Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible"

See other formats


11; .: i 


v" , / *,\ 

;v!A> v v-.4V 

Kwttt% ^ <. 




DONATED 1926 A.D. 















L to P 




All rigtits reserved 


I \ O 


First edition, April, 



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 

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 

Apocr. Anecd. . Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd 
series, published under the 
general title Texts and Studies 
at the Cambridge University 

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 

As. u. Eur. . W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa 
nach aitagyptischen Denkmdlern, 

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 


Baraitha . 
BDB Lex. 

Be. . 


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. 


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. 


[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 

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. 


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- 

Bi. . . . 

Biblioth, Sac. 
BJ . . 
BL . . 



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 


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. 

D Author of Deuteronomy ; also used 

of Deuteronomistic passages. 
D2 . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See 

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, 


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 


in the light of Assyrian Re 
search, 83. 

Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr,- 

aram. Worterbuchszum A T, 
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch, 

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, 


Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in 

Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93. 
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici 

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, 


. Old Hebrew historical document. 
2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS 

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, 


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 . . 






Exp\os\. T[imes] 
/and/! . . 
FFP . 

Field, Hex. 

F[r.-}HG . 

Fl. and Hanb. 

Floigl, GA 

Founders . 

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, 

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./ 

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. 


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- 

Bi. . . . 

Biblioth. Sac. 
BJ . . 
BL . . 



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 


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 

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, 


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 


in the light of Assyrian Re 
search, 83. 

Prol. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.- 

aram. WorterbuchszumA T, 
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch, 

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, 


Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in 

Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93. 
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici 

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, 


E Old Hebrew historical document. 

2 . . Later additions to E. See HIS 

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, 


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. 



HE . . 






fits tori a Ecclesiastica. 
Prtzparatio Evangelica. 
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 


. T\_imes\ 

f.^ndf. . . 

FFP . . 

Field, Hex. . 

F[r.~\HG . . 

Fl. and Hanb. 

Ph arm. 

Floigl, GA . 

Founders . . 

Fr. . . . 

Frazer . 


GA . . 

GA . . 

GBA . 

GASm. . 
GA T . 

Gei. Urschr. 

Ges. . 


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 

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. 




GI . 




Gr. . 

Gra. . 


Ps. . 

Gr. Yen. . 

H . 

HA or Hebr. 


Mil. . 


Harper, ABL 

HC . 


Hebraic a . 


Herzog, RE 
Jlet Herstel 

HG . 

Hilgf. . 


Hist. Proph. 

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. 



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. 

Continued as AJSL (q.v.}. 
Reste arabischen Heidentums. See 


Kosters, Ilet Herstel van Israel in 
het Perzische Tijdvak, 93; Germ. 
transl. Die Wiederherstellung 
Israels, 95. 
See PRE. 
See Herst. 
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger, 


See Field. 
Historical Geography of the Holy 

Land. See Smith, G. A. 
See Bochart. 

A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (Einl., 
etc.), and ed. since 58 of 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 . 


Hor. Hebr. 
HP . . 

HPN . 

HPSm. . 

HS . . 
HWB . 

IJG . 

Intr[od]. . 
Intr. Is. . 

It. . . 
//. Anton. 


J[ourn.~\ A{ni^\ 
0[;-.] S\_oc.~\ 
Jastrow, Diet. 

J{ourn.~\ As. 



JE . . 

Jensen, Kosm. 


J\_ourn.~\ Phil. 




. 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 


. Israelilische u.ji tdische Geschichte. 

See Wellhausen. 
. Introduction. 
. Introduction to Isaiah. See 


. 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, 


HS . 


Die Keilinschriftenu.d.Alte Testa 

ment. See Schrader. 
E. Kautzsch : 

Grammatik des Biblischen- 

Aramaischen, 84. 
Die heilige Schrift des Alien 
Testaments, 94. 


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- 

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- 

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 

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 

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 /, 

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. 

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 . 


MH . 

MI . 



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 

Neu-hebr. u. chaldaisches Wort^er- 

buch. See Levy, 
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 


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 

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 


de T Orient ( <)<)/.). 

Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- 


Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des 


Deutschen Palastina- Vereins, 

95 1- 

A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenschaft- 


liche F.rforschung d. AT ( 69). 

Ed. Meyer: 


Geschichte des Alter thums ; 


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), 


founder of the series Kritisch- 

exegetischer Kommentar iiber das 


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. 


Mesha Inscription, commonly 

known as the * Moabite Stone. 


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]. . 


200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises 

r S. . 

T 7 t 

(representing the Jewish tradi 


tional or unwritten law as devel 
oped by the second century 


A.D.), arranged in six groups or 

/~l 7 

Seders thus : i. Zeraim ( 1 1 


tractates), ii. Mo ed (12), iii. 
Ndshlm (7), iv. Neztktn ( 10), v. 

Onk., Onq. 

K odd shim ( 1 1 ) , vi. To/wroth (12). 


.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 


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 


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 


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 


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 




Ph., Phoen. 
PRE . 

Preuss. Jahrbb, 
Prim. Cult, 

Prop h. Is. 

Prol. . 
Prot. KZ . 


PS Thes. 


R JE . 
R D . 
R P . 


Rec. Trav. 

REJ . 
Rel. Pal. . 

Rev. . 

Rev. Sem. 
Ri. Sa. . 



LBR or BR iv. 
or BRW iii. 

Perrot and Chipiez : 

Histoire de PArt dans 

quite. Egyptt Assyrie 
Perse Asie Afineuere 
Grece Etrurie Rome; 


ET: Ancient Egypt, 83; 
Chaldiza and Assyria, 84; 
Phoenicia and Cyprus, 85; 
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., 90; 
Primitive Greece, 94. 
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. 
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 

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. 


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). 
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 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. . 

Schiir. . 

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 

Sabdische Denkmaler, edd. Miiller 
and Mordtmann. 


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 


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. 

Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, 4. 
Smend, Die Listen der Bucher 

Esra u. Nehemiah, 8l. 



Smend, Listen 



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 >, 

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, 

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- 


Abh. . . Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re- 

den u. Abhandlungen, 99. 

St. Kr. . . Studien und Kritiken, 28 ff. 
Stad. m. m. . Sladiasmus magni marts (Mar- 


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, 


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. 


T[ar]g. . . 

Targum. See TEXT. 

Jer. . . 

The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru- 


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 



The Targ. to the Pentateuch, 

known by the name of Jonathan. 


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. 


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, 



See Gesenius. 

R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria- 

cus, 68 ff. 

Ti. or Tisch. 

Theologisch Tijdschrift, 67^! 
Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum 

Grace, editio octava critica 

maior, 69- 72. 


Theologische Literaturzeitung, 

76 ff. 

Tosephta . 



S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New 

Testament; edited from ancient 

authorities, 57- 72. 

Tristram . 

H. B. Tristram : 

FFP . 

The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 


The Natural History of the Bible, 

(8) So 


Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archaol., 

Tub. Z. f. Theol. 

vols. i.-ix., "72^". 
Tubingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie, 


Untersuch. . 

Untersuchungen. See Noldeke, 


Urgesch. . 

Die biblische Urge^chichte. See 


v. . . 


Var. Apoc. , 

The Apocrypha (AV) edited with 

various renderings, etc., by C. J. 


Var. Bib. 

The OldandNew Testaments(\M) 

edited -with various renderings, 

ttc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R. 


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. 

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. 

Wetstein . . J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen- 
tum Grcecum, etc., 2 vols. folio ; 

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, 

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 


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 

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- 

ZTK . . Zeitschrift fur Theologie und 

Kirche, 91 ff. 
ZWT . . Zeitschrift fur wisstnschaftliche 

Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), 5 



ACL . 

APK . 
Crit. Bib. . 
GA . 
OCL . 


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 


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, 


fessor of Church History and New 
Testament F.xegesis, Marburg. 

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 

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- 


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. 


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, 

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. 


decent in Old Testament Theology, 




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, 

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, 

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. 

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon 

of Christ Church, Oxford. 


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 

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. 

NER. C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director 
Royal Gardens, Kew. 


Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames. 

COOK, S. A. 

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. 

GRAY, G. B. 
HILL, G. F. 
HOGG, H. W. 
JOHNS, C. H. W. 




MANEN, W. C. V. 



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. 


TOY, C. 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 


MEDITERRANEAN (Eastern) . ...... between cols. 3610 and 3611 

MESOPOTAMIA . ..... ,, 3052 ,, 3053 

MOAB .......... ,, 3168 ,, 3169 

NEGEB ....... . . ,, 3376 ,, 3377 


(1) City ........... col. 3423 

(2) District .......... ,, 3422 

PHOENICIA and LEBANON ....... between cols. 3734 and 3735 




























MESHA (with Illustration) 










MOAB (with Map) 






Music (with Illustrations) 










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. 

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. 

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. 


NEGEB (with Map) . 





NILE (with Illustration) 


NINEVEH (with Plans) 

No, NO-AMON . 








ONIAS .... 
OPHIR .... 
PALACE (with Illustrations) 


PAPYRI .... 




PAUL (with Map) 


PENNY (with Illustrations) . 



PERSIA .... 



PHOENICIA (with Map) 
PITHOM .... 
PONTUS .... 
POOR .... 
POTTERY (with Illustrations) 
PRAYER .... 
PRIEST .... 







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. 

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. 

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. 




ABBOTT, Rev. E. A.. D.D., 

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, 

BF.RTHOLET, Prof. A., Basel 

BROWN, Rev. Prof. F., D.D., 
New York 

BUDDE, Prof. K. , D.D. , Mar 

CANNKY, Maurice A., M.A. , 

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., 

DRIVER, Rev. Prof. S. R. , D.D. , 


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, 

HIM., (}. F., M.A.. British 

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. 


Nadabath ; Proselyte. 

Law and Justice; Marriage; 
Mourning Customs ; Ne- 
thinim ; New Moon ; 
Palace ; Passover ; Pente 

Levites ; Priest. 



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 


Peter (Epistles of). 

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

Leprosy ; Medicine. 


Lord s Day ; Mercy Seat ; 


Poetical Literature. 

Olives, Mount of. 

Law Literature ; Names ; 
Pillar of Cloud and Fire. 

Onias ; Prophetic Litera 



Manasseh ; Naphtali. 

Nebuchadrezzar ; Nineveh ; 

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., 


MARTI, Prof. K., D.D., Bern . 
MEYER. Prof. Ed., Halle . 
MOORK, Rev. Pres. G. F.. D.D., 

MULLER, Prof. W. M., Phila 

MYRK.S, J. L. , M.A. , Magdalen 
College, Oxford 

NESTLE, Eb. , D.D. , Maulbronn, 

NOLDEKE, Prof. Theodor, Strass- 


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., 

SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., Christ s 
College, Cambridge 

SMITH, Rev. Prof. G. A., D.D., 

SMITH, the late Prof. W. Robert 
son, D.D. 

SociN, the late Prof. A., Leipsic. 


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

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

TORREY, Prof. Charles C. , Ph. D. , 


TOY, Prof. C. H., D.D., Harvard 
USENER, Prof. H., Bonn . 
VOLZ, Herr Repetent Paul, 

WELLHAUSEN, Prof. Julius, D. D. , 


WINCKI.ER, H., Ph.D., Berlin . 
Wooimorsi . 1 rof. W. J., M.A. , 

ZIMMEKN, Prof. H., Leipsic 

Messiah ; Names. 

Leaven ; Meals ; Milk ; 

Mill ; Oil. 

Linen ; Manna. 

Old - Christian Literature ; 
Paul ; Philemon ( Epistle 
to) ; Philippians (Ep. ). 



Leviticus ; Massebah ; Mo- 
lech ; Nature Worship ; 
Numbers (Book) ; Philis 

Nile; No; Noph ; Pharaoh; 
Phinehas ; Pithom. 


Lord s Prayer ; Mammon. 
Midian ; Names. 


Palestine (flora). 


Presbyter; Prophet (New 


Luke ; Lysanias ; Mark ; 

Mary ; Ministry ; Philip. 
Lion ; Locust ; Palestine 

Moab ; Ptolemais. 

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

Lebanon ; Mesopotamia ; 



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


Lycaonia ; Pergamos ; 

Phrygia ; Pontus. 



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 

LABANA (ALBANIA [BA]), i Esd. 629 = Neh.748, 

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. 

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, 



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 



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. 



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 

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. 


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. 

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 

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). 



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, 

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, 


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 



(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 

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 

For Gen. 33 19 (nB B>j3, AVmg. lamb ), see KESITAH. 

LAMECH CSJlp^), Gen. 4 18-24. See CAINITES, 8/, 

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 Cp BOR, Dec. 1886, pp. 22/1 ; Halevy, RP 11 T6o. It 
been compared with Ps. 79 (Che. Ps.W 223). 



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 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 


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 

4 B(9}, art. Lamentations, Book of. 

5 Budde, New World, March 1893. 


3. Metre. 


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. 


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. 



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 

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). 



1 Foe-like, he hath bent his bow, | his arrows he prepareth ; 
He slaughtereth and killeth the children, | the delights of the 


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 


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 


6. Lam. 4. 


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 

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. 



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 


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. 



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 

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. 



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 


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). 



( 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 



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 


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 

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. 



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, 


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 

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^ 



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\. 
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. 



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 


LAMPS ACUS, i Mace. 15 23 EV m e- (after Vg. LAMP- 

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. 


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. 



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. 




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 


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 ; 

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. 



LATCHET HIT , Is. 5 27 ; IMAC, Mk. 1 7 etc. ). See 


LATTICE. Although the manufacture and use of 
glass (more particularly for ornamental purposes) was 


2. Hebrew 

known to the civilisations of the East from 


, 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], 




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 

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 



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 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. 





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 



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 

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 


6. The Priestly 


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 ; 
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 

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. 


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 



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 

()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 



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 

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 



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 


(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 

etc., we are not dealing with punish- 



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 

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, 


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 


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 


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. 




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 


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 

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 




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 


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 


i T Vi -j. 
. n erit- 



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 



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 


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 



(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 


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- 


4. Circulation. 


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 

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. 



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 

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 

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 


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 , 


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. 




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 


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.) 


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 

(^) 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. 


insistence on prophetic principles ; the didactic historical 

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, ?$/. 


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 

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. 



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 


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, 

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 




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 

(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 

(/;) The several laws are worked inorganically into 
the historical framework though often in the vaguest 

The laws are delivered to Moses or to Moses and Aaron (cp 
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 

(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. 


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 



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. 



(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 

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, 

(5) Another set of expansions of the primary work 

1 For a discussion of many details see EXODUS, 5, LEVITICUS, 
-, NUMBERS, \off. 21. 




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 


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 

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. 

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. 




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 

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. 


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 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. 



able that the son of Sirach was originally called 
Simon son of Jesus, but that Simon son of was 

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 

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, 



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 


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 

* 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, 



It is essential for the reader to keep steadily in view 
the traces of obscurity in the earliest Christian traditions 

8. First 

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 

Martha in New Heb. means sometimes mistress (Levy, 
NHWB i> 234 6), the mistress (nmD) of the house who received 




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. 



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. 


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. 

(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 

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. 



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. 



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 


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. 

[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. 



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. 


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 

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 



(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 

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 



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 




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 



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 

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- 

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). 

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). 



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- 

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. 



(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). 

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. 



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. 


1 Meaning in 


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. 



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 / 



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 

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 


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 

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. 



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. 



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 

LETTER pap, 2 S. 11 14, etc. ; erriCToAH, Acts 

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. 



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, 

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 


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. 

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 ; 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. 


LEVIS. (\eyic [A]), iEsd.9i 4 = Ezra 10 i S , Levite. 

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. 



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.] 



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. 



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 

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, 


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 


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.] 



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. 



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 



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. 



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. 


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 

See EXODUS, 3, vii., NUMBERS, 2. 



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. 


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. 



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. 



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 

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 

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^?". 


TT 1 

animals 9 "" 2 


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, 

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 

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 


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 

4 See the comparative table in Dr. Deut. 157 ff. 

Kayser, 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. 



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. 

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) 

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. 



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 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. 


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. 



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. *) 



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. 



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 

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^. 


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. 



Ex. Lev.( 3 ), 658^ See also JUBILEE, YEAR OF. 
* Levites are nowhere mentioned in H. 



(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. 


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 

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 

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. 



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 

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. 



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 
writes the indictment of his people, reciting the sins 
which brought calamity upon it, he judges it by the 
standard of a law similar in contents to H and having 
in common with H many peculiar words and phrases. 11 
Of greater weight than these coincidences with the laws 
in H which might of themselves prove only that Ezekiel 
was familiar with some of the older collections from 
which H was compiled is the agreement in the dis 
tinctive point of view : holiness is in Ezek. as in H 
the signature of religion ; defilement and profana 
tion is the prevailing thought of sin ; 12 characteristic 
phrases such as I am Yahwe that sanctify them 
(you), also link them together (Lev. 208 21 8 15 23 22 9 
1632 Ezek. 20 1 2 37 2 8). 13 

1 See Dr. Intr<td.( r >) 51, where the different views are recorded. 

2 These provisions in Dt. are regarded by some critics as an 

3 It may be observed that the phrases pC CH Jfl? (Nu. T 3) 
and P i cn i"IPD JUT (Ex. H5 1540 6) occur only in later strata cf 
P, and that nirv \yy^ is also late. 

4 Baentsch, indeed, argues from this that the conflict was long 
since over; H assumes the unity of sanctuary as uncontested 
(76 103 u6/.). 

6 See Kue. Hex. 14, n. 6, 15, n. 8; Baentsch 78 ^/". 103 

L.c. j6jf. Kayser (JPT ~ 6$6Jf.) sets out the parallels to 
H in the Covenant Book and Dt. in tabular form; he thinks no 
other sources need be assumed (660) ; cp Horst 53. 


8 For literature, see 33, 2, and the next note below. 
SoGnt,GetcA.SScAet-,Bijff .; Bertheau,7/?m 155(1866); 

Kayser, Vorexilisches Buck, 176^. (1874); ? PT 7 548 ff. 
(1881): Horst, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. n. Hezekiel, 697?". (i88i),etc. 

10 Noldeke, Untersuch. 6jj?~. : Kuenen, Godsdicnst, 2 95^ ; 
Hex. 15, n. 10; Klost. Pentateuch, 379^"., esp. 404^".; 
Smend, Ezech., p. xxvii. 

11 Cp especially Ezek. 18 20 22 33 with Lev. 18-20. 

12 See above, 26. 

13 See Smend, Ezech. xxv/ ; Horst, 727?".; Kue. Hex. 15, 
n. 10; Dr. Introd.W 49 /. 1457^; Baentsch, 81 ff.\ Paton, 
Pres. Ref. Rev. 7 98 ff. (1896); Carpenter and Harford-Bat- 
tersby, Hex. 1 I47./T 150 f. 



The question thus arises : Was Ezekiel acquainted 
with H, 1 or did the author of H (RH) write under the 
influence of the thought and language of Ezekiel ? 
The grounds on which the acquaintance of RH with 
Ezekiel has been held by many critics 2 are not con 
clusive. The strongest argument is the fact that Lev. 20 
supposes full experience of exile and dispersion, and 
closes with promises of restoration. We have seen 
above ($ 23), however, that, like Ut. 28, Lev. 20 has 
been interpolated, especially towards the end ; and all 
the passages which assume the situation in the exile 
are on other grounds ascribed to later hands (30 34 f. 

39-45 )- 8 

In the remainder of Lev. 20 there is nothing which goes 
beyond the prophets of the last generation before the fall of 
Judah. The striking parallels to Ezek. 4 in this prophetic dis 
course are, as usual in such cases, susceptible of two interpreta 
tions; but on the whole Lev. i \ by its terseness and vigour 
makes an impression of originality which a cento of reminis 
cences picked up from all parts of Kzek. could hardly produce. 5 

The parallels in Ezek. to Lev. 17-25 are found in 
masses in certain chapters (above, col. 2790, n. n), and 
include not only the laws in H, but also their pantnetic 
setting ; the most natural hypothesis is that Ezek. derived 
botli from the same source. 

This presumption is confirmed by the fact that the common 
hortatory motives sometimes appear in Ezek. with a rhetorical 
amplification. The alternative, that RH selected from the 
greater variety in Ezek. precisely these motives with which to 
enforce the laws, is extremely improbable." 

For the posteriority of H to Ezek. it has been 
thought decisive that H prescribes certain stricter rules 
for the priest who is greater than his brethren (21 10), 
whilst in Ezekiel s restoration programme (40 ff.} no 
such distinction is made. But as there was a chief 
priest under the kings (2 K. \\gff. 10 10 / Ilioff. 
25 18; cp Am. 7 10 ff.), to whose station stricter taboos 
would almost necessarily attach, it cannot reasonably 
be inferred that H here represents a stage of develop 
ment beyond Ezek. On the other hand, the distinction 
between priests and Levites in Ezek. (449^".) is an 
avowed innovation unknown to H ; we may note also 
in Ezek. 40 ff. the fixed date of the feasts and their less 
close connection with agriculture, and the minuter 
classification of sacrifices, in which, as in many other 
points, Ezekiel stands nearer to the later priestly law." 

We may, therefore, with some confidence ascribe H 
to the half-century before Ezekiel. Many other ques 
tions which suggest themselves, as to the more ex 
act time, the place, and the circumstances, in which the 
Holiness Law-Book was written, we have no means of 

It is commonly said that H belongs to the priestly 
stratum of the Hexateuch, representing an earlier stage 
in the labours of the priestly schools from 
which P as a whole proceeded ; 8 and it 
is, accordingly, sometimes designated by the symbol 
PI, in distinction from P 2 (the main stem of P), and 
later additions (P 3 , etc.). But when those passages, 
especially in 23 and 24, which manifestly belong to late 
strata of P, together with the many interpolations and 
glosses of Rp, have been set aside, neither the laws in 
H nor their setting (Rn) disclose any marked re 
semblance to the priestly history and legislation ; their 

30. Hand P. 

1 Noldeke, Vntersnch. 677?".; Klost. 

(1877) = 

Pentateuch,^/.; Del. ZKW 1 619(1880) ; Dillmann, Nu. Dt. 
Jos. (144 Jf.; Dr. Introd.W 145^.; Paton, I.e. logff.; so, for 
Lev. I -- JO, Baentsch, 84. 

5 Kuenen, Godsdiensi, 2 96 (f^-jo} Keligifii of fsrael, 1 191 ; 
Hex. 15, n 10: We. r//< 2 > i 7 ojf.,( 3 ) 168..^.; Smend.Ezec/i. 
xxv. f. 314; Addis, Hex. 2 Aoff. 367; Carpenter and Harford- 
Battersby, Hex. \ 152. 

3 The phrases also which We. (( ) 172,0 \f><)/.\ signalises as 
evidence of dependence on Jer. and Ezek. are confined to the 
same passages. 

4 See Baentsch, 121 Jf. t where they are set out verse by verse. 
"Dr. Introd.m 150. 

"See on these points Baentsch, 86^.; Paton, Pres. Re/. 
Rn. 7 i jo^T". (1896). 

7 See Kue Hex. 15, n. 104; Baentsch, fyjff. 

We. C7/( l ) 152; Kue. Hex. 6, and n. 25-28; Holz. Hex. 
47 43- 



affinities are altogether with JE and Dt. The paraenetic 
character of H is foreign to all ages and stages of P; 
the language is quite distinct, as the facility with which 
the additions of Rp can be stripped off shows; the 
fictitious elements in P s representation of the Mosaic 
age the camp, the tabernacle of the wilderness, Aaron 
and his sons, the Levite ministers are conspicuously 
absent ; the calendar conflicts with P s ; the refined 
distinction between holy and most holy things is 

Doubtless the laws in H represent and regulate priestly 
praxis, and were formulated and codified by local priesthoods 
or priestly guilds; the priests were the custodians and expositors 
of the tarah. The parts of H which have been preserved, 
moreover, deal largely with subjects in which the priesthood 
had a peculiar interest, the physical qualifications of priests, 
restrictions on mourning and on marriage, conditions which 
prevent their eating sacrificial food, the examination of animals 
for sacrifice, the celebration of the feasts, but it was not first 
in the priestly schools of Babylonia that these things became of 
importance and were regulated by fixed rules, or even by 
written toroth (Hos. * 12 Jer. S 8). 

Chaps. 17-20 are followed by a chapter on the 
commutation of vows and tithes; a late chapter of 
_, ._ priestly law, introduced here, perhaps, 
I/nap. ^7. t | lrou gh association with the laws on the 
jubilee year and rights of redemption in 2~>8/ . The 
tithe of cattle is not elsewhere mentioned in the 

In conclusion, the Book of Leviticus is the work not 

of the author of the History of the Sacred Institutions, 

32 Comnosi usua " v regarded as the main stem of 

t on of ^ ^ ut ^ a ater redactor Ri>. In par- 

T ... ticular, H was not incorporated in that 

History, as was formerly maintained. 2 
The redactor s sources were the history above-named, 
from which he took 9 10 1-5 10 2-4612/5 H (in 
11 17-20) ; and collections of laws on sacrifices (in 1-7), 
and on clean and unclean (in 12-15) ; 3 a priestly 
calendar of feasts (in 23) ; an account of the conse 
cration of Aaron and his sons (8) ; and some other 
materials of less obvious provenience, such as the 
fragments in 24. The sacrificial rules are introduced, 
not inappropriately, before the description of the first 
sacrifices at the tabernacle (8/), though they interrupt 
the immediate connection of 8 with Ex. 29 (40) ; the 
laws of clean and unclean (including 11) stand before 
H, which deals in part with similar subjects; the 
calendar of feasts from P is combined with that of H in 
23, both being mutilated; a motive for the position of 
27 has been suggested above ($31). Of the position of 24 
no satisfactory explanation has been given. The analysis 
has shown that many changes in the text of the sources, 
and many more or less considerable additions and 
interpolations, were made by the editor, or by subse 
quent redactors and scribes, before the book attained 
its present form ; perhaps the scape-goat ritual in 10 is 
one of these later additions. 

That the constructive redactor of Leviticus was the 
same who edited Ex. and Nu. there is no reason to 

1. Commentaries. J. S. Vater, Pent. 2, 1802; M. Baum- 
garten, 1844; C. F. Keil, 1862; <- >, 1870; ET, 1866; A. Knobel. 

1857; ( 2 )byE. Dillmann. 1880; <>) edited by 
33. Literature. Kyssel, 1897; M. M. Kalisch, 2 vols. 1867, 

1872; S. Clark, 1871 (Speaker s Bible) ; E. 
Reuss, La Bible, P. 3, 2 vols., 1879; Das AT-}, 1893; H. L. 
Strack, 1894; Driver and White, 1894 (SBOT, Heb.), 1900 
(SHOT, Eng.); B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus, 1900 (HK) ; 
A. Bertholet, 1901 (R HC). 

2. Criticism. (For the history of criticism, see HEXATEUCH.) 
E. Bertheau, Die sieken Grnf/>en mosaischen (iesetze in den 
drei tttittleren Ruchern des Pentatenchs, 1840; Grnf, Die 
geschichtlichen Hiicher des Alien Testaments, 1866; Th. Nol 
deke, Untersuch ungen zur Kritik des A Iten Testa >nents,i86g ; 

1 It is not safe to assume that there was the same preponder 
ance in the unmutilated work. 

2 We. Kue. , etc. See against this view Kayser, JPT 1 540^! , 
esp. 552/ 

a How much more was comprised in these sources than Rp 
has preserved we cannot know; H, at least, he seriously cur 



J. W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, 6, 1872; 

A. Kayser, Das vorextlisches Buck der Urgeschichte Israels 
und seine Erweiterungen, 1874; JPT\ (1881) 326^., esp. 
530 ff.; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuclis und 
der historischen Biicher des A T, 1889 ( 3 ) 1899 ( = JPT, 1876, 
1877) ; P- Wurster, Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des 
Priestercodex und Heiligkeits-Gesetzes, ZA TIV4 112^". (.1884); 

B. W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 1894; 
W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2, 1898; J. E. 
Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, 2 vols. 
looo (see col. 2057, " I) - 

On Lev. 1-7: A. Merx, ZWTK 41-84, 164-181 (1863). On 1C, 
see above 12, n. i. On IV (1^-)20: A. Klostermann, ZLT 
8S 401^7". (i8jj)"PeMtattuck, 368^. (1893); F. Delitzsch, 
ZK\V 1 617^. (1880); L. Horst, Leviticus xt<ii.-xxvi. und 
Hezekiel,i%$i ; Maybaum, Entwickelungdes altisraelitischen 
Pritsttrtkumt, Jiff. (1880); B. Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits- 
gesetz. Lev. 17- JG, 1893; L. B. Paton, The Relation of Lev. 
20 to Lev. 17-1!!, Hebraica, 11 111-121 (1894); The Original 
Form of Leviticus, 17-11I/ JBL Hi 31^. (1897); The Original 
Form of Leviticus, 21 22, JBL IV 149^". (1898) ; The Holiness 
Code and Ezekiel, Pres. Ref. Rev. i 98-115 (1896). 

On the Feast Laws see also J. F. L. George, Die alter en 
judischen Feste,iS^8; Hupfeld, Commentatio de . . . tempo- 
rum festorum . . . apud Hebrteos ratione, 1851, 1852, 1858; 
W. H. Green, The Hebrew Feasts, 1885. 

See also the works on Introduction to the Old Testament, 
especially those of Kuenen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornill, Konig; 
on the History of Israel, especially Ewald, Stade, Wellhausen, 
and Kittel (I 98-100 113-116); and on Hebrew Archaeology 
Nowack, Benzinger. Titles of most of these works in DEUTER 
ONOMY, 33. G. F. M. 

LEVY (CE) , i K. 5 i 3 / 9 15 21. See TAXATION. 
LIBANUS (AlBANOC [BKA]), i Esd. 4 4 8 Judith 1 7 . 

LIBATION (cnoNA[e]iON), Ecclus.50i S RV m s-. 

LIBERTINES. Certain of the synagogue, which 
is called (the synagogue) of the Libertines (AlBepTlNCON 
[Ti.WH], AeiBepreiNtiON [D]), and Cyrenians, and 
Alexandrians (so AV), are mentioned in Acts 69. 
There has been much diversity in the interpretation of 
this word. If Libertines is the right reading, it can 
only mean freedmen. The Jewish population in 
Rome consisted largely of the descendants of freedmen 
(cp. Tac. Ann. 2 85, quatuor millia libertini generis ea 
superstitione infecta ; Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 1014, ol 
TrXetousdireXeuflepajWcTes). It is plain, however, that the 
synagogue referred to belonged equally to the Libertini, 
the Cyrenians, and the Alexandrians. It is difficult, 
therefore, to avoid supposing that the first of the three 
names, as well as the other two, denotes the inhabitants 
of some city or district. 

Hence Libertini has been connected with Libertum, the 
name of a town whose existence is inferred from the title 
Episcopus Libertinensis which occurs in connection with the 
Synod of Carthage, A.D. 411. There is no reason, however, to 
suppose that this obscure town would have sent up to Jerusalem 
Jews enough to justify the prominent place given to the Libertini 
in Acts. Blass in 1895 (Ada np., ed. philologica) tried to justify 
disjoining the words xal K.vprjva.iu>v icat AAefai/Spewi from 
AipiepTivun , and bringing them into connection with KOU TUIV 
OTTO KiAticias icai Acrias. There is no probability, however, in 
this solution. 

It is best, therefore, to follow certain Armenian 
Tersions and Syriac commentaries recently brought to 
light, which presuppose either A.i($tiuv or AtfivcrTii tijv. 
Several scholars, not knowing of these authorities, had 
already tried conjectural emendation. Schulthess pro 
posed \ifitiuv rCiv /card Kvprivrjv (cp Acts 2 10) ; Beza, 
Clericus, and Valckenar Aifiuffrivuv. \<.fivffTlvuv in 
volves the least amount of change, and was adopted, 
with cognizance of the new authorities, in 1898 by Blass 
{Philology of the Gospels, 6g/), who is of opinion that 
the Greek towns lying westward of Cyrene would quite 
appropriately be designated Libyan (cp LIBYA). 

That Ai/Suo-ricoi was a current form of the adjective from 
Ai v<; is plain from the montibus Libystinis of Catullus (60 i), 
and from the geographical lexicon of Stephanus Byzantinus. 
Josephus (c. Ap. > 4) tells us that many Jews were removed by 
Ptolemy Lagi and placed in the cities of Libya. This statement, 
however, is of doubtful authority (see Willrich, Juden u. 
Griechen, 31). 

Among the older literature cp Gerdes, De Synag. Libertin- 
orum, 1736; Scherer, De Synag. Lib., 1754. 



LIBNAH. i. (Ha 1 ?, pavement [Ex. 24 ,]. 
foundation, cp Ass. libittu, libnatu, a compact 
foundation of blocks of stone, etc. [Del. Ass. HWtt 
s.v.], unless connected with LABAN [y.v.].) 

Ae/Si/a I BALI; but \ofiva. [L] in 2 K. ^22 19 g 2 Ch. 21 10; 
Ae3jou a [Aj in Josh. 10 29 39 Iz 15; Aejura in Josh. 1^42 21 13 [B] 
and Id 39 [F]; Ao/ara in 2 K. * 22 [A], 19 g [81,84x8 [A], 2 Ch. 
21 10 I Bj, Is. 8V g [ lS OQ] ; afvva. in 2 K. !> 22 [B], note that crev 
precedes. Add \ofiva also in 2 K. 19 g LA], i Ch. t> 57 [42] [BA], 
2 Ch. -21 10 [Aj, Is. 8V g [ABT]; Ar^Kaii^K. 2831 [BJ ; AoiSei-o. 
in 2 K. 28 31 [A], Jer. ;K i [B->AQ] ; Ao/Secca [L] in 2 K. *3 31 
24 18; Aap^a [A] in Josh. 1U 3i/. 

A town in the lowland of Judah (Josh. 1042), origin 
ally Canaanite (Josh. 10 29 / 12 15), afterwards a priestly 
city (Josh. 21 13 [P] ; i Ch. G 57 [42] must be incorrect). 
It joined the Edomites in a revolt against Joram (2 K. 
822 2 Ch. 21 10 ; cp 2 Ch. 21 16), and was besieged by 
Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah (2 K. 19 g Is. 
37 g). Josiah s wife came from Libnah (2 K. 23 31 
24 18). Sayce finds it mentioned in the list of Rameses 
III. before Aphekah (RPW 6 39 ; Pat. Pal. 239); but 
this is disputable (see WMM, As. u. Eur. 160). 
Eusebius and Jerome (OS 274 13 13528) describe it as 
a village in the region of Eleutheropolis, called in their 
day Lobaiia or Lobna. Hence Stanley identified it with 
Tell es-Safiyeh, which is only two hours from Eleuthero 
polis; but see MlZPEH (in Judah). Libnah must, at 
any rate, have lain not very far from Lachish, on the 
SW. border of Judah, and on the edge of the Philistian 

Conder s identification of Libnah with el-Benawy ( a possible 
corruption of Libnah ) a ruin about 10 m. SE. of Tell el-Hesy 
or Lachish (PEF Qu. St., 1897, p. 69) will hardly stand. 

2. C n53 /i but Sam. HJia 1 ?, with which agree Ae^oj^a [B], 
Ae0. [AFL]), Num. 88 20 (ite/Swva [AF]) 21. The LABAN (q.v.) 
of Dt. 1 i is perhaps the same name. See WANDERINGS, 

LIBNI ("Zb, perhaps a gentilic from LIKNAH 2, 
cp GENEALOGIES i., 7, v., col. 1665; see also LABAN, 
AoBeN[e]i [BAL]). 

1. A Gershonite Levitical name; Nu. 3 18 i Ch. G 17 20 [2 5] 
(Aope^tL]); gentilic Libnite.Nu. 8 21 26 sgCI? 1 ?! 1 ; Ao(3y[e]t 
[BAL]). The name occurs elsewhere as LADAN [<?.? . 2]. 

2. A Meraritename; i Ch. (> 29 [14]. On the relation between 
(i) and (2) cp GENEALOGIES i., 7, col. 1663. Cp C.Niebuhr, 
Gesch. d. Ebr. Zeit. 1 246 [combines Leah, Levi, Libni, and 
Libnah J. 

LIBKAKY. A library (BlBAloGHKH) founded by 
Nehemiah is referred to in 2 Mace. 2 13. On the supposed 
book-town in the hill-country of Judah, see KIRJATH- 
SEPHER (col. 2681). 

The word i0A. also occurs in Ezra 61, (S (fv /3iAio0?JKats 
[BL], ei/ra?? |3. [A] = NncD rn3), and in Esth. 223, (tv 


LIBYA (H AiByn, Acts2io, AiByec in [cp Vg. 
Libyes~] ; AV Libyans, as translation of LUBIM in 2 Ch. 
123 Kig Nah. 09 Dan. 11 43), the name applied by the 
Greeks to Africa generally, the portion first known and 
most familiar to them being that on which Dorian 
colonists settled and founded Cyrene. 

On the unique NT reference to Libya (Acts 2 10) see CYRENE, 
and on the doubtful Libertines of Acts <> 9 see LIBERTINES. 
The name Libya also occurs in AV of Ezek. 80 5 and 8s 5 
(mg. Phut ) and Libyans in Jer. 40 9 (mg. Put ) . See RV. 

The ancients underestimated the size of Libya : Strabo 
(p. 824) surmised that it was less than Europe, and that 
Europe and Libya together would not be equal to Asia. 
Libya did not properly include Egypt i.e., the Nile 
valley (Herod. 2i 5 /) t 1 Ptolemy (ii. 16 iv. 5 i) first 
assigned Egypt to Africa, making the Red Sea and 
the Isthmus of Suez the boundary between Africa and 
Asia. Only the northern littoral of the continent enters 
into view during Greek and Roman times. Under the 
Empire, North Africa fell into three sections. 

(i) The Original Province of Africa, constituted by 
the remnant of the possessions of Carthage after the 
destruction of that city in 146 B.C. (Sallust, BJ 19) : 
to this, in 25 B.C., Augustus added Numidia, which first 

1 See A. Wiedemann, Herod. Zweites Buc/t, ad loc. 


became a province, under the name Africa Nova, in 
46 Ji.C. (Pliny, /aW525 ^i Cass. 43 9). This central 
portion constituted the senatorial Province of Africa, 
which, like the Province of Asia, was governed by a pro 
consul of consular rank. 

(2) The western portion of North Africa, Mauretania, 
was made a province by Claudius in 40 A.I>. 

(3) The eastern section, the Cyrenaica, was combined 
with Crete in 27 B.e. to form a single province. The 
old name Libya was officially revived by Diocletian, who 
separated Crete from Cyrene, and divided the latter 
into an eastern part (Libya Inferior}, and a western 
part including the old Cyrenaic Pentapolis (Libya 
Superior). \v. J. \v. 

LICE (D iS and C!"; 1 CKNi(J>ec. CKNinec). 
Mentioned in EV in connection with the plagues of 
Egypt (Ex. 8 16-18 [12 /.], Ps. 105 31 1), where RV"* 
suggests the alternatives of FI.EA (Pulex) or sand-fly 
(SiniHlium). If we lay stress on the usage of the 
Misbna (XJD, Nr2, louse, 1 but also vermin ; cp Tg. 
Pesh., and see below, n. 2), we may be inclined to de 
fend the explanation of Josephus (Ant. ii.!4i3), Bochart, 
and EV Mice." 2 On a point like this, however, the 
Egyptian-Greek version (<5) has a claim to be deferred 
to. Its rendering is fftcvifas (cp Wisd. l!)io), and this 
is in truth a very appropriate rendering (see GNATS). 
Lice are no doubt common in Egypt, though there are 
but two or possibly three species of louse which attack 
man. Mosquitoes (Egypt, An HIS; cp Heb. kinnimf) 
and other worse kinds of flies, however, are still more to 
be dreaded there. Besides, the enormous quantities of 
lice of which EV speaks must soon have perished when 
exposed to the dry heat of Egypt. 

The singular J~ has been thought to occur in Is. 51 ( ) , where 
in like manner can hardly be correct. It is less improbable 
to suppose that the plural ending dropped out (the next word 
begins with 2 , which would facilitate this; so first Weir). This 
gives the sense shall die like gnats. As Muhammad says, God 
may set forth a parable (even) of a gnat (Koran, Sur. \-> 24), 
and in the Babylonian Deluge-Story the gods gather like flies 
about the sacrincer (cp Del. Ass. Ifll B, s.v. Zumbu ). This, 
however, is not a full solution. Nor is the conjecture offered in 
Che. Proph. Is. (on Is. f>l 6), that D\ ~ should be read in Nu. 
13 33 more than plausible. On both passages see LOCUST, 
2 <4>- T. K. C. A. E. S. 

LICTOKS (PAB^OYXOI [Ti. WH]), RV m *. Acts 
1(5 35 33, t EV SERJEANTS, the official designation of the 
attendants assigned to certain Roman magistrates. Cp 
Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant.W s.v. Lictor. 

LIDEBIR pri 1 ?), Josh. i:5 2 6 RV 1 "*-, AV DKBIR, a 
place in Gad, probably the same as LO-DEBAR [g.v.] 
[B], AABeip[A], AeBnp[L]). 

Ezra 36 etc. See SATRAPS, PERSIA. 

2. (.-vn-3), Jer. 51 23 RV "g- EV GOVERNOR (g.i<., i). 

LIGHT. The true God says, according to the great 
prophetic teacher of the Exile, I am Yah we and 

1. Early 

there is none else who formed light, and 

created darkness (Is. 456 /]). So the 
ns Word of God, in the Fourth Gospel, says, 
I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall 
not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life 
(Jn. 812). Between these two sayings lies the develop 
ment of a new conception of life, the germs of which, 
however, are partly to be found in the work of the 
exilic teacher. The statement that Yahw6 produced 
light is no part of the traditional Hebrew cosmogony. 

1 The theory that V is a collective is needless; we should 
doubtless read 3 ~ (with Sam.). 

2 Sir S. Baker (Nile Tributaries ef Abyssinia, 1868) sup 
posed a reference to the ticks or mites (Acarina} which abound 
in the sand and dust, and fix themselves on the host, whose 
blood they suck by means of powerful mouth organs. It is a 
most improbable view; but the Talmudic use of NJJ for ver 
min may perhaps justify it. 



Indeed, it was too much a matter of course to need express 
statement that light was of prior existence to the creative works ; 
for how should life come into being without light, and how 
could God be conceived except as an intensely luminous form 
(ee Ex. Ha 18 ax IV xg 24 17; iK. 11112; Ezek. 1 27 Sa; and cp 
FIRE) ? Hence in Is. 10 17 (in a probably late passage) Yahwe 
is called the Light of Israel (|| his Holy One ). When he 
reveals himself, created light must fail (Is. ^23 (Hi 19; cp Rev. 
121 23 -L-i 5) ; according to a late writing ( The Secrets of Enoch, 
114) the sun is without his crown for seven full hours of the 
night, during which he appears before God. 

To the Babylonians, too, the divine Creator (Marduk) 
was the god of light ; creation indeed is mythically 
represented as a battle between the Light Being and 
the Dark (Tiamat). See CREATION, 3. It is the 
Priestly Writer s reflective turn of mind that leads him 
to prefix to his adaptation of the old cosmogony the 
statement, God said, Let there be light (Gen. 1 3 ) . To 
the not less reflective minds of Egyptian priests a different 
idea presented itself. Hidden in the dark bosom of 
Chaos the eternal light was impelled by longing to give 
itself existence; manifold and sometimes grotesque 
imagery was employed to describe the process of 
emergence. Creation itself is described thus, He 
hath made all that the world contains and hath given it 
light, when all was darkness, and there was as yet no 
sun. ! So too a hymn in the Rig Veda represents 
creation as a ray entering the realm of darkness from 
the realm of light,2 and similar ideas are presupposed 
in the theological statements of the A vesta. In the 
Book of Job, which preserves so many mythical forms 
of expression, we find light described as a mysterious 
physical essence, dwelling in a secret place ( Job :W ig/.). 
That God is robed in light, is said in Ps. 104 2 (cp 
Ex. 32 etc., cited above), and just as in the Avesta the 
heaven where Ahura Mazda dwells is called Endless 
Lights, so God in James 1 17 is called the father of the 
lights i.e., the father who dwells in perfect and never 
darkened light (though the view that TO. <f>tara = the 
stars is also possible ; cp Ps. 13G 7 , Jer. 423). Hence 
the light of God s countenance is a symbol of God s 
favour (Nu. 625^). 

Those who are in trouble feel themselves to be in darkness. 
The return of prosperity is the return of the divine light (cp 
Is. S22 !l 2 <iO 1-3). The Psalms are full of this idea (Ps. 4 6 [7] 
27 i HO 10 [9] 97 it 11 2 4). In Ps. 43 3 we find the further devel 
opment that God s light is the companion of his faithful 
ness, and that these two, like guardian angels, lead the true 
Israelite (or rather the true Israel). God s revelation is, like 
himself, essential light (Ps. Ill* 105, 130), and in Is. 4!6 the 
Israel within Israel (the servant of Yahwe) is said to be a light 
to the nations, as being the bearer to them of God s law. In 
Enoch 4s 4 the same phrase is applied to the Messiah. 

It was natural that the vague expressions of the 

Psalter relative to light should be interpreted by 

2 Later ater J ews under trie influence of the 

development. PT ? lent eschat gy- Li g ht> *nd 
life were virtually synonymous, and 

these profound expressions received a fuller content 
through the developed belief in a kingdom of light 
and life to be supernaturally set up on the earth. The 
Fourth Gospel, however, and kindred NT writings 
(with which we may to some extent group the Wisdom 
of Solomon; cp 3) fill the word light with a larger 
meaning than any of the Jewish writings, and give a 
more special prominence to the antithesis between the 
kingdoms of light and of darkness, not perhaps unin 
fluenced by Oriental and especially Zoroastrian dualism 
(as the great Herder long ago pointed out), and not 
without a connection with Gnosticism. The aim of 
Christian disciples is to become sons of light (Jn. 12 36 ; 
cp Eph. 5 s i Thess. 5 5) = to become sons of God 
(Jn. 1 12), through faith in Christ (cp FAITH), who is 
the light of the world (Jn. 812 9 5 , cp 14 12 46), and 
to be ever coming to the light (Jn. 821) to expose 
themselves to this beneficial test of their inward truth 
or reality (see TRUTH). The expression the genera 
tion of light (Enoch i08n) gives merely an external 
point of contact; the fourth evangelist himself is, we 
1 Cp Brugsch, Re!, u. Myth, tier alien Aegypter, \tx>ff. 
1 Max Miiller, Ancient Sanskr. Lit. 562. 




may presume, the virtual originator of those beautiful 
symbolic phrases, relative to light, into which he con 
denses the essence of the mind of Jesus as known to 

Next to the Fourth Gospel the Epistle to the Ephesians 

is a storehouse of references to the symbolic light. The 

1 T?pf>rP7inp S satellites of the ruler of this world 

P i IT r ()n- 1- 3i 1*30 16 1 1) or the ruler of 
rnCol.,Eph,etc. U. ^ JP^ ^, ^ ^ 

called the world-rulers of this darkness (Eph.Gi2.RV). 1 
Those who walk in the light (Eph. 58; cp Jn. 1235) 
are under a moral obligation to bring to light the works 
of darkness, and to convict those who do them (Eph. 
5n is; 2 cp Jn. 820 /). In Colossians we have the 
classical passage, Col. 1 12 / ( the inheritance of the 
saints in light, and the power of darkness ), with 
which a striking passage in i Peter (2 9 /.) may be 
compared. The designation of Christ in Heb. 1 3 as 
the effulgence of his (God s) glory is a development 
of the more elaborate description in Wisd. 7 26, an 
effulgence from everlasting light, and an unspotted 
mirror of the working of God (cp MIRROR). The 
symbolism of i Thess. 04/1, Rev. 21 n 23 is too simple 
to need any subtle explanation. 

A hard passage in Is. 215 19 may be here referred to. Dew of 
lights (few now defend dew of herbs ) is evidently wrong; the 
true reading is preserved by (B, thy dew is a healing to them" 
(DP3TN, for n^N) ; cp Ecclus. 4822, a mist (|| dew) coming 
speedily is the healing of all things. See HERBS. 


LIGN-ALOES ( D SnH) , Nu. 24 6.f See ALOES. 

LIGURE (D^), Ex. 28 19, RV">g. amber ; 39i2,t 
RV JACINTH [y.v.]. 

LIKHI ("np 1 ?) , a Manassite, descendant of SHEMIDA 
(q.v. ) ; I Ch. 7 19! (A&K6I& [A], -KEGIM [B], AOK. [L])- 

Possibly another form of J37TI ; see HEI.EK. 

LILITH (RV m s-), or NIGHT-MONSTER (RV ; AV m -), 
or (AV wrongly) SCREECH-OWL (Flvy ; oNOKeN- 
TAYPOI [BKAgF] ; AiAi9 [Aq. in QS-] ; A, A1T [Aq.] ; 
A&MIA [Symm.]; }&.SN. [Pesh.]; lamia); and 
Vampire (RV R-), or HORSELEACH (so EV) (n$bv\ 
see HORSELEECH). Apparently two demons of similar 
characteristics, both mentioned in post-exilic passages 
(cp ISAIAH ii., $ 14; PROVERBS, $ 8). 

Desolated Edom, according to Is. 34 14, will be 
1 Lilith Daunted by the SATYRS (q.v.) and by 

The name, as Schrader long ago pointed out, is connected with 
the Bab.-Ass. lilu, fem. lil itu, the designation of two demons, 
who, together with ardat Hie ( the handmaid oililit }, form a 
triad of demons often mentioned in Babylonian spells (Del., 
Ass. HWB 377: Cahver Bib.-Lex.C*) 532; Sayce, Hibb. Lects. 
502; Hommel, Die sent. Volker, \ 367). 

Lilu, Lilitu, and ardat Lile were not specially demons 
of the night a view which is peculiar to the related 
Jewish superstition. The darkness which they loved 
was that of the storms which raged in the wilderness. 
Potent charms were used to keep them from the haunts 
of men, where they would otherwise enter, bringing fell 
disease into the human organism. A corrupted form 
of the myth of Lilith, strengthened by Persian elements, 
spread widely among the Jews in post-exilic times as a 
part of the popular demonology. 

The details of this myth can only be glanced at here. 
Lilith was a hairy night-monster (the name being per 
haps popularly derived from layil, night ), and speci 
ally dangerous to infants (cp the Greek Lamia). Under 
her was a large class of similar monsters called Lilin 
(plur. of Lilith; cp Apoc. Bar. 108), of whom net only 
children but also men had to beware. Hence, in Talm. 
Bab. (Shabbath, 151 ), a man is warned not to sleep 

1 Cp Holtzmann. Kritik rier Epheser- u. Colosserbriefe, 270. 

2 According to Irenseus (i. 282), Eph. 513 was a passage to 
which the Valentinian Gnostics were wont to appeal. 


alone in a house, and in Targ. Jer., Nu. 625, a passage 
in the priestly blessing becomes The Lord bless thee 
in all thy business, and guard thee from the Lilin. 

See the Walpurgis-night scene in Faust (a proof of Goethe s 
learning), and cp Bacher in MGWJ, 1870, p. 188; F. Weber, 
y ud. Theol, 255; Griinbaum, ZDMG &l 250 f.\ Eisenmenger, 
Entdecktes Jitdenthum, I 413 ff. 

The vampire is, according to some, another of the 
mazzlkln, or harmful beings, of which the world is full 

2 The ^ see I^ EMONS > ar| d cp Pirke Abbth, 5 9). 
y The Alukah (mentioned in Prov. 30 15) is 
properly the horseleech (see HORSE 
LEECH), but surely not the ordinary horseleech, if it 
was the mother of Sheol and the womb. 

The most satisfying view of Prov., I.e., is perhaps that 
given at the end of this article ; but a less bold explana 
tion is that of Bickell, who arranges thus ( n> - being 
omitted as a gloss) : 

The Alukah s two daughters, 
Give, Give Sheol and the Womb, 

and the passage, which is an expression of wonder at 
the mysteries of death and birth, means that the under 
world and the maternal womb (cp the commentators on 
Ps. 131)1315) are as insatiable ( Give, Give expresses 
their character) as the Alukah a mythological demon, 
which the people and its poets imagined as resembling 
a leech, and which is possibly referred to in the 
Targum of Ps. 12 8 [9] ; see HORSELEECH. The Arabic 
aluk is explained in the Kamus by gul, a female blood 
sucking monster (Ges. Thes. 1038), the ghoul of the 
Arabian Nig/its, and Sayce finds the vampire in 
Babylonian spells (see $ i). 

In fact, according to Babylonian animism, wasting disease 
could not but be accounted for by terrible spiritual agencies such 
as vampires (cp Tylor, Prim. Cult. 1 175). For an Iranian 
parallel, cp the sleep-demon called Bushyansta (Spiegel, Eran. 
Alt. ^137; cp Kohut, J ud. Angelologie, 86). 

Most probably, however, npl^JJ 1 ? is miswritten for nSnj97, 
which is a title ascribing the following saying to Hakkoheleth 
(see KOHELETH). The words rendered two daughters, Give, 
give, have sprung out of njn njy3CT, which were written in the 
wrong place. See Che. PSBA, June 1901. 

LILY (JCW, i K. 7 19, HStf itr, 2 Ch. 4 5 Cant. 2 1 /. i 
Hos. 14 5 [6j; pi. D\3tyit?, Cant. 2 16 4s 613 Gzf. 7 2 [3] Ecclus. 
39 14 508 Mt. 628 Lk. 1227; <Z5 B * A , K pivov and /cpiW). 

The Hebrew word "susan, like its Greek 2 and English 
equivalents, seems to have applied to a large number of 
different species. Its origin is most probably Egyptian, 
from a word whose consonants were s-sh-n, denoting 
the lotus flower, Nymph<za Lotus, L., blue or white (see 
Lagarde, Mitth. 2 15^"., who quotes a description of the 
flower from Burckhardt s Arabic Proverbs, 267 /.) ; and 
as Lagarde points out, it is not improbably the lotus 
flower that was present to the mind of the writer of 
i K. 7 19 22 26, as this was frequently used in Egyptian 
decoration and would best provide forms for the capitals 
of the pillars and for the rim of the sea in Solomon s 
temple. The references in Canticles and Hosea, how 
ever, show that the name must have been used for 
flowers quite different from the lotus. From Cant. 5 13 
it is usually inferred that the lilies mentioned were not 
white, but red or purple; and this view is supported by 
the implied comparison with royal robes in Mt. 6 28 
Lk. 1227. These and the other references suggest a 
fragrant flower of bright hue which gave colour to the 
fields of Palestine. According to Boissier, the only lilium 
occurring in Palestine is L. album ; so that Heb. susan 
has almost certainly a wider application. Tristram 
(NHB 462 ft.) discusses the different possibilities. The 
most plausible claimant for the name is the scarlet 
anemone, Anemone coronaria, L. Wetzstein again (in 
Zt. f. allffem. Erdk. [1859] 7148) speaks of a dusky 
violet plant somewhat like a crocus as exceedingly 

1 According to a recent emendation, lilies (n USpB 1 ) and 
apples are parallel in the well-known passage, Cant. 2 5. See 
FRUIT, 5 [2]. 

2 The KPLVOV of the Greeks was probably both Lilium chal- 
cedotiicum and L. bulbiferuni. 




plentiful in the fields of Hauran most probably Gladi 
olus atroviolaceus, Boiss. If, as Tristram reports, the 
Arab peasantry now apply the name susan to any 
brilliantly coloured flower at all resembling a lily, as to 
the tulip, anemone, ranunculus, it seems reasonable to 
conclude that the biblical name had an equally wide 
application. See also SHOSHANNIM. 

[See H. Christ, Nochmals d. Lilie d. Bibel in ZDPV 
2."> 65-80 (1899), who remarks that there is not sufficient evidence 
to decide what kind of lily is meant, and that the flower intended 
inMt.tiaSLk. 12 27 is most probably the iris; see also L. Fonck, 
Streifziige durch die Biblische Flora in Bibliscke Studten, 
Bd. v. Hft. i. 53-76 (Freiburg i. B., 1900). Post (in Hastings, 
DB A I23) remarks that the irises are plants of pasture-grounds 
and swamps, seldom found in grain-fields. But the point of this 
is not clear. Lilies of the field simply means wild lilies. ] 

N. M. \V. T. T.-U. 

LIME. Assyrians and Babylonians alike were 
familiar with the use of lime (carbonate of lime) and 
gypsum (sulphate of lime), whether as a plaster or a 
wash, alike for preservative and for decorative purposes; 
and the same remark applies to the Egyptians, by whom 
this form of mural decoration was carried to a high 
pitch of excellence, and from whom it was taken by the 
Etruscans, the Greeks, and other ancient peoples. See 
Wilkinson, Anc. Kg. 1362, cp pi. viii. ; also EBW, s.v. 
Mural Decoration ; and, for biblical references, see 
PLAISTER, and cp MORTAR. According to Rev. W. 
Carslaw of Beirut, mortar made with lime is used now 
more often than formerly (Hastings, DB 8438 a). 

The phenomena of lime-pounding and of calcination 
seem to be referred to (a) in Is. 27 9 and also (b) in Am. 
2 i Is. 33 12; and in the last two instances it is the 
burning of bones (phosphate of lime) that is spoken of. 
But all these passages may be greatly improved by 
methodical emendation. 

The words are (a) "U gir (v/VJ, to boil, boil up? 1 cp Aram. 
TJ, wave, NH "* ?, foam, Arab. gayyarun t quicklime ), used 
in the obscure passage (see Crit. Bib.), H3TC J35O3 ICIH 3, 
rviDJC "1 l^JSNTi Is. 2~> 9, oral- Siocrii (#u>, A) Trai Ta; roi/s AiOovs 
ruiv $u>iiu>v KaTaKfKO/jLfiefov; ius Koviav AfTTTrji/ [BXAQT]. cum 
posuerit onmes lapides altar is sicut lapides cineris allisos; 
EV when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones 
that are beaten in sunder ; Pesh. renders ~\j by kelsa i.e., 
\oAif, calx, (b) TV , s~td, in the expressions -p;; 1 ? fpU", (care- 
navtrav ei? xoviav, ad citierem (Am. i i) , and i U PISTJ C tara- 
KCKavfieva <us aicai/0a (i.e. , "".? ), de incendio cinis (Is. 33 12). 

LINE, (i) -nt , si-red. Is. 44i 3 t AV, wrongly. 
See PENCIL. (2) ip. kaw, Is. 44 13 RV (AV rule, ^erpov). 
Cp lifM, tikwah, Josh. :i 18 21. The wood-carver stretched a line 
or cord over the block of wood to lay out the course which his 
work would have to take. The builder used it too for his first 
measurements (Job3->5 Zech. 1 16 [Kre]). In Ps. 194(5) rea d 
oSin, kolam, with Ols., Ges., We. SBOT, etc. 

For (3) -Jin, hut, i K. 7 15; (4) S 3n> hebel, Is. 33 201(5) S\IB, 
pathil, Ezek. -40 3, see CORD. 

(6) K.O.VMV, 2 Cor. 1(1 16 AV, AV ng. rule," RV province, 
RVn K. limit. Cp CANON, i. 


occur as renderings of the following words : 

1. etun, JOV, Prov. 7 i6f (defining ""33^, dark-hued stuffs) 
taken for a verb in and strangely rendered u>-ypa<f>ia by 
Theod. occurs in Tgg in the sense of rope. If MT is correct 
(see below) it is probably the same as Or. 606n), fine linen cloth, 
and may denote either linen yarn (as RV) or woven linen 
cloth. No satisfactory etymology of the word has been found 
in the Semitic languages (against Del. ad Inc.). [Frankenb. 
and Che., however, think the text very doubtful. The latter 
reads thus: I have stretched cords on my bedstead; I have 
spread carpets on my couch. ] 2 

2. bad, 13 (Ex. 2842 39 28 [not in <S] Lev. 6io[ 3 ] 10 4 
23 32 i S. 2i8 22 18 2 S. 6i 4 i Ch. IT) 27; plur. Ezek. 9 2 / 
ii 10 2 6 / Dan. 10 5 12 6 /.t), is rendered by <5 in the 
Pentateuch Xiveos, but elsewhere variously. 8 

1 Cp "l^n, from isn, to ferment, boil, or foam up (see BDB). 
3 See Crit. Bib. (fVJN piaan, a corruption of [3]T13J. % 3 Tuen; 
D^X2, read "X^). 

iS. 2 i8/3apLom. ; 22 18 BLom.,and A has Aivov (which else- 

The etymology of the word bad is unknown; but 
there is no reason for rejecting the unanimous tradition 
which declares it to mean linen. 

Whilst on the one hand we learn from Ex. 31) 28 that tt U (i.e., 
byssus, see below, 3) is either the same as bad, or a particular 
species of it, on the other hand it is pretty certain from Ezek. 
44 i7/". that linen would be the clothing prescribed for the priests 
in the Levitical law. Still, it is just possible, as Dillmann sug 
gests (on Ex. 2*421, that tad in itself meant only white stuff, 
whether linen or cotton. 

3. bus , | 13 (|3wr(ro5 or {jfoffivos. EV fine linen, i Ch. 
42i [afiaK, B; ai/3oi/s, A; a/3ot/s, L] 15 27 2 Ch. 2 14 
[13] 3 14 5 12 Esth. 16 815 Ezek. 27i6f), is a late word 
in Hebrew, as, apart from the highly doubtful mention 
in Ezekiel, 1 it is found only in Ch. and Esth. Bits 
is almost certainly equivalent to the older term ses 
(C U , cp i Ch. 1527 with Gen. 4142; and especially 2 Ch. 
2 14 [13] 3 14 5 12 with Ex. 2842 etc.), and both denote 
the substance which the Greeks called fivffffos, as to the 
exact nature of which there has been enormous contro 
versy. As ses is probably an Egyptian word, being 
mentioned in connection with Egypt (Gen. 41 42 and 
esp. Ezek. 27 7), and as according to Ex. 3928 it is either 
identical with or a species of bad (see above), the evi 
dence favours the view that fivaaos was a sort ol linen, 
that being a particularly Egyptian product. 

The etymology of the word bus is quite unknown; a possible 
connection with Syr. buslna ( the plant verbascum ), which may 
be an Indo-European word (Lag. Sent. 1 52 ff. \ throws no light 
upon its meaning; nor is anything gained by comparing Ar. 
baz = fii>aao<;. 

