exilic period.
Certainly, from the time of Dt. onwards, references
to written law become frequent. Life is no longer
ordered merely or even mainly by long-established and
recognised custom, and in cases of doubt by the oral
decisions of priests, but according to what is written
in the (book of the) law of Moses 3 (Ezra3z 618
Neh. 13i ff. Josh. 831 D [cp 18 D] 236 2 K. 146
D, 2 Ch. 23i8 254 35i2). Other references from
this period to written law are Ezra 76 Neh. 81.
Most significant also is the gradual omission of the
words book of before the law when written law is
implied. Torah, originally denoting a decision orally
delivered, becomes a term for a body of written law
(L.\w AND JUSTICE, i).
Of course long after written law had become a well-
recognised institution, many still depended for their
knowledge of it on hearing it read to them (see Neh.
813 1-3). The circulation of copies, however, must have
become increasingly large ; this is in part indicated by
the existence of the class of scribes. The number of
people who possessed and read the law was certainly
considerable in the second century B.C. (i Mace. Is6/).
Later the reading of the law was widely practised ;
it formed the staple of EDUCATION (q. f . 3 /. ; cp
Schiirer, GJfM, II 354 , ET ii. 2 50).
It is true that the term law was extended so as to cover all
sacred literature (see CANON, 26) ; but this is only a further
proof of the influence gained by the specifically legal literature.
It is unnecessary to dwell on a fact so well recognised as that
the Jews in the first century were (what they certainly were
not, if we are to be guided by our records, down to the time of
1 For the extent of the book as first published and the date
of its origin, see DEUTERONOMV ( $ff.).
2 In Dt. 31 ii read iNipn with (of the priests and elders)
instead of Nipn (MT) of Israel ; cp Di. and Dr. ad lac.
3 In this connection the absence of any referencein Hag. 2io-i2
to a written law (such as Nu. 19) on defilement by the dead, and
the implication that oral instruction on the subject still needed
to be obtained, is significant.
2732
LAW LITERATURE
Josiah) the people of the law, the people of the book 1 (cp e.g.
Jn. 639).
The history of Hebrew and Jewish Law Literature
may be divided into six periods viz. (i) the pre-Josianic
. iT Ppriod< , ( 6-9) ! (2) the Josianic ( 10-13) ;
L8> (3) the exilic ( 14-16) ; (4) the earlier
post-exilic ( 17-19): (s) ^ e later post-exilic ( 20 f. ) ;
and (6) the Rabbinic ( 22 f.). From what has been
said already ( 2-4), it will be easy to understand that
a literature of Law in any very precise sense of the
term begins only with the second (Josianic) of these
periods ; in the first we have to do with the formulation
and committal to writing of existing laws, but scarcely
with the publication, for general perusal or recitation,
of any legal work.
i. Pre-Josianic Period. Written laws were, as we
have seen (2), known in Israel at least as early as
the eighth century B.C. Some of these laws
6. Before
Josiab.
have survived, editorially modified indeed
yet not in such a way as to render their
essential features unrecognisable, in the Pentateuch
in particular in Ex. 20-24 34; see also Ex. 183-16.
Others are probably incorporated without much greater
editorial modifications in other masses of law, especi
ally D and H ; but the consideration of these latter
can be left to later sections. We will confine our
attention for the present to the laws which are closely
connected with the prophetic narratives of the Hexa-
teuch, and (on this ground and on others) may be re
garded with greatest probability as representing early
Hebrew collections of written law.
. There can be no question that both Ex. 34 16 (i2)-26, and
chaps. 20 1-23 19 stand at present surrounded by prophetic
narratives ; but whether their present is the same as was their
original position in the sources is very much open to question ;
and this is particularly the case with Ex. 21 j-23 19 (cp Kue.
Hex. 13, n. 32). If this be the case, can we be sure that the
laws in question ever stood in the sources? In other words,
can we safely argue merely from their position in the Hexateuch
that the codes had been collected in written form as early as
JorE?
Certainty does not seem to be justifiable, and Baentsch
(Bundesbuch, 122)2 as a matter of fact is inclined to attribute the
embodiment of Ex. 21 i-23ig in the prophetic history-book to
the compiler of JE to the complex prophetic source the com
pilation of which must be placed at the close of the seventh
century H.c. Yet two or three considerations render it probable
that these laws occupied a place in one of the two main sources
J or E. (i) If the compiler of JE had not been led by the
previous existence of the code in one of his sources to retain it
in his compilation, would he not rather have adopted the
Deuteronomic code or some laws more in accordance with that
code ? (2) The code, whether incorporated in the earlier sources
or not, is certainly much earlier in origin than JE.
On the whole then, we may conclude that we approximate
to the written laws of Yahwe to which Hosea makes reference
in the decalogue of Ex. 20, the older decalogue of Ex. 34 and
the code of Ex. 2024-23. At the same time a comparison of
Ex. 20 and Dt. 5 warns us that those older laws were sometimes
subject to much editorial expansion (see DECALOGUE), and this
must be borne in mind in attempting to jjain a more definite
idea of the law literature of the earliest period ; the presence of
such expansions can for the most part merely be referred to
here : details must be sought elsewhere. [The upward limit of
date is determined by the one fact that the laws presuppose a
settled agricultural society. See EXODUS ii.]
1 The Introduction of the law, first of Deuteronomy, then
of the entire Pentateuch, was in fact the decisive step by which
the written word (die Schrift) took the place of the spoken word
(die Rede) and the people of the word became a people of the
book (We. Prol.(*), 415). As the historical and prophetical
books existed in part a long time before they became
canonical, so, it is thought, was it the case also with the
Jaw (das Gesetz). Nevertheless, in the case of the law, there
is an essential difference. The law is meant to have binding
force, is meant to be the book of the community. A dif
ference between Law and Canon there never was. It is
therefore easy to understand that the Torah, although as a
literary product younger than the historical and the pro
phetical books, is yet as law (Gesetz) older than those writings,
which originally and essentially bore no legal character, but
obtained the same accidentally in consequence of being attached
to an already existing Law (it. 416).
2 See now (1900) also his Comm. on Ex. Lev. in H K ; he
there admits (p. 188) that some laws stood at this point in E
(cp 20i8-2i 243-8) to be found in 2022-26 2227-29 23 10-16, and
that the judgments (see 7) stood elsewhere in E at a point not
to be denned.
2 733
LAW LITERATURE
These remnants of pre-Josianic Hebrew law fall into
different classes when regarded in respect of their form.
7 - We find ( x ) absolute commands in
.- Ex. 20 3-17 (the Decalogue), Ex.
judgments. 34io _ a6l ^ so . ca]]ed , * de r deca
logue ), and Ex. 202 3 -26 2 (21 15-17) 22i8-22 28-31 281-3
6-19 ; deuteronomic expansions often accompany these
ancient commandments in their present setting see
especially Ex. 204-6 ^b gf. \?b 17 2222-24 27 23 10 126 ;
(2) hypothetical instructions based presumably on
precedent a codification of consuetudinary law- in
Ex. 212-14 18-36 22 1-17 2 5 / 23 4/.
Laws of the former (absolute) type seem to have gone by the
name of Words (c 13~l) , so at least the commandments of the
Decalogue (Ex.20) were termed (Dt. 5 22 4 13 104), as also
those of the older Decalogue (Ex. 34 27) ; and some have sup
posed that the absolute commands of Ex. 21-23 are referred to
by the same term in Ex. 24 3 4 8. On the other hand the hypo
thetical provisions of Ex. 21 2-24, etc., appear to have been
specifically termed judgments (n pSE c) see Ex. 21 i and per
haps 24 3 ; and cp Nu. 35 24 (referring to w. 16-23).
Ultimately, it need not be doubted, these two distinct
types of laws had different origins. The main religious
_,, . duties may at a comparatively early date
. . have been thrown into a scheme of ten
commands ; later, under the influence of
the prophetic teaching, and perhaps as a set-off (cp the
contrast between Mic. 66/. and v. 8) to still earlier
ritual decalogues, other schemes of ten words mainly
inculcating moral duties may have been framed. An
ancient ritual decalogue seems to underlie Ex. 34 12-26
(DECALOGUE, 5) ; individual commands of this kind
appear elsewhere e.g. , in Ex. 23 18 ( =3425). A moral
decalogue, scarcely earlier in origin than the prophets
of the eighth century, clearly survives in Ex. 20.
The judgments, on the other hand, will have
originated in decisions given on particular cases by
priest or other judicial authority (cp LAW AND JUSTICE,
4). These judgments, again, need not all have
originated at the same time or place ; they may very
well as they stand represent a selection from the
established precedents at different sanctuaries ; and to
this may be due the differences of form noticeable
among them.
Whilst, however, such differences are certainly re
markable, and seem best accounted for by difference
of origin, we have not sufficient data to enable us to
determine in more than a quite general way what those
differences of origin whether of time or place actually
were. In particular it seems a fruitless task to attempt
to reach an actual earlier form of the Book of the
Covenant by a series of transformations, such as Roth-
stein (Bundesbuch, 1887) has proposed.
So again we must be content with alternative possi
bilities when we come to consider the later literary
history of both the words and the
9. Literary ,
history.
judgments. The decalogue of Ex.34
certainly seems to have formed part of
the main prophetic source J (Exouus, 3, vii.); the
Decalogue, generally so-called (Ex. 20), part of the
prophetic source E, though whether in an earlier (Ej)
or a later (E^) form is disputed. The Book of the
Covenant, again (Ex. 2022-2819), is also by most re
garded as having formed part of E, though, as we have
seen ( 6), Baentsch thinks that it was first incorporated
by JE. However that may be, further alternatives
arise. Had the Book of the Covenant an independent
existence in writing before it came to form part of E or
JE, or was it the compiler of one of those works who
first brought together from different written or oral
sources the words and the judgments ? These
questions also must be left undecided. 3
One point further only needs to be emphasised here.
Neither J nor E nor JE came, by the incorporation of
1 Yet note the conditional case in 34 20.
2 Yet note v. 25.
s For a fuller discussion of these and references to literature
see EXODUS ii., -$f.
2734
LAW LITERATURE
LAW LITERATURE
these collections of law to be a law-book. The laws
torm but a small part of the whole and are incorporated
not with a view to gain recognition for them ; for they
were based on long-established precedents, or (as in
the case of the Decalogue of Kx. 20) they embodied
some of the moral duties on which prophetic teaching
naturally laid stress : they owe their place to a histori
cal motive they are specimens of those customs, enjoy
ing the sanction of Yah we s favour, which were observed
in Israel.
2. The Josianic Period. The second period brings
us to the first specimen of Law Literature proper
i.e., of works intended for publicity
and having a , egal as their i eading
_. f
10. lime 01
Josiah. move
The historical cause of this new departure was the
religious reformation carried out under Josiah, and
the leading doctrinal motive of the reformation was
the unity of Yahwe ; the main reform aimed at in
practice, the abolition- of local sanctuaries and the
centralisation of worship at Jerusalem. This one main
reform, however, involved many important changes,
especially in the sacrificial customs, the status of the
priests, the right of asylum (see SACRIFICE ; PRIEST,
6 ; ASYLUM, 3).
In Deuteronomy we find the programme of this
reformation (see DEUTERONOMY). Not to repeat a
discussion of the exact limits of the
e
ONOMY, 4 /. ) it will suffice to notice here, that,
regarded from a literary point of view, the book con
sists of three elements : (a) previously existing laws,
in some cases much, in others probably but little, if at
all, modified ( 12) ; (6) regulations for carrying into
effect the contemplated reforms ( 13) ; (c ) exhortations,
accompanied by threats and promises and illustrated by
historical retrospects, to carry out the injunctions of the
book ( 13). The first element is common to Deuter
onomy and the historical works of the preceding period
which embody laws ( 6). The second and third ele
ments entirely differentiate the new from the older literary
form. The purpose of the earlier historical works was
to record and glorify the existing order of things : the
purpose of Deuteronomy was to condemn and displace
that order. In the earlier period laws owed their
position in literature to an historical interest ; hence
forward history becomes an exponent of legal theory
at first (especially in the Books of Kings in their final
form) of the deuteronomic theory, and later (as in
Chronicles) of the priestly theory ( 17).
We turn now to a fuller survey of the various ele
ments, and of the history (so far as it can be discovered
or surmised) of the fusion of them as seen in the existing
book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Previously existing laws. It has long been
recognised that Deuteronomy is in large part based on
12 Laws the laws now founc ^ embodied in the
not new P r P net c narratives of our Hexateuch.
The extent of this common matter may be
seen at a glance by consulting the comparative table in
Driver s Deut. (iv.-vii.) ; see also DEUTERONOMY, 9 ;
EXODUS ii., 4. The close relation between the two
bodies of legislation, often extending to verbal coincid
ences, is thus summed up by Driver (8) : Nearly the
whole ground covered by Ex. 2022-2833 is included in it
[the deuteronomic legislation], almost the only exception
being the special compensations to be paid for various
injuries (Ex. 21 i8-22i6), which would be less necessary
in a manual intended for the people. In a few cases
the law is repeated verbatim, or nearly so ; elsewhere
only particular clauses ; in other cases the older law is
expanded, fresh definitions being added, or its principle
extended, or parenthetic comments attached, or the
law is virtually recast in the deuteronomic phraseology.
(Yet see DEUTERONOMY, 9.)
2735
In addition to this legal matter found in the extant
earlier codes, we have much similar matter not found
there. It is reasonable to suppose that this also was
derived, though by no means always without editorial
modification, from sources similar to those noticed above
( ?) whether oral or written. Down to a period
much later than that now under consideration the
priests gave oral decisions, to which on many ritual
points those in need of instruction were referred.
From established and traditional decisions of this kind,
as well as from written sources, the deuteronomic
writers (like the compiler of H ; below, 15) may well
have drawn. Particularly noticeable among this legal
matter peculiar to Deuteronomy are the laws relative
to unclean animals in chap. 14 (cp DEUTERONOMY,
10) and the laws of chaps. 21io-25i6 (of which only
seven out of a total of thirty-five are found in the
legislation of JE ; DEUTERONOMY, 9) which in their
greater terseness contrast with the generally diffuse
style of even the distinctly legal parts of Dt. and are on
this account with probability regarded as drawn more
directly and with less modification from existing collec
tions of laws. 1
The attempts to determine more precisely the exact literary
character, if the sources were written, and the previous inter
relations of this older matter not found in the legislation of JE
have led to no convincing conclusions. Both Staerk and
Steuernagel have attempted a resolution of the strictly legislative
parts of D into sources, on the ground of the changing usage of
the sing, and pi. for the persons addressed. Steuernagel (Deut.
vi. ff.). also constitutes into sources various other groups of
passages such as (Hi 21-17 i) 18 io-i2 22 5 23 19 25 i3-i6rt, on
the ground of the common clause For any one who does suck
things is abominable to Yahwe (nSj< nc j; S? najm 3)- Even,
however, if we should grant that the criteria suffice to establish
ultimate diversity of origin, they certainly do not establish any
separate literary existence for such sources. Steuernagel him
self expressly discards the idea that such sources need ever have
obtained public currency (ib. xiii.). We can scarcely assert with
safety more than this that these laws, so sharply distinguished
in style from the more distinctively novel elements in Dt. (such
for example as chaps. 12 f. 17 i^jf. 18 \$ff. 20 1-9), must have
had previously some fixed form. The arguments adduced by
Dillmann (NDJ 292/1 340 604^ 606 ; cp Kue. Hex. ET, 256;
Graf, Gesch. Bticher, 25-27) to show that they must have been
written really prove no more than such previous fixity of form
whether oral or written.
But whatever conclusions we may draw in detail, there
seems ample reason for the general conclusion that,
with the single exception, to be noticed immediately,
the legal material, even when it cannot be traced to still
extant earlier codes, is not the novel element in Deuter
onomy.
(^) and (c). This single exception, this new legal
element in Deuteronomy, is the law of the centralisation
13 New ^ worsn P with its various corollaries.
elem t in ^ ut l ^ e mnluence f tms one new legal
Dt element is powerful, clearly felt, and far-
reaching. Take, for example, the lavr
of sacrifice (chap. 12). Much is assumed as known,
for instance the mode of sacrifice ; but in respect to
the place of sacrifice we find what was absent from the
earlier legislation (cp 9 end) is here present a sense
of change ; immemorial practice no longer supports
itself by the mere fact of being such : no longer as
at this day (128) is sacrifice to be offered wherever
one pleases, but at one definite place only (12 13/. ).
Worship must be centralised ; the unity of Yahwe vin
dicated and outwardly symbolised. What has been
legitimate ceases to be so, while some things that had
been illegitimate now become legitimate (12is).
If the law-book, instead of merely glorifying the
existing order of things, aimed at changing it and thus
seriously affecting the life of the people, it needed a
means of commending the changes to the people and
arousing enthusiasm to carry them into effect. Hence
the change is represented as long overdue ; it should
have been made when Yahwe took up his abode in
Jerusalem. Hence also the promises and threats with
their appeal to the hopes and fears of the people ; the
1 See more fully Graf, Gesch. Ditcher, t^f.
2736
LAW LITERATURE
insistence on prophetic principles ; the didactic historical
retrospects.
That the main elements just noted characterised the
book found in the temple (2 K. 228) is plainly indicated
by the narrative of 2 K. 22 /. The legal element is
clear from the title the book of the torah by which
it is there referred to, and from the correspondence of
the actions of Josiah to the demands of the law ; the
sense of change, the newness of the demands, is seen in
the confession that immemorial customs did not conform
to the demands of the law (2 K. 22 13) ; and the hortatory
element must be presupposed to account for the alarm
produced in the king on hearing the book read.
When this is said it still remains uncertain precisely
how much of the present book constituted the book
found in the temple. The critical study of Deuteronomy
leads to the conclusion that the original book was
amplified both in its legal and in its hortatory parts, and
that the present work has resulted from the fusion of
two different editions, so to speak, of the work dis
tinguished from one another more particularly by different
historical introductions (DEUTERONOMY, 4-7) : the
limited circulation of books (above, 4) rendered such
growth of a book easy.
These processes of expansion in large part are to be
placed in the period between the Reformation (621 B.C.)
and the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) and represent the
continuous literary activity of the reforming party.
Two characteristics of this great product of the
Josianic period must be referred to before we pass to the
next period. ( i ) Deuteronomy is thoroughly practical ;
it is the work of men living amid the actual circumstances
of the life which they wish to reform. The authors
appreciate the effect of the contemplated changes ; if
their principle involved the centralisation of worship,
they see the necessity and make provision for the de-
sanctification of ordinary flesh meals ; if they rob the
local priests of their custom at the local shrines, they
give them their share in the custom of the temple at
Jerusalem ; if they abolish with the local sanctuaries
the numerous asyla offered by the altars there, they
institute cities of refuge civil asyla. (2) This practical
character of the work defines its limitations. It is an
appeal to the people : prophetic principles are enforced
and illustrated in detail by the recital of moral and civil
laws and of ritual law so far as it affected the people.
On the other hand, the details of ritual, the functions
of the priests, receive no attention ; these were suffi
ciently determined by the existing practice at Jerusalem.
3. The Exilic Period. The literature of the exile
bears the marks of the profound change in the external
14 Ezekiel circumstances of the people. The national
life has ceased ; it is now merely the
subject of memory, the subject of hope. Hence the
literary activity of the period shows itself mainly in the
production of theoretical works, the framing of a con
stitution for the restored nation ; and in the preservation
of the regulations of the life that has ceased to be.
The theoretical element is most markedly present in
Ezekiel. In his sketch of the ideal constitution J of the
new state he borrows, needless to say, largely from
ancient practice ; as a priest, he was familiar with the
duties of the priest and the priestly ritual, and he draws
on this knowledge. As contrasted with the Isaianic it is
a priestly conception of holiness that dominates him,
leading him to give the central significance which he
does to the holy city and especially to the temple (Ezek.
40-43 17). This accounts for the almost exclusively
ritual and priestly character of the laws which the
prophet incorporates in his sketch.
Note the ritual for the consecration of the altar (43 18-27), the
regulations regarding the persons who may approach the
sanctuary (44 6-15), the duties of the priests (44 16-27), the priestly
dues (44 28-31), the materials and fixed seasons of sacrifices
(4.) 1 3.46 1 5), the treatment of the sacrificial flesh (46 19-24). As
compared with the actual monarchs of pre-exilic times, Ezekiel s
1 Cp EZEKIEL ii., 13, ?$/.
2737
LAW LITERATURE
prince is an insignificant person, and he comes before us
mainly in connection with the sacrifices (4612-17461-15) and
the distribution of the land (45 7 _/:, 46i6-i8). Beyond some
general exhortations to the princes not to oppress (e.g., 45s),
almost the only references to other than priestly and ritual
matters are in the short section commending just weights and
measures (469-11).
Doubtless it was not Ezekiel s purpose to set forth a
full constitution for the new state. It is equally clear,
however, that his ideal differs from the real state which
had passed away in the position given to the priests,
and in particular the Jerusalem priests. As com
pared with Deuteronomy, Ezekiel increases the priestly
dues and by depriving the local priests priests who
were not descended from Zadok of their priestly
position, makes of the priests of his ideal constitution a
compact and corporate body. In his priestly constitu
tion Ezekiel, moreover, most clearly appears as an
innovator. He is well aware that the priests of the
future will not be as those of the past with which he had
been familiar. In the past, which was the present of
Dt. , all Levites had exercised priestly functions ; in the
future all Levites not descended from Zadok, in other
words all Levites who had not been connected with
the Jerusalem temple, will be degraded into an inferior
order : the Zadokites alone will remain genuine priests.
Ezekiel s remoteness from the actualities of life
(contrast Deuteronomy) comes out particularly in his
division of the country, which he regards as an exact
parallelogram.
A particular value, historically and critically, attaches
to the legal section of the book of Ezekiel. It shows
us, on indisputable chronological evidence, how at least
one mind in exile was working on Jewish law at a time
when circumstances prevented its being put into force,
and how the exile marks the transition from the literary
activity, which had been mainly prophetic, to the literary
activity of the post-exilic period, which became increas
ingly priestly and legal.
Criticism has shown that Ezekiel s was not the only
mind working in v the way just described, and that not to
him alone do we owe legal literature of the exilic age.
The most important of the remaining legal works the
exilic origin of which has been generally admitted (yet
15 La f see LEVITICUS, 28/ ) is the Law of Holi-
Holiness ness ( LEVITICUS - r 3-3)- Though in
its present form incomplete and frequently
modified by the editor who incorporated it with the
larger post-exilic priestly work, it is not difficult to see
the general character and motive of the work of the
exilic compiler or editor. Like Deuteronomy it is based
on earlier legislation, 1 is parsenetic in character (this
feature being specially prominent in the closing section ;
Lev. 26), and is characterised by its humanity (cp, e.g. ,
Lev. 193/. ). Like Ezekiel (40-48) it has as its dominant
note holiness, and appears to have had as its aim the
regulation of the restored community.
H has in addition to these general characteristics so much in
common with Ezekiel that Graf, as is well known, concluded
that P^zekiel must have been the author of H (Gesch. Biicher,
81-83). As has frequently been pointed out, however (e.g., We.
ProU*), 386: Dr. I ntrod.W} , 1487:), whilst in some important
respects H agrees with Ezekiel against D (e.g., the loth of the
seventh month is the feast of the New Year in H [Lev. 26911]
and Ezek. 40 i, not as in P [Lev. 1629] the Day of Atonement)
in others H agrees with P against Ezekiel ; thus the priests are
sons of Aaron, not of Zadok (as in Ezek. 44 15 ff., 48 n). See,
further, LEVITES.
If we may trust the present arrangement, this law-
book (H) began, like the legislation in JE (Ex. 2622-
23 16), with the regulation of sacrifice (Lev. 17) ; it as
sumes (Lev. 174 26n 19so 20 3 21 12-20 262 31) rather
than demands (like Dt. ) that there must be but one place
of sacrifice. Like Ezekiel, the Law of Holiness gives
much attention to the priests and the ritual (chaps. 17
1 Cp, e.g., Lev. 19 15 with Ex 283, Lev. 2227-29 with Ex.
222Q 23i8f., Lev. 25 1-7 with Ex. 28 lo/ See further We.
Prol.(^), 384. It would be unreasonable, however, to limit the
earlier legislation preserved in H to what is found in our extant
earlier codes; see above, 12.
2738
LAW LITERATURE
20-24) ; but it regulates also with considerable fulness
family and social life (esp. chaps. 18-20 25). J
For proof of the date and extent of H, and for various views
as to details, reference must be made to LEVITICUS, 13^, and
the literature there cited, but see, especially, Baentsch, lleilig-
kcitsgesetz. Baentsch s conclusions (on which cp Dr. fntrei/.( 6 )
p. 149 n.) may be summarised as follows : " Between the years
621 and 591, and probably within a year or two of the latter
term, a writer (H) made a collection of previously existing laws,
giving them a partfnetic framework and the historical back
ground of the wandering in the wilderness. This collection
survives in Lev. 18 20 23 9-12 15-17 isa igf> 2022 2415-22 25 1-7
14 17 18-22 23 24 35-38 29 i 2. Some years later later also than
Kzekiel another writer (H 2 )also made a collection of previously
existing laws. These are mainly concerned with the priests and
the offerings, and are provided by their editor with a dogmatic
framework. This collection survives in Lev. 21./C Quite at the
close of the captivity an exile, anxious that the restored com
munity should be regulated aright, united H] and H%, prefixed
chap. 17 (H;t), and concluded the whole with a previously exist
ing prophetic discourse (Lev. 263^), to which he made various
additions (w. 10 17 [?], 34 35 39-43) appropriate to his immediate
purpose." The details 2 of the foregoing theory and the analysis
underlying it have varying degrees of probability ; but the com-
plexitv of the code seems certain (if only on the ground of the
presence of both chap. 18 and chap. 20), and that more than one
exilic process is here represented is highly probable.
Possibly we should refer to the exile also the writing down
and collection of much of the priestly teaching that lies at the
basis of a large part of Leviticus and is
16. Other indicated in Carpenter and Battersby s Hexa-
COllectionS. teuch as P . For arguments as to the date of
this P>, see ih. I. pp. 152 /., and Harford-
Battersby in arts. Leviticus and Numbers in Hastings
DB.
We find then that in the exile legal study and especi
ally the study of the temple ritual and priestly duties
was zealously pursued though (or perhaps we should
rather say, because), the temple being destroyed, both
ritual and priestly duties were for the time being in
suspense : just as after the second destruction of the
temple and the permanent cessation of sacrifice in 70
A. D. the rabbinic study of matters connected with the
temple continued with great if not increased ardour
(see 23).
4. Early Post- Exilic Period. The activity of this
period resulted in (a) the legal and quasi-historical
p .. work known as the Priestly Code (P), and
J (*) the fusion with that work of older
iracter. histories (j E) and of the ]aw . book D>
producing a work substantially the same as our Penta
teuch (on b see 20 f. ).
Towards the end of the sixth or at the beginning
of the fifth century B.C., probably in Babylon, 3 a
great work, historical in form, legal or institutional in
motive, saw the light. 4 Its evident purpose is the vindi
cation of the divine origin of (ewish institutions and
ritual law. Terse to a degree in its treatment of history
generally, reducing the biographies of the heroes of the
past to little more than a genealogy and a table of ages,
it expands into fulness where the origin or purpose of
an institution can be illustrated, as for example in the
history of creation leading up to the Sabbath, that of
the Deluge closing with the command not to eat blood,
the birth of Isaac and the institution of circumcision.
What is chiefly dwelt on in connection with the Exodus
is the institution of the Passover ; the history of the
transition from Egypt to Canaan deals fully only with
the establishment of the central place of worship the
tabernacle and of the sacred classes (the priests and
"Levites) to whose care and service it was confided.
Ezekiel in the exile with prophetic freedom legislates
afresh ; and, with a full sense of the novelty of some
1 Exclusive of those parts of the chapters in question which
are from the hand of later priestly writers. See LEVITICUS,
|X4/
2 For a criticism of one or two of these see a review by the
present writer in JQR 6(1893), pp. 179-182, whence the above
summary is cited.
3 Cp E7ra76^7;, and Kue. Hex. 15, n. 27.
* This can most conveniently be read in Addis s Documents
of the Hexateuch, vol. ii. See also Carpenter and Harford-
Battersby. On the origin of P see HEXATEU;H, g 13-30; on
its relation to Hebrew historical literature, see HISTORICAL
LlTEKATUKE, 9.
2739
LAW LITERATURE
features in the constitution which he draws up, presents
it under the form of the ideal state of the future. The
author of the great priestly history casts his ideal back
into the past ; what ought to be, was ; what ought to
be done now, was done by the true Jew of the past ;
earlier histories represented the patriarchs sacrificing in
various spots ; to P sacrifice apart from the tabernacle
was profanity ; hence in his history the patriarchs never
sacrifice. P s tabernacle itself is anterior to the temple
only in the imagination not in history. The entire work
is legal or ritual fact and theory presented under the
form of history.
Now, what is the literary inter-relation between the
various parts of the work ? P consists of two main
elements ; the history of Jewish institu
tions already described, and masses of
18. P s two
laws mainly concerned with ritual matters.
Were these two elements combined from the first? If
not, when was the combination made? Are even
the two main elements quite simple or to be resolved
into yet further elements? Complete and conclusive
answers to these questions are not obtainable. Certain
points, however, are clear, and the complexity of P is
certain.
(a) The masses of laws in P are in part earlier (for
an example see 15 the Law of Holiness), in part
later (see below, 21) than the priestly history. In
large part, however, it is difficult to decide with cer
tainty whether the laws had or had not a separate
literary, as distinct from a fixed oral, existence before
they were united with this history.