Philology being of no assistance, we are thrown back 
upon the statements of Greek and Latin writers about 
byssus; and from a careful examination of these, Braun 
(De vestitu sacerdotum Hebr. I., chap. 6), Celsius 
(Hierob. II., 169 ff.), and more recently Yates (Tex- 
trinum antiquoruin, Lond., 1843, I., 252 ff.), have de 
duced with fair certainty the conclusion that byssus 
was fine linen. On the other hand, Forster (De bysso 
anttquorurn (Lond., 1776) argued that byssus was cotton, 
and has been followed by many modern scholars. On 
the one main point, however, his argument is now entirely 
overthrown. The statement of Herodotus (286) that 
the embalmed bodies of the dead were swathed in cloths 
of byssus (ffivd6vo^ J3vffffivr]s TeXa/iuJcri) was taken to 
prove that byssus meant cotton, because it was long held 
that cotton was the material of the mummy cloths. How 
ever, the microscopic examination by Thomson (whose 
results were first published in the Phil, Mag., Nov. 1834) 
and later investigations have clearly shown that these 
wrappings are linen, at least in the vast majority of 
cases. 2 Indeed, linen is often spoken of by ancient 
writers as a characteristic product of Egypt, and their 
statements are confirmed by such monuments as the 
pictures of the flax-workers in the grotto of el-Kab (cp 
also Budge, Mummy, 189^".). 

It is true that at least two late Greek writers, Philostratus (71) 
and Pollux (7761 appear to have extended the term 8v<r<ro<; to 
cotton ; but such confusions are natural with unscientific authors, 
and a far larger number of quotations can be given where a 
flaxen product is plainly meant (see Yates, op. cit. 267-273). 

There is reason for distinguishing /StVeroj as a finer 
sort of linen from \tvov , thus Pausanias and others 
speak of them as distinct; and Pliny (xix. 14, of the 
byssus of Elis, quaternis denariis scripula eius per- 
mutata quondam ut attri reperio) and many others refer 
to byssus as among the most costly of materials. We 
may therefore be satisfied with the EV rendering of 

where represents "; ".? fflaxl, see belowl; 2 S fii4, ^faAAo?; i Ch. 
1">27, /Suo-criVr;. The plural is rendered in Ezek. 9, rroSiioiK; in 
Ezek. 1(1 (TToAri and crToAri oyio; in Dan. 8v<r<j-ci>a (Aq f -itpcTa, 
Symrn. Ai, Th. |3aW[>]n<X The usual rendering of Tg. and 
Pesh. is -13, byssus. 

1 See Cornill. ad loc. The word is absent in . unless Wapo-f i? 
represents it; it may have been dragged into MT on account 
of its association with 1^71- 

2 Of the remains of ancient Egyptian linen and the repre 
sentations of linen manufacture on the monuments, an interesting 
account is given by Wilkinson (Anc. Eg. chap. 1 ; cp Schegg, 
Bibl. Arch. 1 162 ff.). 



1 fine linen. The mention of the families of the house 
of those that wrought fine linen (fan) in i Ch. 421 (if 
correct) reminds us of other references to the growth 
and spinning of flax in Palestine (Josh. 26 Prov. 31 13 
Hos. 2s 9 [7 n]). See also FLAX. 

4. mikwck, Hipp, in i K. 1028 and NlpD twice in 2 Ch. 1 16 

( linen yarn AV), is considered under CHARIOT and MIZKAIM. 

5. sddln, [ -ID, fine linen (Prov. 8X24 AV, 15.823 

EV), linen garments (Judg. 14 12 RV ; J AV sheets, 
mg. shirts ), an article of domestic manufacture (1 r. 
I.e. ), which was considered a luxury (Is. I.e. ). Accord 
ing to Jer. Kil. 24 13 there were three varieties (a sleeping- 
cloth, a garden-dress, and a sampler), and in Altndch. 
37 b it is spoken of as a summer garment as opposed to 
the N^anD for winter use. In Yomd 64 it is used of a 
curtain, and in Kil. 19 32^ of a shroud. From these 
passages it may be concluded that sddln denotes either 
in general a piece of linen cloth, such as a sheet, or 
more specifically a linen shirt worn next the skin (cp 
Moore, Judg. , ad loc. ). 

The identification of sddln with Syr. seddona and Gr. crivStav 
(by which it is rendered in save in Is. 3 23, where the rendering 
is loose) has been doubted (cp Frankel, 48) ; it may, however, be 
connected with the Ass. sudinnu (Am. Tab. satinnu), garment 
(cp Del. Ass. Hll- B; Wi. Am. Thontaf. Glossar ). 

6. pistlm, C BB S, is rendered linen in Lev. 13 47 f. 52 59 
Dt. 22 ii Ezek. 44 ijf. Jer. 13 i ; see FLAX. 

7. ses, p? (Gen. 4142 Ex. 254 26131 36 2/9 [5 B om.] 
1618 28s/ 81539 356232535 8683537 889161823 392/. 
58 27-29 Prov. 3122 Ezek. 16 10 27 7; once ^vy [Kt., 
1 follows], Ezek. 1 6 ist) , rendered J3ucr(ros or /Swrcrtpos in , 
is, as we have seen above (3), the older equivalent of but. 
Ses is not improbably of Egyptian origin, being identical 
with Coptic s/tens=byssus, and so apparently connected 
with Coptic shent, to weave. Like the fivffcrivoi TreTrXot 
of Greek writers, robes of fes formed an honourable 
dress (Gen. 4142). It was a chief constituent in the 
more ornamental of the tabernacle hangings and of the 
priestly robes, along with dyed stuffs 2 blue, purple, 
and scarlet. The fine twined linen (WD ww) of Ex. 
26-28 36-39 was probably woven of threads spun from 
a still finer flax than that which produced the ordinary 
ses; we may compare what Pliny (19 1, 2) says of the 
specially fine Cuman flax : nee id maxime mirum, 
singula earum stamina eenteno quinquagenojilo constare, 
adding that in the still more wonderful case of the famous 
linen cuirass of Amasis each thread was made up of 365 
minute threads. We know from existing remains to 
what perfection the arts of spinning and weaving were 
carried in ancient Egypt. 

8. hordi, Tin (Is. 19 9,! /3u<r<ros, AV NET-WORKS, mg. 
WHITE WORKS, RV WHITE CLOTH, mg. cotton), which is a 
peculiar form 3 from -yirii Esth. 16 815, and is most naturally 
referred to the byssus or fine linen for which Egypt was famous. 
We need not emend the word to ITin or Tin (Koppe, etc.). 

9. /3u<rcro5, Lk. 16 19 Rev. 18 12!, cp /Suerffivos, Rev. 18 12 16 
19gi4t. See (3). 10. \ivov, used for flax in Mt. 12 20, and, 
according to some MSS, for linen clothing in Rev. 156 where, 
however, WH followed by RV read \i6ov. For the linen frock 
in Ecclus. 404 ( cofioAiVoi/) see FROCK. n. oBovia, linen 
clothes (Lk. 24 12 Jn. 1940 205^1), plur. dimin. of 60oi/i) 
(rendered sheet, Acts 10 n 11 st), on which see (i). So far as 
we can gather from classical references g-n refer to the finer 
sort of linen cloth, as opposed to the coarser fjuao-uv or canvas 
(see Yates, op. cit. 265). 

J2. aiv&<av (Mt. 27 59 Mk. 14 si/ 15 46 Lk. 23 53t ; RV linen 

1 So, too, RV in Prov. 31 24. 

2 According to Jewish tradition (Mishna, Kil. 9 i) the gar 
ments of the priests were woollen being an exception to 
the law against sa atnez, HBJ7BJ, Lev. 19 19 ( garment of linen 
and woollen, AV), Dt. 22 n (. . . woollen and linen together," 
AV). Dillmann (on Ex. 2f> 4), however, thinks they may have 

1 Cp 3i3 in Am. 7 i Nah. 3 17 (Stade, Gr., 301 a). 




cloth consistently) ; cp Egypt. sAent(see 7) is synonymous with 
oSoviov ; cp Mt. 27 59 Mk. 1646 Lk. 24 12 Jn. 20s/:, and, in , 
Judg. 14 13, oUovia. LBL], <riv&6vas [A]. JM. M. 

LINTEL. On the sacredness of the lintel see 
THRESHOLD. The only true Hebrew word for lintel 
is ]ipB D, maskoph (cp Ass. askuppu], Ex. I2j22/. 

For W. dyil (i K. 631) RV ng. gives posts ; and for 
linsr, kaphtor (Am. 9 1), AVmg. and RV give chapiters). 
See CHAPITER (4). 

LINUS (AlNOC [Ti. WH]) unites with Eubulus and 
others in a greeting to Timothy (2 Tim. 421). Accord 
ing to Ireneeus (Adv. haer. , iii. 3 3 ) Linus received the 
bishopric of Rome, not from Peter as first bishop, but 
from the apostles (cp Eus. HE 82 ; and the lists of the 
seventy disciples compiled by Pseudo-Dorotheus and 
Pseuclo-H ippoly tus ). 

In the Syriac Teaching of Simon Cephas, where he is called 
Ansus or Isus (the / of his name having been taken as the sign 
of the accusative, which might be omitted), he is a disciple of 
Peter, a deacon, whom the apostle makes bishop in his stead, 
with the injunction that nothing else besides the NT and the OT 
be read before the people ; he is also represented as taking up 
the bodies of Peter and Paul by night and burying them. One 
of the three recensions of the Acts of Peter and Paul is tra 
ditionally attributed to Linus. He is commemorated in the 
Roman Church on 23rd Sept. According to the Roman Breviary 
he was an Etrurian, native of Volaterra:, and was bishop of 
Rome in succession to Peter for eleven years, two months, 
twenty-three days, and is buried in the Vatican. Schultze 
(Arch. Stud. 228), however, has shown that there was no 
Christian burying-place in the Vatican before the reign of 
Constantine. Harnack dates the episcopate of Linus A.U. 64-76. 
See his Chronologic de r alt-christl. Lit., and cp Lightfoot, St. 
Clement nf Rome, Zahn, Rinleit. 2 23. 

LION. Few animals are mentioned more frequently 
in the OT than the lion (Felis led], and familiar 
acquaintance with its habits is shown by 
the many similes employed. There are 
five Hebrew words for lion, which, it so happens, are 
collected together in a single passage (Job 4 io/~. ). 

1. drl, aryeh, "IN, H TN, the common word for a full-grown 
lion. The cognate word in Eth. is applied to any wild beast, 
and in Arab, arwa denotes mountain-goats. 

2. Idbl, N 37 (\/ to eat, cp Ar. labiya, but see Hommel, 
Sciugeth. 288_/C), used especially of the lioness, Gen. 49 9 Nu. 
23 24 Joel 1 6 (|| "IK, iTIK), and lebiyyd, KJ3^, Ezek. 19 2, and 
cp also the place-name BETH-LEBAOTH (n lNaS [rt 2]). [In Ps. 
22 ija [i6a] 2il> [2oi>] the Idbl or greedy lion takes the place 
of the dog in Che. s text ; cp DOG, 3, begin.] 

3. kcphlr, TB3 ( covered i.e., with hair?), a young and 
strong lion ; cp Ezek. 19 ?f. 5 Ps. 17 12 (|| mx), Ezek. 38 13 etc. 
The place-name m B3 may have the same meaning ; see 

4. Idyis, E> S(.\/ to be strong ), Job4n Is. 306 ( || K aV), 
Prov. 3030 ; cp perhaps the place-name LAISH. 

5. sdhal, hr\W (\/ to cry out ), Job4io 10 16 ( II IK) 28 8 
Hos. 5 14 and Ps. 91 13 ( II TSJ). Identified by Boch. with the 
black Syrian lion (cp Pliny 8 17). On Ps. 91 13 see SERPENT. 

AV in Job 28 8 renders j nt? J3, lion s whelps, RV, how 
ever, the proud beasts (cp Talm. frjE , pride ) ; cp RV s 
rendering of 4134 [26]; Vg. filii superbia> ; Ges.-Buhl, noble 
beasts of prey e.g., the lion. Stikas, however, seems to be 
insufficiently attested. In Job 28 the context shows that some 
definite animal is meant. See OSSIFRAGE. In Job 41 34 pity 
should probably be f nt? (<S v. 25 [26] riav ei/ TOIS ii&a.<riv, so 
Pesh., Michaelis, etc.). 

A study of the parallelism in the different passages 
will show that the above words for lion were more or 
less interchangeable. The Rabbinical writers did not 
see this ; they sought to assign each name to a particular 
part of the lion s life. For instance, most unreasonably, 
w-h (no. 4) was said to mean an old, decrepit lion. In 
reality wh means the precise opposite a lion which 
turneth not away for any (Prov. 8030) i.e., one in its 
full strength. 

It is plain enough that lions were a source of danger 

in ancient Palestine. The reedy swamps of the Jordan 

_ (Jer. 49 19 50 44 Zech. 11 3, cp Rel. Pa!. 

2. Haunts. 274 ^ the recesses of Mts . Hermon and 

Senir (Cant. 48), and the desert S. of Judah (Is. 306), 



3. Habits. 

were their favourite haunts. They are no longer found 
in Palestine, though they are mentioned as late as the 
twelfth century (Keland), but are still met with in the 
jungles of the Euphrates and the Tigris. They have 
probably disappeared from Arabia, 1 but abound, accord 
ing to Layard, 2 in Khuzistan. In a few parts of India 
they are not unknown ; 3 but everywhere, even in Africa, 
they show a tendency to disappear before the encroach 
ments of man. In historical times the lion ranged over 
Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor, and the country S. of the 
Balkans, besides the whole of Africa and the greater 
part of northern and central Hindustan. 

In its habits the lion is monogamous. The number 
of young produced at a birth varies from two to four, 
but is commonly three ; the male helps to 
rear the whelps by providing food for them, 
and he also takes part in teaching them to provide for 
themselves (cp Ezek. 192^T Nah. 2i2 [13]). Lions do 
not entirely depend on the food they kill, but will eat 
dead bodies even in an advanced state of decomposition. 
As a rule they are nocturnal in their habits, though 
occasionally seen by daylight, and their habit of lurking 
in secret places is often referred to by the OT writers 
( Ps. lOg 17 12 Job 8839 /. Lam. 3 10 Jer. 4? and Dt. 
33 22). The lion was the shepherd s terror (cp Mic. 
5 8 [7]) ; nrore than once, as David told Saul, he had 
to rescue a lamb from a lion s jaws 4 (i S. 17 34 RV ; cp 
Am. 812). Ordinary shepherds had to band themselves 
together to drive off the enemy (Is. 31 4, and see Am. 
812). Not unfrequently men were attacked (i K. 
132 4 /: 20 3 6). 

It seems as if the diminished population of Samaria after the 
captivity were much plagued by lions (2 K. 17 24^). This is 
represented as a judgment ; a similar story is told of Decius (see 
Rel. J al. 96 y.). Generally man-eaters are the old lions who, 
with diminished activity and broken teeth, find it difficult to 
capture big game. On 15enaiah s exploit (2 S. 23 20) see 

The lion s roar is a favourite figure applied to enemies 
(Ps. 22i3[i4] Prov. 28 15 Zeph. 83), to false prophets 
_ ,. . (Ezek. 2225), to the wrath of an earthly 
* ., Cal monarch (Prov. 19 12 20 2 ), to the wrath of 
God(Jer. 25 30 Joel 3 [4] 16), and to the fury 
of the devil (i Pet. 58). Other references are made to 
his open mouth ready to rend the helpless (Ps. 222i [22] 
2 Tim. 417), to his chasing his victims (Ps. ?2[s] Job 
10 16), and to his powerful teeth, symbols of strength 
(Joel 16 Ecclus. 21 2 Rev. 98). In Gen. 49g the tribe of 
Judah is compared to a lion ; hence the Messianic title 
in Rev. 5$. The same title is given to Dan in Dt. 
8822, and to all Israel in Nu. 2824 24g ; also to Saul 
and Jonathan in 2 S. 123, and to Judas the Maccabee in 
i Mace. 84 2 Mace. 11 n. David s Gadite guard are 
called lion-faced (i Ch. 128) ; see also ARIEL. 

To hunt lions was the sport of kings. 5 Amenhotep 
III. boasts of having slain 102 lions during the first ten 

_ .. years of his reign ; two soss of lions (i.e. , 
6. Lion- , , . . 


120) I slew, says Tiglath-pileser. Asur- 

bani-pal claims to have attacked a lion single- 
handed, and this exploit was not uncommon among his 
predecessors. Under the later kings lions were sought 
out in jungles, caught in snares, and preserved for the 
royal sport. Bow and arrows, or a sword, daggers, 
and spears were the weapons of the hunters. 6 In Pales 
tine, as we gather from Ezek. 1948, a pit would be dug, 
or a net prepared, by which the lion might be caught 
and then confined in a cage (uio, v. gf, AV ward, 

1 Doughty, Ar. Des. 1459. 

2 Nineveh and its Remains, 2 48. 

3 Rousselet, L lmie lies Rajah, 202, 464,468. 

* In the ideal future, however, the lion would lie down with 
the calf; cp Is. lie/: 6625. 

5 For the lion as represented upon Egyptian and Assyrian 
monuments, see Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ancient Es:ypt, 
2 281 323 ; Art in Chald. and Ass. 2 154^. ; Houghton, TSBA 
6 325. 

8 Houghton, I.e. 


The great brazen laver of Solomon s temple was 
adorned with lions (i K. 729), as well as with oxen and 

,, cherubim. All these figures were of 
6. In mvtho- ,, 
. J . Babylonian and Phoenician origin, and 

*" represented the strength of the victorious 
and terrible God of heaven. In Babylonian mythology 
the lion is the symbol of summer-heat. N EKGAL \tj. v. ], 
the god of summer-heat, is represented as a lion-god. 
It is not, however, a probable view that the opening 
exploit in the career of Samson (Judg. 14s) is to be 
directly explained by this symbolism (Steinthal). More 
probably, like Gilgames 1 and the Phoenician god Mel- 
kart, 2 the hero Samson was represented as freeing his 
land from dangerous animals, which in turn may have 
been suggested by the conflict of the solar god Marduk 
with the dragon Tiamat. In Egypt the lion-headed 
goddess (Sekhet) was the patron of Bubastis, Leonto- 
polis, and other cities ; and at Baalbek, according to 
Damascius ( I it. Isid. 203), the protecting deity was 
worshipped under the form of a lion. 

More famous, however, is the great Arabian lion-god Ya- 
ghuth, i.e., protector (cp Kor. Stir. 71 23). Such names as 
Abd- and Obaid-Yaghuth among the Koreish suggest that he 
was worshipped by Mohammed s own tribe. Yaghiith 3 is of 
Yemenite origin, and the name has been identified by Robertson 
Smith (Rel. Seiti.W 43 ; cp Wellhausen, Heid.(-} 22) with the 
Edomite JEUSH (q.t>.). Labwan (cp N a ?) and Laith (cp ty S) 
occur as tribal names, and asad, the common word for a lion in 
Arabic, is frequently found not only in Arabia but also in the 
Sinaitic inscriptions. For evidence of an apparent connection 
between a lion-god and lion-clans, cp Kin. 192-194 ; Rel. Sem.ft) 
43; We. Heid.V) i^ff. A. E. S. S. A. C. T. K. C. 

LITTER. That litters were in use in Palestine before 
the Greek period is clear, not only from the pathetic 
allusion in Dt. 2856, but also from Gen. 8134 (E), where 
Rachel is said to have hidden her teraphim in the 
camel s furniture, which should probably rather be 
camel s litter. 

In the phrase DaH 13 ((8 TO. tray/mara TTJ? (co/m/Aou) T3 
is so called from the round shape of the litter. In Is. 6620 
renders flTO lD by trictajia, thinking of 13 (see, however, 
DROMEDARY). The camel-litters are, in fact, shaded by an 
awning stretched on the wooden framework. 

Usually, one may suppose, the litters were not borne by 
men, but were of a size to swing on the back of a mule. 
The Damascus litter, says Doughty (Ar. Des. l6i), 
is commonly a cradle-like frame with its tilt for one 
person, two such being laid in balance upon a mule s 
back ; others are pairs housed in together like a bed 
stead under one gay canvass awning. The Arabian 
litters, which were charged as a houdah on a camel s 
back, seemed to this traveller (2 484) more comfortable. 
Burckhardt describes these as sometimes five feet lopg 
(see Knobel-Dillm. , on Gen. 8134). A representation 
of an old Egyptian litter is given by Wilkinson (Anc. 
Eg. 1421, no. 199) ; on the Greek <f>opfiov and the 
Roman lectica. Smith s Diet. Class. Ant. (s.v. Lectica ) 
may be consulted. 

The word <f>opeiov has been supposed by many to 
occur in a Hebraised form in Cant. 87. If true, this 
has an obvious bearing on the important question 
whether there are any books in the OT belonging to 
the Greek period, and directly influenced by the Greek 
language and even Greek ideas. No word for litter 
occurs in Ecclesiastes, but in Cant. 87 RV rightly renders 
nap (mittah ; see BED, 2) litter, Behold it is the 
litter of Solomon (K\IVTJ, lectulus). The bridegroom 
(honoured by theextravagant title Solomon )is supposed 
to be borne in the centre of a procession, sitting in a 
litter or palanquin (cp 2 S. 831, where the same word 
means bier K\lvri, feretrvm}. According to the 
generally received view, this litter or palanquin is 

1 See Smith -Sayce, Chaldcean Genesis, illustration opp. 
p. 175. 

- See Peters, Ni/>f>ur, 2 303 (with illustration). 

3 The proper name ttyouflos has been found on an inscription 
from Memphis (\Ve.). 



called in v. 9 by another term 1 (pnsx; <f>op[f]iov), 
which Robertson Smith inclined to explain from Sanskrit 
(see PALANQUIN), but most scholars (so e.g., Bu. and 
Siegfr. , but not Del. ) regard as a Greek loan-word = 
<popflov. (In the Midrash on Cant. jrnBN is explained by 
KCi -iB = (pop-rt/J.a). The Greek derivation is supported by 
a partial parallelism between the account of Solomon s 
litter in Cant. 3 10 and that of the <j>opela in a festal 
procession of Antiochus Epiphanes ( Athen. 5 5 ; cp CAN 
TICLES, 15). To this view three objections may be 
raised, (i) The Qopfiov was borrowed by the Greeks 
from Asia. (2) If a Greek (or Sanskrit) loan-word were 
used at all, it would be in v. 7, not in v. 9. The 
native word mittah would be appropriately used to 
explain the foreign word ; but after the litter has been 
brought before us as a mittah, we do not expect to be 
told that king Solomon made himself a <j>opf iov. 

The surrounding context is full of difficulties which suggest 
corruption of the text. We cannot, therefore, consider appiryon 
apart from the rest of the passage. We may suppose that JVTSK 
is a dittogram of pja^, and as the result of a series of critical 
emendations (notably that of nuK^On for "fan, D -IO^N for JD31N 
[see PURPLE], and Q jan for na.TN [see EBONY]), the description 
of the bridegroom s litter in Cant. 36-n assumes this form (see 
Che. JQR 11 562^: [1899]),- 

What is it that comes up from the wilderness 

Like pillars of smoke ; 
Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, 

With all spices of the merchant? 

See, it is Solomon s litter, 

Surrounded by warriors ; 
They are all wearers of swords, 

Expert in war. 
Every one has his sword on his thigh 

For fear of lions. 

Solomon made himself this artful work 

Of timber of Lebanon ; 
Its pillars he made of silver, 

Its back of gold, 
Its seat almug-wood in the centre, 

Inlaid with ebony. 

Come forth, ye maidens of Zion, 

And behold the king, 
In the crown with which his mother crowned him 

On the day of his marriage, 
And in the day of the joy of his heart, 

Thus, besides 7DJ.T ~\3, (a) nap, mittah, but not appiryon 
(which is really non-existent, except in MH), means litter. So 
also (b) does 3X, s db, in Is. 66 20, unless cars (for mules) be 
preferred as a rendering. See WAGON, (c) <f>opeiov (see above) 
occurs in 2 Mace. 827 (Heliodorus ; sella gestatoria), and 9s 
(Antiochus ; gestatorium) ; RV litter, AV horselitter. (tf) 
tt$pof [A], or Sfypo s [V], 2 Mace. 142i ; RV and a litter was 
brought forward from each army (TrporjAfoi nap cicctorou 
6i <paf). Hence the denom. Si^pevw, properly to drive a 
chariot ; Bar. 631 [30] oi iepeis Si<f>pevov<ri ([B] ; but oi i. 810- 
<t>9f[pov<n.v [A], Ka.Ql$av<nv ol i. [Q]). RVmjr- by a doubtful 
extension of the sense, the priests bear the litter (RV sit on 
seats ; AV sit in their temples ). The Greek text seems to be 
corrupt. T. K. C. 

LITTLE ONES (Jer. 14 3). See NOBLES. 

LITTLE OWL (D13). Lev. 11 17. See OWL. 


LIVER ("153- heavy, with reference to the weight 
of the liver ; HTT&.P)- It is important to begin by 
noticing the sacredness of the liver. Repeatedly in P 
the yothtreth of (or, upon) the liver is directed to be 
burned upon the sacrificial altar. 

The Heb. phrases are 113? nin ,2 Ex. 29 22 Lev. 8 16 25 9 19 ; 
lai V^Jf n ri, Lev. 3 4 I0 is T 4 974; and 15|.TJp Vl rt, Lev. 9 10. 
BAPL also reads one of these phrases in Lev. 730. According to 
Driver-White (SBO T on Lev.3 $,yithireth denotes probably the 
fatty mass at the opening of the liver which reaches the kidneys and 

\ Cp Mishna, Sofa 94 (493), for the late use of jnSN f r the 
bridal palanquin. 

2 Pesh. hestlr kabda, lit. the court (?) of the liver, cp Levy, 
Targ. HWR, s.v tCVfn. The same term in MH, e.g., Yoma 8 6, 
where it is prohibited on the day of Atonement to give to a man 
who has been bitten by a mad dog the animal s 133 ~\xn. This 
homoeopathic mode of treatment was evidently customary. 



becomes visible upon the removal of the lesser omentum. This 
latter is only a thin transparent sheet and cannot well be reckoned 
among the fat parts of the animal. At all events the old niler- 
pretation lobe of the liver (, Jos. Ant. iii. 92, etc.) has 
nothing in its favour. 

In Tob. 64-16 82, there is a reference to the use of 
the liver of a fish in exorcisms ; its employment in 
divination has been already referred to in connection 
with Ezek. 21 21 [26]. See DIVINATION, 2 (s), 1 and 
cp Oefele, ZATIV2Q [1900], 311^ 

But why was this part of the viscera so especially 
sacred ? Because the liver contested with the heart the 
honour of being the central organ of life. Wounds in 
the liver were therefore thought to be mortal 2 ; e.g. , 
Prov. 723, a dart through his liver, and Lam. 2n, 
my liver (|| my bowels, but <&> and Pesh. Hia) is 
poured out upon the earth, are each of them a peri 
phrasis for death. Being therefore so sacred, the liver 
was not to be eaten, but to be returned to the giver of 
life (see REINS). 

We can now understand the Assyrian usage by which 
kabittu ( = 133) became equivalent to libbu, heart, 3 
and are not surprised to find a group of passages in OT, 
in which 133 has to be restored for the faulty 123 (1133) 
of MT. In Ps. 76 [5] the keen-witted Oratorian Houbi- 
gant long ago read and pour out my liver on the dust 
(TISB> isyS H??! ; cp Lam. 2n), and in Ps. 169 [8], 
Therefore my heart is glad, my mind exults ( 123 ^ ]). 
remarking that in the Scriptures the liver is the seat of 
joy and sorrow ; and in Gen. 496 he follows (TO, 
iJTrard fjiov) in reading H33 my liver for -133 my 
glory. In Ps. 30 13 [12] 57g [8] 1082 [i] similar cor 
rections are necessary; perhaps also in Is. 16 n (n33 
for 3ip ; cp Lam. 2n). 4 T. K. C. s. A. C. 


LIZARD. Tristram has described forty-four species 
and twenty-eight genera of the group Lacertilia found 
at the present day in Palestine. They live in great 
numbers in the sandy desert and generally in the 
wilderness, and are among the commonest animals the 
traveller meets with. Amongst those most frequently 
found he mentions the Lacerta viridis and L. latvis 
and the wall lizards belonging to the genus Zootoca. 
Another not unimportant species, called the Monitor 
niloticus, was held in high esteem by the ancient 
Egyptians as destroying the eggs and the young of the 
crocodile. Although the lizard is mentioned only once 
in AV, there can be but little doubt that this is the 
animal referred to in the following Heb. words : 

1. as, sdb (Lev. 11 29,^ AV TORTOISE, RV GREAT LIZARD). 
Its Ar. equivalent dabb denotes a non-poisonous lizard which is 
eaten by some Arabian Bedouins. 6 It is identified with the 
Uromastix spinipes a lizard with a powerful tail covered with 
strong spines. It is mentioned among the unclean creeping 
things (Lev. I.e.), and since it is followed by VU D? ( after its 
kind ) is probably a generic term, in which case the following 
names in v. 30 are, as RV">e- suggests, those of different kinds 
of lizards. 

2. .1J33N, anakak (Lev. 11 30, RV GECKO), AV FERRET [g.v.]. 

1 Cn Frazer, Paus.l 5 ; Wellh. Heid.V} 133/1 WRS Rel. 
Sem.w 379, n. 4. 

2 Cp /Esch. Agam. 432, eiyy/ai-ei rrpbs ifa-ap, of a heart-wound. 

3 For the parallelism of these words see Del. Ass. H\VB 317. 
Del. renders kabittu only Gemiith. But Jensen (Kosmol. n 
n.) gives (i) liver (2) inward part = centre; and Muss-Arnolt 
(i) liver, (2) disposition. 

4 One may hope that, as Schleusner suggests (Lex., s.v.) 
the i^n-ap of (S in i S. 19 13 i6a is a corruption of a Greek trans 
literation of "P33. Theod. has x0 e P > l iut ^ c l- T vaa> "^l" ? , 
cp 2 K. 8 15 (Klo.). See BED, 3, 4 (</) 

8 HitzigonNah.27reads35fn, the lizard (i.e., Nineveh) for 
35H ; against this cp Hi.-Steinei( 4 ), ad loc. 

6 According to Doughty (Ar. Des.ljo) the th6t> [i.e., dabb\ 
is an edible sprawling lizard, fullest length a yard with tail, 
and is considered a delicacy. The colour is blackish and green- 
specked above the pale yellowish and dull belly, and its skin is 
used for the nomad s milk-bottles. 



[?.- .]." 

4. i1KB7, letaah (ib., EV LIZARD; ico\a/3iT7)S ; stellio), in 
the Talmud is the general term for a lizard ; cp Lewysohn, 
Zool. 221. 

5. HOn, homet (ib., AV SNAIL ; cravpo, lacerta ; cp Sam. 
Rashi, Kim.), RV SAND-LIZARU, so Boch., who identifies it with 
the Ar. liulasa. Probably a sand-lizard of which theie are many 
species to be found in the Sinaitic peninsula, and which, from 
the fact that its feet are almost invisible, is often called by the 
Aiabs the Sand-fish. 

6. nasbn, tinsemeth (ib., from D>?J, to breathe, blow, AV 
MOLE ; [a]<7>raAaf ; talfia), explained as the mole (which ill 
accords with the description in v. 29, see Di.), or as the centi 
pede (cp Pesh.). It is very commonly taken to be the CHAME 
LEON (g.T .) ; but the genuineness of the word is open to question ; 
see MOLE 2, OWL. 

j. n CCb ,1 scmamith, reckoned among the little things 
which are clever (Prov. 3028, AV SPIDER; icaAa/SuTrjs ; 

stellio; s-a [Pesh.]),2 is rather the lizard (so RV), the 
reference being to the fact that a harmless lizard may be held 
in the hands with impunity. n COt? s he rendering of the 
Targ. Jer., for nxa 1 ? (above), and that of the Sam. for .13N- 
The mod. Gr. cra/,uti<0os is probably derived from it (cp Del. 
Prov., ad lac.). 

The lizard, though eaten sometimes by Arabian 
tribes, was forbidden among the Jews ; and a curious 
old tradition relates that Mohammed forbade it as food, 
because he thought the lizard was the offspring of an 
Israelite clan which had been transformed into reptiles 
(RS88 ; Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 326). This has a sugges 
tion of totemism, and that the lizard was a sacred animal 
seems to be borne out by the occurrence of the Ar. dabb 
(as) as the eponym of a widespread tribe (Kin. 198), 
and also by the recollection of the important part the 
flesh, bones, and skin of the lizard have played in 
magical and medicinal preparations. 3 

A. E. S. s. A. C. 

LOAF (133, Ex.2923 etc.; Dr6, iK. 14 3 etc.; 
Aproc, Mk. T 8i 4 ). See BREAD. 

LO-AMMI ("r vh], Hos. 1 9 . See LO-RUHAMAH. 

LOAN (rPXC ), i S. 220. The sense is unique ; see 
1 28. Cp SAUL, i. 

LOCK (^W3D), RV Cant. 5s etc. See DOOR. 

, LOCKS. Five Hebrew words correspond to lock 
(once) or locks (of hair) in AV ; but one of these 
(sammdh, nsx) is more correctly rendered veil in RV ; 
see VEIL. 

1. JHS, pera, the full hair of the head = Ass. pirtu, Nu. 65 
Ezek. 44 20. On a supposed case of the fern. plur. in Judg. 5 2, 
see HAIR, 3 (with note 3), and cp Wellh. Ar. Heid.t?) 123. 

2. ns i , sisith, a forelock, Ezek. 83!. Aq. Theod. Kpdcr- 
ireSov ( fringe, cp FRINGES, n. 2). The mention of the forelock 
in connection with ecstatic experiences is unique. Cp HAIR, 2. 

3. D linp, kewussoth (common in MH and Syr.), Cant. 62 nf. 
Cp CANTICLES, 15 (e\ and on the form see Ko. 2 i, p. 199. 

4. nisSnS, tnahlefihoth, properly plaits, in connection with 
the long hair of Samson, Judg. 16 13 19. Cp HAIK, 2. 

LOCUST. The biblical references to the locust are 
of much interest, though the Hebrew text may perhaps 
sometimes invite criticism. The species 
that is intended is usually supposed 
{o ^ (he Schistocerca p ere grina, formerly 
known as Acridium peregrinum. This species, like 
all the locusts of ordinary language, belongs to the 
Orthopfera and to the family Acridiidce, not to the 
Locustidce, a name which has produced much con 
fusion. The species at the present day extends from 
North-West India to the west coast of Northern Africa ; 
it is the only Old- World species of the genus, all other 
forms being American. 

1 With \y cp Del. ad loc., and see Lag. Sym. 1 156. 

2 The Pesh. reading is another form of ng:K ; see FERRET. 
Cp the Witches scene in Macbeth, Act iv. Sc. i. 



To illustrate the great distances that can be traversed by 
these insects it may be mentioned that in 1865 a vessel bound 
from Bordeaux to Boston was invaded by S.peregrina when 
1200 miles from the nearest land, after which for two days the 
air was full of locusts which settled all over the ship. In 1889 
there passed over the Red Sea a swarm which was estimated to 
extend over 2000 square miles, and, each locust being assumed 
to weigh , oz -> he weight of the swarm was calculated to be 
42,850 millions of tons ; a second and even larger swarm passed 
on the following day. That these numbers are no exaggeration 
is shown by the Government Reports on the destruction of 
locusts in Cyprus. In 1881 over 1300 tons of locust eggs had 
been destroyed, but in spite of this it was calculated that over 
5000 egg cases, each containing many eggs, were deposited in 
the island in 1883. 

The eggs are laid in the ground by means of the 
powerful ovipositor of the female, the deposition usually 
Ixiing in remote and uncultivated lands. On leaving 
the egg the young immediately cast their skin, an 
operation repeated about the 6th, 13111, 2ist, 3151 
and 5oth day. Although the wings attain their perfect 
development and the locust becomes capable of flight 
and of forming swarms only at the 6th and last moult, 
much harm may be done by the young, which hop a over 
the land in great armies devouring every blade of grass 
and every leaf of plants and shrubs (cp Joel 147). The 
most striking effects, however, are caused by the swarms 
of migratory locusts (see above) ; these, coming out of 
a clear sky, darken the sun (Ex. Ids) and in a short 
tjme devour every green thing, the coming together of 
their mouth appendages even producing a perceptible 
noise as they eat their way through the country (cp Joel 
2s). They are therefore an apt figure for swarming 
hordes (Judg. 65 7 12 Jer. 4623 Judith 220, and cp Jerome 
on Joel 1 6 : quid enim locustis innumerabilius et 
fortius ; quibus humana industria resistere non potest). 
Their habit of banding together led a proverb-writer to 
class them among the little things of this earth which 
are wise ( Pr. 30 27 ). The likeness they bear to horses 
was also noticed (Joel 24 Rev. 9?, and cp the Italian 
name cavaletta), also the suddenness of their disappear 
ance. When the hot sun beats powerfully upon them, 
they literally flee away, and the place is not known 
where they are 2 (Nah. 817). Fortunately the visits of 
the swarms are, as a rule, not annual, but recur only 
after a lapse of some years, though the period is 
uncertain ; the cause of the immense destruction of 
locust life which this indicates, and still more the cause 
of the sudden recrudescence of activity, are at present 

Locusts are frequently mentioned by the ancients as an article 
of food. They are much eaten in the East, and, when the legs 
and wings are removed and the body fried in butter or oil, are 
said to be not unpalatable. On Mt. 84 see at end of article. 

There are nine words in the OT taken to mean the 
locust, and although, according to the Talmud, there 
-, were some 800 3 species in Palestine (cp 

2. Names. Lewysohn Z ool. d. Talm. 286 ff.), we 
cannot, with any degree of certainty, apportion a distinct 
species to each Hebrew word. 

1. na-IN, arbeh (prop. multiplier ; aicpi s, /BpoCxos [Lev. 11 22 
i K.837J, aTT<- Ae/3os [Nah. 817]), is the usual word for locust, 
and appears to be the generic term. It is the locust of the 
Egyptian plague (Ex. 10 1-19, see EXODUS ii., 3 ; ii., col. 1442). 
In Judg. 5 7 12 Jer. 4623 Job 39 20 AV renders GRASSHOI-^ER. 
[In Ps. 109 23, I am tossed up and down as the locust (EV) is 
hardly correct; Kau. HS gives I am shaken out. rnj, H > s 
corrupt ; read rn JK3> I am gathered (for removal) like locusts, 
cp Is. 33 4. So Che. Ps.V) ; cp 3.] 

2. cy"?D, soFam (ajToiojs [BAFL]), in EV the BALD-LOCUST 
(Lev. 1122), cp Aram. ci So. to consume, which in the Targ. 
represents 5^3. Perhaps a Tryxalis with its long smooth head 
and projecting antennae is meant. 

3. "jinn, hargSl (Lev. 11 22) ; see BEETLE. 

4. aan, Itagab. (\/ to hide, or conceal ? aitpi s, but in Lev. 11 22 

1 Cp Job 39 20 RV : Hast thou made him to leap as the 
locust? ; and Is. 334. [In Ecclus. 43 17 [19] the fall of snow is 
likened to the flying down of birds and to the lighting of the 
locust ws aicpis (caraAiiovcra (marg. irrTl) mil ]t:V H21K3-] 

2 Thomson, LB 419. 

S Eight of these at most could be locusts. 



o^io/nax 1 ??) usually rendered GRASSHOPPER (cp Lev. I.e., Nu. 
1833 Is. 40z2 Kccles. 12s) but in 2 Ch. 7 13, locust. It is 
referred to in Nu. 1^33 (see n. i), Is. 4022 [also in Is. 516, 1 see 
Che. Is. .S7> <>7 (Heb.); and in Ps. 37 20 90 9,^ see Che. Ps.W] as 
an emblem of feebleness and insignificance. In Talm. DJH is 
the generic term for locusts (cp Lewysohn, I.e.). Cp the proper 

5- C J3, gfizam ; see PALMER-WORM. 

6 - P./ . yclek ( licker ; /3pouxs , axpi s in Jer. 51 14 27), usually 
CANKHRVVORM (so RV regularly) or CATKRPILLER.S Some kind 
of locust is meant, or possibly a young locust. In Jer. 51 27 
yeh-k stimar (ico. pS ). rough caterpiller (or cankerworm ), 
denotes some special kind. The Vg. has bruchum aculeatum.* 

7. Tiff, sflasal (probably tinkler, epucri/3rj), may be some 
species of insect noted for its strident noise, such as, in Dt. 
2842 (see also HORNET), the cicada, or, in Is. 18 i, according to 
some (see Che. Praph. 7s., ad foe.), the formidable tsetse-fly, 
the tsaltsalya of the Gallas. 5 But other views ofQ>aj3 yshli 
in Is. I.e. are possible. See below 3 and cp e.g., SSOT, 
Isaiah, Heb. pp. 80 (lines 36-46), 108 (lines 40-46); note, also, 
AV s rendering shadowing with wings, and RV s the rustling 
of wings. 

8. D 33, 313, gcbim (p\ur.), go/iay (collective) i.e., swarm ? 
(aicpi s), usually rendered GRASSHOPPER (cp Nah. 3 17,6 \\ 
n2"l.x) . but in Am. 7 i, in AVig-, green worms. 

9. Tpn, JiasitC consumer, cpthe verb , Dn Dt. 2838; epv<ri/3j); 
and Ppovxos 2 Ch. 6 28), in i K. 8 37 2 Ch. 6 28 Ps. 78 46 II ^"IN ; 
some kind of locust must be meant. 

Of the above, nos. 1-4 were classed among clean 
winged things and were allowed to be eaten (Lev. 
Il2i/. , P; cp CLEAN, n); they are described as 
having legs above their feet (vJJJ lS hyso D lns), whence 
it would appear that a distinction was made between 
leaping locusts, saltatoria, and those which run, cur- 
soria. A similar distinction is made by the Arabs 
between thefdris (riding) and the rajil (going) ; cp also 
2011.628, Pesh. kamsd pdrlhd wl-zd/ield. In the vivid 
account of the locust plague in Joel I/ (see JOEL ii. , 
5, and cp Driver s Comm. ) four of the above are 
mentioned in the order 5169 (Joel 1 4 ). The fact that 
the order in 225 is different (1695) makes it improb 
able that these words can be taken to refer to locusts 
in different stages of growth. 

There are a few passages which have not yet 
been discussed. In Is. 18 1 the land that sends am- 
3 Difficult kassadors bv tne sea is neither the land 
references f the rustlin g s of wings nor the land 
of strident creatures with wings (see 
above, 2 [8]). The most probable reading is Ha 
Gush ! land of the streams of Gihon ; Gihon is the 
name of the upper, or Ethiopian, course of the Nile (see 
Haupt, SHOT, Isaiah [Heb.] 109); the right words 
have a twofold representation in the Heb. text, though 
both times in a corrupt form. The difficult clause at the 
end of Am. 7 i, following the reference to the forma 
tion of certain locusts, evidently needs criticism. EV 
gives, and lo, it was the latter growth after the king s 
mowings, a somewhat obscure explanation (see MOW 
INGS). But latter growth (a-p 1 ?) surely required no 
explanation. On the other hand, something more 
might well have been expected about the locusts. <S 
gives Kal Idov fipouxos eh yuy 6 paffiXtfa. The true 
reading probably is V Dm cni nanMi p"?;_ narn, and behold 
the cankerworm, and the locust, and the palmerworm, 

I should be D 3J_n3. Cp Nu. 13 33 where |31 should be 
D 3 fn} I the clause is a correction of the preceding one which 
contains the wrong reading in our eyes ; Che.] 

2 [D"13 np 3 and HlTiCS should both be 33n3, Che.] 

3 Caterpillar in English is usually restricted to the larval 
stage of the Lepidoptera, Butterflies and Moths. 

In England palmer-worms from their roughness and rugged- 
^"r rvf l ^ Ca " ed beare - worms (Topsell, Hist, of Serpents, 

5 Cp also Ass. sarsaru, a creature like a locust (Del. Ass. 

H y h 574)- 

6 AV the great grasshoppers ; RV the swarms of grass 
hoppers. This represents 313 313 of MX. But, as We. points 
out, 313 is probably an error which 313 (a collective form) is 
intended to correct. Render simply, the grasshoppers. 



and the caterpiller (cp Joel 1 4). The sense gains 
greatly ; we also obtain a fresh point of contact between 
the Books of Amos and Joel. 

Hastl. In two passages hdsll seems to have been 
corrupted into set, shadow. One of these (Ps. 10923), 
in an emended text, gives a striking parallel to Nah. 
817; the other (Job 1828 = 142), to Joell 7 i 2 . The 
renderings respectively are 

1. Like caterpillers (S DH3) on the fences I am taken away, 

I am gathered (for removal) like locusts. 

2. Like a blossom which appeareth and fadeth, 

Like a palm-tree (1328, like a vine) which caterpillers have 

Two kinds of locusts (TOn and n|HN) are apparently referred 
to in Ps. 49 ii and (naiX and Sinn) in Ecclus. 14 15 ; in both 
cases according to critical emendation. Ben Sira s fondness for 
interweaving biblical expressions with his proverbs has helped 
in this case to the restoration of the text. 

The NT references to locusts (aKpiSes) occur in Mt. 
3 4 (Mk. 16) Rev. 9 3 -n. The Mt.-Mk. passage states 
that locusts formed the chief food of John the Baptist ; 
it is pointed out, however, elsewhere that there may 
here be an early misunderstanding (see HUSKS, 4, 
JOHN THE BAPTIST, 2). The locusts of the Rev. 
passage belong to the supernatural imagery of the 
Apocalypse. Contrary to what is said in Prov. 8027 
the locusts are said to have had a king. There may, 
however, be a confusion between TJ^D, king, and TJNS C> 
angel/ ABADDON [q.v.] (note E/3pdi<ni, Rev. 9n) 
being variously represented as the king and the 
angel of the abyss. 

See Driver s Excursus in Joel and Amos (Camb. Bible, 1897) ; 
.(Eneas Munro, M.D., 1 he Locust Plague and its Suppression 
(1900), and, on the text of Job 13 28 Ps. 4!) 13 109 23 and Ecclus. 
14 15, Che. Biblical Difficulties, Expos. 14 [1901], 113^ 

A. E. S. , I ; S. A. C. , 2 ; T. K. C. , 3. 

LOD (*T7) i Ch. 812. See LYDDA. 

LODDEUS (AoAAioc [B in v. 4 6]), i Esd. 8 45 /, RV 
Ezra 8 17, IDDO [1]. 

LO-DEBAR Orj & ; 2 S. 9 4 /, AAA<\BA P [BAL] ; 
Am*. 4 ] ; "12*1 JO ; 17 27 Ao>AABAp[BA] ; 
. [L]), a place in Gilead in which Mephibosheth, 
Jonathan s son, lay for a time, with Machir son of 
Ammiel, who also befriended David on his flight to the 
E. of Jordan. Probably the same place is meant by 
the Lidebir which Josh. 1826 places in the territory of 
Gad. Gratz has discovered the name in Am. 6 13, as, 
along with Karnaim, captured by Israel from Aram. 
Here MT (nan ^->} and all the Versions take it as a 
common noun, nothing ; and probably Amos, out of 
all the conquests of Israel E. of Jordan, chose these 
two for the possible play upon their names (see AMOS, 
5). Lo-debar has not been identified ; but 7 m. E. 
of M kes or Gadara, near the great road eastward, 
and on a southern branch of the \V. Satnar, is a village 
Ibdar, which must have been an important site on the 
back of the most northerly ridge of Gilead. There are 
a good spring and ancient remains with caves (Schu 
macher, N. Ajlun 101). The houses cluster on the 
steep edge of a plateau which commands a view across 
Hauran as far N. as Hermon. Strategically it is 
suitable ; no other OT name has been identified 
along this ridge, which must certainly have been con 
tested by Israel and Aram ; and it is apparently on 
this N. border of Gilead that Lidebir is placed by 
Josh. 1826 (cp review of Buhl, Pal. in Expositor, Dec. 
1896, p. 411). [The reading Lo-debar in 2 S.94/. 
has been doubted : see SAUL, 6, and cp MEPHIBO 
SHETH. Wellhausen and Nowack adopt the above 
emendation of Am. 613; Driver, however (Joel and 
Amos, 199), finds a difficulty in it. Cp MAHANAIM.] 
. G. A. s. 

LODGE. For (i) nj-170, mUlundk, Is. 1 8f, see 
HUT; and for (2) NPI, id, Ezek. 407.^, RV, see CHAMBER, 9. 

For jfe, malon, lodging place (Gen. 42 27, etc. R^ 7 ), see 



LOFT (nS_V), i K. 1719. See CHAMBER, 6. 

LOG (3?; KOTyAH ; sextarium), Lev. 14 10. See 

LOGOS. Except in the prologue to the Fourth 

Gospel (Jn. Ii-i8) the biblical usage of Ao|~OC shows 

_., .. . no peculiarity ; it means a complex of 

MfenrnM* %vords <PHMATA). presented in the unity 

es< of a sentence or thought. The entire 

gospel can be called the logos of God, or even, simply 

the logos (KO.T tox f)i ) see, e.g., Mt. 1819-23 Gal. 66 

2 Cor. 2 17 Rev. 12-9 as being a declaration of the 

divine plan of salvation. 

Such passages as Jn. 8 31 37 Acts 67 i Cor. 1436 border upon 
poetical personification, but do not cross the line ; neither also 
does Ps. 33 [3:2] ^ff., nor yet Wisd. 10 12 18 i 5 f. 

In Jn. 1 1 the Logos comes before us as a person, who 
was in the beginning i.e. , before the creation in 
communion with God, and himself was God. The 
description proceeds in vv. iff. ; but the name Logos is 
used only once again in v. 14, the Logos became 
flesh ; from this point onward its place is taken by 
such names as Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, 
the Son, the Christ. 1 14 makes it clear that for the 
writer the identity of the Logos with the bearer of the 
gospel, Jesus Christ, is a fact as important as it is 
indubitable ; for him the redeemer is in his heavenly 
pre-existence the Logos, after his incarnation Jesus 
Christ. In 1 4 f. it is a very difficult matter to dis 
tinguish clearly which predicates refer to the pre-existent 
Son, and which to the Son in his earthly manifestation ; 
probably the writer did not intend that a distinction 
should be made, but wishes from the outset to habituate 
his readers to thinking of the man Jesus who died 
on the cross as being one with the eternal Logos 
and so denying none of the qualities of the one to the 
other ; the full Godhead of the Saviour is a pledge of 
the absolute divineness of the salvation he brings. In 
any case so much is certainly claimed for the Logos in 
14-14: (i)An existence that transcends humanity (it 
is as incarnate that he took up his abode among 
men ), and indeed creation itself the highest conceiv 
able glory (that of the Father being excepted) ; (2) an 
infinite fulness of grace and truth ; and (3) the most 
intimate possible relation to God, even the title of 
God not being withheld (the article, it is true, is not 
prefixed). Moreover, according to v. 3 it is through 
the Logos that the universe is created ; nothing has 
come into being without his intervention, and mankind 
owe also to him the highest good they know light 
and life. Thus from Jn. 1 1 ff. we may define the 
Logos as a divine being, yet still sharply distinguished 
from God, so that monotheism is not directly denied 
not equal to the Father (cp Jn. 1428), yet endowed 
with all divine powers whereby to bring to pass the 
will of God concerning the universe. 

Apart from the prologue the Logos as thus defined is not 
again named in the Fourth Gospel ; in i Jn. 5 7 he has been 
introduced only by a late interpolation, and in i Jn. 1 1 the 
Logos of Life admits of another interpretation than that 
demanded by the prologue. So also does the logos of God in 
Heb. 4 12, and in the mysterious announcement in Rev. 1813 
that the name of the conquering Messiah, unknown to all save 
to himself alone, is the Logos of God, it is only the prologue 
to the gospel that renders it probable that by the expression a 
heavenly person of the highest rank is intended. 

There remains the question : From what source did 

. . the conception of the Logos come into 

2 r ?" gin the Johannine sphere of thought? 

Johannine J t cannot have been the creation of the 

conception. Evangelist himself, for the very order of the 

words in 1 lac shows that he has no need to 

teach that there is a Logos, but only to declare what ought to 

be believed concerning the Logos. Neither can he have derived it 

from the OT, though the divine words are conceived of in the 

Hebrew Scriptures as objectively existing, and as having a 

creative power 1 (Jn. 1 2 is evidently related to Gen. 1 36, etc.), 

for the Logos is nowhere a fixed member of the supernatural 

world. Nor would it at all help us to understand the genesis 

1 Che. OPs. 3 2i/ 


of the Johannine Logos to adduce the phrase the Memra* 
("T N"C"C) by which the Targums denote the Divine Being in 
self -manifestation, though the same hyposiatising tendency 
which produced this Jewish phrase also found expression in the 
like-sounding phrase of the Fourth Gospel. 

It was from Greek philosophy that the Evangelist 
derived the expression through the medium of Philo of 
Alexandria ; but this need not be equivalent to saying 
that he was the first to put forward the connection 
between the Fhilonian Logos and the Jesus Christ of 
NT believers. Nor yet has he slavishly transcribed 
Philo ; rather with a free hand and with great skill has 
he borrowed and adapted from the Philonian account 
of the Logos those features which seemed serviceable 
towards the great end he had in view -the Christianising 
of the Logos conception. In spite, however, of the 
majestic originality of the verses in question (1 1-5 <)ff.}, 
suggestions of Philo have been traced in almost every 

Among Greek philosophers it was Heraclitus who first put 
forward the Logos i.e.. Reason as the principle underlying 
the universe ; with the Stoics the Logos became the world-soul 
which shapes the world in conformity with a purpose, and is the 
uniting principle of all the rational forces which are at work in 
the world. This conception was combined by Philo with the 
Platonic doctrine of Logo! as supersensual primal images or 
patterns of visible things, and, this done, he read into the OT 
and so also into Jewish theology a Logos which was the 
intermediary being between the universe in its overwhelming 
manifoldness and Him who is (o n>) God, who was ever being 
presented in a more and more abstract way, and being relegated 
to a sphere where religion could find no stay. 

As the Wisdom of Solomon (cp also Ecclesiasticus) 
introduces wisdom as God s representative in his relations 
with the world, and, if a few passages be left out of 
account, almost compels a personal separation of this 
wisdom from God, so does Philo, approaching the view 
of Hellenism, with the Logos, which he already in so 
many words designates as Son and Only-begotten. 
The theological position which had gained partial 
acceptance in Palestinian Judaism also, had manifestly 
found its advocates from an early period in Christian 
circles as well ; but it was the author of the Fourth 
Gospel who first had the skill to take it up and to give 
it unambiguous expression in the formulas of the then 
current metaphysic in such a way as to make it sub 
servient to the deepest interests of Christianity. His 
representation of Christ is not, however, to be taken as 
a mere product of his study of Philo, whether we take 
it that in his prologue he was minded merely to give by 
means of his Logos -speculation an introduction that 
should suitably appeal to his educated Gentile Christian 
readers, or whether we assume that his design was to 
set forth the ultimate conclusions he had reached as a 
constructive religious philosopher. The church, un 
fortunately, even so early as in the second century, 
began to give greater attention to this philosophical 
element in the gospel of the divine (TOV ffeo\6yoi ) 
than to the historical features of the narrative, and the 
employment of the idea of the Logos in this manner, 
occasioned by this author, though he is not to be held 
responsible for it, became a source of danger to 

See J. M. Heinze, Die Lehre voin Logos in der griecn. 
Philosophie, 1872 ; J. Reville, La. doctrine du Logos dans It 
quatrieme evangilc et dans les aeuvres de Phi Ion, 1881 ; Ad. 
Harnack, Ueber das Verhaltniss des Prologs des vierten Evgl. 
zum ganzen Werk in ZTK i, 1892, pp. 189-231 ; Hist, of Dogma, 
ET vols. i.-iv. ; H. J. Holtzmann, //C< 2 ) 4, 1893, especially pp. 
7-10, 40-46; Aal, Gesch. d. Logos-fdee, 1899; W. Baldensperger, 
Der Prolog des vierten Kvangeliums, 1898 ; Jannaris, St. 
John s Gospel and the Logos, ZNTW, Feb. 1901, pp. I sff. , cp 
also JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 31. A. J. 

LOIS (Aooic [Ti. WH]), Timothy s (maternal) 
grandmother (2 Tim. 1 5). See TIMOTHY. 

LOOKING-GLASS. AV s rendering of niX"lD Ex. 
388 (mg. brazen glasses ), and of <o, Job37:8, RV MIRROR 
(q.v.). In Is. 823 p ^>J is rendered glass in AV, but hand 
mirror in RV. The meaning, however, is doubtful; see 
MIRRORS. In I Cor. 13 12 eo-onrpoi/ is rendered glass by AV, 




), Is. 38 1 2 RV. See WEAVING. 

LORD. On LORD as representing HIIT (Yahwe) and 
on Lord as representing " JIN (Adonai) see NAMES, 
109, 119. 

Lord in OT stands for one Aramaic and eight Hebrew 

(1) |TIK, adon, master. Gen. 45s lord = ruler ; Gen. 24 14 27 
of the master (so EV) of a slave. My lord, of a father, Gen. 
31 35 ; of a husband, Gen. 18 12 ; of a governor, Gen. 42 10 ; of 
Moses, Nu. 1128; of Elijah, i K. 187. 

(2) VjH, bd al, owner, cp EV Ex. 21 28, the owner (Si?a) of 
the ox ; Job 31 39, the owners thereof (i.e., of apiece of land); 
cp WRS, Rel. Sein.W, 94. Cp BAAL, i. 

(3) 31, rab. See RAB, RABBI. 

(4) "it?, Sar, Ezra 8 25. See KING, PRINCE, 3. 

(5) V ^y, sdlis, 2 K. 72 17 ; either = T/iiaTaT)s (), see ARMY, 

4; CHARIOT, 10, or a modification of DHD Ass. sa-ris, 
high officer, captain. See EUNUCH. 

(6) C 3~ID (crarpaTrcu, <raTpan-u , ap^ovres), only in plur., of the 
five lords of the Philistines, Josh. 183 Judg. 83 i S. 5s n, etc. 
According to Hoffmann, a dialectic plur. of ~\tff. More probably 
a corruption of C ?p, a word which has elsewhere, too, under 
gone corruption. The harmonising hand of an early editor may 
be assumed (Che.). 

(?) 1 ?J fetor, Gen. 27 29 37, of Esau. 

(8) K~tS, marc, Aram, in Dan. 2 47 4 19 24 623 ; cp the Syriac 
mdrya, Lord, and mar, lord. 

(9) Kiipios, Mt. 938 1024 1327, etc - (Seem-on;? is rendered 
master, except where it is used of God or of Christ). 

(10) pafifiiavi. See RABBI. 

(n) ucyurnu , in pi. Mk. 621, kingly associates. In Rev. 6 15 
1823 Rv, AV, great men. EV great man in Ecclus. 4 7, 
Heb. paVt? ( C P Eccles. 848), 32 9 Heb. Q JpTi 883 Heb. Q anj 
(mg. D aSc)- 

LORD S DAY (rj KvpianTj Tj^pa ; dies dominicd}. We 
cannot say with certainty how far back the practice of 
marking the first day of the week by acts of worship is 
traceable. This at least is probable : that in the 
post-apostolic ordinance we have a continuation of 
apostolic custom ; 1 but the time when the Christian 
Sunday began to be observed in Palestine, where the 
observance of the Sabbath does not seem to have been 
at first superseded by it, remains utterly obscure. 2 

i Cor. 162 bids each person, Kara, niav <ra/3/3aToi; 
(EV on the first [day] of the week ), lay by him in 
1. NT references. ore as he may prosper (for the 
saints in Jerusalem), that no col 
lections be made when the writer comes (i Cor. 16 2). 
It is often possible and sometimes inevitable to infer from 
the practice of a later time that of an earlier. This has 
been done in the present case by Zahn, 3 who finds clear 
though faint traces of Sunday observance. It must not 
be overlooked, however, that the contribution of each 
one is to be laid up by him (irap eai/ry), i.e. , in his 
own home not in an assembly for worship. 

This suggests an alternative explanation to that of Zahn. 
The church of Corinth consisted for the most part of poor, 
obscure people (i Cor. 1 26jjf.) ; possibly for many of them the 
last or the first day of the week was pay-day, the first day 
therefore, was the day on which they could most easily lay 
aside something.* i Cor. 16 therefore does not supply us with 
any assured facts as to an observance of Sunday in the Pauline 

On the other hand, the we-sections in Acts contain 
a valuable indication. On his way to Jerusalem, Paul 
stayed at Troas seven days (Acts206), the last of which 
is called ula. rCiv <ra.pj3a.Tuv (EV the first [day] of the 
week ), the following day Monday of our reckoning 
being fixed for his departure (v. 7). On this last day there 

1 Weizsacker, Ap. Zeitalt.W 549. 

Cp Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, 179, who supposes that at 
least as early as the third decade of the second century the 
bunday was marked by public worship at Jerusalem. 

Zahn, op. cit. 177. 

4 Before finally accepting or rejecting this conjecture, it will 
nave to be considered whether weekly payments of wages were 
usual, and also which day of the week was reckoned as its first 
V" l u Cml life of Corintn - Plainly Paul is reckoning by the 
Jewish week from Sunday to Saturday ; but Gentile astrologers 
began the week with Saturday (Zahn, 182, 358). 



was a breaking of bread and Paul prolonged his dis 
course with the congregation till midnight (v. 7). Even 
here, however, we must be careful not to infer too much. 
The passag3 furnishes no conclusive proof that the first 
day of the week was the regular day for celebrating the 
Lord s Supper, or that a universal Christian custom is 
here referred to. We may venture to conclude, however, 
with a fair measure of probability, that the first day of 
the week was at the time the day on which the Lord s 
Supper was observed in Troas. 

If, on the other hand, the narrator had wished it to be under 
stood that the breaking of bread which he is mentioning was 
merely ad hoc, and in connection with the apostle s approaching 
departure, he would hardly have expressed himself as he does. 
It is much more likely that Paul fixed Monday for his departure 
in order that he might observe the Sunday communion once 
more with his beloved brethren of Troas. This passage being 
from the pen of an eye-witness, we are justified in regarding it 
as affording the first faint yet unmistakable trace of a setting 
apart of the first day of the week for purposes of public worship 
by Christians. 

Whether Rev. 1 10 ought also to be cited in this 
connection depends on our exegesis of the passage, on 
which see below, 2. 

The younger Pliny s well-known letter to Trajan (about 
112 A.D.) does not state directly that the fixed day 
2 Lie-fat from amon S the Bithynian Christians for 
Other sources. ^ ligi US r f ! P ^as Sunday, though 
this is certainly probable (cp Acts 20 7). 
Its indistinctness is compensated for by the fulness of 
the information in Justin Martyr s First Apology (chap. 
67), written about 150 A.D. 1 

The evidence given before Pliny was to the effect quod 
essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo 
quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus 
aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria 
committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abne- 
garent ; quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque 
[coeundi] ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium 
(Plin. Epp. 1096 [97], ed. Keii, 30 7 /.). 

Justin Martyr s words are as follows : And on the day called 
Sunday (rfj TOV i^Aiou AeyoficVr) i^ue pa) there is an assembly 
(o-ui/e Afuo-ts) in one place of all who live in cities or in the 
country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the 
prophets^cp CANON, 69) are read as long as time permits 
(jixe xpts e-yxwpei) ; then, when the reader has ceased, the 
president (6 Trpoeorcos) gives his exhortation to the imitation of 
these good things (TrpoicAijcrii TTJS Ttav xaAwi TOU-ROI/ jou/ujjo-etus). 
Then we all stand up together and offer prayers (tu^ds Tre^Ti-o^ey) 
and, as we before said [chap. 66], when our prayer is ended 
(navcrafifvaiv riftStv TTJ? et>x*js), bread is brought (npoaijx ptTai.) 
and wine and water, and the president in like manner sends up 
(ai/an-e niTrei) prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability 
(O<TTJ Svvafjus aura!) and the congregation assents (6 Aobs 
e7rcu</>T)|iiei) saying the Amen. And the participation of the 
things over^ which thanks have been given is to each one (17 
jieraA>)i^is UTTO rlav fv\a.pi<rTrj6fvrtav (ca<TT(f), yiVfTai), and to 
those who are absent a portion is sent by the hands of the 
deacons (xai rots ov 7rapou<rii> Sia T>V SKLKOVWV Tre ^iireTai). And 
they who are well-to-do and willing give each one as he wills, 
according to his discretion (KOLTO. Trpoaipecriv cVaarof TTJI/ cfauToG 
o /SouAerai fii Swa-i), and what is collected is deposited with the 
president, and he himself succours (tViicoupei) the orphans and 
widows and those who are in want (Aeuro/xeVois) through sick 
ness or other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the 
strangers who are sojourning (TOI? TrapeTrifijj/uois OIKTL eVots) ; 
and in a word he takes care of all who are in need. And we 
all have our common meeting (KOIVJJ jrarres TTJI avveb.fv<Tiv 
noiovfifda) on the Sunday because it is the First Day, on which 
God, having changed darkness and matter (TO OXOTOS xal rr)V 
t/AT)i/ rpe i^as) made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on 
the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified him on 
the day before Saturday (17; ?rpb TJJS (cpoj>i(eTJs) and on the day 
after Saturday, which is Sunday (TJTIS tcn\v i^Ai ou rnj.fpa), having 
appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught [them] those 
things which we have submitted to you also for your considera 

Besides this passage, we have those cited in 2, 
which are some of them older than Justin s date. 

In the Graeco-Roman world of the Empire, the day 

which was reckoned the first in the Jewish week was 

, ,, , called Sunday, just as the other days 

un ay. Q ^ t j ie wee k were narnec i a f ter t ) ie other 

planets ; the nomenclature is of Babylonian origin (see 
WEEK). Sunday, too, is the name employed by two 
ancient Christian writers in works, it is true, addressed 

Cp Harnack, TLZ 22 [1897] 77. 



to non-Christians 1 viz. by Justin (ut supr.), twice, and 
by Tertullian (Apol. 16, Ad nat. 1 13). Its naturalisa 
tion was made easier by the consideration that the first 
day of the week was the day on which light was created ; 
and, moreover, the comparison of Christ to the sun was 
felt to be apposite. 2 

In the early church the name First day (of Jewish 

origin, as we have seen) and also since the day 

,_. . . .followed the Sabbath, or seventh day 

, r- u"il j y> . f the week Eighth day is of 
Eighth day 

3 frequent occurrence. The two names 

are often combined : The eighth day which is also the 
first. 3 

Most characteristic of all, however, is the name Lord s 

day (i) KvpiaKTj r)/j.tpa; also simply, i) KUpta.K-/i* or 17 

T H Ki piaKri Kvpiov). Usually 5 Rev. 1 - """ A "-"" 

, , fy Trv(i ifj.a.Ti iv rrf 

is cited as 
the earliest instance ; but the presence of 

the article before Kvpuucy and the connection in which 
the phrase occurs both favour the other interpretation 
(supported by a weighty minority of scholars), accord 
ing to which the day of the Lord here stands for the 
day of Yahwe, the day of judgment in LXX 77 i]/j.^pa 
rou Kvpiou (as also in Paul, and elsewhere), called else 
where in Rev. the great day (i] i]/j.^pa 17 fj.eyd\rj : 6 17 

16. 4 ). 

The following early passages, however, are undisputed ; 
Diiiacke 14, Kvpiaxriv 6e Kupiov <Tvva\8ei>Te<; K\d< aprov ; 
Ev. fet. 35, eir(<p<ao-Kev T) Kvptaicq, and ib. 50, opOpov Se T^S 
icupiaicrjs ; Ign. ad. Magnes., !> i, ^tjiceVi c-a/3j3aTioi>Te aAAa 
Kara. Kt ,nnKi)i fuivrei;, iv f) xa\ ^ uir) rjtaiav dpcretAev ; and the 
title of the writing of Melito of Sardis (n-epi icupiaiojs) mentioned 
by Eusebius (HE iv. it! 2). Here Lord s Day has become a 
technical name for Sunday. The word xvpiaxo^, however, is 
not a new coinage of the Christians (more particularly of Paul), 
as used formerly to be supposed. It comes from the official 
language of the imperial period ; frequent examples of its 
occurrence in the sense of imperial are to be found in 
Egyptian inscriptions and papyri, and in inscriptions of Asia 
Minor. 1 

The question as to the reason why Christians called 
the first day of the week the Lord s day is not adequately 
answered by the remark of Holtzmann 7 that the 
expression is framed .after the analogy of deiTrvov 
KvpiaKov. The old Christian answer was that it was 
the Lord s Day as being the day of his resurrection ; 
cp Ign. ad Afagn. 9i, as above, Justin, Apol. 16;, as 
above, and Barnabas log : Wherefore also we keep 
the eighth day with joyfulness, on which also Jesus rose 
from the dead, and, having been manifested, ascended 
into the heavens. 8 This answer has much to be said 
for it. The Lord s day is the weekly recurring com 
memoration of the Lord s resurrection. 

How it was that Christians came to celebrate this 
day weekly, not only yearly, has still to be explained. 
Apart from the established habit of 
observin g the weekl y Sabbath festival, 
the ancient practice of honouring 
particular days by feasts of monthly 
recurrence may very probably have contributed to this 
result. In Egypt, under Ptolemy Euergetes, according 
to an inscription coming from the Egyptian Ptolemais, 9 
the twenty-fifth day of each month was called the king s 
day (17 rou /3acuX^u>s rmtpa] because the twenty-fifth of 
Dios was the day on which he succeeded his father on 
the throne (iv y iraptXapfi rr]v f3a<ri\eiav irapa rov 

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, 357. To make a distinction as 
Zahn does in the use of the name Sunday before and after 
Constantine is to go too far. The Christian inscriptions show 
that the pagan names for the days of the week were already 
current among Christians before Constantine. Cp for example 
De Rossi, 1615 (twice), and V. Schultze, Die Katakomben, 
246, 1882. 

2 Cp Justin, above ; further citations in Zahn, 357^ 

8 Zahn, 356/1 Eighth day first in Barnabas, 158/7 
* Cp rj icpoviKq = t/its Saturni in Justin, above. 
8 As, for example, by Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 
8267, and Zahn, 178. 

6 See Deissmann, Nette Bibelstudien, 1897, p. 44^ 

7 7/C42, 1893, p. 318. 

8 Further evidence in Zahn, 359./C 

9 Bull, dt corresp. hclttnique, 21, 1897, pp. 187, 193. 


. ,. , 

7raTp6s : Decree of Canopus, Is). The Christians might 
have held the same language in speaking of the first day 
of the week with reference to Christ. 

Of like nature is the custom, widely diffused throughput the 
kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, of celebrating the 
birthday of the sovereign, not year by year only, but also month 
by month ; the existence of the custom can be clearly made out 
from recent discoveries in epigraphy, and it is implied in the 
tradition often assailed, but manifestly quite trustworthy of 
2 Mace. 6 7. Cp BiKTHUAY. 1 

Like so many other features in the kingdoms of the 
Diadochi, these birthday customs seem to have had an 
abiding influence within the imperial period. 2 The word 
Augustan (Se/SaoTi?) as a name of a day in Asia Minor 
and Egypt is at least a reminiscence of the custom in 
question ; the name, which first became known through 
inscriptions, has been discussed by H. Usener, 3 and 
after him by J. H. Lightfoot 4 and Th. Mommsen. 5 
According to these scholars, in Asia Minor and Egypt 
the first day of each month was called Ze/iacrr^. Light- 
foot regards this as at least probable in itself, but 
finds that some of the facts are still unexplained. 
Recently K. Buresch, 8 without reference to the scholars 
already mentioned, has revived an old conjecture of 
Waddington, that Ze/SacrrTj is a. day of the week, not a 
day of the month. 

For this Buresch adduces two inscriptions from Ephesus and 
Kabala, and makes reference (in the opposite method to that 
of the present article) to the analogy of the Christian Kvpiaxrj. 
To his two inscriptions we may here add the Oxyrhynchus 
papyrus, 46, dating from 100 A.i>. (CTOUS) y AuroicpaTopos <cai<rapo 
Ne poua TpaiayoG Se/SaoroO rep/ iicoi) Me^eip S 2e/3a<rrfj : on 
the day of Sebaste, 4th Mechir of the third year of the . . . 
emperor Trajan. 

Without venturing on a confident judgment on a very 
difficult question, we might, on the evidence before us 
conjecture that 2e/3curT77 in some cases denotes a definite 
day of the month (the first ?), and in others, as for 
example in the inscriptions from Ephesus and Kabala 
as also in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, 7 a week-day viz. 
Thursday (dies Jovis). 

If this conjecture is correct, then in the dies Jovis 
metamorphosed into a day of Augustus we should 
have an analogy to the change of the dies Solis into 
the Lord s day. As a name for a day of the month 
also 2e/3curT77 would have a value not to be overlooked 
as an analogy for Kvpiaxri. 9 

At what date the name Lord s day arose we do 
not know. Even if we assume Rev. 1 10 to refer to the 
Sunday, it would be rash to conclude 9 that Kvpta.Krj was 
not used before the time of Domitian. 

A. Barry in Smith and Cheetham s Diet. Chr. Antiy., s.r. 

Lord s Day ; Zockler, REft) 14 428^, s.n. Sonntag ; J. B. 

de Rossi, Inscr. Christ. I rbis Rotnif, i. 

7. Literature. 1857-1861 (npoteyoneva); Th. Zahn, Skizzen 

a. </. Leben </. alien A trc/tf, 1898, pp. i6i^I 

35 1 ff- Gtschichte tics Sattnffi^s vornehmlich in der alien 

A~i>c/te, a learned and luminous essay, in which, as in the other 

works cited, references are given to the older literature of the 

subject. G. A. D. 

LORD S PRAYER. The Lord s Prayer is a signifi 
cant example of the scantiness and incompleteness of 
_. . Christian tradition. It is not to be found 
. ace in - m the seconc j g OS p e l i.e. , in the oldest, 
P as most scholars are agreed (unless there 
is a trace of it in Mk. 11.25) nor in the fourth ; and the 
two gospels which contain it, refer it to different occa 
sions, and give it in varying forms. In Mt. it stands 

1 On this custom of a monthly celebration of the birthday see 
also now E. Schiirer, zu 2 Mace. 6 7 (monatliche Geburtstags- 
feier), Zeitsclnift fiir die neutest. H issenschaft u. die Kunde 
des Urchristentums, 2 (1901) 48^ 

2 The Pergamum inscription, 374 B(temp. Hadrian) expro^ly 
mentions a monthly birthday festival of Augustus. 

3 Hull, dflf Inst. di Corrisp. Archeohgica, 1874, pp. 73^! 

4 The Afiostolic Fathers, Part ii.(2), 1889, 1678^ esp. 7147: 
B Af>. Max Frankel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, 95, 

2265 ; cp also Frankel himself, ib. 512. 

6 A us Lydifn, 1898, 49.7: 

7 The Editors think of the day of the Emperor s accession. 
Their reference however to the Berlin papyrus 252 is incon 
clusive ; see vol. 2 of the Berlin Papyri, 354. 

8 So Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudicn, 45^. with concurrence 
of A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschri/t, xviii., 1898, 1542. 

9 Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, 9 2, p. 67. 



(69-13) as part of the Sermon on the Mount ; accord 
ing to Lk. (112-4) it was given by Jesus at the request of 
a disciple, as he was praying in a certain place. From 
the context in Lk. (1038) it has been concluded that the 
locality was near or at Bethany or near Jerusalem, more 
precisely the garden of Gethsemane. l ( Not far from the 
traditional site of Gethsemane on the slope of the Mount 
of Olives stands to-day the church of the Pater-noster, 
showing in the quadrangle the Lord s Prayer engraved 
on marble tablets in thirty-two languages. ) Older har 
monists used to combine the two reports by the suggestion 
that the disciple, who, if he was one of the twelve, must 
have been acquainted with the prayer as taught on the 
former occasion, expected some fuller or more particular 
form of prayer ; or supposed that he was not of the 
Twelve, but one of the Seventy (rts TUV ^adriruv}. Before 
this, Origen had explained the fact that in Lk. a shorter 
form is given than on the Mount by the remark ei/cos ye 
717)65 /J.ev TOV jUaffyrV , are 5?? w<pe\r)/j.ei>oi>, fipijKfvai. rbv 
Kvpiov TO ewLTo/j.wTepoi>, Trpds 5e TOVS TrXelovas, Seo/jLevovs 
TpavoTtpas didacrKctXias, TO ffa,<pf<TTfpov (De Orat. 30 1 ; 
ed. Koetschau, 393). Modern exegesis finds in this 
difference a proof of twofold tradition, and is on the 
whole inclined to see in the place to which Lk. refers 
the prayer, the better tradition, the Sermon on the 
Mount having received a later insertion. So, e.g. , 
Arthur Wright (Some NT Problems, 26 ; The Composi 
tion of the Four Gospels, 75), who insists that in Mt. it 
breaks the parallelism of the context ; and Geo. Hein- 
rici. 2 According to Baljon (Comm. on Mt., Utrecht, 
1900), Mt. seized the opportunity to bring the Lord s 
Prayer which he found in the Logia into the Sermon 
on the Mount, because Jesus was speaking there of 
praying. But it is quite impossible to say anything 
definite on the source or sources from which Lk. and 
Mt. took the piece. Even the hapax legomenon tiriov- 
<rtoj, which is common to both texts, does not prove 
unity of source, or that Greek was the language of that 
source. It is just as possible that Mt. had the Lord s 
Prayer before him (written or oral) in Aramaic or Hebrew, 
and gave it himself in one of these Semitic dialects, and 
that only the Greek wording of the First Gospel was in 
fluenced by the language of the Third Gospel. 3 

According to Lk. , the disciple asked Lord, teach 
us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. That 
the disciples of John were addicted not only to much 
fasting (Mt. 9 14 Mk. 2i8), but to much praying, 4 Lk. 
alone tells us (633). To add fresh petitions on particu 
lar subjects to received forms of prayer, is but natural 
in all times ; certain rabbis (R. Eliezer and R. Johanan) 
are specially mentioned as having done this. 5 In this 
way the Baptist may have added to the prayers then in 
use among the Jews some special prayer, and may have 
taught it his disciples. Such an apocryphal prayer is 
found in Syriac MSS, whether also in Greek and Latin 
the present writer does not know. 6 

1 M. Margoliouth, The Lord s Prayer, pp. 7, 10, and, with 
better reasons, J. A. Robinson, On the locality in which the 
Lord s Prayer was given, in F. H. Chase, The Lord s Prayer 
in the early Church, 7 STS, 1891, pp. 123-5. 

2 Die Bergprtdigt (Reformations-Programm), Leipsic, 1899, 
PP- 24, 34, 7. 7.2- 

3 For this view cp especially Zahn, EM. 2312; for the 
opposite view, that en-iovo-io? was coined by Mt. or one of his 
fellow-workers, see A. Wright, The Gospel according toSt. Luke, 

IQOO, p. 102. 

* The latter statement is apparently questioned by Jiilicher, 
Gleichnisreden Jesn, 2 3. 

3 Lightf., Hor. Hehr. on Mt. 6; art. Schemone Esre in 
Hamburger, RE 2 [1883], 1098. 

6 The prayer which John taught his disciples reads thus 
in the Syriac Bodleian MS, Pococke, 10 : 

God make us (or me) worthy of thy kingdom and to rejoice 

in it ; 
God show me the baptism of thy Son. 

Zotenberg s catalogues of the Syriac MSS in Paris mention 
a prayer of John (whether identical with the preceding or not) 
in MS 13 [20] (after the canticle of Zacharias, Lk. 219-32) and 
ii. [3], among some prayers for the canonical hours (232 [5 6] in 
Syriac or Carshuni). 


Not only as to the occasion but also as to the text of 
the Lord s Prayer, there is a twofold tradition. That of 
_ TTT nr j.-__ Mt- became the form which passed into 
g> general use ; that of Lk. suffered altera 
tion even in the MSS of this Gospel. 

(a) In Mt. the modern critical editions offer hardly 
any variation. The form eXtf^rw of TR instead of 
e X^drw is retained by Alford and Weiss, by Weiss also 
the article TTJS before 7775 ; but d<f>> of the TR is 
generally given up for d<f>rjKa/uifi>. On the doxology, 
see the revisers marginal note, and the notes of WH, 
pp. 8-10. WH gave it a place among the Noteworthy 
Rejected Readings, Weiss at the foot of his page. 

The critical apparatus may be supplemented by the following 
remarks : 

(1) In the Apostolic Constitutions the Bodl. MS misc. graec. 
204 (= Auct.T. 24 on its recovery see TLZ, 1899, co - 20 7) h as 
3 18, Trapa.TTTiufia.Ta, Ka0u><;, omits a<f>ifij.ev, and closes : ore <rov 
fcrTiV 17 jSaenAet a TOV Trarpbs Kal TOV viov ical TOV ayt ov Tri-eii/naTO? 
vvv KCU aei KO.\ els TOVS acwya? TUIV aliaviav a./j.rjv. See on this 
form of the doxology the embolism of the extant Greek liturgies 
(Brightman, 60, 446, 460). 

(2) For ejrl yrjs or en-i rrj? yrjs, cp E. Miller s Textual Com 
mentary on the Gospels, I., for Clement, Barnard (7 S 5 5) ; the 
new edition of Origen is divided : TTJS is found ii. 340 16, where 
the Lord s Prayer is quoted in full, 3(iO 18 3l<3 8 ; in other passages 
!t is omitted. The Curetonian Syriac has the plural for *thy 

(3) The Sinai codices of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanunt 
(ed. Lewis-Gibson) witness to KCLI A0.; so does the Lewis- 
Palimpsest of syr v , which breaks off after this word. Cp the 
additional note of Burkitt in WH (impression of 1896), who 
refers to the Syriac Acts of Thomas (ed. W. Wright, 313), 
where the Lord s Prayer is given in full from syrvt without 
doxology. That the copyist of k (Codex Bobiensis) was so little 
acquainted with Christianity that he was able to write veni ad 
regnum tuum is justly pointed out by Burkitt (Cambridge Uni 
versity Reporter, sth March, 1900). 

(4) In the Syriac MS Pococke, 10 (see above [ i n. 64]), 
on the margin is written **Ot^jQ and our sins, as to be in 
serted after our debts. This is also the reading in the Acts of 
Thomas, 313. 

(5) Special mention has to be made of the Didache, which 
offers at the opening iv TW ovpai/uj (e\6(Tta), rt}v cx^etArji/ fifiiav, 
(a<f>i([j.ei>), OTI <rov eo-Tiv rj (cat 17 Sofa ei? TOVS aiajpas. On 
the word o^eiAij, cp G. A. Deissmann, Neitc Bibelstudien, 48 
(= Bible Studies, IQOI), and compare with this singular, 
the similar singular unsere Schuld for unsere Schulden in 
certain recensions of Luther s Catechism, and in Dutch, where 
Schulden are money-debts (Baljon, Comm. 94). 

(b} In Lk. the text suffered much in MSS and 
editions by assimilation to that of Mt. In TR it differed 
from Mt. only by didov ijfuv TO K0.6 rj/uLfpav, TO.S d/u.a/3- 
ri as, /cat yap avTol d<t>ie/u.ev TTO.VT\ 6((>ei\oi>Ti ijfuv, and 
the omission of the doxology. The critical editions 
have shown that the invocation in Lk. is only iraTep, 
and that the third and seventh petitions are totally 
absent. In the rest, there is full agreement, though 
Weiss again writes eX#erw with TR. All prefer d<pio/j.fv 
to the a.(pie[j.ev of the TR. 

There is one very interesting variant treated at length in 
the apparatus of WH : eASeViu TO ayiov Tri tv/aa crov e<j> TJ/UOS KCU 
KaOapKTaTia rifiaf. To supplement the remark of \VH (repeated 
in 1896) that no other record of this singular reading is extant 
(besides the explicit testimony of Greg. Nyss., Maximus Con 
fessor, and Tertullian), it should be noted that cod. evang. min. 
604 ( = 700 in the list of Gregory -Egerton 2610, in the British 
Museum) has this very reading in the text of Lk. (see H. A. C. 
Hoskier, A full account and collation of the Greek Cursive 
Codex Evangelium, 604 [1890], who gives a photographic re 
production of the passage, and Chase, 24). Whether in the 
reading e$ 17^09 which is added in cod. D and various forms of 
the second petition, 1 a trace of this Marcionitic reading is 
extant, maybe doubted. Marcion wrote further -rov aprov <rov 
TOV eTriovo-ioi/, perhaps Ta? djuiapTi a; instead of TO. 6$eiA>jjoiaTa 
(on the second clause there is no testimony extant), and put JU.TJ 
a$6? rjfia.<; fi<revx9r\va.i, a dogmatic alteration, which (inde 
pendently, it would seem) appears also in Latin in Cyprian (De 
Or.c. 25), in Latin MSS of the Gospels (see Chase, p. 62 jf.), 
and in several settings of the Liturgy, as suffer us not to be led 
or let us not be led into temptation. 2 



1 In German, zuunskomme dein Reich, or zukomme uns 
dein Reich. In the so-called Bishops Book, thy kingdom 
come unto us. 

2 See Chase, who quotes (he so-called King s Book of 1593, 
and W. H. Frere, Edwardine Vernacular Services, in Journ. 
Th. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 242. 



In a passage like the Lord s Prayer, every minute 

3. Numbering detail such as numberi "g and arrange- 

* ment and even orthography deserves 

arrangement care ^ ul attention. 

Augustine (Enchirid. 116) remarks 
Lucas in oratione doniinica petitiones non sepiem sed 
quinque complexus est. The number seven became 
thenceforth traditional in the Roman Catholic and the 
Lutheran Church. But the same Augustine argued : 
quod ille (Mt. ) in ultima posuit : libera nos a malo, iste 
(Lk. ) non posuit, ut intelligeremus ad illud superius 
quod de tentatione dictum est pertinere. In accordance 
with this view, Origen and Chrysostom counted six 
petitions ; they are followed by the reformed churches. 
WH print the Lord s Prayer in Mt. in 2 x 3 stichi, in 
Lk. without strophic arrangement. Wordsworth- White 
make, in their Latin NT, of Pater-nomen titum one 
stichus, of et ne inducas and sed libera two. Hetze- 
nauer s reprint of the Vulgate puts a full stop after every 
petition, therefore also: lentationem. Sed. In the 
Greek text Weiss places a colon only after 77;$, WH 
after yrjs, ffr)fj.(pov, and TJ/UWP, while Brightman (Litur 
gies ) omits all punctuations in the second half, and 
separates the first half by commas. AV, RV, and 
Prayerbook need hardly be quoted. The division and 
arrangement of WH prove the best. 

No attempt can be made here to give an exhaustive 
explanation of this Breviarium totius evangelii as 

. -, . Tertullian stvled it, or Coelestis doc- 

4. Meaning. . 

tnnre compendium, as Cyprian called it. 

Oratio haec, said Tertullian, quantum substringitur 
verbis, tantum diffunditur sensibus. Some philological 
remarks, however, are necessary. 

(1) The exordium. The abrupt irdrtp, says A. 
Wright (Gospel of Luke [1900], 103), is softened down 
in St. Matthew by an editorial addition which in identical 
or equivalent terms occurs in Mt. 51645 etc. (19 times) ; 
only once in St. Mark (1125) ; not at all in St. Luke ; 
but see Lk. 11 13. In the West there is evidence that 
the abruptness was eased by prefixing the original Ara 
maic abba (not abbun, our father ). So Rom. 815 Gal. 
46 (Mk. 1436). It is better to say that the Aramaic 
original Abba was preserved even in Greek surround 
ings, but explained by the addition of the translation 6 
irarrip (as in Mk. 641, ra\i0a through rb Kopdffiov). 

That not only the isolated Trdrep of Lk. , but also irartp 
riniav of Mt. can correspond to N2N is sufficiently shown by 
Dalman, ll orte Jesu, 157, though for a prayer the more 
solemn 3K (in Hebrew), Kmx (Aramaic), |J12N (Galilean), 
seems to Dalman more probable. For the isolated jrdrep or 
o n-aT/jp cp Mt. 11 26 Mk. 14 36 Lk. 22 42 with Mt. 203942 Lk. 
(15 12 1821) -233445 Jn. Il4i_1227y: 17 i 521 24 (with 1025) or 
Clem. i. ad Cor. 8 3 : tav c7ric7Tpa<f>7)Te rrpb? fie f oAjjs TTJJ 
(cri/jciim cal etmjre Hdrep, eTraxoucro^xai v/uoii , the Syriac trans 
lation has here p^jt (our father). 

That the imperative forms ayiaaO-firw and yevi^d-qru 
may be used for the optative, CVKTIKW not strictly 
jrpooraKTiKuis, is shown by Origen (De Or. 24 5, ed. 
Koetschau, 2 3557". ) with reference to some remarks of 
Tatian on yei>t]0riTu in Gen. 1 3. 

On the use of the passive aorist of this verb instead of the 
middle see Hlass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Grie- 
chisch, 20, i). (In Gen. 1 3 y<fi/7)0rJT<o of LXX gives place in 
Aquilaand Longinus (tic Sittlimi) to ytviirOia, in Symmachus 
to l<TTta, in the Oracula Sifryllina, i, 9, to yeit>d<rOta.) On the 
Semitic original presupposed by yfujfr^Tio, see below, 5 [4]. 

(2) ^TnoiVtoj. The remark of Origen, 1 that the word 
is not found elsewhere in Greek, is still true despite the 
recent increase of Greek literature through the newly 
discovered papyri ; on its meaning, therefore, tradition 
must be heard, and the question settled, if possible, by 
philological reasons. 

(a) The oldest tradition seems to be that represented 
in syr vt (cur. , sin. and Acts of Thomas) by won 1 ? (or 10117) 
KJ CN, (our) constant, continual bread. 

1 The passage is important, and deserves study (De Orat. 11 j 
= Koetschau, 2 $&>/.). 



This J<CK is, in the Pesh. of the OT, the regular rendering for 
Heb. Ten ; see especially Nu. 47, TCrn Cn? ( continual 
bread EV), and it is a strange coincidence, that not only the 
Armenian version of 2 Mace, translated 1 8 (npo(9rJKa/j.ev TOUJ 
dprous) by the same word as in NT rbv aprov TI/JWI- rbv 
ejriouo-ioi l but also the mediaeval Jew, Shemtob ben Shaphrut, 
to whom is due the Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew, 
published in the i6th century by Miinster and Mercier, and re- 
published in 1879 by Ad. Herbst, 2 hit upon the corresponding 
Hebrew word TDDi translating QV,T l:S jn Ten UCnS DN- He 
even formed from TOH an adjective H Cn, which in biblical 
Hebrew is as unheard of as errtoucrio? in Greek from 7rioO<ra. 
T. R. Crowfoot, Observations on . , . Cureton Syriac Frag 
ments (1872, p. 10), and C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish 
Fathers (1877, p. 141), seem to have had no knowledge of this 
medieval predecessor when they proposed TCfl as original for 

(b} The same tradition seems represented in the West 
by the old Latin cotidianus and the Gothic hlaif un- 
sarana thana sinteinan (cp the same word in 2 Cor. 11 28 
= Ko.6 ij/j^pav and the adv. , sinteino for Sid. iravrfa, 
irdvTOTf, del) and the Old German emissigaz (Vaterunser 
of Weissenburg). 

(c) With the venientem of the Sahidic version is to 
be compared Cyril (Luc. 265), ol /jv tivai (pavi rbv 
ij^ovrd re KO.I do6rj<r6[j.evov Kara rbv aiuva rbv fj.t\\ovra, 
while he himself explained : Sri rrjs i<f>-qfj.^ pov rpo<pfjs 
Troiovvrai rrjv aUrrjcriv ojj dKrr)fj.oves SijXovori ttriouffiov 
rbv avrdpKT) diavoeiffOai xp~n- The Coptic has crastinum. 

(d) The Peshitta has the bread of our need, and is 
followed by the later Syriac translation of Polycarp and 
Thomas of Heraclea, who formed the rare adjective 
JAlAJCUB our needy bread. The Palestinian, trans 
lating our bread of richness, took eiriovcriot in the 
sense of irtptovatos. 

(e) Jerome tried the word supersubstantialis, sub- 
stantivus or superventurus ; Victorinus, consubstan- 
tialis. [Hence J. B. Jona in his Hebrew version of the 
Gospels (Romae, MDCLXVIII) even gives cvprrSy cnS.] 

(_/") It would be of the highest importance to be 
assured of the accuracy of Jerome s repeated statement 
that the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he identified 
at times with the Semitic original of Matthew, had 
mdhdr (ino). Two views are possible. The one is 
that this mdhdr is a translation from the Greek, resting 
on etymology ; if this be so, the explanation has no 
more value than any other. The other is that this 
mdhdr represents the Jewish-Christian form of prayer of 
400 A.D. (or thereabouts), which was also known about 
60-65 A - D - n Jerusalem, Kokaba, Beroea. 

For the latter view strong reasons are given, especially by 
Th.Zahn, Geschichtedes Kanons, 2593 709 ; Einl. 1 312 ; for the 
former see R. H. Kennett in A. Wright s Gospel of S. Luke, 
102. It is true, incC?) UCn? sounds a little strange in Hebrewi 
and so indeed does the Aramaic "inn 1 N3Dri7; but it is so 
in other languages also, and there are philological reasons which 
strengthen this tradition. 3 

On this side of the question see Winer-Schmiedel, Gramnt. 
16 n. 23, and the literature there mentioned. Origen s view 
that the word comes from iiri and ovtria, or from eni and tlvoi, 
is less likely than the other, that it is derived from en-ieVoi, more 
especially from 17 firiouo-a, sc. r)H*pa, the following day. If we 
compare James 2 15, TTJS e^rj/nepou Tpo<f>rj?, the way of the RV 
seems the best, to leave our daily bread in the text and to re 
mark that literally it means our bread for the coining day. 

Comparing Prov. 308 ,?n cnV (AV food convenient 
for me, mg. of my allowance ; R V food that is need 
ful for me, mg. Heb. the bread of my portion ), 
Del., Salk. -Gi. , Resch translate ujsn en 1 ? ; Ronsch (like 
the Palestinian version), unViD cnS ; Taylor (like the old 

1 This is the origin of the statement in H-P, on 2 Mace. 1 8, 
tres codices Sergii dprovs CITIOIKTIOV?, to which Deissmann (Nrue 
Bibelstudien, 41) and Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 99, p. 157) called 

2 On this edition see the present writer s review, Lit. Central- 
blatt, 1880, no. ii. 

3 See also Jerome s Comm. on Mt. 6 (Vallarsi, 7 34), the Anec- 
dota MarcJsolana, ed. Morin, III. 2 (1896) 262, where the most 
definite statement occurs : In Hebraico evangelio secundum 
Matthzum ita habet : Panem nostrum crastinum da nobis 



Syriac and Shemtob), jnnn KonV or ron DnV- Arnold 
Meyer (Muttersprache Jesu, 1896) thinks of Aramaic 
nop, sufficient. Chase s conclusion is that the original 
may simply have been Give us our (or the ) bread of 
the day. M. Schultze (Gramm. der aram. Mutter 
sprache Jesu, 1899, 113) gives lahma di sork-dna and 
3is is given by the last reviser of the last version of 
the Hebrew NT quoted by M. Margoliouth, who finds 
this utterly inconceivable, proceeding from a sheer 
mania for alteration. That it refers to the needs of 
common life and must not be taken allegorically (as 
Marcion and many since his time have taken it) is now 
almost universally admitted. 

(3) irovrjpov ; malo. Whether this be masculine or 
neuter, cannot in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac be decided 
from the form alone. For the Greek NT see the ex 
haustive investigation of Chase. Shemtob translated 
jn *?3D (changed in the edition of S. Mimster). There 
is an early allusion to this meaning in the Didach^ 
(10s), fj,vri<r6ijTi, Kvpie,TTjs tKK\r)(ria.s crov, pwra<T0cu aur^y 
dird iravros wovajpov. The Ethiopic, too (see Bright- 
man, Liturgies, 234), has Deliver us and rescue us 
from all evil. The same combination of the two verbs 
by which in the Peshitta pv<rcu is rendered (Mt. ) JnQ 

and (Lk. ) J-3, is found in the Nestorian Liturgy 


(Brightman, 296), Save and deliver us from the 
evil one and his hosts. Taylor (Sayings, 142 ff.} 
writes The original form of the petition can scarcely 
have been jnn jo u^sm I but may it not have been 
jnrr is D uS xni ? On the jn is or jnn \ see Taylor s 
note. It seems on the whole the most probable view 
to take it as masculine. The Arabic text published by 
Mrs. M. D. Gibson (Studio. Sinaitica, 7 14, has 
from the Satan and adds Kvpie after temptation ; cp 
on the latter addition, Brightman, Liturgies, 469, /. 54. 

(4) For the doxology, cp not only i Ch. 29 n, but 
also Dan. 237 i Esd. 43840 and the Prayer of Manas- 
seh (end). The earliest quotations are in Polycarp, ad 
Philipp. 6 and 7. 

In former times Grotius (especially), and, later, 

Wetstein expressed the view that the Lord s Prayer was 

6. Connection f combination of Jewish prayers ex 

wifii TAITT- u f rm ulis Hebraeorum concmnata. 

"lull u CWl S U s-\ i r i i 

Pravers Others went further, and maintained 
that the Lord s Prayer consisted of the 
beginnings of prayers, singled out by Jesus as suitable 
for his followers. Still more extravagant statements, as 
that Jesus had gathered the Lord s Prayer out of the 
Zendavesta, need not detain us (see P1?W 4768). On 
the other hand, Dr. M. Margoliouth in 1876 endeavoured 
to show that the Jewish Liturgy never contained any 
thing so glorious, so august, and so comprehensive. 
His work, entitled The Lords Prayer no Adaptation 
of existing Jewish Prayers, is, however, rather rhetorical 
than historical and critical in character. The truth is 
that we may say of the Lord s Prayer applying what 
Theodore Zahn lately wrote (Forschungen, 6 [1900] 153) 
of the teaching of Jesus as a whole that Jesus uttered 
things which were said almost literally by Jewish teachers 
before and after him. On the other hand, duo si 
faciunt idem, non est idem ; and even if for the separate 
parts, words, thoughts of the Lord s Prayer parallels 
can be adduced from Jewish sources, as a whole this 
prayer remains unique. Moreover, it is difficult to be 
certain of the exact age of the parallels adduced. The 
Jewish Liturgy has had a complicated history, if we 
mention only the most famous pieces of it, 1 the Shtmd . 
the SMmoneh Esreh, the Kaddish, the Abinu Malkenu, 
1 On the Skema and Shemoneh Esreh see Schiirer, GVI 

l] ^. 1 PP- *^D! S chec hter^ Some Rabbinic Parallels to the 
NT, \nJQK, Apr. 1900, p. 429. 


and since Christian scholars are (apart from Dalman) 
behindhand in thorough and critical study of docu 
ments (cp PRAYER), it seems best to restrict ourselves to 
some of the most remarkable and indisputable Jewish 

For OT parallels see the Bible (RV) with marginal references 
Dittmar, I etus Testamentum in Novo (1899), and Hiihn, Die 
alttestamentlichen Citate und R eminiscenzen ii Neuen Tes- 
tamente [1900] (Part II. of Die Messianischen Weissagungen ). 

( i ) Exordium : irdrtp, or -irdrtp T|nv 6 v ovpavois. It 
is the Jewish custom to add D < OB : 3(tt ), K CB 3-i, (who) is 
in heaven to 3^ where it is used of God ; but in prayer, 
even among Jews the isolated \yy& is not unusual. The 
fundamental passage for the designation of God as 
Father is Ex. 4 22. (Cp FATHER. ) 

For ShemOneh Esreh, cp 4 and 6 in both recensions (the 
Palestinian detected by Schechter among the MSS from the 
Gemzah of Cairo and published in/(pA 10 [1898], pp. 654-9 I re 
printed at the end of Dalman s Die li- orte Jesu, I., 299, and, in 
the Babylonian, Dalman, 301 ff.), ^PXD njn 3N |n and 
^ 3X W7 n?p, and in the Babylonian form *irnin i ? ir;iN W3 B>n, 
where the Palestinian has 5j J7N 133 BTI. On the H|J?D 3K 
(the prayer for New Year and Day of Atonement) see HairT- 
burger, I.e. Suppl. II. i ; on O Crm 3K, Father of mercies 
(2 Cor. 1 3 ; BerakhOth 8) and D Crm 3N 3K (in the prayer 
before the Shema), Hamburger, I. 8. In the Kaddish Dip 
N T ?E>:n NH3K, for which the Kaddish de Rabbanan has JOD D p 
N ^"?^] K^OB 1, before the word of heaven and earth, and 
another recension, Nl iff tr\O, the Lord of heaven and earth, 
Dalman, 305. In Aramaic, N^CCton f3K occurs as introduction 
to the recital of Ex. 15 ; see ZDMG 54 n6. 

(2) d-yiao-0TJTw, comp. in Shemoneh Esreh, 3, grnp 
ya& tniji NRN, in the Babyl. recension with transposition 
trng TjCBn Bnijj nnw and the sequel si^.v n v^a D r npi 
rrta for qnySap ai^N p*ti ; further Bab. 18, }DE>-riN tyy 

The divine name occurs further in Bab. i dot} JJ;D ?> f r his 
name s sake ) 13 -ps?3 DTIBl3n, that trust in thy name ; in 
thy name we trust. The Kaddish begins : TCB EHprn Vnan* 
"??{?? N 7^ magnified and hallowed be his great name in the 
world ; afterwards, eight more such verbs are placed together 
referring to the name of holiness, blessed be he (or it) : -pan* 

713 jcE ipi .TOP Nb :m 7?nn i nSyn i oniim iNDn i n^nc" 

Nirt, blessed, praised, and beautified, and extolled, and elevated, 
and glorified, and lifted up, be the name of holiness, blessed be 
he. Any benediction which is without mention of hasseut 
(i.e., nirp) is no benediction at all ; b. BerakhOth, 40^. 

(3) ^XOdrw. Any benediction (cp the preceding) 
which is without Malkuth is no benediction at all : 
b. Bgrakhoth, 40^. 

Shemoneh n [Bab. adds mnc] ?H3^ NRK U ^V Tl l^OI and 

T" I J v - : T - T ; 

be king over us (quickly) thou alone (opposed to [12] ni3?D 
P~IT, the kingdom of pride ) ; cp no. 14, n B D "111 fl 3 JTO^D 
IplS, i? (variant NnN 3 BD1 31 W I^D 3>- 

Kaddish, n ni37D "HD , may his kingdom reign ; but read 
with Dalman T?D , may he make it reign ; the Kaddfsh de- 
Rabbanan adds (in one recension, n ip 3), in his glory," and 
connects it with the kingdom of his Messiah. 

(4) -ytvTiOyJTw. Whether in Hebrew nbjr or ,T be 
the better translation, can be doubted. Shemtob, 
Del. , Salk. -Gi. , and Resch adopted ne jr ; M. Mar 
goliouth preferred vr, the reading of the previous Hebrew 
version which comes to us from Dr. M. S. Alexander 
(the first Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem), Dr. S. M Caul, 
and Stanislaus Hoga ; the Syrian versions have win, with 
the exception of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, 
which, in accordance with its usual diction, has 12JW- 

In Jewish prayers there seems to be no exact parallel ; but cp 
BerakhOth, 29/ , where Rabbi Eliezer answers the request for a 
short prayer by saying y\ Sj/CD D CtJ^ TjlXT HB^ Do thy will 
in heaven above (Taylor, Sayings, 139, Hamburger, 1098 
n. 6), and Berfikhoth, 166, Dl^ST D ETltJ 13 nSl^ 7JS?D )ls"1 ri i 
May it be thy will, O Lord, our God, to make peace in the 
family above and in the family below. In Shemoneh Esreb, 



i3i "JliT l?iy cy. with those who do thy will and 16, 
nsn, be pleased O Lord our God ; in the Babyl. re 
cension 16 u jnrn -py rKntr n-ny ran pmV .mm pm3 *?3pn. 

In the Kaddlsh p3my3 T^ynni pDrllSx *?2pnn. may your 
prayer be accepted and may your petition be done. 

(5) TOV dprov. No exact parallel in Jewish prayers. 
There is a petition for blessing of the year in Shcmoneh 
Esreh 9, in Habinenii and elsewhere, and the saying of 
R. Eliezer haggadol (circa 40-120 A.D.), Whosoever has 
a bit of bread in his basket and says, What shall I eat to 
morrow ? must be reckoned among those of little faith 

(Sofa, 48*). 

On the different translations of tn-ioiio-tos, see above, 4 (2). 

(6) Kal d<}>s. Shtmoneh 6, *S wnan 3 iriiK uS n^p 
ya j s [izyni] nna, in the Babyl. recens. 16 ir^y crni [oin] ; 
also in Habinenii. TO. 6<j>(t\r)/j.a.Ta (expression from 
business- life) is more irnizin (Del. , Marg. ; also Shem- 
tob, who renders 6</>ei\^rau i]^C>v, irnum ^JD?) than = 
ijnas N (Salkinson-Ginsburg, Kesch). 

(7) ls iripao-u.<5v. Shemtob, Del., J VBJ T 1 ? ; Salk.- 
Gi. , Resch, HDD n;S ; the reviser, rightly challenged by 
M. Margoliouth (p. 95), noaS ; Munster, p 333 for 
Shemtob s j n-S 

The expression jro: rS . . . i:N % ;n StO occurs in the Jewish 
morning prayer (cp Herakhoth, 6c>^, Margoliouth, 98, Taylor, 
142 f.) ; but this prayer seems to betray a later origin than 
the Lord s Prayer: "r 1 ? N 1 ? m ln *?N1 TJsSp pm .VI 

U3 eSe-n *?KI p - i3 n S N T) p-c: r 1 ? wVi mzy -rS Si nan 
jnn is*- 

(8) dirb TOV irovripov. In the prayer which Rabbi 
used to say after the usual prayer according to Berak- 
hoth, i6f>, he mentions, among the evils from which he 
desires to be delivered, after yi lira J?T yjEd yn DIN 
jn J3ffO yn -ana, also rvnsyan joe-si, and from Satan the 
Destroyer 1 (Taylor, i42/). 

(9) All the expressions of the Doxology occur in 
Jewish prayers rt, ijr, ja^ir. ty. "O133. 

Among early commentaries, see those of Origen (vol. ii., ed. 
by Koetschau) and Cyprian ; among modern treatise* that 
of Kamphausen (1866), F. H. Chase s The 
6. Literature. Lor,fs Prayer in the Early Church (Texts 
and Studies, 3 (iSgil), where too the litera 
ture is duly noted, C. W. Stubbs, The Social Teaching of the 
Lord s Prayer (1900). 

A portion of the Lord s Prayer, from a clay tablet of about the 
fourth century, A.D. found at Megara and now in the National 
Museum at Athens, has been published lately by R. Knopf 
(JMittheil. des Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts: Atheniscke 
Abtheilung, xxv. 4(19001313-324). The tablet is broken, but 
endsairb roO novripov. Then follows nvpLf and the monogram of 

Christ _|j Eb " N " 

LO-RUHAMAH (TOIT1 i6. 23, -unpitied ; oyK 
HAeHMeNH [BAQ], cp npnj K7, Is. 54 n), and Lo. 

AMMI pJ31? X?, not my people ; oy AAOC MOY 
[BAQ]), symbolical names given to Hosea s daughter 
and son, to signify that Yah we would cease to have 
mercy upon the house" of Israel, and that they were no 
more his people, nor he their God ( Hos. 1 6-9 ; see 
Rom. 925 i Pet. 2io). Cp HOSKA, 6, JEZKKEL, i, 
col. 2459. 

The antithesis comes at the close of the prophecy in chap. 
22i^ [23^1(10 which probably 1 io-2 i [2 1-3] is to be appended), 
In that day ... I will pity /Ticm) Lo-ruhamah, and to Lo- 
ammi I will say "Thou art my people" (223(251) . . . Say 
ye unto your brethren Ammi (my people) and to your sisters 
Ruhamah (pitied) 2 i [3]. Zech. 189 is not the only parallel. 
If Ariel in Is. 29 i 2 7 should rather be Jerahmeel (cp 2 S. 568, 
where the true text, the present writer thinks, spoke of Jebusites 
and Jerahmeelites as the inhabitants of old Jerusalem), we get a 
close parallel to Hosea ; for v, y/>fi should in this case run, and 
it shall become Lo-jerahmeel i.e., on whom God hath no pity. 
See Crit. Hit. T. K. C. 

LOT (V^fil), Josh. 186. See DIVINATION, 2 (iv.). 


LOT (1217, ACOT). ^ righteous man, who by the divine 
favour escaped from the catastrophe which befel the 
, wicked city of Sodom (Gen. 191-29) ; he is 
also said to have been brother s son to 
tradition. At)ra ham, whom he accompanied from his 
fatherland (124/), but from whom he parted at length 
owing to disputes between their shepherds, and to have 
been allowed by his generous uncle to choose the Jordan 
valley for himself and his flocks (13 5-12) ; a later 
tradition says that Abraham made a successful expedi 
tion to rescue Lot who had been taken captive by 
Chedorlaomer and the allied kings (14 121416). It 
should be noticed here that the story in 1 2 10-20 is 
probably one of the later insertions in J ; hence the 
otherwise surprising circumstance that no mention is 
made in it of Lot. The words and Lot with him are 
an editorial correction (cp Oxf. Hex. ). The Moabites 
and Ammonites are called by two writers the b ne Lot 
(EV -children of Lot ), Dt. 2 9 < 9 Ps. 83 9 [8] ; a 
legendary account of their origin is given in Gen. 1930-38 
(cp AMMON, MOAK). 

In the latter story the progenitor of Ammon and Moab appears 
as dwelling in the cave ; or, more precisely, two parallel state 
ments are made in in>. jpa and 30^, he dwelt in the mountain 
("1 113) and he dwelt in the cave (rnyBS). Hence the question 
arises whether in the cave may not be a gloss on in the moun 
tain (so Di.), or rather perhaps on "in3, in a cave, in being 
altered into in to suit a change in the context. 

It would be somewhat hard to deny that the story in 
Gen. 1930-38 was interwoven with the story of the de 
struction of Sodom by a later hand. It was not one of 
the really popular Hebrew legends, and contrasts as 
strongly with the previous honourable mention of Lot 
as the story of Noah s drunkenness (Gen. 9 21^) con 
trasts with that of the reward of his righteousness. 

The primary Lot (Gen. 1930-38) was presumably re 
presented as a Horite ; he is identical with Lotan, who 
was the eldest of the sons of Seir the 
2. Identification. Horke (Gen 36zo)> and was himself 

the father of a son called Hori (v. 22). The secondary 
Lot (the kinsman of Abraham) may, or rather must, 
once have had another name, and very possibly (cp the 
probable supersession of ENOCH [g.v.~\ in the Hebrew 
Deluge-story by Noah) an error of a very early scribe 
lies at the foundation of the change. In Gen. 1127 (P) 
the father of Lot is said to have been Haran (pin)- Now 
HAKAN [</.v.~\ can only be explained as a variation of 
Haran (pn), or rather Hauran (pin). See JACOB, 3. 
The narrative of J in its original form possibly spoke of 
Hauran as accompanying Abraham from their common 
fatherland ; pin would easily be miswritten mn, Hori, 
and mn be considered a synonym for Lotan, or Lot, 
the Horite. It would then become natural to attach 
the story of the origin of Moab and Ammon to the 
person of the righteous survivor of Sodom and kinsman 
of Abraham. But the real antestor, according to 
legend, of Moab and Ammon was, not Hauran the 
Hebrew, but Lot the Horite. (Of course, the story in 
Gen. 1930-38 is neither of Moabitish and Ammonitish 
nor of primitive Hebrew origin ; it is an artificial 
product, except in the one point of the tracing of the 
Moabites and Ammonites to Lot the Horite, which is 
due to misunderstanding. ) 

The secondary Lot is but a double of Abraham. 
Doubtless he shows differences from Abraham, which 
n . . , mar the portrait ; but these are due to 
3. Origin Of the un f avoura ble circumstances in which 
name. tjle biographer places Lot, and only prove 
that the narrator could not triumph over such great 
obstacles. Lot has therefore made but a slight mark 
on Hebrew literature (Dt. 2919 and Ps. 839 [8] are both 
late). A reference is made in Lk. 172932 both to Lot 
and to his wife, which remains morally effective even if 
the pillar of salt (Gen. 1926) is an accretion on the 
original story (see SODOM). His function is to confirm 
the belief that the ancestors of the Hebrews were not 



wild, self-seeking warriors, but men of piety and 
righteousness (cp 2 Pet. 2?/). Of the character of 
the primary Lot, who alone has a right to the name, 
we have no trustworthy information. His name, how- 
erer, is significant ; it comes from to take a stranger 
into the family (Ar. Idta in viii. ). 

Winckler supports this by a quotation from Ibn Hisum (6^/.) 
relative to a man who was belated on a certain occasion, pro 
vided with a wife by his friend, and adopted into the friend s 
family (ilta.ta.-hu) , in this way he became his friend s brother. 
Applying this key to the Lot of Gen. 19 30-38, and the Lotan of 
Gen. 36 20 29, we may suppose that a pre-Edomitish tribe was 
admitted into union with the Edomites. The name of Lotan s 
sister is TIMNA [y.v.], and in 8612 Timna is the name of the 
concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau or Edom. The cases appear 
to be analogous. On Gen. 14 12 cp SODOM AND GOMOKRAH, 
and on 13ioyC PARADISE, 6, end. 

Cp Wi. AOt 1 287 f-\ Stucken, Astralmythen, 81-125; 
Stade, Gesch. 1 119 ; Ewald, Gesch. 1 448 ; Hplzinger and Gunkel 
on Genesis. For Jewish legends see the Midrash Ber. Rabba ; 
for Mohammedan, Koran, 15 58-75, etc. -p. K. C. 

LOTAN ($ ; AOGT&N [BADEL]), one of the sons 
of Seir, i.e.. a Horite clan, Gen. 86202229 ; i Ch. 1 38 f. 
See EDOM, 3, col. 1183 ; LOT. 

LOTHASUBUS (AcoeACoyBoc [BA], etc.), i Esd. 
&44f=Neh. 84, HASHBAIJANA. 


LOTUS TREES (D^NV), mentioned in Job 40 2I /, 
RV, as a favourite covert of the BEHEMOTH or HIPPO 
POTAMUS (AV shady trees ; cp Ges. Thes. ; TTANTO- 
A&TT& AeNAp<\ and AeNApA MefAAA [BNA]). RV s 
rendering is doubtless correct. The cognate Arabic 
dal 1 is the dom-tr&s, a thorny shrub, sometimes attaining 
considerable height, a wild species of the sidr (Rhamnus 
spina Christi [Linn.], cp Lane, s.v. ddl, sidr]. This 
prickly lotus (according to Volck, the L. silvestris] is the 
L. Z.izyphus, a native of N. Africa and S. Europe, and 
is to be kept distinct from the water-lilies, L. Nymphcea 
(of Egypt) and L. Nelumbo (of India and China), which 
repeatedly occur as a motif in Egyptian and oriental 
mythology and art. 2 See Wetz. ap. Del. ad loc. 

N. M. 

LOVE-APPLE ("TR), Gen. 30 14 RVs-, EV MAN 

DRAKES \_q.V. \ Cp ISSACHAR, 2. 

feasts of charity. See EUCHARIST, 3. 

LOVINGKINDNESS pDn, fu sed), a characteristic 
term of OT religion, applicable both to Yahwe and to 
1 Renderi & man - i his rendering of htsed may be 
inadequate, but is certainly preferable 
to mercy (or mercies, which alternates with it in 
EV). Mercy is an inheritance from the Wycliffite 
Bible ; Vg. gives miser icordia, and Aeos, eXerifj.ocrvi rj, 
t\fri/j.uv (but also nine times diKaioavvrj, and once 
Su-cuos). It might have been better to limit the use of 
mercy to the phrase have mercy ( :|n). Ps. 4 i [2] 
62(3] 9i3[i4], etc. Other renderings of hdsed in EV 
are favour (Esth. 2 17 Job 10 12), goodness (Hos. 64). 
The root meaning may be mildness (so Ges.( 13 )), but, 
in actual use, httsed is not mere mildness or gentle 
ness. A few classical passages from the OT will prove 
this statement. 

i. i S. lo 6, For ye showed brotherly kindness to the chil 

dren of Israel. 

2. References. 2. i S. 20 8, Mayest thou show loving- 
kindness to thy servant, because into a bond 
sanctioned by Yahwe thou hast brought thy servant. 

3. i S. 20 14, And shouM I be yet alive, mayest thou show 
ne the lavingkindness of Yahwe (cp 2 S. _9 3). But should I die, 

ayest thou not withdraw thy compassion from my house for 
rer. 3 

4. 2 S. 15 20, Return and take thy brethren with thee, and 
ay Yahwe show thee lavingkindnesi and faithfulness. 

1 On the Syr. equiv. JJJj^, /3aros, cp Low, Pfanz. 275 f. 

2 Found also upon a Jewish intaglio, e.g., Perrot-Chipiez, 

Art in Phoenicia, 2246, fig. 175. 

3 We follow H. P. Smith. 


5. i K. 2031, The kings of the house of Israel are kindly 

6. Hos. 4 i, Hear the word of Yahwe, ye sons of Israel, for 
Yahwe has a quarrel with the inhabitants of the land, because 
there is no trustworthiness, no brotherly kindness, no know 
ledge of God in the land. 1 

7. Hos. 646, What shall I do to thee, O Ephraim? what 
shall I do to thee, O Israel?! Your loyal affection was like 
morning clouds, and like the night-mist which early disappears. 
. . . For loyal affection do I desire, not sacrifice ; and the 
knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 

8. Hos. 11 i-4, When Israel was young I began to love 
him ; from (the time that he was in) Egypt, I called him my 
son. As soon as I called them, they went from me ; they sacri 
fice to the Baals, they cause smoke to rise to the images. It 
was I that guided Ephraim, I took him on mine arms ; but 
they they discerned not that I had redeemed them. The 


I ,(.-S 

kindness, and to celebrate the works of Yahwe? 3 

10. Jer. 22, I remember in thy behalf the loyal affection of 
thy youth, the love of thy bridal state. 

n. Dt. 7 12, Because ye obey these judgments . . . Yahwe 
thy God will carry out for thee the covenant and the loving- 
kindness which he swore to thy fathers. 

12. Is. 54 10, My lovingkindness shall not depart from thee, 
nor shall my covenant of peace remove. 

13. Ps. 25 10, All the paths of Yahwe are lovingkindness (so 
RV) and faithfulness to those that observe his covenant and his 

14. Job 10 12, Favour 1 and lovingkindness thou hast prac 
tised towards me, and thy care has watched over my breath. 

In all these passages it is not mere mildness that 
is meant, but active kindness, and not necessarily that 

3. Applications. fo ? f activ( ; ! <in f dnes v f which Po , rt ! a 
calls mercy, but, when men solely 

are concerned, any form of helpfulness. It is in fact 
the <t>i\a5e\<pia of the NT, which means a helpfulness 
born of sympathy. 5 Sympathy in the ancient world 
was narrow in its range. It existed, properly speaking, 
only among those who were natural or reputed kinsmen. 
Israelitish prophets and legislators sought to widen it ; 
but the task was hard. Certainly it was a bold act on 
the part of the servants of Benhadad (see 5) to appeal 
to the htsed of an Israelitish king. The earlier Israelitish 
kings, however, were, by comparison with other kings, 
distinguished by their Msed ; it is a gratifying proof of 
the reality of the higher religion in Israel. Ahab 
responds to the appeal, and recognises Benhadad as a 
brother. Perhaps, however, he would not have re 
sponded thus to the appeal of a Hittite ; the Ara 
maeans and the Israelites had, after all, some degree 
of kinship. In this case the merciful of EV is not 
misleading ; but even EV does not say that the Kenites 
showed mercy to the children of Israel ; it was a 
sense of kinship that animated them, and their ser 
vices were not such as could be called deeds of mercy. 
In (2) and (3) Jonathan appeals to the real though 
adoptive brotherhood which united him to David. In 
(4), if historical, David shows his generosity of feeling ; 
Ittai, whom he addresses, is a foreigner and an exile ; 
but he has fought by David s side and eaten his bread ; 
he is a brother, and receives an Israelite s blessing. 
(6) and (9) should be grouped. Hosea complains that 
the social feeling (httsed] which once distinguished Israel 
has disappeared ; a nameless prophet of a later day 
makes the cultivation of this feeling one of the three 
duties of an Israelite, (/( and (8) must also be taken 
together. From the latter we see what the loving- 
kindness of God is ; it is neither more nor less than 
paternal affection. Hosea has nothing to say of a 

1 So Wellhausen, Nowack. The text has Judah. See 
HOSEA (BOOK), 4 . 

2 Readings adopted : tw. 1-3 J3 1?, Pesh., Theod. ; N"13, 
<5 ; "}SK, cp <0 ; Cn/SN, ; TjjniT. So Ruben, and partly 
Wi. (A T Unters. 18;), Wellhausen. nSm, Pesh., Gra. ; 
D HH?, Gra. Verse 4 D H^K ~IDn ; TP3"!!!, Che. 

3 Readings adopted : D nSx ; Jprb.N nJN^D y DCJrtt (cp Ps. 
73 28), Che. 

4 Read jn (Beer). 

8 Cp trvjuTraSeis, <t\aSeA$<n, i Pet. 3 8. 



formal covenant between Yahwe and his people ; 
the only blrith he knows of is the natural one between 
a father and his son. In return Yahwe looks for filial 
affection : loyal himself, he expects loyalty from Israel. 
Jeremiah (see 10) has a similar conception ; it is, how 
ever, out of the marriage relation, religiously, accord 
ing to him, that hhed grows ; he calls the forgiving 
husband of Israel ron, loyally affectionate (EV 
merciful ), Jer. 3 12. 

In (n), however, a remarkable modification of Msed 

appears. That Yahwe from the first loved Israel D 

_ . does not doubt ; but in order that his 

, ... . . love may take effect, Israel must give 

punctual obedience to the prescribed 

laws. As D puts it, Yahwe will keep his covenant 

and his loving-kindness for Israel i.e., will show love 

to Israel upon a certain legal condition. Henceforth 

the same idea of the divine Msed as limited by the 

covenant dominates religious writers, and even human 

htsed ceases to be purely spontaneous : it is still active 

love ; but it is dictated, and its channels are prescribed, 

by a written code. 1 

The adjective D TOn, hasidlm ( = ipn tyjN, Is. 57 1 
Ecclus. 44 1 ; see ASSIDEANS), late in use, means not 
simply men of filial devotion to God and brotherly 
kindness towards their fellows, but men who perform 
the pious deeds (onon) required by the law, and it is 
nearly = righteous (cp Is. 57 1 (5. avSpes 5i/caioi) ; see 
CLEAN, PURE, etc. (for <S and Pesh., whose renderings 
are historically significant). Still, though this sense 
predominates, we find Ton used once (Ps. 43 1, but the 
text is doubtful) in the sense of gentle, without any 
reference to the law, or at most, with an underlying 
reference to the covenant with Noah, which the 
heathen were held responsible for neglecting 2 (ji 1 ? ijp 
Tpn, EV against an ungodly nation ). In the last 
passage on our list (14) we find Job, in a sad re 
trospect, referring to the elaborate provisions made 
for his creatures by the Creator as Msed, loyal affec 
tion. It is a sign of the strong universalistic tendency 
of the movement known as Hokmah or WISDOM (q.v. ). 

This tendency never ceased. Mt. 645 implies that the 
divine love is universal. Whilst some Rabbis explained ton 
rlNEn D ClN^ (Prov. 1434)3 in the sense of Augustine s saying 
that the virtues of the heathen are only splendida vitia, the 
famous R. Johanan b. Zakkai gave the charitable interpreta 
tion, The beneficence of the heathen is (as) a sin-offering (for 
them) (Bilbd bathra, 106).* R. Johanan flourished about 70 
A.D.; under the forms of legalism he expresses the spirit of the 
gospel ; but the true spiritual kinsman of Jesus is Hosea. 