Two things, however, must be observed : (r) For the most
part the masses of law have no organic connection with the
priestly history. This is true, for example, of the great mass
contained in Lev. 1-7 (LEVITICUS, 7), and again such laws as
those of the Nazirite (Nu. 6), of the ordeal of Jealousy (Nu.
611-31), and those contained in Nu. 1510. (2) The laws are not
homogeneous. Taking again as an example Lev. 1-7, we find the
same subjects treated more than once and in a different manner ;
thus 6 8-7 38 covers the same ground as chaps. 1-5 viz. the ritual
of the various forms of offerings and the subscription in 7 35_/T
refers only to 68-734 I 1 instances of actually divergent laws on
the same subject within the priestly code will be referred to in
821.
(/;) The several laws are worked inorganically into
the historical framework though often in the vaguest
manner.
The laws are delivered to Moses or to Moses and Aaron (cp
i). Sometimes the place of delivery (e.g., Lev. 1 i 738) or
time (/ />.) is defined. At times (e.g., Lev. 8) a law is cast entirely
in the form of a history of its first appearance ; and generally
what Aaron is bidden to do may be taken as a standing law
actual or ideal for the priests of the writer s own day. Very
frequently, however, the law is quite general in its terms and is
only loosely connected with the history by the introductory
formulie (see, e.g., Lev. 1-7 23 exclusive of the parts belonging
toH).
(c) Whether or not the history and the various
bodies of law in P had a separate literary career of
their own before they became united, history and laws
belong to the same general period. The force of
critical tradition in favour of the early date of the
priestly history led Graf, it is true, in the first instance
to place the laws, the date of the origin of which was too
obvious to be ignored, remote in time from the history.
The impossibility of this, however, was quickly seen, not
only by Grafs critics, but also by himself. The funda
mental characteristics of the laws which point to the
period in which they originated are in the history merely
a little less explicit. They are there. Laws and history
alike presuppose, for example, the single place of
sacrifice, the distinction between priests and Levites.
In subsidiary matters too, the tie is equally close ;
both alike, for example, use a number to define the
month, and both are generally marked by the same
striking linguistic peculiarities.
The production then of this complex work was one
of the chief results of literary activity in the earlier post-
exilic period. We may consider the possibilities and
1 See further Driver, Introdfo, pp. t,i,f.
2740
LAW LITERATURE
probabilities with regard to the stages in its growth in
connection with the other achievement of the period
the union of this complex whole or of its various parts
with JED.
Here we must consider the external evidence. Un
fortunately that evidence is ambiguous ; and scholars
_. _- ., are much divided in their interpretation
19 f N h 8 10
"
f
evidence consists of the
account of the acceptance of the law
of God which was given by Moses the servant of God
(Neh. 1029) contained in Neh. 8-10 chapters derived
from the memoirs of Ezra but worked over to some
degree by the excerptor (see EZRA ii. , 5). Now the
law to which the people bound themselves on the 24th
day of the yth month of the year 444 was, at least pre
eminently, the law of P.
It is quite clearly P s law of the feast of booths that is found
written in the law (Neh. 8 i$/.) , for the festival lasts eight days
(Neh. 8 is) in accordance with Lev. 23 36 (cp 2 Ch. ~ gf.), not
seven as commanded in Dt. 10 13 (cp i K. 866 Ezek. 45 25 Lev.
- 341, H). Then compare further in detail the ordinances de
scribed in Neh. 1032-39 with the relevant laws in P for detailed
references see the commentators : note especially the agree
ment, as to the dues demanded, of Neh. 1036-40 with Nu. 18;
on the relation of 1032 to Ex. 30 i~$f. cp below, 21 (a).
Was, then, the law of God, read by Ezra and inter
preted by the priests and Levites to the people, simply
the historico-legal work contained in P, or was it this
work already combined with JED and therefore sub
stantially the Pentateuch in its present form ? The
former alternative certainly seems more probable on the
face of it. Would a self-contradictory work like the
Pentateuch in its present form have produced the desired
effect ?
The view that Ezra s law consisted of P alone has been held
and defended, inter alias, by Kayser (Das vorexilische Buck,
pp. 195 f.), Reuss (Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften des A Tft),
yij jf-h Kuenen (Hex. 303), Holzinger (Einl. 438/1). In
addition to the argument already suggested, it is urged that the
time allowed in Neh. 8 for reading and interpreting would not
have permitted of Lev. 23 being reached by the second day if
the whole Pentateuch, not simply P, was the book read.
The opposite view that Ezra read P combined with JED is
adopted, almost of necessity, by adherents of the older critical
school (e.g., Di. NJD 672 f.\ Kit. 93./C), but a s o by others (e.g.,
We. Prol.(*), 415). Among the grounds adduced for this view
is the fact that marriage with aliens (Neh. 10 30 [31]) is expressly
forbidden not in P but only in other parts of the Pentateuch
(Ex. 34 1 2 Dt. ~tff.).
5. Later Post -Exilic (post-Ezran} Period. On the
answer to the questions raised at the end of the last section
20 T t must largely turn our view of post-Ezran
history of P. ! itera T. activit , y Most v of * hat ^l 1 b , e
here discussed must be thrown back
before the period of Ezra, if the view that the law read
by him was (substantially) the whole Pentateuch be
adopted ; and some of the processes may in any case
have fallen rather in the previous period ; a further
preliminary remark needing to be made is this, that
any strict chronological sequence of the processes now
to be mentioned cannot be established. Various hypo
theses may be made which nothing yet known serves
either to invalidate or confirm. With these precautions
we proceed to enumerate various editorial and supple
mentary labours to which criticism has drawn attention.
In some cases it is tolerably certain that those who
undertook them were successors of Ezra.
(a) The union of P with JED. This must have
occurred, if not before (see preceding section), within
a generation or two after, Ezra ; otherwise it would be
difficult to account for the practical identity of the Jewish
and Samaritan Pentateuchs (see CANON, 24/.). The
result of the union was important ; the pre-eminently
historico-prophetic character of JED becomes in the
whole complex work entirely subordinate to the legal
and priestly character of the later work with which
it is incorporated which now gives its dominant note
to the whole.
The earlier fortunes of JE fall for consideration almost
entirely under historical literature ; later they are lost in those
of the great legal work which henceforward is the normative
influence alike over literature (cp CHRONICLES) and over life.
2741
LAW LITERATURE
(i) Removal of Joshua. The process just mentioned
was doubtless associated with another. The history of
P extended to the conquest of Canaan (cp JOSHUA ii.,
5, 12). This last part of the work, dealing with
events subsequent to the death of Moses, no longer
forms part of the law. Whether this truncation of P
took place at the actual time of the union with JED
or subsequently may be left undecided ; but the date
of the process, like that of the union of P and JED,
hangs on the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which
does not contain the book of Joshua.
(c) Expansions of P (or of JEDP). The complexity
of P has been briefly discussed already ( 18). We
.... must here draw more special attention
, . , p to sections, related in style and spirit to
P, which do not appear to have formed
part of it originally and certainly may be of post-
Ezran origin. The determination of the secondary
or primary character of many particular sections
of priestly character must often remain inconclusive,
for it frequently turns on general considerations which
will weigh differently with different minds. 1 If it is
unlikely that the law Ezra read was encumbered with
the irrelevant histories of J E and the irreconcilable
laws of the earlier legislation and Dt. , it is scarcely less
unlikely that it contained the self-contradictory laws to
be found within P or the different representations of the
tabernacle and its appurtenances that underlie Ex. 25-31
as well as many of the laws. On the other hand some
laws not immediately and conspicuously connected with
the history (e.g. , those of Lev. 23) must already have
been united with the priestly history ( 18 f). Still, the
account in Neh. 8-10 fails to carry us far in actually
determining the extent of legal matter contained in
Ezra s law-book. As illustrations of the type of expan
sions to which P was subject the following may be cited.
(a) Laws representing and enforcing actual modifica
tions of praxis. In one or two cases it is tolerably
certain that these are not only secondary but also
post-Ezran.
For example, the temple tax in the time of Ezra was one-
third of a shekel (Neh. 1032), and, apparently, a novelty; the
law of Ex. 30 11-16 (cp 2 Ch. 246-io) demands half a shekel ; this
latter amount was actually paid in later times (Mt. 1724; cp Schiir.
GJl ~$), 2206). The most natural conclusion is that the law
of Ex. 30 11-16 is an expansion of P (which is further indicated
by its presupposing Nu. 1) subsequent to the time of Ezra.
Again, the tithe on cattle payable to the Levites according to
Lev. 27 30-33 and referred to in 2 Ch. 31 6 seems to be as little
recognised in Nu. 1821 Neh. 1036-38 [35-37] as in Dt. 1422-29
26 12-15. Once again, the law in Lev. 27 30-33 seems to belong to
the post-Ezran period ; but in this case it must be placed earlier
than the date of Chronicles. Many other similar cases of modifi
cations within P give less clue to the date of their incorporation
in the priestly work or the Pentateuch.
(/3) Another type of expansions is perhaps to be found
in laws embodying practice sufficiently ancient and even
primitive, but sanctioned only as a concession to pop
ular feeling by the scribal class.
For example, the ordeal of JEALOUSY (Nu. 5 11-31) and the
cleansing by the ashes of the red heifer (Nu. 19) are certainly in
some respects primitive. In their present form they betray the
general stylistic characteristics of the priestly school ; but they
stand isolated and unrelated (so far as can be seen) to the_ main
scheme of the priestly work. Cheyne accounts in a similar
manner for the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) ; see
AZAZEL, 4 ; Jewish Rel. Lift, 75 f.
(7) A third type of expansions consists of additions
to the more historical or quasi -historical material.
Most notable is the repetition (Ex. 35-40) in the form
of a detailed account of carrying these into effect of the
directions to build the tabernacle.
Here the relation of MT and renders it probable that we
have to do with tolerably late expansions. Whether or not
many other sections (e.g., Nu. 7) are primary or secondary
depends largely on the assurance with which we are prepared
to judge the possibilities of the original writer s piolixity.
For details see EXODUS, 5, LEVITICUS, iff., NUMBERS,
Ii7.f
(5) Another set of expansions of the primary work
1 For a discussion of many details see EXODUS, 5, LEVITICUS,
-, NUMBERS, \off. 21.
2742
LAW LITERATURE
LAZARUS
is indicated by references to the altar of incense or
the golden altar. This is unknown to Ex. 25-29, and
first appears in the supplemental section Ex. 30i-io.
The original priestly narrative knows only a single altar,
termed simply the altar, and distinguished by the
later writers from the altar of incense as the altar of
burnt-offering. Cp further Wellhausen, C7/< 2 >, 139^
Such are some of the leading instances of the expan
sion of the law after it had become fixed as to its main
form. By degrees the reverence for the letter, which a
few centuries later we know to have been intense, must
have rendered it difficult to incorporate new matter, and
especially new matter differing essentially from the
written law. Glosses may have been made even later ;
such is the conclusion suggested by a comparison of
MT with the versions, especially
6. Rabbinic Period. As there had been laws before
there was any legal literature( 7), so there was much legal
22 P t act v l y a f ter the legal literature collected
.. ,.. . in the Old Testament was complete. To
. , some extent this later activity found a
literary outlet in some of the Apocalyptic
Literature (APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 2, 58).
To a much larger extent it spent itself in the pro
duction of an oral tradition which had grown to great
proportions by the first century A. D. But whereas the
oral tradition that apparently lies behind the earliest
collections of written law in the OT was a record based
on actual practice and precedent, the later oral tradition
(in its turn the source and indeed the contents of another
great literature the Rabbinic) was largely casuistical ;
it concerned cases that might arise at least as much as
cases that had arisen. The law of God was no longer
established custom ; its principles were contained in the
written law and were capable of being applied to the
minutest circumstances of life. It is with this minute
application, with this working out of the older law, that
the traditions of the fathers which constitute the
Mishna are concerned.
As the first fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) gave a
stimulus to the fixing of much of previously existing law
>* TW Vi atlc to l ^ e consideration of the law of
SSfSi th f e . fUt <H /" 6 > the second fall
of Jerusalem (70 A.D. ), and the final
dispersion of the Jews from their religious centre, added
zest to the pursuit of the law and to the systematisation
of the legal discussions of the Rabbis. It is the dis
cussions of the Rabbis who lived between 70 A.D. and
about 200 A. D. that chiefly constitute the Mishna.
Earlier Rabbis are mentioned comparatively speaking
with extreme rarity. But when was this traditional
discussion written down ? It is generally assumed
that it was about 200 A.D. Still, it is not certain,
either that none of it had been written earlier, or that
all of it was written then ; by that date it had in any
case assumed a fixed shape or arrangement whether
as oral tradition or in writing ; and thenceforward it
became the subject of further discussion both in
the Palestinian and the Babylonian schools. This
discussion is known as the Gemlra. 1 Mishna and
Gemara together constitute the Talmud or rather the
Talmuds. The result of the Palestinian discussions on
the Mishna was the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud,
completed towards the end of the fourth century or
during the fifth century A.D. ; the result of similar dis
cussions in Babylon was the Babylonian Talmud com
pleted about 500 A. D.
The Talmud is the chief literary product of late
Jewish legal discussion ; but it is by no means our only
one. For example, under the title of Tosephtd we still
1 In addition to the discussions of the Amoraim or post-
Mishnic doctors which constitute the main body of the
Gemfira and are written in Aramaic, the Gemiira contains also
sayings of older doctors not contained in the Mishna, but wiitten
like the Mishna in Hebrew. These are named Baiaitnu
2743
possess a collection of discussions of the Mishnic age
which resembles the Mishna in being arranged accord
ing to topics, but never gained the same authoritative
position. Another branch of this literature consists of
commentaries (Midrdshim) on the sacred text. Here
of course the arrangement is not according to subject ;
from the nature of the case it follows the arrange
ment of the biblical text. The earliest works of
this kind, belonging in their original form to the second
century A. D. and thus closely related in time as well as
in contents with the Mishna, are Mlchiltd (on part of
Exodus), Siphrd (on Leviticus), and Sip/ire (on
Numbers and Deut. ). Any discussion of the
Talmud and the Mishnic literature falls outside the limits
of this article and must be sought for elsewhere. * It has
been necessary, however, to refer to it. The movement
begun by Deuteronomy does not close within the period
of the OT ; its goal is the Talmud ; its course covers
more than a thousand years. Deuteronomy does much
to crystallise principles into rules and thereby partly
strangles the free prophetic life, to which it so largely
owed its existence. Still the principles survive in
it : the appeal to motive is constant. The subsequent
history of law - literature, however, is the history of
the increasing supremacy of rules based on the past
over the living spirit of the present. Ezekiel indeed
questions and displaces deuteronomic laws ; the Priestly
Code amends Ezekiel ; but thenceforward law always
professedly adheres to the norm of scripture, the
written word ; the Mishna is the interpretation of the
written law : the Gemara the interpretation of the
Mishna. G. B. G.
LAWYER (NOMIKOC), Mt. 22 3 s, etc.. Tit. 813. See
LAW AND JUSTICE, and cp SCRIBES.
Lawyer is also given in RVnig. as a rendering of the obscure
word N nsri in L>an. 3 2. See SHERIFF.
LAZAR HOUSE (rPK>pnri 7V3), 2 K. 15 5 RV m e-,
EV several house. See LEPROSY, col. 2767, n. i.
LAZARUS (AAZApoc [Ti. WH]). The name, which
is a contraction of ELEAZAR 2 (<?-v.) i.e. God has
. helped was specially appropriate for the
a e central figure in any story illustrating the
help of God.
For OT examples see Ex.184 2 S. SSgyC In the period of
Judaism we may expect to find the divine help more distinctly
recognised. Cp Ps. 46 i [2] a very present help in trouble ;
70 6 [5] 1 am poor and needy; make haste unto me, O God:
thou art my help and my deliverer. When poverty and piety
were synonymous it was natural to favour such names as Eleazar
and Eliezer. Eleazar is the name given to (2 Mace. 6 18-31) the
scribe called by Chrysostom (1258) the foundation of martyr
dom," a type of those who (4 Mace. 7 19) believe that, to God,
they do not die (and see 3 Mace. 6 iy^).
In Lk. 1619-31 Lazarus is introduced thus : . . . and
he that marries one that is put away . . commits
.... . adultery. Now 3 there was a certain
. -TV rich man . . . and a certain beggar
y named Lazarus was laid at his gale
full of sores. * It is not surprising that the context,
and the giving of a name to the central figure of the
story, induced early commentators to suppose that this
was a narrative of facts. 6 Certainly if the story is one
1 Strack, EM. in den Talmud, 1894; Schur.G/rP)! 87-115,
where further reference to the extensive literature will be found.
2 Hot: Hebr. on Lk. 16 20 (and cp ib. on Jn. 11 i) quotes
Juchasin : Every R. Eleazar is written without an N i.e., R.
Lazar.
3 D and Syr. Sin. om. now.
4 The Arabic Diatess. (ed. Hogg) alters order and text
thus (Lk. Iri), (15) Ye are they that justify yourselves . . .
the thing that is lofty before men is base before God. (19)
And he began to say, A [certainl man was rich . . . This,
besides indicating that a parable or discourse is commencing,
gives it a logical connection with the charges just brought
against the money-loving Pharisees.
8 Iren.iv. 24 (see Grabe s note on Grzecorum et Latinorum
Patrum mutuus consensus ). Non autem fabulam might pos
sibly mean not a mere tale but a tale with a lesson ; but see
also the inferences deduced from the story in Iren. ii. 34 i, and
Teitull. I)e Anint. 7. Tertullian, however, guards himself
against the conclusion that nothing can be inferred from the
story if it is imaginary.
2744
LAZARUS
LAZARUS
of Jesus parables, it is difficult to see why, contrary to
usage, the principal character in it receives a name.
Taking this mention of a name together with other
unique features of the story (the elaborate details about
Hades, and the technical use of the phrase Abraham s
bosom ), may we not conjecture that we have in Lk.
1619-31, not the exact words of Jesus, but an evangelic
discourse upon his words (placed just before it by
the Arabic Diatessaron) that which is exalted among
men is an abomination in the sight of God ? If so,
the insertion of the name Lazarus ( = Eliezer) will be
parallel to the insertions of names (e.g. , Longinus) in
the Acta Pilatl ; the typical character of the name has
been indicated already (see above, i). The final
words of the story ( neither will they be persuaded
etc. ) seem more like an evangelic comment after Christ s
resurrection than like a prediction of Christ before it.
The narrative in Jn. 11 opens thus, Now (5^) there
was a certain man sick, Lazarus of (air6) Bethany from
_ T . (K) the village of Mary and Martha
3. Unique nar- her sjster i Now ^ Mary was she
rative in Jn. that anomtec j t jj e L or d w j tn ointment
and wiped his feet with her hair : and it was her brother
that (?)s 6 adf\(j)6s) was sick. The sisters, therefore,
sent to him, saying, Lord, he whom thou lovest is sick. 2
Lazarus is here referred to as one who required an
introduction. This view is confirmed by the fact that
his name is mentioned only in the unique narrative in
Lk. 1619-31, the historical character of which is very
justly disputed. The sisters of Lazarus too are not
named at all by the first two evangelists. Yet the
name of this Lazarus, about whom the Synoptists are
silent, is connected by Jn. with the greatest of the
miracles; for it appears from Jn. 1139 that Lazarus,
when Jesus arrived, had been four days dead, a cir
cumstance that differentiates this miracle from the
parallel miracle at NAIN-* (q.v.}, and makes it the
climax of Christ s wonderful works. The synoptic
silence has never been explained.
To remark that for the Jews and for the evangelists alike it
was one of "many signs" (1147), and not essentially dis
tinguished from them, -* is to ignore Jn. s dramatic power in
delineating character. For the blind Pharisees no doubt this
stupendous wonder was but one of many signs ; but only in
Jn. And this was because Jn. wishes to represent the Pharisees
as being stupendously blind. It was plainly not one of many
signs for the multitudes in Jerusalem who flocked to meet
Jesus (Jn. 12 18) because they heard that he had done this
sign. In the same way the Pharisees think nothing of the
healing of a man born blind. The blind man, however, reminds
them that such a sign was never worked since the world began.
The Acta Pilati represents the Roman Governor as unmoved
by all the other evidence of Jesus miracles ; but when he hears
of the climax, the raising of Lazarus after he had been four days
dead, he trembles. 5
The distinction drawn above between the Fourth
Evangelist and the Synoptists unfairly discredits the
latter. We must not maintain, without any evidence
but their silence, that the Synoptists were as stupid or
as perverse as Christ s most bigoted and vindictive
adversaries.
The common-sense view of the Synoptic omission of
1 Cp the prepositions in Jn. 1 447^ 46 742 52.
2 "\\v 6e M. has an exact parallel in Jn. 18 14. Such clauses
of characteiisation are frequent in Jn. (e.g. , 7 50, and cp 1^39
he that came to him before, or, by night ). They keep before
the reader the personality of the person described and prepare
him for a new manifestation of the personality.
3 See Acta Pil. 8 and cp Hor. Hebr. on Jn. 11 39. For
three days the spirit wanders about the sepulchre expecting if
it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or
aspect of the face is changed then it hovers no more but leaves
the body to itself. Cp JOHN, 20.
4 Westcott on Jn. 11 i. On the argument from the silence of
the Synoptists see further GOSPELS, 587;
5 Acta Pil. 8. And others said, " He raised Lazarus . . ."
Why does not Lazarus himself testify before Pilate, like the
man who (Jn. 5 i) had been diseased thirty-eight years, and
Bartima^us (not mentioned by name, though) and the woman
with the issue, and others, a multitude both of men and
women ? Was he supposed to be in hiding, or dead? A
Lazarus is mentioned (*& 2) as one of twelve Jews who testify
that Jesus was not born of fornication.
2745
this miracle is like the common -sense view of the
omission in the book of Kings of the statement made in
the parallel passages of Chronicles that God answered
David and Solomon by fire from heaven. The earlier
author omitted the tradition because he did not accept
it and probably had never heard it. It was a later
development. 1
Is then the record of the Raising of Lazarus a fiction ?
Not a fiction, for it is a development. But it is non-
_ . , historical, like the History of the Crea-
. tion in Genesis, and like the records of
th ^ *t the ther miracles in the Fo u r th Gospel ;
tne account ^ Q ^ w ^ c ^ are poet j c developments
based ? ,
(attempts to summarise and symbolise
the many mighty works of Jesus recorded by the
Synoptists in seven typical signs expressing his work
before the Resurrection). The words of Jesus the
Fourth Evangelist has obviously not attempted to pre
sent in the form and style assigned to them by his
predecessors, and the same statement applies to the
Johannine account of the acts of Jesus. This, however,
does not prevent us from discerning in many cases one
original beneath the two differing representations. For
example, we can see a connection between the healing
of the man born blind and the Synoptic accounts
of the healing of blindness ; and in Jn. s account of the
miraculous draught of fishes after the Resurrection we
perceive clear traces of Lk. s account of a similar event
placed at an early period. So in the present case, if we
are to study the Raising of Lazarus, in which a very
large part is assigned to the intercession of Martha and
Mary, the first step must be to go back to traditions
about the sisters, and to attempt to explain the origin
of the belief that they had a brother called Lazarus
and that he was raised from the dead.
Before we proceed to this, however, it may be well to
remind the reader of the influence exerted by names and
. ... sometimes by corruptions of names on
i Bth the devel P ment of traditions. a The
student of the evangelic traditions is
repeatedly called upon to apply this key, and we shall
have to do so in studying the parallel narratives of the
anointing of Jesus in Bethany given by Mk. , Mt. , and
]n. respectively. Mk. s preface is (Mk. 14$) And
while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the
leper, while he was sitting down to meat (ei> Ty oiniq.
Ziyuwvos rou \firpov KaTa.Kei/j.tvov ai roD). Mt. 26 6 has
simply TOU 8 "IrjcroO yevo/j-evov v B. fv oiKta S. TOV
\eirpov. Now, tv rrj ot /a p in Mk. 9 33, lOio means in
the house, i.e., indoors, no name of owner being
added. Hence Mk. is capable of being rendered,
While he was in Bethany in the house, Simon the leper
himself [also] sitting down. The parallel in Jn. is (Jn.
12 1-2) Jesus therefore . . . came to Bethany where
was (Sirou Jjv) Lazarus ... So they made him a
supper there, and Martha was serving, but Lazarus was
one of them that sat at meat with him (6 5e A. ets fy (K
rdv d.va.KftfJLei ui avv ai Tui), which certainly suggests,
though not definitely stating, that the house belonged to
Lazarus. It has been pointed out elsewhere, however,
(GOSPELS, 10), that belonging to the leper might
easily have been confused with Lazarus, so that the
name may have sprung from a corruption of the phrase.
As regards the dropping of the name Simon, an
analogy is afforded by Ecclus. 50 27^, where, according
to the editors of the recovered Hebrew text, 3 it is prob-
1 See the writer s Diatessarica (287-9) f r an explanation of
the possible confusion between answering a sacrifice-by-fire and
answering a sacrifice by-fire. The Hebrew sacrifice-by-fire
is almost identical in form with the word meaning fire.
2 For OT instances see the author s Diatessarica (46-54).
3 See their note ad loc. It seems worth while, however, to
add that <B, while dropping for Simon (pvCE 1 ?)! adds
lepoo-oAu/uei njs (N* has iepeiis 6 SoAujoteirr;?). May not the
latter be a confused representation of the former? Owing to its
similarity to other common words and phrases, "Simon,"
in Hebrew, might easily be inserted or omitted in translating
from Hebrew. See note on Lk. 7 36 below.
2746
LAZARUS
able that the son of Sirach was originally called
Simon son of Jesus, but that Simon son of was
dropped.
But at this point, if we are to understand the steps
by which Jn. was led to his conclusions concerning
Lazarus, it is necessary to realise the obscurity that he
must have found hanging over the story of the anointing
of Jesus in the house of Simon the Leper, where
Lazarus seemed to him to have been present.
Such a surname as the leper is antecedently im
probable, 1 and it is omitted by Jn. ; but its difficulty
t , indicates that it was not an interpola-
6. The leper,"
tion but a corruption, possibly a con
flation of the name of the place
commonly called Bethany. Jn. alone appears to call
this (Jn. Hi) a village ; and he places it (ib. 18)
15 furlongs, which is exactly two Talmudic miles 2
i.e., a Sabbath day s journey with return from
Jerusalem. This fixed the position, of course, for the
first Christian pilgrims, and subsequently for the Church.
But it did not succeed in imposing the name on the
natives, who call the spot defined by Jn. , not Bethany,
but el- Atarlyek. This fact, and Lk. s comparative
silence, 3 and the total silence of Josephus (even in the
details of the siege), and the Talmudic variations of
spelling and of statement (connecting it with unripe
figs and shops ), and Mk. s description of Bethany
as apparently nearer to Jerusalem than Bethphage
(Mk. Hi, to Bethphage and Bethany ) all indicate
that Bethany was not really a village, but simply
(like Bethphage) a precinct of the city, a part of
the great northern suburb minutely described by
Josephus.
This suburb is casually mentioned as (Jos. Z?/ii. 194)
what is familiarly-called both Bezetha and The-New-
1 Retha v ^ *- v ^ T ^ v re ^frO*" Tpoaayopfvot^itriv
, J- KO.I rr\v KaivoiroXiv). 4 Then, describing
R tha ts S rac ^ ua growth, and its subsequent
enclosure in a wall by Agrippa, the
historian speaks of (ib. v. 4z) the hill (\6<pov) that is
called (KaXfirai) Bezethana (so Big. and Voss. , but
Ruf. /.ebethana, Huds. Bezetha ) ; and he goes on to
say (ib. ) But by the people of the place the new-built
portion was called Bezetha (^K\r)dr) 5 eirixupius Be~e0a
r6 vtoKTiGTOv fdpos), perhaps meaning that the citizens
contracted Bezethana to Bezetha, but more prob
ably that the name, in both forms, was vernacular and
difficult to represent exactly in Greek. He does not
directly and straightforwardly say that Bezetha means
new city, but that (il>. ) being interpreted, / / would
be called in the Greek tongue new city ( K\\d8i y\ui<rcrri
fraiPT} \tyoir &i> TTO\IS). This may well mean that
new city would be the way to express in Greek a
Jewish name not capable of being at once literally and
1 In i K. 11 26, Jeroboam s mother is certainly called Zeruah,
but this is either a deliberate insult or a corruption (see col. 2404,
n. 2). Cp Levy, NHIVB (mn)> on the recognised impropriety
of giving people nick-names from personal blemishes (a custom
common among the Romans, but not among the Jews).
2 liar. Hebr. 1 262.
3 Lk. only mentions the exact Synoptic name once (Lk. 24 50)
as far as to( wards) (eW irpos) Rftliany, in connection with the
Ascension, the return from which is desciibed as (Acts 1 12)
from the mountain called the Place -of -Olives ( EAaia>i>os),
which is near Jerusalem, a. sabbath day s journey. Lk. 19 29
has Bnfacto, not BrjOanW.
* The article before KatfoiroAii/ may he explained as a
blending of the notions New Town and the new town.
Strictly speaking, it ought to be -rqv B. re, not TIJI- re B. But
the irregularity might easily be paralleled from Thucydides.
Moreover the text may be a condensation of TTJK rr)v re B. KO.I
iV K. Trpoo-ay. which is called the Bezetha and the Kainopolis.
It seems clear from the next extract that Bezetha, or Bezethana,
was the Jewish name for Kainopolis or New-town, and that the
two names did not denote different places. If Josephus wrote
in every case BcgtMr, it might easily be corrupted into Bee0<,
being written Be0a. There is one previous mention, also
casual, describing Roman soldiers forcing their way up to the
temple (BJ\\. 15s) through what is called Bezetha Sia TTJ?