T. K. C. 


LOZON (AozooN [BA]), i Esd. 5 33 = Ezra 2 56, 

LUBIM (D O-1 1 ?; D !& in Dan. [so Baer, Ginsb.] ; 
AlByec [BiXAQL] ; Nah 3 9 2 Ch. 12 3 168, and Dan. 
11 43 (EV Lybians )f ; the singular 2-1? probably occurs 
in Ezek. 30s ; see CHUB). Everywhere, except Nah. 89 
(where read probably LUDIM, with Wi. AOF 1 513), 
4 Lubim probably represents Libyans (Egypt. Labu, 
Lebu) ; in Dan., I.e. , EV actually gives Libyans. 
On the three Libyan invasions of Egypt see Maspero, 
Struggle of the Nations, 434, 461, 471 /. After the 
third invasion Egypt became slowly flooded by Lib 
yans. They supplied the Pharaohs with a highly paid 
militia, and at length a Libyan by descent (Sosenk) 
actually ascended the throne. See EGYPT, 63. 

Stade, Cornill, and Ginsburg would read Lubim for Ludim 
in Jer. 469 (cp LUD, S 2). It should be noted, however, that 

1 Kraet/schmar, Die Rundesvorst dinner, 127 ; cp 145. 

2 See Weber, Jiid. Thcol. 263. 

3 EV sin is a reproach to any people, taking inn (with 
most critics) in the Aramaising sense of disgrace. So Symm. 
(oi/eiSo?). But , Pesh. suggest IDh, diminution, 1 which is 
very plausible (so Gra.). 

* See Edersheim, ffitt. cf the Jewish Nation, 149-154. 


the Assyrian inscriptions expressly refer to Lydian troops in 
the service of Egypt. Cp further, CHUB, LEHABIM. 

LUCAS (AoyKAcLTi. WH]), Philem. v. 24, RVLuKE. 

LUCIFER, AV8- and RV DAY STAR (^H). the 
epithet applied to the king of Babylon who in his pride 
boasts that he will ascend to the heavens and make 
himself God s equal ; his fate is to be cast down to 
Shfiol to the uttermost recesses of the pit (Is. 14 12-15). 
By Jerome and other Fathers the passage was applied 
to Satan (cp Lk. 10 18). 

VTH, Helel, according to the vowel-points (but cp Konig, 
Lehrgeb. 2<x 106) is an imperative ( howl ), so Pesh. Aq. Jer. ; 
but the above rendering, which follows <S (o <uj<7<6pot ; 1 cp 
2 Pet. 1 19, </><o<7<|>dpO9), Targ. Vg. Rabb. is the only natural one ; 
it requires us to point Helal i.e., brilliant (so Hi. Ew. Kn. 
Di.; cp 1T.T). 

The description of the doings and of the fate of 
Helal is so peculiar (note the expressions son of the 
dawn," stars of God, mount of assembly [see CON 
GREGATION, MOUNT OF], recesses of the north ), 
that Gunkel (Schopf. u. Chaos, 132^) recognises an 
allusion to a Hebrew nature-myth, analogous to the 
Greek legend of Phaethon. The overpowering of the 
temporary brilliance of the morning-star by the rays of 
the sun is compared to a struggle between Elyon and 
the giant Helal. References to a mythic tradition of 
warfare in heaven are abundant (see DRAGON, 
LEVIATHAN, STARS, ORION). But if so, why is there 
no Babylonian equivalent of Helal ? It seems better to 
read either S riD, thou famous one (o fell out after 

T\ : 

the preceding c), or, with a reference to a theory for 
which much evidence is accumulating through textual 
criticism, ^Nony, Jerahmeel, i.e., Jerahmeelite op 
pressor of Israel. See Isaiah, SBOT, Heb. , 199, 
PARADISE, 4, OBADIAH (BOOK), $/. and cp Crit. 

According to Winckler (6/224), however, Helal is the 
Arabian Hilal, the new moon, and Tntfi dawn, in Is. 14 12 
is a distortion of -\riv (cp inns , ORNAMENTS), moon. He 
refers to a S. Arabian deity Sahar (inb), of whom a certain 
priest describes himself as the liegeman. Whether Sahar is a 
deity of the moon or of the dawn is undecided. But are we justi 
fied in isolating Is. 14 12 from other passages in which "int? is, 
from the point of view of textual criticism, doubtful? The key 
which fits one lock will probably fit another of the same char 
acter. Read, not son of the morning, but child of the sun 

(onn). T. K. c. 

LUCIUS (AoyKioc [Ti.WH]). i. Roman consul, 
contemporary with Simon the Maccabee, Antiochus 
VII. Sidetes, and Ptolemy II. Physcon, i Mace. 15 16 
(AeyKlOC [ANV]). He is mentioned in connection 
with the embassy of NUMENIUS (q.v. ) to Rome. Prob 
ably Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was consul with M. 
Popilius Lasnas in 139 B.C. is meant. That Lucius, 
not Cneius, was the true surname of Piso has been 
shown by Ritschl. See Schtir. , Hist. i. 1 267 f. , and 
cp MACCABEES, FIRST, 9 (c). 

2. A certain Lucius joins Paul, who is writing from 
Corinth, in saluting the Christians of Rome, to whom 
therefore he seems to have been known (Rom. 1621); 
cp ROMANS, 4, 10. Along with Jason and Sosipater 
Lucius is there alluded to by Paul as his kinsman ; 
evidently he was a Jew. 

The Pseudo-Hippolytus makes him bishop of Laodicea in 
Syria, as also does the Pseudo-Dorotheus, giving his name, 
however, as Aouicaj. In the Apostolical Constitutions (7 46) he 
is said to have been ordained bishop of Cenchreae by Paul. 
He is possibly the same as 

3. Lucius of Cyrene, one of the prophets and 
teachers of the church in Antioch (Actsl3i) who set 
apart Barnabas and Paul for the mission to the Gen 
tiles ; cp MINISTRY. He was doubtless one of those 
men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, upon the dispersion 
from Jerusalem consequent on the martyrdom of 
Stephen, had come to Antioch, and there spake unto 
the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 

1 Cp Ps. 1103 where for "ine>O we have trpb i<a<r<}>6pov , 
ante lucifervm, Vg. 



LUD, LUDIM H-l 1 ?). i. (AoyA [AEL]), Gen. 10 22 

(Sam. 1?) = i Ch. 1 17 (B om. ). Lud was the fourth son 
of Shem, according to P. Most scholars since Bochart 
have followed Josephus (Ant. i. 64), who makes Lud the 
founder (/crt<re) of the Lydians. A sudden spring to Asia 
Minor, however, does not seem very probable ; or was P 
really entirely ignorant of the situation of Lydia? Histori 
cally, too, there are grave objections to making Lud 
the brother of Asshur. Lydia was never conquered 
by the Assyrians in spite of the boastful assertion of 
Asur-bani-pal (Smith, Assurb. 65 15) that Gugu, king 
of Lud (Lud-di), took the yoke of his kingdom. Did 
P really transfer the circumstances of the Persian age 
(for Cyrus did conquer and annex Lydia) to the 
Assyrian period (cp GEOGRAPHY, 21)? 

It would really be less bold, when we remember the enormous 
amount of corruption among the OT proper names, to infer the 
need of textual emendation. It is probable that tfj-y (Elam) in 
Gen. 14 i (see SODOM) and also QIN (Aram) in Gen. 22 21 (see 
KEMUEL) have arisen out of ^KCrn (Jerahmeel), and perhaps 
still more probable that in Ps. 889 [8] -njf-N (Asshur) should be 
TIB 1 } (Geshur). May not these emendations be applicable in 
Gen. 10 22 ? In this case we shall do best to suppose that in 
the original text of P s list neither -p^ nor mx appeared, but 
^NDm (ll S may have come from ^xi, and be, equally with 
CIN, a fragment of ^NOrn )- Verse 22 will then run, The 
sons of Shem : Geshur, and Arpachshad, and Jerahmeel, and 
ISJODIN (EV Arpachshad) will be best explained as BHJ3 3HJJ 
(Arfib-Kadesh = theN. Arabian Kadesh). But cp ARPACHSHAD. 

The view of Lud here proposed accords with the explanation 
given elsewhere (NiMRon) of Gen. \Qiof. It will then be 
natural to emend the traditional text of vv. 13 f. as proposed 
under MIZRAIM, changing Ludim into Q Spna, Carmelim 
i.e., the people of Carmel (cp MAON). 

2. Elsewhere, where the name appears, Lud is taken 
by some to refer to the Lydians (see PUT) ; but perhaps 
it rather means a N. African people. 

The passages are Is. 66 19 (AouS [BAQ], Aoufl [#], AvSovy 
[Symm. in Qn K-}) Ezek. 27 10 30s ([but here AV LYDIA], Aufioi 
[BAQ]), see GEOGRAPHY, 22. Dn? 1 ?, LUDIM, the plur. form, is 
the name of a son of M izraim (EGYPT) in Gen. 10 1 3 (J) = i Ch. 
In [Kr.], cril 1 ? [Kt.] (Aovfiiei/a [AL], -iv [E], AwSte^ [A in 
i Ch. 1 ii, B om.]), and recurs in Jer. 46 9 (AuSoi [BKAQ], AV 
LYDIANS). The singular form (Lud) occurs in Ezek. 27 10 30 5 
Is. (56 19. 

In Jeremiah the Ludim appear with Egypt, Cush, and 
Put (Libya) ; so also in Ezek. 30s ; and in Isaiah with 
Tarshish, Put (by a probable text emendation ; Che., 
Di., Du. , etc., after @), Tubal, and Javan. We know 
nothing more. Hence the hypothesis of Stade (De 
Pop. Javan, $ff. =Akad. Reden [1899], 139 ff.} that we 
have in Gen. lOia (so also Del. Par. 310) and in Jer. 
469 (so also Co. and Gies. ) a textual error for D ui 1 ?, 
LUBIM [q.v.~\, whilst Lud in Ezek. and Is. is the same 
as Lud in Gen. 1022, and is used loosely as a distant 
people, on account of the assonance with Phut (ms) 
has some plausibility (see also WMM, As. u. Eur. 115). 
See, however, above (i, end) and PUT, 2, and note 
Dillmann s adverse judgment on these alterations. It 
is at any rate difficult to explain Ezek. 30s in this way, 
and the motive, and also indeed the possibility, of the 
corruption of Lubim into Ludim in at least two of the 
passages are by no means clear. 

T. K. C. (i) ; F. B. (2). 

LUHITH, ASCENT OF (JVnn nlfO ; in Jer. 
Kt. nin?n), a locality in Moab rnentioned between 
Zoarand Horonaim, Is. 15s (ANA.BACIC [THC] Aoyeie 
[BXAQr]) ; Jer. 48 5 (enAHC9H [as if from I^D to fill ] 
AAu>0 [BJt*W] A.Aee [*], A.AA609 [AQ]). Some 
have identified it with Sarfa, N. of the Wady Kerak, 
where there are ruins described by de Saulcy. 
This, however, is premature. The most probable read 
ing of the text, the present writer thinks, is Q^iy nSjro, 
the ascent of EGLAIM [?..], the same place as that 
referred to in Is. 158 ; it lay near the S. border of Moab. 

What authority (if any) Eusebius had for his statement that 
the city Lueitha was situated between Areopolis and Soar (<9.S"( 2 ) 
2 ?6, 43), we know not. Nor can we listen to the editors of the 



CfS (2ig6 ; cp/. As. mai-juin, 1891, p. 538 ; ZA Szsgjf. 6149^) 
when they point out the n rM.l] of Is. in a Nabatean inscription 
found in Moab. 

The words of the inscr. are in rta H KnntfD 3T SaTTK- 
Lagrangeand No., however, read, not irrn^a, but ijvna- Right 
method, moreover, requires us to begin by examining the text of 
Is. 165. Such an examination discloses to us a double reading, 
fTfVp nVjJ? (transposition has taken place) and rrniWl n jyD- 
riVyo i s f course preferable to rrtshvf, but ^jj; is more correct 
than mSn [Jer. n*?n] .I n, or rather jr, should no doubt be Q. 
Thus we get a^jy n^VD- See EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH. 

T. K. C. 

LUKE * is named only three times in NT. According 
to Philem. 24 he was a fellow-labourer with Paul ; 

1 In NT accorcnn g to Col. 4 14, a physician who was 

specially dear (6 aycnrriTos) to the apostle. 2 
Both letters, which according to Philem. inf. Col. 
4 3 7-9 18 were despatched simultaneously by Paul in 
his captivity, contain a salutation from Luke to the 
recipients. Luke, however, is in neither case named 
as a fellow- prisoner with Paul ; in the one case ( Philem. 
23) it is EPAPHRAS, in the other (Col. 4io) it is ARIS- 
TARCHUS who is so designated. In 2 Tim. 4 n it is said 
that only Luke is with the apostle ; whether as a 
fellow-prisoner is not stated. In any case the situation 
is quite different from that disclosed in the other two 
epistles in so far as we are here in the present instance 
informed that all the apostle s other companions have 
forsaken him. According to I8i6 2g, 2 Tim. also was 
written from a captivity. Even where the Epistle is not 
held to be genuine, it is often supposed that 4 9-18 along 
with 4 19-220 are a genuine note (or two notes) written by 
the apostle, and from captivity. P rom what captivity 
whether or not the same as that referred to in Col. 
and Philem. cannot be discussed here (cp PAUL, 30). 
In Col. 4 10-14, a classification is made of the com 
panions of Paul. Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus 

2 Jew or are S rou P ed together as being of the cir- 
Q tile cumcision (ot &vrfs IK trepi.Top.ris) ; then 

comes Epaphras with the words added, 
who is one of you (6 ^ \jfj.Civ), in other words a 
Gentile Christian ; finally are named Luke and Demas. 
The inference is that these two also are Gentile Christians. 
This holds good also if Aristarchus proves to be a 
Gentile Christian. According to Acts 20 4 he belongs 
to Thessalonica, and according to a very probable con 
jecture (GALATIA, 22) he is selected to be representa 
tive of the essentially Gentile Christian community there 
in conveying to Jerusalem their contribution on behalf 
of the poor there. 

To the words who are of the circumcision (ol oVret 
K TreptTo/^TJs) in Col. 4n is added the expression these 
only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God 
(OVTOI fj-ovoi ffvvfpyol et s TTJV f3a.(Tt\eia.i> TOV Oeou). If 
this be taken literally Epaphras Luke, and Demas were 
no fellow-workers of Paul -as in Col. 4i2/. (Epaphras), 
Philem. 24 (Luke and Demas), they are said to have 
been. To obviate this contradiction it has been proposed 
to delete the mark of punctuation after circumcision, 
with the supposed result of making the persons named 
(with or without Aristarchus) to be the sole fellow- 
workers of Paul who were of Jewish birth, though besides 
these there were others of Gentile origin. To delete 
the mark of punctuation, however, whether period or 
comma, is impossible, unless these (oCroc) also be 
deleted, and this no one has ventured to do. If these 
is left, we have a manner of expression which must, to 
say the least, be described as exceedingly careless. If 
it be borne in mind that the genuineness of the Epistle to 
the Colossians is by no means free from doubt, the ex 
pression can even rouse a suspicion that vv. 10-14 were 
not written by a single author at one writing, but that 
either vv. 12-14 ar e an addition, or that v. n (with or 
without oi 8vres IK irepirop.^) is an interpolation. At 
the same time, even where the Epistle to the Colossians 

1 On the name see 6. 

2 In Marcion s NT (Zahn, Einl. 1 647 2 528) the words o larpbf 
6 ayaTnjTOf were wanting ; cp 3. 



is not regarded ns genuine as a whole, there is a disposi 
tion for the most part to regard the personal notices in 
47-15 as a genuine fragment ; and finally it is not too 
difficult to suppose that v. n is to be supplemented thus : 
these alone that is to say among those of Jewish birth 
are fellow-workers. In any case this course is an 
easier one than that of bracketing of the circumcision 
these only (K ireptrofj.^ obrot /j.6voi} so as to make 
fellow-workers ((rvvepyoi) the immediate continuation 
of who are (ol 6vres). 

Luke thus remains in any case a Gentile Christian 
unless we regard the whole passage as too insecure to 
allow of our founding anything upon it. 

The interest which Luke has for students of the NT 
turns almost entirely on the belief that he was the author 

,, . . of the Third Gospel and of Acts. 
3. Authorship ,~, . 

of Third Gospel l hls . t / ad tlon however, cannot be 
jVY traced farther back than towards the 
an C 8< end of the second century (Irenasus, 
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian 
fragment) ; J there is no sound basis for the contention 
of Zahn (2 175) that the existence of the tradition can 
also be found as early as in Marcion because that writer, 
from his aversion to the Third Gospel (which neverthe 
less was the only one he admitted into his collection 
with alterations it is true) omitted the expression of 
honour applied to Luke in Col. 4 14. In ACTS, i, 9, 
IS/., and GOSPELS, 153, it has been shown that it is 
impossible to regard Luke with any certainty as the writer 
even of the we sections of Acts, not to speak of the 
whole book of Acts, or of the Third Gospel. 

The assumption, however, that as an evangelist Luke 

must have been an eye-witness of the events of the 

T - earthly life of Jesus, and as the author 

5 ? of Acts, a companion of Paul, led 
the authorship to cer{ain inferences (a) From the 

being assumed. fourth centurv omvards 2 he was held to 

have been one of the seventy (Lk. lOi), although 
this is excluded not only by the fact of the gentile 
origin of the historical Luke but also by what the Third 
Evangelist says of himself (la). (3) It can proceed 
only from a misunderstanding of the words ( TrapTjKO\ovdr)- 
KOTL irdcriv) of Lk. 1 3 (cp col. 1790), as if all (iraaiv) 
were masculine, when Irennsus (iii. 11 1 [Id] 14n) with 
express citation of this text mentions Luke as having been 
a disciple of several apostles, not only of Paul, (c) 
In like manner, from the fourth century onwards 
(Lipsius, 360, 362, 367) Luke was identified with the un 
named disciple at Emmaus (Lk. 24 18) ; being assumed 
to be the author of the gospel, he was believed to have 
withheld his name out of modesty, (d] The assumption 
that he was the author of Acts led to the further belief 
that he was the companion of Paul not only in his 
captivity, but also during his journeys, either during 
those portions only which are spoken of in the first 
person, or throughout the whole of them. In the nine 
teenth century this also led to his being identified with 
Silas = Silvanus, because it was thought easier to attribute 
the we portions to Silas (see ACTS, 9). So, for 
example, van Vloten, 7AVT, 1867, p. zz^f., 1871, pp. 
431-434. The identification was thought permissible 
on the ground that lucus and silva are synonymous. 
(e) On the assumption that Luke was author of the Acts 
Clement of Alexandria 3 held him to be also the trans 
lator of Paul s epistle to the Hebrews, written in 
Hebrew, the linguistic character of the Greek text being 
similar to that of Acts. (/) A medical language was 
discovered in the Third Gospel and in Acts (so Hobart, 
1882), and also in Hebrews (so Franz Delitzsch in his 
Commentary, 1857 [KT, 1868-70], condensed in the 
introduction to the and ed. of the commentary of Meyer - 

1 For all that follows, cp especially Lipsius, Apokryph. 
Aposte geschichtcn. ii. 2354-371, and Zahn, Einl., 58. 

2 Earliest of all in Adamantius, Dial, tie recta fide ( = contra 
Marcionistas) in Orig. ed. de la Rue, 1 806 D. 

3 In the Hypotyposes, according to Eus. ///?vi. 14 2 ; in the 
adumbrationes to i Pet. ad fin., 1007 ed. Potter. 



Lunemann). (g) According to Zahn ( 58, 6) it is 
possible that even the legend which represents Luke 
as a painter and attributes to him various pictures of 
the mother of Jesus (the legend is first met with in 
Theodorus Lector, Hist. Eccl. 1 1, dating from the first 
half of the 6th cent. ) may rest upon misunderstanding 
of the word (<ca#-) Icrropfiv, which in the Byzantine period 
meant to paint and which is used in the passage of 
Theod. Lector just cited. (A) Apart from the same 
presupposition which regarded Luke as an author, 
Origen (Horn. 1 in Lucam, 8933^ F, ed. de la Rue), or 
rather his unnamed predecessors, would not have identi 
fied Luke with the anonymous brother of 2 Cor. 8 18 
whose praise in the Gospel (i.e., in the oral preaching 
of the gospel) was spread through all the churches. 
(* ) Ramsay, we may presume, apart from this presup 
position, would hardly have extended this last theory 
still farther, so as to hold that this Luke was the full 
brother of Titus who is mentioned immediately before, 
and that he was a native of Philippi (St. Paul, 203, 213, 
219, 248^. , 286, 389^., etc.). There are, for instance, 
some small touches in Acts which Ramsay thinks he is 
able to explain by taking their author to be a native of 
Philippi. (k) On the other hand, from the uncanonical 
text of Acts 11 28 where we is used, others have sought 
to make out that Antioch in Syria is indicated as the 
home of Luke. The form of the text, however, may, on 
the contrary, rest on a previously existing tradition re 
garding Antioch (ACTS, 17, m) ; it has no attestation 
earlier than the time of Augustine. 1 

In substance the Antioch tradition is met with at a 
considerably earlier date. 

Ramsay (see above, 4, i) lays stress (op. cit. 389) upon the 

fact that Eusebius (II K iii. 46), whom he regards as the earliest 

authority for it does not say that Luke was 

6. Birthplace, an Antiochian ; he merely speaks of him as 

"being according to birth of those from 

Antioch " (TO \ikv yeVo? !av T<av O.TT Avrto^fi at). This curious 
and awkward expression is obviously chosen in order to avoid 
the statement that Luke was an Antiochian. Eusebius was 
aware, according to Ramsay, that Luke belonged to a family 
that had a connection with Antioch, namely, to a family that 
had emigrated from Philippi to Antioch. Even should this in 
terpretation be correct it would be deprived of all its value by 
the circumstance that Eusebius himself in the Quiesfiones 
Evangelicir ad Stephanuin (of which Mai, as early as 1847, 
; published fragments from a Cate/ia of Nicetas in No^>a patrum 
1 Bibliotheca [4i]) writes : o 8e Aon/cat TO ftfv ye co? arrb TTJS /Soai- 
jieVrjs \vT(.o\fia<; TJI/ (p. 270 : Luke was by birth a native of the 
renowned Antioch ). Should it be held doubtful whether the 
words just quoted actually come from Eusebius inasmuch as 
certain statements in their vicinity are irreconcilable with the 
views of Eusebius known to us from other sources, Spitta (Der 
Brief dcs Julius Africaniis an Aristiiies, 1877, p. 70-73, in) 
has rendered it probable that they were written by Julius 
Africanus and thus as early as in the first half of the third century. 
Of equal antiquity is the Latin prologue to the Third Gospel (in 
Wordsworth, .A 7 /" fo//c, 1 269) which has been thoroughly dis 
cussed by Corssen (Mcnarchianische Protege zu i/en 4 Evan- 
gelien m Texteu. Untersuch. 15 i, 1896) ; its words are: Lucas 
Syrus natione Antiochensis. 

This does not, however, prove that Antioch was really 
the home of Luke. It is very questionable whether 
those of the third century were in possession of a correct 
tradition on the subject, and on the other hand it is very 
conceivable that a mere conjecture may have been 
adopted. Many critics think that there has been a 
confusion of Luke with Lucius who is mentioned in Acts 
13 1 as present in Antioch. He belonged, however, to 

We need not, however, question the possibility of the 
name Lucas having given rise to confusion with this 
Lucius. The termination -as was employed 
as an abbreviation for a great variety of 
longer terminations (see NAMES, 86) and in Patrobas 
(Rom. 1614) we have a name which in all probability 
arose out of Patrobius. Besides Lucius, such various 
names as Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, Lucianus, 
Lucanus, could all produce the abbreviation Lucas. In 
any case the name is of Latin origin. 

1 Since the art. ACTS was printed. Harnack also has elabor 
ately controverted the genuineness of the reading in question 
(SB A W, 1899, pp. 316-327). 


6. Name. 


Lucanus is given for Lucas as the name of the Evangelist in 
several MSS. of the Vetus Itala (e.g., Old Latin Biblical Texts, 
285, etc.)- Cp An-oAAuii i.os in D for An-oAAcus (supr. col. 262, n.). 
In CJG, apart from Christian inscriptions, the name Aou/ca? 
occurs only twice in both cases in Egypt (84759, and Add. 
4700 k). The identification of Luke with the Lucius mentioned 
by Paul in Rom. 1621 an identification that is mentioned even 
by Origen (4 686 DE, ed. de la Rue) cannot be maintained, 
Lucius having been a Jew. In the form of the Prologue al 

ready mentioned, which is to be found in the Opera Hieronymi, 
ed. Vallarsi, xi. 3, 42, there is added immediately after the name of 
Luke the expression ipse consurgens. In the Liber interpre- 
tationis hebr. noininuin (Vallarsi, 3 113 116 ; see also OS 77 14 
79 16) Jerome explains the name as meaning ipse consurgens 
aut [sive] ipse elevans. In a Greek codex of similar contents 
(see OS 174so) we read Aouicas aurbs avitniav , in a Vatican col 
lection printed in Wiener Studien, 1895, p. 157, we find iste 
consurgens. Professor Nestle in a private letter to the present 
writer explains that here as in New Greek and in the Romance 
languages the accusative (Lucam) is taken as the basis and ex 
plained as equivalent to Cp 1> Thus it will be only by a mis 
understanding that in the Sermo in natali S. Luca: attributed 
to Abbot Bertharius of Monte Cassino (856-884) the original 
language of the name is called JEolic. In fact in the Hotniliie 
jireestantissimorum eccles. cathol. tioctoruin ab Alcuino collcctce 
(Cologne, 1576, p. 953^, middle), cited by Lipsius (p. 366), the 
passage runs : Lucas siquidem Police ; in nostra autem lingua 
mterpretatur consurgens sive elevans. 

The oldest of the traditions regarding Luke that do not depend 

on the assumption of his authorship of the Third Gospel and of 

Acts is met with in the Prologue already 

7. Other later referred to : serviens deo sine crimine ; nam 

traditions. 1 neque uxorem umquam habens neque filios 
74 annorum obiit in Bithynia plenus spiritu 
sancto. The years of his life are sometimes also given as 
73, 78, 80, 83 or 84 (Lipsius, 359, 365, 367). The last-named 
figure coincides with the age of Anna (Lk. 2 37). As fields of his 
activity Achaia and Boeotia are sometimes mentioned instead 
of Bithynia ; also Alexandria or Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and 
Macedonia or the region of the Danube. Down to the fifth 
century tradition was unanimous in attributing to him a natural 
death ; the place generally named being Thebes in Bceotia, but 
occasionally Thebes in Egypt, or Ephesus. It was only at a 
later date that the opinion arose that he had suffered martyrdom 
by crucifixion on an olive tree like Andrew, and, according to 
one account, even along with that apostle at Patras in Achaia. 
This plainly rests upon the fact that in 357 his relics were 
transported along with those of Andrew to Constantinople. 
According to other accounts he was beheaded, either in Rome, 
or in Alexandria. 

For the Gospel according to Luke, see GOSPELS, 

10-12, 21, 24-33, 37"43> 64, 66yl, 76, 80, 82, 98, 101, 107-111, 116, 
120-127, 132-140, *4 2 > M4./.> *47i J 53> etc., also the index col. 
897/ P. W. S. 

LUNATIC (ceAHNiAZO/weNOi [Ti. WH]). This 
term occurs only twice in the NT, viz., Mt. 424 and 
17 15. The revisers deliberately rendered epileptic, on 
the ground that a Greek medical authority of the seventh 
century expressly states that eTriA^Trrt/cos was the 
scientific term, and that dai/j,ovi 6/j.evoi and a-e\ijvia- 
6fj.evoi were popular terms for the same disease. See 
passage quoted from Leo in Ermerin s Anecdota medico. 

-i^u^us iiieuicus ^\nuocnensis, ut ejus scripia inaicani, ^iraeci 
sermonis non ignarus, fuit sectator Apostoli Pauli, et omnis 
peregrinationis ejus comes. Scripsit Evangelium, de quo idem 
Paulus : Misimus, inquit, cum illo fratrem, cujus laus est in 
Evangelic per omnes ecclesias. Et ad Colossenses : Salutat vos 
Lucas, medicus carissimus. Et ad Timotheum ; Lucas est 
mecum solus. Aliud quoque edidit volumen egregium, quod 
titulo, Acta Apostolorum, praenotatur : cujus historia usque ad 
biennium Romas comxnorantis Pauli pervenit, id est, usque ad 
quartum Neronis annum. Ex quo intelligimus, in eadem urbe 
librum esse compositum. 

Igitur periodos Pauli et Theclae, et totam baptizati Leonis 
fabulam, inter apocryphas scripturas computamus. Quale enim 
est, ut individuus comes Apostoli inter ceteras ejus res hoc 
solum ignoraverit ? Sed et Tertullianus vicinus eorum temporum 
refert Presbyterum quemdam in Asia amatorem Apostoli Pauli, 
convictum a Joanne, quod auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc 
Pauli amore fecisse, et ob id loco excidisse. Quidam suspicantur, 
quotiescumque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit, Juxta Evangelium 
meum, de Lucae significare volumine. 

Lucam autem non solum ab Apostolo Paulo didicisse Evan- 

*.v,,..-^. OII-UL Liuuiuerunt noois, qui a pnncipio ipsi viderunt 
et ministri fuerunt sermonis. Igitur Evangelium, sicut audierat, 
scripsit : Acta vero Apostolorum, sicut viderat ipse, composuit. 
Vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens : sepultus 
est Constantinopoli : ad quam urbem vigesimo Constantim anno 
ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andreas Apostoli translatasunt de Achaia. ] 



by G. Marshall in Guardian, March 9, 1892. It is a 
mistake to suppose that in Mt. 4 24 the a e\rjv iao /ievoi 
are distinguished from the 8aifjiovi^6fji.evoi ; it is plain 
from a comparison of passages that lunatics are 
mentioned as examples of the class of demoniacs, and 
paralytics of those tormented with pain. As the 
periodicity of the attacks of epilepsy was supposed to be 
determined by the changes of the moon (see Wetstein 
in loc. ), those thus afflicted were called ffe\i)ina. 6fj.ei>oi, 
lunatic or moonstruck. Cp MADNESS. 

LUTE (hi), Is. 5 12, RV [AV viol ]; and KINYP& 
i Mace. 4 54 RV [AV harp ]). See Music, -j ff. 

LUZ (N 1 ?, AOYZA [BADEL]). I. Another name of 
BETHEL [>.z>.], Gen. 28I9 1 356 48 3 Josh. 162 (see 
below), 1813 Judg. 1 23. Of these passages the oldest 
come from P ; but the identification of Bethel and Luz 
must be much older than P ; it is implied, indeed, in Judg. 
122-26 (v. 23^ is a late gloss). Whence did Luz derive 
its name? The lexicons say, from vh, an almond tree ; 
but Lagarde is probably right in rejecting this view. 
The almond scarcely grows at Bethel. The rugged 
hills on the side of which BETHEL stands may, thinks 
Lagarde (Uebers. 157 /. , n.**), have been likened to 
an os sacrum (n 1 ?). Winckler (G/ 26s), however, 
more plausibly explains it by Ar. laud as an appellative 
= asylum, a suitable name for a sanctuary. Accord 
ing to him, the two oldest and most important temples 
of the land of Israel that at Bethel and that at Dan 
were both called Luz (see LAISH) in the sense of 
asylum. 2 Still more probably may we take [njn 1 ? (cp 
(55) to be shortened and corrupted from nxj?n, strong 
(city). Whether the story has a historical basis, we 
know not. The Josephites may perhaps originally have 
been specified as the conquerors of Luz (?) in the land 
of the Hittites (?). See 2. 

In Josh. 16 2 RV gives, and it went out from Bethel to Luz, 
which seems to distinguish Bethel from Luz. Dillmann, Bennett, 
and others omit Pltl? ( Luzah ) as a gloss. Gratz, however, 
thinks, comparing i S. 12/1, that, for ^KVI a at the end of v. i we 
should probably read J1KVP3, and for 7N~n 3D we should read 
|lNTT3p, rendering ... to Beth-aven, and it went out from 
Beth-aven to Luz. T. K. C. 

2. A city said to have been founded in the land of 
the Hittites by a family which had had to migrate 
from Bethel or Luz, Judg. 1 26. Some suppose that 
Hittites in this phrase is used vaguely (like Canaan- 
ites ), or that we have here a redactional insertion re 
ferring to a NE. Syrian empire. See HITTITES ( 4). 
But should not Hittites be Rehobothites and Luz 
be Halusah (see REHOBOTH, SHECHEM, ZIKLAG)? 
There is a strong plausibility in the emendations else 
where which support this view. There was probably a 
southern Beth-el containing the sanctuary of Halusah, 
otherwise called Dan (where Jeroboam placed his golden 
calf). Another tradition (Judg. 18)assignedthe conquest 
of Laish( = Luz = Halusah) to the Danites (cp MICAH, 2). 

LYCAONIA (AYKAONl&[Ti. WH]), twice mentioned 
in Acts 14. In v. 6 Lystra and Derbe are cities of 
p ... Lycaonia (7r6Xeis T?S A.VKaovias) ; in v. 
ii the people speak in the speech of 
Lycaonia (AvKaoviffrl). In its original extent, Ly 
caonia, the country of the Lycaones, was the vast, 
treeless region which like a broad band runs athwart 
the plateau constituting the interior of Asia Minor, from 
Galatia proper, the zone of undulating country on the 
northern edge of the plateau, to the offshoots of Mt. 
Taurus and the confines of Pisiclia and Isauria (Cilicia 
Tracheia). 3 The boundaries varied at different times. 

1 Gen. 28ig ovAa/u/ixavs [A], -aous [DE*L], -^oi/ous [E 0? ] ; 
nSlN precedes, cp Judg. 1829 BA. 

T 2 W. M. Miiller (As. u. Eur. 165) finds the name Luz repro 
duced as Ru-da in the lists of Rameses II. and III. It may be 
so ; but Gaza appears to be the next place (cp RPW 6 27). 

3 Isauria (Isaurica ; Strabo, lo-ai/pnoj) is the hill-country ex 
tending from Lystra to the town Isaura, in Strabo and Ptolemy, 




2. History. 

The fact that Iconium was the last city of Phrygia (Xen. 
Anab. i. 2 19) gives us a fixed point on the original 
boundary, which must have fallen between Iconium and 
Lystra ; consequently, the apostles, being driven out 
of Iconium, crossed the frontier from Phrygia into 
Lycaonia (Acts 146). Nevertheless, Iconium was 
generally reckoned a Lycaonian town, in defiance of 
history and local feeling. N. of Iconium, Laodiceia 
Combusta (Katakekaumene) was on the frontier, being 
reckoned to Lycaonia (Strabo, 663), so that the line 
must have run between that town and Tyriaeum. On 
the east Lake Tatta divided Lycaonia from Cappadocia ; 
and, farther south, the range called Karadja-Dagh 
and the lake Ak Geul were on the line. The frontier 
on the north and south is indeterminate. Lycaonia 
was thus largely co-extensive with the plain called 
Axylon ( Treeless, see above) by the Greeks, which is 
thus described by Hogarth (A Wandering Scholar in 
the Levant, 85) : 

Cartographers write this tract a Desert, and therefore that 
term must include an undulating treeless plain which sends up 
corn breast-high for the scratching of a Homeric plough. Fresh 
water is found everywhere at less than twenty feet, and deep 
grass grows in the marshy hollows through which streams creep 
to the central lake. 1 

Nor is it very level, being broken by the Boz-Dagh 
and other hills. The wells which supply the drinking 
water must be very ancient (Strabo, 568). The plain 
afforded excellent pasturage for sheep, and gave op 
portunity for making large fortunes by the trade in 
wool. It was on the Lycaonian downs that Amyntas 
grazed his 300 flocks (Strabo, I.e. ). 

Lycaonia had no history as a separate independent 
country. Until 190 B.C. it was included within the 
Syrian (Seleucid) Empire. At some time 
ween 189 and 133 B.C., probably 
about 160 B.C., the entire tract W. of Lake Tatta, 
southwards as far as Iconium and Lystra inclusive, was 
added as a tetrarchy to Galatia proper, making one of 
the twelve tetrarchies into which Galatia was divided 
(Plin. f/N5gs). This Lycaonian tetrarchy included 
fourteen cities, of which Iconium was the chief. The 
rest of Lycaonia from Derbe eastwards to Castabala on 
Mt. Amanus, was given, in 129 B.C., to the sons of 
Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, in reward for their 
father s loyalty (Justin, 37 1, Strabo, 534^)- This 
was called the Eleventh Strategia of Cappadocia 
(rty (TriKTrjTov, sc. ffTpaTijyiav, Strabo, 537). Thus 
Lycaonia fell into two parts, the added tetrarchy, and 
the Eleventh Strategia. In 64 B.C. Pompeius re 
organised the country after the defeat of Mithradates. 

The northern part of the tetrarchy was permanently attached 
to Galatia proper and it retained its name of Added Land 
(Trpoa eiArj/mjuf i i), Ptol. v. 4 10) ; the southern and most valuable 
part of the old tetrarchy was detached. 2 Similarly, it was only 
the eastern part of the old Eleventh Strategia that was allowed 
to continue to belong to Cappadocia ; the frontier was drawn 
W. of Cyhistra. The southern part of the tetrarchy, and the 
western part of the Strategia i.e., the entire south-western 
section of Lycaonia was attached as the Lycaonian Dicecesis 
to the Province of Cilicia. The district of Derbe and Laranda 
was administered by Antipater of Derbe under the supervision 
of the Roman governor of Cilicia, who also retained the 
right of way through eastern Lycaonia (i.e., the Cappadocian 
part of the Strategia: cp Cic. Ad Faw.lSjz; 15 1, cum 
excrcitum in Ciliciam ditcerem, in finibus Lycaonix et 
Cappadociie. Id. Ad Att. v. 21 9 ; Plin. fftfb 25). 

In 40 B.C., when Antonius regulated Asia Minor, 
the south-western portion of Lycaonia was formed into 
a kingdom for Polemon, son of Zeno, a rhetorician of 
Laodiceia on the Lycus, along with Isauria (Appian, 
BC57S : cp Strabo, 569, 577). Iconium was his capital 
(Strabo, 568). In 36 B.C. the kingdom of Polemon 
was given to Amyntas, who ruled over Pisidic Phrygia 

and was part of Cilicia Tracheia. Subsequently, the name Isauria 
was extended to include all the districts of Cilicia Tracheia (see 
Rams. Hist. Geogr. of A .1/450). 

1 See Murray s Handb. to AM 161. Ramsay, on the other 
hand, describes it less favourably. 

2 The line of demarcation passed, probably, just N. of Savatra 
or Soatra on the eastern highway. 


and Pisidia proper : at the time Galatia proper (including, 
of course, the Added Land) was given to him. Antipater 
of Derbe had taken advantage of the Civil Wars to make 
himself completely independent ; consequently Amyntas, 
who was a loyal agent of Rome, was allowed to destroy 
him, and to annex his territory. Lycaonia was thus, 
with the exception of the eastern part of the old Strategia, 
wholly within the realm of Amyntas ; and when Amyntas 
was slain in 25 B.C. it became part and parcel of the 
vast Province of Galatia. 1 Subsequently, in 37 A. D. , 
eastern Lycaonia (i.e., the Cappadocian part of the old 
Eleventh Strategia), having been placed under Antiochus 
IV. , king of Commagene, became known as Lycaonia 
Antiochiana ( Apriox ciJ T?, sc. x^P a Ptol. v. 617 ; CIL 
10 8660). In 41 A. D. this arrangement was confirmed 
by Claudius, who also detached from Galatia the 
extreme south-eastern corner of Lycaonia viz. , Laranda 
and its territory and transferred it to Antiochus. 

The reason for this lay in the fact that Antiochus was king of 
Cilicia Tracheiotis, and Laranda was the centre from which radi 
ated the roads running through Tracheiotis to the coast (Rams. 
Hist. Geogr. of A 3/361). Coins with the legend AYKAONflN 
were struck by Antiochus, probably at Laranda. 

This state of things lasted until 72 A.D. , when Ves 
pasian considered the Roman isation of the Tracheiotis 
complete, and incorporated the kingdom 

3. In Paul s 

of Antiochus in the provincial system 

(Suet. Vesp. 8). From this it is clear 
that at the time of Paul s visit (about 50 A.D.) Derbe 
was the frontier city of Galatia Provincia in this quarter, 
and therefore he went no farther eastwards (Acts 14 21). 
It is also clear that the bulk of the Lycaonians were, 
from the Roman point of view, Galatians, men of the 
Province Galatia (Gal. 3i i Cor. 16 i); for in Paul s 
time Lycaonia, always fated to be divided, fell into 
two parts Galatic Territory (FaXart/cTj X^P"- Acts 
1823) or Lycaonia Galatica, 2 and Antiochian Territory 
or Lycaonia Antiochiana. The former, or the Roman 
part of Lycaonia, the only part in which Paul worked, 
is mentioned three times in Acts Acts 146 (where it is 
defined by the enumeration of its cities, as Paul entered 
from Phrygia Galatica), Actsl6i (defined again by the 
enumeration of the cities, as Paul entered from Lycaonia 
Antiochiana), and Acts 1823 (defined by reference to the 
Province, as Paul entered from the non-Roman part). 3 
The Lycaonians were probably the aboriginal race 
conquered by the immigrant Phrygians about the tenth 
., ., century B.C. For their religion and char- 

4. Culture, acter gee Rarnsay s Hi3t Comm. on 

Galatians, 19 /. The cities were prob 
ably mostly the foundations of Greek kings (especially 
of the Seleucids), which accounts, among other things, 
for the influence and numbers of the Jews therein (Acts 
14 19). Lycaonia or South Galatia possessed, long before 
the advent of the Romans, some Hellenised cities on 
the great commercial route. Greek was the language 
of commerce, and these cities were/t> of Graeco- Roman 
influence. The villages and rustic districts were the last 
to be Hellenised ; but those of southern Lycaonia felt the 
movement a full century before those of Galatia proper. 
The governing (Latin) race was confined to the garrison towns 
or colonies ; and to the towns in general the commercial element, 
Hellenic or Jewish, would also be confined in the main. In the 
country and the remoter towns the native element survived (see 
LYSTRA). Of the Lycaonian language nothing is known (for 
three inscriptions in this obscure dialect, cp Journ. of Hell. 
Studies, 11 157). 

There was thus an essential contrast between the 
society and civilisation of Lycaonia, or South Galatia, 
and the northern part of the province (i.e. , Galatia 
proper). Greek civilisation did not establish itself in 
North Galatia until very late ; not earlier than 150 A.D. 

1 Dio Cass. 53 26 : TOW AUVVTOV reAf UTJJO-OCTOS, r/ TaAarta pcra 
rijs Avxaociaf Ptojiaiof apxavra. f<r\(. 

1 This title is not indeed actually found as yet, but is proved 
by the analogy of Pontus Galaticus as distinguished from 
Pontus Polemoniacus, and Phrygia Galatica ( = TT\V Qpvyiav icai 
roAaTKrijK \upa.v of Acts 16 6) as distinguished from Phrygia 

3 [See, however, GALATIA, 9-14.] 



was it dominant even in the cities (Ramsay develops 
and proves this at great length in Hist. Comm. on 
Galatians, 1341; cp Momms. Prov. of K. Emp. i28/). 

This phenomenon resulted from the fact that the Lycaonian 
plain was traversed by two main arteries of communication (i) 
the trade-route from the Euphrates to Ephesus, crossing 
Lycaonia from E. to W. by Laodiceia Combusta (Strabo, 663) ; 
(2) from the Cilician Gates and Laranda, through Derbe, 
Iconium, and Antioch, uniting with the first-named road at 
Metropolis in Phrygia. 1 

Hence the diffusion of Christianity, being strictly 
conditioned by the geographical and historical relations 
of the various districts, started from Iconium as centre 
for the whole of Lycaonia, and the ecclesiastical system 
of Lycaonia was highly developed at an early period. 
In northern Galatia the centre was Ancyra, and the line 
along which the movement travelled was that leading 
from Bithynia through Juliopolis (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of 
AM 197 240) a route which came largely into 
use only when the centre of the Roman world was 
moved to the shores of the Bosphorus. See further, 

Ramsay in Hist. Geogr. of AM, pass. ; later, and with 

greater accuracy, in Hist. Comm. on Galatians, Joss. 

See for inscriptions, Sterrett in IVolfe Ex- 

Literature, pedition to Asia Minor. These supersede, as 

regards history, the older travellers to whom 

reference should be made for description. Views in Davis, 

Asiatic Turkey (pass.). Coins, Brit. Mus. Cat. of Greek Coins 

Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria, 1900. W. J. W. 

LYCIA (AyKlA, Acts 27s). the SW. part of Asia 
Minor between Cariaand Pamphylia, where the Taurus 
range descends in masses to the sea, forming a rugged 
coast with several good harbours (Strabo, 664). The 
inhabitants, who called themselves Tramele (Te/>yU/Xcu), 
were apparently the descendants of a conquering tribe 
allied to the Greeks, which crossed the Hellespont from 
Europe and established itself among the original Semitic 

[The Lycians, though not mentioned in Gen. 10, were well 
known as a maritime people, not only to the Greeks, but also to 
the Egyptians, who called them Ruku or Liik (WMM As. u. 
Ear. 354 362). They are also mentioned in one of the Amarna 
Letters (28 10-12) as plundering Alasiya (Cyprus? Crete !).] 

In course of time the conquerors were themselves 
absorbed into the body of the conquered race. Through 
out western Asia Minor from the very dawn of history 
development turns upon this conflict between European 
and Oriental elements (see Rams. Hist. Phryg. 1 j f. ). 
A relic of the latter was the Lycian custom of tracing 
descent through the mother (Herod. 1173; cp Sayce, 
Emp. of the East, 99); cp KINSHIP, 4. The Lycians 
were absorbed into the Persian empire after a brave 
defence. After their victory over Antiochus at Magnesia 
(1908. c.) the Romans handed over Lycia and the 
greater part of Caria to the Rhodians ; but twenty-three 
years later independence was restored to the Lycian 
cities (Pol. 30s). Then followed the golden period of 
Lycian history. 

The country formed a league (TO \VKICLKOV (rvorij/ua) of twenty- 
three cities, 2 organised on a federal basis (Strabo, 664) ; this was 
only a development of an earlier THoivav riav AvKiW (cp C/G 
4677). At any rate, the Lycian League has been justly called 
the_ fairest product of that Hellenism, that mastery of the bar 
barian mind by Greek political thought, which took such strong 
root in Asia Minor (Greenidge, Handok. of Grk. Const. Hist. 
241, where see details). The cities were arranged in three 
classes, with three, two, or one vote at the annual assembly of 
the nation (TO KOIV OV crvve&piov), at which the head of the league 
(Lyciarch) was elected. In the same proportion the public 
burdens were assigned to the cities. To the first group belonged 
Patara and Myra, both mentioned in the NT, Acts 21 i 
(llarapa icai Mvpa [D]), 27 5 (cp Strabo, 665)1 There was no 
federal capital. 

During this period, Lycia is heard of, in i Mace. 
1523, as one of the states to which the consul L. Cal- 

1 An alternative route ran from the Cilician Gates, through 
Cybistra, and north-westwards across the plain through Iconium, 
and then hit the trade route at Laodiceia Combusta (Rams. 
Hist. Comm. on Gal. 184). 

_ z These twenty-three cities were not the sum total of Lycian 
cities, for more than a hundred places are known to have struck 
coins, and Pliny HN 5 28 says that Lycia formerly possessed 
seventy cities, though in his own time there were only thirty-six. 



purnius Piso sent letters in favour of the Jewish settlers 
(139 B.C. ); PHASELIS (q.v.), a Lycian town, is men 
tioned separately in the list. For loyalty to the 
Romans, the freedom of the Lycians was confirmed, 
first by Sulla, and afterwards by Antonius. In 43 A.D. 
internal dissensions afforded the Emperor Claudius a 
pretext for taking the territory of the Federation into 
the Empire (Suet. Claud. 25, Lytiis ob exitiabiles inter 
se discordias libertalem ademit}. As a province, Lycia 
seems to have been combined at first with Pamphylia 
(Dio Cass. 6017). Two praetorian governors of this 
period are known Eprius Marcellus (Tac. Ann.\^^ 
in 54-56 A. D. ), and Licinius Mutianus (Lyci<z legatus, 
Plin. fJN\2g). As, however, under Galba, and per 
haps under Nero, Pamphylia was united with the 
Province Galatia (cp Tac. Hist.lg], it has been con 
jectured that freedom was restored to the Lycians by 
Nero or Galba ; at all events, information fails as 
regards Lycia during the reigns of Nero and his suc 

In 74 A.D. Vespasian took Lycia once more within the provin 
cial system, and united it with Pamphylia to form the double 
province Lycia-Pamphylia, precisely like Pontus-Bithynia(Suet. 
Vesp. 8. See Momms. in C1L iii., Suppl. no. 6737). As an 
imperial province, it was governed by a praetorian Legatus 
Aiigusti proprtetore ; but in 135 A.D. Hadrian handed it over 
to the Senate in exchange for Bithynia (Dio Cass. 6S* 14). When 
absorbed by the Empire the old Federal union still persisted 
as the Koivov AuxtW for the imperial cultus, under the presidency 
of the Lyciarch. 

Lycia has no importance in the early history of 
Christianity ; in this respect it is like PAMPHYLIA (q. v. ). 
Its name does not occur in i Pet. 1 1 (cp Hort, First 
Ep. of Peter, 163/1). For its later conection with 
Christianity see Mommsen in Arch, epigr. Mittheil. 
aus Oesir. , 1893, p. 93/1 

The Austrians have done much for Lycia. See Benndorf 
T itflrntiirA u Niemann, Lycia, 2 vols. E. Kalinka, Zur 
XjlliercUjUre. hi s t or j sc hen Topographic Lykiens in Kiepert s 
Festschrift, 1898, p. idif. w. J. W. 

LYDDA, or LOD ("f? ; AoA [BNA] ; but AyAA& in 
Neh. 11 35 [X<=-a inf. mg. L I BN*A om.] Mace, and NT; 
AyAAON [gen. plur.] in Ezra2s3 Neh.?37 iEsd.522 
[L], AcoA in iCh. 812 [L, Bom]; AyAAooN AoA in 
Ezra2s3[A]), a town of the ShCphelah, in (?) the 
Ge ha-harashlm or Valley of the Craftsmen (?), corre 
sponding to the mod. Ludd, nf m. by rail SE. from 
Jaffa. Mariette, Brugsch, and others find it mentioned 
(as Lu-t-n) immediately before Ono in the Karnak list of 
Thotmes III. ; but W. M. Miiller (As. u. Eur. 140) 
will not admit this. Cp HADID and BENJAMIN, 8, b, 3 ; 
but see ONO, where the doubtfulness of this identifica 
tion is pointed out (see also Crit. Bib.}. Confusions 
of names are not unfrequent in lists. There is at any 
rate no doubt about Lydda. 

In i Mace. 11 34 Lydda is named as one of the three 
governments (vo/j.oi) that were added to Judnsa from 
Samaria, in the reign of Jonathan the high priest, by 
King Demetrius II., Ephrairn and Ramathaim being 
the other two. It is mentioned by Josephus and Pliny 
as giving its name to one of the ten or eleven toparchies 
(/cATjpoi xt at T07rapx a O mto which Judaea was in their 
time divided (Jos. BJ iii. 85 ; Plin. HN v. 1470). Shortly 
after the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. the inhabi 
tants of Lydda and certain other towns were sold into 
slavery by Cassius owing to the failure of these places to 
pay the heavy contributions he had demanded ; they 
were afterwards set free by Antony. Lydda is mentioned 
in Acts 9 yiff. in connection with a visit of the apostle 
Peter. It was burned by Cestius Gallus in Nero s 
reign, was taken by Vespasian in 68 A. D. , and, after 
the fall of Jerusalem, for some time shared with Jabneh 
the honour of being one of the chief seats of rabbinical 

In a Totius Orois Descriptio of the fourth century Lydda is 
mentioned with Sarepta, Caesarea, and Neapolisas a centre of the 
purple trade. Its classical name was Diospolis (when first given 
is not known) ; but it continued also to be known, especially in 
Christian circles, as Lydda, as appears from episcopal lists in 


which its name occurs. Pelagius was condemned here at a 
synod held in 415. After varying fortunes the city was destroyed 
by Saladin in 1191 ; but it was rebuilt, only, however, to be 
sacked by the Mongols in 1271. From this last blow it never 
recovered, and it is now an unimportant village, the only feature 
of interest which it possesses being the Church of St. George, 
partly dating from the twelfth century, which reminds us that 
Lydda was in Christian times the centre of a cultus closely con 
nected with the dragon-myths of Egypt and Babylon. It would 
even seem to have obtained a place in some forms of the anti 
christ legend, for a hadith, ascribed to jVIohammed by ancient 
commentators on the Koran, says that Tsa (Jesus) will slay ed- 
dajjiil ( the impostor = Antichrist) at Lydda, or even at the 
gate of the church of Lydda(C!ermont-Ganneau, Hants el Saint 
Ceorges, 1877, p. 10). Antichrist is, in fact, a descendant of the 
mythic dragon. See ANTICHRIST. 

LYDIA, RV LUD ("I-1 1 ? ; Ezek. 30s) and LYDIANS, 
RV LUDIM (DH-17 ; Jer. 46 9 ). See LUD, 2. 

LYDIA (AyAiA, i Mace. 88 Ezek. 30 5 AV, RV LUD 
[^.i .], cp id. 27 10), the central member of the triad 

.. of districts fringing on the W. the great 

luation. interior plate au of Asia Minor. On the 
N. came Mysia, on the S. Caria, on the E. Phrygia. 
Lydia thus included the basins of the Hermus and its 
tributaries, and that of the Cayster, and extended 
southwards over the range of Messogis as far as the 
Maeander 1 (Strabo, 577). Eastwards, in the direction 
of Phrygia, the boundary was uncertain, even to the 
ancients, and it was disputed whether the Katakekau- 
mene, the inland volcanic region on the upper Hermus, 
was to be reckoned as Lydian or Mysian (Strabo, 628). 
This confusion was due partly to the presence of both 
Lydian states and Mysian states in the same district 
(Strabo, 579) ; partly also it was the result of disregard 
of ethnical facts by the Romans in their organisation of 
the provincial divisions, as Strabo himself says (629). 

Whether the Lydians are referred to in the OT is 
considered elsewhere (see LUD, LUDIM, PUT) ; our 
chief object here is to illustrate the history of NT times. 
Lydia had long been a great trading state, owing to its 
natural wealth (cp Herod. 193649; Tac. Ann. 4 55), 
though its trade was inland, not maritime. It was in 
fact the policy of the Mermnadas (who, about 585 B.C., 
extended their rule over Phrygia to the confines of the 
Median empire) to make their state an industrial centre. 
Sardis, the capital, was a meeting-place of the caravan 
trade across Asia Minor by the old north, or royal road, 
and that which ran through Lycaonia. 

The Lydians were the first to coin money, and were the 
earliest traders (Herod. 1 94). This statement of Herodotus has 
been explained by Radet by pointing out that the old Phoenician 
trade was conducted by barter, and that the Lydians first put 
this traffic on a new basis by stamping pieces of electrum of 
guaranteed weight and fineness with a symbol. The story of 
Pythius (Herod. 1 ^T f.~) shows that commerce on a great scale 
was thus rendered possible in Lydia. The coast had early been 
occupied by Hellenic colonies (Strabo, 647), and their subjugation 
gave Lydia also the /Egean trade : her history became inter 
woven with that of Greece, and Lydia became the link that 
binds together the geography and history of Asia and Europe 
(Sayce, Empires of the East, 423). 

The victory of the Romans at Magnesia, in the valley 
of the Hermus (190 B.C. ), resulted in the transference of 
TJ. t Lydia from Antiochus of Syria to Eumenes 

sory> II. of Pergamus Pol. 21 45; Livy, 37 5 6). 
To this change reference is made in i Mace. 88. In 
133 B.C., by the will of Attalus III., the Pergamene 
kingdom passed to the Romans, and Lydia henceforth 
formed part of the Roman province of Asia. After this 
date, the name Lydia possessed no political significance, 
though still valid in the domain of ethnology or geo 
graphy. For Romans, or for those who adopted the 
Roman and imperial point of view, Asia was the sole 
permissible term. Hence, in the NT the name Lydia 
does not occur, in spite of the fact that so much is said, 
for example, of Ephesus. Paul names only Asia and 
Galatia [cp GALATIA, 5, is/] : the writer of the 
Apocalypse sums up five Lydian cities, together with 

1 On the Maeander as the boundary between Lydia and Caria, 
see Rams. Cities and Bish. of Thrygia, 1 183, n. 



the Mysian Pergamus and the Phrygian Laodicea, as 
the seven churches which are in Asia (Rev. 14). 

Here must be noticed the view maintained by Blass 
(Act. Apost. 176) and Zahn (Einl. 1 132 /.) as to the 

_. , practice of Lk. in using non- provincial 

3. Blass ana terms ( Lycaoniai p is i dia| Mysia. etc.). 

T A H anc S vm S to tne term Asia a more 
. a - * n restricted application than it had in official 
sia " usage [cp GALATIA, 15]. According 
to Zahn, Asia, as used by Lk. , means simply Lydia: 
Blass includes also Mysia and Caria, and excludes only 
Phrygia this being, in fact, the extent of the Roman 
province of Asia from 133 to 84 B.C. The enumeration 
in Acts 2g seems to give colour to this view, and in this 
passage Ramsay (Church in R. EmpW 150) admits 
that Asia is pointedly used in the popular sense, ex 
cluding Phrygia (see ASIA ; but cp PHRYGIA for another 
explanation). No support for Zahn s view can be 
derived from Strabo (627, rd%a yap rj yiyovia Atrt a 
A^-yero), for he is quoting a mere theory. In fact, all 
attempts to prove a use of the term Asia in a narrower 
sense than the Roman province at its greatest extent 
fail : it was not until the end of the third cent. A. D. that 
Asia was restricted as Zahn suggests (cp Ramsay, Stud. 
Bibl. 4so/). 

The Lydia (see LYDIA, ii. ) who befriended Paul at 
Philippi, came from Thyatira (Acts 16 14). Trade 
guilds, united in the worship of some deity, were char 
acteristic of Lydia (cp Rams., Cities and Bish. of 
Phrygia, 2417), and the woman may have acted as 
agent for a guild of dyers. Possibly Lydia was not 
her true name, but a popular designation (cp Zahn, 
Einl. 1 375). 

The fact that five of the seven churches of Asia lay in 
Lydia makes that country important in the history of 
Christianity. See the special articles EPHESUS, PHILA 

Literature. Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au Temps 
des Mermnades, 1893; Sayce, A ncient Empires o f the East, 
4 2 3/ W. J. \V. 

LYDIA (AyAlA [Ti.WH]), a woman of Thyatira, 
dealer in purple stuffs (TTOp4>YPOTTtGAlc). and a wor 
shipper of God (ceBoMeNH YON GeoN ; see PROSE 
LYTE, 5) ; Paul s first convert, and his hostess, at 
Philippi (Acts 16 14/ 40). See LYDIA i. , 3. 

LYE occurs once in RV (Jer. 222), where it represents 
Heb. ~iri3, nether, AV NITRE, and twice in RV m *- 
(Is. 125 : I will purge as with lye thy dross ; Job 9 30 
if. . . I cleanse my hands with lye ), where it repre 
sents Heb. ~I13 "Q, 1 bar. Cp SOAP. 

The English word lye is now used for solutions of the hy 
droxides of potassium or sodium in water, which, when added 
to certain oils or fats, produce soap, but was formerly applied 
to a mixture of water and the ashes of wood and plants gener 
ally, the water dissolving the alkaline salts of the ash. 

A. E. S. 

LYSANIAS (AyCANloy, Ti.WH) is mentioned in 
the NT only in Lk. 3i, where he appears as tetrarch of 
ABILENE [g.v.] at the beginning of the Baptist s 
ministry. Outside of the NT we know of only one 
man of this name who ruled over this region ; his rule 
commenced about 40 B. C. , and in 36 B. C. he was exe 
cuted by the triumvir Mark Antony at the instigation of 
Cleopatra (Jos. Ant. xv. 4i, 92; BJ\. 22s, 440; 
Schiirer, GJVV\ 1296, ET 1402) thus a difference of 
more than sixty years. The question arises, accord 
ingly, whether perhaps Lk. may not intend a younger 
Lysanias with regard to whom we possess no direct 
information, and whether it is possible to suppose that 
what is said in Lk. may be applicable to him though 
inapplicable to the older Lysanias. 

The Lysanias of whom we know from secular history 

1 [In Is. 1 25, 133, in the furnace, ought perhaps to be 
read for ^3; so Lowth and others. See FURNACE, 2.] 



succeeded his father Ptolemy, who was the son of a 

- certain Mennoeus ; this Ptolemy, accord- 

* ing to Strabo (xvi. 2io, p. 7*3), was lord 

territory ol of the . ^ country of the It u raeans by 

which we are to understand probably the 

southern Antilibanus (see ISHMAKL, 4 [7]) along 
with Abila (west from Damascus) and also of the plain 
of Massyas or Marsyas, which stretched between the 
Lebanon and Antilibanus ranges from Laodicea in the 
N. to Chalcis (Ptolemy s capital) in the S. ; and indeed 
it is probable that his territory came farther S. still, 
to the region of Paneas N. of Lake Merom or Senie- 

(a) The apologists are not alone in maintaining the 
impossibility of this kingdom being designated hs the 
tetrarchyof Abilene. Schiirer (596/1 , 602 ; ET 1.2326^) 
takes the same view, and assumes therefore a younger 
Lysanias, who in the Baptist s time was tetrarch of 
Abilene only. Schiirer himself affirms that Pompey 
destroyed the fortified places in Lebanon (Strabo xvi. 
2i8, p. 755) and undoubtedly also curtailed the terri 
tory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that in which he 
dealt with the Jewish territory. 1 That the kingdom of 
Ptolemy was thereby reduced to the limits of Abilene 
alone must not, however, be assumed, for Ptolemy 
purchased immunity for his incursions from Pompey by 
the payment of a thousand talents (Jos. Ant. xiv. 82, 


In particular it is not probable that precisely Ptolemy s capital 
(Chalcis) was taken from him. Josephus, however (/>/ii. 128, 
247), expressly distinguishes this Chalcis from the kingdom of 
Lysanias when he says that in 53 A.D. Chalcis was taken from 
Agrippa II., in compensation for which he received a greater 
kingdom which included the kingdom of Lysanias. 

A notice in Josephus (Ant. xv. 10 i 3, 343-345, 360; BJ 
i. 204, 398-400) leads to the same result. Zenodorus had 
received, on payment of tribute, the former domain of Lysanias 
(efxejLuV&oTO TOV olxov TOV A.v<raviov) ; after Zenodorus death 
(20 B.C.) Augustus bestowed his territory upon Herod the Great 
Ulatha and Paneas to the N. of Lake Merom. These dis 
tricts, therefore, would seem to have previously belonged to the 
dominion of Lysanias (Schiirer, 1 599). 

(6) If accordingly it is impossible to assign Abilene 
alone to the Lysanias vouched for by profane history 
we must put some other meaning upon the expression 
of Lk. unless we are to postulate a younger Lysanias. 
Krenkel (Josephus it. Lucas, 1894, p. 96 f. ) seeks to 
explain the expression from Josephus. 

It is stated by Josephus (Ant. xv. 10 i, 343-345 ; Bf i. 204, 
5 398/1) that Augustus gave to Herod, while Zenodorus was still 
alive, Trachon, Batansea, and Auranitis. After the death of 
Herod in 4 B.C. these three territories along with a portion of 
the domain of Zenodorus fell to Herod s son Philip (Ant. 
xvii. 114, 319 ; BJ ii. 6 3, 95). This tetrarchy of Philip was, 
after his death in 34 A.D., incorporated with the province of 
Syria ; but in 37 it was given to Agrippa I. along with the 
tetrarchy of Lysanias (Jos. Ant. xviii. 610, 237). In JBJ 
(ii. 11 5, 215) Josephus makes the same statement, only with the 
expression the so-called kingdom of Lysanias (f}a<ri\eia.i> -n}v 
Aixraci ov (taAou/ueVr)!/). After the death of Agrippa I. in 44 A.D. 
his territory passed under Roman control. But in 53 A.D., 
according to Josephus (/?/ii. 12s, 247), his son Agrippa II. 
obtained the former tetrarchy of Philip i.e., Batanaea, Tracho- 
nitis, and Gaulanitis with, in addition, the kingdom of 
Lysanias along with what had formerly been the domain of a 
certain Varus. In Ant. xx. 7 i, 138, Josephus states it thus : 
he received the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanaea, and also 
Trachonitis with Abila. At this point Josephus adds that this 
last had formerly been the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Aucran ow S 
auT)) eye-yocet rerpap^ia). That this holds good of Abila only, 
not also of Trachonitis, follows from xix. 5 i, 275 ( A/Si Aay rrfv 

Upon these data Krenkel bases the conjecture that 
Josephus does not mean to speak of Abila as the only 
possession of Lysanias, that he calls it the tetrarchy 
or kingdom of Lysanias simply and solely because it 
was the only part of the former dominions of Lysanias, 
which, instead of being assigned to another lord such as 
Herod the Great, Philip, or Agrippa I. and receiving 
a name from the new master, had since the death of 
Lysanias continued to be directly under Roman rule. 
This interpretation fits best the Abila of Lysanias 
( AfiiXav Trjv Avcraviov) ; in the other passages it is not 
the most obvious one. It would be more natural to 



interpret in another sense that Abila alone had con 
stituted the territory of Lysanias, in that case, then, 
of a younger Lysanias. But Josephus never gives any 
indication of a younger Lysanias being known to him. 
His readers were bound to suppose him to mean the 
Lysanias who was executed in 36 B. c. When we look 
at the question from this point of view, accordingly, the 
simplest course would seem to be to conclude that 
Josephus intends this same Lysanias throughout, and 
that there was no younger Lysanias ; therefore, that 
Krenkel s interpretation is not to be set aside as inad 

(c) Coming now to Lk. , Krenkel supposes him to 
have borrowed his expression from Josephus, but on 
the erroneous impression that Lysanias had survived 
and ruled to a period shortly before the granting of his 
tetrarchy to Agrippa I. and thus to the Baptist s time. 
As to Lk. s acquaintance with the writings of Josephus, 
see ACTS, 16, and THEUDAS. Even if Lk. was not 
acquainted with Josephus, however, it is still possible 
that he may be in error ; he may have found and 
misunderstood the expression tetrarchy of Lysanias, 
meaning the former tetrarchy of Lysanias, in some other 

(d) In any case we need some explanation of Lk. s 
mentioning Lysanias at all. Clearly his wish is to be 
as complete as possible at this important point of his 
narrative ; but Abilene was a very unimportant territory 
and Lysanias was not a Jewish ruler at all ; if Lysanias 
was to be mentioned other neighbouring princes deserved 
equally well to be so also. The most likely suggestion 
is that Lk. starts from the condition of matters which 
subsisted down to the year 100 A.D. , and thus approxi 
mately to the time when he was composing his book ; 
Agrippa II., the last of the Jewish princes, possessed 
in addition to other territories Abilene also, and Lk. 
thus found himself called upon to say who it was that 
held it in the Baptist s time. 1 Whether he is indeed 
correct in giving a tetrarch Lysanias for this period 
must remain an open question. That he was mistaken 
cannot possibly be shown or even assumed without 
difficulty ; but neither can it be disproved. In no case 
can it be held to be impossible, on the alleged ground 
that such a mistake on his part were inconceivable. 
Not to speak of the mistake regarding Philip in this 
very verse (cp ITUREA), the undeniable error in v. 2 
that there were two high priests at the same time is 
so serious that, in comparison with it, that regarding 
Lysanias would seem quite natural, especially if Lk. 
was depending on the unprecise mode of expression he 
found in Josephus or some other authority. 

Dio Cassius calls the pre-Christian Lysanias king of 
the Ituroeans, as also does Porphyry (ap. Eus. Chron. 
ed. Schone, 1 170), if we assume that here 
Lysanias (Avcraviov) ought to be read for 
Lysimachus (Av<n/j.dxov). It is illegitimate to infer 
from this, however, that the coins with the legend 
Lysanias, tetrarch and chief priest ( Avffaviov rerpdpxov 
teal dpx fp^ws : Schiirer, 1 598, n. 23) relate not to him 
but to a younger Lysanias. The coins bearing the 
legend Ptolemy tetrarch and chie[f priest] (UroXf/Jtalov 
rerpdpxov dpx[ieptws]) are without hesitation attributed 
to his father. In that case, however, it is very probable 
that the son also bore the same title. True, Ptolemy 
is nowhere designated king as his son is. The ex 
pressions of Josephus are quite general that he was 
ruler 1 (dwaffrevuv. Ant. xiv. ?4, 125), or bore sway 
(etcpdret., BJ\.2, 185). But the titles tetrarch and 
king are not sharply distinguished. Tetrarch at 
that time and for many a day had lost its original 

1 Holtzmann (most recently in HC ad loc.) adds the con 
jecture that Lk. took literally the title tetrarch which he 
mentions in 3 i as belonging to two sons of Herod the Great, 
and accordingly believed that out of the kingdom of Herod 
there must have been formed a fourth tetrarchy besides the two 
he had named, and Judaea viz., the tetrarchy of Lysanias. 
It is not necessary, however, to go so far as this ; see 2. 


2. Titles. 


meaning of ruler of a fourth part of a kingdom and 
had come to be applied quite generally to any ruler 
over a territory not too great, dependent on Rome 
(Schurer, i. , 16, n. 12, 350-352; ET ii. 17, n. 12). 
The writers of that period, however, often substitute for 
it the title of king also, which strictly denotes a 
higher dignity. Even Josephus designates the territory 
of one and the same Lysanias partly as a tetrarchy 
(rerpapxia.) and partly as a kingdom (/SacriXeta, i^). 
In most quarters, therefore, no difficulty is found in 
identifying the pre-Christian Lysanias with the tetrarch 
of the inscription to be treated of in next section. 

The following inscription upon a tomb at Ba albek 
( = Heliopolis) to the N. of Abila (C1G 4523) is of 
_ importance if the lacunae have been 

ins - rightly filled up by Renan (Mission de 
Phtnicie, 1864, p. 317-319, and more exhaustively in 
Mem. de I Acad. des Inscr. et Relies Lettres, vol. 26* 
[1870], pp. 70-79) : . . . daughter to Zenodorus [son 
of] Lysfanias t]etrarch and [to] Lys[anias . . . and 
t]he sons [and to Ly]san[ias . . . and th]e sons 
in me[mor]y [piously] erected (. . . Ovyarr^p 7jrji>o5wpi}> 
Avff[aviov r]eTpdpxov /cat Av<r[avl<f. . . . KO.! T]OIS ufo?? 
[icai] (\v)ffa.v[l<f. . . . ical TO?]J wots fj.v[r)fj.]rjs X-P LV 
[ei}cre/3(Ss] di>tOrjKfi>). Schurer and others deduce from 
this not only that the Zenodorus named above ( i a 
and b] was a son of the pre-Christian Lysanias, but also 
that younger members of his family also bore the name 
Lysanias. Krenkel considers this to have no point 
inasmuch as the inscription bestows the title of tetrarch 
only on the father of Zenodorus, but designates the 
other persons by their mere names without any addition. 
It remains a possibility, however, that one or more of 
them may have received the title of tetrarch only after 
the erection of this monument, which perhaps may have 
been set up soon after the death of Zenodorus (20 B.C. ). 
Moreover Krenkel has confined himself, as he ought 
not to have done, to Schiirer s reproduction of the 
inscription. Schtirer himself says that he is giving only 
the legible portions of it and takes no account of the 
lacunas assumed by Renan. Just as the first-named 
Lysanias is more precisely designated as tetrarch, so 
Renan desiderates some more definite title for the 
second and for the third. Krenkel is right, however, 
in so far as he contends that neither the second nor the 
third can have been designated tetrarch, otherwise the 
first Lysanias would have required some further addition 
for example the name of his father for distinction s 
sake. In point of fact Renan conjectures only so much 
as this that the second and the third Lysanias were 
distinguished by addition of the names of their fathers. 
The most important consideration, however, is that for 
both of them the name Lysanias itself rests upon pure 
conjecture. Renan himself says that in the second 
place, for example, the reading might quite as easily be 
Lysimachus or Lysias ; and, in the third place, Brocchi, 
the only person who had seen this fragment of the 
inscription which has since disappeared, did not read 
Lysan (ATSA.X) at all, but Dasan (AASAN). 

(b) Another inscription (CIG 4521, cp Addenda in 
vol. iii. ) relates that a freedman of the tetrarch Lysanias 
has constructed a road and built a temple for the 
weal of the lords Augusti (virtp Trjs rdv Kvpiwv 
Sef^atrroif] ffWTrjpias). There was no plurality of 
Augusti ( = 2e/3a<rrot ) until the time of Tiberius, along 
side of whom his mother Livia, after the death of the 
Emperor Octavianus Augustus (14 A. D. ), bore the title 
of Augusta (Tac. Ann. 18; Schurer, 1603, n. 37). 
Now it is by no means impossible that a freedman of 
the Lysanias who died in 36 B.C. should, fifty years 
afterwards, or more have made a road and built a 
temple, particularly if, as often enough happened, he 
had been emancipated as a child along with his parents. 
Thus neither does this inscription supply any decisive 
evidence in favour of the existence of a younger tetrarch 



Wieseler, Ckronol. Synop. d. vier Evangtlien, 1843, PP- 74- 

183, and Beitr. z. Wiirdigung tier Evangelien, 1869, pp. 196- 

204; Kenan, in Mem. Acad. Inscr. 26 b, 

4 Literature. 1870, pp. 49-84, and especially Schurer, GJY\, 

Beilage i, 600-603 (ET i. 2 335^) for the 

assumption of a younger Lysanias. On the other side, see 

Strauss, Leben /esu, 1, 40, 1835, pp. 310-313 ; Keim, Gesch.Jesu 

von Nazara, \6i8f. (ET ii. 384^) and A us dem Urchristen- 

tkum, \ (1878) 9-12, and especially Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, 

1894, pp. 95-98. P. W. S. 

LYSIAS (Aye I AC [AKV]). i. A general of Antiochus 
Epiphanes (see ANTIOCHUS, 2) and one of the seed 
royal. Antiochus, smarting under the recent defeat of 
his captains APOLLONIUS (2) and SERON (qq.v. ), placed 
Lysias in charge of the W. portion of his empire with 
orders to root out and destroy the strength of Israel 
and the remnant of Jerusalem. 1 He himself with half 
the army removed from Antioch to proceed with the 
invasion of Persia, entrusting his young son afterwards 
Antiochus V. Eupator to the care of Lysias ( i Mace. 
832^). An army of 47,000 men under three leaders 
was sent against Judaea, but met with no success 
(i Mace. 4.1/1, see GORGIAS, NICANOR), and Lysias, 
vexed and discouraged, started out the following year 
with a force 65,000 strong (165-164 B.C.). He was 
badly defeated at Beth-zur by Judas (i Mace. 4 28^), 
and the tidings of this disaster completed the discomfiture 
of Antiochus, who, on his deathbed, entrusted the 
guardianship of his son to PHILIP, 5 1 (i Mace. 6s/:). 
Lysias, however, set up Antiochus Eupator as king, 
and set out upon a fresh invasion of Judaea (628^). 
Beth-zur was besieged, and at the neighbouring locality 
of Bethzacharias the Maccabaean party was defeated 
(see ELEAZAR). Leaving behind a portion of his army 
to continue the siege of Beth-zur, Lysias marched upon 
Jerusalem ; but hearing that Philip had returned to 
assert his newly gained authority, Lysias concluded a 
treaty with Jerusalem, which, however, he immediately 
violated (651^). He hastily marched to Antioch, 
which Philip had already occupied, and ultimately over 
came him (see PHILIP, s). 2 He was put to death at 
the commencement of the reign of DEMETRIUS I. [g.v.]. 
His history as recounted in 2 Mace. 10n^ ll-12i 
13 1-142 differs in several essential particulars from the 
above ; see MACCABEES, SECOND, 2/, col. 2869 ff. 

2. See Claudius Lysias. 


1. Son of Ptolemy, who is said to have translated 
into Greek the book of Esther ; see apocryphal Esther 
Hi (<S 10n). On this and on the statement that the 
translation was made at Jerusalem (ruv [L^ rbv] Iv 
Iepovcra\rifji) see ESTHER, 9, col. 1405, Willrich, 
Judaic a, 2s f. 

2. A high priest (about 171 B.C.), temporarily ap 
pointed by his brother MENELAUS [g.v.]. His many acts 
of sacrilege roused the indignation of the common people, 
who rose against him and killed him (2 Mace. 4 29 39^ ). 

On the statement in V. 29 (rijs apxifptaavvris Sia.&o\ov) see 
Willrich, Judaica, 165 ; the Vg. seems to have supposed that 
Lysimachus was his brother s successor (see RVmn.), reading : 
Menelaus amotus est a sacerdotio succedente L. fratre suo. 

In view of the fact that his brother Menelaus bears a Hellenised 
form of a Hebrew name, Mr. S. A. Cook conjectures that Lysi 
machus itself is a Hellenising of the Hebrew -pD ^N* ( C P 

LYSTRA(AYCTp6.N. Actsl46 21 16i ; eN Aycrpoic. 
Acts 14 8 16 2 2 Tim. 3 n). 3 The site of Lystra 

1. Site. 

was guessed by Leake in 1820, and his con 

jecture was confirmed by Sterrett s discovery of a large 

1 Probably this was due to the ill-success of Lysias. 

2 Another tradition in 2 Mace. 1823 would seem to show that 
Philip had been appointed chancellor. 

3 The same variation in gender and declension as is found in 
the case of MYRA [f.v.] ; but while the mod. name of Myra is 
proof of the existence of the local form Mvpav, there is no 
evidence, other than the passage in Acts, available in the case of 
Lystra. See on this point, Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 
128. The name Lystra, as Ramsay remarks (Hist. Comni. on 
Galatians, 223), is probably Lycaonian, as the similar names 
Ilistra and Kilistra occur to the SE. and NW. of the town 
respectively (cp Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM 451). 



pedestal, standing perhaps in its original position, having 
an inscription in honour of Augustus ( Wolfe Exped. 
142 : Divum Aug[ustuni] Col\onia] Iul\ia~\ Felix 
Getnina Lustra consecravit d\ecreto\ d\ecurionum~\). 
This proves that the colony occupied the hill about 
one mile NW. of the modern village Khatyn-Serai 
(= The Lady s Mansion ), some eighteen miles SSW. 
of Iconium. A considerable stream, flowing eastwards 
out into the Lycaonian plain, runs between the ancient 
site and the modern village. Few remains of the old 
city are visible above ground ; but a small church stands 
near an Ayastna (i.e., Ayia.fffj.a) or spring reputed holy 
by the Christians of Iconium and the Turks of the 
neighbourhood. This tradition of sanctity probably 
goes back to pagan times. There is no trace of the 
temple of Zeus (Act 14 13) ; but its site is perhaps in 
dicated by the pedestal already mentioned (see JUPITER). 
When on the death of Amyntas in 25 B.C. his kingdom 
was formed into a province (Galatia), Lystra, Isaura, 
2 History and Derbe were a11 inclu ded within it : for 
Lystra had belonged to the Lycaonian te- 
trarchy transferred to Amyntas in 36 B.C. (see LYCA- 
ONIA), and Derbe had been taken by him from 
Antipater with the connivance of the Romans (see 
DERBE). The importance of the town was ephemeral, 
and dated only from 6 B. c. , when Augustus made an 
effort to regulate and civilise the mountaineers on the 
southern frontier of Galatia. To this end there was 
created a system of military roads radiating from Antioch 
to the garrison cities or colonies. The military colonies 
founded in this region were Olbasa, Comama, Cremna, 
Parlais, Lystra, and Antioch (cp CIL 3, suppl. 6974) 
[see PISIDIA]. Lystra was the most easterly of these 
colonies, and the bulwark of southern Galatia ; for 
Derbe, which lay farther E. , did not become important 
until 41 A.D. , and was never a colony; nor was 
Iconium, the nearest important town to the N. , a 
colony (until the time of Hadrian). Lystra thus stood 
in proud isolation in this nook of Galatia as the repre 
sentative of Roman civilisation, and the Latin-speaking 
Coloni formed a military aristocracy amid the incolce or 
Lycaonian natives of the town. The nearest Roman 
city was Antioch, the military centre. 

_ The sympathy between the two colonies is illustrated by the 
inscription discovered at Antioch on the base of a statue pre 
sented by Lystra (Sterrett, Wolfe Exped. 352 : T\\V Aa/xTrpoTarrji 
JLVTlo\tuv KO\<avCai> rj Aa/mrpoTaTij AvorpeW icoAuw a r^v a6A- 
u "r eTfifj.ricrfi>). The Latin feeling in Lystra is shown by 
the fact that the name of the city is written Lustra on coins and 
in inscriptions, under the influence of a false analogy between 
the Lycaonian word and the Latin word lustrum (cp CIL 
06596, Col. Lustrensium, and 6786. Coins have COLONIA . 
JULIA . FELIX . GEMINA . LUSTRA). Nevertheless, it was only 



special circumstances that for a time impressed this foreign 
character upon the town. 

Lying as it did in a secluded glen ten miles S. of 
the great trade route, which naturally ran by way of 
3. NT references. Iconium and Derbe, Lystra retained 
more tenaciously than those towns 
the native stamp. When the hill-country was pacified, 
Lystra ceased to be of importance ; and its situation 
was not such as to make it a great town by reason of its 
trade. Hence it was neither Romanised nor Hellenised ; 
of all the places visited by Paul, Lystra was the only one 
the native character of which was sufficiently prominent 
to receive notice in Acts. The belief in the epiphany 
of the gods, and the use of the speech of Lycaonia 
(Acts 14 n) in a moment of excitement testify to the 
permanence of the native character in the bulk of the 

Athough on the ground of their constitution as 
Roman colonies, Lystra and Antioch go together, from 
the point of view of the organisation of the Roman 
province, Lystra goes with Derbe, these two together 
being the cities of the Lycaonian region of the province 
of Galatia. Hence, Lystra is grouped with Derbe in 
Acts 146 (where rr)v irepixupov, the region that lieth 
round about 1 AV = the X ^po-, Regio, of Lycaonia 
Galatica. See LYCAONIA, 3, and GALATIA, 7). 
From the point of view of its commercial relations, the 
connection of Lystra was closest with Iconium, and 
next to that with Antioch, for the trade flowed west 
wards. Hence, in Acts 14 19, it is Jewish traders from 
Iconium and Antioch that come to Lystra ; and in Acts 
162 Lystra and Iconium are grouped together as the 
district in which Timothy was well known (Rams. St. 
Paul the Traveller, 179). Lystra was the birthplace 
and home of Timothy, whose parentage illustrates the 
composite character of the population. 2 Tim. 3io/ 
clearly implies that Timothy was a spectator of the brutal 
assault made upon Paul by the Lystran rabble. Lystra 
was revisited by Paul on the way home on the comple 
tion of the first journey (Acts 14 21), and again on the 
second journey (Acts 16i) : the order of the names corre 
sponds to the geographical order, for on the second 
journey Paul travelled westwards by way of the Cilician 
Gates. A visit to Lystra, on the third journey, is implied 
in Acts 1823 (on the South Galatian theory only [cp 
GALATIA, 7 and 9-14, 24]). 

In later Christian history Lystra is rarely mentioned. Artemas 
or Artemius, one of the Seventy, is said to have been its bishop. 
Kxcavation will doubtless reveal much on this interesting and 
promising site. 

Literature. Chiefly Ramsay in his Church in thcR. Emp.p) 
Jf., and Hist. Comm. on Gal. 223, et pass. 

W. J. W. 




MAACAH (so 2 S. 1068) or Maachah (PDtfO; 
AAAXATCI [B], MAXAGi [AF], MAXA66I [L] ; other 
readings MAX6I, AXA66I, OMAXAGei [ = O MAX-, C P Ij ] 
MAAXA6 [A] ; MAAXA0I [Q] ! MAKA6I, MAKAp6l, 

MAXA6ITOY [ -]) If l ^e name is, as the present writer 
holds, probably a popular corruption of Jerahmeel (see 
MAACAH ii. ), we need not wonder to find it both in 
the N. and in the S. of Palestine. The final editors 
of our narratives certainly took Maacah to be an 
Aramaean country. It is mentioned in connection with 
Rehob, Zobah, and Ish-tob (Tob?) as furnishing 
Aramrean mercenaries to the Ammonites, 28. 1068 
(naaxa [AL], aua\r)K 1 [B]) ; in the parallel, i Ch. 196, 
it is even called AKAM-MAACAH [RV], SYKIA-MAACAH 
[AV] ( HDVVD on, (Tupias pooxa. [_BK], (r. yuaxct [A], <r. /xaaxa 
[L]). In 28. 20 15 (AV) we read of a city called Abel 
of Beth-maacah (see ABEL-BETH-MAACAH), which is 
commonly supposed to have derived its name from the 
northern Maacah. It should be noted, however, that 
Abel-beth-maacah (so RV) is called (v. 19) a mother 
in Israel whereas Maacah only became Israelitish after 
the defeat of Hadad-ezer; 2 the reading Abel-beth- 
maacah must be corrupt (see SHEBA, b. Bicri). The 
gentilic noun Maachathites (AV), Maacathites 
(RV), rnj?o, occurs with Geshurites in Josh. 13 130 
[JE] (in b, ro_yp, whence RV Maacath) and in Dt. 814 
(AV Geshuri and Maachathi, 6 tactp [AF]) ; here a 
northern people and land is evidently meant. In 28. 
2834, however, the Maacathite as clearly indicates a 
southern district (see ELIPHELET, 2). 

A corrupt form of Maacath is j-|n (KV HAMATH). Wi. 3 
thinks that there were two Hamaths, one in Syiia, the other on 
the S. of Mt. Hermon ; the second nan however is surely a 
corruption of rt2J?o (Maacah). We know as a fact that there 
was a southern <ieshur(if that be the right vocalisation); it is 
hardly less certain that there was a southern Maacah, and the 
true text of that much-disputed passage, 2 S. 8 ib, most prob 
ably stated that David (not Solomon) took the Maacathite 
(district) out of the hand of the Sarephathites (see METHEG- 
A.MMAH). The popular corruption nan " la y underlie the strange 
place-name rtBOn (HUMTAH), and the odd personal names ^>uicn 
and the more corrupt alternative form (HAL 2 Ch. 3ti 2) So llN ; 
n^VCi i.e., the southern Maacah, may also occur in Ps. 006 [B], 
emended text (see PSALMS [BooK], 28 [iv.]) and elsewhere. 

T. K. C. 

MAACAH RV, so also in 28.83 AV, which has 
elsewhere MAACHAH (!"Dyp, MAAXA [BAL]). Like 
MlCAH and MiCAlAH (qq.v.}, the name seems to the 
present writer to be a popular corruption of Jerahme el 
or Jerahme elith ( a Jerahmeelite ). Talmai, the father 
of Maacah 2, was also probably designated a Jerah- 
meelite (b. Ammihur?). See TALMAI 2, and MAA 
CAH 2. 

1. A son (or daughter ?) of Nahor (i.e. , Hauran) 
by Reumah (Gen. 2224, /u.o>x<* [ADL]). The name (see 
above) corresponds to Kemuel-abi-aram (another 
disguise of Jerahme el), in the list of Nahor s sons by 
Milcah. See KEMUEL, NAHOR. 

2. Daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, and mother 
of Absalom (28. 83, /uaaxafl [A], i Ch. 82, /JLUXO. [BA]). 

3. Mother of Abijah (iK.15a 2 Ch. llao-22), also 
called MICAIAH (2C h. 182; AV MICHAIAH). In 

1 K. 15 her father s name is given as Abisalom, in 

2 Ch. 11 as Absalom, but in 2 Ch. 13 as Uriel of Gibeah 
(<5" A , however, for Gibeah has yafiauv, Vg. Gabaa, 

1 This may perhaps record an early and correct explanation. 
But cp ARAM, $ 5, n. i. 

2 Cp Wi. G/224I. 3 Ibid. 2IO/ 


Pesh. nimfthd, Ramah ). It has been thought that 
the name Uriel may have been derived from i K. 15 10 
(where it may originally have stood, see ASA, i), the 
motive of the change being a desire to provide some 
other parentage for Abijah s mother (cp TAMAK 3). 

A more satisfactory theory can be offered. The reading in 
i K. 152 is more nearly correct ; QS[y>3N may be a corruption of 
SKS"IN> a "d D0t h ^NO IN and ^K"~Ut corruptions of ^KCriT- 
Maacah, as we have seen, is probably a corruption of n SxcnT, 
and the original statement was that Abijah s mother was named 
Maacah [a Jerahmeelite], of Gibeah. The Gibeah meant is 
that of Josh. 1557. 

4. Mother of Asa (i K. 15 10, ava. [BL]; 2Ch. 15 16). 
See ASA, i. Most probably i K. 15 10 should run thus : 
His mother s name was Maacah [a Jerahmeelite], on 
the analogy of i K. 152 (see 3). She was deposed 
from her position as queen-mother on account of some 
religious symbol (nxSflD. RV an abominable image ) 
which she had made for ASHERAH [^.f.], i K.. 15i3- 

In Pesh. of i K. 1.1 10 Maacah s father s name is given as Ebed- 
salom, a mistaken emendation of Abishalom (cp 3). 

5. Father of ACHISH [q.v.] (i K. 2 39, a^ujcra [B]), called also 
MAOCH (ipyD, i S. 27 2, a.nna\ [B], p.iua/3 [A], axifiaav [L]) ; so 
Targ. in both passages. The reading of <S L and Tg. is im 
portant. See TALMAI (ad fin.). 

6. A concubine of Caleb (i Ch. 2 48, /u.wxi [BA]), personifying 
the Jerahmeelites. 

7. Wife (or mother, Pesh.) of Machir (also = Jerahme el?), 
the Manassite (i Ch. ~ T.-,f., /ocofo^o [B], noo\a. [A]) ; cp MAACAH 
i ; SAUL i. 

8. Wife of Jehiel, father of Gibeon (i Ch. 829, fj.o\x a fB], 
ftiAxa [Ba?b?], (La%a [L] ; 935 jio<ova [BNA]). B s reading 
confirms the derivation from Jerahme el. 

9. Father of HANAN [2] (t Ch. 11 43, ,xo<ux a [BN], na X a [A]). 

10. Father of Shephatiah, a Simeonite (i Ch. 27 16, /oia^a [B], 
/u.aa^a [Al, ^a\aTt [L]). Note that the next name is that of a 
son of Kemuel, another distortion of Jerahme el. 

For another instance of the distortion of Jerahme el into 
Maacah see SAUL, i (on 2 S. 20 14, Abel-beth-maacah). Cp 
also MEHOLATHITE ; Maacah and Meholah are both probable 
corruptions of Jerahme el. T. K. C. 

MAADAI (*"ll?p, abbrev. from some ethnic, but see 
MAADIAH and cp (5), b. Bani, in the list of those with 
foreign wives (see EZRA i. , 5 end); Ezra 10 34 
(MoAeA[e]iA [BN], MOoAeiA [A], MoyoyAi t 1 -]) 
= iEsd. 9 3 4 MOMUIS (/woMAeioc [B]- -Aeic [A], 
MOoyAeiA [L]). 

MAADIAH (HHyp, see 33, but also cp MAADAI), 
a priest in Zerubbabel s band (see EZRA ii. , 6 l>) ; Neh. 
12s(BKAom., MAA^IAC [N c - am e- SU P-], MAAAiAC [L]). 

MAAI (*yD), a priestly musician in the procession at 
the dedication of the wall (see EZRA ii. , 6), Neh. 
12 3 6t (BXA om., MAAI [X c - a m e- i"f-], MA |A. [L]). 

MAALEH-ACRABBIM(D^-lpi; H^D), Josh. 15 3 t. 
AV, RV Ascent of AKRABBIM (q.v. ). 


[L]), i Esd. 631 RV = Ezra2 5 oMEUN!M (g). 

2. RV BAAM (ftaav[e]i. [BA], Parai [L]), i Esd. 9 3 4 = Ezra 
1034, BANI 2. 

MAARATH (rntfO ; MAfApcoe [B], MARcoe [A], 
MAApO)6 [L]), a city in the hill country of Judah 
(Josh. 15s9), mentioned next to Gedor, which is 6i m. 
N. from Hebron. Near the ruins of Jedur (Gedor) is 
the village of Bet Ummar, which may be a distant echo 
of Ma arath(?). Not far away are handsome rock 
tombs and a number of small caverns (Baed.l 2 135). 


MAASAI, AV Maasiai (b r), iCh.9 
11 13, AMASHAI (q. -:}. 

MAASEAS (Bar. 1 1 RV). See MAASEIAH i. 


MAASEIAH, RVMahseiah (iTpnp, 28 ; [Ginsb. ; 
but see Baer s note on Jer. 32 12]), an ancestor of Baruch, 
Jer. 32i2 (/v\AAC&lOY [ B Q]. MNAC. [B b ], MACC. [A], 
MACGOY []): 51 59 (MAACAIOY [B e - m Q] 1 -cc. [A], 
AAAX&IOY [&**]) 1 Bar. 1 x tne name appears as 

MAASEIAH (JTb yp, [and -in %!? in Jer. 35 4 and 
nos. 4-9], for the corruption iTti JQ see no. 22 ; ace. 
to Che. from some ethnic (see 12), but pointed as if= 
work of God cp JAASIEL and see NAMES, 31 ; 
ceoy []> 

1. Father of Zephaniah the priest, temp. Zedekiah, Jer. 21 i 
Oouu ao-cratou [B], ^a. [Bab], ^aw. [A], ^aaa: [Q]), cp 29 [3(5] 
25 (nvaaaiov [B^Sb], ^ao-cr. [A]), 37 [44] 3 (jju/avaiov [Bab], ^a. 
[A]). He is possibly the same as 

2. b. Shallum, a door-keeper, Jer. 35 [42] 4 (/ixaatreov [x c - a ], 

/imr.iniM [A]). 

3. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, Jer. 29 21 (om. BNA, 
na.a-o-i.ov [Theod. in Q m K-]). 

4. b. Adaiah, a captain of Judah, who allied himself with 
Jehoiada, 2 Ch. 23 i (/icunai/ [A]). 

5. An official (iBiss n, see SCRIBE) under UZZIAH, 2Ch. 26 n 
(afi.aiTa.iov [B], juaa<r<riou [L]). 

6. A king s son, if this is right (i^c.T ; see HAMMELECH), 

. . 

7. Governor of Jerusalem, temp. Josiah, sent with Shaphan to 
superintend the restoration of the temple, 2 Ch. 34 8 (fiaaa-a [B]). 

8. and 9. Two Levites of the second rank, temp. David, 
i Ch. 15 18 (jixaao-traia [B], a;aa<ria [Avid.]), 2 o (jua<ro-aias [B], 
fiacraia? []). 

10. A priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 
? 5 end), Ezra 10 li (nee<r<rr)A [B], /u.aacrr)a [,y], -rjia [A])=i Esd. 
9 19, MATTHEI.AS, HV MATHELAS (/uaojAas [B], fiaBy. [A]). 

11. One of the b ne HARIM, a priest in list of those with 
foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end). Ezra 10 21 (fiatrarj\ [BN l, 
nao-eias [A])=i Esd. 9 21 (EANES, RV MANES, /xai/r)s [BA]), 
where of the sons of Harim is omitted except in <ESL. 

12. One of the b ne PASHHUR, a priest in list of those with 
foreign wives (see EZRA!., 5 end), Ezral022=i Esd. 922, 
MASS! AS (a<7<reias [B], jiiao-crias [A], ^aao-tria? [L]). 1 

n. One of the b ne PAHATH-MOAB, in list of those with 
foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end), Ezra 10 30 (jua<r)a [B], /ixaa<r. 
[A], fia.<n) [{<!)= i Esd. 931 MOOSIAS, RV MOOSSIAS (/nooo-o-eia? 
[B], fj.ooa-a-i.ay [A]; no trace is found in L save triSia, or 
perhaps fiaSetas?) 

14. Father of AZARIAH (4); Neh.323 (jua5a<n)A [BN],juaa<r(riou 

15. In list of Ezra s supporters (see EZRA ii., 13 [/C] ; cp i., 
5 8 ; ii., 16 [ 5 ] ; ii., 15 (i]c) Neh. 84 [B], [L]) 
= i Esd. 943 BALASAMUS, RV BAAI.SAMUS (i.e., |3aAao-ajx = 
BlLSHAN ; jSaaAo-a^ios [BA], jU.aa.rias [L]). 

16. Expounder of law (see EZRA ii., 13 [_/".] ; cp i., 8; ii., 
$ 16 [5], 15 [i]c), Neh. 87 (om. BNA)=i Esd. 9 48, MAIANEAS, 
RV MAIANNAS (jmiayi-as [BA], maaxnas [L]). 

17. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 10 25 [26] 
OmaAo-ia f A]). 

18. b. Baruch descended from SHILONI [y.v.], in list of 
Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., s[^], 15 [i]a), 
Neh. 11 5 (joiaatreia [B], ^aA<ria [A], ^eo-eia [*], a^etreca [^c.a], 
fiaatas [L]); he represents the Shelanite branch of Judah, just 
as Athaiah represents the Perezite (see PEREZ), cp i Ch. 9 5 where 
the name ASAIAH (n b V) is probably nothing more than another 
form of Maaseiah. 

19. b. Ithiel in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem 
(see EZRA ii., 5 [/>], 15 [i] a) ; Neh. 11 7 (joiayarjA [B], /aararjA 

20. and 21. Two priests in procession at the dedication of 

the wall (see EZRA ii., i^), Neh. 12 41 42 (om. BN*A). 

22. A Oershonite Levite, i Ch.t54o [28], whose name has 
been corrupted into BAASEIAH. 

MAASIAI, i Ch. 9 12, RV MAASAI. 

MAASIAS, RV Maaseas (Bar. Ii); in Jer. 32i2 

[BA]), i Esd. 8 43 RV= 


Ezra8i6, SHEMAIAH, 17. 

MAATH (MA.A0 [Ti. WH]), a name in the genealogy 
of Jesus (Lk. 326). See GENEALOGIES ii. , 3. 

1 [The name occurs between Elioenai (=Elishama= Ishmael) 
and Ishmael. Perhaps the same man is meant, and his name 
was Ishmael; Nethaneel = Ethani, follows (so Che.).] 


MAAZ ()*rp, cp AHIMAAZ ; MAAC [BAL]), one of 
the sons of Ram b. Jerahmeel b. Hezron ; i Ch. 227f. 

MAAZIAII (liTTrp, Yahwe is a refuge ? the name 
may, however, be a corruption of iTpnp ; see MAA 
SEIAH i. ), the name of a (post-exilic) priestly family, 
to which was assigned one of the twenty-four courses, 
i Ch. 24i8 (MAACAI [B], MOOZ&\ [A], MOOZIA [L]). 
Represented amongst the signatories to the covenant 
(see EZRA i. ,7); Neh. 108 [9] (,rij,-n, vadeia [B], 
afeia [N], /uaafaa [A], juaaftas [L]); cp MAADIAH. 

MABDAI (MA/V\AAI [B], MANAAI [A]), i Esd. 934 = 
Ezra 1035, BENAIAH, 9. 

MACALON([eK]MAKA.AooN [BA]), i Esd. 5 2 i = Ezra 


Name Maccabee ( i). Judas ( 4). 

,, Hasmonsean ( 2). Jonathan ( 5). 

Uprising ( 3). Simon ( 6). 

Genealogy ( 3). John Hyrcanus (| 7). 

Bibliography ( 8). 

The name Maccabaeus (MAKKABAIOC ; Lat. 

MachabcEus ; Syr. wOkjaaD ) was originally a name of 

. ,. the thirdsonof Mattathias(see3), com- 

1. .LUG UH.H16 i HIT, i* 111 

Ma^ojihPP monl y called Judas, and in the books 

ITlclL/VvtlUCC. \ i i_ 1-1 i A 1_ 

of Maccabees is applied only to him. 

( lovoas 6 Ka\ovfj.(;vos MaKKa^aios i Mace. 24 3i; lovS. [6] 
MaKK. 2, 66 ; lovS. o MaxK. 5 24 2 Mace. 2 19 8 i ; 6 MaK. i Mace. 
5 34 [A], 2 Mace. 8 5 16 10 19^ ; or simply MOKK. i Mace. 5 34 
[NV] 2 Mace. 10 i.) 1 It thus makes the impression of being a 
surname ; see, however, below. 

As Maccabceus was the central figure in the struggle 
for Jewish independence, it was natural that his name 
should be used at a later day (so, e.g. , in Origen) to 
designate the other members of the family to which he 
belonged (also called Hasmonasans ; see below, 2), 
or even in a wider sense, to apply to all those who were 
in any way associated with him or his brethren. 
Similarly, certain writings which are concerned directly 
or indirectly with the deeds or the times of these leaders 
have been entitled Books of Maccabees (MaK/ca/Scuaw, 
or Ma/v/ca/3aiKa ; properly, the Maccabasan history or 
times ; cp BatrtXettDr, etc. ). See below on the titles of 
3 Mace. (col. 2879) and 4 Mace. , especially (col. 

The form and the meaning of the Hebrew (or 
Aramaic) original of the name Maccabasus are alike 
uncertain. The Greek transcription points to a form 
with k (p). Against this, the Latin machabceus (cA = 3 
[/]) has been urged, but without sufficient reason. 

The argument in favour of the form ^-D has been presented 
with great thoroughness and ingenuity by S. I. Curtiss (The 
Name Machabce, Leipsic, 1876), who attempts to give the 
Latin form Machaba;us direct connection with the Hebrew, 
through Jerome. The argument breaks down completely at 
that point, however, even if we let Jerome s indefinite Macha- 
bfeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi (in Pro!. G a/.) mean 
all it can, and believe that he had actually seen a Hebrew 
i Mace. 2 There is not the slightest probability that the old 
Latin translation of i Mace, was revised by Jerome ; on the 
contrary, all the evidence is strongly opposed to this view. 

So far, therefore, as the testimony of the old versions 
is concerned, we have to guide us only the undoubted 
fact that the Greek form of the name is derived from a 
translation of the book made with painstaking accuracy 
directlyfrom the Hebrew(see below, MACCABEES, FIRST, 
3 [col. 2858]), whilst the Latin form of the name is 
found in a version made from the Greek. 3 

The favourite interpretation of the name has con 
nected it with the Hebrew makktbeth (see HAMMER, i); 



1 [The spelling of the name occasionally varies in 

2 There is justification for the suspicion that this statement 
of Jerome s was based simply on Origen s testimony to the 
existence of a Semitic i Mace. See col. 2857, i ; and col. 
2866, ii. 

3 All other forms of the name, even those which appear in 
(late) Jewish writings Oapd 330 N33c)> are derived either 
from the Greek or from the Latin. 



Aram, makkaba. Judas would thus have been called 
The Hammerer, presumably because of his prowess 
in battle. To this, however, there are objections : 

1. The form of the word apparently an adjective ending in 
ai or i which the Greek naturally suggests. We should 
hardly expect an adjective to be used in such a case. 

2. The kind of hammer designated by the Hebrew mp!3 
(see Curtiss, 22 f.). Both Hebrew and Aramaic have words in 
common use for heavy hammer, sledge-hammer, whilst Q 
is the smaller workman s tool. Especially in view of the familiar 
passages Jer. 6623 (cp BfrakhOth, 28^) 51 20, the hammer 
theory of Judas name seems hardly credible. 

3. It is by no means certain that the name Maccabee was 
given to Judas because of his valour. There is no hint of such 
an origin of the name in our oldest sources,! and it is evident 
that the interpretations of this nature found in later writings 
(e.g., in Gorionides) are mere guesses. 

It is to be observed that not only Judas, but also 
each of his brothers, has a double name. In the 
passage i Mace. 22-5, John is said to have been called 
Gaddi (see col. 2853, n. i) ; Simon, Thassi ; Judas, Mac- 
cabaeus; 2 Eleazar, Avaran ; Jonathan, Apphus. It has 
commonly been supposed that these surnames are all 
descriptive of the character or exploits of those to whom 
they are applied (thus Eleazar s name, Avaran, has been 
explained from the incident of his boring a hole (root iin) 
in the elephant) ; but the fact that not one of the names 
lends itself to any such interpretation should be con 
clusive against this theory. 

On the contrary, the surnames have rather the appearance 
of names given at birth (Gaddi is a familiar Jewish name ; see 
below, 3 i) ; and when the list Simeon, Judah, Eleazar, etc., 
is put over against the corresponding list Thassi, Maccabi, 
Avaran, etc., the probability at once suggests itself that the 
latter were the names originally given by Mattathias to his five 
sons, whilst the former were the names which they received 
later as the princes of the Jewish people (in the way that has 
been so generally customary, with kings, popes, caliphs, etc.). 

It is a precisely similar case when Josephus (Ant. xiii. 4 8) 
writes : AAe f ai>6pos 6 BoAa? Aeyo^iero?, although Balas was 
the original name of this king, and Alexander the later 
official name which came to him with his elevation in rank (see 
Schiir. GJV\ 178; ET 1 i, p. 240). Cp also the names of the 
queen Alexandra, whose Hebrew name had been Salome : 
AAefdi/6pa ^ icai 2aAiVa (Eusebius) ; Alexandra qute et Salina 
vocabatur (Jerome, Coinm. on Dan. 9 24^) ; by Josephus 
called only Alexandra. 

It is doubtful, therefore, whether much help is to be 
gained from the side of etymology in determining the 
Hebrew form and meaning of Maccaboeus. 

For the various conjectures that have been made, see Curtiss, 
12-24 I Wace s Apocrypha, 1 2 47 / ; Schurer, GjyV) 1 158 ; ET 

1 I, p. 212 f. 

As for the form, the evidence decidedly favours apn 
(with single p?) ; 3 the possibility of a form with 3 must, 
however, be admitted. 

The Jews do not seem to have applied the name 

Maccabee either to the members of the dynasty or to 

2 The name the books dealing with the events of 

, ~ , their time. Instead, they used for both 

Hasmonsean. ., 

the adjective Hasmoniean (Asmo- 

naean, JISBTI. "Acra/u.wi aros), which seems to have been 
the family name of the house of Mattathias. 

Hasmona;an does not occur in the books of Maccabees, but is 
frequently used by Jostphus (see the references, below), and 
appears once in the Mishni (Middoth 1 6), 4 where Judas and 

1 If the author of i Mace, had thus understood the name, how 
could he have failed to make some use of the figure in 3 3-5 ? 

2 That Judas name is written with the Greek adjective end 
ing -ouos, and not simply transliterated, like YaS&i (see 3, i), 
etc., is of course due to the fact that it had already become a 
household word among the Greek-speaking Jews. 

3 In favour of the single rather than the double n, the follow 
ing considerations may be urged : (i) The possibility that 
Josephus wrote the name with a single K (so generally in Niese s 
ed.). (2) The occasional employment of KK to represent a single 
p. Thus, A.Kieap<av for jnpy ; Noxitapei/n for c"lpj (Am. 1 1 
[unless we should point nakkaiiini}), etc. (3) The Latin form, 
which may well have become fixed in use before the translation 
from our Greek version was made. 

4 In this passage, certain chambers (nipe-S) Belonging to the 
temple are described. Of one of them it is said : rTJISS rrmiD 

Dispc-B- naion :ax rm (var. jioe-n) tuispn 33 ina m 

}V 370 ; In he NE. chamber the Haimonaeans laid away the 
stones of the altar which the Grecian kings had defiled. Cp 
i Mace. 4 46. 


his brethren are called NyiCpn 33- Similarly Targ. 18.24 
On JV3). and many passages in the Gemarii and later Jewish 
literature. For the complete list of references, see Gaster, 
The Scroll of the Hasmon^ans (Transs. <)th Orient. Con-, 
gress, Lond., 1892), p. 7 ; Levy, Neuhebr. unit chald. \V8rter. 
buch, s.v.). The Hebrew form Q jlCB n a l s o occurs. 

The origin of the name is wholly obscure. It was 
probably borne originally either by Mattathias himself, 
or by one of his ancestors ; but we are quite destitute 
of information on this point. In i Mace. 2i, Mattathias 
is called the son of John, son of Simeon (MarTaflias 
Iwavvov TOV ^,v/j.wv) j 1 Josephus, Ant. xii. 61, carries 
the line one step farther back, adding TOV Affa/juavaiov 
(cp xiv. 164 xvi. 7 i) ; but it is not likely that he had 
any authority for this. 2 The adjective may have 
originated in the name of a man, Hasmon (cp the 
Chronicler s ot?n ; see HASHUM) ; or, more probably, 
in the name of a place (cp P s pceri, Josh. 1627 and 
ruiDBTi, Nu. 8829/1 see HESHMON, HASHMONAH); or 
even in an appellative, though the absence of a root 
Dt?n in the Hebrew-Aramaic literature known to us 
makes this very unlikely. 

The fanciful etymology connecting the name with the air. Ay. 
B JCB n, P S - *>8 32 (the result of a scribe s blunder), which is then 
explained by the Arabic hasi(\), fatness, should be put aside 
once for all. 

While Palestine was under the Egyptian rule, the 
Jews were not directly interfered with in the exercise of 

, TT . . their religion and customs. Even then. 
H however, Greek cities were springing up 

JUT tt j.y_- i 1 a l parts of the land, and a strong 
a a las. p ressure was g rac i ua iiy being brought to 
bear on Judaism by the rapid encroachment of Greek 
thought and culture. After the beginning of the 
Seleucid rule (198 B.C., under Antiochus III., the 
Great) this pressure was vastly increased, both from 
without and from within. The Syrian kings did not 
find it easy to hold together the heterogeneous elements 
of their domain, and it was to their interest to dis 
courage the exclusive Jewish religion. To the Jews 
themselves, the struggle against Hellenism might well 
have seemed a losing one. There was a strong party 
in Judeea that openly favoured union with the Gentiles 
and the adoption of the new culture. See, e.g. , I Mace. 
1111415 2 Mace. 47-15; etc. On the other hand, as 
was natural, those who held to the national religion 
redoubled their zeal. At the head of these was the 
well-defined extreme legalistic party of the Pious * 
(o Ton, "Ao-tSatoi, see LOVINGKINDNESS). Soon after 
the beginning of the reign of Antiochus (IV.) Epiphanes 
(175-164 B.C.) matters came to a crisis (see ISRAEL, 
joff. ; ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION). It was not, 
however, at Jerusalem, but in one of the smaller towns 
of Judaea that the revolt broke out. When the king s 
officer, who compelled the people to sacrifice to the 
heathen gods, came to Modein (MwSe tV; see MODIN), 
a village in the mountains near Lydda, a man of that 
place named Mattathias ( rrnnp, Gift f Yahwe ; see 
MATTITHIAH), son of John, a priest of the order of 
Joarib (iMacc. 2i), offered resistance to the king s 
command ; he slew the officer and a Jew who was 
offering the sacrifice, pulled down the altar, and fled, 
with his five sons and many others who joined them, 
into the mountains. Multitudes followed, and the 
revolt very soon assumed formidable proportions. Mat 
tathias and his companions also went through the land, 
pulling down the heathen altars, putting to death the 
apostates, and stirring up the remainder of the people 
to insurrection. In this same year, however (Sel. 146 ; 

1 Wellh.. Ph. 11. Sadti. 94 n., wished to read Hasmon in 
place of Simeon. 

2 Similarly Josephus speaks of the members of this family in 
a few places as oi Acra/uioroiov iralS; (I ft. 1 ; Ant. xx. 8 n 
20 10), as well as oi "Ao-ajiiocatoi and TO Ao-a^wvaiW yeVos. 
See Schurer, 1 108 ; ET 1 i, p. 266. 

3 [See Che. OPs. 56 n., and ASSIDEANS ; and on the further 
development of the two opposing parties, see PHARISEES and 



it>7, 166 B.C. ), Mattathias died ; first having committed 
the leadership of the insurgent people to his son Judas. 
Thus began the supremacy of the Hasmomean, 
or Maccabnean, house which was to play such 
an important part in Jewish history. Cp HISTORICAL 
LITERATURE, 17. Two of the five sons, John and 
Eleazar, did not long survive their father. 

1. John, the eldest, originally (? see i) called Gaddi, HJ,! was 
captured and slain by a marauding Arab tribe, in 161, while he 
wasengaged in carrying the property of the Maccabasan party into 
the country of the Nabatajans for safe keeping (i Mace. 9 35-42). 2 
As this was after Jonathan had succeeded Judas in the leader 
ship, and no other mention is made of him, we may conclude 
that he was recognised as inferior to his brethren. 

2. Eleazar, the fourth son, who also bore the name A varan * 
(see i), is the hero of the battle (lost by the Jews) against the 
forces of Lysias at Beth-Zechariah, in 162. Seeing that one of 
the elephants of the enemy s host was furnished with the royal 
trappings, and believing therefore that the king rode upon it, he 
crept under the animal and stabbed it, and was crushed by its 
weight (1 Mace. 643-46). He receives no further mention in the 
books of Maccabees. 

The following table exhibits the genealogy of the 
Hasmonaeans, with the date at which each died (as 
given in Schiirer) : 

Mattathias (167-166). 

John (161) Simon (135) Judas (161) Eleazar (162) Jonathan 

I (M3) 

John Hyrcanus I. (105) 


Aristobulus I. (104) Alexander Jannaeus (78) = Salome Alex- 

| [andra (69) 

Hyrcanus II. (40) 

Aristobulus II. (63) 


Antigonus (37) 

Alexandra = Alexander [did not reign] (49) 


I I 

Aristobulus [high-priest] (35) lariamme [wife of Herod] (29) 

Judas (rrnrr), the third son of Mattathias, and the 

leader of the Jewish people in their struggle for religious 

_ , freedom, is one of the most heroic 

Maccabseus figures in a11 the histo T. of the nation - 
On his name Makkabi, Maccabasus, 

see i. If the view there advocated, that this was his 
original name, and that he and his brethren were given 
special names as the princes of Israel, is correct, it is 
not unlikely that he received the name Judah because of 
his military prowess (cp Gen. 49g, etc. ). According to 
the account given in i Mace. 2 66, Mattathias at the 
time of his death appointed Judas captain of the hosts 
of Israel, because he had been strong and mighty from 
his youth. The army which he commanded at first 
was not made up chiefly of the adherents of a single 
party, as seems to be asserted in 2 Mace. 146, but was 
recruited from all classes and parties in Judcea. It is 
true, the AtriSaiot (see the preceding ) were foremost 
in the movement which Judas led ; but neither he nor 
his brethren were ever identified with that sect. 

Marvellous success attended Judas from the first. 
After gaining a series of brilliant victories over the Syrian 
hosts sent against him, he was enabled in 165 to purify 
the temple and restore its worship. His armies, no 
longer made up merely of religious enthusiasts, were now 
employed for campaigns against the Edomites and the 

1 The name <-|j, which has a distinctly heathen sound (see 
NAMES, 57, and Kerber, Hebriiiscke Eigennanien, 1897, P- 67 ; 
cp GAD, i) was not uncommon among the Jews. The Greek 
form TaSSis given by many MSS in i Mace. 22 received its 
last letter from the following word. 

2 [In 2 Mace. 8221019, by an ancient false reading (?) he is 
called Joseph.] 

_ 3 The original form and meaning of the name, which occurs 
in two places, 1 Mace. 25 and (143, are quite uncertain. Many 
Greek MSS give the form 2auapaj> (i.e., EAea^ap 6 2auapa>> side 
by side with EAeafapos Avapai<), which is also possible. The 
Syriac, indeed, writes the word with initial pt ; but it may be 
questioned whether this fact should be allowed any weight. As 
in the case of the name Makkabi, it seems probable that the 
Syrian translator can have had nothing but the Greek to guide 



Ammonites ; also in Galilee, Gilead, and the Philistine 
territory. Judas thus made himself the champion, in the 
wider sense, of the Jewish nation, not merely of its 
religious rights. In 163, the object sought by the Jews 
in the beginning of the struggle was actually attained. 
They were given full religious liberty, in return for their 
submission to the king, now Antiochus (V.) Eupator. 
(For the circumstances, see i Mace. 648-63, and the 
summary of the history given below under MACCABEES, 
FIRST, 2 [col. 2858].) 

Judas career as a military leader was by no means 
ended. From this time on, the Jews were engaged in a 
fateful struggle among themselves ; the Hellenising party 
contending for supremacy with the national party, of 
which Judas and his brethren were the leaders. Certain 
adherents of the king, notably one Alcimus, who became 
high priest (see AIXIMUS), succeeded through mis 
representations in calling in the help of a Syrian army. 
Judas valour as a military captain, however, was again 
displayed, and the Jewish arms triumphed. After the 
decisive battle near Beth-horon, in 161, Judas was 
again virtually the political head of the Jewish people, 
with more power than ever before. It does not appear, 
however, that he exercised the office of high priest, as 
his successors did. Probably it did not occur to him to 
do so. 

It was at this time that Judas took at last the 
momentous step of asserting the political independence 
of the Jewish nation. Two ambassadors were sent to 
Rome ( i Mace. 8 1 ff. 17 ff. ), in the not unreasonable hope 
of gaining the support of the Romans against the Syrians, 
and thus securing the permanent triumph of the Jewish 
national party. The Romans did in fact return a 
favourable answer (i Mace. 821 ff.), but it came too 
late to be of any assistance to the Jews. Only about 
two months after the victory which Judas had gained 
over the Syrian captain Nicanor near Beth-horon, the 
king (Demetrius I.) sent against him an army in com 
parison with which the Jewish forces were but a handful. 
Judas refused to retire from the field without a battle, 
and fought desperately ; but his army was utterly routed, 
and he himself was slain (i Mace. 9 1-19). The cause of 
the loyal Jews seemed to have fallen with him. 

There is but one estimate of the character of Judas. 
He was a true patriot and a born captain. The enthusi 
asm of the writer of i Mace. (83-9) is shared by the 
writer of 2 Mace. , who had otherwise no interest in the 
Hasmonnean house. Devout and zealous for the law, 
as his father had been, prompt of action and brave to 
rashness, Judas was able to inspire confidence in those 
whom he led, and to gain surprising results with small 
means. It was as the fruit of his example and achieve 
ments, made possible by a peculiar combination of cir 
cumstances, that the Jewish nation under the Hasmon- 
asans achieved such successes in the decades following ; 
though these later gains also were due chiefly to the 
political situation in the Syrian kingdom (see below, 
5), and were necessarily only temporary. 

Jonathan ( luvadav, frm,v),the fifth son of Mattathias, 
bore also the name Apphus, A5r0oi>s, i Mace. 2 5 (see i). 

The original form and meaning of the 
. , 
latter name are quite unknown. 

We have no means of knowing with what guttural letter the 
word began, or what Semitic consonant the Greek 9 represents. 
On the Syriac transcription DISH no reliance whatever can be 
placed ; see preceding col., n. 3. 

Jonathan is mentioned occasionally in i Mace. 
(5 17 24 55) in connection with Judas and Simon as taking 
a prominent part in the earlier Maccabcean campaigns ; 
and upon the death of Judas, he was unanimously chosen 
to succeed him as leader of the national party (i Mace. 

His opponents had at that time decidedly the upper hand. 
The Hellenising party was triumphant 1 (see the preceding ), 

1 In i Mace. 824 read : in those days their iniquity (DPI in 
stead of 2jn, famine ) waxed exceedingly great, etc. 



and, aided by the Syrians, used every means to secure its advan 
tage (i Mace. 023-26). Many former adherents abandoned the 
Maccabaean cause (- . 24^), and those who remained faithful 
were subjected to intimidation and even violence (v. 26). Jona 
than, with his comparatively few followers, was compelled for 
some years to keep in the background ; at first, as a freebooter, 
making raids in various parts of the land, and at one time (158 
B.C.) unsuccessfully pursued by a Syrian army (i Mace. 9 58-72) ; 
then, at the head of a sort of rival government at Michmash, a 
short distance N. of Jerusalem, where his party seems to have 
steadily gained in numbers and in power (ibid. v. 73). This 
was undoubtedly due largely to his own ability, as well as to 
the truly popular cause which he represented, and to the fact 
that the Hellenising party sin~2 the death of Alcimus (159 B.C.) 
was without a leader. 

At length the scales were turned completely in 
Jonathan s favour in an unexpected way. Demetrius 
was compelled to contest the possession of the Syrian 
throne with a powerful rival, Alexander Balas. Both 
saw the necessity of making overtures to Jonathan, who 
finally espoused the cause of Balas, in return for which 
service he was made the head of the Jewish people, with 
considerable power, and was also appointed high priest 
of the nation. This (153 B.C.) was the real beginning 
of the Hasmonasan rule in Jerusalem. Jonathan con 
tinued to hold the office of high priest (vacant, ap 
parently, since the death of Alcimus), and to increase, 
little by little, the advantage already gained. He was 
confirmed in his authority by Balas, when the latter 
became king (i Mace. 106s); was received with high 
honours at Ptolemais by Balas and Ptolemy Philometor, 
king of Egypt (ibid. v. 59^); and finally, when Deme 
trius II. became king of Syria, succeeded by a daring 
stroke in obtaining a series of most important con 
cessions to Judaea. See the interesting account in 
i Mace. 1X20-37 ; and cp Schurer, GJVW \ 182 ff. 

During all this time Jonathan showed himself a wise 
and bold leader, both in peace and in war. The Syrian 
power continued to be divided among rival aspirants to 
the throne, so that not only Jonathan, but also his 
successors, were enabled to maintain their power by 
making shrewd use of the situation. The purpose of 
completely throwing off the Syrian yoke a purpose 
already cherished by Judas was not lost sight of by 
Jonathan. He sent ambassadors with letters of friend 
ship to Rome, Sparta, and other places (1446.0.?), at 
the same time working diligently to strengthen Judeea 
in every possible way (see esp. i Mace. 11 55 /. 1232-38). 
Soon after this, however, Jonathan fell a victim to 
Syrian treachery. Trypho, the chief captain of the 
young Antiochus VI. who was now contending with 
Demetrius II. for the supremacy, became himself an 
aspirant to the throne. Fearing Jonathan for some 
reason, and wishing to put him out of the way, Trypho 
enticed him into Ptolemais and there put him to death 
(i Mace. 1239-53). This was at the close of 143. 

Simon (St/awv, 1 pyoe-) was the second son of 
Mattathias ; according to i Mace. 2s called also Thassi 
6 Simon ( 9a<r<n ) ; see T - Tne Semitic form and 
original meaning of the name Thassi can 
no longer be determined. In i Mace, he is frequently 
mentioned with honour in the account of the times of 
Judas and Jonathan, as an able military leader. Thus 
5 17 2i/: 96 7 / 11 65 / 12 33 / 3 8 / During the reign 
of Jonathan, Antiochus VI. appointed Simon general 
(<TT partly jj) over an important district (11 59). In 26s 
Mattathias is represented as singling him out as the 
wisest of the brethren, and appointing him their 
counsellor. 2 Simon seems to have been in all respects 
a worthy successor of Judas and Jonathan. 

Upon the death of Jonathan, Simon promptly took 
his place at the head of the nation, both as captain and 
as high priest, being confirmed in this by all the people. 
He continued to carry out with energy the policy pursued 
by Jonathan, building up and fortifying Jerusalem and 

1 In the OT <B Sinewy, Eng. Simeon. 

8 For a possible explanation of this, see col. 2860, par. (3). 



the other strongholds of Judcea( 13 10 33 43-48 52 14; 32-34), 
extending the territory of the Jews, taking every ad 
vantage of the Syrian dissensions, and sending embassies 
abroad. In all these things he was enabled by the 
circumstances to attain much more than had been 
possible for his predecessors, so that his reign was a 
glorious one for the Jewish people. 