Bf0A <caAouM>")- As variants Niese s Index cites B<<Tada,
2747
LAZARUS
briefly translated : 1 and this view is confirmed by the
fact that he never introduces the name without a sort of
apology ( the people call it, etc. ).
That there was such a vernacular name appears from
four parallel versions of a Jewish tradition given by
Griitz (Gesch. ^^3,ff}, to the effect that Jerusalem had
as a suburb two Slices, 2 a lower (no doubt corre
sponding to the lower Kainopolis of Josephus) and
a higher. The higher was considered by common
people, the lower even by strict Pharisees, as part of
the Holy City, for the purpose of eating the meat of
sacrifices, and so forth. The word for Slice is
Betze or Beze, which, with the addition of the word
lower, might easily correspond to Josephus Beze
thana. 3 And having regard to the many variations
and abbreviations probable in a vernacular name, and
to those actually existent in Josephus, we can well
understand how such a name may have been confused
by some with the Mt. of Olives, and by others called
Bethany. * It is also similar to the Hebrew for
leper. 5 Lastly, it may throw light on the parallel
tradition in Lk. (7 36) about a Pharisee asking Jesus to
eat (bread). 6
ouse o ives, as one o te names y wc te t. o
Olives was called. It seems to have been regularly called the
Mt., or Hill, of Olives, or the Mt. of Oil.
\b) pyu
Terrainstiicke.
3 That Josephus should transliterate the Heb. <; (s) by the
Gk. $(z) can excite no surprise : He regularly does this in the
name Zoar, for example. Also the interchange of j and %
(as in Tyx) is frequent (Buhl, 209^). Lower is, in Gratz s
extracts, n:innn, tahtonah. Levy (NHtt K) gives y^3 as
synonymous with yi3, and with "1x3. Be(t)zertha ({<rn S3>
Levy, Chald. Lex. 1 109 a) is the late Heb. for the separate
place (Ezek. 41 12-15) n h g temple; but as regards NONI3
(suggested in Hastings, 2 594) the forms of the root given by
Levy (Chald. Lex.) are said by him to mean only division of
booty, plunder. It is perhaps worth adding that the only
place-name in OT beginning with J3> Josh. 1628, Biziothiah
(rvnvin), s rea ^ by & nmj3> lit. her daughters i.e., suburbs,
and is conflated accordingly, ai Ko^ai aimav icat ai tn-auAeis
avrtav.
* Cp Mk. 11 19, And when it was evening they used to go
forth outside the city, Mt. 21 17 he came forth outside the city
to Bethany, Lk. 21 37 coming forth he used to lodge in the
mount that is called [the mount] of Olives. The divergences
can perhaps be best explained as springing from an original
to Bezetha(na), paraphrased by Mk., conflated by Mt. with
Bethany, and taken by Lk. as Place of Olives. It should be
noted that two of the versions of Gratz s above-quoted tradition
begin Two Slices were on the Mount of Oil, the third has
" (3) Jerusalem, and the fourth there. The third seems
likely to have preserved the original, which perhaps meant
connected with Jerusalem. As the suburbs were outside
Jerusalem proper, in was naturally altered.
5 Reading pys3 as pyso ( a corruption very frequent in )
we have a word very similar to ynsc, leper."
6 Not only is yi 3, slice, or fragment, the regular N. Heb.
word for breaking bread, but also pyi^s was a name given
(Levy 4 i43-^) to a class of hypocrites that aped the practices
of the stricter Pharisees. Space fails to indicate all the traces
of Hebrew influence on the narratives of the Anointing of Jesus.
But one may be given. Lk., without introducing the host by
name, represents Jesus as addressing him by name, thus (Lk.
740) Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. This is
unexampled in the gospels. Yet it is most improbable that Lk.
inserted. in this extraordinary place instead of at the com
mencement what was not in his original, merely because a
Simon the Leper had been mentioned in the Synoptic narrative.
More probably the original had Hearken (xj-ycs;0 or hearken-
to "^( jyOB 1 ), and Lk. mistook this for nycc , Simon. It may
. , -
little from Q pCi raise up, that the two are repeatedly confused
by the LXX, Nah. 1 8 the / lace thereof, <B they that are raised
*/> J er - iOao and to set up, (B place (and see 2 S. 2249,
2748
LAZARUS
It is essential for the reader to keep steadily in view
the traces of obscurity in the earliest Christian traditions
8. First
inferences.
in order that he may understand Jn. s
attitude towards them. Jn. is to be re
garded neither as a fallacious historian nor
as a poet putting aside history, but as a believer, so
penetrated with the sense of the power of Christ s
spirit, and at the same time so conscious of the
obscurity, uncertainty, and inadequacy of the extant
historical records of Christ, that he felt impelled towards
a new representation both of his words and of his
deeds. To describe the latter, he remoulded the
gospel, fusing old traditions and new, written and oral,
inferring, amplifying, spiritualising, but not inventing.
If, therefore, Jn. was led to believe that a man named
Lazarus owned the house in which the anointing
occurred, what inferences would he naturally make in
accordance with his principle of blending scattered tradi
tions? He found in Lk. (1040) an account of a supper
made for Jesus where Martha was cumbered about
much serving, while Mary sat at his feet and heard his
discourse ; and this he might identify with the meal at
which the anointing took place. Martha, however
(without name of husband or father of the house), was
mentioned by Lk. as the hostess. 1 It followed that the
house must have belonged in some sense to her as well
as to Lazarus, and consequently that Lazarus must have
been a younger brother. Hence would arise Jn. s de
scription of Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha ;
for indeed it was in this inferential way that Jn. had
reasoned out the existence of a Lazarus.
The next step was to connect the name with Lk. s
Lazarus who was raised from the dead. The last words
_ . of Lk. s Lazarus-narrative are, Neither
" will they believe though one went to them
from the dead, which might become the
basis of a tradition that the Lord said concerning a man
named Lazarus, who died and was buried, that the Jews
would net believe (i.e. , refused to believe) though one went
to them from the dead. But if this Lazarus who sat at
meat when Martha served and Mary anointed Jesus feet,
had been raised from the dead by Jesus, and that, too,
after he had been buried it followed that such a sign
was the climax of all the signs and would naturally
come last of all. It must have been wrought at
Bethany, since Lazarus s house was there. Yet Jesus
could not have been at Bethany when Lazarus died so
the Evangelist would argue for how could he remain
and look on, and permit the death and burial? Jesus
must therefore have been at a distance. In that case,
Martha and Mary must surely have sent to him. Yet
he must have known even at a distance what was
happening ; and if he knew, why did he not come ?
And how would the sisters endure his not coming?
Upon the basis of all these inferences and questions the
Evangelist proceeds to describe how the two sisters sent,
and what they said when Jesus came, and how he
answered their intercession the result being the raising
of Lazarus, the climax of Jesus signs.
Some commentators maintain that the graphic style
of the evangelist proves that he had seen or heard
10 The mot scenes or discourses he describes.
Among his most graphic passages,
however, are the dialogues with Nicodemus and with the
Samaritan woman, at neither of which was he present.
rise up against me, <5 [L] my place ). By themselves, these
facts would have no weight ; but taken in conjunction with the
instances of apparent Hebrew influence (see Diatessarica,
" 334> containing Index to passages from Jn.) they suggest
the possibility of a conflation in Jn. ; and they are worth
mentioning here in order to help the reader to realise that
Jn., as well as Lk. (though in a manner different from Lk. s),
may have attempted to correct existing histories, not by
inventing, but by giving shape and order to vague and floating
traditions.
Martha in New Heb. means sometimes mistress (Levy,
NHWB i> 234 6), the mistress (nmD) of the house who received
us.
2749
i
LAZARUS
The fact is, that Jn. writes as a mystical poet, im
bued with Jewish traditions from Egypt as well as from
Palestine, with a keen eye for human characteristics,
but with a still deeper insight into the unfathomable
love and spiritual power of Jesus, and with a desire to
subordinate every word of his Gospel to the purpose of
manifesting that love and that power to mankind. 1
(i.) The book called Sohar, Zohar (Schottgen on Mt.
2i8), represents the Messiah as weeping when Rachel
f r ner children. By Justin
Tryph - ^4). and Irenes
(421) Rachel was recognised as the type
of the Christian Church, and Justin saw in Leah the
type of the Synagogue, (ii. ) The Apostolic Constitutions
(7 8) mention Lazarus with Job, apparently recognising
in the raising of Lazarus a fulfilment of the famous
prediction found in the received text of Job 1926.- Tradi
tions about Rachel and Job, as well as the Philonian
explanation of Eliezer, 3 may very well have been in the
evangelist s mind when he described the intercession of
the two sisters and put into the mouth of Martha the
words by this time he stinketh. Nor is it farfetched
to see a contrast between Lazarus leaving the tomb
still bound with grave-clothes and with the napkin round
his head and Jesus who, when he rose, left the linen
cloths lying and the napkin . . . rolled up in a place
by itself.
The Greek allusions are of a different kind.
(i.) 11 33, He rebuked \n his spirit "(ei e/3pijuj<raTOT<f)7rci!0xa7i);
cpll38, again rebuking in himself. In Mk. 143 Mt. 930 the
word e/u/3pijxnofttti is applied to Jesus addressing,
12. Greek severally, a leper and two blind men. Probably
allusions. J n - wishes to dispel the impression that the half-
suppressed exclamation of anger that sometimes
accompanied Jesus acts of healing was directed against the
sufferer, whereas it was directed against the suffer ing regarded
as Evil. 4
(ii.) 1133, he troubled himself. This is probably an allusion
both to (a) the refrain in Ps. 42 (41) and 43 (42) () Why art
thou exceeding-sorrowful, my soul (TrfpiAun-os, RV cast down ),
and why dost thou troiible-me-ivitk [? myself] (trvi Tapao-erets,
RV disquieted within me ), and (<^) to the synoptic use of the
passage. The Greek exceeding-sorrowful (wepiAujros) is rare
in the LXX (see Concord.). In NT the word occurs in four
passages, including Mk. 1434 Mt. 2638, My soul is exceeding-
sorroiuful even unto death. These words are not in Lk. But
an early interpolation in Lk., or edition of Lk., substituted (Lk.
2^44) an account of Christ engaged in a conflict (or, agony).
The problem of avoiding a word that might be a stumbling
block, because it signified grief to excess, and yet of inserting
a fulfilment of scripture, corresponding to that in Mk. , is solved
here by Jn. s using the other half of the Psalmist s sentence,
namely, trouble me with myself in the form he troubled him
self. By this extraordinary expression he indirectly meets an
objection that must have occurred to the many thousands of
Greeks and Romans who were familiar with the fundamental
doctrine of Epictetus, Be free from trouble. Jn. teaches that
the Father himself wills that his children, including the eternal
Son, should be troubled for one another. But what he wills,
he does ; and what he does, the Logos does. Therefore the
Logos, here, troubled himself. Later the Logos will be
(1227) troubled in sou!, and last of all, by the treachery of
Judas (1821), troubled in spirit.
1 Regarded as a nariative of fact this story, like others in Jn.,
is defective. Even such commentators as Lightfoot and West-
cott have severally inferred that the journey from beyond Jordan
to Bethany occupied three days {Bibl. Essays), about a day
(Westc. ad loc.).
2 Orig. Comm. on Jn. 15 (ed. Huet, vol. ii. , p. 4 E) oSiofiora
vexpov a.vetm)<rev, Anaphor. Pilat. he raised up one that had
been dead four days. . . . when the dead man had his blood cor
rupted and when his body was destroyed by the worms produced
in it and when it had the stink of a dog.
3 Being interpreted, Eliezer is God my Help. For the
mass [of flesh] imbued with blood is by itself liable to speedy
dissolution, being indeed a corpse ; but it is kept compact and
quickened with a vital spark by the providence of God (>p.
I 4 8i).
4 In a passage quoted by Eusebius {HE v. l6o) from a letter
from the churches of Lyons, ejxjSp. seems to mean loudly cursing
(not muttering curses ). Lucian uses it to express the deep
angry bellowing of Hecate (vol. i., p. 484, Necyoni. 20, ive-
/Spi/nrjo-aTO 17 Bpi^ioj). Cp Ecclus. 183, The rich man wrongs you
and bellows at you besides (Trpoo-eye/jpejoitjo-aTo). Celsus (Orig.
Cels. 2 76) complains that Jesus threatens and reviles on light
occasions, and complains of Jesus saying woe unto you. Jn.
never uses the word woe. It is hardly likely that the difficulty
of Mk.l43 Mt.93o would have escaped educated assailants of
the Gospels at the beginning of the second century.
2750
LEACH
To enter fully into the allusions with which this
narrative teems would be to write a commentary on it.
Without some insight into a few of them, however, no
reader can dispassionately judge what is meant by the
Johannine name Lazarus or the poem of which it is
the centre. K. A. A.
LEACH. See HORSELEECH, LILITH.
LEAD (JYISy, dphcreth [see note below] ; MOXiBoc,
MoAyBoc [/vxoAiBAoc, /woAyBAoc]; plumbum).
Though lead was doubtless well-known to the Hebrews
from an early period, its applications were comparatively
unimportant, and the OT references to it are not many.
(a) Its weight is alluded to in Ex. 15 10 (cp Acts 27 28), and the
mason s and carpenter s plummet was no doubt as often made of
lead as of tin, though the latter happens to be the material men
tioned in Zech. 4 10. Indeed, the distinction between lead and
tin (see TIN) was in early days but imperfectly realised.
(l>) Before the use of quicksilver became known, lead was
employed for the purpose of purifying silver, and separating it
from other mineral substances (Flin. /INZ iy). To this
Jeremiah alludes where he figuratively describes the corrupt
condition of the people : In their fire the lead is consumed (in
the crucible); the smelting is in vain, for the evil is not
separated (Jer. ti 29). Ezekiel (2 18-22) refers to the same fact,
and for the same purpose, but amplifies it with greater minute
ness of detail. Compare also Mai. $2f.
(c) On Job 1923 f. see WHITING. For the use of leaden
tablets as writing material cp Faus. ix. 31 4 (leaden tablet, very
time-worn, with the Works of Hesiod engraved on it) and Plin.
H.N. 13 n.
(</) Although the Hebrew weights were usually of stone, and
are indeed called stones, a leaden weight denominated andk^
(px C P tne Arabic word for lead) occurs in Amos 7 j f.
See PLUMBLINE.
(e) The employment of lead for the conveyance of water
known to the Greeks (Paus. iv. 35 12) and very familiar to the
Romans may perhaps have been resorted to by the Israelites,
but does not seem to be alluded to in OT.
LEAH (Hs ; A[e]lA [BADEFL]) ; some scholars
compare Ar. lav, wild cow ; so Del. Pro!. 80, \VR$
Kin. 195, 219, and doubtfully No. ZU/(;40 167 [1886];
P. Haupt compares Ass. It at, mistress ; but on the
possible analogy of Rachel [see JACOB, 3] we may still
more plausibly suspect Leah [Leah?] to be a fragment
of Jerahme el [Che. ]). The mother of the non-Josephite
tribes of Israel. It was in the house of Joseph that
the truest stock of Israel historically lay ; in fact it
was, according to E, only by underhand dealings on
the part of the Aramrean Laban that the Leah tribes
ever really became Israelite. Still, even the Ephraimite
traditions made the Leah tribe of Reuben Israel s
firstborn, and did not even deny him a place in its
account of the origin of Joseph (Gen. 30 14). See also
RACHEL, TRIBE.
LEANNOTH (HlStf? ; roy ATTOKPIGHNAI [BNA])
Ps. 88 title, RV m K- for singing (so Baethgen). Haupt
(JI)L, iqoo, p. 70) explains, to cause to respond
i.e., to cause God to grant the prayer which is at any
rate not unsuitable to the contents. The analogy of
the corrupt vain 1 ? and iaSS, however (38 70 60, in
titles), suggests a different solution. mjy 1 ? is an easy
corruption of roSy. which the scribe wrote as a correc
tion of the corrupt n^rc- On Alamoth see PSALMS,
26 [4
LEATHER. Although the word leather (or
leathern ) occurs only three times in EV, once of the
girdle of Elijah (2 K. 18 lij; niiK, fcii ij dep/jLarivr)) and
twice of that of John the Baptist (Mk. 16 RV, AV a
girdle of a skin ; Mt. 84), on both which see GIRDLE,
i, and the word tanner 1 is met with only in Acts 943
10632, there can be no doubt that the Hebrews were
familiar with the use of leather and the art of preparing
it from the earliest times. Cp SKIN, PARCHMENT.
1 The Heb. words iiniilt and ifhtrttk find their analogies in
the Ass. anakii and aMru, both of which are variously rendered
lead or tin "(see Muss-Arnolt who cites also antimony for
a&ilrti). Both words are not unfrequently mentioned on Ass.
inscriptions among articles of tribute, abilru in particular being
sent from such districts as Commagene, Kue, Byblos, Melitene
and Tabal ; cp Del. Ass. H WH 9 b and re ff.
2751
LEAVEN
The leathern vessels (niyn S?), frequently referred to
in Leviticus, may be supposed to have included shields
and the like as well as belts and straps, bottles,
quivers and chariot -fittings, sandals and shoes (cp
SHOES). The Egyptian monuments illustrate very
graphically various stages in the working of leather
(see, e.g. , Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1232 2 187 f. ), though it
would \>e hazardous to use this as an argument for the
acquaintance of the Israelites with the higher branches
of the art in the Mosaic age (Ex. 25s, P), of which
we have no contemporary records.
LEAVEN is a general term for whatever is capable
of generating the process of fermentation in a mass of
1. Leaven
dough ( panary fermentation ). Various sub-
, stances were known in ancient times to
expiaine . p OSSess tm - s property. J The locus classicus
for the leavens of NT times is Pliny, //AH 8 26, accord
ing to which the most highly prized leaven was made
in the vintage season by kneading millet or fine bran of
wheat with must. In most cases, however, according
to the same authority, the leaven employed was the
same as that which alone is mentioned in OT or NT
(see BREAD, i), namely a piece of fully fermented
dough retained for the purpose from the previous
day s baking ( tantum pridie adservata materie utun-
tur ). Such a piece might either be broken down in
water in a basin before the fresh flour was added
(Af/ndAotA5i end) or it might be hid in the flour
(Mt. 1833), and kneaded along with it. The Hebrews
named this piece of fermented dough INJ; , if or so
always in MT, in the Mishna TUTC-, I IND, "htty and I lira
LXXandNT &/J.T) (Ex. 12 15 19 13 7 Lev. 2n Dt. 16 4
Mt. 1833, etc.).
-1Kb is derived from an unused root INC akin (according to
Ges. Thes. 1318 l>) to TD> an d Arab, thilra (efftrbuif); cp f,\ni.i\
from eto, and fermentum from ferret? , also leaven (mid. Lat.
leuamen) from levare. In RV sfor is now consistently rendered
throughout by leaven, AV having in Dt. 164 leavened bread 1
(see below).
The mass of flour, water, and salt, in the kneading-
trough, w*.yVr A(rn*tc B) 2 with or without leaven after
being kneaded was termed bdsek (pss), dough or sponge
(Ex.123439 28. 138Hos. 74 Jer. 7i8); orcus, <rr<?as, or
ffrtap, NT ((>vpafj.a ; in the Mishna most frequently rtD j;
(from DDJ; to squeeze, knead [not as Levy from irony]).
If the dough contained no leaven and was baked before
spontaneous fermentation had set in, the result was
nxa. tnassdA (for etymology see Ges. -Bu.< 13 , s.v. j ss),
more fully nso cnS, unleavened bread (fij~i>/*os [fi/rroj]),
but most frequently in OT in the plur. Tiixc, massoth,
unleavened cakes. Dough that had thoroughly risen
under the action of leaven or by spontaneous fermenta
tion (Affnd/wth 5i) was termed rcn, A times, leavened
(from j-cn, Arab, hamuda, to be sharp or sour ; cp Ger.
Sauerteig, 1 Eng. sour dough ), and bread made
therefrom, j-cn DnV, leavened bread (Lev. 7 13). In all
other passages, however, ppn is used substantively, as
synonymous with niiDrtp 3 (Ex. 12 ip/. ), that which is
leavened. 4 For the two words if or and hdmcs are
not synonymous, as has been asserted, but related as
1 See Bliimner, Technologic, etc., der Gewerbe bei Griechen
unti Kouiern , 1 s8_/I
- This word should probably be pointed miff re th (rnKL 1;), from
the same root -|jl M ( see above), to rise, that in which the dough
rises. In Ex. 7 28 12 34 <S, followed byV g. (consj>ersantfari>iai},
has taken the word in an active sense, that which rises, viz.
dough (</>iipa/ua).
3 Mr. James Death has devoted a book, The Beer of the
Bible, one of the iinkrurwn leavens of Exodus (1887), to an
abortive attempt to prove that nXCna is to be identified with an
ancient Egyptian beer, similar to the modern buza.
In half the passages /tames is correctly rendered by (85 as
(vniaTOv (Kx. 187 Lev. 2 1 1), [aproi] fu/ourai (Lev. 7 13 [3]), a.
i>H<o/ueVot (Lev. 23 17), in the rest (Ex. 12 15 [cod. 72, fbpMffr]
13 3 23 18 34 25 Dt. 16 3) incorrectly by vn>7.
2752
LEAVEN
cause and effect (cp the Vg. renderings ferment urn and
fermenhitum). In the OT at least Par is always
leaven ; the verb Spx, to eat, is never applied to it, but
to hdmcs (hence we read, Talm. Ptsdhim t>a, lyxcJ TINS?
nS DN 1 ? i"ii leaven which is not fit for eating).
In the later Hebrew of the Mishna, however, this distinction
is not always observed ; hence we find st ar applied not only to
leaven proper, but also to the dough in the process of leavening
(usually nDy). Thus, in the interesting passage, Pesah. 85, in
answer to the question how the beginning of the process of
fermentation is to be recognised in the dough (liN b), two replies
are given : When the surface of the dough shows small cracks,
like the antennae of locusts, running in different directions, and
again : When the surface has become pale, like (the face of)
one whose hair stands on end (through fear) !
The leaven of OT and NT, then, is exclusively a piece
of sour dough. In the warm climate of Palestine,
fermentation is more rapid than with us, and it is said
that if flour is mixed with water, spontaneous fermenta
tion will set in and be completed in twenty-four hours.
It is often stated, and is not improbable, that the Jews
also used the lees of wine as yeast; but the passages
cited by Hamburger (viz., Pfsdhim 3i and /////* 1 7)
do not bear this out.
The use of leaven being a later refinement in the
preparation of bread (see BREAD, i), it may be re
garded as certain that offerings of bread
,. V f, n m to the deity were from the first un-
the cultus. leavened The cakes of the shew .
bread, according to the unanimous testimony of Philo,
Josephus, Talmud, and Midrash (see reff. under
SHEWBREAD), remained unleavened to the end. In
all cereal offerings, any portion of which was de
stined to be burnt on the altar, the use of leaven,
as of honey, was excluded (Lev. 2411 7 12 82 Nu.
6 15) I 1 though where the offering was not to be
placed upon the altar, but to be eaten by the priests,
it might contain bread that was leavened (Lev. 7 13 23 17
[Pentecostal loaves]; cp Am. 4 5 [cakes of thank-offer
ing], 2 also Mindhoth 5 1 /. ). The antiquity of this
exclusion of ferment from the cultus of Yahwe is vouched
for by the early enactment Ex. 34 250. (from J s decalogue),
and its parallel 23 18 (Book of the Covenant). It is
possible, however, that the former passage may refer
only to the Passover, for which, as for the accompany
ing festival of Afassoth, unleavened cakes (as the name
denotes), elsewhere named the bread of affliction
(01.163), were alone permitted. According to later
enactment, still scrupulously and joyfully observed in
Jewish households, search had to be made in every nook
and cranny of the house with a lighted candle on the eve
of the Passover for leaven, which when found was de
stroyed by burning (Ptsdh. 1 1; for details see PASSOVER).
It is important to note the precise ritual definition of
the leaven (s e or) to be destroyed. Under s e or, for the
purpose of this enactment, were included ( i ) pieces of
leavened or sour dough of the meal of any one of the
five cereals, wheat, barley, and the less common spelt,
fox-ear and shiphon (see FOOD, 3) which had been
kneaded with cold water, and (2) certain articles of
commerce, composed, in part at least, of the fermented
grain of the above cereals. Such were Median spirits,
Egyptian beer, Roman honey, paste, etc. Not in
cluded, on the other hand, were (i) the same cereals
when mixed with any other liquid than cold water, as,
e.g. , the juice of the grape or other fruit (JTITS D ; cp
the passage from Geop. 233 quoted by Blumner, Techno-
logie, etc., 159, n. 5, on the use of grape juice as a
1 The forms which such gifts of unleavened dough (vtassdh)
might take were various. Besides the ordinary ntassdth or
unleavened cakes kneaded with water, we find cakes of fine
flour kneaded with oil, and wafers spread with oil, for which
see RAKEMEATS, if.
2 Some recent scholars of note have maintained, chiefly on
the strength of this passage of Amos, which shows that leaven
was admitted in the cultus of the Northern Kingdom, that the
exclusion of leaven from the altar is not of great antiquity (see
Now. HA 1-2o-]f.)\ but the view taken above certainly repre
sents the better tradition of the cultus of the South.
89 2753
LEBANA
leaven), milk, wine, and even hot water, since these
liquids were not held capable of setting up the prohibited
fermentation, and (2) the meal of other plants, such as
beans, lentils, millet, even when kneaded with cold
water (see Ftsdhim 3i ff., with the commentaries;
Maimonides, nsoi f Dn niD^n).
The raison d etre of this exclusion of leaven from the
cultus is not far to seek. In the view of all antiquity,
Semitic and non- Semitic, panary fermentation repre
sented a process of corruption and putrefaction in the
mass of the dough. The fact that Ezekiel makes no
provision for wine in his programme of the restored
cultus (40^) is probably due to his extending this
conception to alcoholic fermentation as well. Plutarch s
words (QucBst. Rom. 109) show very clearly this associa
tion of ideas : Now leaven is itself the offspring of
corruption and corrupts the mass of dough with which it
has been mixed (17 5 fiV?7 /cal ytyovtv tic <p6opas O.VTT]
/cat (ftdfipft. rb </wpa/iia /j.Lyvv/j.evij). Further, as has been
pointed out by Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem.^zoj,, < 2 22o),
the prohibition of leaven is closely associated with the rule
that the fat and the flesh must not remain over till the morn
ing ( Ex. 23 18 34 25). He points also to certain Saracenic
sacrifices, akin to the Passover, that had to be entirely
consumed before the sun rose. The idea was that the
efficacy lay in the living flesh and blood of the victim ;
everything of the nature of putrefaction was therefore
to be avoided. The flamen dialis, or chief priest of
Jupiter at Rome, was forbidden the use of leaven
(fermentata farina, Aul. Cell., 10 15) on the grounds
suggested, no doubt rightly, by Plutarch (I.e.). At
certain religious ceremonies of the phratria of the
Lalyadag, according to an inscription recently unearthed
at Delphi, Sapdrat (unleavened cakes, according to
Athenaeus and Hesychius) played an important part. 1
The Roman satirist Persius, finally, employs the word
fermentum (leaven) in the sense of moral corruption
In the NT leaven supplies two sets of figures, one
taken from the mode, the other from the result, of
the process of fermentation. Thus
3. Figurative
use of leaven.
Jesus likened the silent but effective
growth of the kingdom in the mass of
humanity to the hidden but pervasive action of leaven
in the midst of the dough (Mt. 1833). The second
figure, however, is the more frequent, and is based on
the association, above elucidated, of panary fermenta
tion with material and moral corruption (cp Bahr,
Symbolik d. mos. Kultus, 2322). Thus the disciples
are warned against the leaven of the Pharisees (Mt.
166/: Mk. 815 Lk. 12 1 ff.}, of the Sadducees (Mt. ib.}.
and of Herod (Mk. ib.). See HERODIANS. Paul,
again, twice quotes the popular saying, a little leaven
leavens the whole lump (i Cor. 56 Gal. 5g), as a warn
ing against moral corruption. The true followers of
Christ are already unleavened (tLfv/j.oi i Cor. 57), and
must therefore keep the feast, that is, must live the
Christian life in the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth (58).
In late Jewish literature, finally, we also meet with the
figurative designation of the inherent corruption of human
nature as leaven. Thus in Talm. Berdklwtk \-ja it is said :
Rabbi Alexander, when he had finished his prayers, said:
Lord of the universe, it is clearly manifest before thee that it
is our will to do thy will ; what hinders that we do not thy will?
The leaven which is in the dough (nD J, 2C> flNb , cp Gen.
Rabba, 34, cited by Levy, s.v. niNb), explained by a gloss as
the evil impulse (jnn ir) which is in the heart. (For this
Talmudic doctrine of original sin see Hamburger, Realtttcycl.
212307^; and in general the works of Lightfoot [on Mt. 166],
Schoettgen [on i Cor. 5 6] and Meuschen.) A. K. S. K.
LEBANA (iO?, 69 ; AA.BANA [BKA], AoBNA
[L]), a family of NETHINIM (q.v.) in the great post-
exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9), Neh. 7 48 = Ezra 2 45
1 MS note by Dr. J. G. Fiazer.
2754
LEBANON
Lebanah (n:^", 1 -white ? AABANOO [BA]) = i Esd.
629, LABANA.