In 142, soon after the accession of Simon, the Syria* 
yoke was at last removed from Israel. Demetrius II., 
yielding to Simon s demand, formally recognised the 
independence of Judaea (see the triumphant words of 
the historian, i Mace. 134i/. ). Soon after this, Simon 
succeeded in gaining possession of the Acra, or citadel 
of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by a Syrian 
garrison for twenty-six years, ever since the beginning 
of the Maccabasan struggle 1 (1849-53). In the brief 
season of peace and prosperity which followed ( i Mace. 
14 4-15), Simon s services to his people were given im 
portant recognition. A solemn assembly held at 
Jerusalem in 141 confirmed him in the offices of governor 
and high priest, 3 and made both these offices hereditary. 
Thus, a Hasmonasan dynasty was formally established. 
An inscription in Simon s honour (col. 2864 [/>]) was 
composed and put in a conspicuous place. 4 At about 
this time, also, embassies were sent to Rome (coL 
2863 []) and to the Spartans (ib.), which resulted suc 
cessfully (col. 2864 [<:]), i Mace. 14 16-24 15 15-24. Soon, 
however, Simon became involved in other wars, as the 
Syrian throne changed hands and his help was needed. 
Moreover, Antiochus (VII. ) Sidetes sent an army against 
Judasa, in the hope of recovering some of the posses 
sions which the Jews had gained ; but his captain was 
defeated and driven from the country by two of Simon s 
sons, Judas and John. Near the beginning of 135, 
Simon fell a victim to the plot of his own son-in-law, 
Ptolemy, captain of the plain of Jericho, who wished 
to obtain the power for himself. With two of his 
sons, Mattathias and Judas, Simon was received by 
Ptolemy into the fortress DDK (q.v. ), near Jericho, and 
there treacherously murdered. 5 

John, son of Simon , generally called Hyrcanus, 
T/3/fav6s, 6 is said in i Mace. 1853 to have been put in 

7 John cnar & e of the fortress Gazara by his father 
Hvrcanus m I * 2 J onn a ^ so took a prominent part in 

the defeat of the Syrian general Cendeboeus 
(IQzjF. 9/. ) Immediately after the murder of Simon, 
Ptolemy sent men to Gazara to kill John, who was now 
the legitimate successor to the leadership of Israel. John 
was informed of the plot, however, and with true 
Maccabaean promptness slew the messengers and made 
all speed to Jerusalem, where he arrived in advance of 
his rival, and made his position secure. His reign 
of thirty years, though by no means peaceful, was 
decidedly successful politically. In the first year after 
his accession, he was temporarily humbled by Antiochus 
Sidetes, who besieged Jerusalem with success, obtaining 
important concessions from the Jews, besides breaking 
down the city wall. These losses were soon repaired, 
however, as the Syrian government was again involved 
in sore difficulties. Hyrcanus rebuilt the city wall 
(i Mace. 1623), and began in 128, immediately upon 
the death of Antiochus, a series of important campaigns, 
one fruit of which was the humbling of the Samaritans 
and the destruction of their temple. The territory of 
the Jews was very considerably extended (reaching such 
an extent as it had not had for many centuries), and 
their independence completely restored. 

1 [On i Mace. 13 47-50 14 14 36, see Che. OPs. 68 80, n." ; and 
on 1851, see OFs. n, and references in p. 40, n.u. ED.]. 

2 [See Che. OTs. 2 3 .-En.] 

3 It must be remembered that Jonathan received the office of 
high priest, not from the people, but from the Syrian king. 

4 [See Stade-Holtzmann, GVI 2382; but cp Wellh. /JG<\), 
222 f. ; ( 4 >, 273. ED.) 

8 [On Simon, cp Che. OPs. n, 24^!, 68. ED.] 

6 For attempts to explain this name, which had already been 
in use for some time among the Jews, see Schurer, 1 204 (ET i. 1, 
P- 273/)- 



In several respects the reign of Hyrcanus marks a 
departure from the simpler ways (and perhaps the ideals) 
of his predecessors. Hyrcanus waged war with the aid 
of foreign mercenaries, for example, and had his own 
name engraved on the coins of his reign. It is an 
especially interesting and significant fact that he cut 
loose from the Pharisees, and identified himself with the 
and Che. OPs. 24 f. 39). Concerning the events of the 
latter part of his reign we have little information. He 
died in 105 B.C. 


Many of the works dealing with the history of this period are 
referred to below (MACCABEES [BOOKS]). Here may be men 
tioned : Clinton, fr asti Hellenici, vol. iii. I 2 ), 
8. Literature. 1851, pp. 310-350; Flathe, Gesch. Mace- 
doniens, ii. (1834) ; J. Derenbourg, ssai 
sur fkitt. et la la J al., 1867; Madden, Coins of the 
Jews, 1881 ; De Saulcy, Hist, des Machabees ou princes de la 
dyn. asinoneenne, 1880; Pauly s Real-enc. der class. Alter- 
t/iumswiss.P), s.v. Antiochus IV. ; Schiirer, GJW)\ 127-241; 
ET i. 1 169-290 (in the introductory part of the vol. there is an 
excellent account of the sources) ; Ewald, GVl$)\ 287-543 ; ET, 
1867-1886, 6286-394 ! Gratz, Gesch. derjuden, vols. 223; Stade- 
Holtzmann, GVI 2 28677: ; Wellh. fJG(*) 25677: See also the 
works referred to in Schiirer, 1 4-9 127^! ; ET 16-12, 170. 

C. C. T. 




Title, Contents ( i f., col. 


Language ( 3, col. 28587:). 
Author, Dated 4/-, col. 28597:). 
Literary character ( 6, col. 

Religious standpoint ( 7, col. 

286 1 /.). 

Sources ( 8, col. 28627:). 
Integrity ( 9, col. 2863-5). 
Historicity ( 10, col. 28657:). 
Text ( u, col. 2866-8). 
Bibliography ( 12, col. 2868/C). 


Contents ( i, col. 2869). 
Sources ( 2, col. 28697:)- 
Historicity ( 3, col. 2870-2). 
Literary character ( 4, col. 

Religious character ( 5. col. 


Author, Date( 6, col. 28747:). 
Prefixed letters ( jo. jl>, col. 

Attestation, Text ( 8, col. 

Bibliography ( 9, col. 2879). 


By far the most important of the several writings 
known as the Books of the Maccabees (Ma.KKaf3a.iuv 

1 Title P PMa-i or Ma/cKu/3cuVcci) is the history 

commonly entitled Maccabees. The title 
borne by the book in it? original Hebrew form (see 
below, 3) is not known. 

Many scholars have tried to recognise it in a well-known 
passage quoted by Eusebius (HE t> 25) from Origen. Origen 
enumerates the (twenty -two) books of the Hebrew canon, 
giving the Hebrew names in Greek transliteration, and then 
adds : Besides these there is" the Maccaba ica," which is entitled 
Sarbeth Sabanaiel. l It is beyond doubt that the reference is to 
a Hebrew or Aramaic i Mace., whose title is transliterated. All 
attempts to explain this title from the Hebrew, however, have 
hitherto been futile (see the comms., and especially Curtiss, The 
Name Machabee, 1876, p. 30). 2 On the other hand, the solution 
proposed by Dalman (Gramm. 6), according to which the 
two strange words in their original form stood for the Aramaic 
WCt? H n 3 1SD. seems very plausible. The title Book of the 
Hasmonaeans would be eminently suitable for i Mace, (cp 562, 
and the actual superscription of the later Aramaic composition 
dealing with the history of this time : see below, n) ; and it is 
easy to see how, by the aid of common scribal blunders, 3 the 
form in Eusebius could have been reached. It may be doubted, 
however, whether even this can give us any sure clue to the 
riginal title of i Mace. This plainly Aramaic form of words 
is not likely to have been the superscription of a work written in 
Hebrew ; it is much more probable that the work known (by 
hearsay only?) to Origen was an Aramaic translation, such as 
must have been made very early. As will appear in the sequel 
( 1 1), all the evidence goes to show that the Hebrew i Mace, was 
current only for a very brief period. If we suppose, then, that 
the above explanation of the name recorded by Origen is correct, 
there would still remain the possibility that (as frequently 
happened) the title borne by the translation was quite inde 
pendent of that borne by the original. 

The book is a history of the Jewish struggle for 
religious freedom and for independence under the 
2 Contents ^ IaccaDees - It covers the period of forty 
years beginning with the accession of 
Antiochus (IV. ) Epiphanes, 175 B.C., and ending with 
the death of Simon, the third of the Maccaboean leaders, 
X 35 B - c - It is for the most part a narrative of events 
in their chronological order, attention being given chiefly 
to military and political affairs, and, in fact, to all that 
concerned the relation of the Jews to other nations. 

J efu Se rovrtav eori TOL MaxKajSai fca, a?rep en-tyeypairTai 
Xapr;0 Sa^arateA. See also the superscription of the Syriac 
i Mace. (Lagarde s Apocrypha Syriace), which was evidently 
derived from these words of Origen. 

2 Of all these attempts it may be said, that they have an ex 
ceedingly improbable sound. Most of them rest on the reading 

2apaveeA, which has been in vogue since the sixteenth 
century, but without any good authority. 

The correct transliteration would be <r<f>a.p j3>)0 aa-a./j.uii ai.e. 

2857 . 


Title ( i, col. 2879). 
Contents ( 2, col. 2879). 
Beginning lost ( 3, col. 

Language, Style ( 4, col. 


Historicity ( 5, col. 28807:). 
Author, Date ( 6, col. 2881). 
Attestation ( 7, col. 2881). 
Bibliography ( 8, col. 2881). 


Title ( i, col. 2882). 
Contents ( 2, col. 2882). 
Integrity ($ 3, col. 28827:). 
Author, Date ( 4, col. 

Literary character 

5. coL 
2SB 4 ). 
Language, Style ( 6. col. 


Thought ( 7, col. 28857:). 
Attestation, Text ( 8, coL 


Bibliography ( 9, col. 2886). 

The narrative is continuous, and the treatment 
uniform throughout the book. The material may be 
divided conveniently as follows : 

i. (1 1-9) The briefest possible introduction, beginning with 
the conquest of Alexander, and describing in general terms the 
origin of the Seleucid empire. 2. (1 10-64) Desperate condition 
of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes. His attempts to abolish 
the Jewish religion. 3. (2 1-70) The uprising at Modein 
(167 B.C.) and the growth of the rebellion led by Mattathias. 
4. (81-435) The first victories gained by the Jews under the 
leadership of Judas Maccabaeus. 5. (436-61) Purification of the 
temple and dedication of the new altar (165 B.C.). 6. (5 1-68) 
Campaigns conducted by Judas against the surrounding nations. 
7. (tii-i?) Death of Epiphanes, in Persia, and accession of 
Eupator (164 B.C.). 8. (6 18-63) Further wars with the Syrians. 
Concession of religious freedom to the Jews, in return for their 
submission. 9. (7 1-50) Demetrius gains possession of the throne 
(162 B.C.). Death of Nicanor. 10. (8i-9 22 ) Treaty with the 
Romans. Death of Judas (161 B.C.). n. (9 23-10 66) Jonathan 
succeeds Judas as military leader of the Jews. Supported by 
the pretender Alexander Balas, he becomes the high priest of 
the nation (153 B.C.). He is received in state by Alexander and 
Ptolemy (Philometor), King of Egypt, at Ptolemais. 12. 
(1067-11 74) further battles fought by Jonathan ; and his relations 
with the Syrian kings. 13. (121-53) Embassies to Rome and 
Sparta. Death of Jonathan (end of 143 B.C.). 14. (13 1-1415) 
Fortunes of the Jews under Simon. They secure their political 
independence (142 B.C.). The Syrians are driven from the castle 
in Jerusalem. Peace in the land. 15. (14 16-49) Renewal of 
friendly relations with the Spartans and with Rome. A formal 
record is drawn up by the people and put in a conspicuous 
place in honour of Simon, who is thus publicly declared ruler 
of the Jews(i4i B.C.). 16. (1:11-1624) Relations of Simon with 
Antiochus Sidetes. His two sons defeat the Syrian general. 
Murder of Simon (135 B.C.). 

As to the language in which i Mace, was written, 

there is no room for doubt. Mention has been made 

3. Original f the testimon . v of Origen ( i) and 


Jerome (col. 2850, towards end), which 

testimony, though less valuable than it at 
first appears to be, shows at least that each of those 
great scholars regarded it as an undisputed fact that the 
book was written in Hebrew. Internal evidence proves 
beyond question that this opinion (or church tradition) 
was correct. 

That the language was Semitic is evident. Semitic idioms 
follow one another in such number and variety as would be in 
explicable in a Greek composition ; see, for example, 1 29 (cp 
Gen. 41 i, etc.), 36 58, ItrparjA TOW eupricoju.eVois = ^XIE"? 
C Ni C^n (incorrectly punctuated by Swete, and frequently mis- 
uriderstood), 240 4 2 630-33 621 (ef airwi/ [NV] as subject of 
the verb; so also 733), 81 944 etc.; and such passages as 
815-26 61-828-34. The form of many of the proper names 
shows that they are transliterated from a Semitic text ; thus 
4>vAioriei/ot ; the names in 11 34 (Schiir. GJV\ 183 ; ET 12457:); 
IfioAKoue [XV] for 13*?D , 11 3 9 (seeSchur. I.e. ; We. //(<), 270), 


etc. In 14 27, i><ropa(ifA [A, i>ao-apaju.eA (NV)] (cp now Exp. T 

11 523^) is plainly the transliteration of some word or words 
which the translator did not understand. Cp also \a^>ei>a.0a., 
1237. The weighty evidence afforded by occasional mis 
translation, or by renderings which can only be explained as 
the result of misunderstanding or accidental corruption of the 
original Semitic text, is not wanting. I hus 8 29, ian\aa.v (mis 
translating the Hebrew perfect tense : the Romans hereby make 
agreement ; see the following verses, and cp the similar mistake 
in 14 28, iyvu>pi.<T(v r)Hiv for i:jnin ; we make proclamation ) ; 
824, Aijuos(ayi for QV1); 10 i, 6 En-i^ai/ijs instead of TOU ETTI- 
0afoC?, a mistranslation made very easy by the Semitic usage 
in regard to such adjectives ; 10 72, oi jraTe pes aov (-pni3K instead 
f TTP3X [f r "] niK3!l, thine armies ); 14 9, oroAas no\(fiov (!) 
(reading NQX instead of <;]$, gay apparel ).! 

That the Semitic language was Hebrew, not Aramaic, 
is everywhere manifest. 

See the evidence furnished by many of the passages cited 
above ; and add further, 2 39 3 19 (QN -3 ; also 9 6), 5 40 7 35, and 
the remarkable succession of Hebrew idioms in 5 1-8. 

Nothing is known concerning the author of i Mace. , 

beyond the facts that can be gathered by inference from 

, , his book. He was certainly a devout and 

* Auth r - patriotic Jew. 

It can hardly be doubted, moreover, that the author 
lived and wrote in Palestine. It is plain from every 
part of the book that his personal interests were all in 
that land. 

His acquaintance with the geography and topography of the 
country is strikingly minute ; when, on the contrary, he has 
occasion to mention foreign lands, he shows himself much less 
accurately informed. In his narrative he frequently introduces 
such details as would have no importance for one living at a 
distance from the scenes and events described. See, for example, 
3 24 7 19 8 19 9 2-4 33 34 43 12 y>f. 13 22 f. 16 5 6. 

The writer of this history, furthermore, must have 
stood near to the centre of Jewish political affairs. 

There is, to be sure, nothing to require us to suppose that he 
himself took an active part in the events he records; but he is 
most plainly in his element when he is dealing with affairs of 
state, military movements, and court intrigues. He must have 
been a man of rank, and personally acquainted with the leaders 
of his people. 

The author shows himself a loyal adherent of the 
Hasmonrean house ; it was to this family that Israel 
owed its rescue and its glory ; see especially 562, and 
cp 133 14i826 162. That he should extol the char 
acter and deeds of Judas was of course to be expected, 
but his admiration of the other Hasmoncean leaders is 
hardly less emphatically expressed. 

See what he says of Jonathan, 973 1015-21 59-661120-27 71 

12 35 $-2/. (notice also 10 61 Has); of Simon, 133^ 47^: 144-15 
1614; and of John, 185316 23^ 

When in addition to these facts it is observed in what 
a favourable light the Jewish priesthood is exhibited 
throughout the book the renegade high priests Jason 
and Menelaus, for example, are not mentioned at all 
(contrast 2 Mace. 4 7-5 23) the conjecture of Geiger 
(Ursckrift, 206 ff. ) that the author of i Mace, was a 
Sadducee seems not improbable (see SADDUCKEs). 2 

i. The date of the composition of i Mace, can be deter 
mined approximately. If we assume the book to be the 
work of a single writer, as seems necessary 
^ see jjej^ g 9 ) it is p]ajn from 16ll _ 24 

that it must have been finished after the beginning of 
the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-106 B.C.). It is also 
evident from the way in which the writer speaks of the 
Romans that the days of Pompey and the Roman rule 
were not yet dreamed of : he emphasises chiefly the 
Romans fidelity as allies (81 12 12i 1440), and implies 
everywhere that they are friends to be proud of, although 
outside the horizon of ordinary Jewish affairs (81 /. 19). 
The book must, therefore, have been completed before 
the year 63 B.C. 

ii. There are grounds for bringing the date of com 
position within narrower limits. 

(i) The passage 1623/1 , in particular, has afforded 
a basis for argument. It reads as follows : 

1 The same confusion of these two words more than once in 
Daniel ; see Moore in JBL, 1896, pp. 195, 197. 

2 Geiger was certainly wrong, however, in regarding the book 
as a party document. 


Now the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and of his 
valiant deeds which he did, and of the building of the walls 
which he built, and of his doings, behold they are written in 
the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was 
made high priest after his father. 

It has been customary to conclude from this mention 
of the rest of the deeds of John, and especially from 
the reference to the chronicle of his high-priesthood, 
that his reign must have been far advanced, 1 or even 
ended (so most scholars since Eichhorn), at the time 
when these words were written. The cogency of this 
reasoning may be doubted, however ; the more so, as 
every particle of the remaining evidence points to a 
different conclusion. 

It is evident that the writer wished to bring his history to an 
end with the close of Simon s reign. If this had been his only 
purpose, however, he would hardly have followed 1617 with 
just these concluding verses 18-22, which tell only half of what 
was necessary to be told, if the escape of John was to be narrated 
at all, and leave the history of the Hasmona;an house and of 
Jerusalem (see z>. 20) in suspense. To suppose that these verses 
were intended merely to serve as the necessary bridge from the 
reign of Simon to that of John, does not explain them satis 
factorily ; and the greater the interval of time supposed to have 
elapsed between these events and the writing of the history, the 
greater the difficulty becomes. 

On the supposition that the historian finished his 
work soon after the beginning of the reign of Hyrcanus, 
and wished to conclude it with complimentary mention 
of his sovereign, every part of the closing passage 
1618-24 is at once satisfactorily explained. 

It is all precisely what we should expect. The events follow 
ing Simon s death were then familiar to every one ; it was only 
necessary to lead up to the statement of John s prompt action 
(? . 22), and then to add the customary formula : the rest of 
his great deeds, etc. For the only deeds that are specially 
mentioned the carrying on of war, and the building of walls 
we have no need to look further than the earlier years of his 
reign ; the wars that brought him his chief glory, and the re 
building of the wall that had been razed by Antiochus Sidetes, 
were both begun, it would seem, during or immediately after 
the year 128 (see col. 2856, 7). As for the chronicle of 
his high-priesthood (if we suppose the words to be more than 
a mere compliment),- the historian could have referred to it 
equally well at any time after the beginning of the reign. If 
there really was such a chronicle, it was probably the continua 
tion of the record of the preceding reigns ; see the latter part of 
v. 24 (see also below, 8). 

(2) The impression thus gained from the closing verses 
of the book, that it was completed during the reign of 
John Hyrcanus, is confirmed by the tone of security 
and political self-respect that is so evident in all parts 
of the history. With the beginning of the last century 
B. c. came a marked decline. 

(3) On the other hand, there are indications that the 
historian began his work during the reign of Simon. 

The striking passage 144-15, in particular, points distinctly 
in this direction. So, too, does the much discussed verse 1:142. 
Even if documents and coins (?) were dated in this way (see 
Schur. GJl 1 iqtff. , ET 1 257 ff.), the custom can have con 
tinued only for a very short time. The only historians who 
would be likely to write such a verse as this would be those of 
Simon s own day. Cp on the other hand 1427, which is equally 
significant whether written by the author of i Mace, or by some 
one else. The compliment paid to Simon in ! 65 may also be 
taken as evidence ; there is nowhere in the sequel anything that 
could be regarded as especially illustrating the quality here 
ascribed to him, or as implying that he was looked upon as the 
counsellor of his brethren. 

iii. The theory best accounting for all the facts (see 
also below) and no really plausible argument can be 
urged against it would seem to be, that the greater 
part of this history was composed and written under the 
inspiration of Simon s glorious reign, and that it was 
finished in the early part of the reign of John Hyrcanus. 
That is, the book was probably written between 140 
and 125 B.C. 

The passage 13 30 can give us no additional help. The words 
unto this day are the indispensable (OT) formula added to the 
account of such monuments, and would have been used in any 
case, whether the time that had elapsed were two years or 
twenty. This is simply one of the many illustrations of the way 
in which the writer models his history after the pattern of the 
older Hebrew scriptures ; the use of the formula here serving 

1 See the advocates of this view cited in Grimm, Cotntn. 24. 
- It is not probable, however, that they are anything more 
than this. See below, 8. 



to show his sense of the importance of the monument (cp 9 22 
16 2 3 /).i 

Viewed from the literary point of view, i Mace. 

makes a most favourable impression. Its author was 

evidently a writer of unusual talents as 

r 1 well as of considerable experience. His 

narrative is constructed with a true sense 

tenstlCS. Q j. p r0 p ort j on anc j w j t h skin in the arrange 

ment of the material. The style, which is strongly 
marked, is plainly his own, though formed on the 
classical Hebrew models. Reminiscences of OT phrase 
ology are of course frequent, and certain familiar formulas 
from the older Hebrew history are occasionally intro 
duced (e.g. , 26g/ 920-22 1826 1623/); but there is no 
further evidence of any imitation, conscious or uncon 
scious, of the older writers. The chief characteristics 
of the style are terseness and simplicity. At the same 
time, the narrative is full of lively details, and is never 
suffered to lag. 

The reserve of the writer is worthy of especial notice. 
Though it is evident that he is intensely interested in 
all the history he is recording, he generally contents 
himself with giving a purely objective view of the course 
of events, keeping his reflections to himself. He writes 
as a loyal and devout Jew, yet without indulging in 
such abuse of his enemies as is so common, for example, 
in 2 Mace. 2 It cannot be said, however, that he does 
not display enthusiasm. It breaks out into momentary 
expression again and again, all through the book. 

See, for example, 248 83-9 424 58 $(>$/. 1151 148^1, etc. 
On such occasions as these, and in fact wherever the writer, 
for one reason or another, wishes to make his story especially 
impressive, or is carried away by his feeling, he rises to poetry 
in the true Semitic manner. Examples are 1 25-28 37-40 3 3-9 45 
94i 3 144-15. Similarly, the impassioned utterances of Mattathias 
in 27-13 49-68, of the people in 850^, and of Antiochus in 
6 10 J?"., are expanded in poetic form ; cp also the two addresses, 
of Judas to his army 3 18-22 4s-n. 

In all parts of the book we meet the same striking 
combination of dignity and naivetd, the same excellences 
of style. We may well believe that in its original form 
it was a fine specimen of Hebrew prose. 

Regarding the religious standpoint of the author, it is 

to be said that in this respect also the book deserves to 

_ -p ,- hold a high place in Jewish literature. 

* 1 There is nowhere any room for doubt as 

a acte . tQ ^ patriotism, in the best sense of the 

word. He believes in Israel as the people chosen of God. 

The author is zealous for all the time-honoured institutions ; 
for the law and the ordinances (1 n 15 43 49 54^ 62 ff.^ 2 -20 jf. 27 
42 48 3 21 14 i4_/^ etc.), for the holy scriptures (1 56 3 48 12 9), for 
Jerusalem and the sanctuary (1 2 1 377^ 2 if. 84345514 38 59 7 3742 
fl 54/^). He refers repeatedly to God s deliverance of Israel in 
the past ("sqf. 4g_^ 30 741), and expresses his firm faith that 


he is ready to hear and help now also, as of old (3 i8_/T 4 io_/C 
946 163); none that put their trust in him shall want for 
strength (26i). 5 In 4 55 (cp v. 24 f. 844 etc.) 12 15 the successes 
achieved by the Jews under the Maccabsean leaders are ascribed 
to the divine help; as in 164 (cp 3s) the evils that had come 
upon the nation are said to be God s punishment for its sin. 
Help through miraculous intervention, indeed, is neither asked 
nor expected the day of wonders, and of prophets with super 
human power and wisdom, is past (9 27 ; cp 446 1441 Ps. 74g 
Dan. 3 38 (Song of the Three Children, v. 14], Ezra 263 [Neh. 
7 65]) ; 6 but God now works deliverance for his people through 

_ ! Even if this were not the case, the attempt to determine the 
time that must have elapsed before a writer could use the 
phrase unto this day (i.e., where it still stands ) must be 
wholly fruitless. To many writers, ten years, or even five, would 
seem a long interval. Especially in those eventful times, when 
nothing was long secure, and hostile armies were marching 
through the land, a historian might well have expressed his 
gratitude that the conspicuous monument at Modein had been 
allowed to stand for even a very brief period. 

2 The description of Antiochus Epiphanes as pi<Ja a;uapT(oAd< 
(1 10), and of Alcimus by the adjective <i<re/3/js (7 9), are certainly 
examples of moderation. 

3 The grim humour of the passage 9 37-42 is not to be lost 
sight of. 

4 Cp Dan. 1 8. 

5 The fact that the writer puts these utterances into the mouth 
of his heroes, Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, renders 
them no less his own, of course. 

* It is doubtful how much significance should be attached to 
this phrase in its various forms. See Jerus. Kiddi ishlm, 4 [near 
the beginning]. 


the strength he gives to those who call upon him (4 33). In 
11 70-72 Jonathan s desperate valour, which wins the day, is the 
result of superhuman strength given him in answer to prayer. 

It is remarkable, in view of such genuine faith and 
religious devotion as the writer everywhere manifests, 
that the book from beginning to end should avoid all 
direct designations of God. 

Neither God 

), nor Lord (icu pios, 

rd (ii. 

any of the titles occasionally employed in the OT are to be 
found here.* Instead, the writer makes use of the term heaven 
(oiipai/os, c CBO, which is so employed as to be the full equivalent 
of the name God ; thus, 3 iaf. 50 4 10 40 55 9 46 12 15 163; cp 
also 3eo. In some of these passages, this use of the word 
heaven is followed by the personal pronoun in a most signifi 
cant manner ; see 3 22 51 Jf. 4 10 55. In two passages (7 37 t,\f.) 
where God is directly addressed, the pronoun thou is used 
without being preceded by any noun. Similarly, in 26i the 
pronoun of the third person is employed, with only the context 
to show that God is meant ; in 10 3, by the mercy, not even a 
pronoun is used. 

As the tendency thus illustrated begins to appear 
among the Jews before the time of the Maccabees, and 
plays an important part in the later literature, it is hardly 
safe to draw conclusions from these facts as to the 
personal characteristics of this writer. 

The use of the OT in the book may be noticed, finally. 
The repetition of certain formulas from the historical 
books has already received mention. Apart from 
these, there are allusions in 252-60 to Genesis, Numbers, 
Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Daniel; in 14 12 the words of 
Mic. 44 are repeated ; 424 contains a familiar verse from 
the Psalms, cp i Ch. 1634 41 Ezra 3 n ; in 7 17 Ps. 79 2/. 
is formally cited. Other quotations or allusions are 
found in 226 4 9 30^ 7 37. 

Those who suppose that the author of this history 
wrote in the early decades of the last century B.C., find 

_ it necessary to assume that he made con- 

o. oources. . , , /- <> T 

siderable use of written sources. * It is 

indeed quite out of the question to suppose that an 
account so vivid and accurate, and of such uniform 
fulness of detail, even in the narrative of the first years 
of the uprising, could have been written merely on the 
basis of oral tradition and personal recollection, after 
such a lapse of time. Nor would the hypothesis that 
the written sources used by the author were merely 
scattered official and private documents, of no great 
extent, be at all adequate to account for the work before 
us. It is very difficult to suppose the existence of such 
documents as this theory calls for, or to believe that a 
Jewish historian of that day could have combined them 
with such marvellous skill. Nor would any such pro 
cess have produced this book. If, however, as has been 
argued above, the book was written soon after the middle 
of the second century, the necessity of postulating ex 
tensive documentary sources is removed. Moreover, 
both the lack of evidence of any such sources in the 
book itself, and the character and manner of the whole 
narrative, make it by far the most probable theory that 
what we have here is the account of one who had wit 
nessed the whole Maccabasan struggle from its beginning, 
and had had exceptional opportunities of information. 

The only passages in i Mace, in which there might 
appear to be reference to written sources known to the 
author are 922 and 1624. In both cases the writer is 
making use of the familiar OT formula used in closing 
the history of a king : The rest of his acts, and his 
mighty deeds, behold, they are written, etc. The reason 
for his employing it in only these two places is obvious. 
The compliment is paid to Judas, as the great hero of these 
times ; to John, because of the time and manner in which the 
book was finished (see above, 5). Accordingly, when it is^said 
of Judas, that the rest of his acts were not written down, the 
natural inference is this, that the writer knew of no record other 
than his own of the events of Judas time ; this was, therefore, 
the only way in which he could conclude the formula. Again, 
when he has occasion to apply the formula to the reign of John, 

1 The words God and Lord have frequently been inserted, 
however, both in many of the Greek texts and in the versions. 
Thus, e.g., in the English AV, 2 21 26 3 18 53 60 4 55 9 10. 

2 See, e.g., Schurer, 6/^2579 (ET 56). 



wakh kad onlv wuaily begun, k is hard to see what form of 


used. That such a book of the leconis of John s reign had 

already tees written, is therefore neither said nor implied; 

only this, that k* was one whose deeds would certainly be 


As for the question abate we may not find in these 
words at test a hint as to one of die tmavak at the 
command of the writer, namely, a fhronirW of (he reign 
of Simon (and possibly aho of the reign of Jonathan). 
the answer must be : ^ i > \Ve are not warranted in draw 
ing any such conclusion from die words of this stock 
phraag, () There is not a grain of evidence, nor any 
great inuinub probability, that the record of any of the 
HasmooaEan reigns was officially kept 1 ($\ There is 
nothing whatever to indicate that the sources used by 
die writer for his account of the reign of Simon were in 
any way different from the sources at his disposal for 
the history of Judas. It may be added, though the fact 
has little signincance, that the only Jewish source for 
the history of these Hosmon.van rulers known to Josephus 
was our i Mace. Moreover, regarding the history of 
the period 175-161 B.C. . there is no evidence that 
i Mace, and 2 Mace. (Jason of Cyrenei made use of any 
common source, or that the latter had any extensive 
documents at his disposal ^see MACCABEES. SECOND. 
a. col. 2860 /* k 

In connection with this lack of evidence for the exist- 
ence of other important records of the Maccabrean 
period, it should be observed further, that i Mace. 
shows no sign of being a compilation : it is, on the 
contrary, remarkably homogeneous in all its parts. It 
would be difficult to imagine greater uniformity of style 
and method, from beginning to end. in a work of this 

As for the many official documents which are embodied 
in the history, it is not likely that the author of i Mace, 
took them from a collection already made. It seems 
much more probable, from their character, and the way 
in which they are used, that they were partly collected 
by him. but chiefly composed or freely reproduced by 
him in accordance with his own taste aided by memory. 
On these documents, see also o f. 

By the earlier investigators of i Mace. . the integrity 

of the book was generally unquestioned. In recent 

T tjMMiLu times, however, the attempt has been 

lal *S u J nude by some scholars to show that the 

history as we have :t is not in "its original form. The 

question has been raised whether certain of the letters, 

edicts, and other documents contained in the book can 

have originally formed a part of it. 

\i\ Some have gone so far as to claim that the whole 
concluding portion, from near the beginning of the 
fourteenth chapter to the end of the book, is a later 
addition by another hand. 

De*rj>->o. -.":* i L W."-j- jft /.**$*. tSSj, pp. So^. argued 
that the form of i Mace, known to Josephus dki not cvxitain 
chaps. 14-16. He also acvvioited the theory, formertv heW hy 
jTlX Mkhaelis. that J, ^sephus used a Hebrew i Mace, (the 
original form I differiru: in other important particulars fiom our 
Greek version ^."..-.. pp. oi-SoV. 

As for the form of t Mace, which is reproduced in the 
.4*?s^*iXfj. it may be regarded as certain, in spite of the 
arguments of Destinon and others, that it was identical 
with our Greek version. 

See. for example, the weichty evidence inodentaDv noted in f 
ii, bekw. The reason urged by Pestinon for reganjinf the last 
three chapters as secondary is the haste with which Josephus 
passes over this portion of the hU: -- . - 

i: - . .-.Y-. . :--, 


. . 

given any great weight (see SchOr. TLZ, iM*. p. sooX It is 
harxi .v sate to rely on the oethods of such a writer as Joseph us, 
even In a matter of this nature ; it must be remembered, too, 
that one chief consideration in the composition of his work was 
th an\in after brevm- aix! condensation. A Gentile historian 
qaii hare found httie or nothing of importance in these 
chapters of i Mace., and k is not dificuh to bele\e that 
could have nude up his mind to omit them. 1 Nor 

theory that the book originally ended near the beginning 
of chap. 14 ( at about the i$th verse ; We. //<? l1 , *xtf., n.; 
<*. 157 n. ; IPX *0 a. ; sentence omitted in <* , IT; a.) any 
further argument in its favour : while on the other hand there 
are many and weighty consideratioDS against it. 

In style and manner, as in contents, chaps. 14-16 are 
in perfect harmony with the rest of the hook. 16 rj, to 
take a single J " M ^. cannot fail to remind the reader 
of the author of the earlier chapters. See ate what 
has been said above ( 5, 8) regarding the close of the 


(>) The question of the document 14 17-47- the inscrip 
tion in honour of Simon, is more difficult. The manner 
in which its representation of die coarse of events seems 
to run counter to that contained in the preceding and 
the following portions of die history has long attracted 
attention.* It is urged that there is a serious contra 
diction here in regard to die order of events, the chief 
point of difference being die account of Simon s embassy 
to Rome. 

According to the document (r. 4oX this would seem to have 
occurred before the time when Demetrius recognised the 
authority of Simon, and to have been one of the things that led 
him to take that step. In the earlier nut of this same chapter, 
on the other hand, the beginning of Demetrius long captivity 
among the Parthian*, is narrated fl4 1-3) before the account of 
the embassy is given (r. 14) ; and in Tfcap 15. the return of 
Xumeruus with the answer of the Romans (K 15) would seem, 
frvxn the connection in which it *"*^ to have occurred in the 
year i ;c. at the beginning of the reign of Antiochus (Vll.)Sidetes. 

It is by no means certain, however, that the author 
of i Mace, should be cited as dating the events of 14 1-3 
earlier than those of rr. t6 jrT i+f. Nor are we j"^***^ 
in any case in giving such weight to a Terse of die nature 
of 1440, belonging to a document whose chief aim was 
by no means to record history exactly, but rather to 
glorify Simon in every possible way. The whole question 
of the dates and order of events of these few years, more 
over, is one of exceeding difficulty ; * and even on the 
supposition that we have here a true copy of the procla 
mation that was put in the court of the temple, the 
difficulty might still be adjusted by supposing tint author 
of i Mace, to have been mistaken in regard to the dale 
in 14 1 4 It is for more likely, however, that what we 
have here ( r. 27-49) is a free reproduction of die substance 
of the proclamation, after the manner customary through 
out thus book in incorporating official documents isee 
next section). The difficulty with the statement in 1440 
is thus most probably to be charged to the author s 
own iiunimai y. which is of a kind that is very easy of 
explanation, under die circumstances. There is. there 
fore, no sufficient reason for regarding 14 15-49 as a 
bier interpolation. 5 Notice also die fact that this pass 
age formed a pan of die Hebrew i Mace. ; see especially 
r.,7/. (above. 3 . 

(c) The section 15 15-24. which narrates the return of 
dtt abort mentioned embassy, and contains the letter 
sent by the Romans in the year 139 B.C.. to Ptoluny 
Phvskon and Simon, has also been suspected of being 
an interpolation (see \\ellh.. **. ; Willrich. JmJem m. 


I It was UK easier for hni to oout tike accom* of the ROWMI 
embassy IMV*, inasmuch as he atuuges i 


-- ; 

Destinom, 96 jr. ; WeOk. **. tit. nyC, n. ; Willikh, /a 

Sa\ *, Scbarcr, 1 tytJT, ; KT 1 xjt .f. 

* Arxxher ahernauv w<mld be to regiid r. o 

* The dinV^h^ whkh *TO have fcoad m the form of the 
ilniiai {t.f.. WeOk. /-r.X are doe in part to the tnnsiatioa 
and tranjcnption. as wa as to the &ct that the whole is freery 
reproduced- In ^ *3 the original iradxrqc was We hereby pr\>- 
ciaim (see f jX. In p. 41 the word <m ts oertaialy secoodaxy. 
- - . .- . -- - 


It is generally assumed that this alleged Homan edict is 
identic ;il with given in Jos. Ant. xiv. 8 <; (in the time of Hyr- 
i .urns I I.), tin- I M inlilaiices being too striking to be accidental. 
See the very extensive literature of the subject, in Schtirer, 
1 i99/, 279/ ; KT 1 i, |>l. 367 ff., 3?8/ It has been proved 
by MomntMn ( Der Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus Ant. xiv. 85 
Hermes, .I|i875l l>p- 281-291) that the document in Jos. really 
belongs, at Irast iii part, to the time of Hyrcanus II. 1 Hut 
Moinniseii also argued at length (I.e.) and for weighty reasons, 
that the edict in i Mace. lf is not identical with that in Jos. 
His arguments have failed to convince most scholars, because 
of the still unexplained fact that Numenius, son of Antiochus 
and the golden shield of a thousand pounds weight appear in 
both documents. The explanation of this latter fact, however, is 
certainly this : Josephus, for the reasons given already (above, a) 
omitted the portion of i Mace, containing the mention of 
Numenius and the golden shield, but took occasion to introduce 
tbis important name, and the most interesting details, at the 
nrxt opportunity. The two documents were thus originally quite 
distinct. The fact must also be emphasised that the passage 
1615-24 bears striking evidence of having been written very soon 
after the time when these events occurred. The consul Lucius 
(Afi/Kios ujraro?) of v. 16 can be no other (Kitsch!, Rhein. 
Museum, vol. 28, 1873; Mommsen, /.<:.) than L. Calpurnius Piso, 
who was Roman consul in 139. The edict was sent to Demetrius 
(A))/oi>)Tpi u> TU> jSatriAfi), which shows that the Roman! wrote as 
must in fact have been the case before hearing of the captivity 
of Demetrius and the accession of Antiochus Sidetes. This 
.i-:nu is striking evidence that we have here the account of a 
contemporary (so Grimm, Comni.); so also is the manner in 
which this narrative is inserted in the midst of events of the 
reign of Sidetes, in spite of v. 22, and the way in which the 
story of the military operations at Dor is interrupted. An 
interpolator could not possibly have introduced it here (as argued 
by Wellhausen, I.e.); on the contrary, the author of i Mace. 
must have written from his own recollection of the actual order 
of events. 

The historical accuracy of the whole account, as well 
as the fact that it formed a part of the original i Mace., 
would therefore seem to Ixj beyond question. That we 
have in this document the actual words of a Roman 
edict, however, may be strongly doubted. The only 
conclusion that can certainly be drawn is that the 
Romans, under L. C. Piso, accepted the present of 
the Jewish ambassadors, and returned an answer that 
was at least polite and was addressed to King 

((/) Still other of the incorporated documents have 
occasionally been suspected of being interpolations, the 
suspicion being probably due in all cases to a mistaken 
idea of the purpose and method of a historian 
of that day in reproducing letters, speeches of military 
leaders, and the like (see next section). 

In the case of the document 1025-45, f r example, it has justly 
been observed (Wellh. op. cit. -Ji8, n. ; cp Willrieh, 70) that 
it cannot be regarded as a genuine letter of Demetrius. But 
we are certainly not therefore justified in concluding that it was 
not put in its present place by the careful and conscientious 
author of i Mace. On the contrary, it was probably composed 
by him on the basis of his knowledge of the attitude of Demetrius, 
of which it undoubtedly gives a fair idea, in the main. Whether 
any considerable portion of its contents may be regarded as 
reproducing actual utterances of the king, is quite another 

The great importance of i Mace, as a source for the 
history of the Jews is now generally acknowledged. 2 

w 1 Asides being the only detailed account 
10. Historical which we haye Qf the eyents of the 

ue greater part of this most important 
period, the book has proved itself worthy to hold the 
highest rank as trustworthy history. In the first place, 
all of the most important events are dated accord 
ing to the Seleucid era (reckoned from the spring of 
312 B.C. ; see Schiirer, 133, KT144J, the accuracy of 
the dates given being in the main beyond all question. 
We thus have here for the first time a Jewish history 
with a satisfactory chronology. The same verdict of 
trustworthiness must be accorded to the book as a 
whole. Both in the account which it gives of the 
general course of events, and in its narrative of details, 
it l>ears the unmistakable stamp of truth. In the pre 
ceding paragraphs ( 4, 5, 8) we have maintained 
the view that the author of i Mace, records in this 

1 See his concluding words, 291 ; and the comments in Will- 
rich, 71. 

2 For the earlier discussions of this question, especially in the 
eighteenth century, see Grimm, Comm. p. xxxivyC 


book events of his own lifetime, which he had had ex 
ceptional opportunities of observing. There are, in fact, 
many indications of this apart from those already 
mentioned. 1 For example, the details given in 639 /., 
7 33 etc., and especially in 819 (the long journey of 
the ambassadors to Rome), 934 43 (where on the 
Sabbath day has no significance at all for the nar 
rative), were plainly recorded by a contemporary of 
these events. In all parts of the book, the narrative 
has this same vivid and circumstantial character, the 
details being frequently such as one who had not 
witnessed the events, or who wrote a considerable time 
after their occurrence, could have had no reason for 
adding. It is plain that the author was excellently well 
informed as to the progress of affairs in general, the 
character and movements of the chief actors in these 
scenes (see above, 4), and even as to minor circum 
stances of time, place, and manner. It is to be added 
that he shows himself a true historian both in the choice 
of his material and in the manner of using it. In the 
choice of material, especially, his pre-eminence appears. 
It cannot be said of him that he purposely distorts 
facts, or invents them. It is true that he was a warm 
adherent of the Hasmona-an house, and probably a 
personal friend of its leaders, as well as a sincere 
patriot ; but his history is not written in a partisan 
spirit. 2 No one will blame him for passing over in 
silence the shameful conduct of the high priests Jason 
and Menelaus, or for making only brief mention of the 
defeats suffered by the Jews. To turn such defeats into 
victories, as is done, for example, in 2 Mace. 189-24 (con 
trast i Mace. 628-63), would never have occurred to him. 
His statements cannot always be believed, it is true ; 
they must occasionally be pronounced mistaken, or 
inaccurate. Especially when he has occasion to touch 
upon the geography or political conditions of foreign 
countries (e.g., li 81-16 14i6, etc.), he exhibits a na ive 
ignorance which is all the more noticeable because 01 
the very exact knowledge of Palestine which he every 
where displays. That his numerical estimates (size of 
armies, number of the slain, etc.) are often exaggerated, 
is a matter of course. Such statements were generally 
the merest guesses, in the early histories. Regarding 
the incorporated documents the case is somewhat 
similar. They are not to be taken too seriously. There 
was no thought of authenticity here, any more than 
in the matter of recording the speeches made by 
Mattathias to his sons, or by Judas on the field of battle. 
The composition, or at least the free reproduction, of 
such speeches and documents belonged to the task of the 
historian. In general it may be said of those in i Mace, 
that they may be used only with the greatest caution ; 
though it is probable that in the most of them veritable 
documents are reproduced, in substance if not in foim. 
On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work < f 
the highest value, comparing favourably, in point of 
trustworthiness, with the best Greek and Roman 

i. Hebrew text of i Mace. The original Hebrew text 
of i Mace, seems to have disappeared at a very early 
date. There is no evidence of its use by any early 
writer, not even by Josephus. Nor is there any 
sure testimony to its existence after the time when 
_ the Greek translation was made (re- 

11. Text and g rirc ij n g the equivocal words of Origen 

Versions. ancl j eromC| see above, i, 3). What 
is more important, there is no evidence of correction from 
the Hebrew, either in the Greek or in any other of the 
versions (all of which were made from the Greek). On 
the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be 
the result of a single translation from a Hebrew MS 
which was not free from faults. It hardly seems pro 
bable that the Hebrew i Mace, can have been widely 

J See above, esp. 4/, col. 28s9/. 

2 See the excellent characterisation of his work in this respect, 
in Schlatter, Jason von Kyrene, 55. 



circulated at any time ; there was certainly never any 
tendency among the Palestinian Jews to include it in 
the collection of sacred writings. [See further, iv. 
below, on later Hebrew writings.] 

ii. Translations of i Mace, (a) Greek. Fortunately, 
the Greek translation is an excellent piece of work of its 
kind. It aims first of all at giving a closely literal render 
ing of the Hebrew ; but the translator has chosen his 
words so well, and interpreted so clearly, that the result 
makes very pleasant reading. Most manuscripts of the 
LXX, including the three uncials N, A, and V, contain 
the book. B, on the other hand, contains none of the 
books of Maccabees. The MSS show no great variation 
among themselves ; in general, the text represented by N 
and V (which resemble one another closely) seems to 
be the oldest and best. 1 Many passages furnish 
evidence of the fact that all our texts and versions of 
the book come from a single Greek MS whose text had 
suffered corruption. 

Thus, in 89 <cai <rui rjyayej> ajroAAujueVovs, which makes no good 
sense here, is plainly a doublet of the following KO.L crui^jyayei 
ATroAAwFios : the blunder being found in all MSS and versions. 
In 9 5 EAao-a or AAaaa should probably be \Sa<ra (A for 
A); cp "40. Similarly in $2 Mcu<raA<o# or MecnraAwO should 
be Meo-aSwfl (Wellh. IJG(*\ 266, n.). In all these cases, our 
witnesses agree in giving the corrupt form. In like manner, all 
show the same evidence of a confused text, with some words 
accidentally omitted, or repeated, in 9 14 32-35 43. There are 
many other examples. 

It is especially to be noticed that in the most of these 
cases Josephus also contains the corrupt reading. 

(b} Latin. There are two Latin versions of i Mace. ; 
the one represented by the Vulgate, and the other (ex 
tending as far as the end of chap. 13) contained in a 
single MS (Sangcrmanensis}."* 

The Vulgate version is in the main a faithful render 
ing of the Greek ; the Sangermanensis version is the 
result of a recension designed to conform to the Greek 
as closely as possible (cp the two Latin versions of 
2 Mace. ). 

(c) Syriac. There are likewise two Syriac recensions 
of the book. 

The common version printed in the Paris Polyglot, vol. ix., 
the London Polyglot vol. iv. (variant readings in vol. vi.), and 
Lagarde s Apocrypha. Syriace (1861) ; and another (extending as 
far as 14 25)* found in the cod. Ambrosianus of the Peshitta 
(publ. by Ceriani, 1876-1883). Trendelenburg(in Eichhorn s Re- 
/>?rttiriui,l5[i7&4]pp. 58^!) proved conclusively that the common 
version is a translation from the Greek. It is careful, and very 
old. Its readings correspond in general with those of codd. 
19, 64, 93 (H and P), generally recognised as Lucian MSS; 
and it must be regarded as forming with these a separate recen 
sion. See especially G. Schmidt, Die beid. syr. Ucbers. des 
ersten Maccabdcrbuches, in /,A T\V 171-47, 233-262 (1897). 
Schmidt concludes (234^) that the version of the cod. Ambros. 
is the result of a revision of the older Syriac according to the 
common Greek text. 

These are the only important versions of the book. 
According to Dillmann, 1 * the Ethiopic version of i and 
2 Mace, (not yet published) was made from the Latin 
Vulgate in the sixteenth or the seventeenth century. 

iii. Translations of 2 Mace. What is said of the 
Greek MSS and the versions of i Mace, applies in 
general to 2 Mace, also ; for the two are usually found 
together, and the history of their transmission seems 
to have been nearly always the same. Cod. N, how 
ever, contains i Mace. , but not 2 Mace. 

iv. Later -works based on Mace. Mention may also 
be made here of certain later versions of the Maccabaean 
history, for the most part based on the books of the 
Maccabees, but having little or no independent value. 

i. The Aramaic DDva^x nSjO. Megillath Antiochus ; 
or wiarn 33 n rjD, Scroll of the Hasmon&ans. 

See especially Gaster, The Scroll of the Hasmontrans 
(Transs. 9th Internal. Congr. of Orientalists, London, 1 1-32), 
where the (Aramaic) text is printed, with a translation, and 
very full references to the literature are given. 8 The Hebrew 

1 See also on the Syriac versions, and their affinities, below (c). 

2 Published in Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorumLatinifversiones 
antiqufp, vol. ii. , 1743. 

:t The text of the remainder, 14 26-1624, s tne common version. 
* Libri VT Apocryphi ,-Ethiopice, 1894, preface. 
5 See also Schiirer, 1 123 (ET, i. 1 165). 


text (trans, from the Aramaic) is printed, e.g., in Jellinek, Bit 
ha-Midrash, 1 (1853), where also another form of the Aramaic 
text is given (vol. vi., 1877). 

The book is a very brief Midrashic composition, not 
based directly on i Mace. , nor (apparently) on any 
other written source. It is evident from its internal 
character that it was written long after the Maccabaean 
age. 1 

2. The Jewish history of Joseph ben Gorion 
(Josippus). This work (of about the loth cent. ?) con 
tains a history of the Jews from Adam down to the time 
of the destruction of the Temple by Titus. 

Wellhausen (Der arabischc Josippus, Berl., 1897) concludes 
that its original extent was the same as that of the Arabic 
Kook of Maccabees (see next paragraph), and that the name 
Joseph ben Gorion (by mistake for Flavius Josephus) was attached 
later, after the additions from the Jewish War had been made. 
The chief sources of the book in its original form were 2 Mace, 
and a secondary (Latin) recension of the Jewish War of 
Josephus. The author, who seems to have written in Italy, 
sadly misuses his material, and adds a good deal of legendary 
matter of his own. As history, the hook is absolutely worthless. 
See, further, Wellh., I.e. ; and the literature in Schiirer, 1 123/1 
(ETli, p. ris/.). 

3. The so-called Arabic Maccabees, or Arabic z Mace. , 
printed in the Paris Polyglot, vol. ix. , and in the London 
Polyglot, vol. iv. , with a Latin translation made by 
Gabriel Sionita. This work, which very closely re 
sembles the preceding, contains a history of the Jews 
beginning with the story of Heliodorus (2 Mace. 3), and 
continuing down to the end of the Hasmonasan house, 
in the time of Herod. According to Wellhausen 
(op. cit., 46 /. ), this book, the Arabic Josippus, and 
the Hebrew Gorionides, are to be regarded as three 
separate recensions of the same work ; the Arabic 
Mace. representing its original extent, in which form it 
was truly a Book of the Maccabees, though of no 
historical value. 

An English translation of the work as 5 Mace., 2 was given 
by Cotton in his Five Books of Maccabees, 1832 ; and a descrip 
tion of it under this same title is given in Bissell, 638^ In 
the Arabic text, from which alone the book is known to us, it 
bears the title 2 Mace. A note at the end of chap. 16, mis 
understood by Sionita, who repeats his mistake in the preface 
to the book, says : Thus far the 2 Mace, of the Hebrews 
(which, in fact, does end at that point). After chap. 19, with 
which the end of i Mace, is reached, the remaining chaps., 
20-59, follow Josephus very closely. See the table in Bissell, 
Wellhausen, op. cit. ; and Ginsburg s article in Kitto s Bibl. 
Cycloptedia. The book deserves more attention than it has 

[Among these later works we must probably include the in 
complete fragments of a Hebrew version of i Mace, published 
by Chwolson, and more recently by Schweizer, from a Paris 
manuscript of the second half of the twelfth century. The 
fragments in question cover chaps. 1-4 7 27-9 22 30 73 and 6 1-15. 
Schweizer, in a critical discussion of the text (see below, end of 
12) comes to the conclusion that it is based upon the original 
Hebrew from which all other versions have sprung. His view 
is probably too optimistic. The text may certainly prove to be 
here and there of some value for a criticism of the readings of 
the versions, but its general importance is only secondary. The 
style is too simple and the vocabulary too easy to be ancient, 
and the work as a whole resembles the paraphrastic compositions 
above mentioned.] 

i. Commentaries. J. D. Michaelis, Uebersetz. der i Mace. 
ntit Anmerkn., 1778 ; Grimm, Das erste Buch der Mace. 
(Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handb. :u den 
12. Literature. Apokr., 3te Lieferung), 1853; Keil, Com- 
wentar iiber die [i. vnd it.} Biich. d. Makk., 
1875; Rawlinson (i and 2 Mace.) in Wace, Apocr., ii. (1888); 
Fairweather and Black, First Bk. of Mace. (Cambr. Bible for 
Schools), 1897. Bissell s Apocr., 1880, contains a translation of 
1-3 Mace, with comm. ; Zockler s Die Apokryphen des AT 
(KGK), 1891, the same, with the addition of a portion of 4 Mace, 
(see below, col. 2886, q). The comm. of Grimm, though 
partly out of date, is by far the best work of the kind that we 
have. Bissell s work is largely a translation of this. The 
comms. of Rawlinson and Zockler are very unsatisfactory. In 
Kautzsch, Apokr. u. Pseudepigr., i and 3 Mace, are treated by 
the general editor. 

ii. Critical Investigations. Ewald, Gesch.W iv., 1864, pp. 
603^7; Rosenthal, Das erste Makkabiierbuch. 1867; Noldeke, 
Die A T Lit., 1868 ; Schnedermann, Ueberdas Judenthum der 
beiden ersten Makkabaerbticher (ZKW, 1884, pp. 88-100); 
Niese, Kritik d. beiden Makkabderbiicher, 1900; and the text- 

1 Gaster tries to make a very early date seem probable. 

~ This title, 5 Mace., is also borne by a Syriac version of 
Josephus, Bell. Jud., vi., found in the cod. Ambrosianus of the 
Peshitta (ed. Ceriani). See Schiirer, 1 75. 



1. Contents. 

books of OT Introduction which contain the Apocrypha (most 
recently, Strack, Konig, Cornill). See also Geiger, Urschrift, 
1857, pp. 200-230 (i and 2 Mace.) ; Curtiss, The Name 
Machabee, 1876; Schiirer, GJl \ 26-33 (ET1 3 6 ff.) 2579-584 
(ET 63-13); Wellhausen, IJG(*1 256^; Willrich, Juden u. 
Gritchtn, 1895 ; Bloch, Die QtielUn des Josephits, 1879 ; Des- 
tinon, Die Quellen des Josephus, 1882 ; Willrich, Judaica, 1900. 
A. Schweizer, Untersuchungen -iiber d. Restc e. heir. Textes 
vom I. Makkabiierbiich (Berlin, 1901). 

iii. Modern. Translations. Hebrew translation in Fraenkel, 
Kethubim acharonitn, sive Hagiograplia posteriora, Leipsic, 
1830. English translations of 1-4 Mace, in Cotton, Five Books 
of the Maccabees, 1832 ; Bagster s Apocrypha, Greek and 
English, 1882 ; Churton s Uncanon. and Apocr. Scriptures, 
1884 ; Dyserinck, De apocriefe boeken des ouden verbonds, 1874, 
contains 1-3 Mace. ; so also Reuss, La Bible, vol. vii., 1879, and 
Das alte Testament, vol. vii., 1894. The best German trans. 
is that of Kautzsch in his Apoc. u. Pseudepigr., 1898. 

Other literature, especially the older critical and exegetical 
works, in Grimm, p. xxxiv_/I ; Schiirer, 2584 (ET ii. 3 12 f.~). 

C. C. T. 

The book known as 2 Maccabees J is a history of 
the Hasmoncean uprising, differing widely from i Mace, 
both in its general character and in its 
contents. The events with which it deals 
are all included in a period of hardly more than fifteen 
years, from a time shortly before the accession of 
Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.C.) down to the year 161. 
It is thus in the main parallel to i Mace. 1-7. Prefixed 
to the history is an interesting supplement (Ii-2i8), 
consisting of two letters purporting to have been sent by 
the Jews of Palestine to the Jews of Egypt. As these 
letters are quite distinct from the main body of the 
book, and are plainly not the work of its author, they 
will be discussed separately ( 7). 

The contents of the history proper, which begins at 
2 19, are as follows : 

Author s preface, announcing the subject of his work, the 
source from which he obtained his material, and the character 
and aim of his own labours (219-32). Story of Heliodorus, 
whose attempt to plunder the temple at Jerusalem was miracu 
lously thwarted (chap. 3). Account of the intrigues by which 
the high-priesthood changed hands, especially the misdeeds of 
Simon, overseer of the temple, and the renegade high-priests 
Jason and Menelaus (chap. 4). The calamities that came upon 
Jerusalem in 170. Jason captures the city and butchers many 
of the inhabitants. Antioehus, returning from Egypt, makes a 
great slaughter in Jerusalem, and plunders the temple (chap. 5). 
Judas and his brethren flee to the mountains (5 27). The perse 
cution of the Jews begun in 168. Story of the martyrdom of 
Eleazar, and of the seven youths with their mother (chaps. 6f.). 

The remainder of the book (chaps. 8-15) is taken up with the 
history of the wars waged by Judas Maccabseus. The corre 
spondences with i Mace, (often of only a very general character) 
are the following: chap. 8=1 Mace. 81-427; 9=i Mace. 6 
i-ie; 10 1-8 = 1 Mace. 436-59; 10 14-38=1 Mace. 5; 11 = i Mace. 4 
26-35; 2 12 10-45 = i Mace. 624-68 ; 13= i Mace. 6 17-63 ; \\f.= 

1 Mace. 7. The book closes with the death of the hated Syrian 
leader, Nicanor, in the battle of Beth-horon, 161 B.C. Epilogue 
of the author (15 37-39). 

According to the author s own statement (223^), 

2 Mace, is merely an epitome of a larger work, consist- 
_ ing of five books, composed by one 

Jason of Cyrene. Beyond this statement 
nothing is known concerning this Jason or his work. 
His name is not mentioned elsewhere, and we possess 
no further evidence of the use of his history by other 
writers. The words of the epitomist plainly imply that 
his own labours consisted solely in abridging and 
popularising the work of Jason, upon which he relied 
for all the facts narrated. As the book itself contains 
no evidence to the contrary, it is only necessary to ask 
what were the sources used by the older writer in com 
piling his history. 

It is evident, first, that Jason was not acquainted 
with i Mace. 3 This fact appears both from the frequent 

1 It is first cited under this name by Eus., Prtep. e^>anf.,8g. 
The title 2 Mace. appears also in some of the oldest lists of OT 
books (see APOCRYPHA ; also col. 2881, 7 ; col. 2886, 8). 

2 The account of this expedition is confused in 2 Mace, with 
that of the similar expedition described in chap. 13. Cp especi 
ally 11 31 with i Mace. 6 59, and see below, 2. 

3 Some, indeed, have even found in the book a concealed 
polemic against i Mace. So especially Geiger, Urschr. 228 ; 
Kosters, Tk.Tlt 491-558. The evidence of this, however, is 
quite insufficient. See also below, 6, first note. 


and very noticeable disagreement with that book, in 
order of events, chronology, and statements of fact ; 
and also from the absence of considerable interesting 
and important material contained in i Mace. , which 
could hardly have been thus omitted altogether in a 
work of this character, if it had been known to its 
author. For the same reasons, the supposition of a 
common written source (or sources) is to be rejected. 
There is, in fact, no passage common to the two books 
where the hypothesis of a single document underlying 
both accounts seems probable. Moreover, from the 
character of the narrative of 2 Mace. , most modern 
scholars have concluded that the sources at Jason s dis 
posal were mainly oral. 1 The account he gives is fre 
quently confused and even self-contradictory, though 
often bearing the marks that point to an eye-witness. 

The first expedition of Lysias into Judaea, 165 B.C., is repre 
sented in 2 Mace, as having occurred after the death of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. The substantial identity of the account in chap. 11 
with that given in i Mace. 4 26-35 > s beyond question ; yet 
there is introduced into it an important feature belonging to the 
later expedition of Lysias in 163 B.C. viz., the concession of 
religious freedom to the Jews. The story of this second expedi 
tion (cp i Mace. 6 17-63) is then told in chap. 13, where the 
incident of the royal concessions is again narrated, with a refer 
ence (v. 22) to the former account. There can be no question 
that i Mace, gives the true history and chronology of these 
expeditions; the way in which they are confused in 2 Mace, 
is then best explained by supposing that Jason relied for his 
facts on the imperfect recollection of a number of men, not 
having written records at his disposal. 

There are many other indications pointing in the 
same direction. 

The important campaigns conducted by Judas in the years 
164 and 163, described in i Maec. 5, are introduced in 2 Mace, 
in two places, 10 14-38 and 12 10-45. In both places the account 
is confused and fragmentary, in marked contrast to the narra 
tive of i Mace., which connects all the successive events of these 
campaigns in an orderly scheme whose general accuracy cannot 
be doubted. As in the case of the two campaigns of Lysias, 
so also here, events are narrated out of their proper place and 
order in Jason s work. The most striking example of this is 
found in the statements regarding the Syrian leader Timotheus. 
In 10 37, at the close of the former of the two passages mentioned, 
his death is narrated ; yet he appears again repeatedly in the 
similar campaigns described in chap. 12. It is to be observed, 
on the other hand, that the narrative in both passages contains 
such vivid touches especially in the narration of unimportant 
incidents as suggest the recollection of eye-witnesses. See for 
example 1037 1^35. Neither here nor elsewhere in the book 
does it seem likely that the author is reproducing various written 

In short, the character of the history of which 2 Mace, 
is the abridgment can best be explained by supposing 
that its author was a contemporary of men who had 
taken part in the Maccabaenn struggle ; that he was 
obliged to depend mainly on oral accounts ; that he did 
not receive his information directly from those who had 
themselves taken part in these events, but only after it 
had passed through other hands ; and that he was 
often unequal to the task of criticising and arranging 
the material thus obtained. As for the letters tran 
scribed in 919-27 1116-38, it is plain that they were 
manufactured entire. 

The question to what extent the work before us is to 
be regarded as that of the epitomist is one of consider 
able difficulty. It seems probable, on the whole, that the 
method generally pursued by him in abridging the work 
of Jason was to omit large portions entire, and to write 
out others with little or no alteration. (See especially 
Grimm, 16 ff. ; Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, 66.) 

The narratives actually preserved seem to be given in their 
original wording, rather than in a free abbreviation ; not even 
in 1822-26 is it necessary to see an exception to this rule. It is 
not unlikely that even such passages as 612-17 ^ ~44f-< which 
might seem to belong to the writer of the preface 2 igff., are to 
be regarded as the words of the older writer. 