LEBANON. The name (p32^, AlBANOC ; once
[01.825] JJ37, ANTlAlB&NOC [also in Deut. 1; 825
Il2 4 Jos. 1 4 9 i, cp Judith 1 7]; Phoen. }33^ ; Ass.
labndna. In prose the article is pre-
1. Name and fixed except in 2 ch 2 jb [8 ^ . in
position. p 0etr y the usage varies), which comes
from the Semitic root laban, to be white, or whitish, 1
probably refers, not to the perpetual snow, but to the bare
white walls of chalk or limestone which form the charac
teristic feature of the whole range. Syria is traversed
by a branch thrown off almost at right angles from Mt.
Taurus in Asia Minor, and Lebanon is the name of the
central mountain mass of Syria, extending for about
100 m. from NNE. to SSW. It is bounded W. by
the sea, N. by the plain Jun Akkar, beyond which rise
the mountains of the Nusairiyeh, and E. by the inland
plateau of Syria, mainly steppe -land. To the S.
Lebanon ends about the point where the river Lltani
bends westward, and at Banias. A valley narrowing
towards its southern end, now called el- Buka. ,
divides the mountainous mass into two great parts.
That lying to the W. is still called Jebel Libnan ; the
greater part of the eastern mass now bears the name of
the Eastern Mountain (el-Jebel esh-Sharki). In Greek
the western range was called Libanos, the eastern
Antilibanos. The southern extension of Antilibanus,
Mt. Hermon, may be treated as a separate mountain
(see HERMON, SKNIR). For map see PHOENICIA.
Lebanon and Antilibanus have many features in
common ; in both the southern portion is less arid and
_ barren than the northern, the western
2. Description. valluvs ^ Ucr W0 oded and more fertile
than the eastern. In general the main elevations of the
two ranges form pairs lying opposite one another ; the
forms of both ranges are monotonous, but the colouring
splendid, especially when viewed from a distance ; when
seen close at hand, indeed, only a few valleys with
perennial streams offer pictures of landscape beauty,
their rich green contrasting pleasantly with the bare
brown and yellow mountain sides.
The Lebanon strata are generally inclined, bent, and
twisted, often vertical, seldom quite horizontal. Like
. all the rest of Syria, the Lebanon region
3. ueology. a j go j s traversec j ky f au it s , a t which the
different tracts of country have pressed against and
crumpled one another. The buka between Lebanon
and Antilibanus came into existence in the place of a
former trough or synclinal between two anticlinals, by
a tearing up of the earth s crust and a stairlike sub
sidence of a succession of layers. The principal ranges
of the Lebanon and Antilibanus along with the valley of
the Buka have the same trend as the faults, folds, and
strata viz. , from SSW. to N N E.
The range is made up of upper oolite, upper creta
ceous, eocene, miocene, and diluvium.
The oldest strata in Lebanon itself, forming the deepest part
of some of the valleys (Salima, Salib), are of Glandaiia lime
stone, 6oc ft. in thickness, containing sponges, corals, echino-
derms, etc. (the best-known fossils being Lidaris glandaria
and Terebratula [diverse species], found in the Salima \alley near
Beyrout). By its fossils this limestone belongs to the Oxford
group. Under this limestone still older strata of the Kelloway
are found only in the Antilibanus, on Mt. Hermon.
Above the upper oolite follow, in concordant order, strata of
upper cretaceous. First, there is the Nubian sandstone of Ceno-
manian age, a yellow or brown sandstone distinguished by the
presence of coal, dysodile, amberlike resin, and samoit (?), with im
pressions of plant leaves. To the period of the formation of this
member of the system belong volcanic eruptions of basaltic rock
and also copious eruptions of ashes, which are now met with as
tufa in the neighbourhood of the igneous rocks. These eruptive
rocks are everywhere again overlaid by the thick sandstone.
The sandstone stratum (1300 to 1600 ft. thick) has a great influ
ence upon the superficial aspect of the country, having become
the centre of its life and fertility, inasmuch as here alone water
can gather. In its upper beds the sandstone alternates with
1 So with rr in Neh. ace. to Baer, Gi.
2755
LEBANON
layers of limestone and contains (at the village of Abeh) many
shells of gasteropods and bivalves and especially of Trigonia
syriaca as typical fossils. The second subdivision of the
cretaceous formation consists of beds of marl and limestone with
numerous echinoderms, oysters, and ammonites (Buchiceras
syriacum, von Buch), which show that these strata belong to the
chalk marl (Cenomanian). The third subdivision is the Lebanon
limestone a gray or white limestone, marble, or dolomite, about
3000 ft. in thickness, of which the great mass of the mountains
of Lebanon is composed. Here is the zone of the Rudistes
(Radiolites,Spha:rulites). At several localities are also found thin
limestone beds with fine fish remains. The last member
of the cretaceous formation isthe chalk, a whiteoryellowish-white
soft chalky clay, which in its lower half shows the famous fish-
bed of Sahel Alma, and in its upper half alternates with beds of
flint. These most recent strata of all are met with only at the
western and eastern foot of Lebanon (baths in the western half
of the town of Beyrout) and in Antilibanus. On the Jebel
ed-pahr between the Litani and Jordan valleys they contain
many bitumen beds, and also asphalt.
The eocene (nummulitic formation) occurs only very sporadi
cally in Lebanon, especially in the Buka , but predominates in
the eastern offshoots of Antilibanus. It consists of nummulitic
limestones and unstratified coral limestones. The miocene is
represented in the form of marine limestone of upper miocene
age, which is the material of which two mountains on the coast
line are composed the St. Dmitri hill at Beyrout, and the
Jebel Terbol near Tarabulus.
Of pliocene formation there are a few comparatively unim
portant patches (near Zahleh)of fresh-water limestone, deposited
from small lake basins and containing fresh-water snails (Hy-
drobia, Bithynia). To this pliocene period belong also
considerable eruptions of basalt in the N. of Lebanon, near
Horns. Not till after these terrestiial pliocenes had been
deposited did the great movements to which the country owes
its present configuration occur. The diluvial period was marked
by no very noteworthy occurrences. On an old moraine stands
the well-known cedar grove of Dahr el-Kadib.
The western versant has the common characteristics
of the flora of the Mediterranean coast ; but the eastern
portion belongs to the poorer region of
4. Vegetation. the steppes and the Mediterranean
species are met with only sporadically along the water
courses. Forest and pasture-land in our sense of the
word are not found : the place of the forest is for the most
part taken by a low brushwood ; grass is not plentiful,
and the higher ridges maintain a growth of alpine plants
only so long as patches of snow continue to lie. The
rock walls harbour some rock plants ; but there are
many absolutely barren wildernesses of stone.
(1) On the western versant, as we ascend, we have
first, to a height of 1600 ft., the coast region, similar
to that of Syria in general and of the south of Asia
Minor.
Characteristic trees are the locust tree and the stone pine ; in
Melia Azcdarach and Ficus Sycoinorus (Beyrout) we have an
admixture of foreign and partially subtropical elements. The
great mass of the vegetation, however, is of the low-growing
type (inaquis or garrigue of the western Mediterranean), with
small and stiff leaves, frequently thorny and aromatic, as for
example the ilex (Quercus cocci/era), Smilajc, Cist us, Lentiscus,
Calycotonte, etc.
(2) Next comes, from 1600 to 6500 ft., the moun
tain region, which may also be called the forest region,
still exhibiting sparse woods and isolated trees wherever
shelter, moisture, and the bad husbandry of the inhabi
tants have permitted their growth.
From 1600 to 3200 ft. is a zone of dwarf hard-leaved oaks,
amongst which occur the Oriental forms Fontanesia philly-
raoides, Acersyriacunt, and the beautiful red-stemmed Arbutus
Andrachne. Higher up, between 3700 ft. and 4200 ft., a tall
pine, Pinus Brutia, Ten., is characteristic. Between 4200 and
6200 ft. is the region of the two most interesting forest trees of
Lebanon, the cypress and the cedar. The cypress still grows
thickly, especially in the valley of the Kadisha ; the horizontal
is the prevailing variety. In the upper Kadisha valley there is
a cedar grove of about three hundred trees, ammigst which five
are of gigantic size ; it is alleged that other specimens occur
elsewhere in Lebanon. The Cedrus Litani is intermediate
between the Cedrus Dcodara and the C. atlantica (see CEDAR).
The cypress and cedar zone exhibits a variety of other leaf-
bearing and coniferous trees ; of the first may be mentioned
several oaks Quercus Mellul, Q. subalpina (Kotschy), Q.
Cerris, and the hop-hornbeam (Ostrya) ; of the second class
the rare Cilician silver fir (Abies ci/icica) may be noticed. Next
come the junipers, sometimes attaining the size of trees (// -
perns e.rcelsa, J. rufescens, and, with fruit as large as plums,
J. drtif-acea). The chief ornament of Lebanon, however, is the
Rhododendron ponticutn, with its brilliant purple flower clusters ;
a peculiar evergreen, I inca libanotica, also adds beauty to this
zone.
2756
LEBANON
(3) Into the alpine region (6200 to 10,400 ft.) pene
trate a few very stunted oaks (Quercus subalpina,
Kotschy), the junipers already mentioned, and a bar
berry (Berberis cretica), which sometimes spreads into
close thickets. Then follow the low, dense, prone,
pillow-like dwarf bushes, thorny and gray, common to
the Oriental highlands Astragalus and the peculiar
Acantholimon. They are found up to within 300 ft. of
the highest summits. Upon the exposed mountain
slopes rhubarb (Rheum Ribes] is noticeable, and also a
vetch ( Vicia canescens, Lab. ) excellent for sheep. The
spring vegetation, which lasts until July, appears to be
rich, especially as regards corolla-bearing plants, such
as Corydalis, Gagea, Bulbillaria, Colchicum, Pusch-
kinia, Geranium, Ornithogalum, etc.
The alpine flora of Lebanon connects itself directly
with the Oriental flora of lower altitudes, and is unre
lated to the glacial flora of Europe and northern Asia.
The flora of the highest ridges, along the edges of the snow
patches, exhibits no forms related to our northern alpine flora ; but
suggestions of such a flora are found in a Draba, anAntirosace, an
Alsine, and a violet, occurring, however, only in local species.
Upon the highest summits are found Saponaria Pumilio
(resembling our Silene acaulis) and varieties of Galium,
Euphorbia, Astragalus, Veronica, Jurinea, Festuca, Scrophu-
laria. Geranium, Aspliodeiine, Allium, Asperula; and, on
the margins of the snow-fields, a Taraxacum and Ranunculus
demissus.
There is nothing of special interest about the fauna
of Lebanon. Bears are no longer abundant ; the
. panther and the ounce are met with ;
^ the wild hog, hyaena, wolf, and fox are
by no means rare ; jackals and gazelles are very common.
The polecat and the hedgehog also occur. As a rule there
are not many birds ; but the eagle and the vulture may
occasionally be seen ; of eatable kinds partridges and
wild pigeons are the most abundant. In some places
the bat occasionally multiplies so as actually to become
a plague.
The district to the W. of Lebanon, averaging about
six hours in breadth, slopes in an intricate series of
. _, , plateaus and terraces to the Mediter-
6. Geography ,, t . ,
r , ^ ranean. I he coast is for the most
part abrupt and rocky, often leaving
room for only a narrow path along the shore, and
when viewed from the sea it does not lead one to have
the least suspicion of the extent of country lying between
its cliffs and the lofty summits behind. Most of the
mountain spurs run from E. to W. ; but in northern
Lebanon the prevailing direction of the valleys is north
westerly, and in the S. some ridges also run parallel
with the principal chain. The valleys have for the
most part been deeply excavated by the rapid mountain
streams which traverse them ; the apparently inaccessible
heights are crowned by villages, castles, or cloisters
embosomed among trees.
Of the streams which are perennial, the most worthy of note,
beginning from the N., are the Nahr Akkar, N. Arka, N. el-
Barid, N. Kadisha, the holy river (the valley of which begins
far up in the immediate neighbourhood of the highest summits,
and rapidly descends in a series of great bends till the river
reaches the sea at Tripoli), Wady el-Joz (falling into the sea at
Batriin), "Wady Fidfir, Nahr Ibrahim (the ancient Adonis, having
its source in a recess of the great mountain amphitheatre where
the famous sanctuary Apheca, the modern Afka, lay), Nahr el-
Kelb (the ancient Lycus), Nahr Beirut (the ancient Magoras,
entering the sea at Beyrout), Nahr Damur (ancient Tamyras),
Nahr el- Auwaly (the ancient Bostrenus, which in the upper
part of its course is joined by the Nahr el-Baruk). The Anwaly
and the Nahr ez-Zaherani, the only other streams that fall to
be mentioned before we reach the Litani, flow NE. to SW., in
consequence of the interposition of a ridge subordinate and
parallel to the central chain.
On the N. , where the mountain bears the special
name of Jebel Akkar, the main ridge of Lebanon rises
gradually from the plain. Valleys run to the N.
and NK. , among which must be mentioned that of
the Nahr el-Kebir, the Eleutherus of the ancients,
which takes its rise in the Jebel el-Abyad on the
eastern slope of Lebanon, and afterwards, skirting
the district, flows westward to the sea. To the S. of
Jebel el-Abyad, beneath the main ridge, which as a
"2757
LEBANON
rule falls away suddenly towards the E. , occur several
small elevated terraces having a southward slope ;
among these the Wadi en-Nusur ( vale of eagles ),
and the basin of the lake Yammuna, with its intermittent
spring Neb el-Arba in, deserve special mention. Of
the streams which descend into the Buka , only the
BerdonI need be named ; it rises in Jebel Sunnin, and
enters the plain by a deep and picturesque mountain
cleft at Zahleh.
The most elevated summits occur in the N. ; but even
these are of very gentle gradient, and are ascended
quite easily. The names and the elevations of the several
peaks, which even in summer are covered with snow, have
been very variously given by different explorers ; accord
ing to the most accurate accounts the Cedar block
consists of a double line of four and three summits respec
tively, ranged from N. to S. , with a deviation of about
35. Those to the E. are Uyun Urghush, Makmal,
Musklya (or Neb esh-Shemaila), and Ras Dahr el-
Kadib ; fronting the sea are Karn Sauda, Fumm el-
Mizab, and Dahr el-Kandil. The height of Makmal by
the most recent barometric measurement is 10,207 ft- ;
that of the others is somewhat less. S. from them is
the pass (8831 ft.) which leads from Baalbek to
Tripoli ; the great mountain amphitheatre on the W.
side of its summit is remarkable. Farther to the S.
is a second group of lofty summits.
Chief among them is the snow-capped Sannin, visible from
Beyrout; its height is 8554 ft., or, according to other accounts,
8805 ft. Between this group and the more southerly Jebel
Kuneiseh (about 6700 ft.) lies the pass (4700 ft.) now traversed
by the French post road between Beyrout and Damascus.
Among the other bare summits still farther S. are the long
ridge of Jebel el-Baruk (about 7000 ft.), the Jebel Niha, with
the Tomat Niha (about 6100 ft.), near which is a pass to Sidon,
and the Jebel Rihan (about 5400 ft.).
The Buka , the broad valley which separates Lebanon
from Antilibanus, is watered by two rivers having their
watershed near Ba albek (at an elevation of about 3600
ft. ) and their sources separated only by a short mile.
The river flowing northwards, El- Asy, is the ancient
Orontes ; the other is the Litani. In the lower part
of its course the Litani has scooped out for itself a deep
and narrow rocky bed ; at Burghuz it is spanned by a
great natural bridge. Not far from the point where it
suddenly trends to the W. lie, immediately above the
romantic valley, at an elevation of 1500 ft., the im
posing ruins of the old castle Kal at esh-Shakif, near
one of the passes to Sidon. In its lower part the Litani
bears the name of Nahr el-Kasimlyeh. Neither the
Orontes nor the Litani has any important affluent.
The Buka used to be known as CCELESYKIA (q.v. ) ;
but that word as employed by the ancients had a much
more extensive application.
At present the full name is Buka el- Aziz (the dear Buka ),
and its northern portion is known as Sahlet Ba albek (the plain
of Baalbek). The valley is from 4 to 6 m. broad, with an
undulating surface. It is said to contain a hundred and thirty-
seven hamlets or settlements, the larger of which skirt the hills,
whilst the smaller, consisting of mud hovels, stand upon dwarf
mounds, the debris of ages. The whole valley could be much
more richly cultivated than it is at present ; but fever is frequent.
Antilibanus is mentioned only once, in Judith 1 7
(avTi\i()ai>os), where Libanus and Antilibanus means
the land between the parallel ranges i.e. , Ccelesyria.
The Antilibanus chain has in many respects been
much less fully explored than that of Lebanon. Apart
r . from its southern offshoots it is 67 m.
E y ] ong, whilst its width varies from 16 to
m II rises fr m the pla n f y m?I
j n j {s nort h ern portion is very arid
and barren. The range has not so many offshoots as
occur on the W. side of Lebanon ; under its precipitous
slopes stretch table-lands and broad plateaus, which,
especially on the E. side looking towards the steppe,
steadily increase in width. Along the western side of
northern Antilibanus stretches the Khasha a, a rough
red region lined with juniper trees a succession of the
hardest limestone crests and ridges, bristling with bare
2758
tTh
Antilibanus.
LEBANON
rock and crag that shelter tufts of vegetation, and are
divided by a succession of grassy ravines. On the
eastern side the parallel valley of Asal el- Ward deserves
special mention ; the descent towards the plain east
wards, as seen for example at Ma liila, is singular,
first a spacious amphitheatre and then two deep very
narrow gorges. The perennial streams that take their
rise in Antilibanus are not many.
One of the finest and best watered valleys is that of Helbiin
(see HKLBON). The highest points of the range, reckoned
from the N., are Hallmat el-Kabu (8247 ft.), which has a
splendid view; the Fatly block, including Tal at Mfisfi (8755
ft.) and the adjoining Jebel Nebi Bariih (7900 ft. [?]) ; and a
third group near Bludfin, in which the most prominent names
are Shukif Akhyar, and Abu 1-Hin (8330 ft. [?]).
Of the valleys descending westward the first to claim
mention is the Wady Yahfufa ; a little farther to the S. ,
lying N. and S. , is the rich upland valley of Zebedani,
where the Barachl has its highest sources. Pursuing an
easterly course of several hours, this stream receives
the waters of the romantic Ain Fijeh (which doubles its
volume), and bursts out by a rocky gateway upon the
plain of Damascus. It is the Amanah (RV" <> r -)of 2K. 5 12;
the portion of Antilibanus traversed by it was also called
by the same name (Cant. 48). See AMANA. The
French post road after leaving the Buka first enters
a little valley running N. and S. , where a projecting
ridge of Antilibanus bears the ruins of the ancient cities
Chalcis and Gerrha. It next traverses the gorge of
Wady el-Harir, the level upland Sahlet Judeideh, the
ravine of Wady el-Kam, the ridge of Akabat et-Tin,
the descent Daurat el-Billan, and finally the unpeopled
plain of Dimas, from which it enters the valley of
Barada. This route marks the southern boundary of
Antilibanus proper, where the Hermon group begins.
From the point where this continuation of Antilibanus
begins to take a more westerly direction, a low ridge
shoots out towards the SW. , trending farther and
farther away from the eastern chain and narrowing the
Buka ; upon the eastern side of this ridge lies the
elevated valley or hilly stretch known as Wady et-Teim.
In the N. , beside Ain Falfij, it is connected by a low
watershed with the Buka ; from the gorge of the Litani
it is separated by the ridge of Jebel ed-Dahr. At its
southern end it contracts and merges into the plain of
Banias, thus enclosing Mount Hermon on its NW. and
W. sides ; eastward from the Hasbany branch of the
Jordan lies the meadow-land Merj Ayiin (see Ijox).
The inhabitants of Lebanon have at no time played
a conspicuous part in history. There are remains of
8 Political P ren storic occupation ; but we do not j
.. j even know what races dwelt there in the
history and , . , . , r . . ,-.
DODiilation hlstorlcal period of antiquity. Probably
they belonged partly to the Canaanite but
chiefly to the Aramiean group of nationalities ; editorial
notices in the narrative books of the OT mention
Hivites (Judg. 83, where, however, we should probably
read Hittites ) and Giblites (Josh. 13s ; see, however,
GEBAL, i). A portion of the western coast land was
always, it may be assumed, in the hands of the Phoe
nician states, and it is possible that once and again
their sovereignty may have extended even into the
Buka. Lebanon was also included within the ideal
boundaries of the land of Israel (Josh. 13s [D.,]), and
the whole region was well known to the Hebrews, by
whose poets its many excellencies are often praised .
see. e.g.. Is. 37*4 60i3 Hos. 145-7 Ps.72i6 Cant.4n;
but note that the phrase the wine of Lebanon (Hos.
148) is doubtful : see WINE. Jeremiah finds no better
image for the honour put by Yahwe on the house of
David than the top of Lebanon (Jer. 226). The
cedars of Lebanon supplied timber for Solomon s
temple and palace (i K. 56 2 Ch. 28), and at the re
building of the temple cedar timber was again brought
from the Lebanon (Ezra 87 ; cp JOPPA). These noble
trees were not less valued by the Assyrians ; the in
scriptions of the Assyrian kings repeatedly mention
2759
LEBONAH
the felling of trees in Lebanon and Amanus. Cp
CEDAR ; also EGYPT, 33.
In the Roman period the distiict of Phoenice extended into
Lebanon ; in the second century Phoenice, along with the inland
districts pertaining to it, constituted a subdivision of the pro
vince of Syria, having Emesa (Horns) for its capital ; from the
time of Diocletian there was a Phoenice ad Libanum, with
Emesa as capital, as well as a Phoenice Maritima of which
Tyre was the chief city. Remains of the Roman period occur
throughout Lebanon, and more especially in Hermon, in the
shape of small temples in more or less perfect preservation ; the
splendid ruins of Baalbec are world-famous. Although Christi
anity early obtained a footing in Lebanon, the pagan worship,
and even human sacrifice, survived for a long time, especially in
remote valleys such as Afka. The present inhabitants are for
the most part of Syrian (Aramaean) descent; Islam and the
Arabs have at no time penetrated very deep into the mountain
land.
Ritter, Die Erdkunde von Asien; Die Sinai - Halbinsel,
Palastina, u. SyrienC^ (1848- 1855) ; Robinson, Later Riblicai
Researches in Palestine ami the adjacent
9. Literature. Regions (1856), and Physical Geography
of the Holy Land (London, 1865); R. F.
Burton and C. F. Tyrwhitt Drake, Unexplored Syria (1872);
O. Fraas, Drei Monate ii Lebanon (1876); Porter, Handbook
for Travellers in Syria and Palestine (1858,12 1875); Socin-
Benzinger, Palestine and Syria! 3 ) in Baedeker s series of hand
books for travellers (ET, 1898); GASm. HG 45 ff. (1894;
additions, 1896). For maps see Burton and Socin-Baedeker, also
Van de Velde s Map of the Holy Land (Gotha, 1858 ; Germ, ed.,
1866), ami the Carte du Liban d"apres Us reconnaissances de la
brigade topographique du corps expfditionnaire de Syrie en
1860-61, prepared at the French War Office (1862). A. S.
LEBAOTH (n lN3/), Josh. 15 3 2. See BETH-LEBA-
OTH. and note that Lebaoth and Bealoth (Josh.
152 4 ) are probably the same name. Cp BAALATH-
BEER.
LEBB-fflUS (AeBB&ioc or AeBaioc [NL]) occurs in
AV (cp TR) of Mt. 10s as the name of the apostle who
was surnamed (o eTTiKAHGeic) THADIXEUS \_q.v.\
The conflate reading of TR is from the Syrian text ;
Ae/3/3. is a strongly but insufficiently supported Western
reading, adopted by Tischendorf in Mt. 10 3, but not
in Mk. 3i8. If Ae/3/3cuos = "aV, we may with Dalman
(Pal. Gram. 142, n. i ; cp Worte Jesn, 40) compare
the Phoen. xaV and Sin. xaS- It is possible, however,
according to WH, that the reading Ae/3/J. is due to an
early attempt to bring Levi (\ei>eir) the publican (Lk.
527) within the number of the Twelve. Cp LEVI.
Older views (see Keim, Jesu von Nasara, 2310 ; ET
8380) are very improbable.
LEB-KAMAI ("PP/3 1 ?, the heart [i.e.. centre] of
my adversaries ; cp Aq. AV), usually taken to be a
cypher-form of Kasdim (D^T;*?), Chaldasa ; BXA1 2,
however, has XAAAAioyc. or -Aeoyc (Jer. 51 1), and
Giesebrecht and Cornill place c iso in the text. Cer
tainly, Leb-kamai might be the trifling of a very late
scribe, a specimen of the so-called Athbash-writing (on
which see SHESHACH). It is possible, however, that
it is a corruption of VnDnT (Jerahmeel), and that Jer.
50 51 is directed against the much-hated Erlomites or
Jerahmeelites, as well as against the Chaldreans. So
Cheyne in Crit. Bib. See MERATHAIM, PEKOD.
Other cyphers were known as n3 3N ar> d D^ ^N, on which see
Buxt. de Abbrev. Hcb. and Leric. Chald. s.v. ; (for an alleged
example of the C^ SN species, see TABEEL).
LEBONAH (rm; THC AeBtoNA [B], TOY AI-
BANOY THC AeB. [AL]), or (since llbonah, frankin
cense, was not a Jewish product) Lebanah or Libnah,
a place to the N. of Shiloh (Judg. 21 19), identified by
Maundrell (1697) with the modern el-Lubban, a poor
village on the slope of a hill 3 m. WNW. from Seilun
(Shiloh), with many old rock tombs in the neigh
bourhood. The story in Judges mentions Lebonah in
connection with a vintage -festival at Shiloh. This
suggests to Neubauer (Gtogr. 83) that Beth-laban in the
mountains (cp NAZARETH) from which wine of the
second quality was brought for the drink offerings
in the temple (MtndkStk9j) may be our Lebanah
( Lebonah).
2760
LECAH
LECAH (PD?; AH X A [B]. -AA [A], AAIXA [L]),
apparently the name of a place in the territory of
Judah, descended from Er b. Shelah, iCh. 421. If
so, it is perhaps an error for Lachish (Meyer, Entst.
164). More probably, however, mySi ns 1 ? 3N is a cor
ruption (with some dittography) of "?Narn\ and the
meaning is that MARKSHAH (q.v. ) was of mixed Judahite
and Jerahmeelite origin. T. K. c.
LEDGES. For D aVty, ttlabblm (from aW ; cp Syr.,
of the rung?, of a ladder; -riav f^exo^fviav) i K. 728/Tt;see LAYER.
For niT, yadoth (a.s>\i\ xetpii/ [BA], RV stays ), i K. 7 3$f.,
see LAVEK. For 33 13, karkob (ecrxa-pa bis [BAF] in Ex. 27 5),
arula, Ex. 27 5 38 4 t, RV (A V compass ), see ALTAR, 9 a.
For miy, \iztirtiA, Ezek. 43 14 17 20 (lAaoTiJptoi ) 45 ig(iep<$y),
RVnig. ledge, EV settle, cp ALTAR, 4 ; also MERCY SEAT.
LEEKS. The word T Vn, hdslr, which usually
means grass (see GRASS), is in Nu. 11s rendered
leeks by all the ancient versions. Although the
correctness of this interpretation cannot be exactly
proved, it has all tradition in its favour and harmonises
well with the context. The leeks of ancient Egypt were
renowned (Plin. HN, xix. 33 no) ; and rxn is used
in this sense at least once in the Talmud (Low,
228). The garden leek (Allium Porrum) is only a
cultivated form of Allium Ampeloprasum, L. , which is
a native of Syria and Egypt. N. M. w. T. T. -D.
LEGION (AepooN [Ti.WH]), Mk.5gis Lk.8 3 o.
See ARMY, 10 ; GOSPELS, 16.
LEHABIM (D nr6), one of the sons of Mizraim,
Gen. 10 13 (A&BieiM [AEL]) = i Ch. 1 nt (A^BeiN
[A], AABieiM [L]), either a by-form or a corruption of
LUBIM (q.v.).
Another possible view is that D 3n? comes from D [n].J73 =
D [j]]n?3. Baalah was in the S. of Judah towards Edom (Josh.
1529). This stands in connection with a hypothesis respecting
the name commonly read Mizraim which explains a group of
difficult problems, but deals freely with MT. See MIZRAIM ;
Crit. Bib,
LEHI pnp, i.e. , jawbone ; in Judg. 15g Aey[e]l
[BA], Ae\6l [L], and in Judg. 15i 9 CN TH ClAfONi
[B], THC ClAfONOC [AL], in Judg. 15 14, ciAfONOC
[BAL]) or, more fully (v. 17), RAMATH-LEHI (Tip DEI,
i.e., the hill of the jawbone, IiAI -, &N<MpeciC
ClApONOC; riOl is surely not an explanatory gloss
[Doorninck]), the scene of one of Samson s exploits
(Judg. log 14 17 19). According to most scholars the
place derived its name from something in its shape
which resembled a jawbone (cp the peninsula Onu-
gnathus in Laconia), upon which resemblance the popular
wit based a legend. The explanation of Beer-lahai-roi
proposed elsewhere (JERAHMEEL, 4 [c]), however, sug
gests the conjecture that Lehi and Ramath-lehi are
early corruptions of Jerahmeel. There were probably
many places of this name. If so, the place derived its
name from some ancient written source, the text of
which had become corrupted.
Most scholars since Bochart (to Driver s list add now Bu. and
H. P. Smith) have found a reference to the same place in 28. 23 n
(reading were gathered together to Lehi, !Tri{? [en-i viayova,
L ; eis TOTTOV <ria.y6va, Jos. Ant. vii. 123] instead of fl ITJ [ei?