From what has just been said concerning the sources 
at Jason s disposal, and the way in which he used them, 

__. . . . it is plain that 2 Mace, cannot take a high 
3. Historical rank as trustworthv history. Moreover, 
value. an y carem i examination of the book leads 
to a decidedly unfavourable estimate of it in this 
1 So Grimm, Schiirer, Zockler, Willrich, Cornill, and others. 


regard. In the large part that runs parallel to 

1 Mace., comparison affords an excellent basis for 
judgment as to the relative value of the two accounts. 

In the cases where they disagree in statements of fact, 
it is generally beyond question that the representation 
in 2 Mace, is incorrect. The order of events in 

2 Mace. , also, even in places where it might seem 
quite plausible if we had no means of testing it from 
without, is often shown by the clear and consistent 
account of i Mace, to be in reality sadly confused. 1 
The careful chronology of the first book, moreover, 
has no parallel in the second. Events are indeed 
occasionally dated according to the Seleucid era, and on 
the whole correctly ; but the distorted order of events 
in the narrative has made even the correct dates mis 
leading (see Comms. on llss and 14 14), so that many 
have been led to assume a peculiar way of reckoning 
the Seleucid era for the chronology of this book. 2 In 
13 i (i Mace. 620) the date given is certainly incorrect. 

The contrast in selection and treatment of material 
caused by the difference of aim in the two books is also 
strongly marked. The aim of the writer of i Mace, is 
simply that of a historian ; the epitomist of Jason, on 
the other hand, had in view primarily the edification and 
entertainment of his fellow-countrymen. So he himself 
informs us (225-29; cp 612^, etc.), and the fact is 
abundantly illustrated in the book. It may be partly 
due to this parenetic aim of the epitomist that certain 
incidents of minor importance receive so much space, 
and are so overdrawn ; the fact must be emphasised, 
however, that most of the exaggeration of statement 
and description which is so prominent a feature of 
2 Mace, was probably due to the older work. It is 
plain that Jason was a zealous Jew, and that his book 
was intended chiefly for his Jewish brethren. It would 
seem that to him, as to the epitomist, the probability of 
a story was a matter of little importance, provided it 
were interesting and patriotic (see Willrich, 64 ff.}. 
Examples are plentiful. 

Thus, the long description of the tortures and death of the 
martyrs, chap. liyT, is quite incredible from beginning to end. 
The account of the death of the patriot Razis (14 37-46) is in the 
same vein ; so, too, is the story of the end of King Antiochus 
(chap. ! ), who, before his death, offers to become a Jew (v. 17). 
See also such exaggerations as 12 16 13 12. That the many 
numerical estimates contained in the book should show the same 
tendency to overstatement is certainly not surprising. For ex 
amples, see especially 82430 102331 12232528. [See also 
ONIAS, T/. 10 12.] 

As has already been shown, it is not only in such minor 
matters that the book is untrustworthy. See the incorrect 
statements (already referred to in 2) regarding Lysias and his 
expeditions ; the misleading accounts of the campaigns of Judas 
in chaps. 10 and 12 ; the narration of the death of Timotheus in 
the year 164 (chap. 10), although he is made to play an important 

torian who was neither well-informed nor careful could thus deal 
with. In 11 22^7 we have a (spurious) letter written by 
Antiochus Eupator, the successor of Epiphanes, giving the officer 
Lysias instructions concerning his first campaign in Juda:a(cpalso 
10 n). We know from i Mace. (4 28^?".), however, that this 
same expedition of Lysias was ended the year before the death 
of Epiphanes. In 103 it is stated that the rededication of the 
temple took place two years after its profanation ; it is plain, on 
the contrary, from i Mace. 4 52-54 (cp 1 54) that the length of the 
interval was three years (168-165 B.C.). In 1631 35 it is plainly 
assumed that the Acra was in the possession of the Jews at the 
time of the death of Nicanor. In reality, it was occupied by 
the Syrians until the time of Simon. 

The passage 13 15-23 affords a striking example of perversion 
of the truth for the sake of glorifying the Jews. The successive 
defeats experienced by Judas and his allies in 163, as a result 
of which they were reduced to dire extremities (i Mace. 647-54), 
appear in 2 Mace, as a succession of brilliant and decisive 
victories for the Jews. 

Still another feature of the hook, not calculated to increase 
confidence in its trustworthiness, is the prominent place given to 
miracles. See 3 24^! 33^ 61-4 10 29/1 118 1222 (cp IS 27), 
15 12-16. How far this feature may be due to the epitomist, 
rather than to Jason, is a legitimate question. It seems most 
probable, however, from what we know both of the taste and 
of the aim of Jason, and of the method of the epitomist, that all 

1 See the examples given above, 2. 

2 See Schurer, GJV\ 3 z/ ; ET I 4 s/ 


these miracles and apparitions formed a part of the older 
work. 1 

When all has been said regarding the unhistorical and 
untrustworthy character of the book, the fact remains that 
its value as history is by no means inconsiderable. From 
the character of the sources used by Jason ( 2) it is evident 
that he must have preserved some valuable material. 
The fact that the book, although written quite inde 
pendently of i Mace. , agrees with it in a great many 
points is to be mentioned in its favour. In still other 
points its statements are confirmed by those of Josephus 
(Grimm, 13), 2 and from other sources (Rawlinson, 
541 n. ). In many parts of the history concerning 
which we are already well informed, 2 Mace, adds 
interesting details, the correctness of which there is no 
reason to doubt. If used with great caution, it thus 
furnishes a welcome supplement to our other sources of 
information. There is hardly a chapter in the book 
that does not yield something that can be utilised. It 
is probable that too much confidence has been placed 
in chaps. 3 ff. by commentators and historians. The 
temptation to this is very strong, inasmuch as our 
information regarding the period just preceding the 
Maccaboean wars is almost entirely limited to the 
statements of this book. There is really no ground 
whatever (apart from this very lack of the means of 
correcting the statements of the writer) for supposing 
that the book is more trustworthy here than elsewhere. 3 
It is, on the contrary, only with the greatest reserve 
that this portion may be used at all. 

That our 2 Mace, was written in Greek is beyond 

question. The words of Jerome, The second book of 

T ., Maccabees is Greek, which can be shown 

, j**y even linguistically, * must be echoed by 

character. all who read the bf)ok Hebraisms are 

almost entirely wanting, 5 and there is no other sign 
that the book is a translation, but every kind of evidence 
to the contrary. It follows, in view of what has been 
said regarding the method of the epitomist ( 2), that 
the work of Jason of Cyrene must also have been written 
in Greek, as would, indeed, have seemed probable on 
other grounds. The language of 2 Mace, is, in general, 
similar to that found in the best Greek writers of the 
last centuries B.C., and the beginning of the Christian 
era, this remark applying as well to the passages cer 
tainly composed by the epitomist (219-32 1037-39) as to 
the main body of the book. The vocabulary is exten 
sive ; fi7ra Xe-y6/aera and words or phrases employed in 
an unusual way are frequently met with ; see Grimm, 
7, and the list (compiled by Westcott) in Rawlinson, 
540. The style is generally easy and flowing, idio 
matic, and well-balanced. Both in the construction 
of periods and in the use of the favourite rhetorical 
devices of the Alexandrine writers, a considerable degree 
of skill is shown. On the other hand, the most common 
faults of this school of writers, an overloaded and arti 
ficial style, and an ill-judged striving after rhetorical 
effect, are not absent. On the whole, the book occupies, 
in point of language and style, a position between 
3 Mace, and 4 Mace. ; not attaining the high level of 
the latter, though far superior to the former. 6 An un 
pleasant peculiarity, which appears in all parts of the 
history, is the use of abusive epithets or phrases when 
enemies of the Jews, or others of whom the writer dis 
approves, are mentioned. See 8 34 15 3. As a narrator, 

1 It is hardly permissible, however, to draw this conclusion 
from the words ras . . . e7ri(/><ii eias in 2 21. 

2 Yet the disagreement of Jos. with 2 Mace, is even more 
noticeable than the agreement. See Willrich, 83^?! 

3 Grimm s statement (16) is quite unjustified: Dpch scheint 
die fur den Abschnitt Cap. 3 1-6 n beniitzte Quelle viel lauterer 
geflossen zu sein als diejenigen, die fur die spiiteren Abschnitte 
zu Gebote standen. 

* [Machabseorum liber] sectindus Grsecus est, quod ex ipsa 
quoque <t>pdo-ei probari potest (Prologus Gateatus). 

8 Most of the examples cited by Grimm, 6, can hardly be 
called true Hebraisms. 

6 The harsh estimate of the style of 2 Mace, in Rawlinson, 
540, is much exaggerated. 



the writer displays no remarkable gifts. He is fond of 
exaggerating details, of painting scenes at undue length 
(see, e.g. , 815-22), and of introducing his own reflections, 
not content with simple statements of fact. The way 
in which the tortures of the martyrs are depicted at 
length, in chaps. 6/1 , is an especially unpleasant feature 
of the book to modern readers. There is occasionally 
a lack of connection between the parts of the narrative, 
and an appearance of awkwardness of composition, due 
in part no doubt to the omission of considerable portions 
of the original work. The arrangement of the material 
is purely chronological (the passage 10i-8 seems, it is 
true, to have been intentionally removed from its proper 
place ; cp i . g/. ), and in our epitome, at least, there is no 
formal indication of successive divisions, except at lOg/l* 
The aim of the book to edify and instruct the Greek- 
speaking Jews an aim which seems to have characterised 

_ _ .. . Jason s work as well as this epitome has 
5. Religious , .. , , .a -T, 

, .j. received mention already ( 3 . The 

and aim. 

writer wished to strengthen the faith of 

his fellows ; to glorify the Jews, as the 
chosen people under God s especial protection, and the 
temple at Jerusalem, as the holiest of all places ; to show 
how unfaithfulness to the national religion brought sure 
destruction (413-17 1239-42), and how through Judas 
Maccabasus, the leader of the faithful of the people and 
the instrument of God s providence, the deliverance of 
the nation was wrought. In all parts of the book this 
didactic purpose appears prominently in one form or 
another. The attitude of the writer is, in general, not 
that of a historian, but rather (and professedly) that of 
a religious teacher; see especially 81 ff. 415-17 517-20 
612-17 9s/i 1243-45 IS?/! 157-io. The most interest 
ing feature of the religious teaching of the book is its 
expression of faith in the resurrection of the dead (cp 
ESCHATOLOGY, 69) ; see especially 1243-45, and cp 
79111436 1446. In no other of the few passages in 
pre-Christian Jewish literature in which this belief 
appears is it so clearly and emphatically expressed. 
Some have thought to find in 2 Mace, a Pharisee party 
document (Bertholdt, Einl. 1813, p. 1069 ; Geiger, 
Urschr., 219 ff.}? arguing especially from 146, 
where Judas is represented as the leader of the 
Assideans, but also from the religious tone of the book, 
and from the ungentle way in which the priests are 
handled (contrast i Mace. ). It is beyond question that 
all the sympathies of the writer, both in religious and 
in political matters, must have been with the Pharisees ; 
but we are hardly justified in going beyond this general 
conclusion. There is no evidence of any polemic 
against the Sadducees (such as Bertholdt saw in Yi^f. ); 
and the book, whatever else may be said of it, is cer 
tainly not a party document. 

One chief aim of the writer, beyond doubt, was to 
bring about a more perfect unity of the Jews by 
strengthening, especially among the Jews of Egypt, the 
feeling of national pride and of enthusiasm for the 
orthodox religion and worship ; in this way and in other 
ways he sought to keep them in close connection with 
their brethren of Palestine. 3 This purpose explains in 
the most satisfactory way the prefixing of the two letters 
to the book (see below, 7). It also accounts for 
another external peculiarity of 2 Mace. Many scholars 
since Ewald (GVI 4 606, n. ) have remarked the promin 
ence given in the plan of the book not only to the feast 
celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of 
which the whole history comes to an end, but also to 
the feast of the rededication of the temple, the descrip- 

1 Any separation of the book into five divisions correspond 
ing to the five books of Jason of Cyrene (Zockler, 90) must 
be purely arbitrary. 

2 Cp also Wellh., Ph. u. SticM., 82. 

3 It may be remarked that there is no conclusive evidence that 
this aim was shared by Jason. It is perhaps most likely that in 
all the manifestations of it which are so noticeable in 2 Mace., 
the hand of the epitomist is to be recognised ; and that this is to 
be regarded as his one important contribution to the book. 


tion of which closes the first half of the book, the 
passage 10i-8 apparently being removed for this purpose 
from its proper place. The account of the institution 
of the Nicanor feast would have been a most natural 
point for Jason to bring his book to a. close at, in any case. 
This would have been just the kind of ending best suited 
to his general purpose ; cp the ending of 3 Mace. (7 19 f. ), 
of Esther, and of Judith (Lat. Vulg. ). Theauthor saimnot 
being that of a historian, there was no need for him to go 
on and narrate the death of Judas ; his purpose was fully 
accomplished without that. The transposition of 10i-8, 
however, is probably to be attributed to theepitomist, who 
saw how the plan of the book could thus be made sub 
servient to his more definite aim, increased significance 
being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast and to 
the feast of the Dedication. These were the two Mac- 
cabfran feasts, by the observance of which the Jews of 
the Diaspora could share, as in no other outward way, 
in the national glory of that struggle. 1 Further evidence 
of this same purpose may very likely be found in the 
manner in which the writer takes every opportunity to 
magnify the temple at Jerusalem ; see, for example, 2 19 
812 615 14i3 31 15i8, also 32/. 617-20 1823 1532, etc. 
Thus to dwell upon the indisputable fact that the true 
centre of Judaism was at Jerusalem, was to emphasize 
the national unity, and the ground of it. That the 
purpose of the writer was to impress upon the Egyptian 
Jews the duty of worshipping at Jerusalem, or to dis 
parage the worship at the temple of Leontopolis (Raw- 
linson, 544 ; Willrich, 66), there seems to be no 
sufficient reason to suppose. 

There is good ground for believing that the epitomist 
lived and wrote in Alexandria. His mastery of the best 

- . , , Greek language and style of the time, and 
, _. , the evidence he gives of a thorough 

an a e. f am jjj ar j t y w j tn tne Greek rhetorical 
schools, would not, indeed, of themselves be sufficient to 
establish the conclusion. Such training, more or less 
thorough, was to be had in all parts of the Hellen 
istic world. The presence of the letters addressed to the 
Jews of Egypt at the beginning of this book, however, 
combined with the fact that all the earliest allusions to 
2 Mace, (see 8) come directly or indirectly from 
Alexandria, must be regarded as very strong evidence. 

Regarding the date of the epitome, no very definite 
conclusion can be reached. It is, of course, not legiti 
mate to argue from 15 37, the city from that time on 
wards being in the hands of the Hebrews, that the abridg 
ment was completed before 133 (when Jerusalem was 
taken by Antiochus Sidetes) ; for these words are a mere 
flourish, designed to give the book a proper close. It 
is to be observed that in 15 36 there is a reference to the 
book of Esther, which was written probably not earlier 
than 130 B.C. (so Cornill, Kautzsch, Wellh. IJG ( 4) , 
302/1 ). It follows that even the work of Jason (to 
which this verse certainly belonged) must have been 
written later than this. This conclusion, it may be 
added, is confirmed by the internal evidence of the 
book ; the author appearing everywhere as one who 
was at some distance, both in place and time, from 
the events he describes. On the other hand, our 
2 Mace, was known both to Philo and to the writer 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see 8), though unknown 
to Josephus. It seems therefore most probable, on 
the whole, that the epitomist put forth his work near 
the close of the last century B.C. The date of Jason s 
history, which seems to have been completely superseded 
by the epitome, may be conjecturally placed about a 
century earlier. 

1 The feast of the Dedication was the more important of the 
two, and we have in the letters prefixed to 2 Mace, direct 
evidence that it was at least thought of as a bond of unity be 
tween the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt. The emphas 
ising of this feast, however, was only a single feature (though a 
very prominent one) of the writer s general plan, and it is a dis 
torted view of 2 Mace, that pronounces it ein Chanukabrief 
(Willrich, 67). 



It is due to the fact of Jason s distance from the scene 
of the events he describes, as well as to his parenetic 
aim, that he shows so little interest in the family to 
which Judas belonged, and in its subsequent history. 
In 5 27, which contains apparently his whole account of 
the uprising at Modein, nothing is said of the brothers 
of Judas, and they are nowhere given any special 
prominence ; though there is no evidence of a wish to 
disparage them. 1 Mattathias is nowhere mentioned. 
The fact is, the fortunes of the Hasmonasan house were 
not in any way connected with the purpose of Jason s 
book, or with his own interests. The case of the writer 
of i Mace, affords a striking contrast in this respect, 
for he not only lived in Palestine, but also seems to 
have been a personal friend of the Hasmona^an leaders. 

It has already ( i) been noticed that there stands 

at the beginning of the book of 2 Mace. (Ii-2i8) what 

_,, purports to be the copy of certain official 

- . , ,P re ~ letters sent by the Jews of Palestine to 

fixed letters. , ^, , , 

those of Egypt. The professed aim of 

these letters, as appears from 1.918 2i6 (cp 108), is to 
stir up the Egyptian Jews to observe the feast of the 
Dedication. The character of the Greek in which the 
letters are written shows that they cannot be attributed 
either to Jason of Cyrene or to the epitomist ; on the 
other hand, they are joined as closely as possible to the 
epitomist s prologue, 2 19 beginning with Now as con 
cerning Judas, etc. (Ta St Kara TOV lovSav, K.T.\. ), and 
making mention immediately of the purification of the 
great temple, and the dedication of the altar. 

i. Theyfry/ letter, 1 1-9 (regarding the precise point 
at which it ends, see next par. ), contains little more than 
the request that the feast be kept. 2 It is plain that the 
writer did not have in mind theyfrrf institution of this 
feast in Egypt. On the contrary, as is evident from v. 
9, and from the fact that not a word is said about the 
observance of the feast in Palestine, those to whom the 
letter was addressed were supposed to be already 
familiar with the custom, and to have themselves 
observed it : the letter is merely a reminder. The real 
difficulty is with the interpretation of v. if., especially 
the words We have written to you in the extremity, 
etc. (yeypd^auev v/j.iv tv rrj 0\ti//et, K.T. X. ). The 
extremity of tribulation that came upon the Jews of 
Jerusalem in consequence of the misdeeds of Jason and 
his party could hardly refer to anything else than the 
terrible distress under Antiochus Epiphanes ; and this 
probability is confirmed by v. 8, which evidently refers 
to the restoration of the worship of the temple in 
165 B.C. In the reign of Demetrius (II.), in the 
(Seleucid) year 169 ( = 144-143 B.C.), these times were 
long past. Moreover, nothing is said about the contents 
of that former letter (on the supposition that yeypd(f>a/j.ei> 
is to be translated by a past tense, as is generally done). 
The reader who supposes that he is hearing about events 
of 143 B.C., suddenly finds himself back in the year 
165, without knowing where the transition occurred. 

These difficulties have been vastly increased by the 
custom now in vogue of joining the date at the end of 
v. 9 (otherwise the beginning of v. 10) to this first letter (so 
Grimm; Fritzsche, Apocr. Gr. ; Reuss, Das AT; English 
RV; Swete, OT in Greek; and most recent comms. ). 
In this way the Seleucid year 188 ( = 124 B.C. ) is made the 
date of the letter 1 1-9 ; that is to say, the writer reminds 
his readers of a letter sent to them nineteen years before, 
without characterising it, or showing that it stood in any 
connection with the present letter or with the institution 
of the Dedication feast ! The date must, however, on 
the contrary, be joined to the second letter, as is done by 
the well-nigh universal tradition of the early church, 
represented by the best Greek MSS, and the Syriac and 

1 The conclusion of Kosters, Th. T 12 491-558, that 2 Mace, is 
a polemic against the Hasmonaeans and against i Mace., does 
not seem to be justified. 

2 Bruston, ZATW 10 iiojf. (1890), attempts to divide this 
letter at v. 7, making three letters in all. 


Latin versions. (See further below. ) As for v. 7, the 
obvious solution of all the difficulties mentioned is to 
put a period after you (vfuv). The verb (yeypd<f>- is to be translated in the only natural way, as 
epistolary perfect, 1 and the whole verse as far as you 
(jla<Ti\tvot>Tos . . . vfjuv) is to be regarded as the date 
of the letter 1 1-9. With in the extremity (iv r-g 
tfXii/ et) begins the real business of the letter ; the writer 
reminding his readers, in a few well-chosen words, of 
the circumstances under which this important feast was 
instituted. The whole document is thus perfectly com 
prehensible, and in every way well suited to its purpose. 

ii. The second letter, 1 io-2 18, has generally seemed 
even more troublesome than the first. According to the 
accepted view, it purports to have been sent to the Jews 
of Egypt by Judas Maccabjeus and others in authority 
at Jerusalem, soon after the death of Antiochus Epi 
phanes, its purpose being to announce the institution of 
the Dedication feast. It thus becomes necessary at once 
to brand it as a shameless forgery, because of the many 
things it contains which are incongruous with the 
supposition of such an origin, and especially, because of 
the strange story of the death of Antiochus (113-16), 
which flatly contradicts all the other accounts of that 

It may be doubted, however, whether the current 
view of this letter is correct. It is hardly less evident 
here than in the case of the first letter that the writer 
could not have had in mind the institution of the 
Hanukka in Egypt. There is no account given of the 
purification of the temple and the restoration of the wor 
ship by Judas ; there is nothing to indicate that a new 
feast is being instituted ; nothing definite is said about 
the particular manner of observing it. On the contrary, 
it is taken for granted (just as in the former letter) that 
the feast, and the mode of celebrating it, have long been 
known. Only on this supposition can we account for 
the fact that all mention of the celebration is confined 
to the two verses 1 18 2 16, both of which have plainly 
the air of dealing with matters of course. The im 
pression naturally made by 2 14, besides, is that the war 
mentioned is a thing of the past ; Judas Maccabogus is 
thought of as one who has already passed off the stage. 
As for the Antiochus of 1 13-16, it is quite incredible 
that Epiphanes should have been intended by the writer 
It is not likely that any story of the Maccabaean struggle 
was more widely familiar than that of the manner of 
Epiphanes death. It is a most significant fact, more 
over, that shortly before the date prefixed to this letter, 

124 B.C., Antiochus VII. Sidetes, who had been a bitter 
enemy of the Jews (see Schiirer, 1200-208), had perished 
in an expedition against the Parthians. 2 Nor is this the 
only coincidence to be noted. At the end of the year 

125 B.C. (three years after the death of Antiochus 
Sidetes), the allies of Ptolemy Physkon triumphed at 
last in Palestine. Alexander Zabinas, who came to the 
throne at that time, had been introduced into the struggle 
by Ptolemy, and was himself an Egyptian. He at once 
made friends with John Hyrcanus and the Jews (Jos. 
Ant. xiii. 9 3). So the year 124 B.C. was a singularly 
appropriate one for the sending (or forging) of such a 
letter as this from the Jews of Palestine to those of Egypt. 
It would seem to be the reasonable hypothesis, therefore, 
that the writer (or forger) of this letter intended it as a 
reminder to the Egyptian Jews of the same kind as the 
preceding one ; and that he gave it the date (124 B.C. ) 
which corresponds exactly with its contents. It may be 
added as further proof, that the person who put these 
two letters together in their present order certainly re 
garded the second as belonging to a later date than the 
first. As for the names mentioned in 1 10, Aristobulus 
is probably the well-known Jewish sage, who flourished 

1 The necessity of this has often been felt and expressed. See 
esp. Ewald, Gesch. (3) 4 610 n. 

2 For the literature bearing on this event, see Schurer, 1 208, 
n. 9. 



in the second century B.C. 1 We do not know, however, 
that he was in any sense the preceptor either of 
Ptolemy Philometor (181-146) or of Ptolemy Physkon 
(146-117). The Judas in this verse is probably due 
to the blunder of a translator or scribe. What is re 
quired at this point is the council of the Jews (ij 
yepovffla rCiv lovdaiuv), as the Syriac actually reads 
(probably a fortunate conjecture). If our Greek letter 
is a translation from the Hebrew or the Aramaic, as 
seems not unlikely (see next col., begin.), the mistake 
would be very easy. 

This second letter is, moreover, from beginning to 
end a document of very considerable interest. Its 
several parts, a which seem at first sight to have little to 
do with one another or with the avowed purpose of the 
whole, are all found on closer examination to be written 
with the aim of showing the true importance of the 
Maccabaean feast of the Dedication. The writer sets 
himself the task of demonstrating at length its historical 
significance ; indicating at the same time in other ways 
the analogy between the Maccabsean period and the other 
principal epochs of the nation s life. In fact, the whole 
letter might well be entitled : The Antecedents of the 
Hanukka in Jewish Sacred History. 

One feature of the writer s demonstration deserves 
especial notice : namely, the extent to which it is based 
on the conception of the Dedication (tyKa.ivHTfj.os) as a 
restoration of the sacred fire to the altar and the temple. 3 
Evidently at that time this idea had a most prominent 
place (perhaps the central place) in current Jewish 
thought regarding the origin and meaning of this feast. 
Apparently, also, the writer could take it for granted 
that his readers were perfectly familiar with this feature 
of the restoration of the worship by Judas, as well as 
with the manner of observing the feast. In the passage 
28-14 the nature of the writer s argument can best be 
seen as he attempts to establish the series : Moses, 
Solomon, Nehemiah, Judas Maccabasus ; each of whom 
was connected with the miraculous appearance or re 
newal of the sacred fire. See also 2 1, cp 1 19 (Jeremiah, 
Nehemiah, Judas). Another point in which Judas is 
the legitimate successor of Jeremiah and Nehemiah, 
namely, the preserving and handing down of the sacred 
writings, is emphasised in 2 iff. 13 f. 

The question of the authenticity of the two letters is 
not easily answered. It has been shown in ja that 

7b Their l ^ e contents f eac h correspond perfectly 


with their respective dates (143 B.C. for 

the first; 124 B.C. for the second), and 
with their avowed purpose. It can hardly be doubted, 
moreover, that the motive which produced these 
writings was felt as strongly in Jerusalem as in 
Egypt. There is nothing improbable in the supposition 
that many such letters were actually sent. Regarding 
the first letter, it must be said that its very common 
place character argues in its favour. It can best be 
understood on the supposition that it is in fact just 
what it professes to be. The second letter is for the 
most part a collection of incredible stories ; and this 
fact makes it less likely that it was official in any true 
sense. Still, it could hardly be claimed that all official 
writings of the Jerusalem Jews were worthy of credence ; 
or that a scribe with a thesis in religious history to 
prove, and a vivid imagination, always expressed the 
soberest views of those whom he represented. Perhaps 
the most that can be said of this letter is that it may 
well be genuine, in spite of the appearances against it ; 
and that it undoubtedly had been influential among 
the Jews of Egypt. 

Scholars have generally agreed that the two letters 

1 See Gfrorer, Philo . die jiidisch-alexandrinische Theo- 
sophie ft}, 271^; Dahne, Jiidisch - alexandrinische Religions- 
philosophic , lT$ff.\ Schurer, 2 760^ 

That is to say, those comprised in 1 is-2 18 ; 1 10-17 s 
merely introductory. 

3 Cp also the Arabic 2 Mace. 9 ; Wellh. in Der arabische 
Josippus, 14. 


are of diverse authorship (see Grimm, 24 ; Rosters, 
Th.T, 1898, p. 76); regarding the language in which 
each was written, on the other hand, there has been 
great difference of opinion. See Grimm, 23 f. ; Ewald, 
Gesch., 46io. Whilst it has not been shown in the case 
of either letter that the character of the Greek necessi 
tates the conclusion that it is a translation, yet in view 
of the large number of Semitic idioms, and the fre 
quency of such obscure expressions as seem to suggest 
a careless translation, it is on the whole most probable 
that both were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. In 1 10 
and Judas for of the Jews has already been men 
tioned as possibly due to careless transcription of a 
Semitic text. In I6g KCU vvv was pronounced by Ewald 
(I.e. ) absichtliche Nachbildung der hebraischen Farbe. 
In 1 16 hewed in pieces (fj.f\rj iroiriaavrfs) reminds us 
of the Aramaic phrase (j Din nay) in Dan. 2s 829. The 
difficulties in 1 18 are probably to be solved by making 
the verse end with the word feast of tabernacles 
(<nc i >7i 07r?7 y cis), and taking the remaining words (KCLI 
TOV Trvpbs . . . Ovalas) as the superscription of the 
long discussion which occupies the remainder of the 
letter (so the Syr., quite correctly). 1 This and the 
following sentences have then a distinctly Semitic sound. 
See also the (doubtful) evidence of such passages as 
171923 26 (connection of clauses) 17 f. Ewald (I.e.) 
regarded it as certain that the translator of the second 
letter was the epitomist himself. For a fuller discussion 
of this whole question, see ZATW 20236-239. 

There seems to be no good reason for doubting that 
it was the epitomist himself that prefixed these two 
letters to the book. It is of course possible to suppose 
that it was a later editor who at the same time inserted 
the conjunction (5^, EV now ) in 2 19. But the rest 
of v. 19 certainly belongs to the writer of what follows ; 
and its fitness to establish a connection between the 
letters and the history is very evident. When we take 
into account the tastes of the epitomist, his definite 
aim in all this work ( 5), the date and address of these 
letters compared with the probable date and place of com 
position of his book, and the fact that all copies and re 
censions of the work contain the letters in this position 
and order, it must be pronounced extremely probable 
that the epitomist himself prefixed them to 2 Mace. 

The earliest attestation of 2 Mace, is in Philo s work 

entitled Quod omnis probus liber, in which undoubted 

... , ,. dependence on it may be recognised, 

MSSand as has been fully demonstrated b y 
versions Lucius ( Essenismus, 37 ff. ). Evidence 
of its influence next appears in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, 11 35 f. , where the writer has 
in mind, beyond question, the narrative of 2 Mace. 618- 
742. The word tortured (trvfj.iravLad^aa.i }, v. 35, is 
derived from 2 Mace. 61928 ; obtain a better resurrec 
tion (tva Acpen-Tocos dvao-rdaeus rvxwffiv) strongly re 
minds us of 2 Mace. 7 9 ; and the word mockings 
(t(jLir<uyfj.uv), v. 36, was very likely suggested by 2 Mace. 
7710, where it stands in close proximity to the phrase 
just referred to. (See Bleek, St. u. Kr., 1853, P- 339-) 
Again, the author of 3 Mace, shows himself acquainted 
with the book (see col. 2881, 6) ; whilst 4 Mace, 
is wholly based upon it (see col. 2882, 2). It is 
cited further by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, v. 1497), 
Hippolytus (De Christo et Antichristo, chap. 49), 
Origen (see reff. in Schurer, 741 f. ), and very frequently 
by later writers. The stories of the martyrs, especially, 
exercised an important influence among both Jews and 
Christians. For references to Jewish literature see Zunz, 
Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 123 ; and for the later Chris 
tian literature see Grimm, Comm. 133 f., and the refer 
ences in Schurer, 742 (ET ii.32i4/. ). Josephus appears 
to have been unacquainted with the book. 

For the Greek MSS containing 2 Mace. , and for 
the Syriac translation, see above, col. 2867, n, iii. 

1 The Greek text of this verse in Fritzsche is an arbitrary 



Apart from the Old Latin version of the book, repre 
sented by the Vulgate, another Latin version is pre 
served in a single codex in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana 
at Milan. This has been edited by A. Peyron 
(Ciceroni* orationum pro Scauro, fro Tullio, . . . 
fragmenta, Stuttgart, 1824, pp. 71-125). It appears 
on closer examination to be merely a painfully literal 
rendering of the standard Greek text. 

See APOCRYPHA, 32, and above, col. 2868, 12. The follow 
ing also are to be mentioned : C. Bertheau, De sec. lib. A face., 

Giittingen, 1829 (cited frequently by Grimm) ; 
9. Literature. W. H. Rosters, De polemiek van het tweede 

boek der Makkabeen (T/t. 7 12 491 558 
[1878]); Schlatter, Jason von Cyrene, 1891 (see TLZ, 1893, P- 
322) ; and on the letters : Gratz, L)as Sendschreiben der Palas- 
tinenser an die agyptisch -judaischen Gemeinden (ATGirj, 
1877, pp. 1-16, 49-60); Bruston, Trois lettres des Juifs de 
Palestine (/.A TIV 10 110 ff. [1890]) ; Kosters, Strekking der 
brieven in 2 Makk. (Th. T, Jan. 1898, pp. 68-76); C. C. Torrey, 
Die Briefe 2 Makk. 1 i-2 18, ZA T\V 20 225^ [1900] ; B. Niese, 
KriiikdtrbtidtnMakkabAerbilcher. 1900. Jn Kau., Die Apokr. 
u. Pseutief-igr., 1898, 2 Mace, is translated, etc., by Kamphausen. 
On the historical contents cp A. Biichler, Die Tobiaden u. die 
Oniaden im II. Mukkabaerbuche, etc., 1899. c. C. T. 


The title 3 Maccabees is unfortunate, for the book 
professes to record events which occurred during the 

1 Title re S n f Ptolemy (IV.) Philopator (222-204 
B.C.). That it should have been classed 
as Maccabrean is due to its being a narrative of per 
secution of the Jews by a foreign king. 1 

The book is a religious novel having for its subject 

the triumph of the Jews over their enemies through 

2 Co t nt fnvme intervention. Their persecutor is 

the Egyptian king, out of whose hands 

they are delivered by a series of marvellous occurrences. 

The narrative runs as follows : 

After his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia (217 
B.C.), Ptolemy visits Jerusalem, and tries to enter the temple, in 
spite of the frantic opposition of priests and people. Just as 
he is on the point of executing his purpose, he is stricken from 
heaven, and falls to the ground (1 1-224). Returning to Alex 
andria, bent on revenge, he assembles all the Jews of Egypt 
and shuts them up in the great hippodrome, where they are to 
be butchered together. It is necessary, however, first to write 
down their names. This proves an endless task because of 
their immense number ; before it can be finished the supply of 
writing materials in Egypt is exhausted, and the Jews are 
saved for the present (225-4 21). The king then devises a new 
plan. Five hundred elephants, made frantic with wine, are to 
be let loose upon the Jews in the hippodrome. The execution 
of this order is hindered in various ways. On the first day, the 
king oversleeps. On the second day, being caused by God to 
forget all that had happened, he suddenly calls the Jews his 
best friends, and reproves those who remind him of his decree. 
Finally, on the third day, as the sentence is about to be exe 
cuted, two angels appear, terrifying the king and his officers, 
and causing the elephants to turn upon the men of his army 
and trample them to death (5 1-621). The scale is now com 
pletely turned in favour of the Jews. They are set free at once ; 
the king provides for them a great banquet lasting seven days ; 
and a solemn proclamation in their favour is sent out. With 
the royal permission, they kill more than three hundred rene 
gades of their nation, then return to their homes with great joy, 
after erecting a monument in memory of their deliverance, and 
setting apart the days on which it was effected to be celebrated 
henceforth (6 22-7 23). 

It is plain from this synopsis that the book contains 
little more than a collection of the most incredible 
fables. Moreover, the details of the narrative are for 
the most part so absurd and so self-contradictory as to 
be merely grotesque. The story is not told with the 
skill that might give it, at least in part, the air of 
plausibility ; the author only heaps one exaggeration 
upon another. 

The book as we have it is evidently not complete ; 
the beginning is missing. This appears not only from 
3 The llle P enin wor ds Now when Philo- 

begmning lost. P ator (6 ,,^ *A<*-lP). but also from 
distinct allusions to a preceding portion 
of narrative which the book no longer contains. The 
most striking examples are 1 1, from those who re 
turned ; 12, the [above mentioned] plot ; 225, the 

1 Some have thought to find another title in the problematic 
ir-roAs^ou icd, which appears in connection with Maicica/Saiica 
/3i/3Ai a in the Synopsis of Athanasius. See below, 7. 


boon companions already mentioned. The character 
and extent of the missing portion can be inferred with 
probability from the indications afforded by the book 
in its present form. The story is concerned mainly 
with the triumph of the Jews over their persecutors. 
This part of the narrative seems to be complete ; there 
is nothing to indicate that any other tale of persecution 
had preceded, whilst the contrary impression is plainly 
given by 18^ 225 ff., etc. The missing portion was 
probably of the same general character as 1 1-7 i.e., 
it formed with it the introduction to the story of the 
Jews. It must have included some mention of the 
following items: (i) Character of Ptolemy and his 
companions, (z) Condition of the Jews in Egypt (prob 
ably). (3) Antecedents of the war with Antiochus. 
(4) The plot against Ptolemy s life. All this might 
have been contained in a single short chapter ; and it 
is probable that this much, and no more, has been 
accidentally lost. On this supposition, the book, with 
its elaborate historical introduction, uniform contents, 
and impressive close, is seen to have been a well- 
rounded composition, complete in itself; not a frag 
ment of a larger work. l 

The original language of 3 Mace, was Greek, beyond 
question. Its author had at his command an unusually 
4 Language lar ? e vocabulai T ( see the introduction in 

and stvle ( * rmim ) an ^ considerable resources of 
y rhetoric. Still, the result of his labours 
is far from pleasing. The style is bombastic and in 
flated to the last degree ; everything is embellished and 
exaggerated. The impression made by the literary 
form of the book is thus similar to that gained from its 
contents ; it is an insipid and wearisome production, 
with hardly any redeeming features. 

The question whether the narrative of 3 Mace, is to 
any considerable extent to be taken seriously can hardly 

_ TT-J. ._..,.,, arise. The beginning of the book sounds 
o. Xiis toriCcii , , 1- i i_ i i , i. 

, . like history ; but the providing of some 

such introduction, or background, is a 
necessary feature of the construction of any historical 
romance. It is quite another question whether the 
principal narrative, dealing with the fortunes of the 
Jews, has any basis of fact. There is to be noticed 
especially the striking resemblance between the story 
of the Jews deliverance from the intoxicated elephants 
and the account given by Josephus (c. Ap. 2 5), of 
certain events of the reign of Ptolemy (VII.) Physcon. 
According to Josephus s account, which is very brief, 
the king assembled and bound all the Jews of Alex 
andria, and exposed them to be trampled upon by his 
elephants, which he had made drunk. The elephants, 
however, turned upon his own men and killed many of 
them. Moreover, the king saw a fearful apparition 
which caused him to cease from his purpose. It is 
added that the Jews of Alexandria have been accus 
tomed to celebrate this day of their deliverance. Obvi 
ously, we have here the same story, only reduced to 
its simplest form, and told of a different king. It must 
be remarked, also, that the fabulous character of the 
story is not done away with even in the form given by 
Josephus ; 2 and further, that it does not fit well into 
the setting he has given it. There is certainly a literary 
relationship of some kind between the two versions 
(notice especially the mention of the apparition in 
Josephus, corresponding to the angels of 3 Mace. ) ; 
and as Josephus was evidently unacquainted with 
3 Mace., the explanation of the correspondence would 
seem to be this, that a current popular tale, already 
fixed in form, was used by both writers. Whether 
this tale had any basis of fact, it is useless to inquire. 
We cannot even be confident that such a day of deliver 
ance was actually observed in Egypt ; for this feature 

1 Ewald s theory (GVI 4611-614), that 3 Mace, is a fragment 
of a historical work of considerable extent, is quite destitute of 

2 See, in defence of the version given by Josephus, Whiston, 
Authentick Records, Pt. i., vooff. 



of both versions may well have been due to a mere 
fiction of the older tale. Cp Judith 1631 (Lat. Vulg. ). 
There is thus no evidence that the statements of this 
book regarding the Jews and their history rest on a 
foundation of fact. 1 

That the author of 3 Mace, was an Alexandrine Jew 
is made exceedingly probable both by the contents 
and by the evidence of language and style. 
>r The knowledge of Egyptian affairs displayed 
and date. is ajso worthy of not i ce . (See Abrahams 
in JQff, Oct. 1896, 39/0 Regarding the date of 
composition, no very definite conclusion is possible. 
To look for a historical occasion for the writing of an 
edifying story such as this is quite useless. 2 It is not 
at all necessary to suppose that the Jews of Egypt were 
in any especial need of comfort or encouragement at the 
time when 3 Mace, was composed. The author gives 
evidence of acquaintance with 2 Mace, (see the proof in 
Grimm, 214, 220), and once (66) cites the Book of 
Daniel in its later form, with the apocryphal additions. 
It is therefore quite unlikely that the book was written 
earlier than the last century u. c. ; on the other hand, 
i can hardly have been written later than the first 
century A. D. 

The book 3 Mace. is found in most MSS of the 
LXX, including the two uncials A and V. It was also 
... included in the Syriac translation of 

7. Attes ion. the Scriptures on the other hand, it 
seems to have been for a long time unknown in the 
Western church. There are no traces of any Latin 
version earlier than the one made for the Complutensian 
Polyglot (1517). 

No early Jewish writer shows any sign of acquaintance 
with 3 Mace. The earliest witness to it in Christian 
literature is the catalogue of biblical books in the Codex 
Claromontanus (probably third cent.). 3 

In the fourth century 3 Mace, is attested (here also indirectly) 
by Cod. K, which contains i Mace. and 4 Mace., but neither 
of the two intermediate books. It is next mentioned by Philo- 
storgius (Photius 1 Epitome, 1 i)and Theodoret (( oiimt. in Dan. 
11 7) ; the former pronouncing it unworthy of credence, the 
latter appealing to it as trustworthy history. The other in 
stances of its early attestation are in Eastern lists of the OT 
books (but never in any list originating in the Latin church). 
Thus it appears in canon 85 (or 76) of the Apostolic Canons 
(5th cent.);* in the Stichometry of Nicephorus ; in the list of 
the sixty canonical books ; and in the so-called Synopsis of 
Athanasius. 5 

The Greek text of 3 Mace, has been printed re 

In Holmes and Parsons, VT Grtrcum, vol. 5 : Bagster s 
Apocrypha, Greek and Knglish ; Tischendorfs LXX, vol. 2 ; 
Fritzsche, I.ibri apocr. VT ; Swete s LXX, vol. 3 (text of A, 
collated with V) ; and in most of the other editions of LXX or 

The Syriac translation, which is quite free, seems to 
have been the only old version of the book made from 
the Greek. Printed in the London Polyglot, vol. 4, 
and in Lagarde s Apocr. Syriace. 

Grimm, Drittes Buck tier Maccabder, 1857 (the one thorough 

commentary); the works on the Apocrypha (trans, and comm.) 

by Bissell, 1880, and Zockler, 1891 ; trans- 

8. Literature, lations in Cotton, Bagster, Churton, Dyse- 

rihck, Reuss, and Kautzsch (see above, col. 

2868, 12). See also Ewald, GV I V) 4511-614 ! Schiirer, GJV 

2 743^ (ETii., 8216^); Abrahams, The Third Book of the 

Maccabees, JQK, Oct. 1896, pp. 39-58, 1897, pp. T,^ff. , Willrich, 

1 See, for an attempt to find some historical value in the 
book, Abrahams in \\\zJQR, Oct. 1896, pp. 39^! Cp also Deiss- 
mann, Bibelstudien, 189=;, pp. 258^ 

2 Regarding the attempts (especially that of Ewald) to find 
such an occasion, see Grimm, 2i6_/f ; Schiirer ( 2| , 2 744 f. 

3 Through some accident the liber tertius has fallen out 
before the liber quartus ; but it is none the less attested. See 
Zahn, Gesch. i/es NT Kanons, 2 157^ 

4 Zahn, op. cit., 192 ; Funk, Apostol. Konstitutionen, 204,7? 
It has been customary to cite this as the earliest attestation of 
3 Mace. 

5 The text of this last passage is troublesome. See Credner, 
Zur Gesch. des Kanons (1847), p. 144, and Zahn, op. cit., 317. 
The reading is Ma<c:aauca. /3i/3Ai a S llroAcfiat ica. Credner 
wished to read <cal in place of S , and to regard llrcA. as referring 
t<> 3 Mace. Zahn, on the contrary, would retain the S and read 
17-oAe/u.iica (1). 

1. Title. 



Juden u. Griechen, i^ff. , Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 1895, pp. 
258 ff. ; and the text-books of Introduction which include the 
OT Apocrypha. c. C. T. 


The so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees is a com 
position of homiletical character, receiving its title from 
the fact that the principal part of its material 
is based on the story of the Maccabasan 
martyrs told in 2 Mace. 6 18-7 42. By many early 
Christian writers (see 4) the work was attributed to 
the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in the manu 
scripts and editions of whose writings it is commonly 
included. It therefore frequently receives a correspond 
ing title, even in many manuscripts of LXX. 1 Finally, 
as it partakes of the nature of a treatise, and has a 
definitely stated subject (an unusual circumstance), it 
appears at an early date with the appropriate super 
scription Trepi avroKparopos \oyia fjLov, 2 On the Supreme 
Power of Reason (see 2). The oldest form of 
the title, however, seems to have been simply Mct/cKa- 
fiaiuv d ; the form found in the oldest MSS of LXX 
(including the three uncials which contain the book), 
and attested by the list of the Cod. Claromont. , 
Eusebius (indirectly), 3 and Philostorgius. 

The author states his subject, or thesis, plainly at 
the start. He wishes to show that the pioias reason is 

absolute master of the passions (li, cp 
2. Contents. 

v. 13 18 2, etc. ). 

In a brief introductory passage, he indicates the scope of the 
question, and the nature of the chief illustration which he 
intends to use for his argument (1 1-11). He further states, in a 
single sentence (1 12), the general plan of his discourse ; first, a 
philosophical discussion of the main proposition (vn-oSetris) ; 
then, the illustration afforded by the history of the martyrs. 

The remainder of the book thus falls into two parts, 
(i. ) The philosophical discussion (1 13-818). The various 
terms are defined, and one after another the passions 
are considered, with the attempt to show that all are 
under the control of the reason, (ii. ) The story of the 
martyrs, with the lessons to be learned from it (3 ig-end). 

This part of the book is based on 2 Mace, chaps. 3-7. After 
a brief introduction (3 19-21), the narrative of 2 Mace, is re 
produced, in much abridged form, as follows : 41-14 = 2 M. 3, 4 
4 15-21 = 2 M. 4 1-17, 422-25 = 2 M. 5 1-6 u. 

The discourse on the sufferings and triumph of the 
Jewish martyrs, constituting three-fourths of the whole 
book, to which the preceding is merely introductory, 
begins with chap. 5. Its frame-work is an expanded 
version of 2 Mace. 6 18-7 42. 

The following divisions are more or less distinctly marked : 

1. Narrative of the trial and torture of the aged priest Eleazar 
(5 1-6 30). 

2. Lessons drawn by the author from this narrative (6 31-7 23). 

3. Description of the torture of the seven youths (8 i-12 20). 

4. Author s comments on their fortitude (13 i-14 10). 

5. Reflections on the sufferings and constancy of the mother 
(14 n-17 6). 

6. Conclusion (17 7-18 24). 

The integrity of the last chapter has generally been 
called in question by scholars of the present century, 

_ , ., for reasons which appear at first sight to 
teg be strong. The mother s exhortation, 
186-ig, seems to be a disconnected piece, joined neither 
to the preceding nor to what follows. It is, moreover, 
in some respects a repetition of the similar exhortation 
contained in 1616-23. Accordingly, W. Lowth (see 
Hudson s Josephus ii. 14 n [1720]) and Dahne (see 
below, 9) concluded that the book originally ended 
with 18s [6fl]. Others went farther. The contrasts 
and correspondences between 1720-24 and 183-5 at 
tracted attention. It was argued that the latter passage, 
so far as it is parallel in contents with the former, is 
superfluous, whilst the statement regarding Antiochus 
in 18s is not in keeping with that found in Ylz-^f. 
It was further observed that in MSS and editions of 

1 On these various titles, see Grimm, Comm. z^if. , Freu- 
denthal (see 9), 117-120. 

2 So in both Euseb. and Jerome (see 6). 

3 See the quotation in 8. 

4 In the story of Heliodorus, the name Apollonius is 



Josephus the last chapter begins with 18s, and that in 
fact with 182 a stopping-place seems to be reached. 
Accordingly, Hudson (Josephus ii. 14 n), Gfrorer (see 
below, 9), and Grimm, 1 followed in recent times by 
most of those who have discussed 4 Mace. , 2 regarded 
18z as the original close of the book, and all that 
follows as a later addition. 

The evidence is far from conclusive. 182 would 
make a weak and unsatisfactory ending for such a 
homily as this ; on the other hand, the passage 1820-24, 
which is exactly in the style of our author, and against 
which no one has been able to raise any objection, is in 
every way suited to the place where it stands. 3 The 
incongruity between 1720-24 and 183-5 is only apparent; 
both statements regarding Antiochus were useful for the 
author s argument, each in its place ; the one by no 
means excluding the other. The way in which the 
mention of the king s fate is terminated at 18s sounds 
abrupt ; but it must be borne in mind that the writer 
was addressing those who were perfectly familiar with 
the story of Antiochus s death in Persia ; the barest 
allusion to it would be sufficient. As for the mother s 
exhortation, 186-19, the lack of any connection on 
either hand must be admitted. It seems at first sight 
to be decidedly out of place, the more so in view of 
16 16-23. 4 When the nature of the composition is borne 
in mind, however, it may appear that the very abrupt 
ness of transition in these closing paragraphs had its 
purpose. Having finished his argument, the author 
wished to construct a peroration that should be as 
impressive as possible. This he accomplished with 
skill, by causing to pass before the mind of his hearers, 
in the passage 186-19, a rapid panorama of the national 
heroes, combined with an ideal picture of their own 
family life. Having thus brought the lesson of his 
discourse home to them in a way that could hardly fail 
to stir them profoundly, he had prepared the way for 
the short but most effective paragraph with which the 
book ends. 

That the author of 4 Mace, was a Jew, who is here 
addressing his countrymen, is everywhere manifest (see, 

4 Author e g - 18l> cp liz 17l 9 2 3. etc -)- The 
opinion of many early writers, 8 that he 

and date. , .? , 

was no other than Flavins Josephus, is 

certainly erroneous ; as appears not only from the lack 
of any resemblance to Josephus style, but also from 
the fact that 2 Mace. , which is here so extensively 
used, was plainly unknown to Josephus. The reason 
why the ascription was made can only be conjectured. 6 
From the character of the language of 4 Mace, (see 6), 
the thorough acquaintance with the Greek rhetorical 
schools shown by its author, the emphasis laid by him 
(at least in appearance) on the study of philosophy (1 1 ; 
cp 56-u, etc.), and the training which he evidently 
presupposes in his hearers, it is possible to draw at 
least the conclusion, that it was written in some city 
where the Jews were for the most part completely 
Hellenised. It is most natural to think of Alexandria, 
especially in view of the importance given in the book 
to 2 Mace. , nearly or quite all of the earliest references 
to which come, directly or indirectly, from that city 
(Philo, 3 Mace. , Hebrews, Clem. Alex., Origen ; see 
1 See his arguments in the excursus at the end of his Comm.. 

2 Freudenthal (pp. cit., 155-159), arguing in ingenious but 
arbitrary fashion, concludes that 18 6-19 and 1722-24 are inter 
polations, and that in these places considerable passages of the 
original have been lost. 

3 So also Freudenthal. 

4 It cannot be said, however, that the one passage makes 
the other superfluous. They differ from each other almost as 
widely as possible. It should also be observed (what some have 
overlooked) that neither is properly the fulfilment of the promise 
in 127. 

5 Eusebius, Jerome, Philostorgius, and others ; besides the 
titles of a good many MSS. See below, 8 ; also Grimm, 
29i_/C ; Freudenthal, 117 Jf. 

6 Some (e.g., Kwald) have supposed the ascription to be 
a mistake due to the fact that the name of the author of 4 Mace. 
was Joseph. 


above, col. 2874, 6). There is nothing in the book, 
however, that could be called specifically Alexandrine, 
and it is quite possible that its author lived and wrote 
in some other city. 

As for the date of 4 Mace., the grounds for reaching 
a conclusion are the same as in the case of 3 Mace. 
(q. v. ). It was probably written either shortly before, 
or shortly after, the beginning of the Christian era. 

In form, as in contents, 4 Mace, is a sermon, or 
homily. The attitude of its author is everywhere that 

5 Literarv ^ one w ^ s delivering a formal address 

V t to an audience. In the opening words, 
he speaks of himself in the first person 
and of his hearers in the second person, and continues 
to do this in the sequel. In 18 1 he addresses his 
hearers, men of Israel, in the vocative. Rhetorical 
devices and turns of expression such as belong properly 
to an oration are frequent e.g., 819 7 6 ff. 101413 
17 *ff., etc. Moreover, it is plain from the words of 
1 12, I will now speak . . . as I have been -wont to do 
that the author at least wishes to represent himself as 
before those whom he is accustomed to address in this 
same formal way. It is quite evident from the manner 
and tone of the whole composition that the object aimed 
at was less to gain intellectual assent to a proposition 
than to give a religious impulse. In short, we have 
before us the discourse of a Jewish preacher, who was a 
man of culture, and (apparently) one accustomed to 
speak with authority. It is not, however, a homily 
of the kind made familiar to us by Philo and the early 
Christian fathers, consisting chiefly of a running com 
mentary on some portion of Scripture. It differs, in 
fact, from all such compositions, Jewish or Christian, 
that have come down to us, in the manner in which it 
combines Greek and Jewish literary forms. 1 It is indeed 
based on Scripture (2 Mace, was certainly regarded by 
the author as belonging to the national sacred literature), 
as its true foundation ; but at the same time, the formal 
subject is a philosophical proposition, laid down at the 
beginning and kept in view throughout, after the 
manner of a Greek rhetorical exercise. As both the 
Jewish and the Greek elements appear at their best, 
and are handled in a. masterly manner, we may regard 
the book as a characteristic product of Hellenistic 
culture of the best type. Whether it may be taken 
as a specimen of sermons actually delivered in the 
synagogue is a question that cannot be answered with 
certainty, because of our very meagre knowledge of 
Greek-Jewish customs in this regard. We know of 
nothing to forbid the supposition, however ; and the 
writing before us must be regarded as furnishing very 
strong evidence for the affirmative. 

The plan of the discourse is carefully thought out, 
and follows in general the rules of the Greek rhetori 
cians. 2 The literary skill and taste shown by the writer 
deserve in the main high praise. He writes with 
dignity, and an evident consciousness of mastery. The 
rhetorical power which he exhibits is very considerable. 
The one great blemish in the book, from the modern 
point of view, is its detailed description (exaggerated 
far beyond the bounds of reason ) of the horrible tortures 
to which the martyrs were subjected. Though such 
descriptions were doubtless in accordance with the taste 
of that day (cp especially the abundant examples of the 
kind in the early Christian literature), they are quite 
intolerable now ; and as a considerable part of the 
book is thus occupied, the defect is fatal. 

In literary style and use of language, the writer of 
_ 4 Mace, shows himself a master. Of 

ff of U f^ e a " l ^ e specimens of Hellenistic Greek 

ana s> y . t ^ at nave be en preserved, this stands 
among the very foremost in point of excellence. The 

1 The nearest parallel in many respects a striking one is the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. 

2 See especially Freudenthal, i*& ff., and the lit. referred to in 
Kautzsch, Apocr. u. Pseudep. 2 156. Cp also von Soden on the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (Holtzmann s Hand-komientar\-\ (>ff.). 


style is well suited to the matter, simple in the narrative 
portions, and rhetorical where this quality is in place. 
It is smooth, flowing, and vigorous, always highly 
finished, and rarely overloaded. Well constructed 
periods abound. In the use of classical constructions 
(e.g. , the optative mood), 1 the writer stands almost 
alone among Jewish Greek authors. His style and 
diction do not seem to have been influenced by the LXX, 
though he occasionally quotes from it (25191719); 
Hebraisms are almost totally wanting ; #-7ra \ey6fJLfva 
are unusually abundant (see the list in Grimm, 287 ; 
supplemented by Freudenthal, 28, n. ). 

It has already been observed that 4 Mace, partakes 

of the nature of a philosophical treatise. It has for its 

p, .. starting-point a formal thesis, stated and 

. i " j defined in more or less technical language 

ipmcai ana at t ^ e outset) an( j j. ept m v j ew throughout 

religious the who [ e coni p os ition. Both in its 

character. , , , 

general plan and in its phraseology it 

shows plainly the influence of the Greek schools. 
Moreover, its author consciously assumes the attitude 
of a champion of the study of philosophy (li), and 
it is plain that he wishes to make prominent the philo 
sophical side of his discourse, though aiming primarily 
at giving religious instruction. See, for example, 1 1 
56-n 7i8, etc. The decidedly Stoic colouring of his 
philosophy is worthy of notice, moreover. See especially 
the four cardinal virtues (<ppovr]<Tis, Si/ccuocrwr?, dvSpeia, 
ffu(f>poavvTj, Ii8; cp 12-6 223 622 /. 15?), and for 
further evidence, the thorough discussion in Freudenthal, 
37 ff- On the other hand, it is plain that 4 Mace, is 
far from representing any particular school ; nor does 
its author appear as the advocate of any system 
made up from combined Greek and Jewish elements. 
His philosophy is merely a part of his general culture ; 
his faith is not essentially modified by it. The religion 
which he preaches here is Judaism of the most thorough 
going type, somewhat enriched from Greek thought, 
but none the less loyal. His chief aim in this discourse 
is to inspire his hearers by the example of the constancy 
and devotion of the Maccaboean martyrs. In drawing 
the lesson he displays the most ardent patriotism, and 
a zeal for the ceremonial law worthy of any Pharisee. 
The motive that actuated these heroes was not so much 
the hope of gaining eternal life as the purpose to 
perform their duty (12iz; cp 5i6^ 614^ ^^ 9is 
13 16). They died in behalf of a cause, in support of 
the law, in obedience to God ; by their death, more 
over, they wrought deliverance for their nation (In 
1719-23 184). In this connection the writer gives 
expression to a doctrine which is one of the most 
interesting features in the book on the side of its 
theology : namely the belief that the death of a martyr 
is in some way an expiatory offering for his people 
(6291721; cp 2 Mace. 7 37 f. ). 

The eschatology of the book is also of especial interest. 
As was of course to be expected, the doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul is given a prominent place. 
What is emphasised by the writer, however, is not the 
belief in the resurrection from the dead, as in 2 Mace., 
but rather the doctrine that all souis, whether righteous 
or wicked, exist for ever after death. The good shall 
be in eternal happiness together (17 18), with the fathers 
of Israel (637), and with God (98 17 18). The wicked 
shall be in eternal torment (9g lOii 12i2 13is), burning 
in eternal fire (9g 12 12). Cp ESCHATOLOGY, 77. 

The personal earnestness and enthusiasm of the 
writer are manifest at every point. He is a true 
preacher, not a mere rhetorician, and the present dis 
course is something very different from a formal 
exercise. He shows himself thoroughly acquainted 
with the Hebrew scriptures, and assumes that his 
hearers are. The reference in 188 to the serpent, the 
evil spirit (cp Wisd. 224) of Gen. 3, is worthy of notice ; 
so also is the expression the rib that was built up 
1 See Grimm, 287^ 

(referring to the story of Eve), in 187. The whole 
passage 18 f> /. gives us very interesting glimpses of 
Jewish family life of the writer s own day. 

The verdict of Freudenthal, who thought to find in 
4 Mace, a good many Christian interpolations, has 
created a somewhat erroneous impression of it in this 
respect. As a matter of fact, the only apparent 
instances of the kind worthy of notice are 7 19 1625 (cp, 
however, 15s) and 13 17 (three words). These seem to 
be mere expansions of the text by Christian scribes, 
without importance of their own and adding nothing 
to the teaching of the book. 

Eusebius, in speaking of the works of the Jewish historian 
Flavius Josephus, mentions 4 Mace, in the following words: 
. , , , . TreTTOiryrai 6e xai aAAo OUK a.yevvk<i <jTrovSa.iru.aL 

8. Attestation. T(? ivSp i [viz . Josephlls] fy oAmtodro^o, 

Text and. AoyioyioC, o rices Mafoca/Sac icbi/ tTre ypai^ap 

Versions. r V TOVS aywi-as rill ev TOIS oiira) KaAoujixeVois 

MaKKa/Jaiicois ervyypaju(xa<rt virep Trjs fis TO 

0eio eixre/Si a? ai/Spio-a^ieVwi K/3patW jrepte x* 1 " (flist. eccles. 
iii. 10 6). Jerome, De viris illustr., chap. 13 (Josephus), speaks 
of it in very similar terms: Alius quoque liber ejus, qui 
inscribitur Trepl auTO/cparopos Aoytauov valde elegans habetur, 
in quo et Machabseorum sunt digesta martyria. Again, contra 
Pelagianos, 26, he quotes 4 Mace. 3 5 ; this time also naming 
Josephus as the author of the book. Gregory Naz. , Hontil. in 
Aiacc., cites the book as 17 $i /3Ao? Trepi TOU auroKparopa eli/ai 
Ttav TraOtav TOV \oyt< (f>i\ocro<j)OV(ra. In Photius Kpitome of 
Philostorgius, chap. 1, occur the words : TO /uei> TtYapTOi/ TO>I 
MaKKa/BaiKwc /3i/3At oi> VTCO IwarJTrou yeypatpSai (cat atiTOS 
[Philostorgius] <rui 0^oAo yu/ oi^ MTTOptai /uoAAoi TJ tyK<ufjiLOi> 
flvaC <t>ir]cri. TO Trepi TOJ> EAea^ apoi /cat TOU? CTTTO. Tratfiay TOVS 
Majc/caj3ai ov Sojyov ju.ei oi . 

The book appears as 4 Mace. (see i) in the list of the Cod. 
Claromontanus (original of the third century V), the Catalogue 
of the sixty Canonical Books, and the so-called Synopsis of 
Athanasius (see above, col. 2881, 7), and is contained in the 
Greek uncials N, A, and V. 

For information regarding the MSS containing the book 
MSS both of the LXX and of Josephus works see Grimm, 
2f)$ff., and especially Freudenthal, 120-127. 