0>;pi a, BA]). The omission, however, in i Ch. 11 13 shows
that the same words and the Philistines were gathered together
to battle occurred in the Chronicler s text of the narrative of
2 Sam., both in v. 9 and in v. n. rrn 1 ?, therefore, must be a
fragment of nsnSaS, to battle (Klo.). The scene of the exploit
was probably the valley of Rephaim (read with Chr. CV *EDNJ,
were gathered together there, refening back to v. 9 [see PAS-
DAMMIM]).
As to the site of the Lehi of Judges, we know from
Judg. 158- I3 , that it lay above ETAM (q.v. ), and Schick l
identifies it with a hill (with ruins) called es-Siyydgh
ff. The name Siaghah is attached to the
shoulder of the mountain above Ayiin Musa, called Jebel Nebfi
(PEFQ, Oct. 1888, p. 184). Cp PISGAH.
2761
LEOPARD
(from ffiaywv?), at the mouth of the Wddy en-.\~ajtl,
and mentions a fountain called Ain Nakura to the east
Conder (Tent-work, 1276), has a still more far-fetched
identification. See EN-HAKKORE, and, on the legend
and its explanation, see, further, JAWBONE, Ass s.
T. K. c.
LEMECH (TO?), Gen. 4 18 5 25 AV m sr-, EV LAMEC?
LEMUEL fatfttfy, pNiO 1 ?, [belonging] to God ?
see NAMES, 22, 37) the name of a youthful king,
mentioned, if the text is correct, in Prov. 31i4. : The
form, however, though possible, is improbable (see
LAEL) ; if a name is intended, the present writer thinks
it is probably Jerahmeel ; we might with much prob
ability read mtlek yUrahmi cl, a king of Jerahmeel.
The following word massd can mean neither poem
nor a supposed Arabian kingdom ; it should rather be
mdsdl (Gratz, Bickell). Bickell, however, thinks that
VND^, in v. 4, has arisen out of Vc 1 ? in D 3^oS (written
D SNSo 1 ?, as in 2 S. 11 1). 2 ^Nia 1 ? was then supposed to be
a personal name, hence the repetition of DoSc Stf after
it. From v. 4 ? was copied into v. i. This would
require the rendering, The words of a [nameless] king,
a wise poem which his mother taught him. The former
view seems preferable. Cp AGUR, PROVERBS, also
Bickell (ZjO/5297) ; Del. and Toy, ad loc.\ Cheyne,
Job and Solomon, 154, 171. T. K. C.
LEND (mjpn, Ex. 22 24 [25]; AANizeiN Lk. 634),
and BORROW (TW, Ex. 822; AANICACGAI, Mt. 5 4 2).
See LAW AND JUSTICE, 16 ; TRADE AND COM
MERCE.
LENTILES, RV lentils i.e., En um lens, L.
(D^CHi;, dddsim; (h&KOC; Gen. 2034 2 S. 17 28 23 n
Ezek. 4gf ; cp also Mish. Shabb. 7 4 often), rightly so
rendered by all the ancient versions, as is shown by the
use of the Ar. adas for the same plant to this clay
(BR\^d). The pottage [TTJ] which Esau obtained
from Jacob he called dm (CIN). As lentil-pottage,
which is one of the commonest among simple people
at the present day, is of a peculiar brownish green, 3
MT must be wrong in vocalising dm in v. 30, adorn,
red. Read Uddm Arab, idam, a by-dish (cp col.
1333, n. 2 ) : Feed me with some of the idom, that idom.
The nutritive properties of lentils are well known.
According to De Candolle (Origine, 257^) W. Asia
was probably the earliest home of the lentil, and it
has been cultivated in that region since the dawn of
history. Cp FOOD, 4, i, col. 1541, and for another
conjectured reference to lentils (2S. 619 i Ch. 163) see
FRUIT, 5, 2.
LEOPARD pEO, Aram. 1O? ; n<\pAd,AlC ; Is. 116
Hos. 13? Jer. 56 13*23 Hab. 18 Cant. 48 Dan. 76 Ecclus.
2823 Rev. 13 2f). A wild beast, noted for its fierceness,
its swiftness (Hab. 18), and its spotted skin (Jer. 1823).
Its name (ndmer) also occurs in place-names (BETH-
NIMRAH, NIMRIM [y</.v.]), which suggests an interesting
enquiry (see below). On the expression the mountains
of the leopards (Cant. 48 || the lions dens ) see CAN
TICLES, 15, col. 693, top. Apart from the textual
phenomena, it is true, we should not be suspicious at
the mention of leopards in Lebanon and Hermon.
Felis pardits may be less common now than it probably was
in OT times ; but it is still found, according to Tristram, round
the Dead Sea, in Gilead and Bashan, and in the wooded
districts of the West. Bloodthirsty and ferocious in the
1 (pRNA has in v. I for ~hs ,N?D? 13^1, oi cfiol Adyoi eiprji-rat
virb 0eoO /3a<riAeW ; and in v. 4 for *?NicS D 3^? "?C, /xera
/SovArJS TTO.VTO. TTOlfl.
2 The scribe began to write C DN^o ?, but wrote by accident
VKD^- As usual, he left the error uncancelled and wrote
straight on correctly. This is no doubt the meaning of Bickell s
condensed statement.
3 This green colour is the colour of the pottage. The raw
husks are brown and the raw grain, stripped of its covering, red.
2762
LEPROSY, LEPER
extreme, it will even kill more victims than it requires, simply
to satisfy its craving for blood. It is in the habit of concealing
itself at wells and at the entrances of villages (Jer. 56), lying in
wait for its prey, upon which it will spring from a great
distance ; it has an appetite for dogs, but men are seldom
attacked, f. pardus has a wide distribution, extending almost
throughout Africa, and from Palestine to China in S. Asia ;
it is also found in many of the larger Kast Indian islands, f.
jubatus (the Cheeta) is scarcer ; it can be found in the wooded
hills of Galilee, and in the neighbourhood of Tabor. _In dis
position it is much less fierce than F. pardus and is com
paratively easily tamed ; in India it is trained for hunting
antelopes, etc. (cp Thomson s statement respecting the panther
in Palestine, LB (1860), p. 444). It has almost as wide a
distribution as its congener ; but does not reach so far K.
The Sinaitic Arabs relate that the leopard was once
a man, but that afterwards he washed in milk and
became a panther and an enemy of mankind (WRS,
Kin. 204). The occurrence in Arabic of the tribal
names namir, dimin. nomair, pi. anmar, and also the
Sab. DTD:N, taken in connection with the above story,
seems to point to a primitive belief in a supposed
kinship with the panther, and it is probable that
the clan which first called itself after the leopard
believed itself to be of one kin with it (cp also the
leopard-skin worn, as is well known, by a certain class
of priests in their official duties). 1 We may further
compare the occurrence of the place-names BETH-
NIMRAH, NIMKIM (qq.v.), and the fact that four
similarly formed names are said to be found in the
Hauran (cp 7,DMG 29437). A place-name po: also
occurs in Sabnean inscriptions. Finally, Jacob of Serugh
mentions bar nemre, son of panthers, as the name of
a false deity of Haran ( ZDMG 29 1 10 ; cp WRS, /.
Phil. 993 ; Kin. 201).* A. E. s. s. A. c.
LEPROSY, LEPER. The word njns. sard ath,
occurs some twenty-eight times in Lev. 13 _/;, also in Dt. 248
2 K. 5 3 (>f. 27 2 Ch. 20 19, and is invariably translated Ac irpa in
, lepra in Vg. The root is jps, meaning originally (probably)
to smite ; the participle I "!* , silril" , is met with in Lev.
13 44/ 143 224 Nu. 62 (Aen-pd?; leprosus\ and jniS3, JHi P,
tnesdra, in Ex.46 Lev. 14 2 Nu. 12 10 28.829 2 K. "111127
738 15 5 2 Ch. _ (} 2o/ 23. NT has Arpa in Mk. 142 Lk. 5 i 2 /,
Aen-pos in Mt. 82 lOa 115 2tJ6 Mk. 1 40 143 Lk. 4 27 7 22 17 12.
In Is. 684 Vg. has et nos putavimus eum quasi leprosum,
where AV has stricken.
The word X^Trpa, in Hippocrates and others, meant
some scaly disease of the skin, quite different from A^<a5
or Xe< * >a " r atr J : of the two le P ra
corres P onds n the whole with psori-
. as . f (scaliness) _ e l e p ha (ntiasi}s with
common or tubercular leprosy. It is probablethat in & the
word lepra was meant to be generic, or to include more
than the X^irpa of medical Greek ; if so, it would have
been a correct rendering of the generic Heb. 3 ( = stroke,
plaga, plague). The lepra of the Vg. , however, became
specially joined in mediaeval medical writings to what is
technically known as leprosy, so that lepra Arabum
meant exactly the same as elephantiasis Gmcorum.
Thenceforward, consequently, all that was said in the
OT of sdrA ath was taken as said of leprosy, which
thus derived its qualities, and more especially its con
tagiousness, not so much from clinical observation as
from verbal interpretation. This confusion belongs not
to the Hebrew text, but to translations and to mediaeval
and modern glosses.
So generically is the Hebrew word used, that two of the
2 Lenrosv of var et es f sdrd ath are in inanimate
(</) houses things viz. , clothes or leather work
(b) garments, j!^ 13 > 47 -rL and - the Wa "? f h U t SeS
(1433-53). The conjecture of some, that
the leprosy of the garment was a defilement of garments
1 See Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1 184, fig. 12, and cp DRESS, 8 ;
ESAU. The origin of the hanging of the leopard s skin in the
house of Antenor (Paus. x. 27 3) is obscure.
2 Among the idolatrous objects destroyed by Hezekiah
(2 Ch. 31 i) and Tosiah (if>., 34 34), the Pesh. enumerates nentri
(MT, C"1C>K, D TDB). To the translators of the Pesh., at any
rate, images of leopards were apparently not unknown.
3 In Ar. the cognate word is used especially of epileptic fits
or the falling sickness.
2763
1 Meaning in
LEPROSY, LEPER
worn by the leprous, is against the sense of the text, to
say nothing of the silence of the context on so essential
a point. Again, the suggestion of Michaelis that the
leprosy of the walls of a iiouse was the peculiar nitrous
exudation or crust that sometimes appears, like a scabby
state of the skin, on newly plastered walls, would imply
that means of a very drastic kind were used against
walls merely because they looked leprous, just as if one
were to root out trees because of bolls and leprous-
looking excrescences on their bark. The leprosies of
walls and garments were real troubles in those things,
which required skill and energy to surmount ; and the
obvious meaning is that they were parasitic invasions of
vegetable moulds or of the eggs of insects.
(a) The description of the house-leprosy (greenish or
reddish patches, lower than, or penetrating beneath the
surface of, the inner wall, Lev. 1437) does not exactly
identify the condition ; but the steps taken to get rid of
it the removal of a part of the wall, the scraping of
adjoining parts, the carrying of the dust so scraped off
to an unclean place, the rebuilding, the replastering, and
the resort to still more thorough demolition if the first
means had not been radical enough and the plague
had come again are very much in the manner of
dealing with dry rot ; whoever has had occasion to
eradicate that spreading fungus from some wall or
partition, will see the general fitness of the steps to be
taken, particularly of the precautions against leaving
any spores lurking in the dust of neighbouring parts.
The mycelium of the dry-rot fungus (Polyforus destructor, or
Merulius vastator, or M. lachrymeins) not only eats into wood
work, but may form between the lath and plaster and the stone or
brick, large sheets of felt-like texture, half an inch or more thick,
the fresh broken surface of which will look greenish yellow or
red. It is most apt to come in damp structures shut out from
the circulation of air. Without contending that the plague, or
the fretting leprosy (1851, DlNpS njnx, perhaps rather a malig
nant leprosy) of the walls of a house was precisely the dry-rot
that it was
mould of the same kind.
of northern countries, one must conclude
vas a parasitic
(b} The leprosy of the garment (Lev. 1847-59) vvas m
woollen, or linen, or in any work that is made of skin.
This excludes the suggestion of Michaelis that it may
have been a contagion of the sheep clinging to its wool.
A greenish or reddish colour, and a tendency to spread,
are the chief indications given as to its nature. If it
changed colour with washing, it might be cured by
rending out the affected piece ; otherwise the garment
or article made of skin was to be burned. Such marks
are perhaps too general for scientific identification ; but
there are various moulds and mildews (such as Afucor
and Penicillium), as well as deposits of the eggs of
moths, which would produce the appearances and effects,
and would call for the remedial measures of the text.
Such being the probable nature of two of the varieties
of sard ath namely, parasitic spreading moulds or
_ _ fretting insects upon inanimate substances
3. Leprosy
. _ ,* f we shall probably not err in discovering
J the same parasitic character in some, if
not in the whole, of the human maladies in the same
context. The most clearly identified of the parasitic
skin-diseases are the plague upon the head or the beard,
or the scall 1 (pna, Lev. 1829-37), and the leprosy causing
baldness (v. 42). These are almost certainly the con
tagious and often inveterate ringworm, or scald-head,
mentagra, or sycosis, of the hairy scalp and beard. To
them also the name of leprosy is given ; and indeed
the most striking part in the ritual of the leper, the
rending of the clothes, the covering the lip, and the
crying out unclean, unclean, follows in the text im
mediately upon the description of an affection of the
head which was probably tinea decah-ans (ringworm),
orfavus, tinea favosa (scald-head), which are still com
paratively common among poor Jews as well as Moslems
(this, says Hirsch, is perhaps to be explained by their
1 An eruption of the skin. The word is connected with scale ;
cp Chaucer, under thy locks thou mayst have the scall [so Mr.
Scrivener].
2764
LEPROSY, LEPER
religious practice of always keeping the head covered).
J ityriiisis versicolor, which affects the trunk especially,
and produces spots of brownish or reddish discolora
tion, is another parasitic skin disease common among
the same classes [cp Schamberg 1 (commenting medically
on Lev. 13)]. The white spots often referred to probably
included leucoderma or vitiligo.
Vitiligo is a disease not uncommon in the darker-skinned races,
being characterised by white spots, bounded by dusky red,
especially on the face, neck, and hands, and on hairy parts such
as the scalp, armpits, and pubes. The disease begins as white
dots, which spread slowly and may become large patches. In
the negro they produce a piebald effect ; they occur also in the
horse and the elephant. The chief reason for discovering vitiligo
among the varieties of sara ath is that the reiterated symptom of
patchy whitening of the hair in Lev. 13 is more distinctive of that
disease than of any other. On the other hand, vitiligo is not
contagious, is not attended by rawness of the flesh, and admits
of no cure. If it be the disease in which patches of hair
turned white (as Kapori and other dermatologists suppose), the
prominence given to it must have been superstitious (elephants
with vitiligo are sacred). As a matter of practical concern,
scabies or itch ought to have found a place ; its best sign is the
sinuous white line marking the track of the female acarus
through the epidermis, but none of the references to a white
spot is precise enough for that ; however, scabies may have been
diagnosed by its attendant eruptions (various) which would be
included under rising or eruption.
The disease of 1812-17, which was placed in the clean
class because it concerned all the body, may have been
psoriasis ( English leprosy ), a scaly disease in which
the characters of brightness and whiteness of the
spots are most marked ; when complicated with eczema,
as it often is, the element of raw flesh would come in,
and therewith perhaps the priestly diagnosis of unclean-
ness. On the other hand, the dull white tetter of
vv. 38 and 39 is clean. For none of these diseases are
the written diagnostics at all clear ; but within the meagre
outline there may well have been a more minute know
ledge preserved by tradition in the priesthood. It is
only in P that the subject is handled at all ; JE make
no provision whatever for the diagnosis, isolation, etc.,
of diseases.
The chief question remains, whether true leprosy is
anywhere pointed at by the diagnostics.
It may be doubted if any one would ever have dis
covered true leprosy in these chapters but for the trans
lation of mrd ath in ( and Vg. Even those (Hensler
and others) who identify white or anaesthetic leprosy
with the white spots, bright spots, white risings, or the
like, do not profess to find any traces of tubercular
leprosy, which is the kind that lends itself most obviously
to popular superficial description, and is the most likely
form of the disease to have received notice. The strongest
argument of those who discover true leprosy in Lev. 13
is that it would have been important to detect the disease
in its earliest stage, and that the beginnings of all cases
of leprosy are dusky spots of the skin, or erythematous
patches, which come and go at first, and then remain
permanently, becoming the white anaesthetic spots of
one form of the developed disease, and the seats of
nodules (of the face, hands, and feet) in the other. This
line of argument assumes, however, a scientific analysis
of the stages of leprosy such as has been attained only
in recent times (igth cent.).
It will be convenient to set forth briefly some characters
of leprosy, as they are uniformly found at the present time in
many parts of the globe. A case of leprosy that
t. irue would be obvious to a passer-by is marked by a
leprosy, thickened or nodulated state of the features, especi
ally of the eyebrows, the wings of the nose, the
cheeks, the chin, and the lobes of the ears, giving the face some
times a leonine look (leontiasis), or a hideous appearance (satyri-
as-s). The same nodules occur, also, on the hands and the feet,
or other exposed parts of the limbs, making a thickened, lumpy
state of the skin, whence the name elephantiasis? In some
cases the nodules on the fingers or toes eat into the joints, so
that portions of the digits fall off, the stump healing readily as
1 J a Y F. Schamberg, M.D., The nature of the Leprosy of
the Bible, reprinted from the Philade Iphia Polychrome, vol. vii.,
nos. 47_/C (igth and 26th Nov., 1898).
3 Especially associated by the ancients with Egypt ; cp Pliny,
xxvi. 1 5, Lucret. 6in 4 /
2765
LEPROSY, LEPER
in an amputation (lepra mutilans ).^ Nodules in exposed situa
tions, or subject to friction and hurts, are very apt to become
sores, yielding a foul sanies which may make a sordid crust.
Besides the skin, certain mucous membranes become the seat of
nodules or thickenings the front of the eyeball (fatinus
leprosus), the tongue and mouth, and the larynx, the thickened
and roughened state of which reduces the voice to a hoarse tone
or husky whisper. These are the most superficially obvious of
all the signs of leprosy, forming together an unmistakable
picture.
A large part of all leprosy, however, perhaps the half, wants
these more obvious characters. A person may be truly leprous,
and have nothing to show for it in the face, or on the hands and
feet perhaps only a nodule here and there along the course of
the nerves of the arms or other part. Many cases, again, have
only a number of blanched or discoloured patches of the skin, in
the same situations where other lepers have nodules or tubercles ;
these correspond to the variety of white leprosy, or macular
leprosy (lepra albicans, waculosa, etc.). The macular and
nodular characters may concur in the same person.
Underlying all these external marks, whether nodules or spots,
is the most significant of all the morbid changes of leprosy the
loss of function in the nerves of the skin. Based upon that was
one of the mediaeval tests to prick the skin along the course of the
posterior tibial nerve behind the ankle on the inner side. In the
modern pathology of the disease, the disorganisation or degenera
tion of the nerves is recognised as fundamental ; it leads to loss
of sensibility, to loss of structural integrity or of tissue-nutrition,
and to a profound lowering of the whole vitality and efficiency
of the organism, whereby leprosy becomes a much more serious
affection than a mere chronic skin-disease. These more profound
characters of the disease, it need hardly be said, are nowhere
reflected in the biblical references.
The causes of this great and incurable constitutional disorder
are believed by many to be something corrupt in the staple food.
One of the most probable dietetic errors, known to prevail in
many, if not in all, parts of the world where leprosy is now met
with, is the eating of fish in a semi-putrid state very often the
more insipid and worthless kinds of fresh-water or salt-water fish
which are preferred in a half-corrupt state of cure on account of
the greater relish. The dietetic theory of the cause of leprosy
does not exclude, of course, other corrupt articles of food besides
fish, the mediaeval writers enumerating several such. Also it is
probable that various unwholesome conditions of living must
work together with corrupt diet, and that there must be a certain
susceptibility in the individual constitution or temperament,
which would be handed down and intensified by descent and
intermarriage. It should be said that the dietetic theory is not
received by all, and is apt to be resisted by those bacteriologists
who make the bacillus lepne the sufficient cause. A primary
dietetic cause does not conflict with a certain possibility of
transmitting leprosy by infection. An acquired or inherited
constitutional malady may develop an infective property ; the
one character does not necessarily exclude the other ; but in
experience it appears that leprosy is seldom produced by any
other means than habitual errors of nutrition (or other endemic
conditions) in the individual or his ancestry.
i. In antiquity this disease was specially, and indeed
exclusively, associated with Egypt circum flumina
6. History
Nili
neque prasterea usquam, says
of leprosy Lucretius ( 6l "3/)- Perhaps
* 3 tion was onlv because other cou:
the limita-
ountries were
less familiar ground. Herodotus does not mention
leprosy in Egypt ; but he says enough (277) on the use
of uncooked fish and on the ways of curing fish, fowl,
and other animal food, to make leprosy probable accord
ing to the etiological theory. On the other hand, he
mentions (1138) a certain skin-disease of the Persians,
\evK7j, sufferers from which were obliged to live outside
the towns. In a passage of Hippocrates (Progn. 114)
this white malady is one of a group of three skin-diseases
\fiXyves KCLL \4irpai Kal XfVKai. A high antiquity is
assigned to leprosy in Egypt by certain legends of the
Exodus, which are preserved by late Greek writers
(especially the Egyptian priest Manetho) known to us
from Josephus s elaborate reply to them in his apology
for Judaism (Contr. Ap. 12634; cp Ant. iii. 114). Cp
EXODUS, 7.
One form of the legend is that leprous and other impure
persons, to the number of 80,000, were separated out and sent to
work in the mines or quarries E. of the Nile, that they were
afterwards assigned a city, and that Moses became their leader.
Another form of it is that the Jews in Egypt were leprous and
scabby and subject to certain other kinds of distempers, that
they begged at the temples in such numbers as to become a
nuisance, and that they were eventually got rid of the lepious
by drowning, the others by being driven into the desert.
Behind these legends there is the probability that the
1 This appears to be alluded to in Dt. 28 35 where the smiting
in the knees and legs is specifically mentioned.
2766
LEPROSY, LEPER
enslaved population of Egypt, occupied with forced
labour in the Delta, would have been specially subject
to those endemic influences (including the dietetic) which
gave the country an ancient repute for leprosy. Still, if
one person in a hundred, whether of the enslaved foreign,
or the free native, labourers, was leprous, it would have
been a rather larger ratio than is found anywhere at
present in the most wretched circumstances. Whilst it
is thus probable that there were cases of true leprosy in
the early history of Israel, no extra-biblical reference to
it in Palestine occurs until the first century B.C. The
army of Pompey was said to have brought leprosy to
Italy, for the first time, on returning from the Syrian
campaign of 63 B.C. (cp Plut. Symp. 7g) ; which should
mean, at least, that the disease was then prevalent in
Syria, as it has probably so remained continuously to the
present time (communities of lepers at Jerusalem, Nablus,
and other places).
ii. The individual cases of leprosy in the OT, how
ever, are not all clearly the true disease. Miriam s
leprosy, Nu. 12 iof., appears to have been, in the mind
of the narrator, a transient thing. The four leprous
men outside the gate of Samaria during the siege by
Benhadad (2 K.. 7s) are sufficiently like the groups of
lepers under a ban in mediaeval and modern times. On
the other hand, the leprosy ascribed to Naaman (2 K. 5),
who had perfect freedom of intercourse with his people,
looks like some more tractable skin-disease. Nor is it
perhaps unlikely that the curative direction of the prophet,
if we assume a generic truth in it, was dictated, not
merely by a belief in the sanctity of the river Jordan, but
also by an acquaintance with the medicinal properties
of some spring in the Jordan valley. At any rate, the
prophet s method of healing has strong pagan affinities.
Thus Pausanias(v. 5 n, Frazer) tells us that in Samicum,
not far from the river, there is a cave called the cave of the
Anigrian nymphs. When a leper enters the cave he
first prays to the nymphs and promises them a sacrifice,
whatever it may be. Then he wipes the diseased parts
of his body, and swimming through the river leaves his
old uncleanness in the water and comes out whole and
of one colour. The other OT case is that of king
Uzziah (or Azariah), who was a leper unto the day of
his death, dwelling in a several house l (2 K. 15s/. ) ;
he was stricken because he encroached upon the pre
rogative of the priesthood (2 Ch. 2616-23). As regards
Job s disease, the allusions to the symptoms may be
illustrated by the authentic statements of careful Arabian
physicians translated by Stickel in his Bitch Hiob (1842),
p. 169 /. One of these may help to justify the references
to bad dreams and (perhaps) suffocation in Job 7 14 f.
During sleep, says Ibn Sina (Avicenna), frequent atra
bilious dreams appear. Breathing becomes so difficult
that asthma sets in, and the highest degree of hoarseness
is reached. It is often necessary to open the jugular vein,
if the hoarseness and the dread of suffocation increases.
iii. In the NT there are only a few notices of
leprosy; but from Mt. 108 it would seem that the cleans
ing of lepers was regarded as specially a work of Jesus
disciples. There is a striking description of the cleans
ing of a leper by Jesus himself in Mk. 1 40-44 (cp Mt.
82-4 Lk. 512-14). There he is said to have touched
the leper, and to have spoken a word of power. The
cleansed man is then told to fulfil the Levitical law of
the leper (Lev. 14 4-10). There is no touch recorded in
Lk. 17 12-19, however, where the ten lepers are told to show
themselves to the priests, and are cleansed on the way.
The Lazarus of Lk. 1620 is only called eiXKO^^cos i.e. ,
ulcerated. It liecame usual, however, to regard him as
the representative of lepers ; and in the mediaeval church
the parabolic Lazarus of Lk. and the real Lazarus of
Jn. 11 were both alike (or perhaps conjointly) associated
with leprosy. Hence lepers were called lazars, and the
1 So AV and RV (with marg., or lazar-house ). The mean
ing of the Heb. n PBnn rra (in Chr. Ktb. me-Bnn n) is un
certain, and the correctness of the text disputed. See UZZIAH.
2767
LEVI
Lazarus of Jn. became a patron saint of leper-houses (as
in the dedication of the great leper hospital at Sherburn,
near Durham, in which Lazarus is joined with his sisters
Mary and Martha). It was perhaps with reference to
the Lazarus whom Jesus loved that lazares or leprosi
were otherwise called pauperes Christi (iath and I3th
cent. ). c. c.
LESHEM (Dt? ; Aece/w and AeceN (&&N) [A],
A<\xeic and A&ceNN (AAK) [B], AeceN (A<\N) [L]), the
name of the northern city Dan, according to Josh. 1947.
Probably it should rather be Lesham, another form of LAISH
(q.v.) ; for the formation cp DB J/ from B J?. So Wellh. dt
Gentifrus, 37 ; CH 15.
LESSAU (AecCAOY [A]), a Mace. 14 16 RV, AV
DKSSAU (q.v.}.
LETHECH (T|^), Hos. 82 EV">e-, EV HALF
HOMER. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
LETTER pap, 2 S. 11 14, etc. ; erriCToAH, Acts
2825). See EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, WRITING.
LETTUS (ATTOYC [A]), i Esd. 829, RV ATTUS =
Ezra82, HATTUSH (i).
LETUSHIM (Dtr-ltt 1 ? ; AAToycieiM [AEL], -pieiM
[D], and Leummim (D EN 1 ? ; Aou>/v\ei/v\ [A], -/v\eiN
[DE], -MieiM[L]), sons of DEDAN (Gen. 25s), the third
in MT being ASSHURIM. In <S five sons are assigned
to Dedan : payovyX ([AEL] i.e. , Sijijrii see REUEL ;
patrov [?7\] [D]), ?a/35e?;\ ([ADEL], i.e., Via-m AD-
BEEL), a<rou/>i/u., Xarowna/u, Xow/xeiytt. In i Ch. 132 the
sons of Dedan are omitted in MT and <S, except by <S A
which enumerates five, as above. Criticism has not
yet led to definite results as to any one of the three
sons of Dedan. If, however, we are right in restoring
the doubtful text of Gen. 106 thus : J And the sons of
Jerahmeel ; Cush, and Mizrim, and Zarephath, and
Kain, and if jtrp-, Jokshan in Gen. 202/. is mis-
written for jtyia, Cushan = t3, Cush (the N. Arabian
Kus), we v may conjecture that mitj N is an expansion
of Diir (Suram or Siirlin) i.e. , cniB J (Gesuram or
Geiurim) that DC taS comes from cntrSs, and ultimately
from cns i ?!i = DnBii (Sarephatham or Sarephathlm), and
that cMoN 1 ? comes from D^KDm 1 (Jerahme elam or Jerah-
me elim). Thus the main difficulties of the two Dedanite
genealogies are removed. For another possible occur
rence of the (corrupt) ethnic []c?aS, see TUBAL-CAIN.
The Tgg. and Jer. (Qita-sf. and Ononi.) assume the three
names to be appellatives, indicating the occupations or modes
of life of different branches of the Dedanites (similarly Hitz. and
Steiner, see articles in L, and cp Margoliouth, in Hastings,
DB 3 99/>). For other guesses see Dillmann on Gen. 25 3, and
cp ASSHUKIM. T. K. C.
LEVI ( ; Aey[e]i. also Aey[e]ic [AE], accus.