The first printed text of the book, that of the Strasburg LXX 
of 1526, was based on a single very poor MS (Freudenthal, 
i27yC). It became nevertheless the basis of the vulgar text, 
printed in many Greek Bibles of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, and in many editions of Josephus ; e.g., that of 
Basel, 1544; those of Lloyd (Luidus), Oxford, 1590; Hudson, 
1720; and the later editions based on the Hudson text (Din- 
dorf [1845-47], ar "l especially Bekker [1855-56], improved it con 
siderably). A recension differing from this, based on the Alex 
andrine Cod., was represented by the LXX editions of Grabe, 
1719, and Grabe-Breitinger, 1731 ; and by Apel, Apocr. yT", 
1837. More recently, the book has been printed in Bagster s 
Apocrypha Greek and Eng lish (1882) ; in Fritzsche s Libriapocr. 
VT, 1871 (a decided improvement on all preceding editions of 
4 Mace.) ; and in Swete s LXX (Cod. A, with variants of N and 
V). The text of the book is still in a very unsatisfactory con 
dition, however. Much remains to be done, by collating new 
MSS (only a comparatively small number of those available 
having thus far been used), by making use of the Syriac version 
(see below), and by conjectural emendation. 

Nothing is known of any old Latin version of 4 Mace., or 
even of the sources used by Erasmus in making his Latin 
paraphrase, which differs so widely from our Greek text. See 
Grimm, 296 ; Freudenthal, 133 ; Churton, 564. The old Syriac 
translation is contained in the Peshitta, Cod. AntbrosianvS 
(published by Ceriani, 1876-83), and has recently been edited 
from nine MSS in Bensly s The Fourth Book of Maccabees and 
Kindred Documents in Syriac, 1895. This translation, which is 
generally faithful and well executed, is seen to agree with ft 
rather than with A (Bensly, 14) ; but its more exact relation 
to the Greek texts has yet to be determined. 

The only commentary on the whole book is that of Grimm, 
1857 ; an excellent piece of work. Zockler s Apokryphen, 396- 
402, gives a translation, with commentary, of 
9. Literature, the introductory part of the book, 1 i-3 ia 
Bissell (6377*;) furnishes only a brief intro 
duction. English translations in Cotton, Bagster, and Churton 
(see above, col. 2868, 12). German translations in the Biblio- 
thek der griechischen 11. romischen Schrifts teller fiber Juden- 
tlium u. Juden, vol. ii. (1867), and (by Deissmann, with many 
useful notes) in Kautzsch s Apocr. u. Pseudepig. A very 
thorough monograph by Freudenthal, Die Fl. Josephus bci- 
gelegte Schrift iiber die Herrschaft der I ernuti/t (1869). 

See also Gfrorer, Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, 
2173-200 (1831); Dahne, Die jiidisch- alexandrinische Re- 
ligions-philosophie, 2190-199, (1834); Ewald, (TF/I 3 ), \dyiff. , 
Gratz, MGIVJ (1877), pp. 454^. ; Zeller, Die Philosophic der 
GriechenP), 82(1881), pp. 275-277 ; Bensly, The Fourth Book 
of Mace, in Syriac, 1895 ; and the text-books of Introduction. 


c. c. T. 




MACEDONIA (MAKCAON i <\, Acts 16 1012 etc. Com 
bined with mention of Achaia Acts 1!) 21 Rom. 15 26 2 Cor. 9 2 

1 Thess. 1 7 f. The ethnic is MajctStav Acts 16 9 19 29 272 

2 Cor. .4 i Mace. 1 i l>2 2 Mace. 820; applied to Haman in 
Esth. 924 16 10 <B). 

The Macedonians were of Greek stock, as their 

traditions and remains of their language prove. In its 

_ .. original sense, Macedonia was simply the 

^. plains of the lower Haliacmon (A ara-Su) 

ry - and Axius (I ardar], on the N. and NW. 
of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salonica). The old 
capital was Edessa, or /Egce, on a terrace above the river 
Lydias, overlooking the sea. Gradually the Macedonians 
extended their power westward and northward over the 
hill-tribes of Illyrian race, the Orestians, Lyncestians, 
etc. The key to early Macedonian history lies in this 
absence of community of tradition and race between the 
Highlanders and the lowlanders (see brilliant sketch by 
Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, 8/.). Not until the 
accession of Philip II. (359 H.C. ) was the unification of 
Macedonia effected ; the conquest of the Greek cities of 
the Chalcidic peninsula opened the door of the ^Egean 
and made her a factor in Greek politics. The supremacy 
of Macedonia over Greece was realised during Philip s 
lifetime ; whilst that of his son saw the Macedonian 
kingdom converted into a world -wide empire (cp the 
sketch of the achievements of Alexander the Great with 
which the history of the years 175-135 opens, i Mace, 
li). Macedonia came at last into conflict with Rome. 
The battle of Cynoscephalse (197 B.C.) broke the power 
of Philip V., and that of Pydna (168 B.C.), in which his 
son Perseus was defeated, brought the Macedonian 
kingdom to an end (ref. in i Mace. 85). 

The Macedonians of 2 Mace. 8 20 are probably the Mace 
donians in the service of the Seleucid kings. Perhaps the word 
came to be applied to the soldiers of the phalanx, with which the 
Macedonian conquests were so closely associated. 

The Macedonia of the NT is the Roman province 
of that name. This was not constituted immediately 
NT t" after the victory at Pydna ; the country 

was for a time allowed to retain a certain 
degree of independence. It was broken up into four 
divisions: (i) Macedonia Prima: between the Nestus 
and the Strymon capital, Amphipolis. (2) M. Secunda : 
between the Strymon and the Axius capital, Thessa- 
lonica. (3) M. Tertia : between the Axius and the 
Peneius in Thessaly capital, Pella. (4) M. Quarta : 
the mountain lands on the W. capital, Pelagonia (cp 
Livy, 4529/1 ; for details, see Mommsen, Hist. Rom. 
ET2302/. ; silver and bronze coins MAKEAOXON 
ZIPOTHS, etc., Head, Hist. .\um. 208 /. ). In 146 B.C. 
Macedonia received a provincial organisation. It is not 
clear that the fourfold division was entirely abolished ; 1 
but the country was henceforth under the control of a 
resident official, whose headquarters were in Thessa- 
lonica. The province included Thessaly, and in the 
other direction extended to Thrace and the river Nestus. 
East and west it ran from sea to sea, for that part of 
Illyria which lay between the Drilo (Drin] and the Aous 
fell to it, so that the ports of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia 
were Macedonian. The province also contained the 
most important artery of communication in the empire 
the Via Egnatia, which connected those ports with 
Thessalonica and Amphipolis. 

In the partition of the provinces (27 B.C.) Macedonia fell to the 
Senate (Str. 840, Dio Cass. 53 12) ; but in 15 A.D. it was handed 
over to the emperor (Tac. Ann. 1 76), and so continued until in 
44 A.D. Claudius restored it to the Senate (Suet. Clmtd. 25, Dio 
Cass. 60 24). As a senatorial province it was governed by a pro 
consul of praetorian rank. Such was Macedonia when Paul 
entered it (in 50 A.D.?; cp CHRONOLOGY, 71). 

The entrance into Macedonia and the visit to Rome 
are the two most important stages in Paul s missionary 
career ; hence, looking back in the afternoon 
of his life, he can speak of his work in Mace 
donia as Ihe beginning of the gospel (Phil. 4 15). The 

account of this breaking of new ground on the second 
journey is given in great detail in Acts 169/. A new 
meaning is given to the phrase a man of Macedonia 
(dvrjp Ma/ce5wc) which had sounded like a knell in the 
ears of the greatest Greek orator (cp Demosth. Phil. 
143). If we accept Ramsay s conjecture that Luke 
himself was the man seen in his vision by Paul (St. Paul 
the Traveller, 202 f.), this explains also the emphasis 
laid on the passage to Macedonia, for which Rarnsay 
thinks it is not easy to account on strictly historical 
grounds (op. cit. 198 /. ). It is hardly true to assert 
that a broad distinction between the two opposite sides 
of the Hellespont as belonging to two different continents 
had no existence in the thought of those who lived in 
the ^Egean lands. In the second place, it was the after 
events that unfolded the importance of the step now 
taken ; and Lk. writes with these results in his mind. 
Lastly, if Luke himself was the instrument used to direct 
Paul upon his new path, we can see how even at the 
moment the incident at Troas might seem the climax of 
the whole journey and the entry into Macedonia bulk 
largely in the writer s mind. 

Paul visited Macedonia many times. Five or six years 
after the foundation of the churches he revisits them 
twice, as he goes and as he returns, on his third mission 
ary tour (Acts 192i 20 1-3 i Cor. 1652 Cor. Ii6 2 13 7s 
8 1 924). Perhaps he saw them immediately after his 
first Roman imprisonment (cp Philem. 22 Phil. 224), 
and yet again, before he came to Nicopolis (i Tim. 1 3). 
He was surrounded by representatives sent by the three 
Macedonian churches Aristarchus and Secundus from 
Thessalonica, Gaius (Acts 1929 204 27z), Sopater from 
Beroea (Acts 204), Epaphroditus from Philippi(Phil. 225). 
The distinguishing mark of the Macedonians is their 
loyalty to Paul s teaching, and their intense affection 
for himself (i Thess. Is 8 36 4 9 2 Thess. 13 2 Cor. 11 9 
Phil. 4 1 is/). A characteristic of Macedonia, as of 
Asia Minor, is the prominence of women (cp the story 
of Lydia, Acts 16 13 /, at Philippi ; also at Beroea and 
Thessalonica women are specially mentioned among the 
converts, Acts 1?4 12 Phil. 42 f. , those women which 
laboured with me in the gospel. ) vv. j. w. 

3. Paul. 

1 See Leake, Northern Greece, 8487 _/" and cp the expression 
used in Acts 16 1 2. See PHILIPPI. 


MACH^RUS (M&x&ipoyc- in Talm - 
or, according to the \4riich, 1330 ; but Jastrow [Diet. 

of Tar g. etc. 781] disputes the identification), 1 the most 
southern point of the dominions of Antipas the Tetrarch, 
on the E. of the Dead Sea ; according to Pliny 
(HN\. 1672), the strongest Jewish castle next to Jeru 
salem. It had been fortified by Alexander Jannaeus 
(106-79 B.C.), and afterwards by Herod the Great, who 
there built a city. There the suspicious Antipas con 
fined JOHN THE BAPTIST [?..]. and there the great 
prophet was executed. 

In the year 70 A.D. the town seems to have harboured, 
irrespective of the Jewish garrison, a population of at least 
2000 men, besides women and children (see Jos. /?/vii. 64^: 
cp ii. 186 lovJatW TO TrATJOos). It is the modern Mkaur (3675 
ft. above the level of the Dead Sea, and 2382 ft. above that 
of the Mediterranean), where extensive ruins are still to be seen. 
See ZERETH-SHAHAR, and cp Keim, Jesus o/, ~336jf. ; 
Schiir. Hist. i. 2 wff. ; GAS HG^f.; also Gautier, Autonrde 
la Mer Morte, 1901. 

MACHBANAI, RV Machbannai (^3330), one of 
David s warriors; i Ch. 12i3t (/vxeAx^BANNAi [B], 
-NNe&" [N], M&X&BANAi [A], -NCI [14 Pesh. reads 
Shephatiah ). See DAVID, n, n. c. 

MACHBENAH, RV Machbena (X333O). i Ch. 
249t- See CABBON, and cp MEKONAH. 

MACHI (30; MAK[X]I [B b AL], MAKOCI [B ab ]. 

1 We. CCA, 1889, no. 8, p. 606 /., suggests the identification 
of the name with the Moabite nine (MIi /. 14). 

2 BK may derive from -j^p and ,133 (cp BENAIAH hl.TJs), or 
is it a corrupt repetition of Mishmannah (in ?. 10)? These two 
could be easily confused in the older script (S. A. Cook). 



[F]), father of Geuel ; Nu. ISisf. Read prob 
ably Machir i.e. , Jerahmeel (Che.). 

MACHIR (T3D; M<\x[e]iP [BADFL]). i. Son of 
Manasseh, son of Joseph (Gen. 5023, E). The name, 
however, is properly ethnographic. Either the gens 
which bore this name was the most important of the 
gentes of Manasseh this is expressed by representing 
Machir as Manasseh s firstborn (Josh. 17 i i Ch. 714); 
or else the whole of Manasseh was one great gens of 
Machir this is symbolised by the statement that Machir 
was the only son of Manasseh (Nu. 2629^ ; cp Gen. 
50 23). The latter view is extremely plausible. In Gen. 
5023 E tells us that Joseph saw Ephraim s children of 
the third generation : the children also of Machir, the 
son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph s knees. 1 
Clearly Ephraim and Machir are put upon the same 
footing. Similarly in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 614) 
we find Ephraim and Machir mentioned instead of 
Ephraim and Manasseh. The tradition is that Machir 
(i.e. the gens of Machir) went from the W. to the E. 
side of Jordan and conquered Gilead (Nu. 8239 JE) ; 
this is even placed in the time of Moses (cp Nu. 8240 
Dt. 815, late passages). Other writers add Bashan 
(Josh. 1831, P ; 17x4) R ; a gloss in the former passage 
carefully says, half Gilead ). It is also stated that 
Gilead was the son of Machir (Nu. 27 1, P ; i Ch. 221 ; 
cp Josh. 17 1^, R, where Machir is ly^an 3N, father of 
the Gilead, i.e. , the land of Gilead). This of course 
simply means that Gilead was occupied by Machirite 
(Manassite) clans. Cp Kuenen, 7/4. 7 ll(i877) pp. 
483^, and notes in Oxf. Hex. vol. ii. 

Was the conquest of Gilead really so ancient as to 
be loosely referred to the time of Moses? Judg. 5 14 is 
opposed to this ; Machir is there equivalent to 
(western) Manasseh. It is possible that we may assign 
the conquest of N. Gilead to the clan of Abiezer, whose 
representative in legend is GIDEON \q.v. ]. 

This hero is represented in Judg. 8 5-16 as the conqueror of 
Succoth ; now Succoth is explained elsewhere (SUCCOTH) as a 
corruption of Salecah or Salhad, the frontier-city of Bashan 
towards the E. Salecah occurs, the present writer believes, 
under various disguises in the genealogies of Chronicles (which 
contain valuable early material, though often in a corrupted 
form). Two of its most noteworthy corruptions are HAMMO 
LECHETH [?.z>.] and ZELOPHEHAD {q.v.\ ; now Hammolecheth 
(Salecah) is given in i Ch. 7 18 as the sister of Gilead, and 
Zelophehad in v. 15 as the second son of Manasseh. Abiezer 
(the eponym of Gideon s clan) is in the same context (? . 18) 
called a son of Hammolecheth. It is possible that the conquest 
of N. Gilead by the Machirites was marked by a desperate 
fight for Salecah, and in this connection it may be remarked 
that in i Ch. 7 14 Machir the father of Gilead is said to have 
been the son of Manasseh by his concubine the Aramitess 
(RV). Gilead should here, as in some other passages, be 
Salhad (= Salecah) : the reference to the concubine is a sym 
bolic indication of the subordination of the Aramaean element 
in the population of NE. Gilead to the Israelitish. In Nu. 2629 
(P) we read of the family of the Machirites ( V3D \ C ia X e P t ) - 
See further GILEAD, MANASSEH. 

As to the name Machir. Has it some connection, as 
has been suggested (EPHRAIM, i), with the story of 
Joseph ? Rather it is one of the many corruptions and 
abbreviations of Jerahmeel ; the Machirites may have 
been partly of Jerahmeelite origin. Now perhaps we 
can understand why the hero who conquered Succoth 
(Judg. 8) is called not only Gideon, but also Jerubbaal ; 
for Jerubbaal too is very possibly an ancient corruption 
of Jerahmeel. Manasseh may perhaps be a title of 
the god once worshipped in the Machirite territory W. 
of Jordan. Cp GAD, and see MANASSEH, 4. 

2. Son of Ammiel, residing at Lo-debar, commonly 
supposed to be a place on the E. of the Jordan (see 
LO-DEBAR), 2 S. 94/. 1727. It has been inferred 
from these two passages that Machir was a wealthy 
landowner, who remained faithful to the house of Saul, 
and gave a refuge to Meribbaal or Mephibosheth, though 
at a later time he was ostentatiously loyal to David, 
whose army he supplied with ample supplies at Maha- 
naim, during the rebellion of Absalom. There is 
1 On the idiom, see Stade, ZA TW6 (1886) 1467. 


reason, however, to suspect that the text of both 
passages has been so seriously corrupted that no reliance 
can be placed on these inferences. See SAUL, 6, and 

MACHMAS (i Mace. 973). RV MICHMASH, q.v. 

MACHNADEBAI Can^D? a corruption either of 
1313 \??P (Che.) or of 133130, possession of Nebo 
[Ass. namkur= possession ] ; see G. B. Gray, Exp. T, 
Feb. 1899, p. 232/1 ; but cp NEBO), one of the b ne 
BANI in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 
5 end), EzralCUof. MT is practically supported by 
/jLaxa-Svajlou 1 [B], ax- [N], /maxvadaa. [A]; but a read 
ing Nadab (an:) is suggested by @ L (KO.I vadajBov 
[Lag.], cp K. [19], K. vadafiov [93, io8]). 2 
|| i Esd. 934 reads /cat K TWV viuv efapa (OzoRA, RV 
EZORA) ffefffis K. T. X. [BA] 3 with which cp the Com- 
plut. in Ezra I.e. KO.I /uax^aSa /ecu ffapova nal ffffffi 
whence it appears to be not improbable that <S BA read 
ertp nt? (for 31330) 33O ; see SHARAI. [ Barnabas 
may ultimately come from Bar-nadabu (Che. ).] 

MACHPELAH (r6s3En, the Machpelah ), a piece 
of land (mB ) and a cave near Hebron (Gen. 2891719 
25 9 49 30 50 13, all P). 

(TO 8i7rAoui>), Vg. (dnflex), Tg. Onk., and ps.-Jon. derive 
from Vs3 double, the suggestion being that this, like other 
sepulchral caverns, had two chambers. This is plausible ; but 
in 23 17 (cp 19) the field of Ephron is in Machpelah. Mach 
pelah is nowhere else referred to, and P s date is late. Still, 
P had access to older writings, and we have no reason at all to 
doubt that the name the Machpelah (putting aside the ques 
tion as to the reading) belonged properly to the whole district in 
which the property including the cave lay. 

Few points of biblical geography are more interesting 
and more difficult than that connected with Machpelah. 
The statements in Genesis i.e. , those of P can only 
be estimated in connection with the statements of J 
and E respecting the death and burial of the three 

i. We have first to assume the general correctness of 
the geography of the lives of the patriarchs as given in 
the traditional text. According to P (Gen. 2819 25g 
50 13) Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob were buried in the cave 
of the field of Machpelah, and it is implied in 8029 
that Isaac also was buried there. Turning to JE, we 
notice that the account of the death and burial of 
Abraham and Isaac has been lost. But we may assume 
that J placed Abraham s tomb at Hebron, where he 
considered the patriarch to have resided ; Isaac s grave, 
however, may possibly have been put farther south, 
viz., at BEER-LAHAI-ROI [t/.v.]. On the death of 
Jacob J appears at first sight to be inconsistent. In 
4730 Jacob directs Joseph to bury him where his fathers 
were buried, but 50s (J) points to a tomb specially his 
own, for Jacob says that he had digged, or less prob 
ably bought, 4 one for himself in Canaan. It must be 
admitted, however, 6 that 47 30 (J) has been manipulated 
by R to make it accord with P (see We. CH 62 ; 
Oxf. Hex.2n}. In Gen. 50 n J places the burial of 
Jacob at Abel-Mizraim or rather Abel-mizrim, a place in 
the far SW. of Canaan (see ABEL-MIZRAIM). Whether 
E s account agreed with that of J must be left uncer 
tain. This narrator (unless, indeed, we suppose the 
original document to have had a S. Palestinian geo 
graphical setting) must be held to have placed Rachel s 
death and burial near Beeroth (35 1619? crit. emend.; 
see RACHEL), and Dinah s death and burial near Bethel. 

1 Cp MACHBANAI, or Nebo in T. 43. 

2 19, 93, and 108 in Holmes and Parsons exhibit Lucian ; cp 
Ceriani, Lag., and see Field, Hex. 87. 

3 l- retains cal NaSa/3ou as in Ezra. 

4 JVnS admits of either rendering (Staerk) ; but m3, to pur 
chase, is rare, and if Jacob had referred to the legality of his 
acquisition of a tomb, he would have said from whom he had 
purchased it (cp 50 13 P). See Is. 22 16. 

6 Driver s analysis of Gen. 47 27-31 does not recognise this. 
Consequently he can represent Gen. 47 29-31 as parallel in JE to 
49 29-32 in P (Hastings, DB 2 532 a). 



He also mentions (SSigf.) Jacob s purchase of a piece 
of ground from the Shechemites. All this seems adverse 
to the choice of such a remote spot for Jacob s burial as 
Abel-mizrim. On the other hand, the burial of Rachel 
had probably the same location in J as in E, yet J places 
the funeral of Jacob in that very remote spot. Possibly 
more than one place boasted of being the guardian of 
the tomb of Jacob, 1 and from the title of the altar (or 
rather ma.sseba) at Shechem in Gen. 8820 (see EL- 
ELOHE-ISRAEL) we may perhaps assume that the tomb 
at Shechem (which must surely have existed, perhaps 
near the sacred tree, Gen. 354 Josh. 2426, both E) was 
known originally as Israel s grave, and that at Abel- 
mizrim as Jacob s grave. A confusion of names 
would, of course, arise very early. Jacob s well (near 
Shechem) is no doubt late in its attestation ; but the 
name in the Karnak list of Thotmes III., usually inter 
preted Jacob-el, may conceivably (though not at all 
probably) be explained Jacob-beer i.e. Jacob-well ? 
(so apparently C. Niebuhr). We have now done our best 
to make the traditional geography intelligible, but must 
confess that all is not as satisfactory as we could wish. 

2. At this point it is needful to examine the accuracy of the 
text. It is maintained elsewhere (see REHOBOTH, and cp Crit. 
Bib.) that Hebron and Kirjath-arba are probably in some 
passages corruptions of Rehoboth and Kirjath- arbim (city 
of the Arabians) respectively, and that Rehoboth has a claim 
to some part of the fame appropriated by Hebron. Also (see 
ISAAC) that Beer-lahai-roi is a corruption of Beer-jerahmeel, 
and (see SHECHEM) that Hamor, Shechem s father (Gen. 33 19) 
is a corruption of Cushan-jerahmeel. Dinah s burial-place too 
was very possibly near the southern Bethel," 2 close to Halusah 
or Ziklag (see SHECHEM). The traditions of the sepulture of the 
patriarchs in the original tradition were, therefore, probably not 
so very different from that given by P, except that P does not 
place the tombs of the ancestors sufficiently far south. It was 
in Jerahmeelite land that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as dis 
tinguished from Israel?) both lived and died. 

We now come back to the name ham-machpelah (n?S3Dn)- 
It is itself a distortion of Jerahmeel (^KCITr - The place near 
which the cave lay was Cushan-jerahmeel i.e., one of the chief 
cities of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see NEGEH), most probably 
Halusah (Ziklag). Mamre, to the E. of which ( 32?) lay he 
field and the cave, is nothing less than this same Cushan- 
jerahmeel (, > OCC = ?N!3n~r). If we take this view in connection 
with other similar rectifications of ancient but not primitive 
tradition, it will readily be seen how plausible, nay, how satis- 
factory it is. If Hebron loses some of its delightful associations, 
the Jerahmeelite cities of Rehoboth and Halusnh are the gainers, 
and readers of the lamented E. H. Palmer s Desert of the 
Exodus will quickly adapt themselves to the truer theory. 

3. The traditional Machpelah has a claim to be considered 
which is somewhat in excess of our space. 

The cave of Machpelah is concealed, beyond all reasonable 
doubt, by the mosque at Hebron, are the words of Dean 
Stanley. The same opinion has been often expressed, and in 
deference to the antiquity of the tradition, we are bound to give 
some details from the accounts of early pilgrims, beginning with 
Josephus, who says (BJ\v. 87, 532) that the monuments of 
Abram and his, sons are still shown at Hebron in the fairest 

The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.) tells of a square inentoria of 
marvellously beautiful masonry, in which were placed the three 
patriarchs and their wives. Arculf (700 A.D.) says that each of 
the tombs is covered with a single stone worked somewhat in 
the form of a church, and of a light colour for those of three 
patriarchs which are together. 

The most circumstantial account of the cave, however, is that 
of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (rr63 A.D.). He says that for a 
fee a Jewish visitor is allowed by the Gentiles to enter the cave. 
He descends into a first cave which is empty, traverses a second 
in the same state, and at last reaches a third which contains six 
sepulchres those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Sarah, 
Rebekah, Leah, one opposite the other. All these sepulchres 
bear inscriptions. It is probable enough that R. Benjamin was 
one of the last who, in the period of the Christian rule, obtained 
admission into the interior. For a full account of this great 
mosque (the Haram) and of everything about the caves except 
the caves themselves, see PEFMetn.?>y>T,, etc., and for the 
statements of the various travellers and other authorities, the 
Pal. Pilgrim Text Society s publications, and Palestine under 
the Moslems. See also Sir C. Warren s article, Machpelah, in 
Hastings /?/? 2 197-202. 

Cp W. Staerk, Stitdien zur Religions- und Sfirachgesch. des 
y4 7*164-73; C. Bruston, La mort et la sepulture de Jacob, 
ZA Tll 7 202 Jf. T. K- c . 

1 Cp C. Niebuhr, Gesck. 1 161. 

2 For [7N ln 37 nnnp the original document used by E may 
have had n l3fT13- 



MACRON (MAKPCON [AV]), surname of one of the 
Ptolemies, 2 Mace. 10 12. See PTOLEMY. 

MADAI (HO), the third son of Japheth (Gen. 102, 
AA&A&I [ADL], M&AAI [E]=iCh. Is, M&A.MM [B], 

The same Hebrew word is rendered by EV (a) Medes 
(MVjSoi) in 2 K. 176 18 ii Is. 13 17 Jer. 2625 (np<ro.x [BKAQJ, 
MTJSwi- [Q m e-]) Ezra 6 2 and elsewhere, (6) the Mede ( "ISrt) in 
Dan. 11 i, and (c) Media in Is. 21 2 (oi Ile pcrcu) Dan. 8ao 
(MTJfiot) Esth. 1 3 10 2 (M^oi). In Is. 21 2 and Jer. 25 25, how 
ever, there is reason to think that the original reading was 
different. In the case of Jer. I.e. this is virtually certain. See 
SHESHACH, Crit. Bib. 

and ELIADUN (RV ILIADUN ; [e]iAiAAoyN [BA], eA. 
[L]), two names of Levites, i Esd. 658 (|| Ezra 89). 

Probably Jesus (in the same verse) and Madiabun are 
doublets to Joda and Eliadun. Eliadun (BAL) seems to 
represent Henadad (read ENADOUN = pjn?)> and rj^aSaftovv 
perhaps arose from the form itava&af} (see HENADAD). <S*- i 
Ko.i-rtfa.SaS (contrast L in || Ezra) must be a later correction 
derived from the MT. 5. A. C. 

MADIAN (Acts 7 29), RV MmiAN (q.v.). 

MADMANNAH (H3P1P). i. A remote city of 
Judah towards Edom, mentioned with Ziklag and 
Sansannah Josh. 15 3 i, P (MA\AP6IM [B], BeAeBHNA 
[A], M&p<\peiM [L]). The name, however, is corrupt 
(cp MADMEN). In Josh. 19s its place is taken by 
Beth-marcaboth ; Madmannah (from mnc) must be a 
corruption of Marcaboth, which is itself certainly a 
distortion of Rehoboth. See MARCABOTH. That 
Eusebius and Jerome connect the name Medebena or 
Medemana with a village near Gaza called Menoeis 
(OS 27924 139 10) is no objection to this view. Cp 

2. The eponym of the city Madmannah, i Ch. 249, see RV 
(fiapfii)i>a [li], fiaSfi. [A], fxe/x. [L]). T. K. C. 

MADMEN (j?D"l??), a supposed Moabite city, Jer. 48 a 
(rr&YCIN [BNAQ] ; cpPesh. Vg.). The name ( dung- 
heap ; cp Del. lob 62 f.) is most improbable, and since 
(i) the context is suggested by Is. 15*, and (2) there is 
a very similar corruption in Is. log (see DIMON), we 
can safely for Madmen read O ISJ, NIMRIM (q. v. ), 
which in Is. 15s/. occurs just after HORONAIM. 

T. K. c. 

supposed village of Benjamin, mentioned with Gebim, 
Is. 1031. No trace of the locality is left (Di. -Kittel). 
Probably the name is corrupt (cp MADMEN), and we 
should read rusn, Rimmonah ; for a parallel see DIM- 
NAH. This Rimmonah was not the rock Rimmon 
of Judg. 2045, but nearer to Jerusalem. See Che. 
Geographical Gains, etc., Expos., Sept. 1899, and cp 
GEBIM. T. K. c. 


The Hebrew root yyo, saga, which the mad of the RV 

most commonly represents is in use almost a synonym of K33nn 

to prophesy (Jer. 29 26) and denotes either the 

1. Terms, raving of the madman (i S. 21 14 /. [is./C] = x3jn 

18 10) or the prophetic ecstasy (Hos. 9 7). The 

root-meaning is clear from Ass. sign to be in vehement inward 

excitement, Del. Hll- B 639. Arabic saju a means to be 

strong, vigorous ; either the root is the same as y^g, but has 

developed a secondary meaning on Arabic soil (cp Del. Pro!. 9), 

or it has nothing to do with yyy in which case as/a ", mad, 

tiiusja "", utterly mad, will be loan-words from the Hebrew. 

This would account for the anomalous correspondence of y 

and Arab. s. Cp Barth, F.tyni. Stud. 47. 

Another root also rendered by mad in RV (Is. 44 25 

Jer. 25 16) is 7?n hillal, the root meaning of which (cp Ar., 

- T i<? LL- 

Ass.) is to cry aloud. The nouns fi77iri, or ni77in are 
nonyms of JTPpD, folly (see FOOL). The root-meaning of 

nS^nD (Prov. 26 \%) is not clear. [The final fl isdittogiaphed ; 
read V?innp [Frankenb., Toy], (As) a madman. ] 

Greek words rendered madness in the RV are navia (Acts 
2624), wapatypovia. (z Pet. 2 it), ai oia (Lk. On; mg. foolish 
ness ). 



In spite of the fact that madness (Kggd dn} is one of 
the plagues with which Israel is threatened in the event 
of disobedience to the law (Dt. 2828), 

2. OT 

actual cases of insanity are rare in the 

OT. One might be inclined to regard 
the case of Saul as the most historical, occurring as it 
does in the course of a narrative which no one can deny 
to contain a kernel of fact ; yet even here we cannot 
be sure, without strict investigation, that the notices of 
Saul s frenzy do not belong to the less historical stratum 
(see SAUL, 4). This does not, however, involve our 
rejection of these notices as material for an article on 
Madness in OT and NT. As the narrator represents, 
the successes of David awakened Saul s jealousy, and at 
last the turbulent ferment of passion broke forth into 
wild frenzy . . . With the tenacity peculiar to one 
haunted by an illusion, he devotes himself henceforth 
almost exclusively to his purpose of avenging himself on 
his supposed mortal enemy and persecutor (Kittel, 
Hist. 2i2i). Saul s reported breach with Samuel also, 
according to the narrator, contributed to unhinge the 
mind of Saul ; he feels himselt forsaken by God . . . 
sees spectres everywhere which are hatching mischief 
against him (Gesch. 2 105). Looking at the notices of 
his state from a non-critical point of view, we may 
perhaps say that the malady of Saul was an idiopathic 
insanity, exhibiting the usual mental symptoms of 
melancholia (i S. 2820) and delusion (2030), with homi 
cidal and suicidal mania (18n 2033 31s). 

A second instance of insanity in the OT, the lycan- 
- , thropy 1 (or boanthropy ) of Nebu- 

Nebuchadrezzar chadrezzar < Dan - 4 C P Ver S- EcL 
r< 6 4 8/!) is, in spite of the testimony 

of Abydenus (ap. Eus. Prcep. Ev. 941), most probably 

The passage is translated in full by Bevan (Daniel, 87 f.) ; the 
part which bears most closely on the question of Nebuchadrezzar s 
madness is as follows : 

or else, would that he might betake himself to some other 
place, and might be driven through the desert, where is no city 
nor track of men, where wild beasts seek their food and birds 
fly hither and thither, would that among rocks and mountain 
cliffs he might wander alone ! 

With this we have to compare Dan. 4 33. 

The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar : 
and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his 
body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown 
like eagles (feathers), and his nails like birds (claws). 

Prince (Daniel, 1899, pp. 32-35) is of opinion that 
the great king may have been afflicted by a form of 
insanity which incapacitated him from governing, and 
necessitated the succession of his son. 

Bevan (Daniel, 1892, p. 89) can only say that prob 
ably some Babylonian legend on the subject of 
Nebuchadnezzar had, perhaps in a very distorted form, 
reached the ears of the author of Daniel. With this, 
Driver (Daniel, 1900, pp. 59 f.} appears to agree. See 
also Schrader, Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebukad- 
nezars, /.Pr? [1881], pp. 6i8^ 2 

Madness is conceived of in the OT as a kindred 

phenomenon to the prophetic furor ; see PROPHECY. 

4 B 1 f ^ s P r 1 fr m Yahwe is in both cases 

pecting origin "Vf^V! W r , k ( T,\ S ^ V,? 

of madness. K 22 19 ^ > and w * so lie , of the 

contemptuous pity which the lunatic 

could not but evoke attaches at times to the prophet 
(2 K. 9n), the superstitious awe with which the prophet 
was regarded serves to clothe the other also and renders 
his person sacrosanct. In the East the madman is still 
regarded as something sacred. It is possibly the sacred 
character of the madman which accounts for the refusal 
of ACHISH (q.v. ) to interfere with David when he 

1 A form of disease in which the sufferer, imagining himself to 
be a wild beast, roamed about the forests. A somewhat milder 
form of the disease is not unknown to alienists. 

2 [Nebuchadrezzar s madness, however, is simply the product of 
misunderstanding, if the words of Dan. 4 25 are borrowed from a 
Babylonian song in which eating grass was a symbolic expres 
sion for living in misery (so Winckler, OLZ, 1898, p. 71; 
AOF12H, n. 2 ; cp Gunkel, Gen. 17).] 



feigned madness (i S. 21 12 [13]^; cp Ewald, GV1 
3n6). It would seem too that, according to the 
narratives, Saul forfeited the allegiance of neither court 
(16i 5 ^) nor people ( 26i 28 4 ; but cp 22i 7 ). 

The madmen of the NT are not kings but common 
folk, and their malady is attributed not to a spirit sent 
from God (cp SAUL), but to inferior deities or demons 
entering into them a conception of madness, as of 
disease generally, which the Jews brought back with 
them from Babylon (see DEMONS, n). The influence 
of music is no longer invoked to calm and soothe ( i S. 
16 16), nor is the lunatic s person sacred; he wanders 
about at large, or, if dangerous, is bound in chains 
(Lk. 829). It is hard to say how many of the 8a.ifj.ovi- 
fo/uevoi healed by Jesus may be reckoned as insane ; 
see further DEMONS, 8/, LUNATIC. In Jn. 1020 we 
have madness expressly connected with demoniacal 
possession. A. c. p. 

MADON (P"ID), a royal city of the Canaanites, 
perhaps on the W. of the Waters of Merom. Josh. 1 1 1 
(fj.appuv [BF], fjLaduv [AL]) ; 12 19 ([\a]fj.opuv [L] ; for 

But is the text right ? Following <E& (cp Eus. OSP) 278 7, 
/xapioju) we might read ono or jl"O ( see MEROM). This seems 
better than identifying with Aladin near Hattln, W. of Tiberias 
(PEFAf 1 365). Further study is needed. See SHIMRON. 

MAELUS (MAHAoc [A]), i Esd. 9 26 = Ezral02 S , 


MAGADAN (/v\&r&AAN) is the reading in Mt. 1539 
of NBD Ti. WH, RV, etc. , for the M&rA&A& MAGDALA 
[^.f.], of TR and AV. Accepted by the most author 
ities, the names cannot either of them be identified with 
any site (but see GALILEE [SEA OF], 5). The corre 
sponding passage Mk. 810 has DALMANUTHA [q.v.~\, 
which is equally uncertain. Eusebius (Otiom. ed. Lag.) 
spells it blayedav and identifies it with the Mayedavri 
of his time in the neighbourhood of Gerasa, that 
is, on the E. shore of the lake (cp Lightfoot, Op. Post. 
70 6, on the site of Magdala). But Jesus is said to 
have embarked from it for the other (i.e., eastern) 
side (et j TO irepav, Mk. 8 13). Ewald (Hist. ET 6348) 
suggests Megiddo (^lay^du in Jos. Ant. viii. 6 1) ; so 
too Volkmar ; Henderson (Pal., 114) says there is 
nothing unlikely in the identification, as our Lord may 
have passed into the plain of Beisan. But whilst 
this in itself is improbable, on Conder s theory that 
Megiddo was near Beisan, it becomes almost im 
possible if we adopt the usual and best supported theory 
which places MEGIDDO [</.z>.] at Lejjun in the plain of 
Esdraelon. G. A. S. 

MAGBISH (E"2?O ; M&KBeiC [L]), a name in one 
of the post-exilic lists ; the b ne Magbish returned with 
Zerubbabel to the number of 156 ; Ezra 2 30 (MAfeBooC 
[B], -Bic [A]) = i Esd. 521, NEPHIS, RV NIPHIS 
(Wi^eis [B], <f>ii>eis [A]). The name is absent from [| 
Neh. 7- Cp MAGPIASH, which, as Meyer (Eni. 156) 
sees, represents the same name. Almost certainly that 
name is D D B] [c trs:?], NEPHISIM (q-v. ). The next 
name in Ezra (I.e. ) is iriN D 1 ? ]?. which is a corruption of 
See also MESHULLAM. T. K. c. 

MAGDALA (MAHA^A), the reacun S of TR in 
Mt. 1539 where NBD Ti. WH have MAfAAAN. MAGA 
DAN [^.z/.]. Whilst Magadan is the best supported 
reading and Magdala is supposed to be a substitution 
due to the ignorance of later scribes with regard to 
Magadan, it ought to be pointed out that Iilaya5ai> is 
a possible corruption of an original Magdala. However 
that may be, the existence of a Galilean Magdala is 
rendered certain both by the name of Mary Magdalene 
(cp MARY, 26), and by the testimony of Jewish writers. 
The Talm. Jerus. places a Magdala, xSnJS, within a 
sabbath day s journey of Tiberias ( EriibinSi}, and 
indeed within the same distance of the hot baths of 
Hamata, to the S. of Tiberias (Id. 284) ; and the same 



things which some Talmudic writers assign to Magdala 
others assign to a Migdal Sebo ayya, N jnx ^"UB. Dyers- 
Tower, (cp Midrash, Shir ha-shirim 1 18 with Talm. 
Jerus. Pfsdhlm 4 i ; and Midrash Kkhdh 3 3 with 
Talm. Jerus. Ma User Shcnibz) which accordingly 
Neubauer identifies as a part of Magdala ( Gtogr. Talm. 
218). The Babylonian Talmud speaks of a N JU ViJD, 
Migdal Nunya or Fish-Tower, one mile from Tiberias 
(Pgsahim 46 b}. [Cp GALILEE (SEA), 5, where it is 
suggested that Magadan, Magdala, and Dalmanutha 
are all corruptions of this compound name Migdal 
Nunya. ED.] 

Magdala was a place of some wealth (Talm. Jer. 
Ta dnlth 48) and is said to have been destroyed pan 
rmn, because of licentiousness (Midrash Ekhdhlz). 
The name does not occur in other early writers, nor in 
Josephus (for the reading McrySaXa in Vita 24 on which 
some older scholars depend for their location of 
Magdala on the E. of the Lake should be Ta/iaXa) ; 
nor even in Eusebius and Jerome. 

Willibald (about 722) passed from Tiberias round the sea, 
and by the village of Magdalum to the village of Capernaum." 
Whether this was the Magdalum Castrum of Brocardus is less 
certain though most probable. It is doubtless that of a writer 
of the same century who after speaking of the Mensa Domini 
goes on to say ; Ibi prope juxta mare Tiberiadis versus 
Tabariam est locus quse dicitur Magdalon (Rob. BR 3 279 n. 3, 
who refers for the citation to Steph. Baluzii, Miscellanea., torn. 
6369, Paris, 1713). Quaresmius (2866) mentions a Mejdel on 
Gennesaret in his time and identifies it with Magdala. The 
name still lives, on a site which is suitable to the mediaeval 
data, but too far N. to suit the Talmudic statement that 
Magdala was within a Sabbath day s journey of Tiberias. 

On the Lake, in the SE. corner of the plain of 
Gennesaret, 3 m. NW. of Tiberias, near a stream which 
comes down from the Wady el-Hamam, el-Mejdel is a 
miserable little village, with some indications of ancient 
ruins both of walls and foundations (Wilson, Lands 
of the Bid!e,2i36), probably a watch-tower guarding 
the entrance to the plain (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 382). 
The country immediately around is called the Ard el- 
Mejdel (Wilson), and is cultivated by the villagers 
and Bedouins. Some have taken it to represent the 
MIGDAL-EL [q.v. ] of Josh. 19s8. 

Besides the authorities quoted, see Lightfoot, Op. Post. -job; 
PEFQ, 1877, p. 121 /. ; Buhl, Pal. 225.7. .; Schiir. GJVft 1 515 
= ET 2 224 (on a proposed identification with Tarichese). 

G. A. S. 

MAGDALENE. See col. 2894, end ; also MARY, 

MAGDIEL PSHJIip, 38; God is my costly 
possession ? cp perhaps the Palmyrene rruD 33, the 
Sab. fem. name SyiJD, ar >d njoDt. 8813; MAfeAmA 
[AL]) a duke of Edom in regione Gebalena (OS 
137 13), Gen. 8643 (/vuroAiHA [AD" 1 -], M^AeAmA 
[E]; iCh. 1 S4 , MeAmA [B], M&r^enA [L]). 6 E s 
reading (cp MAHALALEEL) suggests an original Jerah- 
me el (Che. ). 

MAGED (i Mace. 636), RV MAKED. 

MAGI, MAGUS ( M <\roi, M^roc [Ti. WH]), Mt. 
2i Acts 136f, RV m e- (EV wise men, sorcerer ). Cp 

In <& fiayos = Aram. fjK X, enchanter, magician, Dan. 1 20 
(Theod. but (B ciAocrocous), 2227 (Theod., <B <f>apna.K<ov), 5 7 

(Theod., tTrcucovs ai 
sorcery, etc., Acts 89. 

Cp (uayeueii/, to practice 


Definition ( i). OT terms (g 3). 

Factor in Hebrew life ( 2 a). In NT ( 4). 
In Babylonian religion ( 2 ff). Bibliography ( 5). 
Magic may be briefly described as the attempt on 
man s part to influence, persuade, or compel spiritual 
_. _ . beings to comply with certain requests 

1. Definition. or demands It rests upon the belief 

that the powers in the world are controlled by spirits, 
and that therefore to be able to overrule these spirits is 



to have the mastery of nature. In a narrow but later 
sense, magic has to do with feats of power, not of know 
ledge, the relation between it and divination being com 
parable to that between miracles and prophecy. At 
the beginning, and at the present time among savage 
people, this distinction is not drawn. Similarly, at the 
first, good spirits and bad spirits were not distinguished. 1 

There are, no doubt, many cases in which spirits are 
little, if at all, thought of. The means employed to ob 
tain good or to obviate evil seem to have no connection 
with belief in spirits ; just as ritual acts are performed 
by some people with little or no thought of the deity or 
deities they were originally believed to conciliate. Never 
theless, however much the invocation or other charm 
may appear as cosmic means of influencing the forces 
of the universe as such, there was originally, as there 
still is at bottom implied, an acknowledgment of spiritual 
beings who are influenced in these ways. 2 

Such an acknowledgment is certainly made by the 

ancient narrative (JE) of the story of Balaam (see 

Aft BLESSINGS). That Balaam is a magician, 

^ TT h^ C r il s in the ^S^t ^ anc i ent Arabian 
..- customs, impossible to deny; and it is 

equally clear that the reality of the posver 
claimed by Balaam is acknowledged in the biblical 
account. Else why should Yahwe be represented as 
transferring Balaam s service to the cause of Israel?* 
Nor can we overlook the same acknowledgment in P s 
account of the Egyptian plagues 4 (Ex. 7-11). Moses 
throws down his rod and it becomes a serpent ; the 
magicians do the same (Ex. 1 11 f. ). The reality of the 
transformation accomplished is not so much as doubted 
(see SERPENT, 3). Moses, by his rod, turns the water 
of Egypt into blood ; the magicians by their enchant 
ments do the same (Ex. 720-22). The case is similar 
with the plague of frogs. The power of the magicians 
fails indeed when it is a question of producing gnats 
(Ex. 817 [is]/. ; EV LICE [q. v.]). Even here, however, 
there is no scepticism as to the reality of magic. 

The word rendered magicians (D Sp^n, hartummlm)^ is found 
in one of the older sources (Gen. 41824 [E]), where it denotes 
the dream interpreters of Egypt those whom the Pharaoh 
summoned to interpret his dream. In Exodus, on the other 
hand, it stands for magicians in the narrower and stricter sense. 
The only other passages in which the word is used are in Dan., 
where the men so described are represented as living in Babylon ; 
but as the book was written in Palestine, and Gen. and Ex. in 
their present form stood before the author, there is good ground 
for believing that the writer borrowed the word from the old 

A trace of a belief in the efficacy of a plant is clearly 
seen in Gen. 30 14 [J] where Reuben brings Leah dudaint 
or MANDRAKES (q. v. ). This plant was known among 
the northern Semites as Baaras (cp Jos. BJ vii. 63), and 
was supposed by the Arabs and by the ancient Germans 

1 Divination is but a species of magic in the wider sense im 
plied in the first definition given above : it is magic used in 
discovering the will of spiritual beings. See the present writer s 
Magic, etc., p. \f. Divination has to do, however, usually with 
omens, and it is more convenient, as it is more usual, to dis 
tinguish magic and divination as is done above. 

2 Frazer (Golden Bough ( 2 ), 1 61) takes magic proper to be a 
kind of savage logic, a crude species of reasoning based on 
similarity and contiguity. Where the operation of spirits is 
assumed (and these cases are exceptional ), magic is, according 
to him, tinged and alloyed with religion. He admits, how 
ever (pp. diff.), that in actual fact, such an assumption is often 
made, but he concludes from various considerations that 
though magic is ... found to fuse and amalgamate with 
religion in many ages, and in many lands, there are some grounds 
for thinking that this fusion is not primitive. 

8 See BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS, and for Arabian illustrations 
see Goldziher (AM. z. Arab. Philol. \rtff. [1896]), who has 
shown that among the anci ;nt Arabs, as among the Jews, the 
magical words of blessing and of cursing played a prominent 
part. In war, the poet by cursing the enemy rendered service 
not second to that of the warrior himself; the uttered word 
was, in fact, a most potent fetish (Goldziher, 28). The Jews 
of Medina brought into their synagogues images of their arch foe 
Malik b. al-Aglam, and at these they hurled curses every time 
they came together. 

4 In JE no such reference to the magicians occurs. 

B For a Babylonian connection (Kardamu) see Hommel, 
Exp. T, Feb. 1900, p. 234. 




to be inhabited by a spirit which gave it extraordinary 
powers (see WRS Rel. Sem.W 442, and cp Lang, Custom 
and Myth, 143 ff.}. The biblical narrative ascribes to 
this plant effects which could not be supposed to follow 
from its natural properties ; but no disapproval of its 
magical use is expressed either by the author or by the 
redactor. [Whitehouse, in Hastings DB 3 210 i>, 
connects dudd fm with the mn of Mesha s inscription, 

/. 12, cp also ISSACHAR, 2.] 

There is another incident recorded in the same chapter 
which belongs to the category of magic, though it is 
magic of the sympathetic or symbolic kind. (For a 
description of this see Jevons, Intr. to Hist, of Religion, 
28 ff. , Frazer, Golden Bought 1 w ff.}. The peeled rods 
which Jacob put in front of the sheep and goats as they 
came to drink water, caused those that were pregnant to 
bring forth young that were spotted and striped (Gen. 
3037/1 [J]) ; the natural explanation may be adequate, 
but it is probable that more than this was in the mind 
of the writer. 

There is a good deal of uncertainty as to the teraphim 
which Rachel stole when she and Jacob left her father s 
house, Gen. 31 19 ff. [E] (see TERAPHIM). They 
were of human form ( i S. 19 13), and were looked upon as 
gods (Gen. 31 30 and Judg. ] 8 24), though their possession 
is regarded as illegitimate. (Josiah put them away with 
the wizards, etc., 2 K. 2824; cp Zech. 10z where they 
are associated with diviners. ) 

Among the Assyrians images of gods were kept in the 
house because they were believed to have the power of 
warding off evil spirits. A certain exorcist is said to 
have had statues of the gods Lugalgira and Alamu put 
one on each side of the main entrance to his house, and 
in consequence, he felt perfectly impregnable against all 
evil spirits (see Tallqvist, Assyr. Beschw. 22). 

It is probable that in Gen. and elsewhere we should 
construe teraphim as a plural of excellence or of 
majesty, answering to D n ^N (Elohlm), D J IK (Adonim). 
The teraphim were kept in the house as a guarantee of 
good luck ; though originally perhaps idols, they were 
afterwards, and in biblical times almost exclusively, a 
kind of charm. That they had a magical import is 
suggested by Zech. 102, where teraphim, diviners, and 
tellers of false dreams are put in the same category. The 
Genesis narrative, and also Hos. 3 4, show that teraphim 
were not always condemned. 

In the prohibition Thou shall not seethe a kid in its 
mother s milk (Ex. 23 19 3426 Dt. 14 21), many scholars, 
from Spencer (Leg. Heb. Rit. \T,^ff. [1732]) downwards, 
have seen an allusion to a magical broth, prepared in 
order to give fertility to the fields ; 1 more probably the 
reference is to an ancient form of sacrifice similar to 
the sacrifice of blood (WRS Rel. Sem.W 221, n. ). 

In Is. 82 the Kosem (magician or diviner) is named 
along with the knight and the warrior, the judge, the 
prophet, and the elder, among the stays and supports of 
the nation ; of none of them is any disapproval implied. 

One great fact which induced the Hebrews to con 
demn magic and the like was that it was so closely 
connected with idolatry ; in 2 K. 922 it seems identified 
with it. T. w. D. 

i. Place of magic in Babylonian religion. In the 
religion of the Babylonians magic always had a pro- 
2b In Bab minent place. Every misfortune, and 
Ionian religion ^P 6 ^ 11 ? a11 sickness, was regarded 
as arising from some malign spell, 
a ban (mamitu], under which the sufferer had come. 
A ban of this kind could be incurred in all possible 
ways not only by the commission of positive acts of 
sin such as murder, adultery, theft, fraud, but also 
by neglect of ritual and ceremonial precepts, or by 
casual contact with persons or things which themselves 
lay under some ban. 

1 $T-ncer adduces (340), as supporting his view, Maimonides, 
Abarbanel, Nic. de Lyra, and an anonymous Karaite com 


All the contingencies in which the ban can be incurred are 
exhaustively set forth in the second, third, and eighth tablets! 
of the Surpu series of exorcism tablets. Thus, for example, we 
read in the second tablet : Has he [the bewitched person] sinned 
against his god, been guilty towards his goddess? . . . Has he 
dishonoured his father and mother? . . . Has he used false 
weights, circulated false money? . . . Has he approached his 
neighbour s wife, shed his neighbour s blood, stolen his neigh 
bour s garment? The same tablet, however, contains also the 
question whether the sufferer has slept on the bed of a bewitched 
person, sat on his seat, eaten from his dish, drunk from his cup. 

Alongside of this conception of a more or less im 
personal visitation we find that other doubtless more 
primitive in which malevolent divine beings, demons, 
or else human beings, wizards and witches, in league 
with these evil demons, are regarded as the producers 
of disease and disaster. The malign activity of these 
wicked spirits in connection with whom the number 
seven is prominent (cp Lk. 82 Mk. 169 Mt. 1245) is 
vividly depicted in the Babylonian exorcism texts. 

They are regarded as the spawn of hell. The wilderness is 
their favourite dwelling-place, whence they make their inroads 
upon the abodes of men. From house to house they make their 
baleful way, no bar or bolt being able to exclude them ; snake- 
like they steal through doorways, windlike through crevices. 
Their hostility to men is unsparing ; their influence is specially 
seen in the havoc they work on family life. They alienate 
husband and wife, father and son, partners and friends. Of 
these Babylonian demons we meet with two representatives in 
the OT ; Lilitu (see LILITH) and the sedu (Heb. Sedim, see 

The activity of wizards and witches is in like manner 
fully and vividly set forth in the exorcism texts, especially 
in the exorcism tablets of Maklii. 2 Day and night the 
witches for in this field the female plays a much more 
conspicuous part than the male dog the steps of their 

The witches haunt the streets and public places, beset the 
wayfarer, force their way into houses. Their tongue brings 
bewitchment, their lips breathe poison, death attends their foot 
steps. A very favourite method of working their enchantments 
was, in popular belief, by means of figures of clay, wood, dough, 
or the like. The tying of witch-knots was also largely resorted 
to. The most usual Babylonian word for witch is kassaptu ; 
cp Heb. nflBbD (below, 3 [2]). 

2. Methods of counteracting the evil power. In corre 
spondence with this deep and widespread belief in the 
power for evil wielded by demons and witches was the 
belief in the possibility of counteracting it ; and the 
methods by which this could be accomplished constituted 
an essential part of the religion of Babylonia. The spell, 
the ban, to which a man was constantly liable demanded 
a counterspell, an exorcism. This was sought in a great 
variety of ways ; and the main part of the business of 
the exerciser lay in finding out which particular charm 
could be used against each particular spell. 

Here, water was regarded, above all other media, as of great 
efficacy. Sprinklings and washings with pure water, taken if 
possible from the sacred rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, 
accordingly have a large and important place in the Babylonian 
ceremonies of exorcism. Similarly, the power of breaking hostile 
spells was ascribed to fire. Hence the practice freely resorted 
to of placing a brazier at the bedside of the sick and burning on 
it a great variety of substances so as to represent symbolically 
the breaking of the spell. Besides water and fire, many plants 
and minerals of real or supposed healing virtue were brought 
into requisition, and thus the practice of magic constitutes the 
primitive stage in the practice of medicine. 

The evil demons who had laid their victim under a 
ban and taken possession of him were expelled by 
exorcism and driven back into the wilderness whence they 
had come. For the witches death by fire was regarded 
as the only appropriate punishment. 

Whether .as matter of fact witch -burning was actually 
practised by the Babylonians cannot indeed, as yet, be quite 
clearly made out. At all events the witches were burned in 
the effigy which their victim kindled before the image of the 
divinity whose help he wished to invoke. The form taken by 
these witch-adjurations is in many respects quite similar to that 
of a legal process in which the bewitched person is the accuser, 
the witch the accused, and the divinity the judge. 

1 Translated by H. Zimmern in Beitr. zur Kenntnis der 
Bab. Rel. i., 1896. 

2 Translated, with a useful introduction on Babylonian magic 
in general, in K. Tallqvist s Die Assyrische Beschvaorungsserie 
Maqlu (1895). 



A matter of prime importance and in this, relatively, 
Babylonian magic presents a good side always was to 
secure the assistance of one or more of the good greater 
deities in counteracting these assaults of demons and 
witches ; hence the frequent and fervent prayers still 
preserved to us in the magical literature of Babylon. 

No notices of the practice of necromancy in the 
manner of i S. 28 have as yet been met with. Still 
something quite similar can be read at the end of the 
Gilgames-Nimrod epic in the summoning of the spirit 
of Eabani by Gilgames with the assistance of Nergal 
(god of the under world). 1 At all events the Babylonians 
had quite the same ideas as the Israelites about the 
spirit of the departed (ekimmu) and the possibility of 
causing it to appear. 

This is plainly shown by the repeated mention of the necro 
mancer (musi lii so. ekimmu, literally, he who causes the spirit 
to come up ) in Babylonian lists of official names. Of special 
interest in connection with the Babylonian notions regarding 
the disembodied spirit is a text 2 containing the prayer of one 
possessed by a ghost along with the petition for deliverance 
from it. 

3. Soothsaying. Alongside of magic, soothsaying 
also had an important place in the Babylonian-Assyrian 
religion. Through the agency of the seer ( a 
class of priest held in special esteem the effort was 
made to obtain information as to the future from all 
sorts of occurrences. The clay tablets recovered at 
Nineveh from the library of Asur-bani-pal, the last of 
the great Assyrian kings, are full of texts containing 
omens of this description which were taken from the 
flight of birds, from anomalous birth of man and beast, 
from the behaviour of certain animals, such as the pig, 
ass, horse, dog, serpent, scorpion, and locust. The in 
terpretation of dreams, and especially the hepatoscopy, 
are important departments of soothsaying, and these 
two can be most clearly shown to have existed from 
the earliest times. Lastly, the cuneiform literature 
shows that astrology, the observing of the positions and 
combinations of the stars a pursuit which has ever 
been, justly, regarded as having taken its rise in Baby 
lonia influenced the entire life of the Babylonians in the 
highest degree. The Assyrian kings made extensive use 
of all the methods of divination mentioned above, in de 
termining their policy (cp Ezek. 21 21 [26] ). 3 H. Z. 

For the many terms used in the OT, several of which 
include both magic and divination, cp DIVINATION, 
j,f. Two words appear never to 
have had any exclusive reference to 
one or the other. These are hakamlm (o DDn ; cro(f>oi, 
co(f)iffTaL) wise men and hartummim (o SBin; EV 
magicians ). 

Hakamlm is used of the counsellors of the Pharaoh (Is. 19 iif.), 
and of the King of Persia (Esth. 1 13 f.) ; hartummim, which 
may be rendered sacred scribes 4 (Gen. 41 8, RV g.), is applied 
to the dream-interpreters of the Pharaoh (Gen. 41 8 24 E), and in 
post-exilic writings to the magicians at the Egyptian court 
(Ex. 7 ii 87(3] 9 ii [P]), and to the dream-interpreters of 
Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. 2 2 27 4 7 [4] 5 1 1). 

The specific terms, of which the commonest is khem, 
are in some cases obscure. They are the following : 

i. Klsem (cog). This word probably had originally 
a magical reference (Fleischer), though the secondary 
sense (see DIVINATION, 2 [i]) has almost driven out 
the primary. 

Cp Ar. kasama, which (in 2 and 4), as well as the noun 
kisama ( oath ), has a distinctive magical meaning ; also the 
Syriac erwmi, to exorcise, strictly to make swear, and likewise 
the Gr. opxta Tf /u.i>e<T#ai = to make an oath, and then to make 
a covenant with. W. R. Smith, however (/. Phil. 13 278), and 

1 See Jeremias, Izdubar-Nimrod (1894), p. 42; Jensen in 
Schrader s KB, vi. 1 263. 

2 L. W. King, Baby Ionian Magic and Sorcery (1896), no. 53 ; 
cp also B. Meissner in ZDMG f>0, 750 (1896). 

3 See Zimmern, Beitr. z. Kenntn. d. Bab. Rel., p. 82_^C (1901). 

4 Cain is derived by G. Hoffmann (ZATlVZsq) from Arab, 
(hatm) nose, and explained as meaning one who speaks in a 
low nasal tone (cp JJtyp. DIVINATION, 2, and yor/res, below, 
4). gives variously c^qyqrai (expounders), en-aoiSoi 
(chanters, those who say incantations), and 4>ap^axoi (those who 
use drugs for magical ends). 


3. OT Terms. 


Wellhausen (ffeitf.W, 128, Heid.V), 133, n. 5), both take the con 
trary view ; Smith making decision (cp Prov. 16 10 and Targ.), 
Wellhausen allotment or distribution, the fundamental meaning. 
The present writer differs with reluctance from such eminent 
authorities. It is true that there are cases in which the Ar. word 
has the sense of divination (e.g., Kuran54), obtaining a divine 
decree by headless arrows, etc., and that in Aram., the same 
signification is most common ; but we must remember that in 
early times magic and divination came under one category. 

The primary sense may be one which includes both 
the special ones. Of the two senses that of magic 
seems much more likely to be the original. 

2. From n/ksp, ^3 (2 Ch. 336 to use witchcraft, 
RV practice sorcery ) are derived kassdph (ijtra ; 
Jer. 27g) and m kasseph (<]BOp, Ex. 7 " Dan. 2a Mai. 85) 
rendered byEV sorcerer (in Dt. 18 10, and Ex. 22i8[i7]: 
fem. nBtsop. AV witch, RV sorceress ). 

\V. R. Smith derives from Ar. kasafa, to cut, the Hebrew 
word having in it the idea of cutting oneself in coming to the 
deity (see i K. 18 28 and Jer. 41 5). He points out that it is still 
common in Arabia for a person guilty of some wrong to cut 
himself in the presence of the wronged person as a sign of re 
pentance. The noun keshaphim (o BlM)) h fi takes to mean 
herbs or drugs shredded into a magic brew. (Cp Ar. kisfa, 
bits of things. ) The meaning of verb and noun, however, are 
unconnected, and though in Mic. 5 n [12] O SB 3 ma V we " nave 
the meaning of material drugs, in 2 K. 9 22 and Nah. 84 (EV 
witchcraft ), it cannot have that meaning, notwithstanding 
tjta.pfj.aKa. Nor is this sense suitable in Is. 47 12, nor in Nu. 283 
(where we should perhaps read with Kue. rSC D 1 ? "JTlX 

The present writer follows Fleischer, who argues for 
its derivation from Ar. (kasafa) to obscure," of the sun 
and moon to eclipse. If the derivation just suggested 
were adopted, the Hebrew might denote first of all to 
have dark appearance, then to be gloomy, distressed, 
and finally to be a suppliant, to seek something from 
the deity ; cp the Syriac ethkesheph to entreat. 1 

The Syriac word, in all the twelve instances in OT where 
kashaph (rps), in one or other of its forms occurs, is heresh. 
Now in the simple form this verb means to be silent i.e., tore 
strain one s voice. In the Pa. and Aph. it means to practise magical 
arts. To distinguish two separate roots (with the Lexx.) would 
seem to be unnecessary. Suppose the primary sense to be to 
restrain, then to keep one s voice under, to speak in a low 
mumbling tone ; we have in that case a link of connection 
with the meaning in the derived form, for the magicia