AeyeiNi 4 Mace. 2ig), i. Jacob s third son by Leah,
Gen. 2934 (J). The story in Genesis (I.e.) records a
popular etymology connecting Levi with mV, Idvdh,
to be joined (cp Eccles. 815) ; see also Nu. 1824 (P),
where it is said that the tribe of Levi will join itself
to Aaron. Some modern critics too support this con
nexion. Thus Lagarde ( Or. 2 20 ; J// tth. 154^) explains
Levi as one that attaches himself. If so, the Levites
were either those who attached themselves to the
Semites who migrated back from the Delta, therefore
Egyptians, or perhaps those who escorted the ark ;
the latter meaning is virtually adopted by Eaudissin 2
(Priesterthum, 72, n. i). Land, however (De Gids,
Nov. 1871, p. 244, n.), explains bine Levi as sons of
conversion 1 i.e. , the party of a reaction to primitive
nomad religion. But it appears impossible to treat iS
(Levi) as an adjective, against the analogy of all the other
names of Israelitish tribes, and especially against that
1 See CUSH, PUT, and Crit. Bib.
2 ^7, a servant of the sanctuary, from Ij^njji with abstract
or collective signification, Begleitung, Folge, Gefolgschaft.
2768
LBVI
of Simeon and Reuben, and Gesenius s old-fashioned
rendering of Levi ( associatio ) can hardly now be
quoted in support of Land s theory. If Levi is
original it may be best regarded as the gentilic of Leah
(so We. Prol. (3), 146 ; St. A TW 1 i ,6 [1881]) ; NAPH-
TALI (cp frit. Bib.), if an ethnic, may be adduced as
a parallel.
The present writer, however, thinks that Levi is a corrup
tion, and conjectures that LEAH [y.v.] and some at least of her
sons, derived their names, not from animal totems, but from
their ethnic affinities i.e., that Levi comes from Jerahmeel
(pl L =p3 s = pC s = s N21= l ?NSnT ). SeeCrit.BM. Forother
views see We. Heid.C^, 114, n. ((2) O m.); Hommel, AHTz^f. ;
Aufsatze, 1 307". On the Levi-traditions see also MOSES,
SHECHEM.
2. A name occurring twice in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk.
3 24 29!). See generally GENEALOGIES ii., 3/.
3. A disciple of Jesus, called when at the toll-office
(rf\4vi.ot>) , son of Alphceus [Mk.], Mk. 2i 4 Lk. 5 27 t
(XfVfiv, accus. [Ti. WH] ; cp Mt. 9 9 [call of Matthew]).
Three courses are open to us.
(1) We may suppose that this disciple had two names,
one of which (Matthew) was given him by Jesus after
he entered the apostolic circle, and consequently dis
placed the earlier name, as Peter superseded Simon.
The supposition that he had two names might pass;
but the view that one of them was bestowed by Jesus
appears hazardous. There is no evidence that the name
Matthew, the meaning of which is still disputed, was
regarded in the evangelic traditions as having any special
appropriateness to its bearer. It might be better to
conjecture with Delitzsch (Riehm, HWB&, 919 b) that
the full name of the disciple who was called from the
toll-office was Matthew, son of Alphaeus, the Levite
O. 1 !? 1 ! 1 ) ! C P Acts 4 36, Joses who was surnamed Barnabas,
a Levite. It is at any rate in favour of the identification
of Levi and Matthew that the circumstances of the call
of Levi agree exactly with those of the call of Matthew ;
Levi and Matthew are both in the Capernaum toll-
office when the thrilling speech Follow me is addressed
to them. Must not the same person be intended ? May
not Levi be an earlier name of Matthew ? So, among
moderns, Meyer, Olshausen, Holtzmann.
(2) We may suppose that whilst the same fact is
related both by Mk. and Lk., and by Mt., the name of
the man who was called by Jesus was given by Mt. as
Matthew by mistake, the author or redactor of our
first gospel having identified the little-known Levi with
the well-known apostle Matthew, who may very possibly
have been a reXwi/rjs (EV publican ), and was at any
rate regarded by the evangelist as such (so Sieffert,
Ew., Keim \Jesu von Nazara, 2 217] ). We know how
much the re\u)j>cu were attracted to Jesus (note Mt.
9 10 Mk. 2 15 Lk. 15 i 19 2 /); it is very possible that
more than one may have been found worthy to be ad
mitted into his inner circle.
It has been pointed out by Lipsius (Apokr. Apostel-
geschichten) that the fusion of Levi and Matthew is
characteristic of later writers. In the Afeiiologia
Matthew is called a son of Alphpeus and a brother of
James, and in the Breviarium Apostolorum it is said
of Matthew, Hie etiam ex tribu sua Levi sumpsit cog-
nomentum. On the other hand, Lipsius (1 24) mentions
a Paris MS of the gospels (Cotelier, Patres Apost. 1 271)
which identifies the Levi of Mk. with Thaddceus and
Lebbceus, and Lk. s Judas of James. In the Syriac Book
of the Bee (Anecdota Oxon., Sem. ser., i., part ii., ed. and
transl. by Budge) it is said (chap. 48, p. 112) that Levi
was slain by Charmus while teaching in Paneas.
(3) It would be difficult to form a decided opinion
if we could not regard the subject from another and a
somewhat neglected point of view. It will be admitted
that transcribers and translators of Hebrew or Aramaic
names were liable to many mistakes. Now AX0cuos
(cp ALPHAEUS and HELEPH) represents most probably
WM (a derivative of NsSnx, ship ?). Surely it is very
possible that the initial letters N may have become illeg
ible in the document upon which Mt. 9 9 ff. is based.
89 a 2769
LBVITES
There remains fl7, which in Aramaic Hebrew characters
might easily be mistaken for i? i.e., Levi. The original
narrative very possibly had Ilphai the son of Ilphai
by a scribe s error for Mattai the son of Ilphai ; and
it is open to us to hold that Xe/3/3atos = Sin. >Na 7
(Dalman) has also arisen by corruption out of fl^N.
Cp LEKB/BUS.
That Levi appears in the Talmud as a name of Rabbis does
not make Levi a probable name for a common man of Caper
naum. The occurrences in Lk. :i 24 29 are also precarious
supports for the Levi in our text of Mk. and Lk.
T. K. C.
LEVIATHAN. Leviathan (see BEHEMOTH AND
LEVIATHAN ; CROCODILE) is described in Job 41 [40 25-
41]. The last two verses of the description (41 33 [25])
have been misread (cp LlON) and therefore misunder
stood. 1 Who is made without fear is a very question
able rendering; read . . . to be lord of the beasts,
changing niT^a 1 ? into P n Vjia^ There is an exact
parallel to this in Job 40 19, where Behemoth, if we
adopt a necessary critical emendation, is described as
he that was made to be a ruler of his fellows ( it vn
v^an t ljS). Among the other passages which refer to
Leviathan is Ps. 104 26, where there go the ships is
unsuitable to the context. TVJN, ships should cer
tainly be DTjr, dragons (Ps. 74 13 148 7 ; N and n con
founded ; cp Judg. 931), and at the close of the verse
ia~pna >l ? should probably be ^a~CMjS. The psalmist found
this reading in his copy of Job (at 40 19), unless indeed
we suppose that he read there 1 3~prtr^, and copied the
phrase which the Hebrew text (MTand <@) now gives
in Ps. 104 26. The verse becomes There dragons move
along; (yea), Leviathan whom thou didst appoint ruler
therein ; 13 refers to B n (v. 25). T. K. C.
LEVIBATE. See MARRIAGE, 8.
LEVIS. (\eyic [A]), iEsd.9i 4 = Ezra 10 i S , Levite.
See SHAUHETHAI, i.
LEVITES. The Levites (D ; AeyteliTAi) are
defined according to the usual methods of Hebrew genea
logical history as the descendants of Levi
1. Secular (<j e n. 29 34); hence their other name b ne
e Levi ("<h "32). In Hebrew genealogies,
however, we are not necessarily entitled to look
upon the eponym of a tribe as more than an ideal
personality. Indeed, the only narrative in which, on
a literal interpretation, Levi appears as a person
(Gen. 34), bears internal evidence of the intention of
the author to delineate under the form of personification
events in the history of the tribes of Levi and Simeon
which must have occurred after the arrival of Israel
in Canaan. 2 The same events are alluded to in Gen.
49 5-7, where Simeon and Levi are plainly spoken of as
communities with a communal assembly (Ka/ial, Sip) ;
see ASSEMBLY, col. 345.
Simeon and Levi were allied tribes or brothers ; their
onslaught on the Shechemites was condemned by the rest of
Israel; and its results were disastrous to the actors, when their
cause was disavowed by their brethren. The b ne Hamor re
gained possession of Shechem, as we know from Judg. !, and
both the assailing tribes were scattered through Israel, and
failed to secure an independent territorial position. Cp SHECHEM.
The details of this curious portion of the earliest
Hebrew history must remain obscure (cp DINAH,
SIMEON) ; Gen. 34 does not really place them in so clear
a light as the briefer reference in Gen. 49 ; for the former
chapter has been recast and largely added to by a late
writer, who looks upon the action of the brethren in the
light of the priestly legislation, and judges it much more
favourably than is done in Gen. 49. In post-canonical
Judaism the favourable view of the zeal of Levi and
1 The critical emendations are due to Gunkel, Giesebrecht,
and Cheyne.
* Jacob in 34 30 is not a personal, but a collective idea, for he
says, I am a few men, and the capture and total destruction of
a considerable city is in the nature of things the work of two
tribes rather than of two individuals.
2770
LBVITES
Simeon becomes still more dominant (Judith.Oz/; Bk.
of Jubilees, chap. 30, and especially Theodotus, ap. Poly-
histor, in Miiller s fragm.Stijfti an ^ the curse of
Jacob on the ferocity of his sons is quite forgotten. 1 In
the oldest history, however, the treachery of Levi and
Simeon towards a community which had received the
right of connubium with Israel is represented as a crime,
which imperilled the position of the Hebrews and was
fatal to the future of the tribes directly involved.
Whilst, however, the Invites were scattered through
out Israel, their name does not disappear from the
_ . . roll of the tribes (cp Dt. 27 12). In
8. XTUCU? , he blessing O f Moses (Dt. 33), where
tribe. Simeon is passed over, Levi still appears,
not as a territorial tribe, but as the collective name for
the priesthood. The priesthood meant is that of the
northern kingdom under the dynasty of Jehu (on the date
of the chapter, see Deuteronomy, 26) ; and in fact we
know that the priests of the important northern sanctuary
of Dan traced their origin to a Levite (Judg. 17 9), Jona
than the son of Gershom, the son of Moses (Judg. 183o). 2
That the Judrean priesthood were also known as Levites
in the later times of the kingdom appears from the book
of Deuteronomy, especially from 108 /. 18i/I; and we
learn from Ezek. 44 io/ that the Judasan Levites were,
not confined to the service of the temple, but included
the priests of the local high places abolished by Josiah.
It may even be conjectured, with some probability, that the
Levites (like the remnants of the closely-related tribe of Simeon)
had originally settled in Judah and only gradually afterwards
spread themselves northwards. Micah s Levite, as we know,
was from Bethlehem-Judah (Judg. 17 7). :1 But cp MICAH i., 2.
Alike in )udah and in the N. the priestly prerogative
of Levi was traced back to the days of Moses (Dt. 108
33 8) ; 4 but in later times at least the Judrean priesthood
did not acknowledge the Levitical status of their northern
colleagues (i K. 1-31). It must, however, be observed
that the prophets Amos and Hosea never speak of the
northern priesthood as illegitimate, and Hos. 4 certainly
implies the opposite. Presumably it was only after the
fall of Samaria, and the introduction of large foreign
elements into the population of the N., that the southern
priests began to disavow the ministers of the sanctuaries
of Samaria, most of whom can no longer have been
representatives of the old priesthood as it was before
the northern captivity (2 K. 17 28 Judg. 18 30 2 K. 23 20,
in contrast with v. 8 /.).
In the most developed form of the hierarchical system
the ministers of the sanctuary are divided into two
_ _ .. grades. All are regarded as Levites by
d. Lei descent ( cp _ eg ^ Ex ( j 2 _) . but the mass
and priests. of the L ev ; tes are mere subordinate
ministers not entitled to approach the altar or perform
any strictly priestly function, and the true priesthood is
confined to the descendants of Aaron. In the docu
ments which reveal to us the actual state of the priest
hood in the northern and southern kingdoms before the
exile, there is no trace of this distinction.
Perhaps, indeed, it must be conceded to Van Hoonacker
(i95/".) and Baudissin (TL7., 1899^.362; cp also his
Gesch. d. Alt. Priestertums, 113) that Ezekiel has taken
over from the phraseology of the temple of Jerusalem
the distinction between the priests, the keepers of the
charge of the house, and the priests, the keepers of
the charge of the altar, which he refers to as already
1 According to Wellhausen s analysis (JDT1\ 435 /.), the old
narrative consisted of Gen. ^37* n f. 19 25^.* 30 f.. the
asterisk denoting that only parts of the verses marked by it are
ancient. The most satisfactory discussion is that of Kuenen
and Gunkel s commentaries, ad Inc.
2 Read not Manassch but Moses ; see JONATHAN, 2.
3 Cp Budde, Comm. zu Ri. 113 118. Sec also GENEALOGIES
i., 7jv.].
[For the difficult TV ? read with Ball, PSBA, 1896, p.
123, Tp^DH, thy lovingkindnesses.]
2771
LBVITES
existing; but as against Van Hoonacker, Baudissin
observes with justice that we are not entitled to infer
from this that Ezekiel is aware of a distinction be
tween priests (sons of Zadok, or of Aaron) and Levites ;
on the contrary, in 40 45 he uses the designation priests
for those whom he elsewhere calls Levites (44 I0 /. 14
45 5 ). It is better to say that every Levite is a priest,
or at least is qualified to become such (Dt. 108 18 7 ).
The subordinate and menial offices of the tabernacle are not
assigned to members of a holy guild; in Jerusalem, at least,
they were mainly discharged by members of the royal body
guard (the Carians and footmen, 2 K. 1 1 4 RV ; see CARITES, but
also FELETHITES), or by bond slaves, the ancestors of the later
NSthinim in either case by men who might even be uncircum-
cised foreigners (Ezek. 44 7_/.). A Levitical priest was a legiti
mate priest. When the author of i K. 12 31 wishes to represent
Jeroboam s priests as illegal he contents himself with saying that
they were not taken from the sons of Levi. The first historical
trace of a modification of this state of things is found in connec
tion with the suppression of the local high places by Josiah, when
their priests were brought to Jerusalem and received their support
from the temple offerings, but were not permitted to minister at
the altar (2 K. 23 g). 1
The priests of the temple, the sons of Zadok, were
not prepared to concede to their provincial brethren all
4 Countrv the P rivlle S es which Dt. 18 had proposed
" in compensation for the loss of their local
priests. nlinistry . Ezekiel, after the fall of the
temple, in planning a scheme of ritual for the new
temple, raises the practical exclusion from the altar to
the rank of a principle. In the new temple the Levites
who had ministered before the local altars shall be
punished by exclusion from proper priestly work, and
shall fill the subordinate offices of the sanctuary, in place
of the foreigners who had hitherto occupied them, but
shall not be permitted to pollute Yahwe s house in
future by their presence (Ezek. 44 7 ff.). In the post-
exilic period this principle was actually carried out;
priests and Levites are distinguished in the list in
Ezra 2, Neh. 7, i Esd. 5 ; but the priests, that is, the
descendants of the pre-exilic priests of the royal
temple, greatly outnumber the Levites or descendants
of the priests of the high places (cp Ezra 8 i$ff.). Nor
is this at all surprising, if it be remembered that the
duties falling to Levites in the temple had little that
was attractive about them, whilst as long as they re
mained in exile the inferiority of their position would be
much less apparent.
At this time other classes of temple servants, the
singers, the porters, the NETHINIM and other slaves of
the sanctuary (but cp SOLOMON S SER-
5. Singers, etc. VANTS CHILDREN OF), whose heredi
tary service would, on Eastern principles, give them a
pre-eminence over other slaves of the sanctuary, are also
still distinguished from the Levites ; but these distinctions
lost their significance when the word Levite itself came to
mean a subordinate minister. In the time of Nehemiah,
Levites and singers, Levites and porters, are very much
run into one (Neh. 11 ff., see PORTERS), and the absorp
tion of the other classes of subordinate ministers into the
hereditary guild of Levites is at last expressed in the
shape of genealogies, deriving the singers, and even
families whose heathenish and foreign names show
them to have originally belonged to the Nethinim, from
the ancient stock of Levi. Cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 (ii.).
The new hierarchical system found its legal basis in
the priestly legislation, first publicly accepted as an
D -o i integral part of the To rah under Ezra
6. Priestly and Nehemian (ISRAEL, 59). Here
legislation. the exc i usion O f the Invites from all
share in the proper priesthood of the sons of Aaron
is precisely formulated (Nu. 3/) ; their service is regu
lated from the point of view that they are essentially
the servants and hereditary serfs of the priests (39),
whilst, on the other hand, as has already found
vivid expression in the arrangement of the camp in
Nu. 2, they are recognised as possessing a higher
i Baudissin s essentially different view of this verse (223-6)
has been successfully disposed of by Kuenen (Abh.
2772
LEVITES
grade of holiness than the mass of the people. This
superiority of position finds its justification in the
artificial theory that they are a surrogate for the male
first-born of Israel, who, belonging of right to Yahwe,
are handed over by the nation to the priests (cp FIRST
BORN, col. 1526).
The Levites are endowed with the tithes, of which in
turn they pay a tithe to the priests (Nu. 18 21 ff.). These
regulations as to tithes were enforced by Nehemiah;
but the subordinate position of the Levites was hardly
consistent with their permanent enjoyment of revenues
of such importance, and we learn from the Talmud that
these were finally transferred to the priests. Cp TAXA
TION AND TRIBUTE. 1
Another provision of the law i.e., the assignment to
the Levites of certain cities with a definite measure of
inalienable pasture-ground (Nu. 35 Lev. 25 34) was ap
parently never put in force after the exile. It cannot be
reconciled with the prohibition against the holding of
property in virtue of which the Levites in common with
the other needy classes are commended to the com
passion of the charitable.
This prohibition is clearly expressed in the same priestly
legislation (Nu. is 20 2(162), and particularly in D. See e.g.,
Dt. HI 9, Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren ;
IS i. From Dt. IS 6 we gather that the Levites were dispersed
as sojourners in various Israelitish cities i.e.. they had no ter
ritorial possession (cp Gen. 4!> 7). In accordance with this
Ezekiel propounds an idealistic reform according to which the
Levites were to have a domain apportioned to them, where they
were to live together. Josh. 21 (P), i Ch. 18 2 cannot of course
be quoted in support of the prohibition. It should be observed
too that many of the so-called Levitical cities did not become
Israelitish till quite late, and that some of them were so near
each other that the pasture-land assigned to one city would
have overlapped that assigned to its neighbour (e.g., Hebron
and Holon, Anathoth and Almon), whilst the pasture-land of
Hammoth-dor would have included part of the Sea of Galilee.
See Di. Num.-Deut.; Now. HA 2 129; Addis. Hex. 2 448 /.
As the priestly legislation carried its ordinances back
into the time of Moses, so the later developments of
the Levitical service as known in the time of the
Chronicler (on the date, see HISTORICAL LITERATURE,
$ 157) are referred by that author to David (i Ch. 15 1(>
23) or to Hezekiah (2 Ch. 2!)) and Josiah (2 Ch. 35) ; and
by a similar projection of post-exilic conditions into pre-
exilic times, we find, among other modifications of the
original text (such as i S. (5 15 2 S. 15 24 i K. 8 4), various
individuals who had been prominent in connection with
matters of worship invested with the character of
Levites; this has been done not only in the case of
Samuel (comp. i S. 1 i with i Ch. 6 12 f. iSfr.), but even
in that of a foreigner like Obed-edom of Gath. 2 The
chief point is the development of the musical service of
the temple, which has no place in the Pentateuch, but
afterwards came to be of the first importance (as we see
from the Psalter) and attracted the special attention of
Greek observers (Theophrastus, ap. Porph. De Abstin.
ii. 26).
For the reconstruction of the post-exilic history of the
relation of Levites to priests, we are thrown for the
7 Post-exilic most P. art on P ure con J ecture . which,
development.
accordingly, Vogelstein has used with
conspicuous acuteness. He supposes
that the period of prosperity enjoyed by the Levites
under Ezra and Nehemiah was followed by one of
threatening collapse against which they sought and with
success to defend themselves by alliance with the singers
and doorkeepers. The excessive pretensions of the
party thus reinforced, however, led to renewed adversity
(Nu. 1(5), after which they were ultimately able, by
peaceful means (cp the work of the Chronicler), to
G,
Keth ._ ... ,-,,.-. ,
1748, p. 624; and Hottinger, De Decimi s jud., 1713, (i 8 il 17;
cp v. Hoonacker, 60 f. 400 _/., who, on the authority of some
passages in the Talmud, considers the Levites tithe to have
been exacted as early as in Ezra s time.
2 [If the text is correct; on this, see OBED-EDOM: cp also
GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.] end.]
2773
LEVITES
establish a tolerable modus vivendi. Vogelstein s attempt
is to be accepted at least to this extent : it has con
clusively shown that the post-exilic history of the Levites
did not proceed in a straight line, either upwards or
as Van Hoonacker has tried to make out downwards.
The Levites appear, it is true, to have sunk to a position of
complete insignificance at the close of the history, that is to say
at the close of the OT period; to this Van Hoonacker has very
appropriately called attention. In the NT they are mentioned
only in Lk. Ill 32 Jn. 1 19 and Acts 4 36. If, on the other hand,
their position in Ezra-Nehemiah is only relatively a favourable
one, that is far from justifying Hoonacker s conclusion that
Chronicles, in which they are represented as enjoying a
more favourable position (for the most part comparable to
that of the priests), must be taken as representing the con-
ditionsof pre-exilic times. Baudissin (Rel.-gesch. 45) has shown
that even within the priestly legislation it is possible to trace
a growing respect for the Levites. In his judgment, accord
ingly, we cannot say that in the post-exilic time any con
siderable vicissitudes in the condition of the Levites are to
be observed, and he adds the suggestion, well worthy of
attention, that this fact, coupled with the ultimate subordina
tion of the Levites to the singers and porters, points to the
conclusion that the Levites strictly so-called were merely an
artificial creation a creation of the prophet Ezekiel. 1
Whilst it is not difficult to trace the history of the
rr_ j-*.-^ ! Levites from the time of the blessing
8. Traditional , ...
of Moses and Deuteronomy down-
, ^ , , wards, the links connecting the
Secular and
. . , . ., priestly tribe with the earlier fortunes
priesuy trioe. of the tdbe of Leyi are hardly to be
determined with any certainty.
According to the traditional view, the scheme of the
Levitical legislation, with its double hierarchy of priests
and Levites, was of Mosaic ordinance. There is too
much evidence, however, that in the Pentateuch, as we
possess it, divergent ordinances, dating from very
different ages, are all carried back by means of a
legal convention to the time of the wilderness journey
(cp HEXATEUCH). If, too, the complete hierarchical
theory as held in post-exilic times was really ancient,
it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so com
pletely lost in the time of the monarchy, that
Ezekiel speaks of the degradation of the non-Zadokite
Levites as a new thing and as a punishment for
their share in the sin of the high places, and that no
clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between
priests and Levites has been found in any of the
Hebrew writings that are demonstrably earlier than the
exile. 2 It has indeed been argued that (i) the list of
Levitical cities in Josh. 21, and (2) the narrative of the
rebellion of Korah imply that the precepts of the post-
exilic law were practically already recognized; but (i)
it is certain that there was no such distribution as that
spoken of in Josh. 21 at the time of the settlement,
because many of the cities named . were either not
occupied by Israelites till long afterwards, or, if occu
pied, were not held by Levites.
The Levitical cities of Joshua are indeed largely identical with
ancient holy cities (Hebron, Shechem, Mahanaim, etc.) ; but in
ancient Israel a holy city was one which possessed a noted
sanctuary (often of Canaanite origin), not one the inhabitants
of which belonged to the holy tribe. These sanctuaries had, of
course, their local priesthoods, which in the time of the mon
archy were all called Levitical; and it is only in this sense, not
in that of the priestly legislation, that a town like Shechem can
ever have been Levitical.
(2) So again, the narrative of Korah has proved on
critical examination to be of composite origin ; the parts
of it which represent Korah as a common Levite in
rebellion against the priesthood of Aaron belong to a
late date, and the original form of the history knows
nothing of the later hierarchical system (see KORAH ii).
1 TLZ , 1899, p. 361.
2 Defenders of the traditional view, the latest being Van
Hoonacker, 92 f., have sought such evidence in I K. 8 4.
There are many indications, however, that the text of this
Eart of Kings has undergone considerable editing at a pretty
Ue date. The LXX translators, B 1 -, did not read the clause
which speaks of priests and Levites, and the Chronicler read
the Levite priests (but l& oi iepeis (tat oi Aeueirai) the phrase
characteristic of the deuteronomic identification of priestly and
Levitical ministry.
2774
LEVITES
It has thus become impossible to entertain the idea of
carrying back the distinction of Levites and Aaronites
9. Alternative
in the later sense to an
date
.,
We cannot use the priestly parts of
the Pentateuch and Joshua as a source
for the earliest history. It is probable, however (note
the case of Micah s Levite in Judg. 17/.), 1 that the kin
of Moses had a certain hereditary prerogative in connec
tion with the worship of Yahw (cp Dt. 10 8). In the
earliest times the ritual of Yahwe s sanctuary had not
attained such a development as to occupy a whole tribe ;
but if, as appears probable, the mass of the tribe of
Levi was almost annihilated at an early date, the
name of Levite might very well continue to be known
only in connection with those of the tribe who traced
kin with Moses or remained by the sanctuary. Cp
MOSES, 5. The multiplication of Hebrew holy
places was effected partly by syncretism with the
Canaanites, partly in other ways that had nothing to
do with a central sanctuary, and so arose a variety of
priestly guilds which certainly cannot have been all of
Levitical descent.
It is possible, perhaps, that in some cases where Canaan-
ite sanctuaries were taken over by the Israelites certain
Canaanite priestly families may have contrived to retain
possession of the priestly office. Whether even Zadok himself,
the ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood, was of Levitical origin
must remain an open question, the answer of Chronicles not
being trustworthy enough to be decisive (see ZADOK, i).
As the nation was consolidated and a uniform system
of sacred law (referred to Moses as its originator) came
to be administered all over the land, in the hands
of the ministers of the greater sanctuaries, the various
guilds may have been drawn together and have aimed
at forming such a united body as we find described in
Dt. 33. -* This unity would find a natural expression in
the extension of the name of Levites to all priesthoods
recognized by the State in Ex. 4 14 Levite is simply
equivalent to a professional designation. If this was
the course of things we can hardly suppose that the
term came into large use till the Israelites were con
solidated under the monarchy, and in fact the integrity
of the text in i S. 15, 2 S. 15 24, as well as in i K. 8 4, is
open to question (cp ARK). Down to the time of
David and Jeroboam, as appears from the cases of
Samuel, Zadok, Eleazer (i S. 7 i), as well as from i K.
1231, the priesthood was not essentially hereditary;
but, like all occupations that required traditional
knowledge, it must have tended to become so more and
more, and thus all priests would appear as Levites by
adoption if not by descent.
Thus also, doubtless, the great number of the priests at Nob,
who are reckoned as of the family of Ahimelech, but can hardly
all of them have been personally related to him, is to be taken
as evidence of the effort to maintain the fiction of a priestly
family as deriving its coherence from common descent. 3 The
interesting parallel case of the Rechabites shows us how easy
to the thinking of those early times was the transition from the
idea of official relationship to that of relationship by blood.
Wellhausen (Prol. (">>, 139 /".) has argued from Dt.
33 9 that the northern priesthood was not an hereditary
guild, but involved the surrender of all family con
nection ; the words, however, are more naturally
understood as praise of the judicial impartiality which
refused to be influenced by family ties. Our data
are too scanty to clear up the details of this interesting
piece of history; but it can hardly be doubted that the
development of a consolidated and hereditary priestly
corporation in all the sanctuaries was closely bound up
with the unification of the state and the absorption of
tribal organisation in the monarchy. The reaction of
1 See MICAH, 2. Add also that of the family of Eli, i S.
2 27 f. ; cp ELI, JERAHMEEL, 3 (end).
2 Cp Ex. 8-225-29,3 related passage, doubtless secondary,
which reads like a commentary to Dt. i-Wg. In it the choice of
Levi to the priesthood is carried back to a reminiscence of a
(possibly historical) action of vigorous faith on the part of the
fellow-tribesmen of Moses [cp MASSAH AND MERIBAHJ.
* Cp Benzinger, HA 409.
2775
LEVITICUS
tribal feeling against the central Government, of which
there are many traces in the history of Ephraim, has
perhaps its counterpart in the opposition to the unified
priesthood which is alluded to in Dt. 33 n. 1
There have been many attempts on the part of recent
writers from the time of Vatke downwards to deny that
Levi was one of the original tribes of Israel ; but they
all break down before the testimony of Gen. 4<. And
with them break down the attempts at an appellative
interpretation of the name Levi. See LEVI, and cp
Kuenen s refutation of the theory of Land, Theol.
Tijdschr. 5, 1872, pp. 628-670: De Stum Levi, and
Kautzsch, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1890, p. 771 f.
Graf, ZurGeschichte des Stammes Levi, "in Merx s Archiv,
i (1869) 68-106; 208-236: Stade, GV! 1152 /f. See further the
literature cited under PRIESTS. W. R. S. A. B.
LEVITICAL CITIES. See LEVITES, 6, 8.
LEVITICUS.
Name and contents ( i). Other remains of H ( 24).
Sources ( 2, 25). Sources of H ( 25).
P in Lev. *-ln ( 3). Characteristics of H ( 26).
Chaps. 1-7 ( 4-6). Unity of redaction ( 27).
Chaps. ll-l;> ( 7-11). H s relation to Dt. Ezek. P
Chap. Id: Day of Atonement ( 28-30).
(12). Chap. 27 ( 31).
Chaps. 17- 2f>: Contents; H ( Composition of Leviticus ( 32).
13-23). Bibliography ( 33).
The name comes through the Latin Leviticus (sc.
liber) from the title in the Greek Bible, (TO) Aey[e]i-
1 Name and TIKON ( sc - BiBAiON), 2 the Levitical
. t book i.e., the part of the Pentateuch
treating of the functions of the Levites.
Levitical is here equivalent to sacerdotal, of the
Levites in the narrower sense the book has nothing to
say and the name thus corresponds to the Hebrew
torath kbhanlm (a^i r^vn), the priests law, in the
Talmud and Massorah. 8 In Jewish writings the book
is more frequently cited by its first word, M ayyikra
The contents of the book are almost exclusively
legislative; 8, !), 10 in part, and 24 10 ff., though narrative
in form, are to be regarded as precedents to which the
ritual practice is to conform or on which the rule is
founded. In the chronology of the Pentateuch the laws
were revealed to Moses and the events narrated occurred
at Sinai in the first month of the second year ot the
exodus (between the first of the first month, Ex. 40 2 17,
and the first of the second month, Nu. 1 i) ; in Lev.
itself there are no dates.
The book begins with the ritual for the several species of
sacrifice, and defines cases in which certain sacrifices are
prescribed (1-7); then follow: the consecration of Aaron and
his sons; the punishment of Nadab and Abihu for a violation
of ritual, with some consequent regulations (s-lll); definition of
various kinds and causes of uncleanness (11-15); ritual for the
Day of Atonement (Id); a collection of laws of more varied
character, religious, moral, and ceremonial, closing with a
hortatory address (17- ^li: see 14) ; provisions for the commu
tation of vows and tithes (21). For more detailed analysis, see
Driver, hitrod.C ), 42^.; Kalisch, Leviticus, \\ijf.
The immediate continuation of JE in Ex. 32-34 is
found in Nu. 1029-12, 5 nor are any displaced fragments
n _ of IE found in Leviticus. The book
i Sources * , ,
belongs as a whole to the priestly stratum
of the Hexateuch. It is not, however, a unit. Chaps.
17-2(5 come from an originally independent body of
laws having a very distinct character of its own ; they
The attempt which has repeatedly been made to attach this
verse to the blessing of Judah may safely be regarded as un
justified (cp Bertholet ad loc.).
- Philo, Leg. Alleg. 2, 26; Quis rer. div. heres, 51; cp
fV AeiMTutri /3ij3Ao., De plant. Not, 6. See Ryle, Philo and
Holy Scripture, i i f.
:l M. Mtnachoth, 4 3, Kiddushin, 33*?; Massorah Magna,
i K. 11 i, etc.
4 Origen in Euseb. HE 6 25; Jerome, Prol. Gal. See
GENESIS, i.
See EXODUS, 3, vii., NUMBERS, 2.
2776
LEVITICUS
have been redacted probably by more than one hand
in the spirit of the priestly scribes, but not wholly
conformed to P, much less made an integral part of it.i
Nor is the remainder homogeneous: 8-10 belong to
the history of the sacred institutions ; - 8 is the
fulfilment of the command to Moses in Ex. 40 12-14, ano ^
should immediately follow Ex. 40 17-38, from which it is
now separated by the collection of sacrificial laws in
Lev. 1-7 ; 10 is in like manner separated from its
antecedents in 10 by the laws on uncleanness and
purification in 11-15. Neither of these groups of laws
is even artificially connected with the narrative;
both give internal evidence of compilation from in
dependent collections of torotli and of extensive and
repeated supplementation and redaction. The critical
problems in Leviticus are, therefore, not less difficult
nor less important than those presented by other books
of the Hexateuch.
We may best begin our investigation with 8-10. In
Ex. 40 Moses is bidden to set up and dedicate the
p . - Tabernacle (i-n) and to consecrate Aaron
8-10 and his sons to the P riesthood ("-15).
The execution of the former part of this
command is related in Ex. 4017-38; of the latter in
Lev. 8. It can scarcely be doubted that the author
of Ex. 40 17 ff. meant Lev. 8 to follow immediately,
and, consequently, that Lev. 1-7, which now interrupt
this connection, were inserted here by a subsequent
redactor. Lev. 8 describes the performance of the rites
for the consecration and installation of priests prescribed
in Ex. 29 1-35, and is related to that chapter exactly as
Ex. 35 ff. to 25 ff. Ex. 35/". have been found, how
ever, to be a later expansion of the probably very
brief account of the execution of the directions given
to Moses in 25 ff? It follows that Lev. 8, also, belongs
to the secondary stratum, and this inference is con
firmed by internal evidence; 4 but, since Lev. 8 knows
only one altar, it seems to represent one of the earlier
stages in the formation of this stratum. 5 Vv. io b n and
30 are perhaps later glosses.
Chap. !), the inaugural sacrifices, is the original
sequel of Ex. 25-29 in the history of Israel s sacred
institutions. It was probably separated from those
chapters only by a short statement that, after receiving
these instructions (and the tables of the testimony),
Moses descended from the mount and did as Yahwe
had bidden him ; this was superseded by the elaborate
secondary narrative in Ex. 35-40 Lev. 8. 6 The hand
of a redactor may be recognised in v. \ ( the eighth
day, the elders of Israel ) and in the last verses (23^) ;
some minor glosses may also be suspected.
The death of Nadab and Abihu, 10 1-5, is the con
tinuation of 9 and from the same source. The in
junction forbidding Aaron and his surviving sons to
defile themselves by mourning (6 f.) is appropriately
introduced in this place, and such a prohibition may
have originally stood here ; but the present form of the
verses is late (cp 21 10-12). Verses 8/. (cp Ezek. 44 21)
and 10 f. (cp 11 47 20 25 Ezek. 44 23 f.) have no con
nection with their present surroundings; the former
would properly have its place in 21 ; the latter is a
fragment, the beginning of which has been lost. Verses
12-15 are a supplement to 9 i-jo. 21, and would naturally
stand after 9 22 ; 16-20 is a very late passage of midrashic
character, 7 suggested by the conflict between the pro
cedure in 9 15 and the rule in (5 24-30.
The chapters which precede the above (1-7) contain a
collection of laws on the subject of sacrifice.
1 On 17-26 (H) see below, 13 ff.; on the relation of H to
P, 3.
- See HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 9.
3 See EXODUS ii. , 5, ii.
4 Popper, Stiftshutte, g\ff.
5 We. C7/(2> 144/7".; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 16, 18.
6 We. C//( 2 ) 146; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 15, 20.
7 We. CV7( 2 ) 149; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 21 ; Uillm. Exod. Levit.W
518; Driver, Introd.( K ) 45.
2777
LEVITICUS
These comprise: burnt offering (1) ; meal offering (2) ; peace
offering (o) ; sin offering (4); sin (trespass) offering (51-13);
trespass offering (."> i4-(i 7 [5 14-26]). Torah
4. Chaps. 1-7 : of burnt offering (Ii8-i3 > [i-6|) : meal offering
Sacrificial ((114-18 [7-11]); priests meal offering (019-23
laWS. 1 [12-16)1; sin offering (624-30 [17-231); tres
pass offering (7 1-7); certain perquisites of
the priests (8 g/".) ; peace offering (7 11-15) prohibition of eat
ing fat or blood (7 22-27) ; the priests portion of peace offering
(1 28-34) : subscriptions, 35/. 37/1
In this collection of laws it will be observed that 1-6 7
[1-5] are addressed to the people; (>8[i]-72i to the
priests. To this difference in the titles corresponds in
general the character of the laws : 1-6 7 [1-5] prescribe
what sacrifices and offerings the Israelite may bring, or
under certain circumstances must bring; ( >%/. [ijf.]
deal with the same classes of sacrifice, but with more
reference to the priests functions and perquisites. Chaps.
1-7 are not, however, a unitary code of sacrificial laws
in two parts containing directions for the worshippers
and the priests respectively. The different order of the
laws (the peace offering in the first part precedes, in
the second follows, the sin and trespass offering), con
sistent differences in formulation (note in the second
This is the law of, etc.), and, finally, the subscription,
7 37, which belongs to the second part only, show that
68 [i]-7 21 formed a collection by themselves.
Further examination shows that neither part of 1-7 is
entirely homogeneous. Chaps. 1 (burnt offerings) and
3 (peace offerings) are substantially
5. Chap. 1-07. j ntacti anc j are good examples of
relatively old sacrificial tbroth.
Slight changes have been made to adjust the laws to the
historical theory of P: for the priest, which seems to have been
originally used throughout (cp 1 9 I2/". 1517811 16), the redactor
has sometimes substituted the sons of Aaron (85 8), more fre
quently Aaron s sons, the priests (15811 82; cp 17); the
reference to the tent of meeting (1 35828 13) is also editorial,
1 14-17 is a supplement (cp 2).
Chap. 2 1-3 (meal offering) has some resemblance to
1 3, but is at least out of place where it stands 3 should
immediately follow 1 (cp 1 2/. 3i); the rest of the
chapter is differently formulated (2nd sing.; note also
Aaron and his sons ) and must be ascribed to a
different hand.
Chap. 4 (sin offering), 2 with its scale of victims and
rites graduated according to the rank of the offerer,
belongs to a class of laws which seems to be the product
of artificial elaboration in priestly schools rather than
to represent the natural development of the ceremonial.
The altar of incense (7, cp 18) is a late addition to
the furniture of the tabernacle; 3 the ritual of the high
priests sin offering (3-12) is much more solemn than that
of Ex. 29 10-14 Lev - 98-n (cp also 8 14-17) ; the sin
offering of the congregation, which is elsewhere a goat
(9 15 Nu. 15 24, and even Lev. 16), is here a bullock; 4
the same heightening of the propitiatory rites is noticed
here as in the offering of the high priest.
Although 5 1-13 has no title, it is not the continuation
of 4 ; it knows nothing of the distinction of persons
which is characteristic of 4, and differs both in formula
tion and in terminology the very precise author of 4
would not have spoken of the victim as an asam (56/C;
cp 14 ff.). The same reasons prevent us from regarding
5 1-13 as an appendix to 4 by a still later hand. 5 In
5 1-6 much difficulty is created by the apparent con
fusion of hattath and asam ( sin offering and trespass
offering ) , two species of sacrifice which are elsewhere
quite distinct. 6 The verses seem also not to be a unit ;
zf. is not an analogous case to i 4, with which $f. are
1 See Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, etc., 1457?".; Merx, ZWT
641-84 164-181 (1863*; Kuenen, Th. T4 4927^(1870) ; Hoffmann,
Abhandlungen, 1 84 y/. (from MJGL, 1874).
2 See We. CT/l 2 ) 1387.; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 17; Dr.
Introd.(^ 43.
3 See EXODUS, 5, i., LAW LITERATURE, 21 K.
* On the relation of Lev. 4 to Nu. 15 227?"., see NUMBERS, 19.
r > Kue. Hex. 6, n. ija. We. now (CY/( 3 ) 335/) regards
4 61-13 147?" as independent products of the same school.
6 See SACRIFICE, 2-jf.
2778
LEVITICUS
connected. Verses 145^ are in matter and form cog
nate to i S / 6 2-7 [5 21-26].
The most probable explanation is that in 5 iff. a law pre
scribing a trespass offering has been altered so as to require a
sin offering (5^). The insertion of *f. is more difficult to
account for; for these defilements no sacrifice is elsewhere pre
scribed (see 1124^". \:^Jf. etc. Nu. Hlii^.)- If 2/ are
derived from an old torah, it must be supposed that a specific
case, like that in Nu. (i 12 or in Lev. 7 2oy"., was originally con
templated. 1
The mitigations in 57-10, 11-13 are l ater . an d perhaps
successive, additions (cp 1 14-17). The laws in 5 i$/.
62-7 [522-26] are from a group defining the cases in
which a trespass offering is required (cp 5i 4-6), and
make clear the true character of this sacrifice; if 17-19
is of the same origin, the general phrases of \-ja (cp
42 13 22 27) have probably supplanted a more specific
trespass.
These laws, though probably introduced here at a
comparatively late stage in the redaction and not with
out some alteration, are substantially genuine priestly
toroth; certain resemblances, especially in 62-7 [022-26],
to H in Lev. 17-26 point to proximity, if not to identity
of origin (see below, 25).
Chaps. 6 8 [i]-7 21 contain a series of rules, chiefly for
the guidance of the priests, and, in the introductions
6 Chaps 68-7 - P refixed b y the redactor (6s/. [i/] 24 /
[i 7 /]), addressed to Aaron and his
sons. Each paragraph begins, This is the torah of
[the burnt offering, etc.) ; and the resumptive sub
scription, 7 37, is in corresponding form.
Here, as in 1 3, Aaron and his sons or the sons of Aaron
has sometimes been substituted in the text for the original the
priest"; the court of the tent of meeting (0 16 26 [9 19]) is
editorial, as in 135 etc., and other glosses may be noted,
especially in (i 17^ [ioy.].
The rule for the priests meal offering, 620-23 [13-16],
has a different superscription, and is clearly secondary;
the exegetical difficulties are due to subsequent glosses;
630 [23] depends upon 4 (cp 10 16-20) ; 7 8-10, perquisites
of the officiating priest (cp 29-34), are introduced here
in connection with 7 ; 10 is perhaps later than 9, as the
offering of uncooked flour is later than that of bread and
cakes.
The priestly toroth in these chapters, also, are rela
tively old, 3 and there is no reason to doubt that they
represent actual practice ; they have been preserved with
little material change. 4
Chap. 7 22-27, prohibition to the Israelites (2nd pi.) to
eat the fat of sacrifices and the blood of animals (cp 3 id6
17 17 10-14), stands not inappropriately after 11-21,
but is not from the same source. Substantially the
same thing may be said of 28-34, which, again, are
formulated differently from 22-27. A later hand may
be recognised in 32 (2nd pi.), which is a doublet to 33;
34 (ist sing.) is added by the redactor; 35/1 (cp Nu.
18 8) is the subscription to an enumeration of the priests
dues (35^ doublet to 36a), and undoubtedly late ; observe
the anointing of all the priests, 3 6a (see EXODUS ii.,
Si i-) I 37 s l ie original subscription to the toroth in
6 8 [i]-7 21 (the installation is a gloss referring to
6 19-23 [12-16]) ; 38 is added by a redactor.
Chaps. 11 - 15 are naturally connected by their
dealing with the subject of cleanness and uncleanness
(a), and by certain phraseological
7. Chaps. 11-15 : characteristics (6).
Clean and () The chapters deal with: clean and
unclean." unclean animals i.e., kinds allowed or for
bidden for food (11 1-23) ; defilement by con
tact with unclean animals, alive or dead, and the necessary
purifications (24-38) ; defilement by contact with the carcasses of
1 The latter is the Jewish explanation; Shtbuoth, 14 a 6.
2 On the relation of these chapters to 1-6 7 [141 see above, 4.
3 Chap. <!Q [2] has been understood to speak of the daily even
ing burnt offering, and it is hence inferred that the rule is very
late (after Ezra) ; but the text which is manifestly corrupt
does not warrant so large a conclusion.
4 In addition to the verses mentioned above, 1 12 may reason
ably be suspected.
$ Bertheau, Sieten Crupf>en, etc., 169^?".
2779
TT 1
animals 9 "" 2
LEVITICUS
clean animals (39/1) ; unclean reptiles and vermin (41-44) ; sub
scriptions (44./. 46^".). Uncleanness and purification after child
birth^ lli)- Skin diseases; discrimination of unclean kinds from
innocent eruptions; precautions to be taken in suspected cases;
the isolation of the leper" (1 1-46) ; similar appearances in cloth
and leather (47-59); purification of the leper, offerings (141-32);
leprous spots on the walls of houses and their treatment (33-53);
general subscription ( 54-57 ). Uncleanness from sexual secretions
and discharges in health and disease, in man U& 1-18^ and woman
(19-31); general subscription (32_/l).
(*) A unity of redaction is indicated also by the recurrence of
the phrase, This is the torah of, etc., in the subscriptions ( 11 46
1 27 \ A 59 1432 54 57 IS 32^; cp Nu. f>2i)}; in 142 the words
appear in a title, as they do repeatedly in t>8 [iJ-T 21 (see above,
6).
The distinctions embodied in these laws originate in
a low stage of culture and are there of fundamental
importance. 1 A high degree of elaboration, even of a
kind which appears to us artificial, is not of itself proof
of late development ; savage taboos frequently form a
most complicated system. We have no reason to doubt
that the toroth in Lev. 11-15 are based upon ancient
Israelite, and even prehistoric, custom. As they lie
before us, however, the chapters give evidence of having
been formulated in different schools, and of repeated
literary supplementation and redaction.
The close of chap. 11 (45, cp 44 a) exhibits the
characteristic phraseology and motive of H ( I am
rv> 11 Yahwe, ye shall be holy for I am
holy ) 2 the tdr oth especially in 2 -8
4I f " are S milar t0 many
which are embodied in H (see, e.g.. Lev.
18). It is inferred with much probability that the food
laws in Lev. 11 were included in the holiness code; 8
Lev. 2025 implies that H contained such rules. Laws
on the same subject in closely similar form are found in
Dt. 14,4 probably taken from the same priestly collection
from which H derived them. 5 The food laws of H have
been preserved, however, only with many additions and
alterations; 11 1 2 a 8 ioa/3& n (except iSoNH K^), 12 13-19
in their present form, and much in 20-23 4J-4 2 an d 46 /.,
are to be ascribed to successive, and in part very late,
redactors. Laws on a different subject viz., defilement
by contact with unclean animals (24-38) or the carcasses
of clean animals (39/1) have also been introduced, 6
and these again are apparently not all of the same age;
32-38, in particular, seems to be more recent than the
rest.
The rules defining uncleanness after the birth of a
male (122^-4) or female (5) child, and the requisite purifi-
q _, - _ cations in the two cases respectively (6-8),
PVi i/iv t>i - are formulated in the same way as the
rules in chap. 15 (cp 15 2 b ,6 19 25), with
which chapter they are closely connected by their subject ;
122 fixes the duration of uncleanness by a reference to
loig. There can be little doubt that 12 1-7 originally
stood after 15 30 ; what led the redactor to transpose the
chapter it is difficult to imagine. The title (i 20)
is editorial ; the door of the tent of meeting (6,
contrast the sanctuary, 4) is also secondary; 8,
which follows the subscription, like the corresponding
mitigations in other cases, is a later modification of
the law.
The marks by which the priest is to distinguish the
skin diseases which render the subject unclean, from
ift Pha i * / innocent eruptions (182-44) are care-
lu ; nap 1 V : fully defined, and are manifestly the
" " result of close observation. 8 The sub
ject was an important part of the torah of the priests
(Dt. 248), and one which from its nature is likely to
1 See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.
2 See below, 26.
3 Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. it. Hezekiel, 34; Wurster, ZA TW
4 i23/. (1884) ; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dr. Introd.( K ) 59; cp also
Dillmann.
4 See the comparative table in Dr. Deut. 157 ff.
8 See DEUTERONOMY, 10.
Kayser, Vore.rilisch.es Buck, i8o_/". ; Kalisch, 1 I uff.
7 Cp FAMILY, t)Jf.
8 Some scholars have thought that 13/1 are in great part from
H ; see below, 24.
2780
LEVITICUS
have been relatively early fixed in writing; the minute
discrimination of symptoms is not to be taken as evi
dence of recent origin, whilst the rites of purification in
14 2-Sa are of a strikingly primitive character. 1 The
chapters are not, however, entirely of the same age.
The original law contained only 13 2-46** 14 2-8<za, with
the subscription 14 576. The ritual of purification in
14 10-20 is obviously a later substitute for z-8a.
In 8d the leper is already clean, in 10 he is still to be cleansed
(cp 2o<5); the connection in 86 (9) is manifestly artificial. The
ceremonies in 10 ff. are patterned after the consecration of
priests in Lev. (cp 14 14-18 with S 23^ 30 Ex. 2lt zof.) ; the
extravagant number of sacrifices, the exact prescription of the
quantity of flour, etc., are other marks of late date and probably
of the factitious character of the whole law (see above, on chap.
4[S])-
The reduction of the number and costliness of the
victims in the case of the poor (1421-31), witli its inde
pendent subscription (32), is presumably still more
recent. The purification of the leper (14 2-8) is separated
from the law for his seclusion (1045^) by a passage of
some length on spots of mould in stuffs and leather
(1847-58) having its own subscription (59), which would
stand more properly in connection with the rules con
cerning patches of mould on the walls of houses
(1433-53). The association of these fungus growths
with eruptive skin diseases ( leprosy ) is not unnatural,
and would lead to similar regulations for inspection by
a priest, and for the destruction or purification of the
materials affected. Chap. 13 47-59 closely follows the
formulation of 13 zff., and may be a comparatively
early supplement to the law on leprosy, if not of
approximately the same age. Chap. 14 33-53 is not im
probably younger.
The introduction (34), with its reference to the future settle
ment in Canaan, is unlike that of any other of the laws in this
group;- and the adaptation of the ritual for the purification of
the leper to the cleansing of the house (49-53) seems artificial;
these verses may, however, be a still later addition, since in 48
the house is already pronounced clean (cp 18 58, where no
further ceremony is prescribed). The subscription, 54-57, has
been expanded in successive stages.
In chap. 15 a basis of old torah in characteristic
formulation is recognisable, most readily at the begin-
11 Chat) 15- nm S an d tl ie enc > f the several para-
Issues S ra Ph s ; tm s basis seems to have been
enlarged, especially by the multiplica
tion of cases of derivative pollution, and some of these
additions seem to be very late. It is not possible,
however, to discriminate sharply between the original
rules and the subsequent accretions. Verse 31, seem
ingly addressed to the priests (read warn [amnrni]
for separate ), is an appropriate close to a collection
of laws on various forms of uncleanness, and does not
suggest the priestly editor; the subscription, 32-34, has
grown by repeated glosses, ^a only is by the first hand.
The beginning of chap. 16 is connected with 10 1-5
not only by v. i (Rp) but also by its contents. Nadab
12 Chat) 16 anc * Abihu lost their lives by presumptu-
Davo f ous v intruding into the presence of
Atonement.3 Yahw6 carrying unhallowed fire (cp
16 i2/i) in their censers; the fate of
these priests is the occasion of a revelation setting forth
the rites with which Aaron may enter the sanctuary
without incurring the like destruction. 4 In the history
of the sacred institutions, \\\*ff. must, therefore, have
immediately followed the death of Nadab and Abihu in
10 i ff. Not all of 16, however, is from this source; in
2-28 a singular piacular ritual, including the bringing
ot the blood of the victim into the inner sanctuary and
1 See WRS Rel. Sem.W 447, cp 422, 428 n. ; Wellh. Heid.V)
156.
2 Frequent in H; see 26.
3 See Reuss, Gesch. d. A T s, 387; Kue. Hex. 15, n. 32;
Dillm. Exod. Levit.W, yflff. ; Che. ZA 77K15 1537?". (1895) ;
Now. Hebr. Arch, ti&jff. On the analysis: Oort. Th.T
Id i42jT. (1877) ; Stade, GVI l 258 n. ; Benzinger, ZA TW$ 65^.
(1889); Addis, Hex. lj,y>; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,
Hex. i 164^. See also ATONEMENT, DAY OF.
* Note the absence of the incense altar.
2781
LEVITICUS
the sending away into the wilderness of a scape-goat
laden with the sins of the people (see AZAZEL), has been
united with the prescriptions for Aaron s entering the
holy place; in 29-343 is ordained an annual general
fast day (cp 23 26-32), on which the priest performs
rites not further specified for the purification of the
people and the sanctuary (cp Ezek. 45 18 20). Ben
zinger, in his analysis of the chapter, 1 ascribes the last-
named law to the author of 2-4 6 12 /; it stood in
close connection with *). The elaborate expiatory
ceremonies in 1657-1014-28 represent a much later
development (ATONEMENT, DAY OK, 2) ; the fusion
of the two elements had its basis in the praxis itself; the
younger ritual probably never had an independent
literary existence (ZATW 9 &&/,).
As regards the last point, various indications in the text (e g ,
the repetition of 6 in n) seem to point to the union of two
written sources by a redactor, whilst the complex ritual itself,
with its repeated entrances and exits, 2 is explained more easily
as the result of such a combination than as an evolution in
praxis. It is comparatively easy to separate the expiatory cere
monies of the Day of Atonement (disregarding some minor
glosses sa.fi 7-10 15^/3 i6a 18-22^ 26-29*1*).
The introduction, which doubtless directed that these
rites should be performed annually on a certain day, is
missing; remnants of it may perhaps be preserved in
29^-340, which verses are not an old law of P (Ben
zinger), but give evidence of contamination from Lev.
2826-32, and of various glosses. It is more difficult to
determine just what was contained in the original direc
tions for Aaron s entrance into the holy place ; for in
converting this act into a periodical ceremony and incor
porating it in the ritual of the Day of Atonement the
redactor has made much greater changes in this part of
his material. The essential features appear to be: the
ablution, the vestments (4), the sacrifice of a young
bullock as a sin offering (6), the incense burnt in a
censer on coals taken from the altar (12-14) ; a more
detailed restoration cannot be attempted here.
Chap. 263-45 is a solemn address of Yahwe (i pers.)
to the Israelites (pi.), setting before them the blessings
13 Chan 17 26 4 he w " Bestow upon them if they walk
The Hol nesa n ^ s statutes and observe his com-
_ _ mandments, and the calamities with
Law-Boo*/ whjch he win visjt them if (hey wi|1
not hearken unto him and keep these commandments.
Even apart from the subscription ( 4 6) these are the
statutes and the judgments and the laws (hukk im, mis-
pat tm, torotti) which Yahwe made between him and the
Israelites at Mt. Sinai through Moses the character of
the discourse and its resemblance to Dt. 2<S conclusively
prove that Lev. 26 originally stood at the end of a body
of legislation. The distinctive motives and phraseology
of 26 recur in the preceding chapters in numerous
exhortations to observe the statutes and judgments
therein contained (cp 18 1-5 24-30 1!) 2 36^ 37 20 7 f. 22-26
22 31-33) ; briefer words of similar tenor are interspersed
in other places; note also the occurrence of the char
acteristic phrase, I am Yahwe (with various comple
ments), throughout these chapters from 18 2 to 2645.
It is plain, therefore, that 18-25, or at least consider
able parts of these chapters, come from the law-book of
which 26 is the conclusion. From the prominence
given in it to the motive of holiness, this book has been
called the Holiness Law; 4 it is usually designated by
the symbol H. 5 The characteristic formulas of H
appear first in the introduction to 18 (2^-5), and earlier
critics regarded this as the beginning of the extracts
from that book. 6 More recent scholars are generally of
the opinion that 17 is derived from the same source. "
1 ZA TW)(>sff- (1889); see ATONEMENT, DAY OF, i.
2 See ATONEMENT, DAV OF, 7.
3 For literature see below, 33.
4 See 192 -20726 ->\ 8 etc. The name was given by Klost.
<2X7"8S4i6 (i%jj)=PentateHch, 385.
" Kuenen employs Pj, others PH.
6 So Ewald, Nb ldeke, Schrader, Graf, Colenso, Klostermann.
7 So Knobel; Kayser. Vortxilischtx Buck, ijdjf-, cp &4/;
Kue. Hex. 6, n. 27; Wellh. Cffm 151^".; Horst, Lev. xi ii.
2782
LEVITICUS
A reading of Lev. 17-25 discloses a twofold aspect :
on the one hand unmistakable affinity, in parts, to the
priestly legislation ; on the other hand, much that is
at variance with the usual manner of that legislation, or
lies outside the circle of its predominant interests. Both
in contents and in form 19, for example, resembles Ex.
20-23 and Dt. (cp especially Dt. 23^".) much more
closely than P ; the hortatory setting of the laws and the
emphasis on the motives to obedience, not only in 2<!
but also in the preceding chapters, has no parallel in
P, in which the divine imperative is its own all-sufficient
motive; the phraseology of H is peculiar, and strikingly
different from that of P; 1 finally, there are actual con
flicts between the laws in H and those of P, particularly
in regard to the feasts. 2 The priestly element appears
in many cases to be superimposed, or to supplement the
other. The hypothesis which first suggested itself was,
therefore, that older laws were revised and incorporated
by P, 8 sometimes, as in 18-20, in large masses having
a coherence of their own ; the hypothesis was subse
quently extended to 17-2(i (or 18-2(5) as a whole (see
below 30) .
The parrenetic framework in which the laws are set
(see, eg., 18) is of the same character throughout, and
is somewhat sharply distinguished in style from the laws
themselves, as the example just cited shows. Hence
it seems, further, that the author of the collection H,
whom we may designate as RH, embodied in his work,
without radical change, older titles of torah which had
already acquired a fixed formulation. A comparison of
18 20, on the same subject, is peculiarly instructive in
this regard. The result of this preliminary examination
is, therefore, that in Lev. 17-2(i we have a collection of
laws, not all of the same origin, which have been sub
jected to at least two successive redactions, first by RH,
and second by Rp. 4
The subjects dealt with in Lev. 17-2fi are the following:
domestic animals slaughtered to be offered to Yahwe ; blood
not to be eaten (17); incest denned and
14. Contents Of prohibited (!N); various short command-
Chaps. 17-26. ments, chiefly moral and social (Hi); Molech
worship; another law against incest ( 2(1);
rules for priests: restrictions on mourning and marriage; priests
to be physically perfect; regulations concerning the eating of
consecrated food ; victims to be without blemish ; other rules
about victims {t\f.}\ calendar of sacred seasons (28); the oil
for the lamps in the tabernacle, and the shew-bread ; blasphemy ;
manslaughter and torts (24) ; Sabbatical year and Jubilee (2."i) ;
hortatory discourse (2t>).
The order of these chapters is in general a natural
one; 5 difficulty is made only by the position of 19, by
the repetition of the same subject in 18 and 20, and by
24, which in both its parts seems to be foreign to its
present surroundings. It is clear that Lev. 17-25 do
not contain a complete law-book, such as H presumably
was ; many topics which would have a necessary place
in such a code are lacking. These subjects may have
been omitted by the redactor because they were suffi
ciently treated elsewhere, or may have been transposed
to other connections; some such displaced fragments
may be recognised in Ex.-Num. (see below, 24).
Chap. 17 contains a nucleus of old toroth in brief and
consistent formulation, which has been much expanded
xx-vi. u.Hezekiel; Baentsch, Heiligkeitsgcsetz ; Holz. ; Dr.,
etc. See below, 15.
1 On the vocabulary of H see Dillin. Num. Deut. Jos. 637 /. ;
Dr. IntrodA*") 49/ = Holz. Hex. 411 /: Carpenter and
Harford-Battersby. Hex. 1 220 / See also Baentsch, Heilig-
keitsgesetz, and the works cited in 29, n. 9.
2 Chap. 23. The conflict was noticed by George, Feste
ff. (1835) and Hupfeld (1851^.).
3 Book of Origins ; Ewald.
4 In the following sections R p will be used to designate simply
the priestly editor or editors of Lev. 17-2ti, without anticipating
the question of the relation of this redaction to the composition
of P or of the Hexateuch, on which see below, 32.
> On the arrangement see Horst, 47^. The attempt has
been made in H also (see EXODUS ii. , 4, in. end) to show that the
laws were originally grouped in decads. So Bertheau, Sieben.
Gruppen, etc. ; and Paton in a series of articles in JBL (see
33. *)
2783
LEVITICUS
and altered by later hands. A considerable part of
. c p. . _ this expansion is plainly the work of
SlauSer of Kp ( *" JI/ X4 > ; but there is a wer
biaugnter or. stiatum of editor - s work which is re _
Animals. cognised as RH (f-g-, $a,a.b 70, \ob).
The most interesting case of this double redaction is
found in 3-7.
The original law seems to have run : Any Israelite who
slaughters a bullock or a sheep or a goat and does not bring
it into the presence of Yahwe, blood shall be imputed to that
person (i.e., he shall be regarded as haying eaten flesh with
the blood ; cp i S. 14 32-34) ; a redactor introduced the words
the dwelling of (iitiikati) before Yahwe ; 2 the references
to the camp and the door of the tent of meeting are additions
of Rp, adapting the situation to P s tabernacle ; similar addi
tions are to offer it as an offering to Yahwe, and he has
shed blood ; that person shall be cut off from his people (4);
cp the variations of Sam. and (G, as indications of continued and
late manipulation of the text. Verse 8_/ may be a fragment
of a law, corresponding to Ex. 22 20 [19], sacrifice shall be offered
to Yahwe only; 9 is Rp. With \$f. cp 1 1 40 and i 2. 8 (Ezek.
44 31) ; for a stricter rule see Ex. 22 31 Dt. 14 21.
Chap. 18 contains laws on incest and some kindred
subjects (6-23), preceded by an introduction (2^-5), and
10 ,.,~ 10 concluding with admonitions and warn-
16. Cnap. 18 : . ,..,.
Tn^oot ln S s (^-S )- lh s setting is in the
main the work of R H .
Verse 5 is a doublet to 4; 29 is from R P ; 24-28 30, are probably
amplified by later scribes imitating R H , or by contamination from
2d 22-24. Verse 6 is the general rule (perhaps editorial), the cases
follow in a stereotyped scheme (7-17*1) ; 170-24 are differently for
mulated, probably a supplement from another collection of toroth
on the same subject; 21 (Molech) is introduced through a
merely verbal association by RH who wrote 216. A few glosses
mar the symmetry of 7 ff.
Chap. 1!) contains a brief manual of moral instruc
tion, perhaps the best representative of the ethics of
17 Chat) anc i ent Israel, opening and closing with the
formulas * ^ H ( 2 & 3^ 3?) observe also the
19 Moral uas H 2 & 3^ 3?)
. frequent recurrence of the phrase I am
Yahwe, or I am Yahwe your God, after
groups of commandments (3 4 10 12 14 16, etc.). Two
passages are obviously out of place in this chapter : 5-8,
by its subject and formulation is plainly connected
with 2229/7; 20, also, is foreign to the context;
it has been thought that its appropriate place would be
after 20 10 (Dillm.), but the case is clearly one of tort,
and the formulation corresponds rather to 24 15-21
another misplaced fragment; 2 i/ is a late addition to
20 (cp(>6/.). The rest of the chapter is made up of
old toroth, probably compiled, or at least supplemented,
from more than one source, with occasional clauses
introduced by R H ( 9 aa I0 \ib i8 23*10. 29 30 [=2(J 2]
31^ 32^ 33/1), and probably the repeated I am Yahwe
though in this RH may have been anticipated by the
toroth themselves.
The first group of commandments (}/.) is in some sort
a counterpart to the first table of the decalogue; u-i8
similarly remind us of the second table. 3 In general
the chapter is to be compared with Ex. 20 -z/. 22 18-22 28/1
23 1-19, and parts of Dt. 22-25, in which many parallels
will be found. These do not justify us, however, in
regarding Lev. 19 as based upon the Decalogue, the
Covenant Book, and Deuteronomy ; 4 actual coincidences
in formulation or in order are singularly few, and ap
pear to be sometimes the result of textual contamina
tion. Rather Lev. 19 is another of the epitomes of
good morals, of which there were doubtless many in
ancient Israel.
The original law against the sacrifice of children in
18 Chan 20- t le Molech cult (20 22) 5 has received
T repeated additions, 3 disclosing the hand
-LIlCcHL CvC. r 1-1 / _i j i c r- i\ i
of RH (additions of Rp in 30), ib a
gloss, and +/. a variation on 26 3 intended to supplant 3.
1 Kayser, I orexilisches Buck, t>qff. ; JPT wff. (1881):
Wellh. C//( 2 ) 152^.; Horst, 14 ff., cp 4,*ff. : Dillm. ( 3 > 584^;
Kue. Hex. 15. n. 5; Baentsch, 137?! See below, 28.
2 On the question whether this redactor was RH, *ee 28.
s Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen, 205; We. CH(-) issf. ,
Baentsch, 81.
4 So Kayser, Baentsch, and others.
8 See MOLECH.
2784
LEVITICUS
The law against witchcraft (6) seems to have displaced
the more original torah which is preserved in 27.
Verses -jf. belong to the paraenetic framework of RH,
perhaps only accidentally brought together in subsequent
redaction ; the corresponding close is 22-24.
Verse 9 has nothing to do with the subject of the following
laws; it seems rather to be connected with 2415-22 (cp 209
with 24 15) ; it is not improbable that 24 15-22, which are
altogether out of place where they stand, with 2H 9 ( ? 10) 27, and
perhaps 2, are scattered fragments of a chapter on capital
offences the greater part of which was omitted by the final
redactor.
In ii -2i follow laws against incest, sodomy, and
commerce with a woman during menstruation, against
all of which the death penalty is denounced. These
laws are from a collection independent of 18 (Graf,
Wellh., Dillm. etc.). 1 There has been some contamina
tion from 18 (see, e.g., 20 19), and the clauses prescribing
the penalty have been glossed and recast.
22-24 is the work of RH. Verses ^sf- deal not with the sub
ject of -ill but with clean and unclean animals ( ! 1 ) , and 2560. 2&
are actually found in 1 1 43a 45^. It is possible that fragments
of the missing introduction to 11 are also preserved in 211 25^".,
and that the latter verses mark the place where 11 once stood in
H (see 24).
Chaps. 21 f. present the same phenomena which
we have observed in 17 ff. ; old toroth concerning the
1Q Ph priesthood have been glossed, revised,
91 f "R 1 and su PP emente d by successive editors.
. Some of the glosses were probably made
lor priests. U p 0n tne toroth themselves before they
were incorporated in H ; many additions were made by
RH or by later editors in imitation of him ; others,
finally, by R P and scribes of that school. It is not
possible in all cases exactly to distinguish these various
hands ; but in considerable part it can be done.
In 21 1-9 the original rules are found in ibfi (beginning lost),
an (2^3 have more exact definition), 5 -ja; - RM in 6 76 8: Rp
the fire-offerings of Yahwe, in 6; 9 is not strictly in place. In
10-15 the old law is ioaa ( the priest who is greater than his
brethren ), b n 13 14*; RH 1215; Rp i. In 16-24 P ar t of
the torak is repeated in slightly variant forms (17 21) with
glosses by Rp; to the old rule belong, further, 2-26 2-$a (also
glossed by Rp) ; 18^-20 is an (?old) specification of blemishes
(cp22 22-24) : RH in 23^: 24 (Rp) is a fragment.
The beginning of 22 1-16 is in disorder: zafib is RH, but
lacking its antecedents, showing traces of more than one hand,
and separating the first words of i (Rp) from their sequel (3);
4<z is the old rule ( of the seed of Aaron, Rp) , and fragments of
a following rule may be recognised in parts of 6/., the rest
being supplanted by Rp, to whom most of 4^-7 are to be
ascribed; 8 may have been included in H, though it is not in a
very appropriate place; 9 is RH, perhaps more than one hand
(cp HI 30 and 21 8) ; 10-13 are substantially old toroth with some
glosses; 14 (cpois) may be a later addition; 15^ RH. In
17-25 the old rules in i8 19 21 have received many glosses
(Rp), as also the following catalogue of defects (22-24, C P
21 17-20) ; 25 is RH ( because their corruption is in them, Rp).
Verses 27-30, again, are old laws, followed by the closing ex
hortations of RH (31-33)1 > n which 32 seems to intrude between
31 and 33.
Chap. 23 contains the annual round of sacred seasons,
derived in part from a priestly calendar, in part from
fc >rmer element is easily
90 Ph 2
a P a
recognised by its rigid scheme (see,
e -g-> 5 8 34^-36) the exact regulation
of the date and duration of the festival, the days of
holy convocation (Nu. 28/i) observed as the strictest
of sabbaths, and the fire-offerings to Yahwe. The
characteristics of H are equally unmistakable in other
parts of the chapter, though, as elsewhere, the original
text of H has been heavily glossed by priestly editors
and scribes. To the calendar of P belong 4-8 (Passover
and Unleavened Bread; 2 /., Rp), 21 (fragment of the
law for Pentecost), 24 f. (Feast of Trumpets), 27-32
(Day of Atonement), 34^-36 (Tabernacles); 37 f., is the
subscription, which 44 was meant to follow. The law
for the Day of Atonement shows some repetitions, and
has perhaps been amplified by later editors ; cp 16 29-34.
1 Not from the same source, affixing the penalty to the
offences defined in 1^ (Keil, Knobel, etc.); nor an editorial
commentary (RH), Paton, Hebraica, 10 111-121.
a Verse 4 is a corrupt frayment,
* George, Festf, izoff. ; Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, T$ff. ,
We. CH("-) \b\ff.\ Horst. 2 4 ^f.; Baentsch, 44^.
LEVITICUS
P s law for Pentecost has been supplanted by a long
passage from H (9-20), in which the old tor ah, the
setting of RH, and the additions of Rp, may be dis
tinguished. It begins with the waving of the first sheaf
of barley from the new harvest. The introduction is
by RH (totf) ; the law probably began, When ye reap
your harvest. To the original law belong iob na*
i4a*; the various offerings come from Rp (not all from
one hand). This is followed by the prescription of
two wave loaves at Pentecost (15-20), 150, fifty days in
16^, in 17 Ye shall bring as wave loaves two cakes ; ye
shall bake it leavened as first fruits for Yahwe, 20*; the
rest is Rp. V. 22 is out of place here ; cp 19 9 f.
The laws from H for the observance of Tabernacles
stand in 39-43, as a supplement to those of P in 34^-36,
with a brief introduction by Rp (39^0) ; 39123 and 4 2
unquestionably belong to the original torak ; perhaps
4oa* also (cp Neh. 8 14^.) ; the rest must be attributed
to various stages of the redaction ( 42 43 ?4o, RH).
Chap. 24, w. 1-4, on the lamps in the tabernacle, and
5-9, on the shew-bread, are supplements respectively to
21 Chan 24 i Ex 25 3I " 4 (cp 27 20 ^ Nu 8 4)l and
Ex. 25 30, and belong to the secondary
stratum of P ; how they got into this place it is not
easy to guess.- The rest of the chapter deals with the
punishment of blasphemy, and with manslaughter,
mayhem, and killing or maiming cattle. The nucleus
is a group of old toroth, with a closing formula of RH
(15^-22), and glosses by R P , especially in 16 ; on the
original position of these laws see above, 17 (on 20 9).
The punishment of blasphemy is illustrated by an
example, 10-14 23, by a late priestly hand ; cp. Nu.
15 32-36.
In chap. 25 the law of the sabbatical year (1-7) is
from H. 3-50 is the old torak (with glosses emphasising
_ the sabbatical character of the year) ;
, a j? , cp Ex. 23io/; the introduction (2)
babbaucai and ^ are the work of RH The
year and se q ue i to this appears to be i8/ 20-22,
Jubilee. a , so RH _ verses 8-17 23-34 have to do
with the reversion of alienated land to its owners in the
fiftieth year and with the right of redemption in land
and houses. 3 The greater part of 8-17 is from H;
11-13 s an addition of Rp conforming the jubilee year
to the septennial land sabbath; 9 also seems to be
late ; clauses from an older law are incorporated in ioa
( ye shall proclaim an emancipation ; cp Ezek. 46 i6/)
and b ( and shall return, every man to his estate );
ii,a 15 are of the same origin; i6/., of which 23 is the
sequel, together with the introduction (8 ioaa) and
several clauses in the intervening verses, are by Rp.
The following 24-34 is a " fr m l ^ e school of P, but
probably not all of the same age ; 24-28 is an addition
of Rp to the preceding law; 29-31 apparently a novel
to 24-28 ; the exception in favour of the Levites (32-34) 4
depends on Nu. . 5f> 1-8, itself among the youngest
additions to P ; the language of 24-34 is Iate -
The prohibition of usury (35-38) is from H ; cp Ezek.
188 13 17 22 12. In the following laws on the treatment
of slaves (39-46) the charitable motives of H have prob
ably been amplified by imitative hands, and there are
extensive interpolations by Rp, especially in 44-46 (per
haps all Rp) and in 49-52.
Chap. 2(5 i /, laws forbidding various species of
idolatry and commanding the observance of the sabbath,
set in phrases of RH, are strangely out of place here;
i is parallel to 19 4, 2 identical with 19 30 (cp 19 3 ),
and the verses are fragments from a collection similar
to 19.
Chap. 26 contains promises of prosperity to obedience
1 Popper, Stiftshutte, voqf.
* See We. CV/( ! > 166; Baentsch, 51.
IK)
2785
Ex. Lev.( 3 ), 658^ See also JUBILEE, YEAR OF.
* Levites are nowhere mentioned in H.
2786
LEVITICUS
(3-13) and threatened judgments on disobedience (14-45),
23 Chat) w t 1 a su b scr P non to the Holiness
9K , PrnmiBB Law-Book ( 4& ). The whole is spoken
8e in the person of Yahwe to the Israelites
warning. (p, ural( throughout), and corresponds
in character and in its relation to the preceding laws to Ex.
2320^. and Dt. 28. To the last mentioned chapter Lev.
26 has much resemblance, not only in its general tenor
but also in particular turns of thought and expression ;
but these coincidences are not of such a nature as to
imply literary dependence ; the total impression, on the
contrary, is distinctly of originality on both sides.
The disposition is different : Dt. i^ has an antithetic series of
blessings and curses (2-14 i^Jf.} to which there is no counterpart
in Lev. 2ti; Ley. 2I> is climactic (14-1718-2021^ 23-2627^.);
note also that in Lev. Yahwe himself speaks (I), in Dt. the
divine promises and warnings are in the third person (Yahwe) ;
in Lev. the address to the Israelites is plural (ye, you), in Dt.
singular (thou, thee).
Innumerable threads connect Lev. 26 with those parts
of the foregoing chapters which are ascribed to RH ; *
there is every reason to believe that it is by the same
author who compiled the law-book H and attached to
the toroth which he incorporated his characteristic
motives.^ The difference in situation, which Baentsch
urges as the strongest argument for attributing 26 to a
different author, is easily exaggerated (in 18-25 the
entrance into Canaan is still future 18 3 24 19 23 20 22-24,
cp 23 10 25 2 whilst in 26 it is an accomplished fact) ; it
would be more just to say that the situation is not con
sistently maintained (see on the one hand 18 25 27, on
the other 26 n). The relation is in this respect the
same as that of Dt. 28 to Dt. 12-26; in the prophetic
peroration the author s real present almost inevitably
shows through.
Dillmann and Baentsch have rightly observed that Lev. 26,
like Ex. i A 10 ft. and Dt. 2*, has not escaped additions and
glosses by later hands, which the resemblance of some parts to
Ezekiel peculiarly invited: 8 is a later doublet to 7; 10 is per
haps a gloss to 4_/. ; 17 would be in place rather with 23-26; 30
is probably a gloss to 31 derived from Ezek. 63-5 ; 34 f. a late
interpolation (Rp) cognate to 2 Ch. 8li 21 ; 37 is also questioned;
39-43 is a late addition, 39 sets in at the same point as 36, the
phraseology reminds us of Ezek. (cp 4 17 24 23 3 10) ; the fol
lowing verses U-43. 3 r d pers. throughout) are very clumsily
written; 44^, also, are secondary.
It has been observed above ( 14) that Lev. 17-26 is
not a complete law-book; some laws may have been
94 Oth omitted by the redactor because the
. . 3 subject was treated elsewhere; others
remains oi n. mav nave been removed to a new con
nection. The question thus arises whether any portions
of H can be recognised in other parts of the Pentateuch.
One such has been noticed above ( 8), the food laws
in Lev. 11, with the characteristic colophon of RH (45) ;
cp 2025 ( 17 end). A considerable number of other
passages in Ex., Lev., Nu. have been thought by dif
ferent critics to be derived from H some in their
present form, others much altered by later redaction. 4
It is obvious that the characteristic expressions and
motives of RH are the only criterion by which we can
recognise fragments of H ; resemblance in the subject
or formulation of laws to toroth incorporated in H may
point to a relation to the sources of H, but is not
evidence that these laws were ever included in that
collection. 5 Further, the test of diction must not be
applied mechanically; not all the sections in which the
words I am Yahwe occur are, on that ground alone,
to be ascribed to H : familiarity with H and Ezekiel
1 See Baentsch, 44/1
2 Not an independent prophetic sermon (Ew., Nold. : cp
Baentsch), nor the close of a different collection of laws (May-
baum, Pritsterthum, 74/7".).
3 See Klostermann, ZLTSRjOaf. (?Tj}=Pentateuch, 377 f.\
Del. ZKIV 1622; Kayser, JPf 7 650 ( 81); Horst, 35 / ;
Kue. Hex. 15, n. 5; Dillm. Num. Dent. Jos. 640; Wurster,
-Z.4rW4i2 3 /f. ( 84); Holzinger, Hex. 410 ; Baentsch, bjf. ;
Carpenter ana Harford-Battersby, 2 145.
4 The list includes Ex. U 6-8 12 12 f. 29 38-46 31 i 3 /. Lev. 5 1-6
2i-2 4 a [lia-sa] in io/. 11 (in part), 12 13 1-46 14 i-8a 15 Nu.
811-13 - r > 1 1-31 62-8 10 i)/. 1538-41 19 1 1/.
6 See below, 25.
LEVITICUS
may have suggested the formula to later authors or
editors ; or, on the other hand, it may have been used
by others before RH. In the greater part of the passages
wtiich have been claimed for H, the evidence is for
one or the other of the reasons indicated insufficient;
Nu. 1537-41 is perhaps the only one about which there
is no dispute, though in some other cases a probability
may be admitted.
The analysis of Lev. 17-26 shows that the laws in H
were not conceived and expressed by the author of that
25 Sources bookp but were taken by him from P re "
of H ceding collections in a form already fixed;
even where the share of RH is largest, as
in the provisions for the jubilee year ( Jo %ff.), there is a
basis of older law. It would be too much to affirm
that RH made no material changes in these laws; but
in general his work was selection and redaction, putting
the existing laws under his own point of view and
attaching to them certain distinctive motives. The
differences of formulation in the laws themselves,
especially in the laws on the same or kindred subjects
(as in 18 and 20), prove that they are not all of the
same origin ; the presumption is that they were taken
from more than one collection, made at different times
or places, or in different priestly families or guilds. In
other parts of Lev. and Num. we find groups of laws,
not belonging to the main stem of P, which are cognate
in subject and formulation to those in H, but show no
traces of the hand of RH ; it is probable that these are
derived from the same collections on which RH drew. 1
The laws in these collections, like those in H, bear, in
general, all the marks of genuine tbrbth, representing
and regulating the actual practice of the period of the
kingdom. 2 They know nothing of a central sanctuary
or of a sacerdotal caste ; the priest is simply the
priest, Levites are not mentioned, the priest who is
greater than his brethren," upon whom greater restric
tions are laid (21 10), is a very different thing from the
Aaronite high priest of P (see 30) ; the occasional
references to Aaron and his sons, the tabernacle, and
the camp are demonstrably interpolations by a redactor
(Rp), who thus superficially accommodated the old laws
to the History of the Sacred Institutions (HISTORICAL
LITERATURE, 9).
The representation of the author (RH) of the history
agrees with that of the older historians and the prophets :
26. Character ^ Isr * el te * . dwe Jl in ^i? 1 (18 ^
* TT 3 thence Yahw& has brought them out to
give them the land of Canaan (25 38) ;
he is going to expel the peoples of the land before
Israel (18 24 20 22 /.) ; 4 the laws are given to the Israel
ites before their entrance into the land ; 5 they are to go
into operation after the settlement (18324 18232022-24
23 10 25 2). There is no archaistic attempt to simulate
the situation in the desert (the camp, etc.) ; the place
of worship is not the Tent of Meeting, but simply the
Sanctuary (mikdaS, holy place, 20 3 21 12) 6 or the
abode of Yahwe (mitkan, dwelling-place, 17 4 if the
word is really from RH 26 n, cp Ezek. 37 27).
The readers are repeatedly exhorted to observe
(Samar, 18 4 5 26 30 19 19 37 20 8 22 22 31 25 18 26 3, etc.)
the laws of Yahwe (hukkoth umiSpatjm, statutes and
judgments, 18 5 26 19 37 20 22 25 18; miswoth, com
mandments, 2231 263 14 15, etc.; never tora/i); they
shall not conform to the customs or rites of the
Egyptians or Canaanites (183 2023) ; Yahwe has sepa-
1 See 24, and below, 32.
2 See further below, 30.
3 See Baentsch, \T,\ ff.
4 The verses in which it appears that this has already been
accomplished (1*25 IT/.), if not simply a lapse of the writer,
may be secondary.
6 The subscription, 2fi 46, according to which the laws were
revealed on Mt. Sinai, is probably not by RH: 25 i certainly is
not.
B In If* 30 2fi 2 read my holiness."
7 In the toroth neither word occurs; the rites take place in
the presence of Yahwe.
2788
LEVITICUS
rated Israel from the nations (20 24 26^). Many offences
are condemned as defilement (fame, torn ah, 18 20 23^
19 31 22 8 21 i, etc. ; cp 18 25 27 20 3) ; 1 the synonymous
expressions in 18 20 are in part, at least, from later
hands.
Israelites are warned not to profane (hi lie I) holy things, such
as the name of God (is 21 19 ia 21 6 203 21 3 39), sacrifices (19 8
i> 2 2_/. 15), the sanctuary ( 21 12 23), priesthood ( 2 2 9 19 29 21 15).
The people of Yahwe must hallow themselves, and be holy,
because he is holy (1!) 2 2117 26, cp 11 44_/.) ; his holiness is to
be revered (19 30 2(> 2) ; Yahwe hallows his people ( 208 2 2 32) ;
priests, particularly, are holy ( 21 6, cp 8) ; the sacrifices of the
Israelites are their holy things (2 2 2 15, cp 19 8).
Holiness is thus the dominant element in the author s
idea of religion ; sin is profanation and pollution, loath
some and abominable; and he uses these conceptions
as religious motives.
Besides the explicit appeals to this motive, we find
an implicit appeal in the recurring I am Yahwe, or
I am Yahwe your God," often strengthened by a re
minder of the great deliverance, who brought you
forth out of the land of Egypt (1^36, cp 25384255
26 13), to be a God to you (22 33 2645, cp 25 3 8).
The Israelites shall fear Yahwe their God (19 32 25 17),
or his holiness i.e., his Godhead (1930 2(i 2 read so !).
Motives of humanity and charity are represented not
only by particular injunctions such as 19 \6f. 19 10 ( =
23 22) , 25 6, but also by such institutions as the sabbatical
and jubilee years, and the mitigation of slavery, on
which the author lays especial emphasis. These pre
cepts of humanity include the foreign resident (ger),
who is not to be oppressed (1933), but to share the
charity shown the Israelite poor (19 10 = 2822 256), and
to be treated like a native thou shalt love him as
thyself (19 34) ; he is subject to the same civil law
(2422), and worships at the same altars (17 8 10 is). 2
Part of these commandments come from the old laws;
but RH has emphasised them strongly.
In some places the admonitory motives of RH seem
to be overloaded (see 20 7 / 22 31 33 ) ; in a few
27 Unitv of tnere s an apparent conflict (esp. 18 24
redaction vv i tn 25-28). It would be strange if these
exhortations had not, like those of the
deuteronomistic writers, been expanded and heightened
by succeeding editors ; in other cases contamination of
parallel passages is probable. These phenomena do
not overcome the impression of unity which the redac
tion of the whole produces, 3 nor sustain the hypothesis
of Baentsch that the chapters come from three or more
different hands. 4
The question has to do, not with the age of the
torofft, 5 but with the date of the redaction of the Holi-
28 Aee of H - ness Law-Book. The whole character
TT o^j TYf of this work discloses affinity to the
u ana. u\i. .., , ,
literature of the close of the seventh
and the sixth century Deuteronomy^ Jeremiah, and
especially Ezekiel. The first question that is likely to
be asked about a writing of this period is its relation
to the deuteronomic reform suppressing sacrifice at all
altars save that in Jerusalem (621 B.C.)." The only
passage in H which appears to restrict sacrifice to a
single sanctuary is 174; 8 any Israelite who slaughters
a bullock, sheep, or goat, and does not bring it before
the abode (miSkan) of Yahwe, shall be regarded as hav
ing eaten blood. It is generally agreed that the word
1 The term was probably used in the laws themselves.
- See Bertholet, Stelliing der Israeliten und der Juden zu
den Fremden, no f. 152 /. (1896).
3 On Dillmann s hypothesis of old Sinai laws in two recen
sions by P and J respectively (Exod. Lev.W 5837!; cp NDJ
637 ^), see Horst, $/.; Kayser, JPT 7 6 4 8^f. (1881) ; Kue.
fttx. 15. n. 6; Holzinger, Hex. 408.
4 Htiligkeits^ttett, 34 ^f. ; cp 69^".
See above, 25.
15 With Dt. compare the emphasis on love to the fellow-
Israelite and the stranger (lit \j f. 33 f.; cp DEUTERONOMY,
32), and the laws in part Utopian in the interest of the
poor ( 25, cp Dt. 15).
7 Dt. 1-2 2 K. 2-2 /
8 If we eliminate additions of Rp. See 15.
2789
LEVITICUS
mftkan was inserted by a redactor ; the old law said
merely before Yahwe i.e., to a local altar or stand
ing stone.
If this redactor was RH, then H would appear to represent
the extreme consequence of the deuteronomic reform, 1 leaving
no place for the slaughter of animals for food without sacrificial
rites, for which Dt. makes express provision (1 2 \<-,f. 2o-2s). 2 It
is possible, however, that the word was introduced by a priestly
editor later than RH (of course not the same as the editor who
brought in the tent of meeting ); 3 cp Nu. -i 38 It may
reasonably be urged that if RH adopted the principle of cen
tralisation here so uncompromisingly, he would hardly have
failed to show elsewhere some symptom of zeal for the reform
or hostility to the local cults contrast Dt., Jer., Ezek. 4
It is unsafe, therefore, to use 17 4 to fix the date
of H.
It has been argued that H is younger than Dt. because
some of its laws indicate a more advanced development,
especially those relating to the priesthood (Lev. 21), the
feasts (23 9-20 39-43) , and the sabbatical year (25 1-7 18-
22; cp Dt. 15 1-6), also Lev. 18 16 20 21 as compared
with Dt. 25 5-10 (levirate marriage) ; 5 but the argument
is not conclusive. Even less convincing is Baentsch s
effort to prove that H abounds in reminiscences and
even direct borrowings from Dt. 6
In H and Dt., both of which drew their material largely
from older collections of toroth, there are many laws on the
same subject, in which the same terms naturally occur; but
such coincidences cannot prove the dependence of H on Dt.
The mutual independence of the two is rather to be argued from
the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of agree
ment in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the
fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of RD there is no
trace in H (Lev. 2H 40 is almost solitary). 7 It is an unwarranted
assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which
have been preserved lie in one serial development.
If a literary connection between H and Dt. is not
demonstrable, the case is otherwise with Ezekiel. The
__ ,, , coincidences are here so many and so
T? v^TK striking as to have led some critics to
Ezekiel. regarc i tne prophet as the author of H ; 9
and although even more decisive differences make this
hypothesis untenable, 10 a direct connection between the
two is indubitable. In the chapters in which Ezekiel
writ 
